Page images
PDF
EPUB

which was 3 feet lower than the flood of 1927. The levee grade for the existing flood-control project was based on a 3-foot freeboard above the April 1927 flood. The project considered would provide protection to the urban area of 240 acres against floods from the Arkansas River. Local interests in the community are strongly in favor of the project, and it is believed that they would form the necessary organization to meet the requirements of local cooperation as. prescribed by law for other similar authorized projects. The estimated cost of this project is $159,000, of which $147,000 is the Federal cost. The estimated annual charges and evaluated annual benefits are $7,910 and $940, respectively, resulting in a cost to benefit ratio of 1 to 0.12. Some intangible benefits would result from the construction of the project; however, these benefits are not considered of sufficient importance to affect appreciably the justification of the project as reflected by the cost to benefit ratio. In view of the extreme lack of economic justification for this project, it appears that it should not be constructed at this time. It is therefore concluded that the West End portion of the existing (authorized) floodcontrol project at Little Rock should be abandoned.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

520, A study of the areas along the Arkansas River reveals that there is a serious flood problem which primarily results from high stages on that river but which is aggravated at many places by frequent high stages on tributary streams. The recurrent foods have affected many agricultural areas to the extent that property values have declined, some land is not utilized for the highest type of cultivation for which it is suited, and the welfare of adjacent communities has been lowered. Portions of urban areas lie within the flood plain and flooding at these places has affected business and manufacturing activities, and has created serious health problems. Since the report under review was made, several great floods have occurred along the Arkansas River. The largest of these recent floods occurred in May 1943. This flood exceeded maximum recorded stages along the river from the vicinity of Muskogee, Okla., to a point between Dardanelle and Morrilton, Ark.

521. No great floods have occurred in recent years from Great Bend, Kans., to Tulsa, Okla. Inquiry among local interests along this reach indicates that there is no crystallized desire for the local flood-protection projects now authorized, and that there is little possibility of developing projects for local food protection along the main stem of the river in this area for which local interests would meet the requirements of local cooperation prescribed by law for similar projects. There is some desire for flood protection by means of reservoirs and there is also some desire for local flood-control projects on tributary streams, but these types of improvements are considered to be beyond the scope of this report.

522. In general, local interests along the river downstream from Tulsa desire local flood-control works, and advocate projects which would afford protection from major floods. They have, in most cases, expressed their willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation; however, in a few instances, they are opposed to the construction of local food-control projects.

[ocr errors]

523. A study of methods for providing local flood protection indicates that the construction of levees and floodwalls is the most satisfactory solution. However, diversion of tributary streams is required at some localities in conjunction with levees to provide protection from the Arkansas River. Local flood-protective works were studied in detail for areas where inspection indicated that such works might be found justified. Levee grades were based largely on the flows experienced during the flood of May 1943. Between the mouth of the Grand (Neosho) River and Fort Smith, Ark., the design flood was obtained by assuming a repetition of the May 1943 flood as modified by reservoirs which have been completed and the proposed Fort Gibson Reservoir on the Grand (Neosho) River operated for flood control. The design flood thus obtained resulted in a peak discharge of 800,000 cubic feet per second at Fort Smith. The peak discharge of the May 1943 flood reduced as it traveled downstream from Fort Smith because there was no appreciable synchronous tributary inflow within the State of Arkansas. Had the tributary inflow downstream from Fort Smith occurred as it did during the great flood of April 1927, the peak discharge of the May 1943 flood would probably not have reduced as it traveled downstream. Therefore, a design flood having a peak discharge of 800,000 cubic feet per second was retained throughout the portion of the Arkansas River between Fort Smith and Pine Bluff, Ark. Between Tulsa, Okla., and the mouth of the Grand (Neosho) River, a peak discharge of 350,000 cubic feet per second was assumed as the design flood. This flow was selected as a result of extensive flood studies made for the authorized Tulsa and West Tulsa levees. In establishing the levee grades along the Arkansas River, freeboards above the confined design flood of 1.5 and 3 feet were selected for agricultural and the larger urban areas, respectively. When all of the authorized and approved reservoirs in the Arkansas River Basin are completed, a desirable additional freeboard on the levees will be available. The levee grades proposed in this report are, in general, much higher than were considered in any previous report,

524. Investigation was made in connection with 46 projects, of which 20 were selected for inclusion in the plan of improvement. Pertinent data on all projects considered are shown in table No. 95.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

TABLE No. 95.Pertinent data on all projects considered

PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT

[blocks in formation]

490

160
15,060
10, 110

908,000

332, 000
1, 830,000

517,000

82.000
10,000
126,000
86, 000

990,000

342,000
1,956, 000

603,000

50, 570
16, 760
88, 900
28, 180

78, 560
15, 050
86, 390
76, 420

1:1. 55
1:0.90
1:0.97
1:2. 71

8, 040
19, 660

216,000
1, 458, 000

16,000
129, 000

232,000
1, 587, 000

11,560
74, 420

34,670
69, 970

1:3.00
1:0.94

Do.

Do.
Favorable report has previously been

made for less extensive project.
Intangible benefits considered of

enough importance to render the

project justifiable.
Intangible benefits considered of

enough importance to render the
project justifiable. Favorable report
has previously been made for less

extensive project.
Favorable report has previously been

made for less extensive project.

371,000

23,000

394, 000

17,860

17,310

1:0.97

15, 600

49,070

60,730

1:1.24

Designation of project

Area pro

tected (acres)

Oklahoma:

Tulsa and West Tulsa levees (bridge

alteration only)!.
Jenks
Fort Gibson Bottom 1

1, 510
3, 500

Dirty Creek Bottom.
Tucker Lake Bottom
Braden Bottom
Big Skin Bayou-Camp Creek Bottom
Moffett Bottom

5, 440
7, 090
2, 840
5, 970
6, 720

33, 070

Subtotal, Oklahoma projects
Arkansas:

Fort Smith:
Van Buren.
Crawford County levee district !.
McLean Bottom levee district No. 3.

Dardanelle drainage district !
Pope County levee district No. 1 and

Conway County levee districts Nos. 3

and 7.12 Conway County levee district No. 6.

1, 840

Conway County levee districts Nos. 1,

2, and 8.
Roland drainage district
See footnotes at end of table,

1,005, 000

339,000

66,000 21, 000

1,071,000

360,000

3,870

16, 580

20, 670

1:1. 25

TABLE No. 95.—Pertinent data on all projects considered—Continued

PLAN OF IMPROVEMENT-Continued

Estimated
total first

cost

Estimated

total
annual
charges

Estimated

total
evaluated

annual
benefits

Ratio of

annual
charges to

annual
benefits

Remarks

$657,000

$34, 100

$32, 550

1:0.95 Intangible benefits considered of

enough importance to render the project justifiable.

1, 210,000

57. 400

69, 550

1:1. 21

341,000

16,060

13, 970

1:0.87

Do.

9,743, 000 13, 276,000

10,00

[blocks in formation]

Àrea pro

Designation of project

tected
(acres)

Estimated
Federal first

cost

Estimated
non-Federal
first cost

Arkansas-Continued.

Little Rock levees (East End-Fourche

Bayou). "

1,680

$584,000

$73, 000

21, 580

1, 123, 000

87,000

South bank of Arkansas River, Little
Rock to Pine Bluff: 1
Head of Fourche Island to Penning-

ton Bayou.
Tucker Lake.

Subtotal, Arkansas projects.
Grand total, plan of improvement..

2, 970

308,000

33, 000

101, 060

8, 991, 000

752, 000

134, 130

12, 127,000

1, 149, 000

Kansas:

Hutchinson 1

28, 900

3 $1,050,000

$1,400,000

$ $350,000

to
1,350,000
$ 1,597, 100

3 232,000

35,000
34, 500

4, 200, 200
1,882, 200

98, 400

2, 179, 100

Wichita and Valley Center !
Big Slough to Belle Plaine !
Arkansas City

Subtotal, Kansas projects.
Oklahoma:

Kaw City 1
Choska Bottom..
Wybark Bottom
Verdigris-Grand Bottom
Vian Creek Bottom

$ 2, 603, 100
31, 650, 200
5, 303, 300
3 32, 500
518,000
133,000
230,000
575, 000

117
2, 700

800
1,950
5, 130

98,000
20, 000
26, 000
56, 000

7, 482, 400

32, 500
616,000
153,000
256, 000
631, 000

$30, 680

7, 440
12, 430
29, 770

$4, 290
4, 830
2, 330
31, 640

1:0.14
1:0. 65
1:0. 19
1:1.06

Little Sans Bois Creek Bottom
Sans Bois Creek Bottom
McKnabb Bottom
Redland Bottom

Subtotal, Oklahoma projects

2, 570 2, 360

970
2, OSO

218,000
536,000
227,000
347,000

25,000
52,000
17,000
23, 000

243,000
588,000
244,000

370, 000
3, 133, 500

11, 960
27, 200
11, 230
17, 280

13, 010
19, 320

3, 080
11, 240

1:1.09
1:0. 71
1:0. 35
1:0. 65

IA. 677

2,816, 500

317, 000

DIO
3,300

O rere
La reacts
Cerden's Bottom drainage district No. 2
Conway County drainng and lovee dis-

trict No. 2. Conny County drainaren orada

17 .. OOO
1202, OO
303, 000

. ?
YAN, NO
63, 000
18, 000

TH

28. OWN
WO, O
321, 000

22. TO
1. 100
11, 100

12, 130
28, 10
5. 320

1.0.6 1:0. 37

[blocks in formation]

Arkansas:

Frog Bayou to Big Mulberry Creek Hartman Bottom.. Holly Bend le veo district No. 1:0

Upper reach.

Lower reach.
Carden's Bottom drainage district No. 2
Conway County drainage and levee dis-

trict No. 2
Conway County drainage and levee dis-

trict No. 1.
Cypress drainage district
Perry County levee district No. 1.
Faulkner County levee district No. 1
Faulkner County levee district No. 2.
Palarm Creek Bottom.
Little Maumelle Bottom.
Little Rock levees (West End)'.

Subtotal, Arkansas projects...
Grand total, other projects considered.
Grand total, all projects.

188, 107

107.13

.

13, 727, 800

2, 848, 100

13,107 16, 576

16, 575, 900 29, 851, 900

322, 237

25, 851, 800

3, 997, 100

Authorized project at this locality. 2 Also referred to as West of Morrilton. 3 As given in the Flood Control Act of 1936. • Levee system constructed by local interests has been improved by the Federal Government with Work Projects Administration funds. 5 Not available. o Considered as one project.

« PreviousContinue »