Page images

APRIL 6, 1946. Congressman JOHN H. KERR,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: It is our understanding that a conference committee will consider on Monday, April 8, an appropriation for reservoir studies on Eagle Creek, in the Mahoning River watershed, Ohio.

Notice of the inclusion of this project reached us only after the House Appropriations Committee had acted on it. We immediately protested to the Member from the Fourteenth District and to our two Ohio Senators.

Therefore, we are now asking you to consider our objections.

Some years ago, the Army engineers reported on a proposed Lake Erie-Ohio River canal along the Grand-Mahoning Rivers. They found that, if such a canal were to be developed to its economic capacity, more water will be necessarythan is available in the two natural watersheds. They found that a supplemental source could easily be developed by diversion from the Cuyaboga River through Eagle Creek by building a dam at Hiram Rapids.

Akron immediately protested. The State of Ohio had previously conveyed all its water rights in the upper Cuyahoga to the city of Akron for a domestic water supply. The city had bought other rights; had developed the river for domestic supply; and had acquired about half the land in the proposed Hiram Reservoir at a cost of about a million dollars to increase the supply when necessary.

Thereafter, the Army engineers omitted reference to the Cuya hoga River supply from reports on the canal. Since then, Akron has had to build a branch of the Hiram Reservoir to meet its water needs. But the omission of the diversion project from Army engineers' reports does not affect the physical fact that the Eagle Creek Reservoir, if built, would be useful in making a diversion from the Cuyahoga effective as a water-supply source for the proposed canal. Such a diversion would, of course, reduce the capacity of the Cuyahoga River to meet additional water-supply needs of Akron.

Within the past 5 years, this diversion by the Army engineers has been suggested by the Ohio State water engineer as a part of a flood-prevention project. Since serious floods do occur in the Ohio River, into which Eagle Creek flows through the Mahoning, and since there is no record of disastrous floods in the Cuyahoga, such a scheme appears to us to be something other than a flood-prevention project.

Therefore, we ask that no work be authorized on the Eagle Creek project unless and until adequate safeguards are given Akron that such work will not and cannot be useful in diverting water from the Cuyahoga River. Respectfully submitted,


Executive Vice President. , Mr. HUBER. I wish to state for the record that some of the rural residents in the vicinity where this reservoir would be constructed have voiced an objection to it because it might remove people and thereby lower the tax duplicate.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like for you to indicate that dam on the map. It is located on what stream?

Mr. HUBER. Eagle Creek.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a tributary of what?
Mr. HUBER. The Mahoning River.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a tributary of what?
Mr. HUBER. The Beaver.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Beaver is a tributary of what?
Mr. HUBER. The Ohio.

The CHAIRMAN. Is the district that you represent above or below the dam?

Mr. HUBER. It is below it and the feeling is that it might jeopardize the future water supply of the city of Akron.

The CHAIRMAN. And is the city of Akron located on the creek below the dam? Where is the city of Akron?

Mr. HUBER. Right here (indicating].
The CHAIRMAN. Do you live in Akron?

Mr. HUBER. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. Will this dam be in your district?
Mr. HUBER. I understand part of it would be in the district.
The CHAIRMAN. Your district?
Mr. HUBER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that part of the creek below the dam in your district, just for the record ?

Mr. HUBER. I would have to examine the map to determine that later.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement.
We will now hear from our colleague, Representative Campbell.

rst place, of the fact that saffected by sube .


IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. CAMPBELL. I am from the Twenty-ninth District of Pennsylvania.

The CHAIRMAN. What part of Pennsylvania?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Pittsburgh.

The CHAIRMAN. The city of Pittsburgh?
The CHAIRMAN. Do you favor or oppose the proposed reservoir?
Mr. CAMPBELL. I am on record as opposing it."

The CHAIRMAN. I recall your former appearance here, and if you have any additional statement of facts that you care to submit, Mr. Campbell, we shall be glad to have that.

Mr. CAMPBELL. In the first place, the Governor of Pennsylvania should be here on this subject, in view of the fact that stream pollution is involved, and under Public Law No. 534 the States affected by such a situation should be taken into consideration and there should be. hearings held, and those States should be allowed to voice their objections.

The controlling water problem in the valley of the Mahoning River is lack of water for the use of the steel mills in Youngstown. The largest users are the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. and the Republic Steel Co. This fact is set forth in the following quotation from the official report of the Ohio Water Supply Board, dated 1943. This report is on file in the capitol at Columbus, Ohio. This report is available to the public, and I have a copy in my possession if the committee wishes to see it.

The CHAIRMAN. You favor flood-control dams, but you object to this?

Mr. CAMPBELL. What I am objecting to is the low-flow dams for special interests.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you opposing the navigation feature in this case ?

Mr. CAMPBELL. No; but the personal use of water for industry at the expense of flood-control programs. That is the furnishing of water to the mills without the mills going to the expense of producing it themselves, as we do in the Pittsburgh area.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you say about the navigation feature in connection with the stabilization of navigation?

report is part of the 18,5t forth is heet & Tubein Young

Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not think, gentlemen, that has much to do with this particular problem. It is more a matter of supplying water for industrial use rather than navigation.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a proposal to supply water for industrial use in what respect ?

Mr. CAMPBELL. For cooling off in the mills. They use considerable water for cooling-off processes.

The CHAIRMAN. And you oppose that?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I feel that under flood-control projects water at the expense of the Federal Government should not be furnished to the mills or private industries.

The CHAIRMAN. Where would those mills be located ? Mr. CAMPBELL. Warren and Youngstown, and at intermediate and adjacent communities.

Mr. GRIFFITHS. The gentleman is from Pennsylvania and is much interested in seeing that this water is not impounded for the benefit of industry in Ohio. He might as well say it plainly.

Mr. CAMPELL. Under the guise of flood control. If it is to be done, it should be done under the proper name.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed with your statement. Mr. CAMPBELL. Some stream gaging has been done cooperatively with the United States Geological Survey in the Grand River Basin. Five stations are maintained with the board's assistance. This work is of particular interest in connection with the industrial water supply problem of the Mahoning Valley. It concerns the economy of Warren, Youngstown, intermediate and adjacent communities and all of the industrial development involved in that area.

The gaging is being done primarily to assist the industries and cities in the Warren-Youngstown area in a solution of their water-supply · problems. The Mahoning Valley Industrial Council has considered

the feasibility of a reservoir in Grand River from which water could be brought over the continental divide into Mahoning River. Such a reservoir would furnish a tremendous supply since the Grand River Basin offers a remarkable opportunity for an impounding reservoir.

Trumbull County has a part in the Mahoning Valley industrial water-supply problem. At least five of its communities are affected by the problem because of the dependence of industry upon the Mahoning River for cooling water. The Warren-Youngstown area as a whole has an aggregate primary industrial demand well over a billion gal. lons a day. Controlled as it now is, the Mahoning River flow never drops below 162,000,000. But during times of this low flow, industry recirculates the water six times. Mosquito Reservoir will add about 49,000,000. Plans are afoot to add other increments to raise this low-flow figure. The problem of sufficient water for the industries of the Warren-Youngstown area is one of Ohio's biggest.

Surface water for industry: Because industrial water needs are usually great, ground water cannot always be obtained in sufficient quantities. Surface supplies are then depended upon, as in the Warren-Youngstown area. But surface-water developments are usually expensive and the individual industry often cannot see its way clear to make the necessary expenditure. However, it is thought likely that an association of industries in any vicinity can find ways of working out the problem, as has the Mahoning Valley Industrial Council at

Youngstown. Because of the importance of these industries in the war effort the Federal Government was prevailed upon to construct Berlin and Mosquito Creek Reservoirs, which have alleviated the water shortage in Mahoning Valley to a certain extent.

The language of the Flood Control Act of 1938, which authorizes the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers to modify the floodcontrol plan, is based solely upon the language in the report of the Chief of Engineers when he requested discretionary power to do certain things.

Page 5, paragraph 16 : The plan presented herein designed to secure the maximum flood protection. In some cases, particularly where walls and levees are provided, inhabitants may, prefer, with suitable Governmetal aid, to evacuate the flooded areas and resettle on ground removed from flood danger. Authorization should be given for the expenditure of funds for these purposes in lieu of construction of flood-protection works, wherever it would further the general purpose of ameliorating loss and distress due to floods provided that suitable provisions are made to insure that evacuated areas are retained in perpetuity for park, recreation, or other purposes not antagonistic to their use for the passage of floodwaters.

Page 9, paragraph 28: Any return from the reservoirs in the development of power, from the utilization of the stored water, and of the reservoir lands for any purpose, should certainly accrue to the United States if the United States bears the entire cost of the work.

Page 9, paragraph 29: The potential conservation possibilities should be recognized. Permanent pondage should be provided in the bottom of reservoir areas where its cost would be nominal and where it would serve a useful purpose. Discretionary authority should be vested in the Secretary of War to approve the design and construction of the dams to permit their enlargement at a later date to provide conservation storage where such storage appears to have value. This authorization should include the provision of penstocks as reservoir sites present possibilities for the development of hydroelectric power. Where the States contribute the requisite rights-of-way the Secretary of War should be authorized to enter into agreements with these States under which the conservation rights would be reserved by the States, subject to the reimbursement of the Federal Government for any additional costs incurred in the construction of the structures to permit their future enlargement for conservation purposes, subject to their subsequent operation to fulfill the primary objective of flood control under rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War. These authorizations would provide for a coordinated program of water regulation without delaying progress on the emergent flood-control features of the plan.

Page 10, paragraph 32:

Thus the Secretary of War should be given discretionary authority to except such rights in the purchase of floodway lands. If complete title is otherwise taken, there would appear to be no reason for the restrictions prescribed on the construction and operation of the floodways in the act of June 15, 1936.

Page 12, paragraph 38 (2): In the discretion of the Secretary of War the turning over of lands purchased in the floodways to the Department of Agriculture or other public agency under such restrictions as may be necessary to insure their proper use for floodway purposes.

The CHÁIRMAN. Do you favor or oppose those ?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Those were used during the war for industrial purposes at the risk of flood control but we felt that industry was more important at the time of the war than flood control.

87116—46— 17

This industrial need for fresh water is further evidenced by the statements of the United States Army engineers which have appeared from time to time in the Youngstown Vindicator. These articles show that the valley does not need additional flood-control protection. In fact the Army engineers stated a few months ago, at a meeting at the Youngstown County Club, that it would be difficult to justify the Eagle Creek Reservoir as a flood-control project.

I have a photostatic copy of that statement as shown in the Youngstown Vindicator and I wish to submit it to the committee.

On April 6, 1937, the Chief of Engineers sent to the Secretary of War, a report entitled “Comprehensive Flood Control Plan for Ohio and lower Mississippi Rivers." This plan was transmitted to Chairman Whittington on April 28, 1937. I will talk more about this plan and the act of 1938 a little later.

At the present moment I wish to call your attention to the fact that on page 4, the Chief of Engineers said in the report that the basin of the Beaver River, of which the Mahoning is a part, needed 116,000 additional acre-feet of flood protection. It may be of interest to this committee to know that since April 6, 1937, the following reservoirs have been completed and put into operation in the basin of the Beaver River of which the Mahoning is a part: Pymatuning, capacity 150,000 acre-feet; Milton, capacity 28,100 acre-feet; Berlin, capacity 71,000 acre-feet; Mosquito Creek, capacity 107,000 acre-feet.

These figures are approximately correct but of course may be increased if the height of the dams are raised so as to increase the water level.

I had one of my assistants obtain these figures from the district engineer's office in Pittsburgh. According to my arithmetic, the basin of the Beaver River now has 356,100 acre-feet of flood-control reservoirs, all of them put into operation since the Chief of Engineers made his report. There is no subsequent report recommending more acre-feet for the Beaver Basin.

I also wish to call your attention to page 2, paragraph 6, which requires the local governments to provide all land and flood rights.

On page 5, paragraph 16, we find the following language:

The plan presented herein is designed to secure the maximum flood protectionnot flow control.

On page 9, paragraph 29, we find the following language:
Operation to fulfill to primary object of flood control.
On page 9, paragraph 31, we also find the following language:

It is of particular moment that the reservoirs herein recommended be operated to secure the maximum and most widespread benefit for flood control, and be not operated for the benefit of a particular locality. If these reservoirs are constructed wholly at the cost of the Federal Government, they should be operated at Federal cost for the general benefit. The estimated annual cost of maintenance and operation is $3,000,000.

On page 11, paragraph 38, I wish to call your attention to subparagrap A-1 which refers exclusively to flood-control reservoirs.

It will be noted that none of the language in the report contemplates the construction of reservoirs for low-flow control or for industrial purposes.

The Flood Control Act of 1938 is based upon Comprehensive Flood Control Plan for Ohio and lower Mississippi Rivers, Committee Doc

« PreviousContinue »