As a matter of information, the village is presently seeking financial assistance from the State of Illinois and is also attempting to secure financial assistance on a local voluntary contributing basis. I trust this will give you the information you desire. Yours truly, FRANK G. KAISER, President of the Board of Trustees, New Athens, Ill. VILLAGE OF NEW ATHENS, Col. ALFRED J. D'AREZZO, District Engineer, U.S. Army, DEAR COLONEL: This is in further reference to your recent letter concerning the local participation for our floodwall. This has been a cause of deep concern and agitation. This community acted in utmost good faith, and assumed the Government was doing likewise, when we pledged ourselves to meeting the specified items of local participation 2 years ago. We felt that since Congress had authorized this project, with certain specified requirements of contributions of non-Federal funds and other local participation, the project would continue under the provisions of that authorization. We are, therefore, surprised and disappointed that your office now sees fit to place an additional burden upon us-one that could conceivably be completely beyond our means to meet. I am sure you must realize that there are certain limits of indebtedness to which a village can commit itself under the provisions of our State laws. This project is an absolute necessity to the future growth of our community. We cannot continue to suffer as we have in the past. Accordingly, we will exert every conceivable effort to do what must be done to obtain protection for the lives and property of our citizens. However, we strongly resent and object to this change of rules after we had already committed ourselves to participation in this program. We sincerely hope that the U.S. Government will see fit to stand by its previous commitments as set forth in the authorizing legislation. Very truly yours, FRANK G. KAISER, Mayor. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, may I say in connection with that 20percent matter that up until a very few years ago there was no local participation provided for in the authorization of any consequence other than lands and rights-of-way. This committee about 5 or 6 years ago decided that where a project benefited a local political subdivision almost exclusively, that the people in that area should pay a substantial share of the cost of the project. We settled on the 20-percent figure. The committee felt that most any town or city could make that percentage of contribution. It is not a law, of course, but we have insisted whenever possible, wherever a town could pay 20 percent, that they should do so. How big a town is this village of New Athens? General DAVIS. About 2,100 people. Mr. JENSEN. It is not a village. I have possibly 20 towns in my district of 19 counties with more population than that. We call those towns cities out in my country. I do not think we should just say to these people in Athens that just because they say they cannot afford to make any substantial contribution that we should say "OK.” I would hope, General, that you would say to those people that the committee feels they should make a greater contribution than the $148,000 on this $2,108,000 estimated cost project. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITTEN. When do you plan to award your first contract? General DAVIS. Actually, the Chief of Engineers has withheld approval of the general design memorandum on this project pending looking further into this 20-percent factor. If it is resolved, it would be possible for us to have our first contract this spring. Mr. JENSEN. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the almost $2 million of Federal cost amounts to almost a thousand dollars for each person in that town of New Athens that they are asking the Federal Government to pick up the check for. It is just a little out of the ordinary— quite out of the ordinary, I might say. REND LAKE RESERVOIR, ILL. Mr. WHITTEN. Proceed to the next, Rend Lake Reservoir, $1 million. Please insert the justifications at this point. (The justifications follow:) REND LAKE RESERVOIR, ILL. (New) Location and description.-This reservoir would be located on the Big Muddy River in Franklin and Jefferson Counties, Ill., with the damsite location in Franklin County near Benton, Ill. The dam would be located at river mile 103.7 above the mouth of the Big Muddy River. This project provides for the construction of a dam to impound a reservoir for flood control and water supply, fish and wildlife conservation, water quality control, and recreation. Authorization.-Flood Control Act of 1962. Benefit-cost ratio.-1.3 to 1. 1 Includes $1,000,000 provided by Area Redevelopment Administration. 2 The State of Illinois will accomplish work estimated to cost $2,000,000, which will be credited to payment of the water supply cost in accordance with provisions of Public Law 88-122, approved Sept 9, 1963. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earthfill with concrete spillway. Length: 10,600 feet, length of crest. Spillway: Main spillway: Concrete, wier type. Auxiliary spillway: Earth with concrete crest. Main spillway, 51,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Inactive storage pool--. Joint use (water supply and water quality control). Total___. Acre-feet 25,000 160, 000 109, 000 294, 000 Unemployment and underemployment are the area's basic problems. Of the eight counties which lie in whole or in part in the Big Muddy River Basin, seven are presently classified as areas of substantial and persistent underemployment. The Rend Lake Reservoir will contribute to the permanent construction reorientation of the depressed economy of the region; provide substantial flood reduction in the Big Muddy River Valley with incidental reduction in Mississippi River floodflows; assure an adequate source of water supply for present and future needs; augment low flows in the interest of water quality control; and provide fish and wildlife conservation and recreation. Rend Lake Reservoir, operated for flood control, water supply, low flow regulation, fish and wildlife conservation, and recreation, would afford the optimum water use of the reservoir and will function as a useful unit of an overall basin development. Fiscal year 1965.-The requested amount of $1 million will be applied toInitiate the following: Contract for subimpoundment dams_. Continue the following: Contracts with highway departments, utilities, and municipalities for relocations__. Acquisition of lands in the reservoir area. Engineering and design____ Supervision and administration____ Total_ $50,000 200,000 300, 000 400, 000 50,000 1, 000, 000 Non-Federal cost.-Local interests are required by the Water Supply Act of 1958 to reimburse the Federal Government for the costs allocated to water supply storage. This reimbursement is presently estimated at $6,300,000, exclusive of interest. The State of Illinois will accomplish work estimated to cost $2 million, which will be credited to payment of the water supply cost in accordance with provisions of Public Law 88-122, approved September 9, 1963. Non-Federal share of the estimated cost for maintenance and operation estimated at $9,300 annually. Status of local cooperation.-The Rend Lake Conservancy District has the legal authority to act as sponsor for the project; however, at this date it has not established adequate financial responsibility. This sponsor is optimistic concerning the establishment of a sound financial capability by a contemplated referendum vote for a sizable tax increase, supplemented by appropriations from the State of Illinois. The sponsor anticipates that capability will be established about January 1, 1965. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.-The current Federal cost estimate of $35 million is a decrease of $1 million over the latest estimate ($36 million) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $759,000 for higher price levels, and $241,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a recent reanalysis of requirements. These increases were offset by a decrease of $2 million in required non-Federal reimbursements for water supply due to State of Illinois being credited with highway work in this amount. Summary construction program (PB-1), fiscal years 1964 and 1965 1 Includes $1,000,000 provided by Area Redevelopment Administration. Mr. WHITTEN. Please explain this project and give us the cost allocation breakdown. General DAVIS. This is a dam and reservoir on the Big Muddy River near Benton, Ill., to provide flood control, water supply, recreation opportunities, pollution abatement, fish and wildlife conservation. It is also contended that this project will aid in reducing unemployment and distressed economic conditions in the area and encourage industrial development. WATER SUPPLY The total estimated cost of the project is $37 million, of which $6,300,000 will be repaid by local interests for water supply. Mr. WHITTEN. Please explain the $2 million credit to the State for water supply because of some highway work the State has done. General DAVIS. The State has done or is doing $2 million worth of highway relocation work, work required in order to construct the reservoir. They are being given credit for this $2 million expenditure to offset the cost to them of the water supply. ALLOCATION OF BENEFITS Mr. WHITTEN. I had asked about allocations of benefits in this program. I do not believe you supplied it, but from the information. before me, flood control is $4,574,000, water supply is $4,990,000, pollution abatement is $1,041,000, fish and wildlife conservation is $4,912,000, recreation is $8,510,000, area redevelopment is $6,373,000. This shows that the recreational aspects plus area redevelopment exceeds the amount of the total benefits considerably. That is, for flood control, water supply, et cetera. In other words, it is about four times as much or three times. General DAVIS. That is true, sir. Mr. WHITTEN. Are you operating under any directive to pay more and more attention to these things in determining this or are you looking to this 1962 act in which it said in your planning you had to give attention to recreation? What is the basis for this showing up here and more and more attention being given to these benefits perhaps than the others? Is that a common policy or is it an exceptional situation? General DAVIS. Recreation in the last few years has been considered as a project purpose for which we are authorized to develop and credit benefits arising therefrom. Based upon such an analysis, the figures you quoted, Mr. Congressman, do represent the cost based upon the benefits that would be derived from the project. Mr. WHITTEN. What does that leave the cost-benefit ratio including those? General DAVIS. 1.3 to 1. RECREATION AUTHORIZATION Mr. WHITTEN. I have heard it asked here about directives and pertinent provisions of law having to do with recreation. If it is not in here, I think it would be well to have it included in the record. It might be more appropriate to have it in connection with General Graham's opening statement, but it would help me if I knew what was required. Other members of the committee are more familiar with it than I. General DAVIS. We can introduce that for the record, sir. (The information follows:) BASIS FOR INCLUSION OF RECREATION FACILITIES IN THE REND LAKE PROJECT The project for Rend Lake, Ill., was authorized by the Flood Control Act of October 23, 1962 (Public Law 87-874) substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document 541, 87th Con |