(The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD MARTIN, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, IN SUPPORT of the Bradford, Pa., FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT; MAY 17, 1949 Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the privilege of submitting to your committee this statement in support of the Bradford, Pa., flood-control project. I am hopeful that after you have heard the testimony of the representatives of the Bradford area you will concur in the opinion that this proposed improvement is completely meritorious and that you will recommend including its authorization in the omnibus flood-control bill. The record of recurring floods in the Bradford area presents convincing evidence of the great need of relief from the tremendous losses to which the people and its industries have been subjected. To touch briefly on the importance of the Bradford area, I would like to point out that it is a center of production, refining, and processing of the world-famous Pennsylvania grade crude oil. It is the oldest oil-producing region in the world where the skills and techniques now used in every other oil field were developed. It is now the center of research in secondary recovery methods by which production in the Bradford area has been increased by 194,000,000 barrels a year. This will be substantially increased as new developments and advances are made in secondary recovery methods. In addition to the extensive oil industry, Bradford and McKean Counties have developed large scale and diversified manufacturing of oil-well supplies, machinery and parts, metal and glass products, chemicals, leather and rubber goods, aircraft and parts. I point to these facts to show that Bradford is going forward and that protection from the severe flood damage it has suffered is amply justified from an economic standpoint. Other witnesses who will appear before you will submit statistics showing the extent of the damage to property by reason of floods. I would like to call to your attention the fact that the entire cost of the project would be more than covered by the savings that would be made in a 6-year period. That estimate is based on damage to physical property alone in the last 3-year period covering 1946 to 1948, inclusive. It does not take into consideration the large amount of additional damage represented by loss of wages, loss of production, and decline in real-estate values in the districts of greatest damage where flood insurance is not obtainable. The project has been approved and concurred in all along the line by the Corps of Engineers from the district engineer through the division engineer, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and forwarded to Congress by the Chief of Engineers. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has submitted its approval to the Department of the Army clearing the way for participation by the State in its share of the cost. The local subdivisions have likewise submitted assurances of participation in their share of the cost. My own study of the proposal has convinced me that the improvement is urgently needed to promote the welfare and further progress of this important district. STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD MARTIN ON THE LACKAWAXEN RIVER BASIN On behalf of the people of Wayne County, Pa., and the communities in that ares which have suffered extensive flood damage through the years I desire to express their deep interest in the additional authorization for the Prompton and Dyberry Reservoirs in the Lackawaxen Basin flood-control project. As you know the House Committee on Public Works has approved the additional authorization of $6,000,000 for this important program. My purpose today is to endorse the additional authorization and to request favorable action in order that the planning of the Lackawaxen River Basin floodcontrol project may go forward for the protection of this important area of Pennsylvania. Senator HOLLAND. Colonel Gee, the engineers made their full case before the House committee? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. There is no occasion for repeating that technical case here? Colonel GEE. Unless there are particular questions. Senator HOLLAND. They appear in the record of the House hearings? Colonel GEE. That is correct. Senator HOLLAND. Any questions you would like to ask, Senator Martin? Senator MARTIN. Nothing further. The fact that there was a very full hearing in the House we thought would save this committee that much time. But it is just a little bit different than most cases. The colonel has very properly brought up the fire hazards, the fire from petroleum which gets in the water. And, of course, it comes to the top of the water and that may damage property way down the river from where it originates. So that makes a fire hazard just a little bit different from anything else we might encounter. But we did not want to take up too much time, Mr. Chairman. Senator SPARKMAN. May I ask this question? I notice over there on the map marked off down in the right-hand lower corner, "Beginning of improvement" and up at the far left-hand corner is "End of improvement." Now, I take it, that the beginning of improvement is downstream. How far is that from the point where this creek flows into the Allegheny River? Colonel GEE. That, I judge, is about 20 miles. Senator SPARKMAN. What is the flood condition below that point? In other words, what I am trying to get at is this: If this is done, will this provide a continuous outlet and not run into a bottleneck below that point? Colonel GEE. No, sir; the channel conditions down-stream from Bradford will remain unchanged. This improvement affects only the community area of Bradford and the recommended improvement involves improvement including straightening and revetment of the banks of the channel to permit the floodwaters to move through the industrial area more rapidly. And no provision is made for any improvement downstream. The effect of this project downstream, in the opinion of our district engineer, will be negligible. It will have no effect on the total quantity of water which is passed by this stream. It will mean that the flood will be confined to the channel within the limits of Bradford. It will not be altered as to quantity. These same floods will have to pass through Bradford. You are doing nothing to harm those persons downstream. And in the opinion of our people in the field who made this investigation there will be no adverse effect upon them. Senator SPARKMAN. Nor will the downstream effect be such as to run this project out in a few years? Colonel GEE. No, sir. Senator SPARKMAN. In other words, this is not just a temporary thing. This would give effective relief in the Bradford area and permanent relief, is that right? Colonel GEE. This will afford permanent relief provided that the project is maintained by local interests as is their responsibility. And it represents a permanent improvement. Senator SPARKMAN. That is all. Senator MCCLELLAN. Senator Myers, we are glad that you were able to get here. We will be glad to hear you with reference to the Bradford project. We have heard from several of the citizens from Pennsylvania and Senator Martin, and from the Army engineers, and we are glad to have you here. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANCIS J. MYERS, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I could not be here earlier, but as all of us do, I had two other committee meetings this morning. I very much appreciate the courtesy of this committee in including the Bradford project among those on which hearings are now being conducted. I know, of course, that these current hearings are concerned primarily with projects which the House Committee on Public Works did not cover in their recent hearings and which are not in the bill, H. R. 5472, reported out by the House committee on July 6 and now awaiting action in the House. The Bradford project is included in the House bill, and thus does not qualify, strictly speaking, for hearing before you now, but since it is based on a survey report authorized by the predecessor Senate committee in 1946, I am trespassing on your time today in order to make sure that you have a full and complete understanding of the merits of this particular project. In other words, although I am sure that this committee, on the basis of its past experience with this project and knowledge of it, will certainly include it in the final flood-control omnibus authorization bill, my appearance today is merely added insurance. We missed out last year by such a very narrow margin of time in having this project included in the authorization bill that I just don't want to miss any opportunity this year to guarantee its approval. Briefly, the Bradford project originated under a resolution adopted June 26, 1946, by the Senate Committee on Commerce (which prior to the Congressional Reorganization Act had jurisdiction over these matters) and provided for a review of the existing report on the Ohio River "with a view to determining whether or not flood-control work is advisable at the present time on the upper Allegheny River in and around Eldred and Bradford, Pa., in view of the recent floods." That resolution was introduced by me at the request of citizens of Bradford and vicinity. Senate Document 20, submitted to Congress early this year, was the result of that resolution. As you know, it recommends vigorously the authorization of the work proposed in my bill, S. 625. This document gives the complete data bearing on the project and I will not take your time to discuss it. What I do want you to know is that I regard this project as of topmost urgency. In fact, I tried earlier this year to get an initial planning appropriation, at least, for this project, in the appropriation bill for the current fiscal year, even though recognizing how very unusual a procedure that would be. Our main purpose in seeking speed on this project is to make the project eligible for supplemental assistance by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which cannot allocate any money for any part of the local work on the project work which could now be under way-until the Congress has acted affirmatively on the project. Last year when I appeared before you, I sought to have this project taken up under emergency procedure even though it had not yet been cleared by the Bureau of the Budget and formally transmitted to Congress. The committee at that time took the position that it would not consider any projects which had not completed this routine formality. That hurdle is now removed. Further, the official report is available to you and contains all the essential facts. The House Public Works Committee has approved it and recommended it for inclusion in this year's authorization act. The project has complete local support and bipartisan support in the Congress. Spokesmen for the community have already testified on this bill. Under those circumstances, I do not think it is necessary for me to take any more of your time this morning except to say again that this project proposed in my bill is extremely close to my heart. LACKAWAXEN RIVER BASIN My purpose in appearing before you today in behalf of the Lackawaxen Basin flood-control project is merely to remind you again of the importance of this project to the communities and citizens of Wayne County, Pa., in order to insure inclusion in the final floodcontrol authorization omnibus bill of additional funds. This project, as you know, is now partially authorized. In order to assure efficient and expeditious work on the entire integrated program on both the Prompton and Dyberry Reservoirs, an additional authorization of $6,000,000 is necessary. The House Committee on Public Works has already approved this additional authorization. The Lackawaxen flood-control program was first proposed in a bill I introduced in the Seventy-ninth Congress. Unfortunately, it was too late for action at that time because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was unable to pass on it in time to have it included in the omnibus authorization bill enacted in July of 1946. I reintroduced the bill in 1947 as S. 1908. When this committee last year drafted its omnibus bill, only part of my bill was included in it and authorization was thus given for only one of the two reservoirs. The feeling on the part of the committee at that time was, I understand, that since we were then in the midst of an inflationary period, Government expenditures for public works activity should be held down to a minimum. Of course, the authorization by itself does not increase Government expenditures by a single cent so that it would not have cost the Government any more had the full authorization of about $12,000,000 been allowed at that time. That is now just water over the dam, which is perhaps not a good expression to use in this connection. In any event, as a result of the truncated authorization, the Army engineers have been unable to use. any of the planning funds available to them for engineering and planning work on the Dyberry Reservoir and will not be able to do so until the Congress corrects the situation by approving the full authorization. Knowing of your familiarity with this project, I have not felt it necessary to bring down today any of the spokesmen for the citizens of Wayne County in behalf of this authorization request. My own appearance here, as I said, was prompted by my desire to keep you informed of my continuing interest in this work and I did not want the hearings to end without something in the record to show that the people of Wayne County are very much concerned about this matter. Thank you, gentlemen. Senator MCCLELLAN. Anything else on the Pennsylvania projects? MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT ROCK ISLAND, ILL. Colonel MOORE. Mr. Chairman, the report on Mississippi River at Rock Island, Ill., as published in House Document No. 257, Eighty-first Congress is in response to a resolution adopted September 18, 1945, by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives. Rock Island, Ill., is located on the east side of the Mississippi River 482.4 miles above the mouth of the Ohio River. Lock and dam No. 16 in the Mississippi River is located 25.2 miles below and lock No. 15 one-half mile above Rock Island. The tributary area includes the Quad Cities, consisting of Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline, Ill., and Davenport, Iowa, and sections of the rich agricultural hinterland. The total population of the Quad Cities was 155,781 in 1940. The Quad Cities area is the most concentrated industrial area between St. Louis, Mo., and Minneapolis, Minn. The principal products are agricultural implements, wood products, rubber goods, oil burners, and household appliances. There is no existing Federal project for a harbor at Rock Island. The existing project for improvement of the Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Minneapolis, Minn., provides for a 9-foot navigation channel to be secured by means of a series of locks and dams and dredging. Water traffic in the locality consists of heavy commercial traffic, commercial fishing activities, and recreational boating. Nine hundred and sixty-seven recreational craft are recorded as having entered or left pool No. 16 during 1946. Terminal and transfer facilities in pool No. 16 at Rock Island consist of a municipal terminal for handling water-borne freight constructed at a total cost of $382,693. The Rock Island Boat Club has provided limited facilities for storage, servicing, and care of small craft at river mile 480.2 near the downstream limits of Rock Island. During the navigation season such craft are anchored in the open river, moored at a small floating dock, or removed from the water when not in use. Those moored are subject to damage from wind, waves, and passing tows. Local interests desire a harbor for small craft in the city-owned Lake Potter on the left bank of the Mississippi River immediately below Rock Island at river mile 479.8. They claim that existing facilities for storage, repair, and mooring of small craft are inadequate. The district engineer finds that there is a definite need for a harbor for small craft in pool No. 16 in the vicinity of Rock Island. Lake |