Summary construction program (PB−1), fiscal years 1964 and 1965—Continued Mr. WHITTEN. I would like to have you provide a breakdown of what is included in the Yazoo Basin project, what parts have been completed, what parts remain, and then list the various items that are included in the budget before us. Please supply that for the record. General DAVIS. Yes, sir. (The information supplied follows:) ELEMENTS AND STATUS OF THE PROJECT The Yazoo Basin project is subdivided into three major areas the Big Sunflower River and tributaries, the Yazoo backwater, and the Yazoo headwater. (a) The Big Sunflower River and tributaries unit occupies the western portion of the basin. The plan of improvement consists of improving the channels of the major streams and their tributaries to provide major drainage outlets. This unit is 53 percent complete. The budget request of $650,000 will be applied to work on Steele Bayou, Gin and Muddy Bayous, Dawson Bayou, Big Sunflower River, Mill Creek, Bogue Falia, and Dowling Bayou. (b) The plan of improvement for the Yazoo backwater unit consists of channel improvements and drainage structures to care for headwaters entering the area from the Big Sunflower River and tributaries unit and a levee to provide flood protection against backwaters of the Mississippi River except during a project flood. This unit is 9 percent complete. The budget request of $1,850,000 will be applied to continuing levee construction. (c) The Yazoo headwater unit lies betwen the Big Sunflower River and tributaries unit and the eastern escarpment. The plan of improvement consists of a carefully integrated and interrelated system of flood control works comprising several local protection units, channel improvements of the main stems of the Yazoo, Tallahatchie, and Coldwater Rivers and their tributaries including the Hillside Floodway, levees along the main stem system, the Will M. Whittington auxiliary channel west of Yazoo City, an upper auxiliary channel which leaves the Tallahatchie River at Chute Bridge near Cassidy Bayou and reenters the Yazoo River about 5 miles above Belzoni, and four detention reservoirs in the escarpment area whose purpose is to withhold floodwaters of the Coldwater, Yocona, Tallahatchie, and Yalobusha Rivers from the flat delta lands until released in accordance with a plan which is designed to prevent exceeding the capacities of the improved and leveed channels and the auxiliary channels. These releases generally extend over a long period of time in each year so that the water will pass through the basin at the lowest practicable elevation in order to permit maximum effectiveness of local drainage works. STATUS OF YAZOO HEADWATER UNIT Except for recreation facilities and one road relocation, the four detention reservoirs are complete and operational. The local protection works at Belzoni and Yazoo City are complete as well as the Whittington auxiliary channel. The levees and channel improvements on the main stem unit are 60 percent complete and work on the tributaries unit is 25 percent complete. Work on the Hillside Floodway is scheduled to begin this year. The local protection works at Greenwood are 62 percent complete and preconstruction planning funds are requested for the upper auxiliary channel. BUDGET REQUEST FOR YAZOO HEADWATER UNIT The $700,000 requested for the Greenwood unit is scheduled for the sanitary sewer, pumping plant, and Big Sand Creek diversion. Funds in the amount of $100,000 will be used for preconstruction planning of the upper auxiliary unit. The $800,000 requested for the main stem is scheduled for levee construction and completion of a cutoff and the $1,600,000 requested for the tributaries unit is scheduled to be applied to the Hillside Floodway. Construction of recreational facilities at the four reservoirs will be continued with the $200,000 requested. Mr. WHITTEN. I am familiar with this project back through the years but not in as much detail as perhaps I would like. AUXILIARY CHANNEL In that connection, General Davis, the Senators and I have had some complaints from Leflore County having to do with the opening up of an outlet in or around Itta Bena, Miss., a town in Leflore County, and adjacent to Greenwood. Are you familiar with that objection? General DAVIS. Yes, sir, I am. In connection with the upper auxiliary channel, that is. Mr. WHITTEN. Is that auxiliary channel necessary to the overall project? General DAVIS. Yes, sir, it is an integral part of the overall project for drainage and flood control of the Yazoo Delta area. WORK IN LAFLORE COUNTY Mr. WHITTEN. What is the present status of other work in the Laflore County? What do they consist of and how close to completion are they? General DAVIS. It includes Mr. WHITTEN. You may provide that for the record. (The information supplied follows:) STATUS OF WORK IN LEFLORE COUNTY In the Big Sunflower River and tributaries unit, the improvement of Gin and Muddy Bayous is scheduled for initiation in fiscal year 1965. The remainder of this unit is under construction or completed. In the tributaries unit work on Potacocowa, Teoc, Big Sand, and Pelucia Creeks has not been initiated. In the main stem unit, improvement of the Tallachatchie-Yazoo Channels is complete or under construction except for the Craigside Cutoff. Levee construction is scheduled for initiation in fiscal year 1965 provided agreement can be reached on the upper auxiliary channel. Planning of the upper auxiliary channel is scheduled for initiation in fiscal year 1965. In the Greenwood unit the levees and pumping stations have been completed. The remaining work consists of the diversion of Big Sand Creek which has been initiated but which cannot proceed farther until the question of the sewer system in the Grenada Boulevard area has been resolved. Mr. WHITTEN. In connection with the complaints we have around Itta Bena, what is the chief argument, if you know? General DAVIS. As I understand it, Mr. Congressman, the objection is on the part of people in Itta Bena, or in Laflore County in which it lies, to the construction of the upper auxiliary channel near them. They would like to have it somewhere else. We will examine to see if this can be done, but we also feel sure that unless the auxiliary channel is built, the overall plan for the improvement of that area and generation of all benefit to accrue from it would not be realized and we might very well have to do some drastic changes to the plan, none of which, I think, would come up with as good a plan as we have now. ROUTING AND COST OF AUXILIARY CHANNEL Mr. WHITTEN. What about the cost if you have any idea of whether it would cost more to make modifications or less. General Davis. I think, just by looking at the map, you see that the upper auxiliary channel is the most direct route from the upper portion to the central portion of the delta and any other route would probably be longer and would quite probably cost more. Also it would be over higher ground than the proposed channel. Mr. WHITTEN. When do you eventually feel you will complete the Yazoo project? That is, at your present rate of progress. General DAVIS. June 1976. PROBLEMS AT HEADWATER RESERVOIR Mr. WHITTEN. General, when I first came here, we had four reservoirs, which you are familiar with, Sardis, Arkabutla, Enid, and Grenada. The first two had been built and my home county was below those two reservoirs and it made quite a problem for me. At thạt time the law did not provide for a jury trial to landowners when their lands were taken for flood control purposes. Jury trial was provided if the lands were taken for military purposes. I tried to tell my colleagues in Congress that, and most of them would not believe there was any place you could take property without the right of a jury trial. Neither did it provide for repayment back to the counties that were adversely affected by loss of taxes. Eventually we were able to get those two things taken care of. Now the law does provide for jury and some compensation arrangements are made by law for the other. At that time they held that all four of these reservoirs were one project and they were about half finished. I realize that is what you are up against in connection with this auxiliary channel. I do hope you will see what can be done to do the basic job but with a minimum of dislocation, which I am sure from your correspondence with me and the Senator you are going to explore at least. General DAVIS. Our desire is certainly to do that. We shall look into it again to see if there is any possibility. LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS ON HARBORS Mr. WHITTEN. I have two or three other things. I was surprised last year when I came on this committee to find out the Greenville Harbor was the only one in the country where local people have to do all the dredging. Could you provide for the record a comparison between the other harbors along the Mississippi in your area as well as what is required of Greenville, Miss.? General DAVIS. I can provide you with the information. Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you. General DAVIS. For Memphis and Vicksburg? Mr. WHITTEN. And such others as you have. General DAVIS. Yes, sir. (The information supplied follows:) HARBORS AT MEMPHIS, VICKSburg, and GreENVILLE The harbors at Memphis, Vicksburg, and Greenville, although of different size, are similar in that each has an approach channel and a fill area for port and industrial development constructed to an elevation above high water. In each case local interests provided lands, roads, railroads, public terminals, and utilities. The major difference in the projects is that at Greenville the local interests were required to pay one-half the costs of overdepth dredging in order to obtain the full amount of fill area constructed, whereas at Memphis and at Vicksburg a contribution for this purpose was not required. Mr. WHITTEN. Also I would like to have for the record a comparison as to local contribution required at Greenville as compared with others along this stretch of the river. (The information supplied follows:) COMPARISON OF LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS AT MEMPHIS, VICKSBURG, and GREENVILLE Contributions required of local interests for construction of the Memphis, Vicksburg, and Greenville Harbors are as shown below: Memphis... Vicksburg. None None $533, 600 The amount required of Greenville has been paid in full. LAKE WHITTINGTON Mr. WHITTEN. One other point I am interested in is this: I have contacted the Office of the Chief here in regard to Lake Whittington, which is in Bolivar County, I believe. It is near Benoit, which is in Bolivar County. The local people are very much interested in trying to prevent this lake from going dry in the summertime. With all the attention we are giving to recreation, this lake is part of the old river and would make an excellent recreation lake if it had about a 5- or 6 foot levee at the outlet, so I am told, which would mean for a minimum cost you would have recreation facilities equal to some you have here that will cost millions of dollars. I would appreciate it if look into that situation and advise us what authority, if any, you have or what the possibilities are. you would I have not had this up with the Soil Conservation Service, which in turn has some means to help with some type of situations of this kind. Please let me hear from you on this. General DAVIS. Would you like a letter? Mr. WHITTEN. Yes; I would appreciate it. It will not be necessary to put it in the hearings here. Just supply me a letter. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LA. Mr. WHITTEN. Now we turn to the Atchafalaya Basin, $7,200,000. Place the justifications in the record. (The justifications follow :) ATCHAFALAYA BASIN (Continuing) Location. The project is located in south-central Louisiana below the latitude of Old River and west of and generally paralleling the Mississippi River. The basin is approximately 110 miles long by 45 miles wide. The Atchafalaya River flows through the middle of the basin. Authorization.-Flood Control Act approved May 15, 1928, as amended. 1 In addition, local interests have expended approximately $8,200,000 on flood control works in the project area. |