The CHAIRMAN. What is it, Mr. Burton?

Mr. BURTON. I say we have another witness who desires to be heard by the committee. I wonder whether you would be able to hear him sometime today, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir; there will not be any further hearings today of this committee.

Mr. BURTON. There will not be any further hearings of the committee today?

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir. If they want to file their statements, they may. I would say we have in the morning other people who are to be here for about an hour, and if your constituents want to remain over they may, but this hearings was held for you primarily this morning. Mr. BURTON. Yes, sir; and we appreciate it very much.

The CHAIRMAN. If they want to be here tomorrow, we will try to hear them about 11: 30 or 12 o'clock.

Mr. LAMBETH. May the other witnesses appear before the clerk and put their statements in while they are here?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Burton, they have permission to give their statements to the clerk.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, sir. That will be satisfactory.

Mr. NOLAND. With reference to the approximately 80 acres of ground within the corporate limits of Altavista, this acreage is zoned industry, but it cannot be used for industrial purposes even though it is served by two railroads because of the frequent inundation. Consequently, capital suffers because expansion is prohibited, and the town suffers because the assessed valuation of this property is now practically nothing, whereas if flood control were in existence, the property could be developed and, of course, the property would be worth tremendously more to everyone concerned.

I would like to state that there are two industries within this town now, the Lane Co., which manufactures cedar chests, and the weaving plant of the Burlington Mills Corp.

Burlington Mills has now under construction a second plant, just outside the town, but on the banks of the Roanoke River, and also the United States Gypsum Corp. owns 187 acres of land just beyond the corporate limits and considerable other acreage will be unusable or will be very expensive to develop for industrial purposes because of the high-water potential.

It is, therefore, my opinion that the people of Altavista stand to benefit very greatly by flood control upstream from Altavista, which protection would be afforded by the construction of Smith Mountain. Dam.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask permission to have this telegram inserted in the record just at this point. (The telegram referred to is as follows:)

Hon. Toм PICKETT,

ROANOKE, VA., May 25, 1949.

Chairman, House Public Works Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.:

We have noted in this morning's Roanoke Times that City Manager Owens and Councilman Cronin are to appear before your committee Thursday, May 26, to urge the authorization of the Smith Mountain Dam project on Roanoke River. A great many of our neighbors and we having farms in the Roanoke River Basin vigorously oppose and protest this development. We sincerely trust that your committee will not approve this authorization.

Misses FRANCES AND MELVA PAYNE.

Mr. BURTON. Before you adjourn, will you hear Mr. Dan Cronin? The CHAIRMAN. Which do you want done, do you want to insert their statements, or do you want the committee to hear some of them tomorrow morning?

Mr. BURTON. I would like to have all the statements inserted except that of Mr. Cronin, and if you are meeting tomorrow morning, I would like to have him testify for a matter of 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. When we get to them after a number of other witnesses who have been notified are heard.

JOINT STATEMENT OF A. R. PARKER, DANVILLE, VA., VICE PRESIDENT, CLEMENTS & PARKER, INC., VICE PRESIDENT, DANVILLE HOTEL, INC., AND DIRECTOR OF ROANOKE RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION, AND GLENN B. UPDIKE, DANVILLE, VA., VICE PRESIDENT, PATTERSON DRUG CO., INC.

Danville is definitely interested in the development of additional flood control and power in our area. The Smith Mountain project is approximately 30 miles from Danville and a very important part of the over-all plan for the development of the Roanoke River Basin and its natural resources.

The electric plant of the city of Danville is municipally owned and operated and has been for over 60 years. At the present time an addition to the source of power is being completed. This is a one and a half million dollar steam plant being constructed by the city of Danville on the Dan River because of the shortage of power at a price that was satisfactory otherwise. Demand for additional power in Danville has doubled twice within the past 20 years. Even with the addition of this steam plant, with a 6,000-kilowatt installed capacity, and a yearly output of 40,000,000 kilowatt-hours, the present estimate is that additional capacity will be needed within the next 24 months. Our city council has just authorized a stand-by contract with a private power company at $54,000 per year over a 5-year period, as a further evidence of the demand.

The Smith Mountain project is unusual because of the maximum benefits available with a minimum of comparable expense and inconvenience in similar projects. There will be very little dislocation of families in the area. The project does not disturb any primary highway and very little secondary highway. Only one small bridge is involved, and engineers state this can be raised very easily to take care of the situation. There is no railway involved whatsoThe agricultural value of the land below the dam and its protection from floods is much greater than that above the proposed dam. This is due to the physical advantages of a narrow channel, the location having high hills on one side and Smith Mountain on the other.

ever.

We believe that the construction of the proposed Smith Mountain Dam will be a material asset to the rural electrification program and that the benefits from flood control and other benefits will affect the general prosperity and development of the entire area. In addition, it fits into the recommendations for the control and utilization of the waters of the Roanoke River and its tributaries in Virginia and North Carolina.

STATEMENT OF WYATT H. WALTON, PRESIDENT, SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, HUDDLESTON, VA., CHAIRMAN OF BEDFORD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Walton.

Mr. WALTON. I am president of the Southside Electric Cooperative with headquarters at Crewe, Va.

I am interested in this project from an electrical standpoint. My company operates in 15 southside Virginia counties, and we are serving at this time more than 10,000 farmer consumers, and also at this time we have lines constructed to some 300 or 400 consumers, but due to the shortage in wholesale power we have been unable to connect these consumers to the lines.

Due to this situation in reference to electricity, there is an uncertainty from time to time as to the source of wholesale power.

Every year, or every so often, we have to negotiate contracts for wholesale power. We never know from one time to another just what the future situation holds in store for us. There is a much greater need for electricity on the farm, and this need appears to be increasing.

The Southside Electric Cooperative is having an increased demand for electric current, which is going to make its requirements for wholesale electricity very much greater in the years ahead.

Also, I am chairman of the board of supervisors of Bedford County, and I have a resolution which was unanimously adopted by the board that this Smith Mountain project be constructed as soon as possible. (The resolution referred to is as follows:)

Virginia: At a meeting of the board of supervisors of Bedford County, May 23, 1949.

On motion duly made and seconded, it is resolved that this board favors the construction of the Smith Mountain Dam at as early a date as possible.

Mr. WALTON. I am also director of the Bedford County Chamber of Commerce, and they have unanimously endorsed the project.

STATEMENT OF DAN J. CRONIN, MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VA.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Cronin.

Mr. CRONIN. At the outset let say that I appear before your committee today upon the authority of a unanimous resolution of the Roanoke City Council, adopted May 23, 1949.

The council of the city of Roanoke is interested in the full development of the Roanoke River Valley and Buggs Island project for manifold reasons which I shall outline for you as briefly as possible.

First, Roanoke is the commercial center of southwestern Virginia, and a considerable portion of what is known as the Piedmont area. Any project that aids this area will be reflected in the retail and wholesale business in the city of Roanoke and will improve the general economic condition of our citizens.

Conversely, any neglect of the resources of this area will have an adversce effect upon the people of the city of Roanoke.

Second, the council of the city of Roanoke is interested in the project as a municipal governing body because of the high rates of electric power that our city has to pay for street lighting and for the lighting of city buildings.

We are now, and have been for some months, negotiating a new street lighting contract. These negotiations have opened our eyes to the excessive price the city is paying for electric power. The full development of this proposed project would permit the city of Roanoke, as well as its citizens, to enjoy fair power rates either through existing distribution facilities, or through the city running its own transmission line to the source of power.

Third, the area south of the city of Roanoke is an agricultural area that is not highly productive and the future of this area lies in the improvement of worn-out land, such as was accomplished in the Tennessee Valley Authority area, and through attaining an even balance

between agriculture and industry. The availability of power at fair rates would be an important factor in the industrial progress of this area and, consequently, the economic life of our city would be enriched along with the progress of the entire area.

Fourth, the city of Roanoke has already taken steps to bring about the improvement of the Roanoke River, not only within the city, but in the areas downstream.

One of the great complaints out of those living downstream from Roanoke has been the excessive pollution of the river and it is obvious that many of the benefits of the development project would be nullitied if this pollution were permitted to continue.

Therefore, I cannot too strongly remind this committee that the city of Roanoke has made detailed plans and surveys and that the City Council of Roanoke has passed an ordinance calling for a bond election to construct a sewage and waste disposal plant south of the city. The council has also invited other political subdivisions in the valley to become a part of this project.

The contribution of the people of Roanoke toward the cleaning up of this river will total several millions of dollars. The people of Roanoke do not plan to shirk their responsibility in this matter. An adequate water level is essential to the proper disposal of the waste from this system.

While the city of Roanoke will benefit from the enrichment of the entire area through the control of floodwaters, the prevention of erosion and the improvement of farm lands, our chief concern is in the field of electric power.

The State of Virginia has an abundance of natural waterpower that is being wasted because it is not being harnessed for the benefit of its citizens. Whenever the subject of a public-power project is advanced, we find the special interests claiming that water power generated electricity is too expensive because of the cost of erecting facilities. They tell us the coal-fired steam generating plants are more economical.

However, we in the city of Roanoke find this claim of economical source hard to believe when we compare our rates with other sections of the country. If coal-fired steam generation is more economical, it appears that the Appalachian Electric Power Co. is the one who gains by the economy and not the householders in our city.

Normally this question of rates is one we would take up with our State corporation commission. On this point let me say that there are many people who do not feel that the State corporation commission is fully responsive to the people. In this connection there was a resolution passed at the last annual meeting of the Virginia League of Municipalities urging the commission to pay more attention to the people's interest.

Therefore, some of us feel that our only relief is through federally sponsored power projects.

Please permit me to cite just a few figures in this connection.

Virginia is a coal-producing State, and the steam plants of the Appalachian Power Co. are located with the coal fields almost in their back yards, yet there are 27 States out of 48 in which the average light bills are lower than in Virginia.

It costs nearly $5 per ton to ship coal from southwestern Virginia to Connecticut. Despite this transportation expense and higher labor

costs and higher State taxes in Connecticut, the homeowners in the city of New Haven pay 22 cents less per 100 kilowatts than do the homeowners of the city of Roanoke. The New Haven rate is $3.60 per 100 kilowatts, while the Roanoke rate is $3.82. The rate in Bristol, Va., a municipal plant using TVA sources, is $2.50.

LOCAL PROTECTION AT BEATRICE, NEBR., AND AT HUBBELL, NEBR. STATEMENT OF HON. CARL T. CURTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, I appear here in reference to local flood control works at Beatrice, Nebr., and at Hubbell, Nebr. I will first speak of the project at Beatrice.

The Big Blue River flows through the city of Beatrice, county seat of Gage County, Nebr. At that point Indian Creek enters the Big Blue. This community has experienced a great number of damaging floods. The local citizens have been interested in improvement to prevent these flood losses for some time. The Army engineers have studied the situation and formulated a plan and the benefits exceed the costs.

It is only a few weeks ago that press and radio of the entire Nation carried the news of the floods at Beatrice. A great many of the people living near these streams had to abandon their homes and there was considerable loss of property. The property loss has been more severe in some of the other recent years than this year. This loss has been cut down because of the efforts of the local citizens.

This flood control project at Beatrice, Nebr., was recommended by the district engineer at Kansas City in his report on the Kansas River Basin dated March 15, 1947. The estimated cost to the Federal Government is $440,000. It calls for substantial local cash contribution. At the present time this Kansas River Basin report is in the hands of the President's Bureau of the Budget and has been there since April 4, 1949. For more than a year prior thereto the report was held up in the Office of the Chief of Engineers because of the controversies over other projects in the Kansas River Basin totally unrelated to the Beatrice project or the Hubbell project which I shall mention later.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I wish to at this time include a somewhat detailed statement on this problem and the proposed project which was prepared by me last year.

BEATRICE, NEBR.

Extent and character of flooded area.-Beatrice is located near the center of Gage County on Indian Creek and the Big Blue River, at their junction, approximately 130 miles above the mouth of the Big Blue River. The population of Beatrice increased 5.7 percent from 1930 to 1940. This municipality has been damaged on a number of occasions by floods either from Indian Creek or the Big Blue River or by floodwaters from both streams. The three most serious floods were those of May 1903, June 1911, and September 1941. The flood of September 1941, the highest of record, reached a stage of 26.3 feet, 10.3 feet above flood stage. Along Indian Creek approximately 20 blocks were flooded amounting to about 180 acres. Along the Big Blue River from Riverside Park in the northwest section of the town to the city limits in the southeast section of the town in the vicinity of Chautauqua Park, an area of approximately 360 acres was flooded. Within the area described above 185 residences, 1 church, 20 business establishments, the county fairgrounds, 2 public parks, 1 nursery and seed company, and the yards, shops, and equipment of 2 railroads were flooded to depths ranging up to 6 feet.