Mr. BATES. I would like to preface my statement of the railroad situation, particularly in the lower portion of the valley, to make it clear that the Missouri Pacific-and I think I speak for the other railroads also are not opposing flood control, but due to our extensive facilities on the river, it is necessary that the flood-control plan be worked out to preserve these areas with that situation in mind.

Flood-control projects now under consideration on the Arkansas and Missouri Rivers, as well as other streams in the United States, contemplate at least, in part, the construction of high levees to retain the flood run-off, thus eliminating the valley flow.

The confinement of floodwaters between levees results in the material raising of the flood plane, as shown by experience on the lower Mississippi River over the past 75 years. The fact is recognized by the United States engineers, as reflected by General Jadwin's statement in his report of December 1, 1927, Document No. 90, Seventieth Congress, first session, page 19, as follows [reading]:

The confinement of flood flows by levees has substantially raised the flood heights.

And similar statement is contained in the Mississippi River Commission Report of November 28, 1927, Committee Document No. 1, Seventieth Congress, first session, page 19 [reading]:

Extension of the levees increased flood heights and made higher levees necessary.

A study of data obtained from the Mississippi River Commission shows that from 1833 to 1928, levee grades at Memphis and Helena have been raised or increased approximately 17.3 feet, and there is still a question as to whether the present levee grades would be sufficient to accommodate a maximum flood.

Construction of high levees in effect provides an artificial channel for the river inasmuch as it shuts off all valley area, which formerly served the dual purpose of a reservoir and floodway.

The valleys of the Arkansas and Missouri Rivers furnish the only feasible low-grade railroad route in the territory and, as a result, railroads closely parallel the river bank throughout the length of these rivers.

The Missouri Pacific's freight and passenger line between St. Louis and points west and north of Kansas City is located adjacent to the Missouri River between Washington, Mo., and Atchison, Kans., a distance of 275 miles. Its main freight and passenger line between Kansas City and points to the southeast is located along the bank of the Arkansas River from Little Rock, Ark., to Fort Gibson, Okla., a distance of 230 miles. Other railroads are also located in these two valleys and their problem with reference to the high-water situation is similar to Missouri Pacific's problem.

The situation on the Missouri and Arkansas Rivers is quite different from that on the lower Mississippi River, in that the railroads in many places are located on a shelf at the foot of the bluffs and immediately adjacent to the river bank, thus making it impossible to protect the railroad by levees, whereas in the lower Mississippi River the railroads in general are located some distance from the river bank and the levees provide a protection for the railroad, except at major tributary stream crossings within the overflow area.

The raising of the flood plane by construction of levees presents a major problem to the railroads and in order to retain the same degree of protection as now enjoyed it is necessary to raise the track to the new flood plane elevation where the track includes bridges and approaches over levees at major stream crossings.

The cost of raising, relocation, or protection of railroads paralleling the river to accommodate new flood heights will be prohibitive if assumed by the railroads, and the railroad investment in the lines in the river valley, which runs into hundreds of millions of dollars, will be seriously jeopardized if no additional protection is provided.

In the flood-control bill of the 1928 Congress, there was adopted a plan for the Mississippi River Valley which was intended to protect the lives and property in the valley in the interest of national prosperity, the flow of interstate commerce, and the movement of the United States mail.

Subsequent flood-control bills expanded the 1928 act to cover the construction of reservoirs and artificial channels to supplement levee protection.

The CHAIRMAN. In the 1938 act we provided for highway and railway relocation.

Mr. BATES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You favor that and you want it extended; is that correct?

Mr. BATES. I think in this case the situation is parallel where you channelize your river with high levees to where you construct artificial channels or reservoirs.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. BATES. In other words, the situation on the Missouri is quite different from any that has been handled in the valley previous to this time.

The CHAIRMAN. As I remember, you had a lot of trouble on the Mississippi River, too; did you not? That is, your railroad did. Mr. BATES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Your tracks run down the line from, as I recall, East St. Louis, and then you cross the river where? In the vicinity of Cape Girardeau?

Mr. BATES. At Thebes.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have pretty low land there.

Mr. BATES. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have good engineers but you are down pretty low there. All right; go ahead..

Mr. BATES. Now, on the Missouri River, Mr. Chairman, we built the railroad from St. Louis toward the West some 18 years ago, at first in 1852 to 1854, and we have not been wet yet, and we do not want to be wet. That stands up above the 1844 flood, which is the maximum.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. BATES. It has not bothered us yet there, but when you put the levees in, we are fearful about it.

In the 1938 act Congress recognized the responsibility of relocating, raising, and protecting railroad tracks and facilities in connection with the construction of artificial channels, floodways, and reservoirs; typical examples of which are (a) Morganza floodway, and (b) Pensa

cola Reservoir on the Grand (Neosho) River, a tributary of the Arkansas River.

The railroads appreciate the benefits to be derived from flood control of major rivers, whether by levees, reservoirs, or artificial channels, or a combination of the same, but inasmuch as such control is of national interest, the cost to relocate, protect, or raise the existing railroad lines in the river valleys should be considered as a part of the total project.

Request is made that provision be included in the proposed floodcontrol bill to provide the same degree of protection to railroads as is provided for other property and improvements, and that the cost of such protection be borne by the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement, Mr. Bates, and remember that you are at liberty to make a supplemental statement if you desire.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF F. E. BATES, CHIEF ENGINEER, MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD Co.. SUPPLEMENTING THE STATEMENT MADE BY HIM ON FEBRUARY 17, 1944, BEFORE THE FLOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT HEARINGS ON PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS FOR THE ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI RIVERS At the time of my previous testimony, I had been unable to secure definite information as to what the plan submitted by the Board of Engineers for flood control on the Missouri River contemplated in the way of levee construction. No details of that plan were available until after the Chief of Engineers had presented the plan to the committee on February 15, and the information submitted at that time was too general to enable any determination of the effect it might have on the railroads located in the river valley. I have since discussed the general features of the proposed plan with members of the staff of the United States division engineer at Omaha and obtained a copy of appendix 1, referred to on page 14 of the report of the Chief of Engineers, which gives the general location of the proposed levees between Sioux City and the mouth of the river. Based upon the information which I now have, I desire to supplement the statement which I made before the committee.

The proposed levee system consists of a series of short, discontinuous levees designed solely to protect improved bottom lands and is of little value to the railroads in the valley. The elimination of valley flow and storage will admittedly increase flood heights; therefore, railroad tracks and facilities which are not protected by projected levees will be subject to deeper and more frequent flooding.

Flank levees on numerous tributaries will necessitate the raising of railroad bridges and approaches to make the proposed levees effective, even though the railroad tracks in the immediate vicinity are located behind the levee.

Fourteen railroad systems with approximately 1,338 miles of road are affected in the proposed levee plan from Sioux City to the mouth above St. Louis. Approximately 46 percent, or 620 miles, are not provided with any levee protection based upon the projected levee installation in appendix 1 of the flood control report. The total railroad investment in physical property on the lines which will be affected is in the neighborhood of $150,000,000.

The degree of protection and adequacy of the levee plan is entirely dependent upon the completion and successful operation of the system of regulation reservoirs in the basin and the United States engineer report admits that the projected levees are inadequate to accommodate the major floods until the regulation reservoirs are completed. The plan, therefore, should schedule the completion of the regulation reservoirs in advance of the construction of the levees, as otherwise the projected levees would be overtopped in case of a major flood. This situation is particularly true in the lower valley between Kansas City and St. Louis, where the projected levee grade is below the flood crests of record. For example, the designed flood plane for the levees between the mouth of the Osage River and Washington, Mo., is practically the same as flood crests for the unconfined 1943 flood. This flood was the result of an extensive storm below Kansas City and flood discharge at Kansas City was only 105,000 cubic

feet per second as compared to a discharge at this point of 200,000 cubic feet per second at bankfull stages. A flood of similar size occurring after completion of the levees and before construction of retention reservoirs on tributaries below Kansas City, would overtop or breach the levees in this area, probably resulting in greater damage than that which occurred in May 1943.

The only feasible way of protecting the railroads under the proposed floodcontrol plan is to raise or relocate the tracks and facilities above the projected flood plane, and cost of such work should be included as a part of the project for flood control.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by the members of the committee? We will next hear from Mayor Gage, of Kansas City.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. GAGE, MAYOR OF KANSAS CITY, MO.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand from the names furnished to this committee and if I am incorrect, you advise me-these several witnesses are with you. You are the mayor of Kansas City, are you not?

Mr. GAGE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. And there are with you here John Prince, chairman, river navigation, conservation and flood protection committee of the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City, Mo.; Kenneth K. King, Director of Public Works, Kansas City, Mo.; and also a member of the above committee of the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City; Gilbert La Bar, manager, Central Industrial District Association, Kansas City, Mo.; Willard J. Briedenthal, chairman, Flood Control Planning Committee of Greater Kansas City; Don C. McCombs, mayor of Kansas City, Kans.

Mr. GAGE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ahrends, of Scandia, Kans.; A. N. Reece, assistant to the president, Kansas City Southern Railway, and vice chairman of Flood Control Planning Committee of Greater Kansas City; and J. H. Curran, Burlington Railroad.

I wonder if you have a statement, generally, with respect to the project we have under consideration, which you care to submit to the committee at this time?

Mr. GAGE. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I am going to have to leave to return this afternoon, and I realize how pressed the committee is for time.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you prefer to make your statement this afternoon?

Mr. GAGE. I have prepared a statement on my own behalf as mayor, and there has been a joint statement prepared on behalf of the interests that are represented here, and the Flood Protection Planning Committee, and if it would serve the desire of the committee I can submit it to form a part of the record as a written statement.

There has been a joint statement prepared on behalf of all of the interests that are represented here from the Kansas City area.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that include the city of Kansas City, Kans.? Mr. MCCOMBS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And does that include the views of the gentlemen whose names I have called?

Mr. GAGE. It does.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you got that joint statement here?
Mr. GAGE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to file that statement?

Mr. GAGE. Yes; that statement may be filed.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF GREATER KANSAS CITY TO THE COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL, FEBRUARY 17, 1944

The Committee on Flood Control of the House of Representatives on February 16, 1944, received the report and recommendations of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army on flood control in the Missouri River Basin. A comprehensive plan for flood control and utilization of the water resources of the basin was recommended and the general framework described.

Among the considerable number of interested persons present at the hearing was the following representation from Greater Kansas City, who express their opinion in this statement: Don C. McCombs, mayor of Kansas City, Kans.; John Is. Gage, mayor of Kansas City, Mo.; Willard J. Briedenthal, chairman, Flood Control Planning Committee of Greater Kansas City; A. N. Reece, assistant to president, Kansas City Southern Railway, and vice chairman of Flood Control Planning committee of Greater Kansas City; John Prince, chairman, River Navigation, Conservation, and Flood Protection Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City, Mo.; Kenneth K. King, director of public works, Kansas City, Mo., and member of above committee of the Chamber of Commerce of Kansas City; Gilbert La Bar, manager, Central Industrial District Association, Kans..s City, Mo.; Walter Voigtlander, representative of Blue Valley Manufacturers and Businessmen's Association; Albert W. Zimmer, vice president, North Kansas City Development Co., North Kansas City, Mo.

Having heard the presentation of the comprehensive plan and recommendations of the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army for the control of the floodwaters and maximum utilization of water resources of the Missouri River Basin, we wish to express our general approval of the plan presented, with the understanding that it is a framework around which details later will be developed in accordance with the best engineering practice for the benefit of the basin and the entire Nation.

Greater Kansas City represents the greatest concentration of population and industry in the entire basin. We, therefore, feel justified in suggesting that careful consideration be given to its most thorough protection against floods, not only by means of local protection works, main stem reservoirs above Sioux City, and distant reservoirs on tributaries of the Kansas River, but also by the location of a reservoir or reservoirs in closer proximity to the Kansas Citys on the Kansas River or its tributaries, to more certainly protect against flash floods from the area drained by the Kansas River. We know that damaging floods have occurred, and may occur again, resulting from a combination of heavy warm rains with melting snow from areas near Kansas City, or from very heavy rains on saturated ground in the same areas.

We also believe that consideration should be given to Federal financing of the costs of raising the approaches to street, public road, and railroad bridges as well as to the bridge structures themselves where raising is made necessary by levee construction based on design for increased flood heights, and also to Federal financing of damages to lands within the river channel riverward of the levee rights-of-way.

We believe that the Corps of Engineers has presented an excellent plan, and we are confident of the ability of that agency to design, construct, operate, and maintain the structures. We feel that the Corps of Engineers, as an independent agency, subject to the direction and control of the Congress, should construct, operate, and maintain the multiple-purpose reservoirs as recommended in the report.

In our opinion the Committee on Flood Control can offer no greater service to the people of the Missouri River Basin and to the entire Nation, all of which will be affected-than by approving and recommending a comprehensive plan for flood control and the best utilization of the water resources of the Missouri River Basin.

We request the approval of the recommendations of the Corps of Engineers for a comprehensive plan as described, with the earnest hope that it will receive early and favorable consideration by the Congress, so that when the successful conclusion of the war permits, plans will be ready and work may go forward without delay. We think that the work provided will be a great aid in the read