The CHAIRMAN. Did you submit that view to Colonel Arthur, the district engineer?

Mr. ELLIS. Yes, in 1939.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you submit a brief to him?

Mr. ELLIS. Not at that time, a letter only.

The CHAIRMAN. We have had not only letters but during the course of the past 12 years many other people have made those suggestions, and generally when we have gotten the reports, I recall in the area down in the town in the lower Mississippi Valley, we have hadwe have asked for those investigations repeatedly to suggest tributary dams, and the engineers have come back to them, and the district and division engineers have reported on a large single dam, rather, separated dam, in almost every case.

You may proceed.

Mr. ELLIS. We would like to have the United States engineers investigate the possibility of the multiple system. When I say "make a survey" I do not mean the expenditure of huge amounts of

Perhaps the cost would be $3,000 or $4,000 to perform a survey, an office survey, 10 men, 10 days; 20 men, 20 days; a thousand hours or 2,000 hours will definitely decide whether the multiple system is correct as against a single-dam system. This will apply throughout the United States.

We are becoming more soil-erosion conscious and flood-control conscious. They link arm in arm. And if the multiple system is wrong, it will not cost much to find it out.

There is more to the Licking Valley than to any other project. The cost there is very little.

The CHAIRMAN. As an engineer, have you investigated the matter and this question, What is the area that is to be submerged for reservoir purposes in the proposed project?

Mr. ELLIS. Around 12,000 acres, is it not?

The CHAIRMAN. What would be the area under your substitute plan?

Mr. ELLIS. About 93 percent of that.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean it. would take about 7 percent less? Mr. ELLIS. Yes. As near as we can figure.

The CHAIRMAN. Will anything be moved?

Mr. ELLIS. Not a thing.

The 1939 estimate is around $4,000,000, I believe. To run 2 years from now would be about $6,000,000. We can revise that upward, can we not?

The CHAIRMAN. You are doing the talking, because if I get started we will not finish.

Mr. ELLIS. That is approximately all I have to say, except that we are all flood conscious all over the United States. You will grant that, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. No argument. That is my job.

Mr. ELLIS. We will help you out down there. In the next 15 years we are going to build these series of dams and conservancy districts all over the United States.

If a single dam is the correct thing to do, that is what should be built in almost every instance. If a multiple system is correct, let us have the multiple system.

We ask that this be investigated in this particular case at a very little cost.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other statements that you desire to make, or any other witnesses, Mr. Griffiths?

Mr. GRIFFITHS. Just one; and I have just about finished.

Mr. Brailer, of Nashport, Ohio.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BRAILER, ON BEHALF OF THE LICKING VALLEY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. BRAILER. I own two pieces of property from the basin area; rather, one is in the basin area and the other is on the Brayham; and we will be cut off from access to schools, churches, and everywhere but the engineers say we will get no compensation.

There are about 600 families estimated affected in that area.. It will take out our schools, churches, and all our community standards, and it will take out everything that is vital to that community.

Now, there are 600 families on your hands to move. We are there. You have to find a place for us to go if you put in the Licking Dam. That is the real problem at the present time, to find a place to put us, and some of the proponents of this dam have the opinion that the engineers plan to move us, but they do not.

They have not promised to move us at all. All they have committed themselves to is that they will come in there and buy the property, and we don't know what it will be.

Then it is up to us to take our chances, on whether we can replace our property or not. But, in any case, and in the instance in which I am affected, and a number of others are, they do not take all of our farms. They only leave one-third of my farm, and first they came and said, "We will give you an easement on it," and then they came back and said, "We will buy the whole farm," and then they came back and said, "No, we can take only what is in the basin area."

So that left us our hill land and farm buildings, and we cannot do business on that.

But all along the brim of that valley they take the valley lands, our lands where we must make our living, and they leave us the land that is no good, just turned to pasture and woodland. That happens all along the valley.

Now, up above, in the Licking area, the railroad does great damage. In Licking County it passes through the little village of Marr and moves over into their backyards. Mrs. Whoorley has spent a large sum of money in beautifying a very beautiful property there.

Mr. McGREGOR. May I interrupt? I have a telegram from her saying she spent $150,000 on that property.

Mr. BRAILER. I believe that.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you connected with the Licking Valley Protective Association?

Mr. BRAILER. I am.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. E. R. Cunningham, the secretary of that association, present?

Mr. BRAILER. He is not.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking for the association?

Mr. BRAILER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Was this dam a part of this conservancy project as perfected and recommended by the Ohio Conservancy District, organized under the laws of the State of Ohio?

Mr. BRAILER. Do you mean our organization?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes; your dam, here.

Mr. BRAILER. No; we are organized under the laws of the State of Ohio.

The CHAIRMAN. You know this project was first organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, and it provided for dams, 14 of which had been constructed. Was this dam contemplated when that original conservancy district was organized under the laws of Ohio? Mr. BRAILER. Mr. Gary can answer that.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF HOLLAND GARY, ON BEHALF OF THE LICKING VALLEY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. GARY. The original Muskingum Conservancy District did contemplate a dam at Dillon, but it was rejected at that time, I believe, around 1934 or 1935, because the cost would exceed the benefits. It was then brought up at a later time, I believe in 1938, in the Flood Flood Control Act of 1938, and was approved at that time tentatively, but it is not under the Muskingum Conservancy District.

The Muskingum District has no fund or authority to take over this

dam.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand that. Pardon me. You know, that like all other districts, the Muskingum district has not put up any money. The Federal Government has put up the whole amount. You started to construct this project.

My question was: When you started out, I mean the district itself, under the laws of Ohio, was this dam or some comparable dam at this place contemplated?

Mr. GARY. It was.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

You may proceed, Mr. Brailer.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BRAILER, ON BEHALF OF THE LICKING VALLEY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. BRAILER. I believe we have pretty well covered the problem, and as to the dams that we proposed there, I received word from a group, it is the Licking Conservancy District in Licking County, and they have already had that area mapped out north of Newark, and they have asked for review of that, and in their survey made in 1936 with the Department of Agriculture, and the engineers, they have proposed a multiple system on Raccoon Creek west of Newark. This would give protection to Newark; with the Licking Dam Newark gets no protection whatever.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the lands above the proposed reservoirs on the tributaries?

Mr. BRAILER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You do own lands and do not oppose to those lands being taken?

Mr. BRAILER. No.

The CHAIRMAN. You own lands above the proposed dams in lieu of the land that might be taken if a number of dams were constructed on the tributaries of the lake?

Mr. BRAILER. I own none above.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all I asked you. You just own them below? Mr. BRAILER. Yes. That is true. But while there are so many less affected by the other dams than there are by the Licking Dam, the value of the dam and relocation-now, we have oil fields in the Licking area, and adjustment has to be made on the oil fields, so many utilities. That is where we contend that the small dams would eliminate the removal to utilities, and in our area it takes out all of our schools, our churches, and everything that really makes a community. There is no place for us to go.

There is no place to move us. there is no suitable location.

move us.

The hills are right back of us and The engineers have not offered to

The CHAIRMAN. You did not have that removal problem involved when you built the other 13 reservoirs above you.

Mr. BRAILER. At that time they moved them, but the engineers tell us now they do not move us.

The CHAIRMAN. Ohio did the moving out there, did they not? The conservancy district, to begin with?

Mr. BRAILER. They did in the Muskingum district.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your statements, Congressman Griffiths and Congressman McGregor, and I wish you would please tell Mr. Cunningham, the secretary of your association, that the correspondence he submitted to the committee, and the correspondence that our valued friend Mr. McGregor and our colleague, Mr. Griffiths, have brought to our attention, will be considered.

(Statement of the Licking Valley Protective Association of Ohio:)

LICKING VALLEY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION OF OHIO,
Nashport, Ohio, April 27, 1946.

Hon. WILL M. WHITTINGTON,
Chairman, Committee on Flood Control,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. WHITTINGTON: On April 18, 1946, William A. Brailer, William Ellis, and Holland Gary, a committee representing the Licking Valley Protective Association, appeared before the House of Representatives' Flood Control Committee, Washington, D. C., for hearing on the matter of Dillon Dam, Zanesville, Muskingum County, Ohio, petitioning for a change of plans for flood control of the Licking River in Ohio, and the substituting of a multiple dam system in the place of the one dam, known as Dillon Dam.

The purpose of this petition was to save a number of villages, valuable farming lands, and remove the necessity of relocation of costly utilities such as gas and oil lines, railroad, and electric lines; also schools, churches, and community centers.

The United States House of Representatives' Flood Control Committee, after hearing our plea, saw sufficient merit in our plan to induce them to order a review of the multiple-dam system in comparison with Dillon Dam. On April 19 our committee was contacted by the United States Engineers Office, asking for our map and plans. At the request of Congressman Griffiths, of Ohio, this map was left at his office for reference. The United States engineers wired Washington for a photostatic copy of this map, which was not available until Sunday afternoon, April 21.

Our Chairman was advised that a meeting would be called at Newark or Zanesville on April 24 or 25 to discuss problems with the United State engineers and a comparison of the multiple-dam system against the single Dillon Dam. This meeting was held at Zanesville, Ohio, YMCA, on Thursday, April 25. Our committee had no information previous to this meeting as to the matter to be discussed so that we could check figures if necessary.

Lieutenant Colonel Pockras insisted that our association have only 2 or 3 representatives attend this meeting. After much persuasion, he consented to permit 5 to attend. We arrived at the meeting to find Colonel Pockras and Colonel Gano flanked by civilian assistants from the Huntington district office. Also present were 10 or 12 other proponents of the Dillon Dam project, who evidently were invited by the engineers. The public press representatives were refused admittance.

After convening the hearing Colonel Gano discussed matters in general as to the resurvey admitting that time and information was not available to arrive at definite figures which we agree could not be obtained in 3 days. Colonel Pockras in his statements of comparison of the multiple system versus one Dillon Dam, also admitted lack of facts and time for study. The figures furnished us indicated that they were merely estimates and not factual.

Therefore, after hearing the statements of engineers and a study of data they submitted, we reject their statements and figures as only estimates and not factual and protest study was not sufficient to give reliable information. There. fore, this organization demands that further time and study be made of the multiple-dam plan.

The engineers did not use the Ellis plan as Mr. Ellis had intended. He explained to you and the engineers that the figures and locations on his proposed multiple-dam system were only tentaive and asked the engineers for detailed study to be worked out considering anticipated rainfall. This was not done. The engineers used the exact figures Mr. Ellis had shown on his map in order to make the whole plan look ridiculous; for example, one of the dams in the multiple system would have taken care of 72 inches of rainfall, whereas the engineers should have modified the estimate on that dam and others to take care of only 7 inches or 8 inches rainfall.

The engineers estimated costs were computed on the basis of the 72-inch rainfall for that particular dam, rather than on the 7-inch or 8-inch rainfall that was used in figuring costs on Dillon Dam. The other dams of the multiple dam system were estimated likewise by the engineers. They did not state whether these dams were located below or above the villages. The engineers' figure of 303 homes dislocated by the Ellis plan indicate the dams were figured by the engineers to be placed below the villages that are located on the tributaries of the Licking. As explained by Mr. Ellis, these dams were to be placed above the villages to protect them and not dislocate them as Dillon Dam would do.

In a letter of March 14, 1946, addressed to Hon. Will M. Whittington, chairman of Flood Control Committe, Lt. Gen. R. A. Wheeler, Chief of Engineers, stated that the railroad relocation, under engineers' plan, will involve the moving of 5 dwellings and that it will be necessary to remove about 150 houses from Dillon reservoir area. At the above mentioned meeting (April 25) Lt. Col. Pockras stated that approximately 300 houses would have to be moved. There is quite a difference between 155 and 300 homes. I am sure that if these homes were accurately counted, there would be found an additional 300 homes affected by the Dillon Dam project.

Rex Kieffer, chairman of chamber of commerce highway committee, Zanesville, spoke (April 25 meeting) of the possibility of locating United States Route 40 through the eighth ward, Zanesville, which he said would be protected from flood waters by Dillion Dam. He also spoke about the possibility of a new school in that area. Mr. Kieffer was highly favorable to the building of Dillon Dam. He was not interrupted. When Mr. Brailer, rerpesentative of Licking Valley Protective Association, told how the multiple system of dams would also afford flood protection for these same improvements, Colonel Gano interrupted and said that Mr. Brailer's remarks were extraneous and reminded him that time was limited; however, he did not interrupt the proponents of the engineer's plan. He gave them all the time they wanted.

Colonel Pockras stated that since the completion of the channel work through Newark, Ohio, that city had not been troubled with floodwater. We have available pictures showing deep flood waters in about Newark in 1945. These obvious facts show conclusively that the engineers have not thoroughly checked this plan. These pictures also show that Newark and vicinity need additional flood protection, which the multiple system of dams would afford.

The above pertinent facts will undoubtedly explain why the Army engineers did not permit the press to be present at the meeting. The enclosed editorials from the Newark Advocate and Zanesville News will bear out these statements. We feel the meeting of April 25 was given the "whitewash" by the engineers as indicated by the foregoing statements. We still insist that necessary time