The total cost of the project, including land treatment measures, is estimated to be $1,207,400, of which $731,000, or 61 percent, is Public Law 566 costs.

Annual benefits from the installed project are estimated to be $78,000. The area benefited exceeds 1,600 acres.

The project will benefit approximately 115 farms in the flood plain. The prorated Public Law 566 construction cost per acre benefited is $158.

The land values in the watershed range from about $160 to $270 per

acre.

The estimated cost of operation and maintenance is $7,025 annually. and this is a local cost.

The benefit-cost ratio is 2.2 to 1, and with incidental recreation, redevelopment, and secondary benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is

1.4 to 1.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Graham.

Are there any questions from the members of the committee? (No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. I just wondered about some of these figures.

I am not able to check the breakdown on costs on page 2.
How much is for recreation?

You gave a total for the three, and you included municipal water. Mr. GRAHAM. In this case, Mr. Chairman, the recreation is incidental recreation that will accrue in the watershed from the use of the sediment pools. There is no storage cost involved for recreation.

The CHAIRMAN. Nothing except that which may be had from the use of the pools?

Mr. GRAHAM. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we are very much obliged to you.

We have with us our colleague, Mr. Ashmore of South Carolina. We will be glad to hear from you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT T. ASHMORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. ASHMORE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have a short statement here which I have prepared, but I think that Mr. Graham has covered this matter so well that I will file my statement with the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Ashmore reads in full as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT T. ASHMORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the South Tyger River Watershed comprising 38,147 acres is located in northern Greenville County, South Carolina. It is a tributary of the Tyger River which in turn flows into the Broad River. The community of Tigerville, including Greenville Junior College, is located in the upper reaches of the watershed.

The total population of the watershed is estimated to be 8,000. There are about 500 farms averaging 76 acres in size. Most of the farms are operated by their owners. General type farming prevails. The cultivated land is primarily

used for the production of small grains, corn, soybeans, cotton and truck crops. The flood plain area includes 3,120 acres which are subject to frequent and severe flooding. Overbank flow occurs with a frequency of about 2.5 times per year. A flood sufficient to inundate one-half of the flood plain occurs with an average frequency of about 1.5 times per year. Because of this flood hazard, only 1,150 acres or about 37 percent of the flood plain is in agricultural use, and the remainder is idle or has reverted to brush and low value hardwoods. Severe flooding has caused sediment damage on 1,340 acres of flood plain. Damage ranges from 20 to 90 percent as measured by reduced productive capacity. A total of 230 acres of flood plain has been damaged by scour. Damage ranges from 20 to 50 percent as measured by reduced productivity. The community of Tigerville needs additional water for future growth and development.

The proposed project includes land treatment measures for watershed protection; 5 single purpose floodwater retarding structures; 1 multiple purpose structure incorporating floodwater detention and municipal water supply storage; and 15.03 miles of stream channel improvement for flood prevention. This will directly benefit 115 landowners in the watershed by reducing floodwater damages by about 87 percent. The average annual volume of damaging sediment deposited on the flood plain is expected to be reduced by about 77 percent. Local business concerns who supply farm equipment and materials will also benefit from a more prosperous agriculture.

It is anticipated that the storage of 109 acre-feet of municipal water will cause expansion of existing and development of new enterprises. This water supply development is compatible with the objective of the Appalachian Regional Development Act.

Incidental recreation benefits are expected to accrue from the use of the sediment pools. The general public will enjoy the recreational opportunities provided. Water stored in the sediment pools will also be available for other incidental uses such as livestock water.

The local sponsors consisting of the South Tyger River Watershed Conservation District and the Greenville County Soil and Water Conservation District have planned this project with technical assistance furnished by the Department of Agriculture. The project is highly justified, with an expected return of $2.20 for each dollar spent. The local people are prepared to spend $475,584 as their share of the project cost and will operate and maintain it at a cost of about $7,025 per year.

I consider the South Tyger River Watershed project highly desirable and worthy of favorable consideration.

Mr. ASHMORE. I will just make a few brief remarks.

This project is in my home county. And I know almost every family in the area, as well as all of the entire landscape and the terrain from personal observation, and maybe a few points might be of some value to the committee in addition to what Mr. Graham has stated.

Tigerville, as you will notice, is in the northern part of the white area on the map right near where the green sets in, which is a town fartherest north in Greenville County before you get to the mountains. This green represents, to my mind, the Blue Ridge Mountains, so that these five dams, if I understood correctly, are here, here, here, here, and here [indicating]; is that correct?

Mr. GRAHAM. And one over here.

Mr. ASHMORE. They are proposed, in my language, to catch the water that comes off the Blue Ridge Mountains before it gets down into the main stream-primarily for that purpose of the Tyger River. And I think, and have always thought, even before I came to Congress, that the plan of water conservation is the best that we have operating in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. Since most of the newer members have already left me, and we older ones know about this, they will not get the benefit of all of this.

Mr. ASHMORE. I will cut my statement even shorter, Mr. Chairman. It just means so much to me, to realize what the value of this water is.

My home city of Greenville gets its water supply from the Blue Ridge area. The biggest reservoir that catches this water there supplies the city of Greenville.

One of the ideas in this project is to give the little town of Tigerville and North Greenville Baptist College, which has been a junior college and is now in the process of being converted to a 4-year college, as Mr. Graham mentioned, a water supply. They do not have sufficient wells to take care of the growth there at North Greenville and at Tigerville. Then, coming down lower, following the Tyger River, we come into another water supply area which has only been incidentally mentioned in the breakdown here. That is the town of Greer, which is located almost at the end of the map, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, and Mr. Graham is now pointing to it.

They have a reservoir on the Tyger River and are in the process of constructing a second reservoir on the river. The silt that these dams will prevent, will hold and catch, or curtail from coming into the reservoirs which will provide water for the town of Greer, that certainly will be of great benefit to the town and that is not mentioned in the benefits, because the engineers who made this survey for the town of Greer state that it is not very practical, in fact not hardly possible, to compute the value of such an undertaking.

I would like to read a paragraph from the letter from the commissioner of engineers, in charge-the commissioner of public works in Greer. This letter was written to me on September 26, 1966, and he says:

"In our opinion"-talking about this project "it is a most worthy project and one that would greatly benefit the area involved, not only from the angle of soil conservation, but also from the angle of industrial growth, community betterment, as well as silt retardation in the water supply reservoirs for the city of Greer." And he encloses a letter from the engineering firm of Widman & Singleton, engineers in Atlanta, Ga., who have made this survey and are doing the work for the city of Greer with reference to additional water supply. This letter is dated September 23, 1966, from Widman & Singleton, engineers, who say, among other things:

The reservoirs contemplated by the State Conservation Service, namely, Reservoirs, 2, 3D, 4 and 5, if constructed as planned would, in our opinion, greatly enhance the value of the lower reservoirs"-that is, the reservoirs for the city of Greer-"as regards water service potentials for the domestic commercial and industrial expansion of the city of Greer and its environs present and future. And then he goes on to say:

The silting benefits are not readily determined.

As I stated, it is hard to compute such a thing as that as to the real value, but a real potential in this connection exists, both from the standpoint of conservation of natural resources and, also, benefits to the Greer reservoirs inasmuch as this would decrease silting within the Greer reservoirs proper and thus tend to preserve very nearly the full water potentials.

From our experience, these silting considerations are of a real value in this particular valley of the South Tyger River watershed.

I think that might be of some benefit to the committee, to show what

these independent engineers, in addition to what the soil conservation people have said and think of this project. It does have a growing value to the growing town and community of Greer that we just cannot hardly figure in dollars and cents.

I might say that Greer is midway between Greenville and Spartanburg, and the new $10 million airport, the joint venture by Greenville and Spartanburg, is right at the edge of Greer, and it is in an ideal situation to continue to grow industrially and otherwisse.

I believe, gentlemen, that this project should be approved. I hope that you can follow the recommendation of the Budget Bureau, as I understand that they have approved, after holding it up last yearthat is, along with some others.

The CHAIRMAN. We are delighted to have had you with us. We are always glad to have you with us. You are one of our good customers. You are welcome at anytime.

Mr. ASHMORE. Thank you.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. What about Cateechee? Where is that?

Mr. ASHMORE. Cateechee is in Pickens County, the adjoining county to the west.

All of these over there have a wonderful supply of water, as Mr. Graham mentioned. I think it is a shame to let it go to waste, watch it go down to the Atlantic Ocean.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Why do you spell it T-y-g-e-r, do you just want to be different?

Mr. ASHMORE. I do not know. That was there before I came around. It is a mountain town. The river, and the town, all have the same

name.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we are very much obliged to you, Mr. Ashmore.

SPILLMAN CREEK WATERSHED, KANSAS

The CHAIRMAN. We will now pass to the Spillman Creek watershed, and the Department will make the presentation on that. Mr. Ogrosky will explain that one for the Department.

SPILLMAN CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location: 119,360 acres in Lincoln, Mitchell, Osborne and Russell Counties.

Tributary to: Saline River, Smoky Hill River, Kansas River, Missouri River. Sponsors: The Spillman Creek Watershed Joint District No. 43 and the Lincoln County, Mitchell County, Osborne County, and Russell County Soil Conservation District.

Size of farms: About 620 acres average.

Purposes: Watershed protection and flood prevention.

Principal measures: Soil conservation practices on farms and structural measures consisting of 21 floodwater retarding structures and 2 grade stabilization structures. Storage capacity of the structures ranges from 167 acre-feet to 2,800 acre-feet.

Benefit-cost ratio: 2.1 to 1. Without secondary benefits, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.9 to 1.

Area benefited: 11,314 acres.

Number of beneficiaries: About 900 people will benefit directly from the structural measures, primarily farmers and their families. 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 land, easements, and rights-of-way, $184,600; administration of contracts, $6,900. The value of measures already installed ($855,900) increases this to 51 percent.

Prorated P.L. 566 structural cost per acre benefited:-$93.

Carrying out the project.-Spillman Creek Watershed Joint District No. 43 assumes all local responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining the structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $5,500.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Ogrosky.

Mr. OGROSKY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The Spillman Creek Watershed is located in central Kansas about 40 miles west of Salina.

It has a drainage area of 119,360 acres, located in Lincoln, Mitchell, Osborne, and Russell Counties.

Spillman Creek flows southeast and enters the Saline River about 4 miles above the city of Lincoln, Kans. The upper reaches of this stream are relatively steep, there being about 360 feet of fall in the upper 9 miles of the stream, and about 97 feet of fall in the lower 14 miles. This fall of 457 feet represents some rather rough topography.

The land use in the watershed consists of about 59 percent cropland, 36 percent rangeland, and the balance is in woods and miscellaneous uses.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you a question off the record, if I may. (Discussion was had outside the record.)

Mr. OGROSKY. There are about 190 farms within the watershed, and all of the land is in private ownership.

The problem consists of erosion in the uplands with some gullying and head cutting in the tributaries, and flood water damage to crops,