Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 CHAIRMAN. 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

ument No. 1, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, Flood Control Committee, House of Representatives.

This plan was transmitted to the Congress by the President on April 28, 1937, and the President's letter calls attention to the fact that the plan is limited to

flood-control works, such as levees and reservoirs, all of these works being in-tended to keep out or hold back waters after they have reached the main stem of the Mississippi or one of the principal tributaries thereof.

On page 4 of this report the number of reservoirs to be built in the drainage basin of the Beaver River is shown as two, at a total cost of $7,700,000. Attached to the report is a map showing the location of the reservoirs to be constructed in the Ohio River Basin. The two reservoirs shown on the map are No. 11, referred to as Shenango, and No. 12 as Mahoning. These two reservoirs have been built on the locations and in the shape indicated on the map, but their names have been changed to Pymatuming and Berlin. As a matter of fact, there are two reservoirs on the site of the Mahoning project, one being Milton and the other Berlin. The map does not indicate any proposed reservoir on the site of Mosquito or Eagle Creeks. The report of the Flood Control Committee of the House contains a tabulation of reservoirs without any explanation or designation whatever. In this tabulation will be found Eagle Creek, Mosquito Creek, Berlin, and Shenango. No mention is made of Pymatuming or Milton. The act of 1938 makes no mention of the committee report.

When the civil functions appropriation bill was before the Senate committee in March of this year, carrying an appropriation of $90,000 for planning in connection with Eagle Creek, the Army engineers made a formal statement to the Senate Appropriation Subcommittee declaring that the engineers would use the $90,000 appropriation to make plans in connection with Eagle Creek and that public hearings would be held at which all persons would be given an opportunity to be heard, and that the engineers would then make a report concerning the advisability of constructing the reservoir. Are the engineers going to keep faith on this hearing?

As I understand the position of the engineers before the committee at the present time, it is now contended that they have a right to include Eagle Creek in the comprehensive flood-control plan based upon the language above mentioned concerning modification. However, this does not seem to be a very sound assumption because the term "modification" cannot be construed to give the engineers power to enlarge the comprehensive flood-control plan and build new reservoirs which would make the plan larger both in number of reservoirs and in expenditure of money. I also wish to again call your attention to the language of the President's letter of transmittal, which would exclude consideration of the so-called flow-control reservoirs, except as an incidental purpose.

In my opinion, Mosquito Creek was built without proper authority and the disbursement of funds might have been stopped by injunction.. However, this job was completed during wartime, as a war project and no one sought to halt the work. This statement is supported by letter from the President to the Senate of June 23, 1943.

I do not wish to argue the physical merits of the Eagle Creek project at this time. As I see the proposition, it is a question of whether or

not the project has been authorized and does not go to the advisability of building the reservoir. I think this presentation before the Flood Control Committee should be confined to an explanation of the lack of authority. If the committee then wishes to set a date for hearing on the merits of the reservoir, that is a different matter. However, I think that the engineers should hold a hearing in the first instance and make a report to Congress, so that we will have something to talk about.

I now come to the discussion of some language in the Flood Control Act of 1938 which relates to discretionary authority to be exercised by the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers to modify the flood-control plan. I understand that the engineers claim that this language means that they can enlarge the plan at will and build any reservoirs they wish. I want to say now, that, in my opinion, Congress has no power to delegate such authority to the engineers. In the next place the discretionary power as stated in the flood-control plan is clearly explained in the report of the Chief of Engineers.

On page 5 of the report, paragraph 16, the Chief of Engineers asked for authority to use his discretion in moving certain communities to other locations in lieu of constructing flood-control dams.

On page 9, paragraph 29, he asked for authority to permit the Secretory of War to enlarge certain dams which had already been provided for and to deal with the distribution of hydroelectric power. But the exercise of this discretion was to be subject to the primary object of flood control.

On page 10, paragraph 32, discretionary authority is asked, in order that the Secretary of War might accept such rights-of-way as might be given or purchased. The words "modify or modification" as used in the act of 1938 must be held to mean the discretionary power asked for in the Chief of Engineers' report, and nothing more. I have discussed this matter with a lawyer who has had unusual experiences in legislative matters and he tells me that any other legal construction of the word "modification" as contained in the Flood Control Act of 1938, would be almost impossible.

We must, therefore, conclude that the Army engineers have no power to enlarge the flood-control plan and that the Eagle Creek Reservoir was not included in the plan on April 6, 1937.

No hearings have been held up to this time on the advisability of constructing a dam at Eagle Creek and until such hearings are held we can do nothing but wait for the engineers to progress the matter in the usual way.

[Youngstown Vindicator, Sunday, February 10, 1946]

THE EAGLE CREEK MILESTONE

Everyone in the Mahoning Valley has reason to be pleased as the House Appropriations Committee, of which Representative Kirwan, of Youngstown, is a member, provides $90,000 to make plans for the Eagle Creek Reservoir. The new lake would save the valley's cities $550,000 a year in sewage expenses alone, besides its aid to the industries which support the cities, and its value in flood control and recreation.

Eight years ago Mr. Kirwan was a member of the House Flood Control Committee which approved construction of the Berlin, Mosquito Creek, and Eagle Creek Reservoirs. The first two have been completed. Long service has made Mr. Kirwan one of the most powerful figures in Congress, and the Mahoning Valley will have an influential spokesman when this important new project is reported for consideration.

The Eagle Creek Dam is needed because the existing reservoirs (Milton, Berlin, and Mosquito Creek) cannot provide flood control and low-flow control at the same time. They have to be nearly empty to catch spring floods, nearly full to provide water in summer. During the war production came first, and the Government took a chance on floods. The three reservoirs were used primarily for low-flow control, to keep the steel mills running.

Normally, however, these reservoirs must be no more than one-third full in spring, so that they can catch floods. But if the floods should not come, then they would not have enough water in summer to keep the river at the level needed for industry. If Eagle Creek is added, however, the river can be kept at about the same flow as during the war, and at the same time there will be adequate flood control.

The amount of water needed by industry is greater than most people realize. Last year, for example, Youngstown Sheet & Tube pumped 95,303,710,000 gallons for its plants. The Youngstown city system, serving 180,000 people, pumped only 5,493,000,000 gallons. Using the same ratio of water to population, Sheet & Tube's pumpage was enough to serve 3,123,000 people—nearly as many as in Chicago.

The city governments are directly affected by the river's level, because all of them soon will have to install sewage-disposal plants. If the wartime flow of the river can be kept up, they can get by with 50-percent treatment of sewage instead of the 98-percent treatment that would be required if the river fell to a trickle in summer, as it used to before the war. This makes the great difference in sewage expense, estimated by the United States Public Health Service at $550,000 a year-at 1934 prices.

The sewage survey now being made by Youngstown, with $25,000 provided by the Federal Government, will help establish these facts, so that the Army engineers' survey of the Eagle Creek project can justify the ultimate cost of more than $3,000,000. Another study now under way, by the Ohio Water Resources Board, will add to the project's value by showing its recreation possibilities. Since 1944 the Army engineers have been authorized by Congress to include recreation as one of the assets of such projects. It is an important item; in the Muskingum Valley lakes a value of $2.50 an acre per year is assigned to fishing alone.

In summary, the valley needs flood protection and also a good flow of water in summer to keep its industries efficient and attract new ones; the cities need a high minimum flow to cut the expense of sewage treatment; the Eagle Creek Reservoir would complete these purposes, so far only partly attained by the Milton, Berlin, and Mosquito Creek Dams. The approval of funds to make the actual plans and specifications for Eagle Creek is therefore a milestone in the valley's progress toward security and expansion.

I raised a question before and I raise it again, that in the first place it was not authorized by Congress; secondly, that the purpose of it is not for flood control but for low flow control for the special interests and industry; thirdly, that it will wash into the Pennsylvania area contaminated waters because of these low-flow facilities. It will wash into Pennsylvania sewage which should be taken care of at its source.

The CHAIRMAN. How far is Youngstown from Pittsburgh?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Along the river?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I could not give you the mileage.

The CHAIRMAN. About how far?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Possibly 14 miles from Pennsylvania, but they do not have sewage disposal, so they wash all that muck and sewage material into Pennsylvania and we have to take care of it. The purification is not taken care of at its source.

I wish that I had time to give this more attention, because it does provoke thought.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from one of the best friends that flood control has in the country.

« PreviousContinue »