Mr. FISHER. Mr. Smith, of course, I appreciate the very comprehensive report that you have prepared here, supported by a number of maps, showing the different phases of the survey that you have made. With reference to the production of crops and the like, in that area, I wonder if you could talk about that a little. Mr. SMITH. The chief crops grown on cultivated land in that area, are small grains, grain sorghums, and cotton. The most productive part of the area is in the western and northwestern part in the deeper soils that we term the rolling plains area. The eastern part of the watershed has sandier soils, and we have both grain sorghums, some corn, a little cotton, and a great many peanuts. produced there. Mr. FISHER. The peanut industry has grown considerably in that section. Mr. SMITH. The peanut industry in Texas has expanded from approximately 350,000 acres to about 1,300,000 acres as the result of the request for increased oil production for the war effort, and that has caused quite an erosion problem in those sandier areas, both from water erosion and from wind erosion following the planting and harvesting of peanuts. Mr. FISHER. And that also is quite a pecan producing area. Mr. SMITH. The basin is a heavy pecan producing area, particularly in the alluvial lands of the tributary areas. The CHAIRMAN. Do they grow paper-shell pecans down there? The CHAIRMAN. You mean you have good ones, not the best, to sell there. Mr. FISHER. I wonder if, in connection with your surveys, you could put into the record some of the specific instances of extreme floods that have resulted in recent years in that area, especially in 1936. Are you familiar with the floods at that time? Mr. SMITH. The floods in 1936 inundated quite a number of towns in that area. Brady and San Saba had very heavy damages, Rich'land Springs had serious damage, and Brownwood had serious damage. Mr. FISHER. And Coleman, also? Mr. SMITH. Coleman had some damage, I believe, but not quite as severe as in the other four places. There were a number of lives lost at that time. I do not remember the exact number. Mr. FISHER. Millions of dollars in property damage and livestock damage resulted. Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I might mention, in that connection, that in my home town, San Angelo, which is adjacent to this project, and runs right up to it, in 1936 around 400 homes floated down the Concho River. The houses looked like black ghost ships as they floated down the flooded area, so that is a section where the flash floods are apt to occasionally occur, and where tremendous damage results from those heavy floods. The CHAIRMAN. And that is an excellent reason why the authorization for that project out there should be increased so that it may be completed as authorized. Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. Mr. FISHER. I believe that pretty well covers the subject, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have your statement, Mr. Smith. Unless you have some further statement from the Soil Conservation Service, or unless there be some person present who is interested in this project, or someone is present whom you desire to present, that will complete our hearings as far as this project is concerned. Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, you inquired about the willingness of local districts to cooperate. I have here a number of telegrams from authorities connected with those districts expressing their desire to cooperate. The CHAIRMAN. You may enumerate those telegrams and give them to the clerk if you desire to insert them in the record at this point. Just give the telegrams to the reporter and state who they are from. Mr. FISHER. I have a telegram from H. M. Dillard, secretary of the Concho Soil Conservation District; another from the Central Colorado River Authority, W. J. Stevens, chairman of the board; another from C. C. Day, president of the Coleman Chamber of Commerce, and Charles R. Wilson, mayor; another from the Central Colorado Soil Conservation District, No. 517, and another from J. Forest Runge, chairman, Eldorado-Divide. I may have others, and if I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have those included in the record at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Just pass those to the clerk and they will be inserted in the record at this point. (The telegrams referred to are as follows:) The following telegrams are indicative of the importance of this program to the Central Colorado River area: Hon. O. C. FISHER, COLEMAN, TEX., February 1, 1944. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Department of Agriculture report of survey middle Colorado River watershed presents outline dire need of this area. Various local, State, Federal agencies, and civic organizations striving to overcome increasing heavy losses to agriculture and ranching interests due to excess rainfall run-off, resulting in heavy soil erosion and flood damage. This district realizing great need for program urges you to represent us in request for authorization by the Congress. B. B. FOWLER, Chairman, Central Colorado Soil Conservation District, No. 517. Hon. O. C. FISHER, COLEMAN, TEX., February 1, 1944. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Survey and report by Department of Agriculture on middle Colorado River watershed incorporates waterflow retardation, conservation, soil-erosion prevention, and flood-control program of unquestionable importance to agricultural and livestock industry this section of State. We respectfully solicit your support and urge inclusion in current legislation. COLEMAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CITY OF COLEMAN, CHAS. R. WILSON, Mayor. COLEMAN, TEX., February 1, 1944. Hon. O. C. FISHER, The Central Colorado River Authority has been actively engaged and intensely interested in soil and water conservation and flood control, this section, past several years. Middle Colorado River watershed report by Department of Agriculture represents meritorious control program. Being thoroughly familiar with the need, we wish to emphasize its importance and trust the Congress will favorably consider same. CENTRAL COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY, Hon. O. C. FISHER, SAN ANGELO, TEX., February 2, 1944. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: We urge you to support authorization of the middle Colorado River watershed project. CONCHO SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, 0. C. FISHER, ELDORADO, TEX., February 2, 1944. House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: Conservation measures should begin top of watershed. Supervisors this district endorse middle Colorado River program. ELDORADO-DIVIDE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, Mr. FISHER. May I also insert a brief statement of my own in the record at this point, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. If you will prepare it and give it to the clerk. she will insert it at this point in the record. Mr. FISHER. Thank you. (The statement referred to is as follows:) MIDDLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED The Department of Agriculture has submitted, with the knowledge and concurrence of the United States Army engineers, a report on a survey of the middle Colorado River watershed in Texas, which includes recommendations for the institution of a 20-year comprehensive program of water retardation and soilerosion prevention over this watershed. This program-which the Army engineers assure me is a warranted and desirable complement to certain major flood-control projects which have been authorized at strategic points in this watershed-in itself is represented as costing only $9 641,880 over the 20-year period (survey estimates) while benefits would total $33,116,300. The survey figures are: Annual costs, $482,094; annual benefits, $1,655,815. Federal costs, annually, would be $94,259, while direct flood-control benefits alone would be $137,217 a year. It might be pointed out that the recommended program calls for an appreciable contribution by the landowners in materials, equipment, and labor, such as is proposed by the farmers and ranchmen, cooperating in their official soil-conservation districts now organized or to be organized and expected to begin full-fledged operation after the war. Virtually all of the middle Colorado River watershed now is organized into such districts. Formation of one or two additional districts would complete coverage of the surveyed watershed. The affected watershed-which is pictured in maps incorporated in House Document No. 270, Seventy-eighth Congress, recently published-includes an area of 7,189 square miles and comprises 17 percent of the entire drainage basin of the Colorado River of Texas. It includes the watersheds of the Pecan Bayou (including Hord's Creek), Brady Creek, the San Saba River, and the area draining into the Colorado River below its confluence with the Concho River near Paint Rock and the mouth of Pecan Bayou near Brownwood. Counties included wholly or in large part are: Schleicher, Menard, Concho, McCulloch, San Saba, Coleman, Brown, and Mills. Lesser portions of Sutton, Kimble, Mason, Runnels, Callahan, Eastland, Taylor, and Comanche Counties come within the watershed. The general watershed program proposed by the Department of Agriculture. complementing the War Department's recommended dam and floodway programs, includes improvement of range cover, installation of mechanical measures on both range and cultivated land, conversion of severely eroded lands to pasture, and adequate educational and supervisional service to insure proper installation and maintenance of the practices and structures recommended. It is a program of practical measures which would appeal to and be supported by the business-minded farmer and ranchman. The Army engineers term this recommended program a desirable complement to the heretofore authorized flood-control projects in the watershed, including (1), the raising and strengthening of the dam on Pecan Bayou near Brownwood, (2) the construction of a water-supply and flood-control dam on Hords Creek above Coleman, and (3) the construction of a floodway along Brady Creek at Brady, where flood ravages have been severe. The program also considers the possibility of a major flood-control dam on the San Saba River above Menard, on which surveys have been made, but with no final report obtained as yet. As the Department of Agriculture and the Army engineers well know, and as members of this committee will recall, flood damage in this general area at times has run into millions of dollars-as in 1936-but the report takes a long time, and quite conservative average. Damage to crops and pastures has been most emphasized. Of great importance in this rolling to hilly country has been flood damage to buildings, fences, drainage ditches, and farm roads, and to nonagricultural property such as roads, bridges, telephone lines, and gas and oil pipe lines. Intangibles such as interruption of utilities and loss of rentals, wages, and recreational usages, were not calculated. All these intangibles have become increasingly important here in • recent years. As has been indicated, this program ties in beneficially and profitably with the previously authorized flood-control projects in the watershed, and also with the over-all program for flood control and conservation farther up the Colorado River, and the lower area coming under the Lower Colorado River Authority, including vital lakes and hydroelectric systems starting at the southeastern edge of the surveyed watershed near San Saba. Considering the direct flood-control benefits and the increase in farm income, plus the complementary nature of the long-range program in relation to the major flood-control projects, and allowing for the low ratio of cost to total benefits, I trust that this recommended 20-year program can be authorized by the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. In this connection, Mr. Reporter, Senator Tom Connally has referred to the committee a communication from H. M. Dillard, secretary of the Concho soil conservation district, and that will be inserted, if you desire, Mr. Fisher, at this point in the hearings by the clerk. Senator W. Lee O'Daniel has transmitted to us a letter of December 15, 1943. Acknowledgments of both letters have been made with the statement that they will be brought to the attention of the committee. The clerk will insert those two letters from the Senators at this point in the hearing. (The letters referred to are as follows:) Hon. Toм CONNALLY, CONCHO SOIL CONSERVAT ON DISTRICT, Mereta Route, San Angelo, Tcx., December 11, 1943. United States Senator, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: In a recent meeting of the board of supervisors of the Concho soil conservation district the possibilities of the middle Colorado River watershed project was called to our attention by the Trinity Improvement Association. It was brought out that our soil-corservation district, which takes in all of Concho County, the western half of McCulloch County, about one-third of Tom Green County, and the northern part of Menard County, is a rather large contributing area to the Colorado River. We are very much interested in getting this favorably reported watershed project, middle Colorado River watershed project, authorized. If you will speak to Judge Whittington, chairman of the Flood Control Committee of Congress, for us and request approval of this project it will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, H. M. DILLARD, Secretary, Concho Soft Conservation District. Hon. WILLIAM M. WHITTINGTON, UNITED STATES SENATE, Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: DEAR CON RUSSMAN: Mr. H. M. Dillard, secretary of the Concho soil conservation district, Mereta Route, San Angelo, Tex., has written me, as follows: "We are very much interested in getting this favorably reported watershed project, middle Colorado River watershed project, authorized. If you will speak to Judge Whittington, chairman of the Flood Control Committee of Congress, for us and request approval of this project, it will be greatly appreciated." I will be glad to know the status of this matter. Sincerely your friend, W. LEE O'DANIEL, United States Senator, Texas. WATERSHED OF THE WASHITA RIVER, OKLA. AND TEX. House Document No. 275 The CHAIRMAN. If that completes the testimony with respect to the Colorado River in Texas, the most important of the Colorado Rivers, I am sure, we will now take up the watershed of the Washita River in Oklahoma and the Panhandle of Texas. Who representing the Department desires to make the initial statement on this project? Mr. DYKES. I will present the statement on that, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF J. C. DYKES, ASSISTANT CHIEF, SOIL The CHAIRMAN. Give your name to the reporter. Mr. DYKES. J. C. Dykes, Assistant Chief of the Soil Conservation Service. The CHAIRMAN. We have under consideration this morning the report on the watershed of the Washita River. That is spelled W-a-s-h-i-t-a? Mr. DYKES. Yes, sir; that is right. The CHAIRMAN. Because there are a good many Washita rivers, and those people down in Arkansas are jealous of their Ouachita, and I do not blame them, because it is a marvelous stream, without making any comparison, as I agree with Shakespeare's saying with respect to comparisons, that "comparisons are odious." We have before us this morning the report on the watershed of the Washita River, which is contained in House Document No. 275, Seventy-eighth Congress, first 97311-44-vol. 2- -7 |