Page images
PDF
EPUB

tention to an amendment offered by Senator O'Mahoney to H. R. 3961, which is the rivers and harbors bill [reading]:

Such works hereafter authorizedFirst it deals with such works as are herein authorizedWorks herein authorized shall not be undertaken until an investigation and report thereon have been made and approved by the Congress as provided in (b) where the Governor of any State in which the works or any part thereof are located or in which arise any of the waters which are required therefor, files a written objection thereto with the Secretary of War within three months after the date of this Act.

Then paragraph (b) reads as follows: Such works hereafter authorized for construction shall not be undertaken until after the making of an investigation and the submission to and approval by the ('ongress of a report as provided in this paragraph.

I won't read the whole of it.

The investigation and report shall be made to the end, among other things, of providing for the coordination of plans for the construction and operation of the proposed work with other plans for the use of waters that would be affected thereby. In conformity with this requirement the Secretary of War is hereby directed to investigate such proposed works for navigation or flood control in cooperation with the State or States in which the works or any part thereof are to be located and in which arise any of the waters that would be required therefor, and, in the case of works that might require the use of waters arising west of the ninety-seventh meridian, in cooperation also with the Secretary of the Interior.

Do you identify that as the same amendment to which the Governor referred ?

General WADHAMS. No, sir; I don't think that had been written at the time the Governor wrote the letter. The letter was dated May 1, 1943.

Senator Austin. This amendment was introduced May 5.
General WADHAMS. I believe so.
Senator AUSTIN. But the subject matter is the same?
General WADHAMS. Practically the same.
Senator AUSTIN. Yes. That is all.

Senator Cordon. May I make one or two inquiries of the General at this time?

Senator OVERTON. Yes, sir.
Senator CORDON. You mentioned a four-State compact in 1936.
General WADHAMS. It was started in 1936 and concluded in 1937.

Senator CORDON. 1936–37; and stated that after the compact had been entered into the several States appropriated funds to carry out this agreement. Was that compact a compact providing for the floodcontrol projects in the four States? General WADHAMS. Yes, sir; exactly.

Senator CORDON. Well, did you have at that time a plan for the flood control?

General WADHAMS. Oh, yes. Yes, sir. The engineers, the Army engineers had a tentative plan which became a definite plan. Our compact provided for the immediate construction of seven of the reservoirs included in that compact and our appropriations were made to cover the State's share. I don't suppose you are interested in the details, but the States under that act had to pay certain parts of the cost of the work, which we considered a very wise provision. We were very willing to pay our share of those costs.

Senator CORDON. Was it considered at that time that the project as it was outlined was adequate to give the necessary flood protection?

General WADHAMS. I think it was a very adequate program. Any plan that has been presented has had—would require local protective works at a few places along the river and those have practically all been constructed and completed, as I understand.

Senator CORDON. Did that plan include a dam such as is proposed here for Williamsville?

General WADHAMS. No, it didn't.
Senator BURTON. Have you finished your questions, Senator?
Senator CORDON. Yes. That is all.
Senator BURTON. General Wadhams, are you a professional engi-

neer?

General WADHAMS. No.

Senator BURTON. But you are chairman of the State water commission?

General WADHAMS. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. And in that capacity you approved this solution that is in the 1937 compact as a proper solution? General WADHAMS. Oh, yes. We were delighted with it. Senator BURTON. And you approve it now? General WADIIAMS. Yes.

Senator BURTON. Therefore, in the opinion of your commission and yourself, this Williamsville Dam was not then and is not now necessary to solve this thing?

General WADHAMS. That is my opinion, sir. We were guided in our conclusions by the Army engineers entirely. We worked in close cooperation with them. I think there was a representative present at every meeting of our Commission, which lasted over a month. We relied on their judgment entirely. We still do.

Senator BURTON. I suppose that the compact plan differed in some other particulars from the present engineers' plan?

General WADHAMS. There have been a number of minor changes, a reservoir changed from this site to another site, and a few new ones and some of the old ones have gone out as more thorough surveys were made.

Senator BURTON. From your knowledge of that additional planning, is there anything arising from the steps taken by the Army engineers that would still make it impractical to leave out the Williamsville project?

General WADHAMS. Well, I think it would have to be compensated for by other reservoirs on the tributaries or higher up on the main stream. I have no immediate personal knowledge of that, but I assume there are other sites where one reservoir would perhaps impound the same amount of water as the flood reservoir at Williamsville.

Senator BURTON. What I was driving at, would the provision for the alternative to the Williamsville Dam under the old compact still be feasible under the present engineering program? Is there anything that interferes with it?

60479—44- 12

General WADHAMS. I think the Army engineers could answer the question with much more 'soundness, but that is my understanding.

Senator OVERTON. Thank you very much, General. We are very glad to have had your statement.

Senator AUSTIN. May I ask Grneral Robins a further question ?

Senator OVERTON. Yes; I was going to put him back on the stand right now.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. THOMAS M. ROBINS, DEPUTY CHIEF OF

ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY Senator Austin. I would like to clear up, if convenient, this difference between the Williamsville site and the Dummerston site of the dam under consideration. It is called in your report to which we have referred before, Williamsville, is it not?

General ROBINS Yes, sir.

Senator AUSTIN. And yet the dam is not to be built there, where it was then considered that it would be built; is that right?

General ROBINS. My understanding is that West Dummerston is the nearest place to the dam site.

Senator AUSTIN. How far down the river is West Dummerston from Williamsville?

General ROBINS. I don't remember exactly. It is about 3 miles; something like that.

Senator AUSTIN. How much of a fall is there in the river?
General ROBINS. I don't know exactly.
Senator AUSTIN. Is it a steep fall or not?
General ROBINS. I don't think it is very steep; no, sir.

Senator AUSTIN. "These estimates and plans for the dam in this report are based on locating the dam at Williamsville, are they not?

General ROBINS. In the project document, that was the site on which the estimates were based.

Senator AUSTIN. Now then, the new site of West Dummerston is somewhat different from that at Williamsville, is it not? General ROBINS. We considered it a better site. Senator AUSTIN. Well, regardless of that, it is different, isn't it? General Robins. I don't know. Having never been to those sites, Senator, I could not just say how different it is.

Senator AUSTIN. Well, don't your records show that in order to impound the same amount of water that was intended to be impounded at the Williamsville site, the dam at West Dummerston would have to be 90 feet higher than the dam at Williamsville?

General ROBINS. I will answer that, no.

Senator AUSTIN. Isn't there a fall in the river between Williamsville and West Dummerston? General Robins. There is a fall, of course.

Senator AUSTIN. You don't know whether it is higher or loweris it a fact you don't know how much of a fall that is? General ROBINS. It is, because I haven't got the information here.

Senator AUSTIN. Let me ask you if you know whether there is a difference in the content due to the difference in width of the valley at Williamsville and at West Dummerston ?

General ROBINS. Well, of course wherever the valley is the widest you will get the most storage capacity.

Senator AUSTIN. Yes. That is based on my question as to whether you would not have to have a higher dam at West Dummerston than at Williamsville in order to impound the same amount of water. Isn't it a fact that when you changed the site of that dam from Williamsville to West Dummerston you got into a valley that was narrower and deeper, therefore would not impound so much water immediately above the dam as at Williamsville? General ROBINS. Well, that might be.

Senator AUSTIN. Then doesn't it follow—let us assume it is trueperhaps we can get the information otherwise. Assuming that is true, then you have got to build a taller dam, have you not, in order to impound the same amount of water?

General ROBINS. Yes, sir; if you have a narrower valley, you would have to.. But the higher, narrower dam might be cheaper.

Senator AUSTIN. Now, my other question

Senator OVERTON. Before you leave that, General, will you get that information supplied for the record ? General ROBINS. Yes, sir; I can get it for the record.

Senator OVERTON. In answer to the question propounded by Senator Austin.

Senator Austin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The information desired is as follows:) At the Williamsville site the proposed dam 172 feet high would impound 149,000 acre-feet of water.

At the West Dummerston site the proposed dam 184 feet high would impound 152,000 ocre-feet of water.

The fall in the West River between the Williamsville and West Dummerston sites is about 55 feet.

Now, the other point on which I would like to ask is this: Assuming that the following testimony is true, reading from page 52 of the hearings in the House to which we have referred before, testimony by Col. George Goethals:

The money authorization now available is sufficient to complete the construction of all local protection work in the comprehensive plan and for the construction of the following reservoirs which have not yet been started, and I give them in the suggested order: Williamsville (known also as Newfane), Claremont, Tully, Victory, North Hartland, and Gaysville.

Now, considering your estimates to be approximately correct for each one of them, they are as follows: Tully, $759,000; Victory, $1,415,000; North Hartland, $3,630,000; Claremont, $5,160,000; Williamsville, $6,280,000; and Gaysville, $4,785,000; making a total of $22,029,000.

Now, the question is this: Assuming that you have left all authorized money from these projects which are the projects that are said to be in contemplation, assuming that you have left $16,000,000 that consists of unappropriated but authorized_$13,000,000 appropriated and unexpended-assuming you have left $16,000,000, and subtracting that from your $22,029,000, you would have left in authorized money $6,029,000, wouldn't you?

General ROBINS. Yes'; that much additional authorization is needed for that group of dams, if you go through that process.

Senator AUSTIN. Exactly. Well, then, the question that has been quite obscure to me is why you are asking for an authorization of $30,000,000 at this time?

General Robins. There are still other dams in the plan, Senator, that are not named in the statement you read from the record of the hearings.

Senator AUSTIN. Yes; but assuming what I have assumed, that the dams you contemplate building are these here—if $30,000,000 were appropriated, what are you asking it for?

General ROBINS. Well, we need $30,000,000 to get an authorization sufficient to build the whole plan.

Senator AUSTIN. The testimony that I read here, and it is quoted, is followed by this statement-reading from page 52:

The additional amount of $30,000,000 proposed in the new bill could be applied to completion of all the Williamsville reservoir which is one of the largest expenditures in the list.

What is the meaning of that?

General ROBINS. That statement meant that it would be sufficient to build even the high dam at Williamsville, which my recollection is would cost about $29,000,000.

Senator AUSTIN. You have a mental reservation, do you, on the building of the Williamsville Dam?

General ROBINS. None whatever, if Congress says we are not to build it.

Senator AUSTIN. Then, if so, why ask for the $30,000,000?
Generol Robins. Because there are other dams to be built.

Senator Austin. Outside of the amount needed by you apparently if you were able to go ahead and complete this program at Williamsville, Tully, Claremont, Victory, North Hartford, and Gaysville, of approximately $6,000,000 ?

General ROBINS. That is correct, Senator. There are 20 dams in this complete plan. These 6 dams are only part of this plan.

Senator AUSTIN. All right. That is all. General ROBINS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read into the record a list of the dams that will come in under this $30,000,000 authorization and previous authorizations.

Senator OVERTON. All right.
General Robins. Unionville, Gaysville-
Senator BURTON. Do you have the amounts opposite each one?
- General ROBINS. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. Will you read those in there at the same time?

General ROBINS. The dams that could be built with the available authorization if H. R. 5584 is passed as now written are as follows: Claremont Reservoir, N. H.

$5, 160, 000 Tully Reservoir, Mass-----

759, 000 Williamsville Reservoir, Vt. (low dam)---

6, 280,000 North Hartland Reservoir, Vt.

3, 630,000 Barre Falls Reservoir, Mass_

965, 000 Union Village Reservoir, Vt-

2, 376, 000 Gaysville Reservoir, Vt--

4, 785, 000 Victory Reservoir, Vt-----

1, 415, 000 Honey Hill Reservoir, N. H----

1,935, 000 North Springfield Reservoir, Vt_

2, 018, 000 South Tunbridge Reservoir, Vt-

2, 275, 000 West Brookfield Reservoir, Mass.

2, 317,000 Brockway Reservoir, Vt-----

2, 944, 000 West Canaan Reservoir, Vt--

2, 520,000 Cambridgeport Reservoir, Vt.

1, 975, 000 Ludlow Reservoir, Vt-----

2, 200,000

N.

[ocr errors]

11

« PreviousContinue »