to the policy enunciated in section 1, Public Law 727, Seventy-ninth Congress, approved August 13, 1946. As the shore involved is publicly owned, the recommended Federal participation is one-third of the cost of the work. In accordance with section 4 of Executive Order No. 9384, the report was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for information as to the relationship of the proposed report to the program of the President. The Bureau of the Budget advised that it has no objection to the submission of the report to Congress. Federal participation is recommended by the Chief of Engineers provided the Commonwealth of Virginia or responsible local authorities (1) adopt the aforementioned plan of protection; (2) submit for approval by the Chief of Engineers detailed plans and specifications and arrangements for prosecuting the entire work prior to the commencement of such work; (3) provide all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way for accomplishment of the work; and provided further that responsible local authorities give satisfactory assurances that they will (a) maintain the protective works during the useful life thereof as may be required to serve their intended purpose; (b) hold and save the United States free from all claims for damages that may arise either before, during, or after prosecution of the work; (c) assure that water pollution from sources within their jurisdiction that would endanger the health of bathers will not be permitted; (d) assure continued public ownership of the beach and its administration for public use only. The cooperating agency advised that these conditions are acceptable. The commissioner, Department of Highways of the Commonwealth of Virginia, has advised by letter of May 11, 1949, that the department of highways is in a position to proceed with the work as soon as funds become available. The total estimated cost of the work is $105,000, with the Federal share estimated at $35,000 of which approximately $23,300 is required for initial construction and $11,700 for deferred construction approximately 10 years later. Annual charges are estimated as follows: Federal (interest and amortization) Total. $1,310 2.865 800 4,975 The district engineer from an analysis of damages sustained by the highway and the past rate of recession of the shore line has estimated that the average annual direct damages that would be prevented by the proposed protection would be $5,150. The ratio of evaluated annual benefits to carrying charges is therefore indicated to be 1.04 to 1.00. Unevaluated benefits in the form of increased earning power of land and property add to the economic justification. Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ, UNITED STATES SENATE, July 21, 1949. Chairman, Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: When Congress authorized the present Gulf Intracoastal Waterway project it referred to one of the portions of the program as "Red Fish Bay, Tex." Recently the Texas Legislature and the Governor officially changed the name of Red Fish Bay landing to Port Mansfield in honor of the late and distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Public Works, Congressman Joseph J. Mansfield. It is now the wish of the proper authorities in Texas that the Red Fish Bay landing project be referred to by the Federal Government as well as the State government as "Port Mansfield." I have therefore prepared the attached amendment to H. R. 5472 which I am hopeful that your committee will see fit to approve. I requested the Chief of Engineers to handle this matter administratively but you will see by the attached letter written me by General Pick that he believes any official change in this designation should be secured through congressional action. With assurances of high esteem, I am Sincerely, LYNDON B. JOHNSON. HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS P15 195 EIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H. R. 5472 BILL AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, AND PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS ON RIVERS AND HARBORS FOR NAVIGATION, FLOOD CONTROL, 94522 PART 3 SEPTEMBER 14, 1949 Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works UNITED STATES WASHINGTON: 1950 Colonel GEE. That is correct, sir. When this stream is under control as the result of the building of adequate upstream storage, not only to hold back floodwaters, but to trap silt, which is now carried by this river, there will be no need for such a wide and large channel as the Arkansas River now requires for its meanderings in its unstabilized state. Therefore, it is possible, if bank stabilization is undertaken at an early date, to decrease the amount of good bottom land which must be surrendered to the river in carrying out this project. Senator MCCLELLAN. You then strongly recommend that the authorization be increased to your original request of $39,000,000, and that you be permitted to expend it wherever needed at these different danger areas? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. Senator MCCLELLAN. Any questions, Senator Kerr? You are interested in this. Senator KERR. Colonel Gee, is it not true that thousands of acres along this stream, both east of Little Rock and west and north of Little Rock on the Arkansas River have been washed away? Colonel GEE. That is correct. Senator KERR. By reason of the delay in doing this bank stabilization work in the areas you are talking about? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. Senator KERR. That land is worth $200 or $300 an acre. Colonel GEE. And that will continue until such time as we can get the bank stabilization works in place. Senator KERR. And that is true even without floodwaters. Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. Senator KERR. That is all. Senator MCCLELLAN. Do you have any questions, Senator Martin? Senator MARTIN. No. Senator MCCLELLAN. Is there any further statement you wish to make about it, Colonel? Colonel GEE. No, sir; I believe that covers the situation. Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much. May I inquire, gentlemen, if you have anything else to offer on the California projects? Senator DowNEY. I do not think we have, Mr. Chairman, but the Bureau of Reclamation is here, represented by Mr. Dixon. Senator MCCLELLAN. Yes. Well, let me finish with another witness, first. I would like to state for the record that I have received telegrams from the Conway County Flood Control A by Mr. A. V. Ormond, chairman; and the Ark tion signed by Mr. Reece Caudle, director; Pe Russellville, by Don Barger; Bank of Russellville Rotary Club, by Kenneth Club, by Wilson Falls; Western Lane; J. W. Hull; J. B. Ward: " county judge, J. V. Turner; i the multiple-purpose plan fo the Dardanelle Dam. S. 1576-RESUMED 1055 STATEMENT OF H. K. THATCHER, REPRESENTING OUACHITA VALLEY ASSOCIATION AND WHITE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION Senator MCCLELLAN. State your name to the reporter and whom you represent. Flood Control Association. I am representing the Ouachita Valley Association and White Rive Mr. THATCHER. My name is H. K. Thatcher, from Little Rock, Ark. I am opposing Senate bill 1576, generally known as the Kerr bl. I have some telegrams that I would like to read into the record, and. if I may, I have several that I would like to mention and file for the Senator McCLELLAN. In order to expedite it, may I suggest that you just read excerpts from them and identify them and state what the general substance is of the others and who they are from. It is not record. necessary to print every one of them in the record, I do not think. Mr. THATCHER. No, sir; I was going to put them in the record, three of them, that give me the authority to appear before the committee. Senator MCCLELLAN. All right, you may proceed. Mr. THATCHER. These telegrams I have are copies of telegrams that have been sent; some of them came to me and some to Senator McClel lan and some to Senator Long. The first one is from E. Gordon Wright, president of the Ouachita Valley Association, which went to Senator Long. The telegram reads: ous advantages for the benefit of his Kerr bill and the State of Oklahoma in the Friday hearing. This will delay our successful accomplishments possibly 3 years. Senator Kerr is apparently endeavoring use our Ouachita River and its numer. tion all having approval of Government engineers. Know we can count on your The Ouachita project is complete in itself, drainage, flood control, and naviga aggressive opposition. Please keep me advised. I have another telegram here from H. W. McMillan, secretary, Ouachita Valley Association, addressed to Senator McClellan. Mr McMillan is from Arkadelphia, Ark. Senator MCCLELLAN. I may say that he called me and wanted to come up here, and I did not want him to, because I thought that I knew the situation, and it was not necessary to have a delegation up here, so I told him just to send a telegram. Mr. THATCHER. The telegram reads: Kerr bill No. 1576, as amended, now more vicious than before because it will quire restudy of all projects not yet authorized. This means delay of several ears and complete set-k for the Ouachita River. Please oppose this bill 11 and as a separate bill. In any event see th d from this bill. Council, and he is president of the Malvern Chamber of Commerce. I also have a telegram from John M. Nelson, who is the manager of the Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce, on the Ouachita River. I have a telegram from Fred Walton, who is president of the Saline County Chamber of Commerce at Benton, Ark. I have another telegram which is concerned with the Ouachita River from Ed Gingerich, who is the secretary-manager of the Malvern Chamber of Commerce. I have another telegram which is signed both by the president, W. C. Blevins, and George Dews, secretary, of the Arkadelphia Chamber of Commerce. I have another telegram from W. MacGraves, who is manager of the Camden Chamber of Commerce. I have another telegram from Edgar Pryor, president of the Camden Chamber of Commerce. I have two telegrams from P. G. Anderson, one signed as vice president in charge of traffic of the Ed Dorado Chamber of Commerce; the second one signed as P. G. Anderson, Lion Oil Co., for which he works. Another telegram from Mr. B. R. McCarley, who is mayor of Texarkana. All of these telegrams, Mr. Chairman, are in opposition to what they think is in the Kerr bill. They are fearful of what may happen if the bill passes, and they have asked me to express for them their feeling of fear. Senator MCCLELLAN. Those telegrams may be filed for the record. (The telegrams referred to are as follows:) Senator RUSSELL LONG, Senate Building, Washington, D. C.: MONROE, LA., August 23, 1949. Senator Kerr is apparently endeavoring to use our Ouachita River and its numerous advantages for the benefit of his Kerr bill and the State of Oklahoma in the Friday hearing. This will delay our successful accomplishments possibly 3 years. The Ouachita project is complete in itself, drainage, flood control, and navigation, all having approval of Government engineers. Know we can count on your aggressive opposition. Please keep me advised. OUCHITA VALLEY ASSOCIATION, Senator JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Senate Office Building: ARKADELPHIA, ARK., August 24, 1949. Kerr bill No. 1576, as amended, now more vicious than before because it will require restudy of all projects not yet authorized. This means delay of several years and complete set-back for the Ouachita River. Please oppose this bill both as a part of the omnibus bill and as a separate bill. In any event see that Ouachita is specifically excluded from this bill. OUACHITA VALLEY ASSOCIATION, BATESVILLE, ARK., August 24, 1949. JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: We are unanimously opposed to the Kerr bill especially since it has been changed three times. Think last amendment would hinder work now under way. JNO. P. MORROW. President of White River Flood Control Association, |