over here on the east bank, you would still have to go right down here from Vicksburg? Mr. JACOBS. Yes; but we would still eliminate the floodway from this point north (Vicksburg). This is two-thirds of the length of the floodway. Mr. WHITTINGTON. You can make it now, if you want to. The CHAIRMAN. Let us talk about something that may happen. Mr. MCCLELLAN. There is one question that I wanted to ask with reference to the Yazoo River. At its confluence with the Mississippi River, the Yazoo is down below the Eudora spillway, is it not? Mr. JACOBS. Yes. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Then, what effect will the storage of water in those reservoirs up there on the tributaries of the Yazoo have on lowering the flood spaces or giving additional protection to the Eudora floodway? Mr. JACOBS. None. Mr. MCCLELLAN. It gives no protection whatever to that country? Mr. JACOBS. No. Mr. WHITTINGTON. It takes out more water from the Mississippi River than the St. Francis. Mr. JACOBS. Although I must say that regardless of whether it is only one-tenth of lowering by the placing of those reservoirs, I am for them 100 percent. Mr. MCCLELLAN. I am not objecting to the reservoirs, but I am pointing out that that does not make a contribution to this problem up here. Mr. JACOBS. No; but those reservoirs are in this group. Mr. MCCLELLAN. I am not questioning the reservoirs. I hope we can get as much protection as they are going to afford. Mr. JACOBS. Since Mr. McClellan has made that point, I would like to call to the committee's attention a little agreement that was made by the engineers of the State of Louisiana and the engineers of the State of Mississippi just in a general talk from time to time as to what might be done in lowering flood heights in the Mississippi River. It was generally agreed about 1928 that wherever there was a point sticking out in the river, if it is on the Louisiana side we would cut it off, and if on the Mississippi side they would cut it off, to maintain a minimum width of the river of 3 miles between levees. There have been a great many cut off in Louisiana. One threw out 20,000 acres of land. There still remain a number of them on the other side, although there are some very fine lands in back of those levees. But we cannot see why the Government engineers should not cut Catfish Point, extend that levee on down to just above Greenville, and also take out this point just below Greenville. They are doing practically the same thing on the other side. That would be just that much more storage space in the river. The CHAIRMAN. They have authority to do that now. Mr. JACOBS. It is not in this plan. It has not been referred to, and it is not on the map. The CHAIRMAN. They do not need any plan to do it, they have authority to do it. Mr. JACOBS. According to that, they would not need any additional authority for it. Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is the width of the river at Natchez? Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Whittington, I am glad you brought that up. These points here are opposite the fuseplug of the low section, and have been there for the last 7 years. Vidalia Point, on the east side, you have the big hills at Natchez, so they have nothing to fear. On our side, on the other side, the grade of the levee has been raised to take care of the congestion. Therefore, it is an entirely different condition at Natchez from what it is at Catfish Point. Mr. WHITTINGTON. The point is, we have a good many of these bottlenecks removed? Mr. JACOBS. Yes. Mr. WHITTINGTON. These are just two or three of them? There is one right there below Greenville, for instance. The CHAIRMAN. My statement is, it is not necessary to include any legislation for the cutting off of the points in the main channel of the Mississippi River. They have authority to do that now and they are doing it. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Is there any narrower place between the levees on the main channel of the Mississippi River anywhere below the Arkansas River than the point you spoke of up there directly opposite the fuseplugs, the Catfish levee? Is there any narrower place anywhere on the river below the Arkansas than in that particular area? Mr. JACOBS. Yes; the point at Natchez is about the same width, possibly slightly less. Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is where you have the hills? Mr. JACOBS. We have the hills on one side and the grades of the levee have been raised on the other side to take care of it. Now, when you leave Old River and extend on further south, the stream, of course, is a great deal deeper and narrower down there than it is from that Old River north. The river between the levee at Baton Rouge is about 4,500 feet in width. Canal Street in New Orleans, there is about 4,000 feet between levee and levee. Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is where you are building up to protect it? Mr. JACOBS. But the stream is a great deal deeper. It carries, it is true, a lesser volume than it does north of Red River, but conditions are entirely different down there. Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is the width at Vidalia? Mr. JACOBS. About 4,000 feet. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Is it not 3,000 feet? Mr. JACOBS. It is 3,500 feet, Mr. Adams states. I thought it was 4,000. Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is it at Catfish Point? Mr. JACOBS. It is about, as I recall, just about an eighth more than a mile. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Is it not nearly three times as much? Eight thousand feet. That is nearly three times as wide as it is at Vidalia. Mr. JACOBS. No; about twice. Mr. WHITTINGTON. All right. Twice 3 is 6. I thought it was 8,000 feet wide here at Catfish Point. Mr. JACOBS. Eight and four. Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is the width at Friar's Point, between Mississippi and Arkansas? Mr. JACOBS. I do not know what the width is. I could estimate it. Mr. MONTET. In this report of General Markham it is stated that no reimbursements are contemplated for land rights in the Atchafalaya below Krotz Springs, for the reason it is stated that irrespective of the plans these lands are customarily inundated. What is your opinion with respect to that statement and this report, Mr. Jacobs? Mr. JACOBS. I think that question was brought out by both General Markham and General Ferguson. It is my understanding that they are reconsidering that recommendation, which they should, as to the Atchafalaya Basin from Krotz Springs down to below Morgan City. It is true that there are certain sections of that basin that are overflowed by the additional waters that are placed down through the Atchafalaya, but under the present conditions the property owners operating down there have a right to build their own levees. It is still their property. The right has not been taken away from them to protect themselves. They still can enjoy that property the same as any other property owner in the United States. However, if the floodway is built as designed and extended on down to the Gulf, and they are placed in that floodway, that right will be taken away from them. They will be no longer allowed to protect themselves or to enjoy the rights of their property, on which they are allowed to pay taxes. Mr. MONTET. Certainly to that extent they would be damaged. Mr. JACOBS. Of course. And not only that, but the water will be more frequent over them, and it will be raised higher over them. It will ruin all young timber. The timber down in that basin now is being gradually killed out by the raising of flood heights. You might say that the timber has been killed, that that is the end of the story, but it is not. I am told by reliable timber people that the Tupelo gum alone brings an annual revenue to the property owner of about 35 to 50 cents an acre, and will for years to come. Why should he be deprived of revenue from selling that timber off of his land, which timber would be ruined by passing flood waters that are filled up with silt over it? Mr. MONTET. Would not these additional waters in your opinion destroy that timber? Mr. JACOBS. Of course they will. These extra heights that will be raised in there in that confined floodway will kill off all young growth, the willow, sycamore, cottonwood, and all other fast-growing trees or other timber. Years ago in that basin when you had a very shallow water around the edges of the lakes and what were referred to as swamps, but what I call sections that were not properly drained, you had the finest kind of timber down through there. That no longer exists, and cannot under such a plan to propose a floodway by driving the waters between two levees, because then when that is done, the right that the property owner has to his property will be taken away from him. Therefore, they should be given the same degree of payment as given to the people north of Krotz Springs. Mr. MONTET. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until 10:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 10: 10 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10:30 o'clock tomorrow morning, Saturday, Apr. 6, 1935.) FLOOD CONTROL IN THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY SATURDAY, APRIL 6, 1935 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Riley J. Wilson (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. I have requests from several individuals who are here to aid in presenting this problem, to be given an opportunity to make short statements to the committee in order that they return to their homes. They will be given the preference this morning. We will first hear Dr. Womble, of Franklin Parish. Doctor, you may state what organization or district you represent. STATEMENT OF DR. H. B. WOMBLE, REPRESENTING POLICE JURY, FRANKLIN PARISH, LA. Dr. WOMBLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as the chairman has just stated, I am from Franklin Parish, and, naturally, we are more or less interested in any flood-control project. I think the record will show that we have something like 100,000 acres of land that would be under this particular flood plan, or the Markham plan. Just exactly what is the percentage of cultivatable land, as compared with timbered land, I am not in a position to say, but your records, I think, set forth all of those facts. We are up here, not for the purpose of fighting anybody, and I hope the delegations here from Madison, Tensas, and East Carroll Parishes will get that clear. We live on the floodway, and we have been overflowed just as often as they have. Every time the levees give way we get the same ducking that they get. As we understand the Markham plan, the engineers have decided that if they use a part of these lands to control these spill waters the rest of our area will be free from overflow, and that applies, not only to Franklin Parish but to our sister parishes to the east and north of us. They tell us that we have got to confine those waters within certain concrete levees, and in that way the rest of our lands can be assured of protection. I am perfectly familiar with every foot of land in Tensas Parish that those waters will go through. I have hunted over it, and I know every thicket, every slough, every bayou, and everything else connected with it. I have friends all over that section, and I have relatives in that section. Of course, we do not know what the engineering problem is, and we are perfectly willing to leave that question with the engineers. That is a matter which we have no knowledge. They tell us, as we understand it, those lands will be used for the overflow of waters very infrequently, and possibly not at all, if certain other flood-control projects are adopted. Of course, we will take our part of it. As landowners, I do not believe that we are going to be injured by this plan; certainly not any more so than we have been injured heretofore by flood waters. Of course, flood waters do injure people's property and their possessions. We do not believe that this plan would injure us any more than we have been injured. I have some property right in this floodway, and I do not believe that my property will be injured. I have 140 acres there, all improved land under cultivation with a crop growing on it now. I know that crop will be destroyed if the water goes over it, whether it be put through there under the engineering plan, or under the Markham plan, or whether it be put through by crevasses in the levee. In any event, the crop will be gone, just as it has always gone, and as it will always go. However, as I understand it, under this particular plan, you are given warning in advance of the time when this water will be turned through there. I think that is a big advantage; I think that is a tremendous advantage over what we are having to contend with now. Therefore, I have come here for the purpose of explaining to this committee that there is no opposition in Franklin Parish to this plan. We feel down there that if Congress and the engineering board see fit to use our land for that purpose, we are perfectly willing to have it done. Furthermore, we believe that the compensation you are proposing to give us is a fair one. As we all know, the bill provides for compensation, and you are proposing to pay a maximum of one and a half times the assessed value of the lands. We have no fault to find with that. The fact of the business is that our lands are returned on the basis of a fair valuation, and I think it is fair for the Government to take it at one and a half times its assessed value. I think that a fair price would be one and a half times its assessed value. A fair price for our cut-over lands would be $10 per acre, and our cultivated lands, of course, should be priced at a higher figure. I cannot give you the exact figures on that, but the chairman of the committee is familiar with our section, and knows something about the values. As to the Tensas Parish, I know that there is a great deal larger percentage of cultivatable land in Franklin Parish that will be flooded under the Markham plan than in the Tensas Parish. It is a great deal larger area in Franklin Parish. As for the public buildings that will be affected by this plan in Franklin Parish, we have none of any consequence, and neither have they in the other parishes. We have a few little frame schoolhouses down there that will possibly be damaged some, but they are of no consequence. There are no other buildings in there. As I understand the plan, you will provide roads, and better and more adequate roads than we have today. Therefore, I cannot see, and my people do not see, where we will be injured at all. Now, I do not know anything about the engineering features of the plan, and I would not attempt to discuss that part of it. I do not know anything about the legal end of it, and I would not attempt to answer questions upon or to discuss that feature of it at all. I |