one and one-half times the assessed value as of January 1, 1935. No payment is to be made for timber, nor for buildings or improvements or personal property of any kind, nor for damage to roads and bridges, nor for damage to crops by reason of letting water in on floodway lands, nor for crop or any other damage from seepage water from the floodway levee to land outside the floodway.

4. The payments for flowage rights would be made by Government to the State or levee board in a lump sum, who would settle with landowners. We observe that nearly all this money would go to mortgage creditors after deducting both Federal and State income taxes, and that the landowner would be left with his land, still in debt, with no possible prospect of selling it, and with no possibility of borrowing money on a land mortgage or to make a crop. The land in the floodway would be absolutely out of commerce. There would be a gap left open at the end of the spillway. It is barely possible that a small levee about the height of the L. and A. embankment would be built from the end of the floodway levee to the Mississippi River levee.

5. All the land in the floodway area in Concordia Parish, and nearly all the land in the floodway area in Tensas Parish, are also in the back-water area. General Markham's report recommends that no land subject to overflow from back water should be paid for. General Ferguson told us he was uncertain whether or not flowage rights over any of said lands in Tensas and Concordia Parishes would be paid for.

6. It is proposed to dig a drainage canal near the base of the east-side levee to replace destroyed drainage. The Government will not build any bridges over the canal.

7. It is proposed to construct only one bridge in the entire floodway in Louisiana; that would be a bridge across the floodway from Quebec to Delhi on the Dixie-Overland Highway, which would cost about $6,000,000. If the parish desires bridges at intervals across the drainage canal, the parish must build them, and even if built the problem is presented of how to get over the levee.

8. We find that the effect of the construction of this floodway would be to utterly destroy the area within its limits so far as the possibility of cultivating it is concerned; to destroy the farm houses and homes of many of our industries, useful citizens, and to start them and their families named to begin life again; to destroy their schools and their churches; to destroy valuable manufacturing plants, their outfit, the railroads, and bridges; to wipe out of existence such towns as Monticello, Millikin, Gassoway, Tendal, Waverly, and other smaller hamlets, none of which damage would be compensated, and to make the area in the floodway fit for habitation by alligators, water moccasins, bullfrogs, and the beasts and varments of the jungle.

9. We further find that by the practical elimination of this vast area from taxation, that in order to maintain our schools, our roads, and our levee board, our bridges, and our parish government, the tax burden on the property owners in these four parishes would be so largely increased as to be an insupportable burden.

10. We find that much increased taxation would also be necessary of those property owners outside the spillway to pay bond interest and provide sinking funds on outstanding indebtedness of each of the parishes of this district and on your levee board, to take the place of such taxes proportion of which has heretofore been borne by property within said floodway. The assessed value of the four parishes in this levee district is around $30,000,000. Why not pay all property three times the assessed value of all property, land timber, and personal, which would amount to 90,000,000 as against $150,000,000 estimated cost of the Eudora floodway, make the whole area from the Mississippi River levee to the Macon Ridge a big floodway and let all of us take the payments we get and move out on the Ridge? The Government could start right now with an already made floodway, not have to wait 6 years or more to complete the Eudora plan, and save $60,000,000. We cannot escape the conclusion that if this work is a national necessity the Nation should compensate all who suffer loss or damage.

11. General Ferguson is of the opinion that with the lowering of the flood height in the Mississippi River by the Atchafalaya flood way, now building, and the cutting across points in the Mississippi River, now nearly completed, that the Eudora flood way would very seldom, if ever, be used.

12. That being so, we advise that flood-way legislation by Congress in line with General Markham's recommendations, insofar as the Eudora flood way is

concerned, be opposed and defeated, and we recommend that this levee board memorialize the President of the United States, the Secretary of War, the Congress, and our Senators and Representatives to that effect, and that a copy of this report be sent to each of them and be published in each newspapers in the levee district and in the daily press of Monroe, Vicksburg, Memphis, and New Orleans.

On motion of Jeff B. Snyder, seconded by H. C. Miller, the following resolution was adopted:

"Be it resolved, That Hon. Joseph E. Ransdell, Hon. Joseph T. Curry, Messrs. F. H. Schneider, J. M. Hamley, and Henry C. Seiver are hereby appointed a committee to go to Washington, D. C., and appear before the Flood Control Committee of Congress and General Markham, in opposition to the construction of any flood way through the territory embraced in the Fifth Louisiana Levee District, satisfied as we are that the construction of said flood way would destroy the autonomy of the parishes involved; destroy millions of dollars worth of property unpaid for; make human life unsafe; make a jungle of the most fertile of our lands; make them inaccessible; take them out of commerce; destroy their use for agricultural purposes; destroy homes, churches, school buildings, fences, barns, and make a waste of more than 400,000 acres of the most fertile land in America; and create a constant menacing danger hanging over the heads of the people left in the thin line along the Mississippi River, like the sword of Damocles. Said committee is authorized and directed to oppose in Washington before Congress and the heads of departments in every way possible the construction of said flood way and to make it known in no uncertain terms that the property owners of this district will resort to the courts and use every effort to defeat this proposed destruction.

"Resolved further, That the board of commissioners for the Fifth Louisiana Levee District is respectfully requested to defray the expenses of these upstanding citizens selected by this outstanding body of property owners and taxpayers affected, to represent them at Washington in opposition to this floodway; be it further

"Resolved, That local opposition to this flood way is more widespread and intense than the local opposition west of us to the Boeuf floodway."

The meeting adjourned subject to call of its president, Senator Ransdell. It may be noted that between 350 and 500 people were present, including district judges, sheriffs, clerks of court, district attorney, tax assessors, members of police juries, school boards, bank presidents, and the larget landowners in the district, and the largest merchants in the district, all of whom were unanimous in their opposition to this proposed flood way and in support of the foregoing resolution.

The delegation from Tensas Parish stated that that parish was more than 90 percent opposed to this flood way, and that sentiment against it was growing at such a rapid rate that in only a few days not more than three men in the parish of Tensas could be found to favor it.

It is noted that the citizens present were all representative citizens; they counted for something, and in no uncertain voice enunciated their opposition to this flood way.

Hon. JOSEPH RANSDELL,

Lake Providence, La.

LAKE PROVIDENE, LA., March 28, 1935.

DEAR SENATOR: In response to your request that I advise you as to my attitude concerning the proposed Eudora Spillway, I beg to say that I am unalterably opposed to same in any form.

In explanation of my position I beg to state that soon after I got through college I spent about 12 years in engineering work on the Mississippi River levees; since that time I have continuously engaged, as you know, in farming in the parish of East Carroll.

I do not believe the natural productive capacity, acre for acre, of the lands situated in the parishes of East Carroll, Madison, and Tensas, and particularly in the parish of East Carroll, is exceeded by any lands in the United States of America.

The parish of East Carroll is a long narrow parish, being 32 miles long by the official Government survey. I am informed that there are now something avore 200,000 acres of lands on the land side of the present Mississippi River levee in the parish of East Carroll. If this proposed spillway project is constructed in accordance with the recommendations already made by the Chief of United States Engineers, I am informed that there will be less than 50,000 acres

left in the parish of East Carroll between the spillway guide levee and the present Mississippi River levee.

The member of the State board of engineers who has been advocating the construction of this spillway through this district with zeal rarely seen in anyone has stated in several public meetings in this area that this spillway will not be needed for more than 20 years and that it probably will not be used during that time more than once in 12 years.

In my opinion, the construction of this spillway would so dislocate conditions in the parish of East Carroll that it would completely ruin the town of Lake Providence, which, under normal conditions, is a thriving town of some 3,000 people, with two banks, both long-established and neither of which has ever failed or even been in a failing condition; and it would completely destroy the usefulness of a farming area, which in natural fertility, I believe, is not exceeded by any lands in the United States of America; and, insofar as the parish of East Carroll is concerned, it would place this whole community in much worse condition than if the whole present line of Mississippi River levees on the front were torn down and the entire parish of East Carroll turned into a floodway without guide levees.

The spillway itself would present problems which I think have received very little attention from most of our citizens, such as drainage and bridging the drainage canal, which would have to be built on the east side of the east spillway guide levee, and it would ruin the roads which we now have and those we plan building in the parish of East Carroll.

As you know, I have several plantations which would be in the spillway, and I also own plantations which would not be in the spillway. You also know that I own a plantation-and have for many years which has a long front on the Mississippi River levee. I feel that I know a good deal about the Mississippi River, not only in a theoretical way but with that sort of knowledge which can only come from practical experience and close study of a problem in which one's vital interests are interwoven.

I feel sure that if the spillway is to be used as a spillway that the lands in the spillway will, after a year or so, be practically valueless and cannot be successfully cultivated. There could be no confidence in the farming operations on lands in this spillway if it is to be used; the psychological handicap would be such that it would be practically insurmountable-there would be no more certainty in what one might be able to do in any given crop year than there is at present in farming the lands on the river side of the Mississippi River levee; and you know that while abortive attempts have been made at this during the last 50 or 60 years there is practically no one who attempts it any more. On the contrary, if the spillway is not to be used, why should it be built and why should this community be absolutely destroyed or so crippled that absolute destruction would be preferable?

As you know, everything that I have has been made under the conditions as existing in the parish of East Carroll. You and I know, as we both have been here a long time, that conditions have been constantly improving during the ast 40 years in this parish; we both know that prior to a comparatively few years ago it was very hard to get substantial citizens from other sections interested in this area. I realize that no one is infallible but I do feel that in view of my past life, with which you are entirely familiar. I am entitled to believe that my opinion as to what will be the results of this project is more likely to be correct than the opinion of someone who has not been situated as I have been.

I can very well understand the position of those who having unproductive lands in this spillway area are in favor of its construction because they believe thereby they will be able to make a favorable sale; I can also understand why those who having no vital interest in this community and having little or nothing to lose favor the construction of this spillway because they believe in some way that they will get some of the money which is to be spent in its construction; but I cannot understand how anyone who resides in the parish of East Carroll and has a real interest in the community and its future welfare can help but see the complete disaster which would result to the parish of East Carroll by the construction of this proposed spillway.

I believe that the lands in the spillway would after a few years be owned either by the State Government through tax adjudications or the United States Government by condemnation proceedings; in either event, practically all of said lands after a year or so would not be subject to taxation, with the result that the small area in the parish of East Carroll left between the spillway

guide levee and the Mississippi River levee would have to bear the entire burden of taxation necessary to retire the present bonded indebtedness of the parish and drainage districts and also the maintenance of parish government; which burden under such conditions would be confiscatory.

We have seen this community subjected to disasters in the past, such overflows, the severe yellow-fever epidemic of 1905, and so forth, but, in my opinion all these disasters which both you and I have seen during our lives afflict this area, if rolled into one, would not be comparable to the destructive influences which would result to the parish of East Carroll if this proposed spillway is constructed.

DEAR SENATOR RANSDELL: As a citizen and taxpayer of East Carroll Parish, I feel I would not be fulfilling my duty without expressing to you and to the Flood Control Committee in Congress my opposition, and some of the reasons therefor, to the so-called "Eudora Spillway" project as recommended by the report of the United States Engineers as transmitted to Congress.

As you know, I am no engineer. However, I have lived behind the levees for the past 30 years and have done my part in fighting the flood waters of the Mississippi River during every high water which has occurred during that period. For about 20 years I was engaged in building levees in the southeast Arkansas territory and through Louisiana, in the Third and Fourth Mississippi River Engineer Districts; therefore, I am thoroughly familiar with the area affected by the proposed floodway and the main-line levees from the mouth of the Arkansas to Old River.

During the 1927 high-water fight I was in charge of the levees on the Louisiana side, representing Major Lee, who was then in charge of the Third United States Engineers District, also the Fifth Louisiana Levee District as far south as the Third United States Engineers District extends, which is a few miles below Delta Point. I lived on a houseboat during those weeks, day and night, and had reports from the entire line of levee over which I had charge every few minutes during those critical days when practically the whole valley was under water.

This, I realize, is of no consequence from an engineering standpoint, as it affects flood control in a general way, but I simply want to call your attention to this to let you know some of the practical experiences I have had, which I believe might be of some value when we consider the practical aspects of the situation, and also might lend some force to the observations I may call to your attention bearing upon the subject.

My keen interest may also be explained by the fact that every dollar I have ever earned is invested in farm lands in this parish. One farm, consisting of 1300 acres, is entirely within the proposed floodway as recommended by the Engineers" report, and another farm of 3,300 acres is outside of the proposed floodway, the Eastern Guide Levee running some 2 miles west of it. Therefore, I am interested personally, both as a landowner in the proposed floodway and as one protected by the floodway, if it proves to be a protection.

I am opposed to this project, first, on the ground that it is not needed if the Engineers' estimate of the effects of cutting off the bends in the river between the mouth of the Arkansas and the Red is anywhere near correct. Second, that the destruction of property and the disorganization of our social and economie life is not justified when this project is purported to take care of superfloods. which might occur once in 12 or 15 years and which might never occur, if the plans of the Mississippi River Commission are carried out and the remaining few cut-offs are completed below the mouth of the Arkansas.

It is natural that the value of the lands within the proposed floodway will de materially reduced for taxing purposes, because they will only be protected to 51 feet on the Vicksburg gage, whereas lands outside of the floodway will be protected to approximately 60 feet. Therefore, the lands outside of the floodway have to bear additional tax burdens sufficient to take care of our local government as well as outstanding obligations. Our levee district has outstanding

bonded debts as well as the parish drainage and school districts. These levee, highway, school, and drainage bonds must be paid at maturity, and my belief is that the property outside of the floodway cannot stand the additional tax burden which would be necessary to meet these obligations.

The proposed capacity of the floodway, which is calculated to reach a depth of 20 feet of water, if necessary, would destroy all improvements on these lands for which there is proposed no compensation. The payment of one and one-half times the 1934 assessment for the lands would not in any way compensate the owner under such conditions.

There has been no consideration given to such institutions as churches, schools, and other community centers which make up to a large extent the social life of our rural sections, and which I think is an important factor to be considered. You cannot determine in dollars and cents compensation for destruction of the social and economic life of a community that has built up a thriving farm life, with all the elements of good citieznship which grow out of such effort. Along the banks of the Bayou Macon in East Carroll Parish, particularly, some of our best citiezns have gone into the woods, cleared lands, built homes, churches. and school buildings, of which they are naturally proud. These lands are fertile and the people are happy and full of hope. This shadow of a probable flooding of their property at intervals will destroy absolutely the sale value, as well as the loan value, of the lands but, worst of all, will destroy their confidence and feeling of security.

More than half of the area of East Carroll Parish would be included in the floodway if the recommendations in the Engineers' report are carried out. I doubt if we would be able to maintain our local government under such conditions. The drainage problem is not all clearly taken care of in the report and it would appear that it would be entirely impractical for one to live outside the floodway and operate property that is inside. The problem of roads and bridges, it appears would be too expensive to make such a policy possible. As you know, most of our farms are unfortunately under mortgage. The money for flowage rights, intead of going to the farmowners, would necessarily first be applied on their debts; therefore our landowners would be put back at least to where they were before the "new deal" came into the picture and brought some measure of relief to our farmers by extending credit in the way of long-time loans on farm lands.

Some of the most competent engineers in this territory say frankly that the floodway may never be necessary, since, in their belief, the development in the upper rivers and the cut-off program of the Mississippi River Commission might adequately take care of the whole flood-control problem. Certainly it is a serious thing to inaugurate such an expensive and destructive program as is proposed. when eminent and competent engineers differ so vitally as to the needs or necessity of such action.

Our levees held in 1927 until the water reached a level of 60.4 feet at Arkansas City, and when the Cabin Teale levee broke the Vicksburg reading was about 58% feet. We all know the congestion at Vicksburg, which was accentuated by the flood waters from the Mississippi Delta coming from the Mound landing crevasse, and the Yazoo Valley, causing the water to back up and the Cabin Teale crevasse was the result, that being the weakest point in our Louisiana levee system above Vicksburg. Incidentally. I cannot understand why this particluar point should be left out of the general cut-off plans, because it is the most aggravated ense in the entire district, when you consider that the Mississippi River water is confined to a channel practically 1 mile wide and just above this bottle neck is added the waters from the Yazoo River.

During the 1927 flood the water level as far north of Vicksburg as Henderson Point was more than a foot above the calculations in the Vicksburg engineer's office. In other words, I called the office to find out how much levee we had above water at Henderson Point and was told we had about 1% feet. I sent an engineer down with a level to check up on this situation, and he came back within a few hours and reported less than one-half of a foot. This condition could only be accounted for by the fact that the great volume of water coming out of the Mississippi Delta added to the Mississippi River water already congested at Vicksburg, tended to hold back the flood and increase the height many miles above, If this congestion were relieved at Vicksburg by setting the levee back on the Louisiana side some 3 or 4 miles, certainly it would relieve largely the back-water area in Mississippi, as well as lower the flood height above Delta Point on the Louisiana side. In other words, if cutting off