STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH F. GUFFEY, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Senator GUFFEY. I have favored and voted for every flood-control act in the past 12 years that I have been in Congress. I had literature printed and distributed among the farmers on how to preserve small waters. I had 100,000 copies printed and paid for them myself and distributed them to the farmers in Pennsylvania so that they could build local dams to stop waters. I am for that now. I will still vote for every flood-control dam that comes up for the country. I am opposed to this dam because it is an adjunct to the canal that the Youngstown Sheet & Tube people in Youngstown are trying to get built to get the freight rates lowered.

At one time General Markam, when he was Chief of Engineers, stated that if the railroads would lower their freight rates 6 or 7 cents per hundred they would not recommend a dam. That is how close it was; but now we are proposing here that the Government spend $300,000,000 for the benefit of an industrial establishment at Youngstown, Ohio, including the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. It is a waste of the people's money to put that canal in for the small benefit that the country is going to get and the people are going to get out of it. I do not think it will help flood control. I never have heard of any serious trouble up the valley.

Youngstown had high water once, but I do not think it damaged anything. I looked into it once, and I cannot find out that it did any damage.

That is my position.

When the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. developed the plant at Youngstown there was a very favorable labor market there as compared to Pittsburgh; there was cheaper labor, and that is why they located there. Now they want the Government to pay the difference in wages by getting lower cost transportation.

The CHAIRMAN. You understand that the canalization and navigation part is not before the committee, but the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Senator GUFFEY. I am giving you the background for this dam. That is all that I have to say. Mr. Fulton will give you more details this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Representative Fulton.

Mr. FULTON. I wish to add to the Senator's statement that this particular area on flood-control protection has a 52-percent rate, which is the highest of any area, not only in this particular district but also in the whole country.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES GROVE FULTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. FULTON. I am James G. Fulton, from the Thirty-first District of Pennsylvania.

The CHAIRMAN. I recall your former statement. We would be glad to have you give us a supplemental statement.

Mr. FULTON. My purpose in appearing before the committee is in regard to the evaluation of this power dam and improvements in

regard to flood control primarily. The other advantages of the Eagle Creek project were purely incidental.

I believe that you will find that flood-control is adequate in the area involved, which is the Mahanoy Valley-Beaver River area, and really now it has 50 percent flood control, which is the highest rate of floodcontrol not only in the Ohio Basin but also in the country. These flood-control items are not one community striving against another, as has been claimed in some instances, but are really one community striving to see that the whole basin or area is developed about the same percentage. There has been a question come up here of floods in this particular valley. There was no flood of any size in 1936 or 1937 as there was in Pennsylvania in this area, but the last real flood there was in 1913, and in the report of the district engineers to the division engineers on February 24, 1937, on page 170 of House Document 178 of the Seventy-sixth Congress, first session, entitled "Lake Erie-Ohio," paragraph 402, appearing in this report is the following: In March 1913 the Mahanoy River Valley experienced a particularly severe flood.

*

* *

We are not trying to protect flood areas in this country against floods which will occur only once in 800 to 1,000 years. In addition to that, the question has come up as to the authorization, it having been claimed by Representatives from Ohio that this was specifically authorized in the comprehensive plan for flood control of the Ohio River Basin from

1938.

I have a memorandum prepared showing that the total authorized capacity was about 116,000 acre-feet, and the total cost of the Beaver River Basin was $7,700,000; and it has long since gone clear above this authorization, so that I do not believe the committee nor the engineers, through merely stating this is a modification of a plan, can include this under that authorization. In fact, if you will look at page 4 of Committee Document No. 1, Fifth Congress Comprehensive Control Plan, you will find a complete table of the reservoirs contained there. You will find in the basin of the Beaver River only two reservoirs provided for. These reservoirs are shown on the map, at an estimated cost of these reservoirs of $7,800,000. There is clearly no provision for a greater number of reservoirs and there is nothing stated whatever on Eagle Creek.

Now, however, if you will look to see the real reason why Eagle Creek is proposed, that is to provide water for other purposes than flood control, you will find that this was first put out in the year 1920, when there was a survey made by an engineer from New York, Alexander Porter, consulting engineer, 50 Church Street, New York City, on the resources of the Mahanoy River, including stream control for sanitary purposes and for water supply. That survey was made by Mr. Porter in 1920 for the development of this particular area, and that is not in the engineers' general comprehensive plan that they made up of flood control in 1938. Now, I have made a résumé of the report in addition to that engineering memorandum of Mr. Porter to the city of Warren, Ohio, together with this map which I will submit, too, and will not testify on.

May I say this to the chairman of the committee, that Eagle Creek, it clearly shows that this is a case of trying to have sewage benefits and

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 judg ment 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 protect 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:)

MEMORANDUM TO FLOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE FROM CONGRESSMAN JAMES G. FULTON ON LACK OF AUTHORITY TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR SURVEYS OR CONSTRUCTION OF DAM ON EAGLE CREEK IN BEAVER RIVER BASIN UNDER FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF JUNE 28, 1938, 52 STAT. 1215, 1217

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