Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-12-19

Discussion of the Government en-
gineers' report on flood control and
President Coolidge's references to the
subject centers about the financing
plan. Spokesman for the lower Mis-
sissippi Valley warmly protest against
the share of the burden proposed to
be allotted to States directly affected,
while from other sections of the coun-
try come opinions that the division OF
cost approved by the President is logl-
cal and fair.
Hailing the engineers plan as sane
and adequate for the reduction of the
floods which devastate the valley,
cramp its prosperity and limit its
progress, the New Orleans Item, new
ertheless, makes the protest: so far
as Louisiana is concerned, the ex-
pense allotment seems to us entirely
beyond consideration. The three or
four States at the bottom of the val
ley are called upon for about S3f,oOO,-
600 for construction alone. The great
bulk of that would fall on Louisiana
alone, because two of the spillWays,
including the biggest OF them, are
within our borders, and most OF the
third spillway is also in Louisiana
and we also have the greatest leVee
mileage to be strengthened. On top OF
that construction coSt-whateyer IL
may becomes the cost of the land
for rights of way for the spillways
and for levee widening-probably the
biggest item in the whole budget. It
does not seem to us that the cost to
this State alone-for holding the
floods of 81 other States-can be less
than $4,000 900, and it might be
more"
There is throughout the country
a strong public sentiment, voiced not
only in the recent hearing before the
House flood control committee, but
alphabetically ever since the disaster
last Spring." according to the San
Antonio Express, that curbing the
Mississippi is a national undertaking,
properly to be paid for out of the Fed
eral Treasury. Many citizens feel
that the States and communities al
ready have done their part. Fighting
back the waters poured upon them
from 81 States and two Canadian
provinces, these jurisdictions have
through perhaps rs years-spent an
average of So for every one which
Congress has laid out upon flood con-
troll. Yet the problem is undeniably
national in scope"
The Presidents reference to irriga-
ton projects requiring the payment of
one.third of the cost by adjoining land,
and comparison with the flood plan by
which the States will pay 20 per cent
of the cost of certain work, IS crltl-
ciZed by the Louisville Courler-Journal
with the statement: 1.-THE d1ssImllaTlty
is so palpable as to suggest a contrast
rather than a comparison. irrigation
nothing
but the land irrigated, the value OF
matchmaking to begin Wtth-pre-
sumahly is enhanced at least to an
amount equal to the cost, else no one
would want it, and owners or pro-
spective settlers can take it or leave 1t.
Flood control is not primarily INTENDED
to confer a benefit, but to prevent dis
aster to land already occupied and re-
uuiring no governmental expenditure
to enhance it's inherent value or pro-
ductivity. There probably will be
no disposition to make the extra cost
on the landowners unbearable; yet the
comparison of their plight with prof.
ects to force the desert TO bloom may
cause them a little uneasiness.
millions of dollars in bond issues
were owed by those landowners, says
the Little Rock Arkansas Democrat.
Gwen more millions were owed by
those who were forced to borrow to
pay other taxes as well as for the
actual operation of those farms. In
short, that area already was hard
pressed when the flood came. Under
such conditions why should not the
Government bear the entire cost?"
The New York Sun takes into ac-
count the argument that 1.-THE Govern
ment should pay for flood control in
the Mississippi as it does for harbor
work in navigable waters" but it con-
tends: 1.-THE two projects do not stand
on the same footing. Federal au-
thority over navigable waters is neces-
sary unless the country is to abandon
an essential part of the national de-
Tense. Flood control will benefit the
entire country incidentally but pri-
marily it will benefit those who own
bottom lands along the rivers, much of
which is worthless without flood con-
troll and extremely valuable with it,
X X X
Referring to the attack upon the
plan by Senator Halves of Missouri.
the st. Paul Dispatch argues: THE
Army plan of requiring localities to
pay 20 per cent of the costs and the
States to provide the lands needed is
fair and reasonable. The chief weak
ness of the cooperative method is that
it has resulted in weak protection ad-
jacent to the poorer districts This is
met in the Army plan provision for
maintenance of parts of the levee
system at Federal expense in the dis
erection of the Secretary of War;"
The Albany Evening News ex-
presses the view that the Federal Gov
eminent proposal appears on the
surface to be reasonable" The San
Bernardino Sun thinks there is logic
in the contention of the President"
and that wary probably the country,
with the "a option Of the States In