Senator OVERTON. The committee will stand in recess for a few minutes.

(Short recess.)

STATEMENT OF HON. H. C. DWORSHAK, REPRESENTATIVE FROM IDAHO

Mr. DWORSHAK. I just wanted a couple of minutes, if I could have it, on the Lucky Peak matter.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am a representative of the Second Idaho Congressional District in which is located the proposed Lucky Peak Reservoir. That is on the Boise River in western Idaho. When the House Committee on Flood Control was holding its hearings in April, I and other representatives of other organizations in that part of the State appeared before the committee and endeavored to make a presentation in support of the Lucky Peak project.

However, the chairman at that time advised us that while the Engineers had approved the project it had not been sent up to the House because the Interior Department had not completed its action on that particular report, and consequently we were precluded from making any statement in behalf of the project and were advised when your committee took up the flood control bill we would have an opportunity if in the meantime the Interior Department rescinded its report. I understand that that has been done and that your committee apparently has before it the Lucky Peak Reservoir.

Now, I shall not go into the technical data and information because I understand Mr. William Welsh, the watermaster, appeared yesterday and made a statement, but I want to stress the advisability of favorable action because I believe it is real economy to give consideration to that project at this time. The record will show that during the last 50 years there have been few years in which they have not had a flood situation in that valley.

There are about 340,000 acres of rich land and there are about 155 miles of the river that are invariably considered serious damage flood areas in the summer. I think in 1943 the most serious flood damage in years resulted in a damage of $1,000,000, and it has been estimated that over the years there has been an average in excess of a half a million dollars loss annually.

Now, it seems to me that even though there is being built the Anderson Ranch Reservoir for irrigation purposes on the, south fork of the Boise River that the Army engineers have indicated that they consider real economy to construct a flood-control project to elimininate the necessity of spending in excess of $100,000 annually. They have done that in a piecemeal fashion endeavoring to build levees and do various kind of work that would protect the adjoining farm lands from damages, but they have not succeeded too well because that condition can be overcome only through the construction of a dam like the Lucky Peak Reservoir."

Now, of course, I understand that while the Army engineers have indicated that they approve of this project and that the Interior Department has done likewise, that a question has arisen as whether there can be coordinated operation as between the flood-control features and

the possible subsequent use of some water for reclamation purposes. I think that the primary objective should be to consider this on the basis of a flood-control project, and I have every reason to believe that the Army engineers and the Interior Department can cooperate successfully in operating this project.

During the 8 years that I have served on the House I have consistently supported economy, and I believe I am doing that when I urge your action on the Lucky Peak Reservoir. There are other related features, such as the subsequent development of a public domain under the proposed Mountain Home project, but I think the main consideration at this time should be the advisability of constructing this reservoir on an economical basis and to protect 340,000 acres of rich land in the Boise River from these recurring floods each year.

I shall appreciate your consideration on that basis, Mr. Chairman. Senator OVERTON. As a Member of the House, and having served 8 years, I think you can appreciate the problem that confronts us in considering this reservoir. It is this: Apparently the main interest there is irrigation, and there are quite a number of dams in the area devoted exclusively to the irrigation purposes.

This dam will be right jam up against an irrigation dam, the Arrow Rock Reservoir. Now, a divided control described by Congress, I think, is an impractical thing. You cannot have two masters of a dam. Either the Interior Department in this case ought to have charge of the dam, or the War Department, the Army engineers, ought to have charge of it. Whatever cooperation there is should be voluntary. I think the question, without consulting with other members of the committee, bothering us is whether we should just leave it out and not authorize this construction, thinking that probably it might be best under all circumstances to let the Bureau of Reclamation construct the dam.

Mr. DWORSHAK. My answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is this: That being especially a flood-control project, I would conscientiously contend that the Army engineers should construct a reservoir and then operate it, if it is necessary to do that, on the basis of preventing flood damages in that valley. If there are to be any contingent reclamation uses made of the water stored in that Lucky Peak Reservoir then it would necessarily be on a voluntary basis whereby the Army engineers would relinquish control over so much water to the Interior Department and the Bureau of Reclamation, but if it is necessary to store in order to prevent these floods each spring, then I believe we should overlook, at least momentarily, the reclamation feature and recognize, if there is a need for a flood-control project, the Army engineers be charged with the responsibility for operating it and constructing it in order to obtain the fullest benefit under that particular project.

Senator OVERTON. Very well. We might devise some amendment which would protect that Arrow Rock Reservoir. But if it is authorized in this bill it will have to be a flood-control law and under the jurisdiction of the War Department.

Mr. DWORSHAK. I believe that is acceptable. I am not representing the various interests in the valley, but knowing that every year it is necessary to get funds from the Army engineers to control the floodwater, then, certainly I take it we should be primarily interested in building a flood-control project.

I ask your consideration on that basis.

-Senator OVERTON. All right. Thank you, sir.

Let us take up now the Rappahannock River Basin.

Mr. REID. Mr. Chairman, the reason-I have on the wall a largescale Government map showing certain of the residential houses which will be flooded and certain of the residences which will be untenable when this dam is built.

Senator OVERTON. Where is the dam?

Mr. REID. Right here. This light line is water flowing through Fredericksburg. If this were not built the water would flow through here [indicating].

This map was originated for the Park Service. The red will be completely flooded Now, this territory is allergic to floods of two types. Thirty-eight or forty years ago some land was bought along the road here by Frank J Gould in the name of the Fredericksburg Power Co, with the intention of building a dam There was no record of the flow at that time of the Rappahannock River, and when the dry weather of 1914 came along we advised Mr. Gould to abandon the property, and it was abandoned as unprofitable, at prices as of 1914.

Now, the uplands here, all along here [indicating] is as fine dairy section that is in this county. Some of these residences here will be absolutely surrounded. Here is one here that will be left on an island. That farmer raises about 125 to 150 turkeys a year, and he would not have land enough left in high water to let his turkeys stand on high land, let alone raise them.

Forty years ago when we went to Fredericksburg the first thing we did was try to go back in the records and find out about the floods. The maximum flood that we could find any record at all of that had done any damage was a flood in 1889 called the Johnstown flood. There is no record of any serious damage being done to Fredericksburg except three times, and one of those was very serious. The second one almost reached that period, but the flood of 1942 was the one that really did the damage in Fredericksburg.

Senator OVERTON. What flood did the damage?

Mr. REID. 1942. There was a flood in 1937 1 year after they had lots of the floods up here in the northeastern section of the State. That did a considerable amount of damage, too, but nothing like the flood of 1942.

Now, I believe the engineers estimated, that worked on this project in 1933, the cost of the project, and that those prices did not recommend the project, and we do not see how it can possibly be economical in 1946 at the present prices if it was not economical in 1933.

Now, of course, I cannot tell or I do not believe they can tell what prices will be the next year or the year after or any other time.

Now, we think the committee would do well to go very thoroughly into the economics of this development. It is estimated the construction will run about $17,500,000 in round figures, about $18,500,000 with some transmission lines.

Senator OVERTON. How much?

Mr. REID. About eighteen and a half, something like that, in round figures. It is supposed to have a ratio of about 1 to 1.45 or 1.50. Now, that is based on 1938 to 1940 prices. Of course, prices are much higher today.

Senator OVERTON. You mean land prices?

Mr. REID. Everything is higher-land and everything else.
Senator OVERTON. You mean electricity?

Mr. REID. NO. That is about the only thing that is cheaper. To give an approximation of the increase in costs, on Buggs Island, on the Roanoke River, the cost was estimated at about $1,000,000. That is on page (8 of a Senate document. The Interior Department on appropriations was arguing the power at Buggs Island, the cost would be an increase of 45 percent, and I think that is pretty close to correct. Now, if you will add that 45 percent to your costs you will come down to zero even. It just amounts to 1 to 1. Now, if we put the prices that they put on the power of Buggs Island, apply that to the Fredericksburg production of 76,950,000 kilowatts of power and the secondary power of 2,914,000 kilowatts and add the other benefits, we get a ratio of cost to benefits of 1.30 to 1. If we take the contract made between the Lexington Water Power and the Duke Power Co. back in the fancy late twenties, which became operative in 1930, and apply their costs to this practically 71,000,000 at 6 mills, and use a cost of 2.2 mills as given in this report for your secondard energy, we get an income of practically 740,000 of cost, of 1.22 to 1. Then if we take a statement set out on April 9 by the Federal Power Commission for the Southwestern Power States under schedule A, we can only get 634 mills for primary power. Under this Fredericksburg Dam it is 1.3 mills for primary power.

Now, while I think Fredericksburg is the best town on earth, I don't think the power at Fredericksburg is worth more than the power at Buggs Island. All of the water on both of them comes out of the State of Virginia.

If you take schedule B, that is, wholesale, the rate on that for primary power is 5.2 mills, substantially the same as it is for Buggs Island. Now, apply any one of those schedules, why, this thing, this dam, is just not economical.

Now, I am going to leave with you an abstract of the contract between the Lexington Water Power Co. and the Carolina Power & Light Co., and also one betwen them and the Duke Power which I think I have. The Carolina Power & Light contract differs from the one made with the Duke Power Co. in that they bought some extra capacity, but they bought that extra capacity at $8.50. I do not seem to have that with me, but I have the Carolina Power contract with the Lexington Water Power Co., and the Duke Power Co. is an exact duplicate of that, except that they do not take this extra demand, and there is a difference of $104,000 income engulfed.

Now, those contracts are on file with the Federal Power Commission, and the committee can get the full contract.

Now, there is one other thing. It has been mentioned in the report that there have been seven people drowned in these two floods. That is correct. Seven people were drowned, but if this dam had been in operation since Adam's time it would not have prevented any of those deaths. Four of them happened miles above the town and miles and miles above the headwaters of this dam, and the other three happened on creeks, but the damage was done before the river ever got up.

The Army does not claim any special benefit, but a casual reading of the report would lead one to the conclusion that maybe some of those lives would have been safe.

Now, I think that covers it. One more thing: I do not know whether it has been before this committee or where it came from, but there has been a report circulated around and it has been in the press that 80 percent of this land is owned by power companies already, but that is absolutely false. I bought there and was associated with mine. At least 99 percent of the land Frank Gould bought, and it does not amount to as much as 15 percent of the entire area, let alone all of it. If you want to reverse it and say that the power company owned 20 and 80 was to be purchased, that would be overstatement as to the interest.

I have no interest in power companies whatever and do not work for them. I do not have any interest in any electrical utilities. I think that this dam has the potentialities of being a menace to the city of Fredericksburg because the foot of this dam will be higher, although only 5 miles away, than 60 percent of the city of Fredericksburg. The top of this dam will be about 140 feet, and in high water it will be nearly 160 feet above the highest point in the city of Fredericksburg.

Now, I know that the engineers are going to design this dam, if it is built, to the best of their ability, and I think it will be a good job, but I do not know so much about the operation. We know what the Pensacola Dam did and know the lives that it cost, and it is a beautiful job, and there is everything there except a monument to the inefficiency of the operation in the names of the people that it killed.

Now, we are only 5 miles away from it.

Senator OVERTON. You live in Fredericksburg?

Mr. REID. I live in Fredericksburg, and I have invested my life savings there. I am a retired engineer.

Senator OVERTON. You do not have any land?

Mr. REID. Not 1 foot. Neither Mrs. Reid nor myself own any farm land except in South Carolina.

Senator OVERTON. You would not be here individually?
Mr. REID. No; except it is a menace to Fredericksburg.

Senator OVERTON. You think it would be harmful to Fredericksburg?

Mr. REID. If operated like Pensacola, yes; I do not think there will be anything left of Fredericksburg. I do not believe there are 20 houses in Fredericksburg above an elevation of 100 feet-not 20. There may be two now since we have taken up to back of the old school. but up to 5 years ago there were not 20 houses above an elevation of 100 feet. I think it is a potential menace. I think you can give Fredericksburg a protection by dikes for as little money as the cost over and above the estimate of this dam will be. We all know that labor has gone up and material has I thank you, Gentlemen; unless there are some questions. Senator OVERTON. There are no questions.

Is there any other witness in opposition?

STATEMENT OF H. W. ANDERSON, JR.

gone up.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I will give my name for the record again. H. W. Anderson, Jr., appearing as counsel for the Virginia Electric & Power Co. We have one witness that we would like to have testify at this time and only one witness. I would like to pre