Reservoir totals $5,000,000. The features of work which would be undertaken with this amount are as follows:

Authorized in the 1944 Floo. Control Act (H. Doc. 475, 78th Cong., 1st sess.). Earth-fill dam and powerhouse located on Missouri River near Wheeler, S. Dak. The dam will have a maximum height of about 170 feet and an over-all length of 10,000 feet. The total storage for the initial reservoir installation will be about 6,000,000 acre-feet. Funds are required to continue planning and for the initiation of preliminary construction work, including access roads, railroads, an s construction camp. The project, when completed, will be operated as a unit in the comprehensive plan for the Missouri River Basin for flood control, power, navigation, and other water uses.

The comprehensive plan will protect Sioux City and Council Bluffs, Iowa. Omaha, Nebr.; and Kansas Citys, Kans. and Mo.; as well as other urban and rural areas in the valley below the dams. The plan will afford flood protection to 1,800,000 acres of land subject to flooding from Sioux City to the mouth of the river. Most of this area is highly productive cropland under intensive cultivation. Senator WHERRY. Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind, I would like to have this off the record.

Senator THOMAS. Off the record.

(A discussion followed off the record.) Senator THOMAS. Back on the record.

GARRISON RESERVOIR, N. DAK.

HOUSE LIMITATION ON POOL ELEVATION

Senator WHERRY. I would like to ask Senator Overton his opinion of this restrictive legislation. While it has apparently been accepted as a compromise, do you feel, Senator Overton, that an interpretation might be placed on this legislation that will defeat the very purpose for which this entire Missouri River project has been approved?

QUESTION AS TO APPROPRIATION

COMMITTEES MODIFYING PROJECTS

AS APPROVED BY LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES

Senator OVERTON. Senator, in the first place, and speaking of the provision in the House bill, from a general standpoint, I think it is an extremely dangerous method of legislating for an appropriations committee to undertake to modify projects as authorized by the regularly constituted committees of the House and of the Senate. They are in a better position to pass on these matters than we are, because they have those propositions year after year and study them and go very thoroughly into any project before a final conclusion is reached. It is very dangerous. Each one of us has certain projects that possibly we would like to see modified to some extent in our own State, and

if we come here, as an appropriation committee, and say, "Now, I do not like this project as presently authorized. I would like some modification of it"; and then the appropriation committee, with a haphazard sort of hearing, undertakes to modify it, I think that method of legislation would not be advantageous to the country. I am opposed to it.

DAM CAN BE CONSTRUCTED WITH HOUSE LIMITATION BUT CANNOT BE UTILIZED AS

AUTHORIZED

Now, getting back to your other question. So far as this provision is concerned, the dam can be constructed as authorized, but it cannot be utilized as authorized, and it is very necessary that it be utilized as authorized. If this provision is to continue in the appropriation bill in the future, the Garrison Dam would not be able to discharge the function for which it had been constructed.

AMENDMENT TO STRIKE OUT HOUSE PROVISION TO BE OFFERED

Personally, I propose to offer an amendment when we come to mark up the bill to strike out that provision with relation to Garrison Dam.

I will say that I have that viewpoint with respect to any of the projects.

GARRISON DAM SPECIFICATIONS ARE CORRELATED WITH OTHER DAMS

Senator WHERRY. I want to say I am thoroughly in accord with the views of Senator Overton. I feel it is this committee's function to get as much as we can for the money we appropriate, and if you lower the height of any one dam, you have certainly got to provide for additional storage in the other dams on the river, if you are going to get the 100 percent results on flood control.

Senator OVERTON. Those five dams are beautifully coordinated and that whole matter was studied. When you alter the Garrison Dam, you have got to make alterations in some or all of the dams below the Garrison Dam.

HOUSE PROVISION MAKES IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CARRY OUT PLAN WITH ANY DEGREE OF EFFICIENCY

Senator GURNEY. This committee is going to require the Army Engineers and Reclamation Bureau to do the job as authorized, and here we step in with limiting factors that make it almost impossible to carry out the plan with any degree of efficiency; is that right? General WHEELER. Yes, sir; that is right.

Senator WHERRY. That is the point I wanted to raise. I knew that in the last session, as has already been mentioned by Senator Russell, that this came up and apparently that compromise was worked out. But it just seems to me that if we approve the project, as we have done here, and we are building a dam here, the foundation of which will carry a 1,850-foot pool elevation, if that is the pool elevation needed to secure all the benefits, it is highly dangerous to put in the restriction.

I think the time to settle it is now. We should either go ahead as planned or do something else.

I am glad to know that Senator Overton is to put in an amendment striking out these restrictions, and I am going to support it. I feel the issue should be made clear now as to what you are going to do.

Senator RUSSELL. That is one of the most expensive single projects we have had before us. You are wasting a tremendous amount of money if you are going to build a dam on the basis of a pool elevation of 1,850 feet and then not utilize it.

PROPONENTS OF PROVISO WOULD HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND ORIGINAL LAW

Senator OVERTON. Let me make an additional observation. If the proponents of this restrictive legislation now appearing in the House bill desire to have modification of the Garrison Dam, they will have ample opportunity, as I brought out a moment ago in questioning the Chief of Engineers, to offer an amendment to the act of 1941 proposing a modification of Garrison Dam. It will then be taken by the Flood Control Committee of the House and the Commerce Committee of the Senate. We will review it and if they make out a case, we will do it. It is possible we will have to modify the other dams down below.

Senator WHERRY. That is the way to handle it. That is the me chanical way to handle it. I think the issue ought to be settled now on this restrictive legislation in this bill.

Senator OVERTON. I think so. You used a very good expression, the mechanics of this legislation is all wrong.

PROVISO PLACES IMPOSSIBLE JOB ON ARMY ENGINEERS IN PLANNING OTHER DAMS

Senator GURNEY. I would like to point out what I believe is putting an impossible job before the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, and that is the dams downstream are now in planning stage, and here they have got an imponderable. If the pool can operate at 1,850 feet, we have got so much water to take care of. If we are in the future limited to 1,830 feet, we have got that much more, or a whole lot more of water to take care of. So, they say, "Well, we have got to provide for these things we do not know about in the dams that are built farther down the stream." Is that right, General? General WHEELER. Yes, sir; it does affect the planning inolved in the comprehensive plan to have a change of that kind made in Garrison Reservoir.

Senator GURNEY. To have a possible change hanging over your head when you are doing the planning of the lower dams; is that right?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir; I thoroughly agree with the expressions of principle against the restriction and have submitted a letter to that effect in answer to a question by the Senate committee on the Deficiency Act of 1946.

PROVISO WOULD NOT STOP CONSTRUCTION OF GARRISON DAM

They asked me if that would stop the construction of the dam in accordance with our plans. I said that I assumed it would not. I said that it would probably have to have a legal interpretation but that I assumed it would not stop it except insofar as levees were concerned.

Senator CORDON. May I ask a question?

Senator THOMAS. Yes.

CONSTRUCTION OF DAM WITHOUT RESTRICTION WOULD NOT PREJUDICE EFFORTS OF LOCAL INTERESTS TO AMEND LAW

Senator CORDON. General Wheeler, I believe Senator Overton inquired as to whether or not if this restriction be left in the bill you could proceed with the construction of the dam, and you answered, as you now viewed it, you could.

I would like to raise the question a little differently. If the restriction be eliminated from the bill and the same appropriation be made, and you go forward with the expenditure of that appropriation, would you in that expenditure do anything in connection with construction which would in any wise prejudice local interests in the next year if they desired to make their appearance before the appropriate Commerce Committee and seek such amendment as they might desire in the plans as they have now been authorized?

General WHEELER. No, sir; we would not start the controversial features of the project in the first year. That would include the dikes. Senator CORDON. So they would be in exactly the same position for a year that they are in now and could come and make appropriate modification?

General Wheeler. Yes, sir.

COST OF FOUNDATION OF DAM IS AFFECTED BY HEIGHT OF DAM

Senator RUSSELL. Would the height of the dam have anything to do with the cost involved in building the foundation to begin with? General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator RUSSELL. That was my idea.

For my part, I am not going to vote for any money until we settle the question of the height of this dam. It is a question of the Government throwing away 30 or 40 million dollars on an uncertainty as to the height of the dam. If we cannot clear this thing up, we should withhold the appropriation.

Senator OVERTON. It is now settled according to law.

Senator GURNEY. That is what I was afraid we would run up against. I felt sure the Senators from all the other States would take us to task and say, "Now, listen, you cannot build those big foundations down there; we are not going to appropriate money for a big foundation that may not be used."

Senator RUSSELL. I am interested in these projects. That will certainly be my attitude. If we cannot clear it up, I think we should stop all appropriations.

DISCUSSION AS TO ELIMINATION OF HOUSE PROVISO

Senator WHERRY. In answer to the Senator, I do want to point out that we have provided for it unless we modify it by this restriction. It is my theory we should eliminate the restriction and then we are right where we belong

Is that not your understanding, Senator Overton?

Senator OVERTON. That is correct.

Senator RUSSELL. We tried that last year. We eliminated the restriction and we could not get the restriction completely out. I think the substantial feeling in the Senate on a project of this magnitude is that we ought not to continue appropriating funds and have this thing hanging fire here.

Senator THOMAS. Would you care to make an additional statement with respect to your attitude, General Wheeler?

IMPORTANCE OF GARRISON RESERVOIR PROJECT

General WHEELER. I would like to say that we have very carefully and thoroughly considered this restriction. The importance of that reservoir is so great that we felt that we could accept that restriction and start the construction, because we could go ahead with the permanent plan. With the 4 Federal agencies that are involved in this, plus the 10 governors of 10 States affected, all unanimously in favor of it, and realizing the importance of it, I felt it was very important for us to get started on that project as soon as we could.

DISCUSSION AS TO DIFFERENCES BEING SETTLED BEFORE DAM IS OPERATING

Looking at it in that realistic way, I felt that we, as Army engineers could not make any protest against it. I felt certain that since it would be 7 years before it could be operated, that the sentiment of that valley, including the present opposing elements, in seeing the benefits of this plan for the Missouri River, will be in favor of it.

FUNDS IN BILL FOR CONSTRUCTION AND NOT OPERATION

Senator OVERTON. In other words, you think this is a temporary restriction and before you are in position to use this dam, this limitation will not appear in subsequent appropriation bills?

General WHEELER. The money that this applies to will be spent in construction and not operation and therefore the effect of the restriction, if not repeated, will have been eliminated.

NO FUNDS EXPENDED ON CONSTRUCTION TO DATE

Senator RUSSELL. How much have you spent on construction?
General WHEELER. We have not spent any.

DIFFERENCE IN COST IF VARIATION IS MADE IN SIZE OF RESERVOIR

Senator RUSSELL. Have you any estimate as to what will be the difference in necessary and essential cost of this dam if the variation is made in the size of the reservoir?

General WHEELER. It is not going to be as great as the proportionate change in height would indicate. That is the reason that the additional storage provides us with so much water at a very cheap rate, at a very economical cost. I am going to provide that for the record, the exact figures. There will be an increase in the cost of spillways. Perhaps some earth embankment will be reduced.

Senator RUSSELL. You think the dam at 1,850 level would cost as much as at 1,830?

General WHEELER. No, sir; I think there will be a difference in cost, but I believe the difference in cost will not be in the same proportion as the difference in height.