« PreviousContinue »
vising us on June 16, 1950, that the line would be built. He concludes the letter by stating:
You may be assured that this matter will receive continued attention in order that the work may be completed by the time the Fort Gibson Dam is placed in operation. Of course, the dam was placed in operation in 1950 for flood control and the powerhouse has been operated since March 30, 1953.
Last year the Corps of Engineers put an item in the budget for this flow line, but the request was deleted by the Bureau of the Budget because the engineers did not attempt to justify the request they had made. That gives the status of the appropriations matter up to date.
I want to point this out to you, which I think I might have mentioned last year. The city feels this is a very serious matter. Naturally, the water supply of any city is very important. It is the No. 1 factor. So after the Congress heard our reports last year, this matter was referred to the conference committee which in turn asked the Corps of Engineers to prepare a current report on the effect of the dam on our water supply and have that report ready by January 1, 1954.
We are still in a serious drought. Domestic and industrial uses are being jeopardized. The industry we now have wants protection. So we voted a bond issue on January 19 of this year in the amount of $2 million and we sold our bonds on February 8, just a couple of weeks ago, and we are going to pay $512,000 interest on that bond issue.
We are going to build the flow line of this outlet already in the dam provided by the Corps of Engineers to our water plant. That is why this line goes on over here. This is the route of the line we intend to build (indicating), 48 inches inside diameter. We expect the construction to cost us between $1,750,000 and the $2 million we voted. We intend and hope to have this line completed and in operation 12 months from now.
The people, to show their attitude, passed this bond issue by a majority of better than 3 to 1. We told them during the campaign and in the resolutions of the council that we were not going to relax our claim with the Government to build or pay for a portion of the cost of this line. We were going to continue it in the Congress and even the Court of Claims if necessary.
I would like to read word for word the last page of this statement because this is the new material which was not submitted to the committee last year, and particularly the Corps of Engineers has filed a report with the conference committee.
I might state we do not have a copy of this report. We do have from our delegation a copy of a letter written by General Sturgis to Senator Styles Bridges. So what we are answering is only the copy of the letter we have seen in that respect. We have not seen the report of the engineers otherwise, if there is anything more.
We are answering, so we have not seen in full. That is the reason I would like to read this verbatim, and its technical points; and I am not an engineer but Mr. Clay is an engineer and Mr. Wing, who is with us, who used to be with the Corps of Engineers. Both worked on the construction of the Fort Gibson Dam.
The city of Muskogee will accept $1,115,000 as a compromise sum, as recommended by last year's Senate Committee on Civil Functions Appropriations, as the Government's share in the cost of the line, which report was approved by the United States Senate. This estimate is based upon the cost of the construction of a 36-inch line from the dam to our intake in the Grand River. Though the city has always felt that a 48-inch line should be built, based upon the capacity of our present tunnel, the city does recognize that fact that a new line will afford complete protection, whereas the city has suffered some damage in the past during periods of extreme drought.
As pointed out above, the city has voted bonds to cover the cost of the 48-inch line. The city would like to point out, however, that the delay in the construction of the line, which has resulted from the repeated assurances of Government action and from both our congressional delegation and the Corps of Engineers, has resulted in a tremendous increase in the cost of the line.
Construction costs have increased a minimum of 65 percent. Interest alone on the $2 million will cost city an additional $100,000 to $130,000. The line today will cost the city between $600,000 and $750,000 more today than in 1945 when the city's first studies were made.
We would like to call your attention to a chart which we have developed from data obtained from the Corps of Engineers.
These are not our figures; these are figures from the Corps of Engineers.
This chart is included in the appendix as exhibit D. We believe that if we accepted the premise that the engineers could operate the dam to protect us, which we do not, that we should still point out that there will be a tremendous savings to the Government by our building the flow line. We feel that Congress should consider this economic saving.
Water is having to be discharged from the dam now to keep the Arkansas from flowing into our water intake. In other words, to force it out. In November the inflow was 82 second-feet. To keep the Arkansas out, they had to release almost 200 second-feet. That is an awful lot of water. Water as acute as it is, the situation is serious. By us building the line there will be a savings to the Government with the water they can retain for power-production purposes.
Senator ELLENDER. Did your city fathers through the engineers study alternatives to this? I do not know the size of the river. I asked the Department a while ago. That is, of putting the dam at the confluence to prevent the Arkansas from flowing in, or No. 2, of building a place to store water. That is what we do in our hometown. We have salt water down there. What we did was to build a large storage area. We pumped it full of fresh water so as to protect ourselves against salt water encroachment, so long as the water were pumped from it by you. If it turns salt, we go to the storage tanks.
Have you studied alternative methods !
Mr. BEARD. That is a very good point. At the outset it appeared to be a fine solution. However, we studied that. As compared to the cost of this type of thing, we studied that and we found even though this is slightly more in cost, this does guarantee us definite protection. The city has built in the past a sort of jetty to try and keep the Arkansas River out.
Frankly, this bank here is being eroded away [indicating). We did not feel with the money spent for that project with what could occur in the future, because this is a wild river, that it would be worthwhile. There is no dam on it. They do plan dams on it some day, but that is the thing. Maybe in 50 years or 100 years if they build another dam on this river and a couple on the Arkansas, you could regulate the 2 rivers and we could be protected. We have considered moving the intake upstream. That would be cheaper.
Senator ELLENDER. What caused me to ask you the question was that in your statement you are diverting from your dam water that could be easily used to develop electric power. Since water is so scarce, it ought to be used to its maximum. I wonder if the engineers have given thought to that.
General CHORPENING. Yes, sir; very definitely. There is a report submitted by us on the 17th of December 1953 with your committee on this matter. That was very fully taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusions that are stated therein.
Mr. BEARD. I think I could give another answer. We had a flood in the year of 1943 that when this dam was built there were 4,000 second-feet of water. This dam was designed and planned to take care of 900,000; in other words, twice the largest flood we ever had. Say we would have another flood as then. If so, I have been told that it would come up this channel and it would be 20 feet deep at the dam.
You talk about conservation. Eighty second-feet of water is what they are letting out in Oklahoma. That is a lot of water in one sense, but the city is using only 10 second-feet. Our water supply is just a trickle. Yes, if we would use only water released for power purposes, that would be fine. The efficiency of this dam for power purposes we do not think is good.
We will try to show you why we cannot depend upon their power protection. We are after the ultimate in protecting our water supply. We use 10 second-feet or less which is so negligible, in fact, 10 secondfeet would not keep the riverbed alive.
On the basis of water stored to the top of the power pool, the Government can operate 2 generators continuously for 5 days, or all 4 generators for 212 days. On the basis of inflow into the reservoir, 2 generators can operate an average of 7.2 hours per day and 4 generators 4.3 hours per day.
I would like for our city manager to refer to this chart and have him explain to you about the power operations, what we consider the saving of the water would amount to with our flow line properly capitalized and what the saving to the Government would be.
Mr. HARRELL. Fort Gibson powerhouse has 4 turbines. These turbines are operated by either stored water, water flowing into the
reservoir, or a combination of both. In the 3 feet of normal power storage there is only 50,000 acre-feet of water stored. Two generators operating around the clock 24 hours would draw down, according to our computations, about 9,900 acre-feet, which means 2 generators operating continuously 24 hours would exhaust that 3 feet of storage in 5 days.
Four generators, of course, would cut it in half operating continuously for 24 hours.
Operating from inffow only without storage, 2 generators will draw down approximately 5,000 cubic feet per second. We will show from the duration curve that the inflow of the Grand reaches or exceeds 5,000 second-feet about 30 percent of the time. Based on averages it means they operate approximately 8 hours a day, or 4 generators drawing down approximately 10,000 second-feet in continuous operation with a normal inflow of the river reaching or exceeding 10,000 second-feet 18 percent of the time, and operating from inflow only they could operate about 4.3 hours.
Of course, a combination of the two gets rather involved.
Mr. BEARD. I believe you can see why we could not depend upon the powerhouse uses of the dam for our water supply. As we have computed it from the figures which originated with the Corps of Engineers, we cannot depend on the powerhouse. The percentage of efficiency would be quite low.
These inflows may be obtained from the duration curve developed by the Corps of Engineers for the Fort Gibson Dam. Your attention is directed to this chart, where it will be noted that the inflow will reach, or exceed, 5,000 cubic feet per second for 30 percent of the time and 10,000 cubic feet per second 18 percent of the time. This chart is included in the appendix as exhibit E.
I wish Mr. Harrell would explain these curves. These can show you very graphically what the situation is with reference to power development.
Mr. HARRELL. The blue line is the duration curve of the Grand River developed. That is the average daily discharge from 1926 through 1948. Up the edge is the discharge in thousand cubic feet per second. Plotted across the bottom is the percentage of the time. You can see over here on the lower end periods of extreme drought when your flow is down to practically nothing. Then the maximum flood of 1943 reached a peak of 400,000 second-feet flow. Then plotted against it is the duration curve of the Arkansas obtained from studies made.
On the basis of inflow, the flow of the river will average 5,000 secondfeet about 30 percent of the time, and 10,000 second-feet about 18 percent of the time. Right now we are in about the third year of the drought when the inflow is very slight. The average is around 80 second-feet a day.
The difference in flow here that has to be combated, the rate of flow of the Arkansas, it takes sufficient releases from the dam when the powerhouse is not in operation to combat the corresponding flow of the Arkansas.
Mr. BEARD. In other words, with the Grand flowing as it is here, here is the Arkansas River. Releases have to be made from the dam to take care of this. We have not seen the studies made by the Corps of Engineers that the conference committee requested last summer, but necessarily those studies were made and cover the operation of June, July, and August, 3 months when both rivers were as low as they had ever been. I think consideration should be given to the normal flow of both rivers over a period of a long time rather than drought years.
It must be recognized then that without additional control and regulation of the river by the addition of other dams above Fort Gibson, there can never be continuous operation of the four generators. To. develop this point a bit further, the total annual demand of 4 generators—7,500,000 acre-feet-will exceed the average inflow of 5,900,000 acre-feet over a 17-year period by 10 percent should complete utilization of the total inflow of the reservoir be possible.
Since the reservoir will only store 900,000 acre-feet above power pool, it can be seen that total utilization can never be possible. Continuous operation, however, is not necessarily demanded at the present since waterpower is best utilized as peak power-power needed during the high demand period.
To protect the city's water supply, the engineers must release water when the turbines are not in operation. At the present time, they are getting by with the very minimum. They are releasing 80 cubic-feet per second. This sufficies to control the Arkansas, except when a rise occurs on the Arkansas. This release then has to be increased sufficiently to combat that rise.
It has been estimated by the Corps of Engineers that a release from the dam of water equivalent to 15 percent of the flow of the Arkansas will combat the Arkansas. It must be pointed out that 80 cubic feet per second is sufficient now—during the driest period in history, when the inflow in the Grand River is 85 percent below normal and 36 percent below the previous low period of record. This cannot conceivably suffice when there is normal flow on the Arkansas. To refer to our chart again, 80 cubic feet per second release during nongenerating time would generate $16,400 worth of power annually. To capitalize at 212 percent, this would reach $656,000. This is making no allowance for operation costs on the part of the Government.
It must be pointed out that protecting the city's water by operation of the dam is rather expensive and, we feel, too involved for the city to depend on. The Arkansas and its tributaries must be gaged daily at many points miles upstream from Muskogee. Engineer personnel must take these daily readings and compute the amount of rise and the time that this rise will pass our intake, and then advise the Fort Gibson office of the anticipated date and the amount of release necessary.
We cannot estimate the personnel involved in these operations, but we feel that their costs could easily exceed $5,000 annually. To add this cost to the above $16,400 and our capitalized investment will reach $856,000.
We will not attempt to estimate what the savings to the Government will actually be. We do know, however, that 80 cubic feet per second can only suffice during periods of extreme drought. During the 70 percent of the time when inflow on the Grand will be less than 5,000 cubic feet per second as reflected by exhibit E, the flow of the Arkansas can reach 15,000 cubic feet per second. To combat this flow,