'Buffalo River, Wild Rice River, Marsh River, San Hill River, Red Lake River, Roseau River, Snake River, Middle River (tributary to Snake River), Tamarac River, and Two Rivers in the State of Minnesota, for flood control, for run-off and water-flow retardation, and soil-erosion prevention.

The area of Minnesota, North and South Dakota, and especially that of the Red River Valley of the North, have suffered considerable damage this year because of heavy rains causing floods.

The bills I have introduced, and on which I ask your consideration, would provide for relief to the damaged area, and secondly, it would determine and bring about ways and means to prevent future damages to crops, land, roads, and bridges because of excessive rainfall and floods.

I appreciate consideration of this matter, and assure you of my interest and cooperation,

STATEMENT OF SENATOR E. H. MOORE, OF OKLAHOMA

MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MEMBERS OF THE FLOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: The State in which I live has probably been very seriously af fected by the operation of the Pensacola Dam, due to a very unusual flood that occurred on the Grand River and its tributaries where this dam is located. Personally, I am not familiar with the operation of the dam, except what has been detailed to me by people who have made a study of the matter, but from information which has been given to me from what I consider reliable sources, I am submitting to you the following statement, which I think will prove to be factual and no doubt testimony has been adduced here, and will still be adduced, that will verify the statements contained in this statement.

The Pensacola Dam was built after a study by the Army engineers who recommended that, if a suitable storage area were created above the power development level to serve as a sort of catch basin for excess waters of the "flash floods" for which the Grand River of Oklahoma is notorious, very considerable effective flood control could be obtained.

The dam was built under a Public Works Administration loan and grant in the late thirties.

At that time the public was led to believe that the two purposes of flood control and power development would be so adjusted to each other that a very happy return on the investment could be obtained in addition to flood-control benefits. However, when the license for the operation of this dam was granted by the Federal Power Commission that agency, apparently more concerned with the development of hydroelectric power than with flood control, raised the level for power purposes by 10 feet destroying more than 18,000,000,000 cubic feet of storage space for flood waters. In effect this action destroyed two-thirds of the actual storage capacity for flood control in this dam.

Even so, under the operation by the Army engineers prior to November 1941, this dam did have a substantial benefit to flood control. However, the jurisdiction of the Army engineers was destroyed by Executive order of November 19, 1941, when the Federal Works Administration took over, for and on behalf of the United States of America, the operation and control of the project. From that date on the Pensacola Dam has been operated admittedly as a power dam with flood control the doorstep orphan abandoned for the duration.

The additional power obtained by this perversion of the orginal purposes of Pensacola Dam was trivial both in terms of power generated and in additional revenues. However, had this dam been operated as envisaged by the Corps of Engineers in their original plans, and as the people of Oklahoma had been led to believe and had a right to expect it to be operated, the most critical and most damaging phases of the May flood would have been mitigated if not eliminated. As the flood struck, this dam contained 420,000 acre-feet more water than the Army engineers had recommended as a safe upper limit.

Estimates of the cost of this flood vary from $15,000,000 to $20,000,000. Food for a hungry nation, in wheat, corn, livestock, were swept away by the angry waters of the Grand River to a value far in excess of the paltry gains that may have been made by this misoperation of a great flood-control dam.

The Grand River Dam cost $25,000,000 to build. Assume this one dam-aggravated flood cost $15,000,000. To date the dam has cost $40,000,000 and as the years bring new floods, it will levy additional heavy toll on the farms and towns below.

Let there be no misunderstanding as to my position. The Grand River Dam is a necessary and important structure. It can be valuable both as a power dam and as a flood-control dam. But operated purely as a power dam, it is a menace and a constant threat to the farmers whose homes nestle in the valley below.

What price power? For $20,000,000 of destroyed food and food-producing property, what was gained in power? How does the policy of operating this dam as a power dam to the exclusion of flood control find justification in the fact? I have read that the electrical output of the dam during the month of April amounted to some 38,000,000 kilowatt-hours which was sold for about $129,100. Now let us assume that the dam could produce electricity at this rate each month of the year (which, of course, is not possible due to the marked variable flow of the river). The total maximum revenue for the year would then only be about $1,500,000. Compare this figure, assuming that the dam was operated solely for flood control and that no electricity was generated, which is not advocated, with the resultant savings of millions upon millions of dollars damage to property and crops. In other words, how important is the power output from this project? The difference in electric energy stored in the reservoir between elevation 745 feet and 735 feet is the difference between some 105,000,000 kilowatt-hours and 55,000,000 kilowatt-hours, or about 50,000,000 kilowatt-hours. In reducing storage to 735 feet to make ready for more effective flood control, the 50,000,000 kilowatt-hours could be sold, when offered, under the contract with the electric companies as dump power at 1 mill per kilowatt-hour, or $50,000. Equivalent kilowatt-hours could be purchased by Pensacola when requested during times other than peak-loading periods of the electric companies at 3 mills per kilowatthour. Since energy is being sold by the project at 4 mills, this energy could then be sold at 4 mills, or a mill profit, for regular output commitments, of $50,000. During a dry year, when only one draw-down is made per year, the decrease in revenue would be $100,000. During a wet year, assuming three drawdowns would be made, the decrease in revenue would be but $300,000. This seems to be quite a small figure when we review the estimates placed on the enormous flood damage.

The 1927 flood was not especially destructive when compared to the May 1943 flood. If the pool elevation in the reservoir had been maintained at 735, could not the average discharge at Pensacola have been held below 150,000 cubic feet per second, with the reservoir elevation reaching a little over 754 feet maximum? In which case the discharge below the dam would have been some 153,000 cubic feet per second less than actually occurred and would have been 100,000 cubic feet per second less than the 1927 flood. In other words, the actual 1943 flow was a little over twice what it would have been had the lake elevation been at 735 feet prior to the flood. This would probably have meant a reduction of, some 5 feet in the flood stage at Muskogee, which would have saved much disastrous loss.

I have been advised from several sources that there is no shortage of power in the State of Oklahoma, and that no war plant has found it necessary to curtail its operation for the lack of power supply. In order to make a maximum contribution to the war effort, interconnections of transmission lines of the Hydro Pensacola project have been made with electric companies in Oklahoma for the interchange of power during such emergencies as expected floods and droughts. Another question that looms important is, as the dam is now designed, what is the maximum draw-down of the water in the lake without the necessity of further reducing the impounded water supply by permitting water to pass through the turbines to further reduce the lake level? It has been variously stated that the channel capacity of the Grand River below the dam is between 80,000 and 90,000 cubic feet per second. The statement has also been made that the peak electric load during May was 63,000 kilowatts. Let us assume that about 100 kilowatt-hours can be generated by 1 acre-foot of water. Then about 630 acre-feet of water would pass through the turbines to generate 63,000 kilowatt-hours during the peak hour of generation. This amount of water per hour converted to flow per second would be about 7,700 cubic feet per second. The relation between peak generation and channel capacity below the dam is 7,700 second-feet compared to the 80,000 or 90,000 second-feet and that surely is a very wide spread.

Generally floods have occurred during April, May, or June, and that is pretty uniformly the history of the river. Those of us familiar with Oklahoma streams know that the difference between high flow and low-river flow is very extreme and that the Grand River is no exception. It has frequently been referred to as a "flashy" river. This being true, it occurs to me that since you cannot catch

much water in a nearly full bucket, why was the reservoir of water behind the Pensacola Dam maintained, even as late as May 8, at about 745 feet? It appears that power generation was considered so important that the fertile valley of hundreds of thousands of acres of crop lands was destined to be ravaged.

The most important question seems to be, can the Pensacola Dam be used for both dependable power supply and for effective flood control?

In conclusion, I should like to quote from the writings of a famous editor and one-time leader of the early New Deal brain trust:

"What of the plan of combining flood-control reservoirs with power generation? Well, a flood-control reservoir is most useful when it is empty. If it is full when the floods come down, what good is it? Power generation, on the other hand, demands an even flow of water; there must always be a certain head of water behind the dam

"The 'little-waters' idea also has its merits. Many little streams probably ought to be dammed for local benefit. But what is done along this line within the next 100 years can scarcely add up to enough to insure the safety of Cincinnati, Louisville, Cairo, or the Yazoo Delta. To detain the rainfall of the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys in sufficient quantities to prevent floods would simply mean the conversion of millions of acres into ponds for part of the year and soggy marshes the rest of the time.

"This is not the counsel of despair. By a combination of tried and proved methods, a satisfactory compromise will be worked out. But it will be formulated by men who have spent their lives working on river plans, not by faddists."

The above quotation comes from the writing of Raymond Moley who, in commenting upon the great flood of 1937, succinctly stated the problem that confronts this committee in dealing with such situations as the Grand River Dam and in future flood control dams to be built during and after the war.

Sincerely,

STATEMENT OF LUTHER A. JOHNSON, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, the Trinity River constitutes the eastern boundary of the Sixth Congressional District of Texas, which I represent. About half of my congressional district is within the watershed of that river.

It causes at times, by reason of sudden overflows, very great damage to the lands and crops in my district, and I am interested in any feasible plan that will diminish overflows and injury from floods, and I therefore hope that the committee may see proper to follow the recommendations of the Army engineers, and include this project in the bill which the Committee on Flood Control now has under construction.

(Senator Robert A. Taft, Ohio, appeared and submitted the following letter:)

LETTER SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT A. TAFT, OHIO
THE CHILLICOTHE PAPER CO.,
Chillicothe, Ohio, June 3, 1943.

Hon. ROBERT A. TAFT,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I have been informed that Mr. Alan Jordan, executive secretary of the Ohio Valley Conservation and Flood Control Congress, appeared today before the Flood Control Committee of Congress, of which Hon. William Withington is chairman.

Mr. Jordan requested the committee to include in their authorization bill the following projects, in the Scioto-Sandusky Conservancy District:

Delaware

Darby
Deer

Paint

Rocky Fork

He also requested that the Army engineers be instructed to make plans necessary and finish surveys now under way, in order to provide for post-war employment, which it is anticipated will be necessary.

The directors of the Scioto-Sandusky Conservancy District are desirous that you use your influence to carry out the suggestions and requests made by Mr. Jordan today, and assure you such activities as these projects present will be most valuable in providing stopgap employment, which undoubtedly will exist after the war is completed.

Yours very truly,

E. F. BEARCE, President Scioto-Sandusky Conservancy District.

STATEMENT OF ROY MILLER EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE TRINITY RIVER IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEX. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Roy Miller. I appear here as executive vice president of the Trinity Improvement Association, a voluntary organization of citizens who reside in and who represent the industrial, commercial, and agricultural interests of the entire Trinity River watershed in Texas.

The territory traversed by the Trinity River constitutes one of the most productive and populous sections of the entire Southwest. In it are located two of the largest cities of the Southwest, Fort Worth and Dallas, which are also among the leading commercial and industrial centers of that part of the country. The area comprising the river basin is one of the most highly developed agricultural regions of the South. Within the watershed, which comprises an area of more than 17,000 square miles, resides a population of approximately 1,500,000, or 25 percent of the population of Texas. The taxable values of the area in round figures total $1,000,000,000, and represent 23 percent of the total taxable values of the State. When it is considered that the area itself, as large as it is, constitutes a little less than 7 percent of the area of Texas, the extent of the development of the region and its importance to the economy of Texas and the Nation is obvious.

Like many other fertile and productive areas contiguous to large rivers which in themselves constitute natural resources of inestimable value, the territory tributary to the Trinity River is subject to frequent and disastrous floods. The exhaustive engineering report (H. Doc. 403, 77th Cong., 1st sess.) reveals the extent of the damage to which the territory traversed by the Trinity River is frequently subjected.

The flood-control and water-conservation projects, which have been submitted to your committee for consideration and which have been designed after careful studies and investigations covering a period of 10 years will greatly minimize, if not entirely prevent, flood damage throughout a large portion of the Trinity River Basin. The projects will be of special value in the protection of the great cities of Fort Worth and Dallas, which are situated in the upper basin. The combined population of Tarrant and Dallas Counties, in which these two cities are located, is presently estimated at approximately 750,000, an increase of about 100,000 over the Census figures of 1940. Within these two counties, either in or within the environs of Fort Worth and Dallas, are many important war industries representing a total investment of $95,000,000. In an almost recordbreaking flood which occurred in April 1942, many of these industries suffered great damage. The estimated total damage caused by this one flood alone in the Trinity River Basin amounted to more than $6,000,000. The flood-control works recommended in the report, had they been completed and in operation, would have prevented most of this damage.

In addition to the element of flood protection, the projects which have also been designed for water conservation will assist tremendously in solving the domestic water-supply problem of these rapidly growing cities. They will also serve in stream regulation and control, which will prove of great value in the navigation of the Trinity River when its canalization is undertaken. The floodcontrol works recommended will greatly minimize the hazard of floods throughout the entire watershed. They also constitute an important and essential part of the comprehensive plan for the improvement of the whole river basin for "flood control and allied purposes and navigation" as described and recommended in the engineering report, House Document 403, Seventy-seventh Congress, first session.

STATEMENT OF W. I. DRUMMOND, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

Chairman Whittington and members of the Flood Control Committee, my name is W. I. Drummond. I am chairman of the board of governors and executive director of the American Agricultural Institute, with headquarters at Kansas City, Mo. The agricultural institute is the successor to the American Farm Congress. It represents one of the oldest agricultural organization movements in the United States. It is a nonprofit research and educational association. My tenure as chairman of the board has been continuous since 1913.

On behalf of the members of the institute, and of farmers and landowners generally throughout the Midwestern regions recently devastated or threatened by floods, I desire to make a statement relative to the rounding out of an adequate system of flood control. For the past 25 years our organization has devoted careful study to this problem, and to water conservation and the beneficial uses of water for irrigation, navigation, livestock, and domestic and industrial purposes. Its annual and special meetings have been attended by very wide delegate representation from other farm groups, State and Federal agricultural agencies, and appointments by the Governors of States. Its findings and its declarations reflect a reliable summary and cross section of agricultural views and interests. In this statement, we desire merely to emphasize the importance of upstream reservoirs in connection with the general flood-control program now being rounded out by the Government engineers. The headwaters of the western tributaries of the Mississippi River in particular are susceptible of this method of regulation. We most respectfully call attention to the now demonstrated fact that the greater part of the levee systems along the middle and lower reaches of these rivers, as existing or planned, cannot confine the extremely high floods that occur periodically, unless the peaks of those floods are reduced by holding back a substantial part of the storm waters. Also, that the construction of such reservoirs will reduce the cost and add to the safety of all levees below.

We further point out that while it may be possible for the larger cities, with their great revenues and with Government help, to protect themselves by means of very high levees, such protection does not extend to the farm lands and the smaller urban communities above and below. Levees, indispensable as they are, protect only the property and the land behind them. Reservoirs, maintained with ample reserve capacity to hold back part of the floods, add to the protection of all property and all land, all the way downstream.

Our Government is committed to a policy and a program of soil conservation and rebuilding. Certainly the protection of the fertile valley lands is of prime national concern, and should have full considération in carrying out that program. It is not necessary for us to take the time of this committee by recounting the losses of crops, of soil, of homes, and of lives by the recent floods and earlier inundations. You have all that information. Our only purpose in making this statement is to urge that appropriations fully adequate for the construction of feasible additional reservoirs be made without avoidable delay, and that assurance be provided that they will be used for the purposes intended.

STATEMENT OF R. V. FLETCHER, VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Hon. WILL M. WHITTINGTON,

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS,
Washington, D. C., June 9, 1943.

Chairman, Committee on Flood Control,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

My Dear Mr. WHITTINGTON: I am writing you in my capacity as vice president of the Association of American Railroads. We have been somewhat interested in the hearings which have been in progress, looking toward reporting a flood-control measure at this session of Congress. Some of the projects under consideration may affect the construction and location of track and bridge structures maintained by the railroads. By reason of our general interest, we have had an observer present at the hearings.