« PreviousContinue »
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 actyet 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.
J. G. KYLE,
Mrs. SADIE DEACON,
WHITING OIL Co., Inc.,
Clifton Forge, Va., April 29, 1946. Hon. WM. M. WHITTINGTON, Chairman, Flood Control Committee,
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 0. 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 use. lessly.
I will greatly appreciate you submitting this enclosed statement on the Clifton
CLIFTON FORGE PLANNING COMMISSION,
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,
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.
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
The CHAIRMAN. Do you own any land in the reservoir sites?
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 streamsCows 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.
The CHAIRMAN. Above or below Covington ?
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any above? · Mr. LOVING. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And your thought is this will not provide flood protection?
nd I almostnes Riverickson?"
Mr. Loving. My sincere opinion is, and I almost know, and the reason that it is only one small tributary of the James River.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the Dunlop a larger stream than the Jackson ?Mr. LOVING. No, sir; it is smaller. The CHAIRMAN. How much smaller ? Mr. Loving. In flood times it is very much the same size, and this is a flood-control matter and Cow Pasture is below.
The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about Covington; you say it won't provide flood protection?
Mr. LOVING. It will not provide complete flood protection even for Covington.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other comments you want to make? Mr. LOVING. Yes, sir; when I pay my electric bill I want it to come out of my electric bill and I do not want it to come out of the tax bill.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; what else? Mr. Loving. The next is that the Board of Supervisors of Bath County, which is the county adjoining Alleghany County where it is proposed to put the Gathright Dam, are for the project but it will not take any of their land out of taxation.
The CHAIRMAN. Is Covington located in that county? Mr. Loving. Covington is in Alleghany County; it is the county seat.
The supervisors in favor of the project are from Bath County; which is north and above Covington?
The CHAIRMAN. Above the dam?
The dam will be in Alleghany County but practically all the reservoir will be in Bath County.
The CHAIRMAN. And the board of supervisors of Bath County want these projects ?
Mr. LOVING. They want it and they want it bad. They want it for fishing purposes.
The CHAIRMAN. So that it will be located in their county? Mr. LOVING. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you do not want it for that reason? Mr. Loving. I do not want it because I do not want to have to help to pay for it because it is not economically justified.
The CHAIRMAN. I see; is there anything else you want to say ?
Mr. LOVING. Well, if the West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. want more water let them furnish it, and let the Government stay out of it.
The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement. Mr. MOOMAW. Mr. Chairman, I am B. C. Moomaw, secretary of the chamber of commerce, Covington, Va.
Captain Beirne, the editor and publisher and owner of the Covington Virginian, a daily paper, is against the very distinguished major general from Staunton with his 12,000 circulation. We can only present a capsule of news in comparison, but this is a paper which has only 5,000 circulation. It is in the heart of Alleghany County. Captain Beirne is no technical witness in any sense, but he is here to testify as to the sentiment of our people with reference to this project.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear him.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. BEIRNE, GENERAL MANAGER,
THE COVINGTON VIRGINIAN Mr. BEIRNE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am general manager of the newspaper published in Covington, Va. As I understood, it was my part to tell you the general opinion or the reaction of the people primarily in Covington and the surrounding territory in regard to the proposed dam. Since my return to Covington from the service, being in the newspaper publishing business, we have been concerned primarily with finding out or feeling the pulse of the general populace and finding their attitude and opinion. So far as I have been able to determine it has been generally accepted there on the part of the people of the community that they are in favor of the proposed dam. "Now that has been gathered through conversation and communications of the people in the community and those immediately outside in the adjoining county and in the county of Alleghany; and, of course, I speak particularly with reference to the matter as a newspaperman and not as one who has technical knowledge of the subject.
The CHAIRMAN. I think you are perfectly fair about it.
Mr. BEIRNE. Personally I think it would be beneficial to the community.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the feeling generally that it is in the public interest ?
Mr. BEIRNE. It seems to be the feeling of the people I have been brought in contact with that it will be beneficial, will do good, and is desirable.
The CHAIRMAN. And, in your opinion, you are in favor of the project? Mr. BEIRNE. Yes, I favor the project.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other statement you care to make. I am glad to have your statement and we would be glad to have you come here every year.
Mr. BEIRNE. That is all I have to say at this time.
STATEMENT OF JOHN S. HALE, CIVIL ENGINEER, REPRESENTING
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CLIFTON FORGE, VA.
The CHAIRMAN. State your name and occupation for the record. Mr. HALE. I am John S. Hale, civil engineer, appearing in behalf of the City Planning Commission of Clifton Forge, Va.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you live at Staunton on the James River ?
The CHAIRMAN. Are you in the watershed of the James or Jackson River?
Mr. Hale. No; I am representing clients, the City Planning Commission of Clifton Forge.
The CHAIRMAN. And your business is what?
The CHAIRMAN. And you are representing the planning commission of Clifton Forge?