approved studies will take nearly 4 years to complete. The rate of requests for these studies from States and local governments will increase when applicants learn that the studies can be accomplished within 1 or 2 years. The total number of localities where we should make such studies we estimate to be 2,000, and we are advocating a program totaling $40 million and covering 20 years to make these studies. Removing the limit on annual allotment would permit an increase in appropriations so that we could more nearly meet the needs of State and local government agencies. Bureau of the Budget concurs. Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. Colonel, it seems to me if we just remove completely any maximum authorization, we are in effect releasing our responsibilities and giving the Appropriations Committee the sole responsibility of determining how much should be allocated, as a maximum per year. I do not think that I personally would be in favor of that, although I think this $1 million is too low. You have mentioned that you foresee a $40 million program over a 20-year period, which will be an average of $2 million a year. Now, undoubtedly you might want to vary the amount from year to year to some extent. You have a backlog of $6 million at the present time. I don't suppose you could get rid of that $6 million in a year period even if you were given the right to do so from the standpoint of just the mechanics of moving fast enough. But I am just wondering if we increase this maximum to something like $2.5 million, which would be more than your average that you have contemplated of $2 million a year for 20 years, if that would not give you reasonable freedom of action to start dealing with this problem in a more adequate manner. Colonel PAGE. That would fit our program entirely through 1968, Mr. Baldwin. Our program calls for increasing the appropriations up to a peak of $4 million a year in 1971 and then decreasing again to $1 million a year in the 20th year. So $2.5 million would leave us free to operate on our proposed schedule through 1968. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you. Mr. JONES. Any further questions? All right, on the item 4, the committee will recall that we extended the monetary basin authorization some 2 months ago $988 million to take care of the requested needs for the next fiscal year. The committee will remember that in mentioning these areas, the chairman prudently announced that we would have an annual authorization bill and discontinue the biennial approach. Therefore, for that reason, it will not be necessary for us to consider the monetary basin authorization for this year. So, without objection, we will forego the hearing on that appropriation. Thank you very much, Colonel. The next is the Flint River, Ga. Colonel Young. STATEMENT OF COL. CRAWFORD YOUNG, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR ATLANTIC DIVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Resumed; ACCOMPANIED BY FRED L. THRALL, STAFF ENGINEER Colonel YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, this proposed multipurpose project is found on page 102 of the Senate committee report. FLINT RIVER, GA. The Flint River Basin is approximately 210 miles long and has a fairly uniform width, averaging 40 miles. Its drainage area is 8,460 square miles. The river rises 350 miles above its mouth in the general vicinity of Atlanta, Ga., at an elevation approximately 1,000 feet above mean sea level. It flows in a generally south direction, crossing the fall line marking the division of the Piedmont Plateau and the coastal plain between river miles 285 and 230, falling 370 feet in 55 miles. It joins the Chattahoochee River to form the Apalachicola River, 108 miles above the Gulf of Mexico. Existing Federal projects in the Flint River Basin include two completed local protection projects at Montezuma and Americus, Ga., for flood control and a navigation project providing for a channel 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide 29 miles up the lower end of the Flint to Bainbridge, Ga. In addition, Spewrell Bluff Reservoir at mile 263 in the headwaters of the Flint was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved December 30, 1963. The power needs in areas adjacent to, and in the Flint River Basin, are increasing rapidly. Power from Flint River projects could be used in power supply areas 22 and 23 as designated by the Federal Power Commission. Annual flood damages below the fall line total $180,000 and productive values of farm and urban land would increase substantially if flood control were provided. After consideration of a comprehensive plan of water resource development for the Flint River Basin, the Chief of Engineers now recommends the Lazer Creek and Lower Auchumpkee Reservoir projects for flood control, hydroelectric power, general recreation, and fishing recreation be authorized for construction. Local interests will be required to agree to prevent encroachment on downstream channels that would interfere with the efficient operation of the proposed upstream reservoirs. In addition, local interests will also be required to give satisfactory assurances prior to construction that they will pay, contribute in kind or repay with interest one-half of the separable costs of the projects allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, presently estimated at $2,200,000, for both projects; administer the project lands used for these purposes; and bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replacement of facilities used for the same purposes, currently estimated at $129,000 annually. Mr. JONES. Now, Colonel Young, you say local requirements of 50 percent for recreation. Is that the State or some political subdivision; is it the State of Georgia? Colonel YOUNG. It would be either the State or some political subdivision, sir, under the terms of the new Water Project Recreation Act. Mr. JONES. Where do you have any assurance at the present moment that they will pay that, and from whom? Colonel YOUNG. We do not have those assurances at the present time, sir. We would require those assurances in accordance with the terms of the new act before we construct the project. Mr. JONES. But the State had no objection to the submission of this report? Colonel YOUNG. That is correct, sir. Mr. JONES. And from that we can gain consent from the State of Georgia? 52-529-65-pt. 1—16 Colonel YOUNG. I believe so, yes, sir. The total estimated Federal cost of the Lazer Creek and Lower Auchumpkee projects is $88,653,000, subject to certain items of local cooperation which I mentioned. The total estimated annual benefits for both projects are $5,885,000 and the total estimated annual charges are $4,737,000, resulting in a combined benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.2 to 1. Comments of Federal agencies are favorable. Comments of the the State of Georgia are also favorable, but, in addition, the State desires authorization of a 9-foot navigation channel to Albany, Ga., which was not found to be economically feasible. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report but points out that it would expect that construction would not be undertaken until there is specific assurance that all costs allocated to power can be returned with interest within a period of 50 years. Mr. JONES. The comments of the Bureau of the Budget are generally characteristic of ones that you have submitted on other projects? Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir; except in this instance their comment was to the effect that the costs allocated to power should be repaid within a period of 50 years. In the original corps report it was based on a 100-year repayment. Mr. JONES. Any questions? Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. Colonel, we heard this project in the last omnibus bill; there was some dissension from the State of Georgia. As I understand it, Congressman Pilcher, who at that time represented a portion of the area covered by the Flint River, felt that we should authorize all five dams, including those two dams in the lower part of the river, which are not being recommended, as I understand it, by the present corps recommendation. It was my understanding that those two dams, when computed on a separable basis, did not meet a 1-to-1 benefit-cost ratio at the last set of hearings. Is that still true at the present time? Colonel YOUNG. That is correct, sir. It is still true. Mr. BALDWIN. And, therefore, if we approve this Flint River project as recommended by the corps and House Document 567, we are not in any way approving those two lower dams; I think the proposals are the Raccoon Creek and the lower Vada Dam; we are not approving those by approving this House Document 567? Colonel YOUNG. That is correct, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. And that would require consideration and separate authorization in some future omnibus bill if they are constructed? Colonel YOUNG. That is correct, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you. Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. I would like to ask the colonel some questions. Colonel, what percentage of your annual benefits from this project are attributable to power? Colonel YOUNG. Approximately 70 percent, sir. Mr. HARSHA. And what information do you have as to the need for additional power? Colonel YOUNG. May I ask Mr. Thrall to answer that question, sir? Mr. HARSHA. Surely. Mr. JONES. Give us your full name. Mr. THRALL. My name is Fred L. Thrall, Mr. Jones. I am a staff engineer with the Army Engineers. Mr. JONES. Thank you. Mr. THRALL. The Federal Power Commission has investigated the market for this project, and they inform us that there will be a need for this power by 1972. Mr. HARSHA. Now, at the last hearing you had on this project, a similar statement was made that there has been investigation of the needs. And do you know of the date of that investigation? Mr. THRALL. The investigation, Mr. Harsha, was made in connection with the survey report. I do not know the exact date. It would be about the time the survey report was prepared. Mr. HARSHA. When was the survey report prepared? Mr. HARSHA. Surely. Colonel YOUNG. The document is dated September 21, 1962, and the report of the district engineer was prepared February 28, 1962. Mr. HARSHA. 1962? Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Now, have you made any investigation as to what the costs of the production of this power will be? Mr. THRALL. Yes, sir. In the survey report. Mr. HARSHA. All right. And what rate do you propose to sell it at? Mr. THRALL. According to the law, Mr. Harsha, the power will be sold at a rate designed to recover the costs allocated to power in a period of 50 years. Mr. HARSHA. Plus interest? Mr. THRALL. Plus interest; yes, sir. Plus all operation and main tenance costs. Mr. HARSHA. And at what interest rates? Mr. THRALL. The interest rate which we would propose would be that which is applicable at the time you decided construction should begin. At this time, should it begin now, I believe it would be 3% percent. Mr. HARSHA. It would be 3% percent? Mr. THRALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Now, you said a moment ago that the State of Georgia had approved this project for construction. I wonder, is it not true that the Georgia Engineering Advisory Board has recommended that this be a jointly operated or developed project? Mr. THRALL. I would have to check up on that, Mr. Harsha. I do not know offhand. Mr. HARSHA. Well, at the hearing of the same project in 1963, there was a question brought up about the joint operations or development of particularly the power features of the project. Mr. THRALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. As a matter of fact, I believe Governors Sanders and Vandiver have suggested that this be done. Is that not so? Colonel YOUNG. I cannot find that in Governor Vandiver's endorsement supporting this project, sir. Mr. HARSHA. There is nothing that is to that effect in there? Mr. HARSHA. Is there anything from Governor Sanders? Colonel YOUNG. Sir, I will have to provide that from the letter we have. Mr. JONES. What is the question? Mr. HARSHA. It is my understanding that the Governor has recommended that the project be developed jointly with private industry and the Federal Government, with private industry constructing the power dams and operating them. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HARSHA. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would this be similar to a project that was developed in California for the so-called partnership land? Mr. HARSHA. I am not familiar with that project. Well, let me ask you this, Colonel. Are you familiar with the U.S. Study Commission on the Southeast River Basin and the Senate report on that in Document No. 51 of the last Congress in the first session? Did not that study likewise recommend a joint development of the project? Mr. THRALL. I could not answer that, Mr. Harsha. I do not know. Mr. HARSHA. Well, let me ask you this, then. Is it not true that there are several multiple-purpose developments in this country that have been joint ventures where the corps has built the dam or locks and a non-Federal entity such as private industry built the powerplants? Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. HARSHA. Now, has this type of joint participation caused any operating difficulties? Colonel YOUNG. No sir; it has not caused any operating difficulties. Mr. HARSHA. Now, is it not true that the power to be produced in this particular project is low-load factor, or what we call peak power? Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir; that is true. Mr. HARSHA. And is it not true that preference users who would be offered the power if the Government built the dams, or the plant rather, require a much higher load factor power than would be produced at these developments? Colonel YOUNG. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. HARSHA. And therefore the Government would have to provide additional high load factor power, or thermopower, to supplement this low load factor or peaking power? Mr. THRALL. Mr. Harsha, there would have to be some exchange or other arrangement made to fit the power to the needs of preference customers, but I do not think it can be inferred that the Fed Government would have to provide high load factor power. Mr. EDMONDSON. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. EDMONDSON. Is this the Southeastern Power Administration? Mr. EDMONDSON. Do they have in existence agreements with the private power companies for firm power in exchange for peaking power? Mr. THRALL. Yes, sir; I believe that is so. They already are selling power in that area on an integrated basis with the Georgia Power Co., I believe. Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gentleman. |