stantially in excess of the cost of the line proposed and repeatedly promised to the city. Therefore, we respectfully request that favorable consideration be given to reimbursing the city in the amount of $1,115,000.

(Attachments: Exhibit A, aerial photograph; Exhibit B, aerial photograph; Exhibit C, aerial photograph; Exhibit D, power drawdown chart; Exhibit E, duration curve chart.)

EXHIBIT D.—Fort Gibson Powerhouse, Power Division

Normal power storage_.

50,000 acre-feet.

Power drawdown 24-hour operation (2 generators) 9,000 acre-feet.

Senator KNOWLAND. I might read into the record at this point the statement which appeared in the report of the Senate committee on the civil functions bill last year, which reads as follows on page 15:

After hearing the testimony of local witnesses, this committee desires that the Corps of Engineers proceed, in cooperation with the city authorities in Mus-kogee, Okla., with the construction of a waterline from Fort Gibson Dam to the present intake of the water supply system of the city of Muskogee at a cost not to exceed $1,115,000, provided however that if the city desires a larger line than 36 inches in diameter, the additional cost will be paid by the city of Muskogee. This committee desires the work be started as soon as practicable, using funds that still remain available for the Fort Gibson project from earlier fiscal year appropriations and such additional funds as are needed be included in the budget for 1955.

You may proceed.

GENERAL STATEMENT

Mr. BEARD. You stated you would prefer that I speak extemporaneously rather than follow the statement, is that right?

Senator KNOWLAND. The statement will appear in full in the record,. and I thought you could briefly state your problem and then we will have this material in the record.

Mr. BEARD. If I may, then, I will summarize the statement because I recognize the fact that you Senators were present when we testified last year. I believe you are thoroughly familiar with this subject, although since last year there have been other developments and other factual material we have prepared that today we think is quite impressive and which I am sure you will be concerned about.

To refresh your memory, I will refer to this drawing to let you know the situation. This is the Grand River in Oklahoma some 9 or 10 miles from Muskogee. This is the Arkansas River [indicating]. At the confluence of the Grand and Arkansas, the city of Muskogee, Okla., has the intake tower and structure in the river from which we draw our city water supply and convey it from this intake to our water plant by a tunnel.

Senator KNOWLAND. If I might interrupt, we have Senator Kerr with us. I know the Senator is very busy with his other committees. Mr. BEARD. That being the physical setup, the city of Muskogee has taken its raw water supply from the Grand River at this point since the year 1902, 5 years before statehood. Since that date it has enjoyed a most constant supply of good, raw water. The Grand River has been recognized as a very good stream for domestic water supplies, above average. However, the Arkansas River has never been recognized as a stream that could be used for domestic consumption and even industrial consumption. It is considered a contaminated or polluted river. Not knowing a better word, the content of the stream is so high with salt that it cannot be used for any purpose at all.

So in the year of 1911 the city of Muskogee planned a water supply. In 1911 the city floated a bond issue and we constructed a larger intake facility. This intake structure is connected to a 54-inch tunnel under the river which will provide 40 million gallons of water per day. Since that year of 1911, we have taken our water through that tunnel through this intake.

FORT GIBSON DAM

I might state that the Arkansas River has troubled the city on only five intervals between 1921 and 1936. In 1936 the area in that part of the United States suffered a most extreme drought, and as a result of that we did die with the Arkansas River at that time. The construction of the Fort Gibson Dam was begun in the year 1946.

The dam was completed in 1950. The powerhouse was completed and placed in operation in 1953. The Fort Gibson Dam is the second of three proposed dams on the Grand River. I might point out that in the late thirties and early forties the Pensecola Dam some 50 miles upstream was completed and put into operation. This is the second of the proposed dams. The third dam is the Markhams Ferry Dam, which is a line between this one and the Pensecola Dam.

In the 12-year period from 1941 when Pensecola Dam was filled and to 1953 when the Fort Gibson powerhouse was placed in operation, there were only 3 days when the presence of the Arkansas River was indicated in our water supply. In all instances the Arkansas River content was very slight. Since June 3, 1953, last year-and these appearances occurred after we appeared-with the Fort Gibson in operation, Arkansas River water has entered our intake in significant amounts on five different dates: June 3, July 15, August 19, November 23, and January 11, 1953. These four dates resulted from rises on the Arkansas River with the Grand River lower. On January 11, however, the Arkansas was low and partially frozen over.

It has not been determined as yet the exact cause or reason for the Arkansas River flowing into our intake on January 11, but from the studies we have made and reviewing the Corps of Engineers' reports on the Tennessee Valley system, it can be summed up that possibly this river flowing much colder than water being used in this dam would cause the Arkansas to flow up into the Grand into the warmer stream and into our intake. That is referred to as density in the Engineers' reports.

That present an entirely new situation in which we might be subjected to Arkansas River water in the wintertime. Up to that time

our fear had been with the dam in operation and the powerhouse in operation holding the water back. Each time this would rise slightly, we would have Arkansas River water. That had been our concern. Now we have a new situation in which the stream flows up in the wintertime.

Senator ELLENDER. How much does the Arkansas River rise at its confluence with the Grand River?

Mr. BEARD. It is less than a thousand feet from the confluence to our intake, with the Grand low, and that is the time we do have a slight rise because there is so little difference. A rise of a foot or so can make the difference.

Senator ELLENDER. How deep is the Grand River at that point where your intake is?

Mr. BEARD. I would judge 15 to 20 feet.

CHLORINATION

I might point out in that experience in January of this year the chloride content of the city's water supply was the highest in record, 2,650 parts per million. 212 million times higher than any previous record and 10 times the United States Treasury standards for domestic water supply.

Your attention is invited to the fact that in this period of 8 months, 8 months prior to January we are speaking of, there have been as many instances of contamination of the Arkansas River since this powerhouse was put in operation as occurred in the 15-year period between 1921 and 1936 and more than that in the 12-year period from

1941 to 1953.

We would like to commend the Corps of Engineers for releasing additional water at the dam where we have discovered Arkansas River water. Arkansas River water has entered our intake on these occasions, and the Corps of Engineers notified the Tulsa-Oklahoma. They notified the Mente Dam. When the gates are opened, this takes 6 to 8 hours to reach this point where it will relieve our condition. Although they have been good about cooperating, still after the damage is noted or the contamination is noted, it is 6 to 8 hours before we receive any relief.

The city does not feel that the welfare of its 40,000 citizens and its whole economic future can be left to chance. It feels that it is unreasonable for the Government or the Corps of Engineers to subject its citizens to such chance operations. In other words, this entire Arkansas River, its tributaries are flowing streams and to determine when a rise will occur requires gaging and keeping up with that. In some of these instances where we have had Arkansas River water the Corps of Engineers at Tulsa anticipated those rises on the Arkansas and tried to determine when they would reach here so they could make the initial openings. Human error is involved when you are dealing with these things. At least we have proof it did occur even with them doing their best to be ready for it.

Senator ELLENDER. Did you have any trouble at all before the Fort Gibson Dam was erected?

Mr. BEARD. Senator, in the 15-year period between 1921 and 1936 we had only 5 interruptions and they were slight. In the drought year of

42592-54-33

1936 we had trouble in that summer. So the interruptions we had were of a slight nature. As I have pointed out, in this last 8 or 10 months we have had as many instances as we had in the entire time.

STREAMFLOW

Of course, that is brought about by the fact this stream does not flow as normally as it did. There are two dams on it. We are undergoing now worse drought than we have ever had and it is still continuing. Consequently, there is not a great deal of water to be contained in that reservoir. We are trying to contain all the water they can. They are releasing merely 82 second-feet, except when a rise might occur down here that would require more.

I might mention that I was before the Supreme Court of Oklahoma one day in November and I had a phone call down there from the district engineer in Tulsa to tell me that they were going to quit making power at the dam. He said, "When we shut down our turbines, that means we will only release from the dam the actual amount of the inflow." Knowing the inflow was around 80 or 90 second-feet, I knew that was plenty for our water supply, but the hitch in the deal was the Arkansas River at that same moment was about 4 feet up above normal stage. So that was a serious problem.

By working through the State agencies there in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma State Planning and Resources Board and the dam authority, we got permission to release more than the inflow to protect our water supply. So it is sort of a touch and go situation, watching the Arkansas, the tributaries, and how much they are releasing from the dam and where we have water that is useful from one day to the next.

In the history of our negotiations on this problem we started back in the year 1941. We employed very reliable engineers to advise us what the effect of the Fort Gibson Dam would be on our water supply, because we learned for the first time in 1941 the Fort Gibson Dam was planned and would be built. We were advised at that time back in 1941 that the dam would cause a very adverse effect upon the city's water supply system by reason of retarding the natural flow of the stream.

INTAKE PROTECTIONS

On December 8, 1941, the City Council of Muskogee passed a resolution stating that if the dam were built-we made application to the Government and the Corps of Engineers to construct the water flow line. That is what this red line is, the general route of the flowline. Senator ELLENDER. What is the distance?

Mr. BEARD. This distance is approximately 6 miles. We wanted our intake protected, so in our negotiations with the Government we have discussed only the protection of our intake, realizing our responsibility from there to our water plant. This is a distance of around 5 miles to the intake and possibly another mile to the water plant. So we made application back in 1941. Frankly, we are at the end of a 13-year crusade to try and protect and accomplish what we have been after for the 13 years.

During the construction of the dam, a 48-inch outlet was placed in the dam structure. All the works and valves are in there for the

purpose of this flowline. In 1947 the civil functions appropriations bill was passed and contained this language:

Provided further, That in the construction of the Fort Gibson flood-control project of Oklahoma the Chief of Engineers is authorized and directed to cooperate with the officials of the city of Muskogee in protecting the domestic water supply of such city.

After that bill was passed, the Corps of Engineers did not acknowledge this as a directive to them and did not feel they had sufficient authority under the quoted provision to construct the flow line at Government expense. The corps contended further that Congress had failed to make an additional increase in the appropriation in the 1947 bill for the civil functions to cover the cost of this construction. The city was advised of this attitude of the Corps of Engineers in a conference with Mr. G. L. Beard, who is in the Office of the Chief of Engineers, in March 1949.

This gentleman, Mr. Beard, stated the Engineers would prefer that there be no additional amendment or legislation written giving specific direction for the construction of the flow line, but to protect them they stated the corps would carry out the construction should the Civil Functions Committee report disclose the committee recommended construction of the line and additional appropriations be included.

COMMITTEE REPORT CITED

So following that discussion an agreement on the part of Mr. Beard and the city authorities, the Oklahoma delegation, the Senate committee report on the civil functions appropriations bill of 1950 carried this language, which was agreed upon by everyone that it would accomplish the desired result and bring prompt action to build the flow line:

For this reason the Government should move the intake upstream to connect with the reservoir formed by the Fort Gibson Dam.

The report further stated

Thus it is the committee's opinion in connection with the appropriation for the Fort Gibson Reservoir, Okla., as well as the appropriations for other authorized projects, that such appropriations are available for purposes appropriate to carry out the project as authorized by Congress.

In other words, they did not need to have any specific directive to build the flow line. The appropriations for the project can be used for carrying out the purposes of the project in general. They are not itemized.

Everybody felt this would be accepted by the Office of the Chief of Engineers as a directive from Congress to proceed. Without going into any further detail, the line has not been built, of course. We have felt honestly and sincerely that the Government had acknowledged its responsibility to build a line. We are not saying a 48-inch line.

Last year we were very pleased about your report. You recommended an appropriation of $1,115,000, which would have been an amount equal to a cost of the 36-inch line. All of the negotiations from the year 1947 until about the year 1951 led us to believe the line would be built, partly if not all, as far as the 36-inch line was concerned, at Government expense.

I have a letter here, which you will find in the prepared statement, from Major De Noya for the district engineer of the Tulsa office ad