committee that I have with me Mr. James Mallett, who is a member of the Jefferson Davis Parish Police Jury, and on the board of supervisors of this district-he is also chairman of the police jury committee on watersheds in this parish.

Mr. POAGE. Is a police jury the same as county commissioners?

Mr. EDWARDS. In some of the more backward States, they are referred to as such.

[Laughter.]

Mr. EDWARDS. In Louisiana, we call them police juries.

I think it is the only State, so far as I know, where they refer to them as police juries. Some have county judges. We have parishes also. And we also have bad flooding and drainage problems; that is, such as have been described.

If we could find a way to take some of the fresh water we have in Louisiana and put it into some of the plains of Texas, both areas would benefit tremendously by the transfer.

This is a very desirable project and one which is much needed in the area.

And, again, as has been pointed out by the previous witness it has a tremendous amount of local participation and interest; and, second, it will do much toward helping out, and in helping what is one of our finest projects in the Congress; that is, the conservation of natural resources and, particularly, fertile soil and the fresh waters in agricultural areas of our country.

I, certainly, urge you and the members of the subcommittee to give favorable consideration to this project.

Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Edwards.

Your statement will be made a part of the record at this point. (The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Edwards reads in full as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWIN W. EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman and my distinguished colleagues of this Subcommittee, the West Fork of Bayou Lacassine Watershed is located in Jefferson Davis and Calcasieu Parishes in the 7th Congressional District of Louisiana. The work plan has been carefully prepared by the Gulf Coast Soil and Water Conservation District. the Jefferson Davis Parish Police Jury, Gravity Drainage District No. 6 of Jefferson Davis Parish, the State of Louisiana and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The comprehensive report shows that the proposed Watershed contains 34,000 acres, 82% of which is cropland, privately owned. This is highly produetive land, but is plagued by frequent and prolonged flooding which causes considerable damage to crops and adds to the cost of crop production. Sedimentation and rapid vegetable growth have greatly decreased the capabilities of existing channels and occasional droughts also cause some damage.

The primary objectives of the project are watershed protection, flood prevention and agricultural water management. The proposals in this plan will provide a comprehensive system of channels necessary to provide protection and provide an adequate outlet for on-farm and group drainage systems.

It is indicated that the installation period would be about four years for structural measures and a five-year period for land treatment measures, with a

total estimated cost of $2,003,850, 42% of which would be funded under the provisions of Public Law 566 with the remaining 58% provided by local interests and other funds.

The work plan before you provides all pertinent details on the project and I will close by merely pointing out that the Gravity Drainage District No. 6 of Jefferson Davis Parish has assumed all local responsibilities for installation, operation and maintenance of structural measures, with an estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance of $9,200. The 2.4 to 1 benefit-cost ratio for this project clearly justifies its approval and I urge your favorable and immediate consideration, for truly public funds can be spent in no wiser manner than in the conservation of our natural resources and in particular, fresh water and fertile soil.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any further questions of Mr. Edwards?

If there are no questions, we are very glad to have had you here. We are always glad to have you.

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. It is my pleasure.

ELK TWO-MILE CREEK WATERSHED, WEST VIRGINIA

ELK TWO-MILE CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location.-8,450 acres in Kanawha County.

Tributary to Kanawha River.

Sponsors. Capital Soil Conservation District, County Court of Kanawha County, City of Charleston, West Virginia.

Purposes.-Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention.

Principal measures.-Soil conservation practices on farms and structural measures consisting of 6 floodwater retarding structures. Storage capacity of the structures totals 1,425 acre-feet.

Benefit-cost ratio.-1.4 to 1. With secondary benefits excluded, the benefitcost ratio is 1.3 to 1.

Number of beneficiaries.—Owners and operators of 11 commercial properties and 50 homes in the floodplain will benefit from flood prevention.

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..
Administration of contracts.....

The value of measures already installed ($5,700) increases this to 46 percent.

$943, 500 1,800

Prorated Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited.—Not computed since the majority of benefits occur in a rural community.

Carrying out the project.—The County Court of Kanawha County assumes all local responsibility for installation, operation and maintenance of all structural

measures.

The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $1,200.

Mr. POAGE. The next project is the Elk Twomile Creek watershed in West Virginia. May I say, Mr. Slack, that it is our custom in this committee to have the Department explain the projects first; then, we hear from other witnesses.

We will now hear from Mr. Lane.

Mr. LANE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Elk Twomile Creek watershed contains 8,450 acres and is located in the central part of Kanawha County, W. Va. Part of the watershed drainage is situated in the corporate city limits of Charleston. The Charleston airport is also within the watershed. Those of you who have landed at the airport know that it was cut out of the top of the hill, and involved the moving of 9 million cubic yards of earth and rock.

Kanawha County is locally known as the chemical center of the world. Leading industries include chemicals, brines, coal, glassware, petroleum and natural gas. There are about 160 landowners in the watershed, excluding urban property owners, whose holdings average about 50 acres per tract. Based on the 1960 Census of Agriculture, approximately 60 percent of the farmers are part-time operators who supplement their farm income by off-farm employment, usually in the city of Charleston. Forest products provide the main source of income to the farm operators as 89 percent of watershed area is currently in forest.

Three local organizations are sponsoring the watershed project. They are the city of Charleston, the Kanawha County court, and the Capitol Soil Conservation District.

The principal problems in the watershed are floodwater damages to roads, bridges, utilities, residential and commercial properties. The 135 acres floodplain contains fixed properties and improvements valued at $15 million. The flood of July 1961 in this watershed was the most destructive one of record. It resulted in the loss of 12 lives and destroyed 52 homes, five trailer homes, 63 automobiles, two churches, one elementary school, and several small businesses. In addition, 39 homes were ex

tensively damaged and 160 other homes were flooded. It also did extensive damage to public roads, bridges, and utilities. It was estimated that the direct damage from this particular flood exceeded $1.9 million. Smaller floods occur frequently. Floodwater damages are estimated to average $92,470 annually.

The work plan developed by the sponsors proposes a project consisting of soil conservation practices such as pasture and hayland improvement, critical area planting, streambank protection, tree planting, erosion control of logging trails and fire control. These measures will be supplemented by six floodwater retarding structures. The total estimated installation cost of the project is $2,133,100 of which local interests will bear 45 percent. In addition to their share of installation costs, the sponsors will assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of the structural measure estimated to cost $1,200 annually.

The planned works of improvement will virtually eliminate future floodwater damages to urban properties from floods up to a 100-year frequency storm. The remaining damages from a flood of this magnitude will be to low-lying uninhabited areas such as lawns, gardens, roads, utilities and a few outbuildings. Average annual damages will be reduced about 91 percent. With the project installed, a recurrence of the 1961 flood would cause some flooding and some damage. It should be remembered, however, that this was an unprecedented flood of undetermined frequency. The hazard to human life will be greatly reduced if not eliminated. Complete protection from a flood like this was found to be physically and economically infeasible. The average annual benefits are estimated to be $98,000. The resultant benefit-cost ratio is 1.4 to 1. With secondary benefits excluded, the ratio is 1.3 to 1.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any questions?

Mr. TEAGUE of California. It would appear that nearly one-half of this total cost for the project consists of the acquisition of land, easements, and rights of way. How is that paid for?

Mr. LANE. That is paid for by the local people, the local organizations sponsoring the project, Kanawha County court and the city of Charleston.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. This is all strictly local acquisitions and no Federal money as such being used?

Mr. LANE. It cannot be provided under any other Federal program, because of the wording in Public Law 566 which requires, as a condition, for the Secretary of Agriculture to provide assistance only after the local organizations acquire the necessary land, easements, and rights-of-way without cost to the Federal Government. There is no way they can use Federal funds from another source, you see, and still meet that requirement.

Mr. TEAGUE of California. This is pretty much of an urban project, is it not?

Mr. LANE. That is correct.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any other questions of Mr. Lane?

If not, we are very much obliged to you, and we will now be glad to hear from our colleague, Mr. Slack.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SLACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. SLACK. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would request unanimous consent to insert my prepared statement in the record as though read, and I would make the same request for a statement submitted by Senator Byrd of West Virginia. And then I would request that the subcommittee permit me to go off the record and state two or three highlights of this proposal.

Mr. POAGE. Without objection, those requests will be granted and your statement as well as that of Senator Byrd will be made a part of the record following your oral presentation, or discussion off the record.

(Discussion was had outside the record.)

Mr. POAGE. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Slack.

Any questions?

There does not seem to be any opposition.

Mr. SLACK. Thank you very much.

Mr. POAGE. We appreciate your attendance.

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

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SLACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

The proposal for watershed protection and flood prevention on Elk Twomile Creek in my Congressional District represents a great deal more than a routine conservancy plan. It is important for the Committee to know how this plan originated and came to its present stage of development, and I am appearing primarily for that purpose. I will not speak to the technical aspects of the proposal, because they appear to be covered more than adequately by the summary data submitted by the Soil Conservation Service.

The Elk Twomile Creek proposal comes to us as a reminder of a disastrous day for the people who lived in this watershed area over six years ago. On July 19, 1961, there occurred one of those terrible and unpredictable scourges of Nature which caused one of the most shocking events of my first years in the Congress. First there were heavy rains, sufficient to saturate the earth. Then the rains increased and became a virtual cloudburst. The valleys could not handle the volume of water. Two creeks became torrents of water rising to nearly twenty feet in height at certain points and rushing to pour millions of gallons into the major streams during just a few hours. Everything was carried along by these mountains of water. The two creeks literally scoured out their valleys until nothing was left.

In less than 36 hours damage estimated in excess of $20 million was done and 22 lives were lost. Bodies were being recovered for more than a week and the final victim was found two weeks later in a main river channel 500 miles downstream.

At my request the President declared that a disaster area existed, and disaster relief funds were made available. The long, hard job of re-establishing conditions permitting human existence was begun. But within a week after the disaster the people demonstrated a determination to chart a course which would give them certainty that such an event could not recur. They were not to be satisfied with temporary relief and future reliance on the whims of Nature.

The Corps of Engineers, at my request, conducted a special study of conditions, but their report concluded that remedial action could not be taken within their authority and that the problem would not be resolved successfully through construction of any single large dam.

What followed was a determined and single-minded effort by the people of the area to create physical protection against the recurrence of such a disaster. The Elk Twomile Creek was one of the two streams which were at the center