Page images
PDF
EPUB

been held back by reservoirs, the flood waters south of Cairo would have been reduced by only 2 percent. Reservoirs were constructed on the Miami River, one of the tributaries of the Ohio at a cost of $15,000,000. Their appreciable effect on the Cairo gage would be a reduction not to exceed one-fifth of an inch.

Arthur E. Morgan is chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He is an eminent civilian engineer. Mr. Morgan says of reservoirs: A billion dollars on the headwater streams would scarcely affect the Mississippi River.

Again, Mr. Morgan says:

I believe that the construction of this system (Pittsburgh plan to construct 17 reservoirs above that city) would fail entirely to benefit the Mississippi. Except for rare cases, such as the proposed Boulder Dam on the Colorado River, where vast storage capacity is available in an unsettled country, storage for flood control and for power development are in striking conflict. Floodcontrol reservoirs need to be kept empty and ready for flood service, while power-development reservoirs need to be kept full to insure steady power. It is usually a great mistake to try to combine them. The excessive rains which cause any single flood seldom extend over more than 20 percent of the whole drainage area of the Mississippi River. Flood control on the lower Mississippi by means of reservoirs on the headwaters in general is a delusion.

* * *

* * *

I repeat that I do not oppose the construction of reservoirs along the Arkansas and the White Rivers. They will give the lower Mississippi Valley an additional factor of safety and they will provide for flood control along those streams.

But flood control along those streams should stand on its own merits just as flood control works along the St. Francis River and along the Yazoo River should stand on their own merits. Reservoirs along the St. Francis River are justified, but they will only reduce Mississippi River floods about an inch. Reservoirs along the Yazoo River system are thoroughly justified. They will protect 1,500,000 acres of the most fertile land in the United States and they will reduce the floods of the Mississippi River at Vicksburg approximately 6 inches.

Reservoir projects should stand on their merits. The Flood Control Committee has acted wisely in asking the Chief of Engineers to submit an additional report on reservoirs. His report has demonstrated once and for all that reservoirs are nothing more or less than an additional factor of safety and that they cannot be substituted for diversions in the lower Mississippi Valley.

Much has been said about the fuseplug levee being 60 miles wide instead of 35 miles. The explanation is simple. At the request of Senators and Representatives interested, Congress stipulated that the lands contiguous to the fuseplug levee should not be built up until the guide levees were constructed. The guide levees were not built because the local interests opposed them. The remedy is not to destroy and diversion by building up the fuse-plug levee, but the remedy is to amend the act by building up the contiguous levees.

BUILDING UP THE FUSEPLUG LEVEES

To build up the fuseplug levee without the Eudora floodway and without the construction and actual operation of equivalent reservoirs would be to prevent rather than solve flood control in the middle section of the lower Mississippi River. It has been 8 years since the

[ocr errors]

flood of 1927. It would be suicidal now to eliminate the factor of safety as we approach the next flood. It is estimated that the fuseplug levee would be overtopped once every 15 years. The purpose of the fuseplug levee was to confine the excess waters to areas where the least damage would be done. Approximately 75 percent of the Boeuf Basin and 75 percent of the Eudora Basin are cut-over lands. They are unimproved. Other areas of Louisiana and Arkansas on the west side of the river are highly improved; of course, there are many desirable lands in the Boeuf and Eudora Basins.

It is said that landowners in the Boeuf and the Eudora are entitled to the same protection as other landowners in the lower valley. If this argument is followed to its legitimate conclusion there would be no flood control improvements. Lands and property must be taken for such improvements; there must be rights-of-way for levees. In all 75,000 acres under the adopted project have already been exposed to floods between the new levees and the old levees. The remedy is not to close our eyes blindly and foolishly say there will be no other flood, but the remedy is to pay those whose property is damaged full compensation. The remedy is to pay the owners in the Eudora floodway and in the Boeuf floodway just as the remedy has been to pay the owners for rights-of-way for levees and for damages in consequence of the building of levees. The purpose of all improvements is the greatest good to the greatest number.

I do urge that the floodways be as narrow as possible, that they be cleared and cleaned so that as few acres as possible shall be taken for diversions.

CONFINED FLOODS

As shown by the Mississippi River Commission report, Committee Document no. 1, Seventieth Congress, first session, page 43, a levee to confine the 1927 flood must have been 69 feet high, with no freeboard, and to confine the superflood, 25 percent higher than the 1927 flood, as shown by page 48, the levee must be 79.5 feet high or approximately 19 feet higher than the existing levee grade at Arkansas City, which is 60.5 feet. General Edgar Jadwin, the Chief of Engineers, in his report, paragraphs 80 and 117, pages 20 and 27, reported the same gages for the 1927 and the maximum flood. In his letter of April 29, 1935, General E. M. Markham, Chief of Engineers, reports substantially the same gages for a confined flood equal to the flood of 1927, and for the so-called "superflood."

The next major flood might not come out of the Arkansas River. Most of the floods along the lower Mississippi River have come out of the Ohio River. Reservoirs in that case along the Arkansas and White would not prevent overflows. There must be the factor of safety that can only come from diversions.

POLICY

I have supported the Chief of Engineers, the Mississippi River Commission and the Corps of Engineers in the execution of the adopted project and in the engineering features of the modifications of the adopted project. I doubt if it will cost the Government very much more to clarify the modifications proposed by the Chief of Engineers by saying that instead of paying one and a half times

the assessed valuations, the Government would pay compensation and reasonable costs for all property taken in all floodways and in all diversions. I favor a clear declaration of policy to this effect.

I favor the Government being empowered to condemn all lands necessary for diversions. I favor the elimination of the human element. I favor the automatic controlling diversion. The Government should own the title and the diversion should supplement in all major floods. Such was the case at Cypress Creek prior to 1921. All maximum floods escaped through Cypress Creek just as all maximum floods will escape through a controlling spillway.

Diversions to supplement are not new. The chief diversions with which I am familiar are along the Sacramento River. They operate automatically. I repeat to emphasize that the human element should be eliminated. There will never be any satisfactory solution of diversions in the lower Mississippi River until the diversions are controlling and automatic.

I, therefore, advocate the approval of the engineering modifications in the middle section of the Mississippi, with an amendment that will retain to the property owners in the Boeuf Basin their rights for damages; that will pay compensation for flowage rights or property taken or damaged, between the fuseplug and the setback levee; that will provide for the narrowest possible Eudora · floodway, with full compensation and a bankfull diversion.

The proposed modifications in the Atchafalaya seem to be satisfactory. The flood control projects along the St. Francis and the Yazoo Rivers are justified. I should like to see reservoirs along the Arkansas and the White Rivers constructed, but before provision is made for their construction there should be reports that may be the basis of legislation. It takes time for the reports to be formulated. The Chief of Engineers advises they will be submitted at an early date.

CONCLUSION

1. I advocate the Eudora floodway with cleared, narrower width. and the setback, with full compensation for all damages, as herein outlined.

2. I approve the building of reservoirs along the Arkansas and White Rivers for flood control along those rivers, and only as additional factors of safety for the flood control along the lower Mississippi River.

3. I oppose the elimination of the Eudora floodway and the building up of the fuseplug levee. It would eliminate the principle of diversion and destroy the plan of national flood control for which the Government has appropriated $325,000,000 in the adopted project.

4. Raising the fuseplug levee would make overflows certain. A break in Mississippi means that the waters are merely by-passed, that they return to the Mississippi River at Vicksburg and inevitably cause a break in the Louisiana levees in that vicinity.

5. The results of cut-offs are speculative. They cannot be substituted for diversions. It will take time to prove their worth.

6. Reservoirs cannot be substituted for diversions. They may be added as additional factors of safety.

7. Laymen may differ but the people of the lower Mississippi Valley and of the United States are depending upon the Chief of Engineers. The country depends upon the Flood Control Committee of the House. No steps must be taken that would cause a repetition of the flood of 1927, which was the greatest peace time disaster in the history of the Nation. All members of the com mittee may not be directly interested, but the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, declares that the control of the floods in the lower Mississippi Valley, where converge the flood waters of two-thirds of the States of the Nation, is a national problem. The Chief of Engineers is entitled to the support of the committee. The committee should make no report unless it is based upon sound engineering data. The Chief of Engineers, and all other engineers, state that substantially a million feet must be diverted through the Boeuf or Eudora floodways. The Congress and the country know that levees only have failed. The Flood Control Committee must not fail the country, or the Congress by reporting a bill that is inadequate or unsupported by sound economics and sound engineering.

In this connection I wrote a letter to the Chief of Engineers on April 18, 1935, and again on April 27, 1935, respecting the modifications in his letter of February 12, 1935. I file herewith copies of said two letters as parts of my statement:

MAJ. GEN. E. H. MARKHAM.

Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C.

APRIL 18, 1935.

DEAR GENERAL MARKHAM: Toward the close of the hearings on the above bill to include the modifications and extensions embraced in the above committee document, the Flood Control Committee was asked to eliminate the proposed Eudora floodway and to provide for building the fuse-plug levee in the Boeuf basin up to the 1928 grade and section immediately, and to provide for reservoirs along the Arkansas and White Rivers.

As a member of the committee I recall that you have submitted no report for extending the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, to embrace reservoirs along the Arkansas and White Rivers, and as a member of the committee I now write to ask that you advise me as follows:

1. Do you recommend the building up of a fuse-plug levee to the 1928 grade immediately?

2. If you answer that you are not in a position to recommend the building up of the fuse-plug levee immediately, I ask you to advise whetherw or not you are able to report upon the location and cost of a system of reservoirs along the Arkansas and White Rivers that would provide protection for the superflood, equivalent to the protection under the adopted project by the socalled fuse-plug area."

66

3. If the Eudora floodway is eliminated and the fuseplug levee is built up to the 1928 grade and section, what would be the effect upon the plan embraced in the adopted project in the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928?

4. In the event the Eudora floodway is eliminated, kindly advise whether or not you have completed investigations and studies that now enable you to submit a report as to the number, location, and cost of reservoirs along the Arkansas and White Rivers, to give the equivalent relief or protection provided by the fuse-plug levee in the adopted project in the Flood Control Act. of May 15, 1928. If you answer that you have completed your investigations, kindly advise when you will be able to submit a report and the number, location, and estimated costs of the reservoirs.

5. What reservoirs have been constructed since the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, that will result in reducing flood heights at the mouth of the Arkansas? Kindly furnish the names of the reservoirs and the amount of reduction in flood heights by each of them.

6. What are the proven results of the cut-offs between the Arkansas and Red Rivers, and what reduction has been made in flood heights at the mouth of the Arkansas River or at Arkansas City as a result of the cut-offs?

137671-35——6

I recall that you answered the above questions substantially in the hearings; but the hearings have not been published, and hence my request herein.

Very sincerely,

WILL M. WHITTINGTON.

APRIL 27, 1935.

Maj. Gen. E. M. MARKHAM,

Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C.

DEAR GENERAL MARKHAM: I acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 20th instant, in response to my letter of the 18th instant, in which you state that my letter of the 18th is being referred to the president of the Mississippi River Commission for report and that you will advise me.

I would appreciate your advising me, when you make response to my said letter of the 18th, respecting the following:

1. In the event the Eudora floodway is not constructed, and in the event it is desired to build the fuseplug levee to the 1928 grade, please advise the number, location, and cost of reservoirs along the Arkansas and White Rivers, and along any other rivers that would give the equivalent of the relief and protection now provided by the fuseplug levee in the adopted project under the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, in the Boeuf Basin.

2. Do you recommend the substitution of any system of reservoirs for the fuseplug levee? I will be glad to have your reasons for your answer.

3. What reduction do you estimate from the proven results of cut-offs in a flood equal to that of 1927, in a flood equal to that of 1928, and in a superflood which is 25 percent in excess of the 1927 flood, at Arkansas City and at Vicksburg?

4. In the event the 26 reservoirs mentioned by General Ferguson along the Arkansas and White Rivers and in the report of the Mississippi River Commission dated December 15, 1934, are constructed, what would be the reduction at the mouth of the Arkansas River for a flood equal to that of 1927, in cubic feet per second, with the reduction also in feet for a flood of 1927? Also what reduction at Arkansas City?

5. What would be the estimated reduction from proven results by cut-offs and by the construction and operation of the 26 reservoirs mentioned in the report of the Mississippi River Commission dated December 25, 1934, for a 1927 flood, both in the number of second-feet and in the reduction in feet at the mouth of the Arkansas River? What reduction at Arkansas City?

6. Do you recommend the 26 reservoirs or any other reservoirs as a substitute either for the Eudora floodway or for the Eudora floodway with the Boeuf set back? Please give the costs and location of any reservoirs that you may recommend as a substitute; and if you are unable to make a recommendation, kindly give your reasons therefor.

7. Will the middle section of the Mississippi Valley between the mouth of the Arkansas and the mouth of the Red be protected as well by reservoirs along the Arkansas and White, or elsewhere, as by the Boeuf or Eudora diversion, or by both or by either?

8. What was the width of the opening at the mouth of Cypress Creek at the time it was closed in 1921? What discharges had been carried through the Cypress Creek diversion in the floods of 1916, 1913, 1912, or any other previous floods? Where were the measurements made? If no measurements were made, upon what do you base your estimates?

9. What relief and protection would be given by the removal of the levee at the mouth of Cypress Creek with the restoration of the diversion that existed prior to 1921?

10. If the Government is to acquire flowage rights in either the Boeuf or Eudora floodway areas, could not the diversions be made to operate at bankfull stage and be made narrower and cleaned out so they could be utilized in every maximum flood?

11. What narrower floodway in either basin would be practical with an automatic, controlled bankfull diversion, in either the Boeuf Basin or in the Eudora floodway?

Very sincerely,

WILL M. WHITTINGTON.

On May 7, 1935, the Chief of Engineers responded to the said two letters, and I file herewith his said letters as a part of my statement, and call especial attention, as I favor a narrower Eudora floodway,

« PreviousContinue »