Maj. MARKHAM. I could not give you the figure, since the details are operated from St. Louis. I simply know they do operate, and they usually have about $500,000 a year, I think.

Mr. HUSTED. Major, is revetment work indispensable to navigation as it exists on the Mississippi River to-day?

Maj. MARKHAM. I think it is absolutely indispensable.

It is plain, therefore, that whatever revetment work is done in the interest of navigation has a beneficial effect in the control of floods by preventing the levees from caving into the river, and on the other hand revetment work done primarily to prevent levees from caving into the river has a beneficial effect in improving the navigability of the river. By authorizing the work to be prosecuted continuously through a period of five years, with the necessary funds assured in advance, the committee was advised by the commission that a saving would be effected of not less than $5,000,000, the equivalent of $1,000,000 a year. For these reasons it was determined that it was not only in the interest of economy that a provision be made in one bill for both interests, but that it was practically impossible to segregate them. It is the expectation of the committee, and that intention was so explained to the commission, that the work of levee construction should proceed to completion in five years and that for that purpose $6,000,000 a year should be expended out of the appropriations authorized. Revetment work will have to be continued for an indefinite time-in all probability for 20 and maybe for 25 years. The reason for this is that the banks of the river do not cave simultaneously, but erosion will occur in one bend of the river one year and at another point far removed the next year. The commission is of opinion that it would be entirely unscientific, uneconomical, if in fact not impossible, to undertake the treatment of all the bends at a rate of progress greater than that contemplated in this bill.

Recent discoveries of new and more economical methods of revetment, while giving every evidence and warranting strong hope of demonstrated efficiency, promise a very radical reduction in the cost of revetment work heretofore done. It is the opinion of the committee that $3,000,000 a year should be expended for revetment, which, with the $6,000,000 to be expended for levee construction, will make a total annual expenditure of $9,000,000, and this limitation was written in the proviso which appears now at line 11, page 1, in the first draft of the committee print. We were advised, however, that if it were desired that the commission expend as much as $9,000,000 annually, the limit in the law should be raised to $10,000,000, because it would not feel warranted either in arranging to do the full desired quota of revetment or in contracting for the expenditure of the entire amount authorized for levees for fear that some emergency might arise such as a crevasse in the levee line, or an expensive campaign against a flood or some other unforeseen emergency which might require a considerable expenditure, and for that reason if the limitation of $9,000,000 were fixed in the law, the commission would be unwilling to undertake or obligate the Government to expend more than $8,000,000 during any one year. For this reason the limitation was fixed as it appears in the bill at $10,000,000.

One of the most vexing problems on the lower river for many years has been presented by the Atchafalaya Outlet. By divorcing

it from the Mississippi River approximately 1,500,000 acres can be protected from the floods of the Mississippi River, but this will make it necessary to increase the grade and section of the levees along the Mississippi River below that outlet and thereby put an additional burden upon the levee districts thereby affected. There has always been a vigorous protest against this procedure from the city of New Orleans, where the flood height would probably be elevated 2 feet by the closure of the Atchafalaya Outlet. It is, however, very desirable that the question be finally determined and at as early a date as possible. It is known what the cost of this divorcement would be. It is not known what the protection of the 1,500,000 acres above referred to would cost by other means, and in order to arrive at an intelligent conclusion in the matter and make a choice between possible methods the survey provided for in paragraph (a) of section 1 is included.

Heretofore no contribution by local interests has ever been required by Congress. Since 1882 the States and levee boards of the lower river have, nevertheless; contributed toward the construction of levees approximately $90,000,000. Prior to the rivers and harbors act of 1890 no money was appropriated by Congress for the construction of levees in the interest of flood control, but since that date $29,000,000 have been appropriated and expended by the commission in the construction and repair of levees, the main purpose of which was to control floods. From these figures it will be noted that local interests have contributed at the rate of $3 to every $1 provided by the Federal Government. Every method of taxation which the wit of man could conjure up has been resorted to by the levee districts in order to raise this $90,000,000, and it is the opinion of the committee that local interests can not provide a larger sum annually than they are now raising. The present outstanding indebtedness of the levee districts is $20,000,000 in round figures, which carries an interest charge of approximately 6 per cent. All rights of way and damages incident to the location and construction of the levee lines have always been paid for by local interests and must continue to be so paid. Having thrashed that matter out very thoroughly the committee arrived at the conclusion that local interests could not provide more than $2,000,000 annually for actual levee construction. It is estimated by the commission that $40,000,000 will complete the levee line to such grade and section as will insure against floods of the future and it is proposed, therefore, by this bill that the United States contribute $30,000,000 of that amount and that local interests, in addition to the rights of way, damages, etc., contribute $10,000,000, the whole to be expended in five years.

Paragraph C, section 1, extending the jurisdiction of the commission to Rock Island, Ill., has been carried in the last three river and harbor bills and each time approved by the House and is therefore included in this bill.

Line 24, page 3, extends the jurisdiction of the commission to the mouth of the Cache River, on the Ohio River, which is about 3 miles above the city of Cairo, and is affected by the floods of the Mississippi River. A serious situation has arisen there, due to these floods, which in the opinion of the committee ought to be corrected. Section 2 of the bill provides for the control of the floods of the Sacramento River and for "continuing the improvement" thereof,

for the same reasons which compelled the committee to include the general improvement of the Mississippi River. A very full and illuminating supplementary report by Hon. C. F. Curry on the Sacramento River appears further on as Part II of this report and nothing further than a reference thereto is deemed necessary at this point.

Section 3: The Inland Waterways Commission, in its report of February 3, 1908, estimated that there were 77,000,000 acres of overflow land in the United States now unproductive, but which with drainage and protection from overflow will have an exceptionally high agricultural value and which, if divided into 40-acre farms, would furnish homes for some 10,000,000 people.

A delegation from Pittsburgh appeared before the committee recently and detailed in a very interesting hearing the great destruction of property in that city and vicinity by floods from the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers. It was earnestly insisted by them that these floods could be controlled by the construction of reservoirs in the Appalachian Forest Reserve and elsewhere in those watersheds and at a cost well within limits reasonable in view of the damage done.

Prof. W. K. Hatt, of Purdue University, in Bulletin Four of the Indiana Bureau of Legislative Information, says that 467 lives were lost and over $160,000,000 in property destroyed in the United States by the flood of 1913, and that in the single State of Indiana 39 lives were lost and over $25,000,000 of property destroyed.

In view of these facts, section 3 was drafted. It provides agencies in the War Department whereby examinations and surveys may be made hereafter whenever authorized by law, to the end that Congress may be fully advised as to the practicability and desirability of undertaking this great work. All existing laws governing investigations looking to the improvement of the waterways of the country for navigation are by this section made to apply, so far as applicable, to similar examinations in matters relating to flood control, but by the second paragraph on page 7 the scope of these inquiries is broadened and all the scientific bureaus of the various departments of the Government which are engaged in investigations of subjects which are related to and can properly be coordinated with flood control are brought into the work under the Secretary of War. It was not deemed expedient to authorize the Secretary of War, as a matter of right, to detail representatives from other departments, and the provision was therefore guarded by the words (lines 20, 21, 22, p. 7) and the heads of the several departments of the Government may in their discretion, upon the request of the Secretary of War, detail representatives," etc.

In examinations of river and harbor projects under existing law, when a favorable report on the preliminary examination is made, the Secretary of War may direct a detailed survey of the project without further legislative authority. Such surveys are not very expensive, as the investigation relates solely to questions touching the interests of navigation. If, however, the survey is to be of the entire watershed-and this will be necessary when the purpose is to determine the best means for flood control-the expense will be very much greater. The survey of a stream to determine the best means of improving its navigability rarely exceeds $3,000, whereas a survey which contemplates plans for flood control will

cost, perhaps, ten times that amount. For this reason it was thought by the committee to be desirable that the preliminary report should be made to Congress, and that Congress rather than the Secretary of War should determine whether the more expensive surveys should be made. For this reason the proviso beginning at line 2 on page 8 was inserted.

In reporting upon examinations made for the purpose of improving streams for navigation, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is required to state its opinion as to the advisability of adopting the project, and occasionally is called upon also to give its opinion as to what share of the cost should be borne by local interests. The committee believes that this rule should be universal in flood control examinations and has, therefore, included this requirement in the paragraph beginning at line 9, page 8, and has added thereto the further requirement that the board state its opinion as to what Federal interest, if any, is involved in the proposed improvement. While this is not in any sense a question upon which the technical education and training of the engineer would specially qualify him to advise, the committee believes the opinion might in many cases prove helpful. To illustrate this two cases may be cited. After a most thorough, elaborate and detailed examination of the whole watershed of the Sacramento River, it was the opinion of the engineers that the most economical, if not the sole method, of improving the navigation of the Sacramento River and its tributaries was the plan which is provided for in section 2 of this bill and which coordinates in cooperation with the State of California and the various reclamation districts the general plan for flood protection and navigation. One Federal interest very clearly indicated there by the report of the engineers was the improvement of the navigation of the Sacramento River.

The rivers and harbors bill which recently passed the House provided for a survey of the St. Francis River in Missouri and Arkan

sas.

Just what that survey will develop, of course, can not now be stated, but it was claimed in the hearings before that committee that any plan for the proper improvement of that stream would necessarily involve the question of flood control and that more than 50,000 acres of very fertile land belonging to the United States Government, which under present conditions are dedicated to perpetual overflow, would be reclaimed. What the cost of the project will amount to, and whether upon investigation it will be found desirable, are matters that must, of course, be left to the future for determination, but the Federal interest which would certainly be ascertained by the engineers in their investigation and could, therefore, properly be reported upon by them is the fact of the possible reclamation of this public land. Other instances may and doubtless will arise where the engineers can very properly report upon the Federal interests involved.

Under the law as it is now written the Chief of Engineers can not make any additional report on a project after the final report has been made to Congress except upon joint resolution calling for additional information; but the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors may, upon the request of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, report upon any special phases of any pending project upon which that committee may desire further information. The last paragraph on page 8 authorizes similar additional reports touching questions

relating to flood control upon like requests by the Committee on Flood Control.

THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.

The Committee on Flood Control was created by a resolution of the House, adopted on the 3d of February, 1916, and a few days thereafter visited the Mississippi River for the purpose of studying the flood which was then prevailing and on this inspection trip traveled from Cairo to New Orleans. The purpose of the trip was to familiarize the members, by first-hand information and by personal observation and study, with the problem presented by this great flood. After their return to Washington they began hearings which extended through several weeks and which are printed now in the usual form and are available for use by the Members of the House.

The problem of the Mississippi River is almost as old as the Government itself. From the date of the Louisiana Purchase when the river passed in its entirety under the jurisdiction of the United States there has been en insistent demand by the citizens of its valley that the Federal Government lay its hand to the task of solving its duplex, as well as complex, problems. The citizens of the northern valley demanded that the river be improved for the purposes of navigation to the end that their products might pass on it out to the sea and to the markets of the world.

The citizens of the States of the lower valley, in addition to their common interest in the navigation of the river, were faced by another problem presented by its recurring and disastrous floods. As early as 1822 Congress was induced to send a commission of Engineers of the Army to examine the river and report some plan for its improvement. This was followed in time by other engineering commissions, appointed for the same purpose. Notable among these are the examination which is set out in what is commonly known as the Ellet Report in 1850; the report of Humphreys and Abbot in 1861; of Gen. A. A. Humphreys in 1866; the Warren Commission in 1875; and the annual reports of the Mississippi River Commission from 1879 to date. No river perhaps in the world's history has ever been more thoroughly studied than the Mississippi, so that it can be said with some assurance that there are no data desirable or necessary to a complete understanding of its problems or for a formulation of plans for their solution which are not now available.

The watershed of the Mississippi River comprises some 40 per cent of the total area of the United States, and the main trunk south of the Ohio River carries to the sea the accumulated rainfall from 31 States of the Union. It became apparent from this fact early in the history of the Government that the problem of the control of the floods was too comprehensive and altogether too stupendous for local interests to cope with, and appeals began to be made for Federa aid early in the history of the valley's development. The first act which Congress passed in response to these various and ever-increasing demands is popularly known as the swamp and overflow land act of 1850. This was a donation to the several States of the swamp and overflow lands within their respective borders, which were too wet for cultivation, the condition being that the proceeds of their sale should be devoted to the construction of "levees" and "drains.'