Mr. SHEA. No. Senator BURTON. Where does it do its damage? Mr. SHEA. Our observation, and our evidence, which has been undisputed, is that West River has a flash flood. It comes up and deposits itself in the West River, and it is in Long Island Sound before the Connecticut River goes into a flood stage. Senator BURTON. I remember your statement on that. Mr. SHEA. Yes. Senator BURTON. Of course, the whole purpose of our building this dam is to prevent flood damage to somebody, and I wondered where that flood damage was that we were preventing. Mr. SHEA. Our position on that is that this is a misnomer. That is not a flood dam. It is a power dam which is being sought under the guise of "flood control." Senator BURTON. In making sure we eliminate any provision for the power feature, the dam will be solely for flood control, and it is also your contention that it does not control any flood? Mr. SHEA. Precisely; and we have incorporated it in our statement, which will be available to you to read, pointing out that particular thing. Senator BURTON. As to the areas where there is flood damage claimed, whether properly blamed on the West River or not, that itself is down on the Connecticut River? Mr. SHEA. Yes. Senator BURTON. Can you tell me, to what extent does the flow at the peak from this West River increase the height of the Connecticut River when it gets down there? What does it add to it? Mr. SHEA. I would not say it added anything. I have not seen or heard any testimony that the flow of the West River increased the flow of the Connecticut to any marked degree. Senator BURTON. That was the thing that impressed me, was the rather small stream, which has a flash flood, and it does not do any flood damage claimed by anybody until it gets down into the big river, and when it gets down to the big river, it is a question of how much it raises that big river, if it raises it far enough. That is not much of a flood, to wipe out several towns, in order to prevent it. Senator AIKEN. I think the engineers for the dam, Senator Burton, are here, and they can probably answer your question almost exactly. Senator OVERTON. Thank you very much. Mr. SHEA. Do you want us to leave the photographs? Senator OVERTON. Yes, indeed. Mr. SHEA. We will be very glad to do that. (The photographs referred to are filed with the committee.) Mr. SHEA. We have one more witness that would make a slight statement. He is Mr. Goss, of the National Grange. Senator CORDON. May I interrupt just a moment, Mr. Chairman, in order to get a correction in the record? The other witness stated that there was about 40 square miles inundated. You meant 4, did you not? Mr. SHEA. No; I meant 40. Senator CORDON. You could not get 40 square miles in 2,900 acres, or 640 acres. Mr. BUSH. That would be, gentlemen, about 12 miles long on the low dam, and 15 miles long on the high dam, and about a mile and a half to two miles wide; so that would figure up more acreage, and there would be about 3,500 acres of the best tillage land in southern Vermont. Senator CORDON. That would be less than 6 square miles, though? Mr. BUSH. There would be about 1,500 to 2,000 people that would have to be relocated. General ROBINS. There are not that many people living in that area. Senator OVERTON. The statement is 2,000 permanent residents, 3,000 summer residents. General ROBINS. Not in that area. That must be a mistake. Senator AIKEN. In that case it would be more. General ROBINS. There are several cemeteries there. Mr. BUSH. I think we have about 16 cemeteries that will have to be relocated. General ROBINS. Four, according to our figures. Mr. SHEA. We have been on the conservative side on this all the way down, on our testimony. General ROBINS. That is all right by me. Mr. SHEA. The statement I made will stand. Mr. Goss. Senator OVERTON. All right. Mr. Goss. STATEMENT OF ALBERT S. GOSS, MASTER OF THE NATIONAL GRANGE Mr. Goss. Albert S. Goss, master of the National Grange. I do not appear as an expert in the case of this dam at all. There are just two or three things in which the Grange has a decided interest. Senator BURTON. Your home is in the State of Washington, is it not? Mr. Goss. Washington, D. C. Senator BURTON. It is not in Vermont? Mr. Goss. Washington, D. C. I come from the State of Washington; yes. Senator BURTON. I mean you are not a Vermonter. Mr. Goss. No; I am not a Vermonter. Senator BURTON. But you are for a national point of view on this picture? Mr. Goss. Yes; on the national point of view. In order that you may know that we are not prejudiced, we have long supported flood-control measures. Neither have we been opposed to the public power development such as has apparently been in contemplation, under certain circumstances. We have been before your committee a number of times on those measures, and I think your committee understands our position on them. We do feel from the standpoint of power, however, that although it may not be in contemplation at present, those things have a way of growing, and we would like to state our position on power. We think that the question of power is one which should be left entirely to the State itself. There is no measure of the public welfare of other States being considered in the development of power. Senator OVERTON. You mean in this particular case? Mr. Goss. Yes; in this particular case. Senator OVERTON. That is not generally true. Mr. Goss. I think generally there might be some exceptions. Mr. Goss. Even in Coulee and Bonneville, on which I have appeared before this committee, we have felt that the question of power was a question which should be left to the States. If the States of Washington and Oregon objected to the development of power, we do not think that it is a matter that the Federal Government should interfere with. We believe in States' rights in matters of that kind. We do recognize the difference in the matter of flood control, where the waters will affect other States. In this particular area we believe that it is a very different situation, Mr. Chairman, from the Atchafalaya and the Boeuf floodway, as pointed out by Senator Burton. The flood control we believe can be accomplished by lesser dams and possibly more of them without flooding this farm land. And this point I want to make particularly clear -we have a very high regard, with you, Mr. Chairman, for the work of the Army engineers. I have been familiar with it in the Coulee and in a number of places, but I would say, just as I have said to the Army authorities, that we think they are very apt to do the thing the quickest and the shortest way, and not to give sufficient consideration to the value of farm land. We have found that in the establishment of camps, we found it in dams; and in New England, where farmland is scarce, the economic value to New England for the long term of years cannot be measured in dollars and cents as the real-estate value in a sale of that land today. You might buy much of that land for from $50 to $100 an acre, but the destruction of that land would mean to New England far more than can be measured in dollars and cents. In fact, the time is coming, gentlemen, when good farmland in America is going to be considered our greatest asset and the greatest need, and we think we should look a long, long time before we permanently destroy good farmland; and if there is any place in America where we should follow that policy, it is in New England. So our attitude is that even though it may cost more money to build the flood-control dams up in the upper reaches-I do not know that it would cost more; I am not familiar with it-but as a matter of general policy we think that the future of New England, the future of America should be such that we do not destroy good farmland; and we are greatly concerned as to what the effect would be even though it might be but 2,000 acres. In looking at the map, I think that the acreage would probably be considerably more than the 2,000 acres mentioned. I would point out this, however, that in New England much of the farming is done in connection with hill land which becomes practically valueless if you take out the bottom land. You, Senator Burton, are familiar with that, in Ohio. You do not have that, Mr. Chairman, down in Louisiana; but where you have a farm, where you run cattle or possibly sheep, the bottom land raises the feed and supports the farm unit, and if you take out the bottom land you have destroyed far more than just the bottom land itself, you have destroyed the farm, and made the rest of it practically valueless for agricultural purposes; so all I wanted to say is, look very carefully into the possibility of controlling the floods there by alternative means rather than destroy that land; and do not figure it purely on a dollars-and-cents basis, because the future of New England will depend very largely on maintaining the little farmland they have got-they haven't got too much-and these valleys are of great worth to them. That is all. Senator OVERTON. Thank you, very much. Mr. TIER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make the correction of an error that I think was made here on the population. This matter of the low dam and the high dam seems to be very confusing to everyone. This estimate that Mr. Bush made was on a high dam. Now, on a low dam, or with any dam, in fact, West Dummerston would be inundated, and there are about 300 people comprising that population. It would affect Newfane, probably not wholly, but there are 850 people there. Senator CORDON. How many? Mr. TIER. Eight hundred and fifty. That would not affect the whole village. Brookline would be flooded out-about 150 people. Harmonyville would be flooded out, on either dam-150. Senator CORDON. What portion of Brookline would be flooded out, would you say? What proportion of the population would be rendered homeless? Mr. BUSH. On the high dam it would be all gone except one or two. Senator CORDON. And on the low dam? Mr. BUSH. On the low dam there would probably be five or six houses left. Senator CORDON. The low dam then would substantially obliterate it. Mr. BUSH. Yes. Senator OVERTON. Now, General Wadhams is here, is he not, from Connecticut? General WADHAMS. Yes, sir. Senator OVERTON. Can you appear this afternoon to testify? General WADHAMS. Yes, sir. Senator OVERTON. We will recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p. m., the subcommittee recesed until 2 p. m.) AFTERNOON SESSION The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m., upon the expiration of the recess. CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN-Resumed Senator OVERTON. The subcommittee will come to order, please. Is General Wadhams here? General, will you take a seat right there? STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. S. H. WADHAMS, CHAIRMAN OF THE CONNECTICUT STATE WATER COMMISSION, HARTFORD, CONN. Senator OVERTON (chairman of the subcommittee). General, for the record will you give your name, your residence, occupation, and whom, if anyone, you represent. General WADHAMS. S. H. Wadhams, Hartford, Conn., chairman of the Connecticut State Water Commission. Senator OVERTON. You represent the State of Connecticut Water Commission? General WADHAMS. Yes, sir; and the Governor of Connecticut. Senator OVERTON. Very well, you may proceed to make such statement as you desire. General WADHAMS. It will be a very brief one, Mr. Chairman. I wish to point out first that Connecticut, because of its location in the Connecticut River watershed, is very much interested in flood protection. All of the flood waters from a 10.000-square-mile watershed above the city of Hartford have to pass through the State of Connecticut to get to the sea. Therefore we are very deeply concerned with anything that has to do with flood protection. We have suffered very severely in the past. Following the disastrous flood of 1936, under the provisions of the Flood Control Act we united with the other States in the basin to formulate a compact of those four States for flood control. Such compact was drawn up and was approved by the legislatures of the four States and as required by that bill each of the four States passed an act appropriating their share of the money. At that time these projects were cooperative Federal-State projects. As has been mentioned already, that compact, while approved all the way up to the Congress, and I believe was approved by this committee and the Rivers and Harbors and Flood Control Committees of the House, never was acted on by the Congress, and therefore did not become law. Following that, the law was changed in 1938 removing from the States any control of any kind over flood-control programs. Our early studies made by the engineers up to that time showed that we required a certain number of flood-control reservoirs, plus local protective works, at various places along the river. One of those places was Hartford, Conn., and the other East Hartford, Conn. Those works have been completed. They were carried out as a joint Federal-State program, the localities bearing a considerable part of the expense, and the Federal Government the balance. I am very happy to say that the closest cooperation between the State and the Federal agencies maintained throughout that undertaking. It has been completely satisfactory. However, when it comes to the flood-control reservoirs, much as we need protection, we feel there is a price too high to demand of the neighboring States. The program of flood reservoirs calls for a considerable number, 20 or thereabouts, to be constructed, to be located in Vermont. Vermont gets very little benefit, but Massachusetts and Connecticut get a very great deal of benefit, a very high degree of flood protection. But much as we need that protection, as I say, we feel that there is a price too high for us to expect of our neighboring States, and that is our attitude on this Williamville Reservoir which we have heard discussed so fully this morning. Governor Baldwin of Connecticut submitted to this committee a letter a short time ago, dated May 1, which was handed in to the committee by Senator Maloney of Connecticut, in which he outlined his views on this whole question and in which he made the suggestion or recommendation of an amendment to the rivers and harbors bill, but |