Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

The CHAIRMAN. All we want is to find out the actual damages at Chattanooga, just as we have tried to find out at every other place where we have made an authorization.

Major SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Major, what were the flood heights at-what is the town down the river close to the Ohio?

Major SMITH. Paducah?

The CHAIRMAN. No; Johnstown.

Major SMITH. Johnsonville.

The CHAIRMAN. Johnsonville; that is right. It has been a long time since I thought of it.

Now, in 1937, I would like for you to give me the flood heights at Johnsonville, at Chattanooga, and at Knoxville for the peak, and then give me the peak at Johnsonville, Chattanooga, and Knoxville in the 1917 flood.

Major SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you got that?

Major SMITH. I just have it for Chattanooga. I do not have it for Johnsonville. I have those records, but they are not accessible here.

The CHAIRMAN. My reason for asking you that is this, and I will be glad to have the facts developed: I am just going from the recollection of some years, and I wanted them inserted in the record as to the 1937 flood and the year of the previous high flood, 1917.

Major SMITH. That was the previous high stage at Chattanooga;

yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You will find that the gage at Johnsonville and at Chattanooga and at Knoxville was comparable, but in 1937 you will find the gage at Johnsonville was not at all comparable to the comparable gages, if I may use that expression, in 1917, but the gage at Johnsonville was comparably much higher than the gage at Chattanooga and the gage at Knoxville.

Major SMITH. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So that your statement previously made, in 1937 your great flood was along the lower stretches of the river and not up in the upper stretches, is borne out.

Major SMITH. Yes, sir; by the Johnsonville gage.

The CHAIRMAN. When you revise your remarks I think that will further substantiate the statement, and it was not along the Tennessee, and particularly the upper stretches of the Tennessee in 1937. Major SMITH. Yes, sir; that is correct.

(The following was submitted:)

The peak gage heights for the March 1917 flood were: March 5, at Knoxville, 28.2; March 7, at Chattanooga, 47.7; and March 18, at Johnsonville, 38.9. The peak gage heights for the January 1937 flood were: January 4, at Knoxville, 19; January 4, at Chattanooga, 33; and January 26, at Johnsonville, 40.5.

The CHAIRMAN. And I am sure that in all fairness-because I am the friend of the Tennessee Valley and support the Tennessee Valley Authority-but the statement was broadcast at Cincinnati,

the Tennessee at Paducah at the mouth was being overflowed and the Tennessee Valley Authority had protected any overflow. My answer is now there were not any overflows up there, and that is the reason I am asking the question I propound.

Major SMITH. Yes, sir; that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kitchens, do any questions occur to you?

Mr. KITCHENS. Yes. Recurring to your question regarding the possible damage, I have a statement here, and it appears from the statement which will be found on page 5 of the report of the Corps of Engineers, and this is exhibit 1, which is a compilation of legislative acts creating the Chattanooga flood-protection district, that the average annual damage to the area proposed to be protected at Chattanooga amounts to $1,884,000. Is that the report of your Corps of Engineers?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir. But that figure includes the area east of Missionary Ridge. It is $1,838,000 for the portion of the project under consideration.

Mr. KITCHENS. Is there full cooperation between the T. V. A. and the Army engineers in regard to the protection of the Chattanooga and the Rossville area?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. KITCHENS. The engineers and the Tennessee Valley Authority made a survey and reported an extremely hazardous situation in Chattanooga and Rossville, did they not, and urged this protection work?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir; there is such a report.

Mr. KITCHENS. And is your board or the Corps of Engineers and your division or district, rather, also recommending these protective works because of a hazardous situation there?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir; we do. That is the case.

Mr. KITCHENS. And you are satisfied as to the legal status of the Chattanooga flood-protection district and its qualification and authority to cooperate with the Government?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir. We have had certified copies of all of their enabling acts, and their authority is established.

Mr. KITCHENS. And it is your opinion that local protection work for that project for that area is urgent and necessary? Major SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. KITCHENS. I believe that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. We are obliged to you, and we will recall you after the local citizens have testified; and before you retire from the stand, with respect to flood control in that valley and in line with the questions already propounded, there was a fairly good flood in 1927, was there not? You know you told me about 1917.

Major SMITH. In 1927 there was less than 40 feet.

The CHAIRMAN. So 1927 was a good deal less?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir; 1927 was 30.6.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. What was 1937?

Major SMITH. 1937 was 37.1 feet.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you sure about that?

Major SMITH. No, sir. That was 1936.

The CHAIRMAN. Which is it now? I know it is 33, and I know it was not 37. I am asking you again. I just want to be sure.

Major SMITH. Yes, sir; the gage in 1937 was 33 feet, and in 1936 it was 37.1.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us ask you again: Norris Dam, on the Clinch River, and the Wheeler Dam had not been constructed in 1927; that is a fact, is it not?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, in 1927 the gage at Knoxville was 19. In 1937 Norris Dam had been constructed and the gage was 19. There was no dam or reservoir above Knoxville in 1927, and they were the same in those 2 years?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, the Norris Dam is above Knoxville, on the Clinch River?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In 1937 the gage at Chattanooga was 33 feet, as you say?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And, as you say, in 1927 it was 30.6?

Major SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, for the exact gage at Knoxville the exact gage at Chattanooga was substantially the same for those 2 years, notwithstanding the effect of Norris, is not that true? Major SMITH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, at Johnsonville, where the rains were excessive, as you have stated, some 90 miles away from where the Tennessee empties into the Ohio over at Paducah, in both 1927 and 1937 the gage was 40 feet. You figure that out and tell me where the difference comes in. There is no other answer, except the floods were down at Johnsonville, and not up at Chattanooga and Knoxville in 1937.

Major SMITH. Yes, sir; that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. You may stand aside temporarily.

STATEMENT OF HON. ESTES KEFAUVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kefauver, we will be glad to have your statement, and to hear any witnesses you care to present.

Give your name to the reporter, and whom you represent.

Mr. KEFAUVER. My name is Estes Kefauver. I represent the Third District of Tennessee, which embraces Chattanooga.

I want to make a statement on April 1 at the time the other Representatives do, but I want to say that we have recognized for a long time that we have a very hazardous situation in Chattanooga, and it is one which, as I understand it, nobody has ever claimed, not the T. V. A. or anybody else, that the T. V. A. reservoir dams would completely eliminate. They would help considerably, but even after dams above Chattanooga were constructed we were still in a very hazardous situation and would have to have local protection works to protect our city.

Chattanooga is an industrial city, growing very rapidly. The people in Chattanooga and all agencies are very much concerned about this matter. Everybody is together and realizes the agency of protection is needed, and we have a Chattanooga flood-protection

district, which is legally constituted and operating, and which the citizens and people of Chattanooga are supporting fully, and the engineer for the flood-protection district, its former president and now a director, are here to make the detailed statements about the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Any additional statement, Mr. Kefauver, you have to make, we will be glad to hear you, because in this committee in this session it happens you have introduced a bill.

While we will be glad to have your statement subsequently when other Representatives and Senators speak, if you have any more extended statement now you care to make we will be glad to hear you now or later.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Senators McKellar and Stewart and Senators George and Russell want to appear before your committee, Mr. Chairman, on April 1, and so I will wait and make any further statement at that time.

There is one thing I did want to get clarified-maybe I kind of had a misunderstanding about it-and that is whether Colonel Marks, in discussing the projects in the Ohio Valley, was talking about Chattanooga and the Tennessee also; and also some projects were listed, and I did not know whether the gentleman had taken into consideration the Tennessee River and our situation in Chattanooga, in listing the projects, or not.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman who referred to those desirable projects is representing the Ohio Valley and not the Tennessee Valley, and he listed projects up in that valley that he was representing. Chattanooga was not listed, nor was Greenwood, where I live, listed in his projects.

Mr. KEFAUVER. He told me, and I thought the record ought to be clarified, that he did not make any investigation of Chattanooga, and he did not take that into consideration at all on the Tennessee River. The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have you make that statement. How long have you lived in Chattanooga?

Mr. KEFAUVER. I have lived in Chattanooga for 12 years. I have lived near there for 36 years.

The CHAIRMAN. You are thoroughly familiar with the territory? Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes, sir; I am very familiar with it.

The CHAIRMAN. Generally, Mr. Kefauver, in inches or feet or parts. of feet, what has been the flood protection accorded to a given area, whether that be Chattanooga or Knoxville or Iuka, in my State, and when I say "Iuka" I mean the territory around Iuka, because it is not right on the Tennessee River, as the result of the construction of dams so far?

Mr. KEFAUVER. You mean by the Tennessee Valley Authority? The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. KEFAUVER. Of course, all I know about that, as Will Rogers said, is what I have read in the papers, and what I have been told, Mr. Chairman. But it is our understanding generally in Chattanooga the Norris Dam was supposed to have kept the crest of the flood at Chattanooga down between 312 and 4 feet, and that upon completion of the Hiwassee in the north, being two reservoir dams, and upon building further dams, which the T. V. A. itself, I understand, says do not afford very much flood control, that the height of the flood at Chattanooga would be decreased by about 12 to 14 feet.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you get a very marked flood protection as the result of the dams that have been constructed, and it runs away?

Mr. KEFAUVER. You get some, Mr. Chairman; but, of course, taking into consideration what we have had and what we can have in Chattanooga, that is clearly insufficient to afford us flood protection. That has been realized all along.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you care to make any comment on your flood stages in the floods of 1937 and 1927, when the gages were comparable at Knoxville and at Chattanooga, as to whether or not you reduced it 5 feet by the Norris Dam in those circumstances?

Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the technicalities of the matter, or the exact inches or feet.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. KEFAUVER. I do know that at Chattanooga every year there has been a dread of a flood, and a good many years since I have been there a good many streets and industries have had water upon them, and that it has greatly retarded the growth of Chattanooga because of the fear of flood and the actualities of a great many floods.

The CHAIRMAN. Yet you still have it?

Mr. KEFAUVER. Almost every other year, sometimes every year; living on the mountain, where I do, of course, we do not have floods up there, but you can look down, and it looks like two-thirds of the territory down in the city proper is covered with water.

We have Chattanooga Creek, which goes into the river near the heart of Chattanooga, and it backs up and covers a very large territory, as the chairman knows.

The CHAIRMAN. You spoke of this district that had been organized, and, as your statement indicates, is ready to function under your laws? Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What amount of taxes, in the aggregate, have they collected?

Mr. KEFAUVER. I would have to refer that matter to Mr. Fuller, who is here.

The CHAIRMAN. And what amount of taxes have they expended which they collected for flood-control purposes? Do you know? Mr. KEFAUVER. No, sir; I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. KEFAUVER. I did want to say this one thing: Some question has been raised as to what Chattanooga or what the local people have built themselves. I would like to make a statement upon that at this time. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you.

Mr. KEFAUVER. And that is until the Tennessee Valley Authority made its investigation and report, and the Army engineers made their investigation and report we had no factual information upon which to go, or as to what could be done or what might be done to afford Chattanooga protection.

We always felt there on account of streams coming into the city and the tremendously high walls that would have to be built, that until the T. V. A. reservoir dams brought the limit down, that it would be an impossible task for the local community to attempt it, and it would just cost more money than the local community had or could raise in order to build flood walls to protect us against 75 or 76 feet, so that

229579-40-13

« PreviousContinue »