thereto. He estimates the average annual flood damages which would be prevented in the city area at $14,800, and at the sanatorium at $4,100, which amounts are less than the estimated average annual costs. However, he considers that improvement of the east-bank dike and breakwater as described is necessary to protect the city and harbor, regards the community, which is an international gateway to a largely undeveloped area, as of sufficient importance to justify the expenditure required and considers preservation of the port to be a national obligation. In view of the public need for the sanatorium he believes that it also merits further protection as provided for in his plan. Accordingly the district and division engineers concur in recommending modification of the existing project to provide for further improvement at the harbor, city, and sanatorium as described subject to the stated conditions of local cooperation.

9. Local interests were advised of the nature of the report of the division engineer and invited to present additional information to the Board. Careful consideration has been given the communications received.

VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR BIVERS AND HARBORS 10. The Board concurs in general in the views of the reporting officers. No change in the project requirements for local cooperation in the small-boat basin is warranted. In the opinion of the Board, the estimated expenditures required for flood protection for the city of Skagway and for preservation of the harbor for deep-draft commerce are fully justified especially in view of the importance of the port in encouragement of the future development of the area. It believes that the proposed contribution by local interests of $500 annually in lieu of maintenance of the city dike and breakwater in prolongation thereof is appro priate under the circumstances. In view of the public need for the sanatorium and the tangible and intangible benefits which will result from its protection, the expenditure of the necessary funds for that purpose is considered justified. 11. The Board recommends that the existing project for Skagway Harbor, Alaska, be modified to provide for (1) restoration of the existing breakwater to the original project cross-section and construction of a 300-foot extension thereto and of two groins on its riverside, (2) reconstruction and extension of the dike adjacent to the city, and (3) reconstruction of the existing dike at the sanitorium, all in general accordance with the plans of the district engineer and with such changes therein as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable, at an estimated cost to the United States of $438,000 for new work and $10,000 annually for maintenance in addition to that now required; subject to the condition that responsible local agencies furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (a) provide without cost to the United States all necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way and quarry rights, (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the improvements, and (c) in lieu of maintenance of the project dike and breakwater extension thereof, will contribute $500 annually toward maintenance of the reconstructed and extended city dike and harbor breakwater.

For the Board:

R. O. CRAWFORD, Brigadier General, Senior Member.

Lt. Gen. RAYMOND A. WHEELER,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington 25, D. C., April 12, 1946.

Chief of Engineers, War Department.

MY DEAR GENERAL WHEELER: I have received your report on improvement of Skagway River and Harbor, Alaska, which you transmitted to me on March 15, 1946.

The purpose of the proposed works is to improve the existing project at Skagway Harbor, Alaska, for flood control and navigation purposes.

You find that the estimated expenditures required for flood protection for the city of Skagway and for preservation of the harbor for deep-draft commerce are fully justified, especially in view of the importance of the port in encouragement of the future development of the area. Also, you find that the proposed improvement will benefit recreational developments of the area.

This Department's program includes the encouragement of coordinated development of water power, municipal and industrial water supplies, wildlife facilities and other related matters in Alaska. This Department favors the project since it will contribute to the sound development of the natural resources in Alaska.

Sincerely yours,

WARNER W. GARDNER, Acting Secretary of the Interior.

[Telegrain]

From: Ernest Gruening, Governor, Juneau, Alaska.

To: Lt. Gen. R. A. Wheeler, Chief of Engineers, Office of Chief of Engineers, Civil Works Flood Control, Washington, D. C.

Am completely in accord with your report on Skagway River and Harbor improvements as outlined urgently needed.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement.

Mr. Bartlett, you have heard the statement from the engineers on behalf of the Skagway River and Harbor project, Alaska. As the delegate from Alaska, we would be pleased to have your views with reference to the recommendation.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. L. BARTLETT, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as has been stated, Skagway is the northernmost part of southeastern Alaska and the community has importance altogether disproportionate to its size. Through Skagway, as the port of entrance, flowed the rush of people in the gold rush stampede of 1898 and subsequent

years.

During the war it was a very important point of shipment to Alaska. The Army used the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad and the port of Skagway for the transportation of supplies for the building of the Alaska Highway and for the delivery of planes for the Army and for our Russian ally, to Fairbanks, Alaska.

The floods in 1943 did extremely serious damage at Skagway. In the best judgment of those who have examined the situation, unless there is a remedy provided soon the entire town may be destroyed.

This, of course, has a serious effect on the harbor likewise because of the silt from the flood waters in the river and the deposits in the harbor will cause a barrier to ocean-going commerce.

I regret that the Board of Engineers did not see fit to include this small boat-basin and the Mission Farm, that is, did not recommend that the Mission Farm be included, which is the support of the cows which furnish dairy products to the community, and which is very essential. However, I can concur 100 percent with the recommendation of the Board for the Skagway River and Harbor project.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Bartlett. If you have any additional statement in support of the project you may furnish it for inclusion in the record.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. General Crawford, as in the case of the Dillon Dam, you will in the revision and correction of your remarks make the proper explanations as desired by you and the reasons for the project, with any suggestions in response to the matters brought to the attention of this committee. And you will in both of these, as well as in

other projects, refer to the testimony and submit your responses as to the investigations made by you as to all other alternatives before you submit your report.

General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And whether or not there are any facts that have been brought out either in these hearings or otherwise that would warrant, in your opinion, recommendations for further consideration of the committee with respect to those two matters-the Chattanooga matter and the Dillon Dam matter-and other matters where we have had testimony before the committee.

I think this concludes, General Crawford, all matters that the Members of Congress have brought to our attention.

General CRAWFORD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may remain, if you will, please-you and your assistants and we will hear now the representatives of the Department of Agriculture.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

For the record, please give the reporter your name and your official position, and tell us how long you have been in charge of this work. And I remind the committee that in the Flood Control Act of 1936 and the amendments of that act prior to December 22, 1944, there were authorizations and following those authorizations there have been appropriations that authorized and empowered the Department of Agriculture, including the Soil Conservation Service and the Forestry Service, to make examinations and to submit reports with respect to soil conservation, erosion, and forestry problems involved in all projects subsequently considered by the Congress. They have submitted reports from time to time and authorizations have been made for their works.

In this connection, it is also proper to say that in the act of 1938, in addition to the studies and the reports and examinations which have been made by the Department of Agriculture, there is provision made for reports by the Federal Power Commission and for the installation of penstocks. And in the act of 1944, as the committee well knows, further provision is made that before any projects are submitted by the Chief of Engineers there is to be a review and comments by the governors of the States interested, by the State agencies, and by the other Federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior. Now, we are glad to have you, sir, and will you give your name for the record and official position?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE R. PHILLIPS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. PHILLIPS. My name is George R. Phillips; I am in the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your official position; what do you have to do with floods?

Mr. PHILLIPS. I am a staff assistant to Mr. Charles F. Brannan, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, and, under him, have to do with the flood control program of the Department.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have a statement for consideration by the committee?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Give us the high spots of that statement, please, giving the authorizations, some 11 that have been made, and the appropriations that have been made, the money that is available, and your recommendations for any increased projects. And have you any report that has been submitted to us for increased projects?

Mr. PHILLIPS. No; we do not have any at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the committee approved in the act of December 22, 1944, all projects on which reports have been transmitted by you, and since that time no funds have been made available, and you have done no work, on account of the war? Mr. PHILLIPS. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Now we will be glad to have the high spots of your statement that you want to bring to our attention.

Mr. PHILLIPS. By its forward-looking action during the war period the Congress set the stage for early postwar commencement of works of improvement on the watersheds of certain rivers for runoff and waterflow retardation and erosion prevention in the interest of flood control. These works are prosecuted by the Department of Agriculture on the watersheds of 11 rivers in accordance with programs approved therefor by the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944. The total cost to the United States is estimated to be $87,782,000 and to local interests some $30,000,000.

The heavy war and postwar demands for food and forest products have resulted in the overuse of some lands, the cropping of some fields that would be better off in grass or other permanent cover and the overcutting of certain forest areas. Such use has undoubtedly resulted in accelerated erosion and sedimentation and more rapid run-off from exposed slopes. Return of these areas to uses in harmony with their use capabilities and application of good-management practices is a part of a necessary broad conservation policy and in keeping with the objectives of our watershed treatment program in the interest of flood control.

Now that we can turn from winning the war to winning the peace, it behooves us to work with nature, with vigor and dispatch, to stabilize our watersheds in order that soil may be kept in place and the run-off of floodwaters retarded and reduced to the extent that watershed treatment measures can bring about.

The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, provided authorization for appropriations for watershed works of improvement in the interest of flood control in the amount of $10,000,000. Appropriations made against this authorization total $6,100,000, including the $2,100,000 item in the Department of Agriculture appropriation bill for fiscal year 1947 as passed by the House and now being considered by the Senate. The unappropriated balance of the 1938 authorization is, therefore, $3,900,000.

The Flood Control Act of 1941 provided an additional authorization of $5,000,000 for appropriations for watershed works of improvement with a limitation that it might be used for carrying on works of improvement "which the Department is not otherwise authorized to undertake." We have carefully considered how this authorization might be used but have concluded that this authorization for appropriations is not usable for prosecution of the works of improvement authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 unless the

limitation is removed, because the work approved is in some respects similar to work carried on by the Department under other authorizations.

The survey reports on the 11 areas approved by the Flood Control Act of 1944 were prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1936 and recommended the most practical and feasible program of works of improvement that could be devised and economically justified at the time they were prepared. Various of the recommended and approved watershed works of improvement are similar to those which may be carried out under other authorizations of the Department, but, in general, they differ in such features as the rate and intensity of installation, the design of certain works, and public participation in the cost thereof.

Section 8 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 provided in part thatthe authority conferred by this Act and any funds appropriated pursuant thereto for expenditure are supplemental to all authority and appropriations relating to departments or agencies tconcerned.

Our reports were prepared in accordance with the provisions of the 1936 act. The act thus gave recognition to the fact that watershed works of improvement in the interest of flood control might be similar to those carried out under other authorizations for conservation work. It also took into account that such watershed works of improvement would be designed to serve a waterflow retardation and erosion prevention objective on a watershed or subwatershed basis rather than an individual farm basis and that the design, rate of installation, and public contribution to the cost thereof under the flood control program might vary from installations under other programs.

We are expecting to utilize all available funds that have been appropriated and those which we expect will be provided by the 1947 Agricultural Appropriation Act for works of improvement during the fiscal year 1947.

In order to complete installation of authorized works of improvement in accordance with the rates called for in the 11 approved reports, it will be necessary to proceed with operations at an expenditure rate of some $8,000,000 in fiscal year 1948, $9,000,000 in fiscal year 1949, $9,000,000 in fiscal year 1950, and at about the same rate per year for several years thereafter.

From this it will be seen that the costs already incurred for work done, plus estimated costs of carrying on work now in progress or contemplated with funds to be provided by the pending appropriation bill for 1947, plus a part of the scheduled expenditure for fiscal year 1948, would commit all of the present usable authorization for appropriations. There would not be enough to meet fiscal year 1948 needs and none would be available for subsequent fiscal years.

As has been indicated above, the authorizations thus far granted in the Flood Control Acts have provided only for the initiation and partial accomplishment of approved programs for watershed works of improvement. The authorizations are a great deal less than the total estimated costs of the approved programs. An increase in money authorization is therefore required if the Department is to proceed on schedule with the installation of authorized and badly needed watershed treatment measures in the interest of flood control.

Following is a tabulation showing the present status of approved

areas:

87116-46- -45