Lieutenant Colonel ROBB. Yes, sir; they have had a few ice jams on the river occasionally, at various places, mostly, I believe, above Sunbury.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any houses to be moved, and what is the character of the land down along the river bank?

Lieutenant Colonel ROBB. The land along the river bank is a little higher than it is in the center of the town. There is a sort of swale that goes right through the town from north to south, so that a good bit of the business part of the whole town is right in this low area, and a lot of water was there, about 10 or 15 feet high in that part of the town during the flood.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the character of the terrain on which you are to build this prospective wall or levee?

Lieutenant Colonel ROBB. Some of it high bank, but we have to cross this low swale on the north and the south end of the town.

The CHAIRMAN. It occurred to me that if you have a town that is pretty well populated it would cost a little more than $50,000 to provide this land and these easements.

Lieutenant Colonel ROBB. I do not know all the details of the rights-of-way, but I believe the city owns a great deal of that land, and some of the right-of-way, and also some waste land on the north side.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you save the Government money by going back higher and putting up your structures there? Is that practical? Lieutenant Colonel ROBB. I do not believe we could; no sir. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Who is the next witness?

Mr. FENTON. I would like to introduce the mayor of Sunbury, Hon. Morris R. Michaels.

STATEMENT OF HON. MORRIS R. MICHAELS, MAYOR, SUNBURY, PA.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your name?

Mr. MICHAELS. Morris R. Michaels.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mayor, you understand the project we have under consideration?

Mr. MICHAELS. Why, yes; I understand it. I am more or less here in the interest of the people of Sunbury, because we know what the flood of 1936 did.

The CHAIRMAN. What damages did your town sustain? What do you estimate the damage was?

Mr. MICHAELS. The estimated damage to property from a survey by the chamber of commerce-I believe they arrived at a figure of about $4,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Damage to Sunbury?

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes, sir; to Sunbury.

The CHAIRMAN. What were the principal items of damage in the flood of 1936?

Mr. MICHAELS. That was the business and residential homes.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean through tearing up streets and destroying homes?

Mr. MICHAELS. About 76 percent of the area was flooded, and in that 76 percent was practically all of the business district.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Mr. MICHAELS. And the current was so bad that it took out all of these store windows and took off merchandise with it.

The CHAIRMAN. That was quite serious, I am sure.

Mr. MICHAELS. And then, you see, the homes were affected in the same way.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MICHAELS. Some of those homes had water in the second story, you might say.

The CHAIRMAN. How about the schools, the post office, and other public buildings and property?

Mr. MICHAELS. The post office is located in the flood area, yes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further statement that you care to submit with respect to this project?

Mr. MICHAELS. I do not have any statement because I am just here to make it known that we have accepted the plans of the engineers and we are working under their recommendations. The city council has gone on record to provide all lands, damages, and rights-of-way. The CHAIRMAN. When was the previous high flood besides this last flood at Sunbury?

Mr. MICHAELS. Previous to 1936?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MICHAELS. I think that goes back to any great damage, to 1889, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. At the same time Johnstown had a flood?

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And that break in their levee and destruction there cost 3,000 or 4,000 lives?

Mr. MICHAELS. That is right, and also in 1863 I believe they had a flood.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not remember that?

Mr. MICHAELS. No, sir, I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. But that was a major flood?

Mr. MICHAELS. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Is your community largely industrial?

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes, sir; it is. Of course, at that time our most important industries were also in the flood area, in 1936.

The CHAIRMAN. What has happened to them since?

Mr. MICHAELS. Well, the most important industries, of course, closed after the flood of 1936. It was the Sunbury converting works. They are now back again, but under new management, and the Susquehanna silk mill was also affected by the 1936 flood, although they did not close.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a converting works and a silk mill What are the other types of industry there?

Mr. MICHAELS. We have a shirt factory there which is quite large, and, really, that is about all we have, is the converting works and the silk mill.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your hinterland? Is that farming, or mining, or what?

Mr. MICHAELS. Around Sunbury it is mostly farming.

The CHAIRMAN. It is mostly farming around Sunbury?

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How far are you above by river from the Conowingo Dam?

Mr. MICHAELS. I could not state just how far it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any other dams or reservoirs across the Susquehanna River between Sunbury and Conowingo?

Mr. MICHAELS. No, sir; not that I know of. The closest dam, I believe, is Walter Haven.

The CHAIRMAN. After the flood of 1889 did your people spend any money in building levees? You see, a lot of people became flood conscious after these big floods of 1936 that were not so conscious prior to 1936 when other areas were spending large amounts to protect themselves. I am just asking you what your people have done up there. What have you done to protect yourselves?

Mr. MICHAELS. Well, after 1936 we took what you might call the low part of the Susquehanna River and built a dike there about 700 feet in length.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MICHAELS. That is the only flood work we did since 1936. The CHAIRMAN. You did that out of your own pockets?

Mr. MICHAELS. We did that by W. P. A.

The CHAIRMAN. W. P. A. in Washington?

Mr. MICHAELS. By W. P. A. assistance.

The CHAIRMAN. I said, "What have you done to protect yourselves to 1936?"

Mr. MICHAELS. Prior to 1936 there was no flood work that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. You did some bank paving there?

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes, sir; we did some bank paving along the river front, improved the river-bank property the entire length of the city.

The CHAIRMAN. The entire length of the city?

Mr. MICHAELS. Yes; the entire length of the city. It is more or less of an improvement, but not raising the river bank to any extent. The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have your statement, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Fenton, we will continue with any other witnesses you desire to present.

Mr. FENTON. Mr. Beck.

STATEMENT OF B. A. BECK, SUNBURY, PA.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your occupation?

Mr. BECK. Manager of the Sunbury Daily Item, a newspaper. The CHAIRMAN. You are a newspaper man?

Mr. BECK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Have a seat, then. You understand the project we have under consideration?

Mr. BECK. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have any statement, sir, you care to submit to the committee.

Mr. BECK. The only thing I want to impress the committee with is the fact that the city of Sunbury is at the junction of the north and west branches of the Susquehanna River, and each one of them is an important river in itself. We are almost in the identical situation with Cairo. Cairo is at the junction of two big rivers. The west branch of the Susquehanna River is 240 miles long. I think

many people do not understand that. The north branch of the Susquehanna River is 150 miles long. They both meet at Sunbury. In the spring when the break-up comes and one branch comes down a week or two ahead of the other we have no trouble at all, but if they both come down simultaneously, as they did in 1936, we can only bow our heads and go under. In 1936 our town was submerged and three-quarters of the town was under water. Our biggest problem was to evacuate the people from the town and to get them to the hilly sections.

Every business establishment of the town, and I am talking about the retail and factory element, was under water to an extent ranging from 3 to 12 feet. In the business section everybody was on the second floor, and as Mr. Michaels has explained, the plate glass over town was all gone. In fact, the plate glass manufacturers made money in there after the flood and sold plate glass like hot cakes. I do not want to stress too much our losses, because I made an estimate of it, but I know in our business, only a little newspaper, it cost us $9,000 for just a little newspaper office to get back on our feet.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the confluence of those two branches of the river in the city or above the city?

Mr. BECK. It is practically above the city, not more than half a mile above the city.

The CHAIRMAN. You are somewhat like Cairo and Pittsburgh where the Alleghany and the Monongahela and the Ohio and the Mississippi come together at those places?

Mr. BECK. That is correct; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. As a citizen you understand that this project is going to cost something like $1,900,000, approximately $2,000,000, to the Federal Government, and approximately $50,000 to the local interests?

Mr. BECK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, as a citizen of Pennsylvania and of the United States of America, do you feel that this project is justified economically and that similar projects in similar areas would be justified wherever floods have occurred in the country?

Mr. BECK. I feel that they are justified, Mr. Chairman, if it is the only way, but there has been some reasonable doubt in my mind. as to whether there could not be reservoirs and impounding dams in the upper regions to cut down the necessity for these terrific embankments, but that is a thing for the engineers and not for us to decide. The CHAIRMAN. Assuming that this solution of your flood problem is sound from an engineering standpoint and is more economical than reservoirs farther up above along the streams, and assuming that reservoirs would cost that much or more, or that any other modified solution would cost the amount of the estimated costs here or more, do you believe that that work is economically justified to protect you and other cities and municipalities of similar size with similar improvements?

Mr. BECK. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the assessed valuation of the property of your city?

Mr. BECK. $6,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Government would be called upon here to spend about $2,000,000 to protect $6,000,000 worth of property.

Mr. MICHAELS. Mr. Chairman, it is assessed at $6,000,000, but we assess it on the basis of 33% percent.

The CHAIRMAN. I imagined you did. I thought you citizens would look after this.

Mr. BECK. You spoke of the cost to the city there in land damages and easements. Most of the embankments are built across swales and are to be on absolutely waste land.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BECK. The southern part of the area is bordered by Shamokin Creek. The creeks come from a coal region and contain refuse from the coal fields. The result is the land is practically valueless. In fact, I think it has all been paid for by the coal companies long ago.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have your statement. Are there any other witnesses?

Mr. FENTON. I want to thank you for hearing us, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fenton, we will be very glad to have your statement, if you care to insert one in the record.

As I understand it, now all witnesses from New England and on this project in Pennsylvania who have given us their names or whose Members or Senators have requested you to appear, have testified. We have concluded with all witnesses now except the division and district engineers. Am I correct about that? I think I am correct.

I am going to ask the committee to be in recess until we can get back here, and when we get back we want to recall the district engineer on the New England projects. I have finished substantially with Northampton, and there are five other cities to cover. We want to recall the district engineer on the Sunbury project, and we want to recall the division engineer from New York on the Hoosic project. With the conclusion of their statements our hearings today will conclude. We will be back in about 15 minutes.

(Thereupon, a recess was taken, after which the following occurred :)

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. Will Colonel Bragdon take the stand.

STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN S. BRAGDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT ENGINEER, PROVIDENCE, R. I.-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Bragdon, will you tell us how much money you have expended at Northampton?

Colonel BRAGDON. I have expended at Northampton $793,000. The CHAIRMAN. And you had authorized how much estimated cost?

Colonel BRAGDON. The estimated cost at Northampton was $156,000. The CHAIRMAN. So you spent almost twice as much as was authorized, the estimated cost?

Colonel BRAGDON. Yes, sir. Of course, the authorization, sir, was a round figure for all of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I understand it was a round figure of eleven and a half million dollars. We also had the break-down and that break-down was contained in your report and the break-down for Northampton was $456,000.