Page images

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Would you mind at that point if we were to ask Colonel Feringa this: Can you tell us the relative proportion of this project of power to navigation ?

Colonel FERINGA. I cannot give it to you, offhand, but I can give you this, for instance, that the junction dam, which would cost $24,139,000, and that dam is both for power and for navigation; that the upper Columbia lock and dam would cost $30,400,000, and that would be for both navigation and power; that the Fort Benning dam would be for navigation alone, and that is estimated to cost $6,956,000. The Buford Reservoir, which is used for power, water supply, flood control, would cost $17,631,000, and the channel work, which due to these high lifts would be negligible, would cost $735,000. That is on page 6 of the Board report. Mr. DONDERO. Very little flood control?

Mr. PACE. In the Buford Dam, there is considerable flood control. The benefits are estimated at $100,000 per year, annual benefits from flood control.

I think, Mr. Dondero, this is a truly multiple-purpose project.

Mr. DONDERO. About evenly divided. It looks that way from the figures. Mr. PACE. About so; yes.

Mr. RANKIN. We have spent more than this entire amount, I am sure, on a single dam that would not produce more than the power that this project would produce.

Mr. Dondero. This is almost as good a project as the St. Lawrence seaway.

Mr. PAGE. We think it is of equal merit.

Mr. JACKSON. I assume, Mr. Pace, the power project would be selfliquidating.

Mr. Pace. I think so.

Colonel FERINGA. I think the whole project is self-liquidating because we show that the entire project, the benefits to the United States, are greater than the cost.

Now, when we figure those benefits, and when we figure the costs, we include every item of maintenance, every cost involved, interest during construction, and we set against that the benefits. Therefore, inasmuch as the benefits are greater than the cost, to my mind, the project is self-liquidating.

Mr. Jackson. We only amortize the power features of the dam out of the power revenue. You are not charging the flood-control and navigation features to power.

Colonel FERINGA. We charge off everything, Mr. Jackson. If you mean do we get a financial return, we only get the financial return from the power, but we get a real return to the entire country from the benefits that we quote.

Mr. Jackson. I understand that, the increased navigation and all that, and the flood control.

What I am getting at is the power revenues will be used to amortize the strictly power features of the dam, and the flood-control costs that are borne by the Government generally.

Colonel FERINGA. The flood-control benefits we figure from an actual study of the flood-control costs and we know and can assure the committee that those flood-control costs will be exceeded by the benefits

in future years. The power benefits are recaptured in dollars and cents which will be turned back to the Treasury of the United States.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel, is there a dirth of power in that area now?

Colonel FERINGA. Our district engineer states this power will be needed as soon as the project can be constructed.

Mr. ANGELL. There will be a market for the power?
Mr. PACE. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Right on that point, before you close, this project would produce about 700,000,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity. That is correct, is it not, a year?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. That would be $2,800,000, and there is no one in that whole area who gets power wholesale at less than 4 mills.

You have 250,000 farms in Georgia, and if all this went to the farms it would literally flood the farms with electricity. This power alone, in less than 30 years, or within 30 years, would pay for this entire development. I want that understood, because I would support this project if it had nothing in it but the power development, under the circumstances as I see them in that area.

Mr. Pace. Thank you, sir.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point to the fact, looking down the years to come, that navigation on this project means navigation to the greatest, probably the greatest military establishment in the world, certainly the greatest infantry school in the world, Fort Benning.

That has, as you readily realize, many benefits of transportation and the day may come when it may be a blessing to our country that water transportation is available in case railroad transportation should not be.

Then, in conclusion, let me say that there was no objection to the report for the Board. There are no objectors here today, either on the part of the power company, or on the part of the railroads.

Therefore, we are assuming, I think we are justified in assuming that the project is good for all interests.

Mr. PITTENGER. This is the first project I have found where somebody did not show up and oppose it. I think it is partly due to the fact that they thoroughly realize that there is an utter inadequacy of power in this section, and inadequacy of transportation. Therefore, I assume that they could not, with good grace, object. Mr. DONDERO. The gentleman from Minnesota

overlooks one point, however, and that is that every part of the country does not have a Stephen Pace, or a Gene Cox to represent them.

Mr. PITTENGER. I know that the distinguished colleagues from Georgia are eloquent and powerful, and the folks in Georgia use good sense when they sent them to Congress. They must have a rare constituency down there.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I must say that we have a very distinguished young man of Congress here, certainly within that young group, George Andrews, of Alabama.

Mr. PACE. He certainly is. Mr. Chairman, long before I came to Congress, one of our distinguished colleagues was fighting for this project, because it has been going on for 25 years. I think my distinguished colleague Judge Cox



should say a word at this time, because as I say, he had the fight, and had it almost before I had an opportunity to join it.

Mr. RANKIN. Before you leave, I would like you to answer in one sentence all this “bunk" about having more power than is needed. I heard the same argument.

When I came to Congress, this country was using 40,000,000 kilowatts a year. They opposed the development of the Tennessee because they said they had more power than they needed. Last year we used 220-billion kilowatts, and 10 years from today we will use a half trillion, and long before the turn of the century, this country will use a trillion kilowatt-hours.

The idea that we have more electricity than we need is "bunk” of the first order.



Mr. Cox. This flattery that has been given me is, of course, pleasing. I am afraid however that it does not rest upon any basis of fact.

It does please me, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, to appear before this committee of the House for whom I have high respect and deep affection.

The area that is traversed by these streams that have been named is, in my judgment, one of the most rapidly growing parts of the country. It is really God's country, and the people that live in that area are tremendously interested in the development of the proposed project.

I live within 10 miles of Flint River, between Bainbridge and Albany. Flint River is an important stream.

As stated, however, the Chattahootchee is generally regarded as a larger and a more important stream.

Columbus, under the leadership of my colleague, Steve Pace, of whom everybody has heard and holds in high regard, has taken the lead for a number of years, and it is probably due in large measure to him for the progress thus far made.

As tremendously interested in the project as I am, I believe I speak the truth when I say that I would not be here urging its adoption if I did not think it economically justified.

I am serving out my eleventh term in the House, and during these years I have seen much of the engineers of the War Department. I have always regarded them as hard-boiled, and slow to move. The fact that well-informed representatives of the Department are here this morning justifying this project upon economic grounds is enough for me.

If the streams are developed from the standpoint of navigation, I believe that the traffic the area will produce will be sufficient to justify the project upon that basis alone.

But as our friend, John Rankin, has said, the returns to the people of the area that are represented, on the basis of power alone, would in my opinion, justify it.

I trust that the presentation made, and other evidence offered will seem sufficient and meritorious as to win the support of this committee. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Cox, in my explanation of the income from the power,

I did not mention the vast increase in the wealth of that area from this.

Mr. Cox. Unquestionably, sir, and I have seen the wisdom of the position that you have taken in the years gone by with the respect to the development of water power.

Mr. RANKIN. It would double the value of every farm it touches. Mr. JACKSON. I understand there is no opposition to this. Mr. Cox. I have never heard of the slightest opposition. Mr. JACKSON. It is practically unanimous ? Mr. Cox. So far as the territory is concerned, nobody is opposing it. The railroads and the power companies, or anybody else.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Judge, confirming your statement regarding the engineers and their conservatism, it might interest you to know that out of the various projects that have come before this committee, and that have been very bitterly contested; some of them, and the figures that have been presented as to the benefits of these projects have been challenged on numerous occasions, but I believe the effects through the years as these projects have been developed have revealed, I think in practically every instance, Colonel, that the benefits have proven to be far greater than the engineers have shown them to be in presenting the projects.

Mr. Cox. I think the engineers of the War Department, if to be criticized at all, it might be said of them that they are overconservative. I learned to know the engineers of the War Department when I first came to Congress. I was on the Flood Control Committee, and because of the interest of some of the States in the South, I stayed there for a number of years, and I saw much of the engineers, and I have complete and absolute confidence in their wisdom and their judgment.

Mr. RANKIN. There has never been a project thoroughly investigated by the Army engineers and recommended to Congress that was not finally developed. Mr. Cox. That is right.

Mr. Pace. It is very gratifying to those interested in this project that we now have the very deep interest and fine support of our colleague from Alabama, who is right across the river, and I am sure you would want to have a word from Congressman George Andrews.


Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee.

I do not want to take up much of your time. I know you have a full docket ahead of you. I just want to concur in what my colleagues, Mr. Cox and Mr. Pace, have said about this proposition.

In my district, this project will affect the whole district, but I have four counties that border on the Chattahoochee River. They are heartily in favor of it, and as has been said, I do not know of any opposition to the project. It would be a great development to our section of the country.

I respectfully ask that you give it a favorable report.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Thank you.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I know the committee would want to have a few words from one of the men who have fought this battle for 25 years and longer, with his own money and with his own time, and with the result of his own vision.

He saw the possibilities of this development, and I would take great pleasure in presenting now one of the great moving spirits in the development of the Chattahoochee Valley, Mr. Jim Woodruff, of Columbus.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Mr. Woodruff, we are very happy to have you here, and I must subscribe heartily to everything said. I have had the pleasure of being associated with you through the years.

STATEMENT OF JAMES WOODRUFF, OF COLUMBUS, GA. Mr. WOODRUFF. I am one of these speakers who thinks about what he has to say after he sits down.

This is a project that we have pursued vigorously for many, many years. I have conducted private surveys with the engineers. It was approved in 1939, and vetoed when the war broke. Recent developments in Fort Benning, through which millions of men passed, warrant further investigation and authorization of what we seek now.

In 1935, there was organized the Chattahoochee Valley Chamber of Commerce, comprising all the counties of east Alabama and west Georgia and Florida. Terminals on either side of.Phenix City, Ala., and Columbus, Ga., will serve three States: Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. By rail and truck you can serve even Atlanta, Ga.

Gentlemen, we hope that you will let our dream come true, and immediately start this project on the way to completion.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Thank you.

Mr. Pace. Mr. Chairman, we have with us another gentleman the committee will want to hear from. It is the mayor of the city of Eufaula, Ala., the Honorable Moss Moulthrop.


Mr. MOULTHROP. Honorable Chairman, gentlemen, as Mr. Woodruff just said, I am a few years younger than Mr. Woodruff, but for a number of years it has been my dream to see this Chattachoochee River developed to bring our natural resources to play.

From the standpoint of agriculture and forest products mainly, which exist at the present time, the increased number of industries that will come into the valley as a result of water transportation and power, will be increased several hundred percent. That has been the experience of other sections where water development has gone through.

I earnestly request that this Committee act favorably on it.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Is there any opposition on it, on the Alabama side?

Mr. MOULTHROP. None whatever, sir. Every word we get is a word of encouragement and wondering when the project will be approved and work started.

Thank you.

« PreviousContinue »