Statement of-Continued Dorn, Hon. W. J. Bryan, a Representative in Congress from the Edwards, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Edwards, Hon. Edwin W., a Representative in Congress from the Page 75 168 46, 49 Evans, Hon. Frank E., a Representative in Congress from the State of 161 Fuqua, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Gubser, Hon. Charles S., a Representative in Congress from the State of California__ Hamilton, Hon. Lee H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana... Hansen, Hon. George V., a Representative in Congress from the State Johnson, Chester, coordinator, Kanawha County watershed projects, Landrum, Hon. Phil M., a Representative in Congress from the State Mathias, Hon. Robert B., a Representative in Congress from the State McFall, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Mize, Hon. Chester L., a Representative in Congress from the State of 80 166 92 128 192 ... 38, 110, 136 123 32, 198 14 Nichols, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of 66, 155 Passman, Hon. Otto E., a Representative in Congress from the State Pryor, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of 69 85 Reifel, Hon. Ben, a Representative in Congress from the State of 140 Scherle, Hon. William J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa. Spears, LaVerne, State representative, Rossville, Kans.. Thomson, Hon. Vernon W., a Representative in Congress from the Correspondences submitted to the committee: Baker, John A., Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, letter of June 18, 1968, to Hon. John W. McCormack.. Slack, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 116 54 15 60 8, 152 Byrd, Hon. Robert C., a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia, letter Click, David M., State forester, Indiana Department of Natural Re- Hardy, Kenneth L., director, Department of Corrections, District of Holladay, Fred, Jr., president, Lowndes County Cattlemen's Associa- 158 158 Lyon, Edward, chairman, Lowndes County Soil Conservation District, 158 178 Simpson, Raymond H., president, Board of Land Commissioners, 163 177 159 WATERSHED PROJECTS MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND CREDIT OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 1301, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Poage, Gathings, Stubblefield, and Goodling. Also present: Christine S. Gallagher, clerk; William C. Black, general counsel; L. T. Easley, staff consultant; Fowler West, assistant staff consultant. Hollis R. Williams, Deputy Administrator for Watersheds, Harold O. Ogrosky, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Watershed Planning; Clyde W. Graham Director, Watershed Planning Division; William A. Weld, Assistant Director, Watershed Planning Division; and R. Neil Lane, Chief, Projects Branch, Watershed Planning Division, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. We are met this morning to hear a number of watershed projects. We will follow our usual practice of allowing the Department to explain the watershed project and then ask any of our visitors who are interested to add their comments. BLACKHAWK-KICKAPOO, WISCONSIN BLACKHAWK-KICKAPOO WATERSHED WORK PLAN Size and location.-72,500 acres located in Vernon and Crawford Counties, Wisconsin. Tributary to Kickapoo River-Mississippi River. Sponsors.-Vernon and Crawford County Soil and Water Conservation Purposes.-Watershed Protection, Flood Prevention and Recreation. Principal measures.-Soil conservation practices on farms; and structural measures consisting of 7 floodwater retarding structures and one multiple-purpose structure with associated public recreational facilities. The total storage capacity of all structures is 6,552 acre-feet. Benefit-cost ratio.—1.3 to 1. With secondary benefits excluded, the benefitcost ratio is 1.2 to 1. Area benefited.-2,264 acres. Number of beneficiaries.-Owners and operators of approximately 62 farms will benefit from installation of structural measures. The project is expected to provide 17,147 visitor-days of recreational use annually. 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. * Consisting of: The value of measures already installed ($1,207,300) increases this to 50 percent. Prorated Public Law 566 structural cost per acre benefited.-$169. Carrying out the project.-The Vernon and Crawford County Soil and Water Conservation Districts assumes all local responsibility for installation operation and maintenance of all structural measures and recreational facilities. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $9,865. The CHAIRMAN. Our first project today is the Blackhawk-Kickapoo River on the Mississippi River. In my country, the Kickapoo is just a creek, and always has been. We have had about two or three Kickapoo Creeks in Texas before us at one time or another. It is named Blackhawk-Kickapoo and Kickapoo-Mississippi River in another. Anyhow, it runs into the Mississippi River. We will consider this Wisconsin project officially BlackhawkKickapoo. Mr. OGROSKY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Blackhawk-Kickapoo Watershed, in southwestern Wisconsin has a drainage area of 72,700 acres. There are some 30,000 acres in south central Vernon County, and about 42,000 acres in north central Crawford County. The Watershed has narrow ridges and valleys separated by steep, stony slopes, typical of the unglaciated area of southwestern Wisconsin. Elevations vary from 1,345 feet in the extreme northern part of the watershed to 700 feet at the lower end. In other words, this is rough topography with a 600-foot difference in elevation and slope up to 40 percent. Important urban areas in the watershed are Gays Mills and Soldiers Grove. Viroqua is 4 miles north and Prairie du Chien is 32 miles southwest of the watershed. Gays Mills, Soldiers Grove, and Viroqua are important trade and marketing centers for farmers in the wateshed. Fifty-four percent of the watershed is used for cropland while 14 percent is in pasture. Woodland occupies another 29 percent of the area. Cropland areas are mainly on the ridgeland and flood plain. Permanent pasture is maintained on the more gentle valley side slopes and frequently flooded areas adjacent to the stream. Steep, stony slopes are usually limited to woodland. Dairying is the most important single agricultural enterprise. Income from the production of livestock and livestock products, including milk, accounts for 85 percent of the total gross farm income. The sale of crops accounts for most of the remaining 15 percent of the annual gross income. Of the 463 farm units in the watershed, 256 are cooperators with the Vernon and Crawford County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Floodwater damage to crops and pasture and to roads and bridges is the major problem in the watershed. Inundation of the flood plain and passage of fast-moving water has resulted in total destruction of valley crops, the removal of fences, deposition of debris on cropland and pasture, and washed out bridges and bridge approaches. Average annual damage from floodwater is estimated at about $42,500. Approximately $11,500 of this amount occurs as road and bridge damage. The remainder is agricultural damage. The watershed sponsors have developed a plan for watershed protection and flood prevention consisting of conservation practices on the land, seven floodwater retarding structures, and one multiplepurpose structure for flood prevention and recreation with accompanying recreation facilities. The structures will retard the runoff from 33 percent of the entire watershed and will provide an aggregate of 5,904 acre-feet of storage. This includes 1,459 acre-feet to trap and store eroded material from the upland. Facilities for swimming, camping, picnicking, boating, and fishing are planned adjacent to the 43-acre lake at the multiple-purpose structure. This development will attract an estimated 17,000 visitors every year. Approximately 62 owners and operators of 2,264 acres of flood plain land will benefit directly from the installation of the structural measures. Annual crop and pasture damage will be reduced 69 percent. Total floodwater damage will be reduced by 72 percent. The estimated average annual benefit of the project is $69,124. The cost of structural measures is estimated to be $1,305,807. With land treatment included, the total project cost is $1,538,982. Local interests will contribute 26 percent of this amount. The Public Law 566 share will be the remaining 74 percent. Considering the land treatment measures already installed, the local share would be 35 percent. The Public Law 566 structural measures cost per acre benefited amounts to $169. The ratio of average annual benefits to average annual cost is 1.3 to 1.0. Without considering secondary benefits, the benefit-cost ratio would be 1.2 to 1.0. The local organizations sponsoring the project are the Vernon and Crawford County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. These districts will assume all local responsibilities for installation, operation, and maintenance of all structural measures and recreational facilities. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance is $9,865. The CHAIRMAN. This project seems to be much more typical than the conventional project or most of those in southwestern Wisconsin. This is not a gully project, is it? Mr. OGROSKY. No. The CHAIRMAN. This is more stable land here than in some of the land we have been dealing with in that area, is that right? Mr. OGROSKY. This is primarily a flood prevention project to protect the flood plain lands shown in yellow on this map. There is a high degree of conservation on the land in this area already. The CHAIRMAN. It is a rather high cost per acre project. Mr. OGROSKY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. That, I presume, is because it is a rather narrow flood plain and therefore the percentage of benefited land is not very great? Mr. OGROSKY. That is correct. There is only this area of flood plain land which is protected. This is extremely high value land. The CHAIRMAN. As to the participation features, can this project be justified without depending on recreation? Mr. OGROSKY. I believe it can. I don't have the figures right here but the recreation benefits are about 37 percent of the total. I believe that would make it very close to 1 to 1. I believe that I am correct. Mr. LANE. If I may, Mr. Poage, I believe that I can respond to that question. The CHAIRMAN. Glad to hear from you. Mr. LANE. Every project that we bring before this committee is justified not only on the basis of total benefits versus total costs, but for each purpose within the project we require justification for each purpose; that is, the benefits exceed the cost. With respect to flood prevention in this project, it is justified in the absence of recreation. Recreation, too, is likewise justified by itself. The CHAIRMAN. You couldn't have recreation unless you had flood prevention? Mr. LANE. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Recreation couldn't be justified by itself. You couldn't afford to put these structures in there simply for recreation. Mr. OGROSKY. Both purposes benefit by joint construction. The CHAIRMAN. One gets benefit from the other. You couldn't justify the expenditure of this amount of money simply for recreation pur poses. Mr. OGROSKY. What Mr. Lane was referring to, I believe, was that the proportion of the cost charged to recreation is compared to recreation benefits, and the proportion of the cost charged to flood prevention is compared to flood prevention benefits. |