I also have for the record a letter from Gov. Norbert T. Tiemann, Governor of the State of Nebraska endorsing the project, which I would like to offer for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to put that in.

(The letter follows:)

Re Clatonia Creek Watershed Project.

Hon. ROBERT DENNEY,

U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Lincoln, June 26, 1967.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DENNEY: It is my understanding that the Clatonia Creek P.L. 566 Watershed Project will be considered for possible Congressional approval by the House Sub-Committee on Credit and Conservation on June 28, 1967. I would appreciate it if you would enter this letter in testimony as an indication of my support for this project.

The work plan for the Clatonia Creek Watershed project in Gage and Lancaster Counties is a feasible program of flood and erosion control for the area. This project has the support of the local people as expressed through their representative organization-the Clatonia Creek Watershed Conservancy District.

Our State of Nebraska has recently experienced a serious flood disaster. A complete flood damage appraisal has not been made; however, it will run into the tens of millions of dollars. Fortunately a disastrous flood did not occur on the Clatonia Creek drainage. This was an area that did not receive a sizeable deluge of rain; however, this lack of flooding does not in any way indicate lack of need for the project. Past history of flooding in this watershed project will indicate the need for a flood control program. In reality we need many Clatonia Creek projects in Nebraska if we are to curtail and minimize future flood damage.

Please inform the members of the House Credit and Conservation SubCommittee of my complete support for this watershed project. I am most hopeful we can receive approval for this project and cause it to be implemented at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely yours,

NORBERT T. TIEMANN, Governor.

Mr. DENNEY. I have a letter from Warren Fairchild, a personal friend of mine, who grew up just 6 miles from me. He is executive secretary of the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and this letter gives his recommendations for the project.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be included. (The letter follows:)

Hon. Bов DENNEY,

SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION,

U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

STATE OF NEBRASKA,

Lincoln, June 26, 1967.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN DENNEY: I was most pleased to be informed that the House Conservation and Credit Sub-committee will be considering possible action this week on the Clatonia Creek Watershed Project located in Gage and Lancaster Counties, Nebraska. It has been the pleasure of the Nebraska Soil & Water Conservation Commission to assist in the development of this watershed work plan. We consider the project as proposed to be a practical solution to the flood and erosion problems in the watershed area.

It should be pointed out that the benefit cost ratio of this project is 1.4 to 1. The average annual flood damage in the watershed area will be reduced approximately 70 per cent, or an average annual benefit in excess of $31,000.

This watershed work plan has strong support by the local residents. This support is well indicated by the willingness of the local people to organize the Clatonia Creek Watershed Conservancy District. This district has the necessary powers (including taxation and eminent domain) to insure completion of the watershed work plan as outlined.

As a result of recent floods, intrest in the small watershed program is at an all time peak in our state. The Nebraska Legislature, in recent days, has added considerable financing to the budget of this department to assist in the planning and operation of the various watershed projects. In my estimation, the P.L. 566 Watershed Act is the most popularly received water resource program in Nebraska. This program offers considerable opportunity for the development of the water resources of our state.

Congressman Denny, I would appreciate it if you would inform the members of the Conservation and Credit Sub-committee of the complete support of the Nebraska Soil & Water Conservation Commission for the Clatonia Creek Watershed Project. We are most hopeful that this project can receive early approval by the United States Congress. I can assure you that the local and state governments will take all necessary action to implement this worth-while project. Yours truly,

WARREN D. FAIRCHILD,
Executive Secretary.

Mr. DENNEY. Now, Mr. Chairman, the Department has given you the factual data. I might tell you this: In the last two and a half weeks we have had tremendous rains in southeastern Nebraska. The chairman brought up a point about the concentration of watersheds in the eastern third of our State. This is where the major streams are located. We have had disastrous floods on the Big Blue. If we had had this watershed, the Clatonia watershed, we would have saved thousands of dollars of damage in the town of Beatrice which is located approximately 20 miles south of the upper reaches of the watershed. I am positive that the benefit ratio to cost would be much better if we would have had this in their because there was about a fifth of the town inundated because of Clatonia Creek flowing into the Big Blue and causing it to spread out. I would like to close, Mr. Chairman, with the though that I have been attorney for many watersheds inNebraska. We think it is the greatest law that ever happened in the Midwest. We know that as far as soil erosion and as far as flood control, that it is the thing that has made it possible for Nebraska to compete on an agricultural basis with the other Midwestern States. We are highly in favor of it. The people in the area are in favor of it. Our State legislature has implemented our law to even give them the right to eminent domain.

We have tried to push this thing. We have an excellent executive secretary. I know one question that many times is asked: What is the fair market value of the land in the watershed? It will run between $175 and $200 per acre. Now, the land benefits here, according to the Department report, are $97 per acre.

The CHAIRMAN. The cost is $97.

Mr. DENNEY. Right.

I have a bit of history on watersheds. My father-in-law, J. E. Conklin, former State senator in our State, now deceased, was probably the father of soil conservation in southeastern Nebraska. He gave prizes, he promoted it, and he had one statement that he made to me when I first married his daughter, and that was: "Remember this, Bob, you have only a life tenancy in this land. It is your duty to preserve it and give it to future generations in better shape than you received it." I follow that philosophy; I believe in it. I am on the Public Works Watershed Development Subcommittee. We are working now to try to implement it. This is my idea of Federal-State partnership that is really working. I will be glad to answer any questions if any of you have any.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, Mr. Denney. We appreciate your interest in this project.

Are there any questions?

Mr. GATHINGS. I just want to commend the new Representative from Nebaska for his fine presentation and I can see that he is quite interested in this great program.

Mr. DENNEY. I certainly am.

Mr. GATHINGS. He is well versed in the overall problem.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we thank you. Mr. DENNEY. Thank you very much.

EUTACUTACHES CREEK WATERSHED, MISSISSIPPI

EUTACUTACHES CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location: 18,128 acres in Rankin County.
Tributary to Pelahatchie Creek and Pearl River.

Sponsors: Eutacutaches Creek Watershed Area Drainage District, Rankin County Soil Conservation District.

Watershed privately owned, 96%; State, 4%.

Number of farms: 135.

Size of farms: about 149 acres average.

Purposes: Watershed protection and flood prevention.

Principal measures: Soil conservation practices on farms; and structural measures consisting of 4 floodwater retarding structures and 14.7 miles of channel improvement. Storage capacity of the structures ranges from 579 acre-feet to 695 acre-feet.

Benefit-cost ratio: 1.4 to 1. With secondary and incidental recreation benefits excluded, the benfit-cost ratio is 1.1 to 1.

Area benefited: 2,321 acres.

Number of beneficiaries: Owners and operators of 74 farm properties.
Project costs:

1 This is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost sharing from Federal funds appropriated for the agricultural conservation program may be available if included in the county programs and the annual authorization by the Congress.

2 Consisting of land, easements, and rights-of-way, $89 517, administration of contracts, $3,000.

3 The value of measures already installed ($256,763) increases this to 47 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 structural cost per acre benefited: $150.

Carrying out the project :-The Eutacutaches Creek Watershed Area Drainage District assumes all local responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining the structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $3,090.

The CHAIRMAN. We will pass to the Eutacutaches Creek, Miss. Mr. Montgomery is in another subcommittee. Would you go and tell Mr. Montgomery that we are taking up his project?

Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will be glad to explain the Eutacutaches Creek watershed work plan in Mississippi. This 18,000-acre watershed is located in Rankin County which is in south central Mississippi about 17 miles east of Jackson. Eutacutaches Creek drains northward into Pelahatchie Creek, a tributary of the Pearl River. The topography ranges from flat in the bottomland to gentle rolling and steep along the western and southern rims of the watershed. Soils are generally clays, silts, and silt loams with moderate natural fertility. Principal crops include cotton, corn, and soybeans with lesser amounts of hay, small grains, and truck crops. Only 6 percent of the watershed is used for crops. Three-fourths of the watershed is woodland in generally poor condition due to overgrazing, burning, and overcutting. Much of the woodland has been cultivated in the past. The woodland will improve rapidly under proper management. The grassland, comprising 18 percent of the watershed, is in good condition.

All but 4 percent of the watershed is privately owned. The remainder is 16th section school land owned by the State. State land in Mississippi is under the administration of the respective counties. Rankin County has submitted a statement concerning treatment of these lands and this has been given to the committee staff.

There are about 135 farms in the watershed. Most of them are small and, according to the 1959 census, 77 percent of the farms had income of less than $2,500. About 86 percent of the income comes from the sale of beef cattle, hogs, and broilers. To supplement their income, 56 percent of the farmers worked off farms in 1959. Many work in Jackson. Fifty-one farmers, accounting for about one-half the land, have developed basic conservation plans with the Rankin County Soil Conservation District.

The watershed includes 2,678 acres of flood plain. Floods occur from two to eight times per year with a high proportion occurring during the growing season. Frequent spring and early summer floods delay seedbed preparation and planting or replanting with resultant uneven stands and lower crop yields. Floods also damage fences, field ditches, and roads and bridges. The estimated average annual flood damage is about $18,600.

Sheet erosion is moderate throughout the watershed with a few small areas of critical erosion. Some of the erosion is attributable to using sloping upland for cultivated crops which could be moved to the flood plain if the flood hazard were reduced. The erosion has resulted in moderate filling of the stream channels which has further aggravated the flood problem. However, the channels still have enough depth and capacity to meet the drainage needs for the watershed.

The project includes land treatment measures for treating the land in accordance with its needs. Measures for the cropland include conservation cropping systems, contour farming, gradient terraces,

grassed waterways, field ditches, and the like. Pasture planting and renovation, farm ponds, fencing, brush control, and tree planting will be applied on grassland and woodland. Food and cover for wildlife will be provided as part of the land treatment. Four floodwater retarding structures and 14.7 miles of channel improvement are included in the plan to reduce the frequency and severity of flooding. A 1,500-foot section of the levee will be installed above Interstate Highway 20. The estimated cost of the project is about $809,000, with Public Law 566 funds making up about $564,000 or 70 percent of the cost and other funds, $245,000 or 30 percent of the cost. When the value of measures already installed is included in this relationship, the local contribution is increased to 47 percent of the total.

The project will benefit 2,321 acres owned by 74 landowners. Average annual damages on the flood plain will be reduced about 88 percent and damages to roads and bridges about 63 percent. Total monetary benefits are estimated to be about $30,150 annually. In addition, the rate of sediment delivery to Pelahatchie Creek will be reduced from 39,000 to 14,000 tons annually.

Improvement of food and cover for fish and wildlife will more than compensate for any loss resulting from project construction.

The benefit-cost ratio is estimated to be 1.4 to 1. Without secondary benefits it is 1.1 to 1. Neither of these ratios include any downstream benefit from reducing sediment.

The prorated Public Law 566 cost per acre benefitted is $150. The current market value of this land is $250 to $300 per acre.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. This is another rather typical project in which you have four reservoirs in the upper areas to protect the flood plains. I notice that you did discuss this public lands situation which always gives us so much trouble.

Mr. LANE. Yes. I explained we had a letter from the Rankin County commissioners who are responsible for the State-owned land within their respective counties.

The CHAIRMAN. This letter says:

We agree to install the land treatment measure needed on our lands to reduce erosion and retard runoff. The location, kind, and amount of such treatment will be specified in a mutually agreed conservation plan.

I guess that is all right since you have to agree to it.

Mr. LANE. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the wording in this letter is substantially the same as was agreed to by the committee staff. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Are there any questions?

Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question that has to do with the average farm income in the watershed. Did I understand you to say that it is $2,500, is that the average?

Mr. LANE. I think my statement, Mr. Gathings, was that 77 percent of the farms in the watershed had incomes of less than $2,500.

Mr. GATHINGS. Seventy-seven percent?

Mr. LANE. Seventy-seven percent had incomes in that range.

Mr. GATHINGS. I did not understand. I believe you did say that some of these farmers worked in the city of Jackson?

Mr. LANE. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we are very much obliged to you, Mr. Lane. Now, Mr. Montgomery, would you like to make a statement?