Mr. RUTHVEN. Yes, sir; they are all in the mountains.

The CHAIRMAN. So that the areas that would be flooded are largely in gorges; are they?

Mr. RUTHVEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any highways or railways in that area tnat would be destroyed?

Mr. RUTHVEN. No railways whatever. The railroad that crosses the White River is below the dams some 4 or 5 miles.

one highway and a number of county roads inundated. The CHAIRMAN. Any villages or cities?

Mr. RUTHVEN. No, sir.

There will be

The CHAIRMAN. Any other statement that you wish to make? Mr. RUTHVEN. I just want to say to you that the people of our country are unanimously for it.

We get our power now out of Oklahoma. It is transported into north Arkansas. We have no power whatever that can be used for industrial development. This is presumably because of the common report that it is due to prohibitive rates. That is the claim for cheaper power. But we are interested in flood control without power. Our contention is that we should not be inundated and permanently ruined unless we have the advantage of some development resulting from the lake itself.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the advantages of flood control would accrue below the dams and down in the alluvial area of the river?

Mr. RUTHVEN. It would ruin us perpetually to have flood control and not the average flow of the lake that we might capitalize. That would take from our tax books much taxable property and ruin two or three northern Arkansas counties. If you give us flood control which would remove that property from the tax books and maintain only such a level that we could not capitalize on it for other developments we would suffer.

The CHAIRMAN. A few minutes ago you said reservoirs would be largely in the gorges. Would it also inundate some valleys up there? Mr. RUTHVEN. Yes, sir. It will take all the valleys we have. The CHAIRMAN. Are your valleys wide?

Mr. RUTHVEN. Not extremely so. I would say an average mountain stream valley, but they are very productive such as they are. But we figure we could get by shore-line development what we would lose possibly by taking our bottom lands off the tax rolls, and we also figure that power up there would give us industrial development where we do not at present have it.

I believe our people are unanimously for those dams but we want power development along with flood control to give us some of the benefits while we are storing the water and protecting the man below. That is the opinion, I believe, unanimously of our people.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are glad to have your statement. Has any member of the committee a question? If not, the next witness will be Mr. Overman.

STATEMENT OF R. E. OVERMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE ARKANSAS STATE FLOOD CONTROL COMMISSION

The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name and occupation, please? Mr. OVERMAN. R. M. Overman, chairman, State flood control commission. It is an honorary commission without salary. I am a marble contractor, a private citizen, and a taxpayer.

The CHAIRMAN. And where do you reside?
Mr. OVERMAN. I reside at Little Rock.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, do you have a statement with respect to the matter under consideration, which is additional authorizations for flood-control reservoirs along the White River? If so, we will be glad to have it.

Mr. OVERMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Our State has been very backward in being ready for this big program that you gentlemen launched in the flood-control bill of 1936 and amended in 1938, and we decided the best way to study our problem would be through an honorary State commission, which would have access to State records and compile data and probably arouse our people to the possibilities and the potentialities of the offer made to us through the Flood Control Act.

For years we have seen the money expended on the main stem of the Mississippi River and we are on that river, but we viewed with a great deal of enthusiasm the program of up-stream control and the impounding of the waters in the headwaters of the streams and their tributaries, to keep the flood waters off of our land, and in the construction of these dams and reservoirs the by-product that would result in the form of hydroelectric energy, where economically justified.

Now, of the 13 dams or reservoirs that were originally in the omnibus bill, we regard these two on White River particularly, in fact the entire White River development, as being outstanding in its offer as a dual purpose program, for flood control and hydroelectric gen

eration.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the estimated cost of those two dams, according to your information?

Mr. OVERMAN. Around $73,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; go ahead.

Mr. OVERMAN. I have a little map here which I would like to show you. You know rivers don't know boundaries. I have heard you say that, Mr. Chairman. And in dealing with these problems we have to consider our neighbors.

Here is a little map I would like to offer showing the location of this development with concentric circles. They extend for 100, 150, and 200 miles, starting here in the central Ozark or White River country. Two hundred miles puts us almost in Kansas City and into St. Louis, Wichita, Tulsa, and Topeka. There is a population of 6,000,000 in that area.

Now, if hydroelectricity is developed in these dual-purpose dams we will be able to and we overlap the T. V. A.-we will be able to continue the grid system with the federally owned T. V. A.

Now, there is a paradox existing in our State. It came out here in the meeting this morning with the importation of Tennessee Valley Authority power through a privately owned company.

We have been told directly by these companies that the mere fact they can get Federal-aid-generated electricity renders it more or less unnecessary to build the dam on the Ouachita River. In other words, using the Federal-generated electricity and distributing it to our people without a price ceiling. I don't want to get away from the main thought, Mr. Chairman, about this flood-control consideration, but as was brought out already by previous witnesses, we know the day is not far off when we have to quit asking the Government to build these enormous works project without some financial return, and we regard the power sale ultimately to pay off that charge allocated to power.

If we used Bonneville or Tennessee Valley Authority as a criterion and say you allocated 52 percent of the cost of those projects to power, I am informed that 40 or 50 years, at the low price of electricity on the basis of the Bonneville rates and the Tennessee Valley rates, would amortize the power cost of the second-story or double-purpose dam. Our commission representing the entire State is definitely interested in the development of White River and in the authorization of these two particular dams in the program.

The CHAIRMAN. Do the members of the committee have any questions to ask this gentleman. If not, we will adjourn at this time until 2:30 o'clock this afternoon.

The witnesses will return at that time.

(Whereupon at 11:45 a. m., a recess was taken until 2:30 p. m., the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

The committee reconvened, pursuant to the taking of recess, Hon. Will M. Whittington (chairman) presiding.

STATEMENT OF R. E. OVERMAN-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Overman, had you finished your statement, sir?

Mr. OVERMAN. Unless someone wanted to ask me some questions. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand, you are chairman of your State association and you have been interested in the development of your natural resources and in flood-control projects?

Mr. OVERMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How would your State and the interests of your State feel about the construction of this Norfork reservoir purely for flood control?

Mr. OVERMAN. They would not like that, Mr. Whittington. They rather feel like the entire White River section up there should be reserved for ultimate power production over a long-range program, and they would prefer- in fact, they tell us they want us to ask this committee that that be considered as a dual-purpose dam and a high dam. The CHAIRMAN. And the same statement applies to the other dams in that immediate vicinity?

Mr. OVERMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, I assume from your statement, the people of your State feel that with the unusual power possibilities of the White River, if these reservoirs are constructed at Norfork and Table Rock, Bull Shoa.s and in that area, for flood control, you would sacrifice whatever power probabilities or possibilities you had?

Mr. OVERMAN. Yes, sir; and on the line of reasoning that I mentioned this morning, that the power product pay for its allocation, or its percent. You know, Mr. Chairman, that the benefits of one of those projects that go above it can only go on the electric wires; the benefits in flood control go always below.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, when we get into that, that involves calculations, statistics, and economics, for which we have to rely pretty largely on what we call "experts" and students of that subject on the question presently, or in the reasonable future, as to whether or not the Government would be reimbursed there for power and things of that sort. What I wanted to get was the view of the citizens over there as to whether or not these projects, except for multiple purposes, in that area, should be constructed. That was my question to you. Mr. OVERMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you think the people of the State, as well as the people in that area, as testified by the Judge, feel the multiple projects are the projects that are desirable?

Mr. OVERMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. KITCHENS. Do you know, Mr. Overman, whether or not there has ever been any attempt by private companies to obtain authority to develop the power part of the White River there?

Mr. OVERMAN. Yes, sir; a private company had a license on what we call the Wildcat Shoals site for a good many years and kept that up until a year ago last June, when it was canceled out by the Power Commission.

Mr. KITCHENS. You do not know of any effort by any private utility to go in with the Government and utilize the power and let the Government get the benefit of the flood-protection part of it?

Mr. OVERMAN. We have one instance of that in the Ouachita Valley, on the Ouachita River-the Blakeley Mountain Dam project.

Mr. KITCHENS. That is where Congress authorized the payment to the utility company of $2,000,000 in order to lift the height of the dam for flood-control purposes?

Mr. QVERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KITCHENS. That has not been carried out by the power company?

Mr. OVERMAN. No; it has not.

Mr. KITCHENS. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions by members of the committee? If not, let me ask: According to the present prospects, there is not much probability of Blakeley being constructed, is there? Mr. OVERMAN. There is not.

The CHAIRMAN. Even though the Government contributes something like $1,000,000 ot $2,000,000 to its construction?

Mr. OVERMAN. I could not say as to that, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I say under the existing law, there is no probability? Mr. OVERMAN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. And, under the existing law, as I recall, the United States does contribute $2,000,000.

Mr. OVERMAN. They do that after the company has built its part, or made its investment.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that; but, if it is to be constructed at Blakeley, as provided by the act of 1930, the Federal Government will contribute $2,000,000?

Mr. OVERMAN. That is in the law; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And your information is, as the president of your commission, that the probability is that the power company is not going along and construct the power project there?

Mr. OVERMAN. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, in all fairness, where would you say there is any flood control in Blakeley?

Mr. OVERMAN. I would say the flood control in the Blakeley project would be the 26-foot top of the dam and holding back 525,000 acre-feet of that headwater of the Ouachita River, to come only as a dual-purpose dam and on top of the power dam.

The CHAIRMAN. How many acre-feet?

Mr. OVERMAN. 525,000 acre-feet.

The CHAIRMAN. But, with all deference, what area would be protected--that is what I asked you-by flood control?

Mr. OVERMAN. Oh! The entire valley below these power dams, all the way to the State line-an enormous area. We have witnesses following that will give us the exact area in there of flood control or flood protection. We have all of that low and alluvial valley of the Ouachita below the hill land, or mountains, or gorge.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, between the Blakeley site and the Remmel site and the Carpenter site, there are not any valleys of any importance, are there?

Mr. OVERMAN. Oh, no.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, gorges?

Mr. OVERMAN. There would be no flood protection in that area between Remmel and Blakeley. They are very close together and they are still in the hills.

The CHAIRMAN. You are still in the gorges there, practically?
Mr. OVERMAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I am not an engineer, but it struck me that south of this Blakeley Dam, with Carpenter and Remmel remaining as they are, so far as flood control is concerned, there should be other dams or other arrangements for flood protection. But I am going to submit that to these engineers over here to my right; because, frankly, just as a layman, I cannot see much flood protection in the Blakeley Dam. However, we will develop that later on. are glad to have your statement.

We

Now, the next witness whose name is given me is Mr. Ferguson. Please come around,, Mr. Ferguson, and give your name, address, and occupation.

STATEMENT OF RALPH FERGUSON, MARSHALL, ARK.

Mr. FERGUSON. Ralph Ferguson, revenue inspector.
The CHAIRMAN. Revenue inspector for what?

Mr. FERGUSON. For the State of Arkansas.

The CHAIRMAN. Revenue inspector for Arkansas?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, where is your office; where are you located? Mr. FERGUSON. Searcy County, Marshall.

The CHAIRMAN. As revenue inspector, what are your official duties? Mr. FERGUSON. I collect car licenses, and anything pertaining to

revenue.