Thank you very much for giving us your time, and for the very careful attention we know that you will give our area project when you go into executive session. Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Sheard. TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1960. ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER BASIN, FLOOD CONTROL SURVEY WITNESS HON. JAMES C. OLIVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE Mr. CANNON. Congressman Oliver of Maine. We are glad to have you with us. Mr. OLIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here this morning. As our colleague, Congressman Stratton, has said, I realize time is pressing and I do not have any prepared statement to place before you. I am appearing in support of a survey project of the Androscoggin River, an interstate river running from New Hampshire into Maine, upon which there are important industrial installations. Over the years, at the confluence of the Swift River and the Androscoggin, in the Rumford-Mexico area there have been recurring flood conditions. The banks have overflowed to the detriment of the people living in the area causing damage which is more or less routine, I expect, in matters of this kind, to the roads and bridges, and so forth. It has been a matter of losses and damages dating back as far as 1936 so far as my records are concerned. The history of flooding, starting in 1936, was repeated in 1953, 1954, again in this recent fall in 1959. The newspapers locally came out with pictures such as these indicating roads washed out and bridges washed out and people being driven from their homes, in some instances several hundred families have had to move and then go back in and clean up. It is a repetition of the same pattern which you gentlemen are all familiar with. There is no reason for me to belabor the matter. I understand the Army Engineers through the New England Office, through General Sibley, have recommended that a survey be made of the entire situation with reference to the Androscoggin River as a whole in order that this particular situation may be incorporated in such a survey. I think a sum of money such as $137,000 has been estimated by the Army Engineers to be necessary to carry out this survey. The recommendations which they have made as a result of previous studies call for expenditures of such a sum of money that the cost-benefit ratio makes it improbable that a committee of Congress would recognize that particular project in and of itself at the confluence of the two rivers. But if the survey were conducted to take care of all the conditions affecting overflowing of the bankss and uncontrollable waters in the Androscoggin, then this location in and of itself would be covered. The County Commissioners of Oxford County in my State have wired me asking if it is possible to get the survey, which is recom 2 mended by the Army Engineers, funded for this fiscal year to the extent of, as I said before, some $137,000. Because of the recurrence of these conditions and because there has not been, up to this date, any actual work done or recommended, it does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, in view of the few flood control proj ects that come up in my State and in my district, that this survey should be accorded all the consideration you gentleman can give to it. I have a letter here from the town selectmen of the town of Rumford where the Oxford Paper Co. operates, which is a tremendous economic benefit to the area. The selectmen of the town have asked that this committee give all the consideration it can to this relatively small amount of funding for the purposes of this survey. I have petitions here, which I will not burden the record with, amounting to some 1,200 constituents of mine, who will be faced again with this recurring flood situation if we cannot get this study authorized. It has been a matter of postponing it year after year since 1955. I say in all respect to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the commit'tee, that it does seem to me that in view of what I have said, since we do not come in here very often asking for flood control consideration and since this is only for the funding of the survey, that perhaps you can see fit to give us the consideration to which we think we are entitled and which we very much need. I do not know that I can go into any further detail about it to any extent beyond that. I would hope that with all the problems you have over the country, you will still think of this spot in the northeastern extremity of the country that really is experiencing this difficulty year after year and give us an opportunity at least to feel we can be encouraged to the extent that sooner or later, upon the survey recommendations of the Army Engineers, that this condition can be! met. Thank you very much for your courtesies and attention. I hope you can see fit to give us favorable consideration in this pending appropriation bill. Mr. CANNON. Thank you very much, Congressman. TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1960. TOUCHET RIVER AND PATIT CREEK FLOOD CONTROL FOR DAYTON, WASH. WITNESS HENRY H. WELLSANDT, MAYOR OF DAYTON, WASH. Mr. CANNON. Mr. Wellsandt, mayor of the city of Dayton, Wash. You are interested in the Touchet River, I believe. Mr. WELLSANDT. That is correct, sir. I have a prepared statement. Also I will speak a little off the cuff. Mr. CANNON. You may proceed. Mr. WELLSANDT. Mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Henry H. Wellsandt, mayor of Dayton, Wash. I am here to represent the city of Dayton and I appreciate very much being here. Gentlemen, ordinarily, as a businessman, I would not be asking for Government aid. However, our situation is beyond our control. I appear before you to ask for your favorable consideration for funds amounting to $26,300 for the preparation of advance engineering and design studies necessary to establish a firm cost estimate for the Touchet River and Patit Creek flood control for Dayton, Wash., as authorized in 1941 Public Law 228. We ask that, since the project was authorized in 1941 and funds were budgeted but cancelled due to World War II, you include the necessary funds in the budget. The need is greater now than when originally authorized because of new schools and other improvements in the flood area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' records show there have been 10 recorded peak floods. Five of which have been in the last 12 NOTE. $35,900 average annual flood damage preventable. Estimates for channel velocities are based on the 1952 flood of 3,400 cubic feet per second and indicates an average velocity of about 10 feet per second. For such a condition, maximum localized velocities would approximate 15 feet per second. Although not computed, velocities would be somewhat higher for larger floods. Records also indicate the present bank-full capacity, where not protected by levees, is approximately 1,800 to 2,000 cubic feet per second. In 1951 the Corps of Engineers, with assistance of $40,000 in cash from the State of Washington and $10,000 in cash and labor for the county and city, initiated an emergency program for the construction of certain temporary levees on a portion of the stream. In 1955 this was declared a flood disaster area and the Corps of Engineers spent $5,000 in repair on the project. The city and county also have spent approximately $30,000 in repair work on the project and unprotected areas. I quote from a letter from Col. Paul H. Symbol, U.S. Corps of Engineers District Engineer. "Although these emergency improvements provided by the Corps of Engineers in 1951 in cooperation with local interests, have provided a measure of flood protection to the Dayton area, they were not intended to serve as a substitute to the authorized project or to prove a permanent and full degree of protection." Also, I quote from a letter to the Honorable Catherine May, House of Representatives, from Maj. Gen. William F. Cassedy, Assistant Chief of Engineers for civil work. "Consideration of this project for planning purposes was delayed pending completion of studies of flood control storage possibilities in the Touchet River Basin. The studies are now complete and indicate that protection of Dayton by upstream storage is not presently feasible. The exclusion of the Dayton project from annual budget in prior years does not detract from the fact that it is considered to be a desirable project.' If the upstream storage was completed, it would control only a portion of the basin runoff. There are three streams that run through Dayton. Gentlemen, a breakthrough in the unprotected or the temporary | levees, permitting the floodwaters to get behind the temporary levees, would be disastrous, doing damage to our sewer trunk line and disposal plant, damage to city streets, to the park, swimming pool, public school and grounds and private property. Loss of life has occurred and is a definite possibility in the future, due to the characteristics of the basin which results in sudden rises of the stream. The city of Dayton will do the necessary relocation work and we have recorded the necessary easements and rights-of-way for the project. Gentlemen, I hope you will agree with me and give us the needed help. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. Since this project was authorized in 1941 and since money had been appropriated back in 1941, we feel that the time has come when we should have some help on this project. Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before the committee today. I have a few pictures here showing some of the damage. That is some of the mud that goes through our streets. He Mr. CANNON. The committee is in receipt of a protest from a landowner who represents that he owns 7,600 acres in this project. says there are three divisions of it, that two of them have been surveyed, one not yet surveyed, and his acreage is in the area not yet surveyed. He very vigorously opposes the irrigation feature of it, not flood control. On what grounds are they objecting to the irrigation in this third district? Mr. WELLSANDT. As far as the irrigation, this thing I am talking about has nothing to do with the irrigation deal. The dams they intend to build are up in the basin and would control only a portion of the floodwaters. Reclamation have made surveys in regard to establishing a dam on one fork of the Touchet River. They use this water for irrigation in the lower part of the Touchet Valley. As I understand, the reason some of these men have opposed it-I think three in particular as far as the reclamation is concerned-is the amount of land they have and some of them are opposing it because they have good water rights now and do not need any more. Consequently, they do not want to pay the fees that they want to collect for each acre of ground. That is a different project entirely from the one I am talking about. Ours is strictly levee work on the Touchet River. Mr. CANNON. Yours can be completed without association with the irrigation feature of it? Mr. WELLSANDT. Correct. Mr. CANNON. You are not asking for the irrigation, you are merely sking for flood control? Mr. WELLSANDT. Strictly flood control. TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1960. SURVEY PROJECTS FOR EASTERN SHORE OF MARYLAND WITNESS HON. THOMAS F. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Mr. CANNON. Congressman Johnson of Maryland. You are appearing in behalf of survey projects for the Eastern Shore of Maryland? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Mr. CANNON. We will be glad to hear you. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement and I would like to proceed with the statement. Honorable Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Thomas Johnson, Representative of the First Congressional District of Maryland, sometimes known as the Eastern Shore of Maryland. I appear here today to ask your favorable consideration of two meritorious proposed projects, both of which have been approved for surveys by the House Committee on Public Works during the first session of the 86th Congress. The first is the Honga River and Tar Bay project which will require the sum of $18,000 for the survey. This proposed project consists of a greatly needed anchorage basin in the Hoopers Ísland area of Dorchester County, Md. It is important to note that the area in question produces over $12 millions in income from the seafood industry, which amounts to approximately one-half of the total revenue of Dorchester County. In the Department of the Army report to the House Public Works Committee, General Person stated: This region is one of the most highly productive hard crab areas in Chesapeake Bay. Ample depths of water are available over the fishing grounds and in connecting waterways but only one improved mooring area is available to the 300 or more boats engaged in the seafood industry. Waterborne commerce statistics for 1957 show that 21,640 vessel trips were made over the Honga River and Tar Bay project. This is approximately a 50-percent increase in traffic within the last 10 years. A large portion of this vessel movement is transient traffic for which no mooring facilities are available. Accordingly, it is considered that a review to determine the advisability of improvements for navigation on Honga River is advisable at this time. Furthermore, Col. Stanley T. B. Johnson, district engineer, on touring this area with me the past fall, confirmed the fact that an adequate anchorage basin was sorely needed and that the dredged material could be utilized to build up the tenuous land strip or causeway which joins the islands with the mainland. The present causeway faces complete inundation by the encroachment of the Honga River and Tar Bay waters. Time is of the essence as there is a prevailing serious |