estimates for this year's budget are determined, there was only a net increase of $13 million on approximately $1.5 billion of work. I call that to the committee's attention because of the fact that although in that year in the overall cost indices there was about 6 percent increase, we have not found it necessary to increase these projects, due to the fact that our bids have generally been very good. On the basis of what we know on the work yet to be done, we feel that it is not necessary to increase the estimates. I want to point out that you will find in a few of these projects we have had to make some increases. In others we have made decreases, but the net increase is $13 million. Senator ELLENDER. Is that on the 16 projects? General CHORPENING. Yes. Senator ELLENDER. The total cost of those projects are $1.5 billion, you say? General CHORPENING. $1.5 billion worth of construction still to complete. Senator ELLENDER. That is on the 16 projects? General CHORPENING. Yes. Senator ELLENDER. I wonder if the general would put in the record the amount of increase or decrease for each project. General CHORPENING. That will probably be brought out in the testimony on each one. TOTAL REMAINING COST Senator CORDON. All right. With respect to the 16 projects the total cost of which you testify is General CHORPENING. Total remaining cost. Senator CORDON. Remaining cost, of $1.5 billion? General CHORPENING. Yes. Senator ELLENDER. I misunderstood you. General CHORPENING. That was the total remaining part, because that would be the only part to which we would properly apply cost indices. Senator ELLENDER. So as to have any question correctly answered, it might be well to put in the total cost of these 16 projects. General CHORPENING. We would do that if you like. Senator CORDON. Of course those total costs show on the construction schedules that we have. My question is this, General. You speak of a net increase of $13 million as the net increase from estimates of July 1, 1952, as compare to July 1, 1953? General CHORPENING. That is correct, sir. Senator CORDON. With respect then to the total balance of the cost as of July 1, 1952 of $1.5 billion, substantially what portion of that $1.5 billion was under firm contract as of July 1, 1952? General CHORPENING. I do not have the exact figures on that. I can get them. I would estimate that of that amount approximately 30 percent was under contract. I will check that, however, for the record to be certain. Senator CORDON. Then with respect to the 30 percent, assuming that that is correct, and for my purpose you do not need to make it exact, as to that 30 percent there would be no change in estimated cost due to the fact that this is a known cost by virtue of outstanding firm con tracts. General CHORPENING. That is correct, sir. Senator CORDON. So that your $13 million then had to do with respect to $1 billion of costs for which contracts were not in force as of July 1, 1952? General CHORPENING. Yes. Senator CORDON. In order that we may have in the record and quickly available information which I believe is important to any consideration of these multiple-purpose projects with respect to which you testify, I would ask that you at least insert the gross total estimated cost of the whole 16. General CHORPENING. Yes. (The information requested follows:) The total estimated cost of the 16 multiple-purpose projects is $2,144,532,800. Senator CORDON. Then we can refer, I take it, to these charts if we desire a breakdown? General CHORPENING. Yes. Senator CORDON. One other thing at this time and then I will be happy to yield to the Senator. The Chair at this time requests that the Corps of Engineers with respect to each of the projects which are discussed in connection with the justification insert a statement of the amount requested by the Corps of Engineers in its request to the Bureau of the Budget as distinguished from the amount that was finally allowed by the Bureau of the Budget. We do not have to repeat that request. I think it is important information to have in the record and I know that it is information that ordinarily the requesting agency is not permitted to gratuitously present. This committee has always asked for that information and we might just as well make a blanket request and that will cover each of the projects as it is justified. NEW STARTS Senator ELLENDER. During the course of the hearings of the past few days there were new projects considered for flood control among others. From what I can understand no new multiple-purpose projects have been agreed to by the administration. General CHORPENING. There are no new starts included for multiplepurpose projects, that is correct, sir. Senator ELLENDER. I wonder if you will be good enough to place. in the record at this point those projects that have been authorized and that are more or less ready to go, with your evaluation as to which should come first, second, third, fourth, and so forth. I wonder if you could do that for us without too much trouble. General CHORPENING. Multiple-purpose projects? Senator ELLENDER. Yes, that is what I am talking about. Senator CORDON. I suggest if you get that in the record at this time you will get something that I have never been able to get any time in the last 5 or 6 years since I have been on this committee. Senator ELLENDER. I think it is important for us to have those, Senator, because I for one want to continue this great work of power development. PROJECT PRIORITY Senator CORDON. The point is: How are you going to say that one is first and another second, how are you going to say that if you have the same ratio between cost and benefits for 1, 3, 5, or several projects? How can you then determine that one should come first and the other second? Senator ELLENDER. It may be, Senator, that is easy to do when you consider all facets of it, when you consider the effect it is going to have on flood control, on irrigation, and things like that. Senator CORDON. The effect is found in the ratio. Senator ELLENDER. We have been trusting the Engineers to give us their evaluation of certain projects as to which should come first. The Bureau of the Budget seems to follow that in flood control and I do not see why we could not get their evaluation as to these multiple-purpose dams. If you cannot do it, General, I wonder if you would simply give us a little list of what is ready to go and the approximate cost of each. General CHORPENING. I could give you a list with the approximate cost and the benefit-cost ratio as we see it. Senator ELLENDER. You would not want to evaluate them in the order that they should be built? General CHORPENING. No, sir. Because that evaluation is a matter that transcends the benefit-cost ratio. It is a matter of the overall national interest and the wishes of the administration. Senator ELLENDER. You realize you have been asked to evaluate those projects by us, have you not? General CHORPENING. I do not recall that I have ever been asked to give to the committee a priority, sir. COMPLETION OF PLANS Senator ELLENDER. If it matters not, simply give us the benefitcost ratio and the cost, and those for which the plans have advanced sufficiently so that we could proceed to their erection. The plans need not be completed; just so the plans are sufficiently advanced that you can do work on the projects and you might so state-as to each project-whether the plans are complete, or how much you could do on each, the progress of the plan so far, and so forth. General CHORPENING. We can define that. Senator CORDON. Will you also give us, General, on such a list the time of the last cost estimate? General CHORPENING. Yes. Senator CORDON. I think it is important because that varies, of course, with the index of costs from year to year and it would be very valuable in such a list. General CHORPENING. Yes. RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROJECTS NOT YET STARTED Senator ELLENDER. Did the Corps of Engineers make any recommendations at all to the Bureau of the Budget as to any project not yet started? General CHORPENING. On multiple-purpose? Senator ELLENDER. Yes. General CHORPENING. I think the only one that we recommended any funds to the Bureau of the Budget which is not included herein was the Table Rock Reservoir in Arkansas. Senator ELLENDER. How much did you ask for that project? Senator ELLENDER. Any within ceiling? General CHORPENING. No, sir. Senator ELLENDER. The reason is it is a new project, I presume? You spent some money on it before, did you not? General CHORPENING. We had spent some money there. It was suspended last year. Senator ELLENDER. It is just to continue it? General CHORPENING. That is correct. Senator ELLENDER. You are not at liberty to say why it was turned down? General CHORPENING. I think it was turned down probably on the basis that by action of the congressional committees we were directed to make a further study of the Table Rock project and report back to the committees, which we did in December. Senator ELLENDER. When was that investigation completed? General CHORPENING. It was completed and the report was made. to this committee in December of 1953. Senator ELLENDER. Following that report you made the recommendations that $3 million over ceiling be General CHORPENING. No, sir. In the summer is when we submit all our recommendations. Senator DWORSHAK. General, is there an overall ban on beginning new multiple-purpose projects? General CHORPENING. No, sir; but as I earlier explained, the new starts to be included this year were confined to small projects essentially and we were told that the total cost of all new projects to be included would not exceed approximately $100 million, and that they could be completed in 2 to 3 years essentially, so on the criterion given to us it simply precluded going ahead on more multiple-purpose projects. REPORT ON TABLE ROCK DAM Senator ELLENDER. You did make the recommendations, you say, to us in December with respect to Table Rock. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have placed in the record at this point just the conclusions reached by the Engineers as to Table Rock. General CHORPENING. The report is in the hands of the subcommittee. Senator ELLENDER. Just the conclusions. I do not want to put the whole thing in, just so we can have the record before us when the project is considered. I notice that the letter of transmittal is not too long, Mr. Chairman. It may be possible to put it in the record at this point and I so request. General CHORPENING. It is a little over three pages. Senator CORDON. The letter will be made a part of the record. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. STYLES BRIDGES, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DECEMBER 16, 1953. DEAR SENATOR BRIDGES: I am transmitting herewith a report (enclosure No. 1) and supporting data (enclosure No 2) on studies of the Table Rock Reservoir, Mo. and Ark., prepared by the district engineer, Little Rock district, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Little Rock, Ark. This report was prepared and is submitted pursuant to the request contained in the conference report on the civil functions appropriations bill for 1954, printed as House of Representatives Report No. 889, 83d Congress, 1st session as follows: "The conferees are in complete accord that no further construction is to be commenced at Table Rock Dam, Ark. and Mo., until approval has been obtained from the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and of the Senate. It is the desire of the conferees that a study be made of the project by the Corps of Engineers as to the need for power in the area, the ability of present governmental and private power utilities to meet any future need that might exist and the adequacy of the present estimated cost of the project. Such study should be presented to the above-mentioned committees not later than January 1, 1954. There exists at the present time authorization for appropriations of $169 million in the White River Basin, of which $118,143,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 1953. The conferees are in accord that should the revised estimated cost of Table Rock Dam, when added to the balance of authorizations remaining, exceed that amount proper legislative authority should be obtained from the Congress for the authority to appropriate funds in excess of the present authorization." The Table Rock Reservoir project was authorized for flood control and power generation by the Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941, as a unit of the general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the White River Basin. The Table Rock Dam site is on the White River in Taney and Stone Counties, Mo., 40 miles south of Springfield, Mo., and 8 miles upstream from Branson, Mo. The reservoir will have a total storage capacity of 3,462,000 acre-feet; 760,000 of which is allocated to flood control, 1,932,000 for regulation of stream flow for generation of hydroelectric power, and 770,000 as the minimum permanent pool to provide head for power generation. The project will regulate flow from about 4,000 square miles of drainage area above the dam site. The reservoir will afford a substantial degree of flood protection to the towns of Branson and Hollister, Mo., immediately downstream from the dam site, and with other reservoir projects, it will provide floodcontrol benefits to about 1,064,000 acres of land along the White River down |