conservation storage was provided having a total capacity of 26,600 acre-feet. The total drainage area controlled by the modified plan is 165.1 square miles. The area flooded by the reservoirs proposed in the modified plan totaled 4,180 acres. Such a system of reservoirs. would affect approximately 125 dwellings and 24 miles of primary and secondary roads. The estimated total cost of the modified plan is $12,631,000, and the annual costs for the modified plan including operation and maintenance is estimated at $619,000, and total benefits from such a plan would amount to $174,000, giving a cost to benefit ratio of 1 to 0.3. Similar data pertaining to the proposed Dillon Reservoir is as follows: Total flood control capacity, 279,000 acre-feet, which is equivalent to 7 inches of run-off over the controlled drainage area of 748 square miles. Such a reservoir as indicated above would control 748 square miles out of a total drainage of 780 square miles in the Licking River watershed. Conservation storage of 15,000 acre-feet is proposed in the Dillon Reservoir. The flooded area at spillway elevation is 10,400 acres. Approximately 300 dwellings and 32 miles of primary and secondary roads would be affected and the relocation of 19 miles of railroad would be required. The total cost of the proposed Dillon project is $10,316,000. The annual cost of the Dillon project, including operation and maintenance, is estimated at $506,000 and annual benefits are estimated at $616,000, giving a cost to benefit ratio of 1 to 1.2. The estimated reductions in flood stages at Zanesville, Ohio, effected by the Dillon Reservoir and by the multiple-reservoir plan for the flood of 1913 and for the design flood of the official plan of the Muskingum Conservancy District are as follows: Dillon Reservoir: 1913 flood_.... Design flood used in Muskingum Conservancy District.... Multiple-reservoir plan: 1913 flood--- Design flood used in Muskingum Conservancy District___ Reduction (feet) 4 1.8 1.2 0.3 At a conference attended by representatives of the Licking Valley Protective Association, the Muskingum Conservancy District, the city of Zanesville, and the Huntington District office held in Zanesville on 25 April, 1946, and which was attended by approximately 30 persons, it was pointed out that multiple-reservoir plans for the Licking River had been considered in three additional studies since the original study made in 1938. At that meeting pertinent features of the three plans were explained and discussed, and representatives of the Licking Valley Protective Association protested that sufficient time had not been taken to properly develop Mr. Ellis' plan and that the costs were excessive. Other local interests, however, favored construction of the Dillon Dam and stressed the water supply possibilities for the city of Zanesville which could be developed in connection with the Dillon Dam. The recent study of the district engineer substantiates previous studies in this watershed that a multiple-reservoir system as proposed by Mr. Ellis or the modification of that plan, would not equal or constitute a satisfactory substitute for the Dillon Reservoir in that neither of the plans considered would control more than about 25 percent of the drainage area controlled by the Dillon Reservoir, nor would they provide more than approximately 25 percent of the flood control benefits provided by the Dillon Reservoir. These studies also show that the multiple-reservoir plan would be more expensive to construct and operate; they also show that any modifying plan which contemplates a smaller dam at the Dillon site with additional or supplementary small reservoirs on tributaries above Dillon could not provide an economically justified project, due to the fact that railway relocations which represent major item of cost for the Dillon Reservoir would not be eliminated nor would the flooding of the affected communities be eliminated except in the case of Irville, containing approximately 35 dwellings. The numerous studies made by the district engineer have all shown that no further plan can be developed which will provide a more favorable project than the proposed Dillon Reservoir. The CHAIRMAN. In this connection we have received several telegrams and letters, which I will ask the clerk to insert at the proper point of the hearings. I believe that concludes the hearing on the Dillon Dam proposition. (April 18, 1946) ROSSVILLE-CHATTANOOGA PROJECT STATEMENT OF M. Z. L. FULLER, COMMISSIONER OF FLOOD PROTECTION DISTRICT, CHATTANOOGA, TENN. Mr. FULLER. My name is M. Z. L. Fuller, Chattanooga, Tenn. I am commissioner of flood protection district, a political subdivision of the State of Tennessee. The CHAIRMAN. There was approved in the Flood Control Act of project for the protection of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Rossville, Ga.; is that right? Mr. FULLER. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. And you advocated that project. What is your proposal at the present time? Mr. FULLER. The authorization for the Chattanooga, Tenn., and Rossville, Ga., projects tied the two projects together. A certain group sponsored the Georgia section of it and we sponsored the Tennessee section. Now it develops that they expect the whole Tennessee section to pay for the cost of the right-of-way and damages, and so forth, and we cannot issue our bonds. The Army engineers made a survey. They sent a surveying crew and explored the foundations for the levees. We paid all the damages created by the engineers. Before they could complete their detailed plans and furnish us with a list of rights-of- way needed the water came on. The CHAIRMAN. The work was abandoned? Mr. FULLER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What you are doing here is advocating an amendment to the act to require what? Mr. FULLER. To separate the two projects. One is in Tennessee and one is in Georgia. We cannot issue bonds on benefits accruing to people in Tennessee to pay for the rights-of-way and the damages of Army engineers to take over and maintain works in Georgia. And likewise Rossville, Ga., cannot come over in our State and take care of their section of it. 87116-46- -23 The CHAIRMAN. What is the proposed solution of the matter, the construction of a levee? Mr. FULLER. Yes, sir; on the Chattanooga Creek. The CHAIRMAN. And those levees extend not only through Tennessee but through Georgia; is that right? Mr. FULLER. This is the suggested change: They were authorized to come down here [indicating] below Rossville, Ga. The CHAIRMAN. What I am trying to get at is in what State is the proposed levee to be constructed? Mr. FULLER. Both in Tennessee and Georgia. The CHAIRMAN. Where is the Tennessee line here? Mr. FULLER. There [indicating] is the Tennessee line. This is the proposed change that has not been adopted. I do not have the map. The CHAIRMAN. What is the red line? Mr. FULLER. That is the original design we requested. The CHAIRMAN. So as matters stand, substantially all of the proposed levee is located in Tennessee? Mr. FULLER. Practically all of it; but we are going to have to file an objection to this modification, for this reason. It protects Rossville, Ga., and practically all of that section of the county, and we have to pump that drainage and sewerage at our expense. The CHAIRMAN. Does it protect you? Mr. FULLER. It will protect us, except it throws that additional expense on us for pumping their sewage and drainage. The CHAIRMAN. That is the request you want to submit to us? Mr. FULLER. Yes, sir; just to separate the two projects so we can issue our bonds and furnish the rights-of-way so the Army engineers can proceed with the construction." The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that you submit that in a communication to the committee in connection with your statement and we will insert it in the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) CHATTANOOGA FLOOD PROTECTION DISTRICT, STATEMENT RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED SEPARATION OF THE CHATTANOOGA, TENN., AND ROSSVILLE, GA., FLOOD PROJECT, AS AUTHORIZED IN PUBLIC LAW 228 (77TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) (H. R. 4911) TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN Authorization for the Army engineers to proceed with construction of floodprotection works at Chattanooga, Tenn., and Rossville, Ga. (Public Law No. 228, 77th Cong., ch. 377, 1st sess., H. R. 4911), reads as follows: "The projects for local flood protection on the Tennessee River at Chattanooga, Tenn., and Rossville, Ga., are hereby authorized to be constructed substantially in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in House Document No. 479, Seventy-sixth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $13,500,000." The wording of this authorization has been interpreted as constituting one project at Chattanooga, Tenn., and Rossville, Ga. As the Chattanooga Flood Protection District, the local sponsor for Chattanooga, Tenn., has no authority to spend any of its revenues in Georgia and cannot maintain and operate any works completed in the State of Georgia, and as Rossville, Ga., recently took the position at a public hearing that it does not want nor need any flood protection and has not cooperated in accordance with the statement signed "City of Rossville, Ga., by Mayor V. W. Bennett," dated March 12, 1940, we respectfully request that Public Law No. 228, Seventy-seventh Congress, chapter 377, first session (H. R. 4911), be so amended as to separate the project into two projects, one for Chattanooga, Tenn., and one for Rossville, Ga., and to make it possible for the Army engineers to proceed with the construction of flood works necessary to protect Chattanooga, Tenn., or Rossville, Ga., independently of the other. We earnestly request that neither the Rossville, Ga., part of the project nor the Chattanooga, Tenn., part of the project be abandoned or repealed, but merely that two separate projects be made out of the one. The Chattanooga Flood Protection District has met every requirement as to furnishing rights-of-entry for the Army engineers and the payment of all damages caused by the Army engineers in their investigations. The district has spent its money in good faith, in accordance with the laws enacted by Congress, and is now waiting for the Army engineers to designate the rights-of-way required. CHATTANOOGA FLOOD PROTECTION DISTRICT, By R. L, STULCE, Acting President. By M. Z. L. FULLER, Secretary-Treasurer. [SEAL] Mr. FULLER. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other witnesses who desire to appear in advocacy or in opposition to any of the projects that have been brought to our attention? Thus, we have concluded all the hearings and every item up to and including this hour, and the committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Thereupon, at 6:15 p. m., the committee adjourned pursuant to reconvening the next day at 10 a. m.) (April 19, 1946) The CHAIRMAN. Representative Tarver, of Georgia, appeared when we had up the project on the Ohio Valley, including the tributaries, the Tennessee and other streams, and stated he desired to submit a statement if there were any statements with respect to the rehabilitation project submitted by others. We have before us at this time Mr. Kefauver, of Tennessee. We will be glad to have a statement from you, Mr. Kefauver. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ESTES KEFAUVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, the portion of the bill I am particularly interested in is the Chattanooga, Tenn. Rossville, Ga., project. They were included in the authorization bill of August 18, 1941, as one project. The difficulty we run into, Mr. Chairman, is that the flood protection district of Chattanooga cannot make assessments on Tennessee property for the purpose of paying right of way for the part in Georgia We hope that cooperation between the two communities can be worked out so that each one will bear its own share. in view of the situation down there I would like to submit the following proposed amendment: But The Chief of Engineers is authorized to make such modifications in the project for protection of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Rossville, Georgia, as authorized by the Act of August 18, 1941, as he may find advisable: Provided, That work may be undertaken on the portion of the project works needed for the protection of either Chattanooga or Rossville when the required local cooperation has been furnished for that portion of the project. The CHAIRMAN. Is there a map here showing the location of the project? Mr. KEFAUVER. I have one in the report here. The State line is right here [indicating], and this is Rossville. This is the city of Chattanooga. The CHAIRMAN. Rossville is across the line. Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes; it is in Georgia. The original plan called for a separate project for Chattanooga and a separate project for Rossville; they were then put together. The CHAIRMAN. When the project was adopted. Mr. KEFAUVER. But the difficulty we run into is that the local benefits, in securing rights-of-way, cannot assess Tennessee property to secure rights-of-way in Rossville, Ga., and what we would like to be authorized to do is to extend the authority to the Corps of Engineers so as to permit them to go on with either one of the projects separately when the local people have complied by furnishing the local benefits. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand there is a levee right along this tributary of the Tennessee River, and on the Chattanooga-Rossville side that tributary levee is proposed. Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. How far will that levee line extend before it strikes the hills or the mountains, you may call them, over into Georgia? Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Fuller, chairman of the protection district could furnish that information. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Füller made a statement in the record indicating that it would be a short distance. Mr. KEFAUVER. It is a very short distance; I do not know just how far. Mr. FULLER. The suggested change in that would shorten the distance to the river. But it also shifts the pump drainage of sewage from the Georgia people to the Tennessee people. The CHAIRMAN. About how far is it? Mr. FULLER. Approximately a mile and a quarter. The CHAIRMAN. About a mile and a quarter. Mr. FULLER. Yes. Mr. KEFAUVER. The only plan contemplated is building a levee around that part of the Tennessee River in here [indicating]. The CHAIRMAN. You have asked for no change. Mr. KEFAUVER. That is right; we are merely asking for authorization that the work proceed for the Chattanooga flood protection when they supply the local requirements. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand the situation, Mr. Kefauver, the project is authorized along this tributary of the main river. Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes; Chattanooga Creek. The CHAIRMAN. Chattanooga Creek, and would provide a continuous levee along the right bank as you go downstream for the protection of Chattanooga and for the protection of the town of Rossville in the State of Georgia. Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And the levee would cross the line at some distance before it ties into it at about what distance? Mr. KEFAUVER. About a mile and a quarter. The CHAIRMAN. What about the existing levee if this were constructed? |