OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS AND FLOOD CONTROL BILLS-1965 MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert E. Jones (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. GRAND RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES Mr. JONES. This schedule today is to hear witnesses on behalf of the Grand River and tributaries, and also those who are in opposition. We are delighted, of course, to have our colleague, Congressman William Hull, who is interested, himself, in this project. We have known him for a number of years and he at one time served on this committee. It is indeed a pleasure to have you with us. The first witness is Senator Stuart Symington. I understand, Mr. Hull, you will introduce him to the committee. Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the committee, since Senator Symington has an important subcommittee meeting to attend this morning. STATEMENT OF HON. STUART SYMINGTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Chairman and members, I know what a privilege it is to appear before this committee. May I express my appreciation, Mr. Chairman, to you and the committee for this opportunity to voice my unqualified support of the proposed Grand River Basin flood control project. The Grand River Basin, with a drainage area of 7,900 square miles in northwestern Missouri and south-central Iowa, has a long history of frequent devastating floods, and occasionally, severe drought. In the last 9 years the Grand alone has flooded 68 times. In 1961 alone, this river flooded a total of 10 times. As a result, flood losses in the last 20 years have exceeded $90 million. Damages from the flood of June 1961, alone, were estimated at over $2 million-losses which would have been prevented by the proposed projects contained in the report of the Army Engineers. That report recommends the construction of seven multiple-purpose reservoirs, along with levees and other channel improvements. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD V. LONG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Senator LONG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to express once more my support for the Army Corps of Engineers Grand River project, presently under consideration by the House Public Works Committee for congressional authorization. Mr. Chairman, the need for flood control in north Missouri, where this project would be constructed, was emphasized again this year in a way that area residents will not soon forget. Just west of the Grand Basin some of the most damaging flooding ever to occur in our State destroyed millions of dollars worth of property and took a cruel toll in human life. Over the years, floods on the Grand River have also inflicted heavy losses on this section of Missouri. Crops, buildings, and homes have been washed down the river year after year. The Corps of Engineers project would help substantially to alleriate this flood threat. Not only would the proposed dams and reservoirs protect farmland near the river. The Grand project, by reducing the flow into the Missouri River in times of flood, would help prevent flooding on some 320,000 acres along the Missouri. This project is vital to the future of northern Missouri. It will be an investment that will assist significantly in reversing the current loss of population and resulting economic decline. Both have been all to evident in the area in question for many years. The Grand River Basin project initiates a program of sound balance between land and water, so as to meet the needs of our people today and tomorrow. Without reservation, therefore, I respectfully recommend this proposal, and ask the committee to report it favorably. Mr. DORN. Senator, we are certainly glad to have you here this morning to appear before our committee. Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Congressman, it is always a pleasure to appear here. I appreciate your courtesy in letting me talk first this morning so that I might get to my meeting. Mr. JONES. We are very obliged to you, Senator. Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, we have our distinguished junior Senator from the State of Missouri today. I would like to present him to the committee. He has done a terrific job for our State and all of our constituents. The economy of north Missouri has not fared so well in the past years that we can afford to absorb losses from floods. Population and business trends north of the Missouri River have been far from favorable. The area needs new economic stimulus. By providing big flood control and recreation benefits, the Grand River project will serve to give this part of our State the boost it needs. This development will constitute a $280 million investment in the future of Missouri. The project has the support of a large majority of the Missourians concerned. As I have said before, the future of our State is closely linked to the future of our water resource development. The Corps of Engineers Grand River project would advance that development and advance the economy of our State. Authorization of this project would allow for construction of one of the largest flood control projects ever undertaken in Missouri. I firmly believe that congressional approval of this project is in the best. interests of our State. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my wholehearted support for the Army Corps of Engineers Grand River project. Thank you, Congressman Hull, my good friend from Missouri, for your introduction a few moments ago. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much. Lt. Col. R. S. Kristoferson, of the Corps of Engineers, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF LT. COL. R. S. KRISTOFERSON, CORPS OF Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this report concerns the Grand River and tributaries in Missouri and Iowa. It is submitted in response to items in the Flood Control Acts of 1936, 1938, and 1946. The Grand River rises in southwestern Iowa and flows through northwestern Missouri to empty into the Missouri River near Brunswick. The basin is about 150 miles long and about 90 miles wide. You will note that most of the tributary drainage enters the Grand River from the north. Flooding is the principal problem in the basin. Floods have occurred in every month of the year but primarily during the period February through June. Average annual flood damages in the basin exceed $4.6 million. Moreover, the Grand River is a substantial contributor to many of the floodflows on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The basin is subject to drought. Ground water supply is undependable and generally of poor quality. Conservation of water will be beneficial because future municipal and industrial requirements will exceed available supplies. Northern Missouri is nearly devoid of large bodies of water. There is a need for reservoirs to satisfy recreation demands. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of seven multiplepurpose reservoirs and six local protection projects. One of the reservoirs, Pattonsburg, would incluude hydroelectric power facilities, the financial feasibility of which would be verified before funds are requested for construction. The estimated Federal cost for construction of the entire program is $278,635,000; the estimated non-Federal cost for construction is $2,902,000. Mr. JONES. What is the priority of construction? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The report does not set out any priority of construction. The most useful probably to the area as a whole, I believe, is the Pattonsburg Reservoir. Mr. JONES. What is the cost of that project? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. About $102 million is the cost of that reservoir, sir. The annual Federal and non-Federal operation, maintenance, and replacement costs are $529,000 and $226,600, respectively. The annual benefits are estimated at $13,930,200; the annual costs at $10,321.800. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.35 to 1. Each reservoir and local protection project is justified on the basis of the criteria applicable when the project was formulated. If analyzed on the current interest rate, two reservoirs and one channel improvement project are marginal. The justification of each element would be verified before funds are requested for construction. With respect to the local flood protection projects, local interests are required to comply with the normal A-B-C provisions. With respect to the reservoirs, local interests are required to provide assurances to control of pollution, to prevent encroachment on channels downstream of reservoirs and to hold and save the Government free of water rights claims. Local interests will be required to comply with the provisions of Public Law 89-72 relating to cost sharing and operation and maintenance of lands and facilities provided for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement purposes. The Secretary of the Interior recommends certain measures with respect to operation of the Fountain Grove Wildlife Area and separation of recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement costs. The Secretary of Agriculture feels that construction of Pattonsburg and Trenton Reservoirs might affect adversely watershed plans of the Department of Agriculture. He advocates further comprehensive studies of the basin. The Chief of Engineers believes that the concerns of both departments can be satisfactorily worked out in cooperation with those agencies in the advance planning stage and need not delay authorization. The comments of the State of Iowa and Missouri are favorable, as are also the comments of the remaining Federal agencies. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of this report, but takes note of the comments of the Department of Agriculture and states that it expects a review in cooperation with that Department before a request is made for funds for reservoir construetion. The Bureau also advises that it expects review of the hydroelectric features of Pattonsburg Reservoir prior to its construction. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. Mr. Dorn? Mr. DORN. No questions. Mr. JONES. Mr. Baldwin. Mr. BALDWIN. Colonel, you mentioned if current interest rates were used that two of the individual flood control reservoirs would be marginal. Which two would be involved? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The two reservoirs are Linneus and St. Catherine, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. At current interest rates, at what do you compute the benefit-to-cost ratio? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. The benefit-to-cost ratio of Linneus, sir, is 0.9 to 1. The benefit-to-cost ratio of St. Catherine is 0.9 to 1 on a current interest rate. Mr. BALDWIN. As I understand the basic flood control authorization law, that law provides that in computing the benefit-to-cost ratio that the current average interest rate paid by the Federal Government should be used and I am somewhat puzzled as to the Corps of Engineers coming-and this isn't the first time it has happened in this set of hearings-using an outdated interest rate whereas a more up-todate interest rate is already available and the corps mentions this fact. Why do you not automatically adjust your figures to show the most current interest rate when you bring your recommendations before the committee? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. We usually do update our date, sir. The project, as formulated, was formulated by the District and Division. Engineers on the rate then current and the rate has gone up a quarter of 1 percent since that time. In the report of the Chief of Engineers, he points out that the rate has gone up and that these projects are of marginal justification on the basis of that interest rate. By the time the projects are built, many circumstances will change. The cost of the reservoirs, the benefits to be had and the interest rate may change again. That is why at this time we do not pass positive judgment on these reservoirs, but prefer to wait until the advanced planning stage to verify the economic feasibility of these reservoirs. Mr. BALDWIN. Of course, you may not pass positive judgment on the reservoirs, but we have to pass positive judgment on the reservoirs as of this time. The question is, in view of the provisions of the law, whether we should pass the positive judgment on the reservoir based upon the current interest rate which the law provides, or some other interest rate. If we don't use the current interest rate that the law provides, then we don't have any actual positive measurements because the corps can come in with interest rates from 2 years back or 3 years back or 4 years back that have already been superseded and if we were to use varying measurements of that kind, we wouldn't have any basic standard to use in the measurement of this at all, as I see it. Do you disagree with that? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. No; I do not disagree with that, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. You mentioned there was one other project that would also become marginal. Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, sir. The Honey Creek-No Creek channels groups of projects, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. What would be the benefit-to-cost ratio on that? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. One, to one, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. One to one? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. So that would still be something Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Not entirely. The exact ratio is .99 to 1 and when rounded off this is 1. However, it is not quite fair and we point it out to the committee, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. 0.99 to 1? Colonel KRISTOFERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. BALDWIN. You have mentioned in connection with the power on the Pattonsburg Reservoir that you intend to verify whether or not this was economically feasible before funds were requested. Do you imply by that statement that at the present time, according to your computations, there is some doubt among the Corps of Engineers that the power aspect of the Pattonsburg project is feasible at present? |