there sometimes grows as much as 80 bushels of wheat to the acre and comparable high yields of oats and other grains, and it just does not stand to reason that the situation in that region should go on with these lands being subjected to flooding almost every year.

Last year the farmers in that region lost everything. They were just completely wiped out. I hope that some action may be taken to construct these projects that are so well worth while, like this Libby project, so that the frequent devastation may be stopped.

From the viewpoint of its power value, the Libby site is very strategically located. It is upstream from nearly all the dams and power plants that have been built so far, and from those that will be built in the future. For that reason it is to my mind just about the most attractive water control possibility in the country to be submitted at this time, and I sincerely hope that this committee will not lose the opportunity to get that project in any bill it might present to Congress at this session under a flood control program.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you. Let me ask this question, if I may: Have any of the improvements on the Columbia Basin yet involved. agreements between the United States and Canada? In other words, has your Commission had to work on any of the projects yet?

Mr. McWHORTER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPARKMAN. Grand Coulee?

Mr. McWHORTER. The great Grand Coulee project had to be cleared through the International Joint Commission. That was presented to the Commission by the Governments of the United States and Canada. We went out there and held hearings and we adopted an appropriate order which would protect and give justice to both countries.

Senator SPARKMAN. And that was handled without difficulty? Mr. McWHORTER. No difficulty whatever. Now, I admit that there are some complications in the Kootenai River situation, but none that are insuperable, and certainly none that should be deferred. Mr. WHITE. May I say something, Mr. Chairman?

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. The difference from Grand Coulee, the problem of this Jennings thing will give tremendous benefit to Canada because it will firm up the power on five already existing projects.

Mr. McWHORTER. Mr. Chairman, the Kootenai River is that uppermost red stripe which goes right into Canada. The upper portion of it, about 25 or 30 miles, I would say, is in Canada and the lower portion, about 50 miles, is in the United States.

Senator SPARKMAN. Does any other project included in the comprehensive plan involve negotiations between the two countries?

Mr. McWHORTER. No other, Mr. Chairman, so far as I know would flood any land in Canada. As to the land that will be required for the Libby project, the greater part will be in the United States and the Government already owns possibly three-fourths of it because it is located in national forests. That is another advantage.

Senator SPARKMAN. You take a project such as the Albeni Falls which is on a stream which flows later into Canada: does that involve negotiations?

Mr. McWHORTER. That would benefit Canada, but at the momer: I do not see where the International Joint Commission would have any jurisdiction. It could be referred to the Commission by the two

governments. That project would benefit the Canadians at some time in the future, not immediately. But they have a dam projected on the Pend Oreille River right near its mouth and I may say that the Pend Oreille River is the same river as the Clark Fork. It is called Pend Oreille below Pend Oreille and Clark Fork above.

So when they build their project near the mouth of the Pend Oreille River, they will be benefited by the Albeni Falls storage, but we do not know when that will be. Still there might very properly be some arrangement about it.

Senator SPARKMAN. Of course, Senator Magnuson's bill, S. 2180 and Senator Cain's bill, S. 1595, each proposes congressional approval of the comprehensive plan of the Army engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. If we adopt either of those bills or incorporate the language of either of the bills into the omnibus bill, then the comprehensive plan which you suggested you hoped would soon be before Congress would actually be included, and, of course, both the Albeni Falls and the Libby Dam would be included, based on the schedule or the timetable that has been set up in that comprehensive report.

Mr. McWHORTER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, and as Colonel Gee has said, the Libby Dam project is the most meritorious and therefore would have first priority as to construction. I think that is entirely right.

Senator SPARKMAN. Let me ask, Colonel Gee we have had this but I do not remember-what was the timetable as between the Albeni Falls and the Libby Dam, for construction?

Colonel GEE. The Libby project holds first priority position among the major flood control storage projects in the whole plan.

Senator SPARKMAN. In other words, if your comprehensive plan is approved then Libby Dam will be constructed ahead of Albeni Falls? Colonel GEE. I would say that the two would probably be constructed concurrently and the Albeni Falls project would be taken up very early in the procedure simply because it will produce more power in the Pacific Northwest at an earlier date than any other project in the entire list of projects.

Senator SPARKMAN. That is the Albeni Falls?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. I wonder what you have to say regarding Congressman White's statement about no flood control value, and Senator Miller referred to that also.

Colonel GEE. The figures given by Senator Miller were in error in this respect: He indicated a very small amount of flood control storage in the Albeni Falls project. There is actually 1,100,000 acre-feet of flood control storage in that project.

In answer to the points raised by Congressman White: There is Involved also in the project as described in the report the improvement of the channel up stream from the dam site to eliminate the effect of that choked portion of the channel which Mr. White discussed and which he showed us pictures of during the course of the House hearings.

Senator SPARKMAN. In other words, you recognize that the bottleneck is there?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. And your plan proposes to eliminate it?

Colonel GEE. Further, the hydrology of this project works out to indicate that where the flood of record is 136,000 second-feet, this project would satisfactorily pass a flood of 350,000 second-feet, and on all the past floods of record would produce a decrease in stages around the lake of at least 12 feet.

Senator SPARKMAN. When you speak of the highest flood of record, that takes into account also this flood of 1894 that Congressman White referred to?

Colonel GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARK MAN. And this would reduce it by one and a half at least?

Mr. McWHORTER. Around the perimeter of the lake, yes.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to the fact that the same thing could be said about reducing the flood level by opening flood gates at Grand Coulee but it is so far down the stream and so much lower an elevation it would not affect anything along the line where the water backs up as a result of a barrier at Priest River and causes a choke.

I contend the same thing is true unless this choke is removed, if you build this project 5 miles downstream with a 10-foot drop and the map shows that there is a 10-foot drop between the elevation of the river channel at Priest Rapids and the site of the Albeni project at Albeni Falls.

So what good would it do if it did open the gate at Albeni Falls if it did not lower the water above the choke?

Senator SPARKMAN. As I understand, Colonel Gee says they do plan this upstream work to take out that choke.

Mr. WHITE. That is very encouraging to hear that now because in reading the report itself I did not see that. I conducted some investigations myself as chairman of the Irrigation Committee of the House and we discussed the matter fully and they assumed that we wanted to lower the channel itself, which is covered with big boulders and they said it was too expensive.

We pointed out that they would not have to dredge it. Simply widen the channel by taking away the alluvial banks on each side so when the water rolls in it will pass on downstream to the project.

Senator SPARKMAN. I was very much impressed by your statement about the lack of flood control and also that of Senator Miller. It seems to me from what Colonel Gee has said they have been impressed by that fact, too, and have been working to eliminate that.

Mr. WHITE. There are 40,000 acres of water surface in Lake Pend Oreille and it has been a temptation to raise that 40,000-acre level above the normal flow. We could stand that raise in normal flow but if the high water comes in on top of that it is just going to inundate all the land along the river and around the lake just as it did 2 years ago.

If it had not been for the heavy riprap rock protection of the railroad embankment across the lake at Sand Point, 2 miles of their grade and the main line would have been just flattened out when waves and high winds drove the floodwaters against the railroad fill, and they would not have had any transcontinental transportation over that main line for months. Floods did tie up the railroad for 20 days back in 1894.

I want to ask the chairman, if it is not asking too much, to reques; the Army engineers to bring in a regular detailed report with speci

fications on Libby Dam and have this committee include it in the 308 program.

Senator SPARKMAN. As I understand it, it is included in the 308. Mr. WHITE. We have full details on Albeni Falls; but, as to Libby Dam, I would like to ask this committee to request the Army engineers to bring in such a detailed report on Libby Dam and include it in this program, so that the committee can weigh and measure the different projects and give first priority to Libby Dam, just as is suggested by the head of the Federal Power Commission and the Senator and even the Army engineers themselves.

Mr. McWHORTER. Mr. Chairman, do you have just a minute to hear Mr. George Beard, who would like to say a word about the Columbia River Engineering Board established by the International Joint Commission!

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes. We will be glad to hear from him briefly. Our time is getting a little short.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. BEARD

Mr. BEARD. I thought it might be worth while to supplement for the record the remarks of Mr. McWhorter about the International Joint Commission in this picture of the Libby Dam. That Commission several years ago established an engineering board made up of two members from the Federal services of both countries to study these international aspects from an engineering standpoint and report to the Commission.

General Crawford of our office and Mr. Paulson from Interior make up the United States section. I am in it simply as assistant to General Crawford.

On the Libby project the board has been meeting quite intensively over the last several years, and last summer a year ago the board officially adopted the resolution and reported to the Commission that the engineering elements of both Governments felt Libby was an important part of any general plan for the Columbia River.

This year we have been endeavoring to work out the details of the exact height of the dam which would be most advantageous for both countries and are now moving forward into the aspects of determining the data precisely and also getting some data on the benefits and costs and the beneficial and adverse effect in both countries.

I merely wanted to add that so you would realize that the thing is moving rapidly toward settlement of these international issues. Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you. You would like to see, I presume, the comprehensive plan approved?

Mr. BEARD. Yes, indeed.

Senator SPARKMAN. And, of course, if that were made a part of the omnibus bill, that would meet with your approval?

Mr. BEARD. Definitely, yes.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, may I file a statement in connection with my remarks?

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, we would be glad to have it. And Colonel Gee, we would be glad to have any information that the Army engineers might care to give us on either or both of these projects,

particularly in line with the suggestions that Congressman White and Senator Miller have made.

(The supplemental statement of Mr. White and the information requested of the Army engineers are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. COMPTON I. WHITE ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN

I was for 10 years chairman of the irrigation and reclamation committee. I have lived at the town of Clark Fork on the Clark Fork of the Columbia River since the 30th day of July 1890.

This is a map of the Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River. I want to state that I did not come before this committee to make a record. I did not come for the purpose of the record. I came before the committee to bring to them the facts concerning this Albeni Falls project, its effect on Idaho, and the protection of the people along the Clark Fork River, around Pend Oreille, down the Pend Oreille River almost to the Washington line.

I will start my explanation by saying this: Due to seasonal conditions and the tremendous snowfall in the higher mountains, on the drainage of the Clark Fork River, we have been subject in early years to periodical floods. We have had a dry cycle of years. For 20 years none of this country that is now proposed to be inundated has been flooded, until last year, when we had another disastrous flood.

In 1911, the people of Clark Fork and Hope, and the towns that are affected along the lake and along these rivers initiated a movement and organized the Pend Oreille Drainage Association. They did not propose to drain and lower Lake Pend Oreille. They simply wanted to control the flood level so that their farms and towns would not be inundated. They employed engineers to study the physical conditions. And a great many people said loosely, "Go down to Albeni Falls and blow out those rocks and let the lake drain, and you will avoid floods."

We have a very peculiar condition in Lake Pend Oreille. We would have a flood, and the river would come to a stand just above the lake at Clark Fork, but still the lake would continue to fill up and rise. And I am going to tell you a fact from my own personal observation. In the month of June in the year 1894, when we had the worst flood we ever had, I went with a gentleman hunting some horses. The country was not very well settled. But right along the bank of the river, there was a railroad-tie camp, and there were some buildings there. They had been flooded about halfway up. On the door there was a high-water mark. The day we looked at it, it was down about an inch. The river had come to a stand, and started to fall. But down at Hope and Sandpoint on Lake Pend Oreille, the lake rose 21 inches the same day and continued to rise for some time, and it backed up and flooded a great deal of country; indicating very clearly to everybody that there was a bottleneck in the lake and the lake was like a jug that filled up faster than it emptied.

So when we employed this engineer to go down and study the cost of removing the obstruction at Albeni Falls-that is not just a falls, but it is a place where the water runs swiftly between some big rock barriers. They call it a falis It is a natural power site. So this engineer came back after conducting these examinations and reported to the people at Hope and Clark Fork and Sandpoint. and said that the difficulty was not at Albeni Falls, but it was 5 miles up the river at a rapids in main river at the mouth of Priest River; that the rapids 27 Priest River was a choke and a narrows and the river was dead until it reached that point, and then it ran fast. And he said it did not make any difference what happened at Albeni Falls; we would still get our floods and the lake would continue to back up. It was clearly demonstrated in every flood period that the narrows and rapids at Priest River retarded the outflow from the lake.

Then the Army engineers came in with a plan to put a dam at Albeni Falls Let me remind the committee that this will not irrigate a foot of land. It is n for navigation. There is no navigation below that point. It will not do a thing but add some power and maybe firm up some power at the down-river plants That is all that will be accomplished at Albeni Falls.

The reason I am before your committee at this time is to ask this committee, in authorizing these projects on the Clark Fork of the Columbia River, to do t in orderly way, to give us orderly development of the Clark Fork River, and the Columbia and its tributaries. We are spending money in a big way up in the