Senator MCCLELLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Simpson.

Senator CORDON. We are glad to hear from you.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Congressman Gathings?

STATEMENT OF HON. E. C. GATHINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

GENERAL STATEMENT

Representative GATHINGS. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I am most grateful to you for hearing these gentlemen from my area in Arkansas and for the opportunity you have given them of presenting this picture of the situation.

Senator CORDON. We are happy to have heard their presentation, and I am sure the committee will give it serious consideration.

The committee will now stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., Tuesday, March 9, 1954, the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m. Wednesday, March 10, 1954)

The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room F-39, the Capitol, Hon. William F. Knowland (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Knowland, Dworshak, and Ellender.

CIVIL FUNCTIONS

POWER, FLOOD CONTROL, IRRIGATION PROJECTS IN MONTANA

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MANSFIELD, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator KNOWLAND. The meeting will come to order.

I wish to apologize, gentlemen, for being a little late, but I had a very important meeting to attend before coming here.

Senator Mansfield, we will be glad to have any statement that you care to make at this time.

Senator MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am here this morning in behalf of various projects in the State of Montana. I do not intend to take too much of the time of this committee, because I realize how busy you are and how long you have been on these particular projects.

GREAT FALLS, MONT.

The engineers have asked for $15,000 to complete a tentative survey in the Great Falls area. I hope that this sum will be allowed in full because of the fact that that does present a very serious problem. Last year, Great Falls, the biggest city in the State of Montana, for a few days was entirely isolated as far as traveling by road was concerned, and the only way in or out of that place was by air.

HAVRE, MONT.

I hope that the $700,000 requested for the Bull Hook project at Havre will be allocated. That is well on the road to completion at the present time and is needed very badly in that part of the State.

LIBBY RESERVOIR, MONT.

I am also interested in the Libby Reservoir because of what it means to the economy of Montana and the Northwest. Libby is a dam which has been authorized but for which very little in the way of funds has been apropriated and about which there is a certain amount of controversy regarding the site as well as a lack of agreement between the Canadian and American Governments, or rather the Government of British Columbia and the American Government relative to the reservoir, that part of which goes to the Dominion of Canada. The Army engineers are asking for $50,000 this year. I hope that will be allowed.

FORT PECK DAM, SECOND POWERPLANT

I hope also that the $220,000 for the second powerplant at Fort Peck will be given serious consideration by this committee.

BILLINGS, MONT.

In addition, I hope that the $25,000 for the Billings area and the $75,000 for the Columbia River, a local protection for Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Oregon, will be considered; $75,000 is the amount asked for flood-control protection in these four States. A small part of that would be used for flood-control operations at Missoula and St. Regis. The total in this request is $1,085,000, and I think that every dime of it is justified.

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that Montana occupies a peculiar situation in this respect. In it lie the headwaters of both the Missouri and the Columbia Rivers. If we build enough multipurpose projects and dams in my State alone I think we can reduce tremendously the flood conditions which seem to occur periodically in both those basins.

Mr. Chairman, I do want to ask this committee to give every one of these projects its most serious consideration.

As a supporter of power, flood control, and irrigation projects throughout the Nation and more particularly in the Pacific Northwest especially in Montana, I am appearing before this Appropriations Committee in behalf of needed appropriations, authorization, and actual construction on vital projects in Montana. Montana is a State which has been blessed with some of the greatest power potential in the United States.

There always seems to be a great deal of opposition to new Federal power projects. I remember very clearly the battle that was waged over Hungry Horse Dam, from authorization to completion. Only now that the huge project is completed and in operation do the people realize its benefits.

The appropriation of funds for continuing planning on the Libby Dam and Reservoir and Fort Peck Dam (second powerplant) are vital for providing increased power production in the Northwest. The initiation of funds for flood-control planning work at Great Falls and Billings is quite important. It is also important to consider appropriations for flood-control work in other Montana counties which are repeatedly threatened with flash floods each spring.

LIBBY DAM AND RESERVOIR

Of prime importance is the speeding up of the Libby project in northwestern portion of Montaña near the Canadian border. The Libby project is one important element of the main control plan for the Columbia River. The project, on the Kootenai River, at mile 212.8, upstream from the town of Libby, Mont., was authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers at an estimated cost of $239 million in the Flood Control Act of 1950, for flood control, hydroelectric power, and related water uses, as a part of the recommended plan for the comprehensive development of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin. This plan, submitted to the Congress by the Corps of Engineers and published as House Document 531, 81st Congress, included recommendations for the construction of the Libby project, together with a number of other projects.

Since 1948, when this plan was prepared, substantial development toward the accomplishment of that plan has been achieved, with the exception of the Libby project. McNary, Chief Joseph, Albeni Falls, and Hungry Horse are already operating or are near completion.

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH

The population and industry of the Pacific Northwest has continued to grow, and its needs for development of its water resources have increased rapidly. Major expansion in the area of industry necessary for the defense effort, since 1950, has been made or is in process. All available information from the Army engineers shows that even with the substantial accomplishments completed to date and under way, the area will undoubtedly continue to be short of power for some time to come. Curtailment of power supply amounting to about 500,000 kilowatts to aluminum and other users because of low water was necessary last fall.

Those projects on the Columbia River presently under construction, together with the existing Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams, will develop hydropower from a total head of nearly 700 feet. Only Grand Coulee, of the projects on the Columbia River, has storage capacity for use during the low-flow periods in the fall and winter. The other projects must rely upon the available flow in the river as supplemented by the releases of stored water. Grand Coulee and the other projects can be benefited to a large extent by the construction of upstream storage projects. Upstream storage reservoirs will make possible the release of water for use when most needed downstream, as well as providing a major flood-control measure through storing water during the flood season.

STORAGE CAPACITY OF RESERVOIR

The Libby Reservoir, with a storage capacity of over 6 million acrefeet, could materially assist in flood control for the region. Through later release of the stored waters, Libby could add to the present system of projects in operation or under construction up to a total of 1,080,000 kilowatts of average continuous power, depending upon the site finally selected, or about 9.4 billion kilowatt-hours of primary energy annually for supplying increasing power needs. About one

third of this increase in power would be from generation at the Libby Dam and about two-thirds would result from the Libby storage increasing low flows at downstream plants. The initial installed capacity at Libby will be about 660,000 kilowatts, according to material made available to me by the Army Engineer Corps.

As you know, planning for the Libby project was commenced in January 1952. By the end of fiscal year 1952, $285,000 had been allotted for engineering design. Investigation of a number of pos sible sites in reach of the river upstream from Libby, extending from mile 205 to mile 218, was initiated to determine suitable dam sites and the most economical plan for construction. It had been determined in 1950 that the maximum power pool should be raised from the original plan of elevation 2,440 to elevation 2,459, to utilize the available power head to the Bull River Dam site, 42 miles upstream from the Canadian border. Application to the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, had been made in January 1951 for approval of the project as required under the terms of the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909 for projects in one country which will back water into the other country.

PLANNING

With available funds, planning had continued into the fall of 1952 The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its committee report on the fiscal year 1953 appropriations for the Corps of Engineers stated that additional planning funds from that appropriation would be available subject to a statement from the United States section of the International Joint Commission that the status of the necessary agreement with Canada was satisfactory. For various reasons, the Commission had not completed action upon the application, and the United States section of the I. J. C. was unable to make the required statement. It thus became necessary, in December 1952, to cease further planning on the Libby project, since available funds had been expended. No active planning has been accomplished until recently.

The action taken by the conferees in connection with the 1954 civil functions appropriation bill in including Libby Reservoir among the projects to which the 1954 planning appropriation was allocated, is considered to remove the former restriction which existed on the use of funds for work on Libby Reservoir. An initial allocation of $150,000 was made to the Libby project from the 1954 appropriation and that it is presently contemplated by the Army engineers that an additional allotment of as much as $46,000 will be made this fiscal year to further continue the planning work on Libby.

I believe present plans are to resubmit the application to the International Joint Commission so as to reach an agreement and settlement of the problems between Canada and the United States on this project. Recommendation of the mile 217 site by the Corps of Engineers now places the Libby project in favorable position for its resubmission to the international organization.

FUNDS FOR STUDY NEEDED

Sufficient funds are urgently needed so that detailed studies of the alternate sites can then be carried rapidly to completion to determine the final site and lay out the project. When this is completed and