410,000 acres." In the distribution of land in the Keystone Reservoir the table is as follows in the March 29, 1946, survey report: In the survey report of November 1, 1948, the table is as follows: Arkansas River: Osage County. Pawnee County. Cimarron River: Payne County. Creek County. Pawnee County. Tulsa County. Total... Stream and county 6, 200 15.200 4,500 13,12 500 1,30 11,200 29,600 1,000 1.20 1,900 15.000 1,100 100 200 Also, in the March 29, 1946 survey report the land values in the reservoir area ranged from $10 to $150 per acre with an average of $40 per acre, with about 44 percent of the total area of the reservoir under cultivation. In the November 1, 1948 survey report the land value in the reservoir area ranged from $5 to $210 per acre with an average of $60 per acre and about percent of the total area of the reservoir under cultivation. In the March 1946 report the survey showed 239 oil wells in the reservoir area with a day average production of about 3 barrels. The November 1, 1948 report showed 1 oil wells in the reservoir area with a daily average production of about 8 barrels There is also a discrepancy in the miles of Highway No. 64 which had to be relocated. In the 1946 report the mileage was 15.2. In the 1948 report the mileage was 16.3. I do not know why any of the above figures changed in the two reports because neither the land nor the highway moved, and I do re believe a total of 51 oil wells were abandoned in that area, to say nothing of ne wells which were drilled to take the place of any well abandoned. I also notice in the November 1, 1948 report an estimate of the costs in changing and relocara the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad tracks at a cost of $5,300,000. I do not know why this additional cost appeared after a project was approved by the district and division engineers. I regret to say that I am unable to discuss anything concerning the Mannford Blackburn or Taft Dams because no information is given concerning them the survey report that I read except as to a tabulation of data on the height and type of dams and number of acres covered by their respective reservoirs 1 do not know whether these figures are correct or not and feel keenly my lad of knowledge concerning the three dams which the Keystone Dam is to replace It leaves me helpless in a most vital manner. I can only show that the proponents of the dam have made serious errors in the Keystone area with which I am familiar. I am forced by lack of information, although I made every effort to obtain it from the engineers, to confine my remarks to the Keystone area. We contend that the damages that will accrue if the proposed Keystone Dam is constructed are much greater than have been stated by the proponents of the said reservoir and will greatly exceed any possible benefits that might accrue from the said construction of the dam. The area which will be inundated is a fertile one lying along the banks of the Cimarron and Arkansas Rivers and their tributaries. In that area we raise all kinds of farm crops, alfalfa, wheat, oats, cotton, corn, and grain sorghums. We engage in dairying, poultry raising, cattle raising, truck gardening, berries, orchards, and hogs. We do not contend that our area is a paradise but we do state most emphatically that we are rich in all that comes from the soil and each year contribute to the economic wealth of not only the surrounding communities but to the State of Oklahoma with the products which we raise and ship to various parts of the country. We are indeed a group of little people but successfully contribute to not only our own welfare but the welfare of others. We have shown at a previous hearing that in the area around Keystone farmers have sold from their lands, truck garden products, poultry, eggs, dairy products, fruit, livestock, and farm crops for a gross value of $272,000 for the year 1945. We also have shown that added to this the gross business of the merchants in Keystone for the year 1945 was in the amount of $300,000, making a grand total in excess of $500,000. We have also shown that the Tulsa Livestock Commission Co., which was organized and put in operation by civil-minded leaders of Tulsa at a cost of over a million dollars to furnish a need for Oklahoma, has received a great amount of livestock from the area which will be inundated. In 1946 prior to the March 7 hearing a group of ladies from Keystone checked the records of the Tulsa Livestock Commission and determined that 40 percent of the livestock received by the said yards came from the affected area. Following their visit the Livestock Commission Co. themselves investigated the matter and determined that only 25 percent of the livestock received came from the affected area. This discrepancy occurred because the Keystone ladies included in their computations livestock which came from as far away as Pawnee and Hallett and other outlying communities. They did this because these areas will be cut off from Tulsa stockyards for an undetermined period of time while and after a proposed dam is being built and since the stock raisers would have great difficulty in reaching the Tulsa stockyards they would take their stock to the Oklahoma City yards. The Tulsa Livestock Commission, of course, felt that their yards were superior to any place and did not agree with the Keystone ladies. We have talked to the said livestock raisers living out in these outlying communities, and we feel that our estimation was correct. On the March 7, 1946 hearing we presented the loss which would be suffered by the Tulsa stockyards cause of the construction of the Keystone Dam, using the figure of 40 percent. However, today since we have a resolution passed by the board of directors of the Tulsa stockyards, which we are herewith presenting, and they use the figure of 25 percent, we will use that percentage. The total livestock receipts of the Tulsa stockyards for the years 1946, 1947, and 1948 were $49,341,128; 25 percent of this figure is $12.335,282. Therefore, we contend, and I believe rightly so, that this figure should be considered as a definite damage or loss. The engineers in their computations have not taken any of this into consideration. All they have considered is the price of land. I do not see how they can say that land is worth so little when so much wealth is produced from it. At no time in private sales between individuals is any property bought or sold with no thought given to Teiving a greater and continuous return from that land over and above the purchase price. Also, I cannot see how the engineers can appraise land which is supporting dairy cattle and which contributes a great deal of milk to the Tulsa area and ignore that fact. We farmers and livestock men are producing wealth Consistently year in and year out and yet no thought has been given to that plase by the proponents of the said dam. The area which will be affected by the posed dam is also rich in the production of crude oil and gas. The engineers at in their survey report that there are only 188 wells in the Keystone Reservoir and that most of them were drilled between 1910 and 1918, and there are no wells being drilled in the area today and that the daily average production of the said We is s barrels. They also state that there are 280 wells in the Mannford Reservoir area and 124 wells in the Taft area. They further state that the wells is the Mannford Reservoir have a longer remaining economic life than those wells which will be affected by the Keystone Reservoir. The proponents of the dam have certainly underestimated, to say the least, the vast wealth in oil and gas properties in the propsed Keystone Dam area. I wish to present to the committee a letter from the Johnson Oil Refining Ch of Cleveland, Okla. This oil company plays an integral part in the ecotoRETIUM life of oklahoma. It enjoys a character beyond repute and is the largest purchaser of crude oil in the Keystone Reservoir. They buy the crude oil which is produced by the wells. Therefore, they certainly should know the number of wells and the amount of production that is in the said reservoir area. I will not read you their entire letter because you each have a copy, but I wish to point out the following salient facts: The Johnson Oil Refining Co. owns and operates a $2,500,000 refinery employing approximately 200 people with a pay roll of approx. mately $506,000 per year. The Keystone Reservoir if constructed will innodate part of the refinery and causing a dyke to be put up around the rest of the retinery Also the reservoir will cause a rerouting and relocation of the M. K. & T. Railway and Highways Nos. 64 and 99, which will make a longer route for transport truck to reach the refinery. They also state that they do not believe that a dyke be tween their plant and Cedar Creek will be satisfactory and prevent them from pumping 45,000 barrels of cooling water from Cedar Creek to their plant. They also state that they have 602 miles of gathering lines in the watershed of the proposed reservoir and that it would be difficult if not impossible, to get certain parts of their pipe-line system or for their gagers to get to isolated oil leases to gage and run the oil. They also point out that the main crude oil pipe lines handling hundreds of thousands of barrels per day and various oil companies will be inundated as well as the main gas line of the Cities Service Gas Co. and the products line of the Great Lakes Pipe Line Co. will have to be relocated. They also point out their company has invested approximately $200,000 in the water system to supply fresh filtered cool water for condensing purposes from water wells located in the sand bed of the Arkansas River. They do not believe that these wells can be operated, if the Keystone Dam is constructed, because the wells will be in the middle of water and mud, the silt will cover the bed of the lake by several feet and eventually plug off the water filtering into these weds through the sand bed from the river or lake. They wish to call your attention to the fact that they cannot use lake water because in the summer time the te perature rises sometimes as high as 90° and they need cool and clear water fer condensing gasoline vapors. Attached to this letter is a table showing a total of 416 oil wells which have a daily average production of 1,347 barrels which will he inundated by the proposed Keystone Reservoir; 416 oil wells are a few more than 188, and 602 miles of pipe lines is certainly more than 95 miles, which was 17tioned in the engineers' survey report, and I might call your attention to the fact that these wells, computing their value at a fair market price of $2,000 per barrel amount in value to $2,694,000. This damage or cost has not been considered by the proponents of the Keystone Dam. There is also another letter from the said Johnson Oil Co. disputing te words of the engineers when they stated that there has not been a new wid drilled since 1918. Attached to this letter is a statement showing 18 wells wer an initial production of 4,712 barrels which were drilled from 1938 to Febrai 1, 1949. These wells were drilled on the dates given, to the certain knowledge of the company, and will all definitely be inundated if the said dam is structed. I might say in passing that I learned just prior to my departure thi a new well came in near Keystone, Okla., along the river bank at a reputed ra of 500 barrels daily. In computing the amount of damages which will be caused by the consttion of the Keystone Dam, we would like to know how the engineers arrived at their figure in determining the amount of damages to lands, improvements 114 severance in the sum of $7,196,050, since to the best of our knowledge they .4 not thoroughly investigated the affected area? Therefore, we do not see as they are aware of the various and sundry kinds of improvements that we h on our lands such as water systems, barns, modern homes, type and lenz » fences, private roads, feeding pens, etc. Also, we wonder if this amoun cludes the great sum that has been spent in the said area partly by the CF : q States Treasurer and partly by the landowner in terracing, fertilizing, pod building, and in other conservation methods? Also, we would like to kv 2 this figure for land damages is based upon the 56,200 acres which will be lock under the flood-control pool or just a portion of that total area? Also, uf like to know how they arrive at such a low figure of $2,191,325 for the ar of damages accruing to mineral rights? Also, is the amount of $3304,683 mut for the protection of the town of Mannford based on present prices? Does estimated amount of $2,967,940 set up for legal, engineering, and overhead contingencies consider the amount that will be spent by the various Government agencies in developing the area for recreation, fishing, wildlife, and irrigation and for the United States Public Health Service to survey and install health measures? If these costs are not included, we believe they should be even though they will not be incurred by the Army engineers because they all pertain to the same project and all the expense will have to be borne by the Government regardless of the agency doing the work. Do the above figures for damage include the costs of condemnation suits? I believe I will be safe in saying that there will be a large number of such proceedings if the proposed dam is constructed. The cost of the Keystone Dam in the November 1, 1948, survey report is estimated at $84,200,000 for costs of construction and which a relocation of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad is estimated at $5,300,000 and interest charges during construction is estimated at $6,265,000, making a gross estimated total cost of $95,765,000. This is quite an increase from the original estimated costs of $28,000,000 on July 28, 1946, and $42,800,000 on April 19, 1948, but perhaps it should be still higher if interest charges are added to the work which will be done by the other Government agencies, referred to above. It is a question in our minds what will be the ultimate cost of the Keystone Dam because from various press releases originating from the district engineer's office it invariably appears that the original estimated cost of a project is greatly exceeded by the later and completed costs of the project. For instance, on July 15, 1946, the original estimated costs of the construction of the Hulah Dam was $6,400,000. On September 2, 1946, the estimated cost was $8,600,000. On September 22, 1946, the estimated cost was $9,150,000, and on January 20, 1948, the Government's estimated cost of the construction of a spillway and an earth fill for the Hulah Dam was estimated at $4,760,890 but the lowest bid that was received by the engineers was in the amount of $5,174,600, and the contract for the job was let at that price. The estimated cost on the Fort Gibson Dam was $21,435,000 on July 15, 1946, and $30,000,000 on September 15, 1946, and $33,000,000 on November 13, 1946, and $33,760,000 on June 22, 1947. The estimated cost on the Tenkiller Dam was $13,350,000 on July 15, 1946; was $22,000,000 on March 12, 1947, and was $24,250,000 on October 24, 1948. The estimated cost of the Wister Dam was $6,475,000 on July 15, 1946; and was $10,000,000 on November 13, 1946. The estimated cost of the Eufaula Dam was $55,000,000 on May 13, 1946: was $69,000,000 on March 2, 1948, and was $130.000,000 on December 22, 1948. In mentioning these figures, it is not my purpose to belittle the efforts of the Corps of Army Engineers for they have done, are doing, and will do wonderful work. But from a practical viewpoint, it appears they are not infallible, and also considering that but a short time ago the Mannford Dam was considered economically feasible, necessary, and fulfilling the purpose for which it was authorized by Congress, and considering this dam together with the Blackburn and Taft Dams were in the flood control and navigation schemes of the developtent of the Arkansas River Basin and were so recommonded by the Board of Army Engineers, and considering that today these said dams are no longer feasIble, is it any wonder that we laymen feel that the greatest possible consideration and investigation has not been made in the case of the proposed Keystone Dam? Suppose that the above-mentioned dams had been built, what then of the flooded acres, the lost production of farm and oil lands, the displaced persons? s the matter under consideration now, is the most serious, grievous and far reaching that will ever affect our lives or the lives of our children. We cannot treat the construction of a large dam lightly because it is a mistake which never can be remedied. To Considering all possible benefits that will accrue from the construction of the proposed Keystone Dam, I believe that the amount of slit which is carried by the water in the Arkansas River affects all of these benefits because this diment load which will be deposited in the completed reservoir will curtail the efficiency of the purpose for which the dam is constructed and curtail the andreet henefits such as recreation. I regret that I have no definite figures to give you on this sediment load of the Arkansas and Cimarron Rivers as well as the bed movement of sand in the said rivers. I know that the engineers have considered this problem, but in discussing this same problem with other engiI do not believe that an accurate determination can be made at this time of the expected amount of silt or bed movement of sand that will be deposited In the Keystone Reservoir. In this connection, on June 22, 1948, Col. C. H. Cephening made the following statement in the public press: "The proposed Keystone Dam had been engineered so that it could pay itself out in economic advantages before sand and silt reduced its effectiveness. The economic life of the Keystone Dam probably would be from 50 to 100 years. We do not deng that there is a siltration problem but it will be something our grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to worry about." At this point, may we point out that many of the home owners in the affected area homesteaded there from 40 to 60 years ago, and their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren still live there successfully pursuing their way of life on land that has not only paid for itself but has also produced many, many times its worth in oil and agricultural wealth. In the survey report we note that of the annual benefits claimed for the project in the amount of $5,645,000, $1,745,000 are from flood-control benefits. We believe that this figure is too large because the survey report of November 1 1948, reads as follows: "Floods occur annually in the Arkansas River Basin Those along the main river usually originate in the reach between the mouths of the Verdigris and the Fourche La Fave Rivers, causing damages in that reach and downstream to Pine Bluff, Ark., mile 111." This statement is further borne out by the analysis of the table in the survey report which shows the major floods on the Arkansas River. This analysis was given by us on April 19, 1948, before the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors at Gravelly Point, Va. This statement is also substantiated by numerous press releases concerning floods in Oklahoma. For instance, the floods of June 1948, which caused wide spread damage and the death of nine persons, came about by the flooding of small creeks. Neither the Cimarron nor the Arkansas Rivers were at flood stage within the reservoir area of the proposed Keystone Dam or at Tulsa We object to the inclusion among the possible benefits accruing from the con struction of the Keystone Dam the saving from flooding of so many thousands of acres of land in the area between the dam site and the back-water limits of the Mississippi River. We, therefore, object to the bringing into this report the full amount of the value of property in lives lost in these floods downstream on the Arkansas River as if the lack of the Keystone Dam was the sole cause We believe that the facts prove that the tributaries downstream from the Keystone Dam are the real cause of such loss. We admit that there would, of course, be some flood-control benefit but believe that such benefit would be negligible in considering the cost of and the purpose for which the proposed dam is to be constructed, particularly so since dams and levees have been, and are being, constructed above and below the dam site on the Arkansas and Cimarron Rivers and their tributaries, which will greatly assist the controlling of future floods. Furthermore, we cannot see much flood control in a reservoir that has to be kept full to assure ample water supply for power, for navigation, for irrigation, and for the various other reasons given for the construction of the Keystone Dam. We doubt that the annual benefits accruing for the hydroelectric power will be as large and as continued as alleged, due to the long periods of drought in the area of the Keystone Reservoir and due to the fact that scientists state that within a few years atomic energy can supply industry with power cheapis. We do not understand the annual benefit in the amount of $3,085,000 which is alleged to come from navigation due to reduction in the cost of the multipl purpose plan. We do not see how any benefit can accrue from navigation und | such a scheme is in operation. Whether or not such a billion dollar expenditure is ever made remains to be seen. Therefore, we feel that using this benefit counting your chickens before they are hatched and should not be allowe We also feel that the benefits which are claimed for recreation, enchant, rentals, etc., are too large. The dams like Ford Gibsin, Tenkiller, etc.. that are being built in the more scenic and clear water area of the State will alway appeal to the pleasure seekers, not only because they are being built first be also because they have a natural advantage over the Keysetone area and bey recreation is being stressed and considerable money is being spent in derezo ment of same at these places. There is also another hindrance to the derelice ment recreation which has very clearly stated by Colonel Corphening in Oerver 28, 1948, in the Tulsa newspaper, as follows: "Major problem affecting devek → » ment of recreation areas is construction of access roads. The Governve can only build the reservoir but no roads other than the one the engineers V using in the building process." We know that human sentiment does not enter into these hearings but reas ing what heartaches there are among the people back home, I must tell you that heavy and fearful load rests upon their mind and spirit because of the propos Keystone Dam. The area of the Keystone Reservoir is not one of transie |