General REYBOLD. In closing I should like to state briefly what we are doing in preparation for the post-war period. As I mentioned earlier, practically all of our flood-control construction work has been suspended to conserve materials, equipment, and manpower for the war, and our regular continuing program of authorized investigations has been greatly curtailed for the same reason. The 66 projects which were stopped in the course of construction are ready for immediate resumption of work at the end of the war or earlier if national conditions make such earlier resumption desirable. In addition, we are making final designs for a large number of other authorized projects in order to have them also ready for prompt initiation in the post-war construction program. Complete plans and specifications for projects totaling $165,000,000 will be ready by June 30, 1944. A much larger volume of construction will be ready 6 months later with further increases scheduled for next year. If a flood-control bill is enacted during the current session of Congress, the projects authorized in that bill will be eligible for detailed design and inclusion in the post-war program. The authorized survey program is also prepared for rapid expansion to aid in the transition from war to peace and to provide a continuing backlog of economically justified and desirable projects for flood control and allied purposes. In short, the Corps of Engineers is ready to carry out the obligations given to it by Congress in the public-works portion of the reconversion program.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have that statement, General, and that supplements in a fine way the statement you made at the previous hearings. We have in mind the recommendations and projects submitted last June, and your statement today supplements previous statements as to the status of funds at present.

I should like to say this, General, that in the floods of 1943, it was a source of satisfaction to the members of the committee that under your administration section 5 was included in the act of August 18, 1941, and that authorized, as you have indicated, an appropriation of $1,000,000 annually to be utilized out of flood-control appropriations for rescue and maintenance work in floods, or in all flood-control projects, whether those projects had been constructed locally or had been constructed under your supervision, and the value of that provision was demonstrated as never before in the floods of 1943.

It might be well to keep in mind that that authorizaion and he perfecting authorization of 1943 in the emergency act does not authorize you to reimburse, but actually authorizes you to make repairs, so that, if without knowledge of that provision made by Congress, the local interests have made repairs, there is no authority for you to reimburse the local interests for the repairs made. That is a correct statement, is it not?

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. I think also with the inclusion of the word "threatened" in the provision in the Emergency Act of 1943 with respect to repairs, the funds are conserved by enabling you not only to make repairs, but to strengthen the protection, so that the protection would be brought up and would not have to be enlarged in subsequent provisions that provided for additional flood-control work in the same area and along the same structures.

Mr. ALLEN. General, I simply want to compliment you for your very fine statement. I appreciate it.

I am particularly interested in the proposition of converting floodcontrol projects into recreational facilities, where we can do so. I hope you will push that, General, because when the war is over we will need those projects, and we might as well take advantage of that because the additional expense will be very little. I hope you can permit development of the lands around these projects, which have been available for a long time, so that people will build their houses there and may enjoy the facilities.

Mr. CURTIS. General, I might add that I appreciate your statement and the fine work that the Corps of Engineers are doing.

One of the reasons, as I understand it, why this committee adjourned these hearings last fall until this time was that we were awaiting a report on the Missouri River Basin.

Can you tell the committee what is the status of that report?

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. That report is now with the Bureau of the Budget, en route to Congress.

Mr. CURTIS. Can you tell us about when that report arrived in Washington from the division engineer's office at Omaha?

General REYBOLD. About the 12th of August.

Mr. CURTIS. It has been submitted to the Department of Agriculture?

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. It has cleared there?
General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. And it has been submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation and it has cleared there?

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. And the same is also true of the Federal Power Commission?

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir.

Mr. CURTIS. About how long has the Bureau of the Budget had it?

General REYBOLD. Since January 7.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, in the event that report is not formally submitted to the Congress, or cleared the Bureau of the Budget by the 16th of this month, the day set for the hearing on projects along the Missouri River, what procedure would we follow then?

The CHAIRMAN. I would say that, as you and the other members of the committee will observe, we postponed hearings for the consideration of projects on the Missouri River Basin until toward the conclusion of our hearings covering a period of 3 weeks, in the hope that the report would be submitted to Congress, and I believe there is opportunity for you and the other members, especially those interested in the Missouri River Basin, to keep in contact with the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and assist us in getting that report cleared and submitted to the Congress. In the event that it is not submitted, as you know, it is the policy of this committee not to include any projects that are not recommended by reports formally submitted to Congress by the Chief of Engineers.

Mr. CURTIS. There is a precedent for bringing the report before the committee and taking testimony in reference to it, is there not? The CHAIRMAN. I would say that if you and other members desire, inasmuch as the Chief of Engineers has cleared the matter,

and inasmuch as the other agencies have also collaborated, and the matter has been submitted to the Budget, that a general picture of the situation might be desirable when we reach it in the course of the hearings.

Mr. CURTIS. I would like to ask unanimous consent to ask one question and have it inserted where questions are asked about the work of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior.

My question is: When this report arrived from the division office at Omaha, it was submitted to the Board of Engineers?

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors.

Mr. CURTIS. And approved by them?

General REYBOLD. Yes. They then transmitted the report to me, as Chief of Engineers, and I, in turn, transmitted it to the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Power Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. General, we are glad to have had your statement and will be glad to have you attend our hearings from time to time, as you are able to do so, and make any supplemental statement that you may desire.

General Robins, the Deputy Chief of Engineers, is also present, and we are glad to have him with us. General, is there any statement you would like to make by way of supplementing the general statement of General Reybold?

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. THOMAS M. ROBINS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

General ROBINS. No, sir; I think General Reybold's statement covers everything, and I have nothing further to add to it.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I will ask this one question, particularly with respect to emergency repairs on work in the California area and the San Joaquin Basin.

General Reybold has testified that all of the emergency funds, aggregating $10,000,000 for repairs and maintenance, growing out of the damages caused by recent floods, have been appropriated for except about $300,000.

I would like to ask you if that remaining unallocated sum of $300,000, together with the $1,000,000 that may be appropriated under section 5 of the act of 1941, will or will not be sufficient to make the repairs on any project where repairs have not been made, or finish repairs on any project where you have undertaken repairs?

General ROBINS. It will not be enough to complete all of the repairs that local interests have requested in the San Joaquin Valley. The CHAIRMAN. Will it be enough to make the repairs that you have approved-or put it this way: Is it probable that you would have approved more repairs than were provided for in the San Joaquin Valley?

I mention that because you gentlemen of the committee will recall that that is the only area where it has been brought to the attention of the chairman of the committee at least that full repairs have not been made.

General ROBINS. That is the only area that I know of where full repairs have not been made. We have approved and are making down

there the emergency repairs which will go a long way toward remedying the situation. But the situation will not be completely taken care of without the expenditure of considerably more money than we could allot out of the $1,000,000 that we have to take care of the emergencies that will come up.

The CHAIRMAN. When you say the situation will not be completely taken care of, do we understand that the repairs growing out of the damages from recent floods will not be completely made in that area. or do you have in mind additional works that would not be authorized under repairs?

General ROBINS. All the levees will not be repaired.

The CHAIRMAN. All of the damage to levees will not be repaired? General ROBINS. No, sir. That would require additional authorization and appropriation of funds.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall, and if you do not, when you revise your statement you may give the committee an outline of the work that should be done in order to repair levees damaged by recent floods.

General ROBINS. I think I am correct in saying, Mr. Chairman, that about $2,900,000 would be required to restore all the levees in the Tulare Lake area.

The CHAIRMAN. They grew out of the floods of what year; that is, those damages grew out of floods in what year?

General ROBINS. They have grown out of floods over a series of years, but they were increased, you might say, by the 1942 and 1943 floods.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the damages were increased by the 1942 and 1943 floods?

General ROBINS. That put them completely under water, and washed away the levees.

The CHAIRMAN. When we reach that area in the course of the hearings, we will go more into detail concerning the damages caused by the recent flood. But exclusive of these damages in 1942 and 1943 to the miles of levees erected to provide property protection, is there any other statement you care to make by way of supplementing the statement you gave us last year?

General ROBINS. No, sir.

STATEMENT OF COL. GEORGE R. GOETHALS, CHIEF, CIVIL WORKS DIVISION, OFFICE OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Goethals, for the information of the committee, I will ask you if you have a statement or memorandum covering the projects that have been submitted with favorable reports, since the hearings of last summer, particularly in June 1943, in the pending comprehensive flood-control authorization bill.

Colonel GOETHALS. Yes, sir; that is a portion of the general statement I have to make to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed with your statement.

Colonel GOETHALS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I should like to review briefly the progress made in the Department's program of investigations for flood control and allied water uses since its representatives appeared before this committee in June

1943; to submit a summarized report on the work accomplished under Public Law No. 138 of the Seventy-eighth Congress which authorized the appropriation of $10,000,000 for the repair, restoration, and strengthening of flood-control works threatened or destroyed by the recent floods; to outline the progress that is being made on advanced planning of authorized flood-control projects, in order that those works will be ready for initiation during the period of post-war construction when the reconversion of private industry from war to peacetime production is being made.

AUTHORIZED SURVEY REPORTS SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS

The following 11 reports, recommending improvements for flood control, have been transmitted to Congress since the general floodcontrol hearings last June before this committee, and are available for the consideration of the committee.

OHIO RIVER BASIN

In the Ohio River Basin, Senate Document No. 105 of the Seventyeighth Congress recommends the construction of levees and appurtenant works for local flood protection at Taylorsville, Ky., on Salt River, at an estimated Federal cost of $129,350.

RED RIVER OF THE NORTH BASIN

In the Red River of the North Basin, House Document No. 345 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, covering the Red Lake and Clearwater Rivers, Minn., recommends channel improvement in Red Lake River and modification of the existing control structure at the outlet of lower Red Lake so as to provide for the installation of three handoperated taintor gates; and for the improvement of the channel of Clearwater River, all at an estimated Federal cost of $902,940.

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN

In the Missouri River Basin, a report on the Knife River, N. Dak., published in House Document No. 252 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, recommends channel improvement and levees for the protection of Beulah and Hazen, N. Dak., at an estimated Federal cost of $32,700. Senate Document No. 103 of the Seventy-eighth Congress contains a report on Milk River, Mont., which recommends levees, bypass channels, and related works for the protection of Harlem and Havre, Mont., at an estimated Federal cost of $334,200. Protection of Denison, Iowa, by levees and channel improvement at an estimated Federal cost of $17,830 is recommended in a report on Boyer River, Iowa, published as House Document No. 254 of the Seventy-eighth Congress. The report on Nishnabotna River, Iowa and Mo., published in House Document No. 253 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, recommends levee and channel improvement for flood protection at and below Hamburg, Iowa, at an estimated Federal cost of $236,000. House Document No. 356 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, which contains a report on Bear Creek, Colo., recommends channel improvement for the protection of

97311-44-vol. 2- -2