struction of an interstate highway which will lie between the city and the river. This highway, plans for which were developed subsequent to the corps 1957 report, was believed by local interests to provide a substantial proportion of the benefits which would have been realized from the flood project. The State of Washington has requested that a further study be made to combine the highway and flood control projects and thereby achieve greater overall benefits than would be obtained by separate projects. The Department of the Army has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 828, as stated in the report of the Secretary of the Army on this dated June 1, 1965. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of this report to Congress. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Mr. ROBERTS. Questions on my right? On my left? Thank you, Colonel. Mr. JONES. The next project, Saw Mill River, N.Y. SAW MILL RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, NEW YORK (H. Doc. 258, 89th Cong.) Location.-Westchester County, N.Y., in the metropolitan area of New York City. Authority.-Resolution of the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate. adopted September 14. 1955, two resolutions of the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, adopted November 14, 1955, and two resolutions of the Committee on Public Works, U.S. House of Representatives, adopted June 13, 1956. Existing project.-No existing Federal improvement for flood control. Flood problem.-Flooding in the basin is annually and is estimated at $225,000. Damages from the maximum flood of record, October 1955, are estimated to be $1,714,000 under present conditions. Recommended plan of improvement.-Improvements for flood control on Saw Mill River at Yonkers. N.Y., consisting of channel clearing, enlargement, and straightening; construction of a concrete flume in restricted areas; floodwalls, levees, drainage structures, and ponding areas; bridge modifications or replacements; and a railroad closure structure. Local cooperation.-Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project, including borrow, ponding, and waste-disposal areas; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construe tion works; maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; provide without cost to the United States all alterations, relocations, and necessary replacements of existing facilities, including bridges, highways, sewers, including those storm sewers and drains required to convey interior drainage to improved channels or ponding areas, utilities, and railroad modifications and relocations other than bridges and bridge approaches, which may be required for construction of the project; protect the channel and other flood works from future encroachment or -obstruction, including waste disposal, which would reduce or otherwise impair their flood-carrying capacity, or provide a pumping station or additional gravity outlets, as appropriate, to compensate for any loss in ponding area effectiveness due to the modification of or encroachment upon such areas; take appropriate measures to control development in partially protected areas and fringe areas not included in the project with a view toward preventing an undue increase in the flood damage potential; and at least annually notify those affected that flooding will still be possible from large floods. Local interests are willing and able to provide the items of local cooperation. Comments of the State and Federal agencies.— Department of the Interior: Favorable. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Favorable. State of New York: Favorable. Comments of the Bureau of the Budget.-No objection. STATEMENT OF COL. CRAWFORD YOUNG, REPRESENTING CORPS OF ENGINEERS Resumed Colonel YOUNG. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this proposed flood control project is submitted in response to three Senate resolutions of 1955 and two resolutions adopted by the House Public Works Committee on June 13, 1956. The Saw Mill River and its tributaries are located entirely within Westchester County in the greater metropolitan area of New York City. The basin drains an area of approximately 261⁄2 square miles and has an overall length of about 23 miles. It rises in a small pond in the northwest corner of the basin and flows generally south paralleling the Hudson River, which it joins at the city of Yonkers. In 1960 the population of this highly urbanized area was estimated at 110,000. Industrial development is relatively high; agriculture constitutes a relatively minor activity. There are no existing Federal improvements for flood control in the Saw Mill River Basin. Flooding in the Saw Mill River Basin is commonplace and usually follows intense rain during the summer and fall months or less intense rains of longer duration during the winter or spring. The largest flood of record occurred in October 1955. Recurrence of this flood under present conditions would cause damages estimated at $1,714,000 in the basin. The Chief of Engineers recommends improvements for flood control on the Saw Mill River at Yonkers, N.Y., consisting of channel clearing, enlarging, and straightening; construction of a concrete flume in restricted areas; construction of floodwalls, levees, drainage structures, and ponding areas; bridge modification or replacement; and a railroad closure structure. The total estimated cost is $2,295,000 of which $1,924,300 is Federal. The annual benefits are estimated at $173,000 and the annual charges at $98,300 resulting in a benefit-tocost ratio of 1.8 to 1. Local interests are required to provide the usual items of cooperation for flood control-type objects including all land, easements and rights-of-way; all necessary alterations, relocations, and replacement of existing facilities; operation and maintenance after completion of construction; and prevention of encroachment on the completed works. Local interests have indicated their willingness and ability to meet the requirements of local cooperation. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Colonel. Our distinguished colleague, Congressman Ottinger, has been unavoidably detained, but he has submitted a statement and without objection it will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement of Congressman Ottinger follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK Mr. Chairman, members of this distinguished committee, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present this statement to you today in support of recommendations by the Army Corps of Engineers to construct local flood protection works on the Saw Mill River at Youkers, Ardsley, and Chappaqua, N.Y. The record clearly shows a pressing need for these works, In October 1955, a disastrous flood caused substantial damage in the Saw Mill River Basin. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that under present conditions recurrence of this flood would cause damages totaling $1,713,600. Of this, $1,429,900 would be in areas protected by the works included in the proposal before your committee today. Average annual damages in the basin are estimated by the Corps of Engineers at $225,000. While it may seem strange to be talking about flood control for an area that is staggering under 4 years of severe drought, substantial flood damage has occurred in the Saw Mill River Basin as a result of mere local thunderstorms. Local governmental agencies and private groups have made numerous improve ments in the basin, but they do not have the resources to resolve the problems. Mr. Chairman, I have personally seen the results of flooding in the Saw Mill River Basin at those points at which the proposed works would be constructed. I can testify that flooding in previous years has caused severe losses to business, and created hazards to health. Local resources are just plain inadequate to meet the need for flood control works. Residents of the area have called me and written to me asking: "What do we do now? To whom do we turn?" I want to commend the Army Corps of Engineers for its report on the proposed project. It is significant that as proposed, the benefit-cost ratios would be 2 at Yonkers, and 1.5 at Ardsley and Chappaqua, respectively. I think there can be no question that the project is economically justified and fiscally sound. In closing, I would like to point out that the communities in the Saw Mill River Basin are unanimous in their support of this project. I am submitting for the record, copies of a news article which appeared in the White Plains, N.Y., Reporter Dispatch on August 4, 1965. The article gives clear indication of the overwhelming local need and support for these flood control works. [From the Reporter Dispatch, White Plains, N.Y., Aug. 4. 1965] SAW MILL FLOOD PROJECT PLEASES LOCAL OFFICIALS Local officials have expressed "delight" and "hearty" approval of the U.S. Budget Bureau's recent endorsement of flood control projects on the Saw Mill River in Ardsley and Chappaqua. Representative Richard L. Ottinger, Democrat, of Pleasantville, was informed of the Bureau's approval of the estimated $340,100 job on July 28. Part of the money. $227,300, will be supplied by the Federal Government. Mayor Daniel J. Reidy, of Ardsley, commented last night that he was "delighted it's been approved." He added that the way would be cleared for real improvement of the business district "if they realine Route 9A the way we want." John F. Reed, Jr., supervisor of New Castle, commented on the project in Chappaqua. "We've had trouble with floods for years," he said, and cited the destructive flood of October 1955. (Federal authorities have said that a similar flood today would cause almost $2 million damage.) "I am heartily in favor of the project," he said. "It will help the town and the whole valley." Bond issues will not be necessary to raise the local share of the cost-$17,400 in Ardsley; $44,800 in Chappaqua-in either town. Mayor Reidy said that the financial aspects of the improvements in Ardsley will be "handled through the State and county." Supervisor Reed said that bonds will not have to be issued in Chappaqua because there is enough money in the general fund to pay the town's share of the project. The construction of levees, flood walls and interior drains, are the improvements to be made in Ardsley. The Chappaqua project involves enlargment of the river at certain points and the construction of new bridges and culverts at railroad bridges. Mr. JONES. That concludes our hearings for today. Mr. MARTIN. Upon the occasion of the discussion of the Flint River project in Georgia, we had the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Harrison, before the committee and he made the statement that the Alabama Power changed their rates to cooperatives after the construction of the Alabama-Coosa River. I did not know whether the statement was factual or not so I addressed some correspondence to the Alabama Power and received a letter to clarify their position in this regard and I request unanimous consent to make this a part of the record, put in at a point during the discussion between myself and Mr. Harrison. Mr. JONES. Without objection, the letter will be received and printed in the record at the appropriate place in the record. Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The letter follows:) Hon. JAMES D. MARTIN, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. ALABAMA POWER CO., Birmingham, Ala., August 18, 1965. DEAR MR. MARTIN: This letter concerns our discussion about certain testimony given before the Subcommittee on Flood Control, House Public Works Committee on August 4, 1965, relating to Alabama Power Co. In the testimony given by Mr. Walter Harrison at that time with regard to the Flint River project in Georgia, Mr. Harrison testified in opposition to the proposal by Georgia Power Co., that it be permitted to construct the powerplant and facilities in the several projects. During his testimony, Mr. Harrison spoke about the Alabama Power Co. development on the Alabama-Coosa system (which he erroneously thought was the Tallapoosa). In speaking of the deauthorization he complained about Alabama Power Co.'s activities. As to the deauthorization of the Federal project, he stated: “Alabama reduced the rates to the cooperatives of Alabama in order to get the deauthorization. As soon as Congress acted on it, the rates came back up again." This statement by Mr. Harrison is untrue. Alabama Power Co. has never increased its rate schedule to cooperatives. The last reduction took place effective as of 1954 and there has been no increase since that time. All contracts for service between the company and each cooperative which it serves have been filed with and approved by the Alabama Public Service Commission. The commission's records will verify the absence of any rate increase. These contracts also are now all on file with the Federal Power Commission. Yours very truly, JOSEPH M. FARLEY. Mr. JONES. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock Monday morning. (Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, August 23, 1965.) (The following was furnished for insertion.) STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE M. RHODES, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today before this Subcommittee on Flood Control to urge passage of the omnibus rivers and harbors bill. Approval of this legislation will be a great benefit to the people of Northumberland County, Pa., whom I am proud to represent in Congress. Construction of the $900,000 Fabridam on the Susquehanna River at Sunbury will begin when final congressional approval is ascertained. Although the Federal Government will incur none of the cost of the modern dam, Federal approval is necessary because the Susquehanna is considered a navigable river and therefore a part of interstate commerce. The dam, itself, is considered a modern miracle. It is a rubberized structure, 72 feet high and 1,975 feet long, which is collapsible, inflatable, and deflatable, at the flick of a switch. Swimming, fishing, and boating will be provided as a result of the dam. In case of flooding, the dam could be deflated rapidly, forcing the high waters to pass downstream. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that the subcommittee will approve this omnibus rivers and harbors bill rapidly, so that many pending projects just like the Fabridam on the Susquehanna can get underway. It has been a pleasure to appear before you to urge the passage of this much-needed legislation. Thank you |