Mr. CROCKFORD. No. 4 is an eroding road bank, very much in need of stabilization. Under present regulations this critical area can be stabilized and the benefits credited to a Public Law 566 project in establishing the benefit-cost ratio. We submit that every effort should be made to stabilize this type of area but that it is not necessarily related to a Public Law 566 project. There may be other such values in need of investigation. In borderline cases, such values may be the deciding factor in establishing a favorable benefit-cost ratio, at a cost of other unevaluated resources.

Mr. CROCKFORD. No. 5 is a view from a flood retarding structure in which the flood plain on the right has been protected and is now used for urban development. The area to the left of the dam indicates no pressing need for living space which would justify such development. (Photograph No. 5 follows:)

Mr. CROCKFORD. No. 6.-This house, and others in this subdivision are built immediately in a former flood plain, made safe by a Public Law 566 small watershed project. This view is from the top of the dam on a flood-retarding structure in this project. We are told that 70 percent of the population now lives in 1 percent of our space. If this is true, no case can be made for the need for such flood protection for future development.

(Photograph No. 6 follows:)

Mr. CROCKFORD. No. 7 is, or was, Lindsey Creek. It is now a concrete ditch, part of a national award winning Public Law 566 project, and the ultimate in stream channel "improvement." Part of the development in this flood plain came before the project; thus justifying the need for flood protection, the rest came later, thus compounding that need. Future needs for flood protection in such a situation can only increase. At a time when open space and green belts are beginning to be appreciated, we believe flood plain zoning to be a far more practical solution to the flood problem. Water rushed through such a "channel" must surely compound flood problems downstream.

(Photograph No. 7 follows:)

Mr. CROCKFORD. No. 8.-Flood retarding structures are built with public moneys and could provide opportunities for public outdoor recreation under existing regulations. However, most revert to the property of the landowner, who can manage them as he sees fit. In computing costs of this project, the value of the land inundated is credited as a "local contribution." However, this impoundment becomes a private lake.

(Photograph No. 8 follows:)