They are mostly small farms, where farmers with their families cultivate small areas. They are cultivating small areas of their own land, and the plantation system does not exist in this part of the country. That land is in small ownerships. That, I think, is a completely different picture from what you would gather from the way it is proposed that this water shall be dumped down there on us. We have established schools in there in that lower part. We have established schools at Acme, Shaw, Lismore, Fairview, New Era, Monterey, Wildsville, and other places. We have all the paraphenalia of civilization in there, including churches, lodges, and schools. All of those institutions are established in that territory, and they are actively functioning every day. It is a thickly-settled area, and the population is mostly white. The population of this entire Black River is almost entirely made up of white farmers. The people taxed themselves to establish those schools, and I am glad to say that all of them, with the exception of one school are free of mortgage. There is a mortgage on one of them, but the mortgages on the others have been paid up.

As I have said, this is the oldest settled farming country north of the Red River, in the alluvial valley of the Mississippi River. Until in recent years this country went along with an overflow once in a while. That was the situation until recent years. Then about 40 years ago we began to be troubled with backwater, which was caused by two things: The first relates to the Old River, where we had the only break in the Mississippi River levees, on the west bank, from the Arkansas River to the Gulf of Mexico. There was a continuous line of levees all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico, except for the gap at that point. As the levees were raised, the flood heights were also raised, and the backwater gradually encroached more and more onto this area [indicating]. It has not been stopped up to this time, and it greatly interferes with farming operations. We are liable to be affected by it every 2 or 3 years, and it keeps the people in a state of uncertainty, and they cannot garner the crops that they should be able to garner from those lands. The principal cause of this condition, strange to say, is that about 40 years ago the metropolitan area of New Orleans became alarmed for fear the Mississippi River would stop flowing by New Orleans, and would keep on down by the short-cut of the Atchafalaya River to the Gulf. That fear would seem to be preposterous now, but 40 years ago it was a real fear. Therefore, they undertook to stop the flow of the Atchafalaya River by reveting the banks, and by choking it up so that it would not carry the water out. That was done to prevent the Mississippi going down that route to the Gulf, thereby destroying the commerce of New Orleans. This area, of course, could not protect itself from the backwater caused by this interference with the Atchafalaya. We had a direct route clear to the Gulf, independent of the Mississippi River, and that was the situation up until about 40 years ago. It might be said that that backwater was created by an act of Congress, and we are asking for an act of Congress that will relieve us of it. What we are asking to be done is that this act that you now have under consideration be modified so as to extend this western line levee down to somewhere in the vicinity of the Atchafalaya Levee. We do not ask for an act to close the gap, but we ask that the gap be closed.

Now, this engineering plan is in effect, providing a double track for the Mississippi River, and we ask that both tracks be made continuous. We want both tracks made continuous, without either of them being shut off. We ask that the back line levee be extended down through here [indicating]. We do not ask that all of these things be done in the first plan. The United States engineers have told me that the first thing they proposed to do was to take care of the lower area, and we do not ask that any of these things be done until the Atchafalaya district is taken care of, or until that floodway is completed and until the channel of the Atchafalaya is cleared out so as to give it its natural flow. As I understand it, you are now considering this year's program, and when that is done, then this work on the Atchafalaya River should be completed. The engineering plan does not show any reason why we should not be relieved. It does not show any reason why this old established permanent floodway should not be protected.

None of the engineers who have made statements here has said anything against that plan, and I do not think any of them have any objection to that plan; except that, greatly to my surprise, at the last session of the committee on Saturday, Mr. Klorer declared arbitrarily that this work I have suggested was entirely unnecessary. He stated that it was entirely unnecessary and impracticable. He said that this gap must never be closed, and that this area of over a million acres must be overflowed to form a reservoir, in order to prevent any possible injury to the metropolitan area of New Orleans. He claimed that the assessed values in the New Orleans area exceeded the assessed values in this area, and that, therefore, this area should be condemned in order to save New Orleans. Then your chairman, who so ably represents our district and looks out for the interests of our district, asks the pointed question whether New Orleans was not already protected. The chairman was surprised to hear that New Orleans was not already protected. Mr. Klorer's idea that this is necessary to protect New Orleans is entirely erroneous and unfounded.

I will say for the benefit of the committee, that, without any local prejudice, we are violently opposed to the views of Mr. Klorer. That has not been heard of since 1927, and I am greatly surprised that Mr. Klorer revived it. Mr. Klorer is a gentleman for whom I entertain the highest respect. He is probably the most skillful engineer anywhere on the protection of New Orleans against floodwaters. He has done a great deal of work for the protection of New Orleans, but he is entirely ignorant of and unacquainted with this entire project. He knows nothing about the project except as it pertains to the city of New Orleans. You gentlemen doubtless recall his statement, which was contrary to what the United States engineers had said, showing that he has not made a study of this whole matter. He does not know anything about it in its entirety. He gave no reason whatever why we should be condemned. His statement that it is, was entirely unreasonable and unnecessary and represented nothing but selfishness on his part. It was individual selfishness on his part to condemn us, when there was no reason for doing it. If this gap is closed, or if what I have suggested is done, the petty nuisance we have every year from the little backwater coming in there, will be cut off absolutely.

If that is done, we will be absolutely protected from all these trivial floods which nobody except us pays any attention to. We will be absolutely protected against those petty floods throughout that area, and there will be a million acres which will be free from that form of petty nuisance. We would be free from that, and, as you know, an elephant is not as troublesome as a mosquito sometimes. The effect of that will be that our area will be absolutely protected except in time of superfloods. Under this plan, in the event of a superflood, New Orleans will have protection through the Bonnet Carre spillway, carrying a half million second feet of water. Then, half a million second-feet will be carried from this area [indicating], and the Morganza Spillway will carry half a million second-feet. There is not use arguing that point. Mr. Klorer presented no satisfactory reason for his statement. It was simply a foolish and unnecessary exhibition of selfishness in the matter. On the contrary, I ask you gentlemen to bear in mind that the effect would be just the opposite to what he indicated. Let us take a superflood, and you gentlemen, by Act of Congress, have made this area [indicating] high and dry territory for most of the time.

It will be unnecessary for you to say that you will not disturb this unless we go in there, because we have been in there for 100 years. That entire area is thickly settled, and it will be protected. Now, when a superflood comes down the river, this territory [indicating] will be an immense basin, completely dry and protected from the lower stages of the river. It is not the lower stages that will bother us, but that will come in big floods or superfloods. The lower stages will not disturb us. What would trouble us would be the crest coming along in 10 or 15 days, when the river is away up. That is what breaks the levees. When that time comes, this area here [indicating] will be dry, ready to receive the crest. That crest of the flood can be put in there, and that will be the place for it to go. The water will not dump in there, forming a lake that will be already existing, but the crest of the flood will be discharged into an empty basin instead of a full basin. As to closing the gap at the Old River, while the United States Engineers are not prepared to come out in favor of that, I am sure they do not oppose it. We will have that reservoir to protect the metropolitan area in the event of a superflood.

We do not fear a superflood, and we think it will not happen, but what we ask is that if it does occur, we will have that reservoir for the superflood if it should be needed. It will be an empty reservoir, available for use. This would give additional protection to everybody. What we ask is that you help us in every year except in the year of a superflood. That would enable us to help everybody else in the time of a superflood. We think that is the perfect plan, and that Mr. Klorer's opinion to the contrary should be disregarded. I just want to say one more word on the general proposition. As you gentlemen can see, the Fifth Louisiana Levee District stretches from the Arkansas down to the Red River. It is a long district, and I am speaking for the lower part of it. Other gentlemen will speak for the area up here [indicating]. They will express their views on that. I am not competent to speak for that upper area. I will say,

131791-35-21

looking at the broad general picture, that what Congress is proposing to do is to impose a water servitude on the State of Louisiana. By bringing these high floods upon the State of Louisiana, the other States are practically imposing a water servitude upon us. There are a great many intangibles involved in that proposition. Nobody seems to recognize the fact that with the waters of the Mississippi flowing through Louisiana-not within the banks of the river, but over the land itself-there are many intangibles involved. There are many intangibles that no one can see.

Now in the first place, we think that the committee, in a statesmanlike way, should consider very seriously the reservoir proposition, and, in the second place, that the committee should meet the Louisiana spirit of liberality. If this burden has to be imposed upon us, there should be an endeavor to limit the damage to Louisiana to as little as possible, and that full recompense should be provided for those who are damaged. We believe that the State of Louisiana should be dealt with in a spirit of liberal generosity in this matter. As one of the gentlemen testified, paying one and a half times the assessed value of the land, when the land is not actually taken away from us, may seem to be liberal. The land may not be taken from us, but that cloud on our land, with the threat of flood waters, is a serious matter. That is something that cannot well be measured in dollars and cents.

We think that the protection of the metropolitan area is a large feature, and one that should be given full consideration. I have not heard the engineers say anything about this, and I am only giving my personal opinion, but it seems to me that the States of Louisiana and Mississippi should remove the restrictions on Bonnet Carre and allow it to be used freely for the protection of the city of New Orleans. I think they should do that in return for the benefit that we are giving them up here.

All that I ask is that you gentlemen bear in mind that this is a thickly settled and old established farming area, and, as such, it should be afforded full protection.

Mr. QUINN. You spoke of the selfishness of the engineers— Mr. BULLIS (interposing). I was referring to one engineer. Mr. QUINN. What did you imply by that? Was there any personal animosity involved there?

Mr. BULLIS. I do not feel any animosity toward him at all. On the contrary, he is one of our most highly respected citizens. I think Mr. Klorer came into this discussion before the committee without having heard the views of the engineers. He had not heard General Markham and General Ferguson, and was not familiar with it. Mr. Klorer is an expert for the city of New Orleans. He is the most expert engineer we have for the city of New Orleans. Everyone naturally thinks in the terms of his individual conviction. I did not mean to cast any reflection whatever upon Mr. Klorer.

Mr. QUINN. In other words, there is nothing personal about it, but you mean that he looks at it wholly from the standpoint of protecting the city of New Orleans.

Mr. BULLIS. Yes. In past years, New Orleans has had terrific scares. She had a terrific scare in 1927, and she has not recovered from that scare. Mr. Klorer is an expert on the New Orleans' sit

uation, but this area outside of New Orleans is not within his personal knowledge.

Mr. DEAR. I am very much interested in what you say, and thoroughly agree with you. This idea that you have of drying that area, of course, depends upon the carrying capacity of the Atchafalaya?

Mr. BULLIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEAR. It is your opinion, then, that it should be left in the discretion of the engineers to close the Atchafalaya when they find its capacity has increased sufficiently to justify that?

Mr. BULLIS. Oh, yes, sir. I would not ask your comimttee to report any bill to close the river.

Mr. DEAR. But don't you think it should be the policy of the Government to do that when it is justified?

Mr. BULLIS. Yes, sir; that is what I want-just to declare the policy; and I do not think any of the engineers oppose that idea. They are not prepared to say just now when that will be, but they recognize that as a future development. Mr. Jacobs, I understood, said that, and our district is profoundly grateful to Mr. Jacobs for his masterly presentation.

Mr. DEAR. Don't you think that Mr. Jacobs has a better knowledge of the conditions throughout the State than Mr. Klorer?

Mr. BULLIS. Yes, sir. Mr. Jacobs is the most useful State official we have; and, to avoid any controversy, I am not speaking about United States officials or Senators; I am speaking about State officials. [Laughter.] Mr. Jacobs has walked all these levees and knows every one of them from personal knowledge. He has been there for 10 or 15 years, and he knows this problem intimately. I do not think he knows the problem at New Orleans quite as well as Mr. Klorer; but as to everything outside of New Orleans he knows a thousand times more, from personal knowledge. He made, I think, a masterly statement of the whole plan and a statesmanlike solution of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bullis, was not the statement of the conditions made by Mr. Klorer based upon the situation that existed before this work on the Atchafalaya had begun, and before this recommendation that is under consideration was made?

Mr. BULLIS. Yes, sir. I think Mr. Klorer made that statement without any knowledge of that. I do not think he knew what was going on in the Atchafalaya.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Bullis, all that you advocate is, in substance, that the backwater area be protected by extending the levees? Mr. BULLIS. Yes, sir; and a declaration of policy also.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Well, a declaration of policy to that end? Mr. BULLIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. In other words, as to this million acres of land down there in the backwater area of the Red, that, in your judgment, could be largely protected by extending that levee so as to protect it from both head and backwater?

Mr. BULLIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. As a matter of fact, in recent years the outlet for those waters through the Atchafalaya has been constantly increased at the head of the Atchafalaya?