Page images
PDF
EPUB

have in the record your basis for this 1.19 to 1. Give us what it is on its own and then how do you figure this additional benefit by projects that are already built or will be built. I would like to have that separately if you will do it.

General CHORPENING. I would like to mention this also, Senator. That this dam is one of a number that are authorized on the Snake River for navigation and as you will recall, for instance, on the Chattahoochee, we have talked about the Jim Woodruff Dam and the Buford that have all been accomplished to establish that navigation benefit.

Senator ELLENDER. You have given weight to it to reach that cost benefit of 1.19, I realize that, so that all of that would be included in it, but in order to be able to get that navigation you are going to have to build, as I understand, structures above stream, would you not?

General CHORPENING. That is correct.

Senator ELLENDER. It strikes me that we ought to have this costbenefit ratio established as to what you have already built and what is being built and projected a little further as to whether you will depend on the establishment of further structures above stream to reach this goal of 1.19 to 1.

General CHORPENING. We can give you that information. (The information referred to follows:)

ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM PROJECT BENEFITS

The Ice Harbor project is a part of the comprehensive plan for the development, control, and utilization of the water resources of the Columbia River Basin for navigation, flood control, irrigation, hydroelectric power, and other purposes.

The project is an essential unit in the authorized slackwater navigational de velopment of the lower 360 miles of the Columbia River and the lower 140 miles of the Snake River. This inland waterway system includes a deepwater channel extending from the sea to Vancouver, Wash.; an authorized 27-foot channel improvement from Vancouver to The Dalles, Oreg. ; the completed Bonneville Dam; the Dalles lock and dam which is under construction; John Day lock and dam which is authorized ; McNary lock and dam which is under construction; and the four authorized locks and dams on the Lower Snake River of which Ice Harbor is the farthest downstream. Average annual commerce on and through the Ice Harbor pool during a 50-year project life is estimated at 2,547,000 tons. Average annual benefits based on savings in transportation costs are estimated at $1,250,000. Realization of these transportation benefits are associated with completion of the regional navigational program both above and below Ice Harbor. Initial use of Ice Harbor pool without additional navigation improvement projects, together with seasonal extension of navigation to Lewiston, Idaho, which is thereby made practicable, will provide interim navigation benefits conservatively estimated to be at least $300,000 annually.

The construction of Ice Harbor will reduce pumping lifts from the Snake River along the reservoir shorelines, thereby providing substantial reductions in pumping costs for the irrigation development of 122,000 acres of land. Average annual irrigation benefits creditable to the project are estimated at $186,000.

Incidental benefits will accrue to the project from recreational and wildlife uses of the reservoir and adjacent land areas. An annual benefit of $28,000 for such uses has been included in the economical analysis, which is equal to only the annual costs of Federal public-use facilities included in the project-cost estimate.

The Ice Harbor powerplant would operate in integrated coordination with the presently existing Bonneville, Grand Coulee, and Albeni Falls projects, and also with Hungry Horse, Chief Joseph, MeVary, and The Dalles projects presently under construction. Under these conditions, Ice Harbor will generate 137.000 kilowatts of average continuous power (1,200 million kilowatt-hours of primary energy annually). The dependable capacity would be 183,000 kilowatts based on a load factor of 75 percent. Under these conditions the benefits of the power at Ice Harbor are estimated at $4,950,000 annually.

Ice Harbor operated as a unit in the main control plan (phase C-2 system) for the comprehensive development of the Columbia River and tributaries as outlined in House Document No. 531, 81st Congress, 2d session, with 4 generating units installed would generate 186,000 kilowatts of average continuous power (1,629 million kilowatt-hours of primary energy annually). The dependable capacity would be 248,000 kilowatts. The benefits from this power are estimated at $6,820,000 annually of which a part would be credited to the streamflow regulation afforded by upstream storage. The power benefits credited to Ice Harbor are $6,203,000. Annual power benefits associated with the initial installation of 3 generating units under these conditions are $5,869,000.

The storage development contemplated in the phase C-2 system upstream from Ice Harbor was Hells Canyon. If Hells Canyon is not developed, other contemplated storage developments will provide as much or more increase in the regulated flow at Ice Harbor for power development.

The estimated cost of the Ice Harbor project with an initial installation of 3 generating units is $135,930,000, and the annual charges are estimated at $6,163,000. A summary of the annual benefits as discussed above is given in the following tabulation,

Annual benefits

[blocks in formation]

Therefore, the Ice Harbor project has a benefit cost ratio of 1.19 to 1 when considered as a part of the comprehensive plan under phase C-2 stage of development, including the other authorized navigation dams and additional storage upstream. The project is indicated as economically feasible by a lesser margin when considered as either :

(a) With the other authorized navigation dams but without upstream storage. (b) With additional upstream storage but without the other navigation dams.

On the basis of latest estimates of benefits and of costs, the project would not be economically feasible if considered alone, without prospects of either additional upstream storage or the other navigation dams.

Senator CORDON. The Chair would like to state with reference to that matter, Senator, that the storage contemplated in the first instance as necessary for the four dams on the Snake, Ice Harbor being the one lowest downstream and there being three more above, was in the Snake River at the site known as Hells Canyon. Hells Canyon has now become a cause celebre with respect to which there has been more misinformation spread than I think any single possible public works project that has been extant in my experience in the Senate.

HEARING ON IDAHO POWER CO. APPLICATION

At the present time there is before the Federal Power Commission a hearing on application of the Idaho Power Co. for a license to build three dams in the Snake River in the general vicinity of the Hells Canyon site. I am not familiar with the precise claims or engineering data, but generally I think I can say that the plans of the power company provide for adequate storage in that area to take care of the necessities in the power field of these four dams. The Hells Canyon project was first engineered or located by the Corps of Engineers.

Later by agreement between the Department of the Army, or the Secretary of the Army at that time, and the Secretary of Interior it was transferred as a project for the Reclamation Bureau on account of the power potentialities there and the possible use of the rate component in the rate structure to provide funds to aid in reclamation and irrigation in Senator Dworshak's State. Since that application has been on file, and as a result of funds furnished by the Congress last year, there has been another survey of the Snake River above these four dams to determine whether there is additional storage possible. My understanding is that that reconnaissance survey is favorable with respect to storage on the Clearwater branch of the Snake River, which is also in Senator Dworshak's State, so that there is now available information of a reconnaissance nature at least and I think it is more than that on the Clearwater storage.

There is actively before the Federal Power Commission the application of the Idaho Power Co. for a license to actually construct three dams which would provide the storage, and of course there is the question of whether the Idaho Power Co. ought to construct those three dams or the Federal Government ought to construct one high dam in order to get the storage at Hells Canyon and to develop the power potential at Hells Canyon. That substantially is the situation with reference to upstream storage necessary for the four dams to get their full potentiality.

However, I do want to say this: My memory is, and I believe I can verify it in the record of the hearings heretofore, that there is information in the record indicative of Ice Harbor being feasible on a cost vesus benefit ratio without the water in storage upstream. It may be on this new allocation system.

Colonel WHIPPLE. With reference to testimony that has been given that this project would be economically feasible without the other 3 navigation projects, in other words, of the group of the 4, it is correct that the Ice Harbor project shows a benefit-cost ratio of greater than 1 even if built as a single 1 of the 4 without the other 3 prior to the time the other 3 were constructed. However, we will check it for the record, but I believe that that still considers that there will be storage constructed upstream.

Senator ELLENDER. The suggestion I made to you will cover all that. Colonel WHIPPLE. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. That information should also include all of the matters talked about by my distinguished friend here.

General CHORPENING. Yes.
Colonel WHIPPLE. We will provide that benefit-cost information.

Senator DWORSHAK. Colonel, has there been a disposition on the part of the Army engineers to temporarily shelve Ice Harbor Dam in order to find some more feasible storage reservoir site upstream from Ice Harbor ?

REQUEST FOR PLANNING FUNDS

Colonel WHIPPLE. I would merely say, sir, that we have requested planning funds for the project and feel that we should continue planning on that project. We have had no thought that a dam at that site would not ultimately be required.

Senator DWORSHAK. You feel it is just as important now as it has been in the past in the overall integration of the stream flow?

Colonel WHIPPLE. It is a little difficult to answer that question, sir, because of changed conditions under which this storage may be built, but we do feel that that project is important and is worthwhile to continue planning on.

Senator DWORSHAK. You have not given the project less priority in your overall planning, have you, than you did 2 years ago!

General CHORPENING. The fact is with limited planning funds we are still including it as one on which to continue plans.

Senator DWORSHAK. You have a million dollars approximately so far for planning. You have the plans pretty well developed.

General CHORPENING. Pretty well along; yes.

Colonel WHIPPLE. A part of that million was devoted to studies of the river as a whole. It was a question of whether you would have a 4-dam plan, a 6-dam plan, or a 3-dam plan and those funds were all charged to Ice Harbor as the first one of the series, before we started the planning on that project itself.

Senator DWORSHAK. The funds have not been used entirely upon surveying and studying at Ice Harbor.

Colonel WHIPPLE. No, sir.

Senator DWORSHAK. Does Ice Harbor involve any more serious problem than any other dams like McNary or other upstream dams on the Snake ?

Colonel WHIPPLE. There is not. The Ice Harbor Dam will be 100 feet high as compared to 90 feet at McNary. I am talking about the difference in water elevations which does involve the pressures.

Senator DWORSHAK. That would not be a more serious problem then as far as Ice Harbor is concerned than McNary.

Colonel WHIPPLE. We do not feel that that difference is material,
Senator McCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman.
Senator CORDON. Senator McClellan.

TABLE Rock RESERVOIR, ARK.

Senator McCLELLAN. We have been talking about seven projects here for which you want money for advance engineering and designing, is that correct?

Colonel WHIPPLE. Yes, sir.

Senator McCLELLAN. Has the Table Rock project already passed that stage?

General CHORPENING. Yes.
Senator MCCLELLAN. That is why it is not included.
General CHORPENING. That is correct.

Senator McCLELLAN. You have all the advance planning done on it!

General CHORPENING. Yes. We have already received construction funds there in past years.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I know this is a list of multiple-purpose projects and I happen to recall that was one, too, and I wondered why it was not included unless it was because that ground has already been covered with respect to it.

General CHORPENING. Yes.

Senator McCLELLAN. I think you covered that in your testimony here yesterday. You covered that particular project, did you?

Colonel WHIPPLE. No, sir. We have not covered that particular project before this committee.

Senator McCLELLAN. You have not covered it yet?
Colonel WHIPPLE. No, sir.
Senator ELLENDER. I did ask some questions.

General CHORPENING. Senator Ellender did ask some questions about it yesterday.

Senator McCLELLAN. I was unable to be here yesterday because of a meeting of the Commission on the Reorganization of the Executive Branch of the Government. I do want to be present when Table Rock is discussed and if you should reach it when I am not present I wish you would defer it until I can be present because it is quite important to my State and although the dam itself is not within the State boundaries—it is over in Missouri—the project is of vital importance and it is one of those projects that will do just what you have been testifying here, that it will increase the benefits of other projects already constructed within the integrated program.

Therefore, I do want that developed thoroughly and fully emphasized when we get to that project and I should like to be present. If you should reach it, Mr. Chairman, when I am not here, I hope you will defer it until I can be present.

Senator Cordon. I will say, Senator, if the present acting chairman is chairman and does not overlook it, the Senator's request will be granted, but I know that if by oversight the testimony does come in we will be more than happy to refer to it when the Senator is present.

Senator ELLENDER. Since no money is provided for it is it going to come up?

RESURVEY OF POWER POTENTIALS

a

Senator MCCLELLAN. I may say that money has been provided, nearly $2.5 million is already appropriated and now available, which was held up here in view of a provision that was written into the conference report last year about a resurvey of power potentials in that area and power needs. That survey has been completed, a favorable report filed, and that money could now be released by the action of the two appropriation committees. I am not going to ask this committee to act now. I am going to give the House committee a chance to pass on it first, but if it is not acted on by the time this bill reaches the stage of final action by this committee, then I am going to ask that some action be taken and I want to develop the record for that purpose.

I do not only intend to ask for this money to be released, the $2.5 million, but I am going to ask for further consideration with respect to the amount of money the Corps of Engineers has requested and says it needs to carry on that project in a feasible and economic manner to get construction under way.

About $3 million more, as I recall, is what the Corps of Engineers has testified would be a suitable amount to carry on this project as the Congress intended that it should be constructed.

« PreviousContinue »