Page images

stream-pollution benefits done by the Federal Government under the guise of flood control; and despite the expenditures that have been made lately for this particular purpose by the State. There is no competition between the State of Pennsylvania and the State of Ohio, because we in Pennsylvania have that same sewage-disposal problem and we are taking care of it as we should and we are paying for it ourselves and are not asking the Federal Government to do it; and we want these other communities to do likewise, because, as you know, Mr. Cannon, the outstanding Representative from Missouri and chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has said that the policy of the administration is to do as much flood control as possible, but there is not even enough money available to take care of the necessary things. If, then, this particular community is more than 52 percent protected from a flood-control standpoint, and they have been given the greatest flood-control protection of any community, why should we put them further ahead than they are now when they are way above other communities in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania ?

Another point that I would like to make is that not only is this for sewage-disposal purposes but also it is an attempt to provide water, as shown by the Youngstown Vindicator, a paper in Youngstown, Ohio, in an editorial in that paper on September 10, 1945, which states this:

The amount of water needed by industry is greater than most people realize. Last year, for example, the Youngstown Sheet & Tube pumped 95,300,000,700 gallons through its plant. The Youngstown city system, serving 180,000 people pumped only 5,493,000,000 gallons. Using the same ratio of water to population, they would be pumping enough to serve 3,122,000 people, nearly the same as in Chicago.

It will thus be seen that the city of Youngstown is only pumping 5,000,000,000 gallons of water for that city, whereas the Youngstown company is pumping 95,000,000,000 gallons. The question then is raised whether the Federal Government is in the business of supplying steel companies here in this area or in the Pittsburgh area with water for their own personal, private use and for their private gain.

I am opposing this, particularly the $90,000 appropriation, on the basis that it is not primarily for flood control, but it is being brought in under the cloak of flood control to give the benefit to a private concern as distinguished from the public good; and the other one, that it is done for purposes of sewage disposal, which is primarily a State and community problem as distinguished from a Federal problem. · With your permission I would like to extend my remarks later in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. You may submit your remarks and they will be included in the record.

I may say in respect to this project that the basis of the act of 1938 is found on page 149 of the Hearings on Comprehensive Flood-Control Plans, March 30; and the report on the Ohio Basin, and that part of the report authorizing the project stipulated is in House Document No. 1, with such modifications thereof as the Chief Engineer in his judgment might make, and in construing the meaning of those terms ordinarily there are taken into consideration the alternative proposals submitted by the Chief Engineer at the hearing. My understanding is that there is pending in the civil-functions bill, that is, the pending bill before the Civil Functions Appropriation Committee, plans for this particular reservoir.

Mr. FULTON. May I say this, that as to the word “modification," what Webster's Dictionary says is that it does, it would mean something under the authorization and not in excess. On this particular statement I have prepared showing what has been spent, there has been already spent about $22,938,000 on an authorized project to cost originally $7,188,000. Now if that is the modification of the $7,000,000 appropriation, I certainly do think that the word “modification” is being slightly stressed.

The CHAIRMAN. We would be glad to have your statement, and will keep in mind your facts with respect to that project and with respect to the term “modification.”

Mr. FULTON. May I say this? The 1938 act was passed completely on the case in Document No. 1.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. FULTON. And that is what Congress approved and passed the 1938 act upon. It was not based on Committee Report No. 2353 because that was not approved by Congress in passing the 1938 act..

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we are glad to have your statement. The members of the committee understand the functions and will give consideration to your statements in the consideration of the bill.

Mr. GRIFFITHS. The gentleman referred to the 1913 flood as the last
flood out there. I presume you are familiar with the area.
Mr. FULTON. I am familiar with the area.
Mr. GRIFFITHS. Do you remember the flood in the fall of 1942?

Mr. FULTON. I know this; that on the Ohio River, the Monomgahela River, the Allegheny, as well as the Beaver and the Mahanoy, we have floods every spring; but there is a question comes up as to the cost of the amount of protection that has to be put out to proteci against certain rivers. Now it comes to the point that unless you take off the highest risks first and do that, going over the whole basin and taking off the highest risks first, your protection will not be equally distributed; and where you have a community that has up to 52 percent of flood protection, that being the case, you certainly should look at other areas where flood risks is much greater. So I do not want the communities that have the greatest flood protection at the present time raised to a point where all the risks have been taken off so that they will only have minor risks, whereas other areas will have practically no prfotection at all. We are not asking for that in the Pittsburgh district and we are not asking that other than the greatest of the risks be removed, because we in the Pittsburgh district are in line for a considerable amount of flood protection and the engineers will find that we are not demanding it. .

Mr. GRIFFITHS. Would you say if ten percent of the steel business of the country would be put out of production it would be a great risk in this country? Mr. FULTON. We have it in Pennsylvania. Mr. GRIFFITHS. I asked you just one question. Mr. FULTON. Yes, if you will let me answer the question.

Mr. GRIFFITHS. One inch more rise in 1942 flood would have put out 10 percent of the steel production of the country.

Mr. FULTON. May I say this, that Mosquito Creek and Berlin Dams were built for flood control. During the war they were not being used for that purpose and if they had been kept empty and used for flood-control purposes, they would then have had adequate capa

city to take care of any floods, but they were not used for that purpose. They were admittedly used, and the Army engineers will admit it, they were used for flood control and also for providing water for summer months as well as for the others; and the engineers will also state, I am sure, that there is only 6 inches of capacity as distinguished from 26 inches of capacity of the big dam area that is used for flood-control purposes. Now why don't they use the Berlin and Mosquito Creek Dams for the purposes for which they were built, flood control, and then we would be able to say that the protection is there; but when they fill them up to capacity and then use them for big steel companies, as you are basing this on, you are going beyond

Mr. GRIFFITHS (interposing). I am not basing it on that. Mr. FULTON. If you are going to use it for that particular purpose, as they have been doing during these past years, providing water for steel companies, then, of course, they will not be available for flood control, and that is the point I am making. We people in the steel business want the steel companies to provide their own water, and they have done that same thing in Pennsylvania and they could do it in Ohio, West Virginia, or any other State. I am not here for the protection of any particular steel industry but for the protection of the public and for the protection of other areas that need flood control.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your statement, and you will be privileged to extend your remarks.

(Mr. Fulton submits the following statement:)



The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, 52 Stat. 1215, 1217, approved the general comprehensive plan for inter alia the Ohio River Basin as set forth in Flood Control Committee Document No. 1, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, "with such modifications as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable.”

Appropriations have been made from time to time for the initiation and partial accomplishment of the plan. An examination of Flood Control Committee Document No. 1 shows that it deals with the levees and new reservoirs needed. Only this plan was approved by Congress and procedure must be in accordance with it, with only such modifications as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers may be advisable. We shall consider later what is meant by "modifications.” Let us first consider what the "plan" itself calls for.

On page 4 of Committee Document No. 1, we read that a careful review of the many available reservoir sites investigated by the War Department shows that the reservoirs now authorized can be profitably supplemented by 45 others. ACcording to the table which follows, only two of these having a total capacity of 116,000 acre-feet at a total cost of $7,700,000 are allocated to the Beaver River Basin.

The map entitled "Reservoir Plan,” following page 12, shows two reservoirs entitled “No. 11 Shenango" and "No. 12 Mahoning” in the Beaver River Basin, The table on page 4 shows these two reservoirs to have a total capacity of 116,000 acre-feet and a total estimated cost of $7,700,000. “Shenango" is shown on the map as on the upper Shenango River, a tributary of the Beaver River, and has not yet been built by the United States.

“Mahoning” is shown on the map as on the Mahoning River in the Youngstown district, but the Army engineers are seeking to change it into three separate and distinct reservoirs, viz: Berlin, Mosquito Creek, and Eagle Creek. These reservoirs are located on tributaries of the Mahoning River at widely separated

locations. The Chief of Engineers apparently relied upon the authority given to the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers acting in their discretion to approve modifications of the comprehensive plan. It is true that a report of the Flood Control Committee, entitled “Report No. 2353", was submitted to Congress containing these increases in the program and referred on May 13, 1938, to the Committee of the Whole House. Congress never approved it but instead, by the act of June 28, 1938, approved only the plan contained in Flood Control Committee Document No. 1.

Let us see how the modifications so far adopted affect the original plan. A large reservoir called Pymatuming Lake has since been completed by the State of Pennsylvania, primarily for water conservation and flood control, on the site of Shenango. It is quite possible that by “Shenango" the committee was referring to Pymatuming. No reservoir has yet been built by the Federal Government on the site of the Shenango.

Berlin and Mosquito Creeks are built and their costs and capacities are as follows: Berlin, capacity 71,000 acre-feet-----

----------------------- $7,250.000 Mosquito Creek, capacity 107,000 acre-feet ------------------------ 4,641,000

Total (178,000 acre-feet) --

------- 11,891,000 Mosquito Creek was neither contemplated nor authorized by Congress as part of the comprehensive flood-control plan. It was put through in time of war as an emergency measure partly for flood control and partly for domestic and industrial water supply and pollution abatement, but was paid for out of unobligated balances of previous appropriations for flood control. Now that the emergency is passed, it will be unlawful to operate it primarily for any purpose save flood control. The construction of Eagle Creek, the third of the three reservoirs intended to supply the place of “Mahoning,” as authorized by Congress, is now being asked by the Chief of Engineers. We are not told how much capacity it will add, but it is estimated that its cost will be $3,859,000. Even without it the total capacity of 116,000 acre-feet and the total cost of $7,700,000 as originally authorized, have been already very substantially exceeded. This is even if we disregard Pymatuming and with "Shenago" yet to be built at an estimated cost of $7,188,000. The plans of the Army engineers encompass four reservoirs of very substantially greater capacity than authorized and a total cost of $22,938,000 or three times the authorized cost of two approved by Congress.

It may now be pertinent to ask how far the Secretary of War and Chief of Engineers may go in substituting a multiplicity of reservoirs of greater capacity and greater total cost for two reservoirs authorized.

The verb "modify” is defined by Webster's New International Dictionary as having, among other meanings, the following:

“2. To limit or reduce in extent or degree; to moderate, qualify, lower.
'He modifies his first severe decree." Dryden.”
Century Dictionary gives the following definitions : .

"1. To qualify; especially to reduce in extent or degree. (Using the above quotation from Dryden.)

“2. To change the properties, form, or function of; give new form to; alter slightly or not much.

"Modify implies the continued existence of the subject-matter to be modified, but with some change or qualification in form or qualities without touching the mode of creation. It implies no power to create or bring into existence, but only the power to change or vary in some particular an already created or existing thing. State v. Laurence (12 Ore. 297)'."

It is therefore plain that “modify" means “alter slightly or not much," reduce in extent but not enlarge substantially. The discretion to modify cannot be interpreted as entitling the Chief of Engineers to build four or more reservoirs in place of two, and costing at least three times as much as the two that were authorized.

During the hearing in committee on May 2, 1946, one of the Ohio delegation to Congress suggested that the members from western Pennsylvania are opposed to all flood-control projects for Ohio, while favoring them whenever projects benefiting their own communities are concerned. Totally aside from the characteristic of human nature involved, it is true that the Youngstown district has not suffered any disastrous flood in many years, while the valleys of the Allegheny and Mononga hela, the Conemaugh and their tributaries have experienced disastrous floods, two of the worst being in 1936 and 1937. The problem

in the Youngstown area is essentially industrial water supply with the hope of realizing the Lake Erie-Ohio River Canal always in the background, which is being pressed under the guise of flood control, and in western Pennsylvania is legitimate flood control.

It is my belief that no present authority to construct Eagle Creek Reservoir exists, and that the project cannot be justified under the comprehensive floodcontrol plan, as embodied in Flood Control Committee Document No. 1, Seventyfifth Congress, first session, and approved by Congress,


The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, Colonel Herb, the report for the Wabash River has been submitted to the Budget?

Colonel HERB. That report will leave our office this week to go to the Budget.

The CHAIRMAN. It was given to me as one submitted to the Budget, and I so advised the people that it would be submitted to the Budget. Some of them are here today.

Colonel HERB. We expect it will be submitted today.

The CHAIRMAN. The next specific item that is before the committee is the report on the Wabash River, and that report involves, as I recall, probably 21 levees, and this particular report is made in response to a resolution, or two resolutions, of the Committe on Flood Control for the review of existing projects. As I recall, some of these projects which are local protection, or levee projects, were authorized in the act of 1936, and the local people and the cities and areas there have spent a good deal of money in an effort to protect themselves. A good deal of it was WPA money and was not necessarily local money.

Under this review report, will you tell the committee generally the problems involved and your recommendation?

The Wabash is a bad actor. It is a boundary between Illinois and Indiana for a considerable distance. There are a good many local protective works. You have already constructed some of the projects along the Wabash River.

Generally, what do you recommend, as you have given us the problem along this stream? There is a population of something like 2,587,000 people involved. There are drainage areas covering the local Wabash. You have got a total drainage area of something like 10,000 square miles. Is that true? STATEMENT OF COL. E. G. HERB, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CIVIL


Colonel HERB. The drainage area is about 33,000 square miles,


The CHAIRMAN. All together?

The CHAHERB. Yes, sir..o, we have approved approved the cht

The CHAIRMAN. Then, too, we have approved some reservoirs along this Wabash River, and among others, we approved the Shoals Reservoir, and at the request of the local people we provided that no work be done under that. So, this Shoals Reservoir is not one of the approved projects at present.

Am I right or wrong about that?

« PreviousContinue »