Page images

Senator CORDON. I was hopeful that would be the answer I would get. Do you have the figures with respect to cost ratio to benefit with respect to this second plant?


Colonel WHIPPLE. I can tell you, sir, that the power benefits will be almost $3 million annually for the second powerplant alone and its construction cost is $23 million, so that it is a very high B-C ratio. Naturally it is not really a fair way to analyze the economies, that is, to compare a powerplant, not charging any part of the dam to it, and so it is really more indicative of the merits of the project to give more conservatively the overall benefit-cost ratio. However, on an incremental cost basis this part of the project is justified by a ratio of considerably over 2 to 1.

General CHORPENING. On the Senator's earlier question, at the time Fort Peck was originally built the other projects in the Missouri Basin had not been authorized and when they were authorized it enabled a better overall use of the water at all the projects and enabled us to then utilize some of the storage that had originally been planned for flood control and other purposes for hydropower. That was authorized and we are proceeding to ask for the planning on it to go into construction.

Senator CORDON. I assume that this power facility will be integrated with the additional power facilities on downstream!

General CHORPENING. The entire program on the Missouri will be integrated, yes, for all purposes.

Senator CORDON. Another case where there can be added values as a result of having different power outputs so that you can use all of the power as a result to greater advantage than you could use the same amount of power if there was not integration?

General CHORPENING. That is correct.


Senator ELLENDER. To what extent will the facilities that have previously been erected at Fort Peck be used in putting this additional powerplant there. Do you use the same dam?

Colonel WHIPPLE. The same dam is used.
Senator ELLENDER. The same dam is going to be used ?
Colonel WHIPPLE. Yes. The tunnel is already constructed.

Senator ELLENDER. In other words, when the original dam was constructed provision was made for the facility that you now contemplate putting in?

General CHORPENING. When the original dam was built we put in four tunnels, only one of which at that time was so constructed that it could be utilized for hydro electric power.

Senator ELLENDER. That is in use now?

General CHORPENING. That is in use now for the 85,000 kilowatts that are installed. This will now convert another tunnel for use of hydroelectric production.

Senator ELLENDER. As to this cost of $23 million, what does that General CHIORPENING. It will involve the steel lining of the additional tunnel from the gates down to the powerhouse.

Senator ELLENDER. You mean inside?

General CHORPENING. Yes. When you produce power, you must have a much stronger lining in the tunnel to take care of the greater hydrostatic head that comes onto the tunnel, so that must be done as a part of this construction; then follows the building of the powerhouse and the installation of the generators and turbines.

Senator ELLENDER. In other words, when this tunnel was put there you could have put in this reinforcement if you desired, but you would not have considered it advantageous to do so, would you?

General CHORPENING. At that time it was back in 1937 and these other projects were not authorized and this use could not be foreseen with the plan then in effect.

Colonel WHIPPLE. As to the authorization of power in that structure I have the details here. The project was started by Executive order in 1933. It was authorized by Congress in 1935. The powerplant was authorized in 1938 with the size to be specified after studies by the Bureau of Reclamation, and the tunnels were put in in 1937.

Senator ELLENDER. There is no question in your mind that there will be enough water stored so as to operate this?

General CHORPENING. None whatsoever. Those studies have been very thorough and complete. We know that the water is there to produce the amount of power that we are discussing in this justification.

Hills CREEK RESERVOIR, OREG. Senator CORDON. We have discussed Libby. The next one is Hills Creek Reservoir in Oregon.

Colonel WHIPPLE. The Hills Creek Reservoir in Oregon on the Middle Fork of the Willamette River upstream from the Lookout Point Reservoir, appropriations for which were justified yesterday. The project will operate as a unit with the Lookout Point project and assist in the additional generation of power at that project. It will in addition have 30,000 kilowatts installed capacity itself and will have 200,000 acre-feet of storage for flood control in addition to the power benefits. The benefit-cost ratio of 2.04 to 1 is unusually high. Our general design studies are now 70 percent complete and with the money requested for 1955 we can complete more detailed studies in geology, the design of the earth dam itself, real-estate studies, diversion works, spillway, and relocations. The project will be ready to initiate in 1956 or any subsequent year.

Senator ELLENDER. Will any of the water impounded be used for irrigation !

Colonel WHIPPLE. A part of it will be used for irrigation downstream in the Willamette Valley; that is correct, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Will the erection of this reservoir benefit any other reservoirs built in that neighborhood downstream?

Colonel WHIPPLE. Yes. It very greatly benefits the Lookout Point Reservoir and it will be operated as a unit with the Lookout Point Reservoir, both for flood control and for power, and for these additional water conservation benefits. There are several purposes in the Willamette Basin plan.

Senator ELLENDER. When you arrived at the benefits to cost on this project, how much weight did you give to that?

Colonel WHIPPLE. The benefit on account of flood control is by far the greatest. It is $1,881,700 for flood control, $833,200 for power, and the other combined benefits together total a little more than $300,000 on account of water conservation. This is primarily a flood control reservoir with quite good hydroelectric potentialities in addition.


Senator Cordon. Next is the Carthage Dam in Tennessee.

Colonel WHIPPLE. The Carthage Dam in Tennessee is upstream of the Old Hickory project, which we have already testified to, and will operate as a unit with the other projects for flood control and hydroelectric development in that system. The system, of course, is well along. The project benefits are substantially all from the production of power.

The power output from this is expected to be distributed through the TVA system. The dam is about 98 feet high, will generate at 55-foot head, and it is not considered necessary to put a lock in this structure. There will be 92,000 kilowatts installed capacity, with only a small amount of storage, which more or less compensates for the valley storage naturally occurring there. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.55 to 1, the general design studies are complete and with the money available some specific design studies can be completed. With the amount requested for 1955 we can complete studies which have already been initiated on powerplant design, and real estate, and have the project in shape for start of construction thereafter.

Senator ELLENDER. This would be a part of the Tennessee Valley project, is it not?

Colonel WHIPPLE. Sir, the project is in the Cumberland Valley, which is adjacent. However, it is expected that the power will be marketed through the TVA distribution system.

Senator ELLENDER. It will become a part of the system?

Colonel WHIPPLE. As far as marketing of electric power is concerned, that is correct. As far as concerns the operation of the dams and the coordination of flood control and power requirements, the dams in the Cumberland system will not be coordinated with the Tennessee River dams, because it is a separate comprehensive system of its own from the hydraulic point of view.

Senator ELLENDER. Will Interior have this in hand?

Colonel WHIPPLE. The Department of the Interior will make arrangements with TVA for marketing of the power. They play no part in the operations of the dams and reservoirs.


Senator CORDON. Next is the Ice Harbor lock and dam in the State of Washington.

Colonel WHIPPLE. The Ice Harbor lock and dam is the lower 1 of the + proposed dams on the lower Snake River, which are part of the comprehensive plan for the Columbia Basin in the interest of navigation, power, flood control, and irrigation. This particular project is for navigation and power only. Its benefit to cost ratio is 1.19 to 1 and planning on it has continued for a considerable period of time. The project still requires that certain design features be worked out more thoroughly and we are asking $20,000 for that purpose.

Senator CORDON. Colonel, heretofore there has been considerable data placed in the record with reference to Ice Harbor, and as I recall it-I am certain I am correct—the full value of Ice Harbor is dependent upon upstream storage, but the project as a single project, as I understand it, is feasible without the upper storage and the 1.19 to 1 ratio is predicated upon the use of the dam without that storage; is it not?

Colonel WHIPPLE. Yo, sir. I am sorry, I do not believe that is quite correct, sir.

Senator CORDON. Correct me if I am wrong. That was my understanding

UPSTREAM STORAGE Colonel WHIPPLE. This dam is not economically feasible without some upstream storage and the benefits have been computed on the basis that some upstream storage would be available.

Senator ELLENDER. Is that in contemplation, or has it already been provided for?

Colonel WHIPPLE. No, sir; the storage we have in mind is storage that will occur in the system as a whole, but has not been provided for.

Senator ELLENDER. To what extent will the erection of this dam benefit facilities beyond it in the lower reaches of the river!

Colonel WHIPPLE. It has very little benefit on the projects in the lower reaches of the river because it has no substantial amount of storage itself. The canyon is quite narrow and it will have relatively little effect on the dams down below.

Senator ELLENDER. The benefit ratio is pretty small, is it not? Colonel WHIPPLE. It is not very high. Actually the estimated cost of this dam has been increased over what was contemplated several years ago, by the design studies that we have carried on. Such items as the cost of relocations have had to be increased and the estimated cost of fish facilities. This dam will require extensive fish facilities comparable with those at McNary and The Dalles, and that forms a fairly large portion of the cost.

Senator ELLENDER. To what extent would you have to build other facilities upstream so as to bring it to this 1.19; I mean facilities that are not now being built but that you hope to build in the future?

Colonel WHIPPLE. I think I will have to put that statement in the record, if you do not mind, as to the exact assumptions as to upstream storage.

Senator ELLENDER. This is a borderline case. Of course, I do not know anything about it specifically, but you have just indicated that this project in itself would not be feasible. You have to depend on storage that is in contemplation or storage that is already there by virtue of other projects that have been heretofore built or that may be built or will be built. That is correct, is it not ?

Colonel WHIPPLE. That is correct, sir.


Senator ELLENDER. Is there any objection of any kind by the people in that locality, something along the line we had at The Dalles?

Colonel WHIPPLE. Yes, there have been objections.

This project has been in the budget for construction funds on previous years.

Senator ELLENDER. I have been for it.


Colonel WHIPPLE. And the difficulties that have been raised have been difficulties in connection with the problem of the salmon and the passage of the salmon over the streams.

Senator ELLENDER. Has that been settled yet?

Colonel WHIPPLE. It has not been settled, I would say, completely, because even though we have dams in operation on the Columbia River that are passing these fish upstream, these dams are not quite as high as this particular dam and there have still been some objections by the fishery interests to the construction of this structure.

Senator ELLENDER. Could you do this for the record? Could you provide the benefits to cost on the project itself without anything being done upstream, evaluate it from that standpoint, and evaluate it from projects already built or that are now being built and, if you project it in the future, as to further projects being built state what they are. In other words, evaluate it in each category on its own, on what is already built, or what is being built, and what you propose to build in the future.

Colonel WHIPPLE. Sir, we will provide that for the record. I can say now that we have never contemplated this project being built by itself.

Senator ELLENDER. You said that. I did not know it until now. You may have said it before, but I did not catch the importance of it, but since this project depends a good deal, as you indicate, upon what is now being done beyond it and what may be done in the future, suppose what you contemplate may be done in the future is not built. What then? You are going to have a white elephant on the taxpayers here probably

Colonel WHIPPLE. The viewpoint you express is very valid. On the other hand, all of the projects on the Columbia Basin have been considered as an integrated system of an economy and an efficiency such that we feel that it would be wasteful not to build them in the long run. We do feel that storage on the Snake River, whether it will come in one project or another project this year or next year, over the long term in which we envisage these projects, is a virtual certainty.


Senator ELLENDER. Have you in contemplation the Libby Reservoir here to assist this, or is it separate?

Colonel WHIPPLE. That is separate. Senator ELLENDER. That is why I think it would be beneficial to us. We do not know too much about it. We are not like my good friend from Oregon here. He knows all about it. But I think we ought to

« PreviousContinue »