Page images


March 5, 1954.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Functions,

Senate Appropriations Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR KNOWLAND: I am enclosing correspondence of mine with Mr. Paul Endicott, secretary of the Saline County Soil Conservation District, Harris burg, Ill., with respect to securing a survey of the Saline River Basin. Such a survey was authorized by Congress on March 9, 1948.

I hope your committee will see fit to provide funds for such a survey as a part of the planning funds of the Corps of Engineers. Faithfully yours,


Harrisburg, Ni., January 11, 1954. Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Thanks for your courteous reply to our letter of July 15, 1953, which requested your assistance in securing a survey of the basin of the Saline River and its tributaries as a basis for formulating a plan for soil and water conservation and flood control within the Saline Basin.

Since writing you, we have noted that through an appropriation of the last Congress, such surveys have been started in three watersheds in Illinois, as well as others throughout the Nation.

We have further noted indications in the press to the effect that the present Congress may give consideration to legislation providing additional appropriations for use in making similar surveys and to assist in the development of soiland water-conservation measures as a part of an overall flood-control program in additional stream basins in the Nation.

Recently, there has developed considerable interest among the citizens of certain areas of the Saline River Basin in such a program. We of the Saline County Soil Conservation District are especially interested in this program of watershed development, and we would like to secure more information concerning the programs as now have been started under provisions of the last Congress.

We would also like for you to inform us of the steps which we should take to properly present before the proper authorities our request for the inclusion of the Saline River Basin for consideration at such time in the future as additional watersheds may be brought into a conservation and flood-control program. Yours very truly,

PAUL ENDICOTT, Secretary, Board of Directors.


Harrisburg, II., January 15, 1954. Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: For your information I am enclosing a copy of a letter which our district board has sent to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Washington, in regard to the drainage proposal for Saline River and tributaries. Yours very truly,

PAUL ENDICOTT, Secretary, Board of Directors

JANUARY 13, 1953. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors,

119 D Street NE., Washington 25, D. C. (Attention : Col. F. H. Falkner) GENTLEMEN : Since addressing our letter of December 16, 1953, to COL F. H. Falkner we have continued contacts with the leaders in the Saline River ares regarding the proposal for drainage of the Saline River and tributaries as costained in the "Public Notice–Saline River and Tributaries, Illinois," issued by your office November 2, 1953.

In our letter of November 16, 1953, pursuant to paragraph 3 of your public notice aforementioned, we requested an oral hearing on the Saline River drainage proposal and suggested that such hearing be held in Harrisburg, Ill. We note in letter of November 24, 1953, over signature of Col. F. H. Falkner, that an oral

hearing on the proposal would be held but that it would be held in Washington, • D. C., inasmuch as the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is without funds to hold the hearing in Harrisburg, Ill.

Likewise our organization is without funds to send representation to Washington, D. C., to attend the oral hearing as scheduled there. In view of this situation the board of directors of the Saline County Soil Conservation District desires to express themselves to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbor in Washington, D. C., through the medium of this letter.

The following statement is made in paragraph 2 of the public notice: “The Board has determined the amount of the contribution to be 15 percent of the construction cost, an amount presently estimated at $760,000, which would be in addition to lands, easements, rights-of-way, and other requirements of local cooperation specified in paragraph 1.” We want to go on record as opposed to this division of the construction cost as proposed by the Board.

We feel that this 15-percent figure is too large a proportion of the cost to be paid by the local people in addition to the other requirements specified in paragraph 1 of the public notice.

You are requested to accept this as our response to the public notice of November 2, 1953, in lieu of our attendance in person at the oral hearing. Very truly yours,


Chairman, Board of Directors. Senator DWORSHAK. I also have a letter from the Pacific American Steamship Association in opposition to the appropriation of funds for the Sacramento Ship Channel, which will be placed in the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:)


Washington, D, C., March 8, 1954. Re Sacramento ship channel. Hon. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR KNOWLAND: While there is no provision in the President's budget for the Sacramento Ship Channel, the Army Civil Functions Subcommittee, of which you are chairman, was kind enough to receive into the record of recent hearings the views of this association in opposition to this project, which in our opinion is economically unwarranted and unnecessary at this time.

In my testimony, I analyzed the ingredients of the engineers' cost-benefit ratio (1.15 to 1) as being distorted in terms of the annual volume of canned goods and general merchandise which they projected would move through Sacramento if the channel and port are built. I stated that our own research and analysis showed the benefit ratio to be 0.57 to 1, or one-half the engineers' estimate, based on the elimination of canned goods and general merchandise benefits alone.

In my testimony, I purposely avoided any discussion of estimated benefits from bulk barley and rice movements as these are commodities which traditionally move on nonscheduled ships and I did not feel qualified to speak authoritatively about them. However, two significant bits of information have in the past week come to my attention which raise some doubts about the rice and barley figures put forth by the engineers. Both items appeared in the March 1, 1954, issue of the San Francisco Daily Commercial News-one speaks of the revival of rice imports from Italy to the Pacific coast, and the other reviews the pessimistic outlook for rice exports from California as seen by a prominent agricultural economist. Both are reflections upon our inability to compete in the world rice market at current prices.

In the light of these current trends regarding waterborne rice tonnage to and from California, it seems only fitting that the bulk commodities potential set forth by the engineers in their report on this project should be reanalyzed before Congress appropriates any more funds to dredge a $35 million waterway for the movement of cargoes whose volume is so dependent upon sudden changes in world conditions.

It would be greatly appreciated if this letter could be made a part of the record of the Army civil functions hearings on this matter. Very truly yours,

RALPH B. DEWEY, Washington Representatire.

[San Francisco Daily Commercial News, March 1, 1954)



(By M. T. Fortney, Trade Editor) San Francisco customs district: Parodi Erminio & Co., Inc., resumed their importation of rice from Italy, interrupted by World War II, with a 200-bag shipment discharged by APL'S President Polk.

Company officials explained the import is a red rice, and a luxury food iten. The commodity was loaded at Genoa.


Dr. George Mehrens, professor of agricultural economics of the University of California, has predicted the world price of rice would fall 40 cents below Federal parity next year.

Mehrens said that would mean no exports of American-grown rice next year and production quotas for 1955–56.

Mehrens said the long-run picture for American ricegrowers looks pretty good if Americans can meet the world price. Although Thailand, Burma, South Korea, and Indochina were expected to have 40 percent more production for export next year, Asia still is consuming more than it is producing, he said.

Speaking of the past, Mehrens told the ricegrowers California rice production had tripled in the last 30 years although American consumptiton has not changed. Fifty percent of American production has been channeled overseas, he said.

You can take over, Senator McClellan. The committee is now ready to hear testimony on Table Rock and you are interested in that.


Senator McCLELLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time that has been set aside to give local interests an opportunity to appear here and be heard on this project. We have a number of people here. Some of them will just make brief statements. Others have prepared statements and others will probably cover the project in considerable detail. First, we have Senator Symington, our colleague here. This project is in his State, but I am claiming part of it at least in mine. It is down on the borderline and we certainly have a mutual interest in it. Senator Symington, we will be glad to hear from you.




Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the more that Senator McClellan claims the better we like it, sir.

Senator DWORSIIAK. I can say that he has displayed on many occasions a very profound interest in this project and I am sure he will carry on.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Sometimes they say I have ability to make claims.

Senator ELLENDER. You must not overlook the senior Senator from Louisiana either.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Senator. May I also pay my respects to the senior Senator from Arizona over there. I know you are all very busy. May I read a brief statement here with respect to this problem. Many of my constituents are here today and we again respectfully plead the cause of Table Rock Dam, as we did last year.

We would respectfully urge that you approve the release of the $2,349,546 previously appropriated for this project, but now held up.

This request is substantiated by the December 16, 1953, report of the Army engineers to the House and Senate committees. The report unconditionally recommends continuation of the construction of Table Rock.

Second, we ask the appropriation of $3 million additional funds for construction work on Table Rock Dam during the fiscal year 1955.

As members of this committee know, Public Law 504 of the 82d Congress included $3 million for Table Rock.


Last year the Congress appropriated an additional $1 million but the conference report-H. R. 5376—included the following statement:

The conferees are in complete accord that no further construction is to be commenced at Table Rock Dam, Ark. and Mo., until approval has been obtained from the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and of the Senate. It is the desire of the conferees that a study be made of the project by the Corps of Engineers as to the need for power in the area, the ability of present governmental facilities and private power utilities to meet any future need that might exist, and the adequacy of the present estimated cost of the project. Such study should be presented to the above-mentioned committees not later than January 1, 1954.

On December 16, 1953, Maj. Gen. S. E. Sturgis, Chief of Engineers, wrote to this committee as follows:

From the studies made pursuant to the request cited above, I conclude that:

(a) The power needs in the area of the Table Rock project are expanding at a rapid rate and there will be a need for substantially more additional power by the time Table Rock Reservoir can be completed than the project will make available.

(6) The power which will be made available by the Table Rock project can be fully integrated into the power supply of the area.

(C) The cost of power which will be made available by the Table Rock project will be considerably less than the cost of equivalent power from the alternative source considered likely to be utilized if the project is not completed.

(d) In addition to needed low-cost power, the Table Rock project will provide needed flood control and will provide other benefits incidental to the primary purpose.

(e) The project is economically justified.

(f) The present estimate of money required is adequate to construct the project.


Table Rock Dam and Reservoir is the key unit in the system of reservoir projects for the control and development of the White River and its tributaries. By regulating the flow from 4,000 square miles above the dam, the flood storage will protect the towns of Hollister and Branson immediately below the dam, and will protect more than 1 million acres of land downstream in the White River Valley, plus additional flood-control benefits in the lower Mississippi.

This site long has been recognized as a desirable location for a power dam. In fact, the first studies were made by Ozark Power in 1912, and again in 1921.

In 1923, the Empire District Electric Co.-successor to Ozark Power-received a permit to build a dam at Table Rock,

Twelve years later Empire's license to build Table Rock was revoked by the Federal Power Commission for failure to begin construction.

The Flood Control Act of 1941, authorized the Table Rock Reservoir project for flood control and power generation, designating it as an integral part of the comprehensive plan for the White River Basin.

All other approved projects in this overall plan are now complete, or nearly so.

Members of this committee will be interested in these graphic pictures. This first shows a flood on the Main Street Branson, 8 miles below the proposed dam. This particular flood took place in 1945.

Senator MCCLELLAN. This will afford complete protection so far as floods there are concerned ?

Senator SYMINGTON. Yes.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It has partial protection, as this project will help down in the lower valley, but it will afford complete floodcontrol protection in that area.

Senator SYMINGTON. That is right, Senator; yes.

This dam would have prevented some 30 serious floods that hare swept down the White River Valley in past years.

This second picture shows the main street of Hollister, Mo., near Branson on the White River. This is a dead town. People will not live in it any more. They have moved out. There is nobody in the shops. There is nobody in the houses. The flood danger is so great that this is an entire town that is just as dead as an old mining town, if I may say so, Senator, where the lode has just run out. Yet it is right in the middle of our State in southwest Missouri.

Senator HAYDEN. There is no doubt but what business and residences would be revived.

Senator SYMINGTON. Right away, sir.
Senator McCLELLAN. It would be like a new start.

Senator SYMINGTON. Yes. Because of constant floods through the main streets of this town, Hollister is dead.

When I visited here last fall, it was a ghost town, with buildings unoccupied. Hollister will remain a ghost town unless it is given some flood protection.


When the 82d Congress appropriated $3 million to continue Table Rock, the people of the White River Valley felt certain it would be built. So they started building new houses. Branson voted bonds and actually erected a fine new elementary school in anticipation of the people who would come to the cite at the dam's completion.

This picture shows the $500,000 highway built to the dam site with Federal funds. It is owned by the American people, but because the Government has walked off the job, the road now goes nowhere-it is total waste.

I went over it myself and followed it to the end.

« PreviousContinue »