sists of valleys and ridges between the Allegheny Plateau and the Blue Ridge Mountains. Thence the river occupies a narrow canyon for 15 miles through the Blue Ridge Mountains, to about 13 miles above Lynchburg, and below traverses the rolling Piedmont Plateau to Richmond, where in the fall zone between miles 112 and 105 it drops 105 feet. Below Richmond the stream crosses the coastal plain in a tidal channel. At mile 71.6, James River receives its largest tributary, Appomattox River. Jackson River, 87 miles long with drainage area of 907 square miles along the Allegheny Plateau, flows south past Falling Spring to about 4 miles below Covington and thence east 19 miles to the head of James River. 3. The population of the James River Basin in 1940 was about 729,000, of which 193,000 resided at Richmond, its largest city and capital of the State. In 1939, there were 326 industrial plants in the vicinity of Richmond. Small industrial areas are located at Lynchburg, Glasgow above the Blue Ridge Mountains, Covington, Buena Vista, on North River, a tributary just east of the Blue Ridge Mountains, and at Petersburg on Appomattox River. About 58 percent of the watershed is agricultural, and about 40 percent is woodland. Iron ore, coal, limestone, manganese, and other minerals are found in the area. The 25 hydroelectric plants in the basin have a total installed capacity of 50,000 kilowatts. The essentially unregulated flows of the basin streams are used by many industries. Richmond and Scottsville obtain their water supplies from James River, and several communities from tributary streams. Stream pollution by domestic sewage and industrial wastes is particularly heavy in the vicinities of Covington and Lynchburg and at and below Richmond. Improved highways and seven major railroads serve the basin. 4. Federal navigation projects provide for a depth of 25 feet for a distance of 86.4 miles from the mouth of James River to the Richmond deep-water terminal via the river and certain cut-offs and thence 18 feet for 4.4 miles to the Richmond lock; and for a channel 12 feet deep and 11 miles long to Petersburg on Appomattox River; with a dam at Petersburg and a diversion channel past the dam including about 1.7 miles of levees between the navigation and diversion channels which provides partial flood protection for a portion of Petersburg. The district engineer finds that after contraction works and cut-offs of the James River project have become fully effective the recurrence of past flood discharges will result in slightly lower stages at Richmond for most floods than the stages which actually occurred and in higher stages in a few cases. The James River project is about 90 percent completed and the Appomattox River project, 83 percent complete. In 1851 a private company completed construction of the James River and Kanawha Canal along James River from Richmond to Buchanan above the Blue Ridge Mountains. Although long abandoned for transportation use, short sections of the canal remain on the left river bank at Richmond. A short section within the city and accessible from the head of the Federal navigation project through a lock is owned by the city and still serves as a dock area for small boats. Above this a section is used to supply water to the city and to industries for hydroelectric power and other purposes. At Richmond water is also diverted into Manchester Canal on the right bank of the river for commercial and industrial use and the development of hydroelectric power. 5. James River and its tributaries are subject to frequent destructive floods which occur during various seasons and result from heavy rainfall run-off. Historical records indicate that the most severe known flood occurred in 1771. It had an estimated discharge at Richmond of 350,000 cubic feet per second as compared with 225,000 and 175,000 cubic feet per second for the more recent maximum floods which occurred in 1877 and 1936, respectively. The largest flood on James River above Lynchburg since 1877 occurred in 1913 and was severe on Jackson and Cowpasture Rivers. Between 1934 and 1944, inclusive, Richmond experienced 10 damaging floods. Flood plains on the upper tributaries and on James River above Lynchburg are narrow. Thence to Richmond the James River flood plain is about one-half mile wide and intensively cultivated. Most of the agricultural flood damages occur in that section. In general the cities and towns in the basin are on high ground. Covington, Lynchburg, Buena Vista, and Richmond are the major urban damage centers with most of the urban flood losses occurring at Richmond. The Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad follows James and Jackson Rivers from Richmond to Covington and is subject to flood damages. Shorter sections of other railroads and highways are also in the flood plains. Five lives were lost as a result of the floods of 1936 and 1944. The March 1936 flood caused estimated agricultural damages of $382,000, damages to communications and utilities of $952,000, in urban areas of $1,521,000, and required relief expenditures of $53,000, a total of $2,908,000 of which $2,417,000 occurred along James River and $1,180,000 at Richmond. The district engineer estimates the average annual flood damages at $441,400 on James River, $74,100 along Jackson River, $33,000 on North River, and $28,600 on Appomattox River, a total of $77,100. Of the total, $153,000 pertains to the Richmond urban area. 6. There is no authorized Federal project primarily for flood control in the basin. Farmers have constructed a few small levees, and minor walls and revetments protect railroad and highway fills. The principal existing floodcontrol work, constructed in 1927 by the city of Richmond at a cost of $3,150,000, protects the Shockoe Creek area on the left bank of James River to a stage of 23 feet above mean sea level. It consists of a levee across the creek mouth, a pressure conduit to carry the run-off from the upper creek under the levee into James River, and a pumping plant to handle storm water and sewage from the lower part of the protected area during floods. By emergency construction of a dike on top of the levee and sandbag closure at highways and railways, protection has been afforded against subsequent floods, including that of 1936 which reached a stage of 28.8 feet above mean sea level. In 1943, the United States Navy at a cost of $115,000 constructed a levee on the right bank at Richmond adjacent to and east of the Seaboard Railway track to protect the naval-training school to the 1936 flood stage. In the upper part of Richmond, the city waterworks has been threatened by recent floods. The district engineer believes that it merits consideration for protection by the city which would cost about $60,000. The principal flood-damage area on the left bank at Richmond commences at the city lock and extends upstream about a mile, consisting largely of the Shockoe Creek area. It includes 140 acres developed by commercial and industrial establishments, railroad yards, city streets, and the canal section known as the city dock. The principal right bank damage area includes 100 acres east of the Seaboard Railway tracks, mainly comprising the naval-training school, and 250 acres extending upstream from these tracks to Ninth Street just above the entrance to Manchester Canal, containing industries, commercial establishments, railroad yards, and residences. Taking into account the effects of the navigation project on flood stages and of the flood-protection works now available and assuming repetition of the cycle of past flood discharges over a period of 75 years and that within a 50-year period one flood with discharge of 280,000 cubic feet per second and stage 7.5 feet higher than that of the 1936 flood occurs, the district engineer estimates the average annual direct and indirect flood damages for these two major damage areas at $107,000. 7. Local interests desire further properly coordinated improvements to prevent flood damage throughout the basin to the extent practicable and justified. Their suggestions for this purpose include farm measures to retard run-off, local protection by levees, flood walls, and channel improvements, flood-control reservoirs, and multiple-purpose reservoirs to store floodwaters, improve stream flow for pollution abatement and industrial and municipal water supply, develop hydroelectric power, and provide recreation, fish, and wildlife benefits. By resolution the city of Richmond has pledged its cooperation in the construction of local flood-control works within the city and such financial contribution and assistance as it may be able to render. 8. Studies of the district engineer show that construction of reservoirs in the basin for flood control alone would not be economically justified at this time. He presents a comprehensive reservoir plan to serve multiple purposes which includes developments at 14 sites. However, economic justification for these improvements depends upon the sale of power and it is not anticipated that the market for power will increase sufficiently to justify many of the improvements in the near future. The district engineer finds that of the 14 improvements only the Gathright Reservoir and Falling Spring reregulating dam on Jackson River at miles 43.4 and 35.1, respectively, warrant early construction. His plan for the Gathright Reservoir provides for a rock-fill dam 248 feet high to form a reservoir with 417,000 acre-feet of storage of which 110,000 acre-feet would be reserved for flood control and 264,000 acre-feet would be usable power storage, and a hydroelectric power plant with installed capacity of 34,000 kilowatts served by a tunnel and having an average net operating head of 215 feet. The dependable peaking capacity is computed at 20,600 kilowatts at 25 percent load factor and the average annual output of the plant at 45,000,000 kilowatt-hours of primary and 6,000,000 kilowatt-hours of secondary power. It is estimated that the reservoir would increase the dependable capacity of existing hydroelectric plants by 6,100 kilowatts and their annual power output by 26,000,000 kilowatt-hours. Falling Spring Dam is planned as a concrete and earth-fill structure solely to reregulate flows. During midsummer, these improvements would increase the minimum monthly flow at Covington from 80 to 410 cubic feet per second. The plan provides for purchase of land around each pool to a minmum width of 200 feet to assure the maximum recreation benefits. The district engineer estimates the construction cost of the improvements at $10,530,000 and the average annual cost at $519,000 including $58,000 for operation and maintenance. Estimated average annual benefits total $896,000 and consist of $90,000 for prevention of flood damages at points as far downstream as Scottsville, mile 185, on James River, $230,000 for pollution abatement, $9,000 for recreation, $422,000 for power produced at the site, and $145,000 for increasing the power value of existing downstream plants. This indicates a ratio of costs to benefits of 1.0 to 1.73. Assuming prior development of the authorized Buggs Island and Philpott Multiple-purpose projects in the Roanoke River Basin and Salem Church multiplepurpose project on Rappahannock River which is being studied, investigations of the Federal Power Commission indicate that the power output of the Gathright project could be absorbed in the nearby market by 1953. The district engineer computes the cost of the primary and secondary energy producible by this plant at 4.8 and 1.1 mills per kilowatt-hour, respectively. 9. If constructed as planned except for omission of the power facilities the district engineer estimates the construction cost of Gathright Reservoir at $5,820,000, the annual cost at $305,000, and the annual benefits at $474,000 consisting of the benefits of the multiple-purpose improvements excluding the value of the power which could be produced at the site. This indicates a ratio of costs to benefits for the lesser improvement of 1.0 to 1.55. As this is less favorable than the ratio for the improvement with the power facilities and a suitable market for the power is anticipated at an early date, it appears economically preferable to include the power facilities and the related reregulating dam. 10. The district engineer finds that construction of local flood-protection works in the basin is not economically justified at this time except at Richmond. He presents a plan which provides for protecting the two principal damage centers at Richmond, described in paragraph 6 above, by systems of levees, flood walls, pumping plants, sewer changes, and appurtenant works on the right and left banks of James River against a flood stage 7.5 feet higher than the stage reached in 1936. This stage can be expected to be equaled on an average of once in 230 years and greater floods are possible at less frequent intervals. Freeboards proposed are 3 feet for the earth levees and 1 foot for flood walls. The city plans to fill the city dock and make the area available for land-development purposes and the proposed levee line crosses this dock in the vicinity of the lock. Provisions are made in the plan for continued use of the Manchester Canal for supplying water to industries and for water-power development, although the protective works would cross the canal. In view of the local benefits the district engineer believes that local interests should be required to contribute $127,000 to the construction cost; furnish all rights-of-way; construct necessary sewers; alter existing sewers, drainage works, and utilities; hold the United States free from damages; and maintain and operate the works after completion. On this basis he estimates the cost to the United States for construction at $2,122,000, and the first cost to local interests at $953,000, a total first cost of $3,075,000, and the average annual cost using Federal and non-Federal interest rates of 3 percent and 2 percent, respectively, at $141,200. His estimate of average annual tangible benefits consists of $107,000 for flood-damage prevention and $35,000 for enhancement in the value of undeveloped lands, a total of $142,000, or slightly more than the estimated annual costs. In addition there would be intangible benefits not evaluated in monetary terms such as possible prevention of loss of life and improvement of sanitary conditions. 11. The district engineer recommends adoption of projects to provide for construction of Gathright Reservoir for multiple purposes including the hydroelectric power plant and Falling Spring reregulating dam and of the local protection works at Richmond, substantially as described, the local protection work to be subject to the stated conditions of local cooperation. 12. The division engineer believes that the estimated cost of the multiplepurpose Gathright Reservoir and Falling Spring Dam should be increased to $11,020,000 to allow more for contingencies. He also considers that the estimated cost to the United States for construction of the local protection works at Richmond should be increased to $2,363,000 to provide for constructing the flood walls with a freeboard of 3 feet and to include more for contingencies. With this revision and using the usual interest rate of 3.5 percent rather than 2 percent for non-Federal funds, he estimates the annual cost for the Richmond work at $162,800 and the ratio of annual costs to annual tangible benefits at 1.0 to 0.87. Considering the importance of the city of Richmond, the intangible benefits that will result and the willingness of local interests to bear a substantial part of the cost, the division engineer believes that expenditure of the required Federal funds is warranted. Subject to the indicated changes in estimated costs and height of flood walls he concurs in the recommendation of the district engineer. 13. After affording local interests an opportunity to present additional information and conducting a public hearing, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors recommends construction of Gathright Reservoir with plant for the development of hydroelectric power and the Falling Spring reregulating dam. It concludes that provision of local protection works at Richmond is not advisable at this time. In regard thereto it notes that if the usual non-Federal interest rate is used in computing the annual cost, the estimated annual cost for the plan of the district engineer exceeds the evaluated annual benefits. Furthermore it considers that this plan is objectionable because of the inadequate height of the protective works. The Board finds that a plan providing for an increased height of 5 feet for the levees and walls so as to give more adequate protection would cost $4,126,000 and that this expenditure cannot be justified by the prospective benefits. 14. Having carefully considered the data and findings presented by the district and division engineers and the Board and the information and views furnished by local interests, I concur generally in the conclusions of the Board. Construction of reservoirs in the watershed solely for flood control is not economically justified at this time. The comprehensive reservoir plan presented should be regarded as subject to modification from time to time and as an indication of what may eventually be accomplished in development of the water resources of the area. In view of the studies of the Federal Power Commission as to the unit values of power, its indication that by 1953 there will be suitable market for the power which can be developed by the proposed Gathright Reservoir improvement and the report of the United States Public Health Service regarding pollution-abatement benefits, it is considered economically advisable to construct this improvement and the appurtenant reregulating dam at an early date. As to local protection works for Richmond, I agree with the Board. 15. Accordingly, I recommend construction of Gathright multiple-purpose reservoir with hydroelectric power plant and Falling Spring reregulating dam on Jackson River, Va., generally in accordance with the plans of the district engineer with such modifications thereof 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 $11,000,000 for construction and $60,000 annually for operation and maintenance. CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, R. A. WHEELER, RICHMOND, VA., April 17, 1946. Washington, D. C.: Examination of the need and desirability of the proposed Gathright Falling Spring Dam as recommended in the report of the Corps of Engineers in the James River survey report reveals that the local public opinion through resolutions of local governing bodies strongly endorses the proposed project. It appears the project would contribute to the economic development of that area through floodcontrol, pollution-abatement, recreation facilities, and waterpower. In view of local support, obvious need for the project, and the benefits to that area through the construction of the Gathright Falling Spring Dam, the project is endorsed and recommended. It is recommended that further study be given to providing additional recreation facilities. WILLIAM M. TUCK, The CHAIRMAN. Now, we have with us Representative J. Lindsay Almond, and he may have some witnesses with him who desire to be heard, and we will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Almond, at this time. STATEMENT BY J. LINDSAY ALMOND, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. ALMOND. I want to thank you for the courtesy which has been extended to us. Mr. Moomaw is here from Covington, who is familiar with this whole situation, and in just a moment I want to present him, because he does have some very pertinent facts. For the record, I want to read a telegram from the Governor of Virginia which was sent to the Chief of Army Engineers, relative to this projects. [Reading:] Examination of the need and desirability of the proposed Gathright Falling Spring Dam as recommended in the report of the Corps of Engineers in the James River survey report reveals that the local public opinion through resolutions of local governing bodies strongly endorses the proposed project. It appears that the project would contribute to the economic development of that area through flood control, pollution abatement, recreation facilities, and waterpower. In view of local support obvious need for the project and the benefits to that area through the construction of the Gathright Falling Spring Dam, the project is endorsed and recommended. It is recommended that further study be given for providing additional recreational facilities. Signed by William M. Tuck, Governor of Virginia. Now, I think I would be trespassing upon the time, Mr. Chairman, to endeavor to explain the project since Mr. Moomaw is here and has considerable information and has given considerable study to this situation. I might say that the town of Covington which is a small industrial center would be beneficially affected by this project, and we feel that the industrial town of Clifton Forge, Va., would be beneficially affected by this project. I want to say in deference to my colleague, Congressman Robertson, who represents the same Virginia district, that if this project is constructed, about 80 percent of the water that would back up from this dam would be in his district. The benefits, however, would accrue to my district. I am not going on record as to Congressman Robertson's views. I have discuseed it with him, and he will make his views known to the committee. The CHAIRMAN. I would say that there is nothing at all novel or new about your situation. That matter is being constantly brought to our attention. I live below some dams. Mr. ALMOND. I think, sir, it would be better to turn it over to Mr. Moomaw, who is present, and who is familiar with the situation, to give you more information than I can give you. I want to say that I am in favor of it and that I think it is a worthy project. The CHAIRMAN. Let me see, for the record, the James River is 340 miles long. Does it pass by Staunton, Va.? Mr. MOOMAW. No. The CHAIRMAN. We go down the river from the mouth of the Jackson River, what is the first municipal area that we come to on the way to Richmond? Mr. ALMOND. Covington. The CHAIRMAN. And the next? Mr. ALMOND. Clifton Forge. The CHAIRMAN. And the next? Mr. MOOMAW. Eagle Rock, Buchanan, Lynchburg. The CHAIRMAN. Is Lynchburg on this river? |