and who would be unhampered by military regulations and restrictions, much can be expected from the commission. The commission's jurisdiction is enlarged in the bill so as to include not only the Mississippi River, but all of its tributaries which produce the floods, and the commission is directed to make studies of all watersheds in the United States producing destructive floods, and to submit such recommendations to Congress as will enable it to provide for the control of the destructive floods on navigable rivers where life and property are endangered. An outstanding criticism of our past and present policy is that we have always awaited a calamity before enacting measures that might have prevented it. This bill directs the commission to make such studies as will enable it to foresee and prevent such catastrophies. There is in the bill no provision for local contribution. There can be none if Congress intends to protect the lives and property of its citizens from these destructive floods. The elemental weakness of the present system, as disclosed by investigations and reports made by the Government agencies, is that the dependence upon local participation has resulted in a weak and unfinished system of levees. I waive the equation of justice entirely and disregard the statement substantiated by incontrovertible proof, that these people have been bled white in paying the bill of the Nation's drainage, and that prostrate and in ruin they are unable to pay any longer. Whatever sentimental impressions such argument may force upon one, and however much injustice is involved in compelling a small section of the Nation to bear the Nation's entire burden, I have not considered that in writing the present bill; but it is unthinkable that any student of our Government will assume that the United States in the discharge of the purely national governmental function of protecting the lives and property of its citizens from destructive flood waters of navigable rivers and promoting the interstate commerce of this Nation, should demand of local communities a part payment of the cost. There is but one governmental theory under which an argument for local participation would be justified, and that is by classing this as a reclamation project; but to do so would be to deny the whole history of the lower Missis sippi Valley where for hundreds of years thousands of acres of fertile lands have been under cultivation. These flood-protection works are not intended or designed to bring a single uncultivated acre of land under cultivation. They are not designed to add a foot to the already cultivated area; as a matter of fact their immediate execution will take out of cultivation some land. They are intended as a protection to the lives and property of those now living there, a protection which the Government owes these citizens from the mad waters of its interstate streams. Hundreds of cities, towns, and villages lie along the banks of the river. These cities have been prosperous except in times of flood for more than a hundred years. Thousands of miles of railroads have been constructed and huge investments in factories and agricultural plants are located in the valley. Certainly these are not to be reclaimed, but it is the Government's duty to protect them from destruction by floods. To reclaim land is to convert into usefulness land not at that time useful. The section with which we are dealing has been a wealth-producing section of this Nation for more than a hundred years, and it is threatened now with absolute destruction unless the Government steps in to control the flood waters of its main river. Senator HARRY B. HAWES, Washington, D. C. THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, DEAR SIR: I telegraphed you on February 5 as follows: "Strongly favor mixed commission for Mississippi work. Probably Missis sippi River Commission with addition of two or three specially qualified men will be satisfactory." I regret that absence from the country delayed my reply, but trust that it may be of some service. I might add to what I have already stated that, while the United States Engineer Corps is made up of very high-grade men, I do not think that the experience of the men and methods of operation are such as to make it the best organization to carry on such a piece of work as that referred to. These men necessarily and properly are shifted about from place to place at intervals of not more than three years, and thus acquire very general experience, and it is experience which is better fitted to the execution of projects than for investiga tion. The job at hand requires first of all a very thorough investigation of many phases of hydraulic engineering and should have employed upon it at least some engineers who have given many years to that particular problem. This would not be true of engineers of the United States Army. The reservoir problem, for example, needs very exhaustive study and should make use of some of the talent that was employed on the Miami conservancy work, where the subjects of rainfall, flood flow, and reservoir effect were studied probably more exhaustively than ever before. While the problem of the Miami River is, of course, very different from the Mississippi, yet if the question of reesrvoirs is to be properly studied, it requires the same sort of thorough investigation that was employed on the Miami. In my opinion, the problem of the Mississippi requires very thorough study from top to bottom, and I should expect the Army engineers not to be inclined to employ the best talent for this purpose. In addition to the foregoing, I have the feeling that better cooperation from other Government departments, such as the Geological Survey, could be secured by a mixed commission organized for the purpose than by the Army engineers. The Geological Survey has done a good deal of work in stream flow investigations, and its help should certainly be called for. There are also a number of practicing civil engineers who have given the subject of flood flow and flood protection a good deal of study, and there should be a more satisfactory avenue of approach to these men than would be likely to be available were the work intrusted to the Army engineers. Hoping these comments may be of some assistance, I am, Yours very truly, F. E. TURNEAURE, Dean College of Mechanics and Engineering. The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn at this point. (Whereupon, at 10 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Thursday, February 9, 1928, at 10 o'clock a. m.) COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE WESLEY L. JONES, Washington, Chairman CHARLES L. McNARY, Oregon. FRANK B. WILLIS, Ohio. HIRAM W. JOHNSON, California. PORTER H. DALE, Vermont ARTHUR R. GOULD, Maine. FREDERIC M. SACKETT, Kentucky. ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, JR., Wisconsin. DUNCAN U. FLETCHER, Florida. FURNIFOLD MCL. SIMMONS, North Carolins, LAWRENCE D. TYSON, Tennessee. II Mez |