Page images

We have commitments now from property owners for the furnishing of additional rights-of-way; the city of Lompoc has promised to furnish lands and rights-of-way necessary for the completion of certain of the projects. A petition for the formation of a maintenance district has already been signed by affected property owners.

Time is of the utmost importance in this matter. I urge the committee's favorable consideration of the requested increased authorization; should implification be required of any statement herein, it will be furnished immediately upon demand.

The CHAIRMAN. When you say that the engineers will furnish us other information, what engineers do you refer to!

Mr. KAPPLER. The engineers of the Soil Conservation Service, sir. That would be Mr. Dykes.

Mr. PHILLIPS. I would like to point out one additional thing. I do not think it has been made clear that the specific structures involved were not named in the report. What was indicated was the structures necessary to do a certain job.

Mr. McDonough. Then no dimensions were laid out?

Mr. PHILLIPS. None other than an indication as to required land stabilization and gully stabilization.

Mr. McDonough. Have you progressed far enough in your plans to specify dimensions in the channels now!

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes. That is why we have this figure to submit

to you.

Mr. McDONOUGH. That increased amount is due to the cost of cement and steel necessary to do the job as compared to the estimate at the time the plan was first formulated, which estimate was in the amount of $425,300 !

Mr. PHILLIPS. The present figure is based on more detailed information.

The CHAIRMAN. I have tried my best to get the matter clarified. What we want are the facts.

You told me, in answer to my question, that there would not be any additional structures placed in a given gully, but rather that larger structures would be necessary.

Now you have come along and stated that you had not completed your plans and that you are going to have to put in other structures.

Now, which statement are we to accept?

Mr. PHILLIPS. I am asking you to take the statement that it is the same job.

The CHAIRMAN. Which one of these statements are we to take? Are we to accept the statement that the same structures will be built in the same gullies, but that they are to be larger, or are we to accept the statement that now, that your plans are completed, you have to put in additional structures? We just want to get the facts because we do not want to waste the money of the Government.

Mr. PHILLIPS. It is the first statement. We have more detailed information on the structures now and know what they will cost today.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, I will ask you this a third time: Instead of putting larger structures across the same gullies, but in larger sizes, having completed your plans you now find that you have to put in more structures as well as larger structures; is that right?

Mr. PHILLIPS. Not necessarily, not as far as we have gone today. It is the same structures in the same places, only larger ones.

The CHAIRMAN. You had better find out what you want to do.

Mr. McDonough. Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear to me, at least, that the job is absolutely the same as it was outlined in 1944, only the whole plan is larger.

The CHAIRMAN. I have tried my best to clarify the situation.

Mr. McDONOUGH. It is because the structures are to be larger that more money is required to do the job.

Mr. LARCADE. That is the way I understand it.

The CHAIRMAN. I asked Mr. Phillips whether it was increased cost for the same work, and he said "No."

Mr. PHILLIPS. If I said that, I was incorrect.
Mr. Davis. Does anyone else desire to be heard at this time?

Mr. BRAMBLETT. In conclusion, I would like to thank the committee very much for this hearing on this project, especially this late in the afternoon at the end of the very busy day I understand you have had.

There are one or two points I would like to bring out in addition as background on this project.

The value of the land that you see in the center of the picture before you, if I remember correctly, today is some place between $1,000 and $1,200 an acre. That is the valuation on the property that is being protected by this project.

Further, Mr. Whittington, the Cachuma Reservoir that you spoke about is under construction and is moving along. The money was appropriated last year, and the project is on its way through this year.

This project will have a secondary benefit to the Cachuma project in an area that is having a terrible time for water. You may remember reading about the fact that, during the recent drought in California, water was rationed by the city of Santa Barbara. This project will hold back floodwaters and will have a tendency to hold up the underwater level which is tied in with the Cachuma area, not to a great extent, but somewhat at least.

I am sure the Bureau of Reclamation would be glad to back up any statement of that kind.

Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bramblett whether it was not in this immediate area, and if not in this immediate area then nearby, when the drought was on in California, that a $300 fine was imposed on anyone found washing his automobile.

Mr. BRAMBLETT. That was in Santa Barbara County at the time.

Mr. Davis. That is somewhat in contrast to the amount of water we have been talking about on the Arkansas River a while ago.

Mr. McDonough. I think it is my complete understanding--and if I am wrong I would like to be corrected—that this project is simply an increased project because of the necessity of increasing the size of the installations that were contemplated when this project was first authorized

The CHAIRMAN. That is exactly what I have been trying to find out for half an hour. If there is merely involved an increase in the size of the same structures, in the same gullies, that will help us a lot; but if it is a matter of installing a lot more structures in the same gullies, or a lot more structures in other gullies, we want to know that.

Mr. PHILLIPS. May I file a written statement for the record ?

The CHAIRMAN. That would be desirable, as Mr. McDonough and those who are here will have to explain this matter to the other members

of the committee because we get two statements every time we talk about about this project.

Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
Are there any others who want to testify at this time on any project ?


Mr. BRAMBLETT. I am restricting my statement to the one point raised, “Is this a new project ?” I have discussed this point with representatives of the Soil Conservation Service and the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture and other interested parties as well as my own personal inspection and am assured that this is not a new project. The increased authorization is requested for two primary reasons: (1) It will be necessary to increase the size of certain structures and other works of improvement due to the 10-year lapse of time between the making of the survey and construction planned for the fiscal year 1950 which has caused the widening and deepening of certain gullies which discharge run-off and erosional debris on the lower lying valley lands; (2) the increased costs of installation. It is understood that it would not be necessary to ask for an increased authorization if this were the only difference in the amount required for the project as compared with that estimated in the flood control bill of 1944.

Colonel GEE. Mr. Chairman, I have two statements for the committee on additional basin authorization on the upper Mississippi Basin and the White River Basin. I will be very brief.

Mr. Davis. We will be glad to hear from you, Colonel. You have been with us, today, I believe, 7 hours.


Colonel GEE. First, in connection with the upper Mississippi River Basin, the present monetary authorization for the authorized projects in that basin is $29,300,000.

The total estimated cost of authorized projects in the upper Mississippi Valley is $239,754,000.

The cost of work completed and presently under construction is $88,707,000.

That leaves a deficiency of $59,407,000 in the present authorization simply to complete the works now under construction.

It is recommended at this time that the basin authorization be increased in the amount of $67,000,000, bringing it to a new total of $96,300,000.

The CHAIRMAN. How much money has been appropriated up to and including the present fiscal year?

Colonel GEE. $13,934,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you including the Great Lakes or any project along there?

Colonel GEE. No, sir.


Colonel GEE. The next item is the White River Basin, for which the total estimated cost of authorized works is $257,069,000. The present monetary authorization is $134,000,000.

The cost of the projects under construction is $115,829,000.
There has been appropriated to date $68,215,000.

It is recommended that the basin authorization be increased to the amount of $90,000,000, which will permit the initiation of construction on three major reservoirs and allow planning to begin on two others.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you speak primarily of the White River in Arkansas ?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Of the amounts authorized, what is the estimated cost of the reservoir projects along the White River?

Colonel GEE. $257,000,000 is the total estimated cost.
The CHAIRMAN. That will include the construction of what projects?

Colonel GEE. That would include among others, the construction of the Bull Shoals Reservoir.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the estimated cost of that project?
Colonel GEE. $76,300,000.
The CHAIRMAN. What is the next one?

Colonel GEE. The projects completed and now in operation are the Norfork Reservoir, $29,100,000: Clearwater Reservoir, $10,429,000; and four local protection projects, $1,373,000.

The CHAIRMAN. What do the remaining works consist of primarily?
Colonel GEE. Reservoirs.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you name them?

Colonel GEE. Water Valley Reservoir, $14,412,000; Table Rock, $76,310,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any larger than Table Rock?
Colonel GEE. No, sir.

Greers Ferry Reservoir, $16,531,000; Bell Foley Reservoir, $8,722,000; Lone Rock Reservoir, $25,235,000, and five additional local protection works at $12,468,000.

The CHAIRMAN. The $25,000,000 project and the $76,000,000 project are the two large projects that have been investigated for years?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRM.IN. There is no river west of the Mississippi River and east of the Rocky Mountains that has a power potential equal to that of the White River; is that correct?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I have only one more question. I believe you have some special items that should be brought to our attention and which have not been mentioned by the president of the Mississippi River Commission.

Colonel GEE. I have several special bills, one of which is House Resolution 89, introduced by the chairman of this committee, which would authorize the Corps of Engineers to prepare a revised edition.

The CHAIRMAX. We have had hearings on that. The matter is pending before the committee, and it is a question of whether the committee is going to agree on that.

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

We have also H. R. 228 which bill seeks to authorize the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to prepare estimates and plans of improvement for certain rivers and harbors and for other purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe there is nothing else to be brought to our attention, particularly today.

Mr. Davis. Since there appears to be nothing further, the committee will recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 5:40 p. m., a recess was taken to reconvene Thursday, May 26, 1949, at 9:30 a. m.)

« PreviousContinue »