that this small sum would be a wise investment in the future of these three stricken counties, in view of the very large flood potential and extreme danger to life and property.

The President declared the cities of Newark and Mount Vernon disaster areas last year and emergency relief was extended for temporary repairs. Newark, like Mansfield, is an important industrial city. Its population is more than 40,000 people. Its flood damage last year, involving such vital facilities as water supply, exceeded $10 million. I have in my files, communications in the form of letters, resolutions, and petitions representing the expressions of some 3,000 persons requesting that the Congress make available the funds so that the Engineers can proceed with the study.

Evidence of damages in Richland and Holmes Counties tell a similar story. The entire area for which I now seek your help is a part of the Muskingum River system, and had it not been for the existing dams already completed in the area last year's floods would have been catastrophic.

Your favorable consideration of our study money requests will hasten the day when the remaining few towns in this area will be protected against wide-open flooding.

I submit that the studies are long overdue and in view of the long period of years which elapse between the time when the studies begin and construction starts on flood control projects generally, time is of the essence.

I am attaching to my statement for inclusion in the record a number of exhibits, typical of the many letters and reports in my files showing private damages ranging from $500 to several thousand dollars. The Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. alone sustained a loss of $3,500,000. This documentation spells out clearly the urgency of the request I am making, clear evidence of the public need for appropriation of funds this fiscal year so that we can proceed with the studies as authorized June 3, 1959.

Mr. LEVERING. In the further interest of time I want to yield to some distinguished constituents of mine who have come to Washington at their own expense to demonstrate the great concern and interest in flood-control measures in this district. First of all, I would like to recognize all of those who are here and then ask two or three to make 1-minute statements, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CANNON. You may proceed.

Mr. LEVERING. First of all, Mr. Frank W. Spencer, Jr., publisher of the Newark Advocate, and chairman of the Licking Watershed Flood-Protection Council; then Mr. C. Allen Millikan, manager, Newark Area Chamber of Commerce; Mr. Richard V. Fortune, mayor of the city of Newark, Ohio; Mr. Robert C. Battat, president of the Newark Area Chamber of Commerce: Mr. Pearl Cartnal, county commissioner; Mr. Herbert Koontz, county commissioner; Mr. Kenneth E. Thomas, Soil Conservation Service; Mr. Don Hoskinson, member of Newark City Council and associated with Rockwell Standard Corp.; Mr. Warren Weiant III, of W.S. Weiant & Son; Mr. W. K. Sidwell, who is associated with Owens-Corning Fiberglas; and Mr. Henry Richardson, of the Newark Trust Co.

We also have with us, who wishes to make a very brief statement, Mr. N. R. Danielian, president of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Association.

For his statement, I am happy to present at this time Mr. Spencer. Mr. CANNON. Mr. Spencer.

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK W. SPENCER

Mr. SPENCER. Gentlemen, I have been asked to report on the flood damage which occurred in the Licking watershed in January of 1959. It was the most damaging in history. The most severe flood damage was suffered at Newark and at the smaller urban areas of St. Louisville, Granville, and Hebron, Ohio.

The number of structures directly affected or damaged were 2,600. The number of persons who had to be evacuated from their homes

totaled 3,563. Freezing temperatures prevailed at the time and the Red Cross alone spent some $190,000 for relief. Residential damage involved 1,600 homes, with 200 of these being totally destroyed or requiring major repair. Total physical damages to residential property have been calculated at slightly over $2 million. Industrial damage involved 25 industrial plants, large and small, with losses totaling $4,065,000.

Losses to property, including roads, streets, bridges, and buildings totaled $170,000 in direct damage. In the city of Newark, four bridges were so badly damaged that the city will spend some $500,000 replacing them. Another major loss was the Waterhurst Dam, which supplies the city with water. It was very badly damaged and is Low being rebuilt with public expenditures of some $1,200,000 being recessary. In other words, the total flood losses were estimated actually at $10,803,500.

Gentlemen, we can only urge that your committee grant our very reasonable request for a flood study.

Thank you.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Spencer.

Mr. LEVERING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present Mr. Herbert Koontz, who will make a statement on behalf of the commission.

STATEMENT OF MR. HERBERT KOONTZ

Mr. KOONTZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Herbert Koontz. I am chairman of the board of county commissioners in our country of Licking.

There is not much we can say in the short time we have today, but to substantiate the figures that Mr. Spencer gave you, I would like for you to note that in our area, in our watershed area, we have had 14 major floods.

Mr. CANNON. Within what period of time?

Mr. KOONTZ. Since 1898.

I remember 13 of them very well because I was a flood victim myself. I live in one of the affected villages in our district.

Gentlemen, we need this help. I do not know of any other approach other than by a survey such as this. I am sure that if we have such a survey that it will point a way to a solution for our problem. Approval of these funds will be very much appreciated by our board and by some 93,000 people who are residents of that watershed. Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Koontz.

Mr. LEVERING. May I present Mr. W. K. Sidwell of Owens-Corning Fiberglas.

Mr. CANNON. All right, Mr. Sidwell, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. K. SIDWELL

Mr. SIDWELL. Gentlemen, speaking for Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. currently the largest Newark employer-our interest in adVocating adequate flood protection measures is heightened by our experiences resulting from the disastrous flash flood of January 21, 1959.

These are the facts: 175 Fiberglas employees suffered property losses in excess of $200,000; 250 employees out of work 1 month, loss in wages exceeded $100,000; relief was provided by OwensCorning to our employees-$105,000 in outright gifts, $39,000 in long-term, no-interest loans; and flood losses to Owens-Corning to

taled $32 million-covering equipment replacement, rehabilitatio and cost of lost production.

We strongly urge favorable consideration for flood control mes rues in the Newark-Licking County area.

Thank you.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Sidwell.

Mr. LEVERING. And now, Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. C. All Milliken, manager of the Newark Area Chamber of Commerce, f

a statement.

Mr. CANNON. All right, Mr. Milliken, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MR. C. ALLEN MILLIKIN

Mr. MILLIKEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I a manager of the Newark Area Chamber of Commerce as well as secr tary of the Licking Watershed Flood Protection Council.

I would like to make two points:

The Newark-Licking County community is the largest communi in the Muskingum River watershed for which no major flood prote tion has been provided. The only existing flood protection in t Licking watershed area is a local protection project at Newark whi was completed in November 1941, but this dam provides no prote tion for the Newark area of the Licking watershed. We need a con plete survey of the Licking watershed flood problem to provide flo protection upstream.

The second point is, this need is more urgent today than ev before, not only because the 1959 flood was more disastrous, b because the community is more developed today than it has been the last 10 years. Our population has increased 20 percent and the has been a 120 percent increase in industrial activity in the past

years.

In behalf of the Licking Watershed Flood Protection Council, would like permission to file this statement, which gives more detai about the whole problem.

Mr. CANNON. The statement will be made a part of the record: this point.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE LICKING WATERSHED FLOOD PROTECTION COUNCIL OF NEWAR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the following statement presented as evidence of the extreme public need for a complete study of seriou flood conditions existing in the Licking River watershed area, which hɛ experienced costly, damaging floods 14 times since 1898.

Due to the pronounced growth and development of the area in the past 1 years, the need is more acute than ever before. The flood of January 1959the worst in local history-emphasizes the great need, as it hit residents, gov ernments, and businesses in the Newark-Licking County community with tar gible losses exceeding $10 million and inestimable tangent losses.

The combined factors of the frequency of flood conditions and the populatio: and economic growth of the area soundly justify the development of an adequat flood protection program in the Licking watershed. The Newark communit is the largest in the Muskingum River watershed for which no major floo protection has been provided

In behalf of the 93,000 residents of the watershed area, the Licking Watershed Flood Protection Council respectfully and earnestly petitions your committee to approve the request of Congressman Robert W. Levering for the appropria tion of $15,000 to begin the approved survey study by the Army Engineers as the first step of such a protection program.

THE LICKING WATERSHED

The Licking River Basin is located in central Ohio in Licking, Muskingum, Knox, Fairfield, and Perry Counties. The Licking River is a tributary of the Maskingum River, entering at Zanesville, Ohio, 77.3 miles above the latter stream's junction with the Ohio River. The Licking River Basin has a drainage area of 580 square miles. The main stem of the Licking River is formed at Newark, Ohio, by the confluence of the North and South Forks. These two tributaries have drainage areas of 239 and 288 square miles, respectively. Raccoon Creek, a major tributary of South Fork, enters the South Fork near its mouth in the city of Newark.

The topography of the watershed of the Licking River is generally from flat to hilly and contains large areas of rich agricultural land. The city of Newark, industrial city of 42,000, is the principal municipality in the watershed. The population of the Licking River area is 42,200 and the Raccoon CreekBouth Fork area has a population of 51,000.

FOURTEEN FLOODS SINCE 1898

Evidence of the great public need for a flood protection program in this area ppears in the records of the Corps of Engineers, which show that the stream nge on the Licking River just below Newark has measured flood conditions on 14 parate occasions since 1898, with the floods of January 1959, March 1913, and March 1898 being the three most severe.

The following tabulation compares the levels of these floods :

Normal gage height is 2 to 3 feet above zero, elevation 779.

Gage height 1

15.8

15.0

15.2

17.8

17.5

19.2

18.7

The January 1959 flood which resulted from heavy rainfall, combined with tors of frozen ground and snow cover, produced the maximum stages of Hord on the Licking River and its tributaries.

The discharge of water measured by the stream gage below Newark was also le greatest of record in 1959, being 45,000 cubic feet per second, compared with 1,000 cubic feet per second in 1913 and 25,000 cubic feet per second in 1952.

FLOOD DAMAGE

The flood of January 1959 was the most damaging in this history of the Lickwatershed, partly because it was the most severe and partly because the area the vicinity of Newark and other communities is much more highly developed han ever before, residentially and industrially. A population increase of 20 ercent and a 120 percent increase in industrial activity, as measured by employet, has been experienced in the past 10 years.

Various tabulations and calculations of the flood damage have been made by the Army engineers, civilian defense corps, local governments and agencies. Corslation of these by this organization has resulted in the following facts;

1. The most severe flood damage was suffered at Newark and at or near the maller urban areas of St. Louisville, Hanover, Hebron, Utica, and Granville. 2. Detailed canvas of the flooded areas indicated that a total of 2,600 structures were directly affected or damaged; many more were victims of sewer backing and related effects.

The number of persons who had to be evacuated from their homes totaled 3. Freezing temperatures prevailed at the time. Numerous relief stations ad to be established, and the Red Cross alone spent some $190,000 in the area ar relief purposes. The Salvation Army, several churches, and other groups sisted heroically.

54265-60-pt. 4- -39

4. Residential damages in the city of Newark involved over 1,600 homes, 200 of these being totally destroyed or requiring major repair. Most of these water over the first floor in varying depths up to a maximum of 18 feet, wit average depth of about 6 feet. Total physical damages to residential prope have been calculated at slightly over $2 million. Damages to residential agricultural properties in the area surrounding Newark have been estimate an additional $500,000.

5. Industrial damages in the Newark area involved 25 industrial plants, 1 and small. These industries sustained tangible losses totaling $4,065,000, nc cluding loss of wages, loss of business, and other intangible considerations. latter has been estimated at approximately $3 million, resulting in total l to directly affected industries of over $7 million. No attempt has been ma estimate the considerable losses to industries, and their employees, not lo in the affected flood areas due to loss of production resulting from absente or the necessity of shutting down when the city's water system went o service for 3 days as a result of the waterworks being inundated.

The major industrial loss was suffered by the Owens-Corning Fiberglas C the community's largest employer. This plant had 8 to 15 feet of water ove major portion of its property, and was shut down for a period of 2 weeks. cutting off the incomes of some 2,400 employees and having a significant effe the entire community. Fiberglas' loss was approximately $3 million.

6. Other losses involving 74 commercial establishments. 3 churches, 2 sch 2 other public institutions, and local utilities totaled $603,500.

7. Losses to public property, including roads. streets, bridges, and build totaled $170,000, in direct damages. This does not tell the complete s however, as several bridges in the city and county were so weakened by flood that replacement is a necessity. The city of Newark currently is read a program to replace four such bridges, at a cost of over $500,000. And major loss to the city was its waterworks dam, which was badly weakene the January 21, 1959, flood and which collapsed completely during the high v of February 10, 1959. In addition to the extreme hardship this created fo residents of the area in loss of water supply and fire protection, this casualty cost the city of Newark over $100,000 for the construction of a temporary to impound water, and $300,000 is now being spent to construct a new waterw dam. Thus, the January 1959 flood has resulted in the necessity of governments having to spend over $1,200,000 of public funds to repair and rel flood-damaged public property.

8. Recapitulation.-The tangible flood losses in January 1959 reported a total:

The only existing flood protection in the Licking watershed area is a l protection project at Newark, which was completed in November 1941 which consists of 31,500 lineal feet of channel improvement and 5,450 lineal of earth levee, principally along the South Fork in Newark. The levee constructed to provide some protection for the area of the city most freque affected by floods, prior to 1940.

This levee did not provide protection during the 1959 flood, as the south of the city, behind the levee, was flooded as the waters skirted the ends of levee and poured into the low areas.

Damages in this supposedly protected area were calculated to be $530, involving principally residential properties of lower-income families.

Local interests, during the past 20 years, proposed that, as an alterna to the spending of upward of $25 million for the construction of Dillón I on the Licking River below Newark to protect Zanesville and downstream ar funds to be used to develop flood-protection facilities upstream from New to provide protection for the Newark-Licking County area as well as poi downstream from Newark. Dillon Dam will be completed in the near fut and its flood reservoir, at maximum stage of 790 elevation, will back up i the eastern limits of the Newark area.