Mr. SHUTLER. Surely.

Senator BURTON. If you omit the Williamsville site, there is an opportunity to study those dams then, because they would be building a long time.

Senator OVERTON. The first thing that I wanted to do, if we could cut out this apparently obnoxious dam site-I use that expression seriously-then you could work that problem out later; but we just cannot stop everything, you know, and push the whole thing back and kill the whole Connecticut River protection works. You would not want to do that.

Mr. SHUTLER. Senator, it has not been the idea of Vermont at any time.

Senator OVERTON. No. Well, that is, I am trying to get something that is practical and fair. All legislation, after all, is largely just a matter of compromise. It occurred to me that that might be a fair compromise of the situation, and then striking it out, and you can see what can be done later in reference to that other.

You know, these dams are not going to be built immediately. You are going to have all during this war to think it over, 6 months after the war, and then we are going to start them one by one; and then I am quite sure, knowing the Engineers as well as I do, that they are going to build the least obnoxious ones first, or those to which there is no objection, in all probability. So you will have plenty of time to think it over, and they will too.

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask General Robins just one other question: This comprehensive plan for the flood control of the Connecticut River system does not take into consideration any dams on the Connecticut River itself; isn't that true?

General ROBINS. There are no dams on the main stem of the river, Senator.

Senator AIKEN. No. And since this plan was compounded there has been a proposal to raise the dam at Wilder, Vt., 15 feet. That would form a lake in the Connecticut River some 30 miles long, wouldn't it? There is objection to raising that 15 feet. I have been told by some authorities, however, that if that were raised only 10 feet, several thousand acres of rich meadow land in the Connecticut valley would be spared.

I was wondering if there are any estimates as to the amount, of how many acre-feet would be stored on the Connecticut itself if that dam is raised 10 feet. If it is raised 15 feet it would do more damage than in the West River valley.

General ROBINS. I do not know that we have made any study of that. I never heard of it.

Mr. SHUTLER. That is a Federal Power Commission order.

Senator AIKEN. Yes: but at that dam on the Connecticut River itself we raise 10 feet, forming a lake, say, 25 miles long and a half a mile to a mile wide; wouldn't that compensate for the loss of half of the storage area which one would get in the West River Valley? It is my opinion that probably would compensate for the loss of

most of it.

Senator OVERTON. Well, let me interrupt. That might be an aftermath solution.

Senator AIKEN. It is an alternative.

Senator OVERTON. Yes; but what we have got to do, though, is at the end get rid of it and then-that is, I am referring to the West River dam; get rid of it, and all those things can be figured out.

Senator AUSTIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like some help on this compromise proposition.

Senator OVERTON. Well, supposing you just let it go.

Senator AUSTIN. I thought I would ask Mr. Shutler what objection there is to such compromise here.

Mr. SHUTLER. Well, does that

Senator OVERTON. Very well, if you want to put it in the record. Senator AUSTIN. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. I have no objection.

Senator AUSTIN. I would like to put it in the record.

Senator OVERTON. Yes; all right.

Mr. SHUTLER. As I recall General Robins' testimony, among the other dams proposed were Tunbridge, East Brookfield, Gaysville. There are three on which, when they were considered and discussed in 1936 and 1937, there was considerable local opposition, and principally for the same reasons as the opposition that appears today in the case of the West River. And if I may bring this-it was touched on by one member of your committee, I think, on the question of economic justification. I am not sure, but I presume that the costs of the dam as figured in the estimates represent the construction costs plus the cost of moving highways, railroads, and other services and relocating them, plus the cost of the land needed to be bought, at whatever price it can be bought at.

Are there any other items that go in to make an estimated cost, General?

General ROBINS. No, Mr. Shutler; the construction cost plus flowage damage and relocations.

Mr. SHUTLER. Well, in our particular location in Vermont and in the economy of the State we believe that there are other costs involved which are not covered by those three headings. Our State from the eastern side consists of a series of river valleys up which go our main roads, and over those roads in normal times travel the people who come to Vermont for recreation. And recrational business in that State amounts to a very large proportion of the total State income.

We feel that if these dams are to be built, to be built high dams and built for the production of power, that during the recreational season, because at that time of the year the rivers-the normal stream flow is very small; they will have to be drawn down progressively, and during the recreational season people will not want to travel along that area with the bank conditions of draw-down. We are in strong competition in recreational business, of course, with New Hampshire; and if people do not like the scenery that they strike on the way up to our place, they will go elsewhere; and the effect of these dams, particularly if they are built for power purposes and draw-down, will reach

Senator OVERTON. Let me interrupt you. There are none of them to be built for power purposes.

Mr. SHUTLER. I am sorry, sir; in the 724 document there were seven of them.

Senator OVERTON. That can be written in the bond.

Mr. SHUTLER. Well, if it is in the bond.

Senator OVERTON. We will get it in the bond all right; that is part of the compromise.

Mr. SHUTLER. But there were seven. Gaysville, for instance, is one of that sort.

Senator OVERTON. Yes.

Mr. SHUTLER. So that the effects of the construction, the detrimental effects to the State, extend beyond the area of the pond that grows up behind the dam; and we feel when we figure the economic justification that that other factor ought to be taken account of.

Senator OVERTON. Well, now, suppose we-I will advance a step forward in my compromise-and this is purely a matter of compromise, of course. I can speak only for myself, but I just want to feel your pulse, as it were, as we go along. Personally I would be in favor we will eliminate the West River dam. All right; no dams on the West River. And we will remove power generation from all the other dams; we will prohibit the generation of power on all the other dams. How about that?

Mr. SHUTLER. Well, if that is the case, then, the estimated costs come down.

Senator OVERTON. Well, that is all right. The Federal Government pays all the costs, so it will be so much better for Uncle Sam.

Mr. SHUTLER. Well, sir, so far as the present law-and I have told you, of course, that there is local objection and will be strong local objection to those three that I have mentioned; and I cannot say to you now that there won't be on this compromise.

Senator AIKEN. Tunbridge and East Brookfield are comparatively small reservoirs.

Mr. SHUTLER. Well, in terms of dams and reservoirs all of these are small dams and reservoirs.

Senator AIKEN. Well, these two of these that you say might be objected to are two of the smaller ones.

Mr. SHUTLER. Those are relatively, yes. Gaysville is larger than either of those two put together.

Senator AIKEN. And there are some other sites that are not included in here. For instance, you had Groton in at one time.

Mr. SHUTLER. Yes.

Senator AIKEN. That is not included in this. That would compare favorably with one of these others, wouldn't it?

Mr. SHUTLER. No; Groton is very much smaller.

Senator AIKEN. It is smaller?

Mr. SHUTLER. Very much. Then, there is a river up in the northern part of our State on which we wouldn't object to having floodcontrol dams built, almost as high as you want them. That is on the Mulhegan.

Senator CORDON. Is that a tributary of the Connecticut River?
Mr. SHUTLER. It drains into the Connecticut.

Senator OVERTON. I understand. But from a practical standpoint we cannot deal with that now. That is something-

Mr. SHUTLER. Well, I was letting you feel my pulse here.

Senator OVERTON. I know that. But of course you can understand that we cannot revise this whole plan right here in these hearings.

It is a very simple thing, though, to follow the suggestion of Senator Austin to strike out one word, "high," and then you have eliminated the only dam that I ever heard any objection to as chairman of this committee. No one has ever written to me about any other dam objecting to it in Vermont.

Senator Aiken, have you heard of any objection?

Senator AIKEN. I have not heard from the people who live near these other sites in protest since I have been down here. As I understand it, they are all authorized now.

Senator OVERTON. Yes, they are all authorized.

Senator AIKEN. And the principal objection and fuss has been raised by people of the West River Valley, and as I understand it the major part of this new authorization provided for the West River Valley dams.

Senator OVERTON. That is right; that is what it is for largely, yes. Senator AIKEN. I do not see where the State would be any worse off, even if there was objection to one or two of the other dams, if they strike out the word "high."

Mr. SHUTLER. On this list, Senator Overton, there are three that are included-four included: Williamsville, Victory, North Hartland, and Gaysville. Victory and North Hartland were included in the compact.

Senator OVERTON. All right.

Mr. SHUTLER. There was some objection to one of them, but the feeling was that the objection should be overruled in the interests of assisting in flood control in the lower States. Gaysville was not on the list at that time, but when our hearings were held then there was considerable objection to Gaysville. But as to the compromise I think it is a fine thing at this time.

All

Senator OVERTON. Well, I am very glad to hear you say so. right. That is one headache removed, if I can get you two Senators to go along with you in that suggestion.

Mr. SHUTLER. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. All right. And furthermore I desire to do as much as I can to adhere to the wishes of people in the sovereign State of Vermont. I know the problem you are up against because we have it all the time in the lower valley, and we have had many a fight down there, and we have had to swallow things that we didn't like to swallow. You know that.

Senator AUSTIN. And we are done, aren't we?

Senator OVERTON. Yes, sir. Very much obliged to you.

Mr. SHUTLER. Yes, sir.

Senator AUSTIN. As I understand, the compromise involves two things. One is, take the dam out.

Senator OVERTON. Yes.

Senator AUSTIN. That is called the Williamsville Dam. And the other is to take out from all the dams the power idea.

Senator OVERTON. Yes; provided that we put in there, "Provided further, That no power shall be generated at any of these dams." Senator AIKEN. I shall have to reiterate what I said that morning: If power can be developed for the benefit of the local people at any of these dams without causing undue, unnecessary, additional damage, I think it ought to be done.

Senator OVERTON. Well, we shall have to leave that to the Federal authorities, and it might be getting in trouble on that.

Senator AIKEN. All right.

Senator AUSTIN. Thank you very much.

Senator OVERTON. You are perfectly welcome. Very glad to have heard you.

TUOLUMNE RIVER, CALIF.

Senator OVERTON. All right; now California. The meeting will come to order, gentlemen.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator OVERTON. Will you give your name and what district you represent?

Representative WELCH. Congressman Richard J. Welch of California, Fifth Congressional District; and for further identification, Mr. Chairman, I am from San Francisco.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, San Francisco has spent more than $200,000,000 in the development of its water and power system. Because its water supply comes from the Tuolumne River, it is particularly interested in any legislation affecting that

area.

In developing its water supply San Francisco found it necessary to reach out nearly 200 miles into the Sierra Nevadas to impound the waters of the Tuolumne River. Such an enormous investment was made necessary to guard against the repetition of such a disaster as that which overtook us following the earthquake and fire of 1906 when 5 square miles of the city was totally destroyed.

This development was not projected overnight or over a short period of time. It was carefully planned and worked out over a long period of years in the closest possible collaboration with both the Congress and the various departments of Government. We desire to continue that cooperation, particularly with the War Department in the furtherance of its water control program, which can best be accomplished by the present engineering plans of the War Department now before your committee.

It is in the spirit of this cooperation and because of our closely allied interests, that Mr. James H. Turner, manager and chief engineer of the San Francisco Water Department, is here and will present to the committee all necessary detailed information with reference to the city's plans, which support the recommendation made by the War Department.

Senator OVERTON. Thank you very much.

Representative WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Representative Welch withdrew from the committee table.) Senator OVERTON. How about you, Congressman Elliott?

Representative ELLIOTT. In am going to wait until the Department witnesses testify.

Senator OVERTON. If we have a Department witness up here it will take some time.