navigation the full project dimensions, are only generally available now on the river between Kansas City and the mouth. A general comprehensive plan for the control of floods in the Missouri River Basin was authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1938 and modified later by that of 1941, to include the Harlan County Reservoir on the Republican River, Nebr., and such other supplemental flood-control works on the Republican River as the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may find advisable. Included in the comprehensive plan are the Harlan County Reservoir, the Tuttle Creek Reservoir on the Big Blue River, and the Kanopolis Reservoir on the Smoke Hill River, which will contribute to the reduction of flood stages at Kansas City. Of these, the Kanopolis Reservoir was 60-percent completed when further work on the project was deferred on account of a directive of the War Production Board late in 1942. This reservoir is about 375 miles above the Kansas Citys and, when completed, will provide flood control along Smoky Hill and Kansas Rivers with substantial floodcontrol benefits at the Kansas Citys. The existing project for the control of floods at the Kansas Citys was authorized in the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, at the estimated construction cost of not to exceed $10,000,000 and estimated cost of lands and damages of $8,000,000, and the general plans for improvements in the various districts of the project are very similar. I will describe them as I proceed. The CHAIRMAN. Without interrupting you, has any work been done under the authorization of June 22, 1936? Colonel GOETHALS. Yes. In the district known as the Fairfax-Jersey Creek district, which is now being indicated to you on the map, along that bend of the river, just before the Kansas River comes in to join the Missouri River. That work was under construction when the War Production Board issued its general stop order at the end of 1942, but the work was allowed to proceed to substantial completion so that now it has all been done with the exception of providing some of the pumps for drainage. The CHAIRMAN. And that is located within the metropolitan area? Colonel GOETHALS. A good deal of it is in the metropolitan area. The CHAIRMAN. And what type of work is that? Colonel GOETHALS. Levee raising and levee grading. The CHAIRMAN. And local interests were required to furnish rightsof-way? Colonel GOETHALS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. While you are proceeding: What was the desire of local interests-there is a local interest resolution in this report, in the present report which is submitted with respect to the authorized project of 1936 or any modification of that project? Colonel GOETHALS. The local interests desired that improvements for greater flood protection to the Kansas Citys be constructed. They favored the same plan of reservoirs that has just been described, and they also generally favored the introduction of the so-called Liberty Bend cut-off, which is now being indicated to you. The CHAIRMAN. Is the Liberty Bend cut-off in the metropolitan area or below it? Colonel GOETHALS. It is downstream from the metropolitan area of the two cities. The town of Liberty is just off the map above the corner where you will note the bend. Liberty is a separate, small town. The CHAIRMAN. Is the Liberty Bend cut-off embraced in this report? Colonel GOETHALS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And is provided for? Colonel GOETHALS. It is provided for in the recommended work. Colonel GOETHALS. It has been recommended in a report, and authorization has been provided by Congress. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. Colonel GOETHALS. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring out what local interests have done for themselves in this region, and under various other Federal appropriations, because I think it is quite important to state these items. Some work was undertaken by the Works Progress Administration, with the cooperation of the War Department, acting in a consultant capacity in the Kaw Valley drainage district. The cost of this work in the Argentine, the Armourdale and central industrial districts was about $2,000,000. The Works Progress Administration, in cooperation with the city of Kansas City, Mo., has also done some channel improvement work on the Big Blue River and Brush Creek, at a total cost of $10,100,000. Most of the previous flood protection work in the vicinity of the Kansas Citys, however, has been done by local interests. The work was started after the disastrous flood of 1903, and the degree of protection afforded by these works varies a great deal, due to the fact that they were not controlled by any sort of a coordinated plan. Nevertheless they made valuable investments totaling some $7,000,000, consisting primarily of levees, flood walls, and highway and railway embankments along both the Kansas River and the Missouri River. There is another thing that I would like to say about the flood situation: The highest flood stage was in 1844, although lacking any reliable measurement; the highest of accurate record was in 1903. In 1903 the flood caused damage estimated at $23,000,000 with a loss of 19 lives. The flood situation at the Kansas Citys is more serious than any other in the Missouri River Basin in this respect. I might add to that that there are 13 railroads, 3 airlines, 2 barge lines, 7 Federal highways, and 7 State highways serving the Kansas Citys and all the transportation systems are essentially vulnerable to floods. Out of the study that has been made comes the plan of improvement for which the report gives a complete financial distribution break-down. With the exception of the work already referred to in the Fairfax-Jersey Creek area, it will be essentially new and it contains rectification of levees in all the principal urban and levee districts on both rivers, and also provides for a cut-off through the Liberty Bend, which is now being indicated to you on the map. The valley of Big Blue River was carefully investigated but it was found economically unfeasible to provide for any major flood control in that valley with the exception of giving levee protection to the area occupied by the Union Wire Rope Corporation. The total Federal investment amounts to $15,645,000. And the non-Federal investment for land, damages and so forth, except for the amount of land to be acquired by the Federal Government for the Liberty Bend cut-off channel amounts to $2,170,000 with a favorable cost to benefit ratio of more than 1 to 4. The local cooperation is the customary and usual type and requires no special comment, except that I want to bring out two special conditions in the Liberty Bend cut-off that have caused some concern on the part of local interests. Liberty, Mo., is about 2 miles north of the present Hairpin Bend as indicated on the map. The CHAIRMAN. Along the river? Colonel GOETHALS. The town itself is north of the river. The town is above flood heights, but of course it is affected by any overflow. In the minds of the residents, there is concern that the water table, if the cut-off is constructed and the river kept out of the old channel, would be lowered to such an extent that their present pumps would not suffice for drawing water from existing wells. But our investigation clearly shows that such lowering of the water table would be only minor and the total lift will be within the existing capacity of the pumps they have now, so there should be no fear from that point. Another point is that the city of Liberty is afraid that its sewage will cause pollution of the wells and perhaps the town would be liable for damages from the nuisance that might be created on account of stagnation of the discharge into the old channel. The plan, however, considers an extension to the present sewer and a pumping plant to meet such a condition. While local interests have suggested a sewage-disposal plant, the position of the Department is that such a plant would cost more than a pumping plant and sewer extension, and since an extension and pumps would provide a method of sewage disposal equivalent to existing facilities, only the cost of the latter has been included as a part of the cost in the Liberty Bend cut-off. Of course, if local interests desire a disposal plant, it can be provided if they are willing to pay the difference in cost. Another thing the local people fear, in the Birmingham drainage district, is that the cut-off would increase the flood hazards along Big Shoal Creek. As a matter of fact, it will actually lessen them. Those are the only specific comments I have about the report, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Goethals, what is the length, approximately, of the cut-off at the Liberty Bend? Colonel GOETHALS. About a mile. The CHAIRMAN. What would be the length of the portion of the river; how far would it be around the bend? Colonel GOETHALS. About 6 miles. The CHAIRMAN. About 6 miles. Colonel GOETHALS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. So the river is shortened about 5 miles at that point? Colonel GOETHALS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I recall the views as presented to the committee by the representatives from that area, and they are not here at the present time they are detained either because of illness or official business. What is the general information in your report, and how about the situation, particularly in the Liberty Bend area; what is the feeling with respect to the cut-off at the present time after the assurance given them by the Corps of Engineers? Colonel GOETHALS. After it has been carefully explained, local interests favor the project from information that we have now, and the information which has been given to them apparently has dismissed the worries about water pollution and the inadequacy of their pumps. The CHAIRMAN. The result of the cut-off will be to decrease the flood hazards? Colonel GOETHALS. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. To Kansas City and to the vicinity of Liberty Bend? Colonel GOETHALS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. The river would be silted up at the head, at the end of the cut-off? Colonel GOETHALS. It will probably gradually fill up. The CHAIRMAN. So that the town of Liberty will be located on a lake rather than on a river. Colonel GOETHALS. The city is located about 2 miles north of the river channel which will become a lake. The CHAIRMAN. It will be in between the lake and the river? Colonel GOETHALS. No, sir; it is north of both the cut-off and the present channel. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions by members of the committee? This project, at this most vulnerable of all locations for the many floods that have occurred on the Missouri River and of its tributaries, including particularly the Kaw, in the metropolitan area along both rivers at Kansas City, will be located at the confluence of the Kaw and Missouri Rivers. There have been many improvements in that metropolitan area along both rivers, and this project was first adopted and construction begun, partially, as you have indicated, under the act of 1936, and in an effort to perfect it and in an effort to furnish the local interests, protestants and objectors, with full information, you have made these additions and careful studies and the report now under consideration gives the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers for the solution of the flood problems in the metropolitan areas of those cities; and it is the most comprehensive solution to that problem you are able to devise. It would be at the estimated cost which you have indicated, to the Federal Government, and the local interests are to furnish rights-of-way except for the land for the Liberty Bend cut-off. Colonel GOETHALS. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. And the net result of that project, when constructed, in connection with reservoirs contemplated and planned above on tributaries of the Kaw and Missouri Rivers will be to give the metropolitan area protection against major floods. Colonel GOETHALS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions by members of the committee? General Reybold, have you any statement you wish to make in connection with any of the projects we have considered this morning, or is there anything you desire to submit for the record? General REYBOLD. No, Mr. Chairman; they are approved projects, as far as we are concerned. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, General. Are there any members of the Senate or House present who wish to make a statement? Are there any opponents or proponents of the project as reported for this metropolitan area in the Kansas Citys, including representatives of utilities or railroads-of course, there will be some of that involved here who desires to either oppose or advocate this project? We are glad to have had your statement, Colonel. Colonel GOETHALS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. That concludes the project on the flood-control calendar for the morning. Colonel GOETHALS. Yes. MIDDLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED, TEXAS The CHAIRMAN. In accordance with the announcement of yesterday, we will take up the conservation project in the Middle Colorado River watershed of Texas. We are glad to have the representative of the Soil Conservation Service with us. Will you give us your name for the record? STATEMENT OF J. C. DYKES, ASSISTANT CHIEF, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE The CHAIRMAN. We have under consideration, having had our minds refreshed with respect to the general soil-conservation program, reduction of run-off, erosion, and so forth, for the Middle Colorado River watershed, Texas, and I will ask you to give us a general description of this watershed and an analysis of the high points of the recommendations as contained in House Document 270, Seventy-eighth Congress, first session, giving first the general location, the course of the watershed, the population, the industrial, agricultural, and other interests involved in the Colorado River watershed. Mr. DYKES. Mr. Chairman, I will make a brief statement concerning the general location and conditions in the watershed and for details I will ask Mr. H. N. Smith to again represent the Service in respect to the report that was submitted, since he participated in the preparation of the report. The Middle Colorado River watershed consists of 7,200 square miles, some 4,500,000 acres, located almost in the center of Texas, with the particular tributaries involved being the San Saba River, Brady Creek, both of which enter the Colorado River from the west, Pecan Bayou, and some other small streams that enter between the mouth of Concho River and the San Saba, all being included in these 7,200 square miles. The CHAIRMAN. When you say Colorado River, you mean the Colorado River of Texas? Mr. DYKES. The Colorado River of Texas, yes. The CHAIRMAN. As distinguished from the Colorado River of the west. |