« PreviousContinue »
and filed a letter with the committee that he had written to the planning board or to the Governor of Virginia, I do not know which, and in his statement here he said that I was about the only one opposed to this thing in Fredericksburg, and that I was opposed to it on account of my interest in the power company, or my connection with the power company. I would like to disclose to this committee the interest that my family has in the Virginia Electric Power Co. I own four shares of stock in a company which owns stock in the Virginia Electric & Power Co. The value of those four shares of stock is $159 as of last night. Assuming that one-third of it is invested in the Virginia Electric & Power Co., I have a $50 interest. My wife and I have many times that invested in Fredericksburg.
The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have your statement in connection with the merits of the proposal.
Mr. Reid. I charge Mr. King with that, and in the past I have been connected with some power company. I have also been connected with other engineering work for banks, trustees, individuals, and in all my years I have never accepted a fee, either in whole or in part, that was paid by any man who had ever been convicted of a felony or who had served time in the penitentiary for any cause, and I have never had a business associate who ever stood indicted by either the Federal or State courts.
The CHAIRMAN. We are interested in the merits of this problem. I say with all due deference that I think you wrote the chairman of the committee with respect to the statement of the mayor, and the chairman responded to you that there was no reflection on you. Mr. REID. As I recall it, and I do not have the letter with me
The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me, I will say now that there was no reflection on you or on any other citizen of Fredericksburg made by the mayor, and when he was asked if there was any opposition my recollection is he stated there was opposition. He may have mentioned your name, but he cast no reflection on you.
You may proceed to discuss the merits of this controversy, if you will. Mr. REID. I am interested in and in favor of flood control of the Rappahannock River and its tributaries, as well as of other streams, where such control will benefit the country as a whole, and where the benefits to be derived are comparable to the reasonable cost of such control and where such control does not present an element of danger to those who live below the dams erected to provide the control.
I am opposed to the proposed development located 4 miles above the corporate limits of the city of Fredericksburg for the following reasons
The CHAIRMAN. Give us the high points, and I will give you permission to file a statement. Mr. REID. It is not in condition to file.
This development is essentially a power development and the floodcontrol and other so-called related benefits are in a ratio of approximately 90 percent power and 10 percent other benefits.
The top of the proposed power pool, as stated in the report of the Army engineers, is placed at elevation 240 for the purpose of the report, but it states that this is not a fixed maximum for the top of the power pool, but that it may be at some greater height, say, 245.
The letter from the Federal Power Commission advises further study with a view to raising the pool level above elevation 240.
It is plainly stated on the drawings that the maximum height of the water at the dam is to be elevation 257 and not 240; that is, during flood. This latter elevation is about 200 feet above 80 percent of the city of Fredericksburg and is 157 feet above 99 percent of the city.
No automatic spillway is provided on this dam. Instead there is provided a number of gates which will have a discharge capacity of 545,000 cubic feet per second, or four times the maximum flood that they ever had at Fredericksburg. This capacity would undoubtedly be used to such an extent as would be necessary to protect the structure itself, and if it were ever improperly used it would most certainly destroy Fredericksburg.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it your view that from an engineering standpoint this proposed dam is not sound? Mr. REID. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. What kind of dam would you propose?
Mr. REID. A dry dam, if you wanted flood control; a dam with a hole in it that will pass water and only store the excess—without power.
The CHAIRMAN. Where are there any such dams? Where have you ever constructed one of those dams?
Mr. REID. I have never constructed any of them. The CHAIRMAN. Where is there one like that in the country? Mr. REID. The most successful one in the country is the Miami Conservancy District.
The CHAIRMAN. You are aware that since the Miami Conservancy District and dams were constructed there following the flood of 1913 that all engineers who have testified before this committee, and the engineers of the country generally, have advised that the present construction is a vast improvement over the type of construction that was built by Mr. Morgan in the Miami Conservancy District. Do you take issue with other engineers ?
Mr. REID. As you know yourself, we have had one experience out on the Pensacola Dam where we had this combination proposition, and they used the storage space for power. When they opened those gates you know what happened.
The CHAIRMAN. I am familiar with the Pensacola situation. It is very important that those dams be properly constructed and properly operated. Mr. REID. I am not questioning the type of construction.
The CHAIRMAN. You brought out the point about the defect in the construction and that there should be an opening in the dam for the normal flow without the gates. Mr. REID. I think that would be better.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else? I get you on that point. Mr. REID. Even without considering the backwater curve, this dam would inundate about 33,000 acres at elevation 257 and would render useless thousands of other acres.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean the dam at the elevation proposed in the new report?
Mr. REID. At 257 elevation, which they show as the maximum point on the dam, it would overflow between 33,000 and 34,000 acres.
The CHAIRMAN. You understand if they do the Government is liable.
Mr. Reid. I do not know. They may have to pay for it, but a lot of people would die before they were ever paid. They ran the people
on the CHAIRMAN. You unu. They may have to They ran the p
out of the hills below Fredericksburg and none of them have ever gotten their money yet, and that was a war measure.
The drawing which purports to show the proposed pond is misleading. The map as drawn shows the pond with the water at the dam at elevation 240 and not the maximum pool level at the dam, much less the backwater curve during a flood. This is plainly shown, since the map of the pond indicates that the pond lacks several miles of backing water to Remington, Va., while with the assumed maximum pool level of 257 at the dam, the water would be backed beyond Remington and would be raised 5 feet at Remington, to which elevation would have to be added the floodwater and the necessary fall to make that water flow to the dam at Salem Church.
The proposed dam will not prevent erosion except to that land which will be permanently flooded. There has been practically no erosion below Fredericksburg, and, as a matter of fact, there have been some sand deposits on a few acres below Fredericksburg.
To a layman it would appear that there would be developed 54,500 kilowatts and that there could be delivered 50,690 kilowatts of that amount. Also, that this development would provide 153,070,000 kilowatt-hours of energy, of which 145,417,000 kilowatt-hours would be delivered for sale.
I think that the above statements are correct, but what kind of kilowatt-hours are these, and how dependable would this power be?
It is stated that the minimum flow will be regulated to 770 cubic feet per second and that this will produce 8,100 kilowatts continuously, but it is also stated that of this 770 cubic feet per second, 400 of it will be released continuously, leaving only approximately 370 cubic feet per second which can be used as needed during any time of the day desired.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me understand you now. Would you favor the construction of this Salem Church Reservoir if the construction were engineeringly sound and if it provided for the generation of power at an elevation of 240, or do you oppose it under any circumstances?
Mr. REID. At its height, because it will drive the farmers out of their homes and ruin many places. .
The CHAIRMAN. What height do you favor the dam to be built to? Mr. Reid. I think that we should have flood-control dams, one about a mile above the small present dam; one at the junction of the rivers to cover up to the same elevation of 200. I do not know about the terrain above that, but I do know the terrain from Fredericksburg to Remington. I am probably the only man in Washington today who has seen every foot of this land on both sides of the river.
The CHAIRMAN. You would advocate a substitute by constructing additional reservoirs above and the development of power in any of them? Mr. Reid. If they wish it.
The CHAIRMAN. I think we get your viewpoint. Are there any other points that you would like to make ? Mr. REID. Quite a few of them.
The two dams will produce 65,963,000 kilowatt-hours of deliverable primary energy. At minimum head the plant would be capable of producing only 34,650 kilowatts of deliverable capacity, and after allowing for the continual release of 400 cubic feet per second could only produce this capacity for 2 hours and 43 minutes per day, or 27,310 kilowatts for 15 percent of the time, and then produce 3,910 kilowatts the balance of the day. I use 15 percent of the time because that is the load factor.
The CHAIRMAN. That is very interesting from an engineering and scientific point of view, and that is covered by the report. Mr. REID. I am speaking about the economics of it, too. The CHAIRMAN. We shaïl be glad to have that for the committee. Mr. Reid. In spite of this the Army engineers estimate income on a capacity charge of $17 per kilowatt on 50,690 kilowatts.
During the period of June 1, 1930 to December 1, 1932, a period of 30 months, the primary energy was all that could have been produced. The net results of their estimated income from this primary power would be that they would have to collect 15.03 mills for a primary energy and then to meet their estimate they would have to sell all of the secondary energy but 2.2 mills and find a customer who could use this energy when and as there was water to generate it, no matter what day or hour.
The CHAIRMAN. You oppose the reservoir because it is not economically justified? Mr. Reid. That is part of it. The CHAIRMAN. What other points do you have? Mr. REID. The farmers will be ruined.
The CHAIRMAN. I think that we have pretty well covered that, unless you have some additional facts.
Mr. Reid. I have located the homes that will be ruined ; 20 that will be flooded and 40 that will be ruined.
The CHAIRMAX. Actual places? Mr. REID. Actually flooded out, and would have to move. There are 40 others that would have to move out of the territory.
The CHAIRMAN. They would be compensated as far as money can do it.
Mr. Reid. Money cannot compensate a man for his home and the breaking up of his community.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how to build any dam or reservoir for the generation of power without doing that? Mr. Ruid. Not to the extent this is done.
The CHAIRMAN. Take, for instance, TVA. They actually converted the entire Tennessee Basin, home after home, into reservoirs to generate power. Mr. REID. Certainly. The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Go ahead. Mr. Reid. To read the engineers' report it would appear that in the floods of 1937 and 1942 seven persons were drowned and that the proposed dam, if it had been in place, would have prevented those deaths. This, of course, is not true, for four of the deaths occurred above the proposed pond and the other three occurred not in the river, but by streams which did the damage before entering the river, and the deaths could not have been prevented had the dam been in operation prior to those floods. · The estimate of damages incurred at Fredericksburg during the flood of 1942 covered damages which were in no wise caused by the height of the water in the river. Many of these claimed damages were incurred by surface water for which the city of Fredericksburg failed to provide adequate disposal.
These damages occurred before the river reached its hegiht. I attempted to secure from the city manager a copy of the listings of damages which he furnished to the Army engineers, but was advised that he could not locate the same; but he stated that the list set forth all damages regardless of whether they were caused by the river or just surface water. This method of estimating damages, which could be alleviated by flood control, is certainly unjust to all concerned, if it is not dishonest. It is likewise not fair to estimate annual damages by estimating the period from a time just before one flood to the end of another. This gives a distorted value to the average annual damage.
I do not think they should take the flood of '89, of which we know very little, and these other damages, actual and supposed, and arrive at some formula of probability to estimate the average annual damages. I think that they have padded to beat the band.
Mr. Jackson. You state that this a 90-percent power project and 10 percent flood control? Mr. REID. Yes, sir. Mr. JACKSON. Are you against the Government building any dams which would generate power? Mr. REID. No, sir. Mr. Jackson. WellMr. REID. I am when it is primarily for power. Mr. JACKSON. You are when it is primarily for power? Mr. Reid. Yes. I am against Government in any business. Mr. Jackson. Could a private power company build Grand Coulee Dam? Mr. Reid. No, sir. Mr. Jackson. Would you be against that dam? Mr. REID. I do not know anything about that. Mr. Jackson. That happens to be in my State. Mr. Reid. I do not know anything about it. Mr. Jackson. You say that these figures that have been submitted to the Army engineers regarding the situation in Fredericksburg have been somewhat exaggerated or padded. Mr. REID. Yes. Mr. Jackson. Is that the opinion generally held in Fredericksburg ? Mr. Reid. I do not think the people generally know much about it. Mr. Houston told me to ask everybody damaged by the flood to turn in estimates. The river did not damage them down in my section of the town.
Mr. JACKSON. Is there anyone else in Fredericksburg that could corroborate your position on this? Mr. REID. I think that Mr. Houston, the city manager, will. Mr. Jackson. I mean the fact that you say these figures that were submitted to the engineers were inaccurate.
Mr. REID. Mr. Houston is the city manager, and he is the one who turned them in, and they are not accurate.
Mr. JACKSON. He will say that they are not accurate; that they do zot speak the truth?
Mr. REID. I think that he will tell you Mr. JACKSON. Your contention is that a lot of this business in Fredericksburg about the floods has been exaggerated ? Mr. REID. A part of it; yes.