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, 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 (An editorial) 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 (An Editorial) 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. In a resolution, unanimously adopted, they declared: That the Licking County soil conservation district supervisors go on record as opposing the construction of the Dillon Dam as proposed, but are in favor of a new survey being made which will provide a series of smaller dry dams controlling flood conditions and at the same time retaining for agricultural purposes the land which would be wasted by building a permanent pool. And, furthermore we feel that increased emphasis should be placed on encouraging better water control practices on farms in the watershed. The resolution was signed for the district supervisors by J. F. Morrison, chairman and H. Lee Williams, secretary. The CHAIRMAN. General Crawford, are you in the position to tell these gentlemen whether or not all alternate proposals were thoroughly investigated before you recommended to the Congress and the committee the proposed dam that has been authorized and for which appropriations have at least been tentatively made, or partially made? STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. R. C. CRAWFORD, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF ENGINEERS General CRAWFORD. The possibilities of a system of small reservoirs were investigated and reported on in 1934, and these investigations showed that the system of small reservoirs was inferior to the large reservoir plan. Now, that is evident just from these Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire there? The CHAIRMAN. Just a minute. General CRAWFORD. The drainage area at the Dillon Dam is 748 square miles. Now, the drainage area of all the tributaries above the dam-above Newark-is 527 square miles. The system of multiple reservoirs above Newark would necessarily control a substantially smaller drainage area than the 527 square miles above Newark, that is, we control less area by going into the multiple system. The nature of the rainfall is such that the risk of high intensities is greater on small areas than on large areas. For this reason many more dollars must be spent for adequate factors of safety as regards storage capacity and spillway capacity when dealing with reservoirs controlling small drainage basins than when dealing with those controlling large ones. Twenty reservoirs above Newark, in lieu of Dillon, would increase the cost several times or provide less safety against overtopping of dams and spillway failures of individual structures, and furthermore would be much less certain of controlling all floods. The CHAIRMAN. What was your question, Mr. McGregor? Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, I hope to be given the opportunity when we send our report in to disagree with the distinguished general, because of the cost and other matters involved. I want to ask the general this: You have made your survey back a number of years ago. Do you not believe conditions have changed, that you might at least comply with our request for making an additional survey in 1946? General CRAWFORD. We would have no objection to going into that with the local people there, but the funds for this dam have already been appropriated, $1,000,000 in the deficiency bill Mr. McGREGOR. No construction has started yet. General CRAWFORD. NO. Mr. MCGREGOR. None advertised, excepting possibly the relocation of the railroad. General CRAWFORD: That is right. The CHAIRMAN. We really had in mind that we wanted you and Congressman Griffiths to have this statement so that you could bring in a reply to them in your further statements. We anticipated it. The probability is that you will go into the matter further with them. (May 3, 1946) DILLON DAM-continued The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Herb, we have a good many protests here with respect to the Dillon Dam. We have had hearings on that dam. It is along the Licking River in Ohio. We have had those that have appeared personally. Those landowners whose property is to be acquired for the Dillon Dam have urged that there be a review of that dam with a view to substituting a series of smaller dams. As I understand from the previous statements of the Chief of Engineers, and the Assistant Chief of Engineers, this project was authorized in the act of 1938. Am I correct about that? Colonel HERB. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And an initial appropriation was made for the beginning of construction in the Deficiency Act of 1945? Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir. Bids for the first item of work, which is the relocation of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, have been advertised and will be opened on May 7. The CHAIRMAN. And the project is now under way and there is also provided for this project a further appropriation in the pending civil function bill; is that correct? Colonel HERB. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. The committee was advised before this project was authorized in the report of the Chief of Engineers that they had, as well as the district engineer, and Board of Rivers and Harbors, considered all other alternate propositions for the building of a series of smaller reservoirs further up the Licking River and further up the tributaries of the Licking River, and those alternatives were rejected because the cost would be in excess of the proposed improvements and, as I recall it, a larger amount of land would be required for the reservoir sites. Is that generally a fair statement of the matter? STATEMENT OF COL. E. G. HERB, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CIVIL WORKS DIVISION, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS Colonel HERB. Yes, sir. Immediately following the hearings on April 18, 1946, before the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives, at which Mr. Ellis and other spokesmen for the Licking Valley Protective Association requested consideration of a multiple-reservoir plan for flood control on the Licking River in lieu of the Dillon Reservoir, the division engineer of the Ohio River division and the district engineer at Huntington were requested to study the modification proposed by local interests and compare the multiple-reservoir plan with the proposed plan for the Dillon Reservoir. Immediately upon receipt of instructions to make this study, the district engineer at Huntington contacted Mr. Ellis, the engineer for the Licking Valley Protective Association and originator of the plan referred to during the hearings as the Ellis plan, for details pertaining thereto, and Mr. Ellis furnished the district engineer's representative the following data: (a) A plan consisting of 13 reservoirs on tributary streams of the Licking River primarily for flood control and conservation, and numerous pond-type reservoirs primarily for conservation; (b) Mr. Ellis had no map, computations, or pertinent data relating to his plan and stated that the only available map relating to that plan had been filed with the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives, and (c) Mr. Ellis stated that his plan was an idea rather than a fully developed plan. The major advantages claimed for Mr. Ellis' plan consists of the elimination of railroads and major highway relocations, the elimination of flooding of the towns of Nashport, Toboso, Irville, Pleasant Valley, and Hanover, utilization of less-valuable reservoir lands than that encountered in the Dillon Reservoir area, and saving in construction and flowage costs by providing protection approximately equal to that afforded by the proposed Dillon Reservoir. In order that Mr. Ellis' plan could be given consideration, this Office borrowed the map which he left with this committee and forwarded it by air mail to the district engineer. Immediately upon receipt of that map the district engineer proceeded with an analysis of Mr. Ellis' plan based on available data, supplemented by field investigation, to determine flowage costs, suitability of dam sites, availability of construction materials, and carrying capacities of the channels below the suggested dam. Mr. Ellis' plan consists of 13 reservoirs on 7 tributary streams, controlling a drainage area ranging from 3.8 to 48.6 square miles, and having storage capacities varying from 18 inches to 74 inches of run-off from the controlled areas. The total storage capacity provided by that plan amounts to 399,300 acre-feet which is equivalent to 44 inches of run-off from the 170.3 square miles of drainage area controlled. The total drainage area of the Licking River amounts to 780 square miles. The flooded area of the 13 reservoirs at spillway elevations totals 14,580 acres. Approximately 303 dwellings would be affected by the proposed reservoirs and some 65 miles of primary and secondary roads would also be affected. The total cost of the plan is estimated at $28,634,000; with annual costs, including operation and maintenance, estimated at $1,404,000, and annual benefits estimated at $174,000, giving a cost to benefit ratio of 1 to 0.1. In view of the statement made by Mr. Ellis that his plan is undeveloped and due to the evident impracticability of that plan, based on the evidence in the paragraph above, a modified plan was developed which was more feasible from an engineering standpoint than Mr. Ellis' plan. The modified plan incorporates the major features of Mr. Ellis' plan and accomplishes substantially equivalent results. This modified plan consists of seven reservoirs on the same tributary streams considered by Mr. Ellis and controlling drainage areas of 3.8 to 70.1 square miles with flood storage capacity of 7 inches and 9 inches depending on the size of the drainage area. Three inches of conservation storage was proposed at each site. The flood-control capacity of this system of reservoirs amounted to 72,100 acre-feet, and |