Benefit-cost ratio: 2.9 to 1. With secondary benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is 2.6 to 1.

Area benefited: 8,939 acres.

Number of beneficiaries: Owners and operators of about 92 farms will benefit. 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 program developed each year in consideration of approved State and National programs and the annual authorization by the Congress.

2 Consisting of construction cost for drainage, $31,670; administration of contracts, $3,200; land, easements, and rightsof-way, $120,255; legal costs, $3,845.

3 The value of measures already installed ($493,333) increases this to 64 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 structural cost per acre benefited: $55.

Carrying out of the project: The Tri-County Hopson Bayou Watershed District assumes all local responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining the structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $8,485.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next project is the tricounty Hopson Bayou watershed in Mississippi.

This is in the district represented by Chairman Whitten. He talked to me about this project twice. He asked me to explain to the subcommittee that he had made arrangements to go out to the hospital this morning, and it was only a checkup, but for that reason he would not be here in person. He is deeply interested in the project and wants his interest noted.

I assured him we would note his interest and if there were any problems developed, we would contact him.

Mr. TEAGUE. He has a fairly good standing with this committee, I believe, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I would say Mr. Whitten's standing is good anywhere. We will ask the Department to explain the project.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the triCounty Hopson Bayou watershed contains about 45 square miles located in the northwestern part of Mississippi, about 75 miles downriver from Memphis, Tenn. Its name is derived from the fact that it is located in three counties, Coahoma, Tallahatche, and Quitman. Hopson Bayou is the principal stream in the watershed. Hopson Bayou meanders in a southeasterly direction to its outlet into Cassidy Bayou.

The topography of this Mississippi Delta watershed is essentially flat and the total drop in elevation is 31 feet from the upper part of the watershed to its outlet. About 72 percent of the land is gently sloping and moderately well drained. The remaining 28 percent of the watershed includes some poorly drained land.

The land use in the watershed consists of about 79 percent cropland and the principal crops grown there are cotton, soybeans, and improved pasture. The remainder of the watershed is about equally divided between grassland and woodland.

There are approximately 92 farms in the watershed, averaging about 315 acres in size. Land values are estimated at about $350 an acre. The areas marked A in the watershed, crosshatched areas in the extreme western part and in the central part of the watershed, contain slightly undulating ridges and many landlocked depressions which are subject to frequent flooding.

Flooding delays land preparation or cultivation or harvesting for days or even weeks. The areas marked B, and these are intermingled with the A area but they are the cross-hatched areas, are subject to similar flood damage but the duration of the flooding is generally less. Delays in farming operations range from a few days to a week.

The areas marked C-that is the remainder of the yellow area not cross-hatched-have a less severe problem than the either A or B areas. Floodwaters are not trapped in depressions to cause long delays in getting back to farm operations. In all, 8,939 acres are subject to flooding in the watershed and the average annual damage is estimated at $97,200 annually.

As many as seven to 10 floods occur each year, four of which may occur during the growing season. Sediment and erosion damages in the watershed are negligible. The plan for this watershed is sponsored by the Tri-County Hopson Watershed District and the Soil Conservation District of Coahoma, Tallahatchie, and Quitman Counties. It includes land treatment measures such as land leveling, conservation cropping systems, surface field ditches, and mains and laterals.

In addition, the structural measures consist of 55.6 miles of multiple-purpose channels to provide for drainage or the disposal of floodwater and two flow control devices to be installed on one of the channels to preserve watefowl habitat at this location here. Without those waterflow control structures, the improved channels would drain this area and would adversely affect the habitat for migratory waterfowl. The cost of the project is estimated at about $1,180,000, of which land treatment comprises about $473,000 and structural measures $770,000. Public Law 566 funds will make up about $595,000 of the total cost and other funds about $585,000, almost a 50-50 split. When the values of the measures already installed in the watershed are considered, the local share of the cost is about 64 percent. The project is designed to remove 3 inches runoff from the watershed in 24 hours. It now requires 7 days to remove the same amount of runoff.

Significant damage to crops does not occur if the water can be removed within the 24-hour period. Benefits of this project are estimated at about $106,000 annually. Eighty-nine percent of this benefit will accrue to land and crops. About 8,940 acres are directly benefited. Benefits will accrue to 92 farmowners and operators. Although not evaluated, roads can be maintained and improved at less cost than at present because of the project.

The ratio of benefits to cost of this project is 2.9 to 1 and, excluding secondary benefits, it is 2.6 to 1. The prorated Public Law 566 structure cost per acre benefited is $55.

The CHAIRMAN. This seems to measure up to all of the formula requirements. I have copies of letters from the board of supervisors and from the superintendent of education of Tallahatchie County and board of supervisors. They state that:

. . We agree to install land treatment measures needed on our land or reduce the erosion and required runoff. The location and amount of such treatment will be specified in any mutually agreed on conservation plan. We understand that the Soil Conservation Service technicians are assisting your districts and will be available to assist us in preparing conservation plans so as to fully conform to the technical standards of that agency.

I presume that we are taken care of in that respect.

There is a section of the school in this project that is on publicly owned land and therefore would have to meet that requirement. Are there any questions?

Mr. GOODLING. What are the main crops?

Mr. LANE. Cotton, soybeans, and tame pasture for beef cattle.
Mr. GOODLING. That is all.

UPPER CLINCH VALLEY WATERSHED, VIRGINIA

UPPER CLINCH VALLEY WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location: 36,846 acres in Tazewell County.

Tributary to: Tennessee River.

Sponsors: Tazewell Soil and Water Conservation District, Tazewell County Board of Supervisors, and the Town of Tazewell. Total watershed land use:

Purposes: Watershed protection, flood prevention and municipal water supply. Principal measures: Soil conservation practices on farms; and structural measures consisting of 2 floodwater retarding structures, 2 multiple purpose floodwater retarding and water supply structures, and 8.42 miles of stream channel improvement. Storage capacity of the structures ranges from 319 acrefeet to 1.544 acre-feet.

Benefit-cost ratio: 1.5 to 1. With incidental recreation, redevelopment and secondary benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.1 to 1.0.

Number of beneficiaries: Owners and operators of about 22 farms and about 130 residential, commercial and other properties in the Town of Tazewell and surrounding area will benefit from flood protection. About 5,800 people will benefit from improved water supply.

1 This is primarily the cost of applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost sharing from Federal funds appropriated for the agricutirual 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 municipal water, $253,146; land, easements, and rights-of-way, $118,995; administration of contracts, $2,300.

3 The value of measures already installed ($791,611) increases this to 54 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 structural cost per acre benefited: (Not computed since benefits are primarily non-agricultural.)

Carrying out the project: The three sponsoring local organizations assume joint responsibility for obtaining the needed land rights. The Tazewell Soil and Water Conservation District will negotiate all contracts and will operate and maintain Structures 2 and 9 and all improved channels. The Town of Tazewell will be responsible for operating and maintaining Structures 1 and 8. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $4,100.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions on this project, we will now pass to the next project, which I believe is the Upper Clinch Valley in Virginia.

Mr. Wampler is with us. He is a member of our committee.

You will recall it is our custom to let the Department make the presentation and we will then be glad to hear from you, Mr. Wampler.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is the Upper Clinch Valley watershed, which is located in Tazewell County, Va. The drainage area is 36,800 acres. The stream originates in the mountain near the southern tip of West Virginia and flows westerly into the Tennessee River.

Part of the watershed is sloping and hilly. The soils are stoney on the sloping lands and are used for hay and pasture. On the flatter slopes the deep soils are used for corn, small grains, and hay. Agriculture is a major enterprise in the watershed.

The greatest part of the income is from livestock, primarily beef and dairy. Land use in the watershed is grassland, 66 percent; woodland, 24 percent; cropland, 2 percent, and miscellaneous, 8 percent.

Watershed problems consist of flood damage to agricultural and urban areas. In 1957, 1963, and very recently, major floods occurred. These were very severe as far as flood damages were concerned. Damages in the 1957 flood were estimated at about $225,000. Numerous homes, businesses, streets, and surrounding agricultural lands are frequently damaged by floodwaters.

Municipal water for the town of Tazewell is supplied by several limestone springs. When these fail, water is taken from the river which is less than desirable in quality much of the year. This combination of

water supply sources barely meets the present needs of the town. A consulting engineer determined that 950 acre-feet of water is needed to meet future requirements. Sponsors of the project requested assistance in reducing the flood damages and providing added water supply. They assisted the Soil Conservation Service to develop a watershed work plan which provides for land treatment on farms to improve cover conditions and reduce runoff, erosion, and sediment production in the watershed.

In addition, the structural measures consist of four floodwater retarding structures shown here [pointing] in the green and 8.4 miles of stream channel improvement which is the dark blue line here [pointing].

Two of the dams will be multiple-purpose dams with 950 acre-feet of municipal water storage provided. The estimated cost of the land treatment measures is $308,000. The cost of the structural measures is estimated to be $1,551,000, of which $284,000 is for the construction of the municipal water supply.

The cost of operation and maintenance, which is a local cost, is estimated to be $4,100 annually. Annual benefits from the installed project are estimated to be $80,000. Owners and operators of about 22 farms and 130 residential and commercial properties will benefit from flood protection. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.5 to 1 and, with incidental recreation, redevelopment and secondary benefits excluded, the benefitto-cost ratio is 1.1 to 1.

THE CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions about this project?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. I observe that this project, too, has a recreation dam in it. I do not see an allocation of a great deal of benefits to recreation. You do not allocate much, do you?

Mr. GRAHAM. Actually, the dam, Mr. Chairman, is for flood prevention and municipal water supply. The recreation is incidental.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. But in a project of this size you can only build one with recreation.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is right; but there is no storage here for recreation, as such.

The CHAIRMAN. One of these dams is for city water. It does not involve recreation, does it?

Mr. GRAHAM. Only incidentally.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it the one closest to town?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes; it is the largest sized one.

The CHAIRMAN. The city is paying the cost of that dam, as I understand it, which is about a quarter of a million dollars.

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. That is the part allocated to the municipal water supply.

The CHAIRMAN. How is the city paying for that? I mean, how do they get their money? Are they borrowing money from Farmers Home?

Mr. GRAHAM. No. In this case, I believe they have passed a bond issue.

The CHAIRMAN. They passed a bond issue?

Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. To correct one statement, neither of these dams is devoted primarily to recreation. The two multiple-purpose dams have municipal water supply in them.

The CHAIRMAN. Both of them have municipal water supply?