Page images

water pursuant to law. That is only, it seems to us, in conformity with the law which has existed there ever since the country was settled, and it is a fair provision.

I have discussed this amendment with Colonel Reber. I do not know what the opinion of the corps is, after they have had a chance to study it. They will have to speak for themselves, but this provision, unless it is amended as we suggest, it may have the effect of depriving individuals of water in the West to which they have acquired a right.

Furthermore, the amendment brings the procedure of the Corps of Army Engineers in selling the surplus water in strict accord with the procedure in the use of water in all other cases in the West, including the storage of water by the Bureau of Reclamation. Under section 8 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation is subjected to that same condition.

East of the ninety-seventh meridian I imagine that in most cases the amendment would not be applicable because there probably would not be any applicable laws, therefore it does not work against the interests of any other section of the country, and we do not desire that it should, but we most respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is a very desirable and necessary provision if any water is to be stored by flood control for sale and disposal to individuals or municipalities, that the right in the western part of the country to that water should be acquired pursuant to the State laws. That provision does not interfere with flood control but it puts the provision in line with the existing law which underlies the development of that section.

Senator OVERTON. Under the State law can any revenue be collected by the Federal Government for the use of the water?

Mr. STONE. The theory of section 4 as I take it—and I believe it is a sound one—is that if there are certain benefits in the way of surplus water whch can be realized by cities or private concerns, they should pay for those benefits in accordance with arrangements which would be made with the War Department. I believe that is a sound theory, and the only objection we have to section 4 as it appears in the bill as passed by the House, is that the War Department or the Government does not acquire ownership in that water merely by capturing it; but, in the West, that the right to use water is acquired or may be acquired by some one who complies with State laws, and the one who buys it and pays for it likewise also should acquire the right to the use of that water under the State laws. Does that answer your question?

There is nothing under the State laws which would prevent the sale of it. Does that answer your question, Mr. Chairman?

Senator OVERTON. There is nothing then in the amendment that is contrary to the provision that the Secretary of War '

may charge for the use of the water?

Mr. STONE. We do not intend that there should be. On the contrary, in my personal judgment, where there are benefits that go to private individuals, they should pay for it, but we only ask that they acquire the right under existing law to the use of the water, and I may say that there is an amendment, I believe proposed by the Secretary of the Interior, which provided that the right and the disposal should be in accordance with the reclamation laws. This does differ from that suggestion of the Secretary of the Interior. We understand this sec

tion 4 to apply to the disposal of water to municipalities and private concerns, and to persons for use other than irrigation. The reason we interpret it that way is because section 6 takes care of irrigation.

There may be situations where it will be advantageous to the War Department to dispose of that water in a manner different from that prescribed by the reclamation laws, since irrigation is not involved, and if that is true, we see no reason why the War Department should not have the right under this provision; but we do say that if it is done in the West, then the person to whom the water is sold must acquire a right to it in conformity to the State law.

Senator OVERTON. Is there anything in the amendment that would prohibit the Secretary of War from determining whether there is surplus water that is available ?

Mr. STONE. I take it that that is entirely within the determination of the Secretary of War, because that is a structure which will be constructed and operated by the Secretary of War, and the determination of whether there is surplus water will be within his hands, and I should assume that the Secretary of War would not agree to sell any surplus water unless, in the reservoir operation, it was there.

Senator OVERTON. I understand. Then the purpose of the amendment is simply this—that the actual disposition of the water, who shall get the benefit of it, will be determined by State law, is that right, or not?

Mr. STONE. That is partly right. After all, the operation is in the Army and they have the right under this section to dispose of it, but if they do dispose of it, the effect of the amendment is to say the person to whom they dispose of it must have a right to it under the State law.

Senator OVERTON. Well, that is what I said.
Mr. STONE. Yes.

Senator CORDON. That means, Mr. Chairman, as I view it, what you are getting at is that a condition precedent to the right to purchase this water is a compliance with the laws of the State with reference to appropriation of water.

Mr. STONE. That is right, Senator.
Senator OVERTON. All

right. Mr. STONE. Now with respect to section 6, the amendment offered by Senator Millikin, I believe is almost identical with the amendment proposed by the Secretary of the Interior in his letter to this committee. May I also state that the amendment is almost identical to-I believe-section 4 of the river and harbor bill, and that section, Mr. Chairman, is one which I note was inserted by your committee before reporting out the bill, and the purpose of section 6 amended as here proposed is to bring this in conformity with the procedure under the river and harbor bill. The procedure should be no different in the flood-control bill, and it is also for the purpose of prescribing that where there are irrigation benefits in a floodcontrol reservoir, or if there are other facilities to be constructed by the Reclamation Bureau, to make use of the water stored for irrigation, then there must be compliance fully with the reclamation law.

We see no reason why in the West where reclamation is practiced there should be any difference in the use of water for irrigation, from a reservoir constructed by the Corps of Army Engineers and a reservoir constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation. I believe that the section which your committees put into the river and harbor bill was wise, and if it was, then there is every reason why section 6 in this bill should be amended in substantial conformity with the one which appeared there.

Senator OVERTON. Will it be satisfactory if we take the revised provision of the river and harbor bill and make it section 6 of this bill?

Mr. STONE. If Colonel Reber is here-is he here?
Colonel REBER. Yes.

Mr. STONE. Colonel Reber and I compared this proposed language, and we found that there was no substantial difference.

Colonel REBER. That is correct. There are a few minor modifications.

Mr. STONE. So that if the one you put in the river and harbor bill is inserted here it will be substantially the same as the amendment proposed here.

Senator OVERTON. All right. In the amendment that has just been read, though, that you are now presenting

Mr. STONE. That has been presented by Senator Millikin, of Colorado.

Senator OVERTON. Under his amendment, what becomes of the moneys received? Are they deposited in the Treasury?

Mr. STONE. The moneys received remain as provided in the House bill; they go into the Treasury. We made no change in that, Mr. Chairman.

Now, I do want to call your attention to the fact that in an attempt to amend section 6 of the original bill in the House there was inserted the provision that the use of water stored for conservation purposes in the flood-control project should be "in accordance with the reclamation laws." We submit that that is not sufficient, in that it is too restrictive, and that section 6 should be fully amended as set forth here and as set forth in the rivers and harbors bill.

There is just one other thing in this. I will be very brief. I do not want, Mr. Chairman, to make any further argument on what is known as the O'Mahoney amendment, because that has been pretty well threshed out here, but in view of some comments this morning and in order to clear up the intent of the amendment, particularly section (b) of the amendment, I wish to call attention to the fact that this amendment will have the effect of carrying out the suggestion made by Senator Cordon.

In other words, if this amendment were inserted and the review report were made by the Corps of Army Engineers after consultation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the States, and the differences by virtue of that review report were composed, then that report would come back to Congress with the concurrence of the War Department and the Corps of Army Engineers and the States, and in that event no further authorization would be necessary, the project would stand authorized and the further action of Congress would be unnecessary. It would furnish us the machinery to carry out what seemed to me the rather constructive suggestion made by Senator Cordon this morning.

Mr. Chairman, you directod to me the question whether or not it would be satisfactory to take the amendment in the river and harbor bill, or the section in the river and harbor bill, dealing with the same subject as section 6 of this bill. May I call your attention to the fact that there is added to the amendment, presented by Senator Millikin, and the one which I discussed in my testimony, these words--referring now to section 6 as amendedbut the foregoing requirement shall not prejudice lawful uses now existing, nor shall this section apply to any dam or reservoir heretofore constructed, in whole or in part, which provides conservation storage of water for irrigation purposes.

That section will have a very limited application, and its application, and its application will be confined I should say to one or two flood-control reservoirs in the West, where there are conservation capacities, where provisions have not been worked out with respect to the use and distribution of the water for irrigation. In the particular instance I have in mind, the use of the water conserved in that particular flood-control reservoir is being studied and that involves the interests in two States. Therefore, we believe that it in the interests of the interested Federal agencies as well as the States and the water users within those States that nothing be put into this bill which will subject that project to the provisions of section 6 of H. R. 4485. We very strongly urge that that limitation be incorporated in the amendment, in the language which you may lift from the river and harbor bill.

I would much prefer that the language in section 6 offered by Senator Millikin be used, since it is substantially the same as that which appears in the river and harbor bill, and that these last few words which I have just read be thereby incorporated in the amendment.

Senator OVERTON. All right, Judge.

Mr. STONE. That is all I have to submit, Mr. Chairman, unless there are questions.

Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Chairman, may I make one brief addition? Senator OVERTON. Yes.

Senator MILLIKIN. I wish to state for myself, and I feel quite sure that many others in the reclamation States would agree with me, that there is nothing that has been offered by way of amendment that concedes any right of the Federal Government to the ownership of the waters in the reclamation States.

Senator OVERTON. All right.
Is Mr. Kinsey here?
Mr, KINSEY. Yes, sir.
Senator OVERTON. And where do you live, Mr. Kinsey?
Mr. KINSEY. St. Louis.
Senator OVERTON. Can you stay here till Monday or Tuesday?
Mr. KINSEY. No, sir; I cannot.
Senator OVERTON. Take the stand.


OF PUBLIC SERVICE, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO. Senator OVERTON. Are you the president of the board of public service, of the city of St. Louis, Mo.?

Mr. KINSEY. Yes, sir.
Senator OVERTON. Your name is Milton Kinsey?
Mr. KINSEY. Milton M.

Senator OVERTON. All right, sir.

Mr. KINSEY. I might say that I am a city official. I am the chief engineering officer for the city, and am the head of the board of public service, which controls all operating functions of the city with the exception of tax collection and law enforement.

Senator OVERTON. All right, Mr. Kinsey.

Mr. KINSEY. The city of St. Louis is the center and nucleus of a metropolitan area containing nearly 2,000,000 people. The part played by the Mississippi River and its tributaries in the history and growth of our city is so widely known that I do not feel justified in taking the time of this committee to go into that in detail. I will say only that any program which affects the Mississippi River or any of its tributaries is of vital and immediate interest to St. Louis, and I appear here for the purpose of calling attention to some of the more important phases of the flood control bill, H. R. 4485, now being considered by this committee, as they affect this metropolitan area.

Practically all of this area draws its water supply from the Missouri River. At Howard Bend, on the Missouri, approximately 15 miles northwest of St. Louis, the city has its newest and most modern waterworks. Here our investment totals $8,000,000, and we have capacity to draw 240,000,000 gallons per day from the river, or about 40 percent of our total supply. Approximately 1 miles downstream from our plant, a privately owned company serving the suburban area of St. Louis County, has a substantial but somewhat smaller waterworks.

At Chain of Rocks, on the west bank of the Mississippi, about 3 miles below the mouth of the Missouri, St. Louis has its second and largest source of water supply. Due to the location of the intakes, this plant also depends largely on the Missouri River. Here our investment exceeds $15,000,000 and our capacity is 320,000,000 gallons per day. We are now preparing plans for a $19,000,000 expansion program at these two points. Below Chain of Rocks, and on the east bank of the Mississippi, a private company has a plant serving the East St. Louis, Ill., area.

Senator OVERTON. Is all that water taken from the Missouri and the Mississippi? I mean these different plants to which you refer.

Mr. KINSEY. The first will take their water, which comes chiefly from the Missouri. The first two are exclusively from the Missouri.

Senator OVERTON. Yes; I understand.

Mr. KINSEY. The Chain of Rocks plant is so located that it is practically all Missouri River water, and the last plant that I mentioned is practically all Mississippi water, although it is just at the mouth of the Missouri. It is on the east side of the river.

The unprecedented floods brought upon us by the Missouri during the past 2 years have endangered all these plants. In the case of an ordinary industry, the damage caused by a flood is often confined to a short cessation of operation, some physical damage, and the expense of clean-up after the flood has receded. But to cease operations and cut off the water supply from a modern metropolitan area of 2,00,000 persons is quite a different matter. Should the floodwaters inundate the settling basins or clear well of a water works, death-dealing germs bacteria, and filth might be forced into even the most remote parts of the distribution system. The calamity would be beyond my power to describe.

« PreviousContinue »