the upstream face slid out and had to be replaced. But there was no break-through in the dam.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Now, one other question and I have finished. You have the figures on the acreage that was damaged by floods along the main stem of the river this spring?

Colonel PICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Now then, if we were to consider the damages that the floodwaters have done along the tributaries, as well as the main stem, from St. Louis up, we would have a much greater acreage. For instance, we have thousands of acres along the main stem.

Colonel PICK. The amount of land flooded along the tributaries was about one-third that flooded along the main stem; as best we can tell now, about 600,000 acres were flooded along the main stem and 200,000 acres along the tributaries.

Mr. O'CONNOR. And along the Yellowstone and along all of these tributaries; so, it is very important, not only for the conservation of the lands but for the protection of crops that we guard against these floods, no matter what it costs, because once these lands are flooded, their productivity is destroyed for many years. I have seen it occur on the Mississippi River. I was raised right across the Missouri River there, between Blair and the Missouri River and I have seen the damages occur there. Once the land is flooded it becomes practically useless for many years to follow, so we have to work out a plan of protecting this country against these floods, or else we are going to lose a tremendous acreage of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Curtis, any questions at this time, to develop the general picture?

Mr. CURTIS. Yes. Colonel, on this 800,000 acres agricultural land that was damaged, is any portion of that a total loss to the individual farmer? Was there any land washed away?

Colonel PICK. There has been damage to land in the vicinity of breaks where sand was washed in and deposited; yes, sir. Then there were other lands lying in the back part of the area from the river, where the water was high enough to get over the small ridges through the flood plane which trapped the water in areas which had been protected by drainage districts levees several miles from the river, and that water is impounded there. Unless it is gotten out of those particular areas, and there are quite a few of them, it will be impossible to raise a crop there this year. And, I have been told it would probably damage the land.

Mr. CURTIS. What have the engineers been doing to get those pockets of water drained out of there?

Colonel PICK. The engineers have not done anything about that. Mr. CURTIS. Do you have authority to do it?

Colonel PICK. We do not have authority.

Mr. CURTIS. Do you have money to do it?

Colonel PICK. We have authority to repair the levees along the stream, the main levees along the stream, but we do not have any funds for this drainage of back area where water has become trapped.

Mr. CURTIS. Now, speaking of the agricultural losses from, say, Sioux City down to Rulo, on which side of the river did the greatest damage occur; was it pretty well divided between the east and the west side?

Colonel PICK. It was pretty well divided, but I think probably the greater damage was done on the Iowa side.

Mr. CURTIS. At what points, generally speaking?

Colonel PICK. Well, from Onawa down to Council Bluffs. We were successful in holding what we call the Herman levee, in that reach on the Nebraska side, which prevented the inundation of about 50,000

acres.

Mr. CURTIS. How did you succeed in holding that levee?

Colonel PICK. By putting men on there and getting the local people to help out to strengthen and raise the levee.

Mr. CURTIS. With sandbags?

Colonel PICK. With sandbags and bulldozers and draglines; anything we could get to make a levee.

Mr. CURTIS. And that levee was also built by the local people out there?

Colonel PICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. Well, what was the situation on the Nebraska side, in addition to the Herman area north of Omaha; between Omaha and Sioux City.

Colonel PICK. Generally speaking, I would say the damage was much less in that reach of the river on the Nebraska side than it was on the Iowa side.

Mr. CURTIS. Now, how about the west side of the river below Omaha; between Omaha and Rulo?

Colonel PICK. Between Omaha and down to Nebraska City most of the damage was on the eastern side of the river in Iowa. However, below Nebraska City, in the vicinity of Peru, a considerable amount of damage was done there on the Nebraska side.

Mr. CURTIS. The water came back on that portion of the bottoms. that had been farmed back there. Is that water still impounded there, or is that pretty well drained off at this time?

Colonel PICK. That is pretty well drained off.

Mr. CURTIS. What is the situation at Rulo with respect to agricultural land?

Colonel PICK. Around Rulo, on the east side of the river, there was considerable flooding, as well as around Watson. There was considerable flooding above Rulo, but we succeeded in holding a short levee down there which protected the Burlington Railroad and a large acreage in that area.

Mr. CURTIS. And you did that in a similar way that you did above, with sandbags and that sort of thing?

Colonel PICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. Now, Colonel, if I understand you correctly, the present authorized works on the main stem of the Missouri River there, in your opinion, should be reviewed before any instruction is started. Colonel PICK. I do not think the authorized levees should be built if we expect to provide protection against a flood like we had this spring.

Mr. CURTIS. Generally speaking, is that flood plan there one that will take care of the agricultural problem as well as the protection of cities and railroads and utilities and that sort of thing?

Colonel PICK. Yes, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. In view of the lateness of the hour, Mr. Chairman, I think that is all I will inquire about.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. I might say before the next questions are asked, that there are pending before the Budget, and will be considered by this committee, a number of projects in North Dakota, Colorado, Montana, Iowa, and Missouri, and that we will go into a careful examination of those projects before the hearings are completed and the Members of Congress and others interested, after the Chief of Engineers and his staff have made those reports, will all have an opportunity to speak on the subject.

At this time the Members who are interested in a review of the adopted project along the Missouri River and who have introduced resolutions that are to be considered by this committee, are present. The resolution was introduced, as I stated, Mr. Curtis. Other resolutions were introduced by Mr. Stefan, by Mr. Buffett, and by Mr. Hoeven, and I believe most of those gentlemen are present now. I understand that Senator Wherry is here, and there will be an opportunity, later on, Senator, for you to make any statement that you would like to make, as well as for the Members of Congress who are attending the hearing here this morning, to submit their statements.

This hearing, as you are probably aware, was called primarily because the division engineer was in the city, and we wanted to get firsthand reports with respect to these floods.

Now, Colonel, you stated-and I have reference to a map here— generally, from St. Louis, or the mouth of the river, up to Kansas City, what is the distance; from the mouth of the river up to Kansas City, by river?

Colonel PICK. It is about 378 miles, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And from Kansas City up to Sioux City the distance is about 760 miles, is it?

Colonel PICK. That is, from the mouth, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. From the mouth.

Colonel PICK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. From the mouth of the river up to Sioux City is 760 miles, I believe you stated.

Colonel PICK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, from Sioux City up to the Fort Peck Reservoir, as indicated on this map, it is about 1,000 miles by river; is that correct, now?

Colonel PICK. Well, it is about 1,100 miles, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, 1,100 miles. I will not argue with you about 100 miles. But, from Fort Peck north up to the source of the river is about how far? At what place would that be?

Colonel PICK. The Missouri River is formed at Three Forks, Mont. The CHAIRMAN. Where?

Colonel PICK. At Three Forks, Mont., where the Gallatin, the Jefferson, and the Madison Rivers come together to form the Missouri River.

The CHAIRMAN. How far is that?

Colonel PICK. About 400 miles above Fort Peck, probably more than that.

Mr. O'CONNOR. It makes a complete turn around in the State.
Colonel PICK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the source of the river above Fort Peck is around 400 miles?

Colonel PICK. Well, it is about 2,500 miles from where it starts until it gets to St. Louis.

The CHAIRMAN. Down to there [indicating].

Colonel PICK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Many people think you can go to the Gulf of Mexico on the Missouri River.

Colonel PICK. That would make around 600 miles, sir, from Fort Peck up to the headwaters.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I won't argue with you about 200 miles. Mr. Schwabe is interested in the territory around Columbia, Mo., and what other cities, please, sir?

Mr. SCHWABE. From Jefferson City, the capital, to Kansas City, approximately.

The CHAIRMAN. In that area you had considerable damage this year, did you not?

Colonel PICK. Yes, sir; not this year, but last year we had some damage in that area.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to ask anything about the damage this year?

Mr. SCHWABE. There are quite a few people think that a system of cut-offs would be advisable; that that would let the water through more rapidly. There are quite a few bends in the river, where you could save as much as 57 miles, from Boonville to Kansas City alone. Now, that may be bringing up something that is not relevant at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. You brought up the question all right. All the people I know of are in favor of cut-offs if they are on the other man's land, I just make that suggestion to you because if you represent both

crowds

Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer that.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would, because I am for the cut-offs. Go ahead.

Colonel PICK. I do not believe we should consider making cut-offs or building levees until we know what we want to build them for. We now have an authorized plan for a number of reservoirs in the lower part of the basin. We have nine reservoirs set up, and have already started construction on one of them.

The CHAIRMAN. And a number of them authorized.

Colonel PICK. When we get those reservoirs built, I do not know whether we will need any cut-offs or not. I do not know how high to make the levees. I know if you make cut-offs in the Missouri River, you are going to increase the velocity, and if you increase velocity you may seriously interfere with navigation. But, it seems to me that cutoffs should be made and levees should be built wherever they are necessary or wherever they are required to fit in with a comprehensive plan of development. I believe it would be a mistake for us to consider making cut-offs now in any reach of the river until we know what must be accomplished. I do not think that we are in a position to say now whether the cut-offs that have been suggested to you are necessary or not for an over-all comprehensive development to prevent floods and to provide for navigation on that reach of the river.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be covered in the resolutions that Mr. Schwabe and the other Members of Congress, as well as other members

of the committee, are asking us to adopt. That would authorize a review of the projects in the entire area between Sioux City and the mouth.

Colonel PICK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by Mr. Scanlon, by Mr. Manasco, by Mr. Fisher, by Mr. Burchill, by Mr. Griffiths, by Mr. Beall, by Mr. Troutman, by Mr. Poulson, by Mr. Allen, by Mr. Elliott? Any questions?

Now, at this time I believe I have asked all members of the committee, have I not, if they desired to ask any questions? Have I overlooked anybody?

It just occurred to me that there are probably some members here representing areas where this flood originated. I wonder if you would like to make a statement as to the origin of this flood.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago I was in the city of Pierre and Ft. Pierre with Colonel Pick and with Mr. Sloan, the regional engineer of the Bureau of Reclamation and Governor Sharp, and we went over the areas visited by the flood in Pierre and Ft. Pierre and saw the marks of the water where it had flooded the main highway leading into the State capital by over 3 feet, and threatened the railroad bridge. I would like to extend my remarks and go into that in a little more detail.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we would like to have you return because you would like to hear what the reports are of the various engineers, not only you, but the other Members of Congress at a later date.

Mr. CASE. I would be glad to. But, I would like to add, if I may, this: As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I want to express my admiration for the thorough way you have gone into this matter this morning. I have been impressed by the questions the chairman has asked as well as those the various members of the committee have asked.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been the universal policy of this committee in the past, and it will be for the next year and a half anyway—we cannot tell what is going to happen, you understand, after November, but, at any rate, we never report a project to Congress until we have thoroughly investigated it and until it has been recommended by the Board of Engineers and the Chief of Egineers stating that the cost of the project and the benefits of the project will exceed the cost; and, it must be, in general, important and economically sound.

Mr. CASE. I also want to express my admiration for the division engineer. He came to this division a year ago in March. During that time he has supervised the largest construction program for the War Department of any that I know of anywhere in the entire country. His knowledge of the Missouri River and the detailed information he has has amazed me, because primarily his job during the past year has been building air bases and aeronautical plants and things of that sort.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wherry, do you have any statement that you wish to make now?

Senator WHERRY. I want to compliment Colonel Pick on his very splendid report. I, too, have been around the critical areas in and around Omaha, Nebr., and I can say that the colonel has not in any way overstated the dire situation the farmers in that community and in