STATEMENT OF PAUL FREEZE, DIRECTOR, WATER RESOURCES DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT

Mr. FREEZE. Good morning.

Mr. James P. Alexander, Director of Environmental Services, was not able to attend this morning and I am presenting his statement. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, sir.

Senator STEVENSON. We are grateful to you, Mr. Freeze, and if you have a statement, you can either place it in the record and summarize or read it as you see fit. We do have a rather long list of witnesses this morning and you might prefer to summarize it.

Mr. FREEZE. It is brief, so I will read it.

I am here today to urge the enactment of legislation which, under existing law, is a prerequisite to the construction of any water supply reservoir which will benefit the District of Columbia, that is to say, legislation which will authorize the District of Columbia to contract to pay to the United States its equitable shares of the non-Federal water storage costs of any reservoirs authorized by Congress for construction on the Potomac River or any of its tributaries.

In April 1961, the Corps of Engineers submitted a report on the North Branch, Potomac River, recommending construction of a reservoir on the North Branch above Bloomington, Md.

The purposes of the project were to provide for immediate and future municipal and industrial water supply, flood control, water quality control, and recreation.

Washington would be a beneficiary of supplemental water provided by the reservoir. The Bloomington Reservoir project was authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-874, 87th Cong., 2d sess.).

It was only recently placed under construction. However, actual construction of this project was delayed because of the requirements of section 301 (b) of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, that there be contractual agreements by State or local interests to pay to the United States the costs of providing water supply storage for present demands.

This bill will enable the District to enter into contracts for the payment of its fair share of such costs, and passage of this bill will help prevent such delays in construction of future projects approved by Congress.

Extremely low river flows in the summer and early fall of 1966 and periodic threats of a repetition of the 1966 conditions, have placed an urgency on all our efforts to bring to fruition as quickly as possible plans for supplementing our supplies from the Potomac, for our situation is one of crisis.

Thus, the bill before you today, Mr. Chairman, would authorize the District to contract to pay the United States its fair share of the costs for water supply storage, not only in the authorized Bloomington project, but also in any other reservoirs which may be authorized by Congress for construction on the Potomac River or any of its tributaries.

Over the years since authorization of the Bloomington project, the Corps of Engineers lent considerable help in getting various agencies of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia together to try to work out methods by which the non-Federal costs of Bloomington could be allocated equitably.

Little progess was made, however, until the State of Maryland attempted to develop and quantify costs to initial users, and passed legislation in the spring of 1969, to create the Maryland Potomac Water Authority as an instrument for contracting with the Federal Government for the initial, non-Federal cost of Bloomington.

Early in October 1968, the Department of Water Resources of that State approached the District relative to seeking an agreement whereby ways of handling the District's fair share of the initial Bloomington cost might be worked out with the authority.

The District welcomed this opportunity and the bill before you today reflects our joint efforts.

The bill does not spell out the basis on which the District's equitable share will be allocated. However, we are in substantial agreement as to the approach and there is no reason to believe we cannot work out the minor elements remaining.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the bill before you authorizes the District to contract for its fair share of other reservoirs in the Potomac Basin authorized by Congress.

Thus, should Sixes Bridge and/or Verona become authorized, the District, under the bill, would be able to negotiate for the payment of its equitable share of the non-Federal portions of the costs of those reservoirs either directly with the United States or with the party which may be or become responsible for the payment to the United States of all such costs.

Mr. Chairman, this is a brief statement of events leading up to the District's submission to the President of the U.S. Senate of the proposed legislation before you and additional comments thereon.

I am sure you have a copy of that submittal for your record and for greater details you may wish to refer to it.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we urge your favorable consideration of the bill before you, and your recommendation that the Congress grant the District the authorizations requested.

Thank you.

Senator STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Freeze.

This would authorize the District to contract for the non-Federal share of the cost of the reservoir; is that correct?

Mr. FREEZE. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENSON. So the Congress would still retain some residual control over these contracts through the appropriations process of the Federal share; is that right?

Mr. FREEZE. Yes, sir.

Senator STEVENSON. How long a period of time do these contracts run? How long a period of time is authorized for them?

Mr. FREEZE. The bill, as I understand it, would authorize as long as these contracts would be in effect. The contract for the Bloomington dam is expected to be completed in 1977.

The contracts, of course, have not yet been drawn for the other two dams because they have not been authorized. But this would be a continuing authorization.

Senator STEVENSON. And the District would then be authorized also to enter into contracts adjoining the jurisdictions. It would not be only with the Federal Government-is that correct?

Mr. FREEZE. That is correct.

Senator STEVENSON. I thank you once again, Mr. Freeze.

We will try to move on this legislation expeditiously.

I have a letter from former Governor of Maryland J. Millard Tawes, which I order printed in the record at this time.

(The letter follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,

STATE OFFICE BUILDING,
Annapolis, Md., July 1, 1971.

Senator THOMAS F. EAGLETON,

Chairman, Senate District Committee,

New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR EAGLETON: On March 24, 1971, S. 1362 was read and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. This bill authorizes the Commissioner of the District of Columbia to contract, within an amount specified in a District of Columbia Appropriation Act, with the United States, any State in the Potomac River Basin, any agency or political subdivision thereof, and any other competent State or local authority, for the District of Columbia's equitable share of the non-Federal costs of any reservoir authorized by the Congress in the Potomac River Basin.

The Bloomington Reservoir, on the North Branch of the Potomac River, has been authorized by the Congress and initial funds for construction have been appropriated. The Maryland Potomac Water Authority was created by an act of the Maryland General Assembly in 1969, and authorized to contract with the United States for the costs of initial water supply in the Bloomington Reservoir. S. 1362 would authorize the District of Columbia to pay its equitable share of these costs by entering into a contract directly with the United States or with the Maryland Potomac Water Authority.

The District of Columbia supports S. 1362 and, to my knowledge, there is no opposition to this bill. I would appreciate early consideration of S. 1362 by your committee as it would enable the Maryland Potomac Water Authority and the District of Columbia to proceed to develop agreeable cost sharing arrangements. Sincerely yours,

J. MILLARD TAWES,

Secretary.

Our next witness is Mr. Dana Wallace, the Deputy Director of the Department of Highways and Traffic.

Good morning, Mr. Wallace. I see your statement is fairly short. You, too, could enter it into the record or summarize it.

STATEMENT OF DANA WALLACE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRAFFIC ON S. 1367

Mr. WALLACE. Since it is so short, Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to read it if it meets with your approval.

Senator STEVENSON. You may do so.

Mr. WALLACE. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing in behalf of Mr. T. F. Airis, Director of the Department of Highways and Traffic, on S. 1367, a bill to authorize the Commissioner of the District of Columbia to lease airspace above and below freeway rights-of-way within the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, there has already been considerable detailed testimony by District officials in support of similar legislation dating back to 1967.

(Namely, former Engineer Commissioner, Brig. Gen. Robert E. Mathe, and the Director of the Department of Highways and Traffic, Mr. T. F. Airis, on S. 1245, on July 27, 1967; and Mr. R. D. Wallace, Deputy Director of Highways and Traffic, on H.R. 12507, on October 26, 1967).

Mr. WALLACE. The District government, including this Department, has consistently and strongly supported the enactment of air rights legislation to permit development and use of space over and under freeways in the District of Columbia.

Currently, the District has authority to enter into leases and agreements for private and public use of airspace above and below streets and alleys under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (District of Columbia Public Space Utilization Act).

Where freeway air rights development is desirable, the District is limited in authority to special authorizing legislation such as enacted for air rights development over the Ninth Street Expressway in the Southwest, or with the Federal Government as with the new Labor Department building over the Center Leg Freeway, or with the Redevelopment Land Agency as with the proposed housing project over the Center Leg Freeway between H and K Streets NW., within the boundaries of Northwest No. 1 Redevelopment Area.

There are, of course, other locations over freeways in the District where, if properly controlled, the use of air rights can lead to a more efficient and esthetic utilization of urban space and would go far toward the orderly planning and development of this urban area.

As you know, many cities have already successfully utilized air rights for residential, commercial, and public purposes. Certainly, authority for the District to develop air rights over freeways would help us to provide solutions for, and be responsive to, some of the objections to freeway projects within the city that have been raised by our citizenry; namely, displacement of families and businesses, esthetics, and separation of neighborhoods.

Right now, we especially want air rights legislation for free ways in order to bring to fruition one project in particular. This project is located in Southeast Washington where a portion of the Southeast Freeway, between Seventh and Eighth Streets was redesigned after construction was underway to provide a structure on columns in lieu of a retained fill in order that the area beneath the structure could be developed.

This Department engaged a consultant to study the potential for air rights and it was found to be both feasible and practicable to develop beneath the freeway at this location for private and/or public

use.

There has since been public demand for such development but we cannot proceed with it until we have the authority.

Mr. Chairman, current air rights projects, that is, those projects where we have been able to proceed with development are progressing reasonably well. I will, if you desire, bring the committee up to date on progress, otherwise this will conclude my brief remarks.

Senator STEVENSON. Are there any provisions in the legislation which require the District to consult with agencies of the Federal Government?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes, sir; any air rights development must, of course, be approved by the National Capital Planning Commission. It is also subject to review and approval by the Fine Arts Commission.

In addition, there is a provision in the bill for zoning wherein air rights would not be applicable to the existing zoning laws in the area but would be subject to hearings and the establishment of proper zoning requirements.

Senator STEVENSON. Is the requirement one of consultation and not approval by the Federal agencies you mentioned?

Mr. WALLACE. I don't quite understand your question, sir.

Senator STEVENSON. In your answer, you said that the legislation would require prior consultation, not approval-is that correct? You mentioned the Fine Arts Commission.

Mr. WALLACE. Any development would be subject to review by the Fine Arts Commission.

Senator STEVENSON. So it would require approval?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes.

Senator STEVENSON. Is any priority given to public uses as opposed to private uses of air rights?

Mr. WALLACE. Established in the proposed legislation is the order of priority and the first order of priorities would be for municipal uses without limitation, next for public housing, third, for Federal use, and so forth on down the line. Private development would be last on the list.

Senator STEVENSON. Does S. 1367 give the District any authority to sell air rights or is it more limited authority than that?

Mr. ROBINSON. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. The bill provides only for leases and the revocable permits. There is no provision for the sale. The District would retain title.

Senator STEVENSON. You have brought some photographs with you, Mr. Wallace. We will enter those into the record.

(The photographs follow:)