Now, then, if you take out that item of flood-control benefits, which just has no business in the picture, being the damage to land within the Salem Church Reservoir, it reduces those benefits in the amount of $31,000, making total benefits of $1,284,110; so that the ratio of benefits of costs steps down to about 1.09 or 1.10.

If, then, we put the comparative means of producing power on the same basis by using a 3 percent interest rate for both hydro and steam and, to put them on the same basis, if private taxes be omitted from the steam electric power, just as it has always been omitted from the hydroelectric set-up, the ratio of benefits to costs is brought down to 0.85.

If, then, we step up the benefits because of flood control, that ratio becomes 0.88. I have previously referred to this matter, of stepping up the flood-control benefits, but not the power benefits, by 35 percent, although I would not underwrite that figure.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we understand you on that point.

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. Now as to the effect of the annual load factor: If we assume a load factor of 25 percent-and that is less than the Buggs Island load factor of 38 percent-then, taking into account both the reduction in installed capacity and the cost of that capacity, one arrives at a reduced total annual cost of $1,094,000. On the other hand, the annual value of the reduced capacity results in reducing the average annual benefits to $802,000. Thus the ratio of benefits to costs becomes 0.73.

Now, there ought to be some allowance for high-tension equipment and something for transmission. I have not had the time to go into that. That has an effect on that ratio and the result would be to bring it down. If there were real self-liquidation provided, in addition to an allowance for depreciation reserves, that would have further effect by way of reducing the ratio of benefits to costs.

That, Mr. Chairman, is the result of my economic analysis. I would like to say that I am not against flood control. I believe in it entirely, and the Virginia Electric & Power Co. officials are of the same opinion. The flood control that is involved here can be had by other means. I doubt whether it would result in a favorable ratio of benefits to cost. However, I doubt whether that is a definite barrier in view of the Federal policy-because in any event, in my personal opinion, flood control is a subsidy. That is, those who benefit from flood control pay nothing for it, whereas those who benefit in respect to irrigation, the farmers of the West, do have to pay something for the benefits they receive.

Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Those you have in mind, instead of having to pay for it outside of the reservoirs may have to furnish the easements and right-of-way and works.

Colonel SCHEIDEN HELM. That is quite right. I should have put that in here. Where there are required local protection works, there is required some payment; and that is a very salutary thing. I think it is most unfortunate, from the standpoint of the Federal Government, the Federal Treasury and the Federal taxpayers, that certain requirements of certain local contributions were lifted from the Flood Control Act of 1936.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. I am giving now my personal opinion. I do not believe it would be a practical thing to have the beneficiaries pay the full amount of flood control, but they should pay something, and to that extent you would have less pressure on this Committee and on Congress generally.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions which any members of the committee wish to ask?

Thank you for the testimony.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak at this time?
Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Come forward and give your name for the record and then make your statement.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I am Marshall King, mayor of Fredericksburg.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have you come forward and make any statement you wish on this project on the Rappahannock River and its tributaries. We would be glad to hear what you have to say in response to what has been seen.

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional statement to make, other than those statements I made to the committee at the last hearing, which I understand will be referred to in regard to this project. I would, however, like to present Mr. L. J. Houston, who is the city manager of Fredericksburg.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you, Mr. Houston.

STATEMENT OF L. J. HOUSTON, CITY MANAGER,
FREDERICKSBURG, VA.

The CHAIRMAN. You are the city manager of Fredericksburg?
Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been city manager?
Mr. HOUSTON. I am in my twenty-eighth year.

The CHAIRMAN. You understand the matter that we have under consideration in respect to the Salem Reservoir above Fredericksburg, and you have been in attendance at the hearing today. We would be glad to have any statement; as I understand, you are speaking for the mayor and for the people below the Salem Dam.

Mr. HOUSTON. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to clarify a statement relative to the advantages to Fredericksburg, especially as to damages. At that time there were two reports made on damages. One was collected by the Federal engineers' office and the other collected through the Chamber of Commerce of Fredericksburg. They were entirely independent surveys. The one that was made by the engineers was a house-to-house canvass by the engineers, and the one made through the chamber of commerce on behalf of the city was made on a printed form which was distributed and collected by the chamber. The city had its forms printed and the chamber of commerce was simply cooperating in getting its data. The information that was received from these sheets that were sent out were tabulated by Mr. Bowman, city treasurer; and, as far as I am concerned, I do not think there was any padding in them, and I think they were absolutely correct to the best of our ability.

Mr. JACKSON. I gathered from the statement that there was some exaggeration about the extent of damage done by the flood.

Mr. HOUSTON. If there was any exaggeration, of course, I do not know anything about it. That would have been probably by the individual people who turned in their estimates.

Mr. JACKSON. Do you think when the returns were made by the people, where that information was compiled, that there was no change made and that the returns were from only people who lived in the flooded area?

Mr. HOUSTON. I am certain that only returns from people in the flooded area were used, and they were turned over to the city treasurer; and I am absolutely safe in saying he did not change one figure in it.

Mr. JACKSON. Was there any question raised about it?

Mr. HOUSTON. I never heard about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions by other members of the committee?

I recall the hearings on this subject. I have a very definite impression that the Virginians who appeared here were fair, and that you have given your opinion as to the damages and desires of the people with respect to this project, not only you but the very distinguished mayor of your city and the other witnesses who appeared; that you all gave the impression of being fair and honest in trying to give us facts; just as it seems that those above the Salem Dam have emphasized the damage and have really asked for the dam to be constructed farther up the stream to protect them. That is perfectly fair and natural.

Mr. HOUSTON. Mr. Chairman, we in Fredericksburg have no quarrel with our neighbors up the river. We would be delighted to see them get ample food protection up there, but we do not-in fact, we hope that they won't stand in the way of Fredericksburg getting its protection.

Mr. JACKSON. In your opinion those figures were correct in the estimates?

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir; and I might add to it that after the two separate surveys were independently completed and totaled, the total on each one was very close to the other.

Mr. JACKSON. There was not much discrepancy?

Mr. HOUSTON. No. There is another point I would like to clear up, and that is the statement that there was no flood damage in the socalled Kenmore Valley of Fredericksburg; that is, west of Fredericksburg we have a valley which goes down, which was formerly a part of the old river bed. We had elevations in that valley, or Kenmore Avenue, that run down to around 40.5 feet above sea level. Now the flood itself in the river was 42.2, and I do not think there is any question but what anybody can see there was damage over there, and I have prepared a map here, that is all colored up, a map which came from the engineers' office which shows it, and I would be very glad to leave it.

The CHAIRMAN. It shows what?

Mr. HOUSTON. This map shows the flooded areas. Here [indicating] is Fredericksburg. The blue [indicating] is the elevation of the river at the 1942 flood, and this [indicating] is Kenmore Valley, and this is Kenmore Avenue.

Mr. JACKSON. What is the yellow?

Mr. HOUSTON. The yellow is the area in Fredericksburg flooded when the river went up to 200,000 cubic feet a second. This blue shows the area inundated by the river at 140,000 cubic feet a second. Mr. JACKSON. What is the red?

Mr. HOUSTON. The red represents the area of the city inundated by 75,000 cubic feet a second, at which they hope to hold the river when that dam is completed. In other words, when the dam is completed, when a 200,000-cubic-foot-a-second flood occurs, the dam would hold the water to the line which you see [indicating] and would cause very little damage there.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything on the map to indicate the flood you had before 1942?

Mr. HOUSTON. This is the 1942 flood.

The CHAIRMAN. The blue is the 1942 flood?

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir; that is the blue. It includes the red and the blue.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is the green?

Mr. HOUSTON. The green-this is all the same.

The CHAIRMAN. The red and the blue show the results of the major floods?

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Kenmore in the blue or green?

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir; it is. As a matter of fact, in 1942 a considerably larger portion of this valley was flooded than is shown here. The water came over to here [indicating on map] but this [indicating] only shows what the river elevation would flood and does not include the other part.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement, and your map will be filed with the committee.

Are there any other witnesses?

Mr. KING. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to this. Mr. Smith, that you would like to have presented?

Mr. SMITH. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other witnesses who desire to oppose the project on the one hand or wish to submit any facts in addition to those submitted? If not, we will then hear General Crawford.

With respect to the extent of the flooding of the lands above the Salem Reservoir and in the reservoir area, you have also heard the statements of those witnesses concerning lands in that area, and particularly the towns of Rapidan and Remington outside of the reservoir area, that they suffered enormous flooding, a major flood problem there, and they would like to have protection; and they have suggested as an alternative to the proposal a flood-control reservoir in the vicinity of Salem, a reservoir for flood control, and generally small reservoirs on the tributaries.

I am asking you this question for the record, to ascertain as to whether or not the Corps of Engineers investigated all alternatives for the construction of smaller reservoirs farther up the streams in addition to the reservoir under consideration; that is, reservoirs on tributaries of those streams rather than of this one reservoir at Salem. General CRAWFORD. Yes, Mr. Chairman; we did, and it appears in

the report. I shall give the salient facts of those investigations at this time. There were four reservoirs investigated above the Salem Church site. One was located on the Hazel River.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a tributary of what?

General CRAWFORD. The Rappahannock; and the others were the Fauquier Springs site on the Rappahannock; Rock Hill on the Rapidan; and Locust Hill, the Locust Dale site, which is on the Robertson River.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

General CRAWFORD. The total cost of those four reservoirs was about $23,500,000, and they would inundate 19,720 acres, of which 17,184 is cultivatable land. Thus more cultivatable land would be inundated by these four reservoirs than would be inundated by the Salem Church Reservoir, although the Salem Church Reservoir does inundate 32,000 acres, but a large part of that is woodland.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall what percentage of the land inundated by the Salem Reservoir would be cultivatable?

General CRAWFORD. I do not know exactly at that elevation. We do know in the power pool there are 21,300 acres inundated, of which only 3.700 acres are cultivatable.

The CHAIRMAN. What about the flood pool?

General CRAWFORD. Unfortunately, sir, I have not the break-down of the acreage at the top of the flood-control pool, except I do know the total acreage will be about 3,200 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. At the top of the flood pool?

General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. As against 21,00 acres?
General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. About 11,000 acres additional?
General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you do not know the percentage of that 11.00 additional; that is, in cultivation and the percentage that is not in cultivation.

General CRAWFORD. No, sir; but if you total 11,000 and 3,000, you get 14,000, which is less than the 17,000 in these four upstream reservoirs.

The CHAIRMAN. In the upstream reservoirs at an estimated cost of $23,500,000, is there any power provided?

General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any power contributing to the liquidating of the project to any extent? I do not think we mean to say that this entire project, when we speak of the Salem Reservoir, we do not mean to say that it will liquidate its entire cost, but will power liquidate the power feature, the other being a general charge?

General CRAWFORD. It was contemplated in the four reservoirs. Now in the economic analysis we consider both power and floodcontrol benefits.

The CHAIRMAN. Power was contemplated in each one of them? General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir. The ratio of costs to benefits of the Hazel Reservoir was 1:0.93.

The CHAIRMAN. That was unfavorable?

General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the next?