is the January 1940 cost. I think the committee will realize that for any projects investigated at that time the estimates would have to be revised and increased for present-day costs by approximately 60 percent. Mr. ELLIOTT. What part did the people put up there their contribution? Mr. NELSON. The local people did not contribute any funds for the survey. The proposed allocations of the construction costs, based on estimated benefits are 60 percent to irrigation and 40 percent to flood control. Mr. ELLIOTT. On the Kings River-going back to that—what was the Federal cost there on that? Mr. NELSON. The Kings River project total cost, as of January 1940, was $22,300,000, and the allocation of costs were for flood control, $9,950,000; irrigation, $9,750,000; power, $2,600,000. Do you wish information on the ratio of costs to benefits on an annual basis? Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes. Mr. NELSON. Irrigation cost, $263,700; benefits, $1,255,000, or a cost to benefit ratio of 1 to 4.8. Flood-control cost, $486,000. Benefits, $1,185,000, or a ratio of 1 to 2.4. Power cost, $174,000; benefits, $677,000, or a ratio of 1 to 3.9. Mr. ELLIOTT. How long will it take to complete that dam; about 2 years? Mr. NELSON. The Pine Flat Dam could be built in 2 or 3 years. Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. If you could get priorities, you could build the two of them together, if handled by two separate contracts. Mr' NELSON. Yes, sir; but the time in which they could be conpleted would depend on the availability of labor and materials. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions, Mr. Elliott? Mr. ELLIOTT. I think that is all. I just want to repeat the question, We are sure going to get this report in 60 days? Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. He asked you to present it to the chairman. You can present it via Mr. Elliott to the chairman. Thank you, very much, Mr. Commissioner and Mr. Nelson. Any further question by members of the committee? (There was no response.) The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Elliott, have you any other witnesses this morning? Mr. ELLIOTT. We have the people from my State. We can take care of them pretty fast. The CHAIRMAN. There is a gentleman here from the Agricultural Department. May we have him first, please? STATEMENT OF E. H. WIECKING, LAND USE COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE The CHAIRMAN. Will you state your name and your official position? Mr. WIECKING. E. H. Wiecking, Land Use Coordinator, Office of the Secretary of Agriculture. The CHAIRMAN. Under the flood-control acts, the Department of Agriculture is vested with work in connection with flood control and conservation. Heretofore, we have had reports from Mr. Eisenhower, your predecessor, at former hearings. We have gone over it extensively and understand it. Without going over any statements that Mr. Eisenhower has submitted, the committee being generally familiar with your function and understanding your reports, what works or what reports covering works have you submitted to the committee since the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, giving us first the type of work that you have done, and secondly, the amount that you have expended, and for what, thirdly, a general statement, if you care to give it. You may answer those questions in that order. Mr. WIECKING. Under the Flood Control Act of 1936 that you have mentioned, and amendments and supplements thereto, the Department of Agriculture is authorized to undertake a preliminary examination and survey The CHAIRMAN. I told you we are familiar with your functions. Mr. WIECKING. I just wanted to say in that connection that it is cooperative with the Corps of Engineers. They work on the waterways and the streams themselves. We have worked on the watersheds, and our reports are coordinated with the Corps of Engineers, and also with the Bureau of Reclamation where their interests are involved. I take it you would like to have a brief report of the status of the program as of this time. The CHAIRMAN. Just since August 18, 1941. If you will just answer the questions that I asked you, first, How much money have you expended of flood-control funds? Mr. WIECKING. For preliminary examinations and surveys, we have obligated to March 31, 1943, $8,367,000. For works of improvement, which have gone forward on one watershed only, we have obligated to that date, $703,700. The CHAIRMAN. Where? Mr. WIECKING. The Arroyo Seco, a portion of the Los Angeles watershed in California. The CHAIRMAN. So that all the money has been spent in that area, all the money that we have appropriated? Mr. WIECKING. No; not all the money appropriated. The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the authorization by this committee. If that is not true, I want to get the facts. Mr. WIECKING. I think if I could just indicate the work that has been done The CHAIRMAN. The principal work has been done in the Los Angeles area? Mr. WIECKING. Preliminary examinations and surveys have been done throughout the United States. The CHAIRMAN. I am not asking you about the United States. You told me you had spent $8,000,000 on preliminary examinations and surveys. Now, I want the actual construction. You tell me the money has been spent in Los Angeles. How much has been spent? Mr. WIECKING. For construction, $703,700 in that area, one section of the Los Angeles watershed, to March 31. The CHAIRMAN. Where did you spend the rest of it for construction? Mr. WIECKING. There have been no other funds spent for construction. With the oncoming of the war and the general Government policy to cut down on nonmilitary activities, no other funds have been spent or obligated for construction. The CHAIRMAN. What authorizations-what available authorizations for further examinations and surveys are there to the department under existing acts? Mr. WIECKING. Under existing acts the Department of Agriculture is authorized to make preliminary examinations and surveys on the same streams, generally speaking, that the Army is authorized to. The CHAIRMAN. Let me repeat my question. We authorized $5,000,000 in the act of 1936, and we authorized other amounts in subsequent acts. My question is, having spent $8,000,000 or more for preliminary examinations and surveys, what authorizations remain, what amount of authorizations remain for which allocations have been made to you under the Flood Control Act? Mr. WIECKING. For preliminary examinations and surveys, a total of $15,000,000 has been authorized to be appropriated. Of this, $9,498,342 has been appropriated, and $8,367,000 obligated to March 31 of this year. The CHAIRMAN. Now, what amount remains for works? Mr. WIECKING. We have obligated for works, $703,700. There has been appropriated $4,000,000 for works of improvement, from a total of $15,000,000 authorized to be appropriated, with various limitations. The CHAIRMAN. But you have had to stop all of them? Mr. WIECKING. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What other authorizations are there that have not been appropriated in the flood-control bills? Mr. WIECKING. None, to my knowledge. The CHAIRM N. Now, your general statement. Mr. WIECKING. Preliminary examinations completed to date total 160 in various parts of the United States. They cover about 1.200,000 square miles, or about half of the total area authorized for preliminary examination and survey by the Army engineers. The great majority of these preliminary examinations are favorable, indicating that detailed surveys would also be favorable. Of the detailed surveys, which is the next step in the operations for us, as it is with the Army engineers, there have been submitted to the Secretary as completed, 16. Another is ready for the Secretary's approval, making 17. These cover approximately 43,000,000 acres. We hope to complete about 3 more surveys by the end of the month. Of these detailed surveys, 11 have been transmitted to the Congress and to your committee. Others can be expected in due course following clearance, according to established procedure. Of the 17 completed survey reports, 10 found the program justified under the Flood Control Act; 6 of them were found justified under other acts; one was negative. We will be glad to give you a list of the completed surveys for the record if you so desire. The CHAIRMAN. You may attach that to your statement in the revision of your remarks. Mr. WIECKING. All right, sir. The list is as follows: COMPLETED SURVEYS Los Angeles, in California. Trinity, in Texas. Buffalo Creek, in New York. Washita, in Oklahoma and Texas. Little Tallahatchie, in Mississippi. Kickapoo, in Wisconsin. Coosa (above Rome, Ga.), in Georgia and Tennessee. Little Sioux, in Iowa and Minnesota. Potomac, in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania. Middle Colorado, in Texas. Codorus Creek, in Pennsylvania. Pajaro, in California. Billings area, in Montana. Wolf Creek, in Texas and Oklahoma. Susquehanna, in New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania. Muskingum, in Ohio. St. Francis, in Missouri. Mr. WIECKING. The surveys completed to date show that the treatment of watershed lands, where the soils are relatively deep and permeable, is quite effective in reducing the run-off which causes small and medium floods of frequent occurrences. It is these frequent small and medium floods that account for a major portion of the total damage suffered in most watersheds. By watershed improvement it is possible to reduce the flood and sediment damage from these frequent floods by as much as half, depending on the watershed involved. Such improvement cannot, of course, be expected to eliminate damages caused by major floods. The completed surveys show that in addition to benefits in the form of reduced flood and sediment damages, watershed treatment will result in large benefits from increased production and reduced erosion. In all these reports, it was found that total benefits of all kinds from watershed treatment programs exceed the total cost of their installation. The favorable cost-benefit ratios shown by these reports suggest the desirability of early installation of the programs, particularly where flood and sediment damage reductions will be substantial in relation to the cost of obtaining them. Such watershed treatment measures form a valuable part of a comprehensive flood-control program. Of actual operation on works of improvement, as I have already indicated, there is just the one in the Arroyo Seco section of the Los Angeles. In accordance with the general policy of deferring nonmilitary work during the war, no operations in other watersheds have been authorized. The work on the Los Angeles project is being suspended for the duration. The CHAIRMAN. I want to say we have gone into that pretty carefully. It is a profoundly important project, and exercises a great influence on the floods out there. I think the Department has done a marvelous job. You may proceed now. Mr. WIECKING. Thank you, sir. The operations on the Arroyo Seco, while well advanced, are not completed, of course; considerable work remains to be done when operations can again be resumed. As to the post-war possibilities of these projects, which I understand your committee is particularly interested in, these detailed survey reports will be available, and also if need be, the preliminary examinations might be used as a basis for putting men to work after the war is over. Mr. ELLIOTT. Are they available now? Mr. WIECKING. The preliminary examinations, yes, sir, but they are, of course, not in the detail that the survey reports are. Our survey and preliminary examinations offer possibilities because men_can be put to work quickly with a minimum of heavy equipment which may be scarce, we understand, immediately after the war. The Department's program under the flood-control acts will be suspended virtually in its entirety on June 30, 1943. Early in 1941, as a result of the national emergency, steps were taken to greatly reduce the program in line with general Government policy. No new surveys were initiated. Several that had been begun were suspended. As rapidly as field work in progess was completed, men were made available for the armed services, and, as I say, the entire program will be pretty well suspended by the end of this month for the duration. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had your general statement. Do you wish to ask any questions, Mr. Elliott? Mr. ELLIOTT. Are you familiar with the San Joaquin Valley? Mr. ELLIOTT. Do you feel that these dams should be constructed as fast as possible so that more food can be produced? Mr. WIECKING. In a general way, Mr. Elliott, I would say that the food situation is such that every effort ought to be made to get increased food production. Now, with respect to any particular project, I think each project has to be considered individually, because of course the War Production Board has to allot materials for their construction. It depends on whether or not the project should be built at this time. It would depend on how soon actual production would be available. If it won't be available until 1950, for example, that obviously will be too late. Mr. ELLIOTT. Most of these projects in the San Joaquin Valley, according to testimony by the Army engineers, could be built in 2 years. Wouldn't you say that a project that could be built in 2 years should be started immediately, if we hope to produce more foodstuffs? Mr. WIECKING. Well, provided Mr. ELLIOTT. Well, not provided. Mr. WIECKING. I would have to say provided. Mr. ELLIOTT. You fellows in the Department use an awful lot of funny words to prolong this thing. I want to know what you think about it now. Mr. WIECKING. If materials are available; if water rights are satisfactorily adjusted; if there is labor and farm machinery available; if actual production will be achieved soon; yes. Otherwise, I question as a matter of national policy whether you can justify any particular project. Mr. ELLIOTT. Well, if our backbones start in scratching the front part of our stomach, we will have to find out some method of feeding the Nation. Mr. WIECKING. Yes. |