INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

DISTRICT LODGE NO. 65, Jamestown, N. Y., May 12, 1949.

House Appropriations Committee, Washington, D. C.

HONORABLE SIRS: Speaking not only as a representative of several hundred union families but, also, as an individual citizen who has suffered personal loss and hardship from recurrent floods in the city of Bradford, Pa., I urge your committee to give every consideration and support to the program of flood control for this city to prevent repetition of the disastrous floods which have plagued this city over the past several years, causing millions of dollars loss and damage, to say nothing of the exposure to an epidemic which could very well cause the loss of an untold number of lives. Thanking you for your wholehearted support, I am Very truly yours,

H. F. HUFF,

Business Representative District No. 65,
International Association of Machinists.

STATEMENT BY KENNETH MEYER, CHAIRMAN, BRADFORD DISTRICT FLOOD CONTROL AUTHORITY, ON THE BRADFORD AND VICINITY, PENNSYLVANIA, FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECT

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Kenneth Meyer. I appear here as chairman of the Bradford District Flood Control Authority and make my living as vice president of Reclamation Supply, Inc. I carry on the duties and responsibilities as chairman of the authority as a civic duty for our very fine community and appear here today before your committee requesting your consideration in authorizing the approval of the Bradford and vicinity flood-control project.

The authority is a political subdivision composed of one county, one city, three townships, and one borough, incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of flood prevention. The above-mentioned political subdivisions are the governing bodies in the Tunungwant Valley, which comprises a drainage area of some 132 square miles. The entire drainage area is densely populated and highly industrialized due to the fact that it is in the heart of the famous Pennsylvania oil field, which, incidentally, is the oldest oil field in the world with a long future life ahead, the Bradford district alone having 194,000,000 barrels of proven reserves.

In addition to the oil field and refining activities, we have a large amount of other industrial activity. At a recent industrial exhibit held in Bradford there were 44 manufacturers represented who have plants in the area. There are 31,000 people living in the valley and the assets of the valley including the oil reserves are placed at over $757,000,000 ($757,608,863).

Since the year 1935, the community has experienced 30 minor floods and 6 major floods, all of which have caused damage. The major floods occurred in 1936, 1937, 1942, 1946, 1947, and 1948. Prior to the year 1935 the floods were equally as frequent but the engineering records prior to that year were washed away in the 1936 flood. The damages in the 1947 and 1948 floods totaled 32 million dollars. The proposed project would have completely eliminated this loss. The loss in these two floods alone was over 50 percent of the total Federal cost of the projosed project.

We live and work in a mountainous area, the Main Street of Bradford being at an elevation of approximately 1,400 feet above sea level and the top of the surrounding hills at an elevation of approximately 2,300 feet. This topography lends itself perfectly for rapidly run-off and flash floods even though the area is heavily wooded. Two or three inches of rainfall over a 48-hour period will invariably cause a minor flood and rainfall in excess of this amount over a short period causes a major catastrophe. Naturally the railroads, industries, and retail business activities, plus a great percentage of the residential property have to be located on the valley floor. The corporate limits of Bradford City contain 1,300 acres of densely built-up area and a major flood inundates approximately 650 acres or 50 percent of the area to a depth of from 2 to 6 feet of water.

To give some minor protection to the community pending a major flood-control project, the Bradfrd District Flod Control Authority with the advice of the Weather Bureau of the Department of Commerce, has installed a flood warning system in the area. This is composed of 10 rain gages installed on the perimeter of the watershed and in the watershed area itself, manned by volunteer observers 24 hours a day throughout the year. In addition to this there are four river gages manned at all times. An active disaster committee has been organized and a siren installed so that the citizens, merchants, and industrialists can be warned of an impending flood and can be called into action within an hour, day or night. Due to the rapid run-off in the area, there is normally only a 3-hour interval between the time that the rain and stream gage coordinating office determines that there has been enough rainfall to cause a flood and, the time that the water is inundating Main Street. Upon the sounding of the floodwarning signal the residents in the low-lying area begin moving their furniture upstairs and preparing for high water. The merchants and their employees immediately open up their stores day or night and as rapidly as possible either move out their stock or raise it to the level which they think will be above high water. Dne of our leading firms on Main Street has a contract with a moving concern so that when the flood warning is sounded, large vans are backed up in front of the firm's office and all of the furniture, files, books, etc., are loaded and hauled to high ground.

Gentlemen, this is not something that happens once in a lifetime, but has actually happened seriously 4 times in the last 6 years and the potential threat has actually been there 36 times in the last 13 years. It is not surprising that our citizens have a bad case of the jitters.

We wish to extend our thanks to the Members of Congress for authorizing the Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary survey to determine the cost and feasibility of a flood-prevention project. This survey has been completed and has been approved by the Corps of Engineers district office in Pittsburgh, the division office in Cincinnati, and, after due consideration, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors concurred in the findings and forwarded the report to the Bureau of the Budget and to the Congress. The Honorable James H. Duff, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, gave his approval of the project by instructing his secretary of the department of forests and waters, Mr. M. F. Draemel, to so notify the Federal Government. Copy of Mr. Draemel's letter is submitted herewith for the record.

In March 1948, the National Rivers and Harbors Congress gave this project a class 1 endorsement.

We are here to ask the endorsement of your committee and to assure you that through the Bradford district flood-control authority and the political subdivisions which it represents, along with the help of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we are financially able and stand ready to provide the necessary funds for the non-Federal cost of the project. The necessary assurances of cooperation have been forwarded by the above-mentioned political subdivisions to the Corps of Engineers.

Accompanying me today are civic-minded citizens of the community: Dr. Hugh J. Ryan, mayor of the city of Bradford: Mr. J. B. Fisher, president of the Kendall Refining Co.; Mr. Martin C. McIntyre, representing the laboring people of our area; Mr. A. T. Vinca, chief clerk, Hanley Brick Co.; Mr. James W. Gallagher, oil-lease foreman: Mr. Carl M. Oliver, prominent oil producer; Mr. Ellis H. Phillips, manager, E. I. duPont Co.; Mr. William P. McVay, local attorney; and Mr. James D. Wolfe, counsel for our authority.

There are a great many citizens of our community who would have liked to appear in person before your committee, but, realizing that there are many important projects to come before you, we are submitting for the record, the statements of these people.

Thank you very kindly, gentlemen, for the courtesy which has been extended to us.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Meyer.

Are there any questions?

Mr. PICKETT. I have a few questions.

I think we can all agree when we hear the testimony of the engineers about this million dollar damage done in the 1947 flood that it is patent on its face that you have a sad situation.

I would like to ask Colonel Gee: I notice in this report that your cost-benefit ratio is almost unity or just above unity. I have it as 1.02 to 1. I take it you figured that on the history that you could get of floods during the course of time, the records that are kept for 100 years or more.

Colonel GEE. Those records are continuous from 1917, Mr. Pickett. Mr. PICKETT. At that time, I would assume that Bradford was not nearly as large a town as it is now and the development was not nearly so intensive.

Colonel GEE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. Your average annual damage is just over $200,000 on the basis of your records for the last 32 years.

Colonel GEE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. I take it your report covers the period only up through 1946 based upon the necessity for the survey having taken place during 1947; is that right?

Colonel GEE. The report was modified after the 1947 flood to include the damages which occurred during that flood.

Mr. PICKETT. What was the damage in 1947?

Colonel GEE. The damage was $1,729,000.

Mr. PICKETT. Have you had any subsequent floods that you have any record of?

Colonel GEE. There was a flood in Bradford 1948, in March, which catised additional damage in the amount of $750,000.

Mr. PICKETT. What is the general average of the annual damage from floods, we will say in the last 10 years?

Colonel GEE. I can give you only a very rough estimate of that, but it would approach very closely $400,000 or approximately twice that cited for the period 1917 to 1948.

Mr. PICKETT. Does that indicate that the growth and development of the city of Bradford and the region around there is intensified or that your floods are worse, or both?

Colonel GEE. It is some of both, more attributable to the fact that Bradford has developed industrially to the point where the same flood now would cause appreciably more damage than 20 years ago. Mr. PICKETT. If you strike the average on the annual damage for the last 10 years, what approximately would be the cost-benefit ratio as compared to 1.02 to 1. Would it be considerably higher or less? Colonel GEE. It would have the effect of doubling that ratio. It would exceed slightly 2 to 1.

Mr. PICKETT. I have no further questions at this time, Mr. Chair

man.

Mr. RICH. To cover any statements we may have overlooked, I ask unanimous consent to insert them in the record at this point.

Mr. MEYER. They are all in the record, Mr. Congressman, and we wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your very kind courtesy. Mr. DAVIS. We appreciate your coming. Thank you very much for your patience. We have built the record, and as I say, we have confidence in your Congressmen and all the presentation made.

ROANOKE RIVER, SMITH MOUNTAIN DAM, VA.

Mr. DAVIS. Colonel Gee, will you present this project?

May I say at the outset that Mr. Dondero may be interested in the development of this project. I am informed that in view of discus

sion on the Clark Hill project yesterday and the Hartwell-it is expected that the eight or nine dams for power purposes in the Savannah River are very likely to be utilized by private industry and I think Mr. Dondero should get some satisfaction out of this, and I say that with all deference to everybody concerned. If the Federal Government is under obligation to assume a greater share of the expense. in providing for a multipurpose service up the river, then after that has been done, down the river, say in these 9 cases, private industry could then come in and build the power establishments to take care of the needs of that area, I think we are getting somewhere. And that was developed, Mr. Dondero in the statements yesterday, when the first two projects, Clark Hill and Hartwell are developed, the excess cost maintained by the public at large provides an opportunity for private industry to go ahead and proceed in an orderly way under our system of private enterprise.

I think Colonel Gee may indicate progress in that direction in connection with the Roanoke River.

Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, my entire struggle over the years has been just one thing, with only one object in mind, and that is the preservation of the American free enterprise system as against public ownership. I am an enthusiast about developing power in our river valleys. I am for it. I think we must do it in order to provide the power that the Nation needs in developing our resources. Where it is different and where the philosophy seems to divide is that I am opposed to the Federal Government entering in competition with private investment by retailing this power, either to municipalities or to industry where there are already established in the area private power companies with small investors all over the Nation able to produce the power that is required without any Federal expense whatever. long as we hew to the line of keeping the Federal Government in the wholesale power field, there is no objection on my part, in fact there would be support, but there will continue to be objection as far as I can oppose every effort of the Federal Government to displace private enterprise and private investments and to destroy the same system that has made us so great in this Nation. That is the whole thing in a few words.

I am delighted with what our fine chairman has said because in beautiful language as he always possesses, he has announced practically the philosophy that I am trying to maintain here in my service to the Federal Government.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Dondero. Of course, in rebuttal to that, it does not call at this moment for a discussion of the Tennessee Valley Authority in which we are all so intensely interested.

Colonel Gee, will you please proceed?

Colonel GEE. Mr. Chairman, there are two bills which have been introduced, one by Mr. Stanley, H. R. 3250, and one by Mr. Burton, H. R. 3416, both of which are for the purpose of permitting the construction of Smith Mountain project, one of 11 projects included in the approved plan for the development of the Roanoke River Basin. In the Flood Control Act of December 22, 1944, Congress approved a general plan for comprehensive development of the Roanoke River Basin for flood control and conservation of water for other purposes, including the development of hydroelectric power. In accordance

with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers, contained in House Document 650, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, in the same act, Congress authorized construction of the Buggs Island and Philpott Reservoirs as initial units of the comprehensive plan of improvement.

The Smith Mountain Reservoir project is to be located on the Roanoke River, 46 miles downstream from Roanoke, Va.; it is a unit of the recommended plan for the Roanoke River Basin. Its authorization would be a logical step in an orderly program for execution of the plan of improvement as it would afford a backlog of authorized works so that its detailed planning could be accomplished in time to place it under construction in proper sequence with Buggs Island and Philpott.

The Smith Mountain project will provide a concrete dam with a maximum height of 244 feet and a reservoir capacity of 825,000 acrefeet. It would include facilities for generating hydroelectric power with an installed capacity of 41,000 kilowatts.

The estimated cost of the project based upon 1948 price levels is $24,830,000. In the report of the Chief of Engineers to the Congress, the plan as a whole for the development of the Roanoke Basin was found to have a benefit-cost ratio of 1.47 to 1. Its evaluated benefits are largely from hydroelectric power development. But in floodcontrol value the Smith Mountain project ranks next in the system after Buggs Island and Philpott. I might say at this point that of the 11 dams in the approved plan, only three involve flood control. They are the Buggs Island and Philpott projects, presently under way, and the Smith Mountain project now under discussion.

The Federal Power Commission advises that the power market in the vicinity of the Smith Mountain project will have developed sufficiently to absorb all power produced by the presently authorized works and the Smith Mountain project by 1958.

In view of the length of time required for the construction of the dam, and the installation of facilities for generation of power, it is felt there would be little, if any, lag after construction before the full capacity will be required.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out at this time that the authorizing of construction on the Smith Mountain project represents a deviation from the original recommendations of the Chief of Engineers when this basin plan was authorized. The reason for that deviation, as I have previously inferred, is that it is the third project in the basin involving flood control, the remaining eight being straight power projects and produce no other benefits.

Since the development of Buggs Island has begun, a private utility company has filed an application with the Federal Power Commission to develop the Roanoke Rapids project. This development of the Roanoke Rapids project is to be exactly in accordance with the project as recommended by the Chief of Engineers in this document. The hearings were conducted by the Federal Power Commission last week on that application. We have no information as to the outcome of those hearings. That project was the third project recommended in the original report of the Chief of Engineers.

The fourth project, the Gaston, it is believed that a private utility company will file an application for the construction of that project in the near future.