I C

WATERSHED PROJECTS

YLI

Wiz

3iNV

KSU LIBRARIES 

HEARING

GOVERNMENT BEFORE A

Storage SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WATERSHED PROTECTION

AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT (PUBLIC LAW 566, 83d CONG.)

.."*" AND THE PONY CREEK (IOWA) AND BRODHEAD CREEK

(PA.) WATERSHED PROJECTS

ru

-n

aSEPTEMBER 5, 1961 -o

Ln Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

751A WASHINGTON : 1961
't,4 •

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Louisiana, Chairman

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, South Carolina

SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Florida

JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Mississippi

HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia

WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin

B. EVERETT JORDAN, North. Carolina

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan

EUGENE J. McCARTHY, Minnesota

MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, Oregon

COTYS M. MOUSER, Chief Clerk

A

GEORGE D. AIKEN, Vermont

MILTON R. YOUNG, North Dakota

BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, Iowa

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota

JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky

J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATERSHED PROJECTS

HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia, Chairman

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky

II

P

•JV
WATERSHED PROJECTS

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1961

U.S. SENATE,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATERSHED PRO.TECTS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY

Washington, D .0 .

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 324,

Old Senate Office Building, Senator Herman E. Talmadge presiding.

Present: Senators Talmadge and Cooper.

Also present: Harold N. Ward and Stanley J. Haddock, General

Accounting Office.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Williams, we will proceed with your testimony while we are waiting for Senator Cooper.

As you know, heretofore the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee has approved these watershed projects somewhat on the basis

of the statistical testimony and the benefit-cost ratio as submitted to

the committee. But we have had some submitted to us that seemed

to be somewhat marginal. This is the reason we requested you to come

here today, Mr. Williams, because some of them seemed to have little,

if any, agricultural purposes. And we wanted to get the procedures

that you and your subordinates were using in initiating and approving

these projects.

So, will you please state your name and title for the record, and the

reporter will take down your testimony.

STATEMENT OF DONALD A. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR, SOIL

CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I am D. A. Williams, Administrator

of the Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture.

I do not have a prepared statement, but I would like to make some

informal remarks with respect to Public Law 566, its purposes, the

objectives of the law as it is now on the books as amended, and then

to attempt to clear up any points having to do with economic justification or any other items that you may care to cover.

Senator TALMADGE. You may proceed in any manner you wish, Mr.

Williams.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Public Law 566 was passed back in 1954, but had

its major amendments in 1956, which brought into the law purposes

which cover a broad field of interest. It has been amended since to

add fish and wildlife benefits. So that as it stands now, the law provides for watershed protection, flood prevention, agricultural water

management, fish and wildlife benefits, and municipal and industrial

water supply.

1
2 WATERSHED PROJECTS

The municipal and industrial water supply is included in the legislation, but does not provide for any Federal sharing of the costs of

installation. Similarly, recreation may be included within the concept of the work but, again, recreation has no cost sharing attached

to it from a Federal Government standpoint.

Senator TALMADGE. By that, you mean that the Federal Government will not participate with any Federal funds on any recreational

project?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Senator TALMADGE. But if it is contributed by the local interests

it will be contributed as a part of the benefit ratio?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Senator TALMADGE. And those benefits will be included whether the

bentfits are for private individuals, commercial, or for the benefit of

the public?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Senator TALMADGE. Proceed.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Originally, the Watershed Act conceived that there

were community-type projects of a water management and sediment

control point of view which could not be handled on the part of the

individual farmers and ranchers in a watershed area, the purposes

of which were to take care of this community water problem, such as

ordinary flooding problems, or lack of agricultural water, or a problem

of water management that was beyond the scope of the individual

farmers and ranchers within a community.

The law specifically permits benefits to all segments of the national

economy. It is not limited to agriculture. The projects may be entirely for urban protection; they may be partially for urban protection; they may be partially for agriculture, or wholly for agricultural

protection. While the law is administered within the Department of

Agriculture, it has as its purpose the general welfare of the entire

economy, and therefore is not agricultural legislation in the strict

sense of the word.

As amended, the law provides that any projects costing not in excess of $250,000 of Federal funds, or for which there is no single

structure which stores over 2,500 acre-feet of water, may be approved

administratively within the Department. That delegation has been

given to the Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service by the

Secretary of Agriculture.

So that, actually, I can approve any project that does not exceed

those limits.

Projects which exceed those limits must come to the congressional

committees for their examination, and there is a division between the

Agricultural Committees of the Congress and the Public Works Committees. Any work plan proposing a project that comes to the Congress which does not have storage in excess of 4,000 acre-feet in any

one structure will be handled by the Agricultural Committees of the

House and the Senate. Any projects that have 4,000 or more acrefeet storage in any single structure automatically go to the Public

Works Committees.
WATERSTTED PROJECTS 3

Under this general arrangement, of the administrative approval

of the smaller ones and the approval concurrence by the committees

of Congress, there have been up to August 21, 325 projects approved.

which are in operation in 46 States of the United States.

Senator TALMADGE. How many have been disapproved, Mr. Williams?

Mr. WILLIAMS. None have been specifically disapproved. There

have been some passed over by the committees, none passed over I believe, by the Public Works Committees. Six projects, as I understand. from the informal information I have from the House committee this morning, they have approved or concurred in all but six

of the watershed work plans which have been before that committee,

two of them from last year and four from this year, which I believe

are carried over without any position either as to disapproval or approval, but simply passed over.

There are some 1,600 applications that have been made by local

organizations across the country for assistance under this law. Approximately 40 of the State legislatures have amended their State

laws to permit the States or subdivisions of the States to participate

in this program. I am pointing this out to indicate for the record 

that there is tremendous interest, tremendous popularity in this program. In my judgment, this is one of the most comprehensive pieces

of conservation legislation that the Congress has ever enacted.

Now, in the process of administering the program, these are not

Federal projects, they are local projects with Federal assistance in

the forms of technical services such as engineering designs, or in the

form of grants to help carry out the project. The amount of Federal participation varies in accordance with the purpose.

The law specifically provides that for flood prevention the Federal

Government must pay 100 percent of the contract costs or the construction costs of flood prevention works, but that local interests, or

the non-Federal interests, must provide the costs of letting the contracts for construction, providing the easements, and rights-of-way,

and any expense associated therewith, providing any water rights or

things of that kind that may be involved. But the construction cost

of Lod prevention must be borne 100 percent by the Federal Government.

In contrast to that, agricultural water management such as drainage or such as providing some water for irrigation purposes, or farm

domestic water supply in a structure can be cost-shared by the Federal

Government commensurate with the beneficialies directly benefiting.

The administrative position on that has been that the cost sharing

under Public Law 566 for agricultural water management would not

exceed the rates of cost sharing under other comparable types of

legislation. For example, the Bureau of Reclamation administers the

Small Reclamation Project Act which provides that the Federal Government furnishes interest-free loans for irrigation structures which

is equivalent to a grant of approximately 50 percent of the cost.

Also, the long-term reclamation projects, by the time you compute

interest-free money for the duration of a project, will average

about 45 percent Federal and 55 percent non-Federal in terms of the

cost.
.4 WATERSHED PROJECTS

So the Department of Agriculture administratively sets the limits

that we would not exceed, approximately 45 percent of Federal costsharing on agrifailtural water management such as drainage, irrigation, and domestic water supply.

Last year the law was amended to incorporate fish and wildlife

benefits under the program, and under that authorization the cost

sharing may be up to 50 percent of the actual construction costs for

that purpose by the Federal Government, with 50 percent borne by

non-Federal interests.

As I 

industrial 

out earlier, there is no cost sharing involved in municipal or water, even though a goodly number of the projects

do have these purposes encompossed in them. For example, the Mountain Run watershed project down at Culpeper, Va., is one in which

there are several small dams, and in one of those structures, water has

been stored for municipal water purposes in addition to the flood purpose which was incorporated into the structure. Several hundreds of

acre-feet of water have been stored for municipal purposes, which have

helped the city of Culpeper and which has brought some industry

into the area, employing some 500 people.

But the cost of municipal and industrial water under the law now

must be borne entirely by non-Federal interest, including the engineering as well as the construction.

Senator TALMADGE. If I might interrupt at that point, Mr. Williams, for what specific purpose can one of these small watersheds be

approved now, and what is the limit of Federal and local participation? Start off with agriculture.

One could be built purely for agricultural purposes?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Senator TALMADGE. Then what would be the ratio of local and

Federal participation?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The ratio of participation, Mr. Chairman, is on the

basis of the purpose rather than whether it is agriculture or nonagricultural.

Senator TALMADGE. Say this is purely agricultural.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.

If it is purely agricultural, and if the project is put in for flood

prevention purposes only, assuming some channel works and flood

detention structures, then the construction cost of that is borne entirely

by the Federal Government.

That is also true whether it is nonagriculture. In other words,

there is no difference between agricultural benefits and nonagricultural benefits insofar as flood prevention is concerned.

For example, one of the watershed projects, the South Fork of the

Park River, I believe it is in Connecticut, was just recently approved.

There are no agricultural *benefits in that project.

Senator TALMADGE. Is that 100-percent flood control?

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is 100 percent for the benefit of the urban and

suburban interest, nonagricultural purposes. But the work that is

done on the land is done on land outside of the city boundaries. In

other words, it is the watershed area, some of which is forested, and

some of which is in cropland. But the benefits from the work in the

watershed area accrue entirely to nonagricultural interest in that particular watershed. So the structural costs associated therewith, both
WATERSHED PROJECTS

the channel work and the dam construction, are borne 100 percent by

the Federal Government, just as in the Corps of Engineers projects

for that purpose.

Now, let me go to the next step. Encompassed with the purpose

in many of the projects, practically all of them do involve flood protection. But, in addition, a high percentage of them do include some

additional purpose. A good many now include fish and wildlife benefits. And that, of course, is for the general public. It is by and large

a nonagricultural type of interest in which the non-Federal interest

will bear at least 50 percent of the construction costs. Some 25 projects, I believe it 

is, 

have encompassed municipal and industrial water

supply along with the structures for flood prevention. In other words,

the dams have been built bigger for that purpose. And that segment,

that increment of cost is borne entirely by non-Federal interests.

Senator TALMADGE. Are there any instances, Mr. Williams, if I

may interrupt here, where the cost-sharing for agricultural water

management is based on something other than direct identifiable

beneficiaries?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Department has established the administrative

regulation which would mean that the agricultural water benefits

would not exceed the rate of other going programs. In other words,

the Bureau of Reclamation cost of interest-free money on reclamation

projects will run around 45 percent costs to the Federal Government

over a 50-year period, just interest-free money and engineering work.

Now, the administrative decision was made that in no case will the

Federal Government under Public Law 566 exceed that same percentage, that is available under other types of programs. But it can

be anything from zero, let's say, to 45 percent, depending upon the

relationship between the identifiable benefits that are determined at

the time of the survey.

Now, two or three other general comments I would like to make,

Mr. Chairman. In addition to these several purposes which are involved, there are two primary phases of the work that is done on the

watersheds. First is what we call the land treatment or the conservation treatment of the lands in the watersheds. That may be forest

lands, grazing lands, croplands. And it consists primarily of the

kinds of soil and water conservation practices that would be carried

out through soil conservation districts, carried out with cost-sharing

help under ACP, and various other means.

The second phase are those things which are done for community

benefits beyond what the farmers and ranchers will do on their own

properties for conserving their own soil, which although the work

does provide a downstream benefit, needs to be supplemented by, let's

say, man-made devices, engineering structures in the tributary areas

for the solution of that community water problem, be it flood prevention agricultural water management, or whatever it may be.

So that the structural part of the program, that is the dams, channel work and things of that kind are the primary part that is financed from Public Law 566. The forestry land treatment phase is

being already taken care of very largely through Clarke-McNary and

the State government activities, on the cropland by ACP cost-sharing

as far as financial participation is concerned.

4
6 WATERSHED PROJECTS

So even though Public Law 566 permits the Federal Government,

from funds appropriated for the purposes of this legislation, to costshare on land treatment or conservation treatment on the individual

farms and ranches, it was the judgment at the beginning of the program, both at the Bureau of the Budget and within the Department,

that we should not do so but rather we would look to the annual ACP

and to the various other program phases of the departments to handle

the Federal cost-sharing on land treatment work, except in some

critically hazardous area.

Now, there are some cases of very critical sediment producing areas,

which are beyond the ability of local interests to protect, beyond the

financial ability of the local people, the farmers and ranchers, there

would be little income coming back to them. For example, a raw

hillside that is eroded so badly and is contributing sediment into the

water supply downstream and all the community facilities, that kind

of a problem which we call a special type of land treatment can have,

under our administrative policy, some cost-sharing by the Federal

Government from Public Law 566. But the common type of conservation work that is carried on by the farmers and ranchers through

soil conservation districts and ACP is still handled the same way,

and is not financed through 566, except for some acceleration of the

technical servicing so that the farmers and ranchers can receive their

conservation plans, can receive their layout help during the period

that this watershed installation is to be carried out. In other words,

under the formal conservation programs, that is, the soil conservation district, ACP, and so forth, it is a continuing annual type of

activity.

Under the watershed program each of the proposals proposes to

do a certain job, get a certain job completed within a specific number

of years, such as 5 years, in which a high percentage of all of the conservation land treatment in that watershed area would be completed

within that period as well as the structures completed.

Now, the law also provides that the Secretary shall determine that

the costs exceed the benefits. That responsibility of determining that

the project is worth more than it costs is one that the law specifically

provides to the executive branch, specifically to the Secretary of Agriculture, which has in turn been redelegated to the Administrator

of the Soil Conservation Service.

Now, as a practical matter, in terms of the computation of costbenefit relationships, in the first place let me say that it is far from

an exact science, it is something which varies considerably within the

various departments of the exceutive branch, but there is an overall

guide to it issued by the Bureau of the Budget called Circular A-47,

which establishes the broad guidelines for the economic evaluation

of water resource projects.

Senator COOPER. May I ask—what is that regulation ?

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is Circular A-47, of the Bureau of the Budget.

That establishes the guidelines for economic evaluation, whether

it is done by the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the

Soil Conservation Service, or any branch of the Executive—any part

of the executive branch.

In addition to the circular, which has been issued by the Bureau of

the Budget, the Secretary of Agriculture, through the administrative

•
WATERSHED PROJECTS 7

policy order delegating responsibilities to the Soil Conservation Service, has established certain administrative policies with respect to these

evaluations. The Soil Conservation Service has established the administrative procedures to which all of the projects are reviewed from

an economic standpoint.

Might I say this, Mr. Chairman, that the policy within the executive

branch—and this was not established by the law--the policy within.

the executive branch is to take into account only what we call the primary benefits. In other words, the direct benefits to beneficiaries for

any of these functions that were earlier named. We are not permitted

to take into account any secondary benefits such as something that will

improve upon the business in the community.

I mentioned this project at Culpeper, Va. Even though they

knew that that project was going to provide a water supply that would

help the labor and help the business in that community, that is a

secondary benefit from the project, and no benefits were claimed in the

project evaluation.

Similarly, even though recreation as a purpose may be included in

the project, there is nothing in the law that prohibits claiming benefits.

But in view of the fact that there is no Federal contribution to the cost

of recreation, analysis of the recreation benefits have seldom been

made.

So that we can say this, Mr. Chairman, in summary of my general

statement, the law is very comprehensive as to purposes, the most

comprehensive, I think, of any legislation.

Secondly, it provides many different functions, flood prevention,

watershed protection, municipal water, fish and wildlife, agricultural

water, and it is applicable to both agricultural and nonagricultural

areas. It is non-Federal. All projects must be initiated by local

organizations, they must be passed upon by the Governor of the State -

or the agency that he designates.

The contracts for doing the work must be awarded by a local organization rather than the Federal Government. Local or non-Federal

interests must provide those parts of the cost of the program which are

not specifically provided by the Federal Government such as land

easements, rights-of-way, cost of awarding the contracts, and so forth.

And, therefore, in this total picture we do encompass the same kinds

of problems that are dealt with day by day by the Corps of Engineers,

the Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies in the conservation

field that are dealing with water.

The same types of problems, the same types of cost-benefit determinations, those relationships are the same. The fundamental difference

is this: It is the nature of the work that is done to correct the problem.

And in the watershed protection it is reforestation, it is intensive treatment of the soil on the slopes

'

it is supplementing that with small dams

in the channel improvements in the tributary areas, where they will

prevent floods from happening instead of trying to deal with floods

after the floods are in the stream.

The programs of the Corps of Engineers in protecting urban areas

through levies, through large structures, is complementary to and

seldom competitive with what can be done in the watershed. There

are instances where it would be possible by such a complete treatment

of the watershed area, because of the topography, and so forth, that

75139--61-2
8 WATERSHED PROJECTS

it would minimize the need for levies within the cities, would minimize the need for large structures. But, basically, both are needed

in terms of a general program for a large river basin.

Senator TALMADGE. You view this program, then, as supplementary

to the public works program?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, in addition to, not covering the same purpose, and, therefore, supplementary.

Senator TALMADGE. Now, in these 325 projects that have been approved in 46 States, Mr. VVilliams, when they come to you for approval, do you review the worksheets and all of the data that has been

submitted to you and determine whether or not a good case has been

made out, and that the benefits will exceed the expenditures, and then

approve it on that basis alone?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. My staff in the Washington office makes

a detailed review of each of the watershed work plans. And to be

very frank about it, Mr. Chairman, in my position—or if I am away,

the Acting Administrator must review it—not from a standpoint of

all the details of economics or hydrology that went into it, we would

not be able to do that, but rather from the standpoint of the rule of

judgment, whether or not it appears to us that this project is fully

in keeping with the intent of the law, that there is substantial local

interest, that the responsibilities of the non-Federal interests, whether

they be State, county, soil conservation district, city, or whatever

it may be, that those responsibilities can be met, that there is evidence

that they can be met, that this is something that would be good for the

economy, that is, something we could be proud of being a party to, and

my administrative review is done on a brief or a synopsis of what

this proposal is.

Senator TALMADGE. Something like what is submitted to the Senate Agriculture Committee for approval, or is it more detailed than

that?

Mr. WILLIAMS. A brief analysis of the work plans as they come to

the Congress is made for me as well as for the Secretary, of those

that need to be transmitted to the Congress, a brief one-page analysis

is made setting forth who the sponsors are, what the local obligations

are, and what the obligations of the Federal Government are, what

the purposes are, and so forth, and what the cost-benefit relationships are, and any special problems.

Now, in going over this synopsis sheet, if I see anything that looks

particularly different about the project proposal from the normal

sort of thing, I then usually take it home with me at night and read

it, or we call a staff meeting and discuss it, dig into it further until

I am sure that I fully understand the conditions upon which the

proposal was made.

Senator TALMADGE. You go beyond the benefit-cost ratio in reaching your conclusions?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Absolutely.

Senator TALMADGE. Do either you or your Washington subordinates

review the detailed worksheet, for instance, on recreational benefits? It is my understanding that you allow no value whatever to

that.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.
WATERSHED PROJECTS 9

Senator TALMADGE. Flood control is a rather intangible thing. I

don't know whether anyone could determine the values specifically.

It would more or less have to be an educated guess, would it not?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, what is done, Mr. Chairman—I will come

back to the fact that these are local projects, and the very beginning

of interest, when they have a flood project in the creek valley, and

maybe a small town here on the tributary, ordinarily they set up a

local steering committee, probably a soil conservation district supervisor, a county commissioner, a town official, and the farm organization representatives—they get together and discuss this problem as

to what the nature of the problem is, how severe is it, is it something

that is of such importance to the community that they would like to

make an application to the Department of Agriculture under Public

Law 566?

If they are deeply concerned about their problem, they usually call

in one of our men, such as our State conservationist and area conservationists, to explain to them what are the opportunities under Public

Law 566, what can we do under that act we couldn't do with the normal

ACP or normal soil conservation district program. And if it looks

like the local interests have a real opportunity to do something, he

will discuss that with them as to the nature of the work that would

likely be involved, explaining to them that there would have to be a

survey made that could either be made by themselves or made by the

Soil Conservation Service at their request to determine the extent of

the flood damages, to determine the frequency of flooding, and all of

those things which have a bearing upon both agricultural and nonagricultural areas.

Senatof TALMADGE. If you get a project where it lists the value of

the control benefits, say, at $1,862,058.62, what yardstick do you use to

determine whether that was a reasonable benefit to apply in that

particular case?

Mr. WILLIAMS. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, we have a handbook of procedures which rules out the types of things which are

marginal or not supportable, in which the types of damages that are

recognized can be taken into account. And all of those things must

be tabulated in worksheets in arriving at the estimates that are carried

out.

Now, very frequently this local steering committee will make a

canvass of a community, a door-to-door canvass, finding out from each

farmer, each resident there, what damages he has suffered from recent floods or periodic floods, what his appraisal is of his damage. A

survey of that kind is frequently made.

Senator TALMADGE. If Farmer Jones says he is flooded each year,

and the land has been damaged to the extent of $632, is that accepted

as a fact?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Not without verification on our part. Our watershed work plan party, which is composed of a leader, an economist, an

engineer, and a geologist quite frequently, plus whatever other help

they need, will go into an area and take from the local steering committee the information that they have developed, review it and do

checking with respect to the reasonableness of it, and relate it to

water stages. It is one thing if the water just barely got over the land

and perhaps didn't do much damage. But if it went over quite deep
10 WATERSHED PROJECTS

and flowed quite rapidly over the land surface, particularly if it was

cultivated land, a great deal of damage might have occurred.

In getting the stage of the water with respect to the frequency of the

storm pattern that took place in that watershed, we ascertain the 5-year

frequency, 25-year frequency, 50, and a hundred, and so forth; the

kind of a storm that can only happen once in a hundred years, as the

Weather Bureau estimates.

Well, a 100-year storm is a big storm, a tremendous storm, one that

may have produced the kind of damages that could only happen in

that kind of a storm, as against one that will happen maybe every year

along the creek.

Senator TALMADGE. What you are saying, then, is that a technician

evaluates what his statement is and determines its accuracy?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Senator TALMADGE. Here is what this committee wanted to ascertain from you, Mr. Williams. This, as you know, is a very important

program throughout the country. It is popular with the members of

the Agricultural Committee. But there are hundreds and hundreds

of these projects coming through now, or will come through in the

future, 325, already approved, I believe. Here, for instance is a

project, the Brodhead Creek watershed work plan for Pennsylvania

in which 95 percent of the total cost will be paid by the Federal Government and only 5 percent by local and State authorities. What the

committee wanted to ascertain was whether or not people who are interested in many, many other projects in agriculture might be finding

out, "Here is an easy way to get what we want done let's call in these

folks, they do a good job, let's put the cost off on the Federal Government and build them a project that will provide water and bring

in a factory, and things of that nature."

Now, it may be worthwhile. But the only thought that occurred

in our minds is whether these appropriations that are charged, I

believe, for agricultural purposes ought to be used to a very great degree for nonagricultural purposes.

Do you think sufficient checks are being made on that at the present

time in carrying out the law and its intent there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I really believe so, Mr. Chairman.

Taking this 325 projects that I mentioned as having been approved,

an extremely high percentage of that is agriculture, because it is for

the protection of the lands up in these tributary areas being used for

agricultural purposes.

Senator TALMADGE. Actually, you couldn't get a project that controls water in some respect that does not apply to agricultural purposes. Most of them are multipurpose as well as agricultural?

Mr. WILLIAMS. A great many of them are; yes, sir. In this particular project, Mr. Chairman, the Brodhead project in Pennsylvania,

the map on the right on the board is of the watershed project area.

You see that is a rather large watershed. It is in the Appalachian

Mountain country.

It is quite similar, Senator Cooper, to the topography down in your

State, but this happens to be in the Northern States.

The bulk of the timber is hardwood, most of it not. commercially

producible hardwoods, but in 20 or 25 years with improved management it can be.
WATERSHED PROJECTS 11

One of the proposals under this watershed project is to help to

bring about improved forest management in that watershed, but that

will not be charged to Public Law 566 funds except for a certain

amount of technical aid through the State forestry agency. There

are cultivated lands in that area, largely in dairy, a little bit of orchards, but those lands are up in areas which are not significantly

damaged by the flood. Now, a real damage from a fast flash runoff

from that watershed is occurring to the rural settlements which we

might call urban—rural urban settlements—and to the small town of

Canadensas where nine lives were lost a few years ago and tremendous

damage was done at the confluence of several streams.

Now, the program that can be carried out on the Brodhead watershed is of improved forestry and protecting some severely eroded areas

and of constructing some retention dams up on the tributary area,

that is where the work must be done. It can't be done satisfactorily

down in Canadensas.

Senator TALMADGE. Let me ask you something specifically about

that project that worried this committee somewhat. Some of that

benefit ratio which the Government will not pay was for recreational

purposes. I understand that in that area is a resort, hotel, maybe, and

that is to be evaluated according to the sheet at about $21,000. It

was originally determined, I think, to be about $50,000, but the project

sponsors were only interested in paying between $15,000 and

$25,000. What is being done in situations where someone runs,

maybe a hotel, where the impounded water will be used for swimming

purposes by his guests and of course they can utilize that only if they

utilize the resort? What is being done in situations of that kind, for

instance? Maybe you know the details about that and would care to

go into the resort aspect of it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would like to discuss that, Senator.

First I would liken it to some of the problems in Senator Cooper's

area. This is not a good agricultural area, although there are a lot

of little farms scattered around on little pieces of ground in that

watershed area. But practically all of those farmers have to work

someplace, they can't make a living off the farm. One of the chief

industries in that section up there is the tourists. It is not just a water

area,not just in a little community, but that whole Appalachian area,

such as for fishing, winter skiing. And from the standpoint of the

development of that whole rural area up there, probably one of the

best things they can do is to have recreational opportunity for people

to come in there and spend their money and help the local business

and provide employment opportunity for those farmers who are parttime farmers.

Now, in connection with developing the proposed plan for flood prevention of Canadensas and the associated area, it was found that the

detention structures proposed were fully justified from a flood prevention standpoint. However, the Pennsylvania State Game and Fish

Commission, the Pennsylvania State Department of Lands and

Waters, expressed an interest that there be some further developments

in that area for recreational purposes.

We told them that we could not put any Federal money into recreation. So they said, Do you know if we can find non-Federal funds to

provide an extra increment of water in that area which will provide

additional recreation benefits?
12 WATERSHED PROJECTS

And our response to them was, "If it is not going to cost the Federal Government anything and it is an improvement to the area, we

think it should be done."

So that proposal has the full support of the State of Pennsylvania,

two of its main conservation departments, and there is only one structure that will involve this recreation feature, the other structures are

for flood prevention purposes only.

Now, I would like to ask Mr. Wetzel 

Senator TALMADGE. There is one question I would like to ask in

connection with that. How did your staff resolve the cost to be about

$21,000 when the field offices said the cost should be $50,000?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will have to ask Mr. Wetzel to respond to that.

Mr. Wetzel is Director of our Watershed Planning Division.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. WETZEL, DIRECTOR, WATERSHED PLANNING DIVISION, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. WETZEL. Mr. Chairman, that is dealing with two different

capacities insofar as the recreation is concerned. In other words, the

local people determined what the capacity, the amount of recreational

water which they desired to include in this structure.

Now, the allocation of costs between the Federal Government and

the local people on this multipurpose structure is based on the "separable-cost-remaining-benefits method," which is prescribed by this

circular A-47, wherein any savings that may result to either the Federal Government or the local people are shared jointly between the

two. In other words, they both have the advantage of the savings

that are created as a result of a multipurpose structure.

Senator TALMADGE. Now, will that recreational benefit in that area

be restricted to the people who are guests at these resorts, or how will

they use it? Will the public have the advantage of it?

Mr. WETZEL. Our policy, sir, is that the local organization, in other

words, the two soil conservation districts and the two county governments which are sponsoring this project will determine as to whether

the public will have access to this structure or not.

Senator TALMADGE. In calculating the costs for this multipurpose

structure by the separable-cost-remaining-benefits method, I believe it

was reported that the breakdown is as follows: The sponsors, approximately $50,000 Federal Government, approximately $340,000 the

sponsors represented, my information was, a resort in that area, and

were not interested in extra water at that cost.

They have indicated that they might be interested in a figure between $15,000 and $25,000.

Could you throw some light on that? What this committee wants

to know is, if tax funds are being spent to aid resorts in that particular

area and making this more attractive to paying customers.

Mr. WETZEL. Sir, the only way that I can answer that is to state

that this information was information back in the very early planning

stages when there was still no decision as to the capacity that would be

included in the structure for recreation. The figures as presented to

the committees are included in the work plan itself, ,which indicates
WATERSHED PROJECTS 13

that the benefits, the recreational benefits will be $21,000. And that

is the figure that has been presented to the committee.

Senator TALMADGE. Then you don't know who will be the beneficiary

of that $21,000, whether it be private customers of a resort hotel or

whether it be the public at large?

Mr. WETZEL. I don't think we can answer that, sir. The work plan

indicates that the operation and maintenance of this structure will be

handled by the county government in Monroe County, the county in

which the structure is located. It will be the decision of the local

people as to whether there will be complete public access to the structure or whether there will be limited access to the structure.

Senator TALMADGE. What I am referring to specifically here is two

memorandums, one dated October 4, 1960, in which the sponsors then

had approximately $50,000 of recreational benefits, with a total cost

to the Federal Government of approximately $340,000—a total of

$390,000. And then the worksheet dated March 1961, in which the

total cost was $390,101, but the recreational benefit at that time had

been written down from approximately $50,000 to $21,000.

Mr. WETZEL. I do not have access to those particular worksheets at

the present time.

The benefits on recreation 

Senator TALMADGE. Of course, in this project the recreation benefit

is a small item, whether it is $21,000 or $502000. But the benefit-costs

ratio is so close that the recreation benefit might throw it out of kilter.

Mr. WETZEL. No, the recreational benefits are not included in the

benefit-cost ratio. It is our administrative policy that we will assume

that the benefits from a recreational development will be equal to the

cost. In other words, the benefits may not exceed the costs.

Senator TALMADGE. It would affect the benefit ratio, would it not?

Mr. WETZEL. No. I don't want to get into details here, but table 8,

which is the benefit-cost analysis in this project, indicates that the $789

of recreational benefits shown in the plan have not been included in the

benefit-cost calculation.

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question here?

Senator TALMADGE. Surely:

Senator COOPER. In making your table up and calculating the contributions from local sources, do you add this recreational cost into

the table?

Mr. WETZEL. That goes into the table, sir, as a non-Federal cost.

Senator COOPER. As a non-Federal cost?

Mr. WETZEL. As a non-Federal cost, that is right, sir.

Senator COOPER. But you do not use that cost or any projected benefit in calculating the benefit-cost ratio?

Mr. WETZEL. That is right, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the benefit-cost ratio

for the project is—the project is justified strictly on a flood control

basis without the recreation interest benefit. The recreation benefit

is entirely a non-Federal cost, there is no subsidization on the part of

the Federal Government to it, it is something that is good for the community, supported by the State, the county, and the soil conservation

district, the county has been approved to supervise it and look after

it, and we think it is a good thing.
14 WATERSHED PROJECTS

Senator COOPER. May I ask one other question, just to follow this

point?

If this recreational contribution had not been made, the structures

that you would have built would in themselves have been sufficient for

your flood prevention purposes?

Mr. WETZEL. They would have had exactly the same amount of flood

prevention storage.

Senator COOPER. Then would there have been any recreational benefits along the course of the stream, without the addition of this $20,000

of funds?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would like to comment on that, Senator Cooper.

The answer is definitely "Yes." I don't know of a single watershed

project in America, but what there are some incidental recreational

benefits of a very substantial nature, because behind each of these flood

detention dams there is what we call a sediment pool which is kept

and preserved for sediment for 50 years. If the land treatment work

above the dam is carried out especially well, then this sediment pool

is going to last a lot longer than 50 years. And the flood storage is

in addition to that sediment pool.

Now, the sediment pool is providing an area of water, permanent

area of water for recreational benefits, swimming, boating, fishing, and

so forth.

But we haven't claimed a single dime of recreation benefits for any

of those in any watershed projects in the United States. Sometimes

we are criticized for not doing so. But we haven't.

Senator COOPER. I was sure that it would be your interest, and correctly so, that this kind of a project would have recreational benefits.

Now, I have one other question to pursue, and this is the point I come

to: The Federal cost for building these structures is $1,493,917. If nothing else had been spent, from what you have said, the recreational

benefits would have been available to the public without limitation.

Now, is it a proper thing, if this is the case, to take another private

contribution of $20,000 and limit the recreational benefits to the public,

and provide that that benefit can only be available to the patrons of

the particular hotel or establishment?

Do you see my point? If you spent over a million dollars on structures which will give recreational benefits to the public at large, is it good policy to take a few thousand dollars more and then say, "We have to limit the use of a part of this stream to a few people, or to

patrons of an establishment." Is that considered?

Mr. WETZEL. Senator, if this were only a flood control project— in other words, if the three reservoirs were built for flood prevention

purposes only, they would not have been available to public access automatically. The decision as to whether these sediment pools will be open to the public is entirely one of the local organization which has provided the land easements and rights-of-way and which either maintains title to the land or has taken the easements in their name. The Federal Government does not enter into this matter of whether there will or will not be public access to the sediment pools or to this particular recreational capacity.

Now, in contrast to that, I might point out that if there were fish and wildlife capacity included in there on which there was Federal cost sharing, one of the prerequisites for that Federal cost sharing is that the reservoirs must be open to public access.
WATERSHED PROJECTS 15

Senator COOPER. You follow in a way some of the policies of the

Corps of Engineers, where the corps retains some rights to open

areas, either for the public or to set them apart for private use, and

then you leave it to the local authorities to determine whether a particular stream shall be opened up for public use or shall be part public and part private as the local government may determine. Is that

correct?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think the main difference, Senator, is that in the

Corps of Engineers projects, which are large dams, the actual land

easements are acquired by the Federal Government, it is Federal

property. So it is up to the corps to administer the area.

Now, in these projects the Federal Government never acquires title

to anything. It is merely a financial contribution toward a local

project. The land, the easements, the rights-of-way are always in the

hands of the local people, the local organizations, the county government, and the soil conservation districts and so on. It is the one that

has paid for that easement or acquired that easement. Therefore,

it is its property.

Senator TALMADGE. What you are trying to say is that even if the

Federal Government builds the dam they don't own it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Senator TAL1V1ADGE. Without objection, I will place a statement in

the record at this point from Representative Francis E. Walter of

Pennsylvania on the Brodhead Creek project.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT FILED BY HON. FRANCIS E. WALTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE 15TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Brodhead Creek watershed work plan proposes the installation of a combination of land treatment measures and four floodwater retarding structures

primarily for the purpose of reducing flood damages and the hazard to life in

the Pocono Mountain tourist resort area centering around Canadensis, Pa. One

structure will also provide capacity for a recreational lake.

The estimated installation cost is $1,574,920 of which $49,358 is for land

treatment and $1,525,562 is for the structural measures. Public Law 566 funds

will bear about 95 percent of the installation cost and other funds about 5 percent. The evaluated monetary benefits will exceed the estimated cost by a

ratio 1.2 to 1.

The benefit-cost ratio includes only the estimated benefits and costs for flood

prevention. The recreational benefits were not actually evaluated but were

assumed to be at least equal to the cost of such development. There is no doubt

but that the recreational value of a 'permanent lake in this resort area would be

considerable and would constitute a substantial additional tourist attraction.

Another benefit of a similar nature that was not evaluated is the improvement

in the appearance, economy, and stability of the area that will come about when

the threat of recurrent serious flooding is removed. As tourists find that their

visits to this area will not be disrupted and spoiled or their lives be jeopardized

by floods, the number of visitors will increase. Similarly, resort owners can

be expected to make substantial and more durable improvements to their businesses as they realize and appreciate that catastrophic floods no longer pose a

threat.

Nine persons lost their lives in this watershed during the flood of August 18,

1955. No attempt has been made to place a value on the prevention of similar

or even worse incidents that can happen again if flood protection is not provided.

Since the tourist season coincides with the flood season, the flood hazard to life

is especially acute in this watershed.

I am sure that every Member of Congress, both in the House of Representatives

and the Senate, will favor flood protection to flood relief. And flood protection

is what is definitely provided. Money spent for flood relief does nothing except

replace something that already existed.
16 WATERSHED PROJECTS

Isn't it true that a dollar's worth of protection can be expected to pay for

itself time and time and time again.

I cited the fact that nine persons died from the flood of 1955. Actually, 71

persons died in that immediate area as a result of the flood. As soon as the

water spilled its banks in Brodhead Creek, the raging water surged through

Camp David and literally tore apart Stroudsburg and East Stroudsburg and

washed away millions of dollars of property in the Pocono Mountain area.

I ask how can anyone evaluate the cost benefits of such a watershed project?

Certainly we can't put a price tag on a human life.

Agriculture is of minor importance in this watershed. For this reason, no

attempt was made to evaluate agricultural benefits resulting from the watershed project.

Public Law 566, as amended, is specific in its requirements for cost sharing

between the sponsoring local organization and the Secretary of Agriculture.

For this reason, cost sharing for flood prevention purposes cannot be negotiated.

The local organization must install the necessary land treatment measures;

bear the cost of necessary land easements and rights-of-way, do the contracting,

and operate and maintain the project after it is installed. The language in the

act prevents the local organization from paying any of the construction or

engineering costs for structures when the purpose is limited to flood prevention.

In the Brodhead watershed, the cost for land, easements, and rights-of-way

is unusually low. This fact is explained by the following:

1. Most of the land that will be occupied by the structures and retarding

basins has little or no agricultural value.

2. The floodwater retarding sites do not now contain any buildings, roads,

railroads, or pipelines requiring relocation. When such facilities need to be

relocated, this is a required non-Federal cost.

3. Because the structural sites are located in deep, steep-sided valleys, the

land area required for the four structures amounts to less than 170 acres. This

is approximately one-third the area required for four structures in an average

watershed.

In contrast to the low local costs, the costs which the Federal Government

must bear are unusually high in this watershed. Construction and engineering

costs for the structures are estimated to be considerably higher than the national average for the following reasons:

1. Because of the coincidence of the tourist season and the flood season, these

structures must be as near failure-proof as engineering skill can make them.

Emergency spillways will be either excavated in rock or constructed of reinforced concrete. They will have capacities to pass the probable maximum flood.

Such a flood is computed to be several times as great as the maximum flood

that has been experienced.

2. The proposed structures in the Brodhead watershed will require about

250 yards of embankment for each acre-foot of capacity. This is about 3.5

times the national average of 73 cubic yards per acre-foot.

3. The estimated construction cost of the Brodhead structures amounts to

$1.10 per cubic yard of embankment in contrast to a national average of $0.72

per cubic yard.

4. The combined effect of items 2 and 3 is an estimated construction cost in

the Brodhead more than five times greater than the national average for equivalent capacity. This relationship also holds true on an area basis. The average

cost of structural measures for all approved watershed projects throughout the

country is $14.50 per acre of watershed. For the Brodhead watershed the comparable figure is $82 per acre.

Some of the same factors that cause the structural costs to be unusually high

in the Brodhead watershed also cause the land treatment costs to be unusually

low. The mountainous nature, stoniness, and heavily wooded character of the

Brodhead Creek watershed limits the need for an extensive land treatment program. For this reason, landowners and operators cannot make the same contribution to the watershed project by installing land treatment measures as in

the typical watershed with large amounts of open land. The cost of installing

land treatment measures amounts to about $8 per acre in a typical watershed.

The comparable figure in the Brodhead watershed is $2.65 per acre.

These are some of the factors that explain rather unusual cost-benefit relationships in the Brodhead watershed.

Also, a check with the Agriculture Committees of Congress 'shows that 17 of

the 132 watersheds plans recently approved have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2 to 1
WATERSHED PROJECTS 17

or less. In other words, 13 percent of the watersheds have benefit-cost ratios

less than the Brodhead Creek watershed.

Senator TALMADGE. Any further questions, Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. If you don't mind, I have a few questions.

Senator TALMADGE. Go right ahead.

Senator COOPER. There will be a little repetition. But as you have

said, and I think you are correct, this is a very broad legislation. And

I am trying to find out what our duties are with regard to this.

First, I understand you would have authority under the act, if the

act is construed literally, to approve a watershed project whose sole

purpose was flood prevention or control.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Correct.

Senator COOPER. If there were no other works in the project concerned with the use and conservation of water for farmlands, or with

fish and wildlife, or anything else, you would just approve it for flood

prevention control?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right.

Senator COOPER. In that case, the Federal Government would pay

the entire cost except rights-of-way?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Of the structures, yes.

Senator COOPER. Now, you could also approve works which would

conserve and utilize the water for the improvement of land, fish and

wildlife resources?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Senator COOPER. In that case, would the Federal Government pay

, the full cost for any structures?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The Federal Government shares the cost there, but

it is approximately 50-50 on that type.

Senator COOPER. As you said, the rule of local contribution would be

comparable to other governmental programs.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right.

Senator COOPER. Now, you said awhile ago, that you had the authority to approve a project, the purpose of which was to provide

municipal or industrial water supply; is that true?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right, except that there is no Federal participation in the cost of that feature.

Senator COOPER. Now, is that the law, or is that a rule or regulation?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the law.

Senator COOPER. Now, where is the law which says that you shall

not provide 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I shall ask Mr. Adams to refer to that. Mr. Adams

is with our General Counsel's office, Senator.

Senator COOPER. It is not in the Watershed Act, is it?

STATEMENT OF L. N. ADAMS, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, it is in the Watershed Act.

First it is in the broad purpose of the conservation, development,

utilization, and disposal of water. We think that is broad enough to

cover municipal industrial water supply. But then municipal and

industrial water supply is specifically set out in section 5 of the act,

if you have a copy of the act.
•

18 WATERSHED PROJECTS

Senator COOPER. Another question, Is it correct that the local contributions which you credit could eventually involve contributions

from other Federal programs or agencies? For example, if land

treatment practices were carried out under the ACP program you

would eventually have a Federal contribution—the farmer would

receive Federal cost-sharing in developing his own land, would he not ?'

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Senator COOPER. It seems to me that under this act that you have

very broad authority regarding the purpose of these watersheds: to

allocate costs to different structures and different works in a watershed project;to enter into agreements with other Federal agencies

or local agencies for apportionment of costs, and you have the authority to determine whether a project meets the cost-benefit ratio.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is the authority given by the law to the Secretary of Agriculture which he has in turn delegated to the Administrator of the Service.

Senator COOPER. My final question, then is, What do you consider

the role of the Committee on Agriculture to be if you find that all

of the steps have been taken properly? The local organization has

submitted its application, and the State has either approved it or

failed to disapprove it within 45 days, and you have reviewed it, and

find that it is proper under the act and that the cost-benefit ratio is

met. What criteria or what basis is there for the appropriate committees of the Congress, when it comes before us under the act, to

approval in the absence of some evidence of fraud or failure to

properly carry out your duties? I can't see what our authority is

unless we just arbitrarily say, "We don't like this particular project."

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would like to make this comment, Senator Cooper.

First of all, let me say that I concur that it would be extremely

difficult for any committee of Congress to, even if it wanted to—and

I am sure it does not—to administer or enter into the administration of

the act. At the same time I feel that it is very desirable that a subcommittee has been established to familiarize themselves with the

program and its concepts and where it is going, where it is leading.

The types of things that should be done, and to review programs and

what its limitations are. We know this thing is not static.

For example, Senator Cooper, there have been proposals made, not

in specific bills in this session, but there was a bill a year ago, I think,

by Congressman Sikes, of Florida, if I am not mistaken, to include

recreation as a purpose under this bill. And if that were done, then

the Federal Government could share in the cost of recreation per se.

Now, when that came up—I believe it was about a year and a half

ago, wasn't it, Mr. Adams

Mr. ADAMS. In 1958.

Mr. WILLIAMS. In 1958, 3 years ago—at that time the Department opposed Federal participation in the recreational cost. But

there is an example of something which perhaps by the review of these

projects by the Congress, particularly the unusual types of things, that

some of the needs of improving upon the legislation, some of the needs

of the country as a whole in this whole water resources field can be

better understood and better coped with.

Therefore, personally, I welcome the committee of Congress taking

a look at these things and raising questions about them. I think

it is good.
WATERSHED PROJECTS 19

Senator COOPER. I agree with that. But assume that the act's purpose was extended to cover recreational purposes. I think that the

whole problem of the value of the project would be enlarged and

extended.

This hearing has enlightened me a great deal. I have been under

the impresion that the primary purpose of the Watershed Act was

concerned with the improvement of the farm lands and timber resources, and the things which concern the land, such as fish and wildlife resources. But now it appears that there is no limitation under

the law upon projects which have nothing or little to do with the

improvement of the lands or some overall agriculture program, many

projects come close to the programs of the Corps of Engineers, and

the field of community facilities. And it does seem to me that it

is pretty hard, and it is going to be increasingly hard, to draw any

line.

Senator TALMADGE. Senator Cooper, I am sure you have studied it.

It states on page 1 that—

In the case of any plan involving no single structure providing more than 4,000

acre-feet of total capacity, said committee should be the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry of the Senate, the Committee on Agriculture of the House

of Representatives, and in the case of any plan involving any single structure

-of more than 4,000 acre-feet of total capacity, then the appropriate committees

should be the Committee on Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on

Public Work of the House.

So the act arbitrarily says that these committees that we represent

here have to approve them in the event the project involves less than

4,000 acre-feet of total capacity. And beyond that point, they deem

it to be a public works project, and then it goes to that committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Senator TALMADGE. I assume that the committee is authorized

under this act to say yes and no and is the final authority on these

projects.

• Senator COOPER. I agree with that. But my question is, What are

the criteria in the act upon which we should base such a determination?

The act provides that—

prior to any Federal participation in the works of improvement under this

act, the President shall issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary

or desirable to carry out the purposes of this Act, and to assure the coordination

of the work authorized under this Act and related work of other agencies, inoluding the Department of Interior and the Department of the Army.

It would seem to me that indicates that the President—and I assume the Department of Agriculture or the Soil Conservation Service to whom this power would be delegated—has the authority to

provide the criteria for the operation of the act. Have there been such

regulations established to set out any criteria or standards under

which you administer this act.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Right after the act was passed—in fact, on

December 18, 1954—Executive Order No. 10584 was issued by the

President which took note of the Public Law 566 and prescribed to

the Secretary of Agriculture the responsibilities to administer the

act. In turn, the Secretary of Agriculture issued regulations which

provided for delegating his responsibility for the administration of

the act to the Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service, and

set forth certain policy criteria within his delegation to guide me in
20 WATERSHED PROJECTS

my administration of the act. In other words, the Secretary established certain criteria within his regulations which were not in the

law per se.

Those, from my standpoint, have had just as much effect essentially

as the force of law. In addition to that, the Bureau of the Budget

in this circular A-47 has set forth the criteria by which the economic

evaluation must be made. So actually it boils down to, while I have

got a good bit of judgment to exercise, nevertheless by the time these

policies are met by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Bureau of

the Budget, in addition to the provisions of law, there are certain

pretty clearcut things that must be met and which can be done. There

is not a whole lot of latitude of wandering off the course there.

Now, when it comes to appraising the individual project, we talked

about this technical appraisal of what the local people had presented.

Mr. Wetzel just handed me this sheet here.

We had up until August 30 received from all over the United States

1,555 applications for help under this act. I had approved 673 of these

for some kind of planning help, not construction, but some planning

help. Of that 673 that I approved for planning, we found that 112

of them were not sufficiently meritorious to proceed with them. In

other words, certain claims made by local interests were not substantiated, the benefit-cost ratios were not adequate, they were inconsistent with some provisions of the act, or for whatever the reason

may have been. So that we have screened out 112 out of 673 in process.

The only ones that have come from me through the Secretary of

Agriculture, through the Bureau of the Budget and to the Congress,

are the ones that have met all of these tests of our own criteria of the

Secretary's policy of the Bureau of the Budget's criteria for evaluation, and have come to the Congress as something that we think is

good and fully in keeping with the law.

Now, in further response to Senator Cooper's question, Mr. Chairman I would like to make a suggestion. I realize that this is late

in the session this year, and that the opportunity to develop the

criteria that Senator Cooper has suggested here before you adjourn

this session is very limited. But I would like to suggest that by the

time you reconvene in Congress next January we have developed some

suggestions of criteria that we might bring to you some day in your

subcommittee in executive session and discuss.

Senator TALMADGE. You do that. It would be well. I am sure

that Senator Cooper and Senator Hart are laboring under the same

problem I am. We get a report to act on, and the areas in acres to

benefit are given, the benefit ratio is given, the amount of funds to be

put up under Public Law 566 is given, the percent of Public Law 566

of the total cost is given, the other funds are listed, and the total cost

is given. And we are asked to vote yes or no on such a project. Of

course no Senator can utilize great intelligence in voting yes or no on

such a project, because he must take as evidence something that he had

no part in evaluating, and he doesn't really know what he is evaluating and what he is not evaluating. And in that situation we really

have to vote yes or no. If we could have something that was more

detailed than that, I think we could probably go into this to better

advantage for the taxpayers of the country, don't you, Senator

Cooper?
WATERSHED PROJECTS 21

Senator COOPER. Yes. And I recall that when the program first

started, at least, it was hoped that the basis would be about 50-50;

that the Federal Government would pay the cost at about that level,

and there would be larger contributions that would pay the other

half. That hope was expressed, though not written in the law.

Senator TALMADGE. We are going to have to act in a few minutes.

Here are some projects here—here is a Georgia project which happens to be just 43 percent cost to the Federal Government. And we

go down the line, and here is another project, Wisconsin, with 80

percent cost.

Senator COOPER. The Congress itself changed the possibility of

approximately equal sharing of costs when we provided that the

Federal Government must pay the full cost of these flood control

structures.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right, in 1956.

Senator COOPER. But it seems to me that we are going to reach the

place where there are going to be more and more of these high Federal

cost projects.

Senator TALMADGE. The local government wants the Federal Government to pay all of it.

Senator COOPER. All but a little. And that is going to make our

problem very difficult.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I want to supplement what I said about developing

criteria. We are going to make an effort to do that. •

I would like to point out my problem in doing this. You have two

Committees of Public Works and two Committees of Agriculture, all

of which deal with various ones of these projects. It is extremely

difficult for us to explain to local people what the unwritten requirements are of the Congress.

Now, let me illustrate. This committee has not established any

criteria to date which you will approve or disapprove. The House

Public Works Committee has held hearings on practically every

watershed project and, they have looked favorably, I guess, on all

of them, in the final analysis, haven't they ?

But there have been certain types of questions that have been raised

that needed explanation, and So forth. In the House Agriculture Committee, the subcommittee, has established some unwritten criteria

for the approval or disapproval of projects, but it is not in the law,

it is not in the regulations. But when we try to explain to a local

organization, a county government, or whatever it might be, that

these are the requirements of the law, these are your opportunities—

now, if it goes to the Public Works Committee, why they will ask

certain types of questions, they are interested in certain things, and

if it goes to the House Agriculture Committee, they have their own

criteria.

Now, it would seem to me in the interest of good administration and

the interest of these people out there who are putting up some of

their own money that there ought to be some way we can explain

this to them so that it will make sense and be consistent. It is a very

difficult problem from our standpoint.

Senator TALMADGE. These 325 projects that you have approved

to date, they have also been approved by the respective committees

of the Congress, Agriculture, and House Public Works, as the case

may be?
22 WATERSHED PROJECTS

Mr. WILLIAMS. There is a small percentage of them that I have

ad m inistratively approved.

Maybe you know, Jack.

Mr. WETZEL. About 15 percent.

Mr. WILLIAMS. About 15 percent, Jack says. In other words, about

50 projects that I have administratively approved so they don't have

to come to Congress.

About what percentage have gone to Public Works?

Mr. WETZEL. It is in the neighborhood of 20 percent.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Of the projects which have come to Congress that

have gone to the Public Works?

Mr. WETZEL. Yes. By far the vast majority of the projects come

to the Agricultural Committees.

Senator TALMADGE. And have they all been approved by the committees heretofore, or have any of them been disapproved?

Mr. WETZEL. There have been no projects disapproved. There is

some question as to just what the authority in the law would be, since

the law only requires that they be approved. Now, there are two that

have been approved by the Senate during the last session that have

not as yet been approved by the House Agriculture Committee. There

are four projects that were submitted to the Congress during this

session that have not as yet been approved by the House Agriculture Committee or—I believe all four of those have not been approved

by the Senate also. There are six projects that have not been approved, though they have not been specifically disapproved.

Senator TAL1VIADGE. Any further questions, Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. One other question.

We have talked about this before. I came and talked to you about

this problem. It is a problem in my own State. Of course it is

easier to find a favorable cost-benefit ratio in the richest parts of our

State. I won't say they need soil and water conservation less, for

•they do need it. But in the sections of our State which most need

agricultural development—because the value of the land itself is

less, because it is hilly—you can't get a project approved in the very

parts of the State where this program would do great good. In the

eastern part of my State, which is a depressed area which I can't see

much hope for except in agricultural development and timber development, I believe we have had two projects—we had one approved, and

one is still hanging over here in the House Agriculture Committee,

although it meets the cost-benefit ratio. But we can't do anything

about that, it is a decision of the House.

Of course, this involves our whole cost-benefit ratio that we are

talking about today. But is this program limited in the sense that

it is not easily available to sections of the State and the country

which it would benefit very much?

Mr. Williams. I think there are limitations in here in it, Senator

Cooper. The very fact that you have the benefit-cost relationship

involved in it is a limitation, though I think it is a good principle to

have. But the computation of the benefit-cost ratio has always been

a highly controversial thing.

It has been argued at great length as to what you take into account

and what you don't take into account in computing benefits. As I

mentioned earlier, we are not permitted in the Department of Ag-
WATERSHED PROJECTS 23

riculture—and this is one of the policies established by the Secretary at the time Public Law 566 was passed—to take into account

any secondary benefits, they have to be the primary benefits. We

can't take into account the benefits that accrue to business, and so

forth, by an improvement there.

Now, it is more difficult to have a satisfactory or a 1-to-1 benefit.

cost relationship in those sections of the country in which the topography is steep, in other words, cost of storage is high, and your

costs are high, and with your little narrow creek channels and river

valleys you have got a long, strung-out acreage here and perhaps only

a small acreage benefiting from those structures. Therefore that

relationship there is basically against you to start with, you see.

Now, you get into this entire Appalachian part of the country all

the way from Maine on down, and in the foothills you get into steep

topography, you get into a type of land, a type of ownership pattern

in which it is very difficult to establish a favorable benefit-cost relationship.

Now, Marsh Creek project in your State is one which in our judgment is a good project. The Senate approved it. And it is a project that is being held up in the House. It is a high cost per acre

for the number of acres protected, but it is still a very favorable benefit-cost relationship. We think it would have done a great deal to

help the economy of that community.

We would like to have seen it approved, because it would help not

only the small farms but it would help community business. And it

had a favorable benefit-cost relationship, it met all the qualifications

of law.

Senator COOPER. 1.7 to 1.

Mr. WILLIAMS. But because it had a high cost per acre for the

number of acres benefited it has been held up.

Now, that is a little of what I was referring to.

Senator TALMADGE. Any further questions, Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. No.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams, for coming with your staff. You have shed a great deal of light on this

proposition for this committee.

There are two projects that this committee held over to look into

further. One of them is the Pony Creek project in Iowa, and the

other one is the Brodhead Creek watershed project in Pennsylvania.

Are you convinced in your own mind that both of them are worthy

projects and ought to be approved by this committee?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am, sir.

Senator TALMADGE. Would you go just hurriedly into this Pony

Creek situation?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would like to step over here to the map, sir. And

also we asked one of our fieldmen who is an economist, Mr. Meyer, who

flew in from Iowa yesterday with the complete documentation of the

cost-to-benefit calculations, and so forth, to come with us in the event

you want the details.

But this is the Pony Creek watershed area [referring to map].

Two counties are involved, but one county, Pottawattamie County, is

just this little upper section here.
24 WATERSHED PROJECTS

Now, there is a -U.S. highway which comes down through here,

U.S. Highway No. 275. It so happens that that highway was located

topographically so that the land area just above it, the slopes are

much gentler, the problem can be largely taken care of by the farmers

on their own farms by terracing, strip cropping, and things of that

kind. The slopes are not precipitous.

Down in this section here, when we get right down to the very edge

of the bluffs of the Missouri River, you are in a very steep topography

with irregular slopes, deep gulches, and it is highly erosive. And

this section is all gullied to pieces with gullies 40 to 65 feet deep and a

hundred or more feet in width at the bottom, extending up through

this section.

Now, that gullying problem is ruining these farms in that section.

From this entire watershed down to this green area here, which is the

river bottom flats of the Missouri River, and which has now been protected from major flooding by the Corps of Engineers' structures on

the main Missouri River, this is choice agricultural land, some of the 

choicest land that there is down in this section. Annually over 400,-

000 tons of sediment are coming out of just this watershed down into

this land, the finest land they have.

Now, farmers living in this area down here have been trying with

their own efforts to provide an outlet channel over to the Missouri

to take care of overburden water above them and the sediment, but

every time they put in a channel it fills up with sediment.

So that this proposal, Mr. Chairman, about Highway 275, the only

thing that would be involved in it is the intensification of the soil

conservation practices by the farmers in that area with the normal

ACP type of cost sharing.

Highway 275, in order to handle overburden water coming down

from here, and to stabilize these gullies, there are proposed some

structures, some engineering devices in places in these gullies to hold

back-the sediment that is otherwise ruining this area down here.

Now, the floods and the sediment coming down here, this is the

main area of deposit, but this section between the highway and the

bluffs is just going to pieces in terms of this gullying situation. And

is beyond the control of those landowners in this area to handle. So

this proposal on Pony Creek project is to put in some structures,

which will be quite costly, to keep these gullies from going deeper and

spreading, thereby protecting the farmland that is remaining, and

to supply a stable base so that these gullies will not eventually eat

their way back up into this upper section, and at the same time this

400,000 tons of soil that is going down here to cover the highways and

the railroad bridges, and so forth, will be stopped.

So that is what this project proposal is. It is true that the costbenefit relationship—which I guess is only 1.12 to 1 

Mr. MEYER. 1.18 to 1.

Mr. WILLIAMS. 1.18 to 1.

Now, as far as any details of how that is arrived at, Mr. Meyer

can answer the question. But in my judgment, Mr. Chairman, this

is a good investment, not only for the local people, but the Federal

Government, to correct that situation.

Senator TALMADGE. Do you think those benefits are correctly stated

and are worth the money?
WATERSHED PROJECTS 25

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do, sir.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Meyer, would you like to add anything to

what Mr. Williams has stated?

STATEMENT OF MARTIN H. MEYER, AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST,

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DES MOINES, IOWA

Mr. MEYER. I would like to start with first, that the local people

requested assistance under Public Law 566 for two problems, as Mr.

Williams stated, which was gully erosion in the middle part of the

watershed, and the protection of the low bottom land areas from

floodwaters and from sediment.

The local people have on their own initiative formed a drainage

district, and they have installed a flood control and sediment detention basis which has temporarily prevented any excessive damage

down to the town of Pacific Junction and the bottom land areas.

Now, I think the question is, did we use proper methods of evaluation in determining costs of per acre damage values in the upland

:areas?

Advisory Notice 453 sets forth a procedure to determine various

factors to develop a per acre damage figure. Now, we used that procedure in coming up with damages, and based our benefit-cost ratio on

this procedure.

Senator TALMADGE. I am reading here, and from the files:

The Soil Conservation Service, Director, Engineering Division, reviewed the

-work plan and commented that the benefits claimed in the rates of gullying of

land, depletion and erosion, sediment transport, and future flood damage are

based on judgment and relative figures.

Do you agree with that statement?

Mr. MEYER. It all depends upon the definition of "relative figures."

We have done something different in this watershed that probably

we haven't done in any others, and maybe we won't have to do again.

The sediment and flood control and sediment storage basin at the

present time has temporarily prevented flooding in the past 20 years

of any of this area. And, therefore, we could not go in and determine

from historical past records or through formal flood routing procedures what the potential floodwater damage would be if the sediment, if the flood control and sediment storage basin were not in

,operation.

The basin has only a few years of remaining life because of the

inflow of the sediment from the upland areas.

Now what we did was to pick another site for a new sediment and

flood control storage basin and determine what the cost would be

to install this basin. It is located right below the present basin.

The present basin is this stippled area [referring to map], and the

new proposed sediment storage basin would be down in this area.

Now we did that only for one purpose, and that was to determine

-what the local people would spend in order to prevent the flooding

down here, caused, as we said, by sediment from the upper areas. The

normal flood routing procedures were not applicable and the historical flood records were not available.
26 WATERSHED PROJECTS

The land here is of a very flat nature, and it is not bounded by any

valley walls. Therefore hydrologic flood routing is not possible,

because water overflow can occur at any one of many points. The

flood channel will divert the water here, or the flood channel may

be down here, and it will divert the water here.

Therefore, the moneys that the local people were willing to expend—and they are faced with this problem right now, that they

must either put in some upland treatment or move their flood control

and sediment storage base to another area—that the cost of this new

basin would be equal to their damages that they would receive down

in this area.

Senator TALMADGE. How many acres will be benefited by this project?

Mr. MEYER. The total area that would be benefited from flood prevention, that is, floodwater coming over the area, is outlined in green.

And it includes a highly productive farmland area, and the town of

Pacific Junction. And in the town of Pacific Junction is a large

railroad yard which, if they received any kind of floodwater damage,

would be severely damaged. And in the town the people themselves

would suffer severe damage.

This. I believe, is about a 400-acre tract outlined in green.

Senator TALMADGE. 400 acres?

Mr. MEYER. Yes, sir.

Senator TALMADGE. Now would the orange area receive any benefits?

Mr. MEYER. The orange area would receive benefits from the structures that are installed in the upland area, as Mr. Williams said, up

above Highway 275. The problem can be taken care of by installing

conservation measures. Now the farms that are benefited are all of the

farms below 275 and in between the bluffs going down to the Missouri

River Bottom.

Senator TALMADGE. How many acres will be benefited in the orange

area?

Mr. MEYER. I think there are approximately 9,000 right from here

to here.

Senator TALMADGE. Now 9,400 acres total would be benefited, is

that your answer?

Mr. MEYER. That is right.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Ward here is working for the committee,

and we have asked him to do some investigating on these projects, and

I want him to ask you some questions.

Mr. WARD. I have one question, Mr. Meyer, which relates to the

procedure used in evaluating the gully erosion benefits. Some of your

correspondence stated that only partial stabilization on the gullies

would result from the project installation. Does the evaluation procedure set forth in Advisory Notice 453 pertain to 100 percent stabilization?

Mr. MEYER. That is right.

Mr. WARD. By using the 453 procedure, in lieu of any other procedure which you had at that time, would not the benefits be slightly

overstated that are shown in the work plan?

Mr. MEYER. They would be to some extent. The history of this

problem which Mr. Ward has quoted was that—and we stated it in

the work plan—that in order to give 100 percent protection to any of
WATERSHED PROJECTS 27

the upland area, the structure would be of such size and of such cost

that it would be prohibitive, and we could not install the project.

As ,was stated before, the slopes of the land are very step, anywhere

from even up to 30 and 35 percent slopes.

Mr. WARD. May I ask one more question? Do you know the significance of the overstatement?

Mr. MEYER. No. I was going to get to that. I would like to sort

of evolve this thing a little further. Under the procedure of 453 it is

necessary to determine the land use of the area that is being evaluated

as to its capability, that is, if it is capable of being cropland it is valued

as cropland. In this case much of this land is not fit for cropland, it is

too steep to be farmed, and is in permanent pasture. So we have

evaluated our damages based on a certain percent of the land in cropland and a certain percentage in pasture. So that we haven't gone to

the highest land value that would be possible under 453.

Therefore, as the 453 has now evolved, where you have something

less than 100 percent stablization, you use a lesser land use. We have

complied with that in this project.

Now it also states that you will use a different interest rate. For

instance, for public benefit we are presently using 3 percent. For the

private benefit we are using 6 percent. This new revised 453—for the

record, it is now chapter V of the Economics Guide—indicates that a

higher public interest rate should be used. We have not used the

higher interest rates in our analysis. Therefore the overstatement

would be only in the use of a higher interest rate and not in the use

of a leser degree of land treatment—I mean land use.

Mr. WARD. Mr. Meyer, in your opinion, if this project were reevaluated using the new procedure, which would give recognition to

partial gully stabilization, do you believe that an unfavorable benefitcost ratio would result?

Mr. MEYER. Offhand I would say no. I doubt if we should get

below unity or 1-to-1 benefit cost ratio.

Senator TALMADGE. Is the primary purpose of this project agricultural, to protect the town, or what is it?

Mr. MEYER. No, it is primarily agricultural. And the area of

Pacific Junction is a very small area compared to the--

Senator TALMADGE. Is the small area to be benefited the 400 acres

in green or the 9,000 orange, or a combination of both of them?

Mr. MEYER. A combination of both.

I would like to correct myself on this point. The figure now comes

back to me that this is now an 8,000-acre tract and not a 400.

Senator TALMADGE. I thought it looked large for 400.

Mr. MEYER. The benefits are primarily of an agricultural nature.

Senator TALMADGE. There are 217,000 acres involved, and that would

make the total per acre cost something on the order of $84.

Mr. MEYER. Correct.

Here we have in table V of the work plan the average annual

monetary benefits of $48,668, and of that total 85 percent of the benefits

are agricultural and 15 percent are nonagricultural.

Senator TALMADGE. Any further questions?

Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. How large is the town that you mentioned, the one

with the railroad yards?
28 WATERSHED PROJECTS

Mr. MEYER. Just a second and I can give you that.

Mr. WETZEL. 550.

Mr. MEYER. 550.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Railroad employees, arent they?

Mr. MEYER. Right. This is quite a railroad center, and they have

a large railroad yard there, and primarily all of the people that live

there, I would say the majority of them are employed by the railroad.

Senator COOPER. IS it flooded from time to time?

Mr. MEYER. Not now, because of this levee system—there is a levee

on each side of the channel which goes down to Keg Creek. There are

two railroad crossings, and at the present time the grade of the railroad

is at the ground level and not at the top of the levees. And so far they

have always had enough warning that they could sandbag the gaps

that the railroad crossings make. .And they haven't been damaged for

the past 20 years.

Before they installed this flood control and sediment basin, they did

sustain quite a bit of damage.

Senator TALMADGE. Any further questions?

Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. No.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Ward, any further questions?

Mr. WARD. I have one further question.

I believe there was a comment by the Department of the Army that

there would be a reduction in the cost to some of their works improvement resulting from the installation of this particular project. I have,

obtained additional information on what that cost might be from the

Department of the Army. I have a letter here 

Senator TALMADGE. In other words, this project will benefit the

Army?

Mr. WARD. They think that it will eliminate some of the works of

improvement which they had contemplated in one of their proposed

projects. However, they state in their letter that—

Although the cost of the corps' project would be reduced by roughly $1 million,

it does not follow that this full amount may be considered a benefit creditable to

the Public Law 566 project. In the preparation of the Public Law 566 work

plan, the benefit which would accrue to the latter project was evaluated as the

cost of providing equivalent protection by the construction and operation of a

400-acre storage basin located on the Missouri River flood plain. The average

annual cost of this alternative was estimated to be $32,083, and this was taken as

the benefit creditable to the Public Law 566 project actually proposed. This is

than the average annual cost of that part of the corps' project for which

the Public Law 566 project would be a substitute. However, the corps' project

would provide a higher degree of protection. It appears, therefore, that all of

the benefits properly creditable to the Public Law 566 project have already been

claimed for it. In other words, the reduction in the cost of the corps' project

cannot be added to the benefits claimed in the Public Law 566 work plan.

Mr. MEYER. If I may, I would like to clarify my thinking on it.

This proposed project by the corps was a system of agricultural

levees along the Missouri River and along Keg Creek with pipestem

levees above the bluff area along Pony Creek, and at these two railroad crossings that I mentioned a little while ago. It is impossible to raise the grade of the railroad tracks, because that would involve raising the grade of the entire railroad yards in the town of Pacific

Junction.
WATERSHED PROJECTS 29

They have proposed some inverted siphon bridges one which would

cost $111,000, and another which would cost $108,000. With our project that will remove the need for them if they install the levee system,

It would remove the need for the corps to install these inverted siphons and save them this $248,000.

Now we have not used those figures as benefits, because this is a

proposed program, and it will not be acted upon until the local people request the corps to go ahead and install their levee system.

Therefore, we didn't feel that we were justified in using these reduced costs.

Senator TALMADGE. In other words this is a secondary benefit that

you can't utilize in your worksheets? Did you utilize it?

Mr. MEYER. No, sir; we did not utilize it.

Mr. WARD. And I believe that they indicate in their letter that probably you should not.

Mr. MEYER. Right.

Mr. WARD. Because you have already taken that into account on the

400-acre storage basin in your computations. At least that is what

was indicated in the letter from the Department of the Army.

Mr. MEYER. I don't quite follow your thinking there, because to me

the 400-acre storage basin has no relationship to this proposed project,

because with this storage basin in effect they still would have to put

in their inverted siphon bridges, and if they moved the basin down to

this area, I am sure that they would have to go ahead with their proposed project as planned.

Senator TALMADGE. Any further questions?

Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. No.

Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Ward?

Mr. WARD. No.

Senator TALMADGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. We

appreciate you and your staff coming.

( Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to.

the call of the Chair.)

0