Page images
PDF
EPUB

taries," the "Patuxent River and its tributaries" in Maryland, and many other rivers and their tributaries. That is under section 6 of the act of the Seventy-fourth Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you say with respect to that matter in the river and harbor act regarding rivers and tributaries?

General CRAWFORD. It does include tributaries according to the statute, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, proceed.

Mr. STEPHENSON. My answer to that is

The CHAIRMAN. I see your point.

Mr. STEPHENSON. Now as to this proposed dam, where my clients are located, in connection with that I want to refer to the engineers' report. It contains in their report the following provisions: Falling Spring Reservoir project on the Jackson River, which would serve as an adjunct to development to smooth out the fluctuation in flow, and relieve the Gathright Dam. The only purpose of this dam—which would take in the finest farm land in Alleghany County and inundate it to a depth of 64 feet, the only purpose is to smooth out the flow of the Gathright Dam. The truth of it, and I believe the engineers will admit it, is that this Falling Spring Dam has practically no value. In other words if it is to smooth out the flow why can't they smooth out the flow at the Gathright Dam 56 miles above. The idea is to let surplus water run down and to make the flow equal some way. We think these projects should be eliminated and not approved. I will not take up any more of your time.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you understand as to the cost of that dam?

Mr. STEPHENSON. I do not know what the cost of it is supposed to be; I have been unable to find out any costs. I understood it was to be 64 feet high.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the cost of this supplemental dam down there, General?

General CRAWFORD. The whole project is to cost $11,000,000 and the Gathright Dam will cost about $6,300,000 and the power features an additional $3,100,000, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is this supplemental dam to cost?

General CRAWFORD. The Falling Springs reregulating dam would cost $1,600,000, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STEPHENSON. Is that Falling Springs!

General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir; that is the estimated cost of the Falling Springs project.

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is to smooth the flow. Some of our good people want to accept what is handed out free.

The CHAIRMAN. We understood you to say it.

Mr. STEPHENSON. In addition to filing a copy of my brief, I want to file a copy of the comments taken from the minutes of the Clifton Forge Planning Commission, which relate to the James River Dam development, a copy of which went to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, No. 2 New York Avenue NW., Washington, D. C., to be considered at the February 18 hearing on this project; also a copy was sent to the Virginia State Planning Board, Richmond, Va. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the material referred to may be inserted in the record.

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you.

(The brief and letter with comments are as follows:)

BRIEF FILED BY COUNSEL FOR J. G. KYLE AND OTHERS IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONFIRMATION OF THE REPORT OF R. E. CRUSE, DISTRICT ENGINEER, WHICH SAID REPORT RECOMMENDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF GATHRIGHT DAM AND FALLING SPRING DAM ON JACKSON RIVER IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA AND WHICH REPORT Is Now UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS OF THE WAR DEPARTMENT

(1) We insist that there is no authority for the building of said dams and that there is no authority given by Public Act No. 409 of the Seventy-fourth Congress and Public Act No. 738 of the Seventy-fourth Congress whereby the said district engineer is authorized to make said report.

The authority under which the War Department acts, is Public Act No. 409, Seventy-fourth Congress approved August 30, 1935, and Public Act No. 738, Seventy-fourth Congress approved June 22, 1936. The notice given for public hearing by Col. R. E. Cruse, the district engineer, cites the above acts as authority for this investigation by the Corps of Engineers of the War Department. This notice recites that the report made by the district engineer on James River, Va., "will indicate the feasibility and economic justification for the construction of local flood-protection works, and reservoirs for flood control, water-power pollution abatement and other allied purposes."

Public Act No. 409 referred to above, simply provides that the improvements of certain designated rivers, harbors, and other waterways authorized to be prosecuted, shall be prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary of War and that hereafter Federal investigations and improvements of rivers, harbors, and other waterways shall be under the direction of the Secretary of War.

In other words, there are a number of improvements authorized by this actpages 1 to 13, inclusive-but the James River is not named therein. Under section 3 of this act, page 14, the Secretary of War is authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys to be made at certain-named localities, but there is no reference to James River in this section; and further, there is no general grant of power to the War Department to make any such investigation or report under said Public Act No. 409.

As to Public Act No. 738, which was enacted in 1936, approximately 1 year after No. 409, there is a declaration of policy in section 1 setting out "that distructive floods upon the rivers of the United States upsetting orderly processes and causing loss of life and property including the erosion of lands and impairing and obstructing navigation, highways, railroads, and other channels of commerce between the States, constitutes a menace to national welfare; that it is the sense of Congress that flood control on navigable waters or their tributaries is a proper activity of the Government in cooperation with States and political subdivisions and localities thereof; that investigations and improvements of rivers and other waterways including watersheds thereof, for floodcontrol purposes, are in the interest of the general welfare; that the Federal Government should improve or participate in the improvement of navigable waters of their tributaries, including watersheds thereof for flood-control purposes if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs and if the lives and social security of the people are otherwise adversely affected."

Section 2 provides "that, hereafter, Federal investigations and improvements of rivers and other waterways for flood control and allied purposes shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall be prosecuted by the War Department."

Section 3 of this act provides that no money appropriated under the authority of this act shall be expended on the construction of any project until the States, political subdivisions thereof, or other responsible local agencies have given assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (1) provide without cost to United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the project, except as otherwise provided herein; (2) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (3) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War.

Under section 6 of said act, page 25, the Secretary of War is authorized to cause preliminary examinations and surveys for flood control at certain named

localities; and provides further that no preliminary examination, survey, project, or estimation or new works other than those designated in this or some prior act or joint resolution shall be made. There is then set out certain named streams among them James River, Va. It will be noted that this act provides in some cases surveys of streams and their tributaries, but as regards James River, there is no such statement. The proposed projects on Jackson River, which is a tributary of James River, are nowhere authorized or approved by this act― yet we have the report of the corps of engineers seeking to build these dams on Jackson River, a tributary of the James River, and making report on the questions of not only flood control to which this report is limited by section 6, but also reporting on water power, pollution abatement, and increase of lowstream flow, and providing incidental recreational areas-none of which are provided for in said act.

(2) We further insist that even if it be conceded that there is authority for the making of said report by the district engineer, which is denied, yet it has not been shown that the benefits to accrue are in excess of the estimated costs.

Section 1 of Public Act No. 738 expressly stipulates that the Federal Government may participate in such improvements for flood-control purposes if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs. We insist that the proponents of said projects have the burden of proof of showing to this Board that the benefits are in excess of the estimated costs. These benefits must be real and certainly the Board would not consider imaginary benefits, such as recreational facilities and water-power developments, as a proper element of benefits. This act nowhere provides for any recreational facilities, and nowhere provides for the development of power, except under section 5 there is a provision at the end of the section saying that penstocks or other similar facilities adapted to possible future use, may be installed in any dam. We insist, however, that this act does not grant any right for any purpose except for the construction of public works for flood control.

(3) We further insist that James River is an intra-State stream and that no declaration of policy by Congress such as is set out in section 1 of this act, can give the Federal Government any right to control or exercise authority over James River, except that part of said tream which is navigable. There is no way this issue can be avoided by a declaration of Congress. Respectfully submitted.

Hon. Wм. M. WHITTINGTON,

Chairman, Flood Control Committee,

J. G. KYLE,

R. D. KYLE,

Mrs. A. D. ELLISON, Mrs. REBA ROBBINS, Mrs. ROBERT VAWTER, Mrs. R. D. CARSON, Mrs. SADIE DEACON, By R. B. STEPHENSON, Their attorney, Covington, Va.

WHITING OIL CO., INC., Clifton Forge, Va., April 29, 1946.

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITTINGTON: I am enclosing herewith a copy of the comments taken from the minutes of the Clifton Forge Planning Commission which relates to the James River Dam development, a copy of this went to Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, No. 2 New York Avenue NW., Washington, D. C., to be considered at the February 18 hearing on this project, also a copy has gone to the Virginia State Planning Board, Richmond, Va.

Our Governor recently put his approval on the upper James River develop ment but I am definitely of the opinion that he was not properly informed when he made this O. K., and we certainly hope that every consideration will be given to the interested parties of the State of Virginia by your committee before approval is given by the United States Government to spend a lot of money uselessly.

I will greatly appreciate you submitting this enclosed statement on the Clifton Forge Planning Commission in evidence considered by your committee in passing upon this development.

Thanking you for your usual sound consideration in this matter, I am

Yours very truly,

CLIFTON FORGE PLANNING COMMISSION,
M. B. WHITING, Chairman.

CLIFTON FORGE, VA., February 12, 1946.

In reference to the proposed improvements of the James River and its tributaries, a hearing on which will be held in Washington, 2 p. m., February 18, 1946, and on which local hearings have been held. We make the following observations of the physical condition of this proposed development.

Project I: Concerns construction of the Gathright and Falling Spring Reservoirs upstream from Covington. We object to this development because(a) For the fact of its excessive cost, and on which the Government will give no estimate or approximate figure.

(b) It would have no flood protection benefits because we have no flood problems in Jackson River and the upper James River area. It would create the destruction of thousands of acres of valuable, highly productive farm land and create a very substantial loss in taxation to the respective counties in which the dam flood area would be located and offer nothing in return to these political subdivisions.

(c) Its electricity production, unquestionably, would be produced at an exorbitant price and paid for by the taxpayer in some disguised manner and sold to some nontaxpaying organization at a price equalling practically nothing, which would be distributed to consumers in competition to privately owned taxpaying electric-power companies. Owing to the fluctuation of the dam's crest, you could not use the same dam for antipollution, or flood control, and electricity production.

(d) It would have no benefit on the pollution problem because it would only move to another area the pollution element and create a much worse condition than exists at the present time. It would create vast areas of muddy, swampy, mosquito incubators.

(e) It would have no recreation value as some would have you believe. Most of the year you could not get within hundreds of yards of the water line because of the muddy, filthy condition of the fluctuation of the dam's crest would create. It would be in the summer when these conditions would be at their worse and thereby destroy any possibility of the creation of a recreation center.

You only need to visit a dam site now in use to convince yourself of these facts; and they are all alike.

Project II: The flood protection project at Richmond and the lower reaches of the James River would be highly desirable and beneficial to Richmond and the surrounding area.

It is our fervent hope that the upper Jackson River development will never be realized owing to the hundreds of millions of dollars that would ultimately be spent without the realization of a dollar in benefit; and at the same time it would destroy thousands of acres of productive farm lands that produce taxation in the support of our schools and general government functions, whereas the dam profit would be a dud so far as any benefit it would create.

It is most difficult to enumerate and describe the undesirable and objectionable features the proposed project would impose upon this area.

CLIFTON FORGE PLANNING COMMISSION,
M. B. WHITING, Chairman.

STATEMENT OF R. M. LOVING, MEMBER, TOWN COUNCIL,

COVINGTON, VA.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to hear you, Mr. Loving. State your full name and official position?

Mr. LOVING. I am R. M. Loving, a member of the town council; also a member of the chamber of commerce.

1

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the report of the engineers and their recommendations for the construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir at the Gathright Reservoir and Falling Springs Reservoir? Mr. LOVING. Generally speaking, I am; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have seen the recommendations of the Army engineers?

Mr. LOVING. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What business are you engaged in?
Mr. LOVING. I am a funeral director; an undertaker.
The CHAIRMAN. In Covington?

Mr. LOVING. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you a member of the city council?
Mr. LOVING. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you a member of the chamber of commerce?
Mr. LOVING. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you own any land in the reservoir sites?

Mr. LOVING. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your interest in this case?

Mr. LOVING. My interest is general as a citizen of the community in which the dam will be constructed.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your view with respect to it?

Mr. LOVING. My view is that it will not give flood control on the James River.

The CHAIRMAN. What will it do on the Jackson River below the dam?

Mr. LOVING. It will give flood control from the dam site about half-way to Covington, not all the way because we have another stream of considerable size coming in at Covington.

The CHAIRMAN. What is that? What is its name?

Mr. LOVING. Dunlap Creek. Then we have three other streams— Cows Fasture, John Creek, and other tributaries of the James River. The CHAIRMAN. Do they come into the Jackson River?

Mr. LOVING. Yes, sir; they come into the Jackson River just a few miles below Clifton Forge.

The CHAIRMAN. Clifton Forge is between Covington and the mouth of the Jackson River?

Mr. LOVING. Yes, sir; it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other streams coming into the Jackson before it meets the James River?

Mr. LOVING. Yes, sir; there are others that come into the Jackson River before it meets the James River.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there other municipalities interested besides Covington and Clifton Forge?

Mr. LOVING. Yes, sir; Lowmoor, Iron Gate, and a few more municipalities.

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. Above or below Covington?

Mr. LOVING. Below Covington.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any above?

Mr. LOVING. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And your thought is this will not provide flood

protection?

« PreviousContinue »