« PreviousContinue »
s that, isonally, at leasteral agenciemmissi
include all the somally, at leastre were deemed vester
brings the Department of Agriculture into the picture and prescribes its duties.
Colonel REBER, No, sir. I believe my general remarks of yesterday indicated my views that, if this procedure were deemed to be a proper one by Congress, I, personally, at least, thought that it should be expanded to include all the interested Federal agencies.
Senator OVERTON. Then there is the Federal Power Commission,
Colonel REBER. Yes. They have appeared before this committee on the rivers and harbors bill and we are considering them in the flood-control bill. They would be vitally interested in either bill.
Senator OVERTON. Now, there is no reference made in the O'Mahoney amendment to the Federal Power Commission.
Colonel REBER. No, sir. This is my personal view. I don't think the procedure is necessary; but, if Congress determines that it is necessary, I, for one should like to see it applied to all Federal agencies that are concerned with water planning when we are dealing with the features of a water plan.
Senator OVERTON. If Congress should adopt this policy set forth in the O'Mahoney amendment, it ought not to leave out the Department of Agriculture or leave out the Federal Power Commission. There may be other agencies, but they do not occur to me at this time, but certainly those two ought not to be omitted in the broad policy that is outlined in the O'Mahoney amendment.
Colonel REBER. I concur entirely, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MILLIKIN. Mr. Chairman, we are very grateful for the suggestion and needless to say they will be given careful consideration by those who have sponsored this amendment.
Senator OVERTON. Don't misunderstand me. I don't mean by that that I am going to approve of the amendment personally. I am just merely pointing out what I think is a very objectionable feature.
Senator MILLIKIN. That has been made perfectly clear.
Senator OVERTON. That has been made abundantly clear. Is there anything more on it?
Senator MILLIKIN. Colonel Reber, I am informed that you are acquanted with the proposed amendments to section 4 and section 6!
Colonel REBER. Yes, sir.
Senator MILLIKIN. Perhaps I can short circuit my further examination by asking whether you approve or disapprove of those proposed amendments?
Colonel REBER. I see no objection, Senator Millikin, to either of those two amendments as they stand in front of me right here.
Senator MILLIKIN. Thank you very much. Now, Colonel, yesterday I started to ask you for a break-down on the dedications of capacity in the dams on the Missouri River to various water uses. We got off on a different trail, I think.
Colonel REBER. Yes, sir.
Senator MILLIKIN. I would like to finish that inquiry. You gave me the flood-control capacities of Fort Peck, Garrison, Oak Creek, and Fort Randall.
Colonel REBER. Yes, sir.
Colonel REBER. Yes, sir; subject to my general remarks of yesterday with regard to the necessity for flexibility of the storage, and I should like to emphasize that necessity again, I am very glad to give the following information. I should say this first, that there are two parts of a reservoir storage that we have to start from in working out any multiple-purpose plan. The first part is, of course, the one that we are primarily concerned with, and that is the flood-control surcharge, which is the storage on top of the pool. The second part is the bottom of the pool or the minimum level below which it is not safe to draw down because of the necessity for maintaining silt storage and power-I mean a head for power. With those two statements in mind, in between those two levels there is the very vital block of storage which can be used for irrigation, for navigation, and for the actual water passing through the turbines to generate power. That range in between has several uses. In other words, it can be usedthe water that goes through those wheels, for example at Fort Peck, assuming that the Missouri-Souris project is developed, can go through the Fort Peck wheels and generate power there some of this waterand then can be conveyed by the diversion dam over into the Souris project. So, it is very difficult to give a specific allocation of each acre-foot of water to one purpose in that intermediate zone. What I have here is an outline which shows the storage allocated to flood conirol at the top, the storage allocated to dead storage and sediment and the production of power head at the bottom, and then the intervening storage which is allocated to multiple-purpose use, for irrigation and navigation and power production and other uses, we will say, and in broad general terms, conservation. The order in which I shall give you these figures-suppose I give you flood control first, then dead Storage and then the intervening storage, which as I said involves the conservation features, irrigation, navigation, power, recreation, water supply, and other features.
Senator OVERTON. That is in respect to what dam?
Colonel REBER. In respect to the main stem dams, Fort Peck, Garrison, Oak-Creek, Oahe, and Ft. Randall. Suppose I go down stream, sir, starting from Fort Peck.
Senator OVERTON. All right.
Colonel REBER. Fort Peck flood control storage, 2,800,000 acre-feet. All these figures are acre-feet.
Senator OVERTON. Yes.
Colonel REBER. Dead storage, sediment and power head, 4,500,000 acre-feet; navigation, irrigation, power production, and conservation, 12,100,000 acre-feet. To save time, I shall just refer to them as one, two, and three from now on.
Senator MILLIKIN. All right, just give me time to write them down.
Colonel REBER. Yes, sir. Garrison: one, 4,600,000 acre-feet; two, 4,900,000 acre-feet; three, 15,000,000 acre-feet.
Oak Creek and Oahe- I am going to give separate figures for Oak Creek, and separate figures for Oahe, but I do want to point out that these data are on the basis of the low Oahe. We have started studies on the high Oahe, but I am sorry to say that they are so preliminary that I hesitate to give them at the present time.
Senator MILLIKIN. Well, if you made that change it would simply result in a reshuffling of the same water?
Colonel REBER. Yes, and as I have said many times before, it would improve the project. It would give us more flood and conservation
storage and I am hoping that it can be done. I think from all the information the Bureau has given me it is pretty well established.
On Oak Creek, one, 900,000–
Colonel REBER. I am afraid that I didn't make it clear yesterday that I gave you the combined figures on Oak Creek and Oahe, but I have broken them down subsequently.
Senator MILLIKIN, All right.
Colonel REBER. Oak Creek: one, 900,000; two, 1,400,000; three, 2,600,000. Oahe: one, 700,000; two, 1,600,000; three, 2,400,600.
Fort Randall: one, 1,000,000; two, 2,500,000; three, 2,700,000.
The grand total of those figures should add up to 59,700,000, sir. I think they do.
Senator MILLIKIN. Colonel, the break-down of these figures, of course, confirms the general conclusion we reached yesterday that in terms of storage capacity the flood-control features are the most minor of any of them?
Senator MILLIKIN. Can you give me a break-down on No. 3, approximately, between irrigation and navigation?
Colonel REBER. I think that we could work out one, sir. We have tried to keep these plans flexible, and, as I said before, in our actual operations we have done so.
Senator MILLIKIN. It seems to me that on most any division that might be made of No. 3 in each dam that you have built up for yourselves an enormous interest in reclamation.
Colonel REBER. Very definitely, Senator, just as well as we have in flood control.
Senator MILLIKIN. And in power.
Senator MILLIKIN. Are those what might be called normal activities of the engineers?
Colonel REBER. Yes, Senator; for this reason—where it is necessary to embark on a program that involves the multiple use of water-and, frankly, we have been directly connected with programs involving the multiple use of water since 1927, since the so-called 308 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1927 the Congress has repeatedly charged us with the duty of evolving plans which provide for the best multiple use of water in a big basin. The President of the United States and the Bureau of the Budget in their directions to us have repeatedly stated that it is our duty, in connection with the investigations that Congress has directed us to make, to provide the best multiple-purpose use of water. So I think that we are not embarking in the Pick plan on any new innovation at all. We are merely carrying out the specific directions of the Congress and the Chief Executive.
Senator MILLIKIN. You would call it a rather large expansion of previous activities along the same line?
Colonel REBER. No, sir, I would not, because I could name other river projects in which no irrigation is involved, where there are other multiple-purpose uses besides flood control. There is before the Senate at the present time a project for the Alabama-Coosa River in Alabama and a portion of Georgia and a small section of Tennessee. That is a multiple-purpose project for three major uses, navigation, flood control, and power. Perfectly frankly in that basin power is one of the big factors that permits that project to become economically justifiable. In the Arkansas Basin we have the same thing, but there is considerable irrigation in the western portion of the Arkansas Basin, so let me go into the Cumberland Basin. There is flood control, navigation, and power in the Cumberland Basin. I don't think that any Federal agency, should, where it enters a large basin of this type, confine its thinking to one phase of the use of water. It is doing wrong, I think, if it does so.
Senator MILLIKIN. In your testimony on the rivers and harbors bill it seems to me you stated the number of acre-feet that would be required to maintain the navigation levels that you have in mind. Can you recall that figure?
Colonel REBER. I stated, I believe, Senator, if I am correct, the number of cubic feet per second, not acre-feet; but I can translate that former figure very easily into acre-feet.
Senator MILLIKIN. Would you mind doing that for me?
Colonel REBER. Well, I stated as a minimum 22,000 cubic feet per second—was the flow. That is for 240 days of the year. One secondfoot per day is equivalent to 2 acre-feet. So what we have to do is to multiply 22,000 by 2 and we get 44,000. Multiply that by 240 and we get the number of acre-feet per year. That is a year's minimum fiow. .
Senator MILLIKIN. That, roughly speaking, I think, figures at about 10,000,000 acre-feet.
Colonel REBER. Somewhere in that vicinity, sir.
Senator MILLIKIN. So that number three in Fort Peck, Garrison, Oak Creek, Oahe, and Fort Randall total roughly 32,000,000 feet.
Colonel REBER. Yes, sir; roughly.
Senator MILLIKIN. Deducting 10 from that for navigation leaves 22,000,000 for irrigation.
Colonel REBER. That is carry-over storage, Senator. You cannot approach your total block of storage on one hand with your yearly requirements on the other. You cannot get any place that way.
Senator MILLIKIN. I haven't developed my thesis yet. It seems to me that the irrigation feature of your dams probably takes more capacity than any other single feature.
Colonel REBER. I don't think that is correct, sir, because—may I approach it from the same angle you are? Assume that roughly 10,000,000 acre-feet is the navigation requirement for one year, and let us assume roughly 10,000,000 acre-feet for irrigation. Let's put them on a parity. Using the consumptive use figures of the Bureau of Reclamation, one and one-half acre-feet per acre, that 10,000,000 acre-feet would irrigate roughly 6,667,000 acres above Sioux City.
le number of acre-feet get 44,000. Muwhat we have
I have not heard of any plan of the Bureau to irrigate that much above Sioux City.
Senator MilLIKIN. I am not talking about the effect of the use
Colonel REBER. Of course, I admit that is not the proper way to approach it.
Senator MILLIKIN. I am not talking about that. I am talking merely about storage capacities.
Colonel REBER. Yes, sir.
Senator MILLIKIN. And it seems to me your irrigation item, making the deductions we have just made, leaves you with irrigation as the largest storage item in your reservoir plan.
Colonel REBER. Of course, we have not discussed power in any way, shape, or form in this break-down of storage.
Senator MILLIKIN. I am driving merely at the point that in terms of storage capacity, irrigation seems to be the paramount storage interest. I am not talking about other interests, but storage interest in your scheme. Now, I noticed that the so-called flood-control bill is called an act authorizing the construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors for flood control and for other purposes. It seems to me that in terms of storage capacity the act has been misnamed. It ought to be named, for reclamation, power, and one or two other things, and finally flood control.
Senator OVERTON. You mean only in respect to the Missouri Basin?
Senator MILLIKIN. Yes. I am speaking in terms of the Missouri Basin.
Colonel REBER. The provision for the Missouri Basin in the bill, H. R. 4485, uses those exact words, if I may refer to the bill for a second. It says, “a comprehensive plan for
Senator MILLIKIN. Oh, I am not opposing multiple use, Colonel, so we are in agreement there should be multiple use.
Colonel REBER. It says—excuse me—may I refer to this? To include the plan of improvement for flood control, irrigation, power develop ment, navigation, and other purposes, substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document No. 475, Seventyeighth Congress, second sessionMay I go back just a second, sir? I cannot admit that the major storage in any one phase of the Pick plan is for irrigation, because may I approach that subject from the angle I just did? Of course, you cannot take 1 year's requirements and set those up as to the amount of storage which you must have. You have to go through a very complicated process to find out consumption and inflow and everything else of that nature. I don't want to get into that technical phase; but, assuming we just look at the 1 year's requirements, from what I have just said, the Bureau contemplates irrigating, including the Missouri-Souris project, a large area above Sioux City, which is the only thing we are concerned with now because on the lower tributaries there is apparently no argument about water on those tributaries for irrigation or for navigation. Taking the area above Sioux City, as I remember it, it is approximately, say 3,500,000 acres—that may not be quite right, but it is very close to being right. Well, let us say three and one-half million acres, and to give them ample figures for irrigating let us assume 2 acre-feet per acre for consumptive use