Page images
PDF
EPUB

FLOOD-CONTROL BILL OF 1946

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1946

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL,
Washington, D. C.

OHIO RIVER BASIN

The committee met at 10:05 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Will M. Whittington (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

We have under consideration this morning the Ohio River Basin, including additional authorizations for projects in that basin, along the tributaries of that basin, that have been approved in previous floodcontrol acts where appropriations have been authorized for the partial accomplishment and construction of the projects approved, as stated by General Wheeler, the Chief of Engineers, on Monday of this week; there have been authorized for the Ohio River Basin projects at estimated cost of $1,021,000,000, and there have been authorized for the partial completion of those projects approximately $305,000,000, and it will require all of those funds which have been allocated on projects which are under way, and it will require probably forty-three additional million dollars to complete those projects. I believe that is substantially the statement that you have furnished to the committee, isn't it, General Wheeler?

General WHEELER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The matter, then, so far as the Ohio River Basin is concerned, is primarily a matter of providing additional authorization for projects that have been approved by the committee.

And in addition to the projects that have been approved, the committee has under consideration, as announced in the schedule of hearings, a report on the Barren River in Kentucky and Tennessee.

Then we have under consideration the report submitted on the Chestnut Creek in Virginia. Representative Burch was interested in that report.

The committee also has under consideration for this morning a report on local protection at Olean, Portville, and Alleghany, N. Y., and, as I understand, that report is with the Budget. Am I correct about that?

General WHEELER. It is ready to go to the Budget today, Judge Whittington.

The CHAIRMAN. Representative Reed, do you have any witnesses? Mr. REED. I doubt if there are any witnesses here from Olean or Portville.

The CHAIRMAN. We will arrange for you to be heard very shortly.

Now, then, there is also a report on the Mill Creek Reservoir. General Wheeler, as I understand that, that is before the Budget?

General WHEELER. Sir, that report is ready to go to the Budget today.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear the representatives of the Cincinnati area.

Representative Vorys is here, and the Representative is interested primarily in increased authorizations for projects that have been approved so that those projects that have been authorized and approved by Congress may be constructed. In addition to that, as I understand, you are also interested in the so-called Scioto-Sandusky projects; is that correct?

Mr. VORYS. Those projects are all part of the ultimate Scioto-Sandusky project, and we are interested in the necessary increases in the projects that have been approved, and it may be necessary, it seems to me, for the committee to have a birds-eye view of the entire project, if it is the wish of the commitee. We have our witnesses here.

The CHAIRMAN. Representative McGregor is also interested in the Scioto-Sandusky, and we will be glad to hear from him.

William E. Hess, are you interested in the so-called Mill Creek project?

Mr. HESS. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. We have the name of Mr. Reed here in behalf of the Olean and other Allegheny River projects. Representative Reed of New York.

Mr. REED. There are three towns.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Representatives here or any other Senators?

Mr. HUBER. Walter H. Huber, Fourteenth District of Ohio. This might be more in the nature of a parliamentary inquiry-whether in your deliberations you are considering anything on Eagle Creek.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand the situation with respect to Eagle Creek-Colonel Dunn, is what?

Colonel DUNN. Eagle Creek Reservoir is one of the units of the comprehensive plan.

The CHAIRMAN. That project has already been authorized. We will have a general statement by the division engineer. That will be the first matter we will take this morning in connection with the Ohio Valley. That project has been authorized.

Mr. HUBER. I would like to be heard in connection with that.

The CHAIRMAN. The only thing in connection with that project— the Congress as well as this committee have approved that project, and it is merely a matter of an authorization to cover the construction of that project and the other projects; are you interested in an authorization in that project or opposed?

Mr. HUBER. Opposed.

The CHAIRMAN. Opposed to the construction of Eagle Creek?
Mr. HUBER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. There are about $700,000,000 of other approved projects that folks are interested in having constructed. I don't think ordinarily you would have much difficulty. I am not speaking for the other members of the committee.

Any other representative?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Howard E. Campbell, representing the twenty-ninth district of Pennsylvania. I am interested in the Conemaugh, Allegheny, Clarion, Turtle Creek, and West Fork, West Virginia. The CHAIRMAN. Are you advocating?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Advocating. That is, an advancement of furthering money at this time, because we have advanced further than we had anticipated. Then, I want to also rise in opposition to Eagle Creek. The CHAIRMAN. You tell us about Eagle Creek, Colonel Dunn, when we get to you in a few minutes.

Any other members present?

I am trying to acquaint Colonel Dunn with what he is up against now when he makes his statement covering the Ohio Valley, because some of you are opposed.

Mr. CHELF. Frank L. Chelf, of Kentucky, representing the Fourth Congressional District of Kentucky. We are appearing here in opposition to the Port Oliver Dam on Barren River, Barren, Ky. The CHAIRMAN. Who is "we"?

Mr. CHELF. The members of the delegation here are Congressman Robsion, of Kentucky, representing the Ninth District; Congressman Earle C. Clements, of the Second District of Kentucky; former State senator Will Jones of Glasgow, Ky.; George Akers, farmer, Glasgow, Ky.; Wilson Burke, county school superintendent of Barren County, Ky.; and E. R. Settle, circuit court clerk of Glasgow, Ky. We are appearing, Mr. Chairman, in opposition to the construction of the dam.

The CHAIRMAN. What I say with respect to your projects is applicable to all projects; it is generally very helpful to the committee if a spokesman appears with a brief giving us the points of advocacy and opposition and be prepared to put that brief in the record. Mr. CHELF. I have done that.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. McGregor, for the reporter, give him your initials and your interest.

Mr. McGREGOR. J. Harry McGregor of the Seventeenth District of Ohio. I am here to make an observation relative to the Scioto Valley which incorporates Delaware Dam.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that authorized now, Colonel Dunn?

Colonel DUNN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. JENKINS. I would like to say this: I came in the Congress the same time as our distinguished chairman, and he and I used to work together on flood-control activities.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any Representatives or Senators who are interested in the Wabash River and tributaries? If not, there are some witnesses here, and will you please rise you gentlemen who are interested and give us your names for the reporter?

Mr. STOVER. Holly Stover, president of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad, and our chief engineer, Mr. McGrauen, Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad.

The CHAIRMAN. My recollection is that some of these flood walls and improvements cross your railroad. Am I correct about that? Mr. STOVER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the matter of reconstruction and construction of bridges is under consideration?

87116-46- -14

Mr. STOVER. We are not opposed to the general plan of flood control in the Wabash Valley, but we are opposed to the present set-up around Vincennes which, if it was put into play, would be detrimental to the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you and your engineer gone over the report of the Chief of Engineers with respect to that particular Vincennes area?

Mr. STOVER. Yes, sir; we have been on that for some time.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are opposed to that?

Mr. STOVER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, where these projects cross your railroad, is your railroad in the Vincennes area?

Mr. STOVER. Oh, yes; that is on our main line. I have just a brief statement when you get ready which I want to make for your committee just outlining the position of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you opposed to those projects there?

Mr. STOVER. I am opposed to the plan of the project, not to the project itself. We are, naturally, like all patriotic people in favor of anything that will govern flood water, but I think the set-up as proposed by the engineers would be detrimental to the railroad facilities. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the engineering plan or the local contribution?

Mr. STOVER. The engineering plan.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. We will undertake to reach you as soon as

we can.

Representative Burch is here in behalf of the Chestnut Creek project that we referred to a few moments ago, and his matter will be heard. Have you any witnesses, Representative Thomas G. Burch? You are in favor of this Chestnut Creek project, as I understand it? Mr. BURCH. I am.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a statement?

Mr. BURCH. I really have no statement to make, but the report speaks for itself, and I approve all that, and would appreciate, very much, favorable action.

The CHAIRMAN. Members of Congress will understand, generally, that aside from your projects that you have witnesses for, all Members of Congress are to be heard under the schedule, as announced, on Friday, April 19. That is Good Friday. It was especially designated for Members of Congress so that statements might be given more consideration.

At this point I would like to insert for the record the following statement of the Ohio Valley Improvement Association:

STATEMENT OF OHIO VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION IN RE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FLOOD CONTROL BILL OF 1946

These recommendations to the Committe on Flood Control concerning the floodcontrol bill of 1946 put forward the action on flood control taken by the Ohio Valley Improvement Association at its fiftieth anniversary convention held in Cincinnati, Ohio, on April 15 and 16, 1946. The action of the convention was to place flood protection among the paramount concerns of the broad program under taken by the people of the Ohio Valley through their representatives assembled at this meeting.

The program thus formulated is the work of delegates representing the areas, municipalities, industries, commerce, and civic groups of all the Ohio Valley

[ocr errors]

States. It is a program which manifests an unequivocal rededication of interest in and support for the comprehensive plan for flood control in the Ohio Valley (H. Doc. No. 306, 74th Cong., 1st sess.) as prepared for Congress, with subsequent modifications, by the Corps of Engineers, United States Army.

Resolutions adopted by the association on April 16, 1946, take note of the present stage of development of flood-control works and set forth the need for postwar progress toward completed construction of the comprehensive plan in terms as follows:

"We commend the progress made in construction of flood-control projects, comprising reservoirs in the headwaters of Ohio River tributaries and local protective works at various points in the Ohio Valley. All authorized and approved works included in the general plan are needed to provide adequate assurance against flood flood disasters.

"The coordinated program of flood protection devised and properly administered by the Corps of Engineers contemplates that communities and industries will be safeguarded as rapidly as funds are made available and construction can be carried forward. Essential phases of the construction are now awaiting appropriation funds by Congress.

"In the interest of public safety and preparedness, neither delay nor neglect in providing the authorized work can be afforded. Flood control is an integral part of the national security. We urge, therefore, that the Congress authorize projects and appropriate funds as may be recommended by the Corps of Engineers." The recommendations of the association are based upon the fully demonstrated fact that the degree of flood protection to be achieved by the comprehensive plan will be highly effective in promoting and expanding prosperity; that construction of all projects in the general plan for the Ohio Valley should, therefore, be undertaken and completed as promptly as sound budgetary practices will permit; and that the order in which projects are undertaken and completed should be directly related to their respective values to the national economy and the national defense. In commending the progress already made the association urges that nothing be permitted to stand in the way of prompt final completion of the projects already under construction or nearly finished. These are shown as group I projects (appendix A). Where additional authorizations or appropriations are needed to accomplish these works they should be provided without delay.

The association recommends as group II projects (appendix B) the additional projects which we believe it is now in the interest of national economy and national defense to authorize for appropriations and construction. The reservoir projects in this group offer the greatest contribution to a balanced development of the Ohio Valley flood-control program and the widest distribution of benefits therefrom in the interim until all the principal features of the general plan can be put into effect. These reservoirs are regarded as most essential now for their importance in controlling general flood conditions.

The local protective works in group II include a number of the communities where flood distress is relatively most severe and where the local cooperation needed is eager to assume the responsibilities involved. These projects exhibit a high average ratio of benefits to costs. The association urges that these communities be encouraged by passage of enabling authorizations in the flood-control bill of 1946.

In group III (appendix C) are included the additional projects which are a part of the general plan. They should be constructed as early as possible in the development of the over-all system flood protection for the Ohio Valley and the association will recommend accordingly as construction progresses.

The reports of surveys presented to Congress by the Secretary of War covering the group II projects fully establish the justification for them in each case. Since their preparation and submittal, however, there has in most instances been the added demonstration of public necessity resulting from the experiences of the war. The Ohio Valley has now proved that it is capable of constituting the Citadel of Defense of the Nation in wartime. It is imperative that the industry, communications, and community organization of this region be protected effectively against the suspension of production, disruption of supply, and the breakdown of life and order which recurrently threaten so long as floods are permitted to continue a menace. To achieve this protection as rapidly as construction and sound public finance will permit it to be done, the association recommends that the group II projects be incorporated in the flood control bill of 1946.

OHIO VALLEY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION,
O. SLACK BARRETT, President.

« PreviousContinue »