Page images
PDF
EPUB

enable our Government to conclude agreements with Mexico for the construction of a dam on the Rio Grande, the chosen site, after several years of authorizing and other certification to choose the most feasible site the chosen site has been located about 12 miles above the city of Del Rio, which happens to be in the district I represent.

The detailed justification for the project will be developed by the State Department and the International Boundary and Water Commissioner, Col. L. H. Hewitt, whose office and headquarters are at El Paso. I am sure you will find Colonel Hewitt anxious and able to answer any questions that may occur to you in regard to the details, covering the history of negotiations, the many economic and engineering factors that are involved, and all phases of the project as contained in his very elaborate report, a copy of which you have before you. Colonel Hewitt has an enviable record as an engineer, having served with distinction for many years with the Corps of Engineers and at one time as a division engineer. In recent years, following his retirement, he has represented the United States in his present capacity. This he has done with a rather remarkable display of diplomatic skill, technical ability and engineering know-how, and it is not an easy job for anyone.

Mr. Chairman, this project is urgent. It is long overdue. I seriously doubt that this Congress has had before it in recent years a flood control project more highly justified than this. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.96: 1—almost 2 to 1, and if you include fish and wildlife in that computation it would run more than 2 to 1 for the 50-year life of the dam and reservoir, and 2.48: 1 for the 100-year period.

Perhaps a comparison or two will serve to emphasize the significance of this unusually high justification ratio, particularly since this committee is not accustomed to holding hearings on projects of this kind, most of that going to other committees. In the case of the Colorado River storage project including the Glen Canyon and Echo Park Dams, approved by Congress a few years ago, the benefit-cost ratio was 1.64:1. In the case of the Whitney Dam and Reservoir, approved by Congress, the ratio was 1.1: 1. The ratio was 1.26: 1 for the Burns Creek Dam, the Palisades project, in Idaho. In fact, it is difficult to find a major project that has been approved by the Congress where there has been such a high ratio of benefits as against costs as in this case now before the committee.

The reasons why the benefit-cost ratio in this instance is so unusually high will become apparent as testimony is developed in support of it.

As you know, this is the second dam proposed in pursuance of a treaty between this country and the Republic of Mexico, dated February 3, 1944. The first, Falcon, located 290 miles downstream from the Amistad site, was completed in 1953.

The Falcon Dam has served a wonderful purpose. It has, according to engineering reports, more than paid for itself by flood prevention already, to say nothing of the water conservation features of it and the electric power that is generated there. In addition, I know you can assume with almost absolute certainty, that had Falcon not been in existence, a considerable number of lives would have been lost in the river reaches below that dam since it was built.

But it has been found from experience that Falcon is wholly incapable of coping with the job of adequately controlling the turbulent and unruly waters of the Rio Grande. It simply does not have the capacity to do a job that must be done. Moreover, there is a vast area above Falcon and below the Amistad site that is vulnerable and completely helpless in the face of devastating floods that have a way of recurring with gruesome regularity. I spoke of lives saved because of Falcon. The number is, of course, speculative. But that is not true above Falcon, between the Amistad site and Falcon-that 290mile stretch of the river. Since Falcon was built, in just two major floods, a large number of lives were lost, and although Mexico has never publicized the exact number of Mexicans who perished, everybody in the border area knows it must have been in excess of 100-more likely around 200. And that was after Falcon was built.

I have mentioned the two floods. I was referring to those that occurred in 1954 and 1958. At the risk of duplicating testimony that will be given by others in more detail, I should like to at least refer to those tragic events. These are documented and I think they are very pertinent as examples of what we have to do in order to cope with these raging floodwaters that result from flash floods up and down the Rio Grande. I just want to spotlight two or three instances of what we mean when we speak of the rampaging Rio Grande. And the two most recent instances took place in 1954 and 1958.

In the case of the 1954 flood, according to official reports, the direct damage counting the loss of floodwater into the Gulf-mounted to $25.3 million, using 1958 cost figures. That is the damage from one flood, using 1958 cost figures-as it would be as of 1958. This is all contained in the report, a copy of which you have before you.

That was on the U.S. side. I am informed that on the Mexican side the loss was even more. I am sure that is true because it is more vulnerable, more adobe houses, whole villages wiped out up and down that border area.

And then only 14 years later, in 1958, a mammoth flood occurred. The total damages, measured in dollars and cents, is almost unbelievable. Suffice it to say that had Amistad been built before 1958, the waters saved and the flood damages prevented would have amounted in dollars to just about the entire estimated cost of the U.S. share of constructing the project that we are now seeking.

I have said the floods keep recurring. The report discloses there have been no less than 18 of them of record during the past 58 years, of which 16 originated above the proposed Amistad site. And they will occur again. Is it any wonder that the million people who live along the Rio Grande, in both countries, from Fort Quitman to the Gulf, whose lives and economy are so closely tied to the river, can so often be heard to say: "When will the Rio Grande go on another rampage?" They know it will happen. It is just a matter of when. And they know lives will be lost. It is just a matter of how many. While the Rio Grande through the centuries has gone hand in hand with progress along its borders, it has for decades been a word associated with fear, dread, and trembling. The Mexicans since the days of Cortez and before, have referred to it as “El Rio Bravo del Norte," which translated means "the wild or vicious river to the north.”

After all, aside from the Mississippi-Missouri complex, the Rio Grande is the longest river in America.

Originally called Diablo, which in Spanish means "devil," recently it was agreed to call the new project Amistad, meaning "friendship." Thus, even though Diablo more accurately describes the river proper, Amistad very correctly describes the relationship of the people who face each other across that stream, and who mix and mingle in a spirit of friendship, peace, and cooperation.

I have spoken chiefly of the flood-control feature of Amistad. And, indeed, flood control alone is ample justification for the prompt advancement of this bill and the building of the dam. There appears to be very little demand for any additional supply of water for irrigation. The irrigators are not asking for more water. They are not, they say, in the market for more irrigation water at this time. Their supply problem is now being met at Falcon and projects along the river. And I understand no additional acreage will be cultivated. All the water is already appropriated, under commitment in the State of Texas along the Rio Grande. The conservation storage contemplated for Amistad will not be substantial, although adequate for its purpose.

But the question may be asked: Why the $12 million allocated for conservation storage if irrigators do not want it?

There is a valid and satisfactory answer to that question, and I believe Colonel Hewitt is the proper person to explain to you. Briefly, conservation is required in the treaty between the two countries. That is a part of the agreement, that it would contain conservation storage. And the conservation storage will bolster the power potential that will be created. And, after all, the cost allocated to conservation storage represents a relatively small portion of the total cost of the projectabout 8 or 9 percent, so it is a relatively unimportant factor insofar as the overall picture is concerned, so let's not worry too much about that feature of it. Yet it is something that often crops up in the consideration of the project.

I am sure Colonel Hewitt will explain to you that estimated income from the hydraulic power feature alone will more than repay the Government for the cost allocated to conservation storage, as amortized over the 50-year life of the project. In other words, even with no use of the conservation storage for irrigation, in any event the Government will be repaid for all the cost of the conservation feature from the sale of the falling water or from the sale of electric energy if the construction of a generating plant by the Government should be justified as sound and economically feasible.

Moreover, the construction of Amistad will help prolong the life of Falcon by reducing the siltation at Falcon. Indeed, the Commissioner's report states: "The siltation rate at Falcon would be reduced by 60 percent" with Amistad.

con.

And the evaporation rate at Amistad will be much less than at FalThat will add to the permanency and stability of the supply to that extent. The reason for the reduced evaporation is that Amistad would have 36 to 56 percent less surface area than that at Falcon for corresponding quantities of water, since the Amistad site is located in a relatively narrow canyon section of the river. The channel will be much deeper than at Falcon. That accounts for the reduced evapora

tion which is a major factor if you start computing it over a period of time.

I mention these factors to impress on you the relationship of Falcon and Amistad-and how they will implement each other in so many respects. We need them both.

But, above everything, I want to urge the committee to keep in mind that this is essentially a flood-control project, born of absolute necessity—a necessity that can no longer be postponed or neglected.

In conclusion, let me remind you that this is an international project-a joint undertaking between two friendly nations. Its approval and construction will demonstrate the capacity of these two great countries to solve a mammoth problem through joint efforts. And we will be keeping faith with our treaty obligations. I am informed. that the Mexican Government at this time is moving speedily with its part in getting ready for actual construction. Only recently an official from the office of the President of Mexico was at Ciudad Acuna and Del Rio to make an inspection of the Amistad site in connection with the Mexican Government's processing of their part of the joint task.

It will be recalled that on February 20, 1959, the Amistad project, then referred to as Diablo, was on top of the agenda when President Eisenhower and President Lopez Mateos conferred at Acapulco, following which they called for construction arrangements to be concluded as rapidly as possible.

And in his budget message to Congress last month, the President stated:

To carry forward the joint development of waters on the Rio Grande, construction should be started on the Amistad (Diablo) Dam, in accordance with the treaty of February 3, 1944, between the United States and Mexico. I urge the Congress to enact promptly the legislation now needed to authorize negotiations of an agreement for this construction. Funds will be requested for the U.S. share of the first-year cost of this project following enactment of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank this committee for the privilege of appearing before you in behalf of this legislation. We are now approaching the climax of a long and arduous effort. We feel that time is of the essence, and we know this committee will give this legislation the consideration that it deserves.

Mr. SELDEN. Let me thank you, Mr. Fisher, for your very fine statement and say to your friends from Texas that I have been working with you for some little time in connection with this project, and certainly no one in the Congress has demonstrated greater interest and greater concern. Certainly when and if this project is completed, you deserve a lion's share of the credit for it.

Mr. FISHER. Thank you.

Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, if there are any questions I will be glad to comment on them. In the meantime, I will ask Mr. Pettit to take these pictures up. They are photographs of the 1954 and 1958 floods. You might like to see them.

Mr. SELDEN. Thank you.

I have some technical questions I want to ask, but I will ask them after Colonel Hewitt has had a chance to testify.

Perhaps other members of the subcommittee would like to question you. Mr. Fascell?

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fisher, you are certainly a very persuasive and persistent perI might say if anything is going to be accomplished you will get it done.

son.

Let me ask you some practical questions. Who is opposed to this project, if anyone?

Mr. FISHER. I don't know of anyone. I certainly hope not. I have heard of no opposition, although there are some amendments to be considered.

Mr. FASCELL. The study that was made recommended its construction, did it?

Mr. FISHER. Oh, yes. With a very strong and high benefit-cost ratio that I referred to.

Mr. FASCELL. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Jackson?

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions at the moment. I probably will have some as we move along. At this time, I will pass.

Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Burleson ?

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are grateful for the chairman's opening remarks relative to Texas and Texans and our interest. No one has been more diligent over the years in promoting the idea of the construction of this very great project than Mr. Fisher. The same is certainly true of our colleague, Mr. Kilgore, in connection with the Falcon Dam. They have been tremendously interested and have rendered not only that part of the country and their own constituents a great service but it has been a great service to the entire Nation.

Mr. Fisher, in connection with cost ratio: I just don't know of a project which has been before the Congress-and I have been familiar with those bills produced by the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives which has, in recent times at least, had a greater ratio of benefit to cost than this project. Do you agree?

Mr. FISHER. I think the gentleman is correct. We have dealt with a lot of them in recent years, and I don't know of any with a higher justification ratio than we have in this case.

Mr. BURLESON. Of course, in these times when everybody talks economy, sometimes we wonder if we are as strong for economy as sometimes we talk. Sometimes our constituents also appear to be for economy unless it is something right in their own area.

But here is a project as I see it, as the gentleman has testified, that will in time actually return money to the Federal Treasury.

Mr. FISHER. Indeed it will, Mr. Chairman. As I pointed out, the overall loss in damages and loss in water in the 1958 flood alone would have amounted to almost the American contribution, the American share that is allocated for the construction of this project.

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fisher testified that the feature of irrigation would not be in prominence at this time on the U.S. side of the river. What is that situation on the Mexican side? Mr. FISHER. I am not familiar with it, Mr. Burleson. Colonel Hewitt could enlighten you more in that respect.

Probably

« PreviousContinue »