Mr. CAPRON. I have a prepared statement submitted by the Lynchburg City-wide Committee, which I would like to file.

Senator MALONE. It may be received.

(The prepared statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT WITH REFERENCE TO S. 2289 BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

(Brief submitted by John D. Capron, Lynchburg City-wide Committee on Controlled Flow in the James River, May 27, 1948)

GATHRIGHT DAM PROJECT ON TNE JAMES RIVER IN VIRGINIA

The city of Lynchburg is located on the James River 132 miles downstream from the Gathright Dam and is the largest city on the river west of Richmond. Its present population is estimated at 50,000. The city is developed for a distance of about 6 miles along the south side of the river. The James has an important effect on the economic life of the city. It is of use and value to the municipality and to the city's industries. However, there are at present several detrimental factors to the stream which prevent development of the great potential advantages which are inherent in a stream of this character. These detrimental factors are occasional high floods, seasonal low water, and serious pollution.

Flood hazard. The flood plain at Lynchburg is on the city side of the river and consists of a strip of land averaging about 400 feet wide by 2 miles long. The river channel is divided by a long island on which are located the repair shops and yards of the Norfolk & Western Railway. The flood plain is highly developed, with important industrial establishments, warehouses, and commercial buildings. It carries the tracks and other structures of three railroads. All of these are vulnerable to high water. There have been two floods of almost exactly the same height, 1936 having a crest of 24.7 stage feet and 1913 having 24.6. Damage caused by the 1936 flood at Lynchburg is estimated by the Army engineers at $127,000. It is obvious that a recurrence of the 1936 flood would do more damage than was done in that year. Structures on the flood plain have increased in number and size, both adding to the value of the property subject to damage and in some measure restricting the flood channel. For example, the two foundries located on the flood plain at Lynchburg are engaged in modernization program involving expenditures of over $1,00,000. This investment materially increases the hazard at Lynchburg.

Flood benefits.—The Gathright Dam would not, of course, effect complete flood protection to Lynchburg, but it would so affect the crest of the worst floods as to be of very substantial benefit. According to the engineers' report, the crest of the 1913 flood would have been reduced by 6 feet and that of 1936 by 1.8 feet. Individuals who were experienced in flood conditions at Lynchburg and who were on the scene at the time advise that such a reduction in the crest of the 1936 flood would have enabled the forces who were fighting this flood to prevent the greater part of the damage. While the reduction in crest of 21.5 inches (1.8 feet) is not large in this instance, it represented the last peak of the high water that broke over the levees. A 6-foot reduction in the crest of 1913 would have eliminated any serious hazard from that flood.

The flood-control benefits afforded Lynchburg by the Gathright Dam are in no sense trivial but are of real and substantial value.

Low water and pollution.—The James River is subject to periods of very low flow. With rare exceptions, these low flows occur every year in the last summer and fall months. They have gone as low as 245 cubic feet per second and reach an average low monthly flow of approximately 400 cubic feet per second in most years. Contrasting this with an average annual flow of 3,570 feet emphasizes the extremes to which critical low periods may reduce the river. The banks are bare, and portions of the stream bed are exposed. The flow of the stream is greatly retarded, and the whole appearance of the river is unattractive.

These conditions are bad in themselves. They are seriously aggravated, however, by the polluted condition of the stream. Industrial wastes from upstream industries bring the water down to Lynchburg in a badly polluted condition. At Lynchburg, additional industrial wastes and municipal sewage are discharged into the stream. The combination of low water and pollution has several deleterious effects on the economic life of Lynchburg. The water is made unsatisfactory for municipal or industrial uses, and under the combined influence of

highly concentrated pollution and hot summer weather makes conditions unpleasant and offensive to people who have to live or work along the stream. The river has the appearance and some of the characteristics of an open sewer. Sufferers from this condition are the city, some of its industries, and many of its citizens. It is more difficult and expensive to render the water suitable for municipal or industrial uses. In fact, for some processes this trouble and expense is so great as to discourage the location of industry on this stream. Within the past 2 years, a very large industry decided not to locate at Lynchburg. One of the reasons for this decision was the character of the James River water caused by pollution.

Recreational uses of the stream are badly affected.

Stream flow and pollution benefits.-Again no contention is made that the operation of the Gathright Dam would cure the present ills of the river. But, as in the flood situation, the measure of regulation afforded by the dam would go a long way toward alleviating the worst of these ills.

The flow of the stream would be increased by some 335 cubic feet per second, or approximately 225,000,000 gallons daily. This would almost double the flow during the low-water periods of the stream and would greatly improve the worst conditions brought about by extreme low water and hot weather. The stream would be fuller, its movement much more rapid, and its means of purifying itself more effective.

Water could be made suitable for industrial or municipal use with less expense and trouble. This fact may be one of real importance to Lynchburg. Many factors favorable to industrial location and operation exist at Lynchburg. Some serious draw-backs to such location are the scarcity of proper sites along railway lines with an adequate supply of suitable water. Locations along the James on the Chesapeake & Ohio and Norfolk & Western lines would solve this problem except for two things: some of them are menaced by floods, and at all of them the quality of the water is unsatisfactory. The regulation of flow by the Gathright Dam would be a marked advance in the correction of both these problems and would increase Lynchburg's opportunity for industrial growth that would mean much to the future prosperity of this entire area.

Improvement would also be made in the recreational features of the stream. The river used to be a great source of recreation to the people of Lynchburg. Fishing, boating, swimming, camping, and picnicking were widely practiced. The stream above Lynchburg for 20 miles is that stretch which breaks through the Blue Ridge Mountains and is of great scenic beauty. If the worst features of pollution and low water were removed, it would again come into increased use as a recreational stream.

Senator ROBERTSON. I will now call upon Mr. Royston Jester III, member of the Lynchburg City Council.

STATEMENT OF ROYSTON JESTER III, MEMBER, LYNCHBURG CITY COUNCIL, LYNCHBURG, VA.

Mr. JESTER. Thank you, Senator Robertson.

My name is Royston Jester III, and I am a member of the City Council of Lynchburg, Va.

I want to concur in the expression of those persons who have come here in opposition to the bill now pending before this committee. And I wanted to point out, although I did not intend saying anything when I first came into this room, that, from what I can gather, several of those persons who are appearing here in favor of this bill are not persons who would be affected. They are not persons who would be affected should this dam not be erected.

The gentleman who lives in Charlottesville, Va., is some 65 or 70 miles north of the James River. And I want to tell you this, gentlemen: that I have seen, although a young fellow, the time when the James River was washing not only debris into the various plants up and down the river. For I have seen haystacks, I have seen cattle,

and I have even seen human beings floating in the James River as a result of the floodwaters.

I wish to state that I was instructed and authorized, as a member of the city council, to come here and appear in opposition to this bill and ask you to not report favorably upon it.

Thank you.

Senator MALONE. Thank you.

Senator ROBERTSON, Mr. James D. Wright, director of public works of Lynchburg, Va., will be our next witness.

Senator MALONE. We shall be pleased to hear from you, Mr. Wright.

STATEMENT OF JAMES D. WRIGHT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, LYNCHBURG, VA.

Mr. WRIGHT. My name is James D. Wright, and I am director of public works at Lynchburg.

I don't think I can add anything to what has been said by the representatives of Lynchburg.

I do know, from an engineering standpoint, that from the standpoint of pollution the construction of this dam will probably save the city close to a million dollars.

There will be many benefits which will come from the control of the river, and I trust this dam will be continued in the appropriation. Senator ROBERTSON. We will now hear from Mr. James Bolton, assistant director of public works of the city of Lynchburg.

Mr. Bolton.

Senator MALONE. Will you proceed, Mr. Bolton?

STATEMENT OF JAMES BOLTON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PUBLIC WORKS, LYNCHBURG, VA.

Mr. BOLTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, my name is James Bolton. I am the assistant director of public works of the city of Lynchburg, Va.

My special interest is in planning, and I am particularly interested in your efforts, Mr. Chairman, with respect to Senate bill 418.

I don't know that I could add anything to this with respect to this project, and that is not my function. My function is really to observe any new evidence that may be presented here, if any is, that would justify the reopening of the project that has already been approved by Congress, as I understand it.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MALONE. Thank you, Mr. Bolton.

Senator ROBERTSON. I unintentionally omitted, Mr. Chairman, the name of Mr. Charles A. Green, Jr., president of the Bedford Chamber of Commerce, in calling the Bedford list.

Senator MALONE. We should be glad to hear from you, Mr. Green.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. GREEN, JR., PRESIDENT, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BEDFORD, VA.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Robertson.

I am Charles A. Green, Jr., president of the chamber of commerce at Bedford.

Mr. Lyle has stated Bedford's position very well, as far as the dam project is concerned.

I also represent the game and fish association in Bedford, who heartily concur that this project would be of a great deal of benefit to us. And we feel that although it may, according to some testimony that has been given, or is to be given, hurt the Izaak Walton League in some way, it could certainly help and benefit Bedford County and the sportsmen of Bedford County.

Senator ROBERTSON. Now, Mr. Moomaw, have you brought any other witnesses here who have not been called?

Mr. MOOMAW. I don't believe so, sir; even though you always do miss somebody in a roster like this.

Senator ROBERTSON. Then, Mr. Loth, will you give me your witnesses?

Mr. LOTH. Mr. O. R. Randolph, of Charlottesville, consulting engineer, I should like to introduce first.

Senator MALONE. Mr. Randolph, will you come forward?
Whom do you represent, Mr. Randolph ?

STATEMENT OF 0. R. RANDOLPH, CONSULTING ENGINEER,
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I am speaking as a taxpayer and as a consulting engineer.

It is rather unusual for me to find myself somewhat at variance with Senator Robertson; I won't say on the opposite side, because I think I am definitely on the same side. I am at variance in the method that I urge.

For a century or more, we have mined the resources of our forests and fields in this country.

Our timber has been cut without regard to taking it as a crop, and no provision has been made for reforesting. Forest fires were allowed to burn unchecked over vast areas.

The effect has been to remove the protection on our watersheds that nature provided. The run-off of water has been terrifically accelerated, and with it has gone great quantities of topsoil from our forests. I am trying, in this, to get right at the source of these floods. The dam is at the other end.

On our farm lands, we have always overgrazed, cultivated and planted our crops with no regard to the preservation of our topsoil and the retention of the rainfall on the land.

Our cities and towns have invited industries to come in with the offer of free taxes for a period of years, and the right and privilege of dumping their waste in our streams and rivers. These same towns and cities have dumped their raw sewage into these same streams.

The result of this long-term misuse of our natural assets is that we have produced in our streams a deplorable condition of flood at one extreme and low water and pollution at the other.

As a means of controlling the floods caused by our misuse of our resources, a program of flood-control dams has been devised involving an enormous expenditure of taxpayer's money.

It is claimed for this program that the dams to be constructed will: 1. Control our floods and reduce the damage that they cause.

2. Eliminate periods of low water and in this way abate the nuisance of pollution.

3. Provide electric power.

4. Reduce cost of maintaining channels in navigable streams. 5. Provide recreation in the form of water sports.

In part, all of these are true, but each one should be fully considered. In the control of floods and reduction of flood damage, it must be considered that only 12 percent is felt by cities, 4 percent by stream channels, and 6 percent by roads and railroads.

The flood-control dam cannot in any way effect more than a reduction of the damage in this 22 percent of the total. The remaining 78 percent is the damage to the watershed in removal of topsoil-our principal basic agricultural and forest asset.

In the abatement of pollution, it seems strange that the approach to this menace should be a taxpayers' problem, and not an individual industrial and city problem. Disposal plants should be the answer as they can be expanded as needed, whereas there can be no increase in the sewage and waste disposal capacity of our streams beyond a certain point.

Now, gentlemen, you have heard testimony to that effect from the other side: That primary treatment only would be necessary if the Gathright Dam it put in.

Now, we are at the marginal point on this river, which we refer to as "our river," and anything more that goes into it we say is too much. We say that the dam going in at the Gathright holdings would enable them to dispense with the secondary, or final treatment of sewage, and they can continue to dump it. How long it will take for the population to increase and catch up so that they will need more water, I can't say.

The dams will provide electric power which will bring industrial expansion. Their life, however, is given as 50 to 75 years. With their failure, this artificially created industrial economy must be supplied with power from a new source. Failing this, we will be faced with a ghost economy.

As an aid to navigation, the dams will serve a useful purpose in reducing the dredging of channels, as less silt or topsoil from our farms and forests will be carried to these channels.

It will be dropped behind the dams to fill them up in the estimated 50 to 75 years.

From the recreational standpoint, the necessary draw-down makes the dam of doubtful value. You have mud flats on the banks. Without this draw-down, or with too great a limitation placed on it, the dam ceases to have its full value for flood control.

Other factors entering this program of flood-control dams, about which much less is heard are:

1. The large acreage of farm land to be flooded and taken permanently out of agricultural production. Invariably this represents the most fertile and best watered cropland that we have. And with our growing population to feed, we can ill afford this loss of productive land.

I notice Senator Robertson's statement just a moment ago was to the effect that we had so little bottom land in Bath County in proportion to our woodland, that with any loss of it we would be out of luck. I heartily agree.