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. will undertake to oblige you if we can agree on the date. We 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 resolution 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 state ment? 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? General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir. During the preparation of reports we work very closely with local agencies; that is, communities, local organizations, and State and local governmental officials. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed now, Colonel. Colonel HERB. Rappahannock River has a drainage area of 2,700 square miles. It rises on the eastern slope on the Blue Ridge Mountains and flows 185 miles in a southeasterly direction to its mouth at Chesapeake Bay. It lies in three physiographic regions-the Coastal Plain, the Piedmont Plateau, and the mountain region. The watershed had a population of 95,000 in 1940, the principal centers being Fredericksburg and Culpeper with 10,100 and 2,300, respectively. The primary occupation in the basin consists of farming and allied agricultural activities, such as dairying, stock raising, and canning. The principal crops are garden truck, corn, and fodder. In 1939 there were 121 industrial establishments in the basin employing 3,300 persons, which produced manufactured products valued at $14,245,000. The majority of these establishments are located at Fredericksburg. The principal manufactured products are cellophane, clothing, shoes, furniture, and woodworking articles. Stone, sand, and gravel are also produced in the area. Fishing, crabbing, and oystering are important occupations in the tidewater counties. The area is served by air lines, railroads, and highways. There is no existing Federal project for flood control on the Rappahannock River. The existing Federal project for navigation provides for a channel 12 feet deep and 200 feet wide from the mouth of the river to Port Royal, thence 100 feet wide to Fredericksburg. The total cost to June 30, 1943, was $801,552. Commerce totaled 378,000 tons in 1941. Except for a channel-clearing project in the Lutheran Valley, there are no flood-control measures in existence in the Rappahannock watershed by local interests. Floods are of frequent occurrence in the Rappahannock Basin. The greatest flood of record occurred in October 1942, when a peak discharge of 140,000 second-feet occurred at Fredericksburg. The estimated average annual flood loss is $99,200 at Fredericksburg and Falmouth, and $191,030 for the entire basin. The recommended plan of improvement provides for the construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir project at the Salem Church site, with the reservoir extending 29 miles up the Rappahannock River to the vicinity of Kelleys Ford and 33 miles up the Rapidan River to the vicinity of Raccoon Ford. The reservoir would have a storage capacity of 1,117,000 acre-feet of which 322,000 acre-feet would be for flood control and 644,000 acrefeet for power generation. The plan provides for power-generation facilities having an installed capacity of 54.500 kilowatts and an average annual energy output of 153,070,000 kilowatt-hours. The total first cost of the project is estimated at $17,755,000. The average annual benefits from the project are estimated as follows: The CHAIRMAN. What do you have in connection with a canal change? Colonel HERB. We have not recommended any canal change. Local protection works were considered for Fredericksburg. However, they were not economically justifiable. The CHAIRMAN. That is a feature that was omitted by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors from the district engineer's report? Colonel HERB. That was not omitted by the Board. It was another plan considered by the district engineer on which he did not recommend favorably. The CHAIRMAN. What was involved? Colonel HERB. Local flood-protection works is all that was involved at Fredericksburg. The CHAIRMAN. By what method? Colonel HERB. By cleaning out the existing river and by providing levees and flood walls. Such a project was not found to be practical or economical. The CHAIRMAN. And the total estimated cost of the project is what? Colonel HERB. $17,755,000. The CHAIRMAN. And it consists of this reservoir at the Salem church site? Colonel HERB. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And no other improvements? Colonel HERB. That is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Any further statement covering the general proposal? Colonel HERB. That is all, sir. (The report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and of the chief of engineers with the comments of the Governor of Virginia are as follows: WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, The CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. The Committee on Flood Control, House of Representatives, by resolution adopted November 24, 1942, requested the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to review the report on the Rappahannock River and tributaries, Virginia, published as House Document 186, Seventy-third Congress, second session, with a view to determining the advisability of improvements for flood control on the Rappahannock River and tributaries at this time. I enclose the report of the Board in response thereto. 2. After full consideration of the reports secured from the district and division engineers, and after affording local interests full opportunity to be heard, the Board concurs in general in the views of the reporting officers that the construc tion of Salem Church and Fredericksburg projects would provide flood protection to the principal damage center in the basin, benefit navigation, improve sanitary conditions, and provide a substantial amount of power at reasonable cost. The Board notes, however, that while the proposed Fredericksburg power project is necessary for the full development of the water resources it is essentially a power development with negligible benefit for flood control or navigation, and that all the flood-control and miscellaneous benefits outlined in the district engineer's report are derived from the Salem Church project and they would be fully obtained by construction of that project alone. The Board recommends improvement of the Rappahannock River for flood control, the development of hydroelectric power, and for other beneficial uses, by the construction of the Salem Church project, in accordance with the plans outlined in the district engineer's report and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost of $18,343,100 for construction and $91,600 annually for maintenance and operation. 3. The reports of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and of the district and division engineers were referred to the Federal Power Commission for comments. In its reply, copy of which is herewith, the Commission states that there is a unanimity of opinion among the reporting officers, the Board, and the Commission that the Fredericksburg development is necessary for the efficient use of the water resources of Rappahannock River and that it is a highly economic part of the improvement plan. The Commission further states its belief that the Salem Church and Fredericksburg developments are highly desirable and should be considered as integral units of one project and that its studies show that there will be need for the power which could be produced at both projects. 4. After due consideration of these reports and comments I concur in general In the views of the Board. In my opinion, the construction of the Salem Church and Fredericksburg projects is necessary for the full development of the water resources of the Rappahannock River Basin, and the plan presented by the district engineer should be accepted as the basis for future development in the basin. Construction of the Salem Church multiple-purpose project by the Federal Government is warranted in the interests of flood control, navigation, and power development. The Fredericksburg project consists of the modernization and enlargement of an existing power development owned and operated by the Virginia Electric & Power Co. in order to develop fully the head between the tail water of the Salem Church project and tidewater, and to utilize fully the regulated stream flow from the Salem Church project. The Fredericksburg project is economically justified and desirable in the interest of power production and for developing the water resources of the Rappahannock River. Since the preparation of the field reports Congress has directed in section 5 of the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, that the excess electric power and energy generated at reservoir projects under the control of the War Department be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior for transmission and disposal to consumers, at rate schedules to become effective upon confirmation and approval by the Federal Power Commission. This action makes it unnecessary to provide for transmission and sale of the energy by the War Department as recommended by the Board. The cost of the Salem Church project exclusive of the transmission facilities is estimated as $17,755,000 for construction and $89,200 annually for maintenance and operation. 5. I accordingly recommend that the general plan of development outlined in the report of the division engineer be adopted as the basis for future improvement in the Rappahannock River Basin for flood control, navigation, and other purposes, and that the Salem Church project be authorized for construction as the initial step, generally in accordance with the plans outlined in the district engineer's report and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost of $17,755,000 for construction and $89,200 annually for maintenance and operation. Very truly yours, R. A. WHEELER, |