Page images
PDF
EPUB

BENEFIT-TO-COST RATIO

Senator ELLENDER. What was the cost-to-benefit ratio of both projects?

Colonel STARBIRD. At the time of authorization it was 1.08 to 1. The present benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.18 to 1.

Senator ELLENDER. That is, for both the San Antonio and Chino Creeks?

Colonel STARBIRD. That ratio is for both the dam and the channel, considered collectively, as far as costs and, as well as benefits, are concerned. The ratio is 1.18 to 1, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. I just cannot follow you there at all. One is dependent on the other and neither stands on its own feet; is that right? One is complementary to the other? Colonel STARBIRD. That is correct, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Neither stands on its own feet, but together, they register ratio of 1.18 to 1?

Colonel STARBIRD. That is correct, sir.
Senator ELLENDER. How do you work that out, now?

Colonel STARBIRD. We take the overall cost of the 2 features, sir, and we take the benefits that will be realized from the 2 features, and contrast 1 with the other. That is, first, costs, with, second, the benefits.

Senator ELLENDER. If they are so dependent on each other, how did you come to get the money to start the reservoir ? That is the point that I cannot understand. It strikes me that, since they are so dependent on each other, they should have been built concurrently.

General CHORPENING. Senator, this work of taking care of the stabilization or straightening of the channel below the dam will not take as much time as the construction of the dam.

Now, we have been on the construction of the dam for 2 or 3 years. We expect to complete the construction of the dam in fiscal year 1956. Now we want to bring this project to the point where we could come in for construction funds for fiscal 1956 and we hope to go ahead and bring it to completion slightly after we would complete the San Antonio Dam.

Colonel STARBIRD. I might point out too, sir, that the dam itself will certain advantages even without the channel improvement.

Senator ELLENDER. I know that. You have said that, but the costbenefit ratio would not be according to our yardstick here. It would be less than 1 to 1.

Colonel STARBIRD. No, not necessarily, sir. We have not computed it separately, because the two should function together. That is the way they were originally planned. However, it is not a certainty at all that if you forego the channel work entirely, the reservoir would not have a ratio of better than 1 to 1.

AUTHORIZATION

Senator HAYDEN. Let me ask, Mr. Chairman, was the authorization for the dam and for the channel made at the same time?

Colonel STARBIRD. It was, sir.
Senator HAYDEN. This was in one package from the start?

Colonel STARBIRD. The original authorization covered both the reservoir and the channel work as interrelated projects.

Senator ELLENDER. The cost-benefit is so small, 1.18 to 1 is not very much. The project about which we are now talking would not stand on its own feet except for the other.

General CHORPENING. I think there is a little added information that might be helpful. It is true that the benefit-cost ratio on this project is smaller than many, but involved in this project and protected by this project are certain very important railroad lines and highways which, if damaged, and if their operation was suspended by floods, would have a tremendous impact on the region, and even nationally. It ties into a great population center, where we are manufacturing airplanes, and other things, so, although the benefitcost ratio is rather low, the impact of flood damages, if they occurred, would be very considerable.

Senator ELLENDER. But you did give weight to that situation in reaching the 1.18 to 1, did you not!

General CHORPENING. Yes, we did, as far as possible to estimate. Senator ELLENDER. Well, it is already in there.

General CHORPENING. But they are the kind of damages that you cannot evaluate so much in dollars and cents, Senator.

Senator DWORSHAK. Proceed.

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

Colonel STARBIRD. The next project is a project along the lower San Joaquin River. It is a project that involves about 120 miles of that river.

The project has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1. This also is a part of a comprehensive plan. We have had appropriated to date $351,200 for planning. The amount recommended for fiscal year 1955 is $40,000, which will bring the project to a point where construction can be initiated.

Senator ELLENDER. This is excavation only?

Colonel STARBIRD. Sir, it involves the improvement of the levees, the construction of levees, channel improvement, and the creation of floodways, together with certain bank protection.

Senator ELLENDER. What contribution, if any, is there by the local authorities?

Colonel STARBIRD. The local authorities, sir, will furnish the lands, the rights-of-way, protect the Federal Government against damages, and will effect any necessary public relocations, and maintain and operate the project upon completion. It is estimated that that initial cost to them will be $1,790,000.

Senator ELLENDER. What is the local contribution in the San Antonio and Chino Creeks project?

Colonel STARBIRD. There is no local contribution called for in the authorizing document for that project.

Senator ELLENDER. That is only excavation?
Colonel STARBIRD. That is channel improvement only, sir.

CHATFIELD RESERVOIR, COLO.

Colonel STARBIRD. The next project is a reservoir project on the North Platte River, located just above the city of Denver. It is the Chatfield Reservoir project. No funds have been appropriated to date toward the planning of that project. $50,000 are recommended for fiscal year 1955, which will initiate the field investigation and work on the definite project report. The benefit to cost ratio of this project is 1.39 to 1, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Is that built to assist other projects, or is that the benefit to cost ratio of that project alone?

Colonel STARBIRD. That is a benefit-to-cost ratio for this project, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Is it strictly for flood control?

Colonel STARBIRD. This is a reservoir strictly for flood control. However, if at some future time the equivalent food control is given in upstream reservoirs by the other projects, then some interchange of storage might be made in the interest of irrigation.

Senator ELLENDER. Is there any local contribution?

Colonel STARBIRD. There is no local contribution on this, sir. It is a reservoir project.

HARTFORD (FOLLY BROOK SECTION), Conn. Colonel STARBIRD. The next project is a small addition to an already completed project. It is the Folly Brook dike and pressure conduit project in Hartford, Conn. It is a very small project.

It has, collectively with the works already installed, a benefit-to-cost ratio of 5.6 to 1. We have had no planning funds appropriated to date. The recommendation for fiscal year 1955 is $25,000 which will bring the project to construction status.

Senator HAYDEN. Is this a creek that runs into the Connecticut River at that point?

Colonel STARBIRD. That is correct, sir. It is a creek that runs in at the extreme flank of the existing project. It floods behind the existing project. Therefore, this new additional project is one to protect the Hank by adding a small section of levees and by installing a pressure conduit to carry the water through the levee and into the river.

Senator HAYDEN. The water really comes out of the Connecticut River, not from Folly Brook!

Colonel STARBIRD. No, sir, it comes from Folly Brook primarily, but there is some backwater, as you mentioned, from the river, and there will be a short section of levees to protect against that backwater.

COLUMBIA RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION, IDAHO, WASHINGTON, WYOMING,

UTAH, NEVADA, AND MONTANA Colonel STARBIRD. The next two projects, the Portneuf and Teton River projects, are carried on your justification sheet under the name Columbia River local protection projects.

The authorization originally was for several projects, and the corps is pulling those several projects out and conducting studies on those independently.

The first of the projects, the Portneuf project, is one which had had appropriated to date $20,000 in planning money. $25,000 more of the $75,000 carried in your justification sheet would be put on the Portneuf project in fiscal year 1955. This would bring the Portneuf project, which, incidentally, is a project which carries the water through Pocatello, Idaho, to a construction readiness stage.

The benefit-to-cost ratio of this project is 1.14 to 1.

The second of the two projects considered in the Columbia River local protection projects is the Teton River project. This is a project which has had $15,000 appropriated to date for planning. A total of $15,000 would be applied in fiscal year 1955.

Now, in addition, the authorization for these local protection projects carried the provision that we would investigate each in detail and determine whether or not each individually had a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. We do that before we conduct any detailed planning on any particular project.

35,000 of the $75,000 carried on your justification sheet will be used for further preliminary investigation of projects, to insure that they have a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio and, therefore, that they justify further detailed planning by the corps.

Senator ELLENDER. You mean on their own?
Colonel STARBIRD. On their own.

Senator ELLENDER. Has that not been done before they were authorized ?

Colonel STARBIRD. In this particular case, sir; the authorizing document, I understand, lumped several projects.

Senator DWORSHAK. All in the Columbia River Basin?
Colonel STARBIRD. All in the Columbia River Basin.

Senator ELLENDER. I wonder if you could put in the record at this point all of the projects that have been authorized under this item of which you are now talking. You say you selected two.

(The information referred to follows:) The 1950 Flood Control Act authorized local flood protection work at 35 localities on the Columbia River subject to the condition that prior to initiation of construction, the work at each individual location be found economically justified, and subject also to the condition that the total cost of these projects be limited to $15 million. The 35 localities are as follows: Clark Fork :

Central Snake River :
Missoula, Mont.

Malheur River, Oreg.
St. Regis River, Mont.

Boise Valley, Idaho
Lightning Creek, Idaho

Payette Valley, Idaho Yakima River at Ellensburg, Wash. Weiser River, Idaho Okanogan River, Wash.

Middle and Lower Snake River : Methow River, Wash.

Whitebird, Idaho Entiat River, Wash.

South Fork of Clearwater River, Wenatchee River, Wash.

Idaho Crab and Wilson Creek, Wash.

Kendrick, Idaho Upper Snake River:

Palouse River, Oreg. Heise-Roberts area, Idaho

Grande Ronde River, Oreg. Shelley area, Idaho

Minor tributaries below the Yakima

River:
Teton River, Idaho
Blackfoot River, Idaho

Lower Walla Walla River, Wash.

Hill Creek, Wash.
Portneuf River and Marsh Creek,

Touchet River, Oreg.
Idaho

Umatilla River, Oreg.
Mud Lake area, Idaho

John Day River, Oreg. Little Wood River, Idaho

Prineville, Oreg. Camas Creek area, Idaho

Randle, Wash.

Lower Cowlitz River, Wash. Colonel STARBIRD. We have carried on detailed study on these two;

yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. How many more are in contemplation?

Colonel STARBIRD. There were approximately 35 different localities authorized for investigation and for construction, but there was the

date toward the planning of that project. $50,000 are recommended for fiscal year 1955, which will initiate the field investigation and work on the definite project report. The benefit to cost ratio of this project is 1.39 to 1, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Is that built to assist other projects, or is that the benefit to cost ratio of that project alone?

Colonel STARBIRD. That is a benefit-to-cost ratio for this project, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Is it strictly for flood control?

Colonel STARBIRD. This is a reservoir strictly for flood control. However, if at some future time the equivalent flood control is given in upstream reservoirs by the other projects, then some interchange of storage might be made in the interest of irrigation.

Senator ELLENDER. Is there any local contribution?

Colonel STARBIRD. There is no local contribution on this, sir. It is a reservoir project.

HARTFORD (FOLLY BROOK SECTION), Conn. Colonel STARBIRD. The next project is a small addition to an already completed project. It is the folly Brook dike and pressure conduit project in Hartford, Conn. It is a very small project.

It has, collectively with the works already installed, a benefit-to-cost ratio of 5.6 to 1. We have had no planning funds appropriated to date. The recommendation for fiscal year 1955 is $25,000 which will bring the project to construction status.

Senator HAYDEN. Is this a creek that runs into the Connecticut River at that point?

Colonel STARBIRD. That is correct, sir. It is a creek that runs in at the extreme flank of the existing project. It floods behind the existing project. Therefore, this new additional project is one to protect the Hank by adding a small section of levees and by installing a pressure conduit to carry the water through the levee and into the river.

Senator HAYDEN. The water really comes out of the Connecticut River, not from Folly Brook?

Colonel STARBIRD. No, sir, it comes from Folly Brook primarily, but there is some backwater, as you mentioned, from the river, and there will be a short section of levees to protect against that backwater.

COLUMBIA RIVER LOCAL PROTECTION, IDAHO, WASHINGTON, WYOMING,

UTAH, NEVADA, AND MONTANA Colonel STARBIRD. The next two projects, the Portneuf and Teton River projects, are carried on your justification sheet under the name Columbia River local protection projects.

The authorization originally was for several projects, and the corps is pulling those several projects out and conducting studies on those independently.

The first of the projects, the Portneuf project, is one which had had appropriated to date $20,000 in planning money. $25,000 more of the $75,000 carried in your justification sheet would be put on the Portneuf project in fiscal year 1955. This would bring the Portneuf project, which, incidentally, is a project which carries the water through Pocatello, Idaho, to a construction readiness stage.

« PreviousContinue »