Mr. STONE. All right. Let us take New Orleans and the whole proposition, the whole bank system, including revetment, and go up the line. The Chief of Engineers provides $110,000,000 for bank revetment, and the Mississippi River Commission $165,000,000. There is a difference of $55,000,000 on that. Bank revetment is conceded to be one of the outstanding, essential features of any scheme of flood control, and for this reason: The figures show that we have expended about $229,000,000 on levee construction, from Cairo to the Gulf, since 1882. You have about 450,000,000 to 500,000,000 cubic yards of dirt standing in your levees to-day, included in about 1,800 miles, taking both sides of the river. The replacement cost of that much dirt would be in the neighborhood of $115,000,000. This means that you have more than $100,000,000 unaccounted for. Where has it gone? It has caved into the river and gone out into the ocean. To replace this absolute loss it would take $100,000,000 and more. Take the district in which I live. We have 196 miles of levee standing to-day, as against more than 200 miles caved into the river. This is just one district. We talk about this being a business government, with a practical administration of affairs. There is no sense in building a levee line and letting it alone. There is temporary protection, of course, but as a business proposition we should protect the control works which we put up, just as you protect your harbor works or any other character of public works.

Senator RANSDELL. Is not that essential to navigation as well as to floods?

Mr. STONE. Yes, for the reason that you are bound to preserve the stability of your banks in order to preserve your channel stabilization. That is your low-water proposition. Your levees take care of it in flood time. Your bank revetment takes care of it in lowwater stage. And right here it occurs to me to mention a peculiarly erroneous idea which I find prevalent in a great many quarters: That is that this Delta area is below the flow line of the river. Why, we are not concerned about levees except during two or three months in the year. Some years we do not know that the Mississippi is 1 there, because in periods of normal water we do not have to depend on levees at all. The area in which I live is 98 feet above the Gulf of Mexico and from that it goes to 210 feet. We have a variation in elevation of 100 feet through that area. In short, we permanently develop the country, and out of that development we contribute permanently to the national wealth; all we ask is temporary protection during periods of flood when the rest of the Nation, or at least 42 per cent of the national domain is pouring its water down upon us. We ask to be protected only against national floods.

The Chief of Engineers provides for levees on the main river $131,900,000, while the Mississippi River Commission provides $326,500,000, a difference there of $194,600,000.

For tributary levees the Chief of Engineers provides nothing whatever, while the Mississippi River Commission provides $73,000,000. There is a difference of $73,000,000 on that item. In that connection I call the attention of the committee to the flood control act of March 1, 1917, and to the amendment of 1923. The amendment of 1923 specifically extended the jurisdiction of the Mississippi River Commission to the tributaries, in so far as they were affected by the flood waters of the main river. In other words, you can not escape the fact that here is already a national obligation recognized

and accepted as such. The main levees above Cape Girardeau the Mississippi River Commission proposes to protect and also to protect that area up there. It is its duty under the law to protect it, and the Mississippi River Commission provides for that item $10,500,000.

The Jadwin plan provides nothing at all. Of course, in that case the Chief of Engineers has the advantage of technical position. I am not criticizing him at all, but he submits a plan and omits from it any feature that he wants to omit. The Mississippi River Commission is an institution, in operation since 1879, with established responsibilities, definitely fixed which it can not ignore. In other words, there are 450 miles of levee above Cape Girardeau, placed under the commission by law, and for which the commission provides $10,000,000, as against nothing in the Jadwin plan. When it comes to the Boeuf Basin flood way, the Chief of Engineers provides $7,700,000 and the commission $107,000,000. There is a difference of practically $100,000,000 in that one item alone. There is nothing allowed for the taking of the land in the Jadwin plan, while there is $91,000,000 in the other.

In reference to the treatment below Old River, the Jadwin plan allows $29,900,000 for the Atchafalaya flood way and $8,200,000 for the Bonnet Carre spillway. The commission allows for the Atchafalaya flood way, $52,500,000, and it takes care of the Bonnet Carre spillway with $11,500,000. For the Caernarvon spillway the Chief of Engineers allows nothing, while the commission allows $10,000,000. This spillway, however, will not be used. When it comes to miscellaneous items-dredging, surveys, auxiliary levees, etc.-there is a total difference of about $25,000,000 in favor of the commission's estimate; that is, the commission allows that much more than the Chief of Engineers allows. When you come to the totals, the Chief of Engineers allows $296,400,000 while the commission estimate amounts to $775,000,000, a total difference of $478,600,000.

Out of the total of $296,400,000, the Chief of Engineers proposes to allocate a total cost of $37,200,000 to the local territory, on a 20 per cent basis. This is entirely misleading, because the 20 per cent applies only to levee construction and certain other minor features. In addition to that, the flood ways and the spillways and the maintenance cost would have to be charged. In other words, when you get through with it, you would have either a 50-50 proposition, or something like a 60-40 proposition, instead of a 20-80 proposition. Senator RANSDELL. I see that you have a document in your hand there, Mr. Stone, to which you have been referring. What is that? Mr. STONE. This is a comparison of the flood-control plans prepared by the president of the Mississippi River Commission and the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, and dated January 9, 1928.

Senator RANSDELL. I would like to have it go in with your testimony.

Mr. STONE. Very well.

Senator WILLIS. Who prepared that document?

Mr. STONE. The president of the Mississipi River Commission and the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army. Senator WILLIS. It may go in as a part of your remarks. (The document referred to is as follows:)

[House Committee Document No. 8, Seventieth Congress, first session]

COMPARISON OF FLOOD-CONTROL PLANS, PREPARED BY PRESIDENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION AND CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY

Comparison of estimate of $296,400,000 by the Chief of Engineers with that of $775,000,000 by the Mississippi River Commission for its so-called comprehensive plan, with comments

Comments.-The Chief of Engineers allows for a levee system "slightly above" the grade of the maximum flood and counts on spilling a superflood into the lower ends of basins and through flood ways and spillways. The commission allowed, as a factor of safety against a superflood, a 5-foot freeboard. The probable result of the physical and economical study recommended will be something between the two. Let it not be overlooked that added levee height means added at the base. Tributary levees.

Comments.-The Chief of Engineers allowed for no levees on tributaries, on the ground that a study of the tributaries, with a view to flood control power development and navigation, has been ordered by Congress under the Engineer Department. Since Congress has specifically placed all tributaries below Rock Island (so far as affected by floods in the main rivers) under the jurisdiction of the Mississippi River Commission, the commission could not eliminate these items.

Main River levees above Cape Girardeau.

Comments. This 450 miles of river has been placed specifically under the commission for flood control and could not be ignored, in its estimate. Boeuf Basin flood way.

Comments.-The Chief of Engineers allowed nothing for damages, on two grounds: (a) That the residents and landowners will not be flooded any more frequently than they will if given no further protection. (b) That since this was originally flooded country, an easement for flowage is implied. The commission takes the ground that private property can not be taken or damaged without someone having to pay for it; that the people on one side of the river can not be supposed to suffer for the benefit of people on the other side (generally in another State) without compensation; and that no economic comparison can be made between different methods of treating floods, unless all damages (whether borne by the individual, the State, or the United States) are charged to each method. Since the people of one State must suffer for the protection of those of another State, no way could be seen except for the United States to pay the damages. The commission therefore included the following items: Flowage rights, easements, clearing, etc., $36,000,000; railway trestle or embankment, $7,800,000; highway trestle or embankment, $3,900,000; and drainage, $4,600,000. These will account for a difference of $52,300,000. The Chief of Engineers provides for an automatic crevasse at the head, while the commission provided for a $9,000,000 spillway. The Chief of Engineers provided for a much reduced levee section at 25 cents per cubic yard, while the commission provided for a full-section levee at 30 cents per cubic yard. The commission's plan called for more confinement, thus reducing the area flooded, while the Chief of Engineers made more use of natural ridges in lieu of levees. Treatment, except levees, below Old River:

Atchafalaya flood way.
Bonnet Carre spillway.
Caernarvon spillway..

Comments.-The Chief of Engineers did not allow for damages and the commission did. The commission adopted the plans of the spillway board, which had been working for a year on treatment below Red River, while the commission had less than 5 months to treat the whole subject. The commission added $4,500,000 for revetment on the Atchafalaya. The Chief of Engineers eliminated the Caernarvon spillway. The commission felt that it wanted to study that spillway before eliminating it entirely. Miscellaneous:

Dredging..

Surveys, investigations, and overhead.
Auxiliary levees.

Total..

General comments.-The commission's estimate for its comprehensive plan was an outside figure of what it would, if required to state the full project at this time, include in such an estimate. It did not recommend its adoption, but recommended that further studies (physical and economic) be made before determining what the ultimate plan should be. It expected such studies to reduce its figures. Meantime it recommended for adoption a lesser plan, which would allow the work to go on and would have three prime advantages:

(a) It would give greatly increased protection to the Delta Basins.

(b) It would be a logical complete unit in itself if further protection were found unfeasible.

(c) It would lend itself to becoming a part of any further protection which might prove to be warranted and be undertaken.

REPORT ON SPILLWAYS AND FLOOD WAYS BELOW POINT BREEZE, SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS BY THE SPILLWAY. BOARD APPOINTED BY THE WAR DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURVEY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACT OF CONGRESSBELOW OLD RIVER ONLY

Comprehensive plan expects 2,750,000 second-feet inflow at Old River. This is provided for as follows:

Storage..

Atchafalaya
Floodway.

Mississippi.

Second-feet

One million six hundred and fifty thousand second-feet goes down Mississippi; 250,000 is taken out at Bonnet Carre, leaving 1,400,000 to go by New Orleans. Spillway at Caernarvon takes out 250,000 second-feet, and pulls 1,400,000 past New Orleans fast enough to keep Carrollton gauge below 20. Levees to have 3-foot freeboard.

Curtailed plan omits Caernarvon spillway and reduces levee raising on Mississippi. It provides for a lesser flood-1927 flood with 3-foot freeboard.

Comprehensive plan contemplates no levees at head of Atchafalaya flood way. Curtailed plan contemplates levees for a time at the head of flood way.

The above estimates assume that local interests bear the costs of rights of way, direct or indirect damages, railroad and highway changes and drainage. No distribution of construction costs given.

REPORT ON GENERAL PLAN, SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS BY MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION IN COMPLIANCE WITH REQUEST MADE BY HIM: ROCK ISLAND TO GULF, PLUS SOME TRIBUTARY WORKS

Mississippi River Commission report outlines a comprehensive plan for taking care of $2,250,000 second-feet at Cairo (651⁄2 feet). By inference this is for 2,850,000 second-feet at Arkansas City (741⁄2 feet), and 2,650,000 second-feet at Old River.

The map shows the part below Old River to be the same as spillway board plan. From Old River to the Arkansas the plan diverts 600,000 second-feet through Boeuf River bottom.

Above the Arkansas the water is taken care of by levees only or studies are to develop by-passes.

Estimates include tributaries.

Comprehensive plan contemplates 5-foot freeboard for levees.

Curtailed plan omits Caernarvon spillway, but has Bonnet Carre spillway and flood ways same as comprehensive plan.

Levee estimates of comprehensive plan are reduced; therefore a lesser flood is to be provided for.

The Mississippi River Commission report gives estimates of cost based upon ocal cooperation as outlined in paragraphs 356-359, inclusive. These pararaphs favor a considerable measure of cooperation but do not specify the total mount. The commission elaborates its views on this subject in paragraphs 51-366. The estimates as shown include about $90,000,000 for rights of way nd other damages.