must be economically justified and the maximum Federal expenditure per project is limited to $100,000. The legislation provides that overall allotment for the Section 208 program shall not exceed $2 million annually. Fiscal year 1967 allocations for project construction follow:

Left Fork, Beaver Creek, Ky.

California Branch, S.C.___.

Muscatutuck River, Crothersville, Ind..

$59,000 41, 600 32,500

Budget Request and Tentative Allocation.-Funds in the amount of $500,000. are requested for Fiscal Year 1968. There is no current backlog of approved snagging and clearing projects awaiting funds. It is tentatively planned to allocate requested FY 1968 funds as follows:

STATEMENT ON PROGRAM FOR PROTECTION OF FLOOD ENDANGERED HIGHWAY BRIDGE APPROACHES AND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC WORKS (SECTION 14 OF THE 1946 FLOOD CONTROL ACT)

General.-Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act provides authority to construct bank protection works to protect endangered highways, highway bridge approaches, and other essential public works such as municipal water supply systems and sewerage disposal plants which are endangered by floodcaused bank erosion. Each Section 14 project must be economically justified and the maximum Federal expenditure per project is limited to $50,000. The legislation provides that overall allotment for the Section 14 program shall not exceed $1 million annually.

Fiscal year 1967 allocations for project construction follow:

Chehalis Water Supply, Washington..

Deschutes River, Rich Road Bridge, Washington...

Skagit River, Cape Horn Road, Washington___

Snohomish River, Snohomish, Washington..

Payette River, Emmett City, Idaho..

Kaahea Stream Bridge, Oahu, Hawaii..

$45,000

42, 000

50,000

50,000

42, 000

23, 000

23, 000

50, 000

Budget request and tentative allocation.-Funds in the amount of $500,000 are requested for fiscal year 1968. There is no current backlog of approved Section 14 projects awaiting funds. It is tentatively planned to allocate requested fiscal year

1968 funds as follows:

Project construction ___

Investigations, advance engineering and design__

Total...

$450,000 50,000

500, 000

STATEMENT ON PROGRAM FOR SMALL BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS (SECTION 103 OF RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT, AS AMENDED)

General. Section 103 provides authority to construct small beach erosion control projects not specifically authorized by Congress. Each project selected must be economically justified and complete-within-itself. Federal cost participation limit per individual project is $500,000. Section 103 funds are used for two purposes-first, to finance investigation of problem areas to develop small beach erosion control projects and second-the approved projects will be financed for construction as the availability of funds permits.

Fiscal Year 1967 allocations for project construction.-No projects were funded in FY 1967.

Budget Request and Tentative Allocation.-Funds in the amount of $250,000 are requested for the Fiscal Year 1968 program. At this time, there is no backlog of

approved Section 103 projects awaiting funds. It is tentatively planned to allocate requested FY 1968 funds as follows:

Project construction___

Studies, investigations, advance engineering and design...

Total_...

Mr. KIRWAN. Mr. Evins.

Mr. EVINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to say hello to General Cassidy and General Woodbury, to greet them, and to congratulate them. I was just sitting here thinking when you see the great Corps of Engineer leaders on one side of the table and our chairman, Chairman Mike Kirwan, on the other, you just meditate a moment and think what this means in terms of progress for our country. I have never known a man more dedicated to building and strengthening America than our Chairman Mike Kirwan, and I recognize the great work which the Corps of Engineers does in cooperation with the committee. So, I want to congratulate you both.

I want to congratulate General Cassidy on the excellent job he is doing and we welcome you, General Woodbury, as the new Director of Civil Works.

BENEFITS ACCRUED FROM CORPS PROJECTS

I appreciated your statement. It is succinct and to the point. You state that savings in flood control alone over the past several years has been more than $14 billion from the projects built by the Army Corps of Engineers. The benefits in this area are already far more than has been expended on the projects. I would ask that you supply a table of other benefits in power, navigation, water supply, and recreation. I also note with interest the corps is giving increased attention to the preservation of national beauty, the enhancement of esthetics.

(The requested information follows:)

While an evaluation is made of the losses that are prevented by completed flood control projects, benefits or savings resulting from the power, navigation improvemerts and recreation due to the construction of Civil Works projects is not evaluated annually. However, a study is being initiated of a selected sampling of Corps projects, with a view of determining the benefits that have been gained as a result of their construction and operation. This study will take several wars to complete. The following tabulation affords a concept of the general magnitude of the results of the construction of projects other than flood control: Power:

Installed capacity as of June 30, 1966, 9,432,000 kilowatts. Generation during fiscal year 1966, 42,489,000 kilowatt-hours. Recreation: Visitation during fiscal year 1966, 193,700,000 visits. Navigation:

Tonnage handled during calendar year 1966, 1.3 billion tons.

Ton-miles of domestic commerce during calendar year 1966, 265 billion ton-miles.

Storage for water supply, water quality, and irrigation, storage capacity during fiscal year 1965, 10 million acre-feet.

RESERVOIR CONTROL CENTERS

Mr. EVINS. I was also interested in your statement about your reservoir control centers. You have one on the Missouri River, one on the Columbia River, and you are planning one for the Ohio River.

I think this is farseeing in envisioning how the State and local people can cooperate, giving them some of the responsibility with the corps providing guidance.

How far along are you on this work?

General CASSIDY. The center on the Missouri has been established. The center on the Columbia has been established. The center in the Southwest has been established but it is just beginning to function. It is brand new. We are just in the planning stage on the Ohio.

Mr. EVINS. They should be invaluable as a tool of management to assure the projects are operated for all the benefits.

General CASSIDY. There will be a coordinating committee representing the Federal agencies and the States involved which get together quite frequently and make their recommendations and these recommendations are transmitted to the control center and the division engineer.

PROPOSED FULL FUNDING OF PROJECTS COSTING UNDER $3 MILLION

Mr. EVINS. General, I was interested in one more innovation. You are proposing our appropriation for the full funding of projects costing $3 million or less rather than spreading it over 2 or 3 years. I understand it does not affect what the local people have to pay.

General CASSIDY. No, sir. All the rules are the same, except that we will come to this committee and the Congress just once for a project costing $3 million or less. Rather than spreading it over a couple of years, we will ask for one appropriation which we will use over that same period of time.

Mr. EVINS. I still like the provision for local participation, and this is to be continued?

General CASSIDY. Yes.

ADDITIONAL PLANNING PERSONNEL

Mr. EvINS. I also want to ask you about your "General expense" appropriation. You stressed the need for an increase of $1,924,000 to plan now for our future needs so we can move ahead after the Vietnam war. I appreciate that it is necessary to prepare now for the job ahead.

General CASSIDY. Really, sir, it is right now that we need the additional people, and even during the war and during any period when it might be necessary to hold down construction, we would still want to proceed with the planning. It is urgent that we know how we are going to handle the water resources of the country. So that planning alone, if nothing else, should continue. Planning is becoming more complicated all the time. We have more agencies to deal with. We have the Water Resources Council which we must constantly provide information to. We are spreading out into other disciplines. In the early days of the Corps we only needed to consider navigation and did not even have to consider how that navigation affected other things. Now, we just plain need additional people to help us in the many fields that our work touches on.

Basically, there are some 30,000 people in my force on civil works. We are asking for an additional 118 under the "General expense" appropriation to help us provide the direction and management for our increasingly complex program.

ENGINEER RECRUITMENT

Mr. EVINS. One further question. Are you having difficulty recruiting these young engineers?

General CASSIDY. Yes, sir, we have difficulty, but we do manage to obtain them. It just takes a long time and a lot of work. Mr. EVINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KIRWAN. Mr. Boland.

Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to join Mr. Evins in the compliments he paid both to the chairman of this committee and the Corps of Engineers for the work the committee and the corps have done over the years in the great field of navigation and flood control.

STRETCHOUT POLICY

Has there been any indication on the part of the Bureau of the Budget that it might change its attitude with respect to the starting of projects in fiscal 1968 because the pressures of inflation seem to be lifting?

General CASSIDY. No, sir; I think we have no indication at all of that.

Mr. BOLAND. You indicate in your statement that there was a delay of contract awards and other work originally planned for fiscal year 1967. Can you detail for the record those projects which are strictly concerned with flood control which have been delayed? Are there any in that category that have been delayed?

General CASSIDY. Yes, sir, in the new starts, for instance, we delayed local flood protection projects 3 months, and other projects 6 months.

Mr. BOLAND. How much longer will it take to complete these particular projects as a result of this delay? Would it take 3 months or 6 months or a year, or what?

General CASSIDY. Some of them will be delayed as much as an equivalent period. Some will have to go through another flood season or another working season. Generally, I believe we will stick pretty close to the original completion schedules.

Mr. BOLAND. I hope that is so, because no one realizes better than you and your staff that floods do not wait for time nor man nor anyone else. They come sometimes at the most unexpected and inopportune moment. We have a responsibility to make sure that an adequate flood control program is carried out by the Nation under the corps and under the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, program. This stretch-out policy gives me, as it does other members of this committee, I am sure, some concern on flood control projects. I would hope there may be some shifting on the part of the Bureau of the Budget and the administration with respect to the dood control projects. Since there has been recently an indication that inflation seems to be lessening a bit, perhaps we ought to move forward and do some of the work that we have scheduled to do, and I hope that we can do it in 1968. I understand what the corps has to operate under, so I do not blame the corps for it at all.

Again, I want to compliment the Corps of Engineers and you, General Cassidy, for the great leadership you have shown in the years you have been at the head of this magnificent organization and the very magnificent staff that stands behind you. Thank you very much.

Mr. KIRWAN. Mr. Whitten.

NEED FOR MAINTAINING A RESERVE OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS

Mr. WHITTEN. General, I think we all agree with our chairman. I do not speak for him, but I do know him, and I gained the impression from his line of questions that it was quite evident that Vietnam does not, in his mind at least, give us any excuse to let our own country go to pot. We have been in that kind of fight numerous times in the past. The more our problems, the greater the necessity for protecting ourselves at home, because this is what has to support the rest of it.

I do not want

There are several things that are of interest to me. to take up too much time. One of them is that the very serious nature of the Vietnam problem means that when the economy is geared up at the fast speed that ours is, you must have some way to adjust it rapidly when the fighting is over in Vietnam. We all pray that will not be too far removed, although we do not know. However far distant it may be, whenever we can cut back, the best thing we can do is to have public works projects ready to more. Otherwise, the activity of the Government, in an emergency, is liable to be shunted off in some programs that may be wasteful rather than beneficial.

ENUMERATION OF PROJECT PURPOSES

The major question I have in my mind, though, as was pointed out by Mr. Evins, is that now when you come to judge the value of public works project, you also consider esthetics, recreation, water supply, and municipal water supply as benefits. What are the various factors that you can count now in a project in computing the benefit-tocost ratio? I do not question their being benefits.

General CASSIDY. The usual ones of navigation, flood control, and power. We also have water supply, water quality, and some irrigation. We can count recreation. These can all be project purposes. We also credit benefits from fish and wildlife enhancement from time to time. Esthetics and the preservation of environment are not project purposes. They are expenses that we have to take into account in our total costs, but we haven't been able to put a dollar value on the benefits from them.

ADJUSTING MINIMUM WATER LEVEL IN RESERVOIRS

Mr. WHITTEN. The reason I asked, I happen to come from an area where flood control projects were built earlier. My efforts have been to get the corps to recognize that to let these reservoirs become absolutely empty would seriously affect the local economy which benefits greatly from recreation. The most valuable lands throughout 5 or 6 or 7 counties is under water. So, the economy of the land no longer exists. The local Corps of Engineers opposes leaving water at a level where you will not completely disrupt the recreation activities that benefit business, as well as the individual. Congress has changed your obligations in this area, and has changed the law; so these are established benefits that may go into the benefit/cost ratio. I wish the Corps of Engineers would review the older projects and see what