Priest River, as you can see here on this picture, when they got the logs out into the main river where the water started to flow rapidly, the only way in the world they could get them up into dead water and tow them all the way up to the mills at Sandpoint was to put a big donkey engine on the bank upstream and actually run out two miles of cable and hook on to these rafts, these booms, and pull them into dead water above the rapids. Then the boats could take them all the rest of the way to the mills at Sandpoint. I want to get that across to you. But I also have a movie to show you here.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Let me ask you: The stream flow is in that direction?

Mr. WHITE. It flows that way which is west to Newport, Wash.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. And as for this Priest River coming down, crossing the Pend Oreille, there, the rapids stop the flow of the river from the lake on down past Newport. Is that the point?

Mr. WHITE. That is it. The rapids are in the main river and when it is hot weather up in the mountains, the snow water is pouring in and the river is rising, and the land commences to be flooded. Then the river will come to a stand. And if the rise in the lake and river just stopped there, we would not suffer much damage.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. What do you want to do to prevent that bottleneck?

Mr. WHITE. We want to excavate on both sides of the river to widen the channel above the low-water level.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. That is the Priest River you are talking about? Mr. WHITE. No. That is the rapids in the main river opposite Priest River. It is the rapids and narrows in the Pend Oreille River we want removed. We want you to go in and excavate on both sides, so that when they tell us they will open the gates at the Albenai Falls dam and let the water out, it will go out. It will not make any difference whether they open the gates in high water or not the way they plan the project now.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Then you are proposing that the rapids be lowered, excavated to a lower level.

Mr. WHITE. The Army objects to the heavy cost of excavating the bottom of the river to deepen the channel. We do not ask them to deepen it; just to widen it.

Mr. ANGELL. But as I understand it, Mr. White, you are not absolutely opposed to the Albenai Falls project.

Mr. WHITE. We think that there are some other projects in this report that are far more important, and one of them is Libby Dam project over on the Kootenai River that will protect Bonners Ferry, and protect the farming land that has already been diked in the United States and Canada.

The CHAIRMAN. The engineers said that there were a whole lot more of them, but this is the only one we have before us. We do not have a report on any of the others.

Mr. WHITE. We think the main object of this committee is flood control. That is what it legislates for. We have spent a lot on the Mississippi for flood control. Why should we be flooded, just to make some power? That is all the Albenai Falls project will do.

I am going to ask that these pictures be included in the record. Bearing out what I said to you, here is a profile map prepared by the Army engineers, with the readings on it. There you will see that

they show the level of the lake. There is just a little incline, because the lake has a gentle flow to the north. But look at the drop beginning at Priest River. There is a drop of 17 feet in 6 miles. Well, what good would it do to open the gateways down here at Albenaí Falls, if the water was backing up above the rapids here? Suppose they build the dam at Albenai Falls and fill this lake and then there comes an abnormally warm spell, and all that water from the melting snow of the Mission Range, the Bitter Roots, the Cabinet Mountains, and the water flowing into the tributary river and the creeks is all pouring into the main river, and the river is pouring into the lake flood waters that cannot get away, blocked by the bottleneck at Priest River. That is what has been holding back that country, floods and danger of floods.

There is land there, gentlemen, that is as rich as the Valley of the Nile. It is the silt that has come down from the Bitter Root Valley and all the fertile valleys of Montana, and settled to make the lands above and around the lake. You can see the soil all the way down, the silt and decayed leaves. If we had flood control that was sure and certain, that would be one of the most productive sections in Idaho.

Mr. LARCADE. Have you taken up with the Corps of Engineers the question of modifying the project?

Mr. WHITE. We have talked with them when they come through. They have stopped out there and had people come in.

Mr. LARCADE. Did you have a meeting out there?

Mr. WHITE. We did. We had in the meeting mostly the represen tatives of the power company. They want to get the money from the power to be generated by the Albenai Falls project flowing into their pockets quick.

Mr. LARCADE. Did the engineers hold hearings?

Mr. WHITE. They had hearings but all they talked about concerning the bottleneck was dredging the bottom of the rapids and said that the cost would be so much to deepen it that it was out of the question, and it was not worth considering. They just slurred over that part of the flood-control program. This is serious. I am asking this committee to defer action on this project until the engineers do provide some plan to relieve the flood situation.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. What is the width of the river at the narrows? Mr. WHITE. You have a picture of it there. I would say about 800 feet.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. How much wider should it be in your opinion? Mr. WHITE. I took the contract up at Clark Fork to saw all the lumber for a bridge across the river. It was 1,050 feet long. I took the contract to saw the lumber there. The river was 1,050 feet wide, and it runs about 16 feet deep and flows about 4 miles an hour, at Clark Fork in low water.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that the depth of the river down below?
Mr. WHITE. That is the low-water stage at Clark Fork.

The CHAIRMAN. He asked about how it was up at the rapids.

Mr. WHITE. In the fall it is, I should say, 800 feet wide and 12 or 14 feet deep in low water. But in high water, it is much wider, deeper, and swifter.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. How much wider do you think it should be?

Mr. WHITE. I should think half as wide again, maybe double, which would be 1,200 feet or maybe 1,600 feet. It would not cost much. Mr. MCDONOUGH. It is now 800 feet. You say it should be 1,200 feet?

Mr. WHITE. Yes; that is a guess. That scale will show you.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. And for how long a distance should it be 1,200 feet?

Mr. WHITE. Not very long. I should say about 5,000 feet. The rapids are not very long. It is not a costly thing to do, to remove the bottleneck at the narrows and rapids at Priest River.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Do you have to channelize that? Do you have to put in concrete walls?

Mr. WHITE. Oh, no. All you have to do is to dig away the dirt. There are some boulders and some rock in it, but it would not cost any more than to buid an airfield. We built one at Lewiston, Idaho, that would cost 10 times what that would cost.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the Government did?

Mr. WHITE. Yes; we built an airfield that cost over a million dollars. Mr. MCDONOUGH. What effect would the widening of the rapids have on Albenai Falls?

Mr. WHITE. It would not do anything to Albenai Falls, except to let the water come down there a little more evenly and regularly. We are not after anything in low water. It is just when this water is coming in so fast and backing up over all the farm lands that we want it made possible for the inflow to get out as fast as it comes in. The CHAIRMAN. I have one question which will not interfere with the continuity of your argument.

Mr. WHITE. My thoughts are pretty well watered down.

The CHAIRMAN. The testimony before us the other day was that this project was a part of the 308 project, the over-all project, with these other projects that you have been mentioning; that this would fit in with that project. With that statement, is it our understanding that you object to this project? Or do you favor waiting until we get the whole 308 project taken care of?

Mr. WHITE. I favor the continuation of the program now well underway in developing and utilizing the water resources of the Columbia River and its tributaries to provide flood control, land reclamation, navigation, and power generation.

We urge that the flood-control program that has now started with the construction of the Hungry Horse Dam on the headwaters of the Clark Fork River be carried through to completion in an orderly plan to provide flood control by the construction of the series of floodcontrol and power dams on the Clark Fork River which are included in the report of the Army engineers as fast as found practical and feasible in a logical construction program to safeguard and protect the land and property of our citizens from flood damage as well as develop and utilize the hydroelectric resources of the Clark Fork River. If we could build this project with the proper flood-control safeguards, there would not be this water pouring in on us, but this program to build Albenai Falls Dam first, as proposed, would just start in on the tail end of the river development program. To build this project first would not provide flood protection for anybody anywhere. The CHAIRMAN. They said this would cost about $2,000,000,000.

Mr. WHITE. The whole river program, yes; but that takes in the Willamette and all the other tributaries and potential dam sites. The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to file this statement?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

PROPOSED ALBENAI FALLS DAM AND WATER STORAGE PROJECT

To: Hon. William M. Whittington, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN WHITTINGTON: Reference is made to the proposed Albenai Falls water storage and hydroelectric project on Lake Pend Oreille, in the State of Idaho, now under consideration by the War Department, which, when approved by the Department, will be referred to the members of the Public Works Committee for consideration in presenting the proposed project to the House for congressional approval, as we are informed.

We, the committee representing the property owners in the area tributary to the Clark Fork River, Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River, respectfully call your attention to certain features and facts concerning the proposed project that is detrimental to the public welfare and that will do irreparable damage to the lands and properties of the communities in the area surrounding the lake and in the valleys through which the Clark Fork and the Pend Oreille River flow, extending practically across the north end of the State of Idaho. The proposed water storage plan is a reversal of the long-established flood control and land-protection policy of the Congress and the Federal Government. This plan is a radical departure from the orderly development program of the water and land resources of the Clark Fork and Pend Oreille River previously initiated and now underway by the construction of the Hungry Horse water storage and hydroelectric project at the headwaters of the Clark Fork River as an initial step in the construction program comprising a series of water storage and multiple-purpose dam and reservoir projects for the utilization and conservations of the land and water resources of the Clark Fork and Pend Oreille River.

The proposed water storage project at Albenai Falls will flood large areas of valuable agricultural and timberlands adjacent to the Clark Fork River, Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River.

The proposed Albenai Falls water storage plan as submitted by the Army engineers to the property and land owners of the area is incomplete, deficient, and fails to take cognizance of and provide for the stabilization of the level of Lake Pend Oreille and the Clark Fork River above the lake and the Pend Oreille River between Lake Pend Oreille and the site of the proposed dam at Albenai Falls to prevent floods during the highwater period; in that it fails to provide for the enlargement and improvement of the outlet from Lake Pend Oreille of the narrows and shallows at what is known locally as Priest Rapids located 5 miles above the proposed dam site which now and always has constituted a bottleneck to the outflow of water from Lake Pend Oreille during the annual high water period, a flood menance that will be intensified by permanently raising the proposed water storage level of Lake Pend Oreille and the Clark Fork River.

May we respectfully point out the difference in elevation of 10 feet in the water level in the distance of 5 miles between the rapids at Priest River and the site at the proposed dam at Albenai Falls.

Of what avail will opening the floodgates during the high water period at the proposed Albenai Falls Dam 5 miles downstream from the narrows and shallows at Priest Rapids which is 10 feet higher in elevation than the floodgates in the Albenai Falls Dam when the inflow of floodwaters pouring into Lake Pend Oreille are choked back at the bottleneck at Priest Rapids after the dam is built and the flood gates are opened than they do now? Year after year the settlers farming their lands in the Clark Fork Valley and on the lands adjacent to Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River have witnessed the phenomenal Clark Fork River falling while the waters of Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River continued to rise.

The planned spillway capacity at Albenai Falls when the outflow of the lake is retarded at the narrows and rapids 10 feet higher and 5 miles upstream is an inadequate guarantee against future floods in northern Idaho.