nance works near Choteau, Okla. Whether this additional storage will be needed for power will depend upon the future requirements of the war. On this point I shall conduct my operations in accordance with such advices regarding power requirements as I may receive from the Federal Power Commission and from the Office of War Utilities in the War Production Board. In the course of this statement I have referred to various conferences, agreements, and approvals. All of these are matters of formal written record in the files of the Federal Power Commission and of this agency. Although I did not bring these underlying documents with me, I shall be happy to furnish them to your committee should you so desire. In regard to our detailed operations with respect both to power and to flood control Mr. Douglas Wright, my special representative in charge of operating the project, can explain these and other phases to you in detail. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statement, General. Major General FLEMING. You said something about the United States permanent possession of this. We are only in temporary possession. It reverts back to the Authority when the war is over. The CHAIRMAN. In this connection, I should like to call the committee's attention to the fact that the report on Trinity River and tributaries, House Document 403, Seventy-seventh Congress, has been brought to the attention of this committee in consideration of any bill we might report. As General Robins stated today, this project was considered by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors and hearings were conducted. It was included in a bill reported by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors on November 21, 1941, the bill being numbered H. R. 5993. It is included in a bill introduced by Representative Rankin, H. R. 879, during the present Congress. I take it that there is no occasion for any hearings. Representative Mansfield, Representative Johnson, Representative Sumners, Representative Lanham, and others have stated that they will be agreeable to that. There is no occasion for hearings. There were hearings on October 8, 9, 10, and 13, 1941, before the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. All the Members of Congress whom I have called made statements. The statements of the Corps of Engineers and the statements of Members of Congress are available in connection with inclusion of that project in any bill that may be reported by this committee. I may say, in this connection, that if you Members desire to make any further statement we will be glad to hear you on Friday, the time set apart for hearing. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee recessed until 3 p. m. of the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The committee reconvened pursuant to the taking of the recess, Hon. Will M. Whittington (chairman) presiding.) The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. General Fleming is unavoidably detained for a while, so we will hear from Mr. Olds. Mr. Olds, will you state your name and your official position for the reporter? STATEMENT OF LELAND OLDS, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Olds, you have been present during the hearings this morning with respect to the operation of the Pensacola Dam. Mr. OLDS. Yes, sir; I have. The CHAIRMAN. You have heard the statement of General Robins and of General Fleming as to the license granted by the Federal Power Commission for the operation of the Pensacola Dam. Mr. OLDS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Please tell the committee whether or not they have stated substantially the facts in regard to the license as granted by the Federal Power Commission; and if not, if in any particular they have not stated it as you understand it, I would be glad for you to point that out. Mr. OLDS. I would like to state it in terms of a little of the background. The CHAIRMAN. Before you do that, I will ask you to state if they have generally given us the picture as to the height of the pool for power. Then you can make any explanation you desire. Mr. OLDS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That pool was 745. Mr. OLDS. That is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That was the pool under which the license was granted? Mr. OLDS. That is correct; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You will recall that the pool as fixed in the document approved by Congress is 735. Mr. OLDS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, having answered my questions, you say you would like to make some statement? Mr. OLDS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I am not going to ask you about anything else now except about Pensacola. We are going to give you and the other agencies an opportunity to be heard later on in the announced schedule of the hearings. Mr. OLDS. I am not planning to talk about anything but Pensacola this afternoon. The CHAIRMAN. All right. If you have any explanation of that license, will you give me an idea of about how long it will take you? Mr. OLDS. I should say about 10 or 15 minutes, to say what I have to say here. The CHAIRMAN. Well, just give us the high points and then if you want to put a statement in the record, we would like to have that. Mr. OLDS. I would like to say first, Mr. Chairman, that we have. appreciated throughout our work the cooperation of the Corps of Engineers. I would like also to say in connection with this particular license that the Corps of Engineers has maintained an absolutely consistent position throughout in making it perfectly plain that they believed there should be 960,000 acre-feet of storage for flood control in this project. However, I think in order to understand the situation it should be recognized that in the first reports-I guess they were 96833-44 vol. 1-10 the first reports-in 1931, the district and division engineers recommended no participation by the United States in control of floods in the basin of the Grand River. Subsequently, the Chief of Engineers, in the document referred to this morning, H. Doc. 107, at page 5, item 6, found the Pensacola project economically sound provided it is operated in a manner not to prejudice the best interests of either flood control or power develop ment. The CHAIRMAN. I think I quoted that this morning. Mr. OLDS. Yes. I think you did. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Mr. OLDS. The War Department, in reporting on this project (Definite Project Report, February 1942, p. 10), assumes that 1,695,000 acre-feet of storage should be provided at the three dams for flood control, including 540,000 acre-feet at Pensacola. The CHAIRMAN. As you have stated, they have consistently insisted on that, is that correct? Mr. OLDS. All the way through. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead. Mr. OLDS. Now, just following up that, I think it should be pointed out that the 540,000 acre-feet, as General Robins indicated, and I want to make it a little stronger, came into the picture with this elevation of 745, not at the suggestion of the Federal Power Commission or the U. S. Corps of Engineers, but came in as a direct request, with considerable pressure upon it, from the Oklahoma authority, which was the agent of the State of Oklahoma. The dam was then under construction. The CHAIRMAN. I think we referred to that this morning, and said they were overenthusiastic about getting power out there. Mr. OLDS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Mr. OLDS. The Pensacola project was started in 1938, the actual construction, before there had been any Federal Power Commission license issued, and the license came along in 1939, because it was a State agency completing a project on a stream over which the Congress of the United States has jurisdiction. The CHAIRMAN. And the Federal Power Commission has jurisdiction. Mr. OLDS. That is correct, as an agent of Congress. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. OLDS. The problem arose as to the power level, because the project was projected not as a flood-control project, not as a Government flood-control project, but as a power project with flood control as merely incidental. The CHAIRMAN. Now, do those people out there in Oklahoma know that? These people that have been told they are going to be protected from floods, do they know that, as a general rule? Mr. OLDS. I don't think they have ever been authoritatively told that the plan for the construction of the Pensacola project would afford major flood control and protection for that valley below the dam. The CHAIRMAN. Your information is that there has been no sort of a statement out there that would lead the people in Arkansas below that dam to believe they are going to have any sort of flood protection! Mr. OLDS. Some flood protection but not maximum flood protection. My contact with those people would lead me to believe that all of them have felt that the maximum flood protection was going to come from the carrying out of the U. S. Corps of Engineers program for I think 11 dams to control not only the Grand River, but also certain other tributaries of the Arkansas River. What I am emphasizing at this point is that we were faced, and I think the War Department was faced with the clear fact that the State of Oklahoma authority would not accept a license that did not set forth that power development would be economically sound; and I think they had the backing of the P. W. A. in that, unless both of our agencies conceded a pool level of 745. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a fair statement. You got it from everybody except Congress. Mr. OLDS. I assume that whoever acted on the matter was acting under authority of law. However, the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941, was not passed by the Congress until after the Pensacola project was practically completed; about 2 years after the license was issued. The CHAIRMAN. With all due deference, the only power development that has been approved by Congress down there is that contemplated by the 735 level. Mr. OLDS. It was approved about 3 years subsequent to the commencing of construction. The CHAIRMAN. Whether it was approved subsequent or not, it was before these floods came anyway. Mr. OLDS. Yes; but the license issued by the Federal Power Commission is a contract between the United States Government and the agency accepting the license, and if there is a question as to whether the Congress can repeal that kind of a contract, I would like to be permitted to submit a legal memorandum on it. The CHAIRMAN. I will have to ask you to excuse me for a few minutes. I have to go over to the House and vote. I am going to try to get back in just a few moments. (Whereupon, there was a short recess during the absence of the chairman, after which the proceedings were resumed, as follows:) The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Olds. Had you finished your statement about this matter, sir? Mr. OLDS. No, sir. I haven't quite finished what I had to say. The CHAIRMAN. All right. You may proceed, but before you do, will you just answer this question: What is the date of your approval of the license for the operation of the pool? Mr. OLDS. Mr. McWhorter tells me it is July 26, 1939, the date the license was issued. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go ahead, sir. Mr. OLDS. That covers very briefly what I have to say about the background of the license. I have had within the last week or so, our engineers analyzing the incidence of the flood at the dam, in connection with the operation of the dam. The CHAIRMAN. Well, if you have, let me ask you this question: Please give me the rainfalls for every day commencing with the 6th day of May and concluding with the 21st day of May. Please give me also for the record, the maximum pool in Pensacola, the average on those days. Mr. OLDS. You want me to furnish that information? The CHAIRMAN. Well, I assumed you have it, if you have had your engineers out there getting the information, and that you could state it. Mr. OLDS. I can ask our engineer, Mr. Goodridge, who has been studying that rainfall. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I didn't mean to go into that, but I thought you had it with you. Mr. OLDS. I don't carry it in my head. The CHAIRMAN. I beg your pardon. I am not asking you to carry it in your head, or in your pocket. If they have that information you can give it to us later. I would not have asked that but for your statement that you had engineers looking it over. Mr. OLDS. I was going to give you the conclusions and let you call upon my engineers. The CHAIRMAN. No; I want to get your conclusions, but you stated you had your engineers go out and look it over. If you want to, you can ask the engineer that you have available, the maximum rainfall for each day commencing with the 6th of May, and concluding with the 21st of May. Mr. OLDS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Is that in shape to give it to us at this time? Mr. OLDS. I think Mr. Goodridge is very familiar with the rainfall. The CHAIRMAN. And then the maximum height of the pool for each one of those days. You can let him answer if you like. Mr. GOODRIDGE. We do not have the complete data, Mr. Chairman, on the rainfall from day to day, but we do have the best information which was available in the Weather Bureau at Washington, obtained from telegraphic reports on file in so-called work sheets with the United States Weather Bureau, and the precipitation that I have here is from the 6th through the 24th. You requested it through the 22d? The CHAIRMAN. Well, that will cover about half of the question. The other half was for the first floods out there, which were earlier in May. Mr. GOODRIDGE. Yes, sir. Now the rainfall at Geneseo, which is a bordering station, on the 6th, is 0.22. On the 8th, 0.02; on the 9th, 0.50 inch. The CHAIRMAN. Where is Geneseo with respect to Pensacola ? Mr. GOODRIDGE. That particular station is Weather Bureau No. 454, and is just immediately west. The CHAIRMAN. When you say immediately, is that the closest station you have got to Pensacola? Mr. GOODRIDGE. It is not the closest station. I believe you would have to say that Springfield and Tulsa are the closest. Mr. OLDS. In order to determine the rainfall causing this flood it is necessary to give the data for several different points in the watershed above the dam, from the Weather Bureau reports. The CHAIRMAN. That is right. I asked about Joplin, Mo., and Springfield, and the other places this morning. I assume he is going to give me the best available rainfall information he has. Mr. OLDS. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. You have it for every day? |