STATEMENT OF COL. FREDERICK W. SCHEIDENHELM, HYDRAULIC ENGINEER, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. SCHEIDEN HELM. I live in New York City. I am a consulting engineer.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, we have under consideration here the Salem Dam and Reservoir. Are you familiar with the proposal as recommended to us by the Chief of Engineers?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. I have had access to the report of the district engineer and its appendixes; not in printed form, because I understand it has not been printed, perhaps has not even come to the Congress, but I have had access to it. It was not very convenient but good enough for the purpose. I have not seen the division engineer's report.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen the report of the Chief of Engineers? Colonel SCHEIDEN HELM. I have seen the Chief of Engineers' proposed report, undated; I suppose that it will be the official report. I have seen the Board of Engineers' report.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no occasion for technicalities with respect to the date, or whether it is printed or published, because if it is not published, it will be published in due course.

Now, you understand also that the Chief of Engineers does not recommend the entire project as submitted by the district engineer, but recommends only the Salem Reservoir project at the present time?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. That is my understanding.

The CHAIRMAN. So we have before us only the Salem Reservoir project which in part is a recommendation of the district engineer. What is your statement here and what points do you desire to give us in connection with that reservoir?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. I have been asked by my client, the Virginia Electric & Power Co., to make an economic analysis of the report. I have not made a report on it. I have some highlights that I have been able to put together, having had the notice of hearing only since Tuesday afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. The first highlight is what?

Colonel SCHEIDEN HELM. The first is the consideration of the extent of flood control provided; that is, the report is in response to a resolution asking for a determination of the advisability of flood-control improvements as to the extent they may be possible.

The project does provide some flood control. As to the total benefits, however, the claim for "reduction of flood damages" is only 7.5 percent of the total. That is made up of direct damages, indirect damages, property depreciation, and elimination of damages in the

reservoir.

It is clear to me, and I believe generally agreed, that approximately one-third of that amount of "reduction in flood damages" does not properly belong in the total.

I refer to the fact that the report takes credit, to the extent of 31.4 percent, for benefits in the form of removing from flood damage that land which will be flooded by the Salem Church Reservoir. That is positively wrong.

I have found no report of the United States Engineer Department which makes any such claim, and I have not found any engineers of the

Army, with whom I have discussed it, who would say that is correct. I have the impression it was overlooked as it went up the line. There is much that could be said about the estimate of direct damage, but I shall not go into that, Mr. Chairman. It is a fact that that depends, under the methods of the Army engineers, upon the frequency estimates of floods.

In a report, being the so-called 308 document covering the Rappahannock generally, dated about 1933, it was then estimated that a flood in the amount of 150,000 cubic feet per second would occur once in 1,000 years. Actually a flood of nearly that amount occurred in 1942, and that, of course, is the cause of all this investigation and the present project.

Now, in the present report, if I understand it correctly, a frequency is estimated, on a rather arbitrary basis, of about 72 years for a flood of about 140,000 cubic feet per second, being the estimated amount of the 1942 flood. Actually, nobody can determine exactly what the frequency really is. That is subject to a lot of mathematical computations around a center of guessing; but my own guess-and I will not designate it any more-is that the truth lies somewhere between the 72 years and 1,000 years.

The point I want to make is that the direct damage and indirect damage, as estimated, are dependent upon that frequency. I suspect that those estimates are rather high as far as the benefit side is concerned. However, for present purposes, I assume them.

Now, if we take out that which is obviously wrong, the area covered by the reservoir and the damage occurring to it, there remain 5.15 percent of flood-damage reduction or flood-control benefits in this project. Obviously, it is not predominantly a flood-control project.

Well then, what is it? The remainder of the benefits are estimated at 90 percent from power and about 2.5 percent from pollution abatement and silting reduction. The latter are minor.

It is my impression this is a case where, to justifiy the project, the bottom of the barrel has been scraped pretty hard.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, without meaning to interfere with the trend of your thought, what flood-control project have you designed, either for the use of reservoirs or otherwise, so that we can have the benefit of your actual experience?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. Well, I, through my associate, Dr. Daniel W. Mead, who was consultant and part-time chief engineer of the Miami Conservancy District, had some contact with that work professionally. Aside from that, I have not had a great deal to do by way of construction for flood control but I have by way of consultation on various aspects.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about the flood-control aspect primarily.

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. What projects have you been consultant on with respect to flood control?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. I have had occasion to examine for various clients

The CHAIRMAN. I mean before their construction and on your recommendation for design. I am not talking about what somebody else

has done and you have examined. What have you designed and planned yourself?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. I cannot say that I have designed any. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. JACKSON. Who are your principal clients?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. My principal clients range from private power companies to private industry-the West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., the New Jersey Zinc Co., and so forth-to the War Department

Mr. JACKSON. In your private consultations on flood-control matters has that been primarily for private power companies?

Colonel SCHEIDEN HELM. In recent years, yes.

Mr. JACKSON. In other words, when you have been called in on a flood-control project, you have been called in to prepare data for use in connection with hearings, or other matters relating to proposed flood-control projects by the Army engineers?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. If called in, I was called in to give my opinion on it.

Mr. JACKSON. In all those cases, have you been called in by the private power companies as your clients?

Colonel SCHEIDEN HELM. I think that is true of most. I believe it is not true of all.

Mr. JACKSON. Have you been called in by any flood-control people as such?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. This Miami conservancy district is certainly for flood control.

Mr. JACKSON. That is the only one; all the other cases are private power companies?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. I do not know that that is true. I would have to go over my records. I said that it was predominantly so. I agree to that.

The CHAIRMAN. May I say in this connection, do you design these dams?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. I have been known to.

The CHAIRMAN. I am just asking for the record.

- Colonel SCHEIDEN HELM. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I asked you that question for this reason: Criticism has been made of the proposed design of this reservoir here by the resident engineer, who states that he lives below the dam at Fredericksburg. My general understanding is that whenever Congress has authorized for construction by the Chief of Engineers of any dam anywhere for flood control, and, for that matter, reclamation, the Chief of Engineers in the actual planning and designing is authorized under the law, as is the Director of Reclamation, to engage the services of as good engineers as there are in this country to see that nothing is left undone to make those dams as nearly engineeringly perfect as possible.

Do you understand that does obtain, and have you been a consultant in the actual preparation of plans of any dams for either the Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. Not the Bureau of Reclamation but the Corps of Engineers and the TVA. I think that the answer to Mr. Jackson's question is that I have been engaged by others than power companies. I recall now that I was called in by the War Department on the White River, Ark., as to the Wild Cat Shoals, now the Bull

Shoals, project, which is a multiple-purpose project—and, of course, the Norris Dam of TVA also is in part for flood control. I was on the board of consultants for the first dam that TVA built.

Mr. JACKSON. What year was that, 1933 or 1934?
Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. 1934, I believe, or 1935.

Mr. JACKSON. Have you been employed by the TVA since that time?
Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. No.

Mr. JACKSON. Or on any of the other dams?
Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that with respect to the design of the dam to prevent a recurrence of what happened at Johnstown?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. Solely on the technical phases.

The CHAIRMAN. When you say "technical phases," you mean designing so as to protect the lives of the people below those dams? Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you mean by technical?

Colonel SCHEIDEN HELM. Yes; it includes the safety of the dam after construction. That is one of the main things.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, your understanding of it, in answer to my question, is that when these dams are authorized that the Chief of Engineers, as well as the Bureau of Reclamation, has available the best talent of the country to give them advice as to the details to provide as much safety as possible?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. I take it it is available, and generally they avail themselves of it. I have no suggestion to the contrary. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. Next, I would like to touch on the camparison of the land to be protected with the land to be overflooded in the reservoir.

Sitting here this morning I have heard some inquiry by the chairman as to the land to be protected downstream. I have found the report is remarkable for scarcity of detail in that respect. There is one definite thing stated, namely, that below Fredericksburg the area which was flooded in 1942 was 5,100 acres, of which 800 were cultivated. However, if I understand the report correctly, the project does not purport to dispense with all' flood damage but merely to hold down damage to such as would be caused by a flood in the amount of 75,000 cubic feet per second-roughly half of the flood of 1942.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee undertook to ascertain the type and character of the lands above the reservoir and below the reservoir in addition to having the report of the Chief of Engineers, because this is a continuation of the hearing originally scheduled when this project was submitted.

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. I think it is a very pertinent question. I have some things that I can submit with regard to it. There is that one definite thing with regard to the lands that are below Fredericksburg.

As to the. area within the town of Fredericksburg, the area damaged by the flood of 1942-and perhaps some flood water from tributaries, not due to the main river-but not subject to damage by a flood of only about 75,000 second-feet, would be something like 110 acres. I was rather surprised to find that out. I expected to find that there was much more in the city of Fredericksburg. The corresponding area in Falmouth appears to be about 10 acres. The corresponding

area opposite Fredericksburg appears to be about 20 acres, or less. Then, upstream from Fredericksburg and Falmouth, between there and the Salem Church Dam site, and overflowed by 140,000 secondfoot flood but not by a 75,000 second-foot flood, there appear to be about 100 acres.

I have tried to put it all into terms of that land which was damaged in 1942 but would no longer be damaged if the proposed flood-control works did what they are intended to do. That being the case, that one figure given of 5,100 acres has to be cut down by something. I do not know just what. I suspect it is about half, or two-thirds. I have taken half. Therefore, I have assumed that 2,550 acres would be protected, of which, in the same proportion, 400 would be cultivated. So the total protected below Salem Church is about 2,800 acres, of which 540 are cultivated. I do not claim that 540 is right, is exact, but that is the approximate figure.

Let us look at the land to be overflowed. With the power pool alone, at elevation 240, the total area, without any backwater effect, is 21,300 acres, of which, according to the district engineer's report, 3,700 acres is cultivated, pasture, and open land, something like 1713 percent. That allows nothing for flood storage and it allows nothing for back

water.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand that. That is just the original power pool.

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. Yes; but I would like to point out the actual damage resulting from a reservoir extends upstream from the pool. That is, the backwater curve is felt upstream for a distance depending upon the local characteristics and the amount of the flood, so that there can be damage outside the reservoir and upstream from it. The CHAIRMAN. That would not be peculiar to that dam alone. Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. No, but I have heard enough discussion here this morning to know it is not generally realized.

With the flood storage added, in the amount of 322,000 acre-feet, for reducing a flood of 200,000 second-feet to one of 75,000 second-feet, thus carrying the pool up to elevation 252.8, but again without any allowance for backwater effect, the total area is approximately 42 percent greater, or something over 30,300 acres. And, if the cultivated, pasture, and open land is in the same proportion there are some 5,260 acres so flooded.

At the maximum water surface, one which would provide for 150,000 acre-feet additional, in order to offset loss of valley storage, the area would be about 34,000 acre-feet, and, if in the same proportion (17% percent), cultivated, pasture, and open land would be 5,900

acres.

It is obvious to me, from my knowledge of terrain generally and the figures available, that actually the area of cultivated, pasture, and open land is much greater; that is, the proportion is greater at the higher elevations.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your next point?

Colonel SCHEIDENHELM. În terms of the total, the overflowed land, by the combined power and flood storage, would be more than 10/2 times the area protected. In terms of the higher-class land, the overflowed land would be 9 to nearly 10 times as great as the area protected. The CHAIRMAN. Have you actually traversed the land and observed it personally?