« PreviousContinue »
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. 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
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 objected 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 ?
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,
STATEMENT BY HON. HOWARD W. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
yesterday. All be very mucet to
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.
I was wondering if it would be all right with the committee if the hearing so far as they were concerned could be postponed until some other time.
The CHAIRMAN. I would say this, Mr. Smith, with respect to your question. I would want to oblige you and the witnesses any way I can. That same question has been asked with respect to the Waynesboro project in Virginia. Mr. SMITH. We just want to reserve the right to be heard.
The CHAIRMAN. We will undertake to oblige you. We have named projects to be heard for the next 2 weeks.
Have you any witnesses that are here today? Mr. SMITH. No witnesses that are informed sufficiently to discuss the subject in the detail that we would like to present it to the committee, as to the damage to the area there. We are not sure in our own mind just what the damage is until we get an opportunity to look at those maps.
The CHAIRMAN, I imagine after the matter has been developed today you can give us the names of the witnesses, and we will do our best to oblige. We would like for these witnesses to appear on the day mentioned.
Inasmuch as you state there has been a great deal of interest thus far, and the committee has been advised that there is considerable opposition, I think your request is reasonable. Mr. SMITH. Are those reports available to the public?
The CHAIRMAN. The project under consideration on the Rappahannock River, General Crawford, is, as I understand it, embraced in a report submitted by the Chief of Engineers to the Director of the Budget on April 8; I want to be fair to the Budget as well as to ourselves and others interested. The report I have here is dated April 8, and I assume that is the date that you submitted it to the Budget, but I would like to know,
Colonel HERB. Yes, sir; the report is dated April 8 and that is the date the report left our office en route to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, Mr. Smith, the committee has decided to answer your question, that where a report has been submitted to the Director of the Budget that hearings will be had on the theory that this bill would go to the other body, if passed by the House, and having been submitted by the Chief of Engineers to the Director of the Budget, after it has been referred to the respective State jurisdictions, including the governors, that the probabilities are that it will be reported. Ordinarily the engineers do not approve the project until there has been a final report.
With that statement, I think your request is a reasonable one. We will undertake to oblige you if we can agree on the date.
Mr. Smith. If you will name the time we will try to have them here.
The CHAIRMAN. We will try to oblige you, but it will not interfere with subsequent projects.
Now, General Crawford, or Colonel Herb, you may proceed on the Rappahannock report.
STATEMENT OF COL. E. G. HERB, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CIVIL
WORKS DIVISION, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS Colonel HERB. The report on the Rappahannock River is called for by a résolution that was adopted by this committee on November 24, 1942.
The CHAIRMAN. And it is embraced in the report of the Chief of Engineers submitted to the Director of the Budget on April 8, and the report is a favorable one, and there is power involved in the proposed reservoir, as recommended by the Chief of Engineers, and the estimated cost of this project is $17,755,000, with annual maintenance and operation of around $89,200, which is a slight modification of the recommendation of the district engineer. Am I correct in that statement?
Colonel HERB. Yes, sir; and the total annual charges are estimated at $867,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you turn to the last line of the report and tell us what you mean by $89,200 for maintenance and operation ?
Colonel HERB. That is the estimated average annual cost of operating the project including salaries, and repairs required for the operation of the project.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, you may make your general statement covering this project, and as you proceed you will advise the committee especially with respect to the costs and benefits, because from my casual examination of the report that is not very clear to me.
Colonel HERB. The authority for this report is contained in resolution adopted November 24, 1942, by the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives requesting a review of the report on the Rappahannock River and tributaries, Virginia, published as House Document No. 186, Seventy-third Congress, second session, with a view to determining the advisability of improvements for flood control on the Rappahannock River and tributaries, Virginia.
The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me just a moment. I ask this question with regard to all reports. Do you conduct hearings so that all interested citizens are notified of the proposals involved either in the original report that you submit or in the review report? Colonel HERB. Yes, sir; we conduct hearings in all cases.
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the custom is for the district engineer before he formulates and submits a report to publish and notify, by publication and otherwise, interested parties of the proposal under consideration ?
Colonel HERB. That is right, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And he hears the advocates as well as the opponents of the measures?
Colonel HERB. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That applies not only to this project but to all projects? Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well. And in appropriate cases if by any chance the hearings have not been complete, the policy of the corps is liberal in that regard and additional hearings are held ?