« PreviousContinue »
struct all of the reservoirs throughout the United States and cut flood heights down to about bankfull stage.
Mr. SANDERS. Referring to the levees on the east bank of the Atchafalaya, in the northern part of Pointe Coupee, commonly referred to as the fuseplug levees—and I assume that you are familiar with those levees?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir.
Mr. SANDERS. They are functioning today as a fuseplug, are they not?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. What would be the situation in the lower valley if those levees should blow out? The point that I am getting at is that I understand from previous reports and from this recommendation of General Markham that the purpose of this authorization is to immediately strengthen those levees, and that if they are not strengthened, and a flood comes down, a flood would be inevitable at that point ?
Mr. JACOBS. That is correct.
Mr. JACOBS. You would have a flood similar to that of 1927, which would extend from Old River to the Gulf, through the overflowing of some seven or eight parishes, flanking all of the new work that is being done.
Mr. SANDERS. Since 1927 the guide levee has been constructed from the south up as far as Lottie ?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir.
Mr. SANDERS. And the height of the highway and railroad embankments has been raised running east and west?
Mr. JACOBS. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. Would not those road embankments and railroad embankments and the levee at Lottie lying northeast of the Atchafalaya Basin have a tendency to divert a flood at the northern point of Pointe Coupee from getting back into the Atchafalaya Basin ?
Mr. JACOBS. Of course it would. Mr. SANDERS. So that unless General Markham's recommendation is accepted by the Congress, and that fuseplug levee can be strengthened, a flood there at the present time would really be worse than any flood we have ever had ?
Mr. JACOBS. Yes; and therefore it is absolutely necessary for that line to be raised. Also the line of the levee should be raised in grade and enlarged in section from the head of the Atchafalaya on the east side down to the intersection of the northern guide line of the Morganza Floodway to a grade to fully protect the parish at Pointe Coupee from the overflow of the Atchafalaya River, and make that grade similar to the grade on the Mississippi River.
Mr. SANDERS. In your opinion, then, not only should that fuseplug levee from Morganza around to the head of the Atchafala ya be raised, but on the east bank of the Atchafalaya down to, say, Krotz Springs, that levee should be brought up to 1928 grade and section?
Mr. Jacobs. Down to Redcross, that is perfectly correct, and should be done at all times.
Mr. SANDERS. The situation south of Krotz Springs—not in detail but just to emphasize and to verify—will the property south of Krotz Springs in your opinion be damaged by the proposed recommendations?
Mr. JACOBs. Yes, sir; without any doubt.
Mr. SANDERS. You spoke of the activities of moss picking and moss ginning, fishing, game, hunting, timber, and so forth, in that area. That area south of Krotz Springs supports a great deal of human activity, does it not?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir.
Mr. SANDERS. Do you know of any land south of Krotz Springs that is not now ordinarily subject to overflow?
Mr. Jacobs. There is a section at Sherbourne, just on the east side of the Atcha falaya River, some six or eight thousand acres, which was not overflowed in 1927.
Mr. SANDERS. Not even overflowed in 1927 ?
Mr. SANDERS. It would be impractical, would it not, for property owners south of Krotz Springs to protect themselves under the conditions proposed in this plan, would it not?
Mr. JACOBS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SANDERS. They could not build levees that would withstand the flood waters that would come down on them, as a practical proposition, could they?
Mr. JACOBs. As a practical proposition, no. They would be deprived of the reasonable protection that they now could get.
Mr. SANDERS. Would you state it to the committee as your opinion that it would be unfair for the Congress to decline to pay any dama ges or compensation to the property owners south of Krotz Springs?
Mr. Jacobs. It most assuredly would be unfair, because you are depriving people of the right to enjoy property as they now do, to make plans for the future, which they would be prevented from doing.
Mr. SANDERS. In this discussion of the Eudora and Boeuf floodways and the elimination thereof, Mr. Jacobs, what effect, if any, would that have upon the lower valley from Old River south? Does it make any difference to us in that section?
Mr. Jacobs. I do not get that question.
Mr. SANDERS. All of that water comes down upon the lower valley. Does the elimination of the Eudora floodway and the Boeuf floodway, or either of those two alternatives, have any effect upon the lower Atcha falaya Basin?
Mr. Jacobs. No, sir.
Mr. SANDERS. Whether or not the Eudora spillway is adopted for the Boeuf Basin spillway is adopted, or whether they are both eliminated, that flood water comes down upon us in the Atcha falayaLower Mississippi Valley, anyway, does it not?
Mr. JACOBS. It comes down in the lower Atchafalaya Valley. Regardless of either, you would continue to get your million and a half second-feet through the Atchafalaya.
Mr. SANDERS. The Eudora and Boeuf Basin both empty back into the Atchafalaya?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes. They both empty at the head of the Atchafalaya.
Mr. SANDERS. Of course, a spillway at the Eudora would retard the crest of the flood coming down to the Atchafalaya, would it not? Or would it? What I want in the record is your opinion as an engineer as to whether it makes any difference to the flood problem in the Atchafalaya what solution is offered to the EudoraBoeuf Basin controversy.
Mr. JACOBS. No, sir, I do not think either one makes a bit of difference to the Atchafalaya people, under the other recommendations of the Chief of Engineers.
Mr. SANDERS. Would the Boeuf Basin spillway or the Eudora spillway, or either one of them if adopted, have the effect of retarding the crest of the flood, thereby lowering the flood height at the head of the Atchalafaya or in the Atchafalaya?
Mr. Jacobs. No, sir'; because the superflood is predicated on a volume of 3,000,000 second-feet at the head of the basin, of which at that time a million and a half would be going through the Atchafalaya and a million and a half down the Mississippi River. That flood will arrive at that latitude regardless of whether it comes through the Boeuf, the Eudora, or the Mississippi River.
Mr. SANDERS. If the Bonet Carre spillway should be opened at a lower figure than 20 feet, would that have any effect upstream, above the Bonnet Carre?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes. It would have an effect for some 40 or 50 miles, I believe.
Mr. SANDERS. It would lower the height and lower the pressure against the levees?
Mr. JACOBS. It would get the water out of the river faster, and the effect would be some 40 or 50 miles, I believe, up somewhere about Donaldsonville.
Mr. SANDERS. In your opinion, what effect will that proposed second opening in the lower Atchafalaya known as the “Charenton cut-off” have upon the flood problem? You recommend it, do you not?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir; by all means. That would greatly reduce the flood heights, and especially prevent the building up of flood heights in the lower river, as has been occuring during the past 10 or 15 years, thereby keeping down the levee grades for the protection of that area and eliminating this construction cost that would be necessary to raise those grades.
Mr. SANDERS. You are familiar with the work that is proceeding in the lower Atchafalaya, upon which the engineers are now engaged, of dredging and deepening the channel and shortening, making cut-offs, and so forth?
Mr. JACOBs. Yes, sir.
Mr. SANDERS. As a matter of fact, does not the inclusion of that second outlet at Charenton to the Gulf and the deepening and dredg. ing and straightening of the channels of the lower Atchafalaya make
for the greater safety of the upper Atchafalaya and of the entire upper valley? Mr. Jacobs. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. Is not that about as important a work as is being done on the river?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes, sir; beyond any doubt, although I must say at that point that it still must not be construed that it will leave those people's land down there, after the floodways have been constructed, in the same condition as now exists.
Mr. SANDERS. I understand from your testimony that you prefer the Markham recommendation of a floodway at Morganza to the present fuseplug plan incorporated in the Jadwin plan?
Mr. Jacobs. By all means; yes, sir.
On that point I would like also to include the stretch of levee of the west floodway along Bayou des Glaizes from Hamburg to Simmesport, which is now to the 1914 grade and section. That section should be enlarged to the 1928 section, to prevent that levee from crevassing before the water got to the top of it, which would give an additional factor of safety to the people in that basin as the plan intends only that it should be used when that flood builds itself up to an elevation of 57.5, or that equivalent to the elevation of that levee at this time.
Mr. Monter. Were you present when General Markham testified, according to my recollection, to the effect that if all of these improvements are completed in the Atchafalaya, by reason thereof the water will escape much more rapidly, with the result that there will be no increase in the flood heights in the Atcha falaya? What is your opinion with respect to that statement ?
Mr. Jacobs. I believe that flood heights will be increased during a very big flood. The construction of the Charenton outlet will lower average foods and make conditions in there somewhat better, if you would take a low flood as being the biggest flood that you would ever get. But you must keep in mind regardless of that floodway down at the lower end that they are still building levees on both sides of that floodway to the grade as required for the floodway to function with a million and a half second feet passing through it.
Mr. MONTET. It was with that thought under consideration that I asked the question, because that was the matter that General Markham was discussing when he stated that as a result of all of this work in the Atcha falaya, even though the per-second flow would be increased, the flood heights of the water in the Atcha falaya would still, by reason of the more rapid escape of the water, actually not be increased above what they now are.
Mr. Jacobs. That is true in this manner:
As I pointed out, the million and a half second-feet would be coming into the Atcha falaya. There is about 250,000 second-feet of storage space in that basin. Therefore, there will be 1.250,000 secondfeet to go out at the latitude of Morgan City. Berwick Bay is about 1,800 feet wide. It would pass the superflood at about an elevation of 12 or 13 mean Gulf level, which would require high sea walls to get it by Berwick Bay, but it could be done. But if that were carried
, . out and no spillway provided for here, the flood heights would be built up higher through the entire basin. By providing this additional space of flood way to be operated in an emergency, it will have a tendency to pull down the flood in the lower basin, thereby not building up the flood heights above Berwick Bay.
Mr. Monter. Personally, I do not mind stating that I believe experience would teach the error of General Markham's conclusion in that respect. By that I mean, while I am not an engineer, I rather share your view that it will increase flood heights, that it is bound to increase flood heights, and thereby damage our people so much more than they now are damaged.
Mr. JACOBS. There is no doubt about flood heights being increased in the lower Atchafalaya Basin by the construction of a floodway; no doubt about it.
Mr. MONTET. That is all, Mr. Jacobs.
STATEMENT OF HENRY C. SEVIER, OF TALLULAH, LA.
Mr. SEVIER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I assume at the outset it is but proper that I tell the committee whom I represent here and therefore my purpose in appearing before your committee.
I appear here at the expense of the board of commissioners of the Fifth Louisiana Levee District and the police jury of Madison Parish, which is the governing body of that parish; the school board of Madison Parish; the mayor and board of aldermen of the town of Tallulah; the Tallulah State Bank & Trust Co., which is the only bank within our parish of Madison; the Northeast Louisiana Protective Association, an organization which was organized since this proposed bill has been presented; by hundreds of people living in the area of Madison, East Carroll, West Carroll, and Tensas Parishes, four of the parishes to be affected by this area. I also appear in behalf of the chamber of commerce of the town of Tallulah.
I am here to endeavor to present to this committee in as short a time as possible as clear a picture as possible of what this enormous floodway will do to our section of the State of Louisiana. I am not here to oppose the construction of any of General Markham's recommendations with the exception of the Eudora spillway. We have no interest in opposing any of the other recommendations other than that affecting us, which is the Eudora spillway.
I might call to the committee's attention that since the year 1928, the adoption of the Jadwin plan, the Fifth Louisiana Levee District has given 47,332 acres of its most fertile land to set-back levees; 40,000 acres of that land has been thrown by the set-back levees, for which not one dime's compensation has been paid to the property owners; 70,000 acres of that land has been consumed by the construction for the base of the levees and for the barricades. That was paid for, gentlemen, by the board of commissioners of the Fifth Louisiana Levee District and not the United States Government.
So, gentlemen, we have given generously to our parish, to our Fifth Louisiana Levee District, toward flood control, for which, as I repeat, we have not received one penny of compensation from the United States Government and no one else, except that portion actually used for the base of the levee and the barricades. I say here that it was the most fertile portion of our parish.