Considered as a unit in the system, the Albeni Falls project will produce the following estimated annual benefits at 1948 prices:

It may be noted that the above estimates differ from those in Senate Document No. 9, Eighty-first Congress, first session. The above estimates are those given in the "308" report on the Columbia River and are based on the criteria adopted therefor. On the same basis, the estimated construction cost of the Albeni Falls project is $31,070,000, and the annual charges $1,683,000. The ratio of benefits to costs is 2.65 to 1.

The highly favorable economic ratio and the fact that this project would be favorably located where it can be built in a relatively short time gives it added importance in considering a solution for the regional power needs.

OHIO VALLEY BASIN

STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. LITTLE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OHIO VALLEY CONSERVATION AND FLOOD CONTROL CONGRESS

Senator SPARKMAN. Now, we have one other project, the Ohio Valley Basin; Mr. Charles R. Little, secretary of the Ohio Valley Conservation and Flood Control Congress. Mr. Little, we will be glad to hear from you now.

Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.

On behalf of an incremental authorization for the Ohio River Basin comprehensive flood-control plan, it is respectfully cited that the $75,000,000 recommended in H. R. 5472 by the House Public Works Committee is insufficient to meet the precarious situation of the major hazard area in the United States. The amount in the bill would not even meet the current deficit of $75,915,000 in authorizations. In report 969 it is stated, concerning the Ohio Basin :

Present monetary authorizations are not sufficient to permit the completion of all work under way, and there is no backlog of authorization for the initiation of new projects.

If the Congress adheres to the principle of not initiating projects unless covered fully for their ultimate cost by the authorization ceiling, a moratorium apparently is established on further flood-control construction work under the Ohio Basin comprehensive plan. Our people will find this hard to understand unless such action applies to other work in all parts of the Nation.

The Ohio Valley faces prospect of severe limitation even if the past interpretation on valley authorizations remains in effect; that is, considering an over-all authorization is not violated providing the actual approprations do not exceed the authorization-regardless of ultimate total costs of work which virtually imply future commitments.

At this moment there is a margin of $101,000,000 between authorization and appropriation to date. The civil functions bill for fiscal year

1950 will reduce that margin by from $58,000,000 to $70,000,000, depending on the outcome in conference committee. Thus, with only $75,000,000 in new authorization there would be only about $112,000,000 to cover possible appropriations in fiscal year 1951 and 1952assuming no new authorization bill is taken up for another 2 years. It is worthy of comment that the House committee supposedly predicated the authorization bill this year on a 3-year program basis.

Unless then you see fit in the Senate to be more realistic than the House, it would be impossible during the next 2 years to maintain our current rate of appropriation-down already from $71,600,000 in fiscal year 1949-on a volume of work anticipated to stabilize at somewhat a constant level until completion of the entire plan. In fiscal year 1951 it had been hoped that new work ultimately costing about $50,000,000 might be initiated to fill in for completed elements, and a similar amount in fiscal year 1952, but the House recommendation would eliminate such orderly procedure. We ask, therefore, that you favorably consider making the incremental authorization at least $115,000,000 this year.

I am submitting for the record a tabulation of basin plans covered in the House hearings and report, arranged chronologically by year authorized. The percentage column at the right is most significant, showing as it does the Ohio Valley status in relatively poor comparison. This despite our favorable benefit-cost ratio, and the fact that without flood control our annual damage is almost $100,000,000.

I would like to amplify my statement. I am addressing myself in this appearance solely to the matter of a greater incremental authorization for the Ohio Basin plan.

The House committee saw fit to recommend an incremental authorization of $75,000,000 and I wish merely to point out to your committee that that amount is insufficient for our needs. In fact, the House committee itself, in its report, stated:

Present monetary authorizations are not sufficient to permit the completion of all works under way, and there is no backlog of authorization for the initiation of new projects.

The $75,000,000 which they did recommend does not even cover the projects which are under way so therefore there is little prospect for any new work,

If that is the desire of Congress, of course, generally, for the country we certainly will go along with it, but if it is not, we certainly think it would be unfortunate if the continuation of our plan would be hampered in any way by lack of adequate authorization if the committees and the Congress in general saw fit to make the proper appropriations.

I have appended a tabulation to my statement which I think may be of interest to the committee. It is simply information which is contained in the House hearings and report, but set up to give a very clear and concise comparison between the basin projects of the United States.

Senator SPARKMAN. We will be very glad to have it and it will be included in the record.

(The above-described tabulation is as follows:)

Senator SPARKMAN. I notice the House bill does provide for three new projects in the Ohio Basin, $75,000,000 for continuing work and three new projects.

Mr. LITTLE. I am addressing myself solely to the comprehensive plan. The additions are supplemental to the comprehensive plan. Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much.

The committee will stand in adjournment until 2 o'clock this afternoon at which time a California project will be discussed. Senator Downey will preside.

(Thereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p. m.)

AFTER RECESS

(The subcommittee convened at 2 p. m. upon the expiration of the recess.)

Senator DOWNEY. Will the committee please come to order. I know that all the members here are very busy, so we want to proceed immediately to this hearing.

Colonel Gee, do you suppose you should make the first explanation? This matter before the committee this afternoon involves a matter on the Sacramento River?

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. HERBERT C. GEE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Colonel GEE. It does, sir. It involves a modification of the presently authorized project for flood control and other purposes on the Sacramento River.

The modification involved is one of providing temporary flood protection in the vicinity of Butte Basin, pending the completion of the authorized upstream storage for flood control in the headwaters of the Sacramento.

The proposal involves the construction of levees to create a bypass to function in a similar fashion to the Sutter and Yolo bypasses in the vicinity of Sacramento in order that the frequency of flooding of the rich agricultural lands in Butte Basin may be materially reduced and a higher degree of protection afforded these lands pending the completion of the authorized Table Mountain flood-control reservoir. It is estimated that the modification of the presently authorized plan for the Sacramento River suggested would cost the Federal Government $3,500,000 more than the presently authorized plan. In return for that expenditure, this additional flood protection afforded for the agricultural lands involved would more than offset the cost to the United States.

It is reported by the district engineer in Sacramento and by the division engineer in Oakland, Calif., that local interests concur completely in the proposal to make this bypass and to afford this additional flood protection to the Butte Basin area.

This matter has been under discussion in the State for a considerable period of time, and the State interests and those people representing the Corps of Engineers in that area are in agreement as to this plan and the need therefor.

Senator DowNEY. And the amendment to the plan has the approval of the Army engineers?

Colonel GEE. That is correct, sir.

Senator DoWNEY. Do you think there is anything else you should add. Colonel, to this?

Colonel GEE. I think not, sir, except to say this. The plan has not yet advanced sufficiently so that we have information which would indicatee the cost of this proposal to the State, to local interests. We do not know, for example, the value of all the rights-of-way which will be required.

This has been one of the reasons that local interests have not favored the plan for a considerable period of time, because of the expenditure involved in providing flowage easements and rights-of-way for the levees.

It appears now the State is willing to do that, but I do not have before me any figures to indicate what it will cost locally.

Senator DOWNEY. That is an academic question as far as the Federal Government is concerned.

Colonal GEE. Yes, sir. It is an item of information which we are usually able to furnish, however.

Senator DOWNEY. Thank you very much, Colonel Gee. We have here with us John Luther, who is secretary of the Sacramento River Flood Control Association. You are prepared to make a statement on this, are you, Mr. Luther?

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. LUTHER, MANAGER, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEYS FLOOD CONTROL ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

Mr. LUTHER. Yes, I am.

Senator DOWNEY. Do you express the opinion of not only your organization but of the State of California? Or what groups besides your own do you represent?

Mr. LUTHER. Yes. I have evidence here from the State reclamation board and from the property owners affected by the plan favoring the modified authorization which I would like to put in the record.

I have a wire which I received from the State reclamation board which bears somewhat on the previous statement which I would like to read into the record. The reclamation board is the official State agency:

July 13, 1949. To John Luther, Statler Hotel, Washington, D. C. Reclamation board at regular meeting this morning unanimously went on record favoring amendment to approved plan of United States Corps of Engineers for partial reclamation of Butte Basin or for any minor changes therein which might meet the approval of landowners affected.

Shall I proceed?

Senator DowNEY. Yes.

A. M. BARTON,

Chief Engineer and General Manager.

Mr. LUTHER. I am appearing as manager of the California Central Valleys Flood Control Association which organization is composed of the organized reclamation districts, land owners outside of such districts, and the counties of the Sacramento Valley and Delta.

I am appearing in support of modifying the presently authorized Sacramento River project to provide for the initial work of reclamation of Butte Basin, Calif.

Butte Basin is an area lying along the Sacramento River from the Sutter Buttes on the south to Chico Landing on the north, and is situated in Butte, Sutter, Glenn, and Colusa Counties. It is the largest and most important unprotected area to be benefited by any flood-control works in the upper Sacramento River Basin and comprises an area of about 175,000 acres. Provision for its reclamation was recognized by Congress in the 1944 Flood Control Act.

Much of the area is presently dry-farmed due to the inadvisability of leveling and establishing irrigation works because of the frequency of flooding. Much of the remaining area is devoted to the production of rice and about seventy-five percent of the entire rice production of California comes from this area.

The light and medium textured soils lying generally along the river are devoted to alfalfa, irrigated pasture, intensive row crops, field crops, small grains, and orchards. The production of livestock is one of the main uses of this area particularly with respect to sheep and hog With reclamation, a marked change in the agricultural production pattern may be expected on the light and medium textured soils re sulting in a more intensive pattern of cropping.