Dr. REICHELDERFER. Yes; that includes everything. It fits into our regular service so that the additional cost is relatively little. Mr. CURTIS. How much time warning did you furnish on the Missouri River this last year, say, at Omaha?

Dr. REICHELDERFER. Well, I would have to look that up. My recollection is that our first warnings were about 5 or 6 days ahead, and that the exact forecast giving the crest within 2 or 3 inches, possibly within 1 or 2 inches, and often we can do that, was, about 36 to 48 hours ahead.

Mr. CURTIS. The result was that the Missouri River flood of last year had practically no loss of life; is that not true?

Dr. REICHELDERFER. That is correct.

There were very few.

Mr. CURTIS. That is all.

Dr. REICHELDERFER. And much movable property was gotten out of the way of floods which, of course, would have been impossible without the warnings.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions by any of the members of the committee?

Doctor, we are glad to have had your statement, and you may pass to the clerk the document that you had in mind for the benefit of the committee.

Our next witness is Mr. Olds.

STATEMENT OF LELAND OLDS, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL POWER

COMMISSION

The CHAIRMAN. Would you please state your full name, and your official position, to the reporter, please?

Mr. OLDS. Leland Olds, Chairman of the Federal Power Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Olds, we are glad to have you with us this morning. We recall your statement in chief during the committee hearings begun in June 1943, and we would be interested particularly in any statement that you think would be of benefit to the committee with respect to any projects on which reports have been submitted to the committee since June 1943, certainly with respect to any provision that should be made in the bill under consideration with regard to the facilities of the Commission or the project under consideration. Mr. OLDS. Mr. Chairman, I will try to take very little time of the committee this morning because of the relative fullness of my statement last year.

Since we were here last June, the Commission has submitted to the United States Corps of Engineers studies on a number of projects which I assume have therefore come before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we have considered each one of them in detail, as they have been published.

Mr. OLDS. Our reports have covered Buggs Island (Roanoke), Va.; Dillon project (Licking River), Ky.; Blackstone River, R. I.; Kentucky River, Ky.; Des Moines River, Iowa; Narrows project (Little Missouri), Ark.; Little Kanawha River, W. Va.; Edisto River, S. C.; Bill Williams River, Ariz.; Wister project (Poteau, Tributary to Arkansas), Okla.; Smith River (Roanoke), Va.; Mis

souri River; Tenkiller Ferry project (Illinois), Oklahoma; Genesee River, N. Y.; Chunky Creek, Chicasawhay River and Pascagoula River, Miss.; Barren River (Green Basin), Ky.; and Blakely Mountain project (Ouachita), Ark.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you find any power down there on that name that was hard to pronounce, the Chickasawhay River or the Pascagoula River?

Mr. OLDS. In general, we concurred in the Army's conclusions on the Chickasawhay and Chunk Creek project and on that group of studies that they were making down there. We felt that the whole matter was worthy of further study, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. OLDS. On that particular group of projects.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, you may proceed.

Mr. OLDS. In general, the Commission has concurred with the United States Corps of Engineers on the majority of those projects which I have just referred to.

I can give you very briefly our views on each one of those projects, if you wish.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not think so because they are covered in the report.

Mr. OLDS. In the second place, we have cooperated with the United States Corps of Engineers in what we term power market studies, which are a basis for power planning in connection with these floodcontrol projects.

We have done a considerable amount of work along that line in connection with certain projects on the main stem of the Missouri River.

We are working closely with the United States Corps of Engineers on such studies in connection with the Potomac and the Rappahanock River surveys, and are just starting a similar study in connection with the Apalachicola River.

We have also been working broadly on a similar study in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of the Interior in its general Central Valley, Calif., program.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you do with respect to the report of the engineers on the Kings River and the Kerns River projects? What was your conclusion?

Mr. OLDS. In general, the Commission's staff has concurred with the United States Corps of Engineers in connection with their plan for both of those river basins, both the Kings River and the Kerns.

In both cases, at least in terms of the general evaluation of the projects, the projects seemed to be predominantly flood-control projects, and in terms of the broader questions that are raised by the proposed developments on those two rivers, we feel strongly that the general interests of the people in those basins should prevail in determining how those projects should go forward.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. OLDS. I think that one of the important points to emphasize in connection with this hearing, and I think the leadership of the United States Corps of Engineers in this phase of the thing has been very important, is the great progress made in the direction of greater cooperation among the agencies that are concerned with river-basin

programs. I think that that stands out very much in the United States Corps of Engineers report on the Missouri River Basin, which provided a very broad basis for the War Department, Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Power Commission, working together in developing a well-rounded program for that entire river basin.

The four agencies which I mentioned are working very closely together, not only here in Washington, but also through their division. and regional organizations, to make sure that these reports come up with all points of view considered and all considerations as to proper treatment recognized in the ultimate plans for development.

In that connection, I come to the particular matter that I think we would like to have considered in connection with the present floodcontrol bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I indicated that in my second question.
Mr. OLDS. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. OLDS. Our work in connection with the broad program for flood control of the United States Corps of Engineers started under the 1938 Flood Control Act, and it has continued under the several flood-control acts that have succeeded that act.

Now, in that act, provision was made, among other things, for an authorization for appropriations totaling $1,500,000 for the work of the Federal Power Commission, particularly in connection with the flood-control programs, and as consultants and advisers to the United States Corps of Engineers in connection with the power aspects of flood-control programs.

However, to the end of the current fiscal year, that is, June 30, 1944, there will have been appropriated out of that total of $1,500,000 that was authorized to be appropriated-there has been appropriated a total amount of $1,166,140, and the House appropriations bill for the fiscal year 1945 provided $144,500 for the special flood-control power work of the Federal Power Commission.

I would like to suggest to you and to your committee that 5 years having elapsed since that 1938 authorization for appropriation was made, consideration be given to a similar extension of that authorization, and I have drafted here a suggested provision of the Flood Control Act which would, in effect, correspond with the authorization for appropriations that appeared in the 1938 act.

It reads as follows:

That the sum of $1,500,000 is hereby authorized to be appropriated and expended by the Federal Power Commission for the carrying out of examinations and surveys provided for in this act or any other acts of Congress to be prosecuted by the Federal Power Commission, such authorization to be in addition to and not in derogation of the authorization to the Federal Power Commission contained in section 9 of the Flood Control Act of 1938.

The CHAIRMAN. What funds do you have appropriated to the Federal Power Commission otherwise that would be available for these surveys now?

Mr. OLDS. Well, I would say it would be very difficult to make any considerable amount of our other appropriations available for this particular work.

I might call attention to the fact that whereas the budget provided for this flood-control work in 1940, 90 positions, that is, under

the flood-control appropriation, and we were using 90 people in connection with the work, that under the 1945 appropriation there was provision made for only 35 positions. That means that in terms of the broad work that is now going forward, not only in terms of the immediate problems of flood control but also in terms of the broader problems of flood-control work that will develop in the post-war period, that our staff is spread extremely thin, rendering it difficult to keep the pace.

We are doing our best to meet the requests of the United States Corps of Engineers in terms of promptness of reports, in dealing with both phases of that work, but it has been increasingly difficult because of our shortage of men whom we are able to allocate to this work.

Of course, the other appropriations in the field of water power are going to take care of the licensed project work, which is the work of the Commission under part I of the act, and which was provided for under the original Federal Water Power Act.

I think that consideration should ultimately be given, particularly as the cooperative nature of this work on river basins is extended, taking into account all the various values that are found in river basin resources-I think consideration may well be given to making available additional funds in order that the Federal Power Commission may play its part in this work.

I think that, in general, covers what I wanted to call to the committee's attention, unless you have questions that you want to ask. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions by any members of the committee? Mr. CLASON. I know you spoke of having made surveys and probably a report, with reference to one of the proposed reservoirs on the Contoocook River in New Hampshire.

With reference to flood-control work in the Connecticut River Basin, has the Federal Power Commission made any surveys or any studies?

Mr. OLDS. Yes, sir. We have been working very closely with the United States Corps of Engineers on the flood-control surveys of the whole Connecticut Basin.

Mr. CLASON. And you have indicated in your report where you believe the dams could be built with a view to multiple purposes, including the generation of hydroelectric power?

Mr. OLDS. Yes. We have either indicated that or indicated, in connection with dams that were proposed by the United States Corps of Engineers, how power could be associated with, or multiple-purpose dams could be associated with, those particular flood-control projects. Mr. CLASON. One dam has been constructed at Knightville that at some time, though not at present, it might be possible to generate electricity.

Do you know of any particular reservoir in the system at which you have produced any great amount of electricity, or that will warrant being constructed at this time?

Mr. OLDS. Well, there are two important reservoir projects, one on the West River in Vermont, which, from the point of view of flood control and power, is an exceedingly important part of the development of the Connecticut Basin; and there is, of course, the possibility of power at the Enfield project between Springfield and Hartford on the main stem of the Connecticut.

Mr. CLASON. That would be for navigation rather than power.
Mr. OLDS. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLASON. Would you say there was any market, in your opinion, for any further generation of electricity in the area of the Connecticut River Basin?

Mr. OLDS. I think certainly in the post-war period there is going to be a very large market for additional power in the entire Connecticut River Basin.

I do not know whether you have been following what the Electrical World has been saying about the future power requirements of the country, but since June, about the time I was last here before this committee, this journal has been emphasizing over and over again in their editorials that the power plan of the utility industry of the post-war period must envisage a very large increase in the demand for electricity.

The Electrical World has suggested as the objective of the industry that within 5 years the average use of electricity in homes shall double, and within 20 years, the average home will use as much electricity in a month as it now uses in a year. That would mean something like 12.000 kilowatt-hours per home, used to make a home more convenient. Where it is a farm home, it will make the farm home not only more convenient, but a more economical unit in our whole production system.

Now, any such increases as the Electrical World-which is more or less the mouthpiece of the industry-is predicting in the use of electricity, simply in homes and farms, will mean very large additional requirements in the way of power in all parts of the country, and I think that would be particularly the case in parts of New England. involved in the Connecticut River Basin, because I think particularly rural homes are going to be able to use to great advantage additional electricity in that area.

Mr. CLASON. What would you say as to the relative cost as between a unit of hydroelectric generated power as compared with that which comes from steam or other fuel?

Is there any change in the relative cost that is being noted by the Power Commission?

Mr. OLDS. The big change in the relative cost of steam and hydro power came in the period following 1920, down through the twenties and into the early thirties, when there was a great improvement in the utilization of fuel in steam generation.

You cannot make any absolute rule as to which is cheaper, whether steam is cheaper, or hydro. You have to deal with each specific area and each specific project.

In connection with the recommendations of the Commission for power installations at flood-control and other dams in these river basins, however, the recommendation is always made after an evaluation of the possible hydro power in terms of its equivalent steam power costs; so that when we recommend power installation, it means that we have found that, valued in terms of steam power, the hydro power would more than pay for itself.

Mr. CLASON. That is all I care to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions by any members of the committee?