`14

W3I/41 WATERSHED PROJECTS't\Ns 913 

GOVERNMENT'

* ,kj

Storage 

1 6 1974

R

KANSAS UNIVERSITY

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

CONSERVATION AND CREDIT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

q4111P MAY 8, 21 AND OCTOBER 30, 1973

co Serial No. 93-QQ

cc

co

=i I'rinted for the use of the Committee on Agriculture

z

<Ece

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

28-451 WASHINGTON : 1974
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

W. R. POAGE, Texas, Chairman

FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky,

Vice Chairman

THOMAS S. FOLEY, Washington

E DE LA GARZA, Texas

JOSEPH P. VIGORITO, Pennsylvania

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

B. F. SISK, California

BILL ALEXANDER, Arkansas

JOHN R. RARICK, Louisiana

ED JONES, Tennessee

JOHN MELCHER, Montana

DAWSON MATHIS, Georgia

BOB BERGLAND, Minnesota

FRANK E. DENHOLM, South Dakota

SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, Hawaii

GEORGE E. BROWN, JE., California

DAVID R. BOWEN, Mississippi

CHARLES ROSE, North Carolina

JERRY LITTON, Missouri

BILL GUNTER, Florida

CHARLES M. TEAGUE, California,

Ranking Minority Member

WILLIAM C. WAMPLER, Virginia

GEORGE A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

ROBERT B. MATHIAS, California

WILEY MAYNE, Iowa

JOHN M. ZWACH, Minnesota

ROBERT PRICE, Texas

KEITH G. SEBELIUS, Kansas

WILMER D. MIZELL, North Carolina

PAUL FINDLEY, Illinois

LAMAR BAKER, Tennessee

CHARLES THONE, Nebraska

STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho

EDWARD YOUNG, South Carolina

JAMES P. JOHNSON, Colorado

EDWARD R. MADIGAN, Illinois

FOWLER C. WEST, Staff Director

JOHN F. O'NEAL, General Counsel

HYDE H. MURRAY, Associate Counsel

JOHN RAINBOLT, A880Ciate Counsel

L. T. EASLEY, Press Assistant

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND CREDIT

W. R. POAGE, Texas, Chairman

FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky JOHN M. ZWACH, Minnesota

E DE LA GARZA, Texas GEORGE A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

BILL ALEXANDER, Arkansas WILEY MAYNE, Iowa

BOB BERGLAND, Minnesota EDWARD R. MADIGAN, Illinois
A

1

CONTENTS

Watershed projects: Page

Bacon Creek, Iowa f

Carbon Hill Watershed, Mont 5.

Cow Creek, Okla 10'

Lost Creek, Mo 75

Nutwood Watershed, Ill 64

Oolenoy River, S.0 17

Prickett, Creek, W Va 84

Tallulah Creek, N C 46

Truth of Consequences-Williamsburg Arroyos, N. Mex 38, 92

Statement of:

Albert, Hon. Carl, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Oklahoma 17

Barlow, Thomas J., representing Environmental Action_ _ _ _ 27, 71, 81, 89

Blackwelder, Brent, Washington representative, Environmental

Policy Center 25, 51

Dorn, Hon. William Jennings Bryan, a Representative in Congress

from the State of South Carolina. 2/

Findley Hon. Paul, A Representative in Congress from the State of

Illinois 65

Mayne, Hon. Wiley, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Iowa 1

Melcher, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Montana 9

Mollohan, Hon. Robert H., a Representative in Congress from the

State of West Virginia 92

Runnels, Hon. Harold, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Mexico 44

Taylor, Hon. Gene, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri 79

Taylor, Hon. Roy A., a Representative in Congress from the State of

North Carolina 49

Correspondence submitted to the subcommittee:

Armijo, Alex J., Commissioner of Public Lands, State of New Mexico,

letter of April 6, 1971 60

Dell, Charles S., assistant director, Department of Institutions, State of

Montana, letter of April 13, 1973 10

Grant, Kenneth, E., Administrator, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, letter of:

May 17, 1973 56

October 1973 92

Hickman, Bob, director, Department of Parks, Recreation, and

Tourism, State of South Carolina, letter of December 2, 1973 25

Homann, Gerald W., Col., C. E., district engineer, Albuquerque District, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, letter of April 19,

1966 94

Staggers, Hon. Harley 0., a Representative in Congress from the

State of West Virginia, letter of Oct. 19, 1973 91

Additional material submitted to the subcommittee:

Mississippi floods 28

Alternatives to stream channelization and channel improvement

programs 29

Comments on a model State act for soil erosion and sediment control 31

WATERSHED PROJECTS

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1973

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND CREDIT

OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess at 10 a.m., in room 1301,

Lonaworth House Office Building, Hon. VV. R. Poage (chairman)

presiding.

Present: Representatives Poage, Stubblefield, Zwach, and

Goodling.

Also present: Fowler C. West, staff director; John O'Neal, general

counsel; and Martha Hannah, subcommittee, clerk.

Also present and representing the Soil Conservation Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture: Carl R. Klingelhofer, Director, Watershed Planning Division; Joseph H. Haas, Assistant Deputy for Watersheds (Operations) ; Richard D. Parker and Joseph S. Haugh, Soil

Conservationists.

BACON CREEK, IOWA

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. We are here

this morning to consider six watersheds. We have representatives

from the Department here to discuss these watersheds. I understand

Mr. Haugh will discuss the first one, which is Bacon Creek in Iowa.

We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Haugh.

I understand that Congressman Mayne will not appear, but he will

want to insert a statement. Without objection, it will be included in the record.

[The statement of Mr. Mayne follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. WILEY MAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF IOWA

Gentlemen, the proposed Bacon Creek Watershed would include about 23 square miles of drainage area in Woodbury and Plymouth Counties in my Northwest Iowa Congressional District. A portion of the project would be within the city limits of Sioux City; the marketing and distributive center for the area. Consid- erable study and planning has been conducted by the Woodbury and Plymouth Counties Soil Conservation Districts, the Plymouth and Woodbury Counties Board of Supervisors and the City of Sioux City. They are all to be commended for the outstanding contributions they have made.

This project is unquestionably vital to soil conservation and flood control in the proposed watershed area. Gully erosion has already caused serious damage in the area. As the gullies advance and grow in width and depth, it has

became necessary to convert productive cropland into pasture land or idle acres.

(1)
2

These gullies also limit housing development possibilities. Thousands of acres

of land will be damaged by erosion if it is left unchecked.

This area is also plagued by sediment damage. Road ditches and city streets

are collecting huge deposits of sediment. Not only is the removal of the sediment expensive but the erosion is causing a gradual decline in the productivity

of the land by the loss of the fertile topsoil.

The watershed would also provide badly needed flood protection to hundreds

of home owners and businessmen in Sioux City.

Many farmers within the watershed area are actively pursuing good soil

conservation practices at this time. However, in order to reach the desirable

levels of soil and water conservation as well as to provide flood protection, the

area will need an extensive set of land treatment measures such as those

offered in the proposed watershed.

An aspect of the project which cannot be overlooked is the water-based recreation facilities it would provide. Sioux City, a city of about 89,000 and the

greater Sioux City Metropolitan area, urgently need additional recreation areas

providing water-based recreation opportunities. The nearest lake is 18 miles

away and is very small offering only limited recreational activities.

The Bacon Creek Watershed project would certainly provide welcomed recreational opportunities as well as sound soil and water conservation practices.

I want to highly recommend this project to my colleagues and will be glad to

answer any questions you may have concerning it. I respectfully urge a unanimous vote approving the project.

BACON CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and tocation-14,900 acres in Woodbury and Plymouth Counties.

Tributary to—Missouri River.

Sponsors—Woodbury County Soil Conservation District; Plymouth County

Soil Conservation District; Woodbury County Board of Supervisors; Plymouth

County Board of Supervisors; City of Sioux City.

Total Watershed Land Use:

Cropland 

P erre ?r t

44

Grassland 27

Woodland 6

Miscellaneous 23

Total watershed privately owned—

Number of Farms-110.

Size of Farms—About 236 acres average.

Purpose—Watershed Protection, Flood Prevention, and Recreation.

Principal Measures—Soil conservation practices on farms and woodlands; and

structural measures consisting of 31 grade stabilization structures, 5 floodwater retarding and sediment control structures, and one multiple purpose reservoir with storage capacity for sediment, floodwater, and recreation. The storage

capacity of the structures ranges from 24 acre-feet to 817 acre-feet.

ANNUAL BENEFITS

Amount Percent

Land $97, 500 42

To agricultural improvements 700 

To nonagricultural improvements 24, 900 11

Indirect 10,300 5

Recreation 86, 000 37

Subtotal 219, 400 95

Secondary 11,700 5

Total 231,100 100

Benefit-Cost Ratio-1.7 to 1 at the interest rate applicable when the plan was

developed. At the federal borrowing rate on April 17, 1973, the overall B:C ratio

would be 1.9 to 1, and without secondary benefits, it would be 1.8 to 1.1

Area Benefited 4,700 acres.

a Supplied in accordance with Subcommittee instructions.
3

Number of Beneficiaries—About 92 farms will be directly benefited from installation of structural measures. There are also about 200 residential, commercial,

and industrial properties that will receive direct benefits from project installation.

PROJECT COSTS

Public Law 556 funds Other funds'

Amount Percent Amount Percent Total

Land treatment measures $2,000 2 $88,000 98 $90,000

Structural measures:

Flood prevention 

Recreation 

1,438,

180,

000

000

96

51

67,

172,

000

000

4

49

1,505,

352,

000

000

Project administration 211,000 92 19,000 8 230,000

Total 1,831,000 84 346,000 2 16 2,177,000

1 For land treatment measures this is pri narily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost-sharing

from funds appropriated for the rural environmental assistance program may be available if included in the county

program.

For structural measures this is the cost of land rights and project administration. It may also include costs for construction

or engineering services for purposes other than flood prevention.

2 The value of measures already installed ($125,000) increases this to 20 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 Structural Cost per Acre Benefited—$163.

Carrying out the Project—The Woodbury Soil Conservation District, Plymouth

County and the City of Sioux City will each assume all local responsibilities for

installing, operating, and maintaining the structural measures in their respective

political subdivision. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is

$21,000.

USDA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 1

BACON CREEK WATERSHED, IOWA ( PLYMOUTH AND WOODBURY COUNTIES)

(Prepared in Accordance with Sec. 102(2) (C) of P.L. 91-190)

SUMMARY SHEET

I. Final (X)

II. Soil Conservation Service.

III. Administrative (X).

IV. The proposed project consists of land treatment measures for watershed

protection, 31 grade stabilization structures, 5 floodwater retarding and

sediment control structure, and one multi-purpose recreation and floodwater retarding structure. The watershed lies in the northwestern portion

of Iowa in Plymouth and Woodbury Counties. Eleven of the single-purpose

and the multi-purpose structure are within the city limits of Sioux City,

Iowa.

V. The environmental impacts of this project are: Reduce sheet and gully erosion to less than five tons of soil loss per year; eliminate the threat of land

destruction and depreciation of 4,300 upland acres, protect 300 acres of the

City of Sioux City from flooding; provide a 34-acre lake for recreational use

by an estimated 75,000 people; provide opportunity for fishing and other

recreational activities on about 180 surface acres in the sediment pools of

27 of the planned structures. Approximately 10 miles of intermittent stream

channels will be inundated. The project will also eliminate or limit present

wildlife and agricultural use of areas to be occupied by project pools, dams,

and spillways.

VI. Alternatives Considered: Alternatives considered in the planning action were

based upon providing varying levels of , flood protection, different flood

systems of structural works and other opportunities for water-based recreational activities.

V r. Comments have been received from the following Federal, State and local

agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Department of the Interior.;

Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Environmental Protection

1 The complete environmental statement May be found in the files of the committee.
4

Agency; Governor of Iowa (Department of Soil Conservation) ; State

Clearinghouse (Office of Planning and Programming) ; Siouxland Interstate Metropolitan Planning Council.

VIII. The draft environmental statement was made available to the Council on

Environmental Quality on April 30, 1971. The final environmental impact

statement will be made available to the CEQ on August 15, 1972.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Haugh, we will be glad to hear from you.

Mr. HAIrGH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is

Joe Haugh and I will present the testimony for Bacon Creek Watershed in Iowa. Bacon Creek is located in northwestern Iowa in Woodbury and Plymouth Counties. The watershed contains about 14,000

acres and consists of 44 percent cropland, 27 percent grassland, 6 percent woodland, and 23 percent miscellaneous. A portion of Sioux City

is located in the western portion of the watershed.

The major drainage is westerly through several tributaries of the

Floyd River which empties into the Missouri River at Sioux City.

Narrow ridge tops with steep sidehill slopes and narrow valleys typify

the topography of the area. The soils are deep, windblown deposits

which are very productive when well managed but subject to severe

sheet and gully erosion.

The economy of the area is based upon agriculture and agricultural

enterprises. The 110 farms in the watershed average 236 acres in size.

About 53 percent of the farms are livestock farms, with the remainder

divided between cash grain and dairy farms. Sioux City is a noted

livestock marketing and packing plant center.

Gully erosion to land is a major problem occurring as land voiding

and depreciation of adjacent areas within a farm unit. The gullies

range from 40 to 100 feet in width and 10 to 35 feet in depth. If erosion

continues at its present rate, about 4,300 acres of land will be damaged

during the next 100 years.

Floodwater and sediment add to the problems. Most of the floodwater damages affect homes and businesses in the urban area of Sioux

City. Sediment damages are primarily attributed to deposits in road

ditches and city streets.

Additiohal water based recreation areas are needed for the residents

of Sioux City and the surrounding rural area. At present, the nearest

lake is 18 miles away.

Measures planned to solve these problems include land treatment

to reduce erosion. Structural measures consist of 31 grade stabilization structures, 5 floodwater retarding structures ahd one multiple purpose structure for flood prevention and recreation. These measures

will essentially eliminate the threat of land destruction or depreciation

by gully advancement on 4,300 acres of upland and protect 300 acres

of urban land from a flood that might occur once in 100 years. In addition, the 34-acre lake and associated recreation facilities will provide

opportunities for picnicking, swimming, boating, and fishing for an

estimated 75,000 recreation visits 6ach year.

The total project installation cost is estimated to be $2.2 million of

which Public Law 566 funds will provide $1.8 million. The average

annual benefits are $231,000 and the ratio of benefits-to-costs is 1.7

to 1.

The Woodbury Soil Conservation District, Plymouth County, and

the city of Sioux City will each assume the local responsibility for
5

installing and maintaining the structural measures within their respective political subdivision.

This concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy

to try to answer any questions you, or members of the committee, may

have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. This seems to be a typical,

classical project and it involves windblown land, which we know does

cause such severe gullying. It is about the same situation as we have

had in a number of similar projects further south on the river in the

neighborhood of Council Bluffs, is it not? We have had exactly the

same kind of projects there, 8 or 10 of them, I believe.

Mr. HAUGH. Yes sir. This is quite similar to many of those western

Iowa projects in this particular area.

The CHAIRMAN. The recreation feature seems a little high on this,

but I guess that is because it is close to a city.

Mr. HAUGH. Yes sir, it is right near Sioux City.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think I have any other questions.

Mr. Zwach ?

Mr. ZWACII. No. I have no questions. I think this project is, in a true

sense, a soil and water conservation project in its better sense. There

is not much ditching involved in this project, is there?

Mr. HAUGH. No, sir, there is no ditching involved. It is all grade

stabilization.

Mr. ZWACH. Just diversion into retaining 

Mr. HAUGH. Yes, sir, that is correct, it is retarding structures and

the grade stabilization. But there is no ditching involved.

Mr. ZWACH. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Haugh, we are glad to have you appear before

us and we are glad to have you with us to make this appearance. We

appreciate it. It was well done.

Mr. HATJGH. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it. I look forward to appearing again in the future.

CARBON HILL WATERSHED, MONTANA

The CHAIRMAN. The next project will be Carbon Hill, Mont. I understand Mr. Parker will present that.

CARBON HILL WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and Location-5,950 acres in Custer County.

Tributary to—Yellowstone River.

Sponsors—City of Miles City; Custer County Commissioners; North Custer

Soil and Water Conservation District.

Total Watershed Land Use: Percent

Cropland 24

Grassland 58

Miscellaneous 18

Watershed Privately Owned-82%; Non-Federal Public-18%

Number of Farms-22.

Size of farme—About 390 acres average.

Purposes—Watershed Protection, Flood Prevention, Agricultural Water Management, Nonagricultural Water Management ( Urban Drainage), and Recreation.

Principal Measures—Soil conservation practices on farms and ranches; and

structural measures consisting of 1 multiple-purpose recreation reservoir with
6

recreation facilities; 3 floodwater-retarding structures; about 3.57 miles of floodway; about 2.63 miles of agricultural drains; and about 3.9 miles of multi-purpose floodway and drain. The storage capacities range from 21 acre-feet to 2,168

acre-feet.

Amount Percent

Annual benefits:

To agricultural acreage (land and crops) $26, 306 13

To nonagricultural improvements 99, 600 47

Recreation 51, 700 25

Indirect 9,400 4

Subtotal 187,100 89

Secondary 23,200 11

Total 210,200 100

Benefit-Cost Ratio-1.7 to 1. at the interest rate applicable when the plan was

developed. At the federal borrowing rate on April 17, 1973, the overall B:C ratio

would be 1.9 to 1, and without secondary benefits, it would be 1.7 to 1.1

Number of Beneficiaries—Owners and operators of 22 farms, about 40 rural

residents and 650 urban residences will receive direct flood protection benefits

from the installation of the project. An estimated potential use of about 68,000

visitor-days is expected at the recreation lake and facilities.

PROJECT COSTS

Public Law 566 funds Other funds'

Amount Percent Amount Percent Total

Land treatment measures $10, 000 10 $90, 000 90 $100,000

Structural measures:

Flood prevention 904,000 86 146, 000 14 1, 050, 000

Agricultural drainage 125, 000 54 108, 000 46 233, 000

Urban drainage 35,000 100 35,000

Recreation 242, 000 54 209,000 46 451, 000

Project administration 224, 000 90 26, 000 10 250, 000

Total 1, 505, 000 71 614,000 2 29 2, 119, 000

I For land treatment measures this is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost

sharing from funds appropriated for the rural environmental assistance program may be available if included in the county

program.

For structural measures this is the cost of land rights and project administration. It may also include costs for construction or engineering services for purposes other than flood prevention.

2 The value of measures already installed ($38,000) increases this to 30 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 Structural Cost per Acre Benefited—Benefits are primarily

nonagricultural.

Carrying out the Project—The City of Miles City assumes all local responsibilities for installing, operating, and maintaining the structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $12,600.

USDA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

CARBON HILL WATERSHED (CUSTER COUNTY, MONT.)

(Prepared in Accordance with Sec. 102(2) (C) of P.L. 91-190)

SUMMARY SHEET

I. Final (X).

II. Soil Conservation Service.

III. Administrative (X).

IV. Description of Action: The proposed action is the implementation of the

watershed work plan for the Carbon Hill Watershed, Custer County,

1 Supplied in accordance with Subcommittee insfructIona,

2 The complete environmental statement may be found in the files of the committee.
7

Montana, under provisions of P.L. 566. Project measures include: (1) land

treatment measures; (2) four reservoirs; (3) fioodway (open channel) ;

(4) fioodway and drainage system (closed) ; and (5) recreational

facilities.

V. Summary of Environmental Impact Including Adverse Environmental Effects:

Project action will:

(1) reduce floodwater and sediment damages to 540 agricultural acres

and 300 urban acres in the watershed.

(2) reduce pollutants and sediment being transported to urban areas and

the Yellowstone River.

(3) lower the high water table for 915 acres of agricultural land with

effects extending to 55 acres of urban land.

(4) eliminate mosquito breeding places near residences and institutions.

(5) require the commitment of 287 acres for dams, reservoirs, floodways,

and recreational facilities area.

(6) provide for 14,890 recreational visitor days use and 9,800 fishing

visits for local residents as well as to travelers along Interstate 94. (7) temporarily inundate up to 2.5 miles of normally dry gullies.

(8) necessitate relocating one farmstead.

(9) provide additional water surface for waterfowl resting area. (10) benefit over 3,500 local people, including 22 farms or parts of farms,

40 rural residences, 650 urban residences, and 3 public institutions.

VI. List of Alternatives Considered: Alternatives considered included: (1) con- servation land treatment measures alone, (2) floodproofing, (3) land pur- chase, (4) flood plain zoning, (5) flood plain insurance and (6) other combinations of structural measures.

VII. Agencies From Which Written Comments Have Been Received: Governor of Montana, Montana State Clearinghouse, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of the Army, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

VIII. Dates Draft States and Final Statement Made Available to CEQ and the Public: Draft Statement to CEQ : 10/8/71; Final Statement to CEQ :

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. The Carbon Hill watershed includes about 6,000 acres in Custer County in south- eastern Montana. Runoff from upland coulees in the eastern part of the watershed flows to the northwest across a low terrace area in the city of Miles City, and joins the Yellowstone River. Miles City has a

population of nearly 9,000—of whom about one-third live in the water- shed. It is the principal trading center for a five-county agricultural

area. It has grain elevators, a livestock market, farm service facilities,

numerous wholesale outlets, a junior college, and a regional Veterans'

Administration hospital.

The watershed has two distinct topographic features: the upland

rough hills in the southeast, and the gently sloping lower terraces

along the Yellowstone and Tongue Rivers in the northwest.

The upland—and they are rough. The upland is actually a semibadland area, sagebrush, cactus, and native grasses. It is used for

grassland. The principal need in this area is management-type practices

t,

such as grazing use, stockwater developments, and deferred grazing to minimize erosion and sediment production.

The lower portion that you see colored yellow on the map is a relatively smooth, wide terrace underlain by deep unconsolidated sediments. About 20 percent of the 1,420 acres of irrigated land in this area

has heavy clay soil, but the rest is well suited to growing alfalfa, sugarbeets, corn, small grain, and grasses. The drainage area is not well

defined and the water table is at or near the surface over much of the

terrace area.

Land values range from $500 per acre for the better irrigated lands,

to about $350 per acre for the heavier soils, and about $30 per acre

for the rangelands.
8

Diversified irrigated farming is the major agricultural enterprise.

Analyses of crop yield and budget data indicate that much of the

irrigated area is being operated at a low return, caused mostly by the

high water table and frequent overland flooding. The irrigated lands

are in need of such measures as land leveling, drainage, water control

structures, canal lining, and improved water management practices.

Damaging floods have occurred in 4 of the last 10 years. The area

subject to flood damage is 840 acres, 230 acres in the urban area in the

city of Miles City and 610 acres in the rural areas. The urban area

experiences most of the average annual flood damage, estimated at

over $95,000. Of course, when you get into urban areas and have as

many as 600 residential properties damaged by floods, the damages do

add up fast.

Poor drainage affects 970 acres of agricultural land and 300 acres of

the city. The agricultural loss from flooding and poor drainage causes

damages of over $28,000 each year.

Land treatment measures are to be applied both in the upland and

in the lower terrace area to meet the needs previously described.

Structural measures include three floodwater retarding structures, one

multipurpose floodwater retarding and recreational structure with associated recreational facilities, and about 10 miles of agricultural

drains and floodways. The structure will retard runoff from 42 percent

of the watershed.

When these measures are installed, they will practically eliminate

the floodwater damages. They will provide a 100-year level of protection to the portion of Miles City affected by overland flooding. The

effect of drainage measures to lower the water table will be complementary to measures to reduce flooding in providing benefits to a combined area of about 1,270 acres.

Drainage effects will extend into the urban area of Miles City, about

two blocks into the western side of the city of Miles City. The flooding

adjacent to Miles City will carry some flow from this area as well as

from the farming area. All costs for urban drainage in the combined

system and for exclusively urban drains will be borne by the city

without Public Law 566 assistance.

The recreational development will be built around a 124-acre lake.

That is depicted by red on the map here. Facilities costing an estimated $110,000 will be installed for public use and safety. About

26,000 annual recreational visits are expected initially, with a potential for more in the future.

• The total project installation cost is estimated at about $2.1 million,

of which $1.5 million is Public Law 566 funds and $600,000 from other

funds. With total annual benefits of $210,200, the benefit-cost ratio is

1.7 to 1.

This concludes my testimony Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to

answer any questions that I can.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this all in private ownership?

Mr. PARKER. No, Mr. Chairman, there is about 18 percent of the area,

that is owned by the State and we have furnished the public land statement, I think, to Mr. West.

No, we still have them. We have three projects that have some nonFederal public land and we do have public land statements for them.

Part of it down here—it does not show on the map, but there is part of

it down in this area and quite a bunch of it in the uplands.
9

The CHAIRMAN. Is that land all government grazing permits?

Mr. PARKER. Yes, that which is private, of course, does not have the

grazing permits. There is no BLM land. The State-owned land is administered by the Montana State department of institutions and they

have a Pine Hills School for Boys there. They operate it for a boys'

home.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Mr. ZWACII. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

That lake is created by this project? That is not in existence now, is

that correct?

Mr. PARKER. The lake here is being created to help the overall needs

for the recreational needs for this 

Mr. ZWACH. I see, but created by the watershed project?

Mr. PARKER. By the watershed project.

Mr. ZWACH. I notice you speak about 2.63 miles of agricultural

drainage. Is that open ditch, or is that underground tiledrainage ?

What is involved in. that?

Mr. PARKER. It is really a complicated system here. I wish we had

a good engineer to explain this but we have a little bit of everything

of what you said. The main floodway and the main tributary floodway

is an open ditch. There is much underground tile drain. There is also

an underground floodway, with service inlets. It is a system that is all

interrelated to take care of drainage and floodwater which exists on

this common benefited area. It does outlet into an open ditch to the

Yellowstone River.

Mr. ZWACH. It will have a better control of runoff flow into the

Yellowstone River?

Mr. PARKER. Yes.

Mr. ZWACII. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goodling ?

Mr. GOODLING. I notice that you have nonagricultural improvements, 47 percent. What would those improvements consist of?

Mr. PARKER. Primarily in the city of Miles City, which is over here.

Part of it is in the watershed and part of it is not. Owners and operators of 22 farms and about 40 rural residents out in the yellow area of

the map is the benefited agricultural area. Nonagricultural damages are

primarily to about 650 urban residences within that city of Miles City.

A very small amount of urban drainage benefits, only about $3,500, was

claimed in the city.

Mr. GOODLING. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. MT. Stubblefield?

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. I have nothing.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we are very much

obliged to you, Mr. Parker. Thank you for this presentation.

Mr. Melcher has submitted a statement for the record.

[The statement of Mr. Melcher and a letter from the Department of Institutions, State of Montana, follow:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MELCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF MONTANA

As indicated by the summary statement on the Carbon Hill Watershed Project in Custer County, Montana, this project involves an unusually large number of beneficiaries because it provides flood protection for an area in Miles City,

Montana, with an estimated population of 3500 persons.
10

Beneficiaries include 22 farms, 40 rural residences, 650 urban residences, the

Pine Hills School for Boys, the Regional Veterans Administration Hospital and

the Miles Community College. The project will reduce flood water and sediment

damages which have plagued both the irrigated farm and urban areas involved,

It will lower the ground water table and reduce the very serious soil salinity

problem, it will have very substantial recreation benefits for a sizable population

and it will reduce serious problems with a disease-carrying vector, mosquitos,

in this urban area.

The wide benefits of the project are indicated by the project sponsors, including

the City of Miles City and the Custer County Commissioners as well as the North

Custer Soil and Water Conservation District.

The benefit/cost ratio of the project, which is very conservatively estimated

because of the very hard-to-assess recreation and disease vector reduction benefits, was 1.7 to 1 at the interest rate applicable when the project was first developed. The ratio would be 1.9 to 1, excluding secondary benefits, at the federal

borrowing rate on April 17 this year. This is an exceptionally fine project,

urgently needed and much desired by the citizens of the affected area. I strongly

support its prompt approval.

STATE OF MONTANA,

DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS,

Helena, April 13,1971.

Mr. JIM FERRIS,

Acting Chairman, North Custer Soil and Water Conservation District, Miles

City, Mont.

DEAR Mn. FERRIS: This is to advise you and other sponsors of the Carbon Hills

Watershed Project of our interest and support of this worthwhile project.

As you are aware, the land under our administration in the Carbon Hill Watershed is presently being operated under a Conservation development plan. Technical assistance for this plan was provided by Soil Conservation Service and Cooperative Extension Service. We consider the land in the upper watershed to be

in a good state of conservation. Land treatment measures are planned for the

irrigated lands in the lower watershed in accordance with the watershed work

plan. Money was appropriated for this purpose during the 1969 Legislature.

You may be assured that we will make every effort to maintain all of our land

in good condition and continue conservation practices consistent with the developed conservation plan.

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES S. DELL,

Assistant Director.

COW CREEK, OKLAHOMA

The CHAIRMAN. We will take up the next project, Cow Creek project, in Oklahoma. Mr. Klingelhofer will represent the Department for

the presentation of this project.

COW CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and Location-123,494 acres in Jefferson and Stephens Counties.

Tributary to—Red River.

Sponsors—Cow Creek Conservancy District; Jefferson County Soil and Water

Conservation District; Stephens County Soil and Water Conservation District;

City of Duncan.

Total Watershed Land Use: Percent

Cropland 19

Grassland 78

Miscellaneous 3

Total watershed privately owned:

Number of Farms-550.

Size of Farms—About 220 acres average.

Purposes—Watershed Protection, Flood Prevention and Recreation.

Principal Measures—Soil conservation practices on farms and ranches; and

structural measures consisting of 46 floodwater retarding structures, one multi-
11

pie purpose recreation reservoir with recreation facilities, and about 2.5 miles of

stream channel improvement. The storage capacity of the structures ranges from

201 acre feet to 3,041 acre feet.

ANNUAL BENEFITS

Amount Percent

To agricultural acreage (land and crops) $115, 300 20

To agricultural improvements 36, 800 9

To nonagricultural improvements 117, 800 30

Recreation 69, 000 18

Indirect 22,700 6

Subtotal 361, 600 92

Redevelopment 4, 1C0 1

Secondary 25,500 7

Total 391,200 100

Benefit-Cost Ratio-1.5 to 1 at the interest rate applicable when the plan was

developed. At the federal borrowing rate on April 17, 1973, the overall B:C ratio

would be 1.7 to 1, and without redevelopment and secondary benefits, it would

be 1.5 to 1.1

Area Benefited-12,462 acres.

Number of Beneficiaries-About 400 farm owners and about 2,000 residents in

the City of Comanche will be directly benefited by the installation of the structural measures.

PROJECT COSTS

Public Law 566 funds Other funds

Amount Percent Amount 1 Percent

Total

Amount

Land treatment measures $26, 000 2 $1,578, 000 98 $1,604, 000

Structural measures:

Flood prevention 

Recreation 

2, 908, 033

166, GOO

91

50

284, 000

165, 000

9

50

3, 192, 000

331, 000

Project administration 610, 000 94 40, 000 6 650, 000

Total 3, 710, COO 64 2,067, 000 2 36 5, 777, 000

For land treatment measures this is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost-sharing from funds appropriated for the rural environmental assistance program may be available if included in the county

program.

For structural measures this is the cost of land rights and project administration. It may also include costs for construction or engineering services for purposes other than flood prevention.

2 The value of measures already installed $1,429,000 increases this to 49 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 Structural Cost per Acre Benefited-$86.

Carrying out the Project-The Cow Creek Conservancy District, The Stephens

County and Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and the

City of Duncan assume all local responsibilities for installing, operating and

maintaining the structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $36,352.

USDA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 2

COW CREEK WATERSHED ( STEPHENS AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES) WORK PLAN

(Prepared in Accordance with Sec. 102(2) (C) of P.L. 91-190)

SUMMARY SHEET

I. Final (X).

II. Soil Conservation Service.

III. Administrative (X).

1 Supplied in accordance with Subcommittee instructions.

2 The complete environmental statement may be found in the files of the committee.
12

IV. Description of Action: This action is a Public Law 566 watershed to be carried out by local sponsors with Federal assistance ill Stephens and Jefferson counties of the State of Oklahoma. Included is land treatment

work, supplemented by 46 floodwater retarding structures, one multipurpose structure with a recreation development, and 2.5 miles of stream

channel clearing and snagging.

V. Summary of Environmental Impact and Adverse Environmental Effects:

(1) Reduce erosion and sediment production on 124,000 acres by 25

percent. (2) reduce erosion damages to flood plain lands by 56 percent;

(3) reduce floodwater damages on 12,500 acres of flood plain by 70 percent; (4) reduce sediment damage to flood plain lands by 81 percent;

(5) reduce sediment transported to Lake Texoma by 57 acre feet; (6)

create an additional 851 acres of water surface in sediment pools that can

be used for lake fishery, waterfowl resting and feeding areas, livestock

and wildlife water supplies, and habitat for other species of wildlife

that are attracted to fresh water; (7) provide a 117 acre lake and convenient public recreational facilities for residents of City of Duncan and

Stephens County; (8) reduce risk of flood hazard to life and property

on 12,500 acres of flood plain; (9) provide a more favorable environment

for the residents in and ajacent to the flood plain; (10) improve quality

of water in intermittent stream flow below structure locations.

Adverse effects include: (1) Use by wildlife on the 192 acres in the dam and

spillway areas Will be interrupted for a short time during construction and until

vegetative cover can be reestablished; (2) loss of agricultural production on 968

acres covered by sediment pools and recreation pool; (3) loss of agricultural

production on 368 acres converted to recreational facilities; (4) recreational

upland game hunting for quail, turkey, squirrel and deer will be lost on the

968 acres covered by sediment pools and the 368 acres converted to recreational

facilities; (5) small reduction in useful storage in Lake Texoma due to evaporation loss from project sediment pools; (6) beneficial effects of moderate quality

water from Cow Creek Watershed diluting the lower quality water in Lake

TexOraa, will be reduced a small amount by evaporation losses from the project

sediment pools.

VI. List of Alternatives Considered:

a. Continuing present agricultural use.

b. Letting land revert to less intensive uses.

c. Developing flood plain into publicly owned park or widllife area.

VII. Agencies from which Comments have been Received: Department of the

Army, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of

the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal rower Commission, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma Office of Community

Affairs and Planning (Clearinghouse), Association of South Central

Oklahoma Governments (Metropolitan Clearinghouse).

VIII. The Draft Environmental Statement was made available to the Council on

Environmental Quality on: September 23, 1971.

The Final Environmental Statement was made available to the Council on

Environmental Quality on August 31, 1972.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Xlingeihofer, We are delighted to have you

with us. We will be glad to hear your presentation.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Thank you.

The Cow Creek watershed is located in Jefferson and Stephens

Counties in south-central Oklahoma. The watershed outlets into

Beaver Creek at Waurika which is about 15 miles north of the Oklahoma State line and about 35 miles northeast of Wichita Falls, Tex.

Beaver Creek at the outlet of the watershed and the town of Waurika

are located at the mouth of the watershed. U.S. Highway 81 bisects

the watershed in a north-south direction. The watershed is 123,500

acres and land use is about 19 percent cropland, 16 percent pasture,

46 percent rangeland, 16 percent wooded pasture, and 3 percent

miscellaneous.
13

Agriculture provides the greatest single source of income in the

Jefferson County portion of the watershed and is second to the oil

industry in Stephens County. The major agricultural enterprises are

livestock farming, small grain and hay production. Approximately

80 percent of the farm income is from livestock and 20 percent from

cash crops. Wheat provides the greatest source of income from cropland. About 60 percent of the planned practices in 338 soil and water

conservation plans covering 550 farm units have been applied. These

plans cover about 82,000 acres or 66 percent of the total watershed

area.

The watershed lies in the moist, subhumid climatic zone with an

average rainfall of about 32 inches. Elevations range from 865 to

1,305 feet above sea level. Upland soils are generally deep to moderately deep with a loamy surface. Flood plain soils are deep and highly

productive.

Approximately 12,000 acres of crops and pastures in the flood plain

are subject to frequent flooding, with severe floods occurring on an

average of more than one per year. Built-up areas in the villages of

Comanche—which is in the center of the watershed—and Waurika are

subject to flood damage. Sediment and erosion damage is also serious

in the watershed. Stephens County and the city of Duncan—Duncan

is up near the top of the watershed—are in need of more water-based

recreation.

The planned project consists of conservation land treatment over

much of the watershed supplemented by 46 single purpose floodwater

retarding structures

'

one multiple-purpose structure for flood prevention and recreational facilities, and 2.5 miles of stream channel work

which will consist of clearing and snagging the main channel to provide increased capacity. This channel work is down here near the lower

part of the watershed.

The installation of this project is expected to result in an average

annual reduction of 67 percent of floodwater, sediment, and erosion

damages. An estimated 17,300 recreation days will be provided for

fishermen, swimmers, and picnickers. In the city of Comanche, 400

residents will receive direct flood damage reductions and 2,000 will receive general benefits.

The city of Duncan will assume all local responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining the recreation structure and recreational facilities. The Cow Creek Conservancy District, the Stephens

County and Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation Districts

will assume all local responsibilities for installing, operating and

maintaining all other structural measures.

Total project costs are estimated at $5,777,000 with Federal assistance amounting to $3,710,000. Benefits resulting in installation of this

project are estimated to be about $391,200 annually with a resultant

benefit/cost ratio of 1.5 to 1.

This concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to

try to answer any questions you or members of the committee may

have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Klingelhofer. We are much obliged

to you for that presentation.

I would just like to have you discuss, if you would for a moment,

the general situation, not that it relates any more to this project than

28-451--74 2
14

to a good many others. The cost of this project goes beyond $5 million.

Most of the projects you are bringing up here today—and I am not

saying this critically at all, but we are faced with that situation, that

most of them are going to cost close to $5 million. Some of them will

run considerably above that. A few years ago, we contemplated that

the cost of these projects would be about a million dollars a project.

When we reach this level of cost, it inevitably reduces the number of

projects that we can handle over the Nation; else it drags out the completion time some four or five times as long as we formerly figured. We

used to figure on about 5 years for completion, I think.

What are your estimates on completion time now?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. I think it is running closer to 10 years, 8 to 10

years for completion, based on the complexities of getting some land

rights.

The CHAIRMAN. How many projects do you contemplate that you

can keep under construction at one time now?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. I believe we have 200 or 300 projects under

construction right now.

Mr. PARKER. Four hundred and fifty-eight under construction right

now, Mr Chairman, according to the last report, May 1.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. That is right, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, if you completed them in 10 years, and you

had $100 million, we would only be able to start about 40 a year, is that

right?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Of this 458, some of them are nearing completion; others are just starting.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, and you will keep feeding them in.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. We keep feeding them in.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what I am trying to get at is are we faced

now with about 40 starts a year?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. I would say SO.

Mr. HAAS. We anticipate about 35 new starts for fiscal year 1973.

The number of new starts has decreased in past years.

The CHAIRMAN. Because of lack of money?

Mr. HAAS. Not entirely, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What has been the reason?

Mr. HAAS. Some of the delay in the past 2 or 3 years has been a result of two rather important acts, pieces of legislation enacted by the

Congress, one being what we refer to as the Relocation Act, which

provides for financial assistance to persons displaced as a result of

projects. This has prompted us to go back and reanalyze the number

of people displaced and actually supplement each new or each old

project to take this into account.

Another major factor has been the requirement by the National

Environmental Policy Act that an environmental impact statement

be prepared on a large number of old and most new projects.

These two items together have caused us to use quite a lot of staff

time in the past 2 years in preparing environmental statements and

in supplementing projects for relocation.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that means that if you had adequate funds,

the staff would not be reduced. You would have additional people to

do that. But it means that you have not had money enough to carry

on more of these projects. Is that not what is involved?
15

I mean, certainly, this question of relocating people is purely a question of cost, is it not?

Mr. HAAS. To a large extent, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And meeting these environmental requirements,

most of them, which I recognize are time consuming and costly, that

is another added cost, is it not?

Mr. HAAs. In very few instances have we been unable to finance construction projects that have been ready. Now, there are exceptions in

some of the higher producing States such as Oklahoma and Texas, but

by and large, in fact even this year, we have so far been able to fund

most projects that have become ready—that is, land rights acquired

and other factors.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what I am trying to say is that if you had

more money, you would actually have more of these projects going?

Of course you would.

Mr. HAAS. Yes, certainly this is true.

The CHAIRMAN. And we have had to cut down the number. At one

time, we were adding about a hundred a year, were we not?

Mr. HAAS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now we are down to about 40, or 35?

Mr. HAAS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you. That is all I wanted to get in

here.

Mr. Zwach ?

Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman.

With regard to this project, is the environmental report favorable?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZWACH. Is that true of all of those that we have considered so

far this morning?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. An environmental statement has been prepared

for each one and—

Mr. ZWACH. And it is favorable?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. It has been approved.

Mr. ZWACH. You know, one of the real problems we seem to have

in Congress with regard to soil and water conservation and watersheds

is this modern binge on channeling and ditching. I see you have 2.5

miles of stream, of new ditching and channeling here. What is involved

in that?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. The channel work in this particular project is in

an area where the natural stream is choked up with logs and debris

and the work proposed is only to remove these obstructions. There is

no enlargement or dredging planned.

Mr. ZWACH. And this project will control runoff into the main

stream will slow it down?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes. With all of these 46 structures here in the

uplands, it will retard the runoff and provide storage.

Mr. ZWACH. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stubblefield?

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goodling ?

Mr. GOODLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In reply to the question Mr. Zwach just asked you, whether or not

the environmental problem had been solved, I would like to read just
16

one sentence from page 3 of your report. To me this indicates that

the environmental problems definitely have not been solved.

You say:

Tributaries of Cow Creek have intermittent flow and the main stream carries

the inadequately treated effluent from the towns and oil refineries in the area

and it is not suitable as a fishery habitat.

Now, if that is true, all of your recreation is out, is that not correct?

Mr. kLINGELHOFER. Because of pollution—there is a pollution problem in Cow Creek, which is brought on by the city of Duncan and

Comanche and the DX Sunray Co.

'

which is located in the upper

portion. But the Corps of Engineers has a project under construction

on Beaver Creek down off the mouth of this watershed and the plan

states that there are provisions for a water conveyance facility from

this Corps of Engineers structure up through the watershed to provide municipal and industrial water supply for Comanche, Duncan,

Waurika, DX Sunray and to provide water for pollution abatement

on Cow Creek. Controlling pollution in this project was not part of

the watershed project objectives. Funds were not available. There was

not the sponsorship available.

Mr. GOODLING. I question the advisability of spending more than $5.5 million when local people are not willing to clean up this sort of thing.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLING. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. If I understand—I may be misinformed on it—

this project, while it would not solve all of the pollution problems in

that area, improves rather than aggravates the existing situation. Is

that not true ?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes sir, it greatly improves the present conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. The development of this project in nowise increases

this pollution problem. It is there. But to the extent that the project

affects it, it will be a favorable influence rather than an unfavorable

influence?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes sir, that is true.

Mr. GOODLING. Well, I would certainly hope that that would be true.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it does not attempt to say that it wipes out all

objectionable features. There are oil refineries up there. I know a little

bit about that country. And they have polluted a lot of the area. This

will in nowise add to the pollution. On the contrary, the effect that it

has on the pollution will be to improve the situation. But it will not

solve nearly all their existing pollution problems.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. It will greatly reduce the amount of sediment

that goes into Cow Creek and on down into Beaver Creek and on down

into Lake Texhoma. This is a serious pollutant and this will greatly

improve that situation. All of these 46 structures will temporarily retard water and gradually bleed it out, which will prolong the flows

in Cow Creek and dilute pollution. But that flow will not last long

enough to take care of the situation entirely.

There are other measures under consideration from the corps' project which additionally assist in controlling the pollution problem and

I assume that their cities are also improving their treatment facilities.
17

.But it was not one of the objectives of this project to completely eliminate pollution in Cow Creek. It is just that we do not add to the problem. We are improving it.

Mr. GOODLING. Apparently, some of the tributaries of Cow Creek do not have sufficient water in off seasons to do a good job of cleaning it up, is that correct?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes.

Mr. GOODLING. You say you have intermittent flow.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Intermittent flow.

The CHAIRMAN. Even Cow Creek itself goes dry, does it not?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes, Cow Creek itself goes dry.

Mr. GOODLING. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions on Cow Creek, we

are very much obliged to you, Mr. Klingelhofer, and appreciate your

appearance.

Mr. ALBERT has submitted a statement for the record.

[The statement of Mr. Albert follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL ALBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee on Agriculture:

I urge your approval of the proposed Cow Creek Watershed project in Jefferson

and Stephens counties, Oklahoma, in my district. I think it is extremely timely

that the Committee should consider this project plan today. The area which

would be served by this watershed protection and flood prevention plan is just

recovering from a major flood. Several families in the city of Waurika, Oklahoma,

had to move out of their homes. Alfalfa crops were ruined. Many acres of land

were covered by water.

It is my understanding this project has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1. It is a

project which is critically needed. I understand representatives of the Department of Agriculture will present to you full information concerning the project

plan. I will appreciate your careful consideration of this presentation and your

approval of this project.

Respectfully,

CARL ALBERT,

The Speaker.

OOLENOY RIVER, SOUTH CAROLINA

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the next project is one with an odd name, the

Oolenov River.

Mr. PARKER. Oolenoy River.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Dorn, we are delighted to have you

with us. I would want to explain that it is our practice here to allow

the Department to outline the project so that we will get a picture of

it and then we will be delighted to have you make any statement you

will in connection therewith. But we felt that until we had an outline

from the Department, the statement would not be of as much value.

If you can stay with us until they complete their statement, we would

be happy to hear you then.

All right, Mr. Parker, we will be glad to hear from you.

OOLENOY RIVER WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and Location-34.000 acres in Pickens County.

Tributary to—Saluda River.
18

Sponsors—Pickens Soil and Water Conservation District; Oolenoy River

Watershed Conservation District; South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism.

Total Watershed Land Use: Pement

Cropland 3

Grassland 6

Woodland 8G

Miscellaneous 5

Watershed privately owned-90% ; State-10%.

Number of Farms-120.

Size of Farms—about 100 acres average.

Purposes—Watershed Protection, Flood Prevention and Recreation.

Principal Measures—Soil conservation practices on farms and woodlands; and

structural measures consisting of 6 floodwater retarding structures, 1 multiplepurpose reservoir for flood prevention and recreation with associated recreation

facilities, and about 7 miles of channel modification. Storage capacity of the

reservoirs ranges from 209 to 1,680 acre-feet.

ANNUAL BENEFITS

Amount Percent

To agricultural acreage (land and crops) $76, 600 29

To agricultural improvements 1, 100 

To nonagricultural improvements 1, 500 1

Indirect 2, 500 1

Recreation 120, CO) 45

Subtotal 201, 700 76

Incidental 5, 900 2

Secondary 34,000 13

Redevelopment 25, 700 9

Total 267, 300 100

Benefit-Cost Ratio-2.1 to 1 at the interest rate applicable when the plan was

developed. At the federal borrowing rate on April 17, 1973, the overall B:C ratio

would be 2.3 to 1, and without incidental, secondary and redevelopment, it would

be 1.7 to 1.1

Area Benefited-2,059 acres.

Number of Beneficiaries—About 76 farms will be directly benefited by the installation of structural measures. About 80,000 visitor-days of recreation including picknicking, boating, hiking, etc. are expected annually at the multiple-purpose

reservoir.

PROJECT COSTS

Public Law 566 funds Other funds

Amount Percent Amount Percent

Total

amount

Land treatment measures $104, 000 40 $158, 000 60 $262, 000

Structural measures:

Flood prevention 931, 000 84 174, 000 16 I, 105, OCO

Recreation 276,000 49 284, 000 51 560, 000

Project administration 164, 000 86 26, 000 14 190, 000

Total 1, 475, 000 70 642,000 2 30 12, 117, 000

1 For land treatment measures this is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Costsharing from funds appropriated for the rural environmental assistance program may be available if included in the county

program.

For structural measures this is the cost of land rights and project administration. It may also include cost for construction

or engineering services for purposes other than flood prevention.

2 The value of measures already installed ($183,000) increases this to 36 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 Structural Cost per Acre Benefited—$193.

Carrying out the Project.—The South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreaton, and Tourism will assume all local responsibilities for installing, operating,

I Supplied in accordance with subcommittee instructions.
19

and maintaining multiple-purpose structure 40. The Oolenoy River Watershed

Conservation District will assume all local responsibilities for installing, operating, and maintaining the remaining structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $28,300.

USDA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

OOLENOY RIVER WATERSHED, S.C.

(Prepared in Accordance with Sec. 102(2) (C) of P.L. 91-190)

SUMMARY SHEET

I. Final (X).

II. Soil Conservation Service.

III. Administrative (X).

IV. Description of Action: A watershed project to be carried out by the sponsoring local organizations with federal assistance under authority of P.L.

566. The project, located in Pickens County, proposes conservation land

treatment over the watershed, supplemented by six floodwater retarding

structures, one multiple purpose recreation reservoir with recreation facilities, seven miles of stream channel improvement and 115 acres of critical

area stabilization.

V. Summary of Environmental Impact and Adverse Environmental Effects:

Project action will: reduce erosion; reduce floodwater damages on 1,080

acres by 68 percent; benefit 56 farms; reduce sediment leaving the watershed; create a 50 acre lake for fishing and other water oriented recreation with an expected 80,000 visitor days per year; create 54 acres of lake

fishery at the sediment pools of planned structures with an estimated 4,150

visitor days annually; create additional local employment opportunities;

eliminate agricultural use and wildlife habitat on 104 acres; periodically

interrupt agricultural and wildlife use in the 126 acre detention pools of

planned floodwater retarding structures; eliminate agricultural and wildlife use of 53 acres to be in dams and spillways until these areas are

revegetated ; inundate 2.4 miles of streams; reduce stream fishery in seven

miles of channel to be improved; increase vehicular traffic at fishing and

recreation sites, and temporarily degrade the ambient air quality.

VI. List of Alternatives Considered:

A. Conservation land treatment alone

B. Less intensive use of flood plain

C. Alternate combination of structural measures

VII. Agencies from which Comments have been Received: U.S. Department of

the Army, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare, U.S. Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection

Agency, Appalachian Regional Commission, Governor of South Carolina,

South Carolina State Planning and Grants Division (Clearinghouse).

VIII. The Environmental Statements were made Available to the Council on

Environmental Quality and the Public on: Draft Environmental Statement—August 4, 1971. Final Environmental Statement—

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. The

Oolenoy River watershed is located in Pickens County in the northwest corner of South Carolina, near the city of Greenville. It contains

34,000 acres and consists of about 3 percent cropland, 6 percent grassland, and 86 percent woodland. Pickens County was designated as an

area of chronic unemployment and underemployment by the Appalachian Development Act of 1965. Most all of the agriculture area—I

said 3 percent—most of that is confined to the yellow area you see on

the map, in the flood plain area. Because of the real steep topography,

that is the only place where the agriculture land could be.

'The complete environmental statement may be found in the files of the committee.
20

The economy of the watershed is based on agriculture manufacturing, and supporting enterprises. Principal farm enterprises include

corn, truck crops, and pasture. Primary markets for goods produced

in the watershed are in Greenville. Considerable income is provided

by manufacturing plants just outside the watershed: There are 120

farms in the watershed which average 100 acres in size. Most.of the

farms are family farms and are operated on a part-time basis. The

value of agricultural land in the watershed ranges from $350 per acre

in the uplands to $800 per acre in the flood plains or bottoml.ands.

The major problem in the watershed is floodwater damages on about

2,059 acres. The flood plain is the only suitable land for cultivation

because of the extremely steep togography of the watershed. Flooding

occurs from one to three times per year. Farmers have been forced to

reduce acreages of corn, tomatoes, pole beans, and other truck crops

because of the flood hazard. The frequent flooding also damages roads

and bridges throughout the watershed area.

The planned project consists of conservation land treatment practices, including 115 acres of critical area stabilization. The critical area

needing stabilization is about in the center of the project just above

the flood line. It does not show on the map, but there is a severe sheet

erosion problem that needs to be corrected. They are doing that by

seeding it to grasses and trees and so forth. These practices will be

supplemented by six floodwater retarding structures, one multiplepurpose structure for flood prevention and recreation, and about 7

miles of stream channel work. The installation of the project is expected to result in a 68-percent reduction of floodwater and sediment

damages. Recreation facilities adjacent to the lake at the multiplepurpose reservoir will provide for such activities as fishing, boating,

picnicking, and camping. It is estimated that this development will

attract about 80,000 visitors annually. The recreational development is

adiacent to this particular structure that you see on the map.

The total project costs are estimated to be $2,117,000 with Federal

assistance amounting to $1,475,000. Benefits resulting from the project

are estimated to be about $267,300 annually with a resultant benefit

cost ratio of 2.1 to 1.

This concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to

answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Parker. We are very much obliged

to you.

Any questions that the members want to ask of Mr. Parker?

Mr. Zwach ?

Mr. ZWACIT. With regard to the 7 miles of channel modification, is

that mainly leading to reservoirs? What is involved in that?

Mr. PARKER. You can see from the map that the watershed is a

sort of an elongated watershed and the control by dams up here did

away with the need for channel work in this area, but when we get

down here, we lose effective control. In this area, it is plugged up

with sediment which needs to be cleaned out to provide capacity for

carrying the release rates from the structures and to provide for

adequate level of flood protection. As you will recall, we have only

about a 68-percent reduction of flood damages. We would like to see

this around 70 to 75 percent.
21

Mr. ZWACH. It does not involve any additional drainage of lowlands

or swamps?

Mr. PARKER. No this is the only existing channel.

Mr. ZWACH. No other questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stubblefield?

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. I do not have any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goodling ?

Mr. GOODLING. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Parker, for

this outline of the project.

We now have with us our colleague, Mr. Dorn, who represents this

area. He is chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee of the

House. He is one of the good friends of this program.

We will be delighted to hear from you, Mr. Dorn.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH

CAROLINA

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take but a second. I

just wanted to come over here and let you know, Mr. Chairman.and

members of the committee, that I do favor this project, which is in

my congressional district.

I have wanted to say this about this great committee: I remember

in the 1930's when this Piedmont area of South Carolina and Georgia

and North Carolina, the whole Southeast, was literally washing and

blowing away. We had to turn on, I remember very distinctly having

to turn on the lights of the old Model A in the middle of the day, there

was so much dust blowing off these old abandoned cottonfields. People

were burning up the woods to kill the boll weevil and the spooks, and

it really was an environmental disaster in those days. In this short

time, just 35 years, this committee has made possible programs

whereby, in my congressional district alone today, I have between

7,000 and 6,000 farm ponds, catching water where it falls and preventing flooding, and purifying water.

In addition to that, on private land alone, we have set out 600, I

believe, 626 million pine trees. Then the rest of it has been planted in

grass—fescue and rescue and clover and all these things, and lime,

which has actually made my district today an environmental paradise.

With the water being filtered through these pine trees and farm ponds

and watershed projects and through the grass coming off the hills,

there is no dust in my district now at any time of the year of any

consequence at all, and your water is beginning to run clear, whereas

after every shower of rain 35 years ago, even your lowlands were

covered with red mud and you had to bring your old milk cow up to

the barn because she could not get grass down there. I have had to do

that myelf. We filled up these gullies with pine trees and grass and

this great committee has taken the lead in this fantastic environmental

development in this part of South Carolina and the southeast.

I think we have made the greatest progress of any area in the history of the world today. I wish you could fly over. You used to fly

over my district and it would just look red and you could not see it if
22

the wind were blowing from the west and it had been dry a few days.

Now it is green and clear and the wind is coming through those pine

trees. I just have to commend this committee.

The environmentalists tell me that pine trees give off enough oxygen

per year to keep 18 people alive and already you have set out hundreds

of thousands of acres of pine trees in 35 years, which now are this

large. They are big enough for pulpwood and timber, Mr. Chairman.

I think this is the greatest thing, really. We do not stop to think

enough about what we have done. We lambaste a few things, maybe,

that have not been done. But here is a great, positive program which

has cleaned up the air, purified the water, and conserved the salt. And

these watershed projects throughout the South, where you have a

violent downpour of rain-82 inches of rainfall a year in this area—

this is the most rainfall east of Washington and Oregon in North

America. And you are harnessing all of this.

I just wanted to come here. I kind of got turned on this morning

thinking about that great committee. This is why—I am sorry, Mr.

Chairman, but I did want to say that.

I live on one of these places. I know what I am talking about. I have

a hillside back of my barn which I looked at Sunday, the day before

yesterday, which was gullies you could put this committee room in,

these gullies where the cows had been going down from the barn all

back before the Civil War, and started little washes, you know. They

have gotten as deep as this, acres of it. Today you cannot see it unless

you go there and just look down. It is covered with pine trees and pine

straw and that water coming out of there is clear. This is what you

have done in this short time.

I wanted to thank you and tell you that of course I am in favor of

the continuation of these kinds of projects that have meant so much

to our people.

Then we talk here about why do this because you have the soil bank

and you have farm surpluses. But the chairman and the members of

this committee well know that we lost 50,000 farmers, Mr. Chairman,

in the United States last year. If we keep losing these farmers, we

are going to have a food shortage and meat rationing and a black

market and you could buy a goo horse steak or mule steak on the

main street, you know, in London and then go back in the back alley

and get an American steak for $10 during World War II. It just

undermined the integrity of the people and we do not ever want to see

that. This is part of our program for the future.

I just wanted to come here and thank this committee. I am sorry, I

will be making a speech here directly, Mr. Poage, and I did not want

to do that. I just wanted to come here and thank you for what you have

done for this country. These projects are one of the great things you

have done, farm ponds and watershed projects are connected with this

project, soil conservation treatment, grass planting.

Mr. Zwach, I will tell you, out West up there, I wish we could do

more for those people, too. The flood on the Mississippi today—I flew

over it Sunday—and you know, the corps. This is not directly related,

but it is rein ted to this type of project. Here you are conserving water

where it falls and letting it out easy. But the corps told me that this

one flood will cost over $2 billion. It starts up there, Mr. Goodling, in

Pennsylvania on the Monongahela and all those rivers, the Missouri
23

and the Mississippi and comes on down. They told me that the cost,

before my Public Works Committee the other day, that the cost of

the levees and the impoundment dams on the Mississippi system cost

only $1,700,000,000, approximately, so far. Yet this one flood, they

saved by this system over $2 billion in the one flood damage. So the

whole operation for the last 50 or 100 years has paid for itself in one

flood.

I just want to thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Dorn, we are delighted to have you come

before us at any time. Whenever you get to where you want to make a

speech on the subject, I will get you past the limit.

Mr. PORN. I will call you, Mr. Chairman. I just got to thinking

about those things this morning over in my office.

The CHAIRMAN. This committee has been thinking along the same

lines and we are delighted that you have given it the thought that you

have. We hope that between us, we can get more Members of the Congress to understand the real problem. These efforts to conserve our

water and our soil are something that really involve every one of our

citizens. But sometimes, we cannot get some of our colleagues from

other areas to see that they are directly involved.

We had a good REAP program, which did a great deal for farmers

over the whole United States. We do not have such a program now,

because the President has felt that none of this money should be expended. We do not feel, the majority of this committee does not feel,

that you can maintain these programs without spending some money,

but we believe that the programs have been doing just what you

pointed out in connection with the Mississippi floods • that whatt hey

do in protecting in one flood will more than pay for ale whole cost of

the program.

I think that none of us wants to contemplate the situation that would

exist in the Mississippi Valley today had there been no work done

along the Mississippi. Some of us had the opportunity just 10 days

ago to fly up the Amazon River. Now, there has been no work done

along the Amazon and for some 60 to 80 miles through that jungle,

there is a space that is nothing but swamps and channels and utterly

useless for 60 to 80 miles.

Now, much the same situation would have to exist along the Mississippi had there been no work done along the Mississippi. I think

that anybody who does not believe in the levees along the Mississippi

ought to see the Amazon River, because it is larger than the Mississippi, but the same factors are involved exactly.

Mr. GOODLING. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the sediment is so

thick that you can almost cut the water.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right exactly. So we are delighted to find

one of our influential colleagues who has recognized these problems and

we appreciate the interest you have shown. We appreciate your attendance, Mr. Dorn.

Mr. PORN. Mr. Chairman, no farmer can put grass on his land and

fertilize it and terrace it unless he can get some return for having done

so. And cattle in my area—I remember seeing the first white-faced

cow since I have been grown. We did not have beef cattle in the southeast at that time. They came in on the train and unloaded in my

hometown, about 1935, 1,000 head from the dust bowl of Texas
24

and Oklahoma, where the soil was all blown off. You cannot do that

to land unless you have a return on it and the cattle now in South

Carolina, we have 700,000 head of beef cattle; none 35 years ago. But

your grass and your water have made it possible for us to have these

cattle, and then to get a return for having set out the grass and planted

the grass and done all of this work.

Now we are talking about a meat shortage. We are in the act in the

southeast, and we graze all the year round. We are going to help you

with your beef, Mr. Zwach, and all that out there.

Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DORN. Yes.

Mr. ZWACH. We would really appreciate, at least I would, that when

these bills reach the floor, where the grassroots work has to be done,

if you could deliver something on this, because it is where we need it.

Mr. DORN. If you roll back prices, and I want to commend you

gentlemen again—after the farmer last fall has contracted for feed

grains and working on these kinds of projects—we sold grass last

fall, put the fertilizer down and sold fescue and barley and all of

these, grazing through the winter—to roll the prices back, make him

lose 50 head of cattle, and the average little cattleman in my district

has 10 to 50 head. I called the auction barn and they said the average

catte producer runs 10 to 50 head. You put him out of business and all

these things are going to happen—meat rationing, black market. And

this has helped that man stay on the land and start producing and

alleviate the food shortage of the future.

One other thing, Mr. Chairman. We could not set out pine trees if

you did not have a market for them. I live in the pine belt, Mr. Zwach 

where you can put out pine trees and in 12 years, start reaping a return; you thin them for pulpwood. Those pulp mills—they talk about

a little bit of scent in the air. They smell like Chanel No. 5 to me, because they buy my pine trees and permit me to plant them and cover

these red hills, conserve water, clean the air blowing through these

pines. If it were not for some industry, too—that is Nay I do not believe in lambasting industry. If you put them out of business, you put

us out of business.

So if I did not get a return on my pine trees, it would not be worth

a nickel for me to go out there and set out hundreds of pine trees on

eroded land. But the mills of Georgetown and Augusta and all—

they are cleaning up the air. We got a pollution bill through our

committee and they are going to have to clean up the water and the

air, perhaps maybe a little more than we should make them do. But

anyway, they are going to do that. But they should not be made the

whipping boy for all of our problems in the country. I think industry,

working with our farmers, private enterprise, will solve this problem.

I just wanted to point out that if we did not have a sale for cattle

and pine trees, we could not do this work.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank yon, Mr. Dorn. We are so glad you came to

visit us. Come back any time.

Mr. Brent Blackwelder, Washington representative of the Environmental Policy Center, is here to be heard. He is accompanied by Mr.

Tom Barlow.
25

Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to introduce to you the president of the Farm Bureau of South Carolina and his lovely family,

back here. They are some of our finest farm people.

The CHAIRMAN. We are just delighted to have them here.

We are pleased to have you come and visit the Agriculture Committee, because we know of your interest, too. We are just glad to have

you with us.

[A letter from the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism,

State of South Carolina, follows:]

DECEMBER 2, 1970.

Dr. JOE DOUTHIT,

Chairman, Pickens Soil and Water Conservation District,

Clemson, S.C.

DEAR DR. DOUTHIT : This is to advise you and other sponsors of the Oolenoy

River Watershed Project of our interest in and unqualified support of this worthwhile undertaking.

We have participated in the development of the plans for this project, partic- ularly on those features affecting our land. We agree to install the land treatment measures needed on our land to reduce erosion and retard runoff. The loca- tion, kind and amount of such treatment will be specified in a mutually agreed-to conservation plan. We understand that the Soil Conservation Service technicians

assisting your district will be available to assist us in the preparation of the conservation plan so that it fully conforms to the technical standards of that

agency. The forestry land treatment measures will be carried out in cooperation

with the State Forester and the U.S. Forest Service.

We understand that PL 83-566 funds will not be available for this work on our

lands. We are prepared to request sufficient funds through our usual budgetary

procedure for completing the installation of needed measures at a rate com„

mensurate wiht the installation of comparable work on private land.

We also agree to maintain these measures after they are installed and will

request the necessary funds for this purpose. You may be assured that we intend

to make our land a model of good conservation.

Sincerely,

BOB HICKMAN, Director.

STATEMENT OF BRENT BLACKWELDER, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY CENTER

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Mr. Barlow could not appear here today, but we would appreciate it if his statement, of which you have copies, could be included in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Brent Blackwelder and I am a Washington representa- tive of the Environmental Policy Center, a national conservation or- ganization located at 324 C Street SE., Washington, D.C. When the

Reuss amendment to the Agricultural appropriations bill to prohibit

use of funds for new channelization projects was being debated on the floor of the House in 1971, one of the points made was that concerns

about watershed projects should be brought to the Agriculture Committee at authorization time rather than trying an across-the-boardmoratorium approach. Today I appear before this committee because

of our concerns about the Oolenoy River watershed project. We are

opposed to the project as presently planned on economic and environmental grounds and in terms of national priorities.

Economic objections.—Our economic objections to the project are

as follows: Apart from secondary benefits, the recreation benefits used
26

to justify the project amount to over one-half of the total benefits

($123,200 out of $232,200) . Subtracting these benefits from the total

lowers the benefict-cost ratio to an unfavorable 0.88 to 1.8. We do not

believe that the use of enormous recreation benefits to justify this project is legitimate. First, the area in its natural condition is amply suited

to many kinds of recreation such as hunting, climbing, stream fishing,

picnicking, hiking, bird watching, et cetera. Second, there is already

an abundance of flat-water recreation within easy driving distance of

the proposed impoundment for recreation. In fact, there is an existing 

i impoundment in the Table Rock State Park which in some sense s

completely out of place and an unnecessary addition to an area that

without any reservoir construction provides a wealth of recreation opportunity. For these reasons we regard the use of recreation benefits

to justify the project as a highly suspect artificial device that will not

withstand economic scrutiny.

Next, we would like to question the desirability of spending. Federal

money to increase agricultural production at a time when taxpayers

are paying billions in soil bank and price support programs. This appears to be really inconsistent Federal policy.

Environmental Objections.—We are especially disturbed about the

stream channelization of the Oolenoy River. The harmful effects of

stream channelization on fishery resources are well-known and have

been documented in House and senate hearings. Channelization of the

Oolenoy will turn the meandering river into an unsightly ditch, remove the vegetative cover along the banks which makes sections of the

river highly attractive, and create an esthetic blight in a picturesque

area. Channelization could also result in adverse effects downstream

in the form of increased erosion and siltation. Dr. Ruth Patrick, chairman of the Limnology Department of the Philadelphia Academy of

Natural Sciences, pointed out in testimony last March to the House

Subcommittee on Conservation and Natural Resources that the academy's study of stream channelization projects led to the following

conclusions:

Erosion and the accumulation of sediments within the stream

was one of the effects observed most often as a direct or indirect

effect of channelization * * *. In no instance did we find that

channelization had been beneficial to the aquatic life in the stream

or to the plants and animals of the natural bottomland ecosystems.

The effect of cutting out of oxbows and meanders which are

very productive areas for food for fish and fish life has been well

documented by many studies * * *.

Because of the destruction of natural resources as a result of channelizing the Oolenoy River, we urge the committee not to approve the

project.

National Priorities.—In view of many pressing national priorities,

we do not believe that expenditure of $1.8 million on the Oolenoy

watershed project is a justifiable expenditure. At a time when national concern for protecting the environment is at an all-time high,

the use of funds on a project which would degrade natural values and

resources would not appear prudent. Furthermore, resource economists

Davis and FIanke of Johns Hopkins University point out that there

are many ways of aiding particular areas of the country in addition

to water development projects. Water development projects, they point
27

out, can sometimes be the most inefficient means of really helping a

local area. We do not feel that these alternatives have been fully

explored.

Alternatives.—We fully support the land treatment aspects of this

project and find such measures highly desirable but see no reason why

these measures must of necessity be tied to other aspects of the project.

We therefore urge that land treatment be carried out but not linked

to other parts of the project and that instead of channelizing the

Oolenoy River, a study be initiated as to the best way to protect and

preserve the stream for this and for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement.

[ Statement of Thomas J. Barlow follows:]

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. BARLOW, REPRESENTATIVE OF EVIRON MENTAL ACTION

My name is Thomas J. Barlow.

I represent Environmental Action, an environmental organization with a

national membership. For the past two years I have been studying the PL 566

Small Watershed Program of the Soil Conservation Service ( SCS), particularly

the agency's stream channelization activities.

We trust that in its annual authorization hearings for individual PL 566

projects, the Abriculture Committee is also analyzing the overall impact and

effectiveness of the PL 566 program. In this context we would like to submit

a number of documents for the hearing record.

Appedix 1.—This paper, titled "The Mississippi Floods," points to flaws in

current Federal approaches to meeting flood control needs across the Nation.

The activities of the SCS have come to comprise a significant proportion of

Federal flood control work. We should carefully analyze the contribution of

upstream SCS flood prevention and land drainage programs to the devastating

volumes of water now ravaging the Mississippi basin. Stream channelization

in PL 566 projects in these upper Mississippi basin and tributary basin areas

is designed to drain watersheds more efficiently and quickly. When impoundments are included in a project the runoff of these flows is retarded and downstream impacts of upstream flushing can be minimized to an extent. However,

the topography in many watersheds, such as delta areas and coastal plains,

does not permit the use of impoundments. Channelization in these areas for land

drainage and flood control only speeds runoff downstream, transferring flood

water to lower basin areas where they usually serve to compound existing flood

Problems.

Appendix 2.—Last year's disastrous Hurrican Agnes floods in the Mid-Atlantic

region have led to calls for more of the traditional flood control projects which

involve the construction of dams, levees, and channelization in watercourse

areas. These two articles from the April 1973 issue of Science and Public

Affairs demonstrate that the effectiveness of these traditional approaches to

flood control is extremely limited unless amounts of money considerably in

excess of the dollar benefits to be derived from these projects are committed.

Much cheaper, more efficient in terms of land use, and more rapidly installed

flood control programs would result if Federal and State agencies relied on

non-standard flood control methods such as flood plain zoning and less reliance

were placed on the traditional engineering approaches.'

Appendix 3.—Channelization is desired by watershed property owners to drain their land more quickly and efficiently. Channelization does lead to serious envi- ronmental impacts within a watershed and, in many situations, the flushing of

increased volumes of water downstream during flood periods.

Economic incentives to streamside property owners to forego channelization

are outlined in the attached paper "Alternatives to Channelization." Some of

these alternatives can be formulated by the SCS under existing authority and

others would require Congressional action. Reduction of environmental impacts

and less downstream flooding could result from adoption by property owners of

these alternatives to channelization.

1 These two magazine articles may be found in the files of the committee.
28

Appendio 4.—In most watershed projects, indeed all of the projects before you

today, the SCS has no authority to assure that the land treatment measures in

streamside areas which are necessary for the proper operation of these projects

in coming years are actually installed or properly maintained. Streamside areas

are a source of considerable non-point pollution in our Nation's watercourses.

The National Association of Conservation Districts in conjunction with State

Soil and Water Commissions and respective local Soil and Water Conservation

Districts is sponsoring versions of a model "State Act for Erosion and Sediment

Control" in State legislatures across the Nation. This proposed act is not only

severely flawed but represents an endwise approach to coping effectively with the

problems of erosion and non-point source pollution.

We furnish formal comments on this model act. More effective State and

Federal regulatory approaches are required to assure that land use in streamside

areas is properly controlled to minimize non-point source pollution.

THE MISSISSIPPI FLOODS

The floods in the Mississippi Valley and its tributary basins this spring are a

national tragedy. Hundreds of millions of dollars in property value have already

and will continue to be lost in the weeks and months ahead as personal possessions and farmlands are ravaged by flood waters along the rivers draining

these regions.

Indisputably, flood control programs are both valid and necessary. A Federal

role is mandated, if for no other reasons, because our State and local jurisdictional boundary lines do not coincide with river basin topographies. However,

there have been two major defects which plague our Federal flood control programs. The first is that there is deplorable little coordination between not just

the various Federal agencies involved in flood control work, but between these

Federal agencies and local and private authorities carrying out flood prevention

programs as well. Flood control as defined by the upstream property owner is

quite understandably to get the water off his land as quickly and efficiently as

possible. In many upper basin areas across the country, particularly in the

southern central States, the Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation

Service (SCS) has completed or plans the channelization of thousands of miles

of streams and rivers to drain upper basin areas more efficiently. The effect of

this work is generally to flush increased volumes of water downstream. The

downstream consequences have been quite apparent in recent weeks. The Mississippi, already in full flood, is not able to accommodate the drainage from

tributaries and these tributary flows are backing up to flood millions of acres

of low-lying land. Even where the SCS has been able to utilize hilly topography

to construct impoundments and small dams in upstream areas to retard the

flow of water downstream, when these catchments are brimming as is normal

in the spring runoff season, they simply do not provide the water storage capacity to retard the flow of flood waters to downstream areas to any meaningful

degree.

The need for coordination between Federal agency flood control programs was

recognized in creating the Water Resources Council in the midsixties. Yet the

Council has been effectively prevented from coordinating the work of the agencies

by the sensitivity each agency and its constituent interests feel toward potential

encroachment on their traditional program orientations. We, therefore, feel that

the Council must be given any necessary authority and begin to exercise this

authority to coordinate the flood control programs of (1) these Federal agencies

and (2) these Federal agencies with local and State flood prevention authorities.

If the Cuncil does not receive or exercise the necessary administrative tools

perhaps the Corps of Engineers should be given authority over all these Federal,

private, and other public programs since its downstream jurisdictions bear the

brunt of upstream work not just of the SCS and local authorities but the Bureau

of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and other USDA agencies as

well.

The second major flaw which quite logically derives from the geographically

limited, specialized engineering and uncoordinated focus of each of the Federal

agencies and local authorities is that there is deplorably little flexibility in the

engineering planning to cope with flooding situations throughout an entire river

basin and complex of interlocking basins. The Corps' levees along the Mississippi
29

are evidently coping with the waters in that river quite effectively. So the Corps'

work is successful? Yet these levees parallel the river so closely that the height

of flood water rising between them prevents tributaries from emptying.

In upstream areas the SCS's channels are draining water off farmland more

efficiently than if such stream channelization work had not been completed. So

the SCS's work is successful? Yet these channels are more rapidly flushing water

downstream to compound flood problems. Thus while each agency has implemented programs which might dramatically reduce flooding in their particular

jurisdictions, in the overall river basin or complex of interlocking river basins

these programs are failing disastrously.

We are not saying stop levee work or stop farm drainage work. What we are

saying is that flexibility must be designed into these programs. A degree of land

use efficiency may have to be sacrificed in each program so that the best overall

flood control system for a river basin or complex of river basins is the result.

For instance, perhaps levees should be built along the rim of the flood plain

rather than along the banks of the river at normal flow, thus recognizing that

the dimensions of a river encompass the flood plain—that the flood plain is, in

effect, the river. Less channelization and drainage work should be performed

upstream especially when increased flow out of the project area at its lower

end is the result.

Finally, three points should be considered:

(1) If flood plain zoning were strictly enforced throughout river basin areas

we could preserve requisite streamside and riverine stretches to cope with floods

by absorbing rising waters and letting the volumes out gradually at a rate with

which downstream reaches can more adequately cope.

The federal agencies do not now have authority to require or enforce zoning

ordinances. We feel that they must be given and exercise such authority so that

the successive bills the American taxpayer pays for flood relief programs, subsidies for the reestablishment of small businesses, housing assistance, flood insurance are reduced as successive floods hit our river basins.

(2) The flood frequency statistical indexes on which these agencies base their

project planning are tragically deceptive if flood plan zoning is not enforced.

Projecting that a flood control structure will protect an area now suffering from

five year statistical flood frequencies, from all but the 100 year statistical flood

does not mean that the area will not be plagued by floods but once in a 100 years

with the first such flood occurring 100 years from the date of project completion.

Gentlemen, the mideastern Atlantic coast region has been hit by three 100-year

frequency floods in the last seven years. Of course, when a flood hits which exceeds the capacities for which an engineering work was designed, there are

property losses downstream. Property owners who suffer losses are not soothed

by the fact that the "overall" loss totals were reduced. They only know that they

were promised protection from floods and understandably they hold the federal

agencies and public officials to blame who assured them that flood protection was

a reality.

(3) Finally, we look to the imposition of a high discount rate applied retroactively to all uncompleted federal water development projects so that the backlog of authorized projects is reduced. This will enable funds to be freed for

coping with the pressing flood control needs to which the Mississippi floods are

tragic testimony.

ALTERNATIVES TO STREAM CHANNELIZATION AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT

PROGRAMS

In this policy paper Environmental Action proposes alternatives to the watercourse engineering practice of stream channelization in Soil Conservation Service

PL 566 Small Watershed Projects.

The stream channelization activities of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS ) as

carried out in the PL 566 small watershed program are creating serious environmental problems in various parts of our nation. Recent studies completed by the

Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences show that these watercourse engineering programs lead to:

1. The destruction of prime game and fowl habitat as refuge areas are drained

and cleared.

2. The death of increasingly scarce bottomland hardwoods as water tables are

lowered and root systems wither.

28-451-74-3
30

3. The degradation of water quality both within the channelization area and

downstream as erosion increases within the channel and sediments, fertilizers

and pesticides wash off adjacent more heavily cultivated lands.

There are other destructive environmental impacts resulting from channelization programs such as the disruption of recharge mechanisms for the maintenance of needed levels of groundwater and aquifer capacities, the very damaging

alteration of fish habitat leading to the disappearance of many species, the

flushing of large quantities of sediment into downstream watercourse areas.

Public concern with the effects of these programs has risen to the point that

serious damage is being done to the reputation of the Soil Conservation Service.

We are concerned that constructive solutions be formulated to resolve this controversy in the best interests of all parties, both concerned and affected.

ALTERNATIVES TO CHANNELIZATION

We feel that a workable package of alternatives to channelization could be

formulated by the SCS and its fellow USDA agencies that would provide economic benefits which project sponsors seek in the SCS's Small Watershed Program without relying on channelization. Such alternatives could include the

opportunity for landowners along streams to receive annual payments for (1)

taking streamside fields out of production for a fixed number of years and planting these fields with appropriate protective cover crops, and (2) preserving and

maintaining wetland areas on their farms. A program patterned after the provisions of the Waterbank Act for payment to owners of wetlands and marshes of

important habitat value to maintain these areas in their natural state for fixed

periods of time would provide an inducement to landowners not to clear these

areas.

Where buildings in the flood plain are subject to flooding, but the cost of

flood control program exceeds their value, perhaps the purchase of these under

"The Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,"

might be agreeable to landowners. After all, flooding is only reduced, not prevented in most SCS projects. The SCS and the Corps have utilized such relocation programs where land acquisition of areas behind dams and other impoundments is their goal.

Agricultural and commercial flood plain development can often follow these

flood control or drainage projects. By foreclosing the prospect of commercial

development with carefully formulated programs of flood plain zoning both

rural and urban communities and counties could be saved considerable financial

loss and avert future hardship and tragedy for their citizens. Control of agricultural development and farming practices in streamside areas will help prevent

serious degradation of water quality in water courses. The SCS should insist on

strict implementation of both types of programs prior to planning any type of

watershed project in the area. Such programs would undoubtedly remove the

need for considerable portions of channelization in many projects.

Making the availability of USDA crop insurance and HUD flood insurance

programs conditional on the acceptance of such economically and environmentally

sound watershed programs would provide certain financial benefits to project

sponsors which channelization now provides.

Another alternative to channelization is the use of hand power tools to clear

the debris from channels in order to increase their flow capacity and thus reduce

streamside flooding in periods of heavy basin runoff.

To the extent that these channelization projects are designed to provide financial benefits to low income farmers, we believe that there are other programs

which the USDA could provide to these people to improve their economic status

such as (1) low interest loans or direct grants to increase yields on their producing farmland, and (2) direct or indirect income supports to raise their standards of living to adequate levels pursuant to Government standards.

In some authorized but unconstructed projects, considerable landowner

resistance to project construction has developed in the years since the project

was planned and approved by Congress. In such projects, the primary driving

force for project completion can become not so much the benefits to be derived

from channelization but rather the desire by local sponsors to recoup any financial investment they may have made in organizing the project. The alternative of

"no project" is not seriously considered by the local sponsors for this reason.

Moreover, the SCS has stated that it believes itself to be contractually bound

to carry out its funding agreements with local sponsors even though no actual

construction contracts have been entered into. Thus, no matter how terrible the
31

anticipated environmental effects of an unplanned or authorized channelization

project are ever perceived to be--for example, when impact statements are finally

prepared—the SCS believes and has stated, that it is legally committed to the

project and can refrain from going ahead with construction only if -released"

by the local sponsors Of course, this position vitiates NEPA's mandate that the

SCS give meaningful consideration to project alternatives, including the alternatives of not going ahead with the project.

This situation is obviously intolerable. It means, in brief, that the SCS is locked

into several hundred truly destructive projects planned before the effects of

channelization were understood as they are today. And, as we have indicated, a

key factor in preventing meaningful project reconsideration is the prior financial

commitments to the local sponsors.

In light of these factors, we believe Congress should consider the following

course of action. First, we urge examination of the SCS claim that it is contracually bound by Workplan Agreements with local sponsors. It is our belief that

the SCS is simply wrong in its view of this matter. And, second—and this is the

crux of the matter—we urge that Congress consider legislation creating a fund

to reimburse local sponsors of PL-566 projects for actual financial losses occasioned by the justifiable reliance upon promises of forthcoming Federal financial

assistance which is subsequently cancelled by the SCS for environmental reasons

after NEPA impact statement reviews.

COMMENTS ON A MODEL STATE ACT FOR SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL

BEING SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

(NACD) AND THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS (COG)—COMMENTS PREPARED BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC) A.pft. 5, 1973

The National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) is sponsoring a

"Model State Act for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control." 1 This proposed. Act

represents an unwise approach to coping effectively with the problems Of erosion and non-point source pollution within the States.

The public is increasingly concerned with the control of erosion from construction sites and farm lands along streams and rivers. The public is growing

more aware of the water quality problems caused by increased residue runoff

of pesticides and fertilizers into watercourses as a result of greater reliance on

such chemicals in farming operations.

By this proposed law, the NACD seeks to vest responsibility for the control

over these non-point source water quality problems in quasi-governmental state

agencies—local soil and water conservation districts (districts) and the respective state soil and water conservation commissions (Commissions).

These particular agencies are directly and totally responsible to the very

interests which must be regulated if such pollution is to be controlled. There is

serious doubt whether representatives of the agricultural community controlling these units would develop, administer and enforce meaningful regulation of

non-point source sediment and chemical pollution deriving from agricultural

areas. Besides the crippling flaw of operating from a compromised regulatory

base, provisions of the bill itself are deficient and loopholed at key points. .

In the Model Act's preamble, the coverage of the law is restricted to situations

where soil erosion and sediment damage are present. Thus, eroding areas which

may not be contributing to sediment damage by a convincing definition or unquestionable proof are beyond the reach of the law. Further, the term "sediment

damage" is not defined in the Act. Therefore, where the activating eroding conditions and sediment damage are alleged to be conjunctive the question of

what constitutes "sediment damage" could be made extremely difficult and take

considerable time to resolve.

In Section 2(a), it is obvious that the framers of this law are determined to

restrict its coverage to one portion of the 'non-point source pollution problem—.

erosion. This law will not apply to the regulation of non-point source pollution

from agricultural chemicals such as fertilizer and pesticide runoff.

Erosion as a result of the forces of gravity is not subject to the law's coverage.

In this light, it is fair to ask, at what point do the framers of this law consider

1 1973 Suggeated State Legisation, vol. XXXII "Model State Act for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control" Developed by The Committee on Suggested State Legislation, The Coun- cil of State Governments, Iron Works Pike, Lexington, Ky.
32

the "land disturbing activity" to cease and the natural forces of gravity to become operable in producing erosion?

Evidently, groundwater is not considered to be subject to the effects of nonpoint source pollution even though it may be influenced by siltation of sinks

or recharge zones as well as chemical contamination from non-point sources. The

failure to address groundwater conditions in this law is a serious defect.

The organizational structure envisioned in Section 3 is defective:

Section 3 (a ) (2-5)

"The Commission shall in cooperation with the [ State Water Quality Control

Agency] and other appropriate state and federal agencies develop and coordinate

a comprehensive state erosion and sediment control program. . . ." The "appropriate state and federal agencies" with which the commission shall cooperate in

developing a control program are not specified. An agency which does not have

the potential conflict of interest which the Commission has and, therefore, might

seek more practical regulation of non-point sources than the Commission proposes can legally be ignored by the Commission.

Section 3 (a ) (5-10)

"[T]o assist in the development of such a program, the Commission shall name

an advisory board of not less than 7 nor more than 11 members, representing

such interests as housing, financing, industry, agriculture, recreation, and local

governments, and their planning, transportation, health, public works, and zoning

commissions or agencies (shall be appointed)." The State Commissions have traditionally been dominated by agricultural interests. An advisory board to a respective Commission comprised of representatives of other fields only removes

the Commission from potential conflict of interests to the degree that the advisory board sheds its "advisory" status and formally passes on the regulatory

program and activities of the Commission. Such an improved organizational structure is not allowed in this law.

Furthermore, members of the general public are not to be selected as members

of these boards even though many citizens are deeply concerned about the problems of non-point source pollution, versed in methods for coping with it, and determined to control it.

Section 3(a) (6)

Serious concerns are raised with the wording. ". . . the Commission shall name

an advisory board . . . ." The potential conflict of interest in which these Commissions find themselves leads to the concern that the Commission will appoint

members to associated boards who might only continue and compound the conflict of interest from which the Commissions have traditionally suffered.

There are deplorable deficiencies with time frames throughout this draft legislation. For instance, there is no schedule to which the Commission must adhere

in developinv

b

and promulgating its control program.

Alter the Commission's guidelines become effective, the Commission can only

move to enforce compliance with its control program if a district does not submit

a proposed control program of any sort. Conceivably a district could keep submitting unsatisfactory proposals for control programs and the Commission would

be powerless to act to force compliance. Furthermore, Commission delays in

processing District programs is encouraged with the omission of a specified time

period within which the Commission must act in processing a proposed district

control program.

In Section 4(a) (5-10), we again face the concept ". . . To assist in developing

its program, each district shall name an advisory committee. . . ." : The crude

defects of this approach are similar to those cited in Section 3(a) above.

There are further bewildering ambiguities in Section 4(a). ". . . Upon the

request of a district the Commission shall assist in the preparation of the district's program . . . ." (L. 10-13) This sentence implies that a district must have

the assistance of the Commission in the preparation of that district's program.

Therefore, if such assistance is not requested by the District or is not forthcoming from the Commission, the district is relieved of the responsibility for

preparing a program. Section 4(a) does not mandate or authorize the Commission to take the initiative in promulgating a control program within a district

should a succession of proposed plans from that district not be approved by the

Commission.

Section 4(b) implies that the district program approved by the Commission

and the conservation standards adopted by the district are separate entities.
33

This is most unwise. Certainly the data specified in this section should be compiled by the District and public hearings held to discuss the conservation standards for the district but the district program submitted to the Commission for

approval as specified in Section 4(a) should be based on these and not be established before these are formulated.

By the Act, amendment or revision of a district program is possible without

formal clearance of the State Commission. Further, there is no means for the

public within respective districts to initiate revision or amendment of a district's

program via a petition or appeal process.

Section 5(a)—There is not time frame in which all landowners, operators,

occupiers who are engaged in land disturbing activity must file control plans with

the district that conform to the district's program.

Section 5(b) (1) (18-19)—In discussing the responsibility of the individual

responsible for carrying out a control program for a particular piece of land

the words used are ". . . and if the person responsible for carrying out the plan

certifies (emphasis added) that he will properly perform . . . ." The word "certifies" has not been defined in the Act's definitions (Section 2) and this omission could prove very troublesome.

Section 5(e) (55-65)—This entire section is extremely unwise. It states that

if "50% cost sharing or adequate technical assistance" is not available from

public agencies to the individual landowner, operator or occupier, he is relieved

from any responsibilities to conform to a control program. Thus, provisions of

this Act are dependent on the vagaries of state or federal agency cost sharing

programs. Second, "adequate technical assistance" is not defined in the Act's

definitions ( Section 2). The program itself as promulgated by the district is

evidently not considered to be "adequate technical assistance." There is an interesting perspective on the views which framers of this law have with regard

to the nature of non-point source pollution control. Is it more troublesome than

constructive?

Section 10(1-4)—This section on appeal from decisions by the district's Commission and the permit issuing authorities is inadequately developed. For instance, there is no provision for adequate notice of decisions to be given affected

parties. Only a 30 day period for appeal to the courts of district decisions seems

tight fisted to the point that equity suffers.

Section 7(a)—There are certainly other activities besides grading or building

from which non-point source pollution is derived which if not subject to some

form of controlling permit system now should be regulated by a permit system

in the future to control non-point source pollution.

Section 7(b) (23)—Agricultural and farming operations are exempted from the

monitoring and reporting responsibilities which the district may require of individuals engaged in land disturbing activities on particular land parcels. Favoritism toward these special interest groups simply confirms the doubts that nonpoint source pollution will not be effectively controlled by the authorities vested

with the powers to enforce this Act. These authorities have traditionally been

sympathetic to, if not controlled by, these exempted interests.

The defects in this law are so glaring that one suspects the motivating force

behind this legislation to be the desire to promulgate ineffective controls on nonpoint source pollution via a weak regulatory structure.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blackwelder, you have raised some points that

I think go not only to this project but to a great many projects. That

is, I think that we need to have some idea as to how far we think we

can go and how far we want to create an unfavorable economic situation in order to maintain streams in their natural state. Of course,

there is a limit on how far we go. But this philosophy that you have

represented, does it not go to every stream and does it not really preclude any channelization anywhere?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Where would you suggest that channelization was

justified?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. I, myself, have not seen areas where I thought

there were not other alternatives that you could use to channelization.

On the other hand, I have seen streams that I would not be partic-
34

ularly concerned what happened to them. They have already been essentially totally destroyed, so I would not be alarmed, particularly in

certain urban areas, where some sort of channel is dug because the

stream has been so abused.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, you say in certain urban areas. Might you not

raise exactly the same sort of objection to the expansion of any city

that you raise to this I drove from Dulles into Washington a few

days ago, and there are vast, areas out there that have been nice woods

that. are. being bulldozed for housing right now.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. It is going on, going on around every large city.

Maybe we, ought not to expand our cities. Some of us feel that we ought

to try to avoid that. But is there not just as much justification for

helning these farm people down there to realize some income as there

is for allowing these people to put those houses there for the profit

they can make out of it.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. But of course, that is not Federal money involved

in building those houses.

The CHAIRMAN. There is Federal money involved in building those

roads, State money with Federal assistance, of course, that is building

those roads out there. And it even built the road to the Dulles Airport.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Yes.

The CITAIRMAN. That was Federal money, every dollar of that, and

it cut riqht through some beautiful forest land. And the Federal Government• is lending them the money to build the houses.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Mr. Chairman, we are fully desirous of helping

this area in South Carolina and there are many ways that this can be

done. But we do not believe that the only way to help the area is to

take the Oolenoy River and channelize it. In other words, there are

many different things that can be done instead.

The CHAIRMAN. You pointed out as one of your objections to this

project that we were going to spend some money here for recreation

and you suggested that they did not need to spend any money for recreation, because within 2 miles or three or four, they had State parks

that were adequate. You have beautiful streams like the last two slides

that you showed us within a few miles of these swamps that you also

showed us. and I frankly do not mean to say that there is anything

wrong with those swamps. But the first slide showed me that you had

a turtle and alligator incubator there.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Not quite.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right, and there is a place for turtle and

alligator incubators 

Mr. BLACKWELDER. I do not believe there are any alligators there,

but there may be a number of turtles.

The CHAIRMAN. There may not be alligators, but I bet there are

water moccasins there.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. But you must say the river in its natural condition is also a recreational resource.

The CHAIRMAN. You just pointed out that we do not need recreational resources there.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. But it is a natural resource there and I am questioning the desirability of spending Federal money to eliminate that

natural resource. We do not feel that is a wise expenditure.
35

The CHAIRMAN. You just told us in your first statement that we

did not need recreational areas there because of the existence of even

more attractive recreational areas in the immediate neghborhood and

you showed us some pictures of them to prove they are there.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Yes

'

sir, but Mr. Chairman, the only way this

project can be economically justified is to claim large benefits for

recreation and we feel that that is a highly artificial device to make

the project appear to have a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio and that if

you use this artificial device, you are actually being deceived in a

certain sense.

The CHAIRMAN. I think there is some merit to your argument. But

if there is, then there is very little merit to your argument that you

need to maintain this stream because the same argument that you

made a moment before indicates that the same kind of recreation is

available in the same neighborhood already and that therefore, it is

not necessary that we maintain this stream.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. That is true from just the recreational standpoint.

If you destroyed this recreation area, there would be other recreation

in the area. But also, at the same time you are destroying the recreation area by channelizing, you are destroying natural resources. You

are having an adverse impact downstream on the Saluda River. You

are destroying the downstream fishing resources and, in effect, destroying the wildlife habitat that you have there on the stream, and we feel

that this deserves consideration.

The CHAIRMAN. You are destroying resources, but everything man

has ever done, on America and every other continent, changed the

condition in which God made it, did he not? I think we have changed

it by and large for the good. It is true that the whole area from the

Atlantic seacoast to the 98th meridian was covered with forest when

the white man landed here. It is not any longer. Of course, Webb said

that when man reached the 98th meridian he looked up and for the

first time in 1,000 years, he could see the gun. Maybe that was a natural resource that he had not enjoyed before, because that sunlight

seems to me to be worth something, too.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Mr. Chairman, we fully agree that farming is

very scenic and beautiful and in some sense, really enhances the landscape. But on the other hand, when we see an activity of man such as

a stream channelization that will detract from it, we feel it is incumbent upon us to voice objection to it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you have to have some balance between

the actual economics of the thing and the recreational or scenic features. I noticed on this map a scenic highway and I was reminded that

for a great many years, I have been urging the State of Texas to build

a parkway through the center of our State, because I believe that it is

worthwhile to maintain and develop those scenic attractions.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. I have been urging that ever since I was in the

legislature 37 years ago and I still think it would be a big thing for

us. But there is always the question, that somebody else places a somewhat different value upon those things than what I do, and you place

a different value upon them in another way.

I think what we have to do is reach some kind of balance between

what is the reasonable value and what is not.
36

Mr. BLACKWELDER. All right, yes, Mr. Chairman. You would have

an argument against us there if the channelization were justified

strictly on economic grounds. What we do not have in this watershed

is a strict economic jusification of the channelization alone but rather

recreation is artifically induced to make something which is marginal

actually appear to be economic.

We would have a real confrontation, perhaps, if you had a channelization project which was on sound economic footing and did not use

these artificial recreation benefits to pad the benefit-cost ratio. Then we

would have to come to you and say we think the value of the environmental resources here outweighs the economic benefits. But that is not

the case in this particular project. The project is not on sound economic grounds right now.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I see that I have a time warning there.

Mr. Zwach ?

Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say to you, Mr. Blackwelder, that I am glad to have

on come to the committee where these projects originate. I think that

is commendiable. And I certainly hope that we can find the answers to

honest, good soil, water, and air conservation and move forward. I

could not support the Reuss amendment, for instance, because they

asked the OK of another branch of Government on a project.

But I should say to you that is my privilege to fly over our great

country a great deal. Looking down over the great country—I fly to

the Twin Cities. I fly over Wisconsin, Reuss' State. Now, I presume

that when he flies, he generally stops at Milwaukee. I fly on across

Wisconsin to Minneapolis. To see the marvelous work that has been

done on contouring, stripping, ponds, soil and water work—it is the

only agency that has done anything else than talk about environment.

All of my lifetime as a State legislator, I have worked hard for soil

and water conservation and I think we see some marvelous results.

Now, certainly, every project that is built ought to improve the environment. If it cannot be supported on that basis, it ought not to be

even considered. But over all, I thank God every day that we have

had the soil and water conservation that has been going on. It ought

to have been 10 times as much but I am not sympathetic to just drainage and overchannelization. I have been asking questions about it. I

think we perhaps will ask a few more about this one.

But this broadly based conservation work is fundamental. We do

not want to throw anything into its way. We want to encourage it

rather than to slow it down. But let us do it, hopefully without strife

and with understanding. I think your appearing here should have a

good effect.

I gave the Soil and Water Conservation, as a long-time friend, heck

since I have been here, asking them to be careful in all of these considerations that we do not develop into a drainage machine rather than

a conservation machine.

So I am glad to have you come and make a statement.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Thank you very much. We certainly do encourage all these good conservation practices and fully support them. It is

just that we think that channelization should not be a proper part of

this very good overall program.

Mr. ZWACH. Even changing a channel so that you run it into a reservoir and so on? You see, you cannot have a watershed project with-
37

out some channeling, because you feed the water into reservoirs and

ponds and so on. So we cannot just say no channelization and expect

to proceed with proper husbanding of our wonderful resource. This is

what the Reuss amendment did that I could not accept.

But I will certainly agree on minimal channelization.

The C ['AIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Zwach.

Mr. Stubblefield?

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. NO questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. GOOdling?

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Blackwelder, I would like to know something

about your organization. Who are you? What is your function? How

long have yoir been in existence?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. We were organized a year ago last January.

Many of us who had worked in Washington, D.C., with other conservation organizations got together because we thought we ought to

be doing hard research and presenting factual data to Congress, to assist it in making wise decisions on critical environmental matters. We

are working very hard on the energy situation right now. I work very

closely on water resource development to attempt to make sure that

what is done is wise and proper.

Mr. GOODLING. What is your background in this field and the background of Mr. Barlow?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Do you refer to our academic background?

Mr. GOODLING. Your background that enables you to give advice to

the Congress as you just did?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. I graduated from Duke University and have a

masters degree in mathematics from Yale University. And I have

been studying water projects for the past 3 years, both from a economic and environmental point of view.

Mr. GOODLING. Does that qualify you as an ecologist or environmentalist?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. I think it indeed does, sir.

Mr. GOODLING. I think it is very unfortunate that this word "ecology" has just come into being in recent years. I have been an ecologist

long before you were ever born, but unfortunately, we are not approaching this problem, at least a lot of us are not, on a very scientific basis, but rather on an emotional basis.

How is your organization financed?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. We rely on contributions from individuals who

are interested in our work. We do not have a membership, but often

speak on behalf of organizations at the State level who are unable to

spend money to get here to Washington to present their views.

In connection with your comments, sir, I think that on the subject

of stream channelization, I have reviewed all the scientific literature

and have been instrumental in directing certain studies of critical

problems to be carried out and tried to piece together the type of

information that you as a committee would like to have in order to

make sound decisions on the matter. I have been in touch with State

(Tame and fish agencies and conservation groups across the country

on various matters pertaining to fish and wildlife resources and have

tried to provide a flow of information back and forth.

Mr. GOODLING. I would agree with you that a meandering stream

is beautiful to look at but I think you would have to agree with me

that it is far more subject to flooding than a straight stream.
38

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Yes, sir; but the point is that flooding is highly

desirable in many instances. It has been occurring over the centuries

and is responsible for the deposition of rich nutrient material in

floodplains.

Mr. GOODLING. If you had a farm in an area that is going to flood

occasionally, you would not think it is very desirable, I do not believe.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Mr. Goodling, part of the problem could be

solved with proper and adequate crop insurance. It is my view that it

would be desirable to allow the flooding to occur, to allow the rich

deposition of nutrients periodically and have an insurance program

to take care of these contingencies, rather than actually turning the

stream into a ditch and possibly causing worse problems to somebody downstream. This has occurred, for example, on the Blackwater River in Missouri. Several generations of fence posts downstream were buried under eroding material because of upstream

channelization. In other words, it just simply passed the problem of

flooding which you are concerned about on downstream.

Mr. GOODLING. Well, I question whether you could figure out mathematically that it would be of benefit to flood these areas periodically.

Just one more question. You talk about channelization and destroying the vegetation along the bank. I believe the gentlemen from the

Department will tell you that they never proposed to leave the banks

bare.

Is that not correct? You like covers on those banks, so do I like

covers on those banks.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. But unfortunately, the streamside trees and the

root-binds which hold the stream banks in place and stabilize them are

knocked down in order to straighten out meanders.

Mr. GOODLING. I do not believe that is true of the channelization that

is properly done.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Well, I can show you pictures, Mr. Goodling,

that I have seen of poor channelization, and I have visited projects

all the way from New York State down to Georgia. I have seen just

shocking clearing of trees up to 100 feet on both sides of the stream.

I have seen denuded banks, I have seen slumping banks, eroding banks.

I can produce all that photographic evidence to document what I am

saying to you now. I hope that channelization will be reduced in the

future. We do not think that this is a necessary and good practice.

Mr. GOODLING. I see I have a red traffic light.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we are very much

obliged to you, Mr. Blackwelder, for appearing and we appreciate your

attendance here. We are glad to have your suggestions.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anybody else who wants to be heard on this

project?

[No response.]

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES—WILLIAMSBURG

ARROYOS, NEW MEXICO

The CHAIRMAN. If not, we will pass to the T or C—Williamsburg

Arroyos in New Mexico. Mr. Klingelhofer will represent the Department.
39

I should point out to our colleague, Mr. Runnels, that it is our custom

to hear the Department outline the project so that we will have a picture of it and then we will be delighted to hear from you.

[The project information is subsequently supplied:]

T OR C-WILLIAMSBURG ARROYOS WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and Location.-19,050 acres in Sierra County.

Tributary.—Rio Grande.

Sponsors.—Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District; City of Truth or Consequences; village of Williamsburg.

Total watershed land use

Percent

Cropland 0. 4

Grassland 78. 9

Miscellaneous 20. 7

Watershed privately owned.-27 percent; 13 percent non-Federal Public; 60

percent Federal.

Number of Farms and Ranches.-10.

Size of Farms.—About 185 acres average.

Purposes.—Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention.

Principal Measures.—Soil conservation practices on farms and ranches; and

structural measures consisting of 4 floodwater retarding structures, about one

mile of channel and pipeline and about one-half mile of fioodway. The storage

capacities range from 196 acre-feet to 1,714 acre-feet.

ANNUAL BENEFITS

Amount Percent

To agricultural acreage (land and crops) 

To agricultural improve nents 

$600 

200 

To nanagricultural improve cents 179, 200 81

Indirect 21, 300 10

Subtotal 201, 300 91

Secondary 18, 700 9

Total 220, 000 100

Benefit-Cost Ratio.-1.4 to 1 at the interest rate applicable when the plan was

developed. At the Federal borrowing rate on April 17, 1973, the overall B :C ratio

would be 1.7 to 1, and without secondary benefits, it would be 1.5 to 1.°

Number of Beneficiaries.—Four irrigated farms and about 300 homes and 60

commercial or business properties will be directly benefited by the installation

of the structural measures.

1 Supplied in accordance with subcommittee instructions.

PROJECT COSTS

Public Law 566 funds Other funds

Total

Amount Percent Amount 1 Percent Amount

Land treatment measures $9, 000 20 $36, 000 80 $45, 010

Structural measures flood prevention 2, 208, 000 93 173, 000 7 2, 381, 000

Project administration 311, 000 99 2,000 1 313, 000

Total 2, 528, 000 92 211, 000 28 2, 739, 000

1 For land treatment measures this is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost-sharing

from funds appropriated for the rural environmental assistance program may be available if included in the county

progra

For structural measures this is the cost of land rights and project administration. It may also include costs for construction or engineering services for purposes other than flocd prevention.

2The value of maasures already installed $106,000 increases this to 11 percent.
4O

Prorated Public Law 566 Structural Cost per Acre Benefited.—Not computed—

Benefits are primarily nonagricultural.

Carrying out the Project.—The City of Truth or Consequences and the Village

of Williamsburg will assume all local responsibility for installing operating and

maintaining the structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $3,900.

USDA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 1

T OR C WILLIAMSBURG ARROYOS WATERSHED, NEW MEXICO

(Prepared in Accordance with Section 102(2) (C) of Public Law 91-190)

SUMMARY SHEET

I. Final (w).

II. Soil Conservation Service.

III. Administrative (w).

IV. A watershed project to be carried out by the sponsoring local organization

with federal assistance under the provisions of Public Law 566 in accordance with a work plan for the T or C Williamsburg Arroyos Watershed in Sierra County, New Mexico.

V. Favorable Environmental Effects:

1. Reduce overall erosion by about 10 percent.

2. Reduce sedmient delivered to the Rio Grande by about 66 percent.

3. Reduce flood damage to 658 acres of urban land and irrigated cropland by about 96 percent.

4. Protect 300 homes and 60 commercial properties (about 2,000 people)

from the 1 percent chance storm event.

5. Reduce ponding of floodwaters in which mosquitos breed.

6. Protect municipal water wells from flood damage.

7. Permit deveopment of about 220 acres for homes and businesses.

8. Increase vegetative cover in sediment and detention pool areas, which

will increase wildlife food and cover.

Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided:

1. Eliminate agricultural use on 34 acres of rangeland to be used for

dams and spillways.

2. Periodically interrupt agricultural use and wildlife habitat of the 152

acres in the sedmient and detention pools. A temporary loss of wildlife feeding and cover on 152 acres of dominant desert shrub community will occur- when flood waters are retarded for a period of

approximately 3 to 7 days maximum duration. This degree of flooding will occur once in 100 years.

3. The relocation of one house, one powerline, one ranch road and one

street will result in inconvenience to one family and disruption of

some activities.

VI. Alternatives Considered:

1. Conservation land treatment alone.

2. Flood proofing existing fixed improvements and zoning the undeveloped areas for open space or uses compatible with flooding.

3. Public land acquisition of flood prone areas.

4. Continuing the present use and trends.

VII. Written comments were received from:

Department of the Army.

U.S. Department of the Interior.

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Environmental Protection Agency.

New Mexico State Engineer ( For Governor).

New Mexico State Planning Office (Clearinghouse).

VIII. The draft environmental statement was transmitted to the Council on

Environmental Quality on November 8, 1971. The final environmental

statement was transmitted to the Council on Environmental Quality on

July 9, 1972.

1 The complete environmental statement may be found in the files of the committee.
41

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Mr. Chairman, members o,f the committee, the Truth or Consequences-Williamsburg Arroyos watershed is located in the southern part of Sierra County in south central New Mexico, along the Rio Grande River. It is about 120 miles south of Albuquerque, and 100 miles north of El Paso, Tex. Interstate 25 crosses the lower portion of the watershed. The towns of Truth or Consequences and Williamsburg are located within the watershed. The watershed is 19,050 acres and is made up of 79 percent rangeland, 0.4 percent crop- land. and 20.6 built-up and miscellaneous.

The two towns have a combined population of approximately 5,200. Approximately 2,000 persons live within the floodplains of the arroyos. Truth or Consequences is the county seat of Sierra County and the principal trade center for the rural agricultural county. Ranchers and residents of the Beaverhead area in Catron County and in the dusty community of Socorro County also use this as a trade center. The

economy of the area is based primarily on tourist trade, recreation and agriculture, with agriculture providing about 30 percent. Alfalfa is the principal crop grown on the irrigated land. Approximately 75

percent of the rangeland is Federal and administered by the Bureau of Land Management through grazing permits with individual

ranchers.

The watershed is in a semiarid climatic zone with relatively mild winter temperatures. Arroyos are dry except during periods of storm runoff. Average annual rainfall is 8.5 inches. The normal frost-free period is 220 days. Rainfall usually occurs during thunderstorms of high intensity and short duration. Soils range from deep, loamy bottom land to shallow gravelly upland soils. About 20 percent of the u

land area is barren, eroded geologic materials described as badlands.

Land values range from $30 per acre in the upland portion to a minimum of $1,000 per acre for the irrigated cropland. The highly developed commercial and residential areas are valued up to $5,000 per acre.

Damaging floods have occurred frequently. During the past 20

years, there have been 5 floods which caused major damage and 16

other floods which caused some damage. During the 1965 flood, 33

homes were flooded in Williamsburg alone. Homes, commercial property, and transportation facilities within the two towns experience*

floodwater and sediment damages estimated at almost $200,000 annually. Approximately 2,000 people live within the area frequently

flooded; 658 acres within the watershed are subject to flooding. Irrigated cropland with highly developed conversion irrigation systems

is damaged by floods in the agricultural portion of the floodplain.

Erosion and sediment damage is also serious during these flood periods,.

The planned project consists of conservation land treatment practices supplemented by four floodwater retarding structures, and about

0.6 Miles of floodway. Two of the structures require a total of about

three-quarter mile of outlet channel work. A third structure will require about one-quarter mile of pipeline to safely discharge the spillway release flow.

Installation of the project will reduce flood damage to irrigated

farmland and built-up areas by about 96 percent. The project will also

reduce sediment deposits on farms and built-up areas and will reduce

sediment carried into the Rio Grande from this watershed IV about

60 percent.
42

Approxmiately 300 homes and 60 commercial or business properties

will be protected from flooding in Truth or Consequences and Williamsburg from storms up to and including those that might occur once

in 100 years.

The total project costs are estimated to be $2,739,000 with Federal

assistance amounting to about $2,528,000. Benefits resulting from the

project are estimated to be $220,000 annually, with a resultant benefit

to cost ratio of 1.4 to 1.

This concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to

try to answer any questions you or members of the committee may

have.

The CHAIRMAN. I just noticed that this has the lowest ratio of local

contributions I think I have ever seen on a project. How does it happen—I know some of these things just sort of happen, but how does

it happen that this has such a small local contribution? They normally

run from 45 to 50 percent local cost. This has 8 percent.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. It is a single-purpose project, Mr. Chairman,

with most of the costs tied up in the flood prevention measures—the

four floodwater structures, which are 100 percent Federal cost for

construction. Now, the land rights are the responsibility of the local

sponsors. They happen to be located up on less expensive land and

this reduces the costs from the local people.

Also, the land treatment measures on the rangeland are less expensive type practices than we might have on highly productive farmland. This generally reduces the local input required and gives the

appearance here of a smaller percentage.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, how do you get the range treatment to be so

cheap? I should think that was a rather expensive range to put any

kind of treatment on. It is a dry country with heavy rains at intervals.

Now, you have to prepare for that. You have to do some terracing,

some ditching, some planting or something, either grasses or trees up

there, to control that runoff. What do you contemplate doing up there?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. I think it is largely seeding. I would have to

refer to the plan here. Brush control too, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, brush control—I do not even know

which way you propose to do it. The more brush you can get on here,

the more you control that runoff. On the other hand, the less grass you

are going to have. Now, which are you doing? Putting brush on or

taking brush off?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. I think some of it is being taken off. A combination of proper land management, including grazing or other applicable

range practices, stock water development, flood diversions, contour

furrowino. and 

The CHAIRMAN. Take contour furrowing which I recognize .as a

rather expensive practice. It is a desirable practice up there, but how

do you get so little and your costs be so small? I just wonder how you

can do a thorough job of treatment on that land and get it as inexpensively as you have shown it? As a matter of fact, you are not going

to have the local people put up anything of that. You are going to pay

for that, or you contemplated paying for that out of REAP. You will

not pay for it now out of REAP.

You originally contemplated that the Federal Government would

pay for that, did you not?
43

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Quite a bit of this is on BLM land, 65 percent,

1 think, of the upland area.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Federal Government again will pay for it.

Actually, this 8 percent is broken up and more than 8 percent of that

is paid for by the people, is it not? Is this not almost 100 percent Foderal Government?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. It is getting pretty close, yes sir. I think cur

two-page summary shows 11 percent, if we include the practices which

have already been installed, the land treatment practices which have

already been installed on this land.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I just wanted to raise that question. This is

the lowest local contribution on this project that I have seen on any

project that has come before us in a long, long time.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. $106,000 of land treatment measures have been

installed, which increased the percentage to 11 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Since the REAP program has been wiped out, who

is going to put up that money?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. The local farmers.

The CHAIRMAN. Will they? They do not own that land. Why would

they put it up?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. I am not sure of this arrangement between the

Bureau of Land Management and the local farmers. I am just not quite

sure how it works.

The CHAIRMAN. I presume you have some kind of statement from

the Bureau of Land Management, or you have the general statement

that they will pay the costs of land treatment that is recommended

by the Soil Conservation Service.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes we have the general statement.

The CHAIRMAN. And I think they will find that will liquidate the

costs even though they do not get it back from the REAP program.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. In the plan, there is a breakdown of the acreages

in the watershed. There are 11,000 acres of Federal land under the

Bureau of Land Management.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. PARKER. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that previously in New

Mexico and southwest Arizona projects we have had these kinds of

percentages, that is 8, 10, 12 percent local contribution. For this

rangeland, the biggest thing is proper grazing use and deferred grazing. There just is not much cost involved. It is primarily management

type practices for this rangeland. We do not get a lot of dollars involved. There are a lot of things to prevent overgrazing, to prevent

erosion and sedimentation, and so forth, but it is more management

than it is brush control and dams and so forth which count up in costs

for other areas of the country.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, speaking of that brush control, I do not believe that I ever understood whether you are killing brush or putting

brush out there to hold the runoff. What are you doing?

Mr. PARKER. Trying to get better grazing with brush control,

generally.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be killing the brush so you would have

better grass.

Mr. PARKER. Better grazing through brush control. I do not know

how much of that is involved in this watershed.
44

The CHAIRMAN. Well, in that whole watershed, I take it, and I do

not know this for sure, but I have general knowledge of that country,

there is a little brush over most of that country. Of course, to the extent that you kill brush off, you normally would have better grass.

I think it is a desirable practice in most cases, but on the other hand,

there are places where you want to add to the vegetation.

Mr. PARKER. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. To prevent runoff.

Mr. PARKER. It is pretty dry, arid country. BLM has their standards,

too, of course

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I just wanted to raise those points.

Mr. Zwach, do you have some questions?

Mr. ZWACH. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stubblefield?

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have our colleague, Mr. Runnels, with us.

We will be delighted to hear from you, Mr. Runnels. We appreciate

your interest in coming before this committee and we will be glad to

have your discussion of the local situation, which you know much

better than we do.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD RUNNELS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. RUNNELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today before you

and personally express my support for the Truth or ConsequencesWilliamsburg watershed project as proposed by the Soil Conservation Service.

My brief remarks will parallel those already previously given. During the past 20 years the area affected by the project has been hit by

five floods which caused major damage and 16 other floods resulted in

minor damage. The annual loss from flood damage to property in the

area is estimated at almost $200,000. The approval of the proposed

project is essential to prevent further flood damage to these two small

communities in my district—Truth or Consequences and Williamsburg.

The elected officials of these two communities have unanimously

supported the project since the flood problem has not only resulted in

considerable damage, but has hampered development of the area because of the present flood potential.

To correct the situation, after many months of various studies the

Soil and Conservation Service has recommended a project consisting

of four floodwater retarding structures with three outlet channels and

one floodway. The estimated cost of this project according to my figures, is $2,694,000. It is proposed that Public Law 83-566 funds would

provide $2,519,200 of the cost and $174,800 would be provided locally.

Like most areas of the Southwest, rainfall in our State is usually

of short duration, but often it is torrential in nature which results in

the flash floods.

This particular watershed covers 19,950 acres or 29.8 square miles.

Over 95 percent of the urban areas of Truth or Consequences and Wil-
45

liamsburg are within the watershed—which drains into the Rio

Grande River carrying sediment and providing further problems.

The Soil Conservation Service estimates that the proposed project

on which we are seeking your approval would reduce flood damage

to irrigated cropland and the two communities by about 96 percent,

reduce sediment delivered into the Rio Grande by about 66 percent in

this area. It is also estimated that 300 homes and some 60 commercial

properties would be provided with flood protection by the completion

of this project.

I know the Soil Conservation Service has provided you with a

detailed report on the project and I am very hopeful that after reviewing this report you will agree that the Truth or ConsequencesWilliamsburg watershed project is justified and issue a favorable

report.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, again I appreciate the

opportunity to appear before you to personally express my support

for this very necessary project.

I will answer any questions you have.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Runnels, we are delighted to have you with

us. We appreciate the interest you have shown in the project in coming

before us. I think we are all sympathetic with the flood situation that

clearly exists there.

It does seem that it is a little bit out of line with the type of program that we have envisioned for these watersheds. It is almost on

the order of an engineering project, where the Federal Government

assumes the entire responsibility. This program did not contemplate

that the Federal Government would assume the entire responsibility,

rather that it would be a cooperative program. I said that this had

the smallest ratio that I could remember. I do now recall that we had

a project here from Massachusetts at one time where there was an

even smaller ratio, but we sent that back and they got that up to 20

percent and we got it approved.

I confess that this presents a somewhat unique situation and I am

not suggesting that anybody is to blame for it, but it does present a

situation where, for practical reasons, the Federal Government has

to pay the whole cost.

Mr. RUNNELS. Mr. Chairman, I agree, and of course, so that you

might further try to understand why the low percentages, I think

you have to take into account where the Federal Government, startina

b

with New Mexico and going westward, owns a large percentage of

the lands in your State. It makes a tremendous impact on whether a

person will spend his money on Federal lands. In this rangeland,

there is only 1,757 acres that is private. The State owns 1,920 acres

and the Federal Government owns 11,350. So you can see that of the

15,027 acres, very little of it is private.

Then in the urban and miscellaneous, of course, the private is 3,339

and 600 of it is State. Then on the irrigated land, it is only 84 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not in the area—I mean Truth or Consequences is not in the area of the Santa Fe land grant, is it?

Mr. RUNNELS. NO, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That all lies west of there, I suppose?

Mr. RUNNELS. And north.

28-451-74 4
46

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it ran for about 8 miles on each side of the

track?

Mr. RUNNELS. Yes. You know, T or C is the town that was originally

called Hot Springs.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, it was, yes, and the radio program was so

popular that they changed the name.

Mr. RUNNELS. And they still have an annual celebration, and it was

held last weekend.

But we would appreciate your consideration, because all you have

to do to the 300 homes and the 60 commercial properties and the 2,000

people that are involved in this area—I heard previous testimony

where maybe flooding would be appreciated. -Well, in this area, it is

not appreciated. We want to stop it to the best of our ability or anybody else's ability. When you are knee deep in alligators, sometimes

it is not too good to say flooding is OK. I do not think these people

could afford crop insurance, due to flooding and so forth.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Does that flooding bring a lot of sand along with

Mr. RUNNELS. Yes, sir, it sure will.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Not only water, but sand, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Those streams run about 50 percent moisture.

Mr. Zwach ?

Mr. ZWACII. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Mr. Runnels. We are

glad to have you visit our committee. We will be delighted to have you

back.

Mr. RUNNELS. Thank you. We will appreciate any help.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else who is interested in being heard

on this project?

[No response.]

TALLULAH CREEK, NORTH CAROLINA

The CIIAIRMAN. If not, we will pass to the Tallulah Creek watershed in North Carolina.

Mr. Haugh will again represent the Department.

TALLULAH CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN ( LONG CREEK PORTION)

Size and Location.-7,510 acres in Graham County.

Tributary.—Cheoah River.

Sponsors.—Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District; Graham

County Commissioners; Town of Robbinsville.

Total Watershed Land Use

it

Percent

Cropland 

Grassland 7

Woodland 82

Miscellaneous 4

Watershed privately owned.-67 percent; Nantahala National Forest; 33 percent.

Number of Farms.-126.

Size of Farms.—About 32 acres, average.

Purposes.—Watershed Protection, Flood Prevention, and M. & I. Water Supply.

Principal Measures.—Soil conservation practices on farms and woodlands; and

one multiple-purpose reservoir with storage capacity for municipal and industrial
47

water supply and flood prevention. The storage capacity of the reservoir is 1,000

acre-feet.

Annual benefits Amount Percent

To agricultural acreage (land and crops) $1, 600 G

To agricultural improvements 1, 700 2

To nonagricultural improvements 23, 300 35

Indirect 4,300 5

M. & I. water supply 25, 800 33

Subtotal 65, 700 81

Redevelopment 7, 700 10

Secondary 6, 500 8

Incidental 800 1

Total 80, 700 100

Benefit-Cost Ratio.-1.4 to 1 at the interest rate applicable when the plan was

developed. At the federal borrowing rate on April 17, 1973 the overall B :C ratio

would be 1.6 to 1 and without redevelopment, secondary and incidental benefits,

it would be 1.3 to 1.1

Number of Beneficiaries.—Twenty residences (mostly rural), eight commercial

and industrial properties, one church building, one public school building and the

Graham County Health Center will be directly benefited by the installation of

structural measures. The water supply in the multiple-purpose reservoir will

serve 2,500 to 3,000 people.

PROJECT COSTS

Public Law 566 funds Other funds

Tao!

Amount Percent Amount 1 Percent amount

Land treatment measures $17, 000 27 $47, 000 73 $64, 000

Structural measures: Flood prevention 673, 000 99 2,000 1 675, 000

Project administration 

Subtotal (excluding municipal

103, 000 93 8,000 7 III, 000

water

supply) 793, 000 93 57, 000 7 850, 000

Municipal water supply 27b, 000 100 276, 000

Total 793, 000 70 333, 000 2 30 I, 126, 000

1 For land treatment measures this is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Costsharing from funds appropriated for the rural environmental assistance program may be available if included in the county

program.

For structural measures this is the cost of land rights and project administration. It may also include costs for construction or enginte ing services for purposes other than flood preventian.-

2 The value of measures already installed ($58,000) increases thi; to 34 percent.

Prorated PL 566 Structural Cost per Acre Benefited.—Not computed since benefits accrue primarily to a rural community.

Carrying out the Projects.—The Town of Robbinsville assumes all local responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining the structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $600.

USDA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

TALLTJLAH CREEK WATERSHED (LONG CREEK PORTION), NORTH CAROLINA

(Prepared in Accordance with Section 102(2) (C) of Public Law 91-190)

SUMMARY SHEET

I. Final (x).

II. Soil Conservation Service.

III. Administrative (x).

1 Supplied in accordance with Subcommittee instructions.

2The complete environmental statement may be found in the files of the committee.
48

IV. Brief Description of Action: Tallulah Creek Watershed (Long Creek Portion) is located in Graham County, North Carolina. Project measures include land treatment and one multiple-purpose structure for flood prevention and water supply.

V. Summary of Environmental Impact and Adverse Environmental Effects:

Reduce soil erosion 50 percent; reduce sediment delivery 36 percent; reduce

sediment delivery to Santeetlah Lake 1.7 acre-feet annually; reduce flood

damages about 96 percent; increase income of small farmers; improve economic and social values; provide municipal and industrial water; provide

18 acres of fishing habitat; provide 1,800 visitor-clays of recreation; and

adequately treat 410 acres of open land; remove 36 acres of agricultural and

forest land from production and upland game habitat; and inundate 4,000

feet of trout stream.

VI. Alternatives Considered: Purchase of flood plain land; flood proofing; conservation land treatment; Santeetlah Lake as an alternative source of

municipal water supply; and leave the environment in its existing condition.

VII. Agencies From Which Written Comments Have Been Received: U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; U.S. Department of the Interior: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Environmental Protection Agency; Tennessee Valley Authority; The Appalachian

Regional Commission; North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Office of Water and Air Resources (for the Governor) ;

and the North Carolina Department of Administration, State Planning

Division ( State Clearinghouse).

VIII. The Draft Statement Was Made Available to CEQ and the Public on:

November 11, 1971. The Final Statement Was Transmitted to CEQ and

the Public on October 16, 1972.

Mr. 1-TAuGH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: The Tallulah

Creek Watershed (Long Creek portion) is located in the steep mountainous area of western North Carolina in Graham County. The

watershed is about 90 miles west of Asheville, N.C., and 60 miles south

of Knoxville, Tenn., Robbinsville, with a population of about 800

persons, is partially within the watershed. It is the only retail trade

center in Graham County.

The watershed consists of 7,510 acres, one-third of which is in the

Nantahala National Forest. Land use consists of 7 percent cropland,

7 percent grassland, 82 percent woodland, and 4 percent miscellaneous.

Farming is characteristic of the small mountain valleys of the

rugged western North Carolina mountains. The 126 farms in the

watershed average 32 acres in size. Crop and pastureland is limited to

flood plan and adjoining sloping areas. Corn, burley tobacco, and

vegetables are the principal crops grown. Because of the high soil

fertility, mild summer temperatures, and abundant, well-distributed

rainfall, crop yields are usually high and of good quality. Flood plain

values range from $1,500 to $2,000 per acre. Some of the steep mountain land is valued as low as $50 per acre.

The extremely depressed and underdeveloped overall economy of

the watershed and surrounding area is the overriding problem. Farm

income is so low that it must be supplemented by off-farm employment.

Improvements in the flood plain now subject to flood damage are

valued at $2.5 million, most of which is in the residential area of

Robbinsville. The risk of flooding in the agricultural area forces

farmers to plant their higher value row crops on more sloping land

rather than on the flood plain.

Robbinsville and the surrounding rural area are in critical need of

additional water supply. Improvement of the local economy is dependent upon a more adequate water supply.
49

Measures planned to help solve the problems in the watershed include land treatment to reduce erosion and one multiple-purpose reservoir for flood prevention and municipal and industrial water supply.

A fish barrier will be constructed upstream of the reservoir and a cold

water release will be incorporated into the reservoir to prevent damage

to the trout stream fishery habitat. The project will provide flood protection from the 100-year frequency storm for about 75 percent of the

flood plain. The remaining 25 percent will be protected from a 5-year

frequency storm. The water storage in the multiple-purpose reservoir

will serve 2,500-3,000 people as well as commercial and industrial

establishments in and around Robbinsville. The total project installation cost is estimated to be $1.1 million, of which Public Law 566 funds

will provide $793,000. The average annual benefit is $80,700 and the

ratio of benefits to cost is 1.4 tos 1.

The town of Robbinsville will assume all local responsibility of the

installation, operation, and maintenance of the structures.

This concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to

try to answer any questions you or members of the committee may

have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Haugh.

Any questions?

Mr. ZWACTL I have no questions.

The CILAIRMAN. Mr. Stubblefield?

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that Mr. Shaw of Mr. Taylor's office

is with us. I had a notation that Mr. Taylor would care to make a

statement.

Do you care to make a statement, Mr. Shaw?

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY A. TAYLOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, AS PRESENTED BY LUTHER SHAW FROM THE OFFICE OF MR. TAYLOR

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I do not want ti5 impose on the time of

the subcommittee. I have a brief statement. If you would prefer me

to read it, I will. Some of it parallels the information you have just

received.

The CI IAIRMA N. The statement will be included.

[The statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. ROY A. TAYLOR. A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TIIE

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit

for this opportunity to present a statement on behalf of myself and the citizens

of Graham County, North Carolina, in support of the approval of the watershed

work plan for the Long Creek portion of the Tallulah Creek Watershed. May I

also commend the subcommittee for the expeditious manner in which it has

scheduled hearings on this and other watershed projects received only recently

from the Office of Management and Budget.

The subcommittee has before it for consideration the work plan itself and the

accompanying environmental statement. These two documents appear to contain a very thorough examination of the project and I therefore will not impose

upon the time of the subcommittee by reviewing the details here.

However, I would call the subcommittee's particular attention to the information presented in the environmental statement in the last paragraph on page 3
50

and the first two paragraphs on page 4. As you will note, unemployment in

Graham County has been at critically high levels, reaching 34 percent in the

first quarter of 192. Community leaders have been trying desperately to attract

now industry to Graham County to replace more than 300 jobs lost in 1911 when

a local carpet manufacturing firm closed.

Their principal obstacle has been the lack of an adequate water supply. More

than once, industries which might otherwise have considered locating in the

community to take advantage of the excellent labor force and scenic mountain

setting have reluctantly turned elsewhere because the community could not offer

them assurance of an adequate source of water.

The people of Graham County need this project because they recognize it is

the lifeblood of their economic future. Hardly a month has passed during the

last 2 years that some official or leader of Graham County has not contacted my

office hoping to receive some encouraging information on the progress of the

Tallulah Creek watershed work plan.

Mr. Chairman, this project represents hope for a community whose leaders

have great faith in its future and great appreciation for the willingness of

Congress and the Federal Government to help them help themselves. I strongly

urge your favorable consideration of this extremely worthwhile project.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we will include in the record

all of the statements that have been submitted. There are several that

have been submitted by Members, including the speaker.

Mr. ZWACH. That includes all the Members.

The CHAIRMAN. That includes all of them. Without objection, they

will all be included.

That, then, will complete the hearing this morning.

Mr. WEST. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Blackwelder wishes to appear on

this project also.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not understand that. He certainly may.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, while he is coming forward, I wonder if

I may just emphasize one point touched on in the earlier testimony.

That ls the importance of this project to the economy of this particular community. It is a very small community, a very remote community, and it is mentioned in the statement that the rate of unemployment there has reached the level of 34 percent. This is a very critical

thing in a community of this size. One reason that it has reached such

an unusually high level is because of the loss of a manufacturing plant

there in 1971. Those jobs, between 200 and 300 jobs

'

have not been

replaced. One reason that they have not been replaced, Mr. Chairman

is that the community simply has not been able to attract new industry

to the area because of the lack of water supply or the ability of the

community leaders to offer assurance that an adequate supply of water

will be made available. So I think this project represents real hope

and real live blood to this particular community.

I did want to stress that particular point, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are glad to hear it.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Where is this from Sapphire Valley? Is this

northwest?

Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir, it would be somewhat northwest.

Mr. STTJBBLEFIELD. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shaw. Was that all?

Mr. SHAW. Yes, sir, unless the subcommittee has any further questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

We will now be glad to hear from Mr. Blackwelder on this subject.
$1

STATEMENT OF BRENT BLACKWELDER, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

CENTER

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Mr. Chairman, our objections to this project rest

not so much with the environmental damage that the project will

cause, because we do not feel that it is significant, but rather on the grounds that the project as presently planned is inconsistent with recommendations made by the National Water Commission on flood

control. A small dam is planned for flood control in this project. In the upper reaches, the creek, as you can see, is a lovely mountain

stream. Now, as it comes out of the mountain into the valley approaching Robbinsville, it leaves this very beautiful setting and suffers ex- tensive abuse at the hand of man. These are some pictures as the

stream comes out into the valley, showing some clearing and runoff into the stream. This house, for example, is situated right beside the

stream, where those trees are on the right hand of the slide.

Here is another. You can see the creek by those rocks and there you

see a trailer located right down beside the stream.

This is all my slides. What we see here is a case where the flood plain has not been properly managed in the past.

The SCS notes in the work plan that the sponsors will publicize

the area remaining subject to flooding at least once annually and if found necessary, they will enact zoning and/or flood proofing ordinances.

Now, the SCS notes that the proposed dam will not provide pro- tection from the 100-year flood. What we hope the committee would do is not to approve this watershed project until comprehensive flood plan management ordinances have been enacted into law to insure that further encroachments of the type I showed you in the picture do not occur. The reason we are concerned about this is that reflecting back on the history of flood control, we have seen repeated examples

of flood damages, of flood control projects, followed by more building in the flood plain, then a flood which exceeds the project design flood, then the damages are worse than before the project was built. So we hope that this committee would insist upon seeing that ordinance en- acted into law. Then you could be sure that the flood damages which will take place in the future will not be aggravated by construction of this particular project.

We cite in the testimony, which I will not go into here, and in some of the information that Mr. Barlow submitted, indications about the damages from floods in the country going up continuously from the old 1936 Flood Control Act, despite the more than $7 billion that

we have spent on Federal flood control projects. Projections are that this damage will reach $5 billion in the next century. We submit that this is too much property damage, loss of life, and hardship for the Nation to endure and that the only way we can get away from this

cycle is to insure that there is proper, comprehensive flood plain management taking place. This committee now has the unique opportunity

to require that before giving any OK to the particular project..

I raise a few other points in my testimony, but I think I will just

conclude with that point.
52

[The complete statement of Mr. Blackwelder follows:]

STATEMENT OF BRENT BLACKWELDER, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY CENTER

INTRODUCTION

My name is Brent Blackwelder and I am a Washington Representative of the

Environmental Policy Center, a national conservation organization located

at 324 C St. SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. Our objections to this project rest not

so much on the environmental damage which the project will cause but rather

on the grounds that this project is inconsistent with recommendations made by

the National Water Commission on flood control.

FLOOD CONTROL

A small clam for flood control and water supply is planned for Long Creek.

In its upper reaches Long Creek is a lovely little mountain stream but as it comes

out into the valley approaching Robbinsville, it suffers abuse at the hand of man.

Various houses are built right on the stream bank, streamside vegetation which

holds the soil in place is cleared away, and trash and debris are liberally scattered

along the stream. The SCS notes in the Work Plan that the proposed dam will not

provide protection from the 100-year flood in reach II but states that "The sponsors will publicize the area remaining subject to flooding at least once annually,

and if found necessary they will enact zoning and/or flood proofing ordinances."

( P. 16) It is clear that not much has been accomplished in the past in the way

of proper flood plain management. We urge the Committee not to approve this

watershed project until comprehensive flood plain management ordinances have

been enacted designed to keep further encroachment from occurring on the

flood plain. To approve projects in areas which do not have comprehensive flood

plain laws is simply to encourage a continuation of the same sequence of events

which has seen flood damages in the country show a sharp upward trend despite

the more than $7 billion spent on federal flood control projects. The 1966 Task

Force on Federal Flood Control Policy noted that the country has seen a dismal

cycle of flood damage followed by a flood control project followed by more damages than before the project. The Task Force called for a move away from the

river control approach to nonstructural methods of control.

The National Water Commission in its draft Report noted that "Large Federal

cost shares for flood control, drainage, and shoreline protection projects have

encouraged unwise economic developments in areas prone to periodic flooding. . ." The Commission urges that beneficiary charges be made to provide "full

repayment of the costs of protecting lands through Federal and federally assisted

flood control, drainage, and shoreline protection projects." The Commission goes

on to call for repayment through assessments upon lands benefited by the projects.

The Tallulah Creek Watershed Project does not have such a repayment scheme

for flood control, and is thus inconsistent with the Commission's recommendation. There is obvious reason why beneficiaries should repay the costs, since a

key test for whether the benefits are worth the cost is the willingness of the

beneficiaries to pay in order to obtain them.

CONCLUSION

We urge the Committee to direct the SCS to look more closely at non-structural

alternatives for flood control and to insist that comprehensive flood plain management ordinances be adopted before any project is authorized. Furthermore, we

hope the Committee will examine very closely the rules for cost sharing for

flood control in light of the recommendations of the National Water Commission.

Finally, we think that a high priority item for Graham County should be a

study of ways to protect some of the fine streams in the county from the abuse

which they have suffered in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much.

Now, may I ask your suggestion there, something that we all agree

with, that we ought to coordinate all of the study of this flood damage

and that the upper reaches should be handled, of course, by the Soil
53

Conservation Service. The lower portions generally should be handled

bv the Engineers. I think we are pretty well agreed on that concept.

We sometimes disagree as to right where the line is. But I was surprised when you said that you have seen numerous occasions where the

work—I presume you meant of the Soil Conservation Service—had

aggravated the flood situations. I do not mean to say that it has not

occurred, but I do mean to say that I am familiar with enough of

these projects in my area and I do not know of one single instance

where that has occurred. If you can point to some of the instances

where it has occurred, we can look into them and see what is wrong.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the entire scope

of Federal flood control as outlined in the 1966 Task Force Report on

Federal Flood Control Policy that is House Document 89-465.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about any reports. You said you

were familiar with a number of instances where the work had made

the situation worse rather than better.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. In that statement, I was including all the flood

control projects, you understand. I was not confining my remarks

simply to the Soil Conservation Service.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, do you know of your own knowledge of one

single project of these small watershed projects handled by the Soil

Conservation Service where the installation has made the flood situation worse rather than better?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Well, let me see if I can point out a couple. The

actual data on downstream effects is in the hearing record on stream

channelization of the Senate Public -Works Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. No I am not asking you about anybody's record.

You said that you knew of several of these projects. I am not asking

you about anybody's hearing record. I am asking you where these

projects are.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. All right. In the first place, I want to emphasize

the projects that I am primarily referring to are the Corps of Engineers dams, which occur upstream from urban areas.

The CHAIRMAN. We do not want to hear about Corps of Engineers'

dams.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. I was trying to draw an analogy in the situation

here between this type of community and the Soil Conservation Service project and a situation which is typical where we find the Corps

of Engineers. Namely, a situation of a dam upstream of a community.

What we do not want to see occur here is what has occurred in some

of the Corps of Engineers' dams. For example just in Hurricane

Agnes if you go along the Susquehanna basin and look at the report

we submitted to you by the University of Pennsylvania 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not hearing anybody's reports, Mr. Blackwelder. You made a statement that you were familiar with a number

of these projects that had aggravated rather than improved the situation. I only asked you to name me one.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. All right, the channelization of the Blackwater

River is one.

The CHAIRMAN. The channelization of the Blackwater River is one?

Where?
54

• Mr. BLACKWELDER. In Missouri, on the Blackwater River.' That is

one example.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, we will look into that.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that primarily, you will not find damage to urban areas with Soil Conservation Service projects, because they are in the countryside. They are

not generally going to be creating the sort of situation which Corps

of Engineers projects have created.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are talking about Soil Conservation projects. This committee has no jurisdiction over the 

Mr. BLACKWELDER. That is why I am trying to draw the analogy

between what I see occurring here with this SCS project and what

has occurred with Corps of Engineers projects. Namely, we have an.

upstrea m dam. The problem could be that unless this flood plain ordinance has been enacted, you could get continued encroachment on the

flood plain and therefore, if you are hit with a project flood which

exceeds the designed flood capacity of the structure, your damages

can be worse than before. That is one thing that we are concerned

about avoiding.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that if you build a dam that will not

hold the flood, it may break.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. And when I made the statement citing projects

which have repeated this cycle of flood damage, flood control, then

followed by more flood damages, I was not specifically referring to

the SCS, nor was I particularly pointing that comment at the SCS.

I did not feel in that particular respect that we can cite that many

instances of property damage. We can cite examples of downstream

flooding and difficulties with downstream effects on natural resources,

such as would occur in the Gilbert Run Stream channelization project

in Maryland. That is why I was hesitant trying to cite examples of

soil conservation projects. It seems to me those downstream damages

that we get are typically of a different type.

The CHAIRMAN. Then do not you think it is sort of unfair to impute

to the Soil Conservation Service as worsening conditions where you

said you knew several of them? Actually, you did not know it as far

as the Soil Conservation Service is concerned?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Mr. Chairman, I never said thatThe CHAIRMAN. You know you did not designate whether it was

Soil Conservation Service or engineers, but what we are talking about

is Soil Conservation Service solely. This committee has no more jurisdiction over Corps of Engineers than we have over the airplanes out

here.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. I know, but I was trying to draw your attention to this situation, to the national reports, to these studies that have

shown damages continuing to go up despite the continuing amounts of

money we spend. This seems to us to be an alarming situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blackwelder, certainly, the flood damages are

going to go up, because values are going up. When Daniel Boone went

out through those mountains in North Carolina, they had floods, but

the monetary damage was nil, because there was not anything to damage. They had floods out at Kansas City when the first mountain men

1 See letter from Soil Conservation Service, p. 56.
55

went up the river, but in 1951 and 1952, they had floods in Kansas City

that were no greater than those they had a 100 years earlier, but they

did fantastic damage because people had built expensive buildings all

over the area.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out that the

1966 task force report and the recent report of the National Water

Commission, which represents 5 years of indepth studies on all the

water problems and needs of the Nation, has pointed out that we cannot continue to have this damage. They would sharply take exception

o the statement that you made that it is simply inflationary increases

that are causing the increases in flood damage. They point out that

we have to do something to prevent these significant damages from

occurring and that our past approaches have not been adequate.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions?

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Do you agree with the Water Commission's report verbatim?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Not verbatim, no indeed.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the local people should have built

Hoover Dam? Or could have built it?

Mr. BLACKWELDER. To my knowledge, there were not actually any

local peopleThe CHAIRMAN. That is what the Water Commission recommends,

that local money be used. There will never be another major darn

built in the United States according to the Water Commission report.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Well, checking the Corps of Engineers' own admission, most of the chief dam sites have already been taken, and the

only other remaining ones are in national parks. So that probably is

not the question.

What the Commission did find about local cost-sharing was that

instead of communities really taking action to get rid of the flood

problem they shopped around to see which agency could give them the

most Federal help and require them to pay the least cost, and that

the true measure and test of any real project, if the benefits actually

exceed the costs, is whether the beneficiaries are willing to pay. In

other words, if indeed the project is going to return more money than

it is going to cost, then somebody who is going to be getting those

benefits ought to be willing to pay for them.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Well, that is a good theory, but I would hate to

have applied that to the Tennessee Valley.

That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stubblefield.

Thank you, Mr. Blackwelder. We are much obliged to you for your

statement.

Mr. BLACKWELDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that completes the testimony for these

projects. The committee will have to have a markup session on these

projects at some time in the future. We will announce that at a later

date.

We thank you gentlemen from the Department for being present.

The committee will stand in recess. There will be an unofficial meetin.. with the committee about 11 o'clock tomorrow.

[Whereupon at 1q :10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to

the call of the Chair.]
56

[Following is a letter from the Soil Conservation Service regarding

testimony of witness Blackwelder:]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE,

Washington. D.C., May 17, 1973.

Hon. W. R. POAGE,

Cha/irman, Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representative.

DEAR Mn. POAGE : At the May 8th Hearing for watershed projects held before

the Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit of the Committee on Agriculture,

Mr. Blackwelder testified that the Blackwater River in Missouri was an example

of a project that had aggrevated rather than improved a situation. This is

found on page 86 of the stenographic minutes, Report of Proceedings.

We believe that the Blackwater River referred to by Mr. Blackwelder is located in Johnson County, Missouri. It is not an SCS project. In fact, it was

installed by the Johnson County Drainage District No. 1 in the 1920s, before

SCS came into being. A pilot channel was excavated which subsequently was

allowed to erode and resulted in considerable enlargement and deeping. Inadequate consideration was given to unstable soil conditions and excessive grades.

We would agree that this is a bad situation but not that it is an example

of performance to be expected from a well designed channel.

Sincerely,

KENNETH E. GRANT,

Administrator.
WATERSHED PROJECTS

MONDAY, MAY 21, 1973

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND CREDIT

OF THE COMMITTEE OF AGRICULTURE,

TV a8hington, D.0 .

The committee met at 2:30 p.m., in room 1307, Longworth Building,

pursuant to notice, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Poage Stubblefield, Alexander, Bergland,

Rose, Goodling, Mayne, Zwach, Madigan.

Also present: Fowler C. West, staff director; John O'Neal, general

counsel; Steve Allen, staff consultant; and Julia Kogut and Betty

Prezioso, staff assistants.

Also present representing the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture: Karl R. Klingelhofer, Director, Watershed Planning Division; Robert E. Williams, Assistant to the Administrator for Environmental Development; and Richard D. Parker,

soil conservationist.

Chairman POAGE. The committee will come to order. We have three

witnesses today.

I would point out that the committee held up this Truth or Consequences project because we felt we did not have a very clear case.

I wonder if the Department might be in a position to give us any

further information about that situation out there in the way of land

treatment.

Actually, as I saw it from the testimony we had the other day, about

all we saw was that they were building four dams just above town—

above two towns—that would protect the two towns from floods.

Now there has to be more than that. I wonder if you gentlemen are

in a position to give us a little more information than we got before.

Mr. Klingelhofer, is there anything further the Department wishes

to say on this ?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Mr. Chairman, I am Karl Klingelhofer.

We have studied the information in the plan since we were last here,

and without trying to be repetitious there is a great deal of land under

the control of the Bureau of Land Management.

There are a number of practices which are listed in the work plan

which are to be applied. However, the quantity of these practices are

not great, primarily for the reason that the rangeland is generally in

pretty fair condition and does not justify a great deal of additional

work.

(57)
58

Now I have with me today Robert Williams, who is Assistant to the

Administrator for Environmental Development, and who was formerly our Chief Range Conservationist.

He is quite familiar with this area and the types of practices which

are used. If you will permit, I would like him to explain conditions in

this area.

Mr. WILLIAMS. This particular part of the country is in a very low

rainfall area, having an average rainfall of 10 inches or less, mostly

falling in the summer months.

This is one of those areas where they do not get much rain, but they

get it all in one rain causing a very intense runoff and an accumulation of water in the low areas.

Now the upland range is primarily the desert—brush— grass type,

with the normal uplands being in creosote, tarbush, blue grarna, and

black grama, kind of vegetation.

The swales or flatter country get a little inflow of water and you

have tabosa grass and sacaton, this kind of vegetation, also vine

mesquite.

The capacity for production in this kind of country is low. Therefore, your inputs must be low. You rely primarily on very conservative grazing management with a long-time recovery in plants, or

change in vegetation.

Reports that I get are that this vegetation on this upland range,

both public and private, is in pretty good condition.

In other words, it is recovering and being taken care of now better

than it was probably 50, 60, 70 years ago. We all know what the country went through then.

The Bureau of Land Management has, of course, a very intensive

management program underway now and they are trying to install

rest-rotation grazing systems on most of the land under their administration where rangeland „ads an occasional rest and grazing in sequence to favor the desirable vegetation.

The 700 acres of brush control that was called for in the work plan

is on private land. It is 700 acres of control of tarbush by root-plying,

or by deep disking.

This normally would be accompanied with some reseeding, primarily blue grama grass, the seed of which is available, followed by

deferment or total rest from grazing for at least 1 year, or one full

growing season, to enable the grass to become established.

The work on the public domain that was listed that cost $2,500 was

for three practices. For low-wire diversions that are put out on the

contour in critical areas to catch debris during periods of overland

flow, and to build up this debris into contour ridges for moisture conservation, and to help speed up the recovery of the vegetation.

One small area of rodent control that was critical in terms of livestock and sediment production, and four water developments to aid

in distribution of grazing, an to get more uniform use out of the

rangeland resource in the grazing system was included.

Chairman POAGE. What control can you practice to meet the requirements of our environmental acts? You cannot kill predators.

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.

Chairman POAGE. What can you control?
59

Mr. WILLIAMS. Right at the present time I am not a specialist on rodent control because we do not do this. There are a few things that are still available for use—one of two of the various rat poisons that are approved that they can apply. But certainly not the poisons that you would use in predator control. This is a very minor part of the plan.

Chairman POAGE. I know, but that land out there is not going to be worth much if it is just turned over to cows, is it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I expect, sir, and I am speculating here, that this would be in a critical area where maybe the activity of the rodents would relate also to a sediment production.

Chairman POAGE. What rodents are you talking about? You do not have any prairie dogs, do you?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, these would probably be gophers, on areas of better soils, pocket gophers, in this particular area. Chairman POAGE. Actually, predators are a greater threat to that country than rodents, aren't they?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I expect there are some problems where sheep are

run.

Chairman POAGE. This is cow country though, isn't it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Primarily.

Chairman POAGE. That was one of their troubles—the sheep, I

guess—several years ago. But they are down toward Carlsbad. I don't know this country, but I know those flats out west of the city which did run sheep out there, but there are not too many on it, of course, but this is blue grama country.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Right, the upland is blue grama and black grama, and then, like I say, in the swales, or flatter country, you had tabosa

grass, sacaton and vine mesquite.

Chairman POAGE. That grass isn't worth anything except as a frame- work, is it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is a matter of what else is available, and how you

use it in the grazing system.

Chairman POAGE. What I mean is after it gets dry it is not as nutritious as newspaper.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is tough, course grass, yes sir. Chairman POAGE. Of course, that grama grass is excellent grass, I

realize that. And when you do get a rain that whole country will become grania grass. It will look just like a lawn for a couple of weeks, but then it begins to dry out again.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It cures out very well.

Chairman POAGE. Yes, I know it does. It is very nutritious when it does cure out. But back to this project, we just wonder what are the soil conservation aspects of this project.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. We have a terrific sediment problem, Mr. Chair- man, in the town where the flood flows come out of these arroyos and carry water and mud and sediment down through the town. Chairman POAGE. I think we understand the problem in the town, but is there anything to this project other than simply the protection of these towns?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. With a limited amount of land treatment, Mr. Chairman, I think probably we would have to agree. It is mostly
60

for the protection of the towns and bringing the rangeland up to an

acceptable level of treatment.

Chairman POAGE. But you are not going to do a thing in the world

to this rangeland that I can see. The Federal Government contemplates spending $2,500 on the rangeland to kill some gophers.

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is a very minor part of it, sir.

Chairman POAGE. What is it that you are going to do that is going

to improve this range?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The management itself, the manipulation, the proper

manipulation of livestock to favor the vegetation—to build it up

toward its potential, the grazing management aspects, themselves.

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, they say here that they will develop

about 220 acres for homes or businesses. That is not a function of this

program, is it?

Chairman POAGE. That is in the town, I know. The whole point is

where this fits in with the agriculture. Now I know there is some

necessity for us to approve this city's programs, but we hoped that

you would show us this was a true soil conservation project.

Mr. GOODLING. At what periods do they have the 10 inches of

rainfall?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. I believe they are during the summer months

There are intense storms during the summer months.

Mr. WILLIAms. This is correct.

Chairman POAGE. I might, off the record, repeat a story.

[Whereupon, there was a short discussion off the record.]

Mr. GOODLING. I cannot understand how they can have a great deal

of flooding with 10 inches of rain. We had 16 inches during Agnes, but

we hope never to have that again.

Chairman POAGE. Are there any other questions while they are here?

[No response.]

Chairman POAGE. If there are not, if you gentlemen haven't anything further to suggest, we are very much obliged to you for coming

down. We appreciate your attendance and we thank you.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. We thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman POAGE. I believe that will conclude the hearing part of

our session.

[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., Monday, May 21, 1973, the committee

was recessed.]

[The following letter was also submitted concerning the above described project:]

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

COMMISSIONER OF PUBIC LANDS,

Santa Fe, N. Mex., April 6, 1971.

Mr. CHANDLER ELKINS,

Chairman, Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District, Truth or Consequences,

N. Mex.

DEAR Mn. ELKINS : This letter concerns the work plan for watershed protection

and flood prevention on the T or C—Williamsburg Watershed.

There are approximately 2,250 acres of State land within the watershed. 1,920

acres is range land and 600 acres is urban and miscellaneous use. Of this acreage,

98% is under cooperative agreement with the Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District.

We understand that the Soil Conservation Service, assisting the Sierra Soil

and Water Conservation District, will provide technical assistance to our grazing lessees in preparing conservation plans so that work completed on State lands
61

will meet standards and specifications of the Soil Conservation Service. We also

understand that Public Law 83-566 funds will not be available for land treat- ment practices on State land. We will plan and apply the needed land treatment

to our land through our lessees in cooperation with the Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District.

We have reviewed the watershed work plan and, as pointed out on Page 36, "Land treatment measures will be established by farmers and ranchers on pri- vate and state land under the going programs. The Soil Conservation Service will provide technical assistance to land owners and operators through the Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District."

I wish to advise you and the other sponsors of the watershed of our keen in- terest in the P or C-Williamsburg Arroyos Watershed, and we will give you

our unqualified support in this worthy endeavor in such matters as may be con- sistent with our laws and feasible as far as our office is concerned. We concur in the plan and in the land treatment analysis.

Inasmuch as all of the rangeland of the State grazing lessees now have coop- erative agreements with the Sierra Soil and Water Conservation District, the land treatment measures will consequently be maintained through our state grazing lessees in cooperation with the District.

We were most pleased when provisions for cost-sharing assistance to land owners and lessees under the Agricultural Conservation Program were expanded to include State-owned land.

We recognize that some conservation measures are quite expensive to install and involve a significant outlay on the part of the lessees. In this case, our pro- cedure has been that grazing and agricultural lessees should obtain permission from the State Land Office for the installation of such measures as may by law be considered improvements to the land. If approved, the practices may be con- sidered an improvement to the State-owned land and would be recoverable by the lessees in the event the State land is sold or lost through competitive lease bid. In those cases where it appears that structures or working lanes will be a detri- ment, rather than an improvement to State land, a procedure for sale of the land before installation can be made available.

Very truly yours,

ALEX J. ARMIJO,

Commissioner of Public Lands.

28-451-74 5
.'il
WATERSHED PROJECTS

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1973

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND CREDIT

OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

Washington,D.C. AGRICULTURE,

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room

1301, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable W. R. Poage

(chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Bergland, Stubblefield, Zwach, Goodling, and Madigan.

Also present: Representatives Teague and Findley.

Fowler C. West, staff director; John F. O'Neal, general counsel;

Betty Prezioso and Steve Pringle, staff assistants; and Steve Allen,

staff consultant.

Also present representing the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture: William B. Davey, Deputy Administrator for Watersheds; Karl R. Klingelhofer, Director, Watershed Planning Division; Richard Parker and Gerald Lanman, soil conservationists.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. I think one of the

first things this morning, it might be well if Mr. Davey, who I understand is taking over the administration of these projects, doing the

work that Hollis Williams used to do, wants to make a statement to

the committee and we want the committee to hear Mr. Davey.

We are glad to have you with us. Whatever statement you have,

Mr. Davey, we will be glad to hear.

Mr. DAVEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

We are pleased to meet with you today to testify on the three watershed projects on the agenda. We will be happy to answer any questions•on these projects or any other matters you may desire.

Accompanying me today is Carl Klingelhofer of the Watershed

Planning Division. and Mr. Richard Parker and Mr. Gerald Lanman,

staff specialists within the Watershed Planning Division. They will

provide the specific testimony on the projects scheduled for the hearing and respond to questions on the particular projects.

We have as we say, three projects. The Nutwood is a rather typical

agricultural flood protection type of project whereas the Lost Creek

and Prickett Creek represent an agriculture, rural community type

of project in an attempt to alleviate the flooding problems therein.

It has overtones of rural development.

Mr. Chairman, if you are ready, we will ask Mr. Klingelhofer to go

first.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will be glad to call on the Nutwood project.

(63)
64

[The following information was supplied:]

NUTWOOD WATERSHED, ILLINOIS

NUTWOOD WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and Location: 15,800 acres in Jersey and Greene Counties.

Tributary to: Illinois River.

Sponsors: Nutwood Drainage and Levee District; Greene County Soil and

Water Conservation District; Jersey County Soil and Water Conservation

District.

Total watershed land use: Perm, r

Cropland "i 2

Grassland 10

Woodland 14

Miscellaneous 4

Total watershed privately owned 100

A umber of Farms: 40.

Nize of Farms: About 400 acres average.

Purposes: Watershed protection, flood prevention, and drainage.

Principal Measures: Soil conservation practices on farms and woodlands ; with

structural measures consisting of 3 floodwater retarding structures, 2 waterlevel control structures and auxiliary pumping plant and appurtenances. Storage

capacities in the floodwater retarding structures range from 390 to 530 acre-feet.

ANNUAL BENEFITS

Amount Percent

To agricultural acreage (land and crops) $32, 200 55

To agricultural improvements 1,000 2

To nonagricultural improvements 14, 200 25

Indirect 3,500 6

Subtotal 50,900 88

Secondary 7,200 12

Total 58, 100 100

Benefit-Cost Ratio: 1.2:1 at the interest rate applicable when the plan was

developed. At the lowest federal borrowing rate on October 24, 1973, the overall

B—C ratio would be 1.3 to 1, and without secondary benefits, it would be 1.2

to 1.1

Area Benefited: 4,200 acres.

Number of Beneficiaries: About 80 landowners will be directly benefited by

the installation of structural measures.

1 Supplied in accordance with Subcommittee instructions.

PROJECT COSTS

Public Law 566 funds Other funds

Amount Percent Amount I Percent

Total

amount

Land Treatment Measures $35, 000 20 $143, 000 80 $178, 000

Structural measures:

Flood prevention 514, 000 94 34, 000 6 548, 000

Drainage 13,000 57 10,000 43 23,000

Project administration 88, 000 91 10, 000 9 109,000

Total 661, 000 77 197, 000 2 23 858, 000

1 For land treatment measures, this is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners.

For structural measures this is the cost of land rights and project administration. It may also include costs for construction or engineering services for purposes other than flood prevention.

2 The value of measures already installed ($161,000) increases this to 35 percent,
65

Prorated P.L. 566 8tructural Cost per Acre Benefited: $83.

Carrying out the Project: The Nutwood Drainage and Levee District will asii me all local responsibilities for installing, operating, and maintaining all struct oral measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $8,900.

USDA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT,' NUTWOOD WATERSHED PROJECT, JERSEY AND

GREENE COUNTIES, ILL.

(Sec. 102(2) (C) of Public Law 91-190)

SUMMARY SHEET

1. Final.

II. Soil Conservation Service.

III. Administrative.

IV. Brief description of project purpose and action: A watershed project to be

carried out in Jersey and Greene Counties, Illinois by three sponsoring local

organizations with federal_ assistance under the provisions of PL-83-566. The

project will include land treatment measures supplemented by three floodwater

retarding structures, two water level control structures, and one pumping sta.

tion. Project purposes include improvement of hydrologic conditions. reduction

of erosion, sediment, and floodwater damage and improvement of agricultural

drainage.

V. Summary of environmental impact and adverse environmental effects : The

land treatment program will reduce average annual upland erosion by 28 percent,

promote more efficient land use, and reduce water runoff. Combined land treatment and structural measures will reduce sediment damages by 78 percent and

floodwater damages by 47 percent. Forty-two hundred acres of bottomland will

benefit from flood control, improved drainage, and more intensive land use. Approximately 40 acres of lake fishery and aquatic habitat will replace 40 acres of

pasture. Approximately 37 acres of woodland and pasture will be periodically

inundated by flood detention pools. Construction of the damns and spillways will

temporarily disturb or destroy the vegetative cover on an additional 38 acres.

VI. List of alternatives considered:

(a) Land treatment alone

( b) Expansion of existing pumping facilities and ditches

(c) No project

V II. Agencies from which comments have been received:

U.S. Department of the Army

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

U.S. Department of the Interior

Environmental Protection Agency

Governor of Illinois

Illinois Natural Resource Development Board (For State Clearinghouse)

National Audubon Society

VIII. The final environmental statement was transmitted to the Council on

Environmental Quality on April 1, 1973.

The draft environmental statement was received by CEO on August 15, 1972.

The CHAIRMAN. Our colleague, Mr. Findley, has a statement on this

project. I believe he just wants to put it in the record.

[The statement follows:]

Sr ‘TENIENT OF HON. PAUL FINDLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Conservation and Credit Subcommittee,

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak with you in behalf of the Nutwood

Watershed located in Greene and Jersey Counties, Illinois.

Nutwood Watershed (15,800 acres or 24.7 square miles) has an area of 12.700

acres in Jersey and 3,100 acres in Greene Counties. About 250 people reside in

the watershed area. The farm population is approximately 150 with the remaining people living in the small communities of Nutwood and East Hardin. The

flood prevention program will directly benefit 40 operating units within the

1 The complete environmental statement may be found in the files of the committee.
66

watershed. Structural works of improvement will directly benefit an estimated

80 landowners through a reduction of flood damages.

Located on the east bank of the Illinois River, the project envisions controlling

severe upland soil erosion, estimated at 10.4 tons per acre annually; bottomland

sedimentation damages estimated at $14,600 per year; agricultural flood-water

damage estimated at $2,300 annually; and impaired subsurface drainage on

1,900 acres of bottomland.

Bottomland areas within the project boundaries are some of the most productive in Illinois, yielding above average crops of corn, soybeans, and other grains.

Damages from sedimentation and other allied sources are estimated at $49,600

annually. with an annual flooding of 3,000 acres expected.

The Nutwood Watershed Project was formulated to remedy many of these

problems by implementation of land treatment and structural measures. The

land treatment program will reduce upland erosion by an estimated 28 percent.

A system of three floodwater retarding-sediment storage structures combined

with the land treatment measures will reduce sediment damages 78 percent and

floodwater damages 47 percent; directly benefiting 30 operating farm units covering 4.200 acres. Installation of higher efficiency pumping facilities will improve

agricultural drainage on 1,900 acres of bottomland.

Two water control structures are included to stabilize water levels and preserve fish and wildlife habitat. Possibly, three floodwater retarding structures

will provide 40 acres of aquatic habitat and an estimated 1,160 annual visitor

days of recreation potential.

The Nutwood Watershed Project is a positive, needed, and effective effort to

control many of the forces which erode, deplete, and destroy one of our finest

agricultural areas. I urge your favorable consideration of the Nutwood Watershed Project.

The CHAIRMAN. We will then proceed with our regular order. T am

asking the Department to explain the project and then we will be

glad to hear those who are interested.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, off the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. roff the record discussion.]

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear from the Department on

time Nutwood project, which is in Greene and Jersey Counties. Illinois.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

the Nutwood Watershed is located in Greene and Jersey Counties in

west-central Illinois, adjacent to the Illinois River, and about 10 miles

north of the confluence of the Illinois River with the Mississippi River.

St. Louis, Mo. is about 40 miles south. This is the Illinois River, along

the edge of the watershed. It joins the Mississippi to the south.

This is a small agricultural watershed containing 15,800 acres (24.7

sq. mi.) roughly divided into two-thirds bottomland and one-third

upland.

The humid continental climate of the area is characterized by large

extremes in precipitation and temperature. Precipitation averages 38

inches annually with about 9 inches leaving the watershed as runoff.

Approximately 22 inches of rainfall occur during the 190 days frostfree season.

The bottomland area has flat, fertile alluvial soils which are relatively erosion resistant and suitable for intensive cultivation. An extensive levee system (Corps of Engineers) protects the area from

flooding by the Illinois River. The levee system is around the outside

perimeter, alongside of the Illinois River. Cash grain farming, principally corn and soybeans, is the major enterprise in the watershed.

Over 90 percent of the bottomland is cultivated. The bottomland contains a network of channels and a pumping plant but this system is
67

inadequate. The pumping plant is at the lower end of the watershed.'

The upland area is steep to rolling and the soils are of low to moderate

productivity. Soils are erosive and this land is only suited for less intensive use. Twenty percent. of the area is presently cultivated, 42 percent is forest. land, and 28 percent in permanent pasture. Cattle grazing and hog feeding are the major enterprises in the upland.

There are about 40 farms in the watershed averaging 400 acres each.

Current land values - ange from $400 to $700 per acre for bottomland

and $100 to $300 for upland.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you write that report?

- Mr. KLINGELHOFER. When?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. KLINGELTIOFER . The work plan was prepared in 1971.

The CHAIRMAN. I am just amazed that you would say that there. is

any land in the United States that will sell for, what did you say, $150

an acre?

Mr. KLINGEL IOFER. That was the upland, $100 to $300 per acre. The

bottomland is listed at $400 to $700 per acre. Those figures probably

were developed in about 1970 or 1971. It probably is more valuable

now.

Problems in the watershed range from serious erosion in the uplands to sedimentation, flooding, and impaired drainage in the bottomlands. Upland problems contribute to those in the bottomlands

since the upland dramageways outlet on the bottomland. An average

of 3,000 acres of bottomland are flooded annually and about 1,900

acres have impaired subsurface drainage due to the inefficiency of

the existing pumping system. Under existing conditions, an estimated

30,000 tons of sediment are deposited annually in the ditches and settling basins maintained by the Nutwood Drainage and Levee District.

An accelerated land treatment program is planned on the upland

portion of the watershed with emphasis on those practices which reduce runoff, erosion, and the movement of sediment. Practices such as

contour farming, terraces, diversions, grassed waterways, conservation tillage, preservation of field borders and hedgerows and improved

forestry practices will be stressed. •

Three floodwater retarding structures and sediment storage structures are planned in the transition area between the upland and the

bottomland—the three structures are located here, here, and here [indicating on map]. These structures will control the runoff from 53

percent of the upland area. An auxiliary pumping plant is planned to

lower the normal Water level in the district ditches and to provide

added capacity during flood events. Also two water-level control structures are planned on two of the bottomland ditches to prevent damages

to fish and wildlife in Old Macoupin Creek caused by excessive drawdown of water levels when the pumping plant is in operation. The two

water-level control structures are located, one here and one there, [indicating]. Macoupin Creek flows in this general direction [indicating].

The effects of the project will be to reduce upland erosion by 28

percent, reduce floodwater damages by 47 percent, reduce sediment

yield to the bottomland area by 78 percent, and reduce pollution from

3 feedlots by providing them flooding protection. Improved drainage

will be provided to 1,900 acres of bottomland. A final environmental
68

statement was filed with the Council on Environmental Quality on

April 4, 1973, and included with the plan submitted to the committee.

Total project costs are estimated at $858,000 with Federal Public

Law 566 assistance amounting to $661,000. Average annual benefits

are estimated to be $58,100 giving a benefit/cost ratio of 1.2 to 1.0.

This concludes my testimony Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to

answer any questions you or members of the committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Klingelhofer.

Now, are there any questions?

Yes, Mr. Zwach.

Mr. ZWACII. I note the three purposes are for watershed protection, flood prevention, and drainage. This drainage, is that tile, or is it

open-ditch?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. It is a combination of both, sir. These very

thin black lines on the map, which you probably cannot see from up

there, are open drains which serve as outlets for this bottomland area,

leading waters to the pumping station. Individual farmers in some

cases have their own additional open drains and they also have tile.

Mr. ZWACIL How much channeling, how much open-ditch, new, is

involved in this project?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. The structural measures planned for this project, for which Public Law 566 will be cost-sharing, does not provide

any assistance for new open channels.

Mr. ZWACH. So there is no—is this, then, cleanout? Is the openditch cleanout, or is it new? What is involved in it?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. The project does not provide even for any

cleanout of open-ditches.

Mr. ZWACIL I thought you had mentioned that there was channeling involved.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. I do not believe so, sir.

Mr. ZWACH. Fine.

Mr. DAVEY. It builds on an existing ditch system.

Mr. ZWACH. And that will not be changed?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Not by the project.

Mr. ZWACH. You say you provide some feedlot outlets. Would you

describe that further?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. As I understand it, there were three feedlots

immediately below the planned structures.

Mr. ZWACH. Are these large feedlots, are they family type feedlots?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. I believe they are family type feedlots, not large,

but they do flood and pollutants are carried away during floodtimes.

With the installation of these structures, there will be less flooding of

these.

Mr. ZWACH. What kind of dams are involved in flood control? Are

they earthen?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. They are typical earthen dams with a concrete

pipe through the embankment and a riser on the upper end, a twostage riser and a sediment pool.

Mr. ZWACH. The major benefit would be flood control and land

improvement?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes, sir, and sediment reduction. There is a real

sediment problem of erosion coming from the upland area, coming

down the draws, and filling in the drainage ditches.

4
69

Mr. ZWACII. And the main cost of the whole project involves the structural measures and flood prevention, according to the report? Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZWACH. That is the major?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZWACH. It costs $514,000 in that area?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZWACH. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Do you want to ask some questions, Mr. Teague?

Mr. TEAGUE. I do, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. TEAGUE. You may have covered this in your statement, but I

missed it. What are the nonagricultural improvements?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. I think it is primarily benefits to damages caused by flooding of roads and bridges. Highway 100 comes through the watershed here. These tributary drainage areas pass across this highway and cause severe damage to the highway.

Mr. TEAGUE. One other question, Mr. Chairman. Can either you or Mr. Findley tell me whether you are having any trouble with the en- vironmental groups in connection with this project? Have they regis- tered any complaints?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Our planning group in the State of Illinois worked very closely with the Illinois Conservation Agency and the

Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife and reached agreement that this project would not cause adverse environmental effects to fish and wildlife; in fact, they felt it would improve conditions.

There was one objection raised while the plan was undergoing interagency review, and that pertained to a gravel watering ramp which

was to be provided, I believe in structure No. 2, so that livestock could obtain drinking water from this sediment pool. The Environmental

Protection Agency asked that the ramp be deleted and that the structure be fenced so that cattle could not get into the pool and create a

pollution problem. The sponsors were contacted and it has been agreed

that all three structures will be fenced so that cattle cannot get into

the pools behind the dams. Where livestock water is needed, a separate pipe will be put in through the embankment to a watering tank

below the dam. This has been agreed to.

Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stubblefield?

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bergland ?

Mr. BERGLAND. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask a little more about that very

thing. I understand Mr. Barlow is here and he can probably comment

on it. But how far will this go to adding expense on these things? I

was reared in a country where we depended entirely upon ponds, or

tanks as we called them, for water for all sources. It was the only

water we had. The well water was all salt. The only water we had was

these tanks. That country still uses tanks entirely. It is livestock

country, with some agriculture. Very few of the farmers or ranchers

can afford to fence their tanks. That is fine practice if you can afford

to do it; we all know that. But today it will cost $1,000 to fence one

28-451-74 6
70

of those. The individual cannot afford to do that. Should the Government undertake to do these things in a more elaborate way than we

find anybody else can afford?

Now, I have said the world over that I can always look at a piece

of property and if it has a certain type of fence I can always say that

it is Government owned, whether I am in the -United States or Russia

or in Afghanistan. You can always tell that it is Government owned,

because the Government always spends so much more on fences than

anybody else will spend. Are we going to have to embark upon such

a program now—of course, this only has three reservoirs in it. Some

of them will have 30 and 50. Are we going to have to embark on a

program that is going to involve a considerable additional expense,

something that private individuals would never undertake? Does this

mean that this is a policy the Government is going to have to adopt.?

Mr. DAVEY. May I respond in part to that, Mr. Chairman? For a,

good many years, we have been fencing floodwater retarding structures to achieve maintenance because they are earthen dams and there

is vegetative cover on them—

The CHAIRMAN. You have been fencing the dams?

Mr. DAVEY. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not been fencing the structures.

Mr. DAVEY. Not completely around the pond. So there will be the

added cost of going completely around the pond. Fencing has been

provided to achieve good operation and maintenance. We have found

erosion on the dams as a result of overgrazing. So the added cost

would not be a total fencing, it would be an extra input.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not going to fence the reservoir?

Mr. DAVEY. In this instance, would it go all the way around the

reservoir?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. In this instance, it would go all the way around.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I understood. That is at the high water

level, is it?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. No this would be at the low water level, the

sediment pool.

The CHAIRMAN. That is somewhat better than a high water level.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. A smaller area.

The CHAIRMAN. But it seems to me just another one of these questions of how expensive you can make these projects and how we can

run a government and carry on a reasonable development without making our activities so expensive that we lose the benefit of the programs.

I would like to have every one of my dams fenced and my reservoirs,

too. I would like to have them, but I do not have them fenced, because

I do not figure I can afford it. I am just wondering if Uncle Sam can

afford that which the individual cannot afford. That is the only problem there.

Now, I notice that there is a picture here of what you referred to

as covering of drain things. Apparently, it is a rather large situation

and you pump water out down at the lower end?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a pumping plant there now?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. There is a pumping plant there now that is not

doing the job that is needed. It is not completely adequate.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean they are not large enough pumps?

0
71

Mr. KLINGEIMOFER. They are not large enough, nor are they of a

certain type that provide a continuous enough operation to give the benefits upstream that are needed. So the project proposes that an. added pumping station be installed.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is going to keep that pump running?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. The operation and maintenance of it would be taken care of by the Nutwood Drainage and Levee District. The CHAIRMAN. Is that in this estimated annual cost of operation of $8,900 a year?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes, sir. I think there is $7,700 included for this purpose.

The 

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. 

CHAIRMAN. I did 

The 

not 

operation 

believe that 

and 

you 

maintenance 

couldwill be handled completely by the Nutwood Drainage District.

The CIIAIRMAN. Normally, there used to be statements here--of course, the law requires that we have a commitment from the local people to maintain; that is, they normally agree to carry out maintenance. I do not see that stat ement in here.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. It is the very last 

The CHAIRMAN. You say the Nutwood Drainage Levee District will assume all local responsibilities for installing, operating, and main- taining all structural measures. But that is not all the operating costs. Mr. KLINGELHOFER. The work plan, I know, does state that the drainage district will operate and maintain the project. The CHAIRMAN. All right. I think that we want to be sure that the local district is going to maintain and pay those operating costs. Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes. They are already faced with operating and maintaining the existing pumping plant, and have experience in that activity.

The CIIAIRMAN. All right.

Now, Mr. Barlow, we will be glad to hear from you.

Is Mr. Barlow here?

Mr. BARLOW. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. BARLOW, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. BARLOW. Mr. Chairman, my name is Tom Barlow and I repre- sent Environmental Action. We commend the committee and the soil conservation service for trying to steer clear of watershed projects which contain extensive stream channelization. This is a practice int watershed projects which has caused a great deal of concern across the country.

In all these watershed programs, whether they contain channeliza- tion or whether they contain impoundments we believe there are im- provements in planning which could be made for better flood protec- tion, better prevention of flood losses, for the sake of better soil and water quality. With regard to these specific projects today, we have a statement which we would like to submit for the record, which con- tains some of the suggestions we would have for improving the water- shed program so that its defects do not continue to hinder what we see as its virtues.
72

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have you submit it for the record,

Mr. Barlow, but I would suggest as a practical matter that if you find

you have objections to this project you had better tell us about them,

because we would like to act on the project.

Mr. BARLOW. I believe that if we could have our statement put in

the record, we would be satisfied with that, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All I am trying to suggest is are you simply interested in the record or are you trying to get some results? This

committee is going to act pretty quickly. I do not believe that we are

going to have much time to review long statements or long records.

Now, you have a perfect right to put it in. We will accept it.

Mr. BARLOW. That would be satisfactory to us, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

[The statement of Mr. Barlow follows:]

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. BARLOW, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

From the perspective of the Watershed Projects before this Committee today,

we would like to make some specific suggestions for improving the Soil Conservation Service's Watershed Program.

In the Lost Creek Project, we note with interest that since 1962 there have

been 15 formal meetings bringing together local citizens to discuss this project.

In too many projects the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has not taken the responsibility for adequately explaining to affected landowners in watershed

project areas either the dimensions of the proposed work or the cost. The SCS

takes the position that P.L. 566 is an assistance program, therefore this is the

responsibility of local project sponsors. (However, this policy does not prevent

many SCS employees from actively working with local sponsors to sell a project

in an area and to persuade landowners to sign over the necessary easements for

these projects).

When the true physical dimensions of a project and the cost share which they

will be assessed become known to local landowners after the plan for a project

has been authorized, this lack of information or the supplying of misinformation

to affected landowners during the preauthorization planning period has led to

bitter community disputes. The SCS may stress local project control in its response to criticism of its condoning such inefficiency in these situations but these

are federal projects in the eyes of practically everyone involved. It is the federal

government and those at the federal level responsible for project authorization

and construction who are blamed for such mismanagement. Two projects where

this situation has led to virtual abandonment of considerable planning investments are the Pine Creek Watershed Project in Ohio and the Hobbesville-Sunbury Watershed Project in North Carolina. Such Waste and bad feeling could

be prevented in future watershed projects if the SCS would take firm steps to

assess continually, from the inception of project investigation and planning, local

residents' opinions and desires with regard to the protection of their water resources, and to solicit the advice of local residents with regard to SCS proposals

for fulfilling the watershed needs which the residents perceive.

To prevent situations of projects being formulated in obscurity and then pressed

on an increasingly restive local population, to improve communications between

the SCS and project area residents during project investigation and planning

phases, to help the SCS become more responsive to local opinions and desires;

1. It should be clearly stated in the initial documents which local residents

sign to create the legal entity for a watershed project that only the needs for

a project are to be investigated and the various project alternatives for fulfilling

these needs be set forth—that their signature does not constitute agreement for

installation of a project. All too often landowners have signed documents which

they understood to authorize project investigation only to find later that the

document became in effect an instrument to dispossess them of their land.

2. During the resident authorized investigation and planning period, the SCS

should hold public meetings chaired by SCS officials at which public comment

should be solicited on watershed resources, watershed needs and the various

project alternatives being developed by the SCS to protect these resources and

fulfill these needs. The SCS should take full responsibility for developing non-
73

development protection and enhancement as well as development protection and

enhancement alternatives. During this period, the SCS should consult with State

and Federal natural resource agencies for their suggestions regarding formulation of the various planning alternatives.

3. At the end of the investigation and planning period all of the alternative

plans for protecting the various land and water resources and meeting the resource needs of the area should be published and made available to the public

by SCS.

These alternative plans should be formally circulated to all State and Federal agencies with natural resource responsibilities. Written comment from all

agencies and the public should be invited.

4. The SCS should prepare cost analyses for each alternative with the local

cost share clearly set forth, the specific local beneficiaries in each alternative,

and the respective assessment of the local cost share to be paid by each beneficiary. These cost analyses should be appended to the publicly distributed and

agency circulated set of alternative plans for the project. I recently spoke with

people in a completed drainage project who are bitterly resentful, because they

were never told that they would have to pay the maintenance costs through

assessments.

5. Following the release of the set of alternative plans, at least six months

should be allowed for receipt of public and agency comment. Such a length of

time is necessary because a number of alternative plans must be addressed by

each commentator. Then a final meeting or series of publicly advertised public

meetings should be held by the SCS to discuss the alternative plans. The comments of the public and the agencies should be made available at the meeting.

SCS officers at the meeting should clearly state that one of the options which

residents have is to select no plan.

6. Upon selection of a plan the formal conveyancing documents which each

landowner signs should contain a full description of the project with a map

of the affected area and a detailed analysis of project costs with a breakdown

of each project beneficiary's share of the local cost-share assessment. The SCS.

must be responsible for seeing that the legally-required number of documents to

activate the project have been properly secured before submission of the project

have been properly secured before submission of the project to OMB and thence

to Congress. This will assure that the Executive Branch and Congress do not

waste time on projects which are eventually aborted because sufficient land rights

cannot be obtained as has been noted in a GAO report.

We note with interest the detailed land treatment work planned for the Lost

Creek Project and the Nutwood Project. Such activities need to be improved in the

Watershed Program. The emphasis on the physical control of water by structural methods in SCS Watershed Project Work Plans has in recent years led the

Agency to neglect its other major responsibility, which is the wise use of land

so that water quality will not be impaired. As proof of this state of affairs, we

need only draw your attention to the many project proposals abandoned altogether when structural works were found to be infeasible.

Presently P.L. 566 requires that land treatment agreements be in effect on 50%

of the land above impoundments in a watershed before installation of a project.

This is to prevent unwise land practices from causing erosion which would silt

up these reservoirs. There is no requirement for land treatment agreements

alongside the streams and rivers downstream from impoundments. There is no

requirement for land treatment agreements alongside the streams and rivers

downstream from impoundments. There is no requirement for land treatment

agreements on watershed projects where channelization is to be utilized. Unwise

land practices alongside manmade channels and natural watercourses can lead

to the clogging of these channels with eroded soils, thus increasing maintenance

costs and shortening their time span of usefulness. Often these unwise land

practices are encouraged by the improvements in flood control and drainage

which channelization and impoundments provide.

All the agricultural land, including forests and fields, as well as cropland, constitutes the base from which the 50% is calculated. Thus, if cropland comprises

less than 50% of this total land base, there would be no agreements signed or

practices implemented even though this cropland may suffer from severe conservation problems.

Even in those few situations where agreements would have to be secured to

activate a project, there is no requirement that an agreement be actually implemented before a project is constructed. The SCS has no power to enforce an
74

agreement subsequent to project construction. Thus, there is no way that the

SCS can assure that the sound resource management which Congress seeks to induce with its contribution of a federal project to the area will ever be realized.

To give the SCS the encouragement it needs to secure sound land and water use

In a watershed. We recommend that SCS approved land treatment programs be

planned and implemented by landowners throughout a watershed before project

construction begins and that the SCS receive legally binding assurances from

landowners and sponsors that such land treatment programs be continued and

properly maintained after project completion.

Generally, the SCS focuses its conservation practices on the hilly areas in a

-watershed and indeed, these are the sites of many conservation problems. How-

.ever, serious land and water conservation problems can exist in the floodplain

...along the water courses which drain a watershed as the pressures for increased

agricultural production cause farmers to push their fields closer and closer to

low flow watercourse runs. Fish and Wildlife Service impact statement comments

.on the Lost Creek Project point out the potential water quality problems from

more intensive floodplain agricultural use.

These conservation problems can be compounded by the channelization features

of a watershed program. In the Chicod project in North Carolina, the SCS predicts a five-fold increase in stream-borne sediment loads after the project is completed and conditions have stabilized, much of this increase due to more intense

streamside land use. The water quality problems these sediments will cause are

obvious, problems which the SCS has been directed by Congress to reduce rather

than increase.

Heavier use of fertilizers and pesticides will be involved in this more intensive

agricultural land use along the Chicod with very serious implications for water

quality as chemical runoff increases. An example of the serious economic consequences of water degraded to a significant extent by agricultural operations was

demonstrated in the Chowan River emergency during the late summer of 1972.

Choking algal blooms filled the river driving away tourists and vacationers and

interrupting commercial fishing. The effluents from a fertilizer plant were initially pinpointed as the cause of the eutrophication. However, a State study of

the situation noted that swamp drainage programs and agricultural practices

bore a large measure of the responsibility for raising nutrient levels of waters

flowing into the Chowan from tributaries to such a degree that the effluent from

the fertilizer plant was, metaphorically, the straw that broke the camel's back.

A Corps of Engineers study of water quality conditions in all the major rivers of

eastern North Carolina reveals that nutrient enrichment is a serious problem.

One of the remedies put forth is the protection of upstream water sources by implementation of land use controls.

We therefore recommend special land treatment programs be installed in floodplains encompassing the area inundated by highwater flows for the purpose of

retaining, preserving, and enhancing natural undergrowth along water courses

to retard polluting erosion and nutrient enriched runoff. The SCS should be

encouraged to use the authorities cited in P.L. 93-86, the recently passed General

Farm Bill, to establish these land use and land treatment programs.

In both the Lost Creek and the Prickett watersheds a project purpose is to

reduce the threat of flooding to settled areas. The SCS does not now require that

floodplain zoning ordinances be in force before it plans watershed projects. This

not only can increase the cost of a project as sponsors seek protection for future

development, but can create the conditions for flood tragedies. As is stated in the

project documents, these projects do not prevent flooding, they only reduce the

statistical frequency of flooding (The fallacy of statistical frequency analysis in

anticipating floods is shown by the fact that our mid-Atlantic region has had

three 100-year frequency floods in the last five years.) Thus when these future

floods hit the developed floodplain, there is considerably more economic loss than

there would have been without the development which project protection induces.

We therefore recommend that floodplain zoning be implemented in all watersheds prior to construction and that the SCS have the authority to veto zoning

variances in future years after project completion. Such zoning should not simply

be confined to urban or suburban areas but be enforced throughout a watershed

because of the ability of developers to build throughout an area.

We seek the Committee's assistance in improving SCS communication and

planning at the local level. With regard to the projects now before the Committee

for authorization, we request that final authorization by the committee be delayed

until the SCS and local sponsors have fulfilled these recommendations for land

treatment programs and floodplain zoning in watersheds.

•
75

Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know, if I may be

recognized.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Barlow, do you have any objections to any of

these projects that are under consideration at this moment?

Mr. BARLOW. No, sir.

Mr. BERGLAND. Do you have any comments on them?

Mr. BARLOW. Our comments are covered in the statement. I believe

at the end of the statement, we request that the Soil Conservation

Service work with the sponsors to come forward with improved land

treatment programs and flood plain .zoning programs before they

act on authorizing the projects. The land treatment and flood plain

zoning programs set forth in our statement are very broad new areas

within the context of the watershed program. They involve basic

policy changes in the work of the Soil Conservation Service. Perhaps

it would be a little too much for us to hope today that committee action

be held up on these projects. However, these are changes in the watershed program that we would hope the committee would consider in the

future when it considers applications for project authorization.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much. We will make your statement part of the record.

Mr. BARLOW. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that is all the witnesses we had. Does anybody else want to be heard on this project?

[No response.]

The CHAIRMAN. If not, we will pass to the next project, which is in

the Lost Creek project in Missouri.

LOST CREEK, MISSOURI

LOST CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and Location.-39,100 acres in Newton County.

Tributary.—Neosho River.

Sponsors.—Soil and Water Conservation District of Newton County, Lost Creek

Watershed Subdistrict, Newton County Court, City of Seneca, Missouri.

Total watershed land use

Percent

Cropland 12

Grassland 37

Woodland 46

Miscellaneous 5

Total watershed privately owned:

Number of Farms. 449.

Size of Farms.—About 87 acres average.

Purposes.—Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention.

Principal Measures.—Soil Conservation practices on farms and woodland; with

structural measures consisting of 7 floodwater retarding structures, and 3

debris basins. Storage capacities of the floodwater retarding structures vary

from 318 to 2,535 acre feet.

Amount Percent

Annual benefits:

To agricultural acreage (land and crops) $19, 000 16

To agricultural improvements 2, 700 2

To nonagricultural improvements 95, 600 80

Indirect 2,700 2

Total 120,000 100
76

Benefit-Cost Ratio.-1.3 to 1.0 at the interest rate applicable when the plan was

developed. At the lowest federal borrowing rate on August 7, 1973, the B :C

ratio would be 1.3 to 1.1

Number of Beneficiaries.—About 50 farms will directly benefit from the installation of structural measures. In the City of Seneca, 349 residences, 65 commercial businesses, 2 industrial establishments, 3 schools and 7 churches will benefit from the project.

PROJECT COSTS

Public Law 566 funds Other funds'

Amount Percent Amount Percent Total

Land treatment $74, 000 17 $354, 000 83 $428, 000 Structural measures: Flood prevention 1,213, 000 85 193, COO 14 1,406, 000 Project administration 186,000 97 6,000 3 192,000

Total 1, 473, 000 73 553, 000 11 27 2, 026, 000

1 For land treatment measures this is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners.

For structural measures this is the cost of land rights and project administration. It may also include costs for construL- tion or engineering services for purposes other than flood prevention.

2 The value of measures already installed ($278,000) increases this to 36 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 Structural Cost per Acre Benefited.—Not computed—Benefits

accrue primarily to a small agricultural community.

Carrying out the Project. —The Lost Creek Watershed Subdistrict will assume all

the local responsibility for installing, operating, and maintaining the 7 floodwater retarding structures and 3 debris basins except modification, relocation and closing of county road. The Newton County Court will assume all

road cost.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $4,130.

USDA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 2—L0ST CREEK, MO., WATERSHED PROJECT

Prepared in Accordance with Sec. 102(2) (C) of P.L. 91-190

SUMMARY SHEET

I. Final (X).

II. Soil Conservation Service.

III. Administrative (X).

IV. Description of Action.—The recommended plan of improvements consists of

land treatment measures, seven floodwater retarding dams, and three

debris basins. The project is located in Newton County, Missouri.

V. Environmental Impact and Adverse Environmental Effects.—Flood damage

to 1,877 acres of agricultural lands will be reduced. Peak flows from the

100-year storm will be reduced 37 percent in Seneca. Sediment yield will be

reduced 25 percent. The installation of the project will change the land use

of areas needed for dams, spillways, and to store sediment. The intensification of agriculture in the flood plain is expected to reduce wildlife cover.

VI. Alternatives.-1. Land treatment only; 2. Increase the capacity and efficiency

of the channel; 3. Relocate damageable values and provide zoning. Develop flood-prone lands for purposes little affected by flooding such as

parks, tree farms, or wildlife areas; 4. Levees; 5. No project.

VII. Comments Received.—

Governor of Missouri (Water Resources Board).

Department of the Army.

Department of the Interior.

Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Environmental Protection Agency.

Department of Community Affairs ( State Clearinghouse).

Ozark Gateway Regional Planning Commission Regional Clearinghouse).

1 Supplied in accordance with Subcommittee instructions.

2 The complete environmental statement may be found in the tiles of the committee.

•
77

VIII. Draft Environmental Statement was received by the Council on Environmental Quality on June 19, 1972.

Final Environmental Statement was received by the Council on Environmental Quality on January 22, 1973.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe Mr. Lanman of the Soil Conservation

Service will present this project.

Mr. LANMAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, the

Lost Creek Watershed includes 39,100 acres in Newton County which

is in extreme southwestern Missouri. Lost Creek flows southwest

through the city of Seneca into the Grand Lake of the Cherokees, an

impoundment on the Neosho River. The total population of the watershed is 3,500. Fourteen hundred seventy-eight people live in Seneca.

Racine, a small town of about 200, is also within the watershed.

There are 449 farms within the watershed averaging about 87 acres

each. Land use is 46 percent forest land, 38 percent pastureland, 12

percent cropland, and 5 percent in other miscellaneous uses. The farms

are approximately 80 percent owner-operated family farms with an

average annual gross income of just over $7,900. Current land values

range from $200 to $400 per acre.

The major agricultural income is from the sale of livestock and livestock products. Dairying, beef production, poultry, hogs are important enterprises, while corn, soybeans, wheat, and hay are the principal crops grown.

Opportunity for off-farm employment exists in Seneca and the

nearby cities of Neosho and Joplin. Many of the residents in the

watershed work either full-time or part-time in agriculture related

businesses such as a mill processing plant, a grain products manufacturer, a box and basket factory, an egg processing plant, a garment

and shoe factory, a mineral processor, and a mattress manufacturer.

Flooding is a major watershed problem. Floods average more than

once a year with the most severe damages occurring in the city of

Seneca. Sediment deposition on floodplain soils constitutes a significant damage. Severe flooding has occurred in 1951, 1957, 1959, and

1964. The maximum flood of record occurred in 1896 and took 18 lives.

Conservation land treatment will be applied by farmers over much

of the watershed. An accelerated program will be undertaken to encourage landowners to install and maintain conservation measures. It

• is estimated that about 2,060 acres of cropland, 5,220 acres of pastureland, and 3,994 acres of forest land will become adequately treated as

a result of the accelerated land treatment program.

Seven floodwater retarding structures and three debris basins will

be constructed to supplement the expected conservation land treatment.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a proposal for channel

work in the city of Seneca. The seven floodwater retarding structures

planned under Public Law 566 will reduce agricultural damage and

also reduce the size of the channel needed through Seneca. The stream

channel work by the Corps of Engineers has not yet been approved for

construction, but both plans will be complementary to one another.

The Public Law 566 project will reduce the flood hazard to 50 farms,

349 residences, 65 commercial businesses, 2 industrial plants, 3 schools,

and 7 church buildings, all in the rural community of Seneca.

The total installation cost is estimated to be $2 million of which

$1.4 million are Public Law 566 funds and $0.6 million other funds.
78

With total average annual benefits of $120,000, the estimated benefit-cost ratio is 1.3 to 1.

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Mr. ZWACH. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It would appear that the major benefit of this project would be to

one community. Is that basically correct?

Mr. LANMAN. That is correct, sir. The little town of Seneca is located here at the lower end of this watershed. There are agricultural

damages and benefits on these flood plains up here, but the major benefits, yes, are to this agricultural community [indicating].

Mr. ZWACIL Then you have seven floodwater structures in the upper

reaches of the watershed?

Mr. LANMAN. Yes, sir. One here, here, here, here, and here [indicating].

Mr. ZWACH. Does this involve channeling?

Mr. LANMAN. No, sir. The channel wor that I mentioned is this

small segment, within the town of Seneca, is to be done by the Corps

of Engineers. There has been a cooperative program between the

corps 

Mr. ZWACH. It is not miles and miles of channeling, then?

Mr. LANMAN. No, sir. In fact, it is in total no more than 11/2 or 2

miles of channel through this little town.

Mr. ZWACH. And really, the holding of the water in critical times

above would help to hold water, would feed the water gradually rather

than in gushes as it comes in heavy rain?

Mr. LANMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZWACH. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stubblefield?

Mr. STU13BLEFIELD. No.

Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Chairman, just one question.

What is a debris basin?

Mr. LANMAN. A debris basin is a small earthen structure that is

constructed primarily where you have large volumes of sediment coming down and not much drainage area. It is for sediment and other

debris that would collect there. These debris basins are located here

just above the town and there are some gullies in this area that are

contributing fairly large amounts of sediment and these debris basins

are constructed to collect this sediment. There is a small amount of

floodwater storage included, but just enough to allow the principal

spillway to function without endangering the embankment 

Mr. BERGLAND. And the debris settles out?

Mr. LANMAN. The debris settles out within the debris basin.

Mr. BERGLAND. When that is filled, then what?

Mr. LANMAN. Well, it is designed for the life of the project. Of

course, as all of these structures are designed, the sediment storage is

designed for 100 years. At the end of the 100 years, the debris basin

should be filled.

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Madigan?

Mr. MADIGAN. He asked my question.
79

•

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Teague?

Mr. TEAGUE. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be all the questions for here. Thank you.

We have our colleague, Mr. Taylor, with us.

We will be glad to have you appear with us on this project. I hope

you understand our procedure on these is to try to let the Department

present these before we hear others.

STATEMENT OF HON. GENE TAYLOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE Or MISSOURI

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my appreciation for an opportunity to be here to express my

support of the Lost Creek watershed project and to commend the

agricultural conservation people in our area for the work they have

done. I want to associate myself and affirm the remarks of Mr. Lanman. I have personally walked over this area. I am well acquainted

with the problems that exist in the city of Seneca and the intense

flooding the people have been subjected to over the years, as well as

agricultural damage to the many farms of the area.

I will submit my statement for the record, Mr. Chairman, and as

a Representative of this particular area in the Congress, I want to

give my wholehearted and enthusiastic support for the project, and

thank you for your concern for the problem that exists here and for

the fine work that you do in these watershed projects. I think it is

very important and indeed, the work of the Lord.

Thank you very much.

[The complete statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GENE TAYLOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear before this

subcommittee in behalf of the Lost Creek Watershed for Newton County,

Missouri.

I know that I speak for all the residents of Newton County, especially those

who live in the city of Seneca, Missouri, when I say that this project is long

overdue. In fact, it goes back to 1962, after the soil and water conservation

district was formed in 1961.

I am sure that you all have before you the environmental impact statement

and other pertinent information relating to this proposal so I will not go into a

detailed review at this time. However, I would like to briefly address my remarks to the influence that the project will have on the economy of the city of

Seneca, which accounts for about half of the watershed's population, and the

effect it will have on stability of agricultural production which accounts for

roughly half of the 39,000 acres involved.

Approximately 3,500 people live in the Lost Creek Watershed, of which 1,478

reside in Seneca. The city is the major trading center for the area (which includes portions of Oklahoma), and for the marketing and processing of agricultural products. It is located at the confluence of Lost Creek and Little Lost

Creek.

The city has been troubled with flooding since before the turn of the century,

The most damaging storm occurred in 1959 when total estimated damage to community business establishments reached well over $400,000. I don't have to tell

you what an impact that had on such a small rural town. If you translate that

amount into 1973 dollars, it is easy to see that a major flood today, which is certainly within the realm of possibility, would undoubtedly rise into the millions

in view of the fact that total value of the property on the flood plain was estimated to be over $10 million in 1969.
80

The effect on agriculture would also be considerable. Within that 61 square

mile area, there are 449 farms. Approximately 80 percent are owner-operated

family farms. The current market land value ranges from $200 to $400 an acre.

The major portion of the farm income is derived from the production and sale of

livestock and livestock products with dairying, beef production, poultry, and

hogs playing an important role. The principal crops are corn, soybeans, wheat,

and hay.

It is easy to see that the flooding of roads which would prevent travel to the

market centers would have a profound influence on the income of the farmers

and industries of the area. This is particularly true of the dairy farmers who

must use the roads to get their products to the manufacturing plants. The closing

of the roads would also prohibit the travel of workers from the rural areas to

business and industry. Many of the farmers of the watershed must find part-time

work to supplement their income.

If I may quote from the final environmental statement: "Flood protection for

the city of Seneca is an important factor in keeping the industries located in the

area and providing an opportunity for expanding the economic base. Since many

watershed residents works off the farm, the job opportunities provided by local

Industries are an important factor in reducing unemployment and improving the

quality of living. . .

"Agricultural income would improve through better management and a more

diversified use of the flood plain.

"The quality of water available for all purposes will improve with the project.

The supply of water will be stabilized by construction of the impoundments, and

quality will be enhanced by improved land treatment measures."

The work plan includes the construction of seven floodwater retarding dams

and three debris basins. They will have an initial potential of 136 surface acres

of water which will be available for wildlife and livestock watering. As well as

for the stocking of fish. These pools will produce lakes with surface areas

ranging from one to fifty-three acres. In addition the corps of engineers will

construct a channel system on Lost Creek and Little Lost Creek in the urban areas

of the city of Seneca, which will protect the residential districts as well as the

business and industries from the devastation caused by uncontrolled flooding.

Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a total estimated cost of $2,026,000 of

which $1.4 million will be borne by Public Law 566 funds. The local interests

have spent about $278,400 in recent years installing land treatment measures.

The total estimated cost of the seven dams is $1.4 million. The land treatment

is $428,000 and project administration is $192,000. The average annual cost of

structural measures, including operation and maintenance is estimated to be

$90,426. The project cost benefit ratio is 1.3 to 1.

Mr. Chairman, I can't begin to stress the importance of this project to one

of the most productive counties in the congressional district which I am privileged to represent.

The people of Newton County are not interested in Federal "Handouts". They

are interested in protecting their land, their homes, and their business establishments, and are only asking for a little help along the way.

I assure you that any expenditures for the Lost Creek Watershed will be

an investment in people and production. What better way could our tax dollars

be utilized.

I hope you will look with favor on this project and I am certainly indebted

to you for granting me the time to speak in its behalf.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your attendance at the committee

and appreciate the interest you have expressed.

Are there any questions?

Mr. ZWACH. I have one question.

First, may I commend Congressman Taylor for his presentation.

Second, I note that this is 46 percent woodland. I am wondering if

these structures would perhaps change much of this woodland to

crop] and ? Is this involved? Perhaps I should refer this. unless you

want to speak to it, Congressman Taylor, perhaps I should refer

it to the others. I am interested in retaining this woodland. I am

wondering if this would perhaps mean the destruction of a lot of

woodland and conversion to farmland?
81

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Zwach, it is my impression that it definitely would

not. I think that the environment would be protected. I think that

there is a great deal of interest in the area for preserving the woodland, and it is my understanding that this would in no way do anything to work adversely in that area in that regard.

Mr. ZWACII. Thank you.

Does the Department have any additional comment?

Mr. LANMAN. I believe this is correct, sir. The information I have

is that the land use will stay essentially the same as it is now.

Mr. ZWACH. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other questions, thank you, Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Barlow, did you want to comment?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS BARLOW, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. BARLOW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you.

Mr. BARLow. Thank you. The only comment I would like to make

would be to continue the point that Mr. Zwach was making. The purpose of most of these projects is to induce land change. When you have

a reduction in flooding below these structures, you are going to have

more intensive use of the flood plain. Perhaps in future projects, more

attention could be paid to requiring landowners to implement land

treatment measures and agree to long-term land use programs before

a project is installed so that you will not have the flood plain utilized

right down to the channel rim, right down to the stream edge. When

such more extensive land use occurs you have increased erosion in your

stream. Not only does forbidity increase but you have increases in the

chemical content of the water in terms of pesticides and fertilizers

where they are in use.

The CHAIRMAN. Could I just point out that it seems to me that I

think I understand the concern of both the witness and Mr. Zwach,

but it seems to me it is based upon a wrong assumption. These detention dams are always built above the area that is to be protected.

Mr. BARLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Consequently, you are not doing anything in the

world to bring in any land above the structure.

Mr. BARLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Because you have done nothing up there to make it

more productive or to protect it from flooding or anything. The protection is always below the dam, not above.

Mr. BARLOW. Yes, sir. I am talking about the land below the dam,

too. When you get the protection below the dam or impoundment, you

are reducing the flood frequency from, say, three times a year to once.

every 2 years. Landowners who were dissuaded from moving their

fields down into that flood plain because of the frequency of flooding

before, now with that protection the impoundment has given them,

they can bring their croplands down into that flood plain. We are saying that perhaps in the future in these programs—and we are not talking here just about the small watershed program but about the REAP

programs and all the other authorities that this committee has given
82

the Department of Agriculture—that programs be put together to protect the strips of land alongside these streams, to keep them in their

natural state so that they can act as filters to prevent the erosion and

the chemicals from the land that is being more intensively used from

leading into the channel.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, in most cases, and I realize that

there are a great many exceptions there. An exception always exists.

Mr. BARLOW. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But in most cases in these projects that come before

us, the reservoirs are built at the lowest point that the soil conservation

people can find of pasture or timber] and because at that point, they can

control the runoff from the largest possible area.

Mr. BARLow. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And they are also built above the cultivated land.

Now, I know there are exceptions to that. Certainly, there may be a

farm up on top of that hillside, there oftentimes are. And there will

be a grove of trees down here in the alluvial valley. But by and large,

those valleys are cultivated and those hillsides are in trees. That is

just the general situation over the country. So by and large, these

reservoirs, as they historically have been constructed, do not encourage

the destruction of timberlands, but rather, simply try to improve the

situation in the valleys.

Now, we do have a situation in a good many valleys, and particularly

is that true in the southern Appalachians, where the flooding is so bad.

Year after year it has gotten so bad that people have abandoned their

farms in the valleys and those valleys have grown up with brush. Now,

I cannot believe that either one of those of you who have been discussing this would want to deny the right to clean those farms up and

make them tillable again. But there has been—well, I should say ever

since the days of the Civil War, there has been a tendency to abandon

those valleys and they have grown up in brush, which now, oftentimes,

is rather large trees. Certainly, if we are going to feed the Nation, we

are going to need to use that land. That is generally good bottomland

and we are going to have to use it. I think we must recognize that we

run into a situation there where we are not going to simply protect a

lot of the locust brush that has grown up down there or willows, or

things that have just taken the land. We are not going to maintain it

forever. If we are, there is no use in the world putting in any protection. Let it all flood every year and you will get beaver there probably.

They will probably come back, because they were there 200 years ago,

if you just turn the stuff over and let it flood three, or four times a year.

So we might as well do that if we are not going to use the land.

I think we just need to have a clear understanding that we are not

just trying to maintain the status quo, that we are trying to make land

more usable and we are trying to grow more food. We are trying to

• make this a more productive country and in doing it, obviously, you

cannot have everything at the same place at the same time, and you

have to make a choice as to which you have. But by and large, these

projects have maintained timberland, they have improved the productivity of our streams, they have provided and do provide for fish and

other aquatic life. And I think they contribute greatly to the environment of the whole country. They are a great asset.
83

•

But of course, there is always going to be some negative feature.

It becomes a question, as I see it, of what does the balance happen to

be? Do we get more good or do we get more harm out of it?

Now, you are not going to build anybody's dam anywhere without

disturbing the earth. You are not going to protect us from floods

without putting some ditches there. You are going to have to build

some structures if you are going to have this protection. But is the

protection worthwhile in the long run? I think that is what we have

to decide.

Mr. BARLOW. Sir, my quick reaction to what you have had to say is

I like to eat, too. We are not against these projects for the assistance

that they are providing people to improve their income, to give us the

food and fibre that we need in this country. What we are saying is

let us not improve or develop to the point where the environmental

quality which we need, which we depend on, suffers. The natural resource, the quality of which we should seek to protect or improve in

this regard, is the water in our streams and rivers. There are situations where the land use changes below these impoundments have

been quite drastic. You will find that before the project there were

strips along these streams that had been left in woodland because

the farmers could not get down there. There just was no incentive

to get down in there because it flooded frequently. Now, with the protection that project is offering, farmers are getting down into that

last little strip of woodland along the streams and clearing it out and

planting it.

Now we are not saying that farmers should stay out of the flood

plain altogether. The flood plain has good soil. It provides good crops.

The farmer owns it; he has a right to expect some return out of it.

After all he is paying taxes on it. What we are saying is that perhaps

land use agreements could be secured by the Soil Conservation Service

before the project is authorized in which the owner agrees that those

last little strips that are necessary for water quality in this case would

be preserved. And in return, the Soil Conservation Service with its

project would improve the utility of the remainder of the farmer's

land down in the flood plain.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not finding fault with trying to preserve some

of our growth in the valleys. I think that is fine. In fact, I have a farm

below Waco and we have preserved every pecan tree on it. We have

not destroyed one of them, although the place is in cultivation. Those

pecan trees take a lot of what the crop ought to get. But I think it is

wise to maintain those pecan trees, because I know what will grow on

that land if they were not here. I know it would be more productive,

because they take a part of the water which is a limiting factor with

us, and sustenance. There is nothing that grows under them, no grass,

no crops, because they shade out that land. But as I say, I personally

think that is desirable, but I do not think we ought to simply set out

on a policy of saying we will protect every tree and every brush that

is downstream from a reservoir.

I know it is hard. You can hardly write any laws on what you should

do; certainly, some of it should be protected, some of it should not.

Mr. BARLOW. Well, perhaps if the requirement for land treatment

agreements which is in the legislation now could be broadened, per-
84

haps if the Soil Conservation Service could be given.the authority on a

farm-by-farm basis to require that a land treatment program be formulated by the farmer with their guidance and assistance and that this

agreement be secured by the SCS before the project is actually authorized, and this land treatment agreement is kept on file at the Soil Conservation Service, land and water quality would be greatly improved

in these projects.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think we would get many projects approved

that way, because you always will find some individuals who are going

to have a conflicting. viewpoint. They are not going to agree with the

Soil Conservation Service, and we will have a few that would make it

impossible to have the projects, I am afraid. Human nature works

that way.

Mr. BARLOW. Yes, we realize that. Perhaps instead of the whole

watershed being under these individual agreements if there could be

some compromise between the whole watershed and virtually none of

the watershed, which is too often the case now.

The CHAIRMAN. There is always somebody who lives off in Houston

or ,Fort Worth or somewhere else who decides he does not care anything about that watershed. He is only interested in having his place

like he wants it. I mean it is just different. That is all I am trying to

say.

MT. BARLOW. Yes, surely.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman, these folks have told us that there is no

major contemplated change in this particular project, so it is not

directly applicable, but it certainly is an overall problem.

Mr. BARLOW. And once the Soil Conservation finances the project,

any ability it had to influence continuing land use in the watershed

with the project as an incentive is removed. Landowners at this point

can do whatever they please and the Soil Conservation Service has

no authority, has no influence over their decisions. If the Soil Conservation Service could have the authorities to influence proper land use

in a watershed after project installation, land and water quality would

improve markedly.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? [No response.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow.

Now, is there anyone else who wants to be heard on this project,

Lost Creek? [No response.]

The CHAIRMAN. If not, we will pass to the Prickett Creek in Wast

Virginia.

PRICKETT CREEK, WEST VIRGINIA

PRICKETT CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and Location.-15,600 acres in Marion and Taylor Counties.

Tributary.—Monongahela River.

Sponsors.—County Court of Marion County, Monongahela Soil Conservation

District, Tygarts Valley Soil Conservation District.

Total watershed land use

Percent

Cropland 2

Grassland 46

Woodland 48

Miscellaneous 4

•
85

Total watershed privately owned:

Number of Farms.-73.

Size of Farms.—About 67 acres average.

Purposes.—Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention.

Principal Measures.—Soil conservation practices on farms and woodlands, with

structural measures consisting of one floodwater retarding structure with a

storage capacity of 2,380 acre-feet, and about one mile of stream channel improvement and levee.

ANNUAL BENEFITS

Amount Percent

To nonagricultural improvements $82, 000 66

Indirect 13,200 11

Subtotal 95,200 77

Incidental 1,300 1

Redevelopment 17, 300 14

Secondary 9,500 8

Total . 123, 300 100

Benefit-Cost Ratio.-1.5 to 1. At the interest rate applicable when the plan was

developed. At the lowest federal borrowing rate on August 7, 1973, the overall

B:C ratio would be 1.5 to 1, and without a secondary, incidental and redevelopment benefits, it would be 1.2 to 1.1

Number of Beneficiaries.—About 137 properties will be directly benefited by the

installation of structural measures. Incidental benefits amounting to 3,800 days

of fishing will also be realized.

PROJECT COSTS

Public Law 566 funds Other funds

Total

Amount Percent Amount Percent amount

Land treatment measures $36, 000 24 $111, 000 76 $147, 000

Structural measures: Flood prevention 1, 025, 000 81 235, 000 19 1,260, 000

Project administration 147,000 95 7, 000 5 154,000

Total 1, 208, 000 77 353, 000 2 23 11, 561, 000

1 For land treatment measures this is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners.

For structural measures this is the cost of land rights and project administration. It may also include costs for construction or engineering services for purposes other than flood prevention.

2 The value of measures already installed ($69,000) increases this to 26 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 Structural Cost per Acre Benefited.—Not computed—Benefits

accrue primarily to a small agricultural community.

Carrying out the Project.—The Monongahela Soil Conservation District, with the

assistance of the Prickett Creek Watershed Association, will assume all local

responsibilities for installing all structural measures. The Marion County Court

will assume all responsibilities for operation and maintaining all structural

measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $4,600.

USDA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 2—THE PRICKETT CREEK WATERSHED PROJECT,

WEST VIRGINIA

Prepared in Accordance with Sec. 102(2) (C) of P.L. 91-190

SUMMARY SHEET

I. Final (x).

II. Soil Conservation Service.

III. Administrative.

I Supplied in accordance with Subcommittee instructions.

2 The complete environmental statement may be found in the files of the committee.

28-451-74 7
86

IV. A watershed protection and flood prevention project located in Marion and

Taylor Counties, West Virginia, to be carried out by sponsoring local

organizations with federal assistance under the provisions of Public Law

566. The project will consist of conservation land treatment measures, one

single-purpose floodwater retarding structure, and 7,030 feet of channel

work to include levees, floodwalls and stream channel work. Planned measures will provide flood and sediment protection primarily to residences and

industrial properties and transportation facilties in the Prickett Creek

Watershed. Public access and applicable recreation facilities will also be

provided at the floodwater retarding structure in order that the 30-acre

sediment lake may be used for incidental recreation.

V. Probable favorable effects of the project will be flood and sediment protection

to improvements in the watershed and downstream areas of the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers, stabilization of critically eroding areas, provision

for a year-around fishery for public use, creation of job opportunities, and

the decrease of migration of young people to metropolitan areas. Probable

adverse effects will consist of the relocation of 17 houses, five mobile homes,

and other improvements; elimination of 3,500 feet of free-flowing stream as

an aesthetic resource; creation of more vehicular traffic, noise, and litter;

temporary increase of turbidity and sedimentation of stream water during

construction; increased fire hazard around floodwater retarding structure;

and decreased protective vegetation due to residential, commercial, and industrial development.

VI. Alternatives considered were flood proofing, flood plain management, flood

insurance, land treatment measures only, several combinations of structural measures, and no project.

VII. Comments were received from the following federal and state agencies:

Department of the Army.

Department of the Interior.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Department of Commerce.

The Appalachian Regional Commission.

Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

West Virginia State Soil Conservation Committee.

West Virginia Federal State Relations Office.

VIII. Draft Statement received by CEQ on April 17, 1972.

Final Statement transmitted to CEQ on February 21, 1973.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Parker of the Soil Conservation Service will

speak to Prickett Creek.

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Prickett

Creek Watershed is located in Marion and Taylor Counties, W. Va.,

approximately 5 miles east of Fairmont. Included in the watershed

area of 15,600 acres are the small rural communities of Winfield and

Meadowdale. They are located right on the creek itself, here and

here [indicating]. Prickett Creek flows in a northwesterly direction

joining the Monongahela River at Prickett Fort.

The topography of the watershed is characterized by steep slopes,

narrow divides, and narrow, relatively flat flood plains.

Land use in this rural watershed is rapidly changing. At present

it is approximately 2 percent cropland, 46 percent grassland, 48 percent forest, and 4 percent miscellaneous. Small family farms are being

abandoned and reverting to woodland or to urban uses. There are

73 farms in the watershed with only 9 operated on a full-time basis.

The land in the flood plain is being used primarily for small rural

communities and low-intensity agriculture. The value of the bottomland is approximately $500 per acre and all land is in private

ownership.
87

Frequent flooding and sediment damage to residences, businesses,

roads, bridges, lawns, gardens, and utilities are the primary problems

in the watershed. Under present conditions, properties which are subject to damage include 113 homes, 6 businesses, 1 church, and 16

garages. The sediment yield from the watershed is about 13,800 tons

annually which results in sediment damages in and along the Monongahela River. Such damages reduce the quality of the fish habitat,

esthetics, channel capacity, water quality, and the navigability of the

Monongahela River. Sediment also damages homes, businesses, transportation facilities, and agricultural lanes. It depletes the capacity of

streams and reservoirs, destroying fish resources, and impairing public

and industrial uses.

The planned project consists of accelerated land treatment practices

• supplemented by a floodwater retarding structure and about 1 mile

of stream channel work and levees. The channel work is located in

this section, near the two small communities [indicating]. The land

treatment practices consist of such practices as grassed waterways,

crop residence management, forest land management, tree planting,

and woodland grazing control.

Installation of the project measures will provide for reduction of

damages amounting to about 82 percent. Flooding from the 100-year

frequency flood event will be eliminated for nearly all of the properties presently subject to damage. Sediments leaving the watershed

and entering the Monongahela River will be reduced to 8,800 tons

annually.

Incidental recreation use of the 30-acre sediment lake, which will

have adequate parking and sanitary facilities, will increase the number of people visiting the area. Average annual fisherman days, considering that use of the lake will decrease as sediment accumulates,

are estimated to be 3,800.

The total installation cost of the project is estimated at about

$1.6 million of which $1.2 million are Public Law 566 funds or about

77 percent of the total costs.

Benefits resulting from the project are estimated to be $123,300 annually, with a resultant benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1.

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to try

to answer any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Are there questions?

Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZWACII. You list 73 farms of about 67 acres. Are there actually

73 farmers 

Mr. PARKER. In the watershed?

Mr. ZWACH. Yes, in this area that you list, or are most of those places

vacant and is it larger operations? What is the situation?

Mr. PARKER. As Imentioned, a lot of the farms, small family farms,

are reverting back to urban or forest land. The thing that is happening, as near as I can tell, is that a lot of them are part-time farmers,

with off-farm employment in the city of Fairmont, in industry and.

manufacturing. The major agricultural enterprise is livestock produc-
88

tion rather than crops. So it is only about seven, I believe I said, fulltime operating farms, and the rest of them are part-time farmers.

Mr. ZWACH. It is 48 percent woodland, you said?

Mr. PARKER. Quite a bit of forest land, that is right.

Mr. ZWACH. So grass and woodland practically makes up the total

project?

Mr. PARKER. Yes, it does. There is no major urban area in the watershed. The population, as I said, is about 4,000 people, so these communities are small rural communities.

Mr. ZWACH. What does the channeling involve?

Mr. PARKER. Well, cleanout and some diking of about 7,000 feet of

channel. It is to clean out and try to achieve an acceptable level of

flood protection in these areas where property and life is subject to

flood damage. The dam itself did not give us enough protection down

here to do that [indicating on the map].

Mr. ZWACH. The retaining structure up above are earthen?

Mr. PARKER. This is an earthen dam, right.

Mr. ZWACH. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Yes, Mr. Teague.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, this is not a question, it is a little speech

I have made several times in the past to the people from the Soil

Conservation Service.

With rare exceptions, the projects you bring to us do have merit and

due to the precedents we have established here, if they meet our qualifications, it is very difficult for us to disapprove of them. But I am concerned about this. We have and will continue to have only a limited

amount of money to spend on these projects. We approve projects

like you have brought us here today, or we may approve them

'

and

b

people at home get all excited and think they are going to be built

in the next year or two. I have three in my district, one of which was

authorized 3 or 4 years ago and the others 6 or 8 years ago, and they

are still years from completion. So I would hope that you would not

bring us too many projects.

I repeat, they are difficult for us to turn down if they meet our

qualifications, and they raise false hopes in the minds of the people at

home in the areas in which they live. Inasmuch as we are limited in the

money that we have available to spend, I reiterate that you people

endeavor to bring us a few, as few as possible, and only the very best

ones.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. DAVEY. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are experiencing a

stretch-out in planning time which obviously is going to result in

fewer projects coming before the committee. But there are several

reasons for this: The Uniform Relocation Act has added additional

requirements for planning. The National Environmental Policy Act

is requiring us to go into greater depth in our planning analysis than

ever before. If the new principles and standards go in this will require

some additional input. So I would think that in the long run, we may

well have fewer projects to bring to you.

Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you. I would hope that would prove to be the

case. It is easy for me to say because I have none that I know of

•
89

•

pending in my district, but I realize the pressure that all of us get

when we do have proposed projects in our congressional districts.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Barlow, did you want to be heard on this project?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. BARLOW, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. BARLOW. Yes, sir. This project is going to provide flood protection to a small urban area. We hope that in these projects in the future,

flood plain zoning ordinances could be required of the local governments before the project is authorized and installed. The reason is

that flooding is only going to be reduced, it is not going to be prevented by these projects. The reduction in flooding gives people a

false sense of security, development takes place in the flood plain.

When a flood hits and it is going to hit at some point—we have had

three 100-year floods in the central Atlantic region in the last 5 years—

there are going to be damages and relief assistance which are going to

have to be paid for by the Federal Government. It would seem to us

to be an improvement in the watershed program if flood plain zoning

ordinances were implemented before the project is installed.

Just one other further point following along on what you have said.

sir. There has been a stretch-out in these programs. One of the reasons

for the stretch-out is that a great many of these projects were planned

back in the 1950's and early 1960's before the tremendous inflation of

costs hit the construction industry. There was considerable engineering planned then that is requiring two and three times the amount

of money today than was anticipated at that time. This is a major

factor for a lot of the stretch-out. If we have the Water Resources

Council's principles and standards implemented with their high discount rate applied retroactively to this backlog of projects, a lot of

these will be replanned with less intensive structural measures in them.

The watershed appropriation will go farther because less money will

be spent on each individual project. As a result, you will see much

greater activity throughout this whole program.

The CIIAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

I would like to comment on that. I think you have raised an issue

that must be met by the Congress. Whether the answer is to pass legislation prohibiting people from occupying these flood lands or whether

it is to apply a more difficult process of refusing to give them any help

when they suffer a flood that they know is coming, it is a harsh undertaking even with 

Mr. BARLOW. No that is not what I am saying.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not saying that you said it. I said that Con-

()Tess has to make that decision between either keeping people from

establishing towns in these areas or, on the other hand, simply saying

that you can go ahead and live where you please, but we are not going

to take care of you when the flood comes, because we know the floods

will come. Most of the cities in the United States are built where there

is going to be some degree of flooding and our Government has gotten

more and more into the field of taking care of everybody who suffers
90

a catastrophe. Of course, I recall back in the days when Davy Crockett

was a Member of Congress, he is supposed to have been upbraided

by one of his constituents for having voted for a $10,000 appropriation to give aid to people in Baltimore who had had their town burned

or part of the town. He had voted for this $10,000 appropriation and

his constituents were supposed to have upbraided him and said, if we

wanted to give to those people, that is our function and not that of the

Government. That is pure charity and if we want to take care of them.

that is up to us and it is not the obligation of the U.S. Government. Of

course, we have reached a point where every time we have in my district or anybody else's, a flood or tornado, hurricane, earthquake, why,

we rush to the Federal Government to take care of the victims.

Now, in this flooding, everybody knows that there are going to be

floods. Maybe the Government should post some kind of notice about

these floods. Maybe it is the function of the Government to keep people

from living where they are in danger. But it comes to a question of how

much, how far we want to go to try to control people's lives and

how far we want to go toward just saying, all right, take the consequences if you are improvident.

I think you are raising a very legitimate and very proper question.

I think it is one that the Congress must decide on. I do not think it

has to decide that we are not going to let anybody live there. That has

the tinge of communism, of course, trying to say to this individual, you

cannot take this risk. But if they want to take the risk, maybe we.

ought to let them take the risk and not come along and give them

insurance against their improvident location.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Chairman, following that, when Crockett

voted for the people of Baltimore, he later decided to run for the.

Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. No, he ran for reelection in the House. He came

out and got beat.

Mr. STUBBLEFiELD. He made a speech in west Tennessee, about 304

miles from my home town. He said, if you people from Tennessee reelect me to Congress, he said, I will go to Congress to represent you

well. He said, if you do not vote for me, I am going to Texas and you

can go to hell.

So, Mr. de la Garza says Crockett caused trouble down there.

Mr. DE LA GARZA. Do not say anything about troublemaking.

Mr. BARLOW. These projects reduce flooding, they do not prevent

flooding. If we are going to be putting the money out to reduce flooding, we ought at the same time to be doing something to discourage

people from moving down into that flood plain on the assumption that

flooding is prevented, because it is not prevented; it is only reduced.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Barlow. If there are not other

questions 

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Department a. short question.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. On the report up here about the lack of quality

fishing waters in this area being &problem, you say,

The Monongahela and Tygart Valley Rivers, as well as Cheat and Tygart

Lakes, have considerable acreage of water, but fishing is limited due to the

acid mine drainage and other pollution.

•

•

•=1,
91

•

Does this solve any of that mine drainage problem in these rivers?

Mr. PARKER. Yes. That was an issue that came to our attention. You

know that there are acid mining problems in 

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Are these old abandoned mines mostly?

Mr. PARKER. There are none in this particular watershed that will

affect the sediment pool for which we propose facilities for some fishing to be done. There was some mining in the area that has been shut

down and the land is beina

b

reclaimed. The report states, it is essentially reclaimed now. So in this watershed there is not the problem of

mine wastes affecting the water quality situation.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. I ask that question because I have a project down

in my district which is being held up because we do not know how to

handle this mine water, what to do with it. I thought maybe you had

developed some plan to get it out.

Mr. PARKER. There are watersheds in some areas in West Virginia,

Kentucky, and throughout the Appalachian region that have that

problem. But it apparently is not a problem in this particular watershed.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Now, without objection, we will insert the statements of our colleagues, Congressman Staggers and Congressman Mollohan, both of

warn made statements in connection with this watershed.

[The above referred to statements follows:]

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D.C., October 19, 1973.

Hon. W. R. POAGE,

Chairman, House Agriculture Committee,

Longworth Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your invitation to appear at

the hearing on Prickett Creek Watershed on Tuesday, October 30, 1973, 10 :00

AM, Room 1301 Longworth Building.

Because of hearings scheduled before our Interstate and Foreign Commerce

Committee, I deeply regret it will not be possible for me to attend the Prickett

Creek hearing personally. However, I should like to submit the following statement, and request that it be included in the record:

The watershed includes more than 15,000 acres in the two Counties of Taylor

and Marion, West Virginia. Taylor County is a part of the Second Congressional

• District, which it is my pleasure to represent. The area is nearly half woodland.

A large part of the remainder is grassland. There are nine active farms and

about a hundred homes in the area.

The problem presented by the area is mainly soil erosion and flood damage.

Prickett Creek is a tributary of the Monongahela River, noted for its contribution to flooding all down the Monongahela and into the Ohio River. Soil erosion

adds to the silt deposit and the necessary dredging.

The project proposes measures which would control the flooding and the soil

erosion. Of immediate interest to the two Counties named, it would make available for residential and industrial development the area which needs space for

expansion.

The Prickett Creek project has been elaborately studied by the United States

Environmental Commission. The Commission has recommended that the project

be included in the 1974 Agriculture Appropriation. All other agencies and organizations having an interest in the project have likewise approved and endorsed

in it, including the two Counties in which it is located.

Further, the Senate Agriculture Committee has approved $1,208,000 to fund

the project in its appropriation measure.

Without going further into the details, which are adequately set forth in other

testimony before your Committee, I would like to add my endorsement and my re-
92

quest that your Committee give favorable consideration to the Prickett Creek

Project.

Thanking you again and with best wishes and kind personal regards to you

and your members.

Respectfully submitted,

HARLEY 0. STAGGERS.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT H. MOLLOHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly endorse the watershed development plan for

Prickett Creek, West Virginia, in my Congressional District, that you and your

colleagues are reviewing today.

This project, as conceived by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, has a modest

price tag of $1,561,000 and would offer numerous benefits to a watershed area of

15,580 acres.

Perhaps most important to the people who live in the watershed area is the

flood protection that would accrue from this project. As projected by SCS,

100-year flood level protection would be provided to the first floor levels of practically every structure in the watershed. This would be of tremendous benefit in

reducing personal hardships and costly repairs. It should also be noted that this

project is one of sixteen that were recommended in the "Report for Development

of Water Resources in Appalachia", which urged early implementation of the

Prickett Creek plan because of its potential for fostering growth in the area. In

fact, the project would extend 100-year level flood protection to many areas suitable for future residential and other development.

Of equal importance is land treatment measures proposed in the plan. They

will include vegetative practices to reduce runoff and improve soil, water and

wildlife resources. These improvements are of considerable importance because of

the opportunities they offer for enhanced recreational uses of the land and

water resources of the watershed. It should also be noted that a considerable

portion of the land treatment costs will be borne by local groups and authorities.

The U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the Marion County Court, the Monongahela Soil Conservation District and the Tygarts Valley Soil Conservation District are to be commended for their excellent performance in preparing such a

thorough watershed program for Prickett Creek. I believe this project will prove

of great benefit to this part of my Congressional District and respectfully urge

you and your colleagues to look favorably toward approving the plan as presented to this Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further statement to be made about

this watershed? [No response.]

If not, that will end this PrickPft Creek watershed.

Now, that completes the projects that were before us, but it has

been brought to the Chair's attention that--there always are, we

never pass over a project but what we are called upon later to review

it. I understand that the Department wants to review the Truth or

Consequences-Williamsburg Arroyos watershed and they have some

slides they would like to show us. I think this would be a proper time

to show the slides.

TRUTH OR. CONSEQUENCES-WILLIAMSBURG ARROYOS,

NEW MEXICO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE,

Washington, D.C.

Hon W. R. POAGE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Conservation and Credit, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives.

DEAR Mn. POAGE : During the watershed hearings on May 8 and 21, 1973, the

Subcommittee raised questions relating to the local contribution and the land

treatment program for the T or C-Williamsburg Arroyos Watershed project in

New Mexico.
93

We have reviewed the situation in this watershed and offer the following comments which may help the Subcommittee in its deliberations. Also, since the hearings, Mr. Karl R. Klingelhofer, Director of our Watershed Planning Divi- sion, has visited the watershed. He brought back about 20 color slides which are available for your viewing.

The typical watershed in New Mexico consists of varying acreages of crop- land in the flood plain, usually irrigated, along with a small town or village in the flood plain subject to flood damages. Runoff from considerable acreages of public lands normally drains across and through these lower areas. The runoff

waters create flash flooding and deposition of large volumes of sediment on the low lying areas and into the larger rivers and streams.

The T or C-Williamsburg Arroyos Watershed fits this description of a typical

New Mexico watershed with one exception—there is only a small acreage of cropland between the town and the rangeland. The flood plain is too narrow to include urban area and developed cropland between the river and the beginning of the rangeland.

In the typical project, land treatment on irrigated cropland accounts for the major part of the local contribution. The lack of a significant area of irrigated land, and thus little needs for major land treatment in this watershed results in

a small local contribution. The rangeland is used so extensively that there is little opportunity for expending local funds for land treatment. This project does not contain recreation or fish and wildlife project measures that would re- quire significant local inputs. Structural measures for flood prevention are the major features. As you know, the Watershed Protection and Flood Preven- tion Act requires that federal funds provide all costs for construction of flood prevention measures. Because of the unique situation that exists, the project has a high percentage of the cost being borne by Public Law 566.

At the inception of this project we realized that it involved primarily flood protection for the City of Truth or Consequences and the Village of Williams- burg. Because of this we consulted with the Corps of Engineers prior to planning to determine which agency's program would be most appropriate or best suited to provide the needed flood protection. It was agreed at that time that the Soil Conservation Service should provide the assistance, inasmuch as the problem had been determined to be of minor magnitude. A copy of Colonel Gerald W. Homann's letter of concurrence is enclosed.

Sixty percent of the watershed area is under the control of the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management. We understand that the Bureau allows permittees to graze up to two head of cattle per section on a year round basis. More than this places a severe burden on the sparse vegetation of this

area. Three years ago the annual rainfall was 3.45 inches. Permittees cannot be expected to expend very sizeable amounts of private funds for land treatment on public lands. If the BLM were to expend more funds for land treatment on the rangeland, this would only increase the federal contribution to the project and not improve the federal-local ratio.

4 

Our specialists who are familiar with the management and use of lands in the arid area state that the most effective and practical treatment for such lands is improved management. An important practice is deferred grazing which in addition to limiting the number of livestock per acre, completely defers graz- ing during the summer months on this type of range.

The local people have provided strong support for this project from the begin- ning. They hired a private engineering firm to help prepare their application. In anticipation of project approval the Village of Williamsburg has proceeded in acquiring easements for the works of improvements within their area of re- sponsibility. The City of Truth or Consequences has set priorities and is also proceeding with arrangements to carry out their responsibilities.

We realize that small watershed projects of this nature (19,000 acres) which involve only flood prevention and limited amounts of land treatment practices to be installed result in disproportionate amounts of financial assistance. However,

we believe this project merits assistance under Public Law 566 since the prob- lem is from flash floods and sediment coming from a series of small watersheds draining through the two small towns.

For these reasons we recommend that the Subcommittee give further consider- ation to this project. If you wish, we will be prepared to answer any additional questions the Subcommittee may have on October 30, 1973, at the hearing sched- uled for new projects.

Sincerely,

KENNETH E. GRANT, Administrator.
94

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

ALBUQUERQUE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS,

Albuquerque, N. Mem., April 19, 1966.

Mr. EINAR L. ROGET,

State Conservationist, New Mexico State Office, Soil Conservation Service, Albuquerque, N. Mex.

DEAR MR. ROGET : Reference is made to your letter, dated April 15, 1966, relative to the Federal responsibility for protecting the city of Truth or Consequences

and the community of Williamsburg from floods originating in the small watersheds west and northwest of these urban areas.

This is to confirm agreement reached by our representatives at the meeting on

April 6, 1966 that the Soil Conservation Service should provide the necessary

protection to the urbanized areas referred to above under Public Law 566, inasmuch as the problem has been determined to be of minor magnitude.

The opportunity to coordinate our investigations with your program under

public Law 566 is appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

GERALD W. HOMANN, Colonel, CE,

District Engineer.

The CHAIRMAN. I would be happy to have any statement you care

to make concerning these. I do not know if you want to make them before or after.

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I had the opportunity to visit this watershed this summer and I

spent just 2 or 3 hours driving through the watershed, a windshield

survey. So I do not pose to be an instant expert. I did have my camera

with me, and I snapped some pictures that I thought might be of interest to the committee in any further deliberations they may wish to

take on this watershed.

There are just a couple of points that we might make to help reorient ourselves. I do not know whether you can still see this map or

not, but the Rio Grande runs along the base of the outlet of the watershed. The town of Truth or Consequences and the town of Williamsburg lie immediately alongside the Rio Grande. U.S. 85 goes right

through the center of these two small towns. Then, as we move up.

range, Interstate, 1-25, crosses the watershed. Then we have the contributing area of rangeland which drains down across both highways

through the towns into the Rio Grande.

Now, our picture-taking sequence started coming from the north

down 1-25. I took two shots from 1-25, where this first subwatershed,

about 1 square mile, drains under the highway down toward the town

of Truth or Consequences. This is a view looking upstream of the

rangeland, the contributing area that will drain down toward this

first structure. This entire watershed is a small watershed. It is only

19,000 acres. It has many small tributaries, and the flood plain along

the Rio Grande is narrow. There is just not much room on the flatland

for both town and agriculture, intensive agriculture. It is a real dry

land area. The average annual rainfall in the watershed is less than

10 inches. Three years ago, they had less than 31/2 inches of rain in 1

year and we were told that this year, the range country was looking as

good as it had in the past 20 years.

But back to this first picture, now, it is looking upstream from 1-25

and this is the drainage area for site 2—A-1, with a drainage area of 1

square mile.

Turning around, looking downstream, looking over the town of

Truth or Consequences. It is sort of hidden by some intermediate
95

ridges. This first structure, 2—A-1, would be located downstream from here, before we get to the mountain range, which is on the other side of the Rio Grande.

Mr. ZWACH. IS this where the flood, is this land flooded under certain conditions?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. The flat area before we get to the Rio Grande does flood, and we have high concentrations of sediment coming out of the rangeland. The structure site would be about 2,000 feet down- stream of the highway.

Now for this picture we have moved down 1-25 to the next stream crossing, and this looks upstream, the contributing drainage area for this structure site, 3—C, which again is a small tributary watershed of 1.3 square miles.

Looking downstream from the highway, this is the arroyo bottom, the stream channel; you can see it is wide, bare, and does not have too much cover. It will not support much of a flow of water without carry- ing sediment with it. There is some active gullying taking place on that little knob that sticks out there, sort of in the right-center por- tion of the picture. The structure site, 3—C, would be about 2,000 feet downstream from the highway here and again, the town of Truth or Consequences is in the background. You cannot see it, but it is this side of the mountain range and also the Rio Grande.

Moving down 1-25, we cross drainage area 6. Here we are looking

upstream from the highway, structure site 6—B is downstream. The flood pool of this structure site backs up almost to 1-25.

This next view happens to be slightly to the left as we are looking

downstream and it shows a raw escarpment that is subject to wind and geologic erosion and does contribute additional sediment to the flood flows.

Here we can begin to see some of the scattered homes,and I am not

sure whether this is really Williamsburg or Truth or Consequences.

The two towns mesh together. But it is rather thinly populated and is

a rural setting.

This picture is from the same site, swinging slightly to the right, showing the actual bottom of the arroyo where the water flows. The dam site would be just down stream slightly.

Now, we move on down 1-25, where we have a series of four pietures. This is the major contributing drainage area in the watershed.

It has a drainage area of 20 square miles and site 8—C, a floodwater

retarding site, would be located about three-fourths of a mile upstream from the interstate highway. Looking up the arroyo here, 

about three-fourths of a mile, is where the dam site would be. The

town had considered this for a multiple-purpose site with the idea of possibly including recreation, but it was decided, after studies, that

there just was not sufficient water yield to support a permanent pool

that could be used for recreation and the idea had to be dropped. This would be a single-purpose floodwater retarding structure with a dry dam except during times of storm flow.

This next view is still looking upstream

'

but slightly to the right. Again, we have some vertical escarpments there subject to wind and

water erosion.

Looking downstream from this same location, we are looking over

'Truth or Consequences, Williamsburg—this is probably more Wil-
96

liamsburg than it is Truth or Consequences and this is the arroyo

bottom. The water comes under 1-25 and can spread out and go in

almost any direction, carrying high amounts of sediment with it.

There will be some channel work needed to confine these flows as

they are taken down through town, even though a structure is installed. This would go into what is called channel 800 in the work

plan.

This view is from that same location, looking slightly to the left,

sort of across the top of Williamsburg and more toward Truth or

Consequences. There had been some old gravel pit activity in that

area and it is quite sparsely settled.

This next picture is taken opposite the center line of structure 8—C,

the largest structure. The center line of the dam would tie into this

ridge. There happened to be two cows there looking for something

to eat at the time and I included them in the picture—cows, steers,

critters, whatever we might call them. As you can see, edible vegetation is sparse in this area.

We are moving farther upstream now of this main tributary watershed. This particular picture is just halfway up the flood pool of

structure 8—C. This is a side tributary which would empty into the

flood pool. Here we have active gully erosion coming from the sides,

again contributing large amounts of sediment.

We have moved on up this major tributary now, probably 1 mile

or 11/4 miles on farther upstream. Our local conservationist pointed

this out to me as an area of typical upland range that existed this

year when it was supposed to be in good condition. However, it is

overgrazed. Overgrazing is one of the problems. What is there has

been eaten down very close to the ground.

Swinging around and looking across the valley from the same b b

location, we see the valleyside rather sparse cover and a wide valley

bottom.

Swinging a little bit to the right, looking almost directly across the

valley, we see that there are steep sides. There is active erosion taking

place on these hillsides, and rather large amounts of sediment storage

must be provided in the floodwater retarding structures to hold this.

I was told the normal vegetation in this area was burrow brush,

creosote brush, mesquite, black gramm as being the primary forage,

and mormonte.

This is looking directly up the valley from this same location, which

is, I was told somewhat typical of the entire upstream watershed.

Now we move down into town and I have a set of three pictures

here that were taken at the intersection of Cook Street and U.S. 85.

U.S. 85 goes right up through the center of the two towns. This is

just north of the rodeo grounds looking toward the Rio Grande and

the mountains on the other side of the Rio Grande, and across some

irrigated alfalfa fields.

Swinging a little bit to the left shows some of the local business,

which is typical along the highway.

This view is looking directly up U.S. 85. This probably was

about near the city limits between Williamsburg and Truth or Consequences. Truth or Consequences would be in the distance. It is very

flat topography, as you can see, and these tributary streams can just
97

cross most anyplace that they wish. They come rushing out from the

uplands.

I thought I had one more slide. It is not dropping down, apparently,

but there was one more picture taken right down on the bank of the

Rio Grande, looking back toward town across some irrigated alfalfa

fields. It dial not show anything that was much different than what I

have been showing you.

They do have serious local problems in this area which are caused by

runoff from a small, steep, agricultural watershed. The local people

are extremely enthusiastic about this project and there is strong local

support for the project. The facts and the information on the project

I think we have provided you in previous testimony, but thought you

might wish to see these pictures, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much.

Was there anything else that anybody wanted to say about this

Truth or Consequences watershed?

Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BERGLAND. I have been through that part of the country and

never seen any evidence of much rainfall. What causes these floods?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. They have these very intense thunderstorms,

generally during the summer, and I guess 75 percent. of the annual rainfall may occur at once. Just a torrent of water and mud comes rushing out of these hills and causes very severe damage.

Mr. BERGLAND. These are flash floods?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Flash floods.

Mr. BERGLAND. Do they occur every year, or how often?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Well, quite frequently. It seems as though I

remember they have had floods 20 out of the last 21 years. I will just

havevto go back. They are quite frequent.

Mr. PARKER. I find something in the work plan that says that there

have been -21 damaging floods during the past 20 years, which would

mean almost annually.

Mr. BERGLAND. Damage to the topography or to personal property,

or what sort of damage is sustained?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. There are 2,000 people that would be benefited

by this project down on the flat land.

Mr. BERGLAND. It is the people who live in the villages of Truth or

Consequences or Williamsburg?

Mr. KLINGELHOFER. Yes, and the irrigated farmland along the riverbank.

Mr. DAVEY. These types of rains are rather characteristic of thei

desert country. While they may only have 3

'

4, or 5 inches a year, frequently, they will get most of that in one storm and it does represent

real serious flooding problems, although it is hard to imagine when you

are driving through it, as dry as it is.

This is an agricultural-based community. It is a trade center for

much of the livestock area around it. I know the committee expressed

some concern about the low input on land treatment, but this is an extensive type of development. There is not really much opportunity

for high-cost inputs in here. The carrying capacities are very low.
98

Some of the better conservation measures represent, really, deferred

grazing and the like and resting of the range. Seeding, fertilizing,

and the like are really not an economical situation in this kind of instance. I think that is one reason that explains the low input from the

land treatment side.

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other comment?

[No response.]

The CHAIRMAN. If not, thank you very much.

That will conclude the hearing. The committee will go into a business session. We thank our guests and we are going into a business

session now.

[Whereupon, at 11 :40 a.m., the committee proceeded into business

session.]

0

J

•
4re

1r