Planned works of improvements include land treatment measures for cropland, pasture, and woodland, and structural measures consisting of three floodwater retarding structures and 72,000 feet (14 miles) of stream channel improvement. These structures are shown here with the drainage control in green. The blue lines indicate the proposed stream channel improvement. Land treatment measures include grassed waterways, conservation cropping systems, cover and green manure crops, drainage laterals, farm ponds, and wildlife habitat development and preservation, with reforestation and stand improvement measures for woodland areas. Installation and maintenance of the planned project measures will reduce the average annual damages about $55,000 or 93 percent, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.3 to 1. Excluding secondary and redevelopment benefits, the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1 to 1. Total cost of installation of the project is estimated at $1,800,000, of which local interests will bear a little more than $700,000, or 39 percent. Including value of measures already installed, the local contribution increases to 45 percent. In addition, the sponsors assume all responsibility for operating and maintaining the structural measures, estimated at $15,000 annually.

The prorated Public Law 566 cost per acre benefited is $150.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. This, it seems to me, is a rather normal watershed project, but the benefit-cost ratio is right on the line. I recognize that it does meet the requirements of the law, but as the boy said when he brought in the $5 bill and asked for the change, "You just barely did give it to me, didn't you?" Now, you just barely made it. Mr. GRAHAM. I think this is a rather typical piedmont type watershed, fairly low benefit-to-cost ratio.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions of Mr. Graham?
Mr. TEAGUE. I have one.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Teague.

Mr. TEAGUE. I missed it in your testimony. The nonagricultural improvement benefits are about twice what the agricultural improvements are. What are those nonagricultural improvements?

Mr. GRAHAM. This is primarily because of the nearness of this watershed to Atlanta. There is quite a bit of suburban development in the watershed. This project will provide protection to homes in suburban

areas.

Mr. TEAGUE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Incidentally, does this creek have any relationship to the famous Suwanee River?

Mr. GRAHAM. No, sir; it does not, other than being in the same State. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? If not, we are much obliged to you, Mr. Graham.

Is there anyone else who wants to be heard on this project? Congressman Landrum has submitted a statement and, without objection, that will be included in the record.

(Mr. Landrum's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL M. LANDRUM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF GEORGIA

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the Suwanee Creek Watershed which is in my district in northern Georgia. Gwinnett County, in which the major portion of the watershed is located, is a participating member of the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. The watershed is about 25 miles from the city of Atlanta.

The major sources of farm income are from the sale of poultry, eggs, dairy products and beef cattle. The principal industry in the watershed is the manufacture of leather goods. It is interesting to note that small farm holdings are rapidly developing as the Atlanta metropolitan area continues to expand into the watershed. It should also be pointed out that in recognition of the flood hazards, the flood plain will be zoned to prevent the construction of homes below the 100-year frequency flood elevation.

Flash floods occur very frequently in the spring and summer months. Residents of the area suffer extensive losses each year as a result of flooded crops, pastures, farm properties, and lot improvements. Erosion of the uplands and deposition of sediment in the flood plain are serious problems also. The people living in the watershed have tried to prevent flooding of their properties but they need help in solving their floodwater and sediment problems. As shown in the census figures about 33 percent of the 400 farmers in the area make sales of less than $2,500 annually. This results in net incomes of $1,000 or less and makes it necessary for them to seek part time employment in nearby Atlanta and local industries. The watershed is located in the Appalachia Regional Development area.

Landowners of the area are conservation minded as demonstrated by the fact that 75 percent of the needed conservation practices are already applied on the watershed lands. This represents a cost of over $180,000. Planned structural measures consisting of floodwater retarding reservoirs and channel improvement will significantly reduce the floodwater and sediment damages and provide a much needed stimulus to the economy of the area. Floodwater and sediment damages will be reduced about 92 percent by the project.

The local people are highly enthusiastic about their project and are ready and able to do their share to install the improvements and see that they are properly operated and maintained. Their share of the cost is about $730,000 and represents a major undertaking for these people. Therefore, I hope you will find the Suwanee Creek Watershed project worthy of your favorable consideration. It has been a pleasure to tell you about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on this project? If not, that will complete the hearing on this project.

We will pass to the next project. I see Mr. Scherle has come in. He can tell us the name of this creek. I can't.

WAUBONSIE CREEK WATERSHED, IOWA

Mr. SCHERLE. The name of this creek is Waubonsie.

The CHAIRMAN. It is our custom, Mr. Scherle, to let the Department explain the project. Mr. Lane, will you explain it?

Mr. LANE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear from you. I suppose this is one of those soluble soils, gully projects, is it? We thought we plugged all of those back in the days of your predecessor, Mr. Jensen, who brought us more of these gully projects than all the rest of the Congress combined, I think.

Mr. SCHERLE. I think the reason for that is because, being situated in the southern part of Iowa, a great abundance of our farmland is quite hilly and subject to erosion.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. Lane, if you will proceed.

WAUBONSIE CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location.-29,510 acres in Mills and Fremont Counties.

Tributary to Missouri River.

Sponsors.-Mills County Soil Conservation District; Mills County Board of Supervisors; Fremont County Soil Conservation District; and Fremont County Conservation Board.

Size of farms: About 130 acres average.

Purposes.-Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention.

Principal measures.-Soil conservation practices on farms and woodlands and structural measures consisting of 32 grade stabilization structures.

Benefit-cost ratio.-1.4 to 1. With secondary and incidental recreation benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.3 to 1. Area benefited.-9,135 acres.

Number of beneficiaries.—About 177 landowners or operators will benefit from installation of the structural measures.

! 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. * Consisting of:

Land, easements, and rights-of-way.

Administration of contracts.

The value of measures already installed ($362,860) increases this to 37 percent.

$29, 120

8,220

Prorated Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited.—$61. Carrying out the project. The project sponsors assumes all local responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining the structural measures. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $3,330.

Mr. LANE. The Waubonsie Creek watershed is located in Mills and Fremont Counties in southwestern Iowa. The 30,000-acre watershed of Waubonsie Creek drains southwesterly into the Waubonsie drainage ditch as it emerges from the hills onto the Missouri River flood plain. The ditch is shown here as a double line which terminates at the river. The yellow area at the lower end of the watershed is in the Missouri River bottoms. The rest of the watershed is in the more rolling upland area. There are 224 farms located entirely or partially within the watershed, averaging about 130 acres. Approximately 62 percent of the farms are owner operated.

The major farm enterprise in the watershed is livestock farming, with other types of farming divided among cash grain and dairy farms. Principal crops are corn, soybeans, oats, and hay.

Sponsors of the watershed project are the Mills and Fremont County Soil Conservation Districts, the Mills County Board of Supervisors, and the Fremont County Conservation Board.

The major watershed problems are sheet and gully erosion damage to agricultural lands, roads, and other improvements, and sediment damage principally to the downstream drainage ditch. Cropland is being destroyed by gully erosion, and adjacent land is being converted to pasture or left idle. Soil loss from sheet erosion in the upland area is estimated to average 4.4 tons per acre per year. The Waubonsie drainage ditch requires frequent cleanout of sediment to maintain channel capacity and prevent flooding of the bottomlands of the Missouri River flood plain. Damage to land-$44,460-is the chief kind of damage, followed by damage to channels-$17,000-and to roads-$6,850.

The works of improvement to be installed consist of land treatment measures and 32 grade stabilization structures. Land treatment measures include terraces, grassed waterways, woodland improvement, wildlife habitat development, and conservation cropping systems. Twentythree of the grade stabilization structures will have detention capacity. Four of the structures will also serve as road crossings.

Total installation costs of the project amount to about $1.5 million, of which Public Law 566 funds will bear $1.2 million. Local interests will bear the remainder or about 22 percent. When the value of measures already installed are included, this percentage is increased to 37. The project sponsors will operate and maintain the project at a cost estimated at $3,400 annually.

The terraces and contour farming planned for the watershed, combined with conservation cropping systems, will reduce the sheet erosion by about 23 percent. The planned land treatment measures will bring about further benefits in the form of increased farm income. Over 9,000 acres of land will be benefited by the project-5,900 acres of bottomland and 3,200 acres of upland. The project will help to stabilize agricultural production, improve the income of farmers, provide a base for further enhancement and economic growth, and assist in maintaining the family-type farm. Road and channel maintenance costs will be reduced, and stabilization of the tax base will result. Pools in 23 of the structures will provide water for recreational uses such as fishing, swimming, boating picnicking, and hunting. The average annual benefits amount to about $73,000. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.4 to 1.0. When the secondary benefits are excluded, the ratio is 1.3 to 1.0.

The prorated Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited is $61.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lane. This is a rather unusual project, it seems to me. I don't quite understand all of these structures there listed as drop inlets. Those with full flow, I presume, simply mean that it does not back up any water, it simply falls on down without further erosion. Now, those that are shown with a hatched area above them, I presume, back up water at flood time but that it immediately runs out; is that correct?

Mr. LANE. No. I believe that the area included within the hatched line, Mr. Chairman, is permanent water. The reason why those structures store water is to cover the overfall which is advancing up the valley, you see. By covering that overfall, it will stop the advance.

The CHAIRMAN. I can understand that, but maybe I am just talking about the type of maps that we use. The normal map that we use shows in solid blue wherever there is going to be water and shows some kind of hatching where the water is merely temporary. But do I understand now that this hatching means that that area is to be permanently covered with water?

Mr. LANE. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, I can't answer that question with certainty. The legend on the map does not make that point clear. I am not sure whether all of the crosshatched area will be under water permanently or whether on the upper ends of that crosshatched area this will be floodwater detention capacity which will drain out immediately after a flood.

The CHAIRMAN. You recognize that on most of these maps that we get, if it is going to have permanent water there it shows it in blue, solid blue.

Mr. LANE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. This shows no solid blue behind any of these socalled drop inlets. But you referred to some of them as establishing pools that would have some recreational value. I assume that that meant that there was a permanent pool there. It couldn't have that recreational value unless they had a permanent pool.

Mr. LANE. Yes. But the recreational value, you see, is fairly small, $600. I suspect that the permanent pool must be smaller than I originally indicated.

The CHAIRMAN. All of this, then, leads me to the question as to that 3,000 acres of upland benefits which is the land shown in yellow around each of these drop inlets. How is that land benefited? I can understand how when you push water back up you stop the erosion and stop the growth of the gully. But this land doesn't have water on it. You don't stop the flow of water over it. Your gullies will still grow in this yellow land, as I understand it.

Mr. LANE. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What keeps them from it?

Mr. LANE. This treatment is intended to stop further upward advance of the gullies.

The CHAIRMAN. How does it do that? I can't understand how you stop the upward growth of a gully beyond the point at which the water comes. I understand full well that if you stop this creek here at this point and build a dam up to this point that there is not going to be any gully below the top of the dam, of course. But beyond that point the slope goes on up and there is nothing stopping the water from running down here. What keeps it from gullying?

Mr. LANE. Let us say, Mr. Chairman, that the slope of the channel is like this [indicating] before the dam is put in. When you put the dam in for a distance above the dam you get a flattened grade. Now, this provides a point of stability. Once that grade is stabilized at this point, then other land treatment above that point will be adequate to keep this land from gullying above this stabilized point, you see.