1 Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, about one-half of Mississippi, and about two-thirds of Virginia.

The Hartwell project with a capacity of 180,000 kilowatts is scheduled to start operation in fiscal year 1957 provided funds for initial construction are available in fiscal year 1953. The Hartwell project is an important segment in the over-all plan for development of power at federally constructed projects in the Southeast.

The development of hydroelectric-generating capacity by the Federal Government in the Southeast in connection with flood-control and navigation projects will be a great asset to the power supply in the area. The Jim Woodruff project on the Apalachicola River just below the junction of the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers having a capacity of 30,000 kilowatts will be completed in 1954. The Buford project on the Chattahoochee River in the vicinity of Atlanta, Ga.; the Clark Hill project; the Kerr Dam project and Philpott project all under construction will soon be contributing to the power supply in the area. The Hartwell project will also be an important power supply in the area. Funds should be appropriated to keep all projects on schedule.

POWER PHASE-TABLE ROCK DAM, MO.

Secretary CHAPMAN. I have another memorandum on Table Rock project.

The Table Rock project is one on which the circumstances have changed since we submitted our budget. That change is this: I have entered into a contract with the Arkansas Power & Light Co., related to the Reynolds Metals Co., and its proposed production of aluminum in Arkansas.

Having entered into that contract, I have discussed this quite carefully with the representatives in Arkansas and they realize, as we all do, that this Table Rock project should be built in order to maintain a proper level of production of firm kilowatts for that area so that the power supply can eventually be firmed up further for the other users in the area.

Senator HAYDEN. I understand that you have let a contract for the use of a large block of power which was not contemplated at the time that general plan was drawn. Therefore, the residents of the area who were engaged in farming and so on, who expected as the development came along that they would get the power, now find that here steps in a war industry, an essential industry, and you have taken a block of power away that they otherwise would get.

What you are asking is that the development be undertaken promptly, to make up for this new situation.

Secretary CHAPMAN. That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. In that contract, we have taken away a block of power from those who had

the right to expect to use it for an emergency program, involving 150,000 kilowatts out of that over-all plan. Therefore, these people, as you have said, who anticipated and who had a right to expect it, cannot get it.

We ought to extend this program by building this project so that we can meet the demands of the people who had a right to expect this power.

We did what we thought was proper under the emergency requirements of our defense program.

They have already gone to the expense and foregone the values they would have had in getting this power earlier. This ought to be approved.

I would like to put a detailed memorandum on that situation in the record to cover the questions raised previously in these hearings. (The information referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT ON TABLE ROCK

(See p. 1177)

The Department is very anxious to get the Table Rock project on the White River in southwest Missouri under construction. This is more especially true since we entered into a contract recently committing 150,000 kilowatts of our hydro power to a new aluminum plant in Arkansas. This commitment for aluminum was not in our planned program, consequently it has upset our power supply-power requirements balance which necessitates getting additional hydro plants under construction immediately. We considered it in the public interest to dedicate this large block of power to aluminum production for defense, althought needed by our preference customers. We made this commitment for defense trusting that Congress would take steps to start immediately other hydro plants to replace this power. An initial appropriation for starting construction at Table Rock this year will be a step toward meeting our responsibility to the preferred customers in this area.

Moreover, I trust you will start construction on Table Rock this year because it is a very fine project. I am advised that it could be justified for flood control alone. However, it has very fine hydro power potential. It will have installed initially 84,000 kilowatts of capacity which in an average water year will produce 372,000,000 kilowatt-hours.

There is sufficient water here to serve 84,000 kilowatts of preference customer loads at 50-percent load factor without assistance from steam or other hydro plants. The ultimate planned power installation will be 168,000 kilowatts, producing 445,000,000 kilowatt-hours annually. Furthermore, after 168,000 kilowatts are installed and integrated with steam power of private company systems, it could serve 130,000 kilowatts of preference customer loads and peak the private systems to the extent of 80,000 kilowatts, provided the companies would supply 265,000,000 kilowatts of steam energy during the off-peak hours of their systems.1

Diversity between company and preference customer peak loads.

Coincidental peaks of combined loads.

210, 000 25, 000

185, 000

Kilowatt-hours 569, 400, 000 140, 160, 000

709, 560, 000 445, 000, 000

264, 560, 000

Since the Table Rock project is upstream from the Bull Shoals project. it will firm up additional capacity at Bull Shoals by equalizing the flow of water downstream.

The earliest estimate for initial power production at Table Rock is 1957. Power loads in the area are presently growing at the rate of about 20 percent annually, or doubling about every 5 years. In view of the time period of construction and the rapid rate of normal load growth in the area. I urge the committee to appropriate funds this year to initiate construction of Table Rock project.

POWER PHASE-GAVINS POINT DAM, S. DAK.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Now, I have a statement here on the Gavins Point project. We have spent money on that project and it ought to be continued. We need the power badly in that area.

The committee has heard about Gavins Point two or three times, to my knowledge.

We ought to have this finished now to meet power needs in the area. It ought to be done expeditiously.

First, we need the power as quickly as possible; second, it is more economical to continue its construction without interruption.

(The memorandum referred to follows:)

GAVINS POINT DAM AND POWER PLANT DEVELOPMENT-MISSOURI RIVER BASIN PROJECT

The primary purpose of this development is to provide regulatory storage below Fort Randall Dam, which will thereby permit the full beneficial operation of Fort Randall Dam for the multipurposes for which it is being constructed. In addition the dam at Gavins Point gives a valuable power drop which, utilized to the full, will add valuable power benefits to the Missouri River Basin project. Failure to complete construction of Gavins Point Dam at an early date will most adversely affect the power capabilities at Fort Randall and will prevent the project meeting power demands already requested and now being negotiated by the Bureau of Reclamation. Until the Gavins Point Dam is construsted, the firm output of Fort Randall power plant, according to studies by the Corps of Engineers, is restricted to approximately 140,000 kilowatts. This is due to the necessary restriction in discharge of water from Fort Randall Dam during the ice-cover season. Fort Randall Dam and power development is being constructed as rapidly as possible to its full designed output of 320,000 kilowatts. Because of growing load demands and anticipated needs for this power, every effort to expedite construction is being made. Failure to provide the after storage below Fort Randall before the winter season of 1955 will necessitate governmental refusal of load commitments at Fort Randall in excess of approximately 130,000 to 140,000 kilowatts, regardless of the fact that, by that time, there will be installed in Fort Randall 280,000 kilowatts of capacity. The Bureau of Reclamation is already being asked to commit the Government to deliveries of approximately 200,000 or more kilowatts by the fall of 1955, and this will probably be raised very soon thereafter to the full available capacity which can be delivered from Fort Randall.

Failure to proceed with construction of Gavins Point Dam according to the present schedule, which calls for closure by the summer of 1955, will necessitate the Bureau suspending negotiations for commitments beyond the 140,000 kilowatts above-mentioned.

If the Government cannot maintain the present schedules of generation, the power users may have to resort to the installation of fuel-burning plants to meet their growing demand. This would place an added demand on very critical materials. The completion of the Government projects would be the most economical and expeditious manner in supplying the power requirements of the

area.

It is urged, therefore, that every effort be made to assure construction on Gavins Point Dam to proceed on the presently established schedule.

POWER EXPANSION OF VARIOUS PROJECTS

Secretary CHAPMAN. Now, I want to run down the list to mention several other corps projects which will be delayed by the House cuts. McNary for instance, that will be delayed 6 months. There will be 980,000 kilowatts in that project. This appropriation cut in the House program now delays it 6 months, delays 980,000 kilowatts of power being brought in.

Chief Joseph, 1,024,000 kilowatts will be delayed 9 months.

Albeni Falls in Pend Oreille, Idaho, 42,600 kilowatts, 12 months' delay.

Then the Garrison Dam in Missouri, 400,000 kilowatts, 12 months' delay.

Fort Randall on the Missouri in South Dakota, 320,000 kilowatts, 6 months for the last four units.

The Oahe Dam in South Dakota, 425,000 kilowatts, 12 months' delay.

The Folsom project, the power plant is under construction by the Bureau of Reclamation with the program approved by the House, and the delay in the Corps of Engineers' program creates an unbalance in the development of the Folsom Dam. That is a terrific waste to cut that one down at all. That, of course, is on the American River in California, 162,000 kilowatts, delay 12 months on storage of water. Now, on the Old Hickory project, on the Cumberland, in Tennessee, there are 100,000 kilowatts that will be available there. We need it very badly because the Tennessee Valley Authority needs power to meet defense requirements. They need this 100,000 kilowatts there on schedule which would be delayed 6 months by the cut.

In addition to the fact that these projects are needed for flood control or navigation and they have been studied and approved for their merits for the immediate need of flood control and navigation, they add to the power supply that we need badly.

Now, the funds are cut in half in the Old Hickory project. I think it is totally uneconomic to do it on that basis.

Then there is another one in Arkansas, 75,000 kilowatts, which is a 6-months' delay. That is the Blakley Mountain Dam on the Ouachita. Senator HAYDEN. We have the Davis Dam in Arizona under construction and had a good contractor in on the job. Things were moving along fine. Well, we got into the war. Thinking there might be a conflict between the use of manpower and material, we shut it down. We lost more than 3 years' revenue, we lost $13,000 a day, for about 3 years that you could have had in the Treasury.

And under your new scale of labor and material, it will run the building of the dam immensely higher.

That is a loss two ways-a loss of revenue over the period of delay and loss due to increased cost when it came time to do the work because the contractor had to move off and come on again and, in addition to that, he had to pay more for his material and so forth.

It might be interesting if you could take the total number of kilowatts that could be developed on these projects and multiply it out by the time, and place in this record how much revenue would be lost by this delay rather than the other way.

Secretary CHAPMAN. We can do that. That will be done and it will be very informative because you can see at a glance what you are losing in direct cash returns on your investment. (The information referred to is as follows:)

1 Computation based on methods used by the Federal Power Commission.

2 Evaluated as 1⁄2 of loss at Fort Randall without Gavins Point for 1 year.

3 Not evaluated.

It is estimated that not more than 10,000,000 kilowatt-hours would be generated by this unit. Nearly all capacity value.

PORK-BARREL CHARGE DISCUSSED

Secretary CHAPMAN. I started to say a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, when I was talking about flood control, that I have heard some remarks about "pork barrel." Every time you have a flood-control bill up here, people start hollering "pork barrel"; that is, that you are doing it for "pork barrel" purposes. I have heard it many times and probably I have been guilty of saying it in times past but, as you study this problem, you understand it better.

You examine these projects that are meritorious and feasible and can be approved.

As I indicated earlier, some of those who think there should be other factors and other methods added to a general flood control of the whole river basin still have the opportunity to discuss and argue with the proper people about other features which should be added, but these specific projects have all been agreed upon by practically everybody that knows anything about stream flow and stream development.

I do not frighten very easily about pork-barrel charges any more when I see what these projects can do and what they have done. We ought to face these issues firmly and go ahead with these projects and get returns on our money.

We are committed to a program and this is a good program. We are committed to it to the extent that we have millions of dollars invested and we get no returns until we finish a project. I want us to finish them so that we can get flood control and the related power developments which are so badly needed.

Senator HAYDEN. Thank you for your statement.