Without this project, beautiful Big Stone Lake will eventually become nothing more than a big slough. This would mean thousands of dollars lost in recreational and property values now existing around the more than 70 miles of shoreline.

For the benefit of the committee, I might say that Big Stone Lake is the 10th largest and one of the most beautiful of Minnesota's 10,000.

Sportsmen of Minnesota, South and North Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas now avail themselves of Big Stone Lake's recreational facilities. During the past 10 years, I have heard countless numbers of these sportsmen speak of the deterioration and pollution of the lake, caused by the Whetstone River diversion. It is the duty of us living today to preserve this great recreational resource for future generations. Furthermore, it is our duty to Mother Nature to preserve her wonderful gift with which she has endowed us. Big Stone County taxpayers have taken steps along this line, in supplying matching funds with the State of Minnesota for the establishment last year of a new State park. This park, located about 12 miles north of Ortonville, consisting of several hundred acres on Big Stone Lake, will be dedicated this summer.

This Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River project is of national significance, as it assures the development of a much-needed wildlife refuge. Even in my short lifetime, I have witnessed a rapid decline of migatory waterfowl in the Mississippi flyway.

I urge your prompt authorization of the Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River project, as recommended by the Corps of Army Engineers.

STATEMENT OF MANFORD ERDAHL, ODESSA, MINN.

Mr. ERDAHL. My name is Manford Erdahl of Odessa, Minn. I am one of the 37 landowners in the valley affected, and my testimony in support of the project has been turned in. I am asked by the other landowners to get this thing going fast. Most of them, of course. There are very few left objecting. That is all I have to say.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clausen.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Do you say most of your people now are for the project?

Mr. ERDAHL. Yes.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Was there at any time a substantial amount of objection?

Mr. ERDAHL. There might have been 25 percent against it, roughly. Mr. CLAUSEN. We are always interested in the trend, you know, because many times people who are not fully informed on a project tend to object until they find out all the facts. I am interested in your

comments.

Mr. ERDAHL. Just lately six of the objectors withdrew their objections.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Could you tell us why they withdrew their objections? Mr. ERDAHL. I couldn't really. It seemed like the project was going go through and they didn't want to close it up any more, and the quicker they can get their money and get out and get new places the more satisfied they will be.

to

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much. (The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF MANFORD ERDAHL, FARMER AND LANDOWNER, ODESSA, MINN.

I am Manford Erdahl, a resident of Lac qui Parle County within the area of the proposed Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River project. Of the 38 property owners within this area, of which I am one, I have affidavits from 27 voluntarily given that they are willing to sell their lands for the project.

1 The above testimony was offered at the hearing by the Senate Committee for Public Works and appears in the printed record on pp. 427-428 of pt. II-1965.

Typical of such affidavits is one from Mr. Herman Kanne, a gentleman 85 years of age living within the project area and who is thoroughly familiar with the disastrous floods in the Minnesota Valley since 1881. His affidavit is quoted as follows:

"I, Herman Kanne, do hereby solemnly swear on oath, that I am 84 years of age and of sound mind and body; that I was born near the village of Odessa, Minn.; that I have lived in the vicinity of Odessa all my life; that I have observed the disastrous floods in the Minnesota Valley since 1881 and have seen the time bridges were washed out and roads were damaged.

"I furthermore swear that I am the owner of 160 acres and 40 acres of land, in the county of Lac qui Parle, in two separate tracts; that I have attended all the local meetings that have been held in connection with the big Stone LakeWhetstone River project and that I am heartily in favor of the project as planned; that I feel that the opponents of the project have built up an exaggerated claim as to tax loss; that there are many landowners in Lac qui Parle County, to my knowledge, who feel as I do, but who have never expressed themselves at any of the meetings held in regard to the project.

"I give this affidavit voluntarily."

I know there are others also who would sign except for fear that they might be legally obligated to sell without recourse at a price set by the Federal Government.

Not only are many of these within the area much concerned with the success of the project, but others outside such as Mr. Hugo Strei would also lend their support. Mr. Strei's affidavit states:

"I, Hugo Strei, under oath do hereby swear that I am a farmer, 63 years of age, living on my own farm in the county of Lac qui Parle, Yellow Bank Township; that I have lived in that county all my life.

"I further swear that I and my sons are the owners of 1,100 acres of choice land in said county; that I enjoy fishing and hunting, as do my sons; that I have read articles appearing in the newspapers covering the so-called Big Stone LakeWhetstone River project, and have attended most of the public meetings; that I never expressed my opinion at any of them as I am not good at public speaking; that I am wholeheartedly in favor of this project and will gladly share any additional tax burden, which this project may cost for the privilege of better hunting and better fishing right here at home.

"I further swear that I know of many farmers in Lac qui Parle County who feel as I do and are hoping this project gets early and favorable action by our Congress."

These outside landowners have expressed a willingness to pay additional taxes, if necessary, to see the project constructed. Such willingness is expressed on their affidavits.

I believe the project will be of substantial benefit to the entire Big Stone area and I know that I speak for many when I ask for your favorable consideration for authorization of the project.

Thank you.

ROWLESBURG DAM AND RESERVOIR, CHEAT RIVER, W. VA.

Mr. JONES (presiding). The next project is the Rowlesburg Dam and Reservoir, Cheat River, W. Va. Colonel Pinnell of the Corps of Engineers.

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. SAMUEL W. PINNELL, CORPS OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD HARTMAN AND FRED

THRALL-Resumed

Colonel PINNELL. I have with me Mr. Richard Hartman and Mr. Fred Thrall of our planning staff.

Mr. Chairman, this report is submitted in response to resolutions adopted by this committee on June 3, 1939, and by the Public Works Committee of the Senate on April 30, 1958.

The Cheat River the second largest tributary of the Monongahela River, drains 1,424 square miles in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

Mr. JONES. We are talking about a $133 million project, one of the most controversial projects we are considering in the course of our hearings. Point it out on the map.

Colonel PINNELL. The dam, sir, is where the pointer is now located. The reservoir backs water up along the Cheat River some 34 miles to the south. Extensive development is planned to provide for flood control, hydroelectric power, recreation, and water quality control. I will continue with my statement, if I may, sir.

The basin is oblong in shape, having an average length of approximately 102 miles and an average width of about 14 miles. The topography is generally rugged and characterized by bold parallel ridges separated by deep valleys. Topographic relief varies between elevation 778 mean sea level at the south of Cheat River and elevation 4,842 in the southern part of the basin. Coalmining, leather processing, and textile manufacturing are the principal economic activities. A large steam-generated powerplant at Albright

Mr. JONES. Point it out.

Colonel PINNELL. It is not on this map, sir. It is about 12 miles downstream from the damsite which is at the northern part of the map, sir.

A large steam-generated powerplant at Albright, W. Va., and a hydroelectric powerplant at Lake Lynn, Pa., on the Cheat River, are operated by subsidiaries of the Allegheny Power System. Population of the basin in 1960 was estimated at 52,000. There are no Federal improvements for flood control in the basin.

Cheat River floods contribute to flood stages in both the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers. The towns of Rowlesburg, Manheim, and Albright, which are damaged by Cheat River floods, would be protected by the proposed reservoir. The major flood damages occur in the flood plains of the Monongahela and upper Ohio Rivers, where average annual damages are estimated at $2,404,000. Damages experienced along the entire Ohio River would be reduced by a reservoir at Rowlesburg.

Local interests desire improvement of the Cheat River in the interest of flood control and allied purposes. The recommended plan of improvement provides for the construction of a multipurpose dam and reservoir on the Cheat River at Rowlesburg for flood control, water quality control, recreation, and hydroelectric power production.

Local interests are required to furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will administer project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement; pay, contribute in kind, or repay-which may be through user fees-with interest one-half of the separable costs of the Rowlesburg Dam and Reservoir project allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, the amount involved currently being estimated at $2,180,000; bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replacement of recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities, the amount involved currently being estimated on an average annual basis at $187,000. Local interests would also be required to furnish assurance that they will

hold and save the United States free from any claims for damages from storage of water; provide adequate waste treatment at the source within a reasonable period of time and preserve existing and augmented low flows for intended water quality purposes as contemplated under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961.

The estimated total cost of construction of the Rowlesburg improvement is $133,548,000, which includes $1,881,000 to be reimbursed by local interests for water quality control, and $51,291,000 for power facilities which are recommended for construction by either nonFederal interests or the Federal Government. The total charges are $5,916,000 and the total annual benefits are $12,285,000 resulting in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.1 to 1.

The State of West Virginia favors the project. The interested Federal agenceis have no objection to the project. The Bureau of the Budget recommended that the hydroelectric power features not be authorized for Federal construction at this time. The Bureau of the Budget stated that should the Federal Power Commission act favorably on a pending application it would be expected that private interests would undertake the power development within a reasonable period of time and that should private interests fail to do so, then further consideration could be given to authorizing Federal development of the power features.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement on Rowlesburg Dam and Reservoir, Cheat River, W. Va.

Mr. JONES. How long has the application for the license been pending before the Federal Power Commission?

Colonel PINNELL. Since about June of 1964, sir, which would be about 14 months.

Mr. JONES. Is there any indication when the Commission will act upon the application?

Colonel PINNELL. We queried the Commission informally yesterday, and we were told action was still pending, it is still being processed. We could not get an estimated date of completion of action. Mr. JONES. Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. BALDWIN. Colonel, if the Bureau of the Budget recommendations were followed, that the project would be authorized at this time. without the hydroelectric power features, as I understand it, from looking at the breakdown of the actual benefits you have included in your statement of $12,285,000 in annual benefits, $6,503,000 are applicable to hydroelectric power. If you deduct that from the $12,285,000 you would just barely have a benefit-cost ratio of slightly more than 1 to 1. Is that correct?

Colonel PINNELL. This is correct insofar as the decrease in benefits, sir, but the cost would also have to be decreased by the amount of the cost of the power facilities, which are on the order of $46 million. We would have a favorable project with or without the power.

Mr. BALDWIN. What would the benefit-cost ratio be without the power?

Colonel PINNELL. It would be 1.7 to 1 without power.

Mr. BALDWIN. Let me ask this question: If you were to build the project without the power features, would you be building a different sized dam than if you contemplated using it for power purposes?

Colonel PINNELL. It is substantially the same, sir. The power production here, the energy, may I say, is provided by pump storage. The water which would be used to produce the hydroelectric power is not stored in the main reservoir itself, but rather in a supplementary or auxiliary reservoir which is shown on the map. Mr. Hartmann is pointing out the location of the auxiliary reservoir. This is the location of the pump storage reservoir, and this is the source of the water for the hydroelectric power.

Mr. BALDWIN. So that you wouldn't have to make any substantial modification in the dam in connection with the project if this were authorized now without any hydroelectric facilities?

Colonel PINNELL. If it were authorized without the hydroelectric facilities at this time, we would like to incorporate in the design and construction part of the intake tunnel and a control tower costing on the order of $1,500,000. This would provide facilities, should power later be authorized, to provide for it at far less overall cost.

Mr. BALDWIN. As I understand it, there is a difference between the comment of the Bureau of the Budget and the amendment which was inserted in the Senate bill on pages 25 and 26. If we were to authorize this in accordance with the recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget, we would simply authorize the project without the hydroelectric power facilities, and it would be necessary for the corps to come back to us at a future time if it were determined later that the hydroelectric power facilities should be authorized and constructed by the Federal Government, whereas the amendment adopted by the Senate does not require any further legislative authorization. The amendment adopted by the Senate says:

Provided, That the power features of this project shall not be undertaken until such time as the Federal Power Commission has completed action on any applications that may be pending before that agency for private development of the pumped-storage facility of the project: Provided further, That should the Federal Power Commission act in the affirmative on any pending applications. the authority for such project shall not include Federal power features and the estimated cost of such project shall be $88,402,000: And provided further, That in the event the Federal Power Commission dismisses any pending applications, Federal construction of such pumped-storage power facilities is hereby authorized and approved.

As I say, if I understand the difference between the recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget and the amendment put in by the Senate, in the case of the recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget it would be necessary for Congress at a subsequent date to take positive legislative action to authorize the hydroelectric power facilities, whereas, in the case of the amendment by the Senate, once the Federal Power Commission acts, if it acts to dismiss all applications, then the amendment authorizes Federal construction without any further legislative action by the Congress. Is that your interpretation? Colonel PINNELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALDWIN. What is the Corps' comment on the Bureau of the Budget recommendation? In many cases we have comments of the Secretary of the Army that have been submitted on the recommendation of the Bureau of the Budget. I do not see any comments of the Secretary of the Army included in the Senate report.

Colonel PINNELL. Sir, I have a letter dated July 12, 1965, from the Secretary of the Army to the Speaker of the House in which, in the last line of the third paragraph, he states: