« PreviousContinue »
Mr. BRAILER. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Was this dam a part of this conservancy project as perfected and recommended by the Ohio Conservancy District, organized under the laws of the State of Ohio ? Mr. BRAILER. Do you mean our organization ? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; your dam, here. Mr. BRAiLER. No; we are organized under the laws of the State of Ohio.
The CHAIRMAN. You know this project was first organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, and it provided for dams, 14 of which had been constructed. Was this dam contemplated when that orig. inal conservancy district was organized under the laws of Ohio?
Mr. BRAILER. Mr. Gary can answer that.
FURTHER STATEMENT OF HOLLAND GARY, ON BEHALF OF THE
LÍCKING VALLEY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION Mr. Gary. The original Muskingum Conservancy District did contemplate a dam at Dillon, but it was rejected at that time, I believe, around 1934 or 1935, because the cost would exceed the benefits. It was then brought up at a later time, I believe in 1938, in the Flood Flood Control Act of 1938, and was approved at that time tentatively, but it is not under the Muskingum Conservancy District.
The Muskingum District has no fund or authority to take over this dam.
The CHAIRMAN. We understand that. Pardon me. You know, that like all other districts, the Muskingum district has not put up any money. The Federal Government has put up the whole amount. You started to construct this project.
My question was: When you started out, I mean the district itself, under the laws of Ohio, was this dam or some comparable dam at this place contemplated ? Mr. Gary. It was. The CHAIRMAN. That is all. You may proceed, Mr. Brailer.
FURTHER STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BRAILER, ON BEHALF OF THE
LICKING VALLEY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION Mr. BRAILER. I believe we have pretty well covered the problem, and as to the dams that we proposed there, I received word from a group, it is the Licking Conservancy District in Licking County, and they have already had that area mapped out north of Newark, and they have asked for review of that, and in their survey made in 1936 with the Department of Agriculture, and the engineers, they have proposed a multiple system on Raccoon Creek west of Newark. This would give protection to Newark; with the Licking Dam Newark gets no protection whatever.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean the lands above the proposed reservoirs on the tributaries? Mr. BRAILER. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. You do own lands and do not oppose to those lands being taken?
Mr. BRAILER. No.
The CHAIRMAN. You own lands above the proposed dams in lieu of the land that might be taken if a number of dams were constructed on the tributaries of the lake? Mr. BRAILER. I own none above.
The CHAIRMAN. That is all I asked you. You just own them below? Mr. BRAILER. Yes. That is true. But while there are so many less affected by the other dams than there are by the Licking Dam, the value of the dam and relocation—now, we have oil fields in the Licking area, and adjustment has to be made on the oil fields, so many utilities. That is where we contend that the small dams would eliminate the removal to utilities, and in our area it takes out all of our schools, our churches, and everything that really makes a community. There is no place for us to go.
There is no place to move us. The hills are right back of us and there is no suitable location. The engineers have not offered to move us.
The CHAIRMAN. You did not have that removal problem involved when you built the other 13 reservoirs above you.
Mr. BRAILER. At that time they moved them, but the engineers tell us now they do not move us.
The CHAIRMAN. Ohio did the moving out there, did they not? The conservancy district, to begin with?
Mr. BRAILER. They did in the Muskingum district.
The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statements, Congressman Griffiths and Congressman McGregor, and I wish you would please tell Mr. Cunningham, the secretary of your association, that the correspondence he submitted to the committee, and the correspondence that our valued friend Mr. McGregor and our colleague, Mr. Griffiths, have brought to our attention, will be considered. (Statement of the Licking Valley Protective Association of Ohio:) LICKING VALLEY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION OF OHIO,
Nashport, Ohio, April 27, 1946. Hon. WILL M. WHITTINGTON, Chairman, Committee on Flood Control,
Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WHITTINGTON: On April 18, 1946, William A. Brailer, William Ellis, and Holland Gary, a committee representing the Licking Valley Protective Association, appeared before the House of Representatives' Flood Control Committee, Washington, D. C., for hearing on the matter of Dillon Dam, Zanesville, Muskingum County, Ohio, petitioning for a change of plans for flood control of the Licking River in Ohio, and the substituting of a multiple dam system in the place of the one dam, known as Dillon Dam.
The purpose of this petition was to save a number of villages, valuable farming lands, and remove the necessity of relocation of costly utilities such as gas and oil lines, railroad, and electric lines; also schools, churches, and community centers.
The United States House of Representatives' Flood Control Committee, after hearing our plea, saw sufficient merit in our plan to induce them to order a review of the multiple-dam system in comparison with Dillon Dam. On April 19 our committee was contacted by the United States Engineers Office, asking for our map and plans. At the request of Congressman Griffiths, of Ohio, this map was left at his office for reference. The United States engineers wired Washington for a photostatic copy of this map, which was not available until Sunday afternoon, April 21.
Our Chairman was advised that a meeting would be called at Newark or Zanesville on April 24 or 25 to discuss problems with the United State engineers and a comparison of the multiple-dam system against the single Dillon Dam. This meeting was held at Zanesville, Ohio, YMCA, on Thursday, April 25. Our committee had no information previous to this meeting as to the matter to be discussed so that we could check figures if necessary.
Lieutenant Colonel Pockras insisted that our association have only 2 or 3 representatives attend this meeting. After much persuasion, he consented to permit 5 to attend. We arrived at the meeting to find Colonel Pockras and Colonel Gano flanked by civilian assistants from the Huntington district office. Also present were 10 or 12 other proponents of the Dillon Dam project, who evidently were invited by the engineers. The public press representatives were refused admittance.
After convening the hearing Colonel Gano discussed matters in general as to the resurvey admitting that time and information was not available to arrive at definite figures which we agree could not be obtained in 3 days. Colonel Pockras in his statements of comparison of the multiple system versus one Dillon Dam, also admitted lack of facts and time for study. The figures furnished us indicated that they were merely estimates and not factual.
Therefore, after hearing the statements of engineers and a study of data they submitted, we reject their statements and figures as only estimates and not factual and protest study was not sufficient to give reliable information. There fore, this organization demands that further time and study be made of the multiple-dam plan.
The engineers did not use the Ellis plan as Mr. Ellis had intended. He ex. plained to you and the engineers that the figures and locations on his proposed multiple-dam system were only tentaive and asked the engineers for detailed study to be worked out considering anticipated rainfall. This was not done. The engineers used the exact figures Mr. Ellis had shown on his map in order to make the whole plan look ridiculous; for example, one of the dams in the multiple system would have taken care of 72 inches of rainfall, whereas the engineers should have modified the estimate on that dam and others to take care of only 7 inches or 8 inches rainfall.
The engineers estimated costs were computed on the basis of the 72-inch rainfall for that particular dam, rather than on the 7-inch or 8-inch rainfall that was used in figuring costs on Dillon Dam. The other dams of the multiple dam system were estimated likewise by the engineers. They did not state whether these dams were located below or above the villages. The engineers' figure of 303 homes dislocated by the Ellis plan indicate the dams were figured by the engineers to be placed below the villages that are located on the tributaries of the Licking. As explained by Mr. Ellis, these dams were to be placed above the villages to protect them and not dislocate them as Dillon Dam would do.
In a letter of March 14, 1946, addressed to Hon. Will M. Whittington, chairman of Flood Control Committe, Lt. Gen. R. A. Wheeler, Chief of Engineers, stated that the railroad relocation, under engineers' plan, will involve the moving of 5 dwellings and that it will be necessary to remove about 150 houses from Dillon reservoir area. At the above mentioned meeting (April 25) Lt. Col. Pockras stated that approximately 300 houses would have to be moved. There is quite a difference between 155 and 300 homes. I am sure that if these homes were accurately counted, there would be found an additional 300 homes affected by the Dillon Dam project.
Rex Kieffer, chairman of chamber of commerce highway committee, Zanesville, spoke (April 25 meeting) of the possibility of locating United States Route 40 through the eighth ward, Zanesville, which he said would be protected from flood waters by Dillion Dam. He also spoke about the possibility of a new school in that area. Mr. Kieffer was highly favorable to the building of Dillon Dam. He was not interrupted. When Mr. Brailer, rerpesentative of Licking Valley Protective Association, told how the multiple system of dams would also afford flood protection for these same improvements, Colonel Gano interrupted and said that Mr. Brailer's remarks were extraneous and reminded him that time was limited; however, he did not interrupt the proponents of the engineer's plan. He gave them all the time they wanted.
Colonel Pockras stated that since the completion of the channel work through Newark, Ohio, that city had not been troubled with floodwater. We have available pictures showing deep flood waters in about Newark in 1945. These obvious facts show conclusively that the engineers have not thoroughly checked this plan. These pictures also show that Newark and vicinity need additional flood protection, which the multiple system of dams would afford.
The above pertinent facts will undoubtedly explain why the Army engineers did not permit the press to be present at the meeting. The enclosed editorials from the Newark Advocate and Zanesville News will bear out these statements.
We feel the meeting of April 25 was given the "whitewash” by the engineers as indicated by the foregoing statements. We still insist that necessary time
for study be taken to arrive at a proper solution as we feel sure the engineers are submitting a prejudiced report to the Flood Control Committee. Furthermore, we ask this study for the following reasons:
(1) The housing problem of 600 to 700 families in Licking Valley has not been solved.
(2) These 10,400 acres of fertile farm land, with a high tax valuation, is badly needed by the Zanesville-Newark area, as well as the entire country in this time of critical food shortage.
(3) The cost of railroad relocation, estimated at $4,500,000 to $5,000,000, would in large part pay for a well planned multiple dam system.
(4) The Licking County Soil Conservation District supervisors representing the county's 4,000 farmers went on record as opposing construction of Dillon Dam as proposed.
(5) Congressmen Griffiths and McGregor have filed vigorous statements of protest against Dillon Dam.
(6) The members of the Licking Valley Protective Association feel as Representative Griffiths said: “The people of this valley should have first consideration" as they are the ones most vitally affected. Full consideration of this protest is desired. Yours very sincerely,
LICKING VALLEY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION,
WALTER NETHERS, Chairman. Mr. McGREGOR. Is the committee going to function again after the recess?
The CHAIRMAN. If we do not, we will not report a bill. The hearings are going to be concluded tomorrow.
Mr. MCGREGOR. I would like to have this privilege, Mr. Chairman. I have had a number of letters objecting to the procedure which the Army engineers are following in determining value of lands in the Delaware area, and I am going home over the recess to make a check on that and I would like the privilege of submitting that evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. They will be considered in connection with your statement here today, and Mr. Griffiths', if he has any further statement, will be considered at that time. (Letter from Mr. McGregor is as follows:)
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., May 1, 1946. Hon. WILLIAM M. WHITTINGTON, Chairman of the Committee on Flood Control,
The House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am advised that you are in receipt of a letter from the Licking Valley Protective Association of Ohio, which files their protest against the manner which was used in the hearings at Zanesville, Ohio (Muskingum County), on April 25, relative to the Dillon Dam.
As you recall this hearing was to give consideration to a change of plans for the dam on the Licking River in Ohio, and a substitute of multiple dams instead of one dam, known as the Dillon Dam.
I have before me newspaper clippings from the Zanesville and Newark, Ohio, papers, which state at this hearing none of the press was admitted and that methods were used by the Army engineers which certainly were not in accord with our form of government.
I respectfully ask, Mr. Chairman, that you and your committee carefully analyze the procedure used at this hearing, and make a thorough investigation. I will be very glad to accompany a subcommittee of your committee to Ohio to aid them in personally investigating the situation, and I will also be glad to appear before your committee as a whole to submit the evidence relative to this case.
Thanking you for your many courtesies and assuring you of my full cooperation, I am Respectfully yours,
J. HARRY MCGREGOR, M. C.
[From the Zanesville News, April 25, 1946]
WHAT GOES ON HERE
Behind closed doors in a YMCA room today, a hearing is being held by United States Army engineers * * * a hearing that will affect the destiny of hundreds of families in the Licking Valley.
It is a hearing on whether 13 smaller dams will work as effectively as one superdam, proposed to control the floodwaters of the Licking at the source.
Inside the closed room are Army engineers, three representatives of the Licking Protective Association, their attorney, and one newspaperman who promised those in charge he would make no notes of what transpired—that he was there not as a newspaper reporter but an observer.
Just how effectively the three representatives of the 700 families residing in the Licking Valley and their attorney can combat the United States Army engineers' plans made 12 years ago remain to be seen.
At any rate, it is hard to understand just why there is so much secrecy about the meeting, which one Army officer admitted was going to be a "frank" discussion of the problems involved.
When the Government is going to spend $10,000,000 of the people's money, John Public should know what is going on. There is only one way for the public to be kept posted—through the press.
The war is over. Military censorship is off. Army engineers should have no right to hold secret meetings on subjects of so vital a nature as the Dillon Dam. Secrecy leads to suspicion. Of what? Everyone is permitted to think.
[From the Newark Advocate, April 22, 1946]
ARMY CENSORSHIP AGAIN
United States Army engineers, faced with stiff but reasonable opposition to their contemplated $10,000,000 Dillon Dam project, which will make more than 700 Licking Valley farmers homeless, have adopted new tactics in attempting to bulldoze their pet project through.
They have started barring the press from their meetings.
An Advocate reporter this morning accompanied Albert N. Beardshear, Newark Chamber of Commerce, secretary, and Frank S. Farrington, chairman of the chamber's committee considering the dam question, to Zanesville where engineers were scheduled to explain the results of their study of the substitute plan of 13. smaller dams—which plan, by the way, they bitterly oppose.
The reporter was met at the door of the meeting room by Lt. Col. Harry Pockras, of the Huntington district engineers' office.
"This is a closed meeting and the press cannot attend,” explained Pockras. “There will be frank discussion here today and we don't want any reporters present, or those in attendance may resitate to discuss the Dillon problem freely."
Zanesville reporters and photographers also were barred from the meeting. All press representatives protested to no avail.
We wonder if the colonel realizes that most of the men attending the meeting wanted the press to be present. The Licking Valley Protective Association wanted us there.
The engineers are charged with carrying out the Dillon Dam project in the physical sense, but they should realize that $10,000,000 of the people's money will be spent on that project ; that those who will lose their homes and valuable farm lands are naturally interested in all phases of progress on the subject.
In other words, the people are entitled to know what is going on.
The engineers are a part of the Army, but the war is over and censorship on the home front is no longer necessary.
This paper will, in its news columns, publish an account of the meeting. The Advocate reporter after the meeting, questioned those in attendance, to obtain information.
Meanwhile Licking County soil conservation district supervisors, representing the county's 4,000 farmers, went on record as opposing construction of Dillon Dam as proposed.