Page images
PDF
EPUB

River drains 1,328 square miles along the easterly side of the Allegheny Plateau. The valley and ridge province between these tributaries is drained principally by the South Branch of Potomac River, Cacapon River, and Patterson Creek which is a tributary of the North Branch. East of the Blue Ridge Mountains to the vicinity of Washington, D. C., the basin is located in the rolling Piedmont Plateau. Below Washington, the river is tidal and flows through coastal plains. Potomac River has a fall of approximately 520 feet. About 177 feet of this occurs in the 18 miles immediately above Chain Bridge including the Great Falls at mile 126. The basin has a temperate climate and a mean annual precipitation of about 38 inches. Discharges at Washington, including diversions for municipal water supply, have ranged from 782 to 484,000 cubic feet per second.

3. In 1940 the watershed had a population of 1,663,000, the largest concentration being in the Washington area where 663,000 resided in the District of Columbia, 57,000 in Arlington County, Virginia, and 33,500 in Alexandria, Va. The largest city in the upper basin is Cumberland, Md., with population of 39,500. Keyser, W. Va., on North Branch, has a population of 6,200, and Waynesboro, Va., in the Shenandoah Basin, a community which suffers frequent flood damage, has 7,400 residents. Textiles, rayon, aircraft, chemicals, and other products are manufactured. Large quantities of coal are mined in the western part of the basin and, other minerals are found. About 65 percent of the watershed is in farm land producing forage crops, grain, fruit, livestock, and dairy products. Pulpwood is the principal forest product. Hydroelectric power is developed at 29 sites but none of the plants has a capacity exceeding 3,000 kilowatts. Many improved highways and railroads serve the basin.

4. The Washington metropolitan area, Hagerstown, Md., and Shepardstown, W. Va., use Potomac River as a source of water supply. In 1939 the Upper Potomac River Commission commenced construction of a reservoir with planned capacity of 20,000 acre-feet on Savage River, tributary of North Branch, to benefit industries between Luke and Cumberland, Md., and to improve the condition of the North Branch, which in this section is polluted by domestic and industrial sewage and mine waste. Approximately $3,935,000, including $3,023,000 of Federal work-relief funds of the Work Projects Administration, was spent on this project before work was suspended, in 1942, in the interest of the war effort. In its uncompleted state the reservoir cannot be operated for flow regulation. The affairs of the liquidated Work Projects Administration now rest with the Federal Works Agency, which advises that it has no funds or authority for completion of the Savage River Dam. The other major point of stream pollution is at Washington, D. C.

5. The basin contains many features of historic and scenic interest. Among these are numerous battlefields, particularly of the Civil War, as important troop movements and engagements of that conflict took place in the Shenandoah, Valley and other parts of the upper basin. In the vicinity of Washington are the natural scenery of Great Falls and the gorge below, which contains the remnants of the Potowmack Canal. The Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, completed for commercial shallow-draft barge use in 1850, extends from Cumberland, Md., downstream along the left bank of Potomac River to Rock Creek in Washington, D. C. In 1924 is was damaged by floods, and since that time has not been in commercial use. In 1938 the canal was purchased by the United States for its historic and recreational value. The section from tidewater to about 7 miles above Great Falls was restored and maintained by the National Park Service for recreational use until the flood of October 1942 again destroyed substantial parts of the improvements. Subsequently a few miles of the lower section of the canal was rehabilitated by the National Park Service for recreational purposes and to maintain commitments for industrial water supply. By an act in 1930 Congress provided for development of George Washington Memorial Parkway along Potomac River from Mount Vernon, below Washington, to above the Great Falls, on the Virginia side, and from Fort Washington to above the falls, on the Maryland side, except in Alexandria, Va., and the District of Columbia. Considerable land for the purpose has been acquired but no construction above Washington has been initiated.

6. Existing Federal projects for navigation provide for a channel 24 feet deep and 200 feet wide in Potomac River between the mouth and Washington, for channels of equal depths in Washington Harbor, including Potomac River to Key Bridge just above Rock Creek and the lower section of Anacostia River, for a widened section 24 feet deep at Alexandria below Washington, and for other minor improvements. These projects are regarded as adequate for the needs of present commerce. The streams of the basin are not used for commodity com

merce above Washington, and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal is not suitable for rehabilitation for such use.

7. Potomac River and its tributaries are subject to frequent floods. The flood of March 1936, which had a discharge at Washington of 484,000 cubic feet per second, was the greatest of record at many points, and the most damaging, but the floods of June 1889 and October 1942 reached comparable stages below Harpers Ferry. The largest flood on the South Fork of Shenandoah River, which joins the North Fork at Riverton to form Shenandoah River, occurred in September 1870. That flood had a discharge of 40,000 cubic feet per second at Waynesboro, on South River, a tributary of South Fork, whereas the largest flood to be expected on an average of once in 100 years at that point is about 24,600 cubic feet per second. Except during extreme floods, the flood damage in rural areas has not been large. Flood problems in the basin are confined primarily to Cumberland, on the North Branch, to Waynesboro, and to Washington, D. C. Other urban areas suffer infrequent damage. Total losses during the 1936 flood are estimated at $12,631,000. Average annual flood damages are estimated at $517,100 on the North Branch of Potomac River, $298,000 on Potomac River, $255,400 along Shenandoah River and its tributaries, and $100,500 on the South Branch of Potomac River.

8. Several communities have constructed levees, walls, and similar improvements to afford partial flood protection. About $460,000 has been expended for this purpose by local interests, and $407.000 of work-relief funds have been spent by Federal agencies other than the Corps of Engineers. By the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, Congress authorized Federal projects for local protective works, as follows:

Location

Stream

Estimated construction cost

Washington, D. C., levees and grade raises to protect the downtown portion of city, Arlington Experimental Farm, Bolling Field, and Anacostia Naval Air Station.

[blocks in formation]

Cumberland, West Cumberland, South Cumberland, Md., and Ridgeley, W. Va., by levees, walls, movable dam, and channel clearing.

[blocks in formation]

Moorefield, W. Va., levees.

Harpers Ferry, W. Va., levees and flood wall..

The project for Washington and vicinity has been substantially completed except for the Arlington Farm levee, at a total cost of $473,000 to February 1, 1944. Several openings in the protective works require closure when floods are forecast. Assuming that effective emergency measures are accomplished, the downtown section of the city is protected against a discharge of 700,000 cubic feet per second, Bolling Field against the highest stage of record, and Anacostia Naval Air Station from a discharge of 500,000 cubic feet per second. The Arlington Experimental Farm has become part of the site of the Pentagon Building and protective works are no longer required because of the elevations to which the roads and other structures were built. Detailed plans are in preparation for the authorized Cumberland-Ridgely project. Requirements of local cooperation for the Moorefield and Harpers Ferry projects have not been met.

9. Local interests desire flood protection for the many communities throughout the basin which are subject to flood damage. By resolution, the town of Waynesboro, Va., has indicated that it will cooperate with the Federal Government to the best of its ability in case local protection works for that community are undertaken. Local interests along the North Branch desire that the United States complete the Savage River Dam for low water regulation and pollution abatement, and the Upper Potomac River Commission offers to contribute $200,000 to the cost of this work and to operate the improvement in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of War.

10. The district engineer finds that the flood plain at Harpers Ferry has been largely evacuated since the project was adopted and that under present conditions the average annual costs for the protective works would be about $7,800 as compared with estimated average annual benefits of $300. At Moorefield the existing project was designed to afford only partial protection and the district engineer estimates that the annual benefits under present conditions would not exceed $1,000 which would not justify expenditure of the authorized funds. To

protect against the maximum flood of record would require levees having an estimated first cost of $111,100 and annual cost of $5,750 with estimated annual benefits of only $1,400. Accordinglly the district engineer concludes that the authorized projects for these two communities should be abandoned. He proposes modification of the project for local works to protect downtown Washington. The change is designed to reduce the amount of emergency closure work required and is presented for construction in two stages. Stage 1 provides for immediate undertaking of a small amount of levee and wall construction at Seventeenth Street NW., filling a small area near Lincoln Memorial, and raising a short section of P Street SW. The second stage, to be initiated after temporary war housing facilities are removed, consists of raising the grade of Seventeenth Street and park areas on each side. The total construction cost is estimated at $444,000 including $94,000 for the first stage. He considers it possible that, without this improvement, emergency closure of the protective works might not be successful during some major flood and that in event of failure the resulting damages could amount to as much as $35,000,000. Therefore, he concludes that modification of the project as described is warranted.

11. Investigations of the district engineer show that the construction of reservoirs in the basin solely for flood control or of local works for the protection of agricultural areas in the comparatively narrow flood plains would not be economically justified at this time. Construction of local works for the protection of other urban areas has also been considered and no such works found warranted except at Waynesboro, Va. Among the communities studied for such protection is Keyser, W. Va., on the North Branch of Potomac River. A system of levees, walls, channel improvements, and related works to protect this area against floods of record has an estimated first cost of $969,400 and annual cost of $48,500, as compared with estimated average annual benefits of $4,700, clearly indicating a lack of economic justification. The district engineer's plan for protecting Waynesboro from a flood flow of 35,000 cubic feet per second and stage 6 feet higher than the maximum of recent record has an estimated cost to the United States of $1,431,000 for construction of levees and walls, channel excavation, a pressure conduit to carry the flow of Spring Run, pumping plants and bridge changes, and an estimated first cost to local interests of $297,000 for lands, utility, highway, and railroad changes, sewer works, and lengthening of a small dam. Total average annual costs and benefits are estimated at $84,300 and $91,000, respectively, a ratio of costs to benefits of 1 to 1.08.

12. The district engineer presents a comprehensive reservoir plan for the basin to develop hydroelectric power, afford flood control, and provide related benefits. It includes dams at 14 sites and contemplates construction in 11 stages, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

The power plants of the system as a whole would have a dependable capacity of 574,500 kilowatts at 30 percent load factor. The estimated system annual output of primary power is 1,510,000,000 kilowatt-hours and of secondary power 781,000,000 kilowatt-hours. With the reservoirs through stage 8 of the plan in operation and commencing with full power pools, the district engineer indicates that the flow of the largest flood of record at Washington could have been reduced from 484,000 to 220,000 cubic feet per second and the maximum stage by about 7.6 feet. 13. Construction and annual cost for completing Savage River Dam are estimated by the district engineer at $1,180,000 and $68,000, respectively. Annual

benefits are computed at $47,000 for pollution abatement and low-flow improvement and $24,000 for increase in dependable output at the proposed downstream plants of the comprehensive plan, a total of $71,000, which indicates a favorable ratio of annual costs to benefits of 1 to 1.04.

14. The district engineer recommends construction of the comprehensive reservoir plan over a period of about 20 years; local protection works for Waynesboro, Va., subject to local cooperation; further local projection works for Washington, D. C., as described; completion of Savage River Dam, provided local interests contribute $200,000 toward the cost, hold the United States free from damages due to the construction, and agree to maintain and operate the works in accordance with prescribed regulations; and abandonment of the existing flood-control projects for Moorefield, W. Va., and Harpers Ferry, W. Va., and of the Arlington Experimental Farm section of the project for Washington, D.C. The division engineer concurs in general in the views and recommendations of the district engineer.

15. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors afforded local interests an opportunity to express their views at a public hearing in Washington, D. C. The testimony and information presented show that local interests are preponderantly opposed to the plan except for provision of the local flood protection works and completion of Savage River Dam. Residents of the area pointed out that the reservoirs would inundate farm lands, historic sites, and scenic areas, and expressed the view that recreational opportunities would be reduced and that fishing and wildlife interests would be adversely affected. In view of the objections presented, the Board concludes that the comprehensive plan should not be approved at this time but that Waynesboro, Va., should be afforded flood protection by local works, that additional local protection works should be provided at Washington, D. C., and that the latter should include appropriate landscaping and a removable closure at Seventeenth Street NW. instead of raising the grade of this street as proposed by the district engineer. To provide for this change in the plan, it increases the estimated first cost for the work at Washington, D. C., to $500,000 and considers this expenditure warranted for the more dependable protection which would be afforded. As to completion of Savage River Dam, it is noted that the expenditure required cannot be justified unless downstream hydroelectric power plants are also constructed to make use of the resulting increase in low water flows. The Board recommends the local protection works for Waynesboro, Va., subject to appropriate conditions of local cooperation; additional local protection works for downtown Washington, D. C., in general accordance with the plans of the district engineer but modified as described; elimination of the protective works for Arlington Experimental Farm from the existing flood-control project for Washington, D. C.; and abandonment of the existing flood-control projects for Moorefield, W. Va., and Harpers Ferry, W. Va.

16. After careful consideration, I concur generally in the views of the Board and accordingly recommend: (1) The construction of local flood-protection works at Waynesboro, Va., generally in accordance with the plans of the district engineer and with such modifications as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost to the United States of $1.431,000. subject to the conditions that responsible local agencies furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will provide without cost to the United States all lands, easments, and rights-ofway necessary for the construction of the project; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; and maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War; (2) modification of the existing flood-control project for Washington. D. C., to eliminate the protective works for Arlington Experimental Farm, and to provide for protection of the downtown area substantially as recommended by the district engineer but modifled (a) as may be found desirable by the Chief of Engineers to conform to future landscaping of the Mall after the removal of temporary buildings and (b) to provide a removable closure at Seventeenth Street in lieu of raising the grade of the street, the structure to be designed in consultation with the Director, National Park Service, and approved by the Commission of Fine Arts, at an estimated cost to the United States of $500,000 for construction and $5,000 annually for maintenance and operation; and (3) abandonment of the existing flood-control projects for Moorefield, W. Va., and Harpers Ferry, W. Va. R. A. WHEELER,

Lieutenant General,
Chief of Engineers.

CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
VIRGINIA STATE PLANNING BOARD,
Richmond, February 12, 1946.

United States Army Engineers, Washington 25, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Complying with your request of October 15 for recommendations and comments on the War Department's report on the Potomac River, the Virginia State Planning Board strongly recommends that the flood-control project for the town of Waynesboro, Va., be approved and constructed as recommended by the Corps of Army Engineers. This recommendation is made with the understanding that the council of the town of Waynesboro will cooperate in the construction of the project to the extent of the town's ability in keeping with the resolution adopted by the council of the town of Waynesboro on April 25, 1944. The planning board is advised by the town manager of the town of Waynesboro that the council of the town of Waynesboro strongly recommends favorable action on this project.

Very truly yours,

RAYMOND V. LONG, Director.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other opponents or proponents?

(April 10, 1946)

The CHAIRMAN. I have already stated that Hon. Willis Robertson is very much in favor of the Waynesboro local protective works, on which the Chief of Engineers testified yesterday.

Do you have any witnesses?

Mr. ROBERTSON. My witnesses are here, and it will not take but 1 minute of your time.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIS ROBERTSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. ROBERTSON. It is a straight flood-control proposition. It is relatively a minor one, but it means a lot to a small town. We had a flood in 1942 that did one and one-half million dollars worth of damage, and that is more than this whole project will cost.

As I wrote you yesterday, we did not know that it would be reached yesterday. So I sent you that letter saying that so far as we knew, everybody in that community is for this project.

I take pleasure in presenting to you, to make a very brief statement on behalf of the citizens of Waynesboro, I. G. Vass, city manager. The CHAIRMAN. We are delighted to have you here.

We know Mr. Robertson is interested in this matter. He has had many conferences with the chairman of the committee. The project has been favorably recommended by the Chief of Engineers.

I should like to also mention in this connection that the only reservoir project that this committee is considering in the Commonwealth of Virginia is the reservoir project for the protection of the city of Fredericksburg, and the 16 or 17 reservoirs are not being considered by the committee at this time.

We will be very glad to have your statement. Do you favor or oppose it?

« PreviousContinue »