Mr. STEELMAN. Is that $11 million proposed for fiscal 1974, or is that program money for fiscal 1973 ? General KELLY. That is for 1974; 1973 is not much different. A bit lower, but it was quite close, as I recall. Mr. STEELMAN. OK. On a particular project, you are aware, of course, of the outcome of the bond election in Texas with regard to the Trinity Canal project? General KELLY. Yes, sir. Mr. STEELMAN. For the purposes of the record, the local voters turned that project down this last week. A representative of the Ft. Worth district office was quoted last week as saying that the engineering and design would continue regardless of what the voters saidthose are not his words, they are mine-and that the bridge construction would continue. There are 10 or 11 high-level bridges that were proposed for navigation and construction of those bridges would go on and that the engineering and design would go on. Now, does the feeling of the voters in that 17-county affected area not matter to the corps? Does it intend to just continue to fly in the face of public opinion? General KELLY. No, sir. I cannot address the bridge construction part. I do not know the details. On the planning, I would say, yes; it would continue. Basically, our requirements will be for local cooperation. In other words, it will be up to the local area to provide that cooperation. As I understand from what I have seen in the papers, there has been no final determination yet. There has been no firm evaluation that this is the final answer. Obviously, if the local people, or the State, do not provide the local assurances for right-of-way, for maintenance, for their required expenditures, the project will not go forward. Mr. STEELMAN. What could be more final than the democratic test of the local sentiment of a project than the voters having refused to put up the $150 million necessary to match the Federal money? General KELLY. I would say to make that decision today is premature, sir. I am not generally familiar with it but I would presume there would have to be further discussions. If the local interests then say we cannot get the money, I would say, yes; the project would be terminated. But, I am not in a position to evaluate whether that bond vote was the final answer. Mr. STEELMAN. Who are the local interests you are referring to? Is that the people? General KELLY. It would depend on the agency that is willing to act for the State or for the counties. I guess in this case it would be probably the canal authority that has to sign a legal commitment for local expenditures. It would up to them, then, to act in this case. Mr. STEELMAN. Do you intend to continue to appear before the Appropriations Committee-does your agency intend to do so to ask for Federal appropriations for this project, especially in the face of this local expression of sentiment? General KELLY. I am trying to recall the specific timing, sir. I would say that the bond vote is going to have to be a major consideration. But we have not yet gotten an evaluation in from the people in the district, or in the division, as to whether or not this is a final determi nation. There have been reversals of bond issues that failed, and then were successful. I am not holding out that we are going to wait forever, but I would not say the final decision point was precisely the day of the bond vote, as far as we are concerned. Mr. STEELMAN. Well, the voters have decisively determined in that area that they do not want this project. The president of the Trinity River Authority last week said no future referendum was planned, that they would abide by the decision, especially in light of the high turnout and the overwhelming defeat of the project. General KELLY. Sir, without local support that project will not be built. Mr. STEELMAN. And you are still to determine whether or not you will appear before the Appropriations Committee for money? General KELLY. I think that has already been done for fiscal year 1974. I think it is a past action. I think we have just appeared and it has been in the past few weeks that this appearance has occurred, so we would not be due to appear again for a year. Obviously, within that period of time we would have a better evaluation. But, obviously, we will appear again and just precisely what our testimony will be would be based on an evaluation which I just have not been involved. in. I personally have not seen any evaluative report coming in other than from the newspapers which sometimes are not the best basis. Mr. STEELMAN. So, you will depend upon your district office to give you the final word as to the future of the project? General KELLY. No, sir: but I would say the final information would come from them. They are closest to it. The final word is going to come from the people, sir. If they don't support it-if they do not sign the contracts which would be required-the project would not be built. But, I do not think we have a different position. The point I am trying to make is whether or not that act constituted the official determination. I am just not familiar enough with whom the district has been dealing. This project has been developing for many years and I am not sure what the reaction of the local agency is that has been acting with the corps, as the local sponsor. They are the ones who would have to speak for the local people. Mr. STEELMAN. Do you have any meetings planned with your district representatives, or have you communicated with them, asking them to give you an evaluation on when they expect to know? General KELLY. I am sure persons in OCE have. I am not familiar with the case. I can provide that for the record. I have not personally been conscious of it. Mr. STEELMAN. Would you provide for the record, then, any record of communication since March 13 with your district people on what the evaluation is of the future of the project, and whether they intend to continue in the face of the overwhelming rejection of the voters of that project? General KELLY. Yes, sir. I can provide what information we have received and explain where the project stands now. [By letter of March 29, 1973, General Kelly provided the following statement on the current status of the Trinity River, Tex., navigation project:] TRINITY RIVER, TEX., NAVIGATION PROJECT 1. General status.-In accordance with the authorization requirement of the project, a navigation economic restudy (costing $361,000) was completed and presented to Congress in 1968. Preconstruction planning was initiated in fiscal year 1970. Preconstruction planning funds in the amount of $5,227,000 have been appropriated through fiscal year 1973, leaving a balance of $2,973,000 to be appropriated of the approved preconstruction planning estimate of $8,200,000. During fiscal years 1970 and 1971, work efforts were centered on basin mapping, site selection studies, and a public meeting for the proposed Tennessee Colony Lake, and formulation of design criteria. Fiscal year 1972 and fiscal year 1973 planning was largely directed to environmental investigations, public meetings, foundation studies, detailed surveys, interagency coordination, and updated cost estimating, all to be used for an overall report on current project feasibility and a comprehensive environmental impact statement. Eleven contracts totaling $423,000 for environmental and related studies have been awarded to universities and private firms, with nine now complete and two in progress. In fiscal year 1974 planning will continue developing sufficient engineering and environmental data for the preparation of final environmental impact statement and for completion of formulation and economic studies. Preconstruction planning will be approximately 70 percent complete at the end of fiscal year 1974, with the funds requested in the fiscal year 1974 budget. 2. Status of bridge construction.-This project provides for construction of six highway bridges across the Trinity River, which would have been constructeȧ otherwise only to a standard height to pass river flows of a certain specified long term frequency period. Construction to navigation clearance was decided upon to save the Federal Government considerable potential costs by eliminating any need for future raising of those bridges to accommodate the Trinity navigation project. Four of those bridges are now completed; one is under contract for construction; and the sixth one has a signed agreement with the Texas Highway Department. 3. Corps activities in light of the recent bond issue defeat.-There have been no official communications between OCE and the responsible division and district offices since the bond issue was defeated. We think it prudent, however, to carry on to conclusion certain of our studies within the overall planning for the project to answer some of the questions raised in the controversy surrounding the vote. This information would be of value to the Congress, the corps, and the local sponsoring agency, the Trinity River Authority, in making further decisions concerning the future of the project. The Appropriation Committees of Congress are aware of the failure of the bond issue and will undoubtedly take this into account in reaching a decision with respect to appropriation of funds for fiscal year 1974 to continue planning of the Trinity project. Mr. STEELMAN. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FOUNTAIN. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. Mr. FOUNTAIN. I noticed, General Kelly, that on page 4 of your statement you refer to some pilot inventories which are in process or will be taken, and you include North Carolina. Where in North Carolina will it be? General KELLY. Sir, this is the entire State. In effect, it is an atlas. This is a trial format which provides a complete environmental evaluation of the State. To date, it has been very well received by the Federal and State agencies, the people who have reviewed it at the Smithsonian, and others who have been involved with us in this effort. It is a trial program to see just how useful it is to our people in the field, as far as evaluating a project goes. Mr. FOUNTAIN. Thank you, very much. Mr. REUSS. Thank you, Mr. Berg, General Kelly, and Secretary Reed. We appreciate your helping us. We will now hear from the last panel: Mr. Hassell Thigpen, chairman of the board of Edgecombe County Commissioners, Edgecombe County, N.C.; and Mr. George Bagley, vice president of the National Association of Conservation Districts. I am going to ask our distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Fountain, to be good enough to present to the committee Mr. Thigpen. Mr. FOUNTAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and fellow members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to present to this subcommittee one of the witnesses, the chairman of the board of commissioners of my home county, and I think a member of the board of commissioners for some 15 years, Mr. Hassell Thigpen. Mr. Thigpen and I are old friends, and I am glad he has asked for the opportunity of being with us today to give us the benefit of his intimate knowledge of benefits which are provided by channelization in his particular locality as he sees it. Mr. Thigpen has a tremendous knowledge of and experience in the channelization program which affects his particular farm and will, I am certain, provide a valuable input into the record. He is an outstanding farmer. He operates about 800 acres of land according to the best management and conservation practices. His ability and accomplishments have been recognized often and in various ways. In 1971, he was chosen State conservation farmer of the year. He and his family have been named the progressive farmer master farm family of the year. While farming land inherently loaded with conservation problems, Mr. Thigpen has endeavored, I believe, to use the most ecologically and agriculturally sound methods and has made a good living for his family, and many other families at the same time. I think that is quite an accomplishment these days, when despite so much misinformation to the contrary, the farmer is caught in a vicious cost-price squeeze. Mr. Thigpen has been both a member and chairman of his county agricultural stabilization and conservation committee. He has been president of his Ruritan Club; and twice elected president of the North Carolina Foundation Seed Producers. Also, he has been the president of the North Carolina University Agricultural Foundation. He has served on the North Carolina Peanut Growers executive board, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Advisory Committee on Feed Grains and Wheat, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Committee on Oil Seeds and Peanuts; the peanut variety and quality evaluation advisory committee for North Carolina and Virginia. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, there are many other things I could say about Mr. Thigpen, but suffice it to say that he has always sought out every opportunity to be of service to others. And I appreciate his willingness to be here today and to speak to the question. I am delighted to present Mr. Thigpen to the subcommittee. Mr. REUSS. You are most welcome, Mr. Thigpen, and we are delighted to get to know you. Would you now tell us the story of your farm and your watershed. STATEMENT OF HASSELL THIGPEN, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, EDGECOMBE COUNTY, N.C. Mr. THIGPEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I should say at the outset, that I feel somewhat like one of these endangered species. I am really out of my field here. I do appreciate you gentlemen letting me come up and I think I am probably a little unique from what I have heard here this morning, in that I will be talking about something that I live with. It will not cover the United States. It will cover a fairly small section of eastern Carolina. Mr. REUSS. The subcommittee is dedicated to the preservation of endangered species. Mr. THIGPEN. And I would like to say that after all the confusion in the papers and the controversy going on, it is very gratifying for me to sit here and to hear you gentlemen pursuing these matters in the calm way you are, and trying to get facts, and it is a big job. You have a job in front of you. If I might read a few minutes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Hassell Thigpen. I live in the coastal plains of eastern North Carolina, in the Conetoe Creek area of Edgecombe County. Except for some outside activities, mostly in county government, I am a full time farmer, making my living by farming. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today, so that I may attempt to tell you something of the 64,000 acre watershed in which I live. Ours is a channelized area. Nothing new to us. Our fathers and grandfathers channelized the same land before us-using shovels and plows, mules and oxen. They did so in order to grow food and fiber for their own families, and a few other people. Just as a city must have storm sewers, so must we have channels to remove storm water. We must drain our rather flat and low-lying land, prevent severe flooding, improve drainage and help control mosquitoes. Our grandfathers could not feed themselves and their families without drainage, and we today cannot farm efficiently nor profitably without drainage. In fact, we would be out of business. Under Public Law 566, 778.6 miles of channels have been improved in North Carolina. Of this total, 94.4 miles are in the Conetoe Creek system. Of this 94.4 miles, many, many miles are nothing more than onfarm ditches, small field ditches that you can literally jump across. What I am saying is that large portions of channelized projects in our area are not "channels" as the word is used, but are small, shallow drains and ditches. Edgecombe County is still largely an agricultural area, approximately 50 percent black. With shifts to mechanization many people, both white and black, have left farm employment. Our total population is 52,000, over half in towns and small villages. In addition to considerable long established industry, "new" and good industry cooperatively brought into our county employs over 4,200 of our people. We are achieving a healthy balance between industry and agriculture. What does this have to do with channelization? The Conetoe Creek section of Edgecombe County, after hand drainage was no longer practical, and before we had adequate drainage with Public Law 566 |