Mr. ADAMS. What is the status of West Canaan?

Colonel HERB. We are doing planning work on that project, pending State approval of the construction.

Mr. ADAMS. What is the status of the Sugar River project?

Colonel HERB. Are you referring to Claremont, N. H., Reservoir project?

Mr. ADAMS. That is right.

Colonel HERB. We are ready to start construction on that project. It is just a matter of funds and final approval by the State.

Mr. ADAMS. You have no authorization from New Hampshire to proceed?

Colonel HERB. No, sir; we do not have State concurrence.

Mr. ADAMS. In the absence of a State clearance, you do not propose to initiate the project?

Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir.

Mr. ADAMS. In other words, regardless of whether you have the right to proceed, so far as the law is concerned, you have no disposition to proceed in the absence of authorization by the governor of the State?

Colonel HERB. That is right, sir.

Mr. ADAMS. That also applies to the Honey Hill project as well? Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir. It applies, as I understand it, to all the reservoir projects in New Hampshire.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Mr. ADAMS. I have interrupted; he was on New Hampshire and I was interested in the status of those projects. I do have other questions for later.

Mr. CLASON. With reference to the West River Basin, you will recall that during the past 12 months the decision was reached in regard to West River which provided that the State authorities and the Army engineers should attempt o provide a plan which would be an alernative to the plan which had previously been authorized and which is still authorized on the statute books. Can you tell us what the status is of the negotiation or planning with reference to the West River flood-control project?

Colonel HERB. The modification is under consideration. The citizens' organization has endorsed the modification and approved the construction of dams at Townshend and Ball Mountain. The present indication we have is that the State will agree to the alternate plan. Mr. CLASON. Would those two dams meet the requirement of the law with reference to the amount of flood control that they would give and at the same time the cost?

Colonel HERB. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLASON. Is the opinion of the Army engineers that if this plan calling for those two dams were adopted that it would meet the requirement of the present law?

Colonel HERB. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLASON. Would it be possible to work that out so as to ask for an appropriation in the next 1948 appropriation bill?

Colonel HERB. We have hopes that it will.

Mr. CLASON. Yesterday we spoke of wages to be paid when there was a dispute between the unions and perhaps the contractors over what are the established rates of pay which must be paid in construction of dams. As I understand it, you will be able to place in the

record a statement with regard to the wage situation. As I understand it, it is a little bit different from what you told us yesterday.

General CRAWFORD. There is a slight difference from what I told you yesterday. When the Bacon-Davis rates are prescribed, they are prescribed at the time of the advertisement of the job. Now, any contract let in accordance with that advertisement adopts the BaconDavis rates that are prescribed at the time of the advertisement. Those rates obtain as minimum rates during the whole life of that contract, although the Secretary of Labor may later establish new Bacon-Davis rates which would apply to new contracts. So there would be no change of the prescribed minimum rates during the life of a contract. There being no change, of course, there would be no adjustment in favor of the contractor.

Mr. CLASON. Suppose you have two or three reservoirs, you have the money and the contracts have been let, and the contractor had any men on the job. The men can very well go to other contractors because there are plenty of them in existence at the present time and secure the additional amount allowed by the United States Wage Board. I do not see how a contractor is ever going to get people on his job unless he is willing to take a licking at the very start. I am wondering why it is that the Federal Government is placed in a better position in dealing with these union men and with the contractors than with perhaps some private person who tries to enter into a big contract which involves reestablishment of union rates. It seems to me you people are in position here by virtue of being the Federal Government and not having any escalator clause that seems to cover this particular point to put a contractor in the hole from the very start, and he has no recourse.

General CRAWFORD. If our experience indicates that we are not able to get economical bids, that is, bids within the reasonable distance of our estimates, we would adopt an escalator clause. Our experience so far has indicated that bids are reasonable and there is no necessity for escalator clauses. Of course, the contractor is taking a chance that he may have to pay more than minimum wage rates.

Mr. CLASON. He is taking a chance that is loaded. The Government is the party that fixes the rates of pay. If they fix new wage rates, they can break any contractor with whom they already have. a contract, which seems rather unusual.

General CRAWFORD. The prescribed rates there are minimum rates below which he cannot go.

Mr. CLASON. They are not only the minimum wages, but they are. the prevailing wages. Every contractor bids with that prevailing wage rate in mind. For the Government later to increase those rates and then tell the unfortunate contractor that he is stuck with them seems kind of unfortunate.

Now, another proposition has come up in the area which interests me. During the war the Army engineers permitted the use of the storage capacity at the Knightville Reservoir to be used in a manner which permitted a better flow of the stream water during the dry months or the summer months, with the result that it was of great benefit to a great many manufacturing plants below the Knightville Reservoir on the Westfield River. Now that the war is over, I. understand that the Army engineers, very properly perhaps, have

1

decided that this being a single-purpose flood-control reservoir, all of its storage capacity should be used for flood protection, and the Government is no longer willing to allow the dam to be used or operated in such a manner as to furnish this downstream advantage with reference to the flow of water, which meant so much to a great many different communities. I am wondering if the Knightville Reservoir was not so constructed that it would be possible to provide additional storage. I believe they put in some sort of construction which permitted its use for development of power later. It occurs to me that that would permit them to increase that storage behind that dam. General CRAWFORD. I am not acquainted with that question, Mr. Clason. I will ask Mr. Beard to answer that.

Mr. BEARD. The dam was built in such a way that possibly in the future additional storage could be added by modifying the spillway. If Congress should want to authorize this additional construction, probably some storage for downstream regulation could be provided as a permanent feature.

I should think that one way to get at that would be to have this committee authorize us to make a review of that project and report back to the Congress.

Mr. CLASON. I am going to ask at a later date that proper steps be taken, as Mr. Beard suggests, to have a review made of conditions on the Westfield River.

The CHAIRMAN. In order that the matter not be overlooked I will ask the clerk of the committee to note your request in order that such matter be included in the bill to be reported.

Any other questions?

Mr. CLASON. No further questions.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, the colonel indicated a few moments ago that with respect to the project at Claremont, N. H., and the project at Honey Hill, and the project at West Canaan, there would be no initiation in the absence of approval by the local authority. I would like to ask the general one question along that line. As I understand it, there is no disposition to initiate any projects either in the Connecticut or Merrimack Basin in which the approval of local authority has not been obtained, regardless of authorizations which have previously been made. There is, of course, the general flood-control bill of 1944, a provision by which you are required with respect to projects after that date to obtain permission of appropriate local authorities. On the other hand, there is no such provision with respect to projects which have been previously authorized. The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, Mr. Adams, I am sure that you want to clarify the matter. I do not recall that the word "permission" obtained in the act of 1944. There is provision that they be submitted to the local authorities for the views, comments, and recommendations of those authorities. I have no desire to enter into any likely controversy between the upper and lower New England States. I would like for the general to be clear in his response to your question that ordinarily the question of the initiation of a project is not left to a region that may be opposed to the project if finally approved by the Congress, although all views are invited.

Mr. ADAMS. I appreciate that. That is quite clear to me, too. My question related to the disposition of the Corps of Engineers where

87116-46- -4

there was an absence of approval by the appropriate local authorities.

General CRAWFORD. I can say that our disposition, as a matter of policy, is that we are going to pay great attention to the views of the States on any matter. I hope there never comes a time when we will have to go counter to the States' views. We have certainly approached the problem in the spirit of the 1944 Flood Control Act, that the States were to have a very strong voice in what we did. Of course, as the chairman said, the final decision is here with Congress.

Mr. ADAMS. I realize that.

Now, on the Merrimack River, there are sufficient authorizations to take care of all the projects which have been previously approved. Are there now studies being made in the Merrimack River, if so, to what extent, looking to the submission of an additional plan? Colonel HERB. The whole plan is under review now.

Mr. ADAMS. Some of those have already been initiated, as I understand it.

Colonel HERB. Yes, sir; the Franklin Falls and Blackwater projects in New Hampshire are practically completed and are in operation and we are in position to start work on the Mountain Brook project in the headwaters of the Contoocook Basin.

Mr. ADAMS. You are looking ahead toward the submission of additional recommendations?

Colonel HERB. That report is due in our office on the 1st of March 1947, under our present schedule.

Mr. ADAMS. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be of interest to the committee, particularly Mr. Adams, to say that before these hearings are concluded there is a bill pending upon which reports have been submitted by the Chief of Engineers to provide an increased reimbursement to the local interests for any lands in the reservoir sites, not needed for actual storage, that are leased. If the gentlemen will bring that matter to my attention, I will be glad to tell them what day we are going to take that bill up. That refers to the New Hampshire and Vermont interests, as well as to the other tributaries where dams would be constructed primarily for the purpose of protection of areas below. I would assume, though, that not as large areas are leased or rented in Vermont or New Hampshire as in other States.

Mr. ADAMS. You indicated a few moments ago that there might be some conflict of interests possibly between the northern part of the northeastern section and the southern part. While it is true that many of these reservoirs are built in Vermont and New Hampshire, the benefits from which accrue largely to the State of Massachusetts and the State of Connecticut, I think that we feel in New Hampshire a disposition to want to cooperate.

On the other hand, it has occurred to us in the development of the plans which have been authorized that a little more care might have been given to alternative sites. We do not have a disposition to interfere in any way with the working out of these plans because we realize, of course, that it is in the public interest, and we are disposed to even sacrifice our property up there to the extent that is necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a most reasonable statement. Generally, there should be enough flexibility in any authorized project to provide for a reasonable adjustment of the location.

Any questions by Mr. Allen?

Mr. ALLEN. I just want to clear up one little matter with General Crawford, if I can. General, with reference to getting permission of the State to perform flood-control projects, is it not true that if it is a purely local project, local protective work, that the Corps of Engineers would not undertake it at all if there were objection locally or from the State?

General CRAWFORD. That is correct, sir.

Mr. ALLEN. If it is a matter of building a reservoir upstream for protection of the entire river system, you would not hold back because the State upstream objected; in other words, if you thought it was to the interests of the entire river system, the fact that a State upstream obiected would not prevent you from going ahead?

General CRAWFORD. No, sir. It would not prevent us, but we would hope to find a solution where all the States concerned would agree. Mr. ALLEN. You would try to iron out the thing but if you had to decide the thing you would take into consideration the benefit of the whole?

General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir. We would expect all the States in the basin to do that thing also.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by Mr. Elliott?

Mr. ELLIOTT. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by Mr. Jackson?
Mr. JACKSON. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by Mr. Davis?

Mr. DAVIS. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statements.

Are there any other proponents or opponents in the New England area that desire to be heard with respect to the matters that have been brought to our attention?

The next report involves the Potomac River and is limited primarily to the Waynesboro, Va., area, and that report is pending in the Budget.

Inasmuch as Mr. Bland and Mr. Smith have indicated that they have witnesses and desire to be heard, and there being no objection, the committee will pass temporarily the Potomac matter and we will now, General Crawford, take up the report pending with the Director of the Budget on the Rappahannock River.

RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER

STATEMENT BY HON. HOWARD W. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. SMITH. I just learned of this yesterday. A good many people in my district, in three counties, fear that they will be very much affected by this dam and they have not had the opportunity to get together.