children or dependents of the company-Government employees attending junior college. Our program has been up to date on the basis of sections 105 and 106 of the Appropriations Act of 1954, under which the Government of the Canal Zone would charge the separate agencies for their dependent children in the grades from 1 to 12. We now have a directive from the Comptroller General which states that those agencies who have not had previous authority to pay for the tuition of their children in Canal Zone schools still have not the authority by virtue of the Appropriations Act of 1954, so that there is some question as to the charges to this group of United States citizens who are employees of the other agencies on the zone. I personally feel, and I feel rather strongly, that this group of citizens who are employees of CAA and others should not be charged tuition for their children. Of course, it means that if we do not charge the individual, from the determination of the Comptroller General it would mean that the Canal Government pays that tuition which in turn, of course, is paid by the company. It isn't very much, but I still hold that the American citizen under those conditions should not be charged tuition for his children in the grades from 1 to 12 inclusive. Senator DwORSHAK. Governor, section 105 of Public Law 153 states as follows:

Amounts expended by the Panama Canal Company in maintaining defense facilities in standby condition for the Department of Defense and amounts expended by the Canal Zone Government in providing school and hospital services for agencies of the United States other than the Panama Canal Company and the Canal Zone Government, hereafter shall, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, be fully reimbursable to the Panama Canal Company or to the Canal Zone Government, as the case may be, by such other agencies.

Do you have any comment on that?

General SEYBOLD. Yes. I have here the decision of the Comptroller General dated March 3, 1954, and may I read the quote?

Accordingly, I must advise that no Department or agency operating in the Canal Zone or contiguous areas may assume the cost of educational service furnished by the Canal Zone Government to their employees in absence of a statute so authorizing.

Senator DWORSHAK. What percentage of the cost of operating your school system is self-sufficient and what percentage involves subsidies? Can you give us just briefly an estimate of that?

General SEYBOLD. I can't say offhand that I can give you an estimate of that in an amount. It is a very small amount in self-sustaining as any school system is. The tuition amounts are relatively small. Senator DWORSHAK. You can put that in the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

The difference between the accrued cost of the Canal Zone schools and the anticipated revenues for fiscal year 1955 is estimated at $1,632,000.

Senator DWORSHAK. What additional legislation would be required to accomplish the intent of section 105?

General SEYBOLD. The authority to permit the agencies to provide that tuition in accordance with this ruling of the Comptroller General.

POLICE PROTECTION

Senator DwORSHAK. Governor, there has been some criticism regarding the use of police officers for guard duty at the docks, based on the extra compensation paid police officers due to the hazards involved. Do you care to comment on this?

General SEYBOLD. I think that what was meant here is the docks and other areas where we do use police officers for guard duties. That is under study and changes will be made. There are some problems in the matter as we have conditions there which demand very close supervision and discipline, which is obtained in a police force but hardly in a guard force. There are changes being made in this program.

HOSPITALS

Senator DWORSHAK. Governor, I note, referring to hospitals, you propose to replace the X-ray unit at Colon Hospital. If Coco Solo is turned over to the Panama Canal Company I assume it would not be necessary to purchase this unit at an estimated cost of $28,000?

General SEYBOLD. This unit has been the subject of inspection by our hospital authorities and at the present time they feel that it would be necessary to replace the unit at Colon. However, it is still a matter of determination as I am not fully convinced and will have to be before we buy a new one.

INCREASE IN LABOR COSTS

Senator DwORSHAK. Governor, at the time of the visit of certain members of this subcommittee to the zone a few weeks ago we were given to understand that the local labor groups were asking for an increase in local wages. How are such increases budgeted at a time like this, and would this specific increase be reflected in the budged that is now before us?

General SEYBOLD. Mr. Chairman, your question concerns one of the problems of management, of course, of the Government. We must maintain a balance in our labor forces there. The local rate personnel have had no increase in wages since 1951 and after about 3 months of work and discussion the management has granted them a much needed increase in wages. We are not allowed to budget for any increase in wage. After the budget was prepared we gave this because it is a necessity, so that in this 1955 budget there is $100,000 neded for the Government side. The company side we can take care of. It is an increase in wages which management must give. We can't budget for it and I want to assure the committee and the Bureau of the Budget and anyone else that this cannot be assimilated in operations. We feel that due to the mechanics of budgeting it is a distinct and difficult problem to the management of the company and also to the Government, and since the matter has ben brought up by the committee I would ask that $100,000 be placed in the 1955 budget to cover the increased cost due to this increase in labor cost of local rate as applied to the Canal Zone Government.

Senator DwORSHAK. Governor, about a month ago 4 members of this subcommittee visited the Canal Zone spending 3 days there inspecting the various installations and facilities, and holding hearings, and meeting with local citizen groups. What was the general reaction on the part of the people in the Canal Zone and possibly in Panama to that inspection trip?

General SEYBOLD. I may say very sincerely, Mr. Chairman, that the groups, the employees, the management, Panama, and so on, were very, very much pleased with this committee as it visited the Canal Zone the

common saying was that this was a group that came down to work and found out our problems. It was very well taken and I would like to state from the viewpoint of management of the Company and in the position as Governor we appreciate the thought given, and I may say we learned a great deal. It was a highly successful trip in every view.

Senator DwORSHAK. Governor, we certainly learned a lot about the problems confronted by you and so far as I am concerned I think you are making splendid progress in trying to solve many of the problems which have been more or less dormant for many years. I think it had a very salutary effect on the members of this subcommittee who were fortunate enough to make that trip, because in the past we have been dealing in sort of an intangible way with many of these problems. So far as I am concerned now I do have a very graphic understanding of the Panama Canal Zone and the various problems, and I think it will be very beneficial in helping to solve some of these problems.

Senator McClellan wants to.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I would just like to make this comment: That this recent visit by members of this committee to Panama gave me my first opportunity to get any firsthand information about it and I was very favorably impressed with the attitude I found on the part of the Governor and other officials of ours there in a sincere effort, as I sensed it, Governor, to bring that operation into the best economic situation possible. I realize that you cannot resolve all these problems immediately, but I think you have shown some progress, and substantial progress, in being able to reduce the number of employees while the traffic in the Canal is steadily increasing.

The thing that I observed that I think needs correction-and Senator Ellender has spoken of this-was the hospital situation. I think further savings can be effected there. I do not have the answer to the problem or any specific suggestion, but I do urge you to keep working on it to the end that the unnecessary expense that is being incurred now by duplication can be eliminated.

Senator DwORSHAK. Of course, Governor, in the past the committee had to rely almost entirely upon the information provided by our colleague, Senator Ellender, who had made previous trips to the Canal Zone, but he was the only member who had made such trips and now I think we all have a better understanding.

Senator ELLENDER. You do not think it was a junket, do you, General?

General SEYBOLD. No sir. The fact of it is it was the hardest working crowd we have ever seen.

Senator DwORSHAK. It did make us realize the way we are contracting these distances. Of course, we used the commercial airlines and had a slight layover at Miami, but I think the actual flying time was only about 7 hours between here and the Panama Canal Zone. That is something quite remarkable.

General SEYBOLD. I would just like to again assure the committee. that it is a part of management to carry out the policies of the Congress and particularly the two committees, and we realize at times that we have the difficulties of implementing immediately. Many of these things require a timetable, but they will be done to the best of our ability.

Senator DwORSHAK. Do you have any other questions?

Thank you, Governor.

Senator DwORSHAK. The committee has received a letter from Senator Bricker, in which he refers to the permission previously granted for the insertion in the record of a statement by Mr. William M. Corry of Zanesville in support of the Dillon Dam, and he transmits a copy of that statement for the record. The statement will be placed in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT BY WILLIAM M. CORRY, MANAGING DIRECTOR ZANESVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ZANESVILLE, OHIO

I am here today speaking on behalf of an organization that has for years been the focal point of interest and appreciation of the far-reaching advantages of the flood-control program authorized by the Congress. Ever since the historic flood of March 1913-41 years ago our area has been faced with the ever apparent threat of floods and the consequent destruction of property, stoppage of work and curtailment of expansion.

Thanks to the understanding of past sessions of the Congress, who authorized the fine network of reservoirs known throughout the world as the Muskingum Conservancy District, much of the danger from frequent floods has been lifted from our area. In the basic plan approval and authorization by the Flood Control Act of 1938 a system of 15 reservoirs was authorized for the Muskingum Valley; 14 of those have been completed and have for years more than many times justified their construction. We now come to the 15th and last reservoir in this system-known as the Dillon Reservoir, located on the Licking River in Ohio at the confluence of that river with the Muskingum River, about 6 miles above the city of Zanesville.

The Dillon Reservoir was selected for construction as a unit in the compre hensive flood control plan for the Ohio River Basin as authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938.

The project, when completed, will be operated primarily for flood control to augment the existing 14 reservoirs in the Muskingum Basin and to provide needed additional flood protection to the cities of Zanesville, McConnelsville, and Marietta, and other towns and rural areas along the Muskingum and Ohio Rivers. The Dillon Reservoir project was considered in the development of the original comprehensive plan for the Muskingum Basin, and would probably have been selected for construction at the time the 14 existing reservoirs were constructed, had funds been available to complete the system. The construction of the Dillon Reservoir project at that time would have required approximately one-third of the available funds and necessitated deferring several of the other projects. The Dillon project is definitely an integral part of the comprehensive plan for the Muskingum Basin.

The communities along the Muskingum River from Zanesville to Marietta, although protected to a considerable extent by the existing reservoirs, remain subject to a flood hazard because of the large uncontrolled watershed area and the possibility of a flood on the Licking River.

The authority for this project is in the Flood Control Act, June 28, 1938 (Public Law 761, 75th Cong.) approving the comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin contained in flood control committee Document No. 1, 75th Congress, 1st session, with such modifications thereto as in the discretion of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable. The basis for the authorization of Dillon Dam is contained in report 2353 of the flood control committee, dated May 13, 1938, which accompanied the bill. This report made the following statements: "Since the submission of the report of the Chief of Engineers, published as Flood Control Committee Document 1 (75th Cong., 1st sess.), the War Department has continued its investigations and studies in the Ohio River Basin and the latest plans and estimates have been made available to this committee. These recent studies confirm the soundness of the general plan for flood control in the Ohio River Basin which was set up in Committee Document 1 (75th Cong., 1st sess.), although certain minor changes in detail were found desirable, and these have been made. The comprehensive flood-control plan was set up for the Ohio River Basin and provides for a system of 49 reservoirs on tributaries of the Ohio ** * and some 235 levee and flood-wall projects for the protection of cities, towns, and agricultural areas along the Ohio River and its tributaries *

This report lists the 49 authorized reservoirs and revised by the Flood Control Committee is shown and includes Dillon Reservoir with the 1946 Flood Control Act. The 1946 Flood Control Act, approved July 23, 1946, made no change in the authorized Dillon project.

Project description calls for a rolled earth-fill dam, maximum height 118 feet, crest length 1,350 feet, reservoir total storage 294,000 acre-feet, of which flood-control storage is 279,000 and conservation storage 15,000 acre-feet. The reservoir extends 21.7 miles upstream. There is no power in the project.

The Dillon Reservoir will supplement the 14 existing flood-control and conservation reservoirs in the Muskingum River Basin, through control of approximately 29 percent of the now uncontrolled area above Zanesville. The reservoir will greatly decrease flood damages in the Muskingum Valley and will affect marked reduction in floods on the Ohio River. It will also provide additional conservation water for water supply, pollution abatement, navigation, and recreation, and wildlife benefits.

The flood-control benefits are along the Muskingum below the mouth of the Licking River, including the towns of Zanesville, McConnelsville, and Marietta, Ohio, and many cities and towns along 800 miles of the Ohio River from Marietta to Cairo. The Dillon Reservoir will reduce the crest of the 1913 flood by 4 feet at Zanesville, and will reduce the peak flow contributed to the Ohio River by 32,000 cubic feet per second.

The Dillon Reservoir will provide a conservation pool of 15,000 acre-feet extending a distance of 10.3 miles, a flood-control pool of 279,000 acre-feet extending a distance of 21.7 miles, or a total storage capacity of 294,000 acre-feet.

At the present time, the 14 completed flood-control dams in the Muskingum Valley control 4,287 square miles. The Dillon Dam will add a control of 748 square miles of drainage area. In other words, the existing reservoirs control 62 percent of the drainage area of the watershed. When Dillon is completed, it will raise that control to 73 percent.

Let us think of another comparison. A flood equivalent to the 1913 flood-one that reached a stage of 51 feet-would, with the present series of dams, be reduced to 37.8, but with the Dillon Dam, the reduction would be lowered to 33.8, a 4-foot drop, by this 1 dam alone.

The uncontrolled area above Zanesville, including the Licking River, is 2,572 square miles, which is 37.6 percent of the total area above Zanesville. The Dillon Reservoir with a flood-storage capacity equivalent to 7 inches of runoff will control 748 square miles, or 29.1 percent of the presently uncontrolled drainage area at Zanesville. It is estimated that the present average frequency of damaging floods at Zanesville, as modified by the existing reservoirs, is equivalent to one occurrence in about 10 years. With the Dillon Reservoir completed, this frequency will be reduced to one occurrence in 50 years.

It is proposed to maintain a conservation pool in reservoir during periods of normal flow in the river. This pool will have a capacity of 15,000 acre-feet, which is equivalent to 0.4 inches of runoff. During dry periods when stream flows are extremely low and the streams become polluted with domestic and industrial waste, it would be possible to alleviate these conditions by release of part of the conservation storage. These low-flow increases would be beneficial not only to the abatement of pollution in the Muskingum River at and downstream from Zanesville, but also in providing increased water supply for lockages at the Muskingum and Ohio Rivers navigation projects. The conservation pool could also provide for the propagation of game fish, a haven for migratory waterfowl, and recreational facilities such as camping, boating, and fishing for the residents in a wide surrounding area.

This project has been approved by the Corps of Army Engineers and has been authorized by Congress. There have been public hearings at which opponents have had an opportunity to present their views. The majority of the people by far have been in favor of the project.

Funds allocated to this project to date have been expended in connection with railroad relocations, lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary therefore, and utility changes necessitated by the completed work.

By completing Dillon there will be control of 62 percent of the Muskingum drainage area, whose 8,040 square miles places it seventh largest of the 20 major drainage areas, 11,000 square miles or more, directly tributary to the Ohio River.

Certain low-lying areas will remain subject to some flooding under extreme floods even after construction of the Dillon Reservoir. It is worth noting, however, that even these low-lying areas will receive almost complete protection from the operation of the Dillon Reservoir. In fact, no flood of record subse