The CHAIRMAN. Yes. There has always been a project here ever since I have been on this committee. We adopt the project; we authorize preliminary surveys of the projects first and then after we get the report, if we think it proper we order a project, and after the project is brought in we adopt it. If you can tell us any way in which we can do this we will be glad to do it, but up to date we have never acted until there was some project suggested. We will be glad to join with you and all the rest of the places along the river if you can show us how we can do it.

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Mr. Chairman, I will look into that a little further, but it occurs to me that this is a proper way to proceed in the matter. I may be wrong, of course.

Mr. WILSON. As the chairman has stated, it is a matter of procedure. If we can arrive at some method by which we can do it, which will be recognized by the House, we can do it. That is the trouble. You must have a survey as to the cost, with estimates, and then we adopt a project, we will say, on a certain river for flood control, then you have the survey and estimate that has been made, and then there is a complete survey. It is just a question as to the way in which we can do it to assist you.

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Two things are authorized in this resolution; one is the survey and then you authorize the appropriation. Is it your contention that authorization for survey should go first and then authorization for the appropriation later on?

Mr. WILSON. If we follow the precedent, the survey will be made and the survey reported back to Congress, and we put that on this report and adopt the project, or make authorization to carry it into effect.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, you do not need any legislation at all. You get $250,000 under the general appropriation for rivers and harbors, and if you get that you do not need any legisla

tion.

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Perhaps I do not understand this, but it does seem to me we are not asking for an appropriation, we are asking for authorization.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I say.

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Then, after that was done and the survey made, we still have to go before the Appropriations Committee to get the necessary appropriation?

The CHAIRMAN. The Appropriations Committee would supply the money to carry out the proposition.

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. I can not see that distinction, to have it in two resolutions or bills, the first bill for a survey and after that an authorization.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you know the survey will show the proper case for the adoption of any particular project that we can take cognizance of?

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. If we do not show it, the authorization would be an idle act, but until the survey is made and demonstrated the Appropriation Committee would not act. You are simply paving the way for the Appropriations Committee to act when the survey has been made, without coming before this committee again.

Mr. SINCLAIR. You will notice in the report of the Secretary of War, Mr. Christopherson, that he says at the present time the depart

ment is not in a position to state whether the bank protection contemplated in Senate Joint Resolution No. 80 would be included in a Federal project for control of the problem and prevention of erosion in the upper Mississippi River.

Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. That relates to a survey of the Missouri for navigation purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. All you need at the present time is the money.

Mr. SINCLAIR. In other words, they report whether a certain survey of this particular place, as to flood control, is the correct project. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Not at the present time; the survey there would be under navigation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer before this committee the testimony that was introduced before the Senate committee with respect to these same resolutions.

Mr. SINCLAIR. You mean the testimony that I have referred to? Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Yes. Representative Howard, who can not be here this morning, wishes this introduced in the record as part of his support or, rather, reasons for supporting the resolutions with reference to both of these bills. The testimony covers very thoroughly the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be inserted in the record.

(The matter referred to is here printed in full, as follows:)

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, at 11 o'clock a. m., in the room of the committee in the Capitol, Senator Wesley L. Jones presiding.

Present: Senators Jones (chairman), McNary, Gould, La Follette, Sackett, Vandenberg, Fletcher, Ransdell, Stephens, Hawes, and Tyson.

There appeared before the committee Senator Norris, Senator Howell, and Senator McMaster.

The committee had under consideration the following resolution, which is here printed in full, as follows:

[S. J. Res. 80, Seventieth Congress, first session]

JOINT RESOLUTION Authorizing an appropriation for bank protection for the control of floods and the prevention of erosion of the Missouri River at and near the town of Niobrara in the State of Nebraska

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is authorized to be appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $250,000 for bank protection for the control of floods and the prevention of erosion of the Missouri River at and near the town of Niobrara in the State of Nebraska; said work to be carried on under the control and supervision of the Chief of Engineers of the War Department.

Senator SACKETT (in the chair). We will take up first Senate Joint Resolution 80, introduced by Senator Norris, authorizing appropriation for bank protection for the control of floods and the prevention of erosion of the Missouri River at and near the town of Niobrara in the State of Nebraska. The resolution appropriates the sum of $250,000 for that purpose. Senator Norris, we will hear from you.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE W. NORRIS, OF NEBRASKA

Senator NORRIS. Mr. Chairman and gentleman of the committee, Niobrara is one of the oldest towns in the State of Nebraska. It is located on the Missouri River, very near the mouth of the Niobrara River. It is a town of 700 or 800 people, located in a beautiful valley in a very fine country. The Missouri River above Niobrara bends in its course and flows almost directly south for a ways, where it strikes the water coming in from the Niobrara.

The bank on the South Dakota side of the river is being gradually taken away, washed into the stream. It is conceded, I think, by the engineers, and everybody who has investigated it, that this work of the river in tearing away that bank will continue unless something is done to prevent it, and that eventually this river coming down from the north may move sufficiently east so that it will strike the town itself, which is located on the bottom, about a half a mile from the river bank, and that when it comes there the high water will wash away the entire town. Whether that will happen soon, or whether it will be a few years, will depend upon the condition of the river. One high-water period would be sufficient to take it

away.

You will appreciate, gentlemen, that with this condition staring the people of Niobrara in the face they are vitally interested. It means everything to them. While the town is small, the people who are living there, many of them, have everything that they own and possess in this world located right there. They are looking forward to a time when it will all be swept away. Unless something is done, therefore, every particle of the town of Niobrara will be washed away sooner or later.

There is great fear that this might occur in the coming high water. The last time the Missouri was high, in flood, it moved this bank quite a distance.

I have had this up, and so has Senator Howell, and so has the Congressman from that district, with the department in an endeavor to try to have the department use some of the funds that were appropriated in the river and harbor bill to protect this bank from erosion. The engineers have been up there; they have made a complete survey of it; they have an estimate of the movement of the river over the years that are past, and I think I state it fairly when I state that it is only a question of time, unless something is done, until Niobrara and, of course, valuable land in addition to that-I am not speaking so much of that, because it means the homes of these people and it means the destruction of the town-will be carried away.

The War Department has not felt that under any appropriation that has been made in the river and harbor bill they were justified in using any of the money for the purpose of saving this town. I think they have failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation. But I am not complaining. They are probably right in their construction of the law. I asked the engineers to help me and suggest to me what I could do in order to get speedy action on the matter. We are afraid to let it run even a year. After consultation with the officials, I reached the conclusion that there was only one thing I could dothat in order to have them do anything I must get an authorization. 34281-29-2

It is doubtful whether under the ordinary river and harbor appro priation bill they could give us this money, because this stretch of the river has never been by law adopted as a part of the navigation of that stream.

Senator FLETCHER. What is the depth of the river up there?

Senator NORRIS. It is deep. It is navigable away beyond this: but in the law we have never gone up that far with the navigation of the Missouri River.

Senator FLETCHER. Do you have boats on it there at all?

Senator NORRIS. Oh, yes; there are some boats there.

Senator MCMASTER. Some miles north of Niobrara there is navigation-to Denmark, and up there.

I am

Senator NORRIS. There is navigation for hundreds of miles beyond this; and there is no question-and I think the War Department and all agree to that-but what this stretch of the river will be taken in as a part of the navigable stream. But it has not been done yet. Senator FLETCHER. What is the width of the river there? trying to get at about the size of it. That varies, of course. Senator NORRIS. Yes; that varies very much. I was up there to look this over since Congress adjourned, last session, and I think when I was there that it was in September, and the river was about a half a mile wide, and quite deep. There was not any question about it being navigable there at that time. I suppose there would have to be means lower down taken into consideration to make it navigable. Senator FLETCHER. There are seasons when it falls and it becomes very much smaller.

Senator NORRIS. Very much smaller, I think.

Senator RANSDELL. If the caving is allowed to go on there, would not the sediment fill up below, probably, and interfere with navigation lower down?

Senator NORRIS. I think that as a matter of fact this soil from South Dakota that is caving into the river there at Niobrara is later taken out away down the Mississippi, at a big expense to the Government. While I am not as well posted as some of you gentlemen, particularly Senator Ransdell, I believe it is conceded that the silt that it is necessary to take out with dredges lower down in the Mississippi River unquestionably, a great portion of it at least, comes not only from here, but from two or three hundred miles farther north.

Senator RANSDELL. It comes out of the Missouri River; from just what part we do not know, but certainly farther up.

Senator NORRIS. I think the engineers would agree to that proposition, even if it was never made a part of the navigable river by law, it would be a financial saving, I think, to protect these banks from falling in, and save the expense of taking that material out lower down.

Senator RANSDELL. You are right. If we could make the banks permanent all the way up, we would save an enormous annual expense.

Senator NORRIS. And you would contribute more to the navigability of the Mississippi River than by any other step you could take. Senator RANSDELL. I believe you are right.

Senator SACKETT. Has anything been done there?

Senator NORRIS. By private parties, some. Senator SACKETT. Not by the Government? Senator NORRIS. No. At the point on the lower side where the river comes down and strikes the bank it is near a railroad bridge, and the railroad company on that side of the river there has done some work. I was there and looked at it, and I am not an expert at it, and I would not be able to give you an idea of what they have done, but they have put in a lot of willows and a lot of rocks and things there, to save their bridge. It will eventually destroy the railroad property, of course, as well as the town itself.

Senator RANSDELL. What are the property interests involved, if you have ever had any estimates made of that, that we would save if we should save that town and do the work you contemplate; I means land and houses and everything that would be saved by the work you contemplate?

Senator NORRIS. You would save the town itself, to begin with. It is a town of between 700 and 1,000 people, rather an enterprising town, with brick buildings, no pavement, although the streets are graveled; lying on the first bottom on a perfectly level stretch of land, and the land back of the town and below the town is all of that kind of land; river-bottom land. It is the finest hay country in the world, Senator; I think that is conceded.

Senator TYSON. Have you any idea what the assessed value of the property in the town is?

Senator NORRIS. No; I am sorry I can not give you that.

Senator RANSDELL. It is a great deal more than the amount this bill calls for; several times as much?

Senator NORRIS. Oh, yes, Senator; it will run up probably into the millions. You can form an idea of a town of that size, the ordinary town you would find anywhere.

As I said, it is an old town, so that it is not a mushroom proposition. It is in an old settled-up country.

Senator FLETCHER. Is this a new development there, or has this been going on for years-this gradual encroachment of the river?

Senator NORRIS. There are changes of the river there that have been going on for several years. The War Department has shown. me maps showing where the river was at other times, but I am not familiar with its history.

The recent happening, a year ago when they had very high water, was what frightened the people there, when they thought they had about reached the time when the town was going to be destroyed.

Senator FLETCHER. Was that very large encroachment one season, this last flood?

Senator NORRIS. Yes. I am sorry I can not tell you how much it encroached, but there was a very considerable movement there in one season. I have talked with all the business men there, and I think the feeling is rather general that if they had another season like that, one season might do it. That is the reason they were so anxious that we should not wait for the river and harbor bill, with the idea of getting something in that.

Senator FLETCHER. If you protect the banks of the river and prevent the banks from washing away by revetment work, would that prevent this river bottom from being overflowed in case of a flood?