Benefit-cost ration: 1.6 to 1. With incidental recreation and secondary benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.3 to 1.

Area benefited: 560 acres.

Number of beneficiaries: Owners and operators of 16 or more farms and 60 business and residential properties in the City of Hamilton will benefit from

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 program developed each year in consideration of approved State and National programs and the annua! authorization by the Congress. 2 Consisting of land, easements, and rights-of-way, $63,550; administration of contracts, $2,500.

3 The value of measures already installed ($121,464) increases this to 41 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 structural cost per acre benefited.—Not computed since over 90 percent of the project benefits are non-agricultural.

Carrying out the project: The Hamilton County Commissioners Court will be responsible for securing land rights and operating and maintaining Structures 1 and 2. The City of Hamilton assumes these responsibilities for Structures 3, 4, and 5. These orgnaizations will assume joint responsibility for letting contracts for all structures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $827.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burleson, it is our custom to let the Department explain the project and then we would be delighted to hear from

you.

We assume that all congressmen are not as familiar with their proj

ect as you are.

We therefore let the Department outline it first.

Mr. Graham, we will be glad to hear from you.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the next watershed work plan we will discuss will be the Pecan Creek watershed. It is located in central Texas in Hamilton County. It has a drainage area of 30 square miles and heads about 2 miles south of the city of Hamilton and flows in a southeasterly direction into the Leon River.

Eighty-three percent of the watershed is covered by soils of the Grande Prairie Land Resource Area which are fine textured soils. Seventeen percent is covered by soils of the West Cross Timbers Area, which are medium textured and very erosive.

Land use in the watershed is cropland, 21 percent; grassland, 66 percent; miscellaneous, 13 percent. Average annual rainfall in the areas is 30 inches. This is a predominantly agricultural area. Hamilton County is dependent on agriculture for more than 70 percent of its income. Lands in the flood plain were intensively cultivated from early 1900 through the 1940's.

Flooding caused the abandonment of much of the land which is now in poor quality pasture.

Flood damages occur on 600 acres of agricultural land and 150 acres in the city limits of Hamilton. Storms of high intensity and short duration which occur frequently in this area cause most of the flood damage. The flood of 1957 damaged 60 businesses and houses, causing

flood damage of $269,000. Crop loss, erosion, and sediment damages were severe in this flood.

Sponsoring local organizations are the city of Hamilton, Hamilton County Commissioners Court, and the Hamilton-Coryell Soil and Water Conservation District. These sponsors assisted the Soil Conservation Service in the development of the watershed work plan which includes soil conservation practices on farms and structural measures consisting of five floodwater retarding structures. Storage capacity of these structures total 2,000 acre feet.

The cost of the land treatment measures is estimated to be $129,000. The cost of the five floodwater retarding structures is estimated to be $508,000, of which $442,000 is Public Law 566 costs. Annual benefits from the installed project are estimated to be $28,000. Owners and operators of 16 or more farms and 60 businesses and residential properties in the city of Hamilton will benefit from the flood protection.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance, which is local cost, is $827. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.6 to 1. With individual recreation and secondary benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.3 to 1.

This is a rather small project but it is a very good project that primarily concerns protection of urban properties.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Graham.

This is primarily a urban protection project; is it not?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir; it is.

The CHAIRMAN. It will give some protection down in that flood plain. The flood plain is not large enough, as I understand it, to justify these expenditures. They have damage but it is only about 500 acres of flood plain that is involved, if I understand.

Mr. GRAHAM. Five or six hundred acres; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The damage really occurs in the city of Hamilton? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There are some pictures here in the report showing the courthouse over here.

It also shows some of the residential section of the flood area.
Are there any questions of Mr. Graham?

If not, we are very much obliged to you, Mr. Graham.

We now have with us Congressman Burleson, who represents Hamilton County.

Mr. Burleson, we are delighted to have you with us. You have been a good customer of this committee and we are glad to have you come back to do business with us.

STATEMENT OF HON. OMAR BURLESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

What Mr. Graham has said really dramatizes this project. I know you hear a lot of these projects, and probably everyone who comes before you feels his is the most deserving but this is one of the most important ones that you have ever heard from the standpoint of the man who is presenting it. This is really a dramatic one. I use that term, because it is as Mr. Graham indicated a relatively small project but it

is a concentrated one and one which has dramatic effects and results, during flooding just as indicated by the pictures the chairman has.

The ratio of cost is I think in itself dramatic. This is an area that has been working on this project for many years and it is really one that has been handicapped in a great many ways by its very nature and now I am so pleased it is up to the place where it is.

Mr. Chairman, I would be presumptious to try to explain further the physical factors involved here because it has been ably presented. May I just add that the chairman knows every foot of this area. To those of you who do not know, it is adjacent to the chairman's district. He is thoroughly familiar with it. As a matter of fact, more familiar with it than I.

Now a word about this program. Here again, the chairman, is the father of the law under which they developments are made. I think really and I would not have to convince the committee of this but I am leading up to something else-this is one of the finest Federal programs that I know of.

We have an awful lot of Federal programs, as you know-one stacked on top of another-but these projects are something convineingly worthwhile as an investment. I had my questions about the theories involved, but when you see it, it is something that you have got to believe in. It is just there. It shows what it can do. In our part of the country there are not too many places where you have this kind of water even in small amounts much less in greater reservoirs.

Mr. Chairman, that leads me to this: I am aware as all of you are, and certainly you more keenly than I, of the controversy with the executive department, with the Budget Bureau especially on the approval of these projects and the constitutional process argument. This is the thing that the Congress should have is thumb on and the committees of Congress should continue this review method in accordance with the present law.

I just want to say that you will have certainly what support I can give to maintain the jurisdiction of this committee over the approval of these projects in the present process. I think it is essential we do it. You understand it and with the cold look that you get from the Executive, Budget Bureau on these things, I am not unaware that if you wanted to be technical on a fine point involved, which they contend, this is the thing that I think we should maintain our position, that this committee is going to have the supervision of these projects. I feel strongly about it and I am certain that all of you do.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, I think the Soil Conservation Service has the finest and most dedicated people to be found in Government. In my contacts throughout this country and some places other than my own local area, I think it is one of the finest records that any group of people in all governments could have, the dedication of these people to doing a job, and they are doing a job. I am very proud of it, whether it is in Arkansas or Kentucky or wherever it may be. I think it speaks for itself.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to make this statement before you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Burleson.

Some questions?

Mr. TEAGUE. I have just one.

Mr. Burleson, in this area to be directly benefited of 560 acres, are there any farms of over 160 acres, if you know?

Mr. BURLESON. There are a few, yes.

Mr. TEAGUE. The reason I ask that question-from time to time, the Secretary of Interior believes apparently that for Bureau of Reclamation projects no farms of over 160 acres should participate. I disagree with him. I think that is kind of class legislation and I wondered whether you personally believed that in projects of this sort all farms. over 160 acres ought to be excluded from benefiting in the projects.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Teague, I do not think it would work. I think it would be a most impractical thing to eliminate it. You just might have a place right out in the middle. I will distinguish between them. Dr. Miller suggested there were no farms in this. There are some ranches greater than that, but not farms. I think I am correct.

Mr. TEAGUE. We call most farms ranches in California, too. Mr. BURLESON. I was distinguishing between actual family farms and grazing land. There are some few that would be over in the grazing land, actually one-owner operation, but no very many.

Mr. TEAGUE. I will ask you a leading question, then. Do you believe that Federal benefits in reclamation projects should be limited only to farms or ranches of less than 160 acres?

Mr. BURLESON. No, sir, I would not agree with that.

Again, I repeat that I know some of this publicity that gets out makes a story that catches the eye, but I think in my area it would be about an impossible thing to have a project if it applied.

Mr. TEAGUE. That is very difficult in California, too.

Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gathings, any questions?

Mr. GATHINGS. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burleson, I would like to add, for whatever it is worth, that Hamilton County is located on the line where so many of our big storms originate, particularly those that occur in the fall of the year which are more likely to occur just to the west of Interstate 35, about 50 or 100 miles. That is the area where they get their start.

I recall one rain measurement in Comanche County, the adjoining county to the west, was 15 inches at one time. That is the kind of rain you have. It is exactly the same kind of territory that they have in Lampasas with which some of our members are still familiar.

They remember the flood that wiped that city out. That is in Mr. Fisher's district, 70 or 80 miles to the south.

Mr. BURLESON. I think so.

The CHAIRMAN. There was some considerably loss of life and tremendous damage to the town. It is exactly the same kind of situation here in Hamilton, the same type of topography and rainfall situation. Mr. BURLESON. If the chairman would yield to me, you probably know the reason why. I have heard the reason and it may be somebody's curbstone opinion, and probably is. This area involved happens to be in the prevailing wind where the west meets the gulf and it causes a turbulence, creating storms and sometimes not much water is wrung out of them but nevertheless when it does it is severe.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Burleson. We are always glad to have you come before the committee. Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all of you.

87-377-67- -10

TRICREEK WATERSHED, WISCONSIN

TRICREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location: 33,100 acres in Monroe County, Wisconsin.
Tributary to Kickapoo River, Wisconsin, Mississippi River.
Sponsors: Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District.
Total watershed land use:

Purposes: Watershed protection, flood prevention, and public recreation. Principal measures: Soil conservation practices on farms and structural measures consisting of 5 floodwater retarding structures and one multiple purpose structure with associated public recreational facilities. Storage capacity of structures ranges from 155 acre-feet to 1,916 acre-feet.

Benefit-cost ratio: 1.5 to 1.0. With secondary benefits excluded the benefit-cost ratio is 1.5 to 1.0.

Area benefited: 1,790 acres.

Number of beneficiaries: Owners and operators of about 59 farms and 19 residential and commercial properties in the Village of Norwalk will benefit by flood prevention. The project is expected to produce about 30,800 visitor days of recreational use annually.

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

2 Consisting of construction and installation services for recreation, $146,056; land, easements, or rights-of-way, $98,200; land acquisition fee, $1,500; administration of contracts, $7,514.

3 The value of measures already installed ($129,587) increases this to 36 percent.