point of use, and (3) the net value of the increase in commodities transported and consumed.

In

Domestic, municipal, and industrial water supply benefits.-Improvements in quantity, dependability, quality, and physical convenience of water use. practice, the measure of the benefit is taken as approximating the cost of achieving the same or comparable results by the most likely alternative means that would be utilized in the absence of the project under study. Where such an alternative source is not available or would not be economically feasible, the benefits are valued in terms of the value of water to users or the cost of raw water (for comparable units of dependable yield) from municipal or industrial water supply projects planned or recently constructed in the general region.

Water quality control benefits.-The net contribution to public health, safety, economy, and effectiveness in use and enjoyment of water for all purposes which are subject to detriment or betterment by virtue of change in water quality. In the absence of adequate means for evaluating directly the economic effects of water quality improvement, the cost of achieving the same results by the most likely alternative is commonly used as an approximation of the benefit value. Electric power benefits.-The value of power to the users as measured by the amount they should be willing to pay for such power. The usual practice is to measure the value to users in terms of the cost of achieving the same result by the most likely alternative means that would be utilized in the absence of the hydro electric project.

Recreation benefits.-The value of net increases in the quantity and quality of recreational activities i.e., boating, swimming, camping, water skiing and other water and water related activities. In the general absence of market prices, Corp evaluations utilize a schedule of visitor day values for various water oriented recreational activities developed and promulgated by the Federal Water Resources Council. These values have been derived on the basis of a simulated market, giving weight to all pertinent considerations, including charges that recreationists should be willing to pay and to actual charges being paid by users for comparable opportunities at other installations or on the basis of justifiable alternative costs. Fish and wildlife benefits.-Sport fishing and hunting benefits are evaluated on the same basis as other recreational activities. Commercial fish and wildlife are evaluated on the basis of market prices less the associated costs of harvest. Drainage and irrigation benefits.-These reclamation-type benefits are evaluated in terms of the increase in the net income from agricultural production, and the increase in the value of affected urban and industrial lands.

Land stabilization benefits.-Reduction in the loss of net income, or loss in value of land and improvements, through the prevention of loss or damage by stream bank cutting and shore or beach erosion or, conversely, in terms of advantageous effects of land stabilization. Benefits from shore protection projects are measured to a large extent in terms of their recreation use.

Area redevelopment benefits.—These benefits are limited to officially designated Economic Development Areas pursuant to the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (PL 89-136, 89th Congress). They consist of the wages and salaries of otherwise unemployed workers in project construction operation and maintenance.

Economic Development benefits.-In Appalachia and other regions approved by Congress for special regional development programs, these benefits include the net increase in wages and salaries and returns to other resources in pro ductive activity stemming from or induced as a result of a project.

Intangible benefits. In addition to the foregoing benefits that can be evaluated in monetary terms, consideration is given in Corps evaluations to intangible benefits such as security of life, improved health conditions, and preservation and enhancement of scenic values, beauty, and rare species of wildlife. To th fullest practicable extent, the cost of achieving these benefits is separately identi fied and compared with the cost of alternative means for their accomplishment

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION BILL

Mr. ROBISON. The reference you made earlier to the Nationa Water Commission bill is, I presume, a reference to the bill which I believe has already passed the other body? Is that correct? General CASSIDY. That is correct.

Mr. ROBISON. And it is now pending before the House?

General CASSIDY. That is correct.

Mr. ROBISON. Would this bill, if enacted, establish in your view another Federal agency determining water policy?

General CASSIDY. Since this commission would provide an overall study of water policy problems nationally and would make recommendations, it would tend to be establishing policy if the recommendations were adopted.

Mr. ROBISON. I ask that because I am concerned over the number of Federal agencies that now exist and whose activities are related to the establishment of Federal water policy.

General CASSIDY. This is a one-shot organization as it is now contemplated.

Mr. ROBISON. The National Water Commission?

General CASSIDY. Yes, sir. It will come into being to make a certain number of studies as set out in the legislation and then it will go out of business.

WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

Mr. ROBISON. Is there now one overall Federal body concerned with coordinating Federal water policy?

General CASSIDY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBISON. What is that?

General CASSIDY. The Water Resources Council.

Mr. ROBISON. And under its coordinating supervision are there a whole variety of other Federal bureaus, agencies, and programs, and so forth, that will carry out that policy, with the Water Resources Council acting as the coordinating body?

General CASSIDY. Yes, sir.

STRETCHOUT POLICY

Mr. ROBISON. I noted the discussion we had about the stretchout of the corps' program due to the economic problems we faced last fall and may still face to a certain extent. I am confused about the two figures we heard. The first figure in your statement is that the corps is expecting to absorb $60 million of the stretchout, and the other figure is $437 million-I believe you referred to it as $436 million. I that also a part of the stretchout?

General CASSIDY. Sir, the $436 million is the total cost or value of the contracts being stretched out.

Mr. ROBISON. And the $60 million is the stretchout of those projects in this fiscal year?

General CASSIDY. Yes, sir, it is the reduction in expenditures this fiscal year.

CRITERIA USED IN APPLYING STRETCHOUT

Mr. ROBISON. What criteria did the corps apply in order to determine what projects to delay?

General CASSIDY. With respect to new starts, a local protection project was delayed 3 months. All other new starts were deaved 6 months. And then for the going construction projects, we looked over the field to see what projects we could delay with the least harm to overall construction progress.

77-919-67-pt. 1- —5

Mr. ROBISON. There was no delay, as I understand it, in any planning or survey?

General CASSIDY. That is essentially correct, sir, no delays in planning.

Mr. ROBISON. This is only in actual construction?

General CASSIDY. That is generally the case, sir. We did, however, also delay some minor land acquisition.

Mr. ROBISON. Did the corps attempt to reassess its own priorities in regard to the various projects, as best you could?

General CASSIDY. As best we could, yes. For going projects, they had to be at a stage where we were going to let additional contracts and we delayed some of those for varying lengths of time.

RECENT FLOODINGS IN NORTHEAST

Mr. ROBISON. We have had in the last 10 days a series of rather severe floodings here in the Northeast, particularly, in the West Virginia area. Do you have any statement on those floodings that you could provide the committee at this time, and also could you comment on whether this experience would cause the Corps to reassess the projects that have been delayed as a result of the stretchout? General CASSIDY. I have a statement on the recent flooding which I could put in the record or read, sir.

Mr. ROBISON. That is fine. Put it in the record.

(The following statement was submitted for the record:)

FLOODING

Rainfall over the week-end starting 4 March caused heavy run-off and flooding of varying degrees throughout the eastern section of the country. High water caused flooding in the Delaware River North Branch of the Potomac River, Cumberland River, Salt River, Green River and the Wabash and White River Basins. In these areas minor flooding lasted for one or two days.

The heavier rainfall was over West Virginia and Kentucky over the headwaters of the rivers on the westerly side of the Appalachian Mountains. The affected headwaters were those of the Monongahela, Little Kanawha, Guyandot, Big Sandy, and Kentucky Rivers.

In the Monongahela River Basin the flooding was most severe causing a record flood height in the middle Monongahela River. Towns along the West Fork of the Monongahela River and the Monongahela main stem were damaged, people were evacuated and industry was interrupted. The navigation locks on the river were inoperative from periods ranging from 1 day, 4 hours to 3 days, 5 hours. The little Kanawha River exceeded floodstage throughout most of the basin requiring assistance from the National Guard and the Red Cross.

The Guyandot River crested at Logan, West Virginia one foot below the flood of record causing 1800 to 2000 homes to be evacuated in this area.

The Big Sandy River and its headwater tributaries exceeded flood stages, with the crest at Williamson about 2 feet below flood of record. The hospital at Williamson was evacuated along with numerous persons in the basin.

The town of Hazard, Kentucky was flooded in the headwaters of the Kentucky River Basin.

High waters occurred in the Ohio River as a result of run-off from the above tributary streams causing some flooding.

All completed Corps reservoirs in the flood areas were effectively operated and the local protection projects proved satisfactory.

Preliminary estimates of the damages are in the order of $35,000,000. Four lives were lost in West Virginia, two from drowning and two from heart attacks; and one person was drowned in Kentucky. Were it not for flood prevention projects in operation, these damages would have approximated $158,000,000. Thus more than $120 million in damages was prevented, $72 million by reservoirs and $50 million by local protection projects.

General CASSIDY. General Woodbury can answer the last part of your question.

General WOODBURY. We have examined two projects which were involved in the stretch-out and which were also involved in this flooding. One of them was the R. D. Bailey project and the other was Beach Fork.

Mr. ROBISON. Will you identify the Bailey project and the Beach Fork project? Are they both in West Virginia?

General Woodbury. Yes, sir. They are in the Big Sandy Basin. These projects were delayed from starts originally scheduled in May and June until next November and December, respectively.

When we reprogram our starts this way we readjust our work schedules. So the work schedules on these two projects have been readjusted to fit in with the later starts. We endeavored over the weekend to see what could be done to recover the lost time in these projects and we find that it would be only with great difficulty that we could do that at this time. There is a possibility the Bailey project might be started earlier say in September instead of Novemberbut this is pressing the project quite a lot in order to do that. The contract involved is a relocation for a railroad tunnel. We are studying now what might be done to recover as much of the lost time as possible without incurring added expense.

LOW-FLOW AUGMENTATION

Mr. ROBISON. I have only one other general question. It relates to the statement made by General Cassidy with respect to the importance, the increasing importance as he said, to provide for augmented flows from reservoir storage to maintain adequate standards of water quality, particularly during natural low-flow periods. This becomes of increasing importance, as you view it, General?

General CASSIDY. Yes, as our population increases we withdraw more water and return more water to our streams. By law, lowfow augmentation is not permitted to replace sewage treatment. So what we are thinking of is water returned to the stream after treatment in the order of 90 percent. During low-flow periods there is too much return for the stream to carry and have the water still be reusable downstream. As pointed out by the Senate Select Committee on Water Resources some years ago, the biggest demand for water storage must be for low-flow regulation to see that there is enough water to carry what man will put in the stream after treatment.

Mr. ROBISON. Thank you for that information. Our chairman and our ever-efficient clerk will know that I am interested in this abject as one who resides along the low-flowing Susquehanna River. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KIRWAN. Thank you, General and your staff, for appearing. The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1967.

NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION

WITNESSES

BRIG. GENERAL ROY T. DODGE, DIVISION ENGINEER

CHARLES F. MacNISH, CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION

VERNON O. PETERSON, CHIEF, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT BRANCH

Mr. BOLAND. We will now turn to the North Central Division. We are happy to welcome Brig. Gen. Roy T. Dodge, Division Engineer; Charles F. MacNish, Chief, Engineering Division, and Vernon O. Peterson, Chief, Program Development Branch.

General, as we have done with other divisions, we would like a rundown of some of the important programs that you have in your division, what you are doing now and just a general statement on the area that the North Central Division covers and any problems you may have.

General DODGE. I would be pleased to give you an opening statement here in which I will very briefly describe the North Central Division boundaries and my responsibilities in civil works, discuss some of our problem areas, and a few of our studies and projects which we will cover in more detail later.

If I may, I would like to illustrate some of the more important points with slides as we go along.

The North Central Division (slide 2) includes all or parts of the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri. Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. As you see the North Central Division extends from the Montana State line to eastern New York State and from the Canadian border to a few miles north of St. Louis, Mo. From headquarters in Chicago, the Division supervises the activities of six districts. Two are located on the Mississippi River at St. Paul, Minn., and at Rock Island, Ill. On the lakes there are district offices at Chicago, Ill. Detroit, Mich., and Buffalo, N.Y. There is also an additional dis trict at Detroit, the U.S. Lake Survey District, which is responsible for compiling and publishing navigation charts of all the lakes collecting basic hydraulic data of the lakes and recently has beer expanded to perform basic research in the problems and character istics of Great Lakes water.

DRAINAGE BASINS

The North Central Division includes three major drainage basins (slide 3) the Souris-Red, Upper Mississippi, and the Great Lakes. ] will discuss the studies, projects and problems peculiar to each in turn First, the Souris-Red Basin. In the Souris portion of the basin there are no major existing projects. Major problems are drainage flood control and water for municipal and industrial uses. A survey report on the Souris River, which proposes provisions of flood pro