struction and the completion of projects. I do not think that, if the Federal Government were going to spend any money in Red River for a study, there is any doubt but what our people would rather see that go into construction instead of another continuous study.

Senator LONG. I might ask you this question: Did not Senator Kerr put a resolution before this committee that had to do with the restudy and resurvey of some projects that have already been agreed upon? Mr. MATTHIAS. Yes, sir. He introduced a resolution in May of this year, I believe, Senator, requesting another review of the Red River report. We have had reviews, reviews, and reviews. If we had the money that has been spent on reviews, we would probably have three or more of our projects in operation at the present time.

Senator DowNEY. What are the States in the Red River Basin? Mr. MATTHIAS. A portion, a very small portion of New Mexico. The Red River flows in a southeastern direction forming the boundary lines between Oklahoma and Texas down to where it cuts across almost due east through the corner of Arkansas, and then straight down through the heart of Louisiana into the southern part to where it joins the Mississippi through the Atchafalaya River.

Senator DOWNEY. Where do the Arkansas and Red join the Mississippi River, relative to each other?

Mr. MATTHIAS. The Arkansas River comes in just below Pine Bluff up here, Senator, above Greenville, Miss., whereas the Red comes in down here [indicating].

Senator DOWNEY. That is about how many miles between those two points?

Mr. MATTHIAS. Between the two points, it is 280 miles difference. Senator LONG. You get the Old River closure in there, and the Red River will not join the Mississippi at all; will it?

Mr. MATTHIAS. No; it will then go down the Atchafalaya.

Senator DowNEY. Mr. Matthias, you and the people in Louisiana are confronted with this proposition, including your very able Senator. Here are Senators from four States in the Red River Basin who are joining in asking for a study of the basin under certain conditions. Now, it would seem that Louisiana would have to present strong arguments to overcome the proposal merely that a study shall be made. I am merely asking you these questions because Senator Kerr suggested it, and he is not here.

Mr. MATTHIAS. Well, I would like to make this point, too, Senator, and that is that I doubt very, very much whether the people of the State of Texas and Arkansas have been consulted on this matter or have expressed a preference to their Senators.

I imagine that as many times as the bill was passed around, and through courtesy to their colleague, they probably allowed their names to be added to the bill. This is not the wishes of the people in those sections of the country no more than the extension of the Bureau of Reclamation in the Eightieth Congress when you and Senator Overton fought the extension of the boundaries of the Bureau of Interior over the Mississippi River and which I understand, at the present time, a recommendation by the Department of the Interior has also again been presented for consideration. We do not want any part of the Interior in our present flood-control plan.

Senator DowNEY. Well, that, of course, is not a part of this bill.

Mr. MATTHIAS. It could be if it were accepted. The Governor of Louisiana has written Senator Kerr a letter in which he opposes this bill.

Col. J. Lester White, the director of the department of public works. who was here Friday but had to return home, asked that I represent the Governor and his departments and make this letter of the Governor to the Senator a part of the record.

In addition to that, Senator, I would like to file our formal resolution passed by our association on April 17, composed of members in our group, our association, in the four States, which is in opposition to this bill.

(The letter and resolution referred to are as follows:)

RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE CREATION OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON THU ARKANSAS, WHITE, AND RED RIVER BASINS

It has come to our attention that a bill may soon be introduced in Congress to create the United States Commission on the Arkansas, White, and Red River Basins, defining the powers and duties thereof.

We are unalterably opposed to this or any other schemes that attempts to take over the Red River Basin, and to incorporate it with one or more other river basins to form an authority, administration, or any similar organization, t matter what name it may be given.

It is our sincere belief that such an administration is unnecessary, and unde sirable, in fact, we believe it to be detrimental and injurious to the best interests of the citizens in the river basins mentioned, and to the economy of the United States.

We completely approve the present plan, whereby the Corps of United States Army Engineers has charge of flood control and navigation projects on Red Rive and its tributaries, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture, where t the United States Soil Conservation Service and the United States Forest Servic are giving attention to the development of the land and water resources of the watershed with reference to prevention of soil erosion, preventing too rapid water run-off, maintaining soil fertility, conservation of water for industrial, domest and municipal uses, reforestation, forest fire prevention, forest harvesting and selective cutting demonstrations and other useful and beneficial services to the citizens of the basin.

The present plan for the development and maintenance of the land and water resources in the Red River Watershed is sound, the work is progressing harmoniously, and the citizens have full confidence in the integrity of the Army engineers, Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service. Now, all that is needed is the appropriation each year of adequate funds by Congress to complete the projects and programs as fast as the various agencies can efficiently use the money: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Red River Valley Association unequivocally opposes an change from the present Federal Government plans now underway in the Red River Basin, and that the Governors, United States Senators and Representatives to Congress of the States of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Missour.. New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas be notified of our opposition by the secretary of this association within 10 days.

JULY 15, 1912

Hon. ROBERT S. KERR,

United States Senator, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR KERR: This acknowledges receipt of your letter of June 11, in which was enclosed a copy of S. 1576, a bill to establish the United States Study Commission on the Arkansas-White and Red River basins.

I am quite certain that your purpose, in advocating this measure, is to obrt assistance for the development of the affected basins and you may be assi that any measure which would accomplish or accelerate this development were have my complete support.

The proposals contained in the bill have been fully considered by me and be the people of my State who are most likely to be affected by its provisions and while we believe that certain of these proposals may be entitled to some further

consideration, the effect of the proposed measure, on the whole, would tend to retard our development programs and to occasion unnecessary delay in the completion of projects already authorized.

In view of these considerations, I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to endorse or support S. 1576 and while I regret very much my inability to support the measure, I feel that to do so would constitute a breach of faith with the people of my State.

Sincerely yours,

EARL K. LONG, Governor, State of Louisiana.

Mr. MATTHIAS. In addition to that, a resolution was passed and signed last week by the Louisiana Levee Board Association which, of course, is in opposition to this bill; and, as you know, Senator, the Mississippi Valley Flood Control Association is also opposed to this

bill.

Senator LONG. With all these pending projects here, these dams here and there, and these others over here, do you know what the justification of those dams is in terms of flood control and the economic benefits it can justify?

Senator DowNEY. Congressman Brooks, will you not come forward please and join us here and lend your wit and learning to our quorum? Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I am merely here to express an interest in opposing the bill. We have got quite a fight on over in the House and there is one roll call after another, and I would like to sit as long. as I can and then go on over there.

Senator DowNEY. Did you want to make any statement?

Mr. BROOKS. Not at this time. Thank you kindly, sir.

Senator LONG. A huge portion of the economic justification for all those dams there is in protecting Shreveport and that heavily populated section in Louisiana from flood; is that not correct?

Mr. MATTHIAS. That is true, Senator, but also Texas now, and Oklahoma, too, for that matter, are enjoying the benefits of the Denison Dam. It has forever eliminated floods almost to this point. [Indicating]. Now below this, the Millwood protects a very fertile section of Arkansas. The Texarkana Reservoir, in addition to protecting thisarea, is protecting an area in here, in Texas. The whole upper Sulphur River will be protected in the future with reservoirs that are now in the planning stages. Lands in Oklahoma, when the final projects location. is decided on, will be protected.

Senator DOWNEY. If I may intervene a moment, Colonel Gee, do you think that looking at the problem reasonably that any new study uch as indicated in this bill could develop any plan or program or policy even that would militate against the advisability of goingahead with these authorizations?

Colonel GEE. I can only say this, in answer to your question: that numerous witnesses appeared during this corresponding hearing on the House side and raised a question concerning the adequacy of the plans then before the House Committee on Public Works for the reason that if the bill is passed, these witnesses indicated that this would be construed as an indication on the part of the Congress of a lack of confidence in the adequacy of those plans already in hand.

They would accordingly be hesitant to appropriate moneys to start new projects already authorized, which might be included within theScope of this proposed review, investigation, of the whole basin, and prefer rather to wait for the completion of the comprehensive plan before taking any positive action on these individual projects.

Senator DOWNEY. Well, Colonel Gee, Senator Long has very clearly stated the fear that this reopening of the study might tend to delay the appropriation, and that is a reasonable point, and I understand that, but I am proceeding beyond that.

In your opinion, could a new study such as is outlined here, from a reasonable viewpoint be likely to develop any additional policy or program that would militate against these authorizations?

Colonel GEE. Based strictly upon the language in the bill as now written, that should not happen. However, based upon the fears of so many people that it will happen, I am led to believe that there is a strong possibility of that occurring.

Senator LONG. Well, Colonel Gee, does not the formula laid down here for this Kerr bill vary with the economic justification that the Army engineers are permitted to consider at the present time, taking into consideration fish and wildlife and the value of somebody swimming on the lake and the value of salinity control, and various and sundry things that have not yet been considered in terms of economie justification of a project?

Colonel GEE. It does permit the valuation in te is of dollars of certain classes of benefits which are not presently considered as benefits which can be credited to a project for the purposes of justifying it from an economic standpoint.

It would place, for example, a dollar value upon the recreational benefits to be produced.

Senator LONG. Well, now if you took one dam for example, like the Millwood Dam, and in the alternate you said that if you made eight smaller dams back in the foothills which would not be as valuable for flood control purposes but would, let us say, allow eight times as many people to swim or fish in them, would it not throw some doubt on whether that program was justified?

Colonel GEE. It would no doubt have its effect in the language set forth in the bill under consideration.

Senator LONG. And that would tend to take emphasis away from the items that are now considered exclusively, such as flood control and navigation and those benefits that accrue, and place more emphasis on other items such as recreation, fish and wildlife, salinity control, and so forth; would it not? Those things are not considered at all at the present time?

Colonel GEE. We presently take credit in terms of dollar benefit, m terms of any improvement in fish and wildlife.

Senator LONG. How about the recreational part of it?

Colonel GEE. Recreational benefits are not valued in terms of dollars in present reports.

Senator DOWNEY. Well what is the problem of salinity control here! Colonel GEE. That is the control of alkali salts which enter the river in the high plains area. It is not the type of salinity control we are accustomed to think of adjacent to ocean areas.

sir.

Mr. MATTHIAS. There is no problem of salinity on the Red River.

Senator DowNEY. There is no problem of salinity on the Red River' Mr. MATTHIAS. No, sir.

Senator DOWNEY. Does the stream not come out on alkali strata? Mr. MATTHIAS. It is the Arkansas River.

Colonel GEE. It is quite serious on the upper Arkansas River, yes, sir.

Senator DOWNEY. About the question of irrigation on the Red River, are there potentialities there for irrigation on the Red River?

Colonel GEE. There are potentialities which have been investigated in a very cursory way in the past, and which the Congress today has not seen fit to direct either the Bureau of Reclamation, or the Corps of Engineers, to investigate in detail or to go out and construct projects.

Mr. MATTHIAS. Senator, that is all about Denison Reservoir. Now, below, in the flood plain below Denison, on the 1945 storm we had as much as 18 inches of rain in a 56-hour period, so we have no problem of irrigation below Denison Reservoir.

Senator DowNEY. It is almost incredible; 18 inches in 56 hours? Mr. MATTHIAS. In a 56-hour period, yes, sir.

Senator DOWNEY. You are sure that is not going back to the time of Noah?

Mr. MATTHIAS. No, sir; that was in 1945.

Senator LONG 'f you had that Millwood Dam there, all that could have been taken out without any substantial injury to that part of the country, could it not?

Mr. MATTHIAS. The history of that flood, Senator, just briefly to describe it, was that since January of that year we had a full river all the way down, all of the old cut-offs, the tributaries being full. Alexandria, La. went above flood stage on January 15 and never did the water get below that until sometime in June.

Every basin, every small reservoir that we had that could hold water was filled, and then this deluge of rain fell in that 56-hour period. We had no control over any of these tributaries that could have held, and which would be controlled if these reservoirs were built. The result was that about 350,000 second-feet of water came down this leveed river here. We lost 8 levees on the main-line system, had $17,000,000 damages and 4 lives were lost.

Senator DowNEY. How long did that 350,000 second-feet flow?

Mr. MATTHIAS. That was the crest. I believe the Colonel has the information.

Senator DOWNEY. A few hours, I suppose.

Colonel GEE. No; the crest was about 2 days in passing.

Senator DOWNEY. What is the acre-foot capacity of Denison Dam, and what will it be of Millwood Dam?

Colonel GEE. The total capacity of the reservoir at Denison Dam is 5,715,700 acre-feet, allocated as follows: Flood control, 2,690,800 acrefeet: power, 1,813,800 acre-feet; and silt, 1,211,100 acre-feet. The total capacity of the reservoir at Millwood Dam will be 2,290,000 acrefeet allocated as follows: Flood control, 2,240,000 acre-feet; and silt, 50,000 acre-feet.

Senator DowNEY. I would also like to know what is the respective run-off of the Arkansas and the Red Rivers. Mr. Matthias, I understand the objection of your group is limited to the Red River.

(The following information is supplied by the Corps of Engineers in compliance with the above request:)

The maximum recorded run-off on Red River at Alexandria, La., is 233,000 nble feet per second; the minimum run-off is 1,480 cubic feet per second. The 94522-49--pt. 1-45