from 25 feet to 68 feet and $1,400,000 for attendant channel work as a result of these changes. 3. Additional bridge width for future track expansion In 1972 railroad officials asserted that provision should be made in the final design of its relocated facilities for a railroad bridge or bridges which would accommodate six additional tracks beyond those which currently span the twin culverts. This assertion was based on the railroad's position that it has the capacity to construct six additional tracks in this area. This additional relocation feature in the amount of $1,500,000 was not contemplated by Government or railroad representatives during preparation of the original project document. It should be noted that the project with its associated costs is still in a preliminary design and negotiation stage. This is particularly true as regards the increased costs of the railroad relocations element of this project. It is evident from our discussion of this element that most of the proposed expanded work schedule and increased costs are attributable to increased railroad company demands. The Corps is using the cost estimates associated with these most recent railroad company demands for the sole purpose of preliminary planning. This should not be taken as an indicator, however, that the Corps has necessarily agreed to comply with these demands. Quite to the contrary, negotiations have continued between representatives of the Corps and the railroad company concerning these demands, and the Corps representatives are hopeful of achieving major alternative solutions of this element of the project to reduce its increased scope and associated costs. While we recognize that there may be many facets of this railroad relocation work where major savings could be forthcoming, we believe that the magnitude of this work is now sufficiently clear to make it unquestionable that the scope and associated costs of this important element of the project will go far beyond that anticipated at the time of project approval. It is obvious that the project never would have been recommended for construction under the authority of Section 201 if the scope and associated costs of the railroad relocations element had been fully anticipated in 1970. Whatever the relative merits of the railroad company's demands and the negotiations thereon, we do not anticipate, nor can we conceive, that the changed circumstances in this element of the project will result in a project which is substantially the same in scope and associated costs as that which was approved. CONCLUSION In view of the fact that the present projected cost estimates of this project, which are the result of engineering changes, escalation, and increased railroad demands in connection with relocation of its facilities, are so grossly in excess of the original estimated Federal first costs, as that term is used in Section 201, we are of the opinion that the project should no longer continue to be considered a project authorized for construction under Section 201 of P.L. 89-298. E. MANNING SELTZER, General Counsel. Mr. EDELMAN. In view of the substantial changes which have occurred with respect to this project, we would also appreciate the Corps' recommendations as to what course of action should be taken with respect to the Fourmile Run project. We would also ask for a comparison of the costs of proceeding with the present project and the costs of acquiring the land, which is subject to flooding, and turning it into a park. [Information requested follows:] The estimated total cost of the present project is $50,500,000. We have investigated the alternative of purchasing the flood-prone land and improvements, clearing the area, and developing it into a park. The total estimated cost for this plan is $145,000,000. However, $40,000,000 of this total is associated with the purchase and relocation of the Arlington County Water Pollution Control Plant which may not be practicable. The remaining $105,000,000 consists of the following items: Cost of real estate and improvements. Relocation assistance___ Administrative costs_ Park development---- Total $82,500,000 15, 000, 000 1,500,000 5, 000, 000 1, 000, 000 105, 000, 000 This estimate represents a conservative approach as only those buildings with first-floor elevations below the 100-year flood level would be removed. The remainder were considered flood-proofable at a total cost of about $350,000. An additional item for consideration is the approximately $650,000 in taxes which would be forgone annually by the two jurisdictions. Mr. EDELMAN. Now, in connection with this last request-and I think this is important-you should consider not only the present value of the land, but also the value of the land without the prospect of a flood control project. In this regard, we would like the opinion of your appraisers as to the worth of this land if the project were not authorized, and also its present worth. [Information requested follows:] At this time, there appears to have been no land speculation as a result of authorization of the project. The present value of the land appears to be essentially what it was prior to authorization. Nor do we expect any reduction in value if the project is deauthorized. The area is locked in to its existing improvements, mostly garden-type apartments and service type commercial uses plus public uses and no dramatic change in use which might prompt a value increase has been indicated. The few sales since authorization of the project were compared to sales prior to the authorization and revealed no significant increase in price. Therefore, it can be concluded that the $105 million land acquisition cost is essentially the same as it was prior to the announcement of the proposed project. However, if actual construction were started, the possibility of a change in land use would be visualized and land might then increase substantially in value. Mr. ROBERTS. We have asked for a lot of things to be furnished for the record. I think that gives some indication of the concern of the committee, and we understand, of course, you cannot do this overnight. But we would like to have the information-and we consider it very important as soon as we can, in view of the critical problem. Certainly we are in no position to say "stop the project," because if we did and had a major flood immediately, you would be criticized and we would be criticized. But I think the gentleman from California summed it up in one word. It is a matter of credibility, both of the Corps and of this committee, and I think really we are just blockers for the Corps. Our blocking assignments are pretty far back in this case. If you will furnish that General GROVES. Yes, sir. It is not as hard as it might seem, sir, because, like you, we are concerned about these very things, and we have already started to assemble a great deal of this material. So we should have it for you fairly promptly, and I might add. Mr. Chairman, that we are just as concerned about our reputation as anybody else, and we are not about to do anything that would adversely affect it. We have tried to be as open with you about this thing as we possibly can. We made some mistakes previously, and I hope we can get to the bottom of this thing with you and correct them. Mr. ROBERTS. Any further questions? Mr. CLAUSEN. I am prompted to make an observation as a result of the chairman's point. That is, I am wondering now, in light of the history, whether or not this project should ever have been authorized under section 201. It is obvious to me there was information-I cannot see how the situation could change that much, and you can see that we have to guard against someone's coming in and presenting a project just to get their nose in the, so to speak, in order to take advantage of section 201. If we do that, this would be the beginning of the end of that privilege, as I view it. Mr. ROBERTS. I agree 100 percent. Gentlemen, it is nice to have you back. I believe we will get to visit with you gentlemen on some other projects, and I think we will proceed with the projects in whatever manner you prefer, General Kelly. BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION STATEMENT BY BRIG. GEN. JAMES L. KELLY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY LANGDON H. RAINES, ASSISTANT CHIEF, PROGRAMS DIVISION, CIVIL WORKS; AND IRWIN REISLER, CHIEF, PLANNING DIVISION, CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS General KELLY. Sir, in my presentation this morning on basic monetary authorizations, I am accompanied by Mr. Reisler and Mr. Raines. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, beginning with the 1936 and 1938 Flood Control Acts, Congress has approved a number of basin and project plans but provided limited authority for appropriations. This limitation on authority has been increased by the Congress periodically to permit proceeding with the construction of the projects in the authorized plan. At the present time, there are 29 basin development plans subject to monetary authorization limitations. The latest act providing increased monetary authorization was the River Basin Monetary Authorization Act of 1971, Public Law 92-222. That act provided increased monetary authorization for work to be accomplished through calendar year 1973. At the request of the chairman of this committee, I am presenting the needs for monetary authorization to cover work projected through calendar years 1975 and 1976. Through this time period, we estimated that deficiencies would exist in 16 basins. We estimated a deficiency of around $769 million through the end of calendar year 1975 and a deficit of $1.261 million through calendar year 1976. These estimated deficiencies in monetary authorization differ from the amounts included in draft legislation transmitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Army on January 24, 1973, introduced as H.R. 3966. ALABAMA-COOSA RIVER BASIN The Alabama-Coosa River System drains an area of 22,800 square miles, of which about 130 square miles are in Tennessee, 5,350 square miles are in Georgia and 17,320 square miles are in Alabama. The basin has a maximum width of 110 miles and extends about 320 miles from southeast Tennessee and northwest Georgia diagonally across Alabama to the southwest corner of the State. The River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945, provides for the initial and ultimate development of the Alabama-Coosa Rivers and Tributaries for navigation, flood control, power development, and other purposes. The Act includes authori zation for modification of the original plan as may be advisable from time to time in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers for the purpose of increasing the development of hydroelectric power. This Act also authorized the appropriation of $60 million dollars. Additional monetary authorization has been provided by subsequent acts, bringing the total monetary authorization to $244 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan...- Present monetary authorization.... Remaining monetary authorization----- $725, 721, 000 244, 000, 000 253, 445, 000 9,445, 000 20,923, 000 30, 368,000 253, 000 Deficit monetary authorization thru calendar year 1975----Additional Scheduled Obligations thru calendar year 1976_-_Deficit Monetary Authorization thru calendar year 1976---Projects and Amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be used: 30, 621, 000 The Arkansas River Basin contains an area of about 160,500 square miles. The basin is about 870 miles in length in an east-west direction and approximately 185 miles in average width. It extends from the Rocky Mountains on the west to the Mississippi River on the east. The drainage basin occupies parts of the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas. The general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Arkansas River Basin was adopted by the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, which authorized an appropriation of $21 million for partial accomplishment of the plan. The plan has been further amended and modified and additional monetary authorization provided by subsequent acts. The River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946, authorized construction of a multiple-purpose plan for improvement of the Arkansas River Basin, Arkansas and Oklahoma, for navigation, flood control, and other purposes and authorized the appropriation of $55 million for partial accomplishment of the plan. This plan has likewise been modified by subsequent acts, and additional monetary authori zation provided. The Flood Control Act of July 14, 1960, incorporated the authorized flood control plan and the multiple-purpose plan into a single plan of development and provided that all authorizations made available for the Arkansas River Basin would be applicable to the combined plan of development. The monetary authorization provided for the combined plan totals $1,397 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan---. $1, 428, 000, 000 1, 397, 000, 000 1, 392, 000, 000 Present monetary authorization__ Remaining monetary authorization____. 5, 000, 000 19, 000, 000 14, 000, 000 1, 000, 000 15, 000, 000 Deficit monetary authorization thru calendar year 1975--. Additional Scheduled obligations thru calendar year 1976-Deficit monetary authorization thru calendar year 1976---Projects and amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be used: The Brazos River rises in eastern New Mexico and flows southeasterly 1,210 miles to the Gulf of Mexico near Freeport, Texas. The watershed has an overall length of 640 miles and a maximum width of about 120 miles. Its total area is about 44,670 square miles. The Flood Control Act approved September 3, 1954, adopted the basinwide plan of improvement in the Brazos River Basin and authorized the appropriation of $40 million for partial accomplishment of that plan. The plan includes lakes for flood control and allied purposes and projects for local flood protection. Additional authorization has been provided by subsequent acts, bringing the total to $141 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan_-‒‒‒ Present monetary authorization_. Additional Scheduled Obligations thru calendar year 1975---. $530, 000, 000 $141, 000, 000 130, 000, 000 Remaining monetary authorization___ 11, 000, 000 30, 000, 000 Deficit monetary authorization thru calendar year 1975. 19, 000, 000 18, 000, 000 Deficit Monetary Authorization thru calendar year 1976______ 37, 000, 000 Projects and Amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be used: |