Page images
[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions of the Judge!
(No response.)
Thank you very much, Mr. Gillison.
Mr. GILLISON. Thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. We have some other witnesses who, I think, want to leave for home. I would be glad to give them the privilege of testifying. Mr. Summerlin is president of the Tensas Basin Levee Board. If you have anyone from that district you would like to introduce, Mr. Summerlin, we would be glad to hear them.

Mr. SUMMERLIN. We have Mr. Hunt here, who has some resolutions and statements he would like to make. He wants to leave tonight. I would like the committee to hear him, if possible.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. Hunt. I accompanied a delegation of gentlemen up here from Boeuf flood way.

Some time ago the newspapers in New Orleans and in Memphis, and other papers in Louisiana carried a story about a mass meeting in the Delta parishes, where large numbers of people had come together and passed resolutions to be forwarded to the various heads of the Government and to this committee, and so forth. Among the things resolved there was, that the one reason for not constructing the Markham floodway was that our position over in the Boeuf floodway

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the Jadwin floodway?

Mr. Hunt. I mean, one of the reasons that were urged in the resolutions adopted in the Delta for not constructing the Markham floodway was that opposition over in the Boeuf country was less intense and less widespread that it was there. I mean that they inferred in their resolutions that perhaps this floodway could still be built according to the Jadwin plan, because there was no opposition over in the Boeuf country, over in the Boeuf floodway. That is west of Macon Ridge, as you see, between those brown lines up there [indicating on map].

We came up here to pursue a policy of watchful waiting. We have not heard anything yet that militates against our position. It was simply a matter of believing that maybe some effort would be made to change that spillway across Macon Ridge to the west. So, we came here prepared with figures and facts, to renew our objections to the old Boeuf floodway—the Jadwin plan.

As I say, we have not heard anything yet that we believe justifies our presence, because that has not been discussed at all.

I represent the police jury there. Mr. Hatch, the president, has been here with me all last week. He had to return home.

I also represent the school board and other local interests, such as service clubs, and the town of Delhi, La., which will be right on the banks of this Markham plan. The folks in the town of Delhi also called mass meetings, being stampeded into action by the meetings over in the Delta.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. You mean the Delta of Louisiana?
Mr. Hunt. Yes; the Delta of Louisiana.

Ninety percent of those present at the Delhi meeting were landowners in the narrow strip of land between Macon Ridge and Bayou

Macon. That is in Richland County, the strip of Richland County between the ridge and the Bayou Macon. They are heartily in favor of the Markham plan, and have so resolved. The police jury of Richland Parish endorse the Markham plan, the action of the Army engineers in recommending the plan, as well as the action of the Tensas Basin Levee Board in recommending the plan.

We are here for this reason, that Senator Joseph Ransdell's name was identified with all those mass meetings—he was probably delegated by one of those meetings—and we knew him to be a very fine thinker and a high type of gentleman, so we thought we would just come up, since he has always been a firm believer in spillways, and we wanted to be on hand. That was the sum and substance of it. Otherwise the reason for our appearance is not understood. We are all from the Boeuf Basin. We have a considerable delegation here, and we all have to leave tonight. But that was our only purpose

up here.

There is one thing of importance to consider in drafting a bill. We have a new law just now on the statute books of Louisiana, which grants homestead exemptions up to the extent of $2,000. In Richland Parish as well as in Franklin Parish a lot of those landowners about whom we have been talking will not carry an assessment anywhere near as high as $2,000. They are going to be excused from taxes of any kind anyhow. Many of them are way below the $2,000 home in Louisiana. The State has arranged to make up the revenues which will be lost by the parishes and other assessing authorities by direct payment to them, so therefore those bonds are dedicated and pledged revenues, which will be taken care of directly by the State of Louisiana for most of those small landowners.

I think that is all with me. Mr. E. D. Shaw and Mr. J. Lester White, and Mr. Smith, here, of Morehouse Parish may have a small statement to make. But we were pursuing a policy of watchful waiting.

I have some resolutions which I would like to offer from the police jury and the town of Delhi. That is the police jury of Richland Parish.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Do you want to include them in your statement?

The CHAIRMAN. They will follow his statement.

Mr. HUNT. I would like to include them in the record at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. The resolutions that Mr. Hunt mentioned will follow his statement in the record.

(The resolutions referred to follow :)


At a regular meeting of the town council of Rayville, Richland Parish, La., a committee was appointed known as the " Special Floodway Committee", to devise ways and means to bring to the attention of all parties interested the controversy precipitated by the recommendation of the Mississippi River Commission, of what is known as the Markham plan.”

That said committee met on March 27, and the following resolution was unanimously adopted :

" Whereas under date of March 23, 1935, certain resolutions were adopted by a meeting of the public representing East ('arroll, Madison, and Tensas Parishes; and

Whereas said resolutions were spread in all the newspapers of the Fifth Congressional District, and served upon all of the United States Representatives and Senators from the State of Louisiana, upon the Heads of Departments of the United States Government, and the President of the United States, and

Whereas said resolutions contain the following statement,

Be it further resolved, That local opposition to this floodway (Markham plan), is more widespread and intense than the local opposition west of us, to the Boeuf floodway", and

Whereas what is known as “the Boeuf floodway” embraces various portions of the Parishes of Morehouse, West Carroll, Ouachita, Richland, Franklin, and Catahoula ; therefore be it


First. That the opposition to the Boeuf floodway by the citizens of these parishes is as wide-spread and intense as could possibly be; that the records in hearings heretofore held where objection to the Boeuf floodway energetically urged fairly teem with legal and practical reasons and considerations from the praishes above named why the Boeuf floodway is objectionable.

Second. That the Markham plan floodway east of Bayou Macon Ridge, is now recognized and scientifically known to be the most feasible and practical method of controlling the floods of the Mississippi River.

Third. That under the Boeuf floodway plan a totality of 1,200,000 acres of the most fertile land in the United States of America, would be subject to use and destruction, whereas under the Markham plan a totality of only 723,600 acres would be subject to use, and that under said Markham plan, of this area, 225,000 acres is in the Tensas Basin and embraced within the plan known as the “ Boeuf floodway."

Fourth. That under the Beouf floodway plan costly drainage projects in southeast Arkansas and natural drainage and water sheds in northeast Louisiana will be ruined and disrupted. That under the Markham plan no such drainage projects will be disturbed as said plan follows a natural watershed, namely, the Tensas and Bayou Macon Basins.

Fifth. That the approximate cost of the Boeuf plan of flood control to the United States Government would be $194,000,000, as compared with an approximate cost of the Markham plan of $106,000,000; that the cost of the Boeuf plan given above does not include any amounts for the purchase of flowage rights, which were not provided for in such plan; that under the Markham plan the cost given above includes a sum to be paid for flowage rights, which although deemed inadequate, is nevertheless provided.

Sixth. That under the Boeuf plan the largest gas field in the world, including pumping stations, networks of gas lines, evaporation plants, and many other facilities for the production and marketing of natural gas, as well as a vast number of public utilities, including railroads, high-power transmission lines, and telephone and telegraph lines, as well as numerous public schools, public roads, and other projects, will be completely ruined and dest roped.

Seventh. That under the Boeuf plan a region settled by 100,000 persons will be involved.

Eighth. That under the Boeuf plan such prosperous and populous centers and towns as Oak Ridge, Collinston, Mer Rouge, in Morehouse Parish; such towns as Girard, Start, Alto, Buckner, Charlieville, Rayville (parish site), Mangham, Archibald, in Richland; and such towns as Fort Necessity, Liddieville, Gilbert, Wisner, and Winnsboro (parish site), in Franklin Parish; and such towns as Bosco, and Riverton in Ouachita Parish ; and Sicily Island in Catahoula Parish, will be directly or indirectly affected, and these towns for the most part, will be utterly ruined and inundated.

Ninth. That the lack of wisdom and feasibility from an engineering standpoint of a fuse-plug system and uncontrolled spillway as are suggested in the Boeuf plan as compared with a controlled, well-defined floodway as suggested in the Markham plan, has heretofore been thoroughly demonstrated by interested parties to Congress, to the Mississippi River Commission, and to the heads of all governmental departments, as well as United States Army Engineering Corps at previous hearings and are presently part of the record ; be it further

Resolved, That the Police Jury of Franklin Parish specifically concurs in the actions and resolutions of the Tensas Basin Levee Board in the recommendation of the Mississippi River Commission that the Markham plan be utilized in lieu of the Boeuf Floodway Plan; and be it further

peal, local press, and that copies hereof be forwarded to the President of the United States, the United States Engineering Corps, the Mississippi River Commission, the Senators and Representatives of the State of Louisiana, in the United States Congress, and to the heads of all interested departments of the United States Government; be it further

Resolved, That the police juries of each interested parish be requested to provide a sufficient appropriation to send not less than two delegates to the hearing to be conducted in Washington, D. C., by House Committee on Flood Control, commencing April 1.

" That said delegates be instructed to meet together in Washington and perfect an organization for the purpose of best presenting their side of the controversy to the appropriate committee, and especially their objection to the Boeuf floodway plan; be it further

" Resolved, that the parishes of Quachita, Morehouse, Richland, West Carroll, Franklin, and Catahoula are unalterably and intensely opposed to the Boeuf floodway, and that the statement hereinabove first set forth relative to the objection not being intense is untrue. “Adopted at Rayville, La., April 1, 1935.

“ W. F. JONES,

Mayor Town of Rayville, La. "Attest:

“ D. M. KELLY, City Clerk.

BASTROP, LA., April 4, 1935. Hon. J. W. SUMMERLIN, President Tensas Basin Levee Board,

Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SUMMERLIN: Enclosed you will find resolution adopted by the Kiwanis Club of Bastrop in opposition to the Jadwin plan and in favor of adopting the Markham plan.

It is useless to tell you the people whom this club represents, but, briefly, it is 25 of the professional and business men in Bastrop. I know that this resolution represents the consensus of opinion here, and as you know the people of Boeuf River Basin have manifested over and over again their opposition to the Jadwin plan and even went to considerable expense in trying to prevent it in court.

I think that the reaction that has been brought about by the assertion of those east of Macon Ridge that we did not object to the Jadwin plan will become more evident every day. With kindest personal regards, I am Yours very truly,

JAMES MADISON, President Bastrop Kiwanis Club.

DELHI, LA., March 29, 1935. In a mass meeting attended by several hundred representative citizens of the community, composed of bankers, planters, doctors, merchants, town officials, small farm operators, and other business men, all of whom are vitally interested in the proposed Eudora spillway, the following steps were taken:

The meeting was called to order by the mayor of Delhi, and after purposes of meeting were stated, a committee composed of Mayor Smith, John H. Baker, Foster Jones, W. P. Martin, W. S. Wood, and Dr. C. C. Thompson was appointed to draft resolutions which were later presented and unanimously adopted by the meeting as follows:


1. That after calm and thorough consideration of the effects—dangers as well as benefits—which would result should this proposed spillway be built, as well what our position would be in case the proposed plan was baandoned, we reached the very definite conclusion to memoralize and urge the proper authorities in Washington to proceed with the least delay in the construction of the Eudora spillway.

2. That we consider the proposed Eudora spillway to be the most logical and first really practical solution of food control to be offered to date. The proposed location, in our humble judgment, is correct. Arising as it does at the new point of congestion, caused by recent cut-offs in the main channel of the Mississippi River and following the most direct course down a basin of low lands containing two large ba yous and terminating at the head of the Atchafala ya floodway-embracing, for the most part, an area of undeveloped territory composed of timber and cut-over land which will not be damaged to any great extent. Not more than 10 percent of the entire area is under cultivation and improved and therefore subject to much damage.

3. That for those of us who own improved and developed farm lands within the proposed spillway and who actually reside and depend upon this land for a living—and there are represented on this committee owners of several thousands of such acres with more than 200 tenant houses, residences, gins, out-buildings, etc.—we do not feel that we would be any more insecure from floods with the construction of this floodway than we are under existing conditions. We cannot conceive of more dangerous conditions from floods than we are actually living under at the present time.

4. That if this proposed spillway be constructed, the days and nights of tense strain bordering on panic, attending every extreme high water, will be dissipated. Warned, some 2 weeks ahead, that the spillway must be used to switch the heretofore dreaded crest from the main channel to the spillway in order to relieve the dangerous strain on the main channel levees, those of us inside of the spillway will have ample time to calmly and without a great deal of inconvenience step aside and let this menace of a nation pass on to the sea. From our considerable experiences with floods we believe evacuation would be limited to about 2 weeks during a period of 15 years. In 1927 we stood by idle and helpless with folded arms watching an uncontrolled flood sweep over our lands and through our buildings for a period of 6 weeks.

5. That we do not subscribe to calamity howlers that our property within the proposed spillway will be “utterly destroyed ", " taken out of commerce", “swept away", "rendered worthless ”, “ eliminated from taxation ", etc., ad infinitum. Ninety percent of landowners within the proposed spillway, owning possibly 98 percent of the improved farm lands in a 20-mile stretch at this point are not only willing but anxious to cooperate with the Federal authorities in an effort to solve this problem as recommended to Congress by General Markham, and with modifications recommended by State engineers. We prize our rich lands, which for the most part are not for sale. The most we desire is protection.

6. For decades we have been crying aloud for flood control; our engineers have at last offered a practical solution in which we concur. The thing is extremely practical. It meets with the approval of the people directly within its path, the people whom above all others are to be considered. We have faith in our engineers, and we feel sure that our great Government, which we respect, will not impose a burden without just compensation to those who supply this route for the good of a nation.

J. B. SMITH, Chairman.
W. P. MARTIN, Secretary.


At a special meeting of the board of mayor and aldermen of the town of Mangham, La., held on the 29th day of March 1935, the following resolution was offered, debated, and by unanimous vote was carried :

" Whereas under date of March 23, 1935, certain resolutions were adopted by a meeting of the public, representing the parishes of East Carroll, Texas, and Madison; and

" Whereas said resolutions were spread in all the newspapers of the Fifth Congressional District, and served upon all the United States Representatives and Senators from the State of Louisiana, upon the heads of the departments of the United States Government, and the President of the l'nited States; and

** Whereas said resolutions contain the following statement: Be it further

" Resolved, That local opposition to this foodway (the Markham plan) is more widespread and intense than the local opposition west of us to the Boeuf floodway'; and

** Whereas what is known as the 'Boeuf floodway'embraces various portions of the parishes of Morehouse, West ('arroll, Ouachita, Richland, Franklin, and Catahoula: Therefore be it

* Resolved:


« PreviousContinue »