STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES R. CLASON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Senator OVERTON. Congressman Clason, I understand, although we have passed that subject matter, that you desire to testify in reference to flood control relating to Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Representative CLASON. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

Senator OVERTON. I will also state for your information, and probably you have been apprised of it, that the Vermont people, represented by Senator Austin and others, objected very strenuously to the location of so many dams in Vermont, giving their reasons for their objection. However, as it developed the principal objection was leveled against the dam on West River, called in the report the Williamsville Dam, referred to both as the West River and the Williamsville Dam. order to remove the objection, to eliminate the dam on West River, and that appeared to be agreeable to them. I understood then that there was no objection from Connecticut, and there was no one present, either for or against, from Massachusetts. Therefore I am inclined to reopen the question in order that we may hear from Massachusetts on the subject.

Representative CLASON. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MILLIKIN. Congressman, might I ask what part of Massachusetts is in the second district?

Representative CLASON. From the Connecticut line north I go to the town of Hatfield, I would say a distance of 40 or 50 miles, more than half way across the State.

Senator BURTON. Is Springfield the principal city?

Representative CLASON. Yes; it is the principal city in the Massachusetts part of the valley, but Hartford is the largest city in the valley.

Senator BURTON. I meant in your district.

Representative CLASON. Springfield is the largest city in my dis

trict.

CONNECTICUT RIVER BASIN-resumed

Senator OVERTON. I will state that the building of a dam on West River as proposed by the Army engineers would have reduced the 1936 flood level at Springfield by a foot and a half, according to my recollection; and at Hartford by 1.2 feet.

Representative CLASON. I think it is the reverse, Mr. Chairman. Senator OVERTON. Maybe so. Anyway, it was a reduction in floodstage levels at one point of 1.2 feet and at the other point 1/2 feet. Representative CLASON. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. That brings you up to date.

Representative CLASON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, to understand the situation in the Connecticut Valley I would say that we have been visited by three major floods in the last 17 years, those major floods occurring in 1927, 1936, and 1938. In each of those floods thousands of persons were rendered homeless and had to be taken care of, as many as 10,000 at the time of at least one flood, in schools, churches, and other public buildings. They had to be fed, in part clothed, and otherwise taken care of. Our power was out and we were visited by the kind of calamity that always accompanies a

flood in a big city. I mean, the people of Springfield, Hartford, and other places, were quite bad off.

After the 1927 flood the local municipalities attempted to do something along the river, but whatever they constructed in the way of dikes proved to be valueless when the 1936 flood came along.

Following the 1936 flood there was considerable agitation in Congress for flood-control work on a much larger scale than previously had been planned. We had our flood early in 1936, and

Senator OVERTON. Let me observe in that connection that unfortunately local efforts to protect against floods are usually valueless. In other words, the dikes and levees put up are not scientifically built, and the result is that they are swept away when a real flood comes down a river, and therefore we have to rely upon the Army engineers for proper construction.

Representative CLASON. I think that is undoubtedly true, Mr. Chairman; and I think one of the biggest services that we in Congress furnish is to provide flood control as a national project.

Senator OVERTON. Are you a member of the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives?

Representative CLASON. I happen to be the ranking Republican on the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives, and that was why I really felt a little averse to coming before this committee.

Senator OVERTON. Oh, you need not feel that way about it.

Representative CLASON. After the 1936 flood it was evident that something had to be done. We lost 28 lives and almost $144.000.000 in property as a result of the three floods I have mentioned. So, after the 1936 flood we attempted to enter into an agreement among the four States of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts, for a compact under which a certain number of reservoirs, probably eight, would have been built. The expense would have been borne 50 percent by Massachusetts, 40 percent by Connecticut, and 5 percent each by New Hampshire and Vermont. Those contracts are all in the record of the flood-control hearings of the past.

Senator OVERTON. But the construction of such works would have been only a partial solution, not a complete solution?

Representative CLASON. That is true. They could not have been. They would not have been adequate, and I doubt if they would ever have been satisfactory, either in operation or in the carrying out of the compact. I say that, for one reason at least, because there was no unanimity of feeling among the officials of the various States, so that that would likely have been true even if we had ultimately got the compact through.

I came to Congress in 1937 and I, so far as Massachusetts was concerned, attempted to lead the fight for the compacts on the floor of the House, but we were defeated. At that time the Government decided the best way to handle the flood-control situation was on a national basis, with the Federal Government paying the entire cost of construction of reservoirs, and contributing to the cost, making the major contribution in fact to the cost of local protective works. And that has been the program followed since that time. I agree with the chairman in the statement just made, for I believe it has been the only possible solution of the difficulties on the great rivers.

At least I am certain in my own mind that that is true in Massachusetts.

Senator OVERTON. As a matter of fact, the Army engineers do construct in a much more scientific manner the dams and reservoirs, as well as the levees, than do the local interests or other agencies. Representative CLASON. I agree with you.

Senator OVERTON. Right there let me ask you this question: How long have you been on the Flood Control Committee of the House? Representative CLASON. This is my eighth year on that committee. Senator OVERTON. Under the plan to which you referred, whereby local interests were required to make contribution of lands, easements, and storage facilities for the construction of reservoirs, it is a fact, is it not, that that plan did not work at all; and the result was that no dams and reservoirs were constructed-or at least that is my recollection.

Representative CLASON. That is absolutely true in the Connecticut Valley. We had no reservoirs built for flood-control purposes in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Vermont, under President Hoover, started some works in the depression period, and they were there; but so far as helping the cities in the industrial communities of Massachusetts and Connecticut was concerned, they proved of slight avail when the great floods overtook us in 1936 and 1938.

Senator OVERTON. That situation in regard to dam and reservoir construction was true not only in Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, but probably all over the United States. The plan which required the State in which the dam was constructed to pay all or a large part of the cost of rights-of-way, storage easements, was not workable, and as a result there was no dam constructed anywhere in the United States under that plan, at least so far as I know. Do you know of any having been constructed?

Representative CLASON. I do not know of any that worked out very well. I think in Ohio they have the famous history of a successful dam.

Senator OVERTON. That was not in the 1936 act.

Represenative CLASON. No, sir. When we found that the compacts had been agreed upon but the House turned them down-and I guess the Senate may have voted against them at the same time-a bill was enacted providing that the Army engineers should go ahead and survey certain streams, including the Connecticut River. As a result of that survey the Army engineers came forward with what they believed to be an adequate flood-control system for the Connecticut Valley. That was to consist of local protective works in 7 cities and towns, with 20 reservoirs. They are outlined in Document 724, Seventy-sixth Congress, third session.

We were told by the Army engineers that if money was made available immediately the greatest advantage would be gained by the construction at once of local protective works. In the cities was the greatest danger to human life and property. As a result the Army engineers have gone ahead and have built local protective works, which are perhaps 90 percent finished, at Northampton, Holyoke, Chicopee, Springfield, and West Springfield in Massachusetts, and at Hartford and East Hartford in Connecticut. The cost to the Government at

the present time approaches $17,000,000 on these local protective works, and it will probably cost between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 to complete them.

While the Federal Government assumed to pay for the construction, other than rights-of-way and lands upon which the improvements were to be placed, nevertheless the cities there did contribute. I think Hartford, in order to get better protection than even the Army engineers thought to be adequate, took $5,000,000 or more from the city treasury. At Springfield our city put in several hundred thousand dollars in connection with the construction of the pumping stations. Local protective works were built to a height which assumed there would be constructed 20 reservoirs, and that the combined effect of the 20 reservoirs in holding back floodwaters would be to reduce the height of floodwaters, on any indicated great flood of the future, by 6 feet at Hartford and 512 feet at Springfield. Those dikes are largely completed with that view in mind; in other words, that the 20 reservoirs would be built.

Now, we come to the building of the reservoirs. They have actually constructed 3, 1 in New Hampshire and 2 in Massachusetts. That leaves us with 17 reservoirs still to be constructed.

The largest tributary of the Connecticut River is the West River. Those three reservoirs which have been constructed cost in the neighborhood of 72 million dollars. A single reservoir on the West River is estimated to cost $6,280,000. That one reservoir would have a greater influence in the matter of flood control on the Connecticut River than the 3 which have already been built at greater expense. It would, as the chairman has already pointed out, reduce the floodwaters at Springfield by 1.2 feet and at Hartford by 12 feet. If we do not have the West River reservoir we have taken out the most important single reservoir of the entire plan, and have reduced the effectiveness of the plan by between 20 and 25 percent so far as reservoirs are concerned.

Now, the only protection afforded in the whole valley-and this is the largest and most important river of New England-by way of local protective works are at the seven named communities. The rest of the industrial communities along the river and all of the agricultural communities rely solely upon dams for their protection. By removing this dam from the picture you are cutting down their protection by 20 to 25 percent.

When we come to consideration of this bill, this is the situation: Two bills were passed, in 1938 and 1941. The bill of 1941 has authorized by law the construction of the local works, which has been accomplished; and also has already authorized as a matter of law the construction of 20 dams, including the dam at Williamsville on the West River. So it is a matter of law, and all that is before the Congress, or presumably would be before the Congress at this time, would be to secure the authorization of future sums of money to be expended under this omnibus flood-control bill for the construction of the remaining reservoirs, which, as I say, are already authorized to be constructed.

So that when the bill came before the House for consideration that was pretty generally understood. But, in the meantime, apparently

the Federal Power Commission gets into the picture, and after looking the situation over decides, and quite properly I have no doubt, that the data indicate it to be wise

Senator OVERTON. Let me interrupt you at that point. I should have advised you on this: There was another objection made and the suggestion came from me that in order to satisfy the opponents of the Vermont reservoirs it be provided that none of the reservoirs in Vermont be utilized for the generation of hydroelectric power, and it was so provided in the bill.

Representative CLASON. The Federal Power Commission, through its engineers, decided that this site at Williamsville is a fine site for a hydroelectric power dam. Now, I am vitally interested in flood control so far as Massachusetts is concerned, and particularly as to Springfield, which had a population of 150,000 according to the last census. So I am told that this power dam is going to cost $29,100,000; that is, for the dam to be built at a greater height and of a greater width in order to hold back an immensely larger amount of water, which would be behind it. So that the dam I had in mind, costing $6,280,000, is increased to a dam costing $29,100,000. Instead of the amount which I had believed was to be spent at Williamsville in the matter of flood control, this amount would be suddenly spent, all at one time, for combined flood control and power. My people would not get the flood-control protection which they would get if the money were spent on 16 dams.

Senator BURTON. Congressman, I have to leave to go to another meeting. Let me ask you this question: The $6,000,000 covers what they call the low dam, does it?

Representative CLASON. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. And the other expenditure would be for the high dam?

Representative CLASON. Yes, sir.

Senator BURTON. In the House they excluded the high dam? Representative CLASON. Yes, sir. I might say that I felt I did not want to prevent Vermont getting the benefit of the dam they wanted. But the attorney general of Vermont came and said they did not want power at the dam, and wished to have the bill contain a provision to strike out the possibility of power. I myself suggested that we include the provision which has been included in connection with other dams in other rivers. It strikes out the building of the dam for power purposes. This dam in the bill as it went through the House would be solely for flood control. There might be a little pool for recreation or something of that kind.

Senator OVERTON. That provision related only to the Williamsville Dam.

Representative CLASON. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. You may proceed with your statement.

Representative CLASON. Now we are faced with this position: Hartford and Springfield and other communities in Connecticut and Massachusetts have felt all along that the program had been adopted by the Congress, that they were to get the local protective works which have been built, and the 20 reservoirs in accordance with the law of 1941. All that we in those 2 States are asking is authorization for a future appropriation of $30,000,000 to carry out the construction of the 16 reservoirs.