as the plan proposes, will reduce damaging floods from eight to three per yearthose three being confined to areas of low damageable values. Other land treatment measures for privately owned land will be planned and installed on an individual farm basis under an accelerated program of the Bullock and Macon County Soil Conservation Districts. All corrective measures in the proposal are closely integrated and meshed into a dollar saving, highly effective flood, erosion and sediment control plan. The total cost of the proposed five year project is approximately $6 million. Of this total, the Federal government, under P.L. 566, is asked for only $3.8 million or 57% of the project cost. The sponsors, using other authorities and private funds, will provide about $2.9 million.

Mr. Chairman, I could go into great detail in pointing out the many advantages of this proposal. However, in view of the time involved here, let me point out the major benefits. I have already explained that this watershed is a burdened agro-economic area; this plan will relieve that burden. I have already mentioned that the entire local economy feels the results of the problems described; this plan will stimulate business in the watershed area and give farming in that area its badly needed shot in the arm. I have not pointed out the recreational benefits from the implementation of this project; however they are also outlined and described in the plan. And, I have not mentioned the jobs created by implementation of the plan; many man hours will be created by the implementation of the proposed watershed project. I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that the merits of a proposal with a 1.4 to 1 benefit-cost ratio are overwhelmingly obvious.

Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to say I am familiar with the area we are talking about and it is a marshy place, with a 54-inch annual rainfall and many days after days after days people cannot get about over this sector.

I know nothing about the big impoundments nor the small ones, they are technical matters. But recently during the recess several of the topflight Soil Conservation people and engineers from the Agriculture Department came and discussed the matter with me in detail. They tell me this is a good plan, the best they can come up with, and that it is badly needed, and I know from having talked with farmers who live in this area that it is badly needed and has been needed for

many, many years.

The farm population in this particular area has gone down rapidly since 1954, I believe. I think it is pointed out in the brochure. Last year, as you well know, we had one of the worst cotton crop failures in the history of our State and in this particular area the excessive rainfall and the inability to get the water off the land contributed to that crop failure.

I wish I were an expert and could tell you why they want, as you call them, big impounding areas rather than a series of small ones. I am not prepared to say, but I do say, that the technicians who worked on this project many, many years have come up with this plan and they say it is the most feasible.

The CHAIRMAN. I think any of us can understand why they have to use larger dams at times, simply because it costs less per acre-foot of water. You can impound all of it, you could put a dam at the mouth of this creek and impound the whole creek.

Mr. ANDREWs. You would have a big lake.

The CHAIRMAN. You would have a big lake and you would do it for less per acre-foot of the water you are impounding than you will by using nine dams up in the upper region. If you use 30 dams in the upper region, it would cost you still more, but you have to arrive, as we see it, at some kind of reasonable compromise between simply farm ponds which would be even more desirable if you could have

enough farm ponds around to hold all of that water, but your costs get clear out of line when you do that sort of thing.

I think your people, mine, or any other group of people, would prefer to have a number of small reservoirs than a few of the larger ones, but your committee would immediately tell us that we are getting out of line with the costs. If we presented it in this manner, it will cost nearly $7 million and it would cost $10 million, I am afraid, if we used smaller dams. It would not be long until the Appropriations Committee would say we cannot put up that kind of money.

I think we would all rather have a multitude of small reservoirs and there are many reasons why it is desirable, but the cost does get out of hand. And I think the Department-in this instance it is right clear what they have done is compromising the practical with the most desired objective and have come up with what seems to be the best thing that we can afford. And I am not criticizing the Department for that.

On the contrary, I think they are following the reasonable course. Mr. ANDREWS. They have worked many, many years on this project. How long?

Mr. OGROSKY. I do not know.

Mr. ANDREWS. Twenty, I would say.

Mr. OGROSKY. It has been a long time since they started the first conservation work.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Off the record.)

Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Andrews, I believe you live in Union Springs. Mr. ANDREWS. That is right.

Mr. GATHINGS. Has that city grown in population as the farming area has changed its type of operation? That is to say, your area could have come from maybe a sharecropper type of operation and it has become recognized by people moving back into town.

Mr. ANDREWS. I think so. I think the population of my town now is 5,000. This record shows 3,700. It is at least 5,000. We have had one or two industrial plants to locate there within the last few years, plants that have given employment to, I would say, roughly 700 people, but there has been an exodus from the farms.

I remember 20 years ago you could ride through my county and you would not get out of sight of a cottonfield. Today you have to ride all day to see a cottonfield. There are cattle, timber, pulpwood, and a few remaining cotton farms.

In this particular area that we are talking about here, you can go weeks at a time with water on the ground. I do not know whether they can remedy the situation or not, but the agricultural experts with whom I have talked over a period of years say that they can do it with this type of plan.

Mr. GOODLING. Fifty-eight percent of this project is woodland. Do you propose to improve this woodland if the project is approved? Mr. ANDREWS. I think there is a plan to do that. They cannot farm successfully with moisture conditions as they are.

Mr. GOODLING. You will do selective cutting?

Mr. ANDREWS. I am sure they will.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we are very much obliged to you, Mr. Andrews, for being with us.

Mr. ANDREWs. Thank you.

GARRISON CREEK WATERSHED, OKLAHOMA

GARRISON CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location.-21,521 acres in Sequoyah County.

Tributary to Arkansas River.

Sponsors.-Garrison Creek Conservancy District, Sequoyah County Soil and

Purposes.-Watershed Protection, Flood Prevention and Drainage.

Principal measures.-Soil conservation practices on farms; and structural measures consisting of 4 floodwater retarding structures, 85,050 feet of channel improvement and 15,850 feet of floodwater diversion. The storage capacity of the structures ranges from 309 acre-feet to 2,013 acre-feet.

Benefit-cost ratio.-3.2 to 1. With secondary benefits excluded, the benefitcost ratio is 2.8 to 1.

Area benefited.-6,750 acres.

Number of beneficiaries.-Approximately 60 landowners and operators will benefit from installation of 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:

Construction costs for drainage..

Land, easements, and rights-of-way.

Administration of contracts..

* The value of measures already installed ($142,579) increases this to 41 percent.

Prorated Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited.-$90. Carrying out the project.-The Sequoyah County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Garrison Creek Conservancy District assumes all local

responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining the structural measures. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $1,960.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now go back to the Oklahoma project: Garrison Creek watershed, Oklahoma.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this work plan for Garrison Creek watershed was prepared under the sponsorship of the Sequoyah County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Garrison Creek Conservancy District. The work plan provides for watershed protection, flood protection to agricultural lands, and an adequate drainage outlet for areas needing drainage.

Garrison Creek watershed has a drainage area of 21,521 acres and is located in the southeastern part of Sequoyah County, Okla. Fort Smith, Ark., is located near the lower end of the watershed. Thirty-six percent of the watershed is used for the production of wheat, vegetables, popcorn and soybeans; 12 percent is tame pasture; and about 44 percent is pastured woodland.

The economy of the Garrison Creek watershed is based primarily on agriculture. With a few exceptions the bottomlands are being used for cash crops. Soybeans is the most important crop being grown. The upland portion of the watershed is better suited for livestock farming and timber production.

There are approximately 200 farm units in the watershed. Most of the farms are owner operated. They vary in size from 80 to 1,700 acres. The average size farm is about 180 acres. Small floods occur several times a year. A major flood has occurred on an average of once every 5 years. A total of 4,733 acres are subject to severe floodwater damage. There is another 2,017 acres of inherently wet land that needs drainage. An estimated $71,159 damage occurs annually on crop and pasture lands.

Conservation plans for land treatment measures have been developed on 70 percent of the land in the watershed. At the present time 80 percent of the planned measures have been applied. Additional land treatment measures will be applied by owners and operators of watershed lands during the 5-year project installation period.

Planned structural measures include four floodwater retarding structures, about 16 miles of stream channel improvement and 3 miles of diversion. A unique feature of this plan is this diversion that will intercept hill water and move it on off safely from this flood plain area of the Arkansas River.

The total cost of the measures is $1,033,567, of which the Public Law 566 share is $696,233. Considering the value of measures already installed, local interests will contribute 41 percent of the total project cost. The prorated Public Law 566 structural measure cost amounts to $90 for each benefited acre.

With the project installed, flood damages to crop and pasture are expected to be reduced 88 percent. In addition to these benefits, other annual benefits accruing to installation of the project are: Drainage $19,631; and secondary benefits $9,964. An estimated 60 farmers and landowners of 6,750 acres will be directly benefited by completion of the project. The benefit-cost ratio is 3.2 to 1. With secondary benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is 2.8 to 1.

The Sequoyah County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Garrison Creek Conservancy District assumes all local responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining the structural measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $1,960.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the value of land down there?

Mr. GRAHAM. Between $400 and $600 an acre. This area, as I said, is very close to Fort Smith. They do some irrigation down there and they grow vegetables. As a matter of fact, they can double-crop a lot of the acres in this watershed.

Mr. GATHINGS. What kind of crops?

Mr. GRAHAM. Soybeans primarily.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, under the cotton program they can sign up for cotton and get a failure on the cotton and plant soybeans, can they not?

Mr. GRAHAM. I do not think they are growing any cotton in this

area now.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions?

Mr. GOODLING. Can a farmer pay $600 an acre in that area and make money on it?

Mr. GRAHAM. This is the value. If the land were for sale and they say it is not for sale-they think it would be valued at between $400 and $600 per acre.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you point out the area?

Mr. GRAHAM. Fort Smith is just across the river.

The CHAIRMAN. It is right at the city of Fort Smith.

Mr. GRAHAM. This is quite a vegetable area, and they are irrigating it. I do not think that is out of line at all for the value of irrigated land.

Mr. GOODLING. They would not pay $600 an acre for strictly farming purposes. They are looking ahead."

Mr. GRAHAM. I imagine so.

Mr. WILLIAMS. They pay $600 for that land and farm it.
Mr. GOODLING. And make money?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would say on their vegetables, yes. But that is Arkansas River bottomland near Fort Smith. In the general run of vegetable growing, the Arkansas River bottomland ranks up with the best land in the country. They would not sell it for less than $600. Mr. GRAHAM. It is not for sale, according to the information we received.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we are obliged to you, Mr. Graham.

MUSTANG CREEK WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA

MUSTANG CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location.-14,500 acres in Merced and Stanislaus Counties, California. Tributary to Merced River.-San Joaquin River.

Sponsors.-Ballico Soil Conservation District, Turlock Irrigation District, Merced County.

Cropland

Miscellaneous

Total watershed land use

Total watershed privately owned.

Number of farms: 37.

Percent

99

1

Size of farms: About 380 acres average.

Purposes.-Watershed Protection, Flood Prevention and Fish and Wildlife. Principal measures.-Soil conservation practices on farms; and structural

98-754-68– -3