Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

H. Doc. 574, 78th Cong. 2d sess.
H. Doc. 269, 78th Cong. 1st sess.
H. Doc. 236, 78th Cong. 1st sess.
H. Doc. 892, 77th Cong. 2d sess.
H. Doc. 564, 78th Cong. 2d sess.
H. Doc. 268, 78th Cong. 1st sess.
H. Doc. 270, 78th Cong. 1st sess,
H. Doc. 708, 77th Cong. 2d sess.
H. Doc. 275, 78th Cong. 1st sess.
H. Doc. 426, 77th Cong. 1st sess.
H. Doc. 518, 78th Cong. 2d sess.

Total

[subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1 The Flood Control Act of 1941 provided an additional $5,000,000 of authorization which carried a limitation that makes it unusable to carry out the work authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944. 2 Of which $2,100,000 is expected to be provided in the Department of Agriculture appropriation bill for fiscal year 1947, which has passed the House.

3 Total includes $121,778 allotted for use on 5 emergency projects to which local contributions totaled some $175,000 additional.

Watershed area

Progress in installation of works of improvement on these watersheds is necessary at the rate required to provide for completion in the number of years called for by the approved plans if the work is to be as effective as expected and if the job is to be done with the amount of work contemplated by the plans. The greater the delay, the more difficult it is to do the job, the more it will cost and the less effective it will be.

The foresight of Congress in authorizing advance planning of authorized watershed programs has facilitated development of plans for work so that operations can get under way with a minimum of delay. We are mindful, in this regard, of the desires of Congress, as expressed in section 13 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, that following the cessation of hostilities the projects authorized by the act should be initiated as expeditiously and prosecuted as vigorously as may be consistent with budgetary requirements. Some work is now being done in each of the 11 approved areas and we expect to expand these activities this summer.

We, of course, are faced with the problem of increased costs of materials, equipment and labor, but it does not as immediately affect our total work installation costs as in the case of the Corps of Engineers because our authorized programs of work are scheduled to extend over a period of several years in each watershed. As a result it will be some time before we can finally check our estimates against actual total costs. In the meantime, we are going ahead to accomplish as much of the job as we can as economically as possible, in accordance with the approved programs, so long as it remains clearly sound and within the scope of the authorizations.

We have no additional survey reports to present to the committee for its consideration at this time. Our preliminary examination and survey activities have been suspended for some 3 years and are just now in process of being resumed.

The CHAIRMAN. Representative Butler, of New York, has submitted an amendment to the adopted project in the Buffalo area, in the following words:

The program on the watershed of Buffalo Creek and its tributaries authorized in section 13 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, is hereby modified to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to include and prosecute works for the stabilization of stream banks such as described in House Document Numbered 574, 78th Congress, second session, at an estimated ultimate additional cost of $1,842,400.

Are you familiar with the subject matter of this proposed amendment?

Mr. PHILLIPS. In general; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you say to the committee with respect to his suggestion; what would be your recommendation?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Recent observations made by our field people who are now in the area developing work plans for authorized operations which are to start next fiscal year indicate that the rate of stream bank erosion on Buffalo Creek and its tributaries has accelerated during the past 5 years since the survey was completed. Gravel and sand bars are being deposited which further restrict the flow of the stream and deflect the current to undermine valuable agricultural land bordering the stream.

Stream-bank erosion is an important source of sedimentation damage and also results in loss of high value valley bottom farm lands because of bank undercutting and caving.

The survey report on the Buffalo Creek watershed indicates that. at the time the survey was made, stream-bank erosion contributed 80 percent of the sediment annually dredged from Buffalo Harbor.

There are sufficient total benefits, as indicated by the report, to justify stream-bank control work in addition to the other authorized activities. The ratio would be $1.69 of benefit to $1 of cost for all approved activities if the stream bank erosion control work were also authorized at an additional estimated cost of $1,842,400.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have not a copy of that amendment, I am passing the communication and statement of Representative John C. Butler to the reporter, with his proposed amendment, for insertion in connection with your testimony, and I would thank you later on to bring to our attention your suggestions in regard to this proposed amendment in connection with any other language you feel and recommend should be included in the bill.

Mr. PHILLIPS. We believe the suggested amendment submitted by Congressman Butler would accomplish the objective he desires. (The matter submitted for the record by the chairman is as follows:)

Hon. WILLIAM M. WHITTINGTON,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., April 18, 1946.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR COLLEAGUE: I have been requested by the people of West Seneca, N. Y., to include in the annual flood control bill an authorization to reexamine the Buffalo Creek watershed, New York, for the purpose of determining the practicability of adding stream-bank-erosion control to the original authorization.

I have been further advised by the solicitor that it is not legal to do stream bank work under the original authorization and no funds are authorized. The stream bank problem is more severe than at the time of the survey. A large silt load comes from stream banks and the people are anxious that the stream bank work be done.

This project was included under amendment to House Document 574, Seventyeighth Congress, second session. Authorized in House Document 534, passed December 22, 1944.

Any consideration you may be able to give this work by including the enclosed clause as a part of the legislation now pending before your committee will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN C. BUTLER.

SEC. - The program on the watershed of Buffalo Creek and its tributaries authorized in section 13 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, is hereby amended to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to include and prosecute works for the stabilization of stream banks such as described in House Document Numbered 574, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at an estimated additional cost of $1,842,400.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions by members of the committee? If not, we are delighted to have your statement. I am wondering, before you leave, if there is any question in the mind of the Solicitor of Agriculture as to the amount of the authorizations that remain unexpended. I ask you that for this reason: My recollection is that there was an appropriation that was made before the act of 1941. Am I correct in my recollection?

Mr. PHILLIPS. It was 1938, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. Before the act of 1938 was actually signed by the President. But the Senate and the House having passed the bill and the Committee on Appropriations having made appropriations based upon that authorization, it strikes me that appropriation is properly chargeable against the authorization and it was made by the Congress on the theory that Congress had authorized it. You might keep that in mind in your further recommendations for additional author

izations.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Technically I believe, Judge Whittington, our Solicitor has the feeling, because the appropriation of $4,000,000 was actually made on June 11, 1938, before the authorization of June 28, 1938, was passed, that it would not necessarily have to be charged against the authorization, but we appreciate the apparent intent of Congress, and our presentation to you indicates we consider it a charge against the authorization.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought it fair to make that statement to the committee; because, while technically you may be correct, we try to get at the substance and intent behind the language.

Now, are there any of your associates here either from Soil Conservation or the Forest Service who desire to supplement your statement?

Mr. PHILLIPS. There are representatives here to answer questions propounded by the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is the representative from Soil Conservation? Mr. PHILLIPS. Mr. Homer M. Wells is here from the Soil Conservation Service.

STATEMENT OF HOMER M. WELLS, CHIEF, WATER CONSERVATION DIVISION, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wells, are you experiencing any difficulty in securing thus far, with the limited appropriations that have been available, lands under the terms of the act of 1944, where you are authorized to acquire them, and upon the terms of that act?

Mr. WELLS. We have planned to acquire no lands this year.

The CHAIRMAN. Until the next fiscal year?

Mr. WELLS. Not any this year or in fiscal year 1947.

The CHAIRMAN. Your appropriations as presently carried in the appropriation acts now pending in the Congress do not contemplate the actual acquiring of any lands?

Mr. WELLS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. But generally where the States have passed enabling acts to comply with what we call the Weeks law, those States can qualify and cooperate with you when necessary to acquire eroded lands for the purpose of soil conservation and erosion work?

Mr. WELLS. That is right, for watershed protection in the interest of flood control.

Mr. PHILLIPS. In addition, I might point out that the State of Oklahoma has given specific authorization for acquisition of lands as authorized by the approved Washita watershed report.

The CHAIRMAN. Specifically?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of common knowledge and from statements made from time to time by Senators and Representatives in the discussion of matters involving the acquiring of other lands, whether for reforestation or soil conservation, flood control, or other public purposes, there is a tendency, that may find expression in statutes, of undertaking, for purposes not constitutionally authorized, the taxing of lands acquired by the Federal Government, and my thought is in connection with your program and the forestry program that it is well enough to keep that in mind and keep the committee advised, so that if you need any additional language to fortify, permit, and promote soil-conservation work, erosion work, and stream work that you are doing under the terms of the act, we would be glad to have your recommendations from time to time.

Mr. PHILLIPS. In that regard, Mr. Gordon R. Salmond, of the Forest Service, is here and that Service does contemplate some acquisition in fiscal year 1947.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have your statement, Mr. Salmond.

Give the reporter your full name and official position.

STATEMENT OF GORDON R. SALMOND, CHIEF, DIVISION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, FOREST SERVICE

Mr. SALMOND. My name is Gordon R. Salmond; I am Chief of the Division of Watershed Management of the Forest Service.

The CHAIRMAN. During what we are pleased to call the depression, or what we do, whether we are pleased or not, the Government has acquired millions multiplied by millions of forest lands, have they not, in the various States of the country?

Mr. SALMOND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And those lands in a measure-and I use that term advisedly-have been removed from the tax rolls of the local jurisdictions.

Mr. SALMOND. That is correct, but the national forests pay 25 percent of their gross revenues to the counties in lieu of taxes.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any statement in connection with further acquisitions of lands or of prohibitions by States or other subdivisions that you would like to submit to the committee?

Mr. SALMOND. With respect to the acquisition of land under the Flood Control Acts, the Forest Service has contemplated purchasing 10,000 or 12,000 acres of land in Mississippi in the Yazoo and Little Tallahatchie areas during the fiscal year 1947.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you contemplate purchasing anywhere else? Mr. SALMOND. No, sir; only in the two areas in Mississippi in the fiscal year 1947. The Flood Control Act provides where lands are purchased that there shall be paid 1 percent of the purchase price annually to the counties in which the purchases were made. At the present time, there is some question as to whether or not the Forest Service will be able to proceed with its purchase program in Mississippi because Mississippi has recently repealed its consent to Federal land acquisition.

We do not intend to proceed with the acquisition of land under the flood-control program until it is clear that the State has consented to it. The CHAIRMAN. Under the present appropriations, do you intend to

« PreviousContinue »