Page images

Senator DowNEY. Mr. Terry, we will be glad to hear from you. Both the Senators from Arkansas have joined in this measure, have they not?

Senator KERR. Yes, sir; the two Senators from Arkansas, the two Senators from Texas, the two Senators from New Mexico, the two Senators from Colorado, the two Senators from Oklahoma, and one Senator from Kansas.



Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared statement to introduce in the record.

But I might say that my name is D. D. Terry, of Little Rock, Ark. I am director of the flood-control division of the State resources and development commission, and I am also chairman of the Arkansas River Flood Control Committee which was appointed by Governor Turner and Governor McMath of Arkansas to have charge of the work in connection with flood control in the Arkansas Valley.

I had the honor several years ago of representing my district in the House of Representatives, serving on the War Department Subcommittee on Appropriations, and I know what you gentlemen have to go through in a very limited time.

Senator DOWNEY. We will listen to you with increased interest, Mr. Terry.

Mr. TERRY. As the representative of Governor McMath, I would like to say that he is in favor of this Kerr bill, S. 1576.

I feel that by having this committee appointed to study the problems of the Arkansas-White and Red River Basins they can coordinate the projects much more than the State agencies working independently of each other.

The Arkansas River is a very peculiar river. It is really two rivers. From Colorado on down into Kansas, it is one river, and in Oklahoma and Arkansas it is really another river.

Senator Downey. Mr. Terry, why do you say that? Why do you say they really are two rivers !

Mr. TERRY. I mean that the problems are different in the two sections of the river.

Senator KERR. They are short of water in the one area and long on it in the other.

Mr. Terry. Yes. They tell me up in Kansas the Arkansas Rirer goes down into the sand and then reappears later. .

But most of our flood-control grief comes out of Oklahoma and Missouri.

I feel if we had this Kerr plan we would get more interest in that whole area. I mean the people would be more united. I think that the Pick-Sloan plan has been a wonderful thing for the Missouri Valley, and I think by the same reasoning the Kerr plan would be a wonderful thing for the Arkansas Valley.

Now I sympathize with the gentlemen from the lower end of the Red River down in Louisiana. Their problems, as was stated very well by Senator Long, are problems of flood control. They are not worried by irrigation and reclamation and those problems that

onfront the people in the upper reaches of the Red River and the rkansas River.

So I say if Louisiana wants to get out of this plan and not be inluded in it, I would like to see them eliminated. But the people urther up the Red River have problems that the people down in Lousiana do not know or do not have. And so I say that if they want

get out they should be permitted to get out. But this comprehenive plan, as outlined in S. 1576, should be adopted. I think this plan will mean much to that whole area. I would not be in favor of the bill if it did not have this language 1 here which protects the projects that are already approved and in eing. I would hate to see any delay on those projects that have lready been studied, only in the course of construction, and others eady to go. But if plain language means anything, this bill certainly ; not intended to cause any delay. That is the battle cry of those who re opposed to it, that it will cause delay in the projects and take way from these present agencies the jurisdiction that they now have. But if the plain language of the bill means anything, those things hich they apprehend will not come about. So I am in favor of the bill, Mr. Chairman. Senator DOWNEY. Thank you. Senator KERR. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. Mr. TERRY. If there are any questions, I will be glad to try to anwer them. Senator KERR. What is your official title? Mr. TERRY. I am the director of the flood-control division of the Irkansas Resource and Development Commission. Senator DOWNEY. Who will be next, Senator? Senator KERR. Now we have representatives of the Engineers, Recamation, Federal Power Commission, and Soil Conservation Service. would ask the chairman to call them in the order that he desires.

Senator DOWNEY. Is there any report from the Bureau of the Budget lere?

Senator KERR. I am to meet with the Bureau of the Budget this fternoon in reference to this matter. I believe that all of these devartments have made recommendations to the Bureau. I believe if he chairman asked them for them or permits me to ask them they vill give the committee the benefit of their recommendations on the natter.

(Discussion off the record.) Senator DOWNEY. Mr. Warne, are you here on behalf of the Departnent of the Interior?



Mr. WARNE. The Department of the Interior; yes, sir.
Senator Downey. Do you appear in support or in opposition to the

Mr. WARNE. We appear within the limits placed on us by the budget "pport, a copy of which was delivered to us, in support of the priniples of this bill, believing that the requirement for coordinated planving and the preparation of a complete and comprehensive plan for

94522-49.-pt. 1__42

these three streams, the White, the Arkansas, and the Red, and their tributaries, is essential to the eventual sound development of this region.

There is a report by our Department before the committee. I suggest that the committee might like to make it a part of the record.

Senator KERR. I very much would like to.

Mr. WARNE. It suggests one or two or three or more relatively minor technical amendments which, I believe, in the main are selfexplanatory.

Senator Dow NEY. Shall we place that report in the record ?
Mr. WARNE. I would appreciate it.

Senator DowNEY. It will be made a part of the record and you may proceed. (The report is as follows:)


Washington, July 22, 19.49. Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR CHAVEZ: We regret the delay which has attended compliance with your committee's request for an expression of this Department's views on S. 1576, a bill to establish the United States Study Commission on the ArkansasWhite and Red River Basins.

The primary purpose of S. 1576 is to provide basic authority and machinery for full-scale coordination of investigations and of the results thereof, along with consideration and implementation of local and State views on developident proposals.

I am in accord with the broad objectives of promoting the integrated conservation, utilization, and development of the land and water resources of the Arkansas White and Red River Basins to which this bill is directed.

Our Nation-wide program of resource-development activities has been the sun ject of intensive study by the Hoover Commission and its task force on natural resources, which have proposed specific recommendations for reorganization of these activities of the Federal Government. I agree with the conclusions of these groups that fundamental reorganization in this field is a necessity if the needs of the future are to be met. The provisions of S. 1576 fall short of such fundamental reorganization. Their relationship to the Hoover Commission proposals has led the Bureau of the Budget to conclude that the enactment of S. 1576 would be undesirable at this time, as pointed out in Director Pace's letter of July 15 to you.

Subject to these necessary reservations, I believe that the procedures set forth in this bill, with the amendments hereinafter discussed, would make possible : substantial step toward more effective resource development in the region covered by the bill.

In the event S. 1576 is acted upon favorably by your committee, I suggest that consideration be given to amending its provisions in such a way as to overcome the following possible objections to particular features of the bill:

I. The order in which the purposes of the comprehensive and coordinated plan are set forth in section 1 (a) may be construed as indicative of their relatire importance. This could be overcome by an appropriate provision to the effet that the order in which the purposes are listed shall not be construed as intended to reflect their relative importance.

II. Subdivision (2) of section 2 and subdivision (6) of section 7, particularis when read in conjunction, provide too strict a rule. They appear to defeat the purpose of the Commission in that they would prevent the Commission from a sidering any change in projects which are presently authorized but are st:'l unbuilt, or any projects that may yet be authorized substantially in accordaoir with project reports currently before the Congress. These paragraphs would require the Commission to prepare a plan that would be called comprehension, but in reality the plan would have to conform completely with and absorb In:a it, without change, a large number of projects that are still in the paper star Even though change in those paper plans might be found to be desirable by al concerned, no change could be recommended by the Commission. The boil, these fore, requires the Commission, for all practical purposes, to develop and recommend a plan which everyone may then agree is not the best plan for the basin. None of us would consider that wise.

In this connection, it is significant that the Federal agencies, with the approval of the Congress, have authority to make desirable modifications in the plans as the various projects are developed. This desirable precedent which has been approved in hundreds of cases by the Congress, must not be denied the Commission, if we are to expect the Commission to bring forth the best practical plan.

Accordingly, I recommend that subdivision (2) of section 2 be amended by striking the words “and authorized" from line 16 on page 3, and by inserting at the end of that line a comma followed by the expression “to the fullest practicable extent,".

For the same reasons, I recommend that subdivision (6) of section 7 be amended by inserting the word “or” after the first comma in line 10 on page 11, and by deleting the words "authorized for construction, or that may be authorized substantially in accordance with reports currently before Congress, if” in lines 10, 11, and 12 on the same page.

III. The bill properly sets forth in section 1 (a) as one of its important objectives "the reclamation and irrigation of land, including drainage." The bill proposes further, in public interest, to utilize the services, studies, surveys, and continuing investigation programs of the Federal departments to meet this objective. There is one complication, however, which could easily defeat in part the very objective for which the Commission would be created. The drainage basins of the Arkansas-White and Red Rivers encompass parts of eight States. Of these, five are what are commonly called the reclamation States. Except for investigations and projects developed pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887), the Bureau of Reclamation is not now authorized to make investigations in the three eastern States of Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. In order that this plan may be comprehensive in fact, as well as by name, it is essential for all agencies to participate in the investigations for the entire area. To fill this gap I recommend that the following language be inserted in line 2 on page 3 after the comma following the word "Provided":

"That the departments and agencies represented on the Commission pursuant to subsection (a) (2) of section 3, together with their bureaus and offices, shall be, for the purpose of the work of the Commission, authorized to conduct such investigations and surveys in all portions of the area herein described, and to make expenditures in connection therewith, as may be desirable to carry out the purposes of this Act : Provided further,.

For this same reason and to permit the Commission to make such recommendations as it may deem appropriate, I recommend that subdivision (5) of section 6 be amended by deleting the expression “existing law” in line 1 on page 10, and by substituting therefor the expression "the functional jurisdiction of the said agencies under existing law but without regard to geographical limitations on the exercise thereof".

IV. In order to obviate the possibility of subdivision (4) of section 2 of the bill being contrued in too restrictive a fashion, it would be well to insert, after the word "recognize" in line 21 on page 3, the expression “to the fullest practicable extent". In this same subdivision, the interests of fish and wildlife and other resources should be provided for. This could be accomplished by amending lines 23 and 24 on page 3 to read as follows: "grazing, fish and wildlife, geological survey, national parks, mines, minerals, and other resources”.

V. The work of the Commission could be facilitated and expedited by inserting in section 9, after the comma following the word “appropriated” in line 6 on page 13, the phrase "to the Commission and to any and all Federal agencies performing investigations in the area affected by this Act, whether independently or at the request of the Commission,”. In line 7 on the same page the word "sum" is a misprint, and should read “such".

VL It would seem that the time allowed the Commission for the production of a comprehensive report is too short. At least 3 years should, in our judg. ment, be allowed for the monumental task involved. This could be accomplished be deleting the word "two" in line 11 on page 12, and by substituting therefor the word "three".

VII. In order to correct whatappear to be clerical errors in subdivision (5) of section 7, it is believed that in line 4, on page 11, the word "west" should be substituted for the word "east”, and in line 6 on the same page the word “or" at the beginning of the line should be deleted. These changes would make the language of the provisions involved conform to that of subdivision (b) of section 1 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887), on which these provisions are evidently modeled.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours,


Acting Secretary of the Interior. Mr. WARNE. I am William E. Warne. I am Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and I am appearing in response to a request of the committee for our views on S. 1576, known as the Kerr bill.

These three streams, the White, the Arkansas, and the Red, like the Missouri, itself, involve water problems that run the gamut from the streams of aridity to the streams of flood conditions. They contain in them, if they are considered together, all of the major water problems that we are faced with in our United States just as the Missouri itself does.

They cut across from the high mountains of Arkansas virtually to the flood plain of the Mississippi. They cut across the arid, semiarid, subhumid and into the humid regions.

They have the characteristics of the flashy streams of the arid West at some points, and they have the characteristics of the great rivers of the humid East at others.

They have situations where municipalities are in dire need of additional water in the western sections of these basins. And indeed we are planning presently to develop the plans for irrigation and municipal water supply conservation works on, for example, the Canadian River in the Panhandle section in Texas.

There are but two irrigation projects presently completed and in operation in the basin, and that is not, as some of the other witnesses have indicated, because there is not need there, it is because of the fact the need is so great and the problems so complex that the normal planning of past decades for individual small-scale irrigation projects alone simply were inadequate to the needs.

Just as the Missouri waited for more than 50 years after the problem was thoroughly recognized before action was taken toward institution of a comprehensive and worthy plan for the development of the river, so these streams in the high plains area have waited for the same length of time since the basic problem of the high plains was known and its solution forecast.

The individual project for reclamation or water supply in the high plains and arid and semiarid sections of these river basins is impracticable because they are flashy streams with almost intermittent flow.

The Arkansas, as was pointed out by a previous witness, is really two rivers. At Garden City, Kans., it virtually disappears. All the waters that have risen above are being used or seeped into the sand: at about that point and a new river arises below.

The upper Red River tributaries are of the same high plain type that we encounter in the western tributaries of the Missouri. rise not in high mountains, they are not fed by snowbanks from the high altitudes; they rise in the high plains themselves and therefore are subject to extreme fluctuations and flow, in the dry seasons almos


« PreviousContinue »