That is all.

Mr. POAGE. Are there any further questions of Mr. Lane? This is just west of Greenville, Miss., is it not?

Mr. LANE. I think that is right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POAGE. If there are no further questions of the Department, we are very much obliged to you. We have with us our colleague, Congressman Pryor from Arkansas.

We are glad to have you with us, Mr. Pryor.

We will be glad to have your viewpoint on this project.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID PRYOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity of presenting our case to you. You have been most helpful to our State in the past. We are deeply appreciative of all of the many favors you have given us in meeting our problems.

Basically, the testimony which preceded mine, I think very adequately explained this project.

I would just like to comment on one area of this situation, and that is pertaining to the local sponsors who are at this time prepared to assume their responsibility in this endeavor and any cooperation they might be able to make to this project in seeing it become a reality.

The Chicot County Drainage District was one of the sponsors under the State laws to develop it, with authority to levy taxes for cost-sharing in the installation of the structural measures and to maintain the completed improvements. The local soil conservation district will work effectively with the landowners in planning and installing the conservation measures called for in the plan.

I think it should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that of the $4,300,000 total installation cost of the project, only $1,500,000, or 35 percent, is to be paid from Public Law 566 funds, so that approximately 65 percent will be primarily a local cost payment.

We feel that this is a project of great necessity, and that it will benefit many people, especially many farmers, and it will prove a benefit to everyone, and that it will be a great benefit to our section of the State.

With the permission of the chairman and membership of the subcommittee, I would like the opportunity to include a short prepared statement I have here.

Mr. POAGE. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record. (The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Pryor reads in full as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID PRYOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Committee in support of the proposed Chicot Watershed Project, which is located in my District.

The landowners in this project have been working for many years to secure the improvements needed to alleviate their flood problems. These problems affect both rural and urban lands. Losses are sustained almost every year on about 300 farms because of flooding and poor drainage. It has been estimated that

185 of these farms are 160 acres or less in size and produce about $1,400 annually, per farm, in net income. It is obvious, I believe, that these owners can ill afford to sustain repeated losses in the form of floodwater damage and increased production costs.

The county-seat town of Lake Village is located on the banks of Lake Chicot. within the watershed. It is my understanding that about 1,200 city lots in Lake Village are subject to flooding. The sewage disposal system for the City does not have an adequate drainage outlet and malfunctions during periods of heavy rainfall.

The Chicot Watershed Project is designed to eliminate or reduce these problems which are adversely affecting the economy and welfare of the area. It has been estimated that benefits averaging almost $500,000 annually will accrue to the improvements, and that the benefits will exceed the cost by a ratio of 3.5 to 1.

The plan recognizes the need for the protection of the waters of Lake Chicot, the largest natural lake in the State. There are provisions for drainage of lands away from the lake when feasible, and for sediment control structures in existing channels into the lake.

The local sponsors of the project are prepared to assume their responsibilities in the installation of the project. The Chicot Drainage District, one of the sponsors, has been formed under State laws, with authority to levy taxes for costsharing in the installation of the structural measures and to maintain the completed improvements. The local soil conservation district is quite active and will work effectively with the landowners in planning and installing the conservation measures called for in the plan. It should be noted that of the $4,300,000 total installation cost of the project, only $1,500,000, or 35 percent, is to be paid from Public Law 566 funds, while about $2,800,000, or 65 percent, will be primarily a local cost.

I am sure that the details of the project proposal will be covered by personnel from the Soil Conservation Service. I am sincerely grateful for the time to present my views on the need for the project, and to provide evidence of local support in implementing the plan.

Your favorable consideration of the Chicot Watershed work plan will be deeply appreciated.

Mr. POAGE. We are always glad to have you with us.

Are there any questions now of Mr. Pryor?

You seem to have convinced them.

Mr. PRYOR. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. We will now pass on to the next project.

DELANEY CREEK WATERSHED, INDIANA

DELANEY CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location.-21,905 acres in Washington County.

Tributary to Muscatatuck River, White River, Wabash River, Ohio River. Sponsors.-Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District. Washington County Park and Recreation Board, Delaney Creek Conservancy District.

Watershed privately owned, 77.2 percent; non-Federal public land, 22.8 percent.

Number of farms: 125.

Size of farms: About 130 acres average. Purposes.-Watershed Protection, Flood Prevention, Irrigation and Recrea

tion.

Principal measures.-Soil conservation practices on farms and forest land; and structural measures consisting of 2 floodwater retarding structures, 3 multiple-purpose structures (of which 2 have capacity for irrigation and 1 for rec

reation, with recreational facilities) 8.5 miles of channel improvement and an irrigation distribution system. Storage capacity of the structures ranges from -406 acre-feet to 1,627 acre-feet.

Benefit-cost ratio.-1.9 to 1. With secondary benefits excluded, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.6 to 1.

Area benefited.-2,650 acres.

Number of beneficiaries.—About 38 landowners and operators will benefit from flood prevention and 7 will make use of the added irrigation water. The recreational development will benefit a population of about 20,000 people and furnish an estimated 54,600 annual visitor-days of recreation.

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:

3 The value of measures already installed ($185,369) increases this to 40 percent.

Prorated Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited.-$146. Carrying out the project.-The Washington County Park and Recreation Board assumes all local responsibilities for installing, operating and maintaining Structure No. 5 and associated recreational facilities. The Delaney Creek Conservancy District assumes these responsibilities for all other structural measures. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $40,505.

Mr. POAGE. We have a statement from our colleague, Mr. Lee Hamilton. Without objection, that will be included in the record following the statement by the Department.

We will be glad to hear from you now, Mr. Weld, for the Department.

Mr. WELD. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Delaney Creek watershed is located in Washington County in south central Indiana, and contains approximately 22,000 acres. It lies north of the Louisville-New Albany complex, and Indianapolis is about

75 miles north of the watershed. Salem, the county seat of Washington County, lies about 5 miles south of the project area. The southern part of the watershed is drained by the three principal forks of the Delaney Creek. There are about 125 farms within the watershed with an average size of about 130 acres. All land in the watershed is privately owned with the exception of 5,000 acres of forested land owned and managed by the State. The State holding is known as the JacksonWashington State Forest.

Mr. POAGE. The Chair might state that I have in my possession a copy of a letter from Mr. David M. Click, State forester, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, in which they commit themselves to maintaining the structures and practices proscribed by the Soil Conservation Service. I understand from our staff that this is in the form that is acceptable. So, for the record, we have this information.

(The letter referred to follows:)

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,

Mr. CHARLES R. WILLIAMS,
Chairman, Washington County RWCD,
Salem, Ind.

DIVISION OF FORESTRY,

January 3, 1967.

DEAR MR. WILLIAMS: This is to advise you and other sponsors of the Delaney Creek Watershed Project of our interest in and unqualified support of this worthwhile undertaking.

We have participated in the development of the plans for this project, particularly on those features affecting our land. We agree to install the land treatment measures needed on our land to reduce erosion and retard runoff. The location, kind and amount of such treatment will be specified in a mutually agreed-to conservation plan. We understand that the Soil Conservation Section technicians assisting your district will be available to assist us in the preparation of the conservation plan so that it fully conforms to the technical standards of that agency. The forestry land treatment measures will be carried out in cooperation with the State Forester and the U.S. Forest Service.

We understand that P.L. 83-566 funds will not be available for this work on our lands. We are prepared to request sufficient funds through our usual budgetary procedure for completing the installation of needed measures at a rate commensurate with the installation of comparable work on private land.

We also agree to maintain these measures after they are installed and will request the necessary funds for this purpose. You may be assured that we intend to make our land a model of good conservation.

Very truly yours,

Mr. WELD. Thank you.

DAVID M. CLICK, State Forester.

The sponsors of the watershed project are the Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District, Washington County Park and Recreation Board, and Delaney Creek Conservancy District.

The agricultural economy of the watershed area is based on livestock and grain farming. Future economic growth will largely be related to agriculture and recreation.

The major problems in the watershed include floodwater, sediment, and erosion damages to crops, pasture, and roads; inefficient use of land; and lack of water-based recreational facilities. Because of frequent flooding, the flood plain is not used as extensively as possible for crops, and some upland areas which should be in pasture or woods are cultivated. Many farmers have been suffering crop losses ranging from 40 to 100 percent from the most severe storms. Damage to roads and bridges result from flood flows washing away road surfacing, scouring

shoulders, silting in ditches, and damaging bridges. There is no major water-based recreational development in Washington County. The estimated population within a 25-mile radius is 110,000 people and exceeds 1 million within a 50-mile radius.

The proposed works of improvement for the watershed include soil conservation practices on the land, and structural measures consisting of two floodwater retarding structures, three multiple-purpose structures, 81⁄2 miles of channel improvement, 5 miles of levees, an irrigation distribution system, and recreational facilities. Land treatment measures include conservation cropping systems, contour farming, minimum tillage practices, surface and tile drainage, grade stabilization structures, diversions, grassed waterways, pasture planting, construction of farm ponds, and wildlife habitat development. Woodland acres will be treated by applying improved forestry practices and livestock exclusion. The land treatment and structural measures will reduce the average annual flood damages within the benefited area by about 80 percent. It is expected that about 55,000 visitor-days can be attributed to the public recreational development annually. Total benefits expected to accrue annually amount to about $190,000, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.9 to 1. Excluding secondary benefits, the benefitcost ratio is 1.6 to 1.

The total installation cost of the project is about $1,800,000, of which the local interests will bear 34 percent. Considering the cost of land treatment measures already installed-$190,000-the contribution from local interests increases to 40 percent. The sponsors will assume all responsibilities for operating and maintaining the structural and associated recreational facilities, estimated to cost $40,000 annually. The prorated Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited is $146.

Mr. POAGE. We thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Goodling?

Mr. GOODLING. You say that seven landowners will use additional irrigation water?

Mr. WELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOODLING. Do they pay for that water?
Mr. WELD. Do they pay for the water?

Mr. GOODLING. Do they pay for the water?

Mr. WELD. Yes; they obtain their prorated share of the installation costs associated with the irrigation; yes, sir. These are two structures here, the areas that will receive irrigation are shown in the red crosshatch. I do not know whether you can see that? These two structures will provide the additional water that will be used mainly for irrigating truck crops. There are canneries in the area. It will greatly stimulate that phase of the economy.

Mr. GOODLING. The other landowners pay for this irrigation water too, do they not?

You have 38 landowners?

Mr. WELD. That is right.

Mr. GOODLING. And if the seven are going to use the irrigation water, do the 31 pay for the seven?

Mr. WELD. They would not be paying for the irrigation feature unless they were benefiting from it, sir.