Page images

appropriations for that, and there are at present under construction or completed projects aggregating three hundred and forty-eight or three hundred and fifty million dollars. We would like for you to give us in your own way, as briefly as you may—if you have a prepared statement, that may be inserted in the record, but tell us generally the projects that have been constructed under the acts beginning with 1936 and the projects that are under way. With the general statement you will make, keep in mind I have asked these gentlemen both for and against the proposals to give their views.

You may proceed, sir. .


DIVISION, COLUMBUS, OHIO Colonel Dunn. By enactment of the Flood-Control Act of 1936, Congress recognized the serious flood problems which exist in the Ohio River Basin and authorized the construction of nine flood-control reservoirs on tributaries above Pittsburgh and five similar reservoirs in the middle part of the watershed. The act also authorized local protection works for eight cities and towns in the Wabash Basin and levees to protect certain farm lands in that area at 12 localities. Local protection projects for two cities in the Cumberland Basin were also authorized.

Work was just about to be initiated on these authorized projects when the great flood of 1937 occurred. Stages attained by this flood exceeded those reached during any other flood by as much as 9 feet at some localities.

The resulting damage was estimated at more than $400,000,000. The floodwaters had hardly subsided before the Corps of Engineers was ready to present to Congress a comprehensive plan which was designed to provide adequate protection for the entire basin. The projects included in the plan, comprising some 81 floodcontrol reservoirs and supplementary protection works at 196 cities and towns, estimated at present-day prices to cost about $1,021,266,000, are shown on the display map. The plan was approved in its entirety by the Flood Control Act enacted June 28, 1938. However, expenditures for carrying on accomplishment of the plan were limited by Congress to $75,000,000 for reservoirs and $50,300,000 for local protection works. This was in addition to specific authorizations contained in prior flood-control acts. Subsequent legislation has increased these authorizations to a total of $305,439,800 for reservoirs and local protection projects. Up to the present time work has either been completed or initiated on 31 reservoirs and 25 local protection works, at an estimated cost of $318,940,000. These projects are shown in black on the display map. Congress has appropriated for carrying out this work approximately $174,000,000, in various appropriation acts..

The wisdom of Congress in providing funds for flood-protection measures in this highly industrialized valley was fully demonstrated during the war, as the third greatest flood of record occurred on the river during that period in March 1915. During this flood the works thus far built fully demonstrated their effectiveness as measures in the national defense. For instance, had it not been for the protection works at Huntington which permitted continuing operations at the

International Nickel plant, it is entirely possible that the war might have lasted for a longer period. However, due to the fact that work on the plan was greatly restricted during the war period, the damages that resulted during this flood amounted to more than $34,000,000, although losses in the amount of $29,400,000 were prevented by completed works. Floods also occurred in the Wabash River Valley in 1943, and more recently, on the upper Cumberland in January of this year. These floods resulted in damages of $12,000,000 and $3,916,000, respectively. The aggregate damages from floods in the basin since 1941 are estimated at $81,000,000. The total losses in the basin in the past 40 years—1907 to date, inclusive-have amounted to more than $1,000,000,000, which is just about equal to the cost of the plan based on present-day prices.

It will be noted from the figures previously cited in regard to au. thorizations and costs that, if work is to be initiated on any additional projects included in the plan other than the four shown in green on the map, it will be necessary for Congress to authorize expenditure of additional funds. The bill also, it is understood, may contain items which will authorize certain new projects, recently reported upon favorably to Congress by the Chief of Engineers, as units of the plan. These projects, which are shown in yellow on the display map, are as follows:

Barren River, Ky. and Tenn.: Port Oliver Ford Reservoir.
Chestnut Creek, Va.: Local protection at Galax, Va.
Wabash River and tributaries: 21 levee-improvement projects
and 1 channel-improvement project.

Allegheny River, N. Y. and Pa.: Local protection at Olean, Al legany, and Portville, N. Y.

Mill Creek, Ohio: West Fork Reservoir. I have here a list of the projects which have been suggested by the Chief of Engineers for possible selection in the event additional authorization, as mentioned above, is approved by Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. What do they aggregate? Colonel DUNN. They aggregate approximately $150,000,000, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And will you call them by name for the record ? Colonel DUNN. Yes, sir. Burr Oak Reservoir, Ohio; Cagles Mill Reservoir, Ind.; Eagle Creek Reservoir, Ohio; Falmouth Reservoir, Ky.; Mining City Reservoir, Ky.; Rocky Fork Reservoir, Ohio; Stewarts Ferry Reservoir, Tenn.; Summersville Reservoir, W. Va.; Turtle Creek Reservoir, Pa.; and the Shenango Reservoir, Pa. That concludes all the new reservoirs contemplated, and we have also certain local protection projects.

The CHAIRMAN. What will those local protection projects aggregate?

Colonel West. The total aggregate for reservoirs and local protection is approximately $150,000,000, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The local protection projects and the reservoirs that you tentatively recommend ?

Colonel WEST. Yes, sir. · The CHAIRMAN. The local protection projects by name, if you will give us those?

Alleghenye kimprovement project! levee-im

[ocr errors]

an. Norky; Wilcos, De, Ohio; Ruskv.; Point probe,

Colonel Dunn. Yes, Sir; Ashland, Ky.; Covington, Ky.; Dillonvale and Adena, Ohio; Hawesville, Ky.; Jackson (Cut-Off) Ky.; Lake Chautauqua and Chadokoin River area, New York; Latrobe, Pa.; Maysville, Ky.; Middlesboro (Yellow Creek), Ky.; Point Pleasant, W. Va.; Reevesville, Ill.; Roseville, Ohio; Russell, Ky.; Taylorsville, Ky.; Uniontown, Ky.; Wilcox, Pa.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Colonel, you feel that in the Ohio Basin there should be additional authorizations for approximately $150,000,000 at the minimum?

Colonel Dunn. The projects which I have named will cost about $150,000,000. With additional authorization beyond $150,000,000 we could initiate other projects.

The CHAIRMAN. And as you have already stated, all of the authorizations that have been made have been committed, and the works are now under way?

Colonel Dunn. Yes sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We are delighted to have your statement. With the consent of the committee, I will ask you with respect to two of these projects, first as to the Chestnut Creek project of Virginia.


The Chestnut Creek project, Colonel Herb, is contained in House Document 506, Seventy-eight Congress, second session, and it involves local protective works primarily for the protection of what community?



Colonel HERB. Galax. Va., sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And this project consists of what?

Colonel HERB. It is a local protection works, Judge. It consists of levees, walls, channel improvement, and bridge reconstruction.

The CHAIRMAN. And it is an estimated cost to the Government of what amount?

Colonel HERB. The first cost is estimated at $276,125, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And the local interests are required to furnish the rights-of-way and to make the necessary changes in highway bridges, and alteration to drainage facilities?

Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In the report that is available to the members, the benefits of the proposed projects exceed the costs?

Colonel HERB. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. So it is economically justified ?
Colonel HERB. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further, except those matters outlined in it with respect to this project by way of summary?

Colonel HERB. No, sir. I think that covers it fairly well.

The CHAIRMAN. Representative Burch has already made a statement on behalf of the project. Are there any opponents of this project or any proponents?


ALLEGHENY RIVER, PA. The CHAIRMAN. We now pass to the next project, the Olean, Portville, and Allegany projects. That report is now pending before the Budget. Am I correct about that, Colonel Herb?

Colonel HERB. That report is ready to go to the Budget Bureau today.

The CHAIRMAN. And, generally, what is the situation with respect to that project, and what are your recommendations?

Colonel HERB. The authority for the project is the Commerce Committee resolution adopted December 1, 1943, requesting a review of the report printed as. House Document No. 306, Seventy-fourth Congress, first session, to determine the need for flood control at and in the vicinity of Olean, N. Y.

Olean, N. Y., is located at the confluence of the Allegheny River and Olean Creek, in the southeastern corner of Cattaraugus County, in southwestern New York. There are no existing Federal projects. Local interests have made some improvements in this vicinity.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, as a matter of fact, they have made considerable improvement at Olean and Portville.

Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir. The plan of improvement of Olean is by a system of dikes and supplementary channel improvements.

The estimated total cost of this project is $4,496,000, of which the pon-Federal cost is estimated at $543,300.

The CHAIRMAN. And what communities does it protect?
Colonel HERB. Olean, Portville, and Allegany, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That is the Olean, Portville and Allegany project?
Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the population of Olean—something like 20,000 ? Colonel HERB. 21,500 in 1940, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What about the ratio of benefits to cost? Colonel HERB. Ratio of costs to benefits is about 1.0:1.3 for Olean; 1.0: 1.59 for Portville; and 1.0:1.03 for Allegany.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the drainage area of the Allegheny River at Olean?

Colonel Dunn. 1,165 square miles, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Colonel HERB. I think that completes it. The CHAIRMAN. Name the towns and the character of works. Colonel HERB. Protection for Olean is provided by means of a dike system and channel improvements. The plan of improvement best suited to conditions at Portville is a dike system with a flood wall, together with channel improvements. The plan of flood protection best suited to condition at Allegany is a dike system with a short section of flood wall and channel improvement.

The CHAIRMAN. And what is generally the population of Portville and Allegany? Mr. REED. Portville is 2,500. The CHAIRMAN. And Allegany? Mr. REED. About 1,000 or 1,500.

The CHAIRMAN. So the total Federal cost of the Olean project is about 214 million dollars—the local contribution is about $350,000.

[ocr errors]

The total Federal cost of the Portville project is substantially one million and a quarter dollars, with a local contribution of $170,000; and the total cost of the Allegany project is $388,000, with a local contribution of approximately $25,000, so that both the Federal costs and the local contribution aggregated for all three towns, you stated, $4,496,000, and you have stated that the works generally consists of flood walls and of dikes with channelization improvements, and the general yardstick with respect to local contribution obtained, and the benefits will exceed the cost.

Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir.

(The report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and of the Chief of Engineers, together with the views of the State of New York, are as follows:)


Washington, April 12, 19.46.
Committee on Commerce, United States Senate,

Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. The Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate, by resolution adopted December 1, 1943, requested the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to review the report submitted in H. Doc. 306, Seventy-fourth Congress, first session, with a view to determining the need for flood control at and in the vicinity of Olean, N. Y. I enclose the report of the Board in response thereto.

2. After full consideration of the reports secured from the district and division engineers, the Board recommends that projects be adopted for flood protection at Olean, Portville, and Allegany, N. Y., by means of dikes, flood walls, limited supplemental channel improvements, and appurtenant works, substantially in accordance with the plans outlined in the report of the district engineer, with such modifications as the Chief of Engineers may deem advisable, at an estimated first cost of $2,282,400 for Olean; $1,281,500 for Portville; and $388,800 for Allegany; provided that local interests furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will: (1) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the projects; (2) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (3) bear the costs of sewer, utility, and highway relocations and adjustments, in accordance with the allocation of these items in the district engineer's report; and (4) maintain and operate the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War.

3. After due consideration of these reports, I concur in the views and recommendations of the Board. Very truly yours,

R. A. WHEELER, Lieutenant General, Chief of Engineers,


Washington, March 18, 1946.
Subject: Allegheny River at and in the vicinity of Olean, N. Y.
To: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army.

1. This report is in response to the following resolution adopted December 1, 1943:

"Resolved by the Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate, That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, created under Section 3 pf the River and Harbor Act, approved June 13, 1902, be, and is hereby, requested to review the report submitted in House Document Numbered 306, Seventy-fourth Congress, first session, with a view to determining the need for flood control at and in the vicinity of Olean, New York."

2. Olean, N. Y., is located at the confluence of the Allegheny River and Olean Creek, in the southeastern corner of Cattaraugus County in southwestern New

« PreviousContinue »