Senator CASE. That is correct, and where they stand under the application of the new policy, that is, whether they might be included or whether they are excluded? General CHORPENING. Yes. (The requested information follows:) Areas reasonably needed along the shores of the Gavins Point Reservoir area for public use and access in accordance with section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 will be acquired. Studies to determine the lands to be acquired, including those necessary for public use and access, are now being made by the district engineer, Omaha District, and the exact acreage to be acquired is not known at this time. It does not appear, however, that all of the land mentioned in the letter dated February 4, 1954 from Mr. Eugene H. Stearns of Yankton, S. Dak., can be acquired under present authorizations. RESTATEMENT OF POLICY Senator YOUNG. Would you restate that new policy? General CHORPENING. Basically it is this: That we will only buy the lands in fee simple up to that line which would be flooded once every 5 years. Above that line we would only take comprehensive flowage easements. With reference to Garrison Reservoir, I want to check this, but I think I am correct, that a portion of that elevation above 1,840 would be flooded oftener. The water would go up there oftener than every 5 years, a portion of it, not all, to 1,850. Senator YOUNG. When was this new policy developed? General CHORPENING. That was developed last summer and was published I think some time in October 1953. Senator YOUNG. This was published? General CHORPENING. Yes. We put out press releases all over the country on that. Senator ELLENDER. After you did it? General CHORPENING. Yes. Senator ELLENDER. With whom did you consult before you did it? General CHORPENING. We consulted with the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of the Budget, sir. Senator CORDON. Any other questions? If not, Colonel, the floor is yours. FURTHER DISCUSSION OF BUFORD PROJECT Colonel WHIPPLE. This is the data that is required for the Buford project. The unexpended balance on June 30, 1953, was $835,000. On December 31 of this year it was $6,577,000, and on June 30, 1954, it is estimated to be $1,850,000. The work is going well. The budget request for this project was $5,800,000 within-ceiling and $5,200,000 overceiling. The delay of 12 months in the power on the line date from the estimate last given to this committee is due to the reduced funds. The benefit to cost ratio for the basin, of which Buford Dam is an integral part, is 1.16 to 1. Senator CORDON. You requested how much overceiling that you did not get? Colonel WHIPPLE. $5,200,000. Senator CORDON. You got the total amount you requested withinceiling, however? Colonel WHIPPLE. Yes, sir. Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I note that the budget for 1955 contemplates $1,176,600 for powerhouse, switchyard, and equipment. Are the contracts let for that so that there will be bills coming in for that? Colonel WHIPPLE. Is that 1955, sir? Senator CASE. That is a considerable increase over the amount in the current year of $179,300. Colonel WHIPPLE. That amount is for generators. The contract for those have already been let and they are starting manufacture of them and that is the major expenditure during the fiscal year 1955 on the powerhouse. The actual construction of the powerhouse will not start in 1955. Senator CASE. How much for the powerhouse and how much for the generators? Colonel WHIPPLE. Nothing for the powerhouse. It comes under the general heading of powerhouse, switchyard, and equipment, but actually the funds requested are entirely for the manufacture of generators and continuation of planning design on miscellaneous powerplant equipment. RELOCATIONS Senator CASE. I notice that the relocations in the project-cost estimate come to $13,631,900 whereas the total projects cost is $41,981,000. In other words, relocations on this Buford Dam are approximately one-third of the total cost of the project. Is that not unusually high in proportion? Colonel WHIPPLE. It certainly is an unusually high proportion, sir. There are a tremendous number of State and county roads and very extensive powerlines as it happens in that area. There is very little interference with railroads. PAYMENT FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES Senator CASE. Is it customary for the engineers to pay for the relocation of utilities whenever they are involved in reservoir sites? General CHORPENING. Yes. That is chargeable to the Federal Government, any relocation required on flood-control dams or multiple-purpose projects. Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, we have been having that problem come up in a different way in the Public Works Committee where the proposal has been made that the Federal Government should pay for the relocation of utilties when they are involved in a highway location under the Federal aid system. Former Senator McKellar brought that matter up in the form of a special bill and just recently in connection with some discussions on the pending legislation for the biennial Federal aid highway program that has been renewed. You run into different problems in different States because there is a good deal of variation, but the argument was advanced to justify doing that, the engineers always did it so why shouldn't the Bureau of Public Roads. This is the most striking example that has come to my attention, where the cost of relocations is better than a third actually, it must be 34 or 35 percent. General CHORPENING. We have some projects where the relocations ran into a greater percentage, Senator. Senator CASE. Even than that? OBLIGATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT General CHORPENING. Yes. It is in the law that all relocations required of highways, or utility lines, or whatever, are borne by the Federal Government in these instances. Senator CASE. In all such instances where relocations are considered are they included when you determine the feasibility ratio? General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Senator CASE. So that the feasibility ratio does embrace the liquidation of the relocation costs? General CHORPENING. As a part of the cost against which the benefits are balanced to determine the benefit-cost ratio. Colonel WHIPPLE. There are two minor exceptions to that sir. The first one is there have been some telegraph lines where we found that on account of unusual real-estate arrangements the company did not have a compensable interest legally and could not be compensated. That is a very unusual case. There is another case a little more frequent in which a bridge relocation is involved, as in the case of the McNary Dam, where on account of the conditions of granting of the bridge permit, in line with basic law regarding paramount rights of navigation, it was legally impossible to compensate them until special legislation had been passed. However, all of our relocation costs are very carefully included in these original project cost estimates. WHITE HOUSE DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY LEGISLATION Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I happened to sit in on a conference the other day down at the White House where there was some discussion of highway legislation and this particular question was brought up by one of the persons present. Whether or not that is going to be proposed in the legislation I do not know. I am inclined to doubt it. I would like to ask Mr. Bassett, the clerk of the Public Works Committee, who happens to be in the room, whether he knows whether there is any bill now pending comparable to that proposal that Senator McKellar had up a couple of years ago. Mr. BASSETT (technical staff member, Senate Public Works Committee). Yes. There is one. TESTIMONY OF GENERAL POTTER REGARDING GARRISON RESERVOIR Senator YOUNG. I would like to question the testimony given by General Potter a few days ago. We were talking about Garrison Reservoir and how the water supply there would stand a drought year. I am reading from the record: General POTTER. That was arrived at by a study of tree rings. This chart shows that in that 55 years the reservoir would never have quite come to elevation 1,850. Senator YOUNG. What years are those? General POTTER. In the last 55 years, if we had Garrison Reservoir built in 1898. Senator YOUNG. Looking at the chart, it would appear that you would not have gotten over about 1,840 feet from the 1,900 to the 1,907, is that right? General POTTER. Yes. In fact some of the figures are even a little more startling. Elevation 1,848 would have only been reached or be at 3 percent of the time on an average year. That is a week and a half a year on the average. It is 1,845 6 dercoat and 1,840 13 percent of the time. General Potter states: General POTTER. This chart shows that in that 55 years the reservoirs would never have quite come to elevation 1,850. So in all those years the pool elevation would never reach 1,850 feet. As to your new policy, it would not seem reasonable that you would want to purchase land there. General CHORPENING. I said, I believe, that at the 1,840 level the flood frequency is greater than once in every 5 years and I believe that his statement bears that out. Senator CORDON. Also, the new policy is not to increase the acreage purchase, but to decrease it. Senator YOUNG. Yes. It would appear from this that you might be able to compromise on the purchase. General CHORPENING. That is correct. Senator YOUNG. That will certainly help us a lot and I think it will save the Government considerable money. Too, oil was discovered right close to this line and the mineral rights themselves are very valuable. General CHORPENING. As you know, we did decide some time ago that in the upper reaches-I forgot at what place we were not procuring the mineral rights. I would like to hold that the taking of easements would be some what less costly and to the benefit of the Government than fee simple. That will be determined later on as we get into it more, how much difference there will be between the fee simple and flowage easements. BUFORD DAM Senator ELLENDER. It is bound to cost less. I understand there is quite a bit of oil being developed in that area and by merely obtaining easements the land cannot cost as much. Reverting to Buford Dam, I notice that you said that the amount asked by you within ceiling was $5,800,000. At the rate of the appropriation do you expect to complete this project in the specified time, or will the project be delayed? It strikes me the amount asked is rather small. Colonel WHIPPLE. This $5.8 million corresponds to a delay of 1 year in that project from that previously planned. Senator ELLENDER. How much more could you use this year? Colonel WHIPPLE. We could use the overceiling request of $5.2 million, which would result in speeding up that project by 1 year. Senator ELLENDER. You mean with $5.2 million more you could make it possible for the Government to begin to obtain profits from the electricity earlier than otherwise; is that right? Colonel WHIPPLE. That is correct, sir. The completion of all generating units would be speeded up 12 months. Senator ELLENDER. You say this will delay the project a year unless we appropriate the money that you asked originally, which is $5.2 million more than you and the Budget Bureau are now proposing? Colonel WHIPPLE. That is correct, sir. Senator ELLENDER. I think that is false economy. I do not see why we should not get the whole amount. Of course, we did in the other one, at Folsom there. General CHORPENING. The reason, sir, that that was all granted in Folsom is because that project is much closer to completion than is this one. This one is in its early stages of construction, as will be Loted. Only $13,681,000 has been appropriated out of $41,981,000, whereas in the case of Folsom it is much nearer completion. Senator ELLENDER. I understand that, but yet it will delay this worthy project a year by not providing the amount of money that you requested. LOSSES DUE TO INSTALLATION DELAY Senator CORDON. I would like to have you furnish for the record with respect to this item, General, a statement indicative of the loss that the Government will sustain by virtue of the delay of 1 year in getting power on the line, which I take it will be only a portion of the power for that year. I would like to have you put in a notation of the monetary loss suffered by the Government by virtue of that year's delay in putting in the power installation. General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. (The following information on estimated benefits was furnished in Ieu of the information requested relative to the monetary loss suffered by the Government by virtue of a year's delay in putting in the power installation :) A delay of 1 year in the schedule for the Buford project would result in the ass of the benefits for 1 year of $2,127,000 estimated as follows: Power benefits at Buford. Power at existing downstream plants including Jim Woodruff... Navigation savings resulting from increased flow below Jim Total $1,753, 000 146,000 215,000 13,000 2, 127, 000 Construction expenditures for the Buford project are not expected to increase *t account of the 1-year delay except for increases which might be caused by ranging price levels. However, the overall investment in the project would he creased somewhat because of the accumulation of interest charges during eststruction over a year longer construction period. Serator CORDON. Definitely we have a loss of the total amount from stallation of 1 year, we know that. Then we have an intermediate as a result of the year's delay in the successive installations. I would like to know what it is. General CHORPENING. Yes. Senator CORDON. With that and offsetting it, the amount of interest that the Government would not pay as the result of the appropriation of being made in the full amount at this time. In other words, we "ut the net dollar factor of loss or gain, not only as to power, but any her facility that will bring in revenues. General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Senator ELLENDER. I do not know that we could spell them out Lowever. General CHORPENING. That is the only one in this case. Senator ELLENDER. What about the additional cost of the project by extending the period? Would you not have to pay your contractors more! Must you figure that out someway! 42392—54 -- 22 |