Our Supreme Court has also held that owners of land lying within the boundaries of levee or drainage districts cannot recover damages against the drainag or levee district for the construction of the drainage or levee improvement.

The case of State ex rel. Hausgen v. Allen (298 Mo. 448, 250 S. W. 905) one of the cases in the State of Missouri sustaining this position. And this rule of law is applicable whether the district constructs its improvements with or without negligence.

It will be thus seen that under the law of Missouri the construction of an improvement such as contemplated along the St. Francis River in Missouri would furnish no right of action for damages against the district to owners of lands lying outside the district and where no part of such lands were actu ally taken or appropriated to the use of the district. Further, no right of action for damages is given to owners of lands where the lands involved i the suit for damages are within the district.

Of course, what has been said does not apply to damages for the land actually taken for rights-of-way or appropriated for other uses of the district. This land would have to be paid for, and the method of acquiring this land and payment therefor will be hereafter discussed under the statutory authority of drainage and levee districts; nor does it apply in suits for damages to lands either within or without the district where the damages sought are for injury to lands owned by one who also owns a contiguous tract or part of lands which are actually taken or appropriated by the district.

A case in Missouri involving this distinction is the case of Inter-River Drain age District v. Ham (275 Mo. 384). This case is one where the owner sought damages to a portion of his tract not actually taken for right-of-way but where a portion of the owner's land contiguous thereto was actually taken for right-of-way. In this case our Supreme Court held liability existed and distinguishes this character of cases from the character of cases where the damages sought are to lands either within or without the drainage district and where no portion of the owner's lands are actually taken or appropriated to the use of the district.

It might not be amiss to here state that none of the constitutional provisions in Missouri relative to taxes, valuation, etc., are applicable to a drainage and levee district. This because our supreme court holds that assessments for drainage and levee improvements are not taxes within the provisions of the constitution of Missouri, and are not controlled thereby.

(See the long line of cases cited under sec. 3, art. X, of Missouri Constitution in support of the above statement.)

It may be fairly stated from an examination of the law of the State of Missouri that the only constitutional limitation on drainage and levee districts is the one requiring payment for property actually taken for rights-of-way and such property as is appropriated by the district. Outside of this limita tion, it would appear that the drainage and levee districts in Missouri are unrestricted insofar as their constitutional authority is concerned.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

(Drainage District No. 25 of Dunklin County, Mo.)

Drainage District No. 25 of Dunklin County, Mo., was constructed under the provisions of the County Court drainage law and which is found in article 2 chapter 64 of the Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri for the year 1929. and beginning with section 10809 of such revision.

It will be noted that section 10822 (all references to sections herein are to Revised Statutes of Missouri for the year 1929) gives to the county court the right to condemn for the use of the district any necessary land or other property, even though same was not acquired or condemned by the court in the original organization of the district. This gives the county court, who is by law the board of control of drainage districts organized under this law, the power of condemnation.

It will be noted that section 10822 provides that in condemnation the same proceedings shall be had as now provided by law for the appropriation of land or other property taken for telegraph, telephone, and railroad rights-of-way. This procedure referred to will be found embraced in sections 1340, 1341, 1342 1343, and 1344. This procedure, in substance, permits one suit to condem and the appointment of three commissioners, and any appeals do not delay the work but are by statute to affect the amount of damages.

By section 140653, the evanty courts have continuous control of the draudse istrict and are authorized to maintain, restore, repair, and aquaclava ciga itches, drains or levees.

Section 10844 provides statutory authority for the levying of an annual maintenance tax. and where such tax is insufficient, et te ud a rovide the machinery for raising the additional monex Альтер

ections also embrace and contemplate any new work necky to be do Section 10824 gives express authority to levy a tax atut the lands in th listrict to pay off any judgments against the district.

Section 11023 is a general law applicable to all dratunge and terep duttuka and gives express authority to the boards of all drainage and loved dotdota n the State to perform every act necessary to comply with or avall depuradya of Federal legislation that will have for its purpose lightening the put u axation resting on the lands and property in such districts

A reading of the drainage law under which Drainage Petit No Bow4a organized will leave no doubt, in my opinion, that suterent and ample authority s given to Drainage District No. 25 to acquire rights of wax and othing puqu*** necessary for the use of the district, and authorises providing for a fund fo pay therefor. Provision is also made to pay any Judgments hudumuspa that might be rendered against the district, if any such damagea le adimlerdd up to the amount of the benefits assessed.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

(Levee District No. 4 of Dunklin County, Maan!)

Levee District No. 4 of Dunklin County, Mo., was organisul unula andik, chapter 64 of Revised Statutes of Missouri for the you 1958, mind plumin with section 10958.

Section 10970 gives the board of directors power to defumming the Hakamur work, etc. The power to assess the lunds for the work mud this method of assessment is contained in section 10971,

Section 1080 gives the right of eminent domain and complemmatim kN A***** rights-of-way, and the power of condemnation in westled in the BAN HONDIME as hereinbefore referred to, as applicable to Druimugs tristek

Section 10655 places the supervisión of the work under the Promet që krimchipm and gives them the right to apprint or metal with whl wählte Pre ki performance of the work

Section
as gende askority w kwani wil* Tom
River Commuui reated by Ws st Kung, N
United States Grmum men"

and maintenanes if the

11023 is a

referred Section

In this anne Di

enlarge

original

strengthening

or not provision was made in the law to provide the funds necessary for such objectives.

My understanding is that this opinion is requested in conjunction with the contemplated improvement along the St. Francis River in Missouri and within Drainage District No. 25 and Levee District No. 4.

After investigation, it is my opinion that ample authority exists under the law by the provisions of which both districts were organized, to procure rights-of-way and other property needed by the district and that provisions are also made to pay therefor, and in addition to pay off and discharge any judgments that might be rendered against the district.

In my opinion, statutory authority exists for raising the revenue necessary to pay for such rights-of-way and other property appropriated to the use of the district, and to pay any damages that might to adjudged against the district by reason of the construction of the contemplated improvement. The constitution of Missouri does not prohibit any construction so long as compensation is made for private property taken or damaged for rights-of-way, or appropriated to other uses of the district.

If the above does not give you the desired information, I will, upon request, try to elaborate further in the matter. Respectfully submitted,

LANGDON R. JONES, Attorney.

Mr. DRIVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like now to extend my profound thanks for the courtesies extended to the gentlemen from the district I represent as well as the others.

I understand you have the president of the Mississippi River Commission here, who, because of his official relations, you would like to accommodate this afternoon, and I will be very glad for him to have the opportunity to address you.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like Judge Driver, as a representative of the tenth district in Missouri, which contains all of the flooded area of the St. Francis, to make a statement to the committee.

Mr. DRIVER. I would like at a later time, if convenient to the committee, to make a brief statement supplementing the things that have been said. That may be done at the convenience of the committee.

However, we have asked Senator Clark, of Missouri, who is very much interested in the St. Francis proposition, to make a statement to the committee, and he has sent word that he would be here and asked us not to adjourn until he has had an opportunity to make a brief statement.

I understand Senator Clark is on his way here from the Senate. The CHAIRMAN. We would be very glad to have a statement by Senator Clark when he arrives.

STATEMENT OF HON. BENNETT CHAMP CLARK, A SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

The CHAIRMAN. I will turn this over to Mr. Zimmerman, Congressman from Missouri.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it affords me genuine pleasure today to present to this committee and those attendance our senior United States Senator from Missouri, the Hon. Bennett Champ Clark, who has manifested great interest in the St. Francis River proposition ever since he has been in the United States Senate. In fact, Senator Clark has proved to the people of southeast Missouri and, I might say, to the Nation as well, that he is a friend of projects similar to the St. Francis and other projects.

He is very much interested in these developments and he has consented to leave his important committee assignments this morning, in order that he might be here with us and contribute whatever he has to say to this project.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have Senator Clark, and I wish to say that I know his interest in flood control. His father, Champ Clark, was Speaker of the House and the chief factor in creating this committee. You really might say that he was responsible for the creation of the Flood Control Committee, of which I have been a member from the date of its creation.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate very much the courtesy the committee has shown me and I will undertake to reciprocate by making my statement exceedingly brief.

As the chairman said, I have always been very much interested in the work of this committee. My father was in the House at the time it was created and contributed in what small degree he could to the creation of the committee.

We have always in Missouri been extremely interested in the matter of flood control and the prevention of the very serious losses that occur from floods. The Mississippi River forms the whole of the eastern boundary of that State; the Missouri forms a third of the western boundary and traverses the State for its entire width. In addition to that, we have the St. Francis, Osage, Black, and other great rivers of the State, which are subject to flood conditions and which have caused immense damage in the State. Therefore, I speak with some familiarity of the various types of flood-control projects in the United States; and I say, without any hesitation, I think that the reports of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army abundantly bear out the assertion that there is not in the whole of the United States a more meritorious flood-control project than that of the St. Francis Basin. I do not believe that there is any other place in the United States, or in any of the tributary rivers, where the people have suffered more in recent years than the people have in the great St. Francis Basin in Missouri and Arkansas.

The portion of that valley subject to overflow, above the backwater area, comprises, I think, about one-twelfth of the total area of the State of Arkansas and about one-fifteenth of the total area of the State of Missouri. It is an area which has been very rapidly de veloped in the last 25 years, you might say since the various drainage projects reclaimed the land and permitted cultivation to a larger degree than before. The investments, improvements, and developments in that whole area have been very great in that period of 25 years. But with this condition of constant overflow, and I say this broadly, when I said a moment ago that it was one of the most urgent and meritorious projects in the United States, I had reference to the fact particularly that in recent years there has been a flood practically every year and in some years there have been as many as four or five floods. I think the year before last there were at least five separate and distinct floods, in which the railroads were flooded out and the highways which have been improved by the State of Missouri and the State of Arkansas to the extent of millions of dollars were rendered impassable and the people were driven from their homes and

the agricultural availability of one of the richest natural agricultural sections of the whole civilized world has been absolutely destroyed. Under conditions of that sort it has been impossible for the farmers of that area to take advantage of the various machinery for agricultural credit and relief set up by the Federal Government, because the value of their land is so tremendously impaired by the possibility or probability of having 1 to 5 floods any year and every year.

I have some pictures here that were furnished to me by the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, that very graphically show the conditions in that valley. Here is one that shows a very fine concrete highway under several feet of water. Here is one that shows the approaches to a bridge under several feet of water. These pictures very graphically illustrate the effect of the constantly recurring breaks.

Already this spring several thousand people have been driven out of their homes and their prospects for crops this year have been ruined by a very disastrous flood; and, as I say, it has been a matter of recurrence any year and every year. I repeat that, for those reasons, it is one of the most meritorious flood-control projects in the whole of the United States.

In conclusion, I would say that I am exceedingly glad to see that the committee is giving this their attention. I am a member of the Commerce Committee in the Senate and I can assure you that when the bill gets over there it will be expedited.

Mr. DRIVER. Mr. Chairman, I request that the photographs handed around by Senator Clark be made exhibits to his statement to the committee. Senator, that is very fine indeed.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; that will be done. Does any member of the committee desire to ask questions of the Senator?

We thank you very much, Senator, for your presence here.

In your judgment, you approve the designation of authority to the Chief of Engineers and the authorization of the money to carry out the work in this area under the direction of the Chief of Engineers! Senator CLARK. I very much approve of it, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is a very imperative necessity.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you.

STATEMENT OF MR. J. W. MEYER, BLYTHEVILLE, ARK.

My name is J. W. Meyer. I reside at Blytheville, Ark., and am a civil engineer by profession. For the past 18 years I have been in the employ of Drainage District No. 17 of Mississippi County, Ark., the last 10 years, having been in charge of construction and maintenance in said district. I am here to represent Drainage District No. 17 and the people of Mississippi County.

Drainage District No. 17 was created by authority of Act No. 103 of the Arkansas Legislature approved February 20, 1917. Located in the northeast part of Mississippi County, the district has an area of 165,000 acres, or about one-third the area of the county. Twenty-three miles of levee in Drainage District No. 16 and 63 miles of levee in Drainage District No. 17 were constructed through Mississippi County for the purpose of protecting the acreage in the county from the flood waters of Little River, a tributary of the St. Francis.

The source of Little River is in the hills of Cape Girardeau County, Mo. Entering the St. Francis Valley near Delta, Mo., it flows in a southerly direc tion through Scott, Stoddard, New Madrid, Pemiscot, and Dunklin Counties in Missouri, enters Big Lake at the Arkansas-Missouri State Line, and flows through the lake a distance of about 15 miles. From the south end of Big Lake it flows in a southwesterly direction, joining the St. Francis River near Marked Tree in Poinsett County, Ark.