Page images
PDF
EPUB

As you know, the city of Oklahoma City is on official record by action of the Aviation Commission and the city council for the building of a downtown airport south of the river channel in that vicinity. Oklahoma City plans to spend in the neighborhood of $5,000,000 on this airport, which will be an air terminal.

Several conferences have been held during recent months, one of which was in the fall, in the office of the city manager, and was attended by Brig. Gen. E. M. Marks, United States Army Engineers, Dallas, Tex., and Col. F. J. Wilson of Tulsa, Okla. It was generally agreed at this meeting that it would be desirable and economically sound to place the new channel as far north as practical for the purpose of reclaiming and making available the maximum land for an airport site.

Until we have further engineering data on the airport site and have established our definite plans and lay-out, we are unable to advise what changes, if any, would be desirable, other than those shown on maps in appendix 1, sheet No. 76, of United States Engineers' Survey and Report, prepared by the Tulsa office, and dated April 30, 1940.

There is a possibility that when complete surveys and aeronautical studies have been made, it will be found desirable and economically justifiable to place the channel further north than now contemplated.

I wish to point out the economic value of making the maximum land available for airport purposes in that the only other municipally owned and operated airport is more than 8 miles from the heart of the city, whereas this contemplated airport would be approximately 1 mile from the city hall. An airport in this location would make it possible to serve smaller cities of Oklahoma in the surrounding territory with feeder airline service, whereas the present airport facilities, being so far from the center of the city, would depreciate the value of such service if established without a close-in downtown airport in the largest city of the State.

Furthermore, the establishment of an airport on this site would beautify an unsightly stretch of land in the river basin which now divides the city into two parts. It would also eliminate health hazards which now exist because of the terrain and the use thereof.

Yours very truly,

RALPH LEE, City Engineer.

Copy to C. F. Aurand, City Manager, Steadham Acker, Airport Consultant.

Lt. Gen. RAYMOND A. WHEELER,

Chief of Engineers, War Department.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington 25, D. C., October 5, 1945.

MY DEAR GENERAL WHEELER: On July 7, 1945, General Reybold transmitted to me, for my information and comment, a copy of the proposed report on a preliminary examination and survey of North Canadian River, Okla. and Tex., and Beaver River, Okla., together with the reports of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and of the division and district engineers. In accordance with section 1 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, General Reybold asked for my views on the report by Octóber 10, 1945.

The report discusses needed flood control on the North Canadian River in Oklahoma and Texas and on Deep Fork River, its principal tributary. Conclusions reached were that additional reservoir construction, other than the Fort Supply and Canton Reservoirs, was not economically justified at the present time. Justification was found for the construction of a leveed floodway on the North Canadian River at Oklahoma City, for the protection of urban and industrial property.

The proposed construction of the leveed floodway at Oklahoma City is satisfactory to this Department.

The Bureau of Reclamation has continued general investigations in the North Canadian River Basin since the survey report was issued on April 30, 1940, and substantial modification of plans for irrigation development has been made since that time, which is not now shown in the report. Studies by the Bureau of Reclamation show a need for 69,000 acre-feet of storage capacity in Canton Reservoir, which should be definitely assigned to irrigation. As indicated in your report, 40,000 acre-feet of capacity is to be set aside in Canton Reservoir for pollution abatement. In this connection consideration may well be given to the

fact that application for withdrawal of the waters of the North Canadian River was made by letter of July 13, 1939, from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior to the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board. A resolution adopted by the Oklahoma Planning and Resources Board, dated June 5, 1945, and transmitted to the Chief of Engineers by letter dated June 27, 1945, contained the following statement:

"That this Board does ratify and confirm the withdrawal of unappropriated waters of the North Canadian River and its tributaries by the United States for the use and benefit of irrigation in the North Canadian River Basin, including the Canton project, in pursuance of the Federal reclamation laws, and of the aforecited provisions of the Oklahoma laws, by the aforementioned letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior of July 13, 1939, and by the filing of said project plans with this Board on February 12, 1942, by letter from the Chief Engineer, United States Bureau of Reclamation, and in pursuance thereof this Board finds that all of the unappropriated waters of said stream and tributaries vests in the United States for use and benefit of the North Canadian River Basin, including the Canton project, as of July 14, 1939.

* *

The possibility of a multiple-purpose reservoir at the Optima site would be of interest to the Bureau of Mines and others if low-cost power could be developed for use by the metallurgical industry. Also, incident to further studies, it is desirable that provision be made for adekuate investigation of the quantity, quality, and occurrence of surface and ground waters. Such records are needed for later review of plans, operation, and appraisement of benefits or damages resulting from the reservoirs discussed in the report and for appropriate coordination with the best utilization of the natural resources in general.

The investigation by the Bureau of Reclamation of the Palo Duro Reservoir has not been mentioned in the report. This potential project may have some flood control benefits, as well as irrigation benefits, which would accrue to lands on Palo Duro Creek, a tributary of the North Canadian River.

Water supply studies for possible future irrigation uses of water have been made in relation to 6,000 acres above Beaver Reservoir site; 4,000 acres between Beaver Reservoir site and Fort Supply project; 2,000 acres in Laverne are (pumping); 6,000 acres between Fort Supply project and Canton Reservoir; and 5,000 acres between Canton Reservoir and Oklahoma City, exclusive of Canton project, and to be irrigated by return flows from the Canton project.

In paragraph 109, page 71 of the report, the following statement appears: "Information furnished by the Bureau of Reclamation shows that irrigators cannot repay the cost of irrigation works and needed storage capacity in multiplepurpose reservoirs in this watershed if storage costs are allocated in proportion to capacity used."

Although this statement is technically correct on the basis of repayment ability of the irrigators, this statement should not be used to infer that the benefits are not commensurate with costs. Available information indicates that annual benefits from multiple uses of water in the basin are in excess of the total project costs, and it seems that such should be shown in the report.

Discussions and conference held and reports exchanged between the district engineer's office and the Bureau of Reclamation, since the report was issued in 1940, point to the desirability of revising the report. I believe that a comprehensive basin-wide plan under present and anticipated future conditions may show a feasibility and need for more development than the present report finds. Sincerely yours,

ABE FORTAS, Acting Secretary of the Interior.

ARKANSAS AND WHITE RIVER BASINS

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that we have completed the individual projects and the schedule of hearings up to and including this hour and this date, except the remaining matter on the Arkansas and the White Rivers and their tributaries. What additional authorizations do you recommend and would you submit for our consideration? I will ask you what presently is available on the Arkansas? As I understand, there is about $155,000,000 of work which has been approved and $85,000,000 of that has been authorized, and it will take about

$77,000,000 or $78,000,000 to complete the works that are under way, leaving available an uncommitted balance of around $7,000,000 in the Arkansas; is that correct?

Colonel HERB. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. On the White we have approved about $178,000,000 of work and have authorized about $94,000,000, and we have placed under construction about $89,000,000, and have available an uncommitted balance of about four and one-half or five million dollars.

What amounts do you think in the public interest should be considered for increased authorization both for the Arkansas and White, or for each?

Colonel HERB. We would like to have about $40,000,000 additional for the Arkansas basin and a similar amount for the White River basin.

The CHAIRMAN. What projects would you have in mind?

Colonel HERB. The Arkansas River has its source in the Rocky Mountains in central Colorado and flows 1,450 miles southeasterly through Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to the Mississippi River. From the source to Pueblo, Colo., 170 miles, it is a typical mountain stream. At Pueblo it enters the Great Plains and flows over a sandy bed with low banks to Hutchinson, Kans., a distance of 460 miles, with an average slope of nearly 7 feet to the mile. The flow in this section is erratic. While destructive floods occur, portions of the stream bed run dry for considerable periods. Low areas adjacent to this section are under irrigation. From Hutchinson to Little Rock, Ark., a distance of 641 miles, the river flows through the rolling prairies of Kansas and Oklahoma and the rugged section of western Arkansas. The average slope through this section is about 2 feet per mile. Below Little Rock the valley is broad and merges into that of the Mississippi River. The length of this section is 176 miles and the average slope 0.6 foot per mile. The total drainage area of the Arkansas is 160,500 square miles, which is 12 percent of the entire Mississippi River watershed. The average annual rainfall is about 12 inches in the western part of the basin, about 28 inches in the central part, and 50 inches in the eastern part. The channel capacity of the main stream and also of the tributary is generally insuficient to carry storm run-off. The stream flow at Little Rock fluctuates from 1,000 to 830,000 cubic feet per second and averages about 41,000 cubic feet per second. The population of the basin is about 3,700,000. The largest cities are Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Muskogee in Oklahoma; Wichita, Kans.; Pueblo, Colo.; and Little Rock and Fort Smith in Arkansas. Agriculture is the chief industry. The basin has valuable mineral resources, including petroleum and natural gas.

The Arkansas River Basin is subject to serious floods in spite of its relatively undeveloped status. There are about 4,000,000 acres subject to overflow. The average annual damage is estimated at about $4,500,000, including damages to cities and towns. Major floods have occurred in 1908, 1916, 1927, 1935, 1941, 1943, 1944, and 1945. The floods of 1943, 1944, and 1945 caused damage estimated at $60,247,800 and the loss of 47 lives. The flood of 1943 was the most damaging.

The Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, authorized by name several reservoirs in the Arkansas River Basin which form a part of the

comprehensive plan later adopted for that basin. The reservoirs specifically authorized are as follows: Conchas, N. Mex., John Martin. Colo., Fort Supply, Okla., Great Salt Plains, Okla., Optima, Okla., Hulah, Okla. The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, approved the comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Arkansas River Basin as contained in Flood Control Committee Document No. 1, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, and authorized the amount of $21,000,000 for the initiation and partial accomplishment of that plan. The Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, modified the comprehensive plan adopted in the 1938 Act to include the reservoirs in the Grand (Neosho) River Basin and in the Verdigris River Basin in accordance with House Documents Nos. 107 and 440, 76th Congress, 1st session, and authorized an additional $29,000,000 for the further prosecution of the plan. The Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944 authorized an additional $35,000,000 for the further prosecution of the plan.

The comprehensive plan for the Arkansas River Basin consists of a system of reservoirs for the control of floods and other purposes. Excluding the reservoirs specifically authorized in the 1936 Flood Control Act, the plan consists of a system of 13 reservoirs at a total cost of $153,286,000. The principal features of the reservoirs are as follows:

[blocks in formation]

On the Arkansas River we would probably use the additional authorization for the completion of the Markham Ferry Reservoir and for the initiation of the two additional projects, possibly the Toronto and Oologah Reservoirs.

WHITE RIVER BASIN

The White River, classed as a clear-water stream, rises in the Boston Mountains in Madison County, Ark., then flows northerly into southwest Missouri. Its course assumes a northeasterly direction, then southerly, and finally a general easterly direction crossing the Missouri-Arkanas State line several times in a series of short looping bends. At the last of these bends it assumes a southeasterly direction to its confluence with the Black River, its largest tributary, and then flows southerly to its junction with the Mississippi River 45 miles upstream from Arkansas City, Ark. White River has a total length of 720 miles and drains an area of 28,000 square miles. The basin

has a total population of 750,000. The principal occupation is farming.

Floods are comparatively frequent and severe in the basin and flood damages have been very considerable. Major floods of record have occurred in 1915, 1916, 1927, 1935, 1938, 1943, 1944, and 1945. The greatest flood of record was that of April 1927, which caused direct damages estimated at more than $14,000,000. The recent floods of 1943 and 1945 were nearly as large as the greatest flood of record coming within about 1 foot of the flood heights reached at some places during the flood of 1927. Estimates of the damages caused during the recent floods of 1943, 1944, and 1945 amount to $10,705,400 and cost the lives of five persons. The principal flood damages are caused in several small communities along the White River such as Calico Rock, Batesville, Newport, Clarendon, and Augusta in Arkansas, and in extensive agricultural areas located in the flood plains of the White River and principal tributaries.

The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, approved the general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the White River Basin as set forth in Flood Control Committee Document No. 1, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, and authorized $25,000,000 for reservoirs, for initiation, and partial accomplishment of the plan. The Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, authorized $24,000,000 in addition to the previous authorization for the prosecution of the comprehensive plan, including projects recommended in House Document No. 917, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session, and the modifications in the Norfork Reservoir recommended in House Document No. 290, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session. The 1944 Flood Control Act authorized $45,000,000 for continuation of the plan.

The approved plan provides for a system of six reservoirs on tributaries of the White River, and two reservoirs on the main stream. The principal features of the reservoirs are as follows:

[blocks in formation]

On the White River we would probably use additional authorizations for the completion of Bull Shoals Reservoir and for the construction of Table Rock Reservoir, both of those being on the main stream of the White River.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any opponents of any other projects that have been considered up to date? Are there any other witnesses present who have not been heard or any other projects in any other regions in the United States that you desire to present to the attention of the Committee on Flood Control?

The committee will be adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

« PreviousContinue »