STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS CASE, SECOND DISTRICT, SOUTH DAKOTA

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Case.

Mr. CASE. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I represent the Second District of South Dakota which is the western half of the State. The Missouri River, as you see it there on the map, bisects the State of South Dakota north and south. The first district is the portion of the State east of the river; the second district is the portion of the State west of the river.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you and Mr. Mundt have divided South Dakota. Go ahead.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little about the Missouri River proposals, but before I do that I should like to talk with the committee and with the chairman a little bit about the general functions of this committee, because of the mutual interest held by a committee of which I am a member, and that is the subcommittee of the appropriations Committee, which handles the appropriations for flood control; the subcommittee for the War Department.

In the bill which we reported and which the House passed the other day we included $4,000,000 for preparation of plans and specifications. The budget estimate came up to us for $2,000,000.

In our interrogation of the Chief of Engineers it developed that the Chief of Engineers had requested an appropriation of $5,000,000. We found that there was some unexpended balance in the fund that had been previously appropriated to the War Department for the operation of flood control projects or for work in connection with flood control projects.

The consensus of the Committee was that that money in the main should revert to the Treasury, but we provided that at least $2,000,000 of the unexpended balance should be added to the budget estimate so as to make $4,000,000 available for plans and surveys and specifications.

I think I am not giving away any committee secrets when I say that at the time the committee wrote up the bill, we made that additional allocation of $2,000,000 because of a statement by the chairman of our committee and collateral statements by members of the committee, including myself, that we should recognize the fact that there was now pending before your committee this series of hearings at which it was expected that a general authorization bill might develop, and we felt that if you were to carry on or if the engineers were to carry on the appropriate planning in the coming fiscal year, that they should have this additional $2,000,000 for that purpose.

It is the feeling of that committee, Mr. Chairman, dealing with appropriations for flood control, that the most beneficial type of post-war planning that can be done is that which deals concretely with specific projects in the nature of flood control, roads, and things of that character. I bring this to your attention because I want you to know that the work that you have been doing here has been taken notice of by the corresponding Appropriations Committee, and that we, in general, approve of the work that you do, and we want some funds to be available to carry out the proposals that you may make.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman is not unaware of that provision, and I think it is a most helpful and constructive provision, because we

ought to be able not only to have authorizations but to have plans following the war.

We are glad to have that statement.

Mr. CASE. Now, then, Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly in regard to the Missouri River proposals before you. Some months ago the country was electrified by reports that Allied bombers going over Germany had bombed two large dams in Germany and had created gigantic floods which had laid waste a great part of the entire territory; that in doing that they had thrown out of production many plants of the enemy. It was heralded as a great victory.

About a year ago this time the Missouri Valley was visited by three tremendous floods. One was an unseasonal flood in early March. One came at the periodical time known as the annual June rise. They caused damage of the same kind that our bombers caused in Germany.

I was going out to the State the latter part of April and attempted to fly into the airport at Omaha. I was told at Chicago that it was impossible to land; that the Omaha Airport was inundated and would be out of commission for 6 weeks.

I went out to the State, nevertheless; in fact, I went to Pierre, S. Dak., for a meeting with Colonel Pick, division engineer, Governor Sharpe, and W. J. Sloan, Chief of Field Studies for the Bureau of Reclamation. Together we inspected some of the flood damage near the capital city of Pierre. I heard stories at that time and subsequently I heard additional evidence before this committee when Colonel Pick appeared here as to the damage created by the flood of the Missouri River last year.

The thought came to me then: What manner of enemy is it that is coming to the very heart of the country in the midst of war and is knocking out of production over 2,000,000 acres of land by flooding them; that is putting a major airport like the airport at the city of Omaha out of commission; that has endangered any number of factories engaged in vital war work?

I could not escape the feeling that just as our bombers at considerable cost had inflicted damage upon the enemy so the flood had inflicted considerable damage upon this country when it was at war-when it could ill afford to have that happen.

Now, when Colonel Pick appeared before this committee you authorized a resolution for a flood-control study and a special appropriation of $10,000,000 for emergency work. I was here and heard that testimony at the time, and I offered some myself.

I have followed the appropriations that were made for emergency flood-control work. During the hearings on the regular appropriation bill this winter I asked the Chief of Engineers how much of the money appropriated under the emergency appropriation of $10,000,000 was spent on the Missouri River repairing levees and fighting those floods last year.

The Chief of Engineers testified that $3,014,000 was expended in fighting Missouri River floods last year. I asked the Chief of Engineers whether that gave any additional protection for the future. He said that it did not; that that merely repaired work that had been previously created, largely by local agencies and that it gave no additional protection as far as the future was concerned.

Then I asked what the direct damage in dollars was from the Missouri River floods last year. He said $47,000,000. This means

that last year alone the floods in the Missouri Valley cost this country $50,000,000. This is lost and gone. We have no additional protection. We have the direct damage and nothing to show for so far as protection is concerned.

I mention that, because recently I was down and talked to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and I found some question in his mind as to the urgency of doing something on the Missouri River.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want the record to show that last year alone the damages in the Missouri Valley cost this country more than onetenth of the estimated cost of additional authorizations to give complete protection in the program which has been reported to this committee.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Then you believe something like I do, that this committee and Congress must take some action and put it into this bill and not let one bureau down here be responsible, for they do ot accomplish what we think is protective work.

Mr. CASE. I do not think that the Congress nor this committee can accept the responsibility for failing to do its duty just because some other agency or some other branch of the Government may not be in a position to carry out its duty.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Well, you feel then that Congress itself should go ahead and see that those conditions are corrected?

Mr. CASE. I think when a situation is brought to the attention of the Congress, that needs correction, that the Congress should proceed. It certainly has that responsibility.

Now then, I have listened attentively, I think, to every word given at these hearings on this Missouri River matter. I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of the questions that have arisen as between the use of the water for irrigation and that for other purposes.

For myself, I regard irrigation as the highest use to which water can be put in our part of the country. Much of my district is in the 17-inch or less rain belt. We have some very good years and some very dry years. We need to conserve our floodwaters to equalize that situation and stabilize our economy.

I regard the proposals made by the Chief of Engineers as a step toward the accomplishment of something to improve the situation. we face there. I have had numerous corferences with the Chief of Engineers and the division engineer regarding the flexibility of the proposals in the so-called Pick report.

I feel that the Chief of Engineers has been impressed by the statements that have been made during the developments on this report, and that it is because he is convinced that the plan as visioned by Colonel Pick should be susceptible of adaptation, as it is progressively constructed and that is why the language in his letter includes, in several places, the word, "flexible," and the term "a broad comprehensive outline." He sees the possibility that some of the storage could be placed on the tributary streams to general advantage.

I am sure that in one paragraph, paragraph 12 of the Chief's letter, I think it is, he recognizes a necessity for authority for agreements and compensation where the proposed reservoirs would flood Indian lands, and that that might take the form of reservoirs on the trbutaries. With respect to the amount of water available, I think the committee should take into consideration the fact that the water demand is a thing which may vary from year to year and will vary in the course

of the next 25 to 50 years. I would hate to see this Congress attempt to tie the hands of the Northwest in its economic development 50 years from now. A flexible, adaptable plan is needed and that is what the Chief of Engineers has recommended.

Reference has been made here to the water that is available at Yankton or Sioux City as being between fifteen and sixteen million acre-feet over the last 14 years. That record seems too short a period to accept as a sound basis for legislation.

During the dry period of 1930 to 1940 my State suffered a groundwater loss, by shortage of rainfall, of 43 inches, an average of 4.3 a year, so that we had a very great shortage of water during the period in which this fifteen or sixteen million acre-feet was recorded. That is why I think the committee should consider at least a 25-year period which, I understand, will show that the run-off at Sioux City is between twenty and twenty-one million acre-feet which, of course, has its bearing on the problem of the amount of water available for irrigation and other purposes if sufficient storage is provided.

Now, I do not want to take any further time, in view of your generousness. I would like permission to extend my remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I should like in conclusion simply to say this:

I hope that the committee will do something for the Missouri River in the bill which it reports. It may be that it is impossible at this time to give the entire cost of the ultimate program of development, but I do not know why this committee, if it sees flood-control benefits great enough to justify the flood-control plan proposed by the Army engineers, should await a detailed estimate of cost for all of the soil conservation which can be worked out in the valley or for all of the reclamation which can be developed eventually. This program can stand on the benefits it will yield for flood control and for what it will do in advancing both conservation and reclamation.

Separate and additional authorizations may be necessary for the construction of additional reservoirs if built by the Bureau of Reclamation, separate and additional authorizations may be necessary for the construction of irrigation works or for any general soil-conservation program, but if this program of itself is within the limits of feasibility for flood control, I hope that this committee will take steps to initiate the program and let the thing get under way.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had your statement.

Mr. O'CONNOR. May I ask just one question? I want to compliment the gentleman first upon the very lucid statement he made concerning this whole matter.

Now, do you not feel, in view of the Pick report, the comments made by the Chief of Engineers, the comments made by the Commissioner of Reclamation to the report, that there appears beyond contradiction to be an absolute spirit of cooperation between these two departments and that they will cooperate in the future to develop that country, the section of the country that you and I are most interested in, to the fullest extent, and give priority to the dominant or primary use of the waters up in that section for irrigation and reclamation and power?

Mr. CASE. Well, in reply to the gentleman from Montana I will say that I am confident of that not only by reason of the language in the letter of the Chief of Engineers and the letter of the Commissioner of Reclamation, which are in the record, but also by reason of confer

ences I have had both with the Commissioner of Reclamation, the Chief of Engineers, and the division engineer.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Just one other question and I am through. Do you feel if the dams are built in the Missouri River as proposed by the Pick report below Fort Peck, that it will permit the greater use of the waters at Fort Peck for irrigation and reclamation purposes and power purposes?

Mr. CASE. Well, let me say to the gentleman that I have studied the report rather carefully on that point, and it is clear to me that it is implicit in the report that the location of downstream storage below Fort Peck would make water in Fort Peck available for irrigation as it is right now. Further, if the gentleman recalls when Colonel Pick appeared before this committee the question was asked of him whether Fort Peck was in the right place. Somebody suggested that possibly he ought not to be expected to answer that question.

Mr. O'CONNOR. I think I asked the question myself.

Mr. CASE. And he said to the chairman that he would like to answer the answer.

He said that when the complete plan was developed he was confident that Fort Peck would be shown to be in the right place in relation to other structures. The report justifies the statement Colonel Pick made at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Just one final question. Do you not think it would be most unfortunate for this committee to be in a position of reporting a comprehensive bill for all of the principal river basins in the United States and not to include a provision for probably the longest, if not one of the most important rivers, in the United States, when we have statements and testimony as well as reports, both from the Chief of Engineers, from the Reclamation Service as well, that the local protective work from Sioux City south is sound and without any sort of criticism from an engineering or economic standpoint, of any of the works from Yankton on the main stem of the river, or either of the two reservoirs in Montana or Wyoming.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, it would be very unfortunate. You have here a map which shows the project under consideration and those authorized throughout the United States.

This subcommittee to which I previously made reference consists of seven members. One of them lives in Michigan, one of them in Pennsylvania, one of them in New Jersey, one of them in North Carolina, one of them in Texas, and my home in South Dakota. We always have one of these maps before us. The map shows a lot of color for a lot of projects in this part of the country (pointing), along the eastern seaboard, and this part of the country, in the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys and out on the Pacific coast, but here on the longest river system in the country there is not a single authorized project shown above Omaha. Neither your committee nor my committee can claim to be discharging its duty until something is done to stop the ravages of flood in the upper Missouri Valley and the appropriations committee of which I am a member cannot act until your committee approves a plan and authorizes a flood-control program there.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad we have had your statement and thank you very much.

We next have the privilege of hearing from Representative Short.