Page images

I mean that $17,100,000 Port Oliver Dam may cost $30,000,000. Kentucky land was up 107 percent over 1940 at beginning of this year, so that bottom land is sure to be worth $300 per acre when confiscated. Maybe $15-per-acre land can economically be flooded for hydroelectric power, but not Kentucky bottoms.

It is an established fact that the farmer's dollar gets spent to create more economy than any other dollar. Dump $17,100,000 in 1 year on Port Oliver Dam, and you have “shot” your spending wad, mainly, as there can be but a small dam pay roll. The farm income from those 36,000 fertile acres means a lot to Kentucky, not only farmers, but merchants, professional people, and others. What an ending to that beautiful valley if the dam vandals crucify the economy of that happy section. Please do not let this ghastly thing happen.

I attach copies of pertinent documents I think support my contention that this dam should not be built for power, if at all.

I had intended to come to Washington to appear before your honorable committee to lift my feeble voice in protest to try to save my country, town, neighborhood, and farm from this awful catastrophe. Please leave our valley as God made it, and we can get our power some other way-control floods by small dams, and scientific soll management.

May I heartily thank you for your courteous replies to my letters, and may I say that I regret that I am too busy to come to Washington at this time to attempt to save my farm. Sincerely,

B. R. EDMUNDS. P. S.—Please see attached supporting data and index thereto.

B. R. E.

The following data are submitted with the hope that it might help the honorable committee in its studies of Port Oliver Dam. I sincerely thank our Congressman Chelf, Mr. W. H. Jones, Jr., for his spirited editorials, and Messrs. E. Ross Settle and N. Wilson Burks for organizing the protest meetings, preparation of the protest blanks, and the Barren County Economic Survey, and the aroused citizenry-one and all for their efforts to prevent this catastrophe. Since this fight began I have not read of any local support for the dam. It is quite evident that local interests do not want any dam built which permanently floods the bottoms.

(1) My letter to Hon. Frank L. Chelf, June 20, 1945.
(2) My letter to Hon. Frank L. Chelf, January 10, 1946.
(3) Mr. Chelf's reply to me January 16, 1946.
(4) My letter to Senators Barkley and Thomas, January 5, 1946.

(5) My article in Kentucky Farmers Home Journal, December 1945, protesting dam and suggesting that 10,000 protest post cards be directed to Senator Barkley, who I felt could prevent the dam if he tried hard enough.

(6) Barren County (Ky.) resolution against dam as per Glasgow Times, September 6, 1945.

(7) Glasgow Times, March 28, 1946, glowing REA current expansion plans in Barren and adjoining counties, proving there is plenty cheap coal-made electricity for present needs.

(8) My article in Tulsa Tribune, October 1945, daring the members of a local group touring TVA empire to visit Port Oliver and Glasgow, Ky., to get the real truth.

(9) My letter to Mr. Luther S. H. Gable, atomic-bomb expert, electronic consultant for the Engineer's Board, Army War College, Washington, D. C., of February 19, 1946, frankly asking his help in debunking the dam project."

(10) Scientist Gable's timely reply under date of March 11, 1946. I believe I have made my point as to the probability of power dams soon becoming outmoded by atomic power. Private and Government power interests may as well accept the new source of atom power as having great industrial posibilities.

(11) With some family and regional pride I submit a reprint of an article of 1894 in the Glasgow (Ky.) Times of September 14, 1944, bearing upon the antiquity of Glasgow, Ky., and its pioneers, one of whom was my grandfather, Capt. William Edmunds. I love my land, my county, and State. Please make the dam vandals leave our people and nature the job of caring for Barren River Basin. The world is short of food, not electricity.

B. R. EDMUNDS. TULSA, OKLA., April 4, 1946.

EAGLE CREEK RESERVOIR, OHIO The CHAIRMAN. Now, we would like to have Senator Guffey hereand, Senator, we are having the general statement today from the division engineer and the Chief of Engineers, and if you desire to submit a statement you may do so.

Senator GUFFEY. I want Congressman Fulton to represent me first, and I would like to follow him.

Mr. FULTON. The question had been brought up on the Eagle Creek Reservoir as to authorization, where the authorization for that occurred. There was some inference here that the Eagle Creek Reservoir had been authorized as a matter of flood control, and the inference was that authorization had been in the act of 1938. I do not find that there was such authorization in the act of 1938, and the only place that I have been able to find any reference to it was the committee report on Document No. 1, which is just a committee report and, of course, is not legislation. · The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, if that be your inquiry, I think we can assist him.

Colonel HERB. I would like Mr. Beard to explain that situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beard, under what language was that Eagle Creek adopted in 1938 ?

Mr. BEARD. The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, approved the general comprehensive plan for Ohio River Basin, as contained in the Flood Control Committee Document No. 1, Seventy-fifth Congress, with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable. The report of this committee on the Flood Control Act of 1938—House Report No. 2353 of the Seventy-fifth Congress, third session-includes a list of the projects which the committee considered to be within the comprehensive plan. Eagle Creek Reservoir is in that list. The Eagle Creek Reservoir project is also listed on page 149 of the hearings held, March 30 to April 19, 1938, before the Committee on Flood Control, House of Representatives, Seventy-fifth Congress, third session.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you read that part of the report?
Colonel HERB. It just gives a table.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a separate published document covering that reservoir ?

Colonel HERB. No, sir. It is listed in the table starting on page 11 of House Report No. 2353, Seventy-fifth Congress, third session.

The CHAIRMAN. So that is the authorization that was contained in that committee document?

Mr. BEARD. Also under the wording in the law itself, which says, “modifications within the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers," and the modifications which our Department has considered eligible for selection are this group of projects which are contained in Report No. 2353 of this Flood Control Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. Were there any substantial changes in the Eagle Creek project embraced in that report and in your recommendation for funds to be allocated ?

Mr. BEARD. The work that is now under way, which General Dunn mentioned a moment ago, will determine our present proposals as to the actual details of the project.

Seventy-fifth Comood Control ich does incluathat you spe

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Fulton, your question. Mr. FULTON. I am looking at the map and I do not see Eagle Creek on it at all. I would like for the Army people here to show me that.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you answer that? Mr. BEARD. Eagle Creek is not on this map, Representative Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. This is one they were acting on that you spoke of?

Mr. BEARD. The report which does include Eagle Creek is the report of the Flood Control Committee, House Report No. 2353, Seventy-fifth Congress, third session.

Mr. FULTON. But not the comprehensive flood-control plan submitted by the Army engineers. It is just in the committee report. It was not that the engineers submitted such a plan, but the committee mentioned it as a possibility in the report they made.

The CHAIRMAN. Does this map locate all the reservoirs ? Mr. BEARD. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It does not? Mr. BEARD. It presents a large group of reservoirs, but not all of them.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the identifying part of this map attached to that committee report?

Colonel HERB. Reservoir plan, Ohio River Basin with flood walls and levees for flood control.

The CHAIRMAN. It does not include some of the reservoirs ?
Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But those not located there are named in the
report of the committee?
Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And in the House document?
Colonel HERB. In the report of the committee, sir.

Mr. FULTON. I would like to say that previously there had been $75,000 allocated to the engineers to make a comprehensive survey to see what was necessary for flood control. They then come up with a comprehensive flood-control plan for the Ohio and lower Mississippi Rivers. There were people who wanted to get certain projects in addition to that approved by the engineers not necessary for flood control. The engineers came up with what they, from an engineering point of view, and not from a political point of view, thought was necessary for flood control, and they did not put Eagle Creek on as one of the projects thought necessary.

The reason I am here today, and will be here later on, is to show that this Eagle Creek Reservoir has only a few inches of flood control in it and many more inches for other purposes. It only has 5,000,000,000 gallons of water in it for the use of one city, Youngstown, and 95,000,000,000 in it for the use of one steel company for their water supply.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear from you further on that matter.

Mr. FULTON. I want to point out that the engineers when they first came up with this Eagle Creek Reservoir--they were not the first ones to come up with it—there were other people that came in here and wanted that put in in addition to what the engineers made as their comprehensive flood-control plan for the Ohio and lower Mississippi Rivers. They came up after the Congress had given them $75,000 to make a fair and free investigation, regardless of any politics or any group or areas. In the Committee Report No. 1, it does first appear, and it does not come from the engineers originally.

The CHAIRMAN. Even so, you are opposed to it, is that right?
Mr. FULTON. Yes, sir.

Senator GUFFEY. It is only a forerunner of a waste of money to build
a canal from Cleveland to Pittsburgh.
Mr. FULTON. What date is that?
The CHAIRMAN. April 19.

Senator GUFFEY. I would like to be here and explain a little bit about how long I have been working on this thing.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as this committee is concerned, we know generally about the differences of opinion between Ohio and Pennsylvania in that matter. It would not have been embraced in that bill if the Chief of Engineers had not recommended it.

Mr. FULTON. Is it not correct that the engineers in 1938 did not put it into their comprehensive plan?

The CHAIRMAN. I will have them to go into that and refresh our memories. You shall have full information with respect to that matter. • You may go on the assumption that this committee would not have included the project in its report if it had not been recommended by the Chief of Engineers. Mr. FULTON. That is the whole point I want to make.

The CHAIRMAN. We will do our best to oblige you. The gentlemen of the Corps of Engineers will be in a position to furnish us full information. We will be glad to hear you gentlemen further when we return to the matter.

(April 18, 1946) The CHAIRMAN. We will turn now to the Eagle Creek Reservoir in Ohio.



The CHAIRMAN. And on what stream do you live? Do you live on the stream that is involved here? Mr. HUBER. It is in my district. Eagle Creek is in my district. The CHAIRMAN. Is the dam located in your district? Mr. HUBER. I understand it is on the borderline between my district and Mr. Kirwan's district, who is a resident of Youngstown—Representative Kirwan, of Ohio...

The CHAIRMAN. He has previously testified today about the matter. This dam is about the border between you

Mr. HUBER. Mr. Chairman, I am not able to place it definitely. That is one reason I was reluctant to testify today because I haven't received certain information which I have requested which would have enabled me to be more familiar with the facts as to the location.

HUBEROR, Ohio: Eagle 15-thatcht' divern its waobjected

Suize the fution of thes, have d simply like

The CHAIRMAN. Your remarks will be passed on to you and you may correct them in that regard, you may proceed with your statement now.

Mr. HUBER. Well, I would simply like to say that officials and citizens of Akron, Ohio, have communicated with me their opposition to the creation of the Eagle Creek Dam, feeling that it would jeopardize the future water supply—that is, the Akron municipal water supply—in the future. And it might divert water from the Cuyahoga River system which supplies Akron with its water supply. Also residents, rural residents, of Portage County have objected to me because they thought that if this dam were created it might reduce the taxable property on their tax duplicate, and they are especially alarmed because we have had already established the Ravanna ordnance plant, which has reduced their tax collection in that county considerably. I believe that is about all. I would like to respectfully ask permission to come back at a later time to go more into detail and present information which might be supplied to me in the meantime.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, for the record now, where is Youngstown, Ohio, on the map there, please?

[It was pointed out on the map.]

The CHAIRMAN. In what direction does it flow, and what does it. empty into? Mr. HUBER. I can't tell you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I am asking Mr. Bousquet for the record here. Mr. BOUSQUET. Eagle Creek rises in northeastern Ohio and flows in a southerly direction for a short distance and then flows easterly to join the Mahoning River.

The CHAIRMAN. And thence? Mr. BoUSQUET. Into the Beaver River which in turn joins the Ohio River several miles downstream from Pittsburgh.

The CHAIRMAN. How far from the source of the river is the proposed dam? How far would you say about? .

Mr. BOUSQUET. About 14 miles, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. From the source of the river to the proposed dam?

Mr. BOUSQUET. It is about 14 miles from the source of Eagle Creek to the proposed dam site.

The CHAIRMAN. And how far from Akron—is Akron in the river basin of this dam? How far is Akron from the proposed dam?

Mr. BOUSQUET. Oh, something like 30 miles. Akron is not in the same drainage basin.

Mr. BEARD. Akron is south and west of this dam, and Youngstown is south and east.

The CHAIRMAN. What cities in your district are below the dam, would you say, please, sir? Mr. HUBER. You mean directional ? The CHAIRMAN. Below the dam on the river. Mr. HUBER. Well, the southeast section, I would say. It comprises probably the cities of Garretsville and Ravanna.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the county you spoke of by name—is that below the dam?

Mr. HUBER. My impression is that it is. As I say, I am not too familiar with the exact location because this information hasn't been made available to me which I was seeking.

« PreviousContinue »