Mr. HART. Can you answer what we are doing in connection with sand and gravel?

Mr. LAYTON. Under the contract which we have just made with a geological firm, there will be no core drillings by that firm. They will be given the advantage of core borings that have been made by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and I think they were in Pennsylvania, were they not?

Mr. HARMON. Both in New York and Pennsylvania.

Mr. LAYTON. They will have the benefit of all our subsurface investigations.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Hart, do you not think probably the proper approach to this problem is that the Federal Government should not take your amendment, as you drafted it, because it would give you a lever to use on negotiating with the Indians, to beat them down, claiming that there are valuable deposits of sand and gravel that are under the permanent pool and that the Federal Government, not having paid for them, they still belong to the Indians, that that will place you in a decidedly better position to bargain with the Indians?

Mr. HART. Mr. Saylor, this, of course, is a matter of opinion. In taking an easement, we do not think that it particularly helps us a bit. It is more clean cut if we took the fee. Nevertheless, this estate we are taking insofar as the operation within the water areas is an estate which is not concocted just for this particular taking here. This is one of our long established-when I say long established, at least 8 or 9 years-that we have used in all easement takings of a nature similar to that.

In other words, we could not take an easement with no restrictions in it against structures within our flooded area. We have to have some control of these water areas and within the flooded areas. Otherwise we would not be able to operate the project for the real purpose for which it is operated.

For instance, one of the first things we encountered in the early days of utilizing flowage easements, where there were structures left within this intermittently flooded area, flimsy structures would be washed out, they get into our trash racks in time of flood; if they are heavy, they become a menace and they damage our dam structures. One of the reasons we go in and clear everything out of the flooded areas or even occasionally flooded areas is to enable us to more efficiently operate this as a flood control or power dam, power in those cases where we have power.

Mr. SAYLOR. In other words, if you bought the whole thing, you would have no difficulty in operating the reservoir in accordance with the desires and standards of the Corps of Army Engineers.

Mr. HART. The Corps of Army Engineers are in accordance with the intent and directives of Congress and other agencies. The Corps of Engineers have certain responsibilities to operate. These are very often to a large extent directed by other requirements.

Mr. SAYLOR. What are the other requirements? Are you going to have any more reservoirs up on the headwater of the Allegheny River above this place?

Mr. HART. This I do not know. I was speaking to the general operation of reservoirs.

I think Colonel de Melker before answered in connection with any other projects in this particular area, I believe he said "No," but I would prefer him to reiterate. Do we have any other projects?

Colonel DE MELKER. I believe the question before was directed to the city of Warren. My answer to that was we have no plans at the present time for any projects for Warren.

We have no reservoir projects planned above the Allegheny Dam at the present time. However, we are making studies on two problems above the Allegheny Dam, one in the city of Salamanca and one in a town of Allegany, N.Y. These will not be reservoir-type structures as we know it today. They will probably be channel clearance and levee type protection. They are referred to commonly as a local protection project with which you are familiar, sir.

Mr. SAYLOR. Colonel, since most of the town of Salamanca and particularly that part of Salamanca through which the Allegheny River flows is owned by the Indians, have you been in consultation with them in regard to the project at Salamanca?

Colonel DE MELKER. No, sir;not that I know of. In fact, I do not believe our studies have been to this point.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Hart, if the committee amended this bill to require the Federal Government to pay for all the minerals up to an elevation of 1,340-the reason I picked that, I think I am correct, am I not, Colonel de Melker, that this is the area that will be flooded in your estimation once every 5 years?

Colonel DE MELKER. Yes, sir; this elevation corresponds to the same elevation that we used to take fee title to under the 1953 policy.

Mr. SAYLOR. If this committee wrote into the law that you would pay for all of the sand and gravel and minerals up to 1,340 and then reserved minerals, as you suggested in your amendments to section 6, what would your comment be on that, Mr. Hart?

Mr. HART. I will break it down. Our comments would first be that we would be unhappy with it because, No.1, as mentioned generally before, those within the riverbed, as as matter of law, we do not believe we should have to pay for because we have a permanent right of navigation servitude. So we would like to eliminate the riverbed. That would be No. 1.

Mr. SAYLOR. You concede, though, that following Mr. Layton's statement, the Seneca Nation owns it, the only thing you or anyone else could do would be sure that their mining operations did not interfere with navigation.

Mr. HART. That is correct, but the primary object in this reservoir is for a place to put water. Insofar as the river bed is concerned, we would merely be putting more water there. We think we already have that right and do not think we have to pay for it to begin with since it is there.

To go beyond the riverbed, if we are getting short in time, I will simply say if we were compelled by Congress to take the fee to this, then we would feel it would be proper for us to pay for the fee value of it. We would recommend, however, that it would be unnecessary for us to take the fee just as in those two previous laws you mentioned in the Missouri River. While we took fee to all of the lands there we, nevertheless, in that same section 7, by chance, we did reserve to them all their minerals subject, of course, to such reasonable regulations as

the Secretary of the Army deemed necessary, which is what we would say would be proper.

Of course, that would, to sum up our recommendations, we would not particularly want it, but if you ordered us to do it, we would certainly have to pay for whatever we took.

Mr. SAYLOR. Colonel de Melker, what would the increased height be of the water in the summer pool, the bed of the Allegheny River from the New York line to the extreme northern part of the summer pool?

Colonel DE MELKER. Mr. Saylor, I do not believe that I can give you any one answer to that because, if you will look at the chart, the area from approximately halfway up the reservoir to Salamanca would be unaffected by the reservoir at summer pool. In other words, the conditions as far as the depth of water is concerned would be comparable to what you have today. You see what I mean?

Mr. SAYLOR. That is on map No. 2, the map you referred to yesterday as No. 2, the summer pool is that part that is in dark blue and ends about half way up to Salamanca ?

Colonel DE MELKER. This is the head of the summer pool. the reservoir at summer pool would not affect this reach of the streambed. Conversely, at the other end of the project we would have more water there than we have today.

Mr. SAYLOR. Can you give us any idea of the amount?

Colonel DE MELKER. Do you know the elevation at this point, Mr. Harmon?. The bottom of the river there is approximately 1,280. I do not know what the depth of water is there today. Can you make a guess?

Mr. HARMON. The pool in the Allegheny might run from 4 to 10 feet deep.

Colonel DE MELKER. We will say 4 to 5 feet of water. It would make the water elevation today at 1,285; in summer pool, 1,328. It would be the difference between those two elevations. That would be the extreme condition.

Mr. SAYLOR. So in extreme conditions in summer pool at the Pennsylvania-New York State line, you would have between 40 and 45 feet of water?

Colonel DE MELKER. It is a good guess.

Mr. HALEY. I think in view of the parliamentary situation that we probably have on the floor at the moment and the possibility that we will continue to have rollcalls, quorum calls, and votes on bills, I think probably we had better try to get another day sometime in the near future to continue our hearings on this. I am sorry, gentlemen, that the situation is such as it is. That is one of the things we run up against. With that, the committee will stand adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 3:30 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the chair.)

KINZUA DAM

THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1963

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in the committee room, 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James A. Haley (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HALEY. The committee will be in order.

When the committee rose July 16 we had before us the Acting Director of Real Estate, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Mr. Woodrow Berge, and Col. Bert de Melker, district engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Pittsburgh, Pa., and Mr. Loney W. Hart, Chief of the Legislative Service of the Office of the Chief of Engineers. We are glad to have you with us this morning and if you will please come forward I think we still have some questions to ask.

While you are coming forward, I would like to recognize a new member, at least on the Hill, I presume, for the moment, Maj. Gen. Jackson Graham, who is the Director of the Civil Works Office of the Chief of Engineers. General, we are glad to have you with us. When the committee rose, Mr. Berge, on July 16, we had requested that we be furnished with certain documents and information. Has this been furnished the committee?

Mr. BERGE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it has.

Mr. HALEY. The clerk says it has all been furnished and has been put in the proper place in the record, and we thank you for that.

Mr. Berge, in all of the testimony and all of the information that we have received, the taking of the land of the Senecas has been more or less referred to by the Department and the Corps of Army Engineers as merely the obtaining of easements and rights-of-way. For all practical purposes, the construction of this dam means that the Senecas forever will be denied the benefits of the land.

Could you give the committee some explanation of why the corps and the Department continue to refer to this as the obtaining of easements and flowageways over the Seneca land? Are there any reasons?

207