Page images

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:

APRIL 10, 1946. Reference: Clinton River, Mich., flood relief cut-off. BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS,

Washington, D. c. 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.)

CHAIRMA CF of Engineet Mr. Simpso the Bud

(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. ?

Cohe Chains that, MOR, Mathe flood pm


Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. They are tributaries of what?

Colonel HERB. They are all tributaries of the Sny. The Sny is a former bychannel of the Mississippi River. Since 1875 flows of the Mississippi have been diverted from the Sny at its upper end by what is now the main river levee of the Sny Island levee and drainage district.

The CHAIRMAN. They all enter the Sny?
Colonel HERB. That is right, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. What area is involved ?

Colonel HERB. It has a total area of about 195 square miles of Mississippi River bottom land, and about 547 square miles of up lands. It has a population of about 23,000 in that area.

The CHAIRMAN. And in these areas are the bottom lands cultivated ? Colonel HERB. Yes, sir; they are cultivated.

The CHAIRMAN. And what, if anything, have the local interests done to protect themselves from floods?

Colonel HERB. The local interests have constructed and maintained auxiliary levees, straightened and maintained channels of the Sny and major tributaries below the bluff lines, and constructed sedimentation basins at the mouths of McCraney, Hadley, and Kiser Creeks all

Thest of $3,733,000ths of McCraneres, and consi

The CHAIRMAN. With what results?

Colonel HERB. The results are not sufficient to give the desired protection. For example, in 1944 they had an unusually wet season, and for about 3 weeks, 75,000 acres were inundated. It took a total of about 2 months for this water to drain off the land.

The CHAIRMAN. There is definitely a flood problem then. What do you propose to do to solve it or to protect it, under the direction of Congress, in the report you have submitted ?

Colonel HERB. Our plan of improvement provides for channel work, both straightening and channel clearing, and also levee construction. Each of these streams are handled separately. On Fall Creek, we propose to build a set-back levee and other appurtenant work.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is the map of it?
Mr. BOUSQUET. The map of that area is right here [indicating].
The CHAIRMAN. Where does it flow?
Mr. BOUSQUET. Fall Creek flows into the Sny.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is the Sny?
Mr. BoUSQUET. This is the Sny, sir [indicating].
The CHAIRMAN. What do you propose to do on that stream?

Colonel HERB. On Fall Creek we propose to build a set-back levee and appurtenant works.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean on both sides of it, or not?

Colonel HERB. No, sir; just on one side. The side away from the bluff.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I am trying to find out. All right. Then, what else can you do there?

Colonel HERB. That is all on that particular stream.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a railroad involved, or not?

Colonel HERB. No, sir. On Pigeon Creek we plan to provide a leveed channel.


Colonel HERB. Pigeon Creek would be routed through a retarding and desilting reservoir. The channel upstream would be improved by clearing and levees would be built on either side about 450 feet apart.

The CHAIRMAN. What else?
Colonn) HERB. That is all for Pigeon Creek.

The CHAIRMAN. You would call that basin a retarding or desilting basin, would you?

Colonel HERB. It is a retarding and desilting reservoir adjacent to the Sny. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Of what does a retarding and desilting reservoir consist?

Colonel HERB. Retarding is just holding the water back.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you do to hold it back? What is the work that you call retarding?

Colonel HERB. The reservoir would have a fixed outlet which would slow up or retard the flood flows.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.
What happens to that water when it gets into the Sny?
Colonel HERB. The Sny drains into the Mississippi River.

The CHAIRMAN. What is proposed for McCraney, Hadley, and Kiser Creeks

Colonel HERB. We plan to divert the floodwater of those streams into the Mississippi by diversion channels; some railroad relocation work is involved in that particular improvement.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you do anything else except channel work?

Colonel HERB. Yes, sir, we would build levees to provide a leveed diversion channel.

The CHAIRMAN. Who furnishes the rights-of-way for the diversion channels?

Colonel HERB. Local interests, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How about the railway relocation? What about the cost of the railway relocation ?

Colonel HERB. The railway relocation is a Federal cost.

The CHAIRMAN. The Horton and Dutch Creeks also, because the same rule would apply there as apply elsewhere—what do you do there?

Colonel HERB. We divert the Horton and Dutch Creeks to the Mississippi River. The leveed Horton Creek and Dutch Creek channels would be improved and straightened. From the junction of the two diversion channels a leveed channel would extend to the Mississippi River.

The CHAIRMAN. How about the Six Mile Creek?

Colonel HERB. We relocate the existing channel of the Six Mile Creek from the bridge on State Highway 96 to the Alton Railroad bridge. From the railroad bridge the existing channel would be modified and form a junction with the diversion channel for Bay Creek. A new leveed channel would be provided for Bay Creek to its junction with Six Mile Creek diversion channel. From the junction a new levee channel would extend to the Mississippi River about one quarter of a mile below lock and dam No. 24.

« PreviousContinue »