;OVERNNIEN

Storage

'Z'ecZ I

.MEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD

PREVENTION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND CREDIT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 9695 and H.R. 9938

MARCH 19, 1964

Serial 00

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agr

WO"

, •1

,4404.6.+

A

6,7

-*)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

:32-869 WASHINGTON : 1964
•

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

HAROLD D. COOLEY, North Carolina, Chairmari

W. R. POAGE, Texas,

GEORGE GRANT, Alabama

E. C. GATHINGS, Arkansas

JOHN L. McMILLAN, South Carolina

THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi

WATKINS M. ABBITT, Virginia

PAUL C. JONES, Missouri

HARLAN HAGEN, California

LESTER R. JOHNSON, Wisconsin

D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, Florida

FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky

RALPH R. HARDING, Idaho

G. ELLIOTT HAGAN Georgia

GRAHAM PURCELL, Texas

JAMES H. MORRISON, Louisiana

BENJAMIN S. ROSENTHAL, New York

ROBERT B. DUNCAN, Oregon

ALEC G. OLSON, Minnesota

ROBERT L. LEGGETT, California

SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, Hawaii

Mrs. CHRISTINE S. GALLAGHER, Clerk

HYDE H. MURRAY, Assistant Clerk

JOHN J. HEIMBURGER, General Counsel

ROBERT C. BRUCE, Assistant Counsel

FRANCIS M. LEMAY, Staff Consultant

Vice Chairman

CHARLES B. HOEVEN, Iowa

PAUL B. DAGUE, Pennsylvania

PAGE BELCFIER, Oklahoma

CLIFFORD G. McINTIRE, Maine

CHARLES M. TEAGUE, California

ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota

DON L. SHORT, North Dakota

CATHERINE MAY, Washington

DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio

RALPH HARVEY, Indiana

PAUL FINDLEY, Illinois

ROBERT DOLE, Kansas

RALPH F. BEERMANN, Nebraska

EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Michigan

RESIDENT COMMISSIONER

A. FERNOS-ISERN, Puerto Rico

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND CREDIT

W. R. POAGE, Texas, Chairman

E. C. GATHINGS, Arkansas

LESTER R. JOHNSON, Wisconsin

FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky

JOHN L. McMILLAN, South Carolina

G. ELLIOTT HAGAN, Georgia

ROBERT L. LEGGETT, California

A. FERNOS-ISERN, Puerto Rico

II

CLIFFORD G. McINTIRE, Maine

DON L. SHORT, North Dakota

RALPH HARVEY, Indiana

ROBERT DOLE, Kansas
CONTENTS

Brief history of efforts to amend Public Law 566 to increase the flood- Page

water detention capacity from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet 7

Freeman, Orville L., Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, proposed draft of a bill to amend the Watershed Protection

and Flood Prevention Act, letter of March 20, 1963 2

H.R. 9695, a bill to amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended 1

H.R. 9938, a bill to amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention

Act, as amended 1

Typical statements from State conservationists regarding the 5,000

acre-foot limitation of floodwater storage 11

Watershed projects approved under Public Law 566:

Administratively 31

By Agriculture Committees 26

By Public Works Committees 30

Weber, Eugene W., Deputy Director of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of

Engineers, U.S. Army, statement of 38

Williams, Donald A., Administrator, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, statement of 3

AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION

ACT

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 1964

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND CREDIT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

1310, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon.

W. R. Poage (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Poage, Cooley, Gathings, Johnson of

Wisconsin, Stubblefield, Harvey of Indiana, and Dole.

Also present: Representative Duncan.

Martha Hannah, staff; and Robert Bruce, assistant counsel.

Mr. POAGE. The subcommittee will come to order.

Mr. Williams, we are glad to have you with us with your competent

staff, who have been here the last 2 days. We are glad to have you

here personally today. I see that the author of one of these bills

has just come in, our chairman, and I believe that we will proceed

and let you, Mr. Williams, explain the purpose of the pending legis- lation.

We will be glad to hear you on H.R. 9695 and H.R. 9938.

(H.R. 9938, H.R. 9695, and the department letter follow:)

[H.R. 9938, 88th Cong. al sess.]

A BILL To amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 2 of the Watershed Protection and

Flood Prevention Act (68 Stat. 666), as amended, is amended by striking out

"more than five thousand acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity" and inserting in lieu thereof "more than twelve thousand five hundred acre-feet of

floodwater detention capacity".

[H.R. 9695, 88th Cong. 2d sess.]

A BILL To amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Watershed Protection and Flood Pre- vention Act (68 Stat. 666), as amended, is amended as follows:

(a) Section 2 is amended by striking out "more than five thousand acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity" and inserting in lieu thereof "more than twelve

thousand five hundred acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity".

(b) The sentence immediately preceding the proviso in section 2 is amended

to read as follows: "No appropriation shall be made for any plan, including any

watershed or subwatershed work plan in connection with the eleven watershed

improvement programs authorized by section 13 of the Act of December 22, 1944

(58 Stat. 887), as amended and supplemented, not heretofore approved by the

Secretary for Federal assistance for the installation of works of improvement,

involving an estimated Federal contribution to construction costs in excess of

1
2 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

$250,000, or which includes any structure which provides more than twenty-five

hundred acre-feet of total capacity unless such plan has been approved by resolutions adopted by the appropriate committees of the Senate and House of Representatives:".

(c) That part of paragraph (1) of section 4 which precedes the first proviso is

amended to read as follows:

"(1) Acquire, or with respect to interests in land to be acquired by condemnation provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that they will acquire,

without cost to the Federal Government from funds appropriated for the purposes

of this Act, such land, easements, or rights-of-way as will be needed in connection

with works of improvement installed with Federal assistance:".

(d) Subsection (3) of section 5 is amended by inserting after "the Secretary

shall" the following: ", within sixty days after the plan has been agreed to by

the Secretary and the interested local organization,".

(e) Subsection (4) of section 5 is amended to read as follows: _

"(4) Any plan for works of improvement involving an estimated Federal contribution to construction costs in excess of $250,000 or including any structure

having a total capacity in excess of two thousand five hundred acre-feet (a) which

includes relcamation or irrigation works or which affects public or other lands or

wildlife under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, (b) which includes

Federal assistance for floodwater detention structures, or (c) which includes

provision for municipal or industrial water supply or water quality control, shall

be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Army, or the

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, respectively, for his views and

recommendations at least thirty days prior to transmission of the plan to the

Congress through the President. The views and recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of Health,

Education, and Welfare, if received by the Secretary prior to the expiration of the

above thirty-day period, shall accompany the plan transmitted by the Secretary to

the Congress through the President."

Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Enclosed for the consideration of the Congress is a draft

bill to amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (68 Stat. 666,

as amended).

The Department of Agriculture strongly recommends enactment of the proposed amendment to section 2 of the act as a means to provide a more adequate

national land and water resources development program and to permit the

utilization of the amendments to this act, already enacted in the Food and

Agriculture Act of 1962, in the development of sound multipurpose watershed

projects. Experience under the existing provisions of the act has demonstrated

the need for this amendment.

This change would permit full utilization of available sites for multiple-purpose

development. Under the present limitation of 5,000 acre-feet on floodwaterdetention capacity, it is not technically possible to design multiple-purpose

structures large enough to meet the desires and needs of local organizations for

recreation or fish and wildlife development and municipal or industrial water

supply under authorizations contained in the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962

(Public Law 87-703). Particularly in low and moderate rainfall areas, the drainage area required to yield the water supply needs of the local people is too large

to be controlled by 5,000 acre-feet of flood prevention capacity. As a result, it

has been necessary to design multiple-purpose structures with a total capacity

substantially below the 25,000 acre-feet maximum size allowed by the act. Increasing the flood-prevention limitation to 12,500 acre-feet will permit designing

technically sound structures with capacities up to the 25,000 acre-feet total

capacity limitation in practically all parts of the country.

This amendment was recommended to the last Congress in a letter to you

dated June 7, 1962.

Since all proposals for projects under the act must be initiated by local agencies

and types of projects will differ widely, it is not possible at this time to foresee

what effect this amendment would have on requests for assistance and on potential

projects.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., March 20, 1963.
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 3

In addition, the Department recommends an amendment to section 5 of the

act to assure full coordination in the review of watershed work plans which

include provisions for municipal of industrial water supply with the Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that the enactment of this proposed legislation would be consistent with the administration's objectives.

Sincerely yours,

ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Secretary.

A BILL To amend the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (68 Stat. 666), as amended, is amended as follows:

(a) Section 2 is amended by striking out "more than five thousand acre-feet

of floodwater detention capacity" and inserting in lieu thereof "more than twelve

thousand five hundred acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity".

(b) Subsection (4) of section 5 is amended to read as follows:

"(4) Any plan for works of improvement involving an estimated Federal

contribution to construction costs in excess of $250,000 or including any structure having a total capacity in excess of twenty-five hundred acre-feet (a)

which includes reclamation or irrigation works or which affects public or other

lands or wildlife under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, (b)

which includes Federal assistance for floodwater detention structures, or (c)

which includes provision for municipal or industrial water supply, shall be

submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Army, or the

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, respectively, for his views and

recommendations at least thirty days prior to transmission of the plan to the

Congress through the President. The views and recommendations of the

Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of

Health, Education, and Welfare, if received by the Secretary prior to the

expiration of the above thirty-day period, shall accompany the plan transmitted by the Secretary to the Congress through the President."

STATEMENT OF DONALD A. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR, SOIL

CONSERVATION SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY HOLLIS R. WILLIAMS, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, AND H. 0. OGROSKY, HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING, SOIL

CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee in connection with your consideration of two bills, H.R

9938 and H.R. 9695, to amend Public Law 566.

I shall first proceed to take up H.R. 9938.

H.R. 9938 would increase the limitation on floodwater detention

capacity from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet.

The President in his message to Congress January 31, 1964, on agriculture stated:

Much progress has been made under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act passed by the Congress 10 years ago. Watershed developments are

now underway in more than 500 communities. Over 40 percent of these developments have multipurpose objectives, combining watershed protection and flood

prevention with recreation, irrigation, fishing, and municipal water supply. These

projects, though small, are of vital importance to rural areas. I recommend,

therefore, that the Congress enact legislation to increase the project limitation

of floodwater detention capacity from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet.

In accordance with the recommendation of the President, the

Department of Agriculture recommends an increase from the existing

5,000 acre-feet to 12,500 acre-feet in the limitation of floodwater

detention capacity in any single structure constructed under the

provisions of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.
4 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

The problem created by the 5,000-acre-foot limitation has up to

this time affected the planning on only a small proportion of all Public

Law 566 watersheds. The results of a study made in December1962 indicated that the limitation had been a problem in 99 watersheds in 24 States and Puerto Rico.

The existing limitation of 5,000 acre-feet is incompatible with the

overall limitation on total capacity of 25,000 acre-feet and the watershed size of 250,000 acres. The Department does not propose any

change in the limits on total capacity or overall watershed size. Thus,

the program carried out under the Watershed Protection and Flood

Prevention Act will remain a small watershed program in which

reservoirs will continue to be small as compared with those heretofore

constructed by Federal public works agencies such as -the Corps of

Engineers or Bureau of Reclamation.

Increasing the limitation on floodwater detention capacity from

5,000 acre-feet to 12,500 acre-feet will serve four purposes. In the

order of their importance they are:

1. Provide an equitable balance between the floodwater detention

capacity and capacity for other purposes, thus allowing for the full

maximum development of the available sites for multiple purposes.

2. Reduce the overall cost of the program on particular watersheds

that have unusual topography or distribution of benefits.

3. Increase, the economic justification of .projects in some areas

having unusual topographic features by allowing the protective measures to be located nearer the damage areas.

4. Develop a justifiable program for some watersheds subject to

flood damage by snowmelt runoff.

The most important need of the amendment, as we see it, is to provide for the full utilization of available reservoir sites for multiple

purposes. This will implement the amendments to Public Law 566

contained in the Flood and Agriculture Act of 1962, Public Law

87-703.

The 5,000-acre-foot limitation on detention storage limits the maximum size of drainage area above any floodwater detention structure.

The size of the drainage area determined by this limitation is inadequate to yield the additional runoff for agricultural or nonagricultural water supply permissible under the total capacity limitation of

25,000 acre-feet.

Despite the urgent need, it is impossible in some watersheds to develop the full allowable storage for agricultural and nonagricultural

water use because of this 5,000-acre-foot floodwater detention storage

limitation. Drainage areas large enough to produce a sufficient

volume of water to fully utilize a multiple-purpose reservoir for flood

prevention and water supply require a floodwater detention capacity

in excess of 5,000 acre-feet. The floodwater detention capacity

needed in a 25,000-acre-foot reservoir varies from about 9,000 acrefeet in a 60-inch rainfall belt to about 12,500 acre-feet in a 20-inch

rainfall belt. This existing inequity imposes a particular hardship

on small municipalties that wish to develop a dependable water

supply to attract small industry. Moreover, it causes the wasteful

use of scarce reservoir sites.

Increasing the limitation on floodwater detention capacity to

12,500 acre-feet will also result in reduction of overall project costs

and increase the benefits in some watersheds. The reduction in costs
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 5

would be accomplished by substituting one larger structure for two

or more smaller structures. The increase in benefits would result in

those watersheds where the topography and flood plain development

make it desirable to locate larger structures nearer the damage areas.

This explanation should not be taken as an indication, however,

that the small watershed program is inherently inefficient or more

costly on the average than a program of large structures. Indeed,

the opposite is true. The need for floodwater detention capacity in

excess of 5,000 acre-feet is relatively rare. This is clearly demonstrated in our studies in Texas which show that of the 1,647 floodwater retarding structures planned, 1,448, or 88 percent, were planned

with a detention capacity less than 2,000 acre-feet; only 37, or 2.2

percent, were planned with a capacity between 4,500 and 5,000

acre-feet. Only seven structures were planned with a detention

capacity exceeding 5,000 acre-feet before the limitation went into

effect. This conclusion is supported by the analysis in Oklahoma,

which shows that of the 591 structures planned, only 13, or 2.2 percent, have detention capacity exceeding 4,000 acre-feet. Of the

structures planned on the Washita River Basin prior to the effective

date of the limitation, only 2 percent exceeded 5,000 acre-feet in

floodwater detention capacity.

Although the need for detention capacity in excess of 5,000 acre-feet

is relatively uncommon, there are a sufficient number of cases where

the saving in both Federal and private funds would be substantial

and the benefits increased to warrant the unqualified statement that

the average cost of watershed projects to accomplish the desired

objectives would be reduced by this amendment.

In some States the justification of projects in areas where snowmelt

runoff is the principal source of damage is particularly difficult under

the 5,000-acre-foot limitation.

Runoff from snowmelt frequently has a duration of several weeks

with only moderate fluctuations in rate. The desired reduction in

damages requires sufficient detention capacity to regulate runoff for

extended periods without the relief usually afforded by the release of

stored water between periods of runoff.

The regulation of snowmelt runoff to within bank stages, with the

excess stored for irrigation use, would be possible under the 25,000-

acre-foot limitation of total capacity in some watersheds if the 5,000

acre-foot limitation were increased to 12,500 acre-feet. Under the

present limitation, it is necessary to release waters from the floodwater

retarding pool at rates that often produce insufficient benefits to

justify a project, with resulting waste of the scarce water.

I would like now to speak to H.R. 9695.

Subsection (a) of H.R. 9695 is identical with the provisions of

H.R. 9938. Since we dealt with the provisions of this subsection in

commenting on H.R. 9938, we shall confine our comments on this bill

to the remaining four subsections.

Subsection (b) of H.R. 9695 would make subject to the provisions of

the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, insofar as

consideration by the appropriate committees of the Senate and House

of Representatives is concerned, any watershed or subwatershed work

plan in connection with the 11 watershed improvement programs

authorized by section 13 of Flood Control Act of 1944 that has not

32-869-64-2
6 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

heretofore been approved by the Secretary of Agriculture for Federal

assistance in the installation of works of improvement.

The Department of Agriculture has processed 232 subwatershed

work plans within the 11 watershed improvement programs authorized

by section 13 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. These subwatershed

work plans cover 18,913,000 acres, or about 61 percent of the area of

the 11 authorized watersheds. All subwatershed work plans have

been prepared in four of the authorized watersheds.

The procedure presently followed provides for review and authorization at the Washington level of all subwatershed work plans which

contain one or more structures with a total storage capacity equal to or

in excess of 2,500 acre-feet or which propose assistance-- on any purpose other than flood prevention. Of the 33 subwatershed work

plans prepared since the beginning of fiscal year 1962, only 9 contained structures with total storage capacities in excess of 2,500 acrefeet and only 2 of these proposed assistance for water management

purposes which requires interagency and Bureau of the Budget review.

We point out that the present procedure is working smoothly under

which the Secretary gives administrative approval to subwatershed

work plans for each of the 11 watersheds that already are authorized

by the Congress as he carries out programs for those watersheds.

As you know, the procedure set forth in the Watershed Protection

and Flood Prevention Act, under which certain work plans require

approval by resolutions adopted by appropriate committees of the

Senate and House of Representatives also is working well.

This Department takes no position with regard to this proposed

amendment and feels that it is a matter for the Congress to decide.

Subsection (c) of H.R. 9695 would provide that local sponsors may

use Federal funds, other than those appropriated for the purposes of

the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, to acquire such

land rights as will be needed in connection with works of improvement

to be installed with Federal assistance. This provision would permit

local sponsors to take advantage of Federal funds available under

other Federal programs, for which they might be eligible, to assist

them in providing the necessary land rights. The inability of some

local sponsors to assume the financial obligations of land rights along

with their other obligations has been a significant constraint to the

progress of the watershed program in low-income areas. As of

December 31, 1963, authorized planning assistance had been suspended

or terminated on 141 watersheds. This action was taken on 79, or

56 percent, of these applications because of local problems, one of the

most significant of which is the acquisition of needed easements and

rights-of-way.

Time has not been sufficient for the Bureau of the Budget to make

a study of the full implications to warrant approval of this amendment. Therefore, it has recommended that this provision be deferred

until the effect of this amendment on other Federal programs can be

appraised and the full implications are known.

Subsection (d) of H.R. 9695 would provide that all watershed work

plans now required to be transmitted to the Congress shall be so

transmitted within 60 days after the Secretary reaches agreement on

the plan with the local organization. This amendment would provide

a more uniform flow of work plans through the approval process and,
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 7

in some instances, expedite their final approval. The Bureau of the

Budget has advised that while it has no objection to the presentation

of this statement, it believes that the 60-day requirement for the

submission of project reports to the Congress contemplated by subsection (d) of H.R. 9695 would, in many cases, be unrealistic, considering the need for review of these projects by interested Federal

agencies and the complexities and problems of coordination often

incident to such review. The Bureau recommends, therefore, the

retention of the provisions of the act with regard to transmittal of

watershed work plans to the Congress.

Subsection (e) of H.R. 9695 would provide that any work plans

involving municipal or industrial water supply or water quality control be reviewed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This amendment would require an action which the Secretary

of Agriculture now is performing in accordance with interagency

review procedures. The Department recommends that this amendment be enacted.

That concludes my formal statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.

Would you like to question the witness, Mr. Chairman?

Before that, we will make the attachments to your statement, Mr_

Williams, a part of the record at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

BRIEF HISTORY OF EFFORTS To AMEND PUBLIC LAW 566 To INCREASE THE

FLOODWATER DETENTION CAPACITY FROM 5,000 TO 12,500 ACRE-FEET

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

Bills introduced in the House leading to the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962

contained provision for amending Public Law 566 to increase the floodwater

detention capacity of structures from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet.

The bill passed by the House contained the amendment to Public Law 566.

The Senate bill leading to the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 did not contain

provision to amend Public Law 566 to increase floodwater detention capacity.

Senator Ellender did not include the amendment to Public Law 566 since it had

not been considered in the hearings.

Bill passed by the Senate did not include an amendment to Public Law 566 to

change the floodwater detention capacity of structures from 5,000 to 12,500

acre-feet.

The conference committee agreed on a bill which did not contain the amendment. The conference bill was passed as the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962.

Other bills introduced in the 87th Congress to amend Public Law 566 to increase

the 5,000 acre-feet limitation on floodwater detention capacity of structures.

S. 1875. Senator Young of North Dakota introduced this bill on May 16, 1961,

to amend Public Law 566 by removing the 5,000 acre-feet limitation on floodwater

detention capacity of structures.

S. 1904. Senator Burdick of North Dakota introduced this bill on May 17,

1961, to amend Public Law 566 by increasing the 5,000 acre-feet limitation on

floodwater detention capacity to 10,000 acre-feet.

H.R. 7159. The late Congressman Nygaard of North Dakota introduced this

bill on May 17, 1961, to amend Public Law 566 by removing the 5,000 acre-feet

limitation on floodwater detention capacity of structures.

S. 3402. Senator Ellender of Louisiana (by request) introduced this bill on

June 12, 1962, to amend Public Law 566 to increase the limitation on floodwater

detention capacity of structures from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet.

The President's message to the Congress on January 31, 1963, on the agricultural program recommended that legislation be enacted to increase substantially

the capacity for floodwater detention in small reservoirs in order to permit the

full development, under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act,

of available sites for multipurpose use.
8 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

Bills introduced to amend Public Law 566 to increase the floodwater detention

capacity of structures.

H.R. 2904, by the late Congressman Nygaard, of North Dakota, introduced

on January 28, 1963, would remove the 5,000 acre-feet limitation on detention

storage in floodwater retarding structures.

S. 566, by Senator Burdick, of North Dakota, introduced on January 29, 1963,

would change the limitation from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet. The Department of

Agriculture strongly recommended enactment of the bill and testified in its

favor.

H.R. 9695, by Congressman Poage, of Texas, introduced on January 21, 1964,

would, among other things, change the limitation from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet.

The President's message to the Congress on agriculture, January 31, 1964,

states:

"Much progress has been made under the Watershed Protection and Flood

Prevention Act passed by the Congress 10 years ago. Watershed developments

are now underway in more than 500 communities. Over 40 percent of these

developments have multipurpose objectives, combining watershed protection and

flood prevention with recreation, irrigation, fishing, and municipal water supply.

These projects, though small, are of vital importance to rural areas. I recommend, therefore, that the Congress enact legislation to increase the project limitation of floodwater detention capacity from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet."

H.R. 9938 was introduced on February 7, 1964, by Congressman Cooley of

North Carolina, to carry out the recommendation of the President to increase the

floodwater detention capacity of structures constructed under the provisions of

the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet.

H.R. 10096, introduced February 25, 1964, by Congressman Andrews of North

Dakota to amend Public Law 566 to eliminate the 5,000 acre-feet limitation on

detention storage in floodwater retarding structures.

Listing of some letters and resolutions in support of an amendment to the

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act to increase the floodwaterdetention capacity of structures from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet:

1. Letter to Senator Ellender from the National Association of Soil and Water

Conservation Districts, recommending enactment of S. 566 and urging Senator

Ellender's Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to report favorably on S. 566.

2. Resolutions by a number of State associations of soil and water conservation

districts endorsing S. 566 to increase the floodwater detention capacity of structures from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet.

3. Resolutions of the soil and water conservation districts of the south-central

area of NACD (Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas) on July 9, 1963,

strongly endorsing S. 566 and urging its enactment.

4. Letters from Byron Cook, chairman, Small Watersheds and Conservancy

Districts Committee, OASWCD, and Ward Perryman, president, Oklahoma

Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, April 17, 1963, to Senators

Monroney and Edmondson and Congressmen Steed and Albert asking their

assistance in amending Public Law 566 to increase the floodwater detention

capacity of structures from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet.

5. Letter from Fred V. Heinkel, president, Missouri Farmers Association on

April 23, 1963, stating that the association favors enactment of S. 566.

6. Letter from L. 0. Fusilier, district attorney, Evangeline Parish, Ville Platee,

La., to Senator Ellender stating the need for amending Public Law 566 to increase

the floodwater detention capacity of structures from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet.
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ESTIMATED PERCENT OF PL -566 WATERSHEDS REQUIRING

FLOODWATER DETENTION STORAGE IN EXCESS OF 5000 ACRE FEET

-

Prepared by Soil Conservation Service

bosed on sampling of 483 watersheds

in 24 states. (March, 1964)

-

)

r

0,7'14

(11,800)

COMPARISON OF CAPACITY

PROVIDED BY DAMS

DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED BY:

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE CORPS OF ENGINEERS

12,000 9,000

Acre

Feet

6,000

Over —1,000,000 (38)

500,000-1,000,000 (31)

100,000 — 500,000 (57)

25,000 — 100,000 (8):(48)

(4) (15) 12,500-25,000

(50) (14) 5,000-12,500

(740) ( 3) 1,000- 5,000

(2) 50- 1,000

3,000 I 180 40 0

NUMBER OF STRUCTURES

Acre

Feet

40 80

SOURCE:

Sol Conservation Service Records — Includes all dams completed, under construction, and contracted to March 1963.

Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Civil Works Activities FY 1961.

Prepared by: Soil Conservation Service

9
10 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Co„

COMPARISON BETWEEN NUMBER AND THE CAPACITY OF DAMS

r 1,1 T r 1 1 T1 I

Expected relationship be

structures and capacity

180 out of every 1000 stns

have capacities over ;000 ac. ft.)

Actual relationship between number of

SCS end CE structures and capacitygreater than: (ac.f )

ca—p—a-citie—rs —N—umbe—r per —1-00-01--

5 000

12 500

Actual Expected

20

15

50

32

ween number of

Deficiency between existing rate and

/ expected rate (see able)

(3 out of every 1000 sirs hove

capacities over 1000000 ac.f I)

I lilt I r 

100 1000- 0000 00 000

WITH CAPACITIES GREATER THAN — IN ACRE FEET

000000

Source:

Soil Conservation Service Records—Includes ell dams completed, under construction, and contracted to March 1963.

Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Civil Works Activities, FY 1961.

Prepared by; SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 3/64

STORAGE IN ACRE FEET 

25 000

20 000

15 000

12 500

10 000

5 000

Left bar —Maximum development under 5 000 acre foot limitation

Right bar — Maximum development under 12 500 acre foot limitation

No change proposed in existing 25 000 Acre Foot Limitation

Proposed Flood

. i

Flood Storage

Requirement for

Full Development

\A.--

—ww

storage Limitation

Current Flood

Storage Limitation

1 1 I

0 10 20 30 40 50

Avercge Annual Precipitation (Inches)

37.6183.2 16.7132.5

Drainage Area in Square Miles

APPROXIMATE PROPORTIONS OF A FULLY DEVELOPED MULTIPLE PURPOSE STRUCTURE

(25 YEAR FREQUENCY DESIGN)

60

ET Conservation

1 Storage

MI Flood

ME Storage

10.4118.7
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 11

STORAGE IN ACRE FEET 

25 000

20 000

15 000

12 500

10 000

5 000

Left bar-Maximum development under 5 000 acre foot limitation

Right bar-Maximum development under 12500 acre foot limitation

No change proposed in existing 25,000 acre foot limitation

Proposed Flood

Storage Limitation

Current Flood

Flood Storage

Requirement For

Full Development

Storage Limitation

10 20 30 40 50 60 Average Annual Precipitation -Inches

27.0170.8 12.6128.9

Drainage Area Square Miles

APPROXIMATE PROPORTION OF A FULLY DEVELOPED MULTIPLE PURPOSE STRUCTURE

(100 YEAR FREQUENCY DESIGN)

8.1117.0

S°'rsowt''' . 

;",°g,e

TYPICAL STATEMENTS FROM STATE CONSERVATIONISTS REGARDING THE 5,000

ACRE-FOOT LIMITATION OF FLOODWATER STORAGE

ALABAMA

One structure in the Cheaha Creek watershed in Clay, Talladega, and Cleburne

Counties, could be designed for 10,045 acre-feet of storage. This would result in

an estimated saving of $101,480 by reducing the cost of the emergency spillway.

This emergency spillway is in rock and will be very expensive to construct. The

land downstream would also receive a higher degree of flood protection from the

increased storage.

GEORGIA

We are in the final phase of assisting the sponsoring organizations prepare a

watershed work plan for the Big Creek watershed, located in Cherokee, Forsyth,

and Fulton Counties, Ga. To achieve the protection needed from floodwater

damage, as agreed between the sponsors and the Service, would require the retention of 6,293 acre-feet of floodwater retarding storage below the crest of the

emergency spillway. We will not be able to complete an economically feasible watershed work plan for this project unless the limitation of storing floodwater in

a single structure is raised above the 5,000 acre-feet.

Big Creek watershed is an area of 66,952 acres. Big Creek originates in the

west central portion of Forsyth County and flows in a southerly direction to its

confluence with the Chattahoochee River near Roswell, Ga. Three large tributaries having a combined drainage area of approximately 23,000 acres (36 percent

of the watershed) flow together above U.S. Highway 19 and form the main stem

of Big Creek. Numerous tributaries enter the main stem from the east and west

as it flows south through the Forsyth and Fulton County portions of the watershed.

It has been determined by investigations and analyses that to provide the level

of protection desired by the local people it will be necessary to install land treatment measures in combination with floodwater retarding structures and channel

improvement. A system of structures on the upper reaches of the three large

tributaries above Highway 19 can be installed to provide adequate protection
12 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

to some 600 acres of flood plain lands in that area of the watershed. However,

an estimated 1,700 acres of flood plain on the main stem of Big Creek below U.S.

Highway 19 would not be provided adequate protection with this system of

structures due to the small percent of the total drainage being controlled. It

would not be economically feasible to enlarge the channel of Big Creek to provide

the level of protection desired with this system of structures.

To economically provide adequate protection from flooding on the middle and

lower reaches of flood plain land on Big Creek it will be necessary that the floodflow from at least 50 percent of the drainage area of the entire watershed be

adequately controlled by floodwater retarding structures.

A feasible floodwater retarding structure site is located on the main stem of

Big Creek approximately 4,000 feet upstream from U.S. Highway 19 with a

total drainage area of 23,253 acres. Of this amount, upstream structures will

control 9,095 acres of this drainage area with 14,158 acres uncontrolled. For this

site to be the most economically feasible in reducing flood peaks dliwnstream, the

design of this structure would require that the release rate from the structure not

exceed approximately 600 cubic feet per second for 50-year frequency floods

(5.29 inches of runoff). This would require that the structure have a floodwater

detention capacity of approximately 6,300 acre-feet.

It is also doubtful if an economically feasible system of structures can be

developed in the Alcovy River watershed in Gwinnett, Newton, and Walton

Counties, unless a floodwater retarding structure with approximately 12,000

acre-feet of flood detention storage is included in the system.

The preliminary investigations and surveys disclose that a floodwater retarding

structure with a detention capacity of approximately 6,500 acre-feet is also needed

in the system of structural measures for flood prevention in the Holly Creek

watershed located in Murray County. The extra detention capacity would be

much cheaper than improving the channel to handle the greater flow under

present storage limitations.

INDIANA

Effective control of the Upper and Lower Vernon Forks in Jennings, Ripley,

Decatur, and Jackson Counties, will require structures storing somewhat over

5,000 acre-feet since tributary sites are rather poor. Similarly, protection for the

main stem of Patoka River watershed will require that structures be placed in

the lower reaches of the tributaries. At these locations, 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater detention would be too small for the size of the watershed above.

KANSAS

We have two instances to date where the 5,000-acre-foot limit is approached

or reached. One of these is multiple-purpose reservoir No. 18-26 in the Twin

Caney project. The storage limitation does impose limitations on design of the

dam, in that the designer has no latitude in selecting the most desirable crest

elevation for the emergency spillway by equating the cost of rock excavation

against the cost of embankment for additional storage.

Another case is in Upper Verdigris watershed where an alternate location of

dam 1-5 requires additional detention storage approaching 5,000 acre-feet. In

this case the 5,000-acre storage did not preclude selection of a good site but it

does illustrate that the storage limitation may preclude selection of the least

costly watershed reservoir in specific instances.

KENTUCKY

In the Buck Creek watershed in Pulaski and Lincoln Counties, and in the

South Fork Little River, in Christian County, the level of protection could have

been improved by developing floodwater detention storage of approximately

7,000 acre-feet. It is anticipated that similar cases will develop in the rough

topography of eastern Kentucky. Drainage of areas, larger than those presently

feasible under the limitations of the act, must be controlled in order to justify

flood prevention features in small watershed projects. It is our thought that

this would enhance the opportunities of developing eligible projects in this economically distressed area which comprises one-fourth of the total land area of

Kentucky.

LOUISIANA

Several watersheds in Louisiana have been studies to estimate the differences in

cost with a limitation of 5,000 acre-feet of detention storage and a limitation of
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 13

12,500 acre-feet. The watersheds studied are the Upper Bayou Nezpique in

Evangeline and Allen Parishes, and Bogue Lusa Creek in Washington Parish.

The upper Bayou Nezpique plan has been approved for operations; however,

the local organizations have requested an amendment to the work plan. The

Bogue Lusa Creek watershed is now being planned.

Based on these preliminary estimates, it is concluded that a considerable

savings could be affected, both to the Federal Government and to the local

sponsors, if the maximum allowable flood storage was 12,500 acre-feet.

An estimated $1,691,000 will be needed to apply the structural measures to be

included in the plan presently being considered on Bogue Lusa Creek watershed.

We believe the same degree of protection could be provided for $1,358,300 if the

larger amount of flood storage could be provided in any given structure. Of the

$332,700 savings, $287,500 would be to Public Law 566 funds and $45,200 would

be to local funds.

Should the present work plan on Bayou Nezpique to be revised in line with

recent discussions with the local sponsors, it is estimated that $4,276,900 would be

needed to apply the structural measures. The same benefits could be obtained

for a total cost of $3,888,800 if the maximum allowable flood storage was 12,500

acre-feet. This $388,100 savings would be $298,500 in Public Law 566 funds and

$89,600 local funds.

MAINE

The limitation of 5,000 acre-feet of flood detention storage will make it necessary

to plan two structures in series on the north branch of Presque Isle Stream watershed in Aroostook County. The lower site has ample capacity for full development and could be developed at a savings of approximately $40,100.

MICHIGAN

At the present time an application has been submitted amending the original

application on the Tifflin River-Bean Creek watershed between Michigan and

Ohio. It is known that there is a potential storage site on Bean Creek in Lenawee

County, Mich., which has an indicated storage capacity of approximately 20,000

acre-feet. Undoubtedly, if this site proves economically feasible for development,

there would be a need for utilizing more than 5,000 acre-feet of storage capacity.

MINNESOTA

The present limitation has not affected any floodwater retarding structure in

any of the watershed projects on which we have worked to date. The south

Zumbro watershed, located in Olmsted and Dodge Counties, Minn., will have two

structures which will be affected by this limitation. This new watershed application was just recently approved by the State committee. During our field

examination, two structure sites were located with drainage areas of 42 and 51

square miles. A much higher degree of protection could be provided by these

two proposed structure sites if the acre-feet of detention storage was increased.

This would be very desirable as Rochester, Minn., a community of 30,000 people,

is located on the flood plain below these two sites. Rochester experienced a very

serious flood this past summer, and the people are very interested in this watershed project.

MISSISSIPPI

A review of work plans completed as well as conditions in watersheds to be

planned this year indicates that in the following six watersheds in Mississippi,

more efficient programs could be developed if the 5,000-acre-foot limitation was

removed:

1. Lower Tippah River (FP)—Benton, Marshall, Tippah Counties

In this subwatershed, one structure is needed on Chewalla Creek at a point

where the drainage area is approximately 20,000 acres. The work plan provides

for a structure with a drainage area of 10,259 acres, which is located some 4 miles

upstream. The lower site would be twice as effective with less than 50 percent

increase in cost. On Snow Creek, a tributary of the lower Tippah River, one

large structure with a drainage area of about 28,000 acres could replace three

structures. At both these sites, the area is wooded, and the easements would be

easier to secure than for the sites planned.

82-869 84 8
14 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

2. Black Creek (FP)—Carroll and Holmes Counties

In the Black Creek work plan, the sponsors requested the planning party to

study two sites for large floodwater retarding structures. One of these sites was

located on Fannegusha Creek just above Mississippi Highway 12, with a drainage

area of approximately 64,000 acres. The work plan now provides for 10 structures above this site. The other site was on Harlan Creek with a drainage area

of 15,431 acres. The planning party located a structure upstream that is within

the 5,000-acre-foot limitation.

3. Second Creek (Public Law 566)—Adams County

Had not the 5,000-acre-foot limitation been in effect, the planning party would

have planned only one structure at the upper end of Second Creek, instead of

three. This would have resulted in a saving of approximately $80,000.

4. Coldwater River (FP)—DeSoto, Marshall, and Benton Counties

This work plan on this watershed has not been completed. The sponsors were

interested in a large structure in a wooded section of the upper Coldwater River,

with a drainage area of 30,000 acres. Since this site would have storage beyond

the 5,000-acre-foot limitation, several smaller structures must be considered.

5. Big Sand Creek (FP)—Carroll, Lellore, Montgomery Counties

The Big Sand Creek subwatershed is now being planned. One structure

located in lower Teoc Creek, which is a part of the Big Sand Creek project,

would provide protection to the delta from this 21,000-acre watershed.

6. Tallahaga Creek (Public Law 566)—Winston County

This watershed has not been authorized for planning but will be planned in

the near future. In the upper limits of the watershed, one large structure is

being considered which may exceed the 5,000-acre-foot limitation. Three small

structures to replace this one would cost approximately $60,000 more than the

one large structure.

NORTH CAROLINA

In Crabtree Creek watershed in Durham and Wake Counties, the most economical series of floodwater retarding structures within the limitation of 12,500 acre-feet

of floodwater storage will cost $302,194 less than the similar group under present

limitations. Structure No. 25 would be increased in size and 4 of the other 14

structures would be eliminated.

If the limitation would be raised to 12,500 acre-feet, savings could also be

effected in upper French Broad watershed in Transylvania and Henderson

Counties, and in the Town Fork Creek watershed in Stokes and Forsyth Counties.

NORTH DAKOTA

The most feasible storage site in the north branch Park River watershed

requires a flood prevention storage capacity of about 9,500 acre-feet. This site

might be developed as a multiple-purpose site if it could be included in the project.

The exclusion of this site would result in higher costs to provide the level of protection desired by the sponsoring local organization.

A proposed structure in the south branch Park River watershed is designed

for 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater storage. It could be relocated downstream to a

desirable site if the 5,000-acre-foot limitation was eliminated. It is also probable

that additional storage for other purposes would be incorporated.

The middle south branch of Forest River watershed is approved for operations.

It is necessary to change the location of one of the proposed structures because

of the construction of a missile complex. If the site is moved upstream it will

be necessary to build two structures. If the 5,000-acre-foot limitation in floodwater storage could be exceeded, we could move downstream and build one

structure at a substantial saving.

The need to provide storage above 5,000 acre-feet is also anticipated in the

Square Butte, Butte Creek, and Charbonneau watersheds.

OKLAHOMA

Why amend Public Law 566 to raise the maximum flood detention capacity to

12,500 acre-feet?

1. Permit the local sponsors and the SCS to plan the best project to meet the

goals within a 250,000-acre watershed.
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 15

Objectives are to shoot for a high level of floodwater protection: (1) Most pro- tection to the most area, (2) inundate the least amount of good bottomland, (3) enough protection for best use of bottomland, (4) reduce flood hazards to no greater than other hazards, and (5) obtain this with the least total cost (Federal and local). Goals are also to provide enough storage for irrigation, fish and wildlife, recreation, and municipal use.

Although goals to include, for example, 80 percent reduction in flood damages

are set by sponsors, these goals cannot be reached on some watersheds due to the 5,000 acre-foot limitation. The economic justification of the entire system of structures may depend on the cost (Federal and local) of one site.

2. Flood prevention plans developed on the Washita included five reservoirs with more than 5,000 acre-feet. These structures help meet goals and help point out the need.

3. Usually not more than one or two sites per watershed with floodwater de- tention storage of 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet of storage are needed.

(a) On the Washita when there were no limitations, the work plans de- veloped called for only 2 percent of the sites to exceed 5,000 acre-feet. (b) Under Public Law 566 when 591 structures were planned, only 13, or 2.2 percent exceeded 4,000 acre-feet.

4. Applications on hand which should be planned with one or more structures exceeding 5,000 acre-feet are: Black Fork, Skeleton, Caston, Norwood, Muddy Boggy, Turkey, Hominy, Upper Bird, and Little River.

OREGON

We find that the 5,000-acre-foot limitation has not been a restriction on reservoirs included in work plans developed to date. However, when we look at the watersheds now being planned and the reservoir developments in other watersheds on which we now have applications, we feel that the 5,000-acre-foot limitation is not realistic and will restrict the operation and in many instances prohibit the most effective control of floodwater.

SOUTH CAROLINA

To date we have had one reservoir in each of two different watersheds author- ized for planning where flood storage greater than 5,000 acre-feet was needed. In addition, on the basis of a field examination of Rabon Creek, located in Green- ville and Laurens Counties, we are reasonably sure that the work plan, when developed, should provide for two structures that would exceed 5,000 acre-feet of flood storage. Again, based on the field examination, we think that the work plan for the Pacolet River watershed in Spartanburg, Greenville, Polk, and Henderson Counties, when developed, would contain at least one structure with

over 5,000 acre-feet of flood storage.

TEXAS

A field examination of Cherry and Madera Canyon watersheds in Jeff Davis and Reeves Counties was made in 1960 under the 5,000 acre-foot floodwater storage limitation. In 1963, a reexamination of the two watersheds, without con- sideration of the 5,000 acre-foot limitation, provided the following data:

Estimated annual benefits and cost

Cherry Canyon.—Drainage area: 329 square miles. Original field examination

(1960). Based on not more than 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity.

Required structural measures: six floodwater retarding structures plus 15 miles of channel improvement.

Benefits $85, 000

Cost $136, 000 Benefit-cost ratio 0.63:1

Reexamination (1963). Based on more than 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater

detention capacity. Required structural measures: three floodwater retarding

structures plus 18 miles floodway.

Benefits $95, 367

Cost $72, 323 Benefit-cost ratio 1.32:1
16 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Madera Canyon.—Drainage area: 279 square miles. Original field examination

(1960). Based on not more than 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity.

Required structural measures: five floodwater retarding structures.

Benefits $37, 700

Cost $92, 000

Benefit-cost ratio 0.41:1

Reexamination (1963). Based on more than 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater

detention capacity. Required structural measures: three floodwater retarding

structures.

Benefits $47, 984

Cost _ $40, 000

Benefit-cost ratio 1.20:1

Estimated detention capacity requirements

Cherry Canyon.—Drainage area: 329 square miles. Original field examination

(1960). Based on not more than 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity

Site No.

Drainage

area

(square miles)

Detention

capacity

(acre-feet)

1 34 3,944

2 30 3,600

3 30 3,600

4 19 2,337

5 22 2,662

6 16 1,904

Total 151 18,047

Reexamination (1963): Based on more than 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater

detention capacity.

Site No.

Drainage

area

(square miles)

Detention

capacity

(acre-feet)

1. Original site 6 16 1,904

2. Downstream from original sites 1 and 2 87 9,570

3. Original site 5 includes drainage area of original sites 3, 4, and 5 71 7,952

Total 174 19,426

Madera Canyon.—Drainage area: 279 square miles. Original field examination

(1960) : Based on not more than 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity.

Site No.

Drainage

area (square

miles)

Detention

capacity

(acre-feet)

1 37 4,255

2 40 4,600

3 38 4,370

4 25 3,025

5 32 3,840

Total 172 20,090
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 17

Reexamination (1963): Based on more than 5,000 acre-feet of floodwater

detention capacity.

Site No.

Drainage

area (squate

miles)

Detention

capacity

(acre-feet)

1. Same as original site 1 37 4,255

2. Includes original sites 2 and 4 65 7,410

3. Includes original sites 3 and 5 70 7,840

Total 172 19,505

There are very few cases where increasing the limitation would be advantageous,

but in those few instances where additional storage capacity is needed, considerable savings can be effected by going to the larger sites. Only seven floodwater

retarding structures with detention capacity in excess of 5,000 acre-feet were

constructed in Texas before the 5,000-acre-foot limitation went into effect. So

far, there are eight watersheds where some saving would have been or will be

possible if the limitation were set at 12,500 acre-feet. The following is typical of

the conditions in these eight watersheds:

Watershed No. 4.—Eliminate four planned sites where the cost of detention

storage is $53.20 per acre-foot. Install one site with approximately 11,700 acrefeet of floodwater detention capacity at the confluence of the two streams on which

the upper four sites are located. The cost of storing at this location would be

about $46 per acre-foot. It is estimated that the Public Law 566 cost to build the

floodwater retarding structure at the alternate location would be about $37,000

cheaper than to build the four sites as planned. The sponsors could save approximately $600 per year by having three less floodwater retarding structures to maintain and the benefits to the project would be slightly greater.

Watershed No. 5.—Eliminate four sites which cost an average of $43 per acrefoot. Construct one site in lieu of the four planned with approximately 9,000

acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity. It is estimated that storage could be

obtained at this location at a total cost of $36 per acre-foot. A site at this location

would provide a higher level of flood protection for less cost. The land which

would be involved in the pool areas at this location has a lower value than some of

the land in the upper sites.

Watershed No. 7.—This is a proposed multiple-purpose site to include municipal

water supply and recreation for a city. Basic hydrologic data have not been

developed for this site, but it is estimated that a 7,200 acre-foot capacity is needed

to store the class (b) detention requirement for this site. The total drainage area

of the site is 14,260 acres.

UTAH

We have not yet encountered a need to increase floodwater detention capacity

to 12,500 acre-feet to contain summer storm floodwater. However

'

on the

American Fork-Dry Creek watershed in Utah County, and the North Fork of

Ogden watershed in Weber County, the present limitation prevented even considering storage for snowmelt flood runoff.

On the North Fork of Ogden, storage capacity to regulate snowmelt for 1 month

of peak flows from approximately 15,000 acres would need to be in excess of 7,000

acre-feet. This same capacity would be required on the American Fork Creek of

the American Fork-Dry Creek watershed.

WASHINGTON

Many of the watersheds in Washington flood in the spring as a result of winter

accumulations of snow in the higher areas. Most rainfall and snows occur during

winter months. Sites where reservoirs with floodwater detention capacity in

excess of 5,000 acre-feet would be desirable may fit into two categories:

1. Flood runoff from melting snow frequently has a duration of several weeks

with only moderate fluctuation. Damage prevention requires sufficient capacity

to reduce regulated runoff for extended periods with little relief by short-term

depletion of storage. Storage requirements are therefore relatively high for even

moderate regulation.

2. Good sites are relatively scarce in the majority of watersheds. Where a

good site exists, it should be utilized to its maximum justifiable extent in the in-
18 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

terests of economy in lieu of developing additional sites to accomplish the same

degree of regulation. The additional cost of developing added sites may rule

out damage prevention by storage and cause the consequent substitution of

channel improvements as the more practical alternative.

Specific watersheds where the need has been found for detention storage in

excess of 5,000 acre-feet are:

1. South Fork and lower Willapa watershed, Pacific County.

2. Mill Creek watershed, Stevens County.

3. Little Pend Oreille River, Stevens County.

4. Chewelah Creek watershed, Stevens County.

5. Klickitat Creek watershed, Klickitat County.

6. Rock Lake in the Palouse-Rock Lake district, Whitman County.

WISCONSIN

We have a new application for the Pine River watershed, Richland County,

where according to the task force, one site will no doubt require detention capacity

in excess of 5,000 acre-feet.

We also anticipate a need for more than 5,000 acre-feet in new projects in the

future.

PUERTO RICO

The Bajura watershed is very mountainous. One site was investigated which

was the key to the entire flood protection system and which required storage in

excess of 5,000 acre-feet to provide the most economical development.

Preliminary data on the Maunabo watershed indicates the need for flood

storage in excess of 5,000 acre-feet because of the lack of economical sites farther

upstream. The most desirable site would require 5,520 acre-feet of flood storage

and would incorporate water for municipal and irrigation water supply.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Williams, you mentioned the local problem in

acquiring lands, rights-of-way, and the like. What are the actual

problems involved there?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. Mr. Cooley, the problem in some of the more

distressed or low-income areas of the country, such as some of the

Appalachian area, as an example, where the income of the people and

the tax base is very low, is that they have found it difficult to proceed

with some of the community improvements that they would need to

proceed with in order to carry out the program which would help

with employment and help with community betterment. If they

have to acquire the rights-of-way entirely at non-Federal expense, that

is the principal reference here.

Mr. COOLEY. Do you think that consideration should be given

authorizing the acquisition of land under the rights of eminent domain

in some instances?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. I would not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the

Federal Government should acquire any lands under the small watershed program in the name of the Federal Government. As you know,

there is a provision under the amendment to the Food and Agricultural Act of 1962 in which the Department of Agriculture may share

with the local organization some of the costs of acquiring some of the

land and the rights-of-way for recreation purposes, and that purpose

only, but the acquisition of the title remains in the hands of the local

people.

Mr. POAGE. May I point out, Mr. Williams, that the law in many

States does allow acquisition by eminent domain.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. That is correct.

Mr. POAGE. And the determination of whether or not you can use

the right of eminent domain for acquisition of land depends on the

State law. In the State of Texas, if you create the right kind of
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 19

district, you may do so, but otherwise you cannot do it. It depends

upon the power of the district granted by the legislature.

Mr. COOLEY. Suppose that you exercise the right of eminent

domain to acquire it under the State law, what about the cost involved—who puts up the money?

Mr. POAGE. As he pointed out, normally, the local people have

to put up the money, but there are certain recreational provisions

whereby the Federal Government puts up one-half of the money.

As I see it, the real problem has been that as you increase the size of

the reservation, their cost will become far more expensive, Mr. Chairman, and not only more expensive, but they tend to take more of

individual lands. If you only have 300 acres of land, and they are

going to put a reservoir out there to cover 1,200 acres of land and they

take all of your land or they take 200 acres of your 300 acres, you are

certainly not going to give them the land. On the other hand, the

original concept of the bill was that you would be putting in reservoirs

that might cover 10 or 15 acres. And you might have a farm with 200

or 300 acres, and you might be glad to have this reservoir on your land,

and you would give the rights-of-way without any cost. And to a

great degree that has been true in this situation, they have acquired

these rights-of-way without any expense, but as you get to these larger

reservoirs, you are taking a substantial portion of an individual's

farm, and when you do, it becomes almost impossible to get them to

give the land.

Mr. COOLEY. How many acres are involved in these?

Mr. POAGE. I would suppose that it would depend entirely upon

the project. You could have 5,000 or 6,000 acres in it. Or you might

have only 500 acres.

Dr. D. A. WILLIAMS. The acreage covered, of course, varies very

greatly with the topography, as has been suggested. In the State of

Louisiana, wherein you have a limitation on acre-feet, because of the

very flat topography, a very small dam would cover a lot of surface

acreage. I do not remember the exact number in a specific case.

I might comment further with respect to the question, on the right

of eminent domain, that there is a very significant variation, of course,

among the States with respect to the provisions of StateRaw. As an

example, the State of Oklahoma several years ago enacted State legislation to provide authority in that State to the soil conservation districts to exercise the right of eminent domain with respect to this

problem, and the State actually provided a revolving fund. The

State appropriated funds to help back that up. Now the very fact

that they have the right of eminent domain, their experience has been

that they have not had to use it very much, because they could use it

if they had to; therefore, they have been in a position better to be able

to negotiate with the landowners without having to use the eminent

domain authority. There would be a very great variation on that.

Mr. COOLEY. To build all of these big dams for flood control, the

Federal Government pays the entire cost; does it not?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. Yes; the public works program of the Corps

of Engineers, especially, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. COOLEY. And you acquire that land and you do exercise the

right of eminent domain?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. That is the Federal Government.
20 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Mr. COOLEY. All right. My question is, Why should it not be

possible to give—to have the right of eminent domain to secure land

for flood prevention projects? As Mr. Poage pointed out, if I have a

farm and I want the reservoir, and it is a small acreage, I might be

willing to donate the land. But suppose you have a situation where

you actually need more land, and the landowners are not willing to

give the property, could you not consider then the advisability of

moving into the right of eminent domain on that?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. I do not in any way speak against the idea

of using the right of eminent domain. My only comment is the

question of whether or not it should be the Federal Government or

the State or local governments. In my judgment, there is a distinct

difference between a small watershed program, under Public Law 566,

which is not a Federal program as such, but it is a local program with

Federal assistance. I think there is a difference between that concept and the concept of the major developments on the major streams

being Federal projects.

I will agree that when you get to talking about an individual

structure covering so many acres and taking the land, there is the

question of equity which arises as to whether or not in one instance,

perhaps, with a thousand acres in a larger structure, as against 200

acres in a smaller structure, is equitable or inequitable, to do it one

way or to do it the other way.

I appreciate the point. And it is a very difficult point for us to

answer many times.

Mr. POAGE. Will you yield?

Mr. COOLEY. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. I think that it has been pointed out, it has been the

strongly held viewpoint of this subcommittee that we should maintain

the requirement of local payment for all rights-of-ways; that we did

that on the basis, as has been pointed out, that these are locally owned,

that they are not owned by the Federal Government; that we want to

keep them a local unit and that it is something that the local people

should do.

Mr. COOLEY. May I interrupt?

Mr. POAGE. Yes. I just wanted to have his opinion on this.

Mr. COOLEY. I know. I was trying to tell you what the subcommittee felt. I did not want you to feel that these people were doing

this. It was the subcommittee that felt that way, that is, Mr. Chairman, it was felt that to let the Federal Government pay for the cost of

the rights-of-way would increase the cost of this program two or threefold. We think that the local people can always buy these rights-ofway far cheaper than the Federal Government can buy them, and in

most cases they can get them without cost. I recognize that when we

get to these bigger dams we are faced with a much different problem

and we may have to, if we raise this limit, very well have to review

our position on the payments for the rights-of-way, because it becomes

a more difficult problem when you get to the larger dams.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. It would seem to me that if the time comes

for such a reconsideration some thought should be given to the

possibility of the State or the local unit of government, which has the

authority of the right of eminent domain, exercising that authority

with, perhaps, some degree of financial participation by the Federal

Government, rather than the Federal Government acquiring the

property.
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 21

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Could not the cost of the land be

more than the cost of the dam?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. I am not sure. Hollis, would you answer

that?

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. If the cost of the land is going to run

much higher, one might offset the other.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. Let me make a preliminary statement here.

You would have this situation, as you get into the heavily populated

areas and I am thinking right now of a situation in Connecticut in

which it is a rural area, but the values of land are extremely high and

up there the cost of the land acquisition has been underwritten by the

State government, instead of the local township or the local county

government and you have a situation there in which the cost of the

land and the rights-of-way, in order to have them under public

control, have equaled, I think in some cases, all of the other costs

of the projects. So that you have a very great variation as between

that and, say, in my home State of South Dakota where some parts of

the land values are still not high. Maybe Hollis would like to supplement that.

Mr. HoLLis WILLIAMS. Congressman Poage and Chairman Cooley

and members of the subcommittee, with your permission, based on

informal discussions I have had with this subcommittee, I would

like to isolate what I consider the issue by an example.

First, we are all clear that the present law, Public Law 566, does

not let the local sponsoring organization, the improvement district,

use any Public Law 566 funds, or other Federal funds for the purchase

of lands, easements and rights-of-way; and as Mr. Poage pointed out

we are all clear that that is the situation and we abide by it.

Now, we had this case arise, Mr. Cooley. Out at Waldron, Ark.,

we had a Public Law 566 project underway, cooperating with the local

sponsors, that would provide for three purposes: one, flood protection

to agricultural lands; two, municipal water supply development; and,

third, recreation development.

We were seven-eighths through the development of that plan with

cooperative efforts by both the rural and urban people for a total

project. There was passed by the Congress the Area Redevelopment

• Act which made it possible for municipalities to get grants, and while

we were in the middle of that project or about seven-eighths completed

the city made an application for a 100 percent grant and had a tentative commitment. The proposal was referred to the Department of

Agriculture for comment. We determined that that single act would

render the proposed project not feasible. The city said, "Since we

can get 100 percent grant for the municipal water supply development, we will pull out."

I do not have to go through all of the explanation, except to say

that through the efforts of the congressional delegation and many

people involved it was finally decided that the city of Waldron would

get an 80-percent grant and a 20-percent loan. And that they would

use the 20-percent loan to help buy the lands, easements and rights-ofway.

Under Public Law 566 they could not use any other Federal funds

for the purchase of land rights. What we propose for your consideration is that if a sponsoring organization can get funds from ARA or

under the coordination of the Fish and Wildlife Act or under the
22 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Johnson-Dingell Act or some other source that is legitimate and

proper for sponsoring a project, would you permit them to use other

Federal funds, not Public Law 566 funds, in the acquisition of lands,

easements and rights of way?

It is clear in here that we are not amending Public Law 566 to use

any Public Law 566 appropriated funds for the purchase of lands,

easements and rights-of-way. That is the issue.

Mr. COOLEY. In other words, what do you think should be done

about it?

Mr. HoLLis WILLIAMS. We have recommended in here, I think,

that it is a good thing.

Mr. COOLEY. You mean that you already have your opinion?

Mr. HOLLIS WILLIAMS. I just think that it is wrong to deny the local

sponsors, if they manage in some coordinated legal way to get funds

from some other source, to penalize them so that they cannot use those

funds in their efforts in a Public Law 566 program.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Poage has pointed out to you our views in the

past which have guided this committee.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Would not this organization try to get

these funds and thereby hold up the project?

Mr. COOLEY. That is what Mr. Poage had in mind.

Mr. POAGE. There is one thing, we have been convinced that whenever the Government pays for rights-of-way that the Government is

going to pay substantially more than the local people would pay, but

what Mr. Hollis Williams has said, if I understand it correctly, is that

if these people can pay for it with the money that they get from some

source other than from Public Law 566 funds, that we are not going to

look to the source of those funds beyond the question that we still

would prohibit them from using any funds that they get under Public

Law 566—that they could not use any of these funds for the purpose

of buying rights-of-way, but if they got some other money by some

other method that we are not going to question whether they got it

through a grant or whether they got it from the Ford Foundation or

how they got it.

Mr. Hows WILLIAMS. That is right.

Mr. POAGE. We are not going to look beyond our own bill here.

We do think that we have an obligation to see that they do not use

Public Law 566 funds for that purpose. And this would still prohibit

them from using Public Law 566 funds.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. Let me say this, if I may: I concur in

that view. I have followed this program very carefully ever since

it was inaugurated. And I think that the line of reasoning that Mr.

Poage has indicated here is logical. I feel that we are going to have a

lot more of this type of program where we preclude a municipality

from getting funds other than from their own tax resources to comply

with these requirements, and that you are going automatically to

preclude them from participating in the program. And the thing

that concerns me particularly is that in doing so that we will sometime in the future do an injustice to these communities who will not

be able to participate and will very definitely need the potentialities

of such a site for their own purposes

I would like to ask one question, I think, which is relative to this,

because the point has come to my attention—I do not know whether

it is covered in this proposal or not—of a project that is coming from
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 23

my own district, in fact, which involves in addition to the municipal

water supply, probably, more important than the municipal water

supply, the need for a storage capacity to increase the amount of

flowage in the low season for the benefit of the sewage systems of the

areas involved. Is that covered in this bill?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. Mr. Harvey, it is not covered in the bill.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. I just have had this one instance come to

my attention, and it has been brought to the attention by the local

officials to the State officials that such a purpose should be included

on the basis of equal importance.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. We have had a number of indications of such

interests, including some from some of the public health officials in the

States. It is my opinion that that item is worthy of some very

serious consideration.

So far as the present proposal here is concerned it has not been

proposed and it has not been cleared within the executive branch.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. To your knowledge would you know of

any objection to such a proposal?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. I would not know of any objections, sir.

There might be some, but I do not know where it would come from.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. Could I ask you this: Would you in an

informal way explore this thought?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. I will be happy to do so.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. And report back to us on it?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. I will be glad to do so.

(The information requested follows:)

Storage for water quality control may be included in watershed projects on the

same basis as storage for municipal or industrial water supply. Local organizations must bear all costs for these purposes but may obtain a loan from the

Farmers Home Administration under section 8 of Public Law 566, as amended,

to help them finance such costs. The loan must be repaid no later than 50 years

after the principal benefits first begin. The interest rate varies from year to year

in accordance with the formula prescribed in the act. For fiscal year 1964 it

amounts to 3.046 percent.

Mr. COOLEY. You point out on page 7 of your statement:

As of December 31, 1963, authorized planning assistance has been suspended

or terminated on 141 watersheds. This action was taken on 79, or 56 percent,

of these applications because of local problems, one of the most significant of

which is the acquisition of needed easements and rights-of-way.

That seems to present a problem that we ought to deal with in

some way. You just abandoned work on these 141 projects because

they presented this problem, and we should be able to deal with the

problem in some way. I do not know whether the Federal Government should move in or how it should be done.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Could you not solve the problem by

lending them the money?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. The act now provides for authority for loaning money through the loan provision for the various purposes, including this, so that there is presently authority for a loan. But those

loans are financed out of the appropriations for Public Law 566.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Could not these people get loans?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. In some cases you would have a situation,

Mr. Johnson, where the security for such a loan, in terms of the

general economy of the area, _might be in question.
24 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Mr. POAGE. Another problem is that in some States there are State

laws which allow the districts to borrow money and in some States

it does not. In some places they can borrow the money and in other

places they cannot.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. That is right. So it is a matter of the State

constitution that has to be corrected.

Mr. COOLEY. As to these 141 watershed projects that you have

abandoned work on, what do you think should be done on those in

those instances?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. I want to make it clear that on the 141

watersheds in which the planning assistance was suspended there are

a good many reasons. One of the reasons is that the local people just

lost interest and did not want to go ahead, but I do not know the exact

number. But it is something less than 56 percent, I suppose, that

would be caused by the rights-of-way question.

If for all reasons this is a good desirable community project, and if

this rights-of-way problem is standing in the way of local people

proceeding with a desirable project that will help their economy and

the area, it would seem to me that, perhaps, in certain sections of the

country that are in a distressed condition that, perhaps, there might

be some exception made in which some degree of grant might be

considered for the acquisition of the rights-of-way. The property

would still be in the hands of the local people, but I would question

whether it should be made a general provision.

Mr. POAGE. May I interrupt right there. I feel that you are now

creating a problem that to me seems to be very unsound so that I

want this record to show that I object to it, whether anybody else

does or not.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. May I make it clear?

Mr. POAGE. This proposition that you are suggesting in certain

areas that they should be given privileges and in certain other areas

that they should be denied them simply does not appeal to me. That

is the trouble with this ARA program over the United States. Certain congressional districts can get tremendous grants and other

congressional districts, where they have individual and specific communities that are in just as bad shape, cannot get one dime out of it.

To me it is the most unfair proposition that has been palmed off on

the American people, and so far as I am concerned you are not going

to get to first base coming here and suggesting that certain areas

ought to be able to get these grants and that other areas should not

be able to get them. I am willing to set up a criteria in each instance.

Certainly, I am willing to apply the same criteria all over the United

States. And if this district meets the criteria, fine; if it does not, they

do not get it because I see them exactly alike on each side of the

mountain.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. And may I comment further? I believe

that the record will show that I was not recommending this, but

rather saying that this is something that might receive some consideration as a possibility of a direct response to Mr. Cooley. The

chairman is aware that there have been proposals made for some

special programs. ABA is but one example. It may have been made

to fit certain sections of the country because of the poverty situations,

and so on.
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 25

If something like this were to be done that would be, I suppose,

somewhat consistent with that approach, rather than the one that

you just enunciated.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Of these 141 projects that have been

abandoned, how many of them were approved by the Congress?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. None of these were approved—they were

all in the planning stage.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. These were in the planning stages?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. That is correct. It was found before they

their plans in some instances that they were not economically sound and in some cases that they were not engineeringly

sound and in some cases the local people found that they just could

not proceed with meeting the obligations that they would have to

meet.

Mr. Hows WILLIAMS. To supplement the administrator's statement, since I have the day-to-day experience with this, let me say

that a high percentage of those involve public utility lines. For

example, in Oklahoma when we started our preliminary investigations

and studies, the local people ascertained, at one stage or another,

that they have a serious problem with respect to public utility relocations, and that the cost is high, or they determine, after the potential

sites for structures are partially located, that there is going to be

extensive removal of farm buildings or highway removals or replacements and other things, and the local sponsors just decide not to go

further with the project. This condition constitutes a high percentage of these suspensions and terminations before we spend very

much planning money.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. In my district I have had some projects

that went pretty well along, but they found out that they could

not meet the expenses. And it had nothing to do with whether they

were financially able to go ahead with them.

Mr. HOLLIS WILLIAMS. Yes.

Mr. POAGE. Would you explain just the effect of the bill that I

introduced? Maybe I am prejudiced as to some of the effects of it.

I would like to know frankly the effect of this bill on this committee

and on the Committee on Public Works. As I understand it, we do

not change the jurisdiction between these committees. Perhaps,

probably, you will have a very much larger extent of these projects

going into the Public Works Committee if this legislation is passed.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. There might be a few more, but, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that there will be any very substantial proportion, because, generally speaking, right now if you are in an area where

the topography is suitable and the problem needs to be met, that is,

there is need for a considerable amount of storage, they are already

going above the 4,000 acre-feet, and sometimes up to 5,000 acre-feet,

I do not believe the additional flood detention storage would swing

many additional projects over into the category of consideration by

the Public Works Committee. So as I would see it, by and large,

with respect to jurisdiction, with respect to the committee, it would be

just about the same—there would not be any significant shift.

Mr. Hows WILLIAMS. We would feel that there would be a very

small percentage.

Mr. POAGE. I think that was brought up some time ago.
26 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Mr. COOLEY. Why do not more projects come to this committee

from these districts?

Mr. POAGE. Because if the project involves a reservoir of more

than 4,000 acre-feet it presently goes to the Public Works Committee

and not to this committee. And I would just assume that if there

were more projects with large reservoirs in them that they would go

to the Public Works Committee, that they would be substantially

increased. I have had assurance from the department that it would

not be a serious matter.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we would have

a very distinct obligation to see that the program did not go in the

direction of moving too far toward larger structures, but—and that

in a specific case where the needs could better be met with the general

interests of the public and cost to the Federal Government—that this

would be the exceptional proposition rather than the rule, that the

larger storage would be used. That would be my thinking, and my

intent in carrying it out.

Mr. POAGE. May I ask you this off the record?

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. POAGE. On the record.

Mr. COOLEY. How many of these watershed projects have we

approved in the past under Public Law 566?

Mr. HOLLIS WILLIAMS. About 500.

Mr. COOLEY. Could you get a list of those up for us for the record?

Mr. HoLus WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. COOLEY. The number of projects and the number of acres—get

us an estimate as to the number of acres involved.

Mr. HoLms WILLIAMS. I must correct that. The total is 500.

Part of them are administratively approved whenever they do not

exceed $250,000, but I will be glad to supply that for the record.

(The information requested follows:)

Number of projects approved, 545.

Number of acres in approved projects, 31,426,793.

The following lists show projects (1) approved by Agriculture Committees, (2) approved by Public Works Committees, and (3) approved administratively.

WATERSHED PROTECTION, PUBLIC LAW 566

Projects approved by Agriculture Committees (224 projects)

State and project Area in acres County

Alabama:

Crowdabout Creek 

High Pine Creek 

Little Paint Creek 

Powell Creek 

Arizona: Buckhorn-Mesa 

Arkansas:

Big Creek 

Caney Creek 

Crooked Bayou 

Grady-Gould 

Mud Creek 

Tupelo Bayou 

California:

Adobe Creek 

Buena Vista Creek 

Central Sonoma 

Escondido Creek 

Napa River 

Ulatis Creek 

31,705

51,590

35,600

42.350

69,172

72,966

39,680

31,499

48,832

18,345

25,880

21,500

8,970

50,000

30,900

135,000

96,800

Morgan, Lawrence, and Cullman.

Chambers and Randolph.

Jackson and Marshall.

Hale and Marengo.

Maricopa and Pinal.

Craighead and Greene.

Cross.

Chicot.

Desha, Jefferson, and Lincoln.

Independence.

Faulkner.

Lake.

San Diego.

Sonoma.

San Diego.

Napa.

Sol ano.
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 27

Projects approved by Agriculture Committees (224 projects)-Continued

State and project Area in acres

Colorado:

Big Sandy Creek and supplement_ _ _

Franktown Parker tributaries of

Cherry Creek.

Indian Wash 

Vineland area tributary to Arkansas

River.

Connecticut:

Blackberry River, Conn. and Mass_ _

Furnace Branch of Middle River,

Conn. and Mass.

North Branch of Park River 

South Branch of Park River 

Delaware: Upper Nanticoke River 

Florida:

lstokopoga Marsh 

Jumper Creek 

Sarasota, west coast 

South Sumter 

Taylor Creek 

Upper Josephine-Jackson Creek 

Upper Tampa Bay 

Georgia:

Fishing Creek 

Little Satilla Creek 

Little Tallapoosa River 

Mill Creek 

North Broad River 

Potato Creek 

Rocky Comfort Creek 

Sandy Creek 

219,000

176,640

9,640

11,110

29,548

33,326

17,536

30,080

119,775

26, 200

53,000

154,680

54, 700

89, 500

32, 700

65, 720

41,000

109, 500

62,516

32, 604

46, 470

154,000

51,300

21,000

Naalehu 2, 620

Puukapu 9, 970

Waianae Iki 11,650

Waianae Nui 19,110

Illinois:

Hog River-Pig Creek 3,250

Little Cache Creek 45,000

Scattering Fork 73,158

Indiana:

Boggs Creek 40, 800

Busseron 153, 280

French Lick Creek 21, 880

Lattas Creek 35, 780

Prairie Creek 88, 690

Stucker Fork 117,850

Iowa:

Badger Creek 34,346

Big Park 7,674

Big Wyacondah 36, 275

Crooked Creek 22, 656

David's Creek 39, 294

Davis Battle Creek 4, 770

Held 7, 420

Indian Creek 9, 792

Mill Picayune 62,994

Pony Creek 19,329

Ryan-Henschall 9,410

Kansas:

Bee Creek 45, 360

Frog Creek 22, 496

Grant and Shanghai Creeks 25,200

Little Walnut Hickory 171,510

Middle Caney 100,210

Silver Creek 18,418

Walnut Creek, Kans. and Nebr 80,594

White Clay, Brewery Whiskey 12,540

Creeks.

Kentucky:

Big Muddy Creek 65,140

Big Reedy Creek 26, 390

Caney Creek 97,310

Canoe Creek 76, 643

Crab Orchard 96,893

Donaldson Creek 47,010

East Fork of Clarks River, Ky. and 201,441

Tenn.

East Fork of Pond River 139, 700

Humphrey-Clanton Creek 68,547

Little Kentucky River 45,600

North Fork of Little River 37,611

0 bion Creek 206, 108

West Fork of Clarks River 148,640

West Fork of Pond River 52, 900

County

Elbert and El Paso.

Elbert, Douglas, and El Paso.

Mesa.

Pueblo.

Litchfield, Conn., and Berkshire, Mass.

Tolland, Conn., and Hampden, Mass.

Hartford.

Do.

Sussex and Kent.

Highlands.

Sumter.

Sarasota and Manatee.

Sumter.

Okeechobee.

Highlands.

Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas.

Baldwin and Jones.

Appling and Wayne.

Carroll and Haralson.

Walker and Whitfield.

Franklin, Hart, and Stephens.

Pike, Lamar, Spalding, and Upson.

Warren and Glascock.

Madison and Jackson.

Hawaii.

Do.

Honolulu.

Do.

St. Clair.

Johnson.

Champaign, Douglas, and Coles.

Martin.

Sullivan, Vigo, Green, and Clay.

Orange.

Greene.

Daviess and Martin.

Scott, Jefferson, Clark, and Washington.

Dallas, Madison, and Warren.

Crawford.

Davis.

Audubon, Cass, and Guthrie.

Audubon and Guthrie.

Monola.

Plymouth.

Pottawattamie.

Shelby, Harrison, and Crawford.

Mills and Pottawattamie.

Pottawattamie.

Chautauqua and Montgomery.

Coffey and Osage.

Chautauqua.

Butler and Greenwood.

Chautauqua and Elk.

Chase.

Brown, Kans., and Richardson, Nebr.

Atchison.

Butler and Logan.

Butler, Edmonson, and Grayson.

Butler, Grayson, and Ohio.

Henderson.

Union and Webster.

Caldwell and Crittenden,

Calloway, Marshall, Graves, and McCracken,

Ky., and Henry, Tenn.

Christian, Muhlenberg, and Todd.

Ballard and McCracken.

Henry and Trimble.

Christian.

Hickman, Graves, Fulton, and Carlisle.

Calloway, Marshall, Graves, and McCracken.

Christian and Hopkins.
28 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Projects approved by Agriculture Committees (224 projects)-Continued 47;

State and project Area in acres

Louisiana: Bayou Folse 52,214

Maryland:

Gilbert Run 28,622

Little Youghiogheny River 26,275

Long Marsh 27,363

Massachusetts:

Bradley Brook 6,970

Broad Brook 7, 578

Clam River 20,065

SuAsCo 241,617

Upper Quaboag River 94,301

Michigan:

North Branch of Mill Creek 46, 547

South Branch of Cass River 93,620

Minnesota:

Crooked Creek 44, 560

Joe River 54,960

Mississippi:

Beasha Creek 35,603

Bentonia 24,404

Chiwapa Creek 101,328

Ellison Creek 19, 150

Gray's Creek 23, 638

Muddy Creek, Miss. and Tenn 80, 795

Mulberry Creek 27,494

Persimmon-Burnt Corn Creek 33,018

Tallahalla Creek 47,593

Upper Bogue Phalia 219, 351

West Hatchie 47, 874

Missouri:

Callahan Creek 22, 170

Panther Creek 22,035

South Fork of Blackwater River_ _ _ _ 65, 579

Tabo Creek 84, 895

Nebraska:

Antelope Creek 107,072

Bear-Pierce-Cedar 76,800

Bellwood 51,300

Big Indian Creek 131, 700

Bowman-Spring Branch 22, 850

Gering Valley 57,600

Mud Creek 38,872

Plum Creek 4, 700

Wilson Creek 77, 900

Nevada: Peavine Mountain 6, 300

New Hampshire: Souhegan River, N.H.

and Mass.

109, 440

New Mexico:

Apache-Brazito-Mesquite 39, 660

Santa Crux River 117, 184

Tortugas Arroyo 15,584

Upper Gila Valley Arroyos 2'7, 000

Zuber Draw 115, 840

New York:

Conewango Creek 190,080

Cowaselon Creek 69,000

Ischua Creek 74,900

North Carolina:

Abbotts Creek 115, 300

Ahoskie Creek 48, 150

Conetoe Creek 64, 139

Deep Creek 75,300

Gum Neck 7, 450

Mud Creek 71,850

Muddy Creek 64,000

North Dakota:

Lower Forest River 192,385

North Branch of Forest River 107, 014

Swan-Buffalo Creek 203, 520

Tewaukon, N. Dak. and S. Dak_ _ _ _ 93, 782

Wild Rice Creek, N. Dak. and S. 233, 522

Dak.

Ohio:

Chippewa Creek 120,320

Dick's Creek-Little Muddy Creek_ _ 44, 592

Marsh Run 20,006

Upper Wabash 80, 540

Oklahoma:

Bear, Fall, and Coon Creeks 120,960

Big Wewoka Creek 172, 525

Cane Creek 101, 755

Caney Creek 30, 541

Haikey Creek 24. 872

Little Deep Fork Creek 167 4-1

Little Wewoka Creek-Graves Creek_ 122, 445

Salt Creek 152,000

Timber Creek 41,700

County

Lafourche.

Charles and St. Marys.

Garrett.

Queen Annes and Caroline.

Hampden.

Hampshire and Hampden.

Berkshire.

Middlesex and Worcester.

Worcester, Hampden, and Hampshire.

Lapeer, St. Clair, and Sanilac.

Sanilac and Lapeer.

Houston.

Kittson.

Neshoba and Leake.

Yazoo.

Pontotoc, Monroe, and Lee.

Yazoo.

Benton.

Tippah, Miss., and Hardeman, Tenn.

Montgomery.

Madison.

Hinds.

Bolivar and Washington.

Tippah and Alcorn.

Boone.

Harrison.

Johnson.

Lafayette.

Sheridan and Cherry.

Gage.

Butler.

Jefferson and Gage.

Thayer.

Scotts Bluff.

Gage.

Gage and Pawnee.

Cass and Otoe.

Washoe.

Hillsborough, N.H., and Middlesex, Mass 

DonaAna.

Rio Arriba, Santa Fe, and Mora.

Dona Ana.

Grant.

Chavez.

Cattaraugus and Chautauqua.

Madison.

Cattaraugus.

Davidson, Forsyth, Randolph, and Guilford_

Hertford, Northampton, and Bertie.

Edgecombe, Martin, and Pitt.

Yadkin.

Tyrrell.

Henderson.

McDowell and Burke.

Walsh.

Do.

Cass.

Sargent, N. Dak., and Marshall, S. Dak.

Do.

Wayne, Medina, Summit, and Stark.

Butler and Warren.

Huron, Crawford, and Richland.

Darke and Mercer.

Lincoln, Oklahoma, and Logan.

Seminole, Potawatomie, and Hughes.

Okmulgee and Muskogee.

Atoka and Bryan.

Tulsa.

Creek, Lincoln and Okmulgee.

Hughes, Seminole, and Okfuskee.

Pottawatomie and Seminole.

Beckham and Roger Mills.
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 29

Projects approved by Agriculture Committees (224 projects)-Continued

State and project Area in acres

Oklahoma-Continued

Tricounty Turkey Creek 

Upper Red Rock Creek 

Wagon Creek 

Waterfall-Gilford Creek 

• Oregon:

Little Puding River 

Middle Fork of Hood River 

Willakenzie Area 

Pennsylvania:

Briar Creek 

Brodhead Creek 

Dunlap Creek 

Greene-Dreher 

Kaercher Creek 

Little Shenango 

Marsh Creek 

Mill Creek 

Puerto Rico:

Anasco River 

Bajura 

South Carolina:

Duncan Creek _ 

Huff Creek 

South Dakota: Upper Little Minnesota

River.

'Tennessee:

196,400

197,376

36,900

43,410

36, 246

40, 500

16,700

9,344

18,624

10, 590

47, 810

3,220

72, 738

52, 940

8,430

129,128

91,174

52, 858

21, 787

37, 000

Bear Creek 31,500

Cane Creek 57, 000

Cypress Creek 25, 870

Hardin Creek 62, 900

Houser Creek 21, 490

Indian Creek, Tennessee and Mississippi.

22,000

Jennings Creek 46,150

Line Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky.

40, 330

Mulberry Creek 63,900

Pine Creek 16,800

Porters Creek, Tennessee and Missippi.

44,600

Weatherford-Bear Creek 32, 775

'Texas:

Ands Creek 31, 670

Caney Creek 46, 784

Cummins Creek 204, 896

East Keechie 63,770

•Johnsons Draw 101, 760

Kent Creek _ 27,008

Kickapoo Creek 40,732

Knob Creek 23,870

Lower Brushy Creek 138, 240

Martinez Creek 56,000

Nolan Creek 73,600

Northeast tributaries of Leon River_ 202,880

Upper Brushy Creek 191,360

York Creek 93, 824

"Utah:

American Fork of Dry Creek 118,710

Blue Creek-Howell 115,500

Vermont: Neshobe River 13,000

Virginia:

Beaver Creek 7,010

Buffalo Creek 74,700

Johns Creek 65,000

Leatherwood Creek 43,800

Washington:

French Creek 18,414

Lacamas Creek tributaries 13,972

Marshland 14,006

West Virginia:

Brush Creek 22, 293

Polk Creek 7, 280

SaMick Creek 31,683

Upper Deckers 19,940

Wisconsin:

Bad Axe 132,000

Coon Creek 92, 589

Glen Hills 36,000

Mill Creek 39,096

West Fork of Kickapoo 64, 170

County

Jackson, Harmon, and Greer.

Garfield, Noble. Kay, and Grant.

Alfalfa, Grant, and Garfield.

McCurtain.

Marion.

Hood River.

Lane.

Columbia and Luzerne.

Monroe and Pike.

Fayette.

Wayne, Pike and Monroe.

Berks.

Mercer and Crawford.

Tioga.

Do.

Adjuntos, Anasco, Lares, Los Marios, Maricao,

Mayaguez, and San Sebastion.

Cabo Rojo, Hormig-ueros, Mayagues, Las Marias, Maricao, San German, and Sabana

Grande.

Laurens.

Greenville.

Marshall and Roberts.

Haywood, Fayette, and Ilardeman.

Lauderdale.

Weakley.

Wayne and Hardin.

Obion.

Fayette and Hardeman, Tenn., and Benton,

Miss.

Jackson, Clay, and Macon.

Clay and Macon, Tenn., and Monroe, Ky.

Lincoln and Moore.

Scott.

Hardman, Tenn., and Benton and Tippah,

Miss.

Wayne.

Lamar.

Fannin and Grayson.

Lee, Fayette, Austin, and Colorado.

Palo Pinto, Jack, and Parker.

Crockett.

Briscoe and Hall.

Coke.

Bell.

Williamson and Milam.

Bexar.

Bell and Coryell.

Comanche, Erath, and Eastland.

Williamson.

Gaudalupe, Comal, and Hays.

Utah.

Box Elder.

Rutland and Addison.

Albemarle.

Prince Edward.

Craig and Giles.

Henry and Franklin.

Snohomish.

Clark.

Snohomish.

Mercer.

Lewis.

Braxton.

Preston and Mongalia.

Vernon.

LaCrosse, Monroe, and Vernon.

St. Croix and Dunn.

Richland.

Monroe and Vernon.
30 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Projects approved by Public Works Committees (95 projects)

State and project Area in acres

Alabama:

Big Nance Creek 

Big Prairie-French Creeks 

Cheaha Creek 

Hurricane Creek 

Mill Creek 

Terrapin Creek, Ala. and Ga 

Town Creek 

Arizona:

Apache Junction-Gilbert 

Florence area 

Frye Creek-Stockton Wash 

Magma 

118, 925

180, 192

72,934

45, 566

6, 790

183, 675

161,000

89,983

55, 702

153, 714

70,064

Williams-Chandler 154, 976

Arkansas:

East Fork of Point Remove Creek_ _ 87, 865

Flat Creek 24,050

Muddy Fork of Illinois River 47, 122

Poteau River, Ark. and Okla 187, 460

West Fork of Point Remove Creek__ 201,312

California: Marsh-Kellogg Creek 116, 420

Georgia:

Bull Creek 44,531

Marbury Creek 16,394

Middle Ferk of Broad River 50,829

Middle Oconee-Walnut Creek 91,700

South River 59, 875

Tobesofkee Creek 137, 029

Illinois:

Big Blue 26,690

Seven Mile Creek 18,460

Shoal Creek 192,365

Indiana: Middle Fork of Anderson 69,400

River.

Kansas:

Big Caney, Kans. and Okla 228,000

Fall River 200,001

Twin Caney 98,370

Upper Verdigris 210,860

Kentucky:

Beaver Creek 43,848

Buck Creek 76,862

Mud River 240,033

Louisiana:

Bayou Rapides 96,970

Upper Bayou Nezpique 214,157

Maryland: Upper Rock Creek 38,765

Michigan: Misteguay Creek 103,961

Mississippi:

Chuquatonchee Creek 136,849

Second Creek 69,056

Town Creek 246,957

Montana:

Box Elder Creek 14, 285

Lower Willow Creek 71,200

New Hampshire: Baker River 136,900

New Mexico: Tramperos Creek 136,320

North Carolina: Town Fork Creek 84,521

North Dakota:

Elm River 221,696

Middle and South Branch of Forest

River. 219.520

Ohio: Rush Creek 151,462

Oklahoma:

Caney-Coon Creek 23, 571

Cottonwood Creek 242,470

Delaware Creek 50,016

Fourche Maline Creek 175, 360

Leader-Middle Clear Boggy Creek_ _ 107, 968

Lower Clear Boggy Creek 240,301

Sallisaw Creek 185,280

Salt-Camp Creek 73,030

Sandy Creek,. 147,243

Stillwater Creek 177,216

Upper Black Bear Creek 241, 546

Upper Blue River 203, 100

Upper Clear Boggy Creek 162,240

Whitegrass-Waterhole Creek 29, 575

Oregon: Beaver Creek 19, 940

County

Lawrence.

Hale, Perry, and Marengo.

Clay, Cleburne, and Talladega.

Madison and Jackson.

Elmore and Autauga.

Cherokee, Calhoun, and Cleburne, Ala., and

Haralson and Polk, Ga.

Colbert, Franklin, and Lawrence.

Maricopa and Pinal.

Pinal.

Graham.

Pinal.

Maricopa and Pinal.

Conway and Van Buren.

Lawrence.

Washington.

Scott, Ark., and Leflore, Okla.

Conway, Pope, and Van Buren.

Contra Costa and Alameda.

Harris and Muscogee.

Barrow and Oconee.

Banks, Habersham, Stephens, and Franklin.

Hall and Jackson.

Clarke and Madison.

Bibb, Lamar, and Monroe.

Pike.

Jefferson.

Montgomery.

Perry and Crawford.

Chautauqua, Elk, Cowley, and Osage.

Greenwood, Butler, and Chase.

Chautauqua, Elk, and Montgomery.

Coffee, Greenwood, Lyon, Chase, and Woodson.

Barren and Metcalfe.

Lincoln and Pulaski.

Butler, Logan, Todd, and Muhlenberg.

Rapides.

Allen and Evangeline.

Montgomery.

Saginaw, Shiawassee, and Genessee.

Chickasaw, Pontotoc, Clay, and Monroe.

Adams.

Lee, Pontotoc, Union, and Prentiss.

Sheridan.

Granite.

Grafton.

Union and Harding.

Stokes and Forsyth.

Traill, Steele, and Cass.

Grand Forks, Nelson, and Walsh.

Fairfield, Hocking, and Perry.

Coal.

Logan, Oklahoma, Canadian, and Kingfisher.

Atoka, Coal, Johnston, and Pontotoc.

Latimer and LeFlore.

Pontotoc and Coal.

Atoka, Bryan, Coal, and Johnston.

Sequoyah, Adair, and Cherokee.

Creek and Lincoln.

Garvin and Pontotoc.

Payne, Noble, and-Logan.

Garfield, Noble, and Pawnee.

Atoka, Bryan, Johnson, Murray, and Pontotoc.

Pontotoc, Coal, and Johnston.

McCurtain.

Marion.
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 31

Projects approved by Public Works Committees (95 projects)-Continued

State and project Area in acres County

Pennsylvania:

Brandywine Creek, Pa. and Del__ __

Little Schuylkill River 

Mill Run 

Sandy Creek 

Puerto Rico: Guayanes River 

South Carolina: Thicketty Creek 

South Dakota: Brule Creek 

Tennessee:

Lick Creek 

Middle Fork of Obion River 

Reelfoot-Indian Creek, Tenn. and

Ky.

Texas:

Alamo Arroyo 

Camp Rice Arroyo 

Chiltipin-San Fernando Creek _ 

Diablo Arroyo 

Dry Devils River and Lowrey Draw_

Lower Plum Creek 

Olmitos-Garcias Creek 

Pine Creek 

Plum Creek 

Salado Creek 

San Diego-Rosita Creeks 

Sulphur Creek 

Tehuacana Creek 

Upper Bosque 

Upper Lake Fork Creek 

Valley Creek 

Virginia: Roanoke Creek 

Wisconsin: Twin Parks 

Wyoming:

Boulder Lake 

North Fork of Powder River 

211,200

86,848

7,814

42,000

31,700

74,640

142,720

168,392

74,025

82, 660

83, 603

31,405

215, 740

40,992

149, 120

152,900

99,840

119,040

97,000

139, 808

222,450

85, 120

196, 480

235. 520

145.472

150,464

141, 900

78,620

99,961

193, 557

Chester, Lancaster, and Delaware, Pa., and New

Castle, Del.

Schuylkill, Carbon, and Berks.

Crawford.

Crawford and Mercer.

Yabucoa.

Cherokee and Spartanburg.

Lincoln and Union.

Greene and Washington.

Henry and Weakley.

Obion, Tenn., and Fulton, Ky.

Hudspeth.

Do.

Duval, Jim Wells, Nueces, and Kleberg.

Hudspeth.

Schleicher and Sutton.

Hays and Caldwell.

Starr.

Lamar.

Hays, Caldwell, and Travis.

Bexar.

Duval and Jim Wells.

Burnet and Lampasas.

McLennon, Hill, and Limestone.

Erath, Hamilton, and Bosque.

Hopkins, Rains, and Hunt.

Runnels, Taylor, and Nolan.

Charlotte.

Iowa.

Sublette.

Johnson.

Projects approved administratively (226 projects)

Alabama:

Brackin's Mill Creek 

Bristow's Creek 

Clear Creek 

Little New River 

Lost Creek, Ala. and Ga 

Arkansas:

Arkansas City 

Camp Bayou 

Chicot, Desha, and Drew 

Fourche Bayou _ 

Kelso-Rohwer 

Ouachita Creek 

Randolph-Walnut Lake 

Upper Culotches Bay 

California: Arroyo Grande 

Colorado:

Coalbank 

Fishers Peak-Carbon Arroyos 

Limon 

Roatcap 

West Cherry Creek 

Wray 

Connecticut:

Roaring Brook-Walnut Street Brook_

Spaulding Pond Brook 

Delaware: Bear Hole 

Florida:

Fisheating Creek Marsh 

Lake Placid East Chain of Lakes 

North St. Lucie River Drainage

District.

Pine Barren Creek, Fla. and Ala_

Sebastian River Drainage District 

Georgia:

Barber Creek 

Bear Creek 

Bishop Creek 

Haynes Creek-Brushy Fork Creek_ _

Hazel Creek 

Head of Little Tennessee River,

Ga. and N.C.

Hightower Creek 

3,400

16,608

11,800

32,506

17,139

16,143

21,756

41,227

14,322

26,895

4,250

13,564

38,969

103,400

24,000

1,470

9,870

10,642

31,360

2,386

5,070

850

4,523

51,200

12,500

66,220

61,600

33,930

26,899

23,324

27,840

20,000

19,560

36, 693

22,950

Dale and Coffee.

Etowah.

Jackson.

Marion and Fayette.

Cleburne, Ala., and Carroll, Ga.

Desha.

Ashley.

Chicot, Desha, and Drew.

Pulaski.

Desha.

Perry.

Desha.

Woodruff and Prairie.

San Luis Obispo.

Weld and Larimer.

Las Animas.

Elbert and Lincoln.

Montrose.

Douglas and El Paso.

Yuma.

Hartford.

Mew London.

Sussex.

Highlands.

Do.

St. Lucie.

Escambia (Fla. and Ala.

Indian River.

Barrow and Oconee.

Newton and Jasper.

Appling and Jeff Davis.

Rockdale, Gwinnett, and Walton.

Habersham.

Rabun, Ga., and Macon, N.C.

Towns.
32 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Projects approved administratively (2,26 projects)-Continued

State and project Area in acres

Georgia-Continued

Palmetto Creek 

Rocky Creek 

13, 450

20, 700

Rooty Creek _ 29,483

Sautee Creek 20,000

Idaho:

Cedar Creek, Idaho and Nev 126,720

Cow Creek-Dobson Creek 17,700

Fourth of July Creek 17,100

Illinois:

Hambaugh-Martin 8,601

Tiskilwa _ 3,300

Indiana:

Dewitt Creek 9,000

Elk Creek 18, 020

Kickapoo Creek 24, 700

Little Wea Creek 11,960

West Creek, Ind. and Ill 36,086

Iowa:

Bee-Jay 16,920

English Bench _ 4,720

Hamburg 2,365

Harmony Creek 3, 100

Hound Dog Creek 5, 580

Moulton 7, 275

Pierce Creek 3,812

Rocky Branch Creek 8,663

Simpson Creek 2, 393

South Hungerford No. 2 2, 765

Stennett Red Oak Creek 9, 547

Kansas:

Andale 16,421

Cimarron Watershed District_ 6,440

Nebo Creek 9,360

Spring Creek 27, 840

Thompsonville 4,062

Kentucky:

Cypress Creek 32,424

Meadow Creek 9,862

Short Creek 24.300

Twin Creek 17,418

Louisiana:

Baker Canal 21,600

Bayou Blue 81,840

Bayou Dupont 57,610

Bear Creek 20,400

North Tensas 186,072

Pleasant Valley, Big Ditch, and 11,800

Scarboroughs Creek.

Upper West Fork of Cypress Bayou_ 5, 550

Maine: Libby Brook 18,568

Maryland:

Aydelotte 12, 470

Little Deer Creek 10, 112

Ninepin Branch 6,300

Timmonstown Branch 8,655

Massachusetts:

Baiting Brook 2,182

Powdermill Brook 12,825

Michigan:

Fowlerville Drain 1,465

Little Black River 17, 130

Little River 37,973

Middle Branch of Cass River 48,672

Muskrat Creek 7,654

Sanborn 4,230

Minnesota:

Bear Valley 29,326

Coon Creek 55,276

Middle Fork of Two Rivers 57, 276

North Branch of Two Rivers 234,223

Rush-Pine Creek 88,060

Zippel 51,964

Mississippi:

Buck Island Bayou 27,820

Central Bogue Phalle.. 64,778

Shammack Creek 10,574

Tackett Creek_ 8,850

Upper Quiver River and Blue Lake_ 58,087

County

Harris.

Wilkes.

Putnam.

White and Habersham.

Twin Falls and Owyhee, Idaho, and Elko, Nev.

Boundary.

Kootenai.

Brown.

Bureau.

Lawrence.

Washington.

Warren.

Tippecanoe.

Lake, Ind., and Kankakee and Will, Ill.

Pottawatamie.

Allamakee.

Fremont.

Harrison.

Fremont.

Appanoose.

Page.

Jefferson.

Fremont.

Plymouth.

Montgomery.

Sedgwick and Reno.

Gray.

Jackson, Atchison, and Jefferson.

Sedgwick, and Reno

Jefferson.

Union.

Wayne.

Grayson.

Harrison.

Assumption.

Allen and Jefferson Davis.

Natchitoches and Sabine.

Allen and Beauregard.

Tensas.

Washington.

Bossier.

Aroostook.

Wicomico.

Harford.

Worcester.

Do.

Middlesex.

Hampden and Hampshire.

Livingston.

Cheboygan.

Menominee.

Sanilac.

Clinton.

Alpena.

Wabasha and Goodhue.

Anoka.

Kittson.

Kittson and Roseau.

Fillmore, Houston, and Winoma.

Lake of the Woods.

Tunica.

Bolivar and Washington.

Kemper.

Holmes.

Tallahatchie.
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 33

41=1,

Projects approved administratively (226 projects)-Continued

State and project Area in acres

Missouri:

East Fork of Big Creek, Mo. and 52,084

Iowa.

Hoover-Frankum 18,307

One Hundred and Two River tributaries.

19,301

Platte River tributaries 12,800

Nebraska:

Buckley Creek 25,380

Cure Creek 860

Dorchester 5, 327

Dry Creek South 22, 810

Jones 4,964

Oak-Middle Creek 230, 699

Pilger 4, 700

Plattsmouth 2, 465

'1 urtle Creek 2, 000

Wildhorse 26,000

Nevada:

Upper Meadow Valley Wash 175,000

Virgin Valley 27, 400

New Hampshire:

Ash Swamp, Tannery, White, and 12,800

Black Brooks.

Oliverian Brook 9,860

New Jersey:

Paulins Kill 109,440

Pine Mount-Mill Creek 6, 500

Repaupo 13,000

Silver Lake-Locust Island 5, 590

Stony Brook 30, 604

Town Bank 2,400

Tributaries of Maurice River Cove_ _ 6,900

New Mexico:

Caballo Arroyos 7, 680

Dona Ana Arroyo 6, 950

Fillmore Arroyos 16, 292

Hackberry Draw watershed 13, 760

Hatch Valley Arroyos 14, 521

Pecos Arroyo 47, 808

Prop Canyon and tributaries 19,162

Saltpeter Creek 32, 320

Upper Rio Penasco 128,000

New York:

Genegantslet Creek 66,457

Upper Five Mile Creek 38,100

North Carolina:

Bear Creek 38, 650

Broad Creek 37, 675

Burnt Mill Creek 10,496

Cutawhiskie Creek 29,750

Deep Creek 18, 246

Folley Ditch 3, 170

Grindle Creek 51,871

Horse Swamp-Flat Swamp 9, 330

Johnson's Milltail 13, 200

Lowland 1, 595

Moccasin Creek 7,416

Mosley Creek-Tracey Swamp 36, 380

Pollock Swamp 14,475

North Dakota:

West tributary of Bois-de Sioux 30, 220

River, N. Dak. and S. Dak.

Wild Rice "B" 145,385

Ohio:

Black Brook 4,954

East Fork of Buck Creek 6,570

Oklahoma:

Cache Creek Bottom 12, 535

Long Branch 28, 160

Squaw Creek 7, 940

Oregon:

Lynx Hollow 11,720

Skipanon River 10, 480

Pennsylvania:

Lackawaxen tributaries 26,625

Martin Creek 31,680

North Fork of Cowanesque River_ _ _ 7,650

Saul-Mathay watershed 3,940

County

Harrison, Mo., and Decatur, Iowa.

Nodaway.

Do.

Worth.

Jefferson and Thayer.

Keith.

Saline.

Red Willow.

Polk.

Lancaster, Seward, Saunders, and Butler.

Stanton and Cuming.

Cass.

Sarpy.

Morrill.

Lincoln.

Clark and Lincoln, Nev., and Mohave, Ariz.

Cheshire.

Grafton.

Warren and Sussex.

Cumberland.

Gloucester.

Salem.

Mercer and Hunterdon.

Salem.

Cumberland.

Sierra and Dona Ana.

Dona Ana.

Do.

Eddy.

Dona Ana.

San Miguel.

Valencia.

Colfax.

Otero.

Chenango, Cortland, and Broome.

Steuben and Yates.

Wayne, Green, and Lenoir.

Beaufort.

Perquimans and Chowan.

Northampton and Hertford.

Washington.

Gates.

Pitt.

Hertford.

Pitt.

Pamlico.

Johnston.

Lenoir, Craven, and Jones.

Chowan.

Richland, N. Dak., and Roberts, S. Dak.

Richland and Sargent.

Portage.

Champaign.

LeFlore.

Payne and Noble.

Comanche.

Lane.

Clatsop.

Wayne.

Susquehanna.

Potter.

Mercer.
34 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Projects approved administratively (226 projects)-Continued

State and project Area in acres

South Carolina:

Back Swamp 

Beaverdam 

Big Creek 

Broadmouth Creek 

Brushy Creek 

Coneross Creek 

Hills Creek 

Lynches Lake Camp Branch 

Wateree Creek 

South Dakota:

Green Creek 

Marne Creek 

Pattee Creek 

Richland Creek 

Silver Creek 

Tennessee:

Cub Creek 

Johnson Creek 

Meridian Creek 

Proctor Creek 

Roark's Cove 

Shady Valley 

Thompson Creek 

Texas:

Agua Dulce 

East Bay Bayou 

Langford Creek 

Logan Slough 

Macho Arroyo 

Madden Arroyo 

Mimms Draw 

Ramirez Creek 

Town Branch 

Turkey Creek 

Upper Las Moras Creek 

Utah:

Green's Lake 

Mill Canyon-Sage Flat 

Miller-Biglow 

North Fork of Ogden River 

Virginia:

Back Creek 

Beautiful Run 

Horse Pasture Creek 

Little River 

Marrowbone 

Mountain Run 

Muddy Creek 

White Oak Run 

Washington:

Chimacum Creek 

Saar Creek 

Twin Buttes 

West Virginia:

Big Ditch Run 

Bond's Creek 

Dave's Fork-Christian's Fork 

Marlin Run 

Peck's Run 

Upper Grave Creek 

Wisconsin:

Alma-Mill Creek 

Bay City 

Bogus Creek 

Garden Valley (Rose Valley) 

Lost Creek 

South Nelson 

Trout Run 

Wyoming:

Angell Draw 

Arnold Drain 

London Flats-Bovee 

Pine Ridge-Case Bier 

11, 754

18,856

13,279

18,600

23,512

43,300

14,067

10,626

35,000

11, 104

20,825

25,462

6,515

20, 661

10,719

22, 610

12,300

8,465

12,800

12, 025

18,700

228, 720

36,000

25,030

7,334

11,917

21,248

4,525

6,605

2,176

18,880

18,272

6,235

15,296

8,000

42, 880

22,340

13,800

17,380

30,500

19,300

28,700

7,450

11,130

24,965

11,233

4,304

5, 730

9,435

4,154

1,035

8,210

4,920

10,957

5,826

7, 576

18,494

5, 189

9,406

11,273

7,204

4,275

18,588

25,666

County

Lee.

Edgefleld.

Anderson.

Do.

Anderson and Pickens.

Oconee.

Chesterfield.

Florence.

Fairfield.

Union.

Yankton.

Lincoln.

Union.

Minnehaha.

Hardeman.

Madison.

Do.

Clay.

Franklin.

Johnson.

Weakley and Henry.

Nueces and Jim Wells.

Charobers and Jefferson.

Red River.

Lamar.

Hudspeth.

Do.

Presidio.

Starr.

Madison.

Fort Bend.

Kinney.

Iron.

Sevier.

Juab.

Weber.

Pulaski.

Madison.

Henry.

Louisa.

Henry.

Culpeper.

Buckingham,

Madison.

Jefferson.

Whatcom.

Klickitat.

Webster.

Ritchie

Mercer.

Pocahontas.

Upshur and Barbour.

Marshall.

Buffalo.

Pierce.

Pepin.

Buffalo.

Pepin.

Buffalo.

Jackson.

Goshen.

Do.

Do.

Do.
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 35

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Do those include the public works projects?

Mr. HOLLIS WILLIAMS. If you desire that, we can give you the

number approved by this committee and the Public Works Committee

and those approved administratively.

Mr. POAGE. You gave us that about 6 months ago.

Mr. HOLLIS WILLIAMS. I happen to have it here for the Appropriations Committee, but I cannot just reach it right now.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. We will supply it for the record.

.Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Would you include in that list where these

projects are located that have been developed?

Mr. HOLLIS WILLIAMS. Yes.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. In eastern Kentucky what is the remedy for

the situation there, where the local communities do not have the

finances. It is not working in eastern Kentucky, in those places that

I know of, because of the high cost per acre benefited. It is excluded

there.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. It is an extremely difficult problem, Mr.

Stubblefield, not only in eastern Kentucky, but in the entire Appalachian area, actually, which has a comparable problem.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. It may be more intense in that area.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. It may be more intense than in other areas

because of certain factors. It may be more intense in eastern Kentucky. Because of the poverty, and the little, narrow valleys, and

the cost of getting any amount of storage that would do much good in

these narrow valleys it is such that you cannot come out with a

favorable cost-benefit ratio, in very many of the cases in those watersheds in eastern Kentucky far flood prevention purposes.

Now, there is something that some of the folks = are giving more

attention to since the amendment last year which added recreation

as a purpose. There are a few of those watershed projects now in

eastern Kentucky where with the combination of recreation and flood

prevention and some other things, you can have a feasible project,

but it will not be all of them, by any means, and there will be a limit

as to how much of this recreation will be desirable. These additional

purposes and benefits are helping some already, and I think that we

will see some further improvement.

As I did mention earlier, this amendment proposed here would permit the use of other funds, such as ARA funds to be used to help in

the rights-of-way which would be very helpful to the people in eastern

Kentucky, if that were to be done. I do not think there is any question about that.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. I do not think that we will have too much

trouble with that rights-of-way problem down in my State. I think

that the people will donate them.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. Except where there is a road or a railroad or

something like that in there.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Last year I talked to the Governor and he was

perfectly willing to contribute what he could toward some of these

projects, but under this law you are not permitted to accept any of

those, are you—I do not think that is a problem down there about the

rights-of-way, however. I understand that cash contributions towards

the construction is one thing. I understand that is not permissible.
36 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. That is correct. As the law now stands

for flood prevention purposes, that is the construction of the dam

itself, the law provides that the construction cost must be paid 100

percent by the Federal Government.

Mr. POAGE. At the very inception of this program we found that

there was serious bidding on the part of various communities to get

the first of these projects. The communities that had a good deal of

money could always get the project if they would put up the money.

Let me go off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. POAGE. Back on the record.

And in other communities where the need was just as .great, but

where the people, apparently, were not as well off, they simply could

not compete with that sort of thing. We simply felt that if we allowed

this to get on a bid basis that many parts of the country would not

get projects.

Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Was it not, to begin with, that they.

had to pay for the cost of the dam started under the original acquisition?

Mr. POAGE. I do not think that is correct, but we did find clearly

that if it were on a bid basis that these various poor communities

could never get them.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. And the per acre benefit-cost propositionl

stops many of them.

Mr. POAGE. I think that if we wanted to do that we might make

a contribution, rather than let the locality itself make it.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. I am talking about the State doing it.

Mr. POAGE. I think that might be an answer, because if you let

the State do it, obviously, then, you would not have this.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Many local communities cannot put up the

money.

Mr. POAGE. Do you not see what I am talking about?

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. I see what you are talking about.

Mr. POAGE. If you leave it up to bid for these things, the richer

communities will get all of the benefits, but if you did not let the

localities put up the equalization fund, as you might call it, if you

let the State do that, then, obviously, within the State jurisdiction

your State has the allocation of the money. And in Kentucky, like

Texas and Oklahoma, they have been actually getting more than their'

share for the last several years, because in the early stages of this the

other States were not using it, but you are not going to get that, as I

understand the situation—in fact, we are all going to be cut down, and.

your State has a certain amount of money coming to it and if Kentucky wants to supplement that, it might be the answer to let the

State supplement it, and then the State would not have the proposition of the opulent area bidding against eastern Kentucky, at least,,

not before these people; they might do it before the State government,.

but they would not do it here in Washington.

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. If you will yield, is there not a possibility,

also, by reason of a regulation saying to a State like Kentucky,

"Well, now, we will set this up on the basis of so much benefit from

the standpoint of flood prevention. Do you want to charge the

balance off against your recreational value, and let the State come

in entirely, instead of the local community in picking up that part of

the tab that normally would be paid for by the locality? I am trying
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 37

to help you, Frank. I am not trying to hurt you. And I am saying

that the State may, and that we might help you without divesting

ourselves of our formula.

Mr. COOLEY. Let this be off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. POAGE. On the record.

Mr. COOLEY. If we pass this bill increasing this to 12,500 acrefeet would that be beneficial in the consideration of some of the

watershed projects?

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS. I am not sure that that would be a critical

point, Mr. Cooley, with respect to that particular watershed, but

we will check that and supply the information.

Mr. HOLLIS WILLIAMS. Just as a passing remark I think that this

is one of the projects that has this point at stake. In other words,

turning here to our record, if I may, and I shall go off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. POAGE. On the record.

Mr. COOLEY. If we pass this bill it appears to me that would

expedite this project.

Mr. HOLLIS WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Could I talk to something that Mr. Stubblefield said just a little

bit ago like you and I have talked about?

In eastern Kentucky the projects have been held down mainly

for two reasons. The administrator pointed out the narrow valleys,

the steep slopes, and that it was hard to get a favorable cost-benefit

ratio. That is one reason.

The second reason is that in some locations where you have public

utilities, railroads, highways, houses, and other things the people

-just could not pay the land cost, easements, and rights-of-way costs.

We had that latter situation in Connecticut also. The State legislature

passed a bill. appropriating $6 million out of State funds to help in

those high-land value areas to overcome that item.

On the other item, recently we did get a little relief on revising the

criteria through Senate Document No. 97. Today we can claim

secondary benefits. To illustrate what I mean by that, I will use a

cotton gin illustration. Assuming that you had a community that

had a cotton gin that formerly ginned 1,500 bales annually and you

went up to 2,000 bales in production in that area. Heretofore we

could not claim as a benefit to that community that spread of 500

bales. Under the secondary benefits we can claim that as a benefit

accruing from the increased production in the community. That

could apply to other items.

Secondly, where you are in a distressed area, in one of the ARA

designated counties, if the project puts local people to work it is a

benefit even though it is small. But you could not claim employment

as a benefit if a contractor brought in his regular crew for a bulldozer,

the operator, but if he employed a helper in that community you can

claim that as a benefit. It is small—it is really small.

I give only those two illustrations. There are a few other items

that have helped us a little bit in our Kentucky projects.

There have been other things proposed. The administrator

pointed out here that if this committee should ever decide to consider

single structures for recreation storage—and I am not trying to put

in a plug today—I think that all of you know where I stand on that—

we have an understanding on that—but we have even gone so far

•
38 AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT

that even though Congressman Poage said that he was not for this

special legislation. But when we were studying the Appalachian

proposed bill, if it is decided to give any speCial consideration to any

special area, we have pointed out that we may have to consider less

than an economically feasible project. According to present criteria,

for every dollar that goes in you have to have a dollar returned.

And we have been that practical about it. It might have to be

dropped down to some lesser amount to permit projects to be developed

in areas of this type. No miracle, however, can be performed under

the present law. If we get some more relief on lands, easements,

and rights-of-way we can move up a few. We are getting in a few

more under this secondary benefit claim than we did in the past, just

a few more.

Mr. POAGE. What do you suggest? There are certain benefits that

are attributable to recreation, even though they were not recreational

benefits of the type that can be attributed accordingly. And for the

States to pay for that type of recreation, we could let the States pay

for that type and in that way the project might be all right, but you

could not justify the $50,000, for example, for some project, if the

State wanted to pay $25,000 to get the recreation, and if they decided

to do that, they could pay that.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAms. There is actually some of that taking place

already. I do not recall the names of the watersheds, but there are at

least two watersheds in Pennsylvania where State money is going in to

help with that kind of a thing.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any further comments or questions on this

subject?

If not, we are very much obliged to you gentlemen.

Without objection, the prepared statement of Mr. Eugene W.

Weber, Deputy Director of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army will be made a part of the record at

this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF EUGENE W. WEBER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE

OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I am Eugene W. Weber,

Deputy Director of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers. At the request

of the staff of this committee, I am appearing here today to present the views of

the Department of the Army on H.R. 9695 and H.R. 9938 which would raise from

5,000 acre-feet to 12,500 acre-feet, the limit on the capacity that may be included

for flood control purposes in any reservoir constructed pursuant to the authorities

of Public Law 566.

Since the Department of the Army was not asked to submit a report, we have

not prepared an official position on these specific bills. However, the amendment

contemplated by the bills was one of several proposals which the Department of

Agriculture submitted to the Bureau of the Budget in 1962, and which were

reviewed by the Department of the Army at that time. The position then taken

by the Department of the Army was set out in a letter of February 7, 1963, to the

Director of the Bureau of the Budget signed by Mr. Powell Pierpoint, Special

Assistant to the Secretary of the Army for Civil Functions. We have obtained

informal clearance from the Office of the Secretary of the Army and from the

Bureau of the Budget to quote those parts of that letter which bear upon the

amendment proposed by H.R. 9695 and H.R. 9938.

The Department of the Army's views on the proposal to raise the limit on

flood control capacity from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet are embodied in the following

quotations from Mr. Pierpoint's letter:

"The Department of the Army would prefer that the present limit of 5,000

acre-feet for flood detention capacity be retained and that all projects requiring

more than that amount for an optimum solution be authorized for construction
AMEND THE WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT 39

by the Corps of Engineers. The proposed increase would greatly enlarge the

area of overlap (and its serious attendant problems) between the Public Law 566

program and the programs of the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.

However, the Department will interpose no objection to the increase to 12,500 acre-feet provided certain essential principles outlined below are also recognized in the amendment to Public Law 566. These principles are:

"(a) Public Law 566 plans in which flood protection is an objective should be formulated with a view to providing such benefits primarily within an area not exceeding 250,000 acres.

"(b) Any Public Law 566 plan or group of plans that would result in downstream effects of sufficient magnitude to require that they be taken into account in the formulation or operation of downstream projects should be coordinated with the

agency concerned with the downstream development.

"The Department of the Army has repeatedly given its support to the basic principle that all reservoirs in a river basin, whether large or small, should constitute elements of that basinwide reservoir system which best meets the long-range needs of the basin; the 'best' system being that which maximizes the sum total of net benefits, including the benefit to be derived from power generation, water supply for all purposes, water quality improvement, reclamation, navigation, enhancement of recreation and fish and wildlife, as well as flood damage reductions. "The main purpose of paragraphs (a) and (b) above is to implement this basic principle. Paragraph (b) would accomplish this by requiring that the agencies responsible for upstream and downstream planning coordinate their plans in any river basin in which the Public Law 566 projects expected to be undertaken, in the long run, would produce downstream effects of such magnitude as to require that they be taken into account in the formulation, modification, or operation of downstream projects.

"Paragraph (a) would require that Public Law 566 projects be planned to meet needs within the watersheds they cover. It would thus require the Department of Agriculture to confine itself to the minor engineering works needed for the solution of the problems which occur in small headwater drainage areas. This would not prevent the Department of Agriculture from claiming incident benefits in downstream valleys. It would prevent it from unilaterally proposing projects primarily for the purpose of producing downstream benefits. This is in accord with the clear intent of the Congress that in the engineering field the Department of Agriculture would confine itself to dealing with the problems of small headwater watersheds.

"These provisos are necessary for the reason that in some river basins even those Public Law 566 projects designed primarily to meet needs within small headwater watersheds will, after a sufficient proportion of the basin is encompassed by such projects, produce incidental downstream effects large enough to require changes in the design, or the operation, of downstream projects." This ends the quotation from Mr. Pierpoint's letter.

To complete the record, I should add that after considering the foregoing views of the Department of the Army, the Bureau of the Budget informed the

Department of Agriculture that enactment of legislation to raise the limit on flood control capacity from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet would be consistent with the administration's objectives, but that to insure proper consideration of the small watershed program with the programs of other Federal agencies it would be

necessary to revise the regulations issued by the President pursuant to the last proviso of section 5 of Public Law 566.

So far as I know, there have been no changes in the positions of the Department of the Army and of the Bureau of the Budget since the actions to which I have alluded took place; that is, since February and March of 1963. Accordingly we would interpose no objection to the enactment of H.R. 9938 or those provisions of H.R. 9695 which provide for raising the flood storage capacity of Public Law 566 reservoirs from 5,000 to 12,500 acre-feet. We have no had opportunity to consider or formulate a position on other provisions of H.R. 9695.

The Department of the Army and the Corps of Engineers appreciate the opportunity you have given us to place our views before the subcommittee.

Mr. POAGE. The subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the

call of the Chair.

Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was in recess, to

reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.)
ammo