PROTECTION OF RESOURCES IN THE UNITED STATES

Mr. KIRWAN. As I said on the floor of Congress, we haven't started to spend what we should to prevent flood losses. With the new building in these areas we now have a serious runoff problem. In 5 minutes that rain is going into a sewer and it is on its way down the river. But 50 years ago, it laid right where it fell. I remember riding that horse and buggy back there 50 years ago. The water was up to the horse's belly. But it seeped down into the ground. It doesn't do that today. We have the same streets in Youngstown that we had 50 years ago but the whole county is a new county now, with many, many homes and roads. Now the water, instead of going right into the underground, is on its way into a sewer in 5 minutes.

Now as I said last year, the only one that seems to be starting out in the proper way to make a new community is near here over in Virginia. The first thing they built was a reservoir to catch the runoff and at the same time provide recreational opportunities. The people living there can go boating and fishing right in their own back yard. Now here is one thing we do not keep in mind: In 1946, the gross national product of the United States was $200 billion. Last year it was $600 billion.

Now, as Senator Kerr said before he died, everything comes from land, wood, and water. And in 20 years the GNP creeped up to $600 billion. Land, wood, and water is basic to this development. Here 1 year after the World War, 1946, the gross national product was only $200 billion. I again repeat, last year it was $600 billion and public works expenditures to provide flood control, navigation, power, and recreational facilities are essential to our economic development. Just look at the recent development in recreational boating alone and what it has meant to the economy.

In my town, today, there are at least three agencies selling boats. Look at the prosperity that results. The building of boats, the gas, the camping and fishing equipment and everything; 96 million people visited the national parks alone last year. That is where your pros perity comes from.

General GRAHAM. We had 147 million visitors last year

Mr. KIRWAN. Your prosperity starts with our natural resources, not from Ford, not from General Motors where the product is finished. The investment we have made in protecting our resources has come back many times and we should increase our expenditures if we are going to maintain and increase our prosperity.

I am surprised you did not come in for more new starts for flood control and navigation. Take Lock Haven, Pa. Look at that picture of the recent flood with water going in the second floor. Reservoirs and dams would have saved that.

It is that way all over the United States. We have only been talking about the recent Ohio River flood. Just think of what is happening all over America.

We are way behind the times in not having more dams, more dredging of rivers, more of everything. Just what you have completed in the past 10 years is creating $18 billion in new industry on the Ohio River.

How much are you spending, putting in the new locks?

General GRAHAM. When completed that program will cost $1 billion.

Mr. KIRWAN. And yet it is giving rise to $18 billion worth of new industry. It is a good investment. We are shortsighted when we don't make more added provision now for essential water resource development.

I mean that with sincerity. This latest flood taught me a lesson. Life magazine referred to these projects as pork. Only a few of us answered that article on the floor of Congress, but no one is calling it pork barrel now when we have had this $106 million damage on just one portion of America, the Ohio River.

General GRAHAM. This followed only by 12 months another flood that cost $98 million.

Mr. KIRWAN. That's right. We haven't started-I mean that with sincerity to make provision for the way America is developing. Each year our flood losses are going to be greater until we begin to spend the money to build the projects required to provide adequate protection.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Boland.

Mr. BOLAND. Of course, as you indicated, you cannot protect some areas, no matter how much money you spend. This is true on the Ohio River, as it is true in most of the river basins, too. Wouldn't you say this?

General GRAHAM. This is correct, Mr. Boland. We are not always able to justify storage or local protection in order to get a good geographical distribution, and, of course, storms being perverse by nature will tend to hit where we are unable to do anything about them.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS CAPABILITY

Mr. BOLAND. There also is, I suppose, a point at which your abilities would be taxed beyond your capacity to do the job, too, isn't there? I mean the more projects you get to do, doesn't this tax your ability to do them properly and efficiently?

General GRAHAM. I don't believe this, Mr. Boland. Our program has gone up pretty steadily. We have a field organization of 11 divisions and 38 districts which covers the entire country.

Colonel Roper alone had people at 50 different field offices in his Louisville district who were able to go to work during this flood. We have a great capability since we work through the contractor organizations-in fact, our capability is that of the American construction industry. We have a capability for spending, today, probably two or three times what we are actually spending in water resources development.

Mr. BOLAND. Don't you think we ought to do this, then? Don't you think if we moved the program along in the Ohio River, or any other river valley, more rapidly than we are, we will come closer to that day in which we can give adequate flood control in these areas. Is this a fair statement?

General GRAHAM. Yes, sir; it is. We should certainly move the program along. We feel that water resources development has been recognized in this budget albeit that the overall budget has been held steady. After a great deal of consideration over the past several months, we were permitted to show a 5-percent increase in our budget.

32-218-64-pt. 1——4

BUDGET BUREAU ACTIONS

Mr. BOLAND. How much did you ask the Bureau of the Budget for, overall?

General GRAHAM. We went through several sessions, Mr. Boland, several series of meetings with the Bureau of the Budget, and different ceilings were established at different times. The overall amount that was under consideration varied all the way from $1 billion to $1,200 million, and the final figure, of course, in the budget, is $1,151,400,000.

Mr. BOLAND. In your discussion of the budgetary problems with the Bureau of the Budget you actually discussed particular projects with the Bureau? If you do, which agency decides to eliminate what project?

General GRAHAM. We work for the Bureau of the Budget, and of course for the administration, and it is our effort over there in discussing all of these projects to make certain recommendations, to point out the impact and consequences, if those recommendations are not followed, but the final decision, of course, is made by the administration, and their chief advisers are the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. BOLAND. So actually the Bureau of the Budget takes out the projects that it thinks we can do without in fiscal year 1965 or in any fiscal year?

General GRAHAM. Yes, sir. If at any particular point in the discussions the recommendations are greater than the ceiling, their job would then be to decide which projects should be eliminated. Mr. BOLAND. That is all. Thank you.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

LOUISVILLE FLOOD

Mr. BOLAND. I think we ought to commend the Corps of Engineers for the tremendous job they did in the Louisville area during the last flood, and particularly Colonel Roper and the men who stood behind him in preventing a lot more damage to the city of Louisville and the surrounding area.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Whitten.

Mr. WHITTEN. My first observation of the real damage that could be done by flooding was in 1927 when the Mississippi River in the lower reaches went out of bounds. Later I had the job largely of dealing with the appropriation in the Kansas-Missouri flood. There were two different reasons, but in the Kansas-Missouri flood once again attention was called to the fact that most of the damage was to those areas or to those people who had built on the edge of the waterline, so to speak.

I have read the editorial which has been handed to us from the Louisville Courier-Journal and I quote from it:

There can be no doubt that the job of operating Louisville's $29 million flood protection system was handled poorly. Granted that the Ohio River swirled out of its banks with little advance warning. Emergencies, however, seldom give fair warning. And the fact remains that across the river in Jeffersonville and New Albany the floodwalls were buttoned up efficiently and in time.

Not until the Army Corps of Engineers assumed direction of the floodwall operations here was the danger of serious flooding behind the wall averted, and by then waters already had rushed in through the unclosed 10th Street gate and caused damage to business establishments in that area.

Does the Corps of Engineers have any power or reserve any right where you cooperate with cities such as Louisville to have them accede to your warnings, or can any city stand by and ignore your warnings as apparently was done here? Perhaps they did not knowingly do so, but according to the newspaper, at least, they were negligent in not moving earlier. Briefly, what kind of notices do you give in those circumstances and what agreements or arrangements do you have in advance for cities to protect themselves?

General GRAHAM. Generally when we complete construction of a local protection project, and particularly one that requires this coordination of closures, we furnish a complete chart and schedule of the required closures to be made in advance of the flood. That is turned over to the city. We go over that with them to make sure they understand it, because this is not a simple matter. In Louisville there are 85 closures. We go over this chart and schedule with them and from then on it is their responsibility to handle the regular maintenance on that project and to operate it in times of flood; 99 times out of 100 this causes no problem. This is the first really serious incident that we have experienced where the local people, for various reasons, did not get the closures made in time. But since it is a local responsibility our mission, lacking any request by the local people to come in our mission is limited to technical advice and assistance and to move in only if they ask us to take over.

Mr. WHITTEN. I live in a State's rights area-sometimes we seem to forget it but I notice here, quoting from the editorial further:

Mayor Cowger concedes that the city administration miscalculated the seriousness and timing of the threat.

The point I make is that while it might be local in nature, the minute this happens they call out the Army, they call out the National Guard, and then they come to Congress to repair the damage. Is there not some way we could strengthen your hand in a matter of this kind?

General GRAHAM. I could not recommend that any legislation be passed to strengthen our hand. We work closely with the local people and if they need help they come to us, as they did in this instance. Mr. WHITTEN. I am asking you the question. I am not steering your answer. Quoting further:

The planning and zoning commission should adopt zoning restrictions to prevent the building of subdivisions in areas especially prone to flooding; it also should plainly designate other areas, where the threat is not as great but still present as "ponding areas" and have all building permits in these areas so stamped.

Of course that is a local situation, but much of the damage always is to folks that take advantage of the land being less valuable or less costly because it is in that area. I notice here they were turned down in getting building permits stamped with "Flood is a risk" or something of that sort. Do you do anything in the way of recommending to the cities to restrict building beyond where the waterline likely will be-I believe you estimate 5-year floods or 20-year floods or 40-year floods do you give information to the city administration as to where

these water levels are and where the likelihood would be that ensuing floods might cause damage?

FLOOD PLAIN STUDIES

General GRAHAM. Yes, sir. Congress in 1960 passed a law that permitted us to make flood plain information studies, and this program is growing very, very fast and more and more communities realize that the only way to prevent flood damage is to prevent people from building in areas that will be flooded. We have made dozens of these flood plain studies and they will provide the local communities with the hydrological and other information that they need to zone according to their local requirements.

Mr. WHITTEN. Do you believe, in view of the damages of the past, that most local communities will avail themselves of that information and make it available to the people in the area if they do not go further and require that be stamped on zoning permits?

General GRAHAM. They will try, but local considerations will prevent effective zoning in many instances. With the population growth there will be more and more pressure on the lower lands for building and living purposes.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, General.

EFFECTIVENESS OF MISSOURI BASIN PROJECT

Mr. CANNON. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Jensen.

Mr. JENSEN. General, this discussion leads me to comment on the famous Pick-Sloan plan which was instituted by Congress about 20 years ago. Pick and Sloan were two engineers, both of whom I knew. One of them was a member of the Bureau of Reclamation; that was Mr. Sloan. Mr. Pick, of course, was one of your great generals. Before that time floods raged in that great Missouri Valley year after year, causing millions and millions of dollars' worth of damages annually. The Missouri Valley covers about one-sixth of the entire United States in area. Since that time the Congress has authorized and appropriated funds for, I think, 6 dams on the main stem of the river, 4 of them completed and 2 uncompleted as yet but almost completed, and some 40 or 50 dams on the tributaries of the Missouri River; possibly it is more than that at this time.

Now, that dam-building program has eliminated most of the devastating floods in the Missouri Valley. I well remember in 1951 and 1952 when possibly the worst floods occurred on the main stem of the Missouri River. The river was about 10 miles wide from Sioux City to below Kansas City on an average and hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of damage was done to the property.

Mr. CANNON. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. JENSEN. I went home that year while Congress was in session, which is quite unusual, to be there to do what I could in assisting in a small way the Army Engineers and the people in trying to protect the towns along the river. Council Bluffs was threatened. I saw the Army Engineers do what I considered a feat that was almost impossible, bossing the filling of sacks with sand and piling them along