Advantages of canal plan: Advantages of the canal plan over the levee plan are as follows: There is no opposition to the canal plan and both the city government and the State of Oklahoma prefer this plan over the levee plan. Precedent for requested action: North Little Rock, Ark. (p. 508, Public Law, ch. 415 (June 24, 1940), 54 Stat.): "Provided' further, That the flood-control project at North Little Rock, Ark., in Pulaski County, Ark., authorized by the Flood Control Act, approved June 22, 1936, shall be constructed in accordance with the revised plans and cost estimates now in the Office of the Chief of Engineers." This project was originally planned and authorized by Congress as a simple levee project estimated to cost $350,000. In the Appropriation Act above cited, which was the Civil Functions Appropriation Act of June 24, 1940, Seventy-sixth Congress, second session, the above language was adopted. The adoption of this language changed the project from a simple levee project to a combination floodway and levee project consisting of pumps and other appurtenant features not originally contemplated. The estimated cost of the revised plan was $515,000. Bayon Bodeau, Cypress Bayou Reservoir (on p. 860, Public Law, ch. 246 (June 28, 1939), 53 Stat.): “Provided further, That the reservoir and other flood-control works on Bayou Bodeau, Cypress Bayou, La., authorized by the Flood Control Act, approved June 28, 1938, shall be constructed in accordance with the revised plans and cost estimates now in the Office of the Chief of Engineers." This is the Civil Functions Appropriation Act of June 28, 1939, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session. The project as revised by this action of the Appropriation Committee is reported by the Chief of Engineers in his annual report of 1939, part 1, volume 1, page 928. The original authorized project consisted of a floodway at an estimated cost of $1,825,000. The revised project as authorized by the Appropriations Act above quoted consisted of a reservoir and levees at an estimated cost of $2,932,000. Senator KERR. I would like it very much if the Army engineers would submit a statement for the record on that. Colonel GEE. I would be glad to supply a detailed justification sheet for the record, Senator Kerr. Senator KERR. If it may be permitted, Mr. Chairman. Senator DowNEY. Yes, sir. Senator KERR. Then I would like to submit the suggested language of the amendment that we favor. Senator DOWNEY. It will be received and inserted in the record at this point. (The document above referred to is as follows:) SUGGESTED LANGUAGE The project for Oklahoma City authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1946 is hereby modified to provide for construction of the canal plan as presently proposed by the Chief of Engineers at an estimated Federal cost of $10,460,000. Senator KERR. And I introduced for the record the statement of the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce setting forth local plans for the support of the revised project on the basis of local participation. Senator DOWNEY. It will be incorporated in the record at this point. (The document above referred to is as follows:) Sator FIMER THOMAS, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: APRIL 30, 1949. Mayor Street has just wired you officially re local flood-control project. It is our understanding locally that Corps of Engineers recommend Federal participa tion of approximately $10,000,000 and local participation of approximately $6,000,000 on total cost of canal plan of approximately $16,000,000, and that this is basis of your committee deliberations. There is strongest possible local support of canal plan over levee plan because of much greater advantages to city despite greater initial cost. All evidence at public hearing supported canal plan. All local interests understand requirement for local participation and are prepared to take steps to provide that through bond issue when extent of local particip tion is determined. City has done a great amount of engineering work inde pendent of Corps of Engineers but closely coordinated with their work and are fully committed to canal plan. STANELY DRAPER, Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce. Senator KERR. Here is the statement from the Department of the Army which will be augmented by the further statement that they will supply. Senator DowNEY. The Army engineers' statement will be inserted in the record at this point. (The document above referred to is as follows:) Mr. DON MCBRIDE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Manager, Oklahoma Water Development Association, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. MCBRIDE: Reference is made to your meeting with Mr. Beard of this office on February 2, 1949, with regard to the Oklahoma City floodway project. At that meeting you stated that local interests favored the canal plan for Oklahoma City, but that you were uncertain as to whether Oklahoma City could provide local cooperation to the full extent set forth at the recent publie hearing concerning the project. You requested inforamtion as to the possibilities of reducing the local cooperation through application of Section 3 of the 166 Flood Control Act to the project or through legislative action. The project for Oklahoma City was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1946 in accordance with recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Hous Document No. 572, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session. Those recommen dations provide for construction of a leveed floodway through Oklahoma City "subject to the condition that local interests bear any incerase in the cost of the work which may result from changes in the plan made for the purpose of faciltating airport construction and other improvements by local interests; and to the condition that responsible local agencies furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (a) provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the project, including bearing the cost of necessary alterations of local highwa bridges, changes in power and pipe lines, treatment of oil wells and any lon works necessary for interior drainage of the protected areas except openings through the proposed leyees, (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works, and (c) maintain and operate all works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War, including supervision to assure that the flood-carrying capacity of the channel at the locality will be suitably maintained." The conditions of local cooperation stated above are essentially the coudr tions outlined in section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 except that the cos of "any local works necessary for interior drainage of the protected areas ener cpenings through the proposed levees" and certain possible modifications of th project contemplated at the time of the survey report to facilitate airpor construction were placed on local interests. The modifications of the project to permit airport construction by local interests are no longer contemplated. T> requirement with regard to local payment for the interior drainage still plaos the cost of pumping stations for the levee plan on local interests. No putapė 54 stations are required, however, for the presently proposed canal plan. The division of costs presented to local interests at the recent public hear was based on the estimated Federal cost of the authorized levee plan. In t event that the canal plan were authorized in lieu of the levee plan the Feder and local costs would be about $10,460,000 and $6,040,000, respectively. R believed that this division of costs would require additional legislation by the Congress modifying the project for Oklahoma City authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1946 to provide for construction of the canal plan as presently proposed by the Chief of Engineers at an estimated Federal cost of $10,460,000. Sincerely yours, RICHARD L. JEWETT, Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Acting Assistant Chief of Engineers for Civil Works (For the Chief of Engineers). Senator KERR. Then I would like to submit a brief statement with reference to the Optima Reservoir, an authorization now in existence, and an amendment which has been approved by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army engineers with reference to the operation of the Canton Reservoir. This I believe is a noncontroversial matter and one which I think has the support of everybody. Senator DowNEY. It will be received. (The document above referred to is as follows:) Insert on page 17, after line 20: "The Chief of Engineers shall so design and operate the Optima Reservoir, to be constructed at or near the Hardesty site, that, taken with the Fort Supply and Canton Reservoirs, there will remain available at all times, to the maximum practicable extent, 69,000 acre-feet of conservation storage capacity in the Canton Reservoir." OPTIMA RESERVOIR Economic justification of the Optima project is predicated upon realization of considerable benefits from irrigation development. These benefits cannot be realized under present provision for irrigation storage contained in 1946 Flood Control Act, which provides that 69,000 acre-feet of storage in the Canton Reservoir be allocated to irrigation use subject to encroachment by sedimentation. Sedimentation encroachment on irrigation storage will begin in about 30 years and resulting reduction in the $430,000 annual irrigation benefits, both to the Nation and to the water users, would begin immediately thereafter. The effect of sediment encroachment upon irrigation would be a gradual increase in irrigation water shortage, with commensurate reduction in the water users crop returns. Its effect Would be so extensive that the project would be unattractive to both the individual water users and to the Nation. Even if sufficient protection from sediment encroachment were given to irrigation to provide for full irrigation storage for a period sufficient to allow the water users to repay the cost of the irrigation project to the Government, the area would then be faced at the end of the period with the problem of slow abandonment of irrigation and the accompanying destruction of the area economy. It is therefore essential, in order to obtain the benefits upon which the Optima project was justified, to provide that a constant amount of irrigation storage be made available at all times to the maximum practicable extent. This can readily be accomplished, with the maximum realization of benefits from all purposes, by the design and operation of the Optima project in coordination with Canton and Fort Supply Reservoirs. Development of the Canton irrigation project without an assured storage provision has been impossible. With the Canton Reservoir now completed and in operation a large part of its conservation storage is being unused. For this reason it is urged that the recommended provision be made which will permit the development of the Canton irrigation project and, with it, a more complete utilization of the water resources of the entire North Canadian River system. Public, No. 761, Seventy-fifth Congress, third session, approved June 28, 1938 The general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Arkansas River Basin, as set forth in Flood Control Committee Document No. 1. Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, is approved, and for the initiation and partial accomplishment of said plan there is hereby authorized $21,000,000 for reservoirs; the reservoirs to be selected and approved by the Chief of Engineers: Provided, That this authorization shall include the Canton Reservoir on the North Canadian River in Oklahoma, as set forth in House Document No. 569, Seventy-fifth Congress, third session. Public, No. 526, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, approved July 24, 1946 The Chief of Engineers is authorized to provide in the Canton Reservoir on the North Canadian River 69,000 acre-feet of irrigation storage, upon the con dition that when siltation of the reservoir shall encroach upon the flood-control allocation the irrigation storage will be reduced progressively unless provision is made to raise the height of the dam or otherwise provide compensatory storage for flood control on the basis of an equitable distribution of the costs among the water users and other beneficiaries of conservation storage, as determined at that time. Public, No. 858, Eightieth Congress, second session, approved June 30, 1948 The second paragraph under the heading "Arkansas River Basin" in the Flood Control Act of 1946 is hereby amended to read as follows: "The Chief of Engineers is authorized to provide in the Canton Reservoir on the North Canadian River one hundred and seven thousand acre-feet of irrigation and water-supply storage (including approximately sixty-nine thousand acre-feet for irrigation and thirty-eight thousand acre-feet for municipal water supply for Enid, Oklahoma, to be utilized in accordance with section 8 and seetion 6, respectively, of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 (Public, No. 534, Seventy-eighth Congress), upon the condition that when siltation of the reservoir shall encroach upon the flood control allocation the irrigation and water supply storage will be reduced progressively unless provision is made to raise the height of the dam or otherwise provide compensatory storage for flood control on the basis of an equitable distribution of the costs among the water users and other beneficiaries of conservation storage, as determined at 1.hat time." Senator KERR. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that concludes the matter. Mr. GRAHAM. Except I would just for the record like to say that the Oklahoma Planning Resources Board does concur in the recommendations regarding both the Oklahoma City Flood Control project and the Optima and Canton Reservoir operation. Senator KERR. I think, Mr. Chairman, that lets us make a quorum call, if the chairman so desires. Senator DowNEY. Is Colonel Gee going to offer additional testimony? Senator KERR. He is going to submit a detailed statement. Colonel GEE. I simply wanted to state that the purpose of this amendment on the Canton Reservoir is to alter the present authoriza tion for conservation storage to support an irrigation project from that at present which is described as 69.000 acre-feet less whateve silt may be deposited in this reservoir, and make firm the conamitreen to have 69.000 acre-feet remain available for the support of that ingation district. It would be a mistake to let that district be constructed and then gradually see it taken out of action by the fact that its storage became filled with sediment. We will adjust the flood-control storage between Canton and other reservoirs upstream to provide the same degree of flood protection. Senator DowNEY. Very well. Senator KERR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now tomorrow if Chair will just recess the hearings on S. 1576 until a report is in from the Budget Department, I will appreciate it. Senator DowNEY. Very well, that will be done and the chairma expresses the hope that the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Louisiana can arrange some conference and compromise on their controversy. Senator KERR. I am perfectly willing to compromise with him on the basis that he indicated an agreement to do. I will compromise with him on any basis that can give him what he wants that will not take away from us what we feel we must have. Senator DOWNEY. Let the record emphasize and reiterate. In other words, if you both can agree on something that suits both of you, you are willing to compromise. Just a moment. Colonel Gee, here is a letter from Senator Cordon: There is pending before your committee a bill (S. 2194) to authorize the construction of a dam and dike to prevent the flow of tidal waters into the Kentuck slough, Coos County, Oreg. I shall be most appreciative if your committee will give consideration to the inclusion of this item in the omnibus public works authorization bill and, for your information, I am attaching report which was furnished to me by the district engineer in explanation of the project. Can you make a report on that and a recommendation? UNITED STATES SENATE, July 19, 1949. Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ, Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: There is pending before your committee a bill (S. 2194) to authorize the construction of a dam and dike to prevent the flow of tidal waters into the Kentucky Slough, Coos County, Oreg. I shall be most appreciative if your committee will give consideration to the inclusion of this item in the omnibus public works authorization bill and, for your information, I am attaching report which was furnished to me by the district engineer in explanation of the project. Sincerely, GUY CORDON. [S. 2194, 81st Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To authorize the construction of a dam and dike to prevent the flow of tidal waters into the Kentuck Slough, Coos County, Oregon Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That authority is hereby granted to the State of Oregon, acting through its highway department, and to the Kentuck Inlet drainage district, organized under the laws of the State of Oregon, to construct, maintain, and operate at a point suitable to the interests of navigaion, a dam and dike to prevent the flow of tidal waters into Kentuck Slough (Inlet) in Coos County, in township 25 south, range 13 west, Willamette meridian. SEC. 2. Work shall not be commenced on such dam and dike until the plans therefor, including plans for all accessory works, are submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army, who may impose such conditions and stipulations as they deem necessary for the protection of the United States. SEC. 3. The authority granted by this Act shall terminate if the actual construction of the dam and dike hereby authorized is not commenced within one year and completed within three years from the date of the passage of this Act. The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserved. Senator DowNEY. Very well; will you expedite it as much as possible? Colonel GEE. That report is in the process of presentation. It will be ready before these hearings close, Mr. Chairman. |