« PreviousContinue »
posche, CHAIRAThat is this the red lidopted. nessee line. T
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?
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,
Chattanooga, Tenn., April 30, 1946.
STATEMENT RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED SEPARATION OF THE CHATTANOOGA, TENN.,
AND ROSSVILLE, GA., FLOOD PROJECT, AS AUTHORIZED IN PUBLIC LAW 228 (77TH CONG., 1st SEBs.) (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, [SEAL)
By R. L, STULCE, Acting President.
By M. Z. L. FULLER, Secretary-Treasurer. 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.
the Teent if there Wed by others. Mr. Kefe
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ESTES KEFAUVER, A REPRESENTA
TIVE 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. But in view of the situation down there I would like to submit the following proposed amendment:
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.
so that cooperation betweenight of way for
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. 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 ?
Mr. KEFAUVER. I am advised that the Corps of Engineers has a plan worked out so they can furnish a levee right near the line which will furnish Chattanooga substantial benefits and also be of help, some benefit to Rossville, without taking any from Georgia.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kefauver, for your statement.
Mr. KEFAUVER. Thank you.
y much, akin. any from also be of
(May 14, 1946) (The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. William M. Whittington, chairman, presiding.)
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Our first witness this morning will be Judge Tarver, who will make a statement in connection with the project in the act of 1941 for the protection of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Rossville, Ga., as recommended by the Chief of Engineers in House Document 479, Seventy-sixth Congress, second session, at an estimated cost of $13,500,000.
The committee has had submitted to it an amendment to that act, about which Judge Tarver would like to make a statement. The proposed amendment as submitted, you gentlemen of the committee will recall, by Representative Kefauver is as follows:
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 co operation has been furnished for that portion of the project.
We have with us this morning Judge Tarver, representing the Seventh Georgia District, in which Rossville is located, and, Judge Tarver, we will be glad to have any statement you desire to make with respect to the proposed modification of the adopted project. STATEMENT OF HON. MALCOLM C. TARVER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA Mr. TARVER. I have no knowledge of the amendment offered by Representative Kefauver and Mr. Fuller, secretary-treasurer of the Chattanooga flood control district, except what I have read in the Chattanooga newspapers. I never heard the proposed amendment read until you read it just now.
The impression I get, both from hearing the amendment read and from newspaper reports, is that the proposition is to divorce substantially the flood-control project proposed for the prevention of floods in the city of Rossville from that portion of the project which proposes to afford protection to the people of Chattanooga. The two cannot be divorced. The same flood waters that menace Rossville menace the city of Chattanooga, and any plan that might protect the city of Chattanooga alone would not only not afford protection to the city of Rossville, but would in all probability very much increase its flood hazards, and flood damages.
This whole matter came about by reason of the attitude of Mr. M. Z. L. Fuller, the secretary-treasurer of the Chattanooga flood control district. Mr. Fuller cooperated with others of us who were interested
in securing the original approval of the so-called Rossville-Chattanooga flood-control project. I was one of the original proponents of that project. I appealed to legislative committees both in the House and in the Senate in the interest of its approval.
The city of Rossville and the county of Walker, in the State of Georgia, in which Rossville is situated, through the county commissioner participated in hearings before legislative committees of the House and Senate in bringing about the approval of that project. After it was approved, it seems that some difficulty arose in the city of Chattanooga with regard to securing the necessary local cooperation, and a so-called alternate plan was devised by which the city of Chattanooga would have been relieved of the major portion of its required contribution, and the burden shifted to the Federal Government through the construction of a reservoir in Walker County, Ga., which would have destroyed approximately 2,000 acres of very valuable land, would have rendered unusable a consolidated school, seriously damaged a manufacturing plant of considerable size, and would have destroyed or rendered unusable several hundred homes.
Of course, a proposal of that sort met with tremendous opposition, not only among the people directly affected but throughout that area in Georgia, and among, I think, the majority of the people of Chattanooga. It seems to have been the pet idea of Mr. Fuller, who apparently also had some property interest that would have been benefited through the carrying out of the plan in which he was interested.
Public hearings were had in Chattanooga. People interested appeared and testified. After hearing the evidence the Army engineers promptly indicated their disapproval of the plan. Mr. Fuller appeared to have become enraged because of the protest made locally against his pet idea, and decided that he would bring about the elimination of Rossville from the flood-control project in question, and thereby penalize the city of Rossville and its people for not having acceded to his desires as to just how the project should be modified.
I give you that background, Mr. Chairman, because I think the position of Mr. Fuller is responsible for the appearance before your committee of Congressman Kefauver. I do not believe that the majority of the people in Chattanooga are interested in trying to penalize the city of Rossville. On the contrary, I believe that they desire to cooperate with Rossville in the solution of the flood problems that are common both to Rossville and to Chattanooga. Rossville is really merely a suburb of the city of Chattanooga, since there is a continuous city, and it becomes Rossville after the urban population reaches the Georgia line.
I took this matter up on March 13, 1946, by letter, with Lt. Gen. R. A. Wheeler, Chief of the Corps of Engineers, and without reading my letter to him I desire to request permission to insert it in the record at this point.
I also wish to insert in the record the reply of April 4, 1946, to my letter, the reply having been signed by General Crawford, Acting Chief of Engineers.
I wish also to insert in the record a letter addressed by Col. Reading Wilkinson, district engineer, Nashville, Tenn., to Hon. Hernian O. Bowman, mayor of the city of Rossville, dated March 28, 1946.
nation of het idea, and enraged beca