Senator KERR. You know that there is quite a little of the Red River in Oklahoma east of Denison Dam?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir.

Senator KERR. And you know that in the southeastern corner

Mr. CHANDLER. I know that, Senator Kerr. I also know that in 1945 the rains, the water that fell between Denison and Shreveport is what occasioned that flood.

Senator KERR. Well, do you hold Oklahoma responsible for that? Mr. CHANDLER. No, sir; surely not.

Senator KERR. You are aware of the fact that they had quite a little bit of damage in Oklahoma.

Mr. CHANDLER. I understand that.

Senator KERR. And you are aware of the fact that we are just as interested, to the extent of our limited capability, in the preventing of floods as you are; you recognize that, do you not?

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, sir.

Senator KERR. I believe that is all, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Are there any more questions? (No response.)

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is all, thank you very much.

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you.

Senator MCCLELLAN. We will hear from Mr. White.

STATEMENT OF J. LESTER WHITE, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Senator MCCLELLAN. Will you state your name, Mr. White, to the reporter, and whom you represent?

Mr. WHITE. My name is J. Lester White. I am the director of the department of public works for the State of Louisiana.

Senator MCCLELLAN. And proceed in your own way.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am a civil engineer by profession. My office is in Baton Rouge. Honorable Chairman and members of the committee, I am here today to voice our opposition to the bill that is before you; that is, the opposition of the department of public works in the State of Louisiana. We opposed the bill in its original form and we are, if it can be, more strenuously opposed to the bill as it has been amended.

I am also authorized to speak for the Governor of the State of Louisiana and voice his opposition to this bill.

We in Louisiana are very much concerned, of course, about the people in the Red River Valley and in projects for their protection against major floods.

We all remember the flood of 1945, where some 330,000 second-feet came down that river; it was very devastating. There was great loss of property and loss of cattle, and the people, when there is a flood, have to leave their homes for a great length of time.

We are very much concerned about the projects. We are satisfied with the projects that are now under way, the projects which are now planned.

When Governor Long first learned of this bill being considered by a letter from Senator Kerr, his first impression was that such a commission might expedite the projects that are under way and that are authorized.

But, a better study of the bill convinced me and convinced the Governor, that a commission of this kind, given 2 years and then additional months to prepare to study and restudy these projects already constructed or under construction and authorized for construction, would not expedite the construction of these important and much-needed projects for our flood protection, but would tend to delay these projects. The Governor first wrote Senate Kerr and said that he was for anything that would hasten the construction of these projects; but he wrote, in reply to the Senator's letter of June and expressed his opposition to the bill-that was the original bill.

Senator Kerr then wrote Governor Long on August 19 and said [reading]:

Your previous interest in this bill is greatly appreciated and I sincerely seek your future support and comments on the revised bill, at your earliest convenience. Governor Long has answered that letter in a letter written by the Governor on August 29, as follows [reading]:

Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of August 19, 1949, enclosing a copy of S. 1576 committee print, entitled "A bill to establish the United States Study Commission on the Arkansas-White and Red River Basins," and a copy of a letter written by the Bureau of the Budget, proposing certain revisions of the original version of the proposed measure. It appears that the bill has now been revised to incorporate the amendments suggested by the Bureau of the Budget and you have sought my comment on the revisions, as well as my support of the bill, as amended.

In this connection, reference is made to my letter to you of July 15, 1949, in which you were advised that the people of my State most likely to be affected by this bill were convinced that its passage would tend to retard our development programs and to occasion unnecessary delay in the completion of projects already authorized. As stated in that letter, I am quite certain that your purpose is to seek assistance for the development of the affected areas and you may be assured that your concern for such development is no greater than my own. However, it is incumbent upon all of us to devote our efforts to the orderly development of these areas and to avoid legislation which would make their development less certain or their problems more burdensome.

The revised S. 1576 has received my careful study and it is my considered opinion that the revisions in the bill fail to make it less objectionable from our standpoint. In fact, certain of these revisions are, in my opinion, more incompatible with the interests of my State than was the original version of the proposed measure.

We, in Louisiana, feel that substantial progress has been made toward the solution of the problems of the Red River Basin, and it is suggested that the acceleration of the present program and the early appropriation of funds for projects already authorized may contribute more toward the relief of our needs than the measure now under consideration.

Sincerely yours,

EARL K. LONG.

I would like to make that a part of the record, Mr. Chairman. Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, you have read it into the record and it is a part of it already.

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you, sir.

We are, as I say, opposed to the bill, and we find the amendments more objectionable.

On page 4 it provides for, instead of a 13-man commission, a 5-man commission, 1 to be a person living within the area to be under the jurisdiction of the commission, and to be appointed by the President, the other 4 to be either the heads or officials of certain governmental agencies.

94522-49-pt. 2- 12

Now, we can see nothing, if such a commission is set up, with the States having only representatives to act as an advisory committee, we cannot see where in the world the States would have any voice whatsoever; no vote, nothing but a five-man commission and an advisory board which might be heard but that would certainly not have any part in formulating the report.

If it were turned around, it seems to us it would be better, if the eight men of the States formed the commission and the four Federal agencies could serve as consultants-but, be that as it may, it is not for me to suggest changes in this bill.

Now, another objection that we have is the fact that such a commission, if given the right and the authority to restudy all of these projects that are now under construction, could do nothing but delay those projects.

It seems that on page 13 there has been an effort made to cure that or to remove that objectionable feature, as far as we are concerned; but the provision that follows, it seems to me, completely offsets it or ruins it, what they attempt, because it says that the commission may recommend to the affected Federal agencies desirable modifications of projects and such agency, with the approval of the Congress

shall make desirable modifications in the plans as the various projects are developed.

Now, the four Federal agencies that are mentioned-two of those agencies have no interest in Louisiana that I can see, because we have no power projects of the Federal Power Commission and we have no projects that I know of in the Bureau of Reclamation. Anyhow, the four agencies would be members of this commission. It seems to me that that, in itself, bespeaks controversies and differences of opinion for a long, long time.

So, we of Louisiana are strenuously opposed to this; the Governor is strenuously objecting to this bill, because we are anxious to get these flood-control projects completed at the earliest possible date.

Now, the number and the grading and section of our levees along the Red River are determined by the number of reservoirs that we have above to take care of this water. The more water we can take care of in these reservoirs, the less sections and the lesser height in the levees.

So, it means a great deal to us in Louisiana.

I have nothing further to add, but I will answer any questions asked by the honorable chairman or members of the committee.

We do ask that careful consideration be given to this and that you realize, if you will, and I know you will, what we are up against in Louisiana, and our sincere hopes and the hopes of the Governor that our projects will not be delayed but will go forward with the least possible delay.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Any questions, Senator Downey?

Senator DowNEY. No, sir.

Mr. WHITE. I have a prepared statement, Honorable Chairman, which I would like to leave for your record.

Senator MCCLELLAN. The statement may be filed for our record. Just hand it to the reporter.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF COL. J. LESTER WHITE

Honorable Chairman and members of the Public Works Committee, I am J. Lester White, a civil engineer by profession and in my present capacity am director of the Department of Public Works for the State of Louisiana. I appear before you to express the continued opposition of the department of public works to the original Senate bill 1576 and now to the bill as it has been amended. I am also authorized to speak for the Governor of the State of Louisiana and voice his opposition to the bill as amended.

When the Governor received his first information that such a bill had been introduced, his first impression was that such legislation would expedite the water projects in the Red River Valley that are to provide protection against floods on Red River. A further study of this bill, however, made us realize that such legislation would not expedite the construction of these much-needed projects but, on the other hand, would tend to retard the progress that is now being realized. The Governor of Louisiana and I, as director of public works, have, as we should have, the interests of our people along the Red River at heart, and we are both personally familiar with the disastrous flood on Red River in 1945 and the resultant damage to property and livestock that our people suffered.

This bill provides for the establishment of a Commission to make studies for the development of the land and water resources, flood-control projects, and so forth, of the Arkansas-White and Red River Basins in the States of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. As we see it, the contents of the original bill authorized a 13-man Commission to restudy all of the projects, including those now under construction, those for which funds have been appropriated for the surveys, and those that are now being considered. The Commission is given 2 years in which to make these studies and submit its report and additional months in the event the report is not ready for submission to the President. Such studies and restudies cannot help but retard the progress that is now being made, and each year that we are without this flood-control protection our people are faced with the possibility of disastrous floods in the Red River Basin. The bill, as amended, and in keeping with the recommendations of the Bureau of the Budget, not only causes us to continue our opposition to such a Commission but to urge more strongly than ever this legislation not be enacted into law.

The amended bill provides for a 5-man Commission instead of 13. One member is to be appointed by the President who resides within the area to be under the jurisdiction of this Commission, the other four members to be officials of four Federal Government agencies as listed in the bill. This in itself bespeaks continued differences of opinion and controversy between the Commission members.

The bill further provides that the Governor of each State shall appoint a representative, and these eight representatives shall constitute an advisory committee. This committee will have no vote on the Commission and will be helpless as far as any effectiveness is concerned. In other words, the States will have no particular voice in the formulation or the adoption of the Commission report.

The original bill provided that the Commission would make a thorough study of all projects, including those flood-control projects now constructed and in operation, under construction, authorized for construction, or that may be authorized substantially in accordance with reports currently before Congress. The amended bill, on page 13, provides that all such projects "shall not be altered, changed, restricted or otherwise impeded or interferred with by reason of this act." Apparently, this change was made in the amended bill to meet one of the major features to which we were opposed. The attempt to cure this feature of the original bill, however, is destroyed, or at least badly mutilated, when it is provided in the amended bill that "the Commission may recommend to the affected Federal agency desirable modifications of projects and such agency, with the approval of the Congress, shall make desirable modifications in the plans as the various projects are developed." If the commission may make these desirable recommendations and the Federal agency involved shall make desirable modifications in the plans as the various projects are developed, we

are bound to suffer delays in the progress that is now being made on our floodcontrol projects and for which we have labored so hard to secure.

It is the hope of the Governor of the State of Louisiana and it is my hope as director of public works that the honorable chairman and members of this committee will give serious consideration to this proposed legislation and recognize the reasons for our strenuous objection to the enactment thereof.

I wish to thank the honorable chairman and members for the time given me, and I feel honored in having this opportunity to appear before you.

Thank you.

Senator STENNIS. I would like to ask a question.

Senator McCLELLAN. Yes.

Senator STENNIS. Mr. White, you think that this would tend to delay your projects that are in Louisiana now. Is that your position about it?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; I most certainly do.

Senator STENNIS. You are director of public works?

Mr. WHITE. Director of public works in the State of Louisiana. Senator STENNIS. Now, detaching yourself as much as you can from your personal interest, just give us your idea as to why that area below Denison Dam is needed in a plan which deals with an area beyond Denison Dam or above?

Mr. WHITE. Well, I would not know how it affects the areas above. Senator STENNIS. Yes; I realize that.

Mr. WHITE. Because I am, of course, not in a position to know; but I am interested in the entire basin.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. In the entire basin and in all of the people: but, of course, I have made particular studies of our own area and how we are affected by it.

Senator STENNIS. Will the development of that area above Denison Dam affect and assist you in solving your problems? It would; would it not?

Mr. WHITE. Oh, indeed, most certainly it will. Now, we cannot see anything but delays if these projects under construction already are included in the study of this Commission because the bill provides 2 years for the Commission to prepare these studies and prepare the report, and additional time if they have not reached an agreement on the report.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Is that all?

Senator STENNIS. That is all, thank you.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Senator Kerr?

Senator KERR. Mr. White, you are aware of the fact that the engineers have completed their study of the flood-control problem of this area; are you not?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; so I understand.

Senator KERR. And that it not only is not the purpose of this bill to interfere with it, but the specific purpose of it to, in every way, aid in this picture.

Are you not aware of the fact that, if this over-all study is made. looking to the finding of economic advantages of soil conservation and water retardation, and, of course, on the western sections of these rivers, reclamation, that that would not in anywise interfere with the flood-control program of the engineers?

Mr. WHITE. We are afraid that it will, Senator Kerr.