the advance planning stage. This is the key to this particular project and several others in the bill.

Mr. JONES. Your report shows the annual cost would be $720,000. The annual benefits would be $741,000, so it would have a favorable ratio not withstanding the benefit from recreation.

Mr. WEINKAUFF. The benefits would grow if we had recreation; they would not diminish.

Mr. JOHNSON. It would also mean the Federal Government was going to pick up more of the recreation costs?

Mr. JONES. That is true.

Mr. JOHNSON. The only thing the local agency would be picking up would be that portion of the separable costs. The joint costs will be a responsibility of the Federal Government.

Colonel PINNELL. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Therefore, it would increase the cost-benefit ratio on the project.

Mr. JONES. And for that reason I do not think anyone on the committee can appreciate the comments of the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. CRAMER. Would it not be correct to provide, in the event Lafayette and Big Pine is authorized by Congress, the Bureau would expect that a reevaluation of benefits and costs and the effect thereon on funds needed would be made before funds are requested for initial construction? It relates to funds principally.

Colonel PINNELL. As Mr. Baldwin pointed out, this is a requirement of law right now.

Mr. BALDWIN. Furthermore, the corps, in submitting their paragraph on local cooperation, has already defined this in accordance with the new act and says there would have to be one-half contribution. So you submitted it in accordance with the new procedures, and therefore this makes the Bureau of the Budget sort of superfluous.

Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment ?

I think here is the crux of the whole problem, if I may read this language:

Consequently, if a project is authorized and a prior request for funds to initiate construction, the Bureau would expect a reevaluation of the flood control benefits at the Lincoln Reservoir with a view toward determining the optimum level of flood control benefits.

What do they mean by "reevaluation"? We had a project some 2 years ago that was ordered to be reevaluated, and it took 15 months before it ran the gauntlet of going back to the division engineer and then to the district engineer. It sat in the Secretary of the Army's office about 6 months before it moved. If a reevaluation could be made here in Washington on these projects before you request funds, then I do not think there would be any real objection, but if it has to run the gauntlet of going through the division and the district, this is going to mean 1 or 2 years between authorization and your request for funds.

I notice several of the projects have the same type comments by the Bureau of the Budget. Do you expect a full dress reevaluation of the economic benefits in the district and then back to the Secretary of the Army, and then to the Bureau of the Budget and then back to Congress?

Colonel PINNELL. Not quite that bad.

52 529-65-pt. 1——7

Mr. GRAY. This is what happened on one reevaluation I know of. It took 15 months to reevaluate the project after this committee authorized it.

Colonel PINNELL. As I visualize the reevaluation, it would be done at the district level. We are quite a decentralized organization, and we would depend on the district to do the reevaluation, subject to review by the division engineer and the Office of the Chief of Engineers. However, this reevaluation in the case of recreation development, I would say, would have to do with the projected attendance, the scope of facilities required, things which are relatively simple to determine as opposed to determining rates and tonnages that might move on a waterway.

Mr. GRAY. I am referring to the Lincoln Reservoir which is flood control reevaluation. There is no recreation involved here whatso

ever.

Colonel PINNELL. We are talking about different projects again. Mr. GRAY. I am trying to elaborate on the chairman's comment that we are finding this in almost every project. There is a proviso where the Bureau of the Budget has to order the corps come back and restudy a project. They say, "We expect a reevaluation of the project." Let's say, for example, we authorize these in an omnibus bill in August. You make up your budget request that has to be in at the end of the year. If this be the case and you have to go back through the division in the district, there is no chance at all for any of these flood control projects getting funded in the next year's budget request because it would be impossible in the interim between our authorization and the time you make up your next year's budget to ask for any preconstruction planning money if you have to run this gauntlet of going back into the district and division.

I give as an example a project in my district. It took 15 months for a reevaluation.

Colonel PINNELL. I might say in every project, when we get to the stage of preconstruction planning, there is a reevaluation that takes place. I would presume where the reevaluation seems relatively simple, as is apparently the case here, this reevaluation could be accomplished during the preconstruction planning phase, but prior to initiation of actual construction.

Mr. GRAY. The Bureau here has different instructions. It says "prior to any request for funds." I believe this would mean preconstruction planning funds. If they said "prior to actual construction," then simultaneously with the preconstruction planning you could have a reevaluation of the project. But I interpret this language in their letter to mean before you can even ask for preconstruction planning funds. It says "prior to any request for funds to initiate construction."

Colonel PINNELL. You may be correct, sir.

Mr. GRAY. And preconstruction planning is actually part of construction in the sense a project is not going forward unless it has a favorable B/C ratio.

The reason I make the point here is to determine whether or not the Bureau of the Budget is going to authorize all these projects, or whether our committee is going to. I have had a real sad experience in my home district with this so-called reevaluation business. After

15 months, it took the White House to pry a report loose from the Secretary of the Army's office. They were sitting over there saying, "We do not think we should turn the restudy thing loose." This can get really involved when you talk about a reevaluation of the project. If you check, some of these projects were started 10 years ago, and it has taken them 10 years to get to the committee.

If we authorize projects and it takes another 5 years or 10 years to get them started, some of the people in the country are going to have disastrous floods while we are deciding. I am not being critical of the corps. I am just point out this puts the people in these valleys who experience yearly floods in a terrible position, not knowing whether they will get a remedy or not.

Mr. JONES. Before you leave Report No. 1, what is the time that would be required to construct these two projects?

Colonel PINNELL. It would take a total of 8 years. Three years for preconstruction planning for each, and a little less than 5 years for construction.

Mr. GRAY. So you would have another 2-year delay in restudying. That would make it about 10 years.

How are you going to restudy a project without preconstruction planning money?

The corps does not have funds for this purpose. You have to have preconstruction planning money before you can even restudy; is that not true?

Colenel PINNELL. It would depend upon the complexity that the restudy, or reevaluation, required.

As I indicated earlier, I do not see anything exceedingly complex about a reevaluation of these projects.

Mr. GRAY. Let's take one of these reservoirs in Interim Report 1. You go to the Bureau of the Budget and say, "I would like to have a thousand dollars." They would say, "In the authorization, we require a reevaluation, so we are not going to give you any funds." You do not have any preconstruction planning money, so what funds are you going to use for restudying?

That is the problem I ran up against.

General GRAHAM. The comments of the Bureau of the Budget in both of these cases on Interim Reports 1 and 2 indicate that before funds are requested for initiation of construction, this reevaluation will be made. Therefore, the funds for this reevaluation would come from the preconstruction planning moneys.

Mr. GRAY. It is your interpretation you could get preconstruction planning money from the Bureau?

General GRAHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAY. I hope your optimism proves to be right.

I think you will agree there are far more requests made to the Bureau every year than they allow funds for. I think a project that has some stigma on it such as a restudy order is not going to get funds.

I have two or three projects in my district that were authorized some time ago, and they have never been funded yet. The answer is, "We have to consider the overall requirements of the country before we can consider the individual requirement."

I think any project that has a stigma on it is not going to get high enough on the list unless someone puts it in in the Appropriation Committee.

This is the thing that I think is unfair to our committee, to tie our hands behind us in authorizing there projects. With this type of proviso in here, it is my opinion the Bureau would be hesitant to fund the projects. I hope I am wrong.

(The statements of Congressman Richard L. Roudebush, Congressman Lee H. Hamilton, Senator Birch Bayh, and Milford E. Anness follow :)

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. ROUDEBUSH, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM INDIANA

Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the committee for allowing me to address some remarks to a project which I think means a great deal to the State of Indiana.

In my brief presentation, I wish to inform this committee that I am in full support of the Big Pine Creek Reservoir for Warren County, Ind.

Indiana is sometimes accused of being a backward State because we do not always applaud Federal aid. Perhaps Hoosiers have good cause to resist, as our people pay $1.81 in taxes to the Federal Government for every $1 in Federal aid received. This is no bargain, even to us Hoosiers.

Maintenance of interstate and intrastate waterways and water resources, however, is a legitimate function of the Federal Government and has been since the origin of this Nation. Big Pine will bring $2.20 worth of economic benefit to our people for every $1 of construction cost. This is sensible expenditure of the public moneys and the type Hoosiers can support.

The Pine Creek Reservoir project has been approved by the Senate Public Works Committee, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Having cleared every level of approval short of formal authorization by Congress, the proposed reservoir is now in the last stages of examination prior to authorization; namely, scrutiny by this committee.

There is every justification for this project to be included in the bill this year. Congressional committees have already received information on this project and are well aware of its tremendous acceptance in the State of Indiana and its most impressive cost ratio figure of 2.20 to 1.

I have walked nearly every foot of the proposed site of this reservoir, and I have talked to about everyone in western Indiana concerning its potential to the people of this area.

Big Pine is about as noncontroversial as a project can be. It has the support of the farm population and of the nearby communities. Local officials as well as our State officials, including our Governor, have all stamped their approval. About the only bone of contention surrounding the Big Pine Reservoir is the question, "How quickly can it be built?"

Big Pine is located in a natural and picturesque setting for a reservoir and will provide downstream flood protection for the Wabash River inhabitants. It is another link in the well planned, methodically planned reservoirs on the upper and middle Wabash River Valley that are eliminating costly and dangerous floods that almost annually ravage our State. Its potential has already been well established, and it will provide needed facilities for our State that have been so long neglected.

Big Pine also happens to be located in a section of our State that needs desperately to find attractions and advantages to hold its young people. It is also an area of high unemployment.

The reservoir pool will fill 1,390 acres. It will drain 333 square miles of the finest farmland in the United States. The damsite will be 2.5 miles upstream from the juncture of Big Pine Creek and the Wabash River in Warren County. Army Engineers estimate that they will need nearly 8,300 acres for the project I respectfully urge this committee give favorable consideration to the authorization of this project, and I thank you for your courtesy.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEE H. HAMILTON, MEmber of CongRESS FROM INDIAN A Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you this morning to testify in support of City Creek and Patoka River Reservoirs for southern Indiana.

I agree with the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors that the develop ment of effective plans for flood control, water conservation and allied pur

poses by means of reservoirs on Clifty Creek, Ind., and Patoka River, Ind., is among the most urgent water problems in the Wabash River Basin at the present time. Clifty Creek and Patoka Reservoirs would control the runoff from about 70 percent and 20 percent of their respective subbasin areas.

Clifty Creek Reservoir is a multipurpose reservoir for flood control, general recreation and fish and wildlife recreation. Clifty Creek is a tributary of the East Fork of the White River, and flows into the East Fork just south of Columbus, Ind., between Columbus and the Muscatatuck River. This section of the East Fork of the White River has the highest average annual flood damage per mile in the State of Indiana-$28,400 per mile. Clifty Creek Reservoir would control a flood having an average recurrence interval of 50 years to nondamaging stages at and immediately below the damsite. In addition, it would also afford significant reductions in flood damages along downstream reaches of White River, and would extend its benefits as far as the lower reaches of the Wabash River. Estimated annual flood damage benefits total $550,000 with an overall benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.6.

Patoka Reservoir is also a multipurpose reservoir for flood control, general recreation, fish and wildlife recreation, municipal and industrial water supply, and water quality control. Although the dam, spillway, and dike for Patoka Reservoir will not be within my congressional district, a major portion of the flood control pool will be in Orange County in the Ninth District. The average annual flood damage per mile on the Patoka River is $13,500 at Jasper, and increases to $23,000 in Pike County, thus making it one of the most destructive rivers in Indiana. Realization of the Patoka River Reservoir would mean an estimated $520,000 annual reduction in flood damage. The Patoka Reservoir flood-control storage would provide virtually complete control of floodflows from above the dam. The overall benefit-to-cost ratio is 2.2. In addition to flood control, this reservoir will bring additional benefits annually in the form of municipal and industrial water supply, estimated at $344,000, and water quality control, estimated at $219,000.

Mr. Chairman, these projects are vital and necessary to the continued progress in water resource development in southern Indiana and the Ninth Congressional District. They are interrelated and come before you as a package with the Lincoln Reservoir on the Embarras River in Illinois. I strongly recommend and urge your favorable consideration on these projects.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BIRCH BAYH, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM INDIANA Mr. Chairman, recurring economic, political, and social problems have marked the era in which we live as one of perpetual turmoil and instant crises. While our nation and our world struggle to solve headline-making dilemmas, there are great problems that, although not widely publicized, vegetate on inaction and continue to menace our society.

One such problem concerns the wise use and proper development of our water

resources.

Water is the universal solvent, the universal coolant, and the universal nutrient. It sustains all life and facilitates all industrial and agricultural progress. Americans are using about 300 billion gallons of water per day. This amount will double by 1980 and triple by the year 2000. Unless we accelerate our water conservation programs, there will be water shortages in 28 States in 35 years. In just 5 years we will need 315 million additional acre-feet of reservoir capacity. Today many Americans are realizing the extent of our water supply problems as drought grips some of our largest metropolitan areas on the east coast.

Our water pollution problems have increased at a rate proportional to our increasing population and our rapidly expanding economy. Congress has been forced to enact far-reaching legislation to deal with this problem.

As the quality of our streams and rivers has deteriorated, our outdoor recreation capacity has been reduced. Campers, fishermen, and swimmers are frequently thwarted in their efforts to partake of the pleasures of the swift running stream or the placid lake.

The ravages of floods still plague our Nation. In Indiana last year we suffered over $14 million worth of financial damage due to gigantic spring floods. Personal loss and individual suffering reached commensurate levels.

In order to help solve these problems, the State of Indiana has embarked on a far-reaching water resources development program. An important part of this