costs of some of the projects, but that statement is but half of the facts. The costs have increased, but the benefits are likewise increasing.

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Go right ahead with your statement, General. General WHEELER. Another factor influencing costs is the advances in the science and art of flood-control engineering. Flood control is a comparatively new subject, and the techniques and concepts of flood-control engineering are constantly being improved. We are learning by experience and through laboratory experimentation and research. We are sometimes able to improve plans of authorized projects so as to provide greater benefits of protection and security. Sound procedure dictates that we should build to the best of our knowledge, the most up-to-date engineering projects even though somewhat higher costs are necessary.

The third factor, namely, increased cost of projects by reason of changes in the scope of improvement, is probably the most frequent cause for exceeding original estimates. It is rare, except in the smallest local protection projects, for a project to be constructed exactly as planned in the beginning. Opportunities appear for improving or expanding the protection originally planned and almost always justify the construction of a more expensive project than originally contemplated. The Flood Control Committee and the Congress have recognized the fact that changing conditions often make plans obsolete and to avoid undue rigidity they have given the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers the authority to modify plans as may be found necessary or desirable. In fact the Congress has instructed the Chief of Engineers to supplement authorized surveys by such additional study or investigation as the Chief of Engineers finds necessary to take into account important changes in economic factors as they occur, and additional stream flow records, or other factual data. We recognize this latitude and directive as a great responsibility, and we administer it carefully. We make modifications only in such ways as are clearly within the purview of the established policies of Congress. For instance we believe that Congress desires that dam sites be developed to their greatest and best uses. Suitable sites for major dams are rather scarce and to commit such sites to less than their best uses would appear to be undesirable and not in the best interest of the Nation. Therefore in designing such projects we make full provision for the fullest uses, either in the initial construction or by means of suitable foundations and other adjustments so that full potential use can be added to the projects later when warranted. Such provisions inevitably cost money, and sometimes large amounts of money. However, the investments are clearly justified though returns may be deferred for several years. The increased investments are not recommended unless the returns, in our best judgment, warrant such increases. Throughout this entire process of designing projects and estimating costs our cardinal principle is always that each project must be sound from standpoints of economic justification and general welfare. Along with our studies of costs and engineering design, we keep a sharp eye on expected benefits. I consider that we have an obligation to report back to Congress on projects that for any reason become unsound and, in effect, to ask for further instructions before undertaking construc

87116-46- -2

tion. But where projects are clearly sound and within the scope of the authorization, it is my view that Congress expects us to proceed even though cost estimates may have risen considerably.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion may I mention, that the 1944 floodcontrol bill added a new provision which in my opinion adds considerably to the indirect, but nevertheless important, values of our program. That act provides that our reservoir areas be used as public parks and for recreational purposes where practicable. Actually, the Secretary of War was authorized to construct, maintain and operate public park and recreational facilities in these areas under the control of the War Department and the bill provided further that the water areas should be open to the public, without charge, for boating, swimming, bathing, fishing, and other recreational purposes. This provision will make available many new recreational areas. particularly in several sections of the United States where lakes are scarce at the present time, and it provides also an excellent means of keeping the public constantly aware of the benefits of flood control.

The CHAIRMAN. General Wheeler. I am sure that I express the sentiment of this committee as I voice my personal sentiments when I say that I have been a member of this committee for many years, and I indulge in no flattery when I also say that no more constructive or comprehensive statement has ever been submitted by any Chief of Engineers to this committee than the one you have just given us.

I should like to ask you for the record at this time to give us just briefly your qualifications and experience covering from your graduation, the date of it, from the Academy, and the substance of work that you have done up to the beginning of the war, and then I will ask you about your war services for the record.

General WHEELER. Yes, sir. I graduated from the Military Academy in June 1911, and was sent with the rest of the Engineers of my class for 2 years of field work on the upper Mississippi River, lower Mississippi River, Panama Canal, Ohio River, and the Kanawha River. Thereafter I went to the Engineer School. Then I went to troop duty, including the expedition to Vera Cruz, Mexico; service in the Hawaiian Islands; and then to World War I when I went overseas with a combat-Engineer regiment. I was then on duty for 3 years as an engineer instructor at the Infantry School and had an assignment after that as Assistant Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia. I had district duty at Newport, R. I., which was then an engineer district, Wilmington, N. C., and Rock Island, Ill. I was resident member of the River and Harbor Board for 4 years and I graduated from the Command and General Staff School and the Army War College. I was on duty with the Panama Canal just before going overseas in World War II.

The CHAIRMAN. And what were your assignments, and what theaters were you engaged in in World War II?

General WHEELER. I went overseas in November 1941 as the Chief of the Mission to the Persian Gulf area to improve the supply lines to Russia through the Persian Gulf. When the China-Burma-India theater was formed I became chief of supplies for General Stilwell and served in that capacity until October 1943 when the southeast Asia command was formed. I then went to that command as the principal administrative officer and later as the deputy supreme commander.

The CHAIRMAN. When did you return to the States?
General WHEELER. On the last day of September 1945, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What date did your term as Chief of Engineers begin?

General WHEELER. The next day, October 1, 1945.

The CHAIRMAN. 1945?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, there is with you today the Assistant Chief of Engineers, Brigadier General Crawford-and with your permission, General Crawford, I would like you to come around at this point and sit by the General there, and for the information of the committee, and really for the record, General Crawford, would you give us the date of your graduation and your assignments subsequent to your graduation?

General CRAWFORD. I graduated 1 year after General Wheeler, in

1912.

The CHAIRMAN. A little bit louder, please.

General CRAWFORD. After graduation I served 2 years at Washington Barracks as a troop officer with an engineer battalion. That was followed by a tour of 2 years in Panama connected with another engineer battalion engaged in surveys of the Canal Zone and adjacent territory. Following that, I served a short period of time on the Mexican border. And then, during the First World War, I was in the Office of the Chief of Engineers as an assistant to the Chief of the Military Division. Following World War I, I served at Fort Belvoir in the Engineer School as an instructor. That was followed by a tour of duty in which I succeeded General Wheeler as the engineer instructor at the Infantry School. Following that, I went to Seattle as the Assistant Division Engineer and Assistant District Engineer of the Seattle District. After that, I attended the General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth and the Army War College here in Washington. And then followed 4 years on the General Staff here in Washington. I served 4 years as district engineer in Detroit in charge of the Detroit district, following which I became district engineer at Honolulu in charge of the Hawaiian district. After that, I came back to the States and was in command of a regiment at Fort Belvoir for 2 years, and then was appointed commandant of the Engineer School, where I served for 3 years, after which I became division engineer of the Missouri River Division. That was the job I had before coming here.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have you with us this morning. Are you and Maj. Gen. Robert W. Crawford related, may I ask? General CRAWFORD. No, sir; we are not.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have you with us. The general will be available during the course of the hearing.

General CRAWFORD. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Colonel Herb, will you have a seat there by General Crawford. Your initials are E. G.?

Colonel HERB. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Speak out loudly, as you do when you answer me over the telephone or when I call you, almost daily, and give us for the record, Colonel, an outline of your experience and qualifications.

Colonel HERB. Yes, sir. I graduated from the Military Academy in June of 1933. My first assignment was in the Vicksburg, Miss.,

district where I spent 2 years. Following that I attended Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a year, taking a postgraduate course, which all the young engineer officers at that time were able to do. Following that tour I went to Fort Belvoir where I took the company officers' course which lasted 9 months. After that I went to Schofield Barracks, T. H., for troop duty with the Third Engineer Combat Regiment. When I returned to the States I was assigned to the Portland, Oreg., district as assistant to the district engineer, and during my tour there I was placed in charge of the Eugene area. Upon leaving Eugene, Oreg., I was transferred to Little Rock, Ark., as assistant to the district engineer. I spent about a year and 9 months there. Then in September of 1942 I was assigned to the One Hundred and First Airborne Division and went overseas with that division. After a few months in England, I joined the Services of Supply and was assigned as base section engineer for what was known as the eastern base section, which was primarily responsible for building the air fields for the Eighth Air Force. In France I was base section engineer for the Normandy base section. After that I was transferred to the Oise section. I returned to the States in October of 1945 and was assigned to my present position December 3.

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks. We are glad to have you, sir.

General Wheeler, I will ask you in this connection, it will be for the committee-ordinarily, when members of the committee or Members of Congress, for that matter, have an inquiry with respect to either a project that has been adopted or an improvement that has been authorized, or work that should be done, whom should they ordinarily contact to get immediate information in your office now? What is your suggestion?

General WHEELER. They should first try the Director of Civil Works. The assistant head is Colonel Herb. Colonel Stratton, the former Director of Civil Works is being sent to Panama, and he is to be replaced. In fact, the new man is taking over today, Col. P. A, Feringa, who will be Director of Civil Works in my office.

The CHAIRMAN. And, Colonel Herb, General Wheeler?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir. He is the first assistant to the director. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, often you are out of the city, and often you are before the boards, and otherwise engaged on the "Hill" so that am I correct in saying that Colonel Feringa and Colonel Herb are in a position to give Members of Congress the information that they desire respecting these subjects that we have mentioned, General Wheeler?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir. And also, Mr. Chairman, whenever Colonels Feringa and Herb are absent inquiries should be made to the chief of the Flood Control Division, Mr. George Beard-I know he is well-known

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beard, will you come around here? You reached him a little bit before me. The members of the committee know Mr. George L. Beard, and he is the chief of the Flood Control Section and has been in the Corps-for how long a period?

Mr. BEARD. Since 1931, 15 years.

The CHAIRMAN. 1931?

Mr. BEARD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, if you can't get Mr. Beard, in the event you don't get Colonel Feringa or Colonel Herb, you can get

Mr Bousquet. Mr. Bousquet, will you come around here?

The CHAIRMAN. Kenneth J. Bousquet is his name. You are an engineer?

Mr. BOUSQUET. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been in the corps?

Mr. BOUSQUET. Since 1934.

The CHAIRMAN. 1934?

Mr. BOUSQUET. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And, is Mr. Darling here at the present moment? General WHEELER. No, sir; he is not here this morning. (Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have you gentlemen here. If there is any information that any members of the committee desire at any time, and if you can't get it from the three spokesmen of the corps and these two spokesmen for the civilian branch of the corps, don't ask me. They know it.

General WHEELER. In your statement you referred to the reviews being submitted since the Flood Control Act and the hearings on the act in 1944, and you have emphasized the importance, however, of additional authorizations, as is shown by page 8 of your statement and you call attention to the fact that the Congress of the United States has approved projects along the Ohio River and tributaries at an estimated cost of around $1,000,000,000 and the Congress has appropriated for the partial completion of those group of works $348,000,000, and that all of the amounts appropriated have been committed so that as matters stand there are no additional authorizations for the projects that have been approved in the Ohio valley? General WHEELER. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We have thus the importance of making additional authorizations for something like three-quarters of a million dollars altogether of projects on that basis?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And, that same situation obtains along the Arkansas River with only $7,000,000 uncommitted remaining, along the White River with only around $5,000,000 remaining uncommitted, and in the upper Mississippi River with only around $5,000,000 remaining uncommitted, and to a greater degree along the Willamette River, and in a comparatively similar degree in the Los Angeles County area? General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So increased authorizations for projects aggregating $2,500,000,000 which Congress has approved, and where Congress has authorized only about $1,000,000,000, is most important? General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, with respect to the lower Mississippi River, and I refer to page 10 of your statement, there is a total authorization of $864,934,000. That total authorization includes the $200,000,000 for navigation primarily, and revetments in the act of 1944. Is that navigation to increase the channel between Cairo and Baton Rouge? General WHEELER. Yes, sir, it will provide a 12-foot channel up to Cairo, Ill.

The CHAIRMAN. So for the actual flood-control works along the Mississippi River, the lower Mississippi River, there would remain only around $150,000,000 that has been authorized?