The CHAIRMAN. Whereas if you made this a separate improvement in Oakland County or the county your city is located in, you could only tax the people in your county; is that right?

Mr. HUDSON. That is right. Not only that, under the law we could not widen and straighten Red Run Creek in Oakland County and gather our surface waters together and throw them on Macomb County if they cause damages in Macomb County. It must be done as an intercounty project under the drain laws of the State of Michigan. Drain law provides an intercounty board for taking care of that kind of problem, which is made up of the drain commissioners of the counties that the drain or water course traverses. The other member is the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of Michigan.

Certain officials of Macomb County have gotten an injunction to restrain the undertaking of the contemplated improvement. So, the city of Royal Oak is helpless and Oakland County is helpless for the time being of taking any action to help ourselves under the State Drain Act.

In other words, we have no way to help ourselves and we must depend upon you to help us solve our drainage problem.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you suggest here as the solution of the problem?

Mr. HUDSON. The solution is joining the two projects together and all interested officials cooperating to have the whole thing solved

at once.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had your statement.
Mr. Dondero, your next witness.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Carl W. Forsythe, who is mayor of Ferndale.

STATEMENT OF HON. CARL W. FORSYTHE, MAYOR OF
FERNDALE, MICH.

Mr. FORSYTHE. I am mayor of the city of Fernlale. I am also assistant prosecuting attorney of Oakland County.

I am tremendously interested in this project. I had planned to summarize this, but I know the chairman does not need a summary. He wants to get out of here.

The CHAIRMAN. Do not speak for the chairman.

Mr. FORSYTHE. We have 130,000 people who are in crying need of this relief. They need it badly. I am here in their behalf, as their duly appointed official, to request that this committee earnestly consider incorporating this improvement along with the improvement requested by Mt. Clemens in connection with the Clinton River.

We regret very much that these two counties cannot come down here hand in hand. We are opposed by Macomb County. We are under injunction, restrained from even meeting to discuss this matter. We feel that this is a proper Federal project. We feel there is a vast public interest connected here with this thing. There are 130,000 people living in this area who are employed in large industries in Detroit and industries in our own vicinity. Their homes are

threatened.

We insist that this measure be carried along with the improvement of the Clinton River which your committee is now considering.

The CHAIRMAN. Will your local interests be prepared to make whatever contributions are required?

Mr. FORSYTHE. We will.

The CHAIRMAN. In the way of rights-of-way?

Mr. FORSYTHE. In our opinion, our local interests are prepared to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. You are very fair. We are glad to have had your statement.

All right, Mr. Dondero.

Mr. DONDERO. That is all.

I will be very glad to submit a statement to the committee supplementing what I said the other day.

I know this thing. I have lived with it nearly all my life. I know that there is great need for a solution in order to maintain the health of the people as well as to solve their drainage problems.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand Mount Clemens is located in the district represented by Mr. Wolcott. I trust that you and Mr. Wolcott and the committee will be able to work out the proper solution with the assistance of the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Harper, for the city of Mount Clemens, do you desire to make any further statement?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. HARPER, MACOMB COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER

Mr. HARPER. I want to thank the representatives of Oakland County for openly stating that they are not in opposition to the project as recommended by the United States engineers. I want to go on record as saying in June of 1945 they were invited to a meeting Colonel Miller, the district engineer, before that report was submitted to your honorable body, and they did agree then that it was a worthy project. I want to say that Macomb County concurs with the recommendations of the United States engineers.

k

I would just like to read one statement from the executive secretaryengineer of the Michigan Stream Control, in which he states that [reading]:

Any improvement that would be contemplated upon the Red Run would be contingent upon providing adequate capacity at the mouth of the Clinton River. I have been requested by the city of Mount Clemens to have written in the record the fact that on May 24 of this year a contract will be let for the construction of a sewage-disposal plant at a cost of not less than $640,000. The mayor of Mount Clemens omitted that and he asked me to write that in today.

We want to work with Oakland County on this project. We feel in Macomb County-I speak for the people who are transported by the United States Coast Guard by boats-that we will cooperate with Oakland County, but first things come first, and we must take care of those people who are continually flooded, three floods in 5 years, which meant the evacuation of their homes, where the American Red Cross, churches, schools, and things as that were set up to provide for those people that had to be taken care of.

The CHAIRMAN. You are familiar with the proposal of the Chief of Engineers. If this project is authorized for construction as recommended by him will it or not, in your opinion, and in the opinion

of the people you represent, be sufficient for adequate flood protection of the Red Run?

Mr. HARPER. We feel, sir, that anything that is done to provide an adequate outlet will of necessity benefit the Red Run.

The CHAIRMAN. I ask you this question: Would this particular work be sufficient that has been recommended here, in your opinion, and in the opinion of those you represent, to provide without additional work along the Clinton River for the protection of the Red Run?

Mr. HARPER. We feel that it is two projects. One is flood control, and one is a sewerage and drainage problem.

The CHAIRMAN. Even so, would the outlet and the works on the Clinton River be sufficient, without the Government constructing other works, if they were approved?

Mr. HARPER. That would be too broad a statement for me to make, sir. But I will go along with the report of the United States Engineers who said that no work north of the Forks would be contemplated because the benefits derived would not amortize the cost.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not ask you about that. I asked you about the physical construction, whether or not if this project is constructed as recommended here it would be sufficient without other construction along the Clinton River to accommodate the improvements that are desired by the Red Run interests, without additional construction? Mr. HARPER. That would be too broad a statement for me to make at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. You think about that, and if you have any further statement in connection with that matter, then, you can let us have it. Mr. HARPER. Yes, sir.

I have a letter here from Mr. E. L. Pettingill, city engineer of Mount Clemens, which I would like to read into the record.

It reads as follows:

Reference: Clinton River, Mich., flood relief cut-off.

BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS,

Washington, D. C.

APRIL 10, 1946.

GENTLEMEN: The city of Mount Clemens and the surrounding townships have suffered excessive damage in recent years from waters of the Clinton River overflowing its banks and flooding land, homes, and industrial developments. The idea was first advanced to widen and deepen the Clinton River from Mount Clemens to Lake St. Clair in order to increase the flow and carry the water away faster. The United States Army engineers made an extensive study of this proposal and found that it was not a solution to the problem and have recommended a new channel be cut from Mount Clemens to Lake St. Clair with sufficient capacity to take care of the excess water during flood periods. Originally the city of Mount Clemens had some objections to any outlet that would enter Lake St. Clair in the vicinity of Mount Clemens water intake and public bathing beach. However, after examining the plans proposed which show a spillway at the Mount Clemens end and would only discharge water during flood period, we are pleased to withdraw our objections.

The city has a sewage treatment plant designed and tenders being taken on May 24, 1946, which will remove our pollution from the river. The only time when Clinton River water will be flowing through this channel is when the river is at flood stage and the dilution is the greatest. We do not believe it will affect our intake pipe for our water plant which is a mile out in Lake St. Clair.

The Mount Clemens bathing beach is used only about 3 months of the year when floods seldom occur and we believe it might even be discontinued when the Huron-Clinton Parkway Beach is completed a couple of miles to the north. The city of Mount Clemens is fully in accord with the proposed cut-off channel made by the United States Army engineers and hope it will be constructed at the earliest possible date.

Yours very truly,

E. L. PETTINGILL, City Engineer.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had your statement. You, as well as the other witnesses, have been most fair. Your situation is not unique. This is a pretty big country. While you have a dense population there, the problems occur in many other parts of the country. There is nothing unusual about it.

Any other witnesses here with respect to this proposal who are to make a statement? Are there any other witnesses who are for or against the proposal?

(April 12, 1946-Continued)

The CHAIRMAN. General Wheeler, what projects do you feel that have been authorized and should be authorized to undertake up there that you would like to mention to the committee, and what would be the amount of improvements to promote the public interest in these two regions that you think we ough to consider in the matter of additional authorizations.

General WHEELER. I will let Colonel Herb answer that.

Colonel HERB. Mr. Chairman, in the upper Mississippi River Basin 11 reservoir projects are authorized at the present time. Planning is presently under way on seven of these reservoir projects. They are shown in black on the map. Also, we have several local protection projects on the Mississippi, Kaskaskia, Illinois, and Sangamon Rivers. There are 12 of these projects, only 2 of which are not completed or under construction. These two are the Kaskaskia River Levee and the levee east of Chandlerville. However planning is under way on the latter project.

The total cost of the approved projects is some $128,000,000. The amount authorized by previous flood control bills is $19,300,000. The cost of projects now under construction or completed is estimated at $14,828,000, leaving an uncommitted balance of some $4,500,000. It so happens that the uncommitted balance, due to the wording of the Flood Control Act of 1938, is practically all for reservoirs. The wording in that 1938 act authorized the abount of $6,000,000 for reservoirs and $2,700,000 for local protection works. So, we need additional authorization to go ahead and complete our local protection works, as well as to start construction on some of these reservoir projects.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had that statement.

It is fair to say that the project for the Rock River, in Wisconsin and Illinois, for the protection of Freeport and South Beloit, Ill., and the projects on the Mississippi River in the vicinity of Prairie du Rocher, and on the McCraney, Hadley, Kiser, Six-Mile, and Bay Creeks, Ill., and local protective works on the Genesee River, N. Y., and the Tonawanda Creek in New York are all with the governors, and we are not in position to have hearings on them at this time.

I would like to ask you this question, Colonel Herb, or you, General Wheeler, or both. Where there is a railway and it is necessary to elevate the railway, has any question arisen with respect to the approaches of those roads?

General WHEELER. In general relocation or other changes of a railroad necessitated because of flood protection works is a Federal responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. That question would be true with regard to reservoirs?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I am speaking of local protection works like flood walls and levees, you do not pay the cost of those, do you? I am wondering if the question of the cost of the approaches has arisen. Suppose the railroads elevate their bridges, what about their approaches to the bridges? If you do not care to answer, then, during the progress of these hearings I would like for you to look into that matter and furnish me an answer. I believe the matter was discussed with General Crawford, and it may be that he has answered it. General WHEELER. I will do that, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You will look into it and advise the committee before we adjourn?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

(The statement requested is as follows:)

The allocation to the Federal Government or local interests of the cost of raising railroad bridges and approaches in connection with local flood-protection projects is determined by the legislation authorizing individual projects, and the War Department must carry out the projects in strict compliance therewith. In the past, some of the recommendations of the Department and the authorizations by Congress for certain projects have placed the costs of approach raising on local interests. It is now, however, the general practice of the Department to recommend that alterations to railroad bridges, including approaches, and railroad relocations, be carried out at Federal expense with local interests required to furnish the necessary rights-of-way.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further statement by anyone present?

If not, the hearing stands adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday morning.

(Whereupon, at 12: 15 p. m., an adjournment was taken to 10 a. m., Monday, April 15, 1946.)

(April 18, 1946)

SNY BASIN, ILL.

The CHAIRMAN. General Crawford, when you testified the other day with the Chief of Engineers, you stated that the report on several local creeks in Illinois, which Mr. Simpson was interested in, has not been submitted. Has it been submitted to the Budget?

Gen. R. C. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you the report before you?

Gen. R. C. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the flood problem involved there?

Gen. R. C. CRAWFORD. May I ask Colonel Herb to give you the testimony on that, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Colonel Herb, this project is along what creeks-McCraney, Hadley, Kiser, Six-Mile, and Bay Creeks, Pike, Ill.?