local protection projects is $2,412,000 comprising $1,635,000 for alteration and reconstruction of railroad facilities, $742,000 for reconstruction of highway bridges, and $35,000 for land. The estimated additional Federal first costs of the Spencer and the Shoals Reservoirs for installation of the proposed power facilities are $452,000 and $565,000, respectively, a total of $1,017,000. 8. The district engineer has investigated the advisability of improving for flood control, the Mississinewa, Embarrass, and Patoka Rivers, tributaries which are specifically mentioned in the authorizations for this report. Of the estimated $4,545,000 of direct average annual flood damages in the Wabash Basin only $2,100 is attributed to the flood plain of Mississinewa River and the district engineer finds that improvement of this stream for flood control is not warranted at this time. Lands at the mouth of Embarrass River would be protected by the England Pond levee included among the 21 new leveee works now proposed by the district engineer and by the Russell and Allison levee already approved. No other improvements for flood control on this stream are found warranted at present. The flood problem on Patoka River is partially due to construction of Houchins ditch, a channel straightening by local interests, without providing an adequate outlet. The district engineer finds that the most practicable plan for remedying the situation consists of further channel improvement to extend to the river mouth, 19.5 miles, but that the benefits would not justify the expenditure required. Areas at the mouth of Patoka Riiver will be protected by Wabash levee unit No. 5 authorized by the act of 1936 and Wabash levee unit No. 17 included in the 21 new levee units proposed by the district engineer. The city of Terre Haute referred to in the Flood Control Act of 1938 authorizing this report has been afforded protection by the improvement completed by the Works Progress Administration. The act of 1938 also specifically provides for reports on Russell and Allison levee, Rochester and McClearys Bluff levee, England Pond levee and Tri Pond levee. Improvement of the Russell and Allison levee is a part of the approved plan for the Ohio River Basin. In the present report the district engineer proposes modification of the requirements for this work so that the United States will bear the cost of railroad bridge changes and share in damage costs as explained above. The other three units are included in the 21 new Federal improvements now proposed by the district engineer. These 21 also include the Mason J. Niblack levee referred to in the resolution of June 6, 1939. 9. The district engineer recommends (a) That a total of 21 levee and local protection projects and one channel improvement project as listed in tables 48 and 49 of his report be adopted for the alleviation of flood damages in the Wabash Basin at an estimated cost to the United States, including the cost of railroad bridge alterations, of $7,944,000 for new work, and that, prior to the expenditure of Federal funds for the construction of any of the projects, local interests be required to furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (1) provide, without cost to the United States, all rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the project; (2) hold and save the United States free from damage due to the construction work; and (3) maintain and operate all works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War; (b) That the comprehensive levee plan developed in his report be used as a guide for future flood protection work in the Wabash Basin and that the Secretary of War be authorized to modify local protection projects authorized in the Flood Control Acts of 1936 and 1938 to the extent necessary to conform with this plan; (c) That existing authorizations for the construction of local flood protection projects be modified to provide for the construction at Federal cost of alterations to railroad bridges and approaches necessary to those projects as listed in table 47 of his report at an estimated cost of $1,422,000, provided that local interests furnish all rights-of-way necessary for the work; that the Federal Government, at an estimated cost of $35,000, assume one-half of the cost of damages to land deprived of protection due to set-back of the Russell and Allison levee, Illinois; that the Federal Government participate in the cost of bridge reconstruction for the authorized Fall Creek and Warfleigh sections at Indianapolis, Ind., at estimated Federal costs of $440,000 and $515,000, respectively; (d) That the Secretary of War upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission be authorized to modify the approved general comprehensive plan for flood control in the Ohio River Basin to include the development of hydroelectric power in the Shoals and Spencer Reservoirs at a total Federal cost of $565,000 and $452,000, respectively; and (e) That consideration be given to the enactment of legislation which will provide: (1) authority to designate and establish portions of the flood plain on a given waterway as floodways or flood channels; (2) authority to regulate construction, both public and private, which has caused, or might cause, encroachment or undesirable restriction of the floodways, or might interfere with existing or proposed flood protection works; (3) power to remove or to require removal of any structures, natural growths, deposits, refuse, or other material within the floodway limits; and (4) that the administration of these provisions be under the direction of the Secretary of War and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers. 10. The division engineer concurs in general with the plan of the district engineer. He points out that the necessary modification in grades of levees. authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, can be accomplished under the provisions of that act. He believes that the United States should not bear a part of the cost of lands placed outside the levee by the proposed set-back of Russell and Allison levee, Illinois, and should not share in the cost of changes in highway bridges and other utilities, exclusive of railroads, in connection with the Fall Creek and Warfleigh sections of the authorized flood-protection project at Indianapolis, Ind. In his opinion it is unwise to expend Federal funds for local protection works until the States of Indiana and Illinois have adopted legislation that will assure the provision and maintenance of adequate floodways. He recommends (a) adoption of projects for the 21 new levees and local protection units and one-channel improvement generally as proposed by the district engineer, including railroad changes by the United States, at an estimated first cost to the United States of $7,944,000, provided local interests satisfactorily assure that they will furnish the rights-of-way, hold the United States free from damages and maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with prescribed regulations and provided that prior to expenditure of any Federal funds, the States concerned enact certain described legislation in regard to the provision and maintenance of suitable floodways free of undesirable encroachments, (b) that the Secretary of War be authorized to modify the authorized agricultural levee projects listed in table 29 of the district engineer's report on which construction has not been initiated to conform with the comprehensive plan now presented, such projects to be subject to the provisions of local cooperation stated in (a) above, (c) that the United States bear the costs of railroad changes at presently authorized projects as set forth in table 47 of district engineer's report at an estimated cost of $1,635,000, the work to be undertaken only as required by initiation of construction of the projects and provided that local interests furnish the rights-of-way, (d) that the provisions of the Flood Contral Act of December 22, 1944, with respect to Shoals Dam be repealed, and (e) that the approved comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin be modified to permit the development of power at Shoals and Spencer Reservoirs when approved by the Secretary of War upon recommendation of the Chief of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission at estimated Federal costs of $555,000 and $452,000, respectively. 11. Local interests were advised of the nature of the report of the division engineer and at their request the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors held a public hearing at Vincennes, Ind. The hearing disclosed that many local interests are opposed to construction of the approved Wolf Creek, Shoals, and Spencer Reservoirs. After careful consideration of the reservoirs the Board concludes that their benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the local objections. In view thereof the Board concurs generally in the views and recommendations of the division engineer except that it recommends that the approved general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Ohio River Basin be modified so as to eliminate these three reservoirs. 12. After careful consideration, I concur in the views of the Board and accordingly recommend: (a) That the 21 levee and local protection improvements and one channel improvement listed in tables 48 and 49 of the district engineer's report be undertaken, including necessary changes in railroad facilities by the United States, generally in accordance with the plans of the district engineer and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost to the United States of $7,944,000 for construction, and that the Secretary of War be authorized to modify the plans for the presently authorized agricultural levee projects listed in table 29 of the district engineer's report, on which construction has not yet been initiated, to conform generally with the comprehensive levee plan now presented by the district engineer; provided, that prior to expenditure of Federal funds for any of the improvements, the States or other responsible local agencies furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (1) provide without cost to the United States all necessary lands, easements, and rights-ofway including all rights-of-way required for alteration of railroad facilities, (2) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works, and (3) maintain and operate all works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War; and provided also that prior to the expenditure of Federal funds for any of the improvements referred to above, the State in which the improvement would be located shall have enacted legislation, which, in the judgment of the Secretary of War, is suitable to provide (1) authority to designate and establish portions of the flood plain of Wabash River and tributaries as floodways or flood channels in reaches where encroachment or undesirable restrictions may adversely affect the efficiency of, or interfere with, existing, authorized, or recommended flood-protection works on which Federal funds have been or are to be spent, and (2) for acquisition of an estate or easements, or for the exercise of police power, which will effectually prevent any future construction or other improvements in the said floodways, except those which, in the opinion of the Secretary of War, would not cause any restriction of their capacity as floodways. (b) That the United States bear the cost of alteration and reconstruction of railroad facilities at presently authorized projects as set forth in table 47 of the district engineer's report and as required by initiation of the construction of the affected local protection improvements, at an estimated total cost to the United States of $1,422,000, provided local interests furnish all necessary rights-of-way. Under existing authority, the bridge and utility changes required for the channel improvement portion of the Indianapolis project to provide increased waterway is a Federal cost. (c) That the comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Ohio River Basin approved by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, be modified by deleting therefrom Wolf Creek Reservoir, Ill., and the Spencer and Shoals Reservoirs, Ind. R. A. WHEELER, Lieutenant General, Chief of Engineers. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, The CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, United States Army, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The survey report for flood control, Wabash River and tributaries, forwarded to this office by the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, January 14, 1946, has been reviewed by the division of waterways, department of public works and buildings of this State. The conclusions and recommendations of the division of waterways relative to the subject report have been approved by the State water resources and flood control board. After consideration of the report as submitted and reviews of the same as prepared by the afore-mentioned State agencies, the State of Illinois concurs with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, in that the plan is generally satisfactory to the State, subject to a reservation by the State of its right to protect the interests of its citizens in the flood plain of the Wabash River and its tributaries, and the reservation that any necessary changes in the project be accomplished through conferences prior to the completion of the definite project plan; and further that the State shall not be required to assume any contingent liability consequent to default by any political subdivision thereof. Very truly yours, Lt. Gen. R. A. WHEELER, DWIGHT H. GREEN, Governor. STATE OF INDIANA, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Indianapolis 4, March 9, 1946. Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C. DEAR GENERAL WHEELER: The people of Indiana and I appreciate your courtesy in sending your proposed report on the Wabash River and tributaries for flood control to us for consideration. We appreciate the consideration shown by Colonel Hall in his public hearing at Terre Haute November 21, 1944, and the public hearing held by General Kingman in Vincennes on June 26, 1945, which I had the pleasure of attending. We wish to thank you, too, for your cooperation and courtesy extended us by Mr. Sam Bailey, chief of engineering division of the Louisville office, and Mr. Robert Walker, resident engineer of the Indianapolis suboffice. Both of these gentlemen have attended numerous meetings held throughout the State by the Indiana Flood Control Commission, and they have supplied us with information which has been extremely helpful in our work. As you undoubtedly know, the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, at its last session, passed a flood control act, establishing a flood control commission, one of the purposes of which, as set forth in section 15 of the act, is as follows: "The commission shall procure and obtain flood control works from and through, or by cooperation with the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army." The Indiana Flood Control Commission has studied the Army engineers' report on the Wabash River, and in general agree with its findings. However, there are three (3) items we desire especially to call your attention to, which we believe should be modified. 1. The act passed by the Indiana General Assembly contained provisions, at the request of Colonel Hall, for the establishment of waterways as outlined in sections 17 and 18, as follows: "SEC. 17. It shall be unlawful to erect, use, or maintain any structure in or on any floodway as a permanent abode or place of residence, or to erect, make, use or maintain any structure, obstruction, deposit or excavation in or on any floodway, or to suffer or permit any structure, obstruction, deposit or excavation to be erected, made, used or maintained in or on any floodway, which will adversely affect the efficiency of or unduly restrict the capacity of the floodway, and the same are declared to be and to constitute public nuisances. "The commission shall have the power to commence, maintain, and prosecute any appropriate action to enjoin or abate a nuisance, including any of the foregoing nuisances and any other nuisance which adversely affects flood control. "In the event any person, or the petitioners of any proceedings pending in court, desire to erect, make, use or maintain, or to suffer or permit a structure, obstruction, deposit, or excavation to be erected, made, used, or maintained in or on any floodway, and it is uncertain as to whether it will adversely affect the efficiency of or unduly restrict the capacity of the floodway, such person may file a verified written application with the commission, setting forth the material facts, and the commission on hearing shall enter an order, determining the fact and permitting or prohibiting the same. "The commission shall have the power to remove or eliminate any structure, obstruction, deposit, or excavation in any floodway which adversely affects the efficiency of or unduly restricts the capacity of the floodway, by an action in condemnation, and in assessing the damages in such proceeding, the appraisers and the court shall take into consideration whether the structure, obstruction, deposit, or excavation is lawfully in or on the floodway. "SEC. 18. The commission may by order establish a floodway as a commission floodway and alter, change, or revoke and terminate the same. In the order establishing the commission floodway, the commission shall fix the length thereof at any practical distance, and fix the width of the landside limits thereof, so as to include portions of the flood plains adjoining the channel, which with the channel, are reasonably required to efficiently carry and discharge the floodwaters or floodflow of such river or stream. An order establishing a commission floodway shall not be in force until due notice thereof has been given. All of the area within a commission floodway shall be the floodway for all purposes of this act." It is noted on your proposed report to the Secretary of War that you state: "And provided also that prior to the expenditure of Federal funds for any of the improvements referred to above, the State in which improvements would be located and, for improvements along that portion of Wabash River which is the interstate frontier, both the States of Indian and Illinois, shall have enacted legislation which, in the judgment of the Secretary of War, is suitable to provide (1) authority to designate and establish portions of the flood plain of Wabash River and tributaries as floodways or flood channels in reaches where encroachment or undesirable restrictions may adversely affect the efficiency of, or interfere with existing, authorized, or recommended flood protection works on which Federal funds have been or are to be spent, and (2) acquisition of an estate or easements, or for the exercise of police power, which will effectually prevent any future construction or other improvements in the said floodways except those which, in the opinion of the Secretary of War, would not cause any restriction of their capacity as floodways." As pointed out above, the State of Indiana at its last session of the General Assembly, passed such an act. However, we have no assurance that our sister State of Illinois will likewise pass such legislation. It appears from the wording of your proposed report that if Illinois should not pass such legislation, Indiana projects would be penalized, especially the city of Vincennes and the Niblack levee across the river from the Russell and Allison levee in the State of Illinois. As you know, the city of Vincennes, with a population of 18,000, was seriously threatened by the flood in the spring of 1943. It was only by the assistance of soldiers furnished through Colonel Hall that the city was saved from inundation, for the lives of men, women, and children would have been seriously threatened, as well as a very great property loss. We respectfully request that the Vincennes project and the Niblack levee project to the north, and any other proposed levee projects that may be effected, not be held up awaiting legislation by the State of Illinois. Item 2. Indianapolis projects: The district engineer recommended that the Federal Government pay one-half the cost of alterations of highway bridges across the west fork of White River at Indianapolis. This project was originally set up by the city of Indianapolis and Marion County, shortly after the disastrous 1913 flood. After extensive studies, local interests determined that the best means for the control of floods in that area was by means of channel improvement and channel enlargement. Considerable moneys were expended by local people and at a later date they received Federal assistance through the Works Progress Administration, prior to the time this project was taken over by the War Department. We submit that this project is a channel improvement project and of necessity such project calls for enlarging of White River sufficiently to carry major floods, which of necessity requires that the channel be deepened, widened, and any obstruction, either in the bed of the river, on its banks, or across and over the channel, shall be removed or altered. It is noted that the Federal Government proposes to pay for all necessary alterations on railroad bridges, but that the alteration of highway bridges is left to be assumed by local interests. It is assumed that the Federal Government will alter railroad bridges because they are common carriers and do not of necessity serve alone local area, but serve the Nation as a whole. We believe, in this day and age that highway transportation approaches that of the railroad; that no local bridges serve only the immediate vicinity, but the automobile and trucking facilities used for the State as a whole and also by the Nation as a whole. These structures are quite expensive and the burden upon local interests for their improvement for flood control purposes is excessive. As far as transportation is concerned, at the present time, they are adequate for that need. Item 3. Reservoirs: It is noted that your proposed report recommends deletion of the Shoals and Spencer Reservoirs in the State of Indiana. While it is truethat certain citizens of our State have objected to these two reservoirs, the citizens of the State as a whole and our flood-control commission do not desire to convey the impression that they are opposed to reservoirs. However, we believe that it would be advisable to start the reservoir program within our State with reservoirs of smaller size. By that we mean smaller areas of inundation that would not remove from some of our county-tax duplicates the major portion of the properties subject to taxes to support our schools and county governments. It has been noted by the Indiana Flood Control Commission that one reservoir stands out above all the rest in its economic possibilities. This reservoir is known as the Cagles Mill Reservoir. Under plan I of the district engineer's report, this reservoir is shown as having a ratio of 1 to 1.83. The reservoir at the same location, of larger capacity, is shown in plan II. Our engineers have determined, from the information shown in table 42 of the district engineer's report, that this reservoir has an economic ratio of 1 to 1.57 without inclusion of any benefits to the Ohio and lower Mississippi Rivers. Downstream from this proposed reservoir on the Eel River are two levee projects set forth in the district engineer's report, known as Eel River levee No. 1 and Eel River levee No. 2. It is our belief that if this reservoir were constructed, the two Eel River levee units would be modified, with a saving in cost both to the Federal Government and local interests. We understand this reservoir is one of those subject to selection by you for flood control for the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers but that it probably has a low priority because of its location and at the present time the amount of money authorized for Ohio River reservoirs has been allocated. It is my request that you incorporate the Cagles Mill Reservoir in the proposed plan for Wabash River flood control because of its outstanding economic ratio |