23. The progress that is being made and the knowledge of water conservation in all its phases that is being accumulated by research and experience is developing and evolving this new, yet old, science very rapidly in these later days, so that in the near future it will no longer be a cut and try experiment, but an exact science with tested criteria for guidance in construction with known results.

24. The close coordination of all Federal agencies, that developed out of necessity and the Federal desire to create water- and land-conservation remedies for known problems, through specializing agencies, is at this time a very healthy movement for cooperation with all State and local agencies for the use of controlled flood waters.

25. The latest flood-control law of December 22, 1944, puts the burden of responsibility of close cooperation upon the local, State, and district agencies for working together to obtain local benefits and remedies for water damages that need solution and proper engine ring construction. These conditions are closely tied in with national and State improvements, so that the United States engineers can use this pertinent information in the preparation of their reports to Congress for flood-control enactments for cooperation with local projects.

26. If the local communities do not enumerate and evaluate their damages, benefits, future demands, and desires to their districts and the State for transmission to the United States engineers, then they must not expect the engineers to include their unknown and unrevealed problems and plans in the engineering studies and reports to Congress for cooperative action.

27. It is for the purpose of compiling and analyzing all new, available, and pertinent information concerning the Scioto-Sandusky watershed, that the United States Engineers are now at work on a resurvey of this conservancy district, so as to bring everything up to date for this new report to Congress.

28. It is the desire of the Board of Directors of the Scioto-Sandusky Conservancy District and the United States engineers, that every county, township, municipality, soil conservation 'district, corporation, civic association, State agency, and individual citizen, who have information that is valuable or necessary to be known or useful pertaining to flood control and water conservation, will communicate with the secretary of the Scioto-Sandusky Conservancy District, Mr. Allen Pretzman, 50 West Broad St., Columbus, Ohio, and give him the exact and detailed information necessary.

29. This information is very important at this time so that it can count and be useful in this resurvey by the United States engineers for a favorable report on a complete flood control and other purposes project. Respectfully submitted.

DEAR MR. STARKEY: 1. I have been thinking over some of the matters that were discussed at the meeting of the chamber's committee on river improvements and water supply and believe that some of the matters discussed may properly be clarified, as I have attempted to do in the following letter.

2. As explained to the committee, the Summit Reservoir project entails the construction of a large reservoir on the headwaters of the Sandusky and Scioto Rivers. Water, obtained principally from the Sandusky River watershed, would be impounded in the proposed reservoir, and, as required, the upper 5 feet of storage in the proposed reservoir would be available to the city of Columbus by diversion through a ditch constructed to permit the withdrawal of 5 feet of water, and no more, below spillway elevation of the reservoir.

3. Figures to show water available to the city of Columbus were submitted on the basis that the upper 5 feet of storage in the reservoir would all be available for use by the city of Columbus. During the meeting I raised a question of the accuracy of this statement for the reason that, in my opinion, when the city of Columbus would reach the ultimate capacity available in storage and would require this water, it would not be available due to losses of water in the reservoir through evaporation and other causes as well as withdrawals for other uses.

4. This is undoubtedly true, and the possibility of the city of Columbus obtaining this quantity of water, as represented by storage in the upper 5 feet of depth of the reservoir, could be assured only by the installation and operation of adequate pumping equipment. The cost of installation and operation of such pumping equipment should be included in the cost of water delivered from the project for use by the city of Columbus.

5. It should be understood, further, that the use of water by diversion to the city of Columbus entails a legal question which might be of some importance. Water flowing to Columbus would in part be obtained from the Sandusky watershed, and diverted to the Scioto River watershed. Within the past 3 years the writer has been retained as consulting engineer for the Ohio Water Service Co. in connection with some of its reservoir problems. This company is delivering daily some 20,000,000 gallons of water to the industries in the Youngstown district, and all of its water is obtained from impounding reservoirs.

6. During conferences with the management and legal counsel of this company the question of rights of diversion were discussed. In general, it is recognized that the lower riparian owner has the right, as against the upper riparian, to have the natural flow of this stream in its channel unobstructed by the latter. What is meant by the phrase "natural flow" is, however, exceedingly difficult to define. Perhaps it might be said to be that amount of water which normally would flow through that channel from day to day through the varying seasons of the year, undiminished by artificial interference on the one hand and without the surplus water resulting from storms or floods on the other.

7. The right of riparian owners would seem to be particularly important in the event that the diversion is from one watershed to another. It is very clear, however, that, under the Ohio law, perhaps considerable quantities of water could properly be demanded by riparian owners on the Sandusky River watershed ahead of any rights of the city of Columbus situated on the Scioto River watershed.

8. The writer does not pretend to be an attorney but believes that this question is of major importance in determining the ultimate benefits that may accrue to the city of Columbus through joint ownership in such a project as the Summit Reservoir.

9. In any event, it would seem to be very necessary that, before the city of Columbus becomes committed to the proposed project and be required to contribute substantial sums of money, an agreement or contract be entered into, by all parties interested, whereby the city of Columbus could attempt to secure and protect its right to any part of this impounded water, particularly during extreme dry conditions when such water supply becomes very necessary and valuable.

10. There is another feature which I believe should be considered as entering into the benefits which the city of Columbus might derive from the Summit Reservoir project. It is a matter of record that the maximum flood at Columbus to date has been variously estimated at from 140,000 to 150,000 second-feet, as occurred in 1913. The present river channel at Columbus is estimated to have a capacity during floods equal to 100,000 second-feet. The surplus would have to be cared for in some other way.

11. The flood at Columbus in 1913 was made up in part of a flow of approximately 45,000 to 50,000 second-feet from the Olentangy River and the floodprotection project now under consideration and about to be constructed by the Federal Government on the Olentangy River above Delaware will reduce this flood 30,000 to 35,000 second-feet. This, of course, must be credited against the 50 000 second feet surplus which the river channel at Columbus will not now take, leaving a balance of 15,000 second-feet to be cared for.

12. Since the 1913 flood, the O'Shaughnessy Reservoir has been constructed on the Scioto River above Columbus and, while this has been provided principally to store water for domestic and commercial uses, actually it has considerable value for flood-protection purposes because the reservoir will retard a considerable quantity of floodwater. The O'Shaughnessy Reservoir probably would take care of the balance of the surplus floodwater amounting to 15,000 secondfeet, as above discussed. The Summit Reservoir project would, therefore, have value to the city of Columbus for protection purposes only during floods exceeding 150,000 second-feet. The ocurrence of such a flood is a very remote possibility.

13. From the above discussion, it is apparent that the Summit Reservoir project would contribute very little to flood protection at Columbus and little benefit on this account can be assessed against the city of Columbus in the event that the Summit Reservoir project is constructed.

14. In conclusion, I do not wish you or any member of the committee to think that I am opposed to the Summit Reservoir project. It is only my thought, as a member of this committee, to present to the other members some of the things which are of importance and which should be considered in determining the value to the city of Columbus of the proposed Summit Reservoir project and before any commitment is made by the city of Columbus to spend considerable sums of money for benefits until the same are definitely established and proven. This can be done only by proper engineering study of the many features involved.

Very truly yours,

Copies to Allen N. Pretzman and Joseph C. Goodman.

PHILIP BURGESS.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement, sir. The reporter will attach the statements that you are passing to him in connection with your summary, and the statement of the final witness in behalf of the Ohio Valley authorized in the project under

consideration.

(April 18, 1946)

DILLON DAM

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Griffiths, we will be glad to have your state

ment.

We will return now to the Muskingum Valley, and these records will be inserted in the hearings on the Ohio Valley and its tributaries. Mr. Griffiths has been a valuable member of the committee through the years.

STATEMENT OF HON. P. W. GRIFFITHS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. GRIFFITHS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your kindness in allowing us to come back to this project now.

The people from the Licking Valley Protective Association were interested in a modification of the Dillon Dam on the Licking River. This is a project which was adopted about 6 or 7 years ago. Our main connection with it is due to the fact that it takes about 10,000 acres of most valuable bottom land and productive farms in that region, and we are hoping for a modification of it, and I have a statement which is short and I will put in the record with your permission, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have that. (The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF P. W. GRIFFITHS, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO, BEFORE THE HOUSE FLOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE, APRIL 18, 1946

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have with me three representatives from my congressional district: Mr. Holland Gary, an attorney representing the Licking Valley Protective Association; Mr. William Brailer, member of the association and present postmaster at Nashport, Ohio; and Mr. William Ellis, Zanesville, Ohio, an engineer formerly with the Muskingum Conservancy District. These gentlemen will explain to you a plan in lieu of the present proposed Dillon Dam, and I wish to protest against the present proposed plan for this dam at Dillon Falls on the Licking River.

This project was selected in the comprehensive flood-control plan of the Ohio River authorized by the Flood Control Act, June 28, 1938, which calls for a reservoir covering 10,400 acres. The proposed plan would work a hardship on the people owning homes in this area because it would result in the elimination of 6 villages and remove 600 families of 2,000 persons; the dislocation of the entire

community; destroy ties built up through generations; and the abandonment of schools, churches, and other community organizations. In view of the fact that the present plans involve the relocation of 19 miles of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, the construction of this dam, in the light of present-day costs, would seem to me to be prohibitive for the benefits received. Mr. Ellis has prepared a plan which I am enclosing with this statement which I believe merits the closest attention of this committee and Board of Army Engineers. It involves the erection of 13 smaller dams at the headwaters of the creeks which flow into the Licking River, and, in addition to an advantage of over-all costs, it would provide flood control for the areas such as Newark, Marne, Hanover, Nashport, and also the areas which would be protected by the proposed Dillon Dam. It appears to me most feasible that we have a complete report on this project which I believe, as I said before, will result in an enormous saving of money to the taxpayers of the country, as well as provide the flood control which is so well desired by the people in the lower valley.

It is my earnest hope that the Board of Army Engineers, by action of this committee, will hold up any tentative construction, purchasing of rights-of-way, or easements, or relocation of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad until this plan which I am submitting with these remarks is reported on in detail by the Board of Army Engineers.

Thank you for your courtesy.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman McGregor, of the Seventeenth Congressional District, Ohio.

We would be very glad to have your statement, Mr. McGregor.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. HARRY MCGREGOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the privilege of appearing before your committee and the courtesy extended to us on this particular hour.

I am not going to take the time to do other than say that I hope the committee will carefully investigate this project.

The enabling legislation was passed back in 1939, possibly there was no objection to it at that time. But I feel at this time, when the critical materials are so short as they are, so critical, that we should give careful consideration owing to the fact that we are going to be compelled to move between 650 and 700 families in this area, that is going to cost approximately $10,000,000.

Some of you boys who need flood control so badly at this time, if you will help us delay this project, that will help you get yours. Mr. Chairman, I ask consent to place my statement in the record. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have your statement, Mr. McGregor.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. J. HARRY MCGREGOR, SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF OHIO, BEFORE THE FLOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON APRIL 18, 1946, ON THE DILLON DAM, LICKING COUNTY, OHIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the Flood Control Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee and cite to you information that I have relative to the contemplated construction of a dam-known as the Dillon Dam, in Licking County, Ohio.

The authorization for this construction was given in your report No. 2353 of the Seventy-fifth Congress, third session, May 13, 1938, and incorporated in your chart on page 11 of your report known as Comprehensive Flood Control Plans and Works for Reservoir, Levees, and Flood Walls. Final authorization was contained in Public Law 396, Seventy-sixth Congress (out of H. R. 6634), dated August 11, 1939.

Mr. Chairman, this authorization was granted before I became a Member of Congress, but I am unable to find where hearings were held on this particular project. Some appropriations for this construction were contained in appropriations bills of the Seventy-ninth Congress.

I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that a large percent of the people of this area are opposed to this construction at this time. At the time of the authorizationin 1939-possibly there was no opposition, but, Mr. Chairman, times have changed and I am certain, knowing your fairness and the fairness of your committee, you are willing to hear the people from the affected district on this proposal

I believe I am correct in saying that no work has been started on this project and they are only now ready to advertise for bids on the relocation of the B. & O. Railroad tracks. May I again impress upon your minds that no active work has been started-only planning has been done. As soon as the people in the affected areas knew what this dam meant to them and their holdings they entered protests. An organization was formed, known as The Licking Valley Protective Association with Mr. E. R. Cunningham as secretary, to protest against the construction of this dam. Mr. Chairman, I ask your consent to incorporate here the resolution adopted by that organization.

RESOLUTION

(Received March 3, 1946, in letter from E. R. Cunningham to J. Harry McGregor)

"Whereas Congress has appropriated certain funds for construction of a dam in the Licking River, such dam being known as Dillon Dam and located in Muskingum County approximately 4 miles west of Zanesville, Ohio; and

"Whereas surveys and plans are now being made by the United States Government under the direction of the Army engineers, for the acquiring of lands and easements, relocation of B. & O. and construction of said Dillon Dam at taxpayers' expense, such land purchases and easements involving approximately 10,000 or more acres of valuable river bottom lands as well as the villages of Pleasant Valley, Irville, Nashport, Toboso, Hanover, and Clay Lick, Ohio, and necessitating the relocation or directly affecting approximately 600 families of 2,000 persons; and

"Whereas the relocation of this number of persons would present a serious problem, especially so at this period of land inflation and lack of building materials, and where a serious housing shortage already exists; and

"Whereas such relocation of peoples of a community tears people apart and necessitates abandonment of schools, churches, and organizations banded together for common welfare at a time when we have suffered much in a great World War; and

"Whereas the relocation of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad for a distance of approximately 20 miles and the construction of Dillon Dam invite bids for construction work at exorbitantly high costs for construction at this time; and "Whereas Congress has proceeded with the appropriation of funds and the United States engineers have drawn plans for the construction of Dillon Dam project without the citizens of this community having been given an opportunity of a public hearing before such appropriations and authorization were made; and 'Whereas we believe that measures to alleviate floods in the Licking Valley could be achieved in great part by the expenditure of the funds proposed to be expended in the construction of Dillon Dam, in a water-conservation program, whereby excess waters would be retained on the lands on which it falls by the construction of a small lake on each farm and other methods of conservation as recommended by our conservation set-up in Ohio, the estimated cost of Dillon Dam so divided among the 10,000 farms in this valley area would make available approximately $1,000 per farm for such construction work: Therefore be it "Resolved, That the Licking Valley Protective Association, whose membership consists of those interested in the welfare of the Licking River Valley hereby vigorously opposes the construction of Dillon Dam in the Licking River and hereby petitions the Congress of the United States to abandon this project and demands a hearing on such petition, such hearing to be held in the area so affected by the Licking River."

Various meetings of interested parties have been held and engineers hired to submit to your committee for consideration and for the consideration of the Army engineers, a program somewhat different from the original program as authorized by Congress back in 1939.