Instead of attempting a qualified ratification or proposing modifications to bring the compact in line with the Flood Control Act of 1936 and safeguard the interests of the United States in water-power development, House Joint Resolution 482 proposes to give advance consent by Congress to any agreement or compact between the affected States which does not go beyond the purpose and intent of the Flood Control Act of 1936. The provisions in House Joint Resolution 482 which limit the advance consent given by Congress to those compacts which contain no reservations or provisions with respect to water conservation, power storage, or power development and no reservations with respect to title of the project lands insure that any compact or agreement entered into pursuant to this joint resolution will not only conform to the requirements of the Flood Control Act of 1936 but will also contain no provisions which might violate existing Federal statutes or policy relating to water-power development of the navigable waters of the United States and their tributaries. The enactment of House Joint Resolution 482 by the Congress will make it possible for the States benefited by the projects in the Connecticut River Valley authorized to be constructed by the Flood Control Act of 1936, or any two of such States, to take prompt action toward providing the assurance required by that act, and will, therefore, make possible the commencement of construction at the earliest possible date. The Commission, therefore, recommends the adoption of House Joint Resolution 482 by the Congress. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, By FRANK R. MCNINCH, Chairman. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if it is not too long, it seems to me it would be informative and helpful to the committee if the report of the Power Commission be read at this time. The CHAIRMAN. It has been suggested that the report of the Power Commission on House Joint Resolutions 430, 435, and 436 be read at this point. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman, I think it would also be helpful to have the report of the Secretary of War read. The CHAIRMAN. I will ask Mr. Zimmerman to read the report of the Secretary of War on House Joint Resolution 430, and there is a comparable report on the other resolutions. (Mr. Zimmerman read the report above referred to.) Mr. GRISWOLD. Mr. Chairman, is that the last report? The CHAIRMAN. That is the report on the resolutions introduced by Mr. Clason, Mr. Tobey, and Mrs. Rogers. Mr. GRISWOLD. Do we not have a report on the other resolutions? The CHAIRMAN. That has been inserted in the record. The other report is the report of the Federal Power Commission, and I will read that. (The report of the Federal Power Commission was read by the chairman.) A copy of the report and a copy of the amendment proposed to the joint resolutions was furnished to the authors of the resolutions. The General Counsel for the Federal Power Commission calls attention to various matters, first, to local contributions to maintain the projects when they have been constructed. He points out that under section 4 the only authority for a compact, as he asserts, is that contained in section 4, and that authority is limited to the purpose "of providing in such manner and such proportion as may be agreed upon by the Secretary of War, funds for construction and maintenance, for the payment of damages, and for the purchase of rightsof-way, lands, and easements", in connection with projects for flood control. He emphasizes that the purpose of the compacts is solely to apportion the cost among the States and to provide for the money, and he states that these three compacts under Joint Resolutions 430, 435, and 436, in themselves reserve to the States and the local interests the disposition of the power, and for that reason as well as for other reasons stated, to these compacts he makes objection. It is his contention that in case one or more States are involved only they are authorized to negotiate and make compacts for the allocation of the costs among the States for furnishing rights-ofway, but in those cases the rights-of-way must be in the name of the Government and not in the States. The attorney for the Power Commission is here, and he will go into that matter fully. The CHAIRMAN. The first witness this morning will be Mr. McNinch, the chairman of the Federal Power Commission. Mr. McNinch, you are chairman of the Federal Power Commission? STATEMENT OF FRANK R. McNINCH, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION Mr. McNINCH. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How long have you occupied that position? Mr. McNINCH. Since July 1933 I have been chairman of the Commission. The CHAIRMAN. Prior to that time what positions have you held in connection with the Power Commission? Mr. McNINCH. I have been a member of the Commission since January 1931. The CHAIRMAN. Then you have been connected with the Federal Power Commission as a member and chairman for approximately the past 6 years? Mr. McNINCH. Six and a half years. The CHAIRMAN. We have before us the reports of the Federal Power Commission as submitted in connection with the resolutions that have been referred to, and they are set out in the hearing, including the resolution introduced by Mr. Clason, the resolution introduced by Mr. Tobey, the resolution introduced by Mrs. Rogers, and the resolution introduced by Mr. Casey. The committee will be glad to have a statement from you, and after you have made your statement the committee will probably desire to ask you some questions. I will ask you one preliminary question, in a general way. Mr. McNinch, the 308 reports are made under what we call House Document 308, Sixty-ninth Congress, first session. I call your attention to the document, which contains the following language: The Secretary of War, through the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army and the Federal Power Commission, are hereby jointly authorized and directed to prepare and submit to Congress an estimate of the cost of making such examinations, surveys, or other investigations as in their opinion may be required of those navigable streams of the United States and their tributaries, whereon power development appears feasible and practicable, with a view to the formulation of general plans for the most effective improvement of such streams for the purposes of navigation and the prosecution of such improvements in combination with the most efficient development of the potential water power, the control of floods, and the needs of irrigation: Provided, That no consideration of the Colorado River and its problems shall be included in the consideration or estimate provided herein. These 308 reports contemplate that the resources of the Government on navigable streams for the development of power would have two reports-one by the War Department and one by the Federal Power Commission. We have under consideration those parts of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, that provide for the construction of reservoirs, primarily for flood control in the New England area, and we will be glad to have your general statement with respect, first, to the Casey resolution, whereon you have submitted a favorablá report. That is House Joint Resolution 482. Mr. MCNINCH. Do I understand correctly that your question is directed toward the Casey resolution? The CHAIRMAN. I will repeat my question. You have submitted a favorable report, so far as the Federal Power Commission is concerned, on House Joint Resolution 482? Mr. McNINCH. We did. The CHAIRMAN. You have submitted unfavorable reports on House Joint Resolutions 430, 435, and 436. Mr. McNINCH. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to have your statement respecting these resolutions. Mr. McNINCH. May I read into the record the report of the Federal Power Commission on the Casey resolution, House Joint Resolution 482, and then I will make some observations in reference to it, in addition to those contained in that report The report reads as follows: Hon. WILL M. WHITTINGTON, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Flood Control, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR REPRESENTATIVE WHITTINGTON: In response to your letter of August 7, 1937, requesting this Commission to report on House Joint Resolution 482, giving advance consent to compacts relating to flood-control projects in the Connecticut River Basin, we respectfully submit the following: The purpose of House Joint Resolution 482, introduced in the House on August 6, 1937, by Congressman Casey of Massachusetts, is to give the advance consent of Congress to compacts between the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont relating to flood-control projects authorized to be constructed in the Connecticut River Basin by the Flood Control Act of 1936. Section 1 of this joint resolution gives advance consent to any compacts or agreements entered into between these States for the sole purpose of providing in such manner and proportion as may be agreed upon by such States and approved by the Secretary of War the assurances and the local contributions required by section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1936. Section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 provides that no money appropriated under the authority of that act shall be expended on the construction of any project until States, political subdivisions, or other responsible local agencies have given assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rightsof-way necessary for the construction of a project; (b) Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; and (c) Maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War. In a case where the benefits of a project constructed under the Flood Control Act of 1936 will accrue to lands and property in more than one State, it is contemplated by that act that the benefited States will, by agreement or compact, determine upon the maner of making the local contribution required by that act and the proportion of such contribution to be made by each benefited State. While the Connecticut River flood-control compact which has been submitted to 13238-37-3 the Congress for its approval purports to have been entered into pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1936, the compact, as drawn is fundamentally defective in its failure to provide for the conveyance of projected lands or the payment of the costs thereof to the United States as is required by the Flood Control Act of 1936. Under that act all projects to be constructed by the Federal Government with Federal funds and local contributions are intended to be Federal projects which, when completed, will be owned by the Federal Government. In the report to the Senate Committee on Commerce on Senate Joint Resolution 177, this Commission pointed out that the Connecticut compact not only goes beyond the purpose and intent of the Flood Control Act of 1936 in certain vital respects but also violates existing Federal statutes and policy relating to the development of the water-power resources of streams subject to Federal jurisdiction. Instead of attempting a qualified ratification or proposing modifications to bring the compact in line with the Flood Control Act of 1936 and safeguard the interests of the United States in water-power development, House Joint Resolution 482 proposes to give advance consent by Congress to any agreement or compact between the affected States which does not go beyond the purpose and intent of the Flood Control Act of 1936. The provisions in House Joint Resolution 482 which limit the advance consent given by Congress to those compacts which contain no reservations or provisions with respect to water conservation, power storage, or powr development, and no reservations with respect to title of the project lands, insure that any compact or agreement entered into pursuant to this joint resolution will not only conform to the requirements of the Flood Control Act of 1936 but will also contain no provisions which might violate existing Federal statutes or policy relating to water-power development of the navigable waters of the United States and their tributaries. The enactment of House Joint Resolution 482 by the Congress will make it possible for the States benefited by the projects in the Connecticut River Valley authorized to be constructed by the Flood Control Act of 1936, or any two of such States, to take prompt action toward providing the assurances required by that act, and will, therefore, make possible the commencement of construction at the earliest possible date. The Commission therefore recommends the adoption of House Joint Resolution 482 by the Congress. Sincerely yours, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSIOON, By FRANK R. MONINCH, Chairman. Mr. McNINCH. In connection with the reading of that report on House Joint Resolution 482, may I call attention to what appear to me to be the pertinent provisions of the Flood Control Act of 1936? Section 1 of that act provides: It is hereby resognized that destructive floods upon the rivers of the United States, upsetting orderly processes and causing loss of life and property, including the erosion of lands, and impairing and obstructing navigation, highways, railroads, and other channels of commerce between the States, constitute a menace to the national welfare; that it is the sense of Congress that flood control on navigable waters or their tributaries is a proper activity of the Federal Government in cooperation with States, their political subdivisions, and localities thereof; that investigations and improvements of rivers and other waterways, including watersheds thereof, for flood-control purposes are in the interest of the general welfare; that the Federal Government should improve or participate in the improvement of navigable waters or their tributaries, including watersheds thereof, for flood-control purposes if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs and if the lives and social security of people are otherwise adversely affected. Section 2 provides: "That, hereafter, Federal investigations and improvements of rivers and other waterways for flood control and allied purposes shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall be prosecuted by the War Department under the direction of the Secretary of War and supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and Federal investigations of watersheds and measures for run-off and waterflow retardation and soil-erosion prevention on watersheds shall be under the jurisdiction of and shall be prosecuted by the Department of Agriculture under the direction of the Secretary of Agriculture, except as otherwise provided by act of Congress; and that in their reports upon examinations and surveys the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Agriculture shall be guided as to floodcontrol measures by the principles set forth in section 1 in the determination of the Federal interests involved. Under section 3 it is provided: That hereafter no money appropriated under authority of this act shall be expended on the construction of any project until States, political subdivisions thereof, or other responsible local agencies have given assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will (a) provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the project, except as otherwise provided herein; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (c) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War. Then there are three provisos which I shall not read, but I want to read the fourth proviso: And provided further, That the Secretary of War shall determine the proportion of the present estimated cost of said lands, easements, and rights-of-way that each State, political subdivision thereof, or responsible local agency should contribute in consideration for the benefits to be received by such agencies. I call your attention, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, particularly to that language "should contribute in consideration for the benefits to be received by such agencies." Then there is this further proviso in section 3: And provided further, That whenever not less than 75 per centum of the benefits as estimated by the Secretary of War of any project or useful part thereof accrue to lands and property outside of the State in which said project or part thereof is located, provision (c) of this section shall not apply thereto; nothing herein shall impair or abridge the powers now existing in the Department of War with respect to navigable streams: And provided further, That nothing herein shall be construed to interfere with the completion of any reservoir or flood-control work authorized by the Congress and now under way.. Under section 4 which, in my judgment, defines the limit and scopeand purpose of any agreement or compact between the States, it is. provided: The consent of Congress is hereby given to any two or more States to enter into compacts or agreements in connection with any project or operation authorized by this act for flood control or the prevention of damage to life or property by reason of floods upon any stream or streams and their tributaries which lie in two or more States, for the purpose of providing, in such manner and such proportion as may be agreed upon by such States and approved by the Secretary of War, funds for construction and maintenance, for the payment of damages, and for the purchase of rights-of-way, lands, and easements in connection with such project or operation. A compact made in conformity with section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1936 would not be required to have any further consent by Congress, for Congress has given advance consent to the making of a compact which would have to do solely with flood control, and only with the apportionment of funds to be provided by the several States. The States are required to agree to a compact, for what purpose to provide funds for construction and maintenance, the payment of damage, and the purchase of lands, rights-of-way, and easements. |