Senator MILLIKIN. Thank you very much, Senator Kerr. Senator KERR. Now, Mr. Chairman, before we go further, I want to correct an impression that seems to have been created by one part of my statement with reference to the hearings on the Columbia Basin. I made the statement that we heard a good deal about the conflicting authority. In that regard I want to say that I had reference to the effort to avoid that, and I was happy as I heard the evidence on that to find that our Bureau of Reclamation and our Corps of Engineers had developed a coordinated plan which, in a way, is a forerunner or substantiation of the purpose that I seek here and an evidence that this bill is a workable bill when it seeks to bring about coordination of the various agencies.

Now, if there are any questions of me I will be glad to answer them. Senator DOWNEY. Senator Malone, do you have any questions? Senator MALONE. I have no more questions.

Senator DoWNEY. Senator Long, I understand you are very much interested in this bill.

Senator LONG. I am very much interested, although I have no statement to make at this time. I have seven witnesses from Louisiana who would like to be heard today and return home if possible. Otherwise, of course, they would have to wait over until the committee could hear them.

Senator DowNEY. Senator Kerr, If Senator Long desires to ask you any questions, do you have any objection?

Senator KERR. I have no objection.

Senator LONG. I have no questions to ask Senator Kerr.

Senator DowNEY. Senator Long, I do not know about being able to hear your witnesses today. Senator Kerr, how many witnesses do you have?

Senator KERR. We have the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, Federal Power Commission, the Corps of Engineers, the representative of the Governor of Oklahoma, and Mr. Terry representing Arkansas; and there are some others.

I want to say this about Louisiana: Louisiana's position is in opposition to this bill, and I want to ask Senator Long this: If reference to that part of the watershed in Louisiana were deleted from the bill, would that eliminate the opposition of Louisiana? Senator LONG. So far as I am concerned, Senator, it would.

We have several projects that are under way, and I will say that Louisiana has been extremely fortunate in that my predecessor here, the late Senator John Overton, knew more about flood control and navigation, which is our primary problem, than anyone in the entire United States. I do not believe that the Commission, after a 2-year study, could conceivably know what Senator Overton knew after 20 or 30 years' study of those problems, not only as it affected Louisiana but the problems of the entire United States of America.

As a matter of fact, I have had many Senators tell me that after they have studied their problems for a year or two they found that Senator Overton still knew more about their problems than they did themselves.

We feel between the Corps of Engineers and the able representation we have had that our solutions are worked out as far as our problem is concerned, which is primarily flood control on the Red River. If we could gain the construction of those projects as far as our State

is concerned, I would see no objection at all to the bill, and anything that would benefit Oklahoma or Texas or Arkansas or Missouri, if they felt they would benefit by it, I would be happy to see them have it, and probably support it if they felt after they had studied it, it was the best thing for their States.

Senator KERR. Well, I would be delighted for the Senator to put his witnesses on, but I would like the opportunity to complete the evidence for the bill before those in opposition are presentedbasically.

I would not want to make the commitment with reference to Louisiana that they would be deleted without discussing it with the cosponsors of the bill. But I say this: So far as I am concerned, if Louisiana seeks to oppose the whole bill, I would be perfectly will ing on my part-but without speaking for the cosponsors until I had the opportunity to discuss it with them-to delete the reference to Louisiana. I personally think it would be tragic for Louisiana, but then others not only are officially responsible for that representation, but probably in a better position to know whether it would be good or bad.

Senator LONG. We have made a very exhaustive study of our floodcontrol problems, and many of these same people who would appear in opposition to this bill are people who have been involved in flood control in that particular section of our country for many, many years. We do not have many of the same problems in common with these other States that they themselves are most concerned about. Our problem is primarily one of staying out from under the floodwaters, and we believe that we have the solution to our problem worked out and the projects authorized that would solve that situation, with possibly one or two exceptions, and those are before the Congress. The engineers' studies have been made, and we can just about see the sunlight through the tunnel now as far as our State is concerned. That is the reason we feel that joining into this plan, as far as we are concerned, might result in some delay or some set-back on our program which we believe is very well under way and will be complete in a few years.

Senator DOWNEY. Senator Kerr, would the passage of this bill delay any further action on flood control projects in Louisiana or elsewhere pending the report of the group?

Senator KERR. It not only presumably would not, but the bill specifically makes that provision, that it shall not in anywise.

Senator LONG. Of course, that provision is not binding on those ace economists in the House Appropriations Committee.

Senator KERR. It provides it shall not interfere with any project. That is on page 11, line 9, Mr. Chairman:

Federal projects now constructed and in operation, under construction, authorized for construction, or that may be authorized substantially in accordance with reports currently before Congress, if in compliance with the first section of act entitled "An act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and other purposes," approved December 22, 1944. shall not be altered, changed, restricted, or otherwise impeded or interfered with by reason of this act.

I suggest to the Senator from Louisiana that we would be glad for him to prepare the restrictive language for this bill. I would be glai

for him to prepare it as an amendment for the bill. I can understand his fears that Members of Congress might use this bill maybe as a reason for doing something which they probably otherwise would be going to do anyway. But the specific language is in the bill.

Senator DOWNEY. Did you mean that language to be an evasion, Senator Kerr? [Laughter.]

Senator KERR. I meant that language to describe what I contemplated to be the possibility of a desire to evade on the part of others. Senator DOWNEY. Let the chairman say this: He certainly concurs with what Senator Long has said about the vision and learning of Senator Overton in flood-control matters. I thoroughly concur with that.

I do think-just expressing a very casual opinion-that probably the Senator from Louisiana would be impatient with me in saying that Louisiana would be better off to have a representative on this board. I can see arguments both pro and con. I know the ability of the Senator from Louisiana, and he knows all about Louisiana and I know nothing.

Senator LONG. We can see the possibility in my State, for example, Mr. Chairman, of a major flood-control dam which would solve the greater part of the remaining flood-control problem being passed over in favor of power potentialities being developed somewhere else, which would not trap one-quarter as much water as the major floodcontrol dam would.

We are interested in the authorized projects in the hope of obtaining appropriations to complete those projects.

Flood-control-wise, we believe Red River has been exhaustively studied anyway, and that is the only one we are primarily interested in. Where the waters of the White and the Arkansas go-we think we can handle them. We are handling them with Mississippi River levees anyway, and we believe we can handle that water all right.

When it comes down to the solution that we have worked out for the flood-control problem on the Red River, our people are extremely concerned that they might have to wait many, many years for the ultimate construction of the projects that would give them protection if we go back into a complete study and bring in many other factors aside from flood control.

Senator KERR. It is perfectely agreeable to me for them to put on their witnesses at such time as you decide, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DOWNEY. But you desire to go ahead with your witnesses? Senator KERR. I would like to very much.

Senator LONG. I would certainly like to go along with Senator Kerr if you will appoint a time when they could come back.

Senator DOWNEY. I assume we could finish with the witnesses for the proponents of this bill and the governmental witnesses today. Senator KERR. I think so.

Senator DowNEY. I think we can be in session this afternoon, and will therefore be ready for your witnesses tomorrow morning, Senator Long.

Senator KERR. I would like at this time to present Mr. Graham, who represents the Governor of Oklahoma.

Senator DowNEY. We will be glad to hear from him.

STATEMENT OF N. R. GRAHAM, VICE CHAIRMAN, PLANNING AND RESOURCES BOARD, STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am N. R. Graham. I am vice chairman of the planning and resources board of the State of Oklahoma, and I am here representing the State in that capacity.

Because the only opposition to Senator Kerr's proposal comes from the lower sections of the Red River, I would like to briefly discuss the situation on that stream as we in Oklahoma see it.

To us in all the Southwest no stream better displays the dangers of piecemeal and hurried planning than does the Red River.

The State of Oklahoma opposed the Denison Reservoir to the bitter end, not because it did not have ample public benefits but because we knew, based on the policy of arriving at the measure of public benefits of projects, project by project rather than basin-wide, that the con struction of this huge project would simply split the river in half, leaving the whole upper reachers of the stream open to the devastations by flood and storm.

While the Denison project is paying out at the rate of 37 years instead of 50 years as estimated, yet, as Oklahoma predicted, it has ruined the opportunity to save thousands of acres above it.

At the time Denison was approved, at our urging, Congress tried to legislate to obviate this danger, but it was not accomplished. And time after time the investigations of both the Army and Reclamation have brought negative results in the upper regions of the stream. As a result Oklahoma gave up thousands of acres of good land to save the lower valley, not only good land in the reservoir, but good land above condemned to waste by piecemeal planning.

We did save at the time Dension was approved, one small project, the Altus Lugert Dam for irrigation and flood control. The rivers in this region are of heavy silt content, and we are worried about siltation in the Altus Reservoir. Yet the Soil Conservation Service in the whole basin of the Red has accomplished only 5 percent of their fiell study.

Recently, at a meeting of all the departments in the district office of the Corps of Engineers, at Tulsa, I asked a representative of the Soil Conservation Service why they were so backward in the Red and Arkansas Basins, and the answer was: "It takes most of our funds to keep up with the planning of other departments in the Missouri basin-wide Pick-Sloan plan.

If you will compare the Pick-Sloan plan on the Missouri, you will find 13 reservoirs approved in the same latitude as the upper regions of the Red River, where only project by project planning is permitted and where the benefits were assigned to one huge reservoir-the Den-son project.

Senator DOWNEY. Mr. Graham, I regret to say that I am not familiar with the Denison project. Is that a multiple-purpose project! Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir; right in the center of the basin. Senator DowNEY. It is both irrigation and flood control?

Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir; power and flood control. But the rest of tis basin above it is just wiped out.

Senator KERR. It wiped out much of the opportunity to show eanomic benefits justifying development of other projects above.

Senator DOWNEY. Do you require irrigation on the Red River above that?

Senator KERR. Yes. The Altus Lugert irrigation project, which he said was saved, is a 75,000-acre project on one of the tributaries of this river above that dam.

Senator DOWNEY. What is the rainfall on the Red River annually? Senator KERR. In the area of the Altus Lugert project, it is about 20 inches. As you go west it diminishes; as you come east it increases. When you reach the area of the dam, it is probably 40 inches.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes.

Senator DOWNEY. That is very interesting.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yet, because heavy run-off from the mountains of eastern Oklahoma on the Red River below Denison, that reservoir does not give the lower basin complete protection. So our friends from downstream are asking that we give up more and more of our valley land for their protection. To this we have not agreed, largely because of our experience of past planning on this stream.

We do not desire to continue to flood them. We want them to sometime realize that other people, too, have problems which are of importance to them and that the whole goal will be better accomplished through including the problems of the whole basin and not just our portion.

Contrast the situation on the Arkansas. Here the people of Arkansas and Oklahoma work hand in hand, not only in support of this measure, but on all the river-development programs. Arkansas has been particularly careful to join with Oklahoma in planning, and we, in turn, have been considerate of Kansas, the Panhandle of Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico. As a result there is never any differences between us before the departments and the Congress.

Yet on the Arkansas comprehensive planning of even the Corps of Engineers has extended for but 480 miles of a 1,500-mile stream, while the Bureau has done no comprehensive planning, and the Soil Conservation Service is working only on that portion of the basin already planned by the corps.

There is project after project in the great central basin of the Missouri which has been authorized by Congress under basin-wide planning which are no better in their ratio of cost to benefit than like projects in like latitudes on the Arkansas which have been turned down by both the Army and the Bureau on a single-project basis.

We who advocate this measure have a profound respect for all the Federal agencies charged with the problems of saving our land and water resources. We simply want them to work together with the States as they have done in the Missouri.

Moreover, it is our desire to do this by legislative act rather than departmental agreement, because we believe in the parliamentary system and that the Congress should at all times decide the policy of our Government.

Mr. Chairman, that is all I have to say.

Senator DOWNEY. The chairman has no questions, Senator Kerr. Senator KERR. I have no questions.

Senator DOWNEY. Thank you very much.

Senator KERR. I would like to have you hear next Mr. Terry of Little Rock, Ark.