break down as follows: For flood control annually, $8,410; for pollution abatement, $24,700; and for water supply $75,430. The over-all ratio of cost-to-benefit for the project is 1 to 1.64.

Senator OVERTON. The flood-control benefit is $14,700; is that it? Colonel GOETHALS. No, sir; $8,410.

Senator OVERTON. But how is that reconciled with the average flood damages? The benefit is only $8,410 annually.

General ROBINS. The project cannot remove all the damages.

Colonel GOETHALS. I believe I gave the amount of local contribution at $531,300, and that goes for the following purposes: For the purchase of lands, $208,000; for the expense of necessary alterations of utilities, roads, highways, and bridges, $210,100; and for the diversion dam near Fargo, which is purely for purposes of local benefit, $113,200. Otherwise the conditions of local cooperation also require that they maintain the channel below the reservoir in satisfactory condition for the flow and to establish and enforce suitable regulations to prevent pollution of the waters.

Senator BURTON. There is no navigation or no irrigation involved? Colonel GOETHALS. No.

Senator BURTON. And with a figure of about $100,000 for pollution abatement and domestic water supply, you get a ratio of about 2 to 25 on the relation of flood control to these other purposes?

Colonel GOETHALS. That is correct. It would be appropriate at this time, if you desire, to have me read the letter from the Budget on this. Senator OVERTON. Yes.

Colonel GOETHALS. There are very nearly similar letters accompanying the first two reports. This refers specifically to the report on the Sheyenne River and is dated April 12, 1944.

Senator OVERTON. It will be printed in the record as you read it. Colonel GOETHALS. Yes; I will insert the whole letter in the record. (The letter is as follows:)

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

The Honorable the SECRETARY OF WAR

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D. C., April 12, 1944.

(Through the Budget Officer for the War Department).

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have received your letter of March 29, 1944, with which you submitted a proposed report of the Chief of Engineers on a review of reports on the Red River of the North, Minn. and N. Dak., with a view to flood control on the Sheyenne River.

An examination of this report indicates that the situation is similar to that discussed in my letter to you of March 30, in reference to two other proposed reports of the Chief of Engineers on tributaries of the Red River of the North. As with the projects discussed in that letter, the principal structure proposed in the current report is recommended for authorization as a flood-control project, but the flood-control benefits are not preponderant. The report indicates that over 90 percent of the benefits would accrue to municipal pollution abatement and to municipal and rural water supply. The report proposes to allocate the costs of the recommended improvement between the Federal Government and the local interests in such a manner that, upon the basis of benefits to be derived as between flood control and other purposes, the Federal Government would bear a disproportionate share. Continuing responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the recommended improvements after they have been constructed is also involved in any proposal for allocating their costs.

A principle with respect to multiple-purpose projects, already accepted by the Corps of Engineers (H. Doc. 762, 77th Cong.), would limit the allocation to flood control of an amount no greater than the capitalized annual flood-control

benefits. In the absence of any justification for deviation from this principle, it would seem to me that it should be followed.

It may be, however, as I stated in my March 30 letter in reference to the proposed improvements on the Park, Pembina, and Tongue Rivers, that the forthcoming reports of the Chief of Engineers on the related surveys on the main stem and other tributaries of the Red River of the North may so propose allocations of costs for improvements considered therein that when such allocations are viewed in combination with the allocations proposed in the earlier reports and upon an over-all basis for the basin as a whole, an equitable distribution of cost, insofar as the Federal Government is concerned, would be proposed. At the present time, and in light of the foregoing considerations, I feel obliged to advise you that, while there would be no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress, the authorization of the improvement upon the basis of both the initial costs and the continuing responsibility for operation and maintenance to be borne by the Federal Government, as recommended therein by the Chief of Engineers, would not be in accord with the program of the President, at least at the present.

I would appreciate your including a copy of this letter in any submission to the Congress that you may make at this time of the proposed report of the Chief of Engineers.

Very truly yours,

HAROLD D. SMITH, Director.

Senator OVERTON. Now, the objections made by the Bureau of the Budget to these three projects are objections that occurred to me during your presentation of them. I assume they have occurred to the other members of the committee. There is very little flood control in the projects. The flood control benefits are negligible. They are projects of water supply or water conservation mainly. I assume that is the reason why the Corps of Engineers recommended that there should be such a tremendous local contribution. Then it also occurred to me that it might be best that these projects await the report on the Red River of the North, which would involve the three rivers in question, the Park River, the Sheyenne River, and the Pembina River.

Senator BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is noticeable that even in spite of the large allocation to local interests, the allocation to Federal interests exceeds considerably the capitalization of the floodcontrol benefit.

Senator OVERTON. That is very true. Are there any questions, Senators?

(There was no response.)

Senator OVERTON. Now, before you proceed to the next project, we have the Chief of Engineers here on the question of local contribution and the committee requested him to appear in order to justify local contributions on projects that might be authorized where we might feel that the local contribution is too heavy.

General, we had under consideration last Monday the project known as Shreveport, La., Red River, caving bank project, it is called. The report indicates that considerable damages have resulted and are contemplated in the future from the continupance of the caving of the bank on the Red River for a distance of some 5 miles opposite Shreveport and above Shreveport and also on the so-called left bank at or near Bossier City. There was also a suggestion of considerable flood damage in the event that the caving continues and the Red River may empty into what is known as Twelve Mile Bayou, which is in close proximity to Red River and which then proceeds southward and skirts the city of Shreveport. In the event the Red River should break

through the bank and create a new channel down Twelve Mile Bayou it would make an island out of the city of Shreveport.

The local contribution is a very heavy one. It is 50 percent of the total cost. Now, it has been the policy of this committee not to approve a project unless it has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers. On the other hand, I conceive it the question of the amount of the local contributions to a project is one that rests in the discretion of the Congress. As a rule we have followed the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in that regard but there have been signal departures from that policy.

For instance, when we recognized flood control as a national obligation in the lower Mississippi River, the Congress took upon itself to relieve the lower Mississippi Valley from all local contribution except providing for rights-of-way, for levees on the main stem and maintenance of the levees after construction. Then later on, as you know, Congress relieved the local interests of providing rightsof-way on the main stem and for levee contribution. Now, another conspicuous example is in reference to channel rectification. In 1936 the Congress provided that local interests should supply the rightsof-way for channel rectification. In 1938, in respect to the projects authorized by that act of Congress, local interests were relieved of providing rights-of-way in the cases of channel rectification. In 1941, the Congress then went back to the former policy of requiring local interests to supply rights-of-way. Also in 1936 we had the legislation on flood control providing a local contribution of land and easements for the construction of reservoirs. That was fund by the Congress to be rather impractical, because frequently the reservoirs constructed in one State are of benefit exclusively or largely for States lower down on the stream. Therefore the flood control benefits from reservoirs are not local, so far as the State is concerned, but are downstream in other States. Therefore the Congress relieved for that reason mainly and possibly other reasons-relieved local interests from contributing lands and easements for dams and reservoirs.

Perhaps other examples may occur to you, but what I wanted to find out from you is your opinion as to whether or not the question of local contribution falls within the policy of this committee to follow the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers, or whether it is a question that addresses itself to the sound discretion of the Congress.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. EUGENE REYBOLD, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, WASHINGTON, D. C.

General REYBOLD. It remains with the Congress, to decide such questions.

Senator OVERTON. So that in any particular case or in reference to all projects, if we in any particular case desire to either increase the local contribution or decrease the local contribution, you feel that that is a matter that addresses itself to the sound discretion of the Congress after the facts have been presented and also that it is within the discretion of the Congress to alter the rule generally of local contribution in reference to all projects of any particular character?

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir. In investigating and making a report, we of course attempt to pass on to the Congress our best judgment in those matters, but I agree with you wholly that the fixing of local cooperation is a matter for Congress to decide. It is a matter of policy, and insofar as we as an investigating and reporting agency are concerned, we find it filled with complexities. For that reason the Congress must consider each one of its cases on its own merits and judge for itself the amount of contribution that shall be made by the local interests.

I think you have very clearly outlined the history of local cooperation as adopted from time to time by the Congress. As the matter now stands the Federal Government has assumed responsibility for the securing of all lands, easements, and right-of-way in connection with reservoir construction, for the very reason you have stated. Reservoirs in connection with flood control become national in character, because of the benefits accruing to two or more States. For example, reservoirs built in Pennsylvania have great local benefit insofar as the cities or the State in concerned, but the damaging flood waters extend on down through the Ohio, and into the Mississippi River, thereby benefiting a number of States. When it comes to levees and flood walls for local protection, then the policy of applying local cooperation is not so difficult, and that is the way the law stands today. The Flood Control Act of 1936, as modified, from time to time, provides in connection with walls, levees, and drainage, the so-called, (a), (b), (c) provisions, which I believe are wholly sound at the moment, but of course it rests with the Congress to add to or subtract from those provisions as it sees fit.

Senator OVERTON. I quite thoroughly agree with you that the (a), (b), (c) provisions in reference both to the channel rectification and to the construction of the levees and walls and dikes are very sound. Personally I believe in local contribution wherever it is practical, within reasonable limits. I think, if the local contribution is excessive and out of proportion to the total cost, either it ought to be reduced if it is a meritorious project, or the project itself ought to be rejected. In a letter which Colonel Goethals has just read to the committee, the Bureau of the Budget declares:

A principle with respect to multiple-purpose projects, already accepted by the Corps of Engineers, House Document No. 762, Seventy-seventh Congress, would limit the allocation to flood control of an amount no greater than the capitalized annual flood-control benefits. In the absence of any justification for deviation from this principle it would seem to me that it should be followed.

Will you state whether there is such a principle, and, if so, explain it in a little more detail than is contained in the letter.

General REYBOLD. I believe this is a sound principle, Mr. Chairman, for general application and we follow it with, of course, certain deviations therefrom to meet special conditions such as in cases where other Federal interests than flood control appear in large amount. In connection with multiple-purpose projects such as projects which are dominant irrigation but include also some flood control as an element of the project in determining the value of the flood-control features, which are nonreimbursable, this principle is used. Is that correct, General Robins?

General ROBINS. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. That is all.

Senator BURTON. May I ask a question of the General? I appreciated your response to the chairman's inquiry about local contribution. As I take it, you are emphasizing the fact that the question as to the size of the local contribution is not so much an engineering question as it is who shall pay for it.

General REYBOLD. Yes, sir; that is true.

Senator BURTON. And therefore that would ordinarily be a question of general congressional policy, because the engineering problem would be the same whether the Federal Government paid for it or whether the local agency paid for it.

General REYBOLD. That is correct, sir.

Senator BURTON. Yet in making your original statement and recommendation as to the allocation, you have a wide experience with other projects and therefore you take into consideration the policy that has been followed in other allocations elsewhere, and if I would suppose there would be some instance where the problem would be very unique and there would be little guidance as to what the contribution should be in their case, there would be many others like it, and if Congress should upset the policy that had been followed on the whole group we also in fairness would have to upset a good many others along with it, and therefore there must be some cases in which there is a really broader opportunity and greater freedom of discretion for the exercise of the judgment of Congress than in others, because of its uniqueness in that particular case, isn't that so?

General REYBOLD. That is quite so, Senator; and wherever there have been precedents, we try to follow it and attempt to advise the Congress in making its decision.

Senator BURTON. Then could I ask you that on this Red River project and in the neighborhood of Shreveport, La., in which there are these much larger local contributions than have come to our attention during these hearings, whether that can be regarded as a somewhat unique situation down there, or does it involve the readjustment of many other comparable ones, with the readjustment of that local allocation?

General REYBOLD. That one is somewhat unusual. Another matter that has been applied in fixing local cooperations is exemplified by the main steam of the lower Mississippi River. The levee districts, and the people in that vast community spent millions of dollars in the construction of levees for the protection of their lands prior to the expenditure of any Federal funds; so much so that when the basic Mississippi River project was adopted, Congress, in considering those facts assumed responsibility for the entire capital cost of the further construction of the levee system, leaving in the future to local interests only the furnishing of all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and an agreement that they will take over, maintain, and operate the levees once they be completed at Federal expense.

The Mississippi Valley has adopted that principle, and it has worked very well. It is applied, as you know, under the (a), (b), (c) references to the General Flood Control Act of 1936, and where levees and flood walls have been constructed under that general Food Control Act, the people, too, throughout the country have accepted those conditions of local cooperation willingly. So I would say, as furnishing precedents, that the (a), (b), (c) provisions are sound for local cooperation in connection with levees and flood walls.