In the crop season of 1927 and 1928 it was practically a failure in all of the bottom lands lying contiguous to Rough River because of overflows caused by the conditions above set out; and this year, 1928, many of our farmers planted their crops to have them destroyed the second time, and some of them in desperation planted the third time, but not in time to mature anything before the freeze came. As a result they are now having corn and other food stuffs shipped to them where they use to sell to outsiders. The conditions were so serious here during the year 1928 that the attention of the Red Cross was called to it and they sent representatives here and made surveys and bought thousands of dollars worth of supplies and gave material and much-needed aid to the stricken farmers and families of the lowlands. I am of the opinion that unless something is done toward a systematic flood control that the fertile farming lands along Rough River and its tributaries, constituting at least one-third of the farming lands of Ohio County, would have to be abandoned. There is no sale for any of this land at this time, and I know personally, that all the tenants in my acquaintance are going to the hill lands as fast as they can, and many of the farmers are offering their farms for sale for a great deal less than what they paid for them a few short years ago. Under my supervision as a drainage engineer, between $100,000 and $150,000 have been spent in the last 15 or 20 years in straightening the smaller creeks emptying into Rough River and draining the low bottom lands, and many of the farm lands are under bond for the payment of this work. Unless conditions are relieved in the river these drainage projects will soon be of no avail and their usefulness is already considerably diminished, I trust that you and the committee before whom you go will consider this matter as my sworn statement of facts and conditions as I see them, and I see them through the experience and observation of the last 40 years by direct contact with the people and the land in the area affected. Trusting that you may be able to effect an investigation by the War Department and that the same will lead to relief measures in behalf of our people, and with kindest regards, I am Yours truly, JNO. B. WILSON. HARTFORD, KY., December 19, 1928. Hon. HENRY DEHAVEN MOORMAN, M. C., Room 172, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MOORMAN: I have just read a copy of the letter written you by Judge Wilson on the 18th, and I concur in all that he has said. I was born and raised in Ohio County and have lived practically all my life on Rough River and Caney Creek, one of its tributaries, and for the last 10 years I have lived at Dundee, on Rough River, and I and my brothers own about 800 acres of land, practically all of it in the Rough River bottoms. In the year 1927, we lost over 200 acres of corn and 75 acres of grass. This year, 1928, we had the same loss, or more, on corn and hay and this year the floods in the hot weather period killed the roots of the grass so that it will be necessary to make new meadows. The same condition is true as far up and down the river and on its tributaries as I am acquainted. I have been particularly interested for the last 10 years in the bottom lands of Rough River and its tributaries and the farmers therein, and have assisted what I could, in draining and tiling these farms and have 100 acres of my own land tiled and numerous other farms have tiled and ditched, and I am now drainage commissioner of Ohio County and have under my charge all of the drainage projects in Ohio County, all of which empty into Rough River, except one. Our farmers have spent thousands of dollars in ditching and tiling, all of which will be a loss to the land owners unless the flood conditions can be remedied. It is my best judgment that a very material remedy will be the cleaning out of Rough River from Falls of Rough to its mouth and dredging in places where the banks have caved in, and grubbing the small timber from underneath the banks of the river in many places. The river, as stated by Judge Wilson, is navigable to Hartford, but it has been so neglected that at low water times it would be impossible for a boat or barge of any size to reach Hartford on account of the filling of the creek and the forming of drifts and caves lodging in the creek making, at times, almost an island and "narrows." From Hartford to the Falls of Rough has never been declared navigable that I know of, and to my best knowledge and information it has never been cleaned out. It is impossible to navigate it even with a skiff or dinghy boat, from Hartford to Falls of Rough except when swollen by heavy rains. On an air line from the Falls of Rough to Hartford it is approximately 25 miles, by water-following the various crooks and bends of the river, it will be some 90 to 110 miles. From Hartford to the mouth of the river, approximately 30 miles. The loss for 1928 was so heavy on the bottom lands that it became necessary and the Red Cross took the matter up and donated from $5.000 to $10,000 in seeds, feed, and general relief, and now the farmers that should be selling corn are shipping to Hartford and Dundee, and all other stations in the county, corn and oats by the car load. The same conditions will always exist unless something is done to control the flood conditions in Rough River. It may be necessary in some places, and especially just above the Rough River lock and dam which is about 8 miles from the mouth, to dredge the river some, but in my judgment, the cleaning out of the drift, small timber, and undergrowth, largely willows, underneath the banks of the river will be of very material assistance to our farmers. I am inclosing you part of an old map of Ohio County showing Rough River in the county and the drainage projects entering into it. You may say to your committee that they may consider this statement as my sworn affidavit, and if any further evidence is needed, please wire me, and I will be glad to get it up. Yours truly, J. D. ST. CLAIR, Drainage Commissioner Ohio County, Ky. MUD CREEK, KY. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. MOORE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Mr. MOORE. Gentlemen of the committee, the bill which we have under consideration, No. 15809, provides for an authorization for a survey of Mud Creek and its tributaries in Butler County, Ky., which is located in my district. The territory drained by this stream comprises about 6,000 acres of very valuable land which at one time was in a high state of cultivation. Due to floods and overflows which have occurred in recent years this land has become almost valueless for farming purposes, and the small farmers on it are almost reduced to a state of bankruptcy. They are willing to share the expenses of cleaning out and straightening the stream in order that this land may be properly drained. In fact, they have already taken steps in that direction and have practically exhausted their resources in endeavoring to remedy the situation which exists there. I am in receipt of a petition signed by H. P. McCoy and 59 other landowners residing in that immediate vicinity requesting Congress to pass appropriate legislation authorizing a survey of this stream, having in view the question of preventing future floods. As a part of my statement I desire to attach hereto the reasons set forth by these citizens for requesting the passage of the bill which I have introduced in their behalf. Their statement is as follows: We, the undersigned citizens of Butler County, Ky., and residents living in and affected by drainage project No. 1 in said county and State, of what is known as Mud Creek and tributaries, do hereby most respectfully petition you to introduce and work for the passage of a bill in Congress seeking Government aid for the people affected by the water and drainage of said Mud Creek and its tributaries. We offer for the consideration of Congress, through you, the following reasons and benefits to be derived supporting our contention and petition in the matter, to wit: First, that there are 6,000 acres of low, marshy land subject to overflow and drowning out of crops on a small rainfall. Second, that there has been undertaken a drainage project that is entirely insufficient to bring about the relief sought. Third, that in this body of land there is great native fertility of the soil, if this aid can be accomplished. Fourth, that from the benefits to be derived from the project as it is now planned, considering the cost, the present plan would be almost a failure by taxing the people along this creek and tributaries and not benefiting them enough to enable them to pay their assessments, which will mean that a great proportion of the people will lose their homes, to the great detriment of the social and economic development of this section of the country. Mr. Chairman, I desire to present the following petition for the record: Hon. JOHN W. MOORE, Member of Congress Third District of Kentucky: We, the undersigned citizens of Butler County, Ky., and residents living in and affected by drainage project No. 1 in said county and State, of what is known as Mud Creek and tributaries, do hereby most respectfully petition you to introduce and work for the passage of a bill in Congress seeking Government aid for the people affected by the water and drainage of said Mud Creek and its tributaries. We offer for the consideration of Congress. through you, the following reasons and benefits to be derived, supporting our contention and petition in the matter, to wit: First. That there are 6,000 acres of low, marshy land, subject to overflow and drowning out of crops on a small rainfall. Second. That there has been undertaken a drainage project that is entirely insufficient to bring about the relief sought. Third. That in this body of land there is great native fertility of the soil if this aid can be occomplished. Fourth. That from the benefits to be derived from the project as it is now planned, considering the cost, the present plan would be almost a failure, by taxing the people along this creek and tributaries and not benefiting them enough to enable them to pay their assessments, which will mean that a great proportion of the people will lose their their homes, to the great detriment of the social and economic development of this section of the country. Wherefore, the citizens, as aforestated, pray and ask for an appropriation of $100,000 by Congress of the United States Government. to be spent in the completion of said drainage and to do the additional work necessary to make the project a profitable one, which will greatly relieve burdens of an already overburdened people. H. P. McCoy, W. B. McCoy, J. H. McCoy, W. C. Haws, R. B. McCoy, The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear Mr. Christopherson. MISSOURI RIVER STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. CHRISTOPHERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Mr Chairman and gentlemen, there are two resolutions which are identical-Senate Joint Resolution No. 80, relating to Niobrara, and, second, Joint Resolution No. 91, introduced by Senator McMaster, relating to a project near Yankton. Senator McMaster is present and I would be glad to have you hear from him. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be glad to hear you, Senator. STATEMENT OF HON. W. H. McMASTER, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA Senator MCMASTER. Mr. Chairman, I notice that there are two members of the Senate committee here and I hesitate about reiterating all that was said before the Senate committee on this same proposition. However, I shall be very brief in my statement. The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt you, Senator. We have looked over this bill and are very much in doubt whether this committee has any authority with respect to the bill. It is different from that in the Senate. Senator MCMASTER. With reference to that matter I will say that in the Senate we voted for the flood control bill that carried with it a good many millions of dollars for flood control in the Mississippi River. It is purely a flood-control proposition. There is no destroying of property near Yankton, and no erosion of land except in cases of high-water flood. The principle is identcal with that respecting the Mississippi River, with the only difference that when the Mississippi River overflows its banks ordinarily the water recedes from the land, but when the Missouri River in this particular locality overflows the banks and starts to recede, it takes the land with it. That is the difference in the application of the principle. But the erosion there at the Yankton never occurs except in cases of highwater flood. I can not see the difference between the Mississippi proposition and this proposition. Of course, there is one other matter in connection with this that I would like to call the attention of the committee to, and that is that there is an area along the Missouri River possibly for 100 miles or so, I do not recollect the exact extent, where millions of tons of dirt in flood time in the Missouri River are taken down and deposited in the Mississippi River in the form of silt. Of course, that has to be dredged out again and it costs a good deal more to dredge the material out than to prevent it from going into the river in the first place. In addition to that, at the city of Yankton there is what is known as the Meridian Highway that extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border. At the city of Yankton, in crossing the Missouri River, there was a missing link in that highway, and the citizens of Yankton at a cost of $1,250,000-and it is only a town of 5,000 people-built a bridge to complete that link. The Federal Government has spent many thousands of dollars for the construction of a Federal highway, as have many of the States, and it simply means not only taking away these thousands of valuable acres of farm land but the property which the Government itself has invested will be destroyed, the bridge will be destroyed, and, in my judgment, in a proposition of this kind, the Government is simply protecting its own investment. Mr. Chairman, I do not care to take up any more of your time. If there are any questions to be propounded I shall be glad to answer them. I may say that I have made a full statement with reference to this matter, which I think appears in the Senate hearings. The CHAIRMAN. There is no question of navigation involved; is there? Senator MCMASTER. There is no navigation involved. There will be. The CHAIRMAN. According to the Senate report, filed with the bill, that would appear to be so, and you understand that this committee has no jurisdiction merely to appropriate money to stop erosion. We are very sympathetic with you and want to help, but we have grave doubts as to whether we have the necessary authority. Senator MCMASTER. If any member of this committee will explain to me the difference between this proposition and the Mississippi proposition, then I could be at least in a position to understand the argument that is advanced. The CHAIRMAN. In the first place, there is no project involved here. Senator MCMASTER. Well, there was no project when we voted on the Mississippi flood proposition. You did not make a project until you voted the appropriation for the protection of Mississippi River property. The CHAIRMAN. I think you misunderstand, Senator. There was a project, and that is what the action was based on. We quarreled over it for weeks as to the particular project that we should adopt, and we finally adopted it. I appointed a subcommittee on this subject, consisting of Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Cox, and Mr. Guyer. Mr. SINCLAIR. Mr. Chairman, I will say the subcommittee has never been able to meet. We have discussed the matter informally, but have never had a meeting. Mr. Kopp was to look into the legal phases of it, but has not been able to do so. I regret very much that the committee has not been able to function more ably than it has. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. In reply to the question by the chairman, it seems to me the provision for the creation of this committee is broad enough to cover this very subject. This committee was established in 1916 and has reported no legislation for survey with a view to flood control. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to authorize a survey for you. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. Survey and construction. The CHAIRMAN. We will authorize the construction after we get the survey. Do not misunderstand me. If you are in a position to arrange it in this way we are for it, but up to date we have been unable to see it in any other way than that this bill should properly go to the Committee on Appropriations. There is no project for us to adopt. Mr. Sinclair is familiar with this proposition. Of course we want to do all we can for you. Mr. CHRISTOPHERSON. May I ask if there was a survey of the lower Mississippi suggested before that was adopted? |