STATEMENT OF HON. G. V. MONTGOMERY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I have learned in legislative matters that if I am getting along all right I will not say anything, but if my project is in trouble I would like to comment. I am sorry to be late.

The CHAIRMAN. We understood that you were in another subcommittee.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes. I wanted to say that I will not add any further to what the gentleman from the Agriculture Department has testified. I will say this: that the watershed programs have meant a great deal to our district; we have tried to do our share in Mississippi, in that we have some water districts over the State that are financed by the local people and also by the State to develop water projects in watershed and water flood control projects, and maybe this is why we haveI may not say a great many, but we do have more possibly than some of the other States. We are interested in it and we develop these programs. I certainly would appreciate favorable consideration on this project.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. Are there any questions? Do you want to make your statement a part of the record? Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it may be made a part of the record.

(Mr. Montgomery's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. G. V. MONTGOMERY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am happy to submit this statement in support of the Eutacutaches Creek Watershed Project.

The Eutacutaches Creek Watershed Project contains 18,128 acres in Rankin County, Mississippi, with direct benefits to 2,321 acres.

The benefits of this project would be realized by owners and operators of 74 farm properties chiefly in the form of watershed and flood protection. The area to be affected by the approval of this plan greatly needs the proposed improved soil conservation practices, the 4 floodwater retarding structures, and the 14.7 miles of channel improvement. The Eutacutaches Creek Watershed Area Drainage District will assume all the local responsibility for installing, operating, and maintaining the structural measures. The estimated annual cost is $3090.

The importance of this project, if accepted, is evidenced by the fact that the estimated total annual benefits received would be $30,151. Included within this figure are benefits aiding agriculture as well as secondary and incidental recreation. The cost of this plan would be provided in part by P. L. 566 funds and in part by other funds, the former supplying 70 per cent or $563,984 and the latter supplying 30 per cent or $245,119.

The project which includes the secondary and incidental recreation benefits is further justified by the benefit-cost ratio of 1.4 to 1. This ratio drops from 1.4 to 1 to 1.1 to 1 if the recreation benefits are excluded.

I believe that the time has come to protect and develop the vast amount of resources that we have in Mississippi. The above plan is a sound and worthy investment, and I respectfully urge favorable consideration by the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no questions, Mr. Montgomery, we will now pass on to Farmers Creek. Would you advise Mr. Purcell that, if he can and wants to come, we will be glad to have him.

FARMERS CREEK WATERSHED, TEXAS

FARMERS CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location: 65,536 acres in Montague County.

Tributary to Red River.

Sponsors: Upper Elm-Red Soil and Water Conservation District, Farmers Creek Watershed Authority, Montague County Commissioners Court. Total watershed land use:

Cropland

Grassland

Miscellaneous

Number of farms: 200

Size of farms: About 330 acres average.

Purposes: Watershed protection and flood prevention.

Percent

10

84

6

Principal measures: Soil conservation practices on farms; and structural measures consisting of 10 floodwater retarding structures, 22 debris basins, and 63,340 feet of stream channel improvement. The storage capacity of the structures ranges from 406 acre-feet to 2,107 acre-feet. Annual benefits:

Benefit-cost ratio: 1.4 to 1. With secondary and incidental recreation benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.2 to 1.

Area benefited: 8,880 acres.

Number of beneficiaries: Owners and operators of approximately 100 farms and ranches.

! 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 program developed each year in consideration of approved State and National programs and the annual authorization by the Congress.

2 Consisting of land, easements, and rights-of-way, $97,823; administration of contracts, $8,200.

3 The value of measures already installed ($677,771) increases this to 48 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 structural cost per acre benefited: $67.

Carrying out the project: The Farmers Creek Watershed Authority and the Montague County Commissioners Court assumes all local responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining the structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $5,873.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Graham.

Mr. GRAHAM. I am Clyde W. Graham, Director of the Watershed Planning Division, Soil Conservation Service.

The CHAIRMAN. You sort of planned this one sometime ago.

Mr. GRAHAM. I helped.

The next watershed we want to discuss is the Farmers Creek Watershed in Texas. It is a tributary of the Red River and heads near St. Jo in Montague County, Tex. This is about 100 miles northwest of Fort Worth. The drainage area in the watershed is 65,500 acres. About 92 percent of the watershed drains into Lake Nacona with a surface area of about 1,500 acres. The lake serves as a water supply for the town of Nacona. The watershed lies in the Rolling Red Prairies and West Cross Timbers land resource areas. These soils are mostly medium textured, and easily eroded. Watershed land use is 55,000 acres, or 84 percent grassland, 6,500 acres or 10 percent cropland, and about 4,000 acres miscellaneous use.

Sediment damages caused by seriously eroding gullies have caused most of the problems in the watershed. These sands have accumulated in the lower reaches of the watershed to depths of about 8 feet and in the upper reaches to depths of 12 feet. In some parts of the watershed, the channel itself is some 5 feet higher than the adjoining flood plain.

Sponsoring organizations assisted the Soil Conservation Service in developing a work plan which includes soil conservation practices on farms and structural measures consisting of 10 floodwater retarding structures, 22 debris basins, and 63,000 feet of stream channel improvement. These debris basins are located in the upper reaches of the watershed and will be installed primarily to hold the sediment back until the critical area treatment can be applied on the highly eroded soils.

In an effort to speed up application of the watershed protection and flood prevention measures in the watershed the local people agreed to furnish $25,000 for the investigation and preparation of their watershed work plan.

The cost of the land treatment measures is estimated to be $507,600 and the cost of the structural measures is estimated to be $1,456,000, of which $1,350,000 is Public Law 566 cost. Annual benefits from the installed project are estimated to be $74,900. Owners and operators of approximately 100 farms and ranches will benefit from the project. The prorated Public Law 566 structural measures cost per benefited acre is $67. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance, which is a local cost, is $5,900. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.4 to 1; with secondary and incidental recreation benefits excluded, the ratio is 1.2 to 1.

The CHAIRMAN. What recreation is there in here other than the normal?

Mr. GRAHAM. Just the recreation incidental to the use of sediment pools in the watershed.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, it looks to me, just looking at this, that you have gotton more small structures in this project than any I have ever

seen.

Mr. GRAHAM. These smaller structures are the debris basins which are installed primarily as a stopgap measure to trap the sediment until vegetation can be established in this Cross Timbers area. I think there are some pictures in the workplan which depict very plainly the kind of shape some of the upland area is in.

The CHAIRMAN. It is sand.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sand.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions of Mr. Graham, we will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Purcell. We did not intend to stop your operations in the other subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF HON. GRAHAM PURCELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity very much. I have a very stort statement that I did not bring with me. When I get it, I would like to leave it with you.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be made part of the

record.

(Mr. Purcell's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. GRAHAM PURCELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Farmers Creek Watershed comprises an area of 65,536 acres and is located in the northeast portion of Montague County, Tex. The creek flows in a northerly direction to Lake Nocona near the lower end of the watershed which in turn drains into the Red River. Lake Nocona was constructed in 1960 as a water supply reservoir for the Town of Nocona. The towns of Nocona, Montague, and St. Jo are located just outside the drainage boundaries of the watershed.

The watershed is located in a county which is dependent upon agriculture and the petroleum industry for the bulk of its income. Beef production is the major agricultural enterprise in the watershed. Crops commonly grown throughout the watershed consist of feed crops such as sorghums, oats, and alfalfa for hay.

Approximately 8,880 acres are subject to severe damages from frequent flooding and sediment deposition. Gully erosion in the uplands is active and extensive and causes serious sediment problems. When crops and pastures are damaged by floodwater, farming operations are hampered. Because of the flood hazard, crop production is far below the potential of the land. Floods also do considerable damage, to fences, farm properties, roads, and bridges. In addition to the detrimental deposition of sediment on productive farmlands, a great deal of sediment is trapped in the Lake Nacona Reservoir, thereby depleting the storage capacity for municipal water supply. The work plan contains excellent pictures which show very graphically the serious flood problems in this watershed. The total estimated average annual floodwater and sediment damages are estimated at $92,220.

The project includes land treatment for watershed protection, 10 floodwater retarding structures, about 12 miles of stream channel improvement, and 22 debris basins for sediment control. This will directly benefit 100 farmers or ranchers in the watershed by reducing floodwater and sediment damages by about 66 percent. Residents of the town of Nocona will also benefit because of the greatly extended life of Lake Nocona due to the sharp reduction in sediment deposition.

The local sponsors consisting of the Upper Elm-Red Soil and Water Conservation District, Farmers Creek Watershed Authority, and the Montague County Commissioners Court have planned this project with technical assistance furnished by the Department of Agriculture. The project is amply justified by an expected return of $1.40 for each dollar spent. The sponsors are prepared to spend about $577,300 as their share of the project cost and will operate and maintain it at an estimated cost of $5,870 per year.

I consider the Farmers Creek Watershed project highly desirable and worthy of your favorable consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to tell you about it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PURCELL. As is usually the case, a very competent explanation has been made of this whole situation by the Department. Let me just say this: I think, if you remember, I have not been before your com

mittee very often on a watershed project-this project is a very important one for our area. I am sure the chairman is familiar enough with this area to know that this is probably the easiest eroding area, from water damage, in my entire district. Both in Montague County and a part of Wise County, the soil is of such a nature that fast moving water really has pretty well taken it from a farming area to a cattle area mainly because of lack of knowledge and a lack of use of that knowledge back many years ago, of proper farming practices. I think I will just reemphasize what Mr. Graham said, that the debris or silt, or whatever you want to call it, will be an important item to handle.

Now, this creek has a direct relationship with the Nacona water supply, Mr. Chairman. I have not looked at these maps. But this will benefit the water supply of Nacona. It is right in the St. Jo-NaconaMontague area. In order to preserve their water supply, if for no other reason, this would be a very, very significant endeavor. So I would just say that it is the most important water type project that I have or will have, maybe ever, and I would certainly urge the approval of this subcommittee. My statement is a little bit more technical than my explanation has been, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Purcell.

LITTLE SNI-A-BAR WATERSHED, MISSOURI

LITTLE SNI-A-BAR WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location : 24.896 acres in Lafayette County, Missouri.

Tributary to Missouri River.

Sponsors: Soil and Water Conservation District of Lafayette County and Lafayette County Court.

Purposes: Watershed protection and flood prevention.

Principal measures: Soil conservation practices on farms; and structural measures consisting of 3 floodwater retarding structures and 22 stabilization structures. Total flood prevention storage capacity of the structures is 4,912 acre-feet.