^9- PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1969 FOR WATER AND POWER RESOURCES DEVaOPMENT AND THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSI0N^^5;?^^y^ SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBEliCy WORKS MICHAEL J. KIRWAN, mS^Jchtdrman JOB L. EVINS. Tennessee JOHMOr^^ODES, Arizona, Sji EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachusetts GLENN KPDAVIS, Wiscon^^U / ^^ij JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi HOWABrf^^s ROBISON, New TorS 4^ // THOMAS G. MORRIS, New Mexico \s.-^^ ^<^/ EuoBNB B. WiLHBLM, B^aff A8»ist ,-4 LD 'C3CS1 cNj csj*:j-r-, ' ir^ 1.--0 'CO coCDr-cDCDCDfo irsi-^— «ctj — « 'ooc •— " CTJcsi^- I 'to 'OOld I r- CO CD r^ CNJ r-- to CO ■ to 'a- <^ r^ ^ ' — Tcsj o trfr-Tro ' ■ co ■ inin < oo o r-Too <=r ooo'csT > .— Tco — ■ cnj --.I CSICSI .11 ilD.— tCOC3 1^^ ^^csi or — < ro 5r— .C5000—- 'CD CUOOCDCSiTJCSCDOOL- J OOCTi ** O O C 5roo r^CTi r )OOC3«3- ^^C — ■ to »-« 4—. ,—<.—■ CM ■)C3 CO tDcMCT>ro oo ■— ' — OO^HC (UCO C CO 3cr> ai to CM to O to CD oo O OO CO oo CO r-. OO 1 m oi CT> if* r^ 55 • CSJ oo — « CM CM ^ COCM « — — f^ •— « CO 00 o^ r- to to CO CO CM to CT> OO o r^ CTi -3- r^ CO -(Ooor-ocDOCD--. _ _ _ -. CD CO r- CD CD to CO to c3 ocDC)r-«c o to f- a> 'a- oo c 5-^tocD-^a^oor oo ""S- ^^ El raO o 1 ,->ro:£a:.5>!=£ -■E i °-- ii "■;; ™ J .— CM CO ^J- lT) to r^ oo cri C3 -— osj ro «* Ln to r-^ CO CTi o — « csi ro 'a- a-) to r^ oo Ol C3 — J^ r2 "5 03 O — POOOOCD -* (3tDOO O OO^^^O C3 OOCD OesJ O LTIOO C3CD r^ 0OC3 O O ^ d.— "OOOOO r lO O O a^ to C^ C3 1 • roio • O —Too'pCcnT^ to rC ro -a-oo^ 1 ^OO CsltT) CDLr>CD<^C)0 O OO^ CD OO O C3 oo o CD CNJ CD ^3- l-O O O O^ to O CD C3 C5 CD OCD Ci CDOCDCZ)r-.OOCDOt: •^ CD O CZ) C3 CD CT> .-* O CD CD O CD J O CD C5 O to-— LTJCJCDO ^CO^ ^^ ■^CDCDC;vi^O H ,^ C3 po *3- ir> 3000 ■ ■jtocsjtO'^^''^oOLncNi^fOi. rcTJOOcsi.— «CT>r-.to— 'COCD-— «c • ^^ LTi CO ^- oo ir> (■ ) ^ -:r CD <^J '-D CO f ) -— CD (T> CM — . r OCM-^ ^^C — CNJOO CM CD C5 CD :^<^<^ P^ OO CD S°0 mcsioo<=>co joocooooiTJcocsj^or^fOtDOO^s-r^'cj-O'^ a-^r-^^T^ ^i-^^CDr^csifor^ro_, L J O^ CM ^— irt O^ ^ij- CT) O CNI O^ L "o tointoirtco r to r*- ro esj csj csj O CO a» oj ^. CO— .^a-*-. C300C3C3(3<30^C>CDO^OOOOa^i—n. ^H CD " •— UO ^^ OCSJ .2-Q j3-a "c *!' — o -^ ■^ o •E 3X1 ro^ ^T3 ■ O - ^,>_. 3 O CO c c.'tQ o o g E e-" - E 5 2 2 ; — ^- ir o - 'a> o --* CNJ CO ^ "^ CO f^ CO cft ^ " ;— o >^ i=— TOO ;5'-g 5 5 ro S.^ : -*-- o TO (/^ o l: c^ C5 to r^ o f " -OCDCDOC3C3C3C CM C^sI.— < ^Hr ^ Ot O"* COiTi csicsj.- cn 00 cj — H oo L i00OC5OOOC3OC3C3C3C5t0C3O (CD^a-LOuncDCDa^ocDOCDCDr^.— " ~ ia>tOii^oo«*r-*^rcoco(ULnc30(0 to cm" CNTf-T .— 'r^-^toroc^-— •.— CDCDCDCJdC5OC;inCDOOCDCDC3OC3C30C\J SCJCDr^CDr^CDCDCDCDCDCDC^CDCDCDCSI >to«3-Ln'«:jTOLr)Lr)^3-cz)LntoLOoocnLr5.— • .— "C3CD— '"^CxOdCDr *P*«.OLr)CO^^^^CSJLOCVJOOO'«:S-OOOr-OOOCOCSI't:J-COtOtDO.— iLD.— • — — "toCJcgai CM^^ ^-^ •— • )— I'^OOOOOCT^LOOO'd'.— 'CT>CSjLOOOCT>r^^H^(Y5rOOtOeMtDtOCNj* 501— '0CTil — t D oo — < oo en" ,-,0OCNJ ,— . iCD^-CTlPOOOOO— «L0 (O^^— «co— cv)coro« ^csiro-^^-CM^a-c^oocvjco— 'OOirjinm* )ooai-^c»(00o — tor-^— .cNjtooi^^f" - >^3-con(T>ocNjcn- C3Ln O'* oo *3" C3O00^S-OOOOOOOC3C3OOOOOC3OOOOOOr-.OOOt0C5C3C>C5OOOOinOO^^O-^ S0^(OC3OirJOOC3OC3tnC3CZ)CSIOt0tD^-CSJ00t0' -coooooooooc ocslU^c^'-^^»|-o^^^^'^tou^e>^u^«a■LOc^cn>-H<^o^^3■oooocn-^Ji;^ >;iZ 2 CD ^ _- O ^ Q -= ^ ."^ O O -^ ^ J3 2 Cr<_;) — 3 ° -C ^ E -C - ; x: O 5 °= ^ 0)0 g-j: I— CO 3 = ■ O) 00 S-w^'g ooo—i^cKooati:!— ooc/oC3ZLijci:«t_iLi.z:^zceooc/50tor^oocno-- — C3 OC3 fnC5 1 to .— . (13 to CO ' J2 E Oi Oi -^ fJ'i ^-< CM «j r- inSSSonSoon csjOoooo-o- u-)_ ^S— • — U3CSJ — U>CVJCO'>3-CMOO oOO«-a;Ln^^ C5r-.csicsjroor^ooc CJOlOOtDCSJ.— HOCDC to oo'trrtrTcsTto' -J"^« C>CJC3Cr)C>C3C3 0--iCDC3CZiOC3tDO0C5CDC3CDC3OC5CDCDC3C5<=»C5a>< OCDOC3C3CDC50tDtDC5CMCDC3r rOC3C)00.— T 3^-C>C?C3CDOCDOC30C JLOOOO'-^CTIOOOOOCZJC ) to •— • to to c ^-^^^^m J CD en 'O o o — * I 01 CO r-. --« --< CM «: ■ oo CNJ ro LD c 1 foof 0-- r.— Tc i-o^-^toj;^-- 'ooLOcn--. » tD tX><— "* C icT>oOr-itDcor-ooeT»Lr)coi- l CT> CvJ -—<.—• CTJ — C > CTJ lO CTl to i-D « r.— csiSoo^^r jro-srtDLntorirtDCD' I- 00 tor- CTi c J tDC3 CT> to tor SSSC3C3iO'OOC3C3CJC 3 O tOOOOOC JC3OC3OCDOCDCDCDCJC3Cr3C3C3SC)C3(ZJ0CD - - - 3 O OO CD O O C3 O C3 O ^ "^^ CDO O C3 r-H r-< *a- a> o r 5incoooo« 5«=j-CT)OO^J-coco<*r^r-^'0<=)— -f . ^H ^^ .— t CO -cr .-< 00 csj »-H r^ to CO CO CM .-< r-< CM oo ^r ro c 11 >C300^LriCDO^^^OO»OOO^O^OOOOOOOCD^O^OOOOOO S-^CXOCSOCDOC > OO CT> to ^S- O^ L 5 00<-CTJ— 'L >OC:>OOOC3CDCDC:>OC3r-.OC .^o^Oli^OL^>c^Jooc -o^ior-^* ^■r^crjC3a>r-ocs) Ss§sSi cvj CNj csj -<* o ^ r-- a-> ■«3- cNj r- csj CO CJ> -— tCNI 00 ■— ' r cr> oo r-- a-) r— ) to <■ •«* ^-< f oooocDroino^oo ■^ CO iTi r- r- CO --■ CD LD CsJ Csl CO OO' LO' .— T CNj' .— ' CsT --** oo CDC3OC3C3C)C3C>iXJCDOC3C3OC30^OC3OOOOC5tZ)OCD<:DOOCDOC5c:DOOOOCDC3 3CJC3ir> — OCDC3000000CDC >ooCTJ (or-^ •— ' — H .— < r-H CO CO ^^ CO CSI iTJ OOOOO tor -coo inu-tp >Otor— -tOtOCTi^' — '^tor w-*"^ t-tcnz 4--'r --« oo cvj r-^ CNj — ^ CO ai to t r- oo co ^-^ ■ )COCT)CslLr>(OC5C jtotO' — 'OO^ro^coc J .— < CNj .— t »-H in to — < c r^ csi .— ' r-t mLOOootO'3-or- CSJCOOOtOfO'J"'— 'LnOOCDtOClOOl — c oor^r^-*^^O^r^oOQOCT>o^co— -'— " CSJCvJ CO ^ ^ro-- r^ CO- ot CSltO 'CNJCO^I^OO oicvj 1 r- to r- ^3- -^ '«=r^3-oc300cotor-.LnooocncNjr^ ■^-. 1 CNI -H ^ ^ ^m cNj csi to^ Tc:>^^ ^^^^ c r^--'*(OooaiOL. :)tOLO-— csir-^H— « OOl^OOCSi^OCDCDOOOCDOOOOOOOOOOCSiOC? OC)r^CDOCDOC3L 3C300CDC)OC300r CSCDOOCDOO'^OOCDCSOCCJCSCSCDOOO^ T C5 oo r^ to ^3- r^ in «!3- en CM csj ^r OO oJ .— « CM •—'CO CO coc ^OOtOC3r-.C3^^CO'e3-OOLnr^^-.CD^HtOtO — ^^^-L ■ toes] —* ■—' c e;<2 > ^ 5.i i- !r, "3 . ce o- jcc ° o L ^^ „, . _ _ „, „, ^ w i, ^ - , j_ jc ^ dj q: § _ 3— :0'«3 = «0 Ci..E ™ — — 03^ o fo-2 ^ C)^Q-tor«-.oocno-^csjco'=3- jirjLOLomtotototoco 5 to r- CO O^CD - i-i- "O •- to *- •o ^-N »- ._ ni o. o OJ E i E "^ o "§ o i "T o -^ (VI ^ ^ .J d; >, o o o o o o ce o E o > (5 c U- i >pCQ LU 5 o o ^ OO-J -" coo ^ coco LLJ o^ -< 0 C30C3OC30OC30OOOO0OC3 Q.a> J2 E C3C3CDOC3CI>OC3C:OU LnC3C3C3CJO rc3a->C30i. r-H C£> '"r r-uDOOosooooooooi-ni-ncDcDr^ojc r-^-^irjOLTJOcvja^cMoo^d-rotooooo^fc itfSr-CsIl — (OCOLOCOI — LOCTltDOOtOcDtO' I r^co ocTr^to'tD"'— '"^csTto Lr)"'--'*oo oo ^csj oo C3C)C5C)C>CDC>C3iOiOC3C)C5C>CDC5'OC3CI>C)C>'OOC3C>0 JOOCDCDC coa^iOtDOa^oo'^rooLOtDLn"' OOCDOOCDC)OCDO>OC30i. 30000 —.to — .,— .c J o CD .-H in csj — . r g E ^ J- 100 C3C f 00 ^ CnT 00* to" O* r— "- 1 '^ Ol '^ CT) •— • *: 3 -"a- to oj r^ --H r S 00 0)01 escort 03 p-^coogLDr-^ C5Lr>CT>^tvjtOO>CD.=rCDO— . CsHOU3-3T^ d 118 218 250 2,273 863 5,915 639 6,372 oa>cT>— .« in— .cnr-. — .0^ 00— .cvjr^>3-orMC\j— .a>— .00 SS — ooS^CT>rOTOOOO— .n 01 ooicg «:T 00 r^ r^ CT> a>ioir>>a-( Sjujoi-o- CSJ ir>oo—.CMu->rocin CO s tor^oo ooo"nrrr coco— .0 SOOOOOCSOOOCDOCDCiCDCDc^CDCJCDOC 3Lr)OC3C3C3CDc5iOC30CDC ito-— <'=rotocDcotOLncDC3'- C5CDCDCDC30C3C3C 5C3C3CDC3CDCDCDC)CXD i-oomtocoootO' r CM r-. CD o to ij -CSJCDOCDOOCD.— i*! S I ^ "a -o o "o -^ o :e5 ,50 5 - - 00 2* 00 -a S,cc -O OX3 !E:i^ "?™-£E r^-S-oEO .E •m „, cE = rro ^ ^ — -= ■•= i^k(^QQo£o 1 o^i J - ^ ..:£ q:; ^ _o c -o ji: .. J! -p ^ -=^ ; ?: ■=- .<= "to r^ 00 o> CD -^ c ") t£> P-- 00 CTJ <3 — . C 13 en "a- uD ro -^ I. CD tOCNlCD I C3 oinino C3 oito r-r^ CD LT) to I I C3 ^H,— ^-H rcDCDOCDCDLn^io J CJDCO OO O CZ> Hin p^ CO oi CO en »=r ^^fo LO cnr-^oo r-T oocd"oo" to iDr-^ .-H 0C3r a> ocNjCNj 3 LTi o lo C) CD o Lr> ro ^ oo > CO tr> OO C3 Ln C3 .— • O CDOO J to OO (O CO r- CI »— • ro unco ' tD to I CTJ a> j£ ;i^ .^ .5 Q .E 2 --^ .. u.-'S si's S ■ * OJ j3 i2 j3 . o :;::>> oS ±: m '^ u. oj J= (=>■- o = 2 "*"■ ^ -| 5 o "■§ £ ?• S £ ) en J£ — . 5 — < oj o O 1 OO— ^ •§.9-^-S o-gi OJ W) CL OJ CL O^ O Q.^ -—J 03 ^ "5 ^ --CO* = -°-^ "ScoS^^ 0.0 X 14 — . C3 CO CD r-. r-^ — ■ C5 O C3 O C3 ^ CNi OCDtDOOCSCD ID in C5 lT) O OO r^ «d- O to r-. CNj in cNj^^^^ tooo mm lo cooo T ' r-. CNj (£> CO o^ r- L — cc^c :nC3 ^- C5 -"a- ' 4 ^-t CT) c^cocg o to r^^^ L C3 ,^ .-^ f ^^ CD *:? a> CD r — oc o CT» P-. (^ ro oo ^^ -^ tOOCTiOOu ^^ '«^ g43 a_ c o — ci_ Q_ ^ ■J3 o «i ai re o Selected resources as of June 30 are as follows: 1966 1967 1968 1969 Stores $30 $30 $30 $30 Unpaid undelivered orders 762 514 600 600 Total selected resources 792 544 630 630 19 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries object classification [In thousands of dollars] 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Personnel compensation: 11.1 Permanent positions _ 11.3 Posi.ions other than permanent. 11. 5 Other personnel compensation Total personnel compensation. 12. Personnel benefits 21. Travel and transport ion of persons _ 22. Transportation of things 23. Rent, communications, and utilities 24.0 Printing and reproduction.. 25. 1 Other services 25. 2 Services of other agencies. 25. 3 Paymets to "Revolving fund, Corps of Engineers— Civil"... 26.0 Supplies and materials 31. Equipment... 32. Lands and structures... 42.0 Insurance claims and indemnities Subtotal 95. Quarters and subsistence charges 99.0 Total obligations 85,204 83,827 74,600 PERSONNEL SUMMARY Total number of permanent positions Full-time equivalent of other positions Average number of all employees Average GS grade Average GS salary Average salary of ungraded positions Average salary of grades established by Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702h)... $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 3, 093 3,413 3,112 531 568 340 580 301 475 3,925 4,321 4,167 263 283 258 509 700 700 128 65 75 70 80 5 .... 10,000 75 14,519 7,500 292 200 40 26,339 31,402 27,377 7,057 6,500 6,000 321 275 300 32,667 30, 000 28, 000 117 ... 111 86,207 83,831 74,603 -3 -4 -3 590 600 603 116 126 153 640 675 575 8.2 8.2 8.2 $8,982 $9,480 $9,515 $6, 767 $6,912 $6, 960 20 Issi 5C30 OC3CiOO J CD ^T O O O CD O CD CD CD (T ~ JUD tDCJCDL o n^ ni (D m F — o to CD ■^ r-- oo c - to ^^ o-> r- — I f ^^-^LOLncj t JOOOOCS-^ CDCDCDCDCDOCDtOOCD CDC3CDCDCDCDOC5CZ)CD g So o oo — 'Ccvj oo ro ir> csj r^ o oo n — • — 2io CT) tsj r^ CO Ln on IT) oo '"— ■— cNi ^ oo a> Ln o o Lo — . .«x)C3co*?*oooicr)c > m -^ I — cs) in C3 1^ 30> CO to oi csi o^ r-^ CT> f^ i-O intDtD(V5— iCStOtDOO -^cotDio roco^r 00CDCD00C500 oo^a-or^tc^cDoi irTo"— M rCpo ro ofoo' r-oor^m— 'CTirocvj'— < ^ f^O) to C o a> S — a> g ro «a- 22 General Expenses object classification (in thousands of dollars) 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Personnel compensation: 11.1 Permanent positions 13,951 15,237 16,472 11.3 Positions other than permanent 113 93 67 11.5 Other personnel compensation 59 68 66 11.7 Pay to commissioned officers 458 527 579 Total personnel compensation 12.0 Personnel benefits, civilian personnel 12. 1 Personnel benefits, military personnel 21. Travel and transportation of persons 22. Transportation of things 23. Rent, communications, and utilities 24.0 Printing and reproduction 25. 1 Other services 25. 2 Services ot other agencies 25. 3 Payments to "Revolving fund, Corps of Engineers— Civil".. 26.0 Supplies and materials 31. Equipment 99.0 Total obligations 17,989 19,515 21,200 14,581 15,925 17,184 1,103 1,303 1,341 68 89 89 457 700 725 63 60 80 226 250 270 48 90 95 444 350 575 132 150 150 675 413 481 129 120 150 64 65 60 PERSONNEL SUMMARY Total number of permanent positions 1,333 1,396 1,441 Full-time equivalent of other positions 14 11 9 Average number of all employees 1,251 1,322 1,391 Average GS grade 8.2 8.2 8.2 Average GS salary $8,982 $9,480 $9,515 Average salary of ungraded positions $6,767 $6,912 $6,960 PROGRAM AND FINANCING [In thousands of dollars] 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Program bv activities: 1. Executive direction and management: (a) Office, Chief of Engineers: Executive direction and management Special studies (b) Division Offices 2. River and Harbor Board 3. Coastal Engineering Research Center 4. Commercial statistics 5. Special investigations.. Total program costs, funded. Change in selected resources' 10 Total obligations Financing: 25 Unobligated balance lapsing New obligational authority.. New obligational authority: 40 Appropriation.. 44 Proposed supplemental for civilian pay act increases.. Proposed supplemental for military pay act increases. Relation of oblisa'ions to expenditures: 71 Total obligations (affecting expenditures) 72 Obligated balance, start of year 74 Obligated balance, end of year 77 Adjustments in expired accounts 90 Expenditures excluding pay increase supplemental... 91 Expenditures from civilian pay act supplemental Expenditures fiom military pay act supplemental. Expenditures are distributed as follows: 01 Out of current authorizations.. 02 Out of prior authorizations 6,326 6,950 74 10,131 876 223 1,106 198 7,681 52 75 9, 356 10, 892 798 938 208 981 223 1,138 193 261 17,914 19, 558 -43 21,208 75 -8 17,989 25 ... 19,515 21,200 18,014 18,014 19,515 18,950 546 .... 19 .... 21,200 21,200 17,989 1,409 -1,454 -23 19,515 1,454 -1,544 21.200 1,544 -1,544 17,922 18,900 508 17 18,000 1,425 21,160 38 2 16, 539 1,383 20, 000 1,200 'Selected resources as of June 30 are as follows: Unpaid undelivered orders: 1966, $147,000 (1966 adjustments, -$23,000); 1957, $199,000; 1968, $156,000; 1969, $148,000. 23 Mr. KiRWAN. This moriiing; we beg-in the he;irin<^s on th.e l)ii{!u-et of the Corps of Engmeers for the fiscal year 19G0. I am ^lad to see all of us around the table here again. With tlie very serious budgetary situation prevailing, we have a very difficult year ahead of us. I know this subcommittee Avill continue to work in har- mony as it has in the past to achieve a sound and well-balanced a]:)pro- priation bill for urgently needed water resources development as is possible within the limited funds available. General Cassidy, we will be glad to hear your general statement. Gexeral Statement General Cassidy. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on my right is Brig. Gen. Hariy Woodbury, the Director of Civil Works. On my left is Mr. Harry Cohen, Chief of the Programs Division of Civil Works. In the room are other members of the civil works staff. It is a privilege to appear before you today in support of the fiscal year 1969 appropriation request for civil works. The total fiscal year 1969 budget recjuest for the Department of Army civil functions activities is a minimum request to maintain lim- ited progress in tlie water resources development of our Nation con- sistent with the stringent budgetary situation. As the President stated in his budget message, he had many difficult choices to make in prepar- ing his budget recommendaitions to Congress. Among those choices was a slowmg down of the pace of water resources development in the short term while preserving the option of increasing the pace in the long tenn. So this budget is less than that required to meet the con- struction schedides presented to this committee with the fiscal year 1968 budget request. Most of the reduction to meet the budget restric- tions has been taken in the construction program where the greatest ])roportion of expenditures lies. Tlie general investigations and advance engineering and design programs are continued at a level somewhat above fiscal year 1968 and thus ]3reserve the best possible capability to respond to the Nation's post- Vietnam demands and opportunities. We are convinced of the tremendous benefits attendant with this water resource program — and we ask that you appropriate the full amount of the request. The current status of development of the natural resources in this country can best be appreciated by weighing what has l^een accom- plished against our cuiTent and future needs. But first it seems appro- priate to recall that the Nation's water resource investment program is a true and tested partnership of Federal, State and local governments working as a team w^ith the private sector to enhance the economic growth of our country. With a proportionately small public invest- ment, there have been induced tremendous investments in the private sector. Statistics compiled by the American Waterways Operators for example reveal that, since 1952, about $131.5 billion has been invested in industrial production facilities at water-oriented sites. Comparably, the Nation's total capital investment in all navigation work to date — for harbors, inland waterways and the navigation share of multiple- purpose developments — is less than $5 billion. This represents an investment ratio of more than 26 to 1, and the result has been more jobs for m.ore people while reducing the cost of goods and services 24 to the consumers. It is a program in our Nation's welfare where the direct benefits exceed the direct costs and where the indirect benefits from the public/private investment multiply the economic values many times. May I summarize briefly where we are today. * * * This 140-year-old program has created a system of harbors and inland waterways that is vital to the economic transportation of bulk comanodities. Over 1.3 billion tons of commodities were moved in and out of the Nation's harbors and waterways in 1966. The Great Lakes and inland waterways transported a total of 281 billion ton- miles of commerce during that year and private industry continued its investment in harbors, ports and industrial developments along these watercourses. * * * Thousands of miles of levees and channel improvements, to- gether with reservoir flood storage capacity of 89 million acre-feet, have given flood protection to hundreds of urban centei-s and millions of acres of urban, commercial and agricultural lands. The Federal flood control investment of $5 billion has saved an estimated $15.8 billion in damages to date. To cite a recent example, during the June 1967 flood in the Missouri River Basin, our projects prevented over $500 million in dii^ct damages along the main stem alone. * * * We have installed more than 9.5 million kilowatts of liydro- electric generating capacity and 11.5 million more kilowatts of capac- ity are authorized, most of which is to be installed at projects now underway. Tliis low-cost power permits more efficient use of thermal plants, public and private, and results in savings in the electric bills of consumers in the service areas. In fiscal year 1967, the gross power revenues from these projects amounted to $91 million. * * * About 100 miles of our shorelines have been protected or pre- served from destnictive erosion. That sounds like a sizable amount, but it is only a start when you realize that about 33,000 miles of our Nation's coastline have problems and values which require investiga- tion and possibly protection. * Multiple-use reservoirs already in operation contain OA-er 11 million acre-feet of storage which is being utilized for municipal, in- dustrial and agricultural water supply, and for the improvement of stream quality. A considerable additional volume of storage is avail- able for tlie future as Avater demand for these purposes grows. At the '230 reservoirs that have been constructed, there are swim- ming, camping, picnicking, boating, fishing and hunting facilities which were enjoyed last year to the extent of more than 200 million visits — and many millions more hunted, fished and cruised on the in- land waterways and enjoyed the natural environments that have been ])roserved at these projects. The country can be proud of what has been done — but not satis- fied. ]Much remains to be done. Tlie broad outline of the task was presented to Congress and the Nation in the reports of the Senate Select Committee" on National Water Resources in 1960. That com- mittee gave us no cause for complacency. We are now participating, within the Water Resources Council, with the other Federal Tvater agencies, in making a new assessment of our national water situa- tion. Tliis first national assessment by the Water Council will be but a first cut at trving to identifv our Nation's long-term water needs 25 using readily available existing information. When the comprehen- s]\e framework water plans have been completed for each of our 18 water regions, we will be able to make a much more accurate assess- ment. But one thing is sure : we need to move ahead as vigorously and as rapidly as the budgetary situation permits if we are to discharge faithfully our responsibility as stewards of the Nation's water and fulfill our obligation to make provision today for the essential water needs of tomorrow. The corps is increasingly experiencing the challenges which attend the growing awareness, by greater segments of the society, of the im- portance of deciding today the uses we will want to make tomorrow of our water. These uses are not always fully compatible, and it be- comes imperative to seek compatibility in a rational, objective, co- operative manner. This the corps has been doing. We liave underway, in cooperation with the Federal Water Pol- lution Control Administration, a pilot study of Great Lakes harbors. The purpose of the study is to define the water quality problems as- sociated with harbor maintenance and to determine what controls should be exercised or what modifications made in our dredge dis- posal operations to reduce any adverse long-term or significant sliort- term eilects on the quality of this great national resource — the Great Lakes. The study is progressing well and I expect to have recom- mendations to present to this committee next year, based upon the results of the study. The Secretaries of the Army and Literior this past summer signed an agreement by which the many bureaus of the Interior Depart- ment, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, have a better opportunity for coordination and cooperation with the corps in reviewing applica- tions for dredging, filling, excavation ancl other related work in navigable waters of the United States. The added selected review by these agencies permits full consideration of the Interior Depart- ment's views in the fields of pollution control and fish and wildlife protection and preservation in the process of making determinations in the public interest. In connection with the central and southern Florida project, under a pUm jointly developed by the corps, the State and the National Park Service and concurred in by the Congress, we have modified some canals and ])umping schedules to force a greater volume of water to flow to the Everglades National Park. We also are nearing completion of a study, in cooperation with the State and the National Park Service, to modify the present authorized project to improve the conservation, supply and distribution of water to meet the ecological water demands of the Everglades Park and the future municipal and agricultural demands of soutliern Florida. I am pleased to report to you that we are all in general accord with the indicated results of that study. Each of these instances demonstrates that progress can be made in the wise control and equitable use of our resources where the will to do it is present and those having a legitimate interest in a rational solu- tion are prepared to plan cooperatively in arriving at mutually ac- ceptable solutions. With regard to the budget request, its total of $1,264,100,000 is about $42.3 million less than the appropriation for fiscal year 1968. The 26 19G9 work program includes the use of the 1068 budgetary reserve of $G7 million. As you know, placing these fiscal year 1968 funds in l)udg- etary reserve was necessary to meet the objectives of Congress and the administration as called for by House Joint Resolution 888 of the last session of Congress, which was enacted as Public Law 90-218. Our 1969 request for general investigations represents an increase of $2.6 million over the 1968 appropriations. We are proposing to fund tlie comprehensive survey program at a rate which has been coordinated with the other Federal agencies and which is commensurate with its importance to the fu.ture development of our resources. There also should be no slackening of investigations to identify those problems for which our general survey jn-ogram will propose solutions for the future. "We are requesting $6 million to pursue the flood plain manage- ment services program. This approach to reducing the Xat ion's flood losses must be pursued with vigor if we are to reduce the mounting economic losses and personal hardships associated with flood damage. AVe cannot rely on structural measures alone to do the job — in many cases the measures needed could not be economically justified — yet the ):)otential for sustained damages are very real and very large and must be reduced. Flood plain management by the States and local agencies, flood proofing b}- owners, and similar measures can do much to reduce flood losses. Our research and development request reflects moderate increases for coastal engineering research and for our broad range of civil works investigations. It also provides for our first major participation in the Internal iomil Ilydrological Decade, a Avorldwide eftort of about 100 countries to advance the knowledge of water and to disseminate that knowledge to permit participating countries to cope more efl^ectively with their water problems. The corps' principal participation for fiscal year 1969 will be to initiate the U.S. portion of a joint Canadian- United States study of the hydrology of Lake Ontario, which would have application to the water problems of the other Great Lakes, other laro-e lakes of the world, and even to the oceans. Our construction, general request for $904 million in new ap])ropria- tions, together with the amount in budgetary reserve, will permit continuing our going construction program at a reduced rate. Xo continuing contracts will be canceled and associated new contracts will be awarded. These are contracts whicli are essential to prevent disruption of existing contracts and to accomplish such other woi-k which is necessar\' to prevent future ]n-oblems, such as reaching the closure stage on a dam prior to completion of relocations or clearing. Within the total of $904 million, $7.2 million is being requested to initiate construction or land acquisition at 10 high priority projects, with a total Federal cost of $119 million. Forty-two projects with a cost of $463 million are funded for completion. A total of $20.4 million is requested to continue preconstruction planning on more than TO projects and to initiate planning on 18 others. The cumulative eff'ect of the large slippage reduction applied to the a]3propriations in 1968, the budgetary reserve for that year, and the 1969 appropriation request have i-esu1ted in extending schedules for a substantial part of the program. Where local cooperation delays or unforeseen construction and planning delays were encountered on a project, full advantage was taken of this to lessen the effect on the schedules of other projects. 27 The reqiiest for the operation and maintenance, general, appropria- tion is for $223.7 million. This amonnt will provide for maintainino- the investment the country has made in water control projects, and in its harbors and waterways. Without adequate maintenance, we run the risk of seriously decreased utility and rapid deterioration of the capital investments. The request reflects increases for operation and maintenance of recently completed projects, and to meet classified and wage board salary increases. We are asking for $5 million to replenish our flood control and coastal emergencies fund. The request for the Mississippi River and tributaries appropriation is $69.6 million, including almost $27.6 million for maintenance and operation of project structures and facilities. Funds placed in budg- etary reserve from the appro^^riation for the current fiscal year, amounting to $5 million, will be applied to the 1969 program. One final subject — people. I am vitally concerned with keeping our administrative and management costs low and I scrutinize carefully our periodic cost and performance reports to insure that all elements of the corps are conforming to my cost control objectives. These cost objectives are set in recognition of the essential need for safe, quality construction and of the fact that when a program grows in volume or in complexity, more people are needed. We have a serious shortage of qualified personnel developing and for the past 2 years I have had to request an increase in my personnel ceilings. The seriousness of our personnel shortage is being accented as our long-term experienced employees, who joined us in the thirties, retire. Our manpower needs are under constant review to keep them to the minimum. At present I have underway a corpswide organizational and manpower study to see what changes might be made in current operations and procedures to lessen the requirements for more people associated with the need for ever-greater coordination, new water legislation, the growing need to consider more alternatives in more detail, and growing public interest in America's water future. The results of this current study will be reflected in future budget requirements. In the meantime, 1 have an urgent need for a few particularly critical people. Our request for $21.2 million for general expenses reflects increases occasioned by the higher salary rates of all employees and the increase necessary for 52 additional spaces, an increase of 3.7 percent. The 52 additional people are to be used : 31 in field planning positions, 10 in field technical engineering and 11 in my office. Six of the 11 are to improve the formulation of our nationwide plans and better evaluate alternative means of meeting objectives. Four of the remaining positions are for Policy and Analvsis Division and one is for the General Counsel's Office. This concludes my statement. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. The division engineers will present the detailed information on the programs in their areas of responsibility. General Woodbury, his staff, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Mr. KiRWAx. Thank you for a very good statement, General. EFFECTS OF STRETCHOUT OX COXSTRUCTIOX PR0GRA]M As you indicated in your statement on page 6, $67 million of the current year funds were placed in budgetary reserve and will be 28 capplied to the requirements for next fiscal year. Will you please out- line for us in some detail the nature, extent, and possible effects of the stretchout in the construction program, the benefits that would be lost, and the increases in tlie costs of projects. General Cassidy. The President in his fiscal year 1969 budget mes- sage to the Congress stated that in order to reduce the impact of Fed- eral construction activities on the economy, he was recommending tliat ongoing water resource projects be continued at minimum rates. This together with actions taken in the last fiscal year has necessitated a reevaluation of corps progress schedules and anticipated completion dates. The corps budget request for fiscal year 1969 contains funds to con- tinue construction of 193 projects for which estimated completion dates were presented to the Congress in the fiscal year 1968 hearinjrs. Of that number, 71 projects have had their completion dates extended for varj'ing periods of time up to 18 months because of funding restric- tions in fiscal years 1968 and 1969. Another 60 projects were delayed for reasons other than funding, such as construction difficulties, niid delay's in getting rights-of-way or in preparing plans. The remaining 62 projects generally were either scheduled for completion, were too far committed financially, or the monetary reductions possible were not significant compared to the project effects. Benefits from the various purposes of flood control, navigation, water supply, water quality control, general and fish and wildlife recreation will be lost for the period of delay in project completion. From a strictly mathematical point of view, applying the time exten- sion to average annual benefits, the loss in benefits due to delays in funding Avould amount to approximately $200 million. This loss, of course, is conjectural since it would depend on the type of project and whether there were floods or droughts, actual use of water supply and water quality control storage as well as general and fish and wildlife recreation during the period of delay for each individual pi-oject con- cerned. In addition, the delay of power on line at 12 multiple-purpose ]n-oiects results in a loss estimated at $52 million in power benefits. The extent of increases in project construction costs cannot be pre- dicted. However, if construction costs continue the upward trend, consistent with the rise of the past 2 years, increases in contract cost? could amount to 5 percent for each year of delay in award of a contract. Another cause of increased project costs attendant with a prolonaed construction period would be in the supervision and administration costs. While the impact of a stretchout of construction scliedules will be minimized by staffing field offices with fewer people, some increases in ovei'head cost features cannot be avoided. DEFERRAL OF 1008 COXSTRUCTTOX STARTS Mr. KiRWAx. Of the 34 new construction starts approved by Con- gress for the current yeai", 22 lune been postponed to the next fiscal vear. What criteria were used in determining the new starts that would 1 )e deferred under the stretchou t pi-ogra m ? General Cassidy. Mr. Chairman, of tlie 22 new construction ])rojects for 1968 postponed to next year, six ])rojocts have slip))ed into fiscal year 1969 for reasons other than the budgetary situation and this was taken into consideration. In order to reduce the expenditures in fiscal 29 yeav 1968 and to keep within tlie budget constraints for fiscal year 1969, the initiation of pi'ojects was distributed over the 2-year period fiscal yeai-s 1968 and 1969. This was done in such a manner as to efl'ect the least delay possible and still reduce 1968 and 1969 requirements. No i^roject was postponed for more than 5 months from the latest scheduled starting date at the time of preparing the 1909 budget. SUMMARY or NEW AND DEFERRED PROJECTS STARTS Mr. KIRw^\N. Please provide for the record a statement showing the name and cost of the new^ projects to be undertaken this fiscal year, the projects deferred to fiscal year 1969, indicating the date it is planned to initiate construction, and a listing of the seven new con- struction starts and the three new land acquisition starts proposed in the 1969 budget. (The information follows:) Fiscal year 1968 neic starts Total estimated To be undertaken in fiscal year 1968 : Federal cost Perdido Pass. Ala .$675,000 Gulf County Canal, Fla 477, 000 Ponee de Leon Inlet, Fla 1, 200, 000 Cape Fear River above Wilmington, N.C 1. 000. 000 Chartiers Creek, Pa !•",, .300, 000 Lock and dam T)2, Kentucky and Illinois 8, 2~)0. 000 Overton-Red River Waterway. La. (lower 31 miles) 11, 100, 000 Evanston, 111. (reimb.) 401.000 Gregory Drainage District, Missouri 1, 600, 000 Tillage Creek. White River, and Mayberry Levee District. Arkansas 1, 091 . 000 Klamath River, Calif 3,410,000 Honokahau Harbor, Hawaii 764,000 Total 4.5, 868, 000 Deferred to fiscal year 1969 Date of initiation Total estimated of construction Federal cost Provincetown Harbor, Mass -. July 1968 $2,790,000 Weymoutfi Fore and Town Rivers, Mass.. September 1968 14,900,000 Newark Bay, Hackensack, and Passaic Rivers, N.J July 1968.. 15,760,000 New York Harbor anchorages. New York September 1968 45,700,000 South Ellenville, N.Y - -.. March 1969 1.330,000 Bennington, Vt - - - August 1968 i 415,000 Jacksonville Harbor, Fla -.. ...do 8,800,000 Treasure Island (Pinellas County), Fla... October 1968... 760,000 Savannah Harbor (sediment basin), Ga August 1968 7,430,000 Biloxi Harbor, Miss. October 1968 753,000 Island Levee, Ind November 1968 1,540,000 Athens, Ohio July 1968.... 5,130,000 Marshalltown, Iowa... November 1968. 2,900,000 Point Lookout Harbor, AuGres River, Mich December 1968 1,620,000 Mankato and North Mankato, Minn.. do 8,550,000 Cow Creek, Hutchinson, Kans January 1969.. 1,800,000 Las Cruces, N. Mex.... -- September 1968 3,960,000 GIWW, Chocolate Bayou, Tex July 1968 1,400,000 Chetco River, Greg October 1968 1,420,000 Siuslaw River and Bar, Oreg .-- August 1968. 813,000 Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oreg .-- September 1968 9,700,000 Pinal Creek, Ariz... Q) 2,700,000 Total - ---- -- 5140,171,000 1 No funds included for project in fiscal year 1969; will complete with funds carried over from fiscal year 1968. 3 Not able to start; no local cooperation at this time. 'The 1969 budget includes a total of $17,746,000 to initiate construction of deferred 1968 new starts. 30 NEW STARTS FISCAL YEAR 1969 Total Allocations Approved estimated through budget, Balance to Federal 1968 fiscal year complete cost 1969 New start construction projects: Winslow Ariz $3,570,000 5270,000 $500,000 $2,800,000 New Don Pedro Reservoir, Calif 5.780,000 95,000 1,000,000 4,585.000 Derby Conn 3,570,000 310,000 500,000 2,760,000 Rock Island lli 5,250.000 250.000 300,000 4,700,003 Elizabeth River N J 11.400.000 500.000 300.000 10,600,000 John Day River, Oreg 663,000 93,000 570.000 Highland Bayou, Tex.. 4,000,000 245,000 500,000 ,3,255,000 Subtotal, construction new starts (17 projects) 34, 233. 000 1, 763, 000 3, 670, 000 28, 800, 000 New starts land acquisition only: Clinton Reservoir, Kans 35,300.000 1,545,000 1,000,000 32,755,000 Blue Marsh Reservoir, Pa 22,000,000 917,000 1,650,000 19,433,000 Waurika Reservoir, Okla.. - 27,300,000 450,000 900,000 25,950,000 Subtotal, land acq'jisition new starts (3projects) 84,600,000 2,912,000 3,550,000 78,138,000 Grand total (10 projects) 118,833,000 4,675,000 7,220,000 106,938,000 COMPARISOX OF TOTAL COSTS OF J^W COXSTRUCTIOX STARTS AXD AVER^^GE COSTS OVER LAST 5 YEARS Mr. KiRWAN. How does the total cost of the new starts now phanned for fiscal year 1060 compare with the average of the cost of new starts over the last 5 years? General Cassidy. For the last 5 years the new starts have averaged about Si billion a j-ear in the total cost of the projects started at that time. For the last '2 years this has dropped down to somewhat nndei $200 million. CRITERLV USED IX SELECTIOX OF NEW STARTS Mr. KiRWAX". "What criteria were followed in selection of the new starts for fiscal year 1960 ? General Cassidy. For new construction starts we considered wide oeographical iiational distribution, the amount of support by local interests and the assurance of whether or not local cooperation would be forthcoming. Then we added whether or not the preconstniction planning would be completed with the allocations through fiscal year 1068 and we Avere forced to consider the magnitude of the future as well as thp pi-esent appropriation re(|uirements. All of the projects selected were for urban flood protection. Only local protection projects and a reimbursement project are for construction; the reservoirs are proposed for land acquisition only, CRITKRTA USED IX SELECTIOX" OF rL.\XXIXG STARTS Mr. KiRWAX. The budget also includes 18 new plainiing starts for fiscal year 1060. "What criteria Avere followcHl in selecting those new planning starts? General Cassidy. In the criteria for new planning starts we con- sidei-ed a broad geographical distribution around the United States, whether or not projects were supported by the local interests and whether or not there was reasonable assurance that the requirements for local cooperation would be met. The projects selected Avcre those 31 ^^hich would be considered for construction in the next few years based on fulfilling the needs of the Nation. COMPARISON OF COSTS OF NEW PLANNING STARTS AND AVERAGE COST OVER LAST 5 YEARS Mr. KiRWAN. The total costs of these new planning starts is about $250 million. How does this compare with the average total cost of the new planning starts over the last 5 years ? General Cassidy. The planning starts over the last 5 years have averaged about $1 billion each year. Mr. KiRWAN. Please provide for the record a listing of the new planning starts and resumptions for fiscal year 1969. (The information follows:) FISCAL YEAR 1969-NEW PLANNING AND RESUMPTIONS Project Total estimated Appropriation re- Federal cost quest, fiscal year 1969 Bradley Lake, Alaska _. $66,400,000 $50,000 Little Rock Levee, Arkansas 388,000 31,000 Pajaro River, Calif .._ 14,100,000 200,000 San Diego River, Mission Valley, Calif.. _._ 16,600.000 300,000 Sonoma Creek, Calif _ _ 10,900,000 100,000 EastSt. Louis, III _ 7,920,000 50,000 Onaga Reservoir, Kans.... 27,500,000 100,000 Dayton, Ky _. 3,260,000 80,000 Vermilion lock replacement, G.I.W.W., Louisiana 5,740,000 25,000 Baker Brook, Mass.... 815,000 90,000 Nookagee Reservoir, Mass 6,380,000 70,000 Clayton Reservoir, Okia 15,900,000 100,000 Catfierine Creek Reservoir, Oreg 8,930,000 100,000 Tyrone, Pa. (resumption) 13,100,000 75,000 Belton Reservoir, Tex. (raise water level) 1,930,000 85,000 Duck Creek Channel improvement, Trinity River and tributaries, Texas 4,540.000 30,000 Gaysville Reservoir, Vt 25,000,000 100,000 West Fork Lake, W. Va 20,100,000 150,000 Total (18) 249,603,000 1,736,000 TREND IN THE CORPS CONSTRUCTION PIPELINE Mr. KiRWAN. Your statement indicates that 42 projects, with a total cost of $463 million will be completed with the funds included in the 1969 budget. As we look ahead over the next 5 years, and assuming we continue with a very limited number of low-cost new construction starts or no new starts, what will be the trend in the corps' construction pipeline ? General Cassidy. I would expect from projections we have made, that at the end of 5 years, assuming no new starts, the level of appro- priations would drop to about $250 million. NUMBER OF PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Mr. KiRWAN. Wliat is the total number of projects now under con- struction by the corps and what will be required to complete after fiscal year 1969 ? Please insert a statement summarizing the status of projects under construction. General Cassidy. Yes, sir. (The information follows :) 91-159 — 68 — pt. 1 3 32 CIVIL WORKS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1S69 BUDGET [Dollar amounts in thousands] Number of projects Estimated Federal cost Allocations to date Budgeted fiscal year 1969 Balance to complete 249 10 •$10,608,868 118.833 $5,307,463 4,675 $961,826 7,220 $4,339,579 106,938 259 1 10.727,701 2,481,096 5,312,138 1,540,258 969, 046 40, 840 4.446,517 899,998 1. Construction, general: (a) Projects under construction, and budgeted in fiscal year 1969 for contmuation of work (b) Construction and land acquisition, new starts, budgeted for fiscal year 1969. _ Total, construction, general 2. Mississippi River and tributaries Total, construction, general and Missis- sippi River and tributaries 260 13,208,797 6,852,396 1,009,886 5,346,515 BACKLOG or AUTHORIZED PROJECTS Mr. KiRWAx, I think we should note, and this concerns me, that the corps presently has a backlog of 381 authorized, active projects not yet under construction with an estimated total cost of $7.3 billion. Plan- ning has not yet even been initiated on 150 of these projects. Please provide for the record a statement giving a breakdown of the status of this backlog. General Cassidy. We will provide that for the record, sir. (The information follows :) 33 r-.o— ^co ^^ oooo 0C300 Q..5 oooo -oiB oooo oooo OCD c:>C3 o'crTCTir^* OOOCD OO CSC3 oooo CO IT) ^OO' Cvir^ T^ — ■5.5s -2 S e2 « .S£ o L. Q. — j3 ^O •O — "m ® £= S-o ■S 5.S2 = ■Do = * = — >^f^ ^^ .2 m" M§ £ S c CSI to Q) » Q. O-O-ZQ. ^ Csi oS ^ cro Q." ^■^.ho 00 5 ctT'-^ o — v — I U. ( 34 SURVEY BACKLOG Mr. KiRAVAN. Also, please include a breakdown of the study program, indicating the status of the funding backlog. General Cassidy. We will provide it for the record, sir. (The information follows :) SURVEY BACKLOG [Dollar amounts In thousands] Estimated Allocations Bahnce Number Federal cost through to complete fiscal year 1968 35 1 $13,445.0 25,434.6 .. $8.5 113 523 5 217 25,434.6 252 1 38, 879. 6 8.5 '38 958 1 2 293 170 2 133, 876. 5 25,958.5 2 60.524.7 10,497.3 2 73,351.8 15,461.2 463 159,835.0 71,022.0 88,813.0 328 387 1147,321.5 51, 393. 1 60, 533. 2 10, 497. 3 1 86, 875. 3 40, 895. 8 1. studies not started: (a) Budgeted in fiscal year 1969 (b) Not budgeted in fiscal year 1969 Total. ._ 2. Continuing studies: (a) Budgeted in fiscal year 1969 (b) Not budgeted in fiscal year 1969 Total Total budgeted in fiscal year 1969-- Total not budgeted in fiscal year 1969 Grand total, authorized studies 715 1198,714.6 71,030.5 '127,771.1 ' Excludes cost estimates for 2 studies. = Includes 66 surveys to be completed with funds requested in fiscal year 1359 having an estimated Federal cost of $14,797 with allocations through fiscal year 1958 of $12,423 and a balance to complete of $2,374. Note: The fiscal year 1969 budget allowance totals $19,907, including $574 for new starts and resumptions; $19,198 for continuing surveys; $600 for coordination studies with other agencies; and a slippage amount of $465. Mr. KiRWAx. Please provide a breakdown of the new studies pro- posed for fiscal year 1969 and the studies being completed in fiscal year 1969. General Cassidy. We will supply it for the record, ,sir. 35 NEW SURVEY STARTS AND RESUMPTIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1969 [Amounts In thousands of dollars] Study and State Total estimated Federal cost Budget request fiscal year 1969 Navigation: Kamishak-lniskin Bay Harbor, Alaska. $125 San Francisco Bay study, California _. 4, 500 Popponesset Bay, Mass 70 Westport River, Mass 53 Olcott Harbor, N.Y 30 Ponce Harbor, PR 40 Galveston Bay area navigation study, Texas 350 Total.. _ Flood control: Big Mulberry Creek, Ark Plum Bayou, Ark Coalinga stream group, Calif Salinas River, Calif Manatee and Braden Rivers, Fla Kafioma Stream, Maui, Hawaii Columbia River and tributaries, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Montana (R) Bureau Creek, III Kaskaskia Island Drainage and Levee District, Illinois. (R) Turkey River, Iowa ._ _. Louisiana coastal area, Louisiana (R) Nanticoke River and tributaries, Maryland and Delaware Youghiogtieny River Basin, Maryland and Pennsylvania. (R) Nodaway River, Mo Pecos River and tributaries at Carlsbad, N. Mex Great South Bay, N.Y New York Harbor metropolitan area, New York and New Jersey Point Place area, Toledo, Ohio Martins Creek, Pa Edisto River, S.C Backman and Joe's Creek, Tex __ _ _ Crab Creek, Wash. Dry Creek, Wash Guyandot River above R. D. Bailey Reservoir, W. Va Appalachian region studies. West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, Ken- tucky, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia Subtotal, flood control (25) Beach erosion control: San Diego County, vicinity of Oceanside, Calif Hancock County, Miss _ . . Subtotal, beach erosion control (2).. Total (34) J. ^... 3 12,886 Comprehensive basin studies: Great Basin region.. ___ 559 $10 25 6 5 2 10 10 5, 168 68 120 10 65 7 158 10 227 10 95 10 30 10 1,710 55 30 10 90 10 65 10 (') 25 60 10 500 25 53 7 320 10 2 2.310 25 900 25 40 10 103 10 155 15 185 15 130 10 72 10 70 10 (') 62 3 7,513 386 110 10 95 10 205 20 474 100 • Not delermined. - Includes cost of model, the need for which is under consideration. 3 Excludes cost estimates for 2 studies. (R) Resumption. 36 STUDIES EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED WITH FISCAL YEAR 1969 BUDGET ALLOWANCES Total Allocations Budget Study estimated to date allowance, cost fiscal year 1969 Navigation: Bethel, Alaska.. ._ $45,000 $26,000 $19,000 Kobuk River, Alaska 85,000 60,000 25,000 Metlakatla Harbor, Alaska. 65,000 45,000 20,000 Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, Calif... 680,000 467,000 213,000 Charlotte Harbor, Fla 26,000 10,000 16,000 Apalachicola River "308" report, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama 522, 000 450, 000 72, 000 Hilo Harbor (modification), Hawaii 84,000 65,000 19,000 Lahaina, Kalepolepo, and Maalaea Harbors, Hawaii 100,000 65,000 35.000 HighlandPark, HI ___- 40.000 33.000 7.000 Penobscot River, Maine.. 19,000 3,000 16,000 Union River, Ellsworth, Maine 26,000 16,000 10,000 Baltimore Harbor and channels, Maryland.. _ 85.000 71,000 14.000 Manchester Harbor, Mass 28.000 13,000 15,000 Charlevoix Harbor, Mich 24,000 14,000 10.000 Grand Haven Harbor and River, Mich 25.000 8,000 17,000 Great Lakes deicing study, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin 75,000 30.000 45,000 Reservoirs at headwaters of Mississippi River, Minn 175.000 143.000 32.000 Siuslaw River, Oreg 50,000 43,000 7,000 Delaware River, Philadelphia to Trenton, channel dimensions, Penn- sylvania and New Jersey.. 39.000 17.000 22.000 Murrels Inlet, S.C 50,000 25,000 25,000 Galveston Channel(40-foot), Tex 38,000 10,000 28,000 Willapa River and Harbor and Naselle River, Wash.. 80,000 54,000 26,000 Oconto Harbor, Wis 25,000 9.000 16.000 Sturgeon Bay and Lake Michigan ship canal, Wisconsin 27,000 11.000 Id, OOP Subtotal, navigation (24). 2,413,000 1,688.000 725,000 Flood control: „,. „.. San Francisquito Creek, Calif 60.000 25.000 35,000 Portneuf River and tributaries, Idaho. 237,000 187,000 50,000 BayCreek, III 40,000 19,000 21,000 Mississippi River at Cassville to mile 300, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, ,„ „„„ and Wisconsin 185.000 175,000 10.000 Prairie du Rocher and vicinity, Illinois 85.000 55,000 30.000 Little Calumet River, Ind. and III 115.000 88.000 27.000 Maumee River. Ind. and Ohio... 650.000 592,000 58.000 Des Moines, Iowa 288.000 253,000 35.000 Ottumwa, Iowa 17.000 5.000 12.000 Perry Creek (Sioux City), Iowa 125,000 91,000 34,000 Arkansas River and tributaries from Great Bend, Kans., to John Martm Dam, Kans. and Colo 525.000 457.000 68,000 Shunganunga Creek, Kans 62,000 48,000 14,000 Town Creek at Jackson, Miss 120,000 76,000 44.000 Gasconade River, Mo 120,000 105,000 15,000 Spring River, Mo., Okla., and Kans .- 214.000 192.000 22,000 Big Blue River, Nebr. 160,000 135,000 25,000 Elkhorn River, Nebr 200,000 159,000 4,000 Nemaha-Little Nemaha River, Nebr 250,000 219,000 31,000 Rio Grande and tributaries (Rio Puerco-Rio-Salado), New Mexico and . , „„„ Colorado 105,000 94,000 11,000 Santa Fe, N.Mex 134.000 107.000 27.000 Coney Island area, New York 190,000 168,000 22,000 Tonawanda Creek, N.Y.... 245,000 220,000 25,000 Wappinger Creek, N.Y 235,000 205,000 30,000 Yadkin-Pee Dee River, N.C. and S.C 330,000 274,000 56,000 Souris River, N. Dak 221,000 209,000 12,000 Poteau River, Okla. and Ark.. 273,000 223,000 50,000 Bayamon and Hondo Rivers, P.R 125,000 115,000 10,000 Valenciano River, PR .- 85.000 46,000 39,000 Cheyenne River and tributaries, South Dakota and Wyoming 150.000 126,000 24,000 Collins River, Tenn 55,000 38,000 17,000 Mill Creek, Tenn... 70,000 45,000 25.000 Alpine, Tex 161,000 112,000 49,000 Neches River and tributaries, Texas 522,000 457,000 65,000 Virgin Islands 150,000 110,000 40.000 Potomac River streams draining into Alexandria area, Virginia 70,000 40,000 ,5'xSS Wenatchee, canyons 1 and 2, Washington. 96,000 66,000 30.000 Mill Creek at Ripley, W.Va 90.000 7 0, OOP 20, 000 Subtotal, flood control (37) 6,760,000 5, 606. OOP 1,154,0PP Beach erosion control: .„ „„« Holly Beach, La 69,000 27,000 42,000 Virginia Beach, Va 138.000 107,000 31,000 Subtotal, beach erosion (2) 207,000 134,0P0 73,000 37 STUDIES EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED WITH FISCAL YEAR 1969 BUDGET ALLOWANCES— Continued Total Allocations Budget Study estimated to date allowance. cost fiscal year 1969 Comprehensive basin studies: Wabash River Basin, Ind. and IIL... $2,604,000 $2,389,000 $215,000 Grand River Basin 1,254,000 1,178,000 76,000 Puget Sound area, Washington 1,559,000 1,428,000 131,000 Subtotal, comprehensive (3) 5,417,000 4,995,000 422,000 Grand total(66) 14,797,000 12,423,000 2,374,000 .\MOUNT OF UNCONTROLLABLE FUNDS IN CORPS PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Mr. KiRWAN. Of the $940 million requested for planning and. con- struction in fiscal year 1969, only $26,702,000 is for new construction and planning starts, including tiie carryovers from 1968, This leaves about $877.-3 million in new appropriations for work on going projects. To what extent are these funds considered uncontrollable^ — are needed to finance going contracts or to let associated new contracts essential to prevent disruption of project construction? General Cassidy. The area of large expenditures is in the construc- tion, general appropriation. Of the total of $923 million estimated expenditures in fiscal year 1969, approximately $665 million is for continuing requirements on contracts that will be underway by the end of fiscal year 1968. To this we must add associated land acquisi- tion, Government costs, and new contracts, which must be follow-on work for the gomg contracts. We estimate that this Avill amount to about $125 million. This leaves $i:3o million for new contracts on going projects, continuation of land acquisition on an orderly basis, engi- neering and design and supervision administration, and for the initi- ation of deferred 1968 new starts and 1969 new starts. We estimate that expenditures on this latter category of new and deferred con- struction starts and the new planning starts will be. only about $23.7 million. Considering that the other appropriations are already at minimum levels, that is, general investigations, operation and mainte- nance, general exi>enses, Mississippi River and tributaries, the amount which is controllable in our program is actually verv small, probably less than $100 million. ANALYSIS OF EXPENDITURE AND OBLIGATION PROGRAM, FISCAL YEAR 196 9 Mv. KiRWAN. Please provide, in line with this last question, an analysis of both the expenditures and obligation program for fiscal year 1969, indicating the portion of the budget request that is un- controllable versus tliat that is controllable, (The information is included on page 1448.) Mr. KiRWAN. Please provide for the record a breakdown by appro- priations of the total 1969 budget by the various divisions. (The information follows:) 38 CORPS OF ENGINEERS— CIVIL WORKS BUDGET REQUEST, FISCAL YEAR 1969 General Advance Operation Division investiga- engineering Construction Rehabilita- and Total tions and design tion maintenance (surveys) Mississippi River and tributaries. $1,185,000 $240,000 $46,900,000 $27,575,000 $75,900,000 Lower Mississippi Valley... 452,000 1,505.000 58,660,000 23,060,000 83,677,000 Missouri River.. 907,000 750,000 69,511,000 $2,200,000 19,877,000 93.245,000 New England 595,000 2,226,000 13,846,000... 4,863,000 21,530,000 North Atlantic 3,203,000 1,023,000 44,750,000 21,486,000 70,462,000 North Central 3,306,000 1,760,000 41,668,000 2,125,000 35,117,000 83,976,000 North Pacific 2,010,000 1,905,000 277,960,000... 20,810,000 302,685,000 Ohio River 1,411,000 2,429,000 135,092,000 565,000 27,640,000 167,137,000 Pacihc Ocean 119,000 531,000 36,000 686,000 South Atlantic 1,389,000 1,670,000 70,657,000 900,000 28,478,000 103,094,000 South Pacific 3,773,000 3,325,000 43,277,000 9,859,000 60,234,000 Southwestern 2,607,000 3,837,000 213.094,000 500,000 31,654,000 251,692,000 Totaji 20,957,000 20,670,000 1,015,946,000 6,290,000 250,455,000 1,314,318,000 ' Amounts shown do not reflect reductions for "Savings and slippages." INTEREST RATE CHANGE Mr. KiRWAN. The President's budget states that the Water Ee- sources Council is developing a more appropriate interest rate to be applied in formulating and evaluating water projects which will be higher than the rate now in use. Please outline the basis for the change that is being made and tell us the effects it will have on benefit-to-cost ratios. General Cassidy. The fiscal year 1969 budget message included a statement that "the Water Resources Council is developing a more appropriate interest rate to be applied in formulating and evaluating water projects.'' The new rate is to be "related to the average current cost to the Treasury of long-term borrowing." The impact the decision to change interest rates M'ill have on the Nation's program to conserve its water resources cannot be determined, of course, until the Water Resources Council has modified Senate Document 97 by developing tlie new interest and discount levels and the procedures, techniquCvS, and schedule of application which the agencies will follow in formulating water resource projects under their respective programs. The Water Council's job is not an easy one. An interest rate related to the current cost of long-tenn borrowing lias a straightforward ap- plication in computing project costs. Discount rates to be applied to future benefits, on the other hand, are considerably more complex. ]More and more, we are coming to recognize the multiobjective — eco- nomic, social, and enviromnental — aspects of water development programs, the benefits from which are not readily measurable in finan- cial terms. Fish and wildlife losses, mitigation, and enhancement benefits are as intangible as they are tangible. Water quality benefits at the present time are usually computed on the basis of the least costly alternative, without any attempt to measure the economic value to be realized from a cleaner river. We are exploring employment expansion opportuni- ties induced by water developments and attem]:)ting to assign benefits to those opportunities. The Water Council thus will need to consider the value of future jobs in Appalachia and how much to discount those values in order to compute their present worth. 39 Different interest rat^s ai-e used at times by the Federal Govern- ment to reflect the degree of national interest in the realization of national goals or objectives. In some instances, reimbureement made by States and local agencies is based upon interest rates set by law. ^'iliile cost-sharing arrangements do not enter into benefit evaluations, thev do influence the realization of project objectives by influencing their acceptability to the local sponsors. In the case of irrigation costs, the interest rate is zero. In the case of REA projects, it is 2 percent. In the case of water supply projects started last year, it was 0I4 percent. In recognition, then, of the relationship of alternate national ob- jectives to benefit discount rates, the Council needs to consider a for- mula or formulas using current interest rates with respect to costs and discount rates related to economic and social benefits that will provide an adequate basis for deciding among alternate investment proposals their relative priority of acceptance in meeting the water resource goals of the Nation. Developing practical, rational formulas reflecting the level of Federal interest in different social objectives will not be easy. In seeking the formulas, the meithodology, by which we adjust in- terest and discount rates, it should be recalled that our water resources development program (because of the reference to costs and benefits in the 1936 Flood Control Act) is almost unique among Federal pro- grams in the application of benefit-cost analyses in deciding whether or not to make an investment. Other programs make use of a cost- comparison type of analysis as a basis for selection among alternative means of attafning a purpose, but not as a basis for accepting or re- jecting the purpose. Since at present there is no common basis on which to compare the results of the many national programs, the bulk of the annual appropriations will continue to be made on the basis of establislied national purposes or goals and nc^t on the basis of net economic return. INCLUSION or INDIRECT BENEFITS IN PROJECT EVALUATIONS Mr. KiRWAN. Although provided for in Senate Document 97, the corps has not reflected in its benefit analyses the indirect or supple- mental benefits that accrue from projects. I feel that this is a serious shortcoming in estimating total benefits to be realized. What steps is the corps taking to consider these indirect benefits in its project evaluations ? General Cassidy. The problem that faces us is the estimation of the secondary costs and benefits that are properly identifiable with a project for project justification purposes. The net secondary is what is important. By net secondary benefits (or costs) I mean the increases (or decreases) in the gross national product after deducting transfers among areas and groups. The Corps of Engineers has under intensive study at this time various approaches in the solution of this complex and difficult problem. The Office of Appalachian Stud if s is developing methods for iden- tifying and measuring the national and regional expansion benefits that can be identified with investments in specific water resource de- velopments in Appalachia. 40 Also, the coips has under contract a research study by the Univer- sity of Chicago and Washmgton University at St. Louis for the pur- pose of developing concepts and techniques of identifying, tracing, and measurmg project economic effects at the local, regional and na- tional levels. This study is in its final stages and the results should be available for evaluation and, liojiefully, early miplementation. A second corps research study recently contracte<;l with Pai^ons En- gineering Co., assisted by Planning Eesearch Corp. (both of Los An- geles, Calif.), seeks to determine and compare for a sample of selected corps projects, the actual direct and indirect project effects with those estimated in the authorizing document and on the basis of these studies to develop, as warranted, improved evaluation concepts and procedures. I am, of course, aware that other agencies include an analysis of secondary benefits in their project evaluations and I am studying their procedures for application to ours. However, it is my understanding that, although they report such secondary benefits, these agencies do not process reports to the Congress that are not justified on the basis of primary benefits alone. It is my view that the benefits/cost analysis policies promulgated in Senate Document 97 and its predecessor, the "Green Book," and its antecedent, the requirement of the Flood Control Act of 1936, requir- ing that benefits exceed the cost, need careful reevaluation in the light of national objectives and in the light of social, fiscal, program, and budgetary changes in the past 20 years. DICKEY-LIXCOLX SCHOOL PROJECT Mr. KiRw\A.N. The budget includes $1,276,000 to complete planning on the Dickey-Lincoln School project. I wonder if you would like to comment on your personal feeling as to the economic feasibility and desirability of resuming planning in the light of the opposition to the project? General Cassidy. This project has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.9 to 1. The average annual benefits are estimated to be : for power, $20,553,000 ; for flood control, $40,000 ; for area redevelopment, $467,000 ; or a total of $21,060,000. There is no alternative development, either private or public, that could produce these benefits at less economic cost. The low- cost poAver and flood control provided by the project would contribute to the economic growth of the area. Tlie project is located in an eco- nomic development area. Opportunities from the project would assist in alleviating the problems of the area. The project is still considered necessary and economically justified, and accordingly, it has been included in the President's budget. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL POSITIONS Mr. Ktrwan. You are requesting 52 additional positions under your "General expenses" appropriation as outlined in your statement. To what extent do you have current vacancies in the areas in wliicli these new positions would be assigned ? (The information follows : ) 23 4 78 17 6 30 1 1 349 30 41 Current vacancies in division offices to n-hich Jfl new general ewperuses positions ifotild he assigned Current authoriziition 714 Current vacancies ' 21 Proposed increase, fiscal year 1969 41 1 Fiscal year 1968 authorization for 35 spaces Issued on Dec. 1, 1967. CURRENT VACANCIES IN AREAS IN WHICH THE 11 NEW OCE, GE POSITIONS WOULD BE ASSIGNED Current Current Proposed increase Activity authorization vacancy fiscal year 1969 Policy and Analysis Division, OCE. Planning Division, OCE General Counsel, OCE Other - -. Total 480 238 11 1 Fiscal year 1968 authorization of 23 spaces, includes 7 spaces to this activity issued on Feb. 2, 1968. 2 Fiscal year 1968 authorization of 23 spaces issued on Feb. 2, 1968. TRIBUTE TO GENERAL WOODBURY Mr. KiRWAN. General Woodbury, I understand you are leaving the corps soon to accept a position in private industry. Is that right? General Woodbury. Yes, sir. Mr. KiRWAN. From our standpoint, I am sorry to hear it. Your leav- ing will be a real loss to the Government and I mean that with sincer- ity. Your ability is recognized by everyone, both in and out of Gov- ernment. You have certainly been an asset to the Government down through the years and, I repeat, it is a loss to the Government but it is a gain for your new employer. I think every member of the committee has the same thoughts I do : You have been a very good man, a good engineer, and a true American. Mr. Rhodes. Would you yield at that point, Mr. Chairman ? Mr. KiRWAN. Yes, Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes. I just want to say that I certainly agree with everything the chairman said about you. General Woodbury, and cannot help but remark that you are going with a man whose loss to the Government was great, also. Consolidated Edison will be better for your being there, as it is for Chuck Luce's being there, and I wish you both the best of everything. General Woodbury. Thank you very much. Mr. EviNS. Mr. Chairman. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Evins. Mr. EviNS. General, I want to join in endorsing all the things that have been said and wishing you good luck and success. You have made a great contribution to your country. General Cassidy, your statement was excellent and impressive. I want to commend the Corps of Engineers for what it has done and what it is doing in strengthening and building America. I thought you made a very impressive report on your progress and the benefits which have already been realized from the projects which have been completed. 42 COMPARISON OF SAVINGS BY STRETCHOUT AGAINST NEEDED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS I was interested to point up that you testified, as I understand it, that the stretchout which really didn't save anything, merely deferred $67 million to fiscal year 1969, may result in a loss of $200 million m benefits due to the delay in completing needed projects. You estimated another $52 million in the loss of power revenues. You also estimated an increase of about 5 percent in construction costs for each year of delay in contract awards. So I think it should be said for the record that this stretchout means tha;t we do not save $67 million, merely defer it, and it may cost us in excess of $250 million lost benefits and increased costs 'because of the delay in project completions. TOTAL IN\T:ST]VIENT in WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS You also point out that the Government has invested about $5 bil- lion in flood control which has already saved $15.8 billion in damages. That is a better than 3 to 1 return. The Federal investment in naviga- tion is less than $5 billion and industry has invested $131.5 billion at water-oriented sites, a return of over 26 to 1. How many going proj- e6ts and new starts, again, will be slowed down as a result of this sti-etchout order? We all recognize the budgetary situation, we all recognize the Vietnam war situation. But I wonder if the stretchout has been good business considering all the factors. You may supply that for the record. General Cassidy. That has already been requested by the chairman and will be supplied for the record. The data on loss of benefits and increased costs which I gave you were not based only on the $67 mil- lion cutback in 1968, but also includes the effect of the stringent budget for fiscal year 1969, where considerably more would be required to keep the 71 delayed projects on last year's schedules. AMOUNT OF FUNDS REQUESTED OF THE BUDGET BUREAU Mr. Evixs. How much did you request of the Bureau of the Budget for fiscal year 1969? How nuich did the Bureau of the Budget cut you back from your request ? General Woodbury. Is this on new starts ? Mr. EviNS. This is on the total operation of the Corjis of Kngineers, including operation and maintenance, surveys, planning, and construc- tion. General Cassidy. I can supply that for the record. Mr. KoBisox. 'Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Evixs. Please give us a round figure now, and then you can correct it for the record. How much did the Bureau of the Budget cut you back o^•erall i General Cassidy. Our budget rec^uest overall was $1,433,700,000, of which $1,013,742,000 was for construction, general, and the approved budget is $1,264,100,000, including $903 million for construction, general. Mr. Bolaxt). About $170 million. General Cassidy. $169,600,000, sir. 43 USER CHARGES Mr. EviNS. General, you don't think that they are goina- to establish user charges or toll charges for the use of the waters of this Nation, do you ? (Teneral Cassidy. That has been recommended many times, but so far the Congress has not se«n fit to set that uj), sir. Mr. P^vixs. The rivers and streams belong to all the people and we should not charge ourselves to use our own streams and waterways. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Boland. Mr. Boland. I want to join with you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this committee in commending General Woodbury for the service he has given to this Xation. He certainly has been an asset to the corps and it has been a pleasure to work with him in the years he has been with the corps. I wish you well as you join the private sector and I am sure you will bring to the Consolidated Edison great knowledge and great persua- sion. I am sure you will be a fine advocate for their very vital public interest. PERCENTAGE OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS INVOLVED IN STRETCHOUT I think you have indicated. General Cassidy, that about 71 of the projects have had their completion time extended. Will you explain for the record the number of those that involve flood control alone? General Cassidy. Yes, sir. (The information follows :) There are 43 projects of the 71 deferred which have flood control as a benefit. Mr. Boland. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Whitten ? Mr. Whitten. General Woodbury, I, too, regret we will be losing your excellent services. The whole country will benefit from your many accomplishments in the years to come. EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS When this matter of budgetary reductions was being considered last session, and after many other approaches had been debated, the House approved a motion, which I had offered as a substitute, holding spending levels to 1967. This would have allowed programs such as this which I consider basic to our development to continue at the cur- rent level. It passed the House and went to the Senate, but we could not get them to go along. Then we were told if Congress did not take specific action, that cuts would be applied at the discretion of the Bureau of the Budget. Hav- ing no proof as to where they would apply the cuts, but having a pretty good idea from their actions in approving budget requests, we did not want to leave the allocation of cuts up to them. So we were faced with the necessity of providing by agency a 10-percent slow- down or holdback in other objects and a 2-percent reduction in personnel. Along with other members, before approving that course of action, I got some assurances that every effort would be made to avoid the 44 elimination of any i)rojects, inchiding new start?, and the reduction would be made only by slowdowns of activities and projects. So the Congress was in the position of having- to take this course of action to protect the basic vahiable programs, such as w^ater resource "development. Now you have testified that following that action, where we in the Congress more or less did it under the gun, 71 projects have been stretched out, and deferral of 22 new starts. You outlined the effects effects of this, including the loss of valuable benefits. Now we have another problem in this country, which is called infla- tion. Some folks want to avoid it, many of us think we already have it. RATE OF INCREASED COSTS What does the record show as to the rate of increavSe in costs of the various activities of the corps? On any project delayed a year, what has been the average inci-ease in the cost ? General CASsrov. Contract construction costs ha\'e been increasing about 5 percent per year, sir. Mr. WiirrTEN. So it means that each year any of these projects is delayed, the cost advances approximately 5 percent? General CASsrov. Yes, sir. Mr. AVhitten. We had a similar situation l^efore, I believe, under President Truman, when the Budget Bureau froze funds and delayed a number of projects. Have we ever estimated how much money it cost us to catch up the slack that was created by that freeze order? General Cassidy. I know of no such computation, sir. Mr. Whttten. We all know that inflation has gradually continued from that time. The dollar has bought less and less. I want to say, from the best I can tell, that faced witli a tougli pro[)Osition you, like the Congress, have tried to do the very best that you could. I do want to say for the record that I think all of the members of this committee have a long record of putting first things first, and first and foremost is our own comitry. I am disturbed — and I say it for the record — that we have put copper in our silver, we have mortgaged our own notes through the participation certificates, and now if we are cutting back on maintain- ing and developing our own country, that is moi-e serious tlian all the rest of it. This committee, of course, has its limitations as to what it can get Congress to approve. I do want the record to show I think it is a serious mistake to cut back funds for those things that add to the wealth of our country for the future. They constitute the real wealth of the Nation to which our children have to look in order to have basic economic development. Many i)rograms we now hear about will be of little lasting value if we do not preserve and develop our natin-al resources. Of course, I suppose as we go through the ])roject detail we may find where we will take some viewpoint that cliffere from that taken by the Corps. As many items as you have, that would be only natural. But I do want to say, so far as I can see, that the Corps, General Cassidy, has done a pretty good balancing job with all of tlie things with which you are faced, including limitations on money. 45 INCREASE IN PERSONNEL One thing that strikes me as being odd is that despite the program reduction you are asking for more people. I always thought the rela- tion of people to projects and to expenditures was in the reverse order. General Cassidy. The people are more related to the complexities of our problems in the ongoing jobs. The slowdown took place last year and will continue through this year, and our reductions will come in our field offices. The general exjiense fund of course just involves our division offices and my office. The remainder of the 30,000 people I have in the field are charged to the construction and other activities and tliey will feel the brunt of the reduction. I mentioned the complexity today of the budgeting and program- ing system, the selection of projects, the Water Resources Council, the extent that we get into water resource development now, the many things that we have to consider. Planning is so broad that we no longer can use one or two disciplines m order to make the investiga- tions we need. So it is to get the extra specialists to help us solve our water problems that I need the additional spaces. Mr. Whitten. I can understand that. I deal, in addition to this sub- committee, with the Agricultural Subcommittee. I have said many times on the floor, I quit farming wlien I was 1-i, but with time I have recognized it as basic to everything else. 1 am concerned that the many agencies which now have responsibilities in managing water Avill not give proper priority and consideration to agriculture. The farmer, the landowner, has first call on this water of ours because, after all, he is in charge of the land which stores it, upon which it falls, and he has as much of an obligation to see that it is handled properly and that the national health is not endangered. But, by the same token, it strikes me — I read your statement where you. Interior and others get together, but the Department of Agricul- ture appears to be left out. Yet agriculture is the prime and the first use because water comes ahead of bread in this necessity of life, or so 1 have always read. General Cassidy. Mr. Williams and the Soil Conservation Service are such close- working partners of ours that perhaps I just forgot to mention them. We work almost side by side in the basin development now, and anything we consider we have to relate to what they are doing. Mr. Written. I hope you find them as cooperative with you as you are with them. Mr. EviNS. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. Whitten. Yes. Mr. EviNS. You are talking about the need of i^ersonnel. We just indicated an attrition here of General Woodbury. I hope we would not have any more attritions, General. I hope we do not lose you. I hope 3-ou stay with us. General Cassidy. About another year or so. Mr. Whittf:n. That is all. Mr. Kirwan. Mr. Morris? 46 SOLUTION OF PROBLEM CONCERXING PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL WATER FOR E\^RGLADES NATIONAL PARK Mr. Morris. I Avant to coniinend General "Woodbury too, for his ex- cellent work. I also want to commend the Corps for apparently haWng solved a rather difficult problem which you had in Florida with the State of Florida and the National Park Service. According to your statement, 3^ou have worked out a general agree- ment, as the committee has been interested in this very difficult prob- lem you had down there. General Cassidy. We have, with the assistance of Congress, arrived at a temporary solution to some of the problems, and we are now work- ing at what we hope to be a permanent solution. After we get all of the agreements, they will have to be presented to the Congress for author- ization. It is going to be a fairly large program. Under General Wood- bury's guidance, we are approaching a real solution to that problem, we believe. Mr. Morris. I am very pleased at that, and I must say tliat 1 think when the committee became interested in this problem, we realized it was not going to be something easy, and if there had been a simple solution it would not have required the attention of both the agencies, and the committee. I just want to reiterate I am very pleased about the progress. INCREASE IN PERSONNEL The gentleman from Mississippi probably understands this person- nel problem, but I am not quite sui'e that I do. If you have more dis- ciplines working on a study or a design, it would seem to me that it could be done more efficiently and 30U therefore might need less per- sonnel rather than more. General Cassidy. We need the different knowledge in the various fields of endeavor in order to take in the breadth of the studies we are now making when we make a basin study. Some years ago our professional organization was composed of primarily engineei^ with a few economists. The number of economists has increased very greatly. We now must have biologists, ecologists, agronomists, all of the special people Ave need to consider land and water, and the things that are on that land and water, and all of this thinking and planning must be considered in formulating our projects. So as we talk to Fish and AVildlife, as we talk to Water Pollution Control, as we talk to the ecologists, we must have people who can understand the needs and be able to translate them into our plans. So this is requiring greater numbers of different kinds of people to do what we might say is the same thing we were doing in the past, only we were not doing it as completely in the past. Now we intend to get the total picture in our planning. Mr. Morris. I hope I understand that, and perhaps that is the way it works. But it seems to me a civil engineer making an investigation under the old criteria did a little bit of all of this work too. He did public relations whenever he would go out on the site, and with lands he had to know a little l)it about the ecology and geology. Actually, he had to know a little bit about economics too because, in the pre])- 47 aration of liis design and study, economics is one of the things that you always have to consider. I am not going to belabor the point too long, but it does seem to me that a skilled person can fit his part of the job in much quicker than a person who is just doing it as a sideline. The way you get more efficiency is to get more work done in a period of time with the use of all of the tools that w^e provide. And this is going to be one of the questions that somebody is going to have to answer whenever we bring this bill to the floor. General Cassidy. It even takes specialists in order to put these things in the computer program. This is our problem, with the depth of the study now, modern economics, I find that I fall in over my head Aery quickly and I have been dealing with it for many years. The way we are looking at things now, the depth being considered, and trying again to get a total picture, I need these specialists. Mr. Whitten. Could it be because the present idea of economics is unsound ? General Cassidy. I do not think I am qualified to answer that. ]Mr. Whitten. I just asked for an opinion. General Cassidy. No, sir ; tihere are many different approaches. Mr. KiRWAN. I hope these specialists. General, will begin to evaluate and include many of the indirect benefits that result from these proj- ects. Just for example, we take for granted these days the fact that all winter long we have fresh vegetables daily in our stores throughout the counti-y. This would not be possible without irrigation. Congressman Rhodes ? Mr. Rhodes. I just want to also say, General, I think your statement is very good ; your program is in the main quite sound, and I am in hopes that w-hen we finish marking up the bill we will be able in the main to go along with the program you have outlined. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL I would like to ask you, however, to amplify the reasons as to why 52 more people are needed. Mainly you have a shrinking program, but I note on page 10 you ask for 52 people, 31 in field planning positions. I can understand that. We want to continue plan- ning for the time when we have funds available to do more of this type of thing than we now do. But you have 11 in your office and 10 in field technical engineering, and you say, "six of the 11 are to improve the formulation of our nationwide plans and better evaluate alternative means of meeting objectives." Why is this necessary now ? What is the story ? Give us an overall outline of your programs which causes you to need 52 more people? General Cassidy. Our planning is still going on. As a matter of fact, it is going on at an increasing rate. We have'more surveys underway now than we ever had before. In addition, we have the Water Council and all of the activities generated by that Council which reflect back on the agency because we are the operating part under that. 91-459— 68— pt. 1- 48 SERVICES REXDERED BY THE CORPS FOR THE WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL Mr. Rhodes. Would you furnish for the record a breakdown of the services which you render for the "Water Council, and the ap- proximate cost to the Corps of P^ngineers ^ Do you breakout the costs and charo;e the "Water Council with the sei'vice you perform for them ^ General Cassidy. We do not, sir. This is a part of our business and the Secretary of the Army is a member of the Waiter Council, we have representatives on the Council. It is just a workin^j: system within the Government, and our general expense money is for that purpose. Mr. Rhodes. Then you could not give us a breakdown as to the amount ? General Cassidy. We can try to work out something, figuring the amounts of time that General Woodbury and our representatives spend over there and allocate it that way, the number of people working with them and number of hours. Mr. Rhodes. If you can, give us a ball park figure. (The following information was supplied for the record :) Support rendered by the Corp^^ of Engineers to the Water Resoiu'ces Council is estimated as follows : Mau-i/eai's inos lo 1969 17 General Cassidy. Just to talk about the positions in my ofHce, three of those positions will be in the Planning Division. This is where we evaluate and formulate the plans to meet our water resource needs. As the plans come in from the field, they have to be reviewed and really, before they come in from the field, it becomes necessary for us to work with them to see that as they come in they meet all of our requirements. If we do not do this, we may have to send them out to the field again for further evaluations. We want three positions to set up an Economic Research Center. In other words, as I discussed the interest rate, I outlined some of the problems we have in arriving at benefits; national objectives, the way we will measure alternatives, and then beyond that whether or not we should take on the projects to accomplish that purpose or not. This is becoming very complicated. You have seen the many, many reports and comments of the chang- ing economics of the Nation and the many people who are involved in it. We liave to respond to this, too, and we have to have people capable of doing it. jNIr. Rhodes. Are these three positions necessaiy because of the changed rules and regulations of the Bureau of the Budget with regard to interest components? General Cassidy. No, sir. They are to set up a Research Center so we can actually get in the picture, study and provide information and knowledge that will help the Water Resources Council in its studies, from our viewpoint and our knowledge of the Avater picture as we see it. And we are the primary agency for water development in the country. We believe that we should stay ahead of the game and develop sound economic concepts for water projects, and we should present those to the Water Council for their consideration. (Off the record.) 49 Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman, may we inseit in the record at this point the proposal concerning the new interest rate wliich is now under consideration. Mr. KiRWAN. All right. (The information follows:) From page 31 of the President's budget for fiscal year 1969 : "Tlxe Water Resources Council is developing a more appropriate interest rate to be applied in formulating and evaluating water projects. The revised rate will be related to the average estimated current cost to the Treasury of long-term borrowing. It will be higher than the rate now in use for project evaluation. The new rate will be applied to future projects in order to assure the most effective use of Federal funds in the development of the Nation's water resources." Also, on page 109 of the President's budget in the section entitled "'The Federal Program by Function," the following appears : "The interest rate now being u.sed by Federal agencies in formulating and evaluating proposed water resource proje<'ts is significantly lower than the cost of borrowing by the Treasury. To improve the evaluation and selection of projects, administrative action is underway to relate this rate more closely to the average e.stimated current co.st to the Trea.sury of long-term borrowing. The new interest rate, which will be higher than the rate now being used, will be applied in pre- paring future project evaluation reports." General Cassidy. We have one position for our Policy and Analysis Division, which will just be to accommodate the increasing workload associated with the AVater Resource Council activities in providing them the information that is needed. There are three positions in the Policy and Analysis Division to assist in our further development of the planning, programing, and budgeting system, which is still in its infancy. We are still working out methods of making that system responsive to the Nation's needs. Mr. Rhodes. If I might interrupt you there, are you not going to have to break some new ground and do some rather radical thinking along the lines of economic justification for the future? General Cassidy. That is why we want this Economic Research Center. Mr. Rhodes. You need to develop some brandnew concepts on this problem ? General Cassidy. Led off by our research and studies in Appalachia and the changes in the Nation's thinking, what we consider economic objectives and how do we measure the true worth of the projects in tliis program. We do need research in this program and these people will be pointed in that direction. ECONOMICS research CENTER ]\Ir. Rhodes. Have you gotten far enough along so you could insert in the record some guide and criteria as to the direction you intend to go? I do not want to hurry you, but I thought perhaps you have some general plan of orientation. General Woodbury. For the Economic Center ? Mr. Rhodes. Yes. General Woodbury. Yes, we do. General Cassidy. I think we can make a statement for the record. INIr. Rhodes. So we know what we are going to face in the future as far as economic justification on things like this is concerned, (The infonnation follows :) 50 Economics Research Center This is a new activity we propose to establish in fiscal year 1969 to conduct economic studies and i-esearch necessary to establish needs for water resources, goods and services, and to evaluate the full effects of alternative means of ac- complishing desired objectives. Perhaps our greatest deficiency in the past has been our inability to identify and measure the impacts water resources develop- ments have on social and environmental values, and on local and regional economies. As a result plans have been formulated primarily in terms of national efficiency objectives in consideration of the tangible benefits that accrue directly from the provision of water resources, goods and services. Our current planning and research efforts are being directed toward giving fuller attention to social and environmental values. This Center will be specifically oriented to the Corps mission and responsibili- ties and will focus on practical aspects of our planning and evaluation processes. It will provide direct support to our planning personnel, both in OCE and in district and division offices. In addition to conducting research on pressing planning problems the Center will provide ijersonnel with expertise that can assist our organization in conducting complex economic surveys or developing solutions to the extremely difficult and complex social and environmental prob- lems that are arising in plan formulation and evaluation of particular projects. Through participation in field problems, seminars, and formulation of guidelines and manuals the Center will figure significantly in making our planning efforts more effective and efficient. The Center would keep abreast of pertinent research programs of other Federal agencies. State agencies, and private and educational organizations and secure inputs from their programs. Initially, the Economics Research Center will be organizationally attached to the civil works directorate, OCE with modest staffing contemplated for fiscal year 1969. In fiscal year 1970, its location will be physically separated from OCE, possibly in the proximity of a university research center or similar facility. Establishment of the Economics Research Center at an early date, as a sepa- rate entity divorced from the day-to-day routine, is a prerequisite to further improving the Corps capability and proficiency in selecting from alternatives the most beneficial from both the regional and national standpoints. WATER QUALITY BENEFITS Mr. EiiODES. In going over the justifications, I thought I noticed more emphasis on Avater quality benefits in justifying projects than I had noted in previous years. Is tliis a neAv shint that we are taking insofar as justifications are concerned? General Cassidy. I think, looking over the years, you will notice we are much more involved with the environmental than we ever were before. This is an increased feeling of need by the country for more concern with these values and water pollution control is a part of it. In the last year or so it has been receiving great public interest, and naturally this then flows back to us and we have bumped into prob- lems on the Great Lakes and in other areas that make us pay more attention to it. LOCAL PARnCirATIOX Mr. Khodes. Where it is feasible to do .so, do j'ou ask for local par- ticipation based upon water quality benefits? General Cassidy. Where they are identifiable, yes, sir; but in general under the 1961 act most water quality benefits arc the type that we provide by releasing water for low-flow regulation. These benefits are widespread, and under the 1961 act these co.sts are absorbed by the Government. 51 Mr. Rhodes. But where 3' on have a situation involving a mnnici- pul water supply and you are able to construct works which increase the quality of the water supply, would you insist on local participation ? PROGRESS or JOINT STUDIES WITH BUREAU OF RECLAMATIOK General Cassidy. Yes, sir ; we would charge for that. Mr. Rhodes. How are the various joint studies with the Bureau of Reclamation coming along? I am thinking particularlv of the Xorth Pacific and northeastern California. Are you not doing some joint studies with them up there ? General Woodbury. We have a joint study in which the corps and the Bureau of Reclamation are participating in the Pacific Northwest. This is under the general leadership of the new Northwest Commission. We are participating also with the Bureau of Reclamation in the California study, in the study of the lower Colorado, the study of the upper Colorado. These are all moving ahead very well. Mr. Rhodes. What will these studies show when they are completed ? What will be the end product ? General Woodbury. They ought to demonstrate what the long-range needs of the geographic areas of study are, what the available water resources are in that area, and the relationship between needs and resources, so that we will then be able to identify each of these areas where there is an import requirement or an export capability. This is a necessary step before you start studying importing water from another area. We need the data to know how much is surplus and can be considered for export. So this is a necessary step in studying the total water needs of the West. STATUS OF comprehensive STUDIES IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST Mr. Rhodes. Do your studies encompass practically all of the areas of the Pacific Northwest and Southwest where there would be either water shortages or water surpluses ? General Woodbury. There are studies programed to cover all of these. The study of the Great Basin has not yet been started, but it has been recommended, sir. We are now studying a diversion of water from the Mississippi into Texas with the Bureau of Reclamation which was authorized last year. The comprehensive study of the Rio Grande and the Texas Gulf has not yet started. But as far as the Colo- rado, the Columbia, and the California streams are concerned, they a.re all under study. Mr. Rhodes. Can you at this point insert in the record just a bare list of the studies which are taking place in this general area ? General Woodbury. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) 52 The status of authorized comprehensive studies in the Pacific Northwest and in the Southwest is shown in the following table : Sttidy — Estimated completion with funds allocated through fiscal year 196S Not Started : Percent Great Basin region Rio Grande region Texas Gulf region Arkansas White Red region Underway : California region 27 Columbia-North Pacific region 56 Lower Colorado region 45 Missouri Basin 79 Puget Sound and tributaries streams 91 Upper Colorado region 41 Willamette River Basin 89 DEFINITION OF "sLIPFAGe'' AND "rESERVE" Mr, Rhodes. General, would you tell me the difference between slip- page and reserve ? General Woodbury. The slippage factor is the recognition by tlie Congress that in any construction program there is bound to be some delays due to weather, due to inability of local people to come up with local assurances, unprogramed delays, and the Congress takes advan- tage of this after authorizing certain appropriations to apply a per- centage factor which you then deduct from the appropriation. The corps then has the authority of this committee to distribute the funds that are appropriated against the various projects based on how well they are progressing during the course of the year. This is slippage. ]Mr. Rhodes. In slippage, you anticipate the things that are going to happen to you which will make it impossible for you to spend the money on your various projects ? General Woodbury. That is correct. Mr. Rhodes. Tell me what reserve is. General Woodbury. Sometimes you are more pessimistic than we are. Mr. Rhodes. You are usually optimistic. Mr. KiRWAN. I think the record should show that the corps and the Budget Bureau also estimate slippage. Last year the budget estimate for slippage was $90 million on the total program, about 10 percent. We added $25 million to that because the corps was estimating larger carryover balances at the time we marked up than had been antici- pated when the budgets were formulated. General Woodbury. You will note tlie recommended slippage in the budget tliis year is much less than last year and it is less because we have a tighter budget. Mr. Rhodes. We had a pretty sharp knife last year. General Woodbct^y. You did, sir. The reserve you mention is the $67 million which Ave set aside Mr. Rhodes. AVho set aside i General Woodbury. Wliich the administration set aside from the appropriations that you made available last year. Mr. Rhodes. This is the Bureau of the Budget? They are the agency which sets up a reserve from an appropriation ? 53 General "Woodbury. Yes, sir. And this is based on enactment of a law last year b}' both Houses. Mr. Rhodes. This leads me to the specific question I wanted to ask. PINAL CREEK, ARIZ. In Arizona you have Pinal Creek, for which $500,000 is allotted, and 5^ou slipped off $500,000. If it had been called reserve I could un- derstand it, but how do you go about slipping the full amount of an appropriation like that ? Mr. Cohen. The Pinal Creek project was one where we slipped the entire amount because we did not have the necessary local coopera- tion and, accordingly, we took the full amount as slippage. We are not aware now as to when we will be able to start this project. Mr. Rhodes. That is all. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Davis ? Mr. Davis. General, this may or may not be correct, but let me toss it out and then would you comment on it ? ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES IN FISCAL YEAR 196 9 In your statement you have referred to a reduction from last year of about $42 million, but then soon thereafter referred to the use of $67 million from reserve. Does this mean, tlien, that actually we are talking about a planned expenditure of $25 million more in the 1969 fiscal year than the 1968 fiscal year? General Cassidy. Yes, sir ; in construction, generally. INCREASE IN COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION JSIr. Davis. You mentioned an overall figure of 5 percent per year. Are your detailed justifications this year based upon a 5-percent in- crease in cost of construction from a year ago ? General Cassidy. They are based on the price estimates of July 1967. Mr. Davis. I think last year we Avere told that you had adjusted your cost estimates by somewhere between 3 and 4 percent to reflect an an- nual increase in cost of construction. What kind of a figure are we using in the justifications this year ? General Cassidy. The annual increase for July 1967 was 4.7 percent, and for January 1968 was 6.5. Since 1965, the annual July increases were 5.9 and 4.7 percent, and the annual January increases were 5.6 and 6.5 percent. Mr. Davis. That is the general average you are referring to in your general statement that every year's delay meant 5-percent increase in cost? General Cassidy. About 5 percent. NEW INTEREST RATE Mr. Davis. Do the justifications this year reflect any implementation of the new interest policy that we were talking about here? General Cassidy. No, sir. ^ Mr. Davis. These were made up before we got into any implementa- tion effort on that; ? 54 General Cassidy. And there will be a study period by the Water Council before they modify S. 97 to come out with a new policy, and then there will have to be a decision as to where it applies in the program. jSLt. Davis. This increase of about 5 percent, I do not suppose it is quite — well, 1 suppose in the overall average it would be true that when we are talking about bearing expenditures in the fiscal year that we have to anticipate that the actual contract letting is going to be about that much higher for the same amount of physical work. So I suppose we have to take that against the proposed small increase in expendi- ture. EFFECT OF TWO-STEP PAY IXCREASE OX ESTIMATES Have you isolated, or I suppose you did in making up j-our budget estimates, the effect of the two-step pay increase? I believe a new step goes into effect on the 1st of July at the beginning of this new fiscal voar. Have you been able to isolate vour increased costs with respect to that ? Mr. Cohen. No; this has not been taken into account yet in this budget. We took into account the one that became effectiA'e last October, but the one coming up the 1st of July is not yet in the budget. General Cassidy. This is standard guidance in preparing a budget request, that past increases are included but future increases are not included. ]\Ir. Davis. Even though you know under tlie law it is going to hap- pen at the end of the fiscal year ? General Cassidy. That is true. Mr. Davis. So we are talking, then, about either a supplemental ap- propriation or absorption as far as actual construction goes? General Cassidy. Yes. Mr. Davis. May I ask you. Mr. Cohen, in your general tliinking. can you give us an oft'-the-cufi' figure as to about what you think the effects of the pay raise are going to be on your program ? Mr. Cohen. I could not right now. I can put an estimate in the record. (The estimate, furnished later, is $9.6 million.) Mr. Daits. I would not expect you to be able to come too close, but I think it certainly is part of the picture where we are talking about an expenditure increase of, say, '$•25 million, but against that we have to take a 5-percent increase in cost of construction and a pay raise has to come out of there. So, as ]Mr. Rhodes mentioned, as far as actual construction capacity within these figures, it has to be less than what is contemplated for the current fiscal year ; does it not ? General Cassidy. Yes; we will achieve less with the dollars that are given to us. authorizatiox requirements Mr. Davis. Are there any authorization requirements here, either as to individual projects or as to the basins that we have involved in the profrram for fiscal 1969? General Cassidy. There will be some basin authorizations required, I believe eight of them, which we will present to the Public Works Committee, that we ex})ect this year. These have been presented to the Senate already. 55 Mr, Davis. Mr. Chairman, could we have that information inserted in the record, similar to what we had last year ? Mr. KiRWAN. Yes, please provide it for the record. Mr. Davis. We are talking only about basin authorizations now. As far as any individual authorization problems, tliere are none involved in any of these projects in this budget ? General Cassidy. No, sir. (The information follows :) ESTIMATED DEFICITS IN BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION Basin or project plan Estimated deficit through- - Dec. 1, 1968 June 30, 1969 West Branch of Susquehanna River... San Joaquin River Basin Columbia River Basin Upper Mississippi River Basin Arkansas River Basin Central and Southern Florida project. Ohio River Basin... Ouachita River Basin $1,000,000 1,500,000 14,000,000 2, 250, 000 $1,600,000 2, 700, 000 91,000^000 3, 600, 000 48, 600, 000 700, 000 2, 700, 000 2, 500, 000 Total 18,750,000 153,400,000 x\LL0CATI0X OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS Mr. Davis. Contrary to the rule here where we have slippages and reserves subtractmg from the allocation or the tentative allocation, I notice there are a few instances where actually additional funds were allocated. Were those cases where you saw an opportunity to com- plete the project and the additional funds were put in there in order to get the job done, or in some cases will it represent unfavorable contracts ? General Cassidy. These are generally favorable contracts where a contractor is going veiy rapidly Avith his work so that he can use more money. Sometimes there are developments which permit us to let an additional contract in support of one that we have going. This committee has given us permission to transfer up to 15 per- cent, and anything more than that we Avrite to the committee for per- mission to make such a transfer and get the consent of this committee. LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN COMPLETION OF PLANNING AND INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION Mr. Davis. When you talk about building up reserve projects here, and I think you specifically referred to it, so you will be ready with that kind of a backup group of projects when Vietnam is over with, and you have also indicated here that there are some instances — I do not know how many you mentioned, but you mentioned a number where you expected to complete the planning. How long do you feel that you can put a project on ice and take it off and go ahead with construction? General Cassidy. I would say generally not more than 4 or 5 years, because the land changes so fast in this day of rapid development that we will have to reexamine. Generally, most of the projects would stay good, most of the basic engineering would be good, the detailed 56 data we have collected for the area. But there would have to be modi- fications and in some cases the project could go out. I am thinking of a reservoir area up in Pennsylvania where a big highway was run through the reservoir area and it became economi- cally inf easible to build a reservoir. Mr. Davis. There is some limitation then as to the practicality of our completing planning on projects, and hope we can put them aside and later turn on the spigot for construction simply by giving the first funds for construction at a later date. General Casstoy. May I state, in working in this way, very often we do not bring this advance engineering design up to a point where you might say we have plans and specifications. "We recognize that w^e should stop at a certain point and that there will be changes beyond that point. So that we are not going to just carry the thing to a full-fledged end, but we are in an appropriate posi- tion to stop until we see whether the project is going to go ahead or not. Mr. Davis. That is all. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Kobison ? PROGRESS JIADE IN PROVIDING ADDITIONAL WATER TO EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK Mr. RoBisoN. General Cassidy, I notice in your prepared statement your reference, on page 6, to the progress that is being made by the Corps, the National Park Service, and other interested people or agencies in solving the water problem at the Everglades National Park. I want to express my satisfaction and my pleasure on hearing this. As you know, I became personally interested in this particular problem last year, so I am glad to hear that there is now general accord between all parties interested toward finding a solution to this problem. General Cassidy. Yes, sir. COMMENT OF EDITORIAL OF NEW YORK TIMES Mr. RoBisoN. Let me play the DeviFs advocate for a moment. I quote from a recent editorial from the New York Times : The Army Corps of Engineers apparently does not know there is a war going on. Although the swollen cost of the war in Vietnam has become a heavy burden on the Federal budget, the Corps of Engineers continues its business-as-ustial relationship with the pork-barrel politicians. This editorial then goes on to make sjiecific reference to the Red River Dam in Kentucky, about which, I assume, we will hear more later, so I do not want to go into that with you, now. But, I would say that I resent in your behalf, in the Corps* behalf the imjilication that the Corps does not know there is a war on. I also resent, and T am sure we all do, the implication here that the ])rojects in this budget or in any budget presented to us are ""pork- barrel" jji-ojects. However, with that preamble, the editorial does |X)int up the fact that there is, indeed, a war on and a very costly war, and one where all signs indicate the costs may even become greater. You have told ns that you have presented us with a ''tight budget." You have told us that the T')udget Bureau has even cut that budget back by some $169 million from your original request. You have told 57 us tliat construction costs advance about 5 percent a year as projects are postponed or deferred. This creates for us on tlie subcommittee as well as for the Corps a real dilennna. However, the President did say in his budget message, ''Faced with the costly war abroad and urgent requirements at home, we have had to set priorities." First would you care to comment on this yourself and, second, tell us what criteria the Corps has used to determine the priorities between the project items that are included in this budget and those that have l)een left out ? If this requires a long statement on your pait, I would l)e happy to have you supply it, but perhaps you could briefly paraphrase your answer now. CRITERIA USED IX SELECTIOX OF PROJECTS ^ General Cassidy. Mr. Robison, I share your resentment and would like to comment on the article. The article is insulting not only to the Corps, but to the administration and to Congress. It demonstrates the author's lack of Imowledge, or disregard, of the activities of the Corps. As I pointed out in my opening statement, the civil works program has contributed greatly to the economic and social development and defense posture of the Nation. I am proud of our record and am at a loss to understand the reference of "pork barrel" to the development of the Nation's water resources. This is one of the few programs where the anticipated benefits must exceed the costs before a project is under- taken — as a matter of fact, we recommend against authorization of more than half of the projects which we are asked to investigate. The Corps of Engineers does know there is a war going on, which is re- flected not onlv in the tight budget, which I described to vou earlier this morning, but primarily because of its more than 30,000 Engineer officers and enlisted men servinjr with General Westmoreland in^Viet- nam. These engineers are fighting alongside the infantry and artillery as one of the combat arms. They are supporting the ground combat forces by building roads and bridges over which to bring supplies. They are constructing heliports and airfields for the air support of combat operations. They are building and maintaining harbors, depot complexes, ammunition storage, and petroleum tank farms and pipe- hnes as a part of an integrated Army-Air Force-Navy construction team. Most of the Engineer battalion and group commanders in Viet- nam have benefited from the training and experience they gained in engineer planning and construction in the Army Engineers' civil works districts in this country. It is surprising and disappointing to me that the New York Times which enjovs such a fine reputation and large readership would publish such an editorial. To answer your second point, under our planning, programing, budgeting system, which is still somewhat in its infancy, we attempted to consider a long-range program looking ahead at the requirements of the country for that period and at the projects that will be needed to meet those requirements, at the interest expressed bv the local people in meeting their needs, and from this we select annuiillv those projects which we believe should be included in the budget for the coming year. Mr. RoBisoN. This process is begun at the district level and "then progresses to the regional level? Do I have the right title? General Cassidy. Division level. 58 ]Mr. RoBisox. And tlien down here, eventnally, to your office for an OA'erall review ? General Cassidy. Yes, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. After that, your recommendations are then submitted to the Bureau of tlie Budget with the result, this year, we have al- ready been told about ? General Cassidt. Eio:ht. Mr. EoBisoN. Each project has a need which is different in some way from another project; flood hazards vary in their intensity, the need for local water resources A-aries from community to community. How do you tiT to relate this comparative need, project by project ? General Woodbury. Tvet me try to answer that. "VVe examine the needs on a regional basis generally and then attempt to ascertain within that region those needs that are the most acute. One indication of the measure of this need is economic benefits in relationship to the costs. Mr. RoBisox. The B-C ratio that we look at ? General Woodbury. Yes, sir. Tliere are other indices, of course. Perhaps reflected in acute water shortage or water supply, the par- ticularl}' bad qualities of water, such things as that. We also consider equity among areas and then with a rather com- plicated and new^ procedure, this matter is all put into a computer and we thereby come up with priorities by regions. I might say in the process, we evaluate the output of each one of these projex:'ts witli respect to tlie needs, output being measured in terms of the need for flood control, need for water supply, need for water qual- ity, need for transportation augmentation. Mr. RoBisox. The computerized approach is, as you just stated, an attempt to bring about, within the Corps, a systems-type analysis of the needs of the Xation ? General Woodbury. It is, sir. Mr. RoBisox. However one definies that phrase, "systems analysis." General Woodbury. Yes, sir; it is. This system will ultimately use tlie output from these regional compreliensive frameworlv studies to identify the basic needs. I believe we discussed these framework studies a little earlier in conversations with Mr. Rhodes. FRAMEWORK STUDIES Mr. RoBisoN. Incidentally on that point, when are these frame- work study plans supposed to be completed ? General Woodbi^ry. We originally undei-look a program to complete them in 1972. Last year, because of budgetary limitations, tliis was slipped to lOT'j, and I believe tliat tlie current budget Mill ])rol)ably cause them to slip to 1974. We are not sure yet. This is on th(^ order of masrnitude. The Water Council is still considering a future pi-r)gi-am. Mr. Robison. In the meantime, assuming this is a more precise a]i- proach than we have been folloAving, about all that we can do, or all you can do, is hope and l>elieve, as I know you do, that the projects that you are going forAvard with will Pit into that framework: is that abr)ut it ? Genei'al Woodbtt?y. "i'es, sir. You understand that these framework studies ai-e being delayed ])y not startino- new ones. The ones that have been started are generally 59 scheduled for completion on schedule. We will have basic information in the Pacific Northwest and in the Colorado and in the Ohio and upper Mississippi as was originally programed. Mr. EoBisox. General Cassidy, I think that you have characterized this, or someone has, as being a ''tight budget.'' Would you call it an austere budget ? General CxVssidy. I think that we use the terms almost synonymously when applied to the budget. COST OF NEW STARTS Mr. RoBisoN. I notice with respect to the new starts proposed for fiscal year 1969, that under the heading of ''Construction" they all are relatively less expensive projects. Is there a reason for this? General Cassidy, Yes, sir. We are holding back. We are not starting any very large projects requiring large expenditures of funds in the future until we see what the future is. Mr. RoBisoN. I approve of that in theory, but then what you have just told me about weighing priorities, project by project, leads me to ask how are you sure that some of these larger projects are not needed more than some of the less costly projects? I do not seek to embarrass you, but I want an answer. General Cassidy. Under the guidance given to us in preparing this budget, I would say m this particular area the budgeting, planning, and programing system did not have much to do with the selection of the projects. Mr. RoBisoN. It did not ? General Cassidy. No, sir, since the selection was based on urban flood protection. CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM DURING WORLD WAR II AND THE KOREAN WAR Mr. Robinson. General Cassidy, were you with the Corps back in the World War II years ? General Cassidy. Yes, sir. j • Mr. RoBisoN. The Korean war years ? General Cassidy. Yes, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. At what level of activity did the Corps operate during the more serious World War II years ? General Cassidy. Civil works almost ceased at the time of World War II and was limited in the Korean war. Mr. RoBisoN. During World War II, they almost ceased m the civil works part of your program, and also almost ceased during part of the Korean war years ? General Cassidy. Yes, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. Is it not true, sir, that the costs of the war in Yietnam are now exceeding the cost of the war in Korea, at least on an annual basis ? General Cassidy. I do not believe I can answer that question. Mr. RoBisoN. I think it is, or close to it. Does there come a point, in your judgment, when this Nation has to decide w^hetlier it goes forward resolutely with the war and its costs and not take care of all the needs of our people in our Nation here at home? 60 General Cassidy. I believe this present budget is pretty well cutting to the bone. In other words, the new starts are very, very small. AVe are continuing ongoing projects largely-, and there is very little "fat*' or very little left in here that we could cut out completely on an absolutely austere budget. We liave to have operation and main- tenance. We need the projects that are already going, hard to stop without additional expense, and then there are certain things that are so close to completion that we might as well wind them up before we stop. It costs more to stop them than to complete them. This is a very, very tight budget. Mr. RoBisoN. For how many of the Korean war years was the civil works progi^am at a standstill? General Cassidy. We continued many of the going projects just as we do here. You cannot shut the contracts off. We contniued opera- tion and maintenance. We continued general investigations. We were not undertaking new starts and we did slow down just as we did here. There was a very healthy program in all those years. INCREASE FOR GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PLANNING Mr. KoBisoN. In this budget, for instance, you do have a slight increase, do you not, in general investigations and planning? General Cassidy. Yes, sir; we do. Mr. KoBisoN. This is to put projects on the shelf for tlie post- Vietnam war years, to be ready to go with them ? General Cassidy. Not so much to put tliem on the shelf, but in our present problems of water resource development to better know what is needed and to begin to develop plans to meet those needs. Beyond that, we have to have advanced engineering design, once they are authorized. discussion of "recreation, civil works projects" BROCHURE Mr. RoBisoN. My next question is not intended to be critical of you. The Baltimore office of the corps sent me, just a couple of days ago, this brochure entitled "Recreation, Civil Works Projects." It is very nice but also is pretty "slick" and I suspect rather expensive to produce. It may be well outside of your own particular concern, and belong to some other subagency of the corps we will hear from later. But it does strike me that this is something that, in an era of tight budgets and priorities and hard clioices and a war, might well have been deferred. General Cassidy. This one, let us say, is rather cheaply produced. It has a slick finish but it is not as slick as it could be. Mr. RoBisoN. I hope not. General Cassidy. This is one of the things that I have been trying to push. We are creating these projects for use and you notice there are a lot of the safety guidance features in the back. We provide data on where the recreation facilities are. Unless we inform people about what is there for them, they won't know it. Up in the Missouri River I am trying to have road maps produced that will show people how to get to our various recreational develop- ments. I think we have produced something that is very simple and very, very useful and it is a part of the recreation cost when we provide this to the American people and we should let them know what is there. 61 Mr. RoBisoN. I do not disagree with that. I only question the wisdom of going into this kind of public relations expense at this particular time. I note that you are not alone in doing it. In fact, maybe you are to be commended for not having gone into it as deeply as some other Federal agencies. General Cassidy. We have taken a minimal approach. Mr. RoBisoN. Thank you. Mr. EviNS. I think all on this committee are in agreement that we want to build this country. It is a question of the rate of acceleration. PERCENTAGE OF CX3MPLETION OF COMPREHENSIVE SUR\^YS One thing further. In connection with Mr. Rhodes' question about the status of comprehensive surveys, in supplying the information, please include the percentage of completion of the study. General Woodbury. Yes, sir. Mr. E\^NS. Thank you all for your information and we wish you much good luck and success in your important mission. Wednesday, March 6, 1968. SOUTITVVESTERN DIVISION WITNESSES BRIO. GEN. W. T. BRADLEY, DIVISION ENGINEER ASA V. SHANNON, CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION OSCAR L. GARDNER, CHIEF, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE EDWARD F. SMITH, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE HOWARD R. BARE, CHIEF, PLANNING DIVISION JAMES W. CARVER, CHIEF, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT BRANCH, TULSA DISTRICT Mr. Kirwan. The committee will come to order. General, if you have a statement, you may proceed. GENERAL STATEMENT General Bradley. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, it is my privilege to appear before you again and provide you some gen- eral information on the progress of the civil works program in the southwestern engineer division. For orientation purposes, here is the general makeup of the south- western division's area, of civil works activity. It covers the Arkansas, the White, and a portion of the Red River Basin; all of the rivers flowing across Texas into the Gulf of Mexico, including the Sabine ; the Rio Grande in the United States, except for that portion forming The division's civil works program is supervised by five districts, head- quartered at Fort Worth, Galveston, Albuquerque, Tulsa, and Little Rock. 02 Here on the map, the reservoirs shown in black are projects in operation; those in green are under construction; proposed new starts are in red; and authorized projects not vet under construction are in brown. STATUS or AUTHORIZED PROJECT There are 212 authorized civil works projects in the southwestern division of this number, 109 have been completed, 39 are under con- struction, and 64 have not been started, of this latter number, two are proposed as new construction starts in fiscal year 1969. Design is completed for two projects, 21 are being designed, 26 are awaiting future funding, and 13 projects are deferred or inactive. Most of the completed reservoirs are multiple-purpose and provide recreational opportunities. Public visitations to these during 1967 totaled 58.5 million, an increase of 3.5 million over 1966. lender the general investigations program there are 34 areas in the division for which study funds are requested in tiscal year 1969. Eight are completion studies, 21 are continuing, and the five shown in red are proposed new starts in fiscal year 1969. These are: No. 4, Galveston Bay, in the lower right-hand portion of the map; No. 9, Big Mulberry Creek, in west central Arkansas; No. 10, Plum Bayou, in southeast Arkansas; No. 16, Pecos River and tributaries near Carls- bad, N. Mex. ; and No. 23, Bachman and Joe's Creeks near Dallas, Tex. This is the same basin subdivision you saw last year, and 1 show it only to refresh your memory that we have grouped the river systems of the division into three regions or basins for the purposes of water resource planning. These are the Rio Grande, the Texas Gulf, and the Arkansas-White-Red River Basins. Now I will show you the authorized projects in each of the separate basins. KIO GRANDE REGION Here is the Rio Grande Basin, with the color coding as previously mentioned: black, for projects in operation; green for continuing l)rojects; and brown, for projects authorized but not started. Funds I'oi- four construction and two planning projects in this basin are requested in fiscal year 1969. Now, here is one of the projects in the Rio Grande Basin. This is Cochitit Dam in northern N. ^lex. This shows the foundation of the uncontrolled spillway and the lower forms in place for concrete place- ment, as the project looked in January 1967. This is the same view when tlie structural concrete work was com- pleted in September 1967. TEXAS GUI.F REGION Now for a look at the Texas gulf basins, where funds for 15 con- struction projects are sought for fiscal year 1969. One of these shown in red is a new start — the Highland Bayou local flood protection project on the coast near Galveston. Four others are planning projects. Piere is a portion of one of the projects in the Texas gulf basin. This is the completed tidal control structure — a part of the Texas City hurricane-flood protection project, as it looked in September 1967. 63 This structure, when closed, will protect small vessels and the shores of Moses Lake from destructive hurricane tides. Here in another part of the basin is a section of the local floodway project on the San Antonio River in San Antonio, Tex. This is a completed section showing the concrete transition from the Woodlawn Lake spillway to the unlmed channel below. ARKANSAS-WHITE-KED REGIO^T In the Arkansas-'VVliite-Red River basins, funds for 20 construction projects are sought in fiscal year 1969. These include one new start — Waurika Reservoir — and 10 planning projects. The largest volume of our work in this basin is related to the construction of the navigation locks and dams along the Arkansas River and up the Verdigris River. Since we are nearing an important goal of navigation to Pine Bluff and Little Rock, Ark., in 1968, I have some photographs showing our progress in this effort. Six of the total of 17 locks and dams in the overall Arkansas River project must be completed to meet that goal, and dredging of the navigation channel to project dimensions must be finished. We fully expect to meet our schedule. The first two locks and dams in the lower basin already are substantially completed, and final dredging on the channel all the way to Little Rock is underway. This is lock and dam No. 3, below Pine Bluff, as it looked in Feb- ruary. It is now 95 percent complete and will be finished next August. This is lock and dam No. 4, located immediately do^vnstream from Pine Bluff. It is 85 percent complete and scheduled for completion in December of this year. Moving on up the main stem of the Arkansas, here is lock and dam No. 5, located about 20 miles above Pine Bluff. This photograph, which I showed you last year, was taken in August 1966 and shows the structure when 50 percent complete. This is the same structure early last month, when it was 88 percent complete. Next in progression upstream is the David D. Terry lock and dam. No, 6 in the system. This structure is 98 percent complete. It is located immediately downstream from Little Rock and will be dedi- cated next fall to commemorate the opening of navigation to Little Rock. In conjunction with the Federal effort to provide a navigable water- way, there must be local port facilities for handling of tows and <;ommerce before a project of this kind can become functional. This photograph, taken last month, shows construction underway at Little Rock on the port site being built by local interests. The site is located about 6 miles downstream from the main business center of the city. The development being done under an $800,000 contract in- cludes first phase construction of the wharf, mooring facilities, and several small bridges, and is scheduled for completion in May of this year. The terminal building and industrial district will be constructed Tinder other contracts. Rail and highway access will be available. The local port authority expects the port to be operational in late 1968. Upstream from Little Rock, the overall project continues on sched- ule. Here is the Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam, near Sallisaw, Okla., 91-459—68 — pt. 1- 64 when it was about 36 percent complete. As shown in this picture you saw last year. This is the same structure early last month, when it was about 65 percent complete. Here is Webbers Falls Lock and Dam, the navigation structure farthest upstream on the main stem of the Arkansas. It is about 20 miles below Muskogee, where the navigation channel swings into the "Verdigris River. This project was about 40 percent complete when this picture was made early last month. This is Dam No. 17, the first navigation dam on the Verdigris River and the next to last one in the navigation system. It is situated about 85 miles below Catoosa, Okla., the terminus of the navigation project just east of Tulsa. This photograph of construction underway was made in February. The overall status of the project is presently 70 percent of comple- tion. Progress on construction of the locks and dams, dredging of seg- ments of the channel to project dunensions and other work associated with the navigation system, continues on schedule. As I mentioned earlier, completion to Little Rock is expected this year ; then, we are scheduled for completion to Fort Smith in 1969 and to Catoosa in 1970. Some of the hydroelectric power features of the project and bridge alterations will continue beyond 1970. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my presentation. Mr. KiRWAN. Thank you. That was a very infonnative statement. Mr. Davis. May I ask one question ? Mr. KiRWAN. Certainly. JURISDICTION ON RIO GRANDE Ml". Davis. You mentioned you have under your jurisdiction the part of the Rio Grande which does not form a common boundary with Mexico. General Bradley. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. Does your district have any responsibility at all with respect to the river that does f onn the boundary ? General Bradley. That is under the International Boundary and Water Commission. Mr. Friedkin is the Commissioner. We are in a supporting role there, you might say, assisting him in flood-lighting, if he requests assistance. We do have the flood control responsibility on the streams that flow into the Rio Grande, but the Rio Grande itself from El Paso to the Gulf of Mexico is under his supervision and authority. Mr. Davis. But if there were to be any necessary construction work you would be called upon to provide that, would you ? GenerMl I^kadlky. No, sir. ^h-. Da\ts. ^'on Avould not? General Bradley. That on the main stem and that wliich is rein ted to tlie Rio Grande itself he would take care of. He might ask us to assist him, as lie has done. For example, the Amistad Dam near Del Rio was designed by one of our districts. It is being built by his foi-ces. Some of the woi-k in FI Paso was designed l)y the Los Anat^les 65'' District. The work is being carried out under Ms supervision. So he uses us in a supporting role, such as design, and occasionally might for construction. Mr. Davis. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) General Investigations Mr. KiRWAN. I would like to ask some questions now on "General investigations," and when we finish, the other members will have an opportunity to question the witness. A total of $2,607,000 is requested for "General investigations," an increase of $509,000. The justification follows: m 2 S l-< ^ z S3 a H OS p o 02 S 05 o OQ A H a, :j2 -O > CO ■■ ■s -►^" bco «<-< *^ °o .1 ° '+3 n-i 3 O o _, (C o o c -^^ c3 cc " O ^ 3 EC R O Cj X o <» CO cl o o "^ on ° S3d *J c 5 a o ^ 03 O CI (U Ha; •So, •g o ■o g C ■_ C C TO ■CO o Q> 5 t5 pis ra-=^ -^ S Si m ° O o TO 1 1 o o o O. •o ■5 E o o o ^ < J3 o o 5 s = "o ^ c E "cO "ra k- .2 ^g -o 2 o £ S £ S o _o .9 .S 'o o le u. M c o o c: o E "s'=' s > i 'ZL^ E'^^^-S E |^°oS^OT = £ c o o Ci." o ^ ^2:5TO^^:gS"5S -^ — TO .Q m 'a> ; ' DO < OJ ^ M *^ ' '— -nt? O 2 £-0 J2 :=■§■.■§' ^= DOi: O p (D .^ C 3 2 £cOa:ii]a.S ►~ ^ — — oj *^'^ "^ «j Q) 2: otSo c IjS g „ 2 ;g~-o _a; " S g g ^-c c O _^ "5 c ■o 2-=:iC "^"ra'S^ o " TO c=>^o=3y T3-a D0T3 a> > m£ = c c ex: £ •■^ ° ^ ^i: . . $2 SCO'S S S% J ^If If III S "="C3 ™.= £-o•- ^ = £ S-^ o S c ,„ ._ — to TO c oo— r jji c >^J,'o ^050> Jg M-o c » = «>-SJ2--o)«£>.-"*5E'=> S ■. = >«, .-S-S^gh-^ « ■ J- 0.-0 a>iz = o (u "£ <2 — JS^Si^TOfT5."i:2 cci r^ .9- » ,«•" 0) iu i- „ O ■« o S "Si = S 5 ^ g~ ° > „t:^ S-™ S;-a = S o£ E„ "2^3 TO-S^'cL-j;^ i2 ^ S^ 2 so ° ° i 5r °-£ om " OCX itJ -^^ ™ so O TO O'P "^ -Q TO <" S tr E o S c °°-^:::to= = TO c o a>.».- ©3 ''^^TO-°''i<5 00^(0 o *- om-2 TOO °? ■°t- ^■— ■= 2i-— 3'ro^ TO o 0.0. o o'-f li ® * ^1 s's^s >>TO "■^^S-^ Q) " E Q. — < TO a, oTO.<2— <'"^££to*=5to.^ 1= TO-§^.E ° « S o*- «*.5.5 lsjs-lE|'S>.i5S|i TO S &-0 c o.'=.2 0(— - w oj oi)0^ 5.C— " ■K— °- *^ (^ £ cr«.= 5 " S S u =.2.y"S = = .2o~.-5^0 t-'^ §1 = = •~ o-S^ g °^--£j^ = S ™ a £ o-a E= S S-^'g'^c;?-"" = oE°E.£^j3r;oQ!=":;S o c = £^.= tZ-- = « = g£ o. ■5-Ee ; £ o o _ E g,-| TO s^.c ° ^S'T'.-E- '2TO'^^Soo5oS-g;5c°-^c J =-1" >Ii£^iS TO.Eo<^ ;" -z;^ ^ o 'S M^ S"^S °-o TO*" « c =:H S ; -c o DO H ■— '.^ >w — °^«toO-_^3;.Q S"^,«'0_ — iTOS«i-g = 3.= ;:.t;-oo7;5 = ^2|Js^-l = -STO :|-°S£l'^l >S'^-F£So-;;;i«= ^^^ ="- •^-3.^.2 o _ -TS 5£'j;i:0 X c^-st-a-roo 0= 0)— c"ci = 5 o~-5 ^^ E >- ^ 11 0.E :^i-y oisf iff i^-s °f I ^-i i:^ ^-1 ^l^:^p ill «|Els^ gill TO issif-^l-i-l^tl 11^51 i^--i-s o--2"lfl^l-Jp^i i=->-go^o-oS^~^,-s =°°j^ S^-- >-S = = W.S £ ^-g S ° 1 £ -il-S = ^ i --£ = is = S S ..• S-S.^^"^ Sri g^-Sc^^ a>t; ggS sii s'^^ScS « to ^^2« !2 o 2o S~ £ =S-5; S S 0)''^ roj= E c = S'^~-o ^ S.V, ^ S Si: 2;»_o-= >,_oo = c:2ra 3 S^ CO > u i: -a I— TO DO cj .s .:£ oo.^ c o TO i: >i: S ja o.»-oto o«-.g x:.i=cioo to lo ja = = to tots o : - o-o.S*- »£ P-2^ ^ o s'o S^ Q> - o o U C9 .68 c " ra2 = *- S^oo o E-o ' "" — "o = >-"o i £ <= „', — ^ M-a^ 0)^ c ^ = E o 5 = g» : t =i2 tJ^— 5 ^ o 5 £— o ".£! o> ,; E.^ -£? ^ "•^ >"H "-2 o:s-= 5 C O =3 «3 "o .:£ J.- c 5 £ CO *- ^_, 00 5 f £ 0.-0 OJ tj >> oi £ _o « s .a 3 2 T3 s — 3 3 w m s E >i _a> ^ S E c a E £ S 00 i£ "S 3 JC .= -c c o- -E £ c ■g s s J .^ »- o « £•* ■= ° , < t: 5 ;5 c . ..-Es' m f ., « o — is 09 h- o o E «) 2 £■£13 c « o CO Q) £ = - ^•SS-g oca's, SfS"! C-- S °i= o a, 2 o -|lii|i.ES"i.'5;s o S i g.-ra Si'-o £ ra c S.^ o "2 -"^ s Q..S •»: o < ,ir — ™ — '^ 0«-a o O m O) >^ ^^ CT3 S5-S-° <«:S g.S s-- i^ — oS c- °-- "^ "" :_«(!> - 5 OJ — -oJ L O >'St P — ! o c i2 o- : a>"rn »- 2Sg I CO ^ - ■ Q. *- 1 .^ I — E o" J'' *- oj *- o "J ca ; o-- °-^Si S.a>-= 2 TO ^ ■^^o^^f-ltSTOrag -eEo5=-S^c-S;^o ro: •a c^ ^ 1)-^ oc_- = gSE°.E£ TO -J J^ O W -O *- J5 w OJ L-'^ *^5= o ,- ^ o -Q i2 j:::s S,i; E^ E *^ 5 ^ TO QJ ° c t= E"ti:-= 2 Sto'-^J^mI' S,-o 0-! ;q; - .a — — w w a> p O- o o ir 5= ^SE c^ — 3 0-0 a>-^ — 3 o „'ce TO TO g -o E E.o_ ^^-f- E c-:^ .? ™ E-5 ca E y " S il5<.i'||zi^ I |S S£?5.S-5go0u -£?= S ><"^ SIS O 3 TO.S «£ i2:ii|ii|ffiii ^ -r-- ^ ' - j=o- !^-o2j-a o^o.' ::^=E='s > Ef --Q. ' llx: -Ci £■= ^-a iiiC- 'S = o S — JD .'S; c: "^ O Q) C _Ez"-S o ■■cTiS £■;; 5!^ 5 2iz £ C2 ^ .^"S^ >,TO MO) t^-o-Si S3-=^- i-S ,^o5 - TO (D --Q o TO 2 — ^ c ^rj «oi;o5'2"-. " 1 |0D^^-° E g 5- TO.|^.^0.|-= 5 ; ~ = ^5 o — o^ o 'r'o ■ofeooTO_^!ZpJ,'— !=>-E^?;E--^ : — .= .. ^ r5);=,y -"Sis = 2'= " : E TO o S o O) o ^ c 3 jr J= t- a.-o ID d) ; ^ TO o -»?' to ^ c i -c t>3 q: " c: »- to 3 Oi TO TO ;c5 = E i»: «-St:_°-iS a'".^ ° o'i.^SS'l _ ._ ^ „, o — ^ ;::;v? E ■5»°- ? o -^ Q-'S — c-i— "E -;; "^ c"^ 3 ^ ■ 70 _ OS — s«ss o Q..!2 2 C5 ■iHc^o'E5^*'°-- :|°s2l° ^ _a3 ^ CD t/>xj 2 E ~ ""^ ° ™ :'5 P'^ ■= i;"2 "■= = ^ T> -o " .5 ° OJ _.cc O M TO C/O ^"<5 *- O oo •i2iS TO = ^ Soc-1 2 05 a;= <^ ^ <5 g Q. lo E-o— -Et- o "^ °£ 5 o .2; S 2 s; Z^a s? o ■ o. o £■" Ec^-z-^ E 5 o_Or-:o ™ 2 ° o "-D o cr "CS S "■== a, ^ 2 oot- °- o o) 2 £ a:rore -a" c ~ — oo.Sf "cs :=0 E °- 3 QJ CD ^ ; .-^ ■- 5> "^ TO St3 8 8 50 si^ t"£i'sl s o^.i'=-S"=- -.£ -, "^-^ °^ £ =■= ' ^.2? TO to »> — ;<2-o^-2QJ "D — 'c: '_-S!£ o.E E--1 _ _ E ! ■ "— TO CL m ^ t: 3 ^ ^3 t ' — -E — "3'5^^'Ooo-^g <5 ™SiE-5 = .Eci^.E 71 5= TO UJ o-S s = c ■o S£ ^ MO) 5 ^ aj^ '^ "" S o ■£ ^ S'e 0° Z ^^^ ■- " <^ 2-S i S ° §'S'2 or ro ^— "2 ° " r,S.«5.S.Si£ .■sis is =■§ « (o-o ■-— " si i:C2 005^3 o lesj _ _ _ 3X) " a> 2^ = S o SfZ o 2 •2 O 35= 3 ^ O Q. •a ojja ^'C-s; =jz = go8Q.S.2" jo c <= CCS f-sSE'^^ •"■ra-r-, ™ = <«' E .>i2^'SE^-- J5 QJ 03 O'p CO < 0) j2 ,0 ™ c :-oE'^=^-£^ ■-•Sc/i22'2<"o s-5E5.2!!a;5 <'^ o E5~'-O''>a)0i " «>S-~ o c £ ^- =3 " „, ' 03 > c 03 c:.n: 2^ S03 ^.^ vjiC >-"o TO > c.rto I 1- g >T3 0)1- .S< 5 3 O TO O TO C ^-O Q._2 '^ ^ S S- tKos^ E.^^-o.E ^TO^a)'o-^i=~S^^ = -^^TOS^f-l^l^i ■"§Q£" 0(D^~- r — o 3-=oiti-a)'2 ^"^ o 03 3 — .=: ^ S i•— : Irt Q. DO ,- H S ™ m m S'" " T3 -J- 2 " OJ-ojz ic 5 c_2'-< a> " !2 5? £ " I- "5 <5 S,'o .Z-- cf • O CO ^> °-^o E'~ S^ o CT3 O — ' > Q.O o^ — o _ o) a> Q-O 1 J3 Pc: 5 (U 2 »a)'^'S ra^ ^■cS^ .-£ c ■= oj^l- > = 9-ro_ « '«S = -^-5;2 .So-:-'^ log -=roai-SM Eoo> li^Sg^'C J3 ro tu " o" — S"'"™^^ 1 _■" O) g a. = a) rt3 O .i-i ._ DOC.— ^1— 0«. ^^ T- 'fl ^ - E° * 2 Qj *^ -^^ a, o ^ .5 c 1^ c 5~J ''^■g' ■o ^^ «J c^22scss::'^~"'-roos-m-c "Eo £T3 or=^*o o oE|J5 ° o i : E x: QQ i «~=ra ct"I- 5—^ S g ; ■ -= " ■2 5 ^- — c =■ — , 3 £ ra := " ;^ <5.vi-D o >- ra g ^oj g ogflla. ^ 03 o p ! i: .= 3 Ofl "3 tl ™ ' -S-O 03 - :^^~ £0 0^ ! 0*5 o-S^ O E OcD CO ^ a..S2^ 03 ■g-l'^clE Q-ii- 'O- CJ _. ^ ro f^ >^ aj -D 5'^ ■^ -Cl S 2? ^^ c?5 j= Q:: 3 CT c .0 Q. ■§ ^ _g f "o "o > < 5 CO ~ .-9 < _^ "i;> -S ™ 5 c II .0 5 "S. i "^ .E ''7? .C a. .2: 5f 03 ^ O ,^5 o. .S O ^ i? "^ .-t; 03 „-. , ^-^ CU} t-. — cu Cora I o > £ TO 0-2.^^ "^SScg-S,E^S^gx«'.-o >,.E C°i-O-o03Ow X t^ J o -^ a> *u 55 _: . o " ^"O MOT ^ jj j; TO =-— (rt (D O (- ^1 !2 t: c: o ", ■;= * j; <= t^ "o — ^5 °i - F, "" o 05 11 "s 05 "c ^152 ^-4 *»— J^ o Q.,i2H2 ■a oS 5 ^-■z.- a; 5 E — 'CI^s J 75— "o ra~ Q-=^ .. _ i-o 2- o o»_ raEc-j-o- _ — 3 — -"= "^ - o -o' i-ssliiiit:ll|||-s! — 0)-S-§'^,/i5S^'~^"^a)'^t— m2=?' I i " 1°°^ £ " E S -IS- S-°S 2 5 S? 2 a? c ;^ — ™ ■0 a. 1 3 "0 ^ >. V f t ^ c « T3 Q. e C 00 » = Q. c= ^ £ ■l ^ ^'• u. — » ^-' u 2 a> CQ £ ■S ■0 W £ » e eo 3-= ™ C*- «2 2!^ » ° ■«• to-c Q> 5 3 03 2 76 CEXTRAL OKLAHOMA PROJECT, OKLAHOMA Mr. KiRWAN. On page 2, $90,000 is requested to continue the study on the central Oklahoma project. This study was resumed with $41,000 added by the Senate to last year's bill. Please tell us what is involved in this study. General Bradley. The central Oklahoma project report was sub- mitted in February, 1964. It has been returned to the division and dis- trict to respond to some questions that we have been asked to clarify. We now propose a start of a restudy of the navigation feature and a submission of an interim report on the Arcadia Reservoir protion of the project. Tlie report on the transportation of water to central Oklahoma will be scheduled at some future date, Mr. Kjrwan. Was the initial navigation report unfavorable? General Bradley. I don't recall sir. ]Mr. KiRWAN". Please supply that information for the record. (The information follows :) The Central Oklahoma Project Report submitted by the field in February of 1964 contained a benefit-cost ratio of 1.3 to 1. GALVESTON BAY AREA, TEX. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 4, $10,000 is budgeted to initiate a new naviga- tion study of the Galveston Bay Area, Tex., at a total cost of $350,000. Wliat is the justification for this new study ? General Bradley. This study will consider enlarging and deepening to 45 feet the Texas City and Houston Ship Chamiels and basins and turning points : developing an alternate spoil disposal method for the inland reach of the Houston Ship Channel ; constructing a deep-draft channel extension from the Houston Ship Channel near San Leon to Analiuac-Double Bayou area; and deepening the 7-mile Galveston har]3or entrance channel to 47 feet. GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVERS, TEX. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 5, the total cost of the navigation study of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers has been increased from $625.- 000 to $825,000 since last year. What has caused this increase? General Br.\dley. This cost was increased to cover salary increases, a detailed analysis of water resource facilities proposed by other Fed- eral agencies and the State of Texas, and a review and updating of flood control requirements and benefits to account for subsequent devel- opment in the basins. LONG island, PORT ISABEL, TEX. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 5, $15,000 is requested for a dust control study in the Tx)ng Island, Port Isal)el, Tex., area. What is the need for this study ? General Bradley. This is the study of measures to proA^ide control of the dust which blows ofT of Long Island, located immediately adja- cent to the city of Port Isabel. We have been asked to develop some means of providing this control. 77 BIG MULBERRY CREEK AND PLUM BAYOU, ARK. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 7, funds are requested to initiate two new flood control studies in Arkansas. Please describe the need for under- taking these new studies. General Bradley. The first one is Big Mulberry Creek, Ark. It is located in Franklin, Madison, Newton, Johnson, and Crawford Coun- ties in northwest Arkansas. Tlie basin is about 46 miles long, has an average width of about 11 miles and drains an area of about 500 square miles. Headwater flooding from Big Mulberry Creek inundates about 2,850 acres. The area that would benefit from flood control improve- ments is entirely rural except for a small portion in the town of Mul- berry. The study would consider flood control, water supply, and recreation. PLUM BAYOU, ARK. The other new study is Plum Bayou, located in east-central Arkansas in Pulaski, Lonoke, and Jefferson Counties, Ark. It lies along the left bank of the Arkansas River and extends from the vicinity of North Little Rock to the vicinity of Pine Bluff. The basin is 29 miles long and drains an area of about 204 square miles. The maximum flood of record overflowed about 12,900 acres. The flood and drainage problem results from an inadequate channel, flat stream slopes, and inability to divert flows into the Arkansas River when stages on that stream are high. The area which would be directly benefited from flood control and drainage improvements is entirely rural. ARKANSAS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES. GREAT BEND, KANS., TO TULSA, OKLA. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 8, $80,000 is budgeted to continue the study of the Arkansas River and tributaries. Great Bend, Kans., to Tulsa, Okla. This includes a study of the feasibility of extending navigation from the Arkansas River waterway into Kansas. What would be in- volved in making this portion of the river navigable ? General Bradley, Our study of navigation into Kansas will be on a regional basis. It will consist of a traffic survey, a rate study and engi- neering feasibility and water availability studies to determine the po- tential of navigation on the three streams, the Arkansas River between Tulsa and Great Bend, the Verdigris River, Okla., and Kans., and the Grand (Neosho) River, Okla., and Kans. Results obtained in our first study phase will determine if more detailed studied on the most feas- ible of these streams are warranted. grand (NEOSHO) RIVER AND ^'ERDIGRIS RIVER, KANS., AND OKLA. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 9, there are two additional studies (Grand- Neosho River and the Verdigris River) which includes studying of the feasibility of extending navigation into Kansas. Please explain what would be involved on these rivers from a navigation standpoint. General Bradley. The navigation studies on these streams and the Arkansas River will be considered on a regional basis. The study will consist of a traffic survey, a rate study, an engineering study, a water availabilty analysis and an economic study to determine the potential of na\dgation on the three streams. Detailed studies may be made on the most favorable stream. -78 SPRING RIVER, MO., KANS,, AND OKLA. Mr. Kjrwan. On page 10, $22,000 is budgeted for a study of the Spring River Basin in Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. Why is this study being resumed and what is invohed in the study ? General Bradley. Wlien the study was nearing completion on the basis of the original basin plan for developing the potential surface water storage it was found that only a limited need for such storage exists in the area. This caused us to resize the reservoir projects in the plan. Further, unforeseen foundation conditions were encountered and the cost of drilling was about double that previously estmiated. Since the last appropriation of funds, final project screening has been completed as have surveys and foundation explorations, and the de- tailed plan has been formulated. Overall, the study is now 90-percent complete and the requested amount will permit its completion. The study will consider flood prevention, water supply for mmiicipal and industrial and qiuility purposes, fish and wildlife, recreation and allied purposes. PECOS RIVER and TRIBUTARIES AT CARLSBAD, N. MEX. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 10, $10,00 is budgeted to initiate a review of survey of the Pecos Eiver and tributaries at Carlsbad, X. Mex., and vicinity at a total cost of $320,000. What is the justification for this review ? General Bradley. The city of Carlsbad is subject to flooding by the Pecos River and by Dark Canyon, a principal tributary wliich joins the Pecos at Carlsbad. The floods in the Pecos are caused by uncon- trolled spillage from McMillan Dam and by flood discharges from tributary arroyos entering the river below the dam. The most recent flood occurred in 1966 and caused estimated damages of $1 million. The study will seek solutions to these problems. RIO GRANDE AND TRIBUTARIES NEW MEXICO AND COLORADO (RIO PUERCO AND RIO SALADO) Mr. KiRWAN. On page 11. explain the request of $11,000 for a study of the Rio Puerco and Rio Salado Rivers in New Mexico, General Bradley. This report was completed to the point of distri- bution for field level review by others. Review comments on the report by the Rio Grande Compact Commission for the States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas required additional hydrologic studies to an extent not forseen by the estimate on which the request for completion funds was based. SANTA FE RIVER, N. MEX. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 12, $27,000 is budgeted for a study of the Santa Fe River, N. Mex. What is the justification for this new study? General Bradley. This report was essentially completed when the selected plan of improvement was j^resented to the city of Santa Fe. The ])lan fo]- Arroyo Mascaras met with city approval but the city ()I)jected to the ])roposed channel rectification of the Santa Fe Riv^er tiirough a downiovvn munic.i))al pai-k wliich reduced the park by about 43 percent. Additional studies of alternative measures have been under- 79 taken and the funds requested will permit completion of these studies and of the final report. POTEAU KIVER, OKLA, AND ARK. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 13, explain the request of $50,000 to mider- take a study of the Poteau River, Oklahoma and Arkansas. General Bradley. This report was submitted in September 1966 to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and returned in Feb- ruray of last year to the district for further study with respect to the regional aspects of water supply requirements and reevaluation of cost-sharing arrangements. BACHMAX and joe's creek, TEX. Mr. Kirwan. On page 14, $15,000 is budgeted to initiate a new study of Bachman and Joe's Creeks in the Dallas area. Please explain the need for this new study. General Bradley. Bachman and Joe's Creeks both rise in the north- em portion of the city of Dallas and have drainage areas of 12.6 and 7.6 square miles, respectively. These areas have undergone phenomenal gro^-th and expansion in the past several years due to mcrease in popu- lation of the metropolitan area. In recent years several damaging floods have been experienced. At present about $400,000 average an- nual damages occur on an area of some 900 acres in the basins of these streams. The investigation will involve a study of chan- nel improvements. COLORADO RIN'ER AND TRIBUTARIES, TEX. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 16, $25,000 is budgeted to resume the situdy of the Colorado River Basin in Texas. "Wliat is the status of this study and the basis for the request in 1969 ? General Bradley. This study was suspended due to the request of tlie Texas Water Rights Commission peiiding development of the Texas water plan. An urgent need for local flood protection on Beal's Creek at Big Springs, Tex., is unaffected by the request of the Texas Water Rights Coimnission and the basis of our fiscal year 1969 request is to prepare an interim report covering that need. GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVERS, TEX. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 17, $30,000 is requested to continue the study of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers in Texas. This was a new start added by the Senate to last year's bill. Please describe the need for this f#udy. General Bradley. The Guadalupe and San Antonio Basin is located in the south-central part of Texas, extending in a northwesterly direc- tion from San Antonio Bay, an estuary of the Gulf of IMexico. The total area consists of over 10,000 square miles, of which nearly 6,000 are in the Guadalupe and a little over 4,000 are in the San Antonio River watersheds. The investigation of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers has the objective of determining the feasibility of proposed projects to solve the problems and the needs for flood control, water 91-459— 68— pt. 1 6 80 supply, water pollution control, hydroelectric power, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. A separate investigation is underway to determine the merits of navigation on the San Antonio or the Guadalupe River. NECHES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, TEX, Mr. KiRWAN. Also on page IT, $65,000 is budgeted to resume and complete the study of the Neches River and tributaries in Texas. Please describe this study. General Bradley. The Neches River Basin is located in the eastern part of Texas, extending in a northwesterly direction from Sabine Lake, an esttiiary of the Gulf of Mexico, to the headwater region in Van Zandt County, about 60 miles southeast of Dallas. The basin has an overall length of about 210 miles and a maximum width of about 70 miles. Its total area lies within 20 counties and amounts to about 10,011 square miles. This review of report consists of an investigation of the Neches River and tributaries, Texas, with a view to determining what modifications to the authorized plan for flood control, navigation, water supply, and related uses in the Neches River Basin are desirable. The study will consider possible solutions to the water resources problems in the basin. TEXAS coast HTTRRICANE STTTDY Mr. KiRWAN". On page 19, $500,000 is budgeted to continue the special study of the Texas coast hurricane problem. What is the status of this study for which $1,697,000 has been made available to date? General Bradley. Our studies on this project are substantially com- plete for that portion which relates to Galveston Bay area. Indications point to the economic feasibility for improvements in the Galveston Bay area,. The district contemplates recommending in a letter-report that we proceed with the survey scope study of the Galveston Bay area in the near future. An interim report will be submitted ultimately, provided all the requirements are met during this study, such as as- surances from local interests that they are capable of fulfilling local interests requirements. TEXAS WATER AND POLLUTION STUDY Mr. Kjrwan. On page 20, $550,000 is budgeted to continue the special study of the Texas water pollution plan. What is the status of this study and why will $3,770,000 be required to complete the study after 1969? General Bradley. Sir, this study is in two parts. First, the water supply problem, in many areas of the State, has become more critical each year. The State is developing a water plan to solve the most critical needs. The corps has been authorized to cooperate in this endeavor to insure the purposes for which a Federal responsibility exists are appropriately considered. Our Fort Worth district is as- signed the responsibility in connection with this portion of the plan. Completion of this portion of the plan will follow closely the final Texas water plan scheduled for late 1968. The pollution problem in the coastal bays and estuaries and means of abatement will require a long technical study involving the assist- 81 anc« of many other agencies and the collection of essential basic data over a period of several years. This portion of the study has been as- signed to our Galveston district and this is the area which will require the additional funds after the budget year. Mr. KiRWAx. Mr. Morris, do you have any questions ? Mr. Morris. No, sir. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Ehodes ? purpose of genep^^l investigations Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman. General, what do you accomplish dur- ing the general investigation phase of a project? What is the end product ? What do you have when you get through ? General Bradlet. The purpose is to investigate a problem area, to determine what the needs and the requirements are for the solution of the problem and then to determine whether there is an economically feasible solution available and outline that solution, but not to make the detailed design, detailed analysis and plans and specifications. Mr. Rhodes. You do have a benefit-to-cost ratio at the end of this phase ? General Bradley. At the end of the survey report ; yes, sir. NUMBER and STATUS OF PROJECTS Mr. Rhodes. Now, would you repeat again for the record the number of projects which you have in your area, the ones that have been completed, ones in process, and so forth ? General Bradley. A total of 212 have been authorized and 109 have been completed, 39 are under construction and 64 have not been started. Mr. Rhodes. So that that would be 103 that are in various stages of completion ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. How many of those are in construction ? General Bradley. 39 are under construction now. Mr. Rhodes. How many are in advance engineering and design ? General Bradley. 21 are being designed at the present time. There are two where the design has been completed already. Mr. Rhodes. How many are there in general investigations? General Bradley. 34 areas in this year's program. Mr. Rhodes. 34? General Bradley. Yes. But they are not a part of the authorized projects. The 212 projects are those which have gone through the survey stage and have been authorized by the Congress. Mr. Rhodes. I see. So that you must have 42 which are more or less dormant ; would that be about right ? General Bradley. No, sir. There are 13 thaJt are deferred or inactive. There are 26 which are awaiting future funding. Mr. Rhodes. So you have 26 on which you have completed general investigaition ? General Bradley. Yes, ^ir. These are authorized projects. Mr. Rhodes. And are waiting for the next step, advance engineering amd design? General Bradley. Yes, sir. S2 Mr. Rhodes. How many projects or areas do you have in this par- ticular budget for general investigation ? General Bradley. Thirty-four. Mr. Rhodes. So that we are really extending the pipeline by appro- priating funds to continue the general uivesti^ation of these 34 proj- ects? You already have a pipeline of 26 waiting for the next stage. "Wlien these are completed, assuming that they are completed witliin the year, you would have 26 plus 34, which is 60 projects backlog wait- ing for the next step ? General Bradley. Providing none of the ones waiting were picked up in the succeeding year. Also providing all 34 studies resulted in projects which we would recommend. Mr. Kjrwan. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Rhodes. WhaJt about the 26 projects w'liich have ^one through the general investigation procedure ; are they all authorized ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. They have also gone through the authorization proce- dure and are ready for advance engineering and design ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. COMPLETED INVESTIGATIONS Mr. Rhodes. Do you have anj^ that you have investigated which are not authorized yet and are awaiting authorization ? General Bradley. Yes, sir ; there area few. Mr. Rhodes. You don^t know how many ? General Bradley. I know of at least three that are presently in one stage or another of review. Mr. Rhodes. You can supply that for the record, if you want. General Bradley. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) Three survey reports in my division are presently awaiting congressional authorization. These three reports recommend authorization of two reservoirs and one local flood protection project and extension of one hurricane protection project. CLEAR creek and CLEAR LAKE, TEX. Mr. Rhodes. Now, turning to some specific projects here on page 3, Clear Creek and Clear Lake, Tex., there was no allocation prior to 1968 and there was $8,000 in 1968. So this is a fairly new investigation. Would it be possible or feasible to have this one deferred for a few years, considering the budgetary situation, and the pipeline which you already have? General Bradley. That would be possible; yes, sir. lifespan of engineering and design work Mr. Rhodes. The gentleman from Wisconsin yesterday brought out what I thought was a rather cogent point in his questioning of General Cassidy. That concerned the useful life of engineering work on a proj- ect. As I recall — the gentleman from Wisconsin can correct me if I am vrcong — there is about a 4-year lifespan. In other words, if you complete the advance engineering and design on a project and do not 83 construct it immediately, 4 years later you have a lot of catchup work to do. Do you agree with that ? General Bradley. This could be true in some types of projects, depending on the area in which it was located. If it were out in a rural area it would be less likely to require changes than if it were in a metropolitan area. LIFESPAN OF GENERAL INVESTIGATION Mr. Rhodes. Tell me about the probable life of a general investiga- tion. How long would this be good, assuming you go through the general investigation process and then put the project on the shelf. How much time will elapse before you have to do the whole thing over again ? General Bradley. This, too, I think, would depend upon the type of problem. If it were one in a highly industrial or developed urban area, the life of the project or the survey report would be less than if it were out in a mountainous or rural area where the development rate would be far less than that in an urban area. The main aspects of the report would remain valid but you would, for example, perhaps have to relocate more bridges, pipelines, streets, or roads if the report remained on the shelf for several years. Mr. Rhodes. So you would actually have to take another look at it after a verj' short period of time ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. However, this can be done during the advance engineering and design stage and it would be looked at and brought up to date m that stage of our planning, no matter how long it had been on the shelf. Mr. Rhodes. Now, in Clear Creek, would there be any urgency at all if it were not for the congestion which is caused by recreation craft? Isn't this mainly the difficulty there? You state on the justifications, "An increase in recreational crafts has also caused congestion in the entrance channel and in the main channel." This really is the main difficulty ? General Bradley. That is the major problem; yes, sir. There is also adverse weather which would affect traffic even though there was no congestion at this particular time. GAL\ESTON BAY AREA NAVIGATION STUDY, TEXAS Mr. Rhodes. Turning to page 4, the Galveston Bay area naviga- tion study, I note that this is a new investigation start. I also note that the ship cliannel is to be deepened, according to this plan, at least to 47 feet. Xow, it strikes me that this is the deepest we have ever au- thorized a ship channel. "\Ve have authorized 45-foot channels before but I don't remember any 4T-foot channels. Am I correct in that? General Bradley. We do not have any at that depth in our area at the present time. Mr. Rhodes. What is the reason for the requirement for a 47-foot channel ? General Bradley. Because of the increase in number and size of vessels that are involved in deep sea navigation. Mr. Rhodes. Will you require any local participation in this project ? General Bradley. This would be developed from the survey report. Mr. Rhodes. Could this be deferred without too much damage to the economy ? General Br-\dley. I would say that there would be more damage from deferment of this one than there would be from the preceding one on Clear Creek, which is primarily for smaller craft. Mr. Rhodes. But would you say that damage to the economy caused by putting this off 1 year would be negligible or slight or great? General Bradley. I couldn't answer that specifically. Mr. Rhodes. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) LOXCr ISLAND, PORT ISABEL, TEX. Mr. Rhodes. Page 5, the Long Island dust control study. As I gather from reading this, the existence of the dust problem is caused by the fact that tliis is a spoil disposal area created by our own operations. General Bradley. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Now, in fig-uring the cost of the project which caused tlie spoil to be placed there, did you consider this dust problem? General Bradley. No, sir; we did not. This was deposited several years ago. Mr. Rhodes. So in effect this adds to the cost of whatever project was responsible for the spoil disposal ? Mr. I3rL\DLEY. 1 would think not, sir. This was a project for deep- ening the channel and harbor, and the disposal area was selected and provided for us and we deposited it there. I would say this is a new problem M^hich is only incidentally related to the navigation project and it is a new problem which would not be funded under the previous project of deepening and widening the channel. Mr. Rhodes. General, you wouldn't have the problem if you had not deepened and widened the channel ; would you ? General Bradley. That is correct, sir. MATAGORDA SHIP CHANNEL, TEXAS Mr. Rhodes. Page 6, the Matagorda ship chamiel, this again appar- ently is a project which is in existence because of the requirement to accommodate the larger ore carriei*s, larger ships. Is it your policy to ask for local participation in projects such as this ? General Bradley. Yes, sir ; it is. BIG mulberry creek, ARK. Mr. Rhodes. Turning to page 7, Big Mulberry Creek, Ark., how much of the benefits of this project will be chargeable to recreation? General Bradley. I could not say, sir. This would have to come out of the study. Mr. Rhodes. Could this be deferred ? General Br^vdley. This would be a matter for your consideration, sir. Mr. Rhodes. I would assume I would get the same answer as to Plum Bayou, as to the deferral ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. 85 EXTENSION OF NAVIGATION INTO KANSAS Mr. Khodes. On page 8 we have again the hnplication, maybe a rather strong indication would be a better word, that somewhere along the Ime the Corps of Engineers plans to send its dredges on upstream ?? T? :\^^^^S'^« ^1^'®!" ^^ tributaries to carry navigation into Kansas. Lyould this study be stopped at its present position without any ^reat harm, and continued at a later date? General Bradley. May I ask, sir, which project? Mr. Rhodes. I have reference to Arkansas River and tributaries on page 8, and the Neosho River, Okla. and Kans., on page 9. I think they are related projects. General Bradley. They are. The navigation study is to determine whether there is a feasible route, either on the Grand Neosho or the Arkansas, to points within Kansas. Mr. Rhodes. I have no objection to continuing that study as far as flood protection is concerned. Having had a little experience with Uie Neosho River early in life, I know the problem involved there. But 1 feel that m times of budgetai-y stringency such as now, that the contmuation of the navigation features of this are very marginal indeed, and probably should be deferred. Would you agree with that or disagree with it ? General Bradley. This could be considered as not requirino- as early an evaluation as the flood control portion of these studies.*' Mr. Rhodes. How much of the cost of the study is allocable to the navigation studies? Let's say those two projects, "'plus the third one, the \ erdigris River, Okla. and Ark. I think that falls into the same category. General Bradley. I don't believe I have that information. Mr. Rhodes. Would you furnish it for the record ? General Bradley. I shall, sir. Mr. Rhodes. For those three projects. General Bradley. We may not have it broken down to that degree for those three. (The information follows :) The approximate portion of the estimated cost of the three studies allocable to navigation studies is $375,000 out of a total of $1,947,000. SPRING RTVER, mo. Mr. Rhodes. Now, Spring River, Mo., page 10, there was no allo- cation for fiscal 1968. You are picking it up now with $22,000 and this IS supposed to complete the study. Is it necessary to complete the study this year? General Bradley. I would say so, sir. The study was planned to be completed at an earlier date. We found that the need for the water supply as expressed by local interests was less than that potential which we had developed in our plan and we had to reevaluate and reformulate our project. I would recommend that it be completed at this time rather than having it deferred or suspended for the lack of 1 year's effort on it. PECOS BIVER AND TRIBUTARIES AT CARLSBAD, N. MEX. Mr. Rhodes. On page 10, Pecos River and tributaries at Carlsbad, N. Mex., and vicinity, this is a new start. Is it necessary to begin that this year? General Bradley. This is an area, sir, that has had a very recent severe flood in 1966. The damages were in the order of $1 million. I should say, sir, that this should be one that should have early consideration. POTEAU RIVER, OKLA. AND ARK. Mr. Rhodes. On page 13, Poteau River, Okla. and Ark., again there was no allocation for the fiscal year 1968. We are beginning again in 1969. Is it necessary to do that this year? General Bradley. Sir, this study is nearly completed, and again I would recommend that it be completed rather than leave it in a partially suspended status. TENKILLER FERRY DAM AND RESERVOIR, OKLA. Mr. Rhodes. Also on pa^e 13, the Tenkiller Ferry Dam and Reser- voir, reading the justifications, as far as I can tell, the only reason you need this study is that the lake level fluctuations impair recrea- tion. Is there any better reason than that for this study? General Bradley. It affects recreation, sir, but this affects the econ- omy of the area which is highly oriented toward recreation because of the accessibility and the attractive features of this particular reser- voir. So it has a dollars-and-cents meaning to the local economy. Mr. Rhodes. Wliat is the fluctuation in that reservoir? Do you have the figures? You can furnish that for the record. General Bradley. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) The pool may fluctuate as much as 35.4 feet due to power releases. Actual fluctuations to this time have varied up to a maximum of 32.5 feet. COLORADO river AND TRIBUTARIES, TEXAS Mr. Rhodes. I believe in response to a question of the chairman with reference to the Colorado River and tributaries, on page 16, you men- tioned that this had been deferred because of the existence of the Texas water study. I wasn't clear as to why you want to restart this study, due to the fact that the Texas water studv is still going on. General Bradley. Yes, sir. We feel tliat the reasons for suspension, which are the development of the Texas water plan, have nearly been overcome and that this study could be resumed in fiscal year 1969 with the in]iut from the Texas water plan at the time required to carry on the Colorado Ri^-er and tributaries study. Mr. Rhodes. You feel that the two can be coordinated ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. GUADALUPE AND SAN ANTONIO RIVERS, TEX. Mr. RiiDES. Turning to page 17, Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, there was $8,000 allocated for that in fiscal 1968. There is a 87 total of $1,025,000 required. Wouldn't this be a good time to put this in mothballs, during the time of budgetary stringency which we now face? General Bradley. This report would cover all aspects of water re- source development, including flood control; until we have had an opportunity to determine more precisely what the various problems are, I am not in a position to say that this should be postponed. Mr. Rhodes. You don't have any previous studies on these rivers ? General Bradley. Not for the full gamut of functions. There is a study on the navigation aspect of these two rivers, but we do not have any at the present time on the flood control and other allied purposes. WHriE ROCK CREEK, TEX. Mr. Rhodes. Page 18, "White Rock Creek ; again, could this be post- poned ? This was started in fiscal 1968. It requires an ultimate cost of $261,000 to complete the study. Wouldn't this be a good one to post- pone ? General Bradley. I think, sir, that this would not. It is primarily a flood control problem in an area that is developing very rapidly. I would think that the sooner we determine if there is a solution and arrive at it, the less expense will be involved in the overall program. Mr. Rhodes. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ejrwan. Mr. Davis? central OKLAHOMA PROJECT Mr. Davis. Just three questions. General, on page 2 did we see this under a different name last year? At least, I could not find it in the justifications last year. General Bradley. The central Oklahoma project, sir? Mr. KrawAN. This was added by the Senate last year. Mr. Davis. It was not before this committee last year ? Mr. Kirwan. No, sir. Mr. Davis. I see. There had been some previous studies made and it was contemplated to suspend the investigations during the current fiscal year, but the Senate did put funds back in for that purpose ; is that the story of it ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. COST increase on fiscal year 196 8 NEW STUDIES Mr. Davis. On page 3, Dickinson's Bayou, and on page 4, the Gal- veston Channel. Their first allocations have come in the current fiscal year. Yet in each instance we note increases in the estimated Federal cost of those two. At the time this budget was made up, you wouldn't have proceeded far enough in your investigation to determine the increased costs from that source, would you ? General Bradley. No, sir. The reason for the Dickinson Bayou in- crease is due to the costs of preparation for economic base studies, and traffic studies have increased to meet new citeria requirements for this type of survey reports. There has been some small increase in our method of computing our overhead for supervision and administra- 88 tion. In the case of the Galveston Channel, the same reasons apply for the increase in cost. LONG ISLAND, PORT ISABEL, TEX. Mr. Davis. Mr. Khodes talked to you a little bit about that dust control study, which intrigues me also. Is it going to take $15,000 to find out we have to put some kind of a cover on that soil to keep it from blowing around ? General Bradley. No, sir. The problem is to find out what kind of cover Ave can put on there which will stay and will provide the dust palliation that is required. ]\Ir. Davis. There must be some Department of Agriculture bulletin around somewhere that would provide the answers. General Bradley. Yes, sir. They are being fully explored. We are trying to determine what solutions have been used elsewhere. Mr. Davis. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KiRWAN. Thank you. /' Advance Engineering and Design little rock LEX'EE, ARKANSAS (EAST END-FOURCHE BAYOU) Mr. KiRWAN. Now to advance engineering and design. $31,000 is budgeted to initiate and complete planning of the Little Rock levee, Arkansas local protection project. (The justification follows :) Little Rock Levee, Arkansas (East End-Fourche Bayou) (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located in the southwestern part of the area protected by the existing Little Rock levee, Arkansas (East End- Fourche Bayou) at Little Rock, Ark. The project consists of a 45,000 g.p.m. pumping station and a sump storage capacity of 164 acre-feet at elevation 246 m.s.l. The sump storage consists of 71 acre-feet of natural storage and 93 acre-foot of excavated storage below elevation 246 m.s.l. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. Siimmarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $388, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 95, 000 Cash contribution 20, 000 Other 75,000 Total estimated project cost 483, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 31, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 31, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 justification About 244 acres of urban property in the southwestern jiart of the area pro- tected by the existing Little Rock Levee, Arkansas (East End-Fourche Bayou) project are subject to flooding by impounded runofl:' under existing conditions. With the expanded industrial development expected within the next 10 years, a total of about 319 acres would be subject to flooding. The project would provide a 89 high degree of flood protection in this highly developed residentiul and industrial area. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $44,600. Non-Federal costs. — The estimated cost to local interests of complying with the requirements of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $95,000. This includes $75,000, the estimated cost of providing lands, easements and rights-of-way and a cash contribution of $20,000 toward the construction cost of the project to compensate for any encroachment on the sump area occurring subsequent to the date of the District Engineer's report. Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. The annual cost for maintenance, operation and replacement is estimated at $8,100. Status of local cooperation. — The attorney for the Little Rock-Pulaski Drainage District No. 2 submitted a letter dated August 20 1964 stating that the require- ments of local cooperation specified in the District Engineer's report would be met at the proper time. The extent of encroachment on the sump area, if any, will be determined during precoustruction planning. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $388,000 is an increase of $25,000 from the latest estimate submitted to Congress ($363,000). This increase is due to higher price levels. Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this new planning start. General Bradley. This project is located in the southwestern part of an area now protected by a levee at Little Rock, Arkansas. The plan of improvement consists of a 45,000-gallon pumping station and a sump storage capacity of 164 acre-feet to provide flood protection to an area of some 319 acres now subject to flooding by impounded runoff under existing conditions. Mr. KiRWAN. What has been the recent flood history in the area and what is the nature of the present development in the area to be protected ? General Bradley. There have been six major floods since 1927. The last one was in May of 1957 with damages in that instance of over $200,000. The nature of the improvements in the area are residential and industrial developments, sir. I believe the map will show those industrial developments, some of which are under construction at the present time. PIXE MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR, LEE CREEK, ARK. Mr. KiRWAN. $225,000 is budgeted to complete planning of the Pine Mountain Reser\'oir, Lee Creek, Ark. (The justification follows :) Pine Mountain Reservoir, Lee Creek, Ark. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project, located at mile 35.7 on Lee Creek in Crawford County, Ark., is a reservoir for purpose of flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, and recreation. The reservoir would provide a storage capacity of 124,160 acre-feet, of which 40,320 would be for flood control, 81,340 for water supply, and 2,500 for sediment storage. The storage designed for water supply would provide a yield of 60 million gallons daily during the most critical dry period of record and a continuous release of 2 cubic feet per second to augment low flows. Authorization.— 19Qo Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. 90 Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $10, 800, 000 Future non- Federal reimbursement 6, 771, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 4, 029, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 6, 771, 000 Reimbursement: Water supply 6, 771, 000 Total estimated project cost/. 10, 800, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 500, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 75, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 200, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 225, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 -- -.- ._ JUSTIFICATION The project would provide an adequate degree of flood protection on Lee Creek downstream from the dam; municipal and industrial water supply of 60 million gallons daily; area redevelopment benefits; and recreational opportunities in an area which, according to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, has the greatest need in the State for additional fishing and recreational areas. The estimated annual benefits for the project are: Flood control $63, 000 Water supply 378,000 Recreation 157, 000 Total 598,000 Non-Federal reimbursement. — Local interests will be required to repay to the United States all construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement costs allocated to the initial water supply in accordance with the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, and give reasonable assurance that repayment of such costs allocated to future water supply will be made within a period of time, which will permit paying out the costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project. The reimbursement for water supply is presently estimated at $6,771,000, based on July 1967 price levels. With reference to the provisions of Public Law 89-72 the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, all lands required for the Pine Moun- tain Reservoir, while largely privately owned, are located within the boundaries of the Ozark National Forest and cost-sharing by local interests will not be required. Under the terms of a memorandum of agreement signed by the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Agriculture August 13, 1964, and pursuant to a further commitment on August 7, 1967, by the Forest Service of its intentions, the responsibility for developing and managing the project-associated land and resources, including water-oriented recreation, will be assigned to the U.S. Forest Service with the exception of lands and waters in the immediate vicinity of the dam site. The District Engineer will, however, continue to participate in the planning to the extent of assuring that adequate provisions will be made for public use of the reservoir. At the time construction is initiated, the lands re- quired for project purposes, including public access and use, will be acquired by the Corps of Engineers. Lands required for public use and development will subsequently be made available to the Forest Service. Status of local cooperation. — Officials of the cities of Fort Smith and Van Buren have submitted resolutions stating that the requirements of local cooperation for the water su])ply features of the project will be met at the proper time. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $10,800,000 is an increase of $800,000 from the latest estimate submitted to Congress ($10 million). The increase is due to higher price levels. Mr. KiRWAN. What would the benefit-to-cost ratio on this project be under the proposed higher interest rate ? General Bradley. We have not received any instructions, sir, from the Chief of Engineers' Office as to what the new interest rate is to be or how it is to be applied. I understand the Water Kesources Council 91 is addressing this problem with a view toward coming up with co- ordinated instructions that will be applicable to all agencies. Mr. KiRWAN. Explain the memorandum of agreement with the Forest Sei*vice under which it accepts the responsibility for develop- ing and managing the recreation features of the project, relieving local interests of cost-sharing responsibilities. General Bradley. Sir, there has been a memorandum of agreement signed by the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Agri- culture. On the 7th of August of 1967 a further commitment in con- sonance with that agreement was made by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture to develop and manage the recreational facilities at this project. This is in accordance with the law that pro- vides that when lands or facilities are within the confines of a national forest, and are appropriate for administration of the recreation by a Federal agency as a part of the national forest system, such lands and facilities are exempt from the cost-sharing requirements of Public Law 89-72. Mr. KiRWAN. What will be the cost of the land and facilities for recreation on the project? General Bradley. I don't have that, sir. Mr. KiRWAx. Please provide it for the record. (The information follows :) The presently estimated cost of land to be acquired for recreation is $50,000 and that for facilities is $265,000. The Corps of Engineers will construct mini- mum basic facilities in the immediate vicinity of the damsite and the Forest Service will construct those elsewhere in the reservoir area. The planning for these facilities has not advanced sufficiently to develop the division of these costs between the two agencies. Mr. IQrwax. Will the Forest Service budget for the cost of the development of recreation ? General Bradley. Yes, sir, except for the minimum basic facilities in the immediate vicinity of the damsite which the Corps of Engineers will provide. EL DORADO RESERVOIR, KANS. Mr. KiRWAN. $350,000 is budgeted to complete planning on the El Dorado Eeservoir, Kans. (The justification follows:) El Dorado Reservoir, Kans. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Located in Butler County, Kans., on the Walnut River, 2 miles northeast of El Dorado, Kans. The plan of improvement consists of an earthfiU dam and a gated concrete spillway for flood control, a 24-inch low-flow control and a 24-inch pipe for water supply. The dam would be 9,650 feet m length mcluding the spillway, with a maximum height of 88 feet above the streambed. The length of the spillway would be 144 feet with 3 40 foot by 35 foot Tamter gates. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.06 to 1. 92 Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $27, 900, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 0) Total estimated project cost 27, 900, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 650, 000 Allocations to Jmie 30, 1967 100, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 200, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1968 350, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 1 Costs allocable to water supply and recreation are reimbursable. (Estimated at $9,549,000 and $350,000, respectively. )3 JUSTIFICATION The El Dorado Reservoir is a unit in the plan for the control of floods in the Walnut River Basin. Construction of this project would provide a high degree of flood protection to the Walnut River Basin; develop the optimum yield of the stream into a positive source through storage and regulation; provide urgently needed water supply storage for municipal and industrial use; provide dilution water to help solve the water quality problem in the river basin; and provide outdoor recreation, sport fishing, and hunting to help meet the regional demands. The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $322,900 Water supply 496,000 Water quality control 168, 500 Recreation 219,000 Total 1, 206,400 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Gov- ernment for costs allocated to water supply storage and certain cost-sharing features associated with recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. The reim- bursement required is estimated to be $9,549,000 for water supply and $350,000 for recreation. Status of local cooperation. — State or local interests who will eventually contract for water supply storage for future use are required to furnish reasonable assur- ances that demands for use of such storage will be made within a period of time which will permit i)aying out the costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project, but not to exceed 50 years from the date the storage is first used for water supply purposes, all in accordance with the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. This cost of storage for future use cannot exceed 30 percent of the total project cost. Local interests will also be required to hold and save the United States free from water rights claims resulting from construc- tion and operation of the project. The Kansas Water Resources Board has fur- nished a resolution, dated June 1, 1963, requesting that approximately 71,900 acre-feet of conservation storage be included in this project for municipal and industrial water supply, water quality control, and other beneficial uses. At the time the Kansas Water Resources Board comments were received con- cerning the Walnut River survey report, Congress was considering legislation on the subject of non-Federal responsibility for certain cost sharing features associ- ated with recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. Therefore, no recom- mendation or specific assurances were received. As a part of advance engineering and design, the extent of local cooperation rcq\iired will be developed and the necessary assurances obtained. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $27,900,000 is an increase of $2,300,000 over the latest estimate ($25,600,000) presented to Congress due to price level increases. Mr. KiRw.xN. The cost is up on tliis project since lust year, and the benefit -to -cost ratio is only LOG to 1. Considering the [)eiidino- hiahei- interest factor, what effect mi^j^ht it have on this projex't^ General Bradley. Sir, I will refer to my previous answer on the interest rates. We have not received any instructions as to what and how much interest to apply. 93 HIGHER INTEREST RATES Mr. KiRWAN. I realize it may be premature to speculate on the ett'ect of the new interest rates until the ground rules are formulated. However, it may mean that marginal projects which are not jet under construction will have to be reanalyzed from the economic standpoint. If we are going to use higher interest rates, I believe we should also give consideration to the many indirect project benefits which are not now included in the ratio. Mr. Rhodes. At what period do we decide that a project will either go on or will not? In other words, at what time in the life of the construction project do the new interest component rules apply? Mr. KiRWAN. The administration has stated it will only apply to new authorizations. From a practical standpoint, however, it may be difficult to prevent the new rules from being applied retroactively to all new construction starts. Mr. Whitten. Could I mterrupt to raise a point ? "\^niatever we have to do, I realize we have some problems. But if the value of money goes up 1 percent, it follows that the value of the project benefits should go up proportionately. So I do not see how, in the filial analysis, you could cut down the cost-benefit ratio by raising the cost due to higher interest rates without considering escalation on the benefit side. Mr. Rhodes. The administration has said that these niles are going to apply. Mr. Whitten. They may have reasons to apply them, but I question the soundness of the proposed policy change. Mr. Rhodes. If we could have the rules changed, I think we would all be happier. Mr. Whitten. What I am trying to say is, this is not a sound basis on which we should draw a line. We may need to draw the line be- cause of the lack of money. ^Ir. KiEWAN. Is that all ? Mr. Rhodes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. GREAT bend LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, KANSAS Mr. KiRWAN. $150,000 is budgeted to continue planning on the Great Bend local protection project, Kansas. (The justification follows :) Great Bend Local Protection Project, Arkansas River, Kans. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Great Bend, Kans., is located on the north bank of the Arkansas River, about 4.5 miles above its confluence with Walnut Creek. The city is vulnerable to flooding from Walnut Creek on the north and east and from the Arkansas River on the south. The area subject to inundation comprises urban and suburban lands and improvements, irrigated and grazing lands and improvements, highways, and railroads. The plan of improvement consists of 6.2 miles of leveed channel to divert Walnut Creek floodflows around and upstream from the city, a leveed channel 1.5 miles long to direct Little Walnut Creek floodflows into the Walnut diversion channel, 6 miles of improved channel with levees along the Arkansas River, a tie-back levee 4.3 miles long on the north bank of the Arkansas River upstream from the junction of the Walnut diversion channel, modification or reconstruction of two railroad bridges and appurtenant facilities. The project would protect Great Bend and vicinity from Arkansas River flows 94 of 86,000 cubic feet per second and Walnut Creek flows of 26,000 cubic feet per second. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.6 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $4, 680, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1, 900, 000 Cash contributions Other 1,900,000 Total estimated project cost 6, 580, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 400, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 75, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 150, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969- 175, 000 JUSTIFICATION The project will provide flood protection for urban and suburban areas, irrigated lands and highways and railroads at and in vicinity of Great Bend, Kans. Pteliable records show that major floods occurred in 1942, 1950, 1951, 1958, 1959, and 1965. The flood of September 1959 on Walnut Creek and the flood of May 1942 on the Arkansas River caused damages at Great Bend of $255,000 and $213,800, respec- tively. Recurrence of these floods would cause estimated damages amounting to $2,678,000 and $2,025,000, respectively, under present conditions (July 1967 prices). The recent major damaging flood of June 1965 produced an estimated peak discharge on the Arkansas River at Great Bend of 27,600 cubic feet per second which was of greater magnitude than the flood of May 1942; however, the condition of the levees was somewhat improved from what it was in 1942, and by sandbagging and quickly extending levees in several areas and waging a con- certed flood fight the city was saved from severe flooding. The damages which occurred on the right bank of the river and in other scattered areas, including the expenses incurred in the successful flood fight, amounted to about $193,500. Had the flood figlat not been successful damages would have amounted to $3,200,000 which under present conditions would be $3,488,000 (July 1967 prices). Average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $955,000. Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $1,900,000, and is broken down as follows: Lands and damages $1, 130, 000 Relocations 670, 000 Engineering and design 60, 000 Supervision and administration 40, 000 Total 1, 900,000 The annual cost to local interests for operation and maintenance is estimated at $30,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of local cooperation have not been requested inasmuch as general design studies have not been completed. At a conference in Great Bend, during the project survey report stage, local interests expressed approval and gave verbal assurances of their willingness and ability to participate in construction of the proposed project. In a special election on August 10, 1965, a ref(M'ondum bond issiie to finance the requirements of local cooperation was present(>d to the electorate and was defeated. Since defeat of the initial bond issue, the city council initiated a campaign to better acquaint the people in the community with the proposed project. The mayor advises that they propose to present the bond issue to the voters in April 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimated Federal cost of $4,680,000 is an increase of $280,000 over the latest estimate ($4,400,000, July 1965 prices) presented to Congress. These; revisions include $220,000 for price level increases and $60,000 for supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements. Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this project which was a new planning start added by the Senate last year. 95 General Bradley. This is a local levee and channel flood protection project for Great Bend, Ivans. It is located on the north bank of the Arkansas Eiver about 41/^ miles above its confluence with Walnut Creek. The city is vulnerable to flooding from Walnut Creek on the north and east, and from the Arkansas River on the south. The project would protect Great Bend and vicinity from the Arkansas River flows and Walnut Creek flows. The average amiual benefits are presently estimated at $955,000, all from flood control. LOCAL COQPERATIOlSr Mr. KiRWAN. It is noted on page 32 that a bond issue to finance the local cooperation was defeated in 1965. What is the current situation concerning local plans to meet the costs of $1,900,000 ? General Bradley. Since the defeat of the bond issue in 1965 the city has been carrying on a program to better acq^uaint the people of the commimity with the proposed project. The city plans to again hold an election in April of 1968 on this issue. CANDY RESERVOIR, OKLA. Mr. KiRWAN". $125,000 is budgeted to continue planning on the Candy Reservoir, Okla. (The justification follows:) Candy Reservoir, Okla. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The dam would be located in Osage County, Okla., on Cand,v Creek, a tributary of Bird Creek, about 1 mile northeast of Avant, Okla. The plan of improvement consists of a rolled earth embankment with an uncontrolled spillway, together with the necessary alterations to existing utilities and other facilities. Authorization.— \'d&2 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $5, 920, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost , (i) Total estimated project cost 5, 920, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 300, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 40, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 125, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 135, 000 ' Cost allocable to water supply is estimated to be $760,000. JUSTIFICATION The Candy Reservoir is a unit in the plan for the control of floods in the Caney River-Bird Creek Basins. Construction of this project would provide a high degree of flood protection to the Caney River-Bird Creek Basins; develop the optimum yield of the stream into a positive resource through storage and regu- lation; provide dilution water to help solve the water quality problem i\\ the basins; provide water for future municipal and industrial use, outdoor recreation and fishing and hunting to help meet the regional demands. The estimated annual benefits are: 91-459— 68— pt. 1- 96 Flood control $394, 000 Water supply 44, 800 Water quality control 44, 800 Recreation 60, 500 Fish and wildlife 3, 500 Total 547,600 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government for costs allocated to water supply storage over a period not to exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. The reimbursement required is estimated to be $760,000. Status of local cooperation. — Local cooperation required is limited to repayment of costs allocated to water supply features of the project under contracts to be negotiated at the proper time. The Oklahoma Water Resources Board has fur- nished assurances of intent to sponsor water supply in the project. Up-to-date commitments for repayment of water supply costs will be obtained during pre- const ruction planning. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,920,000 is an increase of $420,000 over the latest estimate ($5,500,000) pre- sented to Congress. The increase is based on price level changes. Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this project which was also a new planning start added by the Senate to the bill last year. What has been the recent flood history in the area ? General Bradley. The dam would be located m Osage Count}'-, Okla., on Candy Creek about 1 mile northeast of Avant, Okla. The plan of improvement consists of a rolled earth embankment with an uncontrolled spillway. The benfits are flood control, water supply, water quality, recreation and fish and wildlife. There have been 14 damaging floods, smce 1926. The last major flood was in September of 1961. CLAYTON RESERVOIR, OKLA. Mr. KiRWAN. $100,000 is budgeted to initiate planning of the Clayton Reservoir, Okla. (The justification follows :) Clayton Reservoir, Okla. (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — Located on Jackfork Creek, a tributary of Kiamichi River, about 3 miles north of Clayton, Okla., in Pushmataha County. The plan of improvement consists of an earthliil dam with a total length of 13,630 feet, inchiding an uncontrolled chute spillway 200 feet in width, with sill and apron. The outlet works would consist of a cut and cover conduit 11 feet in diameter, located in the valley on the east side of the river. Hows through the conduit would be controlled by two 5 feet by 1 1 feet tractor gates with provision for emergency gates and stop logs. A 24-inch water supi^ly outlet would also be provided. Aidhorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Bene jit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $15,900,000 Estimated non-Federal cost (}) Total estimated project cost 15,900,000 Preconstruction plainiing estimate 475, 000 Allocation to Juue 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 100, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969__ 375, 000 * Costs allocable to water supply are estimated to be $7,482,000. 97 JUSTIFICATION The Clayton Reservoir is a unit in the plan for the control of fioods in the Kia- niichi River Basin. Construction of this project would provide flood protection for land in this basin; develop the optimum yield of the stream into a positive resource through storage and regulation; provide urgently needed water supply storage for municipal and industrial use, outdoor recreation, fishing and hunting to help meet the regional demands. The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control-- $223, 400 Water supply 454, 800 Fish and wildlife 13, 000 Recreation 204,000 Total 895,200 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Gov- ernment for costs allocated to water supply storage. The reimbursement required is estimated to be $7,482,000. Status of local cooperation. — State or local interests who will eventually contract for water supply storage for future use are required to furnish reasonable assurances that demands for use of such storage will be made within a period of time permit- ting the paying out of costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project, but not to exceed 50 years from the date the storage is first used for water supply purposes. The proposed repayment requirements for the water supply storage included in the plan of improvement have been discussed with local and State interests. The cities of Antlers and Hugo, Okla., and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board have furnished assurances (dated June 24, 1960, June 7, 1960, and Nov. 14, 1961, re- spectively) of intent to sponsor the entire conservation storage. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — -The current Federal cost estimate of $15,900,000 is an increase of $1,900,000 over the latest estimate ($14,000,000) ubmitted to Congress. The increase is based on price level increases. Major design changes since project authorization. — None. Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this new planning start. General Bradley. The dam would be located on Jack Fork Creek, a tributary of the Kiamichi River about 3 miles north of Clayton, Okla. The plan of improvement consists of an earth embankment, an uncontrolled spillway, and related features. Construction of the project would provide flood protection for land in the Kiamichi River Valley, development of the optimum yield of the stream through storage and regulation, and provide water supply storage, and recreation. Mr. KiRWAN. Wliy are there no requirements for reimbursement by local interests of a portion of the recreation costs ? General Bradley. In this case recreation is an authorized project purpose and the authorizing document did not require cost sharing. Mr. KiRWAN. What has been the recent flood history in the area? General Bradley. The flood history includes three damaging floods since 1938. The last major flood was in May 1958. LUKFATA RESERVOIR, OKLA. Mr. KiRWAN. $66,000 is budgeted to complete plamiing on the Lukfata Reservoir, Okla. (The justification follows:) Lukfata Reservoir, Okla. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Located in McCurtain County, Okla., on Glover Creek, approximately 13 miles northwest of Broken Bow, Okla. The plan of improvement provides for construction of an earth and rockfiU dam, uncontrolled 98 saddle spillway, and an outlet works together with the necessary alterations to existing highways and other facilities. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio, — 1.15 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $13, 400, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost '_"_ (i) Total estimated project cost 13, 400, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 500, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 ..WW 314, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 II II 120, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 I_-IIII 66) 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. » Costs allocable to water supply are reimbursable, amount not determined. (Estimated in General Design Memorandum to be $2,252,000 for initial development.) JUSTIFICATION Tills project is a unit of the seven reservoir system in the Little River basin, 'consisting of the authorized Lukfata, Dierks, DeQueen, Broken Bow, Pine Creek, Millwood, and Gillham Reservoirs. Operation of this system would provide a high degree of flood protection for lands in the Little River and Red River basins; develop the optimum yield of the stream into a positive resource through storage ■and regulation; provide urgently needed water supply storage for municipal •and industrial use; provide dilution water to help solve the water quality problem -in the lower basin; and provide outdoor recreation, sport fishing, and hunting to help meet the regional demands. The estimated annual benefits are : Flood control $372,800 Water supply 171, 500 Water qualitv control 73, 200 Recreational 113, 900 Fish and wildlife 1,000 Total 734,400 Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government for costs allocated to water supply storage over a period not to exceed 50 j'ears after use of this storage is initiated. The reimbursement required is estimated in the general design memorandum to be $2,252,000, exclusive of interest. Status of local cooperation. — The Mountain-Lakes Water District has furnished a resolution, dated May 23, 1967, assuring that it will repay the costs allocated to water supply storage in the initial development. By resolution dated June 13, 1967, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board furnished assurances that a legally and financially capable agency would contract to repay the costs allocated to water supply in the initial and ultimate project development in accordance with the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. Mr. KiRWAN. I note the benefit-to -cost ratio is now only 1.15 to 1? General Bradley. At this time I would like to report that the benefit- to-cost ratio shown is in error. It should be 1.17 to 1 and the recrea- tion benefits should be $131,200, the same as last year. SHIDLER RESERVOIR, OKLA. Mr. KiRWAX. $175,000 is budgeted to complete planning of the Shidler Reservoir, Okla. (The justification follows :) 99 Shidler Reservoir, Okla. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The dam would be located at mile 37.1 on Salt Creek, a tributary of the Arkansas River, in Osage County, Okla. The plan of improve- ment consists of an earthfill dam 3,000 feet in length with an uncontrolled off- channel spillway and a maximum height of 106 feet above the streambed. The out- let works would consist of an uncontrolled drop-inlet structure and a conduit, 8.25 feet in diameter, extending through the embankment. Separate 24-inch pipes imbedded in the structure would permit low-flow and water supply releases. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.02 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $7, 080, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost (0 Total estimated project cost 7, 080, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 325, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 50, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 175, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. _ > Costs allocable to water supply and recreation are reimbursable. (Estimated at $1,118,000 and $178,000, respectively.) JUSTIFICATION The Shidler Reservoir would control all floods of record at the damsite; provide a high degree of flood protection to the rural and urban areas downstream to the approximate backwater limits of the Arkansas River; develop the optimum yield of the stream into a positive resom'ce through storage and regulation; provide urgently needed water supply storage for municipal and industrial use; provide dilution water to help solve the water quality problem in the lower reaches; and provide outdoor recreation, sport fishing, and hunting to help meet the regional demands. The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $180, 300 Water supply 62, 900 Water quality control 34, SOO Recreation 72, 000 Total 350,000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government for costs allocated to water supply storage and certain cost-sharing features associated with recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. The reimbursement required is estimated to be $1,118,000 for water supply and $178,000 for recreation. Status of local cooperation. — The Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, requires the State of Oklahoma or local interests to repay to the United States all costs allocated to water supply and a proportionate share of the annual costs of opera- tion and maintenance. The proposed repayment requirements for water supply storage in the reservoir have been discussed with State and local interests. A resolution has been received from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board request- ing that approximately 11,000 acre-feet of storage be included in this project for municipal and industrial water supply, water quality control, and other beneficial uses, and indicated that the costs therefor will be repaid in accordance with the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. The city of Shidler, Olka., has furnished a resolution dated November 2, 1960, assuring that it is fully cognizant of the provisions and requirements of the Water Supply Act of 1958, and requesting storage in Shidler Reservoir to yield 0.15 million gallons per day. In addition, a letter has been received from Ponca City, Okla., indicating possible interest in Shidler Reservoir as a future source of water supply. The Oklahoma Water Resources Board has fiu'nished a resolution dated May 11, 1965, providing assurances of non-Federal participation to provide benefits of recreation and fish and wildlife in Shidler Reservoir, as presently estimated, or may be determined at the time construction is initiated. 100 Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — ^The current Federal cost estimate of ■$7,080,000 is an increase of $480,000 over the latest estimate ($6,600,000) pre- sented to Congress. The increase is due to price level increases. Mr. KiRWAN". The benefit -to-cost ratio on this project has dropped to 1.02 to 1. With rising costs and interest rates, is it not likely that this project will drop below unity ? General Bradley. Sir, I will refer to my previous answer on Pine Mountain. We have not received any instructions as to what and how much interest to apply. AKKANSAS-RED CHLORIDE CONTROL, SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES, TEXAS, OKLAHOMA, KANSAS Mr. KmwAx. $1 million is budgeted to continue planning of the Arkansas-Red River chloride control, supplemental studies, project. (The justification follows :) Arkansas-Red Chloride Control, Supplemental Studies, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas (Continuation'^of planning) Location and description. — Located in area I, Great Salt Plains, and area VI, Elm Fork Red River. The project consists of: (1) a fresh water impoundment ■dike at Great Salt Plains on Salt Fork (area I) ; (2) a collection system, evaporation pond, and deep well injection test on Elm Fork (area VI); and (3) additional water quality monitoring stations in the two basins. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — Not applicable. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost 1 $2, 500, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost None Total estimated project cost 2, .500, 000 Supplemental studies estimate 2, 500, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal vear 1968 850, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 1, 000, 000 Balance to complete supplemental studies after fiscal year 1969 650, 000 JUSTIFICATION During survey studies, several potential control plans were discarded because of high construction costs, and others were eliminated because they included untested theories. Investigation of the untested theories may reduce the costs of, or fully substantiate the effectiveness of the proposed plans. Before construc- tion of some chloride control structures is started, extensive investigations of grovmd water hydrology and subsurface conditions would be required. This would consist of conducting field tests to assist in developing the data for designing more efficient control plans. Each field test would investigate a separate principle of brine control which might be used in one or more of the areas. Non-Federal cost. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — No change from the latest estimate submitted to Congress. Mr. KiRWAx. Please explain tlie ])urpose of this study. General Bradley. This project relates to both parts I and II of the Arkansas-Red chloride control projects. The studies include extensive investigations of ground water hydrology and subsurface geology prior to construction work on part I, which is presently authorized. The specific pro^wsals are to conduct field tests to obtain data needed for developing the most efficient r-ontrol plans. Each field test would 101 investigate a separate principle of brine control whidi may be used in one or more of the areas. ARKANSAS-RED CHLORIDE CONTROL, PART I, TEXAS, OKLAHOMA, KANSAS Mr. KiRWAN. $400,000 is budgeted to continue planning of the Arkansas-Red River chloride control project, parti. (The justification follows:) Arkansas-Red Chloride Control, Part I, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Part I of the project is located along the Wichita River in King, Kiiox, Foard and Cottle Counties, Tex. The plan of improvement consists of three low-flow dams, two brine reservoirs, together with the necessary- pumping plants and pipelines. The project purpose is water quality control. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.12 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $54, 000, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost 54, 000, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 1, 300, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 150, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 400, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 . - 750,000 JUSTIFICATION Three major natural chloride source areas in the headwaters of the Wichita River basin unite to render the waters of the Wichita River and Lake Kemp Reservoir unsuitable for most municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. Because control of all three chloride source areas is required to meet minimum water quality improvement goals for the basin, the plans are inseparable and comprise this project. The construction of this project could greatly reduce the chloride pollution of the Wichita River and improve the quality of the water in Lake Kemp Reservoir. Average annual benefits, all water quality, for this project are estimated at $2,640,000. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — Prior to construction, and pending the establish- ment of a public policy on division of responsibility between Federal and non- Federal interests, responsible non-Federal interests must give assurances to the Secretary of the Army that they will: continue and strengthen efforts to reduce salt pollution from oilfields and" other mining and industrial operations as recom- mended by the Public Health Service; and hold and save the United States free from all water rights claims and free from damages due to construction and operation of the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $.54 million is an increase of $4 million over the latest estimate ($50,000,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $2,638,000 for higher price levels and $1,362,000 for engineering and design and supervision and ad- ministration, based on a reanalj'sis of requirements. Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this project which was added as a new planning start to the bill last year by the Senate. The benefit-to-cost ratio on this project is only 1.12 to 1. What are the annual estimated benefits ? 102 General Bradley. The project is located along the Wichita Ri^'er in King, Knox, Foard, and Cottle Counties, Tex. The plan of improve- ment consists of three low-flow dams and two brine reservoirs together with the necessary pumping facilities and pipelines. The const niction of this project would greatly reduce the chloride pollution of the Wichita River and improve the quality of water in the Lake Kemp Reservoir. The benefits are $2,640,000 annually, all water-quality control. LOCAL COOPERATION INIr. KiRWAN. What will be the local cooperation on this project ? General Bradley. Prior to construction the local interests would be required to give assurances to the Secretary of the Army that they will continue and strengthen efforts to reduce or preclude pollution from oilfields and other mining and industrial operations, to hold and save the United States free from all water riglits claims and free from damages due to construction and operation of the project. RELATIONSHIP TO CHLORIDE CONTROL PROJECT Mr. KiRWAN. What is the relations!hip between the prior requests for funds for supplemental studies for chloride control m the area of this project? General Bradley. The supplemental studies referred to earlier, sir, include detailed field tests of the several principles that we propose to utilize in the design and construction of part I and part II. The evapo- ration pond wthich is included in the supplemental study that we referred to previously is particularly applicable to part I of the chloride control program. Mr. KiRWAN. Under the supplemental study item the justification states that the investigation of the untested theories may reduce the costs of or fully substantiate the effectiveness of the proposed plans. Does this not apply to part I of the project for which the $400,000 is requested ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. The evaporation ]Dond portion of the supplemental study would apply to part I of the Arkansas-Red chloride control project. Mr. KiRWAN. Please provide for the record a breakdown of the estimated cost of $54 million. (The information follows :) The cost breakdown requested follows: „ .. , ^^„„* ^ Estimated cost. Item: Julyi.i9e,7 Lands $2, 58."). 000 Relocations 2, 300. 000 Construction 42, 34.'^. 000 Engineering and design 4, 200. 000 Supervision and administration 2. 572, 000 Total 54, 000. 000 BELTON RESERVOIR, TEX. Mr. KiRWAN. $85,000 is proposed to initiate and complete planning of the Belton Reservoir, Tex. — to raise the conservation pool. 103 (The justification follows :) Belton Reservoir, Tex. — Raise Conservation Pool (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — The existing dam is located on the Leon River about 16.7 miles above the confluence of Leon and Lampassa Rivers and about 3 miles north of Belton, Bell County, Tex. The proposed improvement consists of reloca- tion of and modifications to existing park and recreation facilities, additional clearing, and construction of a high-level, permanent bridge on the East Range Road in the Fort Hood Military Reservation to allow operation of the existing project at a conservation pool elevation of 594 feet m.s.l. in lieu of 569 feet m.s.l. as currently operated. Authorization. — 1946 and 1954 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.0 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $1,930, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 1, 930, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost: 1,930, 000 Reimbursement (water supply) 1, 930, 000 Other Total estimated project cost 1, 930, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 85, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 85, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. justification The proposed improvement provides for raising of the present conservation pool elevation from 569 feet m.s.l. to the ultimate elevation of 594 feet m.s.l. The approved project plan provides for a total reservoir storage capacity of 1,097,600 acre-feet. At the ultimate conservation pool elevation of 594 feet m.s.l., this storage is allocated as follows: Flood control 640,000 acre-feet, water supply 372,700 acre-feet, and sediment reserve 84,900 acre-feet. Of the water supply storage, 125,700 acre-feet is allocated to present supply and 247,000 acre-feet is allocated to future supply. Pending impoundment of water at Proctor Reservoir upstream, the Belton project has been operated at interim elevation 569 feet m.s.l. and the future water supply has been allocated meanwhile to flood control. At this elevation, the project storage is allocated as follows: Flood control 887,000 acre-feet, water supply 125,700 acre-feet, and sediment reserve 84,900 acre-feet. The ultimate elevation of 594 feet m.s.l. is in agreement with the water supply contract with the Brazos River Authority as modified on December 13, 1960. Under the terms of the approved contract, the B RA must start interest payments 10 years after start of impoundment of water at Proctor Reservoir (September 30, 1963). However, under the terms of the contract the BRA can request release from the ultimate pool at any time it is needed. By letter of April 26, 1967, the BRA notified the district engineer that the authority plans to begin using this water on or about January 1, 1973. To meet this schedule, the construction necessary to raise the conservation pool elevation must be completed by fiscal year 19t2. By letter dated November 1, 1965, from Headquarters, III Corps, and Fort Hood, the district engineer was advised that Curry Crossing is flooded and closed for extensive periods of time due to operation of the reservoir. During the period May to July 1965 the crossing was closed for over 2 months. The East Range Road is the prfncipal and only feasible route from the Fort Hood garrison area to the training areas in the northeast portion of the reservation. Average annual benefits are estimated to be $142,000, all water supply. Non-Federal costs. — The Brazos River Authority, a State agency, has con- tracted for the total water supply storage in Belton Reservoir at an estimated cost of $4,952,537. Status of local cooperation. — Complied with in full. 10* Comparison 0/ Federal cost estimates. — The estimate of cost for this improvement has not iDreviously been presented to Congress. Major design changes since 'project authorization. — None. JMr. KiRWAN. Please describe this new planning start. General Bradley. The existing dam is located on Leon River about 3 miles north of Belton, Bell County, Tex. The proposed im- provement provides for raising the present conservation pool ele- vation from 569 feet above mean sea level to 594 feet above mean sea level. Modification of the existing dam and spillway structures is not required. The bridge on the Feast Range Road in the Fort Hood Military Reservation is to be replaced at a cost presently estimated at $1,190,000. All costs to effect this pool-raising change in project operations are allocable to water supply and will be reimbursed under authority for project modification under an existing contract under an existing contract for water supply. AUTHORITY FOR PROJECT MODIFICATION Mr. KiRWAN. What is the specific authority for this modification to the existing project ? General Bradley. The 1954 Flood Control Act, sir. Mr. IviRWAN. Did it provide specifically for this ? Please insert the information in the record. (The information follows :) The Flood Control Act of 1954 (Public Law 780, 83d Cong., second sess.) au- thorized the plan for flood protection and other purposes on the Brazos River and tributaries, Texas, substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Cbief of Engineers in House Document 535. 81st Congress. In House Document 535 the Board of Engineers for River and Harbors re- ferring to the Belton Reservoir project initially authorized in the 1946 act said, "In the opinion of the Board, the project should be modified to permit con- struction of a powei'plant at such time as the Chief of Engineers may find advisable. Such modification of the project is desirable in the interest of per- mitting compresensive development of the water resources of the basin. Final decision as to the provision of a powerplant should await the time when con- ditions regarding future upstream consumptive use of water become more de- finitely known and should take into account the comparative values to be ob- tained by the use of various amounts of the reservoir for storage for alter- native purposes, such as additional flood control and reservation of water for irrigation and other uses, which may be modified by changed conditions before the decision need be made." The Chief of Engineers concurred in the recommendations of the Board. The planning and construction of the Belton Reservoir project has provided the flexibility to meet these objectives. Under the authority of the 1958 Flood Control Act the secretary of the Army entered into a contract with the Brazos River authority which provides for repayment of the costs of the project allocated to water supply purposes. The Federal costs involved in raising the operating pool level will be fully reimbursed. REPAYMENT FOR WATER SUPPLY Mr. KiRWAN. Please explain the repayment plans by local interests of the water supply. General Bradley. There will be full repayment under the provi- sions of the water supply contract approved by the Secretary of the Army on December 13, 1960. 105 DUCK CREEK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, TP^TA p Mr. KiRWAN. $30,000 is budgeted to initiate planning of the Duck Creek channel improvement — Trinity River and tributaries, Texas. (The justification follows :) Duck Creek Channel Improvement — Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located on Duck Creek, in the ui-ban area of Garland, Dallas County, Tex. The plan of improvement provides for about 6.6 miles of channel improvement with necessary modification of 10 bridges (2 railroad, 8 street) . Authorization. — -1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $4, 540, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost: Cash contribution Other costs 1, 150, 000 Total estimated project cost 5^ 690, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 200,' 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal j^ear 1969 30, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 170^ OOQ justification The project will give a high degree of protection to 363 acres of urban and subur- ban land prmcipally within the environs of the city of Garland, Tex. This city of 58,100 people (estimated 1965) is one of the satellite cites of Dallas. The total value of phj^sical property within this area is estimated at $9,031,000 (July 1967). The maximum flood of record occurred in 1949. A recurrence of this flood under present conditions of flood plain development would cause damages estimated at $1,032,000. Average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated to be $276,200. Non-Federal costs. — The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: Lands and damages $672 000 Relocations ~~ 434' qqq Engineering and design I "I. II 17' 000 Supervision and administration 27' 000 Total 1^ 150_ 000 The average annual cost to local interests for maintenance, operation, and replacements is estimated at $6,000. Stat7is of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not vet been requested. The president of the Trinity Improvement Association and chairman of the Ex- ecutive Committee of the Trinity River Authority of Texas by letters date October 2, 1961, and August 9, 1962, and informal discussion, have stated that It is the intent of these organizations to sponsor the authorized Trinity River projects and to undertake to comply singularly or jointly on items of cooperation required of local interests. c^?^!??"'"^^^^ ^-^ ^^deral cost estimates .—The current Federal cost estimate of $4,540,000 is an increase of $364,000 from the latest estimate ($4,176,000— Janu- ary 1962 base) submitted to Congress. The increase is due primarily to higher price levels. Major design changes since authorization. — None. Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe thi.'^ new planning start. General Bradley. This project, located on Duck Creek in the urban area of Garland, Tex., consists primarily of about 6.6 miles of channel improvement. The project will give a high degree of flood protection to urban and suburban land principally within Garland, Tex. 106 Mr. KiRWAN. What has been the recent flood history in the city of Garland? General Bradley. There have been four damaging floods since 1949 and the last was in 1966. LOS ESTEROS RESERVOIR AND MODIFICATION OF ALAMOGORDO DAM, N. MEX. Mr. KiRWAN. $300,000 is budgeted to continue planning on the Los Esteros Reservoir and modifications of Alamogordo Dam, Pecos River, N. Mex. (The justification follows :) Los Esteros Reservoir and Modification of Alamogordo Dam, Pecos River, N, Mex. (Continuation of Planning) Location and description. — The proposed Los Esteros Dam is located on the Pecos River, about 7 river miles north of Santa Rosa, Guadalupe County, N. Mex. Los Esteros Dam will be an earthfill structure 1,865 feet long and 218 feet high with an oflf-channel, uncontrolled spillway and a controlled outlet works (tunnel) . Existing Alamogordo Dam is located about 56 river miles downstream from Los Esteros Dam site and just north of Fort Sumner, De Baca County, N. Mex. Authorized modifications to Alamogordo Dam include increasing the height 10.5 feet, constructing an emergency spillway, raising the crest of the service spillway, removing tainter gates and piers from the service spill waj^ and transfer of all irrigation storage to the Los Esteros Reservoir. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1, Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost (CE) $12, 300, 000 Los Esteros Reservoir (10, 900, 000) Modernization of Alamogordo Dam (1, 400, 000) Estimated Federal cost (USBR) modernization of Alamogordo Dam (Not available) Estimated non-Federal cost None Total estimated project cost 12, 300, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 800, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 '315,000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 100, 000 Amount recommended for fiscal year 1969 300, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after 1969 85, 000 1 Preconstruction planning initiated in fiscal year 1956, and suspended in June 1960i JUSTIFICATION There are many serious, longstanding flood problems on the Pecos River and its tributaries in New Mexico and Texas. Even minor floods which occur frequently cause considerable damage and major floods have caused serious damages and loss of life. The flood problem is aggravated by the hazards of inadequate spill- ways on existing dams downstream of Alamogordo Reservoir. Except for the Two Rivers Reservoir on Rio Hondo near Roswell, N. Mex., there are no specific allocations or operations for flood control on the Pecos River below Alamogordo Dam. In addition to flood control, irrigation storage will be provided in Los Esteros Reservoir in exchange for flood control storage in Alamogordo Reservoir, and in the present plan of improvement some storage for irrigation will be retained in Alamogordo Reservoir. With the present rate of sedimentation annually occurring in the Alamogordo Reservoir, storage for irrigation would be seriously depleted in the foreseeable future. Modification of Alamogordo Dam as planned would pro- vide a safe structure which would be effective for flood control for about 100 years and supplemental irrigation storage would be provided. The two reservoirs are necessary in the overall plan of improvement for the Pecos River Basin. They will 107 be operated for flood control in conjunction with the existing Two Rivers Reservoir near Roswell, N. Mex. on the Rio Hondo, a tributary of the Pecos River. They will exert a regulatory effect on floodflows which will reduce spills from existing downstream reservoirs, on the mainstream of the Pecos River, alleviate the hazards of inadequate spillways thereon, and provide more dependable stream- flow regulation for irrigation. The last major flood occurred in October 1954 with a discharge of 40,000 c.f.s. at Artesia, N. Mex., downstream from Alamogordo Dam. This flood caused damages estimated at $1,648,000 and with the proposed reservoirs in full opera- tion, damages of $821,000 would have been prevented under present conditions (July 1967 prices). Additional major floods occurred in May and June 1941, September and October 1941, and May and June 1937 with maximum discharges of 30,800 c.f.s., 48,500 c.f.s., and 52,200 c.f.s., respectively. The two floods of 1941 inflicted damages estimated at $838,000 and $1,259,000, respectively. Damage data on the 1937 flood are not available; however, it is estimated that, damages would amount to $2,184,000 from a flood of that magnitude under present conditions and prices, but would be preventable with the project in full operation. In recent times, other major floods occurred on the Pecos River downstream of Alamogordo Dam. Flooding in those areas would be affected by these two i^rojects only to the extent as the projects may be operated for flood control in conjunction with downstream projects such as the existing Two Rivers Reservoir. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $602 , 000 Redevelopment 91, 000 Total 693,000 Non-Federal cost. — None, except for future non-Federal reimbursement for irrigation which obligation the Carlsbad Irrigation District will continue to repay to the United States and for participation in maintenance and operations costs in an amount equal to what the irrigation district is now obligated to pay toward the maintenance of Alamogordo Dam and Reservoir. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation, considered to be in proper legal form and to conform to the authorizing legislation, were received from the Carlsbad Irrigation District on June 25, 1965. The Carlsbad Irrigation District is a public corporation and political subdivision duly organized and existing under the constitution and the laws of the State of New Mexico. The assurances were produced in the form of a formal resolution by the board of directors of the irrigation district as local sponsor of the project. In this resolution the irrigation district agrees "to the transfer of all irrigation storage capacity above elevation 4,255.0 mean sea level in the Alamogordo Reservoir (existing) to the Los Esteros Reservoir and to the exclusive use of all storage capacity above this elevation in the Alamogordo Reservoir for flood control." They also agree to continue to fulfill their present repayment obligations to the United States for Alamogordo Dam and Reservoir and further to participate in maintenance and operations costs in an amount equal to what they are now obligated to pay toward maintenance of Alamogordo Dam and Reservoir, estimated at $10,000 annually, as set forth in the project authorization. The transfer of irrigation storage from the Alamogordo Reservoir to the Los Esteros Reservoir would be effected by the Carlsbad Irrigation District filing an application for the transfer with the State engineer of New Mexico who has been delegated authority to rule in such matters for the State. This application for transfer of storage has not been filed pending finalizing of a memorandum of agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers in conformity with the project authorization. Work thereon can now proceed since funds have been provided for resumption of preconstruction planning. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $12,300,000 is an increase of $300,000 over the latest estimate ($12 million) pre- sented to Congress. This change includes increases of $260,000 for higher price levels and $40,000 for supervision and administration based on a reanalysis of requirements. Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this project for the record on which planning was resumed with funds included in the House bill last year. General Bradley. The proposed Lx)s Esteros Dam is located on the Pecos River about 7 miles north of Santa Rosa, in Guadalupe County,. 108 N. Mex. The Los Esteros Dam will be an earthfill structure 1,805 feet long and 218 feet high, with an off-channel uncontrolled spillway and a controlled outlet works. Existing Alamogordo Dam is located about 56 river miles dovv-nstream from Los Esteros Dam site and just north of Fort Sumner, IST. Mex. Authorized modifications to Alamogordo Dam include increasing the height 10^/^ feet, constructing an emer- gency spillway, raising the crest of the service spillway, and removing fainter gates and piers from the service spillway. Transfer of all irri- gation storage to the Los Esteros Heservoir is planned. Mv. KiRAVAx. The justification indicates on page 63 that the esti- mated Federal cost to the Bureau of Reclamation for the modification of the Alamogordo Dam is not available. What is involved in this cost and vrhen will an estimate l>e available? General Bradley. Sir, our planning has just resumed on this proj- ect and we have not had time to determine this as yet. ^Lv. KiRWAN. AYe will insert the balance of the justifications under advance engineering and design. (The justifications follow :) El Paso Local Protection Project, Texas (ContirxViation of planning) Location and description. — The project is at El Paso, El Paso County, Tex.' which is situated on tlie left bank of the Rio Grande, in the reach that forms part of the international boundary between the United States and the Republic of IMexico. Although the city of El Paso is subject to occasional flooding from the Rio Grande, this project is limited to the flood problems created by the tributary arroyos on the eastern, southern, and western slopes of the adjacent Franklin Mountains. The plan of improvement is a single-purpose flood control system of detention dams, diversion dikes, and channels to collect, regulate, and discharge arroyo runoff into the Rio Grande. The project is divided into four independent elements, described as follows: northwest area, central area, and two units (copper system and bluff channel) in the southeast area. The improvements for the central area and copper system of the southeast area are authorized for construction as soon as practicable, whereas construction of the remainder of the authorized project (northwest area and bluff channel) is to be deferred until such time as construction is initiated by the International Boundary and Water Commission on the improve- ments which may be required to increase the capacity of the Rio Grande and its fioodway or until an acceptable substitute plan is adopted by all concerned. The elements authorized for construction as soon as practicable consist of seven reser- voirs plus diversion and outlet channels in the central area to operate in conjunc- tion with existing facilities and two reservoirs together with diversions and an outfnll channel in the copper system in the southeast areas. The deferred elements include three reservoirs and a diversion channel with appurtenances in the north- west area and bluff channel (in southeast area). Authorization. — 19G5 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $15, 100, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' 3, 260, 000 Cash contributions Other 1 3,260, 000 Total estimated project cost 18, 360, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 750, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 150, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 250, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 350, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. > In aildition, since 1949 local interests have expended about $5,500,000 for a storm drainage system, a series of small detention dams, flood control and drainage works, and a master plan for flood control. 109 JUSTIFICATION The project will provide flood protection for urban areas which are subject to frequent damaging floods from arroyos on the eastern, southern, and western slopes of the adjacent Franklin Mountains. Reliable records show that major damaging floods occurred in 1950, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1963, and 1966. Estimated damages from the floods of Julv 1955, September 1958, and September 1962 were $640,000, $984,000, and $855,000, respectively. Value of land and improve- ments in the standard project flood plain (July 1967 prices) is $298 million, including militarv property valued at $30 million. Average annual flood control benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $1,199,000. Non-Federal cosU. — The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: Lands $1,950, 000 Relocations ^^ 180, 000 Other costs- III-- ^-^Q' OOQ Total - 3, 260, 000 The annual cost to local interests of maintenance, operation and replacement is estimated at $115,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not been requested mas- much as the general design studies have not been completed. In October 1964, prior to authorization of the project, the city passed a bond issue which included an additional $3.5 million for flood control work to be accomplished by the city, part of which would be for initiation of the work on the El Paso local protection project in cooperation with the Corps of Engineers. The city has developed a master plan for flood control and has in the past spent several million dollars for a series of small detention dams on several of the major arroyos and for storm sewers, pumping plants and other facilities. The frequcmcy of damaging floods is a serious problem as the city continues to grow and expand. The International Boundary and Water Commission has advised that due to an international agree- ment stipulating maximum flood releases into Rio Grande in the area, the recom- mended plan (plan D^ for the northwest area as presented in the project document (H Doc. 207, 89th Cong., first sess.) is not acceptable. After consideration of the matter, IBWC has indicated that plan B as presented in the project document would be acceptable. The citv expects to complete a study for an alternative ditching plan for bluff channel in the southeast area during fiscal year 1968. Plan B for the northwest area and the possible changes to the bluff channel feature will be coordinated with the city of El Paso and IBWC to effect an accept- able alternative plan. ^ , , ^ j.- ^ c Comparison of Federal cost estimates .—The current Federal cost estimate of $15 100 000 is an increase of $700,000 over the latest estimate ($14,400,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $410,000 for higher price levels and $290,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administra- tion based on a reanalysis of requirements. Lakeview Reservoir, Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas (Continuation of planning) Location and Description. — The authorized Lakeview damsite is located at mile 7 2 on Mountain Creek, a right bank tributary to the West Fork of the Trinity River. Mountain Creek and the West Fork of the Trinity River join in Dallas County near the western edge of the county. The plan of improvement provides for an earth dam about 22,620 feet long and a reservoir with a total controlled storage of 488,700 acre-feet. The total storage includes 136,700 acre-feet for flood control, 306,400 acre-feet for conservation and 45,600 acre-feet for sediment reserve. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.9 to 1. 110 Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $35, 300, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 16,937,000 Estimated Federal cost (Ultimate) 18, 363, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement (water supply) 16, 937, 000 Other None Total estimated project cost 35, 300, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 900, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 None Allocation for fiscal year 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 400, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 _ 400, 000 JUSTIFICATION The project is an authorized element in the plan for improvement of the Trinity River Basin. Flood control storage on Mountain Creek will have a pronounced effect in reducing flood damages in the Dallas area. Studies show that a reservoir in the lower reaches of Mountain Creek, with a capacity to contain a flood of 50-year frequency, would reduce the standard project flood in Dallas from 226,000 c.f.s. to about 160,000 c.f.s. and would reduce the flood stage about 3.S feet at the Dallas gage and about 3.4 feet at South Loop 12 Bridge. The project will provide flood protection to about 33,000 acres of land in the basin. The project also will provide storage for municipal, industrial, and other beneficial uses which would serve the water supplj^ requirements of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, where a need exists for the good quality water resources available from the ISlountain Creek drainage area. In addition, recreation requirements of the area will be served by the project. Breakdown of estimated average annual benefits are as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $1, 619. 800 Water supply 1, 116, 500 Recreation 2, 025, 000 Total 4,761,300 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Gov- ernment for costs allocated to water supply from the Lakeview Reservoir. The reimbursement is currently estimated at $16,937,000, exclusive of interest. Status of local cooperation. — The Trinity River Authority, a State agency, is the principal proponent of the project and there is no known organized opposition to the project. The Trinity River Authority by letters dated October 2, 1961, and August 9, 1962, and in informal discussions has stated that it is the intent of this organization to sponsor and to complj- with items of cooperation required of local interests. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $35,300,000 is a decrease of $800,000 from the latest estimate ($36,100,000 sut> mitted to Congress. This decrease is due to $1,556,000 for adjustment of construc- tion costs to provide for initial recreation development only and $213,000 for reduction in supervision and administration costs due to reanalysis of require- ments. The decrease was partially offset by an increase of $969,000 for construction due to price level rise. Liberty Local Pkotection Project, Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Project is located along the Trinity River adjacent to the city of Liberty, Liberty County, Tex. Plan of improvement provides for the construction of about 53,500 feet of levee, having a freeboard of 4 feet above the design discharge water surface and provisions for interior drainage facilities. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.0 to 1. Ill Sunvnarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $2, 100, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 420, 000 Cash contribution Other costs 420, 000 Total estimated project cost 2, 520, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 100, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 50, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 50, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. JUSTIFICATION The area subject to flooding in the vicinity of Liberty, Tex., consists of about 50 percent of the highly urbanized portion of the town, oilfields, and pasture- lands. The degree of protection that will be provided at Liberty by the Tennessee Colony Reservoir and the Trinity River multiple-purpose channel ranges in magnitude up to those occurring once in 60 years. A higher degree of protection is considered necessary because of the highly developed nature of the area. Aver- age annual benefits are $297,000, all flood control. Non-Federal costs. — The estimated cost to local interests for construction of the project is $420,000. This cost consists of (1) lands and damages, $325,000, (2) re- locations, $83,000; (3) engineering and design, $6,000; and (4) supervision and administration, $6,000. Status of local coo-peration. — Local interests are represented by the Trinity River Authority, Trinity Improvement Association and the city of Liberty. All three agencies have furnished indications that they will comply with the require- ments of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $2,100,000 is an increase of $100,000 over the latest estimate ($2 million) submitted to Congress. The increase results from higher price levels. Mr. Ejerwan. Mr. Morris. Mr. Morris. No questions. Mr. I^RWAN. Mr. Whitten. Mr. Whitten. No questions. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Davis. RESUMPTIOInT of planning on LOS ESTEROS PROJECT Mr. Davis. Thank you. On the Los Esteros project, page 63, appar- ently the history here is that there had been some planning done and then it was suspended. It was not submitted to our committee last year. Mr. Kirwan. No, but it was added as an unbudgeted item by our committee. DECREASE IN ESTIMATED COST OF LAKEVIEW RESERVOIR, TEX. Mr. Davis. I did find one project where there had been some decrease in the estimated cost. How significant is that one, really ? That is the one where you are now dealing with what you referred to, I think, as initial recreation development only. It is really just a deferral of some construction and some cost until some later time ; is that about wliat it amounts to ? General Bradley. Sir, the cost presented last year for the Lake view project included the estimated cost of all recreational facilities which may be required at some future time, and should have included only the initial recreation development for the first 3 years after the project is placed in operation, which is reflected in this year's cost figure. 91-459— 68— pt. 1 8 112 Mr. DA\as. But the left-out part this time is still in the overall plan ; isn't it? General Bradley. The initial developments of the recreation facili- ties provide for the first 3 years of operation. If the projected utiliza- tion of the facility indicates that the original estimate is accurate and additional facilities are required, they would be provided with funds budgeted and appropriated under the line item of code 710, additional recreation facilities at completed projects. RECREATION BENEFITS AND COSTS Mr. Davis. Even with what you refer to here as the initial recrea- tion development, we still have about better than 40 percent of the benefits attributable to recreation ; is this correct ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. And those benefits would be attributable over the entire 100 years of the project life. Mr. Da^t:s. AVliat I am trying to get at : Are these benefits attrib- utable to recreation going to be realized from what you refer to here as initial recreation development or do those benefits contemplate the full recreational development? General Bradley. This would be based on present projected esti- mates of attendance and utilization of the recreation facilities. Mr. Davis. Is it reallj'' presenting a fair picture to tell us that what we are paying for here now is initial recreation development only when you consider the benefits you are apparently taking credit for, the complete recreational development ? General Bradley. The cost of the ultimate recreational develop- ment was erroneously included in last year's figures. Under our pres- ent criteria we should include the cost of the initial development only in our request for appropriation. The benefit-cost ratio is computed on the basis of the estimated full cost of the ultimat-e project develop- ment for all project purposes, including recreation, averaged over the life of the project, sir. Our request for appropriation should have been based last year — and is this year — on only the initial development of recreational facilities. Mr. Davis. I think basically it gets down to this : What is the tab going to be for the additional cost in order to rea;lize the recreational benefits which these justifications take credit for? General Bradley. At the present time it would be the difference between our cost for recreational facilities last year and those we pre- sented this year, which is in the order of $1.7 million. But those rec- reational benefits you refer to as being realized are compared with the estimated ultimate cost of all project facilities in our calculation of the benefit-cost ratio. So if we did not develop the recreational features beyond the initial ones, we would not include that portion of the estimated cost associated therewith nor would we claim credit for the recreational benefits Ix'yond that whicli would be provided by the initial development. Those additional costs would, of course, be justi- fied in future appropriations. Mr. Davis. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 113 Construction effect of stretch-out program Mr. KiRWAN. Now, under the category of constructdon, please sum- marize for us the effects of the deferrals and stretchouts of construc- tion on the projects in your division. General Bradley, There are 11 projects in the Southwestern Division that have incurred delay because of the stretchout program. These de- lays vary from 3 months to 20 months, sir. STATUS OF ARKANSAS RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT Mr. KiRWAN, About $136.7 million is budgeted to continue construc- tion on the projects involved in the development of the Arkansas River and tributaries. Please brief the commitee on the status of this overall porject and what will be involved in completion after fiscal year 1969. General Bradley. The Arkansas Eiiver multiple-purpose project is about 70 percent complete at this time and will be about 75 percent complete on June 30, 1968. Funds for fiscal year 1969 will bring this completion to 87 percent with $154 million to be funded after that year. The upstream reservoirs — Keystone, Oologah (1st stage) and Eu- faula— are essentially complete and m operation. Construction on the ultimate stage for water supply at Oologah is underway and is scheduled for completion in June 1970. The four main stem multiple-purpose projects are well underway. The Dardanelle project is complete except for the lock contract and a dredging contract which are underway. Remaining major work to be awarded this year and in the budget year includes relocation con- tracts at Robert S. Kerr and Webbers Falls, completion of the power- house at Webbers Falls and Ozark, clearing at Robert S. Kerr, and miscellaneous powerplant equipment contracts at all three projects. Contracts for construction of all of the 13 low-lift locks and dams are underway. Major contracts not awarded to date includes portions of channel work above Little Rock and relocations. The bank stabilization and channel rectification is 88 percent com- plete. After fiscal year 1969, the remaining work consists of additional contraction structures and placing additional stone on structures as accretion occurs. ARKANSAS RIVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Mr. KiRWAN. What can you tell us about recent and planned eco- nomic development in the area as the result of the Arkansas River development program ? General Bradley. On January 15 of this year the Tulsa District Engineer issued a port permit to the Muskogee City-County Port Authority. Muskogee's port will be located on the west side of the Arkansas on a 400-acre tract of land northeast of the city. The Pine Bluff-Jefferson County Port Authority was issued a permit on Janu- ary 17 by the Little Rock district for construction of a port on the old Arkansas River channel about 2 miles northeast of Pine Bluff. 114 At Fort Smith, Ark., a Kansas City firm, Southern Enterprises. Inc.,, is investing $4 million in a 2,000-acre port and industrial district. A milling company has purchased 40 acres with a half mile of riverfront at Van Buren, Ark., for a feedmill and has obtained a port permit from our Little Rock district. The city of Van Buren has established a ]3ort and seeks jurisdiction for planning along the left bank from lock and dam 13 to the stock- yarcls at Moffett, across the line in Oklahoma. A few miles upstream near Redland, Okla., planning is repoi-ted to be underway for a town- site, a port, and an industrial plant. At Sallisaw, Okla., a Sallisaw Port Authority has been organized, with plans for a port 3 miles southwest of Sallisaw on an arm of the Robert S. Kerr Reservoir. One of the principal areas of development expected in the Arkansas River Basin, as a result of the navigation j^rogram, is the rejuvenation of coal production in fields of southeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Arkansas. Three companies have announced their intentions to open coal mining operations in these areas. A major oil company has re- cently announced plans for construction of a $20 million uranium processing plant at the mouth of the Illinois River in Oklahoma. They have requested a permit to construct docks and facilities for handling- materials for uranium processing. Mr. JMoRRis. Is that the Kerr-McGee Co. ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. On the A^erdigris River several indus- trial developments have been announced but we do not have the de- tails. In August of 1967 a $17,500,000 bond issue was passed at Tulsa for construction of port facilities to be operated by the city of Tulsa- Rogers County Port Authority at the Port of Catoosa. Recently a power and light company has amiounced plans for construction of a $140 million nuclear generating plant near Russellville, Ark. GULP INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY-CHOCOLATE BAYOL^, TEXAS Mr. Klrwan. $1,300,000 is requested to complete construction of the Gulf Intracoastal "Waterway-Chocolate Bayou. Texas. The justi- fication follows : Gulf Intracoastal Waterway — Chocolate Bayou, Tex. (Continuing) Location. — Chocolate Bayou is a small coastal stream in Brazoria County in southeastern Texas, lying between the Brazos River and Galveston Bay. The bayou rises about 20 miles southwest of Houston, Tex., flows southeasterly across Brazoria County, and empties into Chocolate Bay. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio: 3 to 1. 115 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard),. Estimated non-Federal cost: Casfi contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968.. Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $1,400,000 - 1395,000 1,795,000 100,000 - 100,000 7 1,300,000 100 1 In addition, local interests trave incurred costs of $564,200 for dredging a 10- by 100-toot cfiannel from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Monsanto Chemical Co. plant at mile 8.2. PHYSICAL. DATA Channels: GIWW to Mile 8.2; 12 feet deep, 125 feet wide, 8.2 miles long. Mile 8.2 to T.B.; 9 feet deep, 100 feet wide, 5 miles long. Turning basins: Mile 13.2; 9 feet deep, 600 feet square. Dams: (Salt water barrier) Mile 16.9. Tj-pe — Fixed low-level concrete sheet pile weir. Height — 3 feet above mean low tide. Length — 150 feet. Status (Jan, 1, 1968) : Construction not started. JUSTIFICATION The benefits which would be derived from the navigation improvement would consist of savings in transportation costs through shortened travel distance, use of larger towboats and barges, more efficient operation of tows, and by a reduction in hazards to navigation. In 1966, 2,321,536 tons of commerce moved over the existing waterway. Principal products moved consisted of shell, crude petroleum, basic chemicals, and chemical products. Prospective commerce for the waterway is estimated to be 3,100,000 tons. At the present time, the only industries located on the waterway are the multi-million-dollar chemical manufacturing plant con- structed bv Monsanto Chemical Co. along the east bank of Chocolate Bayou in 1962 and the Matagorda Shell Co. located on the west bank at Mile 12.5. Con- struction of the salt water barrier will eliminate damages caused by salt water intrusion into irrigation water pumped from Chocolate Bayou during normal tide stage. The barrier will not only mitigate additional damages caused by the pro- posed navigation improvements, but will virtually eliminate existing damages that occur from salt water intrusion. Average annual benefits are $267,800; $257,100 for navigation, and $10,700 for increase in rice production. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,300,000 will complete the project and will be applied to — Initiate and complete channel dredging $1, 112, 000 Initiate and complete salt water barrier 96, 000 Supervision and administration 92, 000 Total 1,300,000 Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $395,000 consisting of $206,000 for lands and damages, $56,000 for relocations, and $133,000 for spoil area dikes and bulkheads. Local interests have incurred costs of $564,200 in construction of a 10 x 100- foot channel from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Monsanto Chemical Co. plant at Mile 8.2. Status of local cooperation. — By resolution of October 15, 1964, the Commis- sioners Court of Brazoria County, Tex., stated that the commissioners court would recognize Brazoria County Drainage District No. 3 as the sponsoring agency. 116 By letter October 21, 1964. the Brazoria County Drainage District No. 3 con- firmed its intention to act as the sponsoring agency. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate TCorps of Engineers) of $1,400,000 is an increase of $50,000 over the latest estimate ($1,350,000) submitted to Congress. The increase results from higher price levels. Major design changes since project authorization. — None. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) Dam, salt water barrier $96,000 $96,000 Cfianneis 1,112,000 1,112,000 Engineering and design 80,000 $70,000 10,000 Supervision and administration.. 112,000 5,000 107,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 1,400,000 75,000 1,325,000 Undistributed cost... Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 1,400,000 75,000 1,325,000 Pending adjustments.. _._ -- Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 1,400,000 75,000 1,325,000 Undelivered orders - Total obligations.. 75,000 1,325,000 Method of financing: Allocations.. 100,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 25,000 Total funds available for obligations 100,000 _.- Appropriations required 1,300,000 Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this project for the record and tell us the status. This project was added in the House bill last year. General Bradley. Sir, the project is located in Brazoria County in southeast Texas, about 20 miles southeast of Houston. The plan of improvement provides for a channel, turning basin, and a salt water barrier. Constru^^tion has not started. TRINITY RIVER AND TRIBTTTARIES, TEXAS, ADVANCE PARTICIPATION ON HIGH LEVEL BRIDGES Mr. KiRWAN. $1 million is requested for advance participation on high level bridges m comiection with the Trinity River na^agation project. (The justification follows :) Trinity River and Tributaries, Texas — Advance Participation on High-Level Bridges Location. — Five highwav bridges spanning the Trinity River. State Highway 105, U.S. Flighway 190, State Highway 31, Interstate Highway 635, and later- state Highway 45 will be located at river miles 75, 140, 275, 322, and 324, re- spectively. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — Not applicable. 117 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). $12,800,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967. 185,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 __._ 585,000 Allocations to date 770,000 6 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. 1,000,000 14 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 _ _ 11,030,000 PHYSICAL DATA Bridges: Five Status: (January 1, 1968): Highway US 190, 9 percent. Other bridges not started. Completion schedule. — Construction of highway bridges April 1972. JUSTIFICATION The Texas Highway Department is currently acquiring rights-of-way for construction of IH-45 in the vicinity of the Trinity River crossing. The acquisition of the rights-of-way for IH-635 has been completed except in the vicinity of the Trinity River crossing, which necessarily must be delayed pending design of the high-level crossing. Awards for construction of the Highway approaches for the Trinity Riv^er crossings are scheduled by the Texas Highway Department as follows: IH-45, first contract in AprU 1968 and second contract in November 1968; IH-635, from Trinity River crossing east in January 1968; and State Highway 31, west in May 1968. Construction of State Highway 105 has been completed except for the Trinitv River crossing and approaches. Design of the bridges for IH-635, SH-31, and SH-105 is being initiated in fiscal year 196S and the design for IH-45 is scheduled for fiscal year 1969. On IH-635, the Trinitj' River crossing is the only segment required to make opera- tional an interstate highway facUity costing approximately $100 million. Federal participation at this time in the construction of the river crossings to accommodate navigational requirements wUl result in saving the Federal Government consider- able costs in future appropriation requests for relocations. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1 million wUl be applied to — Initiation of Interstate Highway 635 bridge $615, 000 Initiation of channel construction under IH-635 bridge 80, 000 Initiation of State Highway 105 bridge 100, 000 Initiation of channel construction under SH-105 bridge 4, 000 Initiation of State Highway 31 bridge 100, 000 Engineering and design 78, 000 Supervision and administration 23, 000 Total 1,000,000 The funds for fiscal year 1969 are required in order to permit completion of these bridges and opening adjacent highway sections to public use. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $12,800,000 is an increase of $500,000 over the latest estimate ($12,300,000) submitted to Congress. The increase includes $401,000 for higher price levels and $99,000 for engineering and design and supervision and adiuinistration due to reanalysis of requirements. 118 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $10,537,000 $415,000 $563,000 $9,559,000 Channels 1,654,000 84,000 1,570,000 Engineering and design.. 384,000 $3,000 46,000 224,000 111,000 Supervision and administration 225,000 12,000 23,000 190,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only)... 12,800,000 3,000 473,000 894,000 11,430,000 Undistributed cost -. - Total project cost (Federal funds only)..- 12,800,000 3,000 473,000 894,000 11.430,000 Pending adjustment Total cost (Federal funds only) 12,800,000 3,000 473,000 894,000 11,430,000 Undelivered orders 761,000 91,000 133,000 -400,000 Total obligations 179,000 564,000 1,027,000 11,030,000 Method of financing: Allocations 185,000 585,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 6,000 27,000 Total funds available for obligation 591,000 27,000 Appropriations required 1,000,000 11,030,000 STATUS OF RESTUDT Mr. KiEWAx. What is the status of the restiidy of the economic feasibility of the Trinity River navigation project? General Bradley. This report is still in our Galveston district office. We have reviewed some portions of it as they were completed, and have asked the district engineer some questions which will require de- velopment of further background information and backup data. We are hopeful these will be cleared up in the near future so I can submit the report to the Chief of Engmeers. STATUS OF U.S. HIGHWAY 190 CONSTRUCTION Mr. KiRWAN. What is the status of construction of the U.S. High- way 190 for which construction funds were provided for the cun-ent fiscal year ? General Bradley. The bridge contract was awarded last June and the bridge construction is now 30-percent complete, sir. basis for fiscal year 19 69 REQUEST ]Mr. KiRWAN. Please outline the basis for the estimate for 1969 which provides for the initiation of construction on three additional bridges. General Bradley. This is based on requirements of the State high- way department to provide crossings over the Trinity River for the highway sj'^stem involving Interstate Highways 45 and 635, State Highway 31 and State Highway 105. Mr. KiRWAN. "What additional bridges would be designed under the estimate of $78,000? General Bradley. The bridge on Interstate 45, sir. INITIATION OF CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION Mr. KiRWAN. The estimate includes sums to initiate channel con- struction under the bridges. What does this consist of and why is it necessary at this time ? 119 Geneml Bradley. When traffic is routed over the new bridges sir, it would be necessary to channel the river under the new bridges in order that the old bridges and the old portion of the highways can be re- moved. This is the situation at two of the four bridges. Mr. KiRWAN. To what extent can existing bridges be utilized on a temporary basis to handle these highway crossings ? General Bradley. I am sure, sir, that the State has considered this in their planning, but several of these highways are multilane, high- speed highways, and existing bridges would be inadequate to provide for these crossings. WALLISVILLE RESERVOIR, TEX. Mr. KiRWAN. $3,200,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Wallisville Reservoir, Tex, The justification follows : Wallisville Reservoir, Tex. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on the lower Trinity River about 44 miles east of Houston, Tex. The dam is located at Mile 3.9, about 2.1 miles below Wallisville, in Chambers and Liberty Counties, Tex. Authorization. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.15 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Estimated total appropriation requirements, Corps of Engineers Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) (Corps of Engineers) Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) Estimated non-Federal cost Reimbursement: Water supply salinity control and recreation Other ; Total estimate project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date ...S.W Appropriation request for fiscal year 1969 rUrrmUrm Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 "_J. Amount percent of estimated appropriation requirements $17,200,000 3,732,400 13,467,600 73,000 . 3,743,400 3,732,400 11,000 17,284,000 2,525,000 1,978.000 4, 503, 000 3,200,000 9,497,000 __ 25 45- PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Nonoverflow sections, earth fill 16,820 linear feet. Overflow sections, earth fill with concrete cap 22,400 linear feet. Navigation lock : 84 by 600 feet. Reservoir area at conservation pool elevation of +4.0 m.s.l. — 19,700 acres. Lands and damages : Acres 20,862 Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations $,539^ 000 Roads and bridges (25.5, 000) Utilities and structures ( 284^ 000) 120 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent completed Completion schedule Lands and damages 21 March 1970. Construction 7 June 1971. Entire project __ 17 Do. Complete closure March 1971. JUSTIFICATION The construction of the Wallisville Reservoir will provide benefits for naviga- tion, salinity control, water supply, fish and wildlife, and recreation. The Wallis- ville Reservoir will be operated independently of tlie Livingston Reservoir until maximum water yield from the Wallisville-Livingston system of reservoirs is required. Livingston Reservoir is being constructed by Trinitj' Ri\'er Authority for water supply. There is a need for additional water supply throughout the lower Trinity River and adjacent areas including the city of Houston. The dam will prevent the intrusion of salt water into the irrigation system for growing of rice. It will also present intrusion of salt water into the water supply intakes of city of Houston and Trinity River Authority. Navigation benefits would be realized through savings in transportation costs by the use of more fully loaded barges on the project channel to its connection with the Houston ship channel. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Navigation $422, 000 Water supply 38, 000 Water quality control 260, 000 Recreation 240,000 Fish and wildlife 114, 000 Total 1,074,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3,200,000 will be applied to — Continue lands and damages $2, 354, 000 Initiate dam construction (spillway and nonoverflow section) 150, 000 Initiate lock construction 150, 000 Initiate channel construction 125, 000 Initiate and complete levees and floodwalls 25, 000 Initiate construction of floodway control and diversion structures 150, 000 Initiate construction of buildings, grounds, and utilities 110, 000 Engineering and design 36, 000 Supervision and administration 100, 000 Total 3,200,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for an orderlj' and econom- ical construction schedule. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse Federal Govern- ment for 50 percent of first costs allocated to salinity control, 100 percent of first cost allocated to water supply, and total first cost allocated to recreation less cost for minimum base facilities and less cost equivalent to 15 percent of total project cost. This reimbursement is presently estimated at $3,732,400. All pay- ments for water supply will be completed no later than 50 years after the project is first used for the storage of water for water supply purposes. No interest on the unpaid balance shall be charged until water is first used, with interest-free period limited to 10 years. For recreation and salinity control, all paj'ments will be completed within 50 years after completion of project. Payments for recreation and salinity control begin when project is completed. In addition local interests arc required to furnish lands for improved channel to Liberty at an estimated cost of $11,000. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests in favor of the project are repre- sented by the city of Houston, Trinity River Authority and Chambers-Liberty County Navigation District. By letter of intent all three agencies have agreed to provide all proposed items of local cooperation. Negotiations with the three sponsoring agencies for entering into a contract for payment of share of cost have been completed. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $17,200,000 (Corps of Engineers) is an increase of $1 million over the latest ( 121 estimate ($10,200,000) submitted to Congress. The increase includes $493,000 for lands and damages based on increased values, $369,000 for higher price levels and $138,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages.. _. $5,575,000 $906,000 $1,544,000 $2,354,000 $771000 Relocations 539,000 232,000 52,000 255,000 Dams 3,081.000 253,000 414,000 150,000 2,264,000 Locks 3,560,000 150,000 3,410.000 Roads, railroads and bridges 120,000 120 000 Channels and canals 995,000 125,000 870'000 Levees and floodwalls 25,000 25 000 Recreation facilities _. 470.000 ' 470,000 Hoodwaycontrolanddiversionstructures. 610,000 150,000 460'000 Buildings, grounds and utilities.. 425,000 110 000 315000 Permanent operating equipment. 120,000 120000 Engineering and design... 970,000 694,000 230.000 36.000 lo'oOO Supervision and administration 710,000 105,000 73,000 100 000 432*000 Total applied cost(Federal funds only)... 17,200,000 2,190,000 2,313,000 3,200,000 9, 497' 000 Undistributed cost +10,000 -10,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 17,200,000 2,200,000 2,313,000 3,2'ob,OOb 9,497,655 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 17,200,000 2,200,000 2,303,000 3,200 000 9"497"000 Undelivered orders ._. +174,000 —174,000 Total obligations 2,374,000 2,129,000 3,200,000 9,'497,'"000 Method of financing: Allocations 2,525,000 1,978,000 Unobligated carryover from prioryear 151,000 Total funds available for obligation.. 2,129,000 Appropriation required. 3,200,000 9,497,000 BENEFIT-COST RATIO Mr. KiRw.^N. What lias caused the decrease in the benefit-to-cost ratio from 1.3 last year to 1.15 this year? General Bradley. The benefit-cost ratio of 1.3 to 1 was based on the originally proposed independent operation of this reservoir without regard to another reservoir. The 1.15 to 1 ratio is based on a system operation in conjunction with the Livingston Reservoir upstream. VILLAGE creek, WHITE RIVER AND MAYBERRY LEVEE DISTRICTS IN JACKSON AND WOODRUFF COUNTIES, ARK. ^^Ir. KiRw^vN. $646,000 is budgeted to complete construction of the Tillage Creek, 'White River, and Mayberry levee districts in Jackson and Woodruff Counties, Ark. (The justification follows:) ViLL-iGE Creek, White River, and Mayberrt Levee Districts in Jackson and Woodruff Counties, Ark. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located within the area protected by the Village Creek, White River, and Mayberry Districts' levee on the left bank of White River between miles 255 and 231 in Jackson and Woodruff Counties, Ark. Authorization. — 1960 and 1962 Flood Control Acts. Benefits-cost ratio. — 2.9 to 1. 122 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $1,091,000 Estimated non-Federal cost. '585,000 Cash contribution 149,000 Other costs 436,000 Total estimated project cost 1,676,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967... 125,000 Allocation forfiscal year 1968 320,000 Allooations to date 445,000 41 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. 646,000 100' Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1 In addition, local interests have expended $282,000 for lands and rights-of-way for the existing federally built levee- and $197,000 for levees and ditches prior to construction of the Federal project. No data are available on levee dis- trict expenditures subsequent to 1945. PHYSICAL DATA Channels : 19 miles of cleared and enlarged channels. 2 miles of new channels. 890-acre ponding storage area. Short channel and 5 low-crest sills or spillways for benefit of fish and wildlife. Pumping plant: 300,000 g.p.m. pumping station. Lands and damages (to be acquired by local interests) : Acres: 1, 229. Type: Predominately agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Not started. Completion schedule: Entire project, March 1969. JUSTIFICATION The area under consideration is protected by the Village Creek, White River, and Mayberry Districts' levee and comprises about 21,340 acres, of which about 9,000 acres are subject to flooding from ponded interior drainage. The remaining acreage is so adversely affected by the high water table and poor drainage during periods of flooding that farming operations are difficult or impossible. The proposed project would eliminate about 97 percent of the flood losses resulting from ponded interior drainage and overbank flows and provide large drainage and increased land utilization benefits in the area under consideration. The estimated annual benefits, all flood control, are $244,320. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $646,000 will complete the project and will be applied to — Complete fish and wildlife facilities, channels and canals, and pumping plant $592, 000 Engineering and design 3, 000 Supervision and administration 51, 000 Total ___ 646,000 Non-Federal costs. — The cost of local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is presently estimated at $585,000 broken down as follows: Lands $266,000 Relocations 48, 000 Local drainage 122, 000 Cash contribution (17.2 percent of the construction cost of the pumping plant) 149,000 Total 585,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. The annual cost for maintenance, operation, and replacements is estimated at $19,030. 123 In addition, local interests have expended $282,000, including $85,000 for lands and right-of-way for the existing federally built levee and $197,000 for levees and ditches prior to construction of the Federal project. No data are available on levee district expenditures subsequent to 1945. Status of local cooperation. — The attorney for the levee districts, by letter dated December 8, 1965, stated that both levee districts would assume equal respon- sibility in providing the required local cooperation, including a cash contribution of 17.2 percent of the Federal construction cost of the pumping station. By letter dated April 29, 1966, the attorney for the levee districts acknowledged receipt of maps, showing limits of lights-of-way required for construction and operation of the project, and stated that the levee districts would press forward in completing the requirements of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.— The current Federal cost estimate of $1,091,000 is an increase of $46,000 from the latest estimate submitted to Congress ($1,045,000). This increase results from higher pxice levels. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Fish and wildlife facilities $54,000 $15,000 $39,000 ■Channels and canals 252,000 70,000 182,000 Pumpingplant 715,000 344,000 371,000 Engineering and design 132,000 $107,000 22,000 3,000 Supervision and administration 87,000 6,000 30,000 51,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 1,240,000 113,000 481,000 646,000 Undistributed costs _ Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 1,240,000 113,000 481,000 646,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds and non-Fed- eral contributions) 1,240,000 113,000 481,000 646,000 Federal funds: Total applied cost 1,091,000 113,000 332,000 646,000 Undistributed costs Total project cost 1,091,000 113,000 332,000 646,000 Pending adjustments Totalcost. 1,091,000 113,000 332,000 646,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations 113,000 332,000 646,000 Non-Federal contributions: Pumpingplant 149,000 149,000 Total applied cost - 149,000 149,000 Undistributed costs. Total project cost.. 149,000 149,000 Pending adjustments. Totalcost - 149,000 149,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations 149,000 Method of financing: Federal funds Allocations 125,000 320,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year .-. 12,000 Total funds available for obligation 332,000 Appropriations required 646,000 Non-Federal contributions: Contributions Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obli- gation Contributions required 149,000 Mr. KiRWAx. Please describe this project which was added to the bill last year by the Senate. General Bradley. This project is located within the area protected by the Village Creek-"^'V^llte Eiver and Mayberry districts levee on the left bank of the Wliite Eiver in Jackson and Woodruff Counties, .Ark. The area comprises about 21,000 acres, of which 9,000 acres are 124 subject to flooding from ponded interior drainage. The remaining land is so adversely affected by the high water table and poor drainage that farming operations are difficult. The pumping plant and channel im- provements would eliminate 97 percent of the flood losses. cow CREEK, HUTCHINSON, KANS. Mr. KiRWAN. $250,000 is requested to continue construction of the Cow Creek, Hutcliinson, Kans., local protection project. (The justification follows:) Cow Creek, Hutchinson, Kans. (Continuing) Location. — The Cow Creek chfinnel improvement project is located in Rice and Reno Counties and extends from 2 miles south of Lyons, Kans., to the existing local protection project at Hutchinson, Kans. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benejit-cost ratio. — 2.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of appfopriation requirements Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Otiier costs Total estiiTiated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968_ Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $1,800,000 1,160,000- 1,160,000 2,960,000 138,000 50,000 188,000 10 250, 000 24 1,362,000 JUSTIFICATION The plan of improvement would eliminate damages from 6 of every 10 floods which have occurred in the period of record. This improvement would have re- duced by about 10,000 acres the area flooded by the maximum flood of record. In terms of flood damages, the plan of improvement would reduce the average annual damages about 76 percent. The flood reduction attained by the improved channel would result in improved land utilization, reduction in delays in trans- portation and in harvesting crops, enhancement of the general welfare and securit.y of the people, and reduction of the hazard of epidemic. These benefits would be real and of significant importance to the Cow Creek valley area. The estimated average annual flood control benefits arc $344,700. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $250,000 will be applied to — Initiate stage I relocations $20, 000 Initiate stage I channels and canals 210, 000 Engineering and design ^ 5, 000 Supervision and administration 15, 000 Total 250,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction and meet schedided completion dates. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests will be required to provide without cost to the Government nil lands, easements and rights-of-way necessary for the construc- tion of the project; hold and save the Government free from damages due to the construction work; maintain and operate all the works after completion; provide without cost to the Government all alterations of highways, highway bridges, utilities, and related facilities made necessary by the construction of tlie project; 125 provide assurances that encroachment on improved channels will not be per- mitted; and inform those interests affected at least annually that the project will not provide protection against maximum floods. Non-Federal costs are estimated at $290,000 for lands and damages and $870,000 for relocations. Status of local cooperation. — The Grant Township Drainage District has been expanded bv local interests. The general requirements of local cooperation have been discussed with members of the district. The district has furnished a resolu- tion, dated September 4, 1967, that these requirements will be met. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,800,000 is the same as last presented to Congress. PHYSICAL DATA Levees : Maximum height, 5 feet. Length, 2,100 feet. Floodwalls: N/A. Pumping plants: None. Relocations : Highway bridges, 7 replacements, 14 modifications. Railroad bridges, 1 modification. Channels: New channel, 9 miles. Improvement to existing channel, 24 miles. Laterals : Length, 2,700 feet. Outlet structures with flapgates, 10. Status (1 Jan. 1967). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: December 1971. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations. - $89,000 - $20,000 $69,000 Pnannpls and canals 1,427,000 215,000 1,212,000 Sneeing and design::::::".::::::::: isoooo $70,000 $100,000 5.000 5,000 SuTervision and administration 104,000 3,000 10,000 1,000 76,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 1,800,000 73,000 110,000 255,000 1,362,000. Undistributed cost (construction fa- Total praS cost YFedeYaVfunds only)::' ""l 73,"665 ii6,"666 255,'666 \,m,m TotauosUFedtVaffTnd^oniyT::::::: 73,006 ii6:ooo 255:000 1:362:000 Totai^So^^'--":::::::::::::::"":":-::-::''''"'"73:oo6 110:000 255:ooo--i:362;ooo ■"^"ANo^a""':..... - .- 138.000 50,000..... Unobligated carryover from prior 65, 000 5, 000 Total funds'available tor obligation .- 115,000 oin'nnn VVch'Wnh Appropriations required -. - 250,000 1,362,000 Mr. KiRWAX. Please describe this project which was added to the h\\\ last year by the Senate. General Bradley. The Cow Creek channel improvement project is located in Eice and Reno Counties and extends from 2 miles south of Lyons, Kans., to existing flood protection project at Hutchinson,, Kans. The plan of improvement consists of straightening, snagging, and deepening the existing channel, together vAih the necessary altera- tions to existing bridges, and installation of outlet structures. LAS CRUCES LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, NEW MEXICO Mr. KiRWAN. $500,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Las Cnices local protection project in New Mexico. The justification follows : 126 Las Cruces Local Protection Project, New Mexico (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on tributary arroyos which enter the Rio Grande from the east at and in the vicinity of Las Cruces, Dona Ana County, N. Mex. The project consists of two dams. Las Cruces Dam, which extends across Alameda and Las Cruces Arroyo and Campus Dam, relatively small in size, which is located on Campus Arroyo Las Cruces Dam is located about 1,000 feet east of the city limits and Campus Dam on Campus Arroyo immediately upstream from the campus of the State university. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost - Cash contribution - Other costs - Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $3,960,000 810,000 810,000 4,770,000 257,000 50,000 307,000 8 500, 000 20 3,153,000 PHYSICAL DATA Las Cruces Dam Campus Dam Reservoir (Capacity, Acre-foot) 8,203 158 Flood control - - (7,883) (130) Sediment .--. ...(320) (28) Embankment (type— earthfill): Height above streambed, feet 67 34 Crest length, feet - -. 15,570 1,790 Spillways (type— unlined channels): Design discharge, cubic feet per second 30,400 840 Bottom width, feet 200 100 Outlet works (type— uncontrolled): Size (concrete conduit) - 3' x 3' 18" x 18" Design discharge (spillway crest) cubic feet per second 233 39 Outlet channel: Upper channel: Length, 10,968 feet; bottom width, 8 feet; lining, dumped rock. Lower channel: Length, 13,910 feet; bottom width, 20 feet; unlined. Lands and damages: Non-Federal responsibility. Helocations: Railroad bridge and grade raise, $105,000. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule. — June 1971. JUSTIFICATION Practically the entire city of Las Cruces and the surrounding suburban area, including the campus of the New Mexico University of Agriculture, Engineering, and Science have intermittently suffered severe damages from the arroyos which head on the western slope of the Organ Mountains or on the alluvial outwash plain, and flow westward toward the Rio Grande. The principal damage-producing streams are Las Cruces and Alameda Arroyos and to a lesser degree Campus Arroyo which drains into the university campus. There is also considerable damage from overbank flow, sheetflow, and ponding caused by other arroyos which have 127 no outlets to the Rio Grande. The overflow area of the standard project flood plain contains about 5,940 acres of which about 1,005 acres are urban and suburban lands, 4,550 acres are irrigated and cultivated, and 385 acres are adapted to other uses. The estimated value of all lands and improvements in the flood plain amounts to about $101 million. The most damaging flood for which dependable data are available occurred on August 29-30, 1935, which flooded about 720 acres of land including 430 acres of farmland and caused an estimated $220,000 damages (1935 prices) to residences and commercial properties including three schools. A recurrence of the 1935 flood under present conditions would cause damages estimated at about $2,113,000, of which an estimated $737,000 damages would be prevented with the project in full operation. A flood of standard project magnitude would inundate the flood plain to an average depth of 2 feet and a maximum depth of 6 feet. Estimated damages from the standard project flood under present conditions would amount to over $11,020,000. Average annual benefits, all flood control, are $332,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $500,000 will be applied as follows: Initiate construction of Las Cruces Dam $444, 000 Engineering and design n' qOO Supervision and administration 45' OOO Total 500, 000 The amount requested for fiscal year 1969 is needed to initiate construction of this project which is needed for the protection of large areas of the city and the university campus from severe flood damages. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- nection with the authorized project is estimated at $810,000 broken down as follows: Lands and damages $575, 000 Relocations 206' 000 Engineering and design I5' ooO Supervision and administration 14 QOO Total 810,000 _ Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion thereof. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance and operation will be $13,000. Status of local cooperation. — A $536,000 bond issue passed by the city in election on June 11, 1965, is not sufficient to cover all costs of local cooperation as presently estimated ($810,000). Since the city's bonding capability was exhausted, the Las Cruces Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority was enacted into law by the State legislature to take over the city's responsibility in connection with the fulfillment of the requirements of local cooperation. A temporary board of directors was appointed by the Governor. The city continued a program of land acquisition for construction of the Las Cruces Dam portion of the project using the funds at their disposal from the original bond issue, and the land has been acquired. They have scheduled an election for the additional bond issue and formal election of a board of directors on January 30, 1968. They plan to hold public hearings prior to the election. In the meantime, the Authority has engaged an engineering firm to develop an overall plan, of which the Federal project will become an integral part, and to firm up the estimated non-Federal cost before the bond election. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,960,000 is an increase of $160,000 over the latest estimate ($3,800,000) pre- sented to Congress. This change includes increases of $100,000 for higher price levels and $60,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration due to a reanalysis of requirements. 91-459 — 68 — pt. 1 9 128 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1963 (4) Bjdget fiscal year 1959 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Relocations $105,000 .. 3,130,000 .. 155,000 .. 1 300. 000 270. 000 3. 960, 000 $105,000 $444, 000 2, 686, 000 Channels and canals 155,000 Engineering and design $216, 000 13.000 229, 000 $69, 000 9.000 78. 000 11,000 45, 000 500. 000 4,000 203,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistrib.ited costs 3,153,000 Total project cost (Federal funds ( Dniy).. 3,960,000 229, 000 78. 000 500, 000 3,153,000 Total cost (Federal funds only). . . Undelivered order 3,960,000 229. 000 78, 000 500, 000 3,153,000 229, 000 257, 000 78. 000 50,000 . 28.000 . 78,000 . 500, 000 3,153,000 Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from fiscal year Total funds available for obligation Appropriation required prior 500, 000 3,153,000 1 Includes $1,000 for real estate qctivities. LOCAL COOPERATION Mr. KiRWAX. It is noted on page 183 that tlie local cooperation on the project is sul)ject to an additional bond issue which was to be h.eld on January 30, 1968. What were the results of that election and what is the present status of the local cooperation? General Bradley. The bond issue failed, sir. Since then the city has reaffirmed its sponsorship of the project and is exploring alter- native methods of financino- the remainino- requirements of local cooperation. Tlie city has used the proceeds available from the original bond issue to obtain possession and to gain control of lands for the Las Cruces Dam Dortion of the project to head otf further escalation of land prices. They presently lack funds to complete acquisition of the right-of-way of the outlet channel from tlie Las Cruces Dam to the Rio Grande River and for necessary relocations which are a local responsibility. Xevertheless, they are still hopeful of satisfactorily meeting these re(iuirements in time to permit start of construction. Ill (!0 rf>;ervoir, OKLAHo:\rA Mr. KiRWAX. $3,300,000 is l)udgeted to continue consrruction of the Hugo Reser\oir in Oklalioma. The justification follows: Hugo RESEinoiR, Oklaho:ma (Continuing) Location. — Located in Choctaw County, Okla., on the Kiamichi River, a trib- utary of the lied River, about 7 miles east of Hugo, Okla. Authorization. — 1946 and 1962 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. 129 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement... Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost ._ Estimated non-Federal cost Reimbursement: Water supply Total estimated project cost. Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1959... $33, 400, 000 2, 473, 000 30, 927, 000 2,473,000 2,473,000 33, 400, 000 1.080,000 1, 500, 000 2, 580, 000 3, 300, 000 27, 520, 000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam : Type: Earthfill. Height: 105 feet. Length: 11,000 feet. Spillway : Type: Controlled valley, with 4-40 feet bj^ 50 feet tainter gates. Capacit}' (maximum pool) : 268,300 cfs. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control SOS, 300 Conservation 121, 500 Sedimentation 30, 000 Total 959, 80O Lands and damages: Acres: 49,000. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm type. Relocations: Roads: $8,125,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $755,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project 4 Land acquisition.. 4 Relocations Reservoi r Embankment and spillway June 1973. Substantial completion, June 1970. IVlarch 1973. December 1970. Initiate closure, June 1971. Complete closure of dam, IVlarch 1973. Complete dam, June 1973. JUSTIFICATION This project is an integral unit of the three-reservoir system in the Kiamichi River Basin (a tributary of the Red River), consisting of Hugo, Clayton and Tuskahoma Reservoirs. Operation of this system would provide a high degree of protection to about 20,460 acres of land in the Imsin (5,000 acres below Hugo Dam site) and aid in the protection of about 866,000 acres on the Red River below Denison from the mouth of the Kiamichi (203,000 above Fulton). The total annual crop value within the Kiamichi River Basin is estimated to be $187,300 ($89,000 below Hugo Dam site) and the value of property, including minerals, is estimated to be $7,989,200 ($2,231,200 below Hugo Dam site). The total annual crop value for the Red River below the mouth of the Kiamichi is estimated to be $23,180,000 ($4,830,000 above Fulton) and the value of property, excluding minerals, is estimated to be $165,000,000 ($40,000,000 above Fulton). 130 Construction of this project would provide urgently-needed flood protection below Hugo Dam site and 121,500 acre-feet of storage (first stage) allocated to water conservation (including water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife). The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $1, 272, 000 Water supply 250, 500 Water quality control 438, 400 Recreation 422,000 Fish and wildlife 30, 000 Total 2,412,900 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3,300,000 wUl be applied to — Continue acquisition of land $1, 700, 000 Initiate relocations 2S5, 000 Continue embankment and spillway 1, 000, 000 Engineering and design 150, 000 Supervision and administration 165, 000 Total 3, 300, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction and meet the scheduled completion date. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimbiu-se the Federal Government for costs allocated to water supply storage over a period not to exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. The reimbursement required is esti- mated to be $2,473,000, exclusive of interest. Status of local cooperation. — State or local interests who will eventually contract for water supply storage for future use are required to furnisli reasonable assur- ances that demands for use of such storage will be made within a period of time which will permit paying out the costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project, but not to exceed 50 years from the date the storage is first used for water supply purposes, all in accordance with the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Local interests will also be required to hold and save the United States free from water rights claims resulting from construction and operation of the project. The Choctaw-Pushmataha Water District adopted a resolution on October 6, 1965, requesting storage in the reservoir for its future water use. The Oklahoma Water Resources Board adopted a resolution dated October 12, 1965, in support of the water supply storage which may be in excess of local interests require- ments. These assurances are considered adequate to meet the requirements of the Water Supply Act of 1958. The reimbursement for water supply is presently estimated at about $2,473,000. This amount is less than 30 percent of the total estimated cost of the project so no contract for water supply storage is required until the water district is ready to use water from the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — -The current Federal cost estimate of $33,400,000 is an increase of $2,700,000 over the latest estimate ($30,700,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $1,230,000 for lands due to change in land use and increased values; $908,000 for construction features due to higher price levels; $391,000 due to more detailed planning; and $171,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements. 131 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $10,130,000 $84,000 $1,200,000 $1,700,000 $7,146,000 Relocations 8,880,000 285,000 8,595 000 Reservoirs 1,617,000 1 617 000 Dams 9,008,000 150,000 1,000,000 7,858,000 Roads, railroads, and bridges 116,000 15,000 101000 Recreation facilities.. 660,000 660*000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 167,000 167,600 "".. . Permanent operating equipment 171,000 171 666 Engineering and design. _ 1,227,000 670,000 210,666 156,666" 197*000 Supervision and administration 1,424,000 37,000 47,000 165,000 1175 000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 33,400,000 791,000 1,789,000 3,300,000 27,520,'000 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) Total project cost(Federal funds only)... 33,400,006 791,666 i,"789,'666 3,'366,666 27,"526"666 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 33,400,000 791, 006 1,789,666 3,366,666 27,'526,'666 Undelivered orders 27,000 —27,000 Total obligations 818,000 1,762,000 3,366,666 27,'526'666 Method of financing: Allocations. _._ 1,080,000 1,500,000 Unobligated carryover from prior " year 262,000 Total funds available for obligation 1,762,000 Appropriations required... 3,366,'666 27,520,660 Mr. KiRWAN. Costs have increased on this project by $2,700,000 since last year, including an increase of $1,230,000 for lands. Please explain the recent cost experience in connection with the project. General Bradley. Sir, this increase is primarily due to price level increases, changes in land use, increased values, and more accurate estimates in the approved design memorandas, based on more detailed planning accomplished since last year. KAW RESERVOIR, OKLA. Mr. KiRWAN. $4,800,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Kaw Reservoir in Oklahoma. The justification follows : Kaw Reservoir, Okla. (Continuing) Location. — Located in Kay and Osage Counties, Okla., and Cowley County, Kans., on the Arkansas River about 8 miles east of Ponca City, Okla. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement $93,000,000 .. Future non-Federal reimbursement 23,260,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 69,' 740,' 000 "I Estimated non-Federal cost 23^260' 000 Reimbursement: Water supply 23^260^000 "" Total estimated project cost 93*000' 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 ' 2'895'000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. 2'600'000 Allocations to date... s' 495* 000 6 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 11^. II"""!"!!! 4!800'000 11 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 82, 705,' 000 132 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: EarthfiU. Height: 129 feet. Length: 9,140 feet (including spillway). Spillway : Type: Gated, concrete ogee, valley (ten 40- by 35-foot tainter gates). Capacity (maximum pool) : 473,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 824, 000 Conservation (including storage for water supply, water quality control, fish and wildlife, and recreation) 232, 000 Sedimentation 229, 000 Total 1, 285, 000 Lands and damages: Acres: 53,500. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Rural, urban, and industrial. Relocations: Roads: 41 miles ($12,940,000). Railroads: 13 miles ($8,681,000). Cemeteries and utility lines: $5,252,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project 4 June 1974. Land acquisition.. 7 Substantial completion, June 1971. Relocations June 1972. Reservoir clearing June 1971. Embankment and spillway Initiate closure, July 1972. Complete closure of dam, June 1973. Complete dam, June 1974. JUSTIFICATION The primary purpose of the reservoir would be flood control, water supply, Avater quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. Floods have occurred about once a year along the Arkansas River in the vicinity of Ponca City, Okla. Operation of this reservoir would provide protection to about 39,310 acres of land downstream to the Keystone Reservoir. Flood losses are sustained by farm improvements, county roads, highways, oilfields, and refineries. Total flood dam- age reduction benefits at time of authorization were estimated at $1,128,000 annu- ally. In addition to providing ilood protection, the project has 232,000 acre-feet of storage allocated to water conservation (including water supply, water quality control, fish and wildlife, and recreation). Operation of the Kaw Reservoir would reduce accumulation of sediment in the Keystone Reservoir thereby increasing the usefulness of that project for all purposes. This is especially important since Keystone Reservoir is a key project in the multiple-purpose plan of improvement for the Arkansas River and tributaries. The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $1, 60."), 600 Water supply 823, 400 Water qualitv control 685, 600 Recreation./. 1, 162, 000 Fish and wildlife 30, 000 Total 4, 396, 600 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,800,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land in reservoir area $1,800, OOO Continue relocations 750, 000 Continue construction of Ist-stage embankment 1, 500, 000 Engineering and design 600, OOO Supervision and administration 150, 000 Total 4, 800, 000 133 The funds roquestod for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction and meet the scheduled completion dates. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are requii-ed to reimburse the Federal Gov- ernment for costs allocated to water supply storage over a period not to exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. The reimbursement is presently estimated at $23,260,000. Status of local cooperation. — Local cooperation required is limited to repayment of costs allocated to water supply features of the project vmder contracts to be negotiated at the proper time. Water supply costs are less than 30 percent of the total cost of the project, so no water supply contract is required until local in- terests are ready to commence using water from the project. The city of Ponca City, Okla„ and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board have furnished resolutions (Nov. 2, 1964, and Apr. 13, 1965) that the costs allocated to water supply will be repaid. These commitments are considered adequate to meet the requirements of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. The water conservation storage com- m^ission, which is composed of members of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, has authority under section 5, chapter 336 of the laws of the 29th Oklahoma Legislature (to be codified luider 82 Oklahoma Statutes, sec. 1351-1361) to con- tract with the Federal Government for payment of the allocated cost of water supply storage in reservoirs constructed by Federal agencies. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $93 million is an increase of $6,400,000 over the latest estimated ($86,600,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $3,056,000 for lands and damages due to increased land values, $2,556,000 due to higher price levels, $257,000 based on more detailed planning and minor contract awards, and $531,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a re- analysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages 29,250,000 768,000 1,950,000 1,800,000 24,732,000 Relocations 26,873,000 .._. 80,000 750,000 26,043,000 Reservoirs 700,000 4,000 . . 696,000 Dams 27,208,000 4,000 200,000 1,500,000 25,504.000 Roads, railroads, and bridges 226,000 150,000 4,000 72,000 Recreation facilities 974,000 974,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 260,000 258,000 2,000 Permanent operating equipment 254,000 . 1,000 253,000 Engineering and design 3,730,000 1,271,000 600,000 600,000 1,259,000 Supervision and administration 3,525,000 119,000 84,000 150,000 3,172,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 93,000,000 2,574,000 2,921,000 4,800,000 82,705,000 Undistributed cost (construction fa- cilities) -1,000 1,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 93,000,000 2,573,000 2,922,000 4,800,000 82,705,000 Pending adjustments _. Total cost (Federal funds only) 93,000,000 2,573,000 2,922,000 4,800,000 82,705,000 Undelivered orders 44,000 -44,000 . . . Total obligations 2,617,000 2,878,000 4,800,000 82,705,000 Method of financing: Allocations. 2,895,000 2,600,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. 378,000 Total funds available for obligation 2,878,000 Appropriations required. 4,800,000 82,705,000 Mr. KiRWAN. Please explain the cost increase of $6,400,000 on this project since last year. General Bradley. This again is primarily price level increases, sir, based on the approved general design memorandum : estimates. OOLOOAH RESERVOIR, OKLA. Mr. KiRWAisr. $3,500,000 is budgeted to continue construction on the Oologah Reservoir in Oklahoma. The justification follows: 134 OoLOGAH Reservoir, Okla. (Continuing) Location. — On the Verdigris River, 90 miles above the mouth, about 2 miles southeast of Oologah, Rogers County, Okla. Authorization. — 1938 Flood Control Act and 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1 (multiple-purpose plan for lower Arkansas River Basin) . SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA (ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT FOR WATER SUPPLY) Accumulated Amount percent of appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement. $8,350,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement (0 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) (0 Estimated non-Federal cost (0 Reimbursement: Water supply O Total estimated project cost 8,350,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 585,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 950,000 Allocation to date..- 1,535,000 18 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 3,500,000 60 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 3,315,000 » The preliminary estimate of non-Federal reimbursement for water supply Is $10,000,000. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earthfill, completed. Height: 129 feet. Length: Approximately 8,240 feet (including spillway and dike). Spillway : Type: Controlled, concrete ogee weir, with seven 40- by 21-foot gates. Capacity (maximum pool): 275,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 950, 000 Navigation 168,000 Water supply 342,600 Sedimentation 58,400 Total 1,519,000 Lands and damages: Acres: Completed, 66,203. Type: Predominantly pasture. Improvements: Typical farm type. Relocations: Completed. (None in ultimate development.) STATUS (JAN. 1. 1968) (Initial project placed in operation for flood control May 15, 1963) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project 9 June 1970. Lands and damages 1 1 September 1969. Reservoir. June 1970. Install spillway gates 21 September 1969. Complete spillway, September 1969. ' Only deferred mineral acquisition yet to be accomplished. JUSTIFICATION The Oologah Reservoir, in conjunction with the completed Fall River, Hulah, and Toronto Reservoirs and the nearly completed Elk City Reservoir, provides flood protection for farmland and communities in the Verdigris and Arkansas River flood plains. The ultimate construction of Oologah Reservoir will provide ( 135 additional industrial and municipal water supply for the immediate area and water for the upper reaches of the navigation feature of the multiple-purpose Arkansas River system. The estimated annual benefits for the multiple-purpose plan for the lower Arkansas River Basin are: Navigation _ $40, 470, 000 Channel stabilization 6, 575, 000 Power 14, 838, 900 Flood control 6, 602, 600 Water supply... 828, 900 Fish and wildlife 312, 000 Recreation 2, 297, 000 Total 71, 924, 400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3,500,000 will be applied to — Continue deferred mineral acquisition $1, 306, 000 Initiate reservoir clearing 550, 000 Initiate oil well plugging 200, 000 Continue spillway construction 1, 200, 000 Engineering and design 100, 000 Supervision and administration 144, 000 Total 3, 500, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction and meet the established completion date. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Gov- ernment for the costs allocated to water supply storage over a period not to exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. The preliminary estimate of the reimbiu-sement for water supply is $10 million, exclusive of interest. Stahis of local cooperation. — Existing contracts for water supply in the initial development will be canceled and these contractors will have priority in contract- ing for storage in the ultimate development. Other prospective users have furnished resolutions requesting storage in the ultimate development. The requests amply cover the entire amount of water supply storage expected to be available in the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $8,350,000 (ultimate development for water supply) is an increase of $950,000 over the latest estimate ($7,400,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $23,000 for higher price levels, $660,000 for lands and damages (deferred mineral interests), $939,000 for construction based on more detailed planning and $20,000 in supervision and administration. These increases were partially offset by decrease of $692,000 due to favorable bid received. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $2,320,000 $13,000 $191,000 $1,306,000 $810,000 Reservoirs. 2,466,000 750,000 1,716,000 Dams 2,340,000 1,075,000 1,200,000 65,000 Recreation 480,000 480,000 Engineering and design 360,000 139,000 61,000 100,000 60,000 Supervision and admmistration. 384,000 9,000 47,000 144,000 184,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 8,350,000 161,000 1,374,000 3,500,000 3,315,000 Undistributed cost. .. ... Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 8,350,000 161,000 1,374,000 3,500,000 3,315,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 8,350,000 161,000 1,374,000 3, 500,000 3,315,000 Undelivered orders 10,000 —10,000 . . .. Total obligations 171,000 1,364,000 3,506,66o 3,315,000 Method of financing: Allocations 585,000 950,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year.. 414,000 Total funds available tor obligation 1,364,000 Appropriations required 3,500,000 3,315,000 136 Mr. KniwAX. There has been a cost increase of $600,000 last year for deferred mineral interests. What type of mineral interests are in- volved and what is the total payment that is being made for this purpose ? General Bradley. They are oil and gas interests, sir, and the present total estimated cost is $2,320,000. WAURIKA RESERVOIR, OKLA. Mr. KiRAVAx. $900,000 is budgeted to initiate land acquisition for the Waurika Reservoir, Okla. The justification follows: Waurika Reservoir, Okla. (Land acquisition) Location. — On Beaver Creek, approximately 6 miles northwest of Waurika, Okla., in Jefferson County. Authorization. — Public Law 88-253, approved December 30, 1963. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement... Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement: Water Supply. Water Conv. Fac Irrigation Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $27,300,000 13,848,000 13,452,000 2,443,000 11,300,000 105, 000 260,000 190,000 450. 000 2 900, 000 5 25,950,000 PHYSICAL data Dam: Type: Earthfill. Height: 93 feet. Length: 14,500 feet. Spillway: Type: Uncontrolled saddle. Capacity (maximum pool) : 48,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-fed Flood control 95, 300 Conservation 155, 000 Sedimentation 40, 000 Total 290,300 Lands and damages: Acres: 20,000. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm type. Relocations: Roads: 15 miles, $488,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $11,409,000. 137 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Land acquisition (not started) December 1973 Other features of project not currently scheduled I. "I"""""""!" JUSTIFICATION Operation of the reservoir would provide a high degree of protection to 4,400 acres of rural and urban land on Beaver Creek from the dam site to the mouth of Cow Creek and moderate protection to 6,700 acres of rural land from the mouth of Cow Creek to the confluence of Red River. The total annual crop value for the 11,100 acres is estimated to be $209,000 and the value of property, uicluding minerals, is in excess of $18,000,000. Construction of this project would provide urgrmtly needed flood protection to farm land, urban and physical properties Included in the project would be 155,000 acre-feet of storage allocated to water conservation (including water supply, water quality control, fish and wildlife, recreation and irrigation). The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $077^ 500 Water supply 726 200 Recreation ~ 42(3* qoo Water quality control _ __ 06?' 100 Irrigation. l"[l""lll 54! 500 Fish and wildlife 15 000 Total 2, 156. 300 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $900,000 will be applied to- Initiate acquisition of land in reservoir area $700, 000 Engineering and design '"_' 17.5 000 Supervision and administration _ 25 000 Total 900, 000 The funds requested are required to initiate land acquisition and meet scheduled completion dates. Non-Federal Costs. — Under authority of the Water Supply Act of 1958 as amended, the Corps of Engineers may include storage for municipal and' in- dustrial water supply in any reservoir project being planned or already authorized for construction, provided State or local interests pay the allocated cost of the water supply features of the project. Other authorized project features which would be repaid by non-Federal interests include water conveyance facilities and storage for irrigation. The reimbursement is estimated at $13,848,000. Status of local cooperation. — The Waurika Project Master Conservancy District has furnished a resolution, dated December 3, 1962, recognizing the responsibility of repaj-ment to the United States for all costs allocated to irrigation municip-^l and industrial water supply, and the facilities for Avater utilization. The Beaver- Cow Creek Watershed Development Association has adopted a resolution endors- ing the proposed plan of development. A contract for repayment of the cost of facilities for water utilization (water conveyance facilities) and any water suijijly storage required for initial use wUl be negotiated with the master conservancy district during project planning. An irrigation project is proposed for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation. Ihis project would utilize irrigation storage provided in Waurika Reser\oir Repayment contracts for the irrigation project would be administered bv the becretary of the Interior in accordance with provisions of reclamation h\w Ihe Bureau of Reclamation advised by letter dated August 1, 1966, that the owners of potentially irrigable lands have not shown sufficient interest to permit forming an irrigation district at this time to utilize irrigation storage in the project .to^SnnA''?* ?l ^'^'^'^''" ^""^^ estimate.—The current Federal cost estimate of *27,3UU,000 is the same as last submitted to Congress. Major design changes since project authorization. — None. 138 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages $5,410,000 11,897,000 .. 179,000 .. 5,970,000 .. 117,000 .. 623,000 .. 143,000 .. 80,000 .. 1,600,000 1,281,000 27, 300, 000 $2,000 . $700, 000 $4 708 000 Relocations 11,897,000 Reservoir 179, 000 Dams 5, 970, 000 Roads railroads and bridges 117 000 Recreation facilities 623 000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 143 000 Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design """2"227o"do"" 14,000 238, 000 """$T9"o',oo"o"" 22,000 212,000 """'175,000' 25,000 900,000 80, 000 1,013.000 Supervision and administration 1,220,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost (construction fa- cilities) 25,950,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments 27,300,000 238, 000 212,000 900,000 25,950,000 Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders . 27,300,000 238, 000 4,000 242, 000 260, 000 212,000 -4,000 . 208, 000 190,000 . 18,000 . 208,000 . 900, 000 25,950,000 Total obligations 900, 000 25,950,000 Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required . 900,000 25, 950, 000 Mr. KiRWAN". Please describe this new start and tell us the status of the plaiming on this project. Grieneral BRiVDLEY. This dam will be located on Beaver Creek ap- proximately 6 miles northwest of Waurika, Okla. It will consist of an earth embankment with an uncontrolled spillway. The construction of the project will provide urgently needed flood protection to farm and urban properties and urgently needed water supply for the cities of Lawton, including Fort Sill, DLincan, Commanche, Waurika, Walters, and Temple, Okla. Other project purposes will be water quality con- trol, fish and wildlife, recreation, and irrigation. LOCAL COOPERATION Mr. KiRWAN. About one-half of the project cost would be reimbui'sed by local interests. Please outline the status of the local cooperation involved. General Bradley. The Waurika project master conservancy district has furnished a resolution dated January 3, 1968, recognizing the re- sponsibility to repay all costs allocated to water supp]}^ and con- veyance facilities and to irrigation. land acquisition Mr. KiRWAN. T^^iat type of land is to be acquired under the project and what is the urgency for initiating such acquisition ? General Bradley. It is all agricultural land, sir. The urgency is to avoid paying higher costs by acquisition at a later date. relocations Mr. KiRWAN. Relocations on this project include an estimate of $11,- 409,000 for cemeteries and utility lines. What is involved in this high- cost estimate? 139 General Bradlf.y. Tlve iimjor item involved in this is the construc- tion of the Avater conveynnce facilities to the cities that I mentioned in the description of the project. The estimated costs of those water con- veyance facilities is presently $10,429,000, all of which will be re- imbui-sed. The relocation of cemeteries, pipelines and other utilities is the remainder, presently estimated at about $1,468,000. BUFFALO BAYOU AND TRIBUTARIES, TEXAS Mr. KiRWAX. $2,500,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Buffalo Bayou and tributaries local protection project for Houston, Tex. (The justification follows :) Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries, Texas (Continuing) Location.— Local protection for Houston, located in Harris County, Tex in and west of Houston along Buffalo, White Oak, and Bravs Bayous. "' Axithorization.— 1938 River and Harbor Act; and 1939, 1954, and 1965 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.0 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $67,200,000 Estimated non-Federal cost «. 41 625 000 Cash contribution ' ' n Othercosts '."'.'.'. 41 625 000 Total estimated project cost ins's^s'nnn Allocations to June 30, 1967 43 582*000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ' 3' 550*000 Allocations to date ^. 47*132*000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 2*500*000 7d Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 17*568*000 70 « In addition, local Interests fiave expended approximately $4,430,000 to provide partial flood protection in the project PHYSICAL data Addicks Dam and Reservoir: Earth embankment 61,166 feet long- 204 500 acre- feet capacity; outlet works, 5 gated conduits. ' ' Barker Dam and Reservoir: Earth embankment 71,900 feet long; 207 000 acre- feet capacity; outlet works, 5 gated conduits. ' Relocations: 1954 authority: Alterations to 19 railroad timber trestle bridges. $941 000 1938-39 authority: Utility lines _ _ 358*000 Roads 3.4 mues -":.':::::::::::::: 95,' 000 Bridges gQiQOO Canals: j^j^gg Buffalo Bayou oq 2 White Oak Bayou '"'_'_ 10 6 Brays Bayou '_ " " 9=' c South Mayde Creek 11111111^1111 "l 2 Lands and damages: Acres: 27,026 (1938-39 authority) Addicks and Barker Reservoirs Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. 140 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Addicks and Barker Dams 100 South Mayde Creek 100 Brays Bayou__ 99 May 1968. White Oak Bayou .._ 66 June 1970. Buffalo Bayou 10 June 1972. Entire project 70 June 1972. JUSTIFICATIOX The project will protect the principal business, industrial, and residential areas of Houston, Harris County, Tex., against recurring floods on Buffalo, Brays, and White Oak Bayous. The flood of December 1935 caused damages amounting to $2,500,000 in the city of Houston and a loss of eight lives. A recurrence of the December 1935 flood, under present conditions of development in the flood plain, would cause damages estimated in excess of $35,000,000. Completion of the project will prevent recurring flood losses. Average annual benefits are $6,546,000, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,500,000 will be applied to — - Continue construction on White Oak Bayou $1, 904, 000 Continue construction on Buffalo Bayou downstream of White Oak. 456, 000 Engineering and design 52, 000 Supervision and administration 88, 000 Total 2, 500,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 will maintain a schedule compatible with capability and progress of local interests in furnishing rights-of-way. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $41,625,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $37, 333, 000 Relocations of utilities, sewers, etc 2, 170, 000 Bridge alterations 2, 122, 000 Total 41,625,000 Local interests are required to maintain the rectified channels of Buffalo, Brays, and White Oak Bayous upon completion. The annual cost for maintenance is estimated at $141,000. Local interests have previously expended approximately $1,945,000 on Brays Bayou, $685,000 on White Oak Bayou and $1,800,000 on Buffalo Bayou to provide partial flood protection. Status of local cooperation. — The Harris County Flood Control District adopted a resolution on November 23, 1955, assuring the United States that the require- ment of local cooperation would be fulfilled. On Brays Bayou, local interests have acquired all lands required and have completed 100 ])ercent of highway bridge relocations and 100 percent of utility changes. On White Oak Bayou, local in- terests have acquired api)roximately 80 percent of all rights-of-way required for this component. On Buffalo Bayou, no new work is planned in fiscal year 1968 for which additional rights-of-way will be required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The ciirrent Federal cost estimate of $57,200,000 is an increase of $1,100,000 over the latest estimate ($66,100,000) submitted to Congress. The change includes increases of $759,000 for higher j^rice levels, $77,000 based on completion of contract work, and $204,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a reanalysis of require- ments. Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal yaar fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 141 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AMD 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Completed units: Addlcks and Barker Dams and South Mayde Creek (1938 and 1939 authorizations) $11,722,000 $11,722,000 Uncompleted units: Flood Control Act of 1954 (HD 250/83/2) and Flood Control Act of 1965 (HD 169/89/1). White Oak Bayou rectified channel 11,281,000 7,313,000 $929,000 $1,944,000 $1,095,000 Relocations-Railroad bridges (466,000) (5,000) (165,000) (296,000) (0) Canals . . (9,534,000) (6,200,000) (654,000) (1,608,000) (1,072,000) Engineering and design. i (670, 000) (618,000) (50,000) (2,000) (0) Supervision and administration (611,000) (490,000) (60,000) (38,000) (23,000) Buffalo Bayou rectified channel 19,039,000 1,794,000 216,000 556,000 16,473,000 Relocations-Railroad bridges. (159,000) (0) (0) (10,000) (149,000) Canals (16,434,000) (609,000) (91.000) (446,000) (15,288,000) Engineering and design.. 2(1,409,000) (1,076,000) (110,000) (50,000) (173,000) Supervision and administration (1,037,000) (109,000) (15,000) (50,000) (863,000) Brays Bayou rectified channel,. 25,158,000 22,613,000 2,545,000 Relocations-Railroad bridges (316,000) (316,000) (0) (0) (0) Canals (22,052,000) (19,596,000) (2,456,000) (0) (0) Engineering and design 3(i, 160,000) (1,150,000) (10.000) (0) (0) Supervision and administration.. (1,630,000) (1,551,000) (79,000) (0) (0) Total applied cost(Federal funds only).. 67,200,000 43,442,000 3.690,000 2,500,000 17,568,000 Undistributed cost - Total projectcost(Federalfundsonly)..- 67,200,000 43,442,000 3,690,000 2,500,000 17,568,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 67,200,000 43,442,000 3.690,000 2,500,000 17,568,000 Undelivered orders +132,000 -132.000 Total obligations. 43,574,000 3,558,000 2,500,000 17,568,000 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations. 43,582,000 3,550.000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 8,000 __ Total funds available for obi - gation 3,558,000 Appropriation required -- 2,500,000 17,568,000 1 Includes $7,000 for real estate activities. 2 Includes $10,000 for real estate activities. Includes $12,000 for real estate activities. Mr. KiRWAN. Last year the committee directed a restudy of the project plans upstream of the White Oak Bayou area. What is the st atus of this restudy ? General Bradley. Sir, that study is underway at the present time. Mr. KiRWAN. What funds are included, if any, in the 1969 request for planning or construction in the reach upstream of the "V^liite Oak Bayou, which has been subject to the local controversy ? General Bradley. The fiscal year 1969 request does not contain any funds for construction in the controversial portion of the reach of Buffalo Bayou above White Oak Bayou. A total of $40,000 is tenta- tively allocated for preconstruction planning on the whole of Buffalo Bayou above the mouth of White Oak Bayou. Completion of this plan- ning, as scheduled, is dependent on whether proposals now being in- vestigated are concurred in by local interests. HIGHLAND BAYOU, TEX. Mr. KntwAN". $500,000 is budgeted to initiate construction of the Highland Bayou, Tex., local protection project. (The justification follows :) 142 Highland Bayou, Tex. (New) Location. — Highland Bayou rises near Arcadia, Tex., and flows into Jones Bay, an arm of West Bay. The watershed, with an area of about 38 square miles, lies entirely within Galveston County. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1965. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $4,000,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1,560,000 Cash contribution Other costs 1,560,000 Total estimated project cost 5,560,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 135,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 110,000 Allocations to date - 245,000 6 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 500, 000 17 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 3,255,000 PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Diversion channel, 6 miles. Rectified channel, 11.83 miles. Dams: Diversion dam, 8.65 miles. Type, earthfiU. Height, 15 feet above mean sea level. Length, 85 feet. Relocations: Railroads: Alterations to one bridge and construction of one new bridge, $140,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Construction (not started) December 1970. JUSTIFICATION Project would provide flood protection for a residential and commercial area with a population of 5,200 in 1960. The value of existing physical property in the flood plain of the standard project flood was estimated at $11,139,000 (August 1963). Damages that would occur from the standard project flood under present state of development are estimated at about $3.2 million. Average annual benefits are $779,000, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $500,000 will be applied to — Initiate work on 2 railroad bridges $100,000 Initiate work on diversion dam, diversion channel, and channel rectification 274,000 Engineering and design 90, 000 Supervision aiad administration 36, 000 Total - -- 500,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 arc required for an orderly and eco- nomical construction schedule. Non-Federal costs. — The cost to the local sponsor of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation is $1,560,000 which consists of payments for lands and damages ($708,000) and relocations ($852,000) . 143 Status of local cooperation. — Local interests for the project are represented by Galveston County Commissioners Court which has indicated its willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation. A bond issue was passed in November 1964 which included funds for the project. Comparison of Federal {Corps of Engineers) cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $4 million is an increase of $150,000 over the latest estimate ($3,850,000) submitted to Congress. The increase results from higher price levels. Major design changes since project authorization. — None. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Authorized by Flood Control Act of 1965 (HD 168/89/1) Relocations Channels Engineering and design $140, 000 3,220,000 322, 000 318,000 4, 000, 000 $27, 000 2,000 29, 000 $155,000 11,000 166, 000 $100,000 274, 000 140, 000 36. 000 550, 000 $40, 000 2,946,000 Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only)... Undistributed cost 269, 000 3,255,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments 4, 000. 000 29, 000 166,000 550, 000 3,255,000 Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders 4, 000, 000 29. 000 +6, 000 35,000 135,000 166,000 -6, 000 160, 000 110,000 . 100,000 210,000 550, 000 3,255,000 Total obligations 550, 000 3,255,000 Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover form prior yea r 50,000 . 50,000 . 500, 000 Total funds available for obligation Appropriation required _ . 3,255,00 Mr. KiRWAN". Please describe this new construction start. General Bradley. This plan of improvement provides for enlarge- ment and rectification of the Higliland Bayou channel, and construc- tion of a diversion dam in Highland Bayou, with a diversion channel extending southerly from the (diversion dam and emptying into Green's Lake. The project would provide flood protection for residential and commercial areas. Mr. KiRWAN. What has been the recent flood history in the area ? General Bradley. Major floods occurred in 1957, 1959, 1960, and 1961, sir. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, TEXAS Mr. KmwAN. $1,500,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the San Antonio Channel Improvement project in Texas. The justification follows : San Antonio Channel Improvement, Texas Location. — In the city of San Antonio, Bexar County, Tex., along the San Antonio River and San Pedro, Apache, Alazan, and Martinez Creeks. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. 91-459— 68— pt. 1 10 144 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost. _ Cash contribution Other costs--. Total estimated project cost... Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968... Allocalions to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969—. $24,939,000 '18,248,000 661,000 17,587,000 43,187,000 9,441,000 1,500,000 10,941,000 44 1,500,000 50 12,498,000 I In addition, local interests have incurred costs of $4,555,000 for channel excavation and construction of Olmos Dam to provide partial flood protection in the project area. PHYSICAL DAT.A. Channels : Improvement, 13.3 miles along San Antonio River. Improvement, 5 miles along San Pedro Creek. Improvement, 3.4 miles along Apache Creek. Improvement, 4.3 miles along Alazan Creek. Improvement, 6.7 miles along Martinez Creek. Relocations: Railroads, 12 bridges ($552,000). STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Relocations 80 San Antonio River, units 1, 8-1, and 8-2 100 San Pedro Creek, units 2, 7-1, and 7-2-1 100 Alazan Creek, units 4-1 and 4-2 100 Apache Creek, unit 5-1. 100 San Pedro Creek, unit 7-2-2 95 San Antonio River, unit 8-3-1 59 Entire project 42 Relocations (essentially complete) June 1969. Channels: San Antonio River, June 1974. San Pedro Creek, June 1974. Apache Creek, June 1974. Martinez Creek, September 1970. Extension below Berg's Mill, June 1971. Entire project, June 1974. JUSTIFICATION The improvements will give a high degree of protection to the metropolitan area of San Antonio (third largest city in Texas with an estimated July 1966 population of 828,000) which has been subject to disastrous floods and heavy loss of life in the past. Approximately 2,685 acres of urban land are subject to flooding in the stream reaches in San Antonio, and the total value of all property therein is estimated at about $196,695,000. The population in the flood area is estimated at 25,700 and there are approximately 27,600 persons employed in the area. Without this protection a recurrence of the maximum flood of record (1921) under the present state of development would result in damages estimated to be about $12,829,000. The last serious flood occurred during April and May 1957, and it caused damages amounting to approximately $3,70S,()00 at then existing prices. A recurrence of this Hood under present conditions of development and price level would cause damages estimated at $0,336,000, all of whicli would l^e ]>re- \'ented by the project. The most recent Hood occiun^d during .May 1965 and caused damages amounting to approximately $886,000 at then existing j)ric<'s, all of which would have been prevented by the project. In addition to th» high degree of flood protection afforded by the project, it will also i)rovide adequate outfalls for the storm-sewer svstem now being planned b\ the citv. Average annual benefits are $2,451,900, all flood control. 145 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of S], 500,000 will be applied to — ■ Alterations to SP bridges 1 and 2, Martinez Creek $80, 000 Continue unit 8-3, San Antonio River 214, 000 Complete unit 7-2, San Pedro Creek 41, 000 Initiate unit 3 and 4-3, Martinez Creek 822, 000 Initiate unit 6, Martinez Creek 19,000 Engineering and design 225, 000 Supervision and administration 99, 000 Total 1, 500, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue the project at a rate consistent with the current ability and progress of local interests in ac- cjuiring rights-of-way. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $18,248,000 broken down as follows : Lands $7, 823,000 Relocation of dams and channel rectification 1, 451, 000 Relocation of highway bridges 6, 141, 000 Ptelocation of utilities 2, 172, 000 Cash contribution (for enhancement benefits) 661, 000 Total 18, 248,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. The annual cost for maintenance and operation is estimated at $268,000. In addition, local interests have incurred costs of $4,555,000 for channel ex- cavation and construction of Olmos Dam prior to initiation of the authorized Federal projects. Olmos Dam is a flood control detention reservoir with no perma- nent storage. It was constructed during 1925-26 at a cost of approximately $1,575,000. The dam will continue to operate as an integral part of the San Antonio channel imj^rovement i^roject. Status of local cooperation. — The San Antonio River Authority, a State agency, by an ordinance passed on February 28, 1956, has agreed formally to comply with all the requirements of local cooperation. The authority's funding agency is the Commissioners Court of Bexar County. Under a contract of September 12, 1955, the authority was authorized to expend $12 million on capital improve- ments; however, due to price level increases and Berg's Mill extension, the au- thority estimates $18,248,000 will now be required. By letters of August 29, 1967, and December 26, 1967, the authority advised that ROW would be available as f olloW'S : Rights-of-way for unit 4-3: Presently available. R ights-of-w^ay for unit 3: During April 1968. Rights-of-w^ay for units 6 and S-3-2: During April 1969. Rights-of-way for extension below Berg's Mill: During January 1970. The authority expects to provide ROW for unit 8-4 with their available funds to meet current construction schedule. Because of funds limitations, they do not now know if ROW schedules can be met for units 5-2, 5-3, 7-3, and 8-5 to com- jjlete the project as currently scheduled by June 1974. The city of San Antonio's application for a Demonstration Cities grant (Public Law 89-754), if approved, is expected to affect favorably the right-of-way availability for Apache Creek, unit 5-2. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $24,939,000 is an increase of $2,739,000 over the latest estimate ($22,200,000) submitted to Congress. The increase includes $368,000 due to price level rise on construction; $66,000 due to additional relocation requirements based on bridge and hydraulic design changes and studies; $392,000 due to increase in unit 8 costs based on more detailed design and contract award; $1,223,000 due to floodway extension on San Antonio River below^ Berg's Mill; $588,000 increase in engineer- ing and design based on numerous channel alinement changes and other changes requested by local interests, and planning required for authorized floodway ex- tension; and $102,000 increase in supervision and administration based on re- analysis of requirements. 146 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current' Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete ifter estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (S> Relocations $552,000 $443,000 $25,000 $80,000 $4,000 Channels 21,744.000 7.396,000 1,387,000 1,136,000 11.825,000 Engineering and design 11,887,000 1,177.000 128,000 225,000 357,000 Supervision and administration.. 1,417,000 593,000 77,000 99,000 648,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 25,600,000 9,609,000 1.617.000 1,540.000 12.834.000 Und istributed cost - Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) _... 25,600,000 9,609,000 1,617,000 1,540,000 12.834,000 Pending adjustment - - Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions) 25,600,000 9,609.000 1,617,000 1,540,000 12.334.000 Undelivered orders.. 65,000 -65,000 Total obligations -.. - 9,674,000 1,552,000 1,540,000 12.834.000 Federal funds: Total cost . .- 24,939,000 9,364,000 1,577,000 1,500,000 12,498.000 Undelivered' orders _ 65,000 -65,000 Total obligations 9,429,000 1,512,000 1,500,000 12,498,000 Non-Federal contributions: Total cost 661,000 245,000 40,000 40,000 336,000 Undelivered orders --- - Total obligations 245,000 40,000 40,000 336,000 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations. 9,441,000 1,500,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 12,000 Total funds available for obli- gation - 1,512,000 Appropriations required -- 1,500,000 12,438,000- Non-Federal contributions: Contributions 245,000 40,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obli- gation 40,000 Contributions required 40,000 33S,000' > Includes $20,000 for real estate activities. berg's mill EXTENSION" Mr, KiRWAN. The committee was advised on January 19, 196S, by the Corps that it was approving a modification to the project to extend the floodway beloAv Berg's Mill at an estimated cost of $1,223,000. Please describe this change for the commitee. General Bradley, Sir, this extension provides })rotection for the city and river valley immediately downstream from the portion of the project that has been completed in the southerly part of the area. The plan consists of an extension of the present San Antonio River flood- way with a 300-foot bottom width channel, ii distance of about 9,000 feet downstream of Berg's Mill. The plan will provide flood protec- tion from a design discharge upstream of Interstate Highway Loop 410, with a lesser degree of protection downstream of that point. Mr. KiRWAN. Are local authorities current on maintenance of the project works completed to date ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. Mr. KiRWAX. Have the local authorities pi-ovided the nece.ssary rights-of-way required for planned construction in fiscal year 1969? General Bradley. They are now available for Unit 4-3. Those for Units 3, 6, and 8-3-2 are scheduled for delivery prior to the scheduled award dates. 147 SAN GABRIEL RIVER, TRIBUTARY TO THE BRAZOS RIVER, TEX. Mr. KiRWAX. $1,500,000 is budgeted to continue land acquisition for the .San Gabriel Kiver, Tributary to the Brazos River project in Texas. The justification follows : San Gabriel River, Tributary to Brazos River, Tex. (Land acquisition) Location. — The improvement will consist of a system of three reservoirs located in Williamson County on the San Gabriel River watershed. Laneport Dam will be located at river mile 31.9 about 7 miles east of Granger, Tex. North Fork Dam will be located at river mile 4.3 on the North Fork of San Gabriel River about 3.5 miles northwest of Georgetown, Tex. South Fork Dam will be located at river mile 4.7 on the South Fork of San Gabriel River about 3 miles southwest of Georgetown, Tex. Construction of the South Fork Reservoir will be deferred until the need for water supply develops. Authorization. — 1954 and 1962 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement... Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate).- Estimated non-Federal cost Reimbursement, water supply Total estimated project cost. Allocation to June 30, 1967... Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $61,500,000 11,600,000 49,900,000 11,600,000 11,600,000 61,500,000 1,210,000 432,000 1,642,000 3 1,500,000 5 58,358,000 PHYSIC.4.L D.\TA Laneport Dam and Reservoir: Dam: Type: Rolled earthfill. Height: 99 feet (maximum above streambed). Length: 12,467 feet (including spillway). Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control i 126, 200 Water supply i 73, 900 Sediment reserve 44, 100 Total 244,200 1 Ueii] South Fork Reservoir is constructed assignment of Laneport Reservoir will be as follows: Flood control i62,200 acre-feet, water supply 37,900 acre-feet. Spillway : Type: Gated ogee. Length: 440 feet. Design capacity (maximum pool) : 423,200 cubic feet per second. Lands and Damages: Acres: 13,905. Type: Predominantly agriculture. Improvement: Typical farm units. Relocations : Roads: 8.0 miles ($683,000). Cemeteries, utilities, and structures ($194,000)- 148 North Fork Dam and Reservoir: Dam : Type: RockfiU, impervious core. Height: 164 feet (maximum above streambed) . Length: 5,950 feet (excluding spillway). Spillway : Tvpe: Broadcrested uncontrolled. Length: 750 feet. Design capacity (maximum pool): 26.5,800 cubic feet per second. Lands and Damages: Acres: 6,300. Type: Predominantly agriculture. Improvements: Tj-pical farm units. Reservoir capacitv: Acre-feet Flood control S7, 600 Water supply 29, 200 Sediment reserve 14, 000 Total 130,800 Relocations: Roads: 15.5 miles ($920,000). Cemeteries, utilities, and structures ($24,000). South Fork Dam and Reservoir: Dam: Type: Rockfill, impervious core. Height: 1.52 feet (maximum above streambed). Length: .5,120 feet (excluding spillway). Spillway: Type: Broadcrested uncontrolled. Length: 500 feet. Design capacity (maximum pool): 147,300 cubic feet per second. Lands and damages: Acres: 4,200. Type: Predominantly agriculture. Improvements: Tj'pical farm units. Reservoir capacity': Acre-feet Flood control 45, 700 Water supply 28, 900 Sediment reserve 8, 000 Total 82, GOO Relocations; Roads: 1 mile including bridge ($114,000). Cemeteries, utilities, and structure ($29,000). Status (January 1, 1968) : Land acquisition not started. Other features of project not currently scheduled. Completion schedule: ^ June 1973. JUSTIFICATION The combination of Laneport, North Fork, and South Fork Reservoirs will provide flood protection to about 20,900 acres of laud along the San Gabriel River, and it will assist materially in reducing flood damages to about 33,600 acres of land along the Little River below the mouth of the San Gabriel River, and about 1,407,000 acres of land along the Brazos River b<'lov>' the mouth of the Little River. The combination of re^■ervoirs is an important unit in the sys- tem of reservo'rs authorized on the Brazos River. Tlu; last serious flood occurred during April-June 1957 and caused damages amounting to about $10,951,000 at then pre\ailing prices. A recurrence of this ilood und(>r present conditions of development and price lev<>l would cause damages estimated at $13,30S, ()()() of which $6,025,000 would be ])revented by the combination of San Gal)iiel proj- ects. The most r(;cent flood occurred during Ajiril -May 1966, causing daniagc s amounting to about $1,282,000 at then existing prices, of which $515, ()00 would have been prevented. The projects also will provide storage for municipal, indus- trial, and other beneficial uses which will serve the water supply need of the San ' Exclusive of South Fork Reservoir. Coiistiuetii n deferred until water supply is needed. 149 Gabriel Rivn- watershed as well as the lower Brazos River Basin where a need exists for the good quality water resources of the San Gabriel watershed. Estimated annual benefits are as follows: , „ , A mount Flood control $2, 551, 400 Water supply 842, 200 Recreation 1, 498, 000 Total 4, 891, 600 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,500,000 will be applied to — Amount Continue acquisition of land $725, 000 Continue installation of boundary markers 39, 000 Operation of stream gages 9, 000 Engineering and design 621, 000 Supervision and administration 106, 000 Total 1, 500, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for planning and land acquisition. ISI on-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to reimbui'se the Federal Gov- ernment for costs allocated to water supply at Laneport, North Fork, and South Fork Reservoirs. The reimbursement is currentlv estimated at $3,900,000 for Laneport, $4,200,000 for North Fork, and $3,500,000 for South Fork or a total of $11,600,000, exclusive of interest. The annual cost to local interests of mainte- nance, operation, and replacement is estimated at $76,700. Status of local cooperation. — The Brazos River Authority, a State agency, signed assurances that it will contract for the future water supply at North Fork pnd Laneport Reservoirs in compliance with the I^epartment of Defense directive on October 16, 1967. These signed assurances, together with enclosures under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, were submitted to higher authority for approval on December 6, 1967. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $61,500,000 is an increase of $8,400,000 over the latest estimate ($53,100,000) presented to Congress. This increase includes $781,000 for price level rise on construction, $6,044,000 based on more detailed design studies and preliminary reservoir master plan studies, and $1,575,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on reanalj^sis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages $15,070,000 Relocations 1,964,000 Reservoirs 1,707,000 Dams 33,360.000 $37, 000 $76, 000 $725, 000 20, 000 48, 000 315,000 1,710,000 570, 000 294, 000 4, 075, 000 2, 453, 000 61,500,000 "6i,"500,"000" 931.000 57,000 1,025,000 7,000 1,032,000 Roads Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only)._. Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only)_.. Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 61.500,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations... 1,039,000 Metfiod of financing: Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year. Total funds available for obli- gation Appropriations required 28, 000 439,000 54, 000 617,000 -7,000 610,000 621,000 106,000 1,500,000 1,032,000 7,000 1,210,000 610,000 1,500,000 -7,000 . 603,000 1,500,000 432, 000 171,000 603, 000 $14,232,000 1,964,000, 1,639,000 33, 360, 000 315,000 1,710,000 570, 000 266, 000 2, 056, 000 2,236,000 58,358,000 1,500,000 58,358,000 58,358,000 "58,"358,600 1, 500, 000 58, 358, OOft- loO STATUS OF LAND ACQUISITION Mr. KiRWAN. What is the current status of the land acquisition ? General Bradley. Only planning has taken place, sir. Mr. KiRWAN. "What is the local reaction to the plan for advance land acquisition on the project ? General Bradley. Sir, we have no particular reaction, either favor- able or unfavorable, toward advance acquisition, but our past expe- rience has indicated that there will be no unfavorable reaction from the local sponsors. Mr. KiRWAN. The total estimated cost for land acquisition is $15,- 070,000, covering about 14,000 acres of land. "VVliat accomits for the hight cost of the land ? General Bradley. We attribute it to speculative purchasing, sir. The total land required for the three reservoirs, however, is 28,400. The acreage you mentioned is for Laneport only. Mr. KiRWAN. In other words, just as soon as the people find out that the Government plans to acquire land, whether it is local, State or Federal government, there is a great value put on it ; is that correct ? General Bradley. It would appear so in this instance. Mr. KiRw^AN. Yes ; in all instances. COST INCREASE Please explain the cost increase of $8,400,000 on the project since last year. General Bradley. This is due primarily to price levels, more de- tailed design, development of the preliminary master plan, and in- creases in our engineering design and supervision and administration costs. Mr. KiRWAN. We will insert the balance of the justifications under construction. Arkansas River and Tributaries — Bank Stabilization and Channel Rectification (Continuing) Location. — The bank stabilization and channel rectification feature of the ap- proved multiple-purpose plan for the development of the lower Arkansas Ri\'er consists of dikes, revetments, channel cutoffs, and control structures along the main channel of the river from Short Mountain, Okla., at mile 395.4 to mile 33.7. Construction of these works is required to provide a stable channel for nav- igation, and provide for the safety of project levees, bridges, utility crossings, and other important improvements which are endangered by bank caving and migrating bends. The Arkansas River is a major tributary of the Mississippi River and enters the Mississippi at a point about 575 miles above the Head of Passes, La. Authorization. — 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1 (multiple-purpose plan for Lower Arkansas River Basin) . 151 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $133,000,000 Estimated non-Federal cost - Total estimated project cost - 133,000,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 115,496,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 2,850,000 Allocations to date_-. - - - 118,346,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969..- - --- 3,500,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. - 11,154,000 Bank Stabilization and Channel Rectification PHYSICAL DATA Reach Revetment and dikes (feet) Excavation for pilot channels (cubic yards) Short Mountain, Okla.-Fort Smith, Ark Fort Smith-Mill Creek Mountain Mill Creek Mountain-Morrisons Bluff Dardanelle Rock-Morrilton Bridge Morrilton Bridge-Fourche La Fave Fourche La Fave-Little Rock Little Rock-Jefferson County Free Bridge Jefferson County Free Bridge-Rob Roy Bridge. Rob Roy Bridge-Arkansas Post. Arkansas Post-Mile 33.7 230,700 4,000,000 300, 000 4,100,000 175,000 800,000 260,000 2,100,000 200, 000 2,500,000 200, 000 400, 000 14,000,000 68, 600 3, 500, 000 450, 000 8, 000, 000 62, 200 15,000,000 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Initial construction Additional con- traction works Entire project - 88 Short Mountain, Okla.-Fort Smith, Ark 96 Fort Smith-Mill Creek Mountain 82 Mill Creek Mountain-Morrisons Bluff 79 Dardanelle Rock-Morrilton Bridge 90 Morrilton Bridge-Fourche La Fave - 74 Fourche La Fave-Little Rock 81 Little Rock-Jefferson County Free Bridge 84 Jefferson County Free Bridge-Rob Roy Bridge 80 Rob Roy Bridge-Arkansas Post 96 Arkansas Post-Mile 33.7 -.. 96 September 1970 June 1972. Complete. December 1968. September 1970 June 1972. Complete. Do. do Do. September 1969 Do. August 1968.. October 1971. September 1968 June 1972. April 1970 April 1972. September 1968 June 1970. April 1968 April 1972. Lands and damages: Acres: 22,674. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. JUSTIFICATION Bank stabilization and channel rectification is an integral feature of the approved multiple-purpose plan of development of the Arkansas River. The Arkansas River is subject to unusually severe shifting of alinement within the present control lines. Each major deviation from its course, if left uncontrolled, produces a deterioration of the alinement for the navigation channel and would permit severe damage to existing bank-stabilization structures. Additional contraction structures are required immediately downstream from each lock and dam to control the navigation channel approach to the locks. The Federal Government, together with local improvement districts, has invest- ed more than $37 million in the construction of levees to protect more than 2}4 million acres of agricultural and urban lands within the flood plain of the 152 Tiver between Tulsa and the mouth. Also, there are 117 crossings of the Arkansas River between Tulsa and the mouth. These crossings consist of highways, railways, pipelines, waterlines, and transmission lines. Many of the pipelines carry petroleum products, including natural gas, to large industrial centers in the Northern and Eastern States. The loss of these crossings would have a far-reaching effect on a wide area of the Nation and an immediate impact on military installations and defense industries. Estimated annual benefits for the multiple-purpose plan for the Lower Arkansas River Basin are: Navigation $40, 470, 000 Power 14, 83,S, 900 Channel stabilization 6, 575, 000 Flood control 6, 602, 600 Water supplv 828, 900 Fish and wildlife 312, 000 Recreation 2, 297, 000 Total 71,924,400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3,500,000 will be applied to — Continue lands and damages $75, 000 Continue bank staVjilization: Fort Smith-Mill Creek Mountain 324, 000 Dardanelle Rock-]\Iorrilton Bridge 125, 000 ^lorrilton Bridge-Fourche La Fave 445, 000 Fourche La Fave-Little Rock 40, 000 Little Rock-Jefferson Countv Free Bridge S17, 000 Jefferson Countv Free Bridge-Rob Rov Bridge 632, 000 Rob Roy Bridge- Arkansas Post 261, 000 Engineering and design 472, 000 Supervision and administration 309, 000 Total 3, 500,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are rec}uired to continue the land acqui- sition program at an orderly and economical rate compatible with construction schedules, to continue construction of revetments, dikes, control structures, and for excavation of pilot channels for channel-rectification works, and continue engineering and design. The bank-stabilization and channel-rectification works are essential to proper functioning of the multiple-purpose phm and, with proper phasing of construction, will show marked economies in reducing overall costs. The initial phase of these structures is essentially complete. The remaining structures to be constructed consist of additional contraction structures at the head of the pools, capping out existing pile structures with stone, and construction of additional channel control structures where the river indicates a tendency to meander beyond the desired alinement. All locks and dams are under contract, and it is important that the stat^ilization and rectification work be continued and completed at the earliest practicable date. Status of local cooperation. — None required for bank stabilization. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate sub- .mitted to Congress ($133 million). 153 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete alte fiscal year 1969 (6) lands and damages $2,844,000 $2,610,000 Bank stabilization 114,295,000 99,194,000 Engineering and design 7,844,000 6,329,000 Supervision and administration 8,017,000 7,049,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only).. _-.- 133,000,000 Undistributed costs... Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only).. 133,000,000 115,182,000 Pending adjustments.. —1,000 Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only). 133,000,000 115,181,000 Undelivered orders 247,000 Total obligations 115,428,000 'Method of financing: Allocations 115,496,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. Total funds available for obligation $84, 000 2,116,000 446, 000 283, 000 $75, 000 ,879,000 472,000 309,000 2,929,000 1,000 2,930,000 -12,000 2,918,000 2,850,000 68. 000 2,918,000 3,735,000 3,735,000 -235.000 3,500,000 Appropriations required 3,500,000 $75,000 10.106,000 597, 000 376, 000 115,182.000 2,929,000 3,735,000 11,154.000 11,154,000 'ii,'i54,'6o6 "li,'"i54,'6od 11,154,000 Project: Arkansas River and Tributaries, Navigation Locks and Dams (Continuing) Location. — The authorized project provides for the improvement of the Arkansas River and its tributaries by the construction of dams and channels to serve navigation, afford additional flood control, produce hydroelectric power, and provide related benefits such as recreation and wildlife propagation. The navi- gation feature of the project consists of a 9-foot navigation channel from the iSIississippi River to Catoosa, Okla., 15 miles east of Tulsa. The route will follow the White River and the Arkansas Post Canal a distance of 19 miles to the Ar- kansas River; thence up the Arkansas River 374 miles to the mouth of the Ver- digris River in Oklahoma; and thence up the Verdigris River to Catoosa, a distance of 50 miles. The Arkansas River is a major tributary of the Mississippi River and enters the Mississippi River about 575 miles above the Head of Passes, La. Authorization. — 1946 River and Harbor Act. BenefU-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. (multiple-purpose plan for Lower Arkansas River Basin) . SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $461,000,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 2,450,000 Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost 463,450,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 223,156,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 80,345,000 Allocations to date 303,501,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 80,879,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 76,620,000 PHYSICAL DAT .A. •Channels: White River: 9.8 miles, 300 feet wide, mile 9.8 to 0.0. Arkansas post canal: 9.2 miles, 300 feet wide, mile 19.0 to 9.8. Arkansas River: 374.0 miles, 250 feet wide, mile 460.2 (1940 survey) to 41.6 (1943 survey). Verdigris River: 50.3 miles, 150 feet wide (1965 survey). All navigation channels will be excavated to an initial depth of 12 feet or more below normal pool level. 154 Locks: Type: Single chamber, single lift, with miter gates. Size: 110X600 feet. Normal (maximum) lift: Varies from 14 feet for lock No. 4 to 30 feet for lock No. 1. Number of locks and dams: 11 on Arkansas River and canal, 2 on Verdigris River. Dams: Movable nonnavigable type with low sills, piers, tainter gates, abutments, and overflow embankments where required. Lands and damages: Acres: 58,687. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations: Roads:! ig miles, $41,401,000. (Replace nine bridges and alter four bridges.) RaUroads: 7 miles, $34,158,000. (Replace two bridges and alter seven bridges.) Cemeteries, utilities, and structures: $7,406,000. STATUS AND COMPLETION SCHEDULE, MAJOR CONSTRUCTION (JAN. 1, 1968) Feature Percent complete Complet on Entire project Entrance channel- Lock and dam No. 1 Lock and dam No. 2 Lock and dam No. 3 Lock and dam No. 4 Lock and dam No. 5 David D. Terry lock and dam (No. 6) Lock and dam No. 7 Lock and dam No. 8 Lock and dam No. 9 Lock and dam No. 13.. W. D. Mayo lock and dam (No. 14) Lock and dam No. 17 Lock and dam No. 18 Maintenance and repair fleet and marine terminals. 56 December 1971.1 42 March 1970.1 100 June 1967. 91 November 1968. 93 September 1968. 66 March I970.i 81 December 1968. b4 December 1971.> 69 August L969. b6 December 1969. 46 November 59. 35 December 1970.' 27 Do.' 29 June 1970 26 Do. 6 June 1971. > Navigation can proceed past bridges with substandard clearance to Little Rock in 1968, Fort Smith in 1969, a^d Tclsa in 1970. JUSTIFICATION The Arkansas River multiple-purpose project was conceived and authorized as an overall plan made up of a group of interrelated elements consisting of reservoirs, multiple-purpose structures, navigation structures, and bank stabilization works, all designed on a coordinated basis to provide for development of optimum benefits. Construction of the project must follow this coordinated plan if full benefits are to be realized. In eastern Oklahoma, construction of Eufaula Reservoir and the initial phase of Oologah Reservoir is complete. Construction of Ke^'-stone Reservoir and the Robert S. Kerr and Webbers Falls lock and dam projects is underway, as is the construc- tion of the Dardanelle and Ozark lock and dam projects in central Arkansas, and bank stabilization and channel rectification between the Robert S. Kerr damsite in Oklahoma and the mouth. Completion of the navigation route to Pine Bluff and Little Rock, Ark., will significantly benefit the economy of the sur- rounding area, where e.xisting industrial facilities have been considerably expanded and new industrial plants constructed in the past few years. Estimated annual benefits for the multiple-iDurpose plan for the Lower Arkansas River Basin arc: Navigation $40, 470. 000 Power 14, S38, 900 Channel stabilization 6. .j75, 000 Flood control 6.602,600 Water supply S28, 900 Fish and wildlife 312, 000 Recreation 2,297, 000 Total 71,924,400 ' Includes new bridges. 155 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $80,879,000 will be applied to — Continue lands and damages $2, 194, 000 Complete construction of lock and dam Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5 except minor miscellaneous items 2,753,000 Continue construction of entrance channel; locks and dams Nos. 4, 6 through 9, 13, 14, 17, and 18, including replacement and altera- tion of bridges; and marine terminals 69, 588, 000 Continue acquisition of maintenance and repair fleet 628, 000 Engineering and design 1, 530, 000 Supervision and administration 4, 186, 000 Total 80, 879, 000 The amount requested for fiscal j'ear 1969 is required to meet established dates for providing navigation to Tulsa. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests are required to provide adequate terminal and transfer facilities for navigation; and bear the increased cost of maintenance and operation of all altered rail and highway routes, including bridges and appurtenances, and utilities and other existing improvements, other than federally owned. Prior to authorization of the project, local interests furnished written assurances that they would construct suitable public terminals. Current assurances relative to providing port facilities have been received from the Governors of Arkansas and Oklahoma; the cities of Dardanelle, Little Rock, and North Little Rock, Ark., and Tulsa and ]\Iuskogee, Okla. The requirements relative to increased cost of maintenance and operation of altered facilities apply to the owners of these facilities and have been or will be covered during negotiations of relocations contracts for the alteration of the various facilities. Laws enacted in 1959 by the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma authorized the organization and operation of port authorities and permitted political subdivisions to engage in port activities. Port authorities have been organized to develop facili- ties in Oklahoma for Tulsa and Rogers Counties, Muskogee, and downstream from Muskogee. Port authorities have been organized in Arkansas to develop facilities for Van Buren, Clarksville, Dardanelle, Russellville, Morrilton, Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pine Bluff and Jefferson County. The Tulsa-Rogers County Port Authority has adopted a master plan for development of port facilities. A bond issue was approved in August 1965 and land acquisition for the port is under- way. A second bond issue to provide for port and harbor facilities was approved in August 1967 by the voters of Tulsa County. The Muskogee Port Commission has a master plan for port and harbor facilities and a bond issue has been voted to complete construction of the Muskogee port. The Oklahoma Port and Develop- ment Authority, a State authority, is considering seven sites downstream from Muskogee as presented in a report prepared by an engineering firm under contract with the authority. The Little Rock Port Authority has adopted a master plan for development of port and harbor facilities and a bond issue to finance its develop- ment was approved in May 1964. Construction of the port is underway and is scheduled for completion in December 1968. The Pine Bluff-Jefferson County Port Authority has completed an engineering study and prepared plans for de- velopment of port and harbor facilities and has acquired 370 acres for development of industrial area and port. A bond issue to finance land acquisition and construc- tion of the port was approved on December 14, 1965, and a contract for di-edging the fill for the area has been awarded. Development of port facilities at Fort Smith in connection with an industrial area has been initiated by the Kansas City Southern Railroad Co. Land for the facilities has been acquired and planning is in progress. There are no other cost-sharing or repayment requirements which are currently applicable to the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $461 million is an increase of $9 million from the latest estimate submitted to Congress ($452 million). This increase is due to revision of feature estimates as indicated below. Entrance channel reduced $1,200,000 on basis of more detailed planning on relocations ( — $2 004,000); recent surveys of the entrance channel ( + $873,000); increase in E. & D. ( + $22,000) and decrease in S. & A. ( —$39,000) based on above changes, cost to date, and current estimate of remaining requirements; and other minor adjustments ( — $52,000). 156 Lock and dam No. 1 increased $700,000 on basis of contract modification for procnrement and placement of selected backfill material ( + $270,000) ; final design for erosion control ( + $49,000) ; more detailed planning on landscaping ( + $57,000) and permanent operating equipment ( + $2,000); increases in E. & D. ( + $87,000) and S. & A. ( + $155,000) based on above changes, cost to date, and current estimate of remaining requirements; and other minor adjustments ( + $80,000). Lock and dam No. 2 increased $1,300,000 on basis of increase in estimate for lands and damages based on cost to date and current estimate of remaining requirements (+$117,000); contract modifications on main dam contract involv- ing miscellaneous minor items (+$70,000); contract award for river closure and nonoverflow embankment (+$38,000); more detailed planning on overflow embankment (+$185,000), landscaping (+$84,000), and permanent operating equipment (+$85,000); bids received for dredging (+$488,000); increases in E. & D. (+$111,000) and S. & A. (+$149,000) based on above changes, cost to date, and current estimate of remaining requirements; and other minor adjust- ments (-$27,000). Lock and dam No. 3 increased $800,000 on basis of increase in estimate for lands and damages based on cost to date and current estimate of remaining requirements (+$75,000); contract modifications involving foundation piling and driving procedures (+$500,000); more detailed planning on permanent operating equipment (+$4,000); increases in E. & D. (+$142,000) and S. & A. (+$111,000) based on above changes, cost to date, and current estimate of remaining requirements: and other minor adjustments ( — $32,000). Lock and dam No. 4 increased $3,900,000 on basis of increase in estimate for lands and damages based on cost to date and current estimate of remaining requirements (+$165,000); more detailed planning on U.S. Highway 79 (_)-$2,.594,000), Rob Rov Bridge (+$234,000), remedial drainage for Lake Pine Bhiff (+$18,000), clearing (+$64,000), and permanent operating equip- ment (+$127,000); reduction in contingencies on tainter gates and machinery (_$67,000); increases in E. & D. (+$369,000) and S. & A. (+$246,000) based on above changes, cost to date, and current estimate of remaining requirements; and other minor adjustments ( +$150,000). Lock and dam No. 5 increased $800,000 on basis of increase in estimate for lands and damages ( +$82,000) and decrease in estimate for construction facilities- ( —$64,000) based on cost to date and current estimate of remaining requirements; more detailed planning on clearing ( +$36,000), recreation facihties ( +$174,000), landscaping (+$27,000), and permanent operating equipment (—$44, 000) r contract modifications involving foundation changes and changes to guide wall (+$300,000); final design for dredging (+$190,000): increase in E. & D. (+$115,000) and decrease in S. & A. ( — $34,000) based on above changes, cost to date and cm-rent estimate of remaining requirements; and other minor adjust- ments (+$18,000). David D. Terry lock and dam (No. 6) increased $1,600,000 on basis of more detailed mapping^and individual tract appraisals for land acquisition (+$98, ()()()) ; more detailed planning on Broadway (-$1,476,000), Main Street (+$1,191,000), and Literstate 30 ( + $238,000) bridges, Jimction railroad bridge (+$855,000), Baring Cross Railroad bridge ( — $712,000), Rock Island Railroad bridge ( + $594^000), clearhig ( + $53,000), recreation facilities ( + $295,000), permanent operating equipment (-$97,000), and landscaping (+$45,000); contract award for dredging ( + $354,000); reduction in contingencies for tainter gates and machinerv (-$45,000); increases in E. & D. (+$92,000) and S. & A. ( + $56,000) based on "above changes, cost to date, and current estimate of remaining require- ments; and other minor adjustments (+$59,000). Lock and dam No. 7 increased $1,500,000 on basis of more detailed mapping^ and individual tract ajJiM-aisals for land acquisition (+$69,000); more detailed planning on clearing ( + $129,000), dredging ( + $170,000), recreation facilities ( + $122,000), landscaping (+$24,000), and permanent operating equipment (—$39^000); pending contract modification involving corrective work and delays due to slides in the lock area ( + $400,000); reduction of contingencies on tainter gates and machinery (-$53,000); increases in E. & D. (+$381,000) and S. il- A. ( + $133,000) based'on above changes, cost to date, and current estimate of re- maining requirements; and other minor adjustments (•j-$164,000). Lock and dam No. 8 decreased $3,600,000 on basis of more detailed mapping and individual tract appraisals for land acquisition ( — $267,000); more detailed planning on Conwav water supply (+$703,000); dredging (-$4,500,000), recreation facilities (+$162,000), and permanent operating equipment ( — $2,000); contract awards for State Highway 9 (-$36,000), tainter gates and machinery ( — $56,000), miter gates (+$20,000), and lock operating machinery (—$25,000); 157 incroasp in E. & D. (+$473,000) and decrease in S. & A. (-$141,000) based on above changes, cost to date, and current estimate of remaining requirements; and otlier minor adjustments ( + $69,000). Lock and dam No. 9 increased $3,300,000 on basis of decrease in estimate for lands and damages based on cost to date and current estimate of remaining requirements ( — $302,000); contract awards for tainter gates and machinery (-$215,000), miter gates (-$125,000), tainter valves (-$21,000), and lack operating machinerA' ( — $138,000); more detailed planning on State Highwav 7 ( + $240,000), Oklahoma-Mississippi River products pipeline (-$347,000), Ark-La Gas Co. pipeline (-$254,000), dredging ( + $3,850,000), recreation fa- cilities ( + $84,000), landscaping ( + $21,000), and permanent operating equi|)- ment (-$20,000); increases in E. & D. ( + $353,000) and S. & A. ( + $146,000) based on above changes, cost to date, and current estimate of remaining require- ments; and other minor adjustments ( + $28,000). Lock and dam No. 13 increased $4,900,000 on basis of more detailed pluuning on U.S. Highway 64 and 71 bridge ( + $2,741,000), U.S. Highway 64 bridge in accordance witli Public Law 89-689 ( + $2,867,000), Frisco Railroad bridge (-$815,000), Foi't Smith (Mo-Pac) Railroad bridge (-$790,000), right-of-way for Van Buren water supply ( + $91,000), clearing ( + $97,000), recreation facili- ties ( + $25,000), landscaping ( + $44,000), and permanent operating equipment ( — $16,000); contract awards for tainter gates and machinery (—$49,000), and miter gates (+$25,000) ; increases in E. & D. ( + $353,000) and S. & A. ( + $324,000) based on above changes, cost to date, and current estimate of remaining require- ments; and other minor adjustments ( + $3,000). W. D. ]Mayo lock and dam (No. 14): No change. Lock and dam No. 17 decreased $3,400,000 on basis of increases in value of land ( + $720,000); engineering and design (+$300,000) based on cost to date and completion recjuirements; more detailed planning on reloctitions and construc- tion features (—$4,030,000); and decrease in supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements (—$390,000). Lock and dam No. 18 decreased $1,600,000 on basis of increases in value of land ( + $529,000); more detailed planning on relocations ( + $251,000) and de- crease in construction features ( — $1,546,000) based on more detailed planning and contracts awarded, and decrease for supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements ( — $834,000). SUIVIMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Entrance channel: Lands and damages $22,000 $22,000 Relocations 3,555,000 35,000 Fish and wildlife facilities. 227,000 227,000 Channels and canals 2,390,000 1.512,000 Bank stabilization 2,174,000 1,575,000 Engineering and design 380,000 286,000 Supervision and administration 542,000 205,000 Subtotal, entrance channel. Lock and dam No. 1: Lands and damages.. Reservoir. Dam Lock Fish and wildlife facilities... Roads Channels and canals Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment... Engineering and design Supervision and administration Construction facilities Subtotal, lock and dam No. 1 See footnotes at end of table, p. 161. $100,000 $1,800,000 $1,630,000 '"6,000 872,000 '..';.'.";".";".""" 5,000 594,000 60, 000 24, 000 10, 000 57, 000 224, 000 56, 000 9,300,000 3, 862, 000 228, 000 3,514.000 1,696,000 52, 000 51,000 ""i,'335,'60d' 13,966,000 260, 000 26, 000 1,000 .. 3,000 .. -3,000 .. 171,000 .. 32,000 .. 3.000 1,362,000 130,000 14, 176,000 139 000 292, 000 41,000 15,000 3,209,000 3,154,000 1 55, 000 125,000 . 78,"6o6" 3,000 1,346,000 1,270,000 32, 000 82, 000 . 43, 000 136,000 30, 000 1,410,000 48,000 .. 27,000 .. 43, 000 35, 000 -32,000 -. i6,"6o6 9,000 110,000 5,"odo 1,364,000 50, 000 . 22, 200, 000 21.521,000 407, 000 40, 000 232, 000 158 SUMIVIARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969— Continued Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lock and dam No. 2: Lands and damages $2,381,000 543, 000 400, 000 13,990,000 11,060,000 38, 000 189, 000 3,673,000 126, 000 600, 000 108,000 169, 000 178,000 2, 200, 000 1,845,000 $2, 096, 000 537,000 35, 000 12,923,000 10,855,000 38,000 - 189,000 . 2, 256, 000 109,000 . 59, 000 108,000 . 79,000 28, 000 2,018,000 1,615,000 47, 000 $240, 000 6,000 .. 293,000 .. 861,000 65,000 .. $45, 000 . Relocations Reservoir. Dam Lock i30,"000" I $72, 000 1 76, 000 > 140, 000 Fist) and w/ildlife facilities Channels and canals 919, 000 2l"4,"006'-". 498,000 . Levees and floodwalls • 17, 000 327, 000 Bank stabilization Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment 70, 000 130,000 119,000 156,000 -47,000 . 6,000 20,000 . 45, 000 63, 000 > 14, 000 Engineering and design Supervision and administration Construction facilities 18,000 11,000 Subtotal, lock and dam No. 2 37, 500, 000 32, 992, 000 3, 026, 000 807,900 675, 000 Lock and dam No. 3: 375, 000 55,000 . 10,523,000 15,237,000 240, 000 119,000 138,000 . 17,000 . 30,000 . 1,930,000 1,536,000 286, 000 82, 000 50,000 . 2,447,000 294, 000 226,000 . 15,000 7, 000 . ' 5, 000 Dam - Lock - 7,911,000 14,776,000 14, 000 148, 000 158, 000 117,000 1 9, 000 21,000 83, 000 138,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment 2"6Vo"o"o"' 143,000 237,000 -7,000 .. 17,000 . 4,000 . 58, 000 66, 000 1,717,000 1,187,000 7,000 12, 000 Supervision and administration 46, 000 Subtotal, lock and dam No. 3 30,200,000 25, 898, 000 3, 513, 000 479,000 310, 000 Lock and dam No. 4: 807, 000 10, 073, 000 119,000 10,115,000 11,706,000 27, 000 313,000 - 219,000 . 241,000 315,000 2, 490, 000 1,975,000 488, 000 1,083,000 6,000 6,691,000 10,531,000 17,000 . 301,000 2,499,000 102,000 . 2,645,000 704,000 18,000 . 2,955,000 Relocations 3, 536, 000 » 11,000 Dam Lock 739,000 440,000 40,000 31,000 10,000 200,000 113,000 . 219, 000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design 205,000 ., 83,000 2,081,000 1,220,000 100, 000 36,000 . 124,000 . 126,000 156, 000 -36,000 . 108,000 232, 000 497, 000 -64, 000 51,000 Supervision and administration 102,000 Subtotal, lock and dam No. 4 38, 400, 000 22, 505, 000 7, 224, 000 4,671,000 4, 000, 000 Lock and dam No. 5: Lands and damages.. 680, 000 294, 000 91,000 . 9,729,000 12,866,000 236, 000 877,000 . 395,000 . 27,000 . 30,000 . 1,530,000 1,445,000 551,000 10,000 "■6,"2i8,"6o6' 10, 647, 000 189,000 121,000 115,000 82,000 .. 2,930,000 1,504,000 7,000 450, 000 8,000 . 169,000 . ""5'0'9,'60'0" 633,000 33,000 427,000 . Reservoir Dam Lock Roads 19,000 72,000 82, 000 7,000 395,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Supervision and admmistration 27,000 . 14,000 . 134,000 139, 000 -76,000 . 16, 000 152,000 247,000 -189,000 1,199,000 1,007,000 265,000 45,000 52, 000 Subtotal, Lock and dam No. 5 28, 200, 000 20, 086, 000 5, 435, 000 2,017,000 662, 000 See footnotes at end of table, p. 161. 159 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969— Continued Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) David D. ferry lock and dam (No. 6): Lands and damages $603,000 $277,000 $308,000 $18,000 Relocations- 19,358,000 116,000 1,447,000 5,667,000 $12,128,000 Reservoir 108,000 3,000 84,000 21,000 Dam 11,796,000 8,658,000 2,644,000 441,000 55 000 Lock 13,175,000 12,538,000 475,000 124,000 38,000 Channels and canals 794,000 609,000 185,000 Recreation facilities 578,000 578,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 45,000 45,666 Permanent operating equipment 30,000 8,666 22,000 Engineering and design 2,120,000 1,624,000 228,000 170,000 98,666 Supervision and administration 2,593,000 1,101,000 387,000 495,000 610,000 Construction facilities.- 158,000 —89,000 —69,000 Subtotal, David D. Terry lock and dam (No. 6) 51,200,000 24,473,000 6,101,000 7,119,000 13,507,000 Lock and dam No. 7: Lands and damages 980,000 208,000 452,000 130,000 190,000 Relocations 42,000 11,000 29,000 . 12 000 Reservoir.. 259,000 2,000 112,000 145,666 Dam.. 9,243,000 4,968,000 2,703,000 1,555,000 17 666 Lock 10,349,000 9,679,000 374,000 283,000 13 000 Roads 327,000 132,000 85,000 107,000 3,000 Channels and canals 2,950,000 400,000 1,500,000 1,050,000 Recreation facilities 417,000 417 000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 136,000 112,6o6 24,666 1... Permanent operating equipment 32,000 9,000 23 000 Engineering and design 1,700,000 1,297,000 96,000 170,000 137 066 Supervision and administration 1,465,000 944,000 333,000 140,000 48 000 Construction facilities 95,000 -47,000 -48,000.. Subtotal, lock and dam No. 7 27,900,000 17,336,000 4,658,000 4,029,000 1,877,000 Lock and dam No. 8: Lands and damages 300,000 100,000 150,000 50 000 Relocations... 4,291,000 273,000 920,000 2,177,000 939,666 Reservoir 67,000 1,000 7,000 59,000 . . Dam 7,626,000 3,382,000 1,635,000 2,020,000 589,000 Lock 10,247,000 6,572,000 2,718,000 526,000 431,000 Roads 61,000 51,000 10,000 Channels and canals 1,400,000 100,000 1,030,000 270 000 Recreation facilities 383,000 383,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 8,000 8000 Permanent operating equipment 30,000. 7,6o6 23,666 ' Engineering and design. 1,900,000 1,381,000 164,000 191,000 164 666 Supervision and administration 1,487,000 609,000 412,000 353,000 113 000 Construction facilities.. 43,000 —27,000 -10,000 -6,000 Subtotal, lock and dam No. 8 27,800,000 12,361,000 6,119,000 6,419,000 2,901,000 Lock and dam No. 9: Lands and damages 615,000 209,000 382,000 24,000 . Relocations 5,215,000 120,000 1,065,000 2,092,000 1 938 66o Reservoir 67,000 1,000 8,000 58,000 . Dam 8,210,000 4,097.000 1,672,000 2,025,000 415,666 Lock 9,160,000 6,189,000 2,417,000 329,000 225,000 Roads 61,000 52,000 9,000 Channels and canals 7,182,000... 779,000 4,055,000 2,348,000 Recreation facilities 286,000 286 000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 21,000 2l]00O Permanent operating equipment 30,000 7,000 23,666 Engineering and design 1,730,000 1,171,000 180,000 204,000 175,666 Supervision and administration 1,823,000 597,000 421,000 532,000 273 000 Construction facilities.... 76,000 -52,000 -24,000 Subtotal, lock and dam No. 9 34,400,000 12,512,000 6,879,000 9,319,000 5,690,000 See footnotes at end of table, p. 161. 91-459 — 6S — pt. 1 11 160 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969— Continued Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lock and dam No. 13: Lands and damages. _ $1,637,000 Relocations 19,213,000 Reservoir 163,000 Dam -- 7,234,000 Lock 8,804,000 Roads 142,000 Channels and canals 2 2,700,000 Recreation facilities 299,000 Buildings, grounds , and utilities 67, 000 Permanent operating equipment 30,000 Engineering and design • 1,960.000 Supervision and admmistration 22,351,000 Construction facilities $146, 000 $650, 000 $450. 000 $391,000 123,000 972.000 7. 573. 000 10,545,000 1,000 9.000 153,000 .. 3,691,000 2, 046. 000 1,046,000 451,000 6,605,000 1,811,000 236. 000 152,000 122,000 4,000 7,000 9,000 1,600,000 1,100,000 299, 000 26,000 .. 41,000 7 000 23, 000 1,349,000 271,000 189,000 151,000 513,000 571,000 645,000 622, 000 43. 000 -40. 000 -2,000 -1.000 Subtotal, lock and dam No. 13..-. 2 44,600,000 12,593,000 6,327,000 11,920,000 13,760,000 Maintenance and repair fleet and marine terminals: Relocations, 1,000 1.000 Roads . 3337,000 10,000 277,000 50,000 Buildings ground's, and utilities 32.041,000 791.000 1.242.000 8,000 Permanent operating equipment 3 7.691,000 659,000 628,000 6,404,000 Engineering and design 3 620,000 327.000 254,000 23,000 16,000 Supervision and administration 3610,000 21,000 124,000 102,000 363,000 Subtotal, maintenance and repair fleet and marine terminals sn, 300,000 358,000 2.106,00 2.054,000 6,791,000 W. D. Mayo lock and dam (No. 14): Lands and damages 508.000 340,000 75,000 93,000 Relocations . 3.927,000 2,000 231,000 550,000 3,144.000 Dam 6,999,000 1,135,000 3,457,000 1,500,000 907,000 Lock' 9,852,000 1,116,000 5,557.000 2,500,000 679,000 Roads, raiiroads, and bridges 268,000 261,000 7,000... _. Cfiannels and canals_ -.- 2,643,000 _.. 1,100,000 1,543,000 Recreation facilities 384,000 384,000 Permanent operating equipment 104,000. _. 3,000 60,000 41,000 Engineering and design . -. 1,055,000 867,000 125,000 40,000 23,000 Supervision and administration 1,460,000 178.000 254,000 257,000 771,000 Construction facilities^-- - 1,000 -1,000 - Subtotal, W. D. Mayo lock and dam (No. 14) 27,200,000 3,900,000 9,708,000 6,100,000 7,492,000 Lock and dam No. 17: Lands and damages 3,100,000 1,753,000 600,000 747,000 -. Relocations 5,422,000 1,000 486,000 1,060,000 3,875,000 Dam " 3.219,000 332,000 2,215,000 400,000 272,000 Lock"" ' 8.620.000 749,000 1,953,000 4,489,000 1,429,000 Channels and canals -- 7,677,000 1,326,000 2,349,000 1,384,000 2,618,000 Recreation facilities 140,000 140,000 Permanent operating equipment.-.. 80.000 1,000 3.000 14.000 62,000 Engineering and design .. 1.500.000 1,153.000 200.000 125,000 22,000 Supervision and administration 1,542,000 197,000 309,000 381,000 655,000 Construction facilities.- --- 14,000 -14,000 Subtotal, lock and dam No. 17--.- 31,300,000 5,526,000 8,101,000 8,600,000 9,073,000 Lock and dam No. 18 (including turning Basin): Lands and damages 2,800,000 1.196.000 1.000.000 604,000 Relocations 11,021,000 200,000 2,267.000 5.552.000 3.002.000 Dam 2,674,000 64,000 1.484,000 500.000 626,000 Lock 8,287,000 113,000 2,654,000 2,798,000 2,722,000 Roads, railroads, and"'brid'ges 564,000 229,000 335,000 -. Channels and canals - 11.144.000 1.527,000 4,885,000 3,672,000 1,060,000 Recreation facilities 184,000.... 184.000 Permanent operating equipment 56,000 2,000 35,000 19.000 Engineering and design-- -•-- 1.270,000 1,028,000 225,000 15,000 2,000 Supervision and administration 1,500,000 184,000 353,000 624,000 339,000 Construction facilities - 2.000 -2.000 Subtotal, lock and dam No. 18...- 39.500.000 4,545,000 13,201,000 13,800,000 7,954,000 See footnotes at end of table, p. 161. Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 80, 879, 000 76, 620, 000 80, 879, 000 76, 620, 000 80, 879, 000 76, 620, 000 161 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969— Continued Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers fundsonly) . $461,000,000 $220,468,000 $83,033,000 $80,879,000 $76,620,000 Undistributed costs_ ..-. 13,000 -13,000 Total project cost (Corps of Engineers fundsonly) 461,000,000 220,481.000 83,020,000 Pending adjustments ..,. -881,000 881,000 Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 461,000,000 219,600,000 83,901.000 Undelivered orders.. 3,350,000 -3.350,000 Total obligations 222.950.000 80.551,000 Method of financing: Allocations 223,156,000 80,345,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 206,000 Total funds available for obligation 80,551,000 Appropriations required _ _ _ _ 80,879,000 76,620,000 1 Estimated requirements for contingencies on work scheduled for completion prior to fiscal year 1970. ■Includes provision for dredging in pool 13, in and by the Tulsa district, at an estimated cost of $3,000,000 ($2,700,000 for dredging, $100,000 for E. & D., and $200,000 for S. & A.). 3 Includes provision for Robert S. Kerr maintenance and repair fleet and marine terminal, in and by the Tulsa district, at an estimated cost of $1,600,000 ($232,000 for roads, $503,000 for buildings, grounds, and utilities, $628,000 for per- manent operating equipment, $140,000 for E. & D., and $92,000 for S. & A). Sabine-Neches Waterway, Tex. (40-Foot Project and Channel to Echo) (Continuing) Location. — Project is located in Jefferson and Orange Counties, Tex. and con- sists of a channel extending from Gulf of Mexico via Sabine Pass to terminals at Sabine Pass, Port Arthur, and Beaumont, a distance of about 65 miles, replacement of obstructive highway bridge at Port Arthur, and a 12-foot channel in the Sabine River from Orange to Echo, Tex., a distance of about 4.6 miles. Authorization. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.17 to 1, 40-foot project; 3.7 to 1, channel to Echo. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). $27,400,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 356.000 Estimated non-Federal cost i 2. 540.000 Cash contribution 1.311.000 Other costs... 1.229.000 Total estimated project cost 30,296,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 4.709.000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 2.203.000 Allocations to date 6,912,000 25 Appropriation requested tor fiscal year 1969 6,730,000 50 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 13,758,000 i|n addition, local interests have incurred cost of $3,200,800 including $385,500 contributed in cash and work in complying with requirements of local cooperation for previous authorizations on the Sabine-Neches Waterway. It is also estimated that local interests have invested over $8, 000,000 in construction of harbor terminals at Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange. PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Sabine Bank channel: 42 by 800 feet by 15.3 miles. Outer bar channel: 42 by 800 feet by 3.4 miles. Jetty channel: 40 by 500 feet by 4.1 miles. Sabine Pass channel: 40 bv 500 feet by 5.6 miles. Port Arthur Canal: 40 by '500 feet by 6.2 miles. Sabine-Neches Canal: 40 by 400 feet by 11.2 miles. Neches River (including 3 turning points) : 40 by 400 feet by 18.3 miles. Channel to Echo: 12 by 125 feet by 4.6 miles. Port Arthur west turning basin to Taylors Bayou turning basin: 40 by 200 feet by 0.6 mile. 162 Turning basins: Port Arthur: East turning basin: 40 bv 420 bv 1,800 feet. West turning basin: 40 by 600-325 feet bv 1,700 feet. Taylors Bayou, turning basin: 40 by 1,000-150 by 2,900 feet. Sabine Pass: Sabine Pass anchorage basin: 40 by 1,-500 by 3,000 feet. Relocations: Roads: Port Arthur Bridge replacement, $7,889,000 Federal; $1,311,000 non-Federal. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Channels _._ Highway bridge relocation _.. Entire project - _ 18 - 18 - 18 June 1971. October 1969. June 1971. .TUSTIFICATION Navigation on the channels of the Sabine-Neches Waterway is made difficult during short periods of time by strong currents in the river channels during floods, strong cross-channel winds, and fogs. Large tankers and supertankers of from 27,000 to 40,000 deadweight tons with fully loaded drafts of 36 feet are now in use on the waterway. Such vessels must operate at reduced speeds with loss in efficiency of operations and with increased hazards from loss of steerage and possible bottom of bank scrapings. The open roadstead approach to the Sabine Pass outer bar channel has depths ranging from 32 feet to 38 feet. The newer tank vessels must traverse this area at less than normal operating speeds to avoid hitting bottom, even under normal weather conditions. The bascule span of the Port Arthur Bridge is located on the west half of the 400-foot wide channel, and has a hori- zontal clearance of 200 feet between fenders. Ships approaching the bridge must deviate from a course on the centerline of the channel to pass through the navi- gation opening. The vessels are then subject to bank suction forces tending to divert their courses directly toward the bridge pier. This condition is further aggravated by adjacent channel curves which require a reversal of course at slow navigating speeds. Clear vision of approaching vessels is obstructed by the open bascle leaf in the center of the channel, and by the low fixed spans in the east half of the channel. About 9 miles of natural Sabine River Channel, between Orange and Echo, is used by barge traffic. In this reach of unimproved channel are snags, obstructions, and sharp curves which not only restrict tows to one-barge size, iiut make navigation of the channel difficult. Prospective petroleum com- merce for Sabine-Neches Waterway is estimated to be 87 million tons annually, of which 2,500,000 tons will move in foreign trade, 61 million tons in coastline trade and 23,500,000 tons will move by barge. Prospective commerce on the Orange to Echo (Tex.) Channel is estimated to be 564,000 tons annually, of which 500,000 tons would be shell. Average annual benefits are $2,472,800, all navigation. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $6,730,000 will be tipplied to — ■ Continue highway bridge relocation $4, 350, 000 Initiate hopper dredging, Sabine Bank Channel 1, 800, 000 Initiate and complete dredging, channel to Echo 190, 000 Continue construction of Sabine Lake south spoil disposal area 60, 000 Engineering and design 40, 000 Supervision and administration 290, 000 Total 6, 730, 000 The fvinds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to pro\ ide an orderly and economical rate of construction. Coiiipleted niodijicalions. — Work completed consists of an east jetty 25,270 fa't long and a west jetty 21,860 feet long; a l(),()0()-foot bulkhead on Sabine Lake in front of the city of Port Arthur; a 12-foot channel in Adams Bayou; a 13-foot channel in Cow Bayou; a 36-f()ot channel (inclutling chainiel rectification and widening) leading to Port Arthur and Beaumont, T(!X., and a 2'>- to 30-foot chamiel to Orange, Tex. Federal cost of this completed work is $24,907,000. Remaining authorized niodificalions. — None. X on-Federal cods. — The cost to local interest of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $2,540,000 consisting of $1,311,000 cash contribution, $661,000 for lands and damages, 163 $508,000 for relocations. In addition, local interests have agreed to contribute- aiHHially $75,SS2 for a period of 50 years for construction of spoil disposal areas in Sabine Lake. Local interests have incurred costs of $.3,200,800 inchiding $385,500 contributed in cash and work in complying with requirements of local cooperation for previous authorizations on the waterway. Local interests have also invested over $8 million in construction of harbor terminals at Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange. Status of local cooperation. — The Beaumont Navigation District by resolution April 3, 1963, agreed to furnish the required local cooperation on the Sabine- Neches Waterway, 40-foot project, exclusive of the cooperation required in con- nection with the relocation of the pleasure pier bridge. By resolution April 4, 1963, the commissioners court of Jefferson County agreed to furnish all items of local cooperation required in connection with the pleasvu'e pier bridge relocation. The Orange County Navigation and Port District by resolution April 8, 1963, agreed to furnish the items of local cooperation required in connection with the shallow-draft channel in Sabine River to Echo, Tex. On November 3, 1964,. voters of Jefferson County passed a bond issue of $1,500,000 to finance county's- share of the cost for the Port Arthur bascule bridge replacement. A suit by a private citizen to prevent sale of bonds b.y the county was appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. A decision in favor of county was rendered on July 13, 1966. Proceeds from sale of bonds in amount of $1,311,000 have been placed in escrow on call by the United States when and as required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate (Corps of Engineers) of $27,400,000 is an increase of $3,900,000 over the latest, estimate ($23,500,000) submitted to Congress. The increase includes $536,000' for price level increase, $2,417,000 based on the contract award for the Port Arthur bridge relocation and $600,000 for the addition of the Sabine Lake spoil disposal areas; and $347,000 for engineering and design and supervision and admin- istration based on a reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1) FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Itern cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after $424,000 $2,899,000 $5,100,000 $777,000 2,711,000 287,000 2, 050, 000 12.132,000 650,000 60, 000 40, 000 35,000 208, 000 146,000 290, 000 902, OOO 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $9,200,000 Channels... 17,180,000 Engineering and design i 785,000 Supervision and adn:iinistration 1,546,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 28,711,000 3,993,000 3,392,000 7,480,000 13,846,000 Undistributed cost - _ Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 28,711,000 3,993,000 3,392,000 7,480,000 13,846,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds and non-Fed- eral contributions) .- 28,711,000 3,993,000 2,392,000 7,480,000 13,846,000 Undelivered orders +713,000 -713,000 Total obligations 4,706,000 2,679,000 Federal funds: Total cost 27,400,000 3,935,000 2,977,000 Undelivered orders +661,000 -661,000 Total obligations 4,596,000 2,316,000 Non-Federal contributions: Totalcost 1,311,000 58,000 415,000 Contribution, casti (1,311,000) (58,000) (415,000) Undelivered orders. +52,000 -52,000 Total obligations 110,000 363,000 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations 4,709,000 2,203,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year..- 113,000 Total funds available for obliga- tion 2,316,000 Appropriation required. Non-Federal funds: Contribution, cash 1,311,000 Unobligated carryover from prioryear 1,201,000 838,000 88,000 Total funds available for obliga- tion 1,201,000 838,000 88,000 Contributions required.. 1 E & D includes $6,000 for real estate activities. 7,480,000 6,730,000 13.846,000 13,758,000 6,730,000 750,000 1 (750, 000) 13,758,000 88. 000 (88. 000> 750, 000 88, 000. 6,730,000 13,758,000 164 DeQueen Reservoir, Ark. (Continuing) Location.^On Rolling Fork River, approximately 4J>4 miles northwest of De- Queen, Sevier County, in southwestern Arkansas. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost latio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement $11,500,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 2,210,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 9,290,000 Estimated non-Federal cost - 2,210,000 Reimbursement: Water supply 2,210,000 Total estimated project cost. 11, 500, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967. 2,000,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 1,000,000 Allocations to date 3,000,000 26 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 2,500,000 48 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 6,000,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam : Tvpe: Earthfill. Height: 160 feet. Length: 6,410 feet (includes dikes). Spillway : Type: Uncontrolled capacity (maximum pool) 17,500 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 101, 200 Water supply 17, 900 Water quality 7, 600 Inactive storage 9, 400 Total 136, 100 Lands and damages: Acres: 10,557. Type: Predominantly forests. Improvements: Typical farm type. Relocations : Roads: IV^ miles $1,702,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $84,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project, _ 22 June 1972. Land acquisition 21 Substantial completion, June 1969. Relocations _. December 1970. Reservoir clearing 37 Do. Embankment and spillway 11 Initiate closure of dam, July 1969. Complete closure of dam, July 1971. Completion of dam, June 1972. 165 JUSTIFICATION This project is a unit of the seven-reservoir system in the Little River Basin, consisting of the authorized DeQueen, Millwood, Dierks, (lillham, Broken Bow, Lukfata and Pine Creek Reservoirs. Operation of this system would provide a high degree of protection to 139,000 acres of land in the Little River Basin and to 663,000 acres of flood plain area along Red River. The annual crop production for these areas under present conditions is about $20 million and the value of other property, excluding minerals, is in excess of HOO million. Little River is one of the principal flood producing streams on Red River below Denison Dam, as demon- strated by the 157 floods that have occurred at the Millwood Uam site during the 21-year period from October 1937 through September 1958. Construction of the system would provide urgently needed flood protection to farm lands and physical properties in the Little River and Red River Basins. In addition to pro- viding flood protectioii, the project has 25,500 acre-feet of storage allocated to water conservation, which is expected to yield about 32 million gallons per day. The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $399, 800 Water supply 126, 700 Water qualitv control 54, 400 Fish and wildlife 1, 500 Recreation 100, 900 Total 683, 300 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,500,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land in reservoir area $1, 050, 000 Continue relocations 206, 000 Continue reservoir clearing 18, 000 Complete outlet works 800, 000 Initiate spillway and embankment 200, 000 Complete right abutment access road 10, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 10, 000 Engineering and design 75, 000 Supervision and administration 131, 000 Total 2,500,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government for the costs allocated to water supply storage, over a period not to ■exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. This reimbursement is presently estimated at about $2,210,000, exclusive of interest. Status of local cooperation. — Local cooperation required is limited to repayment of costs allocated to water supply features of the project under contracts to be negotiated at the proper time. Water supply costs are less than 30 percent of the total cost of the project, so no water supply contract is required until local interests are ready to commence using water from the project. The Tri-Lakes Water District is empowered under Arkansas law to contract for water supply storage in DeQueen Reservoir. By resolution dated February 23, 1965, the water district requested that water supply storage be included in the project for future water supply needs, recognized the requirements of repayment of costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project and assured that demand for the use of this storage will be made within a period of time which will permit paying out the cost allocated to water supply within the life of the project. This commitment is considered adequate to meet the requirements of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. 166 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $1,700,000 $309,000 $81,000 $1,050,000 $260,000 Relocations - 1,786,000 6,000 2,000 206,000 1,572,000 Reservoirs.... 323,000 7,000 53,000 18,000 245,000 Dams 5,189,000 44,000 915,000 1,000,000 3,230,000 Roads, railroads, and bridges 435.000 334,000 45,000 10,000 46,000 Recreation facilities 175,000 175,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 166,000 177,000 -11,000 -.- Permanent operating equipment 71,000 1,000 10,000 60,000 Engineering and design 1,000,000 824,000 46,000 75,000 55,000 Supervision and administration 655,000 103,000 64,000 131,000 357,000 Total applied cost(Federal funds only).-. 11,500,000 1,805,000 1,195,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) 1.000 -1,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 11,500,000 1,806,000 1,194,000 2,500,000 6,000,000 Pending adjustments.. Total cost (Federal funds only) 11,500,000 1,806,000 1,194,000 2,500,000 6,000,000 Undelivered orders 52,000 -52,000 Total obligations 1,858,000 1,142,000 2,500,000 6.000,000 Method of financing: Allocations..-- 2,000,000 1,000,000 - Unobligated carryover from prior year 142,000 Total funds available for obligation 1, 142,000 Appropriations required.. 2,500,000 6.000,000 DiBRKS Reservoir, Ark, (Continuing) Location. — Located on Saline River, approximately 5 miles northwest of Dierks, Ark., in Sevier and Howard Counties. Authorization.— \%bS Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.11 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated percent of Amount estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement.. !....^..:ui^-,'^.^:!..i!.H $11,500,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 1,410,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 10,090,000 -... Estimated non-Federal cost.. 1,410,000 Reimbursement: Water supply 1,410,000 Total estimated project cost 11,500,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967.. 922,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 600,000 Allocation to date 1,522,000 13 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1959 1,000,000 22 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 8,978,000 PHYSIC.\L DATA Dam: Tvpe: Earth and rockfill. Height: 154 feet. Length: 2,760 feet. Spillway: Type: Uncontrolled. Capacity (maximum pool) : 73,000 cfs. 167 Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood contror. 67, 100 Water supply 15, 100 Inactive storage 14, 600 Total 96,800 Lands and damages: Acres; 8,075. Type: Predominantly forests. Improvements: Typical farm type. Relocations : Roads: 0.9 miles, $122,900. Cemeteries and utility lines, $19,100. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule Complete Entire project... 8 Substantial completion June 1973. Land acquisition 1 December 1970. Relocations September 1970. Reservoir clearing December 1970. Embankment and spillway - Initiate closure July 1970. Complete closure IVIarch 1973. Complete dam June 1973. JUSTIFICATION This project is a unit of the seven-reservoir system in the Little River Basin, consisting of the authorized DeQueen, Millwood, Dierks, Gillham, Broken Bow, Lukfata, and Pine Creek Reservoirs. Operation of this system would provide a high degree of protection to 139,000 acres of land in the Little River Basin and to 663,000 acres of flood plain area along Red River. The annual crop production for these areas under present conditions is about $20 million and the value of other property, excluding minerals, is in excess of $100 million. Little River is one of the principal ilood-producing streams on Red River below Denison Dam, as demon- strated by the 157 floods that have occurred at the Millwood Dam site during the 21-year period from October 1937 through September 1958. Construction of the system would provide urgently needed flood protection to farm lands and physical properties in the Little River and Red River Basins. In addition to providing flood protection, the project has 15,100 acre-feet of storage allocated to municipal and industrial water supply, which is expected to yield about 13 million gallons per da}\ The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $348, 800 Water conservation 163, 300 Recreation 89, 100 Fish and wildlife 1, 500 Total 592,700 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1 million will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land in reservoir area $100, 000 Initiate ovitlet works 450, 000 Complete access and service roads 312, 000 Complete buildings, grounds, and utilities 46, 000 Engineering and design 4, 000 Supervision and administration 88, 000 Total 1,000,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction and meet scheduled completion dates. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Governm.ent for the costs allocated to water supply storage over a period not to exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. This reimbursement is presently estimated at about $1,410,000, exclusive of interest. 168 Status of local cooperation. — State or local interests who will eventuality contract for water supply storage for future use are required to furnish reasonable assur- ances that demands for use of such storage will be made within a period of time which will permit paying out the costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project, but not to exceed 50 years from the date the storage is first used for water supph' purposes. This cost of storage for future use cannot exceed SO percent of the total project cost. The Tri-Lakes Water District was organized under Arkansas law to contract for water supply storage in DeQueen, Gillham, and Dierks Reservoirs. This agency has furnished a resolution dated December 10, 1965, requesting water supplj' storage in the project and assuring that the requirements of the Water Supph^ Act of 1958, as amended, will be met. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $11,500,000 is an increase of $900,000 over the latest estimate ($10,600,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes $290,000 for lands and damages, based on the purchase of easements on an additional 575 acres for roads and borrow and for land values; $524,000 for construction features due to higher price levels and $86,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item Project cost estimate Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (6) Lands and damages Relocations. . $1,930,000 142,000 . 254,000 . 6, 864, 000 . 512,000 . 175,000 . 196,000 . 63,000 . 769, 000 595, 000 11,500,000 $10,000 $343, 000 $100,000 450," 665" 312,000 $1,477,000- 142,000 Reservoirs 254, 000 Dams 6, 414, 000 Roads, railroads, and bridges 200, 000 Recreation facilities 175, 000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 150,000 150,000'" 23, 000 866, 000 46, 000 4,666" 88, 000 1,000,000 Permanent operating equipment. -. Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only). . Undistributed cost (construction facilities) _. 611," o66' 35. 000 656, 000 63, 000 4, OOOi 449, 000 8, 978. 000. Total project cost (Federal funds ( Pending adjustments )nly)..- 11,500,000 656, 000 866, 000 1,000.000 8. 978, 000 Total cost (Federal funds only)... Undelivered orders . 11,500,000 656, 000 10,000 666, 000 922, 000 866, 000 -10,000 . 856, 000 600,000 . 256,000 . 856,000 . 1.000,000 " 1.000, 000 " 8, 978, 000 Total obligations 8, 978, 000. Method of financing: Allocations. ... Unobligated carryover from year. prior Total funds available for obli( jatlon... Appropriations required 1,000,000 8,978.00. G iLLH.\M Reservoir, (Continuing) Ark. Location. — Located in Howard and Polk Counties, Ark., on the Cossatot River,, tributary of the Little River, approximately 5 miles northeast of Gillham, Ark.. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.0 to 1. 169 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement... Future Non-Federal Reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost Reimbursement: Water supply Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $14,800,000 3,247,000 11,553,000 3,247,000 3,247,000 14,800,000 5,509,000 970,000 6,479,000 2, 500, 000 44 5,821,000 61 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Modified rock fill. Height: 160 feet. Length: 2,850 feet (including spillway and dike). Spillway: Type: Gate controlled, concrete ogee weir (5 40-foot x 47-foot tainter gates) . Capacity (maxiraum pool) : 277,500 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 188, 700 Water supply 20, 600 Water quality control 8, 800 Sedimentation 3, 700 Total 221,800 Lands and Damages: Acres: 9,064. Type: Predominantly commercial timber. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations: Roads: 1 mile, $560,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $3,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project 41 Land acquisition 100 Relocations 100 Reservoir clearing Embankment, outlet works, and spillway. 20 June 1972. June 1970. Initiate closure, June 1970. Complete closure, May 1972. Complete dam, June 1972. JUSTIFICATION This project is a key unit of the seven-reservoir system in the Little River Basin, consisting of the authorized Millwood, Dierks, Gillham, DeQiieen, Broken Bow, Lukfata, and Pine Creek Reservoirs. Operation of this system would provide a high degree of protection to 139,000 acres of land in the Little River Basin and to 663,000 acres of flood plain area along Red River. The annual crop production for these areas under present conditions is about $20 million and the value of other property, excluding minerals, is in excess of $100 million. Little River is one of the principal flood producing streams on Red River below Denison Dam, as demonstrated by the 157 floods that have occurred at the Millwood Dam site during the 21-year period from October 1936 through September 1958. Construc- tion of the system would provide urgently needed flood protection to farmlands and physical properties in the Little River and Red River Basins. In addition to providing flood protection, the project has storages of 20,600 and 8,800 acre-feet allocated to water supply and water quality control which are estimated to yield 170 42 million gallons per day and 18 million gallons per day, respectively. The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $803, 800 Water supply 168, 000 Water quality control 72, 000 Fish and wildlife 3, 000 Total 1, 046, 800 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,500,000 will be applied to — Continue construction of embankment and spillway $2, 175, 000 Complete access roads 23, 000 Initiate overlook facihty 50, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 48, 000 Engineering and design 4, 000 Supervision and administration 200, 000 Total 2, 500, 000 The funds requested are required to continue construction during fiscal year 1969 in order to complete the project as scheduled. Kon-Federal cost.- — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government for costs allocated to water supph^ storage in a period not to exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. This reimbursement is presently estimated at about $3,247,000, exclusive of interest. Status of local cooperation. — Local cooperation required is limited to repaj^ment of costs allocated to water supply features of the project under contracts to be negotiated at the proper time. Water supply costs are less than 30 percent of the total cost of the project, so no water supj^ly contract is required vmtil local interests are ready to commence using water from the project. The Tri-Lakes Water District is empowered under Arkansas law to contract for water supply storage in Gillham Reservoir. By resolution dated June 18, 1964, the water district requested that water supply storage be included in the project for future water supply needs, recognized the requirements of repaj^ment of costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project, and assured that demand for the vise of this storage will be made within a period of time which will permit pajnng out the cost allocated to water supph'^ within the life of the project. This commit- ment is considered adequate to meet the requirements of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $563,000 $549,000 $14,000 Relocations.. 563,000 496,000 67,000 Reservoir 200,000 104,000 $96,000 Dams 9,546,000 1,455,000 813,000 $2,175,000 5,103,000 Roads, railroads, and bridges 715,000 692,000 23,000 Recreation facilities 328,000 328,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities. 249.000 153,000 50,000 46,000 ■Permanent operating equipment 152,000 18,000 23,000 48,000 63.000 Engineering and design 1,650,000 1,576,000 68,000 4,000 2,000 Supervision and arimmistration 834,000 348,000 103,000 200,000 183,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 14,800,000 5,287,000 1,192,000 2,500,000 5.821,000 Undistributed cost.... -2,000 2,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 14,800,000 5,285,000 1,194,000 2,500,000 5.821,000 Pending adjustments. Total cost (Federal funds only) 14,800,000 5,285,000 1,194,000 2,500,000 5,821,000 Undeliverd orders 145,000 -145,000 Total obligations 5,430,000 1,049.000 2,500,000 5,821,000 Method of financing: Allocations 5,509,000 970,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 79,000 Total funds available for obligation... 1,049,000 Appropriations required 2,500,000 5,821.000 171 Trinidad Reservoir, Purgatoirb River, Colo. (Continuing) Location. — On the Purgatoire River, a tributary of the Arkansas River, about 4 miles upstream of Trinidad, Las Animas County, Colo. Authorization. — 1958 and 1965 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-coat ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Estimated total appropriation requirement (Corps of Engineers). Future non-Federal reimbursement - Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) ultimate Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) Estimated non-Federal cost Reimbursement: Irrigation _ - Water rights(State of Colorado) _ Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 --- Allocation tor fiscal year 1968_ - - Allocations to date - - Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements $22,200,000 ...- 6,435,600 ._ -- 15,764,400 - 160,000 -- 6,685,600 - 6,435,600 - 250,000 - 22,610,000 1,749,000 900,000 -.-. 2,649,000 12- 1,700,000 20 17,851,000 ..__ -.-. PHYSICAL DATA Dams: Earthfill; maximum height, 200 feet; length, 6,610 feet. Relocations : Roads: 13 miles, $1,820,000. Railroads: 8.8 miles, .$3,300,000. Cemeteries and utilities: $1,710,000. Spillway: Uncontrolled; rock cut in left abutment, with 15 feet by 40 feet ogee notch; crest width, 1,000 feet; maximum capacity, 240,000 cubic feet pet second. Lands and damages: Acres: 3,657. Type: Urban and rural. Improvements: City and residential and commercial and ranch property. Outlet works: 10 feet diameter, gate-controlled conduit, with 2 service and 2 emergency hydraulic slide gates; maximum capacity, 5,070 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: ^f^^'S! Flood control i^l- 000 Irrigation 2-000 Sediment ?' -nS Recreation "*' -^00 Total 114.500 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1958) Percent complete Completion sdiedule Lands and damages. --- 13 Outlet works. - Relocations - Dam Entire project - 7 (Substantial completion) January 1971. June 1970. October 1971. June 1973. Initiate closure September 1971. Complete closure April 1972. Complete dam June 1973. June 1973. 172 JUSTIFICATION There is a serious longstanding flood problem on the Purgatoire River at Trinidad, Colo., and in the agricultural area in the vicinity. The central business, commercial, and industrial areas of Trinidad, which have frequently suffered serious flood damages, are more vulnerable than ever to recurrent flood damages because of the deterioration of a floodway constructed by local interests years ago. Service on vital transcontinental rail lines is also subject to disruption during floods, and important rural areas are damaged by inundation, scour, and deposi- tion of sediment. The construction of Trinidad Dam would provide the much needed flood protection for the city of Trinidad and the adjacent areas. A major flood occurred in May 1955, causing damages estimated at .$1,885,000 on the main stem of the Purgatoire River, of which approximately^ $1,200,000 occurred in the city of Trinidad. A recurrence of this flood under present conditions of development would cause damages estimated at $2,867,000 of which $2,456,000 would be preventable by the project. As reported by the Bureau of Reclamation, the waters of the Purgatoire River in southeastern Colorado are inadequately regulated for the most beneficial use for irrigation, and the economy of the Purgatoire River Valley is impaired due to water shortages. The Trinidad Reservoir project will help provide a regulated water supply for presently irrigated land below the reservoir site. Breakdown of benefits: ^^„„^ Flood control $635, 000 Irrigation 270, 000 Recreation, fish and wildlife 138, 000 Area redevelopment 278, 000 Total 1,321, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,700,000 will be applied as follows: Continue construction of outlet works $920,000 Continue land acquisition 480, 000 Engineering and design 200, 000 Supervision and administration 100, 000 Total 1, 700, 000 The amovmt requested for fiscal year 1969 is needed for continuation of con- struction and acquisition of land for this project so as to achieve an economical and orderly rate of progress and completion of the project as scheduled. Non-Federal costs. — The estimated non-Federal costs are as follows: Annual opera- Responsible agency 1st cost tionand Remarks maintenance State of Colorado $250,000 $21,400 Water rights for permanent pool for fishery and recreation. City of Trinidad... 1,100 Maintenance of channel through city. Purgatoire River Water Conserv- 6,435,600 13,600 irrigation repayment costs set at 29.28 percent of ancy District. total project cost plus 19.82 percent of annual joint use operation and maintenance cost and 2.52 percent of major replacement costs. The irrigation repayment agreement provides for adjustment in the terms, total amounts, and annual repayment costs after final first cost of the project and annual operation and maintenance requirements are determined. The existing authority for the local protection project at Trinidad, Colo., will be abrogated by the actual initiation of construction of Trinidad Dam and Reservoir project this fiscal year. Status of local cooperation. — The irrigation repavment contract has been exe- cuted and approved by the water users, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Arkansas River Compact Administration of Kansas and Colorado. Formal assurances of local cooperation have been furnished l)y the; cit.v of Trinidad, and the Purgatoire River Water Conservancy District which represents the irrigators, and they have been accepted by the Government. 173 A stipulated decree changing the place of storage of the water rights decreed to the Model Reservoir from that reservoir to the authorized Trinidad Reservoir was approved by action of the Las Animas County District Court on April IT), 1965. This approval action was made subject at that time to the ultimate execution and approval of the irrigation repayment contract which is now a reality. Comparison of Federal costs estimates. — The current Federal (CE) cost estimate of $22,200,000 is an increase of $600,000 over the latest estimate ($21,600,000) presented to Congress. This change includes an increase of $196,000 for reloca- tions; $224,000 for outlet works, embankment and spillway and $10,000 for other items due to increased price levels; an increase of $70,000 for engineering and design to cover added expenses because of the long delay in consummating the irrigation repayment contract; and an increase of $100,000 for supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $3,170,000 $89,000 $842,000 $480,000 $1, 759, 00„ Relocations 6,830,000 __ 6,830,00^ Reservoirs (clearing) _ 6,000 ,. 6,00^ Dams 8,964,000 400,000 920,000 7,644,00^ Roads --. 60,000 _ 60,00^ Recreation facilities 210,000 _. 210,00^ Buildings, grounds, and utilities 110,000 __. 110,00^ Permanent operating equipment 100,000 3,000 97,00" Engineering and design 1,450,000 859,000 311,000 200,000 80,000 Supervision and administration 1,300,000 55,000 90,000 100,000 1,055,00 Total applied cost (Federal funds, Corps of Engineers only) 22,200,000 1,003,000 1,646,000 1,700,000 17,851,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds, Corps of Engineers only) 22,200,000 1,003,000 1.646,000 1,700,000 17,851,000 Pending adjustments - Total cost (Federal funds, Corps of Engineers only) 22,200,000 1,003,000 1,646,000 1,700,000 17,851,000 Undelivered orders. _. +15,000 -15,000 __ Total obligations 1,018,000 1,631,000 1,700,000 17,851,000 Method of financing: Allocations 1,749,000 900.000 Unobligated carryover from prior fiscal year 731,000 Total funds available for obligation 1,631,000 Appropriations required 1,700,000 17,851,00 Albuquerque Diversion Channels Project, New Mexico (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on tributary arroyos which enter the Rio Grande from the east at and in the vicinity of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, NMex. The project consists of north and south diversion channels, located on high ground east of and parallel to the valley. The north channel extends for about 10 miles from Campus Wash to where the Rio Grande is near the east bluffs and will intercept the discharges from the numerous arroyos north of U.S. Highway 66. The south channel begins about one-half mile south of U.S. Highway 66, extends south for about 6 mUes to Tijeras Canyon and thence to the Rio Grande. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.6 to 1. 174 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers).., Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution _ Other costs.- Total estimated project cost. Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation-; for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date.. Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $17,000,000 13,890,000 590.000 13.300,000 30,890,000 7,231,000 4,275,000 11,506,000 68 2, 600, 000 83 2,894,000 PHYSICAL DATA North diversion channel Channel: Trapezoidal section, concrete lined to 3 feet above design water surface. Bottom width 10-30 feet, depths 10-28 feet, length about 10 miles. Freeboard: 3 feet. Design capacity: From 5,100 cubic feet per second at Campus Wash to about 44,000 cubic feet per second at Alameda outlet structiire. Relocations: Railroads, construction of two bridges ($.575,000) and one grade raise. South diversion channel Channel: Trapezoidal section, riprap and concrete lined. Bottom width 10-63 feet, depths S-28 feet, length about 6 miles. Freeboard: 3 feet. Design capacity: 1,300 cubic feet per second at ui)per end, 6,700 cubic feet per second at junction with Tijeras Canyon; 37,000 cubic feet per second maximum discharge capacity. Relocations: Railroads, construction of 1 main line ($585,000) bridge and three spur track bridges. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule North channel: Relocations 99 Channels and canals 59 South channel: Relocations Channels and canals Entire project 50 January 1968. May 1969. May 1970. June 1970. Do. JUSTIFICATION There is a serious flood problem on the tributaries of the Rio Grande from the east in Bernalillo Covmty, Albuquerque, N. Mex., and vicinity. Floods originate on the steep alluvial slopes of the Sandia Mountains adjacent to the city. From the slopes, floods descend into the lowlands area, through which there are no flood outlets to the Rio Grande. The floodwaters collect in depressions in the lowhuids which are below the level of the adjacent river. The ponded water remains until it evaporates or slowly escapes through the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District drains, whicli enter the river about 8 miles downstream from Albuquerque. Traffic on a vital transcontinental rail line and highways is disrupted during floods. In addition to causing extensive property damage, floods have endangered lives and the impoundment of floodwater creates a serious health problem. A series of 14 storms occurred from July 13 to September 24, 1955, as a result of inten.se thunder- storm activity over Albuquerque and vicinity. Ten of the 14 storms caused total damages estiinated at $1,579,000, of which $1,459,000 damages occurred in the lowlands area. Most recent major flood occurred as a result of storms on August 10 and 29, 1963, causing total damages estimated at $1,875,000, of which $1,450,000 would have been prevented at time of flood with the project in full operation. 175 During these floods many families had to evacuate their homes several times.. State, county, Red Cross, city, and Federal agencies participated in the fights ta l)ring relief to the flooded areas. The north and south diversion channels will con- trol floods up to those of standard project flood magnitude (about one-half the maximum probable flood). The project will protect the lowlands area which includes parts of the business district, main line, and division shops of the A.T. & 8.F. Railroad, Federal and State highways, commercial, industrial, residential,, and suburban property; and utilities such as water, sewer, gas, and electrical.. Average annual flood control benefits are $2,415,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,600,000 will be applied as follows: Complete construction of phase 3, north channel, U.S. Highway 1-25 to Campus, Wash $1, 686, 000- Initiate and complete relocation of A. T. & S.F. Ry. Co. main line bridge, south channel 207, 000' Initiate relocation of Kirtland A.F.B. and Industrial Park spurs, south channel 100, 000' Initiate construction of south diversion channel 525, 000 Engineering and design 25, 000 Supervision and administration 192, 000 Subtotal 2, 73.5, 000' Less amount allocated for required cash contributions —135, 000 Total 2, 600, 000 The amount requested for fiscal year 1969 is needed to insure an orderly and economical rate of progress in continuing the construction of this project which is urgently needed for the protection of large areas of the city from severe flood dam- ages. The funds requested will permit completion of the north diver&ion channel unit of the project and place it in effective operation by the end of fiscal year 1969 as well as initiation of construction of the south diversion channel unit. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in connec- tion with the authorized project is estimated at $13,890,000 broken down as follows : Lands and damages $7, 300, 000 Relocations 6, 000, 000 Cash contribution 590,000 Total _ 13, 890, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon completion. It is estimated that combined average annual expenditures for maintenance and operation will total $55,000. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority were accepted on November 19, 1963. A $9.5 million bond issue was passed by the voters in August 1963. Based on latest approved estimates the non-Federal cost was increased from $12,925,000 to $13,890,000 primarily because of increases in cost of lands and rights-of-way. As a result of the increased cost, another bond issue was approved by the voters in general election on November 8, 1966. All rights-of-way for construction of the north channel have been provided by the authority. Lands and rights-of-way required for construction of the south diversion channel are presently scheduled to be furnished by about September 1, 1968. Right-of-way for the relocation of the main line railroad bridge on the south channel has already been furnished. Although there have been some delays, the authority is making satisfactory progress on the relocation of roads, streets, bridges, structures, and utilities along the north channel which is its responsibility. Close coordination between the corps and the authority is maintained in all these matters. Necessary funds for required cash contributions in connection with construction of the project have been placed in escrow by the authority and will be withdrawn as needed. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — ^The current Federal cost estimate of $17 million is an increase of $1 million over the latest estimate ($16 million) presented to Congress. This change includes $103,000 for price-level rise on work not under contract; $772,000 on the basis of contract awards; $100,000 for engi- neering and design based on a reanalysis of requirements including the effect of delays experienced in completing design because of extensive coordination of activities and schedules with local interests, and $90,000 for supervision and 91-459 — 68— pt. 1 12 176 administration based on a recent reanalysis of requirements. The total of these increases amounting to $1,065,000 was reduced to $1 million (Federal cost) by applying the appropriate share of the increase ($65,000) to the non-Federal cash contribution. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current Burfget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $1,160,000 Channels and canals 13,830,000 Engineering and design.. ' 1,500,000 Supervision and administration 1, 100, 000 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions)-.. 17,590,000 Undistributed costs Total Project cost(Federal fundsand non-Federal contributions) 17, 590, 000 Pendi ng adjustments. Total cost (Federal Funds and non- Federal contributions) 17,590,000 Undelivered orders _ Total obligations.- $506, 000 3, 880, 000 1,319,000 348, 000 6, 053, 000 $72, 000 5,174,000 132, 000 350, 000 $307,000 2,211.000 25, 000 192, 000 5,728,000 2,735,000 6, 053. 000 5, 728, 000 2, 735, 000 FEDERAL COSTS Total applied cost.- 17,000,000 Undistributed costs Total project cost 17,000,000 Pending adjustments (none)... Total cost 17,000,000 Undelivered orders. - Total obligations 6, 053. 000 +1,310,000 7. 363, 000 5, 934, 000 '5,"934,"000" 5,728,000 2,735,000 -1,310,000 +180,000 4,418,000 2,915,000 5, 572, 000 '5." 572^000' 2, 600, 000 "2,"60o,"666' NONFEDERAL COSTS Total applied cost Undistributed costs... Total project cost Pending adjustments. Total cost Undelivered orders... Total obligations 590, 000 '590,066" "596," 060" 5, 934, 000 +1,277,000 7,211,000 119,000 "119,666" 5, 572, 000 2, 600, 000 -1.277,000 4, 295, 000 2, 600, 000 156,000 "i56.'666' 135, 000 "135,066' METHOD OF FINANCING Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior fiscal year Total funds available for obli- gation Appropriations required Non-Federal contributions: Contributions Unobligated carryover from prior fiscal year Total funds available for obli- gation -.. Contributions required 119,000 +33, 000 152, 000 7,231,900 156,000 135,000 -33,000 +180,000 123,000 315,000 4, 275, 000 20, 000 4,295,000 2, 600, 000 275, 000 123,000 123, 000 $275, 000 2, 565, 000 24, 000 210, 000 3. 074, 000 3, 074, 000 3, 074. 000 -180.000 2, 894, 000 2, 894, 000 '2,"894."6o6 '2,"894,'6o6 "2,894,066 180. 000 ' 180, 066 180, 000 -180,000 2, 894. 000 315,000 I Includes $18,200 for real estate activities. CocHiTi Reservoir, Rio Grande, N. Mex. (Continuing) Location. — The Cochiti Reservoir project is in Sandoval County on the Rio Grande just upstream of the Cochiti Indian Pueblo about 50 mile.s north of Albuquerque, N. Mex. The dam extends generally in an east-west line across the Rio Grande and Canada de Cochiti and then southward across the Santa Fe River, a major tributary entering the Rio Grande from the east. A7ithorizaiion.—l9iJ0 Flood Control Act and Public Law 88-293, 88th Congress. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.2 to 1 (system). 177 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost. Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $50,000,000 50,000,000 6,796,000 3,700,000 10,496,000 21 5, 000, 000 31 34,504,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dams: Type: EarthfiU. Maximum height: 251 feet. Length: 5.1 miles. Lands and damages: Acres: 13,680. Type: Predominantly rangeland. Improvements: None. Reservoir (capacity, acre-feet) : Flood control 442, 000 Sediment 110, 000 Recreation (permanent pool) 50, 000 Total 602,000 Outlet works: Type: 3 barrel, gated conduit, rectangular, 6.5 by 12 feet. Maximum capacitv: 15,000 cubic feet per second. Length: 1,363 feet". Stilling basin: 2 level, with irrigation diversion. Spillway : Type: Concrete gravity, uncontrolled with notched, ogee section. Location: Left abutment, Santa Fe Rivei. Crest width: 460 feet, notch 10.5 by 160 feet. Maximum capacity: 139,000 cubic feet per second. Relocations: Roads: 3.8 miles ($400,000). Utilities and structures: $337,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages Roads (access) Reservoirs (reservoir clearing).. Buildings, grounds, and utilities. Recreation facilities Relocations , Dams Entire project. 80 Substantial completion, June 1966. lUO June 1971. June 1972. 65 September 1972. December 1970. 10 9 June 1973. Initiate closure (Rio Grande), November 1971. Complete closure (Rio Grande), April 1972. Initiate closure (Santa Fe River), November 1972. Complete closure (Santa Fe River), April 1973. Complete dam, June 1973. June 1973. 178 JUSTIFICATION The Cochiti Reservoir project is a major unit of the comprehensive plan of improvement for flood and sediment control, major drainage, and recreation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. The principal flood problem area is at Albuquerque, N. Mex., which is about 50 miles downstream from Cochiti Dam site. Property in Albuquerque subject to damage, which includes the principal civic, business, and industrial areas and about 20,000 residences, is valued at about $388,535,000 at present-day prices. Other smaller urban areas in the flood plain are Bernalillo, Los Lunas, Belen, and Socorro, N. Mex. Levees, bank stabilization, and channel rectification works have been construct- ed through the Middle Valley reaches of the Rio Grande from a point near Cochiti Pueblo downstream to the mouth of the Rio Puerco. Capacity of the levees through Albuquerque is 42,000 cubic feet per second and through the remainder of the reaches is about 20,000 cubic feet per second, which is less than the flood of record. The Cochiti project will provide protection from both spring and summer floods originating on the main stem of Rio Grande above the site. The largest spring flood for which damage data are available occurred in May 1941. This- flood had a peak discharge of 22,500 cubic feet per second at Otowi Bridge on the Rio Grande and caused estimated damages of $1,133,000 in the Middle Valley, all of which would have been prevented and flood discharges would have been reduced to less than 5,000 cubic feet per second below the Cochiti site had the system been in operation at the time. It is estimated that a spring flood of 35,000 cubic feet per second, which is about 83 percent of the standard project flood, would cause failure of the levees and damages of about $140,648,000 at Albuquer- que (1967 prices). This flood would have been equaled or exceeded by the historical spring floods of 1828 and 1874. It is estimated that occurrence of the standard project summer flood at Albuquerque (79,000 cubic feet per second) without the system in operation would cause damages of about $173,370,000 at Albuquerque and vicinity (1967 prices). Total average annual damages in the Middle and Espanola Valleys amount to $12,717,000 (1967 prices). With system in operatian damages would be reduced to $269,000; thus, a benefit of $12,448,000 would accrue of which $3,731,000 is allocable to Cochiti Reservoir. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $3, 731, 000' Recreation 276, 000 Area redevelopment 99, 000 Total 4, 106, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $5 million will be applied as follows: Continue relocation of roads, utilities, and structures $307, 000 Complete construction of outlet works (portion) 2,051, 000 Complete installation of pressure cells and continue installation of foundation piezometers 77, 000 Initiate construction of embankment and convej^ance channels, phase I 2, 105, 000. Initiate and complete construction of overlook and parking area 20, 000 Engineering and design 100, 000 Supervision and administration 340, 000' Total 5, 000, 000 The amount requested for fiscal year 1969 is needed to insure an orderly and economical rate of progress on construction of this project. Non-Federal cost. — None. Stal^ts of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $50 million is the same as the last estimate submitted to Congress. Internal adjust- ments were made taking into consideration the cost of completed work, adjust- ments in contingency allowances, and reductions made possiljlc as a result of bids received for work presently under contract. Relocations were increased $122,000; and buildings, ground, and utilities by $23,000 wliich>vorc offset by a decrease in embankment, outlet works, and spillway of $145,000. (1-79 ■SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total fo Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal yeal 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages Relocations Reservoirs (clearing) Dams Road s (access) Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment.. Engineering and design.. Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed costs (none) Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments (none) Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations. Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior fisca I year.. Total funds available for obligation.. Appropriation required. $265, 000 737,000 12,000 40, 820, 000 294,000 965, 000 285, 000 122, 000 3, 500, 000 3, 000, 000 50, 000, 000 50, 000, 000 50, 000, 000 $210,000 $55, 000 130, 000 2, 366, 000 294, 000 185,000 5,000 3,041.000 410,000 6,511,000 250,000 250, 000 3,985,000 6,511,000 3,985,000 6,511,000 (+) 269,000 6, 780, 000 3,985,000 (-) 269,000 3,716,000 6,796,000 3,700,000 16,000 3,716,000 $307, 000 3,300,000 4,233,000 20, 000 100, 000 340, 000 5, 000, 000 5, 000, 000 5, 000, 000 '5,"66o,"6oo' $300, 000 12,000 30,921,000 965, 000 80, 000 117,000 109,000 2, 000, 000 34, 504, 000 34,504,000 34, 504, 000 "34,"504,'000 5, GOO, 000 34, 504, 000 Galisteo Reservoir, Galisteo Creek, New Mexico Location. — The Galisteo Reservoir project is in Santa Fe County at river mile 12 on Galisteo Creek, a tributary which enters the Rio Grande about 45 miles upstream from Albuquerque, N. Mex. The reservoir will extend upstream for about 4 miles to the vicinity of the village of Waldo, N. Mex. Authorization. — 1960 Flood' Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.2 to 1 (system). SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Estimated Federal cost. Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost _. Allocations to June 30, 1967. Allocation for fiscal year 1968... Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost $13,800,000 13,800,000 6,855,000 _ 2,025,000 8, 880. 000 64 2, 800, 000 85 2,120,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dams: Type: Earthfill. Maximum height: 1.58 feet. Length: 2,S20 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 3,467.33. Type: Predominantly rangeland. Improvements: None. Reservoir (capacity, acre-feet) : Flood controll 80, 000 Sediment 10,000 Total 90,000 180 Relocations: Roads: 1.6 miles ($47,000). Railroads: 7.3 miles ($3,681,000). Utmty lines: ($1,000). Spillway : Type: Broad-crested weir. Location: Right abutment. Crest width: 250 feet. Maximum capacity: 90,000 cubic feet per second. Outlet works: Type: Ungated circular conduit. Diameter: 10 feet. Length: 810 feet. Maximum capacity: 5,550 cubic feet per second. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Lands and damages - 98 Substantial completion June 1965. Roads (access). 100 Relocations. 100 Dams -. 28 June 1970. Initiate closure i\1ay 1968. Complete closure July 1968. Complete dam June 1970. Entire project _ 60 June 1970. JUSTIFICATION The Galisteo Reservoir project is a unit of the comprehensive plan of improve- ment for flood and sediment control and major drainage in the Middle Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico. Its primary purpose is to provide protection from summer floods originating on Galisteo Creek. The principal flood problem area is at Albuquerque, N. Mex., which is about 45 miles downstream from the con- fluence of the Rio Grande and Galisteo Creek. Property in Albuquerque subject to damage, which includes the principal civic, business, and industrial areas and about 20,000 residences, is valued at about $338,535,()00 at present-day prices. Other smaller urban areas in the flood plain are Bernalillo, Los Lunas, Belen, and Socorro, N. Mex. Levees, bank stabilization, and channel rectification works have been con- structed through the Middle Valley reaches of Rio Grande from a point near Cochiti Pueblo downstream to the mouth of the Rio Puerco. Capacity of the levees through Albuquerque is 42,000 cubic feet per second and through the remainder of the reaches is about 20,000 cubic feet per second, which is less than the flood of record. With Jemez River controlled by Jemez Canyon Reservoir and Rio Chama and the main stem of the Rio Grande controlled by Abiquiu and Cochiti Reservoirs, there is still enough uncontrolled drainage area to produce a summer flood of 67,000 cubic feet per second at Albuquerque where capacity of the existing lev»es is only 42,000 cubic feet per second. With Galisteo Creek controlled by the Galisteo Dam and the other projects of the system plan in operation, the standard project summer flood at Albuquerque would be reduced to the capacity of the com- pleted Albuquerque unit of the Middle Valley Floodway and the maximum suumier flood of record would be reduced to a discharge equal to the design capacity of the remainder of the floodway upstream from the mouth of Rio Puerco. It is estimated that occurrence of the standard project summer flood at Albuquerque (79,000 cubic feet per second) without system in operation would cause damages of about $173,370,000 at Albiiquerque and vicinity (1967 prices). Total average annual damages in the Middle and Espanola Valleys amount to $12,717,000 (1967 prices). With the system in operation damages would be reduced to $269,000; thus a benefit of $12,448,000 would accrue of which $1,049,000 is allocable to Galisteo Reservoir. 181 Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $1, 049, 000 Area redevelopment 27, 000 Total 1,076,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,800,000 will be applied as follows: Continue construction of outlet works, embankment and spillway __ $2, 580, 000 Engineering and design 40, 000 Supervision and administration 180, 000 Total 2, 800, 000 The amount requested for fiscal year 1969 is needed to insure an orderly and economical rate of progress on construction of this project. Non-Federal cost. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $13,800,000 is a decrease of $2,200,000 from the latest estimate ($16,000,000) presented to Congress. This change is primarily dtae to reduction of $1,990,000 on basis of contract award for major portion of work, a reduction of $10,000 in cost of lands and damages item due to advanced stage of acquisition and a reduction of $200,000 in cost of supervision and administration due to a reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages. $260, 000 3,729,000 7,351,000 368, 000 42, 000 50,000 .. 1,200,000 800, 000 - 13, 800, 000 $245, 000 3, 644, 000 394, 000 358, 000 13,000 $15,000 . 3,000 . 2, 582, 000 10,000 . 29,000 _ Relocations $82, 000 Dams Roads- $2, 580, 000 1,795,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment. 50,' 000 Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost. 1,044.000 273, 000 5,971,000 50, 000 220, 000 2,909,000 40, 000 180, 000 2, 800, 000 66, 000 127,000 2,120,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments. _- . 13, 800, 000 5,811,000 2,911,000 2, 800, 000 2,120,000 Total cost (Federal funds only).. Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations . 13, 800, 000 5,811,000 +866, 000 6, 837, 000 6, 885, 000 2,911,000 -866,000 . 2, 043, 000 2,025,000 . 18,000 . 2,043,000 . 2, 800, 000 ""2,86o,"6oo" 2.120,000 2,"i20,'666 Unobligated carryover from prior fiscal year Total funds available for obligations. Appropriations required 2,800,000 2, 120, 000' Optima Reservoir, Okla. (Continuing) Location. — Located in Texas County, Okla., on the North Canadian River, about 4:}^ miles northeast of Hardesty, Okla. Authorization. — 1936 and 1950 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.08 to 1. 182 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent ot estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement. Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost , Reimbursement: Water supply... Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested, fiscal year 1969,. ■ Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969.. $26,000,000 2,900,000 23,100,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 26,000,000 3,046,000 1,150,000 4, 196, 000 16 2, 800, 000 27 19,004,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type; Earthfill. Height: 120 feet. Length: 15,200 feet. Spillway: Type: Ijncontrolled. Capacity (maximum pool) : 366,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 71, 800 Water supply 76, 200 Sedimentation SI, 500 Total 229, 500 Lands and damages: Acres: 13,375. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm type. Relocations: Roads: 4i^ miles, $2,020,000. Cemeteries and utilities, 1,086,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project Land acquisition. Relocations. Reservoir clear ing Embankment, outlet works, and spillway. 14 June 1974. 34 (Substantial completion) Decenber 1969. 4 December 1971. December 1971. Initiate closure, July 1972. Complete closure, January 1974. Complete dam, June 1974. JUSTIFICATION The Optima Dam would j)rovide a high degree of flood protection to approxi- mately 54,000 acres of farmland in the flood plain area from 0])tinia l^eservoir to the mouth of Wolf Creek. 0])tima Reservoir, operating in conjunction with Fort Supply Reservoir, would provide protection to api)roximately 29,000 acres of farmland from the mouth of Wolf Creek to the upper limits on Canton Reservoir. Optima, opeiating in conjunction with Fort Sui^]jly and Canton Reservoirs, would aid in flood protection to aiJi)roximately 68,000 additional acres of farmland from Canton Reservoir to Oklahoma City, Okla. The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $667,900 Water supply 119,400 Fish and wildlife 4,000 Recreation 294,000 Total 1,085,300 183 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,800,000 will be applied to— Continue acquisition of land in reservoir area $750,000' Continue relocations 100, 000 Continue embankment, spillway, and outlet works 1,750,000 Engineering and design 4, 000 Supervision and administration 196,000 Total 2,800,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction and meet the scheduled completion date. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are i-equired to reimburse the Federal Govern- ment for costs allocated to water supply storage in a period not to exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. This reimbursement is presently estimated at $2,900,000. Status of local cooperation. — Local cooperation required is limited to repayment of costs allocated to water supply features of the project under contracts to be negotiated at the proper time. Water supply costs are less than 30 percent of the total cost of the project, so no water supply contract is required until local interests are ready to commence using water from the project. The cities of Guymon, Goodwell, including Panhandle A. & M. College, and Hardesty, Okla., have adopted resolutions requesting water supply storage in the project for their future water supply needs, and have assured that they will repay the cost of such storage by resolutions dated September 30, 1964, October 30, i964, and October 9, 1964, respectively. These commitments are considered adequate to meet the requirements of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of .$26 million is an increase of .51,100,000 over the latest estimate (.$24,900,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes an increase of $1,001,000 for higher price levels on construction features and an increase of $132,000 based on a reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervision and ad- ministration, partially offset by a decrease of $33,000 based on contract award. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Balance to Project Total to Current Budget! complete after. Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year estimate 1967 1968 1969 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $4,000,000 $1,061,000 $800,000 $750,000 $1,389,000 Relocations 3,106,000 123,000 80,000 100,000. 2,803,000 Reservoirs 133,000 133,000 Dams . . 14,687,000 58,000 50,000 1,750,000 12,829,000 Roads, railroads, and bridges 867,000 233,000 84,000 ._ 550.000 Recreation facilities _ 309,000 309,000' Buildings, grounds, and utilities 168,000 148,000 20,000 -- Permanent operating equipment 97,000 97,000 Engineering and design 1,316,000 1,168,000 140,000 4.000 4,000 Supervision and administration 1,317,000 138,000 93,000 196,000 890,000 Total applied cost(Federal funds only)... 26,000,000 2,929,000 1,267,000 2,800,000 19,004,000 Undistributed cost (constructing facility) 4,000 -4,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 26,000,000 2,933,000 1,263,000 2,800,000 19,004,000 Pending adjustments _ - Total cost (Federal funds only) 26,000,000 2,933,000 1,263,000 2,800,000 19,004,000 Undelivered orders 95,000 -95,000 Total obligations. 3,028,000 1,168,000 2,800,000 19,004,000 Method of financing: Allocations.... 3,046,000 1,150,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 18,000 Totalfunds available for obligation 1,168,000 -- Appropriations required 2,800,000 19,004,000' Pine Creek Reservoir, Okla. (Continuing) Location. — On Little River about 145.3 miles above its confluence with Red River, and about 5 miles northwest of Wright City in McCurtain County in. southeastern Oklahoma. 184 Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of appropriation requirements 'Estimated total appropriation requirement $20,500,000 future non-Federal reimbursement 4,815,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 15,685,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 4,815,000 Reimbursement: Water supply 4,815,000 Total estimated project cost 20,500,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 9,526,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 5,485,000 Allocation to date 15,011,000 73 Appropriation request for fiscal year 1969 5,489,000 100 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type, earthfiU. Height, 124 feet. Length, 23,130 feet (including spillway and dike). Spillway: Type, uncontrolled saddle. Capacity (maximum pool) 246,300 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 388, 100 Water supply 49, 400 Water quality control 21, 100 Sedimentation 7, 200 Total 465, 800 Lands and damages: Acres: 26, 504. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations : Roads: 21 miles, $5,097,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: 99,000. STATUS (JAN. I, 1968) Percent Completion scfiedule complete Entire project 67 June 1969. Land acquisition 99 Substantial completion, September 1967. Relocations 53 June 1969. 'Reservoir clearing 21 Do. Embankment, spillway and outlet works 69 Initiate closure, June 1967. Complete closure, January 1969. Complete dam, June 1969. 185 JUSTIFICATION Tliis project is a key unit of the seven-reservoir system in the Little River Basin, ■consisting of the authorized Millwood, Dierks, Gillham, DeQueen, Broken Bow, Lukfata, and Pine Creek Reservoirs. Operation of this system would provide a high degree of protection to 139,000 acres of land in the Little River Basin and to '663,000 acres of flood plain area along Red River. The annual crop production for these areas under present conditions is about $20 million and the value of other property, excluding minerals, is in excess of $100 million. Little River is one of the principal flood producing streams on Red River below Denison Dam, as demonstrated by the 157 floods that have occurred at the Millwood Dam site during the 21-year period from October 1937 through September 1958. Construc- tion of the system would provide urgently needed flood protection to farmlands and physicaf properties in the Little River and Red River Basins. In addition to providing flood protection, the project has storages of 49,400 and 21,100 acre-feet allocated to water supply and water quality control, which are estimated to yield 84 million gallons per day and 36 million gallons per day, respectively. Estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $858, 100 Water supply 251,700 Water quality control 107, 900 Fish and wildlife 10, 000 Total 1,227,700 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $5,489,000 will complete the iproject and will be applied as follows: ■Complete relocations $1, 852, 000 Initiate and complete reservoir clearings 369, 000 Initiate and complete boundary markings 83, 000 Complete outlet works, embankment, dikes and spillway 1, 945, 000 Complete access roads 3, 000 Initiate and complete construction of recreation facilities 508, 000 Complete buildings, grounds, and utilities 111, 000 Complete purchase of permanent operating equipment 107, 000 Engineering and design 16, 000 Supervision and administration 495, 000 Total 5,489,000 Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Gov- ernment for costs allocated to water supply storage over a period not to exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. This reimbursement is presently •estimated at about $4,815,000, exclusive of interest. Status of local cooperation. — Local cooperation required is limited to repayment of costs allocated to water supply features of the project under contracts to be negotiated at the proper time. Water supply costs are less than 30 percent of the total cost of the project, so no water supply contract is required until local interests are ready to commence using water from the project. The Mountain Lakes Water District is empowered under Oklahoma law to contract for water supply storage in Pine Creek Reservoir. By resolution dated June 11, 1964, the water district requested that water supply storage be included in the project for future water supply needs, recognized the requirements of repayment of costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project, and assured that demand for the use of this storage will be made within a period of time which will permit paying out the cost allocated to water supply within the life of the project. This commitment is considered adequate to meet the requirements of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. 186 Item (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $2,250,000 $1,790,000 2,237,000 121,000 3,635,000 225, 000 Relocations. 5,196,000 Reservoir _ _ 573, 000 Dams 8,277,000 Roads, railroads, and bridges 234,000 Recreation facilities 508.000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 260,000 Permanent operating equipment.. 127, 000 Engineering and design 1,925,000 Supervision and administration 1, 150.000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 20,500,000 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) -1,004,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 20, 500, 000 9, 497, 000 Pending adjustments. $460. 000 1,107,000 2,697,000 6.000 148,000 20, 000 1,834,000 491,000 10,501,000 1,000 75,000 164,000 4,510,000 [-1,004,000 5,514,000 $1,852,000 452.000 1,945,000 3,000 508. 000 111,000 107,000 16.000 495,000 5,489.000 Total cost (Federal funds only) 20,500,000 Undelivered orders.. Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required 9,497,000 20.000 9,517,000 9, 526, 000 5,514.000 -20.000 5,494,000 5,485.000 9,000 5, 494, 000 5, 489, 000 5, 489, 000 5, 489, 000 Fort Worth Floodway (Clear Fork), Texas (Continuing) Location. — In the city of Forth Worth, Tarrant County, Tex., between river miles 1.6 and 10.4 on the Clear Fork of Trinity River. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Coirtrol Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost... $4,800,000 Estimated non- Federal cost 4,590,000 Cash contribution Other costs 4,590,000 Total estimated project cost 9,390,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 840,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 700,000 Allocations to date 1,540,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969... 1,400,000 Balaice to complete after fiscal year 1969 1,860,000 PHYSICAL DATA Levees : Average height: 11 feet. Length: 2.6 miles. Channels: Improvement: 6.4 miles along Clear Fork. 1.1 miles of diversion channels. Attendant drainage facilities. Relocations: Railroads: 2 bridges ($80,000). STATUS (JAN. 1 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Railroads Channels and levees 100 17 June 1970. Entire project 25 Do. 187 JUSTIFICATION The project will provide flood protection to about 1,447 acres of urban land along the Clear Fork of the Trinity River. The total value of physical property within this area is estimated at $25,394,000. The maximum flood of record occurred during May 1949. A recurrence of this flood under present conditions would cause damages estimated at $5,568,000. Construction of the project will afford protection to a rapidly developing residential and recreational area. Average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $1,152,300. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,400,000 will be applied to — Continue channel and levee construction $1, 324, 000 Engineering and design 8, 000 Supervision and administration 68, 000 Total 1, 400, 000 Funds requested will permit completion of increment 2 and continuation of con- struction of increment 3 at an orderly and economical rate on a project designed for protection of urban property subject to frequent flood damages. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized modification is estimated at $4,590,000 broken down as follows: Lands $2, 500, 000 Relocations of utilities and bridges 2, 090, 000 Total 4, 590, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. The annual cost for maintenance, operation, and replacements is estimated at $60,000. Status of local cooperation. — By letter dated February 18, 1963, the Tarrant County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 advised that, by resolu- tions duly passed, it assumed the responsibility for acting as the local sponsoring agency for the project. The city of Fort Worth has indicated its general approval and support of the proposed plan. A bond election was passed on November 12, 1964. The local sponsoring agency has advised by letter of December 28, 1967, that required rights-of-way for increment 3 will be available by February 15, 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The eurrent Federal cost estimate of $4,800,000 is an increase of $840,000 over the latest estimate ($3,960,000) presented to Congress. The increase includes $627,000 due to price-level rise on construc- tion, $1,000 due to cost of completed relocations, $133,000 due to contract awards and more detailed planning for the final construction increment, and $79,000 due to reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $89,000 $89,000 Channels , 3,807,000 279,000 $685,000 $"1,193,000 ' $1,650,000 Levees 298,000 29,000 162,000 107,000 Engineermg and design 1355,000 268,000 77,000 8,000 2,000 Supervision and administration 251,000 45,000 37,000 68,000 101,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only)... 4,800,000 681,000 828,000 1,431,000 1,860,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 4,800,000 681,000 828,000 '1,431,000 1,860,006 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 4,800,000 681,000 828,000 1,431,566 i,866,666 Undelivered orders 141,000 -110,000 -31,000 Total obligations 822,000 718,000 1,400,000 1,860,666 Method of financing (Federal funds): Allocations 840,000 700,000 Unobligated carryover prior year 18, o6o Total funds available for obligation... 718,000 Appropriations required 1,400,660 1,866,000 > Includes $5,000 estimated for real estate activities. Freeport and Vicinity, Texas— Hurricane-Flood Protection (Continuing) Location.— The Freeport area is located in the southern part of Brazoria County, lex., on the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Brazos River. Freeport is about 43 miles southwest of Galveston, Tex. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act, Benefit-cost ratio. — ^2.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Ca^h contribution Other costs. Total estimated project cost- Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968... Alloca'tions to date Appropfiation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969.. _ Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost $12,500.000 5,300.000 _ 2,680,000 2,620,000 17,800,000 1,540,000 1,200,000 2. 740, 000 22 3, 000, 000 4& 6,760,000 .. , PHYSICAL DATA -E'drth levees: . New earth levees: 2.1 miles. Improve existing earth levees: 42.8 miles. • Pumping plants: Interior drainage pumping plants: 2 each. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion scheduJe Levees 4 Pumping plants (') Entire project... 11 June 1971. December 1970. June 1971. ' Not started. JUSTIFICATION Project would provide hurricane-flood protection for a highliy industrialized area and community of about 39,000 persons. Total value of aU property subject to storm tide flooding within Freeport area is estimated at $411,026,000. Major industries in the area consist of chemical and petroleum plants with an appraised value of $267,000,000 and an annual payroll of about $35,000,000. Commercial and pleasure fishing provides an additional income of aljout $4,000,000 annually. Total damages that would result from the occurrence of design hurricane would be approximately $88,000,000 under existing conditions. A 13rfoot tide inside the leveed areas would cause extensive damages and destruction to residential, bus- iness, and industrial properties. Flooding of industrial and chemical centers would release quantities of flammable petroleum, petroleum products, and chemicals, which spread upon flood waters would present a threat of fin; and explosion. Average annual benefits are $1,779,000, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3 million will be applied to — Continue levee construction $2, 200, 000 Continue ]jumping plant construction 500, 000 Engineering and design 100, 000 Supervision and administration 200, 000' Total 3, 000, 000. The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for an, orderly and economi- cal construction schedule. 189 Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local sponsors of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the authorized project is estimated at $5,300,000. This consists of: Lands $1,530,000, relocations $1,090,000, and cash contribution of $2,680,000 (combined value of work and cash contribution is 30 percent of first cost). The annual cost to local interests of maintenance and operation is estimated at $47,000. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests are represented by the Velasco Drainage District of Brazoria County, Tex. The drainage district' by resolution dated March 30, 1964, agreed to furnish all items of local cooperation. In July 1964, a bond issue was passed for $2 million. Proceeds from the sale of bonds have been placed in escrow on call by the United States when and as required. On November 11, 1967, an additional bond issue for $5 million was passed to finance remainder of local interests cost. Comparison of Federal cost estiinates.— The current Federal cost estimate ($12.5 million) is an increase of $800,000 over the latest estimate ($11,700,000) submitted to Congress. The increase includes $496,000 for higher price levels, $50,000 based on more detailed planning, and $254,000 for engineering and design and supervi- sion and administration based on a recent reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $1,530,000 $105,000 $200,000 $688,000 $537 000 Relocations _ 1,090,000 10,000 590,000 490'000 Levees and floodwalls 10,860,000 241,000 1,436,000 2,207,000 6 976' 000 Pumping plants 1,865,000 225,000 625,000 l',015'000 Engineering and design "1,425,000 1,040,000 260,000 100,000 25 000 Supervision and administration 1,030,000 122,000 150,000 200,000 558^000 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 17,800,000 1,508,000 2,281,000 4,410,000 9,601,000 Undistributed cost-. ' Total project cost (Federal funds and " non-Federal contributions) 17,800,000 1,508,000 2,281,000 4,410,000 9,601000 Pending adjustments __ _ ' Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions) 17,800,000 1,508,000 2,281,000 4,410,000 9 601000 Undelivered orders +466,000 -341,000 -125 000 Total obligations __. 1,974,000 1,940,000 4,284,000 9,601,666 FEDERAL FUNDS Totalcost... 12,500,000 1,056,000 1,597,000 3,087,000 6,760 000 Undelivered orders +326,000 -239,000 -87,000 Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1967 1968 Total obligations 1,382,000 1,358,000 3,000,000 6,766,"666" NONFEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS Totalcost _ 5,300,000 452,000 684,000 1,323,000 2,841,000 Contribution, work (land acquisi- tion) (1,530,000) (105,000) (200,000) (688,000) (537,000) Contribution, relocations (1,090,000) (0) (10,000) (590,000) (490 000) Contribution, cash (2,680,000) (347,000) (474,000) (45,000) (1,814,000) Undelivered orders +140,000 -102,000 -38,000 Total obligations... 592,000 582,000 1,285,000 2,841,666 METHOD OF FINANCING Federal funds: Allocations 1,540,000 1,200,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 158,000 Total funds available for obligation 1,358,000 Appropriation required 3,666,666" "6,766,'666" Non-Federal contributions 1,650,000 210, 000 _ _ Contributions, work (land acquisi- tions) (105,000) (200.000).. Contribution, relocations (0) (10,000) Contribution, cash (1,545,000) (0) " Unobligated carryover from prior year 1,058,000 686,000 679,000 Total funds available for obligation 1,268,000 Contributions required . 1,278,666 2,162,666" Work... (1,278,000) (1,027.000) Cash.. (0) (1,135,000) 1 E. & D. estimate includes $49,000 for real estate activities. 190 Lake Kemp Reservoir, Tex. (Continuing) Location. — Located on the Wichita River in Baylor County approximately 40 miles southwest of Wichita Falls, Tex. Authorization.— 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount ■Estimated total appropriation requirement — Future non-Federal reimbursement.. - Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) •Estimated non-Federal cost Reimbursement, conservation — Other costs Total estimated project cost. Allocations to June 30, 1967 .- Allocations for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 Accumulated percent of appropriation requirements $6,400,000 1,450,000 - 4,950,000 2,810,000 - 1,450,000 1,360,000 7,760,000 _ _ 613,000 85,000 698,000 11 1, 500, 000 34 4,202,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earthfill. Height: 115 feet. Length: 8,860 feet. Spillway: Type: Limited service, uncontrolled. Capacity (maximum pool) : 534,300 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 225,300 Conservation 298,900 Total 524,200 Lands and damages: None. Relocations: None. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: June 1971. JUSTIFICATION Reconstruction of this reservoir will provide continued protection to 34,910 acres of land subject to potential flooding along the Wichita River because of deterioration of the spillwav and outlet works. The estimated (1965) value of property in the flood plain 'is $116,356,100, of which $326,100 are crop values, $10,990^000 are valucvs of public properties, and $105,040,000 are values of private properties. In addition to providing flood protection, present storage capacity for conservation purposes would be maintained for future years. The estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $947, 700 Water conservation 683, 700 Total 1,631,400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,500,000 will be applied to — Continue embankment, spillway, and outlet works $1, 400, 000 Engineering and design 3.5, 000 Supervision and administration 65, 000 Total 1, 500, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction. 191 Kon-Fecterai costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government for 22.7 percent of the Federal cost of reconstruction over a period not to exceed 50 years after completion of reconstruction. In addition, other costs to be assumed by local interests include $1,347,000 for lands and damages and $13,000 for relocations. Status of local cooperation. — The Wichita County Water Improvement District No. 2 and the city of Wichita Falls, Tex., after being informed of the approximate magnitude of payments, have signed a contract dated September 5, 1967, to comply with Federal requirements of local cooperation and flood control opera- tions. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $0,400,000 is an increase of $300,000 from the latest estimate ($6,100,000) sub- mitted to Congress; of this amount, $240,000 is due to price level increases for the dam construction feature and $60,000 is due to a reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1957 1958 (2) (3) (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year connplete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Dams $5,350,000 Engineering and design. Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost (construction facilities) Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations... Method of financing: Allocations... Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation... Appropriations required. 670,000 380,000 6,400,000 $431,000 27,000 458,000 $100,000 114,000 25,000 240,000 $1,400,000 35,000 65,000 1,500,000 6,400,000 458, 000 240,000 1,500,000 6,400,000 458,000 4,000 462, 000 613,000 240,000 -4,000 236,000 85,000 151,000 236, 000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 $3, 850, 000 90,000 262,000 4,202,000 4,202,000 4,202,000 "4,'262,"006 4,202,000 Lavon Reservoir Modification and East Fork Channel Improvement, Texas (Continuing) Location. — Lavon Reservoir is located in Collin County about 22 miles northeast of Dallas, Tex. Channel improvement on the East Fork of Trinity River extends from its mouth to river mile 31.8 in Dallas and Kaufman Counties. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control x\ct. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) (ultimate). Estimate non-Federal cost. Reimbursement, water supply Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1958 Allocations to date. Appropriation requested tor fiscal year 1969 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $42,900,000 26,500,000 16,400,000 25,910,000 26,500,000 1410,000 43,310,000 1,128,000 2,000,000 3, 128, 000 7 4, 200, 000 17 35,572,000 1 Cost for ctiannej Improvement. 91-459 — 68 — pt. 1 13 192 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rolled earth fill. Height: 81 feet (maximum above streambed). Length: 19,493 feet (including 480 feet of spillway). Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 275, 600 Water supply 380, 000 Sediment reserve 92, 600 Total - 748, 200 Spillway : Type: Gated ogee. Length: 480 feet. Design capacity (maximum pool) 357,700 cubic feet per second. Channel and levees: 25 miles of channel improvement. 38.3 miles of levee improvement. Relocations: Roads: 16.7 miles ($8,444,000). Cemeteries, utilities, and structures: ($887,000). Railroads: 2.9 miles ($2,365,000). Lands and damages: Acres: 12,232. Type: Predominantly farm land. Improvements: Residences and farm imits. Status {January 1, 1968). — Land acquisition 6 percent, construction not yet started. Completion schedule Land acquisition (substantial completion, June 1971) June 1972. Relocations (essentially complete) June 1971 . Entire project June 1973. JUSTIFICATION The project will ]irovide flood protection to 34,640 acres of extensively develoj^ed agricultural land along the East Fork of the Trinity River. The last serious flood occurred during July 1962 causing damages estimated at $358,000, at then pre- vailing prices, in the area to be benefited by the project. A recurrence of this flood under present conditions of development and price level would cause damages estimated at $382,000 of which $254,000 would be prevented by the project. The project also will provide sufilcient channel capacity to permit sustained flood re- leases from the existing Lavon Pteservoir project and concurrent discharge of ponded floodwater within the leveed areas along the East Fork, adcc|\iate levee- sluice facilities for the existing levee systems, and levee strengthening to prevent future overtopping and failure of the existing levees. Modification of the existing Lavon Dam and Reservoir will provide additional water supply storage for municipal and industrial uses in an area that is experiencing rapid growth and development. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $466, 000 Water supply 1, 047, 400 Recreation 1, 140,200 Total 2, 653, 600 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,200,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $2, 300, 000 Continue relocation of Atchison To])eka & Santa Fe Ry 1, 100. 000 Complete monumentation of reservoir boundary 19, 000 Initiate construction of embankment and spillway 50, 000 Initiate construction of channel and levees -"lO. 000 Engineering and design 531, 000 Supervision and administration 150, 000 Total 4, 200,000 193 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for orderly and economical construction progress. Non-Federal cost. — I^ocal interests are required to reimburse the Federal Gov- ernment for costs allocated to increased water supply storage at the Lavon I)roject under the terms of the Water Supply Act of 1958. The reimbursement is currently estimated at .$26,500,000. Costs in connection with the channel improve- ment are estimated at about $410,000 broken down as follows: Lands and damages $140, 000 Relocation and alteration of bi'idges 208, 000 Relocation of utilities 62, 000 Total 410,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the channel project upon completion. Status of local cooperation. — A water supply contract with the North Texas ^Municipal Water District was approved bv the Secretary of the Army on September 22, 1967. The supervisors of Kaufman County Levee Districts Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 15 submitted jointly a letter dated June 30, 1961, indicating their approval of the proposed channel and levee improvement works. Property owners are strongly in favor of improvements but have deferred creation of a flood control district until they can determine what effect authorization of the Trinity River project will have on the Lower East Fork improvement. Levee districts 4 and 5 (lower 11 miles of channel) have indicated their willingness to furnish the necessary assurances for their respective districts. Work schedvdes are being designed to divide the channel work into two reaches to allow construction of the lower channel reach in advance of receipt of assurances of local cooperation on the upper reach. By letter dated July 21, 1967, Kaufman County Levee District No. 4 stated that they have scheduled the acquisition of rights-of-waj' for Jime 1968. By letter dated September 14, 1967, Kaufman County Levee District No. 5 stated that they will furnish the necessary rights-of-way by June 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $42,900,000 is an increase of $2,600,000 over the latest estimate (.$40,300,000) presented to Congress. This increase includes $614,000 due to construction price level increase; $1,714,000 based on completed design memorandums studies for road relocations, dam construction, and project building and equipment; and $272,000 due to reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and for supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1959 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages. $11,679,000 $148,000 $1,470,000 $2,300,000 $7,761,000 Relocations. _ 11,696,000 153,000 1,100,000 10,443,000 Reservoir 847,000 _ 60,000 19,000 768,000 Dam _.. 6,944,000 50,000 6,894,000 Channels 5,158,000 45,000 5,113,000 Levees. 1,442,000 5,000 1,437,000 Recreation facilities 1,063,000 1,063,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 20,000 20,000 Permanent operating equipment 31,000 6,000 25,000 Engineering and design. 12,236,000 642,000 452,000 581,000 561,000 Supervision and administration.. 1,784.000 37,000 110,000 150,000 1,487,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 42,900,000 827,000 2,251,000 4,250,000 35,572,000 Undistributed cost -.- Total projectcost(Federalfundsonly).... 42,900,000 827,000 2,251,000 4,250,000 35,572,000 Pending adjustment 1,000 -1,000 Total cost (Federal funds only) 42,900,000 828,000 2,250,000 4,250,000 35,572,000 Undelivered orders... 36,000 14,000 -50,000 Total obligations.. _ 864,000 2,264,000 4,200,000 35,572,000 Method of financing (Federal funds): Allocations 1,128,000 2,000,000 Unobligated balance from prioryear 264,000 Total funds available for obligation. 2,264,000 Appropriations required 4,200,000 35,572,000 » Includes $4,000 for real estate activites on channel improvement. 194 \_ Port Arthub and Vicinity, Texas — Hurricane Flood Protection (Continuing) Location. — City of Port Arthur, Tex., is located in Jefferson County in extreme southeastern part of Texas on west side of Sabine Lake about 14 miles from the Gulf of ]Mexico. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio: 3.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost.. Cash contribution Other(lands and relocations) Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1957 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. Allocations to date _. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1959. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969-.. $40.600,000 17,770,000 13.470,000 -._ 4.300,000 58,370,000 3,377,000 2,120,000 5,497,000 14 4, 600, 000 25 30,503,000 _ PHYSICAL data Seawalls: Raise and reconstruct existing concrete and steel sheet pile seawall: 6.3 miles. New concrete and sheet pile seawall: 0.3 mile. Earth levees: Raise and improve existing earth levees: 7.5 miles. New earth levees: 20.3 miles. Pumping plants: Interior drainage pumping plants: Four each. Status (Jan. 1, 1968) Completion schedule Levees and floodwalls, 4 percent complete June 1973. Pumping plants, percent complete June 1972. Entire project, 3 percent complete June 1973. JUSTIFIC-VTION Major oil refineries in Port Arthur area alone employ about 13,000 persons with jin annual payroll of over $85 million. Proposed protective works would prevent all damages in j^rotected area that would result from a storm as large as the design hurricane and would materially reduce damages that would result from very infre- quent larger storms. Total damages that would result from occurrence of design hurricaue are estimated to be about $221 million under existing conditions. Durhig Hurricane Carla, September 1961, a tide of 7 feet inundated large portions of Groves and most of Port Acres. Tides of 10 feet would inundate all of metropolitan Port Arthur. Damages suffered in Port Arthur area during Hurricane Carla due ta tide- water, wind, and rain are estimated to be between $11 and $12 million. Completion of the project at an early date Ls needed to prevent additional losses resulting from hurricanes. Average annual benefits are $7,554,000, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,600,000 will be applied to — Continue levee and floodwall construction $1, 900, 000 Continue work on piunping plants 2, 000, 000 Engineering and design 300, 000 Supervision and administration 400, 000 Total 4, 600, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for an orderly and eco- nomical construction schedule compatible with local interests capability to furnish rights-of-way and accomplish relocation work. 195 Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local sponsors of complying with the requii-c- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project is presently estimated to be $17,770,000. This consists of: Lands, $3,400,000; relocations, $900,000; and a cash contribution of $13,470,000 including $170,000 for pump station betterments; and $200,000 for levee realinement betterments. Annual cost to local interests of maintenance and operation and replacement of operating equipment is estimated at $110,000. Status of local cooperation. — Jefferson Countj' Drainage District No. 7 represents local interests and executed a resolution on January 21, 1963, giving assurances of the required local cooperation. On September 14, 1963, a bond issue of $12 million was passed bj^ voters of the drainage district. Local interests have contributed $419,368 in lands, $1 million in cash, and have placed $1,800,000 in escrow for use by the United States when and as required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $40,- 600,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-l), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budgei Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete alter estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages 3,400,000 419,000 800,000 1,400.000 781,000 Relocations 900,000 155,000 200,000 545,000 Levees and floodwalls. 38,174,000 1,084,000 1,834,000 2,450,000 32,806,000 Pumping plants.. _ 8,050,000 285,000 2,555,000 5,210,000 Engmeering and design.. 14,023,000 1,787,000 280,000 400,000 1,556,000 Supervision and administration 3,823,000 204,000 140,000 430,000 3,049,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions). 58,370,000 3,494,000 3,494,000 7,435,000 43,947,000 Undistributed cost +4,000 -4,000 _ Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions). 58,370,000 3,498,000 3,490,000 7,435,000 43,947,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds and non-Fed- eral contributions) 58,370,000 3,498,000 3,490,000 7,435,000 43,947,000 Undelivered orders +482,000 +383,000 -865,000 Total obligations.. 3,980,000 3,873,000 6,570,000 43,947,000 Federal funds; Total cost 40,600,000 2,449,000 2,328,000 5.320,000 30,503,000 Undelivered orders +337,000 +383,000 -720,000 Total obligations 2.786,000 2,711,000 4,600,000 30,503,000 Non-Federal contributions: Totalcost 17,770,000 1,049,000 1,162,000 2,115,000 13,444,000 Contribution, work (land acqui- sition) (3.400,000) (419,000) (800,000) (1,400,000) (781,000) Contribution, work (relocations). (900,000) (0) (155,000) (200,000) (545.000) Contribution, casli (13,470,000) (630,000) (207,000) (515,000) (12,118,000) Undelivered orders +145,000 -145,000 Total obligations 1,194,000 1,162,000 1,970,000 13,444,000 Metinod of financing: Federal funds: Allocations 3,377,000 2,120,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 591,000 Total funds available for obliga- tion 2,711,000 Appropriation required 4,600,000 30,503,000 Non-Federal contributions 2,219,000 1,955,000 Contribution, work (land acqui- sition) 419,000 800,000 Contribution, work (relocations).. (0) (155,000) Contribution, cash (1,800,000) (1,000,000) Unobligated carryover from prior year 1,025,000 1,818,000 1,448,000 Total funds available for obliga- tion.. 2,980,000 Contributions required 1,600,000 11,996,000 Work (1,600,000) (1,326,000) Cash (0) (10,670,000) > E. & D. includes $100,000 for real estate activities. 196 Texas City, Tex., Hurricane-Flood Protection (Continuing) Location. — The project is located within the city limits of Texas City and La Marque, Tex., on the southwest shore of Galveston Bav, in Galveston County, Tex. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. BeneRt-cost ratio. — 2.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $17,300,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 7, 555,000 Cash contributions 5,574,000 Ottier costs 1,982,000 Total estimated project cost 24,856,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 11,234,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 2.000,000 Allocations to date 13,234,000 76 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 2,300,000 90 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1,766,000 PHYSICAL DATA Seawalls: New concrete seawall, 1.1 miles. Earth levees: New earth levees, 16.6 miles. Appurtenant structures: Highway ramps or closure structures, 3. Tidal control structure, 1. Pumping plants (interior drainage), 2. Relocations: Railroads (ramp and closure structures) $68, 000 Utility lines 429,000 Total 497, 000 Status January 1, 1968. — New levees and seawall and appurtenant structures' 58 percent complete. Completion schedule.— June 1970. JUSTIFICATION The project would provide flood protection from hurricane storm tides for the city of Texas City and a |)ortion of the city of La Marque. The area to be pro- tected is highly industrialized with a population of about 46,000. A recurrence of the hurricane of 1900 would cause extensive destruction and damages to residential, business, and industrial properties estimated (1961) at $55,300,000, resulting from high water, waves and scour, and exclusive of wind and rain damages. Average annual benefits are $2,117,000, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,300,000 will be applied to — Com])lete relocations : Utilities $50, 000 Continue levee construction 1, 255, 000 Continue concrete floodwall construction 909, 000 Engineering and design 43, 000 Supervision and administration 43, 000 Total 2,300,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for an orderly and eco- nomical construction schedule. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $7,556,000, based on the reciuirement that local interests contribute 30 percent of the first cost of th(! project inchuling the cost of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and contribute at their option, the additional cost of providing highway ramps in lieu of closure structures. The esti- mate of cost to local interests is broken down as follows: 197 Lands $1,982,000 Cash contribution 5, 574, 000 Total 7,556,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate all works of the project upon completion. It is estimated that the a\'erage annual expenditure for main- tenance, operation, and replacement will total $59,000. Status of local cooperation.— Local interests, by resolution dated January 17, 1963, furnished assurances that they would comply with the requirements of local coopei-ation. Non-Federal costs are being defrayed from bond issues voted by the taxpayers of Galveston County in 1947, November 1959 and November 1964. Funds derived from these bond issues are considered adequate to complete project as presently authorized. It is planned that local interests will acquire all lands, easements, and rights-of-way as a part of their contribution. They are proceeding with land acquisition, rights-of-way, and easements required for the work to be awarded in fiscal year 196S. Comparison of Federal cost estiinates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $17,300,000 is an increase of $1,300,000 over the latest estimate ($16,000,000) submitted to Congress. The increase includes $198,000 for higher price levels, $747,000 based on contract awards, $53,000 based on more detailed planning, and $302,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Authorized by Flood Control Act of 1958 (HD 347/85/2) Lands and damages.. $1,982,000 $979,000 $350,000 $653,000 Relocations .._ 497,000 155,000 278,000 64,000 Levees and floodwalls... 16,748,000 7,360,000 4,241,000 3,487,000 $1,660,000 Pumping plants 1,979,000 418,000 726,000 835,000 Engineering and design.. '2,710,000 2,498,000 162,000 50,000 Supervision and administration 940,000 734,000 121,000 57,000 28,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions)..- 24,856,000 12,144,000 5.878,000 4,311,000 2,523,000 Undistributed cost. Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions).. 24,856,000 12,144,000 5,878,000 4,311,000 2,523,000 Pendi ng adjustments _ _ _ . _ _ Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions)... 24,856,000 12,144,000 5,878,000 4,311.000 2,523.000 Undelivered orders +3,240,000 -2,215,000 -1,025,000 Total obligations 15,384,000 3,663,000 3,286,000 2.523.000 Federal funds: Totalcost_ 17,300,000 8,402,000 4,114,000 3,018,000 1,766,000 Undelivered orders +2,268,000 -1,550,000 -718.000 Total obligations. 10,670,000 2,564,000 2,300,000 1,766,000 Non-Federal contributions: Total cost 7,556,000 3,742,000 1,764,000 1,293,000 757,000 Contribution, work (land ac- quisition) (1,982,000) (979,000) (350,000) (653,000) Contribution, casfi (5,574,000) (2,763,000) (1,414,000) (640,000) (757,000) Undelivered orders +972,000 -665,000 -307,000 Total obligations... 4,714,000 1,099,000 986,000 757,000 Method of financing : Federal funds; Allocations 11,234,000 2,000,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. 564,000 Total funds available for obligation 2,564,000 Appropriation required . 2,300,000 1,766,000 Non-Federal contributions... 5,251,000 562,000 Contribution, work (land acquisi- tion) (979,000) (350,000).. Contribution, cash (4,272,000) (212,000). Unobligated carryover from prior year 537,000 Total funds available for obligation.. 1,099,000 Contributions required 986,000 757,000 Work (653,000) Cash.. _ _... .___ _.__ (333,000) (757,000) I E. & D. includes $80,000 for real estate activities. 198 ViNCE AND Little Vince Bayous, Tex. (Continuing) Location. — The Avatershed of A'ince Bayou and tributary, Little Vince Bayou, lies entirely within Harris County. Vince Bayou is a minor tribvitary of Buffalo Bayou in the San Jacinto River basin located on the upper gulf coast of Texas. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — L09 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $4.950,000 _ Estimated non-Federal cost i 3,020,000 Cash contribution Other - -- _ - 3,020,000 Total estimated project cost 7,970.000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 _ _ 302,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 -.. 400,000 Allocations to date ._ 702,000 14 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 900,000 32 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 3,348,000 1 In addition, local interests (Harris County Flood Control District) have spent about $185,000 on enlargement and rectification of channels of Vince and Little Vince Bayous. PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Vince Bayou, 7.29 miles. Little \'ince Bayou, 4.2 miles. Relocations: Railroads: Alterations to six bridges ($116,000). Status {Jan. 1, ^ 565). —Construction not started. Completion schedule: December 1971. JUSTIFICATION The flood plain of the standard project flood on Mnce Bayou watershed includes portions of the cities of Pasadena, Houston, and South Houston. The area subject to flooding totals about 3,375 acres of which 65 percent is either fully or partially developed and 35 percent is susceptible to development. Development within the flood plain includes commercial and residential properties, streets and bridges, utilities, j)arks, and a cemetery. Value of physical property in the flood plain of the standard project flood is estimated at is' 136,452,000 (November 1964 price level). A reciuTence of maximum known flood, which occurred in 1945, would restilt in damages estimated at $5,361,000, based on 1964 flood plain development. The damages that would result from occurrence of standard project flood are estimated at $10,042,000. Proposed improvements are designed to prevent all damages which would result from occurrence of the standard project flood. Average annual benefits are $324,000, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The reque.sted amount of $900,000 will be applied to — Continue channel rectification (Vince Bayou) $S37, 000 Engineering and design 13, 000 Supervision and administration 50, 000 Total 900,000 The fimds requested for fiscal year 1969 will maintain a schedule compatible with capability of local interests to furnish rights-of-way. N oil-Federal roslfs. — The estimated cost to local interests of comi)lying witli the requirenuuits of local coojjeration for construction of the project is $3,020,000. This cost consists of lands $1,987,000 and relocations $1,033,000. The annual cost to local interests of maintenance and operation is estimated at $28,000. 199 Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of compliance with local cooperation requirements were furnished by the Harris County Flood Control District by letter on January 28, 1964, and resolution of the Commissioners Court of Harris County January 23, 1964. The Flood Control District presently has sufficient funds available for obtaining necessary spoil disposal areas, easements, and rights- of-way and for accomplishing relocations necessary to comply with the plan of improvement. Necessary items of local cooperation are expected to be furnished as required to permit construction to proceed as scheduled. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $4,9.50,000 is an increase of $180,000 over the latest estimate ($4,770,000) sub- mitted to Congress. Increase is due to higher price levels on construction and reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervision and admin- istration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1958 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Relocations. __ Channels _ Engineering and design.. Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Undistributed cost... Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation.. Appropriation required $116,000 4,159,000 ' 338, 000 337,000 4,950,000 $263, 000 23,000 286, 000 $42,000 218,000 62, 000 20, 000 342, 000 4,950,000 286,000 342, 000 4,950,000 286, 000 +12,000 298, 000 302, 000 342, 000 +62, 000 404, 000 400, 000 4,000 404, 000 $74, 000 837,000 13,000 50, 000 974, 000 $3, 104, 000 244, 000 3, 348, 000 974, 000 3, 348, 000 974. 000 3, 348, 000 -74,000 900, 000 3, 348, 000 900, 000 3, 348, 000 ' Includes $60,000 for real estate activities. Dardanelle Lock and Dam, Arkansas River, Ark. (Continuing) Location. — On the Arkansas Riv^er in Pope and Yell Counties, Ark., about 2 miles upstream from the town of Dardanelle, Ark., and 257.8 miles above the mouth, and about midway between Little Rock and Fort Smith. Authorization. — 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1 (multiple-purpose plan for Lower Arkansas River Basin). SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Estimated total appropriation requirement... Future non-Federal reimbursement... Estimated Federal cost (ultimate). Estimated non-Federal cost Reimbursement: Power Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1957 Allocation for fiscal year 1988 Allocations to date ___ Appropriation requested for fisca] year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements $32,300,000 41,513,000 40,787,000 _ 41,513,000 ...'. 41,513,000 82,300,000 66,129,000 3,400,000 69, 529, 000 84 8,600,000 95 4,171,000 200 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Concrete gravitj'. Height: 70 feet ai30ve stream bed. Length: 2,o69 feet. Reservoir capacity: Power and dead storage, 486,000 acre-feet. Spillway : Type : Gate controlled, concrete ogee weir with stilling basin. Design capacit^v (maximum probable flood) : 1,500,000 cubic feet per second. Power installation: Presently planned: Four units at 31,000 kilowatts— 124,000 kilowatts. Intimate: Four units at 31,000 kilowatts— 124,000 kilowatts. Gross head with normal full power pool : 46 feet. Lock: Type: Single chamber, single lift, with miter gates. Size: 110 feet wide by 600 feet long. Normal (maximum) lift: .54 feet. Relocations : Roads: 17 miles, $3,364,000. Railroads: 13 miles, $5,043,000. Cemeteries and utility lines : $2,763,000. Lands and damages : Acres: 52,206. Type : Predominately agricultural. Improvements: Tj'picalfarm units. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project 82 Entire project, June 1970. Acquisition of reservoir area 98 Land acquisition (substantial completion), December 1964. Relocations (substantial completion), April 1965. Construction ot left abutment, initial portion of 100 Dam closure, Oct. 1, 1964. navigation lock, main dam, and spillway. Relocations 100 Poweronline: Powerhouse contract (1st phase) 100 1st unit (actual), April 1965. Complete powerhouse contract (2d phase) 100 2d unit (actual). May 1965. 3d unit (actual), September 1965. 4th unit (actual), January 1966. Procurement of turbines, generators, and acces- Complete lock, December 1969. sory and miscellaneous powerplant equipment. Recreation facilities _. 88 Completion of navigation lock Dredging JUSTIFICATION The Dardanelle lock and dam is a unit of the overall comprehensi\e plan of development of the Lower Arkansas River Basin and provides for navigation and generation of hydroelectric power. The navigation plan for the Arkansas River will provide a dependable waterway for transportation of iron and steel products, general commerce, and will open connnercial navigation to one of the most important regions in the United States for the production, processing, and shipment of petroleum and its products. Many existing industries are being relocated and numerous new industries are being established in tlie ti-ibutarv areas. Dardanelle is in operation with its full installed capacity of 124,000 kih>- watts and the power is being marketed by the Southwestern Power Administration. Estimated annual benefits for the multiple-purpose plan for the Lower Arkansas River Basin are: Navigation $40,470,000 Power 14, S3S, !I00 Chaimel stabilization _ 6,575,000 Flood control 6, 602, 600 AVater supply _____ _ S2S, 900 Fish and wildlife ._ . _ .. 312,000 Recreation 2, 207, 000 Total 71,924,400 201 Fiscal xjear 106,9.— The requested amount of $8,600,000 will be applied to- Complete land acquisition $52, 000 Continue boundary line survey and marking and complete erosion control 1 248, 000 Continue repair, cleaning, and painting of tainter gates, hoist decks, and stoplogs, and completion of navigation lock 6, 010, 000 Continue dredging of navigation channel in upper reach of reservoir and initiate snagging 1, 740, 000 Complete procurement of permanent operating equipment 52, 000 Engineering and design 110, 000 Supervision and administration 388, 000 Total 8,600, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction and meet established completion date. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $41,513,000, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rates with the Department of Interior pursviant to Federal laws. There are no other cost sharing or repayment requirements which are currently applicable to the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $82,300,000 is an increase of $3,300,000 over the latest estimate ($79,000,000) submitted to Congress. This increase includes $140,000 for deficiency judgments on condemnation cases and for acquisition of spoil areas for dredging operations; $2,103,000 for dredging and snagging based on more detailed planning; $218,000 on other items based on indicated final cost of completed work and additional recjuirements based on more detailed planning; $351,000 based on award of con- tract for repair of tainter gates, seals, and stoplogs, painting of tainter gates, hoist platforms and spillway bridge, and for completion of navigation lock; $300,000 for engineering and design and $188,000 for supervision and administration based on cost experience and current estimate to complete. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages, $8,260,000 $7,942,000 $266,000 $52,000., _.. Relocations- _._ 11,170,000 11,159,000 11,000 ._ Reservoir 1,683,000 1,231,000 54,000 248,000 $150,000 Dams_.__ __ 9,731.000 9,394.000 120.000 200,000 17,000 Lock 13,543.000 3,579.000 2,161.000 5,813,000 1,990,000 Powerplant... _ _._. 19,639,000 19,610,000 29,000 Roads .._ 195,000 142,000 20,000 _ 33,000 Channels and canals... 3,215.000 303,000 1,740,000 1,172,000 Levees 1,603.000 1,274,000 329,000 Pumping plants. 740,000 740,000 Recreation facilities 1.670.000 1.461,000 30,000 179,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities.. 404,000 393.000 11,000 Permanent operating equipment. 363,000 283.000 28,000 52,000 Engineering and design 6,000.000 5.589,000 224,000 110,000 77,000 Supervision and administration 4,084,000 3,259,000 218,000 388,000 219,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 82,300,000 66,056,000 3,464,000 8,603,000 4,177,000 Undistributed costs, construction fa- cilities 12,000 -3,000 -3,000 -6,000 Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 82,300,000 66,068,000 3,461,000 8,600,000 4,171,000 Pending adjustments 18,000 -18,000 Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only).. 82,300,000 66,086,000 3,443,000 8,600,000 4,171,000 Undelivered orders... 33.000 -33,000 Total obligations. 66,119,000 3,410,000 8,600,000 4,171,000 Method of fmancing: Allocations 66,129,000 3,400,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. 10,000 Total funds available for obligation.. 3,410,000 Appropriations required... 8,600,000 4,171,000 Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1957 1968 202 Ozark Lock and Dam, Arkansas River, Ark. (Continuing) Location. — On the Arkansas River in Franklin County, Ark., about 1.4 miles downstream from the city of Ozark, Ark., 50 miles downsti'eam from Fort Smith, and 308.9 miles above the mouth. Authorization. — 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1 (multiple-purpose plan for lower Arkansas River Basin). SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirement Estimated total appropriation requirement... Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost Reimbursement; Power Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation lor fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date.. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $65,300,000 36,044,000 29,256,000 36,044,000 36,044,000 65,300,000 23,697,000 11,470,000 35,157,000 10,500,000 54 19,633,000 70 PHYSICAL DATA Reservoir capacity: Power and dead storage: $148,400 acre-feet. Dam: Type: Concrete gravity. Height: 58 feet above streambed. Length: 2,200 feet. Spillway : Type: Gate controlled, concrete ogee weir with stilling basin. Design capacitj^ (maximum probable flood) : 1,500,000 cubic feet per second. Power installation: Presently planned: 5 units at 20,000 kilowatts; 100,000 kilowatts. Ultimate: 5 units at 20,000 kilowatts; 100,000 kilowatts. Gross head with normal full power pool: 32 feet. Lock: Type: Single chamber, single lift, with miter gates. Size: 110 feet wide by 600 feet long. Normal hft: 34 feet.' Maximum lift: 37 feet. Relocations: Roads: 1.4 miles and Arkansas Highway 23 Bridge, $2,827,000. Railroad: 4 miles and alteration of Gar Creek Bridge, $506,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $748,000. Lauds and damages: Acres: 13,165. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Urban residences, commercial and industrial buildings, and typical farm units. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent conDplete Completion schedule Entire project 43 Lands acquisition 45 Relocations.. 16 Left bank access road 100 Lock, dam, powerhouse (1st phase), and right 72 bank access road. Procurement of turbines and speed increasers, generators, accessory and miscellaneous power- plant equipment. Entire project, December 1973. Land acquisition (substantial completion), January 1969. Relocations, June 1969. Dam closure, June 1969. Power on line: 1st unit, June 1972. 2d unit, September 1972. 3d unit, December 1972. 4th unit, March 1973. 5th unit, June 1973. Navigation features, October 1969. 203 JUSTIFICATION The Arkansas River multiple-purpose project was conceived and authorized as an overall plan made up of a group of interrelated elements consisting of reservoirs, multiple-purpose structures, navigation structures, and bank-stabiliza- tion works; all designed on a coordinated basis to provide for development of optimum benefits. Construction of the project must follow this coordinated plan if full benefits are to be realized. In eastern Oklahoma, construction of Enfaula Reservoir and the initial phase of Oologah Reservoir are complete. Construction of Keystone Reservoir and the Robert S. Kerr and Webbers Falls locks and dams is underway, as is the construction of the Dardanelle lock and dam project in central Arkansas and bank stabilization and channel rectification between the Robert S. Kerr damsite in Oklahoma and the mouth. Early completion of the navigation route would significantly benefit the economy of the surrounding area, where existing industrial facilities have been considerably expanded and new industrial plants constructed in the past few years. Estimated annual benefits for the multiple-purpose plan for the lower Arkansas River Basin are: Navigation $40, 470, 000 Power 14, 838, 900 Channel stabilization 6, 575, 000 Flood control ' 6^ 602', 600 Water supply 828, 900 Fish and wildlife 312 000 Recreation 2, 297' 000 Total 71,924,400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $10,500,000 will be apphed to — Continue land acquisition $1, 200, 000 Continue relocations 1, 306, 000 Initiate clearing of reservoir area 177[ 000 Continue construction of lock, dam, spillway, embankments, right bank access road, and first phase construction on the powerhouse. . 2, 680, 000 Continue procurement of turbines, generators, speed increasers, and miscellaneous powerplant equipment 3, 521, 000 Initiate dredging and snagging ' 630^ 000 Initiate and complete levee and pumping plant 134^ 000 Continue procurement of permanent operating equipment 29,' 000 Engineering and design 300, 000 Supervision and administration 523^ 000 Total 10, 500, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction to meet the established completion date. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $36,044,000 are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Fed- eral laws. There are no other cost-sharing or repayment requirements which are currently applicable to the project. Comparison of Federal costs estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $65,300,000 is an increase of $1,200,000 over the latest estimate submitted to Congress ($64,100,000). This change includes an increase of $820,000 for reloca- tions on the basis of construction contract awarded for alteration of State Highway No. 23 bridge, and more detailed planning on U.S. Highway 64; railroads, and utilities; and increase of $787,000 on the basis for more detailed planning for roads channels, and canals; buildings, grounds and utilities and permanent operating equipment; and an increase of $620,000 for engineering and design on the basis of cost experience and current estimate to complete. These increases were partially offset by a decrease of $235,000 for reservoir on the basis of more detailed planning for clearing and a decrease of $792,000 for dam, lock, and powerplant on the basis of cost to date, contract awards and more detailed planning. 204 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1959 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $4,620,000 Relocations 4,081,000 Reservoir 460,000 Dam 7,486,000 Lock -._. 10,448,000 Powerplant 27,675,000 373,000 1,160,000 149,000 5,000 1,287,000 114,000 320, 000 4, 000, 000 3,122,000 $1,621,000 126,000 144,000 5.687,000 9,602,000 1,989,000 299, 000 91,000 $973,000 2,354,000 115,000 1,473,000 677,000 4,644,000 48, 000 29, 000 70,000 20,000 2.867,000 1,068,000 5,000 40, 000 620,000 571,000 33,000 23,646,000 -94,000 23,552,000 91,000 1,000 11,521,000 94, 000 11.615,000 -91,000 11,524,000 11,470,000 54,000 $1,200,000 1,306,000 177,000 260,000 144,000 5, 800, 000 630, 000 130,000 4,000 29, 000 300, 000 523, 000 23,613,000 11,520,000 10.503,000 Roads Channels and canals Levee .-. -.. Pumping plant Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 65,300,000 Undistributed costs, construction facili- ties Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 65,300,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 65,300,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations.. 23,643,000 IVIetfiod of financing: Allocations 23,697,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation. 11,524,000 Appropriations required.. _ 10,500,000 -3,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 $826, 000 295, 000 24,000 66, 000 25,000 15,242,000 74,000 391,000 19,000 1,000 1,258,000 39,000 231,000 213,000 960, 000 19,664,000 -31.000 19,633,000 19,633.000 "19,633,066 19,633,0C0 Broken Bow Reservoir, Okla. (Continuing) Location. — Ou Mountain Fork Kivor, 20.3 miles above its confluence with Little River, a tributary of Red River, near Broken Bow, McCurtain County, in southeastern Oklahoma. Authorization. — 19oS and 1962 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.1 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement... Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost. Reimbursement: Water supply. Power Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967.. Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $39,600,000 26,176.000 13.424,000 26,176,000 4.105.000 22,071,000 39,600,000 29.742,000 4,830,000 34, 572, 000 87 3, 500, 000 96 1,528,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: EarthfiU. Height: 22.5 feet. Length: 4,246 feet (including spillway and dikes), 205 Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 4r)0, 000 Power and water supply 470, 100 Sediment reserve 9, 500 Power head 439, 200 Total 1, 368, 800 Spillway: Type: Gate controlled, concrete ogee weir, with chute apron (eight 40-foot by 40-foot tainter gates). Design capacity: (Maximum pool) 443,000 cubic feet per second. Lands and damages: Acres: 28,892. Type: Predominantly commercial timber. Improvements: Typical farm units. Power installation: Presently planned: Two units at 50,000 kilowatts each. Gross head with normal full power pool: 176 feet. Relocations: Roads: Riprap and fill, $8,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $196,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project- 81 June 1970. Land acquisitioa -.. 93 (Substantial completion), August 1964. Relocations. _ 100 Reservoir clearing - - 100 Embankment, spillway, and power intake struc- 91 Initiate closure, July 1964. ture. Complete closure of dam, March 1968. Complete dam, September 1969. Powerplant and appurtenances 41 June 1970. Recreation facilities... 91 December 1969. Power on line: 1st unit, 50,000 kilowatts, November 1969. 2d unit, 50,000 kilowatts, February 1970. JUSTIFICATION This project is a key unit of the seven-reservoir system in the Little River Basin, consisting of the authorized Millwood, Dierks, Gillham, DeQueen, Broken Bow, Lukfata, and Pine Creek Reservoirs. Operation of this system would provide a high degree of protection to 139,000 acres of land in the Little River Basin and to 663,000 acres of flood plain area along Red River. The annual crop production for these areas under present conditions is about $20 million and the value of other property, excluding minerals, is in excess of $100 million. Little River is one of the principal flood producing streams along Red River below Denison Dam, as demonstrated by the 157 floods that have occurred at the Millwood Dam site during the 21-year period from October 1937 through September 1958. Construc- tion of the system would provide urgently needed flood protection to farmlands and phj^sical properties in the Little River and Red River Basins. In addition to providing flood protection, the project has 80,600 acre-feet of storage allocated to industrial and municipal water supply, which is expected to yield about 175 million gallons per day. Also, the project will provide 100,000 kilowatts dependable capacity at the site which will be needed to supply the loads by the power-on-line dates. Estimated annual benefits are: Flood control $6.30, 700 Power 2, 008, 100 Recreation 920, 000 Water conservation 436, 000 Fish and wildlife 25, 000 Total 4, 019, 800 206 Fiscal Year 1969.— The requested amount of $3,500,000 will be applied to- Complete fabrication and installation of butterfly valves $121, 000 Continue construction of reregulating structure 800, 000 Continue powerplant 2, 193, 000 Continue roads, railroads, and bridges 115, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 56, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 205, 000 Total 3, 500, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction at an orderly and economical rate. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Govern- ment for costs allocated to water supply storage over a period not to exceed 50 years after use of this storage is initiated. This reimbursement is presently esti- mated at about $4,105,000, exclusive of interest. The costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $22,071,000, are reim- bursable. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests are required to repay the costs allocated to the municipal and industrial water supply features in accordance with the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. The Mountain-Lakes Water District has furnishecl a resolution (December 29, 1964) of intent to repay the costs allocated to future water supply storage. This commitment is considered adequate to meet the requirements of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of the Interior pursuant to Federal laws. tomparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. However, adjustments have been made in feature estimates based on contract awards, additional requirements, costs to date, and estimated completion requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal ysar fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1363 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $2,350,000 $2,070,000 $280,000 Relocations 204,000 199,000 5,000. — Reservoir... 690,000 636,000 54,000 Dams 20,163,000 17,675,000 1,484,000 $921,000 $83,000 Powerplant 7,844,000 1.615,000 2,993,900 2,193,000 1,043,000 Roads, railroads and bridges 1,721.000 1,452,000 115,000 K4. 000 Recreation facilities 675,000 616.000 59,000 Buildings, grounds and utilities. 288.000 288,000 Permanent operating equipment 184,000 31.000 10,000 56,000 87,000 Engineering and design 3,500,000 3,385,000 95,000 10,000 10,000 Supervision and administration 1,981,000 1,458,000 216,000 205,000 102.000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).- 39,600,000 29,435,000 5,137,000 3,500,000 1,528,000 Undistributed cost (construction facilities .-. -155.000 +155,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 39,600,000 29,280,000 5,292,000 3,500,000 1,528,000 Pending adjustments. - - Total cost (Federal funds only) 39,600,000 29,280,000 5,292,000 3,500,000 1,528,000 Undelivered orders 411,000 -411,000 Total obligations.-.. 29,691,000 4,881,000 3,500,000 1,528,000 Method of financing: Allocations 29,742,000 4,830,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 51,000 Total funds available for obligation. 4, 881,000 Appropriation required. 3,500,000 1,528,000 Ark.\ns.\s River .■vnd Tributaries, Robert S. Kerr Lock .vnd D.\m, Okl.\homa (Continuing) Location. — Located in Sequoyah, LeFlore, and Haskell Counties, about 8 miles south of Sallisaw, Okla., and 20 miles west of Fort Smith, Ark., on the Arkansas River (mile 395.4). 207 Authorization. — 1946 rJiv-er and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio.- — 1.5 to 1. (^Multiple purpose plan for Lower Arkansas River Basin.) SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent ot estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost. Reimbursement: Power Total estimated project cost._ Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocations for fiscal year 1968. Allocations to date Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $92,500,000 38,730,000 53,770,000 38,730,000 38,730,000 .._ 92,500,000 52,977,000 12,925,000 65,902,000 71 14, 200, 000 87 12,398,000 PHYSIC.'i.L DATA Dam: Type: Earthfill with concrete overflow section. Height: 74 feet. Length: 7,360 feet (embankment, concrete spillway, powerhouse, and naviga- tion lock). Spillway : Type: Gated spillway with concrete ogee weir. Capacity (maximum pool): 1,556,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control N one. Power Pondage. Dead storage,.... 493, 600 Total 493,600 Lock: Length: 600 feet. Width: 110 feet. Normal lift: 48 feet. Power installation: Presently planned: 4 units at 27,500 kilowatts; 110,000 kilowatts. Gross head with normal full power: 40.5 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 56,820. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations: Roads: 17 miles, $7,952,000. Railroads: 3 miles, $2,033,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $351,000. (STATUS JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project... 64 Land acquisition 91 Relocations... 37 Reservoir clearing 7 Dams 70 Locks.. 96 Powerplant 50 Recreation facilities March 1971. Substantial completion, June 1967. December 1969. Do. Initiate closure, March 1968. Complete closure of dam, September 1969. Complete dam, June 1970. December 1967. March 1971. June 1970. Power on line: 1st unit, 27,500 kilowatts, January 1970. 2d unit, 27,500 kilowatts, April 1970. 3d unit 27,500 kilowatts, July 1970. 4th unit 27,500 kilowatts, October 1970. 91^59 — 6S — pt. 1- -14 208 JUSTIFICATION The Arkansas River multiple-purpose project was conceived and authorized as an overall plan made up of a group of interrelated elements consisting of reservoirs, multiple-purpose structures, navigation structures, and bank sta- bilization works, all designed on a coordinated basis to provide for development of optimum benefits. Construction of the project must follow this coordinated plan if full benefits are to be realized. In eastern Oklahoma, initial phase of con- struction of Oologah Reservoir, construction of Eufaula Reservoir and the flood control portion of Keystone Reservoir is complete. The Webbers Falls lock and dam is miderway, as is the construction of the Dardanelle and Ozark lock and dam projects in central Arkansas and bank stabilization and channel rectification between the Robert S. Kerr Dam site in Oklahoma and the mouth. Construction of navigation locks and dams was initiated in fiscal year 1963. Early completion of the navigation route would significantly benefit the economy of the surrounding area where existing industrial facilities have been considerably expanded and new industrial plants constructed in the past few years. The project will provide 1 10,000 kilowatts of dependable capacity at the site which will be needed to supply the power requirements by the on-line dates. Estimated annual benefits for the multiple-purpose plan for the lower Arkansas River Basin are: Navigation $40, 470, 000 Channel stabilization 6, 575, 000 Power 14, 838, 900 Flood control 6,602,600 Water supplv 828,900 Fish and wildlife 312, 000 Recreation 2, 297, 000 Total 71,924, 400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $14,200,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land $650, 000 Continue relocations 4, 025, 000 Initiate reservoir clearing 620, 000 Complete boundary markings 140, 000 Continue construction of embankment 1, 670, 000 Continue construction of powerhouse 1, 400, 000 Continue turbines, generators and appurtenances and supply con- tracts 4, 665, 000 Continue recreation facilities 267, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 100, 000 Engineering and design 125, 000 Supervision and administration 538, 000 Total 14, 200, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to meet scheduled com- pletion dates. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $38,730,000, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of the Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate submitted to Congress. 209 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1967 1968 (2) (3) (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Lands and damages $13,250,000 $11,582,000 Relocations...- 10,336,000 1,983,000 Reservoirs 3,238,000 173,000 Dams 15,511,000 9,782,000 Locks 12,268,000 10,427,000 Powerplant 27,000,000 9,797,000 - •— — 100,000 Roads, railroads, and bridges. Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities. Permanent operating equipment. 92,500,000 272.000 85, 000 4,389,000 1.810,000 50, 400, 000 -293,000 50,107,000 $708,000 3,578,000 221,000 2,368,000 1,351,000 5,878,000 50, 000 265,000 5,000 85,000 450,000 543,000 15,502,000 $650, 000 4,025,000 760, 000 1,670,000 '6, 065," 666' 267,000 100,000 125,000 538,000 14,200,000 150,000 946, 000 277,000 383,000 Engineering and design 5,000,000 Supervision and administration 4, 141,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 92,500,000 Undistributed cost (construction facility). Total project cost (Federal funds only) Pending adjustments... Total cost (Federal funds only) 92,500,000 50.107,000 Undelivered orders.... 2,443,000 Total obligations. 52,550,000 Method of financing: Allocations.... 52,977,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation 13,352,000 Appropriation required 14,200,000 +293,000 15,795,000 14,200,000 15,795,000 -2,443,000 13,352,000 12,925,000 427,000 14,200,000 14, 200, 000 $310,000 750,000 2, 084, 000 1,691,000 490, 000 5,260,000 414,000 113,000 36, 000 1,250,000 12,398,000 12,398,000 'i2,"398,'666 i2,"398,"666 12,398,000 Arkansas River and Tributaries, Webbers Falls Lock and Dam, Oklahoma (Continuing) Location. — Located in Muskogee and Wagoner Counties, about 15 miles south- east of Muskogee, Okla., on the Arkansas River. Authorization. — 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1 (multiple-purpose plan for Lower Arkansas River Basin). SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement... Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost. Reimbursement: Power Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $76,000,000 23,838,000 52,162,000 23,838,000 23,838,000 76,000,000 20,472,000 13,300,000 33,772,000 44 15,500.000 65 26,728,000 PHYSICAL D.\TA Dam: Type: Earthfill, with concrete nonoverflow section. Height: 79 feet. Length: 4,500 feet (embankment, concrete spillway, powerhouse, and navigation lock). Spillway : Type: Gated spillway with concrete ogee weir. Capacity (maximum pool): 1,196,000 cubic feet per second. 210 Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control None Dead storage 165, 200 Total 165, 200 Lock: Length: 600 feet. Width: 110 feet. Normal lift: 30 feet. Power installation: Presently planned: 3 units at 20,000 kilowatts — 60,000 kilo- watts. Lands and damages: Acres: 27,890. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations: Roads: 9.8 miles, $6,493,000. Railroads: 12.5 miles, $10,159,000. Cemeteries and utihty lines: $1,769,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project 35 June 1973. Land acquisition 72 Substantial completion, December 1967. Relocations 13 June 1970. Reservoir clearing December 1969. Dams --- 64 Initiate closure, June 1968. Complete closure. January 1970. Complete dam, June 1970. Locks 80 June 1969. Powerplant 3 June 1973. Power on line: 1st unit, 20,000 kilowatts, July 1972. 2d unit, 20,000 kilowatts, October 1972. 3d unit, 20,000 kilowatts, January 1973. JUSTIFIC.VTION The Arkansas River multiple-purpose project was conceived and authorized as an overall plan made up of a group of interrelated elements consisting of reservoirs, multiple-purpose structures, navigation structures, and bank-stabili- zation works, all designed on a coordinated basis to provide for development of optimum benefits. Construction of the project must follow this coordinated plan if full benefits are to be realized. In eastern Oklahoma, initial phase of construction of Oologah Reservoir, construction of Eufaula Reservoir and the flood control portion of Keystone Reservoir is complete. The Robert S. Kerr lock and dam is underway, as is construction of the Dardanelle and Ozark lock and dam projects in centra! Arkansas and bank stabilization and channel rectification between tlie Robert S. Kerr Dam site in Oklahoma and the mouth. Construction of navigation locks and dams was initiated in fiscal .year 1963. Earlj^ completion of the naviga- tion route would significantly benefit the economj^ of the surrounding area, where existing industrial facilities have been considerably expanded and new industrial plants constructed in the past few years. The project will pro\ide 66,000 kilowatts of dependable capacity at the site which will be needed to supply the power requirements by the on-line dates. Estimated aiumal benefits for the multiple-purpose plan for the lower Arkansas River Basin are: Navigation $40,470,000 Channel stabilization 6, 575, 000 Power 14,838,900 Flood control 6,602,600 Water supply 828,900 Fish and wildlife 312, 000 Recreation 2,297, 000 Total 71, 924,400 211 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $15,500,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land $499, 000 Continue relocations 6, 680, 000 Initiate reservoir clearing 150, 000 Continue boundary markings 135, 000 Continue construction of lock and dam and lock service road 1, 808, 000 Continue powerplant 4, 163, 000 Continue excavation of navigation channel 777, 000 Purchase permanent operating equipment 25, 000 Engineering and design 520, 000 Supervision and administration 743, 000 Total 15,500,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction to meet established completion date for navigation features of the project. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $23,838,000, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repaj-ment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of S76 million is a decrease of $1,200,000 from the latest estimate of $77,200,000 submitted to Congress. This change includes decreases of $114,000 for relocations and $1,086,000 for other construction features, all based on more detailed planning and contract awards. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1958 AND 1959 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete afte estimate 1957 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages.. $6,000,000 $3,707,000 $1,382,000 $499,000 $412,000 Relocations.... 18,421,000 661,000 4,285,000 6,680,000 6,795,000 Reservoirs 663,000 68,000 10,000 285,000 300,000 Dams 8,559,000 3.791,000 2,826,000 1,000,000 952,000 Locks.... 10,442,000 5,432,000 4,180,000 780,000 Powerplant 19,534,000 326,000 734,000 4,163,000 14,311,000 Roads, railroads, and bridges 1,348,000 751,000 8,000 28,000 561,000 Channels and canals 1,277,000 140,000 360,000 777,000 Recreation facilities 550,000 550,000 Bank stabilization __. 395,000 395,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities. 324,000 226,000.. 98,000 Permanent operating equipment 355,000 3,000 1,000 25,000 326,000 Engineering and design 4,200,000 2,453,000 624,000 520,000 603,000 Supervision and administration 3,922,000 884,000 475,000 743,000 1,820,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 76,000,000 18,887,000 14,885,000 15,500,000 26,728,000 Undistributed cost (construction fa- cilities) -59,000 59,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only).-. 76,000,000 18,828,000 14,944,000 15,500,000 26,728,000 Pending adjustments . . Total cost (Federal funds only) 76,000,000 18,828,000 14,944,000 15,500,000 26,728,000 Undelivered orders 569,000 -569,000.. . Total obligations.... 19,397,000 14,375,000 15,500,000 26,728,000 Method of financing: Allocations 20,472,000 13,300,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 1,075,000 Total funds available for obligation _ 14,375,000 Appropriations required.. _ 15,500,000 26,728,000 Eehabilitation and Operation and Maintenance Mr. KiRWAN. We will insert the justification pages covering rehabili- tation and operation and maintenance. 212 Galveston Harbor and Channel, Tex. — Rehab Beachfront Groins (Continuation of rehabilitation) Location and description. — Beachfront groins are located on the Gulf of Mexico side of Galveston Island and extend out into gulf approximately 500 feet from existing seawall in front of the city of Galveston, Galveston County, Tex. The 13 groins which are spaced 1,500 feet apart (from 12th Street to 61st Street) were constructed of two rows of wood piling with a steel sheet pile core. Authorization. — 1935 and 1938 River and Harbor Acts. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $1,750,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 125,000 Allocations to date 125,000 7 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 500,000 36 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1, 125, 000 . _ Present condition.- — Construction of the groins was completed in 1939. Groins have had no major repairs since original construction in 1939. Natural deteriora- tion of sheet pile core wall has resulted from salt water, wave action, and coi-- rosion. Numerous holes have developed and piling has become disconnected from wood brace piles and waiters. As a result of wave action and natural deterioration, wood brace piles and waiters have lost their effectiveness in providing support for the steel sheet pile core. At the outer ends of the groins, portions of waiters and brace piles are missing which results in a weaving action of the groins during heavy seas. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Groins not started. Completion schedule. — June 1970. JUSTIFICATION Purpose of the groins is to protect the seawall by preventing scour at the base due to action of the littoral currents during storms and to build up beach area vmder normal weather conditions. After the 1915 hurricane, it was observed that the wooden sheet piling at the toe of seawall was exposed subjecting it to destruc- tion by action of marine borers. In order to prevent this destruction, a buildup of sand against the base of seawall was considered necessarv. Recent beach erosion comparative surveys indicate erosion has occurred at the base of the seawall since 1949, particularly on the westerly- side of the city of Galveston in the vicinity of groin Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. This erosion is attributed in part to the reduced effectiveness of the groins because of deteriorated condition. Local interests have on luunerous occasions, expressed concern in regard to the deteriorated condition of the groins and have urged that every effort be made to obtain funds for I'c- habilitation work. Section of seawall constrticted west of 61st Street included a concrete sheet pile cutoff wall in lieu of wood sheet piling. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested appropriation of $500,000 will be applied to — Continue rehabilitation of beachfront groins $470, 000 Supervision and administration 30, 000 Total 500. 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are reciuired to provide an orch^rlj' and economical rate of rehabilitation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,750,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. 213 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Breakwaters and seawalls (beachfront groins) ---- $1,650,000 Engineering and design Supervision and administration 100, 000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 1,750,000 U ndistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only)_.. 1, 750, 000 Pending adjustments..- Total cost (Federal funds only) 1, 750, 000 Undelivered orders Tota I ob I igatio ns _ Method of hnancing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year. _ Total funds available for obligation. Appropriation required $115,000 $470,000 $1,065,000 10,000 30,000 60,000 125,000 500,000 1,125,000 125,000 "i25,"66o' "l25,"o6o' 125, 000 125, 000 500,000 1,125,000 '566,"666 i,"i25,'oo6 "506,600 i,'i25,'666 500, 000 1,125,000 Southwestern Division operation and maintenance, general, fiscal year 1969 1. Navigation (a) Channels and harbors.— The budget estimate of $12,275,000 provides for essential maintenance work on 11 channel and harbor projects named in the list which follows. The work to be accomplished under this activity consists of main- taining the navigation channels and harbors and anchorages of coastal harbors and waterways by means of dredging, constructing bulkheaded spoil disposal areas, snagging, repairing channel stabilization works, operating and repairing navigation structures, and repairing harbor jetties all as authorized in the laws adopting river and harbor projects. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, hscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway... $742,900 TEXAS Brazos Island Harbor $394,000 Cedar Bayou 300 Channel to Point Bolivar. 17,000 Freeport Harbor 337,900 Galveston Harbor and channel 2,125,200 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.. 2,403,900 Houston ship channel 856,500 2,030,500 IVIatagorda ship channel.. 931,900 1,074,900 66,300 65. 000 15,900 15,000 420, 100 400, 000 1,314,400 950, 000 454,300 1,841,600 Sabine Neches Waterway... 1,527,500 4,383,000 Trinity River and tributaries 80,000 564,500 ether projects maintained periodically... 224,900 563,300 Total, channels and harbors 9,353,400 17,271,100 $400, 000 Additional dredging in fiscal year 1968 due to Hurricane Beulah and periodic main- tenance in some areas. Periodic maintenance. Periodic maintenance in some areas. 4, 253, 700 2, 500, 000 Additional dredging in fiscal year 1968 due to Hurricane Beulah and periodic main- tenance in some areas. 1,900,000 Periodic maintenance in sjme areas. 800,000 Additional dredging in fiscal year 1968 due to Hurricane Beulah. 1,000,000 Additional dredging in fiscal year 1968 due to Hurricane Beulah, and periodic main- tenance in some areas. 3,975,000 Major spoil disposal area cin- struction in fiscal years 1968 and 1969. Periodic maintenance in some areas. 270,000 12,275,000 214 (6) Locks, dams, and canals. — The budget estimate of $3,276,000 provides for the operational requirements, and essential repairs on two projects. Requirements include: Operation and ordinary maintenance of the project facilities; labor, supplies, materials and parts required for the day-by-day functioning; and periodic maintenance, repairs and replacements, and repair of canal stabilization works. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes ARKANSAS Arkansas River and tributaries, Arkansas and Oklahoma. TEXAS Town Bluff Dam, B. A. Steinhagen Lake (dam B). Total, locks and dams ..- $937,500 $1,180,100 $3,100,030 Partial maintenance in rise al year 1969. 163,900 172,800 176,000 1,101,400 1,352,900 3,276.000 Total, navigation 10,454,800 18,624.000 15,551,000 2. Flood control (a) Reservoirs. — The budget estimate of $6,512,000 for the operation and maintenance of 39 flood control reservoirs and scheduling of flood control reservoir operations in the division provides the amount necessary for operational require- ments. Annual requirements are for operation and ordinary maintenance of project facilities; labor, supplies, materials, and parts required for the da3'-to-da3' functioning of the projects. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes ARKANSAS Blue Mountain Reservoir [Vlillwood Reservoir _ Nimrod Reservoir.. COLORADO John Martin Reservoir KANSAS Council Grove Reservoir Elk City Reservoir.. Fall River Reservoir John Redmond Reservoir Marion Reservoir Toronto Reservoir MISSOURI Clearwater Reservoir.. NEW MEXICO Abiquiu Reservoir Conchas Reservoir Jemez Canyon Reservoir Two riivers Reservoir $159,400 $155,400 $160, 000 151,700 184,400 212.000 145,800 165,000 165,000 179, 100 143,390 170.000 176,900 183,000 126,800 152,200 160, 000 139,000 161,700 162,000 77,100 151,600 162,000 169,200 195,800 207,000 100,000 150,000 80, 200 106,100 127,000 Boundary monumentation. 1st year full maintenance. 191,000 119,300 121,200 137,000 154,800 170.000 183,000 37,300 70,000 55, 000 48, 700 4J.O0O 51.000 215 OBLIGATIONS— Continued Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1959 Explanation of major changes OKLAHOMA Canton Reservoir $171,200 FortSupply Reservoir 108.600 Great Salt Plains Reservoir 61.800 Heyburn Reservoir 103.100 Hulah Reservoir., 148.500 Oologah Dam and Reservoir -.- 201,000 Pine Creek Reservoir Wister Reservoir 125,300 TEXAS Bardwell Reservoir 104,000 Belton Reservoir 198,300 Benbrook Reservoir 139.000 Buffalo Bayou and tributaries 100,000 Canyon Reservoir 182.000 Grapevine Reservoir -. 170.600 Hords Creek Reservoir 84.400 Lavon Reservoir 189,300 Lewisville Dam - 512.000 Navarro Mills Reservoir -- 131,800 Pay Mayse Reservoir Proctor Reservoir - 145, 100 San Angelo Reservoir 119,300 Somerviile Reservoir 55,000 Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir Waco Reservoir 207,200 Scheduling reservoir operations 122, 800 Total, reservoirs 5,112,000 $163,300 134,600 78,600 131,800 169.200 247,900 185,100 5172,000 135,000 77,000 145,000 212,000 257,000 70,000 Boundary monumentation. Partial maintenance in fiscal year 1969. 208,000 Boundary monumentation fiscal year 1968 and fiscal year 1969. 127,600 127,000 226.000 188,000 190.300 190,000 183.700 142,000 206.000 233, 000 Increased operating require- ments. 187.000 192,000 100.200 114,000 205.000 213,000 241,100 249, 000 Repair riprap m fiscal year 1967. 154,400 154,000 130,000 130,000 1st year full maintenance. 184,600 160,000 172,700 157,000 132,400 152,000 70, 000 152,000 1st year full maintenance. 237.000 247,000 133.800 131,000 6,121.600 6,512,000 (6) Channel improvements, inspections, and miscellaneous maintenance. — The budget estimate of $57,000 provides for inspection of completed works and mis- cellaneous maintenance during the budget year. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes Inspection of completed works $31,200 $45,600 $45,000 Estelline Spring experimental project, Texas. _..---... 3,000 16.200 12.000 Total channel improvements, rn- spections, and miscellaneous maintenance 34,200 61.800 57.000 Total flood control 5.146,200 S.l^^S.^OO 6 569.000 3. Multiple-purpose projects including power The budget estimate of $9,412,000 for the operation and maintenance of 17 multiple-purpose projects, having a presently planned generation capacity of 1,648,000 kilowatts, provides the amount necessary for operational requirements. Annual requirements are for operation and ordinary maintenance of project facil- ities; labor, supplies, materials, and parts required for the day-by-day functioning of the projects. 216 OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes ARKANSAS Beaver Reservoir $314,800 Bull shoals Reservoir 606,300 Dardanelle Lock and Dam 540,000 Greers Ferry Reservoir 482,000 Norforl^ Reservoir 478,800 Ozark Lock and Dam MISSOURI Table Rock Reservoir 536.000 OKLAHOMA Broken Bow Reservoir.. Denison Reservoir 845,100 Eufaula Reservoir 826.000 Fort Gibson Reservoir 575, 200 Keystone Reservoir 559,500 Pensacola Reservoir.. 12,500 Robert S. Kerr lock and dam Tenklller Ferry Reservoir 410,500 TEXAS Sam Rayburn Reservoir 427,000 Whitney Reservoir _. 398,400 Total, multiple-purpose projects including power 7,012, 100 S440, 000 $578,000 Boundary monumentation and reseal roads. 648, 000 840, 000 Do. 575,000 640,000 Partial maintenance in fiscal year 1969. 606, 500 730,000 Reseal roads. 470,000 569,000 Boundary monumentation and reseal roads. 100,000 Partial maintenance in fiscal year 1969. 581,000 882, 000 904, 200 731,500 647, 400 13,700 505, 300 432,300 396, 400 700,000 Boundary monumentation and reseal roads. 230,000 Partial maintenance in fiscal year 1969. 1, 010, 000 Sedimentation survey and boundary monumentation. 962, 000 707, 000 742,000 1st year full maintenance. 13,000 200,000 Partial maintenance fiscal year 1969. 512,000 483,000 Erosion repair. 396, 000 7,833,300 9,412,000 4. Protection of navigation The budget estimate of $122,000 provides for accomplishing the work essential to tlie administration and enforcement of specific laws, enacted for the protec- tion of navigation, and project condition surveys on some projects for which maintenance is not scheduled in the budget year. OBLIGATIONS Actual, 1967 General regulatory functions,. $97,300 Project condition surveys 16,500 Total, protection of navigation 113,800 Grand total, Southwestern Divi- sion.. 22,726,900 Estimated, 1968 Estimated, 1969 Explanation of major changes $90, 000 108,800 198, 800 $97,000 25, 000 122, 000 32,839,500 31,654,000 Mr. Kir WAX. Mr. Morris 'I Mr. Morris. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Wliitten ? Mr. WHirrEN. No questions, ]Mr. Chairman. Mr. KiRWAX. Mr. Khodes i TRINITY RIVER NAVIGATION RESTUDY Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman. On page 110, the Trinity River and tributaries, Texas, advance participation on high-level bridges; you are in the middle of a study on that, are you not? 217 General Bradley. Yes, sir. jNIr. Rhodes. What does the study look like ? General Bradley. I am unable to say at this time, sir. The ques- tions we have asked relate to the savings and relate to the benefit -cost ratio, so I cannot say whether they are favorable or unfavorable. HIGH LEVTX BRIDGES Mr. Rhodes. From what little I have heard of the study, I am not at all sure that I am in favor of putting any more Federal money into raising these bridges. Let me pose this question to you. General: If Texas feels that this is a very vital part of the logical development, wouldn't they on faith, then, be willing to go ahead and raise these bridges with the idea that they would have Federal reimbursement if we do go ahead with this ship channel ? I just don't like to commit the Federal Government to building a ship channel that is still under study with the results very much in doubt. Now, if Texas wants to go ahead and bet their money on it, that is line, let them do it. But why should we be throwing the dice on the table like this ? General Bradley. The problem, I think, is twofold, sir. On their side, the State is involved in only a portion of the cost of the bridges and the Bureau of Public Roads is involved in the rest, depending upon the type of road involved. So the State is not in a position of being able to go ahead, because they are not the sole authority and sole responsible agency for building the bridges. On the other side of the question, I don't think the corps could offer them reimbursement for the costs that they incurred in the construc- tion of the high-level bridges; in the event that the barge canal were constructed at a later date. Mr. Rhodes. I agree with you. I don't suppose anybody could really offer them reimbursement. But I do think that if this committee were to put in its report that reimbursement would be made in the event that the ship channel was later authorized and built, that any prudent man would be justified in proceeding on that basis. The last word that we had was a memorandum written to Mr. Wilhelm by the Depart- ment of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, on December 13, 1967, and in that letter, I quote : Work on the study has proceeded to the point where very preliminary estimates of costs and benefits have been established. These figures indicate that the proj- ect is marginal as presently designed. Now, if it is marginal under the present rules and regulations with regard to interest, I wonder if it wouldn't be submarginal under the new rules. Because of this, I hope that the committee will verj^ seri- ously consider an offer of the type which I have outlined. That is all I have. Mr. Whitten. Mr. Davis. ARKANSAS RIVER MAIXTENAXCE AXD REPAIR FLEET Mr. Davis. I would like to ask you to address yourself to page 98, General, if you would. There are\hree notations'^ there that I woulcl like to have you tell us about in some further detail, particularly the reference there to maintenance and repair fleet and marine terminal. 218 J. would like to know how deeply the Federal Government is getting involved in developing facilities of this kind. General Bradley. Page 98 ? Mr. DA^^s. Yes. General Bradley. Sir, the maintenance and repair fleet and marine terminal referred to wonld provide for those small boats that would be used for maintenance of the lock gates, safety provision in the event there is work going on at the locks, surveys required to determine the actual status of channel depths that exist throughout the stretches of the river, and some work boats to carry on minor maintenance of a routine nature. The terminal facilities are required for mooring and at servicing these vessels at several of the points along the Arkansas Eiver. Mr. Davis. These, then, are facilities used only by the corps, then, for their purposes of continuing maintenance on future construction on the channel ? General B.r.vdley. Xot for future construction, sir. For continuous maintenance and operation of the navigation and other purposes of the project. At the four locks and dams that have hydroelectric power, there would be some requirement for boats there to take trash out of the river, to keep logs and boards from entering the intake facilities. Mr. Davis. And these facilities would be exclusively for the use of the Corps? General Bradley. Yes, sir. ARKANSAS RIVER COXTIXGEXCIES Mr. Davis. Xow, you refer to contingencies. This Arkansas liiver project, because of the uncertainty as to the conditions you are going to run into, I suppose you require a greater contingency there than you would for normal navigation and channel work, would you not ? General Bradley. I don't understand the question, sir. Mr. Davis. Isn't the Arkansas a very shifting and unstable bank area ? General Bradley. Yes, sir; it used to be. We are grjidiially getting it under control by contraction works. But there are still lots of areas where the channel will shift slightly from one side to another. DELAY IX CO:ktPLETIXG I-RIXITY RIVER BRIDGES Mr. Davis. Mr. Rhodes asked you about the Trinity River bridges. I notice that you indicate a delay of approximately 21/2 years from your earlier estimates on this. This, I suppose, is a reflection of the waiting for some of these pending studies to be completed; is that the ma j o r I'ea so n f o r t ] i i s ? (Tcneral Bradley. On the delay in completion of the bridges, sir? ]Mr. Davis. Yes. General I^radley. It would be because of our not participating at an earlier stage in the schedule contemplated by the Texas Highway Department. Mr. Davis. I have to express the same feelings that Mr. Rhodes has expressed, that this d()<>s not loolc like a very good investment for us — and by "us," I mean the Federal Go\ermnent — until the questions have been resolved relating to this overall project. I wonder if this $1 219 million is just a token or whether it does Imve some firm basis, wlietlier we know wliat we are going to be doing with it. General ]3radley. Yes,''sir; we Imow what we will do with it It would be a part of the overall estimated $12,800,000 to construct hio-h- level bridges over the proposed channel. '^ EFFECT OF INCREASED INTEREST RATE Mr. Davts. On page 127, we have the Dierks Reservoir where ap- parently actual construction has probablv been at least minimal. There is one with a 1.11-to-l benefit-to-cost ratio which, in accordance with the mtormation which Mr. Willielm presented to us, would make this a veiy questionable construction project; would it not? General Bradley. No, sir; that conclusion camiot be drawn on a rough approximation. I don't know what the change would be if the 1-percent increase was placed on this, but there is a very great dili'er- ence m the effects of interest rates on the benefit-to-cost ratios of i)roi- ects depending upon how they are formulated. For example, if water supply is a major portion of its beneiits, the interest rate would have a different effect on the benefit-to-cost ratio than if most of the benefits were future flood control. In that case, the interest rates would have a marked effect unless lands and facilities were reevaluated. So you can- not say that a 1.11 ratio would automatically be reduced by two-tenths or one-tenth or any given figure. You have to go through the project in detail and apply the new interest rate to each and every element of the cost as well as the benefits. Mr. Davis. What would be your comment based upon my same ques- tion with respect to the Optima Reservoir in Oklahoma which api'ears on page 20 ( where you had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.1 to 1 last year and now it has gone down to 1.08 to 1. _ General Bradley. I would say, sir, it, too, would have to be evaluated in detail and that an approximation could not be made with any de- gree of certitude. I might point out that the interest rate on this project was fixed at the time construction was initiated, so that the interest rate would carry throughout the construction portion of this project life, and this ])rinciple_would apply to Dierks as well. All of those projects in the construction stage would have that aspect. SAN GABRIEL RI\'ER — INCREASED COST Mr. Davis. Let me give you a chance to explain some good news on page 214 where the reservoir has had an increased benefit-to-cost ratio, the Pme Creek Reservoir. General Bradley. The price level increases in annual benefits in this instance were greater than those increases in annual charges. This has resulted m an overall increase of the benefit-to-cost ratio. ^Slr. Davis. This is something you did review, then, since the project was before us a year ago ? General Bradley. Yes, sir. This has been updated. SAN GABRIEL RI^rER-INCREASED COST Mr. Davis. At page 280, Mr. Kirwan asked you about the San Gabriel River project. We have over $6 million of increased costs 220 based on more detailed design studies and preliminary reservoir master plan studies. This probably requires some further explanation, because it does represent a 10-percent increase in the cost of the project without tak- inof into consideration increased costs. General Bradley, Sir, I would like to comment further on that to say that the three-reservoir project ]^resented in this justification data has been extensively replanned from that which you had last year because of a greatly reduced requirement on the part of the local interests for water supply storage. A major geologic changed condition has been encountered at the North Fork site which limits the elevation to which the water can be stored. Xow. for comparative purposes on the cost increase, we have reestimated the cost of the project contem- plated at the time of authorization and that estimate totals over $S6 million. This compares to the project now estimated at a cost of $61,- 500,000. So that the original project would have increased even more, sir. Now, for the $8,500,000 increase this year, this is due, as I said earlier, to price level increases, and more detailed design. Earlier we were basing the estimate on costs appi'oximated in the survey report. "We are getting into the general design memorandum stage so that we have more details as to what the physical conditions are, grovmd condi- tions, geologic conditions, and a master plan of the entire area has been developed. So we are farther along in our plamiing, and hence can give more firm cost estimates for the project features. Mr. DA^rrs. Thank you. That is all I have. CHANGE IX IXTEREST RATES Mr. Whittex. General, we thank you very much. I would like to make one comment for the record, since it was brouglit up again today. General Cassidy in his presentation yesterday dis- cussed at the committee's request the budget policy concerning the change in interest rates which may necessitate refiguring cost-benefit ratios on some pending projects. He called attention to the fact that in any reevaluation that we should take into consideration the economic, social, and environmental aspects of water development programs. I want to repeat for the record that when costs are figured higher because of the inflation which has hit our dollar, that it follows just as easily as day follows the night that the benefits figured in terms of the cheapened dollar would increase proportionately. T would hope that the Water Resources Council will give consideration to this aspect as well as the fact that no credit is now taken by corps in evaluating projects for the many indirect benefits that result from these projects. Many agencies do, as provided by the regulations, but I understand the corps computes only the direct project benefits. We wish to thank you for your appearance. General Bradley. Thank you, sir. COMMENDATION OF GENERAL BRADLEY Mr. Morris. I would like to make one comment, if I may. I want to echo what Chairman Kirwan said to you, General Bradley, which 221 may not liave been reflected in the record. I am sure that all the mem- bers of the committee wish you the very best of luck in your new assignment. Those of us who have lived in the Southwest have ap- preciated the fine work that you have done. We know where you are o-oing is probably going to be an even more challenging position than the one you now hold. I certainly appreciate all the work that you have put into our part of the country. I know that our Nation will appreciate the difficulties which you may face in this new assignment. General Bradley. Thank you, sir. I am grateful for your thought- fulness. Mr. Written. Mr. Morris gives you the thoughts of the full committee. Let us resume tomorrow at 10 o'clock, gentlemen, Thursday, March 7, 1968. SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION WITNESSES BRIG. GEN. JOHN A. B. DILLARD, DIVISION ENGINEER EDMUND A. BARRETT, ASSISTANT CHIEF, PROGRAM DEVELOP- MENT OFFICE HERBERT N. HUMPHREY, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE Mr. KiRAVAN. The committee will come to order. General, do you have a statement to make? If so, you may proceed. General Statement General Dillard. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to a])pear before this committee again this year and I welcome this opportunity to high- light some of our current activities. (Slide 1.) Last year I acquainted the committee with my general area of responsibilities, and highlighted the disparity of water re- source distribution in relation to where the people are, and illustrated the extreme variability of geological and climatic conditions, the sav- age intensity of weather events and the presence of earthquake and treacherous foundation conditions, all of which compound our tech- nical difficulties. The competitive pressures for water and land resource development in this environmental situation tends to stimulate public involvement in the planning and resolution of water resource prob- lems. We have encouraged public participation, for I believe that is the only way we can truly act in the best public interest. It does make it more difficult to resolve issues as expeditiously as we would like, however, and we are finding that some of our original study cost esti- mates are somewhat conservative. (Slide 2.) For it causes us to perform more detailed investigations and to coordinate more extensively at the survey stage, in order to resolve the more emotional and hard-to-define issues such as esthetics, recreation, fish and wildlife, and pollution, all in a time of great social and economic reappraisal. Despite this infrastructure of seeming difficulties, we have made much progress. 222 (Slide 3.) "^Vliile my mission includes civil works, military con- struction, civil defense support, and disaster operations, I will discuss only the first of these, with the objective of illustrating the great amount of direct savings they generate. (Slide 4.) Their value to our national defense. (Slide 5.) And their contribution to the economic welfare of the Xation both during and after construction, by providing jobs, stimu- lating industry and business, preventing costly disasters and the re- turning of hard dollars to the Treasury in many cases by repayment of a large portion of their initial investment costs. (Slide 6.) With the objective of improving our services to the pub- lic, sharpening our response to the needs of the various States, and to simplify our relations with the States, and other local interests in my area, we recently adjusted the District boundaries by assigiiing the upper Colorado Eiver Basin to the Sacramento district, the lower basin to the Los Angeles district, and made other minor territorial adjustments. (Slide 7.) Turning to some of the specific accomplishments in my area, there are 57 flood control and multiple-purpose projects with flood control therein, either completed or partially operational, at a Federal cost, to date, of $909 million. The total estimated Federal cost of these projects is $982 million. These projects provide flood protec- tion to nearly 4 million acres of land, which, together with develop- ments thereon have an estimated value of $24 billion. Thus far they have prevented flood damages estimated at $1,687 million. In addi- tion, they provide a dependable yield of 1,210,000 acre-feet of water to supplement existing sources of water supply for over 3 million acres of irrigated land. Dependable water supply for munici})al and indus- trial purposes now totals over 600,000 acre-feet and projects under construction will add another 117,000 acre-feet of dependable water supply for this purpose. (Slide 8.) For recreation and fish and wildlife, we have spent only $514 million to provide a total of over 65 million recreation days to date. (Slide 9.) More specifically, this is a typical unimproved channel of the Los Angeles River system during the flood of March 1938. That flood caused damages of over $40 million (1938 dollars), the loss of 49 lives and caused great economic hardship. As a result of previous fre- quent severe flooding situations, the Los Angeles County flood control project was initially authorized in 1936 and n:iodified subsequently by several Flood Control Acts. It is now nearing completion. (Slide 10.) (Typical channel.) It contains 286 miles of primary and secondary flood channels. (Slide 11.) Twenty-two debris basins. (Slide 12.) And five flood control dams, such as Sepulveda. (Slide 13.) Hansen Dam. (Slide 14.) Santa Fe Dam. (Slide 15.) Here is the same channel, previously shown in its unim- proved state in the flood of 1938, as it j^resently looks. (Slide 16.) Within the geographical area of this project, 7-plus million people live, and traverse the city in their daily work. (Slide 17.) The city of Los Angeles contributes significantly to the national economy. There are many important defense industries here 223 and it is a transportation center. Many of these key facilities would be subject to damage and activity disruption if flood protection were not provided. Los Angeles County has the largest concentration of aerospace industry in the United States. While this project is not yet physically complete, it has already prevented flood damages estimated at $486 million. The total Federal cost to date, includmg Whittier Narrows Eeser voir, is $349,500,000. (Slide 18.) In addition to performing its primary function of flood control, Whittier Narrows Dam, shown here, and Hansen Dam, both integral to this system, are operated in close cooperation with the Los Angeles Comity Flood Control District for regulation of Colorado River water into locally (Slide 19.) Constructed ground water recharge facilities. (Slide 20.) Last year I described how the Success Dam on the Tule River near Porterville, Calif. — constructed at a cost of $14 million — prevented more than $10 million in flood damages during one 24-hour storai. (Slide 21.) Although my entire division area is subject to cloud- burst t;ype storms, it is subject also to snowmelt type floods from the High Sierra. (Slide 22.) Last spring the heaviest snow pack since 1906 occurred in these moimtains and a warm rain increased the normal rate of run- off. Success Dam ( Slide 23. ) Its sister dams, Isabella ( Slide 24. ) Terminus (Slide 25.) And Pine Flat, operating as a system during the spring snowmelt runoff prevented an estimated $23 million in damages to the cities of Visalia, Porterville, Fresno, and Bakersfield, Calif., and hundreds of thousands of acres of prime agricultural land in the Cen- tral Valley. During the rain floods of the previous December, damage prevented to this same region totaled about $92 million, or a total accountable savings, through damages prevented, of $115 million for this system. These four dams were constructed at a total Federal cost of $95 million. ( Slide 26.) It may be interesting to know that we raised the spillway at both Terminus and Success Dams with sandbags a few days before the peak of this miusually heavy snowmelt, at a cost of $25,000 for placement and removal, which provided additional storage of 21,000 acre- feet, thus permitting harvesting of a barley crop, estimated at $300,000 in value, during this critical 10-day period. (Slide 27.) Many of our local protection projects, such as Redwood Creek, near Orick, Calif. (Slide 28.) Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, Calif., and (Slide 29.) San Lorenzo Creek in Alameda County, Calif. ( Slide 30.) The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Levees of California. (Slide 31.) Whitlow Ranch Dam in Arizona. (Slide 32.) The Tucson Diversion project in Arizona, and Mathews Dam, near Las Vegas, Nev., have repeatedly prevented many millions of dollars in flood damages, although some of them are not yet com- pleted. (Slide 33.) This is the comjDleted Coyote Dam and Lake Mendocino on the Russian River, which, in addition to providing flood protection 91-459— 68— pt. 1 15 224 and recreation, furnishes municipal and industrial water storage for Marin and Sonoma Counties. (Slide 34.) Also in my division Ave have under construction three multiple-purpose projects : New Melones Dam near Sacramento, Calif., shown by this model ; Martis Creek Dam near Keno, Nev. ; and Warm Springs Dam on the Russian River, Calif.; and one single-purpose reservoir project, the Mojave River Dam near Victorville, Calif., for flood control. (Slide 35.) Two years ago Alamo Dam on the Bill Williams River, Ariz., looked like this. (Slide 36.) We have recently completed the Alamo Dam at a cost just over $14 million. This dam will furnish flood protection to down- stream ranches, and permit ground water recharge, as will the Mojave River Dam, Calif., as an incidental, but vital benefit. (Slide 37.) Thirty-four navigation projects have been completed, or are partially operational in my division area. The estimated total cost of these projects is $156,645,000, of which $147,910,000 have been spent to date. The total average annual waterborne commerce on these waterways is about 90,500,000 tons annually, and is increasing, (Slide 38.) Along the 1,200 miles of ocean shoreline in my division are a number of Federal navigation projects which provide protected berthing facilities for about 36,300 pleasure and fishing craft. (Slide 39.) All deep draft channels are used for shipments of large quantities of military supplies, and some have shipyard repair facilities. (Slide 40.) Large naval bases are located in San Diego Harbor (Slide41.) Long Beach Harbor i (Slide 42.) Mare Island (Slide 43.) And Alameda Naval Air Station in the San Francisco Bay Harbor complex. ( Slide 44.) The Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor is the largest man- made harbor in the United States. The corps development activities began here in 1871 (Slide 45.) And the 8i/^-mile breakwater was constructed at a Fed- eral cost of $17 million. It is the busiest harbor complex on the west coast, and the lOth most active in North America. During 1967, water- borne commerce amounted to 37,300,000 tons. (Slide 46.) The Sacramento Port facilities lie at the east end of the — - (Slide 47.) Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel. This project has been made operationally complete, at a Federal cost to date of $39.4 million. Deep-draft traffic increased from 340,500 tons in 1964, tlie first full year of project operation, to slightly over 1 million tons in 1967. _ (Slide 48.) Ship traffic in this channel passes the large Naval Am- munition Depot at Port Chicago in Suisun Bay, which handles 70 percent of the ammunition used in Vietnam. (Slide 49.) Somewhat typical of small craft harbors along the coast is Dana Point Harbor, now imder construction in Orange County, Calif., at a Federal cost of $4,604,000. It is 72 percent complete and will harbor 2,150 small craft when fully developed. It will also serve as a search and rescue base for the El Toro Marine Air Base-, located close by. The Federal cost of coastal small craft harbor construction to ^225 date is approximately $80 million. These projects provide base points for 20 million man-water days annually for recreation and commer- cial fishing as well as providing harbors of refuge against unexpected sea and weather events. (Slide 50.) There are many miles of improved beaches which are constantly under attack by the ocean, such as this one at (Slide 51.) Ventura, and many rugged areas subject to erosion. (Slide 52.) Such as Sunset Cliff Sj near San Diego. (Slide 53.) To date we have eight beach erosion control projects partially operational by the construction of 55 miles of shoreline miprovements, and we are now constructing the Newport Beach project. (Slide 51.) This beach area has been savagely attacked each year, and in September 1967, had eroded to the point where the entire com- munity was in great danger of major damage. The estimated Federal cost of this project is $320,000. (Slide 55.) In my area, 99 projects of all types of 136 authorized for construction are either complete, and typified by Painted Rock Dam, Ariz., or partially operational at a Federal expenditure to date of Sl,or,0 million. An additional expenditure of about $91 million is required to complete these projects. (Slide 56.) The remaining projects are either under construction, in the planning stage, or ready for initiation of planning. Federal expenditure to date on this group amounts to $24.5 million with a bal- ance to complete totaling another $900 million. (Slide 57.) Under the general investigations program we have 85 active studies with an estimated cost of $31,200,000, of which $14,700,- 000 have been expended to date. In addition, 30 studies having an esti- mated cost of $9,700,000 have not yet been started. This is the upper portion of Walnut Creek, one of our study areas. (Slide 58.) Wliile our authorized and planned projects, if funded now, would come close to meeting current needs, the needs for the next 50 years or so will multiply greatly, due primarily to the rapid popu- lation growth in the Pacific Southwest, reflected by this slide showing housing, industry, transportation beginning to crowd the lower portion of Walnut Creek. (Slide 59.) Included in the President's fiscal year 1969 budget re- quest are funds to initiate construction of the Winslow, Ariz., local protection project. (Slide 60.) To initiate reimbursement for the Federal share of the cost of New Don Pedro multiple-purpose dam under construction by local interests. (Slide 61.) And to initiate planning on Pajaro River. (Slide 62.) Sonoma Creek. (Slide 63.) And San Diego River and Mission Valley flood control projects. These projects will provide flood protection to 44,125 acres of land, which, together mth developments thereon, have an estimated value of $366,400,000. Total estimated Federal cost of these projects is $51,000,000 and total average annual benefits are estimated at $3,930,000. (Slide 64.) Mr. Chainnan, I hope my brief account of some of the Corps' activities and typical accomplishments in water resource and associated land development in tlie West will be helpful to you and the 226 members of the committee. I shall try to answer your questions regard- ing the President's budget proposals in this regard. Mr. Klrwan". Does that complete your statement ? General Dillard. Yes, sir. General Investigations Mr. KiRWAN. A total of $3,773,000 is budgeted for general investiga- tions by the Division, an increase of $856,000 over 1968. (The justifications follows:) 227 < Ph K H O CO 3 O ^^ .2 « 2^ ^5 . GO '-^ ;-< ^ •^1 CO C-i ^ bO ^.S o.S •-5 2 O^ to -t^ 2c ao m tc r- 00" TO w ^^to O":;;-— - ._ ro o o c-o— - ° m< " §-=£ — "Em.E^D-E-e-SS o = = g.o £0 „S §5 ° |to |-S ^o o;='0 ^'■^ 2: to roc ^^^ C/5 -00 ZiCC o'_^-^ « OJ *;J e?-^ "o ^ g o o "c '•= "" E i; " ra <=■"= <^ 2 o o. SH- I'S "S = m = ^ ° •- s<;?E;^^-g S-s E"55-^ ^ " ro oo"^ trt' : "i-s^ o <" " TO.E > \^ 0: cQ- :~= " o roJ2"'o c E^-^ " > E o^— - S o 5 t=2 ra^ -co . - 1 I- M ij 'CJ O O 03*0 ® t- CT3C3C3-^ = t: ? — ® = s •2 «,^ j|j2 — ■2 2^ i2 ™ »« o Ets o toLU ^ Q. ^— .;•= i o — cj EH-E->>.^| a> ' ^ JHQl ^ TO o > *- _ 2--5^S5S2?^-5 => S ^ 1 S.£ O c oj O -•:;; Q. ^ CO *^ ai ) *^ o o * ; c '^ "^ ^ 5 03 «) ,^ ' c: CD S — *- ^ '-^ "2dP ''^^S^g^iD^i^fS' ^ ra ZI — oj >-_= oS = --- 5o£^.o-=5 ;^o$l-sS^oE;^g^.| j3 :-^E--;5-.ES£.p I O O "^ = " 3 to '^ -- ° DO ' - .Q «J OJ 3 ^ -i-i oo: o o -r; ,' n: o — .2P.2; 1 .E^'-5£-2cEQ-§§. ; gQ.!2 ra S.SSS ra.H,£ ^ CD £ o o-ra-t-S ^ cr=J-Q :£ c2= ^^^ >^aJS .=•* s.e'q.e— o'e'-g >-ro £ E § Q.S-E - •ao-^EoE-Oc.*-'ro l-rrO CO-" £C3 ,.i = ra '^-iS ' o c E^T3 a> c CO ■o o"a ■°1 E.E E Ec-o 5" S £ 2 E£-Sl g2yi;feoo„ SlS.2 lE-s-ilE-B.s^l.M-esl.s- £ o r"-^ 5 = 1" = ="° S^S. ■■^^-STO^TOOO^g) J _o 03 -I-, ~ E '^ _ ^ TO c a.-a L. ^ CO •'=' y ^ ^~ O0-- C!.o«iJ*-STOroCc""i=c.E!^ TO!zt;c"=^,„P-5 — *-E:S2J 5 Soo'^"° = c p S ^-S^ o3 > "5 -TOg^ co-^"^ i St: "— STOTO--_-"'"ro05"*-cS ES."?^ >-2 Saii; ^ro S.o TO'SE£o-St)'-^^-'5°S"=S"TOlca,*^E>-£t:g>-o^>-.— TO ; O Q-* ■n E £ TO = ;£Ese _ c :=. „ ., E o - -o „ = ^ : E^-al 5 _ '5. oJ — - ^ „ o^- ■t:S.-s>;|=|gi|x|; o ° >? -S >s-w — t — ~ c Q."~ TOTOc.bro-^oS." = - ^ i^ ° gg ■--! S-i o I ?o TO^ Eo| ° c.|:^-S TO.o:« IfTOp-^^ ^ill ^Q^3i.l ^S^i^"^ g "^ -^ S J5 E ' §ziS s"= s " <„ ^ !•- s s I as g s^ g e ££| sf- =CT.^ i - g o-= = .2.£ £-5Kj2.£ s M- 5 ^.-H 1^2 y-g^ g5 o2 °| ^TO l^'^^-.^i |"5|:5;S.o "? i:S--g^g.s >>S)S~ J 5. TO. TO _^ 07:3 J<^ >,.□■£ E = ^™ >j ^_- — uj --. cj^-— ;^ w -OTO = ^~~SE _ TO °--o£g"^ iSo"oTOO.cg;^^g ,^-S'IS TOgc""^t;0?°-°"S2p=OtM< ""iC- 1 1 g^-5 to':!-^ S S H"! S S| = piS S si sf f - £ s " °l I i.|j "^"s- s s 3.M5-5 ".s a^'-g^ s^tf s s-s "-co 2^2'^ g cu it'i "i; "" a-si- °.E °-iJ'=2-5 ■" s.^ s'i -'-2 e o> s- 2 II ?i-^is g||5:^^| s |§ S ri s g |£ o-i g g|-| s e^|e s?i-= ;.-t.E ^il sf -i^s | S oaa>^S^o£-5B o.E =S^-S£^Su: g^ 3^5.= E S-E 5.E oo^-S.E m° £ g-.o.£ a5S-S.§ q.c £ E.S o ■ oj -^^ ~ 2 S 1 E ^ §- ^"o to CO 230 ao ro c m • « .-r; ^T3 S = « QO OJC 0} I :CD : I OIL E jf .E™1e loo y^"o5 -.•*•—. "**= o ;<.9o".-t;i i£Q- 5 2 ' s-p-pc^s: i- in 3 |e|||o' s i ? s ^£ |;;;-|Ej 3|- TO O-iJ^ ■°Ie^I CQ<^2n,E.-a So- S .2 >> CD -u> O O 5fH 43 c o t- o S2 g =3 O o "^ Ro 5 ST o >- S ^ o a; ^ s c c , O (^ T* ^ ^ ^ o S" -u .2 ^- — * -^ OT3 C ^ . • = fe C T3 1 ° Q. m ^"'OQ £i ■" o ' _ _ ^^'^ OOCNj" Qj ^ > f£52£ 5 y ^f^ oocsT Q, o E P -O "u !5.= i =0 - ! 1 TOM— |o ' - O - Q. c p „ ^ Q) - ro 0.0 -S-2e5o.ee = "21-11-1 > O.C TO — ^00 : 231 •So i f E i Eo ™2;re-a:S-"S-^ - to - oj = -a- ' ,. TO u- ■" -a — S;^ TO 2^ , 2i; lO o' 00 cu »- m <1J CU-r-iC^ TO '^ I >-S g Q.S C " ° £ go'-^.E =.s CO oS"o 1 3 2^ s-i>-g n TO-5 |.i r: i ifss"^ ^| ::^^^'^ sf.i ;tg ^ sf5 |s |§^-'-s 00 lis g I £1^- ^1 = >,.§ a^ TO °^o i-s '■!= „= S<'So°-".y 5 eS— = S5t;a.C3=-^-=TOOoO'ocoC"S„M 0| ^^ oj a> ■ i 00 oj 5 ? t o " s I i " DO 'il^f^l ^ So O J2 TO o "^_o o ■>^ a>-!= Mg E^j • >o o^ 0)^0 0-5 eI"-?°^- 5o> ofl .E TO ja -Owe .5 .5 S)-^ m5 o 5w.E:5 cl_jo-^ o ^ >xi « "to o „ _ - QO O) 3 — ^ E g'^ra = £ 232 S = CO .> o a3g- ■Jo's ^"3 ■" Sis'" _0 O Q, .^ OJ.: . nog TO 2 -, =.,— r- - - _^ =£ mS ;fu-3=Sg^"gESt;.£t 'O to 03 3 •CD ' PS - I TO TO S-*^^ E:2 : £^ 5 ^ s E t^i^-o'-^^ TO-2 ~o oo £; ^ n. ^ TO^' = ■2 g- o- ^ — jr " E ^"° S ■= " , Si"-5 E STO^-2-E|S,g.i.E*. .E2i'2.>5"^"S2TOj. — = o"° ^:S ^'>- P'Zo cu Dii: £ g TO ^-s'-^"£ |o = ^( J2 *^C7^ EO _ _ "O-oS O *" — CO Dfl , TO S g E 3 "to ?■ O _£3 (U 03 tU Z3 o> ^ c E. ■? E-5 1 djd:£ tD — o'S "* "^^ ^ TO aijzi-S's-^ Es o'i-5 '" --Too " S-J"° o I S S'S'" °- *'"f,_^|-34-5 = TO^-5io = o i E to" ro^ E s ti) -^ §-"0 o o.E o 9f J f^.— •— c o oj o ?;. |-^2to^|°-=.'S o g S-d"to ™ J g;c E S £ = = '~ Ei — >-"gu-> a)T3». 2 Q- o = om J'-S "c § XI CT-5= — ' S g c o _ TOSa)-?;p Q) 2 o ^ o >." Eg £ o) o_g i; jj 03 >;-o g g-D Q_ 2"P'^"0 £'o'o <^ <"SSSto™-3sI £ ttif'- t, o H >- ^>0 m E *" 9f-2->*Q.'^ '^goi^S-^.E^S^ ■SS'^oSe|°S2 s = !So~ °P >= £ £ ^ 03 li; ooo „ ^ z; ■- S Sj^ "= ER. g^-o = I S ■jr: t\j(T:toxio=i:oi: "- OTafeS-cjc^t^coQ-t/j 233 o l.E2-iii x: a) o!^^— S 2 S O) a.^ '"Pa, ■— 'eo-S' °^- '^ — 5 r^ r? "c ! x; — !D c aJ ° d i ■"" 3i — -S m coOoo— - C2.Q3 7^ 2"t::;^^-« a>'a oxi S =1 Q.-S 5 g E *"§ ^ =■= '=•5; ■K 2— ^ E £ S ra 5~ — -Sroo'E'S " .2 ^-S = = s « £? "i-g sis S ..-^ ".= ■5" £ ° g 0.2 „ '^ " g.^lS S £ £ = -Sg: E l| a-|- iIIe^e-IIi" 12=!=^ Is: "-■5 ,^ 2 o '^ '5 ' o ajJ - w c >j^ - ; S-= c= E £ ro oj "J a>-5;-- o^ = ^^o o , "55 •K StO ><§ g-"^ 5 ^ s?--=^.°-S "SS"? - — o._ -> (K'o ,2 "^ "•- £'= S o ra o tuo.E o f rpQ ^ ^ -O = ; = . cJSooii-o — "■ogi ,j.i>Ei.-^ ; bOTOo" Q..9 ^ _ =3 fl^ O O < — .0 ^ °*^ CO S'*" ^ ^ ' ;.E g g-o S 5 • ^"""^ Et3 O ca o =-5toJ^-z.y oo, =;^ j--^ CO.Q o (dct)'^ o »-'ir ^ ^■— .= "i-^ = l£-s5S_s|f (o °^:^'~ ro<5'o_:g > a> _ S ^^ 1 O) o)'5.0 ra = TO -^ "= j= f'^ "o 't! E S TO E roO.™_- = o " E c ra'>o : McD o ; r§ Eg-D o oo 2^7, j^--^~o"Sg-: i"5ii=£ ".E^ £ = rgSS^S-g£S"Su5:^oo^, ^ o 2 >"^ ;'SS^-«ESSI c c .*_ TO .t; < g 2? g 5^ !S^ = ^ O c 03 03 -^Ji >,'5) -o T3 — -o J-Sm>sS,|S£-| E-— 'o^j= ajOoJI^ to !5'.::;5a3 = >>25 = = S-pSji^SE-S _ O Q. ^ c:Ou^~tD£j.ro.bp-E_=Q. a-2 S E.= -°== c E C3 oii^ 03"° E' o o ^- ■^^ CI _ <= '= 235 ro crE-^-^£ro2^ rot; U3 E o ro QO oo 5 " - o — oc O— o j2 5 _ <£,Eg^.E£ « oj c f^ 2f - 2""C> ro"=. ■- o— <« P.i 2' ; = E - uj '(DCS - ^^ ._ CD CD .Eg -5^-°: 5 (£) o''^ — ■ - CTi CD . ^ iS'g-^-sS^gg.E^g^S " etc S ^^-.Eg^s; ?SS-E^g| .. T. oj _. o) -D y c c ■ r- ■ -"-C - _ So fc = .2io'° c o-E"3 CO c ^ wO ro S'So-S'^S^ |^^isi~>o^.E _2 |lfll|ilii.i , Q.^ o ."DC Q-tD ro Q. ,0.0 0)^ =£'~r-~i£ _ • re Q.CO 3wt;.5cS2'SS n = XI >^"^ JIlTO^^>-ro = P "do 2 ~ "' " ,^..„_.-^.,., „ - - = ronog"-S^^-i ii° llll-sP.il i :'f |tl^is£| il. ' „ i "*. TO Z ■£ ^ ^ " S !° ^ ' ™== '£o"-£'~"-c=°--S" ;S— i"2(/5°a)'trcs; S., :.ES^c = Ec\i'=s^'"o;' 3C0CC ■^ E ' ^ ' " i |.E g " ■ ■■=o-.e: ' OJ g-.ES =»; 0_ = C TO o. !So "°§ = ls:;.i:iE-= = <:?e2S£2SS3^s . « .»~^nicc:^ro ^o ■5sr;--^i-i5E£== SigTOo.EjS-^'^- : 00 o , gbe- ' S — £90 ro It ai< _ J E £ ^^ 30 o -a ^ 5 = '^ " ~ — " " 'ro us XI o ^ o c/5 — a)_roo_g-53 S; S 2 ™ QirT" 3 °° ™ -^ g_£;::;^^ 5 oj o'K 2«-2t^ S.S Sr ro o E : CUD c So: = .2 coS-^g-J2-gS£,SJ3=:2 = : 3-a'E E Q) g_Q; i 6- .gcsj-^ t-n oO g ^|Q 0-0^:2=5 ro g ^ " ~ -2 — 3 ai c Si E -2 - ■" S — M != °"-0 - ; £ 2 ^|f i |£| -- J I °5 lis ^-^ g^-2^-i^c:?-^.E.Ec:?;^.s.5; : ...c/0 S S^ E g= "^ g 2 e.^t^g >''"g-£gS-K"=|^Sfl-SE-Eg--Sa>. ;™ S(;?i-.^= SS5- 2f D-o ^-.!2.E £ e5^ S; ro = o5 °5°S = .5.E£: -^ = c: ,-dS CT) c«o M 236 ra-^ raoo s St: w ■a o a> ca -a "♦; 0) o E-o o ? =-2 2c^ E ; c - « iijaco ^ o*j js*' o a. I CO ™ ™ „ S,^= <" c =^^.t _ 'do , o£ o ■£e° ^j^_J-=£j2<"E°i= 3 — 1 c 2"^ 1 =3 I E££-° -Is-e^ ™ V. S^^ S g.(/5 „ .y -g ■;; S-Q-v, S'B-'-a"oa) "^^ Sa)°E=-a (o £ c "^ OJ =^ 5* ^ -o 'T' ° E a, S E >" .5 P, S "^ "!. OJ S ^- _- — S J^ o "^ 5 c O C ^ 3 _- c^ CO -U -S : .2 Q, a." or: — ='*" TO P 1/1 C-O **5 JI^ T1 o o *" ^ — O - I 2^ oj-S •5 ro o a) 0.3=3 ; S"^ Q.-S O C c > . p S-" "Jo"" " = ""^^1 ic-'^-Si- ^^^-^-e.S-siSc-sj- "c o .-t; .»_, '^ ■ 5 ° „ OJ- I'S-B : i2 o CL : S ZJCT) ?£ g.g.co.E c/'-^'^ 2 ro c °-"5 ".2 o. S >.- " £-■.!= ""-i? E ^y~ "-£.2 (/5 „ „, -a 3-t; 00 5 o'l o > -o GOco "O ra w J= S crgto 5 o ^ E ' => 2^ ° oi- o '"°-S ! B'^~ > 2 o ^ 'o 237 ao = w E-^-2 CZ-.S ""S °<^ "=° o -S S w PCD.. S SS 3^C 1 = i 5S-a ra ™ ° " I TO — "" ■" '^■•^ S >< 2 ^ ■— "^ 2 ° ° ; ° = F QD-= S o) '"«'=^— -.E .2^ IS- ^^ '"b* i£.S £-E~ < i^-f a>s'i^=' CO*;.— a>° o^-°~'5 S -"^ -S'>^EgoSS;^-S;.E5-ag-ls .■-=.=; o-o " "- J^ ill = § s£l.E^ ; sf -- Is^s §^ o .-.=■= s- s iJ^r' Q-^ o— ' I "3.— 0) -o 1- a>:— ^ I Q-ts £ o; c «>^ ' OJ o^ o _ I .E ^ — ^ SP- s 3IIo>52 cP<=>= c" % "£Sr « So s-s -J.E2 S 3 — . -^ o Q-^-oo" 2f o -5" - o u p.ra c = '^■z5°-tJ-S OJ s-r; o =^— J2^ --TO =ti 2 TO a CLcn c c O TO en Q. O > 3 t^ c "O o t/T Wl *" c £ c^-o — ^.Eoo." *- o-P ^5 c-S-o fe "csj-_co ?"£=>£ g-S to TO-££ 3 0)-:: ■; x^p ^"O J 3 1 Q o 1 : o.' - ^ S ' oc •. 007 3-tr t: ao; P m— ( w -^ _, ..c:i"li.'2 = -^ 2 o"2 c — , —I: o Q.P «_]Si2 Ml— Q:£.ii TO QQq.3to IsJIs 1 ^f toS li^ «.i J^ i g f = s^ 1 1=1 El :.E eStoSs; i-^iiiot iOOCQ.P , ■■^ m— ' — OJ ^ ■;^ O (/) Q. O.*- •— Eco'-ra2°°EP><- Q:: 238 c^ o to 2 £ " em to 5 3- .2S a>_ 1^1" ^ i^ Mul ■- i = j^ .E-^c i ^J-^'c O QJ DO— • ^ IT "Hi — Q)^tJO-^3J> c S S „,=>•= -0) E tj _ gjoi— >,?; r^ 3 a E ^ S S ZZ Z^ eJ^ z ■il'^ii-f- oE.„§>-j:^:t:^=S -D 3.^ ♦- ; ■--= 5- -S E e:. 5; . K 50= o (D-D.-t; JO': I O o c- "SE-i to c OJ TO E ^-c ^t ^i.E:e^ E3 •— £ t;C "^ o Q- M o 2; *=- E't ^S^r -"^ "^ ^ = ' ■= s P :<.2 .2 o •^E : 1 -S^-S TO^^ ; *- >- O GO- 0.^0X3 a 6 °-- ^*-gg.E|'2-2.||& 5 cr^ c aj 2f TO Q-co£n Oo??-=x??tr„ES, .■P.o a> eoEgs;-£-- :-i'-5^ iEgS R "5 E Q-'j; o) ^ o -= T-r ^, ': iliSsll^'lll ; — o la^^E™ ■ m§ sis 239 o o ^-^ ic: — ra — -r= _ "" ro = s''^ « ^ fe = ■= ex o d s. 3 o o 1 3 O £ w ra o O "to to o Q. c QQ X! o — OJ ., ■ i ™ 03 Q- ao _q; — ;o o a. z £ 1 1 o 5 no i o ■a S o Q. O 1 o o ^ TO o ra ^ 0) i o o o m "o So o' S o i -9 X £ '-a 5= o c 1 CO E 8 O c i o T3 o a. 3 "g E .9 £ „-^ ; > cup ro =<^5 , s^E'^g re iXs; •a iz-:: c ' O 3 DjO-;t o o ro "" ; ' ° = s CT> _ "co c 0} m o 03 >^ "O Q. -o E s ■B -55 d .. *- O w O 73 m ■^ ™ _o ^*' bC^ "to — S !» CO =-i a; o'~' to ^H .2 °* 3 S T3 CO _o >» 3 ^ < -1 Q^ 1^ .2 i- iD tC Q. OJ ■S^ O ffltO 4^^ •^ ocy> O !3 ir O <■" fl';3 O c3 TD -^ S Z-" ,ll <" „> 2^ OLu 1- ■^ s ^H o ,c *« » eS It a si, -^^ "•-' S .rH O O IB §S o^^ o P ^p^ ■a °< S3 ra g ro.5 eJ S"-^ = 5-^»- ra E ° a>-S^ o != «= a, = E ro a^ .2 " ;= J3 O) c ^ 1 ■a D-^ raj — -w 03 — xa »- c ' ■- "^ " S ■" -^ <"" i " s-d'2 I s o : a>^ = a) o_g — i'.fg£gS-.5-sS-- = t, °SS=->.E.E^J|„ •D^T35raa>£_-t;ro°° 3t-§^-a E = S ™-j-°° .5-ac = 'Q >,'3x CLQ.'^ CQ S£ 5u. (O 2!i0 _ o)- T3 o a> 5 ■S 3««n t» i- to ".2 nio> K?-H 2 w 2 X E ra o „- S c ■" LK>".9iE^^ ■o-n >?-i: ^ ^ ■=:h 5S ro 3 S 1 S 5 miS CO " '^o OJ TO ■"^-5 c= ; O £ O = ^ ra ;S : sE-oj=.Eo ■4-3 CO CO 5 m EH T3 S S O CT' CD 0) CO ;- O) CO Sd •" O §^ t3 «4-l 3 O 43 CO S S3 M s a CO o Z3 ■« § is ■» O fl T3 <» c3 St 3 241 ra i.l ^8'i ^•S-^'S 5-= "2 "•s '" ""t!! ° ° 2-0 5 c " — " CL = TO .2 "^ _ D0>,o c ° S '^ E 15 *r 5 m |TO|ge5^s-°a.g|o o^" "IsZ E •seT'S-S § 1 U9 co" '^ «r O o o k' ro" m o o m s CM o O s lo" m" irT § 1 o> o" CM 242 STATUS OF SUR\'ET PROGRAM ]Mr. KiRWAN. Is your present investigations progi-am on schedule? General Dlllard. Yes, sir. PERSOXNEL VACANCIES ]Mr. KiRWAx. To "svhat extent do you have vacancies in your in- vestigative staff ? General Dillard. In my division, including the district offices with responsibility relating to the planning efforts of the general investiga- tions program, Ave have at this time 30 vacancies. In my headquarters, there are four planning vacancies out of an authorized staff of 22. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (IN-DEPTH STUDY) Mr. KiRWAN. On page 6, $25,000 is requested to initiate a new "in- depth study" of the San Francisco Bay area at a total estimated cost of $4,500,000. Please describe what is planned with this study. General Dillard. This study will provide a comprehensive approach to the San Francisco Bay area development problems. A detailed and in-depth investigation and research program will be undertaken con- sidermg the overall program as to the need for and time for action re- lating to the area, the Nation, and part of the world. The scope of the study illustrates a broadened concept in planning. Tlie overview which this study will provide has for some time, we think, been urgently re- quired so that alternative means of development can be analyzed and a realistic long-range master plan developed. This study is aimed pri- marily at handling cargo and navigation and port transportation problems far into the future. Mr. KiRWAN. What has been expended to date for navigation study of the San Francisco Bay area and why is it necessary to expend such a large amount on a new studv ? General Dillard. The cost of the San Francisco Bay study, includ- ing the cost of the model, has been $4,110,000. This study, Mr. Chair- man, is a takeoff from the former study. I think the former study will perform a valuable knowledge platform to begin this one, but the two are for entirely different purposes. NAVIGATION DEPTHS Mr. KiRWAN. Wliat is the depth of the j^resent channels and what additional depth would be considered under the study :■ General Dillard. In the San Francisco Bay area, sir, the existing project depths are 50 feet at the bar, 35 feet in the channel leading up to Suisun Bay, and 30 feet up to Stockton. At the present time we ha\'e no specific additional depths in mind. Deepening of present channels to accommodate the demands of future commerce will be examined during the course of the survey as will other alternatives for improve- ment of navigation, including consideration of various types of off'- shore unloading facilities and cargo-handling systems. 243 ELEMENTS OF STUDY Mr. KiRWAN. One of the elements of the study would be "recom- mending improvement in harbor and industrial operations and devel- opment through improved coordination in programing, including so- licitation, market research, public relations, advertising, and long-term planning." ^Vhy is this an appropriate role for study by the Corps of Engi- neers ? General Dillard. Well this is a detailed and in-depth investigation and actually a research program will be undertaken. One of the pur- poses of the study, perhaps the primary purpose of the study, would be to determine the Federal interest in the overview, the long range. The end result of this study may well be the setting forth of guidelines affecting various components of the transportation system relating to waterborne commerce rather than making definite recommendations for specific improvements in Federal projects in the interest of navigation. USE OF CONSULTANTS ]\Ir. KiRWAN. Would this stud}' be performed by corps personnel or would it be handled under contract ? General Dillard. It would be managed by the corps. We will un- doubtedly require the services of one or more consulting firms. COALINGA stream group, CALIFORNIA Mr. KiRWAN. On page 9, $10,000 is requested to initiate a new flood control study of the Coalinga Stream group in California. What is the urgency for undertakmg this study ? General Dillard. The urgency of this study is related to the fact that it is an area drained by streams with inadequate channel capacity to handle floodwaters generated by even small storms. Portions of the area have been flooded three times in the past 5 years and if major storms occurred, extensive damage to the cities of Coalinga and Huron Avould result. EEL RI\'ER, CALIF. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 10, the cost of the Eel River study in Cali- fornia has been increased from $1,020,000 to $1,415,000 since last year. What accounts for this large increase in the study cost ? General Dillard. This increase in cost is entirely due to the needs for additional geologic explorations and topographic surA'eys on Sequoia and Bell Springs damsites or alternatives on the main Eel River and system analysis required in the formulaition of a comprehensive plar» NORTHERN CALIFORNIA STREAMS Mr. KiRWAN. Again, on page 11, the cost of the Northern California Streams study has been increased by $433,000, or about one-third since last year. Wliy has this been necessary? General Dillard. Last year the increase resulted from the need to investigate more of the potential damsites in Northern California and 244 this year we combined two studies, adding the cost of the Sacramento Eiver and Butte Basin study to this one, which accounts for $365,000 of the apparent increase. The remainder of the increase is due to Federal salary increases. PAJARO RIVER, CALIF. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 13, $30,000 is requested to initiate a review of previous findings in the Pajaro River area in California. What is the justification for undertaking this review? General Dillard. This study area is located about 75 miles south of San Francisco and comprises an area of 1,300 square miles in portions of Santa Clara, San Benito, Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. The current water supply needs in this area are being met by pumping from the underground basin, and salt water intrusion has become a problem in the lower basin. Studies completed in 1965 indicated that a dam on Uvas Creek, Gilroy Reservoir, was economically justified and would best serve the flood control, water supply, and recreation needs of the area. However, this did not consummate in a project and the local interests planned to get their industrial and municipal water from the Bureau of Reclamation's San Felipe project. Subsequently it has been determined this project cannot deliver water at competitive prices. Consequently, the local interests are very anxious that we resume this study to assist them in overcoming their water problems. PETALUMA RIVER, CALIF. Mr. KiRWAisr. On page 14, $30,000 is requested to continue the sur- vey of the Petaluma River in California, initiated with funds included in tlie bill last year by the Senate. Please describe this study. General Dillard. Petaluma River is located about 45 miles north of San Francisco and drains approximately 146 square miles. The basin is devoted primarily to agriculture and light industry. However, the area is undergoing an increasing rate of urban development. Popu- lation of the principal community of Petaluma was 28,000 in 1966 and is expected to approximately double by the year 1980. Flood damages from six major floods during the period 1935-55 have averaged $150,000. In 1960 a reconnaissance report completed under Public Law 685 considered small flood control dams. Since the plan which could be proposed under this limited authority would provide only a partial solution to the problem, a full-scale survey is required in order to formulate a plan to protect the entire area. SALINAS RIVER, CALIF. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 15, $10,000 is budgeted to initiate a new study of the Salinas River in California at a cost of $227,000. What is the purpose of this proposed study? General Dillard. The purpose of this study is to investigate the feasibility of providing levee and cliannel improvements and multi- purpose reservoirs to serve the basin, sir. 245 SANTA ANA AND ORANGE COUNTY, CALIT. Mr. Ktrwan. On page 18, the cost of the Santa Ana Eiver and Orange County study in California has been increased from $940,000 to $2,375,000. That is quite a jump. What is the explanation for this large increase in study cost ? General Dillard. The primary cause, Mr. Chairman, of this increase stems from the increased study requirements arising from the recently completed plan of survey which clearly illustrates conditions in the area have changed. A comprehensive review of the functional adequacy of existing fa- cilities is necessary, in conjunction with (a) detailed studies of four additional reservoirs and nine alternate reservoirs (in lieu of the au- thorized San Juan and Trabuco Reservoirs), entailing subsurface ex- ploration at the survey stage for foundation conditions due to seismic conditions; and (b) the necessity to consider in addition to flood con- trol, problems of recreation and water supply, including ground water recharge and possible storage of imported water, in a rapidly urban- izing area. In such an area the detailed economic and hydrologic evaluations leading to project formulation are particularly difficult since the problems are compounded on almost a daily basis. Accord- ingly, although much work has been accomplished over the years by both the Federal Government and local interests, it has been relatively piecemeal as conditions demanded treatment. Now that we can visual- ize rather accurately the ultimate development in the basin we see a need for at least four interim reports and one final report, with full realization that the rapid development taking place in the basin may require a subsequent change in priority. We consider that the intent of the basic authorization is that we address the total problems of the basin, however, until the plan of survey was completed, the true scope of the situation was illusive. In the interim we were busy addressing the most critical local flood control problems, by separate reports and overcoming the problems by separate projects. The projects com- pleted as a result of those reports need to be reevaluated and integrated into a coordinated system approach. Mr. KiRWAN. As a good engineer, you will admit that water has made California. General Dillard. It had a lot to do with it. Mr. KiRWAN. It had everything to do with it, because when I was there in 1909, Los Angeles was a village and they were satisfied if they could get drinking water. So water is what made California, and the Federal Government provided it. PERSONNEL ENGAGED How many people does the Division now have engaged in this study ? General Dillard. There are about 10 people directly involved in the management of various phases of this study, sir. It is very difficult to pinpoint a finite nimiber, because I consider that my entire staff at the district level is a coordinated staff and each has a function, from the survey crew to the man who sits down to write the report. So while there are about 10 people handling specific portions of this investiga- tion, there are many, perhaps 200, involved. 246 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, VICINITY OF OCEANSIDE Mr. KiRWAN. On page 22, $10,000 is budgeted to initiate a new beach erosion study in San Diego County in the vicinity of Ocean- side. Please outline the justification for this new study. General Dillard. The study area, which is about 8 miles in length, consists of both protective and recreational beaches. Wave action has stripped the beaches, and the beach width is less than that required for long-term shore protection and recreational use. The stretch of beach we are talking about is about 4 miles north and 4 miles south of Oceanside. GREAT BASIN REGION Mr. KiRWAN. On page 24, $100,000 is budgeted to undertake a new framework study of the Great Basin region at a total cost of $559,000. Please outline the objectives and ned for this new study. General Dillard. The objectives of the study are to formulate a framework plan to provide a broad guide to the best use, or com- bination of uses, water and related land resources of the region to meet foreseeable short- and long-term needs. Consideration will be given to the timely development and management of these resources as essential aids to the economic development and growth of the region; the preservation of resources, in appropriate instances, to insure that they will be available for the best use, as needed ; and the well-being of all of the people as the overriding determinant in such planning. The study will comprise preliminary or reconnaissance-type investigations intended to provide broad-scale analyses of water and related land resource problems, and furnish general appraisals of the probable nature, extent, and timing of measures for their solution. In addition, the study will indicate areas within the region which have resource problems calling for prompt and detailed planning eiforts in order to meet near- future resource requirements. We will not, in this study, produce specific recommendations for the definition of individual projects, Mr. Chairman. AGENCIES INVOLVED Mr. KiRWAN. What other agencies will be involved in this frame- work study ? General Dillard. Sir, the participating Federal agencies will be the Department of Agriculture, with its various branches — the Soil Con- servation Service, Forest Service, Economic Eesearch Service; the Department of the Army, the Corps of Engineers ; the Department of the Interior, with its various branches including the Bureau of Out- door Kecreation and others; the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and the Federal Power Commission; as well as the States which this study will embrace. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Rhodes. BOLINAS bay study, MARIN COUNTY, CALIF. Mr. Rhodes. General, can you briefly outline the Bolinas Ba^ project in Marin County, Calif., and tell us the urgency of undertakmg it ? 247 General Dillakd. Bolinas Bay is located about 10 miles from San Francisco Bay. The desires of the local interests are that suitable shore protection be provided to arrest the continuing erosion of the coast between the town of Bolinas and Duxbury Reef, and that a major beach recreational facility be provided in this area. The probable solution here is the provision of three groins, an energy dissipator on Duxbury Reef, and associated beach fills. Mr. Rhodes. What is the Corps capaJbility ? General Dillard. Subject to the qualifications that this is from an engineering standpoint only, considering this project by itself without reference to our overall program, our capability is $15,000. You asked about the relative urgency of this study ? Mr. Rhodes. Yes. General Dillaed. This is for development of protection to arrest the continuing erosion of the beach and coast in the Bolinas area, and is one of the most urgent of the unbudgeted studies to pursue. FISHERMAN'S WHARF, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. Mr. Rhodes. May I ask you to outline the proposed project involving Fisherman's Wliarf in San Francisco and the corps' capability in that regard ? General Dillard. Fisherman's Wharf is located on the south side of San Francisco Bay in the city of San Francisco and it provides facilities for commercial and recreational fishing fleets. The problem is essentially a surge problem which gets very vicious at times, particu- larly during winds from the north. Subject to the usual qualifications, we have a capability of $20,000. north COAST OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND OCEAN8IDE HARBOR Mr. Rhodes. On page 4, the project north coast of Los Angeles County, is a new investigation. I am wondering about the possibility of a stretchout on this and also on Oceanside Harbor. Is it possible to defer them or fund them at a lesser rate during the next fiscal year ? General Dillard. No, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Everything is possible. Tell me why it is not possible. importance of oceanside harbor study General Dillard. Addressing myself to the matter of Oceanside Har- bor first, this has gotten to be a very critcial problem. We have on sev- eral occasions in the past 2 years gone in there on emergency dredging, and we have a contract going on at the present time. The problem is shoaling in the common eiitrance to the small_ craft harbor and the Navy harbor. So this is an extremely urgent project to pursue. importance of north coast of LOS ANGELES COUNTY STUDY With regard to the north coast of Los Angeles County, we have considered'this to be very important because of the great pressure for small craft facilities in this area. The population in the area has been expanding very, very rapidly and the nearest harbor to the Santa Monica area is Marma del Rey, which is completely saturated now. 248 The next harbor north is 45 miles and that is at Channel Island, and that is a very o;reat distance from the tributary area. Mr. Rhodes. What kind of craft are you talking about, small boat recreational type ? General Dillard. Largely small boat recreational type. There are small fishing vessels that ply the area and sports fishing craft. One of the reasons for small craft harbors on the west coast is the need for harbors of refuge. The objective is to construct a small craft refuge every 35 miles or so, so no small craft is unreasonably far from a safe haven. Therefore, it is important we press on to satisfy that public need. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA (IN-DEPTH STUDY) Mr. Rhodes. Turning to page 6, the chairman indicated in his ques- tion some concern about the San Francisco Bay area study, and I share his concern. I am wondering if you are not getting into an eco- nomic study here which, as I understand it, is beyond the usual scope of an engineering study. I am wondering if you are not getting into something all the port authorities on the bay should be dong on a co- operative basis. General Dillard. I think the primary responsibility of the corps is to provide the necessaiy leadership to bring the entities, the port authorities, together. Thus far this has never been done in this area, but you are quite correct there will be many aspects of economic ne- cessity gone into. Mr. Rhodes. This is a high-cost study. Is there any local participa- tion, any local cost sharing ? General Dillard. There is no local cost-sharing at the moment. This study cost we have is preliminary in nature and no doubt it will be refined as we go on. One of the big items we have is the San Francisco Bay model which will be used as the vehicle to guide some of our efforts. Mr. Rhodes. I think that is a proper function of the Corps of Engi- neers to prepare the model, but I cannot go along with you on this economic study. This is something the local people should do, in my opinion. SALINAS RIVER, CALIF. Turning to page 15, the Salinas River project, this is a new investi- gation. Could it be deferred ? General Dillard. Sir, on all of these studies we respond to a direc- tive of Congress, basically wliicli in turn stems from a request of local interests against a specific need which they liave indicated to their proper representation here. Also involved, in tliis instance, is our knowledge of the extensive flood damages in the area, which were $6 million in Jamiarv lOfiT, and required us to move into the area and expend nearlv $400,000 of public funds for assistance to the rehabili- tation of public utilities and so on. I would say that we could ill-afford to delay prosecution of this study. Mr. Rhodes. Thank vou. 249 GREAT BASIN REGION On page 24, the Great Basin region, could you tell us the States that this encompasses ? General Dillard. Yes. This encompasses most of Nevada, part of Utah, a part of Oregon, and a little piece of both Idaho and Wyoming. It is the Great Basin drainage area. Mr. Rhodes. This is a very arid region. Is the study aimed at iden- tifying water resources that can be used, or is it aimed more at deter- mining water needs with a view to satisfying them from a source as 3'et unavailable? PURPOSE OF STUDY General Dillard. The objective of all these studies is common in that they do identify needs and resources. What we will try to do is balance the need against the resources. Obviously these will be un- balanced in any framework area such as this one, which we know is relatively arid. We can expect that some of these framework studies will be married with a summary report which will perhaps establish the basis for a national objective being given to us, or to some other Federal agency, for study of the problem of transporting water be- tween regions, but the study itself is not aimed at developing a trans- port system. LOWER and upper COLORADO REGIONS STUDIES Mr. Rhodes. This will be a very friendly question. General. Are you getting along well with the lower Colorado region and upper Colo- radio region studies ? General Dillard. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. How soon do you anticipate they will be completed ? General Dillard. These studies have been scheduled for completion in June of 1971. Mr. Rhodes. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Davis. NORTH COAST OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND OCEANSIDE HARBOR Mr. Davis. Take a look at page 4 for a minute. I was not sure whether your answer relating to the type of traffic referred to the north coast of Los Angeles County or to Oceanside Harbor when you referred to the traffic as being primarily recreation craft. General Dillard. That referred to the north coast of Los Angeles County. Mr. Da^tes. Tell us about the traffic in Oceanside Harbor. General Dillard. The Na^^y, operating with its Marme Corps and amphibious ships, utilizes the service portion of the harbor develop- ment for LST shipments and to a cei^tain extent some training. The southern portion of the overall development is sport, fishing and pleasure craft, recreational type. The two interior harbors utilize a common entrance channel. The Navy recognizes their responsibility here in that our dredging proe:ram has been on a 50-50 share basis. Mr. Davis. What are you primarily talking about in this new $150,- 000 study ? Is that basically for naval traffic or are we talking more about recreational craft and things of that kind ? 250 General Dillard. The study will determine the feasibility of reduc- ing the problems resulting from shoal'ing, which equally affects both 'N'?i\j craft and the small craft. COALINGA STREAM GROUP Mr. Da^^s. On page 9, Coalinga Stream Group, when you refer to that as the review of a previous survey report for flood control and related benefits, does this sort of indicate to you that previous studies have failed to demonstrate adequate economic justification ? General Dillard. No, sir. The first study that was made in this area was completed in 1931 and it was confined to the Los Gatos Creek, which was just one of the several streams in the area. SANTA ANA RIVER AND ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF. Mr. Davis. On page 18, the scope of the study costwise, is about 21/^ times what it looked like a year ago and apparently the number of contemplated reservoirs has gone from 11 to 15 and the number of miles of levees from 53 to 60. Is that a result of the studies that have thus far progressed or has there been a change in the concept here? General Dillard. These specific study requirements evolve from a firm plan of survey. It is not unusual for a prelminary investigation to result in changes of this type. For instance, on one we have in an- other area we considered originally, the solution might be six reservoirs. When we got to the firming up of the j^lan of survey as a result of get- ting out in the field, a better solution proved to be 14 debris-collecting basins rather than reservoirs. So these types of changes are rather typical as we get into a large study and refine our requirements. Mr. Davis. What basically brought about such a major change in the scope of the stud}^? Last year we had less than $1 million indicated here and now it has gone to $2,375,000. General Dillard. I would say the major changes results from, first, that this is one of the fastest growing areas, most rapidly urbanizing areas, in the country. Secondly, there is a specific requirement for us to do extensive subsurface investigations and drilling in connection with the proposed and feasible projects. And third, to reevaluate the functional adequacy of all the projects in the area now because over the years the hydrology has changed as a result of all of these changes here. This has compounded our difficulties in keeping abreast of the problems. SAN FRANCISCO BAT AREA (IN-DEPTH STUDY) Mr. Davis. On page 6 we show the San Francisco Bay area in- depth study. General Dillard. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. On page 16 there is a San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin Delta water quality and waste-disposal study. They are both separate and substantial amounts of money. I am wondering if you can convince us that these are not so com- pletely related to each other that they ought to be part and parcel of the same package. General Dillard. Yes, sir. The San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water quality and waste-disposal study has as its primary purpose the de- 251 velopment of a master plan for water quality and waste disposal which will be developed in coordination with the Federal Water Quality Con- trol Administration and State Water Quality Control Board. A part of that study will be for us to determine the Federal interest in the solution to these problems. It is limited in that in is quite single purpose in nature, whereas the in-depth study is aimed at over- coming the anticipated port transportation needs of the future and cargo-handling problems which will be caused by supertankers, as an example, which may require depths from 80 to 125 feet, when the existing entrance channel is only 50 feet at the present time. The two are dissimilar in nature. Mr. Davis. The in-depth study, then, is confined largely to naviga- tional and related matters in the bay itself, and the other one would probably affect more the shorelines and the tributaries and things of that kind ; is that a fair statement ? General Dillakd. With one small addition, sir. The water quality of the bay would be affected by the water quality study. Mr. Davis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Advanced Engineering and Design EEL river, calif. Mr. KiRWAN. $200,000 is budgeted to complete planning of the Eel Eiver, Calif., local protection project. The justification follows: Eex Riveb, Calif. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Eel River draias an area of approximately 3,600 square miles, including portions of Humboldt, Mendocino, Trinity, Glenn, and Lake Counties, Calif., and empties into the Pacific Ocean about 15 miles south- west of Eureka, Calif. The plan of improvement for the delta area provides for construction of new levees and modification of existing levees to control flood flows in the lower reaches of the Eel and Salt Rivers, related interior di-ainage works, and a boat-launching ramp and appurtenant facilities for recreational purposes. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.06 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $16, 000, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 3, 560, 000 Cash contribution Other costs 3, 560, 000 Total estimated project cost 19, 560, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 600, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 150, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 250, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 200, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 JUSTIFICATION The delta area at the mouth of the Eel River is subject to recurring flood damages due to instability and limited discharge capacity of the constantly shifting channel. The flood of December 1955 inundated approximately 25,000 acres and caused damages in the estimated amount of $6 million within the proposed project area. Occurrence of a flood of this magnitude under present conditions would result in damages of about $8,030,000, all of which would be 252 prevented by the project. The December 1964 flood resulted in the deaths of 19 persons in the Eel River Basin. Between 3,000 and 4,000 residents were evacuated from Eel River communities before washouts of road and bridges isolated the region. Damages in the Eel River Basin were estimated at $73,500,000, including $15,300,000 in the delta area. The delta area is primarily agricultural, but it is anticipated that with the project in operation approximately 25 percent of the area will become urban during the next half century. Economic growth will amount to approximately 100 percent during the same period. Ck)nstruction of the project will result in reduction of flood damage, higher land use, and increased recreatiuual activities. The Eel River Delta is in Humboldt County, which has been designated as a redevelopment area under title IV, section 401 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-136). The average annual benefit to the local and national economy that would result from local employment if the project were constructed is estimated at $213,000. This is considered an incidental benefit and is not included in the project economies. Breakdown of average annual benefits : Amount Flood control $845, 000 Recreation 54, 000 Total 899, 000 Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $3,560,000. This consists of: Lands and damages, $2,330,000 ; relocations, $1,095,000 ; and recreation facilities, $135,000. The annual cost of local interests of maintenance and operation is estimated at $47,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of local cooperation were provided by resolution of the board of supervisors of Humboldt County dated December 17, 1963. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $16 million is an increase of $500,000 over the latest estimate ($15,500,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The increase results from higher price levels. BENEFIT-COST RATIO Mr. KiRWAN. There has been a cost increase in this project since last year and the benefit-to-cost ratio is now only 1.06 to 1. Wliy is this ratio so low, considering the flood experience in the area and the dam- ages that would be prevented by the project ? General Dillard. Sir, the benefits as computed are based partly on infrequent floods with extremely high damage potential ; however, in averaging the potential effects of theoretical recurrence of historical floods, those events with lesser damage potential occur most frequently. lakeport reservoir, calif. Mr. Kirwan. $350,000 is requested to complete planning of the Lake- port Reservoir in California. The justification follows : Lakeport Reservoir, Calif. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project will be located on Scotts Creek about 1..5 miles west of the city of Lakeport. The plan of improvement provides for construction of a dam to create a reservoir with gross storage capacity of .'J5,000 acre-feet for flood control, municipal water supply, irrigation, general recreation, and fish and wildlife. The project plan also providrs for approximately 7 miles of downstream levee and channel improvements on Scotts Creek below Scotts Valley. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.14 to 1. 253 Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $10, 500, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 4, 885, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 5, 615, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 5, 205, 000 Reimbursement : Municipal water supply 2, 930, 000 Irrigation 1, 630, 000 Recreation 325, 000 Other Costs 320, 000 Total estimated project cost 10, 820, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 750, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 300, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 350, 000 JUSTIFICATION Floodflows from Scotts Creek cause serious damages in the agricultural areas of Scotts Valley and the canyon area downstream of the valley. In addition, as Scotts Creek is a principal tributary to Clear Lake, flows from this stream con- tribute substantially to flood damages around the lake. It is estimated that if protective measures are not taken, future losses caused by Scotts Creek waters will average $237,000 per year. The December 1964 flood caused damages along Scotts Creek amounting to over $400,000. Had the proposed dam and reservoir and downstream levee and channel improvements been in full operation, most of of this damage would have been prevented. A new supply of irrigation water will be made avaflable, averaging 9,200 acre-feet per year for the water-deficient Scotts Creek irrigation service area. Municipal water supply will be increased about 8,400 acre-feet per year enabling the city of Lakeport to provide domestic water service to the new and growing areas within the city limits and to the rapidly growing areas adjacent to the city considered potential areas for annexation. The project will provide recreational opportunities for boating, water skiing, swimming, picnicking, camping, and fishing. Breakdown of average annual benefits: Amount Flood control $168, 000 Municipal water supply 175, 000 Irrigation 98,000 General recreation 97, 000 Fish and wildlife 48, 000 Total 586,000 Non-Federal cost. — Prior to construction, local interests must agree to (a) make necessary arrangements for repayments of that part of the construction cost an annual operation and maintenance costs allocated to municipal water supply and irrigation, and (6) settle all claims for water rights including claims pertaining to establishment of a permanent pool for fish and wildlife or general recreation. Prior to construction, local interests are also required to furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that, in accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, they will (a) administer project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife; (6) pay, contribute in kind, or repay (which may be through user fees) with interest one-half of the separable cost of the project allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife; and (c) bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replacement of recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities. In connection with channel improvement work, local interests are required, prior to construction, to give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will without cost to the United States: (a) provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project; (b) make all necessary relocations and alterations to existing improvements, including roads and bridges; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (d) prevent encroachment of any type tliat would impair the flood control effectiveness of the project works; (e) maintain and operate the completed levee and channel improvements in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and (/) in addition to maintenance and operation of levee 254 and channel improvements, preserve or restore and thereafter maintain to capa- cities prevailing in 1963, the other channels of Scotts Creek from the Lakeport damsite downstream to its confluence with Middle Creek. The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: First costs: Lands $175, 000 Relocations 145, 000 Reimbursement, municipal water supply 2, 930, 000 Reimbursement, irrigation 1, 630, 000 Reimbursement, recreation 325, 000 Total 5,205,000 Aainual maintenance, operation, and replacement costs: Channel improvement $15, 800 Recreation and fish and wildlife facilities 24, 200 Reimbursement, irrigation 5, 500 Reimbursement, municipal water supply 14, 400 Total 59,900 Status of local cooperation. — The Lake County Flood Control and Water Con- servation District, b}' resolution dated May 20, 1963, expressed itself in favor of early construction of the project and gave assurances that after authorization of the project it will: (a) promptly enter into the required repayment contracts for municipal water supply storage and for irrigation storage to be provided by the project; (b) make arrangements to obtain appropriate authorization from the State water rights board to allow storage and diversion of water developed by the project; and (c) furnish, or make arrangements to furnisli, tlie required assurances of local cooperation for the levee and channel improvements. The extent of local interests' willingness to participate in a recreation and fish and wildlife develop- ment program will be determined during preconstruction planning. City of Lake- port on May 26, 1964, in a letter to the Lake County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, has stated that it is extremely urgent that the project be pushed forward with all possible dispatch. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $10,500,000 is an increase of $300,000 over the latest estimate ($10,200,000) submitted to Congress. The increase is due to higher price levels. BENEFIT-COST RATIO Mr. KiRWAN. Again the benefit-to-cost ratio on this project is down to 1.14 to 1. Why is this so low considering the apparent benefits that would accrue from the project as outlined on page 35? General Dlllard. Sir, we have not included all benefits in those shown on page 35. It is expected that the flood control benefits will be increased during the general design memorandum evaluation due to consideration of future increase in personal income and resultant upgrading of damageable property not reflected in current projection of damages to be prevented by the project. Mr. KiRWAN. What is the likelihood that this project will drop be- low unity with rising costs and interest rates ? General Dillard. Sir, Lakeport has recently been designated a redevelopment area, and qualifies for assistance under title IV of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 10()5. Should the project economic justification be threatened, we would include area redevelopment benefits in accordance with current ]:)olicy. These bene- fits together with benefits for increases in personal income and damage- able property discussed on the last project would inoio than compen- sate for risins: costs and interest rates. 255 PAJAHO RIVKK, CALIF. Mr. KiRWAN. $200,000 is budgeted to initiate planning of the Pa- jaro River local protection project in California. The justification follows : Pajaro R,iveu, Calif. (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — -Pajaro Valley, located about 75 miles south of San Francisco, Calif., comprises an area of about 112 square miles in the western portion of the 1,300 square-mile Pajaro River Basin, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties, Calif. The plan of improvement i)rovides for modification and extension of the existing levee system on the lower 12.5 miles of the Pajaro River and about 4.5 miles on Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $14, 100, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 960, 000 Cash contribution Other 960, 000 Total estimated project cost 15, 060, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate^ _ 500, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 200, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969__ 300, 000 JUSTIFICATION The city of Watsonville, in the lower Pajaro Valley area, is vulnerable to flood from the Pajaro River and Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks, despite protection afforded by existing levees. The flood of record, 1955, caused damages estimated at $780,000 in the project area. Under present conditions a comparable flood would cause damages of $1,120,000, all of which would be prevented by the project. In the city of Watsonville, an area of about 29 blocks was flooded to depths up to 2 feet, and approximately 1,000 persons were isolated for periods up to 3 days. In order to protect lives and property in the Pajaro Valley area, the project is designed to provide protection from floods greater than the flood of record. Present estimated value of land and improvements in the project area is $76,200,- 000. The Pajaro River Valley is outstanding for production of fruit, berry, and truck crops. Manufacturing, primarily the processing and packaging of these crops, is becoming a major economic factor. In addition to the flood damage to residential, agricultural, and commercial property, railroads, highways, and public utilities have also sustained severe damage from floods, with resultant losses of revenue due to disruption of business. The proposed project will provide protec- tion to the city of Watsonville and valuable agricultural and commercial develop- ments in the adjacent area. Annual flood control benefits are estimated at $677,000. Non-Federal costs. — The costs to the local sponsor of complying with the requirements of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $960,000. This consists of lands and damages $270,000 and relocations $690,000. The annual cost to local interests of maintenance and operation is estimated at $18,000. Status of local cooperation. — Board of Supervisors of the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, by resolution adopted June 24, 1963, and the Board of Directors of the Pajaro Storm Drain Maintenance District of Santa Cruz County, by resolution adopted June 24, 1963, have provided the required assurances of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $14,100,000 is an increase of $400,000 over the latest estimate ($13,700,000) submitted to Congress. The increase results from higher price levels. Major design changes since project authorization. — None. 91-459 — 68 — pt. 1 17 256 Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this new plannina: start. General Dillard. This project will be located in the lower reaches of the Pajaro River which empties into the Pacific Ocean 75 miles south of San Francisco. The plan of improvement provides for modifi- cation and extension in the existing levee system on the lower 1:21 ■> miles of the Pajaro River and about 4i/^ miles on the Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks. The city of Watsonville is vulnerable to floods from Pajaro River and Corralitos and Salsipuedes Creeks, despite pro- tection afforded by existing levees. Under present conditions, recurrence of the flood of record of 1955 would cause damages of $1,120,00, all of which would be prevented by the project. The present value of lands and improvements in the project area is $76,200,000. Annual average flood control benefits are estimated at $677,000 and the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.3 to 1. STATE COMMENTS ON SURVEY REPORT- Mr. KiRWAN. The Resources Agency of the State of California in commenting in 1964 on the Corps report on this project stated that tlie Corps of Engineers has not adequately demonstrated that tlie project benefits would exceed the estimated project costs and pointed out that the levees within the jurisdiction of the Monterey County Flood Con- trol and Water Conservation District have for the most part not been adequately maintained. Please comment on this reaction from the State. General Dillard. Sir, the State contended that tlie levee repair bene- fits were claimed on the basis of expenditures of emergency levee re- pairs made after the 1956 and 1958 floods, and maintenance outlays of local agencies incurred since 1947. On this issue my comments are tliat without modification of the existing project, those costs would be po- tentially recurrent and therefore a benefit resulting from preA-ention of such recurrence was included in the report. On the issue of main- tenance, sir, semiannual inspections of tlie Pajaro River levees con- ducted since construction of the project have at various times disclosed conditions that needed corrective action on both banks. These condi- tions have been brought to the attention of the local agencies respon- sible and have been satisfactorily corrected assuruig the flood protec- tion to the degree it was originally designed. The assurances fur- nished by the local sponsoring agencies are considered adequate for the purpose of presenting a recommendation to the Congress for au- thorization of the project. BENEFIT- COST RATIO Mr. KiRWAN. ^^Hien ihei authorization report was submitted to Con- gress in August of 1965, the benefit-to-cost ratio was only 1.1 to 1. What has been the basis of the increase in the ratio to 1.3 since then and what interest rate has been used in the latest computation ? General DiLLAPj). Sir, the increase is due to a change in the project economic life fi^om 50 years to 100 years in accordance with our criteria for local flood protection for urban areas and main stem levee protec- tion, partially offset by an increase in the interest rate from 3i/s per- cent to 314 percent. 257 SAN DIK(;0 RIVER CNIISSTOK VALLEY) CALIF. Mr. KiRWAN. $300,000 is budgeted to initiate planning of the San Diego River (Mission Valley), Calif., local protection project. (The justification follows :) San Diego River (Mission Valley), Calif. (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — The improvement will be located along the San Diego River in Mission Valley, San Diego County, Calif. The project provides for construction of a transition section of stone-revetted levees at the down- stream end of the project; a rectangular concrete channel joining the upstream end of the transition and extending to about Twain Avenue, at which point two training levees will direct water into the concrete channel; and rectangular, concrete tributary channels in Murray, Murphy, and Alvarado Canyons. Training levees will direct water into each of the tributary channels. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $16, 600, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost i 8, 800, 000 Cash contribution 2, 200, 000 Other 6, 600, 000 Total estimated project cost 25, 400, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 1, 100, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 75, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 300, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969__ 725, 000 1 In addition, local interests estimate that they will expend $3,730,000 for supplemental flood control in the project area. jrSTIFICATION Construction of this project will provide flood protection to Mission Valley, which is near the center of the metropolitan area of the city of San Diego (1967 population, 670,300). Floods in Mission Valley would cause damage to transpor- tation facilities, business and industrial ])roperty, utilities, residential property, public property, and agricultural land and improvements. The improvement- will control the standard project flood of 115,000 c.f.s. in the San Diego River, 6,000 c.f.s. in Murray Canyon, 14,000 c.f.s. in Murphy Canyon, and 17,000 c.f.s. in Alvarado Canvon. The 1967 value of tlie propertv in Mission Vallev is esti- mated to be $109,500,000. It is estimated that $23,480,000 in physical 'damages would occur from a standard project flood. The amount of $5,750,000 iri emer- gencj^ costs and business losses would be caused by a standard project flood. Intangible benefits which would accrue include: (a) A reduction of hazard to life from the occurrence of large floods, (b) the reduction in the menace of epi- demics caused by flood damage to sewer and water systems, and (c) the preven- tion of interruptions to normal community business and social activity and to the operation of public utility services. Estimated average annual benefits which will accrue from construction of the improvement amount to $1,234,000, all flood control. K on-Federal cost. — The cost to the local sponsor of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $8,800,000. This consists of: Lands and damages $4,370,- 000; relocations $660,000; drainage facilities $1,570,000; and cash contribution $2,200,000. In addition, local interests estimate that they will incur rights-of-way costs of $460,000 and construction costs of $3,270,000 for supplemental flood- control facilities in the project area. Local interests are also required to maintain and operate the project upon completion. It is estimated that the average animal expenditure for operation and maintenance will total $45,000. Status of local cooperation. — The city of San Diego, the legally responsible agency, through its city council, by resolution dated August 29, 1963,"indicated its willing- 258 iiess to provide tlie required items of local cooperation ; however, at that time the local cooperation requirements did not include any monetary contribution toward local land-enhancement benefits. During preparation of the general design studies, a resolution of unconditional compliance with all required items of local cooperation will be obtained from local interests. The city of San Diego, by letter dated June 1, 19G6, submitted a financing plan and schedule which indicates that it will be able to meet the specified local cooperation requirements. Coniixiritsoii of Federal cost extimatoi. — The current Federal cost estimate of ?1G.600.00() is an increase of $500,000 over the latest estimate (.$16,100,000, July 1966 base) submitted to Congress. The increase is due entirely to higher price levels. Major dcsiyn changes since project authorization. — None. Mr, KiRWAN. Please describe this ne\y planning start. General Dillard. Sir, this project is located along the lower 6 miles of tlie San Diego Elver in Mission Valley, San Diego County, Calif. Planned impro^■ements consist of a total of 8.3 miles of levee and concrete channel improvements. Floods in the Mission Valley cause damage to transportation facili- ties, business, and industrial property, utilities, residential and public property, and agricultural lands and improvements. The 1967 value of the property in Mission Valley is estimated at $109,500,000, of which $23,1:80,000 in physical damage -would occur from a standard project flood. Large intangible benefits would also result by con- .struction of the project. Estimated average annual flood control bene- fits amount to $1,234,000, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.2 to 1. LOCAL COOPERATIOX ]Mr. KiRWAN". The local contribution would be $8,800,000, including a cash contribution of $2,200,000 for land enhancement. Do you fore- see any difficulty in securing the necessary local cooperation? General Dillard. No, sir. JSIr. KiRWAX. Is there any local opposition to the project ? General Dillard. No, sir. BEXEFIT-COST RATIO Mr. KiRw^\N. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.2 to 1 on this |)roject. What interest rate was used in this computation and what would be the ratio if tlie proposed higher interest rate is applied ? General Dillard. Sir, the latest computation used 31/4 percent. If some higher interest rate is applied, it is likely that the resultant de- crease in the benefit-to-cost ratio would be offset by increases in bene- fits due to consideration of future increases in personal income and resultant upgrading of damageable ]:)roperty not reflected in the cur- rent projection of damages preventable by the project. SONOMA CREEK, CALIF. Mr. KiRWAN. $100,000 is requested to initiate planning of the Sonoma Creek local protection project in California. (Tlie justification follows :) Sonoma Creek, Calif. (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — Sonoma Creek and tributaries drain an area of about 160 square miles in Sonoma County, Calif., and flow into San Pablo Bay, an arm 259 of San Francisco Bay. Tlu^ proposed plan provides for cliannol improvements and appurtenant works along approximately IT) niiles of Sonoma Creek, com- prising channel enlargement and levees in the lower reaches, riprapjx'd trape- zoidal earth channel in the njiper reaches, interi(;r drainage facilities, highway and railroad bridge modification. Aiifliorizatioii. — Flood Control Act of 19G5. B<)i('fif-c()-sf ratio. — 1..") to 1. SininiKirizrd fiiiditcidl iluta Estimated Federal cost $]0, 900, 000 Estimated iKJii-Federal cost 7-l<>, ooo Cash contribution Other costs 740, 000 Total estimated project cost 11, 040, 000 I'recoiistniction planning estimate 440, 000 Allocations to June 30. 1007 Allocation for tiscal year 1908 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 100, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 340, 000 JUSTIFICATION Sonoma Creek Basin is subject to recurrent major flood damage. The flood of record, December 19.").">, ininidated approximately 6,300 acres of residential and agricultural land within the project area. Damages amounted to $370,000. Other recent floods, in lO.iS and 1963. caused damages estimated at .$3l.*0.000 and .$17.j,0ercent in the past decade and is exi)ected to increase from .30,000 in 196(; to about lo."'),000 in year 2020. Because of the present and anticipated population and ecomnnic growth, the project is designed to provide protection from floods greater than the flnftd of record. Construction of the project will reduce the threat to human life, reduce inundation and erosion damages. Average annual benefits are estimated at $665,000, all flood control. Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local interest of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for con.struction of the project as set forth in the au- thorizing legislation is $740,000. This consists of lands and damage.s, $515,000, and relocations, $225,000. The aiuiual cost to local interests of maintenance and operation is estimated at $40,000. t>t(itiis of local cooperation. — The Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Flood Conti-ol and Water Conservation District, by Resolution Xo. DR 722.3-1, adopted Septend)er 24, 1963, has provided the assurances of local cooperation. ('(tmparinon of Federal cost cstiinutes. — The current Federal cot^t estimate of $10,900,000 is an increase of $700,000 over the last e.stimate ($10,200,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The increase results from higher price levels. Major de.si(jn changes since project authorization. — None. Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this new planning start. General Dillard. Sir, Sonoma Creek is located in Sonoma County, Calif., and flows into San Pablo Bay, an arm of San Francisco Bay. The plan of development provides for channel improvements and appurtenant works along about 15 miles of the creek, comprising channel enlargement and levees in the lower reaches and riprapped trapezoidal earth channel in the upper reaches. Sonoma Creek Basin is subject to recurrent major flood damage. Average annual benefits are estimated at $665,000, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.5 to 1. FLOOD HISTORY Mr. KiRWAN. "^'V^iat has been the recent flood history in the area ? General Dh^lard. Sir, Sonoma Creek Basin is subject to recurrent major flood damage. Floods of 1955, 1958, and 1963 caused damages 260 estimated at $370,000, $320,000, and $175,000 respectively in the project area. Under current conditions of development, those floods would cause damages estimated at $494,000, $386,000, and $200,000, respec- tively all of Avliich would have been prevented if the project had been constructed. BENEFIT-COST R.VTI0 Mr. KiRWAN. At the time that the Corps report was submitted to Congress recommending authorization in 1965, the benefit-to -cost ratio on this project was only 1.1 to 1, using a 3% percent interest rate. What has been the basis of increasing the benefit -to-cost ratio to 1.5 to 1 since that date? General Dillard. Sir, this increase is due to a change in the project life from 50 years to 100 years, in accordance with our criteria for local flood protection for urban areas and mainstem levee protection, partially offset by increases in the interest rate from oi/g percent to percent. ]\L\KySVILLE RESERVOIR, CALIF. Mr. KiRWAN. $800,000 is budgeted to continue planning of the Marysville Reservoir in California. (The justification follows:) Marysville Reservoir, Calif, (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project will be located on the main stem of Yuba River about 11 miles northeast of the city of Marysville, in Yuba County, Calif. The plan of improvement pro\-ides for construction of (a) a 21.')-foot high earthfiU dam to create a reservoir of about 1 million acre-feet for flood control, irrigation, power, general recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes, (b) a powerplant with installed capacity in the order of 50,000 kilowatts and (c) a low, combination con- crete and earthfiil afterbay dam about 19,200 feet long at Daguerre Point. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $147, 000, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement SI, 950, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 65, 050, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 81, 950, 000 Reimbursement 81, 950, 000 Irrigation 47, 900, 000 Power 33, 000, 000 Recreation 1, 050, 000 Total estimated project cost 147, 000, 000 Preconstruction plaiuiing estimate 2, 000, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocations for fiscal vear 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 800, 000 Balance to complete ])reconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 1, 100, 000 JUSTIFICATION Coordinated flood control operation of the authorized Marysville Reservoir, New Bullards Bar Reservoir currently under construction on the Yuba River by the Yuba County Water Agency, "Oroville Reservoir currently nearing com- pletion on F{>ather River l)y the State of California, and the existing levee system, will provide flood protection to about 34,000 acres of highly improved land in the flood plain of Yut)a liiver (estimated i)opula(ion 24.200) including urban- suburban areas of Marysville and several rural conununit i(>s, two mainline rail- roads and U.S. Highway 99E, and several State and county roads. Marysville 261 Reservoir will also assist in providing flood protection to an area of about 115,000 acres of lands along Feather River below the mouth of Yuba River, with an estimated population of 35,300 including Yuba City. Without the additional control to be afforded by Marysville Reservoir, the rivers can still produce suffi- cient flow to cause levee failure and the threat of a repeat of the 1955 disaster will remain. Property values within the area to receive protection total about $490 million, of which $240 million is in urban areas and $250 million constitutes rural area values. The urban-suburban complex of Marysville-Yuba City-Linda-Olivehurst is particularly vulnerable to inundation, being located adjacent to the junction of Yuba and' Feather Rivers and having a general elevation ranging from 5 to more than 20 feet below the river level at flood stages. The flood plain areas are protected by levees; however, a levee failure could cause loss of hundreds of lives and manv millions of dollars in property damage. The December 1955-January 1956 floodfiows in Yuba and Feather Rivers caused levee failures near Yuba City and Nicolaus, flooded 100,000 acres, and caused loss of 40 human lives and about $51 mUlion damage on Feather River and $2.5 million damage on Yuba River, below the foothill line. With recurrence of that flood under current conditions of de\elopment and price levels, and with Oroville Reservoir in full operation, these damages would be reduced to about $6.2 million damage, of which about $3.8 million damage would have been prevented had Marysville Reservoir and New Buflards Bar Reservoir been in operation. About $2.5 million of such prevented damage would be attributable to Marysville Reservoir. The December 1964 flood caused damage along the Yuba and Feather Rivers below the foothill line of about $6.3 million, with Oroville Reservoir in partial operation. Substantial amounts of this damage would have been prevented had the three reservoirs, Oroville, New Bullards Bar, and Marysville, been in full operation. On a current basis, about $1,600,000 of the 1964 damages preventable would be creditable to Marvsville Reservoir. The project would also provide an annual water supply of about 270,000 acre-feet for irrigation, hydroelectric power, and recreational opportunities. Breakdown of Average Annual Benefits: Amount Flood control $1. 285, 000 Irrigation 2, 700, 000 Power 1, 80S, 000 General recreation 2, 534, 000 Fish and wildlife 246, OOP Total 8,573,000 Non-Federal cost. — Prior to construction, responsible non-Federal interests will be required to furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that thev will (1) hold and save the United States free from all water rights clamis resulting from construction and operation of the reservoir; (2) prevent encroach- ment on the flow carrying capacities of stream channels below the reservoir to extent needed to provide for effective reservoir operation; (3) in accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act: (a) administer project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement; (b) pay, contribute m kind, or repay (which may be through user fees) with interest one-half of the separable cost of the project allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhance- ment; and (c) bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replacement of recrea- tion and fish and wildlife lands and facilities. In addition local interests must reimburse the Federal Government for the construction costs and the annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs aUocated to irrigation and power. The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: First costs: a; t nn nan Reimbursement: Irrigation $47, 900, 000 Reimbursement: Power 33, 000, 000 Reimbursement : Recreation and fish and wildlife 1, 050. 000 Total-- 81,950,000 Annual maintenance, operation, and replacement costs: Recreation and fish and wildlife facilities 105, 000 Reimbursement : Irrigation 204, 000 Reimbursement : Power 277, 000 Total 586,000 262 Status of local cooperation. — Letter of June 29, 1966, to the district enoincer stated the intention of the California Resoiu-ces Agency to provide assurances for non-Federal cost sharing in recreation facilities as required by the Federal Water Project Recreation Act (Public Law 89-72), and then in turn to seek the necessary assurances from local governmental agencies to provide a portion of the moneys involved. Authority of that agency to extend s\ich assurances is specifically provided in section 5006-7 and chapter l.o, section 5094.1, of the Public Re- sources Code of the State of California. Assurances for other items of local coopera- tion will be obtained during preconstruction planning. The Secretary of the In- terior is to make necessarj- arrangements for repayment, under the provisions of reclamation law, of that part of first costs and annual operatic"", maintenance, and replacement costs allocated to irrigation and power. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $147 millioi is an increase of $4 million over the latest estimated (.$143,000,000) submitted to Congress. The increase is due to higher price levels. Mr. KiRWAx. Please describe this project Avhicli was added to the bill last year by the Senate, General Dillard. Sir, this project is a multiple-purpose reservoir project on the main stem of the Yuba River, about 11 miles northeast of Marysville, Calif. The plan of improvement provides for construc- tion of a 215-foot-high, earthfill dam to create a reservoir of about 1 million acre-feet for flood control, water supply, power, recreation and fish and wildlife purposes, a powerplant of about 50,000-kilowatt capacity, and an afterbay dam at Daguerre Point. Coordinated flood control operation of ]Marysville, New Bullards Bar, and Oroville Reservoirs and the existing- levee system will pro- vide flood protection at Marj^sville and about 34,000 acres of surround- ing land. The project will also provide an annual water supply of about 270.- 000 acre-feet, hydroelectric power, and recreation opportunities. The average annual benefits are estimated at $8,573,000, and the benefit-to- cost ratio is 1.4 to 1. REIMBURSABLE FUXCTIONS Mr. KiRWAN. Please outline the reimbursements under this project which will total about 60 precent of the project costs. General Dillard. The reimbursement totals $81,950,000, broken down to irrigation, $47,900,000; power, $33 million: and recreation, $1,050,000. Mr. Kirwan. We will insert the balance of the justifications uniler planning. (The justification follow :) S.'VNTA Rosa Wash, Ariz. (Tat ]\Iomolikot Dam) (Continuation of jilanning) Location and description. — The ])roject is located in Pinal County, Ariz., ;ibout 70 miles south of Phoenix and about 70 miles northwest of Tucson, ft provides for: (1) Construction of a mnltii)le-i)urpose d;ini and reservoir at the Tat Momolikot site on Snnta Rosa Wash in the Pajjago Indinn Reservation. (2) the Vaiva \o irri- gation project on the Papago Reservation downstream from the dam, and (o) recreation and fish and wildlife facilities. The Corps of Engineers will oon.struct the dam, reservoir, and recreation facilities in the reservoir area, and the Biu-(\-iu of Indian Affairs will construct the irrigation, recreation, and fish and wildlife improvements downstream from the dam. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act Benefit-cost ratio. — 2. .3 to 1. 263 Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement: Corps of Engineers $6, 720, 000 Bureau of Indian Affairs 1, 290, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement — 47, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) : Corps of Engineers 6, 710, 000 Bureau of Indian Affairs 1, 25o, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement ' 47, 000 Recreation facilities 25, 000 Fish and Wildlife facilities 22, 000 Total estimated project cost 8, 010, 000 Pr(>construction planning estimate 725, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 625, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. ' In addition, local interests have constructed levee and channel improvements at a total estimated cost of $680,000. JUSTIFICATION Property in the overflow area to be protected by this project consists of about 46,000 acres of cultivated land, irrigation systems, the towns of ^Maricopa and Stanfield, several Indian villages, highway and railroad facilities, and utility systems, all with an estimated value of $78,400,000 (1967 base). Floods along Santa Rosa Wash cause recurring damage of major proportions to land and improvements along essentially the entire length of the wash. Damages are caused by inundation, erosion, and deposition of silt and debris. Average annual damages in the overflow area along Santa Rosa Wash between the damsite and the Santa Cruz River will be reduced from .$626,000 to $86,000. Of the total $3,370,000 flood damage from the September 1962 flood, about $2,225,000 would have been prevented if Tat Momolikot Dam had been in operation. Operation of the project for irrigation will utilize an average annual water supply of 9.355 acre-feet to irrigate 1,640 acres in the Papago Indian Reservation, thereby expanding crop production with resultant improvement in the economic condition of the Indians on the reservation. Under present conditions, utilization of the flows of the Santa Rosa Wash within the Papago Reservation is very limited. Only about 200 acres are occasionally farmed when surface run-off is adequate to raise a crop. Because water is a vital factor in the economy of the area, maximum utilization of the available water s\ipply is essential. The recreation and fish and wildlife facilities in the plan of improvement will be enjoyed bj^ a large population in the surrounding area indefinitely, bringing substantial benefits to the Papago Indians from sportsmen and vacationers. The project is an integral part of the comprehensive flood-control plan for the Santa Cruz River drainage area, Avhich is an integral part of the Colorado Basin. Breakdown of average annual benefits: Flood control $540, 000 Irrigation 123, 000 Recreation 60, 000 Fish and wildlife 49,000 Total 772,000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government 50 percent of the costs of recreation and fish and wildlife facilities; such reimbursements are currently estimated at $25,000 and $22,000 respectively. In addition, local interests have expended $680,000 for flood control improve- ments consisting of levees and channels. Status of local cooperation. — Pinal County, Ariz., the legally responsible agency, through its board of supervisors, by resolution dated August 27, 1962, has indi- cated its willingness to participate to the best of its ability by assuming the required items of local cooperation. The Papago Tribal Council, by resolution dated May 4, 1962, recognizing that the irrigation features of the dam would benefit its people has agreed to make available to the United States without cost, (a) appropriate rights to those lands 264 required for construction of the dam and appurtenances, and (b) appropriate rights to those lands that would be required for construction of an irrigation reservoir. Lands required for flood control purposes (between elevations 1,535 feet and 1,547 feet) are specifically excepted, and the Federal Governnient is to reimbmse the Papago Tribe for flowage easements. However, at the time the aforesaid resolutions were enacted, the requirements of local cooperation did not include development of the recreation and fish and wildlife facilities in accord- ance with the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, nor a guarantee, prior to such development, of public access to project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife purposes. During preparation of the GD]\I, such assurances of unconditional com]iliance with all required items of local cooperation as are deemed appropriate will be obtained from Pinal County, Ariz., and the Papago Indian Tribe. Details of the repayment commitments (presently estimated to total $47,000) are under negotiation between the Depart- ment of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Papago Indian Agency, and the Papago Tribal Covmcil. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $6,720,000 is an increase of $210,000 over the latest estimate ($6,510,000) submitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. Lytle and Warm Creeks, Calif. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located in the vicinity of the cities of San Bernardino and Colton in San Bernardino Coimty, Calif. It provides for construction of a 3 J^-mile-long rectangular concrete 'channel along the East Branch of Lytle Creek from the existing Foothill Boulevard inlet structure to AVarm Creek; continuous levees along 1.1 miles of Warm Creek from its confluence with the East Branch of Lytle Creek to the Santa Ana River; and a leveed channel about 1 mile long along the Santa Ana River from the mouth of East Twin and Warm Creeks channel to its confluence with Warm Creek at the San Bernardino Freeway. Relocations consist of railroad bridge modifications. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $11, 500, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' 2, 000, 000 Cash contribution Other costs 2, 000, 000 Total estimated project cost 13, 500, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate S75, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 100, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 196S 350, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 425, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction ])lanning after fiscal j^ear 1969 ' In addition, local interests have expended $581,000 to provide partial flood protection in the area. JUSTIFICATION Construction of the project will alleviate a seiious flood problem in tlic com- munities of San Bernardino, jjopulation about 10S,000, and Colton, poiJulation about 22,000. About 13,000 persons live in the overflow areas that would be protected by the imi)roveinents. The present value of lands and improvements in the overflow areas is estimated to be $154, 100,000 (1967 estimate). Thv. ex- isting channel along Lytle Creek provides protection against all but large floods. However, existing and forecasted development is so great that the overflow area along Lytle Creek is vulnerable to major floods which could occur at any time. Recurrence of the 1S91 flood under i)resent conditions of development would cause damages estimated at $4,230,000 (1967 prices), virtually all of which would be ])revented by tlie ]>roject. Damage would be caused princi]jally by inundation, erosion, and de]3osition of debris. Most damage would occur to residential, com- mercial, industrial, and railroad property. However, considerable damage also would occur to highway, utility, and public propertj-. Protection of tiie existing water supply for the intensively developed San Bernardino-Colton area is im- perative. The improvement would also serve as an outlet for storm drains to be constructed by local interests in the area. In addition to the tangible benefits, 265 intangible benefits thnt would accrue from the project include the following: (a) The prevention of interruptions to normal business and to the operation of public utility services, (b) the reduction of hazard to life from the occurrence of large floods, and (c) the reduction of the menace of epidemics caused by flood damage to sewer and water sj^stems. The project is an integral part of the comprehensive flood-control plan for the Santa Ana Paver drainage area, which is an integral part of the southern California basin. Average annual benefits are estimated at $583,000, all flood control. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests for construction of the authorized project is estimated at $2 million (July 1967 base) broken down as follows: Lands and damages $260,000 Relocations 1 , 740 , 000 Total 2,000,000 Local interests have expended $581,000 for flood-control improvements in the project area and $16,281,000 on streams tributary to the project area. Local interests are required to operate and maintain the project upon completion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditures for o]:)eration and maintenance will total $30,000. Status of local cooperation. — The Board of Supervisors of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, by resolution dated June 1, 1964, assured that it would provide the required items of local cooperation. By letter dated February 1, 1966, San Bernardino County Flood Control District confirmed its support of the project and its ability to meet the local cooperation reciuirements. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1 1,- 500,000 is an increase of $300,000 over the latest estimate ($11,200,000) submitted to Congress. This increase is due to price level increases. Napa Eiver Basin, Calif. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Napa River rises on the south slope of Mount St. Helena, in Napa County, Calif., and discharges into Mare Island Strait in the vicinity of "\^allejo, Calif. The plan of improvement provides for channel enlarge- ment and realinement, construction of levees and floodwalls and boat-launching ramps for recreational use, from Trancas road above the city of Napa to the downstream end of Edgerley Island, River Mile 6, a distance of approximately 11 miles. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $17,270,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 3,600,000 Cash contribution 630 , 000 Other 2,970,000 Total estimated project cost 20,870,000 Preconstruction planning estimate 775,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 100,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 300,000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 375 , 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 JUSTIFICATION Napa River Basin comprising 426 square miles ranging from tidal marshes to mountainous terrain is subject to severe winter storms and frequent flooding. In the lower reach of the river, flood conditions are aggravated by high tides and local runoff. Floods in 1955 (flood of record), 1958 and 1963, caused damages estimated at $350,000, $160,000, and $440,000, respectively. Under present conditions of development floods of similar magnitude would cause estimated damages of $497,- 000, $209,000, and $514,000, respectively. Almost all these damages would have been prevented by the project. The December 1955 flood of record inundated 4,900 acres within the project area. Floods resulted in four deaths during the period 1913 through 1940. 266 The population in tho Napa Rivor Basin is approximatoly 1 45,000, of which 25,000 are in the area protected by the project, and the popnlation is expected to increase to more than 150,000 persons by the year 2060. Present value of lands and iniprovements in the standard project flood plain is $53 million; valvie of land and improvements in the area to be protected is $4o million. The pro- ])osed project would provide a high degree of flood protection to the most highly urbanized area, particularly the city of Napa. The project will in-otect human life, reduce flood damage to residential, industrial, and agricultural ]jroperty, encourage higher land use and permit development of recreational areas. Breakdown of average annual benefits: Amount Flood control $1,023, 000 Recreation 117, 000 Total 1, 140,000 Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $3,600,000. This consists of: Lands and damages $1,030,000; relocations $1,040,000; cash contribution (recreation facilities) $630,000. The annual cost tol ocal interests of maintenance, operation, and replacement is estimated at $132,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of local cooperation were pro- vided b}^ resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District dated December 17, 1963. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimated of of $17,270,000 IS an increase of $470,000 over the latest estimate ($16,800,000) submitted to Congress. The increase results from higher price levels. STOCKTON SHIP CHANNEL, CALIF. Mr. KiRWAN. What is the status of the planning on the Stockton ship channel, and Avhat is the budget request for fiscal year 1960? General Dillard. We have no budget request on that, sir ; however, planning is very close to ^5 percent complete. Mr. KiRWAN. What is your capability for continuing engineering and design on the project in the next fiscal year ? General Dillard. $75,000. Mr. KiRWAN. Do you have any additional capability on the project for next fiscal year in reference to the initiation of construction? General Dillard. Yes, sir; $1,550,000. ]\Ir. KiRWAN. What would ])e accomplislicd witli this amoiuit ? (Tcneral Dh.l.vrd. Dredging would be initiated to dee]>en the main ship channel across San Francisco Bar to 55 feet; construction of a new channel 45 feet deep through the west navigation opening of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge would be initiated, and bank pro- tection at intermittent locations between Venice Island and Stock- ton along the Stockton deej) water channel would be started. ^Iv. KiRWAN. I note tlia( the current B-C ratio is 2.?) to 1. Please out- line the present industrial de\-elo])ment in the area and any new devel- opment which might affect this I'atio, General Dillard. There are numerous oil relineries in the area; leading steel companies presently have and are planning to construct steel mills in the area; it is planned to develo]^ a bulk loading port; and construction of a meat-i^acking plant all will add to the tonnage of cai'go to l)e acconunodated by the project. Tn addition to contributing to the civilian asjiectsof the economy, the Port of Stockton is averaging about ;)5,000 tons of military cargo per month which is destined for the \'ietnam area. As the bulk of tliis carjro is annnunition, a collision in 267 the narrow Suisun clianncl downstream of Port Cliicago could result in the loss of many lives, esj)ecially Avere it to occur near petroleum refineries or near a thickly populated area. Mr. KiKWAX. Thank you. Mr. Ilhodes. SANTA ROSA WASH, ARIZ. ]Mr. Rhodes, General, I note that the Santa Rosa Wasii project Avill he completed after the iiscal year IDOH allocation insofar as the advance eno-ineering planning phase is concerned. Is this study proceeding Avell ? Do you anticipate any difficulties in construction that had not been anticipated before this ? General Dili^vrd. The planning is proceeding well, sir. We do not anticipate any problems. PAINTED ROCK DAM, ARIZ. Mr. Rhodes. To go into another phase, because I am afraid I will forget it if I do not, the recent rather heavy runoffs in Arizona I'e- sulting in water flowing down the Gila River may have demonstrated the efficacy oi Painted Rock Dam. "Would you care to comment on that? If it had not been for Painted Rock, would there have been serious floods to the lower Gila, possibly going into the lower Colorado and damaging Morelos Dam or any other structure? General Dillard. This could well have l>een the case without the dam, sir. I am not familiar with the scope of the most recent runoffs' full potential threat without the dam. However, Painted Rock will contain a flood of 2,500,000 acre-feet. It has never been tested beyond 250,000, so there is considerable reser^'oir capacity here, lliere is no doubt tihat the retention of floodwaters and in releasing them from Painted Rock so as not to exceed downstream channel capacity, flow- ing tlirough Yuma, and in turn entering the Colorado River above Morelos Dam, would certainly prevent extensive damage and would contribute to control of the water in the lower Colorado area. Going back to 1066, Painted Rock Dam prevented about $17 million in downstream damages during one flood. That was the approximate cost of the dam. MEXICAN TREATY ASPECT Mr. Rhodes. Also with reference to satisfaction of the demands of the Mexican Treaty, I presume, for water to be delivered on the Colo- rado and main stem ? General Dillard. We have a problem here in this respect, sir. As 3'ou know, the Mexicans are entitled to a million and a half acre-feet of Colorado water a year. When floodwaters come down in any of our streams entering the Colorado, particularly the Gila, it increases the salt content of the Colorado. During high water periods it is difficult, particularly in the Wellton-Mohawk drainage district above Yuma, to properly control the ground water pumping discharge to maintain a low salinity content. Here is where the problem is compounded, when that water is diverted to Mexico. Salt-laden water is not very good to grow crops. 268 Mr. Rhodes. Do you still have the little pool on the wrong side of Painted Rock Dam? General Dillard. That is the old excavation pit for the dam proper, yes, sir. It is still there. Mr. Rhodes. I have invited the members of the subcommittee many times to see that beautiful pool of water in the middle of the desert on the wrong side of the dam. It is a sight everybody should see. MARYSVILLE RESERVOIR, CALIF. With reference to Marysville Reservoir, on page 53, there appears to be and is still a multiple-purpose project. Much of the average annual benefit is made up of general recreation and fish and wildlife ; to wit, aproximately $2,800,000 annually out of $8,573,000. I do not find any great objection to this personally, but I am wondering if this particular structure is not rather tailormade for either a stretch- out or postponement due to the budgetary situation which we now face. General Dillard. The Marysville project is a very important inde- pendent unit which will be integrated with a system of reservoirs in the area to control floods on the Feather and the Sacramento Rivers. The flood plan of operation of these reservoirs would regulate the Feather and the Yuba Rivers, so the combined floAvs will not exceed the channel capacities downstream of the confluence between the Yuba and the Feather River, Without the INIarysville project, the system (1) will not function as fully intended; and (2) there would be a great amount of residual flood damage in the area in the event of repetition of the storm of 1961 and storms of that nature. 19G4 FLOOD DAMAGES Mr. Rhodes. What was the damage during the flood of 1964, if you recall ? General Dillard. $1,735,000 in this particular case. That storm hit primarily the northern coastal area of California. Mr. Rhodes. That was not an overwhelming damage when you con- sider the size of this ]u-ojeot. Does this have any effect on the California State water plan? Is it to be operated in such a way as to augment or aid the California water plan ? General Dillard. No, sir. This will be financially integrated with the Bureau of Reclamation's Central Valley project. CORPS VERSUS USER AS CONSTRUCTION AGENCY Mr. Rhodes. Do you mind telling me why the Corps of Engineers is building it instead of the Bureau of Reclamation then? General Dillard. This was justified in great part for its flood con- trol value. Before it was authorized it was determined that this dam would not provide supplemental Avater for the State water project hut would provide additional water for the Central Valley project. Accordingly, it was determined that this project would be integrated with the Central Valley project. Mr. Rhodes. It could go either way, could dt not? You have not taken any action which is so irrevocable as to make it impossible to back 269 up and integrate this with the California State water plan, have you ^ (xeneral Diixard. Yes, sir. It was the authorization of the project that established that this water would not be used for M. & I., but would be used for Central Valley project purposes, that ds irrigation, at least initially. The authorizing document provided that appropriate flexibility would be incorporated in the project water contracts to allow for reallocation of irrigation w\ater to municipal and industrial water uses in accordance with identified needs. As to your other question, which I believe was inherent, could not the Bureau just as well build this. Technically, they could. "We could as well build many of their projects. Mr. Rhodes. Again, noticing the breakdown of average annual bene- fits, the largest single benefit is irrigation, $2,700,000 annually. The second largest is general recreation, but the third largest is power. Flood control is a poor fourth, with $1,285,000. It is rather curious to me that this project is being built by the Corps of Engineers, par- ticularly since it is going to be integrated, as you say, with the Bureau of Reclamation project. General Dillard, Of course, sir, we are not limited to developments of these kinds of facilities for only flood control, but are expected to optimize and maxiimize all of our projects for all purposes. INIr. Rhodes. Legally you are not limited. General, but it has always bothered me, and I think it has bothered the rest of the committee, tliat there does not seem to be a better definition of the areas of the Corps of Engineers and that of the Bureau of Reclamation. I do not knoAv how to do it. I am not that wise. I do think there should be some work on this. This is the only pi'oject that I know of right now where it seems to me the structure is being built by one and probably should be built by the other. That is all, Mr. Chairman. ;Mr. KiRw^vN. Mr. Davis ? INIr. Da^is. Just one question. General. EEL RI\Ti:R, CALIF. AND LAKEPORT RESERVIOR. CALIF. Mr. Davis. Referring to the Eel River, Calif, project and the Lakeport Reservoir beginning on page 30 and carrying on for several pages thereafter, in the case of the former we now have a 1.06-to-l benefit-cost ratio, and the latter, 1.14 to 1. In view of the impending- increase in interest rates, I am wondering if these two had not ought to have another look taken at them before a decision is made to spend any more money on them. BENEFIT-COST RATIO, LAKEPORT RESERVIOR General Dillard. I believe not, sir. Addressing the second B-C ratio, 1.14, Lakeport, this project will provide substantial needed flood control in the area and an additional water supply. It is expected that the flood-control benefits will be increased during the general design memorandum evaluation, due to consideration of future increases in personal income and the resultant upgrading of damageable property not now reflected in the current projection of damages prevented by the project. Further, this has 270 been designated an area of persistent unemployment. It would appear proper that if tlie benefit-to-cost ratio is further threatened by further refinements, that additional benefits would accrue to the project as a result of the ERA Act and its designation as a title IV area for such assistance. BENEFIT-COST RATIO, EEL RIVER With respect to the Eel River this is the first needed increment of flood control in that area. It is expected, again, that the flood control benefits will be increased in the general design memorandum stage due to the same reasons as for Lakeport. Further, I have been to that area. I know this B^C ratio is somewhat marginal from the arithmetical point of view. However, I believe that the project is justified and it is urgent from the standpoint that the Eel River, in flood, represents a great hazard to life and property. jVIoreover, a repetition of the floods of 1955 and 1964, as well as lesser floods, would cause a backwash of economic disruption in this area of persistent unemployment. There are no flood control measures lieyond the present inadequate Sandy Prairie levee on the Eel River at this time. ADDITIONAL BENEFIT VALUES Mr. Davis. I am wondering if this is not the kind of information that needs to be figured out and put on paper through a review and have available to the committee before a decision is made to go ahead and provide additional funds for projects here which on the record, as they now stand, plus the knowledge that we have of what is going to happen to the interest rates, would tip them over on the negative side. General Dillard. With respect to the numbers involved on the Eel River, should we use the title IV justification for granting additional benefits to this project, there would be $213,000 of additional benefits annually. With respect to the Lakeport Reservoir, there would be $39,300 in annual l^enefits. With respect to further considerations on future in- creases in personal income and resultant upgrading of damageable property, these considerations will take considerable time. It will have to be done during the general design memorandum stage. We have that on some projects, but not for all at this time. In any event, regardless of how these figures turn out. the B-C ratio is not threatened in either of these cases to be reduced below unity. Mr. Davis. Even with increased interest rates ? General Dillard. Yes, sir, they will not go below unity. Mr. Davis. That is all, Mr. Cha i rman. Thank you. Construction ^fr. Wiiitten. We will turn now to the construction items. Please outline for the committee the effects of the deferrals and stretchouts of the 1968 construction program in your division. EFFECT OF STRETCHOUT PROGRAM General Dillard. As a result of the administration's stretchout pro- gram, $1,820,000 were placed in budgetary reserves out of our fiscal 271 year 1968 budget. The completion dates of five projects have been ex- tended 1 year and the completion date of one project extended 2 years. BIDDING EXrERIEXCE Mr. Written. What has been the cost experience on your recent construction contracts ? General Dillard. During calendar year 1967 we awarded 18 con- tracts of $100,000 or over for flood control channels and levees, access roads for dams, two road relocations at two dams, and a railroad bridge modification on a channel job. The total bid prices for these 18 jobs amounted to $22,219,000 as com- pared to the total of the Government estimates of $22,329,000. There were an average of seven bidders on each job. We consider that ade- quate competition is being received and that bid prices are generally favorable to the Government. In February of this year, we opened bids on two additional con- tracts, one for the dam and appurtenances on the Mojave River. The low bid was $8,054,000. The Government estimate, $7,930,000. We had 17 bidders. The second was for channel construction on the Walnut Creek proj- ect. The low bid was $2,808,000. The Government estimate, $2,826,000. We had 13 bidders. '\t:ntura-pierpont area, California Mr. Written. $300,000 is budgeted for additional reimbursements on Ventura-Pierpont area beach erosion project in California. (The justification follows :) Ventura-Pierpont Area, Calif. (Reimbursement — Continuing) Location. — On the coast of southern California, in Ventura Count}', near the city of Ventura, Calif. Authorization. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Estimated Federal cost_ _ _ - Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost --- Allocations to June 30, 1967.. Allocation for fiscal year 1968__ Al locations to date _ Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969.. - Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... « In addition, local Interests have incurred costs of $2,000,000 for park development. mount Accumulated percent of estimate Federal cost $1 300,000 1 1 100,000 2,400,000 439 000 439, 000 300, 000 561,000 ., 34 57 91-459— 6S—pt. 1 18 100 100 100 100 100 June 1970. Do. 59 Do. 272 PHYSICAL DATA Groins: 7, varying in length from about 460 to 710 feet. Beach replenishment: 1,740,000 cubic yards. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Physical completion: Phase 1, 3 groins and 198,000 cu. yd. of beach replenishment.. Phase 2, 2 groins and 350,000 cu. yd. ot beach replenishment.. Phase 3, 2 groins and restoration of 2 groins completed in phase 1. 173,000 cu. yd. of beach replenishment 162,000 cu. yd. of beach replenishment _. Phase 4, 82,000 cu. yd. of beach replenishment. Phase 5, 775,000 cu. yd. of beach replenishment Entire project JUSTIFICATION The Ventura County shoreline between the Ventura and Santa Clara Rivers has suffered erosion to such an extent as to impair the use of a popular State Park beach and threaten the destruction of public lands, improvements, and public roads, including private lands and improvements lying landward of the public beach. Erosion from the San Buenaventura State Park has amounted to about 87,000 cubic yards per year between 1938 and 1948, increasing to 165,000 cubic yards annually between 1948 and 1963. Comparative surveys indicate that the loss from the Pierpont area has amounted to about 143,000 cubic yards an- nually between 1948 and 1959, and almost 200,000 cubic yards per year between 1959 and 1963. Since 1963, the partially completed project has reduced erosion in the project area to about 120,000 cubic yards annually. Without the project, the value of land and improvements that would be lost during the next 50 years, if the erosion were pennitted to continue, is estimated at about $8,600,000 of which about 35 percent is publicly owned. In addition to preventing the loss of public beach and loss of land and improvements in the Pierpont area, the plan of protection will restore some 35 acres of beach frontage — 20 acres along the de- veloped State Park and 15 acres (also public) fronting the Pierpont settlement. Breakdown of Average Annual Benefits: Amount Beach erosion control $275, 000 Recreation 165, 000 Total 440, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $300,000 will be used to reimburse local interests for the Federal share of groins 8 and 9, restoration of groins 2 and 4, and beach replenishment above groins 7, 8, and 9 (phase 3) completed March 15, 1967. Non-Federal costs. — The noii-Federal share of the cost of the authorized improve- ment is estimated at $1,100,000 broken down as follows: Construction of groins $303, 000 Beach replenishment 660, 000 Engineering and design 67,000 Supervision and administration 70, 000 Total 1, 100, 000 Local interests are required to maintain the project upon completion. The annual cost for maintenance is estimated at $62,000. In addition, local interests have incurred costs of $2,000,000 for lands, park development, and construction and anticipate expenditures of about $400,000 for future park development. Status of local cooperation. — The State of California, owner of the beach, pro- vided required assurances of local cooperation December 19, 1961, for the three groins under the previously authorized project, "Carpinteria to Point Mugu." Assurances of local cooperation for the remainder of work to be accomplished under the project were obtained from the State of California and the county of 273 Ventura February 19, 1963. In addition, local interests have contributed and advanced the necessarj' funds for design and construction of all physically completed work. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — -The current Federal cost estimate of §1,300,000 is a decrease of $140,000 from the latest estimated ($1,440,000— July 1965 base) submitted to Congress. This change is due to decreases for design changes (elimination of groins 3 and 6) ( — ) $112,000 and cost adjustment of completed work ( — )$5 ^J}^' 11^ ^ Continue relocation of roads ^|J' J^^l^ Complete construction of overlook road and parking ^40, 000 Engineering and design "^^y' ||J|J^ Supervision and administration 1"^' ^^^ Total 2,500,000 282 Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in construc- tion of the authorized project is estimated at $19,530,000 broken down as follows: Reimbursement, water supjDly $19, 500, 000 Lands and damages ("channel improvement) 30, 000 Total 19, 530,000 The estimated annual cost to local interests of maintenance and operation of the channel improvements is $19,000 and $90,000 is the estimated cost to local interests for that portion of the overall ojjeration, maintenance, and replacement costs allocated to municipal and industrial water supply. In addition, local in- terests have expended approximately $1 million to i)rovide partial flood protection in the project area, have constructed facilities at a cost of approximately $10 million to distribute water from the completed Coyote Valley Dam and Reservoir and plan to construct additional facilities by 1970 at a cost estimated to be in excess of $5 million. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation were provided by Sonoma Countv Flood Control and Water Conservation District Resolutions No. DR 00793-1 adopted September 25, 1961, and DR 4470-1 adopted December 17, 1962. A contract between the United States of America and the Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, providing for reim- bursement to the United States for costs allocated to 132,000 acre-feet of water supply, was executed and approved by the Secretary of the Army on January 6, 1965. Intent to support optimization of the damsite to provide maximum storage for future water supply needs and to assume required financial obligation for such added storage (80,000 acre-feet) was indicated by letter dated JMarch 7, 1967, from the water district. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of Federal cost, $70 million is the same as last submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1959 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $6,500,000 $480,000 $1,260,000 $1,370,000 $3,390,000 Relocations 14,390,000 550,000 80,000 13,760,000 Reservoir (clearing),. 570.000 570,000 Dam (outlet, spillway, and embankment). 33,400,000 33,400,000 Fish and wildlife facilities 2,060,000 2,060.000 Roads 750,000 40,000 40,000 670,000 Recreation facilities 3,450,000 3,450.000 Bank stabilization.. 830,000 830,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities. 500,000 260,000 240,000 Permanent operating equipment... 150,000 150,000 Engineering and design 4,000,000 1,894,000 680,000 590,000 836,000 Supervison and administration. 3,400,000 161.000 200,000 160,000 2,879,000 Total applied costs (Federal funds only). 70,000,000 2,535,000 2,730,000 2,500,000 62,235,000 Undistributed costs.. Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 70,000,000 2,535.000 2,730.000 2,500,000 62,235,000 Pending adjustments .. Total cost (Federal funds only).. 70,000,000 2,535,000 2,730.000 2,500,000 62,235,000 Undelivered orders. -1-73.800 -73,800 Total obligations.-.. 2,608,800 2,656,200 2,500,000 62.235.000 Method of financing (Federal funds): Allocations 3,400,000 1,865,000 2,500,000 62,235.000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 791,200 Total funds available for obligation 2.656,200 Appropriations required. 2,500,000 62,235.000 PROJECT M0DIFIC.\TIOXS ]Mr. Whittex. Last year the committee in its report expressed con- cern at the extensive modifications which have been made in this project since its authorization, wliicli increased tlie oviiiinal cost esti- mate from $42.4 to $70 million. 283 Have yoiT made any additional modifications smce last year and do yon contemplate any in the future? General Dillard. Sir; there has been no further modification or increase in estimated cost since my oral testimony before this commit- tee last year. We do not contemplte future modifications at this time. COST ESTIMATE IMr. Whitten. No increase in the cost estimate is shown since last year. Has this cost been revised since last year? General Dillard. It has not been changed' since last year, but it has been reviewed for purposes of updating. HIDDEN RESERVOIR. CALIF. Mr. Wiiitten. $400,000 is budgeted to continue land acquisition on the Hidden Reservoir, Calif. (The justification follows :) Hidden Pleservoir, Calif, (Land acquisition) Location. — Dam and reservoir on Fresno River about lo miles northeast of the city of Madera; channel improvement on Fresno E,iver channel immediately upstream of Chowchilla Canal crossing. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio — 2.0 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement $17,900,000 _ Future non-Federal reimbursement —3,610,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 14,290,000 Estimated non-Federal cost i 3,880,000 Reimbursement (irrigation) _._ (3,610,000) . _ Othercosts _ _ (270,000) Total estimated project cost 2 18,170.000 _._ Allocations to June 30, 1967.. 993,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 400,000 Allocations to date 1,393,000 8 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 400, 000 10 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 16,107,000 ' In addition local Interests tiave, over a period of years, expended approximately $300,000 for construction of low levees and clearing of downstream cfiannels to provide some local flood protection in ttie project area. This worl< is in- adequate during major floods. - Total estimated project cost. Fiscal year 1969 request is for land acquisition and engineering and design only. PHYSICAL DATA Lands and damages (Federal onlv) : Acres: 3,160. Type: Predominantl.y grazing. Improvements: No major improvements. Relocations: County roads Nos. 400 and 407: 5.7 miles ($670,000). Miscellaneous utilities: ($10,000). Channel improvement: 7 miles, capacity 5,000 cubic feet per second. Main Dam: Tvpe: EarthfiU. Height: 163 feet. Length: 5,730 feet. 284 Spillwaj^: Type: Ungated, unlined. Crest length: 575 feet. Capacit}': 106,000 cubic feet per second. Dikes: (Six) . Tvpe: Earthfill. Height: 4 feet to 36 feet. Length: (Total) 1,115 feet. Reservoir capacity: Irrigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, and flood control storage (including flood control reservation of 65,000 acre-feet), 85,000 acre-feet. Inactive storage: 5,000 acre-feet. Gross storage: 90,000 acre-feet. Status (January 1, 196S) Lands and damages — Not started. Completion schedule: December 1969. Other project features not currently scheduled. JUSTIFICATION The project will provide flood protection to urban and rural areas downstream from the reservoir including the city of Madera (estimated 1967 population 17,600), and will provide a new irrigation supply, averaging about 23,800 acre- feet per year, for the water-deficient Fresno River service area, enabling expansion of the presently irrigated area. The project will also provide recreational areas for public use. The Fresno River flood plain comprises about 145,000 acres and includes large areas of highly developed agricultural lands, with many homes and improvements. Estimated value of lands within the flood plain is $158 million and estimated value of improvements thereon is $65 million. Floods on Fresno River result primarily from intense rainfall and are characterized by high peak flows and short durations. Flooding of improved areas occurs one or more times each year. Breakdown of average annual benefits: Amount Flood control $755, 000 Irrigation 241, 000 General recreation and fish and wildlife 485, 000 Total 1,481,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $400,000 will be applied as follows: Continue land acquisition $365, 000 Engineering and design 30, 000 Supervision and administration 5, 000 Total 400,000 Non-Federal cost. — With respect to the dam and reservoir, the Secretary of the Interior is to make necessary arrangements for repayment, imder the provisions of reclamation law, of that part of the construction cost allocated to irrigation, presently estimated at $3,610,000 and that part of annual operation and mainte- nance cost allocated to irrigation, presently estimated at $12,500. Local interests sponsoring any permanent pool in the reservoir for fish and wildlife or recreation are required to settle all claims for water rights pertaining to establishment and use of a permanent pool for these purposes. With respect to the supplemental channel improvement work, local interests are required, prior to construction, to give assurances satisfactory to the Secre- tary of the Army that they will: (a) Furnish without cost to the United States alllands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project; (b) make all necessary relocations and alterations to existing improvements, including highway facilities, which may be required for construction of the project; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the con- struction works; (d) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and (e) preserve, or restore and thereafter maintain, the Fresno River Channel from Hidden Reservoir downstream to the authorized channel work at the capacities prevailing in 1959. 285 The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: Lands $174, 000 Relocations 96, 000 Reimbursement, irrigation 3, 610, 000 Total 3, 880, 000 The annual cost to local interests of maintenance, operation, and replacement of the channel improvements is estimated at $16,000; the estimated annual cost to local interests for that portion of the overall operation and maintenance costs allocated to irrigation is $12,500. Status of local cooperation. — The State of California officially adoiHod this project by chapter 1202 of the statutes of 1963, and by chapter 1438 of those statutes authorized the State reclamation board to furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that the local cooperation requirements for the supple- mental channel improvements will be met. The board by letter dated Deceml^er 13, 1963, stated that it will furnish the required assurances when formally re- quested to do so. The Bureau of Reclamation is continuing negotiations with the INIadera Irrigation District for repaj-ment of costs allocated to irrigation. It is anticipated that the rej^ayment contract will be executed by April 1, 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $17,900,000 is an increase of $500,000 over the latest estimate ($17,400,000) submitted to Congress. The increase is due to higher price levels. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages. ._ Relocations Reservoirs 1690. 000 680.000 .. 130.000 .. 12,430,000 .. 5,000 .. 125,000 .. 350,000 _. 325,000 .. 490,000 .. 55,000 .. 130,000 .. 60,000 -. 1,140,000 1,290,000 17,900.000 17,900,000 $6, 000 $260, 000 $365, 000 $59, 000 680, 000 130 000 Dams 12,430,000 Fish and wildlife facilities 5 000 Roads Channels Levees Recreation facilities 125,000 350, 000 325,000 490, 000 Diversion structures Buildings, grounds and utilities-. 55, 000 130 000 Permanent operating equipment 60, 000 Engineering and design __, Supervision and adminisiration Total applied cost (Federal funds only) . Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed costs .. . 903, 000 70, 200 979, 200 979, 200 130,000 24, 300 414,300 414,300 30, 000 5,000 400, 000 400,000 77, 000 1,190,500 16,106,500 16, 106, 500 Total project cost (Federal funds i Pending adjustment Dniy)... 17,900,000 979,200 414,300 400, 000 16,106,500 Total cost (Federal funds only).. Undelivered orders . .. 17,900,000 979, 200 3,900 983, 100 414,300 -3,900 . 410,400 400, 000 16, 106, 500 Total obligations 400, 000 16, 106, 500 METHOD OF FINANCING Federal funds: Allocations 993,500 400,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 10,400 Total funds available for obligation 410,400 Appropriations required 400,000 1 16,106,500 J Rounded to $16,107,000. LAND ACQUISITION EXPERIENCE Mr. "Whitten. "Wliat has been the experience to date in the aciqui- sition of hind in the area ? General Dillard. On this project, sir, it has been determined by higher authority that acquisition of real estate for Hidden Reservoir 286 constitutes a new construction start. The authorization act requires that a repayment contract be executed between the Federal Govern- men and local interests for irrigation services to be provided by the project prior to construction. The repayment contract has not yet been signed. Accordingly, there has been no real estate acquisition on this project to date, Mr. Whitten. Does the advance acquisition of land in this area appear to be well justified ? General Dillard. Yes, sir. STATUS OF REPAYMENT CONTRACT Mr. Whitten. What is the status of the repaj-ment contract for the costs allocated to irrigation? General Dillard. A revised draft of the contract was mailed to tlie Madera Irrigation District by the Department of Interior on February 28, 1968. This draft contains a new condition added at the request of the Commissioner of Reclamation and consists of pro- viding for two types of repayment: (1) Payment of initial costs not subject to escalation due to inflation; and (2) operation and mainte- nance costs based on actual costs and, therefore, subject to escalation. The Madera Irrigation District has not yet expressed a view of this new provision. However, it is expected that any problems will be resolved by the end of May 1968. KLAMATH RI^'ER, CALIF. Mr. "Whitten, $1,500,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Klamath Eiver local protection project in California. (The justification follows:) Klamath River (Vicinity Town of Klamath), Calif. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located about 35 miles south of the Oregon-California border at the mouth of the Klamath River, Del Norte County, Calif. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. 2.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost.-_ $3,410,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1,760,000 Cash contribution Other 1.760,000 Total estimated project cost 5, 170,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968.... 750,000 Allocations to date 750,000 22 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 - 1.500,000 66 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1,160,000 287 PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Klamath: Laudside fill of approximately 50 acres behind freeway under construction by State of California about 20 feet in height with approxi* mate length of 5,000 feet. Klamath Glen: Average height, 20 feet. Length, 7,300 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Levees: Klamath (i) November 1968. Klamath Glen (i) November 1969. Entire project .. Do. 1 Not started. JUSTIFICATION Klamath Basin is subject to severe recurring flood and erosion damage from winter storms. The communities of Klamath, Klamath Glen, Camp Klamath, and Requa in the flood plain near the mouth of the river have been subject to two devastating floods in recent years. The flood of December 1955 caused damages estimated at $1,980,000 to buildings, roads, structures, and utilities in the project area. The December 1964 flood of record, with damages in the project area esti- mated at $8 million, caused practically complete devastation, with a portion of the town of Klamath flooded to a depth of 18 feet. The lower Klamath River is known internationally for its salmon and steelhead fishing and the economy of the area is largely dependent upon these recreation activities. The annual rate of visitor-day usage by recreationers in this area is about 500,000. In view of the natural attractions of the area, it is expected that recreation use will increase to about 1,400,000 visitor days by year 2020. The flood plain population is expected to increase from the present 1,800 to a population of about 5,000 by the year 2020. The proposed plan of improvement will permit redevelopment of protected areas as alternative sites for communities that are now destroyed and will control development of the remaining historical flood plain area. Benefits are estimated at $658,000 annually, all flood control. Del Norte County is designated as a redevelopment area under section 401 (a) 1, title IV of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89- 136). The project will provide both immediate and long-range benefits to the economy of the basin as a result of increased employment opportunities and higher utilization of lands protected from flooding. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,500,000 will be applied to — • Initiate Klamath Glen levee $170, 000 Continue Klamath levee 1, 180, 000 Engineering and design 90, 000 Supervision and administration 60, 000 Total . , 1, 500, 000 The amount requested is the minimum required for completion of the Klamath levee prior to the 1968-69 flood season and for construction of the Klamath Glen levee at an economical rate. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to: (a) Provide lands, ease- ments, and rights-of-way necessary for construction and functioning of the proj- ect; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construc- tion works; (c) maintain and operate all works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, and manage the his- torical flood plain within the 8)^-mile reach above the mouth of the Klamath River in accordance with item (f) below; (d) adjust all claims regarding water rights arising from construction of the project; (e) make any alterations to exist- ing improvements which may be required because of the project; and (f) prevent any encroachment on the constructed works, ponding areas, and flood-plain management areas which might interfere with the proper functioning of the proj- 91-459— 68— pt. 1 19 "' 288 ect, lessen its beneficial effects, or reduce its design capacity; and, if ponding or flood-plain management is impaired, provide promptly without cost to the United States substitute storage or equivalent pumping capacity' and such flood-control works as required to protect the management areas. The cost to local interests of complying with requirements of local cooperation is $1,760,000: Lands and damages $150,000 and flood-plain management flowage easements $1,610,000. The annual cost to local interests of maintenance, operation, and replacement is estimated at $17,000. Status of local cooperation. — -The Board of Supervisors of Del Norte County, by Resolution No. 6.5-80, June 30, 1965, furnished assurances of required local cooperation for the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,410,000 is an increase of $850,000 over the latest estimate ($2,560,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The increase results from higher price levels ($80,000) and a change in project design to provide protection from a flood greater than the flood of record ($770,000). SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (3) Levees . - 3.000.000 .. 1240,000 .. 170,000 .. 3,410,000 . 570,000 140,000 40. 000 750, 000 1,350,000 90,000 60, 000 1.500,000 1,080.000 Engineering and design 10,000 Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed costs ., 70, 000 1,160.000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments 3,410,000 . 750, 000 1,500,000 1,160,000 Total cost (Federal funds only) 3,410,000 .. 750, 000 1,500,000 1,160,000 Total obligations Method of financing: Federal funds: 750,000 750,000 . 1, 500, 000 1,160,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obM- gation .. - Appropriations required 1,500,000 1,160,000 1 includes $4,000 for Real Estate activities. Mv. WniTi'EN. This was a new start added to tlie House bill last year. What is the status of the project I General Dillard. Sir, planning- is complete for the flood-free town- site at Klamath, combining State of California Freeway and oU-acre landside fill in lieu of a federally constructed levee. The State higli- way contract was 31 percent complete at the time tlie job was shut down for the M-iiiter, and it is due to start up in May. Our negotiation with the contractor will be completed this month. This part of the proje<.'t is soheduled for completion in September 1968. PROJECT CHANGE Mr. WiiiiTEx. Explain the change that has been made in the project design since last year at an additional cost of $770,000. General Diij.ard. The original concept of the plan of improvement for this project consisted of construction of levees north of the existing townsite of Klamath and at Klamath Glen, construction of interior drainage facilities, and management of about 2,200 acres of the re- maining flood plan. The propo.sed design flood (540,000 cubic feet per 289 second) was equal to tlie 1964 flood of record. Free^yay construction by tlie State of California requires revision of the plan of improve- ment to provide a flood-free townsite at Klamath. The combined highway-flood control plan provides for highway embankment with slope protection constructed to a height of 1 foot above standard project flood and fill of approximately 50 acres land- ward of the highway to the level of the standard project water sur- face (approximately 2 feet higher than the levee originally proposed). The plan eliminates need for interior draining and pmnping fa- cilities, provides standard project flood protection and a more suitable new townsite than if placed behind a new levee. Levee height at Klamath Glen will be increased about 2-feet to j^rovide standard project flood protection in lieu of maximum historial flood protection. Mr. Written. Was this project revision clearly covered by the authorization act? General Dillard. Yes, sir, in the survey report the board of Engi- neers for River and Harbors and tlie Chief of Engineers pointed out the possibility for achieving the needed flood protection for this area througli a joint plan with the State highway department. They sug- gested that this possibility be explored in the design stage. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DRAINAGE AREA, CALITGRNIA Mr. Whitten. $4,500,000 is requested for construction of the Los Angeles County drainage area project. ( The justification follows :) Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California (Exclusive of Whittier Narrows Reservoir) (Continuing) Location. — Along the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, Rio Hondo, and Ballona Creek, and tributaries thereof, in Los Angeles County, Calif. Aiithorization.—193Q, 1937, 1938, 1941, 1950 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 6.7 to 1. Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost. $323,900,000 Estimated non-Federal cost.... i 74,100,000 Cash contribution _ Othercosts _ _. 74,100,000 Total estimated project cost. _. 398,000,000 .. Allocations to June 30, 1967. 305,920.000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 12,000,000 Allocations to date 317,920.000 98 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 4,500,000 99 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1,480,000 > In addition, local interests estimate the total cost to them for work supplemental to the Los Angeles County drainage' area project will approximate $2,665,000,000. physical d.\ta Reservoirs: Sepulveda, Hansen, and Lopez Reservoirs in Los Angeles River- Basin; and Santa Fe Reservoir in San Gabriel River Basin. Debris basins: Located at the mouths of tributary canyons, 13 in Los Angeles River Basin, 2 in San Gabriel River Basin, and 7 in Rio Hondo Basin. Main channels: 47.9 miles in Los Angeles River Basin, 31.2 miles in San Gabriel River Basin, 13.4 miles in Rio Hondo Basin, and 2.2 miles in Ballona Creek Basin. 290 Tributary channels: 53.2 miles in Los Angeles River Basin, SI miles in San Gabriel River Basin, 35.3 miles in Rio Hondo Basin, and 21.7 miles in Ballona Creek Basin. Jetties: 2 jetties at mouth of Ballona Creek. Bridge reconstruction: 109 bridges in Los Angeles River Basin, 129 bridges in San Gabriel River Basin, 65 bridges in Rio Hondo Basin, and 12 bridges in Ballona Creek Basin. Lands and damages (Federal onlv) : Acres: 5,836. Type: Residential, commercial, and agricultural. Improvements: Dwellings, industrial plants, and farms. Relocations (Federal only) : Roads (25 miles) $2, 342, 000 Railroad bridges (80) 11, 432, 000 Utility lines 9, 531, 000 Total 23, 305, 000 STATUS(JAN. 1,1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Xos Angeles River Basin: Los Angeles River, Owensmouth Ave. to Sepulveda Reservoir; 100 and Caballero Creek. Los Angeles River, Sepulveda Reservoir to Pacific Ocean, in- (') eluding Compton Creek. Lopez Reservoir, Tujunga and Pacoima Washes, Lopez Canyon 100 diversion, and Wilson and Mansfield Sts. channel. Burbank-Western system and tributaries 100 100 (') Burbank-Eastern system and tributaries Verdugo Wash and tributaries, Sycamore Wash, and Haines Canyon. I Operationally complete. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) I Percent complete Completion schedule San Gabriel River Basin: San Gabriel River channel - 93 99 100 95 (0 97 March 1968. San Gabriel River tributaries. __ ..- San Gabriel River, approach channel to Santa Fe Flood Control Basin RioJHondo Basin: Rio Hondo channel April 1968. December 1968. Rio Hondo tributaries, Ballona Creek Basin: (operationally complete April 1, 1964) Entire project. - --. - December 1969. Do. 1 The following items are complete: [In miles] Basin and item Main stream Tributary Los Angeles River: Reservoirs (3): Sepulveda, Hansen, and Lopez Debris basins (9): At mouths of Haines, La Tuna, Stough, Wilson, Mansfield, Hill- crest, Sunset, Childs, and Elmwood Canyons... Channels 47.9 53.2 San Gabriel River: Reservoir (1): Santa Fe Debris basins (2): On Big Dalton and Little Dalton Washes Channels. 24.4 80.3 Rio Hondo; Debris Basins (7): On Bailey, Carter, and Auburn Canyons of Arcadia Wash Sys- tem; on Santa Anita, Sawpit, and Sierra Madre Villa Washes; and on Rubio Canyon Diversion.. Channels 13.4 34.1 Ballona Creek: Jetties (2): At mouth of Ballona Creek Channels... 2.2 21.7 2 Operationally complete. 291 JUSTIFICATION The Los Angeles County drainage area project is highly important for the flood protection of the entire metropolitan area (population 7,045,000) of Los Angeles County. In this area, facilities important to the national economy are subject to serious damage or disruption by floods. Industrial establishments in the overflow- area include many large plants such as automobile assembly, aircraft, electronic, food processing, textile, steel and shipyards, oil refineries, oil-storage farms, oil fields, and motion-picture studios. Many arterial highways, extensive urban and interurban transportation systems, the'^Santa Fe, Union Pacific, and Southern Pacific Railroads, which connect the Los Angeles area with the East and North, and large electrical power systems are subject to inundation and damage. The largest concentration of aircraft industry in the United States is in Los Angeles County. The total area subject to overflow from a flood of design magnitude has an extent of about 265,000 acres, a population of about 1,800,000, and a total value of about $13,000,000,000. The lives of thousands of persons who live in the overflow area and who work in industrial plants that contribute directly or in- directly to the national economy are endangered. The flood of 1938 caused a loss of 49 Hves and damages amounting to $41,000,000. A recurrence of this flood, under present conditions of development in the flood plain, would cause damages estimated at $454,000,000, of which $445,000,000 would be prevented by this project. In addition, large intangible benefits also would result from prevention of loss of life, interruption of traffic on transcontinental railroads and arterial highways, and interruptions in industrial production, all of which are highly important factors with respect to the national economy. Remedial work is urgently required on the San Gabriel River, approach channel to Santa Fe flood control basin. Levees to confine floodflows to the approach channel to Santa Fe flood control basin were completed in 1947. Rela- tively small floods have threatened to undermine the levee toes and a major flood could cause levee failure, allowing floodflows to bypass the flood control basin. Such an event would result in catastrophic damage to the heavily developed downstream areas and endanger many lives. The present plan for proposed corrective work consists of an upstream inlet structure, a trapezoidal concrete channel, side-drainage inlet structures, and a downstream energy dissipator at a preliminary estimated cost of $5,000,000. Detailed design can be completed in time to permit initiation of construction in fiscal year 1968, with completion in fiscal year 1969. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $87,900,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,500,000 will be applied as follows: Complete remedial work, San Gabriel River approach channel $4, 289, 000 Initiate construction. Sierra Madre Wash Channel 40, 000 Engineering and design 43, 000 Supervision and administration 128, 000 Total 4, 500, 000 Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $74,100,000, broken down as follows: Highway and bridge relocations $35, 389, 000 Land and damages 38, 711, 000 Total 74, 100, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate that part of the project authorized subsequent to 1938. The annual cost for maintenance and operation of that portion of the project is estimated at $871,000. In addition, local interests prior to July 1, 1967, had expended $732,000,000 in constructing supplemental works, including dams, debris basins, minor channel improvements, storm drains, and other similar improvements. In 1952, residents of Los Angeles County voted and approved a bond issue for the expenditure of $179,000,000 for storm drains to aid in the collection and control of runoff in Los Angeles County; in 1958, an additional bond issue of $225,000,000 for a subsidiary network of channels, storm drains, and supplemental improvements was voted and approved; and in 1964, an additional bond issue of $275,000,000 for storm drains was voted and approved. Manj^ of the improvements under the Los An- 292 geles County drainage area project will provide the required outlets for those storm drains. Local interests tentatively estimate that the total ultimate cost to them for work supplemental to the Los Angeles County drainage area project will approximate $2,665,000,000. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests have furnished assurances of re- quired local cooperation and have met all requirements to date. It is expected that future requirements will continue to be met as needed. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $323,900,000 is an increase of $3,900,000 over the latest estimate ($320,000,000) submitted to Congress. The change is due to receipt of bids +$340,000 and addi- tion of remedial work on San Gabriel River approach channel +$5,000,000 (including applicable Government costs), partially offset by savings on completed construction work and savings on supervision and administration for completed work -$1,440,000. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete alter estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages... $5,467,000 $4,883,000 $584,000 Relocations 23.305,000 22,459,000 $833,000 $2,000 11,000 Dams 22,995,000 22,995,000 Ciiannels_- 236,499,000 219,414,000 11,676,000 4,588,000 821,000 Engineering and design '18,192,000 17,848,000 282,000 43,000 19,000 Supervision and administration. _ 17,442,000 16,926,000 343,000 128,000 45,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 323,900,000 304,525,000 13,134,000 4,761,000 1,480,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 323,900,000 304,525,000 13,134,000 4,761,000 1,480,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only)... 323,900,000 304,525,000 13,134,000 4,761,000 1,480,000 Undelivered orders +661,000 -400,000 -261.000 Total obligations- __ _ 305,186,000 12,734,000 4,500,000 1,480,000 Method of financing: Allocations 305,920,000 12,000,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 734,000 Total funds available for obligation 12,734,000 Appropriations required _ 4,500,000 1,480,000 1 Includes $126,000 for real estate activities. SIERRA MADRE WASH CHANNEL Mr. Whitten. What is the current status of the controversy that involved initiation of the construction of the Sierra Madre Wash Channel for which $40,000 is budgeted for fiscal year 1969 ? General Dillard. Until recently, the majority of the city council objected to the Sierra Madre plan of improvement. However, there was a recall election on February 20, 1968. At the recall election, the coun- cilmen opposed to the project were recalled. The vacant seat and two recall seats were filled by individuals that are believed to be favor- able to the project. One councilman who was favorable to the project was not on the recall ballot. One on the recall ballot who is favorable defeated the attempt to recall him. There is to be now a general election held on April 9, 1968. As things stand, preliminary indications are that the reconstituted city council will be able to resolve this longstanding issue in a positive way. NEW BULLARDS bar RESERVOIR, CALIF. Mr. Whitten. $4,060,000 is budgeted to continue reimbursement to the Yuba County Water Agency in connection with the New Bullards Bar Reservoir being constructed in California. 293 (The justification follows :) New Bullards Bar Reservoir, Calif. ( Reimbursement — Continuing) Location. — On North Yuba River, tributary of Yuba River, in Yuba County, California, abouttSO miles northeast of the city of Marysville. The plan of improve- ment provides for a Federal contribution for flood protection to be afforded by construction and operation by the Yuba County Water Agency of the New Bullards Bar Dam and Reservoir project for flood control, irrigation, power generation, recreation, and fish and wildlife. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to^l. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $13,100,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 199,270,000 Cash contribution Other costs '99,270,000 Total estimated project cost 112,370,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 1,000,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 3,585,000 _ Allocations to date _._ 4,585,000 35 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 4,060,000 66 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 4,455,000 > Exclusive of power generating and recreation facilities estimated at $51,730,000. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Tvpe: Concrete arch. Height: 645 feet. Length: 2,323 feet. Spillway : Type: Gated, 3 radial gates 30 by 50 feet. Crest length : 90 feet. Capacity: 163,200 cubic feet per second. Power (New Colgate plant) : Number of units: 2. Installed capacity: 284,000 kUowatts. Maximum head: 1,398 feet. Reservoir capacity: Irrigation, power generation, recreation, fish and wildlife, and flood control storage (including flood control reservation of 170,000 Acre-feet acre-feet) 670,000 Inactive storage 260, 000 Gross storage 930, 000 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Lands and damages 54 June 1969. Relocations 78 June 1968. Dam and appurtenances. 38 June 1970. Closure.- _ _ November 1969. Entire project 42 June 1970. JUSTIFICATION Coordinated flood control operation of New Bullards Bar Reservoir, the pro- posed Marysville Reservoir on Yuba River, Oroville Reservoir, nearing comple- tion on Feather River by the State of California, and the existing levee system, will provide flood protection to about 34,000 acres of highly improved land in the flood plain of Yuba River with an estimated population of 24,200 including urban-suburban areas of Marysville and several rural communities ; two main line railroads and U.S. Highway 99E; and several State and county roads; and to an area of about 115,000 acres of lands along Feather River below the mouth of Yuba River with an estimated population of 36,300, including Yuba City. Property values within the area to receive protection total about .$490 million, of which $240 million is in urban areas and $250 million constitutes rural area values. Approximately 60,500 people reside within the flood plain; the urban-suburban complex of Marysville- Yuba City-Linda-Olivehurst has a population of about 38,200 and is particularly vulnerable to inundation, being located adjacent to the junction of Yuba and Feather Rivers and having a general elevation ranging from 5 to more than 20 feet below the river level at flood stages. The flood plain areas are protected by levees; however, a levee failure might cause the loss of hundreds of lives and many millions of dollars in property damage. The December 1955- January 1956 flood-flows in Yuba and Feather Rivers caused levee failures near Yuba City and Nicolaus, flooded 100,000 acres and caused loss of 40 human lives and about $51 million damage on the Feather River and $2.5 million damage on the Yuba River, below the foothill line. With recurrence of that flood under current conditions of development and price levels, and with Oroville Reservoir in full operation, these damages would be reduced to about $6.2 million, of which about $1.3 million damage would have been prevented had New Bullards Bar Reservoir been in operation. An additional $2.5 million would have been prevented by Marys- ville Reservoir. The December 1964 flood caused damages along Yuba and Feather Rivers below the foothill line of about $6.3 million. A substantial amount of these damages would have been prevented had the three reservoirs, Oroville, Marysville, and New Bullards Bar, been in full operation. About $900,000 of the 1964 damages preventable would be creditable to the New Bullards Bar Reservoir. Average annual flood control benefits for the New Bullards Bar Project are estimated at $683,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,060,000 wUl be applied as follows : Continue Federal payment to the Yuba County Water Agencj^ for flood control protection to be afforded by New Bullards Bar Reservoir $4,011,000 Engineering 35,000 Administration 14, 000 Total _ 4,060,000 Non-Federal costs. — The Yuba County Water Agency will construct, operate, and maintain the project and will provide for specific reservation of flood-control storage therein to be operated for flood control in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Current estimate of local interests' cost for the project is estimated at $99,270,000, exclusive of power generating and recreation facilities and any Federal contribution. The annual cost for maintenance, operation, and replacements for the project is estimated at $913,000. Status of local cooperation. — A $185 million bond issue for the project received the overwhelming approval of the ^ uba County voters in the elections held in May 1961. On May 10, 1964 the Federal Power Commission issued a license for the project to the Yuba County Water Agency. A contract with the Yuba County Water Agency for the flood control operation of the reservoir was executed by the district engineer and that agency on May 9, 1966 and was approved by the Secre- tary of the Army on May 13, 1966. Construction of the proj(>ct was initiated in June 1966; cuirent schedules call for power on line early in 1970; and the water agency expects that the project will be ready for flood-control operation bv the winter of 1969-70. As June 30, 1967 the water agencj' expenditures allocable to flood control were about $39,156,000 for advance planning, relocations, acquisition of real estate, and construction of the main dam and appurtenances. Water agency esti- mates indicate that an additional $34,879,000 will be expended in fi.scal year 1968 on the portions of the project applicable to flood control. 295 Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $13,100,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $2,270,000 $285,000 $1,869,000 $116,000 Relocations 6,100,000 3,464,000 2,636,000 Dam and appurtenances 96,800,000 32,373,000 28,918,000 23,704,000 $12,102,000 Design engineering, inspection and ad- ministration 7,000,000 3,034,000 1,456,000 1,546,000 964,000 Federal engineering and design 140,000 22,500 40,000 35,000 42,500 Federal supervision and administration.. 60,000 4,400 15,100 14,000 26,500 Total applied cost (Federal and non- Federal funds).. 112,370,000 39,182,900 34,934,100 25,118,000 13,135,000 Federal funds: Cash contributions 12,900,000 965,000 3,538,000 4,011,000 4,386,000 Engineering and design 1 140, 000 22,500 40,000 35,000 42,500 Supervision and administration 60,000 4,400 15,100 14,000 26,500 Total 13,100,000 991,900 3,593,100 4,060,000 4,455,000 Non-Federal funds 99,270,000 38,191,000 31,341,000 21,058,000 8,680,000 Metfiodof financing. Federal contribution: Allocations. 1,000,000 3,585,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year - 8,100 Total funds available for obligation 3,593,100 Appropriations required 4,060,000 4,455,000 Non-Federal funds 38,191,000 31,341,000 21,058,000 8,680,000 1 Includes $10,000 for costs to be incurred on real estate activities. ]Mr. Whitten. What is the status of the project and what is the basis for the 1969 reimbursement figure ? General Dillard. Sir, the project is under construction by the Yuba County Water Agency and stands at 42 percent complete at this time. The basis for fiscal year 1969 estimate is 11.5 percent of anticipated contractor's earnings for fiscal year 1968 and computed to be $4,060,000, including Federal engineering and design and administration costs, but exclusive of power and recreation facilities, which are not reimburs- able. NEW DON PEDRO RESERVOIR, CALIF. ]Mr. Whitten. $1 million is budgeted to initiate reimbursement on the new Don Pedro Reservoir in California. (The justification follows:) New Don Pedro Reservoir, Calif. (Reimbursement, new) Location. — On Tuolumne River about 32 miles east of the city of Modesto . The plan of improvement provides for a Federal contribution for flood protection to be afforded by construction and operation of New Don Pedro Reservoir by the city and county of San Francisco and the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts for flood control, irrigation, municipal water supply, and power genera- tion. Authorization. — 1944 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.5 to 1. 296 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost '$5,780,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 2 64,110,000 Cash contribution.. ._ Other costs 2 64,110,000 Total estimated project cost... 69,890,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967.. 95,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date _ 95,000 2 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 _ 1, 000, 000 19 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 4,685,000 1 Exclusive of $9,236,000 expended for initial phase (Cherry Valley Reservoir). -opI 2 Exclusive of pow/er generating and recreation facilities estimated at $24 million. .,T PHYSICAL DATA • Main dam: Type: Earth and rockJSU. Height: 565 feet. Length: 1,900 feet. Auxiliary spillway: Type: Uncontrolled ogee crest. Crest length: 995 feet. Capacit}^: 300,000 cubic feet per second. Dikes: Five Type: EarthfiU. Height: 35 feet. Length: (Total) 3,400 feet. Spillway : Types: Gated, 3 radial gates 45 feet bj^ 30 feet. Crest length: 135 feet. Capacity: 170,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Irrigation, water supplj^, and flood control storage (including) Acre-feet flood control reservation of 340,000 1, 721. 000 Inactive storage 309, 000 Gross storage 2, 030, 000 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Present complete Completion schedule Lands and damages 29 June 1971. Relocations. (i) Do. Dam and appurtenances 5 Do. Closure (') November 1970. Entire project 10 June 1971. « Not stated. JUSTIFICATION The Tuolumne River reservoirs, of which construction of New Don Pedro Reservoir is the final stage (construction of Cherry Valley Reservoir and operation of that reservoir and other upstream reservoirs for flood control being the initial stage of development), will provide a high degree of flood protection to about 16,000 acres of highly developed agricultural land in the flood plain of the Tuolumne River; to urban-suburban areas of Modesto (1967 population, 48,690) to several rural communities; to two main line railroads and U.S. Highway 99; and to several State and county roads; and, in conjunction with the authorized lower San Joaquin River levees project and storage on the Stanislaus River, will assist in providing flood protection to an area of about 67,000 acres of agricultiu'al lands along the San Joaquin River below the mouth of the Tuolumne River, and 297 about 185,000 acres of intensively cultivated land in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, suburban areas south of the city of Stockton, and numerous commercial and public installations. During the December 1955 to January 1956 floods, about $550,000 damages occurred along the Tuolumne River and about $100,000 damage was prevented by the initial stage of the development. In addition, about $4,350,000 damages occurred on the San Joaquin River below the mouth of the Tuolumne River and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. With recurrence of that flood under current conditions of development and price levels, New Don Pedro Reservoir would prevent all of the estimated $944,000 damages which would occur along Tuolumne River, and would prevent about $2,173,000 of the esti- mated $6,072,000 damages which would occur on the San Joaquin Paver below the mouth of the Tuolumne River and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The average annual benefits are estimated at $1,130,000, all from flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1 million will be applied as follows: Federal payment to local interests for flood control protection to be afforded by New Don Pedro Reservoir $930, 000 Engineering 50, 000 Administration 20, 000 Total 1,000, 000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests, comprising the city and county of San Francisco and the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts, will construct, operate, and maintain the project and will provide for 340,000 acre-feet of flood control storage therein to be operated for flood control in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Current estimate of local interests cost for the project is estimated at $64,110,000, exclusive of power generating and recreation facilities and the Federal contribution. Status of local cooperation. — A contract was negotiated in 1949 with local in- terests whereby they agreed to provide 340,000 acre-feet of flood control storage in New Don Pedro Reservoir, when constructed, in exchange for a Federal con- tribution estimated at $12 million (1949 price level). A supplemental agi-eement, executed as of June 12, 1967, modifies the existing repayment contract. This modification reflects the reevaluation cost allocation studies made in 1961-62 and increases the Federal contribution $2,464,000 (from $12 million as estimated in 1949 to $14,464,000). Construction of the Cherry Valley Reservoir, and pro- vision of interim flood control storage therein as well as iia existing Don Pedro and Hetchy Reservoirs, have provided approximately 75 percent of the flood protection to be afforded by the overall development, and Federal payments totaling $9 miUion have been made to the local interests for this first phase. The second and final phase consists of construction of New Don Pedro Reser- voir, operation for flood control of 340,000 acre-feet of storage in that reservoir, and cessation of operation of upstream reservoirs for flood control. A residual payment of $5,464,000 will be made to local interests during the construction of New Don Pedi-o Dam and Reservoir. Bond issues for the project received the overwhelming approval of voters in the elections held in 1961 in Modesto, Turlock, and San Francisco. The Federal Power Commission issued a license for the project in March 1964 and the irri- gation districts approved acceptance of such license in May 1966. The main dam contract was awarded and construction was initiated in August 1967, Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,780,000 is an increase of $2,610,000 from the latest estimate ($3,170,000, July 1961 base) submitted to Congress. An increase of $2,464,000 in the Federal cash contribution resulted from the June 1961-62 cost allocation studies, which reevaluated benefits and reflected price level increase from 1948 to 1961. Re- analysis of requirements for design review, field inspections, and contract ad- ministration, based on experience on other partnership projects, increased the estimate for engineering and design and supervision and administration, $146,000. 298 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $4,300,000 $815,000 $870,000 $1,200,000 $1,415,000 Relocations 9,020,000 4,430,000 4,590,000 Dam and appurtenances 48,450,000 6,100,000 14,000,000 28,350,000 Design engineering, inspection, and ad- ministration _ 7,804,000 2,840,000 1,210,000 1,500,000 2,254,000 Federal engineering and design... 245,000 87,700 50,000 107,300 Federal supervision and administration.. 71,000 7,400 20,000 43,600 Total applied costs (Federal and non- Federal funds)... 69,890,000 3,750,100 8,180,000 21,200,000 36,759,900 Federal funds: Cast) contributions 5,464,000 930,000 4,534,000 Engineering and design i245,000 87,700 50,000 107,300 Supervision and administration 71,000 7,400 20,000 43,600 Total 5,780,000 95,100 1,000,000 4,684,900 Non-Federal funds 64,110,000 3,655,000 8,180,000 20,200,000 32,075,000 Method of financing: Federal contribution: Appropriations 95,100 Unobligated carryover from prior year _. Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required 1,000,000 4,684,900 Non-Federal funds 3,655,000 8,180,000 20,200,000 32,075,000 'Includes $3,000 for costs to be incurred on real estate activities. PROJECT DESCRIFTION AND BASIS OF REIIVIBURSEMENT Mr. Whitten. Please describe tliis project and the basis for the Federal reimbursement. General Dillard. The New Don Pedro Keservoir will be located on the Tuolumne River, 32 miles east of the city of Modesto, Calif. The dam will be of earth and rockfill, 565 feet' high, and will create a reservoir of 2,030,000 acre-feet capacity for flood control, irrigation, municipal water supply, and power generation. The project is being constructed by the city and county of San Francisco and the Turlock and INIodevSto Irrigation Districts. The Federal contribution will be made to the sponsors of the project for flood control storage of 340,000 acre-feet. The average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $1,130,000 and the benefit-to-cost ratio is 2.5 to 1. The basis of the reimbursement stems from a contract which was negotiated in 1949 with local interests whereby they agreed to provide 340,000 acre-feet of flood control storage in New Don Pedro Reservoir when constructed in exchange for a Federal contribution estimated at $12 million at the 1949 price level. A supplemental agreement executed in June 1967 modifies the existing repayment contract. This modifica- tion reflects the reevaluation cost allocation studies made in 1961 and 1962. It increases the Federal contribution $2,464,000, from $12 million as estimated in 1949, to $14,464,000 at that time. Construction of the Cherry Valley Reservoir and provision of in- terim flood control storage tlierein, as well as in the existing Don Pedro and Hetch Hetchy Reservoirs have provided approximately 75 per- cent of the flood protection to be afforded by the overall Tuolumne River development. Federal payments totaling $9 million have been made to the local interests for their first phase. 299 The second and final phase consists of construction of New Don Pedro Keservoir, operation for flood control of 340,000 acre-feet of storage in that reservoir and the cessation of operations of the up- stream reservoirs for flood control. A residual payment of $5,464,000 will be made to local interests during the construction of New Don Pedro Dam and Eeservoir. Having that knowledge, we then budgeted for an initial payment of $930,000 for fiscal year 1969, which is related to the progress of construction against the flood control benefits and recognizing that the $5,464,000 is a maximum due payment. STATUS OF COXSTRUCTION Mr. Whitten. What is the status of construction by local interests? General Dillard. Construction is about 10 percent complete and will be about 17 percent by June 30, 1968. OROVILLE RESERVOIR, CALIF. Mr. Whitten. $11,061,000 is budgeted to complete the reimburse- ment to the State of California on the Oroville Reservoir in California. (The justification follows :) Oroville Reservoir, Calif. (Reimbursement — Continuing) Location. — On Feather River, a tributary of the Sacramento River in Butte County, Calif., about 4 miles northeast of the town of Oroville, and about 70 miles above the mouth of Feather River. The plan of improvement provides for a Federal contribution for flood protection to be afforded by construction and operation of Oroville Reservoir by the State of California for water supply, power generation, irrigation, flood control, and other purposes. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $68,100,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 410,760,000 Cash contribution Other costs. _ 410,760,000 Total Estimated Project Cost - 478,860,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967... 47,764,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968.. 9,275,000 Allocations to date.- 57,039,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 11,061,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 100 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earth and rockfill. Height: 770 feet. Length: 6,850 feet. Reservoir capacity: Irrigation, water supply and flood: Control storage (Including flood control reservation of ^cre-feet 750,000 a.f.)___ 2, 023, 000 Inactive storage 1, 500, 000 Gross storage 3, 523, 000 300 Power: Number of units: Six. Installed capacitj^: 600,000 kilowatts. INIaximum head: 675 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Relocations lOO Dam and reservoir (including lands and damages) '"... 98 June 1968 Feather River fish hatchery (interim)... 100 Feather River fish hatchery (completion) '.././.. 100 Construction facilities. '..'..// 100 Initial flood control service .." 100 Closure.. „.. .[./'...... October 1967. Entire project 98 June 1968. JUSTIFICATION The project will provide flood protection to the cities of Marys\ille (estimated population 12,200), Yuba City (estimated population 19,100) and Oroville (esti- mated population 9,300) ; to many small communities in the flood plain; to 283,000 acres of highly developed agricultural land; and to important highwa}" and rail- road routes. The partially completed Oroville Dam reduced the record-breaking December 1964 flood by an estimated 4.6 feet in river stage at Yuba City. This prevented a river stage 1.6 feet above the project levee design stage reducing the flood plain to 3.0 feet below the levee design stage. Considering the probability of levee failure without such reduction, it is estimated that this operation pre- vented $30,000,000 damage in the Yuba City-Marysville area. If the project had been completed and in operation during the December 1955-January 1956 floods, it would have prevented the flooding of Yuba City, Yuba City agricultural area, and the Nicolaus area. Such a reduction in floodflows in Feather River would also have relieved the threat to the remaining portion of the Sacramento River levees sj^stem below the mouth of the Feather River. During the December 1955-January 1956 floods, 40 lives were lost and damages amounting to about $50,500,000 occurred in the area below the Oroville damsite. Under current condi- tions of development and price levels, these damages would amount to $78,300,000 of which $76,700,000 would be preventable by construction of the project. Average annual flood damage reduction is estimated at $5,568,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $11,061,000 will complete the project and wUl be applied as follows: Final payment to State of California for flood control protection to be afforded by Oroville Reservoir $11, 045, 000 Engineering 5, 000 Administration 11, 000 Total $11,061,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 will provide for final reimbursement to the State of California for the Federal share of the project costs estimated to be incurred through fiscal year 1968, based on use of a 3^-percent interest rate as provided for in the contract with the State of California. Non-Federal costs.— The State of California is constructing and will operate, and maintain the Oroville Reservoir and will provide for specific reservation of flood control storage therein to be operated for flood control in accordance with regu- lations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Current estimate of local interests cost for the project (dam, reservoir, and power facilities) is $410,760,000, ex- clusive of any Federal contribution. The annual cost for maintenance, operation and replacenients is estimated at about $4,370,000. Status of local cooperation. — Construction of Oroville Dam by the State of Cali- fornia is proceeding as the initial project of the California Water Plan; dam closure was completed October 6, 1967. During fiscal year 1959, the State legislature appropriated $83 million for the water development i)rogram and authorized transfer of $172 million from other funds to be made available for that pur})ose. In November 1960, the electorate of the State of California approved a l)ond issue in the amount of $1,750 miflion to finance the California Water Development program, such funds to be applied principally to the Feather River project. 301 As of June 30, 1967 the State expenditures allocable to flood control were about $271,806,000 for advance planning, relocation of highways and railroad facilities, acquisition of real estate, and construction of the diversion tunnel, main dam and appurtenances, and fish facilities. State estimates indicates that an additional $35,764,000 will be expended in fiscal year 1968 on the portions of the project applicable to flood control. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $68,100,000 is an increase of $1,675,000 over the latest estimate ($66,425,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The increase is principally due to unforeseen geologic prob- lems which required deeper dam foundation and change in diversion tunnel slides on relocated roads including U.S. Highway 40 A requiring reconstruction to flatter side slopes. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations _ $75,597,000 $75,597,000 Dam and reservoir (including lands and damages) 225,752,000 190,038,000 $35,714,000 Feather River Fish Hatchery: Interim- 1,839,000 1,839,000 _ Completion 1,816,000 1,816,000 _ Construction facilities--.. 2,566,000 2,516,000 50,000 Federal engineering and design 275,000 249,200 20,800 $5,000 Federal supervision and administration... 150,000 105,700 33,300 11,000 Total applied costs (Federal and non- Federal funds)-- -- 307,995,000 272,160,900 35,818,100 16,000 Federal funds: Cash contribution 67.675,000 47,395,000 9,235,000 11,045,000 Engineering and design i275,000 249,200 20,800 5,000 Supervision and administration 150,000 105,700 33,300 11,000 Total 68,100,000 47,749,900 9,289,100 11,061,000 Non-FederalTunds - 239,895,000 224,411,000 26,529,000 -11,045,000 Method of financing (Federal contribu- tion): Allocations 47,764,000 9,275,000 ._ Unobligated carryover from prior year.--- 14,100 Total funds available for obligation 9,289,100 Appropriations required - -- 11,061,000 Total applied cost (State and Federal , „„„ funds) 307,995,000 272,160,900 35,818,100 16,000 Power fadlitie's (State funds") 170,865,000 129,163,000 22,978,000 18,724,000 Total project cost 478,860,000 401,323,900 58,796,100 18,740,000 » Includes $25,000 for costs to be incurred for real estate activities. INTEREST RATE AND COST ALLOCATION TO RECREATION Mr. Whitten. This estimate includes $4,931,000 representing the difference between the interest rate of 2% percent, the going Federal rate at the time the project was initiated, and the rate of 31/2 percent representing the compromise reached by the Corps of Engineers with the State between the interest rate paid by the State of California and the Federal rate. As you know, oin- connnittee has taken the position over the years, Avhich is also shared by the General Accounting Office, that in fund- ing these annual payments the committee was not justified in paying an interest rate in this instance greater than the Federal rate nni- formly applied to all such projects. Would you care to comment on this position which has been taken by the coinmittee over the years, which now involves a total of al^out $4.9 million in interest? Prior to that, a related issue which was taken into account is that the omission of recreation as a proiect DurDose in. the a.llnrn.tion nf 302 the joint project costs increased the Federal contribntion for flood control by about $9 million according to General Accounting Office figures. This amount is considerably greater than the interest deficiency of $4,931,000 which is being requested by the State of California. We wonder why was recreation not considered as a project purpose in the allocation of the project costs and I would like you to discuss this factor also. General Dillard. Yes, sir. The record of previous hearings before this committee contains factual background data describing the manner by which the present reimbursement terms actually came about. It reflects the fact that we have a contract with the State of California for reimbursement which is subject to appropriation by Congress. Unless the committee desires a review of this material, I will proceed directly to the discus- sion germane to the points you raise. Mr. Whitten. Yes ; please proceed. General Dillard. It is my view that we have carried out the direc- tive of Congi-ess in the 1958 Flood Control Act. Our fiscal year 1969 budget request is based on the terms of the contract which was drawn up between the State and the Federal Government in strict accord with that directive. The GAO report considers that the Federal contribution Avas over- estimated because recreation was not included as a project purpose and the use of the composite 3% percent interest rate was improper. The basic recommendation of the GAO was that a new cost alloca- tion be made. With all due respect to the GAO, we do not agree that a new cost allocation should be made, particularly since the GAO report recog- nizes that the Government has a firm contract with the State of California. Aside from the facts that recreation was not authorized as a project purpose by Congress, and that the cost of allocation made in 1961-62 had to be in accord with the 1958 authorization, inclusion of joint costs for recreation were precluded under Bureau of the Budget pro- cedures in effect at that time; such action now would be equivalent to a unilateral change in the contract. We would never pei'mit the State to do that. Conversely, if we had originally considered recreation in our proj- ect cost allocation, there is little doubt in my mind that the GAO would have quite properly drawn our attention to the fact that this was extra legal. We do agree that the Oroville Resei^voir will provide substantial recreation benefits, although we note that the State has recently deferred early development of planned recreational facili- ties due to budgetary reasons. My observations are that any Federal reimbursement other than the 22 percent of the total allowable project expenditures by the State within the prescribed limit in the contract for Federal costs may be challengeable in the courts. If the present reimbursement terms of the contract are not met by the Federal Government, a question may be raised as the legality of requiring the State to operate the reservoir for flood control as specified by the Secretary of the Army. Also, if the Federal Goveimnent now does not meet the terms of this contract, it may be difficult for the Government in the future to 30B enter into beneficial water resource contracts or agreements with the State. A new cost allocation under today's conditions would not be appro- priate as it would require consideration of other features that were not present at the time which very probably would result in an in- crease in the Federal contribution. Finally, as a matter of information, had the Federal Government built the Oroville project, the Federal first cost would h-ave been greater than the agreed to contribution due to the fact that all basic recreation facility costs would be nonreimbursable. The interest rate on M and I water would be 2% percent instead of 3% percent, thus increasing the allocation to nonreimbursable functions and a portion of the M and I use would have been considered deferred, increasing still further the allocation to a nonreimbursable function. Hypothetically, had a Federal project been constructed for the single purpose of providing 750,000 acre feet of flood control storage as is now provided in the Oroville Reservoir, it would have cost about $225 million as opposed to the $68,100,000 Federal outlay for the project as authorized. That covers my views. REVENUES FROM POWER Mr. Whitten. To whom does power income from the project go, the Federal Government or to California ? General Dillon. This accnies to the State. Mr. Whitten". I believe we should keep this in mind when we draw the distinction between State and Federal construction. Had the Fed- eral Government built it, the power revenues would have gone to the Federal Government? General Dillon. Correct, sir ; also the cost. Mr. Whitten. They do 'have that benefit ? General Dillard. Yes, sir. COST ALLOCATION TO RECREATION Mr. Whitten. Now turning to the report from the Comptroller General under date of April 29, 1964, addressed to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, among other things we find this paragraph on page 8 : Allocation of costs to recreation was omitted even though the corps was following the practice, at the time of the Oroville cost-allocation report was prepared, of recommending in its survey reports to the Congress the allocation of joint costs to recreation where recreation was a significant factor, and the State of California had planned recreation as a purpose of the Oroville project and had allocated costs to recreation as a purpose of the Oroville project and had allocated costs to recreation on several other units of the Feather River project, which have considerably fewer projected man-days of recreation use. I think it would be well for Mr, Wilhelm to put such other parts of the report in the record at this point as might be appropriate to out- line the GAO findings, especially in regard to the recreation question. (The following are excerpts from the GAO report :) 91-459— 68— pt. 1 20 304 SUMMARY OP FINDINGS Piu-suant to section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 315), the Chief of Engineers has determined for the Secretary of the Army that the Federal contribution for the flood control accomplishments of the Oroville project should be $66 million. The omission of recreation as a project purpose in the allo- cation of joint costs and the use of a compromise rate of interest higher than the Federal rate on long term l)orrowings increase the contribution by the Federal Government to the State of California by about $9 million and $4,650,000, respectively. Detailed discussions of these matters are included in later sections of the report and are summarized below. OMISSION OF RECREATION AS A PROJECT PURPOSE INCREASED THE ALLOCATION OF PROJECT COSTS TO FLOOD CONRTOL The omission of recreation as a project purpose in the allocation of the joint costs of the Oroville project increased the Federal contribution for flood control by about $9 million. The corps' practice concerning proposed federally constructed projects at the time of the approval of the Oroville allocation by the Chief of En- gineers was to recommend to the Congress the inclusion of recreation as a project purpose where recreation was a significant purpose of the project, as at Oroville. The State of California had recognized recreation benefits as being significant and had planned recreation facilities at the Oroville project. The construction of flood-control works having general benefits is recognized as a Federal responsi- bility and the factors for economic justification of the project are not changed whether it is federally constructed or State constructed with Federal participa- tion for the flood-control accomplishments. For these reasons, we believe that the corps should have included recreation as a project purpose in computing the allo- cation of the amount for flood control at the Oroville project and in determining the contribution by the Federal Government toward the construction cost of the dam and reservoir. ( See pp. 6 through 27.) USE OF INTEREST RATE HIGHER THAN FEDERAL RATE ON LONG TERM BORROWINGS IN- CREASED THE ALLOCATION OF PROJECT COSTS TO FLOOD CONTROL The use by the Corps of Engineers of a composite rate of interest between the lower Federal interest rate and the higher State of Califorina estimated borrowing rate in computing the allocation to the flood-control purpose, and hence the Federal contribution for flood control, resulted in an increase of about $4,650,000 in the allocation to flood control. The Federal interest rate had been used by the Corps of Engineers for piirposes of computing the Federal contribu- tions for flood-control features in a previous similarly constructed State project ; hence the policy of using the Federal interest rate for succeeding partnership projects had been established by the corps. The Chief of Engineers used a com- posite interest rate for the Oroville project computation which was higher than the Federal interest rate as a special consideration of the situation and cir- cumstances then existing. In our opinion the various reasons accepted by the Chief of Engineers did not justify the use of the compromise interest rate and the consequent increased Federal contribution to the State of California for flood control at the Oroville project. ( See pp. 28 through 46.) The payment of the Federal contribution for estimated Oroville project costs is subject, by the terms of the contract between the State of California and the Corps of Engineers, to appropriations by the Congress. For fiscal years 1963 and 1964, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations approved amounts as progress payments to the State of California for estimated flood-control costs already incurred. The legislative history indicates that the amounts were based in part on an interest rate lower than that jjrovided by the contract. In ap- proving the appropriation for fiscal year 19(54, the Soni^te Committee on Ap- propriations requested that the Corps of Engineers supply additional informa- tion on the interest matter for further considoi'ation during the hearings for the 1965 appropriation. (See i)p. 43 through 46.) 305 Discussion of Findings omission of recreation as a project purpose increased the allocation of project costs to flood control The omission of recreation as a project purpose in the allocation of the joint costs of the Oroville project increased the Federal contribution for flood control bv about .$0 million. The corps practice concerning proposed federally constructed projects at the time of the approval of the Oroville allocation by the Chief of Engineers was to recommend to the Congress the inclusion of recreation as a project purpose where recreation was a significant purpose of the project, as at Oroville. The State of California had recognized recreation benefits as being significant and had planned recreation facilities at the Oroville project area. For these reasons we believe that the corps should have included recreation as a project purpose in computing the allocation of the amount for flood control at the Oroville project and in determining the contribution by the Federal Govern- ment toward the construction cost of the dam and reservoir. In consonance with the policy that the construction of flood-control works hav- ing general benefits is a Federal responsibility, the Congress, by section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1958, authorized a contribution toward the construction costs of the Oroville project. This section provides that the amount of contribu- tion shall be determined by the Secretary of the Army in cooperation with the State of California, subject to a finding by the Secretary of the Army, approved by the President, of economic justification for allocation of the amount of flood control. The Chief of Engineers, acting on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, made a determination as to the portion of the Oroville project costs attributable to flood control bv allocating project costs to the following purposes: (1) irriga- tion. (2) power, (3) flood control, and (4) municipal and industrial water supply. The Chief of Engineers recommended to the Secretary of the Army on October 2, 19nl, that the Federal Government participate in the construction costs of the Oroville Dam and Reservoir, exclusive of the power facilities, in an amount equal to 22 percent of actual construction costs— an estimated Federal expenditure of ^0C> 800.000. The Chief of Engineers stated that, of this amount, $66 million would be contributed to the State of California and $300,000 would be used by the Federal Government for engineering and administration of funds. The Chief's report to the Secretary was based on work performed by the corp's Sacramento district office and was completed in January 1961. The separable costs-remaining benefits method was used by the corps in allo- cating costs to the project purposes. In essence, this technique provides for an allocation of total project costs to the recognized purposes of the project in pro- portion to the benefits to be derived from the project, with the measurement of the benefits limited by the costs of available alternative single-purpose projects which could provide the same benefits. This method was also used by the State of California in making cost allocations on other State projects. The Corps of Engineers, in making the cost allocation, did not include recreation as a project purpose. Had recreation been included, based on the State of California's esti- mate of an ultimate annual 11 million visitor-days, at a rate of 50 cents a day, an ultimate annual computed benefit of $5,500,000 would have resulted. In the absence of an engineering study, we estimate that the Federal contribu- tion for flood control would be reduced about $9 million under the separable costs-remaining beneflts method of allocation of joint costs had been allocated to recreation as well as to the other project purposes. Allocation of costs to recreation was omitted even though the corps was fol- lowing the practice, at the time the Oroville cost allocation report was prepared, of recommending in survey reports to the Congress the allocation of joint costs to recreation where recreation was a signiflcant factor; and the State of Cali- fornia had planned recreation as a purpose of the Oroville project and had allo- cated costs to recreation on several other units of the Feather River project, which have considerably fewer projected man-days of recreational use. CORPS POLICY ON RECREATION The corps issued "Engineering Manual 1120-2-115," dated August 24, 1959, which stated its basic policy concerning recreation as follows : 306 "3. Basic policy: The growing importance of recreation warrants its considera- tion as a purpose of Federal projects for water resources development. The Fed- eral Government has a basic responsibility in developing water resources proj- ects existing recreational resources, to preserve and make available the basic rec- reational resource created by such projects, and to enhance this recreational po- tential in appropriate cases. ******* "5. Plan formulation: ******* "a. Recreation will be considered a purpose of all projects except those not expected to produce a significant increase in recreation. * * *" corps officials informed us that the corps had no written policy concerning rec- reation as a project purpose prior to August 24, 1959. We note, however, that "Engineering Manual 1160-2-101," dated January 1, 1958, recognized that costs of specific recreation facilities may be allocated directly to recreation and stated that joint costs of a project would not be allocated to recreation unless the proj- ect, as authorized, included recreation as a project purpose. This instruction shows that the corps recognized recreation as a project purpose and that costs could have been allocated for that purpose even before the corps initiated studies at the district level in August 1958 on cost allocation aspects of the Oroville project. For the Oroville project, there was no preauthorization report to the Congress by the corps and the applicable law neither required nor pi'ohibited the inclusion of recreation as a project purpose in making the cost allocation to determine the amount of Federal contribution toward the construction cost of the project. Un- der the circumstances, the inclusion of recreation as a project purpose in the allocation of costs of the Oroville project would have been consistent with the preauthorization practices followed by the corps on proposed federally con- structed projects where recreation was a significant purpose. In addition, although cori>s officials informed us that rec-reation benefits were considered incidental, the matter of recreation received considerable attention when the cost allocation principles were first discussed. The allocation of cost on Oroville was initiated and advanced by the Joint Committee on Oroville Cost- Allocation Studies consisting of field representatives of the corps, the Bureau of Reclamation (Federal), the Federal Power Commission, and the State of California Department of Water Resources. This committee, which met several times between August 19.58 and October 1959, discussed and agreed, insofar ns was practical, on assumptions, criteria, and matters including reservoir opera- tions and benefit evaluations. During the first meeting of the joint committee on August 7, 1958, it was agreed that the State would investigate the authority for allocation of cost to rec- reation and purposes other than conservation, power, and flood control and report the findings back to the committee. Also, as a result of this first joint com- mittee meeting, the regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation (Federal) informed the Sacramento distric't engineer as follows : "The Bureau representatives observed that in theory if benefits from other functions occur and can be measured, an appropriate share of the reservoir cost should be allocated thereto, regardless of the reimbursability of such functions." The minutes of the second meeting of the joint committee held on September 4, 19.58, contain the following comments by representatives of the Corps of Engineers. "The Bureau representatives agreed to withdraw their comnipiit * * * upon ad- vice of the State that legislative authority for the project is limited to flood control, irrigation water, municipal and industrial water, and power. ******* "On the basis of information furnished by State personnel, the committee agreed that allocation would be limited to flood control, water conservation, and power." We could find nothing in the State's enabling legislation to prohibit the allo- cation of costs to recreation, and the Chief, Planning and Reports Branch. Sac- ramento district of the corps, advised us that he did not know the specific section of the law to which the State representatives referred. The fact that the State authorizing legislation does not specifically designate recreation benefits as a 307 project feature would not of itself preclude allocation by the corps of appropriate costs to this purpose. As a contrast, the Upper Feather River Basin project, which is also a part of the Feather River project and was authorized by the same State act which authorized the Oroville Dam and Reservoir, includes recreation as a primary project purpose. Moreover, on October 15, 1959, the director, California De- partment of Natural Resources, stated that : "Legislation has been enacted rec- ognizing recreation and fish and wildlife needs in all State water development projects." In determining the amount of the flood-control allocation, all significant pur- poses of the project should have been considered by the corps. The eventual an- nual recreation benefit value, which we have estimated at $5,500,000. is based on the State of California's estimate of an eventual 11 million visitor-days a year, at a value of 50 cents a visitor-day. On this basis the average annual bene- fits would be one-half of $5,500,000, or $2,750,000. assuming an even increase of project use from the start of project operations to the ultimate development. This annual benefit value of recreation appears significant by itself and also in comparison with the average annual benefit values placed by the corps on the other purp'^ses, as follows : Project purposes Average annual benefit value Flood control $3, 640, 000 Irrigation 5,211, 000 Municipal and industrial water supply 3, 440, 000 Power 19, 266, 000 Total 31, 557, 000 The Sacramento district engineer of the corps in his review report on cost allocation for flood control, Oroville project. Feather River, Calif., dated February 15, 1960, stated that recreation, health, welfare, and enhancement to fisheries had not been evaluated because : 1. They were not considered to be primary project purposes. 2. Some of these benefits were of an intangible nature. 3. Additional expenditures would be necessary to realize these benefits. In our opinion these reasons do not justify the exclusion of recreation as a project purpose for computing the Federal share of the costs, as explained in the following paragraphs. KECREATION IS NOT CONSIDERED A PRIMARY PROJECT PURPOSE The computed average recreational benefit value of $2,750,000 a year at Oroville is approximately 75 percent of the amount estimated for fiood control benefits. By comparison, for the Hidden Dam and Reservoir project, where the corps approved recreation as a project purpose (see p. 10), the estimated value of recreation benefits was only 11 percent of the amount estimated for fiood control benefits. Estimate based on one-half of the eventual 11 million visitor- days per year, or an average of 5.5 million visitor-days per year at Oroville, represent more than 36 times the estimated visitor-day.s — 140,000 — lat Hidden Dam and Reservoir. Accordingly, it seems to us that the very substantial recre- ational benefits anticipated for the Oroville Dam and Reservoir justify the inclusion of recreation as a primary project purpose. SOME OF THESE BENEFITS ARE OF AX INTANGIBLE NATURE Recreational benefits can be and have been expressed in tangible monetary terms by using a dollar value for a visitor-day. The Sacramento district engineer used 50 cents a visitor-day as a basis for determining the value of recreational benefits at Hidden Dam and Reservoir. In connection with other projects, the National Park Service has suggested the use of $1.60 a visitor-day and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has suggested the use of $5.80 an angler-day. The Chief of Engineers, in a letter dated January 10, 1961, recommended a range of values for general recreation from 50 cents to $1.50 a day. In addition, as discussed in later sections of this report. State oSicials used a rate of $2 a visitor-day for the Upper Feather River projects. 308 ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURES WOULD BE NECESSARY TO REALIZE THE BENEFITS Additional expenditures have been planned by the State Department of Water Resources. The 1960 progress report on recreation planning for the State water facilities (quoted herein on p. 13) showed that recreation planning at Oroville Reservoir was progressing and that nine separate land sites for recreation had been mapped and acquisition recommended. The need for additional expenditures to realize any particular benefit should not disqualify that benefit as a primary project purpose. Additional expendi- tures for power, irrigation, flood control, and municipal and industrial water supply are included as separable costs in the cost allocation computation made by the Sacramento district engineer in his report on Oroville. State ofiicials stated that, because of the added expenditures necessary to realize the benefits, the separable cost of recreation might be high enough to nullify any change in the present cost allocation. To resolve this possibility, we requested State officials to furnish us with estimates of the amounts of future expenditures that would be made for recreation. Although these figures were admittedly approximations, they indicated that an average of about $750,000 a year may be spent for recreation development over the 50-year life of the project. The separable annual costs for recreation would have to aggregate $2,750,000, the amount of average annual benefits which we have used in our computation, before they would nullify the full amount of the potential reduc- tion in the joint costs allocated to flood control and the other project purposes recognized in the present cost allocation. Moreover, the value which we assigned for annual visitor-day benefits of Oroville is, in our opinion, very conservative. We selected the lowest rate for visitor-day value recommended by the Federal agencies contacted and this rate is much lower than the $2 a visitor-day used by State of California oflieials in determining benefits for projects in the Upper Feather River Basin. Appen- dix A to Bulletin No. 59 of the State of California, department of water re- sources, dated February 1957, entitled "Evaluation of Recreation Benefit from Five Proposed Reservoirs in the Upper Feather River Basin," stated in pertinent part : "measurement of THE DOLLAR VALUE OF A DAY'S RECREATION "A figure of $2 per visitor-day has been selected to represent the average rec- reational benefit from use of facilities at the proposed reservoir sites. This fig- ure is used with full knowledge of the difficulty of finding an acceptable mone- tary measure of recreational enjoyment. It is, however, considered to be con- servative measure of recreational value for purposes of benefit cost analysis of the projects, and is in line with benefit figures currently used by Fedei'al agencies. "The figure has been arrived at after extensive review of the literature of recreation benefit analysis, and a series of conferences with representatives of most public and private agencies having a direct interest in the measurement of recreation benefits. * * *" COMMENTS BY THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS The Chief of Engineers, by letter dated March 25, 1963, stated his position as to the merits of including recreation as a project purpose. The more significant comments follow, together with our evaluation thereof. "At the time of preparation of the Oroviile report, the policy of the Corps of Engineers with regard to authorized Federal i-eservoir projects was that only the specific costs of recreation should be charged to that function and that joint costs .should not be allocated to recreation unless the project, as authorized by Con- gress, included recreation as a project purpose. * * * if i)i ilf * "The Oroville project was considered to be in an authorized status under the provisions of section 204 of the lO.iS Flood Control Act. However, that authoriza- tion provided only for a Federal contribution for flood control. Accordingly, rec- reation was not recognized as a project purpose insofar as the cost allocation was concerned. Therefore, the same cost allocation procedures were followed as in the case of the corps' authorized projects where recreation was not authorized by Congress as a primary project purpose. "Engineering Manual 1120-2-115 referred to in your draft report was issued in August 1959 to pei'mit consideration of the recreational potential of reservoir 309 projects and to provide a basis for anthorization by Congress of recreation as a primary project purpose. The manual did not, and was not intended, to indicate any change in policy regarding the allocation of joint costs to recreation for projects authorized without recreation as a stated primary puri>ose." EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION Essentially, the Chief of Engineers is contending that the manual instructions issued in August 1959 applied only to recognizing recreation as a project purpose in reports on proposed Federal projects submitted to the Congress for authoriza- tion. , , . For the non-Federal Oroville project, no preauthorization survey and report to the Congress was prepared by the Corps of Engineers before enactment of the Flood Control Act of 1958 which authorized the Federal contribution. The de- termination by the Corps of Engineers of the amount of the contribution, after the manual was issued in August 1959, was the counterpart of the usual pre- authorziation study and report for proposed Federal projects ; and it is our view that the manual instructions in efEect at the time should have been followed. Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 did not provide whether recreation should or should not be a project purpose and, under the circumstances, we be- lieve that the Corps of Engineers should have included recreation as a project purpose. For Federal projects, the Congress generally authorizes flood control projects in accordance with survey reports made by the corps. Although the survey is in most cases based on a congressional committee resolution or an act of the Con- gress, the corps exercises latitude in assuring that the survey includes a com- prehensive study of the optimum use of the water resources involved. Engineer- ing Manual 1120-2-101, Survey Investigations and Reports, states : "It is the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers when making investigations of water resources at congressional request, to study as completely as necessary for sound conclusions all aspects of local and general needs, and the fullest prac- ticable use of water resources and project sites. * * *" The report on the Fresno River project, California, which Includes the Hidden Reservoir, is an example of how the survey procedure functions. The Secretary of the Army, on June 23, 1961, transmitted a survey report to the chairman, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate. This report, prepared by the Sacra- mento district of the corps, recommended, among other items, an allocation to recreation. The report was printed as Senate Document 37, 87th Congress, first session. The Flood Control Act of 1962 (Public Law 87-874, approved Oct. 23, 1962 ) states under section 203 : "The Hidden Reservoir, Fresno River, Calif., is hereby authorized substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document 37, 87th Congress, at an estimated cost of $14,338,000." Since section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1958, in essence, required an allocation to flood control, and, since no survey had been made previously by the corps on an allocation for Oroville, we believe that the corps not only had the authority, but also had the responsibility to develop an allocation which was i-epresentative of the facts and circumstances in the specific case. The Chief of Engineers further informed us that : "* * * The inclusion of recreation in the Oroville project would involve con- sideration of a possible Federal interest in such development since, under present policies set forth in Senate Document 97. recreation has become a recognized Federal responsibilitv in Federal projects of this scope. * * *" Section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1958 specifically provides that the Federal contribution was "* * * in recognition of the flood-control accomplish- ments of the multiple-purpose Oroville Dam and Reservoir." The Senate Com- mittee on Public Works, 85th Congress, second session, in reporting out Senate bill 3910, the bill which subsequently became the Flood Control Act of 1958 (S. Rept. 1710, pp. 130-131), stated in this connection that section 204 "would authorize Federal participation to the extent of flood-control benefits onlv, in the proposed multiple-purpose Oroville Dam and Reservoir to be con- structed on the Feather River by the State of California." and that "the com- mittee has been careful to include * * * safeguards which will protect the interest of the United States." The principal safeguards shown deal with flood- control benefits and include a statement that "the committee has amended the bill to provide that the finding by the Secretary of the Army of economic justifica- tion for the flood-control allocation shall also be approved by the President." 310 Similar statements are made by the House Committee on Public Works, Soth Congress, second session (H. Kept. 1894, pp. 131-132) in considering House bill 12955, the companion to Senate bill 3910. In summary, under controlling Federal law, the Secretary of the Army was required to determine the economic justification for allocation of the project costs to flood control purposes ; the law neither requires nor prohibits the in- clusion of recreation as a project purpose. In harmony with prevailing corps instructions and policies concerning Federal projects, we believe that full con- sideration could have been and should have been given to the economic value of the substantial recreational features of the Oroville project. The failure to allocate a portion of the joint project construction costs to recreation purposes has resulted in allocation of higher construction costs to the remaining project lyurjyoses, including flood control, and a larger contribution by the Federal Gov- ernment. We therefore believe that the corps should have recognized the recrea- tion aspects of the project and included an allocation to recreation in determining the amount of the Federal contribution for flood-control accomplishments. USE OF INTEREST BATE HIGHER THAN FEDERAL RATE ON LONG-TERM BORROWINGS INCREASED THE ALLOCATION OF PROJECT COSTS TO FLOOD CONTROL The use of the Corps of Engineers of a composite interest rate higher than the Federal rate on long-term borrowings in computing the allocation to the flood-control purpose, and hence the Federal contribution to flood control, re- sulted in an increase of about $4,650,000 in the allocation to flood control. By using in the allocation process a composite rate of interest between the lower Federal interest rate^ and the higher State of California estimated borrowing rate, the allocation to the flood-control purpose, and hence the corps-determined Federal contribution, was about $4,650,000 larger than it otherwise would have been had the Federal rate been used in the allocations. In effect, the Fed- eral Government would be making a contribution for flood-control accomplish- ments about $4,6.50,000 greater than the involved flood-control costs would be if the project had been built and financed entirely with Federal funds. Prior to deciding on the Oroville contribution, the corps had used the Federal interest rate in developing an allocation on the one comparable non-Federal water development project — the Markham Ferry project, Oklahoma — on which the Federal Government made a substantial contribution for the flood-control features. While the Oroville contribution was still under consideration, the corps established a policy that the allocation of costs to the flood-control purpose in a non-Federal project should be no greater than the amount that would be allocated to the flood-control purpose if the project were built by the Federal Government. At one stage of consideration, a public notice was issued by the division engi- neer recommending a Federal contribution toward Oroville project costs based on the Federal interest rate. It was in response to the public notice that the State of California objected to the uniform application of the Federal interest rate as I)eing unrealistic and suggested the use of dual Federal and non-Federal interest rates as being realistic and equitable in the allocation of project costs to project purposes. Upon considering the views of the California officials and the advice of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the Chief of Engineers decided to use a composite interest rate for the Oroville allocation which was higher than the Federal interest rate as a special consideration of the situation and circumstances then existing. In our opinion the various reasons accepted by the Chief of Engineers do not justify the use of the compromise interest rate and the consequent inci'ease in the proposed Federal contribution to the State of California of about $4,650,000 over the amount that would have been allocated to the flood-control purpose had the Oroville project been built by the Federal Government. NEGOTIATIONS ON THE INTEREST RATE During committee meetings in 1958 of the Joint Committee on Oroville Cost- Allocation Studies, in the early stages of negotiation between State and corps representatives, favorable consideration was given to using a State borrowing irpjjg "Federal interest rate" is established by the U.S. Treasury as being the average rate paid on Its long-term borrowings and is used in the allocation of funds for projects wholly constructed by the Federal Government. 311 rate in formulating the State's share of the project and a Federal Government borrowing rate in formulating the Federal Government's share. Sacramento district officials of the corps informed us that the separate interest rates in the allocation were acceptable to them because, in the absence of established criteria, the applicable portion of the then existing Engineering Manual 1160-ii-lOl, dated January 1, 1958, pertaining to non-Federal contributions to federally con- structed projects, was used as a guide. Paragraph 1-12 of this manual section provides in part that, in computing annual interest charges, a rate applicable to the non-Federal participant would be used to compute such charges on the in- vestment allocated to non-Federal interests. In February 1960 the Sacramento district office transmitted its report on the allocation study concerning Oroville to the division engineer, South Pacific divi- sion. This study which recommended a Federal contribution of about $75 million for flood control, was forwarded to the Chief of Engineers, Upon review by the Office of the Chief of Ehigineers, the report was returned to the division officials with the recommendation that the cost allocation be computed as though the Federal Government were to construct the Oroville project. The Assistant Chief of Engineers for Civil Works pointed out to the division engineer that the Oro- ville report would be the first of its kind to be submitted for approval of the President. He pointed out also that, by using the two interest rates, the separable costs of flood control would be different from separable costs of other pur- poses, and an unbalanced allocation might result. In a conference at the Office of the Chief of Engineers in November 1960, officials of the district office, the division office, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers agreed that the Federal interest rate would be used to compute the Federal contribution at Oroville because : 1. The concept was adopted that the Federal contribution should not be greater than that which would be made if the project were federally constructed. 2. A precedent had been established by the Markham Ferry project, Oklahoma, a similarly constructed State project, toward which the Federal contribution had been consummated based on a single Federal interest rate. The officials agreed also that decisions made concerning Oroville would set a precedent for other pending partnership projects. The allocation of cost to project purposes was recomputed, and in January 1961 a report was prepared by the Sacramento district office which restated the Federal contribution for flood control at $61,650,000. The allocation and the amount were approved by the Office of the Chief of Engineers. On March 7, 1961, the director of water resources, State of California, objected to the all-Federal interest rate of 2% percent used in the revised allocation, stating that inadequate consideration had been given to the agreement of the Joint Committee on Oroville Cost-Allocation Studies, that the allocation did not give proper recognition to the actual financing costs incurred by the non-Federal project participants, and that higher costs would be allocated to non-Federal participants and borne by users of the other project services. The entire matter was then referred to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, which functions as an independent review group for the Chief of Engineers concerning the economic and financial adequacy of reports on water resources development projects submitted to the Congress. On August 8, 1961, the Board recommended to the Chief of Engineers that a composite interest rate of 31/2 percent be used in making the allocation at Oroville. This composite rate was a weighted average of the Federal interest rate of 2% i)ercent and a State borrowing rate estimated at 3% percent. The use of the composite rate resulted in a recommended Federal contribution of $66,300,000, an increase of $4,650,000 over the amount recommended by the corps district and division engineers based on use of the Federal interest rate in the allocation. The Board indicated in its report to the Chief of Engineers that it had adopted the composite rate in order to compromise the differing concepts of the Sacramento district engineer and the State of California as to whether the long-term historical interest rate or the current interest rate was the more realistic for evaluating water resources projects having a long period of potential usefulness. The Chief of Engineers accepted the recommendations of the Board of En- gineers for Rivers and Harbors and submitted the report to the Secretary of the Army on October 2, 1961, recommending a Federal contribution of $66 million toward the first cost of flood control at Oroville and $300,000 for Federal technical and administrative costs. However, on November 7, 1961, the Director of Civil Works, writing for the Chief of Engineers, informed the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors 312 that "* * * the action taken on Oroville should not be regarded as a precedent but as a speical consideration of the situation and circumstances then existing." In earlier consideration of the Oroville project, it has been concluded that, as a matter of corps' basic policy, the allocation to flood control in a non-Federal project should not ,be greater than the amount that would be allocated to flood control under standard procedures that would be applied if the project were built J)y the Federal Government. It was stated that all future reports on partner- ship projects should use the approved Federal interest rate in computing costs for project formulation and cost allocation, and several specific projects were cited as under development and likely to be considered in the near future. Mr. Whitten. Do you have any comment about that ? You are familiar with that section ? General Dillard. I would have to review it for greater familiarity. INCREASED COST OF TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT Mr. Whitten. Turning to the next item, explain the basis for the increase of $1,675,000 since last year in the estimate of the total reim- bursement to be paid by the Federal Government. General Dillard. This is due to an increase in the Federal cash con- tribution, as a result of the increased construction costs of the dam and the reservoir caused by unforeseen geological problems, which re- quired a deeper dam foundation and a change in the diversion tunnel, and to slides on the relocated roads, including the U.S. Highway 40-A, which required reconstruction to flatten side slopes. I believe that this situation was generally known last year. However, the extent of the cost increase was not known at the time. Subsequent billings have enabled us to confirm the overall cost increase of $15,010,000 of which the Federal share is $1,675,000. EFFORT ON COST ALLOCATION TO FLOOD CONTROL FROM ALLOCATING COSTS TO RECREATION Mr. Whitten. Please provide for the record the portion of the project costs that would be allocated to recreation under the normal Corps procedure and what effect this would have on the cost allocated to flood control. General Dillard. Yes, sir, (The information follows :) The answer to the question cannot be obtained with any reasonable degree of accuracy without a recreation benefit study and development of a cost es- timate of recreation facilities, alternative recreation costs, and a new cost allocation. This would be a major time-consuming undertaking . However, to obtain a highly speculative order of magnitude figure for the amount that might have been allocated, very approximate judgment estimates for these unknown quantities have been made and a rough cost allocation computed. This Indicates that the project cost allocated to recreation would have been in the -order of .$20 million of joint costs plus about $10 million specific recreation costs not included in the original cost estimate. With recreation as a projection func- tion and subject to the prior qualification as to reliability, costs initially allocated to flood control might have been reduced from about $66,300,000 to $63,300,000 or about $3 million. MARTTS CREEK RESERVOIR, NEV. AND CALIF. Mr. Written. $1,230,000 is requested to continue construction on the Martis Creek Reservoir in Nevada and California. (The justification follows :) 813 Maetis Creek Reservoib, Nev, and Calif. (Continuing) Location. — The project reservoir will be located on Martis Creek about 2 miles above its confluence with Truckee River and about 32 miles southwest of the city of Reno, Nev. The project also provides for construction of intermittent channel improvements in Reno bj^ local interests. Autho!-izaHon.—19Q'2 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA ' ., Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement $6,750,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement __ —550,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate). .-_. 6,200,000 Estimated non-Federal cost _ ' 650,000 Reimbursement (water su pply) - __ 2 550, 000 Other costs _ _ 100,000 Total estimated project cost _. 6,850, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967.. 770,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 700,000 Allocations to date ._ 1,470,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1, 230, 000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 4,050,000 1 In addition local interests have, over a period of years, expended approximately $200,000 for construction of flood control channels within the city of Reno. This work is inadequate during major floods. - Repayment of cost allocated to water supply will not be required until reservoir is used for water supply storage, pres» ently estimated to be several years after construction of the dam and reservoir. Lands and damages (Federal only): Acres: 1,556. Type: Pasture and rangeland. Improvement: No major imi^rovements. Reservoir capacity: Flood control, water supply and recreation (including flood control reser- vation of 15,000 acre-feet): 20,000 acre-feet. Gross storage: 20,000 acre-feet. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earthfill. Height: 113 feet. Length: 2,670 feet. Spillway : Type: Ungated; concrete control section. Crest length: 25 feet. Capacity: 4,060 cubic feet per second. Relocations: Road: 0.57 miles (.$434,000). Utilities: ($21,000). STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages Relocations Reservoirs Dams Roads Recreation facilities Permanent operating equipment. Closure Entire project... 11 June 1969. (0 December 1969. (') December 1970. 0) Do. 57 October 1969. (') December 1970. (') Do. (') November 1970. 15 December 1970. Not stated. 314 JUSTIFICATION Provision of ]\Iartis Creek Reservoir, together with channel improvements in the city of Reno, will be an important unit of the ultimate comprehensive flood pro- tection plan for the Trnckee River Basin, augmenting the flood protection to be provided by the Washoe project currently under construction by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Washoe project alone will decrease the frequency of flooding in Reno (estimated 1967 population 73,600) from about once in 15 years on the average to about once in 30 years; ]\Iartis Creek Reservoir will further reduce the frequency of flooding to about once in 60 .years. The combination of projects will provide a fairly high degree of flood protection to the city and some degree of flood protection to all reaches of Truckee River between Martis Creek and Pyramid Lake. Had the Martis Creek project been in operation during the February 1963 flood, the project would have reduced the damage experienced ($1,717,000) by about $750,000, which on a current basis would amount to about $840,000. In addition the project will provide needed recreational opportunities and will augment existing water supply storage in the Truckee River Basin. Breakdown of average annual benefits: Amount Flood control $358, 000 Water supply 32, 000 Recreation 55, 000 Total 445,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,230,000 will be applied as follows : Initiate construction of main dam, spillway and outlet works; and reservoir clearing $195, 000 Initiate relocation of P.T. & T. telephone line 6, 000 Initiate installation of permanent operating equipment 1, 000 Initiate relocation of State Highway No. 267 130, 000 Complete land acquisition 823, 000 Engineering and design 48, 000 Supervision and administration 27, 000 Total 1, 230, 000 An appropriation of $1,230,000 is the minimum appropriation necessary to enable provision of flood protection prior to the 1970-71 flood season. Non-Federal cost. — Prior to, or simultaneously with, construction of the reser- voir, local interests must provide at their expense a channel capacity of 14,000 cubic feet per second in Truckee River through Reno, Nevada, including neces- sary modifications and relocations of existing structures and facilities; and prior to construction of the reservoir, local interests must give assurances satisfactory to the Secretar}- of the Army that tliey will, without cost to the United States: (a) Maintain the channel through Reno, after completion, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of tlie Armj-, including the removal of accumulated bedload material and otlier debris following all floods, and otherwise as required to preserve the channel capacity of 14,000 cubic feet per second; (b) establish effective regulations to prevent the placement of fills, buildings, and other encroachments within the channel in Reno, and to insure that all bridges or other structures to be built or rebuilt across the channel in Reno afford an adequate and unrestricted waterway; (c) maintain the channel between Reno and the California- Nevada State line clear of all floatable debris and other drift that is large enough to restrict bridge openings in Reno during floods; and (d) adequately inform interests affected that the project reservoir and related channel improvements do not provide protection against maximum floods. In addition, users of water supply will enter into I'epayment contract for the water supply service provided by the reservoir. The initial investment required of local interests for construction of channel improvements is estimated at $100,000; it is estimated that the average annual expenditure by local interests for maintenance, operation, and replacements will total $16,700. The estimated reimbursement by local interests for costs allocated to water supply is $550,000; it is estimated that the annual cost to local interests for that portion of the o\erall operation and maintenance costs allocated to water suppl.v is $2,000. Such reimbursement will not be required of local interests until the reservoir is used for water supply storage, presently estimated to be several j-ears after construction of the dam and reservoir. 315 Status of local cooperation. — The Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy District by resolution December 23, 1959, indicated willingness to furnish, or make ar- rangements to furnish, the required assurances of local cooperation. By letter November 8, 1965, the city of Reno, Nev., reconfirmed its prior resolution of January 25, 1960, which indicated its willingness to cooperate with the Carson- Truckee Conservancy District to the fullest extent possible in providing local cooperation requirements. Formal assurances for the flood control aspects of the project were provided November 13, 1967. The city of Reno by ordinance and in agreement with the Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy District has agreed to prevent encroachments within the channel in Reno. The director of Department of Water Resources, State of California, has given reasonable assurance that the water supply storage will be needed and that the demands for the use of such storage will be made within a period of time which will permit paying out the costs allocated to water supply within the life of the project. These assurances comply with the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, for future water supply storage. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $6,750,000 is an increase of $1,840,000 over the latest estimate ($4,910,000) submitted to Congress. Price level changes increased the estimate $100,000. Recent reappraisal of land values increased the estimate for the lands and dam- ages feature $655,000. Upgrading road standards increased the road relocation cost $115,000. The dams feature increased $605,000 due to design changes in the outlet works. An increase of $85,000 in the roads feature reflects refinement of quantities and award of the contract for the access road to the project and addi- tion of an access road to the outlet works. The recreation feature increased $45,000 due to a more detailed evaluation of requirements. The permanent operating equipment feature was increased $10,000 for additional project tools and equip- ment required for the added outlet controls. Engineering and design, and super- vision and administration increased $225,000 based on reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year tiscai year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $1,320,000 $7,000 $490,000 $823,000 .-.-.;. Relocations.. .. 455,000 136,000 $319,000 Reservoirs 100 000 5,000 95,000 olms ::::::::: 3,415 ooo ::::..:.: 190,000 3,225,000 Roads'"" 230,000 210,000 20,000 Recreation facilities 130.000 -;-;,;;;>- ^?9'SSS Permanent operating equipment 20,000 . 1,000 19,000 Engineering and design.... 760,000 618,000 80,000 48,000 14,000 Supervision and administration 320,000 41,100 23,400 ,27,000 228,500 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 6,750,000 666,100 803,400 1,230,000 4,050,500 lotalproUtcost(7edVrVl7und"s'VnTyV--''"6,"750,"006 666,"i00 803,'4O0 i,"230,"000 4,'056,"500 Total'cosUFe1)eV"au3s^oniyK^^^^ 666,"i66 SOMOO i,"236,'6o"o" 47d5'oV5'o"o" Undelivered orders 8,400 —8,400 Total obligations ::".".:: 674.500 795.000 1,230,000 4.050,500 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations 769,500 700,000 Unobligated carryover from prior fiscal year 95,000 Total funds available for obliga- ,„ „„„ tlon - 795,000 Approp'riations required 1.230.000 i 4.050.500 > Rounded to $4,050,000. COST INCREASE Mr. Written. Please explain the sizable cost increase of $1,840,000 on this project since last year. General Dillard. This increase is due principally to redesign of the outlet works to insure emergency reservoir evacuation capability, an increase in the land feature resulting from a 9,000-acre subdivision 316 ]Dlan, recently approved by Placer County, adjacent to the south bound- ary of the project. These two features account for $1,430,000 of tlie added costs and are $775,000 and $655,000 respectively. The balance, was caused by $100,000 mcrease due to price level ; a $210,000 increase in the engineering and design ; and $45,000 due to additional recreation facilities required by a dead storage pool, in turn created in the reser- voir by raising the intake structures ; and $85,000 increase in the roads feature by virtue of quantity refinements and contract award; and $115,000 of the overall increase due to increased standards for road relocation. These were all partialh^ offset by savings of $170,000 due to a minor readjustment of the height and length of the dam embankment. XEW MELOXES RESERVOIR. CALIF. Mr. Whitten. $2,800,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the New Melones Reservoir in California. (The justification follows :) New Melones Reservoir, Calif, (Continuing) Location. — The project will be located on Stanislaus River about 35 miles northeast of the city of Modesto. Authorization. — 1944 and 1962 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement $137,000,000 ...-. Future non-Federal reimbursement- —90,870,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 46,130,000 _ Estimated non-Federal cost • 90,870,000 Reimbursement: Irrigation. 48,250,000 Power 42,620,000 Total estimated project cost 137,000,000. Allocations to June 30, 1967 _ 4,978,000 ._ Allocation for fiscal year 1968 2,690,000 Allocations to date. _ 7,668,000 6 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. 2, 800, 000 8 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969.. 126,532,000 ' Mn addition, local interests have expended $300,000 for levees along the lower reaches of the Stanislaus River. PHYSICAL DATA Lands and damages: Acres: 21,320. Type: Grazing, forest, and waste lands. Improvements: Rural dwellings and ranch buildings. (Estimated depreciated reproduction cost of existing IMelones Powerplant (P.O. & E. Co.) $5,940,000.) (Compensation to Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts for loss in revenue resulting from elimination of Melones Powerplant $2,850,000.) Relocations : Roads: 3.2 miles (including a bridge about 2,200 feet long) (State and private) ($12,510,000). Miscellaneous utilities: ($390,000). 317 Reservoir capacity: Irrigation, power, recreation, fish and wildlife, water quality, and flood control storage (including flood control reservation of Acre-feet 450,000 acre-feet 2, 090, 000 Inactive storage 310, 000 Gross storage 2, 400, 000 Dam: Type: Earth and rockfiU. Height: 625 feet. Length: 1,560 feet. Spillway : Type: Ungated, broad-crested weir. Crest length: 200 feet. Capacity: 112,000 cubic feet per second. Power : Number of units: 2. Installed capacity: 150,000 kilowatts. Maximum head: 583 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Land acquisition,. __ 3 June 1974. Relocations (i) Do. Reservoirs (i) June 1975. Dam and appurtenances 1 Do. Fish and wildlife (i) June 1974. Roads _ 54 June 1975. Recreation facilities _ _ (i) Do. Buildings, grounds, and utilities (i) Do. Permanent operating equipment.. (i) Do. Closure November 1974. Power on line June 1975. Entire project 5 Do. 1 Not started. JUSTIFICATION The project is needed for full development and maximum utilization of the water resources of the Stanislaus River Basin, as well as for provision of an adequate degree of flood protection on the Stanislaus and lower San Joaquin Rivers. The project will provide a high degree of flood protection to about 35,000 acres of highly developed agricultural land in the flood plain of Stanislaus River; to suburban areas of Ripon, Oakdale, and Riverbank (combined population 13,000 — 1967 estimate); to two main line railroads and U.S. Highway 99; and to several State and county roads. Flood damages along the Stanislaus River during the 1955 flood amounted to $1,928,000 below the damsite. However, were such a flood to occur under current conditions of development and prices, damages amounting to $2,692,000 in that area would result all of which would be pre- ventable by the project. Damages on the San Joaquin River below the mouth of Stanislaus River and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta during the 1955 flood amounted to $4,115,000. Under current conditions of development and prices, these damages would amount to about $5,726,000, of which about $2,726,000 would be prevented by operation of New Melones Reservoir. In conjunction with storage projects on Tuolumne River and authorized levees on lower San Joaquin River, the project will provide flood protection to about 50,000 acres of agri- cultural land along San Joaquin River below the mouth of Stanislaus River, about 185,000 acres of intensively cultivated land in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, suburban areas south of the city of Stockton, and numerous commercial and public installations. Coordinated with other reservoirs of the Central ^'alley project of the Bureau of Reclamation, the project will provide about 285,000 acre-feet of new water per year, on the average, for diversion to the local service areas and for export (of water surplus to local needs) to the southern San Joaquin Valley. In addition, the project will provide recreational opportunities and urgently needed hyhroelectric power. 318 Breakdown of average annual benefits: Amount Flood control $1, 494, 000 Irrigation 3, 610, 000 Power generation _ 2, 800, 000 Recreation, fish and wildlife 1, 550, 000 Water quality control 180,000 Total 9, 634, 000 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $2,800,000 will be applied as follows : Initiate diversion and multi-purp)ose tunnel $480, 000 Initiate cost reimbursable contract for design and construction of State Highway No. 49 relocation 210, 000 Continue land acquisition 230, 000 Complete scaling 770, 000 Engineering and design 900, 000 Supervision and administration 210, 000 Total 2, 800, 000 Non-Federal Cost. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Gov- ernment for costs allocated to irrigation and power. Reimbursable first costs are estimated to be $48,250,000 for irrigation and $42,620,000 for power. Reimburs- able portions of annual maintenance, operation, and replacement costs are esti- mated at $123,000 for irrigation and $603,000 for power. Status of local cooperation. — Recovery of costs allocated to irrigation and power will be the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation. Reimbursement of costs will be in accordance with Bureau of Reclamation's policies and procedures for the Central Valley project. Local interests are required to maintain private levees and to prevent encroach- ment on the existing channel and floodway between the levees on the Stanislaus River from Goodwin Dam to the San Joaquin River. The State of California officially adopted this project by chapter 918 of the statutes of 1963, and by chapter 1438 of those statutes authorized the State reclamation board to furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that these local cooperation requirements will be met. The board by letter dated December 13, 1963, stated it will furnish the required assurances when formally requested to do so. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of Federal cost of $137 million is an increase of $4 million over the latest estimate ($133 million) submitted to Congress. An increase of $3,510,000 is due to higher price levels, and feature estimates increased by a net amount of $490,000, as follows: Lands in- creased $1,470,000 due to more detailed analysis; damages (compensation to irriga- tion districts) decreased by $580,000 based on further studies; relocations increased by $3,120,000 due to reanalysis of requirements; reservoir costs decreased $720,000 based on experience at similar projects and deletion of the requirement to breach the existing dam structure; costs of the dam, including spillway and allied con- struction features, decreased by $3,850,000 as a result of design refinements; and engineering and design costs increased by $1,050,000 due to requirements for more detailed design and subsurface explorations and surveys. 319 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and'damages Relocations. $16,470,000 12,900,000 ., 2,270,000 .. 61,180,000 100,000 .. 24,700,000 .. 3, 200, 000 1,100,000 .. 400,000 .. 330,000 .. 6,600,000 7,750,000 137,000,000 $402, 000 $360, 000 $230, 000 210,000 $15,478,000 12, 690, 000 Reservoirs 2, 270, 000 Oams Fish and wildlife facilities 195,000 745, 000 1,250,000 58,990,000 100, 000 Powerplant 24, 700, 000 Roads 1,255,000 465,000 . 1,480,000 Recreation facilities 1,100,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 400, 000 Permanent operating equipment 330, 000 Engineering and design 2, 593, 000 328, 200 4,773,200 1,075,000 249,600 2, 894, 600 900, 000 210,000 2, 800, 000 2,032,000 Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed costs .. . 6,962,200 126,532,200 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustment 137,000,000 4,773,200 2, 894, 600 2, 800, 000 126,532,200 Total cost (Federal funds only) 137,000,000 4,773,200 79, 300 4, 852, 500 4,977,800 2,894,600 -79,300 . 2,815,300 2,690,000 . 125,300 . 2, 815, 300 2, 800, 000 126, 532, 200 Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations 2, 800, 000 126, 532, 200 Unobligated carryoverfrom prior Total funds available tor obliga- tion... Appropriations required . 2, 800, 000 1126,532,200 » Rounded to $126,532,000. INCREASE IN RELOCATION COSTS Mr. Whitten. Kelocation costs on this project have increased by $3,120,000 since last year. The cost of 3.2 miles of road, including a bridge, are now estimated at $12,510,000. Explain what is involved in this relocation. General Dillard. Due to upgrading of the standards of the roads to be relocated, as dictated by present-day traffic on these roads and traffic projections at the time of taking, $2,210,000 is attributable to this. Revision of the road relocation plan from a single river crossing accommodating both the State highway and the county road to a plan providing a separate river crossing for each of the two roads accounted for $900,000. Increase in the PG«S;E road of $40,000 as a result of reappraising based on experience on the access road. A decrease in the Pacific Tele- phone & Telegraph lines of $30,000 as a result of reduction in the length of relocation required. Mr. Whitten. $4 million a mile seems somewhat out of line. Is that due to the bridge relocations ? General Dillard. There are two relocations here. Construction of a bridge of about 2,200 feet long, about a quarter of a mile down- stream from the existing highway crossing, State Highway No. 49, together with about 1.8 miles for bridge approaches and connections to existing Highway 49. The other one is construction of a bridge about 1,200 feet long at the existing Parrotts Ferry Road crossing about 6 miles uiDStream 91-459— 68— pt. 1 21 320 from Highway No. 49 crossing, and about a mile of bridge approaches and connections to the existing county road. As I mentioned, these are two separate relocations. In this study for the road net, two other basic plans and ten combinations of road systems were considered. These two relocations have been selected as a result of local interest requests to shorten the original plan for reloca- tion. This plan is shorter. It does include bridges, but it utilizes to the maximum, the existing road and is the most economical. The total cost for these relocations i's $11,830,000. ANAHEIM BAT HARBOR, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIF. Mr. Whitten. On November 3, 1967, the committee approved the ac- ceptance by the corps of an advance of $700,000 from the State of Cali- fornia to finance emergency construction on the Anaheim Bay Har- bor, Calif, beach erosion control project. We will insert in the record a copy of a memorandum provided the committee by the Corps of Engineers and a copy of the committee letter of approval. (The material follows :) October 31. 1967. Memorandum for : Mr. Eugene Wilhelm, Staff Assistant, Subcommittee on Public Works, House Committee on Appropriations. Subject: Anaheim Bay Harbor, Orange County, Calif. — Beach erosion control project. 1. Reference is made to your recent inquiry concerning the beach erosion project at Newport Beach, Calif., and the request by local interests to have the Corps of Engineers accept contributed funds to initiate construction of phase II of the Anaheim Bay Harbor, Orange County, Calif., beach erosion control project. 2. During the period 1938 to 1965, the beach at Newport Beacli was relatively stable. Since 1965 there has been serious erosion of the West Newport Beach caused by a series of summer tropical storms originating off the west coast of Mexico and by occasional episodes of long period waves or southern swells from winter storms occurring off the coast of Peru. 3. By August 15, 1967, erosion had become critical along some 4.000 feet of beach, destroying a heavily used public beach and endangering public streets, utilities, and private property valued at about $8 million. The city initiated emer- gency action and expended about $150,000 sandbagging the area and hauling sand to replace that lost by erosion. By September 12, the area was again en- dangered. The city was unable to finance further emergency work, however, pri- vate citizens undertook some additional work valued at about $60,000. 4. High tides and storm waves normally anticipated in November and De- cember are expected to cause extensive damage in this area unless further steps are taken to provide the necessary protection. Local interests having expended all available resoui-ces have turned to State and Federal agencies for emergency re- lief or for immediate accomplishment of phase II of the Anaheim Ray Harbor, Orange County. Calif., beach erosion control project approved in the River and Harbor Act of October 23, 1962 (House Doc. 602, 87th Cong., second sess.). 5. Phase II of this project will consist of the placement of about 460.000 cubic yards of sand in the badly eroded section in the vicinity of 40th Street in Newport Beach ; construction of a 250-foot timber sheet pile test groin at 40th Street ; and provide periodic nourishment at the estimated average rate of .")2.000 cubic yards per year in the reach from the Santa Ana River to the Newport pier at intervals as required. 6. The estimnted total cost of phase II (Anaheim Bay to Newport Harbor) is $700,000. The Federal share of the cost would be about $470,000 (67 percent). The State of California, Department of Water Resources, by letter dated Septem- ber 22. 1967, requested that the corps acceirt an advance of the total required funds in order to inuiiediately initiate construction of this phase of the project, with the understanding that reinibur.sement of the Federal share would be- requested upon completion of the work. 321 7. Phase I of this beach erosion control project was completed in June 1964 and consisted primarily of the deposition of about 4 million cubic yards of sand along the Surf side-Sunset Beach at a total cost of $1,620,241 ($1,093,050 Federal ; S.j27.191 non-Federal). Funds for this work were advanced by the State of California. In fiscal year 1966 the State was reimbursed for the Federal share of the costs of this phase of the project. James B. Meanor, Jr., Colonel, Corps of Engineers, Acting Director of Civil Works, ( For the Chief of Engineers ) . November 3, 1967. Brig. Gen. Harry G. Woodbury, Jr., Director of Civil Works, \ Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Dear General Woodbury: This is to advise that I have no objection to the Corps of Engineers accepting the advance offered by the State of California, Department of Water Resources, to finance the immediate const.rjiction of phase II of the Anaheim Bay Harbor, Orange County, Calif., beach erosion control project. As you know, it has been the general policy of the committee not to accept advances of funds from local interests. However, based on the information supplied by your oflSce, in the memorandum dated October 31, 1967, it appears that erosion in the area of Anaheim Bay to Newport Harbor has become critical, endangering public streets, utilities, and private property and, therefore, emer- gency action seems fully warranted in this instance. This approval of the acceptance of the advance in the amount of $700,000 is with the understanding that it is not possible, at this time, to make any commitment as to when the reimbursement of the Federal share of the cost, .$470,000, will be appropriated by the Congress. Sincerely. Michael J. Kirwax. Chairman. Suhcommittee on Public Works. Mr. Whitten. For the record, please describe the emergency that existed and tell ns the status of the construction work. General Dillard. Yes, sir. At the time of our memorandum, last year, erosion had become quite critical in a reach of about 4,00(i feet in ?^ewport Beach area of the project. There was a serious threat to homes, streets, and utilities. Local people had exhausted their own resources and had gone to the State for assistance. Our request was for acceptance of an advance by the State of $700,000 for accomplish- ment of beach erosion control works. The Federal share of this work was then estimated at about $470,000, wdiich represented 67 percent of the total cost. This work was described as stage 2, stage 1 — in the Surf- side-Sunset Beach area — having been completed several years ago. Your committee approved the acceptance of the advance in the amount of $700,000 with the understanding that you were making no commitment as to when the reimbursement of the Federal share of the costs would be appropriated by the Congress. As to the current status, stage 2 work has only recently been com- pleted. It (involved construction of an experimental groin and place- ment of beach fill. Stage 3 work, involving further groins and beach fill is scheduled for fiscal year 1969. Mr. KiRWAN. You have nothing dn the budget for the Federal share of this work, is that correct? General Dillard. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 'Sir. KiRWAN. What is the Federal share of the cost of the work recently completed? 322 General Dillard. The cost is a good bit less than the estimate we pre- sented in our memorandum, sir. For stage 2 construction the Federal share amounts to $320,000. Mr. Whitten. We will insert the balance of the justifications under construction. Dana Poixt Harbor, Calif. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located at Dana Point in the southernfpart of Orange County on the southern California coast about 40 miles southeast of Los Angeles- Xong Beach Harbor. Authorization. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $4,580,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 3Sm Estimated non-Federal cost Hl^'^nn Cash contribution-. - ^' ,2'nnS Other costs - . onn'nnn Total estimated project cost - o'f,,'nnn Allocations to June 30, 1967 - f^^^'SSS Allocations for fiscal year 1968 - J' (SS'nm "nn Allocations to date - ---- *'l??'nnn ,?S Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 447,000 100 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 I In addition local interests advise that they have expended $350,000 for shore improvements and $1 750,000 for self- liquidating iterris and that they will construct additional self-liquidating items at an estimated cost of $8,000,000. PHYSICAL DATA Entrance: 20 to 15 feet deep, 600 feet wide, 1,600 feet long. Main: 15 feet deep, 350 feet wide, 3,300 feet long. East: 15 to 12 feet deep, 250 feet wide, 1,100 feet long. Anchorage area: 15 to 12 feet deep, 350 feet wide, 600 feet long. West Channel and turning basin: 10 feet deep, 450 feet wide, 900 feet long. Breakwaters: West: 5,500 feet long. East: 2,2.50 feet long. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Channels (dredging) ('^ SeXmWIeS Breakwaters - 'i. nt^iXf/ioco Entire project - ^2 December 1968. 1 Not started. JUSTIFICATION There is no existing improved harbor at Dana Point. The project will provide a small-craft harbor for regular use by recreational craft and a harbor-of-refuge for both recreational and fishing craft. Newport Bay Harbor, 17 miles northwest of Dana Point, has reached its ultimate capacity and no other adequate small- craft berthing and operating facilities exist between Newport Bay and the harbor constructed by local interests at Oceanside, 26 miles southeast of Dana Point. A harbor at Dana Point is needed both to accommodate the growing boat popula- tion in Orange County and to provide a harbor-of-refuge for small craft during bad weather or other emergencies. The tributary area needs about 11,000 berths 323 to meet the present demand, and 30,000 berths will be needed by 1980. About 6,800 berths for small craft are along the Orange County shoreline today, with a waiting list of applicants for any of these berths that may be vacated. The present shortage of 4,200 berths would increase to about 16,700 berths in 1980. About 2,150 recrea- tional craft would be permanently based at the harbor, and several hundred transient craft would use the facilities at some time during the year. This harbor lies within the approach pattern of the El Toro Marine Air Facility ; and in the event of sea crashes or bailouts, the patrol and rescue boats at Dana Point harbor could be on the scene to render assistance with a minimum of delay. Marine Corps' officials have stated that a harbor at Dana Point for augmentation of their air- sea rescue facilities would be most beneficial to the Marine Corps. The 1967 population of the tributary area is 2,250,000 and is expected to be about 4,000,000 by 1980. This project is an essential element in the development of southern California coastal harbors. Average annual benefits (all recreational) are estimated at $935,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $447,000 will complete the project and will be applied to — Initiate and complete channel dredging $157, 000 Complete breakwater construction 260, 000 Engineering and design 1, 000 Supervision and administration _ 29,000 Total -. 447,000 Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation as set forth in the authorizing legislation is estimated at $4,596,000 broken down as follows: Required contribution (50 percent of cost of general navigation facilities) $4, 580, 000 Rights-of-way for breakwaters 16, 000 Total _ _ 4, 596, 000* Local interests have also incurred costs of $350,000 since 1956 for paved access road, 2 acres of filled land protected from wave action by stone revetment, a 300- foot-long concrete pile-trestle pier with a hoist for launching and landing small boats, and public restrooms and parking facilities. Local interests advise that they have expended $1,750,000 for self -liquidating items and that they will expend an additional $8 million for self-liquidating items such as lands, easements, and- rights-of-way, roads, dredging of the interior basins, revetted mole, bridge, utilities, landscaping, and administration building. In addition, local interests will operate the harbor and maintain all imi^rove- ments constructed at their expense. Local interests' maintenance cost will be defrayed from revenue-producing items at the installation. Status of local cooperation. — The Board of Supervisors of Orange County, Calif., submitted Resolution No. 61-240, dated March 1, 1961, and Resolution No. 65-454, dated April 20, 1965, expressing its willingness to meet all of the require- ments. Local interests have acquired about 99 percent of all rights-of-way for the entire project. Condemnation proceedings have been filed on the one un- acquired small tract. Right-of-entry necessary for breakwater construction has been received. Local interests have all of the required local contribution for the project. The first installment in the amount of $635,000 was received Ma}^ 11, 1966. The balance was deposited in escrow which provided for its deposit in a third-party bank to allow local interests to benefit from the interest earnings during construction. The escrow agreement was approved by OCE April 15, 1966. About $500,000 will be withdrawn from escrow every 3 months to maintain local interests' share of the construction funds. As of January 1968, a total of $4,235,000 had been received. Funds are being accumulated through a harbor district tax for that portion of the project to be constructed by local interests. Local interests will initiate construction of shore facilities and phase I of the interior harbor development about July 1, 1968, with completion about June 30, 1969. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $4,580,000 is the same as last presented to Congress. 324 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1967 1968 (2) (3) (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) $314, 000 8. 076, 000 1 270, 000 500, 000 9, 160, 000 $3, 774, 000 251,000 181,000 4,206,000 9,160,000 4,206,000 4,060,000 9, 160, 000 4, 206, 000 4, 060, 000 4, 580, 000 2, 149, 000 4, 580, 000 2, 149, 000 Channels (dredging) Breakwater Engineering and design, Supervision and administration.. Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions). Undistributed costs Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions). Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions). Corps of Engineers Funds: Total applied cost Undistributed cost Total project cost Pending adjustments -. Totalcost 4,580,000 2,149,000 Undelivered orders.. (+)59,000 Total obligations.. 2,208,000 Non-Federal contributions: Total applied cost 4,580,000 2,057,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost 4,580,000 2,057,000 Pending adjustments Totalcost..-. 4,580,000 2,057,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations.. Method of financing— Corps of Engineers funds: Allocations. Unobligated carryover from prior year _. _. Total funds available for obligation. Appropriations required _ Non-Federal contributions: Contributions 2,735,000 Unobligated carryover from prior yea r Total funds available for obligation Contributions required $3,781,000 17,000 262,000 4,060,000 1,984,000 "i,"984,"006" 1, 984, 000 (-)59,000 1. 925, 000 2, 076, 000 "2,176,666" (+)8,000 2, 065, 000 2, 433, 000 2, 076, 000 (-)8,000 2, 068. 000 1, 700. 000 225, 000 1, 925, 000 1, 398, 000 670,000 2, 068, 000 $314, 000 521,000 2,000 57,000 894, 000 894, 000 894, 000 447, 000 "447," 666" "447 ,"666" "447,"666" 447, 000 "447,"666' '44'7","666' "447," 666" 447, 000 447, 000 • Includes $4,000 for costs incurred for real estate activities. S.'^CRAMENTO RiVER, CaLIF. (DeEP WaTER ShIP ChANNEL) (Continuing) Location. — Between Suisun Bay (an arm of San Francisco Bay) and the city of Sacramento, with a harbor at Washington Lake near Sacramento, Calif. Authorization. — 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $41,340,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 300,000 Estimated non-Federal cost '4,072,000 Cash contribution.. Other 4,072,000 Tota I estimated project cost 45, 712, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967. 39,331,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 _ 100,000 Allocations to date 39,431,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. 100,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1,809,000 1 Local interests also provided basic terminal facilities and appurtenances at a cost of $10,741,000. In addition, the State of California reconstructed the Rio Vista Bridge at a cost of about $3,200,000 to permit passage of oceangoing vessels and private interests constructed and have placed in operation facilities with a total estimated cost of $7,000,000 325 PHYSICAL DATA Widen and deepen Sacramento River and Cache Slough to 300 feet wide and 30 feet deep for 18 miles; new channel 200 feet wide and 30 feet deep from Cache Slough to Washington Lake, 25 miles. ^'^^New^channel 120 feet wide and 13 feet deep from harbor in Washington Lake to Sacramento River, 1.5 miles. "^""'ffifrbor ^and turning basin in Washington Lake, 2,000 feet by 2,400 feet by 3.400 feet in size and 30 feet deep. Tfavieation lock: . , . ,r. r,^ e ^ On barge canal 86 feet wide and 600 feet long; maximum lift 21 feet. BrscuIg BridffG' i_ Single-leaf combination highway and raUroad bridge across canal at harbor end of lock 135-foot span. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) lock ■Roads and bridges --:--; — :-'.'"<' ■Channels (including levee shaping and bank protection). i,6V66S . -_-_--. Permanent operating equipment-. ...-.---.. Entire project, to extent required for operational facility. Entire projecL - Percent complete Completion schedule 100 100 94 June 1972. 100 100 100 95 Do. JUSTIFICATION This project will permit deep-draft oceangoing vessels to proceed directly to Sacramento, thereby reducing shipping costs to a trade area of approximately 75,000 square miles with a population of about 1,200,000 Peopje. Deep-draft traffic on the ship channel, which became operational in June 1963, totaled oyer 1 million tons in 1967. The estimated annual benefits for the project anticipated that deep-draft traffic would amount to about 1 miUion tons annuaUy within the first 50 years of operation. In addition most of the direct barge traffic between San Francisco Bay ports and Sacramento now uses the deep-draft channel since it is shorter and is slack water. Breakdown of average annual benefits: """^ Transportation *A ^^A ^uu Flood control and savings in flood control project costs ^m, UU» Total 3, 200, 000 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $100,000 wiU be applied to— Continue bank protection ^?^' ^"" Engineering and design ' ^^^ Supervision and administration _______ Total 100,000 Work remaining to be accomplished consists of stage construction bringing channel levees to design height to keep flood waters of Yolo bypass from entering the channel: and bank protection to prevent erosion of channel banks The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to permit continuation of this work toward project completion in fiscal year 1972 as scheduled. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS— SACRAMENTO RIVER (SUISUN BAY TO SACRAMENTO 10-FOOT CHANNEL) Work completed consists of provision of a 10-foot shallow-draft channel from Suisun Bay to Sacramento. The cost of this work was $19/, 000. 326 REMAINING MODIFICATIONS SACRAMENTO RIVER (SHALLOW DRAFT CHANNEL, SACRAMENTO TO RED BLUFF) A modification authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1935 provides for a depth of 6 feet between Sacramento and Colusa, a depth of 5 feet between Colusa and Chico landing and such depths as practicable to Red Bluff. Of the authorized work, the 6-foot channel to Colusa has been completed. The cost of this work was $389,000. Estimated cost of work remaning to complete the modification is $534,000. Non-Federal cost. — The cost to the local sponsor of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $4,072,000. This cost consists of: Lands and damages $2, 090, 000 Road relocations and bridge modifications 680, 000 Railroad relocations 482, 000 Utility relocations (power, telephone, gas, and water) 350, 000 Irrigation and drainage relocations and modifications 470, 000 Total 4, 072, 000 Local interests were also required to provide terminal facilities and appurte- nances; these facilities were completed in June 1963 at a cost of $10,741,000. In addition, the State of California has reconstructed the Rio Vista Bridge at a cost of about $3,200,000 to permit passage of oceangoing vessels, and private interests have constructed and placed in operation facilities in the vicinity of the port which will make use of the project (including a rice growers' cooperative mill and warehouse, a cement plant, three warehouses, a highway overpass entrance to the port terminal area and miscellaneous facilities) at a total estimated cost of $7 million. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests, represented by the Sacramento- Yolo Port District formed under the laws of the State of California in April 1947, have completed all requirements for construction rights-of-way and utility relocations for the project and all basic terminal facilities. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) estimate of $41,340,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Locks - $6,463,000 $6,463,000 Roads and bridges 1.320,000 1,320,000 Channels .-- 28,685,000 26,840,000 $150,000 $82,000 $1,613,000 Levees..."" 592,000 592,000 Permanent operating equipment 20,000 20,000 ,-;-;— aa'a^a Engineering and design <1,720,000 1,667,000 13,000 10,000 30.000 Supervision and administration 2,540,000 2,353,000 12,700 8,000 166.300 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers , ,„„ ,„„ „„„ , „„„ ^„„ fundsonly) 41,340,000 39,255,000 175,700 100,000 1,809,300 Undistributed costs Total project cost (Corps of Enginners „„ ,„„ „„„ . „„„ „„„ fundsonly) 41,340,000 39,255,000 175,700 100.000 1,809,300 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds ,„„ ,„„ „„„ , „„„ „„„ only) 41,340,000 39,255,000 175.700 100,000 1,809,300 Undelivered orders 75,400 -^5.400 ri;-;z; ,--oAn-.;AA Total obligations 39,330.400 100,300 100,000 1.809,300 METHOD OF FINANCING Corps of Engineers: „„ „„„ Allocations 39,330,700 100.000 300 Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation 100.300 ,„„„„„ „ , „„„ .,nn Appropriations required 100,000 s 1.809,300 > Includes $12,000 for cost to be incurred on real estate activities. : Rounded to $1,809,000. 327 San Diego River and Mission Bay, Calif. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located at the mouth of the San Diego River about 6 miles northwest of the San Diego business district. Authorization. — 1944 Flood Control Act and 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost. Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... « $12, 200, 000 17, 500, 000 29, 700, 000 10,024,000 10, 024, 000 150,000 I 2, 026, 000 > Tentative pending outcome of model studies to determine proper solution to correct interior harbor problems. PHYSICAL data Channels: Leveed flood channel, 800 feet wide, about 16,000 feet long. Entrance channel, 20 feet deep, 670 feet wide, and about 5,200 feet long. Main channel, 20 feet deep, irregular shape, about 1,000 feet wide, and 2,700 feet long. Bridges: Alteration of railroad bridge. Anchorage basins: West anchorage basin (Glen Rick Cove), 15 feet deep, about 800 feet wide, and 3,200 feet long. Quivera basin, 20 feet deep, about 800 feet wide, and 1,600 feet long. Jetties (4) : North: 3,300 feet long. South: 3,023 feet long. Middle: 4,270 feet long. Main (Quivera basin) : 300 feet long. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Leveed flood channel 100 Entrance channel 100 Main channel. 100 Alteration of railroad bridge 100 West anchorage basin (Glen Rick Cove) 100 Quivera basin 100 North jetty 100 South jetty 100 Middle jetty 100 West anchorage basin dredging (Glen Rick Cove) (') Dredging mouth of San Diego River (') West anchorage basin, revetment (Glen Rick Cove) (') Repair middle jetty (') Extend south jetty (') Main channel jetty (') Entire project 82 February 1970. June 1970. February 1970. December 1969. September 1969. February 1970. June 1970. I Not started. JUSTIFICATION This project is a multiple-purpose project for flood control in the lower reach of the San Diego River and for navigation of light-draft vessels in Mission Bay. Construction work on the Federal project was started in April 1948 and completed in September 1959. Current problems and recommended corrective measures for the Federal project are as follows: a28 (1) South jetty. — When this project was originally designed, it was recognized that it was not practicable at that time to determine the proper ultimate length of the south jetty until the effect of the system of three jetties could be observed. The length of south jetty was established at 1,450 feet with the expectation that an extension might be required later. The south jetty was completed in 1949. After completion of construction, upcoast littoral drift began to deposit sand in the mouth of the fioodway. A downcoast stone groin was constructed by local interests, but the upcoast littoral currents continued to erode the coast between the groin and the south jetty and continued to deposit the sand in the mouth of the San Diego River fioodway. It is now apparent that an extension to the south jetty is required. (2) Dredging at mouth of San Diego River fioodway . — All available evidence indi- cates that an inordinate amount of sand is being deposited at the mouth of the fioodway as a result of the inadequate length of the south jetty. Local interests estimate that approximately $125,000 was expended on removal of sand at the mouth of the fioodway during the past 4 years. It is estimated that 700,000 cubic yards of sand should now be removed to permit the project to perform its intended flood-control function. Since this inadequacy is a direct result of a recognized design deficiency in the Federal project, it is appropriate that the rectification dredging be accomplished at Federal expense. Following the correction of project de- ficiencies, local responsibility for maintenance dredging would remain unchanged. (3) Settlement of middle jetty. — A short reach about 30 feet long near the outer end of the middle jetty has settled at the toe, resulting in the lowering of the crest about 2 feet. The settled wedge has an almost vertical slope on the west end of the defected section. An additional reach of about 200 feet of the middle jetty near its junction with the revetted river and navigation banks has settled about 3 feet. It is necessary to rehabilitate the jetty at this time. (4) Interior harbor. — Sea waves over 10 feet in height induce excessively high swell in the boat basins. Damages incurred to date consist of boats breaking loose on an average of once each week and damaging fenders, bumpers, and hulls. A hazard to life and limb results from the dangerous walking conditions on the sway- ing docks. The budgeted plan consists of mo\dng the entrance to west basin (Glen Rick Co\e) to a more sheltered location and constructing a short jetty in the main channel at the entrance to east (Quivera) basin. Breakdovvn of average annual benefits: Amount Flood control $706, 000 Fish and wildlife 460, 000 Recreation 2, 234, 000 Total 3, 400, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $150,000 will be applied to — Initiate extension of south jetty $50, 000 Engineering and design 78, 000 Supervision and administration 22, 000 Total 150, 000 Non-Federal cost. — The authorizing legislation for this project required that local interests perform work, at a cost of $17,500,000 exclusive of self-liquidating items, comprised of the following features: Lands and damages $1, 384, 000 Relocations 1, 413, 000 Construction: Bridges 6, 164, 000 Dredging and fill 5, 310, 000 Building and piers 1, 100,000 Roads, parking 8S6, 000 Landscaping 344, 000 Miscellaneous 783, 300 Engineering and design 115, 700 Total 17, 500, 000' 329 Local interests are required to operate and maintain the San Diego River flood- way and other improvements accomplished by them. The estimated annual cost of non-Federal operation and maintenance is $280,000. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests have furnished assurances of required local cooperation on completed work and have met all requirements to date except "complete the improvements of the 8-foot dredging and the park development witain the 5 years after completion of the project." This condition has been met on all items except two bridges to provide access to Fiesta Island. Construction of these bridges will be completed as required. Local interests re- aflSrmed their assurances of local cooperation by resolution dated May 25, 1965. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate in the amount of $12,200,000 is an increase of $200,000 over the latest estimate $12,- 000,000, July 1966) submitted to Congress.The increase is due to higher price levels (-{-$15,000) and more accurate quantities for dredging the mouth of the river and extending the south jetty ( + $185,000). SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Relocations Channels. Breakwaters Engineering and design ... $380, 000 7,280,000 3, 185, 000 1 557, 000 798, 000 12,200,000 $380, 000 6,201,000 2,282,000 343, 000 685, 000 8,891,000 $113,000 20, 000 133, 000 $50, 000 78, 000 22, 000 150, 000 $1,079,000 853, 000 23, 000 Supervision and administration Total applied Cost (Federal funds only). . U ndistributed cost 71,000 2,026,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments 12, 200, 000 9,891,000 133,000 150,000 2, 026, 000 Total cost (Federal funds only) 12,200,000 9,891,000 +58, 000 9, 949, 000 . 10, 024, 000 . 133,000 -58,000 . 75, 000 150, 000 2, 026, 000 Undelivered orders Total obligations _ Method of financing: Allocations 150,000 2. 026, 000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 75,000 . 75,000 . Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required. .. . 150,000 2,026,000 > Includes $5,000 for real estate activities. CoRTE Madera Creek, California (Continuing) Location. — Corte Madera Creek and tributaries drain an area of about 28 square miles in Marin County, Calif., and flow into the west side of San Francisco Bay at a point about 9 miles north of the Golden Gate. Authorization. — 1962 and 1966 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount perce/it of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost... $8,880,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 13,040,000 Cash contribution 130,000 Other costs 2,910,000 Total estimated project cost 11,920,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 1,056,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 300,000 Allocations to date 1,356,000 15 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 1,250,000 29 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 6,274,000 > In addition, local interests have expended approximately $200,000 to provide partial flood protection in the project area. 330 PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Tidal area dredging: 960,000 cubic yards. Channel enlargement and riprapped levees: 1.9 miles. Rectangular concrete channels: 4.9 miles. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Channel (mouth to Sir Francis Drake Blvd.).. _ 3 January 1971. Channel (Sir Francis Drake Blvd. to upper project limits) Indefinite. Entire project... 3 Do. .JUSTIFICATION Corte Madera Creek basin is primarily a residential area, suburban to San Francisco and has an estimated population of 74,000 (196.5). Two separate areas in the basin are subject to extensive flooding; the larger extends through Ross Valley into the tidelands and includes the communities of San Anselmo, Ross, Kentfield, Larkspur, Corte Madera, and Cireenbrae; the second area of major flooding is within the city of Fairfax. The value of lands and improvements to be protected by the project is estimated at $.54 million. The project would pro- vide a high degree of protection to residential, commercial and public property along Corte Madera Creek, which is flooded at least in part on an average of 1 out of 2 years. Floods of 1955, 1958, and 1962, resulted in damages estimated at $210,000, $180,000, and $150,000, respectively. The 1958 flood also resulted in one death by drowning. It is estimated that the design flood would inundate 1,495 acres and, under present conditions of development, would cause damages estimated at $3,500,000, of which $3,200,000 would be prevented by the project. Bank erosion results in loss of approximately IH acres annually throughout the Basin. Construction of the channel improvement will result in estimated average annual benefits of $540,000, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,250,000 will be applied to — Continue construction of channel improvements $1, 080, 000 Engineering and Design 90, 000 Supervision and Administration 80, 000 Total 1, 250,000 The amount requested is the minimum required to continue construction at an economical rate. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to: (a) provide lands, easements and rights-of-way necessarj' for the construction of the project, including suitable areas for disposal of waste material; (b) modify or relocate all bridges and utilities necessary for construction and maintenance of the project; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (d) maintain and operate the project after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, and prevent encroachment on flood ciiannels that would result in decreasing the effectiveness of the project for flood control; (e) adjust all claims regarding w'ater rights that might be aff'ected by the project; and (f) contribute in cash \Y> percent of the Federal construction cost of the Ross Valley imit. The estimated cost to local interests is as follows: Cash contribution $130, 000 Lands and damages 2, 380, 000 Relocations 530, 000 Total 3, 040, 000 The annual cost to local interests for maintenance, operation and replacement is estimated at $25,000. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation were provided bv resolutions Nos. 8861, 9261, and 9414, adopted bv the Marin Countv Flood Con- trol and Water Conservation District on March 29, 1966, iNLarch 28, 1967, and August 15, 1967, respectively. R.ights-of-way are being acquired, relocations accomplished and cash contribution provided incrementally in advance of channel construction in individual reaches. 331 -K^ Comvarison of Federal cost estimate.— The current Federal cost estimate of ^8 880 000 is an increase of $1,090,000 over the latest estimate ($7,790,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The increase reflects higher price levels ( + $195,000) ; mcreased Quantities of excavation, filter material and reinforced concrete as a result of more detailed surveys ( + $850,000) ; required rock removal from lower portion of channel ( + $125,000); and increase in engineering and design due to reanalysis ot reouirements ( + $270,000). Above increases were partially offset by decrease of $330,000 due to receipt of favorable bid and cash contribution by local interests of $20,000. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6; $469,100 44, 100 513,200 513,200 , 880, 000 Channels.. , ^'^{Z'Z Engineering and design... ttnnm Supervision and administration... bDU,uuu Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions).. 9, 010, 000 Undistributed costs... - --- Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions).. 9,010,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps ot Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions) 9,010,000 Corps of Engineers funds: Total cost. Undelivered orders Total obligations Non-Federal contributions: i,n nnn Total cost - 130,000 Undelivered orders - Total obligations - --- Method of financing: Corps of Engineers funds: Allocations - r l,usb,uuu Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required... Non-Federal contributions: Contributions - Unobligated carryover from $625, 000 170,900 58.900 $1, 090, 000 100, 000 85, 000 $5, 765, 000 140, 000 462, 000 854,800 1,275,000 6,367,000 513,200 513,200 +1,400 514,600 854, 800 854,800 1,275,000 6, 367, 000 1,275,000 6,367,000 1,250,000 6,274,000 6,"274,"000 12,000 25,000 93,000 i2,'666 25,'oo6 93,'o5o 842,800 -1,400 841,400 1,250,000 300, 000 541,400 841,400 1,250,000 6, 274, 000 12,000 prior years. Total funds available for obli- gation. Contributions required 12,000 25,000 93, 000 1 Includes $3,000 for real estate activities. MojAVE River Reservoir, Mojave River Basin, Calif. Location The project is located just below the confluence of West Fork and Deep Creek on the Mojave River, 14 miles south of Victorville, San Bernardino County, Calif. ^, , ^ . , a .^ Authorization.— 19&0 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost --- Estimated non-Federal cost -- Cash contribution Other costs --- — Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967.. Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date ...-..- ----- Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969- Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969..- $15,250,000 1250,000 250, 000 15,500,000 1,550,000 1,030,000 2, 580, 000 1,000,000 11,670,000 , 1 oHH.ti^n inrai intpffists have expended approximately $1,813,000 to provide partial flood protection in the Mojave Riier area and appJoxi^^ately $W^^^^ arrange to prevent encroachments and obstructions in the existing channel through the improved areas. 332 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rolled earthfill. Height: 200 feet (maximum above streambed). Crest length: 2,200 feet. Top width: 20 feet. Crest elevation: 3,172 feet. Spillway : Type: Lined broadcrest. Design capacity: 131,300 c.f.s. (peak outflow including outlet works). Length: 200 feet. Crest elevation: 3,134 feet. Outlet works: Type: Ungated tunnel. Size: 17.75 feet high by 19 feet wide D section, 650 feet long. Capacity: 23,500 c.f.s. at spillway crest elevation. Relocations : County road: 1.3 miles $281, 000 State highway: 0.3 mile * 84,' 000 Forestry facilities: (1.4 miles road and forestry camp) 178^ 000 1 This work comprises raising 2 sections of the highway to pass a 60-year storm peak flow. Reservoir: Capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 78, 700 Sedimentation 11, 000 Total 89, 700 Area (spillway crest)i 1, 980 • Acres. Saddle dike: Type: Rolled earthfiU. Height: 106 feet. Length: 1,250 feet. Top width: 20 feet. Lands and damages: Acres Rugged mountain area 160 River bottom land 420 Farmland 1, 540 Rural homesites 580 Business and commercial land 160 U.S. Government land 490 Total 3,350 Note: Major types of improvements on these lands consist of rural dwellings, farms, and a gravel pit. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages 2 June 1970. Relocations 51 Do. Reservoir clearing Do. Dams June 1971. Access road Do. Recreation facilities December 1970. Building, grounds, and utilities... September 1968. Permanent operating equipment... June 1971. Dam closure November 1970. Entire project 10 June 1971. JUSTIFICATION Construction of the Mojave River Reservoir would provide almost complete flood protection along the entire Mojave River, including portions of Victorville, population 11,200, and Barstow, population 17,590 (1967 estimates by San 333 Bernardino County Planning Commission). The area consists of about 44,000 acres having an estimated value of $67,700,000 for lands and improvements and contains residential, business, and industrial property. Protection would be afforded to 31 miles of railroad track, seven bridges, and the yards of two trans- continental railroad facilities (A.T. & S.F. and U.P. railroads) in the vicinity of Victorville and Barstow. Protection would also be provided to agricultural lands, buildings and equipment, a fish hatchery, water-supply system, transcontinental highways (U.S. highways 66 (interstate 15), 466, and 91), State and local roads, highway bridges, sewer systems, utilities, and channel improvements. Medium to large floods carry large quantities of debris. Damages from the flood of March 1938 were estimated at $2,184,000. Under current conditions of development and price levels, the damages would amount to $8,650,000, of which $8,400,000 would be prevented by the project. Without the project there is the potential menace of drowning to several hundred persons who live in the valley area several miles downstream from the damsite since storms are of high intensity and occur with little if any warning. Economic growth in the Mojave River Basin has accelerated beyond the expectations of the December 1956 survey report. The economic growth of the Mojave River area has proceeded to the point that the provision of a high degree of flood protection along the Mojave River is not only justified but also is the only acceptable solution to the flood problem. This project is an essential element in the comprehensive development of the California region. Breakdown of Average Annual Benefits: Amount Flood control $745, 000 Recreation 75,000 Total 820, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,000,000 will be applied to — Continue relocations $21, 000 Initiate main dam 375, 000 Continue outlet works 444, 000 Complete buildings and grounds 15, 000 Initiate permanent operating equipment 2, 000 Engineering and design 77, 000 Supervision and administration 66, 000 Total--- 1, 000, 000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to maintain the existing channel capacity through the improved areas downstream from the reservoir. Between 1939 and 1966, local interests provided partial flood protection in various areas downstream from the proposed reservoir project, at a cost of approximately $1,813,000. In addition, local interests have expended approximately $100,000 through fiscal year 1967 for prevention of encroachments and obstructions in the existing channel through the improved areas between the Mojave River Damsite and Afton. Local interests have contributed $250,000 for land enhancement and have agreed to operate and maintain the recreational facilities. Status of local cooperation. — By letter dated March 13, 1962, the San Bernardino County flood control district stated that it had embarked on a program of flood- way control and rights-of-way acquisition on the Mojave River. Local interests have completed topographic surveys and are completing the downstream channel capacity surveys for the project. The San Bernardino County flood control district, by resolutions dated October 18, 1965, and December 19, 1966, has furnished assurances of local cooperation for the modified project at the Forks site. The October 18, 1965, assurances were accepted by letter dated December 6, 1965. The December 19, 1966, assurances amended the channel capacity from 20,000 c.f.s. to 23,500 c.f.s. This amendment is satisfactory. The Forks site project provides land enhancement benefits which were not provided with the dam located at the West Fork site. In view of this land enhancement, the board of supervisors of the San Bernardino County flood control district contributed $250,000 toward the cost of the project. Local interests are able and wiUing to meet all requirements of local cooperation. Local interests have agreed to operate and maintain the recreation faciUties constructed by the United States and have agreed to construct, operate, and maintain such future recreation facihties that may be required in addition to those constructed by the United States. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $15,250,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. However, 334 internal adjustments were made as follows: The dam feature was decreased by $581,000 due to minor design changes and the relocations feature was decreased by $69,000 due to a favorable bid. These decreases were ofifset by price level increases of $650,000. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Budget Balance to Item eost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $3,100,000 $21,000 $165,000 $2,914,000 Relocations - 543,000 281,000 $22,000 240,000 Reservoir (clearing) :- - 15,000 15,000 Dar^s 9,457,000 203,000 1,485,000 7,769,000 Roads (access) " -- 100,000 100,000 Recreation facilities ----- 336.000 336,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 21,000 5,000 16,000 Permanent operating equipment 47.000 2,000 45,000 Eneineerine and design .. 1,270,000 967,000 182,000 78,000 43,000 Supervision and administration 611,000 70,000 75.000 66,000 400,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 15,500,000 1.058,000 911,000 1,669,000 11,862,000 U nd istributed costs - - --- Total project cost (Federal funds and ,„ „ „ „„„ non-Federal contributions)- - 15,500,000 1,058,000 911,000 1,669,000 11,862,000 Pending adjustments , Total cost CFederal funds and non-Fed- „„„ eral contfibutions) 15,500,000 1.058.000 911,000 1,669,000 11,862,000 ''^'^Tota" applied cost 15,250,000 1,058,000 879,000 1,643,000 ll,670,00a Tot'aTproject'^cos^^^^^ i,'658,"o66 879,"oo6 i,'643,'66o ii,'670,'000 TotaUost'"^ ^ '"^ '"^" ^ i5,'250,"666 i,'o58,"6o6 879,'6oo i,"643,"6o6 ii,"670,'66o Undelivered orders - -- +71,000 +572,000 -643,000 Total obligations.. 1,129,000 1,451,000 1,000,000 11,670,000 Non-Federal contributions: ,„ „„„ „, „„„ ,„„„„„ Total applied cost 250,000 32,000 26,000 192,000 Undistributed costs. - ^.z-z — ,-a;;-aa;; Total project cost...- 250,000 32,000 26,000 192,000 Pending adjustments .-- rz-;;; ;;;-aaa ,-An-nAA Total cost-- -._ 250,000 ^ 32,000 26,000 192,000 UndeNvered orders. z-z-- a;-;;;;a ,-aa-;,aa Total obligations - - 32,000 26,000 192,000 Method of financing: ''^''^Allocaticfns 1,550,000 1,030,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year (+)421,000 Total funds available for obliga- tjons 1,451,000 - Appropria'tions'r'equired. 1,000,000 11,670,000 Non-Federal contributions: Contributions 250,000 Unobligated carryover from prior ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^.OOO Total fundVavallabie for obligation: 250,000 218,000 192,000 Contributions required .-. - ]\IoRMON Slough, Calaver.\s River, Calif. (Continuing) Location. — On the Calaveras River system in San Joaquin County, Calif.^ between the town of Bellota and the city of Stockton. Authorizalion. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. 335 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of! J estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost.... „ ^.. .„„ Estimated non-Federal cost " " " ,*o'll2'222 Cash contribution " -- ' 2,540,000 Other '"" ' " - Total estimated project cost.'^-]^!""" " " ?'a2S'2SS Allocations to June 30, 1967... " - ^'cnn'nSS Allocation for fiscal year 1968. --- rcn'nSS Allocations to date "' ""'" fln'nn Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 " """ i QonnSn Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 .".".^^I i,jsu,uuu In addition, local interests have expended approximatelv $?on nnn fnrrnn<;tr,„.(; n , ■ ■ . along Mormon Slough, the diverting c^nal andl'^alarleraT^RSTp?^^^^^^ totelZ"''' ""'''"' '''"''^ PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Average height, 5.5 feet. Length, about 10 miles new levees; enlarge 22 miles existing levees Channel improvement: About 18.6 miles. ^ levees. Pumping plant: Three— one 16 cubic feet per second one 40 nihiV fp^^t ,.0,. . ^ and one 100 cubic feet per second. ««^ona, one 4U cubic feet per second. Relocations: Railroads (bridge modifications), two ($365,000). Design capacities: Cubic feet per Calaveras River at Bellota To -nn Diverting canal to San Joaquin River_ . }o' Sjix Mormon Slough: ^"^t ^^" Bellota to Potter Creek 1 9 kha Potter Creek to diverting canal.__ i o' Vn): Potter Creek ".'.'" ' ^^^ Diverting canal ~ 10' r2? STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Relocations (') (•) 31 7 (') 23 Channels Levees Pumping plants.- Permanent operating equipment Entire project 1 Not started. JUSTIFICATION June 1969. December 1968 June 1969. December 1968. June 1969. Do. A senous flood problem exists along the Calaveras River system below Bellota particularly in the Stockton area along Mormon Slough, and in the SfultnSi areas along Mormon Slough and the diverting canal. Improvements to^hechan nels are necessary to control floodflows originating in the area downstream from New Hogan Reservoir and to contain releases anticipated for efficien? ftnnd control operation of that reservoir. The plan of improvement of the CaWr^^ River system in combination with operation of New Hogan Reservoir win r!^J ?^^ flood protection to the city of Stockton (estimated 196?popuIaJoT99 600) aiS adjoining suburban areas, and the frequently flooded areas along MormAn Snni? and the right bank of the diverting canal. The area to be protected comSs iZt 6,500 acres, with a total estimated value of approximately $28,900 000 fnfl.nH and improvements. The flood of April 1958 caused damages estimated at $1 n?q poo at that time. On the basis of current conditions of development lnd'n& levels these damages would amount to about $1,386,000, all of which wnnW h! preventable by the combination of this project aAd New Hogan Reservoir J^^^^^J}^"^^ °^ ^^^^ damage reduction creditable to this project is estirnftlw ; «510,000. Average annual benefits are estimated at $32lXo all frSJ flood 91-459 — 68— pt, 1 22 336 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,390,000 will complete the project and will be applied as follows: Initiate and complete bank protection — lower Calaveras River $75 , 000 Initiate and complete installation of permanent operating equipment. 3 , 000 Complete modification of railroad bridges 295 , 000 Complete channel improvement, Mormon Slough — Jack Tone Road to Bellota 255,000 Complete levee construction (diverting canal-Mormon Slough and Potter Creek) and pumping plant construction 307 , 000 Engineering and design 1,000 Supervision and administration 74,000 Cash contribution (reimbursement under provisions sec. 3 of Public Law 738, 74th Congress) 380,000 Total $1,390,000 Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required, prior to construction, to give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will: (a) Furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including spoil-disposal areas, necessary for construction of the works; (b) accomplish all relocations and alterations of roads, streets, buildings, pipelines, utilities, bridges, and other structures (except railroad facilities) made necessary by the construction work ; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works ; (d) maintain and operate all the works after completion, including the lower Calaveras River, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army and (e) ; prescribe and enforce regulations designed to prevent encroachment of any type that would impair the flood control effectiveness of the work. The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: Lands and damages $1,220,000 Relocations 1,700,000 Total $2, 920, 000 Federal reimbursement — 380 , 000 Total $2,540,000 The annual cost for operation, maintenance, and replacements is estimated at $28,000. Status of local cooperation. — The State of California oflBcially adopted this project by chapter 915 of the statutes of 1963, and by chapter 1438 of those statutes authorized the State reclamation board to furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that the local cooperation requirements would be met. Formal assurances, received from the State reclamation board early in August 1966, were accepted by the district engineer August 15, 1966. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current cost estimate of $2,540,000 is an increase of $120,000 over the latest estimate ($2,420,000) submitted to Con- gress. Higher price levels increased the estimate $32,000; an increase of $108,000 is due to changes in pumping plant and permanent operating equipment require- ments; and engineering and design increased $10,000 due to reanalysis of require- ments. These increases were partially offset by a reduction of $30,000 in the Federal cash contribution to local interests required by section 3 of Public Law 738, 74th Congress. 337 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Relocations $365,000 .. 335.000 . 720,000 .. 277.000 .. 3,000 .. 1 300, 000 160.000 380,000 .. 2, 540, 000 $70, 000 80, 000 490, 000 125, 000 $295, 000 255, 000 230, 000 152,000 3,000 1,000 . 73,500 380,000 1,389,500 . Channels Levees Pumping plant . Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Reimbursement to local interests $290, 000 18, 900 9,000 67, 600 Total applied cost (Federal funds only) 308, 900 841,600 Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 2, 540, 000 308,900 841, 600 1, 389, 500 Pending adjustments .._ _. Total cost (Federal funds only) 2, 540, 000 308, 900 1,700 310,600 500, 500 841,600 -1,700 . 839. 900 650,000 . 189,900 - 839,900 . 1, 389, 500 '"i,'389,'506' Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing— Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Appropriations required 2 1, 389, 500 ' Includes $2,000 for costs to be incurred for real estate activities. 2 Rounded to $1,390,000. Pine Flat Reservoir and Kings River, California (Continuing) Location. — The reservoir is on Kings River, about 25 mUes east of Fresno, Calif., and the channel improvements are on Kings River downstream from the dam. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1944. Benefit-cost ratio. — 7.1 to 1 (Total project) (Channel improvement only — 1.5 to 1). SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement $40,700,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement -- - -- 14,250,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) - .- 26,450,000 Estimated non-Federal cost - - 14,750,000 Reimbursement: Irrigation 14,250,000 Other costs 500,000 Total estimated projectcost 41,200,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 39,200,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 320,000 Allocations to date 39,520,000 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 1,000,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 180,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Concrete gravity. Height: 429 feet. Length: 1,820 feet. Spillway: Spillway: (6) 42 x 38 feet tainter gates. Crest length: 292 feet. Capacity: 391,000 cubic feet per second. Kings River channel improvements: Levee rehabilitation: 35 miles. Intermittent channel clearing: 55 miles. 338 Reservoir capacity: Flood control and irrigation: 1,000,000 acre-feet. Outlets : Flood control and irrigation: (10) 5x9 feet. Capacity (gross pool): 44,500 cubic feet per second. Penstocks (for future use) : 3-13.5 feet diameter. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Dam and appurtenances - 100 Channel and levee improvements, low^er Kings River (') March 1970. Entire project 96 Do. I Not started. JUSTIFICATION The project is a unit in the comprehensive plan for flood control and other related purposes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin. It will provide full protection against winter floods and all but the largest spring floods. It will pro- tect about 80,000 acres of rich agricultural lands in the Kings River area and, in conjunction with authorized projects on Kaweah, Kern, and Tule Rivers, will provide flood protection to 260,000 acres of rich cropland in the Tulare Lake area. Much of this land is the most productive in California and has been sub- jected to severe damages in the past. Evaluation of the operation of the project during the spring rain floods and the summer snowmelt floods of 1958 indicated that the project prevented $11 million damage. The population of the Kings River flood plain protected by Pine Flat Reservoir is about 67,000. This area is a heavy producer of raisins, fruits, and good-quality cotton. The project improves the irrigation water supply with 165,000 acre-feet of new water annually by retention of excess floodflows, and provides a means of regulating the normal supply. Breakdown of average annual benefits (entire project): Amount Flood control $5, 860, 000 Irrigation - 5, 435, 000 Future power. - 22, 000 Total-- 11, 317, 000 Channel improvement on the Lower Kings River is needed to provide the capacity to contain flood releases from Pine Flat Reservoir and to permit the proper operation of that reservoir. The largest volume flood recorded in the Tulare Lake area occurred in June 1906 and caused damages estimated at $1,200,000. Were such a flood to occur under current conditions of development and prices, damages amounting to $8,200,000 would result along the Lower Kings River and in Tulare Lake; about $4,918,000 of such damage would be prevented by the proposed channel improvement. Average annual benefits for Kings River channel improvement only are estimated at $162,000, all from flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1 million and adequate funding in fiscal year 1970 will permit completion of the project prior to the 1970- 1971 flood season. Application of fiscal year 1969 funds would be as follows: Continue channel and levee improvements. Lower Kings River $890,000 Initiate and complete modification of Army Weir 40, 000 Engineering and design 8,000 Supervision and administration 62,000 Total - - 1,000,000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to pay the portion of the first cost and annual costs allocated to the irrigation functions of the dam and reservoir portion of the project. Under the provisions of War Department Civil Appropriation Act of 1947, the allocation of first cost has been set at $14,250,000. The current estimate of annual maintenance, operation and replacement costs allocated to the irrigation functions is $99,000. For the Kings River channel improvement work local interests are required to: (a) Provide without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights- 339 •of -way necessary for completion of the channel improvement work; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction work; and (c) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regula- tions prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The initial investment required of local interests in the construction of the channel improvements is estimated at $500,000. This cost consists of $.300,000 for lands and damages, and $200,000 for relocations. Annual cost to local interests for maintenance and operation and major replacements for the channel improvement work is estimated at $39,000. Status of local cooperation. — The State of California officially adopted the project by chapter 1514 of the statutes of 1945, State of California. Repayment contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and the local water users for the irrigation use of the reservoir were executed December 23, 1963, prior to which time irriga- tion water was furnished to the users under an interim contract. The Kings River Conservation District, which represents local interests, furnished assurances of local cooperation required for channel improvements which were accepted Novem- ber 20, 1959. Acquisition of rights-of-way necessary for the Lower Kings River channel improvement was completed January 6, 1966. It is anticipated that rights-of-way for intermittent channel clearing upstream of Lemoore Weir will be obtained as required to meet the construction schedule. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of 840,700,000 is an increase of $200,000 over the latest estimate ($40,500,000 July 1965 base) submitted to Congress. The channels feature was increased $170,000 for intermittent channel clearing required to alleviate flooding between Lemoore Weir and Pine Flat Dam. An increase of $20,000 in engineering and design and $10,000 in supervision and administration reflects requirements for the additional ■channel improvement. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) 0am and reservoir completed (all costs) $39, 060, 000 (1,640,000) 530,000 . 810,000 . 40,000 . 1 145, 000 115,000 40, 700, 000 $39,060,000 . (140,000) Downstream ctiannel improvement Channels ($320, 000) 200, 000 80, 000 ($1,000,000) 160, 000 730,000 . 40,000 . 8,000 62, 000 1, 000, 000 ($180, 000) 170,000 Levees Floodway control structures Engineering and design 118,000 22, 000 39,200,000 18,000 22, 000 320,000 1,000 Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed costs . 9,000 180, 000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments 40, 700, 000 39, 200, 000 320, 000 1,000,000 180, 000 Total cost (Federal funds only).. Undelivered orders ... 40, 700, 000 39, 200, 000 320, 000 1,000,000 180, 000 Total obligations. Method of financing: Federal Funds: 39,200,000 39, 200, 000 320,000 320,000 . 1, 000, 000 180, 000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 320,000 . Appropriations required 1,000,000 180,000 ' Includes $5,000 for costs to be incurred for real estate activities. Redwood Creek, Humboldt County, Calif., (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on Redwood Creek, Humboldt County, in northwestern California about 50 miles south of the Oregon-California border. The area subject to flooding is adjacent to the lower 4 miles of the creek, in and near the town of Orick. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Beneiit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. 340 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $4,860,000 Estimated non-Federal cost i 565,000 Cash contribution.. .. . Other costs 565,000 Total estimated project cost 5,425,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967. 2,091,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 _ _._ 2,000,000 Allocation to date. 4,091,000 84 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 769,000 100 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1 In addition, local interests have expended about $7,000 for intermittent bank-protection works. PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Average height: 10 feet. Length: 33,000 feet. Channels: Clearing, straightening and enlargement, approximately 3.4 miles on Redwood STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Levees 80 November 1968. Channel improvements Entire project 70 78 Do. Do. JUSTIFICATION Floods on Redwood Creek have caused extensive damage to agricultural land and crops, roads and urban properties adjacent to the lower reach of the river, principally in the town of Orick. Floods in 1953, 1955, and December 1964 caused damages of approximately $940,000, $568,000, and $1,400,000, respectively. Under present conditions of development, floods of similar magnitudes would cause estimated damages of $1,570,000, $880,000 and $1,500,000, respectively, practically all of which would be prevented by the project. The town of Orick (population 1,100) is the principal business center between Areata and Crescent City. The rich dairy farming land in the flood plain is an important factor in the economic life of the area. In order to prevent further loss of valuable land and produce, and damage to residential and connuercial property, completion of the project at an early date is essential. The present value of lands and improvements in the flood area is $13,700,000. The average annual benefits are estimated at $360,000, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $769,000 will complete the project and will be applied as follows: Complete construction of channel and levee improvements $694, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 65, 000 Total 769,000 yon-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to: (a) Provide all lands, ease- ments and rights-of-way, including borro^v areas and spoil-disposal areas necessary for the construction of the project; (b) accomplisli all relocations and alterations of buildings, utilities, roads, and related facilities necessary for the construction and maintenance of tlic project; (c) liold and save the United States free from dam- ages due to the construction works; (d) maintain and o])erate all the works after completion in accordance witii regulations prescribed by tlie Secretary of the Army; and (e) prevent any encroachment on the flood channels and ponding areas which would d(!crease the effectiveness of the flood-control improvements, and if ponding areas and capacities are impaired, promptly provide substitute storage capacity or equivalent pumping capacity. 341 The cost to local interests for complying with the requirements of local coopera- tion is $565,000: Lands and damages $365,000 and relocations $200,000. The annual cost to local interests for maintenance, ojjeration, and replacements is estimated at $19,500. Status of local cooperation. — The required assurances of local cooperation wore provided by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors' letter dated January 24, 1961. All requirements have been met. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $4,860,000 is an increase of $260,000 over the latest estimate ($4,000,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The increase results from increase in engineering and design due to reanalysis of requirements ($10,000) and increased cost of handling exca- vated material unsuitable for levee construction and increased quantity of riprap due to higher specific gravity than anticipated ($250,000). SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels $1,330,000 $450,000 $560,000 $310,000 Levees 2,880,000 1,160,300 1,335.700 384,000 Engineering and design '335,000 302,100 22,900 10,000 Supervision and administration 315,000 159,100 90,900 65,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 4,860,000 2,081,500 2,009,500 769,000 Undistributed costs - Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 4,860,000 2,081,500 2,009,500 769,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 4,860,000 2,081,500 2,009,500 769,000.... Undelivered orders +5,700 -5,700 Total obligations 2,087,200 2,003,800 769,000 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations. 2,091,000 2,000,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 3,800 Total funds available for obli- gation 2,003,800 Appropriations required 769,000 > Includes $0.5 for real estate activities. Russian River Basin (Coyote Valley Dam and Russian River Channel), California (Continuing) Location. — Coyote Vallej^ Dam is located on the East Fork of the Russian River, approximately 3,000 feet upstream from the confluence witli the main river at mile 94, about 3 miles northeast of Ukiah, Calif. The channel improvements are located along the main stem of Russian River from about mile 23 to mile 98. Authorization. — 1950 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2. 3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost. $14,802,000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' 5.823,000 Cash contribution 5,598.000 Other costs.. --.- 225,000 Total estimated project cost - 20. 625. 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 13.459.000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968.... 100.000 Allocation to date ...- 13,559,000 92 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 120,000 92 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1.123,000 > In addition, local interests have expended approximately $1,000,000 to provide partial flood protection in the project area, have constructed water distribution facilities at a cost of approximately $10,000,000, and plan to construct additional facilities by 1970 at a cost in excess of $5,000,000. Percent complete Completion schedule 100 100 100 100 100 100 54 November 1970. 94 Do. 342 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earthfill. Height: 160 feet. Length: 3,560 feet. Spillway: Type: Fixed crest channel control, 200 feet long, 19 feet below dam crest. Design capacity: (maximum pool) 28,500 cubic feet per second. Drainage area: 105 square miles. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control _ 48, 000 Urban and agricultural water supply 70, 000 Silt reservation 4, 500 Total — --- 122,500 Outlet works: Type: Upstream gated, 12.5 foot diameter conduit through dam. Capacity: 6,500 cubic feet per second. Bank stabilization: Channel clearing and excavation, bank revetments, and miscellaneous channel stabilization structures. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) tand acquisition Relocations Dam and appurtenances Minor completion items Fire protection and access road Recreation facilities.. Bank stabilization Entire project. JUSTIFICATION The reservoir was placed in operation in November 1958 and was essentially complete in June 1959. Channel improvements along the main stem of the Russian River are needed to permit proper operation of the dam and to inhibit the stream's natural tendency to meander. The reservoir, together with the channel improve- ments, will provide flood protection to an area of approximately 39,700 acres, of which 39,300 are agricultural, 300 are residential, and 100 commercial. The total value of all lands and improvements in the flood plain, within project limits is estimated at $127,100,000 (July 1967 prices). During the December 1964 storm. Coyote Valley Dam and the completed bank stabilization works protected a portion of the Russian River Basin and prevented damages estimated at $3 million. However, serious channel damages in many locations downstream of the dam were incurred as a result of that storm. Completion of the channel stabiliza- tion work is essential to prevent recurring flood losses. Breakdown of average annual benefits: Amount Flood control $770, 000 Water supply and irrigation 1, 580, 000 Total -- 2, 350, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $120,000 will be applied to — Continue bank stabilization $'^0, 000 Engineering and design 32, 000 Supervision and administration 8, 000 Total 120,000 Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $5,823,000, broken down as follows: Land fand damages $225, 000 Cash contribution 5, 598, 000 Total 5, 823, 000 343 Local interests are required to maintain the channel improvements upon com- pletion. Ihe annual cost for maintenance is estimated at $30,000. cin ^,?.^i<^io"' local interests advised that they have expended approximately MO mUlion for required water distribution facilities, wUl complete additional water distribution facilities by 1970 at a cost estimated to be in excess of $5 million, and have, in the past 10 years, expended approximately $1 million for construction of bank stabilization works and channel improvements. Status of local cooperation.— The Sonoma County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has contributed the amount of $5,598,000 toward first cost of construction and prepayment of operation and maintenance charges allocated to the water supply features of the reservou-; has furnished the necessary lands easements, and rights-of-way for channel stabilization works constructed to date, and, by Resolution No SA 6847, dated May 25, 1955, has guaranteed fulfillment of all requirements of local cooperation for the Sonoma County portion of the channel stabilization project. The Mendocino County-Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation District has reimbursed the Sonoma County District $633,000 for its propor- tionate share of water supply benefits for the reservoir project, and by resolution dated November 12, 1959, provided assurances of local cooperation for stabiliza- tion works to be constructed in Mendocino County. eifSnnn''^ ^^ Federal cost estvnate.— The current Federal cost estimate of 3>14,802,000 IS an increase of $50,000 over the latest estimate ($14,752,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The increase reflects higher price levels. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to liem cost June 30, estimate 1967 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Current Budget Balance to fiscal year fiscal year complete after 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 Completed work (dam and appurten- , anises) . $17,550,000 $17,550,000 Uncompleted work: Bank stabilization... 2,500,000 1,250,000 $110,000 $80,000 $1060 000 Engmeermg and design 1 195, 000 141,000 16 000 32 000 6 000 Supervision and admmistration 155,000 79,000 11000 8' 000 57 000 Total applied cost (Federal funds and ' a/.uuu non-Federal contributions) 20,400,000 19,020,000 137,000 120 000 1123 000 Undistributed cost v.^uu i.ito.uuu Total project cost (Federal funds and " " non-Federal contributions) 20,400,000 19,020,000 137,000 120 000 1123 000 Pending adjustments ' i,iio,uuu Total cost (Federal funds and non- " ' Pg^ Federal contributions) 20,400,000 19,020,000 137,000 120,000 1,123,000 5nd1li°eredpVdVr"s 14,802,000 13,422,000 137,000 120,000 1,123,000 Non-Sr^lKr-----""-""-"""---" '''''°' i26:000--i:i23:065 Total cost 5,598,000 5,598,000 Undelivered orders. M ,Jotal obligations "II-!--"^!!ir""5,'598,'006"]"""" IVIethod of financing: ' ' Federal funds: Allocations. 13,459,000 100,000 Unobligated carryover from ^ prior year 37 qoo Total funds available for obli- gation. ... 137,000 Appropriations required 120 000 i'i?^'nnf) Non-Federal contributions: " i-^^.^uu i,i^j,uuu Contributions 5,598,000 Advances. Unobligated carryover froni' prior year Total funds available for obli- gation Contributions required ' Includes $0.5 for real estate activities. 344 Sacramento River and Major and Minor Tributaries, California (Continuing) Location. — On Sacramento River from Colusa to Chico Landing; on the lower reaches of its tributaries from the mouth of Butte Creek to Red Bluff, Calif.; and on Sutter, Tisdale, Sacramento, and Yolo Bypasses. Authorization. — 1944 and 1950 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs... Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $11,900,000 ._ - 6,100,000 6,100,000 18,000,000 9,855,000 420,000 10,275,000 86 400, 000 90 1,225,000 PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Average height: 12 feet. Length: 107 miles. Diversion structures: 2. Channels: Channel improvement, 72 miles. Bypass revetment: As required for protection of bypass levee slopes against erosion. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Butte Creek 100 Cherokee Canal 100 Chico Creek, Mud Creek, and Sandy Gulch 100 Deer Creek 100 Elder Creek 100 Revetment of bypass levees 58 Entire project.. 86 December 1970. Do. JUSTIFICATION This project is an integral unit of the authorized comprehensive plan for flood control in the Sacramento River Basin. It is a modification and extension of the Sacramento River Flood Control project and supplements reservoir units of the comprehensive plan by providing flood protection to certain unprotected or par- tially protected areas along Sacramento River. Such areas include the city of Chico (population 19,200), other smaller communities, about 80,000 acres of agric\iltural land important to the economy of the region, U.S. Highways Nos. 99E and 99 W, and main lines of transcontinental railroads. The bypass levee revetment features of the project will provide protection to flood plain lands adjacent to the bypasses and will decrease requirements for levee repairs under emergency conditions. During the floods of December 1964 and January 1965, the completed portion of the project jirevented $3,750,000 damages. Had the remaining levee bypass revetment work been completed at the time of the flood, an additional $350,000 damages would have been prevented. Average annual benefits are esti- mated at $1,415,000, all from flood control. 3^ Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $400,000 will be applied to — Initiate bvpass levee revetment, contract No. 6, selected sites Yolo Bypass.'_ $25,000 Complete bypass levee revetment, contract No. 5, selected sites Yolo Bypass 305, 000 Engineering and design 35, 000 Supervision and administration 35, 000 Total 400,000 The amount requested for fiscal year 1969 is considered the minimum require- ment for orderly continuation of bypass levee revetment in critical areas. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $6,100,000, broken down as follows : Lands and damages $2, 100, 000 Relocations 4, 000, 000 Total 6, 100, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon completion. The annual cost for maintenance, operation, and replacements is estimated at $107,000. Status of Local Cooperation. — The Chief of Engineers accepted assurances of local cooperation from the State of California on March 22, 1948. Local interests are represented by the Reclamation Board of the State of California. Local co- operation expenditures as of June 30, 1967, were $5,497,000. Comparison of Federal Cost Estimates. — The current estimate of $11,900,000 is the same as the last estimate submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels $485,000 $485,000 - Levees .._ 8,659,000 6,965,000 $354,000 $330,000 $1,010,000 Floodway control and diversion struc- tures 382,000 382,000 _. _ - Permanent operating equipment 34,000 34,000 -.. Engineering and design 11,280,000 1,177,000 35,000 35,000 33,000 Supervision and administration 1,060,000 805,000 38,100 35,000 181,900 Total applied cost(Federai funds only).-. 11,900,000 9,848,000 427,100 400,000 1,224,900 Undistributed costs --. -.- - --- Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 11,900,000 9,848,000 427,100 400,000 1,224,900 Pending adjustments .._ --- - Total cost (Federal funds only) 11,900,000 9,848,000 427,100 400,000 1,224,900 Undelivered orders 100 -100 Total obligations 9,848,100 427,000 400,000 1,224,900 METHOD of" FINANCING Federal funds: Allocations.. 9,855,100 420.000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 7,000 Total funds available for obligation 427,000 Appropriations required - 400,000 2 1,224,900 ' Includes $17,000 for costs to be incurred on real estate activities. 2 Rounded to $1,225,000. S-'VCRAMENTO RlVEU BaNK PROTECTION PROJECT, CALIFORNIA (Continuing) Location. — Along Sacramento River and its principal tributaries, in north- central (I^alifornia, within the limits of the existing levee system. Authorization. — 1960 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. 346 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost _ $21,800,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1 10,900,000 Cash contribution _ _ _, 2,420,000 Other costs 8,480,000 Total estimated project cost . . 232,700,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 8,952,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 1,200,000 Allocations to date _ 10,152,000 47 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 1,400,000 53 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. 10,248, 000 ■|ln addition, for reaches where local interests request bank stabilization instead of the setbacks recommended by the Chief of Engineers, the local interests will contribute the costs over and above the costs of setbacks. 2 Estimate for initial phase consisting of approximately 430,000 lineal feet of bank protection at critical erosion areas now existing or expected to develop in the initial 10 years. The tentative estimate for ultimate remedial work is $100,000,000. Extension of bank protection beyond the initial phase will require report on advisability of proceeding with additional work and authorization of that work. PHYSICAL DATA Bank protection: Approximate! j' 430,000 lineal feet (initial phase). Pacific. Sacramento. Central Valley. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Levees 40 December 1972. Recreation facilities 30 Do. Entire project. 41 Do. JUSTIFICATION The Sacramento River levee sj^stem was initiated as a purely local project and in many cases the levees were constructed close to the riverbanks without protective berm. The levee system was adopted as a Federal project in 1917, and it has been modified and expanded several times since that date but no major change in the basic levee alinement has been made since the original conception of the project. The levees are seriously threatened by erosion, and unless corrective measures are taken, levee failures may occur with catastrophic damage and pos- sibly the loss of many lives. The area protected by the levees comprises over 1 million acres in which about 50 communities are located; value of land and improvements (1967) to be protected is about $2,900,000,000, and about 726,000 people live within the flood plain. The project is needed to maintain the integrity of the Sacramento River flood control project so that it will continue to furnish the degree of protection for which it was designed, to reduce the costs of emergency repairs and downstream dredging, and to reduce land losses caused by erosion. The project will also provide boat launching facilities, campgrounds, and picnic areas urgently needed along the river to take care of a rapidly increasing public demand for these facilities. Requirements for large Federal expenditures for flood emergency work under emergency flood control legislation will be largeh' eliminated. Breakdown of Average Annual Benefits: Amount Flood control $1, 806, 000 Recreation _ 146, 000 Total _._ 1, 952, 000 347 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,400,000 will be applied as follows: Initiate bank protection, contract No. 15, selected sites, Sacramento River, mile 15-40, and Georgiana Slough $35, 000 Continue bank protection, contract No. 13, selected sites, Sacramento River, mile 62-148, and Elder Creek 525, 000 Complete bank protection, contract No. 12, selected sites, Sacramento River, mile 61-101 and Feather River 612, 000 Engineering and design 114, 000 Supervision and administration 114, 000 Total 1,400,000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to contribute an amount in cash which when added to the cost of lands, easements, rights-of-way, and utility changes, equals one-third of the cost of each unit of the remedial work, a contri- bution presently estimated at $2,420,000 for the first 10-year period; provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way neces- sary for the proposed work; make all necessary relocations and alterations to roads, bridges, irrigation and drainage facilities, and other utilities; maintain and operate the completed individual project units in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works. The estimated first costs to local interests are as follows: Cash contribution $2, 420, 000 Lands, easements, and rights-of-wav 3, 440, 000 Utility revisions 1 5, 040, 000 Total _ __ 10, 900, 000 The annual cost for maintenance and operation is estimated at $132,000. In addition, for reaches where local interests request bank stabilization instead of the set-backs recommended by the Chief of Engineers, the local interests will contribute the costs over and above the costs of set-backs. Status of local cooperation. — Chapter 2188, Statutes of the State of California, approved by the Governor on July 21, 1961, established the State Reclamation Board as the agency to meet the requirements of local cooperation for the proj- ect. Assurances of local cooperation were accepted from the board February 5, 1963. As of September 1, 1967, the State had appropriated $8,147,437 toward construction of the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $21,800,000 is an increase of $600,000 over the latest estimate ($21,200,000 July 1966 base) submitted to Congress. The total includes increases of $500,000 for higher price level and $100,000 for final costs on work completed and bid prices on contracts underway. 348 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Tola! to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Levees _.. $20,290,000 Recreation facilities 500,000 Engineering and design.. 1 1,700,000 Supervision and administration... 1,730,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 24,220,000 Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 24,220,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions) 24,220,000 Federal funds: Total applied cost.. 21,800,000 Undistributed costs. Total project cost 21,800,000 Pending adjustments Total cost 21,800,000 Undelivered orders. Total obligations Non-Federal contributions: Total applied cost 2,420,000 Undistributed costs Total project cost... 2,420,000 Pending adjustments Total cost 2,420,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obliga- tion Appropriations required ._ Non-Federal contributions: Contributions Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation , Contributions required ___ $7,270,000 60,000 1,030,000 549, 100 8,909,100 8,909,100 $1,860,000 90, 000 130, 000 122,900 2,202,900 2,202,900 $1,340,000 $9,820,000 350,000 130,000 410,000 130,000 928,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 8,909,100 8,149,100 "8,'i49,i66' 2,202,900 2,002,900 '2,"662,"9d6' 8, 149, 100 150,400 8, 299, 500 760, 000 ""'760,'0O6' """766,'666" ""760," 665" 8,952,000 2, 002, 900 -150,400 1,852,500 200, 000 '""266,'666' ""266,"666" ""'266,' 666' 1,200,000 652, 500 1,852,500 1,400,000 760, 000 200,000 200, 000 11,508,000 11,508,000 1,600,000 11,508,000 1,400,000 10,248,000 "1,"466,"666 i6,'248,"666 "i,'466,'666 i6,'248,"666 "i,"466,"666 i6,'248,'666 200,000 1,260,000 "'"266,"666 i,"266,'666 """266," 666 "i, "266," 666 "'"266,"666 i,"266,'666 10, 248. 000 200, 000 1,260,000 1 Includes $25,000 for costs to be incurred on real estate activities. Walnut Creek, Calif (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on Walnut Creek and on the lower reaches of its principal tributaries, Pacheco, Grayson, San Ramon and Las Trampas Creeks, in Contra Costa County, Calif. Authorization. — 1960 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost. Cash contribution. Other costs . Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967... Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date. . . . Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. . . $20,600,000 1 10. 900.000 1.650.000 9.250.000 31.500.000 7.562.000 2.856.000 10.418.000 2.100,000 8. 082. 000 ' In addition, loc^l interests have expended approximately $2,000,000 lor flood control in the project area during the past 10 years. 100 28 June 1971. 41 Do. 90 December 1969. December 1970. 100 June 1971. 48 Do. 349 PHYSICAL DATA Levees : Average Height: 6 feet. Length: 13.8 miles. Pumping plant: One — 150 e.f.s. Flood control structures: Two drop structures. One energy dissipating structure (Stilling basin). Relocations: Railroad bridges, three ($1,150,000). Channel improvement: Unlined earth channel, 9.1 miles. Concrete lined channel, 4.2 miles. Rock lined channel, 1.0 mile. Design capacities: Suisun Bay to Grayson Creek, 25,000 c.f.s. Grayson Creek to Pine Creek, 22,500 c.f.s. Pine Creek to head of Walnut Creek, 18,000 c.f.s. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Relocations Roads Channels Levees Pumping plant - (') Flood-control structures Permanent operating equipment 0) Entire project... 1 Not started. JUSTIFICATION The project will provide flood protection to residential, commercial, and agricultural lands within and adjacent to the urban and suburban areas of Walnut Creek (estimated population 24,100), Concord (estimated population 71,300), Pacheco (estimated population 4,100), and Pleasant Hill (estimated population 35,000). Land use is rapidly evolving from agricultural use to suburban because the area is within commuting distance of the San Francisco Bay area. The area to be protected comprises about 6,100 acres, with a total estimated value of approximately $350,000,000 for land and improvements and a population of about 72,000. The flood of February- April 1958, which was the largest of record, caused damages on the main stem estimated at $1,600,000 at that time. On the basis of current conditions of development and price levels these damages would amount to about $2,269,000, all of which would be preventable by the project. Average annual benefits are estimated at $1,916,000, all from flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,100,000 will be applied as follows: Initiate channel improvement from School Bridge to Broadway Avenue $277,000 Continue channel improvement from Geary Road to School Bridge and complete road 1, 416, 000 Engineering and design 231, 000 Supervision and administration 176, 000 Total 2, 100,000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to make a cash contribution to the United States, in the amount of 7.4 percent of the cost of construction; furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way for construction; accomplish alterations and relocations except railroad facilities; and maintain and operate each effective element of the work after completion of that element and all works after completion thereof. The estimated first costs to local interests are as follows : Cash contribution $1, 650, 000 Lands and damages 6, 050, 000 Relocations 3, 200, 000 Total 10, 900, 000 350 The annual cost for operation, maintenance, and replacements is estimated at $72,000. Status of Local Cooperation. — Satisfactory assurances of local cooperation, including evidence of financial and legal ability to fulfill the requirement for the cash contribution, were received from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District on March 28, 1963. Cash contributions totaling $837,700 have been furnished to the Corps to cover the local interests' share of construction costs programed through fiscal year 1968. Comparison of Federal Cost Estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $20,600,000 is the same as the last estimate submitted to Congress. Internal changes have been made in feature accounts to reflect bids received, additional planning, and experience to date. These changes include $190,000 increase in levee construction estimate due to subsurface conditions encountered, $125,000 increase due to redesign of drop structure No. 2 based on model studies, and $28,- 000 increase in engineering and design due to reanalysis of requirements. These increases were offset by a decrease of $343,000 primarily due to a favorable bid on channel improvements awarded in March 1967. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $1,150,000 $1,124,000 $26,000 Roads - — 300 000 70,000 15,000 $35,000 $180,000 Channels' 15,535,000 4,735,000 2,047,000 1,795,000 6,958,000 Levees - - 815,000 465,000 270,000 80,000 Pumping plants 250,000 250,000 Flood control structures 638,000 320,000 318,000 . Permanent operation equipment 12,000 „H'x95 Engineering and design 11,780,000 840,000 300,000 250,000 390,000 Supervision and administration 1,770,000 495,300 230,800 190.000 853,900 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 22,250,000 8,049,300 3,206,800 2,270,000 8,723,900 Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 22,250,000 8,049,300 3,206,800 2,270,000 8,723,900 Pending adjustments... Total cost (Federal funds and non- „^ „ „,„ ^^^ „ ^„„ „„„ Federal contributions)... 22,250,000 8,049,300 3,206,800 2,270,000 8,723,900 ''^'^Totil'appiiedcost.._ 20,600,000 7,453,700 2,964,700 2,100,000 8,081,600 Undistributed costs ;:^ ,;^^ ;:-^;:,--;^^ Total project cost... 20,600,000 7,453,700 2,964,700 2,100,000 8,081,600 Totarco'st"^ ^ '"^ mens.... 2bym,m 7,"453,"76o 2,"964,'700 2,"iOO."oo6 8,"08i,*600 Undelivered orders 39,700 -39,700 ... ;-^a,--;aa Total obligations 7,493,400 2,925,000 2,100,000 8,081,600 '°%'ot7apSco"st°."!: ..".... 1,650,000 595,600 242,100 170,000 642,300 Undistributed costs - - r Total project cost ... 1,650,000 595,600 242,100 170,000 642,300 Totarcosf ''"'""'"''-■- -i:650:000---595,-600 242,-iOO -176,-066 64-2V3-6d Tota[!;^Sons:"'"!:::::::::::::::::::::::::: 598;S him 170:000 m:m Method of financing: '''''M\ocstus 7,562,400 2,856,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year „,?' nnn Total funds available for obligation 2,925,000 .... Appropriations required 2, 100, UOU 2 8,081,600 Non-Federal contributions; Contributions.,.. 837,700 Unobligated carryover from prior year - o^oortn Total funds available for obligation 238,900 zz----- cio'onn Contributions required - 170,000 642,300 1 Includes $17,000 for costs to be incurred on real estate activities. 2 Rounded to $8,082,000. G51 Operatcox and Maintenance INIr. WiiiTTEN. A total of $9,859,000 is budgeted for operation and maintenance. (The justilication follows:) 1. Navigation (a) Channels and harbors. — The budget estimate of $4,930,000 provides for the essential annual and periodic maintenance work on 21 channel and harbor projects nam(>d in the list which follows. The work to be accomplislKid under this activity consists of maintaining the navigation channels and harbors of coastal harbors and waterways by means of dredging, snagging, bank protection, jetty repairs, and operation and repair of navigation facilities, as authorized in the laws adopting river and harbor projects. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes CALIFORNIA Channel Island Harbor (Port Hueneme)- Humboldt Harbor and Bay. Middle River_ Mokelumne River Morro Bay Oakland Harbor Oceanside Harbor Old River Petaluma River Redwood City Harbor Richmond Harbor Sacramento River. Sacramento River and tributaries (debris control). San Francisco Harbor., San Joaquin River.. San Pablo Bay and Mare Island Strait... Santa Barbara Harbor Santa Cruz Harbor Stockton-IVIormon Channel Suisun Bay Channel ._ Yuba River Other projects maintained periodically... Total, channels and harbors, (b) Locks and dams, none $57,700 411,800 33, 500 39, 600 7,000 473, 500 181,600 3,500 115.600 176,700 449. 900 55,100 33"?, 300 157,800 295,000 30. 000 110,400 1,500 184,300 42, 500 190,900 $396, 300 421.300 20,100 25,100 14,700 321,500 285.900 96,100 150,000 130,400 165,000 1,252.600 55. 100 376.700 563, 600 257, 300 30, 000 104,600 7,400 177,900 67,500 264,200 $500,000 Variations in dredging requirements. 450, 30, 30, 10, 395, 175, 50, 225, 125. 250. 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Do. Do. Do. Periodic maintenance. Portions of project main- tained periodically. 1. 100. 000 Fiscal year 1968 includes work deferred from fiscal year 1967. 70,000 375, 000 400, 000 350, 000 30, 000 125,000 10,000 150,000 70, 000 Do. 3, 356, 200 5, 683, 300 4, 930, 000 Total, navigation. 3, 356, 200 5, 683, 300 4, 930, 000 S. Flood control (a) Reservoirs. — The budget estimate of $3,174,000 provides for the operation and maintenance of 15 flood control projects and scheduling of flood control reservoir operations at operating Bureau of Reclamation and publicly owned projects in the division. The estimate also includes the requirements for opera- tion and maintenance of recreation facilities at reservoir projects. The amount requested is necessary for operation and ordinary maintenance of project facilities; labor, supplies, materials, and parts required for the day-by-day functioning of the projects; and periodic maintenance, repairs, and replacements. 91-459—68 — pt. 1- -23 352 OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes ARIZONA Alamo Reservoir... Painted Rock Reservoir Whitlow Ranch Reservoir CALIFORNIA Black Butte Reservoir. Coyote Valley Dam (Lake Mendocino). Farmington Reservoir Isabella Reservoir Los Angeles County drainage area Merced County stream group New Hogan Reservoir.. Pine Flat Reservoir Santa Ana River Basin. Success Reservoir, Terminus Reservoir NEVADA Pine and Mathews Canyon Reservoirs... Schedule of flood control reservoir op- erations. Total, reservoirs. $40, 000 1st year of maintenance. $51,700 $89, 600 60, 000 8, 500 10,200 10, 000 158,700 193,300 200, 000 281,900 332,300 425, 000 Outlet works repairs and additional recreation facilities. 19, 000 24, 500 28, 000 358, 900 403, 400 445,000 Maintenance of additional recreation facilities. 563. 300 621,200 690, 000 13,500 21,500 25, 000 157,700 205, 500 225, 000 Do. 236, 900 298, 700 340,000 Do. 270.400 25?, 200 300, 000 178,400 194.300 160,000 155,200 222, 400 160.000 Large recreation area to be maintained by local in- terests in fiscal year 1969. 18.100 18.600 19,000 43, 700 59, 900 47, 000 2,515,900 2,947,600 3,174,000 (b) Channel improvements, inspections, and miscellaneous maintenance. — The budget estimate of $95,000 provides for the insjaection of completed works during the budget year. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1958 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes Inspection of completed works. Total, channel improvements, in- spections, and miscellaneous maintenance. Total flood control $84, 500 84, 500 $80, 000 80, 000 $95, 000 95, 000 2, 600, 400 3, 027, 600 3, 269, 000 3. Multiple-purpose projects including power, none i. Protection of navigation The budget estimate of $1,660,000 provides for accomplishing the work essential to the administration and enforcement of specific laws enacted for the protection of navigation, and project condition surveys on some projects for whicli mainte- nance is not scheduled in the budget year. The budget estimate contains $1 million for construction of an incinerator for the San Francisco Bay drift removal project in order to eliminate open air burning of drift. 353 OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes General regulatory functions $135,800 Drift removal 439,800 Project condition surveys 64, 600 Total, protection of navigation 640,200 Grand total. South Pacific Division. 6, 596, 800 $144,300 400. 200 74.400 $170,000 1,415,000 75,000 618,900 1,660,000 9, 329, 800 9, 859, 000 Includes funds for incinerator construction. Mr. Whitten. On page 228, $1,415,000 is budgeted for drift re- moval, an increase of $1,015,000, Explain what is proposed in reference to the incinerator construc- tion and what will be the total cost. General Dillard. This amount is needed for replacement r)f tlie present inade<{uate incinerator facilities, required to meet local air and water pollution regulations. The cost of this incinerator is estimated to be about $1 million. Mr. WniTncx. Mr. Rhodes? MARICOPA COrXTY. ARIZ. Mr. Rhodes. Would you discuss generally the flood plan of Mari- co\yA County, Ariz. Have there been any recent develo})iiients in regard to these plans ^ You will recall a few years ago there was a bond issue proposed for local participation that was defeated, and after that, as I undei'stand it, some of the communities in the county proceeded separately to plan to implement parts of the plan. I have particular reference to the efforts of the city of Scottsdale as it refers to Indian Bend Wash. (feneral Dillard. As you know, John Lowry is the county flood control district man, and we feel he has done a very hue job there. Mr. Rhodes. I agree with that. General Dillard. He has recommended in the past, zoning; and it is my understanding from a recent discussion with John that the legisla- ture is considering a zoning of the flood control district in which the area of Scottsdale where Indian Bend Wash is would become a separate zone. These people are anxious to proceed with that part of the project, which I believe was stage A of a five-stage project. The estimated cost is about $8.6 million. That is an estimated figure. In addition, I understand the taxes will be raised to a 5-cent rate to permit the local interests to meet their share of the contribution. In addition to this move, the local flood control district, under the leadership of John, has sufficient funds to start several small portions of the overall project which would be the Dreamy Draw area. These will amount to relatively small amounts of money and part of the real estate is now Government-owned land. So we are very hopeful that this can proceed because the protection is rather desperately needed. Mr. Rhodes. It has been proved to be needed twice in the last 4 years, actually. 354 General Dillard. Yes, sir, Mr. Khodes. Do you have any capability for any of these proposals in the next fiscal year ? General Dillard. No, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Would you coment on the city of Scottsclale's pro- posed modification to the authorized project on Indian Bend, Wash.? General Dillard. Yes, sir; this proposed modification, iaiowii as the Erickson plan, would provide two' detention basins m the area upstream of the Aiizona Canal and a ''green belf' type channel along- Indian Bend, Wash. In order to develop definitive answers on the merits of this plan and to formulate recommendations, studies of de- sign memorandum scope v\-oukl be necessary. Mr. Rhodes. Do you liave a fiscal year 1961) capability to investigate this plan ? General Dillard. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. What is your capability ? General Dillard. With the usual qualifications, sir, $50,000. Initia- tion of such studies would be subject to the establishment of a soimd and firm plan for financing local costs. OROVILLE RESERVOIR. CALIF. Mr. Rhodes. As to the Oroville Reservoir, are you telling us, in ©jffect, that we have a good deal the way the Corps of Engineers agreed to proceed w^ith the State of California and if we try to make another type of deal it might turn out to be worse ? General Dillard. Sir, I feel that the agreemnt as it stands today, and as reflected in the contract, is an equitable arrangement, and if it is changed at this stage it would appear that we will have some dif- ficulty in arriving at other similar agreements in the future which may be beneficial tO' the Federal Government. Secondly, it may cause us oonsidei'able problems ui enforcing the requirements of operatmg the reservoir for flood control purposes, which, of course, is wliat we are paying for. It raises the question of whether we are legally able to do that. It would seem on a hypothetical basis that had we provided flood control only, which is not realistic because we would go for multipurpose development, but isolating that one feature it would seem the Federal Government would have had to pay coinsiderably more than the terms of the present agreement would require for the same benefits. Mr. Rhodes. Do you feel that the attitude of the subconnnittee, plus the attitude of the Geneiml Accounting Office, indicates that in future agreements the Corps of Engineers should have dift'erent contracts witli lelatioii to interest rate than the one wliich you have concluded Aviththe State of California on Oroville? General Dillard. Of course at that time there were two interest rates utilized, one for the Federal Government and one for local interests. The 8.5 i^ercent was a single compromise rate. We would not have the pi'oblem any more because we use a single rate. Mr. Rhodes. But future contracts would have to be based upon the rate which the Federal (xovernment would ])ay rather than on any compromise? (roneral Dillard. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. That is pretty obvious from the directives from the General Accounting Office. General Dillard. Yes. PINAL CREEK, ARIZ. Mr. Rhodes. Could you <>ive us the status of the Pinal Creek, Ariz, project? General Dillard. Yes, sir. The general design memorandum has been completed. The preparation of the plans and specifications has been delayed pending development by local interests of a plan of financing their share of the project cost and we have been informed by the city manager of Globe that the copper strike has substantially reduced the income of the residents of Globe and this has reduced city revenues to the extent all city expenditures have been curtailed as much as possible. It seems now it will be at least a year after the settlement of the copper strike before the city could do anything. Mr. Rhodes. There is very little doubt about the validity of that statement. Globe is a city that is very dependent on the copper industry for its economy and I believe the statement that the income of the city has diminished is the understatement of the year. Those people are certainly suffering from the protracted copper strike. That IS all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WiiiTTEN. Thank you very much. General. Thursday, March 7, 1968. PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION WITNESS LT. COL. LEWIS A. PICK, JR., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR PACIFIC DIVISIONS, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS Mr. Whitten. We shall proceed with the Pacific Ocean Division. Colonel, we welcome you back again. Do you have a general statement '? Colonel Pick. No, sir. The scope of the civil works program in the Pacific Ocean Division is rather limited at the present time. General Investigations Mr. Whitten. All right. $119,000 is budgeted for general investiga- tions in fiscal year 1969. (The justification follows:) 356 HP O O sis ■2S2 •-1 -IJ "O c: s o ™ ~ ■SH ° o < O IK 0) -1-^ u ^ •o 3 a «3 o C CJ G CD O > V3 ^ s^ o o en o -H) 73 o C3 -*^ o tB a ,i ^ S5 ^ ^ 5~ ^0 s ^rt 'O.E ra ^ o o) DO a)-— — 0) 5 £ 5 o E 5^ a)„"o 3 ,--0 E S c S : t/) cz o) »^ ^ — ^T3 to X 00 "O ^ E ""S ^^ O TO [^ ^X= ill If - -.a- o 2f ^^^ :_a) a, a; 0^ '< 5"? |-?J , o o_ .0 o o ^ -f-- C>0 O »- . — OX) c 3 _aj o o 5 >,'o .E ; Eji? , E t: 00 S -a E J -r: *^ 00 DflQ_ I-3; ' eS:-= £.e^ rs-:;™ 357 T3 G -a 3 •S ^£ i1 &s O 0) «r o "oj "o ^ £ *^ (O _i c-o o o c o (/i 5 JZl ^ c o GO i "oo j= e" £ S " ro O £*- . Zi : iz oo o tr '^ , r- Q-j: inch. WILLAMETTE-PUGET TROUGH The Willaniette-Puget Trough, abroad structural \'allov between the Coastal Range and the Cascades (slide No. IG), extending from Cot- tage Grove, Greg., to Puget Sound, Wash., contains almost 00 percent of the population of the region. This area, now growing toward a single megalopolis (slide No. 17), is expected to have a total population of 365 about 9 million by the year 2020. This is an area characterized by wet winters and dry summers. The oreatest water resource needs of this area are for flood control to prexent the ravages of floods caused by snowmelt or winter rains. Regulation of rivers in the interest of hydro- , power and navigation is required to support the growth of industry and waterborne commerce, as well as provide for additional water- based reci-eation and to improve the quality of water. The floods of Deceml^er 1964 and January 1965 wei^e the most dam- aging in the history of the Far Western States (slide No. 18) . Twenty lives were lost and many thousands of people were left temporarily homeless. Damages occurring in Oregon and "Washington are esti- mated to have been in excess of $173 million (slide No. 19). Completed dams and other flood control projects greatly reduced the amount of damage, suffering, and loss of life. The reduction in damages in the Willamette Eiver Basin from these floods alone is estimated to have been $564 million, a sum substantially exceeding the estimated total cost of the authorized Willamette River Basin development plan, including reservoir projects not yet started. Our budget includes funds to complete construction on the Blue River project (slide No. 20), an earth and rockfill dam, to complete preconstruction planning on two other dams, and to further our bank protection projects. Dependence of the economy along the lower Columbia and lower Willamette region on navigation requires completion of the 40-foot channel (slide No. 21). Funds to continue work are provided in the budget. The stretches in yellow will remain to be done after fiscal year 1969. COASTAL AREAS The coastal areas of Oregon and Washington, characterized in these slides (slide No. 22), offer unique possibilities for resolution of their water problems and opportunities for development of their water re- sources (slide No. 23). These areas, generally depressed economically in the past, now begin to show signs of healthy growth due to develop- ment of wood products, fishery industries, and by the provision of needed water resource projects. Damaging floods have hampered growth and the need for water supply is serious in some areas. To al- leviate this, construction will continue on Lost Creek Reservoir and Wynoochee Reservoir, and preconstruction planning will be completed on'Elk Creek Reservoir. To enhance commercial and recreational navi- gation benefits, construction will be continued on several coastal navi- gation projects (slide No. 24). ALASKA The Alaskan region, with district office in Anchorage, is superim- posed on an outline map of the conterminous United States (slide No. 25) to show its relative size. This relatively virgin but resource-rich section of our Nation presents a unique opportunity and challenge for orderly development. This vast area of over 586,000 square miles, en- compassed by some 33,000 miles of shoreline, is characterized by phy- siographic extremes: mountainous and broad flat terrain, muskeg and permafrost, salt water icepacks and river glaciation, and temperature variances up to 170° F. The population of 270,000, although sporad- ically located, is growing at a rate twice that of the national average. 366 Esttetic values and recreational potential are bountiful and the re- gion's natural resources are virtually untouched. As Alaska contains only about 5,000 miles of roads, improvement of its coastline waters and interior rivers as principal economical routes of transportation continues to assume extreme importance. Protective harbors for fishing craft are vital to this great Alaskan industry. Al- though our eft'orts to date have provided 21 small-boat harbors, such as this one at Juneau (slide No. 26), which are capable of sheltering 4,700 craft, some additional 7,300 commercial fishing craft are exposed to damaging storm conditions and increased operating costs. Partic- ularly significant is the need to develop the hydropower potential of the region to meet the growing power markets of the principal popula- tion centers. Our fiscal year 1969 budget provides for continued construction on the Snettisham project to provide h3'dropower for replacing high-cost diesel and old thermal generation and to meet growing power needs in Juneau (slide Xo. 27). This slide shows the damsite at the outlet of Long Lake, nearly 1,000 feet above tidewater, which is the source of energy in this project. I expect future Corps of Engineers developments in Alaska to con- tinue to contribute substantially to the steady and healthy growth of this frontier area. General Investigations Mr. KiRWAN. A total of $2,010,000 is budgeted for general investiga- tions by the division, a decrease of $176,000 from the 1968 allocation. (The justification follows:) 367 =3 >-. 05 c3 o -tj o r^ ^^ O c3 H Tt5 c3 M) o r^ X « ^ bC cS a 73 O) Is O P ^1 Sb o-o T3 QJ o o 'M" o f — ^ ^ O o a cr? c3 +j h£ w o 5 - OJ O0j2 j_ -o i: J- oa t^ o DO* ig'S^ «i°|- iE§.^-S5S|5 S Q^ - Z ■= * ^ - 5 S SS.E-- 2? Qi >^^ 03 C^ S2e; !=— VI— a)C « S ^^i"-si2-.E . £ -^ — .Q E o 0) : °fS3= E = oo^(oE'^-^'2'^ ol— o •'^ .Sf "aJ ■" -n ^'^^^^ 00-0-5 E : — 5 -<= = 1/1 no Qo'~ 91-459—68 -!—>.—. V? 03-: — pt. 1 24 368 3 E S *^ CO - ^ ^ EO-_ 2 "i J ) — o ^J3 = ' So 5 Sr ^ m w c: s " ™ °-S c 2 0*^ QO^ cu) !i^ 00,5 m2 -2* 5 •= "2 „ o = CQ ■ S - - S'-g " 5 ^ 5 m"^ =*= ^ - °- E ■ ■"t»--0 CLIO ,c E= ° ^!3 e-^ 2 2 ™ = .So^' =1 mE i:Q: --"g-a ^ ^-S E cc cj3 ^ 369 'is; o E „ E =-5. = O p ° (r> I'-^'^i S = I ^ oj .^ tj i-^ ■;= -^ c -a t: = ■" = S -^ "ill 5 a; a. = ^E.5^-! Ea: S E = ^' £ 5 E Q- M^ o -a ^■: X j^'o Qj ir -Q E 1 iJCC m Eoif'E^ 5 S ./i^iZ " o-o.i2 re o- (. o o^ . . OJ -O o o c/5 £re||l--° TO ^ R ._ k_ X "^ o 03 CC (U (U >^'*- -CD.! o O t/i E-o . 5 3 o) 2 Kftill ^ c £ - re g £ DO 55 S-== _ E - S EZQi ° S o .^ : ;2°Se5v,- _ _ , 55°Og^h-.2 _ Et3 E S i S -ri E - s; o E S ^O-i TO — Si=°=5TO ■° 533 --go — ^ u_ -— Qor^ ^ Q.^^ (1> > TO DO o - ^ :;; ^ Q. 03 t^ E*- S E - O) ^ O "J^ ^ *^ TO ^ a;g 5-K £ g TO So— ^ g g o r- '^. C TO *- ^ T3 * cu " OTI • -^ DjO CJ3__ ■S^-S-S-E- (/5 o c oJiH .2|^o§E : >< ^ o_j o" ^■Z- 005 >^^ ; S a^ 3 9 ^S £ c .EeSSo^S.5 _- E "S 'S, TO 2.-S §■ j.SaoETOo5o~"S'^5" ' ,y — "a TO "^ -CD "^ :3 c: o o ;-S'§ StJ.ES'^iS ^ E- E 3T3-£ *- - _g e£ Ef^ ^ ; — 00 ■ Q..Q *- ,«- 'oo(o'-<''5E-j;'3!=3^g L.'5°°£S'o-<^_?Es.c^"' ^fu-^-SoEtr^t^^TOcE^: |J.!|S|is3i^ili^|- . a.j3 .S j= 5™E°^=.EE' ' (Q n (/} DO n CL 371 :^ s '$ _c *i '-S c ci o 5 _o S "rt rt o OQ > 2 Vj H rt -kj o o s 05 H T— 4 t-05 rt •^ >>5P — ^ ti bC o ^ o_ o ~ o o J3 g +^ 5 u; o .i ,s ■a H = 'C - o I M •Oo o Me;' .S SiS"^ ° ci-^.oE - (r)'*- ^1 - "^ ~ " 5 Se J^-'g'g " ^:"'*'''^*' ■" c^^*^ '"'°m°-c — " ra 'o ra ^ •- "2 ^ '^ S "^ ^ •p .-= TO ■t; — o ^ TO tn^^ -"to ™ CO CD 3 .^ .c oo -_ o q: " u o = - 5 J "= E E 3 ■= -S -^ * :t:;-fc- ^ i *" ° S ° ci' S -2 J "--^S toco ram-^^^Oc-ro.oo. - ■" •" a.j= '^ oj 2 ^ ^ j- Q-JE ._• iS 5 1^ ^ " £ .^ *. i-,^(-3I^±i — — fl o £ '-— 5''^ ro S.co'°'Sra°'E'" 5 Q-g - c ° — 2" eII^I-: : 1^- g £ •- o oj -g ra Q_ .2 i - '■E 2 3 c.H'o-^ S a y ro 2 CM 0-- : c 3 „ - E -g « o eo >.«-ars — co(i)*^>£? Q'O^ a> £2.E *- , : cnh-ceS Jj S-D S ro £ xiSt. i£ = E2So; o.^QiSTOro^CQ era: i 872 ""era "IS"' Is il 0} OJ 07: o> > 5 c-=-c 2 > ;;; •D » c " g Of ^ 30= CO o g o ajS"^ S o r; DO QJ T3 i^ ' ^ = .- 0-0 CO -C >r, i-Ea>| j.ES-2-5 coS-^t:^ .g; — _-C3 CD^=: ; L ° Sj 5 < 5 -o o M< 3 _ro ° 2 ^ ^ », ^""^ F = 2^ = 3 = ?, E S c o— prm cuuj 0)^"° '"■£. trt Qj o _^ "O -^ c E CD p "3 >- . t: c CD o |--°™--t^}| |5|^if--^^=^ ;^ ^■=- — -a •- 1— --S ■" ro " i^^ J2 ^ Q 2 c£^ £ ^ ot; ^ " "aii,= rsF— "to— rc 0= ■ 2: ■- ^ x: " > '^ OD , S'^a3r?OTO=TO ■gE^g JO £ _ o-> — o 2Q E 5^-< 373 2E-5: E o -^ 03 Q) C OJ-D ^ '" t^ ^ "S ""S '" £? o °° ° oEocE|gJ — "gJ"^ -"5 i™ m£ ^ 5^S S m oo-o >^-^ ^•o 5e E^^slo E^.2 Q. Q. L su <->-u ^ c X . SS"^ a> :£ 2-S ou.E S 5 S 03= „^ re-o o o Ei; s o ^ „, js : :^-°:= E "-S-- ' " - .E -M ^ ^ £ !S g-ra o 2? a ^ = 2 ■:= / = trt o Q. ±r ± -r: C-i EiS E --0-=: o ^3 i^ ji; ; Ec -S^l E =if oo ,_ co\£ o CC 0) Q TO ■g E "^^ 2 i=o^ i- 03 ^ E o 3: E§-= ^ J 2f ■'--Q ^ ; ^°^ioi5E.f .o"!=™raa3- o g = _ Q-c St? 5 S°o^^03-.-29 ;oE o-.E ,^-o^ E ; oo lA 03 .C OO 2; c <" — Q3O ^ 3f5^Z3.— o^oc^ 3 S 5 03' = — "5-D 5-^ S-F= f= 2 ^o p ^o >,ro:5 2 c S ro 5 S " S3 .u = S)" o) .5 ro o j; = ^ ro ^ ;^ -a 5 03 S .2 "■■^^^ =■- ™ ro :5 = _ .'C .E .t= E = '5" ^5 ^ ^ O g- ra ^ j ■= ' i^ ,9 2 9 — >^ ~ ") :T3 " co^ £,^ ra 03 rc— - 2S_ . o t^ ^ o_o-a : "= o - E'graS~i22~'^-"^Ma.""^°"rc t3003OK- S E^ S S S S-= S ■-"= 5 o^ g ~ S >;^ _ 2i£^ CcSSroSroro'oiSjsro.EE .EcjoroCc'ooCO — S 2 = i^'-o'S t'£°||E' 2 csT— - ro"ij^'° ^ =5 2 5 ^ ^'?-°:E-S § ^ 2 eo=- 3 = 5-:^ - '"■" ra£,E-c ?3"^"'="'-u ^o— 032''^E-°5-o^ 374 5 »g ^ c ni 2 3""^ O OS <^ 0-D^(U=.E,3— "^ Q-.!5iS S S TO S c.y o ° o-o a>_ro E^^ g^E - n, ?? 53 S-2-S i S ■' ra " c E ;^ „- ./i ^°llo1il SJ TO Q-o-^-a Q> TO ^ = — 1= ^cj c S: o ■o.2i.o o) ^: cu -o .t:; 7^ .t; E^-ji'>-o H £ I TO E = .E£ 2 o £ " ■OiC^ O) TO TO^ »-.c -^o. SE-g, J-°l'=r to| (j^ E o " - Ei ' O *- TO O .O DO TO , S: ^2" :S-^ ce oS 5i2' 2^-z ij^s^ E'sr""' = £ 0) -o °- CO S "" "^ -O "S S "^ "K = '^ E „-E E .= -Sc±:==S-S2' = a,_22°-^EoS2roou.5"'^ ■K-f-:3 SiE S.E E g Er „-g ^'e ;-D 3^ |S^|i|Ss-||||:|||| ig"-£gS^°-S;-S=E;f^S- So^^SSoro ...E=-p< TO -is ^ "- 2 ci-o Q) ro g J2— o og ro> (D.E St; Q.X!r |Se'^ J -^ g .S CM r e-^ rco .-03 g ro^ ii-SiT S" = r;-ooi-' '"g'^E-£g-^ls,? .i£ >r ^ 2 ro *" — ■ g 5 ° OJ ^.||;^^£i_g_gE^ •^■^.^Qj^i-gio.E £ go> E"3S °Tr.E5'^-o si CO — ^-S"E-ct^„-.2;'^"^ro ° "?o-2 "ro-^"^? E~ |S«E'-EOSi-g.2-g -^2 2E'o-?i ^ES- Q. o .tt g ^tX 2 £ o 'ra --^ ° "K 'o tM o w ^ S ii^i; ro5=Q itioSaS ^^^^B<^^S 9-= p5 =-5- S* .-- i5,80f 3--;r £5 gi^"© 5 0-0 ii-c"© 376 o ^5 o >> 6© t3 s CO O -tJ -fJ c ^ o O S a T3 cS 03 a H -S 03 Q-' O0-O"O (A QO*r ' o c s c E c o,^ E o _^ 5 tn "on 1 a. — J3 ^ c: o o c w ^ O o 3 g -o ^ c " 0) E c' E i r/3 XJ O 03 -C2 _o -u '-jS e«-i ci O o ^ o .2 ^ '-3 ^ o o > o r/i -tJ d c3 ^ ■i^ TS 6 CD ^ bC o -I o *- O OJ s/^ S y, S =^ ci ^ ^ B 1 '^ I ^ '. o d 2 « o ^■| o Vi) ^ -— ^ S'^'-<=''s;TO = 5 = "TOt=(^ M° 2S- S~ * "> 2-=:^ TO |I|.El;|i||||| J?°g"'"c5 . ra TO •" o ^ " 55 > ■" g i S"-?-2 O — Q-J3 *- - , TO 3 O 3 — CO 4: U — c rj o oo* ; • — -= • Q. .2^ 5"° Sr-5 s TO .it; E2?<5^lf°i s§' ' -„i- TO--g'-2-al m5 j^ cio.:^-a ^ '-.S: — — = i E o S "=£ X a> ♦- QJ jD :-= >"ar.r"5 5 5 7^.s:->-;i; ou^co _ 377 o Q § s w e>j oo •-* irT o o o o oo* Q o CM o O ^ to" oo o> •^ CM o o CO o CO to o o CD Q ir> 00 oo CO irT if^ 1 : .t;"'o -^ o Q- 2 = c £ cz ra "53 ^ .c ■^— = o = >.-^ " °-t; 5^ = c a) c =1— TO o >_ Ht3_ « flJ S_'-i:E"o "°^£ = o^S — ^ai^'"^ g ° a.E ™i2 > <^- ^ S S !g^iiir-iii^i •S|r°'^§ " S.E c ra-iw iplgS-Sgg-g^.E oj c " o ^ ^ " o - C.5 a.— ? I >^°-o Ic o = S , 5? ^-S S ^ o' r S ' E .H (u K E M S ^ ; 5 ^ *^ ■!> ^2 E — C/5 O § to^ ^ " ^ O) ClO TO CD ° O oj ;^ ^ jC3 ■— TO ^ x; L^ -1 |§>|Pjr"i=i"§^i| .5 ^-" -•- 0. ™ s 5-.2-S =«<= "I E "-III ^? °!~i5.?^ I" ^ Sfc: o*"— ° i/i'E — ■"■ <^'S 5 Si— m-Q ^ _ -^ on ■a5i-°2-_ _. ,„ ,„ ^ _ __ PI:il.fllilf.ElliFIMIiiiil ^5^-00 — — -o tf = , 378 DRY STRAITS- WRANGELL NARROWS, ALASKA Mr. KiRWAN. Oil page 3, there has been a sizable increase, $85,(H)(), in the navigation study of the Dry Straits-AVrangell Narrows project in Alaska. "What is the basis for this increase ? General Yates. Mr. Chairman, this is a study of two alternate routes in the interest of commercial navigation in the southeastern and gulf coast areas of Alaska. During the investigation it became apparent that the Dry Straits route has many advantages. However, it would be practical only if a dike is constructed to divert the silt-laden flows of the Stikine River away from the channel. The other route would involve widening the existing channel and easing several sharp bends in Wrangell Narrows. Considerable foundation and materials investi- gation and sedimentation studies are necessary beyond those that v.ere originally contemplated and it is this additional work that accounts for the increase. GASTINEAU channel, ALASKA Mr. KiRWAN. Also on pages 3, $30,000 is budgeted to resume study of the Gastineau Channel in Alaska. What is the purpose of this request ? General Yates. This study was not in the fiscal year 1968 budget because at that point in the investigation we had started a model study which was found to be essential in order to determine how to handle the heavily silt-laden water that comes into the channel. This model study will be completed this year and the results will be used effectively to complete this investigation. The added money is neces- sary, again, to investigate in a similar manner to Dry Straits the dikes that probably will be indicated. We may also require additional sedimentation studies here. KAMISHAK-INISKIN bay harbor, ALASKA Mr. KiRWAN. On page 3, $10,000 is budgeted to initiate a new study of the Kamishak-Inishin Bay Harbor in Alaska. What is the purpose and need for this study ? General Yaihs. This study area lies on the east coast of the Alaska Peninsula at the mouth of Cook Inlet. This area is rich in minerals and the State of Alaska desires to open it to development through the establishment of a ferry service across Cook Inlet from Homer. It is for the purpose of investigating a deep draft harbor in this area, which is necessary for such ferry service, that these funds are being re- quested. KOBUK river and KODIAK harbor, ALASKA Mr. KiRWAN. On page 4, funds are requested for additional studies of the Kobuk River and the Kodiak Harbor in Alaska. Briefly describe the need for tlieso two studios. General Yates. The study of the Kobuk Iviver is actually a resump- tion of a study that was last funded in 1007. The initial study con- tem]ilated efforts necessary to maintain a navigation channel in the river proper in order to supply some four towns located along the river and the area which is now being explored for possible copper 379 ore recovery. During the latter stage of the Kobuk River study it be- came apparent tliat'niaxiniuni benelits could be obtained only by ex- tension of this barge channel route out to a deep water terminal. The channel to a deep water terminal was a problem not originally con- templated, and we are now reopening the study to explore that pos- sibility. The Kodiak Harbor study is also a resumption. The study was orig- inally directed toward expansion of the small boat harbor. However, the earthquake and tsunami that hit Alaska in March 1964 caused heavy damage to the existing small-boat harbor and to the Kodiak VN-aterfront area, as well as causing subsidence of nearly 5 feet in this whole area. Changes since that time have shown much greater needs than originally existed. The study has been expanded to provide break- water protection not only to small lishing craft, but also to deep-draft shipping and to the Kodiak waterfront. ELLIOTT BAY, WASH. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 7, $20,000 is requested to continue the study of Elliott Bay in the Seattle area. This was a new study added to the bill last year by the Senate. Please described this study. General Yates. As part of Seattle's "forward thrust" program for which they have just passed a large bond issue, there is a plan to trans- form a bliVhted harbor area in the city into a recreational and tourist complex, the small harbor we would study under this investigation would be the heart of this development. COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES Mr. KiRWvx. On page 10. $30,000 is budgeted to initiate a new study of the Columbia River and tributaries at a total estimated cost of $1,710,000. . . ,. , What is the justification for this new investigation? General Y\tes. Sir, the last comprehensive report on the Columbia River and tributaries was completed in 1958. This study is to update that information. It has its urgency at the present time because ot chano-es that have taken place in connection with the transition which we a?e entering, coing from baseload hydropower to peakload hy- dropower operation. AVe propose to look into certain urgent needs that have developed as well as look over the general problems caused by this transition, including the effect on fish, navigation, and recreation. expenditures on colitmbia rr'er studies Mr. Kirwan. About what have we spent to date on studies of the Columbia River and its tributaries? . General Y\tes. Sir, the comprehensive studies of this region, which I mentionedearlier, were published in 1962. That effort cost about %1 million. On the basic report some 12 years earlier ^x^ spent H mil- lion. In addition we have the current Columbla-^orth Pacihc compre- hensive studv which is half done. Our expenditures on that study are readv This Columbia-North Pacific framework study and the study 380 we are proposing now complement each other. The study we are proposing to initiate will use information from the Columbia-North Pacific framework study but will not duplicate that effort. COST ESTIMATE, COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES REVIEW Mr. KiRW^AN. How was this total cost estimate of $1,710,000 de- termined ? General Yates. We have made an initial estimate based on tlie currently known problems that must be studied. I have a breakdown of that, sir, and if you desire I can furnish it for the record. Mr. KiRWAN. You may insert it in the record. (The breakdown follows :) Efiihnaied cost, Cohimhia River and trihittarirs review investigation Estimateil Study element : '^"^^ Middle Snake River. Idaho. Oreg. and Wasli $95. 000 Lower Clearwater River, below Dworshak Dam. Idaho 38.j. GOO Modification and additional power units. Chief Joseph Dam. Wash. 85. 000 Reregulation dam (with power), below Libby Dam, Mont 35.000 Pumped-back storage investigations 100,000 Hydraulic criteria for flow variations luider peaking operations — 400. 000 Standard project flood and frequency studies 50, 000 Water quality analysis 50. 000 Impacts of peaking operations on fish and wildlife, recreation and navigation 80. 000 Municipal and industrial water supply analysis 15. 000 Flood control regulation studies 100. 000 Special planning studies 155. 000 Contingencies (15 percent) 210.000 Total 1. 710. OOO Mr. KiRWAx. AVhat is tlie autliorization for this new study of tlie Columbia River and its tributaries ? General Yates. Tliis study is ]ir<)i)osed to be undertaken under a Senate resolution passed in 10f):2,.sir. It has not been previou.'^ly funded. ALSEA RIVER AND TKllU "J'AKIES, OKEdOX Mr. KiRWAx. On page 12, $25,000 is budgeted to continue tlie study of Alsea River and tributaries in Oregon. This was a new start added by the Senate last year. Please describe this study. General Yates. The Alsea River watershed on the Oregon coa.st suffers flood damages and bank erosion in the upper basin and sedi- mentation damage in the lower basin. The desires of local interests are for flood control and water conser\ation for irrigation purposes. Also, there Is a potential foi- other low flow augmentation benefits. Local interests are strongly urging a comprehensive .study of the basin whicli is needed at this time. JOHN" DAY RIVER, OREG. Mr. KiRw^vN. On page 12, the cost of (he flood control study of the John Day River in Oregon has been increased from $247,000 to $750,- 000 since last year. 381 What is the explanation for this increase? General Yates. Sir; the ori0 more on which work should be undertaken but for which funds have not yet been provided. AUTHORIZED PROJECTS With regard to our other programs, there are 69 authorized uncom- pleted projects v.-ithin my division, of which 22 are under construc- tion. One new construction start is included in this budget request, Avhich would make 23. There are eight in the planning stage and our budget request includes a proposal to initiate three new planning starts. In addition, there are four on which plans have been completed and which are not included in the 1969 budget request for initiation of construction. This gives us a backlog of projects on which no effort is now underway or proposed of 31. Mr. Rhodes. I get 38 — 23 plus 11 plus 4. General Yates. I was taking the difference, 38 on which some activity is underway or proposed and 31 not. rUXDING PROGRAM Mr. Rhodes. Do you have any idea as to when you might ask for funds on the four projects which have had planning completed and are ready for construction ? General Yates. These are already for construction and they are all in an urgent category. We w^ould hope to initiate construction as early as the budgetary situation will allow. 91-459— 68— pt. 1 25 384 SIZE OF BACKLOCx Mr. Rhodes. With 69 authorized and not completed and 38 in the process of construction it appears your backlog may last for some- time. You have a pretty long- pipeline, would you not agree ? General Yates. In one sense that might be true. However, many of these projects are projects which might be scheduled or are scheduled for construction many years from now. Included in this are approxi- mately eight to 10 projects which are for the addition of power units to our existing dams. Many of our dams have provision for power units that we would not schedule for several years. Many of these are programed for later because the requirements are known to develop much later. Of those urgently required now the backlog is not so large, sir. NEW SUR\EY STARTS DEFERRALS Mr. Rhodes. You have four new general investigations starts this year ? General Yates. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Can any of those be postponed until a future year, recognizing the budgetary situation we are in now? General Yates. I consider it would be unwise, sir. All of these represent urgent problems in the local area and I consider they should be studied. We should determine what solution should be proposed in order that in later years there will be problem solutions available which can be undertaken with the funds that may then be provided, depending on our national situation. I would not like to consider deferral now. Mr. Rhodes. Of course, the older an investigation gets the less value it has, so you cannot sa^^ because you have the investigation complete you are ready to go forward. Would you agree ? General Yates. In some cases the project has to be reanalyzed. We generally consider it is good for 4 or 5 years. Beyond tliat time one may expect to do significant reanalysis. For those on which planning is completed, this is good for a few years but we should not undertake a project 10 years from now on a study completed in 1958. However, it is good for 4 to 5 years unless there is a substantial flood or some- thing like that. general investigations — "stretchout" Mr. Rhodes. Are anj^ of the projects previously completed under general investigations subject to a stretchout, considering the budg- etary situation ? General Yates. For individual studies currently underway? Mr. Rhodes. Yes. General Yates. Stretching out any study is always possible, sir. However, the farther you stretch it the more wasteful and inefficient it becomes. I certainly would recommend against it because we try to program these studies at an efficient though not an accelerated pace. Over a period of years you may have to go back and do over work done in the early stages, so I think that it would be a very unwise move. The funds involved in these four new studies are certainly not 385 major items taken as a part of the total budget. I tliink it would be very unwise to try to stretch them out. Mr. Morris. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. Khodes. Yes. Mr. Morris, Actually, General, from a technical standpoint the most efficient way to do one of these projects — a turnkey job I am talking about, a finished project — is to complete a study as soon as possible, initiate advance engineering as soon as possible after author- ization, and then, proceed promptly with construction. The faster you get one done, the study completed, the engineering and the con- struction, is the most efficient way. General Yai-es Yes, sir; Mr. Gliairman. Mr. Morris. Under our system I do not think we can do that, but I am speaking strictly from an engineering standpoint. General Yates. Yes, sir. I would not recommend overlapjoing con- struction and engineering unduly, but otherwise, yes, the faster you can get through your design and construction, not trying to cut corners, the less expensive will be the project. Mr. Morris. Thank you. BACKLOG IN GENERAL IN^TESTIGATIONS PROGRAM Mr. Rhodes. Eecognizing the fact that what the Chairman says is true, this is the basis for the questions I have been asking. I am wonder- ing how efficient it is to have such a large backlog as we have in all areas, not just yours, when it obviously is better to take a few projects, get them going, and carry them through on an efficient basis. It seems to me we have to look at this w^hole concept of having a lot of studies made, restudying them, and then starting somewhere clown the road to construct them. I do not know the answer but I am sure we are not using our money in the most effective way possible by doing it in this method. General Yates. I would make one or two comments, Mr. Rhodes. First, the general investigations program, standing by itself, has tre- mendous value because it is under this that we evaluate and recom- mend to Congress whether projects should be undertaken or not. Many investigations that are requested by resolution of the committees re- sult in negative findings. I am not sure what the current ratio is, but it is probably half or more than half that become negative. These studies are the only basis of providing an evaluation of what activities are available for investment in our own economy in public works. These investigations are a relatively inexpensive technical evaluation and they give to the President and to the Congress some options from which to draw at a relatively small expense. Without them we would work more inefficiently, I feel. Mr. RoBisoN. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. Rhodes. Yes. REDUCTION IN PROGRAM Mr. RoBisoN. General, you and Mr. Rhodes have been talking about the unhappy results of a further stretch-out, by which I mean a lesser sum than requested might be appropriated and then you might go ahead with all these investigations but at a reduced rate. I laiow you 386 do not recommend this, from what you have said, but if we were forced to appropriate a lesser amount would it be feasible for you to review the projects you have, on a project-by-project basis, and then provide us with a list of those which might well be pulled out this year? General Yates. If I were given a lump-sum appropriation for gen- eral investigations which is substantially lower than the total I am requesting, and without any other guidance, I would prefer to reduce the number of studies rather than stretching out the studies, because I could use the money more efficiently. Mr. RoBisoN. Thank you. Mr. Rhodes. That is a good answer. I agree with it. TIME REQUIRED FOR SUBMISSION OF SURVEY REPORTS ]Mr. Morris. How long does it take on an average from the author- ization of the investigation to the completion of the report and author- ization of the project for planning? Can you give me an average rule of thumb? General Yates. I think I would rather ask a representative from the Office of the Chief of Engineers to give you a current estimate taken corps wide. There are wide variations, of course. Mr. Morris. Would you like to answer that ? Mr. Cohen. As I remember, Mr. Chairman, the average has been about 10 years from time of authorization before the project is underway. Mr. Morris. Before the beginning of construction? Mr. CoHEiSr. Yes, sir. Mr. Morris. It is about 10 years from a resolution to the completion of the study and authorization ? Mr. Cohen. This is also probably very close. Yes, sir. Mr. Morris. Please furnish for the record an analysis of the average time required from survey authorization to project authorization. Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) ANALYSIS OF TIME REQUIRED FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORTS— STUDY AUTHORIZATION TO PROJECT AUTHORIZATION Time Itemization of average time required for submission of reports, based on 115-report sample' Years Months Percent of total Category 1— Funding: Awaiting funds for initiation.. 4 9 44 Category 2— Corps of Engineers investigations: District office study 3 4 30 Division office study and revievif, and issuance of public notice of report 7 5 Review by Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors 3 3 Coordination of Chief of Engineers proposed report with States and agencies 5 4 Completion of Chief of Engineers report 3 3 Subtotal, category 2 Category 3— Processing after completion of Chief of Engineers report: Review and clearance by the Bureau of the Budget Review and submission by the Secretary of the Army Awaiting action by Congress Subtotal, category 3 Total, Survey authorization to project authorization 10 8 100 ' Reports which served as bases for authorization of projects in the Flood Control and River and Harbor Acts of 1965, exclusive of the most nontypical cases 4 10 45 3 2 8 3 2 6 1 1 11 387 COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES REVIEW TRANSFER OF SURPLUS WATERS Mr. Rhodes. Turning to page 10, Columbia, River and tributaries does this study have anything to do with the determination of tlie amount, if any, of the water from the Columbia River which is excess to the foreseeable needs of the Columbia Basin and therefore might be exported ? General Yates. No, sir; we do not expect to make that sort of an analysis in this study. THIRD POWERHOUSE-GRAND COULEE DAM, WASH. Mr. Rhodes. I am a little shocked by the last statement in the last full paragraph on page 10, and I will read it : The construction of a third powerhouse at Grand Coulee will, if operated to full hydraulic capacity, create major fluctuations in Chief Joseph Pool. It is therefor essential that studies be made to determine if modilications in Chief Joseph will be necessary and justified. This is a brandnew problem to me. I did not realize the installation of this third powerhouse was likely to have any deleterious effect on any structures downstream. Will you expand on this ? EFFECTS ON CHIEF JOSEPH DAM AND OTHER DOWNSTREAM PROJECTS General Yates. This would probably be the first effort we would make with any money made available. The third powerhouse as now proposed at Grand Coulee Dam, which would include ultimately 12 600,000-kilowatt generators, will create flows at full capacity far in excess of what could pass Chief Joseph without severe spills, and fur- ther would have a serious effect on public utility projects downstream frorn Chief Joseph. The first increment of this powerhouse, which is for six 600,000 kilowatt generators — which I think are already author- ized — the first increment can be handled within the Cliief Joseph project, but we need to analyze the fluctuations that would result. We are proposing to complete preconstruction planning on 11 more units which would take advantage of the flows that will come during future peaking of Grand Coulee. With the present units at Chief Joseph we would spill a lot of water. With the new units we can substantially re- regulate the flows from the first half of the Grand Coulee third powerhouse. Beyond that, we feel there will have to be significant changes made to Chief Joseph and this we must do before the second increment of the third powerliouse is undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation. We must also determine what the effects are going to be on the non-Federal projects downstream to be sure no inadvertent ac- tions are taken by the Federal Government that unwisely affect the structures downstream. EFFECT ON PUBLIC UTILITIES Mr. Rhodes. Your study would include the probable effect on public utilities ? General Yates. Yes, sir. We would make a hydraulic analysis and determine what is necessary for Chief Joseph to assure that the con- ditions downstream will be tolerable and won't have an unnecessarily detrimental effect. 388 PROPER AGEXCY TO FUND STUDY Mr. Rhodes. Wouldn't you say tha.t the cost of this study and probably some of the cost of whatever modifications in Chief Joseph which miirht become necessary, would be properly charged to the third powerhouse at Grand Coulee ? General Yates. I would say that the study could be budgeted either way, sir. I would say that corps funding would be proper, since this is our project, and since we are making the study. On the Chief Joseph modification, the extension of this, I think it more properly should be funded by the agency responsible for the work, but I would certainly acknowledge that the need was, in a large measure, brought about by the effects to be expected from the in- creased power at Coulee. NEED TO RESTUDY THIRD POWERHOUSE AT GRAND COULEE ]Mr. IviiODES. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there should be a restudy of the third powerhouse at Grand Coulee and its feasibility in the light of the effect that it is obviously going to have on down- stream structures. I never realized this situation existed before. If the legislative committee didn't consider these collateral etl'ects at the time they authorized the third powerhouse, it certainly should have. DOWNSTREAM HYDRAULIC PROBLEMS General Yates. Mr. Chairman, if I might just add to clarify, this matter of downstream problems was referred to in the Bureau's re- port. As I have mentioned, no major problems exist as a result of the presently authorized addition of six units. We are concerned with what is proposed for an ultimate development, but we don't be- lieve that proper operation of the currently authorized six units in tlie third powerhouse is the area where the problems would occur. There has been some coordination on previous studies of this prob- lem with the Bonneville Power Administration and it was recognized that we would have to make additional studies on reregulation needs and possibly seek modification of the Chief Joseph project from what is presently authorized. The presently authorized capacity for tlie third powerhouse at Grand Coulee will not cause problems of a magnitude tliat structural changes to Chief Joseph would be necessary to allow it to reregulate the flows. NEED TO ACCOMPLISH COLUMBIA RIVER AND TRI lUTARIKS REVIEW IMr. Morris. If the gentleman would yield to mo; unless the other additional units were authorized, the study would not actually be needed, would it? General Yates. It certainly is needed before if any more are to be authorized. It is needed reallv to heln evaluate the total river flow under foreseeable conditions. We are changing in this river to hydro- power peaking operations and we must face it. AVe must look at what the limits on peaking operation, what facilities are necessary, what changes might be necessary with this transition. 389 Grand Coulee is one element of this change but the whole river is changnig toward increased hydropower peaking operation. A study in tliis area should be understaken to determine the hydraulic charac- teristics at various flow levels. AVe must run the spectrum. We are not talking about turning it on and off. We must analyze what different peaking cycles will do. I feel that certain parts of it should be done in any event. Perhaps parts of it would not be used or useful unless the ultimate development of the Grand Coulee were undertaken. We should have the informa- tion, however. Mr. Rhodes. The hydrology of the stream certainly is affected radi- cally by the operation of hydroelectric projects for peaking power, is it not ? General Yates. The hydraulics, yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. I think that is all, ^Ir. Chairman. :Mr. Morris. Mr. Boland ? Mr. BoLAND. No questions. BETHEL HARBOR, ALASKA Mr. Davis. General, I note on page 2 that the estimate of the cost of the navigational study for Bethel Harbor in Alaska has been increased by $19,000 from what it showed a year ago and that $19,000 is now being requested for 1969 fiscal year.'Woulcl you explain the change in the scope of that study that made these additional funds necessary this year ? General Yates. I mentioned earlier the problem with silt-laden streams, which is characteristic of much of Alaska. Here we have an- other one. We had underestimated the foundation, materials, and sedi- mentation studies which must be made to analyze effectively this project. It is for these additional investigations, including extensive sedimentation studies, that the increase has been requested. LOWER COLUMBIA RI\T:R FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES Mr. Da\t:s. On page 14 we find an increase in the request for flood control studies in the lower Columbia River of $740,000 over what it appeared to be last year. If we go over to page 21, we find there a decrease of some $560,000 under comprehensive basin studies in the Columbia-North Pacific region. Does this represent a shift of funds from one studv to the other ? How do you account for tlie increase in one or the decrease in the other? General Yates. Sir, there was no shift of funds. There is not a de- crease that I can identify on the comprehensive study of the Colum- bia-North Pacific. I believe there is no change, sir. These studies are related only in that they both cover problems of the Columbia Basin. However, the lower Columbia River study is exclusively a study of local flood control needs on the. lower river, whereas the North Pacific study is a framework study to provide guidelines for future water re- source planning. They again complement each other but there is no duplication. 390 Mr. Davis. I misread that. There has been no decrease in the Co- himbia-North Pacific region studies ? General Yates. No, sir. Mr. Davis. You did explain the increase, better than doubling of the proposed cost of the study in the Lower Columbia Basin ? General Yates. Yes, sir ; I covered that earlier. Mr. Davis. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morris. The gentleman from New York. Mr. RoBisoN. No questions. Advance Engineering and Design stuart gulch reservoir, idaho Mr. Morris. We will now turn to advance engineering and design ; $65,000 is budgeted to complete planning of the Stuart Gulch Reser- voir near Boise, Idaho. (The justification follows :) Stuart Gulch Reservoir, Boise, Idaho (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located on Stuart Gulch near the city of Boise in Ada County, Idaho. The plan of unprovement consists of a dam and reservoir, with gross storage of 510 acre-feet. Authorization.- — Flood Control Act of 1966. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.1 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $827, 000 Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) 827, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost: Cash contribution Other 63, 000 Total estimated project cost 890, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 125, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 60, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 65, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 JUSTIFICATION Stuart Gulch area is adjacent to the western limits of the city of Boise. Mountainous watersheds adjacent to the city have a history of developing flash floods from local thunderstorms of high intensity precipitation. The proposed improvement would provide protection to a suburban area of residences, com- mercial and public facilities. The total area to be protected comprises about 456 acres with a total current estimated value of $19,000,000 for lands and improve- ments. It is estimated that a flood of the magnitude of the flash flood that occurred August 20, 1959, on the neighboring Cottonwood Creek area would cause damages in the Stuart Gulch flood plain of approximately $300,000 to property, of which $270,000 would be prevented by the project. The average annual benefits creditable to the project are estimated at $72,000, all for flood control. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to provide without cost to the United States, all lands, easements and rights-of-way; relocate all public utilities including telephone and powerlines, roads and bridges; hold and save the United States free from damage due to construction works; and maintain and operate the project after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secre- tary of the Army. 391 The estimated cost to local interest for lands is $63,000. The annual cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement is estimated at $3,000. Status of local cooperation. — The Board of Ada County Commissioners, in their letter of February 7, 1964, stated their willingness to sponsor this project. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of Federal cost of $827,000 is an increase of $43,000 from the latest estimate ($784,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. Mr. Morris. Please describe this project, which was a new phmning start added by the other body last year. General Yates. Mr. Chairman, adjacent to the city of Boise, Idaho, is a mountainons watershed. Stuart Gulch drains a portion of this watershed. This area is subject to severe thunderstorms in the summer which can cause flash flooding to a portion of Boise located between the mouth of Stuart Gulch and the Boise Eiver, into which it ultimately drains. The prevention of flooding- in this rapidly developing suburban area of Boise would provide annual flood control benefits estimated at $72,000. It is for provision of such flood protection that this project is proposed to be undertaken. COTTONWOOD CREEK RESERVOIR, IDAHO Mr. ]MoRRis. Please explain for the record the relationship between this project and the preceding project, Cottonwood Creek Reservoir, on page 25. General Yates. These are similar though separate projects, sir. Cottonwood Creek drains another similar gulch in the same general mountain watershed. It has similar problems of flash flooding. They are not directly related. These are independent drainages from the same mountain shed area. Mr. IVIoRRis. What is the urgency or priority from strictly an engi- neering standpoint for these two projects ? General Yates. I would not give them a relative priority, sir. There is a difference in that Cottonwood Creek drains through the city proper. It would prevent an estimated average flood damage of $58,700. Stuart Gulch drains through a rapidly developing suburban area. It has annual flood benefits estimated to be about $72,000. They are both equally important. They are different in the respect that the flood plain area is of a different character. They are both built-up areas, however. CATHERINE CREEK RESERVOIR, OREG. Mr. Morris. $100,000 is budgeted to initiate planning of the Cather- ine Creek Reservoir in Oregon. (The justification follows:) Catherine Creek Reservoir, Catherine Creek, Oreg. (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — On Catherine Creek, approximately 8 miles above Union, in northeast Oregon. The plan of improvement consists of a dam and reservoir with 60,000 acre-feet of usable storage for flood control storage, irriga- tion, municipal and industrial water supply, and recreation. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. 392 Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $8,930,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 1, 878, 000 Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) 7,052,000 Estimated non-Federal cost l' 878, 000 Reimbursement : Irrigation 1, 311, 000 Municipal and industrial water supply 293, 000 Recreation 274, 000 Total estimated project cost 8, 930, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 600, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 100, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 500, 000 JUSTIFICATION Catherine Creek Reservoir would be operated in conjunction with the author- ized Lower Grande Ronde Reservoir in the interests of flood control, irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife, recreation, and down- stream hydroelectric power generation. Runoff would be controlled from about 100 square miles upstream from the city of Union. A total of 60,000 acre-feet of usable joint-use storage would be utilized for flood control and other conservation uses. Catherine Creek Reservoir would provide water for irrigating a total of 13,500 acres of new lands and for needed domestic and industrial water supply. Improved streamflow conditions on Catherine Creek and Grande Ronde River to enhance fisheries would be obtained by increased low flows. The project would provide flood protection to the city of Union, Oreg., and to developed agricultuial areas along Catherine Ci-^ek and the Grande Ronde River. The largest flood of record occurred in 1948. This flood inundated 15 city blocks of residential and business property in the city of Union, and much of the surrounding agricultural area. A recurrence of this flood would cause damages estimated at $1,175,000, most of which would be prevented by the project. Annual benefits creditable to this project are estimated at $551,000, and are itemized below: Item Amount Flood control $159, 000 Irrigation 73, 000 Water qualitv 85, 000 Recreation 164, 000 Sport fishery 52, 000 Water supply 12, 000 Downstream power 6, 000 Total 551, 000 Non-Federal costs. — None required for construction. Local interests are required to repay the construction costs allocated to irrigation, water supply, and recrea- tion. These repayments are presently estimated at $1,878,000, of which $1,311,000 is allocated to irrigation, $293,000 to water supply, and $274,000 to recreation. Status of local cooperation. — The responsibility for repayment of the construc- tion costs allocated to irrigation rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. The responsibility for repayment of the costs allocated to water supply and recreation rests with local interests according to the authorizing legislation, the 1965 Flood Control Act. Only preliminary inquiries have been made. Comparison of Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate. — The current estimate of Federal cost of $8,930,000 is an increase of $410,000 over the latest estimate of $8,520,000 submitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. Major changes since project authorization — none. Mr. Morris. Please describe briefly this new planning start. General Yates. This is a multiple-use development on Catherine Creek which is a tributary of the Grande Konde River in northeast 393 Oregon. This project ^yill provide needed flood control and other water resource benelits, inckidinj^ irrigation, water supply, and recreation. Mr. Morris. Is there any great urgency in undertaking this new phmning start? General Yates. I consider it an urgent project in terms of the dam- ages that it will prevent and the resources that it will be developing. The Grande Ronde Basin suffered extremely severe damage in the 1964 and 1965 floods. This is one of the projects in that basin Avhich will help eliminate these flood damages. It also will provide many other benefits. REPAYMENT OF IRRIGATIOX COSTS Mr. Morris. What is the status of plans for the repayment of the irrigation costs allocated to irrigation for this project ? General Yates. Studies of the irrigation potential were made dur- ing fiscal year 1966 and 1967 by the Bureau of Reclamation. They have established a demand for irrigation water, are establishing the re- payment ability of the user. Details concerning this repayment will be worked out during preconstruction planning. Mr. Morris. Is there a local organization organized to contract with the Bureau for repayment ? General Yatejs. There a,re no contracts yet. These normally are un- dertaken during the preconstruction planning phase but prior to construction. RECREATION BENEFITS Mr. Morris. What is the basis for the annual benefits of $164,000 estimated for recreation, which accounts for 30 percent of the annual benefits ? General Yates. Union County is the agency that will be the local participant with regard to recreation. You will note that there is the normal cost-sharing for recreation in this project. In this area, this is the area typified by that picture I showed of the high arid plains, there is a need for water-based recreation. It is anticipated there will be wide use of a reservoir-based recreation facility. ELK creek reservoir, OREG. Mr. Morris. $146,000 is budgeted to complete planning of the Elk Creek Reservoir in Oregon. (The justification follow^s:) Elk Creek Reservoir, Oreg. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — In Jackson County, Oreg., on Elk Creek, a tributary of Rogue River, at river mile 3, about 26.5 miles northerly of Medford, Oreg. The plan of improvement provides for construction of a rock and gravel embank- ment, a gate-controlled spillway, outlet tunnel, and a regulating tower with multilevel intakes. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. 394 Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $22, 000, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 4, 701, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 17, 299, 000 Estimated non- Federal cost 4, 701, 000 Pfccimbursement : Irrigation 1, 796, 000 Water supply 2, 905, 000 Total estimated project cost 22, 000, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 720, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 354, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 220, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 146, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. JUSTIFICATION Elk Creek Reservoir would be operated with Lost Creek Reservoir as a two- dam system to provide flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife enhancement, water quality control, recreation, and irrigation. Ptiuioff would be controlled from about 127 square miles upstream from Elk Creek site. A total of 95,000 acre- feet of usable storage at Elk Creek would be utilized for flood control and water conservation. Lost Creek and Elk Creek as a imit would provide water for irriga- tion of about 25,000 acres of land, of which about 19,000 acres would be new lands, provide 20,000 acre-feet of stored water for future water stipply, improve stream conditions to enhance the fisheries of Ptogue River and tributaries by increased flows and controlled discharges of cooler water, and would reduce the peak stage of floods. Added flow would be provided in Bear and Little Butte Creeks by use of dis- tribution facilities of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Medford Division, in the interest of flsh and wildlife enhancement and recreation on those streams in addition to improved water quality in Bear Creek. During the flood of 1964, the most severe flood since 1861, damages to the area downstream from Elk Creek and Lost Creek Reservoirs amounted to $13,160,000, of which about $2,305,000 would have been prevented by Elk Creek Reservoir. The peak stage of a flood such as that of 1964 would be reduced about 6.7 feet at Grants Pass. Annual benefits creditable to Elk Creek Reservoir amount to $1,444,000 and include the following: Breakdown of benefits: , Amount Flood control :__JL'i v^LikJ $772, 000 Irrigation 93, 000 Domestic water supply 210, 000 Fish and wildlife enhancement 117, 000 Recreation 1 33, 000 Water quality control 119, 000 Total 1,444,000 Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to irrigation and water supply are reim- bursable and are tentatively estimated at $1,796,000 and $2,905,000, respectively. Those costs are subject to adjustment when costs and benefits have been firmed up. Status of local cooperation. — Responsibility for repayment of irrigation rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. The Bureavi of Reclama- tion has completed a feasibility study for irrigation of the Medford Division from Lost Creek and Elk Creek Reservoirs and has cooperated with the Corps in establishing the total cost allocated to irrigation. The Bureau will determine repayment requirements. Assurances for future municipal and industrial water supply have been received from local interests — Medford, Cirants Pass, Shady Cove, Sams Valley, Eagle Point, and Gold Hill. Recreation cost is a Federal responsibility and does not require rei)ayment commitment. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of Federal cost of $22 million is an increase of $1 million over the latest estimate ($21 million) submitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. 395 IRRIGATION AND WATER SUPPLY REPAYMENTS Mr. Morris. Could you give us the status of the phiiis for rej)aymeiit of the irrigation and water supply costs on this project ? General Yates. All of the water suppy is in the category of future water supply. Therefore, contracts prior to construction are not re- quired. However, assurances of the demand to he placed upon this project have been received from six towns in the area. These future demands may more than exceed tlie amount of water supply storage })reviously contemplated. With regard to irrigation, the Bureau of Reclamation has completed a feasibility report on their Medford Division, which would be as- sisted by this project. That report is currently under review by the Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation. Upon approval by the Commissioner of this report, further action with regard to repayment contracts can be undertaken. The report is currently in the Commissioner's office and the field is awaiting his ac- tion on it before completing their local arrangements. FEDERAL PuECREATION COST ]Mr. Morris. Why is the recreation cost a Federal responsibility on this project and not subject to local repayment in any part? General Yates. The policy on implementation of Public Law 89-72 is that a project authorized and in preconstruction planning by fiscal year 1966, which was the time of this act, would have its recreation undertaken in accordance with the authorizing documents. The au- thorizing document for this project specifies there would be no local cooperation required for recreation, which is an authorized project purpose. SCAPPOOSE DRAINAGE DISTRICT, OREGON Mr. Morris. $30,000 is budgeted to resume planning of the Scappoose Drainage District in Oregon. (The justification follows:) Scappoose Drainage District, Oreg» (Continue planning) Location and description. — Scappoose drainage district is located east of the town of Scappoose, in Columbia County, Oreg., along the left bank of Multnomah Channel opposite Columbia River miles 90.3 and 97.0. The plan of improvement provides for strengthening parts of the 10-mile levee system, construction of 5,200 feet of new levee, additional pumping capacity, modifications to existing discharge pipes, and other appurtenant improvements. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1950. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.7 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $1, 680, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 20, 000 Cash contributions Other ^20,000 Total estimated project cost 1, 700, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 95, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967_ 20,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 30, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969- _ 45, OOG 396 JUSTIFICATION The proposed improvement would provide additional protection to 5,490 acres of suburban and agricultural lands located adjacent to the town of Scappoose, Orcg. The district has a population of 1,100 residing on 250 small tract residential garden plots and 25 farms i-anging in size up to 900 acres. The land is used princi- pally for the production of nursery and row crops; and dairy, stock, and turkey farming. The proposed improvement would reduce damages due to levee failure and seepage. Seriovis seepage occurred during the 1948 flood and inundation was prevented only by emergency flood fighting operations. Average annual flood control benefits amount to $213,000. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests for the authorized improvement is estimated as follows: Lands and rights-of-wav $12, 000 Relocations 8, 000 Total 20, 000 Local interests are recjuired to maintain and operate the project upon completion at an estimated incremental annual cost of $9,000. Status of local cooperation. — By letter dated August 17, 1964, local interests have informally stated that they are willing and able to provide assurances of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of $1,680,000 is an increase of $660,000 over the latest estimate ($1,020,000) presented to Congress. The increase is due to relocation of a pumping plant, added pumping capacity and modifications to existing structures based on a revised plan of improvement de- veloped in an economic feasibility study. Mr. Morris. Please describe this project and tell us the current status. General Yates. This project is to protect an area along the Columbia River which is very low and into which water seeps badly during high waters. This results in severe flooding at extremely high waters. This project is to improve the levees, improve the internal pumping facili- ties and provide adequate flood protection for the Scappoose Drainage District. We are actually requesting funds to initiate detailed preconstruction planning on this project, sir. PROJECT COST INCREASE Mr. Morris. Will you please explain to the committee the increased cost of $660,000 since the last estimate was presented to the committee. General Yates. The previous estimate which was furnished during the hearings on the fiscal year 1966 and 1967 budgets was based on a study made in 1952. There was a restudy made at the direction of this committee, with funds appropriated in fiscal year 1966. Review of the project was made in the light of current conditions and current design criteria. The design changes made during that restudy have resulted in the present higher estimate. There have been considerable changes made to the design that was originally contemplated based on 1952 conditions. BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT, ALASKA Mr. Morris. $50,000 is requested for reanalysis of the Bradley Lake hydroelectric power project in Alaska, which has a total estimated cost of $66.4 million. (The justification follows :) 397 Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Power Project, Alaska (Initiation of planning) Location and descriptio7i. — The project is located near the head of Kachemak Bay near the southwestern end of the Kenai Peninsuhi, Alaska about 100 air miles south of Anchorage and 25 nules east of Homer. The plan of improvement consists of a main dam and two smaller saddle dams at the lake outlet, a spillway and outlet works, and a pinistock carrying the stored lake water to a powerhouse located near tidewater. Authorization.— Flood Conti-ol Act of 1962. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $66, 400, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement — 66, 400, 000 Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost 66, 400, 000 Reimbursement 66, 400, 000 Total estimated project cost 66, 400, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 2, 950, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 50, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 2, 900, 000 justification Power to be produced at Bradley Lake is needed to meet the demands of the rapidly-growing power market in the Cook Inlet area. Actual peak power and annual energy demands from 1961 to 1966 are considerably above projections prepared in Alay 1960 for project authorization. Current forecasts by Federal Power Commission now indicate a peaking requirement of 249,800 kilowatts in 1975 or an increase of 85,400 kilowatts over the present capacity. The estimated peak requirement by 1985 is 690,000 kilowatts. The project will provide 69,300 kilowatts of dependable capacity and generate 335,600,000 kilowatt-hours of energy having an annual at-site value of $3,368,000. Non-Federal costs. — Total project costs of $66,400,000 are allocable to power and are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — ^None requii'ed for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of" $66,400,000 is an increase of $3,000,000 over the latest estimate ($63,400,000) submitted to Congress. The increase is due to higher price levels. Major changes since project authorization. — None. Mr. Morris. "Will you describe this project and tell us what is planned with the $50,000 requested for fiscal year 1969. General Yates. The plan for this project consists of construction of a dam and outlet works and at the outlet of Bradley Lake, on the Kenai Peninsula. A tunnel and penstock would carry water from the lake to a powerplant located at tidewater. The power to be generated is nec- essary to meet the demands on the Kenai Peninsula, the principal load centers being the towns of Kenai and Homer, in addition to Anchorage. RE ANALYSIS OF PROJECT ECONOMICS The $50,000 being requested in this budget is for the purpose of re- analyzing the technical aspects and the economics of this project be- cause since it was authorized, as you know, we have had considerable development in the Cook Inlet area of natural gas and oil. Therefore, thermal generation rates are now lower than they were originally. We consider that we should make an economic reanalysis of the comparison 398 with thermal generation before we propose to undertake design for construction. The $50,000 would start this reanalysis in the light of current conditions. Mr. Morris. In reality this is not a new planning start; it is a reinvestigation ? General Yates. Keanalysis of an authorized project; yes, sir. If the findings are favorable, then we would propose to request initiation of preconstruction planning. Mr. Morris. The committee will have a chance to review the findings at a later date before we would commit ourselves to a new j)lannning start ? General Yates. Yes, sir. Such findings would be reported in any re- quest for preconstruction planning funds made at a later time. BONNEVILLE LOCK AND DAM, OREGON AND WASHINGTON — SECOND POWERHOUSE Mr. Morris. $500,000 is requested to continue planning of the second powerhouse at Bonneville lock and dam. (The justification follows:) Bonneville Lock and Dam, Oregon and Washington (Second Powerhouse) (Continue planning) Location and description. — On the Columbia River at river mile 146 and 42 miles east of Portland, Oreg. The plan provides for adding a powerhouse. Location, size, and feasibility of the powerhouse and appurtenant items, and reregulation to be determined. Authorization. — 1933 Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works; 1935 River and Harbor Act; 1937 Bonneville Project Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.0 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement ' $116, 000, 000 Future non- Federal reimbursement 116, 000, 000 Estimated Federal cost None Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement : Power 116, 000, 000 Total estimated project cost 116, 000, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 1, 700, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 100, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 400, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 500, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 700,000 1 Construction of Bonneville Dam with an initial power installation of 10 units (518,400-kilowatt capacity) has been completed at a cost of $83,239,395. The estimated cost shown is for the additional powerhouse. JUSTIFICATION Additional units will be reqinred at Corps projects throughout the Columbia River Basin because of the effects of the Canadian Treaty and the Pacific North- west-Pacific Southwest Intertie. Development of the Canadian storage will increase the dependable capacity and the average annual useable energy on the Federal system. The Canadian entitlement power purchased from Canada by the Columbia Storage Power Exchange will be assigned in California during the initial years. Additional commitments of capacity to California purchasers were made in connection with the Pacific Northwest-Southwest Intertie. This delivery outside the Pacific Northwest increases the peak requirements of the Federal 399 system. Addition of units at Bonneville will be required in combination with existing and additional units at other installations for the Federal system to meet assigned area firm and secondary loads and provide for the capacity commitments to California. Without additional installation at Boiuieville, excessive spill will occur even under critical low-flow conditions as a result of large; capacities at installations such as The Dalles and John Day upstream of Bonneville and limited pondage available at the Bonneville project. Maximum benefit will accrue by provision of sufficient capacity at all of the Columbia River plants to utilize fully the capability of the river from the increases in average flow resulting from the upstream storage. Annual benefits, estimated to be $9,807,000 will accrue from added generation. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $116,000,- 000 are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of the Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $116,000,000 is a decrease of $8,000,000 from the latest estimate ($124,000,000) submitted to Congress. The project as last reported to Congress included pro- vision to modify the existing structure and reservoir as required for safe operation under conditions created by upstream peaking plants. As these modifications for peaking are needed by 1970, they have been recommended as a separate new construction start. The project change includes a decrease of $12,700,000 for the peaking modification and a reduction of $1,040,000 in Supervision and Adminis- tration based on a reanalysis of requirements. This decrease was partially offset by an increase of $5,740,000 for price levels. DECREASE IN COST ESTIMATE Mr. Morris Will you explain the modification of tliis project and the project cost since last year resulting in a decrease of $12,700,000 for the peaking modification. That is most unusual. Could you exphiin that to the committee. General Yates. This project, as I mentioned in my opening presenta- tion, consists of a second powerhouse to be built at Bonneville Dam to make use of the water which will flow in the river from Canadian storage, and particularly to provide again for reregulation of peaking operations at upstream projects. With regard to the reduction in cost indicated, I must acknowledge that it is not a true cost reduction. We have broken out of this project a separate project for modification of the spillway, fish passage facili- ties and navigation lock in order to permit effective operation with the Dalles Dam in peaking mode immediately upstream. This is more urgent than the second powerhouse and in the interest of expediting the construction of the smaller element we have broken it away from the powerhouse part. These are items that were previously incorpo- rated in this one project. We have now split it into two separate ones. The cost of the part that has been broken out is estimated at $12.7 million. Mr. Morris. Actually then there is a slight increase in cost? General Yates. There was a slight increase if we combined the two projects. However, it is below the price level increase taken alone. chief JOSEPH DAM, WASH. — ADDITIONAL POWER UNITS Mr. Morris. Thank you. $200,000 is budgeted to complete the planning of the additional power units at the Chief Joseph Dam on the Columbia Eiver, at a cost of $62.2 million. 91-459— 68— pt. 1 26 400 (The jiistiiication follows:) Chief Joseph Dam, Columbia River, Washington — Additional Units (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — On the Columbia River, 545 miles above the mouth, 51 miles below Grand Coulee Dam, 1.5 miles upstream from the towni of Bridge- port, Wash., between Douglas and Okanogan Counties. The plan provides for extending the powerhouse to house 11 additional generating units, for a total of 27 units. The 11 additional units would increase the installed capacity from 1,024,000 kilowatt to 1,728,000 kilowatt. Authorization. — 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 5.2 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement i $62, 200, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement — 62, 200, 000 Estimated Federal cost None Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement: Power 62, 200, 000 Total estimated project cost i 62, 200, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 900, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 400, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 300, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 200, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 1 Chief Joseph Dam and powerhouse with initial power installation of 1,024,000 kw. was completed in 1958 at a cost of $144,338,000. The project comprises a concrete gravity dam 220 feet high, a powerhouse with 16 units (64,000 kw. each), substructure for 4 additional units, and an intake structure with gate bays for 27 generating units. The estimated cost of $62,200,000 is for extending the powerhouse to full length for 27 units and for installation of 11 additional units. JUSTIFICATION Additional units are required at Corps projects throughout the Columbia River Basin because of the effects of the Canadian Treaty and the Pacific Northwest- Pacific Southwest Intertie. Development of the Canadian storage will increase the dependable capacity and the average annual usable energy on the Federal system. The Canadian entitlement power purchased from Canada by the Colum- bia Storage Power Exchange will be assigned in California during the initial years. Additional commitments of capacity to California purchasers were made in connection with the Pacific Northwest-Southwest Intertie. This delivery outside the Pacific Northwest increases the peak requirements of the Federal system. Addition of units 17 and 18 at Chief Joseph Dam by June 1974 and units 19 through 27 by December 1975 will be required in combination with existing and additional units at other installations, for the Federal system to meet assigned area firm and secondary loads and provide for the capacity commitments to California. Benefits from the 11 additional units accrue as power at site and total $16,972,000 annually. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $62,200,000, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $62,200,000 is an increase of $2,400,000 from the latest estimate ($59,800,000) submitted to Congress. This change is due to higher price levels. Mr, Morris. Will you briefly outline what will be involved in the construction of the proposed 11 additional generating units. General Yates. As I mentioned in my opening statement, the Chief Joseph Dam when originally constructed made provision for a total of 27 power units, of which IB were installed initially with the under- standing the remainder would be installed at such time as they are necessary. They are now necessary in the light of the changing opera- 401 tion of the river and the Canadian stora irrigation and other uses. Cascadia Reservoir will regulate flood flows from 179 square miles of mountainous area in the South Santiam River Basin and complement Green Peter and Foster Reservoirs in regulating floods on the lower South Santiam River, the lower Santiam River and the Willamette River below the mouth of the Santiam River. It is a vital unit to the system of reservoirs proposed for the Santiam River Basin. During the December 1964 flood, Cascadia Reservoir would have reduced the i^eak flow near Lebanon by 20,000 second-feet, corresponding to a stage reduction of 3.4 feet. At ])oints such as the mouth of the Santiam River and at Salem on the Willamette River, the reduction in stage would be 0.5 ft. and 0.8 ft., respectively. Other benefits will accrue to the project from release of stored water. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control -- S5, 027, 000 Irrigation (0 Recreation, downstream power, and navigation 77,000 Total 5,104,000 ' Benoflts for irrigation are not reported pending a restudy of future irrigation requirements in the Willamette Valley. Non-Federal cost. — Future non-Federal reimbursement w-ill depend on studies of other water uses. The Department of the Interior has advised that no major com- mitments for repayment of irrigation costs have been obtained other than small quantities of water sold to individual farmers on utility-type contracts. The cur- rent Willamette review study will investigate probable future use of stored water for irrigation of valley lands, the appropriate share of project costs that would be allocated to irrigation, anticipated repayment ability, extent of required financial assistance, and the need for legislation to authorize financial assistance. In the interim, the Chief of Engineers is proposing to eliminate irrigation as a project purpose and reallocate storage among the remaining authorized project purposes. Hence, non-Federal cost sharing will not be required until such time as the irriga- tion studies referred to above are completed. The future addition of irrigation, or any other alternative water use, will not increase the project cost since the flood control storage is being used on a seasonal basis and will be available for joint use by other project functions. ' Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of irrigation costs that may be established by Willamette review inves- tigation will rest with the Department of the Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of $41,200,000 is an increase of $1,600,000 over the latest estimate ($39,600,000) submitted to Con- gress. This increase is due to higher price levels. Gate Creek Reservoir, Oreg. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Located on Gate Creek, a tributary of the McKenzie River, at stream mile 0.4 about 27 miles east of Eugene, Oreg. The plan of improve- ment provides for construction of an earth and gravel embankment, a free overflow spillway, an outlet tunnel and outlet regulating works. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. 404 Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirements $23, 300, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement (') Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement : Irrigation (') Total estimated project cost 23, 300, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 900, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 365, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 250, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 285, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 1 Non-Federal reimbursement from future irrigation is under study. See non-Federal cost paragraph. JUSTIFICATION The reservoir will provide 50,000 acre-feet of usable flood control storage and will be operated as a unit of the coordinated reservoir system planned for the Willamette Basin in the interest of flood control jointly with conservation of water for navigation, future irrigation, and other uses. Gate Creek Reservoir is an essen- tial unit of three multiple purpose reservoirs authorized for the McKenzie River Basin. The project will regulate flood flows from a tributary drainage area of 50 square miles which is so oriented that its flood contribution to McKenzie River floods is greater than the area indicates. This regulation will complement that to be accomplished by Cougar Reservoir and Blue River Reservoir in reduction of flood flows in the lower McKenzie River and on Willamette River downstream of the Mouth of the McKenzie River. During the December 1964 flood, Gate Creek Reservoir would have reduced the peak flow at Coburg 11,000 second-feet, corre- sponding to a stage reduction of 1.4 feet. The effect of this reduction would have been evident in the Willamette River from Harrisburg to Portland and would have amounted to about 0.7 feet at Harrisburg and 0.5 feet in the Albany and Salem areas. Other benefits will accrue to the project from release of stored water. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $1,447,000 Irrigation (0 Recreation, downstream power, and navigation 35,000 Total 1,482,000 ' Benefits for irrigation are not reported pending restudy of future irrigation requirements in the Willam- ette Valley. Non-Federal costs. — Fviture non-Federal reimbursement will depend on studies of other water uses. The Department of Interior has advised that no major com- mitments for repayment of irrigation costs have been obtained other than small quantities of water sold to individual farmers on utility type contracts. The current Willamette review study will investigate probable future use of stored water for irrigation of valley lands, the appropriate share of project costs that would be allocated to irrigation, anticipated repayment ability, extent of required financial assistance, and the need for legislation, to authorize financial assistance. In the interim, the Chief of Engineers is proposing to eliminate irrigation as a project purpose and reallocate storage among the remaining authorized project purposes. Hence, non-Federal cost sharing will not be required vuitil such time as the irrigation studies referred to above are completed. The future addition of irrigation, or any other alternative water use, will not increase the project cost since the flood control storage is t)eing used on a seasonal basis and will be available for joint use by other project functions. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of irrigation costs that may be established by Willamette Review investigation will rest with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of $23,300,000 is an increase of $1 million over the latest estimate ($22,300,000) submitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. Mr, Morris. Mr. Boland ? Mr. Boland, No questions. Mr. Morris. Mr. Rhodes ? 405 BRADLEY L.VKE rROJECT — rOWER COSTS Mr. Khodes. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. Turning to page 48, Genei-al Yates, could you give us some idea as to the cost of the j^ower which M'ould be generated by this structure? General Yates. I do not have the accurate hgures here with me, sir. My recollection is that it was about G mills, but I would be happy to furnish our best current estimate for the record, if I could. (The information follows:) Power Cost — Bradley Lake Project, Alaska The cost of power from Bradley Lake, based on current cost estimates, would be 8.96 mills per kilowatt-hour of firm energy compared to benefits of 10.94 mills per kilowatt-hour, based on unit power values furnished by the Federal Power Commission. Mr. Khodes. That is, operating the structure for peaking power? General Yates. This one would be principally peaking power, but it would also be used for run-of-the-river in the loose sense, if you will, because there is a regular flow into this jDerched lake. This flow would be used to produce energy as well as to provide peaking capacity for use with thermal base in conformance with the normal comple- mentary arrangements that we have throughout the country. OWNERSHIP OF THERMAL POWERPLANTS Mr. Rhodes. Who owns the thermal power units ? General Yates. There are four electric utility services operating seven thermal plants in the Cook Inlet area and two hydroplants. The City of Anchorage operates a municipal-owned thermal plant. The Chugach Electric REA has two thermal plants as well as a hydroplant serving the Anchorage area and two thermal plants on the Kenai Peninsula. The Alaska Power Administration operates the Eklutna hydroplant also servicing the Anchorage area. Two other thermal plants operating on the Kenai Peninsula are owned by the Homer Electric REA and Consolidated Utilities, REA. Mr. Rhodes. Your study contemplates measuring the thermal base to make sure the balance is maintained between firm and peaking power ? General Yates. Yes, sir. We will analyze the operating require- ments with the Alaska Power Administration that is doing the prin- cipal overall power analysis in the area. We are working closely with them. We will make a power analysis in addition to a simple economic reanalysis of this project. ADDITIONAL POWER UNITS — COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECTS Mr. Rhodes. Turning to page 51, is Bonneville the last dam on the Columbia River before the Columbia goes into the ocean ? General Yates. Yes, sir. The river is tidewater below Bonneville. Mr. Rhodes. Do you have any idea as to the number of alterations similar to this one which will be required on the Columbia River struc- tures, either because of the advent of the Canadian water or for any other reason ? General Yates. If I could ask for an interpretation of structures similar to this. Could you identify your category in your question? 406 Mr. Rhodes. Yes; thinking of projects on the Columbia River like the third powerhouse at Grand Coulee, which is a Bureau of Reclama- tion structure. Also, you are asking for more units at Chief Joseph and now at Bonneville. Where does this end, if it does ? ULTIMATE INSTALLATIONS General Yates. There is an end, sir. The end obviously is when you are using total available water in the most efficient way to meet the load requirements. The hydroload is going more and more toward peaking Avhich requires more and more capacity running during a rel- atively shorter period of time. There are provisions now in the main stem Federal dams, for additional units at Chief Joseph Dam, which we are now proposing ; at the Dalles Dam, which is also in this budget ; and also at Ice Harbor Dam on the lower Snake River. Also on the Snake River there is provision in the other three proj- ects for the installation of additional units at some later date. These additional units will certainly be required at some time in the future. Also, at some time in the future, the McNary project will have some additional units installed. ]Mr. Rhodes. 'V\'liat effect does the Canadian water have on the Snake River ? General Yates. It does not have a direct effect, sir. That is part of the problem of shifting into peaking. The transition to peaking re- quires additional capacity at all hydroprojects. It was contemplated at the time the original structures were planned, generally. Mr. Rhodes. I do not want to burden you with any more money, but I think it would be very helpful if the committee had some idea as to where we are going on this new concept and how much it is going to cost. Do you want to furnish some figures for the record that would enlighten us on that ? General Yates. I could do that ; yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. The thing that I have in mind can best be described as a table which would include the structures on the whole river system, by the name of the structure, the number of units to be added, the capacity of the units to be added, and the probable cost of installing the units and related works incidental to the installation. General Yates. Yes, sir ; we furnished similar information for the record last year and we will be happy to do it again. Mr. Rhodes. You might want to bring it up to date. General Yates. Yes, sir. (The information follows :) 407 AUTHORIZED ADDITIONAL UNITS AT EXISTING CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECTS Number of Total added Total cost Project and river additional capacity of additional Status units (megawatts) units (in ttiousands) Bonneville (Columbia) 6 324 $116,000 Planning underviray. The Dalles (Columbia).. 8 688 69,900* Under construction. John Day (Columbia) 4 540 24,000 Future. McNary (Columbia) 6 420 87,200 Do. Chief Joseph (Columbia) 11 704 62,200 Planning underway. Ice Harbor (Snake) 3 270 22,000 Do. Lower Monumental (Snake)... 3 405 21,000 Future. Little Goose (Snake) 3 405 21,000 Do. Lower Granite (Snake) 3 405 21,000 Do. Libby (Kootenai) 4 420 47,000 Do. Dworshak (Clearwater). 3 660 78,900 Do. Total 570,200 ♦Includes $12.7 million for expenditure at Bonneville Dam for necessary peaking opera- tions at upstream projects. Mr. Morris. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Da^^s. No questions. Mr. Morris. The gentleman from New York ? COTTONWOOD CREEK RESERVOIR, IDAHO — DAMAGE ESTIMATE Mr. RoBisoN. General, on page 25, Cottonwood Creek; I notice that reference is made in the justifications to the "severe damages" result- ing from floods in 1959, and also reference is made to a flood in August 1959 inundating a large area, where there was property valued at more than $10 million, but damages were only $162,000. That seems relatively low for the value of the property inundated. Is there any particular reason for this ? General Yates. The area is developing rapidly now. Actually, such floods now would cause significantly greater damage. That was an estimate of the damages that were caused at that time. In our most re- cent analysis we have found a very rapid growth rate in this area. The problem is more severe now although the damages from repetition of that particular flood do not appear high compared to some of the catastrophic ones that we have had in the area. Mr. RoBisoN. The change, though, in the area is not yet reflected in the B-C ratio? General Yates. Yes, sir. The change is reflected this year. Mr. RoBisoN. There is an improved B-C ratio over what the project had last year? General Yates. Yes, sir. It has actually gone up from 1.2 to 1.3. Al- though the record in the House testimony will show 1.4, which was m error. I corrected it in the Senate but not in the House during testi- mony. It has gone up from 1.2 to 1.3 in the past year. ELK CREEK RESERVOIR, OREG. — EXTENT OF BENEFITS Mr. RoBisoN. On page 38, reference is made to Elk Creek Reservoir. How far downstream do you actually try to compute the benefits from a reservoir project such as this? I ask this because there is reference, on page 39, to damages to the area downstream from Elk Creek anH Lost Creek Reservoirs. Is there any rule of thumb ? General Yates. No, sir. We actually calculate the effect that a reser- voir will have on the flow and follow that as far as it is measurable. 408 Then throughout that area if we have a reduction in flood height for a particular flood, we estimate tlie damages that would be saved by lowering that floodcrest. We calculate it as far as the effect will be found. They will disappear in a large river system, well downstream. But as long as it is significant we would try to estimate the benefits that would result. Mr. RoBisoN. This project's cost increased, as most of them have, by about 5 percent. Is this the average increase you are experiencing throughout the area ? PRICE LEVEL INCREASE — CONSTRUCTION COSTS General Yates. Yes, sir, this is true throughout the corps generally. The price level for this past year has increased about 4.9 percent for this type of construction. This is simply a price-level increase based on the cost index of construction. Mr. RoBisoN. Do you apply that percentage to each project auto- matically or do you really sit down and try to figure what it will be for each project ? I suppose that construction problems involved in each project will differ somewhat. General Yates. They do, yes, sir. In the early stages, the best esti- mate that can be made generally is to apply the factor to the total project cost estimate because it is good on the average. As we move along during construction, we look at the nature of tlie work remain- ing and look at the indexes for tliat type of work. We try to apply it in this manner to the remaining work. It is not arbitrarily applied. In the early stages it is pretty much that, however, because it is the best information that you have. BRADLEY LAKE PROJECT, ALASKA — POWER REPAYMENT Mr. RoBisoN. Just for the record, at Bradley Lake in Alaska, it says this will be fully reimbursable but over what number of years ? General Yates. The normal procedure for repayment of power is to repay it within 50 years. COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY CANADA AND UNITED STATES Mr. RoBisoN. Finally, with respect to both the Bonneville Dam and the Chief Joseph Dam, you refer to the "effects of the Canadian treaty." Can you, in two or three sentences, tell me what you are talk- ing about here ? General Yates. Yes, sir. The Canadian treaty produces two princi- pal benefits in the United States. Three reservoirs are to be built or are being built by Canada which will store Avater in the Upper Columbia system. This water will be stored during the flood season and thereby lower the flows during our annual snowmelt flood. That water will be released during the normal low-flow period, fall and winter, and will augment flows in the lower river, thereby producing more energy at the hydroplants through which that water will pass. The augmentation of low flows produces the additional firm power. Mr. RoBisoN. Are we being required— by "we'' I mean the United States — to move ahead a little faster than we might on projects along the river basin because of Canada's progress? 409 General Yates. No, sir; not when you recognize the complex ar- rangements in this treaty, unci the subsequent purchases that have been made of Canadian entitlement power. In order that we can get the benefits from Canadian storage and in order that we can utilize the energy which has been purchased from Canada in accordance with this treaty, we must have these additional units. Actually their dams are slightly ahead of the schedule required in the treaty. However they have in the treaty very heavy liquidated damages if they miss their schedule. Weare trying to schedule ours in order that full advantage will be taken of this storage for the entire region. JMr. RoDisox. Thank j-ou. That is all. Construction General CONSTRUCTION "sTRETCH-OUt" PROGRAM Mr. Morris. Please summarize for the committee the effects of the stretchout of your construction program in your division. General Yates. This stretchout and the restricted budget for fiscal year 1969 have resulted in delays in completion to 12 projects in my division. An amount of $6.6 million of the fiscal year 1968 appropria- tion w^as placed in reserve. Of the projects delayed, two have delays in excess of 1 year; eight, 6 months to a year; and two from 3 to 6 months. Mr. Morris. Please furnish the names of those projects for the record. General Yates. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) Effects of Stketch-Out Program The projects delayed by the stretchout in the North Pacific Division are : Delay in coynpletion Project: {months) Chetco River 8 Columbia and Lower Willamette River (40-channel) 13 Lost Creek Reservoir 12 Lower Columbia River bank protection 20 Lower Granite lock and dam 12 Ririe Reservoir 12 Siuslaw River 5 Snettisham 7 The Dalles (additional units) 3 Tillamook south jetty 12 Willamette River bank protection 12 Wynoochee Reservoir 12 chetco river, oreg. Mr. Morris. $800,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Chetco River project in Oregon. (The justification follows:) 410 Chbtco River, Oreg. (Continuing) Location. — At the mouth of Chetco River, Oreg. about 300 miles south of the entrance to Columbia River and 345 miles north of San Francisco Bay. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $1,420,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 15,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 33,400 Cash contribution _ 15,000 Lands, easements and rights-of-way 18,000 Total estimated project cost 1,468,400 Allocations to June 30, 1967. 30,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 (i) _ Allocations to date 30,000 2 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 800.000 58 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 590,000 • Project received appropriation as a "New start" for fiscal year 1968. Under the program for reduced expenditures In fiscal year 1968, the start of construction has been postponed until fiscal year 1969 with no allocation in fiscal year 1968. PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Entrance channel: 14 feet deep below m.l.l.w., 120 feet wide, 2,700 feet long. Turning basin: 14 feet deep below m.l.l.w., 250 feet wide, 650 feet long. Small boat access channel: 12 feet deep below m.l.l.w., 100 feet wide, 1,600 feet long. Jetties : North jetty extension 450 feet, and increase elevation of existing portion to 16 feet above m.l.l.w. Dikes: Protective dike 1,800 feet long with top elevation 18 feet above m.l.l.w. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Raise and extend north jetty 0) November 1969. Dredge entrance and access channels and turning basin (') Do. Entire project... Do. > Not started. 411 JUSTIFICATION A deeper and wider entrance channel with adequate protection is necessary to provide safe passage for lumber barges and commercial fishing boats. The improved entrance channel and barge turning basin would accommodate the larger lumber barges currently being used at other coastal ports and would enable more eco- nomical water transportation of lumber, plywood and woodchips. Waterborne commerce exceeded 191,000 tons in 1966 and has averaged 75,000 tons during the past 7-year period. Average annual benefits are estimated as follows: Navigation $283,900 Recreation 9, 500 Total 293,400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $800,000 will be applied to — Initiate jetty extension and dike construction 515, 000 Initiate dredging of entrance and access channels and turning basin 235, 000 Engineering and design 16, 000 Supervision and administration 34, 000 Total 800,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are the minimum required to meet the scheduled completion date. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS The River and Harbor Act of 1945 authorized the construction of two jetties and dredging of an entrance channel. The jetties were completed in December 1957 and rock pinnacles and an abandoned bridge structure were removed in June 1959. Total Federal new work cost has been $489,554. REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS None. Non-Federal costs. — The authorizing legislation provides that local interests are required to furnish free of all costs to the United States, all lands, easements and rights-of-way and spoil disposal areas necessary for construction of the project and subsequent maintenance; hold and save the United States free from all claims from damages resulting from the construction works; and provide suitable terminal facilities open to all on equal terms. The cost to local interests of complying with the requirements of local cooperation is estimated to be $33,400, consisting of $18,000 for lands, easements and rights-of-way, and a cash contri- bution of $15,400, Stahis of local cooperation. — By letter dated September 28, 1967, the port of Brookings indicated that items of local cooperation would be furnished. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,420,000 is an increase of $70,000 over the latest estimate submitted to Congress. The increase is due to higher price levels. 412 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate <2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete alter fiscal year 1969 (6) Channels $542,400 .. 777.000 .. 1 54, 000 62. 000 1.435,400 $235. 000 515.000 16.000 34, 000 800, 000 $307, 400 Breakwaters Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contribjtions)-.. Undistributed costs ^ .. $7,200" 400 7.600 $20,900' 1.500 22. 400 262, 000 9.900 26, 100 605.400 Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions).. 1.435.400 7.600 22. 400 800. 000 605, 400 Total cnst (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions) Undelivered orders 1,435,400 7,600 22,400 800, 000 605. 400 Total oblipations 7,600 7,600 22. 400 22. 400 800, 000 800. 000 605. 400 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Undistributed cost 1,420,000 590, 000 Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Pending adjustments 1,420.000 7,600 22.400 800, 000 590, 000 Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds onlv) -- Undelivered orders 1,420,000 7,600 22,400 800, 000 590, 000 Total obligations Total applied cost (non-Federal contri- 15,400 .- 7,600 22,400 800, 000 590, 000 15,400 Undistributed cost Total project cost (non-Federal contribu- tions) 15,400 15, 400 Total cost (non-Federal contributions).. . Undelivered orders 15,400 .. 15,400 15,400 Method of financing Corps of Engineers funds: 30,000 .. Unobligated carryover from prior year 22,400 .. 22,400 .. Appropriations required Method of financing non-Federal contri- butions: 800, 000 590, 000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 15,400 Total funds available for obligation 15,400 . 1 Includes $500 for real estate activities. Mr. Morris. This was a new start in last year's House bill which' has been deferred to 1969 under the stretchout program. Describe this project and tell us the status of it. General Yates. This project has not yet been started. The contract for this project is scheduled to be awarcied in October. It is basically provision for a deeper and wider channel at the entrance to the Chetco River to improve navigation conditions. EFFECT OF PROJECT DEFERRAL Mr. Morris. What effect will the postponement have on the project cost ? General Yates. The only identifiable effect it will have is that caused by the continuing increase in costs of construction. Completion of this project has been delayed about 8 months in this program. A 413 price level increase over that period is the best estimate of the increased costs. Mr. Morris. If it were uniform throughout the year it would be approximately 4 or 5 percent ? General Yates. Five percent is our going rate for a year. That would come out 4 percent for 8 months. Again, if you try to calculate it carefully, j'ou must now do this on the undone work at various times. Two to four percent is a rough estimate of what this would amount to. Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, would you yield? Mr. INIoRRis. Yes. Mr. DA^^s. This project was not in the budget last year, was it? General Yates. No, sir. It was added by the House. COLUMBIA AND LOWER WILLAMETTE RI^^;RS, OREG. AND WASH. Mr. INIoRRis. $2 million is budgeted to continue the construction of the 40-foot channel on the Columbia and Lower Willamette River below Vancouver, Wash., and Portland, Oreg. (The justification follows:) Columbia and Lower Willamette River Below Vancouver, Wash., AND Portland, Oreg. (40-Foot Channel) (Continuing) Location. — On the Columbia River from river mile 3 near mouth to Vancouver' Wash., a distance of 103.5 miles, and on the lower 11.6 'miles of Willamette River. Authorization. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated percent of Amount estimated appropriation requirements $23,300,000 . Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard).. , Estimated non-Federal cost 42,000 . 488,000 . 438, 000 Othercosts 50,000 . 23,830,000 . 9.693,000 . Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date . 2,000,000 .. 11,693,000 2,000,000 50 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969... 59 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 9,607,000 ., PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Columbia River mile 3 to 105.5. Depth: 40 feet. Width: 600 feet.i Length: 102.5 miles. Columbia River mile 105.5 to 106.5. Depth: 35 feet. Width: 500 feet. Length: 1 mile. Willamette River mile to 11.6. Depth: 40 feet. Width: 600 feet to 1,900 feet. Length: 11.6 miles. > Reach from river mile 101.4 to 105.5 to be constructed to 500-foot width initially. 414 Turning Basins: Longview, Wash., river mile 66.5. Depth: 40 feet. Width: (average) 1,200 feet. Length: 6,000 feet. Vancouver, Wash., River mile 105. 0. Depth: 40 feet. Width: 800 feet. Length: 5,000 feet. Vancouver, Wash., River mile 106.0. Depth: 35 feet. Width: 800 feet. Length: 2,000 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Channels and turning basins.. 41 June 1971. JUSTIFICATION The Columbia and Lower Willamette River navigation channel provides access for the water-borne movement of commodities to serve a tributary area covering parts of seven states with an area of approximately 300,000 square miles. With the larger channel, ships calling at Columbia River ports would not generally have to restrict their loading or unloading to accommodate depths in the channel. The enlarged channel will also eliminate delay of ships in waiting for a favorable high tide. Elimination of ship delays and short loading accounts for most of the annual benefits accruing to this project. Petroleum products and grain are the main cargoes and annual transportation saving on these are estimated to be $2,254,600. Traffic during calendar year 1966 totaled 26,069,957 tons as compared to the 10 year-average tonnage of 23,349,026. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Navigation $2, 672, 100 Land enhancement 96, 800 Total 2, 768, 900 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,000,000 will be applied to — Continue construction of pile dikes $500, 000 Continue dredging 1, 337, 000 Engineering and Design 78, 000 Supervision and Administration 85, 000 Total 2, 000, 000 COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS The completed modifications consist of a 35-foot channel 500 feet wide from River Mile 3 near mouth of the Columbia River to the Broadway Bridge on the Willamette River at Portland; a 30-foot channel 300 feet wide from Broadway Bridge to Ross Island Bridge on Willamette River and from mouth of Willamette River to Interstate Bridge on Columbia River, with side chaimel development and turning basins and a small boat basin. The work was completed in 1950 at a cost of $5,607,700. UNCOMPLETED MODIFICATIONS None. Non-Federal costs. — The costs to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation is estimated to be $488,000. This cost consists of a cash contribution of $438,000 and relocation of utilities amounting to $50,000. Local interests are required to provide a suitable pipeline dredge for improving and maintaining the main ship channel on a reimbvirsable basis. Port investments in terminal facilities exceed $70,000,000. Extensive privutcly-owned cargo-handling facilities will also be served by the channel. 415 Status of local cooperation. — Requirements of local cooperation for initiation of construction have been met. All rights-of-way for disposal areas required during construction are being furnished as needed. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $23,300,000 is an increase of $700,000 over the latest estimate ($22,600,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $666,000 for higher price levels and $110,000 in engineering and design for additional model study and pile dike design. This increase was partially offset by a redviction of $76,000 in supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Cfiannels $21,582,000 $7,672,100 $2,701,400 $1,937,000 $9,271,500 Permanent operating equipment 186,000 66,900 39,900... 79,200 Engineering and design "920,000 728,800 104,700 78,000 8,500 Supervision and administration 1,050,000 392,800 148,600 85,000 423,600 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions).. 23,738,000 8,860,600 2,994,600 2,100,000 9,782,800 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Corp of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions). 23,738,000 8,860,600 2,994,600 2,100,000 9,782,800 Pending adjustment Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions) 23,738,000 8,860,600 2,994,600 2,100,000 9,782,800 Undelivered orders 143,100 -83,100 -60,000 Total obligations 9,003,700 2,911,500 2,040,000 9,782,800 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 23,300,000 8,687,700 2,945,300 2,060,000 9,607,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 23,300,000 8,687,700 2,945,300 2,060,000 9,607,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 23,300,000 8,687,700 2,945,300 2,060,000 9,607,000 Undelivered orders 143,100 -83,100 -60,000 Total obligations 8,830,800 2,862,200 2,000,000 9,607,000 Total applied cost (non-Federal con- tributions) 438,000 172,900 49,300 40,000 175,800 Undistributed cost Total project cost (non-Federal contri- butions) 438,000 172,900 49,300 40,000 175,800 Pending adjustments Total cost (non-Federal contributions)... 438,000 172,900 49,300 40,000 175,800 Undelivered orders.. Total obligations..-. 172,900 49,300 40,000 175,800 Method of financing: Corps of Engineers funds: Allocations 9,693,000 2,000,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 862,200 Total funds available for obligation 2,862,200 Appropriations required 2,000,000 9,607,000 Non-Federal contributions: Contributions 386,900 Unobligated carryover from prioryear 214,000 164,700 124,700 Total funds available for obli- gations 214,000 Contributions required 51,100 1 Includes $20,000 for real estate activities. Mr. Morris. As shown on page 68 of the justifications, there has been a cost increase of $666,000 due to higher price levels since last year. General Yates. Yes, sir. 91-i59— 6S— pt. 1 27 416 EFFECT OF STRETCHOUT PROGRAM Mr. Morris. Yet we have $1 million of the $3 million allowed for the current year placed in reserve under the stretchout program. Am I correct in that figure ? General Yates. Yes, sir. Mr. Morris. AYhat elfect will this have on the completion date and on the ultimate cost of the project ? General Yates. The reduction in 1968 and the limitations on the fiscal year 1969 budget request results in an estimated delay in com- pletion of 13 months. With regard to the effect on cost of the project, our best estimate would be to consider price level increases during the snme period. Also in this case, because we will be prolonging the period of supervision, there would be some additional cost for supervision and administration over a longer period. JOHN DAY RIVER, OREG. Mr. Morris. $570,000 is requested to initiate and complete construc- tion of the John Day River local protection project in Oregon. (The justification follows:) John Day River, Oreg. (New) Location. — Along the John Day River and its tributary, Canyon Creek, at John Day, and along the John Day River at Mount Vernon. Authorization. — ]'.)")() Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1 . SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers).. Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contributions. _ Other costs Total estimated project cost. Allocations through June 30, 1967 Allocations for fiscal year 1968.. Allocations to date Appropriations requested lor fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $663,000 123,000 123,000 786,000 93.000 14 93,000 14 570, 000 100 PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Improvements of 4.7 miles of channel along the John Day River and Canyon Creek in the John Day area, and 1.9 miles along the John Day River in the Mount Vernon area. STATUS (JAN. I, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project. November 1969. 417 JUSTIFICATION The proposed improvement would provide flood protection to urban and agrifultural lands located in and adjacent to John Day and Mount Vernon, Oreg. Areas subject to flooding include residential, commercial, manufacturing, muni- cipal, and agricultural properties, in addition to bridges, streets, roads, and utilities. In December 1964 flooding in this area caused damages amounting to $483,000 and in January 1965 an additional $265,000 for a total $748,000, all of which could have been prevented by this project. Average annual benefits creditable to the project are estimated at $71,100 for flood damages prevented. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $570,000 will be applied as follows: Construction of channel improvements $508, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 5'J, 000 Total 570, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for initiation and com- pletion of const niction as scheduled. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $123,300, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $60, 600 Diversion facilities 14, 900 Bridge alteration 35, 000 Relocations 12, 500 Total 123, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project, upon com- pletion. The average annual cost of maintenance and operation is currently estimated at $10,800. Status of local cooperation. — Sponsorship is being provided by Grant County and the cities of John Day and Mount Vernon. Letters of intent to meet local cooperation requirements have been provided by the three sponsors, and nearly all rights-of-way have been obtained. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current estimate of $663,000 reflects an increase of $37,000 over the latest estimate of $626,000 (July 1966 base) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes an increase of $24,000 due to higher price levels; and a net increase of $13,000 due to more detailed engineering and design. Major changes since project authorization. — Nome. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Channels Engineering and design _. Supervision and administration. _.. Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost $508, 000 96, 000 59, 000 663, 000 $56. 000 3. 200 59,200 $30, 000 3,800 33, 800 $508, 000 10,000 52, 000 570, 000 0- Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments. 663, 000 59, 200 33.809 570, 000 n Total cost (Federal funds only) Undlivered orders 663, 000 59, 200 33, 800 570, 000 0. 11 Total obligations. 663, 000 59, 200 93, 000 33,800 .. 33,800 .. 33 800 570, 000 n (VIetfiod of financing: Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obli- gation Appropriations required....* 570,000 . 418 Mr. Morris. Could you describe this new construction start, which is one of tlie seven new starts in the budo^et ? General Yates. The project will provide flood protection to urban and agricultural land in and adjacent to the towns of John Day and Mount Vernon. It includes channel improvement alonor 4,7 miles of the John Day River and the Canyon Creek in the John Day area, and 1.9 miles along John Day River in the Mount Vernon area. Average flood control benefits expected are about $72,000. PROJECT HISTORY Mr. Morris. General, according to our information, the project was authorized in 1950, which makes it over 17 years old. Wliy have not funds been requested prior to this time? General Yates. This project has a long history, sir, but very briefly, the project was ready for construction and in fact was in the budget for fiscal year 19G5. However, it was withdrawn from the budget at the request of my predecessor at that time because of lack of local co- operation. Later that year catastrophic floods of December of 1964 and January 1965 occurred. As a result of these floods, needless to say, there was renewed interest in getting flood protection. STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION So subsequently, local cooperation has been made available, and the project has been redesigned because of changes resulting from the floods of 1964 and 1965. Mr. Morris. How is the local cooperation now ? Are they still as eager as they were after the flood ? General Yates. Yes, sir. We have sponsorship from the county and the cities involved. WYNOOCHEE RESERVOIR, WASH. Mr. Morris. $2,500,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the "Wynoochee Reservoir in Washington. (The justification follows:) Wynoochee Reservoir, Wash. (Continuing) Location. — On the Wynoochee River, a tributary of Chehalis River, about 45 miles northeast of Aberdeen, Wash. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. 419 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement (Corps of Engineers) $16,300,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement —12,664,000 Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) 3,636,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Forest Service recreation facilities) 332,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 12,664,000 Reimbursement: Water supply 12,345,000 Irrigation.. 319,000 Total estimated project cost 116,632,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 1,260,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. 1,500,000 Allocations to date... 2,760,000 17 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 2,500,000 32 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 11,040,000 I Excludes $361,000 for future check dams in lower reaches of river to provide adequate depths for fish migration. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Concrete gravity with earthfill extensions. Height: 175 feet (above streambed) . Length of concrete section: 660 feet. Length of earthfill embankments: 2,210 feet. Spillway: Type: Weir and chute in left abutment. Gates : Two 32 feet by 38 feet tainter. Capacity: 52,500 cubic feet per second. Relocations: Forest development roads: 6.1 miles, $1,758,000. Reservoir capacity: Total storage at elevation 800, 70,000 acre-feet. Storage for water supply, irrigation, and fisheries (elevation 722 to 800), 59,000 acre-feet. Flood control storage (elevation 764 to 800, joint use), 35,000 acre-feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 1,591. Type: Forest. Improvements: None. Status (January 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule. — Entire project, June 1972; land acquisition, December 1969; fish collection facility, September 1970; relocations, December 1969; reservoir clearing and sweeping, June 1972; dam, March 1972. JUSTIFICATION The Wynoochee Reservoir project will meet one of the foremost economic needs of the Grays Harbor area in western Washington by furnishing an increased reliable water supply. The area is economically dependent on the pulp and paper industrj-; and at present, the total reliable natural streamflow is being utilized by existing plants. The economic stability and continued industrial growth of the area are dependent on a streamflow augmentation. The project will triple the present water supply. In addition, the project will provide flood control for 4,000 acres of farmland, irrigation for 1,320 acres, recreation through creation of a 4-mile-long lake in a forest setting, and improvement in stream conditions to enhance the fisheries of the Wynoochee River by increased flows. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Water supply _. $895, 000 Flood control 105, 000 Irrigation 16, 000 Recreation 86, 000 Fisheries 43, 000 Total 1, 145,000 420 Fiscal Tjear 1969. — The requested amount of $2,500,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of project lands $10, 000 Continue construction of miscellaneous project features 197, OOO Continue relocation of forest development roads 963, 000 Initiate construction of forest service road betterments (recreation) _ _ 114, 000 Initiate reservoir clearing 100, 000 Initiate construction of dam, fish and wildlife facilities 859, 000 Engineering and design 89, 000 Supervision and administration 168, 000 Total 2, 500, 000 Xon-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to water supply, estimated at $12,345,000, and irrigation, estimated at $319,000 are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Aberdeen has agreed to pay costs allo- cated to water supply in accordance with the Water Supply Act of 1958 (Pubhc Law 85-500). The contract for repayment of water supply was signed by officials of the city of Aberdeen August 16, 1967. Responsibility for repayment of irrigation rests with the Department of the Interior pursuant to Federal law. Pursuant to Public Law 89-869 approved October 15, 1966, the project will not be operated for irrigation purposes until such time as the Secretary of the Interior makes the necessary arrangements with non-Federal interests to recover the costs which are allocated to the irrigation purpose, in accordance with Federal reclamation law. Cowparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current project cost estimate of $16,300,000 is an increase of $800,000 over the latest estimate ($15,500,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes $46,000 for higher price levels; $459,000 in "Buildings, grounds and utilities" for permanent power supply and additional landscaping; and $741,000 for "Engineering and design and supervision and administration" based on reanalysis of requirements. These increases were partially offset by a decrease of $289,000 in the dam due to deletion of temporary power supply line and a decrease of $157,000 due to other minor adjustments. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1). FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1959 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) lands and damages $750,000 $13,000 $525,000 $10,000 $202,000 Relocations 1,758,000 360,000 1,077,000 321,000 Reservoir - 1.201,000. 100,000 1,101,000 Dam 6,939,000 176,000 6.763,000 Fish and wildlife facilities 1,213,000 131,000 1,082,000 Roads and railroads 510,000 450,000 60,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities. _ 738,000 _... 92,000 299,000 347.000 Permanent operating equipment- 258,000 258.000 Engineering and design... 1,857,000 1,026,000 558,000 89,000 184,000 Supervision and administration 1,076,000 78,000 108,000 168,000 722.000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 16,300,000 1,117,000 1,643,000 2,500,000 11,040,000 Undistributed costs: Distributive costs Total project cost (Federal funds only). 16,300,000 1,117,000 1,643,000 2,500,000 11,040,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 16,300,000 1,117.000 1,643.000 2,500,000 11,040,000 Undelivered orders 8,000 -8,000 Total obligations 1,125,000 1,635,000 2,500,000 11,040,000 Method of financing: Allocations 1,260,000 1,500,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 135,000 Total funds available for obligation 1,635,000 Appropriations required 2,500,000 11,040,000 421 BASKS FOR COST INCREASK Mr. Morris. Coiild you explain to the committee the cost increase since hist year which, according to our information, has amounted to $459,000 for a permanent power supply, and $741 ,000 for engineering and design, and supervision and administration? General Yates. Yes, sir; the increase for the permanent power sup- ply is a change in our plans for providing power for project opera- tions. Previously it was contemplated using power from a temporary contractor-constructed powerline. It has heen found subsequently that it will be more economical overall to build a permanent power supply for combined construction and future operations. You will note a reduction under the dam from which the temporary contractor-fur- nished power supply line has been deleted and an increase in build- ing grounds and utilities, which now includes the cost of the perma- nent power supply. So this is not in itself a project cost increase. There is a major increase in engineering and design. This results from extensive studies that have been necessary in the interest of a most efficient project. We have had, frankly, several redesigns of the outlet works and the facilities downstream from this dam which have been unusually complicated and have increased costs above those anticipated. Mr. Morris. Is that design and engineering work being done in- house within the corps ? General Yates. Most of this work is in-house on this project; yes, sir. SNETTISHAM, ALASKA Mr. Morris. $5 million is budgeted to continue the construction of the Snettisham Power project in Alaska. (The justification follows ;) Snettisham, Alaska (Continuing;) Location. — Near the mouth of the Speel River, 28 air miles southeast of Juneau, Alaska. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — Initial, 1.9 to 1; ultimate, 2.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement $49,000,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement _ —49,000,000 Estimated Federal cost (initial) _ ' o Estimated non-Federal cost._ _. _ 49,000.000 ..' Reimbursement, power __ _ 49!o00.000 _ ' ...... Total estimated project cost (initial phase, Long Lake development). _.. 49^000,000 ^_^!!!'^^^^I^""II Total estimated project cost for ultimate installation (Long Lake and Crater Lake development) 63,000.000 . . Allocations to June 30, 1967_.. 2,955,000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 _ 4!500i0O0 '.'" Allocations to date _._ 7,'455iO0O 15 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 _ " " sioOOioOO 25 Balance to complete initial phase after fiscal year 1969 36.545,000 422 PHYSICAL DATA (LONG LAKE) Dam: Tj'-pe: Concrete gravity. Height: 110 feet (above strearabed). Length: SOO feet. Spillway : Type: Ungated overflow. Design capacity (maximum pool) : 21,000 cubic feet per second. Lands and damages: Acres: 14,067. Type: Main project area in Tongass National Forest with 5 acres of Alaska State tidelands. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage at elevation 895 252, 000 Power (elevation 895-720) 252, 000 Power installation : Ultimate: 3 units at 23,350 kilowatts; 70,050 kilowatts. Initial: 2 units at 23,350 kilowatts; 46,700 kilowatts. Head: 896 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1967) Percent complete Completion schedule Initial development (Long Lake) 6 July 1973. Roads and bridges 20 August 1970. Dam 2 December 1971. Power on the line: Unit No. 1, 23,350 kw December 1972. Unit No. 2, 23,350 kw March 1973. JUSTIFICATION Power to be produced by the Snettisham project is needed to meet the demands of the growing powermarket in the Juneau area. The estimated gross peak require- ments of the project to meet growing powerload and to replace present unreliable and high-cost generation will be 15,800 kw in 1970 and 45,200 kw in 1980 with the region power demand exceeding capacity by 1985. The project will provide 70,000 kw of dependable capacity and generate 331 million kw hours of energy having an annual benefit of $6,027,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $5,000,000 will be applied to — Complete construction of access facilities $3, 719, 000 Continue procurement of powerhouse equipment 125, 000 Continue construction of major project facilities 415, 000 Engineering and design 300, 000 Supervision and administration 441, 000 Total 5,000,000 Non-Federal costs. — Total project costs of $49 million are allocable to power and are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $49 million (initial development) represents an increase of $4,600,000 over the latest estimate ($44,400,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increase of $1,814,000 for higher price levels, $2,109,000 in dams, primarily resulting from more detailed design and bids on initial construction contract, $654,000 in power- plant based on more detailed design, and a net increase of $23,000 in other features. 423 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (P8-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Iln thousands of dollars] Item (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) $8.0 $3.0 $3.0 $2.0 23, 360. 1,118.0 $2,581.8 19, 660. 2 15,710.0 155.0 195.1 15,359.9 1,510.0 500.0 860.8 149.2 585.0 200.0 262.5 122.5 730.0 16.0 7.0 707.0 3,835.0 2,328.3 574.7 300.0 632.0 3, 262. 205.8 340.0 441.0 2,275.2 49,000.0 2,553.1 2, 890. 7 4, 648. 2 38, 908. 192.0 2,745.1 1,819.0 4, 709. 7 351.8 5, 000. -2, 362. 8 49, 000. 36. 545. 2 tands and damages Dams.. Powerplant Roads and bridges Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design. Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only). U ndistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Undelivered orders 209.7 -209.7 Total obligations... 2,954.8 4,500.0 5,000.0 36,545.2 Federal funds— Method of financing: Allocations. 2,955.0 4,500.0 Unobligated carryover from prior year. .2 Total funds available for obligation. 4,500.2 Appropriations required 5,000.0 36,445.0 INCREASE IN COST ESTIMATE Mr. Morris. Could you explain to the committee the cost increase of $4.6 million on this project since your estimate of last year? General Yates. Yes, sir. This consists of three principal elements. There is a price-level increase which amounts to slightly under $2 million. We had an unusually high bid for the first major contract. This accounts for about a million dollars of the increase. The re- mainder are miscellaneous changes that have been made as a result of final designs in going into plans and specifications for the contracts for this structure. DUAL BENEFIT-TO-COST RATIO Mr. Morris. You have an initial benefit-cost ratio of 1.9 to 1 and in the ultimate of 2.3. Could you briefly explain that ? General Yates. Yes, sir. If you will refer to the map you will note that the project involves diversion of water from two perched lakes through tunnels and pen- stocks to one powerhouse. The initial project is to develop one lake and the powerhouse with two generating units. The ultimate would be to develop the second lake and bring its flow to the same powerhouse and add an additional generating unit. marketing and TRANSMISSION OF POWER Mr. Morris. "^VTiat are the current plans for the marketing of the power from this particular pro j ect ? General Yates. The Alaska Power Administration will market this power in the Juneau area and has recently confirmed it is readily marketable and badly needed as early as it can be provided. Mr. Morris. Will you need any transmission lines ? General Yates. Yes, sir; this project includes transmission lines to the vicinity of Juneau, which is the load center. 424 Mr, ]SIoEFJS. Is that included in 3-oiir current cost estimate of the project? General Yates. Yes, sir. ARROW LAKES RESERVOIR, CANADA Mr. Morris. $52.1 million is requested to reimburse Canada for flood control benefits in connection with the Arrow Lakes Reservoir in British Columbia. (The justification follows :) Arrow Lakes Reservoir, British Columbia, Canada (Reimbursement) Authorization. — The United States-Canadian Treaty Relating to International Cooperation in Water Resources Development of the Columbia River (Columbia River Treaty) provides that Canada will develop 15,500,000 acre-feet of usable storage at Mica, Arrow Lakes, and Duncan Lake Reservoirs in Canada. In consideration of Canada's operation of the storage facilities for flood control pur- poses pursuant to article VI, the United States is required to pay Canada in U.S. funds a total of $64,400,000, equivalent to one-half the estimated value of the flood control benefits provided. The payment will be made in specified amounts as each project becomes operational for flood control. The projects and amovmts applicable to each are as follows: (1) Mica Reservoir, $1,200,000; (2) Arrow Lakes Reservoir, $52,100,000; and (3) Duncan Lake Reservoir, $11,100,000. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969.— $52,100,000. JUSTIFICATION The Arrow Lakes Reservoir, in combination with the Mica and Duncan Lake Reservoirs and existing storage projects in the Columbia River Basin, will permit control of the maximum flood of record on the Lower Columbia River (1894 flood with peak discharge of 1,240,000 cubic feet per second at The Dalles, Greg.) to less than 800,000 cubic feet per second at The Dalles, Oreg. The Arrow project was originally scheduled to become operational on April 1, 1969 at which time the U.S. payment of $52,100,000 would become due. However, the United States has been advised by note from the Canadian Embassy dated October 6, 1967, that it is expected that the Arrow Dam will be completed and will become fully opera- tional on December 15, 1968. Later information indicates that construction is progressing to the point that the project may become operational prior to that date. At such time as the project becomes fully operational within the meaning of article IV 2(a) (ii) of the Treaty, as amplified by subparagraph (7) of the note from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the U.S. Ambassador, dated September 16, 1964, payment to the Canadian Government becomes due. Mr. Morris. Could you briefly describe this project, tell us the status of construction, and outline the provisions for payment under the treaty which we have with Canada f COLUMBIA river TREATY AGREEMENT General Yates. Yes, sir; I will try to do it without going into too much detail. The Columbia Eiver Treaty with Canada provides that Canada will develop 15.5 million acre-feet of usable storage at three reservoirs identified as Mica, Arrow Lakes, and Duncan Lake. In consideration of Canada's operation of the storage facilities for flood control, the United States is to pay Canada a total of $64.4 million in U.S. currency, an amount determined as the present worth of one-half of the estimated flood control benefit for a period of 60 years after ratification of the treaty. Payment of that portion of 425 the flood control benefit attributable to each reservoir is due under the treaty when that reservoir becomes operational. Payment is due when Arrow Lakes becomes operational in the amount of $52.1 mil- lion, the amount requested here. Construction is over 90 percent com- plete on this dam and reservoir. It is scheduled to be operational no later than December 15, 1968. It looks as though it may be slightly earlier. Payment will be due at the time it becomes operational. Mr. Morris. In other words, we had an agreement to pay at a certain time and that date has about arrived? General Yates. Yes, sir ; you may recall last year we had money in for the first project, which was Duncan Lake. Payment has been made and this one is the second of the three, with the amount being a negotiated amount which is in the treaty. ^Ir. Morris. I think it should bo noted that, including tliis reimburse- ment, the 1969 budget includes $257.6 million, or about 25 percent of the Corps' request, for planning and construction of power projects for the Northwest, with a total cost of about $2.2 billion. DWORSHAK reservoir, IDAHO Mr. Morris. $45,500,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Dworshak Reservoir in Idaho as part of the power development plan. (The justification follows :) Dworshak Reservoir, Idaho (Continuing) Location. — On the North Fork Clearwater River in Idaho 1.9 miles above its confluence with the Clearwater River, about 43 miles east of Lewiston, Idaho. Authorization. — 1958 and 1962 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated percent of Amount estimated Federal requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement (Corps of Engineers) ?249,000,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement —224 666 000 Estimated Federal cost (initial) 24' 334* 000 I'.'.'Ji'.'.'.'. '.'. Estimated non-Federal cost '...'." 224'666'000 " Reimbursement (power)... _ " 224* 666' 000 Total estimated project cost (initial) i 249'000'000 Total estimated project cost for ultimate power installation 1 2 327' 888* 000 Allocations through June 1967. 43 oei OOO Allocation for fiscal year 1968 30' 200*000 Allocations to date _ 73'26l'000 29 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 ' ' 45* 500* 000 48 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 130'239'000 > Excludes an estimated $32,000 for deferred construction of highway district roads after fiscal year 1972 » Includes $51,000,000 cost for reregulating structure. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Concrete gravity. Height: 673 feet. Length: 3,300 feet. Spillway: Type: Gate controlled with stiUing basin. Capacity: (Maximum pool) 150,500 cubic feet per second. Gates: Two 50 by 55 foot tainter. 426 Relocations: Roads: 34 miles, $16,837,000. Cemeteries and utilities, $173,000. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage at elevation 1,600 3,453,000 Joint use storage for flood control and power (elevation 1,600-1,445) 2,000,000 Power head, navigation, and incidental recreation (below eleva- tion 1,445) 1, 453, 000 Power installation: Ultimate: Two units at 90,000 kilowatts and four units at 220,000 kilowatts; 1,060,000 kilowatts. Initial: Two units at 90,000 kilowatts and one unit at 220,000 kilowatts; 400,000 kilowatts. Head: 534 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 49,480. Type: Predominantly timber and grazing. Improvements: Scattered ranch buildings. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1958) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project 17 June 1973. Land acquisition 67 June 1970. Relocations 2 June 1972. Reservoir 41 Do. Dam 16 Do. Fish facilities 7 Do. Powerplant 2 Do. Flood control storage _ _ Do. Power-on-the-line (initial), 3 units, 400,000 kw. total Do. JUSTIFICATION Dworshak is an important project of the major water plan proposed for the development of water resources of the Columbia Pi.iver Basin. This project will provide poM'er, flood control, navigation, and recreation benefits. The present schedule for Dworshak storage and power-on-the-line is June 1972. The latest load-resource studies prepared by Bonneville Power Administration indicate that the projected power loads of the Pacific Northwest and the commitment made to the Pacific Southwest in negotiations relative to the intertie will require power from Dworshak project by June 1972 in addition to other new scheduled resources. Dworshak project, in addition to producing power at the site, will be used to regulate flows to firm-up power at the projects downstream from the mouth of the Clearwater River. The storage space wiU also be used to control flood flows on the Clearwater River downstream from the dam to Lewiston, Idaho, and also as a imit in the Columbia system it wUl reduce flood flows in the Columbia River below the mouth of the Snake River. The navigation benefits wUl be derived from improved conditions for log transport on the pool and by making it possible to raft logs throughout the year rather than only during flood flows. In addition, the project will provide recreational opportunities. Breakdo-wn of annual benefits: Amount Power $15, 125,000 Flood control 822, 000 Navigation, recreation 641, 000 Total 16, 588, 000 427 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $45,500,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $1, 440, 000 Continue relocations of county and State roads 3, 372, 000 Continue reservoir clearing 1, 134, 000 Continue construction on fish hatchery 4, 666, 000 Continue construction of fish hatchery equipment 572, 000 Continue construction of cofferdam, main dam, spillway and outlets, log facilities, diversion facilities part II, and closure of tunnel 29, 756, 000 Continue acquisition of turbines 1, 000, 000 Initiate acquisition of generators and powerplant equipment 760, 000 Engineering and design 800, 000 Supervision and administration 2, 000, 000 Total 45,500,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are the minimum required to meet scheduled power-on-line and completion dates. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to powder presently estimated at $224,666,- 000 are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimate.— The current estimate of $249 million is an increase of $6 million over the latest estimate ($243 million) submitted to Con- gress. This change includes increases of $2,700,000 for higher price levels; $1,390,- 000 for lands and damages primarily due to overruns on land acquisitions; a net increase of $3,542,000 for fish hatchery and facilities due to recent bid experience and the inclusion of operations and maintenance costs of the fish hatchery during project construction; and $2,300,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a reanalysis of requirements. These increases are partially offset by a reduction of $2,807,000 in the powerplant due to recent bidding experience on other projects; $544,000 in reservoir, principally due to receipt of a favorable bid and a net reduction of $581,000 in other feature items. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1958 AND 1969 [In thousands of dollars] Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Lands and damages Transfer of cost or property Relocations. Transfer of cost or property Reservoir. Dam Fish and wildlife facilities Powerplant Roads Recreation f acil ities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Transfer of cost or property Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design. Transfer of cost or property Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineer funds only). Undelivered orders Total obligations. Method of financing: Corps of Engineers funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obli- gation... Appropriation required 6,730 (-2,500). 17,010 (-240). 6,710 146,020 16,770 21,730 3,885 1,900 1,590 4,242 1,320 293 369 2,115 12,200 12.340 249. 000 249, 000 'mooo" 1,987 14,487 795 189 1,852 585 . 347 (-2). 118 9,253 (7). 1,764 35.912 6,851 42, 763 1,164 18,367 4,176 758 190 174 185 1,250 1,539 29, 492 534 30, 026 42, 763 296 43, 059 43,061 30, 026 176 30, 202 30, 200 2 30, 202 1,120 (-1,000) 3,745 1,134 29, 204 5,768 1,982 17 20 800 2,000 45, 792 180 45,972 45,972 -472 45, 500 48 (-1,500) 12,603 (-240) 2,425 83,962 6,031 18,801 1,826 1,315 1.067 (2) 1,792 897 (-7> 7,037 137,804 -7.565 130. 239 130.239 'i36,"23r 45, 500 130,239 428 INCREASE IX COST ESTIMATE Mr, Morris. Last year tliere was a cost increase of $12 million on this project and now there is another net cost increase of $6 million. This includes an increase of $o,542,000 for fish and wildlife facilities, mak- in.o; a total estimated cost for these fish and wildlife facilities of $16,- TfO.OOO. Why is this cost increase essential ? FISH AND WILDLIFE FACILITIES General Yates. As you know, sir, in this case we have a considerable problem in miti2:ating adv^erse etfects on fish and wildlife caused by this reservoir. A major portion of the work to be done to mitigate the effects on the steelhead trout runs in the North Fork of the Clearwater is the provision of a hatchery. The hatchery accounts for the bulk of the increase in costs for two reasons. No. 1, we are addins: nearly $2 million not previously included in the estimate for operation of this hatchery for slio-htly over 3 years prior to completion of the dam, in order to establish the runs and prev^ent trappmg of the fish in the reser^'oir. No. 2, the cost of the hatchery itself has increavsed durinc; this past year as a result of engineering changes in coordination with the Fish and AVildlife Service, who will operate it. It is a pioneering effort. It will be the largest, most modern steel- head trout hatchery that has ever been built, and there has been a lot of pioneering in the engineering of it. It is designed to handle 12,000 spawners and produce several million juvenile fish annually, which is estimated to be the traffic that is interrupted by this reservoir. Mr. Morris. General, since this is somewhat of a research experi- ment, has the Bureau of Sport Fisheries volimteered to help pay for the hatchery? General Yates. Not to my knowledge, sir. They consider that the adequate mitigation of adverse effects of the structure on fish is the responsibility of the project. They are participating with us in a general research program on anadromous fish, but not with regard to this particular facility. Mr. Morris. Will you provide for the record a detailed breakdown of the $16,770,000? General Yates. We will be glad to. (The information follows:) Breakdown of fish and wildlife facilities, DicorshaJc Rc-ayment of iST.'O.OOO is the prineii>al part of the plan for mitigation of fish losses caused by the construction of the Lihby project. This amount was developed by the Montana Fish and Game Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an equivalent co.st for stocking the project affected waters as replac-ement of anticii>ated fish losses. The estimate is based upon the initial cost of constructing a hatchery ($300,000) and the capitalized value of annual oi>eration and maintenance costs ($23,000 annual cost) and replacement costs. This proposal, as well as other alternatives, are under consideration in the Ofiiee. Chief of Engineers. TEMPORARY COXSTRI^CTIOX FACILITIES Mr. Morris. Please outline and indicate the cost of the temporary piT)ject facilities which are being constructed, including scliool sup- poit facilities. General Yates. The total of tlie temporary project facilities I do not have lisited here, sir, but in general the .school facilities are one of the major items. Mr. Morris. Will you furnish those for the record ? General Yates. T will be glad to furnish that for the record, sir. (Tlie infonnation follows :) Cost of construction facilities, Lib'by Reservoir Item Amount 1st Stage cofferdam $1,700,000 2d stage cofferdam 3,000,000 Dewatering low blocks 600.000 River diversion excavation 1, 200, 000 Development of construction area and mi.scellaneous items .300,000 Temporary railroad relocation 800,000 Construction bridge at damsite 1,000.000 Detour at Barron Creek, forest development unit 1 ITS. 000 Residency facility 100. 000 Temporary mobile homes .542,000 Temporary school facilities 3,400.000 Tot ill, construction facilities 12,910,000 437 KELLY FLATS AIRFIELD, LIBBY, MONT. Mr. Morris. Could ^'•ou tell me the status of the airport construc- tion at Kelly Flats? General Yates. Yes, sir. As 3'ou know, we have been authorized to use project funds to par- ticipate with FAA and the local people to build an airport in the vicinity of Libby. Mr. JNIoRRis. We remember that from last year. General Yates. Agreements liave finally been reached as of this week. We haA-e g-one out for bids ; the bids have been opened. We have satisfactory bids and we are right noAv awaiting funding assurances from the local sponsors and the FAA. There appeared to have been, when I left my office, a problem of legal authority with regard to the right of the city and county to provide the money without submitting the matter to the voters. There was a meeting scheduled yesterday, I believe, on this subject. We hope it is resolved. We are on the verge of awarding the contract, but we have this little problem of funding assurances with the city and county. cost estimate KELLY FLATS AIRFIELD Mr. Morris. Is the cost within the estimate which you presented to the committee last year? I am speaking only for the Corps' portion now. General Yates. I do not recall the exact dollars I mentioned last year, sir. Mr. Morris. You can furnish that for the record. General Yates, I will say there is an upper limit for the Federal Corps of Engineers participation and we are within that. Mr. Morris. We want to be sure it is still within the original esti- mate. General Yates. We will check it. (The information follows :) Cost of Kelly Flats Airfield, Libby Reservoir There has been no increase in the estimated cost of $132,300 for Corps of Engineers participation in construction of the Kelly Flats Airfield. COST INCREASE LIBBY RESERVOIR Mr. Morris. There is a net increase in cost of $8 million in the project since last year. Could you please outline the major changes in the cost estimates ? General Yates. There have been several changes but, briefly, the price increase on remaining work is $9 million. So you can say over- all it is a price-level increase. There have been internal changes^ which balance. Mr. Morris. Will you elaborate on that for the record ? General Yates. Yes, sir. ( The information follows :) 438 LIBBY RESERVOIR— ITEMIZATION OF COST CHANGES FROM LAST YEAR [In thousands of dollars] Last esti- Feature mate to Current Total Congress estimate change Amount of change Other Price level In- De- crease crease Explanation Engineering and design.. $15,500 $16,310 +$810 Supervision and admin- istration. Lands and damages 18,210 5,755 17,700 6,760 -510 +1,005 Relocations 180,099 177,020 -3,079 Reservoir 16,330 17,930 +1,600 Dam 79,716 87,920 +8,204 Fish and wildlife. Powerplant Roads Buildings, grounds, and utilities. Permanent operating equipment 2,425 30,516 629 2,270 550 2,510 30,235 645 2,390 580 +85 -281 +16 +120 +30 $810 Reanalysisof requirements includ- ing Federal salary increases of July 1966 and professional em- ployees' pay raise of February 1967, additional design for school support and addition for preliminary scoping and siting studies for reregulating dam. $510 Reanalysis of requirements based on construction progress to date. 1,005 For additional land for re- regulating dam without power, to reregulate fluctuat- ing discharges to result from peaking operations of additional units. $4,289 3,352 10,720 (+$3, 352) Design refinements on USFS development roads and Montana State highway, between Jennings and damsite. (-$10,609) Refinement of design and reduction in contingencies based on ■ t construction progress to date on 7-mile Great Northern Ry. tunnel. (—$111) Favorable bids for roads, Little Wolf Creek to Ariana Creek. 820 780 (+$405) Additional reservoir clearing based on revision in plan for reservoir operation. (+$375) Provision for reservoir sweeping to remove floatable debris not disposed of during clearing. 3,254 4,950 Refinement in design for down- stream channel bridge, $1,200; visitors gallery and facilities, $950; power intake works, $1,070; foundation prepara- tion $1,000; and miscellaneous design refinements, $730. 85 396 3,174 3,851 (+$3,174) Addition of super- structure for units 5 through 8 and refinements in power- house design. (—$3,851) Revision in estimate for turbines and generators and other powerhouse equip- ment based on recent bidding experience. 16 120 30 Total 352,000 360,000 +8,000 9,010 14,071 15,081 FISCAL YEAR 19 70 REQUIREMENT Mr. Morris. Wliat do you estimate will be the appropriation required on this project for the next fiscal year ? General Yates. According to our present construction schedule our estimate for fiscal year 1970 will be $72 million, sir. 439 Mr. Morris. $72 million ? General Yates. Yes, sir. JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, OREGON AND WASHINGTON Mr. Morris. $26.3 million is requested to continue construction of the John Day lock and dam in Oregon and Washington. (The justification follows :) John Day Lock and Dam, Oregon and Washington (Continuing) Location. — On the Columbia River at the head of the Dalles Dam pool, river mile 215.6, about 100 miles east of Portland, Oreg. Authorization. — 1950 and 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 4.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated percent of Amount estimated Federal requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement (Corps of Engineers). Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (initial, Corps of Engineers) Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement (power) Total estimated project cost (initial) Total estimated project cost of ultimate installation Allocations through June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $448,000,000 335,494,000 112,506,000 332,500 335,494,000 448,332,500 472,332,500 358,420,000 37,700,000 396, 120, 000 88 26, 300, 000 94 25,580,000 PHYSICAL D.^TA Dam: Type: Concrete gravity with north abutment of earth and rock. Height: 166 feet (above streambed). Length: 5,900 feet (including gravity-type nonoverflow sections, a power- house, a spillway dam, a lock, and earth and rock embankment) . Spillway : Type: Gate controlled with stilling basin. Capacity (maximum pool) : 2,250,000 cubic feet per second. Gates: 20, 50 foot by 59 foot tainter. Relocations: Roads: 95 miles, $47,075,000. U.S. highways: 36 miles, $35,040,000. Washington State highways: 40 miles, $10,300,000. Raib-oads: 142 miles, $106,730,000. Spokane, Portland, and Seattle: 80 miles, $46,150,000. Union Pacific: 62 miles, $60,580,000. Cemeteries, utilities, and structures: $7,955,000. Town of Arlington, Oreg. (partial) : $3,594,000. Town of Boardman, Oreg.: $2,117,000. Town of Umatilla, Oreg. (partial) : $588,000. 440 Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage at elevation 268 2, 640, 000 Joint use storage for flood control and power (elevation 268-257) _ 500, 000 Powerhead, navigation, and incidental recreation (below eleva- tion 257) 2, 140, 000 Power installation: Ultimate: 20 units at 135,000 kilowatts; 2,700,000 kilowatts. Initial: 16 units at 135,000 kilowatts; 2,160,000 kilowatts. Normal average head: 105 feet. Lock: Type: Single lift. Size: 86 feet by 675 feet. Maximum lift: 113 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 48,141. Type: Predominantly grazing and agricultural. Improvements: Scattered farms and ranches. RAILROAD RELOCATIONS COSTS ^Ir. ^Morris. Railroad reallocations on this project are now estimated to cost $106,730,000 for 142 miles of railroad track. The General Ac- connting- Office has indicated that based on a preliminary examination, j^art of the cost increase is attributable to items provided the railroads at Government expense which appear to be betterment, the cost of wliicli should have been borne by the railroads. Do you ha\'e any comment on that ? General Yates. We have not received a copy of any report from the General Accounting Office. However, we have had several discussions at our office and in the Office, Chief of Engineers, with these people. They are continuing their investigation of relocation activities I know in our area. I have not yet seen their report. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project 84 June 1972. Land acquisition for reservoir, including additional lands for water- 98 June 1968. fowl management and relocations. Relocations of roads, railroads, and structures 94 Do Dam 93 April 1968. Lock... _.,. 92 May 1968. Fisfi facilities (except hatchery)... 94 Do. Powerplant _ 73 June 1972. Effective flood control storage May 1968. Power on the line: Units 1, 2, and 3 _ June 1968. Unit 16. November 1971. JUSTIFICATION This project is an essential unit in the authorized slack-wator navigation and hydroelectric development of the lower 360 miles of Columbia River and the lower 140 miles of Snake River. The latest load-resource studies prepared by the Bonneville Power Administra- tion indicate that 7 units will be needed at John Dav in addition to all other 441 Tesourcps prosontly imder construction and scheduled to he in service in order to meet the 196S-69 load under critical hydro conditions; 4 additional units to meet the 1969-70 load; and the remaining 5 units to meet the 1970-71 and 1971-72 loads. Construction of this project will complete the slack-water development of the Columbia River portion of the Columbia-Snake navigation system by providing slack water extending from the head of the Dalles project pool to tailwater of the McNary project, a distance of approximately 77 miles. Waterway commerce passing the John Day site in 1966 totaled approximately 1,688,000 tou.s comprised mainly of petroleum products, grain, and fertilizer. The commerce past McNary increased from 71.5,000 to 1,447,000 tons in the period from 195.') to 1966. Com- merce moving on the .John Day pool will increase progressively as the slack-werat •development is extended and as the regional economy expands to an estimated average annual traffic of 7,100,000 tons at a transportation saving of $3,776,000 annually. The John Day Reservoir will be a part of the comprehensive system of reservoirs for the regulation of floods on the lower Columbia River. Storage space of 500,000 acre-feet provided by the reservoir will be effective in reducing downstream flood damages. Because of its downstream location, it will afford final control for late changes in predicted flows. In addition to the above, irrigation benefits will be realized due to a 55- to 75- foot reduction in pumping lift to 150,000 acres of arid irrigable lands and improve- ments. The reservoir will also provide incidental recreational benefits. Annual benefits include: Power $69, 656, 000 Navigation 3, 776, 000 Flood control and irrigation 858, 000 Recreation 1, 130, 000 Total 7.5, 420, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $26,300,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands for reservoir, including lands for waterfowl management $109, 000 ■Continue relocation of roads, railroads, and structures 3, 600, 000 Continue construction of dam, lock, and fish facilities 1, 900, 000 Continue construction of powerplant 17, 250, 000 Continue construction of miscellaneous project facilities 1, 400, 000 Engineering and design 441, 000 Supervision and administration 1, 600, 000 Total 26,300,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are the minimum required to meet scheduled power-on-line and completion dates. Non-Federal costs. — -Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $335,494,- 000 are reimbursable. ^itatus of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $448 million is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. Changes in feature cost include increases of $1,632,000 for higher price levels; $2,536,000 in relocation, and $770,000 in fish facilities due to construction overruns; and $500,000 in engineering and design based on a reanalysis of requirements. These increases were offset by reduction of $1,089,000 in reservoir due to favorable bidding; a decrease of $2,900,000 in the powerplant because of construction savings; a reduction of $1 million in supervision and administration due to a reanalysis of requirements and a net decrease of $449,000 in other feature items. 442 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $12,292,000 $11,779,000 $404,000 $109,000 Transfer of cost or property (-127,000) (-57,000) (-35,000) (-35,000) Relocations 161,760,000 150,073,000 3,976,000 3,816,000 $3,895,000 Transfer of cost or property (-17,000) (-44,000) (10,000) (17,000) Reservoir 1,630,000 419,000 740,000 83,000 388,000 Dam 29,465,000 21,577,000 4,347,000 3,541,000 Lock 21,500,000 17,880,000 2,593,000 1,027,000 Fish facilities 19,880,000 11,919,000 559,000 1,364,000 6.038,000 Powerplant- 150,370,000 93,594,000 21,561,000 23,684,000 11,531,000 Transfer of cost or property (4) (—4) Roads and railroads 873,000 634,000 166,000 73,000 Channels 1,230,000 807,000 423,000 Recreation facilities 2,980,000 539,000 616,000 1,302,000 523,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities __ 920,000 469,000 66,000 108,000 277,000 Permanent operating equipment 400,000 188,000 115,000 32,000 65,000 Engineering and design 23,200,000 21,586,000 720,000 444,000 450,000 Transfer of tcost or property (17) (-10) (-7) Supervision and administration 21,500,000 16,283,000 1,627,000 1,600,000 1,990,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers fundsonly) 448,000,000 347,747,000 37,490,000 37,183,000 25.580,000 Undistributed costs 9,014,000 1,110,000 -10,124,000 Transfer of cost or property... —48 48 Total project cost (Corps of Engineers fundsonly).. 448,000,000 356,761,000 38,600,000 27,059,000 25.580,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 448,000,000 356,761,000 38,600,000 27,059,000 25.580,000 Undelivered orders 1,486,000 -727,000 -759.000 Total obligations 358,247,000 37,873,000 26,300,000 25,580,000 Method of financing Corps of Engineers funds: Allocations. 358,420,000 37,700,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year _ _ 173,000 _ Total funds available for obligation 37,873,900 _ Appropriations required 26,300,000 25,580,000 Mr. Morris. The committee would like for you to follow up on this, and if you receive the General Accounting Office report before the record is printed, please submit your comments for the record. General Yates. All right, sir. BETTERMENT INCLUDED IN RAILROAD RELOCATIONS Mr. Morris. Do you know to what extent betterment has been in- cluded in the railroad relocation ? General Yates. Aside from betterments for wliich the railroad has been required to reimburse us, there are none in our judgment, because basically, on relocating railroads, we relocate tliem witli an effort to provide only the same degree of serviceability as existed previously. This is the policy we have been following with regard to our railroad relocations. I am aware that the General Accounting Office is trying to better define the word "serviceability" with regard to whether or not a change under certain circumstances is a betterment. We do not liave any known betterments for wliich the Federal Government lias paid. 443 FISH FACILITIES — JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM ;Mr. Morris. The cost of fish facilities on this project are now esti- mated to be $19,878,000, an increase of $770,000 since last year. Briefly, what do these facilities consist of and why the increase in costs ? General Yates. These facilities consist of three elements basically : a fish ladder and accessory facilities on the north shore; a fish ladder on the south shore with the associated facilities, including a collection facility in the powerhouse area ; and, provision for a hatchery to miti- gate for the loss of spawning ground. All of these three elements were recognized in the authorizing document. COST INCREASE FISH FACILITIES The cost increase under fish facilities was about a million dollars this year, of which one-third is price level and the other is an overrun on a going construction contract on which more reinforcing steel than was originally estimated was actually required. Mr. Morris. The overrun was caused by the design of the project ? General Yates. No, sir; in many of these projects we estimate the poimds of reinforcing steel based upon a general design of how the steel will be placed. These are not run out to the last detail because the effort is not worth the cost. In some cases we overrun and other times underrun on reinforcing steel. We did overrun on this contract. Mr. Morris. The committee would like for you to provide for the rec- ord a detailed breakdown of the cost estimate of the fish facilities. General Yates. Yes, sir. (The information follows :) Cost of fish facilities, John Day lock and dam North shore fish ladder, including attraction water supply facilities and pumps $4, 650, 000 South shore fish ladder, including attraction water supply facilities and powerhouse collection system 7, 850, 000 Fish Hatchery : Land acquisition 100, 000 Fish production facilities 4, 985, 000 Buildings 620, 000 Other facilities (site preparation domestic waterwell and water storage, fencing, floodlights) 510,000 Equipment including fish transport truck 495,000 Total, fish hatchery 6, 710, 000 Construction facilities, including operation and maintenance during construction 670, 000 Total 19, 880, 000 444 LOST CREEK RESERVOIR, OREG. Mr. Morris. $2,000,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the- Lost Creek Reservoir in Oregon. (The justification follows :) Lost Creek Reservoir, Oreg. (Continuing) Location. — On the upper Rogue River about 26 miles northeasterly from: IMedford, Oreg. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement $87,100,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 19,925,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 67,175,000 Estimated non-Federal cost. - -- 19,925,000 Reimbursement: Power . _ - - 14,741,000 Water supply - 3,802,000 Irrigation 1,382,000 Total estimated project cost_. 87,100,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 - 1,455,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 1,950,000 Allocations to date - - 3,405,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 2,000,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969- 81,695,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Typ(>: Earth and rockfiU. Height: 327 feet (above stream bed). Length: 3,750 feet (including spillway). Spillwav : Type: Gated. Capacity: (Maximum pool) 158,000 c.f.s. Gates: 3 — 45 feet bj^ 51 feet tainter. Relocations : County road: 9 miles ($2,800,000). Oregon State highway: 7 miles ($8,944,000). Power and telephone lines: 31 miles ($671,000). Lands and damages: Total acreage required: 7,810 acres. Land use: Farniland: 1,467 acres. Buildings and special use sites: 795 acres. Timberland (Government owned) : 2,480 acres. Timberland (private) : 3,068 acres. Reservoir capacitv: Total storage at elevation 1,872 465,000 Regulation: Flood control (elevation 1,872-1,812) 180,000 Power — Multiple conservation use (elevation 1,872-1,751) 315,000 Power Installation : Generators: 2 units at 24,500 kw, 49,000 kw. Head: 285 feet (average). 445 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project 3 June 1975. Land acquisition.. 22 June 1972. Relocate roads... 1 Do. Reservoir clearing. June 1973. Dam and appurtenances June 1974. Recreation facilities... June 1975. Powerhouse: Unit No. 1 April 1974. Unit No. 2... June 1974. Effective flood control October 1973. JUSTIFICATION Lost Creek Reservoir is the principal unit of the comprehensive development of the Rogue River Basin. Lost and Elk Creek Reservoirs are to be operated as an integral unit to realize benefits from all authorized functions. Lost Creek Reservoir is considered to be the key project of the two-iuiit system. The Lost Creek Reser- voir would control about 674 square miles of stream runoff. A total of 3L5,000 acre-feet of usable storage at this project would be utilized for flood control, fishery enhancement, irrigation, hydroelectric power generation, recreation, municipal water supply and water quality control. Lost Creek and Elk Creek, together, would provide water for irrigation of a total of about 25,400 acres of land, of which 19,000 would be new lands; provide increased flows of adequate quantity and quality for fish enhancement; provide 20,000 acre-feet of stored water for future water supply; and reduce the peaks of floods. During the flood of De- cember 1964, the largest in recent years, damages to the area downstream of Lost Creek Reservoir amounted to $13,161,000 of which $6,920,000 would have been prevented by Lost Creek Reservoir. The peak stage of a flood of the magnitude of the 1964 flood would be reduced about 6.7 feet at Grants Pass. Annual benefits creditable to Lost Creek Reservoir amount to $5,489,000 and include the following: Flood control $2, 384, 000 Power 1, 064, 000 Water supply 210, 000 Fish and wildlife enhancement 846, 000 Recreation 737, 000 Other benefits: (Irrigation, water quality control, etc.) 248, 000 Total 5, 489, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2 million will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land and rights-of-way $805, 000 Continue road relocation 437, 000 Engineering and design 678, 000 Supervision and administration 80, 000 Total 2, 000,000 Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, irrigation, and water supplv, presently estimated at $14,741,000, $1,382,000, and $3,802,000, respectively, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — Responsibility for repayment of irrigation and power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. The Bureau of Reclamation has completed a feasibilitj' study for irrigation of the Medford Division from Lost Creek and Elk Creek Reservoirs and will deter- mine repayment requirements. Pursuant to Public Law 89-689 approved October 15, 1966, the project will not be operated for irrigation purposes until such time as the Secretary of Interior makes the necessary arrangements with non-Federal interests to recover the costs, in accordance with Federal Reclamation law, which are allocated to the irrigation purpose. Assurances for municipal and industrial water supply have been obtained from six communities in the valley. 446 Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $87,100,000 is an increase of $3,800,000 over the latest estimate submitted to Congress. The increase is due to price level changes. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $4,324,000 $70,100 $1,128,500 $435,000 $2,690,400 Relocations 12,618,000 155,400 575,000 11,887.600 Reservoirs 1,769,000 5,000 5,000 1,759,000 Dam 44,140,000 44,140,000 Fish facilities -. 5,665,000 5,665,000 Powerplant -.- 5,577,000 5,577,000 Roads and bridges 194,500 194,500 Levees 390,000 390,000 Recreation facilities 2,278,500 2,278,500 Bank stabilization... 371,000 371,000 Buildlngs.grounds, and utilities 230,000 8,400 221,600 Permanent operating equipment 621,000 1,200 619,800 Engineering and design. 4,981,000 1,045,100 584,000 678,000 2,673,900 Supervision and administration 3,941,000 64,300 72,000 80,000 3,724,700 Total applied costs(Federal funds only).. 87,100,000 1,179,500 1,954,500 1,773,000 82,193,000 Undistributed costs 271,000 227.000 -498,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 87,100,000 1,179,500 2,225,500 2,000,000 81,695,000 Pending adjustments (none). Total cost (Federal funds only) 87,100,000 1,179,500 2,225,500 2,000,000 81,695,000 Undelivered orders 44,000 -44,000 Total obligations. 1,223,500 2,181,500 2,000,000 81,695,000 Federal funds, method fo fmancing: Allocations 1,455,000 1,950,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. - - — 231,500 Total funds available for obligation 2,181,500 Appropriations required 2,000,000 81,695,000 LAND ACQUISITION Mr. Morris. On page 165 it is indicated that 2,480 acres of the land to be utilized involves Government-owned timberland. Is any cost involved in acquiring this land ? General Yates. This is land that has been held for many years by the Bureau of Land Management. The land will be transferred. There is a possibility of cost to the project because this is a unique tyj>e of land. This is so-called revested Oregon and California railroad grant land. Depending upon how the timber is harvested in connection with acquisition of this land, there is a possibility of the project being charged for some of the timber. We will try to get the timber harvested by the Bureau of Land Man- agement and the funds distributed in their normal way before we must occupy the land. But there is no cost in transfer of the land from the Bureau to us. TIMBER HARVEST COSTS Mr. Morris. Do you have anything in your cost estimate for paving for this? General Yates. We have a contingency item in the amount of about $860,000, which is the value of timber on that land, that we are carry- ing in our estimate until we are sure whether or not we will have to compensate the Bureau for the value of timber not harvested so that they can in turn pay the counties their percentage share. 447 COORDINATION WITH BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Mr. Morris. The committee hopes that you will make every effort to encourage the Bureau as much as you can to make sure that this timber is luirvested in time. We will also alert the Interior sulx;ommittee to encourage the Bureau to cooperate in this matter. We do not want to have to come up and pay this bill, and I am sure you do not want to either. There certainly would not be any need of it if the proper coordina- tion is obtained. General Yates. We have generally been very successful with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in getting timber assets removed from lands that we need in a timely fashion. So I feel sure this will be done here also. We have been doing it regularly. cost of private timberland Mr. Morris. Wliat cost is involved in acquiring the 3,068 acres of private timberland ? General Yates. I will furnish the cost on that item for the record. I do not have it broken out, sir. Mr. Morris. Will you also furnish whether or not the land cost in- cludes the timber and what the plans are for its sale. General Yates. Yes, sir. We will furnish that detail for the record. ( The information follows : ) Cost of Private Timberland, Lost Creek RtrSERVoiR The present estimated cost of 3,068 acres of private timberland is $1,907,000. This estimate is based on the private timberlands needed for the project, and includes the timber presently on the land. At the time of negotiations with ovpners they may desire, and v^'ould be encouraged, to remove all or a portion of the timber that the Government would be required to remove ; i.e., timber standing in the way of construction or in the reservoir flowage. This would result in a reduced cost to the Government. There is no way at the present time to be certain that this can be accomplished ; therefore, the estimated cost of lands with timber is now included in the project cost estimate. Mr. Morris. If the corps gets the land before the timber is harvested and pays for it, I hope the corps will try to make sure the timber is sold before it is made a part of the project. General Yates. Yes, sir. As a general practice we do this. The land must be cleared in any event if it is in the reservoir area, and we tiy to buy it after the timber has been harvested. If we buy the land prior to harvest, we sell the timber during our clearing operations, if it is marketable. If it is not in the reservoir area, we try to acquire it with the timber on it. If it is going to contribute to the utility of our region, we do not want to strip it. We try to save every dollar we can in these acquisitions. Mr. Morris. I am assuming this is going to be part of the reservoir area. General Yates. A portion of it is, I am sure, sir. 91-459— 68— pt. 1 29 448 m'nARY lock and DA]M, OREGON AND WASHINGTON Mr. Morris. $1 million is budgeted to continue construction of tlie McNary lock and dam in Oregon. (The justification follows :) ]\IcNary Lock and Dam, Oregon and Washington (Continuing) Location. — On the Columbia River, 292 miles above the mouth, 34 miles below the mouth of the Snake River, 2}^ miles upstream from the town of Umatilla, Oreg. Authorization. — 1945 River and Harbor Act and Public Law 546, 82d Congress. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement (Corps of Engineers).. ' $295, 500, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement... —240, 138,000 Estimated Federal cost (Corps ot Engineers) 55,362,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard).... 63,000 Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement (power) 240,138,000 Total, estimated project cost 295, 563, 000 Total, estimated project cost for ultimate power installation.. 382, 763, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 285,865,000 97 Allocation for 1968.. Allocation to date.. 285,865,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969.. 1,000, 000 97 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 8,635,000 1 McNary lock and dam project was completed in 1961 except for alterations to 2 railroad bridges. Total cost of the project to that date was $285,700,000. Appropriations required for fiscal year 1969 and after fiscal year 1969 are for alterations of the Northern Pacific and Union Pacihc bridges for navigation pursuant to Public Law 546, 82d Cong. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Concrete gravity with earth and rockfill abutments. Height: 183 feet. Length: 7,300 feet. Reservoir capacity : Acre-feet Pondage (5 feet drawdown) 185, 000 Dead Storage (below elevation 335) 1, 160, 000 Total Storage 1, 345, 000 Spillway : Type: Gate controlled, concrete ogee weir with stilling basin. Capacity: (Maximum pool) 2,200,000 cubic feet per second. Relocations: Railroads: (Completed) 80 miles $28,089,000. Highways: (Completed) 72 miles $7,145,000. Utilities, 83 miles, and cemeteries, 200 graves (completed) $1,696,000. Union Pacific Railroad Bridge $5,135,000. Northern Pacific Railroad (Snake River) Bridge $4,122,000. Powerhouse installation : Ultimate: 20 units at 70,000 kUowatts; 1,400,000 kilowatts. Present Installation: 14 units at 70,000 kilowatts; 980,000 kilowatts. Design Head: 80 feet. Navigation lock: Tvpe: Single lift. Size: 86 feet by 675 feet. Lift: (Maximum) 92 feet. Pumping plants: 15 pumping plants with total design capacity of 256,000 gallons per minute. Levees : Average Height: 15 feet. Length: 19.2 miles. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project except alterations of Union Pacific RR. and Nortfiern 100 June 1961. Pacific RR. bridges. Union Pacific RR. bridge (Columbia River, mile 323.4) June 1971. (Northern Pacific RR. bridge(Snake River, mile 1.5) June 1970. JUSTIFICATION McNary Lock and Dam, a navigation and power project, provides 67 miles of slackwater navigation on Columbia River and Lower Snake River and 980,000 kilowatts of power-generating capacity and other multiple-purpose uses. The McNary pool and lock has been estimated to serve the movement of 3,600,000 tons of commerce annually, principally in petroleum, agricultural, mineral and lumber products, and is an essential unit in the navigation development of which the constructed Bonneville Dam and the authorized slackwater development on the Lower Snake River are elements. A restudy of the anticipated water-borne commerce of the Columbia and Snake Rivers above the Bonneville pool indicates that previous estimates have been very conservative. Modification of two bridges crossing McNary project pool is necessary as a result of the narrow span openings. Past accidents and near misses in connection with passage through the two swing spans have shown clearly that the hori- zontal clearance is inadequate and that danger to life and property and threat of fire or explosion could result in damage to bridges and tows. River commerce moving through the two bridges prior to McNary pool was limited to one or two passages per week. Development of additional terminals at Pasco, Kennewick, and on the Snake River arm of McNary pool above the bridges, has resulted in several passages daily which, when winds are moderately high (13 to 18 miles per hour) necessitate delays to passage of multiple tows and most single-barge units. Modifications to the two bridges will eliminate delays and interruptions to river traffic caused by inadequate horizontal clearances. Relocation of Northern Pacific Railway Co.'s lines as part of Lower Monu- mental lock and dam project has resulted in condemnation action on Snake River Branch of the railway. Under the conditions of this condemnation, Northern Pacific Railway is now and will continue to reroute its traffic over Union Pacific Railroad lines and hence over Northern Pacific Railway Snake River bridge No. 3 to Pasco, Wash. This bridge must be upgraded to load-bearing capacity of Cooper E-60 loading. Modification of this same bridge is required under the McNary project to provide wider clearance for navigation. This work can be accomplished more efficiently if it is done concurrently with the upgrading and it would also keep the out-of-service time to a minimum. Accomplishment of the entire modification at one time would result in a saving to the Government of approximately $1,200,000. Breakdown of annual benefits: Amount Power $28, 798, 000 Navigation 2, 324,000 Irrigation 306, 000 Recreation 450, 000 Total 31,879, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1 million will be applied to — Initiate alteration of a railroad bridge $856, 000 Engineering and design 119, 000 Supervision and administration 25, 000 Total 1, 000, 000 The requested amount is required to continue engineering and design of altera- tions to Union Pacific Railroad Columbia River Bridge and Northern Pacific Railway Snake River Bridge, and to initiate alteration of the latter. Non-Fedeial costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $240,138,000, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of the Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 450 Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $295,500,000 is an increase of $1,685,000 over the latest estimate ($293,815,000, July 1960 base) submitted to Congress. The increase is due to higher price levels on the alterations to the Union Pacific Railroad and Noithern Pacific Railroad bridges. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages. $10,505,000 $10,505,000 _ Relocations ..- ---- 46.187,000 36,930,000 $856,000 $8,401,000 Reservoir . 650,000 650,000 Dam - 28,606,000 28,606,000 Lock 17,781,000 17,781,000 _ _ ..-. fish facilities ..- 24,177,000 24,177,000 Powerplant - -- 126,476,000 126,476,000 _._ Roads and railroads.. 547,000 547,000 ..._ _ Levees 8,030.000 8,030,000 ._ Pumping plants 1,924,000 1,924,000 _.. Recreation facilities 125,000 125,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 1,789,000 1,789,000 Permanent operating equipment 538,000 538,000 Engineering and design 10,953,000 10,592,000 $109,000 144,000 13,000 Supervision and administration 16,356,000 16,109,000 1,000 25,000 221,000 Total applied cost 294,649,000 234,879,000 110,000 1,025,000 8,635,000 Transfer of cost or property, other 812,000 812,000 Funds returned to U.S. Treasury 39,000 39,000 Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds) 295,500,000 285,730,000 83,000 1,052,000 8,635,000 Undelivered orders 52,000 -52,000 . Total obligations. 295,500,000 285,730,000 135,000 1,000,000 8,635,000 Method of financing: Corps of Engineers funds: Allocations 285,865,000 .' Unobligated carryover from prior year 135,000 Total funds available for obli- gation 135,000 Appropriation required 1,000,000 8,635,000 'r. Morris. On page 172 it is indicated that relocations of utilities 200 o-i-aves M'ill cost $1,696,000 including utilities. What was in- '■'Mr, and volved in these relocations ? General Yates. Eighty-three miles of utilities are included in that estimate. The 200 graves, I have checked back, actually cost $25,000 to move. The remaining cost is in the utilities that were affected. MODIFICATION OF TWO RAILROAD BRIIXJES Mr. Morris. Explain the modification which is now believed nec- essary to the two bridges crossing the project and indicate the increased cost involved. General Yates. There are two bridges, as is sliown on the map, that are affected, and there are two types of modifications involved. The original project contemplated alteration of these two bridges for navigation purposes. In addition, because of condemnation of a 451 portion of one railroad at the Lower Monumental project on the Snake River, this railroad is rerouted over one of these bridges and the bridge is being concurrently upgraded in load-bearing capacity as a necessary element of this acquisition to provide an alternate route. So we actually have two bridges being modified for navigation clear- ances with one being upgraded in load limit, part of which are beiiig charged to the McNary project and part to Lower Monumental, with a savings for concurrent work being reflected in both. So the charges against the McXary project are basically modifica- tions for navigation which were initially authorized but have not been completed up to this time. LITTLE GOOSE AXD LOWER GRANITE LOCKS AND DAMS, WASHINGTON Mr. Morris. We will include justifications covering additional funds proposed to continue construction of the Little Goose Lock and Dam and the Lower Granite Lock and Dam in connection with the Snake River development. Little Goose Lock and Dam, Snake River, Wash. (Continuing) Location. — On the Snake River at the head of the Lower Monumental Pool, river mile 70.3, about 70 miles northeast of Pasco, Wash. Authorization. — 1945 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio.- — 2.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement (Corps of Engineers)-- $148,000,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement - —102,623,000 Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) 45^3771000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) -- - 87^000 ,_ Estimated non-Federal cost -.- _.- _ 102,623!000 Reimbursement: Power. _ _ _ 102' 623^000 .... \ Total estimated project cost ' - 148i087[000 Total estimated project cost for ultimate power installation ' - 169^0871000 Allocations to June 30, 1967. - 74,480,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 - _ 34'200[000 Allocation to date 108i680]000 73 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 24,000,000 90 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 -. 15,320,000 'Excludes an estimated $680,000 for deferred construction of relocated railroads after fiscal year 1971. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Concrete gravity with earth and rockfill embankments. Height: 160 feet (above streambed). Length: 2,670 feet Cincluding earth and rock embankment, navigation lock, concrete nonoverflow sections, powerhouse, and spillwaj^ dam). 452 Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage at elevation 638 565, 000 Power (elevation 638-633) 49, 000 Powerhead navigation and incidental recreation (below elevation 633) 516,000 Spillway : Type: Gate controlled with stilling basin. Capacity: (Maximum pool) 850,000 cubic feet per second. Gates: Eight 50-feet by 60-feet tainter. Relocations: Roads: (8 miles) $5,330,000. Washington State Highway (3 miles) ($4,287,000). County roads (5 miles) ($1,043,000). Railroads: Camas Prairie Railroad, 32 miles, $15,660,000. Cemeteries and utilities: $330,000. Power installation: Ultimate: Six units at 135,000 kilowatts; 810,000 kilowatts. Initial: Three vmits at 135,000 kilowatts; 405,000 kilowatts. Head: 98 feet. Lock: Type: Single lift. Size: 86 feet bv 675 feet. Maximum lift: 101 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 10,629. Type: Predominantly grazing and agricultural. Improvements: Scattered ranch and farm units. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project _.. 58 June 1971. Land acquisition 90 June 1970. Relocations 15 August 1969. Dam... 67 January 1970. Lock 81 September 1970. Fish facilities 53 June 1970. Powerplant 68 December 1970. Navigation channel 43 February 1970. Power-on-the-line: 3 units, 135,000 kw. each June 1970. JUSTIFICATION The project is an essential unit in the authorized slack water navigation and hydroelectric power development of the lower 360 miles of the Columbia River and the lower 140 miles of the Snake River. The latest load resource studies prepared by Bonneville Power Administration indicates that the power generated at Little Goose, in addition to the other new resources, will be required by June 1970 to meet the loads of the Pacific Northwest and the commitment made to the Pacific Southwest in negotiations relative to the intertie. The project will provide continuation of slackwater navigation development, with authorized depth of 14 feet for 37 miles from the damsite at river mile 70.3, the head of the downstream Lower Monumental pool, to river mile 107.5, the site of the Lower Granite lock and dam. Estimated average annual commerce on and through the pool is 2,500,000 tons at a transportation saving of $1,894,000. Principal commodities would consist of wheat, wood products, ores, petroleum, and fertilizers. Realization of the complete navigation benefit requires completion of all four of the Lower Snake River projects (Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite). The project will also reduce pumping lifts for irrigation developments along the reservoir shoreline and will provide incidental recreation benefits. 453 Annual Benefits Amount Power --- $14, 387, 000 Navigation 1, 894, 000 Irrigation, Recreation 197, 000 Total 16,478,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The amount of $24,000,000 will be applied to— Continue relocation of roads $3, 550, 000 Continue acquisition of land for reservoir and relocations 220, 000 Continue relocation of railroads 6, 850, 000 Continue construction of dam, lock, fish facilities, powerhouse, and channel 6, 790, 000 Continue manufacture of power plant and other equipment 4, 050, 000 Continue construction of miscellaneous project facilities 215, 000 Engineering and design 425, 000 Supervision and administration 1, 900, 000 Total 24, 000, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are the minimum required to meet scheduled power-on-line and completion dates. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $102,i- 623,000 are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $148 million is an increase of $2 million from the estimate ($146 million) last submitted to Congress. Changes in feature costs inchide increase of $1,22.5,000 for higher price levels; $550,000 for engineering and design based on reanalysis of require- ments; and a net increase of $225,00,0 due to miscellaneous internal adjustments. Appropriation title. — Construction, general — -Multiple-purpose projects includ- ing power. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 [In thousands of dollars] Item (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 4,270 3,727 265 180 98 21,320 844 7,710 10,610 2,156 300 6 1 80 213 22,100 10,755 3,980 2,020 5,345 21,450 14, 296 4,285 864 2,005 6,600 2,229 1,900 1,062 1,409 49,259 25,740 12,585 6,140 4,785 2,950 2,488 131 201 130 1,500 442 600 200 258 440 440 550 87 15 171 277 270 51 4 50 165 8,800 7,436 630 425 309 8,200 2,944 2,040 1,900 1,316 148,000 71,045 34, 146 23,903 18,906 2,871 355 360 -3, 586 148,000 73,916 34,501 24, 263 15,320 148, 000 73,916 34,501 24,263 15,320 540 74,456 -277 34,224 -263 24, 000 148,000 15,320 74, 480 34,200 . 24 . 34.224 . Lands and damages. Relocations Reservoir Dam Lock Fish facilities Powerpla nt Roads. Channels Recreation facilities _ Buildings, grounds, and utilities.. Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Undistributed cost Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Pending adjustments. Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only).. Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing Corps of Engineers funds: Al locations Unobligated carryover, prior years... Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required 24,000 15, 320 454 Lower Granite Lock and Dam, Snake River, Wash. (Continuing) Location. — On the Snake River at the head of Little Goose Pool, river mile 107.5 about 50 miles north of Walla Walla, Wash. Authorization. — 1945 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.0 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirements (Corps of Engineers). '$190.000,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement —151, 169, 000 Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) 38,801,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 30,000 Estimated no n- Fed era I cost 151,169,000 Reimbursement: Power 151,169,000 Total estimated project cost (initial) i 190,000,000 Total estimated project cost for ultimate power installation ' 211, 000, 000 Allocations through June 30, 1967.. 23,854,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968... _ 2,676,000 Allocations to date. 26,530,000 14 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 19,000,000 24 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 144,470,000 1 Excludes an estimated $1,140,000 for deferred construction of relocated railroads after fiscal year 1974. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Concrete gravity with earth and rockfiU embankments. Height: 146 feet (above stream bed). Length: 3,200 feet (including earth and rock embankment, navigation lock, concrete nonoverflow sections, powerhouse and spillway dam) . Reservoir: aae-jfet Total storage at elevation 738 484, 000 Power (elevation 738-733) 44, 000 Powerhead, navigation, and incidental recreation (below elevation 733) 440,000 Spillway : Type: Gate controlled with stilling basin. Capacity: (Maximum pool) 850,000 cubic feet per second. Gates: 8, 50-feet by 60.5 feet taiuter. Relocations: Roads: 43 miles ($9,104,000). Railroads: Camas Prairie Railroad: 39 miles ($26,554,000). Utilities ($1,797,000). Levees: Length: 10 miles. Average height above ground: 21 feet. Power Listallation: Ultimate: 6 units at 135,000 kilowatts; 810,000 kilowatts. Initial: 3 imits at 135,000 kilowatts; 405,000 kilowatts. Head: 100 feet. Lock: Tvpe: Single lift. Size: 86 feet by 675 feet. Maximum lift: 105 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 7,645. Type: Predominantly grazing and agricultural except in the Lewiston and (ilarkston area where there are some commercial, industrial, and residential developments. Improvements: Scattered ranch and farm units except in the Lewiston and Clarkston area where there are some commercial, industrial, and residential units. 455 STATUS (JAN. I, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project 11 June 1974. Land acquisition 26 June 1962. Relocations _ - 3 February 1973. Dam. - Do. Lock -- - --- 2 Do. Fish facilities -.- 2 September 1973. Powerplant 4 Do. Navigation channel.. February 1973. Power on line, 3 units, 135,000 kilowatts each June 1973. JUSTIFICATION The project is an essential unit in the authorized slack-water navigation and hydroelectric power development of the lower 360 miles of the Columbia River and the lower 140 miles of the Snake River. The latest load-resource studies pre- pared by Bonneville Power Administration indicate that power generated at Lower Granite, in addition to other new resources, will be required to meet the load in 1973-74. The project will provide continuation of slack-water navigation development, with an authorized depth of 14 feet for 39 miles from the damsite at river mile 107.5, the head of the pool of the next downstream project, Little Goose Lock and Dam, to river mile 146.5 the site of a future project, Asotin Dam. Estimated average annual commerce on and through the Lower Granite pool is 1,442,000 tons, providing a transportation saving of $1,576,000. Principal commodities would consist of wheat, wood products, ores, petroleum, and fertilizers. Realiza- tion of the complete navigation benefit requires completion of all four of the Lower Snake River projects (Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite) . The project will also provide incidental flood control and recreation benefits. Breakdown of annual benefits: Amount Power $13,709,000 Navigation 1, 576, 000 Flood control, recreation 653, 000 Total 15,938,000 Fiscal year 1969.— The amount of $19,000,000 will be appHed to— Continue land acquisition $2, 712, 000 Continue acquisition of turbines and governors 1, 233, 000 Initiate relocation of roads, railroads and utilities S, 220, 000 Initiate construction of main dam construction 4, 370, 000 Engineering and design 1, 200, 000 Supervision and administration 1, 265, 000 Total 19,000,000 Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power presently estimated at $151,169,000 are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current estimate of $190,000,000 is an increase of $7,000,000 over the latest estimate ($183,000,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes an increase of $6,565,000 for higher price levels and $1,095,000 for Engineering and Design and Supervision and Administration based on reanalysis of requirements. This increase was partially offset by a net reduction of $660,000 due to design and construction savings. 456 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 [In thousands of dollars] Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1%8 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages. Transfer of cost or property Relocations Reservoir.. Dam Lock.. Fish facilities Powerplant-.. Roads and railroads Navigation channel Levees Pumping plants Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment. Engineering and design. Supervision and administration. Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Undistributed cost Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only). Undelivered orders... Total obligations _ Method of financing (Corps of Engi- neers funds): Allocations. Unobligated carryover from prior year. Total funds available for obligations.. Appropriations required 10, 165 (-2). 37, 455 670 20, 120 29,600 7,445 52, 505 1,770 390 . 9,030 990 . 945 . 855 210 10, 020 10,530 190, 000 2,008 2,390 190,000 "190," 003" "190," 000 ' 1,084 13 4 670 137 1,169 1,275 1,259 30 4 7 169 1,791 79 1 1 34 . 1 . 5,279 735 12,410 6,475 18, 885 1,130 372 7,232 13 7,245 18,885 265 19,150 23, 854 7,245 135 7,380 2,676 4,704 7,380 2,671 8,263 25 1,395 1,055 454 2,971 14 1 1,200 1,265 19,314 86 19,400 19, 400 -400 19, 000 3.096 (-2) 26, 849 602 18,717 25, 168 6,685 46, 574 402 390 9,027 990 945 821 209 2,411 8,158 151.044 -6,574 144,470 "144,476" "144,476" 19, 000 144,470 CAMAS PRAIRIE RAILROAD RELOCATION Mr. Morris. "What agreement was finally reached in reference to the relocation of the Camas Prairie Railroad in connection witli these two projects at an estimated cost of $42,2 million'^ General Yates. After extensive necjotiations, an agreement as to the standards of construction grades, closing of the line and many other details was reached in September of 1966. This agreement with regard to procedures and standards resulted in an estimated savings to tlie Government over the initial estimated requirements of some $21.7 million. The first contract on tliis relocation, in accordance with this agreement, was let a year ago. lower monumental lock & DAM. WASHINGTON Mr. Morris. $16.5 million is budgeted to continue construction of the Lower Monumental lock and dam in AVasliington. (The justification follows :) Lower Monumental Lock and Dam, Washington (Continuing) Location. — On the Snake River at the head of the Ice Harbor Pool, river mile 41.6, about 45 miles northeast of Pasco, Wash. Authorization. — 1945 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.5 to 1. 45t SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement (C of E) ' $181,000,000 Future non-f^ederal reimbursement. —138,638,000 Estimated Federal cost (initial, Corps of Engineers) 42,362,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 87,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 138,638,000 Reimbursement: Power.. 138,638,000 Total estimated project cost (initial) '.... 181,087,000 Total estimated project cost for ultimate installation > 202,087,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 128,004,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 21,000,000 Allocations to date 149,004,000 82 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. 16,500,000 91 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 15,496,000 1 Excludes an estimated $700,000 for deferred construction of relocated railroads after fiscal year 1970. PHYSICAL D.\TA Dam: Type: Concrete gravity with earth and rockfill abutments. Height: 135 feet (above streambed). Length: 3,800 feet (including abutments, spillway, navigation lock, and powerhouse). Reservoir capacity: Acre-fed Total storage at elevation 540 376, 000 Power (elevation 540-537) 20, 000 Navigation, powerhead, and incidental recreation (below elevation 537) 356,000 Spillway : Type: Gate-controlled with stilling basin. Capacity (maximum pool) : 850,000 cubic feet per second. Gates (8) : 50 by 61 feet tainter. Power installation: Ultimate: Six units at 135,000 kilowatts; 810,000 kilowatts. Initial: Three units at 135,000 kilowatts; 405,000 kilowatts. Head: 100 feet. Relocations: Roads (13 miles) $2,420,000 State highways (5 miles) 1,403, 000 Railroads (38 miles) 43, 950, 000 Union Pacific Railroad and branch lines (34 miles) 40, 250, 000 Cemeteries, utilities, and structures 504, 000 Navigation lock: Type: Single lift. Size: 86 by 675 feet. Lift: 103 feet (maximum). Lands and damages: Acres: 7,922. Type: Predominantly grazing and agricultural. Improvements: Scattered ranch and farm units. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project 75 June 1970. Land acquisition. 100 June 1967. Relocations and access roads 69 June 1970. Dam 89 December 1969. Lock 81 Do. Fish facilities 62 Do. Powerplant.. _ 78 March 1970. Power on line, 3 units, 135,000 kw. each, December 1969. 458 JUSTIFICATION The project is an essential unit in the authorized slackwater navigation and hydroelectric power development of the lower 360 miles of the Columbia River and the lower 140 miles of the Snake River. The latest load-resource studies prepared by the Bonneville Power Administration indicate that power generated at Lower Monumental, in addition to all other new scheduled resources, will be required to meet the 1969-70 load. Without this project in the 1969-70 load year, there will be a deficit to meet firm loads in the Pacific Northwest and the Canadian entitlement committed to the Southwest, even with the operation of high-cost obsolete thermal plants. The project will provide continuation of slackwater navigation development, with authorized depth of 14 feet for 29 miles from the dam site at river mile 41.6, the head of the Ice Harbor Pool, to river mile 70.3, the site of the Little Goose Lock and Dam. Estimated average annual commerce on and through the pool is 2,774,000 tons, at a transportation saving of $1,600,000. Principal com- modities would consist of wheat, wood products, ores, petroleum, and fertilizers. Realization of the complete navigation benefits requires completion of all four of the Lower Snake River projects (Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite). The project will also reduce pumping lifts for irrigation developments along the reservoir shoreline, and will provide incidental recreational benefits. Breakdown of benefits: Amount. Power. $14, 995, 000 Navigation 1,600,000 Irrigat ion 6, 000 Recreation 242,000 Total 16, 843, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $16,500,000 will be applied to— Continue land acquisition and condemnation action on Northern Pacific Railway $1,023,000 Continue relocations 4, 410, 000 Continue reservoir clearing 430, 000 Continue construction of dam, lock, channel, and fish facilities 5, 321, 000 Continue construction of powerhouse and continue procurement of equipment 2, 466, 000 Initiate construction of recreation facilities 829, 000 Continue construction of buildings, groimds, and utilities 294, 000 Initiate procurement of permanent operating equipment 177, 000 Engineering and design 130, 000 Supervision and administration 1, 420, 000 Total 16,500,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are the minimum required to meet scheduled power-on-line and completion dates. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $138,638,- 000, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None is required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $181,000,000 is a decrease of $10,000,000 from the latest estimate ($191,000,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes decreases of $5,000,- 000 in lands and damages; $3,653,000 in relocations; $1,114,000 in fish and wildlife facilities; and $1,443,000 in powerplant as result of reduction in contingencies on items nearing completion and savings from refinements in estimates; a de- crease of $760,000 in supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements. These decreases were partially offset by increases of $892,000 for higher price levels; $940,000 in the lock due to redesign of filling and emptying facilities; and $138,000 in reservoir due to addition of boundarj- line survej^s. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1). FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $8,108,000 $1,802,800 $2,144,000 $1,023,000 $3,138,200 Relocations 46,874,000 25,351,800 12,255.200 4,613,500 4,653,500 Reservoir 706,000 .. 207,000 430,000 69, 000^ Dam .... 20,000,000 16.990.300 1,518,000 998,000 493,700- Lock ' ' . 23,233,000 18,637,200 1,130,000 2,899,000 566,800' Fisti facilities . 8,000,000 4,141,000 1,185,000 1,482,000 1,192,000 Powerplant 48,931,000 36,495,300 4,291,300 2,666,000 5,478,400 Access roads and railroads 2,247,000 2,212,800 34,200 Channels 400,000 230,400 10,000 143,000 16.600 Recreation facilities _. 950,000 34,000 829,000 97,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities. 1,166,000 166,200 117,000 294,000 588,800 Permanent operating equipment 215,000 14.200 2,000 177,000 21,800 Engineering and design 9,750,000 9,270.700 300,000 130,000 49,300 Supervision and administration 10,320,000 7,324,100 1,170,000 1,420,000 405,900 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only)...- 180,910,000 122,636,800 24,397,700 17,104,500 16,771,000 IJndistributed costs Distributive costs.... _ 2.026,300 -214,300 -578,500 -1,233,500 Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 180,910,000 124,663,100 24,183,400 16,526,000 15,537,500 Pending adjustments i90,000 148,000 -58,000 Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) . 181,000,000 124,811,100 24,125,400 16,526.000 15.537.500 Undelivered orders. 3.081,200 -3,014,200 -26.000 -41,000 Total obligations 127,892,300 21,111,200 16,500,000 15,496,500 Method of financing: Allocations. 128,003,500 21,000,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 111,200 Total funds available for obligation 128,003,500 21,111,200 Appropriations required 16,500,000 15,496,500 I Miscellaneous property transferred to other agencies without reimbursement. NORTHERX PACIFIC RAILWAY SETTLEMENT Mr, Morris. Please report to the committee on the nature and status of the condemnation action on the Xorthern Pacific Railroad and the cost involved. General Yates. This is the one I referred to previously because it relates directly to the McNar}^ project. We have taken possession. However, the Department of Justice has been negotiating with Northern Pacific Railway and has proposed a settlement with them. The settlement is not yet signed by Northern Pacific. It actually sits with them for signature now. We believe it Avill be signed. It provides for a payment of $2,250,000 and a provision for up- grading one of their bridges, which they will use on a substitute route, to the load carrying standards of their own previous route. It is a com- bination of a cash payment and the upgrading of the bridge. Mr. Morris. How do you think this would compare with relocation costs if we had not been permitted to condemn the railroad's property ? General Yates. I will have to furnish that for the record. I do not have the latest estimates that may have been prepared for relocation of these facilities. Mr. Morris. You may furnish that for the record. (The information follows :) 460 Cost of Relocating Northern Pacific Railway Versus Condemnation Costs, Lower Monumental Lock and Dam Had the Snake River branch line of the Northern Pacific Railway been re- located for the Lower Monumental lock and dam project it is estimated that it would have cost $18,843,000. This compares with a condemnation cash settlement of $2,250,000, plus upgrading costs for the Northern Pacific Snake River bridge near Pasco, Wash., at $2,090,000 ; or a total of $4,340,000. THE DALLES DAM, OREG. AND WASH. Mr. Morris. $7.5 million is budgeted to continue the construction of the additional power units at the Dalles Dam on the Columbia River. (The justification follows:) The Dalles Dam, Columbia River, Wash, and Oreg. (Additional Power Units) (Continuing) Location. — On Cohimbia River MQe 193 and 90 miles east of Portland, Oreg. Authorization. — 1950 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 4.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement (Corps of Engineers)' $57,200,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement —57,200,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost... 57,200,000 Reimbursement: Power -- 57,200,000 _ Estimated total project cost 57,200,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 794,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 546,000 Allocations to date -. - 1.340,000 2 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 7,500,000 15 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 48,360,000 'Construction of The Dalles Dam with an initial power installation of 14 units (78,000 kw. capacity each) has been completed at a cost of $247,000,000. The estimated cost shown is for extending the powerhouse to full length for 22 units and for the installation of 8 additional power units. PHYSICAL DATA Power installation : Presently planned: 8 units (Nos. 15 through 22) at 85,975 kilowatts; 687,800 kilowatts. Head: 81 feet (average). Lands and damages: None. Relocations: None. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project 1 Units 15 and 16, 171,950, June 1973. Powerplant 1 Units 15 and 16, 171,950 kw., Aug. 1971. Unit 17, 85,975 kw., November 1971. Unit 18, 85,975 kw., February 1972. Unit 19, 85,975 kw.. May 1972. Unit 20, 85,975 kw., August 1972. Unit 21, 85,975 kw., November 1972. Unit 22, 85,975 kw., February 1973. 461 JUSTIFICATION Additional units will be required at Corps' projects throughout the Columbia Basin because of the effects of the Canadian Treaty and the Pacific Northwest- Pacific Southwest Intertie. The development of the Canadian storage will increase the dependable capacity and the average annual usable energy of the Federal system. The Canadian entitlement power purchased from Canada by the Columbia Storage Power Exchange will be assigned in California during the initial years. This delivery outside the Pacific Northwest increases the peak requirements of the Federal system. Addition of units at The Dalles will provide part of the generation required by the Federal system to meet area firm and secondary loads and provide the necessary capacity to deliver the Canadian entitlement over the intertie to California purchasers. The Federal system's secondary energy has been committed to serve the interruptible industrial loads during all years with better than critical streamflow conditions. Without this installation, service to the interruptible industrial loads would have to be curtailed during the peak load periods. Benefits accrue as power at site and amount to -$13,644,000 annually of which $2,550,000 is assigned to the modifications for peaking at Bonneville and $11,094,000 credited to The Dalles peaking. Fiscal Year 1969. — The requested amount of $7,500,000 will be applied to — Initiate construction of powerhouse $1, 510, 000 Continue procurement of powerhouse equipment 5, 436, 000 Engineering and design 220, 000 Supervision and administration 334, 000 Total 7,500,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are the minimum required to meet scheduled power-on-line dates. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $57,000,000 are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $57,200,000 is a decrease of $6,800,000 from the latest estimate ($64,000,000) submitted to Congress. This change reflects a decrease of $6,470,000 due to a favorable bid on procurement of eight turbines and more detailed design of power- house and equipment and a reduction of $1,000,000 in supervision and adminis- tration based on a reanalysis of requirements. This decrease was partially offset by an increase of $670,000 due to higher price levels. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 if; LC Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Powerplant $53,047,000 $664,200 $6,454,200 $45,928,600 Permanent operating equipment 53,000 1,800 51,200 Engineering and design 1,500,000 $317,100 285,000 220,000 677,900 Supervision and administration 2,600,000 18,700 55,000 334,000 2,192,300 Totalappliedcost(Federalfundsonly)... 57,200,000 335,800 1,004,200 7,010,000 48,850,000 Undistributed cost_... 490,000 -490,000 Total project cost(Federalfundsonly)... 57,200,000 335,800 1,004,200 7,500,000 48,360,000 Pending adjustments . Total cost(Federal funds only). 57,200,000 335,800 1,004,200 7,500,000 48,360,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations.. 335,800 1,004,200 7,500,000 48,360,000 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations. 794,000 546,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year .._ 458,200 Total funds available for obliga- tions 1,004,200 Appropriations required 7,500,000 48,360,000 462 REDUCTION IX COST ESTIMATE Mr. Morris. Please outline to the committee the current status of this project and explain the cost decrease of $6.8 million since last year. General Yates. This job is barely started. Actually, our turbines are under procurement as well as items of electrical equipment. The po^yerllOuse construction contract is sched- uled for award within the coming year, about FebruaiT. The cost reduction results from extremely favorable bids on the turbines for this project. Mr. Morris. Who got the bid on the turbines where you receiA'ed the favorable price? VALUE ENGINEERING General Yates. There is another element I should have mentioned on the reduction which I would like to take credit for. We have made a value engineering change which has caused a sub- stantial reduction in the equipment for the emergency gates. This was a change made for the John Day project and we adopted here at an- other considerable saving. ]Mr. Morris. AVhat kind of an engineering change? General Yates. A value engineering change. This is a program that is active throughout our division and the Corps of Engineers in Avhich the engineering and plan of construction are reviewed to see if construction cannot be done in a more economical manner. In this case we were able to eliminate individual emergency intake gate hoists for turbine intakes by use of a three-gate emergency intake gantry crane which resulted in a substantial saving of $2 million. The contractor for the turbines is Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. Mr. Morris. Where are they located ? General Yates. Their principal plant is in Philadelphia, Pa., sir. Mr. Morris. Did you have any foreign bids under this? General Yates, t am sure there were, sir, because we have them on all. But this contract was a very favorable one. It does include a sub- stantial amount of foreign procurement, but it was under the 50-per- cent line which, according to the regulations, we use to determine whether we add a factor for evaluation. Mr. Morris. We will insert the balance of the justification state- ments under construction, general, in the record. Port Orford, Oreg. (Continuing) Location. — On the southern Oregon coast in Curry County 250 miles south of Columbia River entrance and 390 miles north of San Francisco Bay. Authorization. — 1965 l^iver and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost Ratio — 1. 3 to 1. 463 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $1, 100,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 26.100 Estimated non-Federal cost 9,900 Cash contribution 9,900 Total estimated project cost 1,136,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967.. 288,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 232,000 Allocations to date.. 520,000 Appropriation requested tor fiscal year 1969 580,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 _ 47 100 PHYSICAL DATA Breakwaters : Extend breakwater about 550 feet: Type: Dumped quarry stone. Top width: 30 feet. Top elevation: 20 feet mean lower low water. Side slopes: Harbor side, 1 on 1.5. Side slopes: Oecan side, 1 on 2 down to mean lower low water and 1 on 1.5 below mean lower low water. Status (January 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule. — Breakwater extension, November 1968. JUSTIFICATION The natural rock promontory on the north and northwest protects the harbor from storms approaching from those directions. However, the harbor is fully exposed to storms from the south and southwest, which occur during the winter months. At times of adverse weather conditions, small craft based at Port Orford are lifted out of the water after each use to prevent severe damage to boats. This is a costly and time-consuming operation which, when undertaken in rough weather, often results in damage to the boats. Pounding of the seas against the unprotected dock causes considerable damage which has necessitated complete reconstruction of the dock on four occasions in the past. The breakwater extension will provide protection to existing lumber and fish docks, provide a harbor of refuge for small craft which operate oflf the southern Oregon coast, and provide a base from which the U.S. Coast Guard could carry out year-round rescue missions. The estimated annual benefits from this navigation project are $65,300. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $580,000 will be applied to — Complete breakwater extension $544, 000 Engineering and design 8, 000 Supervision and administration 28, 000 Total 580, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for project completion. None. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS None. Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local interests in providing the requirements of local cooperation is estimated to be $9,900 required cash contribution. In addition, terminal facilities, access roads, and other necessary public use shore facilities will be provided and maintained by local interests. Status of local cooperation. — The Port Orford Port Commission has met the re- quirements of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate (Corps of Engineers) of $1, 100,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. Jil-459— 68 — pt. 1- -30 464 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to cost June 30, estimate 1967 (2) (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to comolete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Breakwaters $1,024,900 Engineering and design. i 31,000 Supervision and administration.. 54,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers and non-Federal contribution) 1,109,900 U nd istributed cost Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contribution)... 1,109,900 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contribution 1, 109,900 Undelivered orders Total obligations Total applied cost (Cors of Engineers funds only) 1,100,000 U nd istributed cost _ Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only).... 1,100,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 1,100,000 Undelivered orders. Total obligations Total applied cost (non-Federal contri- bution) 9,900 Undistributed cost... Total project cost (non-Federal contri- bution) 9,900 Pending adjustments Total cost (non-Federal contribution) 9,900 Undelivered orders Total obligations. _ Metfiod of financing Corps of Engineers funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total fjnds available for obligation Appropriations required Method of fmancing non-Federal con- tributions: Contributions Unobligated carryover from prior year. Total funds available for obligation Contributions required.. $7, 700 400 ,100 $472, 000 15,000 24, 900 511,900 ,100 511,900 8,100 511,900 8,100 8,100 511,900 511,900 ,100 511,900 ,100 8,100 511,900 "5ii,'9o6" 288,000 232,000 279,900 511,900 9,900 9,900 $552, 900 8.300 28, 700 589, 900 589, 900 589.900 589,900 580, 000 580, 000 580,000 580, 000 9,900 9,900 9,900 'g.'goo" 580, 000 9.900 1 Includes $500 for real estate activities. SiusL.wv River, Oreg. (Continuing) Location. — Located at the mouth and lower 5 miles of the Siuslaw River about 160 miles south of the Columbia River. Authorization. — 1958 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard)... Estimated non-Federal cost: Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30. 1967 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $813,000 10,000 1156,000 979.000 20.000 (-) 20. 000 2 793.000 100 1 In addition, local interests contributed $322,532 for construction of the jetties prior to 1917. ' Project received appropriation as a nevi/ start for fiscal year 1968. Under the program for reduced expenditures in fiscal year 1968, the start of construction has been postponed until fiscal year 1969 with no allocation in fiscal year 1968. 465 PHYSICAL DATA Channel Entrance channel: 18 feet deep below mean lower low water, 300 feet wide, 3,200 feet long. River channel: 16 feet deep below mean lower low water, 200 feet wide, 5 miles long. Turning basin: 16 feet below mean lower low water, 400 feet wide, 600 feet long. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Dredging channels and turning basin C) June 1969. ■' Entire project (excluding north jetty extension) (') Do. ■: > Not started. JUSTIFICATION The Siuslaw River serves an important timber products area. Commerce in and out of the river basin is hampered by inadequate channel depths and shoaling at the entrance and in the river. Improvements to provide an entrance channel depth of 18 feet and a river channel depth of 16 feet would permit the use of larger vessels and barges and the more economical handling of cargo. The increased channel depths would permit the movement of an additional 57,000,000 board feet of timber products annually. Extension of the north jetty would reduce shoaling but construction would be deferred until experience demonstrates it can be economically justified. The improvements will also benefit the fishing fleet, and recreational boaters by providing increased navigation safety and more use as a harbor of refuge. Annual benefits are estimated to amount to $262,700. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $793,000 will be applied to^ Initiate and complete channel dredging $716, 000 Initial and complete dredge range construction 39, 000 Engineering and design 7, 000 Supervision and administration 31, 000 Total 793,000 COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS Under a previous project for an 8-foot channel adopted by River and Harbor Act of 1890, work was started on the North Jetty at a cost of $151,701 but project was abandoned in 1903. The north jetty to a length of 3,700 feet and the south jetty to a length of 4,200 feet were authorized by River and Harbor Act of 1910. Construction was completed in 1917 at Federal cost of $321,947 and a non- Federal contribution by the port of Siuslaw amounting to $322,532 including credit for work performed. By River and Harbor Act of 1925 a channel depth of 12 feet was authorized. Work on channel deepening was completed in 1930 at a cost of $52,941. Total Federal new work cost has been $526,589. REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS Extension of the north jetty, authorized by the 1958 River and Harbor Act, is deferred pending demonstration of its need. Estimated cost of this extension is $1,740,000. Non-Federal costs. — -The authorizing legislation provides that local interests are required to furnish free of all costs to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and spoil disposal areas necessary for construction of the project and for subsequent maintenance when and as required; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the project; and provide suitable terminal facilities open to all on equal terms. The cost to local interests in providing the requirements of local cooperation is esti- mated to be $156,000. This cost consists of lands and damages in the amount of $3,000 and construction of terminal facilities at a cost of $153,000. In addition, the Port of Siuslaw contributed $322,532, including credit of $100,000 for work performed toward construction of the jetties. Status of local cooperation. — By letters dated January 13, 1965, and March 10, 1966, the port of Siuslaw officials stated that they would provide all items of local cooperation. 466 Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $813,000 is an increase of $38,000 over the latest estimate ($775,000) submitted to Congress. The increase is due to higher price levels. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels Permanent operating equipment.. Engineering and design.,. Supervision and administration. Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Tota I obligations. Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocatio ns Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obli- gation Appropriations required '$716,000 39. 000 2 26. 000 32, 000 813.000 $8, 200 400 8,600 $10,700 700 11,400 813,000 "813," 566' 8.600 "8,666" "8," 666" 20,000 11,400 "ii,'466" "ii,"466' 11,400 11,400 $716, 000 39,000 7,100 30,900 793,000 793,000 '793,'666" "793,"666' 793, 000 1 Excludes extension of north jetty ($1,740,000). 2 Includes $500 for real estate activities. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oreg. (Continuing) Location. — At the entrance to Tillamook Ba}', Oregon about 47 miles south of the Columbia River. Authoiization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard)... Estimated non- Federal cost. Cash contribution. Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $9,700,000 2,000 0) - - 9,702,000 30,000 (=) 30, 000 1 750, 000 8 8,920,000 ' Local interests contributed $592,622 for construction of previous improvements and expended $300,000 for channel dredging in the bay. - Project received appropriation as a new start for fiscal year 1968. Under the program for reduced expenditures in fiscal year 1968, the start of construction has been postponed until fiscal year 1969 with no allocation in fiscal year 1968. Jettv : PHYSICAL DATA South jetty about 8,000 feet long. Type: Placed quarry stone. Top width: 30 feet.' Top elevation: 18 feet m.l.l.w. Side slopes: 1 on 2 down to m.l.l.w. and 1 on 1.5 below m.l.l.w. 467 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent com piete Completion schedule Construct south jetty - - (') November 1973. Entire project - 0) Do. t Not started. JUSTIFICATION Existing traffic in Tillamook Bay consists of commercial and recreational fish- ing boats and small tugs used in rafting logs. The deepest draft of existing ves- sels using the entrance is about 9 feet. Prospective traffic would consist of vessels moving lumber, logs, chips, and plywood in the coastwise trade, and commercial fishing boats. Oceangoing barges anticipated to use an improved entrance at Tillamook Bay have a capacity of 2 to 3 million board feet of lumber and a loaded draft of about 14 feet. The entrance to Tillamook Bay has always been hazardous during winter months inasmuch as there is no protection against south- westerly storm waves which break across the relatively shallow entrance. The entrance is impassable to small boats and barge traffic for periods ranging up to 10 days, and the resulting vessel delay time has forced cancellation of water carrier service. Construction of south jetty at the entrance to Tillamook Bay would result in transportation savings to timber processing companies by allow- ing regular scheduling of log, lumber, plywood, and wood chip shipments over the bar. It is not possible to develop a scheduled barge service or effect any siz- able timber products shipments to or from Tillamook Bay without an entrance that is usable a large percentage of the time, and this can be provided only by construction of the south jetty. A greatly expanded commercial fishing industry would benefit from savings in operating costs and from increased catch of several species of fish. Average annual navigation benefits are estimated at $.579,000. Fiscal year 196.9. — The requested amount of $750,000 will be applied to — Initiate construction of jetty $702, 000 Engineering and design 20, 000 Supervision and administration 28, 000 Total 750,000 COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS Construction of a 5,700-foot-long north jetty and dredging 16-foot channel to Bay City authorized by River and Harbor Act of 1912. The project was modified in 1919 for abandonment of project above Bay City and in 1925 for an 18-foot entrance channel to Miami Cove and abandonment of Bay City channel. The River and Harbor Act of 1948 authorized dredging of small boat basin and approach at Garibaldi. In 1954 closure of Bay Ocean Peninsula was author- ized. The project was completed in 1958 except Hobsonville channel which was classified inactive. Total Federal new work cost, exclusive of rehabilitation in the amount of $2,729,300, has been $1,807,559 and non-Federal costs have been $398,833 prior to 1919 for north jetty construction and dredging and $193,789 for closure of Bay Ocean Peninsula in 1956 to 1958. REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS None. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to furnish assurances that they will: (1) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project and of aids for navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers, including suitable areas determined by the Chief of Engineers to be required in the general public interest for subsequent disposal of spoil, and necessary retain- ing dikes, bulkheads, and embankments therefor or the costs of such retaining works; (2) hold and save the United States free from damages that may result from construction and maintenance of the project; (3) provide and maintain at local expense adequate public terminal and transfer facilities open to all on equal terms; and (4) provide and maintain, without cost to the United States, depths in berthing areas and local access channels serving the terminals, including the 50-foot strip adjacent to pierhead lines, commensurate with the depths provided in the related project areas. No non-Federal costs anticipated for this modification. Status of local cooperation. — By letter dated January 29, 1964, the ports of Tilla- mook and Bay City and Tillanaook County Court expressed ability and willingness to provide local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $9,700,000 is an increase of $340,000 over the latest estimate ($9,360,000) submitted to Congiess. The increase is due to higher price levels in the amount of $475,000, offset in part by a reduction of $135,000 in Supervision and Administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to cost June 30, estimate 1967 (1) (2) (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete alter 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Breakwaters $8,922,000 Engineering and design i 382,000 Supervision and administration _.. 396,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only). . 9, 700, 000 U ndistributed cost (none) Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 9,700,000 Pending adjustments (none) Total cost (Federal funds only) 9,700,000 Undelivered orders (none) Total obligations Federal funds: Method of financing: A llocations Unobligated carryover from prior year. Total funds available for obliga- tion Appropriations required $1,800 100 1,900 $702,000 $8,220,000 $26, 300 20, 000 333, 900 1,800 28,000 366,100 28,100 750,000 8,920,000 1,900 1,900 1,900 30, 000 28, 100 750, 000 8, 920, 000 "28,"i66 756,'6o6 8,"926,'666 '28,"ioo 75o,'666' 8,"926,"660 28, 100 28, 100 750, 000 8, 920, 00 Includes $1,000 for real estate activities. Yaquina Bay and Harbor, Oreg. (Continuing) Location. — At the mouth of Yaquina River, Oreg., about 113 miles south of the Columbia River. Authorization. — 1958 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard)... Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $11,000,000 30,000 43,000 143,000 11,073,000 8,406,000 2,294,000 10,700,000 97 300, 000 100 < In addition, local interests contributed $729,000 for construction of the 18-foot channel and south jetty prior to February 1921. 469 PHYSICAL DATA Channel: Outer channel: 40 feet deep below m.l.l.w.; 400 feet wide, 3,400 feet long. Upstream channel: 30 feet deep below m.l.l.w.; 300 feet wide, 12,700 feet Turning basin: 30 feet deep below m.l.l.w.; 900 to 1,200 feet wide, 1,40 long. Jetties: Extend north jetty about 1,800 feet: Type: Placed quarrystone. Top width: 30 feet. Top elevation: 20 feet m.l.l.w. Side slopes: 1 on 2 down to m.l.l.w. and 1 on 1.5 below m.l.l.w. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule 100 September 1966. 66 November 1968. 85 Do. JUSTIFICATION Shipment of timber products from Yaquina Bay is handicapped by channel depths. Only partial loadings are possible. The present condition of the entrance channel is such that during the winter months ships are frequently delayed several davs in entering or leaving the harbor. On those ships that do enter, space allo- cations are often reduced during the winter months to allow for the unfavorable bar conditions. Industrial development being initiated in the area will materially increase the tonnage shipped, including commodities such as lumber, wood prod- ucts, wood pulp, and fuel oil. Benefits will accrue to the project by savings in transportation costs, through the elimination of delays and out of sequence load- ing and through increased loads per vessel trip. The principal benefit occurs as transportation savings on lumber and wood products and is estimated to be $1,042,000 annually. In addition the added channel depth and protection of the jetties will also benefit small craft including the commercial fishing fleet, excursion boats, and recreational craft operating out of Yaquina Bay. Breakdown of benefits: ^mott»< Navigation $1, 195, 000 Area redevelopment 114, 000 Total 1, 309, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $300,000 will be applied to — Complete channel dredging $276, 000 Engineering and design 13, 000 Supervision and administration Hj 000 Total 300,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for project completion. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS Work completed con.sists of a north jetty 4,300 feet long, a south jetty 5,800 feet long, a 26-foot channel of suitable width across the entrance bar, an inner channel 20 feet deep and 300 feet wide to a turning basin 22 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide, and 1,200 feet long, and a small boat mooring basin at Newport, Oreg. The Federal cost for construction of completed works is $2,199,200 and non- Federal cash contributions are $729,000. KEMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS Extension of the south jetty, authorized by the 1958 River and Harbor Act, is deferred pending demonstration of its need. Estimated cost of this extension is $7,560,000. Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local interests in providing the requirements of local cooperation is estimated to be $43,000. This cost consists of payments 470 for lands and damages, $13,000; and channel dredging near docks, $30,000. In addition, local interests contributed $729,000 for construction of the 18-foot channel and the south jetty and have provided terminal facilities. Status of local cooperation. — By letter dated June 12, 1961, the port of Newport furnished assurances. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $11,000,000 (Corps of Engineers) is a decrease of $3,000,000 from the latest esti- mate ($14,000,000) submitted to Congress. This decrease is based on receipt of a very favorable bid for the final channel dredging and rock removal contract. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Channels... $4,658,000 5, 349, 500 1677,000 315,500 11,000,000 Breakwaters Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only). . Undistributed cost.. Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments _. Total cost (Federal funds only) 11,000,000 Undelivered orders.. Total obligations Method of financing Federal funds: Allocations. _ Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations Appropriations required $2,178,500 5. 349, 500 642, 100 235,200 8, 405, 300 $2, 203, 500 $276, 000 21.900 69, 300 2,294,700 11,000,000 8,405,300 2,294,700 8, 405, 300 200 8, 405, 500 2,924,700 -200 2, 294, 500 8, 405, 400 2, 293, 600 900 2, 294, 500 13.000 11,000 300, 000 300, 000 300. 000 300, 000 300, 000 ' Includes $500 for real estate activities. PoRTNEUF River and Marsh Creek (Pocatello Unit), Idaho (Continuing) Location. — Along the Portneuf River from a point 2 miles above the city of Pocatello, Bannock County, Idaho, downstream a distance of approximately 6 miles. Authorization. — 1950 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contributions Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations through June 30, 1967 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal yeir 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $6,800,000 481,700 481,700 7,281,700 2,988,000 2,670,000 5, 658, 000 83 1,142,000 100 PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Improvement of approximately 6 mih^s of channel of which 1..") miles arc concrete luied. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project. December 1968. 471 JUSTIFICATION The project will provide flood protection to residential, commercial, and in- dustrial highway and streets, railroad, utilities, public and semipublic properties in the citv of Pocatello and adjacent agricultural areas. The population of Poca- tello totaled over 41,000 in 1960. The area to be protected comprises 935 acres with a total estimated value of $15,608,000 for lands and improvements. Extensive flooding with flood depths up to 5 feet occurred during the major flood of February 1962. A recurrence of this flood would cause damages in excess of $1,200,000, all of which could be prevented by the project. The estimated annual benefits amount to $317,000, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,142,000 will be applied as follows: Complete channel improvement $1, 005, 000 Engineering and design 12, 000 Supervision and administration 125, 000 Total 1, 142,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for project completion. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $481,700, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $195, 500 Relocations: Bridges 158,900 Utilities 127,300 Total 481,700 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. The average annual cost of maintenance is estimated at $6,400. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Pocatello and Bannock County have met the requirements of local cooperation. Com-parison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $6,800,000 is the same as the latest estimated submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1967 AND 1968 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels $5,990,000 $2,437,400 $2,547,600 $1,005,000 Engineering and design. 420,000 393,500 14,500 12,000 Supervision and administration.. 390,000 142,600 122,400 125,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 6,800,000 2,973,500 2,684,500 1,142,000 Undistributed cost _ Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 6,800,000 2,973,500 2,684,500 1,142,000 Pending adjustments... Total cost (Federal funds only) 6,800,000 2,973,500 2,684,500 1,142,000 Undelivered orders... 300 -300 Total obligations 6,800,000 2,973,800 2,684,200 1,142,000 Metfiod of financing (Federal funds): Allocations 2,988,000 2,670,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. 14,200 Total funds available for obligation 2,684,200 Appropriation required 1, 142,000 RiRiE Reservoir, Idaho (Continuing) Location. — On Willow Creek, a tributary of the Snake River, about 15 miles northeast of Idaho Falls. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. 472 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement (Corps of Engineers) $14,100,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement —630,000 Estimated Federal cost 13,470,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 630,000 Reimbursement: Irrigation 630,000 Total estimated project cost 14, 100,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 1,310,000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 _ 750,000 Allocations to date 2,060,000 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 _ 750,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969..- 11,290,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Roekfill. Height: 184 feet (above streambed). Length : 830 feet. Spillway : Type: Unlined rock with gate controlled concrete ogee section. Capacity: 40,000 cubic feet per second maximum. Gates: three 28 by 28-ft fainter. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage at elevation 5119 100, 000 Flood control 5119-5113 10, 000 Irrigation and flood control (joint usage) 5113-5023 SO, 000 Sediment and conservation 5023-4962 10, 000 Channel : Length: 8.2 miles. Capacity : 900 cubic feet per second. Lands and damages: Acres: 5,423. Type: Predominantly dry rangeland. Improvements: Two sets of ranch buildings. Relocations: 10 roadway bridges and 1 railroad bridge: telephone cable and gas line crossing— $338,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Lands acquisition... Relocations Reservoir... Dam Fish and wildlife facilities. Channels... Entire project Percent complete Completion schedule 16 4 4 June 1970. December 1970. August 1971. December 1971. June 1972. December 1971. June 1972. JUSTIFICATION The project will provide flood protection to residential, commercial, and indus- trial property in the cities of Idaho Falls and Blackfoot, the towns of lona and Ammon, and the developed agricultural areas along Willow and Sand Creeks. The area to be protected comprises 110,000 acres with a total estimated value of approximately .$206 million for lands and improvements. During the flood of 1962, extensive flooding occurred in the Willow-Sand Creek area. Depth of the flooding varied from 1 to 6 feet. A repetition of the flood of 1962 luider present conditions would cause damage of $5,253,000, of which $3,136,000 would be prevented by the project. In addition to flood protection, the project would pro- vide areas for recreation use and water for irrigation. Total benefits creditable 473 to the project will amount to $897,000 annually, of which $817,000 would be due to flood control, $57,000 would be derived from recreation, and irrigation benefits amount to $23,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $750,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $200, 000 Continue construction of dam 170, 000 Initiate construction on access roads 110, 000 Engineering and design 170, 000 Supervision and administration 100, 000 Total 750, 000 Non-Federal cost. — Costs allocable to irrigation presently estimated at $630,000 are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests are to make necessarj' arrangements with the Secretary of the Interior for repayment, under provisions of reclamation law, of the construction cost and annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs allocated to irrigation. By a letter dated June 10, 1966, the Assistant Secre- tary of the Interior provided assurances to the Chief of Engineers that the esti- mated irrigation allocation would be within the repayment capability of the irrigatois. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $14,100,000 is an increase of $1,000,000 over the latest estimate ($13,100,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $499,000 for higher price levels; $279,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administra- tion based on reanalysis of requirements and a net increase of $222,000 in other project construction features due principally to the need for improvement of the access road. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1959 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages Transfer of cost or property Relocations Reservoirs Dam Fish and wildlife facilities Roads, railroads, and bridges Cfiannels Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only). Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only). Pendi g adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriation required $640, 000 (-30,000). 338,000 . 164,000 _ 8,262,000 . 115,000 . 519,000 . 1,215,000 . 271,000 . 82,000 _ 67,000 _ 1,544,000 883, 000 14,100,000 $80,900 $150,000 $200, 000 (-15,000) 368, 300 13, 500 1,111,600 57. 500 1,250,000 218,200 60, 000 810,000 14,100,000 "U'ioo.'ooo' 1,250,000 810,000 1,250,000 43, 200 1,293,200 1,310,000 810,000 -43,200 853, 200 750, 000 16,800 766,800 170,000 110,000 170,000 100,000 750, 000 $209, 100 (-15,000) 338,000 164,000 7,723,700 115,000 409, 000 1,215,000 271.000 68, 500 67, 000 44, 200 665, 500 11,290,000 750,000 11,290,000 '756,"6do""'ir,"290^ooo" '750;'00O"""'n,'29O,"OOO' 750,000 11,290,000 Blue River Reservoir, Oreg. (Continuing) Location. — At river mile 1.7 on Blue River, a tributary of the McKenzie River, and about 38 miles easterly of Eugene, Oreg. Authorization. — 1950 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.7 to 1. 4f»i SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement-,. Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non- Federal cost _.. Reimbursement: Irrigation Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 ._ Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $30,100,000 (') (') 30, 100, 000 20, 978, 000 6, 022, 000 27, 000, 000 3, 100, 000 90 100 ' Non-Federal reimbursement from future irrigation use is under study. See "non-Federal cost" paragraph. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earth and rockfiU embankment with concrete spillway section in abutment. Height: 270 feet (above streambed). Length: 1,600 feet (inchiding spillway). Spillway: Type: Gated discharge channel. Capacity (maximum pool): 53,800 cubic feet per second. Gates: 2, 35 feet by 38 feet tainter. Lands and damages: Total acreage: 2,684. Type: Timberland. Improvements: None. Reservoir capacity: Acre-fed Total storage at elevation 1,357 89, 000 Winter regulation: Flood control (elevation 1,357-1,180) 85,000 Summer regulation: Flood control (elevation 1,357-1,350) 6, 000 Joint use — Downstream uses and incidental recreation (elevation 1,350-1,180) 79, 000 Operation and incidental recreation (below 1,180) 4, 000 Relocations: Roads: 9 miles, $3,928,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project 81 June 1969. Land acquisition _ _ 99 December 1968. Relocate county roads 87 July 1968. Relocate U.S. Forest Service roads. 81 October 1968. Reservoir clearing 100 February 1966. Dam and appurtenances 78 December 1968. Effective flood control October 1968. JUSTIFICATION Blue River Reservoir is a unit of the overall Willamette Basin project and an essential unit of the McKenzie River development. In addition to providing annual flood control benefits this project, by joint use of storage, will provide benefits from navigation, downstream power, recreation, and future irrigation. Storage at this reservoir will contribute to flood control not only on the McKenzie River but throughout 175 miles of the Willamette River, affording increased protection to several cities and their suburbs and to about 171,300 acres of agricultural lands which are subject to overflow. A flood of the magnitude of that of l)ecernl)er 1964 a recent large areawide flood, would be reduced 2 feet in stage near the mouth of i he McKenzie River in the Springfield-Eugene area. That flood liad a flow of 85,000 cubic feet per second at Coburg which could have been reduced 18,000 cubic feet per second. The reduction at Harrisburg and Albany would amount to 16,000 and 14,500 cubic feet i)er second, respectively, wliich corresponds to stage reductions of 0.7 and 0.9 feet at each station. Power benefits will accrue to storage because of increased flow at downstream non-Federal powerplants at Leaburg and Oregon City. 475 Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $2, 665, 000 Irrigation (ij Recreation, downstream power, navigation 79 OOO Total 2,744,000 ' IJpuelits for irrigation have been deferred pending a restudy of future irrigation requirements in the Willamette Valley. See "Non-Federal Cost" paragraph, below. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3,100,000 will pe applied to — Complete U.S. Forest Service access road $116 000 Complete county road 112000 Complete construction of dam, appurtenant facilities, and related items 2,445,000 Engineering and design m qoO Supervision and administration 316 000 Total 3,100,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for project completion. Non-Federal cost. — Future non-Federal reimbursement will depend on studies of other water uses. The Department of the Interior has advised that no major commitments for repayment of irrigation costs have been obtained other than for small quantities of water sold to individual farmers on utility-type contracts. The current Willamette review study will reanalyze probable future use of stored water for irrigation of valley lands, the appropriate share of project costs that would be allocated to irrigation, anticipated repayment ability, extent of required financial assistance, and the need for legislation to authorize financial assistance. In the interim, the Chief of Engineers is proposing to eliminate irrigation as a project purpose and reallocate storage among the remaining authorized project purposes. Hence, non-Federal cost sharing will not be required until such time as the irrigation studies referred to above are completed. The future addition of irrigation, or any other alternative water use, will not increase the project cost since the flood control storage is being used on a seasonal basis and will be available for joint use by other project functions. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibilitv for repayment of any future irrigation costs as may be established by Willamette review investigation will rest with the Department of the Interior pursuant to Federal reclamation laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $30,100,000 is a decrease of .$1,300,000 from the latest estimate ($31,400,000) submitted to Congress. This decrease is due principally to a reduction in con- tingencies for the main dam, savings in land costs, and a decrease in supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 _a) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $492,000 $486,700 $5 300 i Relocations 3,928,000 2,310,300 1,146!800 $227"600 $243"300' U.S. Forest Service roads... (1,489,000) (626,200) (694,200) (132' 300) ^363001 County roads.. (2,439,000) (1,684,100) (452,600) (95;300) (207000) Reservoirs 599,000 +500,400 45,000 52 400 l'20n Dams 20,600,000 12,244,200 4,829,700 2,072' 000 1 454' 100 Fisti facilities 59,000 15,000 10,000 26 600 ' 7'400 Roads and bridges 131,000 110,600 -400 20'400 '40(1 Recreation facilities... 10,000 10 000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities. 59,000 20,100 200 33"306 "'b'wo' Permanent operating equipment 136,000 3,100 19,600 108' 300 5' 000 Engineering and design. 2,486,000 2,294,100 81000 110'900 Supervision and administration 1,600,000 1,004,500 280 000 315'500 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 30,100,000 18,989,000 6 427' 200 2 967'000 1 7i5"806" Undistributed cost 1,505,300 78',500 'iSsloOO -l' 716' 800 Transfers of cost or property... —14,600 14 600 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 30,100,000 20,479,700 6,52o!300 3 100 656 Pending adjustments... ' ' ' Total cost (Federal funds only).. 30, 100,000 20,479,706 6,526,366 3"i66'666"" Undelivered orders. _. 281400 —281400 Total obligations. _ 20,761,100 6, 238', 900 '""3"i66'666 Method of financing (Federal funds): Allocations 20,978,200 6,021,800 Unobligated carryover from prior year 217,100 Total funds available for obliga- tion 6,238,900 .. Appropriations required.. _ 3 iqq 666 476 Lower Columbia River Bank Protection, Oregon and Washington (Continuing) Location. — Sixty-one locations along the Columbia River and its major tribu- taries in the reach from river mile 125 to the sea in Oregon and Washington. Authorization. — 1950 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated Federal cost $10, 100, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 200, 000 Cash contribution None Other costs 200,000 Total estimated project cost 10,300,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 3,410,000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date 3,410,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 400, 000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 6, 290, 000 PHYSICAL data Entire Project. — Bank stabilization — dumped stone; total length approximately 134,000 linear feet at 61 locations. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Prior work; 30 locations to June 30, 1967 Work underway with fiscal year 1968 funds; 5 locations: Scappoose Drainage District, Oregon: Evans location Clatsop County Drainage District No. 1, Oregon: North Blind Slough and South Blind Slough. Wahkiakum County Diking District No. 4, Washington: Brooks Slough and Beacon extension. Entire project Percent complete Completion schedule 100 100 100 December 1967. September 1967. September 1968. 32 June 1977. JUSTIFICATION Bank protection improvements are necessary to prevent further bank erosion at critical locations along the lower Columbia River and tributaries. The flood plain downstream from mile 125 includes much high-value agricultural and industrial property. Bank protection is needed to eliminate the threat to many levees protecting much of this area and for stabilization in other areas where bank erosion is critical. River current and wave wash from storms and passing vessels have caused severe erosion which can be stopped only by construction of pro- tective works. Flood control benefits amount to $871,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $400,000 will be applied to — Wahkiakum County Diking District No. 4, Oregon — Complete con- struction on Brooks Slough and Beacon Extension $141,000 Cowlitz County Diking Improvement District No. 15 — Initiate con- struction on upper Coal Creek Slough 170, 000 Engineering and design 63, 000 Supervision and administration 26, 000 Total 400,000 477 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way at an estimated cost of $200,000. The sponsors are required to maintain the bank protection upon its completion. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances and rights-of-way have been received for all locations completed and under construction. Informal assurances have been furnished by officials of Wahkiakum Coimty Drainage District No. 4 and Cowlitz County Diking Improvement District No. 15. Formal assurances and rights-of-way will be furnished for these locations prior to start of construction. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $10,100,000 is an increase of $580,000 over the latest estimate submitted to Congress. The increase is due to higher price levels. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Bank stabilization _ $8,591,000 Engineering and design ' 823,000 Supervision and administration 686,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only). . . 10, 100, 000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments. Total cost (Federal funds only) 10,100,000 Undelivered orders... Total obligations Method of financing Federal funds: Allocations _ Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required $2,451,800 345, 800 210,100 3, 007, 700 $303, 000 69, 200 28, 100 400, 300 10,100,000 3,007,700 400, 300 3, 007, 700 3, 007, 700 3,410,500 400, 300 2,500 402, 800 402, 800 402, 800 $313,500 63, 000 26, 000 402, 500 402, 500 402, 500 -2, 500 400, 000 400, 000 $5, 522, 700 345, 000 421,800 6, 289, 500 6, 289, 500 6, 289, 500 "6,289,566 6, 289, 500 ) Includes $30,000 for real estate activities. Willamette River Basin, Oreg., Bank Protection (Continuing) Location. — Along the banks of the Willamette River from New Era (river mile 33) to a point above Eugene at the confluence of the Middle Fork of the Willamette and the Coast Fork (river mile 185) a distance of 152 miles and along 287 river miles of the lower reaches of nine of the major tributaries. Authorization.— 1936, 1938, and 1950 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution. Other costs. Total estimated project cost. Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocations for fiscal year 1968. Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $13,200,000 263,000 None 263,000 13,463,000 11,912,000 305,000 12,217,000 93 375, 000 95 608,000 478 PHYSICAL DATA Entire project: Bank stabilization, dumped stone, drift barriers, and minor chan- nel improvements; approximately 220 locations, oOO,000 linear feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Prior work, 187 locations to June 30, 1967 Work in progress with fiscal year 1968 funds (7 locations): Willamette River and Middle Fork Willamette: Boggs location, 1st contract Maclay Place D/S extension Molalla River: Island Park _ Santiam River and tributaries: Banick D/S extension , Hayes D/S extension.. Location No. 4._ Lower Blakeley Entire project 100 100 100 November 1967. August 1968. September 1967. 100 100 100 100 92 Do. December 1967. November 1967. October 1967. June 1970. JUSTIFICATION This project is an integral part of the comprehensive plan for flood control and other pui-poses in the Willamette River Basin. Prolonged periods of near bankfuU flow, which will be a normal condition during reservoir releases follow- ing floods, will result in severe bank erosion. Such erosion is a continuing process. Erosion destroys productive farmlands, roads, bridges, and other improvements. Erosion also opens overflow channels and the resulting overflow destroys valu- able property and cuts off areas from their normal access requiring construction of new roads and bridges. The increase in population and agricultural develop- ment of the Willamette Valley has resulted in subdivision to many tracts which are intensively cultivated. Continuation of the bank protection program is nec- essary to avoid substantial loss b\^ destruction of irreplaceable fertile land. Continued unchecked erosion at such locations not only increases the cost of corrective work but adversely affects downstream locations and channel capacities. Estimated annual benefits for reduction in flood damages total $1,726,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $375,000 will be applied to — Willamette River and Middle Fork Willamette — Complete Maclay Place D/S extension; construct Rowland and Laird, and initiate construction on Rentsch location $199,000 Santiam River — Construct Coldspring D/S extension and Ketcham D/S extension 89, 000 Engineering and design 60, 000 Supervision and administration 27, 000 Total . 375, 000 Non-Federal cost. — The estimated cost to local interests for rights-of-way is $263,000, and the estimated cost to local interests for annual maintenance is $7S,000. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances and rights-of-way have been received for Maclay Place D/S extension, and informal assurances of local cooperation in the form of signed statements of intent have been received from representatives of Rowland, Laird, Rentsch, Coldspring D/S extension and Ketcham D/S exten- sion locations. Work at each location is not advertised until local interests furnish rights-of-way and formal assurances that other items of local cooperation will be met. No difficulty in obtaining required assurances is expected. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $13,200,000 is an increase of $100,000 over the latest estimate ($13,100,000) submitted to Congress. Tliis increase is due to higher price levels and increased engineering and design. 479 WILIiAMETTB RIVER BASIN, OREGON BANK PROTECTION SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item 0) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) $10,377,500 I 1,554,000 1,270,000 13,201,500 -1,500 $9,192,900 1,407,800 1,176,800 11,777,500 -1,500 . $350, 400 63,000 28, 000 441,400 $288, 000 60, 000 27, 000 375,000 $546, 200 Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Transfers of cost or property Undistributed cost 23,200 38,200 607,600 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 13,200,000 11.776,000 441,400 375, 000 607,600 Total cost (Federal funds only) 13, 200, 000 11,776,000 2,600 11,778,600 11,912,400 441, 400 -2,600 . 438,800 305,000 . 133,800 . 438,800 . 375, 000 607, 600 Total obligations ... 375,000 607,600 Federal funds, method of financing: Unobligated carryover from prior Total funds available for obligation... Appropriations required 375,000 607, 600 > Includes $30,000 for real estate activities. Operation and Maintenance Mr. Morris. A total of $20,810,000 is budgeted for operation and maintenance. (The justification follows:) 1. Navigation (a) Channels and harbors. — The budget estimate of $8,355,000 provides for essential maintenance work on 31 channel and harbor projects named in the list which follows. The work to be accomplished under this activity consists of main- taining the navigation channels and harbors of coastal harbors by means of dredging, removal of navigation obstructions, and repair of navigation structures, as authorized in the laws adopting river and harbor projects. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes ALASKA Anchorage Harbor $100,000 Periodic maintenance. Dillingham Harbor... $9,000 $149,000 25,000 Dredging boat basin, fiscal year 1968. Homer Harbor 55,000 Periodic maintenance. Mome Harbor 114,000 61,100 75,000 Additional shoal removal, fiscal year 1967. Seldovia Harbor. 55,000 Periodic maintenance. Stikine River 8,000 11,600 10,000 Wrangell Harbor 125,000 Do. OREGON Chetco River 24,400 37,400 35,000 Columbia and Lovi/er Willamette Rivers belov* Vancouver, Wash., and Port- land, Greg. 2,942,600 2,717,700 3,000,000 Columbia River Between Vancouver, Wash., and The Dalles, Oreg 117,900 122,000 125,000 Columbia River at the mouth.. 620,400 778,000 600,000 Variations in shoaling. Coos and Wllllicoma Rivers 15,000 15,000 1st time maintenance, fiscal year 1968. Coos Bay 373,100 474,000 800,000 Periodic dredging, inner channels, fiscal year 1969 91-i59 — 68 — pt. 1- 480 OBLIGATIONS— Continued Project Actual, Estimated, Estimated, Explanation of major fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year changes 1967 1968 1969 $51,000 $60, 700 $80. 000 Variations in shoaling. 126, 500 124, 100 90, 000 Do. 93,400 123,700 90, 000 Do. 23.700 31.800 35,000 200. 300 155,800 200, 000 Do. 50, 000 500, 000 Periodic maintenance 574, 000 471,700 Additional dredging due to December 1964-January 1965 floods, fiscal year 1967. 228, 000 211,300 180, 000 Full project depth in turning basin, fiscal years 1967 and 1968. OREGON Coquille River Rogue River (harbor at Gold Beach) Siuslaw River Tillamook Bay and Bar Umpqua River Oregon Slough (North Portland Harbor).. Willamette River above Portland and Yamhill River. Yaquina Bay and Harbor. WASHINGTON Columbia and Lovi/er Willamette Rivers below Vancouver, Wash., and Portland, Oreg. (See Oregon.) Columbia River at Baker Bay 21,200 Columbia River between Chinook and Sand Island. Columbia River between Vancouver, Wash., and The Dalles, Oreg. (See Oregon.) Columbia River at the mouth. (See Oregon.) Cowlitz River 6,100 Everett Harbor and Snohomish River 212,700 Grays Harbor and Chehalis River 852,600 Lewis River 55, 000 Puget Sound and its tributary waters 210, 000 Quillayute River 80,000 Swinomish Channel 100,000 Willapa River and Harbor and Naselle 495,000 River. Other projects maintained periodically... 203,800 Total, channels and harbors 7,742,700 46, 200 20, 000 Heavy shoaling, fiscal year 1968. 50,000 Periodic maintenance. 25,000 Initial maintenance on newly completed work, fiscal year 1969. 164, 400 210, 000 Periodic dredging of settling basin, fiscal years 1967 and 1969. 791,700 800. 000 9,200 20, 000 Variations in shoaling. 235,200 270. 000 Increasing snag removal woi 70,200 65, 000 113,500 100,000 375,700 550, 000 Periodic dredging, inside channels, fiscal years 1967 and 1969. 989.600 ... 8,340,700 8,355,000 (6) Locks and dams. — The budget estimate of $1,075,000 provides the amount for operational requirements of two projects. Annual requirements are for opera- tion and ordinary maintenance of project facilities; labor, supplies, materials, and parts required for the da^-by-day functioning of projects; and periodic mainte- nance, repairs, replacements, and modernization. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes OREGON Willamette River at Willamette Falls $202,700 WASHINGTON Lake Washington ship canal 686,700 Total, locks and dams 889,400 Total, navigation 8,632, 100 $281, 500 736,600 $325, 000 Replace lock gates, fiscal years 1968 and 1969. 750, 000 1,018.100 1.075,000 9,358,800 9,430,000 481 2. Flood control (a) Reservoirs. — The budget estimate of $1,103,000 for the operation and main- tenance of eight fiood control reservoirs, including essential repair work and scheduling of flood control reservoir operations within the division, provides the amount for operational requirements. Annual requirements are for operation and ordinary maintenance of proj(>ct faeiliti(\s; labor, supplies, material and parts required for the day-by-day functioning of projects, and periodic maintenance, repairs and replacements. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, Estimated, Estimated, Explanation of major fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year changes 1967 1S68 1969 $117,000 $231,600 $190, 000 Road repairs, fiscal year 19! Paint intake tower steel work, fiscal year 1969. 86,900 106,300 155,000 Additional debris removal and parking apron. 74, 000 86, 100 95, 000 Additional debris removal. 81,400 118,700 125,000 First year operation, fiscal year 1967. 271,700 146,000 140, 000 Erosion repairs, fiscal year 1967. 153,600 267, 400 200, 000 Seepage control measures, fiscal year 1958. 108, 000 50, 400 65, 000 Se'tiement of claim, fiscal year 1967. 134,000 158,400 145,000 Road repairs and painiing, fiscal year 1968. 38, 300 74, 300 48, 000 IDAHO Lucky Peak Reservoir OREGOI^ Cottage Grove Reservoir Dorena Reservoir Fall Creek Reservoir _. Fern Ridge Reservoir WASHINGTON Howard A. Hanson Reservoir Mill Creek Reservoir IVlud IVlountain Reservoir Scheduling reservoir operations... Total reservoirs 1,064,900 1,239,200 1,163,000 (b) Channel improvements, inspections, and miscellaneous maintenance. — The budget estimate of $158,000 provides for the essential annual and periodic mainte- nance i-equirements of three flood control protection projects and inspection of completed works within the division during the budget year. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes OREGON Willamette River bank protection $34, 000 WASHINGTON Stillaguamish River.. 22,700 Tacoma, Puyallup River 1,300 Inspection of completed works 48,800 Total channel improvements, inspections and miscellaneous maintenance.. 106,800 Total flood control. 1,171,700 $77,400 18, 300 10,300 68, 600 174,600 1,413,800 $78, 000 15,000 11,000 54, 000 158,000 1,321,000 S. Multiple-purpose projects including power The budget estimate of $9,830,000 for the operation and maintenance of 13 multiple-purpose projects provides the amount for operational requirements. Annual requirements are for operation and ordinary maintenance of project facilities; labor, supplies, materials, and parts required for day-by-day functioning of the projects; and periodic maintenance, repairs, and replacements. 482 OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, Estimated, Estimated, fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year 1967 1968 1969 Explanation of naajor changes IDAHO Albeni Falls Reservoir $394,100 $491,300 $430,000 OREGON Columbia River at Bonneville.. 1,812.800 1,692,600 1,700,000 Cougar Reservoir 282.300 270,600 250,000 Detroit Reservoir 480,100 534,900 440.000 Green Peter-Foster Reservoir 258.000 400,000 Hills Creek Reservoir 139,300 151,300 150,000 John Day lock and dam. 94,000 700.000 Lookout Point Reservoir 519,600 619,800 730,000 McNary lock and dam 1,445.900 1,751,300 1,700,000 The Dalles Dam 1,404,900 1,369,200 1,280,000 WASHINGTON Chief Joseph Dam 1,024,000 1,150,500 1,200,000 Columbia River at Bonneville. (See Oregon.) Ice Harbor lock and dam 831,000 833,400 700,000 John Day lock and dam. (See Oregon.) Lower Monumental lock and dam 150,000 1st year of partial operation McNary lock and dam. (See Oregon.) The Dalles Dam. (See Oregon.) Total, multiple-purpose projects.. 8,334,100 9,216.900 9,830,000 Periodic repairs and replace- ment of wornout equip- ment. Repair spillway gates, fish- ways, and powerhouse equipment, fiscal year 1967. Repair stillmg basin, fiscal year 1967 and 1968. Remote controls and fish facilities, fiscal year 1968. 1st year of partial operation, fiscal year 1968. Do. Periodic repairs and equip- ment replacements. Pumping plant modification, fiscal year 1968. Variations in requirements for periodic repairs and equipment replacement. Clean navigation lock ap- proach channel, fiscal year 1967. Construct new log boom, fiscal year 1968. 4. Protection of namciation The budget estimate of $229,000 provides for accomplishing the work essential to the administration and enforcement of specific laws enacted for the protection of navigation, and project condition surveys on some projects for which mainte- nance is not scheduled for the budget year. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major: changes General regulatory functions $94, 800 87, 200 $102,400 129, 700 $117,000 112,000 Project condition surveys.. on. Total, protection of navigation. Grand total, North Pacific divisii 182, 000 18,319,900 232, 100 20.221,600 229, 000 20, 810, 000 CONTRACT DREDGING— -NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION Mr. Morris. To ^\ Imt extent is dredging performed under contract in your Division, General ^ General Yates. It" you want percentage in terms of dollars or some other way we will be liappy to furnish it for the record, sir. ]\Ir. jMorkis. 1 wish you would furnish that for the record. General Yates. A percentage of dollar value of dredging we can furnish for the record, sir. (The information follows :) 483 Contract Dredging Versus Dredging With Government Plant in North Pacific Division 111 tlie period fiseal year IOCS through fiscal year 1969 contract dredging in the North Pacific Division has ranged from 28.0 percent of total dredging in fiscal year 1!K)4 to an estimated HS.L' ijcrcenl for fiscal year 11»(>9. Animal dollar value of dredging is summarized below : |ln thousands of dollars] Fiscal years Estimate Estimate 1968 1969 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Government plant... Contract.- Total.. Contract dredging as percent of total dredging Mr. Morris. Mr. Rhodes. $4,177.6 2,303.1 $4, 432. 4 1,701.8 $6, 059. 9 6,224.9 $5,952.8 6. 077. 4 $4,251.2 5, 926. 2 $4,978.2 5, 506. 5 $4,241.5 5.941.3 6,480.7 6,134.2 12,284.8 12, 030. 2 10,177.4 10,484.7 10.182.8 If total 35.5 27.8 50.7 50.5 55.1 52.5 58.2 STRETCHOUT PROGRAM Mr. Rhodes. General, the old question : Do you have any projects that would be susceptible to a stretchout? General Yates. Again, Mr. Rhodes, I could not recommend a stretch- out because inevitably it is inefficient. I do not have any which are of their own nature slipping for which I can consider an appropriate recommendation of lesser funds than I have submitted. Mr. Rhodes. If we determine a stretchout is required, would you prefer we indicate that certain projects should be postponed so that the others could proceed at an optimum level ? General Yates. I think this is a question that might better be addressed to the chief of engineers, but from our standpoint guidance on what Congress desires in delays is certainly desirable. I assume any such action would certainly take into consideration the engineer- ing and financial effects that might be expected. I establishment of priorities Mr. Rhodes. I feel you probably could set the priorities in your own division better than we could and perhaps it would be better for us to indicate that there are to be certain reductions, if the committee in fact decides there should be reductions, and let you allocate them. General Yates. I will repeat my general statement made before, that if I were given a lump sum with no strings, this would allow the most efficient use of the money by applying it where it would be most effective. Mr. Rhodes. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we are not engineers. LUMP-SUM appropriation Mr. RoBisoN. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. Rhodes. Yes. Mr. RoBisoN. If there should be a reduced lump-sum appropriation without strings, as you put it, how would the allocation of the money be made? 484 General Yates. The allocation of the money would be made by the Office of the Chief of Engineers. However, I am sure that it would not be made without my recommendations and comments. Mr. RcBisojv. Thank you. LOST CREEK RESERVOIR. GREG. Mr. Rhodes. Not because I want to do any thinking for you at all, but it does seem to me that if there are any projects that might be de- ferred for a considerable length of time, the one on page 164, Lost Creek, Oreg., would be a very good candidate. Out of $87,100,000 the allocations to date are $3,405,000, and the amount requested for 1969 is $2 million. With this sort of a record I doubt very much you have any contractors at work right now whose investments are great or that the ultimate cost would increase astronomically if it were delayed. There may be others. I bring this out as an example of how you might make cuts. General Yates. This project has slipped a year by reason of a budget stretchout. The work contemplated is preliminary work to major construction. Mr. Rhodes. That is all. Mr. MoKRis. Mr. Davis. PROJECTION OF FDTURE REQUIREMENTS Mr. Davis. To what extent do you sit down and attempt to project what your expenditures are going to be in total, keeping in mind the efticiency of certain levels of spending on individual projects? Right now we are caught in a bind where you have a number of large proj- ects that seem to be at their peak so far as funding requirements. Is this a matter of future planning within your office or do you just make the assignments as they come with the money that is pro- vided you? General Yates. We do a great deal of future planning. All these plans do not always work out the way we think they should, of course. We regularly forecast our expenditures 10 years ahead and we are now looking further ahead on an annual basis to determine our best estimates of the needs and to make a long-term estimate that would minimize sharp ups and clowns. Next year looks like our peak year when we will have more big projects going than ever before. Our pres- ent estimate is we will drop off after next year for about 5 years. We have forecast this and we try in the long range to recommend new project starts in a manner that Mill avoid severe fluctuations. FUTURE 5-YE.\R Pi;OJ?:C'lI0N' Mr. Davis. Is there any reason why you could not give us your best current projections for the r> fiscal years ahead l General Yates, T^nless there is some administi-ative constraint, I know of no reason why Ave cannot give an estimate for the next 5 yenrs, realizing this is based on our best estimates of how funds might be provided from year to year to meet requirements as we see them. (The information follows:) 485 Appropriation projections, North Pacific Division Fiscal year 1969 .1;802. GS5, OfK) Fiscal year 1970 329, 000, 0(X» Fiscal year 1971 312,000,000 Fiscal year 1972 257, 000, 000 Fiscal year 1973 232,000,000 Fiscal year 1974 192, 000. 000 Note. — ^^These amounts are subject to change depending upon budgetary criteria and fiscal considerations in effect at time of budget formulation. Mr. Davis. That is all I have. Mr. Morris. Mr. Eobison, Mr, Eobison. Mv. Chairman, yon and iny other colleagues have done such a good job that I am left only with a recjuest to summarize the activities of this diAision. AMOUXT APPROPRIATED IN FISCAL YEAR liXiS FOR GENERAL INVESTIGATIONS Keferring to page 1 of the justifications, you show a request for general investigations of $2,010,000. What was the amount appropri- ated for this item in the current budget ? General Yates. $2,186,000, sir. AMOUNT APPROPRIATED IN FISCAL YEAR 1968 FOR ADVANCE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN Mr. RoBisoN. For advance engineering and design you show a re- quest for $1,905,000. What was the amount appropriated for this item in the current budget ? General Yates. $2,261,000, sir. AMOUNT APPROPRIATED IN FISCAL TEAR 19 68 FOR CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL Mr. Eobison. For construction you show a request for $277,960,000. What was the amount appropriated for this item in the current budget ? General Yates. $247,638,000, sir. However, a reduction of $29.- 714,000 was applied for savings and slippage, and a reduction of 6- •644,000 was applied pursuant to Public Law 90-218, for a net ap- propriation of $211,280,000. AMOUNT APPROPRIATED IN FISCAL TEAR 19 68 FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL Mr. Eobison. For operation and maintenance you ask for $20,- 810,000, "VVliat was the amount appropriated for this item in the current budget? General Yates. $19,906,600, sir. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL REQUEST FISCAL TEAR 19 69, CORPSWIDE Mr. Eobison. One further question in this respect: "Wliat is the total corps request for construction in the 1969 budget? Mr. Cohen. For construction, general, it is $904 million, new ap- propriation. The $904 million is based on application of the $61.7 million put in reserve in 1968. So we have to increase that by $61.7 486 million. In addition, there are $50 million savings which comes out of the total figures shown in the projects. The program is approxi- mately $112 million higher than the actual money that is asked for appropriation. Mr. KoBisoN. That is all I have. Mr. Morris. I commend General Yates for the excellent presenta- tion you made to the conunittee this morning. General Yates. Thank you. Monday, ]\L\rch 11, 19GS. MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION WITNESSES BRIG. GEN. C. CRAIG CANNON, DIVISION ENGINEER JEROME 0. ACKERMAN, CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION ALBERT BARTOS, CHIEF, PLANNING DIVISION MORRIS BECKER, CHIEF, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE Mr. KiRWAN. The committee will come to order. Do you h'dve a statement, General ? General Cannon. Yes ; I do. Mr. Kir^van, Please proceed. General Statement General Cannon. ]\Ir. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity to present some general infor- mation about the Missouri River division. As a newcomer to the INIidwest, I have been impressed by tlie physi- cal size of the area whicli the Missouri River division encompasses as shown by this map. The basin includes the entire drainage area of the Missouri River and its tributaries within the United States and in- cludes all or parts of 10 States. I am also impressed by the vast water resource development pro- gram underway in this division and the remarkable progress made thus far. This map shows corps projects in operation. And here is a map showing projects under construction. Corps proj- ects completed and under construction in the basin represent a Federal investment of about $2.5 billion. In the planning stage, currently, are additional projects with a total cost of about $200 million to serve the needs of flood control, navigation, and other water conservation uses. As a result of bountiful ninofT from the mountains and plains last year, a total storage of about 59 million acre- feet was impounded in the six Missouri River reservoirs at the end of 1967 or almost 2^/2 times the average annual flow at Sioux City, Iowa. FEOOD protection The value of the main stem i-eservoirs from a flood control stand- point alone was demonstrated again in 1967. Flood damages resulting from heavy and continuous rninfnll in most of the Missouri Basin last 487 June amounted fco about $54 million along the main stem of the Mis- souri Kiver between Yankton and tlie mouth. However, the main stem reservoirs, together with levees at Kansas City, Omaha, and Council Bluffs, plus completed units of the Missouri River levee system, pre- vented additional damages estimated at $580 million. Here is a typical scene in the low^er Missouri Valley where a locally built farm levee was breached by the floodwaters. A unit of the Mis- souri River levee system would protect this area, but is not yet funded for planning. This is an aerial view of one of the main stem reservoir projects — Garrison Dam and Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota. A few miles upstream from the main dam is an impoundment on the Snake Creek arm of the reservoir. Here is an aerial shot of the 12,000-foot-long Snake Creek embank- ment, looking from the Garrison Reservoir side toward the Snake Creek impoundment. This slide, taken last summer, shows a portion of the damage to the Snake Creek embankment and the riprap facing. We expect to award a contract very shortly for rehabilitation of the facing on this side. Favorable bids for a contract were received on March 6 and are cur- rently being evaluated. Funds for continuation of this work are included in the budget request. Widening of the embankment, to accommodate a four-lane highway, under cost-sharing agreement with the State of North Da- kota, and rehabilitation of the facing on the Snake Creek impound- ment side will follow in subsequent contracts. Here is Harlan County Dam on the Republican River in Nebraska. In operation since 1952, this project serves flood control, irrigation, and other purposes. Funds w^ere added to the budget request last year by Congress to study the feasibility of modifying Harlan County Reservoir to pro\dde a more stable conservation ]:)ool and a higher level of conservation storage to permit a more adequate recreational potential. NAVIGATION AND BANK STABILIZATION _ Now I would like to cover progress on the navigation and bank sta- bilization project. This slide shows a commercial tow carrying the first shipment of anhydrous ammonia, used for fertilizer, to a new terminal at Blair, Nebr. The plant, placed in operation in 1967, is typical of many new terminal facilities being built along the river by private sources even though construction of this project is still underway. Commercial traffic on the river continues to increase, reaching a new high of about 2,600,000 tons in 1967. The navigation channel dimensions are developing very well in the upper reach of the project where a channel depth of 81/^ feet has been achieved between Sioux City and Omaha. Of course, it often takes several years after a new^ structure has been placed for the full effect to occur in the river bed. The same is true when Ave add new dimensions to older structures. We have found, as a result of surveys and studies made since last spring, that the lower reaches between Rulo, Nebr., and the mouth have not developed as we had anticipated. A substantial amount of additional construction will be required to attain the au- thorized 9-foot by 300-foot channel dimensions. A report on this mat- 488 ter was prepared by my predecessor and submitted to the Appropria- tions Committee by the Chief of Engineers last fall. L-HEAD STRUCTURES Here is an artist's conception which indicates some of the principal types of additional structures which are needed to achieve the channel dimensions. On the left side of the drawing are several L-head struc- tures. All told, more than 700 L-head structures will be extended or constructed in the lower river. These L-head structures, used success- fully since 1963, are refinement type works which help control the river flow and encouraire a buildup of accretion behind them. In the middle foreground is an extension of an L-head which we call a crossing structure used very effectively in preventing split chan- nel conditions and to keep the river flow properly directed when cross- ing from one bend to the next one downstream. We plan about 240 of these structures. The spur dikes shown jutting out from the bank on the right side of the sketch are older structures, but we will need about 680 more of these to divert flow from the convex side of bends and move it into proper alinement. The low elevation underwater structures, shown by dotted lines, which extend out from the spur dikes, serve to confine the water at low flows to the desired alinement. We estimate about 280 of these will be required. We also find it necessarj^ to raise the elevation of the stone in many of the existing strvictures. This additional work is considered necessary to attain the 9-foot by 300-foot channel and will, of course, extend the completion date for the project to the mid-1970's. This slide shows a stabilized reach of the river with L-head struc- tures in the upper left side of the photo, and a crossing structure in the middle left side. Last spring we made a survey at low water stage which revealed serious deterioration of bank revetments, some of which had been in place from 15 to 30 years. By way of illustration, here is a photo of a deteriorated revetment, taken when the river was 5 or 6 feet below normal navigational level. This revetment, placed about 25 years ago, was constructed on a 1 and II/2 slope and paved with small stones rang- ing in size from 50 to 100 pounds each. This slide illustrates the type of revetment repairs which are now needed. The stone placed here ranges between 250 and 500 pounds each. The need for increased maintenance funds to repnir these deterio- rated revetments was also discussed in the report which was furnished the committee last fall. These repairs can be accomplished by an in- creased maintenance program over a 5-year period. The budget re- quest for maintenance and operation includes funds to initiate the additional repair work. PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Now we will show some photos of construction progress at the Stockton, Perry, Eathbun, and Chatfield Reservoir projects shown on this map. 489 This photograph looking downstream was taken in August 1966 at the Stockton damsite located on the Sac River in Missouri. It shows excavation in the spillway and powerplant areas. And here is a photo taken 14 months later. Note the deeper excava- tion on the left and the concrete work on the right. This slide, taken in July 1966, shows construction on Perry Dam, located on the Delaware River in Kansas. The outlet works construc- tion can be seen in the middle of the photo. The following photo, taken in June 1967, looks downstream toward the dam at the same outlet works. Although the project was still under construction, it was possible to close the gates last June and impound floodwaters and debris caused by heavy rains in the Kansas River Basin. The impoundment, as shown in the foreground, was subse- quently released at a regulated rate, preventing the Delaware River floodwaters from worsening flood conditions downstream. This photo of Rathbun Dam, taken in August 1966, looks across the Chariton River Valley along the center line of the dam in early stages of construction. The river can be seen in the center of the picture. And this view was taken in October 1967, at which time the embank- ment had been placed to a sufficiently high level to permit diversion of the Chariton River through the outlet works, shown at near the center of the picture. The dam should be complete by the end of this year. Although major progress has been made in w^ater resources develop- ment in the Missouri Basin, there are still significant problems to be solved if we are to keep pace with the basin's growing population and expanding economy. Some of the basin's major cities still are vulnerable to flooding of catastrophic proportions such as shown in this view of the Hampden Avenue Bridge in Denver, Colo., just after the June 1965 flood. This photo sliows early construction on Chatfield Dam located on the South Platte River a few miles upstream from Denver, Colo. Although still vulnerable to flooding from other tributaries, Denver will be protected against floods on the South Platte River and Plum Creek when Chatfield Dam is completed. Kansas City, Mo., and Omaha, Nebr., enjoy a high degree of protection from Missouri River floods but they, too, are still subject to major floods from tributary streams. I am pleased to advise that a survey report recommending improvement for flood control on the Little Blue River, on the eastern edge of Kansas City, recently was sent to Congress. Tw^o other survey reports, recommending improvements for flood control on Bear Creek at Denver and Papillion Creek at Omaha are under review in Washington prior to submission to Congress. A fourth report covering the Blue Ri^er at Kansas City is nearing completion in the field. FLOOD PLAIX MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Although survey report studies of the more pressing flood problems are underway, floods will increase in severity as urban areas con- tinue to grow, and flood losses in rural areas will increase as tech- nological advances increase the land's ability to produce. The Corps of Engineers flood plain management program is encouraging local ^ 490 interests to manage their flood plain areas wisely, but there are many areas where protective works will be the only practicable solution. EXTENSION OF SIOUX CITT TO YANKTON, S. DAK., NAVIGATION PROJECT The only currently demonstrable need for further navigation im- provement in the basin is extension of the existing project from Sioux City to Yankton, S. Dak. A survey report recommending this ex- tension is under review in Washington prior to submission to Congress. WATER SUPPLY Water supply needs for municipal and industrial use will continue to grow, requiring substantially larger storage requirements. Contin- ued growth and development in both urban and rural areas will also increase low-flow requirements and the need for better water quality control. RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE Reservoirs built in the Missouri Basin have made a major contribu- tion to the basin's outdoor recreation and fish and wildlife conserva- tion needs. Visitor attendance at corps projects in the basin jumped from 10 million in 1966 to 12.5 million in 1967, underscoring the demands for additional water-basin recreation facilities. POWER PROJECTS Hydroelectric power projects are helping to meet the basin's power requirements, particularly demands for peaking power. Additional power projects are being studied as the Missouri Basin's powerload is increasing at a rate whicli will require that the basin's existing generation capacity of about 10 million kilowatts will have to be more than doubled in the next 10 years. This foreseeable market growth promises that inclusion of project power, when economically justified, will find a ready market. MISSOURI BASIN FRAMEWORK STUDIES The basin's water resources needs will be better defined when the Missouri Basin comprehensive framework studies, now underway with all States and interested Federal agencies participating, are completed. The report on this study will be completed in 1969. SUMMARY OF 196 9 PROGRAMS The budget request will permit construction of active projects to continue at a minimum level plus continuation of our advance engi- neering and design and investigation programs. Although no con- struction starts are included in this budget request, funds are in- cluded to initiate land acquisition at the Clinton Reservoir, located ■on the Wakarusa River, a tributary of the Kansas River. One ad- vance engineering and design start is included for the Onaga Reser- voir project on Vermillion Creek, another triliutary of the Kansas River. These projects will prevent flooding on the tributary streams 491 downstream from the dfims and, in combination with other existing and authorized projects, will essentially accomplish the presently planned program for reducing flood crests on the main stem of the KansasRiver. They will also assist in reduction of flood crests on the lower Mis- souri Kiver, proA^ide a readily available source of water for industrial and municipal usage, augment low flows in the Kansas River during drought periods, and have important recreation potentials. This completes my opening statement. L-HEAD CONSTRUCTION Mr. BoLAND (presiding). Thank you, General Cannon, for a very fine graphic and excellent statement. The L-head construction is a relatiAely new concept for the control and protection of ri\er channels. AVhat are the materials that co into it? General Cannon. The material used currently is primarily lime- stone. If I might say, the earlier construction was oftimes wood mats or wood piles. We still used wood piles, but it is merely an adjunct tO' the construction process. COST OF CONTROL STRUCTURES Mr. BoLAND. "Wliat is the unit cost ? General Cannon. Revetting? Mr. BoLAND. Yes, L-construction itself; what is the average cost per mile? General Cannon. It would be a shorter length than a mile. I doubt we would ever revet continuously a mile. Mr. BoLAND. You apparently have considerable footage of this type of revetment on this river. How many L-head constructions do you indi- cate that you have ? General Cannon. Including raising of structures, approximately 3,500 either raised or new construction. Mr. BoLAND. Thirty-five hundred new structures ? General Cannon. Yes, sir. Mr. BoLAND. What would be the total cost of the 3,500 new struc- tures? You may supply that. Since it is a new concept, I would like to know what the unit cost is. General Cannon. May I point out that we will have both revetment structures and we will have structures projecting into the riAer. I would like to furnish that information for the record. Mr. Boland. Fine. (The information follows:) 492 COST OF ADDITIONAL DIKES AND REVETMENTS REQUIRED IN LOWER RIVER « Type of structure Number of structures Estimated cost Total cost 2 Cost per structure Extension of existing L-head structures - 377 $5,735,000 $15,212 New L-head structures 388 9,290,000 23,943 Spurdikes - 679 3.005,000 4.425 Low-elevation undersills 277 2,620,000 9,457 Crossing structures 237 7,750,000 32,700 Raising elevation of stone in some existing structures 1,730 7,000,000 4,046 Total 3,688 35,400,000 > Missouri River between Rulo and mouth. < Includes applicable engineering and design and supervision and administration. Note: Unit prices used in preparing the estimate were based on the average of low-bid prices received for similar work during 1967. USE OF L-HEAD CONTROL STRUCTURES Mr. BoLAND. Wliere has it been used ? Mr. AcKERMAN. It is a new development that has come into being as a result of model testing that we have been doing to discover a cheaper way of smoothing up the bank and getting a uniform flow along the channel. As you can tell from tlie picture, if we revetted the bank it would require rock on 100 ]>ercent of the surface. We found that from model tests that smoothing out or building this front face at the ends of the spur dikes for about 60 percent of the length, gives us about the equivalent of a full revetment. Mr. BoLAND. Kevetment with the L-type structure is spasmodic ? Mr. AcKERMAN. It is only in certain locations where the spur dikes extending out produced a rough surface that we are finding this neces- sary. It is based entirely on research. Mr. BoLAND. Do you have any general questions ? (No response.) General Investigations Mr. Boland. If not, we will insert the justification for General Investigations. (The justification for general investigations follows:) 493 a zi -=i2-a> o ition: mple fisca rl96 a 83 ?S5S s Oi ental locat caly 196 h •-■« = T3 O 3 a

^ i? — ^'^ cum.? _ ii; * o «■» ;1SQ -J ' 5 "T 'o ^ i-g'^-3.S2 a.S-=0 -2 § o ^r oo E-3;2-=oS^-S"J|oo iJ ^ O - ==-_^ *"-'-onJQ.o |il!!!illlliljilll!1Si o °ot ' DjO^ -^ ^m^-^'^O'^Q..— cu^Q.„il-^ocu->'~-2 J*.J'S.g5^^i t.E S e i S .= cQ = -"^ iii'- -■?■ = '3=_^ == ;3 I ;j=-o-=' : *- ES-^ ■ -a 5 ti 5 S..S .- s XI 3 5 " o ra "S — c o 3 s 2 ■2 o d T3 ■o ° ™ ^ a. 1 o o o o o o i 1 no i J3 X3 O o" 1 T3 o CO c: o o c 1 C d o o i£ O o z 5 □ CD CD >— E < o o m c Q o m O Q_U3 p T3 E E c o i DO o O o o =3 5 o Q E E o S "o -o o _o o o c O CO Si a> ?o C QJ E1S "ro"o ■ -'7 K. 1— R £ o ^ o c c o O 3 o 1 O o i Q § i— O o o c o 1- 494 o Q..S2 0' 5 E'ti'z; ■tr ulSO^ <1= ) I C bO ^ m o£ ^> < CO) I S — 'j2 — >o— ^j;: — *— -n-c!rio'-i-'=-oroo)o«!_,— a, E> t-i !" o S E^R.— — o. ■2,M5S ? --TT ' >- i.ESS E 2; J-o ,- — -1= ~^ o i _ _ E K ~ "i ^ = E 5 S £ "o E g o i =r^ 0. S E — Sod" m"^ = (^""o ia)T3a=-a:-='^a; .. - S 5 S ^ °=-^^ TO 2 ■? = c.-t-o'" E iiPfiii;ilill- ; — > i- 4/0 o£ E E '' '•g-c M.E^ E r: S"' Si— c —^ o o o ItoS-iIeIto^ J- O =3 J -= C3 -O :3 "^ > iS°^SE£"£ES^ 495 •^ S l/J o c = -O'S O) O Q) ;p O C TO Q3 = S "xJ 1 I S „ 3 TO_2 s 3 2 o -^ oa o) o >,-o''=.E ■= ; *-cj-" -O 2 Oo = ■I iS ?^ i'si'g s.^ SSI'S 5-° g i^i2 "^OJ M .;^o-.S>oocr.E:a>c°- o,'± •a . °£ ■ a>" ■£ro.9* t'^ =— ^— 0) TO =1^ 5 5 2?— ° S S'^ E ? E Ea>--5 „-^^="S g S^.E TO lsif::l^:-iii?lilil:.| |r >,S TO S =Bg a; = I ™ ^^S- ^-^ c° — <"'°c£°- **.— •— to5£ -to — ^-^E'^ft^uaJ"J5wc"^^'■^^>^^*- — £-=" — cO'5.Eoc°°-^a.3 — H E T3 TO TO "^J""!^ "^-coJ— .yi/ioj"" Sto !■■= 3 TO e'I^ e^ Ze. " °!^^|osl.iH- ■5 , TO O TO J2 ->^w*v^'-0— TOr-"Q.P5*^ C^o-ja-o o~ i- E--'^^ a> JS°n, 2° •'"""•H-oto ^ %-^\Z. ^^ ^ ^ 'cr. r^ -"o^^ _ o a>-' E- -^^S-eis-ojIe-^I _^ O Q.T3 3 (u _^ _^ TO ^ V3 t»-; So = ,-|^ . ::^C5- iJt/) °_ ojO-Q ) O °fiCT» "°-2o-E:i 3= '^fS.SiS .= -i^p^^s^ s: 5b»oo .9i iE °. Se = ^|^E-o-g-5';^-S«'|-sl c*_TO^oSo3C.Q'aj^a3(- O 0*0 .«^^ h. CL— I TO TO.O CT3._ : >^^J-o a«)c " TO = 00;^ Q.J3 TO TO'ro"o'> c " ^1 ' E 3 5 >,£ E a^iJ-o TO I 91-459 — 68 — pt. 1 32 496 "^ ° S £ » ^ >^^ -1 ^ > a! .— Sa> ■~™ P "^ m rat'' tu "J.t:- io- £^ 3Cn ra^ ^ o~ ;x^ '^:b = '-— ISS'a'^" '-9° ■^ oo ra [ »- .-^ ra c ^'T ^J2 I 3 ■-^*' = 3- E.2"5 oO^ ^ Oi o -w; = oS=Ea:fe. = — .^- a: =;.!= I t^ ^ o o-a; JJ O) m 2 ; !-"_ -o V) 3 * '-^•o zi ^' 0-2 2 ,-.0^-5- "S'ccoO^S^ '"3=000 :r Sm I =5 E .a::££ -«r1S^-o3-o-s32*g=^-5.E-S°='^o-ag ^>. Qj — a)rao^t^-:£cok_ ^■— o"^ i_ (u o -2"°m'o S^ S-2 = ° TO =1- O C -O C/) TO t/,' *- ^ S 5;; 2;2 E a g d 0) Q. E £ ^ ^ c -^JI;to OT3- -B 0^0 0.^2 «TO.J ^^„ ^_ "^-05= E«^£.-= = ^ = ^| ^ss-^^r.|||j^-J-|g €3 0-5 497 -9 2 2.^ ° r -S S = ™ 2 Ea;-S=>Ea>_: 2 5-Si2JD.5 si^-a- ._ _=oo._ -^|^^^^^„^^^ ^„^ _ ^i:5m = = >,,_cu„-'-Q-.2o s^ i ™ s &o i'aiJ^.si-M.? 1^:5 i " d a^ §:-■; ■*-'j£ JyJXJ J"1— O^ ^ s^ o (Q o.: . QO— CkO :S^i£^, <-2 _ E ° "2*. ~ ^ — *^^ ° ° ™ P £'o So " J T3 OQ ^ Q, CM^- ..- 1 o »- o ■* 1 _0 5= ^ w (Q ' = £ oo ~ Sm-~'o o„ k: • ^-S °-Or^-= TO ; c5S TO 01 =ooi2 v5 M o22s = "„ ^ ■" TO (U 'J3 o CD --; ~ TO ^ 5 &o ■ap"' ' ~ ~ o -^ o ii "2 iS ;f Ss "S 1 1 °-|^-;g||§||| ->- — *- QJ .E , Q.-0 ; i^ < =£' - "JO s:x: ■Eg^r.SE E-; TO ^ S- Sac- £ o o = ^- .Q.-S:^TO = - ' e_x «2;e ■^ DO c Se->°-£ I, TO-g ^-S £ E toS i^-^ =- - 2 S ^ 5 ^5 t: c-E'-Q M 5 2°^ " . o ! ^^ ' 13 i° oo .qO -^ ^- S2 — :'^E^_gm!=a)_o = cc o I — - .j t: 2 - ' S o a. " ^ = £"=5E--0:?-S , — ,^-^— E 2'*- I ^ Ei^.a.TOS'c ,E o) Q- E ij Q..!2 0.^0: J E-i 2;-o 5^ Eo°=i= SS !^"£-°.S = o. J3^ a.oT=J^ QJOO- — wu_^ j= u -T: Q. c 498 2 g ® c« .2 2 S "'7^>-Or--°i=-oS;a'— i^ E " £ mS a; re o raS u- • (U.i2 - - " - ^ a> • J o= ^-^ 5^ ™ 2 s I " a;: 1 jj ro — ^ TO ,_ u. T ^-^CE 3C/J ,£ S 2 ™i — -CO ^ -■;:;; Q- ■t^ g Sj SRo-g fe >■ - CO S e E M 0.-"° -i s s - fe-O TO ■= E , OtotoooSJ^o" toE3:^-|-|e ■ ^ - 2? E5< 3<£S. c/5 z; o CO o_- ^ E < _ ii o S X m - .| o§.c~S'o'-5 8" !r".;=TOai(u Jro-ojOj — 2sa):f-S9o'" = ° ^ ;r S TO^o e£"" ^5-SEffiTO§Ss^ — i2 ^ E cl:;3 *- — — Vi <" - -^ 2.J5-2-:: S " ^E I "^ -3 "3 TO "T^ - E ES E< = o ^ ™ "5^3 S o (D ^ = -E O E 3 TO "QitS Q.:z:.E ^__ ^ S o:^ E .0 ^|l II ilfi:-' 50 ; ^t:: . ' tt>0 l^'^p — ' Q- c.E i^i^TO _, a> > 00 is ^oa. • 3 3 ^ ^ cj Ir 5 M E 3 X o.^ ai~~ ° = ~ ^ '^° S - ;. oj,i:-TOogg^=grC"gJ_S ;J2;|e^TO-2Ega:5;5-5_TO°ST-a.2_2 ~T3 "~ 1; S aj go J (/) o i_ ^ o o i,s 5- T ^ to'o = ill CO -^ = c 2 ° ° ^ "2 So """S " S -D , D o^ 2 0= c— ""° S-S™Si;-'~^5^E'=^ '^ o- ^ £ i 5 E ^ ^.E .= '-•5 = 5^ ■" m -r; I— £? S "^ =^ to MiS E " "^ ^ "K — i ? .^3= .rat^fg-^: _- = E ~ — oj c S E eo?; 3-o-S:^ ir ^J o ^ ^"^ r: : .•o £-.5 o; s t3 "- s t:-S 3 £ E ^ s m "^ 2: t:; r: ~ a, -■- S g aj 3 E_ ^ _ „ OO . =: o ;-£o£ OQ g gi: .2 iW ^ ^- o ;g JS S =j 15 ■^.E tag] 3 1=^^° J= ^.O O) .^ "^ "to "o g «3 ;< p S E "U ■ ii~2^MS'S : o o c; - S ^ cr_u — -a _ — Dx)'^ o "" g iS Ef S- Sc 5 tt)"o o? g E -Q=' = O.H,.j^'^g'^'^"g2j^'^^^^c:'E'g .3'CJj^Q^o" 15° 1^ £^ 2t.M,al_^^ = E ° =l'i^l5 ^1'?:! sTd^ >-?,|| 1 1 if I jJi aj o OCT) S-^ «: o ^ o <^ ^ .£; «:' iij-' H " "= ^ E _ CT> ° CD — < 5 03a)<«^og ■gpfg-.E = -5,-EQ= SSr "S ^-°t: g.^ «=5 = IS- n X3 ^■C^— CD*; t/f O "P 03 ^ O .9 00 c dj-'g a. w ■ -|s g£o.i|-gor|S|t; 0<<^SSrot:'0 = E p><"' = !? S 3 - ra = — — mni-atJo'O^'- .5'- ■D .!i; -o ° ra i '-' rocQ (^ •-oi: 5, '--a ,3c -a Olio—'- .S^Sa ^ooinw ?=£ = > = "on 5^0) "js 5)2 £ S E g-E .00 c a> ■ X^ S o oa S°-°- i; S 5 E «c= ° o' =■ pS 5 ™s|£| s II S g.i"'igT> I S-°^'?3^^-S § pS ""Sf -SS a^a'*2c-SSc_SEC:Ero?^Eo £zSRSrat;50;„-,„;i5M ■ p_o c ■^ ^T, O^ ^ ?£?£■§- I^SS-Sffg E ■Mvir-jt^-a — '. > _^ ., , S^.jm^'^moi'SS'^-ajf'KE S;"S'-o E^^ E-E— 2 S^.E ■^'r'''t:T!ia>J2„-SQ.Qj|— oJi'nEoj^'-.- — rS?;-c!S s=s.E^.jir ' "t^ ^ ^ trt o 3 ojO-; - p O w — X £' ; c-Sui 5'^ ° g £ 0"" 5 = rao'^ll< ;xi ^ a> TO ".^ 15_gm£.E^-Eg^ •5l_ ™ O r: ^ m S O ^.E^slStS 501 ;|<^«-n|g: /— . ^m 5 ^ TO-E: (/I O > ni'r^ CL (O'*--^'*-' ^ o = . M^ ^ ^ _« oj — 5 °--a I— i>J — « ^*"o a. .J^-*- ^O O! oi; J — pC O u— „ u— — . lif|lll-5|ip|lifii I sls;^'^?!!^!! 00 9-J3 Q> — 2 ->, is.£: :— Qj p "D -^ s ■ ;S||§£o CO E ^ _ Q) != ro o E 5Q3=tfl-2t^ ^ ^ p -P ?1 '>- ^ ^ .^ 3^^ ™ o o a= 'i:' ^ - *^ TO ^^"oj E£'^ 3 "= • ""'^ ro3 m-o TO E «■§ £ TO — "o :-j; Q, mO •S-- P : P = 05 —^ 5.E£°°t: m m -; ^"C ? S5 g'E.sS E £-Ss|c ^ .= -p o -t ^ Qj ^ p- ^": 5 OJ "^ o'^ ^ : O -P CP-C3 - (/) t/) " '^ Dfl-t '5; CO -D t^ TO t? TO T;p:-=a>3::E £ 5 p ^ W)o't^ llf°llil.^allll il-t^g.Ellll-f^pl ? P-K „, q5^ =cS ^ £ ^;^ ra = 3 -£TO m-5=: S-i^^Tp'^ j^g^-^i^il^sp '■|'^ ""^ =■ i si o « E -i;--Ej= occo)" S - o o a> g i_ w TO -p ■■= .P " j 1- S m J2 -P ■" " — S £ 5 j>Sa)O.Sc0^g^ ? S S £" " S?~ i/> 5 3 — CO a; LnP.t;Eoo20*-ajF? ■g" 2;-s 2-0 pg5.S.s^='°^° I "Is 09 1 : '^ .S.2 «, 9S S : o -a 09 — Cray's 03 -C3 T3 CJl CO C o d V) E '~* o u. ^ ^ ^ 5 o o Q_ — ^ Op TO o. o O o i 1 a: ^ ^ c: S oo i o i f S O ^ E c ^ o ^ ^ oo i2 o h- oS -o to ^ G 5 o X O o _2 !^ 1 g" OJ 3 DO 00 be- o .s o i i d o ■s t- To X) -c =3 o "pa s 1— S£ 1— «4- JE C a. -o oo^ S; ra = Q> ^ o Q. Z oii;5 o ro nj " ^ o; ■a ^tS'^oo E _-£,9- CC O i-- -5 = >*-.^o^JQo ^ 503 (D-g COOO o'5.,!2 5 SEtw ■Jo ^'to 55|-g-iS ^ sill's a.-" <-> TO ^ = E— coS -BrooS-*oz3 CU5;= c , ° £ m£ 5 o'-S JJ 1/) ra 2 !=■£ ''"qj _ ^ 03 ■!" c:""" 2^ i; ro p a'^-c QO-; -^ i 3 = "fll^o-f E"-S 03 -^ C ^i-Zcoc -P^Tto:r:J2=3-2>, "C p ^ ^ 03 — Qi*"J2 — o "t; ^ . S - > — ^ SS"'' 2"^— £"0 roJ C Qj'O OT rojZ";;^ (D P <^ " P.— TO \ [" 3 DjO-E m — OP ^ S -> E > .Jl^^ >_•-.,_ TO a. - Eg^ . CiO O O Q..O - 504 SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLO. Mr. BoLAXD. We note a total of $907,000 is requested for general in- vestigations, which is an increase of $252,000. On page 2, $40,000 is budgeted to continue the study of the South Platte River in Colorado being resumed this year with funds included by the Senate last year. Please describe the purpose of the current study. PURPOSE OF STUDY General CANifON. The South Platte River drains an area of 24,300 square miles, mostly in northeastern Colorado but including also com- paratively small parts of Wyoming and Nebraska. It joins the North Platte River at North Platte, Nebr., to form the Platte River. Flooding is an extremely serious problem on the South Platte River and on se^^eral of its tributaries. The flood of record in June 1965 caused damages estimated at over $500 million, of which about $325 million occurred in the Denver metropolitan area. The existing Cherry Greek Reservoir and the Chatfield Reservoir currently under construction will control floods originating on the South Platte River above Denver, on Plum Creek, and on Cherry Creek. A serious flood problem remains on other tributaries ; however, including some dh-ectly affecting the Denver area. An interim report which recommends authorization of the Mount Carbon Reservoir proj- ect for construction on Bear Ci'eek above Denver is being processed to Congress. The purpose of the current study is to investigate additional solutions to the serious flood and related water resources problems of the basin. Major attention will be given to providing a solution to the flood problems of the Bijou Creek and Sand-Tollgate Creek basins. COORDINATIOX WITH BUREAU OF RECLAMATION" Mr. BoLAND. How does this study relate to studies conducted in this area by the Bureau of Reclamation ? Mr. Bartos. INIay I answer that ? The studies are coordinated but they involve different structures. The structures that we are studying are not being studied by the Bureau. Mr. BoLAND. They are different studies completely but you do co- ordinate with the Bureau studies ? Mr. Bartos. Yes, sir. NODAWAY RWER, MO. Mr. BoLAND. On page 7, $7,000 is budgeted to resume the study of the Nodaway River in Missouri. Will you explain this study, please? General Cannon. The Nodaway River is a comparatively small left-bank tributary of the Missouri River joining the latter stream a few miles upstream from St. Joseph, Mo. Damaging floods have oc- curred on the Nodaway River, but available information has not been sufficient to define the magnitude of the flood problem and other water problems. Limited studies of preliminary scope were accomplished shortly after the survey was authorized, but the survey has been inac- tive since about 1948 because local interest in its accomplishment was not sijniificant. 505 Tlio proposed lipciil year 1969 allocation will permit holdinc: a public heariiiir, preparation of a plan of survey, and initiation of field sur- veys. HARLAN COUNTY RESERVOIR REVIEW iSIr. BoLAND. On page 11, funds are requested to continue two stud- ies of the Harlan County Reservoir revieAv and the Lost-Dry Creek and Twin Creek Basins projects initiated this fiscal year with funds added to the bill by the Senate. Please describe the purposes of these two studies. General Cannon. The Harlan County Dam is situated on the Re- publican River in Nebraska about 240 miles above the river's mouth. The total drainage area above the dam is 20,753 square miles. It in- cludes portions of Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado. The Harlan County Reservoir has a storage capacity of 850,000 acre-feet, of which 500.000 acre-feet are for flood control and 350,000 acre-feet are for wat?r conservation and sedimentation. Additional storage capacity in the basin a]:>ove Harlan County Res- ervoir would be desirable. Recreation interests desire a larger and more stable conservation pool in the Harlan County Reservoir to en- hance recreational values, which would require additional flood con- trol storage in the basin upstream. Local interests in the Beaver Creek Basin, which is tributary to Harland County Reservoir, desire solution of significant flood and bank erosion problems. Similar problems exist on other upper basin streams. The authorized survey will consider a solution for all these prob- lems. LOST-DRY CREEK AND TWIN CREEK BASINS AVith respect to the Lost-Dry Creek and Twin Creek Basin study, the area to be covered by this study extends along the south side of the Platte River between the cities of Lexingiton and Grand Island, Nebr.. and includes the drainage basins of several small right-bank triljutaries of the Platte River. The largest of these basins are those -of the Lost-Dry and Twin Creeks. The area is adversely affected by a high-water table, inadequate provisions for irrigation return flows, flooding, and surface ponding. Prolonged rainfall in June 1967 caused severe flood of the area. Water elevations in obser^-ation well had risen as much as 15 feet between 1958 and 1966. The combination of flooding and inadequate drainage reduces crop yields as much as 75 percent below normal, leaves substantial areas too wet for cultivation, and severely damages roads, highways, and other improvements. We will attempt in the stud^y to develop a solution for the flood and related problems. LOTJP RIVER, NEBR. Mr. BoLAND. On page 12, $15,000 is budgeted to continue a study of the Loup River in Nebraska. There was a study initiated this year with funds added to the bill last year by the Senate. Will you please outline the study histoiy in this area which indi- <;ates that proposed projects have lacked economic justification and state the justification for the new investigation. General Cannon. Tlie Loup River is formed by a junction of the North and Middle Loup Rivers near St. Paul, in east central Nebraska, 506 and joins tlie Platte Eiver as a left-bank tributary near Columbus, Nebr. The Loup River has a drainage of 15,100 square miles, of which less than 50 percent contributes to surface runoff. About 34,000 acres in rural areas are subject to flooding as are sections of Fullerton, Columbus, and other communities in the basin. The August 1966 flood resulted in record flood damages of $9,300,000 within the basin. Severe damages occurred again as a result of prolonged rainfall in June 1967. Local interest in solution of the basin's flood problems and in related water resource development is intense. ;Mr. BoLAND. On the basis of the floods of 1966 and 1967, 1 presume that the corps decided this study ought to be initiated because there is apparently now some economic justification for it 'I General Cannon. Yes, sir. We believe so. SUBIMPOUNDMENTS, LAKE FRANCIS CASE AND OAHE RESERVOIR Mr. BoLAND. On page 16, $20,000 is budgeted to continue the study, added to the bill last year by the Senate, of subimpoundments — Lake Francis Case and Oahe Reservoir. What is the need and the purpose of this study ? PURPOSE OF STUDY General Cannon. The Corps of Engineers development of Lake Francis Case, behind Fort Randall Dam, and Oahe Reservoir has in- undated considerable acreages of natural cover on islands and shore- lines of the Missouri River which harbored game and provided shelter for wintering cattle. Reservoir operation for navigation, flood control, power and irriga- tion results m fluctuating water levels, to some extent creating mud flats, bogs, and swamps which endanger animals, including cattle, and limit recreational development of the shoreline. Judicious use of sub- impoundment at the mouth of some streams entering these reser\oirs would correct these conditions to a large extent and, in addition, would have a potential for power development, municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife conservation, sediment control, and per- haps other water uses. To the peoj^le affected, this is an urgent study. JIISSOURI RIVER BASIN COMPREIIENSR'E STUDY ]Mr. BoLAND. On page 17, $291,000 is budgeted to continue the com- prehensive basin study of the Missouri River Basin. Please outline what is involved in this going study and tell us the status. General Cannon. The comprehensive study is a joint undertaking of the 10 basin States and the several Federal agencies involved in water and related land resources development, working under the auspices of the Missouri Basin Interagency Committee. The study will include a determination of water and related land resource needs projected to the year 2020, an evaluation of water availability with regard to both quantity and quality, an evaluation of related land re- sources availability, and preparation of a framework plan outlining the general aj^proaches that Avill be appropriate for solution of the water and related land resources problems which can be foreseen. 507 It will determine those areas where acute problems exist now or will exist m the near future and where further detailed plannmg riliould be undertaken promptly. STATUS OF STUDY The studies are progressing satisfactorily. Determination of needs and appraisal of the adequacy of resources to meet these needs are essentially completed. Preparation of framework plans is underway m all siibbasins and is w-ell advanced in some. Overall, the studies are moderately behind schedule; but we feel that most of the lag can be caught up and that the scheduled completion date of June 30, 1969, is still reasonably realistic. Any w^ork remaining beyond that date will be confined largely to report preparation and reproduction. „ ^ „ , . , , :^Ir. BoLAND. Do you need the full request of $291,000 tor this study for fiscal year 1969 ? -, ^ i • General Cannon. Yes, sir. I believe it is noted that there is an amount remaining that will be needed after fiscal year 1969, and this is what I referred to in my statement as the esthnated cost of reproduc- tion and the windup of the report. Mr. Boland. You expect to complete the study with the $85,000 addi- tional which would come after fiscal year 1969 ? General Cannon. Yes, sir. ]Mr. BoLAND. Any questions on this item ? ^h\ Whitten. No questions. Mr. BoLAND. Mr. Ehodes? BACKLOG OF PROJECTS :Mr. Rhodes. General, would you give us some idea of what your backlocjs by categories is? When I say backlog, I am thinking of proj- ects which have eone through the general investigation stage and are either authorized or pending authorization; those on which advanced engineering and design has been completed and are awaiting construc- tio^ii : and those, if any, on which construction may have been initiated but are now suspended but which you still class as active projects. Do you have that mformation available? SURVEY PROGRAM General Cannon. I have the information here concerning the survey reports program. • i i at- There are 57 survey investigations currently assigned to the Missouri River Division. The total estimated cost is $7,874,000. _ Air. Rhodes. By "survey" you mean "general investigation ? General Cannon. Yes,* sir; $616,000 is included in the fiscal year 1969 budget; $2,819,000 will be required for completion after fiscal year 1969. FiA'e survev reports have been completed m the field and are in the Office of the'^Chief of Engineers at various stages of process- ing to Congress. In addition, one interim report, on Mount Carbon Reservoir in Colorado, is in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and is beins processed to Congress. The overall survey of which this report is a part, the South Platte River :^udy, is still in progress. 508 Thirteen surveys will be completed witli funds currently available. In connection with one of these, an interim report will be prepared in advance of the overall survey report. This is a report on Pattonsburg Reservoir, in connection with the Grand River survey. Twenty-four surveys are included in the fiscal year 1969 budget. In comiection with seven of these, the funds requested are for comple- tion. Fifteen surveys are inactive. Aside from the 57 surveys men- tioned above, favorable survey reports on three others have recently been submitted to the Congress. AUTHORIZED PROJECTS Mr. Rhodes. Do you have anything concerning the authorized proj- ects which are ready for advanced engineering and design but have as yet not been funded? Do you have any of your projects that fit that category ? ]Mr. Bartos, There are some. Mr. Rhodes. Furnish that, please. Mr. Bartos. Yes, sir. I will include in the table a backlog of all au- thorized projects, broken down into the various categories. (The information follows:) I. Authorized projects on ^Yhich advance engineering and design has been completed but on whicli construction has not yet been started: Chariton-Little Chariton River, Mo.; Fort Scott Reservoir, Kans. ; Kansas City, Kans. (1962 autliorization) ; Pipestem Reservoir. N. Dak.'; and Clinton Reservoir, Kans.' II. Authorized projects on which advance engineering and design is underway : (irove Reservoir. Kans. ; Hays. Ivans. ; Hillsdale Reservoir, Kans. ; Long Branch Reservoir, Mo. ; Platte River, Mo. ; Smithville Reservoir, Mo. ; and Little Nemaha River, Nebr. III. Active authorized projects on which advance engineering and design has not yet been started : Garnett Reservoir, Kans. ; Braymer Reservoir. Mo. : Brook- field Reservoir, Mo. ; Dry Fork and East Fork Reservoirs, Mo. ; Mercer Reser- voir, Mo. : Pattonsburg Reservoir, Mo. : Trenton Reservoir, Mo. ; Lower Big Sioux River, Iowa and S. Dak. : East Muddy Creek, Mo. ; Lower Grand River, :Mo. ; and Upper Grand River, Mo. IV. Authorized projects on which construction was begun but subsequently terminated and which are still classified as active projects : None. PROJECTS IN SURVEY REPORT STAGE Mr. Rhodes. With reference to the other part of my original ques- tion, will you furnish that for the record ? General Cannon. Yes, sir. (The information follows :) Potential projects in survey reports which have been recommended for author- ization : Davids Creek Reservoir, Iowa ; Longview Reservoir. Mo. ; Blue Springs Reservoir, Mo. ; Little Blue River Channel improvement project, Missouri ; Wood- bine Reservoir, Kans. shunganunga creek, kans. ]Mr. Rhodes. On page 5, $14,000 is budgeted to resume the flood control studv on Shunganunga watershed in Kansas. This is a re- sumption. Why do you want to resume this study at this particular tiuie, considering the budgetary situation? 1 Land acquisition initiated in fiscal year 1968. ' Funds for initiation of land acquisition are included In the fiscal year 1969 budget request. 509 General Cannon. We had made earlier studies, sir, which were con- centrated on a system of small reservoirs which appeared to proA'ide- the most desirable solution to the flood problem. However, it became apparent last siumner that the spread of urban development made ac- quisition of potential reservoir sites economically unfeasible, and other alternatives were soug-ht. This will require hydrologic design and planning studies for a channel improvement and levee plan, in greater detail than initially considered necessary. This resulted in an increase of $14,000 in the estimated cost of the investigation. INCREASED COST ]\Ir. Rhodes. This represents an increase in the original cost, not a resumption? General Cannon. That is correct. ]Mr, Rhodes. An increase because of a reorientation of studies? Mr. B.vuTos. That is right. We thought we could complete the study with funds allotted for 1967, but we find now that we need a little more. General Cannon. This is the balance to complete. gasconade river, mo. Mr. Rhodes. On page 7, would you deal with the Gasconade River request in the same way ? This again is apparently a resumption of a study after a halt in fiscal year 1968. What is the reason for that? General Cannon. The Gasconade River study did not progress at the rate anticipated and it became apparent that all the fmids pre- viously allotted could not be used for this study in fiscal years 1967 and 1968. The chief of engineers, accordingly, approved transfer of some of these funds to other surveys where they could be utilized at that time. stretchout of studies Mr. Rhodes. General, do you have any projects in the general in- vestigation category which could w^ell be postponed, considering the budgetary situation, or any which can be stretched out without any great bother to anyone ? General Cannon. Sir, I think that last statement of yours is the clinching statement. All of these studies recommended for funding' have strong local interest. There are others that we have not recom- mended in the budget. ]Mr. Rhodes. In other words, you have taken the budgetary situa- tion into account in limiting the number of selections you made for presentations? General Cannon. I would say we have listed here those studies which we think merit the consideration of Congress. PRIORITY OF STUDIES Mr. Rhodes. I gather that there are lots of other studies wliich could be initiated at the present time but that you have asked for these as those of highest priority ? General Cannon. I would not say we have assigned priorities, sir. Much of this has to do with our ability to undertake a study. 510 Mr. Bartos. There are numerous other surveys authorized but in- active. Mr. Rhodes. Authorized by Congress? You are not saying that? Mr. Bartos. The surveys have been requested by Congress, j^es, sir. I think we have some 15 that are inactive. General Cannon. Fifteen are inactive. BIG ELITE RIVER. NEBR. AND KANS. ]Mr. Rhodes. On pa^e 10, $25,000 is budgeted to resume a flood con- trol study of the Big Blue River in Nebraska and Kansas. Why do you want to resume that at this particular time? General Cannon. Sir, this is a survey on which a great deal of study already has been accomplished. The proposed allocation in fiscal year 1969 will complete the study. yir. Bartos. That again is not a resumption; it is a going stud3\ Again, the costs have been somewliat higher than we anticipated. We do need additional money to complete it. ]Mr. Rhodes. I think that is all. Mr. BoLAND. You did not need any money in fiscal 1968. You ap- parently had enough. Mr. Bartos. At the time, we felt that we did. Mr. BoLAND. You do need $25,000 to complete it. Mr. Davis? south PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLO. Mr. Davis. General, the South Platte River, which seems to show an allocation of $40,000 for the current fiscal year, was not listed in our justifications last year, as far as I can recall. Is there some explana- tion for that? General Cannon. The $40,000 was added by the Senate, sir, last year. BREAK IN FUNDING Mr. Da\^s. I think the explanation that I am seeking is that ap- parently there had been prior allocations totaling $326,000 and then it was not before us last year, to the best of my recollection at least. Now we see not only the $40,000, which apparently was added by the other body, but $40,000 requested this year and another $67,000 to come thereafter. Is this a case of change in the scope of the study that re- quires these additional funds ? I am at a loss to understand this proposed break in funding and now very substantial funding request. General Cannon. At the time the $298,000 estimate was considered adequate, it appeared that preliminary studies then underway of potential reservoirs in the Bijou, Sand, and Toll Gate Creek Basins would be unfavorable. Subsequently, it was determined that these reserv^oirs have reasonable prospects of economic justification and that further detailed studies are warranted. The increase in estimated cost is to cover the cost of these studies, which involve subsurface explora- tions, detail designs, and verification of economic feasibility. Mr. Davis. There has been a change in the scope of the studies which had not been previously contemplated at the time the funding was interrupted ? General Cannon. Yes, sir. 511 PERRY CREEK, IOWA Mr. Davis. On page 4, Floyd River and Perry Creek apparently intersect right near Sioux City ? That is the situation there ? Mr. Bartos. Both are in Sioux City. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. Is this the one where there is what amounts to a concrete flume coming down through Sioux City ? Mr. Bartos. Perry Creek is enclosed in a concrete conduit which runs through the business section of the city. The Floyd River is a separate tributary and a little way downstream from Perry Creek. It is a tribu- tary on which we have constructed a project within the Sioux City limits. Mr. Davis. This is certainly not a new project. Have previous studies shown an unfavorable benefit- to-cost ratio ? Is that the explanation of what appears to be a renewed interest in the old problem ? Mr. Bartos. Actually, studies of Perry Creek were undertaken shortly after authorization, which was back in 1944, These were car- ried on for some time. It became apparent then that there was not a great deal of local interest, and this apparently was because local people realized that they had three troublesome streams at Sioux City, namely : the Big Sioux River, Perry Creek, and the Floyd River. They felt their capability for local cooperation was confined to one stream at a time. They did cooperate to a very major extent on construction of the Floyd River project. Since then, we have made studies of the Big Sioux River and the completed survey report thereon recommends improvement of the Big Sioux River. I think local interests feel now that they will be able to cooperate in a project on Perry Creek. There is major interest in improvement of Perry Creek. FLAT CREEK, VICINITY OF SEDALIA, MO. Mr. Davis. On page 6, reference is made to the Flat Creek study. Two previous investigations indicated the project was not economi- cally justified at that time. Could you give us the date of those previous investigations ? Mr. Bartos. Not precisely. I can furnish that for the record. It was about 10 years ago when we made a study of the Blackwater Basin of which Flat Creek is a part. (The information follows:) A report on the previous investigation of the Blackwater-Lamine River Basin which was unfavorable, was submitted to Congress on September 28, 1962. Mr. Davis. Mr. Rhodes inquired about the Gasconade River on page 7, where it appears that there is a resumption. You have explained that. NODAWAY RIVER, MO. Now, we appear to have with respect to the other project on that page the Nodaway River, a very minor previous funding. Then there is a lapse so far as the current fiscal year is concerned. Then there is a substantial cost of future investigations. Can you explain that for us? General Cannon. Would you repeat the question? Mr. Davis. I am referring to the Nodaway River on page 7, where it shows minor funding to the extent of $3,000 prior to the current fiscal 91^59— 68— pt. 1 33 512 year. It shows no funding for the current fiscal year and then it shows for fiscal year 1969 a request for $7,000 to be followed by additional costs of $43,000. That funding picture has aroused my curiosity. General Cannon. Here again, sir, the reason is that this has been an inactive study since about 1948 because of rather limited local interest in its accomplishment. IMore recently, significant local interest in a solution of the basin's flood problems has occurred. Mr. Bartos. Three thousand dollars has been spent on these previous studies. Money appropriated way back, prior to 1950. Studies have been inactive since then. Mr. Da\^s. On that note, on pages 10 and 11 Ave seem to have a series of reactivated flood control studies. There seems to be a series Avhere there is no funding in the current fiscal year. Yet we do see rather sub- stantial amounts for investigations contemplated in the years ahead. Mr. Bartos. Funds for the two studies on page 11 were added by the Senate. The first study on page 12 was started with funds provided by the Senate. Mr. Davis. That is the story with respect to all three? New surveys added in the Senate ? Mr. Bartos. Yes, sir. ]\Ir. Davis. That is all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mv. BoLAND. Mr. Robison ? BIG BLUE RIVER, NEBR. AND KANS. Mr. RoBisoN. Mr. Davis' series of questions I think could apply, General, to the Big Blue River project on page 10, where there was no allocation in fiscal 1968, but is a tentative allocation in the new budget of $25,000. There were prior allocations in fiscal years prior to 1968 of $135,000. Wliy is this? General Cannon. This is another case wliere the progress of the study revealed that additional funds would be needed for completion. PRIORITY OF STUDIES Mr. RoBisoN. Mr. Rhodes asked you a couple of questions about priorities. Apparently, General, you have attempted to assign priorities between study projects within your division, as best you can, because you told us some other studies, besides those before us, are not l^eing funded and have been left off your list apparently for reasons relating to your own assessment of their relative priority. General Cannon. I would not say that was the principal feature. Mr. RoBisoN. Pait of the reason ? General Cannon. It could be part of the reason. Mr. RoBisoN. Have you made any attempt General Cannon. In many cases, I might add, many of our selec- tions arise from just as we have discussed here, the requirements for local cooperation and the local enthusiasm for the study on the part of the local people, which indicates that local cooperation requirements are likely to be met. That makes it very easy. Mr. RoBisoN. Ix)cal entluisiasm is something that goes up and down everyplac<^, I suppose, depending on the assessments of local needs. Does the corps, or do you as the head of your division, still attempt &13 to assess comparative priorities insofar as need is concerned on a proj- ect-by-project basis? General Canxon. Might I explain one process we have, sir. When a survey starts in one of our districts, they do what might be called a prelimmary examination to determme needs and the prospects of eco- nomic justification for corrective works. Before the study proceeds to a detailed investigation stage, there is a field conference with, my office in which it is decided whether we proceed further or not proceed fur- ther, depending on what the result of preliminary studies looks like. That is where we evaluate the initial merits. Now, priorityAvise, I do not feel that it is my position to establish priorities between ongoing studies and construction projects beyond that extent. Mr. EoBisoN. General, if you don't try, wdio will ? Somebody has to, in my judgment. General Cannon. Well, sir, I believe that it is my responsibility to provide you and this committee as much information as I can ; but the decision based on that information Mr. RoBisoN. Then we must determme our own priorities? Mr. Bartos. Most of these studies that we are asking funds for are continuing studies. They have been started ; and if they have been far enough advanced, we have completed the preliminary assessment the General spoke of and have determined whether or not a particular study is worth going ahead w^th. If we have a capability to start a new sun-ey, or several of them in 1 year, then we do establish priorities for these new starts. Once a survey has been started and has been car- ried on and we know that it is worthwhile to carry on, we do not es- tablish priorities among the going surveys. Mr. BoLAND. You do establish them among the new surveys. You say that you have had something like 15 in the hopper that you are not starting, is that right ? Mr. Bartos. Among those that we have a capability of starting, yes, sir. establishment of priorities Mr. RoBisoN. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabor this point, and I shall not, but all projects such as this, whether we are talking about studies, advanced engineering and design projects, or construc- tion projects, are presumably all meritorious. They have all been au- thorized by Congress. They are all worth going ahead with. They are all worth carrying on as projects. But the question is : In a tight budgetary situation such as we find ourselves in, who is determining, or who is capable of determining, which projects are more meritorious than others? Which projects are more worth going ahead with than others? Which projects are more worth carrying on than others? You and the other members of the corps present these projects to us as all being fine and good. We assume they are, but it is very difficult for us to decide where can we cut? What should we cut, if anything? Mr. Cohen. Mr. Robison, if I may, all of these projects and studies have been considered at the Washington level with the Secretary of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget and determined to be of the highest priority projects that we have. They have also determined that they should proceed in fiscal year 1969. As the Chief of Engineers 514 explained the first day, this is a tight budget. Within that tight budg- et we have attempted to take out those items that could wait and be deferred for a future year. So you have very limited numbers of new starts and only those that are continuing which are considered meri- torious. Mr. RoBisoN. Thank you. BACKJLOG OF STUDIES Mr. BoLAND. Just to implement what you have said, Mr. Cohen, re- ferring to this statement of the overall survey backlog of the corps for fiscal year 1969, you have budgeted only 35 new studies out of 217 eligible for initial funding. You have not budgeted 217 of them in fiscal year 1969. Mr. Cohen. That is correct. Mr. BoLAND. In reference to continuing studies, you have budgeted a total of 293 for the entire Nation. You have not budgeted in fiscal year 1969 for 170 eligible for continuation. I presume these 170 must be continuing studies that are not of the highest priority at the present time and are being deferred because of the tight budgetary restriction and other problems. You did not budget 170 of these continuing studies for 1969 ? Mr. Cohen. That is correct. Mr. Whitten. Another way of saying that, if I might, Mr. Chair- man ; you did not put anything in here for us to take out ? Mr. Cohen. That is correct. We are hopeful that you will not. Mr. BoLAND. I might add that the total number of authorized studies for the Corps is 715. The total number of studies that are budgeted for 1969, both the 35 new ones and continuing ones, is less than half of that number ? Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir. Mr. BoLAND. I am sure that the Chief of Engineers asks the various divisions what are the projects that ought to go ahead. What are the highest priorities ? This is precisely the way they arrive at the conclu- sion. Mr. Cohen. This is true. We do get the priorities of the division en- gineers for new starts and they are budgeted by the Chief of Engineers. Mr. BoLAND. We will turn now to advance engineering and design. Advance Engineering and Design onaga reservoir, kans. We will insert the justification for Onaga Reservoir, Kans. Onaqa Reservoir, Kans, (Initiation of planning) Location and descriplion. — The project is located on Vermillion Creek in Pottawatomie County, Kans., about 30 miles northwest of Topeka. Preliminary plans provide for an earthfiU dam with an uncontrolled service spillway. The reservoir would have a total storage capacity of 302,000 acre-feet, of which 202,000 acre-feet would be available for flood control storage, 86,000 acre-feet of conserva- tion storage for water supply and 14,000 acre-feet for sediment reserve. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.0 to 1. m Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $27, 600, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 5, 482, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 22, 118, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement: Water supply 5,482, 000 Total estimated project cost 27, 600, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 800, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 100, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_. 700, 000 JUSTIFICATION The Onaga Reservoir, in combination with other existing and authorized reser- voirs and local protection projects in the Kansas River Basin would protect the major cities along the Kansas River against a flood of the 1951 magnitude, which caused approximately $500 million damage at Topeka, Lawrence, and the Kansas Citys. The Onaga Reservoir would reduce flood crests along the lower Vermillion Creek, along the Kansas River below Vermillion Creek, at Topeka, Lawrence, and the Kansas Citys, and its effectiveness would extend along the Missouri below Kansas City. The conservation pool would provide storage for municipal and industrial water supply and would materially augment low flows of the Kansas River during drought periods. The reservoir will create a lake that will meet a significant part of the recreational needs of the Kansas River Basin. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $1, 813, 000 Water supply 270, 000 Recreation 236,000 Total 2,319,000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to assume the cost allocated to water supply functions. This cost is presently estimated at $5,482,000. Status of local cooperation. — Prior to start of construction, local interests will be required to furnish assurances that they will reimburse the Federal Govern- ment for costs of water supply storage being provided in accordance with the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. The State Water Plan Act (House bill No. 614) approved April 27, 1965, includes the Onaga Reservoir and authorized the Kansas Water Resources Board to enter into agreements with the Federal Government for the inclusion of and payment for water supply storage. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $27,600,000 is an increase of $6,422,000 over the latest estimate of $21,178,000 (September 1960 price levels) submitted to Congress. The increase is due to price level advances. Mr. BoLAND. Please describe this new planning start where you have budgeted $100,000 and tell us the urgency for beginning this project in fiscal year 1969. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION General Cannon. This project will be located on Vermillion Creek about 30 miles northwest of Topeka, Kans. The dam will be earthfill embankment. The reservoir will have a total storage capacity of 302,- 000 acre feet. The Onaga Reservoir in combination with existing and authorized projects in the Kansas Basin, will reduce floodcrests along the Kansas River and along the Missouri River downstream from Kansas City. The reservoir would provide storage for municipal and industrial water supply and would augment the low flows of the Kansas River 516 in drought periods. The lake would provide a recreation potential. The benefit-cost ratio is 2 to 1. Mr. BoLAND, On page 24 in the breakdown of benefits we note, as you liave indicated, that there is an annual recreation benefit of $236,- 000. I understand the cost is to be borne completely by the Federal Government. Why isn't there a local reimbursement required in ref- erence to recreation costs ? General Cannon. The recreation was authorized as a project purpose at Federal cost by the Flood Control Act of 1962. URGENCY You spoke of the urgency. I would just like to add that flood dam- ages in 1960 downstream from the damsite were $5 million. Damages in the large 1951 flood were $542 million. $30 million would be saved by this project in the event of a recurrence of this flood under current conditions. Mr. BoLAND. That was in 1951. What did you say the cost or the flood damage was in the latest year ? General Cannon. $5 million in the latest year of major flooding. Mr. BoLAND. At least, we are coming down in the cost. We will insert the balance of the justifications under "Advance engineering and design." Hillsdale Reservoir, Kans. (Continuation of planning) Location and description.— The damsite is located about 12 miles above the mouth of Big Bull Creek, a tributary of the Marais des Cygnes River, and about 15 miles southwest of the Kansas City metroijolitan area. Preliminary plans provide for an earth-fill dam with an imcontroUed spillway. Those plans are based on a storage capacity of 157,000 acre-feet of which 77,000 acre-feet would be available for flood control, 68,000 acre-feet of conservation storage for water supply, recreation, and augmentation of low flows on the Osage River, and 12,000 acre-feet for sediment reserve. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1 .0 to 1 . Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $20, 000, 000 Future non-Federal Reimbursement 3, 235, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 16, 765, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 3, 235, 000 R e i mbu r se men t : Water supply 2, 310, 000 Recreation cost sharing 925. 000 Total estimated project cost 20, 000, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 675, 000 Allocation to .June 30, 1967 35,000 Allocation for fiscal vear 1968 75, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1 969 200, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 365, 000 JUSTIFICATION The Hillsdale Reservoir would control the runoff from 144 square miles of Big Bull Creek watershed, which is a tributary of the Marais des Cygnes River. This reservoir will provide jjrotection to 7,000 acres and the city of Paola (1960 pojMilation 4,781) between the (huu and the mouth of Big Bull Creek. Operating in conjunction with other rcscM-voirs (Pomona, Melvern, and Carnett) in the Marais des Cj-gnes system, Hillsdale Reservoir will contribute to tlie reduction of flood damages to 44,000 acres along the Marais des Cygnes River from the 517 mouth of Big Bull Creek to the Kansas-Missouri State line and 62,000 additional acres in Missouri above the upper limits of Kaysingor Bluff Reservoir on the Osage River. It will share to some extent in flood reductions along the lower Osage and Missouri River. The conservation storage would be utilized to supple- ment low flows in Big Bull Creek and the Marais des Cygnes River, and provide supplemental release for downstream power generation; as well as water supply at Paola, Gardner, Wellsville, Edgerton, and Spring Hill, Kans., and also to provide a lake for recreational purposes. The lake will be about 15 miles from the greater Kansas City metropolitan area of approximately 1 million population. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $385, 000 Downstream power 48, 900 Water supply -- --- 180, 000 Water quality 149, 500 Recreation. — 621, 000 Total 1, 384, 400 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to make reimbursement for cost of water supply storage provided in accordance with Public Law 85-50 and to share in the cost of providing recreation developments in accordance with Public Law 89-72. Preliminary estimate of the amount of reimbursement of the estimated project cost is $3,235,000, broken down as follows: Water Supply $2, 310, 000 Recreation 925,000 Status of local cooperation. — The cities of Paola, Gardner, Edgerton, Spring Hill and Wellsville, Kans., have passed resolutions requesting a total of 18,000 acre- feet of storage for municipal use and stating their intent to reimburse the Federal Government for the cost of the storage. In accordance with Public Law 89-72, development of the project for the enhancement of the recreation potential would require non-Federal cost sharing. During the planning period negotiations will be undertaken with potential sponsors of the recreation development. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $20 million is an increase of $1,300,000 over the latest estimate ($18,700,000) submitted to Congress. The increase is due to price level advances. Long Branch Reservoir, Mo. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located on the East Fork of the Little Chariton River in north central Missouri about 4 miles west and north of Macon in Macon Covmty, Mo. Preliminary plans provide for an earth-fill dam with an uncontrolled spillway. The reservoir would have a total storage capacity of 67,900 acre-feet; of which 29,300 acre-feet would be available for flood control storage; 30,900 acre-feet of conservation storage for municipal and industrial water supply, for supplementing low flows for water quality and for recreation and fish and wildlife; and 7,000 acre-feet for sediment reserve. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Summarized financial data I Estimated total appropriation requirement $6, 650, 000 Future non-Federal reimbvirsement 1, 950, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 4, 700, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost: 1, 950, 000 Reimbursement 1,950,000 Water supply 1, 514, 000 Recreation 106,000 Fish and wildlife 330,000 Total estimated project cost 6, 650, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 250, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 150, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 — 518 JUSTIFICATION Damaging floods in the Chariton-Little Chariton River Basin in Missouri have occurred more than once every year on the average for the past 50 years. The esti- mated average annual flood damage in the Little Chariton River Basin amounts to approximately $300,000. The Long Branch Reservoir will control the runoff from 110 square miles of drainage area. This reservoir, operating in conjunction with other units of the authorized program, will provide a desirable degree of pio- tection to 37,000 acres in the Little Chaiiton River Basin. The conservation pool will include storage for enhancement of fish and wildlife, provide for releases to improve downstream water quality, and a water surface of 2,500 acres for water- based recreation activities in an area devoid of any substantial impoundments, and supplement water supply for Macon, Mo. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $85, 600 Water supply 102, 000 Water quality control 85, 400 Recreation 60, 000 Fish and wildlife 31, 800 Total 364, 800 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to make reimbursement for cost of water supply storage provided in accordance with Public Law 85-500 and to share in the cost of providing recreation developments in accordance with Public Law 98-72. The preliminary estimate of the amount of reimbursement of the estimated project cost is $1,950,000 broken down as follows: Water supply $1, 514, 000 Recreation 106, 000 Fish and wUdlife 330, 000 Stains and local cooperation. — The city of Macon. Mo., passed a resolution dated March 7, 1966, agreeing to purchase the water supply storage in the Long Branch Reservoir. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $6,650,000 is the same as the latest estimate of $6,650,000 submitted to Congress. Platte River, Mo. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located along the Platte River from Agency, Mo., to its mouth in Buchanan and Platte Counties. The preliminary plan for this project provides for clearing and enlarging about 10 miles of the Platte River channel in the vicinity of Agency, Mo., and enlarging and straighten- ing by construction of cutoffs the remaining 56 miles downstream from Agency to the mouth. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $5, 970, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 585, 000 Cash contribution Other costs 585, 000 Total estimated project cost 6, 555, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 200, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 50, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 100, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. . 50, 000 JUSTIFICATION This project is located in a region of intense rainstorms and there have been many floods in the Platte River Basin. Flooding has occurred near Agency, Mo., during 29 of the past 41 years. Subsequent to the disastrous flood of 1915, local 519 interests constructed channel improvements through almost all of the wide valleys upstream from Agency. These channels now conduct floodwaters more rapidly out of the upper basin and aggravate the flood problem in the lower basin. The most severe flood of record occurred on June 23, 1947, and caused damages esti- mated at $7,713,000. Severe flooding occurred in July 1965, causing estimated damages of $6,750,000 in the lower Platte River Basin. A flood during June 1967 caused an estimated $2,000,000 damage in the same general area. The project will provide protection to about 14,000 acres of land in the lower Platte River Basin. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are currently estimated to be $367,100. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $585,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $465, 000 Relocations 120,000 Total 585, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance and operation and replacements will total $9,000. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests are required to furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project; hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction of this channel project; perform without cost to the United States all necessary highway, highway bridge, and utility alterations required in connection with this project; and maintain and operate the project after completion in accordance with regulations pre- scribed by the Secretary of the Army. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,970,000 is an increase of $300,000 over the latest estimate of $5,670,000 (1966 prices) submitted to Congress. Price level advances resulted in an increase of $243,000. Reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervision and administration resulted in an increase of $57,000. Smithfield Reservoir, Mo (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located on the Little Platte River. It provides for a dam and reservoir about 1 mile northeast of Smithville and 5 miles from the north city limits of Kansas City in Clay and Clinton Counties, Mo. Preliminary plans provide for an earthfill dam with an uncontrolled service spill- way. The reservoir would have a total storage capacity of 299,000 acre-feet, of which 105,000 acre-feet would be available for flood control, 105,000 acre-feet for conservation storage, water supply, and stream regulation, and 89,000 acre-feet for sediment reserve. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirements $25, 700, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 9, 312, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 16, 388, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 9, 312, 000 Reimbursement 9, 312, 000 Water supply 8, 629, 000 Recreation cost sharing 683, 000 Contributions required Total estimated project cost 25, 700, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 675, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 50, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 200, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 200, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after 1969 225, 000 520 JUSTIFICATION Flooding in the Platte River Basin in Missouri has been frequent and damag- ing. Thirty-two floods causing over $20,000,000 in damages were experienced in this basin in a 23-year period through 1964. The flood of June 1964 caused $520,000 damage in Smithville, Mo., and was the flood of record. In July 1965, about 1 year later, the previous maxunum flood stage was exceeded by 8.6 feet and the resulting damage in Smithville amounted to about $2,800,000. The Smithville Reservoir together with the downstream channel improvement project on the Little Platte River, would have prevented flooding in Smithville on both of these occasions and would have reduced the floods downstream along the Little Platte River to no more than minor overflows with little i-esulting damage. The reser- voir will control the runoff froin an area of 219 square miles. The reservoir w:ll provide a source of water supply for the cities of Kansas City and Smithville, Mo. Due to the reservoir's close proximity to the north city limits of Kansas City, Mo., and to St. Joseph, Mo., it will be a popular recreation area. Also the reservoir will provide storage for water qualit3-_ control. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $267, 400 Water supply 359, 000 Water qualitv control 5, 000 Recreation._l__. . __. 838,000 Fish and wUdlife 62, 000 Total 1, 531, 400 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to make a reimbursement for cost of water supply storage being provided in accordance with Public Law 85-500. The current estimate of the amount of reimbursement for water supply is $8,629,000. Local interests are also required to share in cost of recreational facilities in accordance with Public Law 89-72. Current estimated cost of local participation is $683,000. Status of local cooperation. — Prior to construction of the reservoir, local interests will be required to furnish assurances that they will reimburse the Federal Gov- ernment for cost of water supply storage being provided in accordance with Public Law 85-500 and to share in cost of providing recreation development. There have been many organizations and surrounding communities active in the support of this project. The city of Kansas Citj^, Mo., passed resolution No. 29529 dated January 3, 1964, requesting the reservoir project be planned to include at least 60,000 acre-feet of water supply storage or such greater amount as needed by the city and further stated assurances of repayment for such storage were hereb}^ made. The city of Smithville passed ordinance No. 233, dated August 3, 1964, requesting the reservoir be planned to include water supply for that city and stating repayment would be made accordingly. Assurances for recreation cost sharing have not been furnished; however, local interests have expressed their intent to attempt organization of a local entity qualified to provide the necessary assurances prior to project construction. There has also been activity at the State level concerning legislation to enable the State park board to siionsor recreation at Federal reservoirs. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $25,700,000 is an increase of $2,100,000 over the latest estimate ($23,600,000) submitted to Congress. Price level advances resulted in an increased of $1,830,000. Provision for boundary surveys and marking resulted in an increase of $150,000. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased $120,000 due to a reanalysis of requirements. Mr. BoLAND. Any questions on "Advance engineering and design"? Mr. Whitten. No questions. Mr. BoLAND. Mr. Rhodes ? HILLSDALE RESERVOIR Mr. Rhodes. General, with reference to the Hillsdale project, I no- tice that the largest single item as far as breakdown of benefits is concerned is recreation, $621,000 annual benefit. 521 RECREATION BENEFITS Under the rules previous to the ones which you cited in the Flood Control Act of 19C2 in which recreation is classified as a benefit, we probably wouldn't build this project, would we? It has a 1.6 to 1 benefit-cost ratio with the recreation, but without that I doubt very much that you would have a project which would reach parity under the benefit-to-cost ratio. General Cannon. Of course, sir, the limitation which we are faced with is that not over 50 percent of the total project cost will be allo- cated to recreation and fish and wildlife benefits. Even if recreational facilities were not constructed, there would still be some inherent rec- reational advantages or benefits without this construction. Mr. Khodes. It looks to me that this is a pretty good project to defer. In your fiscal 1968 ;^ou have $110,000 expended out of $675,000 for preconstruction planning, with a $20 million project and with mini- mal benefits for flood control insofar as the total benefit-to-cost ratio is concerned. If you have to defer one, wouldn't you say this is a pretty good candidate? General Cannon. No, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Do you have any better candidates for deferral ? General Cannon. No, sir. ONAGA RESERVOIR, KANS. Mr. Rhodes. The Onaga Reservoir is a new advance engineering and design start. In this project the main item in the breakdown of bene- fits by far is flood control, $1,813,000. Does this project protect mainly agricultural land ? General Cannon. Yes, sir. I can expand on that, sir. It will provide flood protection for about 9,000 acres of land not otherwise protected and supplemental protec- tion for 120,000 acres of land along the Kansas River already with some protection, including the major cities such as Topeka, Law- rence, and Kansas City. Mr. Rhodes. Didn't there used to be a planning study, I think it was entitled Missouri River, Lawrence to the mouth of the Kansas River; wasn't there a navigation study ? General Cannon. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Has that been abandoned ? Mr. Becker. It is in progress. Mr. Rhodes. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) navigation Mr. Rhodes. Does the Onaga Reservoir have any effect on the navi- gability of the Kansas River? General Cannon. No, sir. jNIr. Rhodes. There is no benefit charged to navigation? General Cannon. No, sir; there would be nothing for navigation. Mr. Rhodes. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Roland. Mr. Davis ? 522 SMITH^^:LLE reservoir Mr. Davis. On the Smithville Reservoir, it appears that the benefits are chargeable about 60 percent to recreation and fish and wildlife. According to ]VIr. Rhodes' question with respect to another project, in view of our tight budgetary situation couldn't we justify deferring this project until Vietnam has been cleared up ? WATER SUPPLY General Cannon. On page 32, sir, the water supply of $8,629,000 illustrates the need for this project. Mr. AcKERMAN. Could I add one thought here ? Mr. DA^^s. Yes, of course. Mr. AcKERMAN. The Smithville project, while it has this large rec- reational benefit, the existence of that benefit should not becloud the necessity for the flood control element. Smithville was tremendously damaged and flooded almost unbelievably in 1965. So that benefit, pro- portionately, may not be as great as apparent in other cases but it is tremendously important as far as the protection of this small city is concerned. Mr. BoLAND. How large is Smithville? Mr. AcKERjviAN. Smithville has a population of about 1,260. Mr. Rhodes. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) benefit-cost ratio Mr. RoBisoN. Mr. Ackerman, without the recreational benefits cranked into the project it probably wouldn't have a favorable cost- benefit ratio? Mr. Ackerman. Without some of these specific provisions for rec- reation. I believe a reexamination on that basis would probably be about 1 to 1. However, I believe it is the intent of Congress that when we develop a reservoir site that we should develop it to the maximum for all of its useful purposes. Mr. BoLAND. It will make a great recreation area for Kansas City. Mr. Ackerman. It will get some use. It is also a very important water supply source for that region which has a little trouble getting water. Mr. BoLAND. Of course, most areas are paying for their own water supply sources. A lot of areas are. As Mr. Robison said, when you crank in $830,000 for recreation, why, this, of course, ^ives you a benefit-cost ration of 1.3 to 1. If you did not have it, it probably wouldn't even amount to unity. cost of recreation Mr. Ackerman. The cost of providing the recreation is not great. The local people will bear half the cost paying $683,000, and the cost of water supply which is about $8.6 million, so that the total reim- bursement in this project by local people is over $9 million. 523 Mr. WiiiTTEN, Will the gentleman yield to me? I am like other members. I think essentials should come ahead of recreation. We had the Secretary of Agriculture the other day and he testified that of all the congressional districts, 435 of them, only 47 had as much as 20 percent fanners. Out of the total of 435 only 47 had one-fifth of them on farms. It is the urban interests which are requesting attention be given to recreation. Yet I think provisions for the essential water re- source requirements should come ahead of it. It was startling to me to find that we had become that urban. Mr. Davis. That is all I have. Mr. BoLAND. Mr. Kobison. ASSTJRANCES OF LOCAL COOPERATION Mr. KoBisoN. Still with the Smithville Reservoir project on page 34, you told us that the assurances for recreation cost sharing have not been furnished. Then you go on to say that local interests have expressed their intent to attempt organizing a local entity to provide those necessary assurances prior to project construction. Wliat is the sta/tus of this, now ? General Cannon. Sir, the State has expressed interest in sponsoring cost sharing on recreation. Mr. RoBisoN. This is the State of Kansas, or Missouri ? General Cannon. Missouri, sir. A bill was introduced in the last session of the Missouri Assembly to enable the State park board to be- come the sponsor under Public Law 89-72 at several reservoirs, in- cluding Smithville. The bill was not passed because of a lack of time to consider it. However, there was no announced opposition. It is our belief that a sponsor will be forthcoming either through enabling legislation or at the countj^ level. Mr. RoBisoN. This legislation, if enacted, would provide, as Mr. Ackerman says, reimbursement of about one-half of the recreation cost? General Cannon. Yes, sir; $683,000. PRICE LEVEL INCREASES Mr. EoBisoN. With respect to the Hillsdale project on page 21, the price increase shows an 8- to 9-percent rise over the last estimate fur- nished Congress. You state this is due to "price level advances." Are you experiencing about that much of an increase on an annual basis m your division, or is this one high ? General Cannon. In this case, sir, the price level increase in lands accounted for about $500,000 of the total increase in project cost of $1,300,000. Mr. RoBisoN. So it does not reflect a general construction cost in- crease at that rate ? _ ^ General Cannon. That is right, sir. There were construction cost in- creases on the order of about 5 percent, accounting for most of the re- maining increase. IVir. EoBisoN. The substantial increase indicated for the Onaga Reservoir project, shown on page 24, specifically refers back to tlie 1960 price level. Is that tlie reason for the very substantial increase there? 524 General Cannon. Yes, sir. The previous estimate was based on the 1960 price level. Mr. RoBisoN. Just so the record will be complete, the current Fed- eal cost estimate, you say, is $27,600,000 which is an increase of $6,422,- 000 over the latest estimate of $21,178,000. But I understand tliis is by virtue of going back to the 1960 estimate. General Cannon. That is correct. Mr. RoBisoN, That is all, Mr. Chairman. CONSTKUCTION Mr. BoLAND. We will turn now to construction. General, will you siunmarize for the record the effects of the stretch- out and deferral of pojects under your division's construction program ? (The information follows:) Effect of Stbetchout and DEFEREAii on Projects on the CONSTBUCTION PkOGEAM The construction program in this division is proceeding at a minimum rate as a result of the temporary freeze on advertising and awards earlier this fiscal year, the placement of a portion of the appropriated funds in budgetary reserve, and the slippages taken from conference committee line item amounts, and re- flects slowdowns necessary to confonn with the tight budget for fiscal year 1969. The freeze on awards resulted in temporary delay in awards on about 13 projects and involved about 18 contracts. These delays, together with slowdowns due to placement of appropriated funds in budgetary reserve and reflecting the tight fiscal year 1969 budget, caused delays in project completion dates on a number of construction projects in this division varying from 6 to 18 months. MISSOURI RIVER, SIOUX CITY TO MOUTH Mr. BoLAND. We will insert the justification for Missouri River, Sioux City to mouth. Missouri River, Sioux City to Mouth (9-Foot Project) (Continuing) Location. — Channel of the Missouri River extending from Sioux City, Iowa» to the mouth. Authorization. — 1945 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated per- Amount cent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $413,100,000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' 7, 174,000 Cash contribution 2 644,000 Other costs 6,530,000 Total estimated project cost 420,274,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967_.-. 366,328,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ..-. 3,000,000 Allocation to date 369,328,000 89 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 5,000,000 91 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 38,772,000 1 In addition, local interests have expended approximately $35,000,000 for construction of terminal and transfer facilities and there are Indications that these facilities will be greatly expanded as the project Is developed to full potential. > For work under the 6-foot project pursuant to the 1912 River and Harbor Act 525 PiBTSICAL DATA Lands and damages: Acres: 12,740. Tj'^pe: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Channels: Channel 9-foot deep, 300 feet wide, extending from Sioux City, Iowa to the mouth, a distance of 734.8 miles, to be obtained by revetment of banks, construction of dikes, cutoffs and by dredging. STATUS (JAN. 1. 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Lands and damages 59 June 1970. Recreation facilities 8 June 1972. Banl< stabilization: Dil10.608,000 Estimated project cost -- 116,208,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967. 41,671,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 - 2,370,000 Allocation to date 44,041,000 42 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 2, 100,000 44 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 .- 59,459,000 > In addition, numerous flood control works have been constructed over many years by individuals and groups as land along the Missouri River has been developed for agricultural use. The total cost of these improvements is unknown. physical data Levees: Average height 14.1 feet. Length 507 miles. Area protected (active program) 413,000 acres. Status {Jan. 1, 1968).— 'LQ27 -624, L594, R580, L575, R573, R562, L56 1-550, R548, L536, R513-512, R500, L497, L488, R482, L476, L448-443, L455, R440, L400, L601, R520, and R351. Completion schedule: Complete. ' As developed in 1957, with benefits based on 1951 prices and conditions and costs based on 1957 prices. Review of the report on the restudy of the engineering and economics of the project is continuing. 532 Project Status Percent Completion complete schedule Papillion Creek— Platte River levees (R613)_. Construction underway. 16 September 1969. McCartnsy district levees (L6n)_ Preliminary planning underw/ay. _ June 1972. Kimsey and Holly Creek levee (L497).. .. Construction planning complete. June 1969. Elwood-Gladden Levee District (R741-460)__. Construction underway 83 June 1968. Leavenworth Bridge (408.2) ... Design memorandum underway June 1972. Farley-Beverly Drainage District (L408) Design memorandum complete. Do. Riverside-Quindaro Drainage District (L335).. Preliminary planning underway June 1973. Orrick Levee District (L345 330). Construction plans underway December 1974. Henrietta-Crooked River Drainage District Design memorandum underway Do. (L325-319). Brunswick-Dalton Drainage District (L246) do June 1973. North County Levee District (L15) do June 1976. Entire active program 40 Do. JUSTIFICATION The active units of tlio authorized Missouri River levee system, in conjunction with existing and authorized upstream reservoirs will provide protection against destructive floods of a magnitude equal to those of past record for 413,000 acres of agricultural lands, highways, railroads, and utility lines, as well as many small cornmunities in the Missouri River flood plain from Omaha, Nebr., to the mouth. It is estimated that flood damages in the rural areas and small communities along the main stem of the Missouri River, which would have been prevented by the agricultural levees in the active program, between Omaha and the mouth, have amounted to more than $180,000,000 during the period 1943 through June 1967. During this period 47 floods have been experienced along the lower reaches of the Missouri River. The average annual benefits for the entire project including all presently deferred units between Sioux City and the mouth, and based on 1951 prices and conditions, are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $8,467,000 Total 8,467,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,100,000 will be applied to — Complete Kimsey-Holly Creek Levee (L-497) $305, 000 Continue levee construction on Papillion Creek-Platte River Levee (R-613) 1,411, 000 Engineering and design 245, 000 Supervision and administration 139, 000 Total 2, 100, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are needed to continue work on units underway. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the project is estimated as $10,608,000 broken down as follows: Lands $7, 606, 600 Relocation of highways, roads, utilities, building, etc 2, 911, 400 Total 10, 60S. 000 Local interests are required to provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the project, hold and save the United States free from damages dtie to construction of the works, and maintain and operate all the works after comjjletion. The annual cost for maintenance and operation of units in the active program is estimated at $171,000. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests have satisfactorily fulfilled all re- quirem(nits of local cooperation necessary for completed imits or work now under conslruction. The Board of County Commissioners of Sar])y (^ounty, Nebr., furnished assurances of local cooperation for the Papillion ('reek- Platte River Levees (R-613) by resolution dated Fei)ruary 15, 1965. l{ight-of-way acquisition for stage I of this unit is complete. Acquisition of riglit-of-way for stage II and stage III levees is underway and expected to be comjileted in Alarch and August 1968, respectively. Assurances dated December 22, 1966, have been received from the sponsor of the Kimsey-Holly Creek Levee (L-497), proceeds from the sale of Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 533 bonds were received by the District on November 3, 1967, and are available for the purchase of all rights-of-way whenever required. Also, Orrick Levee District (L-345-330) and Farley-Beverly Drainage District (L-408) are completing condemnation of levee right-of-way through court action. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $105,600,000 for the active program is an increase of $3,900,000 over the latest estimate ($101,700,000) submitted to Congress. Price level advances increased the estunated cost $2,587,000. Further refinements in design of the Papillion Creek-Platte River Levee resulted in additional requirements for riprapping and interior drainage facilities and adjustment in alinement of Missouri Pacific Railroad, at an increase in cost of $431,000. More detailed study of the Kimsey and Holly Creek Levee, including negotiations with respect to railroad modifica- tions, indicated the necessitj'- for inclusion of a railroad bridge and raising of track, at an estimated cost of $170,000. Overruns in earthwork quantities on the contract for construction of the Elwood-Gladden Levees incieased the estimate by $225,000. Final costs on several other units resulted in a net decrease of $37,000. Reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervis'on and administration, on all units resulted in an increase of $524 000. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Completed units: L627 624, L594, R580, L575, R573, R562, L561-550, R548, L536, R513-512, R500, L497, R488, R432, L476, L448 443, L455, R440, and L400 $30,825,000 $30,825,000 Papillion Creek-Platte River levee, R613. 2,881.000 193,000 $801,000 $1,767,000 $120,000 McCartney District levee, L611 1,880,000 202,000 1,678.000 Watkins-Waubonsie ditch levees, L601... 1,410,000 1,407,000 3.000 Richardson County Drainage District No. 8, R520 621,000 616,000 5,000 Kimsey and Holly Creek Levee District, L497 560.000 33.000 66.000 456.000 Elwood-Gladden Levee District, R471-460. 3,550,000 2,391,000 1,150.000 9,000 Leavenw/orth Bridge, 408.2 . 3,815,000 72,000 18,000 25,000 3.700.000 Farley-Beverly drainage District, L408... 4,280,000 262,000 57.000 35.000 3.926.000 Riverside-Quindaro Drainage District, L385 3.955,000 61,000 3.000 25,000 3,866,000 Atherton Levee District, R351 3,212,000 3.191,000 21.000 Orrick Drainage District, L345-330 12,490,000 705,000 94.000 35,000 11,655.000 Henrietta-Crooked River Drainage Dis- trict L325 319 11,350,000 383.000 24.000 25.000 10,918.000 Brunseick-Dalon Drainage District, L246. 5,020,000 245.000 35,000 25,000 4,715,000 North County Levee District (formerly North Point) L15 19,751,000 395,000 24,000 14,000 13,318,000 General engineering stiidies _.-- 26?.000 103,000 72 000 -4^7.000 Total applied cost(Federal funds only).- 105,600,000 41,249,000 2,404,000 2,488,000 59,459,000 U ndistributed cost - - Total project cost(Federal funds only)... 105,600,000 41,249,000 2,404,000 2,488,000 59,459,000 Pending adjustments .;- aa;; Total cost (Federal funds only) 105,600,000 41,249,000 2,404,000 2.488,000 59.459,000 Undelivered orders 58,000 330,000 -388,000 Total obligations 41,307,000 2,734,000 2,100,000 59,459.000 Method of financing: Federal funds... - Allocations --- 41,671,000 2,370,000 Unobligated carryover from prior years -- .--- 364,000 ..-- Total funds available for obligations - - 2,734,000 --- Appropriations required - 2,100,000 59,459,000 STATUS OF RESTTJDY Mr. BoLAND. $2,100,000 is budgeted for the Missouri River levee system. What is the status of the pending restudy of the engineering and economics of this project ? General Cannon. Sir, the Chief of Engineers completed his restudy in 1964 and the results were favorable for the project below Omaha, 534 Nebr. However, the Bureau of the Budget requested the Secretary of the Army to review the restudy prior to reclassifying the remaining units in the deferred category to the active category. In July 1966 the Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, for Civil Functions, informed the Chief of Engineers that his review of the restudy report had disclosed some problems on which he desired further investigation and more detailed study. The nature of his principal concern involved the extent to which the cost of flood protection might appropriately be limited in relation to the value of the land to be protected. The fiscal year 1967 budget included funds to initiate a contract re- search study which was to determine to what extent the market value of land subject to flooding reflects flood losses and to develop tech- niques for utilizing land value data for estimating flood damages. This research study is being accomplished by the U.S. Department of Agri- culture Research Service and is scheduled for completion in June 1969. The deferred units will not be reclassified until a decision is reached by the Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Army based on the results of the research study. FISCAL YEAR 19 69 FUNDS Mr. BoLAND. How will the $2,100,000 be expended in fiscal year 1969? General Cannon. The Kimsey-Holly Creek levee, unit L-497, will have $305,000 applied; construction of R,-613, which is the Papillion Creek-Platte River levee, will be continued with $1,411,000; engineer- ing and design will absorb $245,000 ; and supervision and administra- tion of the contracts will require $139,000. CLINTON RESERVOIR, KANS. Mr. Boland. We will insert the justification for Clinton Reservoir, Kans. Clinton Reservoir, Kans. (Land Acquisition) Location. — The project would be located approximately 5 miles southwest of Lawrence on the Wakarusa River in Douglas County, Kans. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefil-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement $35,300,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 4,850,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 30,450,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 4,850,000 Reimbursement: Water supply 4, 850,000 Full project cost including Richland «35,300,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 1,545,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date 1,545,000 4 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1,000,000 7 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 32,755,000 > Total cost of project. The fiscal year 1969 budget provides for land acquisition and engineering and design only. 535 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rolled earthfill. Height: 114 feet. Length: 9,250 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 258, 300 Conservation- Water supply 110, 400 Sedimentation 28, 500 Full pool 397, 200 Spillway: Type, Uncontrolled limited service with paved sill. Lands and Damages: Acres: 21,800. Type: Predominantly agriculture. Improvements : Typical farm units. Relocations : Roads ($2, 940, 000) Railroads (1, 050, 000) Cemeteries, utilities and structures (460, 000) Outlet works: Type: Controlled. Capacity: 7,680 cubic feet per second (full pool). STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Landacquisition 5 December 1972. Acquisition of Richland, Kans.« - 33 June 1968. Other features of project not currently scheduled 1 Acquisition of Richland, Kans., was separately budgeted In fiscal year 1967. JUSTIFICATION The Clinton Reservoir, in combination with existing and authorized reservoirs in the Kansas River Basin, would provide the major cities along the Kansas River protection against a flood of the 1951 magnitude. The Clinton Reservoir would reduce flood crests along the lower Wakarusa River, the Lower Kansas River, including the Kansas Citys, and along the Missouri River downstream from Kansas City. The water supply storage would provide a readily available source of water for industrial and municipal usage along the lower Kansas River. Also, this storage would create a lake with a surface area of more than 6,600 acres near the Kansas City metropolitan area and would have important recreation and fish and wildlife benefits. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amoura Flood control $1, 489, 000 Water supply 258, 000 Recreation 650,000 Total 2, 397, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,000,000 will be applied to — Initiate acquisition of lands in reservoir area $848, 000 Engineering and design 131, 000 Supervision and administration 21, 000 Total 1,000,000 The requested amount is required to initiate acquisition of lands and for continuation of engineering and design. Non-Federal costs, — Local interests are required to assume the cost allocated to water supply functions. This cost is presently estimated at $4,850,000. 536 Status of local cooperation. — Prior to start of construction, local interests will be required to furnish assurances that they will reimburse the Federal Government for costs of water supply storage being provided in accordance with the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. The Governor of Kansas and the Kansas Water Resources Board have indicated their support for the project and their willingness to seeli assurances similar to those provided bv the State at other reservoirs in Kansas. The State Water Plan Act (House bill No. 614) approved April 27, 1965, includes the Clinton Reservoir and authorizes the Kansas Water Resources Board to enter into agreements with the Federal Government for the inclusion of and payment for water supply storage. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $35,300,000 is an increase of $2,500,000 over the latest estimate ($32,800,000) submitted to Congress. Price level advances resulted in an increase of $1,088,000. The crest elevation of the dam was raised to provide additional surcharge storage capacity, at an increase in cost of $517,000. The project cost estimate was also increased by the inclusion of cost of acquisition of Richland, Kans. ($645,000), for which a separate item was established in the fiscal year 1967 budget. Engi- neering and design and supervision and administration increased $250,000 due to reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $9,368,000 $245,00] $420,000 $861,000 $7,842,000 Relocations 4,450,000 4,450,000 Reservoirs 910,000 910,000 Dams. 14,335,000 14,335,000 Roads , 835,000 835,000 Recreation facilities.. 1,590,000 1,590,000 Buildings. Grounds, and Utilities.. 185,000 _.... 185,000 Permanent operating equipment... 149,000 149,000 Engineering and design 1.890,000 745,000 49,000 132,000 944,000 Supervision and administration 1,588,000 61,000 11.000 21,000 1,495,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only) . 35,300,000 1,051,000 480,000 1,014,000 32,755,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 35,300,000 1,051,000 480,000 1.014.000 32,755,000 Pending adjustments (none) - Total cost (Federal funds only) 35,300,000 1,051.000 480.000 1,014,000 32,755,000 Undelivered orders. 6,000 8,000 -14,000... Total obligations 1,057,000 488,000 1,000,000 32,755,000 Method of Financing: Allocations 1,545,000 Unobligated carryover from prior years... 488 Total funds available for obligations 488 Allocation required 1,000,000 32,755,000- ■ — Trr--] Mr. BoLAND. You are requesting $1 million to initiate land acquisi- tion on the Clinton Reservoir, Kans. Would you describe this project? LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION General Cannon. This project will be located on the Wakarusa River, a few miles south of Lawrence, Kans. The dam will be an earth- fill embankment. The reservoir will have a total storage capacity of 397,200 acre-feet. The Clinton Reservoir in combination with existing and authorized projects in the Kansas River I^asin Avill reduce flood crests along the lower Wakarusa River, the lower Kansas River, and along the Missouri downstream from Kansas City and will provide major cities protection from floods, such as occurred in 1951. The water supply storage will provide a source of water for municipal usa^e. The storage will create a lake with significant recreation and wildlife benefits. Benefit-cost ratio is 1.6 to 1. Mr. BoLAND. Why couldn't this particular project be deferred? You say this would take care of some of the flood problems. You mentioned 537 a serious flood in 1951 and here it is 1968. This was authorized in 1962, yet it has been deferred to date. You are just initiating land acquisi- tion in the 1909 request. What is the urgency of this particular project ? URGENCY General Cannon. Sir, considerable savings in the cost of acquiring the req^uired lands can be realized if acquisition of the reservoir area is continued. Land cost in this area are increasing very rapidly. The project is located near metropolitan areas of Lawrence, Topeka, and Kansas City. STATUS OF LAND ACQUISITION AT RICHLAND, KANS. Mr. BoLAND. What is the status of the land acquisition of Richland, Kans., which was funded as a separate item in the 1967 bill? General Cannon. Acquisition is substantially completed, sir. All residential and commercial properties are acquired. There are two farm units which remain to be acquired. COST INCREASE Mr. BoLAND. Please explain the cost increase of $2,500,000 in the project since last year. General Cannon. The most sizable of these is the price level ad- vances which account for $1,100,000. More advanced design resulted in 3ome modification in the embankment slopes and in conduit size and raising the dam height by 2 feet. These changes added about $500,000. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased $250,000. The balance of the total increase is due to the inclusion of the cost of acquisition of the town of Richland for which funds were appropriated in fiscal year 1967 as a separate item in the budget. MELVERN RESERVOIR, KANS. Mr. BoLAND. $85 million is budgeted to continue construction of the Melvern ReserAoir in Kansas. (The justification follows :) Melvern Reservoir, Kans. (Continuing). Location. — On the Marais des Cygnes (Osagt') River about 4 miles west of Melvern, Kans., in Osage County, Kans. Authorization. — 19.54 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. 538 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $28,000,000 Estimated non-Federal cost: Cash contributions Other costs Total estimated prolect cost... 28,000,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 2,450,000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 2,200,000 Allocations to date. 4,650,000 17 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 6, 000, 000 38 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 17, 350,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rolled earthfiU. Height: 98 feet (average). Length: 9,700 feet. Spillway : Type: Uncontrolled service chute with paved sill. Lands and damages: Acres: 23,848. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 200, 000 Conservation - — -- > 137, 000 Sediment 26,000 Total - - 363,000 > For navigation, pollution abatement, and recreation. Relocations: Roads: 44 mUes ($2,345,000). RaUroads: (1,210,000). Cemeteries, utilities and structures: (299,000). Outlet works: Type: Controlled. Capacity: 6,405 cubic feet per second (full pool). STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project 11 December 1971. Acquisition of reservoir area 17 Do. Relocations Do. Embankment, spillway and outlet works 4 0°-,„,„ Dam closure August 1970. 639 JUSTIFICATION The Melvern Reservoir would control the runoff from 349 square miles of land in the Marais des Cygnes (Osage) Basin. Operated as a unit in the Osage Baisn plan, Melvern Reservoir, together with Pomona, Hillsdale, and Garnett Reser- voirs, located in the Marais des Cygnes (Osage) River Basin in Kansas, would provide a substantial degree of protection to about 92,000 acres of land in Kansas and 62,000 acres in Missouri above the upper limits of Kaysinger Bluflf Reservoir. It will also share to some extent in flood reductions along the lower Osage and Missouri Rivers. The design of local protection works at Ottawa and Osawatomie is predicated on upstream reservoir control and the Melvern Reservoir, along with two other reservoirs in the Osage Basin, is required to obtain the optimum protection for these cities. The July 1951 flood inflicted $32,750,000 damage in the Osage Basin, and subsequent floods in 1957, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1965, and June 1967 have caused additional damage of $30,725,000. At 1967 prices and conditions, a recurrence of these floods would cause damages of about $82,250,000 in the Osage Basin. The Melvern Reservoir would reduce these damages by an estimated $11,750,000. The average annual economic benefits are currently estimated as follows : Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $1, 142, 000 Water quality control 166, 000 Recreation 499,000 Fish and wildlife 21, 000 Total — - 1, 828, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $6,000,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land $2, 000, 000 Continue relocation of roads, railroads, and utilities 100, 000 Continue construction of embankment, spillway, and outlet works. _ 3, 570, 000 Install radio facilities 18, 000 Engineering and design 80, 000 Supervision and administration 232, 000 Total 6, 000, 000 The funds requested are needed for continuation of land acquisition, reloca- tions, and construction. Non-Federal cost. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $28 million is an increase of $2,200,000 over the latest estimate ($25,800,000) presented to Congress. Price level advances on construction features resulted in an increase of $880,000. Lands and damages increased $1,554,000 based on up- dated planning reflected in recently revised real estate design memorandum, which resulted in an increase of $731,000 in estimated land values and provided for an additional 3,451 acres of land in fee partly offset by a reduction of 1,010 acres in easements, at a net additional cost estimated at $823,000. The estimated cost of the dam and appurtenant structures decreased $801,000 based on favorable bid received for this work. Relocations increased $203,000 based on negotiations with the State highway department on highway relocations and with the Santa Fe railroad on railroad relocations. A road across the dam and at the downstream toe of the dam has been included at an estimated cost of $136,000. Further study of recreation requirements resulted in an increase of $69,000. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased $159,000 based on a reanalysis of requirements. 540 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Buriget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages ____ $7,454,000 $523,000 $1,200,000 $2,000,000 $3,731,000 Relocations 3,854,000 28,000 135.000 3,691,000 Reservoirs 705,000 705,000 Dams 10,937,000 5,000 1,600,000 3,570,000 5,762,000 Roads 868,000 167,000 1,000 700,000 Recreation facilities 1,077,000 1,077,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 295,000 242,000 10,000 43,000 Permanent operating equipment 137,000 18,000 119,000 Engineering and design 1,344,000 982,000 125,000 80,000 157,000 Supervision and administration 1,329,000 81,000 150,000 233,000 865,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 28,000,000 1,591.000 3,512,000 6,047,000 16,850,000 Undistributed cost Nonfunded earnings -530,000 30,000 500,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 28,000,000 1,591,000 2,982,000 6,077,000 17,350,000 Pending adjustments .. Total cost (Federal funds only) 28,000,000 1,591,000 2,982,000 6,077,000 17.350,000 Undelivered orders 72,000 5,000 -77,000 Total obligations 1,663,000 2,987,000 6,000,000 17,350,000 Method of financing: Allocation 2,450,000 2,200,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 787,000 Total funds available for obligation 2,987,000 _.. Appropriation required 6,000,000 17,350,000 LAND ACQUISITION Mr. BoLAND. Please explain the cost increase of $1,554,000 in the lanci acquisition requirements. General Cannon. It was determined that an additional 3,451 acres in fee are required for project purposes based on more detailed real estate plans. In addition, as the result of the acquisition of more actual sales dat^, as well as the actual acquisitions by the Government, it was determined that the cost of land in the vicinity was steadily in- creasing. Consequently, the current estimate of the cost for land acquisition includes the additional land requirements plus a price level increase for the unacquired portion of the project. Mr. Boland. Why has it been necessary to buy the additional 3,451 acres of land in fee in lieu of acquiring easements only ? General Cannon. With respect to the need for additional land, our previous plan contemplated the acquisition of flowage eavSemcnts in the upper reaches of the reservoir. Subsequently it was determined that we should acquire more of these lands in fee to assure unrestricted use by the general public of the shoreline surrounding the conservation pool. Also, at the request of iho IT.S. Fish and Wildlife Service an addi- tional 821 acres in fee were included for fish and wildlife preservation. These changes account for the increase of 3,451 acres. pattonsburg reservoir, mo. Mr. Boland. $1 million is budgeted to continue the advance par- ticipation on the Pattonsburg Reservoir with the State of Missouri 541 in the construction of a high-level reservoir crossing the connection with Interstate Highway 1-35. (The justification follows :) Pattonsburg Reservoir, Missouri (Interstate Highway 1-35 Crossing) (Advance participation) Location.— On the Grand River about 5 miles upstream from Gallatin, Mo., in Daviess County. At full pool, the Pattonsburg Reservoir will inundate a segment of the proposed Interstate Route 1-35 near Pattonsburg, Mo., in Daviess and De Kalb Counties. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — Not applicable. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost(Corps of Engineers). ' *^'?92'229 Allocation to June 30, 1967 _.. - - 1?X'XXX Allocation for fiscal year 1968... 5^2' S2S Allocations to date - , °™'0™ Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 i'^on'nnn Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 - 5,600,000 I For the additional costs Involved in raising Interstate Highway 1-35 crossing above the Pattonsburg Reservoir pool in connection with present plans of the State to proceed with construction of the highway In advance of the starting date for the reservoir project. PHTSICAL DATA Interstate Highway 1-35 reservoir crossing: 3.7 miles (bridge and approaches). Status {Jan. 1, ^5^8).— Highway 1-35 reservoir crossing (planning underway by State). Completion schedule: June 1971. JUSTIFICATIONS The State of Missouri is presently planning and constructing the Missouri segment for Interstate Highway 1-35, a portion of which crosses the authorized Pattonsburg Reservoir site on the Grand River. The State originally planned a low-level crossing, but has deferred construction in the vicinity of the reservoir. However, the Bureau of Public Roads has authorized the State to acquire rights- of-way in the vicinity of the reservoir. Federal savings of approximately $4,397,000 will result if the crossing is initially constructed above the reservoir pool level. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1 miUion will be appHed to con- tinuing participation with the State of Missouri in completing design and rights- of-way acquisition and initiation of construction for the high-level reservoir crossing in order to meet the schedule of the Missouri State Highway Commission for completion of its part of the Interstate Highway System. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $7,200,000 is an increase of $257,000 over the latest estimate ($6,943,000) sub- mitted to Congress. As a result of a negotiated cost-reimbursable contract with the State of Missouri, the estimated cost of advance participation for relocation of 1-35 increased $380,000. Price level advance increased relocations $315,000. These increases were somewhat offset by a decrease of $438,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration due to a reanalysis of requirements. 542 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1958 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Relocatio ns $7,005,000 .. 100, 000 95, 000 7,200,000 $205,000 25, 000 4,000 234,000 $1,300,000 25,000 25,000 1,350,000 $5,500,000 35,000 65,000 5,600,000 Engineering and design Supervision and administration.. Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. K^g Undistributed costs $15,000 1,000 16,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustment 7, 200, 000 16,000 234,000 1,350,000 5,600,000 Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders 7,200,000 16,000 125,000 141,000 150,000 234,000 225,000 459,000 450,000 . 9,000 . 459,000 . i, 350,665 -350,000 . 1,000,000 5,600,000 Total obligations . . . 5,600,000 Method of financing, Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year. Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required 1,000,000 5,600,000 STATUS OF PROJECT Mr. BoLAND. Wliat is the status of this reservoir crossing and what are the estimated Federal savings in constructing a high-level crossing in advance of the starting date for the reservoir project ? General Cannon. Sir, the Missouri State Highway Commission has completed substantially all field surveys and drilling, and submitted to the district engineer a part of the report to determine the most economical bridge and embankment combination for the high-level crossing. The remainder of the State's report is scheduled to be sub- mitted to the district engineer in April 1968, at which time review and analysis of the alternate plans will be made to select the most economi- cal reservoir crossing. It is anticipated that selection of the crossing plan with the initiation of contract plans and specifications and determinations of right-of-way requirements by the State can be accomplished by June 1968. The savings of $4,397,000 represents the difference in cost of $15,123,000 for construction of the reservoir crossing to meet State highway re- quirements and subsequently raising to meet reservoir requirements less the estimated cost of $10,726,000 for initially constructing the high-level crossing in one stage. GREAT FALLS, MONT. Mr. BoLAND. $700,000 is budgeted to continue funding of the Great Falls, Mont., local protection project. (The justification follows:) Great Falls, Mont. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in Great Falls, Mont., at the confluence of the Sun and Missouri Rivors. Authorization. — 1958 and 1965 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. 543 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $4,710,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1,048,000 Cash contributions 103,000 Other 945,000 Total estimated project cost 5,758,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 - 542,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. 250, 000 Allocation to date — 792,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 700,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 3,218,000 PHYSICAL DATA Levees : Length: 9 miles. Average height: 14 feet. Channel improvements: Length: 5,400 feet. Buried conduit: Length: 4,800 feet. Status (January 1, 1968). — Construction not started. schedule Missouri River left bank levee June 1969. Buried conduit and diversion channel September 1969. Missouri River right bank levee September 1970. Sun River levees and channel improvements December 1970. Entire project Do. JUSTIFICATION The project wUl provide protection to railroad yards and shops, factories, busi- ness establishments, and residential areas in west Great Falls from floods on the Sun and Missouri Rivers and from frequent flooding from the runoff due to heavy rains on adjacent hills. During the past 59 years, damage has been sustained at Great Falls from at least 16 floods on the Sun and Missouri Rivers. Localized storms cause damages about every other year. The greatest flood of record oc- curred in June 1964 on the Sun River, when about 680 homes and 25 business places were flooded. Total local damages resulting from this flood were estimated at $4,410,000. The project would have provided complete protection from this flood. The estimated annual benefits are as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Flood control, $262,500. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $700,000 will be applied to — Complete construction of the Missouri River left bank levee $313, 000 Continue construction of the Watson Coulee buried conduit and diver- sion channel 228, 000 Initiate construction of Sun River left bank levee and channel improve- ments 40, 000 Engineering and design 50, 000 Supervision and administration 69, 000 Total 700, 000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project, including lands necessary for ponding of interior drainage; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; perform without cost to the United States, in conjunction with furnishing rights- of-way, all necessary removal or alteration of existing buildings and other improve- ments and all necessary alterations to bridges and approaches, roads, streets, sewers, and other utilities; contribute $103,000 toward the cost of the Watson Coulee interceptor; zone the unleveed portion of the flood channel through the damage area to preserve its capacity and to prevent further encroachments; and 91-^59— 68— pt. 1- -35 544 maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The investment required by local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $1,048,000 broken down as follows: Lands and damages $127, oOO Relocations of buildings, roads, utilities, and bridges 629, SOO Engineering and overhead 187, 700 Cash contribution for Watson Coulee interceptor 103, 000 Total 1,048,000 The annual cost to local interests for operation and maintenance is estimated at $6,000. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Great Falls, Mont., provided preliminary assurances of local cooperation by resolution dated October 26, 1964. The West Great Falls Flood Control and Drainage District was created August 21, 1967, and will be sponsor of the project. Formal assurances are expected as soon as the specific requirements are processed. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $4,710,000 is an increase of $430,000 over the latest estimate ($4,280,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The increase is based ou further advancement of design studies which resulted in inclusion of a buried conduit for interception of Watson Coulee flows in lieu of an open ditch, and eliminated the need for alteration of railroad facilities at a net increase in cost of $362,000. The increase also provides for a right bank levee on the IVIissouri River for the protection of the city's water plant at a cost of $109,000. These increases were partly offset by a minor adjust- ment in alinenient of the left bank levee along the Sun River which resulted in a saving of $110,000. The additional studies and expanded works necessitated an increase of $35,000 in engineering and design and $34,000 in supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1967 1968 Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels-.- $1,472,000 2,712,000 335, 000 294, 000 Levees - Engineering and design. _. Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions) Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions) Pending adjustment -.. Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions) Federal cost: Tota I cost . - Undelivered orders Total obligations Non-Federal contributions: Total cost-. -- Undelivered orders Total obligations Mettiod of financing (Federal funds): Allocation - Unobligated carry-over from prior year Total funds available for obligations. . Appropriation required. Mettiod of financing (non-Federal con- tributions). Contributed f u nds. Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations.. Contributed funds required 4,813,000 4,813,000 4,813.000 4,710,000 103, 000 $169, 000 9,000 178, 000 178,000 178,000 178, 000 178, 000 None 542,000 $54, 000 16, 000 80, 000 15.000 165, 000 165,000 165.000 160. 000 454, 000 614.000 5,000 '"5,000 250.000 364, 000 614,000 $602, 000 531,000 50, 000 69, 000 1,252,000 1,252,000 1,252,000 1,154,000 -454,000 700, 000 98, 000 98,000" 700, 000 103,000 98,000 98, 000 $816,000 2, 165, 000 36, 000 201,000 3,218.000 3,218,000 3.218,000 3,218.000 '3,' 2 is, 000 3,218,000 545 Mr. lV)L.VNn. We note tlioro has l)een a considerable delay in this project which was a new start in the 1067 bill and yet construction had not started as of January 1. ^A'hat is the difficulty and when do you plan to initiate construction ? General Cannon. The start of construction has been delayed to acconunodate a major change in design. The method of handling the flood flows in Watson Coulee was changed from an open ditch flowing east to the IMissouri River to a buried conduit flowing south to the Sun River. In addition, local interests have required a longer time to complete their organization than they anticipated. These problems have now been resolved and w-e expect to advertise the initial contract the latter part of this month. Mr. BoLAND. So you do not expect anj' difficulty from the local in- terests with respect to the easements and rights-of-way and the cost of the land which they have to supply under this project ? General Cannon. No, sir. We expect to have the rights-of-way by next month and a contract award, hopefully, by the following month.. PIPESTEM DAM AND RESERVOIR Mr. BoLAND. $450,000 is budgeted to continue land acquisition on the Pipestem Dam and Reservoir, N. Dak. (The justification follows :) Pipestem Dam and Reservoir, N. Dak. (Land acquisition) Location. — On Pipestem Creek in Stutsman County, N. Dak., about 3 miles above Jamestown, N. Dak. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement $3, 470,000 _. Future non-Federal reimbursement. _ _ —154,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 3,316,000 _ '. Estimated non-Federal cost 174,000 __ Reimbursement: Recreation.. _ 154,000 Other: Fish and wildlife enhancemerit.. 20,000 [ Total estimated project cost 13, 490, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967. 130,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 200,000 Allocation to date 330, 000 1 Appropriation requested tor fiscal year 1969 450,000 22 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 2,960,000 ' Total estimated project cost. The budget request for fiscal year 1969 Is for land acquisition and engineering and design only. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rolled earthfill embankment. Height: 103 feet. Length: 3,. 500 feet. Outlet works: Gated reinforced concrete conduit — 84-inch diameter. Spillway: Uncontrolled grassed notch. 546 Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 135, 000 Conservation 10, 000 Total 1145,000 ' Exclusive of 41,500 acre-feet of surcharge storage above spillway crest. Lands and damages: Fee: 3,830 acres. Flowage easement: 3,300 acres. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Status {January 1, i55S).— Not started. Completion schedule: Land acquisition, June 1970. Other project features not currently scheduled. JUSTIFICATION The project will provide flood control for Jamestown and downstream areas from floods originating on Pipestem Creek, and will develop the fish, wildlife, and recreation potential of the area. Jamestown has been subjected to 12 floods since 1876. These floods inundated large areas of the city, disrupted business, threatened health, and caused extensive monetary losses. vMthough Jamestown Dam controls the James River, Pipestem Creek is uncontrolled and capable of floods in areas almost as large as those that were flooded before the Jamestown Dam was con- structed. The maximum flood of record in May 1950 inundated about 365 acres of the improved area of Jamestown proper damaging 685 homes and 22 businesses, inundating the Crippled Children's School, a grade school, and the city sewage disposal plant. A recurrence of the May 1950 flood and assuming 1967 prices and develpoment would result in damages estimated at $2,010,000 in Jamestown. Downstream from Jamestown, about 30,000 acres of agricultural land are subject to flooding. Pipestem Dam would prevent all damages in Jamestown and most of the damage below Jamestown resulting from a recurrence of the 1950 flood. The average annual benefits are estimated to be: Breakdown of benefits: AmourU Flood control $227, 300 Fish and wildlife and recreation 35, 500 Total 262,800 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $450,000 will be applied to — Continue land acquisition $370, 000 Engineering and design 50, 000 Supervision and administration 30, 000 Total 450, 000 The funds requested are the minimum needed to acquire necessary project lands and continue planning for construction. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests will be required to administer project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement and to bear the first cost of associated improvements in the wildlife management area currently estimated at $20,000; pay, contribute in kind, or repay, which may be through user fees, with interest, one-half of the separable cost of the project allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, the amount involved currently being estimated at $154,000; and bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replacement of recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities, the amount involved currently being estimated at $10,300 on an average annual basis. Status of local cooperation. — Local cooperation requirements in the development of project recreational facilities were presented to Stutsman County commissioners and local representatives of the Jamestown Chamber of Commerce on April 14, 1967. Preliminary studies of the potential developments were favorably discussed. By letter dated September 19, 1967, the Stutsman County Board indicated their intention to cooperate in the development of the recreation program and provide the necessary assurances of local cooperation. Formal assurances will not be 547 requested until detail design studies are complete and presented to local interests for approval. Comparison cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,470,000 is an increase of $170,000 over the latest estimate ($3,300,000) submitted to Con- gress. The increase is due to price level advances. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $560,000 $2,000 $160,000 $370,000 $28,000 Reservoir ..- 6,000 6,000 ofms /:'::::::::::::::::::::::. 2,389,000 2,339,000 Recreation facilities 90,000 90,000 Engineering and design... 225,000 28,000 123,000 50,000 24,000 Supervision and administration 200,000 1,000 16,000 30,000 1^3,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only)-. 3,470,000 31,000 299,000 450,000 2,690,000 Undistributed cost ;;-;;; ,;v^,^Vnn Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 3,470,000 31,000 299,000 450.000 2,690,000 Pending adjustments. .- ;---;; ;;-AAA'nnn Total cost (Federal funds only) 3,470,000 31,000 299,000 450,000 2,690,000 Undelivered orders 9,000 -9,000 ----z-xf,z Total obligations.. 40,000 290,000 450,000 2,690,000 Method of financing: Federal funds - Allocations...- 130,000 200,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 9.000 _ Total funds available for obligation... 290,000 ... - Appropriation required.. 450,000 2,690,000 Mr. BoLAND, Please describe this project which was added to the bill last year by the Senate? LOCATIOX AND DESCRIPTION General Cannon. This project will be located on Pipestem Creek a few miles upstream from the city of Jamestown. The dam will be an earthfiU embankment and the resei-voir will have a capacity of 145,000 acre- feet. The project will protect Jamestown and many thousands of acres on the James River downstream from Jamestown from floods originating on Pipestem Creek. The project would prevent damages of over $2 million if a flood of the May 1950 magnitude should reoccur under current conditions. The project will also pix)vide recre- ational and fish and wildlife benefits. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.9 to 1. land acquisition Mr. Boland. Wliat type of lands are involved in this project? General Cannon. Sir, the river valley land and some of the rolling hills are devoted to diversified farm crops, mainly grain, with the steeper slopes and uplands being used for grazing. Mr. BoLAND. Wliat is the urgency for land acquisition at this time ? General Cannon. Tliere are six families, sir, who will be displaced by this project and early acquisition of the land would permit an orderly relocation of the property owners with minimum impact on the surrounding land values. Mr. BoLAND. That seems to be a good reason. What is the status of local cooperation on the project ? 548 LOCAL COOPERATIOlSr General Cannon. Local cooperation requirements were presented to Stutsman Coimty Commissioners and local representatives of the Jamestown Chamber of Commerce on April 14, 1967. Preliminary studies of the potential developments were favorably discussed. By letter dated September 19, 1967, the Stutsman County Board indicated their intention to cooperate in the development of the recre- ational program and provide the necessary assurances of local co- operation. KAYSINGER BLUFF RESERVOIR, MO. Mr. BoLAND. $7 million is budgeted to continue construction of the Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir, Mo. (The justification follows:) Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir, Mo. (Continuing) Location. — The damsite is located on the Osage River about 1!4 miles north- west of Warsaw, Benton Coimty, Mo. The reservoir will extend upstream into Bates, Henry, Hickory, St. Clair, and Vernon Counties, Mo. Authorization. — 1954 and 1962 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirements -— $204,000,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 43,455,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 160, 545, 000 •Estimated non-Federal cost 43,455,000 Reimbursement: Power 43,455,000 Other -- - Total estimated project cost.... 204,000,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 23,150,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 5,600,000 Allocation to date - 28,750,000 Appropriations requested, fiscal year 1969 7,000,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 168,250,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rolled earthfill. Height: 96 feet (average). Length: 5,000 feet. Spillway, type: Gated overfall. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 3,918,000 Power conservation i 1,040,000 Sedimentation 244,000 Full pool 5,202,000 ' For low-flow regulation and recreation. Power installation: Initial and tiltimate: 6 units, total 160,000 kilowatts. Presently planned: 6 imits, total 160,000 kilowatts. Average gross head: 43 feet. 549 Landsi and damages: Acres: 266,000. Tvpe: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Towns and cities: $4,630,000. Mines and resorts: $3,370,000. Relocations: Roads: 175 miles, $42,478,000. Railroads: 22 miles, $17,540,000. Cemeteries, utilities, and structures: $11,617,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project.. - -— 11 June 1976. Land acquisition. - -- - ^j. 'fP- 4 Do. 3 Do. Relocations. Dam and powerplant f^ "'^■ Recreation facilities. - -- ^ . ..q,. Dam closure - August 1973. ''°Tst°unit"'^ December 1974. Lll"un^:::v;:::::::::::::::::: March 1976. JUSTIFICATION The Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir is the largest unit of the nine reservoir system in the Osage Basin. It will control the runoff from more than 5 million acres of uncontrolled drainage area downstream from the other eight reservoirs. The Julv 1951 flood alone caused estimated damages of $17,363,000 below the damsite on "the lower Osage and Missouri Rivers. The floods of July 1958, May and September 1961, and March 1962 caused estimated damages of more than $13 miUion in the same areas. Recurrence of these five floods at 1967 prices and conditions would cause aggregate damages estimated at more than $38 rniHio^- The Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir is the most important unit for control of floods in these"^ damage areas. In addition, the large conservation pool will be used to generate hydroelectric power. The large pool will also provide great recreational potential and provide substantial fish and wildlife benefits. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows : Breakdown of benefits : ^ ^ ^™''""'-, ^^ Flood control $4, 473, 100 Power at site 2, 940, 900 Recreation 2, 100, OOP Total 9. 514, 000 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $7,000,000 will be applied to — Amount Continue acquisition of lands in reservoir area ^^'onP'nnn Continue acquisition of right-of-way for road relocations monon Continue construction of dam and powerplant ■*■ icn'nnn Continue fabrication of turbines n-^'nnn Engineering and design Qco'nnn Supervision and administration 382, OUU Total 7,000,000 The amount requested is needed to maintain minimum schedule of construction, design, and land acquisition. . Non-Federal costs. — Cost allocable to power are reimbursable. The prehmmary estimate of the amount of reimbursement of the estimated project cost for power is $43,455,000. . ^ .,.,., Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power rests with the marketing agency of the Department of the Interior. 550 Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $204 million is an increase of $8 million over the latest estimate ($196 million) submitted to Congress. Price level advances resulted in an increase of $5,772,000. The estimated cost of relocations increased $1,003,000 based on more detailed studies of roads and utilities requirements. The estimate for the dam and power- plant increased $839,000 based on more detailed studies. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased $267,000 based on reanalysis of requirements. Minor adjustments in other items resulted in an increase of $119,000. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1) FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages _ $43,500,000 $10,746,000 $4,950,000 $4,200,000 $23,604,000 Re!ocations__ .._ 71,635,000 2,926,000 133,000 200,000 68,376.000 Reservoir 3,520,000 1,000 3,519.000 Dam 22,289,000 1,346,000 1,481,000 808,000 18,654,000 Powerplant 38,267,000 17,000 255,000 405,000 37,590,000 Roads 2,986,000 346,000 200,000 2,440,000 Recreation facilities 3,040,000 3,040,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities. 511,000 424.000 16.000 71,000 Permanent operating equipment 252,000 4,000 17,000 231,000 Engineering and design 9,650.000 3,253.000 1,355,000 1,200,000 3,842,000 Supervision and administration 8,350,000 728,000 342.000 382,000 6.898.000 Total applied costs (Federal funds only).. 204,000,000 19,791,000 8,749.000 7.195.000 168.265.000 Undistributed costs 7,000 2.000 -9,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only) ... 204,000,000 19,798.000 8.751,000 7,195,000 168,256,000 Transfers of costs of property, other 3,000 3,000 ._ -6.000 Total cost (Federal funds only)... 204,000,000 19.801,000 8,754,000 7,195.000 168,250,000 Undelivered orders 1,093,000 -898,000 -195,000 Total obligations 20,894.000 7,856,000 7,000,000 168.250,000 Metfiod of financing Federal funds: Allocation 23.150,000 5,600.000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 2,256,000 Total funds available for obligation... 7,856,000 Appropriations requested 7,000,000 168,250,000 Mr. BoLAND. A reduction of $4,400,000 ha.s been made in this project this year due to slippage and stretchout of construction. What is the status of construction at the present time ? STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION General Cannon. Sir, the project is about 11 percent complete. Ac- quisition of the lands for the reservoir area is about one-third com- pleted. First stage spillway and power plant excavation and embark- ment is complete and second stage work is about 20 percent complete. The access roads to both right and left abutments, storage building and overlook, are complete. The operations building and operators' quar- ters are essentially complete. Relocation of 16 cemeteries is complete. Procurement of most materials necessary for relocation of Minuteman communication cables have been accomplished. Construction of three reservoir crossings and raising the embankment of IVIissouri High- wa}^ No. 18 is physically complete. Preparation of plans and specifica- tions for relocation of remaining State highways is scheduled to be complet<»d prior to the end of calendar year 1968. The bids received for procurement of turbines were not responsive to the plans and spec- ifications and the work is to be readvertised. 551 COST INCREASES Mr. BoLAND. The cost of this project was increased by $23 million last year and it is now up an additional $8 million this year. What is the cause of these latest cost increases ? General Cannon. The increase of $8 million is due largely to price level advances. This accounts for $5,772,000 of the total increase. The estimated cost of relocations increased $1,300,000 due mainly to addi- tional county road relocations to meet current needs based on the latest planning. Indirect costs related to dam and power plant construction have been increased $839,000 based on experience on other projects. These include such items as operational and maintenance costs dur- ing the construction period, training of power plant and other project personnel and preparation of operating manuals. Engineering and design increased $267,000. Minor adjustments in cost of other items amounted to $119,000. DELAY IN COMPLETION Mr. BoLAND. The completion date of this project has now been de- layed from June 1973 to June 1976. What do you think will be the final effect on cost of this 3-year stretchout ? You can supply that for the record if you do not have it there. I would think there would be an increase in the cost. General Cannon. There will, both for supervision and administra- tion and price levels, but may I provide it for the record ? Mr. BoLAND. Yes. (The information follows:) Effect of Stretchout The reduced allocation in fiscal year 1968 and the tight budget request for fiscal year 19G9 results in deferment of all relocations contracts, which were pre- viously scheduled for awards in fiscal year 1968 and 1969, to fiscal year 1970 or later. The land acquisition program in fiscal years 1968 or 1969 is proceeding at a very minimum rate. Price level increases on these deferred items will approxi- mate $2,200,000, and additional supervision and administration costs due to the stretchout will amount to about $1,200,000. Engineering and design costs will also increase because of the extended design period. Potential benefits in the amount of about $14 million will be lost as a result of the stretchout. BENEriT-TO-COST RATIO Mr. BoLAND. We note that the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.2 to 1. That is what it was last year and that was what it was when it was authorized and that is what it is this year. When was this last reviewed for cur- rency ? General Cannon. It was revised last year, sir ; in the fiscal year 1967 budget hearings the benefit-cost ratio was 1.3 to 1. The data from which the ratio is computed is reviewed and revised at least annually or whenever a change in project plan or estimated cost of project war- rants it. Mr. BoLAND. You don't expect if you review it next year it will drop below miity. do you ? General Cannon. No, sir. This is a good project. Mr. BoLAND. We will insert the balance of the justification under construction. 552 Rathbun Reservoir, Iowa (Continuing) Location. — On the Chariton River about 7 miles north of Centerville, Iowa, and about 1 mile north of the town of Rathbun, in Appanoose Countj', Iowa. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit/cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost: Cash contributions Other costs. _ Total estimated project cost. Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. Allocations to date. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $24,500,000 - 24,500,000 14,259,000 3.500,000 17,759,000 3, 800, 000 72 2,941,000 88 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rolled earthfiU. Height: 86 feet (average). Length: 10,600 feet. Spillway : Type: Uncontrolled service chute with paved sill. Lands and damages: Acres: 35,300. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 339, 000 Conservation M 89, 000 Sediment 24,000 Total 552,000 • For navigation, pollution abatement, and recreation. Relocations: Countv roads: 21 miles ($3,219,000). Poweriines: 40 miles ($100,000). Telephone lines: 32 miles ($53,000). Outlet works: Type: Controlled. Capacity: 5,000 cubic feet per second (at full pool). STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project. 55 June 1970. Acquisition of reservoir area. 85 March 1969. Relocations 5 December 1969. Completion of dam 64 December 1968. Recreation... June 1970. Access roads... 17 December 1969. Reservoir clearing and monumentation 18 June 1970. Dam closure September 1967. 553 JUSTIFICATION The Rathbun Reservoir will be operated to store excess runoflf from an area that is subject to violent storms of intense rainfall. Floods have occurred on the Chariton River in 35 of the past 50 years. Although extensive channel improve- ments have been along the Chariton River, reservoir control is required to provide adequate flood protection to those areas not protected by the completed or planned channel improvements and downstream levees. At Centerville, Iowa, approxi- mately 16 miles downstream from the proposed damsite, the Chariton River exceeded flood stage 21 times in the past 29 years. The Rathbun Reservoir will control the runoff from 549 square miles of land. It will provide benefits to 90,300 acres not otherwise protected in downstream reaches of the Chariton River Basin, and will reduce flood stage affecting 59,000 additional acres not protected by other means. In conjunction with other authorized units of the Missouri River Basin program it will share in protection of 300,000 acres along the Missouri River. During the period 1939 to date, aggregate damages amountmg to over $20 million have occurred in the Chariton Basin, below the Rathbun damsite. At 1967 prices and conditions, this would amount to about $28,200,000 of which about $14,640,000 would have been prevented by the reservoir. In addition to flood control, this reservoir will provide 189,000 acre-feet of storage to be used to supplement water flows for abatement of stream pollution; relief from droughts; and a large body of water for recreation usage. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits : Amount Flood control $1, 148, 000 Navigation ^ ^' ^^2 Water quality control 131, 000 Recreation 494, 000 Total 1,824,000 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $3,800,000 will be applied to- Complete land acquisition $400, 000 Continue road relocations Ij 357, 000 Complete construction of dam — embankment, spillway, and outlet works 76.3,000 Continue reservoir clearing and monumentation 325, 000 Continue construction of access roads 483, 000 Continue construction of interior roads and recreation facilities. — 117.000 Continue installation of permanent operating equipment and buildings, grounds, and utilities 95, 000 Engineering and design 50, 000 Supervision and administration 210, 000 Total 3, 800, 000 The amount requested is the minimum needed to continue an economical schedule for completion of land acquisition and continuation of construction and relocations to permit completion of the project in fiscal year 1970. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $24,500,000 is an increase of $500,000 over the latest estimate ($24 miUion) submitted to Congress. Relocations increased $608,000 due to increased length of required county roads and higher standards of road design than previously contemplated, offset somewhat by reduced contingencies on utility relocation contracts. Access roads and recreation facilities increased $259,000 and $358,000, respectively, due to upgrading and increased length of roads and upgrading and more intensive development of facilities based on refinements in the project master plan. Price level advances resulted in an increased cost of $245,000. These in- creases were partly offset by decreases of $1 million in lands and damages due to reduced contingencies, based on advanced status of land acquisition, and minor adjustments of costs in other items which resulted in a net decrease of $30,000. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased $60,000 due to reanalysis of requirements. 554 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (I) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) lands and damages Relocations Reservoirs Dams. Roads Recreation facilities. Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design _ Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments... Abandoned and retired property Transfer of cost or property (net) other.. Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing. Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation.. Appropriations required... $6. 300, 000 3, 372, 000 1,286,000 7,761,000 1,032,000 1,628,000 269, 000 181,000 1,466,000 1,205,000 24, 500, 000 24. 500, 000 $4, 933, 000 158,000 188, 000 3,652,000 177,000 '"""232,'o6o" 27, 000 1,277,000 672,000 11,316,000 8,000 11,324.000 $967, 000 509, 000 122,000 2,532,000 82, 000 18,000 18,000 28, 000 132,000 228, 000 4,636,000 -1,000 4,635,000 $400, 000 2,108,000 575, 000 1,563,000 483, 000 117,000 19,000 76, 000 50, 000 210,000 5,601.000 -1,000 5,600,000 24, 500, 000 1,000 -1,000 11,324,000 1,765,000 13,089,000 4, 635, 000 35,000 4,670,000 5, 600, 000 -1,800,000 3, 800, 000 14,259.000 3,500,000 1,170,000 4,670,000 3, 800, 000 $597,000 401,000 14,000 290, 000 1,493,000 50, 000 7,000 95, 000 2,947,000 -6,000 2,941,000 -1,000 1,000 2,941,000 '2,"94i,"66d 2,941,000 Atchison, White Clay Creek, Kans. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on White Clay Creek at Atchison, Atchison County, Kansas. Avihorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contributions Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967. Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date_ Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $4,050,000 1265,000 -- 265,000 4,315,000 1,395,000 844,000 2,239,000 55 1,811.000 100 ' In addition, local interests have expended over $900,000 to provide partial protection to the area. PHYSICAL DATA Cut and cover conduit: Length, 2,500 feet. Relocations: R,emoval of railroad bridges and track replacement over backfilled conduit and other modifications to facilitate railroad traffic durhig construc- tion ($178,000). Channel improvement: Clearing on White Clay Creek. STATUS (JAN. 1. 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Railroad modifications 1 1 June 1969. Channel improvement and conduit construction... Entire project Do. Do. 555 JUSTIFICATION The project, in conjunction with the recently completed watershed and urban renewal projects, would provide protection for the city of Atchison, Kans. Floods, which occurred on July 11 and July 30, 1958, caused damages estimated at $4,- 067,000. This plan, together with work completed by the SCS and the Urban Renewal Agency, will provide protection against a flood 25 percent greater than the record 1958 flood. The average annual benefits are currently estimated aa follows : Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $268, 400 Total 268,400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,811,000 will be applied to — Amount Complete railroad modifications $19, 000 Complete construction of conduit structure and channel clearing 1, 600, 000 Engineering and design 22, 000 Supervision and administration 170, 000 Total 1,811,000 The amount of $1,811,000 is required for completion of the project in FY 1969. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $265,000, of which $242,000 is for re- location of roads, bridges, and utilities and $23,000 for acquisition of rights-of- way. Thus far, local interests have expended on this project approximately $200,000 for lands and required modifications of utilities and bridges. In addition, local interests have expended over $900,000 for diversion and interceptor storm sewers to provide partial protection to the area. Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon com- pletion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance and operation will total $2,500. Local participation was required on the SCS project and the Urban Renewal Agency project. The cost of this participation was $1,670,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances and all rights-of-way including rights-of-entry have been furnished by local interests. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $4,050,000 is a decrease of $320,000 from the latest estimate ($4,370,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The decrease is based on favorable bid received for the channel improvement and conduit construction. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $178,000 $40,000 $138,000 Channels and canals.... 3,351,000 1,001,000 2.350.000 Engineering and design 246,000 $190,000 34,000 22,000 Supervision and administration 275.000 17,000 88,000 170.000... Total applied cost(Federal funds only).. 4,050,000 207,000 -1,163,000 2,680,000 Undistributed cost - - Total project cost (Federaltunds only)... 4,050,000 207,000 1,163,000 2,680.000 Pending adjustment. Total cost (Federal funds only). 4,050,000 207,000 1,163,000 2.680,000.... Undelivered orders _. 1,109,000 -240,000 -869,000 Total obligations 1,316,000 923,000 1,811,000 Method of financing. Federal funds; Allocation .-. 1,395,000 844,000 Unobligated carryover 79.000 Total funds.... - 923,000 Appropriation required - 1,811,000 556 Lawrence, Kans. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located along both banks of the Kansas River about 50 miles above its mouth at Lawrence, Douglas County, Kans. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.09 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumi/tafed percent of estimated Federal cos! Estimated Federal cost. Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contributions Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date.. Appropriation requested fiscal year 1969.. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. $5,730,000 600,000 600,000 6,330,000 1,658,000 100,000 1,758,000 31 1,300.000 SS 2.672.000 PHYSICAL DATA Levees : Average height: 11.4 feet. Length, new: 18 miles. Raising: 1.1 miles. Chamiels: Channel improvements: 6.1 miles. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Kansas River levees and channel, left bank, upstream end to r^assachusetts Ave. Kansas River levees and channel, left bank, Massachusetts Ave., to mouth of Mud Creek. Kansas River levees and channel, right bank.. - Mud Creek levees and channel - Entire project - - 15 March 1969. (') June 1970. (') (') 6 April 1971. June 1970. April 1971. I Not started. JUSTIFICATION Lawrence, Kans., the county seat for Douglas County, is rapidly exi)anding as an industrial area. The area to be protected north of the river contains about 8,000 acres of residential, industrial, and agricultural area. The areas to be pro- tected south of the river contain the Santa Fe Railroad yards and the municipal water and sewage treatment plants. The July 1951 flood caused damages of $3,3X2,000 in the project area, of which about 60 percent was loss to business properties. There were 2,500 persons evacuated from the area prior to and during the flood. The area contains over 500 residences, about 60 industrial and retail business establishments, and important railroad, highway, and utility facilities. A recurrence of the 1951 flood under 1967 conditions and prices would catise estimated damages of about $7,800,000. The proposed improvements in con- junction with upstream reservoirs would protect the area from a flood of the maguitiide of tlie 1951 flood. The average auiuial benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Flood Control Amount 243, 000 Total 243,000 557 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,300,000 will be applied to- Complete construction of levees and bank protection upstream from ]\Iassaehusetts Avenue on left bank of river $917, 000 Initiate construction of the main stem levees on left bank down- stream from Massachusetts Avenue to Mud Creek 200, 000 Initiate construction of channel improvement and levees along Mud Creek 55, 000 Engineering and design 35, 000 Supervision and administration 93, 000 Total 1,300,000 Non-Federal cost. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $600,000, broken down as follows: Lands and Damages $495, 000 Relocations 105, 000 Total 600, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance and operation will total $15,800. In addition, local interests advised that they have incurred costs of $310,000 for levee construction and other work to provide partial flood protection in the area. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation were received on July 8, 1965, and accepted on August 27, 1965. Permit from the State water re- sources board has been issued. The city has furnished rights-of-way for stage I construction upstream ftom Massachusetts Avenue. Engineering and legal work for acquisition of stage II rights-of-way, extending downstream from Massa- chusetts Avenue to Mud Creek, are underway. Rights-of-way for the remaining work are expected to be provided as needed. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,730,000 is an increase of $390,000 over the latest estimate (5,340,000) submitted to Congress. Price level advances resulted in an increase of $230,000. Additional channel improvement and levee requirements along Mud Creek, partially offset by design refinements and favorable bids on first stage levee construction in North Lawrence area, resulted in an increase of $110,000. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased $50,000 based on a reanalysis of require- ments. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels $658,000 $2,000 $56,000 $151,000 $449,000 Levees 4,292,000 12,000 880,000 1,315,000 2,085,000 Engineering and design 450,000 351,000 58,000 35,000 6,000 Supervision and administration 330,000 28,000 77,000 93,000 132,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 5,730,000 393,000 1,071,000 1,594,000 2,672,000 Undistributed cost _ Totalprojectcost(Federalfundsonly)— . 5,730,000 393,000 1,071,000 1,594,000 2,672,6o6 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 5,730,000 393,000 1,071,000 1.594,000 2,672,000 Undelivered orders 1,250,000 -956,000 -294,000 Total obligations 1,643,000 115,000 1,300,000 2,672,000 Method of financing: Allocation 1,658,000 100,000 Unobligated carryover from prior years 15,000 Total funds available for obligation 115,000 Appropriation required 1,300,000 2,672,000 Os.\WATOMIE, KaNS. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located about 425 miles above the mouth of the Marais des Cygnes (Osage) River at Osawatomie, Miami Countj^, Kans. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benejit-cost raio. — 1.8 to 1. 558 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost... Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contributions Other cost Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967.. Allocation for fiscal year 1968 .-. Allocation to date Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $1,620,000 370,000 370,000 1,990,000 408,000 200,000 608, 000 38 500, 000 68 512,000 PHYSICAL D.\TA Pumping plants: 1 portable pumping facility. Levees: Average height: 19.1 feet. Length: 4.8 miles. Status {January 1, 1968). — Levees and appurtenant facilities, construction not started. Completion schedule: December 1969. JUSTIFICATION The Osawatomie, Kans., project in conjunction with authorized upstream reser- voirs will pro\'ide flood protection for this city of 4,622 (1960 census) population, which is subject to flooding from the Marais des Cygnes River and Pottawatomie Creek. The city is a marketing and trading center and contains extensive railroad facilities in the flood plain area. Osawatomie suffered 17 damaging floods during the period 1941 through June 1967. It is estimated that a recurrence of these 17 floods at 1967 prices and conditions would cause aggregate damage of about $2,130,000. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $123,100 Total 123,100 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $500,000 will be applied to — Continuation of levees and appurtenant facilities $442 , 000 Engineering and design 2,000 Supervision and administration 56,000 Total 500,000 Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project, is estimated at $370,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $220,000 Relocations 150,000 Total 370,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance and o];eration and replacements will total .12,400. iAatus of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation were received on September 21, 1966. The project has been approved by the Kansas corporation commission and the State Board of Agricultiu'c, Division of Water Resources. Bonds to finance the city's portion of the project costs wore sold on August 21, 1967. Rights-of-way are exijccted to be available in February 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The curi'cnt Federal cost estimate of $1,620,000 is an increase of $100,000 over the latest estimate ($1,520,000) sub- mitted to Congress. Price level advances resulted in an increase of $60,000. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased $40,000 due to reanalysis of requirements. 559 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Channels Levees Pumping plants Engineering and design Supervison and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only)... Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments. Total cost (Federal funds only).. Undelivered orders Total obligations. H/lethod of financing: Allocation Unobligated carryover from prior years Total funds available for obligation.. Appropriation required $77, 000 1,243,000 10,000 180, 000 110,000 1,620,000 $5, 000 152,000 $170,000 13,000 183,000 7,000 11,000 175,000 1,620,000 183,000 'i,"620,'o66 i83,"o66" \\"""\[\ i83,"o6o" 408,000 175,000 175,000 250, 000 425,000 200, 000 225, 000 425, 000 $50, 000 642, 000 2,000 56, 000 750, 000 750, 000 750, 000 -250, 000 500, 000 500, 000 $22, 000. 449, 000 10,000 1,000 30, 000 512,000 512,000 512,000 512,000 512, ooa Perry Reservoir, Kans. (Continuing) Location. — The damsite is located on the Delaware River about 5 miles above the mouth, in Jefferson County, Kans., and about 3 miles north of Perry, Kans.. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 4.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement. .. Future non-Federal reimbursement. Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) Estimated non-Federal cost Reimbursement: water supply Other Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $47,200,000 8,090,000 39,110,000 8,090,000 8,090,000 47,200,000 31,219,000 5,150,000 36,369,000 7 7 6,500,000 91 4,331,000 PHYSICAL D.\TA Dam: Tyjje: Rolled earthfill. Height: 95 feet (average). Length: 7,750 feet. Spillway : Type: Uncontrolled chute. Capacitv: 60,000 cubic feet per second Width: 300 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 42,400. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Outlet works: Type: Single horseshoe conduit (23.5 feet diameter). Capacity: 27,500 second-feet (at full pool). Gates: Two— 1L75 feet by 23.50 feet. 91-i59 — e -pt. 1- -36 560 Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Full pool.-_l 770, 000 Flood control 480, 000 Conservation (water supply) 150, 000 Sedimentation . 140, 000 Relocations: Roads: 45 miles ($7,533,000). Railroads: 5 miles ($2,165,000). Cemeteries, utilities and structures: ($1,499,000). Town of Valley Falls: ($735,000). STATUS (JAN. 1,1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project - -- 64 December 1969. Acquisition of reservoir area 85 Do. Relocations 35 Do. Reservoir preparation. - 16 Do. Embankment, spillway, and outlet works 96 October 1968. Recreation facilities - 2 December 1969. Dam closure - --- - - -- August 1966. JUSTIFICATION The Kansas River was the major source of floodwaters that caused primary losses of $870,237,000 in the Missouri River Basin during the 1951 flood. More than $500 million of these losses were in the area downstream from the Perry Reservoir. Recurrence of the 1951 flood under 1967 conditions and prices would cause estimated damages of about $1,490 million. As a unit of the existing and authorized flood control program, Perry Reservoir would reduce this damage bv approximately $60,900,000. The Kansas Water Resources Board, in a cooperative study, concurred in conclusions that control of the Delaware River by Perry Reservoir is essential to any plan for flood control and water conservation in the Kansas River Basin. The board also indicated a desire for maximum feasible use of the reservoir storage for conservation purposes. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $6,914, 000 Water supply 769, 000 Recreation.: 1, 138, 000 Total 8, 821, 000 Fiscal xjear 1969. — The requested amount of $6,500,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land $590, 000 Continue clearing of reservoir area and boundary marking 49, 000 Continue relocation of roads, railroads and utilities 4, 027, 000 Continue construction of embankment and access roads 502, 000 Continue construction in public use areas 836, 000 Continue acquisition of operating equipment 8, 000 Engineering and design 140, 000 Supervision and administrdtion 348, 000 Total 6,500,000 The amount requested is needed for continuation of land acquisition, relocations and construction on a minimum schedule to permit completion b.y December 1969. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests will be required to reimburse the Federal Government for costs allocated to water supply. The preliminary estimate of the amoimt of reimbursement of the estimated project cost for water supply is $8,090,000. Status of local cooperation. — Pursuant to a request by the State of Kansas, design of the project includes provision for 150,000 acre-feet of storage for future water supply. The State Water Plan Act of April 27, 1965, includes the Perry Reservoir and authorizes the Kansas State Water Resources Board to enter into agreements 561 '^r^ rAi„ihursp the Federal Government for storage allocated to water supply. Con- t?actTegot1atiSL wfth the board have been initiated, and a draft of proposed con- tract is under review in Office of the Chief of Engineers. ^ , , ^ *• + „* CovwarfZi of Federal cost est.^males. -The current Federal cost estimate of $47 ^00 000 s the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. However, tlte^ewe^emhior adjustments between features. Relocations and reservoirs feature decreased $283?000 ind $200,000, respectively, due mainly to favorable negotiation of a^?ntract for railroad alterations and less cost of clearing reservoir area. This was offset by prive level advances and minor adjustments of work on other fea- Uu4samouSini to $180,000 and an increase m design and super- vision and administration amounting to $303,000. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after "'"' esffmate 1967' l%& 1969 fiscal^Vgear (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) tia finn nnn $11956 000 $900,000 $590,000 $1,154,000 Lands and damages - ^rigfoOO 1581000 4 923 000 4,063,000 630.000 Relocations ^' 780 000 163 000 151 000 49,000 417,000 Reservoirs - n V^Rnon 10 504*000 947 000 229,000 58,000 Dam - - TbIQOOO 157000 579 000 273 000 501,000 Roads.,. -: — -- 1^52000 9000 369 000 836 000 1,238,000 Recreation facilities.. .--- ^SoRnnn 215 000 1000 5 000 5,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 226,000 215,000 i.uuu ^, ^^,^^^ Permanent operating equipment.. . \iI'Tq 2 093 000 200 000 140 000 26,000 Engineering and design. ?' 090 000 1075 000 448 000 348 000 219,000 Supervision and administration .-. 2,090,000 ^•^'^•^^^ 8 545 000 6,541000 4,333,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 47,200,000 27,781,000 «> ^J- ^^^ '-4,000 -2! 000 Total^^tecuos^^^edefal funds-oniyy.V/--4^ 27. 791', 000 8, 541', 000 6, 537, 000 4. 331, 000 Pending adjustments. /i7'9nn'nnn""77'7qi'n66 z'm'm" 6,537,000 4,331,000 Total cost (Federal funds only) 47,200,000 27 791,000 J.^aiuuu ^'_^y^^^ • • Undelivered orders 31047000 5 322 000 6,500,000 4,331,000 Total obligations oi,uf/,uw -Method of financing: 5,150,000 — Appropriations. - oi,iij,uuu , , Unobligated carryover from prior ^^2 qoo . years c oo^' nnn Total funds available for obligation.-.- - 3,3<:^,uuu ----g-5QQ-5g5- 4;33i;o6o Appropriation required.. - - " " ToPEKA, K.\Ns.\s River, Kans. (Continuing) Location. -Local protection for Topeka, the State Capital of Kansas, in Shawnee Pnimtv on both sides of the Kansas River, from mile 80 above the mouth to mile 89 aifd 2n^ the love^^ of Soldier, Half day, Indian, Ward-Mart n and ILiTilw Creeks which are tributary to the Kansas River in that vicmity. Aufhonzation.—l9S& and 1954 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 7.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) - --- ^lo'soo'ooo Estimated non-Federal cost - - ', gy'yoo "' Cash contributions - - - " jg 792*300 Other costs - - "- Sl'eOO'oOO - Total estimated project cost 17- 632! 000 :::::;:::.:: Allocations to June 30, 196/ - --- 652 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ^g 284*000 88 Allocations to date ■ - - ' ; men ' 800' 000 92 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1959 7ifi nnn Balance to complete after fiscal year 19b9 i,/ib,uuu Represent voluntary contribution for betterments desired by local interests. 562 PHYSICAL DATA Levees : Average height: 10 feet. Length: 39.0 miles. Raising: 2.6 miles. Floodwall: Average height: 12 feet. Length: 600 feet. Retaining wall: Average height: 10 feet. Length: 300 feet. Channel improvements and diversion channels: Kansas River: 2.6 miles. Soldier Creek: 9.2 miles. Shunganunga Creek: 5.3 miles. Piimping plants: 8. RELOCATIONS Bridge alterations at Federal cost Bridge alterations at ($2,754,000) non-Federal cost Railroad bridges Highway bridges. New Modify Remove New Modify Remove remove Soldier Creek 3 2 8 7 Shunganunga Creek. . . . . 11 11 2 1 1 5 2 1 1 Overflow structure. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Auburndale unit 100 Bridge alterations, Kansas River unit 100 Channel and floodway improvement unit December 1970. North Topeka unit 100 Oakland unit .-- 86 September 1968. Soldier Creek diversion unit 97 June 1968. South Topeka unit 24 December 1970. Waterworks unit - 100 Entire project 85 Do. JUSTIFICATION Topeka is located along the Kansas River about 85 miles above the mouth. Important railroad and industrial developments, the municipal waterworks, and the municipal airport are located in flood plain areas along the south bank of the river. The north Topeka area, along the north bank, is a highly developed busi- ness, industrial, and residential area. Adjacent suburbs are principally residential, industrial, and small, specialized farming areas. Floods on the Kansas River and on Shunganunga, Ward-Martin, Soldier, Halfday, and Indian Creeks continually harass the Topeka area comprising about 8,400 acres. Based on 1967 prices and conditions, the floods during the period 1903 to date would cause about $291 million damage. During the 10-year period, 1941 through 1950, Topeka experienced, five diunaghig floods which caused losses estimated at $8,100,000. Subsequently, the most severe flood of lecord occurred in July 1951 when Topeka suffered an esti- mated $34,100,000 damage, at which time works constructed by the Corps of Engineers for the protection of part of the south bank area prevented an estimated $1,180,003 damage. Adjusted to 1967 prices and conditions, the 1941-50 damages would amount to about $34,500,000 and the 1951 damages would amount to about $81,800,000. The Topeka project, supplemented by upstream reservoir control, would provide full protection to the city of Topeka from all floods of record. At 1967 values, the share of total damage reductions creditable to the local project would amount to about $20,950,000 for the 1941-50 floods, and about $36,800,000 for the 1951 flood. The partially completed project was credited 563 with a share of the total damage reductions amounting to $2 million in March 1060, $190,000 in May 1961, $530,000 in June 1965, and $.3,322,000 m June 1967. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: ' .^„ Flood control iS9, W\), uuu Total y. 090' 000 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $800,000 will be applied to— Oakland unit: j i j Complete construction of channels, levees, and railroad alterations -^l^-- '^"^ South Topeka unit: . Initiate construction of channel work, levee raise, and pumping plants o03, uuu Entire project: ^^P, Engineering and design ^^' Y^'' Supervision and administ ration "'*' ^^^ Total 800, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are needed to complete a unit under- way and continue orderly construction of the last remaining levee unit so as to permit completion in fiscal year 1971. Non-Federal cost.— The initial investment by local interests in construction ot the authorized project is estimated at $10,800,000, broken down as follows: Lands $3,199,600 Relocation of highway bridges, roads, utilities, buildings, etc ^''^tl'cnn Other— Ward-Martin Creek channel realinement and enlargement. _ 54 , »uu Cash contributions by local interests (Voluntary contribution for ^ betterments) ________ Total 10,800,000 Local interests are required to provide, without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the project, hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction of the works, and maintain and operate all the works after completion. The annual cost lor operation and maintenance is estimated at $79,400. Status of local cooperation.— The North Topeka Drainage District has met all the requirements of local cooperation for the completed Soldier Creek diversion unit The board of commissioners of the city of Topeka adopted a resolution on Mav 14, 1957, declaring that the board of the city of Topeka will issue bonds and' furnish rights-of-way for the remaining units, as needed The city of topeka provided rights-of-way required for the Waterworks, Oakland and North iopeka units. Rights-of-way will be provided for the South Topeka unit m fiscal year 1968. The State Highway Commission of Kansas acquired rights-of-way for Interstate Highwav 70 wherein the embankment serves as a levee for the Auburndale unit and the'city of Topeka acquired the necessary rights-of-way for the remamder ot the unit not included in the highway rights-of-way. Thus far, local interests have expended approximately $10,400,000 for lands and required modifications of utilities, streets and bridges, and have accepted maintenance of completed portions of the project. ^ , , . ^- 4. ^e Comparison of Federal cost estimates .—The current Federal cost estirnate ot $20,800,000 is an increase of $600,000 over the latest estimate of $20,200,000 submitted to Congress. Price level advances resulted in an increase ot $bo,UUU. Damages to Soldier Creek diversion unit which occurred as a result ot high water in June 1966 indicated the need for reinforcement of the riprap Protection for the creek banks at a cost for channel improvement estimated at $131,00U. Estimated cost of levee construction increased $146,000 based on further studies ■of the South Topeka unit which indicated that additional rehef wells should be provided to adequately control potential underseepage through the levees. An additional pumping plant is required at an estimated cost of $128,000 to serve the additional rehef wells. Engineering and design increased $108,000 due mainlv to the design effort required for the channel rehabilitation on Soldier Creek ana the underseepage treatment on South Topeka unit. Supervision and administra- tion increased $22,000 based on a reanalysis of requirements. 564 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Relocations $2,754,000 $2, 693, 000 5,222,000 5,169,000 882,000 1,985.000 1,308,000 17,259,000 20,800,000 17,259,000 Channels and canals. 6.335,000 Levees and floodwalls 6,978,000 Pumping plants.. 1,060,000 Engineering and design... 2,098,000 Supervision and administration 1,575,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 20,800,000 Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments... Total cost (Federal funds only) 20,800,000 17,259,000 Undelivered orders.... 303,000 Total obligations 17,562,000 Method of financing, Federal funds: Allocations.. 17,632,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year.. Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required $43, 000 468, 000 298, 000 3,000 75, 000 92,000 979, 000 979, 000 979, 000 -257,000 722, 000 652, 000 70, 000 722,000 $18,000 104,000 552, 000 97,000 11,000 64, 000 846,000 846, 000 846, 000 -46, 000 800, 000 800,000 $541,000' 959.000 78,000 27,000 111,000 1,716,000 1,716,000 1,716,000 'i,'716,'600 1,716,000' Chariton River, ]Mo. (Continuing) Location. — Intermittent channel enlarging and straightening for the Chariton River from near the Missouri-Iowa line to the confluence of the Chariton with the Missouri River, together with tieback levees across the ISIissouri River flood plain along the improved channel, a levee along the Missouri River from the mouth of the Chariton River to the mouth of the Little Chariton River, and a tieback levee and channel improvement along the Little Chariton River across the JNIissouri River flood plain. Authorization. — 1944 Flood Control Act. Benefit-ratio. — 4.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Estimated project costs Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $8,700,000 735,000 735,000 9,435,000 4,412,000 800,000 5,212,000 60 550, 000 66 2,938,000 PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Average height feet.. 18. Length miles. _ 26. 5 Channel Improvements: Chariton River do.. 44. 5 Little Chariton River do.. 5. 5 565 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project 40 June 1971. Channel improvement and levees: Chariton River 83 June 1968. Little Chariton River 1 May 1969. Missouri River June 1971. JUSTIFICATION This project will provide protection from floods on the Chariton River to about 40,000 acres along the u]3per reaches and will provide protection from floods on the Chariton and Little Chariton Rivers to an aggregate of about 19,000 acres of rich bottomland in the Missouri River flood plain. In addition, these same works of improvement, operating in conjunction with upstream reservoirs, will protect this area from floods on the Missouri River. The Chariton River has exceeded flood stage at KeytesviUe on an average of sUghtly more than once a year since a gaging station was installed in August 1929. Channel improvements completed under this project have, since 1948, reduced flood damages by an estimated $3,247,000 through June 1967. The flood plain areas common to the Chariton and Missouri Rivers, and those common to the Little Chariton and Missouri Rivers, have been inundated almost annually by the Missouri River or the tributaries, or both, resulting in severe flood losses and considerable ex- pense for repairing existing improvements. The levees proposed for construction under this project are urgently needed to prevent recurrent flooding, and the tieback levees along the Chariton River are also required to retain the regimen of the new channel of the Chariton River across the Missouri River flood plain. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $1, 164, 000 Total 1, 164, OOa Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $550,000 will be applied to — ■ Continue levee construction and channel excavation $400, 000 Engineering and design 30, 000 Supervision and administration 120, 000 Total 550,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are needed to complete the construction of the Little Chariton River levees and initiate construction of the levees along the Missouri River. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the project is estimated at $735,000 broken down as follows: Lands $588, 000 Relocation of highways, utilities, buildings, etc 147, 000 Total 735, 000 Local interests are required to provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the proj- ect, hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction of the works, and maintain and operate all the works after construction. The annual cost of maintenance and operation is estimated at $16,000 annually. Status of local cooperation. — The county court of Chariton County, Mo., is the sponsoring agency for Chariton River tieback levees and has acquired the necessary rights-of-way. The Lower Chariton River Levee District, which sponsors the Little Chariton and the main stem Missouri River levees, has fur- nished rights-of-way for these levees. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of $8,700,000 is an increase of $300,000 over the latest estimate ($8,400,000) submitted to Con- gress. Price level advances resulted in an increase of $187,000. Receipt of bids for the Little Chariton tieback levees resulted in an increase of $547,000. More 566 detailed studies of the main stem, INIissoiiri River levees permitted a reduction in the estimated cost of $48,000 and reduction of contingencies on the Chariton River tieback levees at the mouth and savings on the channel improvements in the Novinger-Youngstown area permitted a decrease of $400,000. Engineering and design increased $14,000 based on reanalysis of remaining requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Channels $1,728,000 $1,136,000 Levees. Engineering and design .__ Supervision and administration Stores Total applied cost (Federal funds only) Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only) Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocation Unobligated carryover from prior years Total funds available for obligation Appropriation required 5,479,000 782, 000 711,000 8,700,000 "8,'7'od,"ddd" 1,135,000 685, 000 235,000 3,000 , 194, 000 $246, 000 826,000 50, 000 105,000 T,'2'27,dod" $294, 000 900, 000 30, 000 120, 000 -3,000 1,341,000 3,194,000 1,227,000 1,341,000 8, 700, 000 3,194,000 706, 000 3,900,000 4,412,000 1,227,000 85,000 1,312 000 800, 000 512,000 1,312,000 1,341,000 -791,000 550,000 $52. 00 2,618,000 17,000 251,000 2,938,000 2, 938, 000 '2;93'8rodd 2,938,000 550, 000 2,938,000 Norfolk, Nebr. (Continuing) Location. — Norfolk, Nebr., is located in Madison County in northeast Nebraska at the confluence of the Elkhorn River and North Branch of the Elkhorn River, approximately 110 miles northwest of Omaha, Nebr. Authorization. — 1950 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $3,500,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 960,000 Cash contributions Other costs 960,000 Total estimated project cost 4,460,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 2,075,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 975,000 Allocations to date 3,050,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 450,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 87 100 PHYSICAL D.\TA Levees, average height: Upstream of diversion control structure: 15 feet. Downstream of diversion control structure: 10 feet. Length: 38,000 feet. Channels: Cutoffs, diversion channel, and channel improvements, 22,000 linear feet. Structures: Diversion control structure. Relocations : Lengthen, Chicago and Northwestern railroad bridge $276, 000 New, Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha railroad bridge.. 295, 000 56' STATUS (JAN. 1 1 I, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule 100 57 December 1968. 68 Do. JUSTIFICATION Under existing conditions approximately one-third of the city of Norfolk is subject to flood damage. This area includes the main business and mdustnal districts, residences, public buildings, streets, public utilities and important highway and railroad facilities. Norfolk has suffered extreme damage from major floods, of which the most intense was in June 1944, and lesser damage from numerous minor floods. The flood of record which occurred in June 1944 mundated about 176 city blocks affecting approximately 460 homes and 180 business estab- lishments. The total damages were estimated at that time to be $1,236,000. Some damages occurred as a result of the March-April 1960 flood, however, the more recent flooding occurred in March 1962 when about 68 city blocks were flooded affecting 498 homes and 93 business establishments with damages estimated at $712,000. Construction of the project wUl provide protection from floods greater than any which have occurred during the period of record. The average annual benefits are estimated to be: Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $282, 600 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $450,000 will be applied to- Complete channel excavation and levee construction, stage II $399, 000 Engineering and design 19' 000 Supervision and administration '^^' 0"" Total 450,000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 will permit completion of this project. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $960,000 broken down as follows: Lands and damages ^o^^' cnR Relocations tloan Engineering and overhead ^^' •^"^ Total 960,000 Local interests are required to operate and maintaine the project upon comple- tion. The annual cost for operation and maintenance is estimated at $11,200. Status of local cooperation.— Local interests have provided all necessary land and right-of-way required for construction. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,500,000 is a reduction of $440,000 from the latest estimate ($3,940,000) sub- mitted to Congress. Favorable bids received for second stage channel improve- ment and levee construction, and reduction of contingencies on channel and levee work and railroad alterations, resulted in a decrease of $350,000. Supervision and administration decreased $90,000 based on reanalysis of requirements. Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 568 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations- $571,000 $480,000 $91,000 Channels 1,879,000 581,000 954,000 $344,000 Levees _.._ 600,000 105,000 440,000 55,000 Engineering and design. _ 300,000 261,000 20,000 19,000 Supervision and administration. 150,000 68,000 50,000 32,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only)... 3,500,000 1,495,000 1,555,000 450,000 Undistributed cost _ Total project cost (Federal funds only)-.. 3,500,000 1,495,000 1,555,000 450,000 Pending adjustment Total cost (Federal funds only) 3,500,000 1,495,000 1,555,000 450,000.. Undelivered orders 556,000 -556,000 Total obligations 2,051,000 999,000 450,000 Method financing (Federal funds): Allocation 2,075,000 975,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 24,000 Total funds available for obligation 999,000 Appropriation required.. 450,000 Cottonwood Springs Dam and Reservoir, S. Dak. (Continuing) Location. — The dam is located on Cottonwood Springs Creek approximately one-half mile above its confluence with Hot Brook, a tributar3'- of Fall River, and is approximatelj^ 3}^ miles west of Hot Springs, Fall River County, S. Dak. Authorization. — 1941 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio: 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $1,740,000 Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost 1,740,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 500,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date 500,000 29 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 800,000 75 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 440,000 PHYSICAL DAT.\ Dam: Type: Rolled earth fill embankment. Height: 123 feet. Length: 1,190 feet. Outlet works: Uncontrolled reinforced concrete drop inlet, conduit and stilling basin. Spillway: Uncontrolled chute. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 7, 685 Conservation 395 Sedimentation 260 Total 8,340 Lands and damages: Acres: 630. Type: Predominantly woodland and pasture. Improvements: Old farm buildings. 569 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Land acquisition 96 February 1968. Dam - December 1969. •Closure - July 1969. Recreation facilities - June 1970. Entire project-. - 3 Do JUSTIFICATION The Cottonwood Springs Dam was authorized as a unit of the Fall River Basin project. This unit along with the Cold Brook Dam and Hot Springs channel improvements is designed to provide flood protection for the city of Hot Springs, S. Dak., and rural areas downstream from the dams. The Cottonwood Springs Dam is needed to provide the optimum degree of protection. Business and indus- trial areas, hotels and thermal springs are located in the flood plain in the Hot Springs area. These improvements have suffered severe damage from flash floods. The threat of future floods has hindered the development of Hot Springs as a health resort. In addition the conservation pool of 42 acres surface area will provide an excellent facility for water based recreation. The estimated annvial benefits are as follows: Breakdown of benefits: AmourU Flood control $70, 400 Recreation 43, 100 Total 113,500 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $800,000 will be applied to — Continue construction of dam and structures $691, 000 Initiate recreation facilities 35, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 64, 000 Total 800, 000 Fimds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to maintain a minimum construction schedule. Non-Federal costs. — Not applicable. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,740,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages - $61,000 21,000 1,222,000 194, 000 4,000 140, 000 98, 000 1,740,000 $6, 000 95, 000 6,000 107,000 None . 107,000 $55, 000 5,000 70, 000 30, 000 8,000 168, 000 ies.'ooo" $3, 000 913,000 35, 000 10, 000 64, 000 1,025,000 '"'i,'625;oo6"' Reservoirs . . $13,000 Dams Recreation.,. Permanent operating equipment.. 239, 000 159, 000 4,000 Engineering and design 5,000 Supervision and administration.. Total applied cost (Federal funds Undistributed cost only).. 20, 000 440,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 1,740,000 440, 000 Total cost (Federal funds only)... Undelivered orders Total obligations 1,740,000 107,000 107.000 500, 000 168, 000 225, 000 393, 000 . 393, 000 393,000 . 1,025,000 -225,000 . 800, 000 . 440, 000 440,'666 Method of fmancing: Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover prior year Total funds available for ( from )bliga-"' Appropriation required.. 800, 000 440, 000 570 Stockton Reservoir, 'Slo. (Continuing) Location. — The damsite is located on the Sac River about 49.5 miles above its confluence with the Osage River, and about 2 miles east of Stockton, Cedar County, Mo. The reservoir will extend upstream into Dade and Polk Counties. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement. Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate). , Estimated non-Federal cost , Reimbursement (power)... Other Total estimated project cost.. Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968... Allocation to date Appropriations requested fiscal year 1969., Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. $67,600,000 14,336,000 53,264,000 14,336,000 14,336,000 67,600,000 34,700,000 10,700.000 45, 400, 000 67 14, 500, 000 8& 7,700,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rock shell with impervious core. Height: 128 feet (average). Length: 5,100 feet. Spillway : Type: Gated overfall. Capacity: 174,000 cubic feet per second. Lands and damages: Acres: 61,700. Tj'pe: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Reservoir capacitv: Acre-feet Flood control 774, 000 Conservation power 875, 000 Sedimentation 2.5, 000 Full pool 1,674,000 Power installation: Initial and ultimate: 45,200 kilowatts. Head: 85 feet (average). Relocations: Roads: 39 miles, $12,277,000. Cemeteries, utilities, and structures: $1,239,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project 51 Acquisition of reservoir area 91 Relocations 37 Completion of dam and powerplant 53 Recreation facilities Dam closure Power on line December 1970. December 1969. September 1969. December 1970. Do. August 1968. December 1970. 571 JUSTIFICATION The Stockton Reservoir is the second largest unit of the authorized Osage River Basin s5-stem of nine reservoirs, which in turn is part of the comjjrehensive flood protection plan for the Missouri River Basin. The reservoir will control the runoff from 1,160 square miles and, operated in conjunction with other authorized reservoirs, will provide benefits to 49,800 acres of land along the Sac and Osage Rivers, and 160,000 acres of land along the Missouri River. The July IdTA flood alone caused estimated damages of $18,920,000 along the Sac, Osage, and Missouri Rivers below the Stockton damsite and subsequent floods through 1966 have caused an estimated $13,192,000 additional damages in the same areas. Recurrence of these floods at 1967 prices and conditions would cause aggregate damages estimated at about $41,200,000. The Stockton Reservoir would reduce these aggregate damages by over $3,200,000. The most recent flood occurred in June 1967 and damages are now being evaluated. In addition, the large conservation pool, when operated in conjunction with Pomme de Terre and Kaysinger Bluff Reservoirs, wiU be used to generate hydroelectric power. The large ])ool will also provide a substantial recreational potential and provide substantial fish and wild life benefits. The average annual benefits are currently estimated as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $1, 009, 000 Power 1, 325, 500 Recreation 1, 085, 000 Total 3, 419, 500 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $14,500,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands in reservoir area $240,000 Complete relocation of power and telephone lines and municipal and other facilities 417,000 Continue relocation of State and county roads 3, 896 , 000 Continue procurement of powerplant equipment 1,832,000 Continue purchase of permanent operating equipment 55, 000 Continue construction of spillway, powerplant (intake and substruc- ture) , completion of embankment 4,939, 000 Continue clearing of reservoir area and initiate boundary surveys and marking 1,073,000 Continue roads and boat ramps for public use areas 538, 000 Initiate construction of powerhouse superstructure and switchyard 800, 000 Engineering and design 76,000 Supervision and administration 634,000 Total 14,500,000 The amount requested is the minimum amount required to maintain an econom- ical construction schedule. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power are reimbursable. The preliminary estimate of the amount of reimbursement of the estimated project cost for power is $14,336,000. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power rests with the marketing agency of the Department of the Interior. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $67,600,000 is an increase of $1,500,000 over the latest estimate ($66,100,000) submitted to Congress. Price level advances resulted in an increase of $598,000. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased $748,000 based on costs to date which reflect more complex engineering than previously anticipated, and reanalysis of remaining requirements. Minor adjustments in other features resulted in a net increase of $154,000 reflecting more advanced planning, bids received, and reductions of contingencies. 572 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $10,100,000 $8,890,000 $932,000 $240,000 $38,000 Relocations 13,516,000 2,193,000 6,880,000 4,313,000 130.000 Reservoir 2,480,000 3.000 559,000 1.073,000 835.000 Dam 17.837,000 9,074,000 4.851,000 3.335,000 577.000 Powerplant 11,750,000 1,400,000 3,743.000 4,030,000 2,577,000 Roads 1,250.000 106.000 310.000 472,000 352,000 Recreation facilities 2,390,000 25,000 93,000 2,272,000 Buildings grounds, and utilities.. 317,000 211.000 6.000 6,000 94,000 Permanent operating equipment 355,000 8,000 45,000 55.000 247,000 Eneineering and design 4.295,000 3.644.000 575.000 76,000 Supervision and administration 3,318,000 1,432.000 663.000 634.000 589,000 Total applied costs (Federal funds only).- 67,608,000 26,961,000 18,599,000 14,327,000 7,721,000 Undistributed costs 28,000 2,000 -9,000 -21,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 67,608,000 26,989,000 18.601,000 14,318,000 7,700,000 Transfer of cost of property, other... -8,000 -2.000 -6.000 Nonfunded contractors earnings. —182.000 182,000 Total cost (Federal funds only) 67,600,000 26,987,000 18,413,000 14.500,000 7,700,000 Undelivered orders... _ 5,874,000 -5,874.000 Total obligations 32.861,000 12.539,000 14,500,000 7,700,000 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocation 34,700.000 10.700.000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 1,839,000 ..._ _ Total funds available for obli- gation 12.589,000 Appropriations required 14,500,000 7,700,000 Big Bend Dam-L.\ke Sharpe, S. Dak. (Continuing) Location. — On the Missouri River, 987.4 miles above the mouth, about 20 miles upstream from Chamberlain, S. Dak., and about 80 miles downstream from Pierre, S. Dak. Authorization. — 1944 Flood Control Act, and Public Law 87-735. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.1 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement: Corps of Engineers $102,700,000 Department of the Interior.. 350,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 101,450,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 1,600,000 Estimated non-Federal cost; Reimbursement (pow/er) 101.450.000 Total estimated project cost 103.050.000 Allocation to June 30, 1967. "98.551.000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 1,460,000 Allocation to date. 100.011.000 97 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1,000.000 99 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1,689,000 ' Excludes $350,000 allocation for work performed for the Crow Creek Tribe. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Ivolled earthfill embankment. Height: 9.") feet (above strcainbcd). Length: 10,570 feet (includes .spillway). 573 Spillway : Tvpe: Concrotc-linod chute with gated overflow weir. Capacity: 390,000 cubic feet per second. Lands and Damages: Acres: 45,950. Type: Predominantly agricultural and woodland. Improvements : Typical farm units Farm Island. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Exclusive flood control !"•>, ^^^^ Power 260, 000 Inactive capacity 1, 46-5, 000 Total 1,900,000 Power installation : Initial and ultimate: 8 units at 58,500 kilowatts (nameplate) 468,000 kilo- watts. Presently planned: 8 units at 58,000 kilowatts (nameplate) 468,000 kilo- watts. Average gross head: 69 feet. Relocations: Roads: 21 miles, $2,057,000. Railroads: 4 miles, $998,000. Cemeteries, utilities, and structures: $1,385,000. Lower Brule Indian Agency, $702,000. Crow Creek Indian Agenc}^ $600,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages - -- 97 June 1970. Relocations 97 Do. Dam and powerhouse - 100 July 1963 (closure). Switchyard, accessory and miscellaneous equipment, and tailrace... 94 December 1969. Reservoir improvements and tree planting 83 December 1970. Roads __.. ..._ — - 95 June 1970. Buildings, grounds, and utilities _. --_ 6 Do. Recreation facilities - - 62 December 1970. Permanent operating equipment 88 June 1968. Power on line (last unit) ..- - - July 1966. Entire project 96 December 1970. JUSTIFICATION The project is being operated as a unit in the comprehensive plan for flood control, navigation, power, and other purposes in the Missouri River Basin. Un- restricted peaking operation up to 115 percent of the nameplate capacity of the installation will be feasible the year around; thus the project will contribute materially in supplying the rapidly growing power needs in the area. Also, co- ordinated power operations of Big Bend and Fort Randall will provide nearly constant peaking capacity for most conditions and Fort Randall will accomplish its important flood control functions without affecting system power generation significantly. Estimated average annual benefits are: Breakdown of benefits: Power $13,066,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,000,000 will be applied to — Continue land acquisition $25, 000 Continue relocations 11, 000 Continue buildings, grounds, and utilities 510,000 Continue reservoir improvements and tree planting 50, 000 Continue switchyard, accessory, and miscellaneous equipment 245, 000 Continue recreation facilities H, 000 Engineering and design 96, 000 Supervision and administration 52, 000 Total 1,000,000 574 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for minimum construc- tion progress which will permit project completion in December 1970. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $101,- 450,000 are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the marketing agency of the Department of the Interior. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $103,050,000 ($102,700,000 C. of E.; $350,000 Department of the Interior) is $300,000 less than the previous estimate of $103,350,000 ($103,000,000 C. of E.; $350,000 Department of the Interior) submitted to Congress. The estimate for the powerplant was decreased $1,468,000 primarily due to reduced reserves for claims. This was partly offset by an increase of $549,000 in the estimate for buildings, grounds, and utilities due to revised requirements for maintenance of buildings and floating plant facilities in the interest of more efficient operational procedures and an increase of $619,000 due to minor adjustments in other con- struction items and in relocations and land acquisition to reflect current status of planning and construction. Costs for bank protection in the reservoir area in the amount of $2,223,000 were transferred from the bank stabilization feature to the reservoir feature. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1) FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $6,400,000 $6,175,000 $185,000 $25,000 $15,000 Relocations 4,440,000 4,320,000 9,000 11,000 100,000 Reservoir 3,730,000 3,080,000 13,000 53,000 584,000 Dam 16,428,000 16,191,000 192,000 5,000 40,000 Powerplant.. 55,167,000 54,327,000 275,000 258,000 307,000 Roads 1,959,000 1,853,000 106,000 Recreation facilities 1,300,000 702,000 166,000 11,000 421,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 1,004,000 64,000 287,000 512,000 141,000 Permanent operating equipment 821,000 694,000 122,000 5,000 Engineering and design 6,800,000 6,424,000 220,000 96,000 60,000 Supervision and administration 5,089,000 4,877,000 90,000 52,000 70,000 Total applied costs (Corps of Engineers and Department of Interior) 103,138,000 98,707,000 1,559,000 1,023,000 1,849,000 Undistributed costs.. 120,000 40,000 -160,000 Construction facilities (0) (0) (5,000) (5,000) (-10,000) 0. &M. during construction (0) (0) (90,000) (20,000) (-110,000) Surveys and layouts (0) (0) (25,000) (15,000) (-40,000) Total project cost (Corps of Engineers and Department of Interior) 103,138,000 98,707,000 1,679,000 1,063,000 1,689,000 Transfers of cost and property -88,000 -82,000 -6,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers and De- partment of Interior) 103,050,000 98,625,000 1,673,000 1,063,000 1,689,000 Corps of Engineers cost: Total cost_ 102,700,000 98,275,000 1,673,000 1,063,000 1,689,000 Undelivered orders 248,000 -185,000 -63,000 -... Total obligations 98,523,000 1,488,000 1,000,000 1,689,000 Department of Interior cost: Total costs 350,000 350,000 Undelivered orders - Total obligations. _. 350,000 Method of financing (Corps of Engineers funds): Allocation 98,551,000 1,460,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year... 28,000 Total funds available for obligation 1,488,000 Appropriation required 1,000,000 1,689,000 Method of financing (Department of Interior): Allocation 1350,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation 1 Funds allocated to project to be reimbursed by BIA, Department of Interior, for work performed for Crow Creek Indian Tribe. 575 Oahe Reservoir, S. Dak. and N. Dak. (Continuing) Location. — Mile 1072.3 Missouri River; in Hughes and Stanley Counties, S. Dak.; about 6 miles northwest of Pierre, S. Dak. Authorization. — 1944 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement... Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate)... Estimated non-Federal cost Reimbursement: Power. Irrigation... Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date_. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $339,300,000 249,400,000 89,900,000 249,400,000 182,600,000 66,800,000 339,300,000 333,963,000 1,100,000 335,063,000 1,550,000 2,687,000 . PHYSICAL DATA Dam : Type: Rolled earthfill embankment. Height: 245 feet (abov^e streambed). Length: 9,300 feet (excludes spillway). Spillway: Type: Gated concrete control structure with unlined channel. Designed capacity: 304,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Exclusive flood control 1, 100, 000 Annual flood control and multiple use 3, 200, 000 Carryover multiple use 13, 800, 000 Inactive capacity 5, 500, 000 Total 23, 600, 000 Power installation : Initial and ultimate: 7 units at 85,000 kilowatts; 595,000 kilowatts. Presently planned: 7 units at 85,000 kilowatts; 595,000 kilowatts. Average gross head: 185 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 420,000. Type: Predominantly pasture and woodland. Improvements: Typical farm units and six small rural communities. Relocations : Roads: 265 miles, $23,382,000. South Dakota highways: $14,975,000. North Dakota highways: $885,000. Railroads: $27,564,000. C, M., St. P. & P. RaUroad: $20,450,000. Northern Pacific Railroad: $6,650,000. Cemeteries, utilities, and structures: $9,202,000. Cheyenne River Indian Agency: $5,494,000. 91-459— 68— pt. 1- -37 576 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Acquisition of reservoir lands 98 December 1970. Relocations _ 97 December 1969. Channel stabilization 88 November 1968. Dam and powerhouse _ 100 Closure August 1958. Permanent operating equipment 100 Switchyard, accessory and miscellaneous equipment and tailrace 98 December 1970. Roads, recreation facilities, and reservoir clearing... 85 Do Power on line (last unit).. June 1963. Entire project 99 December 1970 JUSTIFICATION The project is being operated as a unit in the comprehensive plan for flood control, navigation, power, and other purposes in the Missouri River Basin^ The comprehensive plan provides protection for Sioux City and Council Bluffs, Iowa; Omaha, Nebr.; and Kansas City, Kans. and Mo.; as well as other urban and rural areas in the vallev below the dams from severe floods such as those of 1844, 1881, 1903, 1909, 1915, 1935, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1947, 1950, 1951,. and the recordbreaking flood of 1952, and from smaller floods originating upstreamr and occurring practically everj^ j'ear. Flood damages along the main stem of the- Missouri River between the dam site and the mouth, from 1942 through 1953, inclusive, amounted to approximately $550 million. The plan provides flood protection to 1,875,000 acres of land subject to flooding between Fort RandalL Dam and the mouth of the river. The Oahe Reservoir has one of the largest storage capacities of the multiple-purpose reservoirs on the Missouri River.. The capacity is sufficient to effect substantial reduction in flood discharges from the 59,600 square miles of drainage area between Oahe Dam and Garrison Dam. The Fort Randall spillway capacity was established with consideration of the protection by the Oahe Reservoir against major floods of unprecedented magni- tude. Oahe provides the necessary storage capacit}- for sediment which would otherwise be deposited in the Big Bend and Fort Randall Reservoirs to cause- depletion of the limited storage available in those reservoirs and is essential to the full realization of the benefits from Big Bend, Fort Randall, and Gavins Point. The project produces a large amount of hydroelectric power, and naviga- tion on the inland waterways below Sioux City benefits from the release of its stored water. Irrigation water from the reservoir will be available for future distribution system serving irrigators primarily in eastern South Dakota. Addi- tional important benefits are: a greater degree of system flood control; other beneficial downstream uses; increased power generation at Fort Randall and Garrison due to reduction of flood control requirementts at those projects; and fish and wildlife and recreational developments. The estimated average annual benefits are as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Power $17, 094, 000' Irrigation 4, 447, 000 Flood control 9, 109, 000 Navigation 2, 067, 000 Total 32, 717, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,550,000 will be applied to — Complete boat harbor, dock, and warehouse facilities and landscaping. $95, 000 Complete downstream channel stabilization 100, 000 Continue acquisition of presently scheduled land in reservoir area 140, 000 Continue relocations 950, 000 Continue reservoir approach roads and public use areas 56, 000 Continue miscellaneous minor work 69, 000 Engineering and design 80, 000 Supervision and administration 60, 000 Total 1, 550, 000 577 The amount requested is the minimum required to maintain an orderly con- struction program to meet the scheduled project completion date. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power and irrigation are reimbursable. The reimbursement for power is presently estimated at $182,600,000. The reim- bursement for irrigation is presently estimated at $66,800,000. Status of local cooperation.— None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of u-rigation and power costs rests with the Department of the Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estinaate of $339,300,000 is an increase of $1,300,000 over the latest estimate of $338 million submitted to Congress. The increase is due to additional riprap protection re- quired for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad crossing. Costs in the amount of $943,000 for bank stabilization downstream of the dam were transferred to the channels feature. Other minor adjustments in construction items, relocations and land acquisition reflect current status of planning and construction. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year Tiscai year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages.. _._ $28,700,000 $28,049,000 $110,000 $140,000 $401,000 Relocations 60,148,000 58,292,000 295,000 953,000 608,000 Reservoirs 566,000 198,000 8,000 360,000 Dams. 160,483,000 160,365,000 26,000 5,000 87,000 Fish and wildlife facilities 37,000 37,000 Powerplant 48,978,000 48,768,000 10,000 33,000 187,000 Roads 2.882,000 2,307,000 126,000 50,000 399,000 Channels ..__ 943,000 813,000 18,000 103,000 9,000 Recreation facilities 2,390,000 1,761,000 213,000 6,000 410,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 1,058,000 618,000 340,000 98,000 2,000 Permanent operating equipment 1,323,000 1,307,000 16,000 Engineering and design 18,200,000 17,925,000 80,000 80,000 115,000 Supervision and administration 13,830,000 13,446,000 100,000 60,000 224,000 Total applied costs (Federal funds only).. 339,538,000 333,886,000 1,342,000 1,528,000 2,782,000 Undistributed costs 60,000 35,000 -95,000 Construction facilities (0) (0) (5.000) (5,000) (-10,000) 0. & M. during construction (0) (0) (40,000) (20,000) (-60,000) Surveys and layouts. _ (0) (0) (15.000) (10,000) (-25,000) Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 339,538,000 333,886,000 1,402,000 1,563,000 2,687.000 Transfers of property -238,000 -237,000 -1,000 Pending adjustment . . Total costs (Federal funds only) 339,300,000 333,649,000 1.401,000 1,563,000 2,687,000 Undelivered orders 129,000 -116,000 -13,000 Total obligations.... 333,778.000 1,285.000 1.550,000 2,687,000 Method of financing; Federal funds: Allocation 333,963,000 1,100,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 185,000 Total funds available for obli- gation 1,285,000 Appropriation required 1,550,000 2,687,000 Mr. BoLAND. Mr. Whitten ? Mr. Whitten. No questions. Mr. BoLAND. Mr. Ehodes? ATCHISON, KANS. Mr. Rhodes. General, on page 65 you are asking for $1,811,000 in this fiscal year; in comparison to the full cost of this project it seems like a rather large amount of money for one fiscal year. Again con- sidering the budgetary situation couldn't this be stretched out a little farther? This is the Atchison, White Clay Creek, Kans., project. It looks like a good project, it has a good benefit-cost ratio ancl all, but it seems to me that perhaps it could be stretched. 578 CONTINUATION OF GOING CONTRACT General Cannon. Sir, as you will note on page 65, this is the balance to complete. One reason for continuing is that the contract existing will be extended to make this completion. There will be considerable savings by a continued contract into fiscal year 1969 as opposed to stopping and starting at another time. Mr. Becker. May I expand on this ? Mr. Rhodes. Yes. Mr, Becker. This is one contract for a conduit. The entire job is under contract now. It would be proper to continue with the contract to completion. ]Mr. Rhodes. Do you have any estimate as to what the cost would be in addition to the amount set forth here if you were to stop in order to stretch out ? Mr. Becker. No, sir. Mr. Rhodes. It would be considerable ? Mr. Becker. It would involve a modification of the contract; yes, sir. Mr. AcKERMAN. It would involve a problem of canceling an existing contract which always involves tremendous sums of money. Mr. Rhodes. It wouldn't be a matter of cancellation, would it ? Mr. AcKERMAN. Yes, sir. It is already under contract. You would have to cancel a part of it. Mr. Rhodes. Could you tell the contractor to quit going so fast, quit earning his money so fast ? FAVORABLE BID Mr. BoLAND. You did get a pretty favorable bid on this, did you not ? General Cannon. Yes, sir. Mr. AcKERMAN. Yes ; very favorable bid on it. It is a continumg contract extending into the coming year. Mr. Rhodes. The gentleman from New York has a question. Mr. RoBisoN. I was going to ask Mr. Rhodes to yield, to point out that there is a decrease of $323,000 shown for this project. Maybe that is related to the expressed desire to go ahead with the contract. General Cannon. Most certainly, sir; it has been our experience with a favorable bid like this that—- — Mr. RoBisoN. You may not get it again. General Cannon. You may not get it again. We have experience in that. LAWRENCE, KANS. Mr. Rhodes. Turning now to page 76, Lawrence, Kans., project, again you have a rather large sum of money requested in this fiscal year, $1,300,000. Would you again address yourself to the question as to whether or not a stretchout would be feasible? I would note that the benefit-to-cost ratio on this one is vei'y marginal, 1.09 to 1. I also note that the current cost estimate of $5,730,000 is an increase of $390,000 over the latest estunate. You are very close to unity here. Perhaps that is the reason you want to go so fast, so that you don't get below unity. m BENEFIT- TO-COST RATIO General Cannon. May I address the benefit-cost ratio? Mr. Rhodes. Yes. General Cannon. The Mud Creek extension will provide additional protection to essentially the same area as protected by the mam-stem levees. The additional benefits accruing from extension of the Mud Creek protection would amount to about $38,000 annually. They are not reflected in the current benefit-cost ratio. Inclusion of these benefits would increase the current benefit-cost ratio to about 1.3 to 1, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Why don't you include them? General Cannon. We will at the next presentation. Mr. Rhodes. You want us to consider, then, that this statement you just made is an amenchnent to the justifications which we have before us? General Cannon. Yes, if you would, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Do you want to address yourself to the possibility ot stretching out on this particular project ? General Cannon. The current lack of unprovements contemplated limits the effectiveness of the upstream Kansas River levee now under construction, due to the overflow from Mud Creek. There could be pos- sible increases of as much as $160,000 in construction costs for higher price levels and the extension of our supervision and administration, and substantially all of the 1-year's annual benefits of $243,000 would be lost if this were further delayed. STOCKTON reservoir, MO. Mr. Rhodes. Turning to page 144, Stockton Reservoir, Mo., again you have a rather large appropriation, $14,500,000 requested for this project, upon which the total cost is $67,600,000. Is it possible to stretch this one out? General Cannon. Sir, as you noted from the slides presented m my opening statement, this project is well underway with contracts, and the application of this amount will put us in a position where, with an estimated half of this amount in a succeeding fiscal year, we can complete the project and thereby gain the benefits. Here again, sir, price levels and supervision and administrative costs would tend to increase the overall costs. Mr. Rhodes. I notice that there is a rather substantial increase m cost over last year. I believe the amount is $1,500,000. Do you feel that the price level will advance further or will this cost be fairly firm to completion now ? General Cannon. In the context of accepted annual price rises, yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. That is all. Mr. Boland. Mr. Davis ? Mr. Da\ts. I have no further questions. Mr. Boland. Mr. Robison ? MISSOURI RIVER, SIOUX CITY TO MOUTH Mr. RoBisoN. General, let me take a slightly different tack from that of Mr. Rhodes. 580 Going back to tlie Missouri Kiver — Sioux City-to-the-mouth proj- ect — of tlie overall request for fiscal year 1969 of $5 million it is shown, on page 39 of the justifications, that $515,000 of this amount would be used to "continue development of recreational facilities." Now, would it be possible, sir, in your judgment, for this particular portion of the overall request to be deferred ? General Cannon. Sir, we have underway, in cooperation with the local State authorities, a number of conversions of the Oxbow Kakes in the upper Missouri, To defer these would bring about a consider- able additional effort to make them usable, because the continuing flows push silt in and we would have to do work above and beyond what is presently contemplated. Mr. RoBisoN. Let me make sure I understand. This would not, then, just postpone the day when the residents of that nearby area might enjoy these recreational facilities, but General Cannon. It would cost more. Mr. EoBisoN. It would add cost to the project ? General Cannon. Yes. RATHBUN RESERVOIR. IOWA Mr. RoBisoN. Take a look at page 61 on the Rathbun Reservoir project. Here again you are asking for $3,800,000 in fiscal 1969, of which $117,000, as shown on page 61, is requested for the construction of interior roads and recreational facilities. Again let me ask you, al- though this is a small item, could this item relating to recreation be deferred i General Cannon. Here again, sir, I think the active word is "con- tinue." There are benefits to'b^ obtained by operating at the minimum level to keep a contractor employed and on the job so that we don't have to contemplate his demobilizing and then remobilizing to come back to pick up this. Incidentally, you don't need to worry too much about the potential or the future recreational benefits f or"^ the residents of Kansas City, because several of these projects that do involve substantial recrea- tional benefits are all in this area. CLINTON RESERVOIR Mr. RoBisoN. On page 72 with reference to the Clinton Reservoir, it looks as if we are acquiring the whole town of Richland, Ivans. Is that right? Mr. BoLAND. Yes, sir. We funded that. Mr. RoBisoN. How large a town was it? You can supply that in- formation for the record. (The information follows:) The town of Richland, Kans., has a population of 352. General Cannon. The acquisition at Richland involves 66 residential and commercial properties, sir. MELVERN RESERVOIR, KANS. Mr. RoBisoN. On page 82, for the Melvern Reservoir, you are show- ing an item of $18,000 to install rndio facilities. What is this? General Cannon. This would be the necessary communication fa- cilities for operation of the project in the net with other similar facilities. Mr. RoBisoN. Is it just a temporary thing? General Cannon. No, sir. This is the permanent means by which we coimnunicate on releases and operation of the structures. Mr. RoBisoN. After the contract is complete? General Cannon. Yes, sir ; and it is very valuable during consti-uc- tion as well, of course. PERRY RESERVOIR, KANS. Mr. RoBisoN. Now, for the Perry Reservoir, pages 92 and thereafter, we again provide recreational benefits to the people of the general Kansas City area. Of the $6,500,000 requested in 1969 you are request- ing $836,000 to continue construction in public-use areas as well as $502,000 to continue construction of embankment and access roads. I don't know what portion of the access roads would apply to the recreational features of the project, which are very large again, but could the $836,000 for construction of public-use areas or some portion of the $502,000 for embanlmient and access road areas be deferred? Do I get the same answer as I did from you with respect to my other questions ? General Cannon. I follow you, I believe, sir. The continuino; construction of embankment and access roads would be primarily facilities related directly to the structure. They would be incidental to the recreation. Mr. RoBisoN. How about the $836,000 for construction of public-use areas ? General Cannon. Sir, here again I would say that, if some savings and slippage were applied to this, we might well protract construction of these facilities. It is generally our policy, as it has been on other reservoir projects, to push such work back in order to utilize the funds for the immediately needed construction. Mr. RoBisoN. Fine. I am glad to hear that, because I think that this is in that priority area that you and I were discussing earlier. I think this is what the Corps should be doing at this particular time. COTTONWOOD SPRINGS DAM AND RESERVOIR Now, on page 134, with respect to the Cottonwood Springs Dam and Reservoir in South Dakota, again it is a small item but, out of the $800,000 requested for 1969, $35,000 is requested to initiate recreation facilities. Again, could this particular item be deferred ? General Caxnox. xVs I said previously, sir. I think it is desirable to initiate these so you can get an orderly progression, but if for some rea- son the funds are not available certainly we would defer this one in preference to deferring something else on this project. STOCKTON RESERVOIR Mr. RoBisoN. Finally, along the same line, for the Stockton Reservoir in Missouri on page 146 it is shown that, out of the total request of $14,500,000 for 1969, you are requesting $538,000 to continue roads and 582 boat ramps for public-use areas. My question is, again : Could this por- tion of that overall request be deferred ? Mr. AcKERMAN. Boat ramps have to be built before the reservoir goes into operation or you cannot get them down low enough. The same is somewhat true of some of the access roads to them. So we run into an extremely costly operation if that kind of feature is delayed. There can be things that are well above the surface of the reser^'oir which can be delayed — with a great deal of cost, however. People feel they must get into an area the moment water is provided. Mr. RoBisoN. That is the kind of answer that is helpful because, if we are looking for target areas, we need to know what the problems are involved in targeting m on them. Mr. AcKERMAN. In many of these recreation items it will be found that certain features have to be done before the reservoir goes into operation. There are others that can be delayed somewhat. Mr. BoLAND. I would think once the reservoir or the dam is closed, and there is any water level in the reservoir at all, the heat from the public would be rather substantial, too. Tlie minute there is water there they want to move in with their boats. You have to provide comfort facilities, boat ramps, and the minimum facilities to handle the visitations. Mr. AcKERMAN. Yes; that is one thing I should have added, sir: that some of these recreation facilities are absolutely imperaltive for public health and safeguarding of the public. You have to have some sanitary facilities, you have to have water for them to drink, the moment that an area is available to them. jNIr. RoBisoN. To the chairman's comment, I would only add that the heat from the public is also preitty strongly felt with resp€<::t to their o]>position to the proposed surtax as urged by the President. Mr. Whitten. Off the record. (Discussion off tlie record.) General Cannon. The total cost of boat ramps on this project is estimated at $78,000. Mr. RoBisoN. Out of the $538,000 ? General Cannon. It is a part of the $538,000 ; yes, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. Then there may be someithing in that item that could well be defen-ed. General Cannon. The protraction of road construction is a poten- tial, sir. ^Ir. RoBisoN. Thank you very much. Rehabilitation Mr. BoLAND. "We will insert justification covering the request of $2,200,000 to continue rehabilitation of the Snake Creek embankment in connection with the Garrison Dam in North Dakota. 583 Garrison Dam-Lake Sakakawea, N. Dak. — Snake Creek Embankment (Continuation of rehabilitation) Location and description. — Garrison Dam is located on the Missouri River in McLean and Mercer Counties, N. Dak., 1389.9 miles above the mouth and 75 miles above Bismarck, N. Dak. The Snake Creek embankment located on the Snake Creek arm of the reservoir approximately 9 miles northeast of the damsite provides a crossing for LT.S. Highway 83, Soo Railroad, Bureau of Reclamation transmission lines, Ottertail Power Co. lines, telegraph and telephone lines. It also creates a subimpoundment to be utilized in the Bureau of Reclamation's irrigation development. The Snake Creek embankment is 11,000 feet in length and has an average fill height of about 45 feet. Authorization. — 1944 Flood Control Act and Public Works Appropriation Act, 1968. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost.. $7,500,000 Estimated non-Federal cost -. 1, 175,000 Cash contribution 1,175,000 Other .- - Total estimated cost - - 8,675,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation tor fiscal year 1968 900,000 Allocation to date 900,000 12 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 2,200,000 41 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969.. 4,400, 000 Present condition. — The Snake Creek embankment was completed in 1952, The crest of the embankment is at elevation 1,865. The maximum normal oper- ating elevation of the reservoir is 1,850. The embankment in the range of the fluctuating pool levels is constructed on one on two slopes. The slopes on the reservoir side are protected with 2>^ feet of boulder riprap overlying 6 inches of spalls and 1 foot of gravel. The slopes on the subimpoundment side are protected with 18 inches of boulder riprap overlying 12 inches of pit run gravel. Higher operating pool levels have revealed the inadequacy of this protection. On June 8 and 9, 1964 the subimpoundment side of the embankment was exposed to wave action generated from northeast winds of 37 miles per hour. Damage occurred to the slope protection and underlying embankment on the subimpoundment side at all locations exposed to the northeast wind. Emergency repairs were imme- diately made in the critical areas and temporary repairs made during the 1965 construction season. Prior to 1965 the reservoir was not operated above elevation 1,832. At this elevation, the embankment on the reservoir side is protected from severe wave action by offshore islands and shoals; however, at higher elevations these obstructions are Inundated exposing the embankment to a fetch of 32 miles. During 1965, the reservoir reached a maximum elevation of 1,845.2, how- ever, no serious westerly winds occurred and the riprap escaped serious damage. On June 24, 1966, high westerly winds occurred and the riprap and embankment was damaged at several locations. The most serious damage occurred over a reach approximately 50 feet in length with a near vertical face approximately 8 feet in height. Again, in August 1967, severe damage occurred from 25 miles per hour winds over a 16-hour period. Temporary repairs were made in order to avoid damage to the railroad or highway crossing. Rehabilitation of the reservoir side will be initiated with funds available in fiscal year 1968. Status {January 1, i96S).— Construction not started. Completion schedule Slope protection, reservoir side December 1969. Embankment widening and slope protection, impoundment June 1972. side. 584 JUSTIFICATION The integrity of the embankment can be maintained only through corrective construction to protect it from erosion due to severe wave action at higher reservoir levels or through restricted ponding to elevations which would preclude a major failure. Restricted ponding for 1 year could result in loss of power revenue esti- mated to be $750,000 at the Garrison project and a probable equivalent loss at downstream plants as a consequence of the drawdown. In addition, there would be a loss of as much as 6,000,000 acre-feet in multiple-use storage which in sub- sequent years would prove useful in maintenance of navigation flows and other downstream purposes. The Bureau of Reclamation proposes a program schedule to award a construction contract for the pumping plant in fiscal year 1968 to begin pumping into the Snake Creek snbimpoundment in early 1973. Accordingly, rehabilitation must be essentially completed prior to this date. Delay in completing rehabilitation will increase the cost due to additional repair required. Also, under not vincommon wave conditions, a major failure might occur resulting in severe damage to U.S. Highway 83, the Soo Line Railroad, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation transmission lines and other utility lines crossing the embankment. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of .$2,200,000 will be applied to — Continue rehabilitation of slope protection $2, 000, 000* Engineering and design 100, 000 Supervision and administration 100, 000 Total 2, 200, 000 Funds requested will provide for continuation of the urgently needed upgrading of the stone protection on the reservoir side of the embankment and for design studies in connection with embankment widening and slope protection of the impoundment side. Non-Federal costs. — The Public Works Appropriation Act, 1968 provided "that in connection with rehabilitation of the Snake Creek embankment of the Garrison Dam and Reservoir project, North Dakota, the Corps of Engineers is authorized to participate to the extent of one-half the cost of widening the present embankment to provide a four-lane right-of-way for U.S. Highway 83 in lieu of the present two-lane highway." Estimated cost to the State of North Dakota for embankment widening is $1,175,000 exclusive of surfacing. Status of local cooperation. — Preliminary discussions have been held with repre- sentatives of the North Dakota Highway Department concerning the division of costs and responsibilities for widening the embankment and associated con- struction items. Finalization of formal agreements are pending further design studies and clarification of construction details; however, the contract for widen- ing the embankment has been tentatively scheduled for fiscal year 1970 and the representatives of the Highway Department have informally indicated their desire and ability to provide for this work in the North Dakota highway construc- tion program. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $7,500,000 is the same as the latest submitted to Congress. Detailed design studies of the riprap requirements including an extensive wave tank testing program indicated a substantial reduction in the total cost of the embankment rehabili- tation; however, this reduction has been offset by the required Federal partici- pation in the cost of the embankment widening. 585 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $2,130,000 5, 735, 000 347, 000 463, 000 8,675,000 Dams. Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions).. 8.675,000 Pending adjustment Total cost (Federal funds and non-Fed- eral contributions). 8,675,000 Undelivered orders... Total obligations Federal funds: Total cost 7,500,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations.. Non-Federal contributions:! Total cost 1,175,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required Non-Federal contributions: Contributions Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Contributions required $2,130,000 $775,000 $2,000,000 2,960,000 80,000 100,000 167,000 45,000 100,000 318,000 900,000 2,200,000 5,575,000 900,000 2,200,000 5,575,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 900, 000 900, 000 900,000 2, 200, 000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 5,575,000 5, 575, 000 4,400,000 '4,'466,"d66 1,175,000 1,175,000 2,200,000 4,400,000 1,175,000 ' Cost sharing— 2.1 relocations, roads, including applicable engineering and design, and supervision, and administration costs. Operation axd Maintenance Mr. BoLAND. We will insert justification covering the request of $19,877,000 for operation and maintenance work in fiscal year 1969. 1. Navigation (a) Channels and harbors. — The budget estimate of ?$1 0,2.50, 000 provides for maintenance of bank stabilization structures and channel dredging on the Missouri River between Sioux City, Iowa, and the mouth. A stable bank is necessary to prevent erosion of valuable farmlands and provide a secure alinement for flood control levees along the banks, as well as provide^a navigable channel. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes Iowa: Missouri River, Sioux City, Iowa, to the mouth (total navigation). $9,123,800 $7, 593,200 $10,250,000 Fiscal year 1967 amount in- cludes funds for repair of ice damages. Fiscal year 1969 amount includes funds to initiate a program of re- pairs to deteriorated struc- tures in the lower Missouri River. 586 (b) Locks and dams. — None. S. Flood control (a) Reservoirs. — The budget estimate of $2,068,000 includes funds for 11 flood control projects, covering their annual requirements for the necessary operation and ordinary maintenance of project facilities; labor, supplies, materials, and parts required for the day-by-day functioning of the projects and periodic main- tenance, repairs, and replacements. In addition, funds are provided for the schedul- ing of flood control storage allocations and benefits at operating and scheduled Bureau of Reclamation projects in the Missouri River Division during fiscal year 1969. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, Estimated, Estimated, fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year 1967 1968 1969 Explanations of major changes Colorado: Cfierry Creek Reservoir 52,800 Kansas: Kanopolis Reservoir.. 127,700 Miiford Reservoir 70,100 Pomona Reservoir 143, 100 Tuttle Creek Reservoir 180,400 Wilson Reservoir 141,400 Missouri: Pomme de Terre Reservoir 199,200 WphrgcLg • Harlan County Reservoir. 166,100 Salt Creek and its tributaries 32,300 North Dakota: Bowman-Haley Reservoir South Dakota: Fall River Basin, Cold Brook Dam... 6,500 cheduling of flood control reservoir 302, 900 operations. Total, reservoirs 1,422,500 62, 400 130, 400 144.900 169,700 227,300 162, 500 196, 800 166, 200 35,000 7,700 8,300 312,700 70, 000 180.000 Includes funds for air pollu- tion control. 175, 000 1st year of full maintenance. 250,000 Includes funds for riprap repairs and air pollution control. 400.000 Includes funds for riprap repairs and boundary monumentation. 170,000 290. 000 180, 000 35, 000 10,000 Includes funds for boundary monumentation and air pollution control. 18, 000 Includes funds for boundary monumentation. 290, 000 1,623,900 2.068,000 (b) Channel improvements, inspections, and miscellaneous maintenance. — The budget estimate of $234,000 provides for the annual maintenance reciuirement on one local flood protection project, and the inspection of 106 completed works within the division during the budget year. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated' fiscal year 1968 Estimated. fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes Iowa: Missouri River, Kenslers Bend, Nebr., to Sioux City, Iowa, inspection of completed works $183, 000 31,100 $172, 400 52. 900 $185,000 49, 000 Total, channel improvements, in- spections, and miscellaneous 214, 100 225,300 234, 000 Total, flood control 1,636.600 1, 849, 200 2. 302, 000 S. Multiple-purpose projects including power The budget estimate of $7,300,000 provides for the operation and maintenance of six multiple-purpose projects. Annual requirements are for the necessary opera- tion and ordinary mamtcnance of project facilities; labor supplies, materials and parts required for the day-by-day functioning of the projects; and periodic main- tenance, repairs, and replacements. 587 OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes Montana: Fort Peck Reservoir $1,127,300 Nebraska: Gavins Point Reservoir 892,800 North Dakota: Garrison Reservoir 1,423,800 South Dakota: Lake Sharpe (Big Bend Reservoir) . . 663, 300 Lake Francis Case (Fort Randall 1,048,400 Reservoir). Gavins Point Reservoir. (See Ne- braska.) Oahe Reservoir 975, 400 Total, multiple-purpose projects.. 6,140,000 $1. 556, 400 $1, 550, 000 Continuation of program for replacement of deteriorated housing at Government- owned town of Fort Peck. 871,000 850,000 1,373,000 1,450,000 805.400 850,000 Fiscal year 1968, 1st year of full maintenance. 1,161,000 1,300,000 1,112,800 1,300,000 6,879,600 7,300,000 4. Protection of navigation The budget estimate of $25,000 provides for accomplishing the work essential to the administration and enforcement of specific laws enacted for the protection of navigation. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes General regulatory functions. Total, protection of na vigation River divi- $29, 500 29, 500 $22, 300 22, 300 $25, 000 25, 000 Grand total, Missouri sion 16,929,900 16, 344, 300 19, 877, 000 INCREASED REQUIREMENT Mr. BoLAND. Higliliglit the need for the increase of $3,533,000 being re(meste(i for maintenance in fiscal year 1969. General Cannon. Sir; nearly half of the increase, about $1,600,000, will be utilized to initiate the program of repairs to (deteriorated struc- tures in the lower Missouri River. About $660,000 reflects wage board and salary increases and price level advances on maintenance work. About $850,000 of the increase results from maintenance and opera- tion of completed work recently placed in operation on the reservoir projects and the navigation an(i bank stabilization projects, including increased dredging requirements. The remainder of the increase pro- vides for initiation of the boundary monumentation program on sev- eral projects, for provision of efjuipment for air pollution control at several projects, for implementation of the fee collection program at designated additional recreation areas, and for minor repairs of riprap facing on earthfill embankments at several of the reservoir projects. Now, with respect to the cost of repairing tlie deteriorated struc- tures in the lower Missouri River, the stone utilized in these structures which has been in place for 10 to 25 years was examined in detail in the spring of 1967, as noted in my opening statement. Mr. BoLAND. Wliat Avill be the total cost of the repairs to the de- teriorated structure in the Missouri River? You may supply tliat for the record. General Caxxox. May I do that ? (The information follows:) Cost of Repairs to Detekiorated Structures in Lower Missouri River An extensive 5-year program of repairs to the older, deteriorated structures in the lower Missouri River is being initiated with the funds provided in the budget request. The total cost of the program is estimated at $10,500,000, and is based on an inspection in the spring of 1967 and subsequent study of requirements. At that time, the stone utilized in the bank protection and for trench revetment, which had been in place for 10 to 25 years, and was examined in detail. Low river levels at that time afforded the first opportunity for making an inspection of this nature for many years. This insi)ection revealed that a long-term, progressive deterioration of some of this stone had taken place and, therefore, the works do not provide the degree of protection which is necessary. The early stabilization of banks and toe trench revetments was initially accomplished with willow mattresses and piling and later supplemented by stone fills. This early stone construction was accomplished with the most readily available material, and the significance of quality and the wide range of durability of stone were not realized since uo experience or service records were available. This resulted in some stone being used that was subject to rather severe breakdown when ex- posed to freezing, thawing, wetting, drying, high prolonged flows in time of flood, and ice damage. The major deterioration has occurred considerably below the waterline of normal navigation levels but extends above these levels in varying degrees of disintegration. The reach of the river needing repairs generally ex- tends from Rulo, Nebr., to Miami, Mo. It is not continuous but involves many areas varying in extent of disintegration. An inspection of the quarries available and utilized in the river work, recently made by qualified engineers and geologists, reveals that stone of good quality can be procured from these quarries by selec- tive methods and, therefore, increased transportation costs for suitable material will not be a factor in making the necessary repairs. In order to avoid further deterioration and possible loss of the control to the river, with resultant damage to adjoining properties and investments, it is extremely important to proceed with this work in the immediate future. This involves about 3,800,000 tons of stone to be placed over the 5-year period. rORT PECK RESERVOIR, MGISTT. Mr. BoLAND. On page 176, $1,550,000 is budgeted to continue ihe program of replacing the housing at Fort Peck. A^liat is the status of this program and what will be the total cost? General Cannon. The first contract for the construction of housing at Fort Peck is about 75 percent complete and provides for construc- tion of 31 houses, a shopping center building, and utilities. The second contract, which will provide 17 additional houses, is now under advertisement and is scheduled for award in April 1968. The third and last contract provides for 29 houses and a chapel and will be awarded in December 1968. The entire program is estimated to cost $2,175,000 and will be completed by July 1, 1970. Mr. BoLAND. Are there any questions of operation and maintenance ? Mr. Whitten. No questions. Mr. Morris. No, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BoLAND. Mr. Rhodes ? AIR POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. Rhodes. I have one question. Out of curiosity, concerning the Pomme de Torre Reservoir in Missouri, what is tlie item for air ])olhition control? Why do you have concern with air pollution in a reservoir project ? 589 General Cannon. Sir, we have a number of such items on other reservoirs. Pomme de Terre is just one. The item contemplates instead of the burning of trash which accumulates in the public-use areas, using the sanitary fill method by making a cut and then bulldozing over it with land fill. You will si>e it in oIIkm- i)r()jects as well. Mr. Rhodes. Instead of incineration of trash, you fill ? General Cannon. Sanitary fill method to avoid additional air pollution. Mr. Rhodes. That is all. Mr. BoLAND. Mr. Davis ? HOUSING AT FORT PECK RESERVOHl Mr. Davis. At Fort Peck, General, has there been any consideration given to the disposal of the Government housing there? I note that you have a rather extensive replacement program. Ixoneral Cannon. 8ir, the original housuig was built in the mjd- thirties as one of the so-called temporary frame construction which now 30 years later is much deteriorated. The area is remote from -any municipality and there are operating personnel there of the Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclama- tion, some State agencies, and these facilities are to provide suitable housing for liiese people who must be located in and near that area. Mr. Davis. Are we providing housing for anyone other than Federal emplo^^ees? General Cannon. Teachers and concessionaires. They are all fed- erally connected, sir. Of course, I might add of course, that they pay rent for occupancy of these houses. Mr. Davis. When you speak of the continuation of the program, re- placement to the tune of $1.5 million in this fiscal year, what is the estimate of the overall replacement cost that we are talking about? How many units are involved ? General Cannon. I can give you the total number of units. The total cost estimate is $2,175,000, which provides for 79 houses and these are being built in three increments. Shopping, community center, a chapel, replacement of a portion of the water, gas, and electric lines, and to modify the elevation of the sewer lines. Two of the 79 houses will be paid for by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BoLAND. That completes the testimony on the Missouri River Division. Thank you, gentlemen. The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Tuesday, March 12, 1968. NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION WITNESSES BRIG. GEN. BOBERT M. TARBOX, DIVISION ENGINEER VERNON O. PETERSON, CHIEF, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE BING CHIN, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICE Mr. Boland. The committee will come to order. We have with us this morning the North Central Division. We are pleased to have Brig. 590 Gen. Kobert M. Tarbox, Vernon O. Peterson, chief of the program de- velopment office, and Bing Chin who is in the program development office. It is nice to have all of you with ns. General, if you have a statement, the committee would be pleased to hear you. Geneil\l Stai-eivient General Tarbox. In my opening remarks this morning I will point out the North Central Division area of responsibilities, advise you of our problems, and discuss a few of the studies and projects that we will cover in more detail later. I will illustrate some of the more important points or projects with slides. The North Central Division includes three major drainage basins or regions : The Souris-Red-Ramy, the Upper Mississippi and the Great Lakes. It will discuss the studies, projects, and problems peculiar to each in turn. First, the Souris-Red-Rainy region. In this region there are no major projects underway or authorized. Major problems are drainage, flood control, and water for municipal and industrial uses. We have several studies underway. The fiscal year 1969 budget contains funds for our participation in a comprehensive framework study of the region. In the Upper Mississippi River region we have in addition to the Mississippi River proper, several large tributaries on which we have five local protection flood control projects underway. There are also six reservoir projects underway in the region. Three of the six are actually under construction and the other three have been funded for acquisition of real estate. This slide taken in July 1966 shows the be- ginning of backfill operations on the core trench on the Eau Galle Dam on the Eau Galle River at Spring Valley, Wis. And this one taken in October 1967 shows the progress that has been made on the embanlv- ment. The dam will be completed in the fall of 1968. This slide shoAvs the stage I embankment in July 1967 at Saylorville Reservoir project on the Des Moines River upstream from Des Moines, Iowa. This slide is an artist's conception of what the completed dam will look like. The next slide, of Red Rock Reservoir, shows the stage III embankment on the right. This slide shows a view from downstream. This project is also on the Des Moines River just downstream from Des Moines, Iowa. Closure will be made in July 1968. We have three reservoir projects funded in fiscal year 1969 for con- tinuation of planning and acquisition of real estate. (1) LaFarge Res- ervoir on the Kickapoo River in Wisconsin, primarily for flood con- trol and recreation; (2) the Big Stone Lake- Whetstone River project in Minnesota which in addition to providing recreation and flood con- trol benefits will also serve as a wddlife refuge; and (3) the Oakley Reservoir on the Sangamon River in Illinois. The Oakley Reservoir will provide flood control, recreation, water supj^ly and water quality control benefits. At this project we have encountered jiroblems. Some 600 acres of the land which would lie within the uppei- part of the reservoir are wooded land, part of an estate left to the University of Illinois. The university uses the land for study and research, and some 100,000 people visit the area each year because of its natural beauty. At the requests of local interests the district is considering alternate workable proposals that would provide for the construction of Oak- 591 ley without adverse effects on Allerton Park. Allerton Park is located here on this slide, and the portion of the park Avithin the reservoir is here. This slide will give you an idea of what the finished dam will look like. This slide shows the local protection project at Des Moinos. Iowa. In the foreground you can see a section of the earth levee and beyond that a section of concrete wall used where sufficient real estate for a levee section was not available. This project and the Saylorville Res- ervoir project will provide flood protection for the city of Des Moines. On the Mississippi River there are 29 locks and dams between St. Louis and Minneapolis, 25 of these are in the North Central Division. Tliis system of locks and dams forms a 9-foot channel for barge traffic. We have studies underway to consider the justification of a 12-foot project and of year-round navigation. The ]\Iississippi River, so important to the economy of mid-America, has also been responsible for extensive damage. Many severe floods have occurred in recent years, with the all time record flood occurring in April and May 1965. An extensive program for flood protection was initiated in May 1957 at Sabula, Iowa. Since that date we have com- pleted 11 rural levee projects and four urban local protection projects, at a cost of $33,800,000. An additional six rural and six urban local protection projects, with a total estimated cost of $57 million, are under construction or in the planning stage. l^Tien all are completed, damage from flooding along the upper Mississippi will be reduced substantially. This slide shows a portion of the project area at Rock Island, 111., on the Mississippi River. This project is a new construction start in the fiscal year 1969 budget. This slide shows the same area from a dif- ferent viewpoint during the 1965 flood. A comprehensive basin study of the upper Mississippi River region will be completed in fiscal year 1970. This study will develop a frame- work plan for the entire basin which will serve as a guide for future deta iled studies for all water uses. We now come to the Great Lakes region. Here the emphasis has been primarily on navigation. This slide shows the Great Lakes harbors : The 70 commercial har- bors (55 Federal and 15 private) on the U.S. shoreline of the Great Lakes, are located in eight States. These ports are in an area with a total population of about 58 million persons, or about 27 percent of the Nation's total. This area produces about 36 percent of the output by the Nation's manufacturing industries, 39 percent of the Nation's exports of manufactured products, and about 23 percent of the Na- tion's farm products sold. About half of the Nation's steel capacity is located at Great Lakes ports, and with the addition of nearby steel centers, such as Pittsburgh, approximately two-thirds of the Nation's steel capacity is served by the U.S. Great Lakes ports. This slide shows the location of the steel centers and iron ore sources. Included in this area are four of the Nation's 11 largest cities. Great Lakes ports ship and receive about 360 million tons of freight annually which is more than 25 percent of tlie Nation's total deep- draft waterbome commerce. The increasing size of ships engaged in the movement of iron ore, coal, grain, and limestone, and the com- pletion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, with the resultant growth of 91-459— 68— pt. 1 38 592 oversea commerce, have necessitated improving and deepening the harbors. The continued maintenance of these harbors is vital to the economy of this large portion of the United States. Recently much objection has been raised to our procedures of plac- ing materials dredged during improvement and maintenance of har- bors in the authorized disposal areas of the Great Lakes. It has been represented that tliis contributes to pollution of the lakes. Because of the great amomit of attention that has been focused on this problem during the last 2 years, I will devote my remaining remarks to this pressing issue. Contemplating methods for the disposal of dredged materials in other than the authorized disposal areas in the Great Lakes raises questions, both technical and economic, for which we need answers. In order to develop economical methods for management of the pollution problem that may result from dredging operations on the lakes, the Corps initiated a program of experimentation early in 19G7. We call it a pilot program for disposal of dredgings from Great Lakes harbors. The FWPCA and other Federal agencies are cooperat- ing in the program. Eight localities on the Great Lakes have been selected for the pilot program. These are: Great Sodus Bay on Lake Ontario; Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, and River Rouge at Detroit on Lake Erie; Calumet Harbor and River, Indiana Harbor, and Green Buy on Lake Michigan. They were selected for two basic reasons : (1) to test the effectiveness and compare costs of different types of disposal areas, structures, methods of handling the dredged material, and methods of treating any effluent from the disposal areas; and (2) to obtain this data at various representative harbors, with the degree of pollution varying from heavy to negligible. Great Sodus Bay is a harbor with no discernible pollution problem. The others in the pilot program are considered to be polluted to various degrees. At a number of locations we will test various methods of treating the effluent from the disposal operation. The feasibility of disposal in pits, mines, and other areas away from the lake is also being in- vestigated. An important part of the pilot progi'am consists of sampling water and bottom sediments at the dredging areas and in the vicinity of the alternate disposal areas and conducting various tests on the samples. The samples are being taken before, during, and after the dredging operations. We are working to complete our investigations and to render a re- port by December 1968. In our report we will present our recommenda- tions on alternate methods of disposing of and treating polluted dredged materials. REDUCTIONS IN BUDGET REQUESTS Sir, at this time I would like to offer up money that has resulted from conditions which liave changed since the preparation of the fiscal year 1969 budget. We have $15,000 that we will not need for the study of Manistique Harbor, Mich., due to tlie car ferry terminating operations. The car 593 ferry owiiors have filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission for permission to abandon service and have received approval. Also $10,000 for the study on St. Joseph's Ri^•er, Mich., will not be required. We will complete an unfavorable report on this study with the funds available. We will not need $700,000 of the funds requested for fiscal year 1969 for construction of bridge 32 at Cleveland Harbor, Ohio. The owner has recently indicated that he may be able to delete the requirement for this bridge. We will not need $280,000 of the amount requested in fiscal year 1969 on Rushford, Minn., as funds in that amount were transferred to this construction project during this fiscal year with the consent of both of the aj^propriations conamittees. So that amount should be deducted from our request. That completes my statement. Mr. BoLAND. Thank you. General Tarbox, for a very fine statement and for the excellent presentation with the graphic slides. Do 3'ou have any questions ? PRIVATE COMMERCIAL. HARBORS Mr. Davis. General, you used the term, I believe, in connection with your statement on the Great Lakes area that there were a number of Federal harbors. Then I believe you used the term 15 private harbors. Is that correct? General Tarbox. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. Would you identify and define that a little bit for us? I am not sure I am clear as to the reference. General Tarbox. Yes. If I may get a reference so that I can identify the private harbors here. These are harbors that have been constructed by private interests on the Great Lakes. They are constructed, for ex- ample, by the steel companies up in Lake Superior, two harbors. Silver Bay — and harbors like that. I thought I had those listed on a sheet with me, but I do not. Some of them produce limestone, that is, ship out limestone on Lake Michigan for the steel companies. CORPS RESPONSIBrLITT FOR PRIVATE HARBORS Mr. Davis. What responsibility does the Corps or the Federal Gov- ernment have with respect to private harbors ? General Tarbox. No responsibility for the maintenance of those, sir. I included those in my statement to point out the importance of the conmierce on the Great Lakes. Mr. Davis. Yes. I think it would be worthwhile if you have that material somewhere, with the chairman's approval, if you have those 15 harbors listed with a designation of the type of commodities handled at each of them, which I assume would be in your records. General Tarbox. Yes, sir. If I may, I will supply that for the record. (The information follows :) 594 Private commercial harbors in the Great Lakes yatne of harhor Major commodity Biiffington Harbor. Ind Stone, coal, and cement. Gary Harbor, Ind Iron ore. Alabasiter Harbor. Mich Limestone. Bay Shore (Alpena) Harbor. Mich Cement. Calcite Harbor. Mich Limestone. Drnmmond Island Harbor, Mich Do. Escanaba Harbor. Mich Iron ore. Port Dolomite Harbor, Mich Limestone. Port Gypsum Harbor, Mich Do. Port Inland Harbor, Mich Do. Stoneport Harbor. Mich Do. Silver Bay Harbor. Minn Pelletized iron ore. Taconite Harbor, Minn Do. Marblehead Harbor, Ohio Limestone. Oak Creek Harbor (south Milwaukee), Wis Coal. Mr. Davis. Tlieir procedure, then, is they simpl}^ get jDermission to construct these from the corps, and that is all there is to it ? General Takbox. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. The corjDS assumes no obligation for these harbors what- soever ; is that correct ? General Tarbox. That is correct, sir. Mr. Davis. Thank you. Mr. Boland. Are they utilized only by the private interests who have constructed them, or can others use these private harbors? General Tarbox. I do not have that information, sir. I will have to obtain it for you. (The information follows:) These harbors are used primarily by the owners although they are open to all navigation interests that tranship commodities handled at the harbors. These harbors may also serve as harbors of refuge for commercial and recre- ational craft during storms. Mr. BoLAXD, Are these harbors relatively old ? General Tarbox. Yes, sir. Mr. BoLAND. Tliey have been there for a great many years ? General Tarbox. Yas, sir. Mr. BoLAND. None are new ? Mr. Peterson. There are some relatively new ones on Lake Superior for shipping tacoiiite. Mr. BoLAND. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) General Investigations Mr. BoLAND. A total of $3,306,000 is budgeted for general investiga- tions, an increase of $885,000 over the current year. (The justification follows:) 595 ^ .. 03 ^ o .2; 05T3 ^ -3 eS S S-2 (d -^ 03 bCu _fl_0 §'a T3 O > GO .l-i |g « a J S§ < ^^ CH o & Z H *" . O U~4 T3 O ^ 5 ^ -»- ra tt) in c: a) 2 CM o^-g "3;= a;-= P -o = 23 E o« Q. C/J o 2 >- i S= c'g.i: o 3o'"o — ^ o •^|E^£S_2'f2S£|-S T3-0 = 2 S^-SO-O -•" " ° S 2 ° o = - C3 C/5 _ 'S "^ J5 S-=- o a;:^i£ E;^"g-g o - ■ c/i^lS c: oa E r-: 'So"'- 2 °' J ~. o) a> s ^ tt = Jzc^f'S -si."' I- — I o 5.,S 5 3^- ■ESEcn .^'.E^J^:^ =S-2 E .E'°°'"- S~ "^ 5>"i ■i ^f "S s^l-^'sl|^:s oS o= a-s |l||ls|.|l||o||||i=f " ra S,-f=E 0=*^" ^-S g2£ ^-=0 CD S ^ i3 a> >«(^- cj i- c: DC ci.:B "E c> ,^a ;=;^(o-^Q::«^ — — " ^ S- = E 5f-5o.E ^ "° -□ § = •" S °= S -2 .E .S- c -3 t)ajo""S"Si- o2-E : JiJ-SSc^El^f- cra ^ »_ 2? crT c —I S Q. oco o -o^.a 3 o 00 CL 596 o Q.^=" = E1T! cce E 03 ■ 2^^ ^a> '^■= 2S O ™1- 03 ™ goS£a3"'^S^ ^-E'-'CcOmO dj* QJC o S -a *^ "S) "^ *^' m ^ gS g Is d 03 £^5 — .ifra "q — 'p S ^ ,^-5 00 03-- 2? V o;h _ i """"s'e 2 _ o" o oo 5 = c -c o — q: f- ■ ■ ■ o -^ S.t; oo -a 5 O js: E o 1 a. c ^ DC 3 c: o -a o « u o c c: c c Q. o ^ o M w. — DO QJ 5 -o QJ >* 03 '-' ^^ : the Grand IVluskegon, m from the ommercial difying the peningthe pstream to 1 to Spring ■i the y of eco- ting tent the ting ect- ons. ding ered ; the rom 1, ison on id stud s, and connec the ex urg, on connec lir conn conditii ten isid kes !e f c "Se2 ° o S mE-S-s = a. S(n^ooO.£3M-2:Q) Eri( ntly line fe r ■ss'g-^ o-°^-S .o" g.lElg-g^-?- ^ 2: 2 J^ ^e|i|||| I |.i|l|.p|™ — -2 c 00:5 — Jj -^^ ° "Z .S ** ^ E *^ >^'^ ° .2 ^ ■J^ O) QJ — ( o QOn a. ( ; E 5-r rt, ^ E m So c3™.E„^^«|-03o«^|E| =^^ __ ^oSi2;"'.2£..^£.£>,E S?"^ """ o3Kj=);5s^< " mOO = E E ;=;^o33'-_ „- -"'=^ESgeO£ "-Jr-^ll j's:'^ i/i o" ££■" : o «j«E ' 2'-= 03 -1S.22 ^^ 5 03 • ^ S'S ™"o £ ° .9 . ■r5-^^-o,-£°=|,S 5£ES: =0 c o .i2 E5.J2 i: CL Q. TO — jTT Q o : )Q 13 ^ o2^ . IZ' .£o.Ei'j"|so,::^£;o^||: :;S ££•; 597 c w © a>-o I- g-^ o c OJ -u 2 =£ g =>s irt ■" c 5r^ "J — -at: •■S— ?J1Z OJ ^i S Is >- ?||l||lfl| S S-i 9-= . S $ " S ,-a — 00 „--D -J . go ^S£ E.9-S_-£.5^ ^-g g ii^'^ i,£iS_g '5-2 -2^3.10 = ^ifi|.E? = s^- ; 03 5 3 m ° oS3 5-g|3:-5j=. lO 03 „ ^ OJ c "m-^ O C -2? 5 o "-o 03 I 3(— o:^'*-- O 03 *- Pii|£f|.E-g :03 i3 , 03 >.-o 03 ' ■5; ™ 5 S ^S =1^ = ^=5:5.<£°£oSicr o TO— T . a.^ '^ .»^ 0-— ~-- " >^ct: "o ■ox: op: g„-^_03 eS.E ° a. I Q.:^ *->-^'3 03 E >■"*? "^ra~'5*'03'o'SS ,_-\Ni = CO — ^— i'^ g::^"-£'~*- °^ o ^2 ^■3 = o--o S °-5 ° o 25 "-Sis ^-^-° -goo Z S "-a^ =■= Ej o^a> o >s ' 3^ 03 O -= s „ s S £ ;Q:- ,_ = ' 2-a •- >,i; o '(^ 03 ^ p .tf— 03"^ ;= ' ; E^ 03 ^•"— =■:: o.E o o «it:£ lom>5— i^io^Ei^i:^^™; : s2£ So^' ':3 ^ 03 _ _ ^g3o_S 2^J!! 3:^ ^ — °--2_o3'5..b ^ >"^^^S .g S "SS =^ a;- ° o £ S §.S= " 1 = 0-=— 03.^:— 03— *- lT^-O »- o^ o-OQ:-p.2-: !5 = "2 -S "''E. TO £ 3 i3 v)-^ Q. : ocep Q-ar>^-a — P 00 >— ci03Oi_O— ^o»*_ £_l TOTT O g:f ■s-2~-o i J 03 , =»:= , •^ LU 00 'Z (Q ~ ._-D rj w 598 •^ c "" S CD ^ *" 2*0 ^ c!2*"~'j ^OO) — JS^-^SggTS- "' (Dcsj o^ a>o >.S^a,- ^ ^ ^3 40 E e2 e . o— <^ Q> £ = o) E E° i/igation proji f Niagara Riv the lake at' . The harbor m harbor ex The State p 1 feet, furthe nee in the s 3l project to ures to redu( would provic ding a rence : its ma e. The ture. ■ g°.E|S^SS5^E >-""'^ 5 = s JraE'g"E£'oE3=^c = ^.2 ■ ^ mS Eflt'o'^'*" *^!Z— -c — 2P .— ScroS 03x5* ^ ro TO ^ ^ 00^ a> o <£cc SS'~ '"" '" ~" ' ~SE-i tc a5:H' ,..-00 -= -c -r; o i^iini '= >.S.Mra ° g M-o ; 1= 2 °-^ 'o ro " '^ '° •— *" foo5'l3-^.Ei|"SJ ;.■=■-■=: _ — "i — -° o)"' o » S o E o ■^ O WJ (/) .ties *^ -, -" 3 E-S' H 5 ! E S-SJ ?>-=" jo o^ 3i;Sr; oi^ira5ro£' ;S 5.e5£ 5 E.S S ESi: E. 599 s=rc.-s ;"o -o tq o o — *f c -^ JIS 1- C ro m ! ■^

o^ a> oj " CUD c — *-^ c oo'-^ 2^ o ro p- £= c ^: Xl'Co O ° to o £ > TO — 5 a. "o — gj j_ ^ o 2? E 03 03 ^ E c: "S ■^ :£ 5 E ^ j= 5 1 3 o > o ■o s -a O "to CL 3 CO £ ob 2? E £ -o o. m o o E o aj "S .2 ■- s ° ^ ■B -o -^ZT. a>'- Iflr^jl ^" ^' ^'>— 2 03 ^ 2?.C Q3T3_ 3 TO 5_-c.> ci "^ = .E t:^|^s-5i.ig'c >-"0.a o ro-=,2 cro'oj.S °°£ 5 E ^ £5 o'S ^2 o E ™ c S "■§- S~° 0-5 ' E. ■^ E 5 >^ " ■? ■j; E -j; S.£ — .±^ 00; :|l't- = £>^-ti- •r SS ' = "-j-D5t:_g^!S^£E J CDQD.!2CQ E BxJ^ El— .E 600 ^^ ^-^ >> C — . O «3 O .3 ■* 't-i OJ =! > V) tn O O '^ 2 ®-^S = "1-2 ■=r£s — - i>^^ 1^ (1) J2 lD Q-T3 JD t; O £ o ;i: o en o o ^ vi w — °-T' Q-— "S £ ra "S — TO — "3 IT P > ^^ TO°SS8§=°-=:5 : E Sj2 .= S=°§-5. ^■^r E o:||=:m-ggO£ — " 'era — "^-'>, ^ ^ S ■' - ^ > 4= t — OO-rr - >.E ^counto = 2.2-0)0 ^-'^ ^-5 .'2 <"SEi;^o^| = >,£ ES S'S °--§ — : ra Q.o^±;- > ^Ti (X't^-" ■" *^ ; e" i-^^.Ei-: ,"00 ~T3 ""O O ^-i ■J= JD ]^ *- ; J2g.^o<,;-SE 5,9 5 oS£. 'il 5 E !i-5.- '|e-| i.sf'^'s s- '-□t;t'*=(-'t=:^-m'^{T; ojr-i: 5 5m 1-5; S S 0.2 3 °0'J £eS.E.^ S I SS^'^o' : != .= o .„ ; S.'^ £w.Ei/>^o: c-^q: mi : oo o o o c — ^ *t::-o i> — ■■ „ o -t; ; ^^ll.i-^ii : ^SV, D-O- .2 m" 5 i-EE.. ., ^ 03 ECO 5 O) • CM O — - ~ ^3 £-3 3 O O - .__ to s!::? c O Q.( *: = •• ,-TJ a> , > o s M > Of ;^ e Q. -j= ^ o ^ ifiy 111 Hi q: E 5 =! = 50 ro»- — o ■ ^ "H'^ g ^ •g ~ -a 0) S S o ra ? fe^'S to -QcsT Si E = =g-c,= — — ^ o ro ^'i Ot^O o 5> E , liS'^raE ! ^.^— J _o .^ 00 c o E" oi"; a.T3 3 S: ^ _ — — Q.O 00 Co Sj'^^-2^"a t^"^ OJ o eo "^ i25— — oj:_"w — — ^c;3 coE >o- o ^'^ ■- S ""^ "2 = = ^ j^"'^ =■ ■§ SS ^ I "S S .> go <5 "■?; 2 !"■■ oiijc *— ' > jr o ^|;||r| tZ,— ^.a- 3 '-■o^ a>-3 E f^ d'?°S E «5 &— £-_^ " - 5 ra E S£^ ro-e E <^ ; = ■" ^ ™<^; c:_j- >'E aj "ScM " ^.|'^,?^o' = .E c:-- [^ O St/5J S 5 SfJ ;^E =1; jQih- = E E 3 " g-' J 0) o 2- cc o c ' : o Qflto to m o > ' , tn- ■^VO O O — o> O C 3 — < 1= oE-og ■ "^ e — ' -^"^ TO '^ -a:"^ 2 5^ .- o— ^ql ^ cr^ — ,2 ■^ 5-= IeS o.r — o "^-; ro'O c 5.^.2 roO:'^oo'"i_£ 2oiJ - i E V--OQ = Jr- o '.^ "^ _ _ c-TO=-£«>"os j= l'^-^ S^ '^ TO-^^ 2 5;£ = "a5"E5g^a) = "j;'o OH- O^O)-;;^^ Srj-oSjSiiTOOg. TO TO- = I °-" ]50_Q)Si>!=0- O^ == = 0) S!S? "S 1= it ^ £ i-S"^^ i^~ TO roS"-£^E-5|£g5.S = g -^ -K ^ S.S ^ — £ ^-1 _^ c ™ o . cg'^ o -^ J,— o p ^ g = ~ != i/^ •= — .0 gjs = > E"5i' s|l- E=^la 1;^ t;g-STO^EE|9-^ lis- " i^ m Sol i= ^5 = S-?- — ■" = ; <5 _- 5 5 ^JsiSiiiH' ^-■S S o ■/> ^ 2 S-Ef= TO '=^-=2 "=-g ^ e-o o £-° ^S , .w,y*'.S's m p m;^£ 3 « o = o2iL;- ^ io o ^-o^ SJi^s^ CT-'- 2 5S;5^„„^TO=£- "-■S^x TO'Bl^g:5^^= o TO |-i ^TO'g £ = -^-2 i:^^ oSfigS-2^2"5i|'El'i .5 if TO.5^ TO E-o-i= 5i =:-&£-§ =iii^ 1 3-s|=||'e,2 Sh- o_^ |:s I Ir s 2 c ^ijs 603 (S ^o o 3 o 1 c o > Q. t= •^ OJ 03 3 ^ Q. S^- Q- < TT o 5 o o Crt w JH 1_ u. := ^ o cuDr^" c DC ■Q CO 3^ 0? o; c 3 0> o — Q) O-Q. X^ CO c J o >-. ^ ra L^ - -o J3 ^" J= OJ o 03 cij" o i fli ^^ ■^-i LO «9 > w C _r 0) o > K '^ « of 09 ^ cl ■^ J ■o oo 9- c; P ^ £ LU 3 o TD 1— s o s aj "o t— ■^ CO-C S) 1 5 5 o 1 o Q. r-^ C cz O c; o •^ TC o E c -o ffi C t^ 1 o s ■a > s = — a "- c: OJ ci-o ■^ a> "" ns o to Qj cc.^ ^ i- --C i-< TOO 1 (U^ »- J- 5 ra n> u Jgm.Eie o S "" ili-liil1t|i^ .2<|l"||Es-°l='i IS » pro S 3 s-2 So ^ " g a. „ Q D.5 -sS^SSi^g pS •>-- o o'tS S = ± > k_ u? £ O — - S; o ._ aj'tTTS 3 r- o <5P O) o.E a O' _ = ■» <.S = 'S o^ " ' C.C oj oT™-^"^ ^— —'5 *• ^ ^i =■- = £ i >tl S"g ^-2 5 --= ra poo *" ^°~ >-§ re S.5 0)^0-2 S -o ctS Q^o"_5" 2S S ^-^ =''S'o"^ ^^ O) 2 * ro 3 "^„ =.= — i= SS ?; 2! 5; ■= CLn, o-^ o) — ^ ^ - F-, i='-S_ ro >,re S; ro 13-£iZ=:§i^-2S§=iS°-o> -.§oi.ES53gSE^°"^ S^izf"^ "^^^ O ^ c ,rt S 0,9 '^ E O-ra^tO — J!S.*_^ ^■— OJ — '^ ^ — ajra^-Ow^oj^Sra-- 3o>-.£ a.;^ — _j_ oi3a)55.5^E="S _m _ _(j — ^^ Ow-Cto-S SSJ=oS"a)0> >- o a> m ,■0 E cei— CO iL -— re re re^ S" 604 g a; SS ■o i? a) ro = S 0.5 --|:g|| gSsI S E >,^ >^^= w> C3 CO oo— ^ 'C ^^ o CO Jr -o c (U (U rt; !_"'=' E ■:: ra °''*' " ^ «, " „roMQ;ra^^.o_^ra-agSc^_2 o c Qi Q . ; "~ " o_-g ™ ra -^ -; ~ -P . ~ "o £ 5J o_ „£t»MS bra o-£V3 5 °-S2g§S|==o-S ■sSE="gi&'^ss- Ofi -a> ■a a ; C BO CO ( o = o'o^ ' SmESI' E.E^oo: 5-^ 2 o-T--.! a> i_ ^ -^^ o oo,c w c lo ° ^ obSio cD-ti-o §^S oSra.S'=|e"-= = ^o ■>-a>s£ — ~Q.ra.»;„(j30 lip ^:S (ucrj o ^ E ^"MtII'5 520- S S R^-H o g ?• „ ° 8 Q.o-7;*- " S ° ^ = ooS ra£ " <" Sra i'S" -2^ ra mo; > E S — ra ra "" 00: I O -J3 i^E o> ^oQ- I-^iE-a °' " E.o •"■° 15 S'S ^^^ i -?■£-. 5 o>v-^ — —a.*- r: a> ^ O* r- ^ "t^ £5= = :^ »-a> Jf?*^ 303 o O XT3 ■ c^'ra'^-^^; '^'ra*TO''ra ^ ^ S O QQ E S ^55 E S .!£ iJ " — j= if -o OH- 3 O ^ _ _ _ E o , = g=-§SS'oESz| "53 3 ciij g^ 3 O ¥ 0)0 605 s =11 |o o"o 03 = .* S ■^ o m eo 1 L. E «> £ 00 — , _ J30 TO i q Do^^^^ i It ~ iSilif o " '^ TO O a> oS 2>-a I 03 ^^^ — = !<-* ■DTD .22 C o , a> o »- •— > t o'^ 3 O C < °-o3-£ '"E«°<- :^ Q) Sfl « o 3,0 C £ 0)^ C3 ra 3 o E OjO^ ■— cao > p S'S^ — .C °- g'o) £?^ a, — obS a> o oj5 = "£ ° 5 2£ ."^o M E S S^ 2-J CO = LU 0; >_• o - a> £'ro— -030 * c:,^.E*j ^ 03 *o:j:c — — O m " 2o s. o s £3- !3 E t; : l/> CO OJ ^ -^ ^ M . . o =-— ?3 *.^.E f-^^^ ,ABca^a.aoc m s; 5 ra _ : U- O o-o w^ 0.3 g-Sus*^ S^f-.E SS|o-2^S"^Soj; ''^ - 1= — J ^ m S Si'^ a> DJ3"0 CO ^3- — ^-* TO 03 _UD ro.E"0 !S o E!5 ir.-S'^-o- 0).2 " 2s ra 3 5-=E ■o S 1= c o c o ro — 2 "o 00 3 — a E T^ ME'^.S'ro a, ;£ Eo gee- S ^'S^S'^ § '•--^n 1 — ?. O 03 . 03 o I— •= ro >.-- o) -a 5 2 o Ev'-'-SE -a> fcoto ^ 00 ^ -^ ~ S _S''2 _ ?« ""^s^ "•- m ro s-s^e "" g S '^2 > cc - £§^1 —_^^^-£ ouri! ,700, 0,60 Ohio er.T ge. 1 er L< long ;ials. ""'3 -□ ■_— -^ — jt rural areas in the s amounting to $: (1960 population improvement, an ecityof Toled y the Ottawa F eetof lakefror ! wind storms ting a floodwal ty and State ol £:^o £ 3'" J= " o " = ^.2"^= o £g.EE r- " OJ o"o 3 "a. 3— 5 ^-a ^E=; ■2~-5 Ego; •J3uJ o °»- to OJ ojjai: o s ^ ^ "? £ 00 t £ .QO f (J 3 ■^ ^ 5— S'H oj = 52S3-55:i^£,'5j!:< oj-a m a 2 2 5 ° O) » S S " E =£:2.2 ■S£:n3"" " -o o ■ "" 5-°'-S ^■^■(5 — ' — -a-tzx: E"H«B i2 ?E 1=0.5-3 o . ".2 I 01 „J= o c I- c S^ -0.2 o;*i S-^ " ra 2 co O • T3-0 a> >^ E "^S oj^S °'tl OiS <«'<' O ^ OJ o = j«: ■-.„ u 2 ■oS- =£0 „- o _ ^ -^ ■*:; .2.S.2 *" ^ ^•~ 1^ -O -^ cr > S : CJ = g S.Sm.5 C S^-^-S >-- - 00 .52 ^ o S "o — ^»_*= <« o — «^ I sis' ^5-Ssa.oo^ LSm. *- > in *j oo-o « '^ a> QC v- O) o ^■^S"^ E^ 00 03 c= o t/i __o •J .1.2 § o'3-S'S ^5^S^|E 5 0)1= -S > gj ■-2: 2 y £ H : DO 1= S E 'S^c/,^ £0 ■.^ S-o-o E oj :><.2 = £ ® SCO .2 a: c-oH: S - ,0 rt: " 3 J _ioSrai2i°£.c:^vCL 00 Cros! IS cor he IJ extt th sii hann nd re mil .- u, <« n> a> r, La y give ded t More a nori iverC alls ai River, Pra study give: ood exceed .00,000. Th( lalls with r 649. Rive stud 3xcee ,000. tect . sseR 3odw H-S^g 2 2 = .9-jS 1 U3 Q-O T3 47,575 sisslppi The 1965 fl at $2,5 floodw was 5, W .is 607 I'-kI^^^I-S^ <1> oo J3 Q.5'' „ g E S.o-S o*= "- 3 E " eIIso-Ies-' E -^ S ^ 1. E — 2 i_ o ES _ aj ra >-" 3 c roo: 2: m ° St; -oS'-s . o c a> ^ i2 i- ■0-= 2 '-— 3 oj DO'J __;.—- a."^ _o j_:= = St cn-fS-S-o: bO C! ^ 3 ^S 73 CiS ■^ tn ro t^ 13 +3 QQ ■CJ ^ 1 73 o CO 3 ■" « 0.2 O -tJ O o3 O o o o o 91-459— 68— pt, 1- -39 £.2 iL-^'^^ >^t= 03 2 *i>-»^ M aJ •5 -= ^ ■" Q. ° E ra « ; ~ E : J +-;^ o l5 °5=J3 , -22 -S £ "^ .2 g- 2 ' ^ISiilil!|i!|:iS § i^-^i Jill £:isil^^|. ^ oc)otrtjD'rw2;=.2to^^nE -^oo^c -t=T^'I.SK"°^SS o EgE ciS' 3«_ to t/5 fco' ^ .y ciot^^: oj *- t/5 dJ E ,_ e° «-o'~| = 2 £-5 o I S-oi2 £.2£t; o 55 E SS E a^'S o 608 03 — < o re >• = 5." _aj^'^c = v) '32 ^i O) °-C: = E ^ 5 > " •s * >-s o"" --0= ° g I ir- S I i--=j5 ■5 Q) g_ : i S^ S-E =■- E I g =1 5E E-o g 5.E- E-o o O |.2^^'=S JSo 5 S^ o- 5™ 2? ^ « ^ S'? ^ , uj •- -^ ro qj 5; a.. g-o' L" E. ■ ^"S- ; = - 5 ; E g£^ ™ ^= g ^ 2-=' ', SSoSroKa>cot:Eo^t;-D;|5 o-0-° |.£-g = <-?"~2-| S3 J S-g ^•1^'^^5'S S^ i5 of 2 . si'i^Si l^l_.2^ : c^*_ ^ »- — — CD X — : Ss.-K m ^ |-^-2 ra jug g^ 5 ° '™.^SS = :=.j,--S=EoS-.1 ^ 03 o bC-. .s ^ 3^ ^ o OX5 O -'^ O g t-- O els •*? bC o o » S ^ o 1^ Q. -6 E 5 *2 o"]]^ c 00 ■=_ ■u_^ fS a. i2 M^ g ™ 2^"i|-2 — > a; 2 E (£ 0> M i S. (5 ^ 1 vl ^ 5 i_ S — ■0 Ql'— O ™ 2 ■a —"0-0.5 ! 609 S «■= o => n> S^S c = -o.°-S =£ B i^E L™zr«- ^^E&s-^^r^is «-E« = S^'^^ TO-C-w OJ >._ ^^ _j^ ^^ c't^'>'™ ■? 0-0 S-g-o E £ S-D-o-= I S.| rol— a)='i;£E'^L.r;S.HEoE §:i.i'^"i5>gE2S£SSS [^•^raoiES^^^.S Q.a> 3 0)0 « S^ lisp lis S^S-S5-o ?=iE-- IBIS'S ■'III "; ^_ ^„ _ -^ a> ^ _. _ _ -a - — — ■— ■ .0 -w ilS"°- "1°•s<>'■2-i.■ ."^ 2 ™ S — ° ^ c E«£| = eo (u "l-gr E^ "-o.M,-°f £ E i 5 .■■= " ^«-| = « I « "'2 S-^ ^ '"'* ''"o3S«_«'^*^qjE^ ">l'ro S5 "o 5 .!2 £ I— csj" 2; -^ S " - - 2 ^°_i.y g oZ = c « 5 SJ ™^ „ 3C/)J2 oj S o O E O. £S^2?*i2 5 ¥ O 3 ™ !:=™^ 5. Q-.E .. - a.00 -S'-^™a) *- 00— >- i "•S'--=^ ' ™ i "O OJ .-ti "S_ i^oJicz-E ^■t o_ o o _ S-""°l £? S'c = |-^|x:"S.2e S E ,.- £ ^ _ M o £tio--.|^ -i-i * ^ ./s "^ c; ro o ^i£o5.i:-g3 i|£l°'|5 5. = Cl.t3 ^'" <-> ^ S "5 '0—5^2 o.to £ ™= ^ ™ ? S-a*^ "— ^ o "^ E o> Soil ^"S o " ^ " - S «i — 1=1 g|^ Slurs' X3 o.E == '^ ■,'2<^ c- ?o— 5 :_ oj ^ii TO o> — 03 ^ ,£-^^i^c|S£^-sil|. ;S cio-o c ° = o;; — ! P 5 03 E E =^.2 ^^ " 2 i; o) a, u Q.2 5^ ^ c-S ._£ £ -:= 03-5 do ;«_ g— ^ cr_03 E_™j^x: 5 a..= ^-".i£ to ^2— ^ q.^^^^ c °-5.i"~i E £ £^^ «-^-i ""S*^ "- = lo"5 s'i'S * = .o^oo.Eoo 2--:E— !=;03a3oE^SE°-a— =— StoSJS -^ £ 2^'S S-iS E =a---= ,^1-5.^ «>aie *" ° " CD O iC cc' iS o oo en CD o o o o> o> •a- 1 ■J -— W^(^ : c o) oj (u 2-£ ^ t; -o -w ^ . . ^ r--s ~ s CI •^ e 2 5 ^ = S^°'SZ-^2| = •*■ -S5 E< g (D 2"5— M *" ? " ° '^ — -3'Stuco'= •c-"5"£'2 mS m "o S S 2 .a> = -a 2 S g TO >2-a m " p E 2-S ?^ 1-f F-2-°-f^R"- ° ^> 5 = *= ° . g-E e- •d'to o"5 qj*-" 03 ^<^it 5 miles upstream from the city of Ames. It provides for the construction of a dam and reservoir for flood control, water quality con- trol, recreation, and fish and wildlife. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement ^ $13, 400, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 305, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 13, 095, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 305, 000 Reimbursement: Recreation 305, 000 Total estimated project cost 13, 400, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 400, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 8.5, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 150, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 165, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction i^lanning after fiscal vear 1969 I ' Excludes $1,100,000 for Interstate Highway 35 relocation for wliich completion funds were provided by the Public Works Appropriation Act, 1967. JUSTIFICATION The Ames Reservoir will provide flood control, low-flow augmentation, water quality control, fish and wildlife conservation, and recreational benefits. The principal efl'ect of the reservoir will be reduction of flood damages along the Skunk River in Story, Polk, and Jasper Counties, Iowa, on about 64,000 acres of land in the flood plain, of which 56,000 acres are utilized for crop and pasture purposes. In recent years, damaging floods occurred in 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1960, 1963, April 1965, and June 1966. The most severe floods occurred in 1944 and 1947 causing damages estimated at $3,76.5,000 and $4,300,000, respectively. These damages would amount to $4,800,000 and $4,152,000 at current prices. The flood of April 1965 resulted in failure of several levees along Skunk River protecting Polk County Drainage District No. 25, in Polk County, Iowa. Some 6,000 acres of district land were inundated and one-fourth mile of 630 main-line track of Chicago, Great Western Railroad embankment across the Skunk River Valley was washed out, resulting in 3 days of interrupted service. The extent of the repair cost to the railroad is estimated at $20,000. The damage caused by the April 1965 flood amounted to $400,000. The most recent flood, that of June 1966, caused damages amounting to about $763,000. The April 1965 and June 1966 damages would amount to $428,000 and $801,000 at current prices. Operation of the reservoir would reduce average annual flood damages by about 48 percent in the reach of river downstream from the dam to the con- fluence with the North Skunk River. The breakdown of average annual benefits are as follows: Flood control $529, 000 Water quality control 186, 000 Fish and wildlife 30, 000 Recreation 172, 000 Total 917,000 Non-Federal Costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government for one-half of the separable first costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. Reimbursement is presently estimated at $305,000. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for operation, mainte- nance, and replacement of recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities will total $10,000. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances will be requested after completion of the general design memo. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $13,400,000 is an increase of $600,000 over the latest estimate ($12,800,000) submitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. Waterloo, Iowa (Continuation of Planning) Location and description. — -The city of Waterloo, with a 1960 population of 71,755, is located in Black Hawk County, Iowa. The Cedar River flows through the heart of the business section where it is joined by Black Hawk Creek. The project plan provides for protection against floods liaving a 100-year recurrence interval by means of levees, floodwalls, closure structures, and appurtenant drainage and relocation works. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benejit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $16, 300, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 4, 190, 000 Cash contribution Other costs ^ 4, 190, 000 Total estimated project cost 20, 490, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 500, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 100, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 200,000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 200, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. ' In addition, over the past years, tlie city of Waterloo has constructed approximately 4 miles of levees and floodwalls along both banks of the Cedar River, ul)out 2 miles of levee along the west bank of Black Hawk Creek, and under a program of urban renewal, the city is presently constructing a closed concrete box culvert to contain flows of Virdon Creek. The cost of these Improvements is not available. JUSTIFICATION The project will provide a high degree of protection against Cedar River and Black Hawk Creek floods for the city of Waterloo, Iowa. The population of the city is 71,755 (1960 census). The area to be protected contains about 4,000 acres and has been extensively developed for transportation, industrial, commercial, public, and residential purposes. The highest flood of record occurred In March 1961. Flood damages amounted to $1,775,000. These damages would amount to $2,205,000 under current conditions. Other recent major flood occurrences were 631 experienced in June 1947, April 1951, and March 1962. Damages resulting from these floods would amount to $600,000, $242,000, and $637,000, respectively, under current conditions. The recent flood of April 1965 was within 0.2 foot of attaining the same stage as thai of the flood of March 1961. Flood damages experienced during the flood amounted to $725,000, including $254,000 expended for emergency protectiv^e works. There was less actual physical damage to proi)erty experienced than in the 1961 flood due to considerably greater costs of flood fighting measures put forth by public and private interests. The total damages for the 1965 flood would amount to $799,000 under current conditions. Construc- tion of the project would prevent almost the entire amount of flood damages experienced in the past floods. In the event of occurrence of the design flood, damages in the city of Waterloo amounting to about $36,855,000 would result. Average annual benefits, all flood control, for the project are estimated at $948,000. Non-Federal costs. — In addition to normal requirements, local interests are to make all relocations and alterations of buildings, utilities, highway bridges, roads, and other facilities (except railroad bridges) where necessary in the construction of the project; and prevent encroachment on the flood channels and ponding areas, which would decrease the effectiveness of the flood control improvements; and, if ponding areas and capacities are impaired, promptly provide substitute storage capacity or equivalent pumping capacity. The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $4,190,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $1,170,000 Relocations (roads, bridges, ramps, railroads, utilities, and structures) . 3, 020, 000 Total 4, 190, 000 It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance, operation, and replacements will total $29,200. In addition, over the past years, the city of Waterloo has constructed approxi- mately 4 miles of levees and floodwalls along both banks of the Clear River, about 2 miles of levee along the west bank of Black Hawk Creek, and under a program of urban renewal, the city is presently constructing a closed concrete box culvert to contain flows of Virden Creek. The cost of these improvements is not available. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Waterloo, acting through its ofiicials, is the responsible local cooperating agency. The project has been discussed with representatives of local interests and the local cooperation requirements have been reviewed with them. Officials of Waterloo have stated their approval of the proposed works and their willingness and ability to furnish the necessary local cooperation. Formal assurances will be requested after completion of the general design memorandum. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $16,300,000 is an increase of $300,000 over the latest estimate ($16,000,000) submitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. Kalamazoo, Mich. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The Kalamazoo River rises in the southern part of the lower peninsula of Michigan, flows northwesterly about 185 miles, and empties into Lake Michigan about 2 miles downstream from the village of Sauga- tuck. The city of Kalamazoo, located in Kalamazoo County is about 74 miles above the mouth of the Kalamazoo River. The project provides for widening, deepening and straightening the Kalamazoo River channel from immediately above the town of Comstock through the city of Kalamazoo to the vicinity of the town of Cooper, a distance of about 10 miles; deepening Portage Creek ap- proximately 1.5 miles from its outlet from the Kalamazoo River to Reed Street; modifying existing bridges to conform to the proposed flood control channel; riprapping Kalamazoo River channel where necessary to prevent erosion at critical locations; and constructing a low-flow control dam at the lower New York Central Railroad Bridge to maintain the existing low-flow river stage through Kalamazoo, ^Michigan. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1 632 Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $8, 800, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1, 240, 000 Cash contribution 460, 000 Other costs 780, 000 Total estimated project cost 10, 040, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 300, 000 Allocations to 30 June 1967 125, 000 Allocation for FY 1968 ___ 100,000 Planning allocation for FY 1969 75, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after FY 1969 JUSTIFICATION Kalamazoo and vicinity has experienced numerous floods causing considerable property damage. The maximum flood of record was in March 1904 with floods of slightly less volume occurring in March 1908, April 1947, March 1918, 1887, and 1948 in that decreasing order of peak discharge. A historian reports floods in 1854, 1S64, 1868, and 1869 greater in magnitude than the 1904 and 1908 floods, but actual stages are not available for these peaks. Lesser floods have occurred at more frequent intervals with minor flooding in the lower areas occurring almost annually. With the exception of the flood in June 1864, all of the major floods noted have occurred in the spring, as a result of the heavy spring rains on snow- covered ground in a fairly saturated condition and at a time when stream stages were already rising. The major flooding is within the city of Kalamazoo and adjacent upstream settlements of Recreation Park and Comstock, except for the underdeveloped lowlands downstream from the city of Kalamazoo. Floods cover residential, commercial, industrial, and public property along with considerable low vacant lands. On the basis of current price levels, the estimated flood damages for the 1904 and 1947 floods would be $1,280,000 and $970,000, respectively, substantially all of which would be prevented by the project. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $561,000. Non-Federal cost. — In addition to normal requirements, local interests are required to provide a cash contribution of 5 percent of the cost of the project, which is presently estimated to be $460,000; prescribe and enforce regulations designed to prevent encroachments on the rights-of-way and improved channels; raise all buildings and roadways in the disposal areas as necessary to meet the proposed grades; make all utility changes necessitated by the improvements; and provide further that Federal construction shall not be started until the abate- ment of pollution of the Kalamazoo River at and in the vicinity of Kalamazoo has been initiated by local interests to an extent satisfactory to the State of Michigan. The cost of local interests in connection with construction of the authorized project is estimated at $1,240,000 broken down as follows: Cash contribution $460, 000 Lands and easements 575, 000 Alterations to utilities 165, 000 Raise buildings and roadways 40, 000 Total 1, 240,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate all works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The estimated cost of annual maintenance is $25,600. Status of local cooperation. — Local assurances have not been requested. The mayor of the city of Kalamazoo has expressed an active interest in the project and the board of supervisors of the countj^ of Kalamazoo has indicated by resolution of the board dated March 17, 1966 that thej^ are willing to consider becoming the local sponsor of the flood control project. In accordance with the requirements of local cooperation, the city has completed the construction of a secondary treat- ment plant for itself and industry. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $8,- 800,000 is an increase of $400,000 over the latest estimate ($8,400,000) submitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. 033 Lansing, Mich. (Continuation of planning) Location and description.— The project is locat.^d on the Grant! lUvor at If nsmg, - Mich The Grand River rises in the southern part of the lower peninsula of JVl ichi- gan flows in a northerly direction to the city of Lansing, located in Ingham Cou'ntv thence northwesterly to the mouth of tlie Maple lliver and finally west- ward through Grand Rapids emptying into Lake Michigan at Grand Haven. The proiect provides for enlargement of the Red Cedar River channel from Upper College Dam in East Lansing to the mouth, a distance of about .'3 miles, cleaning and straightening Sycamore Creek within Lansing city limits; <^0"«t"'^tion of a cutoff channel for the Grand River, extending between Millett and Delta Mills, about 6 miles long, with appurtenant diversion dam on the Grand luver and two drop structures, enlargement of the Grand River channel from the junction with the Red Cedar River downstream about 6 miles; and constructing new bridges and modifying existing bridges to conform to the proposed flood control channels. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — L3 to L Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost ^l^' »7n nnn Estimated non-Federal cost *> °'[J' Jjjjjj Cash contribution ^^^' ^^^^ Other costs ' ._^' ^^.r. Total estimated project cost ^rn nnn Preconstruction planning es_timate ^•^"' ^^'^ Allocations to June 30, 1967 .„ p... „ Allocation for fiscal year 1968 i^n nnn Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969__---- i^"- "^^ Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 6W, uuu JUSTIFICATION Lansing and vicinity has experienced numerous floods c^^^i«/"g/o^f^'^^r^'^^f property damage. The^raaximum flood of record was in March 1904, with floods of lesseJ intensity occurring in March 1918, March 1908, April 1947, and March 1916 in that decreasing order of discharge. Smaller floods have occurred at more frequent intervals with minor flooding in lower areas occurring alniost annually These floods were caused by generally comparable conditions of high-mtensity rainfall on snow or ice cover with a saturated ground condition during the spring months. However, a few instances of major flooding have occurred during the summer months. Major flooding at Lansing and vicinity is a ong ^he Grand Kiver and its tributary, the Red Cedar River, and is almost entirely within the city Umits of Lansing, and East Lansing and of Lansing Township located between these two communities, ^'acant lowlands upstream and downstream from these urban areas are also inundated during even minor floods. Floods cover residential commercial, industrial, and public property, limited farm areas and appreciable low vacant land immediately adjacent to the river. On the basis of current price levels, the estimated flood damages for the n^ost recent disastrous flood (April 1947) would be $1,940,000. Flood damages for the maximum flood of record (March 1904) under existing conditions would be considerably f^a^er than were actually experienced at the time, since several hundred acres of lo^l^nds within the flo6d plain along the rivers have been developed for residential and industrial purposes iince 1904^? Damage resulting from a flood of that ^^^f g^^^.^^^A ^^^^^^^ 1954 development and 1967 price levels, would probably equal $8,500,000 sub- stantially aU of which would be prevented by the project. The average annual benefits," all flood control, are estimated at $990,000. ,-n+^rP«tQ arP Non-Federal costs.-ln addition to normal requirements l^^^^ .^^^^^^^jl^^^^ required to contribute in cash 2.9 percent of the estimated first cost of work for which the United States would be responsible, a contribution presently estimated at $470,000, and prescribe and enforce regulations satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army, designated to prevent encroachment on the rights-of-way and improved channels f construct new highway bridges and highway grade channel crossings; and make all necessary changes and additions to streets highway bridges and approaches, storm and sanitary sewers ^ferlines, electric power- lines: and other miscellaneous utilities. The cost to local mterests m connection 634 with construction of the authorized project is estimated at $4,870,000 broken down as follows: Cash contribution $470, 000 Lands and damages 1, 395, 000 Relocations 2, 240, 000 Alterations to utilities 765, 000 Total 4, 870, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate all the works after com- pletion, including the maintenance and operation of the Moores Park and North Lansing Dams on the Grand River at Lansing, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The estimated cost of annual main- tenance is $42,600. Status of local cooperation. — The mayor and city officials of Lansing have ex- pressed an active interest in planning and constructing the local protection project. By resolution of the city council dated July 12, 1965, the mayor and the city council expressed the desire that studies for the authorized flood control project be continued with a view toward augmenting the project to provide low flow augmentation and possible reservoir construction. Local assurances will be requested upon completion of the general design memorandum. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $15,600,000 is an increase of $700,000 over the latest estimate ($14,900,000) submitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. Roseau River, Minn. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — In Roseau County and northeastern Kittson County, in northwestern Minnesota, and in south-central Manitoba, Canada. The plan of improvement provides for flood control by channel enlargement, clearing, and realinement of approximately 44 miles of the Roseau River from the dan^ at Roseau, downstream to a point near the international boundary, construction of three short reaches of low levee, and by approximately 10 miles of channel im- provement in Canada made necessary by improvements on the Roseau River in the United States. The work in Canada will be constructed by Canada with funds provided by the United States. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.9 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $3, 100, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 474, 000 Cash contribution None Other costs 474, 000 Total estimated project cost 3, 574, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 250, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 45, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 130, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 75, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. JUSTIFICATION Flooding in the Roseau River Basin occurs in seasons of above-normal precipita- tion and is especially severe when snowmelt is a factor. The largest flood of record occurred in the spring of 1950, lasting from late April into June with slow recession everywhere. The flood caused estimated damages of $983,000 to agricultural and urban developments. About 85,000 acres of farmland were flooded. Under current conditions and at current prices, damages from a similar flood would amount to about $1,372,000, with $414,000 of this being agricultural, $712,000 for other rural developments, including roads and bridges, and $246,000 for urban developments. Recent damaging floods have occurred in 1965 and 1966. Under current conditions and at current prices the flood in 1965 would cause esti- mated damages of $1,360,000. During the 1966 flood, emergency flood-fighting 635 measures prevented extensive flood damages to the village of Roseau. Nevertheless, total estimated damages were $1,101,000, being $946,000 agricultural and rural and $155,000 at Roseau, including flood-fighting costs of $110,000. The plan of improvement would alleviate damage by flooding for the highly developed agricul- tural areas, the village of Roseau, and downstream roads, bridges, and other rural propert}^ Breakdown of average annual benefits: Amount Flood control ___ $454^ 700 Fish and wildlife _ —7^ 800 Total 446,900 Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $474,000, as follows: Lands and rights-of-way $84, 000 Relocations 39o| 000 Total . __ 474,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate all the works upon com- pletion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditures for maintenance and operation will be $9,600. Status of local cooperation.- — Formal assurances will be requested after comple- tion of the design memorandum. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,100,000 is an increase of $220,000 over the latest estimate ($2,880,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $166,000 for higher price levels, and $54,000 for additional study to consider upstream extension of channel improvements at Roseau and levee separation of river basin in Big Swamp during periods of high flow, as a result of the 1966 flood. Mr. BoLAND. Are there any questions on "Advance Engineering and Design?'" Mr. Whitten. No. Mr. Morris. No questions. jNIr. Davis. Satisfied and pleased with the chairman's coverage. Mr. BoLAND. The chairman is satisfied and pleased with your remarks. Mr. Kobison? Mr. RoBisoN. There is nothing I can do but yield back my time. Construction Mr. BoLAND. We will turn to "Construction." EFFECT OF STRETCHOUT Will you please brief the committee on the nature, extent, and the effects of the deferrals and stretchout of the construction program in your division? General Tarbox. Sir, in our North Central Division, the stretchout program resulted in reductions of $5,368,000 on 14 projects in fiscal vear 1968 and in rather stringent budget allowances for fiscal year 1969. Insofar as practical, the fund reductions were allocated to projects on which there were some indications of possible delay due to other reasons so that we could reduce the impact of the funding restrictions to a minimum. Because of the fund reductions, it was necessary to ex- tend the overall completion dates on three projects, Point Lookout Harbor, Mich.; Saginaw River (navigation), Mich.; and the Horse Island and Crescent Bridge, Illinois and Iowa. 636 111 addiiioii to the fund reductions, specifically delayed award dates were established for five fiscal year 1968 new construction start projects. These are Evanston, 111.; Marshalltowii, Iowa; Point Lookout Har- bor, Mich. ; Mankato and Xortli Mankato, Minn. ; and Gregory Drain- age District in Missouri. RESERVOIR REGULATION IN INTEREST OF RECREATION Mr. BoLAND. In this Division, as in others, there has been some con- cern on the part of Members of Congress that the corps should review the operational plan for flood control reservoirs to determine whether or not it was feasible to raise the level of the pool for recreation pur- poses during that period of time when the spring floods have passed and there is no danger of flooding the area or downstream from the reservoir. I think we did this with respect to the Yazoo headwaters reservoirs in Mississippi. We suggested to the corps in last year's report, they come up with some sort of a plan, if possible, to maintain the water levels at a higher level for recreation and other uses, as long as it did not endanger the meeting of flood control requirements. I was glad to learn that the corps was able to modify the reservoir filling and empty- ing procedures to procure increased recreation benefits. CORALVILLE RESERVOIR, IOWA From information that has been brought to my attention it would appear that similar review is warranted of the C oralville Reservoir. My understanding is there was some 750,000 visitations to the reser- voir last year, including some 300,000 or 400,000 people alone from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I have experienced this problem in my own area in western IMassa- chusetts, where people do not get the opportunity to get to the sea- shore very often because of the distance and problems in driving. Specifically with reference to Coralville, our colleague, Congressman Culver, has written to the committee expressing his concern over the problem created by the maintenance of a low-water level during the summer months. We will insert a copy of Mr. Culver's letter in the record at this point, (The letter follows:) Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, B.C., February 15, 1968. Hon. Michael Kirwan, Chairman, Puhlic Works Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee, The Capitol. Dear Mk. CirAiRMAN : I jini writing to request that, during your subcommittee's consideraticm of tlie Public Works Appropriations for fiscal 3969. you investi- gate the possibilities of raising the water level of the Coralville Reservoir on the Iowa River in eastern Iowa in order to enhance its recreational aspects. As you know, there are few lake-type areas in our State, and since the Coral- ville project was placed in oi»eration in 1958, it has offered vast potential for rec- reation. However, the use of the reservoir for boating, .swinnning, hunting, fish- ing, and other related activities has been severely limited because the water has lieen kei)t too low. It is tlie judgment of p(M-sons Interested in recreation at Coralville that its full potential could be realized if the water level is raised to a (»90-foot elevation on .Tune 1, and maintained at that level until Febrnary 1. with a minituniii level of (>s(> feet for the remainder of the year. 637 It eoes without saying that the primary purpose of the reservoir remams flood control undwe are not seeking any action which would in any way inter- fere with the valid engineering requirements for flood control, or unnecessarily pndnn"^er lives and property downstream. j ^ ^ k ^-v,^ However the present water level schedule is based on a plan adopted by the CcSr of Engineers 5 years ago, following a study over the previous 2 years A -eexamS on would therefore appear to be in order, partic-ularly in view of The tecinoTogical advancements which have been made s nee the early 1960s in the oueratioS of such facilities, as well as in flood prediction and control. I noted that your subcomm ttee has made such requests of the Corps of En- gineers in the past (H.R. 505, page 54, July 20, 1967), and request that every possible consideration be given to similar action this year with regard to the ''ThS%''u ?e7;L?hto?your interest in and attention to this matter of wide- spread interest to the people of eastern Iowa. Sincerely, j^^^^ ^^ Cxjlveb, Member of Congress. Mr BoL\ND. Congressman Culver points out that the area has a great potential for recreation, but many problems are encountered m the proper use of the reservoir for boating, hunting, and hshmg due to the low water level. What are the problems in the area and what steps might be taken to raise the water level earlier m the spring and main- tain a higher level during the summer months? , :„,,,; W Cxenertl Tarbox. Sir, Coralville Reservoir was authorized pi imarily for flood control. The reservoir functions by stormg the floodwater and releasing it at rates which will reduce the damage '^^'^^'^\fj''';^/'^l conservation or recreation functions, i^^^^^^i^^g^^V^^^^^^Xw .1 in conservation pool and releases from it to augment the IoIYA^^^^^^^";- cidental and subordinate to the. primary P^^P^^^^^ ^^J^,^. '!ftYon ^^ Local interests have desired a higher conservation pool ele^ ation m the interests of recreation. They have ^^^^^f ^f /^e Cor^^^^^^^^ neers to maintain a constant water level of at least 680 leet m the Coralville Reservoir. Mr. BoLAND. Throughout the year^ STUDY OF OPERATING PROCEDURE General Tarbox. As long as possible The Aood control pool ^s he W It 670 feet during the flood season. This is raised to 680 teet during tL sLmer Thelha^^^^ urged that whatever steps or changes m oper- ating orders needed to effect such a modification procedure be given favorable consideration. . , would We made extended studies to determine the e.arliest ^ate we would raise the elevation from 670 to 680 without ^^verse J affec i g t^^^^ flood control capability of the reservoir. The studies have fo^i^clthat the earlier the inundation the greater is the potential damage proba- biHtv. Floods that are similar to recorded, floods would insult m ad_ verse flood control effects if the conservation pool were to be laised '^Ttli ^'^conservation pool raised in Mav, the emergency releases for these floods would have been substantially greater causing down- stream damages due to the higher releases. -1 uf^ The date of June 15 is the earliest date that we can consider it to be safe for initiating a pool raise. Meteorological analysis of storms 638 similar to the storms of 1918 and 1944 and 1947 indicates the definite possibility of such storms occurring as late as June over the Iowa River watershed. A substantial increase in flood damage would occur if the storage capacity between elevation 670 and 680 were not avail- able at this time. Accordingly, the plan selected provides for starting to raise the ele- vation pool from 670 to elevation 680 each year on June 15. However, we do look at the possibilities of floods, and in 1967, last year, we started raising it even earlier and it was at elevation 680 by June 13. They gained a few days there. We realize the importance of having the recreation pool formed as early in the year as possible and we will continue to try to determine how we can advance the date as we did in 1967 without prejudicing the safety and property of the people downstream. Mr. BoLAND. We thmk that would be good judgment on the part of the corps. Actually, the corps does have in your district a lot of in- formation available to it with respect to whether or not the elevation should be raised at a particular period of time. You know what the snows are in the area, what the runoff might be, the storms and the history of storms. I understand that storms sometimes visit you when you least expect them. You have to be prepared for the emergency. It is a matter which is not alone common to your district, but many other districts. It would seem to be wise for the corps to take a look at this problem created by Coralville and the desires of the people of that district to use the pool safely at the right time. Mr. Written. Would the chairman yield ? Mr. BoLAND. Yes. CHANGE IN POLICY Mr. Written. We can look back to the day these dams were built basically for flood control purposes now, however, it is governmental policy to build multipurpose dams to serve all benefits, including recreation for which there is such great public demand. That leaves in my opinion an obligation on the corps and the Gov- ernment, within the practical limits available to do what they can to carry out the present policy of the Government in connection with completed projects. I do not think that you should feel bound in the least by the origin of the enabling legislation because the Government has changed its policy. Recreation is a well established and recognized benefit. You still have to protect the people from floods. Don't misunder- stand, I am glad to say that General McDonald has cooperated to the fullest extent in my area. The General is using his own good judgment in the Yazoo area to determine what changes he can make in the open- ing and closing to improve the recreational situation. That was done without consultation with anybody, strictly on his own judgment, based on these other factors. I do think it has come time when you should consider other project benefits in addition to flood control. Unless you and others like you cooperate with the com- mittee and do the best that you can in this area, we are probably going 639 to be faced with a inultibillion-dollar request to enlarge all these dams so as to include recreation as a feature. 1 may not be the one sponsoring that, but when you get 99 percent of the folks living in the cities, they will be demanding consideration for these related benefits. I hope that you will approach this with a sympathetic viewpoint. I am not an engineer and the i)roject was built for flood control, but the attitude of the general public is changing and I don't think anyone can question that. General Tarbox. I hope that I did not give the impression that we are hidebound by the authorization. I did not mean to. Mr. WiiiTTEN. I wanted to stress the latter part of your testimony ratlier that tlie first part in which you said this was built for flood control. General Tarhox. I can assure you of the openmindedness of our people. Mr. WiiiTTEN. You make a very good witness, rOSSIBILITY or HIGHER SUMMP^R POOL Mr. BoLAND. Would it not be possible to raise this pool elevation to 690 during the summer after the flood situation has abated? That would help the situation a great deal. You say the spring flood situa- tion abates by early June. What about the possibility of raising to 690 after the flood situation has passed? General Tarbox. Sir, we do raise it to 683 over the winter starting in September for fish and wildlife purposes. We still do have the pos- sibility of stunmer floods and that is the reason for our establishment of 680 during the summer so as to take care of that possibility. We can take a look at that, jNIr. Chairman, to see if in any portion of the sum- mer we could raise it there. Mr. BoLAND. Fine. I wish you would. POINT LOOKOUT HARBOR, MICH. Mr. BoLAND. We turn now to the Point Lookout Harbor, Mich., proj- ect. We will insert the justification. (The justification follows:) 91-459— 68— pt. 1 41 640 Point Lookout Harbor (Au Gres River), Mich. (Continuing) Location. — The harbor, located at the mouth of the Au Gres River about 3 miles southwest of Point Lookout, is situated on the westerly shore of Lake Huron at the entrance to Saginaw Bay, and about 27 miles northeast of the mouth of the Saginaw River. Authorization. — 1945 Riv^er and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — Not applicable (harbor of refuge). SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard)... Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967.. _ Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $1,620,000 8.000 - 135.000 _ 104,500 30,500 .._ 1,763.000 58.000 25,000 8, 300 5 225,000 19 1,312,000 PHYSICAL D.\TA Channels : River channel, 8 feet deep, 100 feet wide, and 10,180 feet long. Jetty-protected entrance channel, 10 feet deep, 100 feet wide, and 3,000 feet long. Approach channel, 12 feet deep, 100 feet wide, and 3,000 feet long. Breakwaters. — Riprap spoil bank jetties. Status {.January 1, 1.968).— 'Not started. Completion schedule. — November 1970. JUSTIFICATION Point Lookout Harbor is the final unit of a chain of harbors of refuge on the Great Lakes for light-draft vessels. When completed, the harbors in the chain will be at intervals of 25 to 30 miles around the U.S. shoreline of the Great Lakes. Construction of the harbor at the mouth of the Au Gres River will provide an unbroken chain of such harbors between the Straits of Mackinac and Port Sanilac, Mich., and provide a safe harbor of refuge for shallow-draft vessels operating along tliis reach of the Lake Huron shoreline and throughout the length of Saginaw Bay. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested appropriation of $225,000 will be applied as follows — Continue approach and entrance channel $190, 000 Engineering and design 22, 200 Supervision and administration 12, 800 Total 225,000 Funds recommended for the budget fiscal year are required for orderly con- struction progress with completion in fiscal year 1971. Non-Federal costs. — The costs to local interests for complj-ing with the require- ments of local cooperation as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $135,000 of which $104,500 is cash contribution and $30,500 is for lands and construction of terminal facilities. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assiu'ances of local cooperation for the entire chain of harbors of refuge in Michigan as recommended in the authorizing document including Point Lookout Harbor (.\u Gres River), Mich., were fur- nished by the Michigan State Waterways Commission and were approved on ISlarch 22, 1948. The .\lichigan State Waterways Commission, the local cooperating agency, and other responsible local interests are in accord with construction of the project at the mouth of the Au Gres River and ha\e indicated that all items of 641 local cooperation necessary for the project are available, including the local cash contribution of $104,500. Comparison of Federal cost esliinates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $1,620,000 is an increase of $70,000 over the latest estimate ($1,550,000) submitted to Congress. This increase is due primarily to higher price levels. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year conaplete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels $1,270,000 $230,000 $1,040,000 Breakwaters 285,000 85,000 200,000 Engineering and design 75,000 $33,200 $19,600 22,200 Supervision and administration 94,500 2,700 2,000 17,300 72,500 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contribution) 1,724,500 35,900 21,600 354,500 1,312,500 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contribution) 1,724,500 35,900 21,600 354,500 1,312,500 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds and non-Fed- eral contribution) 1,724,500 35,900 21,600 354,500 1,312,500 Federal funds: Total applied cost 1,620,000 35,900 21,600 250,000 1,312,500 Undistributed cost . . Total project cost 1,620,000 35,900 21,600 250,000 1,312,506 Pending adjustments _ Total cost 1,620,000 35,900 21,600 250,000 1,312,500 Undelivered orders .._.__ Total obligations 35,900 21,600 250,000 1,312,500 Non-Federal contribution: Total applied cost 104,500 104,500 Undistributed cost . ... .. Total project cost 104,500 104,590 Pending adjustments Totalcost 104,500 104,500 Undelivered orders Total obligations 104,500 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations 57,500 25,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 21,600 25,000 Total funds available for obli- gation 46,600 Appropriation required 225,000 1,312,500 Non-Federal funds: Contributions 104,500 Unobligated carryover from prior year 104,500 Total funds available for obli- gation Appropriation required Mr. BoLAND. $225,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Point Lookout Harbor, Mich. This is a harbor refuge authorized in the 1945 Rivers and Harbors Act. When did construction actually start on this? General Tarbox. Sir, construction has not been started yet. Mr. BoLAND. When is it going to start ? General Tarbox. We presently plan to be able to award a contract in December 1968. OAKLEY RESERVOIR AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, ILLINOIS Mr. BoLAND. We will turn to the Oakley Resen^oir and channel im- provement project in Illinois. (The justification follows :) 642 Oakley Reservoir and Channel Improvement, Sangamon River, III. (Land acquisition) Location. — The reservoir is located on the Sangamon River, a tributary of the Illinois River, the dam site being about 1^^ miles above Decatur, 111. The channel improvement extends from Decatur downstream to the mouth of Salt Creek. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated appropriation requirement Estimated total appropriation requirement $65,200,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 5, 090,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate).. - 60,110,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 5,090,000 Reimbursement: Water supply... 5,090,000 Total estimated project cost 65, 200, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967.... _ 1,215,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 450,000 Allocations to date 1,665,000 3 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 _ 2,000,000 6 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 61,535,000 PHYSICAL data Dam: Type, earthfill. Height, 60 feet (above stream bed). Length, 4,750 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 168,700 Water supply 11, 000 Water quality 60, 000 Sedimentation 12, 000 Total "242,'500 Spillway: Type: Concrete ogee-crested with a stilling basin. Four 42 feet x 48 feet Tainter gates. One sluiceway 6 feet high and 5 feet wide. 3 30-inch pipes. Design capacity: 126,000 cubic feet per second. Lands and damages: Acres: 29,886 (24,496 in fee and 5,390 in easement). Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units and some residential units. Relocations: Roads: 12.5 miles ($10,259,000). Railroads: 4.4 miles ($3,730,000). Cemeteries, utilities and structures ($3,045,000). Channel improvement: 98 mUes. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Acquisition not started. Completion schedule: Fiscal year 1973. Other features of project not currently scheduled. 643 JUSTIFICATION Oakley Reservoir is a vital part of the Illinois River Basin plan. The reservoir will provide flood control for the urban and rural areas bordering the Sangamon River and reduction of flood stages along the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers downstream, and will provide; water supply, water quality, and recreational bene- fits to the area. An additional source of water supply is most important to the city of Decatur because of the very limited capacity of its present source, LakeDe- catur. In anticipation of early construction of Oakley Reservoir, the city is depend- ing entirely on this project to augment its water supply storage and has been reluctant to seek solutions elsewhere. The city has stated tliat without the Oakley Reservoir a serious drouglit after 1970 Avould adverselj^ aflfect the entire economy of the community. The U.S. Public Health Service has reported that regulation of streamfliow to provide water quality is a necessity on the Sangamon River below Decatur. Because of existing developments at the reservoir site which limit the amount of storage that can be obtained economically, it is necessary tliat the downstream channel be improved to permit efficient operation of the reservoir during floods. With the reservoir in operation average annual flood damages along the Sangamon River would be reduced by about 50 percent. About 67,000 acres of agricultural land and the urban areas of Riverton, Petersburg, and Chandlervillc with a total population of 4,600 along the Sangamon River will be afforded protection. The flood of record of May 1943 caused damages of $2,140,000 which under current conditions and prevailing prices are estimated at $5,800,000. Estimated average annual benefits from Oakley Reservoir are $4,077,000 broken down as follows: Amount Flood Control SI, 620, 000 Water Supplv 454, 000 Water Quality 765, 000 Recreational: 1,238,000 Fiscal ijear 1969. — The requested amovmt of $2,000,000 will be applied to — Continue land acquisition $1, 450, 000 Engineering and design 490, 000 Supervision and administration 60, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for continuing acquisition of reservoir lands to lessen the possibility of land cost escalation. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to (1) reimburse the Federal Government for co.sts allocated to water supply functions, ]:)resently estimated at $5,090,000 or 7.8 percent of the construction cost; (2) pay annually as they occur the costs of operation and maintenance allocated to water supply, such costs being presently estimated at $23,000 or 5.8 percent of the annual maintenance and operation cost; (3) maintain all roads and bridges in the reservoir ai-ea and over the improved channel downstream from the dam in accordance with regu- lations ]5rescribod by tlie Secretary of the Army; (4) hold and save the United States free from all water-rights claims resulting from construction and operation of the project; and (5) operate the existing non-Federal dam and reservoir at Lake Decatur for flood control in accordance with regulations approved by the Secretary of the Army. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Decatur has indicated its willingness to participate in the Oakley Dam and Reservoir and associated channel improve- ment and contribute the ]jortion of cost allocated to water supply. Negotiations with the city of Decatur have resulted in agreement as to the form of contract to be used m connection with water supply storage. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $65,200,000 is an increase of $2,800,000 over tlie latest estimate ($62,400,000) submitted to Congress. This increase includes $1,867,000 due to higher price levels and $933,000 for engineermg and design and supervision and administra- tion due to reanalj'sis of requirements. 644 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Lands and damages $14,943,000 Relocations 17,034,000 Reservoirs _.. 922.000 Dams. 9,940,000 Roads, railroads, and bridges 25,000 Channels 12,502,000 2,684,000 121,000 346, 000 3, 800, 000 2, 883, 000 65,200,000 65, 200, 000 Recreational facilities Buildings and grounds, administration building __. Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design. __ Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only). Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only). . Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 65,200,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations (Federal funds only).. Method of fmancing: Allocations _ Unobligated carryover from prior yea r Total funds available for obliga- tion Appropriation required. $1,023,100 97,600 1,120,700 $246, 000 262, 000 36, 000 544, 000 $1,450,000 490, 000 60, 000 2, 000, 000 1,120,700 544, 000 1,120,700 13,100 1,133,800 1,214,700 544, 000 -13,100 530,900 450,000 80, 900 530,900 $13,247,000 17,034,000 922, 000 9,940,000 25,000 12,502,000 2,684,000 121,000 346, 000 2,024,900 2,689,400 61,535,300 2,000,000 61,535,300 '2," 000," 666 6i,'535,'366 '2,"666,'666 6i,"535,"366 2,000,000 61.535,300 Mr. BoLAND. Briefly describe this project which was a new start in last yeur's bill and tell us what the status is. General Tarbox. Sir, this multipurpose project is located on the Saii<2:amon River, a tributary to tiie Illinois lliver. The damsite is about 1 mile above Decatur, 111. The plan of improvement consists of constructinjr a low earthHll dam with a controlled outlet and jjated concrete spillway with channel improvements on the Sanoamon River downstream from Decatur. Tlie project will provide flood protection to 67,000 acres and several urban areas alono; the river. The flood of gage record at Oakley in May 194o caused damages of over $2 million in this area. A recurrence of this flood would cause damages of almost $6 million. In addition to flood control, the project will also provide water supply, water quality control, and recreation benefits; an additional source of water supply is most important to the city of Decatur because of the very limited capacity of its present source. CONTRACT WITH CITY OF DECATUR FOR WATER SUPPLY Mr. BoLAND. What is the status of the repaymenl contract for water supply ? General Tarbox. Sir, the rei)ayment contract will be presented to the city in May, as soon as we finish the restudy of the cost allocation and hydrology based on adding the water quality control storage. Mr. RoBisoN. Would the chairman yield ? SOURCES OF WATER SUPPLY CITY OF DECATUR General, I notice that on page 132 reference is made to the fact that in connection with the city's need for achlitional water supply, the city has been ''reluctant to st'ck solutions elsewhere." 645 I am a bit curious about this phrase. Does this mean that, in your jndo-ment, there are other sohitioiis to the city's need to auonient its water supply ( General Tarbox. It has been suggested that the city use deep wells into an underground reservoir of the Teays River. The water would be of an entirely different nature than the surface water they are get- ting now which would cause some problems in treatment. Second, that water is just about all planned for additional needs of other cities. That is the reason for the reluctance to consider other sources. Mr. RoBisoN. In your judgment, this is the proper solution to the water supply problem? General Tarbox. Very definitely, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. Thank you. RELOCATIONS Mr. BoLAND. Relocations under the heading "Cemeteries, Utilities, and Structures'' are estimated at $3,045,000. What is involved in this estimate ? General Tarbox. Sir, this includes almost $1.5 million for powerline and communication line alterations, and there are pipeline alterations, levees and floodwalls to protect cemeteries and the town of Monticello and pumping plants for Monticello. acquisitiox of real estate ]Mr. BoLAND. What is the urgency and value of undertaking land acquisition in the area at this time ? General Tarbox. There has been a history of land prices escalating over a period of years, so that it will be procured at a lesser cost if we initiate the land acquisition program as it has been authorized. Also, as soon as it has been determined to start the project, people know they are going to be dispossessed. They suffer a hardship if they just have to hang on too long before we do take their property and give them the money so that they can buy replacements. ALLERTON PARK Mr. BoLAND. There has been considerable local opposition to the project because it would flood out a portion of Allerton Park. Will you brief the Committee on this problem ? General Tarbox. In the middle portion of the proposed reservoir project, there are some 600 acres of land which lie within the reservoir and they are mostly wooded. They are part of an estate that was left to the University of Illinois by Mr. Allerton. The university uses this land for study and research, and it is a very popular place with people in the vicinity and from other places in the State who visit the area because of its beauty. Some of th^ people do not like ih^ idea of losing this 600 acres that would be lost because of being included in the conservation pool. There will be another 1,200 acres approximately of mostly wooded land left there. We are investigating alternate pro- posals that would provide for the construction of the project but re- ducing the adverse effects on Allerton Park. 646 Mr. BoLAND. There are some possible alternatives here that you are looking into? General Tarbox. We are studying those right now. Mr. BoLAND. Without objection, we will insert in the record at this point the corps statement on the Oakley Dam and Reservoir in refer- ence to this problem. (The statement follows :) Oakley Dam and Reservoir, Sangamon River, III. As early as 1937 the necessity of flood control in the Illinois River Basin was recognized by the Congress. Since then, much time and effort has been expended in studying the flood-control needs of the Illinois River and its tributaries. The various studies and reports on the Sangamon River are a part of this overall plan of flood control. The authorization, planning, and construction of a reservoir project such as this is the result of extensive study and consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies or bodies. In response to resolutions adopted by the Committee on Flood Control of the House of Representatives and to an authorization contained in section 6 of the Flood Control Act approved August 11, 1939, the Secretary of the Army submitted a report to the Congress. This report vpas the basis for the Congress authorizing Oakley Reservoir. During preparation of this report close communication was maintained with local, State, and Federal agencies. Contact was maintained throughout the period of study with local agencies representing both urban and agricultural areas. The plans of improvement were presented to the Governor of Illinois for comment. Consultations were held with all interested Federal agencies. In fact, the Soil Conservation Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Public Health Service, and the Federal Power Commission were requested to make spe- cial studies, the results of which were incorporated into the planning, reports, and recommendations of the Corps of Engineers. THE INITIAL PLAN The report recommended construction of a dam and reservoir near Oakley to protect the lower Sangamon River Valley in Illinois from floods, and to provide recreation and water supply for its growing population. Because the Sangamon River is the largest tributary of the Illinois River, reduction in flood damages along the Illinois River and the Mississippi River would also result. Behind the proposed dam, a pool would be kept fairly stable to an elevation of G21 feet, mean sea level. This pool would be drawn upon in dry seasons to help provide water supply for the city of Decatur, 111. The costs of the project required for water supply would be paid for by the city nf Decatur. The reservoir shores would be developed for recreational use. There would also be enough emtpy space behind the dam to hold back floods such as have occasionally scourged the valley. When holding back floodwaters, the pool would, at times, enter University of Illinois' Allerton Park, which is located upstream from the dam. This park is considered valuable not o)dy because of its attractiveness and utility but as a nature preserve and outdoor laboratory for use by the university. Any floodwaters so stored would be released as quickly after the flood as it was safe to do so. Depending on the size of the flood, this period of release could take several days to .several weeks. To aid in the rapid drawing down of floodwaters. the project included improvements in the choked and constricted channel below the dam. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommendations won wide approval in the area. The Congress authorized the project in the Flood Control Act of 10G2. THE CHANGES Since authorization, in pursuance of directives and appropriations from the Congress, the Corps of Engineers has been carrying out the intensive studies needed to prepare detailed construction designs for the project. Such "advanced engineering and design" almost always involves some refinement of the project. In the case of Oakley Reservoir, additional flood-control storage involved increas- ing the overall size of the project. Sedimentation and water quality storage addi- 647 tious involved increasing the height of the relatively stable conservation pool from elevation 621 feet to elevation 636 feet. Finally, the larger stable pool in- creased the potential for recreational development. These changes called for raising the top elevation of the dam from 659 feet t(J 670 feet. The authorized flood-control criteria for this project or the flood for which the project is designed is the maximum flood of record of 1927. Review and refinement of more current hydrologic data increased the estimated flows of past major floud< This increase in flows required an increase in the storage allocation to flood control Considerable benefits accrue to flood control by the reduction of flood damages in urban and agricultural areas, from Decatur downstream to the mouth of the Sangamon River, increased land use, and withholding flows into the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. , - ^, • . Stvidies prior to authorization were based on amortizing the cost of the project over 50 years. Sufficient reservoir capacity was provided to allow for the expected accumulation of sediment so that there would be no encroachment on the water storage of beneficial purposes during the entire 50-year period. Sub>^equentlv, upon recommendation of the Secretaries of the Army. Interior, \-riculture and Health, Education, and Welfare, a 100-year amortization period was adopted for such reservoir projects. In line with this policy, more storage capaeitv for sediment has been provided in the Oakley project. This will assure maximum effective operation of the project over at least the 100-year amortization period. . , ^, ^.v,. j- In accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Chicago dis- trict engineer requested a study by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This act (passed at the time the preauthorization studies were complete) requires that in the survey or planning of a reservoir by any Federal ao-ency consideration shall be given to the inclusion of storage for regulation of streamflow for the purpose of water quality control. Under the act, the inclusion of water quality control as a project purpose cannot be a substitute for adequate treatment of domestic and industrial sewage. Adequate treatment is considered to be the best practical treatment or removal system available. The study fur- nished in Julv 1965 bv the Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Public Health' Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (now the Water Pollution Control Administration of the Department of the Interior) dis- closed an immediate need for storage for streamflow regulation in the Sangamon River for the purpose of water quality control. It showed that even though wastes discharged into the Sangamon River below the Decatur Dam are ade- quatelv treated, unsatisfactory water quality conditions would exist v/hen the waste "assimilation capacity of the receiving waters was exceeded. It is apparent from flow recnrds that for varying periods of time there is essentially no flow in the Sangamon below Decatur Dam until the waste treatment effluent is dis- charged Flows in this reach will be usable with water quality regulation. Water quality will contribute to public health, safety, economy, and effective- ness in us'e and enjoyment of water for all purposes. An assured flow of water will provide favorable conditions for recreation such as boating and fishing and hiking along the trails that parallel the Sangamon. Clean water surfaces and environment will make the Sangamon a positive asset of the Lincoln Herit^ige Trails The Sangamon River, flowing through Lincoln Trail Homestead btate Park near Springfield, and through New Salem State Park, comprises a part of the State of Illinois that is both a tourist attraction and a national .shrine. The report of the Public Health Service also confirmed the need to store surface waters for water sr.pplv for the city of Decatur. With the higher sediment pool elevation and with the inclusion of water qual- itv storage the normal elevation of the conservation pool will be about 636. Notifif-ati >n of this change has been submitted to the State of Illinois and the Fniv^v^ity of Illinois. The State has concurred and the university has stated that it does not believe it is in n position to insist that the university's special interest should prevail over the wider public interest involved. Formal notification to the Congress has not vet been made, but is in process. Water-oriented public recreation in all its forms is no less important a purpose than flood control, water supply, and water quality. With the larger pool, recrea- tional attendance is expected to reach 2,500.000 annually. Planning for the use of reservoir lands is being coordinated with the State of Illinois, the Decatur Park district Macon and Piatt Counties, the University of Illinois and other local public agencies. There are presently 12 sites being considered for recrea- tional development. They occupy 7,952 acres above the conservation pool. The areas range from 90 to 1,831 acres in size. 648 With the conservation pool level maintained at approximately 636 feet, some 600 acres of wooded bottom lands of AUerton Park would be flooded, v^^ithoiit flooding approximately two-thirds of the park, including Allerton House, the Sun Singer, or the formal gardens. As a result, there have been requests and pe- titions that the project be restudied or reduced in scope to eliminate such inun- dation. The Corps of Engineers is now in consultation with the University of Illinois to develop plans to minimize any detrimental effects on the park. Al- ternatives to the project as herein described are still under consideration. In the operation of the reservoir as now proposed, the water level would, on the average, be drawn dow^n during the summer and fall months of each year about 2 to 3 feet. Experience has shown that proper management of the shoreline can be accomplished to overcome any unsightliness of the exposed shores when such drawdown occurs. Recreation areas will be designed to accommodate with- out difl3culty the fluctuations of the water surface. In severe droughts, w^hen proper water resource management requires greater drawdown of the conserva- tion pool, a more difiicult but not insoluble problem of exposed shores will obtain. A variety of means, such as water-tolerant grasses, to solve this problem are available to the reservoir manager. So far, Federal funds have been spent only for planning and design in connec- tion with the Oakley project. The Public Works and Atomic Energy Commission Appropriation Act, 1968, contains $450,000 to continue planning and initiate real estate acquisition. KOCK ISLAND, ILL. Mr. BoLAND. We will now discuss the Kock Island, 111., project and insert the justification. Rock Island, III. (New) Location. — The city of Rock Island in Rock Island County, 111., is located on the left bank of the Mississippi River and is the second largest city of what is known as the Quint-Cities, consisting of Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa, and Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline, 111. Authorization.- — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio.- — 2.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of esti- mated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $5,250,000 Estimated non-Federal cost » 1,000,000 Cash contribution _-. Ottier costs 1,000,000 Total estimated project cost __ 6,250,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 150,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. 100,000 Allocations to date 250,000 5 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 300,000 10 Balance to com plete after fiscal year 1969 4, 700, 000 1 In addition, the local interests, following the flood of 1952, constructed low-level floodwalls and levees from 24fh St. to 18th Ave. at a total cost of $205,000. In November 1965. local interests completed a project for a seawall along a portion of the river front from 18th St. to the Centennial Bridge at a cost of $590,000. These works will be incorporated info the authorized plan of improvement to the extent feasible. PHYSICAL DATA Levees : Average height: 9 feet. Length: 12,600 feet. Floodwalls: Average height: 10 feet. Length: 6,100 feet. Closure structures: 10. Relocations-railroads: Raise 700 feet of track, niaxinuim of 0.5 feet ($2,000). Status {Jan. 1, 7SeS).— Not started. Completion schedule. — November 1971. 649 JUSTIFICATION Till' project will provide a very high degree of protection against Mississi})pi Iviver floods for the city of Rock Island, 111. (1960 population, 51,866). Th(> area to be protected contains about 870 acres and has been extensively developed for transportation, industrial, conmicrcial, public, and n^sidential purposes. Devel- opments in the area to be protected include .518 commercial and industrial prop- erties, 920 residences, .seven churches, two schools, and tracks of four railroad companies which traverse; the flood plain area. These developments, located in the heart of the city, have been seriously affected durhig past floods. A major flood occurring in June 1892 inundated a large portion of the Rock Island business district. Most recent major floods affecting the city occurred in March and April of 1951 and 1952 and the all-time record flood, that of April 1965 was 3.1 feet higher than th(; previous record flood of 1892. Damages resulting from floods of 1951 and 1952 amounted to $443,000 and $539,000, respectively. These dam- ages would amount to $874,000 and $1,018,000, respectively, at current prices. At the time of the record 1965 flood, the city, as well as business and industrial interests, made extreme efforts to augment th(^ existing low-grade levee protection and successfully held the flood waters from inundating about 650 acres in the heart of Rock Island. The cost of emergency flood-fighting operations, removal of debris and clean-up amounted to about $947,000. The total damages experi- enced in the city of Rock Island, including the above, amounted to about $3,353,000. These damages would amount to $3,700,000 under current conditions. In event of occunence of the design flood and failure of emergency measures, $10,080,000 in damages would result. Construction of the project would prevent occurrence of these damages. The average annual benefits, all flood control, for the project are estimated at $586,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $300,000 will be applied to — Initiate and complete relocation work on C.R.I. & P. Railroad $2, 000 Initiate construction of levees and floodwalls, stage I 150, 000 Engineering and design 100, 000 Supervision and administration 48, 000 Total 300,000 Funds requested are based on an economical rate of construction with comple- tion scheduled for November 1971. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are to provide the normal requirements of local cooperation and to modify or relocate buildings, utilities, sewers, and other facilities (except railroads) where necessary in the construction of the project. The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $1 million, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $960, 000 Relocations (roads, utilities, and buildings) 40, 000 Total 1,000,000 It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance will total $1,500. In addition, the local interests, following the flood of 1952, constructed low- level floodwalls and levees from 24th Street to 18th Avenue at a total cost of $205,000. In November 1965, local interests completed a project for a seawall along a portion of the riverfront from 18th Street to the Centennial Bridge at a cost of $590,000. These works will be incorporated into the authorized plan of improvement to the extent feasible. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Rock Island, acting through its offi- cials, is the responsible local cooperating agency. The project was discussed with representatives of local interests on several occasions, the latest being February 16, 1967, and the city council on February 20, 1967, passed a resolution ai^prov- ing the plan. The officials of the city of Rock Island have indicated their willing- ness to furnish the necessary local cooperation. Formal assurances will be requested after completion of the general design memorandum. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.— The current Federal cost estimate of $5,250,000 is an increase of $1,250,000 over the late.st estimate ($4 million) sul> mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $72,000 for higher price levels and $1,178,000 due primarily to raising the project design flood profile by 3.6 feet, based on the flood of April 1965 (flood of record) . Major design changes since project authorization. — None. 650 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $2,000 $2,000 Levees and floodwalls 4,563,000 150,000 $4,413,000 Engineering and design _ 1 371, 000 $105,000 $75,800 140,000 50,200 Supervision and administration 314,000 8,700 10,500 58,000 236,800 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 5,250,000 113,700 88,300 350,000 4,700,000 U nd istribu ted costs Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 5,250,000 113,700 86,300 350,000 4,700,000 Pending adjustments _._ _ _._ Total cost (Federal funds only)-.. 5,250,000 113,700 86,300 350,000 4,700,000 Undelivered orders.. _ __ Total obligations.... 113,700 86,300 350,000 4,700,000 Method of financing: Allocations.- 150,000 100,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 36,300 50,000 Total funds available for obligations 136,300 Appropriations required 300,000 4,700,000 • includes $10,000 for real estate activities. Mr, BoL-VND. You are requesting $300,000 to initiate construction on tlie Eock Island, 111., local protection project. Please describe this new start. General Tarbox. This project will provide a high degree of protec- tion against Mississippi River floods for the city of Rock Island, 111., which is located on the left bank of the Mississippi River. The plan of improvement provides for construction of 3i/^ miles of levees and floodwalls along the northern and western side of the city. The proj- ect will protect about 870 acres which have been extensively developed for transportation, public, commercial, and residential purposes. The flood of record occurred in April and May of 1965 and caused damages of $3,353,000. A recurrence of such damages would he prevented by the project. The benefit-to-cost ratio of this project is 2.7 to 1. LOCAL COOPERATION jMr. BoLAND. Do you anticipate any difficulty in regard to local cooperation ? General Tarbox. No, sir. Local interests have actively supported the project and urge that construction be initiated as soon as possible. Our design memorandum has been completed and mc avUI request assurances of local cooperation this month. nUBUQITE, ioava Mr. Boland. $1,600,000 is budgeted to contiime ronsfrnrti(-»n of the Dubuque, Iowa, local protection project. (The justification follows :) Dtbuque, Iowa (Continuing) Location. — Dubuque, in Dubuqtio County, Iowa, is located on tho riffht bank of the Mississippi River opposite tlic boundary lino bctwoon the State? of Illinois and Wisconsin. 651 Authorization- — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio: 1.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amoun percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost _ $11,300,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1 1,220,000 " Cash contribution Other costs __ 1,220,000 ]I Total estimated project cost 12,520,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 375,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 900,000 Allocations to date 1,275,000 ' if Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969.. 1,600,000 25 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. 8,425,000 I In addition, local interests built protective works in the vicinity of the Bee Branch area in 1952 and 1953 at a cost of approximately $285,000. The city has recently extended this protection to Sth St. and has paved the road surface on top of the fill. The cost of this work is not available. PHYSICAL DATA Levees : Average height, 12 feet. Length, 25,500 feet. Floodwalls : Average height, 11 feet. Length, 5,500 feet. Closure structures : 3 sandbag closures. 5 swing gats closures. Harbor closure: 2 miter gates, 42 feet^wide by 37.5 feet liigh. Navigation pass 73 feet. Relocations: Railroads — raise 10,000 feet of track, maximum of 7 feet ($310,000). Pumping stations: 4. Completion schedule: June 1971. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Not started. JUSTIFICATION Tlie project will provide a very high degree of protection against Mississippi River floods for the city of Dubuque, Iowa. The population of the city is 56,606, 1960 census. The area to be protected contains about 1,200 acres and has been extensively developed for transportation, industrial, commercial, public, and residential purposes. These developments located in the heart of the city have been seriously affected during past major floods. Included in the area to be pro- tected are 185 commercial and industrial properties, 800 residences, a large steam- electric generating station, main-line tracks and freight yards of the Illinois Cen- tral Railroad and the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, and a number of public buildings, including schools, churches, and municipal buildings, including the city Water Works. Sections of U.S. Highways Nos. 20 and 61 are located in the area to be protected. Damaging floods occur in the area frequently. The most recent major floods affecting the city occurred in March-April 1951, March-April 1952, and April- May 1965. The 1965 flood was 4.1 feet higher than the pi-evious record flood of 1952. Damages resulting from the floods of 1951 and 1952 amounted to $1,589,000 and $1,741,000, respectively. These damages would amount to $3,065,000 and $3,230,000, respectively, under current conditions. At the time of the record 1965 flood, the city of Dubuque, as well as business and industrial interests, made extreme eft'orts to erect emergency dikes and sandbag barriers. For the most part, these v/orks were successful in preventing flooding in a large developed section of the city and saved several millions of dollars in flood damages. Estimated total damages resulting from this flood for the entire city of Dubuque amounted to $7,654,000, including expenditures of $2,253,000 for emergency flood protection works by public and private interests. Under current conditions and prices the damages would amount to $8,438,000. In the event of occurrence of the design flood and faihu-e of emergency measures, 652 it is estimated that damages in excess of $23,100,000 would result. Construction of the project would eliminate substantially all of the above damages. The average annual benefits for the project, all flood control, are estimated at $798,000. Fiscal year 1969.— TW requested amount of $1,600,000 will be applied to- Complete relocation work on C.M.St.P. & P. Railroad $90, 000 Initiate construction of levees and floodwalls, stage I 1.50, 000 Initiate construction of levees and floodwalls, stage II 150, 000 Continue construction of levees and floodwalls, stage III 980, 000 Continue construction of pumping stations 60, 000 Engineering and design 60, 000 Supervision and administration 110, 000 Total 1, 600, 000 Funds requested are based on an economical rate of construction with comple- tion scheduled for June 1971. Non-Federal costs.- — In addition to normal requirements, local interests are to modify or relocate buildings, utilities, sewers, and other facilities where necessary in the construction of the project, including necessary widening of levees to provide for roadways, and to obtain legal control over pondage areas and prevent encroachment until substitute pondage or increased pumping capacity has been provided at local expense. The investment required of local interests in construc- tion of the authorized project is estimated at $1,220,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $1, 000, 000 Relocations 220, 000 Total 1,220, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance, opera- tion, and replacement pertinent to the new construction will total $35,800. In addition, local interests in 1952 and 1953 built flood protection works in- cluding an embankment formed by Peosta Boulevard between Hawthorn and 16th Streets, a levee which continued downstream and curves landward to r2th Street, and an interior drainage facility consisting of twin 12-foot by 12-foot gated box culverts and a pumping plant, at an estimated cost of $285,000. Recently, the city of Dubuque extended Peosta Boulevard from 16th Street into 9th Street and performed other construction. The cost of this additional work is not available. The Federal project will incorporate the flood protection works built by the city into the proposed plan. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Dubuque, acting through its officials, is the responsible local cooperating agency. The project has been discussed with representatives of local interests and the local cooperation requirements have been reviewed with them. Assurances covering local cooperation requirements were accepted April 27, 1967. Rights-of-way are expected to be made available as required for the construction schedule. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $11,300,000 is an increase of $500,000 over the latest estimate ($10,800,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $260,000 for higher price levels and $300,000 based on more detailed planning, and a decrease of $60,000 for supervision and administration based on a reanalysis of requirements. 653 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) $310,000 8, 540, 000 1,150,000 1665,000 635, 000 11,300,000 11,300,000 Relocations_ Levees and floodwalls, Pumping plant Engineering and design Supervision and administration. Total applied costs (Federal funds only) Undistributed cost _ Total project cost (Federal funds only)_. Pending adjustments.. Total cost (Federal funds only) 11,300,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation. Appropriations required $327,700 25, 300 353,000 $190, 000 370, 000 30, 000 171,000 61,000 822, 000 $120,000 1,350,000 60, 000 60,000 110,000 1,700,000 353, 000 822,000 1.700,000 353, 000 1,000 354, 000 375, 000 822, 000 99, 000 921,000 21,000 921, 000 $6, 820, 000 1,060,000 106,300 438, 700 8, 425, 000 8, 425, 000 '8,425,000 1,700,000 -100,000 1,600,000 8,425,000 1,600,000 8, 425, 000 1 Includes $6,000 for real estate activities. Mr. BoLAND. What is the statiLs of the project and when do yon plan to hiitiate constrnction ? General Tarbox. Sir, we completed plans and specifications for stage 3 in October of 1967. We will advertise on March 18, award in April 1968, and we expect to complete stage 3 in December 1970. Mr. BoLAXD. Stage 3 will be completed in 1970 ? General Tarbox. Yes, sir. SAYLORVILLE RESERVOIR, IOWA Mr. BoLAXD. $6 million is budgeted to continue construction of the Saylorville Keservoir in Iowa. (The JListification follows:) S.WLORViLLE Reservoir, Iowa (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on the Des INIoines River, a tributary of the Mississippi River in Polk, Dallas, and Boone Counties, Iowa, about 7 miles above the city of Des Moines. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost.. Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. Allocations to date Appropriation requested, fiscal year 1969.. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. $48,500,000 48,500,000 8,925,000 4,685,000 13,610,000 28 6, 000, 000 40 28,890,000 654 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rolled earthfill. Height: 120 feet (above streambed). Length: 6,650 feet. Spillwaj^: . ,•.,.. „ Type: Saddle with concrete ogee weir and itraining Avails. Crest length: 430 feet. Design capacity: 196,000 cubic feet per second. Lands and damages: Acres: 24,265. Type: Predominantly agricultm-al. Improvements: Typical farm units. Outlet works: . j ... •,,-.-i,- u • ' i ^ i Type: 22-foot circular gated concrete conduit with stilling basin. and control house. , , , ^ . , . ^ Gates: 3 tractor gates, 19 x 8 feet, operated by electric hoist. Design capacity: 22,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control ^J2' !JS^ Conservation (minimum flow) 75, 000 Total 715,000 Relocations.:::::::::::"" $17. soo, 000 Roads: 13.5 miles 8,400,000 Railroads: Protection for two steel viaducts 3, 800, 000 Cemeteries, utilities, and structures 5, 600, 000 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule ^?l!?rySnV"''' '-'-'-'- f3 DecSl972. ^Si;^";:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"::" b Junej973. feaccess)::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::":::::":::- i™ J-|}9p- Recreation facilities f " ■'""e J/^. Buildings, grounds, and utilities f June \l'^- Permanent operating equipment ia J"ne 19/^. Closure of dam —- -—- J""^ \l'\- Entire pro ect — - ^'^ -"""^ ^^'^• JUSTIFICATION This project and the local protection project^forl^the city of Des Moines, Iowa' will provide a high degree of flood protection for the city of Des Moines, which has apopulationof 209,000 (1960 census). Extensive transportation, industrial, commercial, and residential developments in the flood plain throughout the city have been seriously affected during past major floods. Major floods occurred in June 1947 and June 1954. The resulting damages are estimated at $1,087,000 and $1,402,000, respectively, in the rural and urban areas along the Des Moines River downstream from the damsite to the southeast city limits of Des Moines, Iowa. During the 1947 flood, there were 500 persons disi)laced from their homes and two persons lost their lives by drowning. The 1954 flood forced 1,800 people to evacuate their homes. The foregoing damages are estimated at $2,602,000 and $2,472,000, respectively, under current conditions. The completed project would prevent $2,174,000 of the 1947 flood damages and all of the 1954 flood damages. The most recent flood occurred in April 1965, causing an estimated damage of $820,000, in the reach of the Des Moines River from the damsite through the city of Des Moines, of which amount $800,000 would be prevented by reservoir operation. . ^^ ,. • t ., o , -n In addition to the protection for the city of Des Momcs, Iowa, the baylorville Reservoir will operate in conjunction Avith the Red Rock Reservoir, located downstream from the citv, and will reduce flood crests on the lower Des Moines River and the Mississippi River below the mouth of the Des Moines River. Recreational, fish and wildlife, and water quality control benefits will also be provided. 665 Breakdown of average animal benefits: Flood control $2, COl 800 Recreation ' 375] oqo Water quality control 164 ggo Fish and wildlife I50' OOO Total 3,351,600 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $6,000,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land in reservoir area $2, 256, 000 Continue construction of relocations items \\ 140^ oOO Continue record monumentation in reservoir area 24 000 Continue construction of dam and appurtenances 2, 022^ 000 Continue installation of permanent operating equipment ' 35' 700 Engineering and design 276, 300 Supervision and administration 246^ 000 Total 6,000,000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are based on an economical rate of progress with project completion scheduled for June 1973. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation for the Des Moines local protection project, required prior to initiation of construction on Saylorville Reservoir, v/ere executed by the city of Des Moines and accepted by the District Engineer on June 25, 1964. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $48,500,000 is an increase of $7 million over the latest estimate ($41,500,00UJ submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $932,000 for price level, $6,415,000 based on more advanced planning, and $630,000 on engineering and design and supervision and administration due to i-eanalysis of requirenients; offset in part by a decrease of $977,000 due to a favorable bid. The increase of $6,415,000 for more advanced planning is based primarily on a restudy of county roads to reflect a change in method of reservoir operation, a substantial change in traffic pattern, and on a more detailed estimate for Polk City remedial works. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages.. $10,400,000 $3,730,500 $2,040,000 $2 256 000 S2 373 snn Relocations... 17,800,000 501,300 1,300 1,140,'000 16 157400 Reservoir. _ 435,000 37,700 30,000 24 000 '3/1^' ^nn Dam..... _. 13,700,000 2,114,900 2,096,100 2,022,'o00 7 467 000 Roads .-._ 194,400 142,000 52,400 .. '.to/.uuu Recreation facilities... 400,000 4nn7inn Buildings, grounds, and utilities. 399,000 25,100 900 373000 Permanent operating equipment 378,000 57,200 34,200 35 700 250' irn Engineering and design 2,600,000 1,571,400 400,000 276*300 352300 Supervision and administration... 2,193,600 508,800 266,200 246' 000 1 I7?'finn Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 48,500,000 8,688,900 4,921,100 6,00o'o00 28' 890000 Undistributed costs.- ' ' , , uu Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 48,500,000 8,688,900 4,921,100 ' 6 000 000 28"890'6(in Pending adjustments • . , ,uuu Total cost (Federal funds only) 48,500,000 8,688,900 4,921,100 "e'ooo'ooo 78'Mn"nnn Undelivered orders _. 134,300 -134,300 ' -io, osu, uuu Total obligations 8,823,200 4,786,800 6,000,000 28'890"6no Method of financing: ' ■'"'""" Allocations 8,925,000 4,685,000 U;,obligated carryover from prior year 101,800 .. Total funds available for obligation _ 4,786,800 " Appropriations required.... ''o^m^m""'n]m,'m Mr. BoLAND. Last year supervision and administration and eno-ineer- ing and design costs were increased on this project and agam this year they have been increased by $630,000. Why is this soT 91-459— 68— pt. 1 42 656 General Tarbox. "When our total project costs increased by $1.5 mil- lion last year and $7 million this year, these costs increased alon<>- with them. COST OF COUNTY ROADS jNIr. BoLAXD Explain the cost increase since last year of $6,415,000 based primarily on a restiidy of the county roads involved. General Tarbox. Sir, our general design memorandum was prepared in 1960 and since then there have been many changes. The major changes include approximately $41/^ million due to the addition of a new high-level river crossing because of increased traffic beyond what we had planned on at the time we prepared the general design memo- randum, and $3,726,000 for the diversion of the Big Creek flows to the Saylorville River to protect Polk City. Also, inclucled is $"275,000 for relocation of county roads which are affected by this Big Creek diversion plan. These increases were partially offset by savings of $1,935,000 because we have relocated Highway 415 over the barrier dam. We have also gained a savings of $167,000 by refining our quanti- ties through more detailed plans and specifications in the other items. relocation or cemeteries, utilities, and structures Mr. BoLAND. "What is involved in the relocation item of $5,600,000 for cemeteries, utilities, and structures? General Tarbox. The major part of this, $4,300,000, is for the pro- tection of Polk City by diversion of Big Creek barrier dam. Then there is $400,000 for power and communication line alterations and $870,000 for remedial work for the State park and waterworks and Woodward State Hospital water supply and the water supply for Camp Dodge and Camp Hantesa. BIG stone lake and WHETSTONE RIVER, MINN. AND S. DAK. Mr. Boland. $600,000 is budgeted to continue land acquisition on this project. (The justification follows:) Big STO>fE Lake and Whetstone River, Minnsota and South Dakota (Land acquisition) Location. — The project is located on the Minnesota River in the vicinity of the outlet of Big Stone Lake at the boundary between South Dakota and Minnesota. The project begins in Grant County, S. Dak., and extends easterly into Big Stone and Lac qui Parle Counties, Minn. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — L16 to 1. 657 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $5,240,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1 158,000 Cash contribution 137,000 Other costs _.. 21,000 Total estimated project cost 5,398,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 185.000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 300,000 Allocations to date 485,000 9 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 600,000 21 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 4,155,000 'Construction of a concrete dam and channel Improvement on the Minnesota and Whetstone Rivers was completed i n 1937 at a Federal cost of $237,000 and a cost of $92,000 to the States of Minnesota and South Dakota under the Federal work-relief program. In 1958 the State of Minnesota, v»lth some cost sharing by South Dakota, constructed a sheet-pile silt barrier below the outlet of Big Stone Lake at a cost of $29,650. PHYSICAL DATA Land and damages: Fee: 10,100 acres. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Reservoir capacity: Conservation"": i 5,800 to 23,600 acre-feet. Flood control: 32,200 to 14,400 acre-feet. Total: 38,000 acre-feet. Dam: Type: Eartlifill. Lengtli; 13,864 feet. Height: 22 feet above streambed. Spilhva^r: Type: Concrete with 15 6-footbays of step logs. Length: 96 feet. Big Stone Lake: Raise silt barrier 1 foot. Lower crest of outlet control dam 3 feet and provide 6 feet of stop log control. Cliannel improvement: Minnesota River: 2.9 miles. North of Odessa: 2.3 miles. Bank stabilization: Lower 6-mile reach of Whetstone River 2 miles. Relocations: Road raise: 7,800 feet, $172,000. Railroad track raise: 1 mile, $106,500. Structures: 4,600 feet of dike, $70,500. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Acquisition not started. Completion schedule: March 1971. Other features not presently scheduled. I Requested for fish and wildlife consistent with flood control needs. 658 JUSTIFICATION The Big Stone Lake and Whetstone River project provides for a new dairi and reservoir for wildlife conservation and development, and upstream inprovements above the new reservoir for flood control and recreation. The Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that potentialities of the reservoir provide basic requirements for a natural wildlife refuge now in great need in western ^Minnesota and estimates its worth at $3,750,000. The upstream improvements will control or prevent flooding of the various lakeshore developments on the existing Big Stone Lake. These developments include properties at Ortonville, Minn., and at Big Stone City, S. Dak. High releases from the existing lake following floods result in con- tinuation of flooding a few miles downstream due to limited channel capacities. The destruction of crops and agricultural losses constitute the principal damages from flooding in this short reach below the lake outlet. A recurrence of the 1952 flood of record would cause damages of about $500,000 under current conditions and price levels. After completion of the upstream improvements, these flood damages would be reduced approximateh^ 50 percent. A further benefit will accrue from the project through reduction of silt deposition around the lower end of Big Stone Lake, and by stabilizing the levels of that lake to enhance the recreation potential for fishing, swimming, and camping. Breakdown of average annual benefits: Amount Flood control $21, 200 Recreation 35, 900 Fish and wildlife _.. 154, 800 Total 211,900 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $600,000 will be applied as follows: Continue acquisition of land $540, 000 Engineering and design 50, 000 Supervision and administration 10, 000 Total 600,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for continuing acquisition of reservoir lands to relieve the hardship to the property owners in the project area and to lessen the possibility of land cost escalation. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in constniction of the authorized project is estimated at $158,000 broken down as follows: Lands and damages $21, 000 Cash contribution 137, 000 Total 158, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the upstream channel works and Big Stone outlet dams at an estimated annual cost of $3,900. Construction of a concrete dam and channel improvement on the Minnesota and Whetstone Rivers was completed in 1937 at a Federal cost of $237,000 and a cost of $92,000 to the States of Minnesota and South Dakota under the Fed- eral work-relief program. Li 1958 the State of Minnesota, with some cost shar- ing by South Dakota, constructed a sheet-pile silt barrier below the outlet of Big Stone Lake at a cost of $29,650. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances will be requested after comple- tion of the design memorandum. Watershed districts are existing in both Minnesota and South Dakota. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,240,000 is an increase of $450,000 over the latest estimate ($4,790,000) submit- ted to Congress. This change is based primarily on higher price levels. 659 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current, Budget, Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $2,364,000 $3,000 $245,000 $677,000 $1,439,000 Relocations 349,000 349,000 Reservoirs 61,000 20,000 41,000 Dams -- 1,671,000 1,671,000 Channels 226,000 226,000 Bank stabilization,. _ 247,000 247,000 Engineering and design _ 282,000 140,300 57,000 50,000 34,700 Supervision and administration 177,000 9,700 10,000 10,000 147,300 Total applied cost (Federal funds and , „„„ non-Federal contributions) 5,377,000 153,000 332,000 737,000 4,155,000 Undistributed cost - Total project cost (Federal funds and _.^ „„„ non-Federal contributions) 5,377,000 153,000 332,000 737,000 4,155,000 Pending adjustments -- Total cost (Federal funds and non- , „„„ , ,^^ „„„ Federal contributions) __.. 5,377,000 153,000 332,000 737,000 4,155,000 ^ ^Tota"appiied cost 5,240,000 153.000 332,000 600,000 4,155,000 Undistributed cost - -- .--,-,;,; -;;aa Total project cost 5,240,000 153,000 332,000 600,000 4,155,000 Pending adjustments --- .^.r-;:: Total cost 5,240,000 153.000 332,000 600,000 4,155,000 Undelivered" orders 200 -200 . Total obligations ._. 153,200 331,800 600,000 4,155,000 Non-Federal contributions: Total applied cost 137,000 137,000 Undistributed cost - ,--:;-a;;a" " Total project cost... 137,000 - 137,000 Pending adjustments - ---rzz---- Totalcoit 137,000 ---. 137,000 Undelivered orders - - v-i~nnn Total o')lig=itions 137,000 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations 185,000 300,000 -. Unobligated carryover from prior year 31,800 .-- Total funds available for obliga- tion ---- 331,800 Appropriations required 600,000 4,155,000 Non-Federal contributions; Contributions - Unobligated carryover from prior year -- 13/,0UU Total funds available for obliga- Contributioris required 137,000 Mr. BoLAND. This is a local flood protection project. What is the status of the project, which was a new land acquisition start for the current year? General Tarbox. Sir, we are in the design stage and preparing to procure the real estate that is provided for in this budget request. We plan on procuring lands that are at and in the vicinity of Highway 75 dam first in order to be prepared to initiate construction at the earliest practicable date when construction funds are appropriated. Then the next priority will be to acquire lands required for reloca- tions and for the channel improvement. Then we will continue with tlie acquisition of other lands in the lower reach of the reservoir. 660 LOCAL COOPERATION Mr. BoLAND. What is the status of local cooperation on the project 'i General Tarbox. An existing watershed district in South Dakota has indicated they will comply Avith local cooperation. A watershed district has been formed in Minnesota but appeals are being taken in the courts. We expect that the court will hear these appeals in April and, from what we know of them, we feel there will be no problem in completing the formation of that district. Our St. Paul district is proceeding with the preliminary work pend- ing the outcome of the appeals. Both of the watershed districts do have funds for this local cooperation. ]Mankato and North Mankato, Minn. Mr. BoLAND. $500,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Mankato and North Mankato local protection project in Minnesota. (The justification follows:) Mankato and North Mankato, Minn. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on the Minnesota River at Mankato, North Mankato, and Le Hillier, which are in Nicollet and Blue Earth Counties in south-central Minnesota. Authorization. — 1958 and 1965 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967. Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $8,550,000 1327,000 327,000 8,877,000 322,000 150,000 472, 000 6 500,000 11 7,578,000 1 In addition, local interests in both Mankato and North Mankato constructed levees following the 1951 flood (at a cost of about $209,000. Emergency levees were constructed during the 1965 flood at a cost of about $2,365,000. Also, the city of Mankato, in an attempt to relieve damages from a future flood which might occur before a Federal project is constructed, has built permanent levees in certain areas at an estimated cost of about $315,000. PHYSICAL DATA Mankato North Mankato Le Hillier Levees (feet)... 6,400 Floodwall (feet) 4,700 Closure structures 1 Sandbag closures 2 Pumping stations: New 3 Modify 2 12,000 5.500 6,400 1 2 3 1 Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule. — June 1972. mi JUSTIFICATION The project will provide protection for an urban population of over 30,000. The principal occupation in surrounding areas is agriculture and many of the main Industrie's in Mankato and North Mankato are concerned with serving farm ne(>ds or manufacturing and processing agricultural products. P>equent and severe flooding occurs during the spring as a result of snow melt and in the summer following periods of heavy rainfall. The maximum flood of record occurred in April 1965 causing the evacuation of over 6,000 persons and causing estimated damages in the project area of $5,800,000 in spite of flood-fighting efforts on the part of local interests. In addition, estimated damages of $1,100,000, including the cost of a flood fight, were sustained at Le Hillier. Under current conditions and at present prices estimated damages of $19,960,000 at Mankato and North ]\Iankato and $1,002,000 at Le Hillier would have occurred without the flood- fighting efforts of local interests. These estimated damages could be prevented by the project. The stage of this flood was slightly less than the previously known greatest flood (not of record) in 1881. The average annual benefits of this project, all flood control, are estimated at $419,500. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $500,000 will be applied as follows: Continue construction of North Mankato improvements $300, 000 Engineering and design 160, 000 Supervision and administration 40, 000 Total 500,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are based upon an orderly rate of con- struction progress for the North Mankato unit with completion of the entire project scheduled for June 1972. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $327,000 broken down as follows: Item Mankato North Le Hillier Total Mankato Construction of levees '$164,000 $164 000 Removal of Blue Earth River Dam 14,000 14*000 Land and damages 14,000 $80,000 $55,000 '" 149*000 Total 192,000 80,000 55,000 327,000 < Sec. 207 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 provides that the original authorization be modified to credit local interests against their required contribution for work done in accordance with the authorized project. The estimated value of this credit is $164,000. Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project after com- pletion at an estimated average annual cost of $15,800 for Mankato, $14,000 for North Mankato, and $6,100 for Le Hillier, a total of $35,900. In addition, local interests in both Mankato and North Mankato constructed levees following the 1951 flood at a cost of about $209,000. Emergency levees were constructed during the 1965 flood at a cost of about $2,365,000. Local cooperalion. — Formal assurances will be requested after completion of revised design memoranda. Resolutions agreeing to provide formal assurances of local cooperation when requested to do so were passed by the city councils of North Mankato and Mankato on May 17 and June 2, 1965, respectively. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $8,550,000 is an increase of $3,350,000 over the latest estimate ($5,200,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $1,531,000 for Mankato, $1,096,000 for North Mankato, and $38,000 for Le Hillier due to more detailed designs based on extending and revising levee alinement, eliminating channel work, adding flood walls, and increasing pumping capacity; $567,000 for reanalysis of requirements of engineering and design for added studies primarily as a result of the 1965 flood and $118,000 for supervision and administration based on re- analysis of requirements. 662 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Mankato unit: Channels Levees and floodwalls Pumping plants Engineering and design Supervision and administration Subtotal, IVlankato unit Mortfi Mankato unit: Levees and floodw/alls Pumping plants Engineering and design Supervision and administration Subtotal, North IVlankato unit Le Hillier unit: Levees and floodwalls Pumping plants Engineering and design Supervision and administration Subtotal, Le Hillier unit Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost _ Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing; Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year __ Total funds available for obligation. .. Appropriations required $71,000 2,112,000 906. 000 1 460, 000 211.000 3,760,000 1,966,000 739, 000 2 400, 000 175,000 3, 280, 000 1,025,000 213,000 3 190, 000 82, 000 1,510,000 8, 550, 000 $147,700 9,800 157,500 138, 900 9,900 148, 800 8,800 500 9,300 315.600 $400 100 500 41,100 4.100 45,200 400 100 500 46,200 8, 550, 000 315,600 46, 200 8, 550, 000 315,600 200 315,800 321,800 45.200 -200 46, 000 150, 000 6,000 156, 000 $99. 000 10,000 109,000 300, 000 50. 000 120,000 30, 000 500. 000 900 100 1,000 610,000 610,000 '610,000" 'eio.'ooo' 110,000 '500,"000" $71,000 2,112,000 906, 000 212,900 191,100 3,493,000 1,666,000 689, 000 100, 000 131,000 2. 586, 000 1,025,000 213,000 179,900 81,300 1.499,200 7,578,200 7,578,200 '7,"578,'266 7.578,200 7, 578, 200 ' Includes $8,000 for real estate activities. 2 Includes $6,000 for real estate activities. 3 Includes $3,000 for real estate activities. Mr. BoLAXD. What is the present status of the project? General Tarbox. Sir, we completed our general design memorandum and submitted it last fall. It is just about ready to be approved so that we can continue with the development of plans and specifications. "We plan to award the first contract for the work in March of 1969. This will enable us to complete that section of the work in June of 1971. INCREASE IN COST Mr. BoLAXD. The committee notes that there has been a very large cost increase since the latest estimate to Congress. That increase comes to some $3,350,000. What is the reason for 'this? General Tarbox. Sir, the bulk of it, $2,665,000, results from more detailed plans and estimates based on extending and revising the levee alinement, eliminating some channel work and, where necessary, add- ing floodwalls and increasing the pumping capacity of the i)ump stations. Then about half a million dollars is due to roanalysis of our engineering and design costs. I.A FAROE RESERVOIR AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, KICKAPOO RIVER, WIS. Mr. BoEAND. $700,000 is budgeted to continue land acquisition on the La Farge Reservoir and channel improvement project in Wisconsin. (The justification follows :) 663 La Farge Reservoir and Channel Improvement, Kiokapoo River, Wis. (Land acquisition) Location. — The Kickapoo River is a tributary of the Wisconsin River in south- western Wisconsin. The project provides for construction of a dam and reservoir above La Farge, in Vernon County, Wis., levees and supplemental protection at Soldiers Grove and Gays Mills, both in Crawford County, and improvement of downstream channel at selected points. Avthorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution _ _ Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested tor fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $20,200,000 362,000 _ -- 362,000 20,562,000 -- - 811,000 - 300,000 1,111,000 6 700,000 9 18,389,000 physical data Land acquisition: Fee: 9,665 acres. Easement: 46S acres. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Conservation 33, 000 Flood control 91,000 Total 124,000 Dam: Type: Rolled earthfill. Length at crest: 3,960 feet. Maximum height above stream bed: 103 feet. Spillway : Type: Uncontrolled, fixed crest. Length at crest: 500 feet. Design capacity: 125,000 cubic feet per second. Outlet works: Type: Circular conduit, gate controlled. Conduit diameter: 7 feet. Capacity at spillway crest: 1,600 cubic feet per second. Two gates: 3 feet by 7 feet. Channels: Downstream channel enlargement: 14.5 miles. Relocations: $8,090,000. Roads: 29.1 miles, $7,870,000. Utilities: $220,000. Soldiers Grove improvements: Levees: 6,070 feet. Pumping plants: 2. Gay Mills improvements: Levees: 6,000 feet. Pumping plants: 2. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Acquisition not started. Completion schedule: June 1972. Other features of project not currently scheduled. 664 JUSTIFICATION The Kickapoo River ^'alley, predominantly an agricultural area with a popula- tion of about 24,000, is subject to a destructive flood practically every year. Quite frequently two floods are experienced in a single year, one during the spring breakup and another during the growing season. Large floods occurred in the years 1907, 1912, 1917, 1935, 1950, 1951, 1956, 1959, 1961, 1962, and 1966. The chief cliaracteristics of these flood.s are their rapid rise, sliort duration, and almost as rapid subsidence. The total area subject to flooding below La Farge Dam approximates 13,000 acres, and is comprised largely of agricultural lands but includes villages of La Farge, Viola, Readstown, Soldiers Grove, Gays Mills, and Steuben. About 25 bridges and about 50 miles of State and local highways are also subject to flooding. Estimated damages if equivalent floods occurred at the present time without the project in operation would amount to about $1,812,000 for the 1935 flood, $763,000 for the 1950 flood, $2,657,000 for the 1951 flood, $924,000 for the 1956 flood, $1,575,000 for the 1959 flood, $1,588,000 for the 1961 flood, $1,038,000 for the 1962 flood, and $1,672,000 for the 1966 flood. Estimated damages from the 1907, 1912, and 1917 floods are not available. Average annual flood damages are esti- mated to be $886,000. BREAKDOWN OF AVERAGE ANNUAL BENEFITS Item La Farge Dam and Reservoir Soldiers Grove levees Gays Mills levees Total $666, 900 934, 900 $32, 500 $43, 700 $743. 100 934,900 41,000 41,000 Flood control.. Recreation Fish and wildlife Total.. 1,642,800 32,500 43,700 1,719,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $700,000 will be applied as follows: Continue acquisition of land $433, 000 Engineering and design 250, 000 Supervision and administration 17, 000 Total 700, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for continuing acquisition of reservoir lands to lessen the possibility of land cost escalation. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project for improvements at Soldiers Grove and Gays Mills is estimated at $362,000 broken down as follows: Soldiers Grove Gays Mills Total Lands and damages $80,000 Relocations 135,000 Ponding areas $37, 000 $117,000 85, 000 220, 000 25, 000 25,000 Total 215,000 147,000 362,000 The annual cost to local interests of maintenance and operation and major replacement is $2,000 for Soldiers Grove and $2,000 for Gays Mills, a total of $4,000. Status of local cooperation. — No local cooperation is required for the La Farge Reservoir. Formal assurances will be requested for Soldiers Grove and Gays Mills after completion of design memorandiun for those luiits. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $20,200,000 is an increase of $1,700,000 over the latest estimate ($18,500,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $1,723,000 for lands and damages, $3,330,000 for relocations, and $2,138,000 for embankment and reservoir based on an increase in tlie flood control pool elevation on La Farge Reservoir, $157,000 for increased pumping capacities for the local improvement works at Soldiers Grove and Gays Mills, and $104,000 based on a reanalysis of recjuirements for engineering and design and supervision and administration. 665 Those increases were partially offset by a decrease on La Farge Reservoir of $5,410,000 for an imgated, rock-cut spillway in lieu of a gate-controlled concrete spillway; and $342,000 for minor design changes. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) La Farge Dam and Reservoir unit: Lands and damages. $3,450,000 8, 090, 000 302, 000 4,260,000 50, 000 590,000 660, 000 38, 000 1,210,000 492, 000 Relocations. Reservoirs Dams Roads Channels Recreation facilities Buildings and grounds Engineering and design Supervision and administration. Subtotal, La Farge unit 19,142,000 Soldiers Grove unit 565,000 Gays Mills unit 493,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only). . 20, 200, 000 Und istributed cost.. Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 20,200,000 Pending adjustments. Total cost (Federal funds only) 20,200,000 Undelivered orders. _.. Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year. _ Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required $29, 400 50, 000 612,400 47, 500 739, 300 739,300 $286,600 74,600 10,000 371,200 371,200 739,300 371,200 739,300 4,400 743,700 810,500 371,200 -4,400 366, 800 300,000 66,800 366, 800 $415,000 18,000 250, 000 17,000 700, 000 700, 000 $2,719,000 8, 090, 000 234,000 4,260,000 50, 000 590, 000 660, 000 38, 000 273,000 417,500 17,331,500 565, 000 493, 000 18,389,500 700,000 18,389,500 '76o,"o6o i8,"389,"566 '766,"666 i8,'389,'500 700,000 18,389,500 LAND ACQUISITIOX Mr. BoLAND. What is the status of the project, which was a new land acquisition start for the current year? When do you plan to initiate land acquisition ? General Tarbox. Sir, we are in the planning stage. Our general de- sign memorandum was completed in February 1968. Our design memo- randum for real estate was completed in December of last year. We are planning the initiation of land acquisition and we will be able to start negotiations in August of this year with landowners, with initial land payments in October of this year. Mr. BoLAND. We will insert the balance of the justifications imder construction. Horse Island and Crescent Bridge (Mississippi River), Illinois and Iowa (Continuing) Location. — The work is located in Mississippi River Pool No. 16, adjacent to Rock Island County, 111., and Scott County, Iowa, in the immediate vicinity of Rock Island, 111., and Davenport, Iowa, and is an integral and minor part of the Mississippi River 9-foot channel project. Authorization. — 1930 and 1935 River and Harbor Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — Not applicable. 666 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amoun Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost_-_ Estimated non-Federal cost- _. Cashi contributions. Other costs Total estimated project cost_. Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date,_ Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $2,470,000 2,470,000 600,000 275,000 875,000 35 575, 000 59 1,020,000 ._ PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Horse Island: Deepen 4.1 miles of existing rock channel to provide adequate clearance for safe navigation. Crescent Bridge: Remove rock ledge which projects into channel immediately upstream from the bridge. STATUS (JAN. 1,1968) Percent completed Completion schedule Channels: Crescent Bridge, remove rock ledge. Horse Island, stage I Horse Island, stage II Tota I p reject July 1968. 60 June 1968. September 1970. 23 Do. JUSTIFICATION The Horse Island and Crescent Bridge reaches have long presented hazards to safe, economical operation of the 9-foot channel in Mississippi River Pool No. 16. Traffic through Lock No. 16 for 1966 was 13,028,500 tons, consisting primarily of coal, grain, and petroleum, with other cargoes of cement, chemicals, fertilizer, gravel, inolasses, rock, salt, sand, scrap iron, soybean oil, and miscel- laneous merchandise. Horse Island. — ^At the time of the 9-foot channel construction, about 30 years ago, v\'hen the towboats were generally of the paddle wheel type, the rock excavation in this reach was limited to those areas of less than 9-foot depth. The channel is less than 400 feet wide and in places barely 9-foot project d(>pth. Opi^rators of present-day high-powered, multiple-screw, propeller-type boats witli the longer tows find it impossible to navigate this channel propeiiy at low stages and frequently are grounded or damaged on the sharp edges of the cut or by displaced rock on the channel bottom. Buoys marking the chaimel are repeatedly knocked off station or destroyed by tows endeavoring to negotiate this relatively crooked channel. Buoy anchor weights from these missing markers then constitute an additional hazard. Ice action is severe in this reach. Without over-depth to act as a receptacle for rock so moved, that rock which is deposited on the 9-foot depth constitutes a definite hazard. Movement of rock and other loo.se material by propeller action also has the same eventual effect in tlie more; shallow areas. Sweeping operations are required to locate the obstructions for removal, thereby increasing the project maintenance costs. The State of Illinois has retained DeLeuw, Cather & Co. who is preparing contract drawings for Interstate Route 280 over the Mississippi River at approxi- mately Mile 478.3, which is located in the Horse Island reach. The Bureau of Public Roads requested that all blasting in connection with rock removal in vicinity of the bridge location be accomplished prior to construction of the bridge piers. Excavation in the 1-280 bridge area has been completed. Crescent Bridge. — In this area, a rock ledge at a depth of as little as 7 feet below average pool extends out into the navigation cliannel immediately above and adjoining the Davenport, Rock Island and Noi'tliwestern Kailwaj- bridge. 667 The rock ledge prevents pkiciug the sheer boom in its normal position extending upstream from (he Illinois rest pier of the swing span without unduly decreasing the already restrictive op(!iiing provided by the swing span. Navigation has been forced to pass through this bridge without the protection and assistance afforded b}' a sheer boom, an extremely hazardous situation for both tows and the bridge. Frequently, wind condit'ons add greatly to the problem, particularly for down- bound loaded tows of which there is an increasingly large number each season. Tows have repeatedly suffered damage on the rock point despite warning buoy placement. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amovuit of $57."), 000 will be applied to — Complete Crescent Bridge channel work .$10, 500 Initiate Hor.se Island channel work, stage II 540, 000 Engineering and design 2, 400 Supervision and administration 22, 100 Total 575, 000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are based on an orderly and economical rate of construction, with completion scheduled for September 1970. Noil-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None required. '^ Comparisoii of Federal cost estimates. — -The current Federal cost estimate of $2,470,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Tola! to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels -- $2,190,000 $70,500 $589,000 $550,500 $980,000 Engineering and design 150,000 137,600 8,000 2,400 2,000 Supervision and administration 130,000 37,800 32,100 22,100 38,000 Total applied costs (Federal funds only).. 2,470,000 245,900 629,100 575,000 1,020,000 Undistributed cost. ..- Total project cost (Federal funds only)..-. 2,470,000 245,900 629,100 575,000 1,020,000 Pending adjustments. Total cost (Federal funds only) 2,470,000 245,900 629,100 575,000 1,020,000 Undelivered orders 329,500 -329,500 _ Total obligations 575,400 299,600 575,000 1,020,000 Method of financing: Allocations 600,000 275,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 24,600 _ Total funds available for obligation 299,600 Appropriations required... 575,000 1,020,000 Illinois Waterway, Caltjmet-S.\g Modification, Illinois and Indiana, Part I (Continuing) Location. — In northeastern Illinois. Part I of the Calumet-Sag modification of the Illinois Waterway extends from Sag Junction (approximately 12 miles above Lockport) via the Calumet-Sag Channel and the Little Calumet and Calumet Rivers to Turning Basin No. 5 near the entrance to Lake Calumet, a distance of 23.8 miles. Authorization. — 1945, 1946, and 1958 River and Harbor Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — -2.6 to 1 (pt. I only). 668 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost i $86, 000, 000 ,.., Estimated non-Federal cost -.- 2 11,500,000 Cash contribution Other costs 11,500,000 Total estimated projectcost 197,500.000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 68,701.000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 3,162,000 Allocations to date 71,863.000 84 Appropriation requested forfiscal year 1969 - 5,350,000 90 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 8,787,000 ' Excludes deferred construction costs of $15,000. 2 In addition, local interests have expended approximately $41,300,000 in constructing or improving channels and terminal facilities. PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Enlarge Calumet-Sag Channel from Sag Junction to Blue Island Lock, a distance of 16.2 miles, from 60 to 225 feet in width by 9 feet in depth, and widen Acme Bend at mile 321 and enlarge Turning Basin No. 5 at Junction of Lake Calumet and Calumet River. Lock: 110 feet bv 1,000 feet; lift of o feet. Guide walls: 1,000 feet long. Relocations : Railroad: QIain channel bridges, 18; supplemental approach structures, 13; total structures, 31; $38,022,000. Highway: 17 highway bridges, $12,276,000. Dam: 570 feet long, including earth dike 350 feet long and steel sheet pile section 220 feet long. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Dredging in Calumet-Sag Channel: 1st 3 miles, sec. 1 100 Mile 306.5 to 309.6, sec. 2 100 Mile 309.6 to 313.5, sec. 3 100 Mile 313.5 to 317.0, sec. 4. 100 Mile317.0to319.7, sec. 5.. 39 March 1970. Acme Bend. - 72 February 1971. Turning basin No. 5 100 Channel widening at bridge sites 22 December 1970. Highway bridges, reconstruction 58 March 1971. Relocation of railroad bridges. 78 June 1971. Channel walls 100 Construction of Calumet River lock.. 100 Removal of Blue Island lock 100 Controldam December 1969. Parti - 77 June 1971. JUSTIFICATION The Illinois Waterway is an important link in the Nation's inland waterway system connecting the Great Lakes with the Mississippi River sy.stem. Improve- ments to the Calumet-Sag Channel and adjoining channels are providing channel dimensions and bridge clearance which will permit large, modern-sized tows to o])erato and sei-ve tlie large industrial area of the Calumet region, with its great concentration of heavy industry, together with the exchange of cargo in Lake Calu- met with deep-draft vessels of the Great Lak(;s. The region through which the Calumet-Sag route passes is steadily developing. The Chicago Regional Port Authority has constructed a large modern harbor in Lake Calumet for the handling of lake and barge cargo. Two grain elevators, each with a capacity of 6.5 million bushels, a large warehouse, three transit sheds, two docks, and rail and highway facilities have been constructed at a cost of $24,000,000, and private interests have expended $8,000,000 for liipiid and dry bulk st,orage facilities. Railway facilities and highways have been improved. Industrial expansion in the area of the Calu- met-Sag project in recent years amounted to about $146,000,000. including $57,- 000,000 for iron and steel production, $36,000,000 for oil and chemicals, $28,000,- 000 for general manufacturing and ])roduction, and $25,000,000 for docks and 669 tmniual improvoiiieuts. In order thai the development of this exceedingly im- portant industrial area may not be hampered, and that local authorities may have a sound and tangible basis upon which to plan, it is of ma or importance that con- struction be completed as aoon as practicable. • j <.i ^ Evidence of the need for the project is the rapid growth of tonnage earned on the C'llumet-Sag Channel. Commerce has increased from 1,0()(),U0() tons in 1945 to an average of about 5,0U0,0()0 tons for the last 5 years, in si)ite of the narrow bO- foot channel and the restricted bridge clearance which limit tows to one or two barU,- ' Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $5,350,000 will be applied to— Continue widening and deepening at mile 317.0 to 319.7 (sec. 5) $1, 5(20, 000 Continue channel widening at bridges ->'0, UUU Reconstruction of the following highway bridges: Continue Indiana Avenue o ''' ^^J^ Complete Francisco Avenue i''^- ''^ ^ Continue Ridgeland Avenue 2ii' ]}y^ Continue 127th Street -. ^ t'A' c!Xa Contuuie Illinois Central Railroad br dge reconstruction - i, ^'4.^, uuu Deferred construction— K&E, Pennsylvania, Chicago & Western In- diana Railroad bridges and Blue Island group of railroad bridges.. M, OUU Engineerhig and design i"^^ Supervision and administration ooo. uuw Total 5,350.000 The amount requested is based on an orderly and economical rate of construc- tion with completion of project by June 1971 as scheduled. COMPLETED WORK CALUMET-SAG MODIFICATIOX None. REMAINING WORK CALUMET-SAG MODIFICATION (PARTS II, III) Work to complete part II of the Calumet-Sag modification includes: Channels: Enlarge the channel along the general route of the Grand C alumet River to 225 feet in width bv 9 feet in depth, from its junction witji the Little Calumet River to and in the Indiana Harbor Canal to 141st Street, bast Chicago, Indiana, a distance of 7.0 miles. Lock: Construction of a lock with a chamber 110 feet wide by 1,000 feet long m the Grand Calumet River west of the Indiana Harbor Canal. Relocations: (a) Relocate nine railroad bridges over the channels. (5) Relocate eight highwav bridges, none at Federal expense. _ The estimated Federal cost of the remaining work in part II summanzed above is $38,500,000. ^ ^ .-^ .■ ■ x a ■ Further work to complete part III of the Calumet-Sag modificat-on includeb. Channels: A channel from the controlling works to the junction with the t alumet- Sag Channel, 225 feet in width by 9 feet in depth, a distance of 10..) miles. Dams: Replace emergency dam (controlling works) above Lockport, 111. Relocations: Modification to permit future conversion t^o lift of five highway bridges which are to be constructed by local interests as fixed spans. No railroad bridges are scheduled for relocation in this section. The estimated Federal cost of the remaining work summarized above in pait III is $22,400,000. , , . . , . , Non-Federal costs.— The cost to local interests of complying with requirements of local cooperation is as follows: Parti Part II Part III /., . ^. $4 375,000 $140,000 $450,000 (a) Lands and damages ? i Rfi nnn S 120 000 (b) Relocation of railroad bridges - I'^sinnn ^3 740*000 "ll'SSO'oOO (c) Relocation of highway bridges - f • ^?HXn ■^^-'""•""'J ij.ddu.uuu (d) Relocation of utilities - i.joa.uuu - -- J^^^^ _ _ 11,500,000 39,000.000 14,000,000 670 In addition, local interests have expended about $16,200,000 in constructing or improving channels which form a useful part of the project and $25,100,000 for docks and terminal facilities. Status of local cooperation.- — Formal assurances have been received for all re- quired local cooperation, and local interests are fulfilling the requirements as construction proceeds. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $86 million is an increase of $1 million over the latest estimate ($85 million) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $566,000 for higher price levels and $498,000 based on more detailed plans and estimates for reloca- tions and a decrease of $64,000 based on reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations - $50,298,000 $36,564,500 $1,872,500 $4,589,000 $7,272,000 Locks '"" 7,293,000 7,182,700 27,000 83,300 Canals -- 19,056,000 13,002,700 2,641,300 2,392,000 1,030,000 Engineering and design 14.725,000 4,553.200 111,800 25,000 30,000 Supervision and administration ._.. 4,618,000 3.648,300 232,500 366,000 371,200 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 86,000,000 64,956,400 4,885,100 7,372,000 8,786,500 Undistributed cost 16,100 -16,100 Total project cost (Federal funds only)-. 86,000,000 64,972,500 4,869,000 7,372,000 8,786,500 Pending adjustments - Total cost (Federal funds only) 2 86,000,000 64,972,500 4,869,000 7,372,000 8,786.500 Undelivered orders 2,698,500 -676,500 -2,022,000.... Total obligations (Federal funds only).. 67.671,000 4,192,500 5,350,000 8,786,500 Method of financing: Allocations 68,701,500 3,162,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year - - 1,030,500 Total funds availabfe tor obligation 4,192,500 Appropriations required - 5,350,000 8,786,500 1 Includes $25,000 for real estate activities. - Excludes deferred construction costs of $15,000. S.iGiNAW River, Michig.\n (Continuing) Location. — The Saginaw River, located in the east center part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan is formed by the union of the Tittabawassee and Shiawas- see Rivers. The river, about 22 miles long, flows in a northerly direction from Saginaw, Mich., to its outlet in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron. Authorization — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $6,670,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) - 65,000 Estimated non-Federal cost.. ' 145,000 Cash contribution. - ,,^ „„0 Other - - 145,000 Total estimated project cost ^'^^S'SSS Allocations to June 30, 1967 1^0,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ---- , ^^S'SSS Allocationsto date - i'lSS^S ^^ Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 2,500,000 58 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 2,790,000 1 In addition local interests have incurred costs of $438,000 in development of this harbor and vi^ill incur additional costs of $120 000 in connection with deepening the river channel betv^een the D. & Wl. RR. bridge and the NYC bridge under the 1965 River and Harbor Act. They have also constructed docks and bulkheads and dredged berthing areas, the cost of which is not available. 671 PHYSICAL DATA Channels : Deepen and extend Bay Channel from the angle in the channel near the river mouth to the 27-foot depth contour in Saginaw Bay for a distance of approximately 14 miles and a depth of 27 feet. Deepen the approach channel to 26 feet from the angle to the river mouth a distance of 2,000 feet. Deepen river channel to 25 feet from the river mouth to the Detroit and Mackinac Railway Bridge a distance of about 3 miles. Deepen river channel to 22 feet, upstream from the Sixth Street Bridge in Saginaw for a distance of 5,100 feet. Turning Basins: Deepen existing Essexville Turning Basin to a depth of 25 feet over a width of 600 feet, including a 500-foot-long triangular extension at down- stream end. Dredge a new turning basin 22 feet deep and 650 feet wide with an area of about 6.2 acres in the vicinity of the airport at about mile 8.8 on the east side of the channel. Dredge a new turning basin 20 feet deep and 650 feet wide with an area of about 6.2 acres above Sixth Street at about mile 17.5. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Alrportturning basin 100 Essexville turning basin and river channel to 100 D. & M. railroad bridge. River channel from Essexville turning basin to September 1968. C.S. 0+00. Outer Bay Channel November 1968. River channel from 6th St. to U.S. end of 22-foot- December 1969. depth improvement including new turning basin above 6th St. Inner Bay Channel June 1970. Entire project 3 Do^ JUSTIFICATION There has been a substantial increase of waterborne commerce handled on the Saginaw River in the past 10 years and in 1966 the amount of tonnage was 7,243,- 000. Coal, limestone, petroleum products, sand, grain, cement, pig iron, and scrap metal are the principal commodities handled by the lake vessels with coal and limestone comprising about 75 percent of the 1966 total. Overseas commerce on the Saginaw River developed rapidly with the opening of the Seaway and con- sists mainly of bulk cargo receipts of benzol, while shipments consigned to foreign ports consists mainly of iron and steel scrap and chemical products. Present depths are inadequate to permit the use of modern lake vessels and larger ocean going vessels using the Great Lakes Connecting Channels and St. Lawrence Seaway. Deepening the existing channels and turning basin and constructing two new turning basins will permit the use of larger vessels for both domestic and overseas commerce resulting in considerable savings in transportation cost. In addition, the turning basins will provide for easier navigation. Average annual benefits, all navigation, for the project are estimated at $490,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,500,000 will be applied as follows — Continue deepening of the inner bay channel (C.S. + 00 to C.S. 350 + 00) $1,670,000 Complete deepening of the outer bay channel (C.S. 350+00 to 27- foot contour) 470, 000 Complete deepening of River Channel from Essexville Turning Basin to C.S. + 00 50, 000 Initiate deepening of river channel above Sixth Street 160, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 140, 000 Total 2, 500, 000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for orderly construction progress with completion in fiscal year 1970. 91-459— 68— pt. 1 43 672 COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS Under the 1910, 1930, 1937, 1938, and 1954 River and Harbor Acts, the river has been dredged to depths of 22 and 24 feet to the mouth and 24 feet in the bay, at a cost of $7,755,000. REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS The 1965 River and Harbor Act provides for deepening the existing channel from the NYC Bridge in Bay City downstream through the Detroit and Mackinac Railway Bridge from 22 to 25 feet at an estimated cost of $320,000. Funds for planning and construction have been provided; construction is underway and will be completed in May 1968. Non-Federal costs. — The estimated cost to local interests for modification of existing berthing areas, submarine utility relocation and dike construction for spoil disposal areas is $145,000. The estimated cost to local interests of complying with the requirements of local cooperation on other project modifications is $558,000. In addition, local interests have constructed docks and bulkheads and dredged berthing ai'eas, the cost of which is not available. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of local cooperation were pro- vided by the Michigan State Waterways Commission, the local cooperating agency, and the assurances were accepted by the District Engineer on 5 August 1966. Rights-of-way were furnished for the airport and Essexville turning basins. Comparison of Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $6,670,000 is an increase of $250,000 over the latest estimate ($6,420,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $250,000 for higher price levels, $78,000 for engineering and design due to spoil disposal problems which required extensive additional investigations and negotiations for the location of adequate spoil disposal areas and $17,000 for supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements. Tliese in- creases were offset in part by a decrease of $95,000 due to receipt of favorable bids. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels - - $6,005,000 $19,500 $1,003,000 $2,350,000 $2,632,500 Engineering'and design::'- '285,000 217.900 57,100 10,000 Supervision and administration 380,000 19,800 62,700 140,000 157,500 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers fundsonly) ----- -- 6,670,000 257,200 1,122,800 2,500,000 2,790,000 Undistributed cost- - - Total project cost (Corps of Engineers fundsonly) ------ -- 6,670,000 257,200 1,122,800 2.500,000 2,790,000 Pending adjustments - - Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds onv) — 6,670,000 257,200 1,122,800 2,500,000 2,790,000 Undelivere'd'o'rde'rs:... - - 241,800 -241,800 Totalobligations - - 499,000 881,000 2,500,000 2,790,000 Method of financing, Federal funds: Allocations -- - 780,000 600,000 Unobligated carry over from prior year - - 281, OUU Total funds available for obligation - 881,000 Appropriations required 2,500,000 2,790,000 1 Includes $5,000 for real estate activities. Clevel.and Harbor, Ohio (Continuing) Location. — -Cleveland Harbor is located on the south*shore"of LakeJErie at the mouth of Cuyahoga River. Authorization. — 1958 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 5.0 to 1. 673 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $13,200,000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' 9,900,000 Cash contribution Other costs 9,900,000 Total estimated project cost 23,100,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 4,017,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. Allocations to date 4,017,000 30 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1,500,000 42 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 7,683,000 i|n addition, local interests have incurred costs of $14,285,000 for development of this harbor for prior work. They have also constructed docks, wharves, storage, and handling facilities, the costs of which are not available. PHYSICAL DATA Relocations: Railroads: 2 bridges, $9,121,000. Replacement of Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Bridge No. 19 across Cuj'a- hoga River, The present bilscule two-track bridge with a clear channel width of 117 feet to be replaced by a new vertical lift one-track bridge with a horizontal clearance to navigation of 208 feet. Replacement of Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Bridge No. 32 across Old River. The present bascule one-track bridge with a clear channel width of 190 feet to be replaced by a new vertical lift one-track bridge with a hor- izontal clearance to navigation of 275 feet. Roads: 1 bridge, $2,454,000. Replacement of City of Cleveland WUlow Avenue Highway Bridge No. 33 across Old River. The old swing two-land bridge with a clear channel width of 137 feet was replaced by a vertical lift two-lane bridge with a horizontal clearance to navigation of 290 feet. Channels: Widen Cuyahoga River at Cut No. 11 and Old River. Deepen to 27 feet the remainder of lower Cuyahoga River from Bridge No. 1 to and including Old River. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Replacement of bridge No. 33 Completed Other relocations and channel deepening Not started June 1972. JUSTIFICATION Cleveland is an important manufacturing, transportation, and wholesale distribution center for the north-central part of Ohio. The greatest portion of the commerce at the harbor is comprised of receipts of iron ore and limestone from the upper lake ports. Total waterborne commerce for 1966 was 24,021,000 tons consisting of 17,437,000 tons of iron ore, 2,558,000 tons of limestone, 1,956,000 tons of sand and gravel, and 2,070,000 tons of miscellaneous cargo. The authorized improvements will permit the use of larger, deeper draft, modern vessels upstream from the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad bridge on Cuyahoga River, and on Old River. The benefits to be derived are from savings in transportation costs that the utilization of larger vessels will afford. The commodities for which savings in transportation costs will be realized are iron ore and limestone which^re trans- ported to docks on both Cuyahoga and Old Rivers and molding sand which is transported to dock at upper end of Old River. The average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $4,600,000, all navigation. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,500,000 will be applied to — Continue replacement of Erie-Lackawanna Railroad bridge No. 19... $702, 000 Continue replacement of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad bridge No. 32 700, 000 Engineering and design 62, 000 Supervision and administration 36, 000 Total 1, 500, 000 674 Funds requested in fiscal year 1969 are required for an orderly and economical rate of construction, with project completion in fiscal year 1972 as scheduled. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS Work completed consists of an outer harbor, 5 miles long and 1,600 to 2,400 feet wide, enclosed by a breakwater system. The lake approach to the harbor areas is deepened to project depth of 29 feet. The harbor areas are deepened to project depth of 28 feet except in the east basin beginning 800 feet easterly of the entrance channel where 27-foot project depth has been secured for a distance further easterly for 3,800 feet. From this basin a 25-foot deep channel, 500 feet wide has been provided through the remainder of the east basin, including a 400-foot wide approach channel to a terminal at the easterly end of the basin. The Cuyahoga River entrance channel has been completed and consists of two parallel piers with a channel 27 feet deep between the piers up to the New York Central Railroad bridge No. 1. Widening and dredging of Cuyahoga and Old Rivers, to provide channels 23 feet deep, and replacement of six railroad bridges (Nos. 1, 3, 8, 9, 15, and 25) have been accomplished. The cost for this completed work is $26,648,400. REMAINING MODIFICATIONS None. ^Non-Federal costs. — The costs to local interests for fulfilling the requirements of local cooperation for the 1958 River and Harbor Act are estimated at $9,900,000 for lands, bridge reconstruction, bulkheads, and dredging between project limits and docks. Average annual maintenance between project limits and docks is estimated at $14,700. The estimated costs to local interests for complying with the requirements for the completed modifications are $8,785,000 for dredging between the project limits and docks, lands, bridge reconstruction, and bulkheads. In addition, the city of Cleveland has expended $5,500,000 for improvements on the Cuyahoga River channel. Local interests have constructed docks, wharves, storage, and handling facilities, and performed dredging operations, the costs of which are not available. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Cleveland has furnished the assurances of local cooperation which were accepted on August 28, 1959. All necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way are being furnished and dockside dredging is being performed as the Federal project requires fulfillment of the furnished assurances. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $13,200,000 is an increase of $300,000 over the latest estimate ($12,900,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The change includes an increase of $540,000 for higher price levels which was partially offset by decreases of $189,000 in supervision and ad- ministration due to a reanalysis of requirements and $51,000 based on more detailed planning for widening of Old River. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations ?11, 575.000 $2,453,500 J2,250,000 $6,871,500 Channels - 702,000 9,200 692,800 Engineering and design 1 663,000 555,700 $32,200 62,100 13,000 Supervision and administration. 260,000 110,500 7,900 35,900 105,700 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 13,200,000 3,128,900 40,100 2,348,000 7,683,000 Undistributed costs -- Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 13,200,000 3,128,900 40,100 2,348,000 7,683,000 Pending adjustments - Total cost (Federal funds only) 13,200,000 3,128,900 40,100 2,348,000 7,683,000 Undelivered orders 22,800 825,200 -848,000 Total obligations 3,151,700 865,300 1,500,000 7,683,000 Method of financing: Allocations. 4,017,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year - 865,300 Total funds available for obligation 865,300 Appropriations required 1,500,000 7,683,000 > Includes $1,000 for real estate activities. 675 Green Bat Harbor, Wis. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in northeastern Wisconsin at the mouth of the Fox River, at the head of Green Baj^, an arm of Lake Michigan. Authorization. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $5,460,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 20,000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' 390,000 Cash contribution Other costs -- 390,000 Total estimated project cost 5,870,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 1,697,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 825,000 Allocations to date. 2,522,000 46 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 100,000 48 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 2,838,000 > In addition to extensive dredging of slips, berths, and channels by private interests, the city of Green Bay and private interests in 1918, 1920, and 1928 jointly expended for w/harves and dredging a total of $205,000. In 1919 the city purchased land and erected a warehouse tor package freight handling at a cost of $45,000. In 1922 and 1923 the city of De Pere and private interests expended jointly a total of $69,000 for dock improvements. Also, local interests have contributed $100,000 toward the Federal cost of dredging performed under prior project modifications. PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Deepen entrance channel to 26 feet for distance of 11>1 miles and to 24 feet for 1.8 miles. Deepen Fox River channel to 24 feet for distance of 2.9 miles. Turning basin: Deepen turning basin at mouth of East River to 24 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Dredge entrance channel lakeward of Tail Point June 1971. Light Dredge Fox River and entrance channel to Tail 100 Point Light. Remove Grassy Island revetment 100 Entire project 46 Do. JUSTIFICATION In the Green Bay area, there are numerous manufacturing plants which pro- duce paper, paper products, power shovels, machinery, automobile parts, sheet metal products, foundry products, clothing, office equipment, and sugar. In addition, there are eight cheese-processing plants. There are now about 28 public and private terminals or commercial docks along the Fox River serving the port, including rail-water connections, open docks and storage, and merchandise warehouses. Of these, 25 facilities are used for deep-draft shipping. There are about 15,000 feet of dock frontage along the 22-foot channel in Green Bay and further improvements are proposed. All major terminals are served by railroad sidings. The average annual commerce in Green Bay Harbor for the period 1957-66 amounted to about 2,970,000 tons. Deepening of the approach, entrance and lower river channels will provide for transportation savings resulting from use of larger vessels with increased drafts for commerce in coal, limestone, cement, and overseas general cargo. The average annual benefits for this improvement, all navigation, are estimated at $320,000. 676 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $100,000 will be applied to — Initiate entrance deepening $85, 000 Supervision and administration 15, 000 Total 100, 000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 provide for an economic rate of construc- tion with completion in fiscal year 1971. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS Work completed consists of dredging turning basin at De Pere, increasing depth of inner channel and turning basin to 18 feet; deepening outer channel to 22 feet with widening and straightening inside of Tail Point Bend, widening the channel in Fox River through the city of Green Bay to a depth of 22 feet; dredging a turning basin to 20-foot depth above the Chicago and North Western Railway Bridge; and dredging a turning basin at the mouth of the East River to a depth of 22 feet. The total Federal cost of these modifications is $1,744,000. REMAINING MODIFICATIONS None. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $390,000, broken down as follows: Relocation of utilities $115, 000 Dredging berthing areas 175, 000 Dike for onshore spoil area 100,000 Total 390, 000 Local interests contributed $100,000 toward the cost of completed modifica- tions in accordance with provisions of the River and Harbor Acts of 1925, 1935, and 1945. In addition to extensive dredging of slips, berths, and channels by private interests, the city of Green Bay and private interests in 1918, 1920, and 1928, jointly expended for wharfs and dredging a total of $205,000. In 1919 the city purchased land and erected a warehouse for package freight handling at a cost of $45,000. In 1922 and 1923 the city of De Pere and private interests expended jointly a total of $69,000 for dock improvements. Stat'^s of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation were received in June 1965. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,460,000 is an increase of $640,000 over the latest estimate ($4,820,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $107,000 for higher price levels, $360,000 for overrun in quantities, $18,000 for engineering and design, and $195,000 for supervision and administration based on reanalysis of require- ments. The increases are partially oflFset by a decrease of $40,000 for savings on completed work. 677 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 'o^Q fiscal year 1969 1969 (5) (6) Channels $4,720,000 Engineering and design i 145,000 Supervision and administration 595,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 5,460,000 Undistributed cost , Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 5,460,000 Pending adjustments., Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 5,460,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations (Corps of Engineers funds only) Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriation required $1,299,800 $935,200 $85, 000 $2, 400, 000 127,000 17, 000 1,000 109,900 33, 000 15,000 437, 100 1,536,700 985, 200 1,536,700 985, 200 1,536,700 61,000 1,597,700 1,696,900 985,200 -61,000 924,200 825, 000 99, 200 924,200 100, 000 100, 000 2, 838, 100 100, 000 2, 838, 100 100, 000 2, 838, 100 100, 000 2, 838, 100 2,838,100 ' Includes $7,500 for real estate activities. Freeport, III. (Continuing) Location. — Freeport, 111., is located on the Pecatonica River in Stephenson County, which is adjacent to the northern boundary of Illinois. Authorization. — 1936 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.11 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated per- cent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $4,350,000 1,010,000 1,010,000 5,360,000 322,000 150,000 472, 000 11 430, 000 21 3,448,000 PHYSICAL DATA Relocations: Railroads: Two new bridges and track raises, $1,710,000. Channels and levees: A diversion channel about 3 miles in length having a bottom width of 300 feet and varying in depth from 3 to 14.5 feet will be constructed north of the urbanized part of the flood plain. Suitable excavated material is to be used to construct an embankment along the diversion channel to serve as a line of protection from major floods. Pumping plants: One storm water pumping plant with three 14,000 gallons per minute pumps. One sewage effluent pumping plant with three 4,200 gallons per minute pumps. Status (January 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: November 1971. 678 JUSTIFICATION The project will provide a high degree of protection for the city of Freeport, 111., which has a population of 26,628, 1960 census. The area to be protected contains about 1,000 acres and has been extensively developed for transportation, industrial, commercial, residential, and public purposes. Included in the flood plain area are about 68 commercial, 13 industrial, and 410 residential properties. In addition to these developments, there are 12 buildings used for schools, churches, and municipal functions. Main-line tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad, the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, and the Chicago and Northwestern Railway are also located in the flood plain area. The highest flood of record occurred in March 1929 and caused flood damages of $2,171,000, based on current developments and prices. Other major flood occurrences were experienced in January 1946, February 1948, April 1959, April 1960, and March 1963. Damages resulting at the time of these flood occurrences amounted to $66,000, $172,000, $240,000, $170,000, and $81,000, respectively. These damages would amount to $245,000, $423,000, $323,000, $228,000, and $95,000, respec- tively, under current prices and development. In the event of occurrence of the design flood, damages in the city of Freeport amounting to $2,279,000 would result. Construction of the project will prevent the recurrence of these damages. Average annual benefits for the project, all flood control, are estimated at $214,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $430,000 will be applied to — Continue construction of C, M., St. P. & P. railroad bridge $380, 000 Engineering and design 15, 000 Supervision and administration 35, 000 Total _. 430,000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 provide for an economical rate of progress with project completion scheduled for November 1971. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $1,010,000 broken down as follows: Lands and damages $230, 000 Highway relocations 531, 000 Utilities and structures relocations 159, 000 Engineering and design 90, 000 Total 1,010.000 It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance, operation, and replacement pertinent to the new construction will total $11,800. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Freeport, acting through its ofl!icials, is the responsible local cooperation agency. The project, including local coopera- tion requirements, has been discussed with representatives of local interests. Assurances covering local cooperation requirements were accepted on July 6, 1967. Rights-of-way are expected to be made available as required for the con- struction schedule. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $4,350,000 is an increase of $80,000 over the latest estimate ($4,270,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change consists of increases of $70,000 for price levels and $50,000 for engineering and design based on reanalysis of requirements o8"set in part by a decrease of $40,000 in pumping plants based on more detailed design. 679 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Relocations Roads - Channels Levees Pumping plants Buildings grounds, and utilities... $1,710,000 18, 000 1,335,000 172,000 435,000 10, 000 1 380, 000 290, 000 4,350,000 $291, 100 30, 200 321,300 $70, 400 9,800 80,200 $450, 000 15,000 35, 000 500, 000 $1,260,000 18,000 1,335.000 172,000 435,000 10,000 3,500 Supervision and administration... Total applied costs (Federal funds only).. 215, 000 3,448,500 Total project costs (Federal funds only).. 4,350,000 321,300 80,200 500,000 3, 448, 500 Total costs (Federal funds only)... 4,350,000 321,300 80,200 500, 000 3,448,500 321,300 321,300 80, 200 150,000 . 200 150,200 . 500,000 3,448,500 Method of financing: Unobligated carryover from prior 70,000 . Appropriations required 430,000 3,448,500 1 Includes $5,000 for real estate activities. Hunt Drainage District and Lima Lake Drainage District, Illinois (Continuing) Location. — The project is located along the Mississippi River in Hancock and Adams Counties, 111., with the lower boundary being opposite Canton, Mo. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost.. Cash contributions Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested, fiscal year 1969., Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. $3,590,000 1300,000 300,000 3,890,000 2,746,000 80,000 2,826,000 79 395, 000 90 369,000 I In addition, local interests since 1879 (Hunt district) and 1885 (Lima Lake district) have expended approximately $2,000,. 000 in construction funds and in excess of $1,941,000 in maintenance and operation funds to provide partial flood protection in the project area. 680 PHYSICAL DATA Length (feet) Average height (feet) Previous Increase Levees: Mississippi River main stem and Schuhart Creek, Hunt Drainage District Mississippi River main stem, Lima Lake Drainage District Bear Creek 67,940 11 4 32,000 10 4 38, 460 14 4 Detention reservoirs Jenifer Creek Rocky Run Little Rocky Run Reservoirs: Watershed area (square miles) 2.5 Capacity: Flood (acre-feet) 910 Silt (acre-feet).. 410 Dams and spillways: Height of earth dams (above stream bed) (feet) 62 Crest elevation 572 Length at crest (feet) 737 Spillway, crest elevation 565 Width of spillway (feet) 250 Channels: Excavation (cubic yards) Deepest cut (feet, approximate) Width of bottom (feet) 7.3 I 5, 200 1 1,640 69 579 620 1572 1465 1157,400 140 110 3.3 15,200 11,640 64 579 660 1572 1465 1157,400 140 UO 1 Combined Rocky Run and Little Rocky Run. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Levees: Mississippi River main stem and Schuhart Creek-Hunt drainage 100 district. Mississippi main stem — Lima Lake district 100 Bear Creek-Lima Lake district 100 Rocky Run retention reservoirs Jenifer Creek detention reservoirs. Entire project 70 September 1959. Do. Do. JUSTIFICATION The project is providing protection for two adjoinins; drainage districts (Hunt and Lima Lake), comprising 28,496 acres of highly productive farmlancL Improve- ments in the area being protected include 60 sets of farm buildings on about 170 operating farm units. Also located in the area is the village of Meyer, 111. (popula- tion about 50 persons), which has a large commercial grain elevator. The com- bined rural and urban population is about 425 persons. The floods of 1903, 1944, and 1960 caused failure of the main-stem levees. The entire area was flooded in 1944 causing damages estimated at $1,109,000. These damages would amount to $2,180,000 under current conditions. The flood of March-April 1960 inundated the entire 28,496 acres as well as the village of Mej-er, resulting in flood damages amounting to $3,782,000. These damages would amount to $4,655,000 under current conditions. Levee failure was averted by emergency work during the floods of 1947, 1951, and 1952, but seepage damages and expenditures for flood-fighting and levee repairs amounted to $1,020,000. $252,000, and $52,000 respectively. During the flood of April-May 1965, the highest flood of gage record, the recently itnproved main stem levee prevented flooding from Mississippi River and flood-fighting measures were limited to levee patrol. Construction of the detention reservoirs is needed for protection from Kocky Run and to obtain full project benefits. The average annual benefits for the project, all flood control, are estimated at $452,000. 681 Fiscal year 1969. — The request od amount of $395,000, will be applied to- Initiate construction, Jenifer Creek Reservoir $1!)0, 000 Continue construction, Rocky Run reservoirs and channels 180, 000 Engineering and design 2, 000 Supervision and administration 23, 000 Total 395, 000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 provide for an economical rate of progress with project completion scheduled for September 1969. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $300,000 broken down as follows: Lands $252,500 Relocations 47, 500 Roads and bridge raises 43, 000 Utilities 4, 500 Total 300,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance, opera- tion, and replacements pertinent to the new construction will total $19,000. In addition, the Hunt Drainage District (organized in 1879) and the Lima Lake Drainage District (organized in 1885), constructed the original levees, and during the period 1918 to 1932 these districts paid one-third of the cost of levee improvements by the Federal Government. The existing levees and the interior drainage and pumping facilities cost $2,316,800, of which $2 million was non-Federal costs. Since organization of these districts, accumulated maintenance and operation costs of the levees, drainage ditches, and the pumping plants, together with administration costs have been in excess of $1,941,000. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances have been accepted for the entire project, and rights-of-way have been furnished for all components except Rocky Run and Jenifer Creek detention reservoirs, for which rights-of-way are expected prior to the scheduled advertising dates. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,590,000 is an increase of $170,000 over the latest estimate ($3,420,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This increase consists of $25,000 for higher price levels and $145,000 for increased construction costs based on more detailed plans and estimates. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Reservoirs iiy)-V."- $17,000 905, 000 75, 000 1,990,000 1 320, 000 283,000 3, 590, 000 $1,978,200 312,800 208, 000 2, 499, 000 $12, 000 100, 000 28, 000 5,000 21,700 166,700 $5, 000 505, 000 20, 000 1,600 23, 400 555, 000 Dams Channels Levees Engineering and design. Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds or Undistributed cost $300, 000 27, 000 11,800 600 29,900 369, 300 Total project cost (Federal funds on Pending adjustments ly)— - 3, 590, 000 2, 499, 000 166,700 555, 000 369, 300 Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders... 3, 590, 000 2,499,000 """2,"499,"006" 2,745,700 166,700 160, 000 326, 700 80,000 . 246,700 . 326,700 . 555, 000 -160,000 . 395, 000 359,300 Total obligations 359, 300 Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from year. prior Total funds available for obliga tion Appropriations required 395, 000 369, 300 ) Includes $5,000 for real estate activities. 682 Indian Grave Drainage District, Illinois (Continuing) Location. — The Indian Grave Drainage District in Adams County, 111., lies on the left bank of the Mississippi River, opposite and below the city of Canton, Mo. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Beneiit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $3,900,000 1630,000 630,000 4,530,000 969,000 _ 1,000,000 1,969,000 50 1,200,000 81 731,000 1 In addition, local Interests since 1880 have expended approximately $1,482,000 in construction funds and In excess of $1,268,000 in maintenance and operation funds to provide partial floodiprotection in the project area. PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Stage I: Bear Creek and Mississippi River to station 346+00 Stage II: Mississippi River; station 346+00 to Rock and Ursa Division Stage III: Rock and Ursa Division Stage IV: Mississippi River; Rock and Ursa division to Frazer-Homan division.. Stage V; Frazer-Homan division Ramps: 17. Length Height (feet) (miles) Present Increase 6.6 12 3 4.1 10 3 8.0 13 2 6.2 12 3 4.5 13 3 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Levees: Stage I: Bear Creek and Mississippi River to station 346+00 Stage II: Mississippi River; station 346+00 to Rock and Ursa division Stage III: Rock and Ursa division Stage IV: Mississippi River, Rock and Ursa division to Frazer-Homan division... Stage V: Frazer-Homan division Entire project 33 100 Nov. 30, 1968 8 30 June 30, 1969 Do. Nov. 30, 1969 Nov. 30, 1619 JUSTIFICATION The project will provide a high degree of flood protection to 17,777 acres of higlily productive farmland, including 72 sets of improvements (farm buildings) on about 80 operating farm iniits. The existing levees constructed by local in- terests were breached by the major Mississippi floods of March 1929 and April- May 1965 and seriously threatened by major floods of June 1947 and March- April 1960. The flood of April-May 1965 (floods of gage record) caused failure of the existing levee resulting in the flooding of the entire district, and because of the extended period of inundation, corn and bean crops of the district were lost for the season. Estimated damages resulting from the 1965 flood amount to $2,669,000. These damages would amoiuit to $2,858,000 under current conditions. Damages, including the emergency protective works and losses to crops by seepage through the levees, caused by the June 1947 flood would amount to $536,000 at current prices. Construction of the project will prevent the occurrence of these 683 damages. Average annual benefits for the project, all flood control, are estimated at $397,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,200,000 will be applied to — Complete construction of levees, stage I $185, 000 Complete construction of levees, stage III 323, 000 Complete construction of levees, stage IV 490, 000 Continue construction of levees, stage V 110, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 82, 000 Total 1, 200, 000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are based on an economical rate of progress with project completion scheduled for November 1969. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $630,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $280, 000 Relocations 350, 000 Total $630,000 Local interests aie required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance, opera- tion, and replacement pertinent to the new levee construction will total $15,000. In addition, the drainage district, organized in 1880 and reorganized in 1914, constructed the original levees and during the period 1929-32 the district paid one-third of the cost of levee improvements by the Federal Government. The existing levees and pumping facilities cost $1,682,000, of which $1,482,000 were non-Federal costs. Since organization of the drainage district, and through the period of record in the Rock Island district, accumulated maintenance and operation costs of the levees, drainage ditches, and the pumping plant together with administrative expenses have been in excess of $1,268,000. Status of local cooperation. — The Indian Grave Drainage IDistrict, acting through its elected commissioners, is the responsible local cooperation agency. This project is divided into two separable flood control components. Assurances covering local cooperation for both components were accepted on 23 June 1966. All rights-of- way required on the upper component were made available on 19 August 1966, and those for the lower portion on 25 April 1967. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,900,000 is a decrease of $310,000 from the latest estimate ($4,210,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes decreases of $322,000 due to favorable bids and $32,500 resulting from more detailed planning, offset in part by a price level increase of $44,500. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Levees , Engineering and design Supervision and administration. Total applied cost (Federal funds only). . $3, 330. 000 1 300, 000 270, 000 3,900,000 $238. 300 267,300 66, 300 571,900 $1,239,700 20, 000 87,400 1,347,100 $1,158,000 10,000 82, 000 1,250,000 $694, 000 2,700 34, 300 731,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments 3, 900, 000 571,900 1,347,100 1,250,000 731,000 Total cost (Federal funds only) 3.900,000 571,900 396,700 968,600 969, 000 1,347,100 -346,700 1,000,400 1,000,000 . 400 . 1,000,400 ., 1,250,000 -50,000 1,200,000 731,000 Total obligations 731,000 Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior Total funds available for obligation . Appropriations required 1,200,000 731,000 Includes $9,000 for real estate activities. ■ 684 Des Moines, Iowa (Continuing) Location. — Des Moines, the capital of the State of Iowa, is located at the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers in Polk County, Iowa. Authorization. — 1944 and 1965 Flood Control Acts. ^ Benefit-cost ratio. — -1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contributions Other costs - Total Estimated Project Cost.. Allocations to June 30, 1957 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 .- Allocations to date.. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal 1969 $3,760,000 1341,000 341,000 4,101,000 1,432,000 1,000,000 2,432,900 65 1,328,000 190 1 In addition, following the flood of 1903, the city of Des Moines constructed approximately 5.5 mile of levee along th Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers. Portions of this levee system were raised and strengthened and additional levee con- structed following the floods of 1947 and 1954. The accumulated expenditures by the city for work directly related to this project are estimated to be in excess of $400,000. PHYSICAL DATA Levees and floodwalls Height .CllgUl Present Increase Mile 0.5 1.1 1.4 .7 Feet 10 8 10 Feet 2 5 3 4 .4 8 1.0 16 .9 3 .6 12 .6 12 .1 18 Feet 1,060 8 680 6 1,800 3 1.000 3 Reconstructed levees: Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5 New levees: Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5. Fioodwall.. Floodv/all (freeboard on levee). Closure structures: 1 gated, 1 panel, and 28 sandbag. Ramps: 5. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Levees: Stage I (reach 3) -. C.R.I. & P. RR. (reaches 3 and 4). Stage II (reach 4). Stage III (reach 5) Enti re project. . _ 100 61 54 June 1968. June 1969. Do. Do. JUSTIFICATION The project, acting in conjunction with the authori/7cd Saylorville Reservoir, will provide a vory high degroo of flood protection for the city of Des Moines (population 209,000 — 1960 census), against Des Moines River "floods. Extensive 685 transportation, industrial, conunercial, public, and residential devt'lopn)orts exist in the flood plain area along the Des Moines River throughout the citv. These developments have been seriously affected during past major floods. Damages resulting from the flood of June 1947 amounted to $850,000 and under present conditions and at current prices this damage would amount to $2,315,000. During this flood, 500 persons were displaced from their homes. The June 1954 flood caused damages in the amount of $1,193,000 and forced 1,800 persons to evacuate their homes. With current prices and developunait, these damages would be $2,128,000. During each of these floods, emergency protective works were built by local interests in order to prevent failure of existing local worlds. At the time of the 1954 flood, city forces. National Guard troops and hundreds of volunteer helpers performed flood emergency construction and made other flood preparations at an estimated cost of $306,000. These flood-fightuig activities prevented failure of a levee structure which had been breached at the time of the June 1947 flood. The most recent flood occurred in April 1965 and caused damages which totaled $800,000. At this time, city offlcials expended $130,000 in emergency flood-fighting efi'orts in bolstering the existing protective works. These efforts prevented failure or overtopping of the local protective dikes. In addition to the money spent by the city, an estimated $345,000 in damages was caused to city streets, parks, sewers, and other property. Subsequent to the flood, the Sixth Avenue bridge over Des Moines River collapsed. The estimated value of this bridge was $325,000. A consulting engineering firm retained by the city concluded that flood waters had undermined the bridge abutment, thus causing the faflure. A new bridge was constructed at this location. Construction of the project would prevent recurrence of these damages. Average annual benefits for the project, all flood control, are estimated at $197,700. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,328,000 will be used to complete the project and will be applied as follows: Complete construction of levees, stage II, reach 4 $1, 010, 000 Complete construction of levees, stage III, reach 5 242, 000 Engineering and design 4^ 000 Supervision and administration 72^ 000 Total 1,328*, 000 Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $341,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $320, 000 Relocations 21, 000 Total 341, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon com- pletion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance and operation will total $10,000. In addition, the city of Des Moines, following the flood of 1903, constructed the original system of levees to protect portions of the riverfront from overflow. Additional work, accomplished jointly by the city and the WPA in 1936-38 on riverwalls, channel changes, and dam construction was done primarily for beautification, rather than flood control. Subsequent to the floods of 1947" and 1954, the city augmented its levee system and constructed new levees in unpro- tected areas. The latter construction was performed by city work crews and equipment during slack periods. The accumulated amount expended by local interests for these improvements for work directly related to this project is estimated to be in excess of $400,000. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances, executed by the cit}^ of Des Moines, were accepted by the district engineer on June 25, 1964. Rights-of-way for reach No. 3 were made available on Jul}^ 25, 1966. Rights-of-way on reaches Nos. 4 and 5 are expected to be made available as required for the construction schedule. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,760,000 is an increase of $260,000 over the latest estimate ($3,500,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $192,000 based on more detailed estimate of quantities, and $68,000 for Engineering and design 'oased on reanalysis of requirements. 686 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current Budget Balance to iscal year fiscal year complete after 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (4) (5) (6) Levees and floodwalls. $3,030,000 Engineering and design. i 498,000 Supervision and administration. 232, 000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 3, 760, 000 U nd istributed cost. Total project cost (Federal funds only) 3,760,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 3,760,000 Undelivered orders. Total obligations Method of financing: Al locations. Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations. Appropriations required $869. 100 $908, 900 $1, 252, 000 451, 300 42, 700 4, 000 92,900 67,100 72,000 1,413,300 1,018,700 1,328,000 1,413,300 1,018,700 5,700 1, 005, 700 1,328,000 "f,'328,'o6o" 1,413,300 1,018,700 13,000 -13,000 1,426,300 1,005,700 1,328,000 1,432,000 1.000,000 1, 328, 000 1 I ncludes $9,000 for real estate activities. GUTTENBERG, loWA (Continuing) Location. — In eastern Iowa, Claj^on County, on the right bank of the Missis- sippi River about 30 miles northwest of Dubuque, Iowa. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. BeneUt-cost ratio. — 2.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost. Cash contribution.. Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $2,060,000 275,000 275,000 2,335,000 170,000 115,000 285, 000 14 1, 000. 000 62 775.000 PHYSICAL DATA Levees: North levee: 7,400 feet South levee: 2,650 feet Pumping stations: 2 Sandbag closures: 1 Closure structures: 2 Relocations: Railroads: track raise ($1 17,000) Status (Jan. 1, /.WS).— Not started. Completion schedule: December 1969. JUSTIFICATION Flooding on the Mississippi River at Guttenberg results generally from melting snows in the spring. The flood plain covers about 500 acres of wliich about 330 acres an- developed for industrial, commercial, or residential use. The town has a population of about 2,500 and is the service center for an adjacent prosperous agricultural area. The principal industries are a canning plant, livestock yards, 687 wood products manufacturing company, and a construction company. Periodic high Mississippi River stages have resulted in large expenditures for flood fighting purposes and have caused extensive damages. Major floods in 1951 and 1952 each caused estimated damages of $311,000. Under present conditions, and at present prices, comparable floods to 1951 and 1952 would cause estimated damages of about $535,000 each. Emergency levees constructed by local interests prevented extensive flood damages from the April 1965 flood of record. Seepage damages and flood fighting costs are estimated at $819,000 which, under present conditions and at present prices, would amount to $866,000. A comparable flood under present conditions and at present prices without emergency flood fighting measures would cause estimated damages of $3,820,000. Access roads to the town would become inundated and the higher portion of the town would become an island. Construction of the project would virtually eliminate flood losses. Average annual benefits for the project, all flood control, are estimated at $249,700. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,000,000 will be applied as follows: Continue construction of improvements $920, 000 Engineering and design 20, 000 Supervision and administration 60, 000 Total 1, 000, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are based on an orderly rate of construc- tion progress with completion scheduled for December 1969. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $275,000 broken down as follows: Lands and damages $86, 000 Drainage culverts 186, 000 Power lines 3, 000 Total non-Federal costs 275, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditures for maintenance, opera- tion, and replacement will total $13,400. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances were furnished by local interests on Dec. 19, 1967. Rights of entry are expected in time to permit advertising as scheduled. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $2,060,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress; however, adjustments have been made in feature estimates, based on more detailed planning. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $117,000 $50,000 $67,000 Levees 1,115,000 570,000 545,000 Pumping plants 472,000 360,000 112,000 Engineering and design 1216,000 $103,400 $65,600 30,000 17,000 Supervision and administration 140,000 8,900 7,100 70,000 54,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 2,060,000 112,300 72,700 1,080,000 795,000 Undistributed cost. - - - - Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 2,060,000 112,300 72,700 1,080,000 795,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 2,060,000 112,300 72,700 1,080,000 795,000 Undelivered orders .. : 200 -200 20,000 -20,000 Total obligations 112,500 72,500 1,100,000 775,000 Method of financing: Allocations. 170,000 115,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year /. - 57,500 100,000 Total funds available for obligation 172,700 Appropriations required - 1,000,000 775,000 > Includes $5,000 for real estate activities. 91^59— 68— pt. 1 44 688 Marshalltown, Iowa (Continuing) Location. — The city of Marshallto-mi is located in Marshall County, Iowa, on the right bank of the Iowa River. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost.. - $2,900,000 Estimated non-Federal cost.. 490,000 Cash contribution Other costs... 1490,000 Total estimated project cost... -- 3,390,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967. 160,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968_. - 100,000 Allocations to date --- 260,000 9 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 400,000 23 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 2,240,000 1 Local interests, using city maintenance personnel, have built low level levees along the Iowa River and have straightened the Linn Creek channel in some areas for protection against floods, and these will be incorporated in the Federal project where feasible. The expenditures made by the city for this work are unknown. PHYSICAL DATA Relocations: Railroads: Modify four bridges $262,000. Channels: Enlargement, 14,300 feet. Average height (feet) Length (feet) Levees and floodwalls: Unit A, Iowa River and Linn Creek: Levees 10 16,900 Floodwalls - — 6 240 Unit B, Linn Creek and Anson Creek: Levees - 5 27,600 T-walL_ - 5 1,960 Pumping plants: 4. Status {Jan. 1, 1968).— 'Not started. Completion schedule: November 1970. JUSTIFICATION The project wiU provide a very high degree of protection against floods of the Iowa River and Linn Creek for the city of Marshalltown, Iowa (1960 popula- tion, 22,521). The area along Iowa River to be protected, totaling 725 acres, contains about 385 residential units and 25 commercial buildings. Iowa State Highway No. 14 traverses the area and has been frequently flooded in past years, causing interruption to traffic. The flood plain areas along both banks of Linn Creek contain about 500 acres which have been extensively developed for resi- dential, commercial, industrial, and transportation uses. Included in the area along Linn (3reek which would be protected are 44 commercial units, 300 residen- tial units, 16 industrial plants, and yards and main line trackage of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway and the (Chicago Great Western Railway. The most damaging flood of Linn Creek occurred in June 1947 and caused damages to property along the creek in the amount of $296,000 under current prices. Flood- ing of the Iowa River occurred in June 1947, April 1951, June 1954, and March 1960. Damages resulting from these floods would amount to $148,000, $98,000, $93,000, and $229,000, respectively at current prices. The most recent major flood on Iowa River occurred in March 1965. Flood damages for this flood amounted to $101,000. In the event of occurrence of the design flood, damages in the city of Marshalltown amounting to $2,470,000 on Linn Creek and $668,000 on Iowa River would result. Construction of the project would prevent the above- listed damages. The average annual benefits for the project, all flood control, are estimated at $227,000. 689 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $400,000 will be applied to — 'Continue relocation of railroad bridges $87, 000 Initiate construction of channels 105, 000 Initiate construction of levees and floodwalls 145, 000 Engineering and design 35, 000 Supervision and administration 28, 000 Total 400,000 Funds requested for fiscal year 19G9 provide for an economical rate of progress with project completion scheduled for November 1970. Non-Federal costs. — In addition to normal requirements, local interests are to make all relocations and alterations of buildings, utilities, highway bridges, roads and other facilities (except railroad bridges) where necessary in the construction of the project; and prevent encroachment on the flood channels and ponding areas, which would decrease the effectiveness of the flood control improvements, and, if ponding areas and capacities are impaired, promptly provide substitute storage capacity or equivalent pumping capacity. The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $490,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $265, 000 Relocations (roads, utilities, bridges, and miscellaneous) 225, 000 Total 490,000 It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance and replacements will total $31,200. Local interests, using city maintenance personnel, have built low level levees along the Iowa River and have straightened the Linn Creek channel in some areas for protection against floods, and these will be incorporated in the Federal project where feasible. The expenditures made by the city for this work are unknown. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Marshalltown, acting through its offi- cials, is the responsible local cooperating agency. The project has been discussed with representatives of local interests and the local cooperation requirements have been reviewed with them. Officials of Marshalltown have stated their approval of the proposed works and their willingness to furnish the necessary local cooperation. Formal assurances will be requested after completion of the general design memorandum. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $2,900,000 is an increase of $40,000 over the latest estimate ($2,860,000) submitted to Congress. This change is due to higher price levels. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $262,000 $117,000 $145,000 Channels... 433,000 105,000 328,000 Levees and floodwalls. 1,400,000 145,000 1,255,000 Pumping plant 375,000 375,000 Engineering and design 250,000 $111,000 $96,400 35,000 7,600 Supervision and administration.. 180,000 9,200 13,400 28,000 129,400 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 2,900,000 120,200 109,800 430,000 2,240,000 Undistributed cost - - -.- Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 2,900,000 120,200 109,800 430,000 2,240,000 Pending adjustments -- - Total cost (Federal funds only). 2,900,000 120,200 109,800 430,000 2,240,000 Undelivered orders.. - Total obligations 120,200 109,800 430,000 2,240,000 Method of financing: Allocations. ..-- 160,000 100,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 39,800 30,000 Total funds available for obligations 139,800 Appropriations required 400,000 2,240,000 690 Muscatine Island Levee District and Muscatine-Louisa County Drainage District No. 13, Iowa (Continuing) Location. — The project is located along the Mississippi River in Muscatine and Louisa Counties, Iowa. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 4.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost. Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contributions Other costs. Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date.. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $3,300,000 1422,000 422,000 3,722,000 2,306,000 2425,000 2,731,000 83 569,000 100 1 In addition, local interests since 1900 have expended approximately $920,000 in construction funds and in excess of $1,256,000 for maintenance and operation to provide partial flood protection in the project area. 2 includes transfer of $25,000 to project. PHYSICAL DATA Length (feet) Average height (feet) Present Increase Levees : Main stem: Rural area.... 58,900 Urban area 10,500 South flank 6,000 Pumping plant: Will have a capacity of about 275,500 gallons per minute at 7.4-foot static head. 10 5.0 9 6.0 16.5 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Levees : Main stem, stage T.. Main stem, stage IL. Main stem, stage III. South flank levee... Pumping plant Entire project. Percent Completion schedule complete 100 100 100 47 June 1969. 16 Do. 77 Do. justification The project is providing flood protection for 26,478 acres of jjroductive farm- lands including 277 sets of farm buildings. There are 1,400 persons residing in rural areas of the district. Also included in the district are 6 miles of U.S. Highway No. 61, 7 miles of the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad main line tract, 2 miles of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad mahi line track, Muscatine Municipal Airport, and six large industrial plants. In addition, a portion of the city of Muscatine, Iowa, is being provided protection, including the municipal power and water plant, eight or more large industrial plants, a number of commercial stores, and about 675 r(•:^idellces housing aj^proximately 2,800 persons. At the time of the April 1951 and 1952 floods, the district was 691 protected by substandard levees and failure of the levees was narrowly averted by flood fighting measures. At the time of the April-May 1965 flood, the main- stem levee down to the proposed new south flank levee was completed and serious flooding of the district was, for the most part, prevented by construction of an emergency dike at the south flank levee location and other extensive floodfighting measures. In the event the levee structures had failed during the 1951, 1952, and/or the 1965 flood, the resulting damages which would have occurred are estimated at $2,430,000, $2,850,000, and $4,700,000, respectively. These damages would amount to $3,285,000, $3,885,000, and $5,038,000, respectively, under current conditions. Failure of the levee system during the flood of 1922 inundated a major portion of the area and caused damages in the amount of $551,000. This amounts to $1,711,000 under current conditions. When complete the project will prevent the possible occurrence of the entire amount of these damages. Comple- tion of the project at an early date is needed to eliminate the recurring flood threats to this community and the considerable costs for mobilization of per- sonnel and equipment for floodfighting. The average annual benefits for the project, all flood control, are estimated at $794,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $569,000 will be used to complete the project and will be applied as follows: Complete construction of pumping plant and south flank levee $539, 000 Engineering and design 2, 000 Supervision and administration 28, 000 Total 569,000 Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $422,000, broken down as follows: Lands $113, 000 Relocation of roads 10, 700 Relocation of railroads _ 41, 200 Relocation of utilities 6, 800 Roads (new) 9, 800 Pumping plant equipment 240, 500 Total 422,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance, opera- tion, and replacements pertinent to the new levee and pumping plant construction will total $37,000. In addition, the levee district organization since 1900 constructed the original levee and during the period 1921 to 1931 the district paid one-third of the cost of levee improvements by the Federal Government. The existing levees and pumping facilities cost $1,180,000, of which $920,000 were non-Federal costs. Since 1900, accumulated maintenance and operation costs of the levees, drainage ditches and the pumping plant, together with the administrative costs, have been in excess of $1,256,000. Status of local cooperation. — The local cooperation requirements for the entire project have been fulfilled or satisfactory arrangements made. In lieu of furnish- ing pumping plant equipment, local interests are contributing toward the cost of the pumping plant construction. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,300,000 is an increase of $160,000 over the latest estimate ($3,140,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $96,000 due to bids re- ceived, $25,000 based on more detailed estimate for construction, and $15,000 for engineering and design and $24,000 for supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements. 692 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Levees $1,990,000 Pumping plant 749,000 Engineering and design. i 350,000 Supervision and administration 211, 000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 3,300,000 Undistributed costs Tota project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments... Total cost (Federal funds only) 3,300,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations. Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations Appropriations required. $1,833,900 330,300 140,200 2, 304, 400 $86, 100 280, 000 17,700 43, 200 427, 000 3, 300, 000 2, 304, 400 427, 000 2, 304, 400 427, 000 300 -300 2, 304, 700 426, 700 2,306,400 2 425.000 1,700 426, 700 $70, 000 469, 000 2,000 27,600 568,600 568,600 568, 600 568,600 568,600 « Includes $12,000 for real estate activities. 2 Includes transfers of $25,000 to project. Red Rock Dam and Lake Red Rock, Iowa (Contmuiiig) Location. — The project is located on the Des Moines River in Marion, Warren, Jasper, and Polk Counties, Iowa, with its dam 142.9 miles above the confluence with the Mississippi River. Authorization. — 1938 and 1944 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.3 to 1, SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $83,200,000 83,200,000 67,563,000 8,545,000 76,108,000 91 5, 800, 000 98 1,292,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rolled earthfill. Height: 110 feet (above stream bed). Length: 6,260 feet (including concrete control section). Spillway : Type: Concrete ogee weir, with stilling basin. Five 41 feet by 45 feet tainter crest gates. Fourteen 5 feet by 9 feet conduits. Design capacity: 360,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 1. 740.000 Conservation (minimum flow) 90, 000 Total -.- 1,830,000 Lands and damages: Acres: 75,670. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. 6^S Relocations: Roads: 3S.9 miles, $17,150,000. Railroads: 28.2 miles, $15,270,000 (including N. & W. C.B. & O. joint line. $12,630,000). Cemeteries, utilities and structures: $4,130,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Lands and damages Relocations Reservoir Dam Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities. Permanent operating equipment. Closure of dam Entire project Percent Completion schedule complete 96 November 1969. 81 Do. 27 June 1969. 88 Do. November 1969. 14 Do. 48 Do. June 1968. 85 November 1969. JUSTIFICATION The project will prevent or reduce flood damages which occur to crops and property on 65,000 acres along the Des Moines River and on about 216,000 acres in the Mississippi River flood plain between the mouth of the Des Moines River and Hamburg Baj^, 111. The project will provide almost complete elimina- tion of the substantial average annual flood damages in 11 communities having a combined population of about 40,000. Ten railroad and nine State and/or Federal highway crossings will be benefited as well as those rail lines located in the valley. Additionally, important benefits will be realized by industrial, commercial, residential, utilities, agricultural, railroad, and highway properties along the Mississippi River downstream from the mouth of the Des Moines River. The floods of 1944, 1947, and 1954 caused damages on the lower Des Moines River estimated at $1,974,000, $13,472,000, and $1,641,000, respectively. These damages would amount to $3,601,000, $22,940,000, and $2,202,000, re- spectively, under current conditions. Of the latter amounts, construction of the project would prevent damages of $3,544,000, $22,613,000, and $2,194,000 respectively. In addition, damages from recurrence of the 1944 and 1947 floods on the Mississippi River between the Des Moines River and Hamburg Ba}^ 111., would be reduced by $1,209,000 and $6,163,500, respectively, based on current conditions. The flood of April 1965 caused damage estimated at $870,000 along the Des Moines River downstream from the damsite. Operation of the reservoir would have prevented an estimated $708,000 of this damage. Breakdown of average annual benefits: Flood control $5, 980, 000 Fish and wildlife 146,000 Recreation 238,000 Total 6, 364, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $5,800,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $222, 300 Continue relocations 3, 468, 800 Complete reservoir clearing and monumentation 196, 600 Complete construction of dam 1, 221, 000 Initiate construction of recreation facilities 150, 000 Initiate construction of administration building 100, 000 Continue installation of permanent operating equipment 110, 400 Engineering and design 75, 000 Supervision and administration 255, 900 Total 5, 800, 000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are based on an orderly and economical rate of progress with project completion scheduled for November 1969. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None required. 694 Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $83,200,000 is an increase of $1,000,000 over the latest estimate ($82,200,000) submitted to Congress. This increase includes $266,000 for higher price levels, $320,000 for lands and damages based on reanalysis of requirements, $184,000 prunarily for relocations based on more detailed plans, estimates, and bids re- ceived, and $230,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administra- tion based on reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Land and damages Relocations Reservoir - Dam Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design. Supervision and admmistration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations. Unobligated carryover from prior year.. Total funds available for obligations. Appropriations required $18, 520, 000 36, 550, 000 500, 000 17,300,000 525, 000 188, 000 410, 000 5, 525, 000 3, 682, 000 83,200,000 $17,415,100 25,110,600 128, 400 14,181,300 25. 000 197, 200 5, 179, 500 2, 897, 200 65, 134, 300 $860, 000 7, 282, 600 175. 000 1,897,700 1,400 83. 500 254, 500 419,300 10, 974, 000 $222, 300 3, 468, 800 196, 6C0 1,221,0L0 150,000 100. 000 110,400 75, 000 255, 900 5, 800, 000 83, 200, 000 '83,"200,"666" 65,134,300 10,974,000 65, 134, 300 1,600,200 66, 734, 500 10. 974, 000 -1,600,200 9, 373, 800 67, 563, 300 8, 545, 000 828, 800 9, 373, 800 5, 800, 000 $22, 600 688, 000 375, 000 61,600 18,900 16, 000 109,600 1,291,700 5, 800, 000 1, 291, 700 '5,'866,"6do i,'29iV766 "5," 800," 000 i,"29i,"700 1.291.700 River Rouge, Mich. (Continuing) Location. — The River Rouge Basin is located iu the southeastern corner of the Lower Peninsula of the State of Michigan. The project provides for channel en- largement and rectification from the navigation turning basin to Michigan Avenue to provide flood protection for the urban areas of Detroit, Melvindale, Dearborn, and Allen Park, in Wayne County. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost 'Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $14,100,000 7,400,000 7,400,000 21,500,000 2,042,000 1,000,000 3,042,000 22 3,100,000 44 7,958,000 695 PHYSICAL DATA Relocations: Railroads: $2,555,000. Construct new single track New York Central Railroad Junction Yard Bridge. Add 2 spans to Detroit, Toledo, and Ironton Railroad Bridge. Add 4 spans to New York Central Railroad Main Line Bridge. Channels: 21,700 linear feet — Rectification and paving. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Relocation— D.T. & I.R.R. Bridge 4 June 1968. Other relocations and channel work December 1970. JUSTIFICATION The flood hazard between Michigan Avenue and the Navigation Turning Basin extends over a wide, intensely developed area. The maximum flood of record occurred in April 1947 with damages of about $7,230,000, at current prices. Base- ment flooding due to the high stage on Rouge River was experienced in residences, commercial and industrial establishments, and public buildings. Construction of the project would eliminate these flood damages. Average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $1,200,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3,100,000 will be applied as follows : Initiate construction of additional spans for NYC Main Line Bridge. $400, 000 Continue channel improvement 2, 500, 000 Engineering and design 23, 000 Supervision and administration 177, 000 Total 3, 100, 000 Funds requested in fiscal year 1969 are required for orderly construction progress with completion as scheduled. Non-Federal cost. — The investment required of local interests for construction of the project is estimated at $7,400,000 broken down as follows: Lands, easements, and rights-of-way $1, 580, 000 Construction of new highway bridges 2, 050, 000 Alterations and additions to existing highwa}^ bridges 350, 000 Alterations to utilities and structures 3, 420, 000 Total 7,400,000 The annual cost to local interests for maintenance, operation, and replacement is estimated at $33,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of local cooperation were furnished by resolution of the Wayne County Road Commission, the official cooperating agency, on June 10, 1966, and accepted by the District Engineer on behalf of the United States on July 6, 1966. Local interests have completed certain utility alterations, and have completed to project requirements, all highway bridge crossings over the proposed channel, except the Shaefer Road Bridge, which is currently under construction and is scheduled for completion in July 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $14,100,000 is an increase of $100,000 over the latest estimate ($14,000,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $450,000 for higher price levels, and $115,000 for engineering and design, due to increased require- ments for channel and bridge stability analysis. These increases were offset in part by decreases of $295,000 based on more detailed planning, and $170,000 in supervision and administration, based on a recent reanalysis of requirements. The planning changes include decreases of $250,000 due to change in design of the New York Central Junction Yard Bridge, from a two-track to a single-track bridge, and $45,000 due to revision in design of protective structures and bids received for the Detroit, Toledo, and Ironton Railroad Bridge. 696 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1967 1968 (2) (3) (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Relocations - $2, 555, 000 Channels 10,000,000 Engineering and design i 835, 000 Supervision and administration 710, 000 Total applied costs (Federal funds only).. 14,100,000 Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 14, 100,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 14,100,000 Undelivered orders. Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations. _ Unobligated carryover from prior year _ Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required $626, 900 40, 300 667,200 $1,225,000 450, 000 165, 000 94, 800 1,934,800 $810,000 2, 500, 000 43,100 186,900 3, 540, 000 667,200 1,934,800 3,540,000 667,200 1,934,800 3,540,000 58. 400 381, 600 -440, 000 725,600 2,316,400 3,100,000 2,042,000 1,000,000 1,316,400 2,316,400 $520,000 7, 050, 000 ""388,"666 7,958,000 7, 958, 000 '7,'958,'600 '7,'958,'660 3,100,000 7, 958, 000 'Includes $10,000 for real estate activities. Saginaw River, Mich. (Continuing) Location. — The Saginaw Basin is located in the east-central i)ortion of the lower peninsula of Michigan and comprises about 6,260 square miles, with all or parts of 21 counties within its watershed. The Saginaw River proper, commencing south of the city of Saginaw at the confluence of four main tributaries (Cass, Flint, Shiawassee, and Tittabawassee Rivers), flows in a northerly direction for a distance of 22 miles to empty into Saginaw Bay, an arm of Lake Huron. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost(Fish and Wildlife).. Estimated non-Federal cost. Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969— $22,700,000 2,690,000 >4,907,000 707,000 4,200,000 30,297,000 3,361,000 1,000,000 4,361,000 19 850, 000 23 17,489,000 ' In addition, local interests have made extensive drainage and flood control improvements. The total cost for Flint and Shiawassee Flats is not available. The cost for Frankenmuth is $72,000. physical, data Flint unit: Relocations: Roads: Bridge protection, eight bridges, $236,000. Railroads: Bridge alterations and track adjustments, nine bridges $562,000. Channels: 20,500 linear feet. Levees: 3,400 linear feet. Floodwalls: 3,900 linear feet. Pumping plants: Construction 1. Frankenmuth %init: Channel riprapping, Icvoes, floodwall, and interior drainage facilities. 697 Shiau-assee Flats unit: Relocations: Roads: Raise six bridges, protect one bridge, and protect and underpin small farm bridges; $470,000. Work also includes channels, levees, pumping plants, and floodway control structures. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service will acquue lands and construct fish and wildlife facilities as part of the overall project. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Tlintunit 25 June 1971. Frankenmuth unit. 100 Shiawassee Flats unit Indefinite.' Entire project 9 June 1971 (except Shiawassee Flats).! ■Completion schedule indefinite pending action underway by local interests toward establishing a local cooperating agency under Michigan drain laws. JUSTIFICATION Several areas in the Saginaw Basin have experienced serious flooding on numerous occasions. Floods are of two types, those which are general through the whole basin and those which are limited to one or two of the main tributaries without serious rises on the others. General floods have a frequency of about once in every 6 or 7 years, whereas on any given tributary the frequency is about once in every 2 or 3 years. The most notable recent floods of a general nature occurred in April 1947 and March 1948, with damage at all the problem areas. Damages were about $4,280,000 for the 1947 flood and about $1,425,000 for the 194S flood. A recurrence of these floods under present conditions would cause damages estimated at $8,615,000 and $2,980,000, respectively. The project plan will essentially eliminate these damages. Breakdown of average annual benefits : Flood control $1, 178, 500 Fish and wildlife 628, 000 Total 1, 806, .500 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $850,000 will be applied as follows: Continue construction of Flint Unit $736,000 Engineering and design 23, 800 Supervision and administration 90, 200 Total 850,000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for orderly construction prog- ress with completion as scheduled on the Flint Unit. Non-Federal cost. — The cost to local interests in connection with construction of the authorized project is estimated at $4,907,000 broken down as follows: Cash contribution Lands and damages Construction and alterations to bridges.. Alterations to utilities Building removal Total 1,227,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the flood control improve- ments at an estimated cost of $110,000 annually. In addition, the city of Franken- muth has constructed a pumping plant and levses at a cost of about $72,000. Extensive drainage and flood control improvements have been made in Shiawassee Flats and Flint, the costs of which are not available. Flint unit Frankenmuth unit Shiawassee flats unit Total $81,000 $626,000 2,180,000 868, 000 $707,000 675,000 197, 000 $5, 500 2, 860, 500 1,065,000 274, 000 274,000 500 500 1,227,000 6,000 3,674,000 4,907,000 698 STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION Flint. — Formal assurances of local cooperation from the Flint City Commission were accepted on November 23, 1962. The cash contribution was received on February 20, 1963. Rights-of-way have been furnished for section A and for section B and preliminary negotiation are underway for acquisition of rights-of- way for section C. Frankenmuth. — The city of Frankenmuth has complied with all requirements. Shiawassee Flats. — Efforts to establish an overall drainage authority are underway. Com-parison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $22,700,000 is an increase of $2,700,000 over the latest estimate ($20 million) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $888,000 for higher price levels, $1,679,000 based on more detailed plans and estimates, and $111,000 for supervision and administration and $22,000 for engineering and design based on reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Flint unit: Relocations $797,500 $118,300 $191,200 $130,000 $358,000 Channels..,- 5,318,000 1,079.900 218,100 1,540,000 2,480,000 Levees and floodwalls.. 471,100 129,500 21,600 86,000 234,000 Pumping plants..-. 38,000 38,000 Engineering and design 1872.000 787,900 57,000 20,000 7,100 Supervision and administration 584,400 274,000 36,100 90.000 184,300 Total— Flint unit 8,081,000 2,389,600 524,000 1,866,000 3,301,400 Frankenmuth unit... 397,000 383,700 13,300 Shiawassee flats unit 14,929,000 26,200 4,000 4,000 14,894,800 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contribution)... 23.407,000 2,799,500 541,300 1,870,000 18,196,200 Undistributed cost -- Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contribution)... 23,407,000 2,799,500 541,300 1,870,000 18,196.200 Pending adjustments (none)... - Total cost (CofE funds and non-Federal contribution) 23,407,000 2,799,500 541,300 1,870,000 18,196.200 Federal funds (CofE): Total applied cost 22,700,000 2,799,500 541,300 1,870,000 17,488,200 Undistributed cost (none) Total project cost 22,700,000 2,799,500 541,300 1,870,000 17,489,200 Pending adjustments (none) - Total cost 22,700,000 2,799,500 541,300 1,870,000 17,489,200 Undelivered orders 50.500 969,500 -1,020,000 Total obligations. 2,850,000 1,510,800 850,000 17,489,200 Non-Federal contributions: Total applied cost...- 707,000 707,000 Undistributed cost (none) Total project cost 707,000 707,000 Pending adjustments (none) Totalcost 707,000 707,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations _ 707,000 Method of financing: Federal funds (CofE): Allocations 3,360,800 1,000,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 510,800 Total funds available for obli- gation 1,510,800 -.- Appropriation required 850,000 17,489,200 Non-Federal contribution: Contributions 56,000 Unobligated carryover from prioryear ...- 56,000 56,000 55,000 Total funds available for obli- gation 56,000 Contribution required 651,000 I Includes $14,000 for real estate activities. 699 RusHFORD, Minn. (Continuing) Location. — In Fillmore County at Ptushford in southeastern Minnesota at the confluence of Rush Creek and Root River about 35 miles above the mouth of the Root River, a tributary of the Mississippi River. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $2,700,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 326,000 Cash contribution Other costs. 326,000 Total estimated project costs 3,026,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 552,000 Allocation tor fiscal year 1968 i 1,150,000 Allocations to date 1,702,000 63 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 998,000 100 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 ' Includes transfer of $150,000 to project. PHYSICAL DATA Levees: 3.3 miles. Flood walls: 470 feet. Channel improvement including two cutoffs: 2.3 miles. Pumping stations : 5. Sandbag closures: 1. Relocations: Railroads, New bridge over Rush Creek to provide proper clearance above design flood and 2,927-foot grade raise over levee at station 290A ($231,000). STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent comolete Completion schedule Relocations August 1968. Channels, levees, and flood walls, pumping stations 48 November 1968. Entire project 47 Do. JUSTIFICATION Rushford has been damaged by frequent floods on either Rush Creek or Root River or both. In recent years, damaging floods have occurred in 1950, 1952, 1961, and 1962. Under present conditions and prices, it is estimated that damages from these floods in the city of Rushford would amount to $788,000, $595,000, $125,000, and $112,000, respectively. All of these damages would have been essen- tially eUmiuated if the authorized project had been in operation. The most recent major flood, in March 1965, again flooded Rushford and the damages amounted to $564,000 which, under present conditions and at present prices, would amount to $610,000. The project would have prevented all of those damages. Average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $172,900. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $998,000 will complete the project and will be applied as follows: Complete relocations, channels, levees, flood walls, and pumping plants. $901, 000 Engineering and Design 22, 000 Supervision and Administration 75, 000 Total 998,000 700 Non-Federal cost. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $326,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $97, 000^ Relocations 224,000- Pumping plant (cost of furnishing pumps) 5, 000 Total 326,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance will total $9,100. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation and rights-of- entry on lands have been furnished by local interests. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $2,700,000 is an increase of $150,000 over the latest estimate ($2,550,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $111,000 based on more detailed plans and estimates, and $39,000 for engineering and design and super- vision and administration based on a reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations ---- $231,000 $180,000 $51,000 _ Channels ' ' 495,000 $20,000 109,000 366,000 Levees and floodwalfs.. 1,197,000 807,000 390,000 Pumping plants -.- 248,000 114,000 134,000 .._ _ Engineering and design _ i 379, 000 327,300 29,700 22,000 Supervision and administration 150.000 22,900 52,100 75,000 Total applied cost(Federal funds only).. 2,700,000 370,200 1,291,800 1,038,000 Undistributed costs --- - Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 2,700,000 370,200 1,291,800 1,038,000 Pending adjustments... - Total cost (Federal funds only) 2,700,000 370,200 1,291,800 1,038,000 Undelivered orders 180,000 -140,000 -40,000... Total obligations 550,200 1,151,800 998,000.... Method of financing: Allocations.-.. -. - 552,000 =1,150,000 Unobligated carryover from prior years - 1> 800 — Total funds available for obligation. 1,151,800 Appropriations required 998, 000 ■ Includes $7,000 for real estate activities. 2 Includes transfer of 150 to project. Gregory Dr.-vin.'VGE District, Missouri (Continviing) Location. — The Gregory Drainage District is located on the right bank of the Mississippi River in Clark, and Lewis Counties, Mo. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $1,600,000 Estimated non- Federa I cost 1 54, 000 Cash contributions. _ Other costs.. i 154,000 Total estimated project cost. 1 , 754, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967... _ 112,000 ." '" Allocation for fiscal year 1968 125,000 Allocations to date 237,000 iS Appropriation requested tor fiscal year 1969 850,000 68 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1959 513,000 1 In addition, local interests since 1916 have expended approximately $191,000 in construction funds aad about $278,000- in maintenance and operation funds to provide partial flood protection in the project area. PHYSICAL DATA Relocations: Railroads; bridge and track raise, 3,500 feet, maximum raise 3 feet 9 inches, $200,000. Present Proposed Levees : Average height, feet 10 14 Length, miles 12 12 Status {January 1, 196S). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: November 1969. JUSTIFICATION The project will provide a high degree of protection for 8,000 acres of highly productive farmlands, including 20 sets of improvements (farm buildings) on 44 operating units. A total of about 65 persons reside in the area. Six miles of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RR. track are located in the area to be protected. A small village, Gregory Landing, containing a large grain elevator, a store, and a school, is located in the district. Flooding of the bottomlands occurred in 1922 when high water on the Missis- sippi River overtopped the existing levee. A pumping plant then in use was undermined and damaged beyond repair. Estimates of damages from the flood are not available. During the major floods of 1947 and 1960, flood-fighting measures were successful in preventing overtopping of the levee system. A failure of the gravity drainage structure at the time of the 1947 flood permitted backwater to. flow into the district, causing almost complete crop loss. Expenditures for emer- gency work and losses to crops caused by seepage of water through existing levee svstem during the flood periods of June 1947, April-AIav 1951, April-May 1952, March-April 1960, and April-May 1965 amounted to $315,000, $228,000, $157,000, $23,000, and $142,000, respectivelv. These damages would amount to $325,000, $235,000, $160,000, $29,000, and $157,000, respectively, under current conditions. Construction of the project would substantially eliminate all of the above damages. Average annual benefits for the project, all flood control, are estimated at $116,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $850,000 will be appHed to — Complete railroad relocation $150, 000 Continue levee construction __ 640, 000 Engineering and design 6, 000 Supervision and administration 54, 000 Total 850, 000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are based on an economical rate of progress with project completion scheduled for November 1969. 702 Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $154,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $126, 000 Relocations (utihties) 14, 900 Levees — sheet pile wall 13, 100 Total 154,000 It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance, operation, and replacement pertinent to the new construction will total $5,800. In addition, the drainage district, organized in 1916, constructed the original levee. The existing levees and drainage facilities cost $283,000, of which $191,000 was non-Federal costs. Since organization of the district, accumulated maintenance and operation cost of the levees and drainage ditches, together with administra- tion costs, have amounted to $278,000. Status of local cooperation. — The Gregory Drainage District, acting through its elected commissioners, is the responsible local cooperation agency. Assurances covering local cooperation requirements were accepted on August 17, 1967. Rights-of-way are expected to be made available as required for the construction schedule. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,600,000 is a decrease of $150,000 from the latest estimate ($1,750,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The decrease consists of $120,000 for levee construction due to more detailed planning and $30,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1967 1968 (2) (3) (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Relocations Levees Engineering and design Supervision and admmistration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed costs _ Total project costs (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments.. Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations. Appropriations required $200, 000 1,170,000 1130,000 100, 000 1,600,000 $102, 000 7,500 109, 500 $20, 000 7,800 27, 800 $200,000 690, 000 6,000 54, 000 950, 000 1,600,000 1,600,000 109, 500 "l0'9',"50"0" 'i09,"500* 112,300 27,800 950, 000 27, 800 100, 000 127,800 125, 000 2,800 127, 800 950, 000 -100,000 850, 000 $480, 000 2,000 30,700 512,700 512,700 "5i2',"7'd0' "5i2,"700 850, 000 512,700 1 Includes $3,000 for real estate activities. Ithaca, N.Y. — Cayuga Inlet (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on Cayuga Inlet in Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y. The plan of improvement begins 3 miles above the mouth of Cayuga Inlet, which flows through the western portion of the city and enters Cayuga Lake at Ithaca, N.Y. Authorization. — 1960 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. 703 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost - Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $3,610,000 12,510,000 77,000 2,433,000 6,120,000 1,584,000 950, 000 70 2,534,000 1,076,000 100 t In addition, local interests have expended funds to provide partial flood protection in both the tributary and project areas. The costs incurred for their work are not available. PHYSICAL CATA Relocations: Railroads: Lehigh Valley Railroad bridge and appurtenant track changes $497,000. Fish and Wildlife Facilities: Construct fishway at drop structure. Channels: Improvement of approximately 3 miles of the channel including a new by-pass channel and construction of a drop structure. Levees: Construction of levees and a closure structure all at the upstream end of the project. Recreation Facilities: Widen channel to facilitate installation cf a crew-racing course. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Channels— Downstream portion of Cayuga Inlet (stage I). Railroad bridge, fishway and drop structure (stage II). Remaining work (stage III) Entire project 100 70 June 1968. June 1969. Do. Do. JUSTIFICATION The project will prevent flood damages in the city of Ithaca along Cayuga Inlet. Ithaca is the county seat of Tompkins County, and is the site of Ithaca College and Cornell University which includes the New York State College of Agriculture. Operation of these institutions and provisions for the needs of the students are important to the economic life of the population of 30,000 in the city of Ithaca. The principal industries of Ithaca are the manufacture of auto- mobile parts, firearms, and office machinery. Flood damages have occurred on Cayuga Inlet almost every year since 1857 with the flood of July 7-8, 1935, being the greatest of record. This flood inundated 740 acres of commercial, residential, and some undeveloped areas, all at an estimated damage to properties of about $450,000. Under present conditions and current prices, this would amount to $2,149,000. The authorized improvements will substantially reduce these damages. The estimated average annual benefits are broken down as follows: Flood control $354, 600 Fish and wildlife - - 52, 600 Recreation... 16,400 Total -- - 423,600 91-459— 6S—pt. 1- -45 704 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,076,000 will complete the project and will be applied as follows: Complete state III construction $979, 000 Engineering and design 2, 000 Supervision and administration 95, 000 Total 1,076,000 Non-Federal costs. — The investment required' of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $2,510,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $1, 354, 000 Relocation of two highway bridges, utilities, access roads, and other highway changes 1,059,000 Construction of fish holding pens 20, 000 Non- Federal cash contribvition — 2.1 percent of the first cost for construction 77, 000 Total 2,510,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion, including that part of the existing channel (not improved) from the foot of Tabor Street to mile 1. It is estimated that the average annual non-Federal expenditure for maintenance will be $35,100. In addition, local interests have made some improvements to provide partial flood protection in both the tributary and project areas, the costs of which are not available. Status of local cooperation. — The State of New York furnished the required assurances of local cooperation which were accepted by the district engineer on April 28, 1964. The Ithaca City Council adopted a resolution agreeing to furnish city-owned lands without cost; to make necessary changes in city-owned bridges and utihties; to supply the required cash contribution; and to adopt and enforce ordinances to prevent encroachment on channels. The State of New York has furnished rights-of-way for stages I and II. For stage III the city of Ithaca has finalized an agreement for property of the Lehigh Valley Railroad to permit con- struction of the new bypass channel on a straight alinement. The new alinement necessitated relocation of the switchyard of the railroad. This relocation was com- pleted in March 1967, which made available the area required for the last stage of construction for com]iletion of the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.- — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,610,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress; however, adjustments have been made in feature estimates based on more detailed plan- ning and bids received. 705 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Ifpm cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 ''^^'V^^r 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations-...- $497,000 $94,500 $40 . 00 ..- cioh ^nH uuilrllifp fac t es 110,000 27,900 liZ.Wu Channels --- 1,967 000 509 600 461.700 5995,700. [^^\"e7^- - 458.000 4.200 153.800 300.000 SuEion^nd Snistration 290.000 112,000 83,000 95.000. 'tUfficrtrilS!'""'!"'- 3.687,000 1,075,000 1,219,300 1,392,700. Undistributed costs - - Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contribution) 3.687,000 1,075,000 1,219,JUU i.js^./uu Pending adjustments ■" Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contribution) 3,687,000 1.075,000 1,219,300 1.392, /uu '"''ToUlaJpiiedcost. 3.610.000 1,075,000 1,142.300 1.392,700 KroS'c^'"::::::::::::::-"'""3:6io:ooo---i:o75,ooo--i;i42:3oo 1:392:760- Tnt^'cos?"'"'""'"*'-" ■ 3'6io:006"-'"i:075:o6o"'-"i:i42,"306 i,'392,'766' llndPliveredoVdeVs "" ------ 177,700 139.300 -317,000 yotaVobilgation'^s' :::::::::::: -- 1-252,700 i,28i,6oo 1,075,700 Non-Federal contributions: „„„ Total applied cost--.- -- 77,000 7/,UUU Undistributed costs... ,7-nnn"" n 77 6o6 """ Total project cost 77,000 //,uuu To.ar^"^^''"!'"'"-::::::::::"--77:6o6 o 77:000- Undelivered orders 77 nnn Total obligations - "'^^^ Method of financing: ^^''^Soc"atns - 1.584.300 950,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year ijj.ouu Total funds available for obliga- Appropriations required.. --- i,u'j, '"" Non-Federal contributions: „ Contributions '''""" " Unobligated carryover from prior year - - - //,uuu Total funds available for obliga- ^^^ tion — ' Contribution required 1 Includes $1,000 for real estate activities. Fremont, Ohio — S.^ndusky River (Continuing) Location.— The project is located on Sandusky River, in tlie city of Fremont Sandusky County, Ohio. Sandusky River flows nortlierly through the city of Fremont and enters Sandusky Bay, an arm of Lake Erie, about 14 miles north of the city. _ , ^ . , » ^ Authorization.— im2 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1. 706 Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost. Allocations for June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $5,740,000 608,000 e 608,000 6,348,000 490,000 50,000 540, 000 9 600, 000 20 4,600,000 PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Enlarging and partially realiuiiig a 10,500-foot reach of channel in Sandusky River in the city of Fremont. Levees and fioodwalls: Construction of 21,800 feet of levees and floodwalls along both banks of the improved river channel. Construction and alteration to internal drainage features behind the levees and floodwalls along both banks of the improved channel. Pumping plants: Construct three pumping stations. Status (Jan. 1, 1968).— Not started. Completion schedule: November 1971. JUSTIFICATION Flooding in the Sandusky River Basin is most commonly caused by rainfall on snow-covered or saturated ground, and is more prevalent in late winter. The major recorded floods at Fremont, with a population of 18,000, were in March 1913, January 1959, and February 1959, with damages respectively in the amounts of $1,091,000, $1,531,000, and $755,000. A recurrence of these floods at current price levels and conditions of development would cause damages respectively of $8,208,000, $1,615,000, and $2,038,000. The most recent flooding occurred on March 7 and 8, 1963, with damages amounting to approximately $420,000 at time of flood and $510,000 at current price levels. The flooding also creates hazards which cannot be evaluated monetarily, as water depths and velocities in the streets are in themselves dangerous, communications are disrupted, health conditions are endangered by lack of sanitary facilities, accesses to areas are closed and persons residing or employed in the flooded areas suffer loss of wages. The project would substantially eliminate these flood damages to the city. The average annual benefits, all flood control, attributable to the improvements are estimated at $397,600. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $600,000 will be applied to — Initiate channel enlargement and realinement, construction and alteration of internal drainage features and construction of levees and floodwalls $547,000 Engineering and design 12, 000 Supervision and administration 41, 000 Total 600,000 Funds requested in fiscal year 1969 are required to initiate construction and proceed on an orderly rate of construction with completion as scheduled in fiscal year 1972. Non-Federal cost. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $608,000, broken down as follows: Lands $504, 000 Relocations and alteration of streets, pipelines, and utilities 104, 000 Total 608,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. It is estimated that the average annual non-Federal expenditure for main- tenance will be $15,500. 707 Status of local cooperation. — The responsible local interest, the city of Fremont, furnished the required assurances of local cooperation which were accepted by the district engineer on September 30, 1965. City of Frernont is proceeding with acquisition of real estate for the local flood protection project. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,740,000 is an increase of $540,000 over the latest estimate ($5,200,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The change includes increases of $281,000 for higher price levels, $77,000 based on more detailed design and investigations, $80,000 for engineering and design because of additional design effort required for internal drainage features, and $102,000 for supervision and administration based on a recent reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels $1,094,000 $125,000 $969,000 Levees and fioodwalls 3,106,000 422,000 2,684,000 Pumping stations 662,000 662,000 Engineering and design i496,000 $374,800 $109,200 12,000 Supervision and administration 382,000 37,600 18,400 41,000 285,000 Total applied costs 5,740,000 412,400 127,600 600.000 4,600,000 Undistributed costs - - ---;;;:-;;^;; ; „v^Vn^ Total project costs 5,740,000 412,400 127,600 600,000 4,600,000 Pending adjustments .--.v»-v»v Total costs 5,740,000 412,400 127,600 600,000 4,600,000 Undelivered" orders ---- 500 -500 Total obligations 5,740,000 412,900 127,100 600,000 4,600,000 Method of financing: Allocations - 490,000 50,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. _ 77, 100 Total funds available for obligation 127,100 -^z,,.--„z.- :-;;,a-AoA Appropriations required.. - 600,000 4,600,000 1 Includes $5,000 for real estate activities. Eatj Galle River, Wis. ( Continuing) Location. — The project is located on the Eau Galle River, a tributary of the Chippewa River, at Spring Valley, Pierce County, Wis. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act, Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost... '^'^"^'SSS Estimated non-Federal cost.. -- 336,000 Cash contributions None Other costs. - 336,000 Total estimated projectcost 7,636,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 -- 4,683.000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ' 1,495,000 85 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1,122,000 1-00 Balancetocompleteafter fiscal year 1969 'Includes transfer of $195,000 to project. 708 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: (Rolled earthfill). Length at crest: 1,760 feet. IMaximum height above streambed: 122 feet. Spillway : ( Unlined) . Width of sill and chnte: 100 feet. Spillway peak discharge: 13,700 second-feet. Outlet works: (Uncontrolled). Size: Equivalent to 10 feet diameter. Length: 660 feet. Capacity: 4,200 second-feet. Reservoir : Capacity for conservation purposes acre-feet __ 9.50 Capacity to spillway crest do 44, 000 Capacity to maximum probable pool do 56, 900 Area at spillway crest elevation acres __ 880 Freeboard for spillway design flood feet__ 5 Eau Galle River: Length of discharge channel below outlet works: 2,060 feet. Mines Creek: Levee length: 1,555 feet. Maximum height: 10 feet. Channel improvements: 2,255 feet. Drop structures: 1. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Mines Creek 100 Dam, spillway, and channel 81 October 1968. Entire project 82 June 1969. JUSTIFICATION The village of Spring Valley has been the focal point of flood damages which have occurred from frequent flash floods. The flood of September 1942 reached a height of about 9 feet above the elevation of the main street at Spring Valley, and inundated a large proportion of the homes and business establishments in the community, causing damages estimated at $1,558,000. These damages, under present conditions and at present prices, would approximate $4,353,000, sub- stantially all of which would be prevented by operation of the project. More recent damaging floods have occurred in April 1954, April 1956, July 1959, and June 1965. The flood in 1965 caused damages of about $448,000, which under present conditions and at present prices would amount to about $487,000. The proposed improvements will virtually eliminate further flood losses at Spring Valley and would substantially reduce downstream flood damages to roads, bridges, crojjs, rural property, and other urban areas. Breakdown of average annual benefits: Amoimf. Flood control .$422, 800 Recreation, fish and wildlife 45! 600 Total 468,400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,122,000 will complete the project and will be applied as follows: Amount Complete construction of dam, spillway, and access road $930, 000 Complete construction of recreation facilities 132, 000 Engineering and design 23, 000 Supervision and administration 37, 000 Total 1, 122,000 709 Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $336,000 broken down as follows: AmouiU Lands and damages $126, 000 Relocation of roads, bridges, utility lines, and pipeline 210, 000 Total 336,000 Local interests deepened and widened the channel through Spring Valley in 1938 at a cost of about $2,000. They are required to maintain recreation facilities, Mines Creek improvements, and the channel below the dam at an estimated annual cost of $6,900. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances were accepted on November 5, 1964. Rights of entry have been furnished. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — -The current Federal cost estimate of $7,300,000 is an increase of $290,000 over the latest estimate ($7,010,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $8,000 based on higher price levels, $149,000 for construction based on more detailed estimates for the dam and spillway and $64,000 for engineering and design and $69,000 for supervision and administration due to more extensive construction engineering, supervision and inspection generated by foundation and borrow material difficulties. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal yea fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Reservoirs $24,000 $24,000 Dam 5,120,000 2,782,400 $1,425,000 $912,600 Roads . .. . - 50,000 16,000 17,000 17,000 Channels 316,700 291,100 25,600 Levees .- 15,300 15,300 ---- Recreation facilities... 132,000 132,000 Engineering and design 11,100,000 1,046,700 30,300 23,000 Supervision and administration... 542,000 400,300 104,500 37,200 Toral applied cost (Federal funds only).. 7,300,000 4,575,800 1,602,400 1,121,800 Undistributed cost___ -- Total project cost (Federal funds only)-.. 7,300,000 4,575,800 1,602,400 1,121,800 Pending adjustments . - Total cost (Federal funds only) 7,300,000 4,575,800 1,602,400 1,121,800 Undelivered orders --. 107,400 -107,400 _ .- Total obligations...- 4,683,200 1,495,000 1,121,800 Method of financing: Allocations 4,683,200 2 1,495,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year - Total funds available for obligation 1,495,000 .-- Appropriations required. 1. 121,800 > Includes $25,000 for real estate activities. > Includes transfer of $195,000 to project Mr. BoLAND. Are there any problems or delays concerning the proj- ects which we have not discussed during the hearing and which the committee should be informed of ? General Tarbox. I believe that I have informed the committee of all our problem areas. Mr. BoLAND. That is fine. The committee is pleased with that. Gentlemen, do you have any questions on construction ^ Mr. Whittex. No questions. Mr. Morris. No questions. Mr. BoLAND. Mr. Davis ? 710 ILLINOIS WATERWAY, CALUMET-SAG MODIFICATION, ILLINOIS AND INDIANA Mr. Davis. General, I M'onder if you might direct your attention to page 76. Illinois Waterway, Calumet-Sag project. I note that in the current liscal year there is slippage indicated of $1,565,000 and a re- serve of $673,000. Will you explain the significance of those reductions in allocations? General Tarbox, Sir, the slippage was applied because we were going to have problems in initiation of construction for the Illinois Cen- tral Railroad. This was partly caused by the necessity to relocate a pipeline that was right on the same site. For a while there was a prob- lem of determining who was going to pay for the relocation of that pipeline, the Government, the railroad, or local interests. The decision was local interests would pay for it, but all this took time. Local in- terests are now going to go ahead, but that was why we are able to apply the slippage factor here. The $673,000 Mr. Davis. That is shown in the amount of reserve. In other words, last year there was an approval of $5,400,000 for this project. Actually, the allocation amounted to $3,162,000 and $1,565,000 is designated as slippage. $673,000 is designated as reserve. General Tarbox. I did not recognize it that way. This was due to a stretchout of the program. We took a reduction for that reason. Mr. Davis. The first figure did bear a direct relationship to neces- sary physical delay in construction, but the other we would have to classify as an arbitrary reduction in available funds ? General Tarbox. Yes, sir. SAGINAW RIVER (NAVIGATION) MICH. Mr. Davis. On page 93, the Saginaw River in Michigan, there is another instance where there was a slippage applied of $200,000 and a reserve of $1 million out of a total fund of $1,800,000. In other words, one-third of the indicated money was actually made available by allocation. Can you explain this to us? General Tarbox. Yes, sir. The stretchout there of $1 million resulted from the necessity to de- lay this project because we did not have a Government hopper dredge available in May of 1967 when we scheduled this work to be done. We lost the hopper dredge, Lyman^ out of our division for a year to the East Coast. It had to go there to work to replace a dredge that had been sent from the East Coast to Vietnam. That was the reason we were able to apply the stretchout program of $1 million to this project. The $200,000 was slippage reduction. CLEVELAND HARBOR PROJECT Mr. Davis. The Cleveland Harbor project indicated that $1,500,000 was funded and none of that apparentl;^ has been allocated to the cur- rent fiscal year with $400,000 being attributed to slippage and $1,100,- 000 to reserve. Explain that for us. 711 General Tarbox. The $400,000 was slippage. The $1,100,000 was for the stretchout reduction. The principal work to be done there is the relocation of two railroad bridges. We just have not gotten the rail- roads to execute the construction agreements so that we could proceed with this work in fiscal year 1968. GREEN BAT HARBOR, WIS. Mr. Davis. Green Bay Harbor on page 105, apparently the comple- tion of this project has been delayed by almost two years. Does this reflect any on-site problems or is this strictly a fiscal stretchout ? General Tarbox. This again was caused by the unavailability of a Government hopper dredge. FREEPORT, ILL. Mr. Davis. At Freeport, on page 111, you have indicated a benefit- to-cost ratio of 1.11 to 1. What do you foresee as the future of this project from a benefit-to-cost ratio standpoint? General Tarbox. Sir, I do not think there will be any major change in the immediate future that would make this project unfavorable unless interest rates were changed so that it would cause the ratio to go below that. In that case we would have to restudy this and refor- mulate it. BIG STONE LAKE-WHETSTONE RIVER, MINN. AND S. DAK. Mr. Davis. On page 204, Big Stone Lake and Whetstone Kiver, Minn, and S. Dak,, the request is for $600,000 for land acquisition. This is a project designated as a flood control project, benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.16 to 1, and yet it is indicated that less than 10 percent, or just about exactly 10 percent of it is actually flood control. The balance, recrea- tion and fish and wildlife. Are we justified in proceeding with a project of this kind at this time? Certainly we can't justify it as a flood control project, can we? General Tarbox. Not from the percentage of the benefits. This project, however, offers a unique opportunity as a natural refuge for migratory fowl. EAU GALLE river PROJECT, WISCONSIN Mr. Davis. On page 246 we have a reversal of the normal process. Here we have had some extra funds put in. Wliat good news do you have for us that would explain the allocation of additional funds on this project ? General Tarbox. As we developed more detailed plans and estimates, we were able to reduce our estimated costs so that the total cost was reduced. Mr. Davis. This does not indicate that. You show an increase of $290,000 in your cost estimate. You did allocate an additional $195,000 for the current fiscal year. I wondered what the explanation was for that item. General Tarbox. You are correct, sir. With respect to the additional allocation the contractor was making very good progress and it was 712 to the benefit of the Goveriiniont to take advantage of the progress there. Mr. Davis. So that witli the requested $1,122,000 for the current fiscal year, it is anticipated that this projeiz S 5T=x: to o. 03 >,*^ o :5 3*0 = Q. o O) D-J'Maj ^"30° o ™ -^ £ S -- ^ i2 .2icsj '•''— "— ^'^ ° £ 0310 03 ■^ ra-^ 03*1=^00' E ra o ° °* 2 5-" ir>— 2^- — >«£ X? ° £ _ — .Q'" — 03 ^ , ; 03 _1Q. ^*- ro CT) *- — — i;03^c:-^ir>"-^_^ — 0) .^ ^ .-- TO c r ■ > 03 5 -•-^ -^ ^*^ 03 *" 03 -" ->- " 03 = " — „ o 03 = o 'U S3£-a « ™ w S 00 'xn OQ o .E dJ c ° o;^ _ - O*^ = 2 "^ Q- E * < £.55-gi2J • SSE O'S^co^goratJ" = -■ ir> ra ■= 03 ^ o m 00 •^ 2"^-- S — IS 3 £ « ■o-°=-="ii3-3ra£ = = S^^c/5 a3-£'E = '0 ^a.. Is '" o 8 2 ° • 03'"5 O CO ^— — £S = SO — - I o IJ 03 = *- to o oa 03 a5 , E^^_2JH 1 3 c c"a ' 3 03 '^ ' 03O*-2*>-w33a3c 732 2^ 03 ^^ CD O • ^ Uh £ OJ H ^|r u';E.;;-s.^^.i{lil 'fill ^^11 ill ill ill ill UMtizi DO roCD (5 ™-o-a iS^ qj:5 O QC lU- DO r *- DO ^ ro Qi2 3 "g 5 rc - 5 E ^ > ^ 6 S l2o S;^ 2f'~ 2_-5,.^??p E.2_^a_-2 ™ a. a. ™ - ";; ^ ~ ?— £2raPDo^Do .-j;^ JC^— OT 3 c.5~^ DO- .= 1^1- g^go- 'E Q-^^i:" a; ■ o-^ a. g ^— a; ° 3^ S ra S ^ -P re «J -o S a; =^ ■^ -o DO S^-— ^ ^ iodo g 5 c:=~ £ c ° o a. M<-,^ u ^" I ° S ° o c_> 3"o E -g — I OJ , Do-o ■— " 733 utaries, Comite River 3 towns of Baker and tantial flood damages IS. The combined city- Corn ite River to the the Amite River east w in the lower Amite y improved channels. °°.|||l^Ef 2.e1 efferson Parish, La., about 45 miles sout est Pass of the Mississippi River. It is on agoons, and bayous which form the shore major petroleum and sulfur exploration . These are the basis of the economy for are estimated at $11,000,000 with 1 repo Louisiana Highway 1 is the only land ri is flooded frequently by high tides and st rms and hurricanes. In addition to flood its shoreline by normal tides, winds, lift ose to the beach is threatened by the con ;ome type of hurricane protection for Gr each to its original alinement. s_._ ig its major trib n Rouge and th( areas and subs ind Zachary area od flows of the 2 reservoirs in reduce floodflo 3S in the recenti utarie Iicludii 1 Bato ito low aker, c ing flo ion of ntially elocltii < ■z. < o —J River, Bayou Manchac, and Comite River and tri The study covers the entire Amite River Basin, nd Bayou Manchac which drain most of the city achary. Residential developments are extending i re occurring in the Baton Rouge, Bayou Manchac, 1 arish government has prepared plans for diver lississippi River north of Baker and the construe [ Baton Rouge. These improvements would subst iver where sandy soils are being eroded by high nd Isle and vicinitv Grand Isle is located on the Gulf of Mexico in Ji ew Orleans and 50 miles northwest of the Southw le many low irregular islands separated by bays, 1 [ Louisiana. Grand Isle is a base oT operations for ighly productive recreational and fishing industry rea. Damages to Grand Isle from Hurricane Betsy eath. Population of Grand Isle was 2,074 in 1960. onnecting Grand Isle to the mainland. The island i laves during seasonal occurrences of tropical sto le island is also experiencing continued erosion of rift, and hurricanes. The highway, which passes cl al recession of the beach. Local interests desire : ;le and reestablishment and maintenance of the b 2Era'"-'"2ro-"^ ^- If 2 5eJ?^.|t?5 °.S E 4o'E ) ^-^ g !S oo ■ ■ = 3-= TO-" £ ^ iz-o^o ;^|oTO|^^|i jxj'g 2 2 p i S~cu~ "^IIe-IIIIIi > cj S.°-.9 cur-.-" , ^ "'^ iB aj o "^ c/5 il^.E o ; TIIe, 'o Q. s ^ 3= B. 5 3 J2 z =J 1 TO o O O to o DO TO J= "O o Q--D o u 03 O i 1 g 1 ■0 1 E s ° ■S ^ O o "S B !^ ■a sz 2f >. E V) "S ^ S S T3 ■^ S) £ J2 £ _o ■a 3 m TO — > -*- o 9f -TO-S='oM--o"^il>Q. -<"S£ E-°^Si™ E-u o o-i ; oo_aj - CD Ig So en S C CU ~ ^" !^ 00-0 i= .c ^ TO *" (^ _ ^ __^ ^^ _=!=.— TOOEco"cCU rT'o: '^"^^ = oSt3.II '.^ c= Et3 TO l<^£°.M,-S.S|-g^-S'2 i; o E £ s -r .<2 3=- (iJ "t:; , 0) Q.' C5 -^ "5 f a,« E- sSs.Eeo iC/5 - 5 ra B °- »=S = S-j '^ m** O O , — o ^ """ ^ CJ '— (/I e "^ >, o E D0"O o — X] C3 ^ ■^^ o CD o OJ oo c: CO TD ,-tf "O ^ 'o 1_ "^ oo oo 2. ^ Q (a C — nj'o o ■o oJ o o g _ "S x; c a ■p =30 1 TO 1 ~ 0> d> "^ »-*— ' to — 05**" «3 -Q .2t5^ to to'^^oj^ S o-*- ^ O- ci--J i„ M_ •"■" a •^ — — *— '>^^^"EOQJ"3_c: S-ra *J3 TO-''-^:E 2: S '" .2- 2 S j: -2?c° = " " 2 ^ -^" 03 S ™ ^"^ ^ ■° SIS£sStoSE25 E " 0) o 5 " i'So^'S^TOrl'S^;! I'.eI-SS^II^ItoE . ••- 0)^3 aoJ= .il. to «, 3 ^ *-r « a> "(S o ■" J3 o -2 :5 ^ ■^•^ § ^ S; o.-?ooi2 M3 c " ~ ■t:; ra 3 5 — o ^ bo ^''-S iiSlliiilii S '-^— ' Q. >• a> ^ ~ o m =" _: £^i2 ^ g ;^ i =£-S o.i ^oo«OE^|^o3E j2~ o3-5 2- i c <2 >aj •= J3 t; c o — *-■ " -2 ^ a> o OJ E Q.*- '^ -.^.cz m:= — ■^'-'"tMcSSot— 5:■- c o > l1 a. ,E = ^ESES,^-=i:c^§ 3cSto = : ' 0.0 s .i5.!2-5 E Q> o) i2r^ O) — 735 ss» 3 ^3' O w a o o o o 13 3 » O) 91-459— 68— pt. 1- c o = >,^i .2*- >< o — £.c o re ^ pi*- °"a-o E " £j: = E.2 E • i A c i. «» «i' ® = 55^1?™ w o -3 *- 2 o OS a) oc: ) Oi ■sIs.^'S ^ -2 = ■- = S " > 01 i3 = > 0> QO^ -x: o 5 £ »,jc -= M o ^ 3 " 13 '>w^ "S^ — ■" a O J^ >\(!^ S Ic C -* re ~ Q.'^ ^ *- e- «" _aj • ^ S oo g >-ja re a) "" ^ o) ^ m5(«-are>,«--^ j-X3"dS-Q ,a)-5o = o Sl3 £— g'o E ■" c c oj F u- rs (« P"-= «, S -I k- iS'~ « 5 S o o^ (U i 1.2?£ CI o re a3 3 « V CO i I J re CQ aj en TS 00 o « JT o 'W S -47 736^ MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET, LOUISIANA Mr. Written. $20,000 is budgeted on pao;e 3 to continue the study of the Mississippi River — o;ulf outlet. This study was initiated with funds added to the bill by the Senate last year. Please describe the purpose of this study. General MacDonnell. The gulf outlet is at present a 36- by 500-foot project. The sizes of tankers and other ships are increasing and the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and various other agencies, including the State, have asked consideration of enlargement to greater depth and to 750 feet in width. ST. LOUIS HARBOR, MO. AND ILL. Mr. Whitten. Now we turn to the St. Louis Harbor item, where the cost has been increased by $100,000 since last year, from $400,000 to $500,000. Why is this increase necessary • General MacDonnell. This is because of a model study on which we are embarked which has turned out to be a more sophisticated effort and accounts for $100,000 difference. ; KASKASKIA ISLAND DRAINAGE AND LEVEE DISTRICT Mr. WniTTEN. On page 6, $10,000 is requested to initiate a study of the Kaskaskia Island Drainage and Levee District. Please outline the nature of this proposed study. General ALvcDonnell. This, Mr. Chairman, is one of the interior drainage problems that I mentioned as being common in the upper part of our area. This is in the State of Illinois on the right bank of the Mississippi. It is providing limited protection at the jiresent time. Additional protection to the area from Mississippi River flooding was authorized in 1962 but we still have the problem of interior flooding when river stages are high on the Mississippi. This study will deter- mine if improvements, which would eliminate or reduce crop damage caused by impounded stormwaters, are justified. Mr. Whitten. What is the status of the project authorized in the 1962 Flood Control Act for this area ? General MacDonnell. Although authorized, there has been no work done on it to date. AMITE RIVER, BAYOU MANCHAC, AND COMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA Ml'. WnrnKN. On page 7, $15,000 is budgeted to continue the study of the Amite River Basin. This study was initiated with funds pro- vided in the bill by the Senate last year. WTiat is involved in this Study ? Opueral MacDonnell, The two streams, Comite River and Bayou Manchac, drain most of the city of Baton Rouge and two smallei- fities. Baker and Zachary. They have had relatively i-ecent and serious flood- ing. They are getting substantial flood damages. A^Hiat is intended is to come up with a plan that will meet those needs and will be fompnt- — -ocj^ie ib]e with the futiire plajig.oi theiCpmb^^e^d Gxtyrpai^ish goyemment ^l the State of Lou^^iaiuu .,..' ',.>' ;^' ,r .■ ..-I- , ' , ''■':"'■ :ii r ^.luii .,,,),, ,,,fj ,y..,j'ff -.-:<; I^AKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA. ;,,,, ,; -;,.;,i^ , i^'MhlWHi^fiN. $10,000 is budgeted on page 9.to r^Sume'sttidy of tlie' Lake Pbntdia'rtt'ain area; hVLouisianai. tV^h'at is ithe purpose of this ^tudy?..^^ ..^ ,: , •. , .. ..•.^,.,,./, ',r ,, ;■ • :■ ,. . . 'tj'enerai MacDoistnell. This study is on'-the north shore cf the lake. It is subject to attacks from wave action, wind-induced. It is subject to I overflow, of course, from storms and from hurricane tides. It is I'apidly developing as a suburban area, What is desired by the local interests is construction of certain levees and the extension of the existing Mandeville Seawall, together with some means of erosion protection at the mouth of the river. /iil'ii;J b,;-.; ■/,:.. . , .'LOTTI^iana coastal area _. , ...tiori;! .-i.! ■';Mr.'WHiTTi5N. On page 10, $25,000 is budgeted to initiate' a study of the Louisiana coastal area. What is the purpose of this study? General MacDonnell. This study area consists of all of the Gulf of Mexico marsh area between the Sabine Eiver and the Pearl JKiver. Itris a valuable ground f6r;ftsh and shrimping, and particularly for ii'j^rge oystei^'production. As you know, it is quite ^i center for miij^era.1 productiqn,jOJi ancl gas, sulfur' and salt. .' .. . . '. . ' .... i,',,.\-^ j'fhe construction of flood control levees has deprived the marsh area of' the flood overflows that they normally got in the historical. past, together with sediment that was brought in. This marsh area is grad- ually settling. This changes the ecology as well as the physical char- acteristics, and the purpose of the study is to determine whether some- thing practicable can be done to insure that the existing values are preserved and to restore what we can of the former values. Mr. Whitten. The estimated cost is not yet determined. Roughly, how" much do you feel will be involved in such a study ? General MAcDo>fNELL. Frankly, sir, I do not believe that we can give you a meaningful figure until we have had a public hearing and define the scope of the problem. Anything I tell you 1 am afraid might be misleading. Mr. Whitten. In other words, you are strictly at the initiating stage at the present time ? General MacDonnell. Yes, sir. : Mr. Written. Are there any questions on this item? Mr. Rhodes? APPROACH TO SAVE MARSH AREAS Mr. Rhodes. General, on the study of the coast of Louisiana referred to on page 10, do you have any idea as to what approach you can take to save that rnarsh? From what I read in these few sentences in the justifications, it is a fairly typical example as to what we do when we upset the forces of nature. When you do you always cause some other difficulty that you have to take into account. ■ If you are able to save this marsh, will it be done by pumping fresh water into it from time to time, or diversion of part of the Atchalafaya Floodway into the marsh, or by some other means ? 738 General MacDonnell. Those would all be feasible possibilities that ought to be examined in the course of the study. The marsh areas vary so much in nature that I am sure it will be possible to find constructive things that are economically justified for certain areas. I think it quite possible there would be other areas where the eco- nomic costs are quite high ; we might not be able to work out a solution. Mr. Khodes. Of course, the reason you imdertake a study is to find the answer to the question I just propounded to you. However, I wondered if you had anything on the top of your head as to what can be done. General MacDonnell. I think that salt water barriers and the diversion of fresh-water flows, where these things are economically justified, would be the normal kind of a thing to consider in an approach to the problem. PETIT ANSE, AND CARLIN BAYOUS, LA. Mr. Rhodes. On page 2, navigation study. Petit Anse and Carlin Bayous, I note that tlie reason for the replacement of these two bridges is to take larger barges to a salt mine. Ordinarily, in a situa- tion like this where you are spending Federal funds to serve mainly one type of facility, don't you demand some local participation ? General MacDonnell. When the report is completed and processed to the Congress, if it is clear that there is a single user, then in the recommendations to the Congress this will be taken into account. If there are two or more users and prospects of others, then the cost sharing would be more normal. A single user does have to contribute. Mr. Rhodes. This again is part of the data that you will determine in the course of general investigation ? General MacDonnell. Yes, sir. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET, LOUISIANA Mr. Rhodes. Turning to page 3 and the study for the deepening of the channel from New Orleans to the gulf, as I am sure you know and members of the committee know, we are beseiged by requests to deepen channels because ships are getting bigger. We sometimes wonder where this is going to end. About everybody has now a 35- foot channel, but now they want at least a 40-foot channel. I see this one is to be 50 feet. Is it really necessary that this study be undertaken at this particular time with the budgetary situation that we now have? General MacDonnell. I feel that it is, Mr. Rhodes. Whatever comes out of that study will have a very severe impact on the industry in the area of the lower river since it is so water-oriented. ST. LOUIS HARBOR, MO. AND ILL. Mr. Rhodes. The St. Louis situation, as I recall it, has been ag- gravated always by variation in the flow of the river. Do you have any plans upstream from St. Louis to stabilize the flow into the Mississippi either by the work which you have on the upper Missouri or by M^ork that might be constructed somewhere else to impound certain portions of the floodwaters for that purpose? 739 General McDonnell. No additional impoundments other than those which now exist on the Missouri River. The problem on the Mississippi Eiver is that it has become apparent in recent years that a minimum low flow that one can expect is in the order of 40,000 cubic feet per second rather than what had been hopefully viewed as about 54,000. Of coui-se, we ^et most of our trouble at low- water stages, obviously. The direct answer to your question — no, sir. I know of no additional means other than the existing structures to level out those flows. FLOW OF WATERBORNE COMMERCE Mr. Rhodes. On the map that you have flashed on the wall for us, I was somewhat intrigued by the possibilities of a long haul, say, from ^Montreal or somewhere on the St. Lawrence Seaway clear down to New Orleans by inland water. Do you have any figures to show the total commerce which passes down that waterway each year, say, from Montreal or some port on the St. Lawrence Seaway down to New Orleans^ General MacDonnell. I have them on the Illinois River, which would be the normal method of access. I would be glad to insert those in the record, Mr. Rhodes. All of the traffic on the Illinois River would not neces- sarily have originated in the St. Lawrence Seaway ? General MacDonnell. No, sir ; but maybe we could run that down, too. Mr. Rhodes. I think this might be interesting if it is not too much trouble. If it is a great problem, don't do it. To me it is rather intriguing to see the interconnections of the inland waterways. General MacDonnell. I can get 1966 figures relatively soon. Mr. Rhodes. That would be fine. (The information follows:) Data on waterbome commerce moving between Montreal, Canada, and New Orleans, La., are not available. In calender year 1966 waterborne commerce be- tween the Port of Chicago, Gary, Ind., Indiana City, Ind., and New Orleans, La., totaled 1,414,000 tons. Mr. Rhodes. Thank you. Mr. Whitten. Mr. Davis ? POSSIBLE CONFLICT WITH SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Referring again to the slides which are very revealing, which Mr. Rhodes referred to ; on these areas where we are dealing with surface rainfall, are we in the area of Soil Conservation Service ? Where it is not substantially dealing with navigable waters, how does this get to be a primary responsibility of the corps ? General MacDonnell. In two ways really, Mr. Davis, I will preface this by saying that our coordination with the Soil Conservation Service in the area in which I work is rather complete. The construction of Federal levees in fact impounds water when the Mississippi River reaches a stage where gravity drainage doesn't work. Secondly, there is a considerable effort and expense necessary by local people in connection with lateral drainage. Our problem is to pick up the quantities of water from this lateral drainage and get it out of the area when the river is high. 740 r ,. r, f, , INCREASE IN STUDY ESTIMATES fl^.dnj finrt TO rito 3 "In ■_ ..,;...■■■ • K-MfI Davis. On page 5, General, you have a flood control study shown. It l6{ik& like the estimated cost increased by $25,000 before investiga- ' tion >^'as begun. Is that a valid comment ? General MacDonnell. Yes; it is very valid. As a matter of fact, I have already instructed the district engineer that in cases of this • kind he should not have raised that estimate because I want him to have a public hearing and have a better knowledge of what the local people view as their problem before he changes what is in fact a very preliminary estimate. I consider this quite right. • ,, LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LA. *' Mr. DxVvis. On page 9 it looks like on paper the Ponchartrain study is a resumption in fact and physically. Is it actually a resumption or is it simply that you were taking off some fat in the current fiscal year? General MacDonnell. The latter. From the previous fiscal year, from 1967, we had $32,500 that was carried over. We felt that that amount would be adequate to run the study in fiscal year 1968 and those funds which were originally set up for 1968 were assigned to savings and slippages. Mr. Davis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Advance Engineering and Design bayou bartholomew, ark, & la. Mr. Written. Turning to advance engineering and design, I note that $310,000 is budgeted to continue planning of the Bayou Bar- tholomew and tributaries project in Arkansas and Louisiana. (The justification follows :) v/ : Bayou Bartholomew and Tributaries, Arkansas and Louisiana (Continuation of Planning) Location and description. — Bayou Bartholomew is an east bank tributary of the Ouachita River. It runs south from its source northwest of Pine Bluff, Ark., to its junction with Ouachita River immediately upstream from Sterlington, La. The plan of improvement provides for closure of highwater outlets along the main channel of Bayou Bartholomew, construction of 10 detention reservoirs on tributaries along west escarpment of Bayou Bartholomew basin in Arkansas and a system of 6 local levee units on the main stem in the Louisiana portion of the basin. Authorization. — 1950 River and Harbor Act and 1966 Flood Control Act. , .Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.0 to 1. 8J It '^'■'^^1 ■ Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $15, 900, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement --^ ^^ ---,., —320, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) •.;_'_ L'_,i 1 '.*__. i.^^-^L'^ iJ^ J: 15, 580, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost iuLL::^:;.::._-:L_.i_'-J:J.'j- ' ' 1, 080, 000 Reimbursement (recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement). 4 — 320, 000 ■; ; Other.., .. .-.,_... 760,000 Total estimated project cost ..,._ .^ .._____-_-j_-. 16, 660, 000 PrecOnstruction planning estimate. l.lUy.l'IViirLlL'-'L'l-'J'J'I-TllL'i-'^- 570, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 1... '_-._--..-:-.--_. J. -■ Allocation for fiscal year 1968. 1.. . :.- 150,000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 , . -r-,,'- ^ 3 It), 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 196d-_ ' " , '^llO, 000 741 JUSTIFICATION ;:.-'-»',' r TIT .TV' ;■■■[•■■ ! .T5 'r-^t-'i The flood plain lands in the Bayou Bartholomew Basin are very fertile and have the potential to produce high yields. In 1958, approximately 336,300 acres in the watershed were flooded and an additional 75,000 acres in the Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon Basins were flooded by waters that escaped from Bayou Bartholomew. The average annual flood damages under existing conditions are estimated at $268,200. The proposed reservoirs will reduce flooding on agricultural lands adjacent to the main stem of Bayou Bartholoipew. in Arkansas; the levees will provide needed protection for agricultural lands in Louisiana and the closure of highwater outlets along the main channel will prevent diversion of flow from Bayou Bartholomew to Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon Basins. The average annual benefits are estimated as follows: Flood control --- $2,250,000 Fish and wildlife ., ....___. ---- 100, 000 Recreation t.,^ ^.q^h'*--.-:-- ■*•— Kh-H{4«-f>^ ^^^' ^^^ Total ---- .I-^-Z^-_ J!?--1.- 2, 600, 000 REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS Channel improvements on the main channels of Bayou Bartholomew, Overflow Creek, and Deep Bayou, authorized by the 1950 River and Harbor Act have been deferred until a determination is made that there would be no adverse effect on water quality and quantity. The estimated cost of deferred work is $1,130,000. Non-Federal costs. — Estimated costs to local interests to comply with the re- quirements for local cooperation are $320,000 for reimbursement of one-half of the separable cost of the reservoir projects allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement; $18,000 annually to maintain and operate the levee works and outlet closures; $760,000 for all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations related to construction of the levees and closure structures; and $17,000 annually for all the cost of maintaining and operating the recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not yet been requested. However, local officials have indicated that assurances will be furnished when required. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $15,900,000 is an increase of $6,170,000 over the latest estimate ($9,730,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $4,281,000 for higher price levels and to reflect current land costs; $415,000 in recreation facilities to more realistically meet the needs of the public; and $1,474,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a recent reanalysis of require- ments. Mr. Whitten. The cost of this project has been increased from $9,730,000 hist year to $15,900,000 this year. Why has this large in- crease been necessary ? General MacDonnell. The previous estimate submitted to the Con- gress was tliat shown in the authorizing document and was based on 1962 price levels. The current estimate includes $4,281,000 for increases in price levels, $415,000 for recreation facilities, $1,474,000 in engi- neering, design and supervision and administration, including the pro- vision of funds to cover the etfects of the Federal Employees Salary Adjustment Act since 1962. BENEFIT-TO-COST RATIO Mr. Whitten. Why is it that with this substantial increase there has been no change in the benefit-to-cost ratio since last year? General MacDonnell. At the time we put in an up-to-date cost esti- mate, we also evaluated the benefits at 1967 conditions of growth and of prices. Although not the. same, the ratio of annual costs and annual charges was close enough so that the benefit-to-cost ratio did not chanse. ■ - . ' 742 EAST ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, ILLINOIS Mr. Whitten. $50,000 is requested to initiate planning of the East St. Louis and vicinity local protection project in Illinois. (The justification follows:) East St. Louis and Vicinity, Illinois (New planning start) Location and description. — The project would be located in St. Clair and Madison Counties, 111., along the left bank of the Mississippi River between river miles 175 and 195 above the Ohio River. The project area includes the East Side Levee and Sanitary District. It is about 20 miles long, varies in width from 5 to about 10 miles and contains an area of about 71,700 acres. The plan of improve- ment consists of one new detention reservoir in the hill lands, four ponding areas, ditch enlargements and extensions, one new pumping station and appurtenant hydraulic structures. The work contemplated initially is the replacement of the existing low water dam, located in the Cahokia Creek Diversion Channel, which is badly deteriorated. A new dam is to be constructed 600 feet downstream of the present dam together with a stilling basin with concrete baffles to dissipate energy. Authorizations. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $7, 920, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 4, 906, 000 Total estimated Federal cost 12, 826, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 330, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 50, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 280, 000 justification Abnormal rainfall within the area, plus subsequent runoff from the upland catchment area, causes relatively large damages in commercial, industrial, and residential sections. Drainage tributary to the area is approximately 136,000 acres, of which 86,000 acres are bottom lands and 50,000 acres are hill lands. This is a highly developed residential, industrial, and railroad area. It is the second largest transportation center in the United States and the principal river crossing for transcontinental rail service. Residential population within the district is approximately 185,000 persons living in 11 communities. The value of real and personal property is in excess of $1,200,000. Impounded water is removed from the district by a series of ditches, drains, and pumping stations. When Mississippi River stages at St. Louis reach about 18 feet on the Market Street gage, outflow through gravity structures is materially affected. If the existing low-water dam should fail, the resulting high velocities would cause major scour in the soft alluvium in the channel; would jeopardize the piers of the existing bridges immediately upstream and would under- cut the levees of the East Side Sanitary District and the Wood River Drainage and Levee District bordering the channel. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $1,024,200. Non-Federal cost. — The cost to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project is $4,906,000 for lands, damages, and relocations. The cost for maintenance and operation of the project after completion is estimated to be $94,800 annually. Status of local cooperation. — The trustees of the East Side Levee and Sanitary District have stated that the proposed improvement is adequate and satisfactory and the district has legal authority. However, its financial capabilities have been curtailed by State legislation which will now require a referendum vote to raise the necessary funds. A favorably referendum vote is not forecast by the trustees. State officials have indicated that State aid might be forthcoming, but to date, no legislation has been introduced. The State of Illinois and local interests recog- nize the necessity of improving and augmenting the present drainage facilities as 743 soon as possible. They have indicated that the proposed plan of improvement meets with their approval. It has been determined that, for the purposes of local assurances, the low-water dam is a separate segment of the project. The low-water dam is on the Cahokia Creek diversion channel which forms the boundary between the Wood River Drainage and Levee District and the East Side Levee and Sanitary District. Both of these districts have the legal authority and financial capacity to carry out these assurances when given. No difficulties are anticipated in obtaining these assurances when engineering requirements are furnished to the potential local sponsors. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — ^The current Federal cost estimate of $7,920,000 is an increase of $1,740,000 over the latest estimate ($6,180,000— July 1962 base) submitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. Major design changes since project authorization. — None. Mr. Whitten. Please describe this new planning start. General MacDonnell. This essentially consists of two projects, Mr. Chairman. One is the replacement of a low dam located in the Cahokia Creek diversion channel. The rest of it consists of a tentative plan which would provide for a detention reservoir in the highlands, impounding areas, a pump station, and appurtenant works. The problem here is that if that low dam should fail, what would happen is that the Federal levees on the East Side Sanitary District and the Wood Kiver Drainage District, would be attacked. NON-FEDERAL COSTS Mr. Whitten. The project has a large non-Federal cost and the justifications indicate that local interests may have difficulty raising the necessary funds. What is the situation and why should planning be initiated until the local requirements are more firm ? General MacDonnell. The fact that there are two separable parts, each independently justified economically, accounts for this fact. The preconstruction planning funds requested involve the construction of the low dam in Cahokia Creek which requires no local cooperation. This is where we would put 1969 moneys if they were allocated to us. MORGAN CITY AND VICINITY, LOUISIANA Mr. Whitten. $110,000 is budgeted to complete planning of the Morgan City and vicinity, Louisiana, hurricane protection project. (The justification follows :) Morgan City and Vicinity, Louisiana (Hurricane Protection) (Continuation of planning) Location and Description.— The project area is located in south central Louisiana in St. Mary Parish and will provide hurricane protection to Morgan City and Franklin and vicinity. For the Morgan City area, the project will provide for construction of approximately 5.6 miles of new levees along the shore of Lake Palourde and the west bank of Bayou Ramos and approximately 0.5 miles of new levee from the railroad embankment in the vicinity of Wyandotte to tie in with the Bayou Boeuf lock levee, and construction of three gravity drainage structures. For the Franklin and vicinity area, the project will provide for enlargement of approximately 21.6 miles of back levee and construction of approximately 3.1 miles of new levees to effect a complete closure of the area to be protected, con- struction of one floodgate and five gravity drainage structures, and alteration of existing drainage facilities where necessary. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.4 to 1. 7,U; Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $3, 901, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' 1, 773, 000 Cash contribution 349, 000 Other 1, 424, 000 Total estimated project cost 5, 674, 000 Preconstriiction planning estimate 350, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 140, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 110, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ > In addition, local interests, prior to project authorization, constructed approximately 3.1 miles of levee at Morgan City to protect against inundation from storm tides in Lake Palourde. Cost of this work is unknown. JUSTIFICATION The project area has assumed a position of major importance within the eco- nomic complex of the State of Louisiana. Between 1950 and 1960, the population of the area increased from 28,900 to 41,500 and indications are that a high rate of growth is being sustained throughout the current decade. Primarily, the im- pressive growth of the area has been spurred by the oil and gas industries; its economy is, however, widely diversified, and boatbuilding, steel fabrication, lumber and wood products manufacture, sugar production, salt water fishery, and agriculture have all contributed to the boom. The total value of improve- ments in the project area, e.xclusive of the value of oilfield equipment scattered throughout the marsh areas, is estimated to be in excess of $40 million. The project area lies within a region of high-hurricane incidence (two hurricanes may be expected to hit the Louisiana coast in the typical 3-year period), and is vulnerable to overflow from the tidal surges which hurricanes generate. Should a standard project hurricane pass through the area before the project is completed, damages amounting to $20 million would likely be experienced. Only a negligible portion of the above damages would be attributable to agricultural losses; prac- tically the entire amount would result from physical damage to residential, com- mercial, and industrial facilities. The project will eliminate damages for all hurricanes up to and including the standard project hurricane. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $508,400. In addition to the above, intangible benefits will accrue in the form of protection of human life, the prevention of health hazards arising from pollution, and improvement of sanitary facilities and water supplies in the project area. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to provide all lands, easements and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project; accomplish altera- tions as required to roads, pipelines, cables, wharves, drainage structures, and any other facilities for the construction of the project; contribute in cash or equivalent work an amount not less than 30 percent of the total project cost, said 30 percent to include the fair market value of lands and relocations required of local interest and the remainder in cash or equivalent work specifically undertaken as an integral part of the project after authorization and in accordance with approved construc- tion schedules, the final determination to be made after construction is completed; provide all interior drainage and pumping plants required for reclamation and development of the protected areas; maintain and operate the project after com- pletion, including levees, drainage structures, and drainage ditches or canals; and prevent encroachment on existing ponding areas unless substitute storage capacity or equivalent pumping capacity is provided promptly. The current estimate of project costs to be borne by local interests follows: Lands and damages '. $764, 000 Relocations . 660, 000 Cash contribution 349, 000 Total 1,773,000, In addition, local interest, prior to project authorization, constructed approxi- i mately 3.1 miles of levee at Morgan City to protect against inundation from •■ storm tides in Lake Palourde. Cost of this work is unknown. The estimated annual cost to local interests for maintenance and operation is $9,300 and replacements $1,100, a total of $10,400. Status of local cooperation. — The plan contained in the interim survey report was approved by the police jury of St. Mary Parish; however, Department of 745 Public Works, State of Louisiana, has informed this office that local interests are opposed to construction of the levee along Lake Palourde as now planned (1,000 to 1,500 feet inland). This opposition stems from the fact that local interests are developing the lakeside property by pumping in fill material to an elevation of 7.0 feet mean sea level. A levee through or in front of the developed area is under desirable. The Department furnished a map showing a levee alignment in Lake Palourde desired by local interests. Corps studies have demonstrated that the! additional cost for constructing a levee in Lake Palourde as compared to a land alignment cannot be justified. The Department was requested to inform local interests of the results of corps studies and obtain its current views in regard to the levee along the shore of Lake Palourde. Assurances of local cooperation have been requested but have not been received. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,901,000 is an increase of $316,000 over the latest estimate ($3,585,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change is due to higher price levels and a reanalysis of requirements for engineering and designing and supervision and administration Mr. Whitten. Please outline the problem being encountered clue to the opposition of local interests to construction of the levee by the corps. General MacDonnell. You will notice on the project map the words Morgan City and vicinity, Lake Palourde. Just above that local in- terests are in the process of developing a lakeside property along the shores of this lake by pumping fill material in. They have requested that we try to realine the levee out of this developed land and put it into the lake. We found this not to be economically justified. However, we have a compromise plan which we feel at this time will be acceptable to local interests and it is presently being discussed between the Louisiana Department of Public "Works and the local interests. Vermilion Lock, Louisiana Mr. Whitten. $25,000 is budgeted to initiate the planning of the replacement of the Vermilion lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Louisiana. (The justification follows:) > Vermilion Lock, Louisiana .^ (Initiation of planning) ■'' Location and description. — The project is located in the Louisiana section 'of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway near Abbeville, Vermilion Parish, La., about 163 miles west of Harvey Lock. The recommended plan of improvement provides for the replacement of the existing lock by a new lock located south of the existing waterway and west of the old lock. Authorization. — 1909 River and Harbor Act (sec. 6). Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.3 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost-__-.-. --,-.-:- 7- ^^' ''^O, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost.. ' 1 h- -.-^-.-r- 6, QOO Cash contribution. -^ -. _,1.','-'1.-A ,--_^__, — , — Other :__ .^^.^y^,.. ^ 6.000 Total estimated project cost_^^ — . — ^.^_,,,__ ^■I'-.l-.l 5,746,000 Preconstruction planning estimate :____ — ' — l.. 370, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 , — ^.-_- , - ■, , Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ^ .'. _ . . . _ j _ _ Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 -'-r-'-L'--._L. 25,000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 345, QOO 746 JUSTIFICATION The present Vermilion Lock is located in the most heavily utilized section of the entire Gulf Intracoastal VV'aterway. It is the controlling structure in the waterway in both width and depth. The tumbler-type gates are unsatisfactory for the dual purpose (Flood control-navigation) operation required, since once the gates are lowered to pass floodflows, they cannot be safely raised until the differential stage across the lock is reduced to about 0.5 feet. The replacement lock will reduce delays caused by turbulent flow conditions and restricted width and depth. The replacement lock also will provide a larger and more efficient outlet for floodwaters. The average annual benefits are estimated at $543,600 for navigation and $4,000 for flood control. Non-Federal costs. — The current estimate of project costs to be borne by local interests is as follows: Lands and damages $4, 900 Engineering and design and supervision and administration 1, 100 Total 6, 000 Status of local cooperation. — ^The State of Louisiana, Department of Public Works has informed the New Orleans District that the required local cooperation for the project would be forthcoming as required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — An estimate for this project has not previously been submitted to Congress. Major design changes since project authorization. — None. Mr. Whitten. Please describe this new planning start. General MacDonnell. This is to replace an obsolete structure which is presently a bottleneck on the waterway. The replacement lock will consist of concrete U-frame gate bays. It will have sector gates and an earth chamber. The annual benefits, that will accrue from navigation savings and other subsidiary benefits, will run about $543,600 a year. DELAY IN NAVIGATION Mr. Whitten. Wliat is the actual delay being encountered by navi- gation with the present lock ? General MacDonnell. One reason for delay is that this lock is equipped with tumbler-type gates which are an old-fashioned kind of gate with hinges at the bottom and it folds down to permit passage of the tow. Wlien you have a differential in head of more than a half a foot, you cannot put the gate back up so the tow has to sit there and wait until that condition obtains. I could furnish some statistics on that. As to tonnages and times, Mr. Chairman, I can obtain such figures and provide them for the record. Mr. Whitten. Please do. (The information follows :) Delays at the existing lock result from double-tripping because of inadequate width of the lock and the necessity to use a longer route when there is inadequate depth over the sill or the gates can't be raised. The practical capacity of the lock is 25,900,000 tons. In 1903 traffic on the waterway was 26,760,000 tons and a part of it was forced to use the longer route. By 2018, traffic is estimated to reach 60,000,000 tons. UNION RESERVOIR, MO. Mr. Written. $500,000 is requested to continue planning on the Union Reservoir in Missouri. (The justification follows:) 747 Union Reservoir, Mo. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The dam would be located at mile 31.6 on the Bour- beuse River, a Meramec River tributary, about 65 miles southwest of 8t. Louis. The project provides for construction of an earth dam to create a reservoir whicii would be located in Franklin County. The reservoir would contain 528,000 acre- feet of total storage for flood control and water supply. Authorization. — 1938 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — -1.3 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $30, 400, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 3, 000, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 27, 400, 000 Estimated non- Federal cost 3, 000, 000 Reimbursement, water supply 3, 000, 000 Total estimated project cost 30, 400, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 1, 500, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 i 184, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 500, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969__ 716, 000 ' Proportionate share of expenditures prior to fiscal year 1951 on overall basin planning. JUSTIFICATION Construction of Union Dam would provide standard project flood protection to 7,020 acres of flood plain in the Bourbeause River Valley above the mouth of the Bourbeause River and partial protection to 28,760 acres of land in the lower Meramec. It would also provide storage to satisfy the present and future demands for water supply and water quality control as well as low flow augmentation for navigation on the Mississippi River. The normal pool of 6,600 acres with 100 miles of shoreline would be available for recreational use and fish and wildlife conserva- tion. Completion of the project will result in an estimated 1,770,000 visitor days annual recreational attendance which will stimulate the local economy. Breakdown of average annual benefits: Amouvt Flood control $508, 800 Water supply 189, 300 Water quality control 195, 500 Recreation 722, 900 Fish and wildlife 285, 300 Navigation 5, 600 Increased transportation costs — 5, 800 Total 1,901,600 Non-Federal costs. — In accordance with provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958 the cost of storage allocated to water supply in the Union Reservoir would be reimbursed by local interests. Under this act local interests would be required to contribute the cost of water supply storage estimated at $3 million. Also, they will be required to bear a share of the total annual cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement estimated at $14,400 for water supply. Status of local cooperation. — Missouri House bill No. 95 authorizes the Missouri Water Resources Board to grant assurances on behalf of the State for water supply storage in water resources projects. Under terms of the bill a fund is accumulated from which payments can be made under subsequent contracts between the State and the Government for payment for water supply storage. Form 1 assurances of local cooperation have not been requested. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.- — The current Federal cost estimate of $30,400,000 is an increase of $2 million over the latest estimate ($28,400,000) submitted to Congress. This change is due to higher price levels. Mr. Whitten. Last year there was a cost increase of $900,000 on this project. This year there is an additional increase of $2 million. The 748 benefit-to-cost ratio has dropped to 1.3 to 1. What is the likelihood thiit with the hifjher interest rate and increased costs that this proiect will drop below unity ? General MacDonnell. The cost increase of $2 million is due to rises m price levels. To give an exact answer to the second part of your question about the increase in the interest rate, we would have to review the project formulation and make a new cost allocation, but as an approximation I would say it would be about 1.15. EFFECT OF HIGHER INTEREST RATE Mr. Whitten. I expressed a personal belief earlier in these hearings in regard to the budget proposal to raise the interest rates used in computing the cost-benefit ratio if the cost of a project increases be- cause of the higher rate, then the value of the benefits from the project would also rise in a similar proportion. We will insert the balance of the justifications under adramce engi- neering and design. Levee District 21 (Vandalia), Kaskasia Riveu, III. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — On the left bank of the Kaskaskia River between miles 155.5 and 172 in Fayette County, 111. The project provides for the recon- struction of 20.9 miles of levees, construction of diversion and pilot chaumels. and closure and drainage structures. Authorization. — 1958 and 1965 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.06 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $5, 4§0, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 681, 000 Cash contribution Other costs 681,000 Total estimated project cost 6, 171, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 400, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 100,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 150, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 150, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 None justification The existing levee offers only partial protection to 11,430 acres of which 9,530 acres are cleared. The improved levee would provide flood protection benefits, consisting of flood damages prevented to crops and property and of changed land use on cleared and wooded lands. Improvement of this levee is an essential element in the comprehensive plan of development in the Kaskaskia River Basin. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $290,100. Non-Federal cost. — The cost to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $681,000 for lands, damages, and relocations. The estimated annual cost to local interests of operation and maintenance is $19,500. Status of local cooperation. — The Vandalia Drainage and Levee District, a pres- ently organized and existing district, intends to sponsor this project. In a meeting on April 25, 1967, the commissioners of the district indicated that they would take the necessary steps to obtain legal authority and financial ability to furnish assurances of local cooperation on request. The commissioners were heartily in favor of the proposed plan submitted at the above meeting. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,490,000 is an increase of $120,000 over the latest estimate— ($5,370,000) — submitted to Congress. This change includes $83,000 for higher price levels and $37,000 for engineering and design based on a reanalysis of requirements. 749 Levee District No. 23 (Dively), Kaskaskia Rivek, III. (Continuation of planning) Location and description— The project lies along the left bank of the Kaskaskia River between miles 172 to 174, in Fayette County, 111. It provides for the re- construction of 3.5 miles of levees and appurtenant drainage structures. Authorization.— 195H and 1965 Flood control acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — ^1.4 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $665, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost ''> ^^^ Cash contribution Jf Other costs tIo' nnn Total estimated project cost '*^' "^^ Preconstruction planning estimate »"' ^^^ Allocations to June 30, 1967 " Allocation for fiscal year 1968 50, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 7ncn'"' '^"v""" Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 19b9-._ JNone justification The existing levee offers only partial protection to 1,280 acres of which 970 acres are cleared. The improved levee would provide flood protection benefits consisting of flood damages prevented to crops and property and of changed land use on cleared and wooded lands. Improvement of this district is an essential ele- ment in the comprehensive plan of development in the Kaskaskia River Basin. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $45,500. Non-Federal cost.— The cost to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth m the authorizing legislation is $77,000 for lands, damages, and relocations. The annual cost to local interests for operation and maintenance is estimated Status of local cooperation.— Local interests have indicated that they either have or will have the necessary legal authority and financial ability to furnish the required assurances of local cooperation. The levee commissioners of the district have an active interest in this improvement. -^ , , ^ ^- ^ r Comparison of Federal cost estimates.— The current Federal cost estimate of $665 000 is an increase of $50,000 over the latest estimate ($615,000) submitted to Congress. This increase is based on a reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervision and administration. Wood River Dr.mnage and Levee District, Illinois (Interior Flood Control) (Continuation of planning) Location and description.— The project Ues on the left bank of the Mississippi River between miles 195 and 203 above the mouth of the Ohio River in JVIadison County 111 The area to be protected is about 8 miles long and varies in width from 2 to 3)4 miles and contains about 13,400 acres. It is protected by levees built to approved grade and section. Local precipitation is removed through gravity drains except when Mississippi River stages require removal by pumpmg. Pumps and drains have already been provided for all properties in the project except the low portion which is a highly developed agricultural area. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. 750 Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $254, 000 Eistimated non-Federal cost 21, 000 Cash contribution Other costs 21, 000 Total estimated project cost 275, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate , 50, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 20, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 30, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 — None JUSTIFICATION Precipitation and runoff which enter the urban and industrial areas are evac- uated by pumping, while that which enters agricultural areas must be ponded until stages on the Mississippi become low enough for the gravity drainage struc- tures to again become operable. Improvement of interior drainage and construction of one pump station will reheve this situation. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $24,100. Non-Federal cost. — The cost to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $21,000 for furnishing lands and damages. The esti- mated annual cost to local interests for operation and maintenance is $4,300. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests are desirous of obtaining this needed protection. The levee district has the legal and financial ability to furnish the necessary assurances of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $254,000 is an increase of $26,000 over the latest estimate ($228,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $10,000 for higher price levels and $16,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a reanalysis of requirements. Appropriation title. — Construction, general — advance engineering and design local protection projects (flood control). Bayou Bodcau and Tributaries, Louisiana (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project area is a part of the Bayou Bodcau drainage basin on the left descending bank of Red River in Bossier and Red River Parishes, Louisiana, about 5 miles east of Shreveport, La. The plan of improve- ment will provide for three major features. The Cypress Bayou-Red Chute Bayou feature provides for 12.5 miles of levee construction with intercepted drainage features, and 9 miles of clearing and snagging; the Flat River-Loggy Bayou feature provides for construction of 32.1 miles of levee, with intercepted drainage features; and the Flat River feature provides 11.6 miles of channel enlargement. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $2, 110, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' 860, 000 Cash contribution Other 860,000 Total estimated project cost 2, 970, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 340, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 150,000 AUocations for fiscal year 1968 150, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 40, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 > In addition, local interests during the period 1926 to 1965, spent $1,275,000 for construction and mainte- nance on streams in the project area to provide flood protection and drainage improvements. JUSTIFICATION The project will provide essentially complete protection to 22,040 acres of improved agricultural land and enhancement will accrue to 28,555 acres of land (19,900 open land and 8,655 woodland). 751 Benefits credited to the project are based on flood damage prevented and land enhancement afforded by the planned protection works. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $182,200. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are specifically required to furnish all lands, easements and rights-of-way for construction, including flowage easements over 10,900 acres of bottom lands above Highway 80 that will be adversely affected by the levee; accomplish relocations (except railroad bridges), prevent encroach- ment on ponding areas or provide substitutes, maintain and operate the project after completion and accomplish associated drainage works. The cost of associated drainage, $240,000, was deducted from enhancement benefits and is not considered a project cost. In addition, local interests during the period 1926-1965, through the combined efforts of the department of public works, State of Louisiana, and the Bossier Levee District, have spent an estimated $1,275,000 for construction and maintenance on streams in the project area to provide flood protection and drainage improvements. The current estimate of project costs to be borne by local interests follows: Lands $526,000 Relocations 334, 000 Total 860, 000 The annual cost to local interests for maintenance, operation and replacements is estimated at $16,000. Status of local cooperation. — The board of commissioners of the Bossier Levee District and the board of commissioners of the 19th Louisiana Levee District at the time of the submission of the survey report (April 1962) approved the proposed plan and agreed to provide the recommended local cooperation. Formal request for the Act of Assurances was made of these agencies on January 13, 1967. An Act of Assurances was accepted from the 19th Louisiana Levee District on October 26, 1967. An acceptable Act of Assurances has not been obtained to date from the Bossier Levee District but continuing effort is being made to obtain the assurances. The department of public works is assisting in this effort. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $2,110,000 is an increase of $270,000 over the latest estimate ($1,840,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change is due to higher price levels and a reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervision and administration. Grand Isle, Louisiana, and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection) (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project area is located in the coastal section of Louisiana in Lafourche Parish. The project will consist of the following features in the Golden Meadow to Larose area: A loop levee approximately 36 miles in length along both banks of Bayou Lafourche; enlargement of about 3 miles of the existing levee at Golden Meadow; floodgates for navigation and hurricane pro- tection iu Bayou Lafourche at the upper and lower bayou crossings; approximately 8 miles of low interior levees to regulate intercepted drainage; and seven multi- barreled culverts controlled by flapgates. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $7,420,000 Estimated non-Federal cost i 3, 180, 000 Cash contribution 1, 150, 000 Other 2, 030, 000 Total estimated project cost 10, 600, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 410, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 200, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 150, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 60, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 1 In addition, local interests have spent an estimated $500,000 to provide protection for the town of Golden Meadow, La., against tidal inundation. 91-469— 68— pt. 1 48 :752 JUSTIFICATION The project area is of great economic importance to the State of Louisiana, and includes lands and improvements having an aggregate value approaching $40,000,- 000. In 1960, the population of the area was 14,600 and increasing steadily. While oil and gas production and commercial fishery, along with related service industries, dominate the economy of the area, a wide spectrum of economic activity finds expression within the overall economic complex. Situated within a region of high hurricane incidence (on the average two hur- ricanes make landfall on the Louisiana coast every 3 years), the project area is highly vulnerable to overflow from the tidal surges which accompany hurricanes. Should a hurricane similar to that of 1915 (the largest for which records are available) visit the area, damages in excess of $1,500,000 could be expected. Should a major hurricane approaching the standard project hurricane in intensity move through the area, the entire project area would be submerged in the tidal surge and monetary damages would likely amount to $15,000,000. This damage would include minor crop losses, but the bulk of the damage would consist of physical damage to residences, commercial, and industrial estabhshments. The project will provide total protection against flooding for all hurricanes of lesser magnitude than one having a frequency of occurrence of once in 100 years. An additional benefit, not included below, and not evaluated in the studies on which project authorization is based, but nevertheless of material import, will be realized in the form of reduced flooding for the larger hurricane which may be expected to occur less frequently than once in 100 years. The average benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $525,000. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including borrow areas and spoil disposal areas; accomphsh alterations to roads, pipelines, cables, wharves, oil wells, and any other facihties necessary for construction of the project; bear 30 percent of the total project cost, a sum presently estimated at $3,180,000 to consist of the items listed above and a cash contribution presently estimated at $1,150,000, or equivalent work after authorization; maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and prevent any encroachment on ponding areas unless substitute storage capacity or equivalent pumping capacity is provided promptly without cost to the Urkited States. The current estimate of project costs to be borne by local interests follows: Lands and damages $454, 000 Relocations 1, 576, 000 Cash contribution 1, 150, 000 Total 3, 180, 000 In addition, local interests, through the combined efforts of the Department of Public Works, State of Louisiana, and the Lafourche Parish police jury have spent, between 1954-65, an estimated $500,000 for a protective system around the town of Golden Meadow, La., against tidal inundation and for the comple- mentary interior drainage works. The estimated annual cost to local interests for maintenance and operation is $25,100 and replacement $4,700, a total of $29,800. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation by the Lafourche Parish police jury were accepted on June 28, 1967. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $7,420,000 is an increase of $410,000 over the latest estimate ($7,010,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change is due to higher price levels and a reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design, and supervision and administration. ,_-g^_og^-r«^ 753 [ •> Monroe Floodwall, Louisiana (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Monroe floodwall is located along the Ouachita River, on the west edge of the central business district of Monroe, in Ouachita Parish, La. The improvement consists of closure of a 1,750 foot gap which was left in the wall at the time of its construction in the mid-1 930's. The gap was left because of insurmountable rights-of-way problems resulting from congestion in the area, including buildings that extend over the riverbank. Authorization. — ^1965 and 1966 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $1, 640, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 92, 000 Cash contribution Other 92, 000 Total estimated project cost 1, 732, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 350, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 40, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 200, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 110, 000 JUSTIFICATION Because of the gap in the floodwall, a substantial part of the central business district of Monroe and adjacent residential areas is threatened by floods. When river stages approach the project design flood elevation, it is necessary to close the gap under extremely costly emergency conditions. Because of the growth of business and increasing land values in the threatened area, local interests strongly urge that the project be constructed and the flood threat removed. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $115,500. Non-Federal costs. — Estimated costs to local interests to comply with the requirements for local cooperation are: $92,000 for lands, easements, rights-of- ways and relocations, and $3,000 annually for operation, maintenance, and major replacements. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not yet been requested. However, local interests as represented by the Tensas Basin Levee Board have stated that assurances will be furnished when required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,640,000 is an increase of $480,000 over the latest estimate ($1,160,000) submit- ted to Congress. This change includes increases of $179,000 for higher price levels on construction and $301,000 in engineering and design, and supervision, and administration based on a recent reanalysis of requirements. Mr. Written. Mr. Rhodes? Mr. Rhodes. I have no questions on this item. Mr. Whitten. Mr. Davis ? BAYOU BARTHOLOMEW COST INCREASE Mr. Davis. I am not sure that I completely understood the expla- nation of the $6 million increase in the Bayou Bartholomew and tribu- taries. As I understood it, General, the figures had not been brought up to date since the 1950 authorization. What change was made here by the 1966 act ? General MacDoxnell. The 1966 act authorized the plan contained in a review report. House Document 506, Eighty-ninth Congress. Con- 754 tained in that report were cost and benefit figures which were based on 1962, although it took perhaps 3 or 4 years to complete the report and process it through the Congress. The price levels that were in the previous submission to the Congress are those that were used in preparing the survey report of which the project authorized by the 1966 Flood Control Act was based. The 1966 act authorized 10 water detention reservoirs and six local levee units. Mr. Davis. The $6 million item was actually from the 1962 figures then, rather than 1950 ? General MacDonnell. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. In those 6 years we have had an increase of 26 or 27 percent ? General MacDonnell. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Construction deferral and stretchout program ]Mr. Whitten. Turning now to construction, please outline for the committee the extent and the effects of the deferrals and stretcliouts made in the construction program underway in your division. General MacDonnell. Under construction, to which we have been addressing ourselves, the Congress appropriated $68,067,000, from which was deducted savings and slippages in the amount of $7,680,000. This left $60,387,000 and deferred from that was the sum of $5,736,000. That is about 91^ percent. The effect in my area I would consider not to be drastic, I visualize no project completion dates being delayed as a result of these particular deferrals. OUACHITA and BLACK RIVERS, ARK.-LA. Mr. Whitten. $8,300,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Ouachita and Black River navigation project. (The justification follows:) Ouachita and Black Rivers, Ark. and La. (Continuing) Location. — A navigation channel in the Red, Black, and Ouachita Rivers extending 382 miles from Old River, La. to Camden, Ark. Authorization. — 1960 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967... Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $94,300,000 4,093,000 4,093,000 98,393,000 16,900.000 8,414,000 25,314,000 27 8,300,000 36 60,686,000 755 PHYSICAL DATA CliaMiiL'l;: 9 feet deep and 100 fe(>t wide, 382 miles long from Old River, La., to Camden, Ark. Locks: Size: 84 feet by 600 feet. Jonesvillc 30-foot lift (maximimi). Columbia 18-foot lift (maximum). Felsenthal 18-foot lift (maximum). Calion 12-foot lift (maximum). Dams: Jonesvillc: Length 450 feet; five gates each 50 feet long, 31 feet high with a 200-foot-navigation pass. Columbia: Length 400 feet; four gates each 50 feet long, 26 feet high, with a 200-foot-navigation pass. Felsenthal: Length 350 feet; three gates each 50 feet long, 31 feet high, with a 200-foot-navigation pass. Calion: Length 350 feet; three gates each 50 feet long, 26 feet high, with a 200-foot-navigation pass. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Columbia lock and dam..... 76 Reservoirs... Dams 77 Locks 94 Roads Channels and canals 1 Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities 56 Permanent operating equipment 9 Jonesville lock and dam_ 18 Reservoirs Dams 12 Locks 16 Roads 91 Channels and canals 18 Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities 28 Permanent operating equipment 1 Felsentha Hock and dam (') Calion lock and dam (') Entire project 25 Open to 9-fool navigation: Columbia, lock and dam Jonesville, lock and dam Felsenthal, lock and dam Calion, lock and dam June 1971. March 1971. December 1970. December 1969. December 1970. June 1971. Do. June 1970. June 1971. September 1971. March 1971. December 1970. March 1971. December 1970. September 1971. June 1971. June 1970. June 1971. Not scheduled. Do. Do. June 1971. Do. Not scheduled. Do. > Construction not started. JUSTIFICATION The present controlling dimensions of tlie existing waterway are 6.5 by 100 feet. There is a need for navigation improvements to provide a 9-foot minimum depth channel in order to permit tha froe interchange of towing facilities between the Missssippi and Ouachita Rivers. A saving of $4.14 per ton on waterbome freight will be realized from the improved project. In 1966, commerce was 241,765 tons. The project is credited with benefits derived from transportation savings from use of waterway, recreational opportunities, and fish and wildlife enhance- ment. Negative benefits in the amount of $100,000 are credited to DeGray Reservoir for low flow augmentation. Average annual benefits follow: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Navigation $5, 088, 800 Recreation 2, 229, 000 Fish and wildlife 97, 000 Allocated to DeGray Reservoir —100,000 Total 7,314,800 756 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $8,300,000 will be applied to — Columbia lock and dam: Initiate and complete shop conversion $5, 200 Initiate recreation facilities 132, 000 Continue miscellaneous hired labor work 32, 200 Complete dam 125, 000 Complete lock 125, 000 Engineering and design 90, 000 Supervision and administration 41, 000 Subtotal 550,400 Jonesville lock and dam: Initiate Catahoula control structure and reach 3 500, 000 Initiate little river closure dam 40, 000 Initiate recreation facilities 103, 000 Continue dam, lock, access road and service building 5, 656, 000 Continue Catahoula Lake Diversion Channel, reach 2 800, 000 Continue miscellaneous hired labor work 43, 000 Complete bascule gate 30, 000 Engineering and design 150, 000 Supervision and administration 375, 600 Subtotal 7,697,600 Overall project: Initiate and complete office building and furniture for central maintenance and storage facilities 52, 000 Grand total 8, 300, 000 The funds requested are necessary to provide an orderly and economical construction schedule and provide navigation to Sterlington by June 1971 as scheduled. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $4,093,000 broken down as follows: Lands $3,025,000 Relocations 958. 000 Pipelines (150,000) Roads and bridges (753, 000) Powerlines ( 55, 000 ) Engineering and design 44, 000 Supervision and administration 66, 000 Total 4,093,000 Status of local cooperation. — Local interests have furnished assurances that they would comply with the requirements of local cooperation for the navigation features of the project. In addition, the Arkansas counties of Ashley, Bradley, and Union agreed to furnish assurances of local cooperation for the Felsenthal Fish and Wildhfe Pool. Local interests in Louisiana are complying with the requirements for local cooperation; whereas, local interests in Arkansas have not indicated when they will comply. On August 4, 1966, after approval to add the Felsenthal fish and wildlife pool,,;' the Arkansas counties of Ashley, Bradley, and Union wore requested to furnish the additional assurances for the added fish and wildlife pool. Also, prior to this, on March 11, 1966, the Arkansas counties of Ashley and Union were requested to furnish the lands for the Felsenthal look and dam site, and access road. To date, neither the lands for Felsenthal lock and dam site and access road'/ nor the additional assurances for the Felsenthal fish and wildlife pool have been received from local intere.sts. Indications as to wlieu the right-of-way problem in Arkansas may be resolved are indefinite at this time. On the Louisiana portion of the project, local interests have completed aeciui- sition of lands for Columbia and Jonesville locks and dams and Catahoula Lake diversion channel and are acquiring the lands for the pools of both of these locks and dams. 75:^ Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $94,300,000 is an increase of $3,700,000 over the latest estimate ($90,600,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $3,265,000 for higher price levels and $475,000 in engineering and design based on a detailed estimate of the remaining engineering required. These increases were partially offset by a net decrease of $40,000 in other features based on favorable bids and more detailed planning. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Tiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Columbia Lock and Dam: Reservoir _ Dams _ _ Locks _,_ Roads ._ Channels and canals Recreation facilities _ . Buildings, grounds, and utilities..-.. Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Subtotal— Columbia Jonesville Lock and Dam: Reservoir. Dams Loclq 'iftjjiw vroi bfij; 'i:^.f; ./ ' ! ! ;\. /: , ...,.;-•, ■ ' ■. p/-K»V,~. ■ ,, . ;; ■ • ■ , . eOST INCREASE "" ' Mr. Whitten. Explain the sizable cost increase of $5,800,000 since last year. j: General MacDonnell. There were design changes affecting reloca- '..tions, and the lock, totaling $5,438,000. Certain erosion control meas- ..pui'es were added at $70,000 and price levels increased the estimate "'|;?92,000. contractor's schedule Mr. Whitten. There have been indications that the estimate for 1969 is considerably lower than necessary to meet contractor's earn- ings. What is the situation in this regard ? . , General MacDonnell. Referring to the principal contract which as ■_J indicated covers the lock, the dam, and 1.2 miles of canal, we are Me with the budget allowance to allocate $4,100,000. The contractor's schedule, which we consider reasonable, calls for $10 million in fiscal ..year 1969. , , BID EXPERIENCE ,V Mr. Whitten. What was the resut of bid openings, the number of , bills, the high and low bid, and the Corps of Engineers estimate at the time of bids? General MacDonnell. There were three bids for the lock, dam, canal, and field office. The low bid was $28,553,000. The high bid was $43,879,000. The Corps of Engineers estimate was $26,406,000. The contract was awarded on September 22, 1967. ^Ir. Whitten. Was the low bidder a responsible contractor and was the award made to the low bidder? General MacDonnell. Yes, sir. Mr. Whitten. Did the invitation for bids require completion within a certain time period? If so, based on the time allowed for construc- ;tion in the invitation for bids, when should the work be complete? General MacDonnell. 1,100 days was specified. Notice to proceed was issued October 12, 1967. Taking cognizance of the fact that in most contracts there are excusable time delays, the fall of 1971 would be a good estimate. 762 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Mr. Written. Did the contractor submit a proposed work sched- ule for constructing the lock, dam, canal, and field office? General MacDonnell. Yes, sir ; we considered it reasonable. Mr. Whttten. Considering high water and low water periods on the Kaskaskia and Mississippi Kivers, do you consider the contractor's schedule as submitted to be consistent with one on which a prudent contractor would base his operations for this type of work ? General MacDonnell. Yes, sir. Under his proposed method of ac- complishing the work, he must get his work up out of the foundations in the first year. It is my understanding that he plans to utilize a costly well-point system which must be operated continuously once he starts until his foundations and part of the superstructure are com- plete. APPROVAL OF contractor's CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Mr. Written. Did the district engineer approve the contractor's schedule of operations ? General MacDonnell. No, sir. The contract provides that a prog- ress chart which covers the work for which funds are not currently available will be prepared on the basis of a schedule considered prac- ticable by the contractor at such rate of progress as he may desire for completion within the terms of the contract. The schedule will be revised each time the contractor is notified that additional funds are made available. The contract also provides that approval of that part of the schedule covering work for which funds are not currently available will in no way obligate the Government to provide funds to accomplish work at the rate of progress indicated in the schedule. Mr. Written. Why didn't you approve his schedule ? General MacDonnell. The contractor has not yet submitted a com- plete schedule as required. His informally presented partial schedule was not approved because, b}^ the time it was discussed, the indications were that the fiscal year 1969 allowance of funds for this project was much less than would be required to meet his schedule. REQUEST for FISCAL YEAR 19 69 Mr. Written. How much was the initial request of the district engineer for construction of the project in fiscal year 1969 ? General MacDonnell. $22,500,000 which included $8,500,000 for the contract under discussion. Mr. Written. If you do not provide sufficient funds to meet the contractor's scheduled completion date required in the invitation for binds, what alternatives are available to the contractor ? 763 General MacDonnell. He could finance himself and continue to work. He could suspend operations until additional funds could be made available in which case he could be allowed additional time. He could slow down his operations to a rate commensurate with avail- able funds. EFFECTS ON PROJECT IF CONTRACT CANCELED Mr. Whitten. In the event the contractor elected to cancel his con- tract, what do you think would be the results of the project costwise? General MacDonnell. Sufficient funds to meet the contractor's anticipated earnings in fiscal year 1968 have been made available. The contract does not provide for cancellation or termination at the con- tractor's option except in the case where Congress fails to appropriate additional funds for the contract in fiscal year 1969 or subsequent years. Should this occur, the contract may be terminated and con- sidered to be completed, at the option of the contractor, without preju- dice to him or liability to the Government. Should it become apparent to the contracting officer that the available funds will be exhausted be- fore additional ftinds can be made available, the contracting officer will give at least 30 days' written notice to the contractor that the work may De suspended. Should work be thus suspended, additional time for completion will be allowed equal to the period during which work is necessarily so suspended. Costwise, if the contractor defaulted on his contract the Government would look to the sureties to complete the contract at no additional cost to the Government. Mr. Written. I thought it might be desirable to develop this line of questioning on this contract for I think it typifies many situations we are faced with on going projects in this tight budgetary situation. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-GULF OUTLET, LOUISIANA Mr. Whitten. $550,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Mississippi Kiver-Gulf Outlet in Louisiana. (The justification follows :) Mississippi Rivbb-Gulf Outlet, Louisiana (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in the southeastern portion of Louisiana east of the Mississippi River. It is essentially a deep draft seaway canal extending for approximately 76 miles in a southeasterly direction from the city of New Orleans to the Gulf of Mexico. The plan of improvement provides for a 36- by 500-foot channel, protective dikes, a turning basin, a highway bridge, and a new ship lock replacing the existing Inner Harbor Navigation Canal lock, with suitable enlarge- ment of Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to be constructed when economically justified. Authorization. — Public Law 455, 84th Congress, second session, approved March 29, 1956. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. nv Oi QUlliiflOO baS If 0?.,-;; SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL &ATA ..L!:i>l'/:oa'JAl/'L ifi'lOfl'tO '-"•■ ■' ii!!!V I l!;r:Ji \- '■ . ■■: ■ ;..; ■; ■ ,, ;•;;• : '■ ■■■ ; - ■' " ' • ■ ■ ' . 'i" -■ ' . . . - ■ ■ } I ij .. Amount Accumulated!' i percent of , estimatetf' ' • i Federal cost , ; j. Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) _ Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) Estimated non-Federal cost _-_ -..,.:--; iJ-,'j.lii'V.y Cash construction 2..,.^,.,,.,. . Other costs ..,...-:- .._....... ■-:^.'l:!. Total estimated project cost. -....^.^ . .,^-..-J. ..i-;.-. Allocatiojis to June30, 1967_:_. ...:_.: . .,.:.:.. ...'. Allocation for fiscal year 1968.... .:. :^:,'.- ^. _.„...- Allocations to date -.., .'^ Appropriations requested for fiscal 1969 . :..■...: :..:..- Balance to somplete after fiscal year 1969 $163,000,000 2.613,000 _ _. 1 36, 832, 000 ....ii.Li. .;: J,. . 36,832,000 ';^^^-'r??"Zni'] J 202,445,000 ■.,...:.-^^..^.:,,jl. 60,233,000 ......v...,.::... 1,425,000 .....^.„.,.;iJ.U; 61,658,000 38 550,000 39- • ' ■' 100,792,000 .-..j....^. 1 In addition, local interests, since 1944, have expended about $101,532,000 on terminal facilities of the port and propose future expenditures of about $115,368,700 in developing terminal facilities for this project. '• '. ,,. ,^,,.^ . . PHYSICALDATA iiliOJOJ^lb Channels:' , ■ : 1 Channel, '36 feet deep x 500 f^et wide from Inner Harbor Navigatibii'Cfeiiair' to Chandeleur Islands; 66 miles. .■■'•-. ,: , Eased entrance channel, from Chandeleur Islands to 38 foot depth in Giilf/ .7. of Mexico; 9.38 miles. . . , i Turning basin, vicinity Inner Harbor Navigation Canal. Loclfs: New lock at IHNC' (tentative location) 110 feet x 1200 feet x —40 fe^t:' Relocations: ' ■' ;, Roads. ) " High level bridge, $11,290,900. ■,.,■,■ Dikes in Breton Sound: ., Northeast retention dike to 6 feet contour. " Southwest retention dike to 6 feet contou!r. Dike across Breton Sound — (20.2 miles long) — (12 required). in STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule M itUlJ; Relocations: Louisiana Highway No. 47 (Paris Road) Bridge.- 99 Channels and canals: 36-toot by 500-foot channel _ 99 Turning basin 100 Lock Breakwaters and seawalls: -i"'0vl TaJl'f'. Dikes to 6-foot contour .!."'.; 1 .'.'. 1 100 Dike across Breton Sound 6 Entire project 37 June 1968. Do. June 1978. June 1975. June 1978. •U JUSTIFICATION [ New Orleans is the gateway to the great system of inland waterways of the central valley of the Nation. Adequate outlets to the Gulf of Mexico are essential to provide economical transportation to this area. The project is providing an additional outlet to the gulf via a shorter route than the existing river route and one which is not subject to large fluctuations in the stages of the river. The im- provement provides a tidewater outlet and harbor sufficiently spacious for dis- persion of docks and cargo-handling facilities, thus permitting flexible operation of the inland and seagoing commerce which is utilizing the river, the tidewater canal and the Intracoastal Waterway. The project is providing savings in .sailing time and ship turnaround time, reduction in navigation hazards, and relief from congestion. The project "Mississippi River — Gulf Outlet" is a virgin outlet from the main stem of the river at New Orleans; therefore, tonnagt^s and commerce on the Mississippi River between New Orleans and the mouths of the passes were used to justify this navigation project. Seagoing ships began to use the partially completed outlet in 1960, and by July 1963 had full use of an interim channel from the Industrial CftnaVto the Gulf J Tohrmges and commerce on the outlet for 1966^'^ are listed below. Commerce of the Port of New Orleans has grown from about 7,500,000 tons in 1916 to about 99,387,697 tons in 1966. Public terminals extending over 7% miles, together with the industrial developments and privately owned wharfage, have practically exhausted the available east bank river front as wel,l as the inner harbor space. The present wharfage space is already inadequate for existing trp,ffic and with the expected continued growth, the situation will soon be critical. Commerce on the Mississippi River between New Orleans and the mouths of the passes amoimted to 125,589,283 tons in 1966, including petroleum products and petroleum crude, which together totaled over 50,978,744 tons. Commerce on the outlet totaled 2,844,143 tons in 1966. The most important types of cargo on each route were: . i iO Commodity Outlet (tons) Mississippi River (tons) Grain ,-h.^-.,'.„...., 'y.\J. jJ,.„,-,!;:.,,„„---U- ' *5,454 20.738,737 Aluminum ore and scrap:A^l;rl:.l-l^:^-..J;?:^::?..]^JAL.I^^^ 67,720 6,675,826 ■ Sulfur,. ...:..:....[:.:::. .^h:^'::.'... ....::/. ..!.■::-:. .!..■:::-. ^.:. ■ 72 5,220,140' Liquid.... .- _..^.. _. 3,549.394 . Dry . : 72 1,670,746 Iron and steel, manufacturing arid semimanufacturing. 64, 063 4, 301,356 Shells, sea ....... :. ....- .:.. 74,482 2,755,269 Soybeans -....-...-.. ...:............. 6,580,658 Sugar :..:..■. :. ...:.. :.... 423,628 1,573,233 . Gypsum and plaster rock. 117,584 ..•.■•.i.iy...,...- ' Sand, gravel, crushed rock 163, 172 Phosphate rock ^.j-..;...f.iwfv-v— ---r:<-^%;f;)!j:;,i; . 161,399 Petroleum products and petroleum crude..-.. ..^. ........■■.!.. .1.-'. .!.-.. -i' " "' ' 749,039 50,978,744 Nonmetallic minerals . ...-.= 323,133 1,581,888 The total average annual benefits, all navigation, are estimated at $16,759,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $550,000 will be applied to — Initiate: Extension of south dike from station 2612 to 2700 (phase 1) $130, 000 Continue: Engineering and design ^__i^___ ___^ 350, 000 Supervision aiid administration i 70, 000 Total 550, 000 Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for extension of the south dike . in Breton Sound which is needed to reduce shoaling at that location and land- ward, and to continue planning for the new lock. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $36,832,000 for furnishing the required rights-of-way, spoil disposal areas, relocation of utilities, and damages. Local interests are required to operate and maintain the highway bridge to be built by the Government and provide or modify and maintain all necessary utility and other highway bridges or relocations that may be required. It is estimated that the average annual expenditure for maintenance operation and replacement will total $26,200. In addition, local interests are required to construct, main- tain, and operate terminal facilities commensurate with requirements of the expanded port. The breakdown of non- Federal cost estimate follows: Lands and damages $11, 100, 400 Relocations 24, 912, 000 Other 819,600 Total 36,832,000 In keeping the port facilities abreast of development, the port authorities constructed and opened to use in 1923 a lock and inner harbor navigation canal providing 63^ miles of additional 30-foot draft dockage space at a cost of $25,000,- 000. Since 1944, the port commission has spent an additional $101,532,000 in modernizing the terminal facilities of the port. In addition to the above costs, an estimated $115,368,700 will be expended by the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans concurrently with or Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1%9 706 subsequent to project construction to provide for terminal facilities in the project area, as follows: Item of work : Public bulk terminal development $11, 382, 400 Public bulk terminal expansion 16, 456, 300 Delta terminal development 45, 900, 000 Gentilly terminal development 39, 700, 000 Industrial area development 1, 930, 000 Total 115,368,700 Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation furnished by the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans were approved by the Chief of Engineers in August 1957. Rights-of-way and spoil areas have been furnished for the entire project excluding the lock which is in the early planning stage. Comparison of Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $163,000,000 is an increase of $64,800,000 over the latest estimate ($98,200,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes an increase of $1,988,000 for higher price levels, $50,000,000 for a shiplock to replace the overburdened inner harbor canal lock, and $4,507,000 for wavewash protection measures along the levees paralleling the waterway. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased by $4,112,000 and $4,193,- 000, respectively, based on a reanalysis of requirements including the additional requirements resulting from the addition of the lock and wavewash protection to the project. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Relocations $11,290,900 $10,960,500 $330,400 Locks 50,000,000 $50,000,000 Channels and canals 40,160,000 40,200,100 139,900.. Breakwaters and seawalls 41,762,800 4,316,800 679,900 $130,000 36,636,100 Levees and floodwalls 4,507,300 4,507,300 Permanent operating equipment 6,900 6,900 Engineering and design 16,204,600 1,952,200 225,000 350,000 3,677,400 Supervision and administration 9,067,500 2,925,800 100,500 70,000 5,971,200 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) .' 163,000,000 60,182,300 1,475,700 550,000 100,792,000 Undistributed cost. Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 163,000,000 60,182,300 1,475,700 550,000 100,792,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only). 163,000,000 60,182,300 1,475,700 550,000 100,792,000 Undelivered orders +50,200 -50,200 Total obligations 60,232,500 1,425,500 550,000 100,792,000 Method of financing: Allocations.... 60,233,000 1,425,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year _ +500 Total funds available for obligation. 1,425,500 Appropriations required 550,000 100,792,000 > Includes $131,300 for real estate activities. Mr. Whitten. Why has it been necessary to increase the cost on this project by $50 million since last year for a ship lock to replace the inner harbor canal lock? General MacDonnell. The authority for replacement of the exist- ing lock or construction of an additional lock when economically jus- tified as a result of obsolescence, and that lock was built in 1928, is provided in the act of March 29, 1956. As a result of a study, the Chief of Engineers authorized us to prepare a general design memorandum to establish more definitely the plan of improvement, its cost, and its benefits. 767 By letter of November 27, 1967, the Chief of Engineers submitted that information to this committee and its tentative costs in the order of $55 million or $56 million. CHANGE IN BENEFIT-TO- COST R<\TI0 Mr, WiiiT'iTN. Why is it that this large cost increase since last year totaling $64.8 million has only reduced the benefit-to-cost ratio from 1.6 to 1.5 to 1? General MacDonnell. Mr. Chairman, this is an indication of the need for the lock. Substantial benefits to shipping accrue from the addition of this larger lock, and they increased tTie ammal benefits enough to bring it somewhere near the previous benefit-to-cost ratio. OVERTON-RED RIVER WATERWAY, LOWER 31 MILES, LOUISIANA Mr. Whittex. $1,800,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Overton-Eed Eiver Waterway on the lower 31-mile reach only. This project was initiated with funds added to the bill last year by the Senate. (The justification follows:) Overton- Red Riveu Waterway, Lower 31 Miles, Louisiana (Continuing) Location. — The lower portion of the Overton- Red River Waterway project cliannel is common with that of the Red River and Old River from mile 3 1 ( Red River) to their connection with the Mississippi River. The improvement is located in east-central Louisiana in the parishes of Avoyelles, Concordia, Pointe Coupee and West Feliciana. Author izalion. — 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — Not applicable. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $11,100,000 Esti mated no n- Fede ra I cost 43, 200 Cash contribution Other costs 43,200 Total estimated project cost 11,143,200 Allocations to June 30, 1967 119,900 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 150,000 Allocations to date 269,000 2 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969... 1,890, 000 19 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 9,031,900 1 Excludes $423,000 previously allocated to the overall Overton-Red River Waterway project for planning. PHYSICAL DAT.-V Channels: Total length, 30.1 miles. Length to be excavated, 3.5 miles. Length presently containing project channel dimensions, 26.6 miles. Bank stabilization: Length of bank protected, 7.3 miles. Status (Jan. 1, 1968): Not started. »l-459 — 68 — pt. 1 49 768 Completion teheiule Channel and canals June 1975. Bank stabilization Do. Entire project Do. JUSTIFICATION The planned route of the lower 31 miles of the Red River provides a navigable channel for barge traffic 9 feet deep and 200 feet wide, with complementary Taank stabilization, from the junction of the Mississippi and Old R,ivers to Mile 31 of Red River. The construction proposed will become an integral part of the Red River navigation and bank stabilization plan presently pending authorization by Congress if that project is authorized. Construction in the lower 31 miles under the presently authorized Ovcrton-Red River Waterwa.v project will ad- vance completion of the navigation channel in this reach. Construction plans call for work to be initiated in the lower 31 miles and to proceed generally in an orderly fashion from downstream to upstream. The construction proposed is in agreement with this plan. This navigable channel will also be traversed, between Red River IMile 31 and connection with the Mississippi River, by traffic using the Ouachita and Black Rivers, Ark. and La., navigation project which is to have channel dimensions of 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide. This project is presently under construction, and scheduled to be operable in June 1971. Inasmuch as the lower 31 miles is not an uidependent economic unit, benefits assured by this reach have not been evaluated. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of §1,800,000 will be applied to — Initiate 9 feet by 100 feet Pilot Channel Mile 11.2 to Mile 11.9 $150, 000 Initiate and complete: Stone dike construction, Mile 25.2-R 950, 000 Continue: Engineering and design 30, 000 Supervision and administration 70, 000 Complete: Stone dike construction, Mile 26.4-R 600, 000 Total 1,800,000 The amount will permit orderly continuation of construction with completion in June 1975 as scheduled. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $43,200, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $31, 400 Relocations 5, 800 R/W acquisition cost 6, 000 Total 43,200 Local interests will have no maintenance responsibilities in this reach of the project. Status of local cooperation.- — Assurances of local coo])iTation covering the lower 31 miles of the project were requested from the Red River Waterway Conunission on January 18, 1967, and an act of assurance and supporting resolution was adopt(>d by the Commission on March 9, 1967. The Ciiief of Engineers approved the assurances on Octob(>r 6, 1967, and the Red River Waterway Commission was notified of accejjtance by the Government on Octoljer 11, 1967. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No previous cost estimate for lower 31 miles of Overton-R(>d River Waterway has been submitted to Congress. The current Federal cost estimate of $11,100,000 for the lower 31 miles of Red River is based on a design memorandum comi)leted in October 1967. 769 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels and canals _ $475,000 .- $150,000 $325,000 Bank stabilization,.- 9,300,000 1,700,000 7,600,000 Engineering and design "495,000 $80,700 $25,000 30,000 359,300 Supervision and administration 830,000 5,200 8,100 70,000 746,700 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 11,100,000 85,900 33,100 1,950,000 9,031,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only)-.. 11,100,000 85,900 33,100 1,950,000 9,031,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 11,100,000 85,900 33,100 1,950,000 9,031,000 Undelivered orders +150,000 -150,000 Total obligations 85,900 183,100 1,800,000 9,031,000 Method of financing. Federal funds only: Allocations 119,000 150,000 - Unobligated carryover from prior year +33,100 Total available for obligations 183, 100 Appropriations required 1,800,000 9,031,000 > Includes $2,400 for real estate activities. Mr. Whitten. Please describe this project and tell us the status. General MacDonnell. The Red River navigation study which is in process to Congress consists of a navigation channel 200 feet wide and 9 feet deep with complementary bank stabilization work from the junction of the Mississippi River with old river upstream to the Red River, and thence to Shreveport, La., and Daingerfield, Tex., with a total of nine navigation locks. The plan for the lower 31 miles con- sists of easing bends, bank stabilization, contracting the existing chan- nel by means of stone dikes. This lower 31 miles is also common to the authorized Overton-Red River Waterway. It is planned to complete this lower element by June 1971, when the Ouachita and Black project will utilize this reach of the river. For this lower 31 miles the cost is estimated to be $11,100,000. It is necessary to the Ouachita-Black navigation project. ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION OF LOWER 3 1 MILES Mr. Whitten. Is this development of the lower 31-mile reach eco- nomically justified by itself, even if the waterway is not extended under the Red River navigation plan? General MacDonnell. This is a separate usable segment but not an independent economic unit, since it is an appendage of the Ouachita- Black project and therefore we have not computed a benefit-to-cost ratio for the 31 miles. APPRAISED VALUE OF OIL RESERVES Mr. Whitten. In reference to the Carlyle Reservoir in Illinois, the Comptroller General has reported that subsequent to agreements under which the corps made full payment based on the appraised value to the owner of oil reserves that the owner extracted oil estimated to be worth about $562,000 without any appropriate adjustment being made in the cost to the Government for acquiring the mineral interests. Please comment on this issue and tell us what is being done to pre- vent its occurrence in the future. 770 We sliould note that the Comptroller General raised a similar ques- tion in connection Avith the Keystone Reservoir handled by the Tulsa district office. General MacDonnell. Yes, sir. The company involved in this case did extract at a considerably faster rate, oil from those mineral rights. He did so on what was con- sidered a very risky approach, and a verj^ expensive one. As it hap- pened, he was successful. Had we negotiated with him on the basis of a fixed production rate, it is conceivable to me that he might have required some compensation from the Government in the event that his production fell lower than that agreed upon. Be that as it may, we have had subsequent instructions from the Of- fice, Chief of Engineers, which clarifies these matters and gives us a firm basis for negotiation. CADDO DAM, LA. (REPLACEMENT OF DAM) Mr. WiiiTTEN. $990,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Caddo Dam replacement in Louisiana. (The justification follows:) Caddo Dam, La. (Replacement of Dam) (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in Caddo Parish, La., approximately 16 miles northwest of Shreveport, La., at the foot of Caddo Lake and just upstream of the continence of Black and Twelve Mile Bayous. Anthorization. — 196-5 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio.— 7. Q to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $2,820,000 Estimated non-Federal cost.. '296,000 Cash contribution Other - 296,000 Total estimated project cost 3,116,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 173,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968... 270,000 Allocations to date 443,000 16 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 990,000 51 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1,387,000 ' In June 1922, local interests made emergency repairs at an unknown cost to preserve lake water level and contribute $50,000 toward cost of permanent closure made in 1923. PHYSICAL DATA Relocations: Roads: 0.11 mile ($1,000). Dam : 2,400 linear feet concrete spillway, 860 feet at 16S.5 mean sea level and 1,540 feet at 170.5 mean sea level. 1,300 linear feet earth embankment to tie concrete dam to hills to the south at 176.0 mean sea level. 100 linear feet concrete ogee weir at 160.5 mean sea level. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: December 1970. 771 JUSTIFICATION The existing dam benefits the area in that it provides navigation, water supply, recreation, commercial fishing, and preserves existing land values. The economy of the general area around Caddo Lake is dependent upon the continued existence of Caddo Lake and its use as a municipal and industrial water supj)ly. Relocation of industry would result in loss of jobs and tax revenue. The recommended re- placement dam will be Ijenelicial to the area by removing the serious threat of loss of the lake by failure of the 5()-year-old dam which is in very poor condition and by provision in the design for increased dam height which may be accomplished by local interests at a later date if they so desire. The benefits accruing to the project are essentially those favorable to local interests in preservation of the existing economj'. The Federal interest iu the project benefits are minor and consist of preservation of navigation on Caddo Lake and a continuing water supply to a Government ordnance plant. Project authorization was based on consideration that the Federal Government con- structed the existing dam which fostered the present economic growth in the area and have a moral obligation to preserve existing conditions. The average annual benefits are as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $427, 000 Water supply, navigation, and commercial fishing 23.% 100 Recreation 37o, 000 Total 1, 037, 100 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $990,000 will be applied to — Continue construction of the dam and its appurtenances $891, 000 Continue engineering and design 8, 000 Continue supervision and administration 91, 000 Total 990, 000 The requested funds will provide for continuing of construction of the dam which should be completed at an early date to remove the threat to the economic status of the area by failure of the existing dam. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in construc- tion of the authorized project is estimated at $296,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages: Fee area. 111 acres $21, 000 Spoil R/W, 17.5 acres 2, 500 Channel R/W, 7.5 acres 1, 500 Contingencies 3, 000 Subtotal 28,000 Public access, Louisiana (ii^cludes $14,300 for 13 acres of land) 131, 000 Public access, Texas (includes $10,000 for 10 acres of land) 137, 000 Total 296,000 Local interests, prior to project construction, must give assurance that they will accept and assume ownership of the dam and all responsibility for subsequent operation and maintenance and provide adequate public access and development of the recreation potential. In June 1922, a section of the existing dam failed from seepage and undermining. Local interests made emergency rei:)airs at an unknown cost to preserve lake water level and contributed $50,(J00 toward cost of permanent closure made in 1923. Status oj local cooperation. — Acts of assurance have been obtained from the board of commissioners of the Caddo Levee District dated March 16, 1966, for jjroject requirements in Loiiisiana and from the Texas Water Development Board dated April 13, 1966, for project requirements in Texas, along with a limiting resolution as to the ]3rovisions of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. An amending resolution in compliance with the requirement of the act was later furnished by the board and approved bj' the Chief of Engineers April 19, 1967. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — -The current Federal cost estimate of $2,820,000 is an increase of $680,000 over the latest estimate ($2,140,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $589,000 based on more 772 detailed planning and $91,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a recent reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Relocations Dams . $1,000 .. 2.379.000 . ■226.000 214.000 2, 820, 000 $56,060" 69, 400 17,000 136,400 "'$i.'o52.'o6o' 8.000 91.000 1,151,000 $1. 1,277. 10. 98. 1,387, 000 nnn Engineering and design Supervision and administration $138,100 7,500 145,600 500 ■lOn Total applied cost (Federal funds Undistributed cost only).. 000 Total project cost (Federal funds or Pending adjustments ily).... 2, 820, 000 145,600 136, 400 1,151,000 1.387, 000 Total cost (Federal f u nds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations. . - . 2, 820, 000 145,600 145,'606" 173. 000 136,400 + 161,000 297, 400 270,000 . +27.400 . 297,400 . 1.151,000 -161,000 990, 000 1,387, 1,387,' 000 'nnn Method of financing: Federal cost: Allocations from Unobligated carryover prior year . Total funds available for obli- gation Appropriations required. 990, 000 1,387, .000 ' Includes $2,500 for real estate activities. Mr. Whitten. What is the status of this project and what is the basis for the cost increase of $680,000 since last year^ General MacDonnell. The status, Mr. Chairman, is that we have completeci a redesign. We expect to let the first contract in May of 1968. The cost increase of $680,000 comes in part from a change in the design of the dam to provide increased stability, and some con- siderable smaller amounts for engineering and supervision and administration. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN AND VT^CINITY, LA. (HURRICANE PROTECTION) Mr. Written. $7,800,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Lake Pontchartrain hurricane protection project in Louisiana. (The justification follows :) Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana (Hurricane Protection) (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in St. Charles, Jefferson, Orleans, St. Bernard, and St. Tammany Parishes in southeast Louisiana. The plan of improvement provides for a barrier across the present water coiUK'ctions between Lake Borgne and Lake Pontchartrain to prevent hiUTicane tidal snrg<>s from the Gulf of Mexico and connecting waters from entering Lake Pontchartrain and a system of levees or floodwalls or combiuations thereof includiui:; appurtenant structures in them for drainage, navigation, and other piu-pos(>s to protect highly developed areas along the shores of Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne from the tlu-eat of inimdation from hurricane tidal surges. In addition, a lock will be constructed at the lakeward end of the; inner harbor naxigation canal, at Sc'ibrook, with the dual purpose of preventing hurricane tidal surges and mitigating the adverse effects to navigation in the inner harbor navigation canal and salinity in Lake Pontchartain caused by the construction of the Mississippi River-gulf outlet project. Authorization.— \^%?) Flood Control Act. Benefil-cofit ratio. — 13.5 to 1. 773 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost J92, 598,000 Estimated non-Federal cost... 13 43,602,000 Cash contribution '33,402,000 Othercosts.. 10,200,000 Total estimated projectcost 136,200,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 _ 2,138,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968- _.. 4,000,000 Allocations to date 6,138,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 _ _.. 7,800,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969.. 78,660,000 ' Includes $3,816,000 capitalized cost of 0. & M. for Rigolets lock. 5 In addition, local interests, through the combined efforts of the State of Louisiana, local levee and drainage districts, and parish police juries have spent, through the years, an estimated $25,000,000 to effectuate and maintain the hurricane protection systems existing prior to project authorization. PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Average height: 13 feet. Length: 64 miles. Relocations: Road: LI miles. Channels Size (feet) Length (miles) Gulf Intracoastal Waterway relocation Chef navigation canal Chef approach channel.. Rigolets approach channel Rigolets navigation canal 12 by 150... 5.7 15 by 100 1.7 25-60 by 400-1000-.... 1.5 20-32.5 by 1,150-2,500 2.5 14 by 100 _ .9 Drainage structures: St. Charles Parish : Eight rectangular flapgates, 5x9 feet, 580 feet long. St. Bernard Parish: Two 72-inch culverts. Floodgates: Chef Menteur: Sector gated, 56 feet wide. Bayou Bienvenue: Sector gated, 45 feet wide. Baj'ou Dupre: Sector gated, 45 feet wide. Control structure: Chef Menteur: Eight bays vertical lift steel gates, 700 feet long. Rigolets: 23 bays vertical lift steel gates, 1,450 feet long. Locks: Seabrook: 84 x 800-foot chamber, sector gated. Rigolets: 84 x 800-foot chamber, sector gated. Dam closures: Bayou Bienvenue: Earthen, 500 feet long. Bayou Dupre: Earthen, 500 feet long. Bayou Villere: Earthen, 500 feet long. Pipeline Canal: Earthen, 2,000 feet long. Seabrook: Rock, 750 feet long. Chef Menteur: Earthen, 2,000 feet long. Rigolets: Earthen, 3,000 feet long. GIWW: Earthen, 250 feet long. GIWW: Earthen, 250 feet long. Floodwalls : Rigolets: Steel sheet piling, concrete cap, 170 feet long. Bayou Dupre: Steel sheet piling, concrete cap, 240 feet long. Bayou Bienvenue: Steel sheet piling, concrete cap, 240 feet long. Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, Westside: Steel sheet piling, concrete cap, 5.8 miles. 774 Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, Eastsidc: Steel sheet piling, concrete cap, 4.1 miles. Citrus back levee: Steel sheet piling, concrete cap, 1.8 miles. Railroad gate structures : Southern Railway at Seabrook, New Orleans east. Southern Railway at Florida Avenue, New Orleans east. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, New Orleans east. Entrance to Lincoln Beach, Citrus area. Southern Railway at Florida Avenue, Chahnette. Southern Railway at Seabrook, Citrus area. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, Citrus area. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Locks..- Roads Channelsand canals _ Levees and floodwalls: New Orleans east unit... 2 New Orleans west unit .-. - Mandeville unit Clialmette unit ..- 5 Flood control and diversion structures Enti re project - - . . 3 After 1972. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. Do. December 1978. JUSTIFICATION The lowlands in the Lake Pontchartrain tidal basin are subject to tidal overflow. The Greater New Orleans metropolitan area which lies in this basin will continue its rapid economic development in the near future even though severe damages have resulted from several hurricanes in the recent past. Hurricane damages result from surges entering Lake Pontchartrain from Lake Borgne through natural tidal passes at Rigolets and Chef Menteur Pass and through imi)roved channels of the Mississippi River-gulf outlet, and inner harbor navigation canal. The surges are intensified by local wind effects, and the combination of waves and surges causes overtopjjing of the protective works along the shores of the lake. The eastern portion of the area is also subject to flooding by surges and waves that move directly from Lake Borgne and overtop the existing inadequate pro- tective system seaward of the developed land areas. As a result, residences and industrial and commerical establishments suffer damage, business activities are disrupted, lives endangered, and hazards to health created. Hurricanes much more severe than any of record are possible. In the event of the occurrence of such a severe hurricane, catastrophic property damage and loss of human life would be experienced. Local interests have requested protection against these threats to life and property. Another and related problem exists in the area. The Mississipi)i River-gulf outlet provides a deep, direct route for the inflow of saline currents from the Gulf of Mexico to the area along its chann.el and to Lake Pontchartrain, with resultant adverse effect on fishery resources in the area. The gulf outlet channel also will produce high velocity currents in the inner harbor navigation canal, creating a hazard to navigation and causing serious scour and damage, particularly in constricted areas at bridge crossings. These adverse effects will be greatly alleviated by construction of the lock for navigation and salinity control at the lake end of the inner harbor navigation canal at Seabrook. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $74,519,600. 775 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $7,800,000 will be applied to- Initiate : Citrus back levee : 1st lift and floodwall (stations 582 to 665) . - $500, 000 Citrus baclv levee: 1st lift (stations 455 to 507) 200, 000 Citrus back levee: Floodwall (Paris Road through NOPSI, stations 431 to 455) rrn' SSn IHNC floodwall: West (stations 106 to 148) 550, 000 IHNC floodwall: West (stations 211 to 235, including Lone [^|.^jA__ 350,000 IHNC floo'dwaUrEast "(Dwyer Road to U.S. 90, stations 83 to loo) __ _ 3o0, 000 mNC^floodwail: East (U.S. 90 to MRGO, stations 123 to 179_1 76) 319, 900 Chef ]^.Ienteur : Barrier levee, 1st lift 12' S!S North of Rigolets : Barrier levee, 1st lift In'nnn South of Rigolets : Barrier levee, 1st lift Ix' ^^]l N.O. east: Back levee, along GIWW, 1st lift ^°' nHn New Orleans west unit: Parish Line Canal: Walker Canal, 1st lift-. 10, 000 Seabrook lock unit: Seabrook lock 50, 000 Chalmette unit: Bavou Bienvenue : Floodgate structure jU, UUU BaVou Dupre: Floodgate structure 10, 000 Chalmette extension: Along MRGO and pipeline canal clo- sure 1st lift o40, 000 Chalmette extension:' MRGO to Whitehall Canal, 1st lift— 240, 000 Chalmette extension: Whitehall Canal to }4 mile of Highway No. 39, 1st lift 200,000 Continue: „ „ „„„ Engineering and design -i. ' J^"' ^^y Supervision and administration ^UU, UUU Complete: New Orleans east unit: Citrus back levee: IHNC to Paris Road, 1st lift 666, 000 Citrus back levee : Stations 507 to 582, 1st lift 308, 400 IHNC floodwall capping: West (stations 31 to 106 and 148 t,o211)_ 1,086,200 IHNC floodwall capping: East (stations 34 + 00 to 83 + 45) - - _ 359, 500 Total 7,800,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction at an orderlv and economical rate to meet the scheduled completion date and to assure maximum incremental benefits from the funds expended. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are to bear 30 percent of the first cost t-o consist of the fair market value of all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, includ- ing borrow and spoil disposal areas necessary for construction of the hurricane features, and to accomplish all necessary alterations and relocations to roads, rail- roads, pipelines, cables, wharves, drainage structures, and other facihties made necessary bv the construction works. They are required to share in only one-halt the cost" of Seabrook lock; the other half being constructed for navigation pur- poses at Federal expense. In addition, local interests are required to contribute the capitalized cost of operations and maintenance for Rigolets lock. The current estimate of project costs to be borne by local interests follows: Lands and damages ^^, 2^^, 000 Relocations 1,9/8,000 Cash contributions: . „ Based on 30 percent of total project cost less Seabrook lock 28, o\j, UUU Based on 15/85 ratio for Seabrook lock o' ? a' nnn Capitalization of operation and maintenance for Rigolets lock__ 3, 816, 000 Total 43,602,000 776 In addition, local interests, through the combined efforts of the State of Loiiisi- ana, local levee and drainage districts, and parish police juries have spent an estimated $25,000,000 between 1930 and 1963, based on the best cost records available, to effectuate and maintain the hiu-ricane protection system existing prior to project authorization. Available costs of record are tabulated below: Combination of State of Louisiana, Lake Borgne levee district and Chalmette back levee district on the Chalmette back levee pro- tection systems $4, 410, 000 Orleans levee district board 12, 010, 000 Port of New Orleans (levees along industrial canal) 924, 000 Pontchartrain levee district '5, 022, 000 Fourth drainage district of Jefferson Parish ^ 3, 000, 000 Total 25, 366, 000 • Cash contribution, furnishing rights-of-way, relocations and maintenance of FCMR & T Lake Pont- chartrain, La., project which protects East Jeflerson Parish from Lake Pontchartrain inundations. 2 For interior drainage improvements required by the FCMR & T, Lake Pontchartrain, La., project. A very severe hurricane, "Betsy," occurred in the project area in September 1965 just prior to authorization of the project in October 1965. Considerable damage was done to many of the existing levees and local interests immediately instituted an accelerated rehabilitation program with the view of restoring and strengthening existing protection prior to succeeding hurricane seasons. Some of this work will conform to the project design criteria and alinement and will l)e accepted by the United States as work-in-kind in lieu of cash contribution, but some portions of work will not meet project requirements. The expenditures on the portion that will not meet project requirements will be, in effect, an addi- tional amount spent by local interests prior to authorization. This amount could range upward to a million dollars or more. Stahis of local cooperation. — The Governor of Louisiana has appointed the State Department of Public Works to act as coordinator in resolving all questions that may arise and to expedite the furnishing of assurances. The Corps of Engineers are at present actively engaged with the State Department of Public Works in clarifj'ing requirements of local cooperation. Formal request for assurances for the Barrier Plan were requested on Jtdy 27, 1966, and furnished by the Board of Commissioners, Orleans Levee District, on July 28, 1966. Formal assurances for the Chalmette area plan and its modification were requested respectively on February 8, 1966, and June 6, 1967, and were furnished jointly by the St. Bernard Police Jury and the Board of Commissioners, Lake Borgne Levee District on August 16, 1966, and July 6, 1967. This completes all the assurances necessary for the construction of Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity, hurricane protection. Comparison of Federal cost estiTyiates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $92,598,000 is an increase of $20,927,500 over the latest estimate ($71,670,500) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $3,044,700 for higher price levels and $21,377,800 due to more detailed planning, inclusion of additional lands in the Chef Menteur area to be protected by the modified alinement of the Lake Pontchartrain barrier structure and modification of the Chalmette area plan to include a larger area. These increases were partially offset by a decrease of $3,495,000 due to the deletion of foreshore protection of the levees along the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet project. 777 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to itpm cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 ^'^'^fl^^^^ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) ^'l^Xand damages - $8,222,000 - - $8,222,000 Relocations 1,978,000 - ----- l'9^f'°°S Locks 10,917,600 _ - - 550,000 10'867.600 Roads 399,000 - 399,000 ^S^d"florliis;;:::::;::::: 79:613:1 --i868:3o6- -$6:655:900- -6:173:000- 65:935:800 Sn^Sa^S""^'"''""- 'l\Vm -1:382:900-1:595:500—1,-700,-000- 'W| SupSnSndadmfmstr-ati-on::;;: 7:940;000 132,000 550,300 633,400 6,624,300 '?eerS'non"Fe^de?ai'?u°nds)"''\ 136,200,000 2,383,200 8,801,700 8,556,400 116,458.700 Undistributed cost '?n'dSedralfS--°-'--'-"-'--- 136,200,000 2,383,200 8,801,700 8,555,400 116,458,700 Pending ad j ustments '?o'n-V°el^r'ar,^u^nd%'"_^.'""""'. 136,200.000 2.383,200 8,801,700 8,556,400 116,458,700 TotaSS^"^^:::::::::::::::::::::::::: tlW ^¥^Z--s:^m-ns:.^,m corps of Engineers funds: ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ Roads ----- -— 300,800 — 300,800 P^:^^^"^^1I^:::::::::::: 6o;^7§;4SS —-626:800— 2:271:500 --5:550:000- 51:928:100 KSanS'^c^^^"^*"'^'"": ^:i^7:^or-i:382:9oo --1:514:500 --1:700:000- : ;oo Srvision and administration 6:060;800 125,100 223,200 500,000 5,212,500 'ter'stn'd's 5/'°^-'.'°'- '-"-'.':. 92,598.000 2.128,800 4,009,200 7.800.000 78.660.000 Undistributed cost - - - 'tlrffilonfy/.'°'-''-^°A'"^^^^ 92.598.000 2.128.800 4.009.200 7.800.000 78.660.000 Pending adjustments - - - - - Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ 200 7. 800. 000 78. 660. 000 Tota[^SS-°"!'":::::::::::::::::::::::::: 2.S00S 4.0^^-7:800:000—78:600:600 Non-Federal contribution: o 999 nnn Lands and damages \'W^'Z -- - "'" "'" is i^ Re bcation 1.9/8. uuu ■ ccv'onn Locks 5.557,800 __- - ^'^qs'^M Roads 98,200 98.200 Channels and canals 1,936,600 i'^^iim c9innn' lA nn?'™ Levees and floodwalls 19,262,600 247,500 4.384,400 623,000 14,007.700 Flood control and division structures. 2,487,800 _:^ o'nos'snn l:'p'S3i:3S:s„.,»n::;:; iSlS -"-fm , 3 :S -r^m : : Total applied cost 43,602,000 254,400 4,792,500 756,400 37,798.700 Touip;oSc'(^*-----:::::::---43:602:ooo- ---254:400 ---4:792,500---- 5 Totaui^'"' '""'*'''"* 43-502:000 254:400--4:792:500 756:400 --37:798:766 Undelivered orders;: -f218,700 -218.700 yri--.?,r,--- .y^ao-^m Total obligations - 473,100 4.573.800 756.400 37.798.700 Mettioa of financing: Corps of Engineers funds: „ _„ „„„ ^ „„„ ... Allocations 2,138,000 4,000,000 ..- -- - --- Unobligated carryover from prior year - Total funds available for obll- AfSpriations-required:;::;:::::::::::::::::;:::::::::: 7,800.000 78.66o,ooo Non-Federal contributions: ,.„„ „„„ , ^,. „.. Contributions 500.000 4,573,800 Unobligated carryover from prior yea r '^°' ^"^ - Total funds available for obli- . „„„ ,„„ oatinn 4.600,700 coStionsrequired::::;::::::::::::::::- - - 755.400 37.798.700 Mr. Whittex. On page 147, a cost increase of $20,927,500, or aboiit HO percent, has occurred since last year. What is the basis for thi.a increase? 778 General MacDonnell. By far, the bulk of that increase took place in the levees and floodwalls feature of this project. The principal causes of this change were modifications made under the discretionary authority' of the Chief of Engineers, of which he informed the Appro- priations Committees. Those modifications consisted of a revised aline- ment of the very complex Chef Menteur-Rigolets area and expansion of the protection in the Chalmette area to include additional areas and the elimination of a small unit. In addition, Hurricane Betsy gave us new parameters which made necessary an increase in the levee grade. EXLAKGEMENT OF TROJECT TEAX Mr. WiirriEN. Is the inclusion of larger areas in the projeci plan clearly provided for in the authorization i General MacDoxnell. They fall within the discretionary authority of the Chief of Engineers, since a part of the larger areas that were included were deleted from another hurricane protection project. New Orleans to Venice. It more properly belongs in the Chalmette area be- cause the levees are continuous and you save two big levees in each case. NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, EA. (HURRICANE PROTECTION) Mr. Whiten. $1 million is budgeted to continue construction of the New Orleans to Venice, La., hurricane protection project. (The justification follows:) New Orleans to Venice, La. — Hurricane Protection (Continuing) Location. — The project is located along both banks of the Mississippi River from the vicinity of the city of New Orleans to the Gulf of Mexico. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost -- Casti contribution Ottier costs _ Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1987 Alloctition tor fiscal year 1968 Allocitions to date _ Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost $24 054 000 .... I 16,30?. 000 12,826,700 3 481 300 40 372 000 544,000 100,000 .. 644,000 1.000.000 22,420,000 .. 3 7 ' In addition, local interests prior to project authorization exnended in excess of $3,761,000 between Apr. 1, 1926, and Dec. 31, 1959, in tfie Mississippi River Delta area belo.v New Orleans for levees and interior drainage facilities to provide protection against inundation from storm tides. 779 PHYSICAL DATA Reach Levees and floodwalls Drainage structures "A": City Price to Tropical Bend - Enlargement of approximately Port Sulphur floodgate. 13 miles to net grade of 15.0 mean sea level. "BI": Tropical Bend to Fort Jackson Enlargement of approximately 54-inch flap-gated CM culvert 16 miles to net grade of 15.0 2 72-inch flap-gated CM mean sea level. culverts, floodgates at Empire and Buras. "B2": Fort Jackson to Venice .-- Enlargement of approximately None. 8 miles to net grade of 15.0 mean sea level. "C": Phoenix to Bohemia... Enlargement of approximately 10 flap-gated 72-inch culverts. 16 miles to net grade of 16.0 mean sea level. "E": Violet to Verret' -^ - --- * To be protected by Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity Hurricane project . Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction has not started. Levees' Completion schedule Reach "A" — City Price to Tropical Bend June 1977. Reach "Bl" — Tropical Bend to Fort Jackson June 1976. Reach "B2" — Fort Jackson to Venice June 1977. Reach "C" — Phoenix to Bohemia June 1973.' Entire project June 1977. > Local interests are constructing the first lift of reach "C" and will be given credit for equivalent work in lieu of a cash contribution. JUSTIFICATION This project will provide protection from hurricane tidal overflow to a major part of the developed and inhabited area along the Mississippi River Delta. Ap- proximately 75 percent of the population and 70 percent of the improved lands are contained within the project area, Hurricane occurrences in the past have caused overtopping of the existing protective works and caused extensive damage to structures, industries, and other urban and rural developments, loss of crops, loss of livestock, and required the evacuation of inhabitants. Flood damages resulting from the hurricanes of September 1915, September 1956 (Flossy), September 1957 (Esther), and September 1965 (Betsy), within the project area were estimated at $2,325,000, $2,017,000, $1,180,000 and $46,000,000 respectively, based on then prevailing prices. Under current conditions of development and price levels of July 1967, it is estimated that these damages would amount to $26,130,000, $3,050,000, $1,730,000, and $50,760,000, respectively. Essentially all of this damage would be prevented by the current project plan which reflects raised levee grades, changed alinements, and changed conditions based on re- analysis of the project after the Hurricane Betsy experience. Benefits credited to the project consist of reduction of flood damage from hurri- cane tidal overflow caused by overtopping cf the existing back levees and en- hancement of existing marshland in reach B-1. Average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $3,068,200. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,000,000 will be applied to — Continue: Levees, reach B-1 $900, 000 Engineering and design 60, 000 Supervison and administration 40, 000 Total 1,000,000 780 The requested amount of $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1969 will be used to continue ■construction of tlie first lift embankment for reach B-1 of this project. The pro- tection levees must, of necessity, be constructed on ground where foundation problems exist. Because of this, construction must be conducted in lifts. A period of about 1 year must be allowed for the foundation to consolidate before the suc- ceeding lifts can be constructed. Therefore, it is essential that the firet lift be con- structed as soon as possible. The 1969 allowance of $1,000,000 is the minimum amount that should be apphed to first lift construction. During fiscal years 1968 and 1969 local interests are spending over $6 million on construction of reach C as a part of their required contribution. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the project is estimated at $16,308,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $1, 757, 000 Relocations and pumping plants 1, 724, 300 Cash contribution 12, 826, 700 Total 16, 308, 000 Local interests also must maintain, operate, and furnish replacements for the project at an estimated annual cost of $100,200; $84,700 for maintenance and operation and $15,500 for replacements. These costs are in addition to the costs presently incurred by local interests on existing facilities and are based on addi- tional maintenance costs required of local interests because of enlargement and modification of existing facilities incorporated in this project. In addition, local interests prior to project authorization expended in excess of $3,761,000 between April 1, 1926 and December 31, 1959 in the Mississippi River Delta area below New Orleans for levees and interior drainage facilities to provide protection against inundation from storm tides. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation for reaches A, B-1, B-2 and C, requested on January 7, 1963, were furnished by the Plaquemines Parish Commission Council on March 6, 1964. Required supporting papers were furnished on March 16, 1965. Rights-of-way for reach B-1 will be requested in February 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $24,064,000 is an increase of $15,014,000 over the latest estimate ($9,050,000) submitted to Congress. This change is based on more detailed engineering studies which reflects raised levee grades, changed alinements and changed conditions based on reanalysis of project after Hurricane Betsy experience and levee location adjustments in agreement with local interests. The increases resulting from these changes were partially offset by inclusion of work for reach E in the Lake Pont- chartrain and vicinity, Louisiana, hurricane protection project. 781 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Total project: Lands and damages $1,757,000 Relocations.-. 1,724,300 Levees and floodwalls 31,391,800 Engineering and design i 3, 107,200 Supervision and administration 2,391, 700 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions)-. 40,372,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions).- 40,372,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions) 40,372,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations Corps of Engineers funds: Leveesand floodwalls 20,494,100 Engineering and design 2,017,300 Supervision and administration 1, 552,600 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only). 24,064,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 24,064,000 Pending adjustment Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) _ 24,064,000 Undelivered orders... Total obligations Non-Federal contributions: Lands and damages Relocations Levees and floodviralls Engineering and design Supervision and administration.. Total applied cost 16,308,000 U nd istributed cost Total projectcost 16,308,000 Pending adjustments Total cost 16,308,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing Corps of Engineers funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior yea r Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required Non-Federal contributions: Contributions Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations Contributions required $372, 300 26, 700 399, 000 $200, 000 35, 000 10, 000 $6, 923, 600 602, 100 499, 300 399, 000 399, 000 "399,066" 372, 300 26, 700 399, 000 245, 000 "245,666" 200, 000 35, 000 10, 000 8,025,000 900, 000 60, 000 40, 000 399, 000 399, 000 "399,' 666" 1,757,000 1,724,300 10,897,700 1,089,900 839, 100 7, 025, 000 '7,"625,"666" '7,"625,"666" 544, 000 100,000 +145,000 245, 000 $1,757,000 1,724,300 24,268,200 2, 097, 800 1, 855, 700 245,000 8,025,000 31,703,000 245,000 8,025,000 31,703,000 31,703,000 8,025,000 31,703,000 19, 394, 100 1, 550, 000 1,475,900 245, 000 1, 000, 000 22, 420, 000 245,000 1,000,000 22,420,000 245, 000 1, 000, 000 22, 420, 000 245, 000 1, 000, 000 22, 420, 000 1,757,000 1,724,300 6, 023, 600 4, 874, 100 542, 100 547, 800 459, 300 379, 800 7, 025, 000 9, 283, 000 9, 283, 000 '9,'283,"666 "9," 283," 666 1,000,000 22,420,000 7, 025, 000 9, 283, 000 > Includes $1,000 for real estate activities. Mr. Whittex. There will be extensive delay in undertaking this project and now the cost is up $15,014,000 since last year, or almost double. What is the basis for this large cost increase ? General MacDonnell. Again, we have the experience of Hurricane Betsy which required levee grades to be increased. That accounts for a very considerable part of it. In addition, the people in the lower end of this project, around Buras and Venice, have asked for a realine- ment to suit their local purposes. We liave acceded to it, provided they pay the costs, and that accounts for another $6 million. 782 INCREASE IX BEXEFIT-TO-C'OST RATIO Mr. Whitten. How is it that with that cost increase the benefit-to- cost ratio has been increased since last year from 2.3 to 2.5 to 1 1 General MacDonxell. When we evaluate the benefit -to-cost ratio, we take out that $6 million that the local interests are poiurr to pay for something they want because that is a one-to-one kind of thing. Having taken that out and made a normal reevaluation in l)enefits which did increase, we increased tlie benefit-to-cost ratio by 0.2. PLANS FOR CASH COXTRIHI TIOX Mr. WHITTEX^ What are the local plans for making the cash con- tribution of $12.8 million to the project I General MacDoxxell. We expect revised assurances. They are mak- ing a substantial contribution now in Reach C in the form of work accomplished. The source of these parisli and State funds I am not sure, but they have anticipated no difficulty in coming up with them. meramec park reservoir, mo. Mr. Whittex. $1 million is budgeted to continue land acquisition on the Meramec Park Reservoir in Missouri. (The justification follows:) ]\Ieramec Park Reservoir, INIo. (Land acquisition) Location. — The dam would be located on the Meramec River at mile 108.7, aboTit 65 miles southwest of St. Louis. The reservoir would provide storage for flood control and water supply and would be located principally in Crawford and Washington Counties and will extend into a very small portion of Franklin Covmty. Drainage area above the dam is 1,497 square miles. Authorization. — 1938 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated percent of Amount estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement -- $52,490,000 .- Future non-Federal reimbursement --- - 5,900,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) - 46,590,000 Estimated non-Federal cost - - 5,900,000 Reimbursement: Water supply - - 5,900,000 Total estimated project cost.. - 52,490,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 __ i 1,400,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 - 450,990 - Allocation to date - - 1,850,000 4 Appropriation requested for fiscil year 1969 1,900,900 5 Balance to complete alter fiscal year 1969 49,550,000 --- ) Includes $200,000 as proportionate share of expenditures prior to fiscal year 1951 on overall basin planning. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type — rock and earthfill. Height — above stream bed 167 feet. Length of crest 3,000 f(>et. Spillway— Type: Ungated chute, 600 feet wide. Outlet works — 1 — 14-foot diameter sluice. 783 Reservoir capacity: Aat-feei Inactive storage IS, 200 Water supply 1(», 20!) Joint use 381, 000 Flood control 581 , 600 Total 1,000,000 Lands and damages: Acres: 39,400. Type: Recreational homesites, agricultural. Improvements: Homes, farm units, cabins, and cottages. Relocations: Roads: 18.5 miles, $10,427,000. Cemeteries and utilities, 997,000. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Lands and damag(>s acquisition not started. Completion schedule: December 1972. Other features of project not currentlj' scheduled. JUSTIFICATION This reservoir is considered to be the most vital unit in the comprehensive plan recommended for development of the water resources of the Meramec Basin. It would provide standard project flood protection to 10,950 acres of flood plain in the Mei-aniec River Valley above the mouth of the Bourbeuse River and partial protection to 28,760 acres of land below the Bourbeuse. It would also provide storage vohune to satisfy the present and future demands for water supply and water quality control as well as low flow augmentation for navigation on the Mississippi River. The normal pool of 12,600 acres witli 175 miles of shoreline would be available for recreational use and. fish and wildlife conservation. Comple- tion of the project will result in an estimated 3,707,300 total visitor-da.ys annual recreational attendance which will stimulate the local economy. Benefits are cal- culated only on attendance at Federal facilities, with the general recreational visitors at Federal facilities estimated at 25 percent of the total project attendance. The project is credited with the Vjenefits it Avill produce along the Meramec River \n conjunction Avith other units of the plan, and a proportionate share of Mississippi River flood control and navigation benefits it will provide with other INIississippi River Basin reservoirs. Breakdov.n of benefits: Amount Flood control $885, 900 Water supply 509, 700 Water quaiity control . _ _ 469, 600 Recreation. _'_ _ . 1,398,500 Fish and wildlife 906, 500 Navigation 16, 500 Increased transportation costs —8,300 Total 4, 178,400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1 million will be applied to — Continue acquisition of real estate $355, 000 Engineering and design 555, 000 Supervision and administration 90, 000 Total 1 , 000, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for continuation of land acquisition and design. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required by the Water Supph^ Act of 1958 to reimburse the Federal Government for the costs allocated to water supply storage. This reimbursement is presentlj^ estimated at $5,900,000. Also, they will be required to bear a share of the total annual cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement costs allocated to water sujjply. This cost is estimated at $21,300. Status of local cooperation. — On March 3, 1965, Governor Hearns signed into law House bill No. 95, which authorizes the Missouri Water Resources Board to grant assurances on behalf of the State for water supply storage in water re- source projects. Under terms of the bill a fund is accumulated from which pay- 91-459 — GS— pt. 1 50 784 ments can be made under subsequent contracts beteeen the State and the Gov- ernment for payment for water supply storage. Assurances to contract for future demand storage for water supply have been received from the State of Missouri and forwarded to OCE for consideration. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $52,400,000 is an increase of $9,600,000 over the latest estimate — $42,800,000— submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $1,708,000 for higher price levels and $6,456,000 for additional detailed planning which resulted in a change in location of the dam to obtain better foundation conditions and $1,436,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages. ._ $12,530,000 11,424,000 .. 1,514,000 .. 15,133,000 .. 333,000 .. 333,000 .. 3,759,000 -- 600,000 -- 851,000 -- 3, 394, 000 2, 529, 000 52, 400, 000 $53,700 $90, 000 $355,000 $12,031,300 Relocations. 11,424,000 Reservoirs 1,514,000 Dams and 15,133.000 Fish and wildlife 333.000 Roads, railroads and bridges Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities--. Permanent operating equipment... Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds non-Federal contributions) Undistributed cost . . "■l,'262,'706"" 99, 100 1,355,500 360,"600'" 44, 500 494, 500 555,'000" 90, 000 1.000,000 333, 000 3.759,000 600, 000 851.000 1,276,300 2,295,400 49, 550, 000 Total project cost (Federal funds non-Federal contributions) Pending adjustment and 52, 400, 000 1,355,500 494, 500 1.000,000 49, 550, 000 Total cost (Federal funds and Federal contributions) non- 52, 400, 000 """52,"4do,"od6' 1.355,500 +5,300 1,360.800 1,400,000 494, 500 -5,300 . 489, 200 450,000 . -f 39, 200 . 489,200 . 1,000,000 49,550,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations 1.000,000 49, 550, 000 Method of financing Federal funds: Allocation .... prior Unobligated carryover from year Total funds available for obligation... Appropriations required.. 1,00), 00) 49,550,000 Mr. Written. What is the status of this project? General MacDoxnell. This project is in the status of land ac(iuisi- tion only. It is in process of clesio:n. We expect to ac(|uire some small amounts of real estate in fiscal year 1068 and some additional ones in fiscal year 1969. INCREASE IN COST ESTIMATE Mr, WiiiTTEN. Explain the sizable cost increase of $9,600,000 since last year. General ^MacDonnell. In the detailed en<;ineerin^ million tons in 1966. The proportionate part of the annual transportation savings attributable to regulating works is $37,588,000. Because of the increase in tonnage already experienced and the continued increase anticipated, it is important that construction of the project works be continued at a rate which will insure retention of the desired channel alinement. The average annual cost for maintenance including condition and operation studies is estimated to be $1,444,000 for the 50-year economic life of the project after completion. This cost has averaged $1,760,000 over the past 5 years. The average annual benefits, all navigation, are estimated at $37,588,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The amount of $1,000,000 will be applied to— Continue construction of dikes $850, 000 Engineering and design 90, 000 Supervision and administration 60, 000 Total 1, 000, 000 The requested amount for fiscal year 1969 is the minimum required to maintain an orderly construction schedule. Non-Federal cost. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $71,500,000 is an increase of $700,000 over the latest estimate ($70,800,000^ submitted to Congress. This increase is due to higher price levels. ygi SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1989 Item (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $4,400 Channels 65,147,600 Engineering and design 1,078,000 Supervision and administration 5,270, 000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only). . 71, 500, 000 Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 71,500,000 Pending adjustment - . Total cost (Federal funds only) 71,500,000 Undelivered orders. Total obligations (Federal funds only) Mettiod of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation. Appropriations required $4.400 53,903,500 $776,500 808,300 75,000 4. 538. 300 59, 500 59,254,500 911,000 $850,000 $9,617,600 90,000 104.700 60,000 612.200 1,000,000 10,334,500 59. 254. 500 59, 254,500 ' 59," 254," 500" 59,316,000 911,000 "91l','d00 1,000,000 "i',ddd,'dod ' 911,000 850, 000 61,000 911,000 10,334,500 l"0",'33"4,"566 1,000,000 10,334,500 1,000.000 10,334,500 Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche-Jump Waterway, La. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in Lafourche and Jefferson Parishes, La., and provides a 12 by 125-foot waterway between the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (mile 37.2) and the 12-foot contour in the Gulf of Mexico. It also provides a 9 by 100-foot enlargement of the existing channel in Bayou Lafourche from Lee- ville upstream to the vicinity of Golden Meadow and construction of a new chan- nel 12 feet deep and 12.5 feet wide from Bayou Lafourche at Leeville through Southwest Louisiana Canal to and through Bayou Rigaud in the vicinity of Grand Isle; and restoration and extension of the Bayou Lafourche (Belle Pa.ss) jetties to tlie 12-foot contour in the Gulf of Mexico, if, and when, justified by excessive maintenance dredging cost. Authorization. — 1960 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers)... Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) Estimated non-Federal cost ' Cash contribution i. Other costs il\.,^J- Total estimated project cost.. Allocations to June 30, 1967. Allocations for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date . Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $5,670,000 31.000 ._......„„ ' 1.760.000 .-.....:.'. 1.760,000 _ 7.461.000 907,000 ._ . 907,000 16 500, 000 25 4,263.000 ' In addition, local interests have expended about $2,700,000 in the interests of navigation for this and related projects In the area and the Greater Lafourche Port Commission, an agency of the State of Louisiana, phns to expend about $3,000,000 in developing a port on Bayou Lafourche. PUYSICM. n\T.\ Channels and canals: Enlarge the existing Bayou Lafourche Channel from 6 by 60 feet to 9 by 100 feet between Leeville and Golden Meadow, approximately S.7 miles. Enlarge the existing Bayou Lafourche Channel from 6 by 60 feet to 12 by 125 feet between Leeville and the —12-foot contour in the gulf, approximately 15 miles. 795 Construct tho new 12 by 12o feet Lnfoiirche-Jump Waterway channel between Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Rigaud in tho vicinity of Grand Isle, approximately 1.) miles. Construct the u(>w 12 by 12o feet Bayou Lafourche auxiliary channel between the Ciulf Intracoastal Waterway (mile 37.2) and Bayou Lafourche south of Lee- ville, api)roximately 30.4 miles. Breakwaters and seawalls: Jetties, restoration and extension to the —12-foot contour in the gulf, if and when found advisable to reduce maintenance in the bar channel. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Channels and canals-, __ _ 11 December 1971. Breakwaters and seawalls If and when required. Entire prolect- __. 15 December 1971 except for breakwaters. JUSTIFIC.\.TION The existing jiroject dimensions in Bayou Lafourche are inadequate for the barge and boat traffic which has developed on this waterway. Groundings and collisions are frequent. Continued growth of waterborne commerce on Bayou Lafourche, the increase in size and draft of both barges and fishing vessels, and the need for a connecting route, not now in existence between Bayou Lafourche and Barataria Pass justify the project on the basis of benefits which will accrue from time saved by use of shorter, more direct routes, increased loading of barges, additional barges in tows, and use of larger barges and tows. The Bayou Lafourche auxiliary channel is needed for the movement of crude oil, oil field supplies, shells, shrimp, and oysters between the Gulf Litracoastal Waterway near Larose and the Gulf of Mexico. The construction of this reach A\ill be initiated in fiscal year 196S and continued at a normal rate to completion so that the navigation needs can be met. This project will provide the means of moving 33,200,000 ton-miles of commerce or 10 percent of the basin needs bj" 1973. In addition, plans are now being formulated by a large sulfur producing firm for the development of a sulfur mine in this area which would utilize the auxiliary channel for transporting molten sulfur to market. The completed project will provide benefits from the movement of sulfur, petroleum, equipment and supplies for oil exploration activities, and reduced operating costs for fishing fleets. The project will also provide a harbor of refuge from gulf storms. The average annual benefits are estimated at $818,100, all navigation. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $500,000 will be applied to the following : Initiate: Dredging Bayou Lafourche Auxiliary channel (12 feet by 125 feet) from Bavou Lafourche to Gulf Intracoastal Waterwav, mile 17.2 to mile 30.4 '_ $164, 000 Engineering and design 15, 000 Supervision and admuiistration 26, 000 Complete: Dredging Bayou Ijafourche auxiliary channel (12 feet by 25 feet) from Bayou Lafourche to Gulf Intracoastal Waterwav, mile 0.0 to mile 3.4 _- 295, 000 Total 500, 000 Funds in the amount of $500,000 will continue construction on the Bayou Lafourche auxiliary channel segment of the project on an orderlv and economical schedule with completion scheduled for Alarch 1971. 796 Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $1,760,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $324, 000 Relocations, pipelines and submarine cables 761, 000 Other: Miscellaneous structures 22, 000 Dredging 12 feet by 125 feet stub channel between Golden Meadow and Bayou Lafourche auxiliary channel 341, 000 Construction of pontoon bridge, State Highway No. 24 165, 000 Engineering and design; supervision and administration 147, 000 Total 1, 760, 000 The estimate of annual costs to local interests for maintenance is $37,000. From 1890 to 1940, local interests have expended approximately $1,600,000 for levees, dredging, removal of hyacinths, and constructing a dam at Donaldsonville to cut off Mississippi River flow. Also they expended about $1,100,000 to provide water from the Mississippi River for ]jollution abatement and for municipal and industrial use. They have constructed many channels connecting to the waterway, the costs of which are luiknown. In addition, the Greater Lafourche Port Com- mission is now planning to expend approximately $3 million in developing port facilities on Bayou Lafourche. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances for all phases of the project have been furnished. Agreement on alinement of the auxiliary channel from Bayou Lafovu'che to the Gvdf Intracoastal Waterway has been reached with local interests and they are expected to make rights-of-way for this portion of the project available not later than Ai^ril 15, 1968. On the Lafourche-Jump Waterway, Leeville to Grand Isle reach, local interests have been luiable to make the rights-of-way available as scheduled because of doubtful title evidence, multiple ownerships, and i)ro- longed negotiations with lessees of oyster hod areas. The Lafourche Parish police jury and the Jefferson Parish Council are working with the Louisiana Department of Public Works in making proi)erty surveys, determining ownerships, and preparing maps and descriptions for acquisition of the lands involved. Based on progress made to date, it is anticipated that the rights-of-way will be made available in September 1970. Comparison of Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimates. — The ctu'rent Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $5,670,000 is an increase of $260,000 over the latest estimate ($5,410,000) submitted to Congress. Of this amount, $232,000 is due to price level increase on construction work and $28,000 is based on a reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervision and admin- istration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1959 (6) Channels and canals . $4,623,000 403.000 .. 1 307.000 337, 000 5,670,000 $516,700 256,"400'" 72,200 845, 300 $42, 000 ib.m" 4.700 61,700 $459, 000 i5."66o" 26. 000 500, 000 $3,605,300 Breakwaters and seawalls Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Corps of Engineer funds only) Undistributed cost . 403. 000 20, 600 234, 100 4,263,000 Total project cost (Corps of Engineer funds only) Pending adjustments 5,670,000 845, 300 61,700 500, 000 4,263,000 Total cost (Corps of Engineer funds only). Undelivered orders 5, 670, 000 845, 300 61,700 500, 000 4, 263, 000 Total obligations. 845, 300 907,000 61.700 _ 61,700 . 61,700 . 500, 000 56d,'dd6" 4, 263. 000 Metfiod of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required 47263," 000 Includes $55,300 for real estate activities. 797 Garland City, Ark. (Continuing) Location.— On Red River near Garland City, Miller County, Ark., about 372 miles above the mouth of the Red River. Author izalion. — 1960 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.11 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution - Other costs - Total estimated project cost. -- Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date ----- Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969..- Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost $1 280 000 . ' 16' 000 -.-.. 6 000 1 286 000 '899 000 110 000 1,009,000 125. 000 146,000 .. 79 89 1 In addition local interests have expended approximately $1,011,350 to provide protection for the railroad and highw/ay bridges. PHYSICAL DATA Bank stabilization: Right descending bank: Dikes: 3,200 linear feet (approximate). Excavation of right bank in vicinity of railroad bridge: 100,000 cubic yards (approximate) . Left descending bank: Pile Revetment: 926 linear feet. Rock Groins between bridges: 3,450 tons. Riprap around railway bridge pier: 3,491 tons. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Bank stabilization. - 78 June 1970. Entire project - -- '° JUSTIFICATION Continued and accelerated recession of the right bank of the river immediately above the town of Garland City has produced a very unfavorable alinement m the. vicinity of the St. Louis Southwestern (Cottonlx'lt) Railroad bridge and the U.S Highway S2 bridge. The unfavorable alinement, unless rectified, will make the bridge locations untenable within a short period of years. Also, if the right bank recession is not arrested, the town of Garland City will ultimately be threatened. The average annual benefits are estimated at $144,100, all flood control. Fiscal Year 1969.— The requested amount of .$125,000 will be applied to— Continue: „„ Extension to stone dikes ?>iiu, uuu Stone groin construction ^^ ^^^^ Engineering and design 4 UUU Supervision and administration ^ 'a "UiJ Total $125,000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for extension of the dike system to arrest caving, and induce the channel to shift toward the east bank and groin construction to .stabilize the favorable channel alinement being gained from the dike system. 798 Non-Fedpral costs. — The initial investment required of local interests is estimated to be $G,000 for rights-of-way. Local interests are required to maintain and operate after completion the present annual cost of maintenance is estimated to be $59,600. There was no previous authorized Federal project for the purpose of protecting these bridges; however, the Federal Government assisted local interests in bridge protection in the amount of $100,000 in 1935 with Emergency R,elief Administra- tion funds and again in 1954 with $50,000 of Corps of Engineers funds imder section 14 of the flood Control Act of July 24, 1946. During the period 1924-59 the St. Louis Southwestern Railroad spent $819,368 and from 193.5-59 the Arkan- sas Highway Department spent $191,982 in the endeavor to protect the integrity of bridge foundations. The total spent by both local agencies in the period 1924-59 was $1,011,3.50. Status of local cooperation. — The Arkansas Highway Department has furnished assurances of local cooperation for the first phase of construction which comprises the emergency work on rock groins, riprap, and pile revetment in the immediate vicinity of the highway and railroad bridges performed in fiscal year 1962. Assur- ances "for the phase 2 construction were furnished by the Arkansas Planning Commission on June 17, 1963, and were approved and accepted by the United States on June 21, 1963. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,280,000 is an increase of $40,000 over the latest estimate— $1,240, 000— submitted to Congi-ess. Of this amount, $36,000 is due to higher price levels on construction work and $4,000 is due to an increase in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Bank stabilization $1,140,000 $741,900 $151,900 $111,000 $135,200 Engineering and design i62,000 42.900 5,000 4,000 10.100 Supervision aid administration 78.000 52,700 14.600 10,000 700 Total applied cost (Federal funds only)-. 1,280,000 837,500 171,500 125,000 146,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 1,280,000 837,500 171,500 125,000 146,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 1,280,000 837,500 171.500 125,000 146,000 Undelivered orders 61,000 -61,000 Total obligations 898,500 110,500 125,000 146,000 Method of financing: Allocations ,...,..._.... 899,000 110,000 -.-- Unobligated carryover from prior year --- 500 Total funds available for obligation 110,500 Appropriations required -- 125,000 146,000 ' Includes $1,000 for real estate activities. Red River Levees and Bank Stabilization Below Denison Dam, Tex., Ark. and La. (Continuing) Location. — Along the main stem of Red River from the vicinity of Inde.\, Tex. (mile 485) to Boyce, La. (mile 143), and passing through the southwest corner of Arkansas. Authorization. — 1946 Flood Control Act. Benejit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 799 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost , ...- $15,800,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1300,000 Cash contributions - 100,000 Other costs 200,000 Total estimated project cost 16,100,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 12,154,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968— 600,000 Allocations to date 12,754,000 81 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 600, 000 84 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 2,446,000 ilans fo fiscal vear 1969. General MacDonnei.l. The status of it is that we are in the first year of progress. This year's results will be reflected ultimately in a progress report prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation. Our esti- mate is based on projecting the water needs in the alluvial valley into the future, dotermiiiing the surplus, if any, available for export to other regions, and the locations and types of conveyance channels re- 827 quired for the movement of surplus water, if any, to a point outside our area mutually agreeable and compatible with the works planned by the Bureau of Reclamation. These efforts will require extensive coordination. We feel that our relationships with the Amarillo office of the Bureau of Reclamation in working on this have been very good. We are mini- mizing any duplication of any kind. GREENTILLE HARBOR, MISS. Mr. Whitten. On page 211, $50,000 is budgeted to continue the study of Greenville Harbor, Miss. Please describe the purpose of this study. General MacDonnel. Greenville Harbor is located just southwest of the city of Greenville and consists of Lake Ferguson, which is an old bendway in the river. This study will consider plans for expand- ing the present port area and harbor for the purpose of providing additional flood-free port facilities. We will hold a public hearing this spring. This is probably a 2- or 3-year study. Advance Engineering and Design Mr. Whitten. Turning now to advance engineering and design, $240,000 is budgeted for advance engineering and design. (The justification follows :) 2. ADVANCE ENGINEEEINQ AND DESIGN The $240,000 requested for advance engineering and design in fiscal year 1969 will be applied to complete planning on the Cache River feature, to continue planning on the west Kentucky tributaries feature, and to initiate planning for the Big Creek and tributaries, the Mississippi River Delta region, and the Teche- Vermilion Basin features of the Mississippi River and tributaries project. Details are shown on the justification sheets. Big Creek and tributaries $60,000 Cache River 100, 000 Mississippi River Delta region 10, 000 Teche- Vermilion Basin 25, 000 West Kentucky tributaries 45, 000 Total 240, 000 Cache Basin (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located in northeastern Arkansas in Monroe, Woodruff, Jackson, Cross, Poinsett, Craighead, Lawrence, Greene, and Clay Counties. The project consists of straightening, clearing, and enlarging ap- proximately 151 miles of Cache River and 75 miles of Bayou DeView. Authorization. — 1950 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $28, 700, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1, 900, 000 Cash contributions Others 1,900,000 Total estimated project cost 30, 600, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 420, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 200, 000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 120,000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 100, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969__ 828 JUSTIFICATION The project will benefit approximately 710,000 acres, of which about 425,000 acres are cleared land. The improvements in the farm area consist of farm buildings, small urban centers, highways, railroads, and utilities having an estimated value of over $68 million. Land values range from $40 to $120 per acre for woodland and from $150 to $300 per acre for cropland. The project would prevent 90 percentjof the total damages expected to occur above the vicinity of Cotton Plant, Ark. Extensive damages occurred in this area in July 1928, when damages were estimated at $10,506,200 (escalated to 1967 price levels). Benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $2,555,200 annually. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to provide, without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the con- struction of the project and maintain all works after completion. The cost to local interests in compljnng with the requirements of local cooperation for con- struction of the project is estimated at $1,900,000 for lands and rights-of-way. In addition, the annual cost to local interests for maintenance after completion is estimated at $130,000. Status of local cooperation. — The Cache River-Bayou De^ lew Improvement District was organized under act 328 of the General Assembly of the Arkansas Legislature of 1949 by an order of the Circuit Court of Craighead County, Ark., on July 12, 1958. Purported assurances of local cooperation for the project were furnished in April 1967. They have recently estabhshed benefits which would result from construction of the project and have taken the necessary steps to assure financial capability. A legal review at this time finds the district to be legally constituted and financially able to perform, including the right to obtain right-of-way through Monroe County for the outlet. The question of maintenance on the improvement in Monroe County is now being given legal review. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $28,700,000 is an increase of $1,700,000 over the latest estimate (27 million) submitted to Congress. The change is due to higher price levels. West Kentucky Tributaries (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Obion Creek, which is about 59 miles long, rises in the south-central part of Graves County, Ky., flows generally northwestward across the northeast corner of Hickman County into southern Carlisle County; thence, southwestward thi-ough Hickman County and enters the Mississippi Pv.iver about 922 miles above the Head of Passes, immediately upstream from the town of Hickman in Fulton County, Ky. Plans consist of channel enlargement from the Illinois Central Railroad bridge at Pryorsburg (mile 47) downstream to mile 35, enlargement and reahnement below this point to mile 8, and enlargement of the existing channel between mile 8 and the Mississippi River. The plan will require the alteration or construction of two railroad bridges, two State highway bridges, four county bridges, and one pipeline. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $2, 270, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 500, OOU 0?^^!°"^^"'^":::::::::::::::::::::::::"::::::::": 500,00? Total estimated project cost 2, 770, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 110, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 30, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 45, 000 Balance to comulete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 35. 000 justification The project would provide partial flood protection to 29,520 acres. Railroads cross the flood plains on embankments constructed above the flood of record. Highways are subject to infrequent flooding during extreme floods, but are gener- ally safe from iinuidation during ordinary flood periods. With the exception of a fertilizer manufacturing plant near Pryorsburg, houses and farm buildings are 829 located generally outside the flood plain. Land values range from $40 to $60 per acre for woodland and $150 to $250 per acre for cleared land. Principal crojxs are corn, soybeans, and hay with a largo part of the open land being de\'oted to pasture. In the flood plain, the estimated total value of lands and improvements is $2,400,000, with farm products valued at $409,500. Channel improvements by the Corps of Engineers, below Pryorsburg, combined with inseparable features of the Soil Conservation Service authorized plan in the headwater area will produce average annual benefits, all flood control, estimated at $231,600. Non-Federal costs.— The cost to the local sponsor of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the author- izing legislation is $500,000. This consists of: Lands and damages, $198,000; and alteration of highwaj- bridges, $302,000. Local interests are also required to maintain the project after completion, the cost of which is estimated at $17,000 annually. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assiu'ances of local cooperation have not yet been requested. Local sponsors for the project have said that the required assurances will be furnished when formal request has been received. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of Federal cost of $2,270,000 is an increase of $140,000 over the latest estimate ($2,130,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The change is due to higher price levels. Lower White River (Big Creek and Tributaries), Arkansas (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located in St. Francis, Lee, Monroe, and Phillips Counties, Ark. Big Creek rises near the Woodruff-St. Francis County line east of Hunter, Ark It flows southeasterly for about 50 miles to Poplar Grove; thence, southwesterly for about 40 miles to join the White River about 50 miles upstream from the Mississippi River. The plan of improvement provides for straightening, enlarging, and cleaning out the channels of Big Creek (68 miles) and its upper tributaries consisting of Lick Creek (14.4 miles), Big Cypress Creek lateral (8.5 miles), Crooked Creek (8.7 miles), Spring Creek (2.8 miles), Hog Tusk Creek (2.1 miles), Piney Fork ditch (8.5 miles), and stream channels A unified plan necessary for the ultimate development of the basin provides for improvement of the lower right bank tributaries consisting of Big Cypress Creek (26.7 miles), Little Cypress Creek (11 miles), and Coffee Creek (6.6 miles). Alterations will be required on five railroad bridges, eight State highway bridges, 34 county road bridges, and one U.S. highway. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $8, 863, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 2, 042, 000 Cash contributions Other 2,042, 000 Total estimated project cost 10, 905, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 260, 000 Allocation for June 30, 1967. Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 60, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969- 200, 000 justification Improvements in the flood plain include houses, farm buildings, churches stores, cotton gins, schools and a soybean storage granary. Current land value range from $40 to $100 per acre for woodlands and $200 to $300 per acre for cleared land. Based on a recent reconnaissance appraisal, the total value of land and im- provements within the area described amounts to about $16,700,000. Principal crops in the flood plains are cotton, soybeans, rice, corn, and small grains. The total market value of farm products based on current prices amounts to about $3,858,000 annually. Railroads and most principal highways cross the flood plain on embankments constructed above high water. Electric powerlines extend across the overflow areas. Flood damages consist predominantly of loss of crop production. Other losses include damages to local roads, buildings and farm improvements. The average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $862,200. 830 Non-Federal costs. — The cost to the local sponsor of complying with the re- quirements of local cooperation for construction of the project as set forth in the authorizing legislation is $2,042,000. This consists of: Lands and damages, $480,000; and alterations of highway bridges, $1,562,000. Local interests are also required to maintain the project after completion, which is presently esti- mated at $100,000 annually. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests stated that the plan was acceptable and expressed their willingness to meet all of the requirements of local cooperation as outlined above. They are actively engaged in organizing a sponsoring agency and have retained attorneys to prepare a petition asking court approval of their organization (drainage district). Court action on the petition is expected during fiscal year 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of Federal cost of $8,863,000 is an increase of $1,103,000 over the latest estimate ($7,760,000, 1965 base) submitted to Congress. The change is due to higher price levels. Mississippi Delta Region (Salinity Control Structures) (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located in the Lower Mississippi River Delta Region in Plaquemines Parish, La., and consists of four sahnity control structures. There will be two structures on each bank of the Mississippi River with necessary channels and levees that will divert fresh water from the river to the bays and marshes below New Orleans for fish and wildlife purposes. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Summarized Financial Data Estimated Federal cost $5, 695, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost * 5, 695, 000 Cash contribution 4, 905, 000 Other 790,000 Total estimated project cost 11, 390, 000 Reconstruction planning estimate 440, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 10, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 430, 000 • In addition, local interests during the period 1954-65, spent an estimated $316,455 for construction of freshwater diversion structures and channel improvements at Bayou Lamoque. JUSTIFICATION The project will divert fresh water from the Mississippi River to coastal bays and marshes, thereby restoring former ecological conditions, by reducing pollution, controlling salinity and supplementing nutrients. The bays are important to oyster production and as breeding areas for shrimp and food fishes, while the swamp areas produce natural food for fur-bearing animals and migratory water fowl. A total of 264,500 acres of marsh and bays will be benefited. The average annual benefits, all for fish and wildlife, are estimated to be $932,300. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests shall: contribute half the cost of the improve- ment, including the cost of lands, easements, and rights-of-way, presently esti- mated at $5,695,000; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; and operate and maintain the works after completion. In addition, local interests during the period 1954-65, spent an estimated $316,455 for construction of freshwater diversion structures and channel improve- ments at Bayou Lamoque. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not been requested. The four salinity control structures were proposed by the IT.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the Wild Life and Fisheries Commission. The Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission stated its willingness, in the report stage, to participate in the development program for fish and wildlife resources. It further stated it would provide the necessary rights-of-way and operate and main- tain the project works. This position was based on local interest cost being Hmitcd to that required to lands, damages, and relocations. The position of the conimis- sion, now that a substantial local contribution to the cost of construction will be required, is unknown. The State of Louisiana, Department of Public Works, 831 also participated in the formulation and review of the project plan. The Louisiana State Board of Health furnished information for the establishment of pollution control. That board will participate in the determination of bacterial counts to determine the degree of pollution in connection with the operation of the project. Local interests and the Wild Life and Fisheries Commission informally have expressed opposition to construction of the improvements and to diversion from the Mississippi River at this time because of the polluted condition of the river. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $.",,695,000 is an increase of $270,000 over the latest estimate ($5,425,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change is due to higher price levels. Teche-Vermilion Basin, La. (Additional Surface Water Supply) (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located in south central Louisiana adjacent to and west of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway. It is contained within the six parishes of St. Landry, St. ^Martin, Lafayette, \'ermilion, Iberia, and St. Mary. The project will consist of the following features: a pumping station on the Atchafalaya River upstream of Krotz Springs with an initial capacity to divert 1,050 cubic feet per second into Bayou Courtableau at the head of Bayou Teclie and space for expansion; a leveed and excavated channel to convey the pum])ed water from the river to Bayou Courtableau, an inverted siphon to carry the pumped water under Big Darbonne Bayou, and a gated control structure in the west Atchafalaya Basin protection levee; a 48-inch gated pipe culvert be- tween Bayou Courtableau and the borrow pit below; a slotted weir in Bayou fusilier with a crest elevation of about 1.3 feet and provisions for closing the slot when necessary to fvn-tlier limit tlie flow between Bayou Teche and the Vermilion River; and a sector-gated control structure in the Loreauville Canal with about 56-foot horizontal width for passage of navigation and for controlling flow be- tween Bayou Teclie and the borrow pit. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit! cost ratio. — 1.13 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $5, 960, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 45, 000 Cash contribution Other 45, 000 Total estimated project cost 6, 005, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 550, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 25,000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_- 525, 000 JUSTIFICATION Low water flows in Bayou Teche, Vermilion River, and the west Atchafalaya Basin levee borrow pit drainage system are inadequate for the irrigation, munici- pal, and industrial needs of the area at this time. Although the Louisiana Stream Control Commission and many industries have instituted corrective measures to reduce pollution, both Bayou Teche and the west Atchafalaya Basin levee borrow pit become severely polluted and stagnant during low flow conditions. The low flow in Vermilion River and heavy withdrawals for irrigation result in severe salt water intrusion of the river and the aquifier which outcrops in the riverbed near the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Introduction of an additional surface water supply into Bayou Courtableau at the head of Bavou Teche will result in the estimated average annual benefits of $526,000 as follows— Water supply and water quality control $5(U, 000 Fish and wildlife 25, 000 Total 526,000 Non-Federal cost. — Local interests shall, prior to construction, agree to: jjrovide without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way neces- 91^59 — 68— pt. 1 53 832 sary for construction of the project, a sum currently estimated to be $45,000; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of the works; maintain and operate all works after completion including major replacements as necessary; and expand the pumping plant when and if necessary to bring the total capacity to 1,300 cubic feet per second. The current estimate of project costs to be borne by local interests follows — Lands and damages $36, 500 Engineering and Development and Supervision and administration 8, 500 Total 45,000 Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not been requested. By letter dated January 4, 1965, the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Works stated "the assurances usually required by local interests will be provided when required." The Department of Public Works concurred in the recommendations of the report by letter dated September 13, 1966. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,960,000 is aii increase of $250,000 over the latest estimate ($5,710,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change is due to increase of $190,000 for higher price levels and $60,000 in engineering and design for an increase in estimate for pre- construction planning. LOWER WHITE RIVER (BIG CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES) , ARK. Mr. Written. On pa-R 5, 000 Reserve-LaPlace, La 10, 000 Lower Venice, La 282, 000 Monsecour, La 10, 000 Greenwood, La 10, 000 Cracraft, Ark., berm and road 176, 800 837 Initiate and complete: Relocations (utilities) $53, 200 Gassowav Lake, La., berm 160, 000 English turn-Braithwaite, M-81.2-L levee slope paving 200, 000 Continue: Flowage easements new madrid floodway 200, 000 Whitehall, Ark., 688-R 285, 800 Complete: Lacour, La 10,000 Bowers, La 10,000 Sixty Mile Point, La 10, 000 Fairfield-Nine MUe Point, La 33,000 Engineering and design 360, 800 Supervision and administration 158, 400 Total 2,000,000 The funds are required to continue construction at an orderly and economical rate and will assure maximum incremental benefits from the funds expended. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to provide without cost to the United States all rights-of-way for levee foundations and levees on the main stem of the Mississippi River between Cape Girardeau, Mo., and the Head of Passes, except for maintenance setbacks, and to maintain the projects after completion. It is estimated that local interests had spent approximately $292 million for flood protection prior to authorization of May 15, 1928. Costs to local interests since 1928 are estimated to be $52,421,500 for rights-of-way and maintenance. Annual costs for maintenance of the completed project are estimated to be $800,000. Status of local cooperation. — After passage of the 1928 Flood Control Act, the 37 levee districts along the Mississippi River adopted resolutions assuring the United States that the requirements of local cooperation will be met. These local interests have acquired all rights-of-way for work completed and underway and have furnished assurances that the rights-of-way for work scheduled for fiscal year 1969 will be available when the requirements are made known to them. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $275 million is an increase of $3 million over the latest estimate ($272 million) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $2,136,000 for higher price levels; $440,000 for a pumping plant; and $424,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) New Madrid, Mo $2,164,000 $98,000.. $2,066,000 Mississippi River Levees: Lands and damages 4,489,400 22,300 $99,800 $200,000 4,167,300 Relocations 1,500,000 14,400 99,000 1,386,600 Channels and canals.. 2,345,000 491,100 1,853,900 Levees and ffoodwalls 226,335,600 186,485,200 2,745,400 1,211,800 35,893,200 Pumping plants 910,000 910,000 Engineering and design 13,555,000 11,255,700 444,700 360,800 1,493,800 Supervision and administration 23,701,000 19,905,100 225,900 158,400 3,411,600 Total applied cost (Federal funds) 275,000,000 218,257,400 3,530,200 2,030,000 51,182,400 Undistributed cost _ Total project cost (Federal funds) 218,257,400 3,530,200 2,030,000 51,182,400 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds) 218,257,400 3,530,200 2,030,000 51,182,400 Undelivered orders 282,600 -232,600 -30,000 -20,000 Total obligations 218,540,000 3,297,600 2,000,000 51,162,400 Method of financing: Allocations _ 218,587,600 3,250,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. 47,600 Total available for obligation 3,297,600 _. Appropriation required 2,000,000 51,162,400 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969jj 838 Channel Improvement (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in the Mississippi River and along its banks from the vicinity of Cairo, 111., to the Head of Passes, La., a distance of approxi- matelv 966 miles. Authorization.— \92d., 1936, 1938, 1944, and 1965 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 7.2 to 1 (composite for main stem). SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost , $980,000,000 Estimated non-Federal cost. Total estimated project cost_._ ... 980,000,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 ^.^ , 591,868,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 '. 30,300,000 Allocation to date ._: 622,168,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 26,600.000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. .._ 331,232,000 PHYSICAL DATA Lands and damages: Acres: 22,642. Type: Predominantly woodland. Revetments: 733 miles. Dikes: 138 miles. Dredging: As required. Pumping plants: 1. Foreshore protection: 100 miles. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages 93 Channels and canals (dredging) 81 Pumping plants 100 Bank stabilization 60 Entire project. . _ 62 June 1975. Do. June 1977. Do. JUSTIFICATION The Mississippi River, with a drainage area of about 1,24.5,000 square miles, has a wide range of flow, increasing from an approximtite minimum of 90,000 cubic feet per second (675,000 gallons per second) to a maximum of 2,345,000 cubic feet per second (17,587,000 gallons per second) which occurred in 1927 at the latitude of Red River Landing. The project flood is 3 million cubic feet per second (22,500,000 gallons per second). Part of the tremendous energy of this volume of flowing water is directed toward a relentless attack on the banks of the river, causing the unprotected banks to cave into the river. As this caving progresses, the attack becomes more direct, the bendway moves in toward the levee, and more sand is placed in the river and deposited downstream in the form of a sandbar. This bar gradually builds out into the channel and deflects the river current to the opposite bank. As the cycle is reijeated, the river tends to nunuider and to length(ui. Revetment is needed to prevent the river from recapturing the length taken from it by the cutoffs which reduced flood hcnghts. It is needed at localities where direct attack against a bank is occurring. In localities where the river alinement is satisfactory but the banks are unstable, caving should imt i)e allowed to develop. Stabilization of the river's course is vital to the provision of an effective channel for carrying flood flows, safe dependable navigation, low maintenance, and the protection of completed works. Dikes are used to limit the meander pattern where the greater protection afforded by revetment is not re- 839 quired and to assist the river in developing a desirable pattern as a preliminary step to revetting the bank. Dredging is used to close auxiliary channels and obtain desirable alinement at critical localities. Batture protection works prevent erosion of the land lying between the river bank and the levee. The Cairo-Memphis, Memphis-Arkansas River, Arkansas River-Vicksburg, Vicksburg-Old River, and Old River-Baton Rouge, and Baton Rouge to Head of Passes reaches are being stabilized under a definite plan. Progress will continue on these reaches with fmids requested. The rate at which the work can be carried on has a direct bearing on the costs involved due to the large expense in mobil- izing and demobilizing the construction plant required for this seasonal operation. Failure to continue work on the definite plan in the manner proposed will have an adverse effect on the revetment completed, and thus delay the completion and increase the cost of the channel improvement project as well as greatly increase the annual maintenance costs. The channel improvement project is one of the components which comprise the plan of improvement for the control of floods of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The contribution of each element to the overall plan is inseparably related to that made by the others. Therefore, their benefits are inseparable and a composite B/C ratio for the main stem components is necessary. The compo- nents are; Mississippi River levees, channel improvement, south bank Arkansas and south bank Red River levees, the Atchafalaya Basin, Old River, and a few miscellaneous items. The benefit-cost ratio was derived by measuring the total benefits credited to these main stem components against their total cost. Average annual benefits for the composite of main stem features follow — Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $441, 157, 000 Navigation 117, 750, 000 Benefits creditable to upstream reservoirs —5, 674, 000 Total annual benefits 553, 233, 000 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $26,600,000 will be apphed to the following — Revetments and foreshore protection $14,900,000 Dikes 9,800,000 Dredging 1, 900, 000 Total 26,600, 000 Revetments and foreshore protection. — The planned program consists of items of work for which funds will be required as follows — Revetments and foreshore protection $12, 966, 500 Engineering and design 1, 013, 000 Supervision and administration 920, 500 Total 14,900,000 The items of revetment work art^ Approximate length Initiate: ^«^«^ St. Gabriel, La 18,000 Continue: Hickman-Reelfoot, Ky 5, 000 Blaker T.H 3,000 Lower Bullerton, Ark 3, 000 Island 40, Tenn 4, 000 Enslev, Tenn 4, 500 Cow Island Bend, Ark 8, 000 St. Francis, Ark 1, 000 Cessions T.H., Ark 6, 500 Henrico, Ark 1, 800 Big Island, Ark 3, 200 Eutaw-Mounds, Miss 2, 000 Sarah Island-Opossum Point, Miss 2, 000 Baleshed-Stack Island, Miss 7, 000 Goldbottom, Miss 4, 000 ^Miscellaneous reinforcement 13, 400 840 Complete: Acquisition of lands for casting field. The planned foreshore protection for levees consists of the following item: Initiate. — Snowdrift, La., item 97.7-R. Funds are required to initiate or continue the items of work listed above to extend the existing revetments and assure the continued effectiveness of the completed work. The continuation of the program will prevent loss or damage to existing revetments which could result in additional costs for replacements or repairs. Also included are funds to initiate the construction of protective works at Snowdrift, La., to prevent the erosion of foreshore between the bank of the river and the levee. Dikes. — The planned dike work consists of the following items: Initiate: Amount 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 900 000 000 000 000 Caruthersville-Linwood Bend, Mo $500 Keyes Point, Tenn. 600 Island 62, Ark 700 Below Cherokee, Tenn 30 Below Island 9, Tenn 30 Stewart T.H., Mo 30 Ludlow, Ark 30 Bend of Island 25, Ark 30 Armstrong, Ark 30, Below Walnut Bend, Ark 30 Above Knowlton, Ark 39 Island 70, Miss 1 Waterproof Bar, La 1 Leland Bar, Miss 1 Refuge, Miss 1 Continue: Wright's Point, Ark 450 Lower Forked Deer, Tenn 400 Ashport-Golddust, Ark 1, 050, Coahoma, Tenn 310 Above Loosahatchie, Tenn 800 Henrico, Ark 450 Surveys and layouts and contact pilots 160 Lands and damages 5 Permits and crop damages 20 Complete: Malone Field, Miss 1, 199 Ben Lomond, Miss 1, 079 Island 86, Ark.-Miss 898 Engineering and design 510 Supervision and administration 415 000 000 000 000 000 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Total, dikes 9, 800, 000 Funds will be used for the construction of dikes at the above locations to assist in the establishment and stabilization of the river channel. Systems of dikes are designed and constructed to encourage deposition of silt in and closure of secondary channels, to develop stable channels, to confine flows to a single channel, and to assist in maintaining a low-water navigation channel. Dredging. — The planned dredging work consists of the following: Initiate: Ajnount Randolph, Tenn $300, 000 Continue: Keyes Point, Tenn 400, 000 Blaker TH.-Linwood Bend, Mo 400, 000 Island 40-Loosahatchie, Tenn 210, 000 Ensley-Armstrong, Tenn 400, 000 Surveys and layouts 30. 000 Towing 10,000 Permits and crop damage 10, 000 Engineering and design 70, 000 Supervision and administration 70, 000 Total dredging _ 1, 900, 000 841 Funds are needed to initiate dredging at Randolph, Tenn. (Mile 773) to relocate the channel on an improved alinement in connection with the construction of dikes for stabilization of tlie channel in this reach. Funds are needed to continue dredging initiated in fiscal year 1968 at Keyes Point, Tenn., to relocate the channel on an improved alinement in connection with the construction of dikes at this location. The dredging at Blaker T.H.-Linwood Bend, Mo. (Mile 844), is a continuation of the channel stabilization in this reach which was initiated in fiscal year 1967 by construction of the Caruthersville-Linwood Bend dikes. The dredging will effect a relocation of the channel, which now crosses from Blaker Towhead to Bells Point and back to Linwood Bend, to a more favorable alinement continuing along the left banks into the upper end of the Linwood Bend revetment. Funds are needed to continue dredging through the Island 40-Loosahatchie, Tenn., reach to assist the river forces in obtaining a suitable alinement of the river for navigation and stabilize the Brandywine to Memphis reach at the earliest practical date. Funds are needed at Ensley- Armstrong, Tenn. (Mile 720-726), to continue the improvement dredging initiated in fiscal year 1963 to eliminate the divided flow conditions and improve the channel in this reach. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of $980,000,000 is an increase of $20,000,000 over the latest estimate ($960,000,000) submitted to Congress. This change is due entirely to higher price levels. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $445,800 |407,000 $13,000 $15,000 $10 800 Channels and canals 113,151,900 90,132,800 1,748,700 1,760,000 19 510 400 Pumping plants 244,300 244,300 Bank stabilization 758,813,000 436,783,800 25,256,100 21,839,200 274,933,900 Engineering and design _ 38,462,400 22,636,500 1,610,100 1,593,000 12,622,800 Supervision and administration 68,882,600 41,285,100 1,659,800 1,405,500 24 532 200 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 980,000,000 591,489,500 30,287,700 26,612,700 331,610,100 Undistributed cost 50 construction facilities 61,400 29,800 —12 700 —78 500 Total project cost (Federal funds only) 591,550,900 30,317,500 26,600,000 331,531^600 Pending adjustments Total costs (Federal funds only) 591,550,900 30,317,500 26,606,o66 33i,"53i,666 Undelivered orders 179,700 120,200 -299,900 Total obligations 591,730,600 30,437,700 26,600,000 331,231,700 Method of financing: Allocations 591,868,300 30,300,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 137,700 Total available for obligation 30,437,700 Appropriations required 26,600,000 331,231,700 Old River (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in the lower portion of the Red River back- water area between the Red and Mississippi Rivers and above the Pointe Coupee north levee in Louisiana. Authorization. — 1928, 1954, and 1958 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 7.2 to 1 (Composite of Main Stem). 842 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $72,200,000 Estimated Federal cost (Bureau of Public Roads) '867,100 Estimated non-Federal costs: Cash contribution ' 541,900 Total estimated project cost ___ 73,609,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 _ 64,230,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 _ 825,000 Allocations to date 65,055,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 _„ 1,000,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 6, 145,000 ' Voluntary contribution for betterments desired by local interests. PHYSICAL DATA Low-sill structure: Reinforced concrete structure. Eleven gate bays each having 44 feet clear width between piers. Weir crest 10 feet mean sea level, except three bays with weir crest at —5 feet mean sea level for passing low flows. Total length 566 feet between abutments, Vertical lift steel gates. Overbank structure: Reinforced concrete with hinged timber panel gates. Seventy- three gate bays each having 44 feet clear width between piers. Weir crest 52 feet mean sea level. Total length 3,356 feet between abutments. Barge barrier at low-sill structure: Five steel, deck type, barges anchored with concrete anchors constructed and operable; two steel deck- type barges, length of pile deflection dike and length of levee currently being planned as extension to the presently constructed barrier. Navigation lock:'75 x 1,200 feet. Maximum W. S. elevation (lock) : 65 feet mean sea level. Maximum discharge cai)acity: Approximately 700,000 cubic feet per second for both low-sill and overbank structures. Inflow channel: 0.5 mile long; Ijottom width, 1,000 feet at —5 mean sea level. Outflow channel: 7 miles long; bottom width 900 feet at —9 mean sea level (a\-erage) . Levees: Approximately 16 miles of enlargement and new levees. Bank stabilization: Approximately 5 miles. Lands and damages: Acres: 12,669. Type: Predominantly woodland and open land (204 acres of agricultural land). Improvements: Negligible. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages Locks (includes bridge over lock) _. Channels and canals Levee and floodwalls: Protection levees _ Old River closure ._. Diversion dike, barge barrier extension. Flood control and diversion structures Bank stabilization .. Buildings, grounds, and utilities Entire project 100 100 87 June 1973. 100 100 June 1969. 97 June 1968. 39 October 1972. 100 89 June 1973. JUSTIFICATION The project will prevent the Mississippi Riv^er from changing its course to that of the Old and Atchafahiya Rivers. Should this have occurred, the cities of Baton Rouge and New Orleans and many lesser-size commiuiitics would have 843 been without snfficiont qTiantitios of frosh wator to supply their domostic needs during low water periods. The vast industrial complex located from above Baton Rouse to near the river's moutli would have been without fresh water which is vital to its operation. The Mississippi River as far u]:)stream as Baton Rouge would have become brackish. The i)lan for controlling floods t)elow Old River would have required redesigning and reconstructing. Cities, towns, railroads, highways, waterways, industry, agriculture, and utilities in the Atchafalaya Basin would have been subject to partial or complete destruction or serious disruption. Tlie investment of the United States in flood control and navigation works would have been threatened and a large amount of it lost. The effect would have been felt probably as far upstream as Vicksburg on the Mississippi River and Boyce on the Red River as a result of swifter currents and increased mean- dering. The cost of these losses, not including the dislocation and disruption of industry and agriculture, is estimated conservatively to be $475 million i)lus an additional annual maintenance cost of $6,700,000. The Old River project is one of the comjjonents which comprise the plan of improvement for the control of floods of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The contribution of each element to the overall plan is inseparably related to that made by the others. Therefore, their benefits are inseparable and a composite B/C ratio for the main stem components is necessary. The components are: Mississippi River levees, channel imjirovement, south bank Arkansas and south bank Red River levees, the Atchafalaya Basin, Old River, and a few miscellaneous items. The benefit-cost ratio was derived by measviring the total benefits credited to these main stem components against their total cost. Average annual benefits for the comjjosite of main stem features follow: Breakdown of benefits: .,.'-.- Amnunf Flood control /..LI-' $441, 157, 000 Navigation 117, 750, 000 Less benefits creditable to upstream reservoirs —5, 674, 000 Total 553, 233, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1 million will be applied to — Continue: Bank stabilization at Coville Bayou $670, 000 Engineering and design 70, 000 Supervision and administration GO, 000 Complete: Barge barrier extension with diversion dike construction-. 200, 000 Total -_[1-^1_ 1, 000, 000 With the funds requested for fiscal year 1969, bank stabilization will continue at an orderly and economical rate so as to meet the schedtiled completion date and the diversion dike for barge barrier will be completed. Non-Federal costs. — The department of highways and bureau of public roads have made voluntary contributions of $1,409,000 for widening the low-sill and overbank stnictm-e bridges, a bridge over the lock, the levee and other work at the lock location to provide for a two-lane roadway. Status of local cooperation. — The Fifth Louisiana Levee District on October 29, 1928, adopted a resolution assuring the United States that the requirements of local cooperation for levee work along the Mississippi River will be supplied. All of the rights-of-way required for levee work have been acquired. No additional right-of-way will be required for the proposed barge barrier extension currently being planned. Com-parison of Federal cost estimates. — -The current Federal cost estimate of $72,200,000 is an increa.se of $1,200,000 over the latest estimate ($71 million) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $372,000 for higher price levels; $700,000 in construction features based on additional detailed planning due to the need to extend the barge barrier; and $60,000 in engineering and design and $68,000 in supervision and administration based on a reanalj^sis of require- ments. 844 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $306 900 $306,900 Locks - 17,076,600 17,043,600 $33,000 Channels 20,246,800 17,645,700 2,601,100 Levees - 3,717,000 3,517,000 $200,000 Floodway control and diversion streams.. 18,612,700 18,028,700 $584,000 Bank stabilization 5,891,900 2,120,000 202,900 670,000 2,899,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 130,200 130,200 Engineering and design 2,931,600 2,736,300 54,400 70,000 70,900 Supervision and administration 4,695,300 4,071,300 23,000 60,000 541,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds and contributions) 73,609,000 65,599,700 864,300 1,000,000 6,145,000 Undistributed costs Total project cost 73,609,000 65,599,700 864,300 1,000,000 6,145,000 Pending adjustments. Total cost..-- 73,609,000 65,599,700 864,300 1,000,000 6,145,000 Undelivered orders 39,000 -39,000 Total obligations.- 65,638,700 825,300 1,000,000 6,145,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds)-. 72,200,000 64,190,700 864,300 1,000,000 6,145,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost.. 72,200,000 64,190,700 864,300 1,000,000 6,145,000 Pending adjustments Total cost 72,200,000 64,190,700 864,300 1,000,000 8,145,000 Undelivered orders +39,000 -39,000 Total obligations 64,229,700 825,300 1,000,000 6,145,000 Contributions (other betterment): Bu- reau of Public Roads: Total applied cost 867,100 867,100 Undistributed cost Total project cost 867,100 867,100 Pending adjustments Totalcost>. 867,100 867,100 Undelivered orders Total obligations 867,100 State of Louisiana, Department of High- ways: Total applied cost 541,900 541,900 Undistributed costs Total project cost 541,900 541,900 Pending adjustments - Total cost 541,900 541,900 Undelivered orders Total obligations 541,900 Method of financing Corps of Engineers funds: Allocations 64,230,000 825,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. 300 Total funds available for obligation 825,300 Appropriations required 1,000,000 6,145,000 Bureau of Public Roads funds: Reimbursements 867,100 Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Reimbursement required -- Non-Federal contributions (State of Louisiana, Department of Highways): Contributions 541,900 Unobligated carryover from prior year. - Total funds available for obligation Contributions required - St. Francis Basin (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in the St. Francis Basin in southeastern Missouri, and northeastern Arkansas, and extends from the hills southwest of Cape Girardeau, Mo., near Wappapello, Mo., to the confluence of the St, Francis and Mississippi Rivers about 10 miles above Helena, Ark. Authorization.— \%2S, 1936, 1938, 1941, 1944, 1946, 1950, 1958, and 1965 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.5 to 1. 845 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contributions Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967.. Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $138, 000, 000 17,828,300 65, 000 7, 763, 300 145, 828, 300 64,416,000 3, 875, 000 68,291,000 4,000,000 65. 709. 000 I In addition, local interests have expended approximately 115,000,000 for levees, locks, etc., in the project area. PHYSICAL DATA Channels : St. Francis River and tributaries, 409.0 miles. Little River drainage, 291.0 miles. Big Slough and Mayo ditches, 28.0 miles. Tyronza River, 34.0 miles. Cross County ditch, 12.0 miles. Levees: Average height, 11.7 feet. Length, 440.0 miles. Pumping plants: 1 — ^25 cubic feet per second. 1 — 12,000 cubic feet per second. Dam and reservoir: 1 dam. Other: 1 syphon. Lands and damages: 174,523 acres. Type: Predominately agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations: Roads: 11.6 miles and 144 bridges $10,021,300. Cemeteries and utility lines: $1,061,000. Railroads: 33 bridges $5,710,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Big Slough and Mayo ditch.. 100 Little River drainage Wappapello Reservoir Recreation facilities Other features. St. Francis River and tributaries 42 98 79 99 45 June 1980. Not scheduled. March 1970. Lands Relocations Channels Levees.. Pumping plants 55 51 48 81 3 June 1982, June 1979. June 1983. June 1977. June 1974. Flood control and diversion structures... Marked Tree syphon 100 Entire project 48 June 1983. JUSTIFICATION The project is a single-purpose flood control project and is a unit in the Com- prehensive Plan for Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries. Protection against headwater floods of the St. Francis and Little Rivers will be afforded to an area of approximately 1,408,600 acres of agricultural lands and including numerous small towns, several major railroads, highways, and utilities, located in Missouri and Arkansas. The construction of adequate outlets for the many drainage improvements undertaken by local interests will provide relief from overflow on approximately 196,700 acres in the Little River Basin, 29,000 acres in the Elk Chute Basin, and 35,000 acres in the Big Slough area. In addition, relief from flooding by backwaters of the Mississippi River will be afforded to approximately 532,000 acres in the lower St. Francis Basin below 846 the latitude of St. Francis Lake by the construction of the Madison to Marianna Cut-Off and related work including the pumping plant. Flooding has occurred every j-ear with few exceptions, and the flood of record occurred in 1937 causing numerous breaks in the locally constructed substandard levees with resultant damages of over $2 million. It is estimated that a recm-rence of the 1937 flood, under present conditions of development in the flood plain, would cause damages of over $18 million if the flood occurred during the crop growing season. Con- tinuing construction of this project is needed to prevent recurring flood losses. The project is credited with the benefits it will produce in flood damages pre- vented, increased utilization of land, and fish and wildliff^ Averae^ annual benefits follow: Benefits: Recreation $6.'), 000 Flood control 15, 0S9, 900 Fish and wildlife 316, 400 Total project benefits 15, 471, 300 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4 million will be applied to — St. Francis River and tributaries: Complete: Missouri Highway "D," Wappapello-Crowlevs Ridge, item 1_ $62, 500 County Bridge, Tyronza River, item 2 1 88, 200 Missouri Highway "D" loower lines 1,000 Tyronza River, item 2 104,000 County Bridge, Wappapello-Crowleys Ridge, item 1, plug removal 78, 000 Control structure access road — Oak Donnick Floodway 28, 100 Initiate: Arkansas Highway 149, Big Creek, item 1 7, 200 Arkansas Highway 118, Big Creek, item 1 4, 600 County FAS Bridge, Big Creek, item 1 8, 400 County Road, Big Creek, item 1 4, 200 Missouri Pacific Railroad, Dudley Ditch-Lick Creek, item 1_ 2, 400 Miscellaneous utilities, Dudley Ditch-Lick Creek 7,000 Access road, W. G. Huxtable pumping plant 5, 000 Roadway construction, below Clarks Corner 5, 000 Initiate and complete: Arkansas Highway 42, Big Creek, item 1 43, 800 Arkansas Highway 42, Big Creek, item 2 14, 700 Continue: Arkansas Highway 42 grade raise, St. Francis Floodway 50, 000 Below Marianna, Arkansas Levee 204, 000 W. G. Huxtable pumping plant (machinery and equipment)- 1, 390, 000 Land acquisition 303, 500 Flowage easement 130, 000 Engineering and design 706, 000 Supervision and administration 199, 200 Subtotal 3,443,400 Wappapello Reservoir: Continue: Engineering and design 3, 800 Supervision and administration - 1, 200 Subtotal... 5, 000 Little River drainage: Complete: South End control structure $61, 500 Initiate: Ditch 81 Extension, StL-SF RR 10, 000 Continue: StL-SW RR, Ditch 251, Item 2 3, 000 Land acquisition 277, 000 Hired labor 25, 200 Engineering and design 139, 800 Supervision and administration 35, 100 Subtotal 551,600 Total „._ .- 4, 000, 000 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete afteff estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 847 Funds are roquired to continue construction at an orderly and economical rate. Non-Federal ro.s/.s. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $7,828,300; $4,200,600 for lands and easements on entire project and $3,562,700 for relocations, and $65,000 cash contributions. Local interests are required to maintain levees after com))letion. The approxi- mate cost of maint(>nance by local interests during calendar year 1966 was $836,000. In addition to the above, local interests state that they have incurred costs in excess of $15 million for levees, locks, etc., prior to initiation of the authorized Federal improveinents. Status of local cooperation. — Necessary assurances have been furnished by 24 levee and drainage districts to maintain works as required by law. These assurances are being complied with for all levees completed to date, and they have indicated that these assurances will be complied with for all work in the fiscal year 1968 and 1969 programs as required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $138 million is an increase of $6 million over the latest estimate ($132 million) submitted to Congress. This change iuf-ludes increases of $1,512,000 for higher price levels, $1,475,000 for additional lands and damages based on a recent re- appraisal, $2,403,000 based on more detailed planning of construction and reloca- tions and $610,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administratioa based on a reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) St. Francis River and tributaries: ($107, 524, 100) ($46, 763, 700) ($3, 157, 100) ($3, 469, 400) ($54, 133, 900) Lands and damages 15,314,000 8,198,200 596,400 433,500 6,085,900 Relocations 11,929,300 5,957,400 420,000 319,500 5,232,400 Channels and canals 23,502,500 10.987,700 439,900 188,100 11,886.800 Levees and floodwalls 16,540,000 13.064,500 396,500 233,100 2,845,900 Pumping plants 24,790,000 400,000 1,390,000 23,000,000 Flood control and diversion struc- tures 822,000 822,000 Engineering and design 6,740,000 5,105,400 696,400 706,000 232,200 Supervision and administration... . 7,886,300 3,450,500 207,900 199,200 4 028 700 Wappapello Reservoir: (8,160,000) (8,007,700) (21,300) (5,000) (126,000) Lands and damages 2,248,200 2,248,200 Relocations 1,193,700 1,193,700 Dam and reservoir 3,625,500 3,625,500 Recreation facilities 335,000 252,800 15,600 66,606 Buildings, grounds and utilities 50,000 50,000 Engineering and design 247,000 239,700 3,500 3,800 Supervision and administration 460,600 447,800 2,200 1,200 9,400 Big Slough and Mayo Ditch (965,500) (965,400). (100) Little River drainage (21,415,400) (7,823,700) (1,523,100) (556,400) (11,512,200) Lands and damages 2,014,000 659,300 187,200 297,000 870,500 Relocations 4,863,000 1,018,300 197,400 22,100 3,625,200 Fish and wildlife facilities 1,014,000 2,300 92,800 18,700 900,200 Federal funds (949,000) (2,200) (87,000) (17,800) (842,000) Non-Federal contributions (65,000) (100) (5,800) (900) (58.200) Channels and canals 8,463,000 3,643,400 449,500. . 5,370,100 Levees and floodwalls 578,000 441,000 87,600 49,400 Floodway control and diversion structures 1,023,000 5,500 204,500 43,700 769,300 Engineering and design 1,710,000 1,377,600 192,600 139,800 Supervision and administration 1,750,400 676,300 111,500 35,100 927,500 Total cost (Federal tunds and non-Fed- eral contributions) 138,065,000 63,560,500 4,701.500 4,030,800 65.772.200 Undelivered orders... 759,100 -724 200 -29 900 -5 000 Total obligations 64,319,600 3,977,300 4,000,900 65.767,200 Federal funds: Totalcost 138,000,000 63,560,400 4,695.700 4,029,900 65,714,000 Undelivered orders... 758,100 -723 200 -29,900 -5.000 Total obligations 64,318,500 3,972,500 4,000,000 65.709.000 Non-Federal contributions: Totalcost 65,000 100 5,800 900 58,200 Undelivered orders . 1,000 —1 000 Total obligations 1,100 4,800 900 58,200 91-459— GS—pt. 1 54 848 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969— Continued Item (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Method of financing; Allocation _,._ $64,425,000 $3,875,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 105,400 Total funds available for obligation. 3,980,400 Appropriations required... Federal funds: Allocation 64,416,000 3,875,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year _ 97,500 Total funds available for obligation. 3,972,500 Appropriations required Non-Federal contributions: Contribution 9,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 7,900 Total funds available for obligation.. 7,900 Contributions required. $3,100 $2,200 3.100 2,200 , 000. 000 65, 765, 000 4, 000, 000 65. 709, 000 3,100 3,100 2,200 2,200 56, 000 West Tennessee Tribut.\ries, Tennessee (Continuing) Location. — The project is located along the Obion and Forked Deer Rivers and their forks in West Tennessee, in Weakley, Madison, Gibson, Obion, Dyer, Crockett, Lauderdale and Haywood Counties, Tenn. Authorization. — 1948 and 1966 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ration. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $17,700,000 Estimated non-Federal cost > 1,026,000 Cash contributions Other costs.... 1,026,000 Total estimated project cost 18,726,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 5,859,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 560, 000 Allocation to date.. 6,419,000 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 600, 000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 10, 681, 000 > In addition, local interests have expended approximately $4,000,000 to construct main and lateral ditches in the Obion Basin. PHYSICAL DATA Relocations: Roads: 12 bridges, $893,000. Railroads: 8 bridges, $2,367,000. Pipelines: 10, $821,000. Channels: J^''" Obion River 45 Forked Deer River 5 Obion River Forks 65 Forked Deer River Forks 101 Total 216 STATUS (JAN. 1. 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Relocations , Channels.. , Entire project 29 December 1975. 32 June 1976. 34 Do. 849 JUSTIFICATION The project is a flood control and drainage project and is a unit of the compre- hensive phin for flood control, Mississippi River and Tributaries. The channel improvements will eliminate overflow during crop season on a considerable portion of the area and provide drainage outlets. Flood runoff will be so accelerated that the duration of the overflow periods will be materially reduced. The area that will be protected above the general effect of Mississippi River backwaters is comprised of 455,000 acres of cleared and wooded areas (174,000 cleared; 281,000 wooded). The population of the drainage basin is estimated at 290,000 of which about 75 percent is rural. Urban centers in the basin include Jackson, Dyersburg, Union City, Humboldt, Trenton, Milan, all in Tennessee, and Fulton, Ky. Farming, including truck farming, stock raising, and dairying, is the principal occupation throughout the basin. The project is credited with benefits from flood damages prevented and a higher land use made possible by reducing flooding. Average an- nual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $1,366,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $600,000 will be applied as follows — Complete: IC Raih-oad bridge (MS-0) $131, 400 Continue bridge, Sidonia, Tenn. (SF-0) 43, 300 Fowlkes, Tenn., item 1, parcel 1 (SF-FD) 202, 600 Initiate and complete: Plug removal, above Obion, Tenn., item 7a (MS-0) 72, 000 Engineering and design 100, 000 Supervision and administration 50, 700 Total 600,000 Funds are required to continue construction at an orderly and economical rate and to complete work on one railroad bridge, one highway bridge and remove one plug. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests for con- structing the authorized project is estimated at $1,026,000 for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and utilities. In addition to the above, local interests have expended approximately $4 million to construct main and lateral ditches in the Obion Basin. Status of local cooperation. — Necessary assurances have been furnished by the Commissioner of Highways and Public Works for the State of Tennessee. The assurances have been complied with for all work completed and under contract. It is expected that local interests will comply with the assurances for all work proposed for fiscal year 1968 and 1969. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $17,700,000 is an increase of $4 million over the latest estimate — $13,700,000 — submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $422,000 for higher price levels, $3,104,000 based on more detailed planning of construction and relocations and the added Federal responsibility for relocation of gas pipe lines authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1966, and $474,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a recent reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Relocations... Channels and canals Engineering and design Supervision and administration.. Total applied cost (Federal funds only). Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustment Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations.. Method of financing: Allocation. Unobligated carryover prior year... Total funds available for obligation. Appropriations required $4,081,000 10,210,000 1,681,000 1,728,000 17,700,000 $992, 300 3,182,500 1,028,000 542, 100 5,744,900 $322, 200 168,700 99, 800 56,900 647,600 $176,200 299,600 100,000 50, 700 626, 500 17,700,000 ' 17^700," 500' 5,744,900 647,600 626, 500 5,744,900 107, 500 5,852,400 5,859,000 647,600 -81,000 566,600 560, 000 6,600 566,600 $2, 590, 300 6,559,200 453,200 1,078,300 10,681,000 10,681,000 "io,"68i,"6oo 626, 500 -26,500 600,000 10,681,000 600,000 10,681,000 850 Tensas Basin, Ark. and La, (Continuing) Location. — The Tensas Basin is located in the alluvial valley of Arkansas and Louisiana between the Mississippi River on the east and an escarpment on the west and extends southward from the Arkansas River to the Red River in the vicinity of Marksville, La. Author ization.—lQ'^l, 1944, 1946, 19.50, 1958, 1962, and 1965 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio.— S.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $93,600,000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' 112,000 Cash contribution Other 112,000 Total estimated project cost 93,712,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 34,249,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 1,725,000 Allocations to date 35,974,000 38 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1, 500,000 40 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 56, 126,000 1 In addition, local interests have expended approximately $5,900,000 on drainage improvements prior to authorized project and it is estimated they will spend an additional $13,240,000 for connecting ditches, laterals, and onfarm drainage improvements. PHYSICAL DATA Boeuf and Tensas Rivers, etc.: Lands and Damages: Acres: 66,114. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Channels and canals: 877.8 miles. Relocations: Roads: 26.6 miles and 88 bridges, $4,514,000. Railroads: 9 bridges, $1,137,000. Utility lines: $1,976,000. Hed River backwater area: Lands and damages: Acres: 24,921. Type: Woodland and agricultural. Iniprovements: Some farm units. Channels and canals: 48.5 miles. All interior drainage except V/i miles Smithland cutoflf. Pumping plant: 1 pumping plant, 3,000 cubic feet per second. Relocations: Roads: 28.4 miles and 5 bridges, $1,262,000. Utility lines: $1,375,000. Levees and flood walls: Levees: Average height: 10-20 feet. Length: 274.0 miles. Drainage structures: 26 (24-inch pipes to 10 feet by 15 feet box culverts). Recreation facilities: Access roads, 9 miles (gravel). Parking and boat launching facilities, 5. 851 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Boeuf and Tensas Rivers, etc Lands and damages Relocations Channels and canals Big Bayou, Ark... Canal 19, Ark Canal 43, Ark Canal 81, Ark Boeuf River, Ark. and La Bayou Macon, Ark and La Lower Boeuf River, La Black Pond Slough, Ark_ Fleschmans Bayou, Ark Canal 18, Ark Caney Bayou, Ark Rush Bayou, Ark Canal 19 extension, Arkansas. Kirsch Lake Canal, Ark Tensas River, La Big and Colewa Creeks, La... Bayou Lafourche. La Mill Bayou and Bayou VidaL. Red River backw/ater area Lands and damages... Relocations Channels and canals Levees and floodwalls Pumping plants. Recreation facilities ' Entire project 45 June 1981. 42 June 1980. 47 Do. 42 Do. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Do. 4 Do. 29 June 1975. 48 June 1974. June 1978. 26 June 1980. 30 June 1979. 11 December 1979. 59 June 1980. 30 Do. June 1972. June 1977. 37 June 1981. > To be constructed as mitigation measures for fish and wildlife losses. JUSTIFICATION The Tensas Basin project is comprised of two separable units; namely, the Boeuf and Tensas Riv^ers, and the Red River backwater area. The land in the Boeuf and Tensas Basins possesses a high potential for agricul- tural production development but this potential is restricted by the frequency and duration of overflow and by poor drainage which, for long periods, causes the ground to remain in a condition unsuitable for cultivation. The project will eliminate most of these hindrances to full economic development by providing adequate channels for tlie streams and major outlets for effective local drainage systems. A total of 897,000 acres valued at $85 million will be substantially benefited bv the project. Average annual benefits, all flood control are $10,- 577,000. Lands in the Red River Backwater Area are extremelj^ fertile but their develop- ment to full potential is adversely affected by backwaters of the Mississippi River. These lands must remain subject to use for storage of floodwaters during a Mississippi River project flood. However, protection of the area against lesser floods, particularly headwater floods of the Ouachita, Black, and Red Rivers, will permit a high degree of economic development to be obtained. A total of 403,000 acres valued at $49 million will be substantially benefited bj' the project. Average aiuiual benefits follow: Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $4, 216, 000 Fush and wildlife 46,000 Total 4,262,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of §1,500,000 will be applied as follows: 852 Boeuf and Tensas Rivers, etc.— $600,000: Initiate Bayou Lafourche Channel improvement, reach BL-1 and riprap protection for bridge at Mile 32. 2 $15, 000 Initiate Tensas River channel improvement, reach 2 10, 000 Continue land acquisition 100, 000 Continue Tensas River channel improvement, reach 1 250, 000 Complete 1 jNIPRR bridge and communications line, Big and Colewa Creeks, reach 1-B 19, 200 Complete 1 pipeline at mile 28.7, Bayou Lafourche reach BL-1 25, 000 Engineering and design 150, 000 Supervision and administration 30, 800 Total 600,000 Streams in the lower portion of this project will be affected by backwater from the Jonesville Lock and Dam on the Ouachita River now under construction. The work for which funds are requested must be constructed in fiscal year 1969 to be complete prior to filling of the Jonesville Lock and Dam which will raise low water stages in the project area from 4 to 23 feet. If scheduled channel work is not ac- complished until after the Jonesville Pool is filled, costs of the work will be in- creased about $1,500,000. Completion of channel work on Bayou Lafourche will improve drainage on 114,000 acres with annual benefits of $464,000 and completion of channel work on Tensas River will improve drainage on 129,000 acres with annual benefits of $404,800. The funds for lands will provide rights-of-way for construction proposed in fiscal year 1969 and fiscal year 1970. Red River Backwater Area— $900,000: Initiate Jonesville to diversion channel, levee item No. 3-A $5, 000 Initiate Tensas-Cocodrie pumping plant 10, 000 Continue land acquisition 150, 000 Continue Jonesville to diversion channel, new levee item No. 2 148, 000 Continue Black River to Catahoula Lake, interior drainage ditch and levee, reach No. 2 200, 000 Complete relocation of U.S. Highway No. 84, Chatahoula Lake to Jonesville, levee item No. 6 100, 000 Engineering and design 250, 000 Supervision and administration 37, 000 Total __ 900, 000 The levee items are part of a plan which when completed will provide the area with protection against backwater flooding from the Mississippi River and head- water floods of the Ouachita and Black Rivers. Material excavated from the diversion channel — Black River to Catahoula Lake (an item of the Ouachita and Black Rivers navigation project) — will be used in the construction of the levees along the diversion channel. Work scheduled for fiscal year 1969 must be done so as to meet the completion date of the Jonesville Lock and Dam on the Ouachita River navigation project which cannot be operated until these works have been completed. Funds are also included to initiate the Tensas-Cocodrie Pumping Plant which will provide protection to 35,400 acres of land now subject to inundation in an existing sump area and will result in annual benefits of $433,000. Lands in the project area are being rapidly converted to cultivation of soya beans. The funds for lands will provide rights-of-way for the construction proposed in fiscal years 1969 and 1970. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to furnisli lands for the Tensas- Cocodrie Pumping Plant (Red River Backwater) at an estimated cost of $12,000. Prior to the 1950 Flood Control Act which relieved local interests of the resi)onsi- bility of providing rights-of-way in tlie Boeuf and Tensas basin, local political bodies spent $100,000 for lands and damages and costs incidental thereto. Local interests are required to perform minor maintenance and operate the project after completion at an estimated annual cost of $538,000. 853 Local interests estimate that they have expended at least $5,900,000 in the Tensas basin on the construction of drainage improvements prior to initiation of the Federal project. They estimate they wUl spend an additional $13,240,000 in constructing connecting ditches, main laterals, and on-farm drainage improve- ments. This work is being accomplished as the major outlets are opened. Local drainage and levee districts report they expended approximately $1,880,000 on construction and maintenance of drainage improvements between 1950 and 1966. STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION Boeuf and Tensas Rivers. — Assurances have been furnished by eight levee and drainage districts to operate and maintain all units of the project except the Kirsch Lake Canal, Mill Bayou and Bayou Vidal for which assurances will be requested during the design memorandum stage of planning. Red River Backwater Area. — Assurances have been received and accepted for all project features except the Sicily Island area and below Red River area. Assurances for these features will be requested at the design memorandum stage of planning. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $93,600,000 is an increase of $4,100,000 over the latest estimate ($89,500,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $110,000 for additional lands and higher land costs; $2,944,000 for higher price levels on construction features; $615,000 for additional levees and relocations because of inclusion of protection of an additional area in the Red River backwater area and $431,000 based on a reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Boeuf and Tensas Rivers, etc.: Lands and damages $5,180,000 $2,111,700 $315,900 $100,000 $2,652,400 Relocations 7,627,000 3,466,300 157,300 54,200 3,949,200 Channels and canals 34,007,000 14,400,700 14,500 265,000 19,326,800 Engineering and design 3,334,000 2,207,300 153,400 150,000 823,300 Supervision and administration 3,552,000 1,589,900 33,500 30,800 1,897,800 Total, Boeuf and Tensas Rivers, etc.. 53,700,000 23,775,900 674,600 600,000 28,649,500 Red River backwater area: Lands and damages 2,767,000 816,200 80,700 150,000 1,720,100 Relocations 2,637,000 172,600 475,700 100,000 1,888,700 Channels and canals 1,501,000 860,700 51,000 20,000 569,300 Levees and floodw/alls 21,307,000 6,212,700 503,900 333,000 14,257,400 Pumping plants. 6,050,000 10,000 6,040,000 Recreation facilities. 133,000 133,000 Engineering and design 2,967,000 1,281,600 358,500 250,000 1,076,900 Supervision and administration 2,538,000 637,500 69,200 37,000 1,794,300 Total, Red River backwater area 39,900,000 9,981,300 1,539,000 900,000 27,479,700 Total— Tensas basin: Total applied cost (Federal funds only) 93,600,000 33,757,200 2,213,600 1,500,000 56,129,200 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only) 93,600,000 33,757,200 2,213,600 1,500,000 56,129,200 Pending adjustments... Total cost (Federal funds only) 93,600,000 33,757,200 2,213,600 1,500,000 56,129,200 Undelivered orders 166,900 -163,900 -3,000 Total obligations 33,924,100 2,049,700 1,500,000 56,126,000 Method of financing: Allocations 34,248,800 1,725,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year.. 324,700 Total funds available for obligation 2,049,700 Appropriations required 1,500,000 56,126,200 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 854 Yazoo Basin (Continuing) Location. — ^This project is located in Mississippi and extends, generallj^ from ^Memphis, Tenn., southword to Vicksburg, Miss., and from the escarpment at Greenwood, westward to the Mississippi River. Authorization— nZ%, 1937, 1938, 1941, 1944, 1946, 1950, 1962 and 1965 Flood 'Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $233,000,000 __._ Estimated non-Federal cost ' 423,000 Cash contribution... 382,000 Other 41,000 Total estimated project cost. 233,423,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967., 137,025,000 _ _.. Allocation for fiscal year 1968 3,632,000 Allocations to date 140,657,000 60 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 4,000,000 62 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 88,343,000 1 In addition, if is estimated that local interests expended approximately $23,000,000 on drainage improvements prior to initiation of construction of authorized Federal improvements and it is estimated they will expend an additional $21,000,000 for connecting ditches, main laterals, and on-farm drainage improvements. PHYSICAL DATA Yazoo Basin reservoirs: Four flood control reservoirs completed. Yazoo City: Completed. Belzoni: Completed. Will M. Whittington Auxiliary Channel: Completed except for specific fish and wildlife improvements authorized by Flood Control Act of 1965. > Greenwood : Lands and damages: Acres: 1,437. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations: Roads: 0.5 mile and 4 bridges, $424,500. Utility lines: $546,500. (Includes a sanitary sewer system), $416,700. Levees and (loodwalls: 28.1 miles; average height, 4.6 feet. Pumping plants: Storm water: 3 — Capacity 67, 89, and 675 cubic feet per second. Channels: Big Sand Creek Diversion (2.9 miles). iUpper auxiliary channel: Lands and damages: Acres: 8,900. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations: Roads: 1.2 miles and 22 bridges, $3,824,000. Railroads: 1 bririge, $910,000. Utility lines: $532,000. Levees: 56 miles; average height, 7 feet. Channels: 63 miles; average depth, 25 feet and 1 control weir. 855 Main stem: Lands and damages: Acres: 15,96o. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations: Roads: 53 miles and 10 bridges $2,-550,000. Railroads: 1.2 miles $93,000. Utility lines: $428,000. Levees: 265.6 miles; variable height 3 to 25 feet. Channels: 44 cutoffs, 251 miles channel clearing and 21 miles channel en- largement. (Total miles— 289.6.) Tributaries: Lands and damages: Acres: 41,356. Type: Predominantly agricultural. ; Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations: Roads: 5.5 miles and 64 bridges .$4,815,000. Railroads: 2.2 miles and 5 bridges $983,000. Utility lines: $895,000. Levees: 156 miles, variable height, 3 to 25 feet. Pumping plant: 1 storm water (McKinney Bayou) 115,000 gallons per minute (250 cubic feet per second). Channels: 442.8 miles. Bank stabilization: 0.1 mile. Big Sunflower River, and so forth: Lands and damages: Acres: 31,430. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm units. Relocations: Roads: 2 miles and .53 bridges $2,606,000. Utility lines: $1,094,000. Channels: Big Sunflower River — 216 miles. Quiver River — 81 miles. Steele Bayou — 82 miles. Deer Creek — 7 miles. Bogue Phalia — 95 miles. Little Sunflower River — 28 miles. Hushpuckena River — 28 miles. Tributaries — 172 miles. Gin and Muddy Bayous — 12.3 miles. Total— 72 1.3^ miles. Fish and Wildlife facilities: 9 water control structures. Yazoo Backwater: Lands and damages: Acres: 28,365. Type: Mostly woodland. Improvements: Some farm units. Relocations: Roads: 31.3 miles and 2 bridges, $1,197,000. Railroads: 0.8 mile and 1 bridge $926,000. Utility lines: $462,000. Levees: 97.5 miles levees, variable height, 10 to 26 feet. 5 floodgates, openings vary in size from 72 square feet to 2,700 square feet. Channels: 38.9 miles, average depth 25 feet. Fish and wildlife facilities: 2 water control structures. 856 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Yazoo Basin reservoirs Features for primary use Recreation facilities Yazoo City Belzoni Will M. Whittington auxiliary channel.. Features for primary use Fish and wildlife facilities Greenwood Lands and damages Relocations Channels and canals Levees and floodwalls Pumping plants Upper auxiliary channel Main stem Lands and damages Relocations Channels and canals. Levees and floodwalls Tributaries Lands and damages Relocations Channles and canals. Levees and floodwalls Pumping plant (McKinney Bayou). Big Sunflower River, etc Lands and damages Relocations.. Channels and canals Big Sunflower River Quiver River Deer Creek Bogue Phalia Little Sunflower River Hushpuckena River Tributa ries Gin and IVIuddy Bayous Steele Bayou area Fish and wildlife facilities Yazoo backwater Lands and damages Relocations.. Channels and canals Levees and floodwalls Fish and wildlife facilities... Entire Yazoo Basin project 98 June 1971. 100 55 Do. 100 100 99 100 Do. 62 December 1970. 97 December 1969. 44 December 1970. Do. 76 Do. 100 (') June 1979. 66 September 1976. 63 December 1975. 64 June 1976. 80 September 1976. 54 Do 30 March 1980. 32 December 1978. 28 Do. 44 December 1979. 7 March 1980. 100 56 December 1973. 62 June 1973. 35 Do. 59 December 1973. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 June 1968. 11 December 1973. June 1972. 30 March 1978. 11 March 1977. 51 Do. 33 June 1978. 26 Do. June 1972. 59 March 1980. JUSTIFICATION The Yazoo headwater feature will protect 1,209,000 acres against overflow, substantially benefit 303,000 acres, and protect Greenwood, Belzoni, Yazoo City, and numerous smaller communities. Channel improvement work on the Big Sunflowor River and its tributaries will protect 173,000 acres against the design flood and an additional 395,000 acres will be benefited because of improved drain- age conditions. Also, approximately 368,000 acres in the Yazoo backwater area will be ))rotected against all but the larger floods and substantial benefits will accrue to an additional 224,000 acres from improved drainage. Improvements by local interests have kept pace with the degree of protection afforded, large sums having been spent on clearing lands, constructing lateral drainage systems, and converting farming practices to more modern methods. Had there been no pro- tection in 19.58, the floods of April-June and September would have caused damages amounting to $21,598,000. Should these floods recur under present conditions but with the flood control works assumed complete, damages amounting to $15,724,000 would be prevented. In addition, the four Yazoo Basin reservoirs are being used extensively for recreation. A continual expansion of facilities is required to meet public demand for recreational opportunities. Visitor-day attend- 857 ance increased from 2,857,000 in calendar year 1958 to 5,417,000 in 1966. The project is credited with benefits derived from flood control. Average annual bene- fits are as follows — Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood Control $22, 221, 600 Fish& Wildlife 26, 000 Recreation 5, 417, 000 Total 27, 664, 600 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,000,000 will be applied as follows — Greenwood: $300,000 will be apphed to: Initiate Big Sand Creek Diversion Channel, landside drainage ditch, levee and erosion control structures $25, 000 Continue land acquisition 5, 000 Complete relocation of roads and utiHties 102, 900 Complete relocation of sanitary sewer system 133, 100 Engineering and design 15, 000 Supervision and administration 19, 000 Total 300, 000 This unit, when completed, will alleviate bank caving along Pelucia Bayou which is threatening residences and bridges and will provide protection against flooding to approximately 13,000 acres of highly developed agricultural lands and portions of the residential section of Greenwood. Funds requested will allow construction to continue at an economical rate. Main stem: $100,000 will be applied to — Initiate raising control weir at head of Will M. Whittington Aux- iliary Channel $5, 000 Initiate Snake Creek drainage structure and closure 30, 000 Continue land acquisition 10, 000 Engineering and design 50, 000 Supervision and administration 5, 000 Total 100,000 The channels of the Coldwater, Tallahatchie, and Yazoo Rivers have relatively small capacities, consequently it is necessary to improve the channels and to construct levees throughout most of the basin to prevent flooding of more than 1 million acres of rich agricultural lands. The Snake Creek drainage structure will close a gap in the levee and prevent flood damages of about $7,500 annually to some 3,000 acres. Tributaries: $1,550,000 will be applied to — Initiate bridge and utility relocations on Alligator-Catfish Bayou. $9, 000 Initiate Fannegusha Creek Diversion (channel and levee item No. 4) on Hillside Floodway 10, 000 Initiate and complete Panola-Quitman Floodway, levee item A__ 104, 000 Initiate and complete utility relocations on Crowder and Paducah Wells Crossings 2,000 Continue land acquisition 600, 000 Continue relocation of Crowder Road and Bridge Crossing 203, 000 Continue relocation of Paducah Wells Road and Bridge Crossing. 175, 000 Complete Holmes County road relocation on Hillside Floodway. _ 105, 000 Complete Bridge alteration, U.S. Highway 49-E, on Hillside Floodway 86, 000 Engineering and design 200, 000 Supervision and administration 59, 000 Total 1, 550, 000 Construction of Hillside Floodway will confine drainage from hill area through the low lying areas to Yazoo River and thus, prevent flooding of some 20,000 acres of fertile farmlands with estimated damages of about $75,000 annually. Alligator-Catfish Bayou will provide protection from flood damages to some 9,000 acres amounting to about $50,000 annually. 858 Big Sunflower Rivor: $500,000 will be applied to — Initiate bridge and utility relocation on Steele Bayou, item 30-A__ $25, 500 Continue Steele Bayou channel improvement, item 17-A 305, 000 Continue laud acquisition 65, 000 Engineering and design 80, 000 Supervision and administration 24, 500 Total 500,000 This unit will alleviate flooding and improve drainge on approximately 568,000 acres of fertile delta lands. Construction should be contiinied rapidly in order to receive maximum benefits as early as possible. The benefits in the Steele Bayou Basin amount to about $324,000 annually. Yazoo backwater: $1,400,000 wiU be applied to — Initiate connecting channel, item No. 7-A-C (Yazoo area) $5, 000 Initiate connecting channel, item No. 16 (Yazoo area) 5, 000 Initiate levee item No. 14 (Yazoo area) 5, 000 Initiate Little Svuiflower River drainage structure (Yazoo area).. 50, 000 Initiate and complete utility relocations on levee items No. 14 and 16 (Yazoo area) 4, 000 Initiate and complete levee item No. 7-A-L (Yazoo area) 15, 000 Continue miscellaneous hired labor work 12, 400 Continue land acquisition 32(J, 000 Complete ICllR Bridge and communication lines, item No. 7 (Yazoo area) 343, 600 Complete Steele Bayou drainage structure (Yazoo area) 328, 600 Engineering and design 200, 000 Supervision and administration 111, 400 Total 1, 400, 000 The Yazoo backwater area is subject to flooding from the Yazoo and Mississippi Rivers. In the past floods of extended duration have prevented the planting of crops during the early spring and at other times ])artially or completely destroyed growing crops. Considerable land available for crop production remains idle because of the possibility of flooding. Funds are needed to continue work on the Yazoo area. When completed, flood protection will be provided to 511,000 acres in the Yazoo area with annual benefits amounting to approximately $450,000. Recreation facilities at completed reservoirs: $150,000 will be applied as follows: Sardis Reservoir $40, 000" Arkabutla Reservoir , 40, 000 Enid Reservoir 35, 000 Grenada Reservoir 35, 000 Total 150, 000 These funds will provide recreation facilities needed to ])rotect the health antl safety of the visitmg public aiul to obtain maximum public benefits. .\nnu:il attendance has increased from 2,857,000 in 1958 to 5,417,000 in 1966. Enrly coini^letion of basic facilities at all sites is needed to eliminate overcrowded conditions and reduce hazards to the using public. Non-Federal costs. — ^Local interests are to contribute $382,000 for fish and wild- life enhancement measures. Also, local interests provided $41,000 for rights-of-way prior to being relieved of this responsibility by the 1950 Flood Control Act. The cost to local interests for operation and maintenance of the Big Sunflower River imit channels is estimated to be $276,000 annually and, in addition, mainte- nance of fish and wildlife facilities is (estimated at $10,000 annually. The cost to local interests for maintenance of levees in the Yazoo backwater unit is estiniati^d to be $30,000 annually and, in addition, maintenance of fish and wildlife facilities is estimated to be $5,000 annually. Maintenaiice of works in the Yazoo headwater unit is a Federal responsibility except for maintenance of fish and wildlife facilities which is estimated at $15,000 annually. Local interests estimate they have spend $23 million prior to im'tiation of con- struction of authorized Fed(!ral in)i)rovements on local drainage improvements and that they will spend an additional $21 million for connecting ditclu's, main laterals, and on-farm drainage; improvements to make the Federal project effective. 859 STATUS OP LOCAL COOPERATION Flood control. — Local cooperation is not rcciuired for the Yazoo basin headwater unit. For the Yazoo backwater unit assurances of local cooperation have been re- ceived and accepted from the Board of Mississippi Levee Commissioners and the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District. Assurances to operate the B\^ Sunflower Iliver unit and perform minor mainte- nance have been received and accepted from the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District and the Board of Mississippi Levee Conmiissioners. Fi.fh and wildlife. — Local interests are required to contribute 50 percent of the total cost associated with the fish and wildlife facilities authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1965, and op(>rate and maintain the facilities. Assurances will be requested for Yazoo headwater, Yazoo backwater, and Big Sunflower Iliver when planning is more advanced. Comparison oj Federal cost estimates.— The current Federal cost estimate of $2;>3 million is an increase of $5 million over the latest estimated ($228 million) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $4,280,000 for higher price levels, $232,000 on more detailed planning of construction, and $488,000 in engineering and design and supervision and administration based on a recent reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) Completed units: Yazoo City $2,206,000 Belzoni 317,000 Will M. Whittington Auxiliary Chan- nel 11,111,000 Yazoo Basin Reservoirs 73,250,000 Subtotal— Completed units 86,884,000 Greenwood; Lands and damages _. 375,000 Relocations 971,000 Railroads 1,200 Channels and canals 938,000 Levees and floodwalls 1,849,000 Pumping plants.. _ 572,200 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 3,600 Engineering and design _. 493, 000 Supervision and administration 357,000 Subtotal— Greenwood 5,560,000 Upper auxiliary channel: Lands and damages 2,200,000 Relocations 5,266,000 Channels and canals 10,353,000 Levees 1,296,000 Er^gineering and design 1, 240,000 Supervision and administration 1, 381, 000 Subtotal— Upper auxiliary channel.. 21,736,000 Main stem: Lands and damages 2,720,000 Relocations _ 3, 071 , 000 Roads, railroads, and bridges 1,400 Channels and canals 4,039,600 Levees 9,412,000 Engineering and design 3,205,000 Supervision and administration 1,851,000 Subtotal— Main stem 24,300,000 Tributaries: Lands and damages. 8,053,000 Relocations 6,693,000 Roads, railroads, and bridges, etc.. 5,900 Channels and canals 10,205,000 Levees 11, 190,000 Pumping plants 320,700 Bank stabilization 38,600 Engineering and design 2,687,000 Supervision and administration 2,606,800 Subtotal— Tributaries 41,800,000 Big Sunflower River, etc.: Lands and damages 2,613,000 Relocations 3,700,000 Fish and wildlife facilities 465,000 Channels and canals 10,095,000 Engineering and design 1, 571,000 Supervision and administration 1,310,000 Subtotal— Big Sunflower River, etc.. 19,754,000 See footnote at end of table ,p. 860 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (3) (4) (5) (6) $2,206,000 317,000 _ 10,951,000 i$160,000 71,432,500 $203,400 $150,000 1,464,100 84,906,500 203,400 150,000 1,624,100 359,700 4,000 5,000 6,300 431,800 245,000 253,900 40,300 1,200 20,000 918,000 1,397,000 5,000 447,000 572,200 3,600 457,600 12,500 15,000 7,900 208.900 18,900 19,000 110,200 3,432,000 280,400 317,900 1,529,700 2,200,000 5,266,000 10,353,000 1,296,000 7,300 1,500 -. 1,231,200 500 100 1,380,400 7,800 1,600 -. 21,726,600 1,711,200 15,000 10,000 983,800 1,976,600 -7,000 1,101,400 1,400 3,216,900 68,000 754,700 4,922,000 264,000 30,000 4,196,000 2,650,500 67,200 50,000 437,300 1,236,400 49,300 5,000 560,300 15,715,000 465,500 95,000 8,033,500 2,512,200 700,000 600,000 4,240,800 1,806,400 163,500 577,000 4,146,100 5,900 4,448,900 5,000 5,751,100 793,200 26,500 109,000 10,261,300 320,700 38,600 . 1,423,300 273,300 200,000 790,400 848,900 62,600 59,000 1,636,300 12,198,100 1,225,900 1,550,000 26,826,000 1,599,900 167,500 65,000 780,600 1,311,000 21,200 25,500 2,342,300 . 465,000 5.869,800 260,900 305,000 3,659,300 1,271,800 110,000 80,000 109,200 711,800 38,100 24,500 535,600 10,764,300 597,700 500,000 7,892,000 860 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Yazoo backwater: Lands and damages $3,740,000 $386,600 $428,500 $320,000 $2,604,900 Relocations 2,585,000 750,800 664,500 347,600 822,100 Fish and wildlife facilities 85,000 85,000 Channels and canals 4,011,000 1,343,200 1,500 10,000 2,656,300 Levees 18,238,000 4,142,900 738,500 411,000 12,945,600 Engineering and design 2,464,000 1,490,600 177,300 200,000 596,100 Supervision and administration 2,225,000 582,100 131,000 111,400 1,400,500 Total— Yazoo backwater 33,348,000 8,696,200 2,141,300 1,400,000 21,110,500 Total— Yazoo Basin: Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions)... 233,382,000 135,719,900 4,906,800 4,012,900 88,742,400 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions)... 233,382,000 135,719,900 4,906,800 4,012,900 88,742,400 Pending adjustments .._ Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions) 233,382,000 135,719,900 4.906,800 4,012,900 88,742,400 Federal funds— total cost 233,000,000 135,719,900 4,906,800 4,012,900 88,360,400 Non-Federal contributions 382,000 382,000 Undelivered orders 848,000 -818,200 -12,900 -16,900 Total obligations (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 136,567,900 4,088,600 4,000,000 88,725,500 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations. 137,024,500 3,632,000 Unobligated carryover from prior yea r 456, 600 Total funds available for obligations 4,088,600 Appropriations reouired 4,000,000 88,343,500 Non-Federal contributions: Contributions.. Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Contributions reouired 382,000 I For specific fish and wildlife improvements authorized by FC Act of 1965. LowEE Red River — South Bank Levees — (Continuing) Location. — The project extends from the hills at Hot Wells, La., along the south bank of Bayou Jean de Jean to the Red River in the vicinity of Boyce, La., thence southward along the right descending bank of the Red River to Moncla, La. Authorization. — 1928 and 1965 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio: 7.2 to 1. (Composite for main stem.) SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost. $18,900,000 Estimated non-Federal cost » 1,264,200 Cash contribution Other costs 1,264,200 Total estimated project cost 20,164,200 Allocations to June 30, 1967 8,407,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968_ 180,000 Allocations to date 8,587,000 45 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 200,000 47 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 10,113,000 • Prior to project authorization in 1928 the levee districts with the help of the State of Louisiana had constructed 54 miles of levee on the south bank of Red River between Boyce and Moncla and 7.6 miles of levee on the south bank of Bayou Rapides from its junction with Red River (at Alexandria) upstream to Cooper Place. Bayou Rapides was closed in vicinity of Alexandria and a floodgate constructed in the closure. Costs of the construction works are not known. 861 PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Average height — 18 feet. Length — 59.8 miles. Levee protection: 5 miles. Lands and damages: Acres — 1,113. Type — All highly developed farmlands. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Levees.-.- 65 June 1976. Levee protection - 4 Do. Entire project 45 Do. JUSTIFICATION The South Bank Red River — Lower Red River levee system protests 1,739 square miles of urban, agricultural, and wooded lands. The entire area would sustain either direct or indirect damages by levee failure or overtopping. Flooding of the lower areas would be extensive and in the higher areas to a lesser degree. The South Bank Red River — Lower Red River project is one of the components which comprise the plan of improvement for the control of floods of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The contribution of each element to the overall plan is inseparably related to those made by the others. Therefore, their benefits are inseparable and a composite B/C ratio for the Main Stem components is necessary. The components are: Mississippi River levees, channel improvement, south bank Arkansas and south bank Red River levees, the Atchafalaya Basin, Old River, and a few miscellaneous items. The benefit-cost ratio was derived by measuring the total benefits credited to these Main Stem components against their total cost. Average annual benefits for the composite of Main Stem features follow: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $441, 157, 000 Navigation 117, 750, 000 Less benefits creditable to upstream reservoir — 5, 674, 000 Total 553, 233, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $200,000 will be applied to — Initiate, Rapides Levee protection $75, 000 Continue: Engineering and design 20, 000 Supervision and Administration ._ 15, 000 Complete Bertrand Levee, R-140.5-R 90, 000 Total 200,000 The funds for the construction of levee protection are necessary to stop bank caving which, if allowed to continue unchecked, will result in costly levee setbacks. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to furnish all rights-of-way for levee foundations and levees included in this project subject to reimburse- ment by the United States, and to maintain the project after completion. It is estimated that the total cost to local interests from the period 1930 through completion of the project will be $1,264,200 which is primarily for weed cutting, levee drainage, and minor repairs to levee. Prior to project authorization in 1928 the levee districts with the help of the State of Louisiana had constructed 54 miles of levees on the south bank of Red River between Boyce and Moncla and 7.6 miles of levee on the south bank of Bayou Rapides from its junction with Red River (at Alexandria) upstream to Cooper Place. Bayou Rapides was closed in vicinity of Alexandria and a floodgate constructed in the closure. Costs of the construction works are not known. Status of local cooperation. — The board of commissioners for the Red River, Atchafalaya, and Bayou Boeuf Levee district have adopted resolutions assuring the United States that all local requirements of the 1928 Flood Control Act, as amended, will be supplied. Local interests have complied with requirements of local cooperation for all the completed work and are prepared to do so for future construction. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $18,900,000 is an increase of $500,000 over the latest estimated ($18,400,000) submitted to Congress. This change is due to higher price levels on construction features and a reanalysis of requirements for engineering and design and super- -vision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June EO, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $375,000 $374,600 $400 Levees and floodwalls 15.262.000 6,843,800 $159,000 $165,000 8,094.200 Engineering and design 1.678,000 355,300 18.000 20.000 1.284 700 Supervision and administration 1.585,000 832.200 4.100 15.000 733,700 Total applied cost(Federal funds only)..- 18,900,000 8,405.900 181,100 200,000 10,113,000 Undistributed cost . . . .... Totalproiectcost(Federalfundsonly)-. - 18.900,000 8.405,900 181,100 200,000 iO,il3.666 Pending adjustments Totalcost(Federalfundsonly) 18,900,000 8,405,900 181,100 200,000 iO, ii3,666 Undelivered orders Total obligations 8,405,900 181,100 200,000 10,113,660 Method of Financing: Allocations.. 8,407,000 180,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 1,100 Total available for obligation 181, 100 Appropriations required 200,000 10,113,000 Atchafalaya Basin (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in south-central Louisiana below the latitude of Old River and west of and generally paralleling the Mississippi River. The basin is approximately 110 miles long by 4.") miles wide. The Atchafalaya River flows through the middle of the basin. Authorization.— 1928, 1934, 1936, 1938, 1946, and 19.>4 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 7.2 to 1. (Composite for the main stem.) SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $329,000,000 Estimated non-Federal cost • 1,100,000 Cash contribution :.' !... Other.- __ 1,110.000 Total estimated project cost 330,110,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967. 153,716,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 9,500,000 Allocations to date _ 163,216,000 50 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 7,000,000 52 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 158,784,000 > In addition, local interests have expended approximately $8,200,000 on flood control works in the project area. PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Average height: 18 feet. Length: 454 miles. Relocations: Roads: 15 miles, $10,193,000. Railroads: 20 miles, $9,503,000. Cemeteries and utility lines, $1,427,000. 863 Pumping plants: Number: 10. Capacity: . Minimum: 50 cubic feet per second (22,500 gallons per muiute). Maximum: 1,000 cubic feet per second (450,000 gallons per minute). Average: 300 cubic feet per second (135,000 gallons per minute). Channels : Size: Varying dimensions. Length: 127.1 miles. Lands and damages: Acres: 316,420. Type: Agricultural (71,050 acres). Woodland (245,351 acres). Urban and industrial (10 acres commercial and 9 acres industrial). Improvements : Campsites, small farm units, and small commercial and in- dustrial units. Bank stabilization: Length: 28 miles. Drainage structures: Pointe Coupee: 2 gates, 10.5 by 15 feet. Melville: 2 72-inch-Cap pipe with vertical lift gate. Darbonne: 10- by 10-foot barrel with vertical lift gate. Bayou des Glaises: 72-inch-CM pipe with flap gate. Bayou Courtableau : 2 weirs 503 feet long. Brushy Bayou: 5- bv 6-foot barrel with vertical lift gate. Bayou" Courtableau:^ 5 barrels, 10 by 15 feet with vertical lift gate. "Wax Lake East: 25 pipes 5-foot diameter with slide gates. Wax Lake West: 15 pipes 5-foot diameter with slide gates. Flood gates: Charenton: Sector gated 45 feet wide. East Calumet: Sector gated, 45 feet wide. West Calumet: Sector gated, 45 feet wide. Locks: Bayou Boeuf: 75- by 1120-foot earth chamber. Bayou Sorrel: 56- by 760-foot earth chamber. Berwick: 45- by 30d-foot concrete. Atchafalaya River navigation: New channel: 10.1 miles. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Complete schedule Lands and damages - 56 After 1972. Relocations - °9 ^°- Locks 3 -- 99 ^°- Fish and'yvifdlife facilities Do- Roads, railroads, and bridges - - - ^^ ^O- Channels and canals - - Jl Yl°- Levees and floodwalls 1° f{°- Pumping plants (9 completed) 8Z Uo. Recreation facilities.. _ - - - ^°' Flood control and diversion structures lUU uo. Bank stabilization 10 Do. Buildings, grounds, and utilities ^^^ L)o. Entire project - 48 June 1982. JUSTIFICATION The Mississippi River below the latitude of Old River is capable of carrying only 1,500,000 cubic feet per second without threatening the integrity of the levees along its banks which protect thickly populated areas, highly developed agricultural lands, industries, and the city of New Orleans. Studies have indicated that the project flood against which the flood control protection works are de- signed will be of such magnitude that 3 million cubic feet per second will pass the latitude of Old River. Since the Mississippi below this latitude can carry only one- half this amount, the other one-half must be diverted from the main channel . This diversion is made through Old River control structure and the Atchafalaya River, and through the Morganza and Atchafalaya Floodways. In order to prevent diverted waters from spreading over the rich agricultural lands in the 91-459 — 68 — pt. 1 55 864 Atchafalaya Basin, these rivers and floodways have been leveed to confine the diverted flow. It is essential that the work proceed vigorously and as expedi- tiously as possible, in order to eliminate unnecessary damage. This floodway system is for all practical purposes a part of the main river .system, since the integrity of the main river system depends upon its utilization. Since this con- struction began, people have developed their farms and industries have moved into these areas adjacent to the floodway with full confidence that they would receive protection. Therefore, overtopping or erevassing of the levees would cause far more damage than when the project first started. Due to foundation conditions in the lower reaches, the levees are deficient due to consolidation of the soil. These levees must be maintained at the proper grade. Interrupted drainage has been diverted into natural sump areas and gaps have been left in the levee to prevent impoundment of rain water. Drainage structures and pumping plants must be provided so that these gaps can be closed and high flood fighting costs eliminated. The main protection levees, especially below the latitvide of Krotz Springs, are almost inaccessible except by boat during high water. It is important that they be brought up to grade in order that roadways can be constructed on them so that the necessary men and equipment can be moved to any threatened spot during an extreme flood. This inaccessibility adds additional costs to flood fighting operations wliich would not be necessary if the levees were brought to grade and access roads constructed upon them. The Atchafalaya Basin project is one of the components which comprise the plan of improvement for the control of floods of the INlississippi River and its tributaries. The contribution of each element to the overall plan is inseparably related to that made by the others. Therefore, their benefits are inseparable and a composite benefit-cost ratio for the main stem components is necessary. The components are Mississippi River levees, channel improvement, South Bank Arkansas and South Bank Red River levees, the Atchafalaya Basin, Old River, and a few miscellaneous items. The benefit-cost ratio was derived by measuring the total benefits credited to these main stem components against their total cost. Average annual benefits for the composite of main stem features follow: Breakdown of benefits — Amount Flood control $441, 157, 000 Navigation 117, 750, 000 Less benefits creditable to upstream reservoir —5, 674, 000 Total 553,233,000 Fiscal ijear 1969. — The requested amount of $7 million will be applied to — Initiate: Whiskey Bayou Pilot Channel ^lile 54.3-56.5 (80,000 square feet channel) $106, 200 Initiate and complete: Bank stabilization, Woodside mile 14.5-R 1, 050, 000 Continue: Lands and damages 132, 500 Little Bayou Sorrel interim lift 40, 000 Engineering and design 500, 000 Supervision and administration 500, 000 Complete: E-4S.0, LS and FWS Berms and 1st Lift, Sta. 2480 + 00-2574 + 00 1, 100, OOO E-54.0, LS and FWS Berms and 1st Lift, Sta. 2772 + 00-2949 + 00. 533, 500 E-65.5-B, LS and FWS Berms, Sta. 986 + 00-1137 + 20 850, 000 E-89.0, Levee Enlgt, Sta. 2289 + 80-2398 + 60 182, 400 W- 12 1.0, Levee Enlgt, 1st Lift Sta. 6310 + 00-648 + 36 741, 400 E-58.0-C, Levee Enlgt, Sta. 561 + 84-770+13 849,000 W-78.0-B, LS and FWS Berms, Sta. 4010 + 00-4269 + 00 415, 000 Total 7, 000, 000 The amount of $106,200 is for initiating the first item of the 80,000 square feet channel in Whiskey Bayou. The amount of .$1,0.')0,()()0 will be required to initiate and complete revetment at mile 14.5-R, Atchafalaya River, where a dangerously close top of bank situation is threatening the integrity of the levee system. The amount of $1,172,500 will be required to continue the acquisition of rights- of-way to facilitate constnuition; erection of floodwall vicinity Little Bayou Sorrel; continue planning of future work, and siip(>rvision and administration. The amount of $4,67.1,300 is for completing five items of stability berms and levee enlargement on the East Atchafalaya Basin levees and two items of stability berms and levee enlargement on the West Atchafalaya Basin levees. 865 Of the 108 miles of levee in the East Atchafalaya Basin protection levee, in- cludes 19.6 miles Morganza Lower Guide Levee and 1.7 miles of floodwall) 68 miles are to adequate grade and si^etion, 12 miles arc from to 2 feet below the net grade and 28 miles are from 2 to 6 feet below the net grade. Of the 127 miles in the west protection levee, (Hamburg, La., to Berwici<; Floodwall), 67 miles are to adequate grade and section, 40 miles are from to 2 feet below the net grade, and 20 miles are from 2 to 5 feet below the net grade. Approximately $4.7 million of the fiscal year 1969 request will be applied to the raising and strengthening of these deficient levees. A main central channel is being developed through the lower basin to provide increased capacity in the floodway. Approximately $100,000 will be used to con- tinue this work. There are 28 miles of revetments required to protect existing structures and maintain favorable stream alignment. Approximately $1 million will be used for this purpose. The remaining $1.2 million will be used for lands and damages, a floodwall, vicinity Little Bayou Sorrel crossing, engineering and supervision and administra- tion. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to perform minor maintenance on completed levees. They estimate they have spent $1,110,000 for real estate negotiations, purchase of maintenance equipment, inspection and patrol of levees, and other items. In addition, local interests state they have expended about $8,- 200,000 for flood control worlds in the project area, of which about $6,400,000 was expended prior to project authorization in 1928. Status of local cooperation. — Necessary assurances of maintaining the project have been furnished by the following cooperating agencies: Atchafalaya Basin Levee District; Red River, Atchafalaya and Bayou Boeuf Levee District; St. Alary Parish Police Jury; and the towns of Berwick and Morgan City, La. These agencies are furnishing all requirements of local cooperation necessary for meeting present project schedules. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.- — The current Federal cost estimate of $329 million is an increase of $27 million over the latest estimate ($302,000,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $9,129,000 for higher price levels, $15,140,000 based on more detailed planning of construction and $2,731,000 in engineering and design and stipervision and administration based on a recent reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Atchafalaya River navigation $303,500 $303.500 . Lands and damages. 8,696,000 4.622,300 $502,700 $132,500 $3,438,500 Relocations _ _ 21,123,000 18,662,600 81, 800. _ 2,378,600 Locks 6,552,000 6,539,500 12,500 Fish and wildlife facilities. 1,686,000 1,686,000 Roads, railroads, and bridges.. 2,601,000 624,500 1,976,500 Channels and canals 105,695,000 43,030,800 2,473,600 106,200 Gl,03''.40O Levees and floodwalls.. 118,022,000 55,014,300 5,208,700 4,711,300 53,037,700 Pumping plants 2,825,000 2,'329,900 495,100 Recreation facilities _ 337,000 337,000 Structures 14,500 K. 500 Bank stabilization 22,400,000 1,974.400 228,400 1, 050,000 19,147,200 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 14.000 14,000 Engineering and design 16,430,000 7,921,900 802,900 500,000 7,205,200 Supervision and administration 21,301,000 12,365.700 500,000 500,000 7,935,3C0 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 329,000,000 153,417,900 9,798,100 7,000,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 329,000,000 153,417,900 9,798,100 7, 000, 000 15'3,7'8'4', 000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 329,000,000 153,417.900 9,798.10'o" 7", OOO', OO'O 158,784,000 Undelivered orders. 244.700 -244,700 Total obligations -. 153,662,600 9,553,400 7,000,000 158,784,000 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations 153,716,000 9,500,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. 53,400 Total funds available for obligation 9,553,400 Appropriations required _ 7,000 000 158,784,000 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 866 DEFERRAL AND STRETCHOUT PROGRAM Mr. Whitten. a total of $5 million of the 1969 appropriation has been placed in reserve under the stretchout program. Please outline the effect of this deferral on the going construction program. General MacDonnell. The effect of this deferral has been a rela- tively minor one in our area. It has not been drastic. EFFECT OF FISCAL YEAR 1969 FUND REQUEST ON PROGRAM Mr. Whitten. The new fund request for 1969, together with the carryover reserve, will provide a program level of $47,140,000, or a decrease of about $7 million from the current year. How will this re- duction be applied to the program and what will be the effects? General MacDonnell. The effects would become convincingly evi- dent, Mr. Chairman, should a flood occur approaching the project flood in magnitude. Until the critical banks of the Mississippi have been stabilized and until the capacity of the Atchafalaya Basin Flood- way has been increased to pass such a flood, the project is incomplete and its essential elements remain to be accomplished. If we are to measure progress by the difference in the annual rate of appropriations and the rise in the construction cost index, then we are in fact losing ground. The rise in price level for the projects budgeted in 1969 is $41,197,000. When you take into account savings and slippages, we will be able to apply only $40,840,000 against that. reduction applied in MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROGRAM Mr. Whitten. I have before me the division breakdown of the total 1969 request for the Corps of Engineers and, comparatively, there is quite a large cut applied in this area. When you match that back against the earlier map which you used which shows that you handle the Mississippi River which in turn drains about 41 percent of the United States, it appears your budget allocation is not in jjroportion with allowances for other areas. I do not know what the committee will be able to do, but I do think that you pointed out facts here which are to be considered. As I mentioned earlier, we had some several years ago a matter of withholding funds which proved to be very costly. You probably recall that. Maintenance Mr. Whitten. Turning now to maintenance, $27,575,000 is budgeted for maintenance in fiscal year 1969, an increase of $175,000. Briefly, what is the status of maintenance work on the project ? General MacDonnell. We are remaining current with our main- tenance in 1969 as far as we can see at this time. In 1970 and thereafter we would anticipate that there would be in- creases involved. 867 (The justincation follows:) 4. Maintenance General. — Maintenance of the Mississippi River and tributaries project con- sists of the day-to-day operation and ordinary maintenance, and repairs and dredging of the major features of the comprehensive project. It also consists of the revision and publication of alluvial valley maps and navigation charts. The fund requirements are based upon the normal recurring annual expenses deter- mined from experience records during the past years, and the repair and dredging work necessary to maintain the projects in operable condition. In allocating allowances to the several features of the comprehensive project, it is recognized that the actual expenditures may differ from these tentative allowances. The ex- penditures depend upon the weather, river stages, and the unpredictable develop- ment in the channel conditions that may occur during the fiscal year. Fiscal year 1969 requirements. — The $27,575,000 requested in fiscal year 1969 is an increase of $175,000 from the amount allocated for fiscal year 1968. The re- quested amount is required to maintain the revetments, dikes, channels, levees, and other control structures completed prior to or placed in operation during the past year. Obligations, Estimated Tentative Name of project fiscal year obligations, allocations, 1967 fiscal year fiscal year 1968 1969 Remarks Mississippi River levees... $6,847,200 $1,560,900 $1,825,000 Bonnet Carre 126,900 191,100 180,000 Revetments and dikes 8,930,500 11,137,900 11,375,000 Dredging 6,419,200 6,987,300 6,700.000 Mapping 178,300 194,900 184,000 Wappapello Reservoir 246,600 290,000 200,000 St. Francis River and tributaries 340,300 721,600 550,000 White River backwater 57,500 97,500 145,000 North bank, Arkansas River 24,300 76,900 25,000 South bank, Arkansas River 55,200 232,400 235,000 Boeuf and Tensas Rivers 40,000 Red River backwater area 27,900 145,100 50,000 Sardis Reservoir 395,700 601,000 760,000 Arkabutia Reservoir.. 387,000 426,200 635,000 Enid Reservoir 286,200 355,900 385,000 Grenada Reservoir 360,100 324,800 725,000 Greenwood 34,000 41,300 50,000 Yazoo City 37,300 41,800 50,000 Main stem, Yazoo Basin 184,700 201,600 295,000 Tributaries, Yazoo Basin.. 132,000 126,800 735,000 Whittington Auxiliary Channel 42,900 53,400 300,000 Big Sunflower 15,000 Old River 554,300 755,800 490,000 Atchafalaya Basin floodway 1,416,300 2,703,900 1,948,000 Lower Red River... 241,100 438,900 180,000 Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries 26,600 30,400 36,000 Inspection of completed works 52,700 59,700 62,000 Total 27,404,800 27,797,100 27,575,000 Protection of main stem levees in fisca' year 1967. Increased requirements as additional work is constructed. Major restoration of recently constructed levees and major cleanout of main channels in fiscal year 1968. Repairs to gates at Little Island Bayou outlet structures. Levee slides repairs in fiscal year 1968. Repairs to bank stabilization work and levee berms in fiscal year 1968 and fiscal year 1969. Initial maintenance for weirs and channels. Levee and floodgate repairs in fiscal year 1968. Outlet channel repairs and additional boundary surveys. Repairs to Coldwater River outlet. Repairs to Skuna River outlet. Construction of storage facility and for maintenance of access ramps. Repairs to erosion control structure, East Ditch. Initial maintenance for weirs and chan- nels. Rehabilitation of Simmesport and Legonier revetments and maintenance of East Fresh Water Distribution Channel In fiscal year 1968. Major repairs to bank protection works protection works in fiscal year 1968. WITHHOLDING OF REFUNDS FROM RENTALS OF GOVERNMENT LANDS Mr. Written. General, there are two muior matters here that are of interest especially to me. Some years ago, I was the author of a bill that passed Congress giving landowners the right to jury trial when 868 land was taken for flood control. Also, an act was passed which pro- vides that when the Government takes the land in an area a percentaoe of the receipt from leasing project lands is returned to the counties for roads and schools. The Department of Justice has directed various departments of Government to withhold such funds unless they found the States in compliance with all the civil rights acts. In these partic- ular instances in my area, the counties are in clear compliance in every way. but the funds are being held up by the corps. I have taken this up with the Chief's office two or three times and I was assured the matter was being worked out. I think the Depart- ment of Justice is clearly out of line in its decision and in its in- structions. Be that as it may, I wish that you and the Chief's office would ex- pedite this matter and keep me advised. General MacDonnell. Yes, sir. ASCALMORE-TIPPO IMPRO\^MENT, MISSISSIPPI Mr. Whitten. In connection with flood control in my immediate area, Tallahatchie County, the original plan called for works on Ascalmore-Tippo, which is a creek and a bayou. The works have been completed just about everyplace except here. There is some opposition below this point at Greenwood by hunters and fishermen, but some re- lief is needed for the folks in my county. I have requested the district office and the Soil Conservation Service to see what alternative plan might be developed to give the relief the act called for and at the same time provide adequate protection to the lake which they do not want destroyed. I wish you would supply the committee with such alternative plans as are possible to solve this problem. General MacDoxnell. Yes, sir. REATiSED operating PROCEDURE, YAZOO P.ASIX RESERVOIRS Mr. Whitten". I did want to comment. General, on the action you took, at the committee's request, to revise the operating procedures on the reservoirs in the Yazoo Basin to improve the lake levels for recreation and fish and wildlife purposes without detracting from the flood control benefits. I just want to say that I personally appreciate your cooperation in going as far as the facts would permit in the area which I have the honor to represent. Recreation is now recognized as a benefit in new projects and maximum provision is made for it. I think it would be desirable to review the older projects throughout the United States which were built for flood control only and make such adjustments as are possiblp to facilitate recrcRtion without en- dangering the flood control requirements which must be met first. You might, if you would, supply for the record the changes that you have in mind. General MacDonnet.l. Yes, sir. (The information follows :) A review of operating procedures for the four reservoirs in the Yazoo Basin, Miss., revealed that the period in which the reservoirs are at minimum eleva- tion in the late fall and early winter months, especially durinc: the dry years, could be materially shortened by proloncrins: the drawdown dnrinq: the summer and fall months and by retaining some of the early winter runoff. 869 Under this procedure benefits would accrue to fish and wildlife, and the entire flood control capacity of the reservoirs will still be available to contain each year's flood runoff to the full extent necessary to insure the flood control bene- fits. This modified method of operation will have no effect on the agricultural lands under lease. Mr. Written. I wish to tluiuk you personally f oi- your presentation and your action. ATCnAF.\LAT.\ ri,O0I)W.\Y Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman, I do have one question. Every year, General, we talk about the Atchafalaya Floodway. We all agree it ought to be completed as soon as possible. It has been in the process of construction now for some years. How long has it been? General MacDonnell. About 40 years, sir. LENGTH OF TIME NEEDED TO COMPLETE rROJECl' Mr. Rhodes. Is it going to take 40 years more to complete it ? At the present rate when do we get it done ? General MacDonnell. This would depend on the rate of funding, sir. Mr. Rhodes. At the present rate of funding do you have any idea how long it will take? Mr. Bush. Almost 23 years. Mr. Rhodes. I think that is ridiculous. When I look at the distribu- tion of the assets which are available to the Corps of Engineers and I see $100 million going into the Arkansas River Valley to make it navigable, and when you look at the amount of funds going into the Pacific Northwest for power dams, $300 million in all, in this budget, it seems to me that it certainly is not putting first things first to develop the Atchafalaya Floodway at a rate which will encompass a total construction period of some 63 years, and 23 years more to finish. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whitten. Mr, Davis ? OLD RIVER CONTROL STRUCTURE Mr. Davis. Just two questions. General, the tremendous gates that were built, where are they located ? General MacDonnell. At Old River? Mr. Davis. Yes. Have you had to use those since they have been completed ? General MacDonnell. At the low sill, the structure normally stays open all the time. We have another structure where, when the river goes out of banks, in a flood stage, there are additional gates. Those latter gates, to my knowledge, have never been used. J ■' Mr. DA^^:s. They were finished, when, about 1958 ? Mr. Bush. Early 1960, 1 believe, Mr. Davis. flexible concrete matteess for revetment yir. Davis. Have there been any interesting or dramatic technologi- cal advances the committee ought to know about ? The most dramatic 870 development. I guess, is still the flexible concrete slabbing work that you do in that area. There has been nothing that compares with this since you have begun common use of that ? General ]MacDonnell. No, sir ; there has not. We are embarked on a program of automatic tying tools to assemble this flexible concrete mattress which we hope and believe will ultimately give us a better product at a lesser cost. We are investigating the possibility of chang- ing the design of the metal fabric upon which the mattress is built. We are presently at work changing the configuration of one of the mattress sinking plants that, which belongs to the Memphis district, with the knowledge that we will have a much safer and more efficient operation. Mr. Davis. Are all of those mats now being prepared, mat units or blocks being prepared for you now by contract, or by hired labor forces ? General IMacDonnell. All of the mat casting, as such, is being done by contract. Mr. DA^^s. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whitten. Gentlemen, we wish to thank you again. You made a very fine showing and we are glad to have you and your associates with us today. General MacDonnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thursday, March 14, 1968. OHIO RIVER DIVISION WITNESSES COL. J. A. GRAF, ACTING DIVISION ENGINEER PAUL E. BROOKE, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICER LOUIS R. LISTERMANN, ASSISTANT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Mr. KiRWAN. The committee will come to order. Colonel, do you have a statement? Colonel Graf. Yes, sir. Mr. KiRWAN. Please proceed. General Statement Colonel Graf. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen; I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a brief presentation covering the civil works program of the Ohio River division. As you know, the Ohio River division covers the drainage basin of the Ohio River, including about 200,000 square miles in parts of 14 States. The population is approximately 19 million, and the economy of the area includes hard-core poverty, rich farmland, and highly industrialized areas. We divide the basin into four engineer districts with offices at Pittsburgh, Huntington, Louisville, and Nashville. The growth of the civil works program by fiscal year is shown here. For fiscal year 1969, our anticipated workload based on this 871 budget amounts to $151 million. These figures are based on projects now under construction and those in the initial phase of land acquisition. The magnitude of our civil works effort can be seen here. From 1824 to 1967, the Federal investment in our projects amounted to some $1.9 billion. Ohio River division programs underway in 1968 amount to some $1.2 billion. The needs of the area in terms of water resource development are many and varied. They include navigation, recreation, water supply, electric power, flood control, fish and wildlife, w^ater quality, ancl irrigation.. The future of the Ohio Basin, based on current projections, appears to be one of considerable economic growth which will place heavier demands on the area's resources. The population is expected to grow from 19 million in 1960 to almost 35 million in the year 2020. The employment labor force is expected to grow to about 14.1 million by that time, and the basin industrial output will reach $382 billion. Turning now to some of the programs we have underway to meet the needs of the basin. This is Newburgh locks and dam on the main stem of the Ohio near the mouth of the Green River as it appeared a year ago. The division is responsible for maintaining navigation on 2,694 miles of waterways which include the Ohio River and 11 tributaries. We are now engaged in a modernization program on the Ohio River which involves replacing 46 obsolete navigation structures with 19 high-lift dams which will more efficiently handle the more than 110 million tons now being shipped annually on the river. Here is Newburgh today. The locks are about 75 percent complete and scheduled to be finished in the spring of 1969. Newburgh is one of seven such structures under construction on the Ohio. The entire moderization program is scheduled to be completed by the late 1970's, depending, of course, on appropriations. Also in the area of navigation . . . this is Opekiska lock and dam on the upper Monongahela River as it appeared early in construction. On the right is part of the old structure, built in 1903, which is one of the three obsolete dams to be replaced by Opekiska. These old locks proved inadequate for the modern traffic now moving on the Monongahela. Here is Opekiska as it appeared at completion last September. The new lock measures 600 by 84 feet compared to the 185- by 56-foot lock in the old structure. Placing Opekiska into operation marked the com- pletion of a modernization program on the upper Monongahela which increased the channel depth from 7 to 9 feet and reduced the number of locks from six to three. In its flood control program the division has completed 68 local pro- tection projects, has another 20 under construction and three in plan- ning. Turtle Creek in east Pittsburgh, shown here early in construc- tion, had a history of chronic flooding. It 2:>resented major engineering problems because the stream flows through a highly developed indus- trial area. In spite of construction difficulties, this $17 million project was completed on schedule. The project included channel straightening and widening, the installation of several debris basins, and extensive bank and bottom paving. This project will assure flood protection in one of the division's important industrial areas. 872 J. Percy Priest, a multipurpose project involving flood control, rec- reation and hydropower, is located a few miles from downtown Nash- ville, Tenn. Much work still had to be done when this picture was taken in December 1966. The project is now about 80 percent complete and is scheduled to be delivered this spring. Very heavy public recreational use of the lake is expected because of its proximity to Nashville. The Ohio River division has completed 51 reservoirs and has 21 now under construction. RED RIVER RESERVOIR, KY. The Red River Reservoir project exemplifies a growing nationwide problem of attempting to satisfy the needs of comprehensive water re- sources planning while accommodating increasing demands for the conservation of scenic and ecological resources. Located in eastern Kentucky in the Daniel Boone National Forest, the Red River project was authorized in 1962 and funded by Congress for construction. This multiple-purpose is designed to reduce flood damages on the Red, Ken- tucky, and Ohio Rivers ; provide municipal and industrial water sup- ply ; improve water quality in the middle reach of the Kentucky River tlirough flow augmentation and provide recreational opportunities. Here are some views of the Red River area. This was taken from a cliff looking downstream from behind where the clam will be. The dam will be located across the narrow part of the valley floor in about the middle of the picture. This is the damsite presented in the justification before you. In planning such projects we are aware that impounding water in a valley such as this affects part of the plant and wildlife of the valley floor. This, however, is just one of the many considerations which must be weighed in evaluating a project. This is the view from an overlook in the upper reaches of the reser- voir about 5 miles from the dam. As our population grows and com- petition for land increases, the planning of projects to satisfy all needs becomes more difficult. Much of our planning effort is now directed toward trying to maintain an ecological balance wliile providing for the present and future needs of a growing area. This is Sky Bridge arch, one of the more than 30 such natural arches in the area. None of these, by the way, will be disturbed by the im- poundment in its seasonal pool, and only one arch (Moonsliiners Arch) would be partially inundated during the few occasions when the re- servoir would be brought to the maximum flood control pool. While the reservoir alters the ecologic values of the gorge, there are some gains in aesthetic and recreational values. Providing for the high recreational use of our projects continues to present a challenge to the division. This ]')icture was taken at a day usd area at Old Hickory Reservoir near Nashville. Close to 5 million visitors came to Old Hickory last year. The number of visitors who come to our projects each year has almost quadrupled in the past 14 years with 43 million visitors in 1967. When all of our authorized projects are completed, we expect some 306 mil- lion visitors annually. The Ohio River Basin comprehensive survey, following guidelines set by the Water Resources Council, is nearing completion. This framework type study will formulate plans and programs as broad guides to the best dovelo]:>ment and nse of Avater and related land re- 873 sources in the basin. The report is scheduled for completion this summer. The Appalachian survey, which is an interdepartmental-interstate study of Appalachia to determine water resource potentials and needs and identify their economic impact on the area, is nearing completion. The report, on its pilot project, a flood control project at Salyersville, Ky., has cleared the Board of Engineers for rivers and harbors and is being reviewed by the Governor of Kentucky and the Federal agencies involved. (By March 1968 the entire report should be ready for co- ordinating committee review.) Our anticipated new starts for 1969 include three surveys, the Ap- palachian Eegion, Guyandotte River Basin, and the Youghiogheny River Basin * * * two projects in advanced engineering and design, Dayton, Ky., local protection project and West Fork Lake, W. Va. * * * and no construction starts. This concludes my introduction to the Ohio River division. Thank you. Mr. KiRvv^AN. Thank you. Colonel. General Investigations A total of $1,411,000 is budgeted for general investigations, an in- crease of $254,000. (The justifications follow:) 874 > Q a > CO 'S' •— Q. ? E S ,8-5 °".°t = "■= c "-D i = S w = "5 i£ = .2?-= = «" E 75 .5 SEE; - ^"S.i ° ? ~ - '^^■^ |i|^!lillllll°if 875 a o s 2 c CO cc ,-1 O .2 o "§^ "o o g £. 2 cc ~ — I 72 O QJ O +3 O bC I a S o o ^a -»^ »- — — - Qj a> o "^ Z g g .— ' ■S= 5 S £ S^ !0 2 O a- S c g ^ t£> ^ ^-^ 'E - i-g§m.s 2?^ exper e eco Fork ol pn > = = OJ ^.Ec.^5 5-D __ o != j= — o oj Of .S° ^5_ iZ5 £|: t^ =3 O TO ^ .S: o — *- ^ T^ Q ^..^ Ipiiifl CD CJ> Sn c:. 5 cu roO=-2o— = S _^ >, cr „:= • ° z i2 "g^ 3 g =3 ■" ^ gu- ao oj 2^ — = = 10-55 ^oo-^— :ti"o ■" -^—.E a) o-C! '^ S — '-" d o . a> "o >,^ ™ £ to oh- si^J c ^ " _ ..„ a. t;-o'E-c;^(— o. _ o oSOi 2 EE E? E 5 o o -qZ t;-o 5-c:5(^ 876 O v_ i^-^ o E-S ; i_- — x^ '^ s; tii i? -=*• ^ *^ - °° "" = <^ .2 '^ t; E 5 j .♦- o E „, £ c o r Q--;;; Ei=t- E ^ oo^ .E S ° - Q- " •- ^ "S .2 J - ra ;/> ;:' O -2 ^-^ = -a 5 5 = CO = = ^15^ " o o ° ^ ^ o °S^™e:e5— S"? .r^-~.-=-?;Oi "O^ o ;if||i.||||^ = - S -2 -2 -a ^ S =3 o <^ -2^ t: ' 5-0 :3 ^ •o O : ? ^ = = - o o oj o a='3 ^ t~ (U tJflT :cD pDflE5:2-:r^J — nco ^ '' "■ c -2 E ;§ ra :^ ~ n " i 3 '22" ^T "^ ^ o=m.2r2 m_-5 ^S =11 " a- ?-§-2(2.E | X c TO tg 00 >^ »_' CD — ■O a> 2 ^-5 m S o 5= ac *°o.i = -2-E«i ^^,= . Q> Q. 5j Q C r6 j_- J; E g. ^ = t_) ■r o: ° t— g = 5 ■c ^' c _o 8 ra U i O0T3 w. a> 1 e/i r-^ -o 5 S E E n 3 O O 2 OO o E h- ^ ^ o o ^ 3 Q. ^ CD CD o O 2. o "5. o E > o O CL Q. = ^ 1 3 ■o o. "o g 1 c -o c "q. o c ooo 3 r2 OJ ? "3 c: E ^ ^ o E _>^ o c3c 3 3 E E % 3 2 cr Qj c o E o 1 1 w o -g o o O .2^ o js: -c ^^_ 5 -^ w onemaug)- The max- re damage was sub- lumber o lin subjec ntained ir 9am com- Ferndale lof Johns- 1 damagt; images i' \\ develop- the basil loversville g channe y flooding pment. Ir cing area side 3,317 o ^ £ = Little t jnty. Pa. ;ing sevei project ever, a i ent remc tically CO in upstri ream are le section t to flooc Flood dc esidentia ;tream in 5rand Ho e existin Kected b 1 develo al prodU' id River: O^ w '^ S: 3 ■i|5i^ ||i{l||i||i i||| II ; ^ O DC g- CL— - E ~ — . £ £ "" 7, Ej E i''-" S = 1 ^^ icoSE-i.^^-Sj'^S. ;5 g' , . o jc E '"^'S o ^ = 1— = w CO — ra O GJ ," ' S 3 '■ Of E P -^ rc >- QJ ~1 !! E = ^ - ro-^ ^ ^ > Q. 2E =3 ^, r^,'-!^ "^3 :.-gi;2ooFSE^ > CU) E 3°C --5-0 ; >. o c 2 f|.|™^S"|f f||fc ?lJ i^oE^ ■= -□ J3a:>--o>-o = 5^ S o c )-o^ ° ra-75 E S ■-.O J 'S^° MoJ Et ?P 9 'S '^ -^ ^3 ^ _CC Q.« -3 C O o • 5oO 01-^ O Q.^ (T-O Sec iCiSt 879 =illill"5il|2- C/5 (y t^ X O CO ( ■0 00-":= ,_-"a -^ ^ x: -□ 2 ■= -2 ™ = ^ — ce -£E ^Soa: HraS'-iS^- ■S.O -S I o = .i!n-j; i.o — ■: = " SS^«=E -«- TO OJ-C 1- -» JT ^CTi 03 o j2 ^^ a> : ^"oifl, Ir:!_^^ ^*I*- p! — ■— t_ c ,-*--c_if QiTO >^>.- '^ c; *i: ■^ Q. 3 m — -^"o^.c: ■" ° QJ ""-a ■D-C.o^-2 ^ o~lgiJ- !g ^ E So .^ °'^ rEO-2 -S 0"CQ -C 3 4^ ■" iS 'p >< iJjC 03 S'"^ gS £ = ^tJ E * -g .^ " i" E "H."^ »- o -J^ 'aj — c3 o to-E"*" Q.cr.^tD,^ a ^ BCO .— 03 dj Ln to totOC:Q3.0j2Qj,^ o ^ TO £^ ra <5 *S^ ■ T3:= 0.0, c °-o °-S L.'- •^03|-i_s^a3 ». .-..oj— ij. ra t?s-°=S:EisS5£-S^c^5g^o-t mgsl^z^-f^.SS ■25 ° ^lE S-S2 m|-^ =::.2 E-2£-^.g E-g o S S S S g.S-^- 2^:i ^^--l"" gi ::; s =!s = s^-s-s |"£5 o| gf §^5 s.i 0>-<^-0— £-OCT"'^£-§^S3ogt;=S~^'DJ3=.roctioSS,-, ° o- c cc a: g -S 91-^59— 68— pt. 1- u -56 880 o o o-i •*-' ^ ^oo 0^ — 1 >; T3 s ;; i ^ Q. £ o 5 C Q. 3* E ^o QJ ^ ■D "0 ■ = cc: ro .E _QJ .Q TO s (O CU3 n s a — 22 ,E ^ ^_ ._ >- ■q= TC TO ■H T3 ;o o ^ £ 03 OJ "ra -a E "to oO CU) E (U Q. ^ c 5^ c ■0 .^ u- = 'o S *^ ■o ■o a c Q> "to w c r- U^ a < Si 3 cr c= o t: r3 M Q.Li_ a "D B o ^ < -° £- TO o C o o -o ° Lt- Lu s 3 ^ a. 00 QJ .^^ E 5 o •o 2" S S2 iz J GO ~ S^ ■q 55 £ TO "m rS^Sii TO 2 aJ 5 5 a-H Oj'^ 03 E C g J- ^Q-^ 0) o o 2.b:-= E o c.E ml -s^r=.ss=<"E° CO C O ' l->2 -L r~j .. g ^ CJ^ s jy«4-i m 02 ^ .2 OQ X) •^ ^ -►^ ^■ '=L>^ CO ^ '35 (D c3 c ■+^ S 1=3^ Q. c §-3 i a. ^ -u q; a^ rt > ■ ^ ^ -t-: ■g^ 12; 1 d „ 1 !0 ^ |2 TO C ^ 1 "^ u 55™ '« cc c TO s ,<» ■«-' TO .0-13 '5 •^ t= Q. ;; Sr3 ^ Qi CO If clo c S "e -C3T3 -!S ?5,^„ a ^ ~ C CO coo b ■^"S '^ .2" "5 ^ ^^ E s; a^ ■= 5:£_g c TO Sii «i3 '2)5 5 I.5S S E 2 > 'o TO _ TO Q.-a "a ^ flti-E^f:: >S — ^^ TO '^ °- " "S g> !"§ i !^ I s 5x3^ "" ro E-2 CD 2 ^ TO "^ 00 ;^ O . ^ 3 •— "io Sj *" -^ -^ ^-^ ScE°?o-o"g > S^ S ■&- E .E "" <" ■5 g — - "D c " — :S 2 881 k- "P a> "^ a? ro 2f -c -= ■lllll CO.C: ^a> oj*^ c ai_>.aj^ m oj -.9:5- ^ -Q o-"^ * „ ^ ■'='="^'!:^ S-"^ ^J ^-S ^ o g ^ — -o S „- - ^ ; :JSE, ■ *: ^ -:i DC c DOra.Si'^j "£ c"° " TO ^ "5 ^ ^ ra -2 ■ — ^^.ilC3 o: -^ ^ E o 5S 2^.-2S_5 E °"-o. lOO 1 5 5 : i-^ >. = noi ; ■ QJ O _ - i^ Dfl^^ ^ =»^ 1= 2 QJ «^ ra ' ^^ b-m-S'-c^ -CO r: ^ w : 882 Mr. KiRWAN. Is your general investigations program on schedule at the present time ? Colonel Graf. Yes, sir. CROSS WABASH VALLEY WATERWAY, ILL., IND., OHIO, AND MICH, Mr. KiRWAN. On page 2, $100,000 is budgeted to continue the study of the Cross Wabash Valley Waterway being initiated during the current year. This item was approved by Congress last year for recon- naissance purposes only. Please outline for the committee the plans for undertaking this reconnaissance study and describe the proposed project. Colonel Graf, The study will determine the feasibility of construct- ing a waterway for barge traffic extending from the Ohio River into Lake Erie or Lake Michigan via the Wabash Eiver and adjacent ba- sins. The study will give due consideration to multiple-purpose proj- ect development to satisfy the needs of small boat navigation, recrea- tion, municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife, and other related purposes. The reconnaissance study will determine the general feasibility of continuing with a detailed study. BIG SANDY RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES. KENTUCKY, WEST VIRGINIA, AND VIRGINIA 'Sir. KiRWAN. On page 3, $20,000 is requested to resume the study of the Big Sandy River and tributaries in Kentucky. West Virginia, and Virginia. What is the purpose of this resumption ? Colonel Graf. The Tug Fork area, the area to be investigated, has experienced recurring floods in the past. Li view of these floods and the need for other water resource development in the Tug Fork Basin, the Public Works Committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate by resolutions dated October 19, 1967, requested additional studies to determine the economic feasibility of all potential water re- sources developments. In view of the fact that Tug Fork is a tributary of the Big Sandy, the requested additional studies of Tug Fork have been included in the Big Sandy survey which have been continuing in the current years with previously appropriated funds. As such the funding for fiscal year 1969 is a continuation rather than a resumption. CONNOQUENESSING CREEK, PA. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 6, $44,000 is budgeted to resume the study of the Connoquenessing Creek below Butler, Pa. What is involved in this resumption ? Colonel Graf. When we made our phase 1 studies we found that it was necessary to expand into further consideration of multiple- purpose reservoirs as opposed to what we had originally thought would be a local protection project. This study is continuing in the current year with previous a]^propriations and in reality is a continuation rather than a resumption. 883 JOHNSTOWN CHANNEL EXTENSION, PA. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 7, please explain the cost increase from ^111,000 to $196,000 for the study of the Johnstown Channel Extension in Pennsylvania. Colonel Graf. Sir, this is basically the same reason I just mentioned for Connoquenessing Creek. It was originally thought when we began our phase 1 studies that you could provide the protection needed by extending the existing Johnstown Channel. We discovered during our phase 1 studies that we should take a look at multi-purpose projects ■further upstream and on the tributaries to provide this protection. NESHANNOCK CREEK, PA. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 8, please explain the $58,000 proposed to resume the study of the Neshannock Creek in the vicinity of New Castle, Pa. Colonel Graf. Again, sir, this is basically the same reason. When we began our phase 1 studies, we were looking at channel improvements only. The studies, however, demonstrated that we should look further and consider reservoirs as well as channel improvements. These studies are continuing during fiscal year 1968 with previously appropriated funds. YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER BASIN, PA. AND MD. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 8, $25,000 is budgeted to initiate a $500,000 survey of the Youghiogheny Elver Basin in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Please describe this proposed new study. Colonel Graf. The Youghioglieny River is a major tributary of the Monongahela River and drains an area of 1,768 square miles. The existing reservoirs in the basin are the federally developed Yough- iogheny Reservoir, which was completed in 1948, and a privately developed Deep Creek Reservoir for hydroelectric power generation. The survey would be a basinwide study on water resource development of the basin and would consider flood control, low-water regulation, water supply, water quality control, power and navigation. APPALACHIAN REGION STUDIES Mr. KiRWAN. On page 11, $62,000 is budgeted for Appalachian region studies in West Virginia and other states. What is planned with these funds and how does it relate to the funds provided for the Appalachian water resources study ? Colonel Graf. The Appalachian report which I mentioned in my opening presentation is nearing completion. There will be certain areas of need developed in that study for which solutions will not be completely developed. The amount we have in the budget would pro- vide for the initiation of studies to facilitate cooperative planning un- der the emerging State development plans at locations where water resources surveys are not now funded. 884 GUYANDOT RTVER ABOVE R.D. BAILEY LAKE. W. VA. Mr. KiRWAN. On page 12, $10,000 is requested to initiate the study of the Guyandot Eiver above the R. D. Bailey Lake in West Vir- ginia. Please describe this new proposed study. Colonel Graf. Sir, the Guyandot River lies entirely in the State of West Virginia and drains an area of 1,671 square miles. We have the R. D. Bailey Lake now under construction about 108 miles above the mouth. This study will determine the feasibility of providing flood protection to areas upstream from the reservoir not now protected. Advance Engineering and Design Mr. KiRWAN. We will now take u]d advance engineering and design. DAYTON, KT. $80,000 is requested to initiate planning of the Dayton, Ky., local protection project. (The justification follows :) Dayton, Ky. (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — The City of Dayton, Ky., is located along the Ohio River in Campbell County and lies in the metropolitan area of Cincinnati, Ohio. The project would consist of a levee along the Ohio River and interior drainage facilities. Authorization. — 1938 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $3, 260, 000 Estimated non- Federal cost 1, 750, 000 Cash contribution Other costs 1, 750, 000 Total estimated project cost 5, 010, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 210, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 » 43, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 80, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal j''ear 1969- 87, 000 1 Includes $31,000 cost of planning prior to 1952, and $12,000, cost of restudy of economics completed in fiscal year 1966. Budget amount is to initiate preconstruction planning of the project on the basis of the restudy. JUSTIFICATION Dayton had a 1960 population of 9,050 persons, of which about one-half reside in the flood jjlain. Periodically, flooding occiu'S from high river stages on the Ohio Ptiver. The maximum flood of record occurred in January 1937. Other major floods since then occurred in the years of 1945, 1948, 1964, and 1967; minor flooding has occurred on numero\is other occasions. The levee would, with the recun-pnce of a flood equal in magnitude to the 1937 flood, eliminate damages to the extent of $5.9 million (July 1967 prices) considering the levee only; or $3.1 million (July 1967 prices) considering the flood stage reduced by storing floodwater in actual or planned upstream reservoirs. Average annual benefits for the project are $242,600. 885 Breakdown of benefits: ^'^'"■"" Flood control $238,200 Land enhancement 4, 400 Total 242,600 Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is currently estimated at $1,750,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $1. 199, 000 Utihty relocations 64, 000 Sewer alterations and relocations 487, 000 Total 1,750,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. The annual cost of operation and maintenance is estimated at $14,200. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests are required to (a) provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; and (c) maintain and operate all works after com- pletion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Ai'iny. The mayor of the city of Dayton, by letter dated May 3, 1966, furnished pre- liminary assurances of local cooperation. Formal assurances have not yet been requested pending completion of advance engineering and design studies. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,260,000 is an increase of $160,000 over the latest estimate ($3,100,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $107,000 for higher price levels, and $53,000 in engineering and design based on recent reanalysis of requirements and including the cost of the economic restudy. Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this new planning start. Colonel Graf. Sir, the project would consist of about 1.6 miles of earth levee, two pumping plants and other appurtenant drainage fa- cilities. The project will provide complete protection against floods equaling in magnitude the flood of record in 1937. Dayton, Ky., is located across the river from Cincinnati, Ohio. The average annual benefits are estimated at $242,600, all flood control. RESULTS OF ECONOMIC STUDY Mr. KiRWAN. Specifically, what were the results of the recent eco- nomic restudy made of the project which was authorized in 1938? Colonel Graf. We restudied this j)roject in 1966 and in May 1967, the study resulted in the reclassification of this project from deferred to active as a feasible project. MARTIN, KY. Mr. KiRWAN. $95,000 is budgeted to complete planning of the Mar- tin, Ky., local protection project. (The justification follows:) Martin, Ky. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The town of Martin, with a 1960 population of 992, is located in Floyd County, Ky., about 5.5 miles above the mouth of Beaver Creek, a tributary of Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River. The plan of improve- ment provides for enlarging and straightening of Beaver Creek for a length of 4.27 miles. The enlarged channel would follow the existing channel except for minor straightening and one cutoff. The improved channel would have a bottom width of 100 feet compared to a present bottom width averaging about 40 feet. 886 Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. BeneHt-cost ratio. — 1.04 to 1. Summarized financial data i:stimated Federal cost $3, 780, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 125, 000 Cash contribution Other 125,000 Total estimated project cost 3, 905, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 160, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 65, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 95, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. JUSTIFICATION The proposed project would not afford complete protection to the town but would reduce frequency of damaging headwater floods from about once a year to nearly once in every 4 years, and would reduce stages of major floods by about 5.7 feet. The flood of record at Martin, January 1957, caused damages of $810,000 and inundated the town to an average depth of 8 feet, with some build- ings being flooded to a depth of 12 feet. Two completed reservoirs and one essen- tially complete, upstream from the mouth of Beaver Creek, will virtually eliminate backwater flooding at Martin. The proposed LPP would eliminate about 85 per- cent of the remaining damages (headwater flooding). Average annual flood control benefits have been computed to be $191,100. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests is esti- mated at $125,000 for furnishing project rights-of-way requirements and making necessary utility and sewer alterations. Local interests are also required to maintain the project upon completion. The annual cost for maintenance is estimated at $20,000. Status of local cooperation. — By letter of January 30, 1964, the fiscal court of Floyd County, Ky., advised of their intent to fulfill the requirements of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,780,000 is an increase of $190,000 over the last estimate ($3,590,000) submitted to Congress. Total increase is due to price level rise. Mr. KiRWAN. This project now has a benefit-to-cost ratio of only 1.04 to 1. With rising construction costs, isn't it likely that the project will drop below unity ? Colonel Graf. No, sir. Mr. KiRWAN. Wliat actual planning has been accomplished to date on this project ? Colonel Graf. Sir, we have just started this one. Mr. KiRWAN. When were the annual flood control benefits last cal- culated on this project? Colonel Graf. In 1967. ROWLESBURG LAKE, W. VA. Mr. KiRWAN. $133,000 is budgeted to complete planning on the Eowlesburg Lake project in West Virginia. (The justification follows:) RoWLESBURG LaKE, W. Va. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The proposed project is located in Preston and Tucker Counties, north-central West Virginia, on the Cheat River, a tributary of the Monongaliela River. The damsite is at the upstream limit of Rowlosburg, W. Va. The proposed dam would be of the concrete gravity type with controlled outlet 887 works and spillway. The reservoir would have a gross storage capacitj'- of 831,700 acre-feet and control a drainage area of 936 square miles. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1 (without power). Summarized financial data Amount Estimated total appropriation requirement $102, 000, 000 Future non- Federal reimbursement 3, 550, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 98, 450, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 3, 550, 000 Reimbursement: Water quality (cooling) 2,221,000 Recreation facilities 1, 329, 000 Total estimated project cost ^ 102, 000, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 1, 700, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 867,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 700, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 133, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 0' • Initial cost only. Estimated cost to include ultimate recreation development is $104,480,000. Estimate does not include power facilities since development may be undertaken by private interests. JUSTIFICATION The Cheat River, with a drainage area of 1,424 square miles, is the largest un- controlled tributary in the headwaters of the Ohio River. Control of the discharges from the river and development of the water resources of the basin for flood control, water quality control, hydroelectric power production, and recreation are con- sidered of prime importance and would result in widespread benefits. Substantial flood control benefits would be realized on the Cheat River flood plain below the dam and the highly developed flood plains of the Monongahela and Ohio Rivers. Had the project been in operation during the record flood of March 1967 in the middle Monongahela River, the flood height would have been reduced almost 5 feet. Water quality control features of the project would augment natural stream- flow during periods of low flow providing improvement of water quality for com- munities downstream on the Cheat, Monongahela, and upper Ohio Rivers. Hydro- electric power for peakload purposes would be constructed either by local interests or the Government. Evaluation of the public use potential indicates that recreation would be an important feature. Although not evaluated, the project would signi- ficantly improve the economic condition of the region with a resulting increase in the overall well-being of the communities. Average annual benefits are estimated at $6,360,000. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Water quality control $3, 32.5, 000 Flood control 2, 141, 000 Recreation 894, 000 Total 6, 360, 000 Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Gov- ernment for the costs allocated to water quality control (cooling), presently esti- mated at $2,221,000, exclusive of interest Also, in accordance with Public Law 89-72, Federal Water Project Recreation Act, local interests are required to bear one-half of the separable costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement presently estimated at $1,329,000, exclusive of interest, and bear all cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement at an estimated cost of $220,000 annually. However, these costs are applicable only if local interests agree to participate in the recreational development of the project. In addition, local interests would be required to provide assurances that they will hold and save the United States free from any claims for damages from storage of water and provide adequate direct waste treatment at the source within a reasonable period of time and preserve existing and augmented low flows for the intended water quality purposes. Status of local cooperation. — By letter dated September 13, 1967, the Depart- ment of Natural Resources, State of West Virginia, stated that at this time the department is not in a position financially to incur additional obligations for recreational development. However, since the project is located in the zone of 888 influence of the U.S. Forest Service, recreation development is being planned in cooperation with that agency. Action is continuing to obtain all other required local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cof Ohio River Basin. The Little Kanawha Basin, because of its rugged topog- raphy, is subject to flashy type floods which preclude adequate warning to permit flood plain evacuation. The basin experiences frequent minor floods and periodic major floods which inundate laige areas in the basin and contribute materially to floods on the Ohio River. Recent flood of March 1967 was the flood of record at several points along the Little Kanawha River including Glenville, Grantsville, and Palestine. Damages were estimated at $2,105,000 from Burnsville to the mouth of the Little Kanawha. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, in their study of the West Fork Reservoir area, recommended the project be developed for primitive type recreation because of the rugged terrain within the project area. The Federal Water Pollution Control Adm.inistration has recommended that storage be provided in the Little Kanawha Basin to maintain a flow of 330 cubic feet p^r second for the months of June through November for water quality control in the slack water pool being created by the Belleville Dam on the Ohio River. The West Fork project tentatively includes 29,200 acre-feet of storage for this purpose. Storage also will be provided in the other authorized reservoir projects to satisfy the water quality needs. Although not iricluded in computing B/C ratio, substantial redevelopment bene- fits would be realized from construction of the project. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control 491, 700 Recreation 405, 100 Fish and wildlife, recreation 73, 000 Water quality control- 336, 200 Total benefits 1, 306, 000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests will be required to contribute one-half the initial cost of recreation development and to operate and maintain the proposed development as provided by Public Law 89-72. The amount is presently esti- mated at $435,000 plus $44,400 annually for operation and maintenance of recreation facilities. Status of local cooperation. — In accordance with Public Law 89-72, non- Federal interests will share in the cost of recreation facilities to be provided. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $20,100,000 is an increase of $1,055,000 from the July 1966 estimate ($19,045,000) that was based on the feasibility study of Little Kanawha Basin reservoir projects. Change is due to price level rise of $1,000,000 and $55,000 for reservoir feature to provide for boundary survey and marking now required at all reservoirs. Major changes since project authorization. — Changes since authorization in 1938 are refinements in construction to conform to current design criteria, inclusion of recreation facilities, water quality control, and present relocation and real estate policies. Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this new planning start. Colonel Graf. Sir, the West Fork Lake project is located in Calhoun and Wirt Counties, W. Va., on the West Fork of the Little Kanawha 890 River. The proposed dam will be of rock and eartlifill with an uncon- trolled spillway. The project is proposed for multipurpose develop- ment to include flood control, water quality control, fish and wildlife, recreation, and general recreation. The total average annual benefits are $1,306,000. UPDATING OF ECONOMICS Mr. IviRWAN. How recently have the economics been updated? Colonel Graf. The economics of this project were restudied in 1966 and were updated for this budget. Mr. KiRWAN. Outline the changes in costs and features that have oc- curred in the project since its original authorization. PROJECT CHANGES Colonel Graf. Changes since authorization are refinements in con- struction to conform to current design criteria and the inclusion of water supply, water quality control and recreation and the application of the current real estate policy. The estimate at the time of authoriza- tion in 1938 was $3,020,000. This estimate escalated to present price levels would be about $14 million. The present project estimate of $20,100,000 provides for the inclusion of the additional project func- tions and the application of current policies. Mr. Kirwan. We will insert the balance of the justifications under the advance engineering and design. Mound City Locks and Dam, Ohio River, III. and Ky. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The proposed project is located in Pulaski County, 111., and Ballard County, Ky., on the Ohio River, 974.2 miles below Pittsburgh, Pa. The upper pool of the proposed dam would extend upstream about 71 miles to the present lock and dam No. 51 (the length of the upper pool would be 56 miles upon completion of the proposed Smithland locks and dam, formerly Dog Island locks and dam). The project will include two parallel locks and a dam con- sisting of a gated section and a fixed weir section. Avthorization. — 1909 River and Harbor Act (sec. 6). Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $119, 000, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 123, 000 Cash contribution Other costs 123, 000 Total estimated project cost 119, 123, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 1, 200, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 521, 000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 284, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 395, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. jrSTIFICATION In 1964, commercial navigation through the project area was 25,586,000 tons. The project will replace two existing Ohio River locks and dams (Nos. 52 and 53) incorporating modern lock facilities with two parallel chambers in lieu of the single obsolescent locks now in service at each of the existing structures to be eliminated. The existing structures Nos. 52 and 53 were completed in 192S and 1929, respec- tively, and their physical condition, together with obsolete design, results in high maintenance and operation costs and in inefficient handling of traffic. 891 Traffic on the Ohio River has defied on a,, a e age oon^^^ since completion of the P'-^^^^VS^Tota river otag^ waf a record traffic will continue for ^^y^^ ^^tal J^^ «^ ^^'^^^^^ D^e to the rapid 103,173,852 tons and for 1966 ^^f ^f ^^^^^u'^^S the old structures industrial expansion now taking p ace along^^^^^^^ tvpe to\^ Ind the large volume are not capable of efficiently handling ^^e modern ^^^^^ facilities is rapidly ^:. I!:i ^^;;;^^ic:-S^SS?™s^T^of natSnal emergencies. Av^age annual benefits are $7,087 000 aU^na^^^^^^^^^ modification of Non-Federal '^os^s -Construction of the project ^ Department of the existing facilities ^vhich were originaUy co^^ ^^^ approved Army permit piirsuant to Sect on 10 f ;/J\^ ?.Jfgg''to new project conditions March 3, 1899. The owners will adapt ttieir lacimies tu new ^.x j at an estimated cost of f.123,000. However, owners of affected private Status of local ^««P^'-«^f ^•-^^^^^u'^J'S under Federal jurisdiction facilities which are located ^Mthln /^^J^.JjPflftheir own expense in accordance will be expected to modify these facilities at tnego^^^ with the permit regulations under whch the faci^^^^^^^^^ y ^^.^^^^ ^f ^^Slntrasfj^f-rm^n^rdrtl- price level increases. Big Pine Reservoir, Wabash River Basin, Ind. (Continuation of planning) sluices in the base of the dam. . ,aar: Authorization.— Ylood Control Act of 1965. Benefit-cost ratio.— 1.9 to 1. Summarized financial data 100,000 Estimated Federal cost ' g90| OOO Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution: S90, 000 General and fish and wildlife recreation q Other -.--r---r i 18,990, 000 Total estimated project cost ^^q^ qOq Preconstruction planning estimate ^ -- -^^q^ qqO Allocations to June 30, 1967 173,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 227, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969. - - - - ; ^y " "a " " "f 'e'aV 1969 ' Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year lyby. .initial costs only. Estimated cost to Include ultimate recreational development i- $21,348,000. JUSTIFICATION Big Pine Reservoir is a unit, with Lafayette R^f.^^^^^' l^J^^°4^^"^^j|,7gas!^ 892 life recreational facilities. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $1,736,000. Amount Breakdown of Benefits: Flood control $895, 000 Recreation: General 795, 000 Fish and wUdlife 46, 000 Total 1,736,000 Non-Federal costs. — Prior to construction, local interests are required to furnish assurances that they will administer project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement; pay, contribute in kind, or repay (which may be through user fees) with interest one-half of the separable cost of the pi'oject allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, currently estimated at $890,000 (1967 values) : bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replace- ment of recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities, curi-ently estimated at $126,000 and prevent encroachment which would reduce the flow carrying capacity of the natural cliannel between the dam and the mouth of the channel at the Wabash River. The estimated cost to local interests is as follows: Cash contribution: General and fish and wUdlife recreation, $890,000. The annual cost to local interests of maintenance, opei^ation, and replacement of lands and facilities for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement is $126,000. Status of local cooperation. — The State of Indiana will be the responsible co- operating agency for all required assurances. Formal assurances have not yet been requested pending completion of more advanced engineering and design studies. Present laws of the State of Indiana require that agency to make cash conti'ibu- tions during construction of the project for recreation and fish and wildlife enhance- ment land and facilities. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate (initial) of $18,i00,000 is an increase of $1,100,000 over the latest estimate— S17 million — -svibmitted to Congress. Tliis change includes increases of $1,140,000 for liigher price levels, partially offset by a decrease of $40,000 in supervision and administration. Clifty Creek Reservoir, Ind. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The proposed damsite is in the southeast portions of Indiana on Clifty Creek, about 18.4 miles upstream from its confluence with the East Fork White River. This site, in Bartholomew County, is about 12 miles northeast of Columbus and 37 miles southeast of Indianapolis. The reservoir ai'ea lies in Bartholomew and Decatur Counties, Ind. The project will consist of a rolled earthfiU and concrete gravity-type dam with a gate controlled ovei-flow spillway in the concrete section of the dam and two gate-controlled sluices m the base of the dam. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1965. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal Cost $15,400,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 971, OOO Cash contribution 971, 000 General and fish and wildlife recreation 971, 000 Other Total estimated project cost '16, 371, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 470, OOO Allocations to June 30, 1967 100, OOO Allocation for fiscal year 1968 127, OOO Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 243, OOQ Balance to complete preconstl'uction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 1 Initial cost only. Estimated cost to include ultimate recreational development is $18,873,000. 893 JUSTIFICATION This reservoir, in combination with the other 10 presently authorized reservoirs in the Wabash Basin, five of which are complfited, one of which is under construc- tion and four of which are in preconstruction planning status, will aid in the reduc- tion of Hood (lows along the Wabash River and, to a lesser degree, to the reduction of major flood flows on the Ohio River below the Wabash River. The flood plain area of Clifty Creek, East Fork White River and White River below the proposed reservoir consists of about 154,000 acres of agricultural lands. Along Clifty Creek, the only developments in the overflow area are a suburban residential subdivision of about 110 units near Columbus, rural fences and outbuildings and several road crossings. Along the East Fork White River and White River, there are many farm improvements, including fences and barns, portions of seven urban areas, numerous highways and roads and nine railroad crossings. The estimated value of property in the flood plain between the proposed dam site and Wabash River is about $74.4 million (1967 values). The record flood of 1913 caused damages amounting to about $699,000 along the reaches of the White and East Fork White Rivers and Clifty Creek affected by the project, excluding the damages which occurred in areas to be protected by subsequently authorized local protec- tion projects. A recurrence of this flood under present conditions of development would cause damages estimated at $3,072,000 (1967 values) of which $247,000 would be prevented by the project. Damaging floods along the aforesaid streams below the project during the last five years occurred in May and March 1967, December 1966, February 1965, March 1964, March 1963, and February-March 1962. In addition, the project would provide seasonal storage for general and fish and wildlife recreational opportunities. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $1,255,000. Amount Breakdown of benefits : Flood control $643, 000 Recreation : General 586, 000 Fish and Wildlife 26, 000 Total 1, 255, 000 Non-Federal costs. — Prior to construction, local interests are required to furnish assurances that they will administer project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement; pay, contribute in kind or repaj^ (which may be through user fees) with interest, one-half of the separable cost of the project al- located to recreation and fish and v/ildlife enhancement, currently estimate at $971,000 (1967 values); bear all costs of operation, maintenance and replacement of recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities, currently estimated at $158,000; and prevent channel encroachments tending to reduce present channel capacities. The estimated cost to local interests is as follows: Cash contribution: General and fish and wildlife recreation, $971,000. The annual cost to local interests of maintenance, operation and replacement of lands and facilities for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement is $158,000. Status of local cooperation. — The State of Indiana will be the responsible co- operating agency for all required assurances. Formal assurances have not yet been requested pending completion of more advanced engineering and design studies. Present laws of the State of Indiana require that agency to make cash contribu- tions during construction of the project for recreation and fish and wildlife en- hancement land and facilities. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate (initial) of $15,400,000 is an increase of $900,000 over the latest estimate ($14,500,000) submitted to Congress. This change is an increase of $936,000 for higher price levels, partially offset by a decrease of $36,000 in supervision and administration. Kehoe Reservoir, Ky. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Proposed project is located in Carter County, Ky., at the Greenup-Carter Countj^ line, on Tygarts Creek, a tributary of the Ohio River, 48.5 miles above the mouth and 1.7 miles above Kehoe, Ky. The reservoir, controlling a drainage area of 127 square miles, would be formed b3" an earth 894 dam with an uncontrolled spillway. Construction will necessitate minor highway and utilities relocation or reconstruction. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation reqviirement i $16, 600, 000 Future non- Federal reimbursement 480, 000 Estimated Federal cost 16, 120, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 480, 000 Reimbursement (recreation) 480, 000 Total estimated project cost 16, 600, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 650, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 239, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 311, 000 I Initial cost only. Estimated cost to include ultimate recreational development is $17,180,000. JUSTIFICATION The proposed reservoir would effect flood flow reductions on Tygarts Creek and the Ohio River. The Tygarts Creek Basin is predominantly agricultural in character, primary crops being corn, tobacco, and hay. Livestock is also a major farm activity. Average annual flood damages to crops and improvements on Tygarts Creek would be reduced by about 80 percent with construction of the reservoir. In addition to providing flood control benefits, the reservoir would include storage for augmenting stream flows along Tygarts Creek and the Ohio River, provide extensive recreation facilities to complement the recreation poten- tial of the project and stimulate economic activity in the surrounding part of the Appalachian Region. Breakdown of benefits: Flood Icontrol $351, 300 Recreation 335, 000 Water quality control 247, 300 Redevelopment 109,000 Total benefits... -- 1, 042, 600 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests will be required to contribute one-half the initial cost of recreation development as provided by Public Law 89-72. The amount is presently estimated at $480,000 plus an estimated average annual charge of $66,500 for recreation operation, maintenance, and major replacement cost. Status of local ^cooperation. — Commonwealth of Kentucky, division of flood control and water resources development, in letter of December 3, 1965, stated its intent to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers relative to requirements of re- cent legislation, within its financial capabihty. Legislation, enacted in the 1966 session of the Kentucky Assembly provides authority for the responsible departments to comply with the requirements of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current cost estimate of $16,600,000 is an increase of $1 million over the latest estimate ($15,600,000) submitted to Congress. The total increase is due to price level rise. Paintsville Reservoir, Ky. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Proposed project is located in Johnson and Morgan Counties, Ky., on Paint Creek, a tributary of Lcvisa Fork of Big Sandy River, approximately 7.8 miles above the mouth of Paint Creek. The reservoir, control- ling a drainage area of 92 square miles, would be formed by an earth dam with an" uncontrolled spillway. Construction will necessitate minor highway and utilities relocation or reconstruction. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. 895 Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement ^ $19, 100, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 795, 000 Estimated Federal cost 18, 305, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 795, 000 Reimbursement (recreation) 795, 000 Total estimated project cost 19, 100, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 750, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 185, 000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 200, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 215, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 150, 000 ' Initial cost only. Estimated cost to include ultimate recreational development is $19,640,000. JUSTIFICATION The project will supplement other reservoirs, completed and under construction, in reducing flood flows along Levisa Fork and the Big Sandy and Ohio Rivers and will protect the City of Paints ville, Ky., from Paint Creek floods. The affected areas are trans-shipping points and supply, administrative, and residential centers for a large surrounding area that is a major coal production center and a minor center for oil and gas production. The greater floods also result in extended interruptions of arterial traffic between the Midwest and Southeast on U.S. Highway 23, and of railroad freight transfers between these regions by flooding of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway. The severe floods of January 1957 and March 1963 inflicted damages amounting to $32,707,000 and $17,761,000, respec- tively, on the Levisa Fork. Under present state of development and price levels damages from the 1957 flood would amount to about $60,280,000. In addition to flood control, substantial benefits will accrue from the water quality control and recreation aspects of the project. Although not included in the economic evalua- tion of the project, substantial area redevelopment benefits also will result from project construction. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $1 84, 300 Recreation 523, 000 Water quality control 413, 400 Total benefits 1, 120, 700 Xon-Federal costs. — Local interests will be required to contribute one-half the separable cost of recreation development as provided by Public Law 89-72. The amount is presently estimated at $795,000 plus $88,200 annually for recrea- tion operation, maintenance, and major replacement cost. Status of local cooperation. — Commonwealth of Kentucky, Division of Flood Control and Water Resources Development, in letter of December 3, 1965, stated its intent to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers relative to requirements of recent legislation, within its financial capability. Legislation, enacted in the 1966 session of the Kentucky Assembly, provides authority for the responsible departments to comply with the requirements of local cooperation. By letter of February 23, 1967, department of parks officially informed the Corps of the Commonwealth's intent to cooperate and coordinate in development of the recreation facilities. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current cost estimate of $19,100,000 is an increase of $1,200,000 from tlie latest estimate ($17,900,000) presented to Congress. Increase results from $1,080,000 for higher price level and $120,000 in reservoir feature to provide for seeding and reforestation. Taylorsville Reservoir, Ky. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The dam site would be located in central Kentuckj- on the Salt River about 59.5 miles upstream from its confluence with thf Ohio River. The site would be in Spencer County about 3 miles east of the town of Taylorsville and about 22 miles southeast of the city of Louisville. The reservoir area will extend into Nelson and Anderson Counties. The project will consist of an earth-filled dam, a gate-controlled outlet conduit and an uncontrolled open-cut 91-459— 68— pt. 1 57 896 spillway. The reservoir would have total storage capacity of 399,100 acre-feet for flood control, water quality control, and recreation. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $24,600,000 Future non-Federal reinil)ursement 2, o3S, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 22, 062, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 2, 538, 000 Reimbursement: General and fish and wildlife recreation in- cluding lands 2, 538, 000 Other Total estimated project cost ' 2, 4600, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 450, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal vear 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 200, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal j^ear 1969_ 150, 000 ' Initial cost only. Estimated cost to include ultimate recreational development is $28,100,000. JUSTIFICATION The project would operate as a unit of the general comprehensive plan for flood control and allied purposes in the Ohio River Bashi. The project would con- tribut(> to a reduction in flood damages along a portion of both the Salt River and the Ohio River. In addition to flood control, the project would both serve to maintain an acceptable level of water quality along the Salt River and con- tribute to that of the Ohio River, and would be developed for general recreation and fish and wildlife purposes. Average annual benefits for the project are esti- mated at $2,394,000. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $829. 000 Water quality 341,000 Recreation: General 1, 120, 000 Fish and wildlife 104, 000 Total 2,394,000 Non-Federal costs. — Prior to construction, local interests are required to furnish assurances that they will: administer project lands and water areas for recreation: pay, contribute in kind, or repay (which iiuiy be through user fees) with intere.'^t, one-half of the .-separable cost of the project allocated to recreation, currently estimated at $4,288,000 (1967 values) ; bear all costs of operation, maintenance and replacement of recreation land and facilities, currently estimated at $315,000 annually, provided the sizing and responsibiliiy for development, operation, maintenance, and replacetnent of recreation features of the reservoir may be modified in accordance with the alternatives cited in the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, dependent upon the intentions of non-Federal interests regarding participation in the costs of this feature at the time of construction and subsequent thereto; hold and save the United States free from all water riglits claims restilting from const ructioTi and operation of the reservoir: etfect proper measures for con- trol of pollution at the source to a.ssure the effectiveness of water qviality storage provided; exercise, to the full extent of their legal capability, control against removal of stream flow resulting from the re.-^(>rvoir storage provided for water quality control; prevent encroachments on the flow-carrying capacities of stream channels below the reservoir to the extent needed to provide reasonably efl'(>ctive reservoir operation; and periodically (at least amnuiUy) notify interests affected that the project will not provide complete flood protection and that backwater floods of the Ohio ]{i\-er will not be substantially reduced liy the project. The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: Reimbursement — General and fish and wildlife recreation including lands, $2,538,000. The annuaj cost to local interests of operation, maintenance and replacement of recreation land and facilities is $315,000. Staii/s of local cooperation. — The Cojnmonwealth of Kentucky will l)e the respon- sible cooperating agency for all assurances. 897 Tho Koiituoky Department of Natural Resources, by letter, dated October 7, 1965, indicated that "It is the intent of the Commonwealth to participate finan- cially in the construction and administration of the Taylors vilh; project in accord with the legislation in effect and to the degree that is compatible with program and financial capability of the Commonwealth at the time that construction may be started." Formal assurances have not yet bet-n requested pending completion of more advanced engineering and design studies. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The curr"nt Federal cost estimate of $24,600,000 is an increase of .$].")00,000 over the latest estimate ($23,100,000) submitted to Congress. This change is the result of higher price levels. Yatesville Reservoir, Ky. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Proposed project is located in Lawrence County, Ky., on Blaine Creek, a tributary of the Big Sandy River, approximately 5 miles west of Louisa, Ky. The reservoir, controlling a drainage area of 208 square miles, would be formed by an earth dam with an uncontrolled spillway. Construction will necessitate minor highway and utilities relocation or reconstruction. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement i $19, 600, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 1, 046, 000 Estimated Federal cost 18, 554, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1, 046, 000 Reimbursement (recreation) 1, 046, 000 Total estimated project cost 19, 600, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 750, OOO' Allocations to June 30, 1967 173, OOG Allocations for fiscal year 1968 200, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 202, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 175, OOQ J Initial cost only. Estimated cost to include ultimate recreational development is $23,140,000. JUSTIFICATION The project will supplement other reservoirs, completed and under construc- tion, in reducing flood flows along the Ohio Ri\er. It will also assist in meeting the need evaluated by U.S. Public Health Service for low flow augmentation in the interests of water quality control for the industrialized portion of the Big Sandy River Valley. Improving the stream quality aspects will be of significant value for residential and further industrial growth in the area. Project will also provide good water recreation facilities to the ITuntingtou-Asliland metropoli- tan area and will assist in attracting an equitable portion of tourism into an area where such activity is presently underdeveloped. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $300, 800 Recreation 1, 272, 000 Water quality control 243, 200 Total benefits 1, 816, 000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests will be required to contribute one-half the initial cost of recreation development as provided by Public Law 89-72. The amount is presently estimated at $1,046,000 plus $125,000 annually for recrea- tion operation, maintenance, and major replacement cost. Status of local cooperation. — Commonwealth of Kentucky, Division of Flood Control and Water Resources Development, in letter of December 3, 1965, stated its intent to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers relative to requirements of recent legislation, within its financial capability. Legislation was enacted in the 1966 session of the Kentucky Assembly provid- ing authority for the responsible departments to comply with the requirements of local cooperation. By letter of February 23, 1967, department of parks officially 898 informed the Corps of the Commonwealth's intent to cooperate and coordinate in development of recreation facilities at the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current cost estimate of $19,600,000 is an increase of $1,100,000 from the latest estimate ($18,500,000) presented to Congress. This change is due to price level increase of $1 million and $100,000 for seeding and reforestation. Stonewall Jackson Lake, W. Va. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The proposed project is located in Lewis County, northern West Virginia, on the West Fork River, which joins the Tygart River at Fairmont, W. Va., to form the Monongahela River. The damsite is located at Brownsville, W. Va. The proposed dam would be of the concrete gravity type with gate-controlled outlet works and an uncontrolled spillway. The reservoir would have a gross storage capacity of 7."), 200 acre-feet from a tributary drainage area of 102 square miles. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $37, 900, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 2, 290, 000 E.stimated Federal cost (ultimate) 35, 610,000 Estimated non-Federal costs 2, 290, 000 Reimbursement : Water supply 1,427,000 Recreation faciliti<>s S63, 000 Total estimated project cost i 37, 900, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 625, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 37.5, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 2.50, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. ' Initial cost only. Estimated cost to include ultimate recreational development is $39,400,000. JUSTIFICATION The West Fork River Basin, a headwater area of the Monongahela River Basin is contained in Barbour, Harrison, Lewis, Marion, Taylor, and Upshur Counties. The basin has a total drainage area of 881 square miles. The area con- tained in the basin is more populated than the average for the State of West Virginia. Industrial development is based primarily on the extensive coal, gas, ai^d oil resources. Coal mining is the most important commercial activity and glass manufacturing is the chief maimfacturiug industry. Other important manu- facturing iudustri(>s produce pulp and paper, chemicals, machinery, and metal products. The flood liislory and the flood damages for the West Fork River Valley clearly indicate that the valley has a flood problem. The uncontrolled waters also are reflected in flood stages on the Monongahela River. Major flood control benefits would be realizcsd in the flood plains of the West Fork and the upper Monongahchi Rivers. The flood of March 1967 was the highest of record in most parts of the West Fork River Basin, causing damages estimated at $2,645,000 of which about $1,750,000 would be prevented by the project. Water quality control featun^t^ of the [)roj(>ct would augment natural streamflow during periods of low flow, provifling iniprov(>ment of water quality beneficial to points down- stream on the West Fork Riv(>r, the Monongahela River throughout its length and, to a minor extent, to locations on the upper Ohio River. H(^s(>rvoir storage would aLso be used for existing and future water supply n(>eds for Weston and Clarksburg, W. Va. Recreation would also be an important reservoir feature and substantial benefits would accrue to this project purpose. Average annual benefits are estimated at $2,735,000. 899 Breakdown of Benefits: Flood control $866, 000 Water supply 93,000 Water quality control 1, 141, 000 Recreation 479, 000 Area redevelopment 156, 000 Total 2,735,000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are nsquired to make arrangements for repayment, under the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, of that part of the construction cost and annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs allocated to municipal and industrial water supply, an amount presently estimated at $1,427,000 for construction; and $2,900 annually for operation, maintenance and replacements. Also, in accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, local interests are required to: administer project land and water areas for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, pay, contribute in kind or repay (which may be through user fees) with interest, one- half of the separable first cost of the reservoir project allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, an amount presently estimated at $863,000; bear all costs of operation, maintenance and replacement of recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities, the amount involved being currently estimated on an average annual basis to be $73,000; hold and save the United" States free from damages resulting from water-rights claims due to construction and operation of the project; exercise to the full extent of their legal capability, control against remo\'al of streamfiow made available for water quality control; and contribute to the control of pollution of streams subject to low-flow augmentation by ade- quate treatment or other methods of controlling wastes at their source. Status of local cooperation. — The city of Weston desires inclusion of storage for present and future use for water supply purposes. The city also recognizes the responsibility of repayment to the United States of all costs allocated to its share of the total storage allocated to water supply and has adopted a resolution expressing willingness to pay its portion of costs allocated to water supply. The Clarksburg Water Board and the City Council of Clarksburg recognize the need for inclusion of storage for fviture water supply purposes. The Clarksburg Water Board and the City Council of Clarksburg have submitted asstirances expressing their interest in reserving storage for water supply and have undertaken a study of possible waj's and means of providing its portion of costs allocated to water supply. The State of West Mrginia has furnished a letter of intent that it desires to participate in the recreational development of the project in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965. The State has also provided assurances that it will: hold and save the United States free from any claims for damage which may be made or asserted as the re- sult of the storage of waters for water quality control purposes; exercise, to the full extent of its legal capability, control against removal of streamfiow made available for water quality control; and contribute to the control of pollution of streams subject to low-flow augmentation by fully enforcing its laws which require adequate treatment or other methods of controlling wastes at their sources. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $37,900,000 is an increase of $2,200,000 over the latest estimate ($35,700,000) submitted to Congress. This increase is due to price level rise. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Morris ? Mr. Morris. No questions. Mr. KiRWAN. Mr. Whitten? Mr. Whitten. No questions. Mr. KiRWAN. John, do you have any questions ? Mr. Rhodes. I have some questions, Mr. Chairman. CROSS WABASH VALLEY WATERWAY, ILL., IND., OHIO, AND MICH. On page 2, Colonel, Cross Wabash Valley Waterway, it is marked very carefully "for reconnaissance only." You are observing this limi- tation in the work? 900 Colonel GuAF. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. When do you think the reconnaissance will be com- pleted ? Colonel Graf. I would estimate, based on appropriations, 2i/^ years. JOHNSTOWN CHANNEL EXTENSION, PENNSYLVANIA IMr. Rfiodp^s. On page 7, I note there is a project called the Johns- town Channel. This is because of a very famous flood that occurred some few years ago? Colonel Graf. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Is this in addition to work already in place to prevent the flooding of the Johnstown area ? Is this a replacement of old works ? Colonel Graf. This is in addition to the existing project for the protection of upstream areas. Mr. Rhodes. Have you gone far enough yet to determine the prob- able cost of this extension ? Colonel Graf. No, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Do you have the cost or could you get and furnish for the record the cost of existing works of Johnstown constructed by the Federal Government for flood control purposes ? Colonel Graf. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. If you have any oft' the top of your head estimate of this new project, I would also like to have that for the record. Colonel (iRAF. All right, sir. (The information follows:) The John.stown, Pa., local itrotection project was completed in 1943 at a cost of $8,865,388. Flood control benefits realized since completion are estimated at $3H,n54.000. Present studies have not progressed to the point of determination of any required additional project works or the costs thereof. YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER BASIN, PA. AND MD. ]\[r. Rhodes. The Youghiogheny River Basin of Pa. and Md. is a new start ? Colonel Graf. Yes, sir. Mv. Rhodes. Due to the fact that the area to be served is very sparse- ly populated, wouldn't it be possible to postpone this until some time that we are a little more affluent as far as our budgetary outlook is concerned? Colonel Graf. I would say not, sir. In looking over my division, the Ohio River Basin, this is one of the major subbasins which we have not studied recently. We have requests from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and also from State of Maryland and from the city of Pittsburgh requesting that we review the IMonongahela and its major tributary, the Youghiogheny River for water quality control, water supply, additional flood conti-ol, and navigation. Mr. Rhodes. I notice one of the objectives was navigation. Colonel Graf. There has been some indication of interest from navigation interests requesting that consideration be given to the possibilities of slack water navigation on the Yonghiogheny. Mr. Rhodes. "WTiere would barges go up the Youghiogheny? What cities or what installations will be served ? 901 Mr. Brooke. Tliere is an authorized project, sir, many years old, as I remember. This authorized the construction of a slack water navigation project to approximately 19 miles upstream. It was never built. At the moment we do dredge in the mouth. There are some tipples in the lower part and there is a possibility of coal development uj) the river that could be brought out if there was economical means of transportation. Mr. Rhodes. Would you like to furnish a more complete answer for the record ? Colonel Graf. Yes, sir. (The information follows :) The Bureau of Mines has stated that considerable deposits are located in Westmoreland, Fayette, and Somerset Counties, Pa. The possibility of barge transportation from these areas will be considered in the study. ROWLESBURG LAKE, W. VA. Mr. Rhodes. On page 47, if indeed the Monongahela Power Co. is interested in power production at Rowlesburg Lake, what will be the diiference in Federal costs? Will there be an increased Federal cost because of the installation of power facilities there ? Colonel Graf. No, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Any addition would be borne by the Monongahela Power Co. ? Colonel Graf. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. That is all. ]Mr. Kirwan. Mr. Davis ? Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. cross WABASH VALLEY WATERWAY, ILL., IND., OHIO, AND MICH. Colonel, would you relate for us the reconnaissance study that is delineated on page 2 to the comprehensive study that is indicated on page 14? Colonel Graf. The study which is on page 14, the Wabash Compre- hensive Survey, is nearing completion. There was some consideration of navigation on the Wabash addressed in that study to navigation to Terre Haute, Ind. That information is available now to my district office which will be making the Cross Wabash Valley waterway study which is for consideration of navigation from the Ohio River to the Great Lakes including the area beyond Terre Haute to the lakes, DAYTOX. KY. ]SIr. Davis. On page 28 this appears to be a resumption of planning. Would you bring us up to date on the history of this project ? Colonel Graf. There was some planning done prior to 1952 and there was $12,000 used in 1966 in the restudy of the economics which I mentioned. This budget request is to initiate the preconstruction planning for the project based on the restudy. Mr. Da\t:s. Were there some serious questions about the economics of the project that caused the project to be on the shelf for a couple of years ? Colonel Graf. This was authorized in the 1938 Flood Control Act which authorized many such projects. Planning was previously un- 902 dertaken but suspended in 1949 when it became evident that the proj- ect would not be economical at that time. There was a flood in 1964 which caused damages of $1,418,000 in the area and revived interest in the project. Accordingly the project was restudied and found to be economical under present conditions. WEST FORK LAKE, W. VA. Mr. Davis. On page 55, West Fork Lake, we have something appar- ently similar here where some planning had been done at some previ- ous time. Then we have a suspension and now this amounts, at least funding wise, to a resumption. Give us the history of that, please. Colonel Graf. The money shown prior to June 30, 1967, was used to restudy the project, sir, to determine the present economic feasibility. Mr. Davis. The benefit -to-cost ratio appears to have turned out very favorably. Was that a result of the restudy previously made ? Colonel Graf. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. That is all. Mr. KiRWAN. All right. GRAND RIVER RESERVOIR, OHIO Colonel, please outline for the committee the plans for the reanalysis of the Grand River Reservoir as directed by the committee last year, and tell us the status of the work. Colonel Graf. Sir, an initial scheme has been completed which in- dicates that four damsites and reservoirs on the Grand River warrant further stud}^ Those sites have been designated as the Harpersfield, Eagleville, Grand River and Orwell sites. Studies have been initiated with a view to development of the preliminary cost and benefit data for these alternatives to a sufficient degree to select a plan best suited for further detailed study. It is anticipated that this preliminary selec- tion will be completed early in the summer of 196S. Cooperating agen- cies have been requested to furnish preliminary data by that time. These agencies include the State of Ohio, Bureau of Outdoor Rec- reation, the Fish and AVildlife Service, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and the Mahoning Valley Industrial Council. The selected plan will then be developed in detail with a view to coui- pletion of the report during the third quarter of fiscal year 1969. Construction stretchout and deferment program, 190 8 Mr. KiRWAN. Please outline for the committee the nature, extent, and the effects of the stretchout and deferment of the 1968 construc- tion program in the division. Colonel Graf. Sir, the stretchout has caused delays in the scheduled completion of 19 projects ranging from 4 months to about 18 months. These delays re])resent a loss of average annual benefits of about $26,000,000. Some increase in project cost may result. 903 TEMPORARY LOCK 52, OHIO RIVER Mr. KiRWAN. $6,150,000 is budgeted to complete construction of the temporary lock and dam No. 52 on the Ohio River. (T?he justification follows :) Lock am) Dam No. 52 (New Lock), Ohio River, III. axd Ky. (Continuing) Location. — Lock and dam No. 52 is on the Ohio River in Massac County, 111., and McCracken County, Ky. It is at mile 93S.9 below Pittsburgh, Pa., and is downstream from Paducah, Ky. Authorization. — 1909 River and Harbor Act (section 6). Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $8,250,000 Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Othe r costs Tola I estimated projectco$t 8,250,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968_.: 2,100,000 Allocations to date 2,100,000 25 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 6,150,000 100 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 PHYSICAL DATA Locks (temporary) : Number: 1. Size of chamber: 110 by 1200 feet. Normal lift: 12 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 22. Tj'pe: Predominantly Agricultural. Improvements: None. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction has not started. ■>{{> J" ;;:■?;■ ;^ . Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages __ 35 June 1968. Locks June 1969. Channels and canals Do. Entire project 1 Do. JUSTIFICATION Lock and dam No. .52 is scheduled to be replaced by the construction of the Mound City locks and dam now in the preconstruction planning stage. Due to the increasing congestion at lock 52 and the time required in construction of the Mound City locks and dam, construction of a temporary lock at the site of lock 52 is essen- tial for the needs of the existing and near future traffic on the Ohio River. Traffic has been growing at a rapid rate and in 1966 and 1967 approached the point where waiting time at the lock threatened to stifle the economic advantage of cargo movement on the river in this area. It is apparent that the existing structure cannot accommodate the traffic expected over the time it takes to construct the Mound City project. Delays in excess of 3 hours with a maximum delay of over 17 hours have been observed. Average annual benefits are estimated at $1,952,000, all navigation. 904 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $6,150,000 will be applied to — • Complete construction of locks $5, 687, 000 Complete dredging of channels 155, 000 Engineering and design 45, 000 Supervision and administration 263, 000 Total 6, 150, 000 The funds requested are required for completion of the urgently needed tem- porary lock in the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress ($8,250,000, Sept 1966). A price level increase of $218,000 was offset by a corresponding reduction in feature estimates based on recent gross reappraisals of lands and damages and on more detailed planning of locks cofferdam construction. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to cost June 30, estimate 1967 (2) (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages... . $6,000 Locks 7,467,000 Channels and canals.. 155,000 Engineering and design 275,000 Supervision and administration 347, 000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 8,250,000 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) _. Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 8,256,6d6 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 8,250,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations,. . . Method of financing: Allocation Unobligated carryover from prior year... Total funds available for obligation Appropriation required $6, 000 1,650,000 230, 000 84, 000 1,970,000 +10,000 1, 980, 000 $5,817,000 155,000 45, 000 263, 000 6, 280, 000 -10,000 6. 270, 000 1,980.000 + 120,000 2,100.000 2, 100, 000 6,270,000 -120,000 6,150,000 2,100,000 6.150,000 Mr. KiRWAN. This was a new start in last year's bill because of the emergency situation resulting from the (ielay of the Mound City locks and dam. For the record, please describe this temporary project and tell us the status and the plans for fiscal year 1969. Colonel Graf. The project provides for construction of a lock 110 by 1,200 feet, landward of the existing 110- by 600-foot lock. Lock and dam 52 will ultimately be replaced by Mound City locks and dam. Construction of the temporary lock at this time is essential to the needs of existing and near-future traffic on the Ohio River. Average annual benefits are estimated at $1,952,000. Contracts have been awarded for manufacture of lock gates and operating machinery. Advertisement for construction of the lock proper is scheduled for March 20, 1968, with bid opening on April 28, 1968. If acceptable bids are received, the contract will be awarded, and construction work will proceed with scheduled completion in June 1969. SALINE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS Mr. KiRWAx. $700,000 is budgeted for the Saline River and tribu- taries local protection project in Illinois. (The justification follows:) 905 Saline River and Tributaries, Illinois (Continuing) Location. — The project is located along the main stem of the Saline Riv^er and its three principal tributaries in Gallatin, Hamilton and Saline Counties in south- eastern Illinois. Saline River is formed by tlie junction of the South and Middle Forks about 5 mili^s southeast of Harrisburg and 27 miles above its confluence with the Ohio River. The main stem is then joined by the North Fork at Equality about 17 miles upstream from the Ohio River. Authorization. — -195.S and 1962 Flood Control Acts. Benefil-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost _ J7, 160, 000 Estimated no n- Federal cost 740, 000 Cash contribution Otiier - 740,000 Total estimated project cost _ _ _ 7, 900, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 420,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date _ 420.000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969,. _ _. 700, 000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 6,040,000 PHYSICAL DATA Channel enlargement. — 51.9 miles. Clearing and cleaning. — 15.4 miles. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction has not started. Channels and canals. Entire project Completion schedule June 1972 June 1972 JUSTIFICATION Extensive immdation occurs in the Saline River Basin from both headwater and backwater flooding. While protection against headwater flooding is the only feasible protection, flooding from this source has been extremely severe on the main stem and on three forks from three to 12 times each year. These floods occur almost every year during the cropping season with the greatest flood oc- curring in March 1935, at which time 43,400 acres of agricultural land were inundated. The improvement will provide essentially complete protection from a headwater flood capable of causing overflow losses independently of Ohio River backwater floods and which would have frequency such that it would be equaled or exceeded once in 2 years or less. The improvement will have a material effect in reducing the losses on areas inundated by greater floods of the same type. Two general types of tangible benefits accrue to the plan of improvement. One of these is the prevention of direct crop losses including losses in yield or income due to delayed planting or the substitution of alternative crops and the prevention of other direct rural damages such as those to farm improvements and stored crops. The other type of benefit derives from the prevention, under existing overflow conditions, of the utilization of lands for agriculture in accordance with their reasonable potentialities for that purpose. Average annual benefits are estimated at $558,600. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $496, 500 Higher land utilization 67, 300 Adverse effects — 5, 200 Total 558, 600 9C6 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $700,000 will be applied to— Continue construction of channels and canals $545, 000 Engineering and design 90, 000 Supervision and administration 65, 000 Total 700, 000 The funds requested are the minimum required for construction during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $740,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $472, 300 Highway bridge replacement 156, 700 Road relocation 81, 000 ^Miscellaneous utilities relocations 30, 000 Total 740, 000 Local interests are required to maintain the project upon completion. The aiuuial cost of maintenance is estimated at $39,000. Status of local cooperation. — -The Saline Valley Conservancy District furnished formal assurances of local cooperation on February 16, 1965, which assurances were accepted by the district engineer on March 2, 1966. By letter, dated April 27, 1964, the Division of Waterways, Department of Public Works and Buildings, State of Illinois, advised the district engineer that the 73d general assembly passed House bill 1304, which appropriated funds to the department of public works and buildings for financial participation in im- provements in the Saline River Basin. This appropriation is intended to aid the position of the Saline Valley Conservancy District. The appropriation included $475,000 for alteration of two township bridges, rights-of-way, and relocating utilities. Continuing action by the Illinois General Assembly has reappropriated these funds through fiscal year 1969. The replacement of the township bridge at mile 17.2 North Fork, a require- ment of local cooperation, has been completed by the State of Illinois. All rights-of-way, except two tracts, required for the initial channel improve- ment contract have been acquired. Condemnation of these tracts has been started and possession is expected about January 15, 1968. Acquisition of rights-of-way for remaining sections of the project is in progress. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $7,160,000 is a decrease of $2,020,000 from the latest estimate ($9,180,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes decreases of $1,796,000 for construction of the chaimel improvements based on up-to-date topographic data and current bid unit prices, in lieu of escalated survey report prices, without significant change in the work; and $247,000 for supervision and administration based on recent experience on similar projects. These decreases were partially offset by an increase of $23,000 in engineering and design for additional advance planning. Local interests are required to maintain the project upon completion. The annual cost of maintenance is estimated at $39,000. Status of local cooperation. — The Saline Valley Con.servancy District furnished formal assurances of local cooperation on February 16, 1965, which assurances were accepted bv the district eiiginccir on March 2, 1066. By letter, dated April 27, 1964, the i:)ivision of Waterways, Department of rul)iic Works and Buildings, State of Illinois, advised the district engine<>r that the 73d general assembly passed House bill 1304, which appropriated funds to the department of public works and buildings for financial participation in im- })rovenients in the Saline River Basin. This appropriation is intend(>d to aid the position of the Saline Valley Conservancy District. The appropriation included $475,000 for alteration of two township' bridges, rights-of-way, and relocating utilities. Continuing action by the Illinois General Assembly has reappropriated these funds through fiscal year 1969. The replacement of the'township bridge at mile 17.2 North Fork, a require- ment of local cooperation, has been completed by the State of Illinois. All rights-of-way, except two tracts, required for the initial channel improve- ment contract have been acquired. Condemruit ion of these tracts has been started and possession is expected about January 15, 1968. Acquisition of righta-of-way for remauiing sections of the project is in progress. 907 Comparison of Federal cost e.'ftiniatc. — The currcMt Federal cost estiinate of $7,100,000 is a decrease of $2,020,000 from the latest estimate ($9,180,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes decreases of $],79G,()00 for construc- tion of the channel improvements based on up-to-date topographic data and current bid unit prices, in lieu of escalated survey report prices, without significant change in the work; and $247,000 for supervision and administration based on recent experience on similar projects. These decreases were partially offset by an increase of $23,000 in engineering and design for adfiitional advance; plaiming. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels and canals $6,480,000 $110,000 $670,000 $5,700,000 Engineering and design __ 1355.000 $106,600 50.000 90,000 108. 40U Supervision and administration 325,000 4.500 15,000 65,000 240,500 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 7,160.000 111,100 175.000 825,000 6,048,900 Undistributed cost — construction facilities +3,900 +5,000 -8,900 Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 7,160,000 111,100 178,900 830,000 6,040,000 Pending adjustments . Total cost (Federal funds only) 7,160,000 111,100 178,900 830,000 6,040,000 Undelivered orders +130,000 -130,000 Total obligations.. 111,100 308,900 700,000 6,040,000 Method of financing: Allocation 420,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 308,900 Total funds available for obligation. 308,900 Appropriations required 700,000 6,040,00» > Includes $2,000 for real estate activities to assure compliance by local interests in the provision of local cooperation. Mr. KiRWAN. This was a new start in the 1967 bill and yet has now been deferred for the initiation of the construction until fiscal year 1969. What is the cause of the long delay in deferment on this project ? Colonel Graf. Sir, we have had a delay in the local interest com- pleting the rights-of-way acquisition on the initial contract. BID EXPERIENCE Mr. KiRWAN. I am glad to note on many of the projects in the divi- sion that you are showing decreased costs since last year, primarily due to low-bid experience. Would you care to comment on current experience in the division in this regard ? Colonel Graf. Sir, looking at the overall experience of the Ohio River division and investigating some 93 contract bids which were received for civil works const miction, we found that of these bids slightly over 47 percent were below^ the Government estimate and slightly less than 53 percent were above the Government estimate. It appears to us that this bidding experience with some higher and some lower than the Government estimate is about normal. ISLAXD LEVEE, INDIANA AND ILLINOIS Mr. KiRWAN. $200,000 is requested for construction on the Island T^evee local protection project on the Wabash River. (The justification follows:) 908 Island Levee, Wabash River, Ind. & III. (Continuing) Location. — The island levee project is located in Sullivan County, Ind., and Crawford County, 111., on the left bank of the Wabash River between river miles 170 and 178 above its confluence with the Ohio River. This location is in west central Indiana and east central Illinois. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1946. Benefit-cost ratio.— 1.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost. ._ Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution _. Other Total estimated project cost.. _ __. Allocations to Ju ne 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968_ Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... Jl, 540,000 103,000 103,000 1.643,000 98,000 5,000 103,000 7 200, 000 20 1,237,000 PHYSICAL DATA Earth levee: 9.3 miles. Drainage structures: 6. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction has not started. Completion schedule Levee December 1970. Entire project Do. JUSTIFICATION The project, when completed, will protect 5,260 acres of good agricultural land, of which 90 percent is under cultivation. The area is now protected by a levee, privately built in 1907. The existing levee has been partially destroyed or seriously damaged many times. Since 1943, the Federal Government has repaired the exist- ing levee three times at an approximate cost of $138,000. The damages to the ex- isting levee have been largely due to inadequate height and section. Under average conditions, floodwaters annually stand over the area for an average period of about 6 days. Recent damaging floods occurred in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967. Average annual benefits are estimated at $93,000, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $200,000 will be applied to — Initiate construction of levee $162, 000 Engineering and design 25, 000 Supervision and administration 13, 000 Total 200,000 The fvmds requested are required to initiate construction during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment recniired of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $103,000, broken down as follows — Lands and damages $85,000 Relocations, roads, and utilities 18, 000 Total 103,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon com- pletion. The annual cost of operation and maintenance is estimated at $5,000. Status of local cooperation. — Tlie Island Levee Association will be the cooperating agency for this project. Formal assurnnces have not yet been requested. The 909 association provided assurances of local cooperation for repairs to the existing levee in 1943, 1950, and 195S, and in May 19G.'} expressed interest in construction of tlie project. Subsequently, in August 1964, association representatives expressed willingness to fulfill requirements of local cooperation, but indicated that the association would be financially unable to bear the cost of raising State Highway 154 where it would be exposed to more frequent flooding as the result of the substantial setback and degrading the existing levee in tlie southwest part of the project. The Indiana State Highway Commission, in February 1965, withdrew its requirement for raising the exposed length of Highway 154 and objection to the project, which action makes it possible for the levee association to finance its share of the project costs. It is expected that formal assurances will be requested and furnished when detailed plans, showing right-of-way requirements for the project, are sent to the association. It is also expected that the association will be able to acquire the necessary right-of-way about February 1969. Legislation has been enacted by the States of Indiana and Illinois providing authority for designated State agencies to maintain the floodway free from obstructions. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,540,000 is an increase of $70,000 over the latest estimate ($1,470,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes an increase of $79,000 for higher price levels offset, in part, by a decrease of $9,000 in supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) $1,316,000 .. 1 129, 000 95, 000 1,540,000 $160,000 26,000 13,000 199, 000 +2, 000 201,000 $1,156 000 ngineering and design $90,900 5,600 96, 500 $4. 900 600 5,500 7,200 75,800 Total applied cost (Federal funds only),. Undistributed cost, construction 1,239,000 -2,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 1,540,000 96,500 5,500 1,237,000 Total cost (Federal funds only) . 1,540,000 96, 500 +100 96,600 98,000 5,500 -100 . 5,400 5,000 . 1,400 6,400 . 201,000 26i,"6o6" 1,237,000 Undelivered orders i,'237,060 Method of financing: Unobligated carryover from prior 1,000 . Appropriations required 200, 000 1,237,000 I Includes $1,000 for real estate activities to assure compliance by local interests in tlie provision of local cooperation Mr. KiRWAN. This was a new start added to the bill last year by the Senate which has now been deferred until fiscal year 1969. Please describe this project and tell us the status. Colonel Graf. The project will consist of approximately 9.3 miles of levee and appurtenances along the left bank of the Wabash River. The project will protect about 5,260 acres of agricultural land against a flood expected to occur on the average of seven times in each 100- year period. The average annual benefits are $93,000. Planning is continuing and it is anticipated that a contract will be awarded in the spring of 1969. PATOKA RESERVOIR, IND. INIr. KiRWAN. $900,000 is budgeted to continue land acquisition on the Patoka Reservoir in Indiana. (The justification follows :) 910 Patoka Reservoir, Ind. (Continuing land acquisition) Location. — The dam site for the Patoka Reservoir will be located on Patoka River about 118.3 miles above its confluence with the Wabash River, which location is about 0.7 mile northeast of Ellsworth in Dubois County, Ind. The reservoir area lies in Dubois, Orange and Crawford Counties, Ind. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost '$18,100,000 Estimated non- Federal cost 6. 172, 000 Cash contribution 6,172,000 Water supply - -.. 4,745,000 General and fish and wildlife recreation 1,427,000 _ _ Other__ . .- Total estimated projectcost ._. 24,272,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 380,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 237,000 Allocations to date 617.000 3 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 900,000 8 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 _ 16, 583,000 __ 1 Initial total project cost only. Estimated cost to include ultimate recreational development is $20,293,000. The fiscal year 1969 budget provides for continuation of land acquisition and engineering and design only. PHYSICAL DATA Dam : Tvpe: Earth and rock fill. Height: 89 feet. Length: 2,500 feet. Reservoir capacity: ..,■ ....j Acre-feet Total storage ___^.__ 324. 800 Minimum operational pool 13, 200 Conservation pool 167, 500 Flood control pool 144, 100 Spillway : Tvpe: Open cut through right abutment. Base width: 400 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 21,900. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Relocations: Roads: 13.6 miles $5,871,000. Cemeteries, utilities, and structures: $217,000. Outlet works: Type: Gate-controlled. 3 — 3.75- by 7.25-foot service gates. 1 — 3.75- by 7.25-foot emergency gate. Dimension: 9-foot-diameter conduit. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction has not started. Completion schedule: Lands December 1971. Other features of project not currently scheduled. JUSTIFICATION The project, when completed, will control u'drainage area of 168 square miles on the Patoka l\iver which is about 19.4 percent of the Patoka River Basin or 0.5 percent of the entire Wabash River drainage area. The project, in combination with the other 10 presently authorized reservoirs in the Wabash Basin, live of which are completed, one of wliich is under construction and four^of which are in^pre- 911 construction planning phase, will aid in the red\iction of flood flows along the Wa- bash River and, to a lesser degree, to the reduction of major flood flows along the Ohio River below the Wabash River. Flood flows arising in the Patoka River Basin contril)ut(' to flood damages in the downstream flood plain of the Wabash l^iver. Flood damages along the Wabash River are partially reduced by the operation of comj)leted projects and will be further reduced upon completion of the one Upper Wabash Reservoir and of local protection projects now imder construction. How- ever, recurrence of major floods will continue to cause widespread damages in the Wabash River Basin. The values of all properties along the reaches of the Patoka and Wabash Rivers below the proposed dam, excluding the property protected by the IMount Carmel, 111., local protection project now under construction, are estimated at about $29.6 million and $78.2 million, respectively (1967 values). The record flood of 1913 caused damages amounting to about $1,489,000 in the reaches of the Patoka and Wabash Rivers aff'ected by this project, excluding Mount Carmel. A recurrence of this flood under present conditions of development and values would cause damages estimated at $7,900,000 (1967 values) of which $893,- 000 would be prevented by this project. In addition, the project would provide storage for low-flow augmentation in the interest of water qiiality control and water supply and for general and tish and wildlife recreational opportunities. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $2,421,000. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $608, 000 Water supply 412, 000 Water quality control 260, 000 Recreation: General 1,011, 000 Fish and wildlife 130, 000' Total 2, 421, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $900,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $719, 600 Engineering and design 119, 000 Supervision and administration 61, 400 Total 900, 000 These funds, plus payment from the State of Indiana, are required for continua- tion of land acquisition and engineering and design during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — Prior to construction, local interests are required to furnish assurances that they will: administer project land and water areas for recreatioa and fish and wildlife enhancement; pay, contribute in kind, or repay (which may be through user fees) with interest, one-half of the separable cost of the project allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement, currently estimated at $1,427,000 (1967 values); bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replace- ment of recreation and fish and wildlife land and facilities, currently estimated at $263,000; reimburse the allocated construction and annual operation and maintenance costs allocated to water supply storage, currently estimated at $4,745,000 (1967 values); prevent channel encroachments tending to reduce present channel capacities; hold and save the United States free from water- rights claims resulting from construction and operation of the reservoir; exercise, to the full extent of their legal capability, control against removal of streamflow made available by reservoir storage for water quality control purposes; and con- tribute to the control of pollution of the streams subject to low-flow augmentation by adequate treatment or other methods of controlling wastes at their source. The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: Cash contribution — water supply $4, 745, 000 Cash contribution — general and fish and wildlife recreation 1, 427, 000 Total 6, 172, 000 The annual cost to local interests of maintenance, operation and replacement of lands and facilities for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement is $263,000. Status of local cooperation. — The State of Indiana will be the responsible cooperat- ing agency for all assurances. 91^59 — 68— pt. 1 58 912 Formal assurances have not yet been requested pending completion of more advanced engineering and design studies. Present laws of the State of Indiana require that agency to make cash contribu- tions during construction of the project for water supply storage and for recrea- tion and fish and wildlife enhancement land and facilities. The Indiana General Assembly, in the 1967 session, enacted a law authorizing a total of $700,000 toward construction of the project through fiscal year 1969, compared with an estimated requirement of $484,600 for the same period. It is expected that the State will make payments as required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $18,100,000 is an increase of $1,100,000 over the latest estimate ($17,000,000) submitted to Congress. This change is an increase of $1,141,000 for higher price levels, partially offset by a decrease of $41,000 in supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages $3, 797, 000 6,088,000 - 1,000,000 . 8,448.000 . 238,000 .. 112,000 .. 1,918,000 . 114,000 .. 83,000 - 1,241,000 1,233.000 24,272,000 $1,300 550, 000 $1,245,000 $2, 500, 700 Relocations . _ .... 6, 088, 000 1,000.000 Dam 8, 448, 000 Fi>h and wildiife facilities 238, 000 Roads (access) Recreation facilities _ ._ _^ _. 112,000 1,918,000 Buildings, grounds and utilities 114,000 Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contribution) Undistributed cost, construction facilities _^ 252." iOO"" 12,300 265, 700 175,660'" 26, 300 251,300 i66,"666' 79,600 1,484,600 83. 000 653.900 1.114,800 22, 270, 400 Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contribution) Pending adjustments.. _ 24, 272, 000 265,700 251,300 1,484,600 22,270,400 Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contribution) Undelivered orders 24, 272, 000 18,100,000 265,700 -f 3, 600 269, 300 265,700 251.300 -3,600 . 247, 700 251, 300 1,484,600 22,270,400 Total obligations (Federal funds and non- Federal contribution) Federal funds; Total applied cost .. 1,484,600 1, 000, 000 22.270.400 16, 583, 000 Undistributed cost, construction facilities- , ... Total project cost Pending adjustments.. 18,100,000 265, 700 251,300 1,000,000 16,583,000 Total cost Undelivered orders 18,100,000 265,700 -1-3,600 269, 300 251,300 -3,600 . 247,700 1,000,000 16,583,000 Total obligations.. Non-Federal contribution: Total applied cost 6,172,000 . 1,000,000 484, 600 16, 583, 000 5,687,400 Undistributed cost, construction Total project cost 6,172,000 . 484, 600 5,687,400 Pending adjustments Total cost . .. 6,172,000 . 484,600 5,687,400 Undelivered orders Total obligations. 484, 600 100.000 5, 687, 400 Metfiod of financing: Federal funds: Allocation Unobligated carryover from pr year... Total funds available for obliga- tion ior 380,000 237,000 . 110,700 347,700 . Appropriations required Non-Federal contribution: Contribution 900, 000 16, 583, 000 Unobligated carryover from prior year.. Total funds available for obliga- tion . . Contribution required ■ 484,600 5.687,400 > Includes $116,200 reimbursement from State of Indiana for joint use facilities and recreation facilities costs prior to June 30, 1968. 913 Mr. KiRWAX. This was a new land acquisition start in last year's bill. AVliat is the status of the land acquisition? Colonel Graf. We have not started the actual land acquisition, sir. POLICY or ADVANCE LAND ACQUISITION Mr, KiRWAN. What is the local situation prevailing in regard to the land prices and the desire of the landowners to sell in advance of actual construction? Colonel Graf. There is no known criticism at this time of the project bv the all'ected landowners. Mr. KiRWAN. What pattern do you plan to follow in the selection of the parcels to be acquired ? Colonel Graf. The normal pattern, sir; that is buying the land necessary for the damsite and the first phases of construction of the project and then working on up the reservoir. Mr. KiRWAN. Do you anticipate any difficulties in obtaining the necessary local cooperation? Colonel Graf. No, sir. CAVE RUN reservoir, KT. ]\Ir. KiRWAN. $3,100,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Cave Run Reservoir in Kentucky. (The justification follows:) Cave Run Reservoir, Licking River, Ky. (Continuing) Location. — The damsite for the Cave Run Reservoir is located on Licking River, approximately 3 miles above Farmers in Bath County, Ky., and about 173 miles above the mouth of Licking River. The reservoir lies in Rowan, Bath, Morgan, and Menifee Counties, Ky. Authorization. — 1936 and 1938 Flood Control Acts and Federal Water Pollu- tion Control Act Amendments of 1961. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 .... Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost $30, 600, 000 30, 600, 000 5, 244, 000 3.050,000 8, 294, 000 4. 000, 000 18,306,000 27 40 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earth and rock fill. Height: 140 feet. Length: 2,700 feet. Spillway : Type: Open cut through left abutment. Width: 280 feet. Percent complete Completion schedule 40 December 1970. 1 June 1971. 3 December 1970. 23 June 1971. 25 Do. Do. 1 December 1970. 41 Do. 19 June 1971. 914 Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage 614, 100 Minimum operatiomil pool 147, 300 Water quality control 28, 300 Seasonal pool 47, 000 Flood control: Summer 39 1 , 500 Winter 438, 500 Outlet works: Type: Gate controlled, two service gates, 6.75 by 15 feet; two emergency gates, 6.75 by 15 feet. Dimension: 15 feet diameter conduit. Lands and damages: Acres: 40,000. Type: Predominantly agricultiu-e. Improvements: Typical farm and residential imits. Relocations: Roads: 41.8 miles, $8,947,000. Cemeteries and utilities: $1,042,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Lands and damages _-_ - Relocations - Reservoir... - Dam _-_ - Roads (access) Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities _ Permanent operating equipment... Entire project - JUSTIFICATION The project, when completed, will control a drainage area of approximately 826 square miles and will function as a unit of the approved general comprehensive plan for flood control and allied purposes in the Ohio River Basin. The project will be part of a plan to provide flood protection for the Licking River ^'alley, and will contriV^ute to reduction of flood damages along a 510 mile reach of the Ohio River below the mouth of Licking River. The record flood of 1937 caused damages amounting to $13,452,000 in the reaches of the Licking and Ohio Rivers (Licking River to Miami River) affected by this reservoir. A recurrence of this flood tmder present conditions of development and values would cause damages esti- mated at $61,800,000 (1967 values) of which $1,760,000 (1967 values) would be prevented by this project. The project will also provide water quality control and a seasonal pool will provide general and hsh and wildlife recreation benelits. Average annual benefits are estimated at $2,328,800. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $1, 492, 700 Water quahty control 200, 100 Recreation and fish and wildlife 636, 000 Total - 2, 328, 800 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,000,000 will be applied to — Continue lands and damages --- $1, 200, 000 Continue relocations - - 1. 692, 000 Continue boundary line marking (reservoir) 5, 000 Continue construction of dam 608, 000 Continue access roads -- 10, 000 Initiate buildings, grounds and utilities 20, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 10, 000 Engineering and design 190, 000 Supervision and administration 265, 000 Total - - 4,000,000 915 The funds roquostod are required for construction during the budget year. Status of local cooperation.— None required. . t. ^ i * f ^„f^ «f Comparison of Federal cost estimate.-The current Federal cost estimate of $30,()()0,000 is an increase of $1,700,000 over the latest /«\i"^ate ($28,900,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $1,159,000 for higher price levels; $1,2:-J 1,000 for lands and damages based on a recent gross reappraisal which reflects current laud values and acquisition of 19,200 additional acres; $66 000 for relocation of pipelines based on replacing about 1 1 miles of pipelines instead of reconditioning the existing pipelines; $18,000 for additional relocations of electrical distribution facilities based on preliminary negotiations with the owners; $43,000 for relocation of West Liberty sewage plant to cover new service road to the plant and operation and maintenance of the leveed area; and $loUUU for additional boundary line marking. These increases were partially offset by net decreases of $-118,000 for relocation of gas pipeline facilities due to aba,ndon- ment by the company; $312,000 for reduced relocations of electrical and tele- phone facilities, all based on preliminary negotiations with the owners; ana $100,000 for reduction in contingency allowance on contract for outlet works. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to June 30 fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 '''"^f^g^g''' Item cost estima (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) p-— :::::::::::::::::: 'k^Z -°I?:S "■iM W^ ';:|E Recreation facilities 2, 310, 000 - . - - "nn'mn' ' nn i nn Buildings, grounds, and utilities. 252,000 1,900 - 20,000 230,1UU Perman'ent^perating equipment 104 9 . ,0 2 00 u^p=n^^"d^SistrVtio^::::::::: I'MiZ ^ 2 ; : 265:000 746, 4oo Total applied cost (Federal funds only)--. 30,600.000 4,993,100 2,254,700 5,025,000 18,32/,ZUU Undistributed cost, construction ^ ^^^ ^^ 9OO +10.000 -21,200 Total projectTost (Federal funds only)::"-" ^ 5,00^400 2,257;600 5,035,000 18,306,000 Totar^'(PSSoniy):::::::::-""3o:6oo:ooo----"5:ooi:4oo"----2:25A^ TotaKS""""::::::::::::::::::::::::---:: Am 2;ii:9§§ -""-5:o35:ooo--i8:306:ooo Method of financing: „ „„„ Allocations 5,244,000 3,050,000 Unobligated carryover from prior 143,900 1,035,000 Total funds available for obligation - -- - 3,193,900 rnnn'nnn ia'^nfi'ooo Appropriations required - - — 4,0UU,uuu i8,dUD,uuu Mr. KiRWAN. There has been an increase of $1,231,000 since last year for lands, including the cost of acquiring 19,200 additional acres. Why is it necessary to almost double the acreage requirements on this project since last year ? Colonel GR.VF. Sir, previous appraisals and acreage estimat^es were ba.sed on U.S.G.S. maps, aerial photographs when available and county maps that did not fully delineate all the private ownership within the boundaries of the Daniel Boone National Forest. These private ownerships are generally along the stream valleys and include large acreages of steep hill land. It is necessary to acquire this addi- tional acreage in most cases due to the loss of access. RED RR'ER RESERVOIR, KY. Mr. KiRWAN. $800,000 is budgeted for the Red River Reservoir in Kentucky. 916 (The justification follows :) Red River Reservoir, Kentucky River, Ky. (Continuing) Location. — The dam site for the Red River Reservoir is located on Red River, about 47.5 miles upstream from its confluence with the Kentucky River, which location is about 3 miles north of Slade in Powell County, Ky. The reservoir area lies in Menifee, Powell, and Wolfe Counties. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution _ Other. _.. _ Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $11,700,000 11,700,000 581,000 581,000 5 800, 000 12 18,319,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Tvpo: Earth and rock fill. Height: 162 feet. Length: 900 feet. Reservoir capacity : Aen-feet Total storage 176, 200 Flood control pool 153, 200 Minimum pool 23, 000 Spillway : Tvpe: Open cut through loft abutment. Width: 200 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 3,S00. Type: Predominantly agriculture. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Outlet Works: Type: Gate controlled, 3; service gate 5 x 9.5 feet. Dimension: 12 feet semielliptical conduit. Relocations: Roads: 10.3 miles, $2,051,000. Cemeteries and utilitj' lines, .$43,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percentage complete Completion schedule Lands Relocations Reservoir Dam . Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities.. Permanent operating equipment. Entire project 7 June 1970. September 1971 U October 1971. June 1972. Do September 1971, u June 1972. 3 Do. 917 JUSTIFICATION The project, when completed, will control a drainage area of 219 square miles which is 45 percent of the drainage area of the Red River and about 4 percent of the drainage area above the damage point of Frankfort. The project will function as a unit of the general comprehensive plan for flood control and allied purposes in the Ohio River Basin and would provide substantial reduction in flood damages along about 48 miles of Red River below the dam and the reach of the main stem of the Kentucky River between Miles 42 and 192 and would, along with other reservoirs in the system, contribute to a reduction of flood flows along the Ohio River below the mouth of the Kentucky River. The city of Frankfort is situated within the affected reach of the Kentucky River at approximate Mile 67 and has a population of 18,400. The July 1938 flood (maxi- mum of record) on Red River was limited to the tributary stream and had little- effect on the main stem of the Kentucky River. Operation of the dam during this flood would have reduced the crest of the Red River at Clay City (Mile 22) by 5.4 feet. The 1957 flood was the most damaging flood of record for the entire Kentucky River Basin, causing damages evaluated at $15,268,000 at that time and resulting in six lives lost. The most damaging flood for reaches of the Red and Kentucky Rivers affected by the Red River Reservoir occurred in March; 1962 and caused damages estimated at $4,521,000. A recurrence of this flood under current conditions of development would cause damages of about $5,551,000 (1967 values), of which about $1,696,000 (1967 values) would be prevented by the project. Other damaging floods along reaches of the Red and Kentucky Rivers, affected by the project, occurred in March and May 1967; February, May, and December 1966; March and April 1965; March 1964, and March 1963. The March 1964 major flood caused damages along the said reaches estimated at about $3,289,000 at that time. A recurrence of this flood under present con- ditions of development and values would cause damages of about $3,748,000 of which $1,411,000 would be prevented by the project. A conservation pool will provide recreation and fish and wildlife benefits. Average annual benefits are estimated at $1,001,400. Breakdown of benefits : Amount Flood control $905,700 Recreation and fish and wildlife 95, 700 Total 1, 001, 400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $800,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $233, 000 Initiate boundary line marking (reservoir) 15, 000 Initiate construction of dam 385, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 4, 000 Engineering and design 115, 000 Supervision and administration 48, 000 Total 800, 000 The funds requested are required for construction during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — There are no requirements for non-Federal costs on this project. However, under the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, the Commonwealth of Kentucky requested inclusion in the project of sufficient storage to provide 115 cubic feet per second for future municipal and industrial water supply uses. Consideration of this request is currently underway. Based on an allocation of 25,700 acre-feet for water supply storage, the Common- wealth of Kentucky would be required to assume the separable construction costs allocated to water supply facilities, which construction cost is tentatively esti- mated at about $1,580,000, plus $99,000 for interest during construction and the estimated amount of about $9,000 annually for the cost of operation, maintenance, and major capital replacements required for the water supply facilities. These local interest costs could be paid in lump sum prior to start of construction, in annual payments during construction, or in equal annual payments with interest over a period not to exceed 50 years, beginning with use. The Commonwealth has tenta- tively indicated that payment will be made in annual installments after con- struction. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests are required to agree to prevent encroachments on the flow carrying capacities of stream channels below the reservoir to the extent needed to provide reasonably effective reservoir operation. 918 By letter, dated June 23, 1964, the director. Division of Flood Control and Water Usage, Department of Conservation, Commonwealth of Kentucky, furnished assurances that the said agency had authority and would prevent encroachments as required for the Carr Forii, Eagle Creek, and Red River Reservoir projects, which assurances were accepted by the District Engineer on July 22, 1965. The Commonwealth of Kentucky General Assembly, regular session 1966, house bill No. 260, established The Water Resources Authority of Kentucky, effective June 16, 1966. This legislation authorized and empowered the authority to contract with the Federal Government for the inclusion of additional water supply storage space behind existing or proposed flood control or other projects. By letter, dated September 23, 1966, the Water Resources Authority of Kentucky requested that storage be provided in the project for future municipal and/or industrial water supply under the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Negotiations with this State agency for entering into a contract for payment for the requested water supply storage have been initiated. It is antic- ipated that a contract for the water supply storage will be consummated about June 1968. Comparison of Federal costs estimate. — ^The current Federal cost estimate of $11,700,000 is an increase of $600,000 over the latest estimate ($11,100,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $617,000 for higher price levels, partially offset by a decrease of $17,000 in supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages Relocations. $516,000 2,094,000 _. 418,000 .. 6.617,000 _. 430,000 .. 198,000 _ 87.000 . 727,000 613,000 11,700,000 $24, 100 $89, 500 500 . $233, 000 15,000" 390, 000 $169,400 2, 093, 500 ■Reservoir _. 403, 000 Dan 6,227,000 Recreation facilities 430, 000 Buildings, grounds and utilities 198, 000 Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design. _ Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only). _ . Undistributed cost, construction facilities.. . . . ... '298,100 " 17,200 339,400 4,000 100.000 12,600 205,600 4,000 140,000 48, 000 830, 000 +5,000 835, 000 79, 000 188. 900 535. 200 10.324,000 -5,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments 11,700,000 339, 400 206,600 10,319.000 Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders 11,700,000 339, 400 +8. 600 348, 000 581,000 206, 030 -8,600 198, 000 233,000 233,000 835, 000 835,000" 35,000' 800,030' 10,319.000 Total obligations 10,319,000 T/lethod of financing: Allocation . . . . .. Unobligated carryover from prior year- Total fijnds available for obligation Appropriations required 'l0,'319,066 Mr. KiRWAN. There has been opposition to this project from the conservationists on the basis that the reservoir Avould inundate a scenic <2:orc:e. Plea.se describe this problem and tell ns the status. Colonel GiJ.vF. General "Woodbury has a statement on that. HISTORY OF PROJECT General WooniiURV. The Red River Reservoir in Kentucky was au- tlu)iized by the 10()2 Flood Control Act. It is located on the North Fork of the Red River in Powell, "Wolfe and Menifee Counties in Ken- tuck3\ You saw some photogra|)hs. Funds for preconstruction plan- nin<^ of this project were first appropriated in fiscal year 1964 and continued in fiscal years 1965 and 1966. Funds for the initiation of construction were appropriated in fiscal years 1967 and 1968. 919 WORK TO BE ACCJOMPUSHED IN FISCAL YEAR 1»()9 The President's budget for 1969 includes tlie amount of $800,000 for the continuation of construction. Acquisition of project lands at the upper damsite has begun, but actual physical construction has been delayed due to budgetary restrictions on expenditures of appro- priated funds and due to the lack of completion of planning necessary to initiate construction. REVIEW OF PROJECT During the preconstruction planning for the Red River Reservoir, it was necessary to review the scope and features of the authorized project to determine if the project properly reflected the total water resource needs that might be served and give consideration to current legislation and to the requirements of S. Doc. 97, adopted since proj- ect authorization. As a result of this review, consideration was given to modifying the authorized project to include storage in the reservoir to meet mu- nicipal and industrial water supply needs at Lexington and other Kentucky blue grass areas and for improving the quality of the water in the Kentucky River by augmenting low flows. REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY CONTROL AND WATER SUPPLY STORAGE The requirements for storage for water quality control were de- termined by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in accordance with the Water Pollution Control Act of 1961 as modified. The requirements for storage of the municipal and industrial water supply were determined in response to a request of the Kentucky Water Resources Authority, the responsible agency for the State of ICentucky, and have been closely coordinated with that agency. Inclusion of the storage for water supply into the project was investigated in accord- ance with the Water Supply Act of 1958 as amended. This act requires that non-Federal interests must be responsible for the costs of storage provided in federally constructed reservoirs for water supph'. In view of the indicated requirements for both water quality con- trol and water supply storage in the Kentucky River and with legisla- tion authorized to modify the project to include these functions, storage for water quality control and water supply are being considered as project purposes and will be reported to this committee and to the other committees in accordance with the Water Pollution Control Act of 1961, as amended. OPPOSITION TO PROJECT Opposition to the Red River project was developed in the last several months, particularly since July of 1967. In August of 1967, a public meeting was held in Stanton, Ky., primarily for the purpose of inform- ing the landowners who would be affected by the project of the real estate acquisition procedures and tentative schedules of acquisition. 920 At tliis meeting the first formal opposition to the project was ex- pressed. Major ureas of concern that have been expressed over con- struction of the Ked River reservoir pertain to disturbing the natural or native state of the geology, ecology, and biota of the area. Particular concern has been expressed over the project's eU'ect on natural arches and other geologic features, fish and wildlife, white water, educational value, and wilderness setting. STUDY OF ALTERNA'n\'ES TO PRESENTLY PLANNED DAM In view of the concern expressed by some individuals and organiza- tions of the effects the reservoir may have on the Red River Gorge, and in response to a request from the Secretary of Interior, a study was made by the Chief of Engineers to examine various alternatives to the presently planned dam and their effects to determine whether or not a further detailed study was warranted. In the conduct of this study, assistance was provided by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, and other agencies of the Department of Interior and by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture. The study gave consideration to the interrelationship of the eco- nomics, social, aesthetic, ecologic, and environmental aspects of the project. The Chief of Engineers has concluded that it is preferable to proceed with tlie construction of the multiple-purpose reservoir proj- ect at the upper site as now planned. In commenting on this report, the Department of Agriculture has concurred in the desirability of proceeding with construction at the upper site. The Department of Interior, while stating that it might liave been better to construct the dam at tlie lower site, or to build no dam at all. if certain points had been considered when the project was first under study. Secretary Udall now considers the project as so far along that the Administration and the Congress may desire to pro- ceed with the construction as planned. In view of the positions of general concurrence with the conclusions of the Chief of Engineers, we will proceed with the construction of the project as rapidly as the funding situation permits. Mr. KiRWAN. I agree with the conclusions of tlie Corps of Engineers. You shouhl go ahead with the project as originally proposed. General Woodbi^ry. Thank you, ]Mr. Chairman. AH'M CREEK RESERVOIR. OHIO Mr. KiRWAN. $.500,000 is budgeted to continue the land acquisition on tlie Alum Creek Reservoir project in Ohio. (The justification follows:) ALxar Creek Reservoir, Ohio (Continuing land acquisition) Location. — Project is located in Delaware County, Ohio, on Alum Creek of Big Walnut Creek, a tributary of the Scioto River." The dam would be located 26 miles above moutli of Alum Creek. Authorization. — 19()2 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.7 to 1. 921 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement.. -- ' $34,700,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 16,405,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate)- 18,295,000 Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimhursement: Water supply 16,405,000 Total estimated project cost. .- 34,700,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 520,000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 700,000 Allocations to date 1,220,000 4 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 500,000 5 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... .- 32,980,000 I Total project cost. The fiscal year 1969 budget provides for continuation of land acquisition and engineering and design only. PT^YSIC.\L T>.\T\ Dam: Type: Rolled earthfill. Height: 90 feet (streambed) . Length: 10,200 feet. Spillway: Type: Gate controlled — concrete gravity in right abutment adjacent to stream with integrated outlet works composed of: one 48-inch diameter pipe for water supply and one 5- bv 4-foot sluice for low flow. Length: US feet. Gates: Three, 34- by 25-foot tainter gates. Design discharge: 110,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage 134, 800 Operational and incidental recreation 2,500 Water supply: Winter __-^_ 69,500 Summer _JJ11:' 79, 200 Flood control: Winter 62, SOO Summer 53, 100 Lands and damages: Acres: 11,263. Type: Small farms, farm buildings and residential. Relocations: Roads: 10.1 miles, $6,230,000. Cemeteries, utilities, and structures, $1,430,000. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: Lands, June 1972. Other features of project not currently scheduled. JUSTIFICATION The project is one of seven reservoirs authorized for construction in the Scioto Basin and would serve as a unit of the general plan for flood control and allied purposes for the Ohio River Basin. Along with the other authorized reservoirs, including the completed Delaware Reservoir, the Alum Creek project would help alleviate flood hazards along the Scioto River. The project would provide a high degree of protection to the thickly populated and heavily industrialized East Side of Columbus along Alum Creek. This area suffered damages in excess of $3,000,000 during the January 1959 flood, the maximum of record. The project as a unit in the comprehensive plan for the Ohio River Basin, would also reduce flood flows on the main stem of the Ohio River. In addition to flood control, the operation pool would be used for recreation and fish and wildlife and water supply. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $4,415,600. 922 Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $2, 739, 800 Recreation 804, 000 Fish and wildlife 70, 000 Water supply 801, 800 Total 4,415, 600 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested $500,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land $205, 000 Continue relocation planning (lands) 5, 000 Engineering and design 250, 000 Supervision and administration 40, 000 Total 500, 000 The requested funds will permit progress on land acquisition and engineering for the project. Non-Federal costs. — The Authorization Act requires non-Federal financing of all project costs allocated to the water supply features of the project. Local interests are to reimburse the Government an estimated $16,405,000, exclusive of interest. Reimbursement may extend over a period of 50 years, starting after storage is initiated. Local interests will be required to share in costs of any future recreation. In addition, local interests will be required to pay for operation and maintenance of the water supply facilities, estimated at $25,100 annually. Stahis of local cooperation. — Contract, between State of Ohio and the Govern- ment, accepted by Director of the Department of Natural Resources. Ohio River Division and Chief of Engineers now reviewing for approval. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $34,700,000 is an increase of $5,600,000 over the latest estimate ($29,100,000) submitted to Congress. Increase is due to: $1,320,000 for price level rise; $3,820,- 000 in lands and damages based on increased acreage requirements; $4,170,000 for relocations due primarily to new State requirements and increased facility development in the area; $290,000 for reservoir clearing based on new unit prices; $120,000 for access road for addition of parking area; $1,055,000 for recreation facilities based on current criteria and increased requirements; and $125,000 for buildings, grounds, and utilities due to expanded operating requirements. These increases were partially offset by a $5,300,000 decrease in the dam due to redesign of the structure. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages $10,600,000 7, 660, 000 625, 000 9, 740, 000 210, 000 2.670,000 220,000 85, 000 1,600,000 1,290,000 34, 700, 000 Relocations Reservoir Dam. - - Roads (access) Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design.. Supervision and administration Total applied costs (Federal funds only) Undistributed costs Total project costs (Federal funds only) Pending adjustments . . . Total costs (Federal funds only) 34,700,000 Undelivered orders. Total obligations.. Mettiod of fmancing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations Appropriation required 34, 700, 000 $43, 200 1,300 383, 800 23.100 451,400 451,400 451,400 22.600 474, 000 520,000 $491,800 3,700 5,000 236. 200 31,900 768, 600 " 768,600 768,600 -22.600 746, 000 700, 000 46, 000 746, 000 $205, 000 $9, 860, 000- 5,000 250, 000 40, 000 500, 000 7,650,000 620, 000 9, 740, 000 210,000 2, 670. 000 220, 000 85, 000 730, 000 1,195,000 32, 980, 00» 500, 000 32, 980, 000 500,000 """32,980.000 500,000 32,980,000 500,000 32,980,000 923 REASSESSMENT OF REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS Mr. KiiavAX. Last year the Senate committee in its report directed, to keep land accjuisition to a minimum, that tlie corps reassess the real estate requirements on this project with and without recreational fea- tures and report its tindin<>s back during the hearings on the 19(39 bill. We will insert in the record at this point a copy of the letter received by the committee from General Woodbury, together witli an excerpt from the subject report. Department of the Army, Office op the Chief of Engineers, WashingPon, D.C., March 6, 1968. Hdu. George H. Mahon, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, B.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : This is in response to the Senate Appropriation Com- mittees' request for reassessment of the recreational real estate requirements for the Alum Creek Reservoir project, Alum Creek, Ohio, as contained in Senate Committee Report Xo. 574, Public Works and Atomic Energy Commission appro- priation bill, 1968. Four alternative recreation schemes for the project have been developed. These are covered in the inclosed report. Findings in the report include the following data. Scheme A Scheme B Scheme C Scheme D Proposed land purchase specifically for recreation (acres). 2,400 1,770 lO ($2, 450, 000) ($1 . 770, 000) Estimated annual recreation attendance 1,068,800 968,800 564,000 Estimated total recreation facility cost $5,529,000 $6,089,000 $3,514,000 Net benefits (total project benefits less economic cost)... $2, 794, 800 $2, 749, 000 $2, 692, 600 $2, 390, 100 Allocated 0. & M. M-R cost (annual) for recreation $209,600 $201,100 $142,500 I Development of recreational facilities using lands acquired for other project purposes. Scheme A was presented in support of the project during the fiscal year 1968 budget hearings. This scheme shows a net benetit of $4o,800 greater than those for scheme B; .$102,200 greater than those for scheme C; and $404, 7(K) greater than those for scheme D. Scheme A provides lands and recreational facilities for 100,00 more visitors annually over the life of the project than does scheme B ; and for .504.800 more visitors than does scheme C : and for 1,068,800 more visitors than does scheme D. The net project benefit of scheme B is $56,400 greater than those of scheme C and $358,900 greater than those of scheme D. Scheme B provides lands and recreational facilities for 404,800 more visitors annually over the life of the project than does scheme C and for 968,800 more visitors than does scheme D. Under scheme C the most visitors tliat can be accommodated for the life of the project is 564,000 people annually or about half that of schemes A or B. T'nder scheme C no provision is made for future growth. Scheme A provides ojitimum recreation and maximizes project benefits from the recreational re- source potentials available. It will supply a recreational resource which will be available to an estimated 1,068,800 people annually. The allocated annual O. & M. funds shown above are those required for the total recreation program. It is significant that under scheme C that 100 percent of those costs will be borne by the Government while under schemes A and B it is estimated that only 15 percent will be by the Government and the remain- ing portion will be by the State of Ohio. The Government costs will be at two access areas in the vicinity of the dam site which areas will not be turned over to the State for operation and maintenance. The State of Ohio through its director, Department of Natural Resources, has assured the Corps of Engineers that it will operate and maintain the recrea- tional features of the project only under schemes A and B. The State, while not indicating its assurance to provide all facilities to meet the future needs, has indicated its willingness to participate in future improvements. 924 The State considers scheme A as the most desirable plan and that it should be retained for a well-balanced recreational program as well as an important addition to the Ohio State park system. The State indicates that if a reduction in lands becomes mandatory, then scheme B is the minimum size and facility development that would be considered suitable for operation, maintenance, and inclusion in the State park system. Schemes A and B presented in the enclosed report were prepared with a view of securing the optimum recreational benefits claimed for meeting the needs of an urbanized area. All four schemes presented in the enclosed report were prepared under the general guidelines of the joint Army-Interior land acquisition policy for reservoir projects and including recreation as a project The joint policy is contained In volume 31, Federal Register 9108. A copy is attached. Paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 specify the purposes for which lands will be acquired. To satisfy the requirement of 8.1(b), a freeboard allowance of up to 5 feet above the 'maximum flood control pool has been established to protect against possible future damage claims for the reasons cited. Where the free- board does not provide a minimum of 300 feet horizontally from the top of the flood control pool, land will be acquired to encompass the 300 feet. This criterion for a minimum of 300 feet is an administrative determination which carries out the intent of the policy. It insures that adequate shoreline lauds are available for general public use and ready access to the water areas of the project. Foregoing the above policy for another alternative scheme offering limited public access to the waters of the reservoir and excluding recreational develop- ment, would only reduce the total real estate requirements to approximately 7,000 to 7,600 acres. This is comprised of an estimated (a) 5,600 acres for the flood control pool plus a minimum freeboard allowance; (b) 700 to 1,000 acres for earth borrow areas and permanent project structures; and (c) 700 to 1,000 acres of land blocked out along property lines bordering the flood control pool. Acquisition of land for project flood control needs in these blocked out areas re- sults in property severance where it would cost less to buy the land than it would be to provide an alternate means of access. A modification in real estate acquisition would significantly limit public recrea- tional uses. This would be contrary to the recreation purpose of the project as authorized by Congress and could establish a far reaching precedent that is not in the overall public interest. It is concluded that Scheme A offers the plan which best satisfies the projected outdoor recreation demands. A similar letter together with a copy of the report is being sent to the chair- man. Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate. Sincerely yours, H. G. Woodbury, Jr., Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Director of Civil WorAs. Report of Findings for Altehinative Schemes of Recreation Development FOR THE Alum Creek Reservoir Project as Requested in Senate Committee Report No. 574 1. PURPOSE and scope The Senate committee report reads in part as follows : "In view of the number of reservoirs constructed or authorized for construction in Delaware County fur the benefit of areas outside the county, the committee feels that land acquisition should be held to a minimum. The committee therefore directs the corps to reassess the real estate requirements of the project, with and without the recre- ation features, and report its findings back to the committee during the hearings on the 1969 appropriation bill." This report is prepared to determine the effects of various levels of recreation development on overall project planning and formulation for the Alum Creek Reservoir project. Primary emphasis is placed on utilization of lands over and above that necessary for operation of the flood control and water supply features of the project. Consideration has been given to levels of recreation development ranging from no specific recreation lands and provision of no facilities to acquisition of 2,400 acres of specific lands for recreational use and provision of facilities to develop the full recreational potential of the project. 925 2. EXTENT OF INVESTIGATION Four separate plans of development of the project^ have been devised utilizing var.viuVamounts of project lands. The four plans, designated schemes A, B, C, '"i^/Ic'r A-fpin of development utilizing 11,263 acres of lands of which O400iciis would be purchased specifically for recreational use. This Plan was rWeloDed during project formulation studies for a report prepared in 196(j and was presented Tn support of the project during the fiscal year 1968 budget ^^"i^hcme B.-X plan of development utilizing 10,633 acres of lands of which 1770 ac/es would be purchased specifically for recreational use ThisM>lan as well as the plan for scheme A, was developed with close coordination of btate of Ohio recreation planners and is considered by State ofiicials to be the least decree of development for which the State would agree to assume responsibility for operation and maintenance of the recreation facilities. sXcmc r-A plan of development utilizing 8,863 acres of lands which is the presently planned gross appraisal area estimated as necessary for operation of fhe flood control and water supply features of the project. No additional lands snecificallv for recreation are considered in this plan. fchcmcD -Scheme D is a plan completely eliminating provision of any recre- ation facilities and, consequently, assuming no recreation benefits for the project. The fee lamis available for this plan are the same as those necessary for ^""S^laus of development for each of the four schemes showing the real estate gross appraisal boundaries, locations of user area.s, types of development, and listing of facilities to be provided are attached as exhibit Nos. 1 through 4. ESTIMATE OF COSTS Estimates of costs were developed for each of the schemes considered The only variances in cost between the schemes are the costs for recreation lands and the costs for different degrees of recreational facilities which can be provided. The total project cost and summary of recreation costs for each scheme are listed below : Total project costs Total recreation costs $37,195 000 1 $7,979,000 SchemeA 37 375 qoo 27,859,000 Scheme B 32* 730' 000 3,514,000 Sc.iemeC 29! 216, 000 Scheme D 1 Includes $2,450,000 costs for additional recreation lands. 2 Includes $1,770,000 costs for additional recreation lands. T--xbibit No n is a data sheet summarizing the project benefits, recreation facilities and land costs and allocated Federal costs for each scheme considered. 4. COORDINATION Development of the initial project plan, which is scheme A was closely coordinated with State planners. To determine what other types of development may be acceptable to the State and to determine to what degree the State will be Willing to cooperate in development of the recreation features of the project, a meeting was held with State representatives on December 18 196 (. The conclu'^ions of the State officials were that the initial plan of development scheme A is the most desirable and that scheme B is the minimum development that could be considered for operation, maintenance, and inclusion m the State ^*' A letter dated January 9, 1968, from the State of Ohio, Departmnet of Natural Resources, summarizing the above, is attached as exhibit No. 6. 5. FINDINGS Based on the above investigations the various plans are compared below: Comparison of scheme A with scheme Z).— Inasmuch as it is highly improbable, 926 if not physically impossible, to create a large body of water without occasioning some public use visitation, scheme D is considered to be undesirable from the standpoint of public health and safety: however, this comparison is made in compliance with the congressional directives. The net project benefits for scheme D are .$2..390,100, thus are $404,700 less than those for scheme A. Comijarison of scheme A with scheme C. — This comparison is a realistic approach to providing a limited public-use development on lands required for other project purposes. The net project benefits for scheme C are $2,692,600 or $102,200 less than the net benefits for scheme A. Comparison of scheme A icith scheme B. — In keeping with the current policy and practice of the Corps of Engineers, the Ohio Department of Natural Re- sources was consulted to determine the State's desires relative to this mattex-. Scheme B envisions adequate facilities to accommodate most of the projected outdoor recreation demands and represents the minimum land acquisition and development which the State considers suitable for inclusion in the State park system for their operation and maintenance. The net project benefits for scheme B are $2,749,000. thus being $45,800 less than those for scheme A. Scheme A. — This scheme developed as a joint effort of the Corps of Engineers and the State Department of Natural Resources represents a well-balanced plan of development which will satisfy the projected outdoor recreation demands and will provide optimum public-use benefits. The net project benefits for scheme A a re .$2,794,800. "\Miat report do yon liave to this committee in reference to this qnestion ? Colonel Graf. Sir, as directed, we reexamined the project witli and without recreational features. In addition, we considered two other plans involvino; varying degrees of recreation land and development. Scheme A ])rovides for acquisition of 2,400 acres of recreation land while scheme B requires 1,770 acres for recreational use. Schemes C and D do not consider any specific lands for recreation although .scheme C includes recreation facilities located on lands acquired for project needs exclusive of recreation. In all schemes the lands required for project needs, exclusive of recreation, amount to 8,863 acres. Of the four schemes considered, scheme A results in a well-balanced plan of development with the greater amount of benefits. INCREASED COST OF PROJECT INIr. KiRWAN. It is noted on page 100 that the cost of the project has been increased $3,820,000 based on increased acreage requirements. How many additional acres are involved and why is the expanded land program considered essential? Colonel Graf, The estimate this year reflects an increase of 1,333 acres more than last year. Of this increa.se a net increase of 633 acres is for fee and easement acquisition for regular project purpo.ses and 700 acres is for recreation purposes. These increa.ses are based on our more detailed planning and more accurate mapping as we plan for the real estate acquisition. INCREASED COST OF REI,OCA'rK)XS Mr. KiRWAN. It is also noted tliat the cost of relocations has been increased by $4,170,000, more than double, due primarily to new State requirements and increased facility $23,200,000 Estimated non-Federal cost - ,.. " Total estimated project cost.... -.- - 'cfl,'nnn Allocations to June 30, 1967.. 542,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ^00, 000 Allocation to date - inW Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 '"^. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 -^l. "». 700, 000 7 000 1 Total project cost. The fiscal year 1969 budget request provides for continuation of land acquisition and engineering and design only. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earth fill. Height: 140 feet. Length: 1,100 feet. 934 Spillway: Tvjpe: Uncontrolled saddle, right abutment. Length: 1,500 feet. Design discharge: 62,900 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage 66, 000 Operational and incidental recreation 4, 000 Seasonal pool: Summer 9, 500 Winter 4,000 Flood control: Summer 52, 500 Winter 58,000 Outlet works: Type: Controlled 13.5-foot-diameter horseshoe tunnel. Gates: Three 5 feet 8 inches by 10 feet slide-gates. Lands and damages: Acres: 14,900. Type: Primarily woodland with about 30 percent cleared for cropland and pasture. Improvements: Rural residential and subsistence farm type. Relocations : Roads: 12.8 miles, $6,540,000. Cemeteries and utilities: $665,000. Status (January 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: Lands and damages, December 1971. Other features of project not currently scheduled. JUSTIFICATION The rugged topography prevalent in the headwaters of the Little Kanawha Basin cause a high rate of runoff. Frequent minor floods and periodic major floods inundate considerable areas in the basin, and contribute materially to Ohio River floods. Flashy nature of the floods preclude adequate warning periods. Several floods during the period of record have caused severe damages in developed areas in the valley, and previous studies indicate the possibility of much greater floods of disastrous magnitude. The flood of March 1967 was the flood of record at several points along the Little Kanawha River including Glenville, Grantsville, and Palestine. Damages have been estimated at $2,015,700 (July 1967) in the reach from Burnsville to Ohio River backwater. The flood protection to be afforded downstream from the dam should greatly enhance the flood plain for industrial and small business development. Adequate labor market, transportation facilities, and proximity to heavily populated areas and fuel supplies all tend to add to the valley's potential for such development. Further benefits will accrue in the postconstruction period from operation of the dam and recreational facilities. No separable unit furnishing benefits would be completed with funds recommended for budget fiscal year. The Burnsville project is a unit of the authorized three reservoir system (Burns- ville, Leading Creek, and West Fork) for reduction of flood damages in the Little Kanawha Basin, and is also a unit of the comprehensive plan for flood control in the Ohio River Basin. Average annual benefits have been computed at $958,600. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $249, 500 Recreation 473, 000 Area redevelopment 113, 400 Fish and wildlife 93,200 Water supply and quality control 29, 500 Total 958,600 935 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested $700,000 will be applied to: Continue acquisition of lands $364, 000 Continue boundary line marking 8, 000 Engineering and design 280, 000 Supervision and administration 48, 000 Total 700,000 The requested funds will permit orderly continuation of the project. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — Not applicable. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $23,200,000 is an increase of $1,400,000 over the latest estimate ($21,800,000) submitted to Congress. Increase was due to price level increases of $1,250,000 and $150,000 for erosion control, seeding, and reforestation, not previously included. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages . $3,640.0 7,205.0 385.0 ., 8,260.0 . 600.0 ., 600.0 .. 95.0 .. 105.0 .. 1,200.0 1,110.0 23,200.0 $62.3 .7 $224. 7 2.3 2.0 $357. 7.0 8.0 $2,996.0 7,195.0 375.0 Relocations Reservoir.. Dam 8, 260. Roads (access) 600.0 Recreation facilities. 600.0 Buildings, grounds, and utilities.. 95.0 Permanent operating equipment only).. 105.0 Engineering and design Supervision and administration... Total applied costs (Federal funds Undistributed costs 376.3 22.3 461.6 218.7 32.7 480.4 280.0 48.0 700.0 325.0 1,007.0 21, 558. Total project costs (Federal funds Pending adjustments only).. 23,200.0 461.6 480.4 700.0 21,558.0 Total costs (Federal funds only)... Undelivered orders 23,200.0 461.6 18.4 480.0 542.0 480.4 -18.4 . 462.0 400.0 . 62.0 . 462.0 .. 700.0 21,558.0 Total obligations 700.0 21,558.0 Method of financing: Allocations prior Unobligated carryover from year . ... Total funds available for oblig ation Appropriation requested 700.0 21,558.0 Mr. KiRWAN. Please describe this project which was added as a new start by the Senate to the bill last year. Colonel Graf. Sir, the project consists of an earthfill dam with an uncontrolled spillway, relocations and appurtenant works. It is lo- cated on the Little Kanawha River, 123.5 miles above the confluence with the Ohio River and about 0.9 of a mile above Burnsville in Braxton County, W. Va. Flood protection to be afforded downstream from the dam should greatly enhance use of the flood plain for in- dustrial and small business development. The project will also provide recreation, fish and wildlife, and water quality control. Average annual benefits are $958,600. BENEFIT-TO-COST RATIO Mr. KiRWAN. Last year, the benefit-to-cost ratio was shown as 1.1 to 1. Now it is down to 1.01 to 1. What accounts for the marginal ratio on this project ? Colonel Graf. Sir, there has been a cost increase since last year without an entirely corresponding increase in the benefits. Actually, 936 the benefit-to-cost ratio last year was 1.06 to 1, whicli liad been rounded to 1.1. URGENCY OF LAND ACQUISITION Mr. KiRWAN. What is the urgency of undertaking land acquisition on this project at this time ? Colonel Graf. Sir, to preclude hardships on the part of the land- owners in the project area and to also preclude cost increases in the land which accrue from year to year. REMAINING CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Mr. KiRWAN. We will insert the balance of the justifications under construction. Cannelton Locks and Dam, Indiana and Kentucky (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in Perrj'' County, Ind. and Hancock County, Ky. on the Ohio River, approximately 721 miles below Pittsburgh, Pa. Authorization. — 1909 River and Harbor Act (sec. 6). Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date _ Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after Fiscal year 1969... $82,400.000 59,000 59,000 82,459,000 48,262,000 8,800,000 57, 062, 000 69 6, 300, 000 77 19,038,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Nonnavigable, gate controlled. Length: 1,965 feet. Gates: Number and type: 12, tainter. Height and length, 42 by 100 feet. Locks: Number: 2. Main locks: 110 bv 1,200 feet. Auxiliary lock: 110 by 600 feet. Normal lift: 25 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 10,157. Type: Predominantly agriculture. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Relocations: Roads: 1.63 miles, $1,184,000. Railroads: $143,000. Utility lines: $164,000. 937 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages ?" June 1969. Relocations 56 December 1970. Reservoir - . .P°- . Dam - 32 April 1972. Locl^s ' 95 December 1970. Temporary opeVatiVn." "";""!]"."!" "'II --- - December 1966. Channels 90 December 1971. Recreation"facYli'tlesV.\"-!!!!';!l!I!l!!--!!!lI -- 12 ?^P'^"i5S' ^^^''• Buildings, grounds, and utilities - 99 June 1969. Permanent operating equipment 36 April 1972. Entire project - 59 Do. JUSTIFICATION In 1964 commercial navigation through the project area averaged 27,125,600 tons. The project will replace three existing Ohio River locks and dams (43, 44, and 45), incorporating modern lock facilities with two parallel chambers, 110 by 1,200 feet and 110 by 600 feet in lieu of the single 110 by 600 feet obsolescent locks now in service at each of the existing structures to be eliminated. The exist- ing structures Nos. 43, 44, and 45, were completed in 1921, 1925, and 1927, respec- tively, and their physical condition, together with the obsolete design results in a high maintenance and operation cost and inefficient handling of traffic. Traffic on the Ohio River has doubled on an average of once every 11 years since completion of the present system and all indications are that this growth in traffic will continue for many years. Total river tonnage for 1965 was a record 103,173,852 tons and for 1966 was about 109,600,000 tons. Due to the rapid indus- trial expansion now taking place along the Ohio, the old structures are not capable of efficiently handling the modern type tows and the large volume of traffic now- using the river. This demand upon existing facilities is rapidly accelerating their deterioration and any breakdown will create intolerable conditions. The efficient and uninterrupted river traffic is highly important in normal times and the impor- tance is greatly increased in times of national emergencies. Average annual benefits are estimated at $11,113,000, all navigation. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $6,300,000 will be applied to — Complete lands and damages S87, 800 Continue relocations 235, 000 Continue construction of dam 4, 966, 400 Continue construction of locks 430, 000 Continue work on channels 30, 000 Continue construction of recreation facilities 70, 800 Continue permanent operating equipment 15, 000 Engineering and design 140, 000 Supervision and administration 325, 000 Total 6,300,000 The funds requested are required for construction during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — Construction of the project will require modification of existing facilities which were originally constructed under Department of the Armv permit pursuant to section 10 of the River and Harbor Act, approved March 3, 1899. The owners will adapt their facilities to new project conditions at an estimated cost of $59,000. Status of local cooperation. — None required. However, owners of affected pri- vate facilities which are located within the limits of river imder Federal juris- diction will be expected to modify these facilities at their own expense in accord- ance with the permit regulations under which the facilities were originally constructed. Lease agreements covering operation and management of recreation sites at Valley Station with Jefferson County, Ky., West Point with the city of West Point, Ky., and Middle Creek with the city of New Albany, Ind., have been executed.' The State of Indiana, by letter dated April 21, 1967, has indicated cooperation in leasing the remaining sites in that State. It is contemplated that leases covering the remaining sites in Kentucky Avill be executed with local government agencies or the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 938 Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $82,400,000 is a decrease of $300,000 from the latest estimate ($82,700,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes a decrease of $867,600 for savings and reduction in allowance for contingencies on contract for locks construction, steel piling, channel dredging, and buildings. This decrease was partially offset by- increases of $315,100 for higher price levels; $48,900 for changed foundation con- ditions encountered on alteration of powerline crossing at the dam; $189,600 for additional operation and maintenance dredging resulting from 1-year delay in completion of the project caused by March 1967 flood and resultant damage to the dam cofferdam; and $14,000 for repair of slides along relocated highway and for additional boundary line marking. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1). FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages Relocations. _ Reservoir Dam Locks Channels Recreation facilities.. Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistrubuted cost (construction facilities) Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations. Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation.. Appropriations required $2,324,000 1,491.000 1,459,000 39, 450, 800 29,162,200 565,000 1,261,000 311,000 134,000 2,288,000 3,954,000 82,400,000 82,400,000 '82,"460,"666' $2,089,100 775,800 "9,'779,'300' 27,314,600 256, 600 """304,"io6" 40,900 1,774,900 2,326,000 44,661,200 29,200 44,690,400 $147,100 128,000 15,000 8,850,700 797,900 250,000 322,200 4,000 25, 000 140,000 475,000 11,154,900 16,700 11,171,600 $87, 800 235,000 6, 044, 300 430, 000 30, 000 170,800 2,900 15,000 140,000 325,000 7,480,800 19,200 7,500,000 $352, 200 1,444,000 14,776,500 619,700 28, 500 768,000 53," 100 233,100 828,000 19,103,100 -65,100 19,038,000 44,690,400 2,287,500 48,977,900 11,171,600 -1,087,500 10,084,100 7, 500, 000 -1,200,000 6,300,000 48,262,000 8,800,000 1,284,100 10, 084, 100 19,038,000 'i9,"038,'566 6,300,000 19,038,000 Newburgh Locks .\nd Dam, Ohio River, Indiana and Kentucky (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in Warrick Count}-, Ind., and Henderson County, Ky., on the Ohio River, approximately 776 miles below Pittsburgh, Pa. The upper pool will extend upstream about 55 miles to the Cannelton locks and dam now under construction. Authorization. — 1909 River and Harbor Act (sec. 6). Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1, SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cosL.. Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution. Other costs. Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967.. Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $78,500,000 58,000 58,000 78,558,000 13,747,000 12,000,000 25, 747, 000 33 10, 800, 000 47 41,953,000 939 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: T.vpe: Nonnavigable, gate controlled. Length: Gated section, 1,390 feet. Left abutment overflow section, 925 feet. Gates: Number and type: 11, Tainter. Height and length: 27 by 110 feet. Lands and Damages: Acres: 3,520. Type : Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Relocations: Roads: $490,600. Railroads: $82,000. UtUitj- lines and structures: $358,400. Locks: Number: 2. Size of chamber: Main lock, 110 by 1,200 feet. Auxiliary lock, 110 by 600 feet. Normal lift, 16 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages .-. 42 June 1969. Relocations 42 December 1970. Reservoir December 1972. Dam - June 1973. Locks 70 June 1969. Ready for temporary operation December 1968. Roads— access June 1969. Channels _ 33 June 1973. Recreation facilities March 1971. Buildings, grounds, and utilities __ 1 December 1969. Permanent operating equipment 7 June 1973. Entire project - 32 Do. JUSTIFICATION In 1964, commercial navigation through the project area averaged 24,197,000 tons. The project, consisting of two parallel locks 110 by 1,200 feet and 110 by 600 feet and a nonnavigable dam, will replace the existing 110 by 600 feet obso- lescent locks Nos. 46 and 47. The existing structures were completed in 1928 and their physical condition, together with obsolete design, results in high maintenance and operation cost and in inefficient handling of traffic. Traffic on the Ohio River has doubled on an average of once every 11 years since completion of the present system and all indications are that traffic will continue to increase for many years. Total river tonnage for 1965 was a record 103,173,852 tons and for 1966 was about 109,600,000 tons. Due to the rapid industrial expansion now taking place along the Ohio River, the old structures are not capable of efficiently handling the modern-type tows and the large volume of traffic now using the river. This demand upon existing facihties is rapidly accelerating their deterioration and any breakdown will create intolerable con- ditions. The efficient and uninterrupted river traffic is highly important in normal times and the importance is greatly increased in times of 'national emergencies. Average annual benefits are estimated at $6,976,500, all navigation. Fiscal year 1969.~The requested amount of $10,800,000 will be applied to- Complete acquisition of lands .$422, 700 Initiate relocations 58, 500 Initiate and complete boundary line marking (reservoir) 11, 000 Initiate construction of dam 70, 000 Complete construction of locks 8, 991, 300 Initiate and coTuplete construction of roads (access) 22, 000 Initiate work on channels 17S, 900 Continue construction of buildings, grounds, and utilities 169, 600 Continue permanent operating equipment 26. 000 Engineering and design 400, 000 Supervision and administration 450, 000 Total 10,800,000 940 The funds requested are required for construction during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — -Construction of the project will require modification of existing facilities which were originally constructed under Department of the Army permit pursuant to section 10 of the River and Harbor Act aproved March 3, 1899. The owners will adapt their facilities to new project conditions at an estimated cost of $58,000. Stahis of local cooperation.— 'S one required. However, owners of affected pri\'ate facilities which are located within the limits of river under Federal jurisdiction will be expected to modify these facilities at their own expense in accordance with permit regulations under which the facilities were originally constructed. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $78,500,000 is an increase of $3,100,000 over the latest estimate ($75,400,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $2,454,900 for higher price levels; $536,000 for additional lands and damages based on a recent gross reappraisal which reflects current land values and an increase of 1,320 acres in easement acquisition; $47,000 for additional relocation of Indiana Highway 66 at locks access road in accordance with agreement with Indiana State Highway Commission; $93,000 for development of a visitor overlook area and access thereto. These increases were partially offset by a decrease of $30,900 for savings on completed contract for locks cofferdam. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages. Relocations Reservoir Dam..- -. Locks Roads (access) and bridges Channels and canals Recreation facilities. Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost (construction facilities) Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only)... Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation.. Appropriations required $1,322,000 931,000 1,419,000 36, 273, 000 30,847,100 22, 000 1,244,900 760, 000 248, 000 174, 000 2,618,000 2,641,000 78, 500, 000 $499, 300 387, 800 $400, 000 400 10,609,400 """4i4,"io6" 10,875,700 $422, 700 58, 500 11,000 70, 000 8, 970, 000 22, 000 178,900 78, 500, 000 "78," 500," boo' 3,400 11,400 983, 900 629, 500 13, 538, 800 86, 700 13,625,500 10,000 14,900 200, 000 610, 000 12,111,000 10,500 12,121,500 169, 600 26, 000 400, 000 450, 000 10, 778, 700 21,300 10,800.000 $484, 300 1,408,000 36, 203, 000 392, 000 """65i,'966 760, 000 65, 000 121,700 1,034,100 951, 500 42,071,500 -118,500 41, 953, 000 13,625,500 78, 000 13, 703, 500 12,121,500 -78. 000 12,043,500 10, 800, 000 41, 953, 000 10,800,000 13,747,000 12,000,000 43, 500 12, 043, 500 10,800,000 41,953,000 41,953,000 Uniontown Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Ind. and Kt. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in Posey County, Ind., and Union County, Ky., on the Ohio River, approximately 846 miles below Pittsburgh, Pa. Authorization. — 1909 River and Harbor Act (sec. 6). Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.4 to 1. 941 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $62,100,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 59,000 Cash contribution Other costs. 59,000 Total estimated project cost 62,159,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967.. 17,851,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. 11,410,000 Allocations to date.. 29,261,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. - 4,300,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... 28,539,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Nonnavigable, gate controlled. Length: Gated section, 1,515 feet. Left abutment overflow section, 2,189 feet. Gates: Number and tvpe: 12, fainter. Height and length: 32 x 110 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 4,485. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Relocations: Roads: $787,000. Utility lines and structures: $339,000, Locks: Number: 2. Size of chamber: Main lock, 110 x 1,200 feet. Auxiliary lock, 110 x 600 feet. Lift: Initial, 19 feet. Future, 15 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages 28 June 1970. Relocations 1 March 1972. Reservoir Do. Dam September 1972. Locks _._ 73 September 1968. Ready for temporary operation April 1968. Roads— access 98 June 1968. Channels _ 28 Do. Recreation facilities _ June 1972. Buildings, grounds, and utilities 59 June 1968. Permanent operating equipment _ 12 September 1972. Entire project _ 35 Do. JUSTIFICATION In 1964, commercial navigation through the project area was 19,600,000 tons. The project, consisting of two parallel locks 110 by 1,200 feet and 110 by 600 feet and a nonnavigable dam, wiU replace the existing 110 by 600 foot obsolescent locks Nos. 48 and 49. The existing structures were completed in 1922 and 1928, respectively, and their pliysical condition, together with obsolete design, results in a high maintenance and operation cost and m inefficient handling of traffic. Traffic on the Ohio River has doubled on an average of once every 11 years since completion of the present system and all indications are that this growth in traffic will continue for many years. Total river tonnage for 1965 was a record 942 103,173,852 tons and for 1966 was about 109,600,000 tons. Due to the rapid industrial expansion now taking place along the Ohio River, the old structures are not capable of efficiently handling the modern-type tows and the large volume of traffic now using the river. This demand upon existing facilities is rapidly accelerating their deterioration and any breakdowns will create intolerable condi- tions. The efficient and uninterrupted river traffic is highly important in normal times and the importance is greatly increased in times of national emergencies. Average annual benefits are estimated at $6,956,000, all navigation. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,300,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $350, 000 Initiate construction of dam 3, 225, 000 Complete construction of locks 165, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 30, 000 Engineering and design 250, 000 Supervision and administration 280, 000 Total 4, 300, 000 The funds requested are required for construction during the Budget Year. Non-Federal cosis.— Construction of the project will require modification of existing facilities which were originally constructed under Department of the Army permit pursuant to section 10 of the River and Harbor Act approved March 3, 1899. The owners will adapt their facilities to new project conditions at an estimated cost of $59,000. Status of local cooperation. — None required. However, owners of affected private facilities which are located within the limits of river under Federal jurisdiction will be expected to modify these facilities at their own expense in accordance with the permit regulations under which the facilities were originally constructed. Ccmiparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $62,100,000 is an increase of $600,000 over the latest estimate ($61,500,000) submitted to Congress. This change results from an increase of $1,450,000 for higher price levels which increase was partially offset by decreases of $462,000 for removal of structures based on determination that old navigation structures do not have to be demolished and removed to as low a level as previously con- templated and $388,000 for construction of the dam based on more economical cofferdam construction and less foundation concrete as the result of higher and more uniform elevation of bedrock in the dam area. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $1,056,000 $276,100 $150,000 $350,000 $279,900 Relocations 1,126,000 14,700 1,111.300 Reservoir - - 589,000 589,000 Dam - 27,407,000 3,220,000 24,187,000 Locks' 25,352,000 12,442,5C0 10.791,500 1,851,000 267,000 Roads(access) - - 294,000 288.100 5,900 Channels 200,000 55,400 164,600 Rerreation facilities 960,000 .- 960,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 166,000 76,900 89,100 Permanent operating equipment 109,000 11,600 11,900 30,000 55,500 Eneineering and design 2.290,000 1.378.100 275.000 250.000 386.900 Supervision and administration 2,531,000 932,100 560,000 280,000 758,900 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 62,100,000 15,475,500 12,048,000 5,981,000 28,595,500 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) 13.400 32,100 11,000 -56,500 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 62,100,000 15,488,900 12,080,100 5,992,000 28,539,000 Pendine adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 62,100,000 15,488.900 12.080.100 5,992.000 28,539,000 Undelivered orders ;. 1.765,800 -265.800 -1.500.000 Total obligations ,,,.,.|....i...,-, 17,254,700 11,814.300 4,492,000 28,539,000 Method of financing: ' ' ' Allocation - 17,851,000 11.410,000 Unobligated carryover from prior i .,. year .- - ---- 596. 300 192,000 Total funds available for obligation 12,006,300 Appropriations required. 4,300,000 28,539,000 943 Hannibal Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Ohio and W. Va. (Continuing) Location. — The site of the locks and dam is in Monroe County, Ohio, and Wetzel County, W. Va., on the Ohio River, about 126.4 miles below the head of the river at Pittsburgh, Pa. Authorization. — 1909 River and Harbor Act (sec. 6). Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Navy Reserve). Estimated non-Federal cost Other Total estimated project cost. Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969.. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 $70,900,000 13,000 1,568,000 1,568,000 72,481,000 5, 240, 000 7,870,000 13,110,000 18 13, 000, 000 37 44,790,000 Dam: PHYSICAL DATA Type: High lift, gated crest, nonnavigable. Length: 1,098 feet. Gates: Eight 110-foot iionsubmergible tainter gates. Locks: Parallel chambers, 110- by 1,200-foot riverward chamber; 110- by 600- foot landward chamber. Lift: 21 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 1,660. Type: Predominantly residential and industrial. Improvements: Typical residential units and small industrial auxiliary buildings. Relocations: Roads: Construction of bridges, culverts and 1.5 miles of road raises, $2,231,000. Railroads: Alterations to bridges, replacement of drainage structures and bank protection, .$5,929,000. Utility lines and structures: $1,780,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages 39 December 1970. Relocations June 1971. Pool preparation (reservoirs) November 1972. Dam 10 Do. Locks 8 November 1970. Channel January 1972. Recreation facilities -._ - June 1971. Buildings, grounds and utilities. May 1970. Permanent operating equipment 2 September 1970. Entire project 10 November 1972, JUSTIFICATION The project will replace three existing Ohio River structures, locks and dams 12, 1.3, and 14, which were placed in operation in 1916, 1911, and 1917, respectively. These structures are approaching the end of their useful life and their phj'sical 91-4.59 — 68 — pt. 1- -60 944 condition is such that replacement is necessary to efficient and economical opera- tion and maintenance. In addition, the existing locks (single chambers with maxi- mum length of 600 feet) are obsolete in design and cannot efficiently handle the modern-type tows and growing volume of traffic now using the river. Traffic de- mands on these facilities have accelerated structural deterioration with conse- quent increase in breakdowns and in cost of repairs. Traffic through the project area averaged about 16,969,000 tons in 1964. The Ohio River is one of the most important inland waterways of the world. Tonnages of traffic are very large and have been constantly increasing. Traffic on the Ohio River has more than doubled on the average of once every 11 years since completion of the present system, and all indications are that the growth in traffic will continue for many years and may be accelerated by the rapid industrial development taking place along the river. Total river tonnage for 1965 was a record 103,173,852 tons and for 1966 was about 190,600,000 tons. Efficient and un- interrupted handling of river traffic, both present and prospective, is essential. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $6,083,000, all navigation. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $13,000,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land $547, 000 Continue relocations 735, 000 Continue construction of locks 10, 710, 000 Engineering and design 265, 000 Supervision and administration 743, 000 Total 13, 000, 000 The funds requested are the minimum required to continue construction of the project. Completion of the project is essential due to the inadequacy and physical condition of existing locks and dams 12, 13, and 14, which the project will replace. Non-Federal cost. — Construction of the project will require modification of existing facilities which were originally constructed under Department of Army permit pursuant to section 10 of the River and Harbor Act approved March 3, 1899. The owners will adapt their facilities to new project conditions at an esti- mated cost of $1,568,000. Status of local cooperation. — None required. However, owners of affected private facilities, which are located within the limits of the river under Federal jurisdic- tion, will be expected to modify these facilities at their own expense in accordance with the permit regulations under which the facilities were originally constructed. Companson of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $70,900,000 is a decrease of $500,000 from the latest estimate ($71,400,000) submitted to Congress. This change reflects an increase of $3,935,000 due to price level rise offset by decreases of $385,000 on completed left bank excavation work and $4,050,000 due to receipt of bids for locks and appurtenant work. 945 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 (I) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages Relocations Reservoirs Dam - - Locks ChanneL Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration - Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Undistributed costs. _ Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Pending adjustments -. Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Undelivered orders - - Tola lobligations. — Method of financing: Al locations. .- Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation.. Appropriations required — $2, 550, 000 9, 940, 000 1,176,000 19, 292, 000 30,657,000 480, 000 430, 000 72, 000 26, 000 2,672,000 3,605,000 $782,900 "i,'8io,"666" 300, 000 $475, 100 50, 000 $547^ 000 735, 000 40, 000 7,100,000 10,710,000 400 1,436,800 270, 200 413, 200 431,400 265, 000 743,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 4, 600, 300 30, 300 4,630,600 8,509,700 -30, 300 8, 479, 400 13, 000, 000 "i3,"o6o,'666" 5, 240, 000 7, 870, 000 609, 400 8, 479, 400 $745,000 9,155,000 1,176,000 17,442,000 12, 547, 000 480, 000 430, 000 72, 000 25,600 557, 000 2,160,400 70,900,000 4,600,300 8,509,700 10,000,000 44,790,000 4,600,300 8,509,700 13,000,000 44,790,000 44, 790, 000 "44","79"0V0"0'g" 13,000,000 44,790,000 Racine Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Ohio and W. Va. (Continuing) Location.— In Ohio River 237.5 miles below Pittsburgh, Pa., in Meigs County, Ohio, and Mason Countv, W. Va., and about 2 miles downstream from Letart Falls, Ohio. Authorization.— 1909 River and Harbor Act (see. 6). Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Estimated Federal cost... .-. $70,200,000 Estimated non-Federal cost - 35,000 Other - - — 35,000 Total estimated project cost 70,235,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 - 35,386,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 - 6,750,000 Allocation to date - 42,136,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. 10,000,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 18,064,000 Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost physical data Dam: Type: Nonnavigable, gate controlled. Length; 1,1.34 feet (includes weir). Gates: Number: 8. Length, clear span: 110 feet. Damming height: 32 feet. Locks: Number: 2. Main lock: 110 feet by 1,200 feet. Auxiliarv lock: 110 feet by 600 feet. Normal lift: 22 feet. 946 Lands and damages: Acres: 2.240. Type: Predominantly woodland and cropland. Improvements: Typical farm buildings. Relocations : Roads: 0.8 mile and IS structures, $1,605,000. Railroads: 12 structures, $2,525,000. Utilities: $60,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule 56 December 1969. 18 Do. 0) June 1970. 18 December 1970. 90 June 1968. December 1967. 76 December 1970. (0 September 1970. (') December 1970. 7 Do. Lands and damages. - Relocations.. Reservoir Dam Locks Temporary operation: Roads— access. Channel. Recreation facilities.. Buildings, ground and utilities and permanent operating equipment. Entire project 55 Do. • Not started. JUSTIFICATION The Racine locks and dam will replace the old and outmoded .structure.-* at locks and dams 21, 22, and 23 which will have reached the end of their economic life by the time the Racine project can be completed. Due to rapid industrial expansion now taking place on the Ohio River, the old structures are not capable of efficiently handling the modern-type tows and the large volume of traffic now using the river. Traffic through the project area averaged about 20,600,000' tons in 1964 (last year recorded). A great percentage of total traffic time required in moving cargo along the reach of the river served by locks 21, 22, and 23 is consumed in passing through the locks and waiting for other tows to clear the locks. The demand upon the locks caused by increasing traffic is rapidly accelerat- ing their deterioration and any breakdowns will create intolerable conditions. In addition to eliminating delays to navigation, the proposed project will eliminate difficulties and hazards involved in operating wicket-type dams under ice conditions and insure against serious interruptions to traffic resulting from breakdowais. Ton-mile traffic on the Ohio River has increased about 15 times since 1930, and has more than doubled since 1952. Total river tonnage for 1965 was a record 103,173,852 and ton-miles were almost 23.3 billion. Preliminary figiires for 1966 indicate continued growth to 109,600,000 tons and 24.6 billion ton-miles. All indications are that the growth in river transjiortation will continue for many years, and the growth is being accelerated by the rapid industrial expansion now occurring in the river basin. The efficient and uninterrupted river transpor- tation of coal, petroleum, steel products, and chemicals, to, from, and through this area is highly important in normal times and the imi:)ortance is emphasized in times of national emergency. Construction and maintenance of adequate navigation structures to accommodate modern towing equipment is essential to the continuing development of the area and to meet the need for economical transportation of bulk and finished products. Average annual benefits for the Racine project are estimated at $6,400,000, all navigation. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $10,000,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $250, 000 Continue relocation program 1, 360, 000 Reservoir: Initiate pool clearing under a continuing contract 280, 000 Initiate excavation of Letart Island under a continuing con- tract 55, 000 Continue construction of dam, locks, emergency gates, and removal of old structures under a continuing contract 7, 465, 000 Continue work on permanent operating equipment 10, 000 Engineering and design 180, 000 Supervision and administration 400, 000 Total 10, 000, 000 947 The requested aiuovint is required to continue construction of the project during the Budget Year. Non-Federal costs. — Construction of the project will require modification of certain existing facilities such as terminals and similar structures which were constructed under Department of the Army permit pursuant to section 10 of the 1899 River and Harbor Act. The owners will adapt these facihties to new- project conditions at an estimated cost of $35,000. Status of local cooperation. — None required. However, owners of affected private facilities which are located within the limits of the river under Federal jurisdiction will be expected to modify them at their own expense in accordance with the per- mit regulations under which they were originally constructed. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $70,200,000 is a decrease of $700,000 from latest estimate ($70,900,000) submitted to Congress. Decreases of $335,000 in relocations due to final costs, contingency reductions, and firm agreement amounts, $240,000 in reservoir due to actual bid prices, and $1,050,000 in locks contract due to contingency reduction, were par- tially offset by price level increases of $685,000 and a $240,000 increase in the Dam due to bid prices. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Itenn cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $1,540,000 $778,300 $386,700 $250,000 $125,000 Relocations 4,190,000 713,900 310,800 1,570,000 1,595,300 Reservoir 815,000 10,000 355,000 450,000 Dam 23,255,000 2,116,700 3,303,300 6,915,000 10,920,000 Locks 31,960,000 27,267,300 2,192,700 530,000 1,970,000 Roads (access). 380,000 289,600 42,400 48,000 Channel (dredging) 1,250,000 1,250,000 Recreation facilities.. 420,000 420,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 220,000 12,800 1,200 206,000 Permanent operating equipment. 140,000 2,600 102,400 10,000 25,000 Engineering and design 2,730,000 2,085,900 254,100 180,000 210,000 Supervision and administration. 3,300,000 1,472,100 427,900 400,000 1,000,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 70, 200, 000 34, 739, 200 7, 031, 500 10, 210, 000 18, 219, 300 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) 101,400 63,900 -10,000 -155,300 Total project costs (Federal funds only). 70,200,000 34,840,600 7,095,400 10,200,000 18,064,000 Pending adjustments Total costs (Federal funds only) 70,200,000 34,840,600 7,095,400 10,200,000 18,064,000 Undelivered orders 387,000 -187,000 -200,000 Total obligations 35,227,600 6,908,400 10,000,000 18,064,000 Method of financing: Allocations.. 35,386,000 6,750,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 158,400 Total funds available for obligation 6,908,400 Appropriations required 10,000,000 18,064,000 Willow Island Locks and Dam, Ohio River — Ohio and West Virginia (Continuing) Location. — The site of the Willow Island project is located in Washington County, Ohio, and Pleasants County, W. Va., on the Ohio River 161.7 miles below Pittsburgh, Pa.; and about 3.4 miles above Waverly, W. Va. Authorization. — 1909 River and Harbor Act (section 6). Benejit-cost ratio. — 2.0 to 1. 948 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost.- Cash contributions.. Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30. 1967.. Allocation for fiscal year 1968.. Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $74,400,000 430,000 430,000 74,830,000 2,425,000 1,798,000 4, 223, 000 6 5, 223, 000 13 64,954,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Noiiuavigable, gate controlled. Length: 1,017 feet. Gates: Number, 8. Length, clear span, 110 feet. Damming height, 26 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 2,189. Type: Predominantly woodland and pasture. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Locks: Number: 2. Main lock: 110 by 1,200 feet. Auxiliary lock: liO by 600 feet. Normallift: 20 feet. ' Relocations: Roads: 2 miles ($2,980,000). Railroad: 19 structures ($3,975,000). Utilities: $650,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Lands and damages Relocations Reservoir Dam Locks Temporary operation: Roads — access Channel Recreation Buildings and grounds Permanent operating equipment. Entire project Percent complete Completion schedule 3? December 1971. 7 December 1972. (') September 1974. (') December 1974. (•) June 1972. December 1971. (') June 1972. (') December 1973. (') Do. (') December 1974. (') Do. 1 Not started. JUSTIFICATION The Willow Island locks and dam will replace the old and outmoded structures at locks and dams 15, 16, and 17 which will have reached the end of their economic life by the time the Willow Island project can be completed. Due to rapid indus- trial expansion now taking place on the Ohio River, the old structures are not capable of efficiently handling the modern-type tows and the large volume of traffic now using the river. A great percentage of total traffic time reqiiired in moving cargo along the reach of the river served by locks 15, 16, and 17 is con- sumed in passing through the locks and waiting for other tows to clear the locks. The demand upon the locks caused by increasing traffic is rapidly accelerating their deterioration and any breakdowns will create intolerable conditions unless replaced. In addition to eliminating delays to navigation, the proposed project will eliminate difficulties and hazards involved in operating wicket-type dams under ice conditions and insure against serious interruption to traffic resulting from breakdowns. 949 Ton-mile traffic on the Ohio River has increased about 15 times since 1930, and has more than doubled since 1952. Total river tonnage for 1965 was a record 103,173,852 and ton-miles were almost 23.3 billion. Preliminarj^ figures for 1966 indicate continued growth to 109,600,000 tons and 24.6 billion ton-miles. All indications are that the growth in river transportation will continue for many- years, and the growth is being accelerated by the rapid industrial expansion now bcciu-ring in the river basin. The efficient and uninterrupted river transportation of coal, petroleum, steel products, and chemicals, to, from, and through this area is highly important in normal times and the importance is emphasized in times of national emergency. Construction and maintenance of adequate naviga- tion structures to accommodate modern towing equipment is essential to the continuing development of the area and to meet the need for economical transpor- tation of bulk and finished products. Traffic through the project area averaged over 19 million tons in 1964 (last year recorded). Average annual benefits are $6,835,000, all navigation. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $5,223,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $300, 000 Continue construction of locks under a continuing contract 4, 123, 000 Engineering and design 400, 000 Supervision and administration 400, 000 Total 5, 223, 000 The requested amount is required to continue construction of the project. Non-Federal cosfs.— Construction of the project will require modification of certain existing facilities such as terminals and similar structures which were con- structed under Department of the Armj^ permit pursuant to section 10 of the 1899 River and Harbor Act. The owners will adapt these facilities to new project con- ditions at an estimated cost of $430,000. Status of local cooperation. — None required. However, owners of affected private facilities which are located within the limits of the river under Federal jurisdiction will be expected to modify them at their own expense in accordance with the permit regulations under which they were originally constructed. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $74,400,000 is an increase of $1,000,000 over the latest estimate submitted to Congress ($73,400,000). This increase is due to price level increases of $1,220,000 which were partially offset by a decrease of $220,000 in relocations due to bid prices for highway relocation work. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $2,130,000 $579,400 $305,600 $300,000 $945,000 Relocations .. 7,605,000 240,100 304,900... 7,060,000 Reservoir 870,000 ._ 870,000 Dam .... 21,670,000 21.670,000 Locl 400 Flood control: ^^ ^^^ Summer 140,600 Winter 149,000 Dam: T^•pe: Concrete and earthfiU. ^^ Height: 91 feet. "" Length: 5,332 feet including spillway. Spillway: Tvpe: Concrete gated ogee section. Width: 155 feet. Gates: Number: 3. Size (ft.) 36.5 x 45.0. Outlet works: Conduits through spillway section: Number: 6. Size: 6x6 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 14,600. f?! Type : Predominantly agricultural. ^ Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Relocations: Roads: 8.93 miles, $3,601,300. Cemeteries and utiUty lines: $889,700. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedul Lands and damages. Relocations Reservoir.. Dam Roads (access) Channels and canals.. Levees Pumping plants - Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds and utilities.. Permanent operating equipment. Entire project 69 June 1969. 64 Do. December 1968. 91 Do. 59 March 1968. 100 100 100 1 June 1969. 1 December 1968. 17 June 1969. 74 Do. 954 JUSTIFICATION Huntington Reservoir, a vuiit of a three-reservoir system authorized for con- struction in the upper Wabash Basin, will j^rovide a substantial degree of flood protection to agricultural areas and to the communities of Logansport, Peru, and Wabash, Ind., located along the upper Wabash River below the dam. This reser- voir, in combination with 10 other authorized reservoir units in the Wabash Basin, five of which are completed and five are in preconstruction planning phase, will aid in the reduction of flood stages along the Wabash River, and will contribute to a lesser degree to the reduction of major flood flows on the Ohio River. Property in the Wabash flood ]3lain between the White River and the Huntington dam site is worth over S343 million. Recurrence of the 1913 (maximum of record), 1943 and 1958 floods in that area would cause damages of about $42.6, $28.3, and $14.2 million, respectively, imder present conditions of development and price levels. Average annual damages in this area and in the lower Wabash Valley amount to about $9,062,000. It is estimated that the reservoir will reduce these damages by $802,000. A seasonal pool will provide general and fish and wildlife recreation benefits. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $1,317,700. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $1, 066. 500 Higher land utilization 20, 200 Recreation : General 225,000 Fish and wildlife 6, 000 Total 1,317,700 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3,110,000 will be applied to — Complete acquisition of lands $1, 201, 800 Complete relocations 877, 100 Complete reservoir clearing, removal of bridges 113, 800 Complete construction of dam 10, 300 Complete construction of recreation facilities 623, 900 Complete construction of buildings, grounds, and utilities 102. 500 Complete permanent operating equipment 40. 800 Engineering and design 10, 400 Supervision and administration 129, 400 Total 3, 110,000 These funds, plus payment from the State of Indiana, are required for comple- tion of construction during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — The authorizing legislation requires local interests to contribute 1 percent of the cost of the project, presently estimated at $201,000. Status of local cooperation. — The Indiana General Assembly, in 1955, 1959, 1963, 1965, and 1967 sessions, enacted laws authorizing a total of $645,000 for construc- tion of the three reservoirs in the upper Wabash Basin. The State has made paj'-- ments as required. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $19,865,000 is an increase of $265,000 over the latest estimate ($19,600,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $438,900 for higher price levels; $54,400 for protection of additional graves in Star of Hope Cemetery; $34,400 for overruns in grouting foundation and abutments of the dam; $91,400 for additional permanent operating equipment, reservoir management during construction, and construction of new operators' quarters instead of renovating existing structures; and $28,300 for additional engineering and design for new operators' quarters and extra coordination with State of Indiana relative to recrea- tion facilities. These increases were partially off"set by decreases of $64,100 for pavings on completed utility and pipeline relocations; $104,400 for bids received for highway relocations; $143,600 for reduction in area of reservoir clearing; and $70,300 for reduction in allowance for contingencies on contracts, and construc- tion of the dam. Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 955 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $5,834,000 $3,366,200 $1,253,900 $1,213,900 Relocations 4,491,000 2,362,100 1,242,900 886,000 Reservoir 150,000 35,000 115,000 Dam... _- 5,725,000 4,545,100 1,169,600 10,300.... Roads 80,000 26,600 53,400 Channels and canals 360,000 360,000 Levees 373,500 358,600 14,900.. _ Pumping plants 375,500 347,800 27,700 Recreation facilities 733,000 7,800 95,000 630,200.. Buildings, grounds, and utilities 143,000 1,800 25,000 116,200 Permanent operating equipment 76,000 11,800 23,000 41,200.. Engineering and design... 835,000 774,500 50,000 10,500. Supervision and administration 890,000 582,300 177,000 130,700 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contribution).. 20,066,000 12,744,600 4,167,400 3,154,000 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) 2,500 9,200 -11,700 Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contribution) 20,066,000 12,747,100 4,176,600 3,142,300 Pending adjustmedts Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contribution) 20,066,000 12,747,100 4,176,600 3,142,300 Undelivered orders 576,500 -559,700 -16,800 Total obligations 13,323,600 3,616,900 3,125,500 federal funds: Total applied cost 19,865,000 12,617,200 4,126,200 3,121,600 Undistributed cost (construc- tion facilities) 2,500 9,100 -11,600 Total project cost 19,865,000 12,619,700 4,135,300 3,110,000 Pending adjustments Totalcost. 19,865,000 12,619,700 4,135,300 3,110,000.... Undelivered orders 570,800 -570,800 Total obligations.. 13,190,500 3,564,500 3,110,000 Non-Federal contribution: Total applied cost... 201,000 127,400 41,200 32,400 Undistributed cost (construc- tion facilities) 100 -100 Total project cost 201,000 127,400 41,300 32,300 Pending adjustments Totalcost 201,000 127,400 41,300 32,300.... Undelivered orders 5,700 11,100 -16,800 Total obligations 133,100 52,400 15,500.... Metfiod of financing: Federal funds: Allocations 14,360,000 2,395,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 1,169,500 Total funds available for obliga- tion... 3,564,500 Appropriation required 3,110,000 Non-Federal contribution: Contribution 191,300 Unobligated carryover from prioryear 58,200 5,800 Total funds available for obliga- tion 58,200 Contribution required 9,700 Levee Unit No. 5, Wabash River, Ind. (Continuing) Location. — The levee unit No. 5 local protection project is located in Gibson and Posey Counties, Ind., on the left bank of the Wabash River. Authorization. — 1936 and 1946 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.9 to 1. 956 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost_ i $5,510,000 Estimated non-Federal cost _ 501,000 Casti contribution. Other costs 501,000 Total estimated project cost '6,011,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 3,620. 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 623,000 Allocations to date. _ _.._ 4.243,000 77 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1,267,000 100 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 ' Does not include deferred construction costs of $21,000 for above normal maintenance cost by the IC RR for the 5-year period following completion of the project. PHYSICAL DATA Levee: Black River section, 9.5 miles. Patoka River section, 7.7 miles. Wabash River section, 18.7 miles. Wabash-Black Rivers section, 6.0 miles. Relocations: Railroad bridges, 3. Roads, miles, 1.6. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Relocations Levees 24 73 June 1969. Do. Entire project 57 Do. JUSTIFICATION The project, when completed, will provide major flood protection for 44,000 acres of good agricultural lands includhig the towns of Lyles, Skelton, and Griffin, Ind. This area presently has no flood protection and, as a result, has suff'ered severe damages in the floods of 194,5, 1949, and the consecutive years of 1957 through 1964 and 1966. The project will prevent flood damages in excess of $7,508,000 (1967 values) which would result from a recurrence of these floods under present conditions. Heavy agricultural losses and the further development of oilfields in the area demonstrate the need for the levee. Average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $915,800. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,267,000 will be applied to — Complete relocation of railroads $781, 000 Complete construction of levees 392, 200 Engineering and design 12, 300 Supervision and administration 81, 500 Total 1, 267,000 The funds requested are required to complete the project in the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $501,000, broken down as follows : Lands and damages $399, 000 Road relocations OS, 000 Utility relocations 34, 000 Total 501,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. The annual cost of maintenance and operation is estimated at $25,000. Status of local cooperation. — Levee L^nit No. 5 District executed formal assur- ances of local cooperation on January 8, 1962, which a.ssurances were accepted by the district engineer on January 1.5, 1962. In addition, tlie State of Indiana, 957 on February 22, 1963, exocutcd assurances covering maintenance of the floodway free from obstructions, which assurances were accepted by the district engineer on INIarch 4, 1963. All rights-of-way required for the project have been furnished except for that required for the offset alinement construction for alteration of the IC RR bridge and approaches. The levee district is aware of this requirement and has agreed to furnisli the right-of-way. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The present Federal cost estimate of $5,510,000 is an increase of $540,000 over the latest estimate ($4,970,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $88,000 for higher price levels; $397,000 for alteration of the IC RR bridge and approaches due to de- termination that some of the present trestles and bridge crossings are not struc- turally adequate for raising in place, as previously planned, and will require construction of new steel girder spans on piers and offset alinement construction ; $21,000 for final costs and maintenance of completed levees pending transfer of the project to the levee district; and $54,000 for additional specialized engineering and design for tlie above noted changes in IC RR alterations. These increases were partially offset by a decrease of $20,000 for reduced contingency in contract for alteratioii of the "Southern Railway bridge. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Relocations $1,733,300 Levees and floodwalls Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only). Undistributed cost (construction facilities)- Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments.. - Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations.. Method of financing: Allocations. Unobligated carryover from prior year.- Total funds available for obligation 3, 009, 700 1 442, 000 325, 000 5,510,000 $288, 100 2, 164, 100 328, 700 178, 100 2,959,000 $520, 200 309, 400 101,000 65, 400 996, 000 $925. 000 536, 200 12,300 81,500 1,555,000 5,510,000 '5, '5107000' 2,959,000 996,000 1,555,000 2, 959, 000 158,600 3,117,600 3, 620, 000 996, 000 29, 400 1,025,400 623, 000 502, 400 1, 125, 400 1,555,000 -188,000 1,367,000 100, 000 Appropriations required - 1,267,000 'Includes $1,500 for real estate activities to assure compliance by local interests in the provision of local cooperation. Carr Fork Reservoir, Kentucky River, Ky. (Continuing) Location. — The dam site for Carr Fork Reservoir is located on Carr Fork in Knott County, Ky., approximately 8.8 miles above its confluence with the Kentucky River and 16 miles upstream from Hazard. The reservoir lies entirely within Knott County. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961. Beneiiit-cost ratio. — 1.05 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost. Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost. Allocations to June 30, 1967 _ Allocation for fiscal year 1968... _. Allocations to date.. -.. Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $24,400,000 - _ 24,400,000 4,764,000 3,635,000 -. 8, 449, 000 35 3, 100, 000 47 12,851,000 958 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type : Earth and rock fill. Height: 130 feet. Length: 720 feet. Spillway : Type: Open cut through left abutment. Width: 285 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 3,687. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Outlet works: Type: Gate controlled — two service gates, 3.5 feet by 8 feet; two emergency gates, 3.5 feet by 8 feet. Dimension : 8 feet diameter conduit. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage 47, 700 Minimum operational pool 11, 800 Water quality control 4, 300 Seasonal pool 6, 500 Flood control: Summer 25, 100 Winter 31,600 Relocations: Roads: 20.4 miles, $10,158,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $1,147,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule 36 June 1971. Relocations Reservoir 16 36 Do. September 1971. December 1971. Recreation facilities September 1971. Buildings, grounds, and utilities 1 24 June 1971. December 1971. Entire project 27 Do. JUSTIFICATION The project, when completed, will control a drainage area of 58. 2 square miles, which is 12.5 percent of the drainage area of the North Fork Kentucky River above Hazard, Ky. The project will function as a unit of the general compre- hensive plan for flood control and allied purposes in the Ohio River Basin and will provide considerable reduction in flood damages along about 16 mile.s of Carr Fork below the dam and the North Fork Kentucky River to Hazard. This city has a population of 6,000 and is the principal damage center below the reservoir. Lesser reduction in flood damages would be provided downstream along the Kentucky River to Jackson, Ky. Operation of the dam in the 1957 flood (maximum of record) would have effected a 3.5 foot reduction in the flood crest at Hazard, thereby eliminating a large portion of the damage. The 1957 flood was also the most damaging flood of record for the entire Kentucky River Basin, causing damages evaluated at $15,268,000 at that time and resulting in six lives lost. Damage caused by the 1957 flood within the principal area of influence of the Carr Fork Reservoir was evaluated at about $8,495,000 at that time. On the basis of current conditions of development and price levels, these damages would amount to about $12,068,000, of which about $7,629,000 would be prevented by the project. The March 1963 flood caused damages evaluated at about $4,865,000 at that time. A recurrence of this flood under current conditions of development and price levels would cause damages of about $5,650,000, of which $3,423,000 would be prevented by the project. The project will also provide water quality control and a seasonal pool will provide general and fish and wildlife recreation benefits. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $986,400. 959 Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $647, 200 Water quality control ' 90, 100 Recreation : General 169,000 Fish and wildlife 11, 000 Area redevelopment 69, 100 Total 986,400 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3,100,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $1, 180, 000 Continue relocations 1, 710, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 10, 000 Engineering and design 60, 000 Supervision and administration 140, 000 Total 3, 100, 000 The funds requested are required for construction during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — By letter, dated June 23, 1964, the director, Divi- sion of Flood Control and Water Usage, Department of Conservation, Common- wealth of Kentucky, furnished assurances that the said agency had authority and would prevent encroachments on the flow-carrying capacities of stream channels below the Carr Fork, Eagle Creek, and Red River Reservoir projects, to the extent needed to provide reasonably effective reservoir operation. These assur- ances were accepted by the district engineer July 22, 1965. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $24,400,000 is an increase of $1,800,000 over the latest estimate ($22,600,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $709,000 for higher price levels; $365,000 for lands and damages as the result of a gross reappraisal based on current land values and more accurate survey data; $734,000 for a new replacement school facility for existing Carr Creek and Mouth of Trace Elemen- tary Schools which were previously planned to be discontinued and acquired as a lands and damage item; and $53,000 for additional engineering and design, and $78,000 for additional supervision and administration, both required for the new replacement school facilities and salary increases. These increases were partially offset by decreases of $70,000 for reduction in contingency allowance on contract for construction of outlet works; and $69,000 for relocation of electric power and telephone facilities based on more accurate field data and preliminary negotiations with owners. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-l), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 0) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages. $5,854,000 $1,417,300 $1,428,000 $1,180,000 $1836 700 Relocations 11,305,000 581,800 2,200,000 1,699,800 6'823'400 Reservoir 132,000 132000 Dam 3,916,000 1,230,800 230,200... ""' 2 455 000 Recreation facilities 900,000 '900000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 183,000 1,900 181100 Permanent operating equipment 72,000 17.300 12,000 10 666 32700 Engineering and design 1,020,000 706,200 225,000 60,'000 28800 Supervision and administration 1,018,000 240,400 150,000 140 000 487600 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 24,400,000 4,195,700 4,237,200 3,089,800 12 877 300 Undistributed cost (construction ' ' ' facilities) 7,700 8,400 10.200 -26 300 Total project cost (Federal funds only)..- 24,400,000 4,203,400 4,245,600 3,100,000 12,851,'000 Pending adjustments . Total cost (Federal funds only) 24,400,000 4,203,400 4,245,600 "'SJOO'OOO i2'85r66o Undelivered orders. 203,000 -203,000 Total obligations 4,406,400 4,042,600 3,100, OOO' '"l? gsYoob Method of financing: Allocations 4,764,000 3,685,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 357,600 Total funds available for obligation 4,042,600.. Appropriations required— - , 3.166,660 "l2 ," 851 '. OOO 91-459— 68— pt. 1 61 960 Frankfort, Kt. (North Frankfort Area) (Continuing) Location. — The authorized Frankfort local protection project is located in Franklin County in the north-central portion of Kentuckj-, on both banks of the Kentucky Rivei", about 66 miles above its mouth. The North Frankfort Area is located on the right bank of the river and is comprised of the Thorn Hill, Old Capitol and Distillery sections of Frankfort. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1938. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Estimated Federal cost... Estimated non-Federal cost -_. Cash contribution __ Ottier costs Total estimated project cost _.- Allocations to June 30, 1967.. Allocation for fiscal year 1968... Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969-.. Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost $2, 210, 000 175, 000 175, 000 2. 385, 000 286, 000 430, 000 716,000 1, 000, 000 494. 000 32 78 PHYSICAL DATA Levee: Length: 2,810 feet. Maximum height: 16 feet. Concrete wall: Length: 700 feet. Maximum height: 17 feet. Closures: 1. Pumping plants: 2. Gravity outlets: 2 Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction has not started. Completion schedule Levee and floodwall March 1070. Pumping plants March 1970. Entire project ^larch 1970. JUSTIFICATION Frankfort is the county seat of Franklin County and the cai)ital of the Common- wealth of Kentucky. It is the trading center for a prosperous farming area and also has several sizable manufacturing industries including distilleries, shoe and garment manufacturing plants and metal working jilants. Employment in folate government furnishes one of the larger economic stabilizing forces. The maximum flood of record occurred in January 19o7 and imnidated about .50 ])ercent of the community. No lives were lost in this flood but two-thirds of the residents became refugees. The 1937 flood caused damages estimat(>d at about $2,858,000 at that time. A recurrence of this flood under current conditions of development and price levels would cause damages estimated at $13,059,000 (1967 values). The area included in the jirotection plan for the north Frankfort area is about 430 acres, ajjproximately half of which is occupied by businesses and residences, three large maiuifacturing i)lants, and several distributing plants. The estimated flood damage for i-ecurrence of a flood equal to the 1937 flood, under present con- ditions of d(>velopmcnt and price levels in the north Frankfort area, would be about $7,787,000 (1967 values). The plan of j^rotection will eliminate, to a large extent, flood damages in that area. The average annual benefits for this project are estimated at $374,000, all flood control. 961 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1 million will be applied to — Continue construction of levee and floodwall $670, 000 Initiate construction of pumping plants 23(3, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 78, 000 Total 1, 000, 000 The funds requested are required for construction during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the proposed project is estimated at $175,000, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $124, 000 Relocations (miscellaneous utilities) 3VJ, 000 Diversion sewers 12, 000 Total 175, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. The annual cost of mamtenance and operation is estimated at $10,000. Slaius of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of local cooperation were exe- cuted by the city of Frankfort on March 3, 1966 and accepted by the district engineer on March 8, 1966. All appraisals have been made and rights-of-ways are being acquired. It is anticipated that authorization of entry will be furnished about March 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $2,210,000 is an increase of $150,000 over the latest estimate ($2,060,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $100,000 for higher price levels and $50,000 in engineering and design for additional unusual coordination with city officials and Urban Renewal Agency in connection with the city's extensive planning for the capital plaza project in the area to be protected. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1). FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, tiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Levee ana floodwall $1,331,000..,. $271,000 1823,000 $237,000 Pumping plants 454,000 236,000 218,000 Engineering and design "275,000 $203,600 60,000 10,000 1,400 Supervision and administration 150,000 9,900 20,000 78,000 42,100 Total applied cost(Federal funds only)... 2,210,000 213,500 351,000 1,147,000 498,500 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) 1,500 3,000 -4,500 Totalprojectcost(Federalfundsonly)._.. 2,210,000 213,500 352,500 1,150,000 494,000 Pending adjustments. _ Total cost (Federal funds only) 2,210,000 213,500 352.500 1,150,000 494,000 Undelivered orders. 20,100 129,900 -150,000 Total obligations 233,600 482,400 1,000,000 494,000 Method of financing: Allocation... _ _ 286,000 430,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year _ 52,400 Total funds available for obligation 482 400 _._ Appropriations required... 1,000,000 494,000 ' Includes $2,000 for real estate activities to assure compliance by local interestslin the provision of local cooperation. Green River Reservoir, Green River (ORB), Kentucky (Continuing) Location. — The damsite for the Green River Reservoir is located on the Green River, 305.7 miles above its mouth. The site is about 8 miles south of Campbells- ville, Ky. The reservoir will lie in Taylor, Adair, and Casey Counties, Ky. Authorization. — 1938 Flood Control Act. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.7 to 1. 962 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $30,380,000 Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs -- Total estimated projectcost 30,380,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 19,796,000 Allocations lor fiscal year 1968 _ 5,655,000 Allocations to date... 25,451,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. _. 4,929,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 84 100 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Tvpe: Earth and rock fill. Height: 142 feet. Length: 2,350 feet. Dike: Tvpe: Earthfill. Height: 98 feet. Length: 1,900 feet. Reservoir capacitv: Acre-feet Total storage 723,200 ^Minimum operational pool 98, 100 Water qviality control 64, 500 Supplemental low-flow augmentation: Summer 81,500 Winter Flood control: Summer 479, 100 Winter 560,600 Spillway: Type: Open cut through right abutment. Base width: 450 feet. 0\itlet works: Type: Gate controlled, three 4.75- by 16-foot gates. Circular conduit, 16-foot diameter. Lands and damages: Acres: .34,240. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Relocations: Roads: 22.3 miles, $6,207,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $1,855,000. STATUS (JAN. 1. 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands Relocations Reservoi r Dam Roads. Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities. . Permanent operating equipment. Entire project 93 June 1969. 50 Do. 9 March 1969. 84 June 1969. 71 September 1968. June 1969. 3 IVlarch 1969. 38 December 1968. 70 June 1969. 963 JUSTIFICATION The Green River Reservoir project is a unit of the authorized plan for flood control and other purposes in the Ohio River Basin. The project when completed will control a drainage area in excess of 682 square niUes. The flood plam area of the Green River is devoted primarily to agriculture. The project will afford sub- stantial benefits to agriculture in the Green River Valley, and functioning as a unit of the general comprehensive plan for flood control and allied purposes in the Ohio River Basin, will contribute to reduction of flood damages along the 197 miles of the Ohio River below the Green River and along the Mississippi River. The current estimated value of property in the Green River Valley below the dam is $94,200,000. The record flood in the reach of the Green River affected by this reservoir occurred in 1937, inundated essentially all of the flood plain, and remained above flood stage at Woodbury for 25 days. A recurrence of this flood under present conditions of development and values would cause damages estimated at about $11,519,000, of which $2,017,000 would be prevented bv this project. The project will also provide water quality control and a seasonal pool will provide general and fish and wildlife recreation benefits. Average annual benefits are estimated at $3,035,000. Breakdown of benefits: „„^ Flood control ^ 'l-o'nhn Water quality control '^^-' ""^ "'"Cenejal «0, 000; Fish and wildlife io,OW Total 3, 035, OOO Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $4,929,000 wiU be applied to- Complete acquisition of lands -' i^nm' am Complete relocations ^> ^^h ^^Tj^ Complete reservoir clearing '^.^' ^^Y^ Complete construction of dam 4-^-' 2H); Complete construction of recreation facilities 1, Oo-- (UU Complete buildings, grounds, and utilities 110, oUU Complete permanent operating equipment qo nnn Engineering and design '^1^ V^J^ Supervision and administration z»t, oUU Total 4,929,000 The funds requested are required to complete the project in the budget year. Non-Federal cost. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $30,380,000 is a decrease of $20,000 from the latest estimate ($30,400,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes decreases of $1,286,000 in lands and damages due to progress to date; $36,800 savings in relocations; $11,800 in reservoir due to elimination of bridge removal and reclassification of remaining work to relocations. These decreases were offset, in part, by increases of $403,100 for higher price levels; $227,000 due to bids and minor adjustments in road relocations; $603,000 in dam and spillway for flood emergency measures and additional haulage costs for fill material occasioned by flooding of borrow area; $7,000 for additional boundary line marking; $59,000 for additional permanent operating equipment; and $15,500 for an additional year of reservoir management due to delay in project completion. 964 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) Lands and damages Relocations Reservoir. Dam Roads Recreation facilities. Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only) Undistributed cost (construction facilities Total project cost (Federal funds only) Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations. Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations.. Appropriations required $8, 986, 000 8, 062, 000 774, 200 8,000,000 174, 800 1,582,000 202, 000 117,000 1,285,000 1,197,000 30, 380, 000 30, 380, 000 "36,'386, odd ' $7, 969, 200 2,512.400 47, 200 6, 045, 700 95, 800 6.'5dd' 22, 800 1,122,000 644, 500 18, 466, 100 4,300 18, 470, 400 $763, 300 2. 963, 700 19, 800 1,061,000 49, 000 100,000 35, 000 64, 000 124,000 271,000 5, 450, 800 15,000 5,465,800 $253, 500 2, 585, 900 707, 200 893, 300 30, 000 1,482,000 160, 500 30, 200 39, 000 281,500 6, 463, 100 -19,300 6, 443, 800 18, 470, 400 185,200 18,655,600 5, 465, 800 1,329,600 6, 795, 400 6, 443. 800 -1,514,800 4,929,000 19,796,000 5,655,000 1.140,400 6, 795, 400 4,929,000 Sturgis, Ohio River Basin, Ky. (Continuing) Location. — The Sttirgis local protection project is located on the right bank of the Tradewater River, 6 miles above its confluence with the Ohio River, in Union County, Ky. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1938. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $2,000,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 92,000 Cash contribution Other costs 92,000 Total estimated project cost 2, 092, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 382,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 700, 000 Allocations to date 1,082,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 918,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 54 100 Earth Levee: 20,804 feet. Concrete Wall: 510 feet. Pump Plants: 2. Closure Structures: 7. physical data STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Levee and floodwall Pumping plants 50 January 1969. June 1969. Entire project 45 Do. m6 JUSTIFICATION The project, when completed, will protect the town of Sturgis, Ky., against the highest water stages ever recorded in the area. Tlu; town's two worst flood disasters were suffered in 19i:^ and 1937. In 1913, about 10 percent of the town was inundated, and in 1937, the maximum flood of record, approximately 72 percent of the town was inundated to an average depth of 7 feet. Although the town is on the Tradewaler River, the town's worst flood damages have been caused by backwater from the Ohio River. Sturgis is an incorporated town and is an important mining and rural trading center. It is served by a branch of the Illinois Central Railroad and U.S. Highway 60. The value of the propertv to be protected by the project is in excess of $9,- 964,000 (1967 values). The flood of record occurred in January 1937 and caused damages in the amount of $490,000 (based on 1961 conditions of development) within the area to be protected. Recin-rence of this flood under present conditions of development and price levels would cause damages of about .$2,248,000 which would be entirely prevented by the project. Recent damaging floods occurred in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, and "l967. Average annual benefits are estimated at $117,100, all flood control. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $918,000 will be applied to- Con tinue construction of levee and floodwall $573, 200 Complete construction of pump plants 270, 500 Engineering and design 11, 800 Supervision and administration 62, 500 Total 918,000 The funds requested are required for completion of the project. Non-Federal costs.— 1h.e. initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $92,000, broken down as follows : Lands and damages $79, 000 Relocations (miscellaneous utilities) 13, 000 Total 92,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon comple- tion. The annual cost of operation and maintenance is estimated at $8,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of local cooperation were executed by the mayor of the city of Sturgis on February 8, 1965, certified by the city attorney on February 10, 1965, and accepted by the district engineer on February 15, 1965. All rights-of-way for the project have been furnished. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress ($2 million). However, a decrease of $54,000 for reduction in contingencies on levees and floodwalls based on contract award was offset by increases of $31,000 for higher price levels and $23,000 in engineering and design based on costs to date and estimated remaining requirements. 966 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1). FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current cost June 30, flscal year estimate 1967 1968 (2) (3) (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Levees and floodwalls. $1,322,000 308, 000 » 235, 000 135, 000 2, 000, 000 2, 000, 000 Pumping plants. Engineering and design _.. Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost (construction facilities) Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 2,000,000 Undelivered orders.. Tota I obligations Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriation required $36,600 193,200 12,600 242,400 300 242,700 $710,000 37,500 30, 000 59, 900 837,400 1,900 839, 300 242,700 122,600 365, 300 382, 000 839, 300 -122,600 716,700 700, 000 16,700 716,700 $575,400 270, 500 11,800 62, 500 920, 200 -2,200 918,000 918,000 918,000 918,000 > Includes $1,500 for real estate activities to assure compliance by local interests in the provision of local cooperation. Salamanca, N.Y. (Continuing) Location. — The city of Salamanca is located in Cattaraugus County, south- western New York, on both banks of the Allegheny River, about 10 miles upstream from the New York-Pennsylvania State line. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $1,840,000 Estimated non-Federal cost: Other 465,000 Total estimated project cost 2,305,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967.... 330,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 200,000 Allocations to date 530,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1,310,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 29 100 PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Average height: 10 feet. Length: 9,403 feet. Floodwalls: Average height: 10 feet. Length: 1,985 feet. Pumping plants (number) : 3 Status {Jan. 1, i.W5).— Construction not started. Completion schedule Levees and floodwalls June 1969. Pumping plants Do. Entire project Do. 967 JUSTIFICATION The city of Salamanca, with a population of 8,480, 19G0 census, contains divei:?ified industries and the normal supporting trade and commercial estab- lishments. These industries are engaged principally in the manufacture of furni- ture, dairy products, castings, plastics, shoes and wool yarn. The city is the commercial and employment center for a large number of people. Much existing development of vital concern to the economy of the area is located along the river. The three flood zones arc essentially commercial and residential in character and contain important municipal facilities and structures. The maximum flood of recent record occurred in March 1956 and inundated an area of 202 acres within the city causing damages in the amount of $199,000. The primary flood damages resulting from a recurrence of this flood are estimated at $318,000, current price levels. The authorized project would provide complete protection from damages as sustained by the flood of record. Average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at $117,600. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,310,000 will be applied to — Complete construction of levees and floodwalls $990, 000 Complete construction of pumping plants 200, 000 Engineering and design 5, 000 Supervision and administration 115, 000 Total 1, 310, 000 The requested funds will permit completion of the project. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $465,000 of which $384,000 is for lands and damages and $81,000 is for utility adjustments. Local interests are required to maintain the project upon completion. The annual cost for maintenance is $4,400. Status of local cooperation.- — The New York State Department of Public Works, the responsible local cooperation agency, furnished formal assurances of local cooperation, dated September 7, 1965. Acquisition of rights-of-way and arrange- ments for utility adjustments are underway. The Department of Public Works has acquired about 50 percent of the required rights-of-way and is expected to complete the acquisitions in a timely manner for scheduled contract awards. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,840,000 is an increase of $140,000 over the latest estimate ($1,700,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change reflects increases of $100,000 for higher price levels and $40,000 due to reanalysis of requirements for Engineering and Design. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Levees and floodwalls 1,300,000 310,000 990,000 Pumping plants 200,000 200,000 Engineering and design «177,000 153.000 19,000 5,000 Supervision and administration 163,000 10,900 37,100 115,000 Totalappiiedcost(Federalfundsonly).... 1,840,000 163,900 366,100 1,310,000 Undistributed costs Totalprojectcost(Federalfundsonly).... 1,840,000 163,900 366,100 1,310,000 Pending Adjustments... _. _ _ Total cost (Federal funds only) 1,840,000 163,900 366,100 1,310,000. Undelivered orders _ Total obligations 163,900 366,100 1,310,000... Method of financing Federal funds Allocations 330,000 200,000 Unobligated Carryover from prior year 166,100 Total funds available for obligations 366,100 Appropriations required 1,310,000 1 Includes $1,500 to cover costs of Real Estate activities for record research, appraisals and field inspection to assure compliance by local interests in the provision of local requirements. 968 Athens, Ohio (Continuing) Location. — Local protection for Athens, Ohio, located in Athens County on the Hocking River about 37 miles above its confluence with the Ohio River. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost _ J5, 130,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 3,010,000 Cash contribution _ Other costs _. 3,010,000 Total estimated project cost 8, 140,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 _._ 131,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 110,000 Allocation to date _ 241,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. 1,000,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 3,889,000 PHYSICAL DATA Channel improvement: Widening and straightening 22,000 feet of channel to 175-185 foot width. Snagging and cleai-ing: Improving an additional 13,000 feet of existing channel by snagging and clearing. Stat^is (Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule Channel and appurtenances June 1970. Entire project Do. JUSTIFICATION The predominant water resources problem along the Hocking River is the wide- spread flooding along the main stem which causes serious and frequent damages to the cities of Logan, Nelsonville, and Athens, as well as to several smaller communi- ties. In addition, extensive agricultural damages occur throughout all rural reaches. Total average annual flood damages in the Hocking flood plain amount to approx- imately $420,000, of which approximately 57 percent occur at Athens. Crop damages average about .$100,000 annually. The city of Athens, with a population of 23,000 in 1964, has experienced con- siderable growth in recent j^ears primarily due to the rapid expansion of Ohio University, which has a planned capital expenditure of $70 million for future improvements. Although the Athens local protection project has been developed as part of a system for flood control and related benefits in the Hocking River Basin (along with previously authorized Logan Reservoir and the authorized Rush Creek watershed project of the Soil Conservation Service), the plan would reduce average annual damages at Athens by 88 percent without th(! Logan Reservoir. Acting as a unit of the total basin plan, average annual flood control benefits for Athens total $495,600. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested $1 million will be applied to — Initiate channel improvement work under a continuing contract SS60, 000 Engineering and design 40, 000 Supervision and administration 100, 000 Total 1,000.000 The requested amount is required to permit orderly construction of the project. Non-Federal cohIs. — The initial investment of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $3,010,000, broken down as follows: 969 Lands and improvements $1 530 qOO Relocation of utilities l"lll 1 345' 000 Engineering and design and supervision and administration" I. Ill II ' 135| 000 Total 3,010,000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon com- pletion. The annual cost for maintenance and operation is estimated at S30,000 Slatm of local cooperation. — By letter of January 14, 1965, the board of directors of the Hocking Conservancy District indicated their intent to furnish all formal assurances required for the project. Channel alinement plans were recently furnished to the conservancy district and they have initiated work toward ac- quiring rights-of-way for construction and to comply with other requirements of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.— The current Federal cost estimate of $.3,130,000 IS an increase of $270,000 over the latest estimate ($4,860,000) sub- mitted to Congress. Total increase is due to price level rise. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to cost June 30, estimate 1967 (2) (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Channel and appurtenances.. Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only)„. Undistributed costs Total project costs (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments Total costs (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders... Total obligations '_ Method of financing: Allocations. Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation.. Appropriation required 54, 500. 30.0 280.0 320.0 5, 130. $860. $39.1 2.5 41.6 $170. 9 28.5 199.4 40.0 100.0 1,000.0 $3,640.0 30.0 30.0 189.0 3. 889. 5, 130. 41.6 199.4 5, 130. 41.6 .6 42.2 131.0 199.4 -.6 198.8 110.0 198.8 1,000.0 "iVodoVo" 'i,"ooo."6' 3, 889. 3,889.0 "3,'889.'0 1,000.0 3, 889. Caes.\r Creek Reservoir, Ohio (Continuing) Location.— The damsite for the Caesar Creek Reservoir is located on Caesar Creek, approximately 3 miles above its confluence with the Little Miami River ihe Little Aliami River is tributary to the Ohio River. The site, in Warren County, IS about 30 miles northeast of Cincinnati, Ohio. The reservoir area lies in Warren, Green, and Clinton Counties, Ohio. Auihorization.— Flood Control Act of 1938; Water Supply Act of 1958 as amended; and Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961 Benefd-cu.st ratio. — 2.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Estimated total appropriation requirement j25 Future non-Federal reimbursement " o' Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) ?i Estimated non-Federal cost; ' Reimbursement: Water supdIv ■> Other .["[\"[ " "" ' Total estimated project cost " yc Allocations to June 30, 1967 " ' Allocation for fiscal year 1968... "" Allocations to date " ' 1 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 "" 1' Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 "' 21 Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost 000,000 .. 544,000 .. 456,000 544,000 000,000 .... 650,000 875,000 525, 000 6 800, 000 13 675,000 970 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earth and rockfill. Length: 2,650 feet. Height: 166 feet. Si)illway : Type: Open cut through left abutment. Base width: 4.50 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage 242, 200 Minimum operational pool 13, 300 Water supply, water quality control 80, 400 Seasonal pool 8, 300 Flood control: Summer 140, 200 Winter 148, 500 Outlet works: Type: Gate controlled: 2 service gates 3.75 feet by 8 feet. 2 emergency gates 3.75 feet by 8 feet. Dimension: 8-ft.-diameter conduit. Lands and damages: Acres: 11,050. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Relocations : Roads: 7.6 miles ($3,488,000). Cemeteries and utilities: ($2,300,000). Construction has not (started. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule Complete Lands 1 December 1971. Relocations March 1973. Reservoir December 1972. Dam March 1973. Recreation facilities Do. Buildings, grounds, and utilities December 1972. Permanent operating eouipment Do. Entire project 1 March 1973. JUSTIFICATION This project will function as a unit of the general comprehensive plan for flood control and allied purposes in the Ohio River Basin and will contribute to a reduction of flood damages along 50.4 miles of the Little Miami River, and 518 miles of the Ohio River below the Little Miami River. The overflow area of the Little Miami River below Caesar Creek comprises about 8,800 acres of rural lands and includes portions of the urban areas of Newtown, Milford, Loveland, South Lebanon, and Morrow and 10 small communities. Between these urban areas arc scattered developments of mostly residential and small farm properties. Develop- ments in the urban areas include normal distribution of residences, businesses, services, utilities, and transjjortation routes. Two industries in the overflow area are subject to inundation. The flood of record on the Little Miami River occurred in 1913 and caused damages amounting to $708,000 in the reach of this stream afifocted Viv the project. A recurrence of this flood would cause damages estimated at $7,633,600 of which $1,812,000 would be prevented by the i)roject based on .Tuly 1967 values. Recent damaging floods occurred in March 1963, March 196'i, February, May, and December 1966, and March and May 1967. The project will also provide for water-associated recreational opportunities, preservation and enhancement of the fish and wildlife resource, improvement in the quality of down- stream flows, and water supply for municipal and industrial uses. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $2,600,000. 971 Breakdown of benefits: A7nount Flood control $1, 365, OOO Water supply 223, 500 Water qualit}' control 235, 500" liecreation: General 685, 000 Fish and wildlife 91, 000 Total 2,600,000 Fiscal ijear 1969.— -The requested amount of $1,800,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $1, 355, 000 Initiate relocations 24, 000 Continue boundary line marking (reservoir) 6, 000 Initiate construction of dam 145, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 5, 000 Engineering and design 200, 000 Supervision and administration 05, 000 Total 1,800,000 The funds requested are the minimum required for construction during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — There are no requirements of local cooperation on tliis project. However, under the provision of tlie Water Supplj^ Act of 1958, as amended, the State of Ohio requested inclusion i)i the project of 43,800 acre-feet of storage for future municipal and industrial water supply uses. Based on a tentative allocation of 39,200 acre-feet for water supply storage, tlie State of Ohio will be required to assume about 18 percent of tlae estimated joint-use project construction costs allocated to water supply facilities, which cost is presently estimated at about $3,544,000, plus the estimated amount of $12,000 annually for the cost of operation, maintenance, and major capital replacements required for the water supply facilities. The State has indicated that repayment will be made in annual installments, with interest, over a period not to exceed 50 years, beginning with use. Status of local cooperation. — The State of Ohio will be the responsible coor- dinating agency for all assurances. Ohio Revised Code 1964, section 1521.04, authorizes the State of Ohio Depart- ment of Natural Resources, division of water, to cooperate with and negotiate for the State with any agency of the U.S. Government pertaining to the water resources of the State. By letter, dated May 4, 1965, the department of natural resources furnished assurances for future water supply storage under the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Draft of contract covering pa,v- ment for future water supply storage has been submitted. It is anticipated that this contract will be formally executed and approved without undue delay. In connection with modification of tlie project for inclusion of water quality control storage under the provisions of Public Law 87-88, the State of Ohio,. Department of Natural Resources, by letter dated August 1, 1967, furnished assurances that the Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board would, under existing authority and policy, require the maximum practicable degree of treatment of waste water discharged into the waters of the basin below the Caesar Creek Reservoir, and that the State would assume the leadership in taking such action as is necessary to prevent diversion to other uses of any water quality storage provided in the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $25 million is an increase of $1,700,000 over the latest estimate ($23,300,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $1,691,000 for higher price levels and $9,000 for additional rights-of-way and utilit}^ relocations in conjimction with additional 1.1 miles of country road relocations. 972 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance ti jtem cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete alter estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $6,793,000 $36,800 $966,000 $1,349,000 $4,441,200 Relocations - 5,788,000 24,000 5,764,000 Reservoir . 223,000 8,000 6,000 209,000 Dam '" 7,333.000 - 145,000 7,188,000 Recreation faciiltles 2,470,000 2,470,000 Buildings ?rounds, and utilities ...- 265,000 .._ 265.000 Permanent^operating equipment 66,000 _.._ 7,000 5,000 54,000 Engineering and design 1,087,000 320,000 129,000 200,000 438,000 Supervision and administration... 975,000 20.100 35.000 65.000 854,900 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 25.000,000 376,900 1,145,000 1,794,000 21,684,100 Undistributed cost (construction fa- cilities) 700 2,400 6.000 -9,100 Total project cost (Federal "funds only)... 25,000.000 377,600 1,147,400 1,800,000 21,675,000 Pending adjustments - -- - Total cost (Federal funds only) 25,000,000 377,600 1,147,400 1,800,000 21,675,000 Undelivered orders... 500 -500 Total obligations 378,100 1,146.900 1,800,000 21,675,000 Method of financing: Allocations 650,000 875,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year! - 271,900 Total funds available for obligation _.. 1, 146,900 Appropriations required..... - - 1,800,000 21,675,000 Clarence J. Brown Dam and Reservoir, Ohio (Continuing) Location. — The dainsite for the Clai'ence J. Brown Dam and Reservoir is located on Buck Creek, approximately 7.3 miles northeast of its confluence with Mad River at Springfield in Clark County, Ohio, and about 25 miles northeast of Dayton. The reservoir lies entirely within Clark Count}', Ohio. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1962. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $13,600,000 Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution. --- Other costs - - Total estimated project cost - - 13,600,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 .- 2,700,000 Allocation lor fiscal year 1968 1.900.000 -.. Allocations to date.. - 4.600.000 34 Appropriation requested for hscal year 1969. 1.900,000 48 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 7,100,000 ..-. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Tvpe: Earth fill. Height: 72 feet. Length: 6,620 feet. Spillway: Type: Open cut through right abutment. Crest length : 665 feet. Outlet works: Type: Gate controlled: 2 sor\'ice gates, 5 by 1 1 feet. 2 emergency gates, 5 by 11 feet. Dimension: 11-feet-diameter conduit. 973 Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage 63, 700 Minimum operational pool 3, 800 Permanent recreational pool 6, 200 Water quality control 20, 800 Seasonal pool 6, 100 Flood control: Summer 26,800 Winter 32,900 Lands and damages: Acres: 4,280. Type: Predominantly agriculture. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Relocations: Roads: 1.7 miles, $432,000. Railroads: 5.5 miles, $1,537,000. Utility lines: $231,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands_._ - Relocations _ Reservoir - Dam Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Entire project - -.. JUSTIFICATION The project, when completed, will control a drainage area of approximately 82 square miles and will provide almost complete flood protection for the city of Springfield and a high degree of protection for the overflow areas along the lower Mad River and for the Wright- Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton. Urban developed property on Buck Creek, including the portion of Springfield within the unprotected overflow area of the stream, has an estimated value of about $25,800,000 (1967 values). This development includes 14 industrial plants, manufacturing a variety of products such as motor trucks, farm equipment, piano frames, electrical equipment and incubators. These industrial concerns have an estimated value of about $15,200,000 (1967 values) and employ 6,000 persons. The record flood of 1929 on Buck Creek caused damages amounting to $567,000 and the record flood of 1913 on Mad River below Buck Creek caused damages amounting to $292,000. Recurrence of these floods (1929 and 1913) along the reaches of Buck Creek and Mad River affected by the reservoir would cause damages of about $3,291,000 and $5,617,000, respectively, under present conditions of development and price levels, of which about $3,230,000 and $4,067,000 would be prevented by the project. The project will also provide water quality control and a permanent rec- reation pool will provide general and fish and wildlife recreation benefits. Average annual benefits are estimated at $1,155,000. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $553, 000 Water quality control. 238, 000 Recreation: General 295, 000 Fish and wildlife 69, 000 40 June 1970. March 1971. 2 Do. 19 June 1971. Do. 1 December 1970. 7 June 1971. 22 Do. Total 1, 155, 000 974 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,900,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands 7S1, 400 Continue relocations 532, 000 Complete boundary line marking (reservoir) 4, 000 Continue construction of dam 308, 200 Initiate construction of buildings, grounds, and utilities 15, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 19, 000 Engineering and design 140, 000 Supervision and administration 100, 000 Total 1,900,000 The funds I'equested are the minimum required for continuation of construction dui'ing the budget year. Xon-Federal costs. — None. Statiis of local cooperation. — Formal assurances covering prevention of futiu'e encroachment or restriction of Buck Creek Channel from the dam site to the mouth of the stream were furnished by the city of Springfield, the Springfield Conservancy District and Clark County on February 24, 1964, which assurances were accepted by the district engineer on March 5, 1964. Negotiations are con- tinuing with the State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, for assurances that all futtire recreational development will be at State expense. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $13,600,000 is an increase of $500,000 over the latest estimate ($13,100,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $695,000 for higher price levels; $430,000 for relocation of county and township roads not previously considered necessary; $224,000 for relocation of railroad for flatter grade required by the railroad company; $40,000 for relocation of gaslines and other minor utilities based on preliminary negotiations with owners. These increases were partially offset by decreases of $852,000 for deletion of Buck Creek Lane relocation based on preliminary agreement with county officials; $20,000 for reduction in powerline relocations based on preliminary negotiations with the owner; and $17,000 for favorable bid received for construction of the outlet works. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PRGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $3,653,000 $1,269,700 $1,274,500 $781,400 $327,400 Relocations. 2,200,000 2,400 50,200 632,400 1,515,000 Reservoir 106,000 2,000 5,000 4,000 95,000 Dam 4,786,000 390,700 692,300 298,200 3.404,800 Recreation facilities _ 1,028,000 1.028,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities.. 194,000 2,600 15,000 176,400 Permanent operating equipment 96,000 5.300 10,000 19,000 61,700 Engineering and design 837,000 445.000 153,000 140.000 99.000 Supervision and administration... 700,000 96,900 90.000 100,000 413,100 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 13,600,000 2,214,600 2,275,000 1,990,000 7.120,400 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) 5,700 4,700 10,000 -20,400 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 13,600,000 2,220,300 2,279,700 2,000,000 7,100,000 Pending adjustments... Total cost (Federal funds only) 13,600,000 2,220,300 2.279.700 2,000,000 7.100,000 Undelivered orders- 16,200 83.800 -100,000 Total obligations 2,236,500 2,363,500 1,900,000 7,100,000 Method of fmancing: Allocations 2,700,000 1,900,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year _.. 463,500 Total funds available for obligation 2,363,500 Appropriations required.. 1,900,000 7,100,000 East Fork Reservoir, Ohio (Contimiing) Location. — The damsite for the East Fork Reservoir is located on the East Fork of Little jNIiami River, approximately 6 miles upstream from Batavia in Clermont County, Ohio, and about 32.6 miles above the mouth of the Little- Miami River. The reservoir lies entirely in Clermont County. Avihorization. — Flood Control Act of 1938. Water Supply Act of 1958, as. amended. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.1 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement $28,300,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 2,936,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate). 25, 364,' 000 Estimated non- Federal cost. 2,936,000 Reimbursement: Water supply 2,936,000 Other Total estimated project cost 28,300,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967.- 708,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 817,000 Allocations to date 1,525,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969..- 1,650,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... 25,125,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Tvpe: EarthfiU. Height: 200 feet. Length: 1,450 feet. Spillway: Tvpe: Open cut through right abutment. Width: 860 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet- Total storage 294, 800. Minimum operational pool 19, 000 Water supplj^, water quality control 65,' 200 Seasonal pool 8, 400 Flood control: Summer 202, 200 Winter 210^ 600. Outlet works: Type: Gate controlled. 2 — service gates 5.67 by 12.0 feet. 2 — emergency gates 5.67 by 12.0 feet. Dimension: 12 feet diameter conduit. Lands and damages: Acres: 10,100. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Relocations: Roads: 6.6 miles ($4,745,000). Utilities: ($285,000). Construction has not started. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands... 3 December 1971. Relocations September 1972. Reservoir ._ Do. Dam.-.. _ December 1972. Roads Do Recreation facilities September 1972. Buildings, grounds, and utilities Do. Permanent operating equipment... . Do. Entire project 3 December 1972. 91-459— 68— pt, 1- 976 JUSTIFICATION This project will function as a unit of the approved general comprehensive plan for fiood control and allied purposes in the Ohio River Basin and will contribute to a reduction of flood damages along ;^2.6 miles of the East Fork of Little Miami River, 7.2 miles of the Little Miami River, and the Ohio River below the Little INIiami River. The overflow area of the East Fork of Little ^Nliami River comprises about 4,000 acres of agricultural lauds, of which about 70 percent is in cultivation and includes portions of the towns of Batavia and Perintown. Developments along the Little Miami River overflow area have a much greater density than iilong the East Fork and include portions of the five municipalities of Shademore, Newtown, Plainville, Avoca Park and Terrace Park. The flood of record on the East Fork of Little ^liami River occvuTed in 194.') and the flood of record on the Little Miami River occurred in 19i:5. A recurrence of these floods under present eonditions of development would cause damages estimated at $409,000 and $2,060,000, respectively, of which $393,000 and $408,000 would be prevented bv the project, based on Julv 1967 values. Recent damaging floods occurred in March 1963, March 1964, February and December 1966, and March and May 1967. The project would also provide for water-associated recreational opportu- nities, preservation and enhancement of the fish and wildlife resource, improve- ment in the quality of downstream flows, and water supply for miuiicipal and industrial uses. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated $2,634,000. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $1, 397, 000 Water supply 1S6, 900 Water qualit.y control 156, 100 Recreation : General 837,000 Fish and wildlife 57,000 Total 2,634.000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,650,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $803, 000 Continue boundary line marking (reservoir) 2, 000 Initiate construction of dam 385, 000 Initiate construction of access roads 35, 000 Continue permanent operating equipment 4, 000 Engineering and design 350, 000 Supervision and administration 71, 000 Total 1,650,000 The funds requested are the minimum required for construction during the budget year. Non-Federal costs. — There are no requirements of local cooperation on this project. However, under the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, the State of Ohio requested inclusion in the project of 35,100 acre-feet of storage included in the project for future mimicipal and industrial water supply uses. Based on a tentative allocation of 35,500 acre-feet for water supply storage, the State of Ohio will be required to assume about 13 percent of the estimated joint-use project construction costs allocated to water supply facilities, which cost is presently estimated at about $2,936,000, plus the estimated amount of $12,000 annually for the cost of operation, maintenance, and major capital replacements required for the water supply facihties. The State has indicated that payment will be made in equal annual installments with interest over a period not to exceed 50 years, beginning with use. Status of local cooperation. — The State of Ohio will be the responsible cooper- ating agency for all assurances. Ohio Revised Code 1964, section 1521.04, authorizes the State of Ohio Depart- ment of Natural Resources, Division of Water, to cooperate with and negotiate for the State with any agency of the U.S. Government pertaining to the water resources of the State. By letter, dated May 4, 1965, the department of natural resources furnished assurances for future water svipply storage under the pro- visions of the Water Supplj' Act of 1958, as amended. Draft of contract covering payment for future water supply storage has been submitted. It is anticipated that this contract will be formally executed and approved without undue delay. 977 In connection with modification of the project for inclusion of water quaHty control storage under the provisions of Public Law 87-88, the State of Ohio De- partment of Natural Resources, by letter, dated August 1, 1967, furnished assur- ances that the Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board would, under existing authority and policy, require the maximum prac- ticable degree of ti-eatment of waste waters discharged into the waters of the basin below the East Forli Reservoir, and that the State would assume the leader- ship in taking such action as is necessary to prevent diversion to other uses of any water quality storage pro\ ided in the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal estimate of $28 300 - 000 IS an increase of $1,800,000 over the latest estimate ($26,500,000) submitted to ■Congress. This change is the result of price level rise. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (4) (5) Lands and damages. $5,305 000 Relocations 5,030,000 Reservoir 300,000 Dam 10,980,000 Roads (access) 442,000 Recreation facilities 2,930'000 $41, 100 $750, 000 10,000 2,000 385, 000 35,000 197,000 99,000 28, 300, 000 28,300,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design 1,807|000 Supervision and administration 1,210,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only). ' '"" UnJistrubuted cost (construction facilities) Total project cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments. Total co:t (Federal funds only) 28, 300, 000 Undelivered orders Total obligations.. ...I."l" Method of financing: Allocation Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation.. .'".'.'.'.'.'. Appropriations required ...!!^" 472, 100 27, 500 540, 700 400 541, 100 7,000 180,000 34,000 981,000 2,900 983, 900 4,000 350, 000 71,000 1,647,000 3,000 1,650,000 541,100 54, 300 595, 400 708, 000 1,650,000 983, 900 -54,300 929, 600 1, 650, 000 817,000 112,600 929,600 (6) $800,000 $3,713,900 5, 030, 000 288,000 10, 595, 000 407, 000 2, 930, 000 197,000 88,000 804, 900 1,077,500 25,131,300 -6, 300 25, 125, 000 25,125,000 "25,'i25,'666 1,650,000 25,125,000 North Branch of Kokosing Reservoir, Ohio (Continuing) Location.— The project is located in Knox County, Ohio, on the North Branch of Kokosmg River, approximately 9 miles above the confluence of North Branch and the Kokosing Riv^ers. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Estimated Federal cost tc rnn nnn Estimated non-Federal cost l^^^^iil^" " * ' ' q Total estimated project cost . """ fi n7n nnn Allocations to June 30, 1967 MR nnn Allocations for fiscal year 1968.. ^qr nnn Allocation to date — , qPooo Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969.. '_ '_ ' 900 nnn Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 II-II.III"."!"!."! 4, 129' 000 Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost ¥78 PHYSICAL DATA Damt Type: Earth fill. Height: 70 feet (above streambed). Length: 1,400 feet. Spillway: Type: Uncontrolled with an ogee weir and paved apron. Crest length : 80 feet. Design discharge: 19,000 cubic feet per second. Lands and Damages: Acres: 1,670. Type: Agricultural. Improvements: Small farm buildings. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage 14, S85 Operation and incidental recreation 1, 043 Flood control 13, 842 Outlet works: Type: Uncontrolled, reinforced concrete, circular conduit length, 426 feet; diameter, 5 feet 6 inches. Relocations: Roads: (all county) 2.65 miles, $845,000, power and telephone line: 6.45 miles, $55,000. Completion schedule Statiis. — Jan. 1, 1968: Construction not started. Lands and damages June 1969. Relocations December 1970. Reservoir June 1971 . Dam Do. R oads — access Do. Recreation Do. Entire project Do. JUSTIFICATION The North Branch of Kokosing Reservoir, along with a snagging and clearing project, was authorized for construction for adequate flood damage relief in the vicinity of INIount Vernon, Ohio. The snagging and clearing project at Mount Vernon was completed in November 1965. (Reservoir construction was contingent upon prior or simultaneous accomplishment of the snagging and clearing work). As a system the two projects, along with the existing State-owned conservation dam on the East Branch of the Kokosing and with slight improvements to the existing locally built levees along Kokosing River, will afford practically complete protection to Mount Vernon (1960 population 13,238) from the maximum flood of record, January 1959. In addition, substantial flood damages would be pre- vented in the rural reaches downstream from the proposed reservoir. Damaging flood stages occur on the average of about once in 5 years at Mount Vernon. The flood of January 1959 inundated practically all of the land subject to flooding along the Kokosing River and North Branch, causing damages estimated at $5,300,000, of which 92 percent occurred at Mount Vernon alone when the locally constructed levee was overtopped at several points. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $290,500. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $267, 000 General recreation 15, 000 Fish and wildlife 58, 00 Total 290,500 979 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested $900,000 will be applied to — Complete acquisition of lands $310, 000 Initiate road relocations under a continuing contract 100, 000 Initiate utility relocations 35, 000 Initiate construction of dam under a continuing contract 300, 000 Engineering and design 80, 000 Supervision and administration 75, 000 Total 900,000 The requested amount is required to permit orderly construction of the project. Non-Federal costs. — Non-Federal interests are to operate and maintain the proposed general recreation and fish and wildlife facilities at an estimated cost of $4,300 annually. (Includes $1,300 for major replacements.) Status of local cooperation. — The Ohio Department of Natural Resources has agreed to assume the responsibility for operation and maintenance of the land and recreation facilities and for future development of any new areas in accordance with Public Law 89-72, the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $6,070,000 is an increase of $340,000 over the latest estimate ($5,730,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change is due to price level increases of $310,000 and $30,000 for seeding and reforestation of work areas. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 In addition, local interests have at various times performed both limited and major channel improvements, the cost of which is not available. PHYSICAL DATA Improved Channels: Carnegie-Bridgeville : Chartiers Creek: Main improvement: Length: 55,685 feet. Bottom width: 60 to 100 feet. Auxiliarv channel: Length: 10,700 feet. Bottom width: 10 to 20 feet. Cutoff channel: Length: 3,895 feet. Bottom width: 60 to 85 feet. Robinson Run and Miller's Run: 2,500 feet. Adjustments to mouths and lower reaches. Drop structures (Number): 6. Relocations: Railroads: One new bridge and reconstruct one bridge. • Cannonsburg-Houston : Chartiers Creek: Length: 24,860 feet. Bottom width: 40 to 60 feet. Brush Run and Chartiers Run: 810 feet. Adjustments to mouths and lower reaches. Relocations: Railroads: Reconstruct one bridge. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule Carnegie-Bridgeville: Relocations December 1970. Channel June 1972. Entire project Do. Canonsburg-Houston : Relocations Jmie 1909. Channel June 1971. Entire project Do. JUSTIFICATION Chartiers Creek drains an area of about 277 square miles and enters the Ohio- River 2.6 miles below the head of the river at Pittsburgh. The communities of t he- basin affected by floods are old, established, and well developed. The valle\' is primarily an industrial area and an important part of the greater Pittsburgh industrial complex. The stream reaches considered for flood protection are bor- dered by many industrial concerns, commercial buildings, and residential areas located in low-lying areas. Supporting facilities such as railroads, highways, utilities, and bridges parallel and cross the stream in numerous places. Large numbers of people from the immediate and surrounding areas are employed by the plants and commercial establishments located in the flood zones. Flooding occurs frequently and during periods of high water the economy of the area is virtually paralyzed. Large numbers of people are affected either directly or indirectly due to work stoppage or curtailment caused by interruption of normal transportation facilities. The maximum flood of record occurred in September 1912. The second highest flood of record occurred in August 1956, causing damages estimated at $5,403,000 for Carnegie-Bridgeville and $754,000 for Canonsburg- Houston. Primary flood damages resulting from a recurrence of the August 1956 flood are estimated at $8,367,000 for Carnegie-Bridgeville, and $1,166,000 for Canonsburg-Houston, July 1967 values. The most recent severe flood occurred in February 1966, causing damages estimated at $2,806,000 in Carnegie-Bridge- ville and $403,000 in Canonsburg-Houston, July 1967 values. The proposed improvements would contain within banks all floods up to the maximum of record, but with some residual damage, and would greatly reduce flood stages and damages resulting from higher floods. Average annual benefits, all flood con- trol, are estimated at $1,575,000 for Carnegie-Bridgeville, and $245,000 for Canonsburg-Houston. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,500,000 will be applied to — Carnegie-Bridgeville : Complete construction of unit 1, channel $857, 000 Initiate construction of unit 2, channel 320, 000- Engineering and design 80, 000 Supervision and administration 83, 000 Canonsburg-Houston : Initiate and complete construction of raUroad bridge 97, 000 Complete construction of unit 1, channel 792, 000 Initiate construction of unit 2, channel 150, 000 Engineering and design 30, 000 Supervision and administration 91, 000 Total 2, 500, 000 The funds requested for the budget year are the minimum required for con- tinuation of project construction toward the ultimate objective of providing urgently needed flood protection by June 1972. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized project is estimated at $10,100,000 broken down as- follows : Carnegie- Canonsburg- Bridgeville Houston Lands and damages $820,000 $463,000 Roads 482,000 122.000 Railroads 759,000 43,000 Utilities 626,000 332,000 Sanitary sewer 6,453,000 Total 9,140,000 960,000 Local interests are required to operate and maintain the project upon com- pletion. The annual cost of operation and maintenance is $48,800 for Carnegie- Bridgeville and $15,200 for Canonsburg-Houston. In addition, the Commonw^ealth of Pennsylvania and private organizations have completed both limited and major improvements of Chartiers Creek for flood alleviation and land reclamation. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has recently completed improvement of the channel in Chartiers Creek in the Scully Yard Gorge Area in accordance with the authorized plan and is accomplishing. 984 limited cTiannel improvement in Carnegie. In addition, the Commonwealth is phmning to improve the channel in the Curry Field area in Canonsburg. The estimated cost of this work is not available. Status of local cooperation. — The Chartiers Valley Distiict Flood Control Au- thority, the local cooperation agency for the Carnegie-Bridgeville reach of the project, fm-nished formal assurances of local cooperation dated May 12, 1967. The District Engineer accepted the assiu-ances on November 27, 1967. Local interests are acquiring rights-of-entry and making arrangements for required utility adjustments for unit 1 of the project. Rights-of-entry for miits 2, 3, and 4 are expected to be furnished when requiied. The Board of County Commissioners, Washington County, the local coopera- tion agency for the Canonsburg-Houston reach of improvement, furnished formal assurances of local cooperation on May 23, 1967. The district engineer accepted the assurances on July 12, 1967. Local interests are acquiring rights-of-entry and •making arrangements for required utility adjustments for unit 1 of the project. Rights-of-entry for unit 2 are expected to be furnished when required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.— The current Federal cost estimate of $15,300,000 is an increase of $900,000 over the latest estimate ($14,400,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This increase is due to price level rise. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Carnegie-Bridgeville: Relocations Channel Engineering and design 'oupervision and administration Subtotal Carnegie-Bridgeville 11,700,000 iCanonsburg-Houston: Relocations Channel Engineering and design, _ Supervision and administration Subtotal Canonsburg-Houston. Total applied cost (Federal funds only). Undistributed costs Total proiect cost (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 15,300,000 Undelivered orders.. Total obligations _ Method of financing Federal funds: Allocation.. Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required , $745, 000 9, 806, 000 1 505, 000 644. 000 97,000 3,008,000 -' 234, 000 261,000 3, 600, 000 15,300,000 $244, 600 14,900 259, 500 $150,000 120.400 30,100 300, 500 105.800 8,200 114,000 373, 500 150,000 66. 200 26, 800 243, 000 543, 500 $1,177,000 80, 000 83, 000 1,340,000 97, 000 942, 000 30, 000 91,000 1,160,000 2. 500, 000 15,300,000 373, 500 543, 500 373, 500 2,500 376, 000 417, 000 543, 500 -2, 500 541,000 500, 000 41,000 541, 000 2, 500, 000 "2,"566,"666" "2,"500,'000" $745,000 8,479.000 60, 000 516.000 9, 800, 000 1,916,000 32,000 135.000 2. 083. 000 11.883,000 11,883,000 'n,"883,"6o6 'ii,'883,'6o6 2,500,000 11,883,000 ' Engineering and design Includes $5,000 to cover cost of real estate activities for record research, appraisals and field inspections to assure compliance by local interests in the provision of local requirements. - Engineering and design includes $2 000 to cover cost of real estate activities for record research, appraisals and field inspections to assure compliance by local interests in the provision of local requirements. Union City Reservoir, Pa. (Continuing) Location. — The reservoir is located in Erie County, northwestern Pennsylvania, on French Creek, a tributary of the Allegheny River. The damsite is located 24 miles upstream from Cambridge Springs, Pa., and 41 miles upstream from Mead- ville, Pa. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.2 to 1. 985 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost... $11,000,000 Estimated non- Federa I cost. Total estimated project cost 11,000,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 _ 1,940,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 995,000 Allocations to date 2,935,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 2, 500,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969.. 5,565,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earth embankment. Height: 88 feet (above streambed). Length: 1,420. Lands and damages: Acres: 2,562. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Spillway: Type: Side-channel, uncontrolled. Capacity (Design flood): 02,700 cubic feet per second. Relocations : Roads: 8.5 miles, $4,335,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $202,000. Outlet works: Lower — Concrete conduit, uncontrolled: 8.0 feet high by 4.5 feet wide with 1.0-foot fillets. Upper — Uncontrolled slot 9.5 feet wide in spillway weir. Reservoir capacity: 47,640 acre-feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages,.. Relocations Reservoirs (clearing) _. Dam 50 23 June 1969. November 1970. Do. Do Roads. __ Do. Buildings, grounds and utilities Permanent operating equipment 10 Do. Do. Entire project 21 Do. JUSTIFICATION The French Creek Basin, located in the southwestern part of New York and the northwestern part of Pennsylvania, drains an area of 1,235 square miles into the Allegheny River at Franklin, Pa. The population of the basin is approximately 86,000. Principal population centers, which are subject to flood damage, are Meadville, Franklin, Sugar Creek Township, Union City, and Cambridge Springs. Industries include farming, manufacture of metal products, textiles, chemicals, furniture, food processing, petroleum refining, and repair shops. Since 1942, 11 major floods were experienced in the basin. The flood of April 1947, the maximum natural flood condition, resulted in the highest stages attained in the upper French Creek Basin, with moderate stages experienced in the lower portion of the basin. An estimated 7,600 acres of developed rural and urban land were affected. Primary flood damages in the amount of $3,965,000 would result from a recurrence of the April 1947 flood. Of this amount $2,843,000 would be prevented by operation of the French Creek reservoir system, July 1967 values. The authorized sj'stem of three reservoirs (Union City, Woodcock Creek, and Muddy Creek) would afford an effective and economical measure of flood pro- tection to the principal damage centers in the French Creek Basin, and would 986 supplement the protection afforded by other flood control reserv'oirs in the valleys below the basin. Union City Reservoir would provide about 59 percent of the annual flood control benefits creditable to the system. Average annual benefits for the Union City Reservoir, all flood control, are estimated at $1,246,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,500,000 will be applied to — Complete acquisition of land $257, 000 Continue relocations 606, 000 Continue construction of dam 1, 400, 000 Engineering and design 19, 000 Supervision and administration 218, 000 Total 2, 500, 000 The requested funds are required to continue construction of the project. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to inform aff'ected interests in the French Creek Basin at least annually, that the system of reservoirs of which Union City Reservoir is a part will not provide protection against maximum floods. The cost of local cooperation is considered to be minor. Status of local cooperation. — On November 10, 1964, the Department of Forests and Waters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania furnished formal assurances of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. However, feature costs have been adjusted due to price level rise of $495,000 and increase of $120,000 for lands and damages based on more detailed appraisal data offset by reduction of $615,000 due to receipt of bids for road relocations. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5) Lands and damages $784,000 $326,300 $200,700 $257,000 Relocations... 4,537,000 402,000 1,074,000 606,000 $2,455,000 Reservoirs.... 46,000 46,000 Dam. 3,972,000 50,000 1,400,000 2,522,000 Roads 111,000 111,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities... 23,000 23,000 Permanent operating equipment 26,000 2,700 23,300 Engineering and design 711.000 603,000 83,000 19,000 6,000 Supervision and administration 790,000 81,400 111,900 218,000 378,700 Total applied cost (Federal funds only)... 11,000,000 1,415,400 1,519,600 2,500,000 5,565,000 Undistributed costs. ._ Total project cost (Federal funds only).... 11,000,000 1,415,400 1,519,600 2,500,000 5,565,000 Pending adjustments.. -. Total cost (Federal funds only) 11,000,000 1,415,400 1.519.600 2,500,000 5,565,000 Undelivered orders 129,500 -129,500 Total obligations 1,544,900 1,390,100 2,500,000 5.565,000 Method of financing: Allocations 1,940,000 995,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. 395.100 Total funds available for obligation 1,390, 100 Appropriations required.... 2,500,000 5,565,000 Woodcock Creek Reseuvoiu, Pa. (Continuing) Location. — The reservoir is located in Crawford County, northwestern Pennsyl- vania, on Woodcock Creek, a tributary of French Creek. The damsite is located about 4.1 miles above the mouth of Woodcock Creek. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. 987 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost ^^ . , . $10,800,000 - lEstlmated Federalcost - - ♦iu.ouu, ^ Estimated non-federal cost ,» gQQ qqq Total estimated projectcost - 452*000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 - 500*000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ---- - 952 000 9 Allocations to date - , ?no'00O 20 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 - - o'cdRnnn Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 8,648,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Tvpe: Earth embankment. Height: 90 feet (above streambed) . Length: 4,650 feet. :Spillway: Type: Saddle, uncontrolled. Capacity (Design Flood) : 24,400 cubic feet per second. Outlet works: Type : Control tower with gated conduit. Size of conduit: 6 feet by 7.75 feet. Acre-feet Tleservoir capacity: „„ ^^^ Total storage ^^' )iri Operational and incidental recreation pool '^" Flood control: i c ocn Summer 1|' ^^^ Winter IS, you Water qualitv control: Summer ^' ^^n, Winter "^^^ Lands and damages: Acres; 1,350. Tvpe: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical farm and residential units. Tvelocations; Roads: 5.55 miles, $2,412,000. Utility lines: $93,000. Status {Jan. 1, /5&S).— Construction not started. Completion schedule Lands and damages V^'^^'^a^] ^^^^• Relocations Junel97L Reservoirs (clearing) _- j^^^^^^^er 197L rSs ::::::::::::"-'--"- June 1971. Recreatio'n facilities September 1971. Buildings, grounds, and utilities Uo. Permanent operating equipment AJo. Entire project November 1971. JUSTIFICATION The French Creek Basin, located in the southwestern part of New York and the northwestern part of Pennsylvania, drains an area of 1,235 square miles into the Allegheny River at Franklin, Pa. The population of the basin is approximately 86 000 Principal population centers, which are subject to flood damage are Mead- vil'le Franklin, Sugar Creek Township, Union City and Cambridge Springs. Indilstries include farming, manufacture of metal products, textiles, chemica s furniture, food processing, petroleum refining, and repair shops Since 1942, 11 maior floods have been experienced in the basin. The flood of April 1947, the maxi- mum natural flood condition, resulted in the highest stages attained in the upper French Creek Basin, with moderate stages experienced in the lower portion ott tie ba^in An estimated 7,600 acres of developed rural and urban land were attected. 988 Primary flood damages in the amount of $3,965,000 would result from a recur- rence of the April 1947 flood. Of this amount $2,843,000 would be prevented by operation of the French Creek Reservoir system, July 1967 values. The authorized system of three reservoirs (Union City, Woodcock Creek, and Muddy Creek) would afford an effective and economical measure of flood protec- tion to the principal damage centers in the French Creek Basin, and would supple- ment the protection afforded by other flood control reservoirs in the valle\-s below the basin. Woodcock Creek Reservoir would provide about 19 percent of the annual flood control benefits creditable to the system. Average annual benefits for the Wood- cock Creek Reservoir are estimated at $642,000. Breakdown of benefits: Flood Control $402. 200 Water Quality Control 75, 000 Recreation 164, SOO Total 642, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,200,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of land $225, 000 Continue relocations 725, 000 Engineering and Design 140, 000 Supervision and Administration 110, OOQ Total 1, 200,000 The requested funds are the minimvnn required to continue construction of the project. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to inform affected interests in the French Creek Basin at least annually, that the system of reservoirs of which Wood- cock Creek Reservoir is a part will not provide protection against maximum floods. The cost of local cooperation is considered to be minor. Stahis of local cooperation. — On November 10, 1964, the Department of Forests and Waters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania furnished formal assurances of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $10,800,000 is an increase of $600,000 over the latest estimate ($10,200,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This increase is due to price level rise. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1958 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages. Relocations Reservoirs Dam Roads Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation.. Appropriations required $601,000 2,505,000 59, 000 5, 630, 000 54, 000 312,000 107,000 37, 000 793, 000 702, 000 10,800,000 $17,400 $200, 600 150,000 $225, 000 725v OOQ 254, 300 17,300 289,000 255,700 56, 700 663, 000 140, 000 110,000 1,200,000 10, 800, 000 "io.'soo.'ooo' 289,000 663,000 289, 000 30, 200 319,200 452, 000 663, 000 -30, 200 632,800 500, 000 132,800 632, 800 1, 200, 000 "i,'26o,'6d6' "i,'20o,"o66' $158,000 1,630,000 59, 000 5. 630, 000 54.000 312,000 107,000 37. 000 143,000 518.000 8. 648, 000 8, 648, 000 "8,'548,'666 '8,'648,'666 1, 200, 000 8, 648, 000 m Beech Fork Lake, W. Va. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in Wayne and Cabell Counties, W. Va., with. dam site located '.i.'i miles above the mouth of Beech Fork and 20 miles above the confluence of Tvvelvepole Creek and the Ohio River. Author jzat ion. — 1962 Flood Control Act. BencJU-cosl ratio: 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost. _ $14,200,000 Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost _ 14,200,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 _ 660.000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968_... _.. 710,000 Allocation to date 1,370,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 800, 000 Balance to complete alter fiscal year 1969 12,030,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earthfill. Height: 91 feet (streambed). Length: 1,070 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage 43, 785 Operational and incidental recreation 6, 255 Flood control __ 37, 530 Spillway : Type: Uncontrolled, left abutment. Length: 80 feet. Design: Discharge: 23,900 cubic feet per second. Outlet works: Type: Reinforced concrete circular conduit. Length: 510 feet. Diameter: 11 feet. Gates: Three— 4 feet by 9 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 3,275. Type: Primarily cropland and pasture. Improvements: Predominantly farm buildings and residentiaL Relocations: Roads: 2.3 miles, $1,080,000. Cemeteries, utilities, and structures, $300,000. Status {January 1968). — Constructioi:i not started. Completion schedxde Lands and damages June 1971. R elocations Do. Reservoir June 1972. Dam Do. Access road December 1969. Recreation June 1972. Buildings, grounds, etc Do. Entire project Do. JUSTIFICATION The Twelvepole Creek Basin is subject to destructive floods principally from severe summer-type storms but also from basinwide winter rains and from Ohio River backwater on the lower reaches. The topography of the basin is conducive 990 'to rapid runoff and short duration of flooding. Operation of the reservoir for flood control would reduce flood stages and damages along Twelvepole Creek and along the Ohio River downstream of the mouth of Twelvepole Creek. Close proximity to the metropolitan area, Huntington-Ashland-Ironton, adds con- siderablv to the project's desirability from a recreation and public use viewpoint. In addition to flood control, the operation pool would be used for recreation and fish and wildlife, .\verage annual benefits for the project are estimated at $714,800. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $460, 000 Recreation 240,000 Fish and wildlife 14, 800 Total - - — - 714, 800 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested $800,000 will be applied to — ■Continue acquisition of lands $32.5, 000 •Continue relocation program 25, 000 Initiate dam construction under a continuing contract 10, 000 Initiate access road construction under a continuing contract 200, 000 Continue boundary line marking 15, 000 Engineering and design 125, 000 •Supervision and administration 100, 000 Total 800,000 The requested funds will permit the orderly continuation of the project to permit completion by the scheduled date of June 1972. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — Not applicable. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of :$14,200,000 is an increase of $800,000 over the latest estimate ($13,400,000) sub- mitted to Congress. The increase is due to price level rise ($700,000) and $100,000 in reservoir feature to provide for seeding and reforestation. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages Relocations Reservoir Dam - l^oads (access). Recreation facilities. Buildings, grounds, and utilities... Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design... Supervision and administration Total applied costs (Federal funds only). . Undistributed costs (construction facilities) Total project costs (Federal funds only).. Pending adjustments Total costs (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Tota I obligations. Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year. Total funds available for obligations.. Appropriations required $2, 760, 000 1.380,000 550, 000 6, 590, 000 290, 000 920, 000 95, 000 85, 000 845, 000 685, 000 14, 200, 000 $68, 200 2,800 2,700 $621,800 27.200 7,300 332, 800 20. 000 426, 500 242, 200 45.000 943, 500 14,200.000 "i4,'200,'6o6" 426. 500 943, 500 426, 500 47, 500 474, 000 660, 000 943, 500 -47, 500 896, 000 710,000 186, 000 896.000 $325. 000 25, 000 15,000 10,000 200,000 125,000 100,000 800. 000 $1,745,000 1,325,000 525,000 6, 580, 000 90, 000 920, 000 95, 000 85,000 145,000 520. 000 12,030,000 800, 000 12, 030. 000 'soo.'ooo ii'oso.'ooo "800."666 i2,'636,'66o 800, 000 12, 030, 000 East Lynn Lake, W. Va. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in Wayne County, W. Va., on East Fork of Twelvepole Creek, 10 miles above the mouth of East Fork and 42 miles above the confluence of Twelvepole Creek and the Ohio River. 991 Authorization. — 1938 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.13 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost... $26,400,000 Estimated non-Federal cost... Total estimated project cost 26,400,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 _ 7,960,000 Allocation tor fiscal year 1968 2,265,000 Allocation to date 10,225,000 39 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 3,900,000 54 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 -.. 12,275,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rockfill. Height: 113 feet (streambed). Length: 638 feet. Spillway : Type: Uncontrolled saddle, left abutment, 400 feet upstream from axis of dam. Length: 230 feet. Design discharge: 47,000 cubic feet per second. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Total storage 82, 500 Operational and incidental recreation 11, 705 Seasonal pool: Summer 5, 485 Winter ' Flood control: Svimmer 65, 310 Winter 70,795 Outlet works: Type: Reinforced concrete circular conduit: Length: 625 feet. Diameter: 13 feet. Gates: Three 5 feet 8 inches by 10 feet. Land and damages: Acres: 24,985. Type: Primarily woodland with minor cropland and pasture. Improvements: Predominantly residential. Relocations: Roads: 13.3 miles, $5,325,000. Cemeteries, vitilities, and structures, $3,555,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages Relocations _ Reservoir Dam Roads— access Recreation Buildings, grounds, and permanent operating equipment Entire project. _ 1 Not started. 26 December 1970. 25 Do. (') Do. 22 Do. 80 Do. 10 Do. 25 September 1970. 29 December 1970. 91-459 — 68 — pt. 1 63 992 JUSTIFICATION The Twelvepole Creek Basin is subject to destructive floods principally from severe summer-type storms but also from basin-wide winter rains and from Ohio River backwater on the lower reaches. The topography of the basin is conducive to rapid runoff and short duration of flooding. Operation of the reservoir for flood control would prevent most of the damages caused by headwater flooding and would alleviate damages resulting from combined headwater and backwater floods. Recurring floods of damaging proportions occur periodically throughout the length of the stream. The flood of record (1939) inundated the town of Wayne, W. \"a., up to depths of 8 feet, and caused damage to residences, other buildings, and highways along the stream. The flood of February-j\Iarch 1962 w^as 1 foot lower at Wayne but at a higher level in upstream reaches and conse- quently, the most damaging of record. Estimated damages in the Twelvepole Basin alone were $1,810,000 and studies indicate that $1,600,000 of that amount would have been prevented with the proposed reservoir in operation. Under present state of development, damages from that flood would have been about $2,625,000. In addition to flood control, a seasonal pool would be maintained for recreation and fish and wildlife. Average annual benefits for the project are estimated at $1,256,100. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $563, 600 Recreation 523, 700 Area redevelopment 135, 900 Fish and ^^ ildlife and water quality control 32, 900 Total 1,256, 100 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested $3,900,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $1, 260, 000 Continue relocation program 1, 105, 000 Complete construction of outlet works and initiate dam under con- tinuing contracts for each 1, 085, 000 Initiate recreation facilities under a continuing contract 50, 000 Engineering and design 100, 000 Supervision and administration 300, 000 Total 3,900,000 The requested funds will permit the orderly continuation of the project to permit completion bj^ the scheduled date of December 1970. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — Not applicable. Comparison of Federal cost estimate.-- .—The cvirrent Federal cost estimate of $26,400,000 is an increase of $1,500,000 over the latest estimate ($24,900,000) submitted to Congress. Change is due to $880,000 increase for higher price levels, an addition of $160,000 for seeding and reforestation of construction borrow areas, a $270,000 increase in outlet works and a $200,000 increase in access road based on actual bid prices, an increase of $300,000 in engineering and design to reflect cost to date and analysis of future requirements, and a $225,000 increase in supervision and administration based on a reanalj'sis of requirements. These increases were partially offset bj- a $535,000 reduction in school relocations based on favorable bid price. 993 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages.. Relocations _ Reservoir Dam Roads (access) _ Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment. Engineermg and design.-. Supervision and administration Total applied costs (Federal funds only). Undistributed costs (facilities con- struction) Total project costs (Federal funds only). Pending adjustments Total costs (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations. Appropriations required $7,270,000 8, 880, 000 365, 000 5,235,000 570,000 1,010,000 105,000 90, 000 1,700,000 1,175,000 26,400,000 $1,291,600 1,653,500 '""365,'700" 55,100 95,100 $1,528,400 1,111,500 15.000 1,388.300 444,900 $1,260,000 1,105,000 1,140,000 """"50.'000' 26,400,000 "26,'460,'666" 48,100 1,326,200 293.600 5,129,900 65,700 5,195,600 6,900 168,800 346, 400 5,010,200 19,200 5. 029. 400 100.000 300. 000 3.955,000 -55,000 3,900,000 5,195.600 1,083,200 6,278,800 5, 029. 400 -1,083,200 3,946,200 3, 900, 000 "3,"900,"600" 7,960,000 2,265,000 1,681,200 3,946,200 $3, 190. 000 5,010,000 350. 000 2,340,000 70,000 864.900 105,000 35. 000 105.000 235. 000 12.304.900 -29,900 12,275,000 12,275,000 '12,275.000 3,900,000 12,275,000 R. D. Bailey Lake, W. Va. (Continuing) LocaUon and description. — In Wj^oming County, W. Va., on the Gtij-andot River about 108 miles above its confluence with the Ohio River. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.04 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimate project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967... Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $79, 800, 000 79, 800, 000 2, 855, 000 4, 000, 000 6,855,000 11,670,000 61,275,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Rolled rock filled. Height: 305 feet. Length: 1,330 feet. Spillway : Type: Uncontrolled, near right abutment. Length: 400 feet. Design discharge: 254,000 cubic feet per second. Lands and damages: Acres: 17,750. Type: Predominantly woodland. Improvements: Typical small, modest farm dwellings. 994 Reservoir capacity: Acre feet Total storage 203, 700 Operation and incidental recreation pool 22, 000 Seasonal (summer— W.Q.C.) 12, 200 Flood control: Summer 169, 500 Winter 181, 700 Outlet works: Type: Circular tvmnel through left abutment, length, 1,740 feet (including transition) ; diameter, 17 feet. Gates: Two — 5 feet 8 inches by 10 feet. Relocations: Roads: 14 miles, $8,260,000. Railroads: 25.3 miles, $35,160,000. Utilities, cemeteries and structures, $2,030,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages - 5 June 1972. Relocations 2 June 1974. Relocated railroad operable - - December 1971. Reservoir - (') June 1974. 0am - 0) Do. Roads— access - (') December 1973. Recreation - - (') Do. Buildings, grounds and permanent operating equipment (') June 1974. Entire project. - 5 Do. 1 Not started. JUSTIFICATION The Guyandot River Basin is subject to floods of a flashy nature which may occur at any time of the year. About 70 percent of the flood areas along the river contain improvements and the major flood problems concern damages thereto. The lower reaches of the river are also subject to Ohio River backwater flooding. Proposed project will provide almost complete control of flooding downstream from the damsite and also provide substantial flood control benefits along the Ohio River. The severe flood of 1957 (flood of record in some reaches) caused damages estimated at $2,253,000 in the reach from proposed damsite to the confluence of the Guyandot River with the Ohio River. Under present state of development and price levels, the damages would amount to nearly $4 million. With reservoir in operation at the present time, all damages could be prevented upon recurrence of such a flood. The flood of March 1962 also inflicted heavy damages throughout the valley and it is estimated that benefits of $675,000 in the Guyandot Valley alone would have accrued to the R. D. Bailey Reservoir if the project had been in operation. The severe flood of INIarch 12-14, 1963, was the flood of record along the main stem of the Guyandot River. Depth of flooding at Logan, W. Va., exceeded the previous record by 3.5 feet, and total damages in the Guyandot Basin were estimated at $8,370,000. Had this project i3oen in oi)eration, over $5,650,000 of these damages would liav(^ been ijreventcd. Benefits that would accrue from the R. D. Bailey Reservoir for the Ohio River alone on recvn-rence of the record flood of 1937 would be ai)out $26,615,000. Estimated average annual benefits for the project total $3,158,000. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $2, 167, 900 R.ecreation and fish and wildlife 344, 000 Water quality control 260, 500 Area redevelopment 385, 600 Total 3, 158,000 995 Fiscal year 1969.— TXxq requested $11,670,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands SI, 010, 000 Continue road and railroad relocations under continuing contracts- _ 8, 89.'), 000 Initiate outlet works and access road under continuing contracts ooO, 000 Engineering and design 355, 000 Supervision and administration 460, 000 Total 11,670,000 The requested amount is required to continue construction of roads and rail- road and initiate construction of outlet works and access road. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — Not applicable. Compari.^on of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $79,800,000 is nn increase of $3,200,000 over the latest estimate ($76,600,000) submitted to Congress. The total increase is due to price level increase of $2,900,000 and a $300,000 increase for the addition of seeding and reforestation to the esti- mate. This addition is required due to the necessary extensive stripping area for core material borrow. An offsetting transfer of $955,000 from lands and damages to relocations was made for proper accounting. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 19G9 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (8) Lands and damages $7,875,000 $194,500 $510,500 $1,610,000 $5,560,000 Relocations 45,450,000 64,000 2,741,000 8,895,000 33,750,000 Reservoir 650,000 10,000 640,000 Dam - 17,530,000 50,000 17,480,000 Roads (access) 555,000 300,000 255,000 Recreation . . 875,000 875,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 90,000 90,000 Permanent operating equipment 70,000 45,000 __ 25,000 Engineering and design 3,470,000 1,555,800 1,414,200 355,000 145,000 Supervision and administration 3,235.000 64,900 250.100 460,000 2,460,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 79,800,000 1,879,200 4,970,800 11,670,000 61,280,000 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) .. 1,700 3,300 ..- -5,000 Total project costs (Federal funds only).. 79,800,000 1,880,900 4,974,100 11,670,000 61,275,000 Pending adjustments Total costs (Federal funds only) 79,800,000 1,880,900 4,974,100 11,670,000 61,275,000 Undelivered orders 585,400 -585,400 Total obligations .-.- 2,466,300 4,388,700 11,670,000 61,275,000 Method of financing: Allocations __ 2,855,000 4,000,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year _ 388,700 Total funds available for obligation 4,388,700 Appropriations required. 11,670,000 61,275,000 L.\UREL EivER Reservoir, Ky. (Continuing) Location. — In Laurel and Whitley Counties, Ky., on Laurel River, 2.3 miles above its confluence ^^'ith the Cumberland River. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1960 as amended by Public Law 88-253. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.18 to 1. 996 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirements $26, 100, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 18,528,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 7,572,000 Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement: Power 18,528,000 Total estimated project cost i 26, 100,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 4,953,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 1,070.000 Allocations to date 6,023,000 Appropriation request, fiscal year 1969., 2,500,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 _.. 17, 577,000 1 Exclusive of $200,000 for U.S. Forest Service costs. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Tvpe: Rockfill with impervious core. Height: 275 feet. Length: 1,420 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Power 185, 000 Powerhead & recreation 250, 600 Total 435,600 Spillway: Type: Side channel, uncontrolled. Capacity: 86,000 cubic feet per second (Surcharge 12.0 feet). Power installation: Ultimate — one unit, 61,000 kilowatt capacity. Presently planned — one unit 61,000 kilowatt capacity. Head, net— 242 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 8,675. Type: Woodland. Inprovements: None. Relocation: Roads: 3 miles $1, 094, 400 Cemeteries and utilities 81, 600 Total 1, 176, 000 STATUS (JAN. 1. 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire'project 19 Lands. 13 Dam 22 Roads 93 Entire project, September 1974. Land acquisition, June 1970. Relocations, December 1970. Reservoir clearing, December 1971. Dam diversion, May 1968. Dam closure, October 1972. Recreation facilities, June 1973. Power on line (1 unit, 61,000 kw.) July 1974. JUSTIFICATION The Laurel River Reservoir project constitute.*! a needed element in the overall plan for coordinatcid development of the Cumberland River. The project will add 60,000 kilowatts of at-site dependable capacity and 67 million kw.-hr., at-site annual output of energy. Also, as a part of the Cumberland Rasin plan, the project will improve the operation of other existing and authorized main-.stem reservoirs downstream on the Ciunberland River. The project will also provide considerable recreation benefits and will make a substantial contribution to this eastern Ken- tucky area which is in the Appalachian region. 997 Breakdown of benefits: Power - $788,900 Recreation 763, 300 Total 1,552,200 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,500,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisitiou of lands in reservoir area $705, 000 Complete stripping of embankment and construction of cofferdam — 825, 000 Initiate construction of dam and power intake structure 600, 000 Initiate contract for generator 20, 000 Engineering and design 200, 000 Supervision and administration 150, 000 Total 2, 500, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for orderly construction progress and to permit meeting the scheduled dates for beneficial use. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $18,528,000, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $26,100,000 is an increase of $1,600,000 over the latest estimate of $24,500,000 furnished to Congress. Price level increases accounted for $1,085,000 of the increase. Other changes were lands ($109,000) based on updated land appraisals and added rights-of-way for future access roads to public use areas; and engineering and design ($406,000) for additional requirements needed because of unusual cost experienced in selection of power unit size and construction of test fills for the rock fill dam. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $1,310,000 $131,200 $178,800 $705,000 $295,000 Relocations _ 1,176,000 1,176,000 Reservoir 740,000 - --- 740,000 Dam 12,264,000 2,365,700 1,084,300 1,425,000 7,389,000 Powerplant 5,685,000 10,000 20,000 5,655,000 Roads 503,000 463,700 39,300 Recreation facilities 1,221,000 1,221,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities... 71,000 ^^'mn Permanent operating equipment 126,000 126,000 Engineering and design 1,779,000 1,061,900 208,100 200,000 309,000 Supervision and administration 1,225,000 342,300 177,000 150,000 555,700 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 26,100,000 4,364,800 1,658,200 2,500,000 17,577,000 Undistributed cost 3,800 -3,800 --.- Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 26,100,000 4,368,600 1,654,400 2,500,000 17,577,000 Pending adjustments. - - Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 26,100,000 4,368,600 1,654,400 2,500,000 17,577,000 Undelivered orders 309,400 -309,400 Total obligations-... 4,678,000 1,345,000 2,500,000 17,577,000 Method of financing: Allocations 4,953,000 1,070,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 275,000 Total funds available for obligation 1,345,000 Appropriations required 2,500,000 17,577,000 Barkley Dam, Cumberland River, Ky. and Tenn. (Continuing) Location. — On the Cumberland River, 30.6 miles above the mouth, in Lyon and Livingston Counties, Ky., near Grand Rivers, Ky., and approximately 160 river-miles below Nashville, Tenn. 998 Authorization. — 1954 and 1960 River and Harljor Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement. $143,650,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 44,313,900 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate), , _ 99,336, 100 Estimated non-Federal cost; Reimbursement: Power 44,313,900 Total estimated project cost ' 143,650,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 142.000,000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date 142,000,000 Appropriation request fiscal year 1969. 1,650,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 None 99 100 • Exclusive of $100,000 Coast Guard costs. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Tj'pe: Concrete gravity and rolled earthfill. Height: Maximum 155 feet. Length: 9,529 feet (excluding lock and powerplant). Spillway: Type: Gate controlled, concrete ogee weir. Capacity (maximum pool): 620,000 cubic feet per second. Gates: 12, 55 by 50 tainter. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control i 1, 213, 000 Power 1259, 000 Navigation, powerhead and incidental recreation 610, 000 Total 2,082, 000 > Normal operation during nonflood season; flood control allowance to be increased to 1,472,000 acre-feet during season of major flood flows. Power installation: Ultimate: 4 units at 32,500 kilowatts; 130,000 kilowatts. Presently planned: 4 units at 32,500 kilowatts; 130,000 kilowatts. Head: 44 feet. Lock: Type: Concrete gravity. Chamber size (clear dimensions): 110 by SOO feet. Lift (normal) : 57 feet. Lift (maximum) : 73 feet. Canal: Length: 1.5 mil(!s. Width (bottom): 400 feet. Dei)th (minimum pool): 11 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 102,080. Ty])e: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Typical fai-m units. Towns of Kuttawa (population 035) and Eddyville (i)0])ulation 1,858) reciuircd partial relocation. Relocations: Roads (P>deral and State): 57 miles $10, 173, 500 Roads (county and town): 39 miles 2, 101, 500 Railroads: 18 miles 7, 418, 900 Cemeteries, utilities, and structures : 2, 809, 400 Total 22, 563, ,300 999 STATUS (JAN. 1. 1968) Percent Completion sctiedule complete Entire project ..- 98 Entire project— June 1969 Land acquisition 99 Land acquisition— September 1968. Relocations -_. 99 Relocations— September 1968. Reservoir preparation 100 Reservoir preparation— June 1966. Dam.. 99 Dam closure— October 1965. Lock... 98 Lock (temporary operation)— September 1961. Fish and Wfildlife tacilities _. 100 Lock (permanent operation)— November 1965. Pow/erhouse 99 Fish and wildlife facilities— December 1964. Powerplant equipment 100 Roads— September 1968. Powerplant switchyard _. 80 Channels and canal— November 1968. Roads 75 Recreation facilities— June 1969. Channels and canal 93 Buildings, grounds and utilities— December 1968. Recreation facilities 75 Power on line: Buildings, grounds and utilities. 90 1st unit (32,500 kw.)— January 1966. Permanent operating equipment - 86 2d unit (32,500 kw.)— February 1966. 3d unit (32,500 kw.)— March 1966. 4th unit (32,500 kw.)— March 1966. JUSTIFICATION Completion of this project provides for the comprehensive utilization of the water resources of the Cumberland River below Cheatham Lock and Dam includ- ing navigation, flood control, and hydroelectric power production The navigation component of this project is of major importance to the Cumberland River Valley replacing five obsolete locks that have outlived their useful life. Indicative of the demand for use of the Cumberland River for navigation purposes is the con- tinuing increase in traffic volume experienced during recent years in spite of the inadequate existing facilities. Tonnage moved on this river at the present time, together with indicated additional traffic expected to develop, stamps the water- way as one having considerable potential toward becoming one of the more iiiiportant arteries of the inland waterway system. Substantial flood control benefits to the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers will be realized by construction of the project. Recreation benefits are also significant. Hydroelectric power from the proposed installation of 130,000 kilowatts capacity will be ntegrated into the requirements of regions 19 and 20 of the Federal Power Commission. Power de- mands are rapidly expanding in this area. The addition of the project to the power system of the Cumberland — which includes the completed Dale Hollow, Wolf (5reek, Center Hill, Old Hickory, and Cheatham projects, and the Cordell Hull, J. Percy Priest, and Laurel reservoirs presently under construction — will enhance the dependability of the system's power output. Moreover, the value of the in- creased flows (regulated flows) from the upstream projects would be wasted without the main river power dams. In addition, provision is made in this project for a canal connecting with Kentucky reservoir on the Tennessee River in the interest of interchange of navigation traffic and to permit utilization of the flow of both rivers to the best advantage The canal will increase the annual electrical energy output of tlie Barkley project 102,200,000 kilowatt-hours. River traffic between the Cumberland River and points on the inland waterway system downstream from the Tennessee River will save approximately 20 miles by going through the Kentucky pool. Also, the canal will provide an alternative route to the Ohio and would avert a complete stoppage of river traffic which would other- wise occur in case of unavoidable closure of the Barkley or Kentucky Locks. Breakdown of benefits: Navigation $4, 000, 000 Power 2, 205, 500 Recreation 3, 087, 500 Flood control 594, 000 Total 9,887.000 1000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,650,000 to complete the project will be applied to — Complete deficiencies for real estate acquisition $10, 700 Complete reimbursements for relocations contracts 37, 600 Complete miscellaneous hired labor on dam 32, 600 Construct floating emergency bulkhead 243, 300 Complete prototype testing on lock and miscellaneous hired labor on lock 74, 000 Construct additional switchbay 300, 000 Complete miscellaneous powerplant work 132, 000 Complete roads 35, 900 Complete channel excavation 84, 900 Complete recreation facilities 591, 000 Complete buildings, grounds, and utilities 57, 700 Permanent operating equipment 30, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 10, 300 Total 1, 650, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to complete construction of the project. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $44,313,900, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $143,650,000 (July 1967 base) is an increase of $1,650,000 from the latest estimate submitted to Congress ($142,000,000). The increase of $1,650,000 is due to price level increases of $201,000 and other net increases of $1,449,000. The other changes involve the following: Locks ($213,500) due to overnms and prototype testing; powerplant ($268,000) due to request from Southeastern Power Adminis- tration for an additional switchyard bay estimated to cost $300,000 as offset by decreases in powerplant completion items; roads ($98,300) to provide lighting of the right bank access road; recreation ($779,300) due to overnms in roads, parking facilities, walks and curbing, $381,600; upgrading public use facilities below lock and powerplant, $183,000; upgrading comfort stations $83,600, in accordance with Executive Order 11288 on control of pollution and provision of floating facilities, $131,100; buildings and grounds ($232,800) due to changing the Dover mosquito control base to a full reservoir management subbase to provide services in the upper end of the reservoir; permanent operating equipment ($62,500) to provide necessary equipment for subbase; engineering and design ($397,800) due to in- crease in salaries, upgrading of recreation facilities, and engineering effort on contractors' claims; supervision and administration ($99,700) due to payback of liquidated damages previously credited to this feature. These increases were offset by a decrease in relocations ($351,700) due to completion of work; dam decreased ($46,600) due to status of completion; and channels decreased ($304,600) on basis of completed work. 1001 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to cost June 30, estimate 1967 (1) (2) (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages Relocations. Reservoir Dam "!]^ Lock "ll[[]]l Fish and wildlife facilities ""] Powerplant Roads "]"]] Channels and canals Recreation facilities '.[[ Buildings, grounds, and utilities ][' Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds) Undistributed costs " Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds) Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds) Undelivered orders Total obligations (Corps of Engineers funds) Method of financing: Appropriations Unobligated carryover from prior- year Total funds availabfe for obligation. " Appropriation required... $24, 360, 000 22, 563, 300 4, 709, 300 15,575,900 21,063,500 1,277,800 30,942,200 402, 300 4, 332, 000 3,620,300 613,800 412,500 7,297,800 6,479,300 143,650,000 $24,159,400 22, 386, 300 4, 709, 300 15,348,200 20,653,900 1,277,800 30,335,900 302, 300 3,990,100 2,384,400 485, 000 351,900 7,181,700 6,234,400 139, 800, 600 6,100 $189,900 139, 400 $10,700 37,600 195, 100 32,600 . 92, 300 317,300 .... 174,300 64, 100 257,000 644, 900 71,100 30, 600 106,100 234, 600 2, 199, 400 -6, 100 432, 000 35,900 84, 900 591,000 57, 700 30, 000 10,000 10,300 1,650,000 143,650,000 "i43,"650,"b60" 139,806,700 2,193,300 139,806,700 721,100 140,527,800 142, 000, 000 1,650,000 1,650,066' 2,193,300 -721, 100 1,472,200 1,650,000 1,472,200 1,472,200 1,650,000 CoRDELL Hull Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tenn. (Continuing) Location.— On the Cumberland River, 313.5 miles above the mouth in Smith County, lenn. approximately 5 miles upstream from Carthage, Tenn., and 120 river mdes upstream from Nashville, Tenn. , ^ u i^u Authorization. — 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.09 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated per- cent of estimated appropriation re- quirements Estimated total appropriation requirement.... s«^' am llnHi<:trihiiteH rri<;t 1Q9 cnn 'ic/i'inn ',«-'-,„„ '''7?n'nnn Undistributed cost 192 600 154100 —106700 — Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 60.000,000 24,886.400 7 270'600 9 200'000 U 64^' mn Pending adjustments ' ' ' io.o^o.uuu Total cost (Federal funds only)... 60,000,000 24,886.400 ' ""7]270"600 9 200 000 18 fi4Vnnn Undelivered orders 124 300 -124 300 ' ' o, u'*j, uuu Total obligations. 25.010,700 7,146:300 "' 9,200, 000"""l8'643"6o6 Method of financing: ' io,uho,uuu Allocations 25,057,000 7 100 000 Unobligated carryover from prior ' year 46,300 Total funds available for obligation 7,146 300 Appropriations required.... ..'---.'....."""'9,'200,'000 i8,"643V600 1004 J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Stones River, Tenn. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located 6.8 miles above the mouth of Stones River, a tributary of the Cumberland River, and is approximately 7 miles east of the city of Nashville, Tenn., in Davidson County. Authorization. — 193S Flood Control Act and 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirements Future non-Federal reimbursement Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) — Estimated non-Federal cost: Reimbursement: Power. Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967.. -., Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date - Appropriation request fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. $50,200,000 7,627,000 42,573,000 7,627,000 50,200,000 39,811,000 5,000,000 44,811.000 89 4,900,000 99 489,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Concrete gravity and rolled earthfill. Height: 130 feet (above streambed) . Length: 2,716 feet (includes power intake section). Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control i 350, 000 Power 1 34, 000 Powerhead and recreation 268, 000 Total 652,000 1 Normal operation Dec. 1 to Apr. 1 during major flood season; flood control pool to be reduced to 260,000 acre-feet from May 1 to Oct. 15 with corresponding increase in power pool. Spillway: Type: Gate controlled, ogee weir. Capacity: (Maximum pool) — 259,000 cubic feet per second. Gates: Four 45 by 41 feet tainter. Lands and damages: Acres: 33,354. Type: Agricultural and urban homesites. Improvements: Homes and farm buildings. Power installation: Ultimate: One unit at 28,000 kilowatts. Presently planned: One unit at 28,000 kilowatts. Head (normal for plant design): 78 feet. Relocations: Roads (county) : 27 miles $2,287,400 Roads (Stewart AFB) SO, 000 Reservoir bridge 500, 000 Cemeteries, utilities, and structures 1. 481, 200 Total 4, 348,600 1005 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project- 84 Entire project— December 1969. Land acquisition 95 Land acquisition— December 1968. Dam 98 Relocations— June 1968. Powerhouse 70 Reservoir clearing— June 1968. Turbines and generators 84 Dam closure— December 1967. Roads. -. 26 Recreation facilities— December 1969. Power on line (1 unit— 28,000 kw.)— October 1968. JUSTIFICATION The project constitutes a needed and harmonious element in the overall plan for the comprehensive development of the water resources of the Cumberland River Basin, and is a key link in providing for flood control in the valley area. Of particular importance are the flood control benefits in the metropolitan area of Nashville, Tenn., where the project would reduce the maximum stage resulting from a recurrence of floods of record so as to eliminate serious damage. The dam- aging 1962 floods on the Cumberland River, and particularly in metropolitan area of Nashville, Tenn., have illustrated the need for the project. Damages from these 1962 floods would have been reduced approximately $881,000, of which 818,000 would have been at Nashvdlle alone, had the J. Percy Priest project been in operation. Situated in close proximity to a large urban population, recreational use of the project will be extensive. The proposed plan also provides for installation of a single imit hydropower plant which will add 33,000 kilowatts of dependable capacity to the Cumberland River sj^stem and an estimated total average energy production of 70,000,000 kilowatt hours. According to Federal Power Commission studies, the output of the plant will be fully utilized when it becomes available. Average annual benefits are estimated at $3,463,100 broken down as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Recreation _ _ _ __. $2, 006, 000 Flood control 1, 060, 000 Power 397, 100 Total. _ 3, 463, 100 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,900,000 will be applied to — Complete acquisition of lands $900, 000 Complete powerplant 728, 800 Complete roads 77, 000 Continue construction of recreation facilities 2, 615, 000 Complete buildings, grounds, and utilities 295, 600 Complete permanent operating equipment 237, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 36, 600 Total 4, 900, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required for orderly construction progress. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $7,627,000, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $50,200,000 (Julv 1967 base) is an increase of $300,000 from the latest estimate submitted to Congress ($49,900,000). The net increase of $300,000 is due to price level increases of $445,000 as offset by a decrease of $145,400. The decrease of $145,400 is a net decrease resulting from a decrease in reservoir preparation for contingencies not required, a decrease in powerplant based on review of additional equipment required using current prices and an increase in buildings, grounds, and utilities based on current contract award. 1006 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1967 1968 6. 508, 100 ■1.439,000 4,900,000 489, 000 5,069,100 5,000,000 .- 4,900,000 489, 000 69,100 . 5.069.100 Budge? Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $18,980,000 $17,871,300 $208,700 $900,000 Relocations 4,348,600 3,197,200 1,151,400 Reservoir — 1,352,000 514,400 837,600 Dam ""' 11,628.000 10.602,800 1,025,200 Powe'rplant 4,717,000 2,183,500 1,804,700 728,800 Roads "'" - 117,000 9,300 30,700 77,000 RecreaUon facilities 3,714,000 69,700 550,300 2,615,000 $479,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 850,000 554,400 295,600 Permanent operating equipment 346,000 22,800 77,200 246,000 Engineering and design 2,440,000 2,418,400 11,600 10,000 Supervision and administration 1,707,400 1.400,800 260,000 36,600 10,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).- 50,200,000 38,290,200 6,511,800 4,909,000 489,000 Undistributed cost- 12,700 -3,700 -9,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only).- 50,200,000 38,302,900 6,508,100 4,900,000 489,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 50,200,000 38.302,900 Undelivered orders 1,439,000 Total obligations 39,741,900 Method of financing: Appropriations 39,811,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required 4,900,000 489,000 Kentucky Peninsula Revetment, Ohio River, Ky. (Continuation of rehabilitation) Location and description. — The Kentucky peninsula revetment is located on the left bank of a 180° bend in the Ohio River opposite the city of Evansville, Ind., which is about 192.2 miles below Pittsburgh, Pa. The rehabilitation project con- sists of filling scour holes, restoring badly deteriorated underwater portions of the lumber mattress with dumped stone, extending the revetment approximately 1,250 feet upstream and 500 feet downstream, and raising the top level of the lengthened revetment to correspond with the higher navigation pool of the Uniontown locks and dam now under construction. The present project is about 16, 250 feet long. Authorization. — River and Harbor Act, July 3, 1930 (Public Law 520, 71. '^t Cong.). SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost. i$665.000 Allocations to June 30, 1967.. '0 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 _ 100.000 15 Allocations to date 100,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 565,000 100 I $35,000 for Engineering and Design provided under Operation and Maintenance, General Appropriation. Present condition. — The existing revetment was completed in 1934 as a part of the Ohio River open channel work project with funds provided from a Public Works Administration a])propriation. The revetment, consisting of lumber mat- tresses below the normal pool level and riprap leaving on the bank slope above the pool, has deteriorated throughout its entire length. Abnormal deepening of the river adjacent to the riverward edge of the revetment has undercut the lumber mattress and caused steep bank slopes below pool level with resultant slippages and breaks in the mattress. These failures, together with wave wash erosion of the bank slope above pool level, have caused landward retrogression and caving of the 1007 bank and loss of riprap protection and mattress anchor piles. Partial repairs were made to the revetment during the period 1935 to 1942. Status {Jan. 1, 196S). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: Bank stabilization, January 1969. JUSTIFICATION The revetment provides navigation channel stabilization along a reach of the Ohio River and prevents formation of a cutoff across Kentucky Peninsula. There is no immediate danger of complete failure of the revetment. However, unless restoration work is undertaken, the forces now acting will eventually destroy the revetment and produce adverse effects on the navigable channeL Loss or abandonment of the revetment w^ould also produce conditions conducive to the eventual formation of a cutoff across the peni7isula, which development would isolate the river oriented installations and facilities of the city of Evansville from the cutoff channel. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $565,000 will be applied as follows — Complete bank stabilization $529 000 Supervision and administration 3q' qqq Total 565^ 000 The funds requested are required to complete the urgently needed rehabilitation work. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal vear estimate 1957 1968 Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (G) Lands (easement acquisition) $11, 000 Bank stabilization _._ _ 609,000 Engineering and design i (35. 000) i ($35, 000) $11,000 . 80, 000 $529,000 .,.. 9,000 36,000 . 100,000 565,000 .. _ Supervision and administration 45, 000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only). . . 6G5, 000 Undistributed cost (construction facilities) Total project cost (Federal funds only)_.. 665,000 "]!^"^"" 100,000 565 000 " Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) 665,000 100,000 565 000 " Undelivered orders.. _ ' ' Total obligations -^-^"-" 100," OOO" 565'600" Metfiod of financing: ' Allocation 100 000 Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation 166,000 Appropriations required ' 565 666" 1 Engineering and design to be completed with operation and maintenance, general funds, not included in total Drolect cost. Operation and Maintenance, General Mr. KiRWAN. We will insert justification covering operation and maintenance. 1. Navigation (a) Channels and harbors. — None. (b) Locks and dams. — The budget estimate of $16,694,000 provides for the operational requirements of nine projects. Requirements include operation and ordinary maintenance of project facilities; labor, supplies, materials, and parts for day-to-day functioning; and periodic maintenance, repairs, and replacements. 91-459—68 — pt. 1 64 1C08 OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes Illinois: Ohio River locks and dams.. $7,748,200 $7,731,100 $8,650,000 Ohio River open channel work 1,128,200 1,398,100 1,648,000 Kentucky: Cumberland River 2,600 Green and Barren Rivers 310,600 387,500 393,000 Kentucky River 712,900 675,700 800,000 Pennsylvania: Allegheny River 728,600 613,400 785,000 Monongahela River 1,639,500 1,557,000 1,750.000 Tennessee: Tennessee River $1,520,600 $1,511,800 $1,800,000 West Virginia: Kanawhy River.. 748,200 739,000 768,000 TygartLake. 79,400 80,400 100,000 Total, locks and dams 14,618,800 14,694,000 16,694,000 Total— Navigation 14,618,800 14,694,000 16,694,000 Increased periodic main- tenance. Do. Eliminate operation of old locks due to completion of Barkley Dam. Increased periodic main- tenance. Do. Do. Increased periodic mainte- nance. Do. 2. Flood control (a) Reservoirs. — The budget estimate of $5,212,000 provides for the operational requirements of 49 flood control reservoirs. Requirements include: operation and ordinary maintenance of project facilities; labor, supplies, materials and parts for day-to-day functioning; and periodic maintenance, repairs, and replacements. 1009 OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes Indiana: Cagles Mill Reservoir $66,700 $88,700 $99,000 Mansfield Reservoir... 76,200 86,100 95,000 Mississinewa Reservoir 3,500 78,400 105,000 Water quality investigation and increased maintenance. Monroe Reservoir. 88,500 92,900 110,000 Water quality investigation Salamonie Reservoir 79,100 96,500 100,000 Kentucky: Barren River Reservoir 154,500 166,400 205,000 Buckhorn Reservoir 124,600 216,100 147,000 Dewey Reservoir 90,700 113,900 130,000 Fishtrap Reservoir 8,000 90,000 Grayson Reservoir 22,200 85,800 107,000 Green River Reservoir. 50,000 Nolln Reservoir 182,700 194,500 230,000 Rough River Reservoir... 219,600 178,200 210,000 Ohio: Berlin Reservoir 124,600 176,400 230,000 Deer Creek Reservoir 20,000 58,000 Delavifare Reservoir 79,700 80,100 100,000 Dillon Reservoir 58,500 84,800 95,000 Mosquito Creek Reservoir 93,000 129,000 110,000 Muskingum River Reservoir (14 535,400 556,800 655,000 res.). Tom Jenkins Reservoir 38,100 61,900 65,000 West Branch Reservoir 51,600 79,700 94,000 West Fork Mills Creek Reservoir 42,200 60,300 73,000 Pennsylvania: Conemaugh River Reservoir 61,000 82,900 105,000 Increased periodic mainte- nance. Crooked Creek Reservoir 43,800 75,900 89,000 East Branch Clarion River Reservoir. 69,100 114,200 110,000 Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir. 95,500 113,200 149,000 Increased operational require- ments. Loyalhanna Reservoir 74,500 95,000 89,000 Mahoning Creek Reservoir 54,600 83,800 100,000 Increased periodic mainte- nance. Shenango River Reservoir 84,800 109,700 134,000 Increased operational require- ments. Tionesta Reservoir 186,600 156,300 162,000 Youghiogheny River Reservoir 153,200 166,800 210,000 Increased periodic mainte- nance. Virginia ; John W. Flannagan Dam and Reser- voir 102,800 130,200 155,000 Increased operation require- ments and w/ater quality ., , ^ . , „ . „ . investigation. North Fork of Pound Reservoir 55,700 93,400 96,000 West Virginia: Bluestone Lake 132,100 155,300 191,000 Increased periodic mainte- nance. Summersville Lake 114,200 148,800 250,000 Increased operational require- . . ments. Sutton Lake 160,300 207,700 214,000 Total— Reservoirs 3,519,600 4,387,700 5,212,000 Increased periodic mainte- nance. Increased periodic mainte- nance in fiscal year 1968. Replace project equipment. 1st full year of operation. 1st full year of operating and maintenance of public use facilities. 1st operation and mainte- nance for partial year. Increased periodic mainte- nance. Do. Sedimentation study. 1st full year of operation. Increased periodic mainte- nance. Increased operational require- ments. Do. (b) Channel improvements, inspection, and miscellaneous maintenance. — The budget estimate of $166,000 provides for the annual and periodic maintenance requirements of seven local flood protection projects and the inspection of 128 completed works during the budget year. 1010 OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes Kentucky: Middlesboro J28,700 Ohio: Massillon 4,500 Newark.,. ._ --- 8,800 Roseville - 7,900 Pennsylvania: Joh nstown 2, 300 Punxsutawney 16, 900 West Virginia: Elkins.... 1,200 Inspection of completed works 57, 100 Total, channel improvements, in- spection and miscellaneous maintenance 127,400 Total— flood control 3,647,000 $78, 600 223,700 $11,000 Increased periodic mainte- nance in fiscal year 1968. 10, 200 7,500 7,100 7.000 8,000 5,000 35, 100 15,800 35. 000 25, 000 5,300 64, 100 3,000 72, 000 166, 000 4,611,400 5,378,000 3. Multiple-purpose projects including power The budget estimate of $5,505,000 provides for the operational requirements of seven multiple-purpose projects. Requirements include: operation and ordinary- maintenance of project facilities; labor, supplies, materials and parts for day-to- day functioning; and periodic maintenance, repaii-s, and replacements. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1957 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of^major changes" Kentucky: Barkley Dam -__ $765,600 622, 700 $909. 300 541,700 $1,035,000 Wolf Creek Reservoir 845,000 Tennessee: Center Hill Reservoir.. 517,600 516,200 675, 000 Cheatham lock and dam 617,200 765,900 1,025,000 Dale Hollow Reservoir 497. 100 552, 800 625, 000 J. Percy Priest Dam 34, 300 132, 100 300, 000 Old Hickory lock and dam 821,900 725,000 1,000,000 Total, multiple-purpose projects.. 3, 876, 400 4, 143, 000 5, 505, 000 1st full year of operation. Increased operational re- quirements andjperiodic maintenance. "^ ^ Do. Increased periodic mainte- nance includingfmoditica- tion of the gates of the dam. Increased operational re- quirements. Additional operational re- quirements as construc- tion advances. Increased operational re- quirements and periodic maintenance. 4. Protection of navigation The budget estimate of $63,000 provides for accomplishing work essential to the administration and enforcement of specific laws enacted in the interest of protecting navigation. ' OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes General regulatory facilities. 48, 100 66, 500 63, 000 Grand total-Ohio River division.. 22,190,300 23,514,900 27,640,000 1011 INIr. KiRWAN. $27,640,000 is bud Q u H Z <; H & O 02 II 2 2J T-H -1-3 c3 03 -^ .2 3 ^ CO cc c3 d '-I •2 I o O a^ -. rn S 2.2 -I.3 s El S^ CD O o o « <« ® O t^ ^^ §^ at H »- I ^ 1. ?^ 1?^ e o CO » " 'e 3 ^ too >-"-■ C;^ Q-cZ — ^ t— e 19 00,0 ensi sibili endi Mob dee irta woi o *^ — no CO c= ;f °-g S'>< = c °-^ ™ £■ 1 and id an 3thef and 1 innel \la., a in the dore s o. ex So .9-0 "►- ?,■- ' < — -o-: — 2? "5 ^ — C 03 9 O c/i g :5'2;^'Er ■g£5 5-; ^ „ „ ,j, ._ „, j=S >.<2'~E-Di-3;£.jS ro ii S£ ° S ^^.c -- .= - , o — 0^ c Q. '-Q ^ ro— -" • " E ao>- = to =■- <"i5- °^ ° S ^ ■ > ■ . k- CO p < s ■£ S - "= - E ^s°°s O)— '— E Doi- o ■ *^ E "^ o 'o Mc S)"a £ :" CXI -SSI'S «.^S ^ = S 3 E S~ = a Eii2.22 «-'=' ° _ o ^ > • ; °?^ o E ° '.E.^i^^ (y» ^^ = -Q ^ i^Ea,^ - 03 m °^ io'H " °? 3£ E ; ?55 u-S c E-E : > S Q-"" n ° E — , OX3 ■= is E : -60-5;° 'c c °- = -°S:g ■yiiisiiif-ii 5;a 0) 5S~£.2?Sst! 2 S)0 o „S oS^ o'^ Q-O ■ 03 „ O TO ,„ t- Jifif ^ "t; ° CO .*- ' ^ OJ 2^X3 ^ ' .2-^ a> ^ *" Et3=S^^ 0* c — > 03 C s= Q-: a. ao -"is = ■ o — £ "Ik's > Si^oifS^^r St:5 a; I 5 = co=g SEziSzEE I If p.:: o 03 Q-= £ -o ra ;r _ en -a Q.T3X^ 1026 z < < K O rl| l.OOC 4.00( o o 11 §B ™ -3- 0> = 03 <5 = "" O 03 S.2 ^ ES <; o CO . = go OJ ;^0^ £5 ^ ~ 5 .X! m = 2 i§ III 5 o "^^ 05 o c: CTJ >^ ^- r-H .is ^ o o o o o o3 o o o o o o ™ o o o o •w" o" r~r c» = J;; o g iu ^s CO ^-^ »-H Ol be- r-t o aJ ^ o'~* § > ^ o'^ <.B <;S o o o o 5H O i_ § § § O 1- a. ^ irT oo" i-C -a 0.05 = oo Lo in £= ?2 •|3S 69- LfS •J o2 '^ f^ ^^ Si^ 3° 3 a — o < <"^ l-K o o o o o o o o cn o 1-K o o o o ^ ^ TO O .i" CD o o m o irj m «^ o _ eB. b* 1% M a o 3 O —■s 1- ,o 1-3 g o < < < 1 o ce oo C/3 (<3 -21 q:: O C3 1 X (D 0) Q) C ^ O 03 CD *;'*- 03 " ■" ao >< • 03 -V- 00 M , ---x: > ^ C3j^ 1 ='c:c03c:^c:03 , o — £= -a — ~ o ^ . to 2" On£3 21^ ■5;oo°c.22-=s=o o o ,_ "S "^ ^ O S Tn m£ g ■§ 2 -5 03 "2 : C ■— 03 ^ ■''^ Cli3 i^ . _oog£ = g|o ; " ooa3'c-o o c3 03 ; 1 > < \V, m £.5 o'-5:2 o ; ~ fr -^ ^ g- s £ 2_o:Q >^.° ^ =3 \, C/5 ^00^ > — "G ro tU c 00 => = >- "S- TO o »- a> «J c to 1 i^ =3 00 £<3-5i-^"2 2?-.-jr"o;r-=:o ; 5 o « .^ CO o c = ^ rai; in o 2 3 = ;l|ifl^| i£|i-l| s g ^ > Is ' C cT-O DO c — J^ 1 — CO Q) c rtj c: i« 5 llSS.i^-; illliiilfil 5° S" a -C '"^ ^ ^~^ c3 o 5 : > Q* 'OO Ei ■.j2E 1027 o ill: 11 *c o o o *- o 2. 03 su.— t S^c-g . ® = CO tTcs: S ana '^-°-n g E •*- "■" c t>'^ ° = ■=,<.<" ""^ ii S S M 2?2 S "iiill o oj^-SS £ oj is i OJ O C > ^ ^ QO Oi .■H-iz^.i^ o 2 =1- go a. 03 = • z:c: '! = ""S"S£ ^ o o « Sf" E ra-g" giS lij 5 «-£ =■■= -01^ S "=5 °- «r " S E c TO O =-Q O — ^ C 3 03 i= t i-2^=i-S^£< 5=-° 0>;= ES„ « 03 >^ -CJ.E •- 03 3 .2 T3 -r- S E 5 ro S S " 5 HS-S'-= = "E 03°= E^g ■^oS2e1^-& (5 >^"^ '^^ CTq, 03 .= .i; g»4_ £^ ccm- =^ lZ o ~ ♦- OJ ^ CI. oOo"S|^-g5 gQ3-*-ro<^^— (3j •-Sra'^.E-gu >>-5 5 - - ^s o-f 03 03— , - — 5;c-o S ^ 03 CC — ■• - = =■ 3 o ! ^2 wg .^ r; 03 « £ 3 ^ 03 -J 5 O 03 03 E-c >-•= S E " 03 o 03 M g- 03 ^ o-o — i; 2 oo 00 c « S?if = .= ■2"" = ™ . S'S TO 03 -J o^= ™'--= 5 cu O tJ "^ "O ^ Q* jr o oiS c .'^ *- Q.^*^ TOO -^ »_ «♦- = _ to ra "° s. -^ = s ^ ^ 2 E^S:52 S « « 03 "O -2. ^ -JJ g ra rag 2 S-o to °"^ " '^ S TO S — . t^ -fc 'm'^ "to ■5-3 2?i J2 ^ o — (rt *^2 00 5- -So « « T=-^ 03 > 2^ 03_TO_™ ° C o^QfoooS° — 5= *- *- j= 03 «r H= I *~ .-'^ I ^: *^o ^ "a ^*o*c3 1 03 2 O'cJ^ S2*^ »;=£ = « 1—— <"»03SJM3"',«"'5 E.S2-"~.EgS.»cQ. , r, » E£t§ a> TO - - 03 TO 3-" S 03 „*I^^ £j= i^i!iilira°si= •"S2t;2-^o-^TOl5^o iZ.-^S.-2j^tS.?--™^l£ °S".-^ °-£g-E S a.y-2^ E •-;m£«-^gQ:5TO3Egc>. ; " = ^ Ea3SS'"2°«'«TO ^TOW^a3^T-,iSS*°c g£g°E|5^0E H= o ,2 .Eot/JcEsraS ^gOiX^ttZTOoiJg^TO c5aj:=-^ Cp*-^a3t3fli — 2 E'3 ' O 03 TO „ >= I/> i_' f-O 5 TO TO "! S"3o— 03 oj-a >,5.a* " 03.2 g ™-o . ■■= ' re 03 — -t:; 2; 00 j :.c"o-Q _ — E3wv-T3ro*^=l— -ooa, £-"-Zi:03-oOQo-Ot/jro"S-'5 c S;-S-t^ S-E Mj-g S2 c =•- o'cs - — O ' iJ ^0=0 ^ 0= 0-" TO 2 =£ .l^Sgl-^.TOgO^Q.^- a o O 1028 _0 '^r-^ Is u m O 02 I o < CO 1 C3 S^E^jf :ee ° 5 _ ° °- .c CO c vjcvj ^ ° ro =1^3 o) ■?S-go°^£:Hg_o2 ™ 5 S S -a 5 «>-a E ■2' S =ii-Es™:: -x: (-, »- ; E ^ g Eoo:^ 2 ^ °J " . 3 ^ E t; S = 5.-0 o" "•^ O OJCD fc-e- -5.E.E s-:: ^ = lo ^S oS E-|"S I a£ ^£ 5 ^-3 5 c ° ;£-g-^i:E-=gs^E : ^ OT ■— "5 °; "^ .S "S "> 'J ; S !5"g E-g ™s5 i S ■j=^ °£ Se ^ ™ £ ™ -M- •" !« a «J a.£ a, ra OJ <^S. ol , o >- 0-S5 ^'nj CiO ^^ , 00 t ^ S E ^ E-aS"t : 2;.2-o , O coJH.E o oc/5 E"o'*- ^ ■2 M-a TO aj ;|^||g"| ^-■o _ TO □ J. O) 1— ___^ ; cc ' E m o: "■If 5 5 CD 2 — [^ > 00 ^2 2 =<^E^.£i 3 o£ 2 o-S ro_'~ E o TO S :g > o ?EEE2 O O 5j QO EE^Ilfl o "2 2"^ _ — _ "S2SS.-EI LL.O o" CD fee- : ™ ■ « s*- -icj.s i5 s <5e^' 5-Q-o :°-oi r^oi-s^ CC -•-' 0? g3'£ E> oro — 0.0 " £ ^f*" -^ c E = " ro ii23g "-g«<3^ • CO 6»* CO 1029 ?.5 p- :£ o 5 o ro ; o S ™ JST"o ; o 05 >^QJ■a ' B £■;: re — ~— Q3«_ a. 3 "^ -"^ — *" -ci > ■^ 03 O - > — a; aj.^i; Dco ^-=£ = ==^ c^ — C O a, J^.S2 — .— 1-^ «_=> — 5 — r-. IrS > £ — tn^ ^ '"^ ^ — = Eo;>,Oo" — "are ■P -= <" c H.^ — = 2 ,-£■ 2i S<«£re£ ^■-- " cQ.. _0J 3 ro-O Q.O !::,^i-re:Eo3i- ■£ =3 C'^ E ^J=l— C -g?t;.-££oa.i t; E O' """ Q-C " — re °S;5SSo.5 5_- 2-St>^^^_| «_ to o -o.H o ; ;^ 3^ o^ 5 g_o O ■= = ^ -C ^_0 "- >^ — u .i uj " " " a5 E o" S re Q.i= I " OJ 2~ o ;Oo: ■B^c 5 reli ^ o TOQ re 0% o = ^sS OS'S o-.= ;_^ __ ■^ (i ■— _-E re -q * "C o „ -li g " E _ °= « — ■■= ^ re 00 r-„ o)£^S222— ="=> ^ ^T; q-S So 5 S. 5 °-""Zo "u <^^ — CO ° >^— S — ^u-i^of-t— '"■~ocT;aj> |_>'-*--S're-S .S2 oo : g — 5eQ~< ^•^•-2 5 5-°- £ o "53 "S re = 3 g ■= >■£ »^ o = <« •|.||^^E-S,| £g£"g.2t!"^ ° >;^-a 3 ffjS o CO ^ ^ O W > 3 O OS O ^ ? O O w U C 3H- T3 I — V3 3 *- ^ « -^ OJ ° = _2 1 ^ c= "o s 3 lU £ i: 1 ■5 ■a {= '0 , cc ^ tJ C 0) ^ w _o 1 > 2 3 i E 1 Q. 1 1 c 5 ■^ Q-O § 5 ;| ■0 "o 1 J3 E .>£ § S-g S £ 2 1 ^- = ^•^ ti =J m ^ a. £t- i. Q. t, E T3 ea > i£ E i c 2 OJ § § i£ .c , Cd 3 Q l-^ c = C/5 Crt .^ CD 3 E E £ CD c oc E a. c .- ■s;5:2 3'|£|g 00 ir = ri -T- £" »■ co_i: =:;•- : ■a S B-TT ■= 3 -s ) o ™ ^ ■ l?o ^ . ™ 2 •" 03 — oS 03 ■3 i^ " « ^ o S"^ = £ ra ° p c E i:1?-2-= : o ^^^ 0X3 o^ mJ2j3 >^^ SS2 ^oOb»c.Si 5- 1^ S « — " I- !? '^ .= ■--=E.E^=Sc °=l— coa3;jg'ra'5oo3 S -a£^co Q. o 2 ccn-Q Q. ■~:I.2aj E o o 5 E «■= o-S «> .= o^ — O oj bO.— c= 5 CDT30 s- Efgjf o 5. >CO^Z a. c£^ Jo OJ g «5 "o O « Ooo 3 .S— o-'^ra t-^E o ,Q "to §£:n=:-D £55.2 2 = «sl'i qO Q.Q.i iaiP O-CJ=>00 a) = op. r£S Q£ ; -■aic a> -.2-o 5 S = CO J *j"° o 1/5 c □.■; Q3_0 3 C _ raS^S-^t^ME^.H 2 a.- -' E ° = -5._ 03 00^ t; -~3<'*- vi.^ o = 5 2ra 03O CO ^1 3 Sh O A ^ "Ss s .0 CO _o s !J e rr ^ CQ ■*^ ■"i;o> _0 (3'-' ••= "2 -£ S ^ o ° =-0-°^ u-p„ P i- c Q-i:- — M^ ro > 03 03 5 ^ 5 . 2isi= rati t. ^ _ ^ i3 a, to 'co ^ :£ ^"c Q. |Srao^-5S|5;S ^llii-jl^l 3-Q'o'S =-° 5 ^ITS jD<:t303_]^>,j= a>£ — •« p o " " ra'o 5.2^:5 ooc "SiS S""? 2 p 03 033pOv'm^PP — o 03 ^ p E <» ppra- =03-o TO M — p ^^£-S -SS3^ CU} Q ' ^ I o S -p 't:; 2: S ! >-E oa^"^'l:: 03 o J5 --- "to ;r _ ^i3 = = £ o~ — _ >, ^.!2j=o ra-2 ^^ 2-^~ ' 1032 o O -- ■^ SL oo < C3 •go-'.? lo — CO 1 ; 0) £ a> S c o « o — -^ c = ~ a> ;-°$ So o o Q.: CO o 'S.miJ-o nu .11 o I'sS ' en 00 "eI 0) <1> i !^ "" .E o: ^ i ■._ g co-cr }■— a> ; ■--'MIe 1' _ra 2 ■«- m DO J^ 1^0 Eg []co o y— o ^ S - - o -^ S ° " 2f SfS.IS P3 S — SoS'"""' -I ^^§§5is E = CO ro " Sco |S do coo 1033 MOBILE HARBOR, ALA. Mr. Whitten. On page 2, please explain why it has been necessary to increase the cost of the Mobile Harbor study from $55,000 last year to $212,000. General Hayes. This increase was due largely to an increase in the scope of the study at the request of the local interests made at a public hearing held last April. In addition to studying the possibility of pro- viding a new turning basin and to adopting and enlarging the existing Theodore Channel, they requested that we determine the feasibility of a new turning basin larger in size than originally contemplated, of enlarging one existing turning basin, and of extending Theodore Channel. This comes about because of the fact that they are badly congested in the harbor and need new areas for port development. Mr. Whitten. What is the status of this study in reference to the Hollingers Island Channel ? General Hayes. The Hollingers Island Channel is the one I referred to as Theodore Channel. This w^ould be the first phase of the study. APALACHICOLA RIVER "sOs" REPORT, GEORGIA, ALABAMA, AND FLORIDA Mr. Whitten. On page 3, explain the $72,000 request to finish the Apalachicola Kiver report. General Hayes. It was determined near the end of fiscal year 1967, and after the fiscal year 1968 budget hearings, that the estimate of funds that we had prepared would not be enough to cover the study. WILMINGTON HARBOR-NORTHEAST (CAPE FEAR) RIVER, N.C, Mr. Whitten. On page 4, $80,000 is budgeted to continue the study of Wilmington Harbor — Northeast (Cape Fear) River initiated with funds added to the bill last year by the Senate. Please describe the purpose of this study. General Hayes. The purpose is a review report of the Northeast (Cape Fear) River to determine the economic justification of extending the deep-draft ship channel in Wilmington Harbor to a f)oint -i miles above U.S. Highway 117 bridge, which is about 27 miles above the mouth, and a barge channel to Kornegay's Bridge, 108 miles above the mouth, PONCE HARBOR, P.R. Mr. Whitten. On page 5, please explain the new study proposed for the Ponce Harbor, P.R. General Hayes. Ponce Harbor is a port on the south coast of Puerto Rico. There is no rail connection between Ponce and San Juan, and Puerto Rico needs an improved port on that coast. The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of deepening the harbor there to 82 and 84 feet to accommodate the increasing size of vessels and of improving the approach to the slip. At the present time, these vessels have to unload at San Juan and the carffo has to be trucked across the island to Ponce. 1034 CHARLESTON HARBOR. S.C. Mr. Whitten. On page 5, why has it been necessary to increase the total cost of the Cliarleston Harbor study from $345,000 last year to the present estimate of $600,000 ? General Hates. This increase is due to a furtlier increase in the scope of the study, to inchide the House resohition adopted October 19 of last year. This resolution requested a review of the reports to de- termine if the project should be modified in any way at this time, with particular attention to developing the most feasible long-range solution to the problem of disposal of dredge spoil and to a study of estuarine values and harbor renewal. In addition, the Shipyard Eiver study which previously we carried separately has been incorporated in this study. LITTLE river INLET, S.C. Mr. Whitten. On page 6, please describe the study of the Little River Inlet in South Carolina being initiated this year with funds added to the bill by the Senate. General Hayes. The purpose of this study is to determine the ad- visability of improving this inlet to establish and/or maintain a navi- gable channel to include construction of stabilization structures, if necessary, in order to accommodate both pleasure and commercial fishing boats. manatee and braden rivers. Fr.A. Mr. Whitten. On page 8, $10,000 is budgeted to initiate a flood con- trol study of the Manatee and Braden Eivers in Florida. Please describe this study. General Hayes. This study will determine the economic feasibility of providing facilities for flood protection and other water resource purposes, including water supply, recreation, and water quality control. TOWN CREEK AT JACKSON, MISS. jMr. Whitten. On page 11, $44,000 is budgeted to complete the study of Town Creek at Jackson, Miss. This was resumed with funds added to the bill last year by the Senate. Please describe this study. General Hayes. Primarily this is a flood protection study. The purpose is to determine the feasibility of providing flood protection along Town Creek in Jackson County and along a 7.0-mile stretch of the right bank of the Pearl River from Town Creek downstream to the vicinity of Byram, Miss. Mr. Whitten. You showed earlier in your pictures the flood that occurred in 1961. Did I understand you to say that you had com- pleted the Jackson and East Jackson project? General Hayes. Yes ; the Jackson and East Jackson has been com- pleted. LA PLATA RIVER, P.R. Mr. Whitten. On page 13, $50,000 is requested continue the flood control study of the La Plata River in Puerto Rico. This was also a new 1035 study added to the bill last year by the Senate. What will this study consist of ? . . General Hates. Primarily its purpose is flood protection since there is a considerable flooding problem, but there is a water shortage as well. The purpose of the study is to determine the economic feasibility of providing facilities for flood protection and other water resource purposes, including water supply, recreation, and water quality con- trol. EDISTO RIVER BASIN, S.C. Mr. Whitten. On page 14, funds are requested to initiate a study of the Edisto Eiver Basin in South Carolina. What is the urgency for undertaking this study ? General Hayes. We regard this as a high-priority study because of the need for water resource development to provide for the emerging industrial growth in what is presently a marginally developed area. There is flood damage occurring generally to the agricultural land in the flood plain. The Edisto River is an important source of mu- nicipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply in South Carolina. The industrial and population growth has increased to such an extent that there is a serious need for water resource development in the area. ROANOKE river AND TRIBUTARIES, SOUTH BOSTON, VA. Mr. Whitten. Also on page 14, $20,000 is budgeted to continue re- evaluation of the report on the South Boston phase of the Roanoke River and tributaries. Please explain what is involved here in this stud}' which was initiated with funds included in the bill last year by the Senate. General Hayes. Primarily this study will be concerned with a re- evaluation of the Schoolfield ReserAoir project in this river basin. HANCOCK COUNTY, MISS. Mr. Whitten. On page 17, $10,000 is budgeted to initiate a study of the beach erosion in Hancock County, Miss. What is the purpose of this study? General Hayes. To investigate the feasibility of constructing a hur- ricane barrier across the mouth of St. Louis Bay, which is at the south- east corner of the county, which would include an opening for naviga- tion and construction of an extensive levee system to protect various low-lying areas of the county. In past years this area has suffered severe damage in flooding from hurricane storms and liigh tides which has flooded as much as 8 to 10 miles inland. Mr. Whitten. Is the investigations program of the Division cur- rently on schedule ? General Hayes. Yes, it is. In fact, as of the end of the last quarter it was right on the nose. We expect to end up this year percentag-ewise considerably better than we did last year. Mr. Whitten. Are there any questions ? Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1036 ENGINEER OFFICER PERSONNEL General, with the heavy military construction program going on, particularly in Southeast Asia and in other places, have you materially felt the effect with respect to your trained engineer officer personnel ? General Hates. Not to a great extent, sir, because we have very few officers in this civil works organization. We usually have about, two officers jDer district. We would like to have more younger officers so they could get some training. Of course, younger officers are at a premium. As far as the experienced officers to run the progi-am are concerned no, sir ; we have not. CHAKIiOTTE HARBOR (PORT CHARLOTTE), FLA. Mr. Davis. The Port Charlotte project on page 2, is it fair to classify this as primarily recreational boating to which reference is made in the justifications ? General Hayes. The survey is concerned primarily with small craft navigation improvements. I don't have available any figures on the breakdown of these craft between recreational boats and fishing boats. APALACHICOLA river "308" REPORT, GEORGIA, ALABAMA, FLORIDA Mr. Davis. On page 3, the Apalachicola River report, there has been a break in the funding here. Does this signify any break from the actual work or catching up with previously allocated funds in the current fiscal year ? General Hayes. In this case, we had thought that we would be able to complete it with the funds previously available and hence we asked for no funds in the 1968 budget. It has now become apparent that we do need additional funds. It is not a resumption. It is a continuing study. Mr. Davis. Have you determined that the study is going to amount to a little bit more than you previously anticipated ; is that right ? General Hayes. That is correct. The estimate for the study has increased. PONCE HARBOR, P.R. Mr. Davis. On page 5, how far is Ponce from San Juan ? General Hayes. It is directly across the island, about 70 miles by road. The island is rectangular shape and there is a steep ridge of mountains which runs right down the middle. Ponce is in the middle of the coast on the south side. San Juan is on the middle of the coast on the north side. Mr. Davis. The justifications recite that Ponce's commerce has de- clined because of the necessity of using San Juan and trucking it over there. They are far enough apart so that they would not be called competing harbors ? General Hayes. That is correct. The geographical condition would actually make it logical to have four harbors on the island : one at each end and one on the north and south coasts. Basically with the one on the north and south, San Juan and Ponce being the major ones, they would not be competing. 1037 MANATEE AND BRADEN RIVER, FLA. Mr. Davis. On page 8, the Manatee and Braden Kivers. As I am sure you are very much aware, we have a very difficult funding situa- tion tliis year. I wouldn't expect you to say we don't need to go ahead witli these studies, but I would like your opinion as to how long we have been waiting to start this survey and whether another year's delay in view of the difficult situation in which we find ourselves, would cause any irreparable harm. General Hayes. I realize the problem of the committee. As far as this particular study is concerned, it was authorized some time ago. It was authorized in fiscal year 1950. The real problem arises from the fact that you have a very rapid urban growth right in the area that is susceptible to flooding from this stream, so that you have a steadily increasing flood hazard. Mr. Davis. The better you fix it up the more rapidly it is going to grow and the more rapidly it ^ows the more we have to fix it up. It is kind of a vicious circle we are in, isn't it ? General Hates. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morris. No questions. Advance Engineering and Design Mr. Whiten. We will turn now to advance engineering and design, TENNESSEE-TOMBIGBEE waterway, ALA. AND MISS. $500,000 is budgeted to continue planning on the Tennessee-Tom- bigbee Waterway. (The justification follows ;) Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Ala. and Miss. (Continviation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located in west central Alabama and northeastern Mississippi; in Marengo, Sumter, Greene and Pickens Counties, Ala., and Noxubee, LowTides, Clay, Monroe, Itawamba, Prentiss, and Tishomingo Counties, Miss. The plan of improvement provides for a 9-foot waterway for navigation, 253 miles long, connecting the Tennessee River at mile 215 (Pickwick Pool) with the Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway at Demopolis, Ala., 217 miles above Mobile, by means of 10 locks, five dams, and a deep cut through the dividing ridge between the two river systems. Authorization. — 1946 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $289, 000 000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) ~_ ' 130' 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 27 OOo' 000 Cash contributions ' ' q Other costs I"I''"I 27, 000, 000 i otal estimated project cost 31g x3q qoO Preconstruction planning estimate 129* 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 '_"' 1, 629' 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 '__'_ ' ' q Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 ._... 500, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1 969- ' 1038 JUSTIFICATION The Tennessee-Tombigbee project will provide a shorter, more direct connecting waterway between the eastern gulf coast and the Tennessee, Ohio, and upper Mississippi River valleys. The project would be a new, interterritorial trade route between the gulf coast and much of the midcontinent region of the United States. The waterway would benefit NASA by reducing the waterway distance that mis- sile boosters and related equipment have to be transported (from Redstone Arsenal to Cape Kennedy) from 2,140 to 1,420 miles. The lowering of production and marketing costs afforded by cheaper trans- portation would benefit a major segment of the population. Economic impact of the waterway may, therefore, be considered as national in scope. The five reservoirs that would be created by the project with a water surface area of approximately 38,000 acres would provide significant recreation benefits if adequately developed and properly maintained. There are no major recreation developments within the Tombigbee Basin above Demopolis which provide a variety of water-based activities such as could be developed on the Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway. The estimated average annual benefits are $20,892,000 broken down as follows: Navigation $15, 716, 000 Recreation 2, 869, 000 Fish and wildlife 135, 000 Area redevelopment 2, 172, 000 Total 20, 892,000 Non-Federal cosf.— Local interests will be recjuired to assume the cost of relocat- ing all highways, highway bridges, and utilities estimated at $27 million. Status of local cooperation. — A compact between the States of Alabama, Missis- sippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida has been formed for the purpose of promoting the project. Name of this organization is Tennessee-Tombigbee Water- way Development Authority. During its 1962 session the jVIississippi Legislature authorized the formation of the Tombigbee River Valley Waterway Management District. The district has been organized in accordance with the enabling legislation and is empowered to fulfill the requirements of local cooperation for the portion of the project in Mississippi. Satisfactory resolution has been furnished. During its 1967 session the Alabama Legislature authoi'ized formation of a public corporation to be named Tombigbee Valley Development Authoritj^ for the purpose of furtlier development of the Tombigbee River and tributary streams. The organization has been formed in accordance with the enabling legislation and in a referendum held December 5, 1967, tlie voters of Alabama authorized a bond issue not to exceed $10 million to finance local interests' participation in this project and the Tombigbee River and tributaries project. Formal resolution has not been requested. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. Mr. Whitten. What is the staus of planning and Avhat additional engineering and design is planned in 1969? General Hayes. The studies to develop the design for Gainesville lock and dam are underway. During fiscal year 1969, the planning will continue on the Gainesville lock and dam and the divide cut. We will complete the plans and specifications for the lock excavation at Gainesville lock and dam. CARRYOVER FUNDS Mr. Written. What carryover funds are available for the current year for planning ? General Hayes. At the end of the last fiscal year we had $460,000 in funds. We expect to use all of that this year and end up with a zero balance. 1039 LOCAL COOPERATION Mr. Whitten. What is the current status of the local cooperation on the project ? General Hayes. A compact has been formed between the States in- volved, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and interestingly enough Florida. They have organized the Tennessee-Tombigbee Water Development Authority to promote the project. In 1962, the Missis- sippi Legislature authorized and the State organized the Tombigbee River Valley Water Management District which is empowered to ful- fill the requirements of local cooperation for that portion of the project in Mississippi and they have given us appropriate assurances. In 1967, Alabama passed legislation enabling the creation of the Tombigbee Valley Development Authority with sufficient bonding authority to finance the local interests requirement of the project in Alabama. The organization is now being formed and a referendum this last December authorized a $10 million bond issue to finance that local cooperation. area redevelopment benefits Mr. Whitten. General, subsequent to the original plan for the proj- ect, about 20 counties, I believe, in my State, have been included in the Appalachia area? Have you taken area redevelopment into con- sideration in evaluating the benefits of the waterway ? General Hayes. The answer to that question is yes. We have taken into consideration the benefits in the benefit-cost analysis and that does include the area redevelopment benefits. JOHN HOLLIS BANKHEAD LOCK AND DAM, ALABAMA Mr. Whitten. My good friend Mr, Selden from Alabama, who is not a member of the subcommittee, has brought to my attention the badly deteriorated condition of the John Bankhead locks and the urgency of funding the replacements. This committee has had the pri- vilege of seeing the slides this morning of the actual conditions but the record does not necessarily show that. What is the condition, for the record, at this point ? General Hayes. Yes, sir. It is certainly badly deteriorated. It is 52 years old. We have made further exploration since last year. These explorations increase our concern about the structural stability of the existing lock. We do feel there is an urgency for replacement of this, status of preconstruction planning Mr. Whitten. What is the status of preconstruction planning? Are the specifications and plans advanced enough to initiate con- struction in fiscal year 1969 ? General Hayes. Yes, sir, Mr, Whitten. If the funds were available ? General Hayes, Yes, sir, Mr. Whitten. What is your construction capability to be for 1969 as it relates to this facility ? General Hayes, With the usual qualifications, our capability in 1969 is $1 million, of which $350,000 would complete the preconstruc- tion planning and $650,000 would initiate the construction. ni-4o0— OS— ut. 1 r.rt 1040 KEDDIES RIVER RESERVOIR, N.C. (RESTUDY) Mr. WHiTTEisr. We will insert justification covering the request of $60,000 to reexamine the Reddies River Reservoir project in North Carolina, REEXAMINATION OF PROJECTS IN THE "DEFERRED" CATEGORY Total estimated cost Tentative allocation Additional to corn- Project ofrestudy fiscal year 1969 plete restudy after fiscal year 1969 Reddies River Reservoir, N.C $60,000 $60,000 The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 24, 1946, and is included in the Yadkin-Pee Dee Flood Control Compact. It provides for the construction of a dam and reservoir on the Reddies River (Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin) near the town of North Wilkesboro, N.C. The reservoir would reduce flood losses on the Yadkin-Pee Dee Rivers in North Carolina and South Carolina. The project as presently conceived would consist of an earthfill dam with opera- tional flood control storage of 40,200 acre-feet. Funds are requested for fiscal year 1969 to make a restudy of the project to determine the need and economic justification of modifying the subject project under existing general authorities for full multiple-use development of the site, including recreation, low-flow augmentation for water quality improvement, fish and wildlife enhancement, and water supply. The project is located in the upper reaches of the basin, on Reddies River which enters the Yadkin-Pee Dee River below the existing W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir. Considerable development has taken place in the flood plain below that project since its completion in 1962. This development has altered the conditions in the area to such an extent that a restudy is needed to determine if Reddies River Reservoir should be reclassified to active. It is also located in the Appalachian Region and would stimulate industrial growth and enhance employment opportunities. Mr. Whitten. Please describe this project and tell us the purpose of the restudy. General Hates. This authorized project is in the upper reaches of the basin on a tributary which enters the Yadkin River between the existing W. Kerr Scott Reservoir and the cities of Wilkesboro and North Wilkesboro. These areas have developed considerably in re- cent years. There is a considerable flood hazard here. The restudy is to determine the need and economic justification of modifying this project on the Reddies River for multiple-use developments, includ- ing flood control, water quality improvement, water supply, recrea- tion, and fish and wildlife enhancement. CHANGE IN" COST ESTIMATE Mr. WHrrTEN". It is noted that the projects in the advance plan- ning group do not indicate any change in the cost estimate since last year. Is this because the costs have not been updated or because current review indicates no change ? General Hayes. The project estimate is updated from the project document at the time of the initial request for preconstruction plan- ning: funds. Beyond that, we normally do not revise that estimate again during this early preconstruction planning period unless there is some special study, such as the economic study of the Tennessee- Tombigbee or something of that kind. Actually, in the four projects 1041 that we have in the budget for A.E. & D. funding, there have been some changes in the estimate since the original estimate, but not since those were presented to the committee. Mr. Whtiten. We will insert the balance of the justifications under "Planning." John Hollis Bankhead Lock and Dam, Alabama (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — ^The project is located on the Black Warrior River 373.6 miles above Mobile, Ala., in Tuscaloosa County, Ala. The proposed new lock will replace the existing double-lift lock having chamber dimensions of 52X285.5 feet with a modern single-lift lock with chamber dimensions of 110 X 600 feet. Authorization. — Section 6, 1909 River & Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $25, 800, 000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contributions Other Total estimated project cost $25, 800, 000 Pre construction planning estimate 800, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 450, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 350, 000 Balance to complete preconstrviction planning after fiscal year 1969_ JUSTIFICATION Replacement lock will eliminate the double lockages now required and con- siderably reduce the time required for lockage, making it possible to handle more traffic in less time and consequently reduce the cost of navigating the reach of river from the Holt pool to the Birmingham area. Reduction of travel time on this waterway is of great importance since it will permit the more rapid movement of critical materials along the Tombigbee-Warrior Waterway to and from the highly industrialized steel-producing center of Birmingham, Ala. This waterway is \ntal to the needs of both the producers and consumers of steel in the South, with iron ore from the port of Mobile moving to the steel mills of Birmingham, and steel products from Birmingham to shipyards and other industries at Mobile and along the gulf coast. The average annual benefits, all navigation, amount to $1,710,000. Non-Federal costs. — None required; however, local interests have constructed extensive terminal and transfer facilities along the waterway. The Alabama Power Co. has constructed a powerplant at John Hollis Bankhead lock and dam and is constructing a powerplant at Holt lock and dam. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. Lazer Creek Dam, Ga, (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project will be located on the Flint River in Talbot and Upson Counties, Ga., about 8 miles southwest of Thomaston, Ga. The plan of improvement provides for a concrete spillway and concrete nonover- flow abutments across the main channel which would be connected by earthfill dikes to high ground on both banks and a powerplant with two units of 43,500 kilowatts each. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1965. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. 1042 Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $44, 500, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost (}) Total estimated project cost 44, 500, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 865, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 455, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 150, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 260, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969- • Costs allocable to power are reimbursable, amount not yet determined. JUSTIFICATION Lazer Creek Dam is the middle dam of the three headwater dams authorized for the initial development of the Flint River for flood control, hydropower, and other purposes. The low-lying lands along the Flint River are subject to frequent and sometimes severe flooding. The flood plain area contains about 125,200 acres of which 121,400 are rural and 3,800 are urban. Based on 1961 prices and develop- ments existing in the area in 1961, the average annual flood damages are $189,000. Lazer Creek Dam will provide partial protection for the entire area from its location to Bainbridge. It will produce 121,600,000 kilowatt-hrs. of electric energy annually for an area of increasing power needs and where there is an available power market. The reservoir will make available a large area for recrea- tion purposes where there are no readily available facilities. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $97,000 Power 2, 029, 000 Fish and Wildlife and navigation 183. 000 Recreation 500. 000 Total 2, 809. 000 Non-Federal Costs. — Local interests will be required to pay, contribute in kind, or repay (which may be through user fees) witli interest one-h;ilf of the costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement presently estimated at $937,000, exclusive of interest. The costs allocated to power are also reim- bursale, amount not yet determined. Status of local cooperation. — The need to designate a responsible organization to flu'nish required cooperation was explained at a meeting held with representa- tives from the governing body of L'pson County and local officials from the city of Thomaston. These officials expressed willingness and ability to meet the require- ments. It is anticipated that the necessary commitments will be obtained from a res]jonsible cooperating agency prior to completion of preconstruction planning. The Southeastern Power Administration will be the marketing agency responsible for the repayment of the costs to be allocated to power. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — Tlie Federal cost estimate of $44,500,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. Trotters Shoals Reservoir, Ga. and S.C. (Continuation Planning) Location and description. — The proposed project is located on the Savannah River between Hartwell and Clark Hill Dams about 276 miles above the mouth and about 16 miles southeast of Elberton, Ga. The plan of improvement provides for a gravity-type concrete dam with a gated spillway which will be connected to high ground with an earth embankment on each bank and a powerplant with five 62,000-kilowatt units. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1966. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. 1043 Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $88, 800, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 79, 166, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 9, 634, 000 Estimated non-Fedoral cost 79, 166, 000 Reimbursement 79, 166, 000 Power 78, 600, 000 Recreation and fish and wildlife 566, 000 Total estimated project cost... 88, 800, 000 Preconstruetiou planning estimate 1, 700, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 300, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 500, 000 Balance to complete: Preconstruetiou planning after fiscal year 1969_ 900, 000 JUSTIFICATION The growth of power demand in FPC power supply areas 21, 22, and 23 has been rapid in the past few years and it is predicted that the demand will continue at a high rate as far as the market forecast extends. New capacity must be provided to supply the future demand. Part of this capacity will be furnished by steam-electric plants of utility companies. Much of the new demand will be peakloads, which can be met most advantageously by hydroelectric projects such as that proposed at Trotters Shoals. Projection of power demands, with full consideration being given to other projects in the supply areas, indicates a use for this power by 1975. The reservoir created by this project will also provide additional recreational opportunities that are needed in the area. Breakdown of benefits: Power $7, 160, 000 Recreation 280, 000 Fish and wildlife 114, 000 Total 7,554,000 Non-Federal cost. — The costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $78,600,- 000, are reimbursable. In addition, local interests are required to pay, contribute in kind, or repay (which may be through user fees) with interest, one-half of the separable costs of the Trotters Shoals project allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement currently estimated at $566,000. Status of localcooperalion. — No action has been taken to secure compliance with local cooperation requirements. Responsibility for repayment of power costs rests with the Department of Interior pursuant to Federal laws. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. Mr. Whitten. Any questions? Mr. Morris. No questions. Mr. Davis. No questions. Mr. Whitten. We turn now to "Construction." Construction- deferral AND STRETCHOUT PROGRAM Please outline for the committee the nature, extent, and effects of the deferral and stretchout of the construction program in your division. General Hayes. We have 34 projects which received appropriations last year. Fifteen of these had adjustments under the stretchout pro- gram. The delay that resulted from this adjustment varied from less 1044 than 1 month in some cases to a maximum of 5 months. None were delayed over 5 months. PERDIDO PASS CHANNEL, ALA. Mr. WiiiTTEN. $402,000 is budgeted to complete the Perdido Pass Channel in Alabama. (The justification follows:) Perdido Pass Channel, Ala. (Continuing) Location. — Inlet from the Gulf of Mexico on the Gulf coast of Alabama about midway between Mobile Baj^, Ala. and Pensacola Bay, Fla. The project consists of a channel 12 feet deep and 1,300 feet long from the Gulf of Mexico into the inlet, thence 9 feet deep for 2,200 feet to near the higway bidge across Perdido Bay; spur channels 9 feet deep into Terry Cove and Perdido Bay 3,400 feet long and 3,200 feet long respectively. East and west jetties each 1,800 feet long. Authorization. — ^1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). $726,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) __ 50,000 - Estimated non-Federal cost: Cash contributions 548,000 Other costs 30,000 Total estimated project cost. _._ 1, 354, 000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 - 54,000 Allocation for hscal year 1968_... 270,000 Allocations to date 324,000 45 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 _. 402,000 100 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969_ _ PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Gulf of Mexico to Inlet 12 feet deep, 150 feet wide, 1,300 feet long. Inlet to near highway bridge 9 feet deep, 100 feet wide, 2,200 feet long. Point near highway bridge into Terry Cove 9 feet deep, 100 feet wide, 3,400 feet long. Point near highwav bridge into southerlv arm of Perdido Baj' 9 feet deep, 100 feet wide, 3,200 feet long. Jetties: East jetty: Stone section 560 feet long, concrete sheet pile section with weir 1,240 feet long. West jetty: Stone, 1,800 feet long. Deposition Basin: 400,000 cubic j-ards capacity. Statu.'i (Jan. 1, 1968). — Constriiction not started. Completion schedule: Entire project, April 1969. 1045 JUSTIFICATION Due to the shallow depth, navigation through the pass is confined to boats having drafts of 4 feet or less. Those requiring depths in excess of 4 feet are forced to use an alternate route 13 miles to the east in order to enter and return from the gulf. Other than during calm weather, unfavorable surf conditions over the shallow bar and shoal areas in the pass render the present natural channel haz- ardous for navigation by all types and sizes of vessels. There are manj- days during which the weather and waters in the open gulf are favorable for boating but naviga- tion through the pass is prohibited by unfavorable surf conditions. This seriously curtails commercial fishing as well as recreational boating. Perdido Pass is also the only inlet into a harbor of refuge between Pensacola and Mobile Bay, about 26 miles in either direction. There is a definite need for a permanent channel through Perdido Pass that is usable during all weather conditions. Average annual benefits are $154,000 broken down as follows: Shore protection $10, 000 Recreational boating 113, 000 Navigation 31, 000 Total 154,000 Fiscal year 1969. — Funds requested will be utilized as follows — Complete dredging and jetties $362, 100 Engineering and design 4, 600 Supervision and administration 35, 300 Total 402,000 The funds requested will complete this important project. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $578,000, broken down as follows: Cash contributions $548, 000 Lands 14,000 Retaining dikes for spoil 16, 000 Total 578,000 Status of local cooperation. — Local interests have indicated willingness and ability to comply with the provisions of local cooperation. By letter dated De- cember 21, 1967, the Governor of Alabama was requested to furnish the necessary assurances. In view of the intense interest on the part of local interests, it is anticipated that local cooperation will be provided when and as required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates .—The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $726,000 is an increase of $51,000 over the latest estimate ($675,000) submitted to Congress. More detailed studies disclosed the need to modify the previously contemplated plan to provide a weir section in the east jetty and a deposition basin to trap littoral drift before it reaches the channel. These modifications account for the change in cost estimate. 1046 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to cost June 30, estimate 1967 (2) (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Channels -. Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions)— Undistributed cost Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions).. Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions) Undelivered orders Total obligations federal funds -. Total applied cost Undistributed cost.. Total project cost - Pending adjustments Total cost- Undelivered orders Total obligations Non-Federal contributions: Total applied cost Undistributed cost - Total project cost.. Pending adjustments Total cost --- Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year - Total funds available for obligation... Appropriations required Non-Federal contributions: Contributions Unobligated carryover from prior year — Total funds available for obligation... Contributions required— 1,144,000 1 54, 000 76, 000 1,274,000 20, 800 1,500 22, 300 300, 000 25, 000 12,400 337,400 844, 000 8,200 62, 100 914,300 1,274,000 22, 300 337,400 914,300 1,274,000 22,300 22,300 337,400 209, 300 546, 700 914,300 -209, 300 705, 000 726, 000 22, 300 726, 000 22, 300 182,800 "i82,"806" 520,900 520,900 726, 000 22, 800 22,800 548,000 548,000 182, 800 118,900 301,700 154, 600 "154,160' 520,900 -118,900 402,000 393, 400 393, 400 548,000 54,000 154,600 90, 400 245, 000 270, 000 31,700 301.700 393, 400 -90, 400 303,000 402, 000 245, 000 '245,666" 303,000 • Includes $3,000 for real estate activities. Mr, Whitten. Wliat is the status of this project? General Hayes. The construction has not started. We expect to award the first construction contract with fiscal year 1968 funds in Mav. This contract will cover both the channel and the jetties. LOCAL COOPERATION Mr. Whiti'en. What is the status of local cooperation on this project? General Hates. We have received the assurances from the local interests. In fact, we just got those last week. CROSS-FLORIDA BARGE CANAL Mr. WiiiTTEN. $4,600,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal. (The justification follows:) 1047 Cross-Florida Barge Canal (Continuing) Location. — The Cross- Florida Barge Canal extends from the intersection of the Atlantic Intraeoastal Waterway and the St. Johns River, 6 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, up the St. Johns River, 89 miles past Jacksonville and Palatka to Stokes Landing, thence into and up the Oklawaha River to Silver Springs; it then crosses the divide to the Withlacoochee River and into the Gulf of Mexico 95 miles north of Tampa Harbor. Authorization. — Public Law 675, 77th Congress. Approved July 23, 1942. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1 (exclusive of defense benefits which are not evaluable in monetary terms). SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost: Corps of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $149,800,000 200,000 12,400,000 12,400,000 162,400,000 30,495,000 10,680,000 41, 175, 000 28 4,600,000 31 104,025,000 PHYSICAL DATA Entire project waterway: Length: 185 miles. Depth: 12 feet. Bottom width: 150 feet (minimum). Locks (five single lift) : Length: 600 feet. Width: 84 feet. Lock : Lift in feet St. Johns 20 Eureka _ .. 20 Bert Dosh i to 15 Dunuellon i 12 to 27 Inglis 28 Reservoirs, three. Capacity: 210,000 acre-feet. Use: Navigation and recreation. Lands (recreation areas) : Acres: 12,015. Type: Undeveloped. Improvement: None. > Pool level varies with natural ground water from elevation 40 to elevation 65. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands (recreation areas) Reservoir and pool preparation.. Dams ._ Locks, __ Bridges Channels and canals Pumping plants (Silver Springs). Buildings, grounds, and utilities.. Permanent operating equipment. Recreation facilities Entire project. Fiscal year 1974. 45 December 1970. 65 June 1970. 38 Fiscal year 1974. 6 Do. 11 Fiscal voar 1975. June 1972. 12 June 1973. June 1971. Fiscal year 1975. 23 Do. 1048 JUSTIFICATION The barge canal will afford a direct and protected route between the Gulf of jVIexico and Atlantic coast ports and tributaries for barging large quantities of long-haul freight. Prospective average annual volume that would move at a signif- icant saving over present modes of transportation is estimated at 2,670,000 tons. Principal items of prospective commerce include pulpboard, petroleum products, iron and steel articles, salt cake, ilmenite ore, and caustic soda. The majority of the prospective commerce consists of supplies for, or products from, the rapidly growing pulp and paper and chemical industry of the southeastern United States. The barge canal will unite the Atlantic and Gulf Intracoastal Waterways into a system encompassing an area of 34 States. Saving in distance via the barge canal would be 356 miles compared to the Okeechobee Waterway across south Florida, and 611 miles compared to the exposed and hazardous route around the Florida Keys. Certain vessels require partial dismantling in order to transit the Okee- chobee Waterway with its limiting clearances. This expense could be saved by use of the barge canal which would provide adequate clearance. The barge canal will also reduce flood damages by assisting the rapid removal of runoff from areas repeatedly subject to flood damage. Breakdown of benefits: Recreation $3, 260, 000 Navigation 7, 763, 000 Flood control 255, 000 Total 11, 278, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested appropriation of $4,600,000 will be applied as follows — - Initiate construction $1, 300, 000 Construction will be initiated on Eureka pool; Inglis Dam and spillway; Derrick, et cetera, St. Johns, Inglis, and Eureka locks; railroad bridge at Dunnellon; bank protection jobs 16 A and 16B; channel excavation for the reach of channel between mile 65.5 and mile 70.6 and between mile 91.4 and mile 92.6; bypass channel at Inglis lock; and operators' quarters at St. Johns lock. Continue and complete 2, 461, 000 Construction will be continued to completion on Eureka Dam and Spillway; Eureka Lock; and bridge at SR 316. Engineering and design 550, 000 Supervision and administration 289, 000 Total 4, 600,000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessar.y for the construc- tion of the canal (estimated at $12,400,000) and to hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction works. Estimated annual cost to local interests for operation and maintenance of all highwaj^ bridges and roadwaj^s built in connection with the project is $118,000. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation were furnished July 27, 1960, by the Ship Canal Autnority of the State of Florida. That authority was redesignated as the canal authority of the State of Florida by action of the State legislature in 1961, and empowered to act as the official local cooperation agency for the project. Assurances of local cooperation were accepted by the United States November 13, 1963. Local interests have acquired about 39,000 acres of land for rights-of-way purposes. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $149,800,000 is an increase of $4,500,000 over the latest estimate ($145,300,000) submitted to Congress. The increase is due to inclusion of $4,300,- 000 for hinds and facilities for recreational purposes and $200,000 for operation buildings and facilities. 1049 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Public Law 675, 77th Cong., July 23, 1942 H. Doc. 109, 79th Cong., IstSess. Lands (recreation areas) $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Reservoir and pool preparation 7,475,000 $1,800,000 $2,500,000 $100,000 3,075,000 Dams- _ . - 5,980,000 2,738,800 2,291,200 550,000 400,000 Locks 33,425,000 10,620,700 4,869,300 1,920,000 16,015,000 Bridges 29,300,000 1,491,600 1,392,400 351,000 26,065,000 Channels and canals 51,685,000 5,426,700 591,300 800,000 44,867,000 Pumping plants (Silver Springs) 1,100,000 1,100,000 Recreation facilities 1.800,000 1,800,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 550,000 63,500 500 40,000 446,000 Permanent operating equipment 250,000 250,000 Engineering and design " 7,691,000 4,199,800 815,000 550,000 2,126,200 Supervision and administration 8,044,000 1,722,100 652,100 289,000 5,380,800 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers only) 149,800,000 28,063,200 13,111,800 4,600,000 104,025,000 Undistributed costs -.. - Total project cost (Corps of Engineers only) 149,800,000 28,063,200 13,111,800 4,600,000 104,025,000 Pending adjustments. _ Total cost (Corps of Engineers only) 149,800,000 28,063,200 13,111,800 4,600,000 104,025,000 Undelivered orders 1,237,100 (-)1,237, 100 Total obligations _ 29,300,300 11,874,700 4,600,000 104,025,000 IVIethod of financing (Corps of Engineers only) (149,800,000) Allocation 30,495,000 10,680,000 -- Unobligated carryover from prior year 1,194,700 Total funds available for obligation _._ 11,874,700 Appropriation required 4,600,000 104,025,000 1 Includes $150,000 for real estate activities. Mr. Whitten. ^Vliat is the status of construction on this project? General Hayes. It is about 25 percent complete. Mr. Whitten. It is noted that the benefit-to-cost ratio has been increased from 1.1 to 1.4 to 1 since last year. Wliat is the basis for this increase ? General Hayes. It results from the addition of recreation with its attendant benefits as a project purpose. COST increase Mr. Whitten. The cost of the project has been increased since last year by $4,300,000 due to the inclusion of lands and facilities for the recreational purposes. What is the basis for this addition and what will it consist of? General PIayes. The $4,300,000 includes $2,500,000 for lands for the ultimate recreational development and $1,800,000 for construction of facilities in the initial development. These will include the basic facilities normally associated with water resource development proj- ects, including access roads, parking areas, launching ramps, picnick- ing and camping sites and sanitary facilities, 36 sites and currently pro- loosed for development. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLA. (SS-FOOT PROJECT) Mr. Whitten. $2 million is budgeted for the Jacksonville Harbor, 38-foot project. 1050 (The justification follows:) Jacksonville Harbor, Fla. (38-Foot Project) (Continuing) Location. — St. Johns River, Duval County, in northwest Florida about 125 miles south of Savannah Harbor, Ga., and about 145 miles north of Canaveral Harbor, Fla. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost: Corps of Engineers... $8,800,000 U.S. Coast Guard.. 20,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 330,000 Cash contribution 230.000 Other 100,000 Total estimated project cost 9,150,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 80,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 50,000 Allocation to date 130,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 2,000,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 6,670, 000 PHYSICAL DATA Channel: Channel deepening to 38 feet upstream to mile 20 and widening by lOQ feet near mile 5 and by 200 feet near mile 7. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule Channel, ocean to mile 10 December 1969. Channel, mile 10 to mile 20 June 1971. JUSTIFICATION Transportation savings through deeper loading of supertankers account for about 95 percent of the tangible benefits and land enhancement for the remainder. Use of petroleum products and supertankers is increasing rapidly. It is estimated that about 70 percent of the prospective future petroleum receipts would be carried in supertankers that would benefit from channel improvement. The volume of supertankers is estimated at 3,460,000 tons in year 1973 and 11,570,000 tons in year 2023. Estimated average benefits over the life of the project are expected to increase to an amount equal to double the annual average charges. Breakdown of benefits: Transportation savings $794, 000 Land enhancement 44, 000 Total 838,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested appropriation of $2,000,000 will be applied as follows: Initiate dredging of channel, ocean to mile 10 $1, 850, 000 Engineering and design 35, 000 Supervision and administration 115, 000 Total 2,000, 000 Completed modifications. — River and Harbor Acts of 1880, 1896, 1907, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1935, and 1945 provided a 34-foot channel from the Atlantic Ocean to Commodore Point at a total cost of $12,425,000 and provides for maintenance of two jetties built at the entrance under a previous project. 1051 Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the budgeted modification is estimated as follows: Lands and damages $100, 000 Required contributed funds (2.6 percent of total construction cost) 230, 000 Total 330,000 Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation from the Jackson- ville Port Authority were accepted by the District Engineer February 11, 1966. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — There is no change from the latest Federal (Corps of Engineers) estimate of $8,800,000 presented to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 River and Harbor Act of 1965 (H. Doc. 214, 89th Cong, 1st sess.) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels $8,310,000 $1,900,000 $6,410,000 EnfiineerinEand"designi - 220,000 $73,600 $46,400 40,000 60,000 Supervision end administration.— 500,000 4,500 5,500 116,900 373,100 Total applied cost (Federal and non- Federal) .. -— - - - 9,030,000 78,100 51,900 2,056,900 6,843,100 Undistributed costs --- - Total project cost (Federal and non- „ „,„ „„„ Federal) - 9,030,000 78,100 51,900 2,056,900 6,843,000 Totafcoft'(Feder"fa!fd"rf^^^^^^ '787100" sUgOO 2;556;'900 6,'843,'ioO Undelivered orders Total obligations 78,100 51,900 2,056,900 6,843,100 Federal funds (Corps of Engineers): „„„ Total applied cost...- 8,800,000 78,100 51,900 2,000,000 6,670,000 U ndistributed costs - - - - - ---- ---- Total project cost... 8,800,000 78,100 51,900 2,000,000 6,670,000 Pending adjustments - - z-zzz-z-z Total cost.. -.....- 8,800,000 78,100 51,900 2,000,000 6,670,000 Undelivered orders - z-zz--:zz Total obligations 78,100 51,900 2,000,000 6,670,000 Non-Federal funds; „ „«« ,->o ,nn Total applied cost.... 230,000 .- 56,900 173,100 Undistributed costs - zz-zzz-- ;z;:-z:z Total project cost 230,000 56,900 173,100 Pending adjustments - ;---; .-:;.; -.-a^ Total cost.. ....-- 230,000.... ...- 56,900 173,100 Undelivered orders - zz-zzz -;z,--:zz Total obligations - - - 56,900 173,100 Method of financing: Federal funds (Corps of Engineers).. (8,800,000) - Allocations 80,000 50,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 1,900 Total funds available for obli- gation ---- 51,900 -- Appropriation required - - 2,000,000 6,670,000 Non-Federal funds (230,000) Contribution - Unobligated carryover from prior year. - Total funds available for obli- ContributioVreq'uTred'.IIIIIIIII"!"!!!.'----"""!--!- — - 56,900 173,100 > I ncludes $5,500 for real estate activities. Mr. Whitten. Construction of tliis project has been deferred until fiscal year 1969. ^V\mt is tlie status of the project and when it is planned to initiate construction ? General Hates. Planning is well underway and will be completed by the end of this fiscal year. We expect to award the first contract in Augaist. 1052 SAVANNAH HARBOR, GA. (SEDIMENT BASIN AND APPURTENANT WORKS) Mr. "\^"iiiTTEN, $1.7 million is budgeted for the Savannah Harbor Sediment Basin. (The justification follows:) Savannah Harbor, Ga. (Sediment Basin and Appurtenant Works) (Continuing) Location. — Savannah Harbor is located in Chatham County, Ga., and comprises the lower 21.35 miles of the Savannah River and 9.7 miles of channel across the bar to the Atlantic Ocean. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost _ -. $7,430,000 Estimated non-Federal cost _.. -_. 280,000 Cash contribution Other costs ---. .-. 280,000 Total estimated project cost 7,710,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 135,000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968. ._ _ Allocations to date - 135,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. 1,700,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 5,595,000 PHYSICAL DATA Tide Gate Structure: Type: Concrete, flanked by earth embankments, with 14 flap-type gates. Maximmn height: 25 feet. Length: Concrete section 906 feet; embankments 200 feet; total 1,106 feet. Sediment basin : 40 feet deep, 600 feet wide, and about 2 miles long. Entrance channel: 40 to 38 feet deep and 300 feet wide. Drainage canal: 15 feet deep and 300 feet wide. Fresh water supply: Distribution and connecting canals with control works. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Not started. Completion schedule Sediment basin and drainage canal March 1970. Tide gate structure and diversion canal June 1971. Distribution canals and levees and fresh water canals March 1971. Water control structures Do. Entire project June 1971. JUSTIFICATION The cost of maintaining project dimension in Savannah Harbor is excessively high due to the fast rate of sediment deposition. The rapid shoaling is critical to navigation and results in costly delays to shipi)ing if not adequately maintained. Construction of the sediment basin will reduce the shoaling in the navigation channels, currently amounting to about 7,000,000 cubic yards annually, l)y about 60 i:)ercent. ("onstruction of the fresh water control system, addcul when tlic i)roject was authorized, will i)i-ovide ample fresh water to the refuge lands, thci'eby eliminating damages caused by salt water intrusion, and the increase in salinity concentrations that are likely to result from deeixuiing of the harbor and operation of the sediment basin. 1053 Breakdown of benefits: Amount Reduction in harbor maintenance $456, OOQ Fresh water control works for fish and wildlife 48, 000 Total 504, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,700,000 will be applied to — Complete hydrauhc fill $100, 000 Complete drainage canal 289, 000 Initiate sediment basin 1, 050, 000 Engineering and design 126, 000 Supervision and administration 135, 000 Total 1,700,000 Sediment basin dredging will be awarded under a continuing type contract about August 1, 1968, and the budget fiscal year 1969 request of $1,700,000 is required to initiate construction and continue design of remaining work. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS The existing project has been completed as authorized by 13 River and Harbor Acts between the years 1907 and 1962, and provides for channels from 30 to 36 feet deep and from 200 to 500 feet wide and four turning basins. The total length of the existing project is 31.05 miles and was completed at a Federal cost of $9,468,000. REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS A further modification in the 1965 River and Harbor Act (H.D. 226) authorized the widening and deepening of Savannah Harbor. It is estimated that this improve- ment will be about 25 percent complete at the end of fiscal year 1969. Non-Federal costs. — The costs to local interests of complying with the require- ments of local cooperation are as follow: Lands : Estimated non-Federal cost 1,000 acres for spoil area $90, 000 346 acres for tide gate structure and drainage canal 40, 000 Dikes: Construct new dike around 1,000 acre spoil area 150, 000 Total 280, 000 Local interests incurred cost of $383,000 in complying with the requirements of local cooperation for previous work accomplished on the Savannah Harbor proj- ect and will also incur an estimated cost of $330,000 in the widening and deepening improvement shown under paragraph "Remaining Modifications." In addition, local interests are required to maintain the spoil dikes at an estimated annual cost of $60,000. In addition, the Georgia Ports Authority and the State of Georgia have com- pleted three major expansion programs in the past 5 years and have an investment here today of about $34 million. Additional berths and general cargo facilities are currently under construction, at an estimated cost of $3,800,000. The Georgia Ports Authority is currently planning the addition of a grain elevator and bulk cargo handling facilities. Construction of the bulk cargo handling facilities is scheduled to be initiated during fiscal year 1969 at an estimated cost of $10 million. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances were furnished April 7, 1967, by the Chatham County Commissioners by separate resolutions for the widening and deepening modification and for the sediment basin plan. Comparison of Federal {Corps of Engineers) cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $7,430,000 is an increase of $390,000 over the latest estimate ($7,040,000) submitted to Congress. This change is due to price level. 1054 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Dams $3,375,000 $100,000 $3,275,000 Channels and canals... 3,278,000 1,339,000 1,939,000 Engineering and design 360,000 $38,200 $86,000 126,000 109,800 Supervision and administration 417,000 2,300 8,500 135,000 271,200 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers fundsonly). 7,430,000 40,500 94,500 1,700,000 5,595,000 Undistributed cost.. - - -.- Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only).... .- 7,430,000 40,500 94,500 1,700,000 5,595,000 Pending adjustment Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 7,430,000 40,500 94,500 1,700,000 5,595,000 Undelivered orders 2,400 -2,400 Total obligations - 42,900 92,100 1,700,000 5,595,000 Method of financing (Corps of Engineers funds only): Allocations 135,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 92,100 Total funds available for obligation 92,100 Appropriations required 1,700,000 5,595,000 Islv. Whittex. This was a new start added by the Senate last year which has been deferred until fiscal year 1969. Please describe this project and tell us the status of planning. General Hayes. The project provides for sediment control works consisting of a tide gate structure and sediment basin and for control works for supplying fresh water to the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge and to improved lands southeast of the refuge. Design memorandum studies are underway. The cost of maintaining the project dimensions in Savannah Harbor is very high due to the fast rate of sediment deposition. This rapid shoaling is critical to navigation, causing costly delay to shipping if we do not maintain the channel adequately. As a result we are having to go back in there and spend a lot of money each year on the neces- sary dredging to maintain this channel, Mr. Written. A^Tien is it planned to initiate construction? General Hayes. The first construction contract is expected to be awarded in August. CAPE fear river, N.C, ABOVE "WTLMINGTOlSr Mr. Whitten. $1,149 million is budgeted to complete construction of the Cape Fear River navigation project above Wilmington, N.C. (The justification follows :) Cape Fear River, N.C, Above Wilmington (Continuing) Location. — Cape Fear River is formed by the confluence of Deep and Haw Rivers at Moncure, Chatham County, N.C, flows generally southeast 198 miles and empties into the Atlantic Ocean, near Cape Fear; 2S miles below Wilmington. Authorization.— 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1 1055 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $1,600,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 120,000 Cash contribution Othercosts 120,000 Total estimated projectcost 1,720,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 51,000 Allocation for fiscalyear 1968 400,000 Allocation to date 451,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969... 1, 149,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 28 100 PHYSICAL DATA Channels. — A channelTl2 feet deep and 140 feet wide from Navassa, about 4 miles above Wilmington, to Mileboard 30 at Acme, with 5 channel cutoffs 12 feet deep and 150 feet wide, to eliminate sharp bends between these points. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: Entire^project, June 30, 1969. JUSTIFICATION Increasing the dimensions, shortening the length, and straightening the aline- ment of the river channel would result in savings from reduction in transportation costs for current and prospective waterborne-bulk commodities, utilized by manufacturing plants in the growing industrial area, along the west bank of the Cape Fear River at and above Navassa. Two companies, each with plants on the river near Acme, together with a third company manufacturing complex under construction roughly midway the project, are prospective users of the im- proved waterway, and other companies needing water transportation would probably locate in this area if the channel is improved. The plan of improvement would serve the needs of existing and prospective commerce. Average annual benefits are tabulated below: Current benefits (July 1, 1967) Amount Transportation savings for prospective commerce $23 1, 300 Reduced operating costs 20, 200 Total 2.51, 500 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,149,000 will be applied as follows: Complete dredging of 12-foot channel $1, 065, 300 Supervision and administration 83, 700 Total 1, 149, 000 The requested amount will provide an orderly and economical rate of construc- tion and will assure completion in fiscal year 1969 as scheduled. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS CAPE FEAR KIVER, N.C., ABOVE WILMINGTON Work completed consists of a dredged channel, 25 feet deep and generally 200 feet wide from Wilmington to Navassa, about 4 miles, terminating in a turning basin 400 feet wide and 550 feet long; thence a channel of 8-foot minimum depth and varying width between Navassa and Fayetteville, about 111 miles, obtained by three locks and dams and the dredging of river shoals, a total of 115 miles. Completed work also includes construction of recreational facilities at the sites of the three locks and dams under authority of the Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended. The cost of the completed work is $2,593,000. 91-459— 68— pt. 1- -67 1056 REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS CAPE FEAR RIVER, N.C., ABOVE WILMINGTON None. Non-Federal cost. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the project consists of the following: (a) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project, including suitable areas for initial and subsequent disposal of spoil, and also necessary retaining dikes, bulkheads, and embankments therefore, or the cost of such retaining works, presentlv esti- mated at $120,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal request has been made. The State of North Carolina has furnished assurances and is in the process of fulfilling requirements. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from latest estimates submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) River and Harbor Act, Oct. 27, 1965 (H. Doc. 252, 89th Cong., 1st sess. Channels $1,457.0 $100.0 $1,357.0 Engineering and design 1 48.0 $4.0 44.0 _ Supervision and administration 95.0 .3 11.0 83.7 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 1.600.0 4.3 155.0 1,440.7.. Undistributed cost Total project cost (Corps of Engineers fundsonly) 1,600.0 4.3 155.0 1,440.7 Pending adjustnnents Total costs (Corps of Engineers funds only). 1 , 600. Undelivered orders Total obligations 1,600.0 Method of financing: Federal funds (Corps of Engineers only): Allocations 51.0 400.0 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 4.3 155.0 1.440.7 291.7 -291.7 4.3 446.7 1,149.0 Unobligated carrover from prior year 46.7 Total funds available for obliga- tion 51.0 446.7 Appropriations required _ 1, 149. > Includes $3,500 for real estate activities. Mr. Whitten. Please describe this project which was added to the bill last year by the Senate. General Hayes. The work consists of a channel 12 feet deep and 140 feet wide from Navassa, about 4 miles above Wilmington, to Mile- board 30 at Acme, with five channel cutolfs to eliminate sharp bends between these points. Mr. WiiiTTEN. What is the current status of the project and when is it planned to initiate construction ? General Hayes. The preconstruction planning is scheduled to be completed and construction started by the end of this fiscal year. PINELLAS COUNTY. FLA. BEACH EROSION CONTROL Mr. WiiiiTEN. $258,000 is budgeted to initiate construction of the Pinellas County, Fla., beach erosion control project. (The justification follows:) 1057 Pinellas County, Fla., Beach EIkosion Control (Continuing) Location. — Wpst-central coast of Florida covering aV)ont 25 miles of the island beaches in the Clearwater-St. Petersburg area of Pinellas County extending from Dunedin Pass to Pass-a-Griile Pass. Authorization. — 196G River and HarV)or Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) - -. ' $760,000 Estimated non-Federal cost... 3,910,000 Cash contribution 3,910,000 Total estimated project cost - 4,670,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 - Allocation for fiscal year 1968-- -. (2) Allocation to date - Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 258,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969_ 502,000 34 • Estimate is based on existing proportion of shore front ownership of the beaches. 2 Project received appropriation as a "new start" for fiscal year 1968. Under the program for reduced expenditures in fiscal year 1968, the start of construction has been postponed until fiscal year 1969 with no allocation in fiscal year 1968. PHYSICAL DATA Placement of beach fill 3,465,000 cubic yards Periodic beach nourishment 1,300,000 cubic yards Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Not started. Completion schedule: Initial sand fill, Treasure Island, March 1969. JUSTIFICATION Erosion of the gulf shore of Pinellas County has been a problem for years. The shore is highly developed and intensively used both summer and winter. The proj- ect will provide needed restoration and continued stability for the beaches and protection for shore development. Local interests are attempting to establish public beaches gulfward of private property over major parts of the project length. Benefits that would accrue from the project are from prevention of dam- ages to development, enhancement of property values, and prevention of loss of land. Breakdown of benefits: Direct damages prevented $350, 200 Enhancement of property values 88, 000 Total 438, 200 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested appropriation of $258,000 will be used to initiate and complete initial fill at Treasure Island. Completed or remaining modifications. — None. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in their construction, maintenance, and operation of the project is estimated as follows: Construction of revetment $32, 000 Placement of initial fill (Treasure Island) 25S, 000 Placement of remaining initial fill 2, 405, 000 Nourishment of beaches (10-year period) 1, 215, 000 Total 3,910,000 Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation from the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners were accepted bv the District Engineer March 22, 1967. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The last Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate submitted to Congress ranged from $270,000 to $2,335,000 depending on the proportion of public and private ownership of the beaches. The current 1058 Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $760,000 is based on the existing shorefront ownership of the beaches. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) River and Harbor Act of 1966 (H. Doc. 519, 89th Cong., 2d sess.) Revetment 65.000 65,000 Beach repienisfiment 4,605,000 516,000 4,089,000 Totalcost 4,670,000 516,000 4,154,000 Federal share.... 760,000 258,000 502,000 Non-Federal share 3,910,000 258,000 3,652,000 Total applied cost (Federal and non- Federal) 4,670,000 516,000 4,154,000 Undistributed costs .._ .__ Total project cost (Federal and non- Federal) 4,670,000 516,000 4,154,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal and non-Federal) 4,670,000 516,000 4,154,000 Undelivered orders _ _ Total obligations 516,000 4,154,000 Method of financing: Federal funds.. __ (760,000) _ _._ Allocation _ _ ._ Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obli- gation Appropriation required.. 258,000 502,000 Non-Federal funds (3,910,000) Contribution Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obli- gation Contribution required 258,000 3,652,000 Mr. Whitten. This was a new start in last year's bill which has also been deferred until fiscal year 1969. What is the current status of the project and when is it planned to initiate construction? General Hayes. The plannint^ is under way and we will award the contract for the Treasure Islan(i work in October. FORT MACON STATE PARK, N.C. Mr. "Whitten. We will insert justification in connection with that item of $258,000 to continue reimbursement to the State of North Carolina for construction on the Fort Macon State Park beach erosion project. (The justification follows:) Fort Macon State Park, North Carolina (Reimbursement — continuing) Location. — On barrier beach west of and adjacent to Beaufort Inlet, Carteret County, N.C. Authorization. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. 1059 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $693,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 367,000 " "" Cast) contribution Other costs 367,000 "."'"."".'.'." Total estimated project cost i 1,060,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 262,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ' '.. Allocation to date 262,000 38 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 258,000 75 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 173,000 ' Includes annual replenishment costs of $7,200 over a 10-year period. PHYSICAL DATA Beach berm: Elevation 8 feet; crown width 100 feet; length 7,750 feet. Breakwaters: (a) Stone revetment: Elevation 12 feet; length 250 feet; seaward slope, 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. (6) Stone wall: Elevation 12 feet; length 530 feet; seaward side slope, 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. (c) Stone groin: Elevation 9 feet; length 1,670 feet; crown width 15 feet; side slopes, 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. All work to be accomplished by local interests with subsequent reimbursement for the Federal share of project construction costs. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). Beach berm: 3,100 lineal feet constructed, including 2,000 feet at west end and 1,100 feet immediately west of groin area at Fort Macon Point. — Completion not scheduled. Breakwaters: (a) Stone revetment: Complete. {b) Stone wall: Complete. (c) Stone groin: 1,130 Hneal feet at shore end complete, except for capstone; 540 lineal feet under construction, except for capstone. — Completion not scheduled. JUSTIFICATION The improvement would provide an adequate beach berm and foreshore for recreational purposes and, also, provide protection to public property from damages caused by an eroding shoreline. Average annual benefits are tabulated below. Cunent benefit Prevention of damages and loss of land $58, 700 Recreation benefits 30, 800 Total 89, 500 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $258,000 would be applied to reimbursing the State of North Carolina 70 percent of its funds ($368,500) ex- pended for construction work in fiscal year 1968. Estimated reimbursements are: Breakwaters (stone groin) $223, 300 Beach replenishment 34, 700 Total 258,000 Non-Federal cost. — The investment of local interests in construction of the project consists of the following: (a) Accomplish all planning and construction of the project with detailed plans and specifications to be ai^proved by the Chief of Engineers prior to commencement of construction; and bear two-thirds of the first cost of work accomplished prior to October 23, 1962, and 30 percent of the remainder, at a total estimated first cost of $345,000. Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1958 1959 fiscal year 1959 1060 (b) Maintain beach berm and protective stnictures and provide periodic nourish- ment at an estimated annual cost of $8,200. The estimated cost of beach nourish- ment during the 10-year period for which Federal participation is required will amount to $7,200 annually of which $2,200 is non-Federal cost. Status of local cooperation. — An agreement between the United States and the State of North Carolina (the cooperating agency) providing for accomplish- ment of work for the Fort Macon State Park project was approved June 25, 1964. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) River and Harbor Act of Oct. 23, 1962 (H. Doc. 555, 87th Cong., 2d sess.) Breakwaters and seawalls $849,000 $392,500 $5,000 $319,000 $132,500 Completed portion (135,100) (136.100) Uncompleted portion (712,900) (256,400 (5,000) (319,000) (132.500) Levees and floodwalls (initial fill) 139.000 44,900 94,100 Beach replenishment (10-year period)... 72,000 49,5 22,500 Total applied cost (Federal and non- Federal funds) 1,050,000 437,400 5,000 368,500 249,100 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal and non- Federal funds) 1,060,000 437,400 5,000 368,500 249,100 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal and non-Federal funds) 1,060,000 437,400 5,000 368,500 249,100 Undelivered orders Total obligations 1,060.000 437.400 5.000 368,500 173,100 Federal share of total cost 693,000 258.400 3,500 258,000 173,100 Non-Federal share of total cost 367.000 179,000 1,500 110,500 76,000 Method of financing: Federal funds; ' Appropriations 693,000 261,900 Unobligated carryover from prior year 3,500 Total funds available for obligation 3,500 Appropriations required 258,000 173, 100 I Includes Corps of Engineers supervision and administration costs. Mr. WiiiTTEisr. Briefly describe tlie status of the project and the basis for the amount of reimbursement in fiscal year 1969. General Hayes. At the time we put these funds in the l)udget, we did it with the expectation that the State of North Carolina would have awarded this contract and completed this work diirinir this fiscal year and that the $258,000 would be our share of the reimbursement. Their schedule has slipped a little bit so their contract is not scheduled to be awarded until June, but it will be completed in October. CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL I'ROJKCT Mr. WiiiT'rEN. $11.5 million is budgeted to continue construction of the central and southern Florida flood control project. (The justihcation follows i^l 1061 Central and Southern Florida (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in the southeasterly 18 counties of the State of Florida. Principal areas are upper St. Johns River Basin, Kissimmee River Ba.sin, Lake Okeechobee-Everglades area, and the East Coast-Everglades area. Authorization.— l^A^, 1954, 1958, 1960, 1962, and 1965 Flood Control Acts. Benefit-cost ratio. — 4.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers).. _ _ _ $269,000,000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' ._ 121,' 000,' 000 Cash contribution _ '" 56',000lo00 Other costs. _ _ 65,000,000 Total estimated project cost... _ 390 000 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 _,_ ' '"" 149'587'000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 _ 10915000 Allocation to date... _ __ 160| 502' 000 60" Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969... 11,500 000 64 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... 96998000 I Local interests have also expended over $1,000,000 on emergency construction and are progressively providing neces- sary secondary works ultimately estimated to cost $85 million. PHYSICAL DATA Lands and damages: Reedy Creek Swamp requires purchase of 8,800 acres of land for wildlife area: Federal participation is 50 percent. Land is mainly swamp and lowlands used for native pasture and growth of timber with no major improvements. Relocations: Railroads: .38 bridges, estimated cost $6,811,000. Canals: Miles, 922. Levees: Total length 982 miles. Minimum to maxium height 2 to 25 feet. Pumping plants: 19 — Capacity 17,000,000 gallons per minute. Floodwaj^ control and di\'ersion structures: 162. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages (Reedy Creek Swamp). (i) Relocations, railroads (bridges) 73 m Channels and canals... '_\ 53 m Levees and floodwalls ". 47 m Pumping plants _ 61 (i) Floodway control and diversion structures 70 ^1) Entire prolect 56 (ly 'Not established. JUSTIFIC-VTION The project embraces some 15,866 square miles in central and southern Florida and would afford a high degree of flood protection; it would provide for removal of excess waters in wet seasons and for their control, storage, and use in main- tammg water levels during dry periods. The project would provide for preserva- tion of fish and wildlife resources and reduce salinity intrusion into land and water supplies of coastal areas. Flooding is recurrent and frequent. Damages incurred and prevented by project works completed or partially completed at time of flood- ing for major floods occurring since initiation of the project are as follows: 1062 Estimated damages Prevented by Potential Actually project worlds without any incurred in place at project works time ot flood September to October 1953 $20,000,000 $13,800,000 $33,800,000 January 1957 9.000,000 7,500.000 16,500,000 December 1957 to January 1958 _ _ 1,200,000 11,600,000 12,800,000 June 1959 500,000 11,500,000 12,000,000 October 1959 _.._ __._ 5,100,000 5,400,000 10,500,000 July to September 1960 14,600,000 25,900,000 40,500,000 September to October 1964 _ _._ 7,100,000 15,100,000 22,200.000 June 1966. _. 8.500,000 15,300,000 23,800,000 October 1966. _- _ 1,700,000 14,500,000 16,200.000 Total 67,700,000 120,600,000 188,300.000 Breakdown of Benefits: Flood control $79, 965, 400 Recreation 1, 794, 100 Fish and wildlife and navigation 410, 100 Total 82, 169, 600 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $11,500,000 (Federal funds) will be used to continue construction on the project as follows: Channels and canals $o, 127, 200 Levees and floodwalls 2, 138, 800 Pumping plants 1, 090, 000 Floodway control and diversion structures 1, 504, 700 Subtotal 9, 860, 700 Engineering and design 950, 000 Supervision and administration 689, 300 Total 11, 500, 000 Channels and canals: Widening and deepening of the Caloosahatchee River will be continued to provide greater discharge capacity for Lake Okeechobee aiad thereby facilitate regulation of the lake. Enlargement of Kissimmee River and canals connecting tributary lakes will be continued and when completed will regulate the principal inflow into Lake Okeechobee. Construction will be continued on the canals in the South Dade Comity area. Construction will be continued on canals in the Upper St. Johns River Basin area. Construction will be continued on conveyance canals as an emergency measure to provide waterway channels to Everglades National Park. Levees and floodwalls: Enlargement of Herbert Hoover Dike aroTind Lake Okeechobee will be continued to provide greater storage capacity in the lake and thereby facilitate regulation of water in the area. Construction will be continued on the protective levee in the South Dade County area to provide protection for the lower east coast area. Construction will be continued on levees in the Upper St. Johns River Basin area. Pumping plants: Construction will be continued on machinery and structure for pumping plant for Conservation Area No. 3. Construction will be continued on machinery and structures for pumping plants on Herbert Hoover Dike around Lake Okeechobee. Construction of S-4 pumping plant structure will be initiated. 1063 Floodway control and diversion structures: Construction will be continued on water-control structures in connection with raising the levee around Lake Okeechobee, enlarging Kissimmee River, and providing protective levee in the South Dade County area. Construction will be continued on control structures in the South Dade County area and in the Upper St. Johns River Basin area. A'on-Fed'eral costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the total project is as follows: Lands and damages $42, 230, 000 Relocations 22, 520, 000 Contribution (cash) 56, 000, 000 Pkeview of plans and specifications 250, 000 Total 121, 000, 000 Local interests are required to operate and maintain all project works upon completion except main control structures of Conservation Areas 1, 2, and 3, and the features directly controlling and/or protecting Lake Okeechobee. The annual cost to local interests for operation and maintenance of the total project is estimated at $2,580,000. Estimate of annual maintenance of secondary works provided by local interests is $550,000. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation have been furnished by the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District and accepted by the district engineer for works authorized bv the Flood Control Acts of 1948, 1954, 1960 (Nicodemus Slough), and 1965. Assvirances have been accepted for all work vmder the Flood Control Act of 1962 except the Reedy Creek Swamp area. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — There is no change from the latest Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $269,000,000 submitted to Congress. However, adjustments have been made between features based on detailed design, bids received, and cost experience to date. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Flood Control Acts: June 30, 1948 (H. Doc. 643, 80th Cong., 2d sess); Sept. 3, 1954 (H. Doc. 643, 80th Cong., 2d sess.); 1960 (S. Doc. 53, 86th Cong., 1st sess.); 1962 (S. Docs. 146, 125, 138, 139, 123, 87th Cong., 2d sess.); 1965 (H. Doc. 102, 88th Cong., 1st sess. and S. Doc. 20, 89th Cong., 1st sess.); 1958 (S. Doc. 186, 85th Cong., 1st sess.). Lands and damages $430,000 $430,000 Relocations 6,811,000 $4,907,200 $200,800 $0 |1, 703, 000 Channels and canals 91,793,000 45,540,300 6,950,700 6,395,000 32,907,000 Levees and floodwalls. 110,234,000 51,074,600 1,791,400 2,635,000 54,733,000 Pumping plants 30,843,000 18,100,100 1,837,900 1,290,000 9,615,000 Floodway control and diversion struc- tures 43,524,000 30,209,400 1,185,600 1,845.000 10,284,000 (Subtotal) (283,635,000) (149,831,600) (11,966,400) (12,165,000) (109,672,000) Engineering and design 1 21,350,000 16,198,200 1,090,000 950,000 3,111,800 Supervision and administration 20,015,000 11,303,700 866,400 827,100 7,017,800 Total applied cost (Federal and non- Federal) 325,000,000 177.333,500 13.922,800 13,942,100 119,801,600 Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal and non- Federal) 325,000,000 177,333,500 13,922,800 13,942,100 119,801,600 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal and non-Federal) 325,000,000 177,333,500 13,922,800 13,942,100 119,801,600 Undelivered orders 686,000 (-)686,000 Total obligations 178,019,500 13,236,800 13,942,100 119,801,600 Federal funds: Total applied cost. 269,000,000 149,092,300 11,509,700 11,500,000 96,898,000 U nd istribu ted costs. Total project cost 269,000,000 149,092,300 11,509,700 11,500,000 96,898,000 Pending adjustments Totalcost 269,000,000 149,092,300 11,509,700 11,500,000 96,898,000 Undelivered orders 561,200 -561,200 Total obligations 149,653.500 10,948,500 11,500,000 95,898,000 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 1064 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete alter estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Non-Federal funds: Total applied cost -- $56,000,000 $28,241,200 $2,413,100 $2,442,100 $22,903,600 Undistributed costs Total project cost 56,000,000 28,241,200 2,413,000 2,442,100 22,903,600 Pending adjustments Total cost 56,000,000 28,241,200 2,413,100 2,442,100 22,903,600 Undelivered orders -. 124,800 -124,800 Total obligations .-- 28,366,000 2,288,300 2,442,100 22,903,600 fVlethod of financing: Federal funds (269,000,000) Allocation 149,587,000 10,915,000 Advance by local interests 3 100,000 -100,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 33, 500 Total funds available for obli- gation 10,948,500 Appropriation required 11,500,000 96,998,000 Non-Federal funds (56,000,000) Contribution 2 28,935,400 1,718,900 Unobligated carryover from prior year 569,400 - Total funds available for obli- gation 2,288,300 Contribution required 2 2,442,100 22,903,600 1 Includes $215,000 for real estate activities. 2 $100,000 novi/ reported as advance by local Interests toward Federal construction costs as part of tlie required cash contribution. When repaid these funds will be credited toward meeting the cash contribution requirement. ~Slv. AVhitten. Wliat is tlie status of tlie construction program and how will the 1969 request be utilized ? General Hayes. The work on the project is continuino;. As of the last figure I saw, it was overall 57-percent complete. Some 18 contract items are scheduled for aw^ard after March 1 of the current fiscal year. EVERGLADES XATIOXAL PARK Mr. "Whitten. What is the status of the problem concerning the Everglades National Park ? General Hayes. I think that problem is on its way to solution in the shape of a revision to this project. The report on that has been com- pleted in the field and forwarded to Washington for review and has the concurrence of both the State of Florida and the Department of the Interior. expenditures for emergency work ]Mr. WiiiTTEN. How much is being ex])endod during the current year and liow much is budgeted for fiscal year 1909 for the emergency work to provide waterway channels to the Everglades National Park? General Hayes. May I furnish that figure for the record? I am not sure I have it here. Mr. WiiTiTEN. ^'es. (The information follows :) On the c'onveyanop canals .$1,360,000 will be exponded in fiscal year 1908 and .$389,000 is budgeted for fiscal year 1969. Mr. Wiii'm:N. Please provide for the record a breakdown, by type of work and area, of the total request for fiscal year 1969 for the project. General Hayes. Yes, sir; we Avill do that. I have that information here, but it is too voluminous to cover. 1065 Mr. WmiTEN. AVe will be glad to have you follow that procedure. (The information follows:) The breakdown of the work in the fi.scal year 1009 budget is as folloWvS : Type of work Area Amount Channels and canals Caloosahatchee River.. $2,048,000 Kissimmee River 2\ 31 o! 000 South Dade Couhty area.. ' 125^200 Upper St. Johns River Basin 280^000 Conservation area 3 364,000 Subtotal channels and canals 5 127 200 Levees and fioodwalls Herbert Hoover Dike _ 5227800 South Dade County 280^000 Upper St. Johns River Basin I,336i000 Subtotal levees and fioodwalls _ _ 2 138 800 Pumping plants __. Conservation area 3 104, 000 Herbert Hoover dike 986! 000 Subtotal pumping plants 1 QgO OOO Floodway control and diversion structures... Herbert Hoover dike. 4887700 Kissimmee River ...... 136i000 South Dade County 120,000 Upper St. Johns River Basin. 760,' 000 Subtotal flood control and diversion structures . 1 504 700 Subtotal construction _._ _ ' 9'860'700 Engineering and design _ . 950' 000 Supervision and administration. _ .1]!^^.]'-]]"^!]'"! 689' 300 T°*3L. .._. 11,500,000 FOUR RI\TR BASINS, FLA. Mr. Whitten. $3.5 million is budgeted to continue construction of the Four River Basins flood control project in Florida. (The justification follows:) Four River Basins, Fla. (Continuing) Location. — The Four River Basins area covers about 6,000 square miles within 15 counties in central and southwest peninsular Florida. The area is bounded on the north by the alinement of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal; on the east by the St. James River, Kissimmee River, and Fisheating Creek Basins; on the Caloo- sahatchee River Basin; and on the west by the Gulf of Mexico, Myakka and Alafia River Basins, and other minor gulf coastal basins. The project inchides all or part of four main stream basins — the Hillsborough, Oklawaha, Withla- coochee, and Peace Rivers — and all of three smaller coastal basins north of Tampa, Fla., drained by the Pithlachascotee and Anclote Rivers, and Lake Tarpon. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) _ $56 300 000 Estimated non-Federal cost ' ' 40000000 Cash contribution lO'sOO'oOO Lands and damages... V///S/////////. 19!000,'000 ' """ Relocations.... 10,200,000 T" lotal estimated project cost... §6 300 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 " 2' 832' 200 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ' ' """ 2635000 Allocation to date 5' 467200 10 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. '.'.'. 3500000 16 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. ._ 47 332 800 1066 PHYSICAL DATA Relocations: Railroad bridges, 13, $4,752,000. Levees: Total length: 94 miles. Minimum to maximum height: 10 to 17 feet. Canals: Miles, 119. Floodway control and diversion structures: Number, 37. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule hannels and canals. loodway control and diversion structures. emaining construction _ Enti re p reject _ 10.0 Not established. 8.0 Do. Not started Do. 6.2 Do. JUSTIFICATION Heavy rainfalls, generally flat terrain, and inadequate natural drainage cause long-term retention of excess water from frequent flooding. The expanding popula- tion greatly accentuates the need for flood protection. Floods in 1960 caused dam- ages in excess of $20 million. The region, although subject to an abundance of rain- fall, is characterized by poor seasonal distribution resulting in drought problems, low lake and stream levels. Therefore, it is essential that provision be made for storage and conservation of water to augment ground water supplies, improve streamflow, and preserve fish and wildlife resources. The total annual benefits of the plan are estimated at $8,585,200, principally from flood damage pre\ention and higher use of land. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $7,642,600 Fish and wildlife 690, 700 Navigation and recreation 251, 900 Total 8,585,200 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $3,500,000 (Federal funds) will be used to continue construction on the project as follows: Relocations $448,000 Channels and canals 498, 000 Levees and floodwalls 1, 013, 000 Floodway control and diversion structures 975, 000 Engineering and design 340, 000 Supervision and administration 226, 000 Total 3,500,000 Relocations — railroads (bridges) : Continue construction of Southern Coast Line Railroad bridge (B-194) on Tampa Bypass Canal. Liitiate construction of Southern Coast Line Railroad bridge (B-195) on Tampa Bypass Canal. Channels and canals: Continue construction of Tamixa Bypass Canal, section 1-B. Continue and complete construction of Lake Tsala-Apopka Canal. Floodway control and diversion structures: Continue and complete construction of Moss Bluff lock, dam, and spillway and Tampa bypass structure (S-160). Levees and floodwalls: Continue and complete construction of section 1 of levee 212 downstream from Moss Bluff lock and dam. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in meeting local ■cooperation requirtunents as stated in the project document is estimated at $40 million, broken down as follows: Lands and damages $19, 000, 000 Relocations (highways, bridges, etc., except railroad bridges and approaches)........-. ... 10,200,000 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 1067 Required contributed funds (17 percent of the sum of contract price of construction, including railroad relocations, and super- vision and administration) 10, SOO, 000 Total 40,000,000 Estimated annual maintenance cost required of local interests upou completion of the project is $308,000. Status of local cooperation.- — Assurances of local cooperation from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, created by State legislation, have been accepted by the district engineer. Local interests began taxing in the district in 1962, have on hand $2 million and are actively acquiring lands and rights-of- way in several areas. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.- — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $56,300,000 is the same as last presented to Congress. However, internal changes in the estimate have resulted from more detailed planning and on basis of bids received. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Flood Control Act, 1962, H.Doc 585, 87th Cong. , 2d sess. Relocations— Railroads(brldges)_ $4,752,000 $100,000 $600,000 $4,052,000 Channels and canals 19,211,000 $1,298,100 836,900 1,220,000 15,856,000 Levees and floodwalls_.. 21,243,000 70,000 540,000 20,633,000 Floodway control and diversion struc- tures 13.544,000 101.000 2,319,000 1,175,000 9,949,000 Engineering and design 1 _ 3,500,000 841,200 335,000 340,000 1,983,800 S & A on engineering -.- 250,000 48.600 35,000 35,000 131,400 S' & A on construction ..-- --- 4,600,000 126,700 21,7,400 230,000 4,025,900 Total costs (Federal and non-Federal)... 67,100,000 2,415,600 3,913,300 4,140,000 56,631,100 Undistributed costs -- Total project cost (Federal and non- Federal) . 67,100,000 2,415,600 3,913,300 4.140,000 56,631,100 Pending adjustments. - --- Total cost (Federal and non-Federal).... 67,100,000 2,415,600 3.913,300 4,140,000 56,631,100 Undelivered orders .- 685,700 -685,700 _ Total obligations 3,101,300 3,227,600 4,140,000 56,631,100 Federal Funds Total applied cost. 56,300,000 2,156,300 3,310,900 3,500,000 47.332,800 U nd istri bu ted costs ^ - --- Total project cost 56,300,000 2,156,300 3,310,900 3,500,000 47,332,800 Pending adjustments.. ^ - - Total cost 56,300.000 2,156,300 3,310,900 3,500,000 47,332,800 Undelivered orders 575,800 -(575,800) Total obligations 2,732,100 2,735,100 3,500,000 47.332,800 Non-Federal Funds Total applied cost 10,800,000 259,300 602,400 640,000 9,298,300 Undistributed costs -- Total project cost 10,800,000 259,300 602,400 640,000 9,298,300 Pending adjustments - -- Total cost . 10.800,000 259.300 602,400 640,000 9,298,300 Undelivered orders 109,900 -(109,900) Total obligations - 369,200 492.500 640,000 9,298,300 Method of financing: Federal funds (56,300,000) Allocation 2,832,200 2,635,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year - 100,100 Total funds available for obli- gation 2,735,100 .-_ Appropriation required.. - 3,500,000 47,332,800 Non-Federal funds. (10,800,000) Contribution -- 392,600 469.100 Unobligated carryover from prior year _ 23,400 Total funds available for obli- gation 492,500 Contribution required... 640.000 9,298,300 ■Includes $35,000 for real estate activities. 106S Mr. Written. Briefly outline the status of this project. General Hayes. It is (joing- alono; fairly well. sir. By the end of this fiscal year we will liave ahout 15 pei-cent of the work under contract. The lower section of the Tampa bypass canal and tlie Lake Tar|x>n Canal will be complete, the Moss Bluff lock and dam structure will be iibout &) percent complete this year. LOCAL. COXTRIBUTION Mr. WniTTEN. What is the status of local cooperation on the project and what cash contributions have been made to date to the Federal Gox'ernment ? 'General ITayes. The Florida T^jrishiture has created an ajfrency known ns the Southwest Florida Water Manacrement District to sntisfj- the local cooperation requirements Tliis distric't has furnished the necessary assurances. These have been accepted and the district is actively acquirinfr the required land. I do' not have the fijjure at hand on the cash contribution. I would like to provide it for the record. Mr. WiiiTTEN. All riirht. (The information follows:) Oash contributions through February 20. 1968. are $850,000. COST INCREASES Mr. WniTTEN. It is noted on this project as well as most of the items under construction in the division that no cost increases are shown due to hiorhcr price levels. What has been the recent cost experience on bids in the area and have the project cost estimates been recently reviewed and updated ? General Hayes. The bids on an overall program basis have been in line with our estimates — some being higher, some being lower. The total estimate cost for the 28 projects in the fiscal 1969 budget amounts to about a $22 million increase in the past year. Once con- struction starts on these projects, we do take into account the expe- rience or the facts available to us from further engineering, bidding, the greater knowledge of local conditions. However, generally the price level changes in the South are not as great as the national aver- age, so that the increase in these varies according to locale. For example, the last study I made, for the period June 19B6 to elune 1967, showed a zero increase for the Birmingham area, but a 4-i)ercent increase for the New Orleans area. We have to apply a local factor and we do that. ]Vf r. WiiiTTP^N. Off the record. (Off the record.) CARTERS DAM, OA. Mr. AViiiTTEN. $8.4 million is budgeted to continue construction of the Garters Dam in Georgia. (The justification follows:) 1069 Carters Dam, Ga. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on the Coosawattee River 26.8 miles above its mouth, in Murray and Gilmer Counties, Ga. Authorization. — 1945 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.1 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement. __ _. $83,000,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement —72,841,000 ] Estimated Federal cost (initial, Corps of Engineers) ._. 10,159,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 72,841,000 Reimbursement: Power 72,84l|000 .V.'.W . . Total estimated project cost _. _ 83,000,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 _._ 24,386,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 7,230^000 Allocations to date 3l! 616! 000 38 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 3,400,000 42 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... 47,984,000 PHYSICAL DATA Dams: Main dam: Type — rock and earth fill. Height — 445 feet (maximum). Length — 2,053 feet. Saddle dikes: Length, 900 feet. Emergency spillway: Type: concrete gravity, gate controlled. Length: 262 feet. Capacity: (peak) 199,200 cubic feet per second. Reregulation dam: Type: rock and earth fill with gated spillway. Length: Total: 3,063 feet. Earth dike: 2,855 feet. Spillway: 208 feet. Height: 80 feet (maximum). Power installation: Initial & ultimate: 4 units (2 conventional and 2 reversible) @, 125,000 kw, 500,000 kw. Head: Maximum 384 feet, minimum 334 feet. Reservoir capacities: Main Reservoir: Acre-feet Power storage 134, 900 Flood storage 95, 700 Dead storage 242, 200 Total 472, 800 Reregulating Reservoir: Usable storage 19, 000 Dead storage 200 Total 19, 200 Lands and damages: Acres, 9,026. Type: predominantly woodland. Improvements : typical farm units. Relocations: Highway bridge & approaches, $995,000. Utility lines, $5,000. 1070 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project. 32 Land acquisition.. _ 69 Dams 52 Powerplant 4 Roads... 51 Permanent operating equipment 1 Entire project, April 1973. Land acquisition, December 1969. Relocations, June 1971. Reservoir, September 1971. Dams, March 1972. Powerplant, April 1973. Roads, June 1972. Recreational facilities, June 1972. Buildings, grounds, and utilities, June 1971. Permanent operating equipment, June 1972. River diversion, January 1964. Begin impoundment, March 1972. Power on line; 1st unit, August 1972. 2d unit, November 1972. 3d unit, January 1973. 4th unit, April 1973. JUSTIFICATION There is a definite need for flood protection along the lower Coosawattee and the Oostanaula Rivers to Rome, Ga. The Carters dam would cause a reduction in flood stages varying from 5.6 feet in the upper part of the 74-mile length of river to 1 foot at Rome. It would also produce an estimated 406,200,000 kilowatt- hours of electric energy annually which could be readily used in this area where there is an ever increasing demand for power. The resulting streamfiow regula- tion from power operations would also generate 30,000,000 kilowatt-hours at powerplants on the Coosa River. The reservoir will also provide additional recreation facilities for the area. Total annual benefits are estimated at $9,388,000 broken down as follows: 'Pypg; Amount Flood control $414, 000 Power 8,592,000 Recreation 382,000 Total 9,388,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3,400,000 will be applied as follows: Continue construction of dams $1, 312, 900 Continue manufacture of turbines and generators 1, 130, 100 Initiate procurement of miscellaneous electrical equipment and acces- sories 7, 000 Engineering and design 550, 000 Supervision and administration 400, 000 Total 3,400,000 The amount requested will provide for continuation of construction and design on this important multiple pvirpose project. Non-Federal co.sts. — Costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $72,841,000 for installation, are reimbursable. Status of local cooperation. — None required for construction. The Southeast- ern Power Administration is responsible for marketing the power so as to repay the cost allocated to that function. Compari.'ion of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $83,000,000 is an increase of $15,400,000 over the latest estimate ($67,600,000) subrnittc^d to Congress. This change includes increases of $17,963,000 (iiu-liuiing $1,979,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration) to reflect the additional cost of installing and planning the authorized ultimate 1071 power generating capacity at this time, and $886,000 due to quantity overruns on the dam and access roads. These increases were partially offset by decreases of $3,413,000 based on bids received on penstock liners, generators and turbines, and $36,000 due to more detailed design on the emergency spillway. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages . $1,210,000 $781,700 $300,000 $128,300 Relocations 1,000,000 1,300 100 __ 998,600 Reservoir 1,457,000 2,800 1,454,200 Dams "" 34,428,000 15,395,600 5,307,500 $1,312,900 12,412,000 Powerpla'nt" 31,152,000 1,042,000 1,437,900 1,137,100 27,535.000 Roads 1,698,000 862,000 7,700 828,300 Recreation taciirtles 1,375,000 1,375,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 324,000 324,000 Permanent operating equipment 556,000 5,400 550,600 Engineering and design 5,800,000 4,114,500 800,000 550,000 335,500 Supervision and administration 4,000,000 1,112,500 445,000 400,000 2,042,500 Total applied cost (Federal funds only). 83,000,000 23,315,000 8,301.000 3,400,000 47,984,000 Undistributed cost 102.900 -102,900 Total project cost (Federal funds only)-. 83,000,000 23,417,900 8,198,100 3,400,000 47,984,000 Pending adjustments .;.;--.;.;.; Total cost (Federal funds only) 83,000,000 23,417,900 8,198,100 3,400,000 47,984,000 Undelivered orders 121,000 -121,000 ._ Total obligations 23,538,900 8,077,100 3,400,000 47,984,000 Method of financing: Allocations 24,386,000 7,230,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 847,100 Total funds available for obligation 8,077, 100 Appropriations required 3-400.000 47.984,000 Mr. Whitten. The cost of this project has been increased $17,963,000 since last year to cover the additional cost of installing and planning at this time of additional power-generating capacit3^ Specifically, what is planned in this regard and why is it necessary at this time? General Hayes. We now plan to install four 125,000-kilowatt power units under one contract instead of installing two now and two later as we originally planned. Two of these units will be the conventional type and two will be reversible so that during the normal power generation period, much of the water released can be retained behind a reregulating dam and then pumped back into the main reservoir by the two reversible units during the offpeak periods. Actually, by including all four units now under one contract, we expect to save several million dollars. Mr. Whitten. We will insert the balance of the justifications under construction. 9] -459— 68— pt. 1 68 1072 Alabama Riv^er Channel Improvement, Alabama (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on the Alabama River extending from its mouth to the Claiborne Lock and Dam project located at Mile 81.8. Authorization. — 1945 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1 for the authorized project to Montgomery of which Alabama River is an integral unit. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) _ $3,520,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard).... - 4,000 Estimated non- Federal cost - (') -- Total estimated project cost - 3,524,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 830,000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 180,000 Allocations to date - 1,010,000 29 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1,261,000 65 Balancetocompleteafter fiscal year 1969... 1,249,000 I None specified. However, local interests expect to construct terminal and transfer facilities along the waterway costing in excess of $2,000,000. PHYSICAL DATA Channel: Length: 81.8 miles existing; 72.2 miles improved. Width: 200 feet. Depth: 9 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 829. Type: Predominantly woodland. Improvements: None. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion scfiedule Entire project Lands and damages Dredging and snagging. Stabilization structures. 7 June 1971. 2 December 1970. December 1968. June 1971. JUSTIFICATION Improvement of the Alabama River to Montgomery will be the initial phase of th(! development of the Alabama-Coosa Basin and will consist of navigation- power i)rojects at Jones Bluff and Millers Ferry, a navigation lock and dam at Claiborne and channel improvement below Claiborne. The Alabama River channel improvement is a vital link in the canalization of the Alabama River which will provide a 9-foot-deep navigation channel to Montgomery. On the Alabama River to Montgomery there is prospective waterborn(i commerce estimated at aVwut 3.3 million tons a year. Items that would be moved on the waterway would consist of agricultural and petroleum products, nonmetallic minerals, metals and metal products, chemicals and fertilizer materials, and miscellaneous items. 1073 Broiikdown of benefits — Alabama River to Montgomery: Amount Navigation $2, 687, 000 Power 4_ 3,s2, 000 Recreation 944 qqq Fish and wildlife 549' qOO Total 8, 562, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 will be utilized to — Continue land acquisition $3, 600 Complete dredging 1^ 16S, 700 Engineering and design 35] OOO Supervision and administration 53^ 700 Total 1, 261, 000 The amount requested will complete dredging on this vital link in the Alabama River system which will provide a navigable channel of 9-foot depth from the mouth of the river to Montgomery, Ala. Non-Federal costs. — None specified. Local interests, however, expect to con- struct terminal and transfer facilities along the waterway costing in excess of $2,000,000. Status of local cooperation. — None specified. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,520,000 is an increase of $1,220,000 over the latest estimate ($2,300,000) submitted to Congress. The change includes increases of $233,000 in lands and damages and $347,000 in channels primarily as a result of addition of Ft. Mimms Cut-off and $490,000 in stabihzation works (in channels feature) based on recent experience on similar type projects. Engineering and design and supervision and administration increased $150,000 based on cost to date and experience on similar projects. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages ._ _. $268,000 $3,500 $236,000 $3 600 $24 900 Channels 2,772,000 542,300 1,168,700 1,061,'000 Engmeering and design ._. 300,000 170,100 11,000 35 000 83 900 Supervision and admmistration. ._. 180,000 7,800 39,300 53,700 79*200 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers fundsonly) 3,520,000 181,400 828,600 1,261,000 1249 000 Undistributed costs. . ' ' Total project cost (Corps of Engineers ' " fundsonly) 3,520,000 181,400 828,600 1,261,000 1249 000 Pending adjustments , . . ' ' Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only). 3,520,66o 181,400 "828,'66o i^eiOOO i'249 000 Undelivered orders . . ' ' Total obligations. _ 181,406 ""828,'6O0 i,"26i,'666 i,'249,'66o Method of financing: Allocations 830,000 180,000 UnobligiBted carryover from prior year _._ 648,000 . . Total funds available for obligation 828,600 Appropriations required __.'. 1,' 261, 000 i'249"6dd 1074 Claiborne Lock and Dam, Alabama (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on the Alabama River, Sl.S miles above its mouth, in Monroe County, Ala. Authorization. — 1945 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1 for the authorized project to Montgomery of which Claiborne Lock and Dam is an integral unit. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) -- $24,000,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 4,000 Estimated non-Federal cost - (') Total estimated project cost _ - - 24,004,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967. ._ - 8,989,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 - - 6,275,000 Allocations to date - 15'264,000 64 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969.. 4,900,000 84 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 - 3,836,000 I None specified. However, local Interests expect to construct terminal and transfer facilities along the waterway costing in excess of $2,000,000. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Gated spillway: Length 416 feet, maximum height 100 feet. Fixed-crest spillway: Length 500 feet. Earth dike : Length 200 feet. Total length, including lock and mound: 1,367 feet. Lock: Size: 84 by 600 feet. Maximum lift: 30 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 6,930. Type: Predominantly woodland. Improvements: Typical farm units. STATUS (JAN, 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project 41 Entire project, June 1971. Land acquisition 60 Land acquisition, December 1969 Dam ...V.'.". 33 Reservoir clearing, June 1969. Lock ."..'-'."..' 41 Dam, September 1970. Roads" 59 Locl<, June 1970. Channels - - -- - 35 Roads, December 1969. Buildingsrgro'unds, and ufiiities 37 Channels, June 1970. Permanent operating equipment 64 Recreation facilities, June 1971 Buildings, grounds, and utilities, December 1968. Permanent operating equipment, September 1969. River closure, March 1969. Lock in operation, May 1969. JUSTIFICATION The Claiborne Lock and Dam will be the lowermost of a series of three locks and dams on the Alabama liivor. When constructed, these locks and dams will l^rovide a navigable; channel of 9-foot depth from the lower river to Montgomery, Ala. The Alabama-Coo.su Basin, which is rich in natural resources, heretofore has had a predominantly agricultural economy, but is presently undergoing a considerable industrial expansion which requires intensive development of the 1075 regional water resources. The project is a vital link in the canalization of the Alabama-Coosa Rivers System. On the Alabama River to Montgomery there is prospective waterborne commerce estimated at about 3.3 million tons a year. Items that would be moved on the waterway would consist of agricultural and petroleum products, nonmetallic minerals, metals and metal products, chemicals and fertilizer materials, and miscellaneous items. Breakdown of benefits — Alabama River to Montgomery: Amount Navigation $2, 687, 000 Power 4,382,000 Recreation 944,000 Fish and wildlife 549,000 Total 8,562,000 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $4,900,000 will be applied to — Continue land acquisition $271, 000 Initiate and complete reservoir clearing 575, 000 Continue construction of dam, lock, and channels 3,773,400 Complete buildings, grounds, and utilities 88, 200 Continue procurement of permanent operating equipment 25, 000 Engineering and design 17, 400 Supervision and administration 150, 000 Total 4,900,000 The amount requested will provide for continuation of construction of this vital link in the Alabama River system which will provide a navigable channel of 9-foot depth from the mouth of the river to Montgomery, Ala. Non-Federal cost. — None specified. Local interests, however, expect to construct terminal and transfer facilities along the waterway costing in excess of $2,000,000. Status of local cooperation. — -None specified. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — -No change from the latest estimate ($24,000,000) submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages - $1,380,000 $701,500 $386,800 $271,000 $20,700 Reservoir - 580,000 5,000 575,000 Dam 6,600,000 1,618,800 1,861,100 1,034,000 2,086,100 Lock 9,313,800 1,978,200 4,868,000 2,068,500 399,100 Roads"'" 326,200 62,800 130,000 133,400 Channels' 2,500,000 749,300 774,800 670,900 305,000 Recreation facilities 760,000 -.- 760,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities.-- - 140,000 49,000 2,800 88,200 Permanent operating equipment -. 100,000 63,600 400 25,000 11,000 Engineering and design 1,300,000 1,213,800 68,800 17,400 Supervision and administration -.. 1,000,000 374,900 354,400 150,000 120,700 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers „ „„^ „„„ fundsonly) ...-.- .. 24,000,000 6,811,900 8,452,100 4,900,000 3,836,000 U nd ist ribu ted costs - - Total project cost (Corps of Engineers _ „„„ „„„ fundsonly) -. 24,000,000 6,811,900 8,452,100 4,900,000 3,836,000 Pending adjustments.- - ^,;;-aaa Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only). 24,000,000 6,811,900 8,452,100 4,900,000 3,836,000 Undelivered orders 2,152,500 -2,152,500 ^;;-a;;a Total obligations-.. 8,964,400 6,299,600 4,900,000 3,836,000 Method of financing: Allocations.-.- 8,989,000 6,275,000 -. Unobligated carryover from prior year - -- 24,600 --- - --- Total funds available for obligations 6,299,600 ;,--?,?,-„ Appropriations required... - 4,900,000 3,836,000 1076 Apalachicola River Channel Improvement, Florida (Continuing) Location. — The project i? located in northwest Florida and consists of improve- ment of the Apalachicola River from its intersection with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Jim Woodruff Dam. Authorization.^l^AQ River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — ^2.2 to 1 for the authorized project for the Apalachicola, Chat- tahoochee and Flint Rivers of which the Apalachicola River Channel improve- ment is an integral unit. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers).. Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard)-... Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contributions... ___ Other costs _ Total estimated project cost.. Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969.. . Amount Accumulated percent ol estimated Federal cost $4 617,000 155,000 1 70, 000 70, 000 4,842,000 2,693,000 100,000 2, 793, 000 575, 000 1.249.000 .. 60 73 ' In addition, it is estimated that the cost of terminal facilities completed, or under construction, by local Interests on Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint River system will exceed $4,300,000. 52 June 1970. 100 March 1957. 28 June 1970. PHYSICAL DATA Channel: 9 feet deep with a minimum width of 100 feet to be obtained by dredging and contraction works. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Entire project _ _ Channel dredging to authorized dimensions Contraction works and channel realinement JUSTIFICATION The authorization provides for construction of a 9-foot-deep channel by means of dredging, channel realinement and contraction works. The dredging of tiie channel was completed in 1957. The remaining authorized work was postponed until the requirements could be established from maintenance experience. It is now determined that the project depths cannot be maintained at a reasonable cost without the remaining channel improvements. It is essential that the remedial measures of contraction works and channel realinement be accomplished in order that the 9-foot authorized depth may be obtained, as these measures furnish the only practicaljle method of securing that depth. The project depth is required in order to assure full development of the prospective annual commerce now esti- mated at 2,500,000 tons. This waterway provides for commerce to reach liain- bridge, Ga., on the Flint River and Phenix City, Ala., and Columbus, Ga., on the Chattahoochee River as well as intermediate points such as Columbia and Eufaula, Ala., and Fort Gaines and Georgetown, Cia. 1077 Breakdown of benefits (system): Amount Navigation $4, 207, 000 Power 7, 300, 000 Flood control 369, 000 Recreation and fish and wildlife 5, 113, 000 Total 10,989,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $575,000 will be applied to — Complete realinement of channel $37, 000 Complete dredging cutoff (mile 38.5) 200, 000 Initial Phase III rlilve construction 280, 000 Engineering and design 8, 000 Supervision and administration 50, 000 Total 575, 000 The funds requested for fiscal year 1969 are required to continue construction at an orderly and economical rate. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests have provided lands for spoil disposal and dike abutments at an estimated cost of $70,000. Status of local cooperation. — The Boards of County Commissioners for Calhoun, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Liberty, and Jackson Counties, Fla., have furnished assurances that the requirements of local cooperation would be fulfilled. Lands for spoil disposal and dike abutments are being furnished by local interests as required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate ($4,617,000) submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Completed unit(channel dredging) 1,257,000 1,257,000 Uncompleted units (dikes and channel realinement) (3,360,000) (1,131,300) (404,700) (575,000) (1.249,000) Channels 2,800,000 781.100 354,000 517,000 1,147,900 Engineering and design i300,000 258.600 30,500 8,000 2,900 Supervision and administration 260,000 91,600 20,200 50,000 98,200 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 4,617,000 2,388,300 404,700 575,000 1,249,000 Undistributed costs Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 4,617,000 2,388,300 404,700 575,000 1,249,000 Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 4,167,000 2,388,300 404,700 575,000 1,249,000 Undelivered orders 300 -300 Total obligations. 2,388,600 404,400 575,000 1,249,000 Method of financing: Allocations 2,693,000 100,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 304,400 Total funds available for obligation 404,400 Appropriations required 575,000 1,249,000 < Includes $7,500 for real estate activities. 1078 Canaveral Harbor, Fla. (Continuing) Location. — Canaveral Harbor is located just south of Cape Kennedy at approxi- mately the mid]joint of the east coast of Florida about 145 miles south of Jackson- ville and 70 miles north of Fort Pierce Harbor. Authorization. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost: Corps of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard NASA .._ Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs. Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969-.. '$8,700,000 31,000 _ 2700,000 971,000 63,000 908,000 10,402,000 5,044,000 40,000 -. 5, 084, 000 58 440, 000 63 3,176,000 1 Includes Federal contribution of $1,037,000 toward construction of roadway and bridge by local interests. 2 Payment made by NASA to provide 90-foot-width lock instead of 56-foot width. PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Outer channel: 37 by 400 feet (maintenance only). Inner channel: 36 by 300 feet (maintenance only). Turning basin: 3.5 by 1,000 by 1,900 feet (maintenance only). Barge canal: 12 by 125 feet by 7.5 miles. New turning basin: 31 feet depth with 31 by 400 feet channel. Structures: Navigation lock: 90 by 600 feet ($700,000 contributed by NASA to increase width from 56 to 90 feet to meet their needs.) Lift: to 5 feet. Sand-transfer plant: 14-inch discharge line. Estimated 315,000 cubic yard jjer year. Relocations: Paving roadway (51.2 percent Federal participation) on relocated Amount jDcrimeter dike (] .7 miles, 4 lanes) $488, 000 Bridge (65.3 percent Federal participation) on relocated perimeter (4-iane) 1, 205. 000 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Item Percent complete Completion schedule Lock construction Dike relocation Bridge (by local interests). Paving (by local interests). Barge canal. Sand-transfer facilities Harbor extension Entire project 100 Complete. 100 Do. 100 Do. 100 Do. 100 Do. September 1970. June 1971. 59 Do. 1079 JUSTIFICATION Development and operation of the rocket-launching facility on Cape Kennedy and the development of Patrick Air Force Base, 10 miles south of Canaveral Harbor, and tracking stations on islands offshore has resulted in a population increase in the tributary area from 162,000 in 1940 to 555,000 in I9b0. A major expansion of the rocket-launching facility on Cape Kennedy to accommodate the Saturn program has.been undertaken. Commerce has increased at the harbor trom 5,492 tons in 1953 to 1,696,458 tons in 1966. Improvements are considered essential to provide adequate facilities for prospective commerce. Breakdown of benefits: __.„ ^^^ Navigation -i??' nnn Beach erosion control ^^"X' ^^^ Recreation ^^' ^"^ Total 1,155,000 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested appropriation of $440,000 will be applied as follows — Initiate construction of sand-transfer facility $380, 000 Engineering and design ^]^' ^^^ Supervision and administration '^^' ""^ Total 440,000 Operation of the sand-transfer plant (construction to be initiated with fiscal year 1969 requested funds) will greatly reduce both channel maintenance by conventional methods and erosion of the south beach. Average annual benefits expected from the sand-transfer plant are $456,200. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS Completed modifications include an entrance channel 27 feet deep by 300 feet wide protected by jetties; a turning basin of same depth and 1,900 feet long by 1,000 feet wide; and an 8-mile barge canal 8 feet deep by 100 feet wide leading from the basin to the Intracoastal Waterway. Total cost of these improvements was $4,902,000 of which $1,460,000 was Federal cost and $2,632,000 non-Federal cost, including a cash contribution of $940,000. Remaining modifications. — None. Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized modification of the project is estimated at $971,000, broken down as follows: Bridge construction (non-Federal share) ^oqo' nnn Paving roadway (non- Federal share) 238, 000 Dike relocation (non-Federal share, contribution) ^6, 000 Lands, damages, and relocations 252, 000 Total 971,000 Status of local cooperation. — The Canaveral Port Authority, representing local interests, has furnished assurances of local cooperation. Those assurances were accepted March 4, 1963. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $8,700,000 is the same as that last presented to Congress. 1080 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) J3, 300, 000 2,158,000 660, 000 1,400,000 _ 380, 000 528, 000 (1,037,000) 250, 000 787, 000 R. & H. Act of October 1962 (SD 140/87/2) Lock Channels and canals Levee, dike relocation Beach replenishment (sand transfer facilities) Engineering and design '._ Supervision and administration. Payments (Corps of Engineers share).. - Paving roadway Bridge construction Total applied cost (Federal and non- Federal) Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal and non- Federal). Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal and non-Federal)... Undelivered orders.. Total obligations Federal funds: Total applied costs Undistributed costs Total project cost. Pending adjustments.. Total cost Undelivered orders Total obligations Non-Federal funds: Total applied cost Undistributed costs Total project cost Pending adjustments.. Total cost Undelivered orders Total obligations l"^ethod of financing: Federal funds... (9,400,000) Allocation... NASA Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obliga- tion Appropriation required Non-Federal funds. (63,000) Contribution Total funds available for obliga- tion.. Contribution required J3, 206, 900 358, 000 660, 000 $93, 100 280, 000 168, 600 (1,036.400) 250,000 . 786, 400 30, 000 13.400 (600). $380, 000 30, 000 30. 000 9,463,000 5,709,900 600 137,100 440, 000 9, 463, 000 5, 709, 900 137,100 440, 000 9, 463, 000 9, 400, 000 '9,"406,"006' '9,'466,'006' 63. 000 ""'63.'o6o' 5, 709, 900 76, 100 5.786,000 5, 646, 900 137,100 -76. 100 61,000 137, 100 5, 646, 900 137, 100 5, 646, 900 76,100 5, 723, 000 63, 000 137, 100 -)76, 100 61,000 440, 000 "440," 000 ' 440, 000 '446,006" "446," 666" '440," 660" 63. 000 63. 000 63, 000 63, 000 5. 044. 000 700, 000 40, 000 21.000 61,000 440, 000 63, 000 $1,800,000 1,020,000 40, 000 316,000 3,176,000 3,176,000 "3,i76,666 3,176,000 3, 176, 000 '3,' 176,666 '3.i76.'006 '3.' 175,' 066 3, 176, 000 Includes $10,000 for real estate activities. East Pass Channel, Fla. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on the northwest const of Florida at Destin, Okaloosa County, about midway between Pensacola, Fla., and Panama City, Fla, Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. 1081 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated per- Atnount cent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) - $938,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard). - J^SnX Estimated non-Federal cost .- ^'2SS Cash contributions... 402,000 Othercosts - - - - ,», nnn Total estimated project cost - - ^'^°^'S!;!; """ Allocations to June 30, 1967 _ - - - ^^S'SxS Allocations for fiscal year 1968 *^S'SSS " ^i" Allocations to date ooS'nnn inn Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 328,000 lUU Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 --- PHYSICAL DATA Jetties: East jetty, and sand dike: 2,400 feet long. West jetty, weir, and sand dike: 4,900 feet long. Deposition basin: 360,000 cu. yds. capacity. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Entire project _._ - 5 Entire project, January 1969. Jetties -- 1 Dredging deposition basin, January 1969. Jetties, November 1968. JUSTIFICATION East Pass affords access to Choctawhatchee Bay, one of the larger, sheltered bodies of water along the gulf coast. Nearest adjacent inlets are 50 miles distant in either direction. It is virtually impossible to maintain a 12-foot channel in East Pass by dredging alone. A stable channel, adequately protected, is essential for safe and unrestricted navigation by the large fleet of commercial, miUtary, and recreational craft based in the vicinity. The average annual navigation benefits are estimated at $157,600. Fiscal xjear 1969. — The requested amount of $328,000 will be appUed to — Complete construction $264, 600 Engineering and design 13, 300 Supervision and administration 50, 100 Total 328,000 The amount requested will complete construction on this important, heavily traveled navigation project. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests will be required to make a cash contribution, estimated at $402,000 (30 percent of project cost), toward the first cost of con- struction of the authorized project. Status of local cooperation. — On June 22, 1967, the Florida Legislature enacted legislation authorizing the creation of the Okaloosa County Navigation Agency to act as local sponsor for the project. Satisfactory resolution has been received from the Okaloosa County Navigation Agency. Lands and cash contributions required for fiscal year 1968 have been furnished. The remainder wiU be provided as required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) estimate of $938,000 is a decrease of $322,000 from the latest estimate ($1,260,000) submitted to Congress. The change is due to favorable bids. 1082 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels -.- $1,140,000 $495,000 $645,000 Engineering and design.. 190,000 $44,500 26,500 19,000 Supervision and administration 110,000 2,400 36,000 71,600 Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 1,340,000 46,900 557,500 735,600. Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) 1,340,000 46,900 557,500 735,600 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions) 1,340,000 46,900 557,500 735,600 Undelivered orders .. 250,000 -250,000 Total obligations. 46,900 807,500 485,600 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Federal funds: Total applied cost $938,000 $46,900 $376,200 $514,900 Undistributed costs Total project cost 938,000 46,900 376,200 514,900. Pending adjustments — Totalcost 938,000 46.900 376,200 514,900 Undelivered orders 175,000 -175,000 Total obligations 46,900 551,200 339,900.... Non-Federal contributions: Total applied cost... 402,000 181,300 220,700 U nd ist ributed costs. Total project cost 402,000 181,300 220,700 Pending adjustments.. Totalcost 402,000.. 181.300 220,700.... Undelivered orders 75,000 -75,000 Total obligations 256,300 145,700 Method of financing: Allocations 150,000 460,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 103,100 11,900 Total funds available "for obligation 563,100 11,900 Appropriations required .-- 328,000 Non-Federal contributions: Contributions. 285,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 28,700 Total funds available tor obligation 285,000 Contributions required .- 117,000 > Includes $3,000 for real estate activities. Gulf County Canal, Fla. (12-Foot Project) (Continuing) Location. — Port St. Joe Harbor, Fla., a channel 12 feet deep and 6 mile.s long extending from St. Joseph Bay, Fla., near Port St. Joe to a point on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, 37 waterway miles southeast of Panama City, Ha., and 24 waterway miles northwest of Apalachicola, Fla. Authorization. — 1966 Kiver and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. 1083 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard). . Estimated non-Federal cost: Cash contributions Ottier costs Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967_ Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocations to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $477.000 64,000 541,000 90,000 90, 000 19 387,000 100 PHYSICAL DATA Channels: From St. Joseph Bay to Gulf Intracoastal Waterway 12 feet deep, 125 feet wide, 6 miles long. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: Entire project, September 1968. JUSTIFICATION Port St. Joe is the only major deepwater port on the gulf coast which is not served by a protected barge channel of at least 12-foot depth. Access from Port St. Joe to the 12 by r25-foot Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is via the Gulf County Canal which at present is only 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide. Barges used for ship- ments to or from Port St. Joe must, therefore, be smaller than those normally used on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway or if larger barges are used they must light load. In either case, the unit cost of transportation is increased. The existing project dimensions are inadequate for the safe and unrestricted use of the water- way by barge tows normally operating on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Commerce moving through the Guif Count}- Canal in 1966 amounted to 236,080 tons, consisting principally of marine shells, basic chemicals, and products. The estimated future annual tonnage on which economic justification is based is 332,000. Estimated average annual benefits are $50,000, all navigation. Fiscal year 1969. — Funds requested for fiscal year 1969 will be utilized as follows — Complete construction for the project $355, 000 Supervision and administration 32, 000 Total 387,000 The amount requested will complete this badly needed project. COMPLETED MODIFICATION Work completed consists of a channel 9 feet deep, 100 feet wide, 6 miles long from St. Joseph Bay to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. The cost of this completed work is $142,000. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interest in construc- tion of the authorized project is estimated at $64,000, broken down as follows — Lands $10,000 Slips and retaining dikes 54, 000 Total 64, 000 In addition, local interests are required to maintain slips and retaining dikes at an estimated cost of $4,000 annually. Status of local cooperation. — Gulf County has furnished satisfactory resolution agreeing to comply with all the requirements of local cooperation. The county is now in process of transferring title to required lands to the Government. Remaining requirements will be complied with when needed. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $477,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. 1084 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current cost June 30, fiscal year estimate 1967 1968 (2) (3) (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Channels Engineering and design... Supervision and administration. Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Undistributed cost Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Pending adjustments. Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations. Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior yea r Total funds available for obligation.. Appropriations required _. $428, 900 14,900 35, 000 477, 000 477, 000 477, 000 $73, 000 14.000 3,000 90, 000 90, 000 90, 000 90, 000 90, 000 90, 000 $355, 000 ""'32.666' 387, 000 387, 000 387, 000 "387,666" 387, 000 Ponce De Leon Inlet, Fl.a.. (Entrance Channel and Jetties) (Continuing) Location. — Ponce de Leon Inlet is in Volusia County on the east coast of Fldrida about 65 miles south of St. Augustine Harbor and 57 miles north of Canaveral Harbor. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.18 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost: Corps of Engineers. $1,200,000 U.S. Coast Guard.. 21,000 Estimated non- Federal cost 1,590,000 Cash contribution 1,500,000 Other costs 90,000 Total estimated project cost 2,811,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 60,000 Allocations for fiscal year 1968 400,000 Allocations to date 460,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 740,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 38 100 PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Entrance channel 15 feet bv 200 feet across Ocean Bar, thence 12 feet bv 200 feet and 12 feet by 100 feet to Indian River and 12 feet by 100 feet southward to the IWW, 7 feet by 100 feet northward to the IWW. Jetties: North jettv, 4,200 feet long, and south jettv, 2,700 feet long. Estimated 115,000 tons of stone. Status {Jan. 1, 196S).—'^ot started. Completion schedule Channel and impoundment: Basin March 1969. North and south jetties June 1969. justification A fan-shaped sandbar lies across the ocean entrance. The best channel across the bar changes frequently in depth, width, position, and alinement. During periods of low tide, high seas, or swells, the inlet is extremely hazardous, if not 1085 impassable. Local interests report that at least six lives have been lost in the past 6 years as a result of boats capsizing in the inlet. Fish and shrimp are the chief commodities. Average annual shrimp catch is 314,000 pounds, which represents about 70 percent of the potential. With the improvement, shrimp landings via the inlet are expected to increase by 135,000 pounds. Proportionate increases are expected in fish production through provision of the project. Construction of the project would provide a safe, stable navigation channel through the inlet not only for commercial craft but for recreational and Coast Guard craft as well. It would also be used as a harbor of refuge during storms. Breakdown of benefits: Commercial fishing $58, 300 Recreational boating 18?' 300 Beach stabilization 134, 200 Total average annual benefits 379, 800 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested appropriation of $740,000 will be applied as follows: Continue and complete construction of channel and impoundment basin and north and south jetties $692, 000 Supervision and administration 48, 000 Total 740,000 Completed or remaining modiUcations. — None. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the budgeted modification is as follows: Contribute 54.9 percent of contract price plus supervision and ad- ministration $1, 500, 000 Local share of future operation and maintenance 1, 379, 000 Lands, easements, and rights-of-way 90, 000 Total 2, 969, 000 Funds for future operation and maintenance are to be placed in escrow prior to start of construction and to be contributed upon completion of construction. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation were accepted by the district engineer Aug. 26, 1966. Local sponsor is Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port Commission. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — There is no change from the latest Federal (Corps of Engineers) estimate of $1,200,000 submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) River and Harbor Act of 1965 (H. Doc. 74, 89th Cong., 1st sess.) Channels.... $300,000 J300 000 Jetties 2,100,000 J350,o66 1,750,000 Engineering and design!... 140,000 $30,200 109,800 Supervision and administration 160,000 2,500 50,200 107,300 Total applied cost (Federal and non- Federal) 2,700,000 32,700 510,000 2,157,300 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal and non- Federal) 2,700,000 32,700 510,000 2,157,300 Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal and non-Federal) 2,700,000 32,700 510,666 2,157,36o" Undelivered orders. 477 300 —477300 Totalobligations 32,700 987,300 1,680,'000 Federal Funds (Corps of Engineers) Total applied cost 1,200,000 32,700 212.100 955 200 U ndistributed costs Total project cost 1,200,000 32,700 212,166 955,'266" Pending adjustments Total cost 1,200,000 ' ""32i706 212,166 955,'266" Undelivered orders 215 200 —215 200 Total obligations 427,'300 740^000 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 1086 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Non-Federal Funds Total applied cost. $1,500,000 $297,900 $1,202,100 Undistributed costs - - - - - Total project cost 1,500,000 297,900 1,202,100 Pending adjustments - - Totalcost 1,500,000 297,900 1,202,100 Undelivered orders 262,100 -262,100 Total obligations 560,000 940,000 Metfiod of financing: Federal funds (Corps of Engineers).. (1,200,000) Allocation $60,000 400,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 27,300 Total funds available for obliga- tion 427,300 Appropriation required 740,000 Non-Federal funds (1,500,000) Construction 560,000 Unobligated carryoverfrom prior year Total funds available for obli- gation 560,000 Contribution required. 940,000 I Includes $800 for real estate activities. S-WANNAH Harbor, Ga. (Widening and Deepening) (Continuing) Location.- — Savannah Harbor is located in Chatham County, Ga., and com- prises the lower 21.35 miles of the Savannah River, and 9.7 miles of channel across the bar to the Atlantic Ocean. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.8 to 1. SUIVIMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $8,660,000 Estimated Federal cost(U.S. Coast Guard).... 192,000 Estimated non- Federal cost 330,000 Casfi contribution Othercosts 330,000 Total estimated project cost 9, 182,000 Allocations to June 30, 1967 345,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 1,600,000 Allocations to date .- 1,945.000 22 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 900,000 33 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 5, 185,000 1183 In the Friday, March 8, issue of the Pocono Ilecord, Mr. Wright, you are quoted as saying in the Stroudsburg, Pa., paper: Numerou.s problems throughout the region and these problems were likened to the peeling of an onion by James F. Wright, executive director, the Delaware River Basin Commission. I think it is only fair to say that as we have peeled the onion we have foimd each layer of underlying problems to be as bad as the one on top. You have to call that a kind of a tearful proposition, would you not? In a more serious vein, there are a couple of things here that have been questioned. I assume that Colonel Watkin is one of the district engineers ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Philadelphia. ACQUISITION OF BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKES DEVELOPMENT Mr. Davis. He is quoted as saying in this item : The most serious threat has been removed Avith the acquisition of the Blue Mountain Lakes development in Warren County, N.J., and Hidden Lake in Mon- roe County. From the record here it does not appear there has been any ac(j[uisition of anything. Can you clarify that ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Money is separated in your mind. We have a corps project and we have a national recreation area project. The moneys that have been expended in real estate acquisition have been National Park Ser\'ice moneys for the park area. While we have made agreements on these 38 tracts witli the corps money, we have not paid any nione}' out yet on the corps side. Since we are getting them from two different sources, we are trying to keep them separated at the same time trying to go ahead with real estate acquisition. Mr. Davis. That is the National Park Service money ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. ]\Ir. Davis. This was Colonel Watkins' reference to land actually having been acquired ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr. Daa'is. The Federal Government has title to the lands ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. I think we have spent about $6 million worth of Park Service money to date. acquisition of HIDDEN LAKE TKOPERTY Mr. Davis. Here is a letter dated March 13, last Wednesday, from the corresponding secretary of the Delaware Valley Conservation As- sociation, Inc. He says that as of yesterday, March 12 : I contacted the register and recorder, Mr. Carl Tost, who in turn inquired of the corps attorney at Greensburg, who stated that Hidden Lake property has not yet been purchased. General Koisch. I am pretty sure we acquired that. Mr. Davis. Do you want to furnish confirmation of that for the record ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. (The information follows :) The Hidden Lake property is part of the National Park Service acquisition. To date we have acquired for the National Park Service 89 tracts of this property involving some 378 acres at a cost of $761,045. 91-459— 68— pt. 1 75 1184 General Koiscii. I think we are going to find what we did was buy up all the property still in the hands of tlie development company and are now [proceeding on the individual tracts. In other words, we were pur- chasmg individual tracts. Prevented further development. That was our purpose in going in there. Stop the development because it was escalating the costs. DONATION OF LAND BY STATE OF NEW JERSEY yiv. Davis. Was it contemplated that the State of New Jersey was going to donate some land to sui)ply the recreation area or some others ^ General Koisch. I believe they are discussing the Worthington tract. A small portion was in the corps area and most of it in the recreation area. Mr. Davis. It is still somewhat open to question, I would gather i General Koisch. They are now contemplating making a trade with us. Some land at Sandy Hook in turn for the Woi-thington tract. Mr. Davis. Your proposed costs did contemplate the donation of the land by the State of New Jersey ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. That last item, in contemplation, might be another layer to your "onion." limitation on recreation FACILITIES Mr. Davis. Let me clarify one further thing. That is the matter of the limitation placed on tlie recreation facilities. I believe the corps is on record that they don't intend to be a party to any circumvention of law, and yet also there is some additional authorization somewhere along the line, we on this committee would be a party to such circum- vention if we appropriated any money for this, would we not ? General Koisch. I find that difficult to answer because I see your position as a Congressman and lawmaker and you are allowed to assist in making the laws, to offset others. In other words, if you had full knowledge of what we were doing and went ahead with it, I don't see that we would be doing anytliing wrong, whereas if we tried to do this without coming back here to Congress we would have a different situation. Mr. Davis. Technically I guess if we appropriated the money that would be the end of it on a legal technical basis. It would certainly be a circumvention of the $18 million ceiling which was put on by the authorization committee ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. However, a reasonable expansion of the directly related facilities on the corps land should not be construed in this way. SUMMARY OF UNANS\VERED QUESTIONS Mr. Davis. Just to sort of summarize here, we have it seems to me, some unanswered questions that do require some pretty definite in- formation before we would be justified with any future funding. First of all, it seems to me w-e need to find something closer to agreement with respect to this damaging of the oyster beds in New Jersey. We would have to liave deauthorization and reauthorization of the power development. We would liave to have a clarification, it seems to me. 1185 of the intention of tlie State of New Jersey witli respect to the hind donations. At k>ast 1 wouhl have to say jndividually, ahhou^h I tliink tliat you have fulfilled tlie teclniical re(iuirenient, there is a serious question about the e^jnity at least of a local participation in the reservoir Droject. As I say, these i)robleins are not all of your making but I think that v.-e all have to recoo-nize that they do exist. General Koiscii. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morris. Mr. Eobison. Mr. KoiusoN. Mr. Chairman, Til be very brief for two reasons. First, because we have reached the end of the normal morning hours; and second, because botli Mr. IVliitten, the acting chainnan, and Mr. Davis liave asked most if not all of the questions that I would have asked myself concerning the staff studies and concerning this project. Let me state for the record, though, that I have for some obvious reasons a particular interest in the project. I would like to see it go forward when and as fast as budgetary limitations permit, and I would like to see it succeed. At the same time, there have been many features of the project, many problems not previously properly considered that have arisen concerning it as we have here watched it develop, and many questions that we should have been asking you and perhaps the National Park Service and other Federal agencies concerning it. In a small way I may have been somewhat instrumental in bringing about this staff study that has now been made. I think it is truly a remarkable study in depth, a very good study by a very good and competent staff", and a study that will be of considerable "ed^icational value not just to you, sir, but to all of us as we go forward with this pai-ticular joroject, if we do, or as we eventually consider other proj- ects similar in nature to this, which is largely a pilot project. REQUEST FOR LAND ACQUISITIGN As I understand the situation, what you are asking for in the budget this year is for $4 million to continue land acquisition. There has been, as you remember a colloquy with Mr. Davis as to whether you have actually acquired any land or who has acquired it. Now you are asking in behalf of the Corps for $4 million to "continue land acquisition". General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. That is the extent of the present budget request for funds? General Koisch. That would also be UvSed for continuing engineering design. FUNDS FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN Mr. RoBisoN. What portion of the $4 million would be used for continuing engineering design, if you know ? You can supply that for the record, if you wish. General Koisch. All right. (The information follows:) Nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars would be for engineering and design. 1186 INCREASE IN LAND COSTS Mr. EoBisoN. If we do not proceed with whatever part of the $4 million is scheduled for land acquisition purposes, will there not, in your judgment, be a substantial cost escalation with respect to the land that the corps will eventually be required to buy for the project ? General Koisch. It is our belief that at this time that there will be some increase in costs at the time we buy. If we are able to hold the condition that we now have created there, we have taken the major subdivisions. We don't have enough so that the only increases in land costs now would be, let us say, essentially norms rather than specula- tive times or types pushed because of locations, and so on. Mr. RoBisoN. Do you think that you have stopped the speculation in land that was occurring in and around the project area? General Koisch. It is our belief that we have discouraged this. Mr. RoBisoN. Good for you for that. Go ahead. General Koisch. What we will catch is just the normal escalation that would go on anyway. Mr. RoBisoN. It seems, ]Mr. Chairman, rather inconceivable to me that we would altogether abandon this project now. Having gone this far and having clear evidence at least from the expert witnesses before us that there is a need for flood control structures on the Delaware. General Koisch. Yes, sir. PROJECT BENEFITS Mr. RoBisoN. There are substantial benefits to the people of this area, potential benefits in the recreation field as well as power benefits, and so on. We have certainly produced here, today, a record indicating that there is a great deal more in the way of study of this project that we here on the subcommittee must do, either on our own or in coopera- tion with other committees of Congress having jurisdiction over this subject. But it does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that we can properly consider going forward with all or some portion of the present budget request and then continue our study and investigation into the many unanswered questions that we have, and that others may have concern- ing the project. General, I would just like to say, thank you, sir. You have been a most helpful witness and one who has been an astute and knowledge- able witness in what is obviously a very difficult, complex situation lor you or anyone in your position to handle. I would like to congratulate you for the manner in Avhich you have testified here this morning. I have no further questions. General Koisch. I don't want to leave the impression that we have stopped the land speculation in the area up there forever. If we don't continue to acquire, it will just start up agani. Mr. RoBisoN. I rather suspected that that might be the case. I am glad that you added that supplement to your previous answer. Mr. Morris. Does the gentleman from New York have any more questions? Mr. RoBisoN. No further questions. 1187 Mr. Morris. The coimnittee \Aill recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon, and at wliich point we will continue on the subject matter before the committee at this time. AFTERXOOX SESSION Mr. Morris. The connnittee Avill come to order. VALUE or OYSTER LOSS At the end of the morning hearing- we were discussing the difference in estimation of value of the loss of the oysters in connection with this project. In connection with this I would like to read into the record a portion of Senate Document No. 97 of the 87th Congress, page 9, and I quote : No. 4. Primary Ix'uefits. The value of goods or services (lire<'tly resulting from the project, less associated costs incurred in realization of the benefits and any induced costs not included in the project costs. I also want to read into the record a little statement which seems to summarize the position of the corps and the position of the Fish and Wildlife Service on oj^ster benefits : The corps' annual loss of .$.jl3,000 is based on the following: The net loss would be $O.GS a bushel based on a dockside market price of $6.75 a Inishel, and assuming a 10 percent profit. This is multiplied by 7."j."),000 bushels, the estimated average annual loss over the life of the project. The Fish and Wildlife figure of annual loss of $G million is based on a loss of $G a bushel for 1 million bushels. This is based on the understanding that tlie summation of net income at the fisherman and processing level, together with certain wage payments would approximate the present gross revenues of $6 a bushel a;t the fisherman "dockside" level. LOCAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR RECRE.\TI0]Sr There was also some question raised in the hearing this morning on the local reimbursement on recreation for the various projects and the change in policy that has taken place in the last few vears. _ I am quoting from the May 1965 issue of the CongTessional Record in the House of Eepresentatives on page 10501. I am quoting from Congressman John Saylor, of Pennsylvania, who was then, and is now, the ranking Republican member of the House Interior and In- suhir Affairs Committee, the connnittee that had jurisdiction over the legislation involving recreation reimbursement : Mr. Saylou. This bill will not apply to any project which has already been authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers or by the Bureau of Reclamation, the authorization of which is now on the books whether or not construction has begun. _ I think it is the clear intent, at least the way the chairman interprets It, of the legislatiA^e history that the new local cooperative require- ments not apply retroactively to authorized projects. Next, if you would, could the committee view the slides that I understand that you have prepared for us ? 1188 GENEIL^L STATEMENT General Koiscii. Yes, sir. The geographic limits of the North Atlantic division inclnde the Atlantic drainage from the James RiA^er in Virginia northward to the Hudson River and Lake Champlain Basins in New York and Vermont. Although my division occupies only 3 percent of our comitry's land area, it contains 19 percent of its population and provides 23 percent of the Nation's manufacturing employment, and 23 percent of personal income. Approximately 82 percent of the population of this division lives in urban areas. In fact, present trends would indicate that this urbanization would continue to grow toward formation of a strip city from Boston in the New England division to below Washington, D.C. A major goal of the Corps of Engineers has always been to con- tribute to meeting the Nation's need for water resources management and development. We are presently reviewing the situation within the framework of expanded policies and legislation of recent years and are attempting to get together a broad assessment of the water resources situation in this division over the next 50 years. Our assess- ment at this time is necessarily unrefined and subiect to adjustment as we get further into it. However, I should like to share with you some of the major dimensions of the water resources problem as we have so far defined them with a strong qualification that this repre- sents only a first rough cut at the subject. We have taken the broad categories of water-related needs and attempted to identify the needs being met by existing works, and those underway that can reasonably be expected to be completed in the next 5 years; that is, by 1973. A list of each of the water resource categories which have been thus evaluated is shown here. The solid portion of each bar repre- sents the percentage of total gross 50-year needs that are expected to be met by 1973, and the remaining portion of each bar represents graphically the renuxinder of the job that needs to be done. As you can see, there is considerable difference in the percentage of each category that will be accomplished by 1973. Overall, it indicates that we have made a good beginning but also that much remains to be done. I should also like to make it clear that our estimates of gross needs to 2020 reflect w^ork to be done by all concerned — -Federal, State, and local governments — as well as the private sector. In other words, it is not intended to imply that all this work will be accomplished by the Federal Government, although it will undoubtedly be a major factor in its accomplishment. We liave uiiderway the North Atlantic legional water resources study, which is a type I framework study. This study will refine and firm np the water resource needs picture which I have just described, examine those needs in relation to available water resources, and indi- cate in general terms the preferred means for meeting the needs to the year 2020. Tliis study includos all of my division, and all of tlie New England division. Federal and State agencies are actively participating undei" corps leadershiji. We are attempting Fome imiovations in the formulation of this long-range p]i\u by O O p-i c —< -53 C CQ o ^ S °'c < o S c oo a rato o ° c.E IS-; £E.e-||! •D ^"Q- .?; = — ojcn d ~ * c ■=— OOo >^5 a> c J5 ^ "O -^ Qj p: ^ '^ oo^ o ™ox: a — o a> jj^ ^ ^ n;£ o g " p — o';='c3 (u— - c ^- c S " s O <1^ £2 OJ "Jilt ™ "M , uj ■ p t:; CD £ oj o r= re O ™CDto c « ^o « E (: o , g -^ o5i:E^ 5SS : ^ 5i a. ^ ' |S2 i E ||S||^^|| 2 S E (u'-S^ -OUJ = ^ '^ OJ o.c*c «3- ^ o o — „^ ., 0.2 M o ^ — flj -o ro •5 s ■o o ~ 5 o. o t E C2. a i o c/5 >,< £ >s^ in c: a> E 1 O -^ o E J E ■> (• Ec3 c: ■£ ra ■o 5 ^ to S o ■- o Q -■ o 2 i: ' E,il„-^:5-e c.E-^Tso — >> t/l ° LJJ CL.C ^CD-^t ■— ^^^^ M — __ o Qo3 o •" TO ■" o«.i2 •^ t- g :o -g >< =< t;;^ j'E c oj ES5..E= - So.E = S zSS. Q: S.EScnTsSS 1194 = E'^ ?S5^^P ^o3i c= tj o ° 3 E o S"E 5,E S ^ E ro^ 1195 1 cow— O "^ *- '^ O TO ■— "5 "*" t^ ^^ 5 "^ -2: Oil 3 E ro^ TO = -5-- "5 M.5? = M= — w— Q) »- q ,_ o Q> c: ~ o «f — ; = -o c:^^ aj ■S 0^ s S .5 s ■£ jl o §1 £•§■2"- toJ :^— TO 3 Q. op Z £ 5p1 E S > to£'o" o2 o :„ ' TO 5.2? -°llll lit ^ 2; 5 ^ p £li^li=. l^'^ QJ ot-1 > a> o o o) tD. x-D-oh- =• ™ ° S ^^ c^c^^TO^o otu.r- o oj o.^fSi :E5°-£^^ oir£>iE3^ ^■o^ = TO p ■ J OJ^-^ i-'o — ^ t^ 3-t:;^ C >— OJ TO Q. 03 -^ O 1- *^ ' M-5 :5-.5 £ o S = V,*- ro-S-a -Q '^ TO.C • - ,g '^ S, ? - ■= ■" ■^'^ -ttr-^ -, ^S_=JI-=■™ra:?E■,-i•!= lII'IIiI"! ;-o a;XD "^— .;: S :c.'.2o s S 1^5 = CO ' 1196 -4^ xn £5.2 i- C CO ?^ CO . o 05 -J <-! O o3 c3 Q..S O 3 o o o CO 07 -e o 3 Cii - 03 g 2 a X3 CD H ^ 1 "^ 9 ^ CT> o CD O) — ^ra c 03 jr o 0) 0) ^ a> .^ T3 E s < g 2 C ro *-S °s2 3^ t- CJ ■3^ O w *-^ 3 CO -fci (U CO c:_oo ^3 ■esg ^•2 li^ ^ fl < ^ O -s-^ TO o gi «2 lo sjS 11 ^ t3 tk-i ^ S 'O o o « o ^ ^ s -—V ti _ o ■~ S :="'=3 : _ £- ^ o c« ™ 3 S'O BO CD ^-^ Moo ^ 9-<3 5 - tr s i^ £ S Jl^ -2^ E-i=- : CO-i-<«0"S» >- - ^ "o c o "to do J, Q-O-JJot?— ™ to £ y "*"■ i/l 3 OJ ^ £ -3 (^ o 2f ; E ■ Do; : b J I-5 E ■5; £ E_o S £ 5 2?-Kr E'B-S 9-5 :5-g TO :a-=^.2fss; T^ Q.*- ^ IZ O _ J C — 00 O ' s Si; 1197 « I m :ESi° :2|"^| ,^ e £ o -r ^ - M < O) CJ re § g ■3 S o~ 3= = W 5 ™ c _c ^ "- vy s -a t^ to g ro g- 3 E Q a> J2 Q- M Q. -^ TO — - oor i^lll^l^ ||e;|gi iK^-pf " =° ^ -= s ■■= .^ '^ o 5: o c OJ3 = 2 E I r = ' (D (^ TO .23 re *^ jSS^" ■^sS-si^siTO -||o| I If III || 2: ^2^3?- •^Si ■ ^ ./-. o ; .o^E a S-E5 «-.= «— 5; g -=°:E>£ >-,T3^ g.^ ;- 1-3 = >"a c ) — Q_ 12 2 -= 5 „ x: ■B, :a - 3 5 c !=' ^ 5 s S S ~ 1 c TO Q. ^ < ll 0. 1- Q- ~ 5 c '0 to CD tr "0 c '^ ■0 CJ .C c E ^ 5 ^ V. ^ .5 Q_ -0 _2 ;^ _c' .M -S £ 1- ° re ^- "^ .g Q. MJ 5 _^ > -S' .0 = 2 >^ OJ (2 3 -* 0) < -0 c <: SO "u >> E TOai-Ci.,.,TO.= ii>?:'-x^' 9-~oog .= ■=~"o OJ I o -cc— = >^ O'ii ^^ -3 — LO — ° ' Q: 5"^,"^ 5 ES.C: Sf "" LI'S E^-^ l.£-S^-Hr"° toI^-S^ ^I- cc 1 E c E — ' C " ■£ c -a X E < ™ cc i TO ■a < 1:2 -5 s X3 •B c: Dfl ■0 "2 = 3 X £ % c: 5 S 5 s^ S "0 p "0 1 "c °' s i "q. -0 E 1 ■0 3 1 % ■E. — '~^~^-TL ajcc >.Q "D O ?-oE£^-SS«-rx;o-;^>,g-°o -oq::u S to-ooS ".2j 1198 •5 & .2-0 te -*^ -S «= ^ >> .9 o O o ^^ a> o mH 3 a">. « T3 ^-1 13 .2 03 0) i=l «3 C c3 1: H a ^ o 6 a s o sa o c 00 ■2 ""m -o TO o E " Jl' "-a °'5.9 So ^^^m I S J E >, = oj o 3 >-,^ t; p ^ %^^ E S-; c QJ ;^ TO TO i/i E ro ^ _^ t/) > C/I ^ _^ J^ ^ t^ ■^ ^ ^ <5 5 ^ _3 QJ a> M 00 OJ i ^ -0 (J E _C C 3 z c 2^ Ti >^ TO to ■0 -0 s^.:*: »^ -^ QJ— - ^.52 S o^^'to S ^Ep' ■^cn ' :uD s l--a E •0 1 E ^ £ ra c "g 1 X "o — a> 2 a> E-^ £ 9; ro >,T3 b<> "- £ ^ > nD c/i on o Q.^ E^-§ ^-S E E ' 03 o n Is ' M — __a: S£ "Jo II _ _ _ °'ro S"^ ^^ ^'^'^"^ E ' ^o£~-2'^>^^ to I— ^ is -a 3 s TO S<-=£ ■->— >■*■ 1199 ■J uoi ■— 3 o ao^^ ^ ■o o ^ ^ o cu i:"o ~ E TO X TO >^ in ,^ OJ tU 03 -^ CO ' o c 5 ^^ ^i: S ™,i S5 E p o o-o'E != iQQ , _ ° oig _ ■j;oe° 0.2 ^ ro-o ° cr£3 o(Oro£aJ2S;ro^.S5j£ roxicL)So>.5 _.Ec, ^ ra Q.„ Q.= .2 eg .§ = ■ <»-S-=3"raSoo-2g - -^ S 1^ — O n; ee. ■2 5-0-S-5-? I":;-? j^-^-p -■= E ° S-. |ii||||||2|||^_ ;^CD E E ^ i<^ 2 -3-J2CQ < E .= S ra !^0 I- J2 «: 5 ■ 91-459— 68— pt. 1- 1200 " sS ^"^Pc^ iJ,c = ?2? ,A^ s£^ "S i "2 oi ra -= ■S = 'S-:=S sES.E^'s-i.i-Si .e'S'T-SS:;; .9 ^ oco — -^ ll ^ .ti ^ *^ 2? 2: 2 "o o) !2 £ c/5 g .£ cora„-£— S— J- a? '=^" !=-= E a; ;g ro — 3 ■£ " "° E -o ^ QJ__ ™ - 2, •= 00° ° 5 > O 3^5-— CL-- o ^.2-5^ ,01 , -2o'o>c:-oEcz*Xo 3 "a ^•^ ra ™ 1-2 5=;^ ^'So "t^i^- I'e ™5 -^--o-S-Si- S-SI'S o'S SS.2- =^ S- .^2 5 ■S 5 r" E;^ i^ ^— 2"° i ■5-g ==^;S-^- ^2Q E.E 00^ £ O ^ QO-Ci Q- o, — O052E5 — "C3t^o5„nJo-'-i _ _ ,„ ^ ^ "" .Ss£e-"5-£-o - m Q.:2-^ s s « i^-^r j-o >- ra'H 'O o-i ^^^^3 _,.-„^ j£fcCiS"§-2 TO«|:^-3 TO VI ■= '^■a.2?"' -"• ^ oo oo or-~ 'do "^ o '^ J. 2 •2'*"^ Jg E oa ^ *-. o *> ^ O"*- ^ — 2 "''EoS'ro m ^^ CL.5 iJja 3 '-^.5 JIn-2.t:oii>"Sm la — c-=*^ OjO^ — '.tz a>-oraOT3gr I g o m o ^ .a-g>-.Sj= £ H « S - ■- ij o W ° = — ™ 5 * = E |i2^£gi'^c■acCJC^ -oi ^ _ -5 E -J -i; E S o p ° ^I'^.a £ '^.r s s-5 i-=i " - "-S s..i if T-i - '^JH TO oj Di).°'^ " ' 0-O.E-— J E £ 5-5_«>-5e fl.= l|f|i|^^p.||t|||i||| e-sIf, QO — O < E : _ !r ^ o = ?• j= .5t3-q 5 ' o ^ o " E ™ ' J2 = i " :•<==■.-:■ CO 1202 HUDSON RI^■ER, yiEW YORK CITY TO ALBANY Mr. Morris. On page 4, $40,000 is budgeted to continue the study of the Hudson River from New York City to Albany. This study is being undertaken Avith funds added to the bill last year by the Sen- ate. "Wliat is the purpose and need for this study ? General Koisch. The objective of the study is to determine the advisability of modifying the existing })roject now, with particulai- reference to the need and justification for increased channel dimen- sions, including consideration of the adequacy of existing anchorage areas. Mr. Morris. What new depth is being considered for the waterway '( General Koisch. I believe it is a 35- to 40-foot channel. GREAT SOUTH BAY, N.Y. Mr. Morris. On page 8, $25,000 is requested to initiate a study of the Great South Bay, KY., with a total cost of $2,310,000. Please de- scribe the purpose of this new study. General Koisch. The purpose of the study is to investigate and analyze the Great South Bay and the waters of lesser bays and inlets with respect to water utilization and control, including but not lim- ited to navigation, fisheries, flood control, control of noxious weeds, water pollution, water quality control, beach erosion, and I'ecreation. TOTAL COST Mr. Morris. Can you give us a little idea of whv we ha\"e an esti- mated cost of $2,310,000 on this study ? General Koisch. Sir, this is a very large bay. It is not as large as the Chesapeake Bay but the same type of problems are there and more. New York State desires that the study be made as do the i:>eople in the local area. We view the nature of the study as estuarian which includes the ecology of the area. We desire to formulate a plan to provide a sound basis for future public and private actions. contribution BY STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. Robison. Mr. Chairman, so my question can stay in context with your own colloquy with the General, is my understanding correct that the State of New York would make a contribution toward this study on its own ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. That is true. As a matter of fact, we are in the position Avhere they are asking us to assist them in the study even if we don't get any money next year and they do. Mr. Robison. I think it is true, is it not. General, that the New York State budget that is noAv pending before the State legislature does include funds for the State going ahead on this project? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr. Robison. In connection with its portion of the overall cost? General Koiscii. That is right. ^\r. IvOBisoN. Thank you. 1203 Mr. MouRis. I must say the information developed by the gentleman from New York is very commendable. I think we all like local co- operation on these studies. Mr. RoBisoN. We all do. NEW YORK HARBOR METROPOLITAN AREA Mr. Morris. Also on page 8, $25,000 is budgeted to initiate a study of the New York Ilarbor metropolitan area with a total cost of $900,000. Please describe this proposed study. General Koisch. This study will cover the tidal shoes of the ^ew York metropolitan area which are affected by tidal flooding during hurricanes and severe coastal storms. The study will consider the feasibility of constructing hurricane protection measures m the study area which includes 150 miles of tidal shoreline withm the city of New York and adjacent metropolitan area of New Jersey. Consideration will be given to hurricane barriers at the entrance to New York Harbor as well as local protection. This study area, which contains a population of about 10 million persons, was subjected to damages of $27 million during the hurricane of September 12, 1960. It was estimated that occurrence of the maximum probable hurricane could cause about $6 billion in damages. Mr. Morris. I must say I am impressed. MARTINS creek, PA. On page 9, $10,000 is requested to initiate a study of Martins Creek in Pennsylvania. What is the purpose and need for this study ? General Koiscii. This study was requested by the Public Works Committee of the House. The study involves consideration of the need for flood-control improvement along Martins Creek to provide protection against flooding such as occurred on August 3, 1967. Total physical damage in the watershed from that flood was estimated at $1.4 million. There was also a loss of one life. The major problem appears to be the need for channel rectification, but with the limita- tions imposed by existing conditions along the channel, upstream detention may be the most feasible method of improvement. The entire Martins Creek watershed will be studied in an effort to develop the most suitable plan for flood control and allied purposes. CHESAPEAKE BAY AREA Mr. Morris. On page 13. $300,000 is budgeted to continue the special study of tlie Chesapeake Bay area. What is the status of the plans and the current estimated cost of constructing the model of the bay area and a technical center? This is a hydraulic model, I assume? General Koiscii. Yes, sir. The legislation directing the Chesa]:)eake Bay basin study contains a monetary authorization of $6 million. We are beginning to feel this number is low. We are in cooperation here with all of Flio Federal and State agencies. We have completed most of our preparation in terms of organization and now we desire to make the studies and field measurements that are necessary to allow us to properly desig-n the model. 1204 Mr. Morris. "What is the total cost of the model at tliis time? General Koisch. I am unable to answer that specifically, I v.ould have to get that. Mr. Morris. Could you give as an estimate now ? General Koiscii. Approximately $0 million. Mr. Morris. Does that include tlie technical center ? General Koiscu. Yes, sir. The model and associated technical cen.ter. Mr. Morris. The committee would like for you to provide for the record a breakdown of the estimated total cost for the study. General Koiscii. Yes, sir. Mr. Morris. Also include in that, if you can, a further brealvdown of the cost of the hydraulic model, and the technical center. General Koiscii. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) Our original appraisal of the cost of the Chesapeake Bay study wa-< aliout $8,500.(X)0, itemized as follows : Model : Design and construction i?l. 200. 000 Shelter, roads and utilities 3. 000. 000 Sump ."0. (X)0 Adjustments and. verifications 200. 000 Model tests 1, 000, 000 Test reports 50.000 Total model cost .5,500,000 Prototype surveys 250, 000 Technical center 750, 000 Resources investigations 2, 0rovide for an investigation tliat will l)e productive and ade(iuate to guide management. In this effort, we will endeavor to eliminate all aspects of the investigation that can be reasonabl.v deferred for future investigation. The funds requested would be used to complete the acquisition of data necessary to prepare a firm detailed co.st estimate for the entire investigation. NORTirKASTF.RN UNrrED .SPATF-S "VV.VrKR SI'm.Y Mr. MoRRrs. On pao^e 15. $1 million is budn'oted (o continue th.e s])e- cial study of the \orthoastern United States water su]i]ily. Wliat is the current status of tliis study ? General Koiscii. This study has pro,O78,000 while that in the North Atlantic region has an estimated cost of $2,184,000? General Koisch. The North Atlantic region study is a framework study which attacks the problem on a broad base, and generally gives 1206 guicLuice on solutions to the various problems in the entire region. In the Susquehanna Basin, we are coming up with the type of study which would be somewhat similar to the Delaware River Basin study in wliich it requests specific project authorization. In other words, much more detailed engineering has to be per- formed in order to answer the questions. Mr. Morris. In order to use it for requesting authorization for spe- cific projects within the Susquehanna River Basin ? General Koisch. Yes. sir. Mr. Morris. Are there any questions ? Mr. Rhodes. No questions. ^Ir. Davis. No questions. HUDSON RIVER COLLECTION AND REMOVAL OF DRIFT Mr. RoBisoN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, the study into the problems of the collection and removal of drift from the Hudson River is of considerable importance? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. Is it more or less a pilot study in this particular prob- lem area ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. In the sense that whatever results in the way of new methods for dealing with this problem that may be produced by the study will be of benefit in other waterways elsewhere across the Nation ? General Koiscii. Yes, sir. I believe I can say yes to that. GREAT LAKES TO HUDSON RIVER WATERWAY Mr. RoBisoN. On page 13, with respect to the Great Lakes-Hudson River waterway study, this is, is it not, the one relating to the eventual consideration of the question of whether or not the Federal Govern- ment takes over the so-called Erie Canal ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. What is the status of the study now ? I know that we have been in between reports for some time. I remember the corps initial report or interim report, and the results of that. What is the status now ? General Koiscii. Economic studies have been prepared and are cur- rently under review on a base for analysis of tlie various considered plans of improvement. They will also serve as a basis for discussion with the State on the matter of turnover of the system to the Federal Government. Delay in the economic study resulted from a change in the basic economic criteria. It is expected we will be able to talk constructively with the State by early summer. Following that, if the response is favorable for a transfer, we will need to undertake addi- tional studies. If it is unfavorable, we are going to wrap up the report and recommend only minor improvements which the State would construct on a reimbursable basis. Mr. RoBisoN. In which event, in the latter event, you might not need the additional $426,200 that is sliown to complete the study? General Koisch. That is correct. 1207 NORTHEASTERN U.S. WATER SUPPLY Mr. KoBisoN. With reference to the Northeastern United States water supply study shown on page 15, concerning which we have al- ready had some discussion, are you experiencing any problems in co- ordinating this particular study with, for instance, the subsequent one which is shown as the comprehensive basin study for the North Atlan- tic region? General Koisch. No, sir. We don't have a problem with that pri- marily because I am watching both personally. We put them into our planning division. These people are working together. People who work the water supply portion of the Northeastern United States water supply study, are actually putting the water supply input into the North Atlantic region study. Mr. RoBisoN. I know you will avoid it, if you can, but is there, as a result of the two separate studies, any overlap or duplication? General Koisch. I do not think so. As I mentioned, the water supply study gets rather specific and really it could be called a portion of the other study; that is the way we are proceeding with it. We have had to ask for much more detailed information on the water supply study than we did in the general resources study. AVe do not have any dupli- cation of effort here. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN jNlr. RoBisoN. Finally, with respect to the Susquehanna River Basin study as shown on page 17, there has been, has there not, some slippage of this work perhaps due in part to the cor])s' concentrating on its Appalachia study that was already testified to ? General Koiscii. This is true. It slipped partly because of that and partly because some of the talent that was working on that study had to be diverted to get the Potomac study off dead center this year. Mr. RoBisoN. You show here a tentative allocation of $359,000 with a remaining balance of $265,200 estimated to complete after fiscal year 1969. You do mention, at the bottom of page 17, a report which will recommend such projects which might be initiated during the first 15 years in the Susquehanna Basin. When might tliis report be due ? Not until fiscal year 1970? General koiscH. Yes, sir. Pretty well along in that year. INIr. RoBisoN. Normally, I would ask you about your capal)ilities and what not, but I will cease and desist this year. General Koiscii. Yes, sir. BACKLOG ]\Ir. Rhodes. Would the gentleman yield? General, at this point would you insert in the record the backlog that you have in your area ? Mr. Cohen knows what I am talking about. I have asked this question of all of the areas. General Koisch. Yes, sir. (The information follows :) There are 32 surveys included in the budget request. Three surveys are com- pleted and awaiting authorization as projects. In addition 3.5 surveys are in process of being completed with previously appropriated funds, of which seven will be completed in fiscal year 1968. The unfunded surveys in the backlog total 54. 1208 In the prec'onstruction planning stage there are six projects in various stages of planning. These include two projects fully funded for planning, two to be com- pleted with fiscal year 1969 budget amounts and two continuing with fiscal year 1969 amounts. There are three projects on which preconstruction planning is complete and are ready for construction. Three navigation projects requiring no preconstruction planning are also ready for construction. There is a backlog of 18 authorized projects for which planning has not been started. ]\rr. Rhodes. Thank you. Mr. RoBisoN. Thank you. Advance Engineering and Design tyrone, pa. ]\Ir. Morris. $75,000 is budgeted to resume planning of the Tyrone, Pa., local protection project. (The justification follows :) Tyrone, Pa. (Resvimption of planning) Location and description. — -Tyrone is located in Blair County, Pa., on the Little Juniata River at the mouth of Bald Eagle Creek. The project provides for flood protection improvements along the Little Juniata River and Bald Eagle Creek, improvement or diversion of their tributary streams (Schell Run and Sink Run), and provisions for interior drainage. Authorization. — 1944 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to L Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $13, 100, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 7S0, 000 Cash contributions Other costs 780,000 Total estimated project cost 13, 880, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 500, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 355, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 75, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 70, 000 JUSTIFICATION Tyrone is a progressive business and manufacturing center of central Pennsyl- vania. The largest industry, the West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., has recently ex- panded its plant and installed modern papermaking machinery at a cost of $30 million. A low levee which was constructed along the Little Juniata River with WPA funds has provided protection against minor floods only. Tyrone has sufi"ered severe flood damages on several occasions. The most recent major flood causing extensive damage occurred in 1950. A recurrence of the 1936 flood, the maximimi of record, would cause damages of about $7 million under present conditions. About 70 percent of the damage would be in the industrial and business districts with the remainder divided among residtMitial, juiblic, and utility losses. Tyrone, Pa., is located in Blair County, in the Appalachian region, as defined bv section 403 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-4). Average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $660,000. Non-Federal costs. — The investment rec(uired of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $780,000, broken down as follows — Lands $130,000 Relocations 650,000 Total 780, 000 1209 Local interests are required to nuiiiitain and operate the project upon com- pletion. The annual cost of maintenance and operation is estimated to be $11,000. Status of local cooperation. — A resolution of assurances, enacted by tlie Tyrone Borough Council and approved by the president of the borough council and the mavor of TjTone on January 13, 1967, was approved by the district engineer on January 27, 1967. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $13,100,000 is an increase of $3,700,000 over the latest estimate ($9,400,000) submitted to Congress. The increase consists of $1,700,000 based on detailed engineering studies developed in Jidy 1961 to provide a more satisfactory plan of protection, and $2,045,000 price level rise since that time, partially offset by decreases of $5,000 in engineering and design and $40,000 for supervision and administration. Mr. Morris. Why was planning deferred on this project and what is the current status ? General Koisch. We originally were well along with our local as- surances. The local municipality put a bond issue up before the voters and they turned it down. The city tried again the following year and again it was turned down. Thus, we ceased all activity with regard to planning on this project. Recently, we have been informed by the officials of Tyrone that under some currently existing financial author- ities they can now furnish local assurances and they have asked us to proceed with planning. We are budgeting this project because we consider it to be important. COST INCREASE Mr. Morris. Please explain the basis for the cost increase of $3,700,- 000, or over 30 percent, since the last estimate submitted to Congress. General Koisch. This increase consists of $1,700,000, based on de- tailed engineering studies developed in July 1961, to provide a more satisfactory plan of protection and $2,045,000 for a price level rise since that time, which is partially offset by decreases of $5,000 for engi- neering and $40,000 for supervision and administration. POCOMOKE RIVER, MD. Mr. Morris. We will insert justification covering the request of the $8,000 for a restudy of the Pocomoke River project in Maryland and Virginia. (The justification follows :) POCOMOKE RIVER, MD. AND VA. Tentative alloca- Additional to Project Total estimated tion, fiscal year complete restudy cost of restudy 1969 after fiscal year 1969 Pocomoke River, Md. and Va _... $8,000 $8,000 Pocomoke River is a tidal estuary off Tangier Sound on the eastern side of Chesapeake Bay. The mouth of Pocomoke Sound is about 40 miles north of Cape Charles, Va. The project modification, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of September 3, 1954 (H.D. 486/81/2), provides for a channel 11 feet deep at mean low water and 150 feet wide from the 11-foot depth contour in Pocomoke Sound to Tulls Point, thence 100 feet wide to deep water in Pocomoke River above Williams Point, and for construction of a dike along the offshore side of the channel between Tulls Point and the end of the existing dike. 1210 Local interests have expressed intense interest in reactivation of the project. The Maryland Port Authority has suggested that, since Somerset County has provided the required assurances of local cooperation for the ^Maryland portion of the project, the project might be realined and constructed entirely in Maryland, thus avoiding the necessity of participation b.v \'irginia in the ])roject. The requested restudy funds would be used to investigate an all-Maryland route, evaluate the estimated costs of such a route, and provide a basis for establishing the cost to local interests for the longer, all-Maryland, route. Mr. Morris. Please outline the purpose of the restudy. General Koisch. The authorized project provides for channel deep- ening and realinement. The project extends from Maryland partly into Virginia. The assurances of local cooperation require the normal liold- and-save provisions. Since the project appeared to be of no benefit to Virginia, they refused to come up with local assurances for their por- tion of the work. The State of Maryland desires the project and has requested that the project be realined and constructed entirely within Maryland. That is the proposal we need to evaluate. Mr. Morris. We will insert the balance of the justifications under "Advance engineering and design." iShrewrbttry TJiver, N.J. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The proposed project site is locat(>d in northeastern New Jersey at the base of the Sandy Hook Peninsula between Spermaceti Cove and Island Beach, near the mouth of Shrewsbury River at Sandy Hook Baj'. At this point, the peninsula is a narrow barrier reef separating tlie river and Ixiy from the Atlantic Ocean. This modification of the existing project provides for a ch:iiui(4 connecting Sandy Hook Bay and the Shrewsbury River with the Atlantic Ocean. The channel will be 15 feet deep by 200 feet wide on the ocean side and 9 feet In- 200 feet wide on the river side extending to the existing Shrewsbury River Chaiuu^l. The channel will be protected by parallel jetties bulkheaded through the land cut, on the ocean side and spanned by a six-lane fixed-highway bridge. Anthorization. — 1965 River & Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Fedend cost ( Corps of Engineers) $4, 490, 000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) oo, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost M, 490, 000 Cash contribution 4, 490, 000 Total estimated project cost 9, 013, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 4.50, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 100, 000 Allocation for fiscal vear 196S 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 100, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ _ 150, 000 ' 111 addition, tho Stntc of New Jersey in 1947 constructed 9,0()0 feel of seawnll soiitli fioiii the Fort Uaiicock seawall at an estimated cost of $700,000. Between 19.10 and 1900, the State and local interests spent an esti- mated $538,000 dredgiiif; tributaries and anchorages, and contributed $36,30(1 toward existiiift work. Local interests have highly developed the waterfront area with piers, w harves, bulkheads, aiiproaches, landings, boatyards and marinas. JUSTIFICATION Many recreational and some commercial fishing craft, berthed in the Shrews- bury River and its tributaries, must travel around Sandy Hook to the open sea and fishing grounds, particularly those at Shrewsbury Rocks just below Sea Bright. Unexp(>cted squalls cause a dangerous tinie-consuming tri]) by small craft around »Sandy Hook: in addition to the rougli weather, the craft in this crowded condition arc subjected to the wakes of ocean-going vessels. An analysis 1211 of Coast Cnuird assistance cases from fiscal year 1957 through fiscal year 1960 showed four boats lost and 02 damaged, all attributable to difficulties m rounduig Sandy Hook. The project channel would reduce the tri}) time to fishing grounds, add to local economy l)y the attraction of additional boats to the area, and en- courage former commercial fishermen to return to fishing. Vessel damage and loss will also be reduced. Quiclv access to a safe harbor will be provided to boats offshore when hazardous operating conditions occur. Average annual benefits of $855,000 are broken down as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Recreation ^^^°< UUan to Moriches Bay, and an inner channel 6 feet deep and 100 feet wide to the Long Island Intracoastal Waterway; rehabilitation of existing jetties and revetments; seaward extension of both east and west jetties; and provision of sand bypassing facilities. Authorization. — 1960 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $3, 850, 000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 50, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1 3, 080, 000 Cash contribution 3, 080, 000 Other costs Total estimated project cost 6, 980, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 360, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 100, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 120, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 140, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969 _ _ • Local interests expended $1,467,000 from 1947 to 1954 for channel dredging and breakwater construction. JUSTIFICATION Moriches Bay and the adjacent ocean areas constitute an important marine fishery. The Long Island resort region affords recreation to hundreds of thousands of people participating in fishing, boating, and bathing activities. Many hotels, tourist homes, three yacht clubs, six boatyards, 12 public wharves and landings, and numerous private landings are in the area. Access from the ocean to these facilities is limited to a controlling depth in the inlet of about 6 feet. The plan of improvement would provide adequate access for fleets of fishing boats and thereby permit an increase in the catch of fish. Improved tidal exchange through the inlet would abate pollution and increase shellfish production in the inner baj^s. The sand bypassing facilities would aid in control of beach erosion to save valuable land and stimulate recreational use of the beachqs. Also the project would provide refuge and reduce storm and tidal damage to vessels and stimulate recreational boating. Present and prospective commerce through Moriches Inlet consists of fish and shellfish which depends primarily ui)on the navigable condition of the channel. Annual averages are: 1946 through 19.50 — SO tons; 1953 through 1955 — 225 tons; 1960 through 1964 — 170 tons. With the imiirovement recommended, it is esti- mated that it would reach about 2,500 tons annually. The average animal benefits are estimated to be $896,000, broken down as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Navigation $470,000 Beach erosion control 331, 000 Pollution abatement 95, 000 Total 896,000 Non-Federal costs. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is $3,080,000 as a cash contributiou representing 44.5 jjcrcent of the cost of construction. Further, local interests will contribute in cash 50 percent of annual maintenance, operation and re]jlacernent costs, esti- 1213 mated at $110,000, or perform oquivalent items of work acceptable to the Chief of Engineers. In addition, local interests are to: a. Furnish, free of cost to the United States, all lands, easement, rights-of-way, and suitable s]joil-disposal areas for the initial work and for subsequent maintenance, when and as required. Ij. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and maintenance of the project, c. Provide and maintain suitable terminal facilities when and as required for the accommodation of vessels that would navigate the inlet and adjacent bays, open to all on equal terms, d. Maintain, for the riiiration of the economic life of the project, continued public ownership of the publicly owned shores and their administration for public use, and continued availability for public use of the privately-owned shores upon which a portion of the Federal share of the cost is based. Status of local cooperation. — The agency responsible for local cooperation is the N.Y. State Department of Conservation. Formal assurances of local cooperation will be requested when planning has develo}jed sufficientlj^ to define the various elements of the project plan and the non-Federal share of the cost. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $3,850,000 is the same as the latest estimate submitted to Congress. East Rockaway Inlet to Rockaway Inlet and Jamaica Bay, N.Y. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is on the Atlantic Coast of New York City between East Rockaway Inlet and Rockaway Inlet, the lands within and surrounding Jamaica Bay, N.Y. The coastal area is a peninsula located entirely within the Borough of Queens, New York City. The greater portion of Jamaica Bay lies in the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, New York City, and a small section at the easterly end, known as Head of Bay, lies in Nassau County. The improvement consists of: A hurricane barrier across the entrance of Jamaica Bay with a 600-foot navigation opening and two 150-foot gates which would partially close the opening to 300 feet; dikes, levees, floodwalls, fill placement, stoplog structures, stairways, ramps, road raising, and other appurtenant works, including fishing platforms on the hurricane barrier; and Federal participation in the cost of periodic beach nourishment of the shore protection works for 10 years after com- pletion of the initial beach fill. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $36, 700, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost ^24, 800, 000 Cash contribution 21, 260, 000 Other costs 3, 540, 000 Total estimated project cost 61, 500, 000 Presconstruction planning estimate 600, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 190, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 110, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1 969 300, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ I Since 1920, State and municipal agencies liave constructed 242 groins and deposited 12,000,000 cubic yards of sandflll along the ocean front of the Rockaway peninsula. Portions of the ocean and bay shorelines are protected by bulkheads constructed by local interests. Also, about 150 million cubic yards of material have been dredged from Jamaica Bay for purposes of land reclamation, navigation, beach nourishment, and wildlife sanctuary. There has also been a substantial effort made in pollution abatement. .JUSTIFICATION The proposed improvement will provide benefits from: prevention of primary damages from tidal flooding; increased beach use; decreased maintenance costs of existing beach structures; reduced nourishment costs by local interests; and increased recreational fishing activity. The hurricane protection also would provide significant intangible benefits by prevention of loss of life. The Rockaway peninsula and low-lying areas surrounding Jamaica Bay are subject to frequent and severe damage by tidal inundation from the ocean and the bay. Along the Rockaway Peninsula oceanfront, a serious erosion problem has resulted from storms which reduce beach widths, expose waterfront development to wave attack, and cause loss of presently inadequate recreational beach area. 1214 Unusuallv severe storms occurred in August 1667, Julv 1723, August 1821, Septem- ber 1921,\September 1960, March 1962 and April 1967. The September 1960 storm caused the maximum storm tide of record, flooded 3,500 acres of developed land and caused damages exceeding $15,000,000. 6,000 residences and hundreds of commercial buildings were severely damaged. Boats and waterfront terminal facilities were badly hit. Public utilities and transportation were seriously dis- rupted. The project area was included in declared disaster areas after the March 1962 and September 1960 storms. Appreciable damage resulted from the April 1967 storm, causing local agencies to place about 250,000 c.y. of beach fill under emergency conditions at an estimated cost of .$400,000. The annual benefits of $3,745,000 are broken down as follows: Flood control .$2, 020, 000 Beach erosion control 1, 480, 000 FLsh and wildlife 245, 000 Total 3, 745, 000 Xon-Federal costs. — Local interests are to (a) jjrovlde without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including borrow areas; (6) accom- plish without cost to the United States all alterations and relocations of buildings, streets, storm drains, utilities, and other structures; (c) bear 32.0 percent of the total first cost, a sum presently estimated at $17,750,000 consisting of $130,000 for items listed in a and b above, and a cash contribution of $17,620,000 provided that the cash contribution be paid either in a lump sum prior to commencement of construction, or in installments prior to commencement of pertinent items, in accordance with construction schedules as required by the Chief of Engineers, the final apportionment of cost to be made after actual costs and vahies have been determined; (d) provide an additional cash contribution for the barrier, its gates and fishing platforms, equivalent to the present worth of the annual cost of maintenance, operation, and major replacements by the United States, an amount presently estimated at $3,640,000 subject to adjustment based on de- tailed design of project features, to be paid in a lump sum prior to initiation of construction; (e) hold and save the United States free from all claims for damages that may arise before, during, or after prosecution of the work; (/) maintain, during the economic life of the project, continued public ownership and use of the non-Federal publicly owned shores upon which the Federal participation in beach protection is based; (g) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, except the barrier, its gates, and fishing platforms, and provide periodic nourishment during the economic life of the hurricane and shore protection works as may be required to serve the intended purpose, subject to Federal participation in the cost of periodic noiu'ishment of the shore protection works for an initial period of 10 years, as otherwise provided herein (the non-Federal share of periodic nourish- ment is estimated at $341,000 annually for the first 10 years, and $592,000 annually thereafter) ; (h) control water pollution to the extent necessary to safe- guard the health of bathers; and (i) at least annually inform interests affected that the hurricane improvements will not provide substantial protection against hurricane and storm tide levels higher than about 3 feet above the elevation of hurricane "Donna" of 12 September 1960. The estimated costs to local interests are broken down as follows — Lands $130,000 Annual nourishment 3, 410, 000 Cash contribution 21, 260, 000 Total 24,800,000 Estimated non-Federal cost for maintenance, operation, and major rejjlace- ment is $83,000 annually. Status of local cooperation. — The agency responsible for local cooperation is the New York State Department of Conservation. Assurances of local cooperation have been requested. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Fed(!ral cost estimate of $36,700,000 is an increase of $1,700,000 over the latest estimate ($35 million) submitted to Congress due to jjrice level increase. 1215 COWANESQUE RESERVOIR, Pa. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located in Tioga County, Pa., on the Cowanesque River approximately 2.2 miles above its confluence with the Tioga River at Lawrenceville, Pa. The plan of improvement provides for con- struction of an earthfiU dam, gated outlet works, uncontrolled spillway, and a permanent pool. The reservoir will extend 8 miles upstream and provide 95,700 acre-feet of storage for flood control. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.6 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $32, 400, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost 32, 400, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 1, 700, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 596, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 400, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 400, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 304, 000 JUSTIFICATION Cowanesque Reservoir is an integral unit of the overall plan for flood control in the North Branch Susquehanna River Basin, consisting of 13 flood control reservoirs and 24 local protection projects. The project is urgently needed for control of the flood-producing Chemung River and fits well into the comprehen- sive plan of water resources development of the entire Susquehanna River Basin, The construction of this reservoir will control a drainage area of 299 square miles in the Chemung River watershed and would furnish additional protection needed at Corning and Elmira, N.Y., and in the highly developed and densely popu- lated Wyoming Valley region of Pennsylvania. This reservoir, coupled with other reservoir systems previously authorized, would control runoff from an appreci- able portion of the drainage area of the basin. Benefits would extend downstream to points along the lower Susquehanna River. The flood of May 1946, which caused damages of over $14 million in the Tioga and Chemung Basins alone and took at least two lives, substantiates the need for protection in the Tioga Basin and the necessity for protection at the vital Corning- Elmira industrial areas and downstream locations on the North Branch Susque- hanna River. Flood protection for the transportation routes and for commerce in the agricultural, mining, and industrial areas with their many specialized industries which are concentrated in the valleys of the North Branch Susquehanna River and its principal tributaries, is also of great importance. The permanent pool and planned facilities are expected to provide recreation benefits and contribute to the long-range economic growth of the area. The project is located in the Tioga County, Pa., in the Appalachian region as defined by section 403 of the Appalachian Regional Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-4). Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $3, 160, 000 Recreation 40, 000 Total 1 3, 200, 000 • Exclusive of benefits from augmentation of low flows, which will be evaluated during design studies. Non-Federal Costs. — None required. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.— The current Federal cost estimate of $32,400,000 is an increase of $1,500,000 over the latest estimate ($30,900,000) submitted to Congress. The increase consists entirely of price level increases. Mr. Morris. Are there any questions ? Mr. Rhodes. No questions. 91-459— 68— pt. 1 77 1216 SHREWSBURY RIVER, N.J. Mr. Davis. The Shrewsbury project in New Jerse3^ General, it con- tmues to be a bothersome one inasmuch as the justifications are better than 90 percent recreation. Has there been any restriction on construction in view of the recent pronouncements we have heard about retrenchment and expenditures and so on with respect to primarily recreational projects, either rumor- wise or directive-wise ? General Koisch. Not in those specifics, sir. We have generalized in- structions to minimize budgets, increase efficiency, cut construction, but keep on studying. Mr. Davis. This being in the planning stage, you have felt that gen- eral cutting directives would not apply to the project at this stage ''. General KoiscH. No, sir. Mr. Davis. That is all. Mr. Morris. Mr. Kobison ? ]Mr. RoBisoN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to continue with Mr. Davis' comments on this particular proj- ect, it is almost completed, is it not, the planning? — $100,000 is allo- cated here for fiscal year 1969, with $150,000 needed to complete it l General Koisch. No, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. I am looking at the wrong one ? General Koisch. This project could fit that ''onion" category we talked about this morning. After we thought we were pretty well set with it, we found that the tidal differences on one side of Sandy Hook versus the other are so great we have to go into a model look-see to determine whether the velocities through the proposed inlet are such that small boats can go back and forth. Mr. EoBisox. Is this the project in wliich there is some connection to the Tocks Island River transfer ? General Koisch. No. It isn't involved with the Tocks Island project. There are quite a few parcels of federally owned land at the end of Sandy Hook. They are not necessarily connected with the Shrewsbury River project. ]Mr. RoBisox. I have no further questions. CONSTRTJCTION STRETCHOUT AXD DEFERRAL OF COXSTRUCTIOX ^Ir. Morris. General, |)lease outline for the committee the nature, extent, and effects of the stretchout and deferral of the construction program in your division. General Kotsch. Sir, you will recall we first ran into deferrals with fiscal year 1967 moneys. At that time I told the committee that we had selected 14 projects, 10 of whicli appeared to be suffering from other problems, and therefore the deferral didn't matter too much be- cause the problems were not specifically related to money; four other projects would have completion dates extended about 6 months. They were Lake Montauk Harbor, Aylesworth Reservoir, Gathright Res- ervoir, and Raystown Reservoir. Next year involved a deferral again which beffan to hurt. 1217 If 1 recall correctly, my construction program was cut a|)proxi- mately $15 million. Those projects that we didn't worry too much about in fiscal year 1967, we had to wony about in fiscal year 1968. Now, I go into fiscal year 1969 and my budget request for normal continua- tion of activity under our old schedule was cut approximately one- third. I can no longer say it is not hurting. AVe are having difficulty in putting together economically sized contracts and determining which contracts should continue along. We are losing the benefits of some ; for instance, the C. & D. Canal. You don't get the full average annual benefits until you have provided the authorized project depth. You do get a few benefits, but we don't get the anticipated benefits until the project is finished. INLAND WATERWAY FROM DELAWARE RIVER TO CHESAPEAKE BAY Mr. Morris. $4,050,000 is budgeted to continue construction of the inland watei*way from the Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay. (The justification follows:) Inland Waterway From Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, Del. and Md. (Part II — 35-Foot Channel and Anchorage and Replace Two Bridges) (Continuing) Location. — The waterway extends from Reedy Point on the Delaware River about 41 miles below Philadelphia, Pa., through a land cut westward to Elk River, thence following Elk River and upper Chesapeake Bay to deep water in Chesapeake Bay, a distance of 4b miles. Part I of the project, which provided for construction of a new high level highway bridge over the canal at Summit, Del., was completed in January 1960. Authorization. — 1954 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2 to 1 for the entire canal inprovement authorized by the 1954 River and Harbor Act. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost _ $100,000,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 99,000 ..\.''..\\ Local contributions Other costs _ __ i 99, 000 ..\..... Total estimated project cost . 100,099,000 Allocationsto June 30, 1967 __ _ 60,324,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 _ 9,500,000 Allocations to date 69,824,000 70 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 4,050,000 74 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969-.. 26,126,000 ' In addition, local interests have expended $230,000 for approach rights-of-way for previously reconstructed bridges, and $25,000 in connection with the relocation of Reedy Point Bridge. PHYSICAL data Channel: Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, 35 feet deep, 450 feet wide, 46 miles long. Anchorage: Elk River: 35 feet deep, 1,200 feet wide, 3,700 feet long. Bridges: Pennsylvania Railroad (vertical lift). Reedy Point highway (Fixed high-level). Clearances : 500 feet horizontal. 135 feet vertical. 98 May 1968. 75 95 December 1969. 65 June 1971. 100 October 1965. 97 December 1968. 100 May 1965. 97 December 1969. 45 December 1971. 40 December 1969. (2) July 1970. 61 December 1971. 1218 Lands and damages: All land required for the project has been acquired. Re- maining activity involves resolution of pending claims. Relocations: Bridges: Pennsylvania Railroad bridge: $6,442,000. Reedy Point Highway bridge: $10,632,000. Cemeteries and utility lines: $616,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages Relocations Pennsylvania RR. Bridge' Reedy Point Bridge' Cemetery - - Utilities and structures... Channels: Railroad cutoff channel (27 by 250 feet) Dry excavation to elevation +10. Dredging.. _ Night lighting Recreation facilities Entire project^ 1 Includes removal of old bridge. 2 Not started. 3 Exclusive of Elk River Anchorage. JUSTIFICATION This waterway connects Delaware River and the Port of Philadelphia with Chesapeake Bay and the Ports of Baltimore and Norfolk. Oceangoing vessels traveling between Baltimore and Philadelphia formerly were forced to journey by way of Chesapeake Bay, Atlantic Ocean, and Delaware Bay. A savings of 286 nautical miles is realized, nearly a day of travel time, by vessels using the project between these cities; also, in travel from Baltimore to ports to the north- east, the canal saves 150 miles to New York and New England ports and 115 miles to north European ports. The deepening, widening, and realinement of the waterway, and the removal of restrictive bridges, will allow full and eco- nomical use of the waterway by vessels transporting the existing and prospective commerce. The project will also reduce the hazards of navigating the existing waterway. During 1966, foreign and domestic commerce transported through the waterway amounted to about 10,342,602 tons. The principal commodities were petroleum and petroleum products; general cargo, ores, iron and steel, and steel products; and acids and chemicals. Upon completion of the authorized improvements, it is anticipated that the average annual tonnage over a 50-year period will increase about 5 million tons. The average annual benefits are $8,830,000, broken down as follows: Average annual benefits: Navigation $8, 570, 000 Recreational 260,000 Total 8,830,000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,050,000 will be applied to — Continue dredging in canal to 35 feet by 450 feet, including prep- aration of disposal areas $2, 820, 000 Complete relocation of utilities 16, 500 Complete construction of Reedy Point Bridge and initiate removal of old bridge and maintain traffic at the old railroad bridge 797, 000 Initiate alteration of south jetty at Reedy Point 75, 000 Engineering and design 170, 000 Supervision and administration 171, 500 Total 4, 050, 000 The budget request provides for completion of new Reedy Point Bridge and relocation of utilities; continuation of channel dredging; and initiating alteration of the south jetty at Reedy Point. The requested amount provides for minimum progress on the dredging and other remaining work. 1219 COMPLETED WORK 1954 MODIFICATION (PT. l) Construction of a high-level fixed highway bridge across the canal at Siinimit, Del., was completed in fiscal year 1960 at a cost of $7,429,000. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS Work completed includes a channel, 27 feet deep, 250 feet wide, from Delaware River to Elk River, and 400 feet wide through Elk River and Chesapeake Bay to Pooles Island; high level highway bridges at St. Georges and Chesapeake City; extensions of jetties at Reedy Point; mooring basins at Chesapeake <-i|y; I'^^et- ment of banks, and construction of bulkheads. The cost of this wor.v was $14,520,000. REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATION A remaining item under the 1935 River and Harbor Act involves the Delawtire City Branch Channel, 8 feet deep and 50 feet wide, with an 8-ft.-deep basin, i he channel, including the basin, has been dredged from Delaware River to a point 400 feet east of Fifth Street Bridge at a cost of $25,000. Restudy is required prior to undertaking fvu-ther work. . , . , x r Non-Federal costs .—Local interests have furnished the required nghts-ot-way and relocation for replacement of Reedv Point Bridge. Costs are estimated to be $99,000. Additional costs estimated at $25,000 have been incurred for highway approaches and related work in connection with the relocation of Reedy Pomt Local interests previously furnished the required rights-of-way for reconstruction of the St. Georges and Chesapeake City Bridges, as well as for approaches to Summit Bridge constructed under part I of the authorization. Estimated local cost was $230,000. . ,. , , Status of local cooperation.— Assurances of comphance with local cooperation requirements, furnished by the State of Delaware, have been accepted. Rights-ot- way for construction of Reedy Point Bridge have been furnished. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.— The current Federal cost estimate ot $100 million is an increase of $3 million over the latest estimate ($97 ""I'lon) submitted to Congress. The increase in project cost includes $20,000 for lands and damages, based on cost experience to date; a net increase of $2,800,000 for channel work based on adjustments for completed and future work with added items tor development of new disposal areas, stabilization of banks, and landscaping; and $360,000 for engineering and design based on reanalysis of requirements and cost experience to date. Offsetting decreases include $20,000 for relocations and $160,000 for supervision and administration, based on reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1). FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 ''^"^fgeg^^^ (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $1,450,000 $1,414,000 $36,000... -- z----z-- RelocatiSns 17 690 000 11744 100 4,734,600 $813,500 $397,800 Kneis.:::::::;:::::::::::::::.:-- 70590000 4o;346,6oo 4,495,300 2,820,000 22,98,100 Breakwaters.... 850,000 75,000 775,000 Recreation facilities.. 800,000 . . f^n-nnn' 98 qnn Engineering and design 3,980,000 3,400,300 380,800 70,000 28,900 Supervision and administration. 4,640.000 2,798,800 ,473,800 171.500 I- 9^,900 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 100,000,000 59,703,800 10,120,500 4,050,000 26,125,700 Undistributed costs... ,-a-,-;;a-;;;a '.'?,in'nnn oc'ios'inri Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 100,000,000 59,703,800 10,120,500 4,050,000 26,125,700 TotarcosUFedSTnds'8niyy.\\\\':":"l00,l00^^ 4,"050,"66o 26,125,700 Undelivered orders 481,400 -481,400 .... Total obligations 60,185,200 9,639,100 4,050,000 Method of financing: ^„„ „„„ Appropriations 60,324,300 9,500,000 - Unobligated carryover from prior year _. _ - 139, 100 - Total funds available tor obligation 9,639,100 ... ..-. Appropriations required 4,050,000 26, 1^5,/uu 1220 Mr. Morris. The justifications on page 41 show a cost increase for the development of new disposal areas. What is involved in this and what will be the total cost ? General Koisch. Under the project authorization, the provision of dis]:)osal areas is a Federal responsibility. We hold fee title to land on Ijoth banks of the oanal for this purpose. Initially, the diking of disposal areas was included in the overall dredging contract. Eecogni- tion of the need to provide both the maximum development of the land and for more structural stability for future and current disposal, lead to the determination that this work should be set apart from dredging and be constructed separately under more carefully con- trolled conditions. We have now identified that more than $3.5 million is needed to con- struct the disposal areas. However, there are offsetting decreases in the follow-on dredging costs, so that we anticipate paying only $400,- 000 for the increased safety and capacity. DELAWARE RIVER, PHILADELPHIA TO THE SEA, ANCHORAGES Mr. Morris. We will insert justification covering the anchorages for the Delaware River, Philadelphia to the sea project. Delaware River, Pa., N.J., and Del., Philadelphia to the Sea (Anchorages) (Continuing) Location. — These four anchorages adjacent to the Delaware River channel are spaced 9 to 13 miles apart in the 36-mile reach between the entrance to the Chesa- peake and Delaware Canal and Schuylkill River. Authorization. — 1958 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard)... Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Otiier costs Total estimated project cost.. Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ._ Allocation to date..- _ Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. . . $29.000,000 700 1,280,000 1,280,000 30,280.700 8,793,000 35,000 8, 828, 000 30 50, 000 31 20,122,000 PHYSICAL DATA Anchorages Mean length (feet) Width (feet) Depth (feet) Marcus Hook , Mantua Creek..:.., 13,650 11,500 2.300 2,300 2,300 2,300 40 40 Deepwater Point 5,200 40 Reedy Point 8,000 40 1221 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Marcus Hook Anchorage Mantua Creek Anchorage- . . Deepwater Point Anchorage. Reedy Point Anchorage Entire project 100 July 1966. (') August 1972. (') July 1971, (') June 1972. 30 August 1972. 1 Not started. JUSTIFICATION The anchorages are an integral part of the Delaware River improvement and are primarily warranted for the safety and convenience of navigation by the benefits accruing from the elimination "of hazards to life and property. Maritime interests have repeatedly pointed out the critical problems encountered by ships due to lack of adequate anchorages, particularly when visibility is reduced, ships are in distress, or awaiting tide, berthing space or quarantine inspection. Until completion of Marcus Hook Anchorage in July 1966, there were no anchorages wide enough to accommodate ships longer than 550 feet without danger of swinging into the channel with a change in tide. The present trend is toward larger ships of deeper draft. Completion of the 40-foot channel above Philadelphia to Newbold Island and the increase in traffic generated by this improvement, made the need for improved anchorages more urgent. Enlargement of the existing anchorages at Marcus Hook and Mantua Creek and construction of additional anchorages at Deepwater Point and Reedy Point as authorized will meet the requirements of the larger ships without endangering traffic in the main ship channel. Commerce on the Delaware River in 1966 was 113,443,300 tons. The average annual benefits are estimated at $1,903,000, all for navigation. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $50,000 will be applied to — Continuing real estate activities $11, 000 Engineering and design 33, 500 Supervision and administration 5, 500 50, 000 The budget request provides for continuing real estate activities in connection with disposal areas and associated engineering. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS Channel 35 feet deep from Delaware Bay to Allegheny Avenue and six anchor- ages, at a cost of $17,834,000; channel 40 feet deep from Delaware Bay to Phila- delphia Naval Base, at a cost of $9,119,000; enlarging Marcus Hook and Mantua Creek Anchorages and deepening them to 37 feet at a cost of $3,715,000; and channel 40 feet deep and 400 feet wide from Philadelphia Naval Base to Allegheny Avenue, at a cost of $5,462,000. OTHER AUTHORIZED WORK REMAINING TO BE DONE The portion of the channel between the naval base and Allegheny Avenue, 37 feet deep and 600 feet wide, including deepening Port Richmond Anchorage to 37 feet depth, remains to be done, at an estimated cost of $2,951,000. This work has been deferred. Non-Federal cost. — The initial investment required of local interests in con- struction of the authorized anchorages is estimated at $1,280,000 for the lowering of pipelines crossing Marcus Hook and Mantua Creek Anchorages. Costs to date are about $1 million. Status of local cooperation. — Federal permits under which the pipelines were constructed specify that, if necessary in the interest of navigation, the owners will be required to alter the work without cost to the United States. Lowering of the pipelines will be required as progress of work on the anchorages necessitates. The pipeline owners have been notified of the scheduled dredging and requested to lower the pipelines and to submit plans for the work. Permits for lowering pipe- lines across both anchorages have been issued. The pipeline across Marcus Hook Anchorage has been lowered. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate ($29 million) submitted to Congress. Internal adjustments involved a decrease 1222 of $100,000 in supervision and administration costs with an oflF-setting increase in engineering and design due to studies on alternate disposal areas for Mantua Creek and Deepwater Point Anchorages. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $3,300,000 $27,800 $2,500 $11,000 $3,258,700 Channels 23,900,000 7,965,000 ..._ 15,935,000 Engineering and design, 650,000 508,200 41,300 33,500 67,000 Supervision and administration 1,150,000 277,000 6,200 5,500 861,300 Total applied cost 29,000,000 8,778,000 50,000 50,000 20,122,000 Undistributed cost... Total project cost.. 29,000,000 8,778,000 50,000 50,000 20,122,000 Pending adjustments. Total cost 29,000,000 8,778,000 50,000 50,000 20,122,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations 29,000,000 8,778,000 50,000 50,000 20,122,000 Method of financing: Allocations.- 8,793,000 35,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year. 15,000 Total funds available for obligation... 50, 000 Appropriations required 50,000 20,122,000 Mr. Morris. $50,000 is budgeted to continue real estate activities in connection with the disposal areas and associated engineering. What is the status of the disposal area problem? General Koisch. Our current policy is to obtain the disposal areas under easements rather than in fee. A written agreement has been ob- tained from the National Steel Co. for use of their lands near Mantua Creek, subject to their concurrence in our development plan. This plan is presently being prepared. We are also giving consideration to other areas; particularly one between Tinicum IsLand and the mainland. This could also provide an adequate area for maintenance dredging disposal. We are still coordinating with Lukens Steel con- cerning land needed upon which material removal from the Deepwater Point anchorage can be placed. However, it does not appear we will be able to conclude an agreement with them and we are investigating other areas. In the case of Reedy Point anchorage, we expect to de- velop a privately owned area or an offshore area depending upon a report from Fish and Wildlife Service on the private area. LANDS AND DAMAGES Mr. Morris. The project cost still shows $3,300,000 for lands and damages. What does the estimate consist of? General Koisnr. This estimate was set up originally to cover the cost of fee acquisition on the National Steel and Lukens Steel land for Mantua Creek and Deepwater Point anchorages. Fee acquisition has been suspended in view of the objection from owners and local interests. The estimated cost has not been adjusted because of the uncertainty of the outcome on disposal area lands, especially in the case of Deepwater Point anchorage. 1223 NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK, AND PASSAIC RIVERS, N.J. Mr. Morris. $2 million is budgeted for the Newark Bay, Hacken- sack, and Passaic Kivers, N.J., a navigation project. (The justification follows:) Newark Bay, Hackensack and Passaic Rivers, N.J. (Continuing) Location. — Newark Bay is an estuary about 1^ miles wide and 6 miles long which extends southerly from the confluence of the Hackensack and Passaic Rivers to the New York and New Jersey channels near the northwest corner of Staten Island, N.Y. The Bay is bordered by Jersey City and Bayonne on the east and by Newark and Elizabeth on the west, all in New Jersey. The Hacken- sack River extends generally northward about 45 miles through New Jersey to vicinity of Haverstraw, N.Y. Passaic River extends west and north about 80 miles to the highlands of northern New Jersey. Authorization. — Rivers and Harbors Act of 1966 (H. Doc. 494, 89th Cong., 2d sess.). Rivers and Harbors Act of 1954 (Hackensack River 32-ft. channel). Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (USCG) Estimated non-Federal cost Cash contribution Other costs___ Total estimated project cost Allocations to June 30, 1967 Allocation tor fiscal year 1958 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year $15,760,000 57,000 4,330,000 4,330,000 20,147,000 100,000 100,000 1 2. 000, 000 13 13,660,000 PHYSICAL DATA Channels: 1966 Modification: (a) Widen 35-foot channel from 400 and 550 to 700 feet— 2.9 miles. (6) Widen 32-foot channel from 400 to 500 feet and deepen from 32 to 35 feet north of the Port Newark Channel — 1.3 miles. (c) Widen the entrances to Port Newark and Port Elizabeth to 800 and 1,050 feet respectively — 0.7 miles. (d) Provide two maneuvering areas, each 300 feet by 2,200 feet, one upstream and one downstream of C.R.R. of New Jersey bridge, with depths of 35 feet and 38 feet, respectively. (e) Provide turning basin at head of bay 900 by 1,300 feet and 35 feet deep. (/) Deepen 12-foot Hackensack River channel to 15 feet — 12.4 miles. 1954 Modification: Deepen 30-foot Hackensack River channel to 32 feet — 3.8 miles. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Channels: 35-foot channel, Newark Bay Maneuvering areas at CRR of New Jersey bridge. Turning basin at head of bay... Hackensack River channels. Entire project Not started June 1971. do Do. do September 1971. do June 1972. do Do. 1224 JUSTIFICATION The existing channels in Newark Bay and the Hackensack River are no longer adequate for the larger vessels that are being used. Also, insufficient channel widths create hazardous passing situations. The large vessels are unable to turn in the restricted channels ; consequently, the vessels must be towed out stern first and then turned with tug assistance. From January 1950 through June 1963 about $900,000 in damages were incurred from 59 accidents of which 48 accidents occurred in Newark Bay. These accidents are attributable to congestion, hazardous navigation conditions in the vicinity of the bridge, lack of maneuvering space, and inadequate channel dimensions. In Majr 1966, a ship collided with the Jersey Central Railroad bridge and disrupted passenger and freight service for 2 weeks. One month later a tanker accident at the junction of Newark Bay and Kill Van KuU claimed 33 lives. The improvements will produce savings in transportation costs and reductions in the number of accidents. Commerce on the Newark Bay, Hackensack, and Passaic River channels in 1965, exclusive of through traffic, amounted to 16 million tons. This commerce is expected to increase more than 100 percent during the economic life of the project. Average annual benefits, all for navigation, are estimated at $2,214,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,000,000 will be applied to — Initiate dredging Newark Bay $1, 670, 000 Engineering and design 233, 000 Supervision and administration 97, 000 Total 2, 000,000 COMPLETED WORK Work completed, under the River and Harbor Acts of 1907, 1911, 1912, 1922, 1927, 1930, and 1935, consists of the 37-, 35-, and 30-foot channels in Newark Bay, the 30- and 12-foot channels in the Hackensack River and the 30-, 20-, 16- and 10-foot channels in the Passaic River at $9,018,000. Under the 1954 modification, the 25-foot deep turning basin in the Hackensack River was com- pleted in 1962 for $233,000 and the 34-foot North Reach Channel in Newark Bay was completed in 1965 for $482,000. KEMAINING WORK Deepening the Passaic River to 20 feet, from the Jackson Street Bridge to Nairn Linoleum Works is classified as "inactive," and did not prove economically justifiable in latest study. The River and Harbor Act of 1962 authorized the maintenance of Port Elizabeth entrance channel by the Federal Government. Non-Federal costs. — Total cost $4,330,000 is broken down as follows: Bridge protection Relocate pipelines Dredging at slips and cables and bulkheads Newark Bay $1,065,000 $85,000 Hackensack River, 15 ft. channel. $225,000 2,150,000 25.000 Hackensack River, 32 ft. channel 35,000 745,000 Estimated cost of annual non-Federal maintenance is $1,965. Local interests are required to (a) provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction of the i)roject, and for the construction and maintenance of aids to navigation, upon the request of the Chief of Engineers ; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages that may result from construction and maintenance of the project; (c) provide and maintain without cost to the United States depth in berthing areas and local access channels serving the terminals commensurate with the depths provided in the related project areas; (d) acc(>mi)lish without cost to the United States removal or relocation of pipelines, cables, and other utilities, and provide founda- tion protection to bridge piers and fend(^r alterations and strengthening as] may be necessary. 1225 At Port Newark, $87 million have been expended since 1948 on a $128 million port expansion program. For Port Elizabeth, $60 million have been expended on a $175 million program. Status of local cooperation. — The Port of New York Authority by letter dated December 24, 1964, indicated its willingness to act as a coordinator and the willingness of local interest to meet the conditions of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $15,760,000 is an increase of $260,000 over the latest estimate ($15,500,000) presented to Congress. This change includes an increase of $369,200 for higher price levels. This increase was partially offset by a decrease of $109,200 in esti- mated costs for supervision and administration. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to cost June 30, estimate 1967 (2) (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Channels $12,140,000 . Engineering and design 410,000 . Supervision and administration 590,000 . Subtotal 1966 modification (13,140,000). Cftannels-.. 2,420,000 - Engineering and design - 80,000 . Supervision and administration 120,000 . Subtota! 1954 modification.. (2,620,000). Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 15,760,000 . Undistributed costs Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only). 15,760,000 . Pending adjustment Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only).... 15,760,000 . Undelivered orders Total obligations (Corps of Engineers funds only) 15,760,000 . Metfiod of financing: Allocations. Unobligated carryover from prior year. Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required $1,670,000 $10,470,000 $87, 000 233, 000 90, 000 13,000 97,000 480,000 (100,000) (2,000,000) (11,040,000) 2,420,000 80,000 120,000 (2,620,000) 100,000 2,000,000 13,660,000 100,000 2,000,000 13,660,000 100,000 2,000,000 13,660,000 100,000 2,000,000 13,660,000 100,000 ._ - -- - 100,000 2,000,000 13,660,000 Mr. Morris. This is a new start added by the Senate last year \rhich has been deferred until fiscal year 1969. Please describe this project and tell us the status of the planning-. General Koiscii. This project provides for widening and deepening the existing channel in Newark Bay and deepening the channel in the Hackensack River, which with the Passaic River, forms the Newark Bay estuary. This port complex exclusive of through traffic, handled 16 million tons of commerce in 1965. This toimage is expected to more than double during the life of this project. LOCAL COOPERATIOlSr Mr, Morris. Wliat is the status of local cooperation on the project? General Koisch. Local interests have expressed a willino^iess to meet the conditions of local cooperation and the Port of New York Authority has assumed the responsibility as coordinator for all the various entities involved. We requested assurances from the port authority in February of this year. 1226 BLOOMINGTON RESERVOIR, MD. AND W. VA. Mr. Morris. $800,000 is budgeted to continue land acquisition on the Bloomington Reservoir in Maryland and West Virginia. (^The justification follows:) Bloomington Reservoir, Maryland and West Virginia (Continviation of Land Acquisition) Location. — The project is located in Garrett County, Md., and Mineral County, W. Va., on the North Branch of the Potomac River approximately 8 miles above its confluence with the Savage River at Bloomington, Md. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Beneiit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement ■.. $73,500,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement.-. 24,400,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 49,100,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 24,400,000 Reimbursement: Water supply _ 24,400,000 Total estimated project cost 73,500,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 _ 2,740,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 1,000,000 Allocation to date 3,740,000 5 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 800,000 6 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 68,960,000 ' Total project cost. Fiscal year 1969 budget provides for continuation of land acquisition and engineering and design only. PHYSICAL D.\TA Lands and damages: Acres: 4,700. Type: Predominantly woodland. Major improvements: Dwellings and commercial improvements. Relocations: Roads: 3.4 miles, $2,450,000. Railroads: 11.1 miles, $16,360,000. Cemeteries: 2 cemeteries, 42 graves, $10,000. Power and telephone lines: 2 companies, 2 miles, $80,000. Gas line: 1 company, 1.5 miles, $100,000. Dam: Tyi^e: Earth and rock fill. Height: 296 feet. Length: 2,050 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control storage ' 36, 200 Conservation storage 94, 700 Total storage 130, 900 ' In addition, a minimum of 44,400 acre-feet of low-flow storage will be seasonally available for flood control. Dike: Type: Rolled earth fill. Spillway: Type: 168 feet gated chute. Capacity (maximum pool) : 175,000 cubic feet per second. 1227 Outlet Works: Typo: Circular tunnel, gate controlled. Capacity: 17,800 cubic feet per sc^cond. Status {January 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule. — Lands and damages, June 1974. Other features of project not definitely scheduled. JUSTIFICATION This project will provide low-flow augmentation storage which would increase the dependable flow of the North Branch at Luke, Md., from 93 cubic feet per second to 305 cubic feet per second. Presently in the North Branch area a depend- able flow of about 170 cubic feet per second is required for municipal and industrial water supply and for water-quality control, and the flow will be gradually increased to about 430 cubic feet per second by the year 2010. The Bloomington Reservoir will be able to meet the demands of the area through the year 1990. In addition to the supplementation provided in the North Branch area, the increased flow will partially meet the requirements for water supply and water quality control in the downstream communities near the main stem of the Potomac river to and including the Washington metropolitan area. The average annual damages in the North Branch area under existing condi- tions, with the recently completed Kitzmiller, Md., and Bayard, W. Va., local flood protection projects in operation, are estimated to be $1,843,000 (July 1967 prices). The flood control provided by this reservoir is estimated to reduce the average annual damages in this area by about 46 percent. Severe damaging floods have occurred in 1924, 1936, 1954, and 1955. Considerable development is occur- ring in the flood zone because land suitable for development is in general only available in the valley bottoms. The provision of flood control, abundant water supply and the improvement of water quality will create the economic climate for the development that can be expected as part of the Nation's growth. Recreation facilities, when constructed, will attract tourists and create new commercial development related to tourism. The recreation facilities provided will create recreation opportunities with an ultimate use of about 50,000 visitor days annually. The project is located in Garrett County, Md., and Mineral County, W. Va., in the Appalachian region as defined by section 403 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-4). Breakdown of benefits: Amomt Flood control $921, 000 Water supply 1, 409, 000 Water quality 1, 809, 000 Recreation 43^ 000 Total 4, 182, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $800,000 will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $270 000 Engineering and design 46o' 000 Supei'vision and administration 70' 000 Total 800, 000 The requested amount will be applied to acquire project lands in order to preserve the dam and reservoir site from further development and strip mining operations and to advance foundation explorations and plans and specifications for the dam and appurtenances. Non-Federal costs. — Prior to construction, local interests are required to pay as a lump sum all costs allocated to water supply, presently estimated to be $24,400,000, or to contract with the United States to repay in annual increments, with interests on the unpaid balance, the project costs allocated to water supply facilities, to pay the annual costs of operation, maintenance, and major replace- ments allocated to water supply, and to protect the stream from pollution and encroachments. Status of local cooperation. — Maryland Senate Bill 308, signed into law on May 4, 1967, authorized repayment of costs for initial water supply and provided reasonable assurance that costs allocated to future water supply for use in Mary- 1228 land will be repaid. A draft contract between the United States of America and the State of Maryland is currently under review by the State. Assurances for future water supply have been received from the State of West Virginia, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the District of Columbia which satisfy the requirements of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — No change from the latest estimate C$73,500,000) submitted to Congress. Internal adjustments include increases of $3,120,000 for price level rise, $320,000 for land and damages resulting from acquisition of increased acreage and mineral interests, and $480,000 miscellaneous additions for reservoir boundary monumentation, paving of access roads and dam tender quarters. Offsetting decreases were $2,900,000 resulting from refine- ment in length and alinement of the railroad relocation, $320,000, for minor re- visions in the dam estimate, and $700,000 for supervision and administration based on revised criteria for overhead distribution. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages.. $1, 300, 000 19,000,000 . 380,000 . 43,680,000 . 700,000 . 500,000 . 250,000 . 90,000 . 4, 600, 000 3, 000, 000 73, 500, 000 $31, 100 $403, 000 $270, 000 $595 000 Relocations. 19, 000 000 Reservoirs 380 000 Dams . .... 43 680 000 Roads -. Recreation facilities 700, 000 500, 000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 250 000 Permanent operating equipment 90 000 Engineering and design 2, 003, 200 125,600 2,159,900 1, 056, 800 119,400 1, 580, 100 460, 000 70, 000 800, 000 1,080,000 Supervision and administration.. _ Total applied cost (Federal funds Undistributed cost only).. 2, 685, 000 68, 960, 000 Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 73, 500, 000 2,159,900 1, 580, 100 800, 000 68, 960, 000 Total costs (Federal funds only).. Undelivered orders inly)"'" 73, 500, 000 2,159,900 207, 000 2. 366, 900 2, 740, 000 1, 580, 100 -207,000 . 1,373,100 1,000,000 . 373,100 . . 1,373,100 . 800, 000 68, 960, 000 Total obligations (Federal funds c 800, 000 68, 960, 000 Method of financing: Allocation prior Unobligated carryover from year 800,' OOO' Total funds available for obligation... Appropriations required "■""68,"966,"600 Mr. Morris. Please outline the prevailing real estate situation in the area and the acquisition plan for the current year and 1969. General Koiscii. The current real estate plan provides for rim-to- rim acquisition, thereby preserving the dam and reservoir area as well as the railroad relocation site from adverse effects of strip mining. The cost involved in protecting against slides caused by mining opera- tions and providing access to severed parcels outweigh by far tlie cost of acquiring the additional acreage. AVe are presently engaged in mapping and appraisal activities and title evidence is being compiled in preparation for negotiations for purchase of land and mineral interests in the construction areas. Eeal estate acquisition would be continued throughout the reservoir area in fiscal year 1969 with the expectation that tlie agreement for water supply reimbursement with the State of Maryland will be executed in a timely manner. LAND ACQUISITION Mr. Morris. Tlie committee lias just received a letter dated March 15, 1968, from General Woodbury pointing to the urgency of acquiring 1229 land involved ni a present strip-mining operation in the vicinity of the spillway site. , • i -t. j> i ■ Please outline the problem and explani the desirability ot making exception in this instance in advance of securing assurances of reim- bursement concerning the water supply costs. General Koisch. There is a strip-mining operation going on iii the area that we have selected for this dam. It is quite a sizable operation and tlie operator is currently moving in the direction of one of the abutements. If he continues, he will eventually reach the area where the spillway is to go. This strip-mining operation is going to reach a point where the cost of undoing the damage done by this strip miner will run into quite sizable figures. I think it is only prudent we should go in and buy up all the necessary land so that the mmmg operation will not interfere with the project site and so we wont have these extra costs at a later date. , Mr. Morris. We will make General Woodbury's letter to Chairman Mahon a part of the record at this point. (The letter follows:) ^ March 15, 1968. Hon. George H. Mahon, Chainnan. Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, B.C. Dear Mr Chairman : The Bloomington reservoir project, Maryland and West Virginia on tlie Nortli Branch of the Potomac River about 2 miles above Bloom- ington Md., was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962 (Public Law 874, 87th Cong ) to provide a reservoir for flood control, water supply, water quality control, and recreation. The authorization for the Bloomington project requires the States and local interests to assume certain obligations prior to the initia- tion of construction, including a requirement to contract with the United States to repay a portion of the cost allocated to water supply on the basis of initial requirements, amounting to 5.8 percent of the construction cost. Negotiations for a contract for initial water supply have bet)n in progress with the State of Maryland, and the State enacted certain legislation in 1967 empow- ering its Department of Water Resources to enter into water supply contracts. It is understood, however, that this legis.lation is not regarded by State officials to be a suitable and appropriate basis for a water supply contract with the Federal Government on the Bloomington project, and further State legislation is considered necessary. The timetable for this legislation is not known and, ac- cordingly, an anticipated date for execution of a water supply contract with the State of Maryland cannot be furnished. There is presently a strip mine operation on the left bank of the reservoir, which is now approaching the left abutment of a dike which will be part of the impounding structures. The coal being mined is the Bakerstown seam which appears at elevation 1,480 to 1.490 in this area. The operation consists of benching into the hillside to strip mine this coal until the exposed face is approximately 80 feet hic;h, then 24-inch flight augers are used on 30-34-inch centers to mine an additional 150 feet into the hillside. The present mining operations if con- tinued will damage the selected spillway site, and the site of a dike between the spillway and high ground, and result in sloughing of spoil into the reservoir. The sloughing of spoil from the strip mining operation will also cause damage to the area of the proposed relocation of the Western Maryland Railway. In addi- tion, the casting of the spoil downhill from the relocated railroad alinement will reduce the storage capacity of the reservoir and increase acid pollution of the waters of the reservoir. The area required for the project that can be affected by the present strip mining operation is estimated at 2,000 acres. Continuation of the present strip mining in this area of the dike will increase project costs approximately $800,000 for reclaiming, with additional costs for reclaiming in the spillway area and removal of spoil material from the railroad alinement. Continuinii efforts to persuade the landowner to curtail his mining activities have been of no avail. This matter was the subject of a long conference between the district engineer and the owner on March 4, 1968, with negative results. 1230 Therefore, immediate possession is necessary to prevent further increases in the construction cost and scarring of the rugged natural beauty of the area. Funds in the amount of $1 million were allocated in fiscal year 1968 for the initiation of land acquisition and for engineering and design. The President's budget for fiscal year 1969 includes $800,000 to continue land acquisition and engineering and design. As noted heretofore, the project authorization provides for certain conditions of local cooperation to be satisfied prior to construction of the project. In accordance with instructions received from the staff of the House Appropriations Committee, we have been proceeding on the basis that the same limitations apply with respect to funds appropriated for advance land acquisition. In view of the circumstances surrounding this particular case, however, I believe sufficient justification exists for an exception to be taken with respect to the prohibition against expending funds for advance land acquisition. I propose, therefore, with your approval, to recommend to the Secretary of the Army that a complaint in condemnation be filed to take immediate posses- sion of the 2,600 acres of land lying generally along the left bank of the Potomac River. While a detail appraisal has not been made of this land, an informal estimate indicates the value may be in the order of $225,000. Funds are available to cover this requirement. Subsequent to the filing of the condemnation pro- ceeding, immediate action will be taken to consummate the acquisition. Your concurrence in this proposal is urgently requested. Sincerely yours, H. G. WOODBUET, Jr., Brigadier General, V.8. Army, Director of Civil Works. COMMITTEE APPROVAL Mr. Morris. Unless there is objection, the committee will authorize you to go ahead with not to exceed $250,000 for the acquisition of this land. Is there objection? (No response.) Mr. Morris. Hearing no objection, the unanimous-consent request is agreed to and the authorization is granted. I want to point out to you that this is an exception that is granted by the committee and is not to be construed in any manner as a prece- dent in any other project. I am sure that you understand that. General Koisch. Yes, sir. REIMBURSEMENT FOR WATER SUPPLY Mr. Morris. Could you tell us what the status of local cooperation is in connection with the reimbursement of the water supply cost? General Koiscii. Some water supply storage in the reservoir is to be used by Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia; how- ever, most of the supply will go to the State of Maryland. Last year there was legislation passed in Maryland which authorized one of their representatives to contract with us for the water supply. It turned out that his counsel advised him not to use that authority because he did not have any money with it. Under the State of Maryland laws it didn't appear he could sign such a contract. Tliis year the State has under consideration a bill in which it is believed that the deficiencies of the legislation of last year has been overcome. 1231 ELIZABETH, N.J. Mr. Morris. $300,000 is requested to initiate construction of the Elizabeth, N.J., local protection project. (The justification follows:) Elizabeth, N,J. (Initiate construction) Location. — The project is located in the city of Elizabeth, N.J. (Union County), and it extends 4.2 miles upstream from the mouth of the Elizabeth River at Arthur Kill. The river continues 7.7 more miles northvi-ard through Union and Essex counties to its headwaters in East Orange, N.J. Authorization. — Flood Control Act of 1965. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost... - $n, 400, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 2,800,000 Cash contribution 640,000 Other.. 2,160,000 Total estimated project cost 14,200,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 220,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 280,000 Allocation to date 500,000 Appropriation requested for fiscalyear 1969 300,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 10,600,000 PHYSICAL DATA Railroads and bridges: Reconstruct Pennsylvania Railroad bridge and regrade associated siding and street. Channels and canals: Channel improvement 2.5 miles. Levees and fioodv/alls: Levees, 3.4 miles; floodwalls, 1.7 miles; concrete flume, 1.4 miles. Pumping plants: Five pumping stations with 11 pounding areas. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Railroads and bridges December 1972. Channels and canals March 1973. Levees and floodwalls June 1973. Pumping plants. Do. Entire project 0) Do. > Not started. JUSTIFICATION Flooding occurs primarily along the Elizabeth River between North Avenue, and Arthur Kill. It results from inadequate channel capacity tidal backwater, or a combination of these factors. Major damaging floods to the extensively developed vu-ban lands adjoining the river resulted from the storms of September 1960, August 1955, September 1954, November 1950, July 1938, October 1903, July 1897, and September 1966. Serious flooding also occurred in July 1967. A recurrence of the 1897 flood (maximum flood of record) could cause damages estimated at $4,370,000. The September 1960 flood, which had the highest tide stage (9 feet 91-459— 68— pt. 1- 1232 above mean sea level), caused damages amounting to $1,320,000. Several deaths were also attributed to flooding. Damages from the SeptemlDer 1966 flood were estimated at $2,290,000 and the city was declared a disaster area. The proposed improvement would provide protection upstream of West Grand Street against a fluvial flood of 5,900 cubic feet per second, the flow being about 13 percent greater than the estimated maximum flood of record. Downstream, protection would be provided against hvu-ricane tidal flooding of 11.6 feet above mean sea level, as well as coincidental fluvial design discharge. Average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $784,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $300,000 will be applied to — Initiate reconstruction of railroad bridge $100, 000 Engineering and design 150, 000 Supervision and administration 50, 000 Total 300, 000 Non-Federal cost. — Prior to construction, local interests must furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will (a) provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for con- struction of the project, the costs and values incurred in the interest of hurricane tidal flood protection to be credited to the required local contribution to the project first cost allocated to hurricane tidal flood protection; (6) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (c) maintain and operate all the works after completion including all dredging required in the channel to maintain the design depths in the tidal reach, in accordance with regulations proscribed by the Secretary of the Army; (d) reconstruct without cost to the United States all bridges and approaches except railroad bridges, and accomplish without cost to the United States all alterations and relocations of existing sewerage and drainage facilities, streets, utilities, and other structures made necessary by the construction, such costs and values incurred in the interest of hurricane tidal flood protection to be credited to the required local contribution to the project first costs allocated to hurricane tidal flood protection; (e) bear 30 percent of the first costs allocated to hurricane flood protection, including the items listed in subparagraphs (a) and (d) above, and a cash contribution pres- ently estimated at $640,000 to be paid either in a hunp sum prior to initiation of construction, or in installments prior to commencement of pertinent work items in accordance with construction schedules as required by the Chief of Engineers; (/) take necessary action to protect the channels from future obstruction or encroachment including waste disposal that would reduce their flood-carrying capacity; (g) take appropriate measures to control development in partially protected areas and fringe areas not included in the project with a veiw to pre- venting an undue increase in the flood damage potential; (/;) maintain the existing natural detention areas along the Elizabeth River between Union Avenue and Trotters Lane free from encroachment so as not to reduce their current deten- tion capacity; (i) provide any additional gravity outlets or pumping station capacities made necessary by any modifications or encroachments on the ponding areas; (j) bear any increased Federal costs for the improvement that may result from any subsequent requirements for parkway developments; and (k) at least annually notify interests affected that the improvements will not provide complete protection from fluvial floods greater than that which occurred in July 1897. The estimated costs to local interests are — Cash contril)ution $640, 000 Lands and damages 950, 000 Relocations 13.5, 000 Roads, bridges 1, 07.5, 000 Total 2, 800, 000 The estimated annual cost to local interests for maintenance is $95,000. Status of local cooperation. — The mayor of the city of Elizabeth stated in a letter dated P'(;bniary 18, 1964, that the city is able and willing to furnish assurances of local cooperation. Formal assurances will be requested when planning has pro- gressed sufficiently to provide necessary details on project plans and non-Federal requirements. Comparison of Federal cost estimates.- — The current Federal cost estimate of $11,400,000 is an increase of $600,000 over the latest estimate ($10,800,000) submitted to Congress. The change is due entirely to price level increases. Major design changes since project authorization. — None. 1233 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Railroads and bridges $565,000... $100,000 $465,000 Channelsand canals 1,440,000 1,440,000 Levees and floodwalls 7,960,000 7.960,000 Pumping plants 385,000 385,000 Engineering and design i820,000 $190,700 $252,500 150,000 226,800 Supervision and administration 870,000 16,700 40,100 50,000 763,200 Total applied costs (Federal funds and non-Federal cash contributions) 12,040,000 207,400 292,600 300,000 11,240,000 Undistributed costs - Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal cash contributions) 12,040,000 207,400 292,600 300,000 11,240,000 Pending adjustments -- - Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal cash contributions) 12,040,000 207,400 292,600 300,000 11,240,000 Federal funds: Total Federal cost 11,400,000 207,400 292,600 300,000 10,600,000 Non-Federal contribution: Total non- Federal cash contribution 640,000 640,000 Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal cash contributions) 12,040,000 207,400 292,600 300,000 11,240,000 Undelivered orders - - Total obligations (Federal funds and non- Federal cash contributions) 12,040,000 207,400 292,600 300,000 11,240,000 Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations 220,000 280,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year - 12,600 Total funds available for obliga- tion - 292,600 Appropriations required - 300,000 10,600,000 Non-Federal contributions: Contributions -- - -- -- Unobligated carryover from prior year.. ..-. - - 640,000 Total funds available for obliga- tion _ - 640,000 Contributions required... 640,000 'Includes an estimated real estate cost of $6,000 for checking local interests compliance. Mr. Morris. Please describe this new start. General Koisch. The plan of improvement provides for 5.1 miles of levees and floodwalls with 2.5 miles of channel improvement and 1.4 miles of concrete flume along the Elizabeth River in the city of Elizabeth, N.J. LOCAL COOPERATION Mr. Morris. What is the status of the local cooperation on the project? General Koisch. Several coordinating meetings have been held with the local officials and the railroad representatives to insure that the project plan will be accef)table. Our planning should be sufficiently advanced so that the assurances of local cooperation can be requested by June of this year. No problems are anticipated. NICHOLS, N.Y. Mr. Morris. $610,000 is requested for the Nichols, N.Y., local pro- tection project. (The justification follows:) 1234 Nichols, N.Y. (Continuation) Location. — The project is located in Tioga County, N.Y., at the junction of Wappasening Creek and the Susquehanna River about 16 miles upstream from the mouth of the Chemung River. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). $1,320,000 Estimated non-Federal cost -.. 270,000 Cash contributions Other _ -.-- 270,000 Total estimated project cost - 1,590,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967.... 305,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 55,000 Allocation to date 360,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 610,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 350,000 PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Length: 9,700 feet. Average height: 14 feet. Drainage structures: 84-inch diameter pipe — 1. 30-inch diameter pipe — 1. Diversion structure: 90-inch diameter pipe — 1. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: Entire project, December 1969. JUSTIFICATION The project is necessary for the protection of Nichols from flooding on the Susquehanna River and Wappasening Creek, and is an integral part of the comprehensive plan for flood control in Southern New York. The project fits well into the plan of comprehensive study of the entire Susquehanna River Basin. Major floods occurred at Nichols, N.Y., in July 1935, March 1936, April 1940, December 1942, and May 1946. Lesser flooding occurs frequently. Four lives have been lost in the community due to floods. A recurrence of the record flood of March 1936 would result in estimated losses to the community of about $600,000. About 46 percent of the damages would be residential, with the balance involving commercial, industrial, public, and utility losses. Early completion of the local protection project is essential to eliminate repetition of past experience. In the most recent flood of March 1964, it is estimated that damages in the amount of $100,000 would have been prevented had this project been in operation. The project is located in Tioga County, N.Y., in the Appalachian Region as defined by section 403 of the Regional Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-4). Average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $78,500. Fiscal year 1969. — The amount of $610,000 will be applied to— Continue construction of levees $575, 000 Engineering and design 3, 000 Supervision and administration 32, 000 Total 610,000 The requested amount is the minimum required for orderly continuation of construction with completion in fiscal year 1970. 1235 Non-Federal cost. — The investment required of local interests in construction of the authorized project is estimated at $270,000, broken down as follows: Lands $210, 000 Relocation of roads and utilities 60, 000 Total 270, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon com- pletion. The annual cost of maintenance and operation is estimated to be $3,300. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation executed by the New York Department of Public Works on January 25, 1967, were accepted by the district engineer on March 2, 1967. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,320,000 is the same as last submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Levee and floodwalls $1,045,000 $137,000 $575,000 $333,000 Engineering and design. _ 200,000 $128,000 67,000 3,000 2,000 Supervision and administration 75,000 10,700 17,300 32,000 15,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 1,320,000 138,700 221,300 610,000 350,000 Undistributed cost- Total project cost (Federal funds only) 138,700 221,300 610,000 350,000 Pending adjustments _ _ Total cost (Federal funds only) 138,700 221,300 610,000 350,000 Undelivered orders 117,000 -117,000 Total obligations (Federal funds only). 255,700 104,300 610,000 350,000 Method of financing: Allocation 305,000 55,000 Unobligated carryover from prior Vear._ 49,300 Total funds available for obligation 104,300 Appropriation required 610,000 350,000 Mr. Morris. Last year our committee stated in its report that it expected tlie corps not to proceed with the project until it was assured tliat whatever seepage problem exists has been solved. What can you now report in this regard ? General Koisch. Tlie project plan has been reviewed and we are assured that the project plans make satisfactory provisions for antici- pated underseepage. The eastbound lane of the southern tier express- way will include an impervious core and along the Wappasening Creek will include suitable landside berms and toe drainage facilities to con- trol seepage in those areas. Mr. jSIorris. When is it now planned to initiate construotion on the project? General Koisch. June of this year. BLUE MARSH RESERVOIR, PA. Mr. Morris. $1,650,000 is budgeted to initiate land acquisition on the Blue Marsh Reservoir in Pennsylvania. (The justihcation follows:) 1236 Blue Marsh Reservoir, Pa. .1, (New land acquisition) Location. — The project site is located on Tulpehocken Creek, a tributary of SchuylkUl River, about 6 miles northwest of Reading in Berks County, Pa. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement .-. ' $22,000,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 9,500,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 12,500,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 12,780,000 Reimbursement: Water supply 9, 500,000 Other: recreational 3,280,000 Total estimated project cost 25,280,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 642,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 275,000 Allocation to date 917,000 4 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1,650,000 12 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 19,433,000 ' Total project cost. The fiscal year 1969 budget provides for initiation of land acquisition and engineering and design only. PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earth and rock fill. Height: 98 feet. Length: 1,775 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 32, 390 Water supply and recreation 14, 620 Inactive--.- 3,000 Total ^_'_.__ 50,010 Spillway: "" '''^X'^'f Type: Uncontrolled. Design capacity: 70,100 cubic feet per second. Relocation: Roads (10.6 miles), $3,835,000. Utility and oil lines, $1,165,000. Lands and damages: Acres: 5,576. Type: Agricultural, residential, recreational. Improvements: Residences, vacation cottages, farm buildings. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule. — Land acquisition: December 1970. Other features of the project not definitely scheduled. JUSTIFICATION This reservoir, located in the upper portion of the Schuylkill River subbasin, the largest division of the Delaware River Basin, will provide benefits for flood control, water supply, and recreation. The reservoir will control the runoff from a drainage area of 175 square miles. The flood control storage will contribute to flood-stage reductions at the principal damage centers on the Schuylkill River be- tween Reading and Philadelphia, Pa., including Birdsboro, Pottstown, Norristown, Conshohocken, and Maiiayunk. Combined operation of storage allocated to flood control at the Blue ^larsh and Maiden Creek projects in the Schuylkill River Basin will result in a flood-stage reduction of about 4.5 feet at Reading and about 3 feet at Pottstown for a flood similar to that experienced in 1955. Approximately 14,600 acre-feet of long-term storage at Blue Marsh Reservoir, together with the authorized Maiden Creek Reservoir storage, will provide for 1237 sufficient augmentation of streamflow to satisfy water supply needs of the Potts- town- Reading area and also will contribute to satisfying the needs of the Phila- delphia area. Blue ]\Iarsh Reservoir will provider a recreation capacity to accommodate 263,000 visitors annually. The recreatioTi facilities to be constructed by local interests will increase this capacity to 437,000 visitors. Operation of the project will consider the downstream flow requirements for stream fisheries and manage- ment of the impounded water for lake fisheries as a coordinated element for full realization of the recreational potential of the project. The average annual b(mefits are $1,626,000 broken down as follows: Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $3S2, 000 Supplies of water 775, 000 Recreation — directlv related 434, 000 Fish and wildlife__l 35, 000 Total 1, 626, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,650,000 will be applied to: Initiation of land acquisition $1, 100, 000 Engineering and design 500, 000 Supervision and administration 50, 000 Total 1, 650, 000 The fiscal year 1969 funds are for initiation of land acquisition and for continu- ation of engineering and design. Non-Federal costs. — Under the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, local interests are required to reimburse the Government for the costs allocated to water supply. These costs are presently estimated to be $9,500,- 000. In addition, construction of indirectly related recreation facilities by local interests involves an estimated cost of $3,280,000. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local cooperation are required from both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Delaware River Basin Com- mission. The Commonwealth has furnished their portion of assurances. The Delaware River Basin Commission, created under the provisions of Public Law 87-328, approved September 27, 1961, is expected to facilitate the fulfillment of the local cooperation requirements. The Commission has adopted a plan for improvement of the Delaware River Basin which includes Blue Marsh Reservoir. Action has been initiated to obtain required assiu-ances from the Delaware River Basin Commission and timely receipt is expected. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $22 million is an increase of $6,400,000 over the latest estimate ($15,600,000) submit- ted to Congress. Changes due to price level increases total $821,000. Design changes involving relocated damsite, increased height of dam and spillway, and application of current design criteria resulted in a net increase of $3,266,000; levees and pumping plants for protection of the town of Bernville added $1,285,000 and Government costs increased $1,028,000 due to the increased construction volume. Major design changes since project authorization. — Unsatisfactory rock founda- tion at the project document site required relocation of the dam approximately 2,500 feet upstream. Detailed surveys and design studies determined that an in- crease in the spillway crest elevation of 4 feet was required in order to provide maximum site development and optimized benefits. Inadequacies of the document plan for flood protection of the town of Bernville at the upper end of the reservoir required substantial changes. Recent changes in highway design standards involved significant re\-isions from earlier criteria for relocations. 1238 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS (PB-1) FISCAL YEARS 1967 AND 1968 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Lands and damages $6,300,000 5, 000, 000 625, 000 3, 700, 000 10, 000 140,000 675, 000 725,000 1, 800, 000 170,000 55, 000 1,750,000 1,050,000 Relocations- Reservoirs Dams..- Fish and wildlife facilities Roads Levees Pumping plants.- Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds and utilities-. Permanent operating equipment. Engineering and design- -. Supervision and administration.. Total applied cost 22,000,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost - 22,000,000 Pending adjustments Total cost 22,000,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations.-- Method of financing: Allocation Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations Appropriations required $11,200 581,200 46, 000 638, 400 $38, 800 221,300 19,000 $1,100,000 500, 000 50, 000 638, 400 279, 100 638, 400 500 638, 400 642, 500 279, 100 -500 278, 600 275, 000 3,600 278, 600 $5,150,000 5, 000, 000 625, 000 3, 700, 000 10,000 140,000 675, 000 725, 000 1,800,000 170,000 55, 000 447, 500 935, 000 279,100 1,650,000 19,432,500 1,650,000 19,432,500 'i,"656,'66o i9,'432,'566 'i,'656,"660 i9,'432,"550 1,650,000 19,432,500 Mr. Morris. Please describe this project. General Koisch. The project provides for the construction of a dam and reservoir on Tulpehocken Creek about 6 miles above the confluence with the Schuylkill River at Reading, Pa. The project will provide for flood control, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits amomiting to $1,626,000 annually. URGENCY OF LAND ACQUISITION Mr. Morris. "Wliat is the urgency for undertaking advanced land acquisition in this project? General Koisch. Early acquisition is necessary to give ample time for affected property owners to relocate and to reduce the impact of the continuing increase in land values upon the cost of the project. Advance acquisition of land will assure an earlier start when con- struction is authorized. COST or LAND ACQUISITION Mr. Morris. What is the basis for the estimate of $1,650,000 for 1969, and what type of property will be acquired first? General Koiscii. May I supply that for the record? Mr. Morris. Yes ; you may. General Koiscii. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) The requosted amount of $1,650,000 will be applied as follows: $1,100,000 for initiation of land acquisition, .$.500,000 for continuation of engineering and design, and $.50,000 for supervision and administration. The proposed land acquisition in fiscal year 1009 will involve about 1.6.50 acres of which 620 acres would be for the construction site and the remainder in the reservoir area. The area is typically rural, predominately farmland with woodlots and some 1239 orchards. Within the reservoir area to be acquired there is one subdivision which includes about 25 houses and another with two or three houses in the process of being developed. ASSURANCES FOR WATER SUPPLY Mr. Morris. Could you outline for the committee the required local cooperation on the project? Tell us the status of it and with particu- lar emphasis on the Delaware River Basin Commission. General Koisch. The general assurances for water supply reim- bursement from the Delaware River Basin Commission were fur- nished on December 29, 1964, along with those for Tocks Island and Beltzville. A more recent request for specific assurances on Blue Marsh has not yet been acted on. The reply from the Delaware River Basin Commission is not anticipated pending completion of its study of overall basin requirements and resources. In a report furnished us by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in January 1968, they predicted by the year 2020 more than 3 million acre-feet of storage will be required in the Schuyl- kill River Basin to maintain water quality. Since the indicated need for water supply for Blue Marsh Reservoir is only 8,000 acre-feet, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has recommended that the remainder of the 14,620 acre-feet of proposed storage for water supply be allocated to water quality. This report is currently under review and some adjustment may be desirable. COST SHARING Mr. Morris. I might point out for the record that from the informa- tion supplied in the justification sheet, it appears that the local inter- ests are paying for their part of the recreation costs on this project as contrasted to the Tocks Island project. Do I misinterpret the infor- mation ? General Koisch. No, sir ; that is correct. COST INCREASE Mr. Morris. Please explain your sizable cost increase of $6,400,000 since the submission of the latest estimate to Congress. General Koisch. This increase is composed of $821,000 for a rise in price level ; $3,266,000 for design changes involving a relocated dam- site, increased height of dam and spillway, and application of current design criteria; $1,285,000 for levees and pumping plants for the pro- tection of the town of Bernville; and $1,028,000 for increased Govern- ment costs. GATHRIGHT RESERVOIR, VA. Mr. Morris. $3 million is budgeted to continue construction of the Gathright Reservoir in Virginia. (The justification follows :) 1240 Gathright Reservoir, Va. ' (Continuing) Location. — On the Jackson River, a tributary of the James River, 19 miles upstream from Covington, Va. Reservoir in Alleghany and Bath Counties^ Va. Anthorization. — 1946 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. ) SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost - $21,400,000 Estimated non-Federal cost _ Total estimated project cost - 21,400,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967.. 1,800,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968... - 1,290,000 Allocation to date 3,090,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 3,000,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 15,310,000 PHYSICAL D.AT.\ Dam: Type: Earth and rockfill. Height: 257 feet above streambed. Length: 1,170 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 354, 100 Water quality control 60, 700 Dead storage 63, 000 Total 477.800 Spillway: Tj'pe, uncontrolled saddle. Outlet tunnel: Diameter: 17^2 feet. Design capacity: 22,200 cubic feet per second (pool at spillway crest). Lands and damages: Acreage to be acquired: 11,300 acres. Type: About 90 percent woodland and 10 percent cropland and pasture. Improvements: 8 farm dwelling units, 1 church, 1 commercial building, 10 summer cottages and hunting camps. Relocations: Roads: Approximately 10 miles, $932,000. Cemeteries: Approximately 140 graves, $42,000. LTtilities: Approximately 9 miles of powerlines and 5 miles of telephone lines to be abandoned, $24,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages -- 18 December 1971. Relocations December 1972. Dam - 5 Do. Roads - -.- Do. Entire project... 9 Do. JUSTIFICATION Average annual flood damages along the Jackson and James Rivers from the dam downstream to Scottsville, Va., are estimated at $730,000. Project would eliminate about 95 percent of the average annual damages to industrial, com- 1241 mercial, and residential properties at Covington, Va. Between Covington on Jackson River and Lynchburg on upper James River, project would rediice the average annual future flood damage 60 percent at such urban areas as Cliftori Forge. Iron Gate, Eagle Rock, and Buchanan, and in rural areas m this general vicinity. At Lynchburg, the reduction would be nearly 35 percent, and nearly 20 percent as far "downstream as Scottsville. , The increase in low water discharge to be afforded by the project would be an important part of a program for water quality control in the Jackson and James Rivers. Together with a program of secondary waste treatment and other meas- ures aimed at reducing the large pollution load present in the streams, the flow regulation by Gathright Reservoir would maintain the dissolved oxygen at an objective level and thereby increase the usefulness of the Jackson and James Rivers to many counties and communities. The benefits would be widespread, affecting some one-half million persons, with greater benefits occurring near popu- lation or industrial centers. Flow regulation by Gathright is the most practical method of improving water quality beyond the level expected to be achieved by adequate treatment of wastes. The project is located in the rugged and forested Appalachian Mountains, i he scenic topography of the lands adjoining the reservoir and the reservoir itself would provide ample areas for water sports, fishing, swimming, camping, and picnicking. Thus, substantial benefits would accrue to the project from public use of the area. The annual attendance is estimated to reach 300,000 persons within 5 years after project completion and 400,000 persons within 15 years. ^ The project is located in the depressed area designated as "Appalachia. Con- struction and operation of the project would provide employment and contribute generally to economic improvement of the area. Average annual benefits are estimated as follows — Flood control ^370, 000 Water quality control ^^f- Xnn Recreation ??' onn Area redevelopment '^' ""^ Total 1. 324, 000 Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $3,000,000 will be applied to — Continue land acquisition $420, 000 Initiate continuing contract for diversion and outlet tunnel and control tower - 2, 000, 000 Initiate and complete contract for grading and temporary surfacing of access road to top of dam 11||> ^||J| Engineering and design t"^^' ^^^ Supervision and administration l-^^i *JUO Total 3, 000, 000 Non-Federal cost. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $21,400,000 is a net increase of $4,100,000 over the latest estimate ($17,300,000) submitted to Congress. The change includes increases of $640,000 for a price level rise: $SS,000 for lands based on recent reappraisal; $126,000 for additional work on road relocations necessitated by a change in spillway location; $487,000 on recreation facilities based on advancement in planning and upgrading of facilities; $2,399,000 on the dam and appurtenances due to more detailed design and receipt of bids for the initial phase of construction; $380,000 for increased engineer- ing and design for additional work associated with design changes; and $124,000 for supervision and administration due to a reanalysis of requirements. These increases are partially offset by cost decreases of $23,000 for roads; $83,000 for buildings, grounds, utilities; and $38,000 for permanent operating equipment. 1242 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages. $937,000 $99,800 $130,200 $420,000 $287,000 Relocations. 998,000 998,000 Reservoirs 498,000 498,000 Dams 12,761,000 1,463,000 2,000,000 9,298,000 Roads 384,000.. 110,000 274,000 Recreation facilities. 2,235,000 2,235,000 Buildings, grounds and utilities 66,000 66,000 Permanent operating equipment 267,000 267,000 Engineering and design 1,890,000 889,500 315,500 280,000 405,000 Supervision and administration 1,364,000 61,800 130,200 190,000 982,000 Total applied cost 21,400,000 1,051,100 2,038,900 3,000,000 15,310,000 Undistributed costs. Total project cost.. 21,400,000 1,051,100 2,038,900 3,000,000 15,310,000 Pending adjustments Total cost 21,400,000 1,051,100 2,038,900 3,000,000 15,310,000 Undelivered orders 405,200 -405,200 Total obligations 21,400,000 1,456,300 1,633,700 3,000,000 15,310,000 Method of financing: Allocation--- 1,800.000 1,290,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year -- 343,700 Total funds available for obligation. 1,633,700 Appropriations required 3,000,000 15,310,000 Mr. Morris. There is a net cost increase on this project of $4,100,000 since last year, about 25 percent of the total cost of the project, inchid- in^ $2,399,000 on the dam. What has caused this sizable increase in the dam costs ? General Koisch. $2,399,000 of tlie increase is attributable to more detailed design of the dam and receipt of bids on the initial phase of construction ; $126,000 is for relocations necessitated by the change in the spilhvay location; $487,000 is based on advancement in planning and upgrading of recreation facilities to meet our current standards; $504,000 for Government costs as a result of the design clianges and reevaluation. The remaining increase of $584,000, is a result of price level rise and revision of minor items as a consequence of advanced design. STATUS OF BOILING SPRINGS ROD AND GUN CLUB PROPERTY Mr. Morris. What is the status of the problem involving the Boiling Springs Rod and Gun Club as outlined in the Senate report for fiscal year 1967 ? General Koisch. The rod and gun club property is located in the extreme backwater reaches of the Jackson Eiver. A firm determina- tion of taking lines has not yet been made. However, in this area it appears we will be able to deal witli them on the basis of acquiring easements and we are anticipating no difficulty. Mr. Morris. We will insert the remaining justifications under con- struction. 1243 Baltimore Harbor and Channels, Maryland (Continuing) Locations. — Baltimore Harbor is situated at the head of the navigable portion of the Patapsco River, approximately 172 miles from the entrance to Chesapeake Bay at the Virginia Capes. Authorization. — 1958 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 4.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount pwcent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corp of Engineers) $22,900,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 60,000 Estimated non-Federal cost > 250,000 Cash contributions Other --- 250,000 Total estimated project cost 23,210,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 19,506,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1958 Allocation to date. 19,506,000 85 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 1,060,000 90 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 2,334,000 1 In addition, local interests propose to spend $3,990,000 for deepening the Northwest Branch Channel and approaches to wharves. PHYSICAL DATA Channels : Main ship channels: Cape Henry, and York Spit sections, 42 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide. Rappahannock Shoal: 42 feet deep and 800 feet wide, a total of 14.8 miles long. Main ship channel: Craighill entrance to Fort McHenry, 42 feet deep, 800 feet wide and 19.9 miles long. Curtis Bay and Ferry Bar branch channels: 42 feet deep, 600 feet wide, and 3.6 miles long. Connecting and approach channels to C. & D. Canal: 35 feet deep, 600 feet wide and 13 miles long. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Cape Henry and Rappahannock Shoal Channels 100 January 1964. York Spit Channel 100 February 1967. Craighill Entrance Channel through Brewerton-Fort WlcHenry angle.. 100 March 1965. Ferry Bar, Curtis Bay, and Fort McHenry Channels 100 December 1965. Approach and Connecting Channels to C. & D. Canal June 1970. Entire project 83 Do. JUSTIFICATION Baltimore Harbor is a major seaport serving the east coast of the United States. It is equipped with excellent cargo handling facilities, and well served by railroads which connect the city with the interior of the United States. It is the east coast port nearest to the interior industrial centers. The port includes among its many industries the world's largest tidewater steel plant. Waterborne commerce through the port averaged about 44 million tons annually for the period 1957 through 1966. In 1966, commerce totaled 43.8 million tons. A large part of the commerce at the port is from foreign trade and a very high percentage consists of bulk commodities, principally metal ores and petroleum products. These products are moved most efficiently in large carriers and the trend toward supercarriers is clearly evident in the port of Baltimore. Smaller vessels are rapidly being replaced by larger more efficient ships. The major portion of the channel improvement has already been effected. It is essential in the interest of 1244 safe operations that the entire project be completed as soon as possible. The benefits to be derived from the improvement will result from the use of fully loaded supercarriers and supertankers in the main channel and from an increase in tonnage moved over the connecting channel to the approach to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. The average annual navigation benefits are estimated at $3,990,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,060,000 will be applied to the following items: Continue dredging the connecting channel and approach channel to C. & D. Canal $1, 000, 000 Engineering and design s, 000 Supervision and administration 52, 000 Total 1, 060, 000 COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS, MD. Work completed under previous authority consists of a main ship channel, 39 feet deep and generally 600 feet wide from 39-foot depth in Chesapeake Bay op- posite the mouth of Magothy River to Fort McHenry; channel 39 feet deep and 1,000 feet wide in Chesapeake Bay opposite York Spit; branch channels 35 feet deep and 400 feet wide in Ferry Bar and Curtis Bay; a connecting channel to C. & D. Canal apjjroaches, 27 feet deep and 400 feet wide, and foiu- anchorages, Riverview No. 1, 4,500 feet long, 1,500 feet wide, 35 feet deep; Riverview No. 2, 2,400 feet long, 1,200 feet wide, and 30 feet deep; Fort McHenry, 3,500 feet long, 400 feet wide, and 35 feet deep; and Quarantine, 3,500 feet long, 600 feet wide, and 35 feet deep. The cost of this completed work was $8,329,000. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests have provided rights-of-way for spoil dis- posal near Hawkins Point including adjoining submerged land. The cost of ac- quiring these rights-of-way and relocating underwater utilities was $250,000. This is a net cost which takes into account the future resale value of the reclaimed land. Local interests are exjjected to expend about $3,990,000 for dredging approaches to wharves and for dredging in the northwest branch in order to accommodate the deeper draft vessels which will use the main harbor channels. Costs of about $1 million were also incurred in complying with the terms of local cooperation for work accomplished on prior modifications of the project. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of compliance with the requirements of local cooperation were accepted on March 16, 1961. The State of Maryland has furnished the required local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $22,900,000 is the same as last submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, tiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal vear 1959 ■ (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) "l 1958 River and Harbor Act (H.D. 86/85/1) Channels $20,660,000 $17,060,000 $1,385,000 $2,215,000 Engineering and design. .._ 610,000 567.300 $30,700 8,000 4,000 Supervision and administration 1,630,000 1,428,400 9.600 77.000 115,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 22,900,000 19,055,700 40.300 1.470,000 2.334,000 Undistributed costs.. _ - . Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 22,900,000 19,055,700 40,300 1,470,000 2,334,000 Pending adjustments. _ . . - Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 22,900,000 19,055,700 40,300 1,470,000 2,334,000 Undelivered orders . . 1,000 -1,000 Total obligations (Corps of Engineers fundsonly) 19,056,700 39,300 1,470,000 2.334,000 Mettiod oi fmancing: Allocation 19,506,000 Unobligated carryover from prior i "^ .. r. 'i-.)!l" year -...■::-..;....■..'.•..■ 449,300 410,000 Total funds available for obligation '. 449,300 410,000 Appropriations required 1,060,000 2,334,000 1245 Great Lakes to Hudson River Waterway, N.Y. (Continuing) ' Location. — This waterway consists of that portion of the New York State barge canal system extending from the Hudson River at Waterford to Oswego Harbor, N.Y., on Lake Ontario, and is usually referred to as the Erie and Oswego Canals. Its length is 184 miles. Authorization. — 1935 River and Harbor Act (amended by Public Law .S7-874 and Public Law 89-42) ; 1945 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio.— 1935 Act, 3.2 to 1; 1945 Act, 5.6 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA I.;a: Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost .-. ___ i $34, 100,000 Estimated non-Federal cost... .._ 230,000 Cash contribution Other costs.-- 230,000 Total estimated project cost. 34,330 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 30,355,000 -.. Allocation for fiscal year 1968 - 1,860,000 Allocation to date - -- - 32,215,000 94 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 1,885,000 100 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 • Includes $32,708,000 for work under the 1935 act. Estimated expenditures through fiscal year 1968 under this act are $30,823,000. PHYSICAL DATA Relocations: Increase overhead clearances of structures to 20 feet, $10,170,000. Canals: Deepening between locks 14 feet including bank revetment. Locks: Increase depth of all locks between Waterford and Oswego from 12 to 13 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Complete schedule Relocations: Increasing overhead clearances 78 Fiscal year 1969. Canals: Deepening between locks to 14 feet 100 Fiscal year 1968. Locks: Deepening through locks to 13 feet (1945 act) 100 June 1964, Entire project -- 89 Fiscal year 1969. JUSTIFICATION This waterway is one of national importance to commercial navigation. It pro- vides a navigable connection between the Atlantic seaboard and the Great Lakes area for the movement of commodities vital to the national and local economy. Many large plants are located on and receive shipments via the canal system, among which are the Genei-al Electric Co. and the Alco Products Co. at Schenec- tady and the Solway Process Co. at Syracuse. Much of the petroleum fuel and other petroleum products utilized by communities and industries in central and northern New York and the eastern Great Lakes area are transported over this waterway. The State Barge Canal serves the important industrial cities of Schenectady, Utica, Rome, Syracuse, and Oswego. An estimated 3,271,000 tons of traffic moved over the New York State barge canal system during the 1965 season. Of this total movement, the authorized project waterway accounted for 1,846,000 tons. Traffic consists largely of petro- leum products, scrap iron, steel products, chemicals, fertilizers, and agricultural products. Shipping interests variously estimate that the loads carried by vessels can be increased 16 to 18 percent as a result of the 1-foot increase in draft made possible by increasing the depths through locks to 13 feet. The average annual navigation benefits are estimated at $405,000. 1246 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,885,000 will be applied to — Reimbvirse State bv making final payments for work performed on bridges 0-13, 0-14, E-34, E-65; and for Erie Canal bank protection. $1, 780, 000 Supervision and administration 105, 000 Total 1,885,000 Funds requested provide for completion of reimbursement to the State for all remaining work under the project authorization. Non-Federal costs. — The cost to local interests in complying with the require- ments of local cooperation for the 1945 R. & H. Act for deepening through locks from Waterford to Oswego is estimated at $230,000 for engineering, supervision and administration, incurred by the State of New York in connection with con- struction of the project modification. In addition, prior to the l^eginning of the New York State barge canal improve- ment in 1905, the State of New York expended approximately $115 million for the construction, care, and maintenance of the Erie Canal. From 1905 to June 30, 1936, the cost of construction of the improved barge canal system and terminals, borne by the State, totaled about $180 million. Annual maintenance of the improved system averages $3,750,000. Status of local cooperation. — The requirements of local cooperation are being complied with. An agreement between the Chief of Engineers and the Department of Public Works, State of New York, adopted June 21, 1935, modified on March 30, 1936, and further supplemented on June 5, 1947 (for the 1945 modification) contains all provisions necessary for efficient prosecution of the improvement. In complying with this agreement, the State has submitted detailed plans and specifications for review and approval by the Federal Government. All plans have been completed and approved. All contracts have been awarded and approved. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $34,100,000 is a decrease of $750,000 from the latest estimate ($34,850,000) submitted to Congress. The decrease resulted from evaluation of the estimated Federal cost based on actual cost of completed work and contract amounts for all remaining work under the project. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1959 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Modification in River and Harbor Act of 1935 (H. Doc. 20, 73d Cong., 2d sess.) Relocations $9,733,000 $7,484,400 $638,600 $1,610,000 Canals 21,675,000 20,315.000 1,190,000 170,000 Supervision and administration 1,300,000 1,025,700 168,800 105,500 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 Subtotal, costs (1935 modification). 32,708,000 28,825,100 1,997,400 1,885,500 Modifications in River and Harbor Act of 1945 (S. Doc. 252, 79th Cong. 2d sess.) Locks 1,296.500 1.296,500 Supervision and administration 95,500 95,500 Subtotal, costs (1945 modification). 1,392,000 1,392,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 34,100,000 30,217,100 1,997,400 1,885,500 Undistributed costs Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 34,100,000 30,217,100 1,997,400 1,885,500 Pending adjustments - Total cost (Federal funds only) 34,100,000 30,217,100 1,997,400 1,885,500 Undelivered orders Total obligations 30,217,100 1,997,400 1,885,500 Method of financing: Allocations 30,354,500 1,860,000 Unobligated carryover from prior years 137,400 Total funds available for obligation 1,997,400 Appropriation required 1,885,500 1247 Lake Montauk Harbor, N.Y. (Continuing) Location. — Lake Montauk Harbor is located on the north side of Long Island about 3 miles west of Montauk Point and 125 miles east of New York City. The harbor is landlocked on three sides and is connected on the north with Block Island Sound by an artificial inlet protected by jetties. Authorization. — 1945 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $885,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 1,400 Estimated Federal cost(U.S. Navy) »83,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 124,000 Cash contribution 15,000 Otiier costs 109,000 Total estimated projectcost 1 1,093,400 Allocation to June 30, 1967 200,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 200, 000 Allocation to date... 400,000 45 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 485,000 100 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. '.Entrance channel dredged and west jetty extended shoreward by Corps of Engineers with U.S. Navy funds In 1942-43. phtsical data Boat Basin: 10 feet deep, 400 feet wide by 900 feet long. Jetties: Repair existing east and west jetties and extend east jetty 350 feet shoreward. Recreational facilities: Prepare flat top crests on jetties. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: Entire project, October 1968. JUSTIFICATION The project was authorized in the interest of safety and convenience to navi- gation. The position of Lake Montauk Harbor as a harbor of refuge is important. Dredging the boat basin will provide material benefits to commercial and recre- ational navigation. A definite need exists for public facilities to meet the growing needs of commerce. Large quantities of fish caught off Montauk Point are unloaded here. If the project were not available, fishing craft would have to travel to more distant harbors for unloading their catch, thus consuming time which would otherwise be spent in productive work. There are no safe harbors to the east of Lake Montauk Harbor, and the nearest safe harbor, 19 miles to the west, is Three Mile Harbor. Increased use of the harbor by charter fishing boats and pleasure craft is evidenced by the increased passenger traffic. Commerce on this waterway during Calendar Year 1965 was 3,390 tons of fish and shellfish, carried in vessels with drafts ranging up to 10 feet. In addition, approximately 210,000 passengers engaged in recreational fishing and boating moved through the entrance channel. The entrance channel was last maintained to project depth of 12 feet in fiscal year 1966. Failure to repair the destroyed portion of the jetties and extension of the east jetty to high land will result in continued shoaling in the channel. Further delay will accelerate the jetty deterioration and increase reconstruction costs. Since the existing jetties no longer function as a channel protective device, com- pletion of the work is essential to alleviate the navigational hazard at the harbor. Estimated average annual benefits to navigation are $130,450. Recreation benefits for jetty fishing are estimated at $3,020. 91-459— 68— pt. 1 79 1248 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $485,000 is required for project completion and will be applied as follows: Complete dredging of boat basin $100, 000 Complete repair of jetties 330, 000 Initiate and complete recreation facilities 12, 500 Engineering and design 4, 800 Supervision and administration 37, 700 Total 485,000 COMPLETED UNIT LAKE MONTAUK HARBOR, N.Y. The r2-foot deep by 150-foot wide ehaimel from Block Island Sound to the existing yacht basin east of Star Island, and shoreward extension of the west jetty, as authorized by the 1945 River and Harbor Act, were constructed n 1942-1943 with U.S. Navy funds at a cost of $83,000. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to — (a) Furnish spoil disposal areas; (b) hold and save the United States free from claims for damages; (c) convey to the United States rights-of-way and structures in waters of Lake Montauk Harbor to assure dedication as a public navigable water; (d) construct and maintain free access roads to the boat basin and inner harbor; (e) construct and mauitain public landing, open to all on equal terms; (/) contribute cash in the anioimt of 50 percent of the first cost of constructing recreational facilities on jetties; (a) operate and maintain adequate parking areas, access roads, and related facilities to accommodate all fishermen on equal terms; (k) hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction and maintenance of recreational facilities and from damage due to use of recreational facilities under local regulations; (i) establish regulations prohibiting pollution of the water in accordance with local State or Federal regulations and laws; and (j) Comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on equal use to all. Estimated cost of non-Federal share of recreational facilities is $15,000. Non- Federal costs for lands and public facilities are: Lands $65,000 Public wharf approach 44, 000 Total 109,000 In 1926, local interests expended approximately $130,000 for construction of the existing east and west jetties (exclusive of the inshore portion of the west jetty constructed by the corps with U.S. Navy funds), and $545,000 for dredging an entrance channel and boat basin. Status of local cooperation. — New York State Department of Conser\ation is the cooperating agency. Assurances for all items of local cooperation have been furnished and accepted. Construction of suitable access roadways and public landings has tx-en accomplished. Disposal areas and rights-of-way have been provided. Local interests have indicated readiness to furnish cash contribution which will be required prior to initiation of construction. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The cvuTent Fed(>ral cost estimate of $885,000 is an increase of $185,000 over the latest estimate ($7()(),00()) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $25,000 for channels and $120,000 for jetties due to increased unit ])rices and refined qiiantity (>stin>at<^s- S]2,5()() for recreation for adding fishing facilities to the jetty top; $1 1,00('' for engincn-ring and design and $16,500 for supervision and administnition based on a reevaluation of Government costs. 1249 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year 1969 complete after estimate 1967 1968 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels Jetties Recreation facilities Engineering and design ._ Supervision and administration. _ Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal costs) Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds and non-Federal costs) Pending adjustment Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal costs) Total, Federal cost Non-Federal costs: Cash contribution Recreatio n Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total non-Federal cost Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal cash contributions) Undelivered orders Total obligations (Federal funds and non-Federal cash contributions)... Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obliga- tion Appropriations required Non-Federal cost: Cash contribution Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obliga- tion ; Cash contribution required 175, 000 570, 000 25, 000 62,200 67, 800 900, 000 75, 000 240, 000 19.000 1,900 20, 900 37,200 26.900 379, 100 900, 000 20,900 379, 100 900. 000 885, 000 15,000 . (12, 500) _ (1,200). (1,300). 15,000 . 900,000 20, 900 20, 900 379, 100 379, 100 20,900 20, 900 200, 000 379, 100 379, 100 200, 000 179,100 . 379, 100 15,000 15,000 100,000 330, 000 25, 000 6,000 39, 000 500,000 500, 000 500.000 . 485,000 . 15,000 . (12,500). (1,200). (1,300). 15,000 . 500, 000 500,000 485,000 15,000 Little Neck Bay, N.Y. (Continuing) Location. — Little Neck Bay is on the north shore of Long Ishmd at the westerlj^ end of Long Ishind Sound near the junction with the East River, about 17 miles by water northeast of the Battery, New York Citj\ The bay is about 2.7 miles long and has an average width of 0.8 miles. Authorization. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $1,970,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard)... _ 10,000 Estimated non- Federal cost 1,970,000 Cash contribution 1,970,000 Other costs Total estimated project cost 3, 950, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967.. 750,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 550,000 Allocation to date - 1,300,000 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 670,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 66 100 1250 PHYSICAL DATA Channel: 200 feet wide, 7 feet deep at mean low water, 2,500 feet in length from deep water in bay to anchorage. Anchorage: 350 acres, 7 feet deep at mean low water, 1,500-boat capacity. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Contract No. 1 -- 100 August 1966. Contract No.2 - 100 August 1967. Contract No. 3 June 1969. Overall 53 June 1969. JUSTIFICATION The bay is partially protected from wind and wave action by the adjacent upland, but insufficient depths prevent the full use of the area. The project will provide a safe port for recreational boating in the immediate tributary area of Queens and Nassau Counties and a large number of transient craft using the area. It will also provide a refuge for the many boats cruising the East River and Long Island Sound, estimated to be about 200,000 during the boating season. Boats now moored in shallow and overcrowded areas and in exposed locations are subject to damage from grounding and collision with other boats caused by wind and wave action. The project will provide benefits from reduction of damages to boats, prevent the possible loss of life, and make available the marine repair and supply facilities at the harbor to the many boats in the area. The average annual benefits to navigation are estimated at $505,600. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $670,000 will be applied to — Complete dreding of anchorage $627, 500 Engineering and design 5, 000 Supervision and administration 37, 500 Upon recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, dredging has been limited to the period April 1 through August 31 of each year. The funds requested will provide for completion of the project by June 1969. Non-Federal cost. — In addition to a 50-percent share of the first cost of construc- tion in the form of a cash contribution estimated at $1,970,000, local interests will be required to satisfy the following items of local cooperation: provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights-of-way required for construction of the project and for construction and maintenance of aids to navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers; hold and save the United States free from damages that may result from construction and maintenance of the project; provide and maintain without cost to the United States necessary mooring facilities and utilities including public landings with suitable supply facilities and public automobile parking areas open to all on equal terms; establish a competent and properly constituted public body empowered to regulate the use, growth and free development of the harbor facilities with the understanding that said facilities will be open to all on equal terms. Status of local cooperation. — The agency responsible for local cooperation is the N.Y. State Conservation Department. Assurances of local cooperation executed by the State have been accepted. Contributed funds totaling $1,300,000 have been furnished to date covering the non-Federal share of the work for fiscal years 1966, 1967, and 1968; $670,000 non-Federal funds will be required in fiscal year 1969, and are scheduled to be received in July 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,970,000 is a decrease of $150,000 over the latest estimate ($2,120,000) submitted to Congress. This change results from a savings based on completed contracts. 1251 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1). FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current Budget Balance to fiscal year fiscal year complete after 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (4) (5) (6) Channels - ^3,660,000 Engineering and design...., -nn'nnn Supervision and administration... ^uu.uuu Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions). 3,940,000 Undistributed cost.. Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions). . 3, 940, 000 Pending adjustments • Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions) 3,940,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations Federal funds: Total cost. 1,970,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations Non-Federal funds: Total cost.. 1,970,000 Undelivered orders. Total obligations Method of financing: Federal funds: Allocations. Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obliga- tion... Appropriation required Non-Federal funds: Contributions... Unobligated carryover from prior $1,203,500 31,000 58, 800 $1,201,500 39, 000 66, 200 $1,255,000 10,000 75, 000 1,293,300 1,306,700 1,340,000 1,293,300 1,306,700 1,340,000 1, 340, 000 1,293,300 1,306,700 165,000 -165,000 1,458,300 1,141,700 1,340,000 736,400 563,600 670, 000 736, 400 563,600 556,900 743,100 165,000 -165,000 721,900 578,100 670,000 670, 000 '670,'000' 750,000 550, 000 13,600 563,600 670, 000 750, 000 year. Total funds available for obligation. Contributions required 550, 000 28,100 578, 100 670, 000 Neav York Harbor (Anchorage Areas), N.Y. (Continuing) Location— In New York Harbor, Anchorage areas, A, B, C, and D (Red Hook Flats) are in the upper bay between Anchorage Channel and Bay Kidge— Kea Hook Channels. Anchorage area E (Gravesend Bay) is in the lower bay east ot Ambrose Channel and just south of the Narrows. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). ^^^'^Sn'nnn Estimated Federal cost (USCG) 7i},WU Estimated non-Federal cost... . ^^^ Total estimated project cost 45,//u,uuu Allocation to June 30, 1967.. .„ " Allocation for fiscal year 1968 ""■ """ Allocation to date , i^^-^nn Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 /,l'?nn'nnn Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 - 44,100,000 1252 PHYSICAL DATA Anchorages: Deepen areas A, B, and C (482 acres) from 30 and 40 feet, to 35, 40, and 45 feet. Expand area D to 446 acres and deepen from 14 plus feet to 35 feet. Deepen area E (334 acres) from 30 feet to 47 feet. Status (Jamiary 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: Fiscal year 1976. JUSTIFICATION The anchorages are an integral part of the New York Harbor project and are used by vessels awaiting berthing spaces, lighterage operations ; avoiding overtime rates and movement during poor visibility. Use of larger tankers and dry cargo vessels with drafts of 34 to 38 feet has increased over 900 percent since 1951. This has caused serious congestion in existing anchorages which can accommodate vessels of 25 feet or greater draft, and has contributed to groundings and collisions. From April 1951 to September 1961, 27 accidents occurred in the anchorage areas which caused estimated damage costs of $762,400. The improvement will provide increased space and depths which will produce savings in transportation costs and reduce the number of accidents. During the economic life of the improvement, the average petroleum commerce is estimated at 100 million tons and general and bulk cargo at 32 million tons. Average annual benefits to navigation are estimated at $2,980,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,500,000 will be applied to — Initiate dredging Anchorage 21B-1 $1, 290, 000 Engineering and design 143, 000 Supervision and administration 67, 000 Total 1, 500, 000 COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS, NEW YORK HARBOR, N.Y. Work under fxiUy completed modifications consists of: Main Ship and Bayside- Gedney Channels to 30 feet (River and Harbor Act of 1884); Ambrose Channel to 40 feet (act of 1899); Anchorage Channel (act of 1917); channel between Staten Island and Hoffman and Swinburne Islands (act 1917) ; removal of Craven shoal (act of 1917); relocation of southerly section of Anchorage Channel (act of 1930); deepening Bay side- Gedney Channel to 35 feet (act of 1935); dredging south end of Red Hook Flats, Liberty Island Anchorage, and channel along New Jersey pierhead line (act of 1935); deepening Ambrose and Anchorage Channels to 45 feet (act of 1937); deepening Ocean-Bayside Channel to 35 feet (act of 1958). Cost of completed modifications $19,035,000. Non-Federal costs. — Prior to construction, local interests must agree to: (a) Provide without cost to th(> United States all lands, easements, and rights- of-way required for construction and maintenance of the project and aids to navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers. (h) Hold and save the United States free from damages that may result from construction and maintenance of the project including submarine structures. (r) Accomijlish without cost to the United States removal or relocation of pipelines and other utilities, if necessary. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of local coojjeration have not yet been requested, however, no difficulty is antici])at(>d. In corr('Si)ondenee prior to authorization, 1 he State of New York, the city of New York, and Jersey City, N.J., indicated willingness to cooijerate and comiily with the conditions of local coop- oration. The Port of New York Authoi'ity advised of its willingness to act as a coordinating agency in obtaining assurances for compliance. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $45,700,000 is the same as last presented to Congress. A $300,000 increase in cost of ciiannels dredging was offset by a lik(; decrease in superxisioii and administration. 1253 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 (1) Project Total to cost June 30, estimate 1967 (2) (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Channels $43,100,000 EngineeiJng and design 760.000 Supervision and administration 1,840,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 45, 700, 000 Undistributed cost - - . Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds nnly) 45,700,000 Pending adjustments . Total cost (Cost of Engineers funds only). 45, 700, 000 Undelivered orders Total obligations Metfiod of financing; Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required $87, 000 13,000 100,000 $1,290,000 143,000 67,000 1,500,000 100, 000 $41,810,000 530. 000 1.760,000 44,100,000 100,000 1.500,000 44,100,000 loo," 000 1,560,000 44, 106,000 " 160.' 060 1," 500, 000 44, 100, 006 100,000 .._ 1,500,000 44,100,000 Hampton Roads, Va. (Continuing) Location. — The channels are located in lower Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads, and Elizabeth River and serve the cities of Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake, Va. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.9 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard)... Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Navy) Estimated non-Federal cost Casfi contribution _ _ _ . Othe r costs Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967... Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $29,900,000 50,000 60,000 900.000 900,000 30,910,000 8,800,000 5,500,000 14, 300, 000 48 3, 000, 000 58 12,600,000 PHYSICAL D.\TA Channels: Channel to Newport News: 4.5 feet deep, 800 feet wide, 4% miles long. Norfolk Harbor channel from Fort Wool to Norfolk Municipal Dock : 45 feet deep, 1,500 feet wide, 6 miles long. Norfolk Harbor channel from Norfolk Municipal Dock to Lambert Point: 45 feet deep, 800 feet wide, 2)^ miles long. Channel in Southern Branch of Elizabeth River above Belt Line Railroad bridge: 40 feet deep, 375 feet wide, 1 mile long. Thimble Shoal channel: 45 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide, 11 miles long. Anchorages: Opposite Newport News: 2 anchorages with 1,200 feet swinging radius and flared approaches, initially 40 feet deep and ultimately 45 feet deep. Norfolk Harbor: 2 anchorages with 1,200 feet swinging radius and flared approaches, one 45 feet deep and one initially 40 feet deep and ultimately 45 feet deep. 58 October 1968. 100 August 1967. June 1968. 64 October 1969. October 1970. 100 July 1966. 42 Octoberil970. 1254 Turning Basin: Southern Branch of Elizabeth River opposite St. Julian Creek: 35 feet deep, 400 feet to 600 feet by 800 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Channel to Newport News, 45 ft Norfolk Harbor, 45 ft channel Southern Branch, 40 ft channel Thimble Shoal Channel, 45 ft Anchorages, 40 and 45 ft Southern Branch, 35 ft. basin Entire project' 1 Excluding deferred deepening of 3 Anchorages from 40 to 45 ft. JUSTIFICATION The improved channels and anchorages in Hampton Roads are necessary to provide for present and prospective traffic of large, deep-draft bulk carriers and tankers. Bulk commodities expected to benefit from deeper channels, such as bituminous coal and grain in the export trade and iron and manganese ores and petroleum products in the import trade, comprised about 35 million tons of the 54 million tons of total commerce in Hampton Roads in 1965. Prospective com- merce in those items is expected to increase to 40 million tons by 1995 and to 49 million tons by 2020. The average annual benefits to navigation are estimated to be $6,990,000. In addition to total tonnage considerations, the composition of the future fleet is an important factor in the economic justification. The trend toward larger bulk carriers is expected to continue and the major portion of foreign commerce will be carried in supervessels in the future. Indicative of this trend is the increase in vessel trips with loaded drafts of 35 feet and over from 103 in 1961 to 409 in 1966, and trips with loaded drafts of 40 feet and over from two in 1961 to 35 in 1966. Because of the improved economics associated with the use of larger ships, the channel deepening is essential for the United States to maintain its competitive position in world trade. Since the major portion of the commerce benefited is bituminous coal for export, the project is important to the depressed Appalachian region. In the past decade, railroad companies transporting coal have spent over $27 million in modernization and construction of new handling facilities at Hampton Roads. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $3 million will be applied to — Complete continuing contract for deepening inbound half of channel to Newport News $1, 100, 000 Continue deepening of Thimble Shoal Channel by hopper dredge 1, 560, 000 Engineering and design 40, 000 Supervision and administration 300, 000 Total 3, 000, 000 COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS Channel to Newport News: Work completed consists of a channel 40 feet deep, 600 feet wide, and about 6 miles long. The cost of this completed work is $1,253,000. Norfolk Harbor: Work completed consists of a channel 40 feet deep, 1.500 to 450 feet wide, from the vicinity of Fort Wool in Hampton Roads, Elizabeth River and Southern Branch to the Belt Line Railroad bridge, a distance of about 14 miles, with a turning area opposite the Norfolk Naval Shipyard; thence 35 feet deep, 375 to 250 feet wide, in the Southern Branch to a point above the Norfolk & Western Hallway bridge, a distance of about 4 miles, with a turning basin at the upstream end; a channel in Eastern Branch 25 feet deep, 500 to 200 feet wide to the Norfolk & Western Railway bridge, a distance of 2.9 miles, with a turning basin at the upstn>ani end; a channel into Western Branch 24 to 18 feet deep, 300 to 150 feet wide to a point above the West Norfolk highway 1255 bridge, a distance of 1.8 miles; a channel into Scott Creek 12 feet deep, 100 feet wide, and 0.7 mile long; anchorages 38 feet, 35 feet and 20 feet deep oppo- site Lambert Point totaling 173 acres in area; an anchorage 12 feet deep and 45 acres in area near Pinner Point; and a 2,500-acre disposal area north of Craney Island. The cost of this completed work is $20,014,000. Thimble Shoal Channel: Work completed consists of a channel 40 feet deep, 1,000 feet wide, and 11 miles long. The cost of this completed work is $3,095,000. REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS Thimble Shoal Channel: The modification in the 1954 River and Harbor Act in- cluded construction of side channels 32 feet deep, 450 feet wide, and 11 miles long on both sides of the main 40-foot channel. This work is in a deferred status. The latest estimated cost (1960) is $584,000. Non-Federal costs. — The cost to the city of Norfolk of complying with the requirements of local cooperation for the modification in the 1965 River and Harbor Act is $900,000 for lowering a 30-inch water main under the Norfolk Harbor 45-foot channel. Local interests also incurred costs of approximately $250,000 in complying with the requirements of local cooperation for previous work accomplished on the Norfolk Harbor project. In addition, local interests have incurred costs of hundreds of millions of dollars in connection with the dredging of approach channels and berthing areas, and the construction of terminal facilities. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances of cooperation have been received from the cities of Norfolk, Newport News, and Chesapeake, and the city of Norfolk has completed relocation of the 30-inch water main under the Norfolk Harbor 45-foot channel. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $29,900,000 is a decrease of $1,900,000 from the latest estimate ($31,800,000) submitted to Congress. The reduction reflects a net decrease of $1,400,000 for channel dredging based on savings for completed work, reduction of quantities under latest surveys, and increased unit prices on remaining work. A decrease of $100,000 in estimated cost of engineering and design and $400,000 in estimated cost of supervision and administration results from reevaluation based on experience to date. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1) FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels $27,950,000 $7,374,200 $5,825,800 $2,660,000 $12,090,000 Engineering and design. 150,000 29,400 30,600 40,000 50,000 Supervision and administration 1,800,000 548,100 491,900 300,000 460,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers funds only).. 29,900,000 7,951,700 6,348,300 3,000,000 12,600,000 Undistributed costs.. Total project cost (Corps of Engineers funds only) 29,900,000 7,951,700 6,348,300 3,000,000 12,600,000 Pending adjustments. Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds only). 29,900,000 7,951,700 6,348,300 3,000,000 12,600,000 Undelivered orders 837,400 -837,400 Total obligations 8,789,100 5,510,900 3,000,000 12,600,000 Method of financing: Allocation. 8,800,000 5,500,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year... _ 10,900 Total funds available for obligation 5,510,900 Appropriations required. 3,000,000 12,600,000 1256 Virginia Beach, Va. (Reimbursement — Continuing) Location. — The city of \'irginia Beach is located on the Atlantic Ocean south from Cape Henry and east of the city of Norfolk, Va. Authorization,. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. benefit-cost ratio. — 2.5 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost - $1,350,000 Estimated non- Federal cost.. -- 1,370,000 Total estimated project cost -- 2, 720, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 - 285,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 85,000 ___ Allocation to date --. 370,000 27 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 130,000 37 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969. 850,000 PHYSICAL DATA Periodic nourishment of the beach between Rudee Inlet and 49th Street, a distance of about 3}i miles, to maintain the berm to a minimum width of approxi- mately 100 feet at elevation 7 feet above mean low water for a period of 25 years from the date of commencement of operations to restore the beach to design standards. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Periodic nourishment... 34 February 1987. JUSTIFICATION The periodic nourishment program is a modification of the original project adopted by the 1954 River and Harbor Act, which provided for beach restoration and the deferred construction of a system of groins. Comparative cost studies of groin construction versus periodic nourishment indicate that the latter is the more suitable and economical method for maintaining shore stability, protecting property, and insuring maxinuim recreation benefits from use of the publicly- owned shores. The beach was restored in 1953, and has been maintained since then by local interests with Federal participation beginning in 1962. Its effectiveness in pro- viding protection from hurricanes and northeast storms was demonstrat(ul in the severe coastal storm of March 1962 when considerable property damages and bvisiness losses were averted. Comiuercial development along the beach front has enjoyed an unprecedented boom during the; past f(nv years due largely to the prot( Construction not started. JUSTIFICATION During the 1955 floods, Beer Kill and Fantine Kill caused severe damage to Ellenville along almost the entire length of each within the village. The low ground between them was inundated, with about 88 acres adversely affected (including residential, commercial, industrial and public properties) . One drowning occurred on Beer Kill. Tangible damages caused by the record August 1955 flood discharges of these streams were estimated at $1,314,000. The proposed improvement would protect approximately 180 residences, 10 commercial establishments, 5 industrial concerns (including an electronics factory), utilities, and Central High School from a flood 42 percent and 30 percent greater than maximum flood of record at Fantine and Beer Kill, respectively. Average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $272,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The recommended amount ($700,000) will be used to carry on a continuing contract for construction of the overall improvement at a rate which will permit completion in fiscal year 1971. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are to: furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the improvements; perform without cost to the United States all alterations of highways, highway bridges, utility and related facilities necessary for construction of the project; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the con- struction works; protect the channels, ponding areas and other flood control works from future encroachment or obstruction that would reduce their flood carrying capacity and control development of the fringe areas not fully protected by the improvement with a view to preventmg an undue increase in the flood damage potential; maintain and operate the completed works in accordance with regula- tions prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. 91-459— 68— pt. 1- -80 1264 The estimated cost to local interests is $540,000, broken down as follows — Lands and damages $205, 000 Relocations (buildings) 20, 000 Roads, railroads, bridges 315, 000 Total 540,000 The annual cost to local interests of maintenance, operation and replacement is estimated at $12,600. Status of local cooperation. — The agency responsible for local cooperation is the New York State Conservation Department, and it is anticipated that the agency will execute the assurances of local cooperation. The village of Ellenville has given assurance that, in concert with New York State, it would meet all conditions of local cooperation. The New York State Department of Public Works has stated in a letter, dated December 3, 1964, that it was prepared to execute the usual assurance, and would do so upon review of the final project plans. Local interests requested re- consideration of the proposed plan for bridge raising, and adjustment of the project plan. This plan was completed and approved by Chief, Corps of Engineers on May 17, 1967. Subsequently, the village has requested further modifications at other bridge crossings. The State advises that right-of-way acquisition will be vmdertaken promptly on receipt of the village's resolution on willingness to participate. It is anticipated that final agreement and acquisition of R/W will be accomplished in time for schedided construction start in fall of 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $2,480,000 is an increase of $370,000 over the latest estimate ($2,110,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $90,000 for price level, $28,000 for channels and canals and $204,000 for levees and floodwalls based on a recent appraisal and redesign. Engineering and design increased $28,000 and supervision and administration $20,000. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1959 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Channels and canals Levees and floodwalls _ $80,000 _. 2,050,000 .. 200, 000 150,000 2, 480, 000 $30, 000 750, 000 10,000 50, 000 840, 000 $50, 000 1,300.000 Engineering and design $147,700 10,900 158,600 $32, 300 4,100 36, 400 10.000 Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only). . Undistributed cost 85. 000 1,445,000 Total project ost (Federal funds only)... 2, 480, 000 158,600 36, 400 840, 000 1,445,000 Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders 2, 480, 000 158,600 36, 400 840, 000 840,000 140,000 1.445,000 Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations 158,600 285, 000 36.400 50,000 . 126,400 176,400 . 1,445,000 Unobligated carryover from prior Appropriations required 700, 000 1,445,000 ROSENDALE, N.Y. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in the town of Rosendale, N.Y. on I >eck just upstream of its confluence with the Wallkill Uiver, its largest tr ^he cnsek flows into the Hudson River at Kingston, N.Y. 10 miles dow Ci The from the project. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Bcnefit-cosl ratio. — 1.5 to 1. N.Y. on Rondout ibutary. nstream 1265 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost. - ^^'?5S-SSn Estimated non-Federal cost - ' J^U.™" Other - 140,000 Total estimated pro|ectcost. ■^'SS'^'SSS Allocation to June 30, 1967 - -- - ^J^xSS ---- "- Allocation for fiscal year 1968 - - „5°'°™ -^o" Allocation to date - , H^S^S ct Appropriation requested tor fiscal year 1969 -- ^'n ,'„„„ ^ Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 937,000 1 In addition, local interests have constructed a retaining wall several hundred feet long to prevent erosion of the bank and to provide limited protection against flooding. No record of actual cost available. PHYSICAL DATA Levees: 2,750 feet averaging 4 feet high. Floodwalls: 1,540 feet averaging 17 feet high. Lands and relocation with Federal funds: None. Channels: Improvement 2.2 miles along Rondout Creek. Pumping plants: 1 pump station. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: June 1970. JUSTIFICATION During the past 50 years, 17 damaging floods have occurred on Rondout Creek and its tributaries. In Rosendale, the flood of October 16, 1955, was the most severe on record; the previous record flood was that of August 18 and 19, 1955. During the October flood, the stream overtopped its banks and flooded 60 acres. Floodwaters attained a maximum depth of 8 feet over the street level in the lower portion of the village. More than 150 structures were imuidated and many residents were evacuated. Business establishments suspended operations and the public school was closed for 1 week. A recurrence of a flood of this magnitude would cause damages at Rosendale estimated at more than .$1,700,000 under current conditions. The plan of improvement will protect the village proper against the largest flood of record and reduce flood stages in the area immediately downstream. The average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $160,000. Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $1 miUion will be apphed as follows: Continuing work on channel improvements $600, 000 Continuing work on levees and floodwalls 280, 000 Initiating work on the pumping station 20, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 90, 000 Total 1,000,000 These funds will provide for continuing construction of the overall project under a continuing contract at a rate which permits completion in fiscal year 1970. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are to: (o) Furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the construc- tion of the improvement; (b) perform all necessary reconstruction or alteration of highway bridges and streets and utility changes; (c) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (d) protect the channels, ponding areas, and other flood works from future encroachment or obstruction that would reduce their flood-carrying capacity, and control development of the fringe areas not fully protected by the considered improvement with a view to preventing an undue increase in the flood damage potential; (e) Maintain and 1266 operate the completed works in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. The estimated costs for local interests are: Lands and damages $59, 000 Relocations and utilities 28, 000 Roads and railroads 53, 000 Total 140, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon com- pletion, at an estimated annual cost of $6,300. Status of local cooperation. — The agency responsible for local cooperation is New York State Conservation Department. Assurances of local cooperation by the State have been furnished and accepted by the district engineer. The town and village of Rosendale furnished resolutions giving assurances that in concert with the State they would meet all conditions of local cooperation. Current information from the State indicates acquisition of the remaining rights-of-way for construction will be completed by April 1, 1968. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The Federal cost estimate of $2,860,000 is an increase of $110,000 over the latest estimate submitted to Congress ($2,750,000). The increase is due entirely to price level rise. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels and canals $1,540,000 $150,000 $850,000 $540,000 Levees and floodwalls 826,000 65,000 480,000 281,000 Pumping station 74,000 20,000 54,000 Engineering and design 230,000 $194,600 20,400 10,000 5,000 Supervision and administration 190,000 10,400 32,200 90,000 57,400 Totalappliedcost(Federalfundsonly)... 2,860,000 205,000 267,600 1,450,000 937,400 Undistributed cost _ - Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 2,860,000 205,000 267,600 1,450,000 937,400 Pending adjustments - Total cost (Federal funds only) 2,860,000 205,000 267,600 1,450,000 937,400 Undelivered orders. 2,100 447,900 -450,000 Total obligations... 207,100 715,500 1,000,000 937,400 Method of financing: Allocations.. 872,600 50,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 665,500 Total funds available for obligation 715,500 Appropriations requireed 1,000,000 937,400 South Ellen ville, N.Y. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in the southern part of the village of Ellenville (Ulster County), N.Y., on North Gully tributary of Sandburg Creek, about 1.8 miles above its confluence with Rondout Creek, which originates in the New York Catskill Forest Preserve and flows into the Hudson River at Kingston, N.Y. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.6 to 1. 1267 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1957 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969—. $1,330,000 150,000 50,000 1,380,000 90,000 50,000 140,000 11 440, 000 44 750,000 > In addition, along North Gully, private interests have constructed walls below Clinton St. and above Route 52. The cost of these improvements is not known. PHYSICAL DATA Channels: Chute, 2,200 feet. Levees: 350 feet. Dam: Rockfilled timber crib. Status (January 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: June 1970. JUSTIFICATION During the past 50 years, 17 damaging floods have occurred on Rondout Creek and its tributaries. The most damaging flood occurred in August 1955 as a result of Hurricane "Diane". A recurrence of a flood of this magnitude would cause damages in the watershed in excess of $13,000,000. Cost of damages and losses resulting from the August 1955 flood at South EUenville are estimated at $1,100,000. The average annual flood control benefits are estimated to be $104,000. The recommended works along North Gully at EUenville would protect about 100 dwellings, three commercial establishments and two industries against a flood greater than the maximum flood of record. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $440,000 will be applied as follows: Continue channel improvements $220, 000 Continue levees and floodwalls 175, 000 Engineering and design 13, 000 Supervision and administration 32, 000 Total 440,000 Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are to: furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights-of-way necessary for the construction of the improvements; perform all necessary reconstruction or alteration of highway bridges and streets and utility changes; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; protect the channels, ponding areas and other flood works from future encroachment or obstructions that would reduce their flood carrying capacity, and control development of the fringe areas not fully protected by the considered improvement with a view to preventing an undue increase in the flood damage potential; and maintain and operate the completed works in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army. Estimated non-Federal cost of $50,000 consists of: lands and damages — $2,500; relocations — $2,500; and roads, raUroads and bridges — $45,000. Maintenance, operation and replacement costs are non-Federal, and estimated at $10,000 annually. Status of Local cooperation. — The agency responsible for local cooperation is the N.Y. State Department of Conservation and it is anticipated that the agency will execute the assurances of local cooperation. The Village of EUenville has given assurance that, in concert with New York State, it would meet all conditions of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,330,000 is the same as last presented to Congress. 1268 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (1) (6) Channels and canals - $515,000 _ 530,000 ., 95, 000 90, 000 1.330,000 $245, 000 200, 000 13,000 32, 000 490. 000 $370, 000 Levees and floodwalls on 330. 000 Engineering and design $17,800 1,800 19,600 $62, 000 8,200 70,400 2.000 48. 000 Total applied cost (Federal f unds only).. 750,000 Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments 1, 330, 000 19,600 70. 400 490. 000 750.000 Total cost (Federal funds on Undelivered orders Total obligations Method of financing: Allocations ly)-- from prior 1,330,000 19,600 10,500 30, 100 90, 000 70, 400 -10,500 . 59, 900 50,000 . 59, 900 109,900 . 490, 000 490.000' 750,000 750," 000 Unobligated carryover year 50, 000 oblig: Appropriations required 440, 000 750,000 Aylesworth Creek Reservoir, Pa. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in Lackawanna County, Pa., on Aylesworth Creek, approximate!}' 1 mile above its confluence with the Lackawanna River, just below the community of East Jermyn, Pa. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967... Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after hscal year 1969 $1,920,000 10 1,920,000 507,000 893,000 1,400,000 73 520,000 100 ' None required. See paragraph "Status of Local Cooperation." PHYSICAL DATA Lands and damages: Acres: 252. Type: Woodland. Improvements: None. Relocations: Power hues: 2,020 feet, $22,000, Water lines: 700 feet, $10,000. Dam: Type: Earth and rock. Height: 90 feet. Length: 1,200 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 1 , 700 Permanent pool 64 Total... 1,764 1269 Spillway : Type: Open cut channel with concrete sill. Width: 80 feet. Capacity: (Maximum pool) 10,000 cubic feet per second. Outlet works: Type: 3-foot diameter uncontrolled conduit. Capacity: 214 cubic feet per second (pool at spillway crest). Access road: Type: Gravel surface. Length: 2,430 feet. Width: 16 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages 70 September 1968. Relocations 70 March 1968. Dam and appurtenant works --. 5 June 1969. Entire project. 22 Do. JUSTIFIC.A.TION Damaging floods occurred in the Lackawanna River basin in March 1936, May 1942, and August 1955. As a result of these floods, severe damage has occurred to commercial, industrial, residential and rural developments and to highw^ay and railroad facilities throughout the basin. In addition, three persons lost their lives in the August 1955 flood. The flood of May 1942 was the most severe flood in the upper portion of the Lackawanna basin and also caused the greatest damage in the lower basin prior to the August 1955 flood. The 1955 flood caused the greatest damage on tributary streams entering the Lackawanna River at or below Scranton, Pa., and also along the Lackawanna River itself from Scranton to the river mouth. The follow- ing tabulation shows estimated damages and reduction in damages from operation of the proposed reservoir with the Stillwater Reservoir and Scranton local protec- tion projects in operation. Reduction in damages Percent Damages by Aylesworth reduction Creek Reservoir May 1942 recurrence. -_ $5,655,000 $685,000 12 August 1955 recurrence 2,275,000 285,000 13 Average annual damages, with the Stillwater Reservoir and Scranton local protection projects in operation would amount to $595,000 at July 1967 prices and would be reduced 21 percent by the Aylesworth Creek Reservoir. The project is located in Lackawanna County, Pa., in the Appalachian region as defined by section 403 of the Regional Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-4). Average annual benefits: Flood control $126, 000 Recreation 37, 500 Total 163, 500 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $520,000 will be applied to — Complete land acquisition $1, 000 Complete construction of the dam, access road, and recreation facilities _ _ 480, 000 Engineering and design 4, 000 Supervision and administration 35, 000 Total 520, 000 The recommended program provides for an orderly and economical rate of construction with completion in fiscal year 1969. Non-Federal costs. — None. 1270 Status of local cooperation. — None required for flood control. Recreation facilities have been added to the project as authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944. By letter of February 2, 1967, the Lackawanna County Commissioners submitted a resolution wherein they expressed willingness and ability to take such actions and make such expenditures as may be required to develop a day-use area and recreational facilities. Local interests wiU enter into a lease for park and recrea- tional purposes, to provide necessary faciUties, and to operate and maintain such facilities upon completion. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change in latest total cost estimate ($1,920,000) submitted to Congress. Increases of $19,000 for lands and damages based on recent acquisition appraisals and $20,000 for engineering and design due to additional foundation exploration and the necessity to readvertise for bids were offset by a net decrease of $39,000 based on receipt of bids for the multi- component contract. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to cost June 30, estimate 1967 (2) (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Lands and damages Relocations Reservoir Dam. Road (access) Recreational facilities Engineering and design Supervision and administration.. Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only)... Pending adjustments __ Total costs (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders _ Total obligations (Federal funds only) Method of financing: Allocation. Unobligated carryover from prior year... Total funds available for obligations.. Appropriation required $42, 000 32, 000 40, 000 1,285,000 45, 000 85, 000 291,000 100,000 1,920,000 $13,600 275, 800 9,600 299, 000 $27, 400 32,000 40, 000 875, 000 20, 000 40, 000 11,200 55, 400 1,101,000 $1,000 1,920,000 'i,'920,'660' 299,000 1,101,000 299, 000 300 299, 300 507, 000 1,101.000 -300 1,100,700 893, 000 207,700 1,100,700 410,000 25. 000 45, 000 4,000 35. 000 520, 000 520, 000 '520,"600" "526,"666" 520, 000 Beltzville Reservoir, Pa. (Continuing) Location. — On the Pohopoco Creek, a tributary of the Lehigh River, 5.2 miles above the mouth, about 4 miles east of Lehighton, in Carbon and Monroe Counties in northeastern Pennsylvania. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated appropriation requirements Estimated total appropriation requirement... $18,800,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 5,200,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 13,600,000 Estimated non- Federal cost 6, 500, 000 Reimbursement: Water supply 5,200,000 Other: Recreation 1,300,000 Total estimated project cost 20,100,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967. 6,353,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 2,630,000 Allocation to date. 8,983,000 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 5,700,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 4,117,000 1271 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Earthfill. Height: 170 feet. Length: 4,300 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 27, 000 Water supply and recreation 27, 900 Water quality 11, 900 Inactive 1, 400 68, 200 Spillway: Type: Ungated, partially lined. Design capacity: 46,400 cubic feet per second at maximum pool elevation 667 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 3,772. Type: Predominantly agricultural. Improvements: Farm units and residences. Relocations: Roads: 4.8 miles $1,667,000. Utility and oil lines, $533,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Land acquisition 90 September 1968. Relocations 75 June 1969. Dam 10 June 1970. Entire project 40 June 1970. JUSTIFICATION This project will provide benefits for flood control, water supply, water quality control, and recreation. The reservoir will control the runoff from a drainage area of 97 square miles, including the 22 square miles controlled by Wild Creek Reser- voir, which supplies water to the city of Bethlehem. The flood control storage will contribute to the flood stage reductions at the principal damage centers on the Lehigh River below Pohopoco Creek. These damage centers are Bowmanstown, Walnutport, Northampton, Hokendauqua, Catasauqua, Allentown, Bethlehem, Freemansburg, and Easton, Pa. Combined operation of the proposed three new major flood control projects in the Lehigh River Basin, Beltzville, Aquashicola, and Trexler, will result in a stage reduction of 2 feet at Bethlehem, Pa., for a flood similar to that experienced in 1955. This is in addition to the effects of the existing Francis E. Walter Dam. Additional water supply is needed now in the Palmerton-Bethlehem and Trenton-Philadelphia areas. Streamflow augmentation provided by the Beltzville project would meet the water supply needs in the Palmerton-Bethlehem area until 1972. Combined authorized Delaware River projects would meet the water supply needs of the basin until 2010. The Beltzville Reservoir will provide for a recreation pool of 950 acres. Ultimate capacity for 635,000 visitors annually is credited to the project. The recreation facilities to be constructed by local interests will provide additional capacity. The project is in Appalachia and, although not evaluated, use of the various labor trades needed during the construction of the project wiU assist in alleviating areas of substantial and persistent unemployment in Carbon, Luzerne, Schuylkill, and Columbia Counties, Pa. After completion of the project, continued utilization of surplus labor in the above counties would materialize due to the recreational development, its use, and the tourist attraction afforded by the project. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $341, 000 Water supply 493, 000 Water quality control 235, 000 Recreation 761, 000 Fish and wildlife 45, 000 Total 1, 875, 000 1272 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $5,700,000 for continuation of construction will be applied to: Initiate reservoir clearing and construction of recreation and wildlife facilities $220, 000 Continue acquisition of reservoir lands 192, 700 Continue relocation of roads and utilities 400, 700 Continue construction of dam and appurtenant work 4, 600, 000 Engineering and design 48, 000 Supervision and administration 238, 600 Total 5,700,000 The requested amount is necessary for orderly progress on construction of interrelated featiu'es. Work on highway and pipeline relocations, dam foundation and embankment, together with outlet tunnel and control structures must pro- ceed at a rate which assures readiness for stream diversion Vjy May 1969. Slippage in uK^eting this date will delay project completion a year. Non-Federal costs. — Costs allocable to water supply, presently estimated at $5,200,000 are reimbursable. In addition, recreation facilities estimated at $1,300,000 will be provided by local interests. Status of local cooperation. — Assurances furnished by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding prevention of downstream encroachment and provision for recr(>ation development were accepted January 29, 1965. A resolution of the Delaware River Basin Commission dated March 24, 1965, providing assurances for repayment of water supply and pollution control costs, was reviewed and found satisfactory by OCE June 7, 1965. A contract signed by the Commission is being returned with certain minor adjustments deemed necessary prior to signature by the Secretary of the Army. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $18,800,000 is a decrease of $2,900,000 from the latest estimate ($21,700,000) presented to Congress. Decreases totaling $3,320,000 are based on the receipt of bids for the principal contract ($3,080,000) and for relocations ($80,000) and on sui)ervision and administration due to reanalysis of requirements ($160,000). The decreases are partly offset by an increase of $360,000 in engineering and design based on costs to date, and $60,000 for higher price levels on unconmiitted work SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages . $2,910,000 2,200,000 510.000 - 9,270,000 30,000 - 150,000 . 810,000 - 85,000 . 35,000 1.760,000 1,040,000 18, 800, 000 $2,109,800 1,127,800 $607, 500 671,500 $192,700 400, 700 150,000 4, 530, 000 30,000 60. 000 40, 000 10,000 48,000" 238, 600 5, 700, 000 5, 700, 000 Relocations Reservoirs _.. $360, 000 Dams Fish and wildlife facilities... 212,400 2.005,000 2.522.600 Roads _ 12,000 78, 000 Recreation facilities 770.000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment.. ... 33,000 42, 000 35.000 Engineering and design Supervision and administration. . 1,511,700 293. 400 5,255,100 198. 000 200, 500 3,727,500 2,300 307 500 Total applied cost... 4,117,400 Undistributed cost... Total project cost .. 18,800,000 5.255,100 3, 727, 500 4 117 400 Pending adjustments Total cost Undelivered orders 18,800.000 5,255,100 458,800 5,713,900 6,352,600 3. 727, 500 -458,800 . 3,268,700 2,630,000 - 638,700 - 3,268,700 . 5, 700, 000 4,117,400 Total obligations 5.700,000 4,117,400 Method of financing: Allocations.-- ■ ' ' :( Unobligated carryover from prior year... Total funds available for obligation Appropriations required.. 5. 700, 000 4,117,400 1273 Foster Joseph Sayers Dam, Pa. (Continuing) Location.— The project is located on Bald Eagle Creek in Centre Covmty, Pa., about 1 mile upstream from Blanchard and about 14 miles above the confluence of Bald Eagle Creek with the West Branch Susquehaiuia lliver at Lock Haven, which is about 30 miles upstream from Williamsport, Pa. Authorization. — 1954 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $28,100,000 Estimated non-Federal cost --- - inn nnn Total estimated project cost __ - --- fcSir'nnn Allocation to June 30, 1967 -- - 'S'Znc'nnn Allocation for fiscal year 1968 oVScrnnn "" 87 Allocation to date -- 24,466,000 87 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 ,'„,.' nnn Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1,034,000 97 1 None required The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania expended $12,240,000 for construction of the George B. Stevenson Reservoir »/hich viias included in the authorized comprehensive flood control plan. Local interests also plan to develop extensive recreational facilities at Foster Joseph Sayers Dam at an estimated initial cost of $1,650,000. PHYSICAL DATA Lands and damages: Acres: 8,002. Type: Agricultural and woodland. Improvements: Typical farm units and residences. Relocations: Roads: 10.2 miles, $5,000,000. Railroad: 9.8 miles, $3,800,000. Cemeteries: 1,200 graves, $220,000. Power and telephone lines: 3 companies, $610,000. Dam: Tvpe: Earthfill. Height: 100 feet. Length: 6,835 feet. Reservoir capacity: Flood control 70, 200 Operation and recreation 22, 500 Winter pool 6. 300 Total 99,000 Spillway : Type: Open-cut chute with uncontrolled concrete weir, 600 feet wide at crest. Capacity (maximum pool) : 200,000 cubic feet per second. Outlet works: Tvpe : Circular conduit, gate controlled. Capacity: (pool at spillway crest) : 9,000 cubic feet per second. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Lands and damages --- 87 December 1969. Relocations - 9* ^^^ l^tS-n Dam and appurtenant works 60 June 1969. Entire project. - --- 75 June 1970. 1274 JUSTIFICATION The project is the last unit to be constructed in the comprehensive plan for flood control on the West Branch Susquehanna River and appropriately fits into the comprehensive plan of water resources development for the entire Susquehanna River Basin. The project, together with the completed Curwensville, George B. Stevenson, and Alvin R. Bush (Kettle Creek) Reservoirs, will provide substantial flood protection to urban and rural areas in the West Branch Basin including Clearfield, Renovo, Lock Haven, Jersey Shore, Williamsport, and downstream communities. The reservoirs would reduce damages from a recurrence of the 1936 flood by more than $30.5 million along the West Branch, and by more than $10.2 million along the main stem, a total reduction of more than $40.7 million. This project would account for about 18 percent of the total reduction. In the flood of March 1964, it is estimated that damages amounting to $2,900,000 would have been prevented had the Foster Joseph Sayers Dam been in operation. The project is located in Centre County, Pa., in the Appalachian region as de- fined by section 403 of the Regional Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-4). The reservoir and planned recreational facilities are expected to create improved economic opportunities by attracting an ultimate reservoir attendance of 650,000 tourists annually. Breakdown of benefits: Flood control $1, 678, 000 Recreation 880, 000 Fish and wildHfe 225, 000 Total 2, 783, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,600,000 will be applied to — Continue land acquisition for reservoir area $50, 000 Continue construction of recreation facilities consisting of sanitary facilities and water supply 905, 000 Initiate construction of remaining recreation faciUties 50, 000 Continue construction of dam and appurtenances 1, 414, 000 Engineering and design 21, 000 Supervision and administration 160, 000 Total 2, 600, 000 The requested amount is the minimum required to complete construction of the dam by the end of fiscal year 1969, and to advance construction of those features of the recreational facilities which will permit the Borough of Howard to connect to the sewerage system (under a joint use and joint cost agreement), and to complete the project sufficiently early in the following year to meet the demands of the recreation season, Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — George B. Stevenson Reservoir on First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek in Cameron and Potter Counties, Pa., has been constructed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at a first cost of $12,240,000 and an estimated $30,000 annual cost for operation and maintenance. In accordance with the Flood Control Act of 1954, the Water and Power Resources Board, Common- wealth of Pennsylvania, adopted a resolution of May 9, 1956, furnishing assurances to the Federal Government that operation of George B. Stevenson Reservoir will be coordinated with operation of the Alvin R. Bush, Curwensville, and Foster Joseph Sayers Dam in order to assure optimum flood control benefits. Also, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania plans to develop recreational facilities at the project at an initial estimated cost of $1,630,000, including $25,000 for the Pennsylvania Fish Commission to develop a fishery in the reservoir, and i)roposes to attain maximum development over the next 25-year period at an additional cost of $402,000. The Borough of Howard, Pa., also proposes to spend $20,000 for recreational development. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $28,100,000 is a decrease of $800,000 from the latest estimate of $28,900,000 submitted to Congress. This change includes decreases of $1,490,000 and $470,000 for dams and relocations, respectively, based on bids received and net quantity adjustments on comi^lcted and active contracts and $180,000 for supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements. These decreases were partially offset by net increases of $230,000 for lands and damages based on current cost 1275 experience, $900,000 for recreation due to expanded scope of facilities, including sanitary sewerage, $50,000 for reservoir boundary monumentation, $60,000 for levees due to quantity overruns on existing contracts, and $100,000 for engineering and design based on cost experience to date. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) Lands and damages -- $2,630,000 $2, 084, 800 7,412,500 3,000 2,911,800 545, 700 102, 500 129,600 1,000 2, 034, 500 705,700 15,931,100 Relocations 9,630,000 Reservoirs - - 380, 000 Dams -- 8,510,000 Levees 930,000 Recreation facilities 2,300,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 250,000 Permanent operating equipment 40,000 Engineering and design 2,200,000 Supervision and administration..- 1,230,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 28,100,000 Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 28, 100, 000 Pending adjustments Total costs (Federal funds only) 28,100,000 15,931,100 Undelivered orders - 838,900 Total obligation (Federal funds only) 16,770,000 Method of financing: Allocation 16,771,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year - Total funds available for obligation Appropriation required $475,200 2,217,500 287,000 4,333,200 384, 300 347, 500 60,400 '"'i35,'506' 294, 300 8,534,900 $50,000 50, 000 1,265,000 955, 000 60,000 39, 000 21,000 160,000 2,600,000 15,931,100 8,534,900 2,600,000 8,534,900 -838,900 7,696,000 7, 695, 000 1,000 7, 696, 000 . 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 $20,000 40,000 895, 000 9,000 70, 000 1,034,000 1,034,000 "i,"034,'000 1,034,000 1,034,000 Raystown Reservoir, Pa. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in Huntingdon County, Pa., on the Raystown Branch approximately dY^ miles upstream from the confluence of the Raystown Branch with the Juniata River. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.2 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost $55,100,000 Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost 55,100,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 2,488,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 2,100,000 Allocation to date 4,588,000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 4,500,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 46,012,000 PHYSICAL DATA Lands and damages: Acres: 29,300. Type: Predominantly woodland and farmland. Major improvements: Hawns Bridge Power Dam ($300,000); 1,100 sum- mer cottages; 300 farm sets and rural dwellings; 13 commercial units, 2 churches, 6 schools, 2 camps. 1276 Relocations : Roads: 2 roads, 5 miles $2,910,000. Cemeteries: 13 cemeteries, 370 graves $90,000. Power and telephone lines: 4 companies, 90 miles $1,400,000. Petroleum pipelines: 5 companies, 12 miles $1,350,000. Natural gas line: One company, 1 mile $550,000. Dam: Type: Earth and rockfill. Height: 230 feet. Length: 1,700 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 248, 000 Conservation and recreation 476, 000 Sedimentation 38,000 Total 762,000 Spillway : Type: 90 feet gated and 1,630 feet ungated weir. Capacity: (Maximum pool) 301,000 cubic feet per second (total). Regulating outlet works: Warm water: 1,250 cubic feet per second capacity, elevation 786 feet. Low pool: 8,850 cubic feet per second capacity, elevation 786 feet STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule i Land and damages Relocations.- Dam Recreation - -- Entire project JUSTIFICATION The greatest flood of record in the Juniata Basin, that of March 1936, caused estimated damages of $10,900,000 within the Juniata Basin and $8,350,000 along the lower Susquehanna River below Duncannon. It is estimated that a recurrence of this flood would cause damages of $55,700,000 in the Juniata Basin (of which $34,300,000 would occur below the dam in the Juniata Basin) and $41,600,000 along the lower Susquehanna River. Raystown Reservoir would eliminate 73 per- cent of the flood damages below the dam in the Juniata Basin and 11 percent of the flood damages along the lower Susquehanna caused by such a recurrence for a total of about $29,700,000. The reduction in the flood threats at Lewistown and other downstream com- munities, as well as the low-flow augmentation provided by reservoir storage, will expand the potential for industrial develoi^ment of the downstream area. Incidental potential benefits for water supply, water qtiality, and downstream production have not been evaluated. Substantial long-range benefits will result from the development of a major recreational area expected to attract an initial attendance of 1,400,000 visitors annually. Business related to tourists and rccre- ationists will benefit the economy of the area. The Raystown Reservoir area is one of the three major recreation areas included in the plan for project 70, which is Pennsylvania's comprehensive plan to expand the economy and improve the environment for all residents of the Commonwealth. The project is located in Huntingdon County, Pa., in the Appalachian region as defined by section 403 of the Appalachian R(;gional i^evelopment Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-4). Average annual benefits: Flood control $958, 000 Recreation and enhanced fishery 2, 262, 000 Total annual benefits 3, 220, 000 3 December 1972. 1 December 1971, June 1973. Do. 1 Do. 1277 Fiscal year 1969.— The amount of $4,500,000 will be applied to— Continue acqtiisition of reservoir lands needed prior to embankment closure $2, 700, ()()() Initiate construction of dam and appurtenances 1, 400, 000 Engineering and design 200, 000 Supervision and administration 200, 000 Total 4, 500, 000 The proposed schedule provides the minimum program for construction in fiscal year 1969 and for the orderly progress of land acquisition to accomplish stream diversion and dam closure in fiscal year 1971. Non-Federal costs. — None. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $55,100,000 is an increase of $1,600,000 over the latest estimate ($53,500,000) submitted to Congress. The increase for price level rise totaled $1,400,000. Other increases include $200,000 on relocations for increased quantities recognized in detailed design; $120,000 on reservoirs for permanent boundary monumentation not previously included; and $280,000 for additional engineering and design based on cost experience to date. These increases were offset by a decrease of $400,000 on supervision and administration due to a reanalysis of requirements. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages___ $17,200,000 Relocations 6,300,000 Reservoirs 1,6 0,000 Dam 18,800,000 $127,300 $1,932,700 240, 000 Fish and wildlife facilities. Roads Levees and floodwalls Recreation facilities Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only) Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders . _. Total obligation (Federal funds only) Method of financing: Allocation . . Unobligted carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation Appropriation required 260, 000 330, 000 370, 000 5.700,000 140,000 100,000 2, 500, 000 1,800,000 55, 100, 000 55, 100, 000 $2, 700, 000 50, 000 1,300,000 50,000 1,513,600 120,300 1,761,200 1,761,200 546, 400 107,700 2,826,800 2,826,800 200, 000 200, 000 500. 000 500, 000 1,761,200 2,826,800 4,500,000 1,761,200 92, 900 1.854,100 2,826,800 -92,900 2,733,900 2,488,000 2,100,000 4, 500, 000 4, 500, 000 633, 900 2,733,900 $12,440,000 6, 060, 000 1,550,000 17,500,000 260, 000 280, 000 370,000 5, 700. 000 140,000 100,000 240, 000 1.372,000 46,012,000 46,012,000 45,012,000 '46,012,066 '46,012,000 4,500,000 45,012.000 Tioga-Hammond Reservoir, P.v. (Continuation of land acquisition) Location. — The Tioga Dam is located in Tioga County, Pa., on the Tioga River about 1.7 miles above its junction with Crooked Creek, and the companion Hammond Dam is located on Crooked Creek approximately 3.3 miles above its confluence with the Tioga River. Authorization. — 1958 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.5 to 1. 1278 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost « $57,500,000 Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated projectcost 57,500,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 1,406,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 870,000 Allocation to date 2,276,000 4 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1,000,000 6 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 54,224,000 1 Total project cost Fiscal year 1969 budget provides for continuation of land acquisition and engineering and design only. PHTSICAL DATA Lands and damages: Acres: 6,795. Type: Agricultural and woodland. Improvements: Typical farm units and residences. Dams: Tioga: Type: EarthfiU. Height: 140 feet. Length: 2,600 feet. Hammond: Type: EarthfiU. Height: 122 feet. Length: 3,830 feet. Saddle: Type: EarthfiU. Height: 122 feet. Length: 1,935 feet. Spillway (Saddle Dam) : Type: Chute type with uncontrolled concrete weir, 300 feet wide at crest. Capacity: (Maximum pool), 215,500 cubic feet per second. Relocations : Roads: 18.3 miles, $8,600,000. Railroad: 20.9 miles, $8,800,000. Telephone lines: 16.3 mUes, $120,000. Power lines: 27.5 mUes, $350,000. Gas lines: 20.9 miles, $750,000. Cemeteries: (10)— 870 graves, $280,000. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control _. 105, 100 Conservation pool: Permanent 5, 000 Summer (incremental) 14,900 Total- 125, 000 Outlet works: Type: (gate controlled). Tioga Dam: 14 feet diameter conduit. Saddle Dam: 14 feet diameter tvmnel. Capacity: (pool at spillway crest) (Tioga Dam) 8,300 cubic feet per second and (Saddle Dam) 6,000 cubic feet per second. Status {Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule. — Lauds and damages, November 1974. Other features of project not definitely scheduled. 1279 JUSTIFICATION The Tioga-Hammond Reservoir is an integral unit of the comprehensive plan for flood control in the North Branch Susquehanna River Basin, consisting of 13 flood-control reservoirs and 24 local protection projects. The project is urgently needed for control of the flood-producing Chemung River and fits well into the overall plan of water resources development for the entire Susquehanna River Basin. This reservoir will control a drainage area of 400 square miles in the Chemung River watershed and will furnish additional protection needed at Corning and Elmira, N.Y., and at the highly developed and densely populated Wyoming Valley region of Pennsylvania. Coupled with the other authorized reservoirs, it would control runoff from an appreciable portion of the drainage area of the north branch. Benefits would extend downstream to localities along the lower Susquehanna River. The flood of May 1946, which caused damages of over $14 million in the Tioga and Chemung Basins and was responsible for the loss of at least two lives, sub- stantiates the need for protection in the Tioga Basin and the necessity for supple- menting protection at the vital Corning-Elmira industrial areas and downstream localities on the North Branch Susquehanna River. Flood protection for the transportation routes and for the agricultural, mining, and industrial areas, with their many specialized industries concentrated in the valleys of the North Branch Susquehanna River and its principal tributaries, is also of great importance. The reservoir and planned recreational facilities will stimulate the economy and contribute to the long-range economic growth of the area. The project is located in Tioga County, Pa., in the Appalachian region, as defined by section 403 of the Regional Development Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-4) . Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $4, 900, 000 Recreation 670, 000 Total annual benefits 5, 570, 000 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1 million will be applied to — Continue acquisition of lands $400, 000 Engineering and design 520, 000 Supervision and administration 80, 000 Total 1, 000, 000 The requested amount will be applied to acquire project lands in order to pre- serve the dam and reservoir site from further development, and to advance topographic surveys, foundation explorations, and feature design memorandums for highway and railroad relocations, Mansfield protective works, and the dam and appurtenances. Non-Federal costs. — None required. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $57,500,000 is an increase of $3,900,000 over the latest estimate of $53,600,000 submitted to Congress. An increase of $2,500,000 is attributable to price level rise. The remaining $1,400,000 results from advancement in planning and more detailed design which increased lands and damages, local protection at Mans- field, recreation facilities, and Government costs with offsetting decreases for dam and appurtenances and for relocations. 91-459—68 — pt. 1 81 1281 STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Floodwall Pumping plant. Entire project.. 50 June 1969. 100 May 1966. 65 June 1969. JUSTIFICATION The downtown section of the city of Norfolk is subject to periodic flooding from hurricane and nortlieast storm tides. At the stage of the record flood of 1933, the overflow area totals about 52 acres, representing a major portion of the central busmess district, an important shoppaig, commercial, and financial center. A recurrence of the record flood would cause damages estimated at $3,4.50,000, which alone exceeds the total estimated project cost. Damages from the storm of March 1962 are estimated at $1,300,000. Benefits, consisting entirely of flood damages prevented to existing developments, are estimated at $241,000 annually. In addition to the evaluated items, important benefits would result from the prevention of damages to cars, trucks, and buses on streets and park- ing lots, as well as intangibles stemming from elimination of disruption of traffic and business. Also, as part of a redevelopment program, major improvements are luiderway in downtown Norfolk, including a portion of the area subject to flooding. Construction of these improvements will enhance the project benefits. Fiscal year 1969.— The requested amount of $500,000 will be aiDplied as follows to provide for project completion — Complete continuing contract for second section of floodwall $470, 000 Engineering and design 5, 000 Supervision and administration 25, 000 Total 500, OOO Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to bear 30 percent of the total project construction cost. The amount is ciurently estimated at $830,000, broken down as follows — Lands and damages $231, OOO' Relocations of utilities (sanitary sewers, water, gas, electric and tele- phone) 139, 000 Cash contribution 460, 000 Total 830, 000 Local interests are required to maintain and operate the project upon com- pletion. The average annual cost for maintenance and operation is estimated at $15,500. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of cooperation were provided by an ordinance of the Norfolk City Council adopted July 30, 1963. Close coordina- tion between the city and the district has been maintained on project design and its relation to a proposed waterfront drive, and on work to be performed by the city. The city has acquired the lands and made the relocations necessary for con- struction of the pumping plant and the first section of the floodwall, and is in the process of acquiring the lands for the second section of the floodwall. Cash contributions totaling $251,000 have been made, and the remaining contribution will be made prior to initiation of the contract for the second section of the flood- wall. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $1,940,000 is an increase of $199,000 over the latest estimate ($1,741,000) sub- mitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $140,000 for higher price levels, $253,000 based on more detailed planning of construction, and $216,000 in engineering and design and in supervision and administration based on a recent reanah'sis of requirements. These increases were largely ofi'set by an increase of $410,000 in the required non-Federal cash contribution. The increase in non- Federal cash contribution is due to a decrease in the cost of lands and relocations required to be provided by local interests. The non-Federal cost is 30 percent of the total project construction cost, and the non-Federal cash contribution is the- difference between this amount and the cost of lands and relocations. 1282 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total ti June 30, 19S7 (3) Current fiscal year 1958 (4) Budget fiscal yaar 1959 (5) Balance to compl3te after fiscal year 1969 (6) Floodwalls_.. -- $1,485,000 463. 300 295, 000 155,700 2, 400, 000 Pumping plants Engineering and design Supervision and administration.-. Total applied cost (Federal funds and non-Federal contributions) Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions) Pending adjustments Total cost (Federal funds and non- Federal contributions) -_ 2,400,000 Federal funds: Total cost 1,940,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations Non-Federal contributions: Total cost -- 460,000 Undelivered orders _ Total obligations Method fmancing: Federal funds: Appropriations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obli- gation. Appropriation required.-- Non-Federal contributions: Contributions Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obli- gation.-. Contributions required. $534, 200 463.300 235. 500 91,000 2,400,000 1,324,000 $310,800 52, 500 28, 700 392, 000 1,324,000 392,000 1,324,000 1,106.000 57,400 1,163,400 218,000 8,600 226, 600 1,440,000 392, 000 334. 000 -57,400 276,600 53.000 -8.600 49, 400 276, 600 276, 600 251,000 $640, 000 7,000 37,000 684, 000 684, 000 684, 000 500, 000 500, 000 184,000 184,000 500, 000 209,000 24,400 184.000 233,400 184,000 Operation and JSIaintenance, Geneil\.l Mr. Morris. We will insert justifications covering the request of $21,486,000 for operation and maintenance. 1. Navigation (a) Channels and harbors. — The budget estimate of $18,028,000 provides for essential maintenance work on 39 channel and harbor projects named in the list which follows. The work to be accomplished under this activity consists of main- taining the navigation channels and harbors and anchorages of coastal harl)ors and waterways by means of dredging, snagging, and oi)eration and rej^air of navigation structures, all as authorized by the laws adopting river and harbor projects. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, Estimated, Estimated, fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year 1967 1968 1969 Explanation of major changes DELAWARE IWW from Delaware River to Chesa- peake Bay, Delaware, and Maryland. Wilmington Harbor.. IWW Chincoteague Bay to Delaware Bay. IWW Rehoboth Bay to Delaware Bay DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Washington Harbor $1,055,200 410,800 $1,015,800 78.600 $1,045,000 300, 000 Variation in maintenance requirements. Increased periodic mainte- 1,100 6,600 4,000 2,000 2,500 108,000 nance. Periodic maintenance. 12,700 60, 500 12, 000 For operations only in fiscal year 1969. 1283 OBLIGATIONS— Continued Project Actual, Estimated, Estimated, Explanation of major fiscal year qscal year fiscal year changes 1967 1968 1969 MARYLAND Baltimore Harbor and Channels. $284, 200 Herring Bay and Rockhold Creek_ Honga River and Tar Bay NEW JERSEY Absecon Inlet. Delaware River from Philadelphia to Trenton. Delaware River, Philadelphia to the Sea.. Cold Spring Inlet, N.J Newark Bay, Hackensack and Passaic Rivers New Jersey (WW. Raritan River Raritan River to Arthur Kill-Cutoff Channel Sandy Hook Bay NEW YORK East Rockaway Inlet. Fire Island Inlet Hudson River Hudson River Channel. Lake Montauk Harbor. Larchmont Harbor New York Harbor New York and New Jersey Channel. PENNSYLVANIA Schuylkill River VERMONT Narrows of Lake Champlain 51,200 23, 000 4, 706, 700 30, 600 12,600 294, 600 591,900 5,300 7,200 101,100 750,600 526, 000 680, 600 625, 400 331,600 3,400 $580, 300 247, 400 293, 000 263,400 65. 300 425, 600 615,300 640, 900 630, 700 500, 500 254, 300 282, 700 $1, 420, 000 First-year maintenance in York Spit. 35,000 Periodic maintenance. 35,000 Do. 60, 000 220, 000 Includes periodic dredging of shoals across Absecon Bay. 770,900 500,000 Scheduled maintenance in late fiscal year 1967 deferred until early fiscal year 1968. 4,665,900 5,049,500 Increased periodic mainte- nance. 60,000 Periodic maintenance. 450,000 Variation in maintenance re- quirements. 800, 000 Repair to bulkheads, Pt. Pleasant Canal. 375,000 Periodic dredging in south channel. 200,000 Periodic maintenance. 350, 000 Do. 65, 000 125,000 696, 000 411,000 50, 000 328, 000 600, 000 605, 000 250, 000 Variation in maintenance re- quirements. Increased periodic mainte- nance. Variation in maintenance requirements. Periodic maintenance. Period maintenance of break- water. Periodic maintenance of different sections. 25, 000 Periodic maintenance sched- uled in fiscal year 1968. VIRGINIA Atlantic Intracoastal WWy (Norfolk District). Blackwater River . 661,100 743,900 1,050,000 6,000 30. 000 550, 000 1,910,000 16,000 114,000 50, 000 33,000 57, 000 75,000 20, 000 18, 028, 000 Periodic maintenance in addition to annual main- tenance requirements. Periodic maintenance. Greenvale Creek James River 222,'76o"' 967, 800 6,300 240, 500 566,'766" 979, 400 5,700 88, 500 Do. Do Norfolk Harbor Rappahannock River Waterway on Coast of Virginia First maintenance of 45- foot channel. Periodic maintenance. Hoskins Creek Newport News Creek _ Tangier Channel. __ requirements. Periodic maintenance. Do. Do Totuskev Creek Little Wicomico River Other projects maintained periodically... Total, channels and harbors 23;300"" 1,396,700 14. 030. 800 500" 2,130,100 . 15,970,900 Di. Do. Total navigation 14, 030, 800 15,970,900 18,028,000 1284 (6) Locks, dams, and canals. — None. £. Flood control (a) Reservoirs. — The budget estimate of $681,000 provides for the operational requirements of 11 flood control reservoir operations. Requirements include: operation and ordinary maintenance of project facilities; labor, supplies, materials, and parts for day-to-day functioning; and periodic maintenance, repairs, and replacements. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, Estimated, Estimated, fiscal year fiscal year fiscal year 1967 1968 1969 Explanation of major changes NEW YORK Almond Reservoir. Arkport Reservoir. _ — East Sidney Reservoir... _._ Whitney Point Reservoir PENNSYLVANIA Bush Reservoir Curvi^ensville Reservoir Francis E. Walter (Bear Creek) Reservoir Gen. Edgar Jadvi/in Reservoir.. Prom pton Reserve ir Stillwater Reservoir York, Pa. (Indian Rock Reservoir) Other reservoirs. _ Scheduling of flood control reservoir operations. Total, reservoirs.. , ;39, 900 $69, 700 $46, 600 Variation in maintenance requirements. 18, 000 49, 000 19, 000 Do. 55, 100 45, 500 59, 400 36, 500 44, 600 47, 500 85, 100 547, 700 65, 100 48, 500 Variation in maintenance requirements. 38, 800 83, 100 27,900 73, 100 31,100 49, 500 1,700 40, 400 163, 000 29, 700 42, 800 31,300 61,700 14,300 43, 000 200, 000 37,000 80, 000 37, 000 56, 000 Removal of dead trees. Instrumentation for deter- mining dam settlement. Variation of periodic mainte- nance. 7,900 7,400 7,000 664, 500 681,000 (&) Channel improvements, inspections, and miscellaneous maintenance. The budget estimate of $144,000 provides for the essential annual requirements of two local flood protection projects including 11 separate units of the southern New York project and inspections of 99 completed works during the budget year. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes Southern New York F. C. projects- Cumberland, Md. and Ridgeley, W. Va... Inspection of completed works Total, channel improvements, in- spections and miscellaneous $90, 200 9,900 37, 100 137,200 $105, 400 13,700 34, 100 153,200 $95, 000 11,000 38, 000 144, 000 Total — Flood control 684,900 817,700 825, 000 3. Multiple-purpose projects including power None. 4. Protection of navigation The budget estimate of $2,083,000 provides for accomplishing the work essential to the administration and enforcement of specific laws enacted for protection of navigation, including the prevention of obstructive and injurious deposits in the tidal waters of three major harbors (sec. o, River and Harbor Act, Mar. 2, 194.5); general regulatory function (River and Harbor Act, Mar. 3, 1899): removal and disposal of drift and debris at three major harbors and one river; eradication of aquatic plant growth; condition surveys on some projects for which maintenance is not scheduled in the budget year. 1286 NEW TORK HARBOR ANCHORAGE AREAS Mr. Rhodes. Turning to page 81, New York Harbor anchorage areas. You started last year with an allocation of $100,000. Considering the budgetary situation, General, would this be a good project to postpone until we can do a little bit better job of balancing the national budget ? General Koisch. I think my answer to that would be no. In general, within my di^asion the places where we have taken our deferment-s and moneys have generally been in the navigation field. The few navigation projects that I have in the budget are important. NEWARK BAY, HACKENSACK AND PASSAIC RRT^RS, N.J. Mr. Rhodes. On page 55, Newark Bay, Hackensack and Passaic Rivers is a similar project. And similarly, it was started last year. This had an allocation of $100,000. You are asking for $2 million this year. Again, considering the budgetary situation, could this be postponed ? General Koisch. I would rather not see it postponed. This is a very important one. This is where we have our very dangerous entrance on the Newark Bay where we had that very serious accident a few years ago. Port Elizabeth and Port Newark are growing with con- tainerization shipments as shown previously on the slide. It is getting too much traffic for the existing channel width. ACCIDENT IN NEWARK BAY Mr. RoBisoN, If the gentleman would yield, the justifications on page 56 bring to mind the fact that, in June of 1966, there was an acci- dent with a tanker in this particular channel that claimed 33 lives at the time. I understand that if the tanker had exploded, which I do not believe it did, a good deal of property on Statcn Island could have been exposed to considerable hazard. Is that right ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. Are we to understand that if this project had been com- pleted, that the pilots of those ships would have been able to act with more foresight than they apparently did? General Koisch. That is difficult to answer, sir. I believe the investi- gation of the accident indicated human error. Had there been wider channels, the pilots might have had a better chance to redress them- selves. Mr. Rhodes. You have a better percentage working for you if you have a wider channel ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr, RoBisoN. I think that is all. Mr. Morris. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Davis. General, there are a number of instances that I would like to get your comments on where your division was substantially affected either by slippage or reserve. I wanted to get your comments in relation to those, starting first with Newark Bay, Hackensack and 1287 Passaic Rivers, where there was $1 million included in the confer- ence report. Then you had $2()(),000 allocated for slippage and $700,- 000 in reserve, leaving a net allocation of $100,000. Does this indicate a lack of urgency here ? General Koiscii. No, sir. This is one of the projects that got caught in the slowdown. We are going to be 1 year late with it. Mr. Daa^s. This is not due to any onsite problem, but simply was dollars and cents ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mv. Davis. I am wondering whether our fiscal situation is any bet- ter this year than it was last. Inasmuch as they did see fit in the ex- ecutive department to cut this by 90 percent last year, as to whether in view of the continuing fiscal situation, we would not be justified in a substantial amount of the funding deferred in 1969 fiscal year. General Koisch. I would prefer not to have it deferred. Mr. DA^^s. I assume you preferred not to have it deferred in the current fiscal year, too, didn't you ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. NEW YORK HARBOR ANCHORAGES Mr. Davis. On page 81, Mr. Rhodes touched upon that. New York Harbor. Here is another instance where the figures there are identical to the ones I had. Here again there was a $1 million conference allocation and then $200,000 put in slippage and $700,000 in reserve. I suppose my question would be similar to the question that I asked you with respect to the Newark Bay project. General Koisch. Same thing. HAMPTON ROADS, VA. Mr. Davis. Then on page 86, Hampton Roads, there is some indica- tion here of a projected decrease in the overall project as reflected by a decrease of $1.9 million in the estimated Federal cost. Does this rep- resent an actual decrease that you took advantage of, that actual de- crease in the $900,000 reduction in the current fiscal year ? General Koisch. The reduction in the estimate comes from getting bids lower than we anticipated and from reductions in the quantities involved. Mr. Davis. It actually does not represent a material change from your projected scope of the project? General Koiscii. No, sir. RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, N.J. Mr. Davis. On page 111, we have a somewhat similar situation there, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook in New Jersey. There was a conference allocation of $700,000, $650,000 allocated to slippage, leaving $50,000 in the final allocation. Is this a case where because of its being entirely slippage, was there some physical onsite problem that caused the delay? General Koisch. Yes, sir. In this case, the local cooperation didn't come throuffh on time. 1289 cost $1,285,000. Those changes increased the Government costs by a little over a million dollars. URGENCY OF PROJECT Mr. Davis. Would you consider this as one of your more urgent projects? General Koisch. Yes, sir. The Schuylkill Kiver needs flood control and it urgently needs water quality improvement. The project is an important part of the regional plan for the basin ; it is the next in order of priority among all the other projects in the Delaware River Basin. The State of Pennsylvania is verj^ strongly in favor of getting this one constructed. INCREASED DAM HEIGHT Mr. Davis. You spoke of a part of the increased cost being due to the increased height of the dam. General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. How much of an increase? General Koisch. An increase of 4 feet was required in order to pvo- vide the maximum site development. Mr. Davis. Is this increase mainly for water and recreational purposes ? General Koisch. The reservoir storage capacity and allocations to project purposes are not materially different from the authorizing document. CHANGE IN BENEFIT-TO-COST RATIO Mr. Davis. In so doing, you decreased the benefit-to-cost ratio from 1.8 to 1.5, did you not? General Koisch. The benefit-to-cost ratio did change as you indi- cated. The annual charges increased approximately $300,000. Mr. Davis. Are we getting back to the matter here that the investi- gating staff referred to with respect to Tocks Island where there apparently is no isolation of benefit-to-cost ratio with respect to major increases in the scope of a project ? General Koisch. We have not changed the scope. The dollars and cents changed because of design changes and rises in price IcA^els. There has been no change in the scope of the project. Wlien this project was submitted to Congress in July 1966, the annual charges were com- puted at a 3% percent interest rate. When we reviewed it in July 1967, we used a 314-percent interest rate, which also increased the annual charges. RAYSTOWN RESERVOIR, PA. Mr. Davis. On page 175, concerning the Raystown Resei*voir, Pa. "Wliat do you have in the way of ongoing construction ? General Koiscii. Just the relocation stage at this time, sir. Mr. Davis. I note a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.2 to 1. That is a charge of aliout 70 percent to recreation and enhanced fisheries in accordance Avith the justification on page 177. General Koisch. That is 67 percent for recreation and 3 percent for enhanced fisheries. 1290 NORFOLK, VA. i\Ir. DA^^;s. On page 196, does the Norfolk flooclwall work represent ph^'sically a resumption, or were you living off the fat of previous appropriations in the current fiscal year ? General Koiscii. I think we were doing the latter. Mr. Davis. It didn't appear before us last year ? General Koisch. No, sir. That is why we called it a resumption. We continued work Avith moneys that were left over from the prior year. Mr. Davis. It is not referred to as a resumption here at all. It is re- ferred to as continuing. Can you advise us as to what actual work is being done in the current fiscal year ? General Koiscn. This is continuing. I did not mean to say resump- tion. The work is primarily concerned with that floodwall effort as I showed you on one of the slides. One portion of the floodwall is com- pleted. Then they had a lot of difiicuhy trying to route a higliAvay down in the waterfront area. Our plans and their plans conflicted, so we all had to slow down and get together again. Now we are at the stage where we are ready to go ahead with the remaining portion of the floodwall. Mr. Davis. Wiich will complete the work ? General Koiscii. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. That is all. Mr. Morris. Mr. Robison ? MODIFIED BUDGET REQUEST Mr. Robison. General Koisch, it may not be fair to ask you this question, and it probably isn't; but you are the first corps witness 1 have seen since the ncAvspaper accounts of the fact that we may be receiving a new budget or a modified budget request, the details of wdiich have not been made known to any of us. Can you unveil any portion of that for us yet ? General Koisoii. No, sir. We actually have not been contacted with regard to that. I saw the newspaper article ; however, in tlie Office of the Chief of Engineers it was not discussed. To my knowledge, there are no instructions of any kind pertaining to it. Mr. Robison. My. Chairman, I am somewhat uncertain how we should proceed, and about the wisdom of continuing to proceed with these hearings, if there is in fact to be a modified budget request of some sort, and if we are considering projects that eventually may be ]:»u]lod out of that budget request. You do not know anytliing alwut this? General Koiscii. No, sir. Mr. Robison. So we go ahead. Mr. Morris. I think that the committee should go ahead anyway, be- cause whether the Bureau of the Budget might modify its request or not, does not have any bearing on the determinations which this com- mittee must make on the 1969 bill, to which the gentlemen from New York and Wisconsin will make their usual excellent contribution. Mr. Robison. Thank you very much. 1291 DELAWARE RIVER ANCHORAGES Mr. RoBisoN. (ireiuM'al, for (lie ^UK•lu)r;lj^•e [>)•() jecl in the Delnwure River as shown on page 50, you are asking only $50,000 this year, Avhich leaves $20 million-plus to go on this project, so we have almost a shutdown of this project, it seems to me. Is there some reason for that, other than our overall budgetaiy problem? General Koiscii. No, sir. GREAT LAKES TO HUDSON RIVER WATERWAY Mr. EoBisoN. On page 02, the Great Lakes to Hudson River "Water- way project, this is in reimbursement of the work program done by the State of New^ York, as I understand it. We have had discussions about this in past hearings. The appropriation request is, as I read the justifications, for fully reimbursing the State of New^ York for the work it has done on this waterw^ay, is that right? General Koiscii. Yes, sir; that is the way it is now. The funds requested will provide for completion of leimbursement to the State for all remaining work under the project authorization. VIRGINIA BEACH, VA. Mr. RoBisoN. On page 93, with reference to the Virginia Beach erosion project, I note that like most such projects it involves recrea- tional benefits as well as beach erosion benefits which are related to the protection of property. Is there any way to really separate recrea- tion benefits from such a project so that if we were weighing relative priorities we woidd say to you, "Go ahead only on the beach erosion part of it and defer the recreational benefits"? There is not, is there? General Koiscii. Not as a practical matter. A beach is a beach. We could arbitrarily make some decisions like up to such-and-such an elevation is beach erosion, and some other elevation recreation, but it does not have that much meaning. AYLESWORTH CREEK RESERVOIR, TA. Mr. RoBisoN. Page 150, the Aylesworth Creek Reservoir in Penn- sylvania — of the total of $520,000 requested in fiscal year 1969, $480,000 is to "complete construction of the dam, access roads and recreation facilities." Can you tell us how much of this $480,000 is directly related to the completion of the recreational facilities for the .project ? General Koiscii. Recreation facility, fiscal year 1969, $45,000. DEI'T2RR-VL OF RECREATION FACILITIES Mr. RoBisoN. Could that particular item be deferred as less urgent, or is it in such an integral part of tlie program that it could not from an engineering standpoint be separated out ? General Koisch. I would say that from an engineering standpoint you could delete it. However, the recreation facility is a part of the current contract and the monevs that we are a^skijig for this vear would complete the entire project. From a main engineering standpoint, probably administration of contract standpoint, yes, it could be deleted. 1292 Mr. RoBisoN. You understand that the point of my question is that flood control, the protection of property, elimination of property dam- age, protection of human life, and so on, in times such as these should have a higher priority than pure recreational features where we can separate them out ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. BELTZVILLE KESERVOIIt, PA. Mr. RoBisoN. On pas:e 156 of the justifications, with reference to the Beltzville Eeservoir, of the $5,700,000 requested here, $220,000 is to be used to initiate reservoir clearing and construction of recreation and wildlife facilities. Can a portion of that $220,000 be deferred if we recommend it ? General Koisch. My offhand answer to that would be yes, sir. We would have to go back and take a look at the specific project to make sure that what we are going to do there is not something that gets cov- ered up in some way by a later feature. Mr. RoBisoN. Like building boat ramps, you have to build them now as another corps witness said because once the water is in the reser\oir it is pretty hard to build their foundation properly. General Koisch. Yes, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. If we get to that point, could you guide us or some- one could guide us ? General Koisch. Yes, sir. FOSTER JOSEPH SAYERS RESERVOIR, PA. Mr. RoBisoN. On page 167, the same question, generally speaking, but now with respect to the Foster Joseph Sayers Dam at Blanchard, Pa., where, as is shown on page 170 of the $2,600,000 requested, $905,000 is asked for to continue construction of recreation facilities consisting of sanitary facilities and water supply, and another $50,000 is re- quested to initiate construction of remaining recreation facilities. Again, my question would be, could these items be deferred out of this overall request ? General Koiscii. If I recall the status of that one, sir, it becomes much more difficult here. A good deal of the recreation money is actually in sanitary facilities and sewage transport into a disposal plant in which we have gone into as partners with the Borough of Howard. I don't think we can separate them entirely any more. One of the lines are to go across the pool. We have to get that line constructed before we put any water in the reservoir. RAYSTOWN RESERVOIR, PA. Mr. RoBisoN. Finally, Mr. Chairman, in connection with the Rays- town Reservoir in Pennsylvania, as shown on page 175, I think Mr. Davis touched upon this. This is very substantially a recreation and ^or Fish and Wildlife project. If you had to find a candidate for a defer- ral, even though there are important flood control benefits in the i^roj- ect, would this be a good candidate for deferral because of its sub- stantial recreation and Fish and Wildlife features? 1294 or 1.8 percent of the Nation's total. In contrast, it has a population of 11.5 million people, 5.6 percent of the Nation's total, with a projection of 13.8 million in 1980 and 25.2 million by 2020. A highly industrialized and urbanized area (80 percent of its population being urban), it is subject to tremendous damages when exposed to the severe climatic conditions it frequently faces. A coastal region with a coastline of 6.100 miles, it is dotted with major commercial harbors and a myriad of small recreation boating harbors totaling over 172. The area also con- tains 14 major river basins. The Division currently operates 28 flood control reser^'oirs in the basins. This is the reservoir at East Brimiield. Mr. BoLAND. It is nice of you to mclude a slide of a project in my own area. Colonel Renier. It is a pretty picture, too. We also have one at Woonsocket. As to the principal water resource needs of the area, as a result of the impact of climate and coastal influences, the principal water resource needs and problems in our Division relate to continuing flood control responsibilities tlirough resein^oirs and local protection. This slide is a local protection project at Woonsocket. This slide is at Portland Har- bor. This is a slide showing the shore erosion at Gay Head. This is a slide of the hurricane barrier at New Bedford. The slide of this project shows the associated recreation facilities at Townshend Dam; and here are two slides on the elimination of debris in harbors. As you can see, there are many problems of that nature in the older harbors of New England. GENERAL STATUS REPORT Our constraction program is well in hand with the exception of the Stamford hurricane bai-rier which has had a series of delays. However, it will be in operation for the 1968 hurricane season. Colebrook, Sucker Brook, and Hop Brook Dam and Reservoirs will be completed this cal- endar year ; Providence River and Harbor dredging is well ahead of schedule; this calendar year we will avrard the Ansonia-Derby local ])rotection project, Provincetown Harbor breakwater, Weymouth- Fore aud Town Rivers dredging, and the second increment of Ply- mouth Harbor, a breakwater. We presently have seven projects under "Advanced Engineering and Design" which will be augmented by three new projects in fiscal year 1969. Our study program has 28 funded navigation studies with two new ones this year. We will complete nine of these this fiscal year. The Connecticut River Basin comprehensive study, in its fifth year of study, is now in its plan formulation stage witli completion sched- uled for the fall of 1969. The studies of sites for flood control in the upper Merrimack River Basin, N.H., are scheduled or completion in 1968. Studies of the Saugus and Pine Rivers in Massachusetts and south coastal urban areas in Maine are continuing. PROGRAM PROGRESS PROBLEMS Our major procedural and in-house problem, aside from that of gaining consensus from our many coordinating groups, is obtaining assurances and approvals of local groups. Much of this is due to com- 1295 munity financial incapability and some is attributable to strong or vested opposition groups who just do not want disruption of their status quo. This procedure is time consuming and delaying as well as expensive, and despite our efforts, several instances involved nega- tive i-eports and declaring projects inactive. We try to gage the tenor of civil feeling to hold expenditures to a minimum by cutting off ac- tivity at an economical point. SELECl'ED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Earlier, I stated we would complete the Golebrook Kiver Dam and Eeservor this year. This is one of the largest dams in New England. It is a rolled earth-fill and rock-fill dam, 223 feet high, 1,300 feet long, with a storage capacity of 97,500 acre-feet. It is the second multipur- pose dam in New England and provides storage for flood control, water supply (for the city of Hartford, Conn.), recreation, and down- stream hsh habitat enhancement. A slide shows the construction in the fall of 1966 followed by a representation in the fall of 1967. I think it would be of interest to you to note the high interest of the citizenry of the area. When we opened the area for an open house visitation, 1,500 people showed up with lunch baskets to view the project. Then we had another open house in 1967 and 2,900 people showed up. STAMFORD The Stamford hurricane barrier, in Connecticut, is our third major hurricane project and will become operational by the hurricane season this year. In the case of a recurrence of the 1938 storm of record, it would prevent $5,860,000 of $6,480,000 of damages. The following slides show a stage of construction for a particular part, which is the seat for the navigation gate. NEW PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION STARTS The fiscal year 1969 budget provides us with three new planning starts. Baker Brook, a local protection project, and Nookagee Dam and Reservoir, are the second increments of the water resources devel- opment plan of the North Nashua Eiver Basin at Fitchburg, Mass. Whitmanville Dam and Reservoir is now under design. The develop- ment plan as shown on the slide consists of four reservoirs and three local protection projects estimated to cost $16 million. Protecting the heavily industrialized Fitchburg-Leominster area, it would prevent $28 million of expected $28,280,000 flood damages in a recurrence of the record flood of 1936. Three of tlie four reservoirs will have water supply provisions. Gaysville Dam and Reservoir, the third new planniiig start, is a $25 million dollar multipurpose plan in central Vermont. It is a long needed adjunct to tlie present 14 reservoirs in the Connecticut River Basin coordinated flood protection plan. In addition to flood control, it will provide a major recreational area and low-flow aug- mentation. Average benefits will be $1.4 million. 91-459 — 68— pt. 1 82 1296 GENERAL The New England Division, until recently, has developed it.- reser- voir program basically on the single purpose flood control us?. Following this is a slide of Thomaston Dam. It is a tlry d:ini for flood control only. This concept is no longer tenable today. There is a new aiul a needed philosophy of multipurpose use of our reservoirs. They car, no longer be a force in being for flood protection alone but un'ist l)c integrated into every day use to assist in the problems of water suii- ply, such as this one at Littleville, low flow augmentation, recreation. and water quality improvement. This requires planning, both for im- mediate and long-range use. We are currently active in this resolu- tion through comprehensive studies on the Comiecticut River. Cliarlc- River, and Merrimack River; and as a participant in the Xorrli At- lantic region and Northeast water supply studies. A restudy is required of some 30 of our reservoirs to see if tliey can be converted to multipurpose use and support the needs of tlie area developed in the studies I mentioned. We have developed, and ai-e continuing to develop, the recreational potential of these reservoirs through seasonal regulation to care for the exploding recreatioiial demands of the area. The total visitor use for 1967 was OA-ei' 3 million visitor days. You will recognize this planning effort requires a tremendous amon.nt of coordination with Federal, State, and local agencies. Such activity is time consuming and costly. In the New England region tliere have been established recently the New England River Basin Commission under the aegis of the Water Resource Council and the New En.oland Regional Commission under the Department of Commerce. We are working closely with them in the field of water resources, and they do have influences on the planning program. Gentlemen, this, in brief, describes some of our acti\ities and plan- ning for the water resources needs in New England. We already ha\e accomplished much to fill the needs of the area in the past : and. mucli will remain to be done in the future to meet the ever-increasing needs of the constantly growing economy of the Northeast. This concludes my presentation. Mr. BoLAND. Thank you very much, Colonel Renier, for your state- ment and for the very fine slides on the area. WATER LEVELS AT RESERVOIRS As you indicated, our committee repoi-t of the la'^t ^e^sion v-^ -^^^in we requested a])]iropriate attention be given to maintoiianco of '••:^t'U' level on reservoirs at a higher level for recreation and oth?r n ^ a long as it doesn't endanger the meeting of flood control reoMi"'? '^ . Specifically, what reservoirs do you have under studv i-; \^-- T"-,< • land to determine whether or not they can be n. ed to a groat, r •■■^Mit for reci-eational ])uri)Oses? Colonel Rexfer. We have performed some stndie- on t^ ^ ""^ '''^ Mountain, and East Brimfield projects. We are gonv t-> ..v>t:M--'> working north into the State of Vermont on two of tl^e r^"^ ^' • . In Connecticut, Colebrook will have a development, Ho"i l>ro^K- •ili have a development. Of course, these are the newer one^. On t'l^ :)■!" 1297 ones, we are goin p Q < a a S 3 ■3 o s :3 CG oo >. -O t_i m r^ a _o OJ *-ij> e3 =3 ■-I o 2 ^ ^° S.2 c o o r- ° o .^ to 1—* jj 2 H S ■S.2 .^- o Jo O o c £ ■o o C/5 E Q.Q. c: i E 3-a .^ •^ ^ O "o BO O 5 J2 o O ^ CD w Q.O Q. o -i i ■o o'-o Z 2 "s; a>" E o "S Sf ^ ■o , Q-CJ w C «J >< »- o o *- V, E. e:: ;^£Eo o ro_ o lT b o TO c: .^ -■!2 5 . ;■- E S i o 5— .^ c ll°H ■" ^ O CD O :^ Q.= E ■£ 2 E-^,2, |5 = 5.2-0 CO.E jc *-' QJ E ♦- ^ QQC liiil a. g-Q-^-g -^■O i n, O '•2 ^-^ — "-o ro :00 E «_•' ;|oi|.: S-° o =,E - E - C'3- 2-" E£i°-= £",5-1 jcc— o ■5?-° 1301 ,^ ^ Ci c — - S? 2: =: — " = "^ — -- — j: 3 5-52 ^5-|g. 'lljlit ~ " E Oa;J!"'gEra.° g-g£^-i:^E ip|i|i| l^'iE; 'E vf ° ° *- O O OJtO QJ 2tS-Q >>'^ > TO CD — CSI OJ :.Q ^ *-i >- E e- \ C TO — "to — O GJ ■^ ' c -° E — 5= "-"O ro'5 g^z: *- .M = E 5 "i Q_ — (Dp ^lof i ? o " o S ■^ to oc^ f oo . 5DQ^E :5-^is: -2 = = ■! — S '° i^llfill S(-.ES "^ x£c£2_o o «t?i: S£ o-g oif ra.5 re o °2:-S5^a. S^-K'S 1302 < .9 55 5-g E S S " "^ TO «D ^ "^^ "O -c: OJ -* OJ T3^ -c= »- C o 3^"" S? >- ° E-3 E ■ ■'^■^"a'HS=''=(u 3 TO-S™^^.E2 a 3 .. O CO s^ H CO — i to ^ 03 > • c3 .o « — TO ;o cr ^ sz re s TO 00 *^ r^ "O > ■^ T3 £ I'S 2 ^ fe m E "o Q J3 Q o m E X3 JD O O in Q. o -a O "o "i o O 3 c TO 5 C o E O 5 h- ^ o 5 o 1 C CD CD o 1 03 E 2^ ■*t W fee- 'oj £ "'^ > TO _ C o o ^ o o s i2 o - a. E O o ^ ^ _^ ^ s E ■a M o tz o E c= 1 ^ .*- Z3 ij M t p g>_ S - ,„ ™ >^ F.Eo^*" — -^ ' O O TO^ -2^ES'"~c'' S ^r i i a '0 oi ">< 5. cr s ^ •^ £ M £ ^ ^ E 03 E c; C Q. g 2 1- Q. E _o i C Q. CD S ■^ X < u T3 % " 2- 03 TO ■c < JJ £ QJ 5^ ^ £ -^ ;^ 5 3 "= J3 £ c 03 s E -0 t c M £ a. £ £ "to 3 ^ s -0 c =3 ■a § £ crQ. t/3 CD ^^ 1 _o s" OS £ 3 ^ c Q. c TO t; c ■5 =3 s 2 5 >^' Q. TD -C3 ■0 TO — Q. > ' CZ ™ ■- s S 0. 00 iD 3 b ■^ != £ ■5 Q. 3 O) ^2 ^m tills- 1 i — El— o o-o^-co il 1303 J|.|jf-S Q.O O «"° ^% Q-E-- ""2^ = 5 -n ^ P m ^ o .-a.E'— > ■^._ S? o 5 ^ "^ = O O) i-. t^ «i ^ m -^ '- -?' 2: OJ to m S ° =3 -Ch^- a; = § E^ §.9 ^ o'^ o o E cji tl CO 03 (u .^ O 'I OJ -*^ i3 — o o £ ^ cc aJ . T3 3 o ™ t= i= i:: ,- ooi:= i OQ C c Q^ Q-~ =3 about them. I think I mentioned earlier we are now in the plan formulation stage and it is really beginning to start in on the wrap-up of the study. Mr. BoLAND. You expect to complete the study in the fall of lOOf) '. Colonel Renier. Correct, sir. Mr. BoLAND. I note there are some $59,000 remaining to rf-impipte the study in fiscal year 1970. Is that the figiire ? Colonel Renier. Yes. INIr. BoLAND. Are there any questions on general investigation? ? Mr. Davis. I have a few, Mr. Chairman, yes. BACK COVE, PORTLAND HARBOR, MAINE On page 2, Back Cove in Portland Harbor. The proi)osed ju-tilica- tion appears to be entirely for recreational boating; is that correct ? C^olonel Renier. This is correct, sir. UNION RIVER, INIAINE AND BASS RIVER, MASS. ]Mr. Davis. On page 4, both of those justifications refer to the term *'small boats." Are we a^^ain talking about recreational boating or arc we talking about something else ? 1305 Colonel Kexier. Sir, at Union River we have 40 fishing craft and at the current use rate, 40 recreational craft. So it is a mixture. At Bass River we have 20 fishing craft and a fleet of 330 recreational craft. rOPrONESSET BAY, MASS. yiv. Davis. Then on page 6, we have Popponesset Bay. This appar- ently is entirelv recreational boating we are talking about here, is it not? Colonel Rexier. Not quite, but almost. We have two fishing craft, two commercial boats, and 118 recreational boats using the area. westport river, mass. ]Mr. Davis. At Westport River, this refers to commercial fishing and recreational boating. Can you give us a breakdown ? Colonel Rexier. That is correct. We have one charter boat, 10 fish- ing craft, and 400 recreational craft using the area. Mr. Davis. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman; thank you. Mr. BoLAND. Mv. Robison? providexce river and harbor, R.I. Mr. Robison. Sir, it is expected that the navigation study for Provi- dence River and Harbor will be a study of methods for removing the sources of drift and debris from this harbor. You mention that local interests desire a "waterfront cleanup."' Then you go on to describe the need to remove all old structures and other sources of debris. Whose responsibility is this basically? Is it the corps' responsibility? Is it the responsibility of the cities, or the local municipalities around the harbor? I don't mean the study, but the work that eventually needs to be done. Colonel Renier. We have a responsibility in the pickup of floating debris, which we exercise, but it is really a small effort. Tlie problem that these older harbors are faced Avith is that there is a constant source of floating logs, piling, trunks of timber that just fall away and fall off. I don't know whether you saw the slides, but I showed a slide of these rotted piers that stick out. Ownership documentation has been lost on these facilities. If I have answered the question as much as you want, fine, but I would go on to say that we would attempt in this study to discern where the Federal responsibility commences and ejids, and where the local responsibilities pick up. We are not satis- fied that this should be entirely a Federal responsibility. Mv. Robison. I wouldn't be totally satisfied that on the surface it should be, either. It seems to me there may be local building codes, perhaps, that are not properly enforced, or other applicable ordinances of one kind or another. And that the property owner, if you can find the property owner of these structures, old abandoned wharves and docks, and whatnot, that are falling down and eventually forming a part of the debris which is a problem to navigation may be liable under them. Will you go into this area of responsibility ? 1306 Colonel Renter. At least 40 percent of the study effort will be on the legal side, sir. This is where it will be determined. Mr. RoBisoN. Is this sort of a pilot project in that respect? Evi- dently, there is some uncertainty as to where the Federal responsi- bility lies. Colonel Renier. We have two studies going on concurrently, one in Boston Harbor and one in Providence. I believe there has been one completed, although I am not sure it is complete, and one being made at New York City Harbor. Mr. RoBisoN. it is still going on ? Colonel Renier. Yes. MODIFICATION OF BUDGET ESTIMATES, 19 69 Mr. RoBisoN. One other question of a general nature. It has been reported in the ncAvspapers recently that the President may be considering modifications in his appropriation request for fiscal 1969, perhaps even a presentation to Congress eventually of somethmg in the way of a new budget with reductions amounting to $8 or $9 billion. So far, do you have any information on this that you can tell us about with respect to the projects in your jDroposal, whetlier or not they are going to remain in the proposal if there are budgetary modifications ? Colonel Renier. I have no such instructions or guidance. Mr. RoBisoN. Have you been consulted so far? Colonel Renier. No, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Advanced Engineering and Design Mr. Poland. We turn now to "Advanced engineering and design." BAKER BROOK, MASS. ]Mr. Poland. $90,000 is requested to initiate and complete planning of the Paker Prook, Mass., local protection project. We will insert the justifications. Baker Brook, Mass. (Initiation of plann'ng) Location and description. — The project is located on Pnker Brook in Fitch- burg and Tjvincnburg, A\'orcester County, in the north-central section of Massa- chusetts, about 40 miles west of Boston. It provides for channel improvement at three zones along Baker Prook totaling about 6,700 feet. Improvement con- sists of deepening, widening, and straightening the existing channel and includes about 2,550 feet of low earth dike, a new bridge, and drop structure. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. 1307 Sunitnari zed financial data Estimtited Federal cost $815, 000 Estiniatod non-rederal cost 245, 000 Cash contribution Other costs 245, 000 Total estimated project cost 1, 060, 000 Precoustruction planning estimate 90, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1908 Appropriation recommended for fiscal year 1969 90, 000 Balance to complete precoustruction planning after fiscal year 1969- - JUSTIFICATION Baker Brook local protection project is an mtegral part of the comprehensive water resources development plan for the North Nashua River Basin. Within the basin over 2,800 acres of valley area have been subjected to heavy losses due to floods four of wMch have occurred v^ithin the past 32 years. The basin is a center of industrial and commercial areas critical to the economy of central Massachusetts. The economic climate of the Fitchburg-Leominster area is rapidly improving as demonstrated by the termination in 1967 of its classification by the Economic Development Administration as an area of substantial unemployment. The serious consequences of any additional flooding of past magnitude would gravely retard the current progress of economic and social well-being. A recur- rence of the record 1936 flood under current economic conditions would cause losses of $28,280,000 in the North Nashua River Basin. The authorized plan for flood protection, comprised of four reservoirs and three local protection projects, would prevent $28 million of this recurring damage. The Baker Brook project serves as an important element in conjunction with the reservoirs and remaining local protection projects toward effecting this significant reduction in flood dam- ages. The average annual fl.ood control benefits are estimated at $67,900. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction, provide necessary relocations and alterations to highways, roads, and highway bridges, relocate all utilities and construct necessary interior drainage ditches; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; maintain and operate all works, after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; and prevent encroachment on improved channels. Estimated costs are as follows — Lands and damages $175, 000 Relocations 70, 000 Total 245,000 The estimated average annual cost to local interests for operation and main- tenance is $5,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not been requested. Local interests have indicated strong interest and support as well as a willingness and ability to meet the reciuirernents when required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $815,000 is an increase of $123,000 over the latest estimate ($692,000) submitted to Congress and ia due to higher price levels. Aiajor design changes since project authorization. — None. Mr. BoLAND. Please describe this new planning start. Colonel Renier. Baker Brook is an integral part of the water re- sources development plan of the North Nashua River Basin which con- sists of four re.servoirs and three local protection projects. Now, imple- mentation of the plan was started with a precoustruction planning appropriation for the Whitmanville Reservoir that was started in fiscal year 1968. This project is located in Fitchburg and Lunenburg, Mass., about 40 miles west of Boston. Improvement would consist of 1308 channel improvements, a low-earth dike and a new bridge and drop structure. The average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $67,900 and the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.4 to 1. Mr. BoLAXD. This plan envisages the construction of some four reservoirs. They must be relatively small. Colonel Renier. They are relatively small. Mr. BoLAND. Do you have any idea of how much water they will contain ? Colonel Renier. I would say about 20,000 acre-feet. Mr. BoLAXD. The $90,000 that is budgeted here is for the local pro- tection work, is it not, in the Fitchburg area ? Colonel Renier. This is correct. INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION Mr. BoLAND. "When could you get into some of the construction work on the reservoirs? Of course, I understand you have to await the planning. Colonel Renier. Perhaps late fiscal year 1971, sir. X'OOKAGEE RESERVOIR, MASS. Mr. BoLAND. $70,000 is requested to initiate planning of the Nookagee Reservoir, Mass. We will insert justification. NooKAGEE Reservoir, INIass. (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located on Phillips Brook in West- minster, Worcester County, Mass., about 4 miles northwest of the center of Fitchburg in the north-central section of Massachusetts. Multiple-purpose project provides for construction of an earth-filled dam to impound a reservoir with total storage capacity- of 8,100 acre-feet of which 4,700 would be allocated for flood control, 2,600 acre-feet for industrial water supply and 800 acre-feet for recreational development. The reservoir would be operated as an integral part of the comprehensive water resources development plan for the North Nashua River, a tributary of the Merrimack River. Authorization. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio.— 2.8 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriat?on requirement $6, 380. 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement — 2, 520, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 3, 860, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 2. 520, 000 Reimbursement 2. 520, 000 Water supply 2, 330, 000 Recreation 190, 000 Total estimated project cost 6, 380, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 530, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 70, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal j-ear 1969_ 460, 000 JUSTIFICATION The northeast section of the United States has recently experienced the most intense drought in its long recorded history. During the pcu'iod of 1962 through 1966, many sections of New England experienced extremely deficient rainfall. 1309 '■ V v-M( < of Fitchburg and Looniinster, which would be served by the Nookagee r I .•; ^r\ < i r, en:pl()yed emergency measures and selective restrictions on water \fy-:i'ie. The record drought conditions, combined witli the realization that antici- P'it"d wnter reouirements in the Fitchburg-Leominster area exceed the safe 3'ield of -istiMg facilities, reflect the urgency for expedient action in the near future. <" a lo" g-term basis, however, the North Nashua River Basin has been susceptible t -> -<• ver- and frequent flooding. Over 2,800 acres of valley area have been subjected to h -a'y loss* s due to floods, four of which have occurred within the past 32 years. '"h" b'isiii is M c tittr of industrial and commercial areas critical to the economy o' p -'rrai Ma-^sachus'tts. The economic climate of the Fitchburg-Leominster area i- ipidiy iniproving as demonstrated by the termination in 1967 of its classifica- tio-i by the f>onon\ic Development Administration as an area of substantial un- ..T- nloyment. The serious consequences of any additional flooding of past magni- tiid's would gravely retard the current economic progress. A recurrence of the '• '"v-d Uto'i flood under current economic conditions would cause losses of $28,- ■.~ ': f.OOO i'l thi» North Nashua River Basin. The authorized plan for flood protec- i:>'-. cor. prised of four reservoirs and three local protection projects, would pre- •■■■• - .S2X million of this recurring damage. Nookagee Reservoir acts as an integral !;• i.^ in this coordinated system for reduction of flood flows in the basin. The aver- :'.." anviual benefits for Nookagee Reservoir are as follows — "; ■ d control $420, 000 •^'^ter supplv 153, 000 :i'e-;«ation 106, 000 Total 679, 000 .^ r.' -Frrlcral costs. — Local interests are required to repay all the costs allocated tn — oter supply, as determined by the Chief of Engineers, in accordance with (]■ n-o- isions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended; pay or repay one- i. ..f •;■ parable first costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife, and ad- 1. ;.;-t r, operate and maintain, including replacement, recreation and fish and •■ur'i.ife lands and facilities all in accordance with the Federal Water Project r.-croatio"! .Act: protect channels downstream of the reservoirs from encroach- t.-.'.-r< V. hich would adversely affect operation of the system; hold and save the I ' ;': 'd "^tates free from all damages due to water rights claims resulting from ('■ '■ ^t/uciion and operation of the reservoir; and exercise to the full extent of their !.•;^•v CHpability, control against removal of water in the basin which will afi"ect t': • ;••- s^'r-"oir"s water supply storage and the development of dependable stream '•■ ••.■•linioris. The estimated annual cost to local interests for operation and main- l-;:a'C' including replacements is $2,100 for water supply features and $16,700 fo:- recreation facilities. >'t-tHs of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not been requested, ["■■•^oonsjbie local and State off^icials have indicated a strong desire and support of the project as well as a willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation al th:' appropriate time. C-irn ari'^on of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of ::;ri.;">.S0.000 is an increase of $950,000 over the latest estimate ($5,430,000) sub- n in d to Congress and is due to higher price levels. M'^-jor dcsigti chariges since project authoiization. — None. ^Tr. BoLAND. Please describe this ne^y plamiino; start. rV)'one] Rexier. The project Avoiild consist of an earth-filled dam irij.oiinding 8,100 acre-feet of storage for flood control, water siip- [)■^■ and recreation. The average annnal benefits are estimated at $679,- O'K) and the benefit -to-cost ratio is 2.8 to 1. This project is also an in- r'."'.;'al ];art of the comprehensive water resources development plan fo:- tlie Xorth Xashua River Basin. LOCAL REIMBURSEMENT Mr. BoLAXD. These three projects involve reimbursements by the 'o -al area totaling over $4 million. Do you believe that the local in- i crests Avill have the repayment capability which is primarily for water supply? 1310 Colonel Renier. Our "VA^iitmanville Reservoir will have water sup- ply and these will be cost-sharing. Also, both Nookagee Reservoir and Monoosnoc Reservoir will have water supply. Local interests will have the required capability. GAYS\^LLE RESERVOIR, XT. Mr. BoLAND. $100,000 is budgeted to initiate j^lanning of the Gays- ville Reservoir, Vt. We will insert the justification. Gaysville Resekvoir, Vt. (Initiation of planning) Location and description. — Project is located on the White River about one-half mile upstream of the village of Gaysville, Windsor County, in central Vermont. It provides for construction of an earthfilled dam to impound a multiple-purpose reservoir with total storage capacity of 82,500 acre-feet of which 48,200 acre-feet is allocated to flood control, 25,500 acre-feet allocated to joint use for flood con- trol, recreation and low-flow augmentation and 8,800 acre-feet reserved for winter pool for preservation of fish life. The project will be operated as an integral unit of the comprehensive water resources development plan for the Connecticut River Basin. Authorization. — Flood Control Acts of 1936, 1938, and 1941. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $25,000,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement —1, 300, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 23, 700, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1, 300, 000 Reimbursement: Recreation 1, 300, 000 Total estimated project cost 25, 000, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 1, 500, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 i 50, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Appropriation recommended for fiscal year 1969 100, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969_ 1, 350, 000 > Restudy costi JUSTIFICATION Multiple-purpose development of the project site will provide a significant contribution toward the water resource needs of the area. The project is an essential unit in the coordinated plan for pro\'iding flood protection to down- stream damage centers along the Connecticut River in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. Elevations of the walls and levees of constructed local flood control works that provide protection to important downstream in- dustrial and population centers are predicated on completing the comprehensive system. To date, 14 reservoirs which significantly affect flood stages at these centers have been completed and two are under construction. Construction of Gaysville Reservoir will result in an added degree of protection which would be required during major flooding. Average; annual flood control benefits of $900,000 would be realized through project operation. In addition the project will afl'ord the surrounding vicinity with a major recreation area. An existing and planncid highway network will provid(> convenient access to an attractive 1,000- acre summer water recreation area which will b(> created through the multiple- purpose development. The project will provide valuable facilities for leisurely pursuits of hunting, fishing, picnicking, camping and associated group activities and will preserve the natural amenities of the surrounding terrain. Seasonal opera- tion of the reservoir will also result in low-flow augumentation benefits by improv- ing the dilution characteristics of the river and its associated esthetic values. The average annual benefits for Gaysville Reservoir are as follows: 1311 Flood control $900, 000 Recreation 245, 000 Fish and WUdlife 140, 000 Low-flow augmentation 128, 000 Total 1, 413, 000 Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to pay or repay one-half the separable first costs allocated to recreation and fish and wildlife purposes pres- ently estimated at $1,300,000; administer, operate and maintain, including re- placement, the recreation and fish and wildlife lands and facilities, and bear one- half the cost of future additions for recreation purposes made at intervals during the project life to meet the needs of increased attendance, all in accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act; and exercise to the full extent of their legal capability control against removal of streamflow made available by reservoir storage or low-flow regulation. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not been requested. The Governor of Vermont has strongly- endorsed the project and has indicated the State is willing and able to participate in full recreational development of the project. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current estimate of $2.5,000,000 is the initial estimate as a result of project restudy. A previous estimate of $20,- 000,000 was current from 19.57 to 1961 at which time the project was placed in the "deferred" category. The $.5,000,000 increase is due to higher price levels. Major design changes since project authorization. — None. Mr. BoLAND. Please describe this new planning start. Colonel Eexier. The project is located in central Vermont. It is an earth-filled dam impounding 82,500 acre-feet of storage for flood con- trol, low-flow augmentation, recreation and fisli and wildlife. The total average annual benefits are estimated at about $1.4 million and the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.4 to 1. This is the most important reservoir in the Comiecticut River comprehensive complex of dams and it pro- vides the largest storage capacity. The lack of local approval in the past had prevented its construc- tion. Now the project has been requested, accepted, and is desired. It is significant to note that the heights of the dikes and flood walls for local protection projects at major downstream centers were predicated on the construction of this project. POWER PROVISION ISIr. BoLAND. Tliis project has an estimated cost of about $25 million. Why isn't power included in this project? Colonel Rexier. Sir, power was originally thought of and investi- gated under the prior study, but with the assistance of the Federal Power Commission and other agencies in the Government it was deter- mined that this would not be an economical source of power. DICKET-LINCOLX SCHOOL RESERVOIRS, MAINE Mr. BoLAND. $1,276,000 is budgeted to complete planning of this project. (The justification follows:) Dickey-Lincoln School Reservoirs, Maine (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — Dickey Reservoir is located on the upper St. John River near the Town of Dickey, Aroostook County, Maine, immediately above 91-459 — 68 — pt. 1 83 1312 its confluence with the AUagash River. The project provides for an earth-fill dam and supplemental dikes impounding a reservoir with gross storage capacity of 7,700,000 acre-feet for power and flood control. The Lincoln School Reservoir is located on the St. John River 11 miles downstream from Dickey Reservoir and provides for an earth-fill dam impounding a reservoir with usable storage capacit}- of 30,000 acre-feet for purposes of regulating discharges from Dickey Reservoir and power generation. Authorization.. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.9 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated-Federal cost $218, 400, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost (i) Total estimated project cost 218, 400, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 3, 500, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 2, 224, 000 Allocation for fiscal vear 1968 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 1, 276, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal vear 1969 -.__ ' Cost allocable to power is reimbursable, amount not j^et determined. JUSTIFICATION The Dickej^-Lincoln School Project is an integral unit of the comprehensive development and conservation of the water and power resources of the Saint John Pbiver Basin. Electric power will constitute the major benefit from the project and, due to power revenues, is fully reimbui'sable including interest. On-site annual power generation of 1.2 billion kilowatt-hours resulting from an installed capacity of 830 megawatts will provide low cost power for the State of Maine and for New England. Additional power benefits will be realized at downstream Cana- dian power plants. Flood control storage provided by the project will eliminate flood damages below the site. Fort Kent, Maine, located about 28 miles below Dickey Dam, has experienced seven floods during the past 41 years of record, the most recent of which occurred in April 1961 and is the flood of record. A recurrence of this flood at current price levels would cause $480,000 in damages. These losses would be prevented by the project. The advent of low-cost power and flood protection would contribute sig- nificantl}' to the advancement and future development of the economic climate of the State of Maine and New England. The Dickey-Lincoln School Project is located in the part of Aroostook County which is classified as an Economic De- velopment Area. Numerous employment opportunities would arise and associated wages related to project construction and future operation and maintenance would result in substantial relief to the economically depressed area. A significant aspect of the project is conservation of the wild characteristics of the Allagush watei'way, one of the few remaining free-flowing streams in eastern United States. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Power $20, 553, 000 Flood control- 40. 000 Area redevelopment 467, 000 Total 21, 060, 000 Non-Federal cost. — None required. Responsibility for repayment of costs allo- cated to power rests with Department of Interior, pvu'suant to Federal laws. Status of local cooperation. — None required. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — ^The current Federal cost estimate of $218,400,000 is an increase of $6,300,000 from the latest estimate ($212,100,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $2,340,000 in lands and damages based on current rea])]jraisals of land values, a net increase of $3,245,000 in construction features reflecting principally the design modifications required in increasing Lincoln .School power-generating capacity to obtain optimmii development; and $715,000 in engineering and design and sujjervision and admin- istration due to reanalysis of requirements based on revised construction cost. Mr. BoLAND. Please provide for tlie record a breakdown of the $1,- 276,000 to complete the planning. 1313 Colonel Renier. Yes, sir. We will prepare that for tlie record. (Tlie infonuation follows:) The breakdo\A'ii is ay< follows : 1. Complete mapiniig of project area $71,000 2. Comi)lete subsurface explorations for borrow areas and structures 2T;j, 000 3. Cuinplete surveys and explorations for road and cemetery re- locations and start final desig:n 155. OOO 4. Develop master plan and complete real estate planning 125, 000 5. Complete final design of diversion works 250, OOO' (J. Conii)lete preliminary design of povvei'plants and final design of turbines and governors 240,000 7. Initiate final design of main earth embankments and spillway at Dickey 160, 000 Total 1, 276, 000 Mr. BoLAXD. The committee has had extensive testimony of this project in recent years. However, as it is highly controversial, the committee would like to review again the main questions which have been raised and update the project information since last year. ]Mr. Dubrow is here from the Department of Interior, as is Mr. Shwaiko from the Corps of Engineere, to testify on the technical power aspects. The opposition to the project have raised many issues which I would like to ask j-ou about and request that you respond to them based on the most current information available. The estimated cost of the project is now shown as $218.4 million with a benefit-to-oost ratio of 1.9 to 1. DETERMIXATIOX OF COST ESTIMATE It has been contended that tlie project will not be economically feasi- ble because the final cost may be as high as $380 million. How have the cost estimates been determined and how firm do you feel they are ? Colonel Renier. The cost estimate has been subjected to consider- aljle review. The Federal Power Commission and the Tennessee Valley Authority in their review of cost estimates for this project last year found the estimate to be reasonable. If you remember, our unit prices were justified in testimony last year. Now, since testimony last year, we completed the hydrology' and hydraulics and general design memorandums, the computer analysis of power development, a new timber cost appraisal, and have developed a wealth of detailed survey and foundation information. Our current estimate, which has been rechecked and updated, reflects this current data and design. Now, any careful review of these costs by anyone experienced in dam construction and in the power field will attest to their adequacy and accuracy. I have complete confidence in the estimate, sir. FINAL BENEFIT-TG-COST RATIO Mr. BoLAND. Even allowing for cost escalation during the period of construction, what do you estimate will be the final benefit-to-cost ratio ? Colonel Renier. I see no reason why the benefit-cost ratio should change significantly from the present 1.9 to 1. The same factors that will result in cost escalation during construction will be equally appli- 1314 cable to the benefits as they are based on the cost of providing the most likely alternative means that would exist in the absence of the project. Mr. BoLAND. It has also been stated that the facts provided by the committee staff invest! fjative report of last year leads to the conclusion that the project is not justified. I have read the staff report and I don't come to this conclusion, but some people who read the staff report do come to this conclusion. We would like to get for the record your opinion on whether or not the staff report does or should bring one to this conclusion. I would also appreciate some comment by the Department of Interior on it. Colonel Eenier. May I give my comment first ? Mr. BoLAND. Yes. COXCLUSIOXS OF COMMITTEE STAFF INVESTIGATION REPORT Colonel Eenier. The investigating committee found that the con- struction cost as prepared by the Corps of Engineers was reasonable ; that the benefit-cost ratio, the economic analysis, was well above unity ; that no alternative source, privately financed, can compete costwise with Dickey-Lincoln School. They found that there is a need for the project benefits, that the power output is fully marketable, and that the power rates would be significantly less than existing rates for the market areas and that for preference customers in Maine, the rates would be one-half of the existing rates. This concludes my statement. Mr. BoLAND. Mr. 'Dubrow, would you agree? Mr. DuBROW. I am in full agreement with the colonel's statement. I came to precisely the same conclusion from my review of the staff report, that the project is justifiable, the power is needed, and that the preference customers in Maine will benefit directly and immediately, and that their power rates will be reduced from an average of about 16 mills to 8 mills. SUMMARY OF FACTS GAINED FROM INVESTIGATION REPORT Mr. BoLAND. In my judgment, the staff report did confirm that the project is economically feasible and would provide efficient hydro- electric power at reasonable rates for peakmg purposes as well as firm power to the preference customers in Maine. I would appreciate it if you would summarize for the record the basic facts from the report substantiating the conclusion which you just gave me. Colonel Renter. I might start by stating that despite allegations by opponents that the report was lacking in thoroughness and detail that the committee did not find it so. As to details, I would like to categorize my responses : construction cost (1) The construction cost was reviewed l\v TVA whose staff found the cost was reasonable for 1966 estimating of construction. The Bu- reau of Reclamation had previously reviewed the estimate and found it sound. The review of the estimate by Chas. T. Main, which disagreed with the unit prices for earth and rock excavation, was based on a 4i/2- 1315 month construction season whereas the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission cited a 6-month construction season at Mactaquoc, just outside of Fredricton, New Brunswick. An international contractor familiar with these northern climates estimated 7 months, the same as the corps. This could result measurably in the difference. BENEFIT-TO-COST RATIO (2) Criticism made of the benefit-to-cost ratio by the electric coor- dmating council was not valid. They in all instances used a 50-year period of analysis. Forty-eight analyses by them were all under unity. The connnittee fomid that tlie Government's i)osition of a loo-year period of analysis was valid and bonie out by Senate Document 97. The committee benefit-to-cost ratio was 1.39 to 1. The committee staff used the same values used by the utilities but adjusted them upward to account for recognized omissions, deficiencies, and incorrect assump- tions. Furthermore, only half of the downstream benefits and full transmission costs were used. If these were revised, as used by the corps, this would increase the benefit-to-cost ratio to approximately 1.7 tol. POWER RATES (3) The committee found that the proposed Dickey-Lincoln School power rates of $15 per kilowatt per year and 3 mills per kilowatt- hour were less than those claimed by the electric coordinating council which when adjusted by the investigating team for deficiencies amounted to $16.82 per kilowatt per year and 2.99 mills per kilowatt-hour. On a total cost basis for peaking power in the Boston area these costs are then 20,1 mills per kilowatt-hour for Dickey-Lincoln School and 22.2 kilowatt-hour for the ECC pumped storage alternative. REGIOXAL POWDER NEEDS (4:) The staff noted that 1,450 megawatts of new power Avill have to be installed between 1972 and 1975 and that an additional 4,750 mega- watts will have to be installed between 1976 and 1980 to meet regional power needs. They further noted that the proposed ECC Big-ll power loop progi'am of construction does not go beyond 1972. It is obvious, therefore, that the Dickey-Linclon School output, programed for 1975 can fit into the regional power needs. The connnittee took no objection to and recognized the flood control and ARA benefits. COST OF PKOVmiXG POWER Mr. BoLAND. It has been stated that the project does not meet the requirements of Senate Document 97, which requires that hydroelectric power projects must show that power can be provided cheaper than the cost of providing equivalent power by alternative Federal plants. It is claimed that the annual cost of providing power at market under the project would be $14 million a year, or possibly as high as $16.9 million per year, while the annual' Federal cost of providing equivalent baseload and peaking power from an alternative nuclear 1316 ■and pump storage plant would be much less than $14 million. Please -comment on this contingent. Colonel Renier. First, the project does meet the requirements of 'Senate Document 97. The comparability ratio which is based on Federal financing is 1.13 to 1. Second, the annual cost of providing power at market under the project, as concurred in by the Federal Power Commission, is $11.02 million. The $14 million and the $16 million figures are based on incorrect assumptions. The $14 million is based on a 50-year life in lieu of 100 years, and the $16 million is based on an escalated cost of the project. These assumptions are not consonant with Senate Document 97. Now, based on detailed Federal Power Com- mission studies of alternative costs, the annual cost for an alternative nuclear plant in Maine, in combination with a pumped storage plant in Massachusetts, both federally financed, with associated transmission costs to market, are substantially in excess of the Dickey-Lincoln School costs. Mr. BoLAND. The Department of the Interior concurs in these con- clusions ? Mr. DuBROw. We concur, and I demonstrate that in my marketing statement which I will be including in the record. POWER REQUIREMENTS IN NEW ENGLAND Mr. BoLAND. Fine. It has also been contended that the Dickey-Lin- coln project, if built, would provide less tlian 2 percent of the energj' required in the New England region for 1975 and, therefore, why is the large proposed expenditure to constract the project justified? Will you comment on this? Colonel Renier. An individual plant, regardless of type, rarely c(m- tributes significantly to the energy requirements of an area. But Dickey-Lincoln School is not basically an energy plant. It is a peaking plant. As such, it has significance in the peakloacl of the area — approxi- mateh^ 6 percent — and it provides it at the lowest power cost to meet the peakload requirement. Do I understand your question correctly, sir? COST REPAYMENT i Mr. BoLAND. Yes. It has been claimed that the benefit-to-cost ratio is based on a 100-year method of payback, whereas the law in the case of a hydroelectric plant requires that the cost be repaid in 50 years. On this basis, it is claimed that the benefit-to-cost ratio would be considerably less than 1 to 1. What are the facts concerning this question? Colonel Renter. Well, the 100-year period is not a payback period, but rather the period of aiialysis in the economic analysis which is the basis of derivation of the ))enefit-to-cost ratio based on standards pre- scribed in Senate Document 97. The 50-year period is properly used to detennine the rates for the sale of })roject power to recover all costs allocated to power, and this has been done. 1317 Mr. BoLAND. It has also been claimed that the beiiefit-to-cost ratio is not sound because we do not know what benehts will ha\e to be pro- vided to Canacbi under a treaty since they "control the high ground so necessary for this project." What is the situation concerning the benehts and costs involved with Canada? Colonel Renter. Both the benehts and costs involved in Canada are a matter of treaty. Essential agreement had been reached on these fea- tures, such as sharing of downstream energy benefits, flow regulation, length of term of treaty, and reimbursement for flooding of Canadian lands, when negotiations were suspended. The Canadians are reticent to complete negotiations prior to assurances that the project will be constructed, sir. Mr. BoLAND. Can you give us some facts on what they will contribute and M'hat we will have to pay Canada? Colonel Renier. Sir, I would like to prepare that for the record, if I may. (The information follows:) As a result of the regulated discharges from the Lincoln School plant, stream flows will be augmented. The downstream plants on the Saint John River in Canada will thus be enabled to increase their energy output. This will amount to o50 million kilowatt-hours per year. This energy will be split on a 50-50 basis. The energy will be delivered to the United States and border connection points. The average annual benefit to the United States will be $525,000. The impounded reservoir will flood certain lands, roads, and utilities in Canada. A lump Slim settlement will be negotiated in the treaty to repay these damages. The present estimate for this damage is $3.5 million. POWER MARKETING Mr. BoLAND. It has also been contended, at least without the con- struction of costly transmission lines which have been variously esti- mated at from $70 to $80 million, that there will be no market for Dickey-Lincoln power. What are the needs and what are the power marketing plans? Colonel Renier. May I defer the answer on this to ]Mr. Dubrow ? ]\Ir. BoLAND. Yes. ;Mr. DuBR0w\ I have a prepared statement here for the record. Shall I read it? ^Ir. BoLAND. Why don't you fill us in on that question at this time. Is the statement w^ith reference to power needs and the ability to mar- ket that power? !Mr. DuBROw. The statement covers the authority, the sale of power, the load projections, the adaptability of Dickey-Lincoln power to the New England load and the cost of Dickey -Lincoln power as it compares with privately financed alternatives, and the comparability ratio. Mr. BoLAND. We will include the statement at this point in the record. ( The statement follows :) Proposed Plan for Marketing Power From the Dicket-Lincoln School Project The following is the proposed plan for marketing i>ower from the Dickey- Lincoln School project by the U.S. Department of the Interior. 1318 Power from the Dickey-Liucoln School project would be marketed by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944: "Electric power and energy generated at reservoir projects under the control of the War Department and in the opinion of the Secretary of War not required in the operation of such projects shall be delivered to the Secretary of the Interior, who shall transmit and dispose of such power and energy in such manner as to encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates to consumers consistent with sound business principles, the rate schedules to become effective upon confirmation and approval by the Federal Power Commission. * * * Preference in the sale of such power and energy shall be given to public bodies and cooperatives. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized from funds to be appropriatetl by the Congress to construct or acquire, by purchase or other agree- ment, only sucii transmission lines and related facilities as may be necessary in order to make the power and energy generated at said projects available in whole- sale quantities for sale on fair and reasonable terms and conditions to facilities owned by the Federal Government, public bodies, cooperatives, and privately owned companies." SALE OF FIRM AND PEAKING POWER From the outset, the Department of the Interior has stated that it proposed to market up to 100 megawatts of load factor power in Maine. By law the remain- ing 656,000 kilowatts of peaking power would be offered first to preference cus- tomers in New England. These preference customers, particularly the municipali- ties of the State of Massachusetts, have sent letters to the Department of the Interior offering to purchase almost the entire peaking power output from the Dickey project. Exhibit 1 lists the letters of request from the various municipalities and cooperatives and gives sample letters together with Interior's reply. Normally the Interior Department does not begin contract negotiations for the sale of power from Federal projects until the project is in the construction phase. It has been the long-time experience of the Interior Department in marketing power from Federal water resource developments that long before the construc- tion of a project is completed and power is available for sale, the applications for its use exceed by many times the power available from the project. In such cases the Department allocates the jwwer among the preference customers. LOAD PROJECTIONS The tabulations (exhibit 2) show the historical power requirements for the year 1965 among public power systems in Maine, Vermont. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The tabulations also give the projected load requirements for years 1975 and 1985. An additional tabulation is presented as exhibit 3 which shows total loads (all classes) in the New England States. These data were prepared by the Northeast Regional Advisory Committee of the Federal Power Commission. During the construction phase of the project. Interior representatives will discuss the sale of Dickey power, in detail, with all New England utilities. We will offer any surplus power not purchased by public agencies to the private utilities on a withdrawable basis. We will also discuss with all utilities ways and means of delivering the power in the area to coordinate transmission planning in the area. 1319 DICKEY ADAPTABILITY TO NEW EXOLAND LOADS Load and rosources studios made by the Dei)artnient, the Federal Power Commissioii, and the New England private utilities all demonstrate that Dickey- Lincoln School power is ideally suited to the New England loads. The attached chart, which shows New England load and generation peak day of December l)>7ii, was prepared and submitted by the New England utilities for the North- field Mountain pumped storage project. Federal Power Commission project license No. 2485. This load projection includes definitely scheduled plants of big 11 power loop planned by New England utilities. The Interior Department inserted the Dickey-Lincoln School peaking power in an appropriate place near the top of this load duration curve. This chart clearly shows that Dickey power, which will become available by 1976. fits into tlie New England loads (exhibit 4). COST OF DICKEY POWER Dickey-Lincoln Sc1h>o1 iwwer can be sold at market for .$1.5 kilowatt-year for capacity and 3 mills per kilowatt-hour energy. This established rate will recover all costs assigned to power including total transmission cost to load centers with current project interest rate of 314 percent, and adequate allow- ances for amortization, oix»ration and maintenance and replacement for the project during the 50-year repayment period. The attached graph, exhibit 5, clearly illustrates that the Dickey-Lincoln School project power at market is less than the lowest cost privately financed alternatives — nuclear or conventional steam in Maine and pumped storage in Massachusetts. Dickey-Lincoln School power cost at market is less than the lowest cost federally financed alternative — conventional steam electric plant in Maine and/or a pumped storage plant in ^Massachusetts. The attached graph, exhibit 6, clearly establishes the economical comparability of the Dickey-Lincoln School project when compared with low cost federally financed alteratives. The analysis made, in accordance with Senate Document 97, takes into account the 100-year life of the Dickey-Lincoln School project, the area redevelopment and flood control benefits, and assigns one-half of the transmission cost to non- project uses on the basis that such transmission would be available for use of other New England utilities. Power costs for the conventional steam electric plant in Maine and the puini^ed storage plant in Massachusetts have been com- puted using Federal financing and adjusted to reflect benefits foregone ; that is. downstream power benefits in Canada, area redevelopment benefits, and flood control benefits. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY The Department of the Interior in collaboration wath the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Power Commission have again reexamined the economic an- alysis of the Dickey-Lincoln School project based on current price levels and interest rates and find that it is well justified economically. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.90 to 1, and the comparability ratio 1.13 to 1. Hence, it is the lowest cost power which can be developed in New England. The Interior Department reaffirms that the power can readily be marketed ; in fact, most of the power has already been subscribed for by preference customers. During the construction stage of the project, the Interior Department intends to hold detailed discussions and negotiations with the New England utilities to implement its marketing plan and to devise the most economic means of making the Dickey-Lincoln School power available to the preference customers and other New England utilities at the lowest possible rates, consistent with sound busi- ness principles. These discussions will cover contract term and suitable wheeling arrangements and other means of delivering Dickey power to the customers. Existing transmission will be utilized where possible to deliver this power. 1320 List of preference customers requesting Dickey-Lincoln School power Request for allocntioii ofDirkeif peakinij pniver Pullic utility (kilouatts) 1. Georgetown Municipal Light Department 3. 025 2. Bi'aintree Electric Light Department 38. 500 3. Templeton Municipal Light Department 3, 095 4. Littleton Light & Water Department 6. 000 5. Houlton Water Co 15,000 6. Marblehead Municipal Light Department 12, 942 7. Wakefield Municipal Light Department 10,000 S. Boylston Municipal Light Department 2, 700 9. Hingham Municipal Light Plant 13, 457 10. Rowley Municipal Light Plant 1,425 11. Peabody Municipal Light Plant 40. 000 12. Groton Municipal Light Department 3, 200 13. New Hampshire Electric Cooperation 26,000 14. North Attleboro Electric Department 17, 600 15. Chicopee Municipal Light Plant 62,000 16. Danders Electric Department 24, 960 17. Sterling Municipal Light Department 3, 500 18. Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative 25, 000 19. Middleton Municipal Light Department 2. 6.50 20. Holyoke Gas & Electric Department 50.000 21. West Boylston Municipal Light Plant 4, 868 22. Ipswitch Electric Department 9,000 23. Hull Municipal Light Plant 4, 800 24. Princeton Municipal Light Department 940 25. We.stfield Gas & Electric Department 24,078 26. Paxton Electric Light Department 2. 5.50 27. Shrewsbury Municipal Light Department IT. 000 28. Holden Municipal Light Department 8. 890 29. Mansfield Municipal Light Department 8.475 30. Town of Hudson Light & Power Department 12, 000 31. Union River Electric Cooperative 4.50 32. Washington Electric Cooperative 7.300 33. Vermont Electric Cooperative 15,000 34. Russell Municipal Light Department 17, 000 35. Halifax Electric Cooperative, Inc 36. Norwich Department of Electric Utilities 32. .500 37. City of Groton Dei>artment of Utilities ,50. 000 38. City of Burlington Electric Light Department 40. 000 39. Ashburnham Municipal Light Plant 2, 255 Total 627, 160 Houlton Water Co., Houlton, Maine, January 6, 19G7. Hon. Stewart L. Udall, Fierretfiry of the Interior, Department of the Interior, Washinf/ton, D.C. Dear Mr. Secretary: We wish to request con.«i deration of this publicly-nwned electric system in the allocation by your Department of the i>ower output from the Dickey-Lincoln School power project It is our understanding that this power will become available in the mid-1970's. As a small comj^iny located only 100 miles from the project site, we would be interested in contracting on a long-term basis, a firm supply of both base and peaking i)ower. With no generation of our own and paying an average wholesale cost in excess of 16 mills, we would welcome the opportunity of discussing this matter with your Department. It is anticipated that our needs by 1975 will be approximately 15,000 kilowatts ; although with the prospect of lower cost power, we would expect our growth to be in excess of the above approximation. 1321 Any assistance that you might render us in attainment of our goal of lower cost power will be sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, Paxjl W. Coleman, Superintendent. Eastern Main Electric Cooperative, Inc.. Calais, Maine, December 23, 1966. Subject : Dickey-Lincoln project. Hon. Stewart Udall, ficcretary of Interior U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. Dear Secretary Udall : We have recently completed a system study for our cooperative showing our immediate needs which are a part of our 2-year work plan. Our study, which was completed by the Southern Engineering Co., of Atlanta, Ga., within the year, shows our present, intermediate, and ultimate needs. Our requirements will be about 25,000 kilowatts in 1975 with the very real possibility that this amount will be expanded considerably when the effects of the Dickey project become crystal clear in the minds of Maine users of electric power. We understand that Dickey power will cost in the 7- or 8-mill range. It appears that we will need to have a minimum of 25,000 kilowatts reserved for our use in 1975 with a rapid acceleration of usage in the years thereafter. Our energy requirements in 1975 will be about 160 million kilowatt-hours. This figure is based upon 4,.500 hours use of demand per year for our residential, commercial, and small industrial consumers and 8,000 hours use per year for our large indus- trial consumers. We wish to restate that the above figures are based upon a study recently completed. We feel strongly that the engineers' estimates will prove to be con- servative when Dickey power is finally assured without the specter of uncer- tainty. Only then will our low-usage area begin its transformation to normal or even high us^age of electric power. Only then can we tap the potential that has been hampered throughout the years with wholesale costs ranging up to 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. We believe under low cost conditions, our load will grow much more rapidly than our present estimates indicate. We need Dickey now. Sincerely yours, Robert V. Ci^ark, Manager. Massachusetts Municipal Electric Association. December 10, 1966. Hon. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Secretary : The purpose of this letter is to state that the Power Planning Committee of the Municipal Electric Association of Massachusetts is recommending to the State's 40 municipal electric utilities that there be executed and forwarded to the Department of Interior letters of intent under which each utility would indicate its willingness to purchase a prorata share of all peaking power from the Dickey-Lincoln School project on the St. John River in Maine, which may become available for sale to preference customers outside the State of Maine. It is our undei'standing that such power will be delivered beginning on or about 1975. that the capacity will be in the order of 620 megawatts with 670 million kilowatt hours per year, and that the price on delivery at load centers in the Boston area will be .$14.60 per kilowatt year and 2.6 mills per kilowatt hour, or at an amended price in this range. We would expect the contract provisions usual to a transaction of this type will apply, and that the Massachusetts municipal utilities will be willing to release a prorata share of this power to other preference customers in the Northeast area. The 40 Massachusetts municipals in 1965 had a combined peak of approxi- mately .500 megawatts and sales of approximately 1.9 billion kilowatt hours. Most of this power was purchased from the investor-owned companies. Based upon our consultant's preliminary estimates, the 1975 combined peak will be close to 1,100 megawatts with some 4.5 billion kilowatt hours of sales. This 1322 indicates that the Massachusetts municipals can utilize well over 600 megawatts of peaking ix)wer in 1975 or shortly thereafter. There is no power available to the municipals at this time which comes close to matching these proposed Dickey-Lincoln School project prices. Nor is there any indication that the present suppliers will be willing or able to si;pply power to the municipal distributors at these rates in 1975. Nor would it appear that these municipals could generate such power at these i-ates. Accordingly, there would seem to be little doubt that the Massachusetts municipal electric systems will be willing to purchase all or most of the power available outside of Maine. We will inform you further as soon as the association and the individual municipal utilities have had an opportunity to receive and review the Power Planning Committee's recommendation. Very truly yours, James E. Baker, Chairman. City of Holyoke, Mass., Gas axd Electric Department, January S, 1967. Hon. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Secretary: It is understood that there will be available for sale to customer utilities outside the State ot Maine approximately 020 megawatts of peaking power from the authorized Dickey-Lincoln School project on the St. John River in Maine : That there will be available 670 million kilowatt hours annually and that the price on delivery at load centers in the Boston area will be $14.60 per kilowatt year and 2.6 mills per kilowatt hour, or at an amended price in this range. The purpose of this letter is to indicate the interest of this department, in obtaining an allotment of 50,000 kilowatts of the foregoing supply. If all matters {;re satisfactorily resolved, the department will be willing to enter into a long- term contract for this supply. We have designated the Power Planning Committee of the Municipal Elec- tric Association of Massachusetts (Messrs. James E. Baker, John J. Korkosz and Alban G. Spurrell) and their consultants, as our representatives in nego- tiating the final price and other terms of this transaction, but without authority to enter into any binding agreement on behalf of this department. The right to obligate the department is reserved to the department, and it is anticipated that this will not be exercised until the Power Planning Committee has completed its negotiations with you and has made its recommendations to this department. Any such agreement will require the formal approval of the Municipal Light Board of this department before becomming effective. Very truly yours, F. H. King, Manger. Vermont Electric Cooperatia'e, Inc. Johnson, Vt., January 13, 1967. Subject : Dickey Lincoln power. Hon. Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Secretary : The Vermont Electric Cooperative is vitally interested in the progress of subject project and wish at this time to apply for our .share of the project output. I am enclosing, herewith, a copy of an attachment. No. 1 consisting of nine pages which show our estimated power requirements of 1070 through 1995. An explanation of the attachment No. 1, the cooperative is committed on a 25-year contract to purchase "Pasny MW." Therefore, the column entitled "Peak' Less Pasny MW" would indicate power requirements from Dickey-Lincoln. This you will note is 9..S megawatts in 1970 increasing to 74.." megawatts in 1995. When matters have progressed to the proper point, you may be sure we will be delighted to enter into whatever type of contract you may wish, to firm up our request for power. Respectfully yours, Walter N. Cook, Manager. 1323 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretabt, Washington, D.C., February 2/f, 1967. Mr. Robert E. Grimshaw, General Manager, City of Norivieh, Department of Puhlic Utilities, Xoririeli, Conn. Dear Mr. Grimshaw: This is in reply to your letter of January 31, 1967, indicating your interest in an allotment of .some of the Dickey-Lincoln School peakingpower that is to be delivered in the Boston area. Historically, the Department of the Interior has not proceeded with marketing and transmission plans until construction of a project is underway and the energization date is capable of being met with some degree of certainty. When we do start contract negotiations, we will, of course, give priority to preference customers, such as cooperatives, municipalities and other public bodies. We shall be pleased to meet, from time to time, with you or your representa- tives, to review the current status of the project and to consider particular mar- keting and transmission problems. Such meetings will also be helpful to us, in that they will enable us to obtain the latest system land data for the various municipal systems which might utilize Dickey power. This would give us an opportunity to refine the technical information on the Dickey-Lincoln School project as related to specific New England loads. After the project is under construction and allotments of Dickey-Lincoln School power have been made, we will want to meet with you and other prefer- ence customers to initate contract negotiations. We appreciate your interest in the Dickey-Lincoln School project. Sincerely yours, Kenneth Holum, Assistant Secretary of the Interior^ U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C., March 3, 1967. Mr. James E. Baker, Manager, Massachusetts Municipal Electric Association, Shrewshnry, Mass. Dear Mr. Baker : This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1966, on behalf of the Massachusetts Municipal Electric Association, indicating that your com- mittee was recommending to the 40 municipal utilities that they execute and forward individual letters of intent to the Department of the Interior for the purchase of a share of the 620 megawatts of peaking power from the Dickey- Lincoln School project. The responses of the municipalities to date have been overwhelming. We have received approximately 39 letters from five New England States for the purchase of all of the peaking power. Historically, the Department of the Interior has not proceeded with marketing and transmission plans until construction of a project is underway and the ener- gization date is capable of being set with some degi'ee of certainty. When we do start contract negotiations, we will, of course, give priority to preference cus- tomers, such as cooperatives, municipalities, and other public bodies. We shall be pleased to meet, from time to time, with you or your representa- tives, to review the current status of the project and to consider particular marketing and transmission problems. Such meetings will also be helpful to us, in that they will enable us to obtain the latest system load data for the various municipal systems which might utilize Dickey power. This would give us an opportunity to refine the technical information on the Dickey-Lincoln School project as related to specific New England loads. After the project is under construction and allotments of Dickey-Lincoln School power have been made, we will want to meet with you and other prefer- ence customers to initiate contract negotiations. We commend you and your association for your strong leadership in attempting to bring low-cost power to Massachusetts and the entire New England area. We sincerely appreciate the interest and support you and your association have shown in the Dickey-Lincoln School project. Sincerely yours, Kenneth Holum, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. 1324 PUBLIC POWER SYSTEMS BY STATES SHOWING HISTORICAL POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR YEAR 1965 AND PRO- JECTED FORECASTS FOR YEARS 1975 AND 1985 EXHIBIT 2-A 1965 1975 1985 Kilowatt- Kilowatt- Kilowatt- hour Kilowatt hour Kilowatt hour Kilowatt (1,000) (1,000) (1.000) State of Maine: Houlton municipal 27.037 6,014 Madison municipal 9,596 2,214 Bangor, city of. municipal 4,463 1.030 Lewiston municipal 3,865 800 Lubec municipal 4,315 960 Squirrel Island municipal 318 260 Total, municipal 49,594 11,278 Easton Maine Electric Cooperative. 39.839 17,308 Swan's Island Electric Cooperative. 469 140 Union River Electric Cooperative.. 1,364 387 Total, cooperative 41,672 17,835 Van Buren Light and Power District 7.282 1.980 Kennebrink Light and Power District 14,806 3,275 22, 088 5,255 .. 10,900 -. 56, 236 169, 590 45,268 270, 000 65, 000 460, 000 110,000 Total, State Loring Air Force Base (total, Federal) Total, Maine Five-State total: Maine 169,590 45,268 270.000 65,000 460,000 110,000 Vermont 336,975 75,066 580.000 120,000 1.050,000 215.000 New Hampshire 127,865 30,036 210,000 50,000 315.000 70,000 Massachusetts 2,235,984 535,184 4,245,000 960.000 8,035.000 1,825,000 Connecticut 656,501 127,200 1.260,000 240,000 2,400.000 450,000 Grand total, five States. 3,526,915 812,754 6,565,000 1,435,000 12,260,000 2,670,000 1325 EXHIBIT 2-B 1965 Kilowatt- hour (1,000) Kilowatt 1975 1985 Kilowatt- hour (1,000) Kilowatt Kilowatt- hour (1,000) Kilowatt State of Vermont: Burlington Electric Department. .. 156,056 Enosburg Falls, Water and Light Department 7,224 Hardwick Electric Light Depart- ment 11,676 Jacksonville Electric Department _ 1,806 Johnson Water and Light Depart- ment 4,026 Ludlow Electric Department 9,053 Morrisville Electric Department... 21,023 Northfield Electric Department 13,351 Orleans Electric Department 6,943 Swanton Electric Light Department. 18, 596 Stowe Electric System 8,942 Lyndonville Electric Department. . 17, 516 Barton, Village of 5,088 Readsboro 1,062 Hyde Park 2,288 Total, municipal 284,650 Halifax Electric Cooperative 3,442 Vermont Electric Cooperative 29,497 Washington Electric Cooperative.. 19,386 Total, cooperatives 52,325 Total, Vermont 336,975 32,690 1,600 2,442 400 1,440 2,208 4,400 3,073 1,680 4,375 2,877 3,580 1, 152 105 608 62,230 608 7,764 4,464 12,836 75, 066 580,000 120, 000 1,050,000 215,000 EXHIBIT 2-0 State of New Hampshire: Littleton municipal 15,979 Wclfeboro municipal 11,701 Ashland municipal 4,047 New Hampton municipal 1,184 New Ipswich municipal 2,843 Woodsville municipal 4,689 Total, municipal New Hampshire Electric Coopera- tive (Total, cooperative) Portsmouth Naval Shipyard (Total Federal) Total New Hampshire State of Connecticut: Norwich municipal 110,083 South Norwalk municipal 33,411 Wallingford municipal 197,439 Groton municipal 2253,242 Jewett City municipal 7, 120 Norwalk, city of 19, 608 Total, municipal 620,903 Submarine base (New London) (Total, Federal) 35,598 Total Connecticut 656,501 3,334 3,000 850 1200 1500 996 ,880 ,856 ,300 25,414 7,350 41,400 39,744 1.760 4,032 119,700 7, 500 127,200 1,260,000 240, 000 2, 400, 000 450, 000 40, 443 8,880 .. 26, 584 6,856 .. 60, 838 14,300 .. 127, 865 30, 036 210,000 50, 000 315,000 70,000 See footnotes at end of article. 1326 EXHIBIT 2-D 1965 1975 1985 Kilowatt- Kilowatt- Kilowatt- hour Kilowatt hour Kilowatt hour Kilowatt (1,000) (1,000) (1.000) State of Massachusetts: Bralntree municipal.. 135,926 30,700. Holyoke municipal 120,224 28,595. Hudson municipal 43,836 10,900. Ipswich municipal... 27,727 7,500. Marblehead municipal 40,824 11,104. Peabody municipal 123,712 31,230. Taunton municipal... 171,348 44,200. Ashburnham municipal... 8,184 1,709. Belmont municipal 56,035 14,700. Boylstown municipal 5,629 1,464. Chicopee municipal.. 194,318 38,800. Concord municipal 51,206 11,712. Danvers municipal 88,422 19,200. Georgetown municipal 9,795 2,538 Groton municipal 9,830 2,510 Groveland municipal 6,988 1,923 Hingham municipal 46,088 11,278 Holden municipal 24,046 7,010 Hull municipal 20,914 5.200 Littleton municipal 21.096 4,776 Mansfield municipal 35.539 6.712 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 183,916 55,000 Merrimac municipal 5,571 1,510 Middleborough municipal 31,292 7,160 Middleton municipal 9,889 1,997 North Attleboro municipal 43,800 U' ^^^ Norwood municipal 96,537 20,628 Paxton municipal. 6,759 2,110 Reading municipal.. 155,129 36,384 Shrewsbury municipal 56,850 13,450 South Hadley municipal 52.169 10,974 Sterling municipal 8,216 2,059 Templeton municipal. 10,065 2,536 Wakefield municipal.. 68,396 16,080 Wellesley municipal.. 79,394 18,672 West Boylston municipal 20,002 4,567 Westfield municipal 98,194 21,120 Chester municipal 3,177 '650 Princeton municipal... 2,763 764 Rowley municipal 4,694 1,242 Russell municipal 1,480 370 Total, municipal 2,177,980 522,284 Metropolitan District Commission (total. State) 578 100 Boston Naval Shipyard (total, Federal) - 57,426 12,800 Total, Massachusetts 2,235,984 535,184 4,245,000 960,000 8,035,000 1,825,000 1 Estimated. ^, , , 2 Energy includes delivery to submarme base, New London. EXHIBIT 3 FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION PRELIMINARY FORECASTS OF ELECTRIC UTILITY ENERGY (AND CAPACITY) FOR LOAD IN NEW ENGLAND STATES, 1975-85, INCLUDING HISTORICAL RECORD OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION, YEAR 1965, [In millions of kilowatt hours] 1965 1975 1985 FPCpower^supply area 1 (Maine): ^^^^^ ^^^0 11,590 Capacity (megawatts) .... ... 765 1,285 2,760 FPC power supply area 2 (Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island): Energy 37.656 69,400 127,800 Capacity" "(megawatts)". - 7,821 14,000 25,400 1327 Exhibit 4 NEW ENGLAND LOAD AND GENERATION P£AK DAY OF DECEMBER 1973 ^ - ^Coas not include U.S. share of downstreom benefits in Canada and 100 MW of base load power in Maine. l2,600iVlW 'l 1__- EXISTING jfc ( FOSSIL UNITS *DICKEY-LINCOL[M SCHOOL^-J, '— ^ PEAKING EXISTING FOSSIL UNiTS N£W NUCLEA.R UNITS- 2988 MV; EXISTING NUCLEAR UNITS- 175 MW BASE HYDRO 250M'.V 10 II 12 I ■I ■ I • '! AM 7 8 9 10 II i2(l50W,V) Note: Ease chart submitted by New England Utilities for Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project FPC No.2485. This load projection includoi; the difinitely scheduled plants of the Big II Pov;erLocip planned by the New England Utilities. 91-459— 68— pt. 1- -S4 1328 Exhibit 5 (UiMi' Auis oN w'rii A t;ii-,i'i i A'M-::', _nTl:t:i:V~- i.i ni'oi.m ■ scTTqq i, pr ■p.ii.-.c l'(iw"l':ii >:OS"j' AT .vAiiKI'ir (Includes Trani;tnission)' Economic Comparapillty I'ost DICKICY-LTNCOLN SCHOOL PROJHCT - Pl'AKTNC T>0V;KR. federal financing, 100-ycar period, '.j . S. share of downstream benefits in C.'.nada, Area Rodcvelopment benefit';, and flood control benefits and : Lr jnsmissiDjL cost :■: allocated to non-pro'cct uses. 630 Mw Peak in;; Kciiiainina 100 Mw bnslload powrr.at $13.00-pcr Kilowatt year, energy 3.1 mills per Uilowatt/hour Conventional Steam-electric Plant - Maine 1 Federal financing Adjusted for benefits foregone on U.S. share of downstream benefits in Canada, Area Re- development benefits and flood contro l benefits.. Capacity - $14.90 per kilowatt/year Energy - 3.1 mills per Uilowact/hour Pumped Storage - Massachusetts Federal financing Adjusted for benefits forcgorton U.S. share of downstream benefits in Canada, Area Re- development benefits and flood control benefits Capacity - $9.90 per kilowatt/year Energy t 4.5 mills per kilowatt/hour cnefits in Addition to Powe r l''lood Control " $ 4o',000 Area Ucdevel. Uenefits A67,000 Downstream Ecacfits| 1,050, "00 $1,557,000 50 IXJAD I'ACTOi; - I'liUC.KNT 1329 Exhibit 6 cohva;cjson wi'ni Ai/ncitNATics LOAD. FACTOR - PERCENT 1330 Mr. BoLAND. What is your short answer for the record ? Mr. DuBROw. In estimating the cost of the project we include an estimate for the transmission to get the power to market. Therefore, the $15 per kilowatt per year and 3 mills per kilowatt hour is the market price for the power and this will be the price whether or not the power is delivered over a transmission system which would be built for that purpose, or if we worked out wheeling arrangements with the local New England utilities for the delivery of the power. USE OF POWER BY MUNICIPALITIES Mr. BoLAND. There has been indication on the part of municipals that they would take all of the power that would be generated. jNIr. DuBROW. I point out in my marketing statement, and list the 39 municipal systems and REA cooperatives who have requested as of now, from the Department of Interior, the right to purchase, which they have under the law, 627,160 kilowatts of the 656,000 kilowatts of peaking power available in the Massachusetts market area. The other 100,000 kilowatts of firm power would be reserved for JSIaine and sold to preference customers in that State. Let me add that any surpluses which may be available from the project would, of course, be oii'ered to and sold to the local New England privately owned public utilities. COMPARISON WITH PONTOOK DAM PROJECT Mr. BoLAND. I would like to have you address yourself to this ques- tion : It has also been claimed that the Corps of Engineers found the Pontook Dam project in northern New Hampshire infeasible since the separable cost for power is greater than the least costly alterna- tive, which the corps estimated at $10.30 per kilowatt year plus 4.4 mills for energy. However, the Dickey-Lincoln project, it is claimed, uses a figure of $23.50 or over twice as much as the $10.30 figure. Please comment on this comparison. Colonel Renier. May I comment on that ? ]\Ir. BoLAND. Fine. Colonel Renier. The figures are not comparable. The $23.50 is the at- market cost of a privately financed steamplant in Maine used for determining benefits for the benefits-to-cost ratio. The $10.30 per kilo- watt figure is the at-site cost of the federally financed alternative at Pontook. Adjustment of this value to include transmission cost to mar- ket is necessary to make a valid comparison. This adjustment would increase the value to $16.30 per Idlowatt and compares with the values, federally financed, for alternatives to Dickey of $13 per kilowatt ancl 3.1 mills per kilowatt-hour for a steamplant, and $8 per kilowatt and 4.5 mills })er kilowatt-hour for pumped storage. These values are used in the comparability ratio. HISTORY OF POWER RATES IN NEW ENGL^VND Mr. BoLAND. "Wliat has been the recent history concerning power rates in New England as compared with the rest of the country ? Do you have a table that can be inserted at this point in the record indica- ing that information ? 1331 Mr. DuBROW. I have a statement and table. Mr. BoLAND. We will insert that at this point in the record. (The statement follows :) Historically the power rates of New England have been some 25 to 28 percent higher than the national average. Using Federal Power Commission statistics for 1966 the calculated average known cost for each of the six New England States for residential, commercial, and industrial power cost are as follows : Residential Commercial Industrial Cents per Percent kilowatt- above U.S. hour average Cents per kilowatt- hour Percent above U.S. average Cents per Percent kilowatt- above U.S. hour average U.S. average... 2.34 Connecticut - 2. 57 Maine 2.98 Massachusetts 3. 15 New Hampshire - 2.95 Rhode Island.. -- 3.10 Vermont - 2.34 9.8 27.4 34.6 27.8 32.5 2.13 2.43 14.1 2.90 40.4 2.83 32.9 3.21 50.7 3.06 43.7 2.45 15.0 0.98 1.37 1.12 1.57 1.40 1.59 1.38 39.8 14.3 60.2 42.9 62.2 40.8 It is expected that tlie advent of large nuclear and fossil-fuel-fired steam electric units will have a tendency to reduce the power rates in New England. However, rising cost and other factors may ottset these possible reductions. The latest available estimates— 196 <— from tlie Federal Power Commission give the following values for new, modern, privately financed power dex^elopments in New England : State Capacity Energy (mills) Maine, 150 megawatt modern steamplant Massachusetts, 600 megawatt modern steamplant. Massachusetts, pump storage 23.50 26.50 19.50 3.0 2.4 4.5 CONSTKUCTIOX PROGRAM OF PRIVATE UTILITIES IN NEW ENGLAND Mr. BoLAND. It has been claimed that the private power industry in New Eno-land is now constructing and have in the works 11 power projects designed to produce 6.5 million kilowatts of electricity by 1975 at a much cheaper cost than is possible under the Dickey-Lmcoln School project. What is the latest information concerning the con- struction program of the New England utilities ? Colonel Eenier. Sir, at a meeting of the New England council on Februarv 16, 1968, thev made a report of the following plants m the big 11 power loop. There are five fossil-fueled units. I will give tins to the reporter for insertion into the record later. There are five nu- clear units and one pumped-storage plant at Northfield Mountain, sir. These would supplv, for the fossil-fueled units, 2.3 million mega- watts, 3,130 megawatts for the nuclear units, and 1,000 megawatts for the pumped storage unit. The construction dates would be in- cluded with mv insertion for the record at this point. (The information follows:) -^ -.o^o ^i. At a meeting of the New England council on February 16, 1968, the following report was made on the big 11 power loop : 1332 FOSSIL FUELED UNITS Megawatts Status Fossil fueled units: (1) New Boston No. 2.. 400 In operation in July 1967. (2) Canal No. 1 560 94 percent complete, scheduled for summer of 1968. (3) Merrimack No. 2 330 Scheduled for May 1968. (4) Bridgeport Harbor No. 3. 400 75 percent completd, scheduled for summer 1968. (5) Brayton 650 Scheduled for April 1969. Subtotal 2.340 Nuclear units: (1) Connecticut Yankee 490 In operation In January 1968. (2) Millstone Point No. 1 650 43 perent complete, scheduled for summer of 1969. (3) Pilgrim Station 650 Awaiting AEC construction permit. (4) Vernon _ 540 Scheduled lor 1971. (5) Maine Yankee 800 Waiting AEC construction permit. Subtotal 3,130 Pumped storage: (1) Northfield Mountain 1,000 Scheduled for 1971. NORTHFIELD MOUNTAIN PUMP STORAGE PLANT Mr. BoLAND. It is also contended that the New England electric com- panies are building the Northfield Mountain pump storage plant, which is stated as a peaking powerplant with a capacity of 1 million kilowatts, which will be built at a cost of nearly $72 million. Please comment on this. Colonel Kenier. These are figures that have been quoted for the Northfield Mountain pump storage plant. The FPC, however, states that $95 per kilowatt or $95 million for 1 million kilowatts is a more realistic figure for pumped storage. This is due to certain costs being omitted, such as transmission and other associated costs such as the lower pool at Turners Falls Dam. Again, however, it is not the initial investment that one should consider but tlie power cost at market. Dickey would have a combined capacity and energy cost of 21.5 mills per kilowatt liour com]iared to pumped storage in Massachusett.^ of 28.5 mills per kilowatt hour, based on the Federal PoAver Commission unit power values and other project benefits. COST OF DTCKEY-LINCOEN POWER VERSUS OTHER POWER SOURCES Mr. Poland. It has been claimed that Dickey-Lincoln power will cost $375 a kilowatt while alternatiAC peaking power sources for ap- proximately $70 per kilowatt hour can be built in any one of five or six cities closer to Bo.ston, Mass., where most of the power is to be used. As an example, it is stated that an alternative ])eaking ]wwer facility for one-fifth the cost of kilowatts at Dickey-Lincoln is being constnir^ted at the Bow Power Station in New Hampshire. It is stated that this will produce all the peaking ])owor necessary on that circuit for $75 a kilowatt. "What is your answer to this statement ? Colonel Pexikr. This again is commenting on cai)ital inve.'^tment alone and disregarding operating costs. My previous answer ]:)ointed out the relative power costs at market. 1 might point out that a pumped- storage plant operates on the principle of pumping water fi-om a low pool, with power fi-om another plant, to a high pool on off-peak hours at a cost. This recycling effort and cost is not associated with a run-of- river hydroplant such as Dickey. 1333 rilOVlSION OF BASELOAD POWER IX MAINE AND PEAKING POWEK IN BOSTON AREA ]\lr. BoLAND. It has been claimed that the more economic alternative Avoiild be to provide baseload power in Maine through an REA co- operative and peaking power through a pump storage plant in the Boston area at a total cost of $1)0 million. Do you feel that this is possible? Colonel Renier. No, sir; it is our judgment that it is not a realistic alternative. Now, due to individual load requirements, it is impractical for the Maine REA or municipal systems to construct a project to pro- A'ide power at a scale equivalent to Dickey -Lincoln School power, scheduled for marketing in Maine. The FPC concurs in this vieAv. EFFECT OF PROJECT ON COAL-PRODUCING AREAS Mr. BoLAND. It has been stated that the project would be a detri- ment to the coal -producing areas of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Temiessee, Kentucky, and so forth, because it will substitute high-cost waterpower source for the lower cost of coal-buming steam electric plants or nuclear powerplants. Please comment on the possible effects of the project on the coal-producing areas. Colonel Renier. It has been previously demonstrated that Dickey- Lincoln School is less costly than any combination of other plants, including the steamplant. Now, this is largely due to the fact that it has no fuel cost, as water is its source of power. This is a natural re- source of northern Maine. Wise use of this natural resource is im- portant to the economy of Maine. It is an inexhaustible power source and its use conserves exhaustible fuels. New England has for years suffered from high fuel costs. Due to the fact that this is a peaking plant with limited operating hours, it is felt that substitute facilities for equivalent power would have an insignificant impact on the coal- producing areas as maintained. use of jet engine gas turbines for poaver Mr, BoLAND. There have been recent suggestions that jet engine gas turbines would be less costly than the Dickey-Lincoln School project. Please comment on this. Colonel Renier. Yes sir; the FPC this past month prepared esti- mates of the cost of power using jet engine gas turbine units as a source of power alternative to Dickey-Lincoln School. Briefly, the initial cost of the jet engine gas turbine is substantially lower but the annual cost of power would be much higher. Jet engines require a high-cost fuel, usually kerosene, and are relatively inefficient. Operations to produce power to serve the 50-percent load factor in Maine Avould be impractical because of the extremely high annual operating costs. In Massachusetts, although the capacity cost is 23 percent less than pumped storage, the energy cost is 284 percent greater. EFFECT ON TI3IBERLANDS Mr. BoLAND. We have read that the INIaine Forest Products Council recently passed a resolution to the eii'ect that tlie study and cost estimate 1334 of the project did not give full consideration to the loss of the timber- lands involved. "W^iat is the answer to that assertion? Colonel Renier. First, I believe there is some misunderstanding ex- isting. Our estimate of the value for the timberlands is based not only on the stumpage value of the standing timber but, in addition, includes the market value of the land in its best and highest use, defined as that use in which the net return will be maximized. This detennination represents fully the future productive capacity of the land. The matter of movement of forest products is a question of sev- erance. Again, a studied allowance for this has been provided in the estunate. Every effort will be made to minimize the impact of this aspect. At the proper stage of the design and real estate acquisition phase, it is our firm intent to discuss collectively in depth with the timber owners whose lands will be acquired and those others who have compensable rights of passage how best to achieve this. Now, as to the severity of the loss of the inundated timberlands on the economy of Maine, I can only state that they represent lass than six-tenths of 1 percent of the forested acres of Maine. The State of ISIaine has over 87 percent of its land in timberlands. EFFECT ON WILDERNESS AND FISH AND WILDLIFE Mr. BoLAND. Various conservation associations have given voice to considerable criticism of the impact of the project on the wilderness and fish and wildlife of the area. Would you please give us your comments in this regard, including a summary of the studies which have been made of the problem and the findings and recommendations by the various Federal and State agencies involved ? Colonel Renier. The comments by the critics usually fall into two categories. First, that it will destroy or degrade the quality of fishing and reduce the wildlife habitat of the area ; and second, that it will attract a large number of people to the area presently available to a few due to its isolation, and thus endanger the wilderness aspects ■of the area. This area has been under study since 1951. First, there were situdies conducted by the Internation Joint Commission (IJC). These were followed in 1955 by the New England-New York Interagency Com- mittee, again in 1958 by the IJC. The published information today has dealt largely with the con- struction and power economics of the project and this is what I might call an in-house effort. In contrast, the ultimate recreational develop- ment requires the input and coordination of many agencies. Federal, State, and public opinion. In March 1967 a meeting was held for preliminary discussion and this meeting was attended by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maine Division of Inland Fisheries and Game, the Maine State Park and Recreation Commission, and the (\n"ps of Engineers. We have had meetings since that date. The Fish and Wildlife Service lias accomplished considerable work toward their contribution. State and Federal agencies have completed their field studies on the effects of the project and a report is in the final stages. It is the view of the Department of Interior that the proj- ect will contribute immeasurably to the conservation development of the area and the development of the water resources of New England will be much enhanced. 1335 SUPPORT OF PROJECT IN NEW ENGLAND Mr. BoLAND. Do you have any present reading on the interest in and support for this project in the New England area? What is the general feeling of the people in New England ? Colonel Renter. In my area of contact, I have found no one against the project. As you know, I travel in the six States. Mr. BoLAND.Except? Colonel Renier. Except for the political impacts. Many of these people I do not meet. The private citizen and the Governor of Maine and his staff are all for the project. Mr. BoLAND. "We will insert the balance of the justifications under "Advanced engineering and design."' Danbury, Conn. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located on the Still River in the city of Danbury, Fairfield County, Conn. Flood protection would be provided by channel improvement, concrete retaining walls, replacement of three railroad and one highway bridge, modification and protection of piers and abutments of an additional highway and railroad bridge, and removal of a privately owned bridge. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost $2, 800, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost i 790, 000 Cash contribution Other 790,000 Total estimated project cost 3, 590, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 260, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 30, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 80, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 150, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969-- 1 In addition, the State of Connecticut and tlie city of Danbury have expended a total of $1,852,000 for flood control measures consisting of channel improvement and replacement of highway bridges at upstream and downstream areas contiguous to Federal project. JUSTIFICATION Protection is required for the city of Danbury (poi)ulation 39,400, 1960 census) that has suffered extensive damage in the floods of August and October 1955. Floodwaters converge on the city from the fan-shaped drainage area of the Still River, overflowing the riverbanks and causing severe damage to commercial and industrial establishments. Flood losses experienced in October 1955, the maximvim flood of record, were 61 percent industrial, 34 percent urban, chiefly commercial, and 5 percent highway and utility losses. A recurrence of the record October 1955 flood under present economic conditions would cause losses estimated at $5 million within the 90-acre area proposed for protection. These losses would be eliminated by project construction. Average annual flood control benefits ari estimated at' $159,000. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to provide without cost to the United States ail lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project, including lands for spoil disposal, storm water pondage, and collector ditches, together with necessary changes to sewage systems, highway bridges and roads, railroad tracks except railroad bridges and approaches, and other utilities; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; prev-ent encroachment on improved channels and on ponding areas and if capacity of the latter is impaired, provide equally eff"ective storage, pumping capacity, or both, without cost to the United States. 1336 The costs to loeal interests are presently estimated as follows: Lands and damages $410, 000 Relocations 3S0, 000 Total 790, 000 The annual cost to local interest for maintenance and operation is estimated at $1,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances will be requested during final design. There is a strong desire for flood protection in the city of Danbury. State and city officials have indicated a willingness and ability to fulfill the requirements of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $2,S00,000 is an increase of $160,000 over the latest estimate ($2,640,000) sub- mitted to Congress and is due to higher price levels. Stratford, Conn. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located in the town of Stratford, Fair- field County, Conn., about 50 miles northeast of New York City and 13 miles southwest of New Haven, Conn. The project consists of earthfiUed levees around the Great IMeadows area of Stratford and a system of levees and floodwalls along the west bank of the Housatonic River and shoreline of Long Island Sound north of Stratford Point. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.6 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated Federal cost ". $5,425,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 2, 325, 000 Cash contribution 1, 990, 000 Other costs 335, 000 Total estimated jsroject cost 7, 750, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 480, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 200, 000 Balance to complete jjreconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969- ISO, 000 JUSTIFICATION Protection is required for an area of Stratford (poi)ulation 45,000, 1960 census) that suffered severe losses as a result of the record tidal flood level of 9.2 feet mean sea level experienced in the 1938 and 1954 hurricanes. The 1954 storm caused major damages to a municipal airport, a large federally owned industrial plant actively engaged in production of aircraft and missile components, a local hospital, the town's sewage treatment i)lant, and numerous conunercial establish- men.ts and private dwellings. Industrial plants situated mainly along the west bank of the Housatonic River suffered almost one-half of the flood losses ex])eri- enced during the 1954 hurricane. A recurrence of the 1938 and 1954 tiflal flood stage would cause losses estimated at $1,910,000 in Stratford under current eco- nomic conditions, of which $1,700,000 would be prevented by the i)roject. The protection plan will encourage the utilization of approximately 310 acros of low- lying tidal flats suitable for industrial development and presently zon(>d for heavy industry. The plan will also eliminate emergency costs for temporary i)reventive measures taken during each hurricane warning. Average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $789,000. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction and operation of the project; accom- plish all changes, alterations, and relocations of buildings, highways, a.nd utilities, ■and modifications to sewerage and drainage facilities made necessary by con- struction of the i)roject; bear 30 percent of total first cost of the project with credit allowed for the value of lands and relocations; hold and save the United Slates free from damages due to construction works; maintain and operate all tile works after completion and prevent any encroachment on the i)onding areas which would decrease the effectiveness of the improvements and, if impaired, provide substitute storage capacitjT^ or equivalent piunping capacity. 1337 Summary of estimated costs to local interests is as follows: Lands..-.' $220,000 Relocations 115. 000 Cash contribution 1, 990, 000 Total 2,325,000 The average annual cost to local interests for maintenance, operation, and replacement is estimated at $24,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not been requested. Expres- sions have been received from State and town officials indicating a willingness and ability to comply with the requirements of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,425,000 is an increase of $315,000 over the latest estimate ($5,110,000) submitted to Congress and is due to higher price levels. Trumbull Pond Reservoir, Conn. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located on the Pequonnock River in the town of Trumbull, Fairfield County, in southwestern Connecticut. It provides for construction of an earthfilled dam to impound a reservoir with total storage capacitv of 13,780 acre-feet, of which 5,980 acre-feet would be allocated for flood control," 5,850 acre-feet for municipal and industrial water supply, 1,350 acre-feet for water quahty control, and 600 acre-feet for sediment storage. Authorization. — 1966 Hood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.1 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $5, 740, 000 Future non-Federal reimbursement 2, 870, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 2, 870, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 2, 870, 000 Reimbursement 2, 870, 000 Water Supply 2, 840, 000 Recreation 30, 000 Total estimated project cost 5, 740, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 450, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal vear 1968 100, 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 170, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal year 1969. 180, 000 JUSTIFICATION Construction of the project will provide for comprehensive development of the water resources within the Pequonnock River Basin. The highly developed urban area of Bridgeport and the rapidly expanding suburban town of Trumbull have experienced heavy losses in past floods. The most destructive and most severe of recent storms occurred in October 1955. Over 340 acres of land, ranging from residential m the upper portions of the basin to commercial and industrial areas in the lower sections, are vulnerable to floodflows of the Pequonnock River. A recurrence of the record October 1955 flood under current economic conditions would cause damages estimated at $1,670,000 in the basin. The operation of Trumbull Pond Reservoir would prevent $1,260,000 of these recurring damages and enhance the current excellent economic climate prevalent in the area. The water supply pool will provide the Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., the principal water supply servicing agency, with 5,850 acre-feet (1.9 billion gallons) of storage to supplement its present water supply and enable the company to meet the in- creasing demands of an expanding population. Based on 1960 statistics, the Bridgeport Hydrauhc Co. supplies 91 percent of its service area which has a total population of 321,000 and encompasses the city of Bridgeport and eight towns. The Pequoimock River Basin is located within this area. Projections to the vear 2020 indicate that the company will service 99 percent of the area which will'then have an estimated population of 726,000 and will include the city of Bridgeport and nine towns. Storage of 1,350 acre-feet will be provided in the mterest of water quality control. Utilization of this storage will permit regulation 1338 of streamflow to preserve the esthetic and beneficial dikient characteristics of the river and prevent hazards to public health. The project site is also located in an area of scenic beauty. Recreation facilities will be constructed at the project site to effect an overall project blend and purpose with surrounding topographical features and to afford an attractive area to relieve the public quest for leisurely enjoyment. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $11.3, 600 Water supplv 137, 800 Recreation-^ 202, 000 Water quality control .36, 300 Total 511, 700 ^, on-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to prevent encroachment on downstream channels to the extent needed to provide for effective reservoir opera- tion: at least annually notify interests affected that the project will not provide complete flood protection; hold and save the United States free from damages due to water-rights claims resulting from construction and operation of the project; exercise, to the full extent of their legal capability, control against removal of streamflow made available by reservoir storage for low-flow augmentation; repay all construction cost and all operation, maintenance, and replacement costs allo- cated to water supply m accordance with the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended; and with respect to recreation facilities, agree that they will, in accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act administer project land and water areas for recreation and fishery enhancement; pay, contribute in kind, or repay (which may be through user fees) with interest, one-half of the separable first cost of the project allocated to recreation and fishery enhance- ment; and bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replacement of recreation lands and facilities. The estimated annual costs to local interests for operation and maintenance including interim replacements is $20,300 for water supply features and $5,500 for recreation facilities. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not been requested. The project has been endorsed by State and local agencies. The Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. has indicated a desire to enter into an agreement for use of the water supply. The State of Connecticut through its department of agriculture and natural re- sources has indicated a willingness to share in the cost of the recreational facilities. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $5,740,000 is an increase of $340,000 over the latest estimate ($.5,400,000) sub- mitted to Congress and is due to higher price levels. Whitmanville Reservoir, Mass. (Continuation of planning) Location and description. — The project is located on the Whitman River in Westminster, Worcester County, Mass., about 5 miles west of the center of Fitch- burg in the north-central section of Massachusetts. It provides for construction of an earth filled dam to impotmd a reservoir with total storage capacity of 9,350 acre-feet of which 6,700 would be allocated for flood control and 2,650 acre-feet for water supply. The reservoir would be operated as an integral part of the comprehensive water resources development plan for the North Nashua River, a tributary of the Merrimack River. Author I zai ion. — 1966 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 3.8 to 1. Summarized financial data Estimated total appropriation requirement $4, 500, 000 Future non- Federal reimbursement — 1, 330, 000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 3, 170, 000 Estimated non-Federal cost 1, 3)30, 000 Reimbursement: Water supply 1, 330, 000 Total estimated project cost 4, 500, 000 Preconstruction planning estimate 410, 000 Allocation to -Tune 30, 1 967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 60. 000 Planning allocation for fiscal year 1969 170, 000 Balance to complete preconstruction planning after fiscal vear 1969 '_.__ 180, 000 1339 JUSTIFICATION The northeast section of the ITnited States has recently experienced the most intense drought in its long recorded history. During the period of 1962 through 1966, many sections of New England experienced extremely deficient rainfall. The cities of Fitchburg and Leominster, which would be served by the Whitman- ville Reservoir, employed emergency measures and selective restrictions on water usage. The drought conditions, combined with the realization that anticipated water requirements in the Fitchburg-Leominster area exceed the safe yield of existing facilities, reflect the urgency for expedient action in the near future. On a long-term basis, however, the North Nashua River Basin has been susceptible to severe and frequent flooding. Over 2,800 acres of valley area have been sub- jected to heavy losses due to floods, four of which have occurred within the past 32 years. The basin is a center of industrial and commercial areas critical to the economy of central Massachusetts. The economic climate of the Fitchburg- Leominster area is rapidly improving as demonstrated by the termination in 1967 of its classification by the Economic Development Administration as an area of substantial unemployment. The serious consequences of any additional flooding of past magnitudes would gravely retard the current economic progress. A recur- rence of the record 1936 hood under current economic conditions would cause losses of $28,280,000 in the North Nashua River Basin. The authorized plan for flood protection, comprised of four reservoirs and three local protection projects would prevent $28 million of this I'ecurring damage. Whitmanville Reservoir acts as an integral unit in this coordinated system for reduction of floodflows in the basin. The average annual benefits for Whitmanville Reservoir are as follows — Flood Control $543, 800 Water Supply 68, 000 Total 611,800 Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to repay all the costs allocated to water supply, as determined by the Chief of Engineers, in accordance with the provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, presently estimated at $1,330,000, exclusive of interest; protect channels downstream of the reservoir from encroachments which would adversely affect its operation; hold and save the United States free from all damages due to water rights claims resulting from construction and operation of the reservoir; and exercise to the full extent of their legal capability, control against removal of water in the basin which will affect the reservoir's water supply storage and the development of dependable stream regulations. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not been requested. Re- sponsible local and State officials have indicated a strong desire and support of the project as well as a willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation at the appropriate time. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $4,500,000 is an increase of $250,000 over the latest estimate ($4,250,000) sub- mitted to Congress and is due to higher price levels. DICKEY-LINCOLN SCHOOL RESERVOIRS, MAINE Mr. BoLAND. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis. I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, I tliiiilv you have performed a valuable service in airing these things that have been brought up relating to the project. I think in fairness, the interroga- tion that you have conducted here demonstrates that the opponents have hurt their cause by overstating some of the objections Avhich they have raised. We do continue to be in a very critical fiscal situa- tion here, so I can only speak for myself. AVlien the day comes that we have passed the fiscal crisis in which we find ourselves and when Vietnam has been somehow resolved, I would think that trying to look at this thing as objectively as I can, that I could not personally continue the objections to this project which I have voiced in the past. I think the Chairman has brought this thing out into the open where it needs to be brought, and I think that this project certainly does, so 1340 far as I can tell, stand at least on a par with some of the other hydro- electric projects which we have proceeded with heretofore. Mr. BoLAND. The Chair certainly appreciates the very fine state- ment. It certainly embraces logic and reason. The Chair also under- stands the position of the gentleman from Wisconsin with respect to his concern over the general impact, that projects have, not alone m this area but throughout the United States, on our current fiscal situation. I must say to the gentleman from "Wisconsin there is no more consistent gentleman in the Congress with reference to his posi- tion on expenditures for projects when we do have a severe budgetary j)roblem, as we do now. Mr. Eobison? Mr. RoBisoN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would generally concur in what Mr. Davis has just said about this project. I do continue to feel it is of some marginal or at least questionable benefit but that its need would not be of sufficiently high priority for us to attempt to move forward aggressively with it at the present time under our budgetary limitations. SUPPORT OF NEW ENGLAND G0\^PvN0RS You mentioned, Colonel, a moment ago that the Governor of Maine and his staff are all for the project. What is the status with respect to the Governors of the other Xew England States that might be involved ? Is there some opposition at their level ? Colonel Renier. I have not heard it pulDlicly expressed. There may be some that I am not aware of, but I have not heard it publicly expressed. Mr. BoLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Robison. I appreciate your statement and your attitude on this particular project, too. Construction Colonel, can you indicate to the committee to what extent the con- struction on projects in the Division has been deferred under the stretchout policy ? PROVINGETOWN HARBOR, MASS. — WEYMOUTH-FORE AND TOWN RI\'ERS, MASS. AND PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MASS. Colonel Renier. We had three projects affected by the deferral pro- gram. One was the Provincetown Harbor. The award was deferred to fiscal 1969, a 3-month delay. The Weymouth-Fore and Town Rivers, in general, a delay of 5 months. The Plymouth Harbor had a work- reduction allowance but no change in scheduled contract award was required for this one. NEW LONDON, CONN. Mr. Davis. Colonel, on that point it appears that the money which had been included in the conference report on the public works appropriation bill for the current fiscal year had been entirely with- drawn so that there was no net allocation for that project. Would you comment on that in relation to the chairman's question? Colonel Renter. You are talking about the New London project? Mr. Davis. Yes. 1341 Colonel Renier. All right, sir. We have an item of delay in tliat area where the city is attempting; to pusli throno-h an urban renewal project. They were somewhat constrained and delayed in obtaining their approval from HITI) for this. They have now obtained such approvals and are now processing their second level of approvals through the State, and when this is obtained we will be able to proceed with our project. Mr. Davis. This was not in any way a lack of funds available, this was a local problem that did necessitate delay in the project? Colonel Renier. That is correct, sir. Mr. BoLAND. What additional cost do you think will be incurred be- cause of this deferral, the stretchout ? Colonel Renier. We do not anticiapte additional costs, sir. PROVINCETOWN HARBOR, MASS. Mr. BoLAXD. $1,100,000 is budgeted for Provincetown Harbor,, ]Mass. We will insert the justifications. Provincetown Harbor, Mass. (Continuing) Location. — Provincetown Harbor is located in the western half of the bight formed by the northern extremity of Cape Cod, at the northeast end of Cape Cod Bay, Barnstable Comity, INIass. Authorization. — 1948 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). $2,790,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard)... 30,000 Estimated non-Federal cost i 760,000 Cash contribution 760,000 Total estimated project cost. _. 3,580,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 65.000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 (2) Allocation to date_. 65.000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 _ 1,100,000 42 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 _._ 1,625,000 1 In addition, tfie State of Massachusetts has expended $691,000 since 1946 for dredging at the town pier and recon- struction of that pier. 2 Porject received appropriation as a "new start" for fiscal year 1968. Under the program for reduced expenditures in fiscal year 1968, the start of construction has been postponed until fiscal year 1969 with no allocation in fiscal year 1968. PHYSICAL DATA Breakwater : Length: 2,500 feet. Height: 1.5.5 feet above mean low water. Status (Jan. 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: Entire project, December 1970. JUSTIFICATION The basic navigation need in Provincetown Harbor is for a protected anchorage to accommodate adequately and safely the present and prospective commercial and recreational boating fleets including commercial party and excursion boats. The harbor is presently exposed to storm waves ranging up to 9 feet in height 1342 from the southeasterly direction. This condition has resulted in substantial boat damage and has created a feeling of insecurity on the part of local and transient boating interests. This is evidenced by the retardation of normal fishing and recreational boating activities. The breakwater construction would provide the protection necessary to correct this problem. Commerce reported for 1966 totaled 11,700 tons comprised principally of fish and fish products. The town of Province- town is classified by the Economic Development Administration as an area of substantial and persistent unemployment. A contributing factor to the economi- cally depressed condition is the inadequate protection provided to vessels of the local fishing industry. Construction of the project would stimulate growth of the fishing fleet and serve to promote economic development within the area. Average annual navigation benefits are $189,000. Fiscal year 1,969. — The requested amount of $1,100,000 will be applied as follows: Initiate construction of breakwater $1, 030, 000 Engineering and design 10, 000 Supervision and administration 60, 000 Total 1, 100, 000 The amount requested will provide for economical prosecution of the project during the fiscal year. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS The 1910 River and Harbor Act provided for about a 6,150-foot rubblestone dike from Stevens Point, across House Point Islands Flats to Wood End, and a 300-foot extension of the beach protection at Long Point. The rubblestone dike was completed at a Federal cost of $139,000. Work on the 300-foot extension of the beach protection has not been started and is currently in the "inactive" category. REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS None. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to contribute in cash 50 per- cent of total construction cost but not to exceed $760,000. In addition, they are required to hold and save the United States free from damages due to con- struction works. Status of local cooperation..- — Formal assurances of local cooperation will be requested in the near future. There is a strong desire for construction of the breakwater and the town of Provincetown has authorized a $100,000 bond issue toward its share of the project cost. Comparison of Federal {Corps of Engineers) cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $2,790,000 is an increase of $210,000 over the latest estimate ($2,580,000) submitted to Congress and is due to higher price levels. 1343 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Breakwaters and seawalls $3,280,000 i,-;-A^;;- ^^'^fMSS ^^'^^S'SSS Engineering and design 80,000 $39,700 $18,000 13,000 9,300 Supervision and administration.. 190,000 4,400 2,600 77,000 106,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers „„ „„„ , ,^„ „„„ „ ^„ „„„ funds and non-Federal contributions). 3,550,00 44,100 20,600 1,430,000 2,055,000 Undistributed cost - - Total oroiect cost (Corps of Engineers _ „,^ ^ funds and non-Federal contributions). 3,550,000 44,100 20,600 1,430,000 2,055,300 Pending adjustments - - Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds and „„ ,„„ , ,^„ „„„ „ „,.,. .„. non-Federal contributions) 3,550,000 44,100 20,600 1,430,000 2,055,300 Corps of Engineers funds: Total cost.... 2,790,000 44,100 20.600 1,100.000 1.625,300 Non-Federal funds: ,,„ „„„ ,.„ „„„ Totalcost - .- 760.000 330,000 430,000 Undelivered orders - --- - Total obligations (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contribu- .„„ „^„ „ „,.,. ^„„ tions).- 3,550,000 44,100 20,600 1,430,000 2,055,300 Method of financing: Corps of Engineers funds: Allocations 64,700 Unobligated carryover from prior year --- 20,600 Total funds available for obli- gations - 20,600 - — Appropria'tion'required-V.' - 1.100,000 1,625,300 Non-Federal contributions: Contributions (cash) - - Unobligated carryover from prior year - --- Total funds available for obligations ^^n"mn" iih'mn Contribution required - -- 330,000 430.000 Mr. BoLAXD. This was one of the new starts in 1968 that was deferred to tiscal year 1969. What is the status of the local cooperation on the project ? Colonel Eexier. We requested formal assurances from the State on March 14, 1968. The local contribution will be shared equally between the town and the Commonwealth. Previously the town of Provincetown had authorized a $100,000 bond issue and will hold a special town meetino- to approve a bond issue for the additional $280,000. The Com- monwealth of ISIassachusetts has included a bill before its current leo-islature providing for its ecjual share. We will receive, I am quite sure, the formal assurances following these actions. WEYMOUTII-FORE AXD TOWX RIVERS, MASS. :Mr. BoLAXD. $1,300,000 is budgeted for the Weymouth- Fore and To^^^l Rivers navigation project, Massachusetts. We will insert the justifications. Weymovth-Fore and Town Rivers, Mass. (Continuing) Location. — Weymouth-Fore River flows into Hingham Bay, an arm of Boston Harbor, Mass. The tributary area consists of the town of Braintree on tho left bank and the towns of Weymouth, Hingham, and Hull on the right bank. Town River is located in Quincy, Mass. and joins the Woymouth-Fore River about 2 miles above its mouth. Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 2.2 to 1. 91-459 — 68 — pt. 1 85 1344 SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $14,900,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. CoastGuard) 10,000 Estimated non-Federal cost. - 1,540,000 Cash contribution - Ottier costs - -- 1,540,000 Total estimated projectcost - -- 16,450,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 - 190,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 _. --- (') Allocation to date 190,000 1 Appropriation recommended for fiscal year 1969. --. 1,300,000 10 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 13,410,000 1 Project received appropriation as a "New start" for fiscal year 1968. Under the program for reduced expenditures in fiscal year 1968, the start of construction has been postponed until fiscal year 1969 with no allocation in fiscal year 1968. PHYSICAL DATA Woymouth-Fore River channel: Deepen from 30 to 35 feet and widen to generally 400 feet for 8 miles. King Cove turning and maneuvering basin: Deepen new 10-acre area to 35 feet. Town River channel: Deepen from 27 to 35 feet and widen to 300 feet, with additional widening to 400 to 500 feet at bends, for 1.3 miles. Town River turning basin: Enlarge from 8.5 acres to 27 acres and deepen from 24 to 35 feet. Status (January 1, 1968). — Construction not started. Completion schedule: Entire project, December 1972. JUSTIFICATION The chief navigational difficulties in the combined waterway are those which stem from inadequate channel depths and widths. Vessels now using the river are chiefly T-2 tankers drawing slightly over 30 feet and Liberty colliers drawing about 29 feet which are forced to wait until the tide rises 5 or more feet before attempting to transit the waterway. The deepest draft vessel that could safely navigate the waterway under present conditions could draw onh* about 34.5 feet as the mean tidal range is 9.5 feet in this locality. In Town River the problem of depth is more pronounced because the existing project depth is 27 feet. Pros- pective vessels will draw about 38 feet after channel deepening and widening. Navigation is also hampered by insufficient channel width and two abrupt bends. The larger vessels have considerabl,y more beam than vessels in current use and widening is necessarj^ to accommodate future shipping commensurate with project depths. Existing commerce on the waterwaj^ consists chiefly of bulk cargoes received from east coast, gulf, and, to a minor extent, South American and West Indies ports. The 1966 commerce for Weymouth-Fore River terminals amounted to 1,461,000 tons. Of this total, about 98 percent were petroleum products and the remainder diversified products, such as chemicals, chemical specialties, waxes, and vegetable oils. The commerce in Town River, totaling 855,900 tons, consisted of petroleum products. Additional commerce, totaling about 2,500 tons in 1966, was carried over part of the Weymouth-Fore River channel to Back River, a tributary with a channel 15 feet deep. Commerce is expected to increase sub- stantially during the anticipated, project life because of increased use of petroleum products, estal)lishment of a new electrical generating station on Town IJiver, and the expansion of an existing plant on Weymouth-Fore River. Average annual navigation benefits are estimated at $1,652,000. 1345 Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $1,300,000 would be applied as follows — Initiate dredging $1, 200, 000 Engineering and design 45, 000 Supervision and administration 55, 000 Total 1, 300,000 Expenditure of these funds will provide for economical prosecution of the project during the fiscal year. COMPLETED MODIFICATIONS The completed project for Weymouth-Fore River, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1935 as modified by the acts of 1940 and 1954, provides for a 30-foot channel 500 feet wide from deep water through Nantasket (Hull) Gut. It continues generally 300 feet wide into Weymouth-Fore River through the Fore River Bridge and forms a maneuvering basin 470 to 650 feet wide. The project also provides for a channel generally 300 feet wide and 27 feet deep between Nut and Peddocks Islands. The project was completed in 1960 at a total cost of $.5,185,800. The completed project for Town River, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1937 as modified by the act of 1954, provides for a 27-foot channel generally 250 feet wide extending from its junction with Weymouth-Fore River to a point 1.3 miles upstream; a turning basin 450 feet wide and about 1,000 feet long at the inner end of the channel and a 15-foot channel, 100 feet wide continuing from the upstream limit of the 27-foot channel to a line just below the Quincy Electric Light & Power Co. substation. The project was completed in 1959 at a total cost of $1,286,300 including $340,200 in non-Federal expenses. REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS None. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to provide, without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for the con- struction and subsequent maintenance of the project; hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction and subsequent maintenance of the project; make such necessary' alterations to sewerlines or other obstructing features as are necessary; and provide and maintain without cost to the United States depths commensurate with channel depth in berthing areas and local access channels serving the terminals; and maintain the enlargement of the small-boat anchorage. Estimated costs to local interests are as follows — Lands and damages $40, 000 Utility relocations 1, 500, 000 Total 1, 540, 000 Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances were requested on September 1, 1967. Receipt of the signed assurances is awaiting local action at annual town meetings in ]\Iarch 196S. Local officials have indicated a strong interest in con- struction of the project. Comparison of Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $14,900,000 is an increase of $2,400,000 over the latest estimate ($12,500,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $2,570,000 for construction based on reanalysis of unit prices to reflect current bidding experiences and $80,000 for engineering and design based on the revised construc- tion cost. These increases were partiallj- offset by a decrease of $250,000 in super- vision and administration due to deletion of dumping inspection costs which are now included in the direct cost of construction. 1346 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to I'Sm cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels $14,000,000 . $1,200,000 $12,800,000 Engineering and design 350,000 $23,100 $154,900 45,000 127,000 Supervision and administration 550,000 2,600 9,400 55,000 483,000 Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers, Federal funds only) 14,900,000 25,700 164.300 1,300,000 13,410,000 Undustributed cost . . Total project cost (Corps of Engineers, Federal funds only) 14,900,000 25,700 164,300 1,300,000 13,410,000 Pending adjustments Total costs (Corps of Engineers, Federal funds only) 14,900,000 25,700 164,300 1,300,000 13,410,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations (Corps of Engineers, Federal funds only) 25,700 164,300 1,300,000 13,410,000 Method of financing: Allocations 190,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 164,300 Total funds available for obligation 164,300 ._ Appropriation required 1,300,000 13,410,000 Mr. BoLAND. This is anotlier new 1968 start which has been deferred to fiscal year 1969. Explain the cost increase of $:2,400,()00 on this project. Colonel Kexier. The project cost increase is based on a reanalysis of unit prices to reflect current biddinf^ trends in the dredging; indus- try. This includes appropriate recognition of higher plant, labor, and material costs being experienced in the industry and the general level of bidder response being experienced. The total increase also includes $80,000 for engineering and design due to extensive probing and boring surveys required to accurately define the type and quality of material to be removed. Mr. BoLAXD. On this project j^ou indicated that the stretchout would mean what period of delay; probably 5 months, did you say? Colonel Eenier. Five months. INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTIOX Mr. BoLAND. This, incidentally, is a very important project in that area. I note it has a 2.2 to 1 benefit-to-cost ratio. We Avould hope that perhaps we can bring that stretchout period down a little bit. Maybe we can when we get into it. When do you plan to start construction on it ? Colonel Eenier. We are planning an award date in the fall of 1968, sir. providence river AND HARBOR PROJECT. RHODE ISLAND Mr. BoLAND. $1 million is requested for the Providence River and Harbor project, Ehode Island. We will insert the justifications. Providence River and Harbor, R.I. (lO-l'odr Channel) (Continuing) Location. — Providence River is a tidal estuary extending northerly from the upper limits of Narragansett Bay 9 miles inland to the city of Providence, Prov- dence County, R.I. 1347 Authorization. — 1965 River and Harbox* Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCrAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent ot estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) -- ^^^•''22'S29 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) Jt'nnn Estimated non-Federal cost 325,000 Cash contribution „.'^°"? Other costs - , ^^h^^^ Total estimated project cost I''?°;'9x2 Allocation to June 30, 1967 ^55' 929 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. 3,500,000 . Allocation to date - - '''°^,5'j?,?,? ?, Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 - 4,000,000 47 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 - 8,955,000 PHYSICAL DATA Main channel : Depth, 40 feet. Width, generally 600 feet. Length, about 10.7 miles. India Point Channel : Depth, 30 feet. Width, 150 feet. lien^th, 1.000 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Channels 11 June 1971. 12 Do. JUSTIFICATION There is an urgent need for construction of the recommended project modi- fication to Providence River and Harbor. The principal items of commerce on the waterway are petroleum and petroleum products, bituminous coal and lignite, iron and steel scrap, and lumber and shingles. During the period 1962- 66 the average total tonnage carried over the waterway was in excess of 8,807,000 tons. The total commerce in 1966 was 9,206,700 tons of which 90 percent was in petroleum and petroleum products carried in tankers with drafts up to 39 feet. Shippers have found that it is more economical to use larger tankers even with costly tidal delays. Several of the oil companies operating on the waterway presently own vessels which are too large to navigate safely in tlie existing 3.5-foot channel, even on the tides, and others have similar size vessels under contract or construction. The American Merchant ]Marine Institute reports that the provision of a 40-foot channel will enable vessels with loaded drafts of 3.5 to 40 feet to operate on the waterwaj^, the former at all stages of the tide and the latter on high tide. The major difficulties attending navigation are due to the sharp bends in the channel and the lack of sufficient depth for the large tankers. The sharp channel bends are extremely hazardous, having a minimum radius of 600 feet opposite Sabin Point com])ared with the 7,000-foot minimum radius which was recom- mended by the Corps of Engineers in their model investigation for the Panama Canal sea level project. Other critical bends on the Providence waterway have minimum two-lane radii varying from 2,500 to 4,500 feet. The new project provides for minimum radii of 5,000 feet. The channel is presently being used bj- vessels drawing up to 39 feet, even though vessels having over a 31-foot draft are subject to costljr tidal delay's. The largest vessels are operating with a clearance of only 1 foot at high tide, when a clearance of 5 feet is considered necessary for safe navigation. There have been several reports of groundings in the existing 35-foot channel. 1348 Exports of scrap iron from Providence River and Harbor have been steadily increasing since 1953. Almost all the scrap iron exports have been shipped via India Point Channel. The average annual shipment over the past 5 years is about 138,000 tons carried in ships of the Liberty and "jumboized" Liberty ship class, both having drafts of about 27. .5 feet. Due to the shallow depth in the approach channel to the terminal, the vessels must be partially loaded at the India Street dock and then moved to another wharf in the main harbor to com- plete loading. Deepening the India Point Channel would make it possible to fully load all vessels at the India Street dock, thereby reducing vessel and cargo loading and handling costs. Average annual benefits total $1,040,000 and represent savings in transpor- tation costs to be realized by use of larger vessels and elimination of costly tidal delays. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $4,000,000 will be applied as follows: Continue dredging $3, 820, 000 Engineering and design 30, 000 Supervision and administration 150, 000 Total 4, 000, 000 The amount requested will provide for economical prosecution of the projec during the fiscal year. Completed Authorized IModifications — Providence River and Harbor, R.I. Completed work consists of an approach channel 35 feet deep at mean low water and generally 600 feet wide through the river from the deep water of Narragansett Baj" opposite North Point on Popasquash Neck to the turn below Field Point, 8.1 miles, and then about 2.6 miles with the same depth and with width ranging up to 1,700 feet to Fox Point, excluding a marginal strip 75 feet wide channelward of the established harbor line. The Fedei-al cost of this completed work was $2,322,000. In addition, local interests were required to dredge the downstream extension of the municipal terminal at Field Point. Remaining Authorized Modifications — Providence River and Harbor, R.I None. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works and maintenance of the project and to provide and maintain at local expense depths in berthing areas commensurate with those in related project areas. Dredging of berthing areas is estimated at $325,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of local cooperation were ac- cepted June 22, 1967 from the State of Rhode Island and the Cities of Providence and East Providence. Comparison of Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $17 million is an increase of $3,100,000 over the latest estimate ($13,900,000) submitted to Congress. This change in- cludes increases of $2,980,000 for construction based on contract award and $120,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements for detailed hydrographic surveys during the 4-year construction period. 1349 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to Item cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Channels and canals $16,000.000 *3,635.000 $3,820,000 ?8,545,000 Engineering and design 370,000 $251,300 28,700 30,000 66,000 Supervision and administration.. 630,000 14,500 115,500 150.000 350,000 'tnd?SS.L°!!.^.'!:'l°AAT!':!. 17,000,000 265,800 3,779.200 4,000.000 8.955.000 Undistributed cost - - ^1^^%':^.^°''l°!^':'^L 17,000.000 265,800 3.779,200 4,000.000 8,955.000 Totako"s^ ("co r J^of SneeVsTundV only')'-" " " 17; OOO; 000 265; 800 3; 7791 200 4," OOO; 000 8:955.'o6o Undelivered orders +275,000 -275,000 ^'undfoS?l^'°-'!-°-^Al"l'!! 540.800 3.504,200 4.000,000 8,955.000 Method of financing (Corps of Engineers '"Alloca"tio^ns - 545.000 3,500,000 — - Unobligated carryover from prior year - 4.200 Total funds available for obliga- ^ ^^^ ^^^ AmopNafio^requir^div:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: *. ooo, ooo 8, 955. 000 Mf. BoLAND. Please explain the sizable cost increase of $3,100,000 since last year. Colonel Kenier. The estimate of last year is basically that of the project document which we felt was adequate. However, we have recently noted a sharp increase in dredging prices. We took cognizance of this in our Government estimate for the bidding. This past June when we received the bids it was reflected in those bids. There were no physical changes. DERBY, CONN. ]Mr. BoLAND. $500,000 is budgeted to mitiate the construction of local protection project. We will insert the justifications. Derby, Conn. (New) Location. — The project is located at the confluence of the Housatonic and Naugatuck Rivers in the city of Derby, New Haven County, Conn. Authorization. — 1965 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost - ^^'^nS'SSS Estimated non-Federal cost • 300, 000 Cash contribution - ,„„ „ Other - - - -— ,300,000 Total estimated project cost.. - --- ^'fnS'nSn Allocation to June 30, 1967 - IPS'XSS " Allocation for fiscal year 1968... - ?tX'xSS o" Allocation to date --- ciS'nm o\ Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 5?I;'nnn Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 - -- 2,760,000 1 In addition, the State of Connecticut has expended $785,000 for construction of a highway bridge within the Federal project area and its approach embankment will be utilized as a tie-in for the project. 1350 PHYSICAL DATA Levees: Type: Rolled earthfiU w/rock slope protection. Length: 4,700 feet. Height: 30 feet. Flood walls: Type: Reinforced concrete. Length: 370 feet. Average height: 10 feet. Street and railroad gates: Number: 4. Type: Steel swing. Total area: 1,400 square feet. Operating mechanism: Hand operated. Pumping stations: Number: 1. Total pumps: 3. Total capacity: 96,000 gallons per minute. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent Completion schedule complete Construction not started Levee and tloodwalls, December 1970. Pumping plant, December 1970. Entire project, December 1970. JUSTIFICATION The local protection project at Derby is an integral part of the coordinated system for flood protection in the Naugatuck River Valley. The system includes seven reservoirs of which five are completed and two are currently under construc- tion. In addition, three local protection projects have been constructed and one is currently under construction. The project will provide protection to the principally industrial city of Derby (population 12,000 — 1960 census) which is susceptible to flooding from the coincident flows of two rivers and tidal conditions in Long Island Sound. The city of Derby has suffered widespread damage in live major floods in the past 31 years. The flood of record occurred in August 1955. The flood plain of Derby is almost fully utilized by industrial and commercial developments. A recurrence of the record August 1955 flood, under current economic conditions, as modified by the authorized system of seven reservoirs in the Naugatuck River watershed, would cause $2.6 million in damages along the Naugatuck River and $0.8 million along the Housatonic River, a total of $3.4 million within the 70-acre area proposed for protection. Construction of the project would prevent these losses. Acting in conjunction with the other flood protection works the project will serve to promote economic development in the Naugatuck River Valley. Average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $245,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $500,000 will be applied as follows: Initiate construction of levees and floodwalls $390, 000 Initiate construction of pumping plant 10. 000 Engineering and design 55, 000 Supervision and administration 45, 000 Total 500, 000 The amount requested will provide for initiation and economical prosecution of the project during the fiscal year. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to: provide without cost to the United States all lands, casements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project including lands for spoil disposal, storm water pondage, and col- lector ditches together with necessary changes to sewerage; systems, highway bridges and roads, railroad tracks except railroad bridges and approaches, and other utilities; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; prevent encroachment on improved channels and on ponding areas and if capacity of the 1351 latter is impaired, provide equally effective storage, pumping capacity, or both, •without cost to the United States; and prevent encroachment within 20 feet of the toji of the west bank of Naugatuck River at the proposed channel widening upstream from the highway bridge at Derby. The costs to local interests are presently estimated as follows: Lands and damages $280, 000 Relocations 20, 000 Total 300,000 The annual cost to local interests for maintenance and operation and replace- ment is estimated at $11,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances will be requested during final design. There is a strong desire for flood protection in the city of Derby. State and city officials have indicated a willingness and ability to fulfill the requirements of local cooperation. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — -The current Federal cost estimate of §3.570,000 is an increase of $210,000 over the latest estimate ($3,360,000) sub- mitted to Congress and is due to higher price levels. Major design changes since project authorization. — -None. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Levees and floodwalls $2,540,000 . 410,000 _ $390, 000 10,000 55, 000 45, 000 500, 000 $2, 150, 000 Pumping plant $35,"966"" 3,200 39, 100 '""'$235,'idd" 35, 800 270, 900 400, 000 Engineering and design ... 365. 000 255, 000 3, 570, 000 39, 000 Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 171,000 2, 760, 000 Total project cost (Federal funds only).. 3, 570, 000 39, 100 270, 900 500, 000 2, 760, 000 Total cost (Federal funds only) 3, 570, 000 ■"3,"57'o,'6d6' 39, 100 +7, 000 46, 100 100, 000 270, 900 -7,000 . 263, 900 210,000 . 53,900 . 263,900 . 500, 000 2, 760, 000 Total obligations (Federal funds only) Method of financing: 500, 000 2, 760, 000 Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations Appropriation required . . 500, 000 2, 760, 000 Mr. BoLAXD. Please describe this new start. Colonel Rexier. The project provides for construction of levees, floodwalls, pumping stations and street and railroad gates at the con- fluence of the Naugatuck and Housatonic Rivers. Protection will be provided for the city of Derby, which has experienced significant damage from past floods. Even with completion of an authorized sys- tem of reservoirs above Derby, a recurrence of the record August 1955 flood levels would cause damages of $3.4 million in the area proposed for protection. The annual average benefits are estimated at $245,000 and the benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.7 to 1. AREA PROTECTED Mr. BoLAND. It is noted that only a TO-acre area is proposed for protection by this project. What is the current development in this area and what damages would be prevented by this project? 1352 Colonel Eenier. This is still on Derby. The acreage which it is designed to protect is the industrial area of the community and would provide protection for this confined industrial conglomeration that they have in the city. DAMAGES PREVENTED Mr. BoLAND. What about the damages which would be prevented by this project to this area? Do you have any idea money wise what that would amount to ? Colonel Kexier. The annual average flood control benefits are $245,- 000. The damages would total $3.4 million in that TO-acre area. new LONDON, CONN. Mr. BoLAND. $200,000 is requested for the New London, Conn., local protection project. We will insert the justifications. New London, Conn. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located in New London County on the west side of the Thames River estuary approximately 45 miles southeast of Hartford, Conn, and 50 miles southwest of Providence, R.I. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.7 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers) $4,760,000 Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard) 15,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 2, 040, COO Cash contributions 1,440,000 Other costs 600, 000 Total estimated project cost 6, 815, 000 Allocation to June 30, 1967.. 395, 000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date 395, 000 Appropriations requested for fiscal year 1969 200, 000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 4, 165, 000 PHYSICAL DATA Barrier: Tvpe: Rock-faced earthfiU. Length: 1,900 feet. Height: 51 feet (maximum). Gate: Type: Stop gate. Size: 45 by 36 feet. Operating mechanism: Overhead crane. Bentleys Creek Barrier Barrier: Type: Rock-faced earthfill. Length: 2,900 foot. Height: 3i foot (maximum). Gate: Type: Stop gate. Size: 20 by 31 feet. Operating mechanism: Overhead crane. 1353 Pumping stations: Number: 2. Total pumps: 5. Total capacity: 193,500 gallons per minute. Floodwalls: Type: Reinforced concrete. Length: 168 feet. Height: 13 feet (maximum). Status (Jan. 1, 196S). — Construction not started. Completion schedule Levees and floodwalls June 1971. Pumping plant Do. Buildings, grounds, and utilities March 1971. Entire project June 1971. JUSTIFICATION The project is required to protect an area of New London (population 34,200 — 1960 census) that has experienced heavy tidal flood losses from past storms. New London is the hub city of an area which is the center of major boat and submarine construction activity. The record 1938 hurricane caused a flood stage of 9.7 feet above mean sea level and the 1954 hurricane caused flooding to eleva- tion 8.9 feet above mean sea level. The 1954 storm caused flood damage to 210 commercial establishments and 280 residences representing about 80 percent of the total tidal flood losses experienced in New London. In addition, boats and automobiles marooned in the flood area suffered heavy damage. A recurrence of the 1938 and 1954 storms under current economic conditions would cause flood losses of $3,900,000 and $3 miUion, respectively, within the area proposed for protection. These damages would be eUminated by project construction. Average annual flood control benefits are estimated at $404,000. Fiscal year 1969. —The requested amount of $200,000 will be applied to — Initiate the construction of levees and floodwalls $108, 000 Initiate construction of pumping plant 11. 000 Engineering and design 56, 000 Supervision and administration 25, 000 Total 200,000 Expenditure of these funds will provide for initiating construction on the project during the fiscal year. Non-Federal cost. — Local interests are required to provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project; accomphsh all altera- tions and relocations made necessary by the construction; bear 30 percent of the total project cost with credit allowed for costs incurred in fulfilling previously noted requirements; hold and save the United States free from damages; and maintain and operate all works after completion except aids to navigation. The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: Lands ^600,000 Cash contribution 1, 440 , 000 Total 2, 040, 000 The annual cost to local interests for maintenance, operation, and replacement is estimated at $10,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances have not been requested but will be obtained prior to advertising for construction bids. The Connecticut State Legislature and the city of New London have authorized bond issues for their participation in the non-Federal costs of the project. The construction start is being delayed to fiscal year 1969 in order to integrate project plans with urban renewal which contemplates a five-phase development of which the first includes hurricane flood protection. Comparison of Federal {Corps of Engineers) cost estimate. — The current Federal (Corps of Engineers) cost estimate of $4,760,000 is an increase of $420,000 over the latest estimate ($4,340,000) submitted to Congress and represents the Fed- 1354 eral share of a total project cost increase of $600,000. This total change inchides increases of $40,000 for lands due to higher price levels, $475,000 for construction features based on revised unit prices to reflect current bidding experience, $50,000 for engineering and design due to reanalysis of requirements including the added effort required to effectively coordinate design with local urban renewal plans and $35,000 for supervision and administration based on additional work to be accomplished. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project Total to cost June 30, estimate 1967 (2) (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1969 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) Lands and damages Levees and floodwalls Pumping plants.. Buildings, grounds, and utilities Engineering and design,. Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers and non-Federal funds) Undistributed cost_ Total project cost (Corps of Engineers and non-Federal funds) Pending adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions) Corps of Engineers funds: Total cost Non-Federal contributions: Total cost... Undelivered orders Total obligations (Corps of Engineers funds and non-Federal contributions).. Methods of financing: Federal funds (Corps of Engineers funds only): Al locations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obliga- tion Appropriation required Non-Federal contributions: Contributions_ Lands and damages Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obliga- tion Contribution required $600, 000 4, 570, 000 650, 000 20, 000 510, 000 450, 000 6,800,000 $226,100 22,900 249, 000 6,800,000 249, 000 $123,900 22,100 146,000 146, 000 6, 800. 000 4, 760, 000 2, 040, 000 249, 000 249, 000 146,000 146,000 249,000 395, 000 146, 000 146, 000 146, 000 1,440,000 600, 000 $100,000 190, 000 20, 000 100,000 45, 000 455, 000 455, 000 455, 000 200, 000 255,000 455,000 $500, 000 4,380,000 630, 000 20, 000 60, 000 360,000 5,950,000 5,950,000 5,950,000 4, 165, 000 1,785,000 5,950,000 200, 000 4, 165, 000 "i6o,'ooo ""500,' 656 155,000 1,285,000 ]Mr. BoLAND. Explain the delay in the start, of this project until 1969 in order to integrate the project plans with urban renewal. Colonel Rexier. We suffered with a continuing delay while await- ing resolution of these urban renewal plans. We applied last year's $300,000 to redviction for savings and slippage. The city of New London has obtained approval of its urban renewal plan from HITD and this past month processed an apiDlication to the Department of Community Affairs of the State of Connecticut for approval and fi- nancing toward the construction of a road and bridge along the Shaw Cove barrier. Mr. BoLAND. We will insert the remaining justifications under construction. Plymouth Harbor, Mass. (Breakwater and 8-Foot Anchorage) (Continuing) Location. — Plymouth Harbor is located on the east coast of Massachusetts, about 45 miles south of Boston Harbor and about 15 miles north of the easterly entrance to Cape Cod Canal. 1355 Authorizaiion. — 1962 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost (Corps of Engineers). Estimated Federal cost (U.S. Coast Guard). .- Estimated non-Federal cost Casti contribution Other costs Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968. Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... $1,860,900 1,000 485,000 465,000 20, 000 2,346,000 820,000 600,000 1,420,000 76 440, 000 100 PHYSICAL DATA Breakwater : Length : 1,400 feet easterly then 2,100 feet southeasterly. Height : 15 feet. Anchorage : Area : 60 acres. Depth : 8 feet. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion sctiedule Ancfiorage Breakwater... Entire project. 100 33 June 1967. June 1969. Do. JUSTIFICATION There is need for the protected anchorage at Plymouth Harbor. Construction of the project will alleviate damages to boats which during the last three hurri- canes exceeded $500,000. In addition, damages suffered from northeast storms will be alleviated. Such storms have caused boats to break their moorings and go aground or damage boats tied to the wharves. Construction of the improvement will also permit expansion of both the commercial and recreational fleets and provide spaces for transient craft. Fish is the chief item of commerce in the project area. Research during the course of the survey report revealed that in Ut.'iT over 6,100 tons of groundfish and shellfish were landed by a fleet of 19 draggers and 30 lobster boats and that an additional 3,000 tons were trucked into Plymouth from other Cape Cod ports. Average annual tonnage of fish and shell- fish landed during the past 6 years exceeds 6,000 tons. It is anticipated that the major portion of the additional catch presently trucked into Plymouth will be landed at Plymouth after project construction. The improvement will also allow for growth of the recreational fleet which is now restricted by lack of anchorage space. As the historical site of the Pilgrims' landing at Plymouth Rock, a greater number of cruising craft are expected to visit the harbor. Plymovith is the center of a small area of substantial and persistent unemployment. Average annual navigation benefits are estimated at $163,200. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $440,000 will be applied as follows — Complete breakwater $388, 000 Engineering and design 4, 000' Supervision and administration 48, 000 Total 440,000 The amount requested will permit completion of the project during the fiscal year. COMPLETED AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS PLYMOUTH HARBOR Completed work consists of riprap protection to Long Beach, repairs to Long Point Dike, restoration of Eel River to its former course and dredging 15- and 1356 18-foot channels. The Federal cost of these completed modifications was $188,600. In addition local interests were required to contribute $108,000. REMAINING AUTHORIZED MODIFICATIONS PLYMOUTH HARBOR None. Non-Federal costs. — Project authorization required that, prior to construction, local interests agree to (a) contribute in cash 20 percent of construction cost, such contribution to be paid in a lump sum prior to initiation of construction, subject to final adjustment after actual costs have been determined; (6) Maintain existing public landings open to all on equal terms and provide without cost to the United States all necessary mooring facilities in the anchorage; (c) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project and of aids to navi- gation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers, including suitable areas deter- mined by the Chief of Engineers to be required in the general public interest for the initial and subsequent disposal of spoil and necessary retaining dikes, bulk- heads, and embankments therefor or the cost of such retaining works; and (d) Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and subsequent maintenance of the project. In addition, due to modification of the project to provide sport fishing facilities, local interests are required to contribute 50 percent of the cost of recreational features with credit for value of basic sup- porting facilities; provide public right-of-way to facilities; provide, operate, and maintain parking and sanitation facilities; and to regulate the use of sport fishing facilities. Estimated costs to local interests are $465,000 cash contribution and $20,000 for recreational supporting facilities, a total of $485,000. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts contributed $108,000 in complying with the requirements of local cooperation for work previously accomplished in Plym- outh Harbor. In addition, the Commonwealth and the town of Plymouth have expended in excess of $775,000 for channel, basin, and waterfront improvements. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of local cooperation were exe- cuted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on April 27, 1966, and accepted by the acting division engineer on May 14, 1966. Required cash contribution has been received. Comparison of Federal {Corps of Engineers) cost estimates. — No change from atest estimate submitted to Congress. SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget Balance to fiscal year complete after 1969 fiscal year 1969 (5) (6) $651,000 1,470,000 64, 000 140,000 2, 325, 000 2, 325, 000 1,860,000 465,000 Channels - Breakwaters - Engineering and design- Supervision and administration. Total applied cost (Corps of Engineers and non-Federal funds) Undistributed cost.- -. Total project cost (Corps of Engineers and non-Federal funds).. Pending Adjustments Total cost (Corps of Engineers and non- Federal contributions). 2,325,000 Federal funds: total cost Non-Federal contributions: Total cost Undelivered orders Total obligations (Corps of Engineers and non-Federal contributions).. Method of financing: Federal funds (Corps of Engineers funds only): Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obliga- tion - Appropriation required Non-Federal contributions: Contribution (cash) Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obliga- tion... Contribution required $646, 800 '""si, "400" 60, 300 758,500 $4, 200 300, 000 7,600 19,700 $1,170,000 5.000 60, 000 331,500 1,235,000 758,500 331,500 1,235,000 758, 500 608, 700 149, 800 -f 6, 800 465, 000 331,500 263, 300 68. 200 +678,200 765,300 1,009,700 1,235,000 938. 000 247,000 -685,000 550, 000 820, 000 600, 000 205,300 805,300 440, 000 314,400 110,000 314,400 1357 Ansonia-Derby, Conn. (Continuing) Location. — The project is located on the Naugatuck River, in the cities of Ansonia and Derby, New Haven County, Conn., about 2 miles upstream from the confluence of the Naugatuck and Housatonic Rivers. Authorization. — 1962 Flood Control Act. Benrfit-cost ratio. — 1.3 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Accumulated Amount percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost - $11,800,000 Estimated non- Federal cost - i 960,000 Other costs 960,000 Total estimated projectcost 12,760,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 --- 1,020,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968.— 825,000 Allocation to date...- - 1,845,000 16 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 2,500,000 37 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 7,455,000 > In addition, local interests have replaced 3 bridges destroyed by the August 1955 flood and have effected channel wridening, topographical improvement, and replacement of an additional bridge within the project area conforming to design criteria compatible with project needs. Total cost of these improvements was $1,444,000. PHTSICAL DATA Levees: Type: Rolled earthfiU. Length: 9,400 feet. Height: Varies 10 to 30 feet. Floodwalls: Type: Reinforced concrete. Length: 7,500 feet. Height: varies 10 to 30 feet. Channel improvement: Length: 7,600 feet. Width: 10, 130 and 230 feet. Street and railroad gates: Number: Nine. Type: Steel swing. Total area: 3,380 square feet. Operating mechanism: Hand operated. Pumping stations: Number: Four. Total pumps: 10. Total capacity: 183,900 gallons per minute. Conduits: Number: Two. Type: Reinforced concrete. Size: 8 feet by 14.5 feet. Status (Jan. 1, i56S).— Construction not started. Completion schedule Channels and canals June 1971 Levees and floodwalls June 1971 Pumping plants June 1971 Entire project June 1971 JUSTIFICATION The local protection project of Ansonia-Derby is an integral part of the coordi- nated sj'stem for flood protection in the Naugatuck River Valley. The system includes seven reservoirs of which five have beeii completed and two are currently under construction. In addition, three local protection projects have been con- 1358 structed and one is under design. The Anson ia-Derby local protection project will provide protection to residential, commercial and industrial property in Ansonia and Derby, Conn, (populations 19,800 and 12,100—1960 U.S. Census). A recurrence of the flood of August 1955 under present economic conditions would produce major flood damage in the highly industrialized and urbanized area, resulting in losses estimated at $44,700,000 even after construction of all author- ized flood control reservoirs in the Naugatuck River Basin. This loss would be prevented by the local protection project. Acting in conjunction with the other flood control protective^ works, th(> project will serve to promote economic well- being in the Naugatuck River Vallev. Average annual benefits, all flood control, are estimated at .$600,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,500,000 will Vje applied to — Continue channels and canals $360, 000 Continue levees and floodwalls 1, 750, 000 Continue pumping plants 200, 000 Engineering and design 30, 000 Supervision and admhiistration 160, 000 Total 2.500,000 Expenditure of these fimds will provide for economical prosecution of the project durhig the fiscal year. Non-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for constrviction of the project, including changes to highway bridges and roads, railroad track, sewers, and other utilities; hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed b\' the Secretary of the Army; and prevent encroachment on the improved channels and on the ponding areas, and if capacities are impaired, provide equally effective storage or pumping capacity without cost to the United States. The estimated costs to local interests are as follows: Lands $750, 000 Relocations 210,000 Total 960, 000 The annual cost to local interests of maintenance, operation, and replacement is estimated at $20,000. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances of local cooperation were ac- cepted Aug. 4, 1967, from the State of Connecticut and the cities of Ansonia and Derby. Comparison of Federal cost estimate. — The current Federal cost estimate of $11,8()(J,00() is an increa.se of $1,250,000 over the latest estimate ($10,5.50,(>00) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $910,000 in construction features based on revised unit prices to more accurately indicate current bidding practices being experienced and $340,000 in engineering and design and super- vision and administration based on reanalysis of requirements to reflect the addi- tional effort required to design economical and soimd structures within a highly developed industrial urban area and the anticipated higher inspection costs due to diversified and complex construction operations. 1359 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 item (1) Project cost estimate (2) Total to June 30, 1967 (3) Current fiscal year 1968 (4) Budget fiscal year 1959 (5) Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 (6) $930, 000 8,400,000 600,000 1.100,000 770,000 11,800,000 Channels and canals Levees and floodwalls Pumping plants..- Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost (Federal funds only)... Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only)..- Pending adjustments _, Total cost (Federal funds only) 11,800,000 Undelivered orders Total obligations (Federal funds only) Method of financing: Allocation Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligations Appropriation required $915,900 102,400 1,018,300 $20, 000 400, 000 15,000 94. 100 47,600 576,700 $360, 000 2,000,000 200,000 30,000 160,000 2,750,000 11,800,000 1,018,300 576,700 2,750,000 1,018.300 +400 1,018,700 1,020,000 576.700 +249, 600 826, 300 825, 000 1,300 825, 300 2,750,000 -250.000 2. 500, 000 2, 500, 000 $550,000 5,000,000 385,000 60,000 460,000 7,455,000 7,455,000 7,455,000 '7,455,000 7,455,000 Bl.\.ck Rock Reservoir, Conn. (Contimiing) Location. — The project is located on Branch Brook, 2 miles upstream from its confluence with the Naugatuck River in Litchfield County, Conn. Branch Brook forms the boundary between the towns of Watertown and Thomaston. Authorization. — 1960 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.4 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated Federal cost Estimated non-Federal cost Total estimated project cost Allocation to June 30, 1967 Allocation for fiscal year 1968 Allocation to date Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969. Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969... Dam: Type: Rolled earthfill. Height: 154 feet. Length: 933 feet. Reservoir capacity: Flood control Fish and wildlife PHYSICAL DATA $8,160,000 8,160.000 .... 2,777,000 1,550,000 4, 327, 000 53 2, 400, 000 82 1,433,000 Acre-feet .. 8, 430 270 Spillway : Type: Uncontrolled chute. Capacity: 33,500 cubic feet per second. Crest length: 140 feet. Outlet: Type: Reinforced concrete conduit. Size: 4 feet by 5 feet. Length: 704 feet. 91-4.59 — 68 — pt. 1- -86 1360 Lands and damages: Acres: 344. Type: Residential and woodland. Improvements: Residences. Relocations: Roads: 1.9 miles, $1,625,000. Utilities: $747,000. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Land acquisition .-. -.- 93 June 1968. Relocations - - 97 March 1968. Reservoir - June 1969. 0am 10 December 1969, Dam closure May 1968. Recreation facilities.. December 1969. Buildings, grounds, and utilities June 1969. Permanent operating equipment December 1969. Entire project - 46 Do. JUSTIFICATION Construction of the Black Rock Dam and Reservoir is required as part of the plan of flood protection for the Naugatuck River Valley. This valley comprises the largest nonferrous metal manufacturing area in the Nation; over one-third of the Nation's brass and bronze is produced in this area. A recurrence of the 1955 flood at present price levels would cause damage of $270 million in the area down- stream from Thomaston Dam. The operation of the completed Thomaston, Hall Meadow, and East Branch Reservoirs and the completed small local protection project at Waterbury would reduce the losses in this area by $182,600,000. The Black Rock Reservoir together with the remaining downstream projects making up the plan for flood protection; namely, the completed Hancock Brook and Northfield Brook Reservoirs, the essentially complete Hop Brook Reservoir, and two local protection projects, one of which is under construction and the other is being designed, would prevent an additional $77,500,000 in damages. The reduc- tion applicable to Black Rock Reservoir is $10,600,000. The average annual bene- fits, all flood control, are estimated at $450,000. Fiscal year 1969. — The requested amount of $2,400,000 will be applied to — Initiate and complete reservoir $25, 000 Initiate and complete buildings, grounds, and utilities 25, 000 Continue dam 2, 180, 000 Engineering and design 40, 000 Supervision and administration 130, 000 Total _ 2, 400, 000 Expenditure of these funds will provide for economical prosecution of the project during the fiscal year. Non-Federal cost. — None required. Status of local cooperation. — Local interests are required to establish encroach- ment lines downstream from the dam to permit reasonably efficient reservoir operation. State legislation requires the State water resources commission to establish such lines and the director, State of Connecticut Water Resources Commission, has assured that these lines would be completed before or shortly after completion of the project. Encroachment lines have been established on the Naugatuck River and the establishment of encroachment lines on Branch Brook is in the current program. Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — The current Federal cost estimate of $8,160,000 is an increase of $1,400,000 over the latest estimate ($6,760,000) submitted to Congress. This change includes increases of $35,000 in real estate based on acquisition to date and current appraisals of remaining tracts, $1,052,000 for construction features based on contract award for construction of dam and appurtenances, $230,000 for addition of recreation facilities to supplement existing Black Rock State Park development and $83,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on costs to date and estimated requirement during construction. 1361 SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 (1) Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages Relocations Reservoir Dam — - Recreation facilities .- Buildings, grounds, and utilities Permanent operating equipment Engineering and design Supervision and administration Total applied cost(Federal funds only).-. Undistributed cost Total project cost (Federal funds only)--- Pending adjustment -. Total cost (Federal funds only) Undelivered orders Total obligations (Federal funds only) Method of financing: Allocations Unobligated carryover from prior year Total funds available for obligation... Appropriation required $488, 000 2,372,000 25, 000 4,050,000 230, 000 25,000 13,000 525. 000 432, 000 8, 160, 000 $419,200 1,607,800 $68, 800 764, 200 790, 000 $25, 000 2,180,000 25, 000 429, 800 105, 400 2,562,200 30, 200 111,600 1,764,800 40, 000 130,000 2, 400, 000 $1,080,000 230, 000 n',m 25,000 85, 000 1,433,000 8,160,000 2,562,200 1,764,800 8,160,000 2,'362,200 +203, 100 2, 765, 300 1,764,800 -203, 100 1,561,700 2,400,000 1,433,000 "2;^400,'000 i,'433^000 " 2, m', m U 433^ oo5 2,777,000 1,550,000 11,700 1,561,700 2,400,000 1,433,000 CoLEBROOK River Reservoir, Conn. (Continuing) Location. — The project damsite is located on the west branch, Farmington Riv^er, in the town of Colebrook, Litchfield County, Conn., about 3.3 miles upstream from the confluence of the west branch with the StiU River. The up- stream portion of the project extends into Berkshire and Hampden Counties, Mass. Authorization. — 1960 Flood Control Act. Benefit-cost ratio. — 1.8 to 1. SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL DATA Amount Accumulated percent of estimated Federal cost Estimated total appropriation requirement $14,400,000 Future non-Federal reimbursement.. —5,140,000 Estimated Federal cost (ultimate) 9,260,000 Estimated non-Federal cost 5, 140,000 Reimbursement: Water supply 5, 140, 000 Total estimated project cost 14,400,000 Allocation to June 30, 1967 10,094,000 Allocation for fiscal year 1968.. 2,900,000 Allocation to date - 12,994,900 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 1,406,000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 90 100 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type : Rolled earthfiU and rockfill. Height: 223 feet. Length: 1,300 feet. Dike: Type: Rolled earthfill. Height: 54 feet. Length: 1,240 feet. Lands and damages: Acres: 2,021. Type: Residential and woodland. Improvements : Residences. 1362 Spillway : Type: Uncontrolled chute. Capacity: 92,000 cubic feet per second. Crest length: 205 feet. Reservoir capacity: Acre-feet Flood control 50. 800 Fish and wildlife pool 5, 000 New water supply 30, 700 Existing water supply 11, 000 Total 97,500 Eelocations : Roads: 7 miles, $5,596,700. Cemeteries and utilities: $58,300. Outlet works: Type: Concrete-lined rock tunnel. Size: 10-foot diameter. STATUS (JAN. 1, 1968) Percent complete Completion schedule Land acquisition - - 83 June 1968. Relocations - 97 September 1968. Reservoir --- --- Do. Dam - - - 78 December 1968. Dam closure- - 100 July 1966. Road -- 81 August 1968. Recreation facilities _ - 1-.. December 1968. Buildings, grounds, and utilities Do. Permanent operating equipment Do. Entire project 84 Do. JUSTIFICATION Construction of the Colebrook River Reservoir is required to reduce flood damages at population centers on the Farmington River. The water supplj- pool will provide the Hartford metropolitan district with 30,700 acre-feet (10 billion gallons) of storage to supplement its present water supply and thus enable the district to meet the increasing demands of its jurisdiction which is now serving over 350,000 people in Hartford and 10 nearby towns. The 5,000 acre-foot fish and wildlife pool, acting in conjunction with a 5,000 acre-foot holdover water supply pool and a 5,000 acre-foot seasonally utilized pool in the flood control storage zone, will provide an additional 40,000 man-days of sport fishing annually as a result of enhanced downstream and in-reservoir fishing opportunities. This is a significant contribution toward fulfilling the needs for sport fishing in a densely populated area of Connecticut, and will enhance the probability of restoration of brown trout and shad species to the affected streams. The operation of Colebrook River Reservoir together with the local protection reservoir at Sucker Brook will prevent $21,700,000 of the $31,650,000 flood losses wliich would occur in a recurring August 1955 flood under present economic conditions, after reductions made possible through operation of the completed Mad River Reservoir. The project is located within commuting distance of areas that have substantial ;ind jM'rsistent unemployment. Breakdown of benefits: Amount Flood control $597, 000 Water supply 202, 000 Recreation 27, 600 Fish and wildlife 100. 000 Total ---.: 926.600 Fiscal year 196.9. — The requested amount of $1,406,000 will Ik- applied as follows: 1363 Initiate and complete recreation facilities $80, 000 Initiate and complete permanent operating equipment 70, 000 Complete relocations 185, 000 Complete dam construction 865, 000 Complete road 11, 000 Complete buildings, grounds, and utilities 90, 000 Engineering and design 85, 000 Supervision and administration 70, 000 Total 1,406,000 Expenditure of these funds will provide for completion of the project during the fiscal year. Xon-Federal costs. — Local interests are required to reimburse the Federal Government for costs allocated to water supply storage over a period not to ex- ceed 50 years after use of this storage begins. Costs allocated to water supply are 36 percent of total project cost, of which 6 percent is for immediate use and 30 percent for future use. Total local costs are presently estimated at $5,140,000 excluding interest. Status of local cooperation. — Formal assurances furnished by the Hartford (Conn.) ]\Ietropolitan Water District were accepted by the division engineer on Julv 10, 1963, and a formal water supply contract was executed on March 10, 1965. ■ Comparison of Federal cost estimates. — No change from the latest estimate sub- mitted to Congress. Appropriation title. — Construction, general — Local protection project (flood control.) SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (PB-1), FISCAL YEARS 1968 AND 1969 Item (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Lands and damages $270,000 $220,400 $49,600. Relocations 5,655,000 4,647,200 822,800 $185,000 Reservoir 130,000 80,000 50,000 Dam.._ 6,255,000 3,469,600 1,920,400 865,000 Road 115,000 53,300 50,700 11,000 Recreation facilities 80,000 80,000 Buildings, grounds, and utilities 100,000 10,000 90,000 Permanent operating equipment 70,000 70,000 Engineering and design 960,000 870,700 54,300 35,000 Supervision and administration 765,000 543,300 151,700 70,000 Total applied cost (Federal funds only).. 14,400,000 9,804,500 3,139,500 1,456,000 Undistributed funds Total project cost (Federal funds only)... 14,400,000 9,804,500 3,139,500 1,456,000 _... Pending adjustment Total cost (Federal funds only) 14,400,000 9,804,500 3,139,500 1,456,000 Undelivered orders +275,800 225,800 50,000 Total obligations (Federal funds only) 10,080,300 2,913,700 1,406,000 Method of fmancing; Allocations... 10,094,000 2,900,000 Unobligated carryover from prior year 13,700 Total funds available for obligation 2,913,700 Appropriation required. 1,406,000 Project Total to Current Budget Balance to cost June 30, fiscal year fiscal year complete after estimate 1967 1968 1969 fiscal year 1969 Operation and Maintenance Mr. BoLAND. We will insert justification covering operation and maintenance. 1. Navigation (a) Channels and harbors. — The budget estimate of $2,947,000 provides for essential maintenance work on 14 channel and harbor projects named in the list which follows. The work to be accomplished under this activity consists of maintaining the navigation channels and harbors and anchorages of coastal harbors and waterways by means of dredging, snagging, breakwater repairs, and the operation and repair of project structures, all as authorized in the laws adopting river and harbor projects. 1364 OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes CONNECTICUT Norwalk Harbor... $220,000 Periodic maintenance. Saugatuck River _ 75,000 Do. MAINE Belfast 170,000 Do. Kennebunk River J40,000 100,000 Do. Penobscot River $102,400 7,600 105,000 Do. Saco River 250,000 200,000 Do. Scarboro River 120,000 Do. MASSACHUSETTS Boston Harbor 881.900 759,400 20,000 Removal of floating debris and obstructions only in fiscal year 1969. GapeCodCanal 1,073,700 1,140,300 1,537,000 Additional periodic mainte- nance. Annisquam River 80,000 Periodic maintenance. Menemsha Creek 4.600 60,000 Do. Newburyport Harbor 9,100 7,900 50,000 Do. NEW HAMPSHIRE Hampton Harbor. 70,000 25,000 Do. RHODE ISLAND Point Judith Harborof refuge 185,000 Do. Other projects maintained periodically... 1,020,700 1,045.800 Total, navigation 3,087,800 3,325,600 2,947,000 (&) Locks, dams, and canals. — None. 2. Flood control (a) Reservoirs. — The budget estimate of $1,580,000 provides for the operational requirements of 29 flood control re.servoirs. Requirements include operation and ordinary maintenance of project facilities ; labor, supplies, materials, and parts required for day-to-day functioning ; and periodic maintenance, repairs, and replacements. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes CONNECTICUT Colebrook River Reservoir Hancock Brook Reservoir $8,500 $13,000 Hop Brook Reservoir 13,000 Mansfield Hollow Reservoir 47,900 45,000 Northfield Brook Reservoir. 8,700 13,100 Thomaston Reservoir 44,300 49,000 West Thompson Reservoir 29,500 35,000 MASSACHUSETTS Barre Falls Reservoir 37,000 43,000 Birch Hill Reservoir 35,000 45,000 Buffumville Reservoir 35,500 40,000 Conant Brook Reservoir 6,500 21,000 East Brimfield Reservoir 27,300 35,000 Hodges Village Reservoir 34,100 30,000 Knightville Reservoir 67,300 52,800 Littleville Reservoir 30,400 38,000 Tully Reservoir 32,200 43,000 West Hill Reservoir 24,700 30,000 Westville Reservoir. 31,400 36.000 $20, 000 1st year of partial operation. 18,000 29, 000 1st year of full operation. 55, 800 17,000 52, 000 Install hydrologic network. 51,000 Do. 49, 300 Do. 47, 600 57, 600 Do. 22. 000 51,700 Do. 54, 200 Do. 50, 000 49. 000 Do. 47, 000 53, 200 Do. 90, 000 Provide boundary surveys and markers. 1305 Obligations— Continued Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes NEW HAMPSHIRE Blackwater Reservoir 22,200 Edward MacDowell Reservoir 32,200 Franklin Falls Reservoir 48,200 Hopkinton-Everett Reservoir 67.500 Otter Brook Reservoir... 35,700 Surry Mountain Reservoir 50,000 VERMONT Ball Mountain Reservoir 81,200 North Hartland Reservoir... 45,000 North Springfield Reservoir 35,600 Townshed Reservoir 41,800 Union Village Reservoir 46,200 Total, reservoirs 1,005,900 40, 800 57, 800 68, 800 96, 700 47, 000 45, 000 53, 000 43, 000 49, 000 54, 000 58, 600 30, 000 46, 100 69, 000 214,000 59, 800 49, 600 67, 500 57, 200 59, 400 54, 000 59, 000 Variation in maintenance require- ments. Do. Provide boundary surveys and markers, install hydrologic network. 1,195,600 1,580.000 ( b ) Channel improvements, inspections, and miscellaneous maintenance. — The budget estimate of $116,000 provides for the maintenance requirements of two hurricane flood protection projects and for inspection of 40 completed projects. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes CONNECTICUT Stamford hurricane barrier ?15, 300 MASSACHUSETTS New Bedford-Fairhaven hurricane barrier $106,400 191,900 Inspection of completed works 19,000 22,000 Total, channel improvements, in- spection, and miscellaneous maintenance.... 125,400 229,200 Total, flood control... 1,131,300 1,424,800 $34, 000 First year of full operation. 58, 000 Decrease in periodic mainte- nance. 24, 000 116,000 1,696,000 3. Multiple-purpose projects including poicer. None. 4. Protection of navigation. Tlie budget estimate of $220,000 provides for accomplishing the vp^ork essential to the administration and enforcement of specific laws enacted in the interest of protection to navigation; and project f^ondition surveys on some projects for which maintenance is not scheduled in the budget year. OBLIGATIONS Project Actual, fiscal year 1967 Estimated, fiscal year 1968 Estimated, fiscal year 1969 Explanation of major changes General regulatory functions $77,900 105,700 183, 600 $74, 100 101,300 175,400 $100, 000 120, 000 220, 000 Increase in permit activities Project condition surveys Total, protection of navigation and reestablishment of harbor lines in major ports. Periodic inspections. Grand total, New England Divi- sion. 4,402,700 4, 925, 800 4, 863, 000 1366 CAPE COD CANAL, MASS Mr. BoLAXD. A total of $1,537,000 is requested for additional pe- riodic maintenance on the Cape Cod Canal, an increase of $396,700 over 1968. ^Yh.y is this additional expense essential in fiscal year 1969 ? Colonel Eenier. Sir, we have a problem with some periodic replace- ments. For instance, a patrol boat, a crane dating back to 1941, several vehicles dating back to 1960, $128,000 for repairs to a bulkhead at Sandwich, $100,000 for the painting of the Sagamore Bridge. This is about the guts of the increase. Mr. BoLAND. Mr, Davis. PLYMOUTH HARBOR, MASS. Mr. DA\as. On the Plymouth Harbor, it appears then that last year out of a total legislative allocation of $1,040,000, $440,000 was put in reserve and that is the amount that is being carried over for request for the 1969 fiscal year in order to complete the ]3roject; is that right? Colonel Rexier. This is correct, sir. PROVINCETOWN HARBOR, MASS. Mr. Davis. Provincetown Harbor, last year $400,000 had been pro- vided. Half of that was designated as slippage and the other half as reserve, so that as shown on page 48 of the justifications no net funds were made available for the project. Now, can you explain the $200,000 part that is designated as slippage? Colonel Rexier. The $200,000 denoted as savings and slippage is a part of the total savings and slippage program that the corps pro- vides each year, sir, realizing that some projects will fall behind and others will gain momentum. Mr. Davis. This one fell behind for what reason ? Colonel Renier. The reason is that the town had to float a bond issue to recapture some of the money that is needed. Mr. Davis. So there was an actual, necessary on-site delay with re- spect to that portion of it ? Colonel Renier. That is correct. Mr. Davis. The other had to be a rather arbitrary allocation to wipe out the funds that were available? Colonel Renier. Correct, sir. Mr. Davis. I supipose the question then, naturally, arises: If this at least could be partially justified as a deferral on the basis of an arbi- trary withholding of funds whether in view of our current fiscal situa- tion this could reasonably be deferred in the 1969 fiscal year. Colonel Renier. No, sir. I would reconnnend that it l)e retained. Mr. Davis. You feel there is some urgency in connection with this project ; do you ? (^olonel Renier. Yes, sir. ■\VT':YMOUTH-rORE AND TOWN lUVERS, MASS. Mr. Davis. We have somewhat of a similar situation in the Wey- mouth-Fore and Town Rivers where $800,000 was completely deferred, $250,000 of it on the basis of slippage and $550,000 on the basis of reserve. Could you tell us the explanation of the $250,000 first? 1367 Colonel Renier. Well, again this project could not proceed fast enough in the design portion of it to permit an early award and it was a good place tor us to commit some of the savings in slippage to the overall national program. Mr. Davis. You could have used the $550,000 had it not been for the setup of the reserve on it ; is that true ? Colonel Renier. Yes, sir ; we could have. Mr. Davis. I suppose basically, then, we get back to that same (question as to whether tliis is a reasonable candidate for deferral in light of our fiscal situation. Colonel Renier. I believe the project is a high candidate for retention, sir, and there are many reasons for it. I might point out that most of the commerce in this area is oil. We are plagued in New England, as you may have read, with problems of oil spillage and vessels groundhig themselves, damaging themselves and contributing to this oil spillage. We do need the deeper channel depths there be- cause of the volume and the type of traffic. ANSONIA-DERBY, CONN. Mr. Davis. Ansonia-Derby, that was a case where $1,500,000 was provided, but $675,000 was put into slippage. Was that a local onsite problem that accounted for that ? Colonel Renier. This turned out to be a local onsite problem, yes. INIr. Davis. "Wliich has now been completely resolved? Colonel Renier. It will be resolved within the next 6 weeks, sir. new LONDON, CONN. Mr. DA^^:s. New London was the one that you talked about before. That was where the urban renewal project was delayed but that, too^ has been cleared up at the present time ? Colonel Renier. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. That is all, Mr. Chairman; thank you. Mr. BoLAND. Mr. Robison. reduction amount for projects in FISCAL year 19 9 Mr. Robison. Colonel, when General Cassidy was here on the open- ing day of these hearings he characterized the corj3s' 1969 budget request as being a "tight budget." At the time, I asked him if he would also call it an "austere budget." His answer was, "I think that we used the term almost synonymously when applied to this budget." Now, we are hearing about the possibility of an "austere" budget which, to my mind, involves some modifications of the original budgetary alloca- tions. Mr. Davis has gone into this in part with you. I notice, though, that several times throughout the justifications the phrase is used, with respect to the 1969 project requests for your division, that the same will provide "for economical prosecution of the project during the fiscal year." You are familiar with that phrase. Now, does that reflect, as you see it, that phrase, some reduction of what you would like to have had to spend on these projects ? Colonel Renier. In some of the projects, sir, it is a reduction. Mr. Robison. What do you really mean by "providing for economi- cal prosecution of the project"? What does that mean? 1368 Colonel Rexier. It is the best use of the manpower and talents we have available for the projects of the highest priority, in our estimation. COMPARISON OF PRIORITIES Mr. RoBisoN. All right. Now, you have just touched upon the key word in all of this, that is, the word "priority." What have you done in your division to attempt to compare the priorities of the various projects in your backlog of work on the basis of their relative need on a project-by-project basis ? Colonel Renier. We have so compared our projects; and we, along with the rest of tlie division engineers, must do this because we do have a backlog and we search for those with the highest needs, to service the best interests of the people and the economy of the area and our ability to perform. TRUMBULL POND RESERVOIR, CONN. Mr. RoBisoN. All right. Now, with respect to the Trumbull Pond Reservoir project in Connecticut, shown on page 20, the largest single item of annual benefits here is for recreation. There are other impor- tant annual benefits, of course, including flood control, water supply, and water quality control, but recreation is the largest single annual benefit. This project has a pretty good benefit-to-cost ratio, 2.1 to 1. However, in view of the emphasis on recreation in the project, and the possibility at least that other projects might be more important in a limited budgetary time such as this, than those involving rec- reation, would this be a candidate for deferral? Colonel Renier. Not for deferral, sir. The recreation is an adjunct to the other purposes and it lends itself admirably to the area, which has a very high concentration of people. We have some 400,000 people who live within 10 miles of this reservoir. We have 1,250,000 people who live within 25 miles of the reservoir. They are just desperate for areas of recreation. With the reservoir required for flood control and water supply, this is just a real boon to the area, the recreation. GAYSVILLE RESERVOIR, VT. Mr. RoBisoN. All right. Let's turn to Gaysville Reservoir in Ver- mont, where the benefit-to-cost ratio is only 1.4 to 1, and the recreational annua,! benefits are $245,000, while the fish and wildlife annual benefits are $140,000. Let me ask you this : Without the recreation and fish and wildlife annual benefits, would this project still have a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio ? Colonel Renier. Yes, sir ; it would. Mr. RoBisoN. But not as favorable, certainly ? Colonel Renier. Dropping the recreation, which is the highest per- centage there, our benefit-to-cost ratio would dro]:> to 1.3. Mr. RoBisoN. Sup])oscyou dropped fish and wildlife benefits. Colonel Renier. If you drop both of them, recreation and fisli and wildlife, we drop back to 1.2. Mr. RoBisoN. You arc only aslving $100,000 to go forward with planning, or to begin }:)lanning on this project, which will eventually cost $25 million. I don't know, really, what you can do with $100,000 during fiscal 1969. You tell us what you are going to do. Now, I am 1369 swatting at flies instead of wrestling with elephants again, but could you get along without the $100,000 ? Colonel Renier. No, sir ; it is necessary for us to get into the field and commence our surveys of the area and add to the data on explorations tliat we have right now. It should not be deferred. BLACK ROCK RESERVOIR, CONN. Mr. RoBisoN. Very well. On page 75 with respect to the Black Rock Reservoir in Connecticut, of the total request of $2.4 million, $25,000 is asked for to initiate and complete buildings, grounds, and utilities. Is this item related to recreation ? Colonel Renier. No, sir. Mr. RoBisoN. What buildings are we talking about ? Colonel Renier. We are talking about the buildings and utilities to support the project in its future life. Mr. RoBisoN. All right. But down at the bottom of the page you say in connection with the substantial cost increase over the last estimate you gave us, that $230,000 of that is for the addition of recreation facilities to supplement the existing Black Rock State Park develop- ment. Evidently, this is a future cost. What you are asking for this year is not going to be directly related to recreation. Colonel Renier. That is correct, sir. COLEBROOK RESERVOIR, CONN. Mr. RoBisoN. On page 81, finally, the Colebrook River Reservoir, of this year's request of $1,406,000, $80,000 is asked to initiate and complete recreation facilities, and $90,000 to complete buildmgs, grounds, and utilities, which latter item may or may not be related to recreation. Is it ? Colonel Renier. That latter item is not related to recreation. Mr. RoBisoN. But the $80,000 is for recreation. Could that portion of the overall request be deferred if the subcommittee felt it wise to do so in view of the overriding budgetary problems ? Colonel Renier. My recommendation w^ould be that it remain in the budget, sir. We are at the point of completion of this project. If you remember my opening remarks, I mentioned that we have this high local interest in use of the area. Mr. RoBisoN. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. RoBisoN. Thank you. summary of flood control projects Mr. BoLAND. Colonel, will you supply for the record a tabulation of the flood control projects that have been built since 1955 ? Also in that analysis will you indicate the benefits that have been realized to date — the damages that have been prevented ? Colonel Renter. Yes, sir ; we will. 1370 (Tlie information follows:) FLOOD CONTROL AND HURRICANE PROGRAM (PROJECTS)— NEW ENGLAND I. FLOOD CONTROL A. COMPLETED PRIOR TO AUGUST 1955 Numberof Number Federal allo- River basin reservoirs of local Federa Icost Non-Federal Total cost cations through' protection cost fiscal year 1967 Connecticut.. 5 9 $35,454,600 $4,705,300 $40,159,900 $34,705.90Di Merrimack 3 4 16,192,300 213,300 16,405,600 15,952,500' Thames 1 6,550,000 6,550,000 6.446,500 Coastal 1 52,200 2,800 55,000 52,200 Total 9 14 58,249,100 4,921,400 63,170,500 57,157,100 B. COMPLETED SINCE AUGUST 1955 OR PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION Blackstone 1 3 $18,197,600 $4,102,000 $22,299,600 $18,126,000' Connecticut 11 8 75.871,900 2,637,400 78,509,300 69,195,400 Housatonic 7 4 51,699,800 2,678,100 54,377,900 34,711,800 Merrimack 1 1 21,980,000 21,980,000 21,352,200 Thames.... 5 1 28,615,000 72,000 28,687,000 27,705,600 Coastal 4 566,800 104,100 670,900 566,800 Total 25 21 196,931,100 9,593,600 206,524,700 171,657,800 C. UNDER DESIGN Housatonic... 2 $6,370,000 $1,090,000 $7,460,000 $130,000 Merrimack.. 1 4,500,000 4,500,000 Coastal 1 5,740,000 5,740,000 Total 2 2 16,610,000 1,090,000 17,700,000 130,000^ D. FUTURE (AUTHORIZED, RECOMMENDED, OR DEFERRED) Connecticut 4 1 $66,685,000 $992,000 $67,677,000 $218,400 Merrimack 3 4 15,570,000 540,000 16,110,000 St. John. 1 218,400,000 218,400,000 1,814,000 Coastal 1 2,700,000 1,600,000 4,300,000 Total 8 6 303,355,000 3.132,000 306,487,000 2,032,400 Total flood control 44 43 575, 145, 200 18, 737, 000 593, 882, 200 230, 977, 300 II. HURRICANE (ALL SINCE 1955) Completed or under construction 4 $30,579,300 $16,534,100 $47,113,400 $28,779,300 Underdesign.. 2 10,185.000 4,365,000 14,550,000 395,000 Future, authorized 1 3,984,000 2,016,000 6,000,000 Total hurricane 7 44,748,300 22,915,100 67,663,400 29,174,300 Total program 44 50 1619,893,500 41,652,100 661,545,600 260,151,600 1 Includes $18,855,500 Federal appropriation requirement ultimately reimbursable from non-Federal interests. 1371 o a^' ** o o to o •— «' o COfOO^>eM'=S'Tl«0 ) O '«3' O O O O — ^ O OCDOOOOOOO OOCOO«!rOOC£>C3 o o" ■«^' o o o o ^ o* tD'^OOCNjLnr^tnfsj ^r— Tcsj' oo"co (xTcsT-— h'^ 00 'I- fn ro r^ ^r -^r .— <»■ 1,285 270 960 52 932. 2,717. 245 oo s — CM — •«3 — rr 0'«l- omoo — ocooo ^j-o"^ CM in tO-3- r.- 00 t£> cNj ^a- rooioom fOCS. o u-> cTJ r-.' ^J^ ■* o — .CTl — 'O- OO m >a-o vr>oo o<» 5000 ^oo -a- ooooor^oof CMCSI -a- — CM 'S*^ r-.ooco s o> ■w C£>«3- oooo^ -OOOCS oo"^ oo ss or^rooo'c: r LTJOOCN r oor^ tiSLT CM CNJ o^ cnt^cM 00 CD ^-CS. — .tD-H'O- oo ^ 5 ".o-^.e-n: SS~--^o- -=::S.S — -c 00 CJ OLuLi.3:3ca:a£_i2ZZoo5S 1372 CVJOOOtDOOOO— 'CvJOOOOCVJOOOOtOLOOOOC uS f^ r^' CO 'd^ ai (^ o ^ o --' uS cvi tri o o oo r-^ -- u^ ** ' , CO cvj to csi o ' or«-oo — o^ooooo O O ro r-.' rn oS tfsj ^ O 06 o od rs) 00 C3 r- C50 O) 00 csi m ^- «r> o _ csi ^- — ' nr CO .-^oocMin ^* eg" iO^^ oooooooooocsjooooooocsooooooooo irira>oicncnc7)cricj)cncr)CDCT>CT5a)C7>o^2^*^222 "3 =1 ^, C I— 3:So J 3 a) ^".°,"">B = "^r:^ ..->- ;0 OoO -- ■£££ '-^ E = — — -S >-="2"~^ii " ° S !f, m !?, mmcQooooLLjujxxxi:r_iSz2:zoooi— (-S>S CT5 CT> 01 CTl CTi O^ CT^ CT) o^ CT^ CT) 01 Q>.— lil <-> Q. ^ E2- -£= c/3 ^ TO ' .f ^ CT> — ^ 2s e '3; % >,a3 z = 08 R = s S s n ro ^Ll. 2t ^ O- n ^ S w; '-""P ■G s J= : "o c. CL* o o o.-r *^ '-' o f- »4— \i;L o oj ^ r; 1373 OO CNJ C3 (I> •-< CO o* o U-) od 'T o a> C3 > *^ 00-- • ^" tOC' oocNjcatD-— •oo'^rco ^- iec^S 3 o S ^S 9- S d oo 92 oo 1374 oooo^o o irj uS o o d tD-^ CNIO o CsJ ^ en oo CO .— r«* OO 0C30 oS uri o o o o ■«• r-^ C5CDCNI CD o to CO cnin r^ c> > o o c^ •^ 9 S o o o-a_ OJCDO'*- - ooo^ooo CO in o t£> o in to -H --» ^- r- CO CM .— I OO .-• C5 CM rO CO CD ^■D-O^ DO .y-o-c)-o.t: -Q.Q-C : X >< f ' 03 a> ! Q-X X >< Q. o J2 OCDOCOOOO o in CD •:r o uS ^ CO CO to '^ r^ CM CO CM m r^ oj 2 2? — c c c c o ~ — O o o o o ■g = = c d" g o o.o o •o-5'o-o — -aT3-D-a cll = = = > Qj o a) = E"C3 "-■■^t? Q> = °q:" = lu tio ter jec a. S5S5. = 3 -= S S " J, ^.^?^^ i2 ou_i°; u "oco^s o ~S2t: T3 ES,-^°- TO .E-5-g not pply ance nclu S TO ■_ = tn S5 s c £ .b - o^ Eto=5.^ = 91-459— 68— pt. 1- -87 1376 Damages Prevented Operation of the completed flood control projects within the New England Division have prevented a total of $155,760,000 in damages through fiscal year 1967. A breakout of this total by major basins is as follows : Damage.'^ Basin, preventeolicy, which concern stems from the increasing stresses which an exi)anding economy exerts on these factors. The P'ish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48"Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) requires that the Service be consulted to determine the probable impact on fish and wildlife resources of water control projects considered for construction by the Federal Government or bj' Federal permittees. The act 1381 ])rovides that fish and wildlife conservation and development sliall receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of such projects. It requires the Service to estimate the harmful or beneficial effects of projects on fish and wildlife resources and to recommend measures for their conservation, develop- ment, and improvement. The growing scope and complexity of the water develop- ment program, and increasing public demand for recreation based on these re- sources, requires an increased intensity of effort to determine the basic biological conditions. The act authorizes the transfer of funds needed for this purpose to the Fish and Wildlife Service from appropriations to Federal construction agencies for investigations, engineering, or construction. A variety of recommendations are developed by the Service in cooperation with State fish and game agencies to prevent damage or to achieve benefits to fish and wildlife and their utilization by people, depending on the requirements of local conditions. Such measures may include releases of water of a quality and quantity needed to maintain or improve a tailwater or stream fisherj', main- tenance of minimum pools in reservoirs, passage facilities for migrant fishes, fish hatcheries, acquisition and development of land for wildlife management purposes and manj' others. Management of facilities may either be by State or Federal agencies. Corps of Engineers projects provide an important part of the more than 700 million man-days of fishing and hunting expended anniuiUy in the United States. With demand increasing for these activities and habitat progressively constricted, it is essential that public water and related land development be planned to fulfill these needs to the extent feasible. The Fish and Wildlife Service assists in planning water development projects so as to preserve and improve recreational benefits for the millions of people who fish and hunt and for other millions who obesrve, study, or photograph fish and wildlife. In addition, the beneficiaries of these project services contribute substantially to the local econom}- in the form of purchased goods and services. (d) International water studies Fiscal year 1968 $104, 000 Fiscal year 1969 120, 000 Statement of objective These funds are allocated to Corps of Engineers field offices to help finance corps participation in various engineering and control boards under the jurisdic- tion of the International Joint Commission in accordance with international agreement between the Governments of the United States and Canada. Discussion The United States is obligated by international agreements to actively par- ticipate in a number of engineering and control boards to study and control international streams and watersheds that mutually affect the development of water resources in the United States and Canada. Members of the Corps of En- gineers are appointed to represent the United States on the following International Boards of Control: St. Croix River, St. Lawrence, Niagara, Lake Superior, Lake of the Woods, Rainy Lake, Prairie Portage, Kootenay Lake, Osoyoos Lake, and Columbia River; and the International Niagara Committee. Participation of Corps representatives in the work of the Columbia River Engineering Board, the Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data, and in the studies pertaining to implementation of the Columbia River Treaty are also financed from this appropriation. Activities of the Corps in con- nection with the work of other International Engineerhig Boards not listed herein will be totally financed in 1969 from appropriations for associated surveys or special studies. Accomplishments to date The control and engineering boards have continued the routine supervision of the various control structures, have continued the collection and reporting of hydrologic data pertaining to the regulation of streams and lakes and have continued the engineering studies assigned by the International Joint Commission. Planning is continuing on development of the hydrometeorological network of hydrologic data stations required for day-to-day operation of the Columbia River system in carrying out provisions of the Columbia River Treaty. Proposed operation in fiscal year 1969 Funds in the amount of $120,000 will be required in fiscal year 1969 to permit the United States to continue to maintain its position in boundary water matters. 1382 Justification for increase The $120,000 requested for fiscal year 1969 is $16,000 greater than the fiscal year 1968 budget. The increase is necessary to cover the cost of greater demand for more coordination with local interests, by the extensive close supervision found necessary by the boards in view of the conflicting nature of the various interests involved in regulation and control of Great Lakes levels, and because the regulation plans are becoming increasingly sophisticated in order to provide the local interests optimum benefits from use of the Great Lakes waters. Imple- mentation of the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Canada relating to the cooperative development of the water resources of the Columbia River require increased participation in engineering studies. (e) Flood plain management sermces Section 206 of the Flood Control Act approved July 14, 1960 (Public Law 86- 645), as amended, authorizes the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of Engineers, to compile and disseminate information on floods and flood damage potentials and general criteria for guidance of Federal and non-Federal interests and agencies in the use of flood plain areas. Under this authorization, the Corps of Engineers carries out its flood plain management services program. The purpose of the authorization is to make available to Federal, State, and local governmental agencies information, guidance, and advice on the flood hazard which will permit such planning, engineering studies, construction, and other action as may be necessary for wise use of flood plains. The program activities include: preparation of flood plain information reports, provision of technical services and guidance in the interpretation of basic data, preparation of flood plain regulations, and application of concepts such as structural flood proofing of new and existing buildings, preparation of guides and pamphlets and conduct of related research, and assistance in long-range comprehensive flood damage reduc- tion planning. 1. FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION REPORTS Flood plain information reports are prepared upon request of State and local agencies to delineate flood problems in communities throughout the country. The Corps of Engineers has gathered much flood plain information during the conduct of its previously authorized responsibilities for flood control. Such infor- mation is assembled and organized under this program. When necessary, additional physical surveys and hydrologic studies are undertaken. A typical report includes maps or mosaics, profiles, charts, tables, and a narrative describing the extent, depth, probability, and duration of flooding by floods of the past and those that may be expected in the future It is the responsibility of the State and local government agencies to publicize the information and put it to use through planning groups, zoning boards, private citizens, engineering and planning firms, real estate and industrial developers, and others to whom it would be useful. State and local agencies also are expected to cooperate in providing appropriate assistance, advice, and guidance to ameliorate the flood hazard. State and local interest in flood damage prevention planning and measures is growing rapidly. State legislation and programs adopted by California in June 1965, by Colorado in April 1966, by Wisconsin in June 1966, and by Nebraska in June 1967, are notable examples of recent actions that complement older programs of other States such as those in Connecticut, Indiana, and Iowa. Nearly every community has a flood problem. There are more than 5,000 communities with 2,500 population or more, and several thousand places with smaller populations which have such problems. Of these, the Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies, by June 30, 1967, had been able to cover only about 350 with flood plain information reports. The corps had completed 123 reports in 29 States and Puerto Rico, has under wa,y work on 220 other reports distriljuted among 49 States and Puerto Rico, and expects to completer nearly 200 of the ongoing reports during fiscal year 196S. (The number of reports to be complet(>d in fiscal year 196H is greater than the fiscal year 1968 appropriation rate of 120, because many were nearing completion at the end of fiscal year 1967.) In fiscal year 1969 this work is to be continued so that reports for nearly 150 communities, distributed among all of the 50 States and Puerto Rico, can be completed. The amount of $3 million was allocated to this activity in fiscal vear 1968. The appropriations request for fiscal year 1969 is $3,450,000.' 1383 2. TECHNICAL SERVICES AND GUIDANCE States and local governmental agencies and private interests have used the flood plain information reports in various ways, such as adoption of flood plain regulations, setting size of openings for bridges, and location of public and private buildings. The expanding technical services part of the program is expected to greatly increase the use and benefits of the basic data presented in the reports. The technical services function includes (a) help in interpretation and evalua- tion of basic data and guidance in perparation of flood plain regulations, (b) advice in use of basic data in actions regarding possible alternative developments in flood prone areas, and (c) guidance on structural and nonstructural measures which might be emploj^ed to reduce flood damage potential or flood losses. These services ai-e given in each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico and thej^ are being increased during fiscal j'ear 1968 to meet growing demands. These services should prove especially important to the hundreds of communities for which flood control surveys made b}' the corps indicate structvu'al flood control measures are not engineeringly feasible or economically justified. This program includes assistance and guidance not only to State and local agencies but to Federal agencies as well, in accordance with requirements of Executive Order 11296. That order is concerned with the location of innumerable Federal improvements and disposal of Federal properties in flood hazard areas, and with proper consideration for the flood hazard in all Federal grant, loan, mortgage insurance, and land use planning programs. During fiscal year 1967 an illustrated pamphlet on structural flood proofing was prepared and given nationwide dis- tribution. Through coordinated efforts of all Federal executive agencies having responsibilities under this order, proposed flood hazard evaluation guidelines have been prepared to insure greatest reasonable uniformity and effectiveness in the implementation of the order. Assistance in response to Federal Agency requests grew rapidly during the last months of fiscal year 1967 and is being increased in fiscal year 1968 to meet the agencies' needs. In fiscal year 1969 this work is to be further increased to respond to the growing demands of Federal, State, and local agencies. The amount of $1,900,000 was allocated to this work in fiscal year 1968. The appropriations request for fiscal year 1969 is $2,350,000. 3. GUIDES, PAMPHLETS, AND EESEARCH This aspect of the program includes studies to improve methods and procedures for flood damage prevention and abatement and the preparation of guides and pamphlets pertainings to flood proofing, flood plain regulations, flood plain occu- pance, and other related approaches to flood damage prevention. These activities are being coordinated with related programs of other Federal and State agencies. The guides and pamphlets are made available for use of State and local govern- ments, private citizens, and Federal agencies in planning and taking action to reduce their flood damages or damage potential. During fiscal year 1967 a modal flood plain information report was developed to improve effectiveness and reduce costs of individual reports. Also, an illustrated pamphlet on flood proofing, a pamphlet presenting guidelines for reducing flood damages, and various leaflets were prepared and given wide distribution. During fiscal year 1968 additional model reports for variable situations as well as other pamphlets and guides are being prepared. These types of studies and means for illustrating alternative ways of coping with flood damages need to be continued and broadened for the benefit of the growing number of local. State, and Federal officials concerned with the problem. This requires further research on applicability and potential combinations of alternative damage reduction means, and study of the acceptability of those various alternative or complementary measures with emphasis on the social, institutional, legal, and State and local governmental aspects of flood plain management. The amount of $100,000 was allocated to these activities in fiscal year 1968. The appropriation reqiiest for fiscal year 1969 is $200,000. 4. COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION PLANNING Comprehensive flood prevention planning, at all appropriate governmental levels, although not a separate activity, is the composite and ultimate objective of the flood plain management services program. As a product of our expanding economy and the increased demand for land, flood damages have increased so rapidly that provision of construction measures for flood protection hardly keeps pace with the growth of the problem. Adjustment of land use through proper 1384 planning, and employment of a variety of other techniques for reducing flood damages and damage potential, constitute rational and economic means by which the advantages of locations on flood plains can be balanced with the inevitable hazard of floods. Through close local contacts and imderstanding, the program contributes greatly to the planning as State and local officials are brought into the planning actions to a greater degree and increased consideration is given alternative or supplementary measures. The purpose is to encourage and guide the best and safest use possible of flood plain lands or the overall benefit of the Nation. 5. SUMMARY In fiscal year 1968 preparation of flood plain information reports is being con' ducted at a rate of about 120 reports annually. Flood plain management services imits are being expanded and increased technical assistance is being provided Federal, State, and local agencies to meet their growing needs. Preparation of guides and pamphlets and conduct of related research is being accelerated. The fiscal year 1968 appropriation ffor these activities was $5 million. During fiscal year 1969 the preparation of flood plain information reports is to be increased somewhat so that nearly 150 additional reports will be prepared. Accelerated effort in providing flood information and guidance for floodproofing to other Federal agencies in accordance with Executive Order 11296 is required. Technical assistance and guidance to State and local government agencies is to be increased in response to growing demands and extended to additional commu- nities which previously were unable to benefit from the corps flood control pro- gram. Additional guides and pamphlets will be prepared and related research conducted to make available necessary illustrations, information, and know-how for applying alternative means for reducing flood damages. An appropriation of $6 million is requested for the fiscal year 1969 flood plain management services program. Item Appropriation, fiscal year 1968 Requested, fiscal year 1969 Reports -- - $3,000,000 $3,450,000 Technical services 1,900,000 2,350,000 Guides, pamphlets, and research _.- _. 100,000 200,000 Total _ 5,000,000 6,000,000 3. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (a) Coastal engineering research and development studies: Fiscal year 196S $2, 385, 000 Fiscal year 1969 3, 030, 000 The U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center was established under authority of Public Law 172, 88th Congress, which abolished the former Beach Erosion Board (organized under authority of sec. 2, 1930 River and Harbor Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 426)) and directed that its functions, other than review of reports of investigations made concerning erosion and protection of shores of coastal and lake waters, be vested with the Coastal Engineering Research Center. The report review function was transferred to the Board of Engineers for Ri\-ers and Harbors, putting reports on beach erosion control and shore protection studies under the same review procedures as reports on other phases of the water resources study program of the Corps. The authorizing act also provided that tlie functions of the Coastal Engineering Rc^search Center be conducted witli the guidance and advice of a Coastal Engineering Research Board, to be constituted by the Chief of Engineers in thc^ same manner as the former Beach P>osion Board. Objective 1. Th(! objective of the res(>arch program of the Coastal PJngineering Research Center (CERC) is to improve th(> Corps capability for executing its statutory responsibilities in planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of coastal projects for shore protection and stabilization, navigation cliannels and harbors, and protection from flooding caused by hurrican(>s and severe storms. For fiscal year 1969, with these activities on coastal projects currently programed at an annual level of about $200 million, this supporting research is programed at about 1% percent of that amount. 1385 2. As an ancillary objoctivo, this research program is a component of the National Oceanographic program as formulatefl, coordinated, and supported by the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. The rather modest position of CERC (less than 1 percent in fiscal year 1968) in this national oceanographic program is indicated in table 1. Discussion 3. In the coastal environment, the waves, winds, tides, storm surges, and tsunamis act on the shoreface and backshore s'one to create problems of shore erosion, coastal flooding, and channel and harbor shoaling. Man's attempts over the y^'ars to modify or overcome these problems have met with varying degrees of success. Some projects have been resounding successes (Los Angeles Harbor Breakwater; the Delaware River Ship Channel; the Harrison County, Miss., beach restoration and hurricane protection project); others have been failures (the original Port Mansfield jetties; Lexios Harbor Breakwater, Portugal; and the initial beach protection project at Cape May, N.J.). Still other projects have been successful but have had high maintenance costs (Charleston, S.C., ship channel; Mare Island, California Straits Ship Channel; Virginia Beach shore erosion control ]:)roject). 4. Common to all the failures — and to a degree to all projects where mainte- nance costs are higher than expected — is the fact that many of the basic factors in coastal problems are understood only qualitatively, or at best semi-quantita- tively. Of all the hydraulic problems facing the engineer, it is generally conceded that the clarification and quantitative evaluation of the interaction of the winds, waves, tides, beaches, and coastal works are the most difficult. As a result, progress on evaluating these factors has lagged behind most other phases of hydraulic research. This lag is partially due to the fact that other phases of hydraulic research (river control, dams, basins, etc. gave promise of quicker rewards; thus, much more time, personnel, and funds have been devoted to these fields of research over the years than to the coastal phase of hydraulics. 5. However, in spite of the difficulties, progress has been made over the past years in coastal hydraulics (or coastal engineering), particularly since creation of the Beach Erosion Board in 1930, and more particularly since Congress in 1945 authorized the Beach Erosion Board to undertake a formal research program. (The Beach Erosion Board was dissolved in 1963 and its research functions vested in the newly created Coastal Engineering Research Center, and the Coastal PJngineering Research Board which reviews the research program of the Center.) 6. In the first 18 years of the research program, the budget was rather limited. (From 1953 to 1962 the research budget averaged $164,000 per year.) As a result, the problems which could be attacked with limited funds were necessarily emphasized in the studies. The findings from these previous years, coupled with the emphasis on oceanography brought on by the enlarged national oceaiiographic program, have pointed up the more difficult problems which need attention; these problems are generally of a type which need increased funding. For instance, in the 1950's little was done on the open coast in the way of research measure- ments, the work being large confined to the laboratory for reasons of economy. Now the need for field observations and tests has become evident — and even urgent — and these field studies have increasingly foi'nd their way into the CERC program. Accomplishments to date 7. The research program at CERC continues to attack unknown or poorly defined factors in coastal processes bearing on the design of coastal engineering works. It also includes research to improve the strength and durability of the coast- al structures themselves. A brief description of some of the accomplishments of CERC is given below. (The references to CERC include the research work done prior to 1963 by the Beach Erosion Board.) (a) "Handbook of Design." — A handbook of coastal engineering design (550 pages) has been published through three editions. It is for sale at the Government Printing Office for $3. The latest edition (1966, completely revised) continues to be widely sold and used; it is the accepted standard for coastal engineering design in the United States and, to a great degree, abroad. (6) Wave generation and forecasting. — Contract work for CERC resulted in the initial work leading to the later revamping by others of wave forecasting methods. The revised method, in refined form, is now used in the United States by the Navy and Weather Bureau and other agencies. (c) Wave runup and overtopping. — As more and more use is made of our shore- line area, the matter of wave overtopping of beach dunes and shore structures becomes increasingly important. CERC has done the only definitive work on this 1386 problem, and practical methods of computing wave runup and overtopping are now available for most conditions as a result of this work. (d) Wave diffraction and refraction. — The bending of wave fronts as they approach the shore and intrude into harbors tends to confuse the analysis of many shore protection and harbor problems. CERC has attacked this problem and now even relatively complex refraction and diffraction diagrams can be com- puted with acceptable accuracy. Methods have been devised by CERC for com- puting these diagrams with high-speed computers. {e) Wave forces on structures. — The problem of estimating wave forces on open piling structures (including the piling, the cross bracing, and the decking) has been studied by CERC. The CERC tests have included tests on large-scale structures in the large wave tank at CERC with waves up to 6 feet in height; the results of these controlled large-scale tests have furnished a basis of comparison for other experi- mental studies at smaller scales. (/) Shoie-erosion properties of .storm leaves. — The infrequent occurrence of major storms and hurricanes justifies, in many cases, the use of only sand dikes or dunes to withstand the onslaught of the storm waves. Laboratory studies, coupled with field observations, have enabled CERC to establish the rate at which sand dikes or dunes will be destroyed by storm wave action. These studies have enabled a proper selection of cross sections for hurricane dikes on Long Island, in North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, and a number of other States. Before the CERC studios, no data on such structures were available. {g) Expected life of steel, concrete, and irood in coastal waters. — The economic justification of many studies depends on the expected life (or cost of maintenance) of the materials of construction. Extensive field observations, coupled with a detailed study of available literature, have enabled CERC to prepare tables of the expected life of (1) steel, (2) concrete, and (3) wood inider various condi- tions of exposure in coastal waters. (These findings have proven very useful; however, more extensive studies are justified and are being made.) (h) Storm surge generation by hurricanes. — The involvement of the Federal Government in hurricane protection in the middle 1950's made it necessary to develop methods of computing hurricane surge heights. Research under the CERC program demonstrated that the surge height locally was determined by: The surge height developed offshore, the modifying effect of the sliallow coastal waters on the deep watersurge, and the rise caused by the dissipation of the energy of the surface waves breaking on the shore. Criteria for estimating these effects were also established under the CERC program and are widelv used in estimating surge heights in hurricane protection projects. Work defining modi- fications for the surge as it moves into bays and over land has resulted in usable estimates; this work is being continued. (z) Reconstruction of eroded shores by sand fill. — Until the mid-1940's, the generally accepted plan for restoring and protecting eroded beaches was to install groin fields of various designs. Himdreds of thousands of dollars were being spent annually — and generallj^ fruitlessly — by States, cities, and private owners on such installations. Research b.y CERC led to the conclusion that the more suc- cessful and more economical solution would, in many cases, be the replenishment of the shore by placing additional sand on the eroded beaches and resupplying the sand at regular intervals. These findings have been utilized with great success in this country, and have even been acknowledged as correct and adopted in experienced maritime countries such as the Netherlands. (j) Design of sand fences. — The loss of barrier islands to storm wave action frequently follows decay of the island dunes. Restoration of the dunes by sand fences has been the subject of extensive experiments by CERC. The results have demonstrated the most economically effective method to install sand fences for this i^urpose and the results are being widely used by the corps, the National Park Service, and State agencies. These studies are being expanded to investigate the tise of vegetation for dune restoration and control, and effect in different environmental conditions. (k) Utilization of offshore sand deposits to replenish eroding shore. — For the past 3 years the Corps of Engineers has been surveying coastal waters (out to the 60-foot contour) for deposits of sand suitable for replenishing our eroding shores. Concin-rently, the corps has been developing and modifying plant and equipment to pump the sand ashore. In the spring of 19G6 the activities culminated in a full-scale trial at Sea Girt, N.J., when some 300,000 cubic yards of sand were pumped ashore from an offshore sand deposit in about 50 feet of water. The sand was i)um])ed ashore through a submerged pipeline hy the dredge which had first dredged the sand to fill its hoppers. The procedm-e promises to reduce greatly the imit cost of placing sand to widen and stabilize the shore, thereby making 1387 practical many shore protection projects that otherwise were prohibitively expensive. (/) Wave statistics. — The proper design of harbor entrances and shore protec- tion measures is to a great degree dependent on reliable statistical wave data for tlie problem area. CERC has established and operated a small net of recording wave stations arouTid our coasts, and is continuing to expand this net. The data from this net, supplemented by wave data computed by CERC from weather maps, constitute the only large body of wave data for U.S. inshore coastal waters and the Great Lakes. 8. The results of the CERC research studies are published in sufficient copies to serve the interested public, particularly engineers and scientists engaged in coastal work. A total of 146 technical memorandums and 14 miscellaneous papers have been published since 1950. (These publications are in addition to the hand- book, CERC TM No. 4, described in subparagraph 7(a) above.) Proposed fiscal year 1969 program and justification of increase 9. The fiscal year 1968 and pi-oposed fiscal year 1969 programs are shown in outline in table 2. As indicated by this table, the program is oriented to engineering applications and is largely in the nature of applied research. The fiscal year 1969 program is considered to be in line with observations contained in the June 1966 report of the Panel on Oceanography of the President's Science Advisory Com- mittee (PSAC) and endorsed by PSAC and the President. As stated on page 2.5 of the report, ''The small budget for CERC (Coastal Engineering Research Center) cannot possibly underwrite the research and development program which is re- quired to devise engineering techniques necessary for solving the difficult construc- tion problems presented by the surf zone and beaches." And on page XII, referring to the overall problems in oceanography, this report states, "The Panel recom- mends that ernphasis be shifted from surveys to solutions to these problems." The National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development also supports the strengthening of coastal engineering research. As indicated on page 71 of its February 1967 report, "The need for concerted Federal and local initia- tives to arrest further shoreline degradation has now reached a level of some urgency." 10. Though the range of research studies encompasses many of the unresolved factors in coastal engineering of immediate concern, the major increased emphasis in the fiscal year 1969 program ($425,000 of the $625,000 total increase) is placed on four items: Item No. 1, "Wave action in coastal waters" ($128,000 increase); item No. 2, "Shore processes" ($130,000 increase); item No. 6, "Coastal works evaluation" ($57,000 increase) ; and item No. 10, "Environmental data collection" ($110,000 increase). This increased emphasis is being placed on items 1, 2, and 6 because of the need for immediate improvement pf our knowledge in these fields, and because of our recognition that the state of the science has now advanced to a point where significant and rewarding progress can be made in these research areas; and on item 10 because of the need for an expanded system for collection of wave and beach data for design use along the entire U.S. coastline. 11. Under Item 1, "Wave action in coastal waters," and item 2, "Shore processes," the total increase is $258,000. Essentially the entire amount will be used for the near completion of construction of a shallow- water research pier on the open coast to be initiated in fiscal year 1968, although provision of some ancillary features is deferred to fiscal year 1970. This pier will allow much needed, detailed observations of wave action and sand movement in the surf zone to be made at all seasons of the year under all conditions of sea and surf. A quantitative under- standing of the surf zone is absolutely necessarj- for sound engineering advances in controlling shore erosion and storm damage. To our knowledge there is not a single Government-owned research pier on the open coast which is suitable as a platform for research in tlie surf zone. As a result, temporary rental arrangements have been made with private pier owners oriented jjrincipally to recreation. These private piers are not designed to meet research requirements, the owners are w^ary of our needs to modif}^ the pier or to mount instruments on supporting piles, and usually they make the pier available on their terms and only at times con- venient to them. As a result, a dynamic and rewarding onslaught against the prob- lems of the surf zone has not been possible. This facility, though designed pri- marily to serve the needs of the corps research program, would be useful to other Government research agencies, such as those dealing with shallow-water fishing and pollution studies. The need is great for this facility and the time is considered propitious for its construction. The remainder of the increase in these two items will be utilized to increase our contracts with universities and other organizations for research on waves and their resultant effects, particularly in the surf zone. 1388 12. Under item 6, "Coastal works evaluation", the total increase is $.)7,000. This increase is required to continue and to strengthen a detailed study and evaluation of beach groins being initiated in fiscal 3-ear 1968, partly with a new experimental groin installation and partly b}* evaluation of other structures. Past evaluation studies of groins have been made on various t^-pes of fixed groins built by others. Attempts to measure and intercompare the effectiveness of these various types of groins in terms of groin length, profile, permeability, and ma- terials of construction have been inconclusive because: (1) The various types of groins, being in different locations, are subjected to different types and intensities of wave action and rates of littoral drift, making direct comparisons impossible ; and (2) as the natural beach generallj- goes through c^'clic or seasonal changes, it is difficult to separate the effect of the groins from the natural changes. There are a number of patented groins now on the market, and the corps is constantly being urged to use (or recommend that others use) the patented shapes; however, for the reasons given above, the corps has to date been unable to make a positive evalua- tion of the various types. To overcome the present deficiencies in our knowledge, the added sum of $57,000 is needed to continue the installations involved in an experimental groin field at a suitable location where the wave action and the rate of littoral drift can be measured, and to carry out studies thereon. A skeleton groin or groins are to be constructed which could be readilj- and economically modified to change the groin profile, length, and permeability. Millions of dollars have been spent on groin construction in the United States; much, if not most, of the construction has been ill advised and ineffective, if not actually harmful. To prevent the continuing waste of funds in the construction of groins, and in order to improve designs, it is necessary that the field study planned for initiation in fiscal year 1968 be adequately funded and continued in fiscal year 1969. 13. Under item 10, environmental data collection, the total increase is $110,000. This increase is primarily to support an expanded wave-gage program, on which some some initial developmental work has already been done. The program con- templates the installation, over several years, of approximately 100 wave-gaging stations in the near-shore waters along the coasts of the United States to provide near-shore statistical data of the wave climate (height, period, direction, and dura- tion). These data are badly needed for both design and operation of coastal facilities. It would provide gages at approximately 200-mile intervals along our coasts, the installation of the stations being staggered in time, with the areas of most pressing need being cov^ered first. Over a period of 14 years it would be planned to accumulate at least 10 years of data from each of the more important stations. After 14 years about half of the stations would be phased out and only the more useful ones maintained. The need for these data is apparent in all areas of coastal construction and operation, where selection of design wave and deter- mination of percentage of operational time for shipping, boating, and construc- tion equipment are important. 14. Items 3-5, 7-9, and 11-14 involve a total requested increase of $220,000. These funds will be used principally to enlarge our contract research program and to meet the rising cost of research. Of this, about $12,000 goes toward approxi- mately $50,000 to be utilized to improve our automatic data processing and com- puter capability. Specific areas of interest will be on inlet and estuary phenomena (including the Chesapeake Bay, $85,000) and on tsunamis and criteria for planning and design appropriate for tsunami areas ($20,000). It will also cover a $50,000 increase in technical services which are provided on a nonreimbursable basis — for such thTngs as review of design and consultant advice to AEC on wave and water level criteria appropriate for nuclear plant design in the ocean and Great Lakes environment. Included, too, are small increases for the study of coastal construction and design (items 7-9, $21,000), support of our publications ($15,000), and general administration and training ($17,000). 1389 TABLE 1— NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 1966-681 [In thousands of dollars] By agency Actual, fiscal year 1966 ' Estimated, fiscal President's budget, year 1967 ' fiscal year 1968 ' Defense...- 89,000 (CERC's part of Defense) (1,100) Commerce 9,600 Interior 26,500 National Science Foundation 44,800 Atomic Energy Commission 8,300 Health, Education, and Welfare 5,200 Trans portation 4, 300 Smithsonian Institution __. 1,100 State _ 5,000 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 900 Total 194,700 ^ERC R. & D. budget as percent of national program 0.6 112,900 (2,030) 17,400 36, 600 25, 800 13,700 4,800 6,600 1,300 5,100 400 224, 600 136,200 (2, 130) 18,000 38, 300 36, 200 15,800 4,700 5,900 1,400 5,400 800 262, 700 0.9 0.8 • Based on the oceanographic R. & D. program concept of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, as reflected in its first annual report (February 1967). TABLE 2— COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM [Proposed fiscal year 1969 versus fiscal year 1968] Fiscal year 1968 Fiscal year 1969 (proposed) Increase, fiscal year 1968 to 1969 1. Wave action in coastal waters $402,000 $530,000 $128 000 2. Shore processes 400,000 530,000 130'000 3. Tides and surges ._ 80,000 100,000 20'000 4. Inlet dynamics 50,000 100,000 50'000 5. Estuary dynamics... 50,000 85,000 35'000 6. Coastal works evaluation 423,000 480,000 57^000 7. Functional design of coastal works 40,000 48,000 8^000 8. Structural design of coastal works 25,000 26,000 I'OOO 9. Coastal construction techniques.. 10,000 22,000 12*000 10. Environmental data collection 610,000 720,000 llO^OOO Total, research projects 2,090,000 2,641,000 551,000 11. Technical services ._ 75,000 125,000 50,000 12. General administration, special studies, training 100,000 117,000 17*000 13. Automatic data processing 85,000 97 000 12*000 14. Publications... 35,000 50,000 15*000 Total, supporting items 295,000 389,000 94,700 Grand total 2, 385, 000 3, 030, 000 ' 654, 000 (6) Hydrologic studies: Fiscal j'ear 1968 $210, 000 Fiscal year 1969 230, 000 The hydrologic studies included in this item are essential basic activities which provide a background of information and experience for subsequent use in the optimum design, construction, and operation of water control structures. These basic studies are conducted b}' field offices of the Corps of Engineers and are included in this item only because they are not clearly chargeable to authorized projects or reports. Funds appropriated under this bu'dget item are allocated to corps field offices for use in conducting the studies. Each activity is discussed below. (1) Storm studies Statement of objective An investigation of major storms is conducted by field offices for the purpose of accumulating comprehensive data for the most important past and current storms. 139U Discussion Basic precipitation data from all available sources are compiled and analyzed to determine critical depth-area-dnration relationships for the storms as the_y actually occurred. These data are necessary in the evaluation of flood producing potentialities of river basins as related to accomplishment of the civil works mission of the corps. Accomplishments to date Basic precipitation data have been assembled for some 700 major storms for which about 600 have been completed through the second phase of the analysis pertaining to the development of depth-area-duration data. Sufficient progress is currently being made on additional storm studies to permit effective use of the data in flood control and other water resources studies. These data, although not in final form, are interchanged informallj' among district offices for current use as needs require. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969 An amount of $28,000 will be required in 1969 to continue the storm study program at the same level as last year. Basic data on a number of storms will be compiled and about five of the storm studies will be completed in final form during the year. {2) General hydrologic studies Statement of objective Criteria developed in these studies are required in determining economic justifications, capacity of flood control works, provision for security against failure of projects during extreme flood emergencies, proper hydrologic design for optimum performance, economy of construction, and proper operating procedures after completion of construction. Discussion These hydrologic background studies include analyses of rainfall-runoff relation- ships, snowmelt studies, flood forecasting, analyses of past floods, infiltration indexes, unit hydrographs, development of flood hydrographs, and other studies of related hydrologic nature that are not cleraly chargeable to authorized projects. Accomplishments to date The accomplishments achieved from studies conducted under this activity have resulted in general improvement in the development and quality of hydrologic criteria as presented in various field office reports submitted to the Chief of Engineers for approval. Following are examples of some of the more important activities accomplished under this item: development of rainfall-runoff relations in order to improve procedures for developing better estimates of design discharges; establishment of bench marks and collection of data to update stream bed profiles; adaptation of electronic computer techniques to hydrologic problems; development of luiit hydrograph data and comparison with similar data for other areas; improve coverage of snow courses to permit more accurate estimates of snow cover and forecasts of runoff; development of streamflow volume frequency estimates for high and low flows; revision of normal annual isohyetal maps of rainfall for the Columbia River Basin and for western Wa,shington. Proposed opeiations in fiscal year 1969 Funds in the amount of $98,000 will be required bj^ field offices to continue the general hydrologic studies at a level to insure proper and orderly progress. (S) Sedimentation studies Statement of objective This item is included in the budget in order that funds will be available for allocation to field offices for conducting nonproject sedimentation studies relative to the corps civil works mission and to provide funds to finance the corps share of an interagency sediment investigation program. Discussion These sediment studies include the collection of suspended and bed load data, data on degradation, aggradation and delta formations, investigations of sediment transport cliaracteristics of natural streams and laboratory studies. One of the major efforts under this item is a cooperative interagency project for investigating 1391 m(>thods for measuring and analyzing sediment loads in streams and for develop- ing new sediment sampling equipment. This interagency project is conducted at the 8t. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory at the University of Minnesota and is sponsored by the Committee on Sedimentation, Water Resources Council. Accomplishments to date Over the years, about 12 types of nonautomatic sediment samplers and laboratory instruments have been developed at the interagency project. These instruments have been widely accepted as standard devices for sediment measure- ment and analysis. Research has been conducted in connection with the develop- ment of instruments for automatic sampling of water-sediment mixtures and direct measurement of suspended sediment concentrations. About 10 instruments of the automatic type have been investigated. Several of these automatic instruments have been installed and are undergoing field testing in fiscal year 1968. Following development of the various instruments at the interagency project, arrangements are made for the manufacture, testing and calibration, and sale of the equipment to Federal and State agencies and to agencies of foreign govern- ments. This program has increased to the point where about 325 of the instruments are manufactured annually by private industry. To date, about 37 technical reports covering nmnerous aspects of problems related to sediment investigations have been prepared and issued under auspices of the interagency project. In addition, approximately 35 progress reports con- taining detailed discussions and results of tests made during the research investi- gation have also been published. Project personnel have materially assisted field offices of cooperating agencies by providing consulting services in connection with instrumentation or operational problems relative to sediment investigations. In addition, a training facUity has been provided at the project for engineers from U.S. agencies as well as from foreign countries. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969 An amount of $55,000 will be needed in fiscal year 1969 to carry on sedimenta- tion studies at the same level as fiscoi year 1968. Services normally furnished in connection with procurement, testing, modifications, and repair of standard instruments will be continued. Systematic literature search will be continued for investigation of promising ideas and new instruments. Greatest emphasis will be placed on development of instruments and techniques for automatic measurement of sediment loads in streams. Results of field tests of promising equipment will be published in progress reports. (4) Streamflow and rainfall data Statement of objective The purpose of this item is to make possible the allowance of funds to field offices for the installation and operation of streamflow and rainfall gages of a nonproject nature that are required by the corps in developing water resources. Discussion The gages included in this program are in addition to those stations in the cooperative programs conducted b}^ the Geological Survey and the Weather Bureau for the corps. These stations are operated independently by the corps in connection with some special study or purpose. Due to the special nature of stations and the fact that they are usually' operated for a limited time only, their inclusion in the cooperative programs is not practicable. Accomplishments to date The basic data obtained from stations in this program have provided informa- tion that normally would not have been available elsewhere for use in subse- quent survey reports or special studies. Stations financed from this account are established and operated several years prior to anticipated authorizations for project-type activities hi order to provide a background of observed data on. which to base the planning and design of projects. Proposed operations in Hscal year 1969 An amount of $49,000 will be required by field oflfices of the corps to continue the establishment and operation of these special purpose gages during fiscal year 1969. 91-459— 6S — pt. 1 S8 1392 JustiUcation for increase in budget item The $230,000 requested in fiscal year 1969 for this item of "Hydrologic studies," comprised of the above four subitems, is $20,000 greater than the 1968 amount for this program. The additional funds are required to offset general inflationary increases and to bring the magnitude of this program fimding up to a level more in line with normal field requirements. No expansion in scope of program activity is planned. (c) Civil works investigations The amount of $3,517,000 is requested for fiscal year 1969 to continue engineer- ing research investigations in direct support of the civil functions mission of the Corps. In undertaking its responsibilities in the development of the water resources of the Nation, the Corps of Engineers continues to search for improvements in the effectiveness and economy of its programing, budgeting, planning, engineering, construction, and operation of its projects. A large part of this eff"ort is carried out through its program of research aimed at the following objectives: (a) establish- ment of planning methods for achieving optimum development of river basin systems, (b) analysis and extension of hydrologic data upon which project develop- ment and operation is based, (c) design of concrete, earthfill, and rockfill dams, (d) subsurface explorations and design of foundations for these structures, (e) mixing and placing large volumes of mass concrete, (f) design, construction, and operation of navigation locks, (g) reduction in shoaling of river and harbor naviga- tion channels, (h) hydraulic performance of spillways, timnels, and conduits, and (i) design, construction, and maintenance of breakwaters, groins, jetties, and similar shore protection facilities. The difficulties with dams and other structures which have occurred over the past several years have demonstrated the immediate need for more knowledge of materials charcteristics, structure behavior and response, improved methods of analysis, interpretation, exploration, and design of water control facilities. Expanded research efforts are required to provide such information, so that realistic safety factors may be attained which are neither too large (thus increasing un- necessarily the cost of the structures), nor too small (resulting in potentially dangerous conditions) . Advances in analytical concepts, adaptation of digital and analog computers to engineering uses, and wider availability of these facilities have served to make heretofore excessively complex and lengthy design procedures both economical and feasible. These improved practices and tools demand more knowledge of the characteristics of materials and of the loads to be carried, more refined laboratory testing techniques and facilities, and better defined operational requirements; but in turn have resulted in safer designs, improved operating facilities, and lower construction and maintenance costs. Research is one of the best means for stimulating the interest of keen minds in the problems which generated the research needs, and thus contributes to the development and training of present and future employees in the technical fields of application. On the other hand, the results of research generates a requirement for the complementary training of planners, designers, and construction engineers in the new concepts, approaches, materials, tools, and techniques to insure opti- mum realization of the potential benefits through early, widespread, and effective utilization of research results. Accordingly, the corps is undertaking a systematic and continuing program of training in hydrologic engineering, sponsors or con- ducts training courses in soils mechanics, concrete and comprehensive planning, and offers long-term training in various specialized fields to a limited number of selected engineers, scientists, and other professional personnel. The investigations are grouped into eight broad engineering fields, as follows: Field Number of studies Amount required for fiscal year 1969 Structural - - Hydrology - - --- Electrical and mecfinical - Soil mechanics Geology. - - --- Concrete. - Hydraulics - Plan formulation and evaluation studies Total - 95 3,220.000 11 $195,000 4 390, 000 1 40, 000 14 450, 000 9 160, 000 19 450, 000 27 700, 000 10 835, 000 1393 Of the $25)7,000 balance, $140,000 is proposed for the establishment and first partial year operation of five specialized centers for the analysis of scientific and technical information. The remaining $ir)7,000 will provide the civil functions share of sujjport for operation of the Research Center at the Waterways Experi- ment iStation ($150,000) and enable the Waterways Experiment Station to provide technical guidance and supervision for division and district laboratory operations ($7,000). Structural: Fiscal year 1968 $130, 000 Fiscal year 1969 195,000 Protective coatings Objective. — To improve the durability of paint applied to hydraulic structures. Discussion. — Gates for locks and dams, penstocks, tunnel liners, scroll cases, and other steel components are exposed to severe hydraulic conditions. Some are continuously immersed in salt water or other corrosive mediums. Periodically, these structures require repainting which involves at least partial suspension of project operation. To increase the repainting intervals, a continuing program has been established for testing and evaluating new formulations, surface prepara- tion procedures and application techniques. Information developed is disseminated by manuals, guide specifications and training courses. This program deals specifically with protection for hydraulic structures. No attempt is made to evaluate paints for houses or masonr,v exteriors. Accomplishments to date. — Laboratory and field tests have been made on paint systems of the phenolic types, coal tar enamels, neoprenes, vinyls, epox.y resin- coal tar, and urethanes. Vinyl paints were improved (increased durabilitjO- Coal tar-epoxj^ coating performance was superior for steel surfaces in salt and brackish water exposure. New lu-ethane paints show promise under abrasive underwater exposure. A zinc-rich vinyl paint formulation is anticipated for adoption as a standard coating. The Paint Manual, EM 1110-1-3400, has been revised and published in May 1967. Guide Specification CE-1409, Painting Hydraulic Structures, will be published in fiscal year 1968. Blast cleaning equipment and techniques have been tested. Results have shown that a number of previously accepted standard practices for blast cleaning should be abandoned. The revised Paint Manual contams the data covering the present requirements for obtaining the best production rates for sandblasting. Spray equip- ment has been tested, and new spray painting methods are being evaluated. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — Newly developed paint materials will be formulated into coatings and evaluated by exposure in various environments and by physical testing. By formulation of currently available and newly de- veloped materials, efforts will be made to improve present paint systems. Large scale field tests of promising materials will be initiated. Continue the evaluation of the urethane and zinc-rich vinyl paint formulations. Laboratory test panels and field specimens prepared in previous years will be evaluated. Evaluation of the latest spray painting methods, including hot spray, airless spray, electrostatic spray, will be continued. Structural elements Objectives. — To improve, by laboratory and field testing, criteria for reinforced concrete structures and increase knowledge of behavior of reinforced concrete members, prestressed concrete, water-stops and other structural elements under the conditions encountered in concrete hydraulic structures. Discussion. — Reinforced and prestressed concrete, waterstops and other elements are used in concrete hydraulic structures under unusually severe exposure condi- tions and load combinations. Increased knowledge of the behavior of the elements under these conditions will provide bases for more reliable economical designs. The Corps conducts research on its own and participates, through the Rein- forced Concrete Research Council, in joint sponsorship of research relating to reinforced concrete design in order to buy more research valuable to the Corps than when attempting to perform the work alone. RCRC is a body of representa- tives from industry, private engineering firms, and Government agencies. It coordinates programs, eliminating duplication, and obtains financing for approved research. 1394 Much of the research appUcable to the special load conditions prevailing in hydraulic concrete structures is conducted under contracts with imiversity departments of civil engineering experienced in the respective problem areas. Other research is performed at WES. Results of investigations are disseminated by reports, engineering manuals, and guide specifications. ' Accomplishments to date. — -Recent RCRC projects to which the Corps contributed financially and which developed significant information and criteria are: University of California investigation of shear strength of concrete beams; University of Texas study on the effects of horizontal forces on slender concrete bridge piers; University of Washington investigation of web reinforcement in beams subject to- bending and axial load. The latter, which is being completed in fiscal year 1968, will resolve certain incompatibilities in the present American Concrete Institute Code between prestressed concrete members and reinforced concrete members subject to combined axial and bending loads. The study will develop appropriate revisions for the 1969 ACI Building Code. Waterstops of polyvinjd chloride, other plastics, and rubber have been exposed under various conditions^ tested, and specifications developed for use in hydraulic structures. Recently new testing techniques for nonmetallic waterstops have been evaluated and specifications improved. Durability and behavior of rein- forced and prestressed concrete beams as shown by exposure tests, have been reported in literature of the American Concrete Institute and in corps technical reports. Proposed operations in fiscal year 196.9. — Recent experience indicates that the usvial laboratory tests of nonmetallic waterstops are not adequate to assure satisfactorj' performance under the conditions in the structure where installed. The waterstop test program will be directed toward developing test techniques correlated with actual service conditions in structures. The corps will continue financial participation in research programs sponsored by the Reinforced Concrete Research Council. The council will select another project pertaining to the kind of load conditions prevailing in hydraulic structures. It is proposed to start an investigation of multiple and single reinforced con- crete box culverts for loads occurring imder high dams. These structures are subjected to very heavy loads. A better concept of their behavior is needed for reliable economical design. It is proposed to contract for the investigation with a university experienced in comparable reinforced concrete research. Waterstop and concrete beam specimens exposed at Treat Island Station will be inspected annually until deterioration is intense enough to justify termination. Behavior of dams and other massive hydraulic structures Objective. — To investigate by model and prototype studies the structural be- havior of massive concrete hydraulic structures under static and seismic loads. Discu.ssion. — Massive concrete dams, locks, and appurtenances asually are designed by theoretical methods using certain simplifying assumptions which may not be sufficiently accurate for dependable economical design. The trend to higher dams and high lift locks has made the internal stresses in such structures very significant. Structural behavior of these massive hydraulic structures under static and seismic loads is so complex that conventional analytical study methods are not sufficient. Studies should be made also by structural model tests in the laboratory and by prototype investigations for comparison with theoretical analyses, to provide more reliable criteria. Observations and analyses arc needed of instrumentation which has been installed in a number of massive locks and dams on different foundations. Better knowledge of seismic response of higli outlet control towers and backfilled lock walls in seismically active regions is needed. Improve instrumentation and modeling techniques for small-scale models of mass concrete structures will aid in determination of internal stresses. Instruments have been installed in locks and dams principally on pile and earth foundations to measure structure deformation, stresses, uplift pressures, seepage, rebound, and settlement. Analyses of measurements and comparison with results of theoretical computations will result in more realistic criteria for future designs. Accomplishments to date. — A literature review and worldwide inquiry of available small strain gages were made and they are being evaluated for embedment in models of mass concrete structures. Selectc^d instruments are being embedded in simple concrete models and their performance tested under various conditions and compared with theoretical results and surface strains to test realiability and techniques. Prototypes measurements are being made on Arkansas River locks and dams starting during construction. Analyses have been started of structure deforma- tions, foundation stresses, uplift pressures, and other data. 1395 Investigation of the complex stresses in gravity lock walls near the filling and emptying culverts was made by the finite element method to develop more reliable •design criteria. Proposed operations in fiscal year 196 9. ^Evaluation of small strain gages for embedment in models of mass concrete structures will be completed and a report made. A complex model will be instrumented with embedded gages and measure- ments under different loading conditions will be compared with results of elastic anah'ses. Prototype measurements of stresses and other data will be continued on Arkansas River locks and dams and comparisons with computations will be made. A report on structure deformation and foundation stresses will be prepared. Study of seismic response of concrete hydraulic structures will be started by installing strong motion accelerometers in an existing high concrete gravity dam in an active seismic region. A literature search of pertinent seismic research will be made and analytical studies will be started. Structural foundations Objective. — To improve analyses of structural foundations, such as pile and weak rock foundations, to develop more realistic designs for massive concrete hydraulic structures. 'Discussion. — Massive concrete hydraulic structures are constructed on pile and weak rock foundations to withstand more severe load combinations than formerly. Higher and larger locks and dams are needed at some sites with poor foinidations to meet water resource developments economically. The shearing resistance of thin-bedded or weak rocks is a significant factor in the design of structural foundations for many locks and dams. Determination of stability of these foundations has been based largely on laboratory tests of small samples which may not represent the actual shear strength of the foundation as a whole. In-situ tests of the actual foundation under this investigation are needed to supplement laboratory tests. Pile foundations in earth for hydraulic structures subject to large horizontal and vertical loands are designed by analytical methods correlated with full-size pile tests at the site. Results of comprehensive pile tests made by various Corps of Engineer districts are consolidated and analyzed in this investigation. The study will aid in determining the validity of existing theoretical solutions for pile load capacity and in improving theoretical methods. Accomplishments to date. — In-situ and laboratory shear tests have been com- pleted on indurated clay, shale, siitstone, and chalk. The shear strength of con- crete on rock has been investigated in the laboratory and to a limited extent in- situ. Results of in-situ and laboratory tests have been compared for each founda- tion tested. The final report is schedviled for completion in fiscal year 1968. The investigation has confirmed the adequacy of foundation designs for two large locks. Compilation of data from pile load tests conducted under supervision of the Corps of Engineers has been initiated (fiscal year 1968). Available theoretical solutions for pile load capacity are being studied for use in interpretation of the test data. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969.— The pile load test data will be summarized and evaluated and comparisons with results of theoretical solutions will be started. Construction facilities Objective. — To determine the causes of past cellular cofferdam failures and to improve design, manufacture, and construction procedures to prevent future failures. Discussion. — A number of large steel sheet-pile cellular cofferdams are designed by the Corps because they must be carried over from one contract to another on a project. This procedure may be warranted, for example, when a separate contract for lock cofferdam and excavation will advance construction and obtain founda- tion data for design. There is insufficient knowledge of behavior of such coffer- dams as evidenced by failures, some expensive, of both contractor-designed and corps-designed cofferdams. The high cofferdams required are designed by theoretical methods for assumed conditions, using available materials. Problems arise because construction condi- tions often varj' considerably from the ideal assumed, driving the sheet-pile cells in some foundations is difficult, and the cells are subjected to large uncertain loads. Determination of the causes of past cofferdam failures and measurements of the behavior of cofferdam cells will make possible improvements in design, con- struction and materials to avoid expensive failures in the future. 1396 Accomplishments to date. — The investigation was started in fiscal year 1968 with a literature search and study of reports of some past cofferdam failures and analysis of mechanisms of faihire thus exhibited. The possible need for a full-scale test under carefully controlled conditions is being considered. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — Analyses of past cellular cofferdam failures will be completed. Plans will be developed for the testing needed. If a full-scale test is required, work thereon will be started. Justification for increased appropriation. — The requested increase is for the following projects to provide more reliable design approaches for economical large complex hydraulic structures in the civil works program: (1) Structural Elements — start of reinforced concrete box culvert investigation ($5,000 increase). (2) Behavior of dams and other massive hydraulic structures — start of study of seismic response of concrete hydraulic structures ($30,000 increase). (3) Construction facilities — phinned progress on cellular cofferdam investi- gation started in a small way in fiscal year 1968 ($25,000 increase). An additional net increase of $5,000 will be distributed over the remaining projects now underway. The results are urgently needed to provide safe structures economicall}-. Hydrology: Fiscal year 1968 $360, 000 Fiscal year 1969 390, 000 Included under the hydrology portion of the CWI budget item are four engi- neering studies subitems, eacli of which is discussed below. {1) Hydrologic engineering center (ES-lOO) Statement of objective The Hydrologic engineering center (HEC) was established in 1964 with the ob- jectives of organizing an orderly program of research activities pertaining to se- lected hydrologic engineering subjects, and of conducting a systematic training program to provide hydrologic engineers with a sound backgroimd in hydrologic concepts using the latest engineering knowledge and techniques developed through research. Training activities of the center are aimed at reducing the time necessary for yovuig hydrologic engineers to become proficient and at familiarizing more experienced hydrologic engineers with new developments in research and hydro- jogic engineering methods. Discussion Research and training needs have grown rapidly during recent years because of the increasing importance and complexity of water resources and because of the great improvements being made in systems analysis and computer capabilities. Lists of potential and priority activities in research are compiled by the center as work with field offices reveals research needs. Areas of planned and potential research are according to the urgency of need, possibility of success, and feasibility of application to practical problems. Specific projects are selected and programed annually to meet the most urgent needs of the Corps of Engineers. Continuing primary emphasis in research is placed on hydrologic simulation techniques, in which electronic computer programs are developed and tested as a means of simulating hydrologic processes. For example, streamflow simulation studies continue with the objective of improving storage-yield estimates through detailed analysis of variational and persistence characteristics of streamflows. Research studies pertaining to development of more reliable and usable method.s of establishing flood probabilities and low-flow probal)ilities will be continued. Research concerning the effects of ground water management practices on the quantity and quality of water supplies will require greater attention with the increasing role of ground water \n project design and operations. The hydrologic engineering training activities continue to be of major impor- tance as evidenced by the sustained demand for these services. The nec^d for such a training program tends to increase as the complexity of water resources develop- ment increases, and requirements for more exacting solutions call for increased competence in a wider ratige of hydrologic analysis. Efforts are made to diversify training courses to emphasize those subjects that are of the most immediate urgency, while striving to broaden the general understanding of hydrologic engineering practices in general. Technical advancements in hydrologic engineer- ing, the improved basic data now available, and advantages inherent in electronic computers are limited in effectiveness by the proficiency of individual engineers 1397 engaged in the studios. Increasing emphasis on the efficient utilization, preser- vation, and enhancement of ground-water resources has resulted in a major intensification of training of hydrologic engineers in analysis of ground-water characteristics and in the development of engineering solutions. Training in ground-water hydrology was initiated in fiscal year 1968 and will be substantially expanded in fiscal year 1969. A series of short-period training com-ses to meet special field requirements on various phases of hydrologic engineering will be scheduled by the center at such locations as are feasible. Training will also be furnished individuals temporarily assigned to the ccuiter for that purpose. The assistance of universities in conduct- ing special training courses will be utilized when practicable. Accomplishments to date Since establishment of the HEC in fiscal year 1964, a total of 18 formal hydro- logic engineering training courses will have been held in various corps offices through fiscal year 1968. Approximately 250 corps employees and some 90 other engineers participated in the courses held through fiscal year 1967. Numerous corps engineers have participated in individual short-period training assignments in which HEC provided technical guidance in the solution of specific hydrologic problems involving district operations. In addition to a guidance memorandum and three annual reports outlining accomplishments during fiscal year 1965, fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967, six technical reports and papers, and descriptions of some 20 electronic computer programs have been prepared by the HEC through fiscal year 1967. Close cooperation is maintained with a nvmiber of universities. Several con- tracts have been made for university personnel to participate in the planning and conducting of several HEC training courses. Plans are being made for a university to present an HEC course on hydrologic aspects of water quality management. HEC personnel have assisted several universities in the conduct of academic courses involving hydrologic engineering. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969 Scheduling of training courses and systemization reports and of research studies and reports remains flexible because work is closely responsive to changing and developing needs in the various using offices. Tentatively 10 formal training courses are planned for fiscal year 1969 in response to current needs. Research studies scheduled for fiscal year 1969 include: generalized streamflow simvilation, sediment distribution in reservoirs, regional integration of monthly streamflow records, generalized model for dailj^ streamflow simulation, optimization of reservoir system components and analysis of ground water relationships to water resources developments. Increased use of university personnel is anticipated in the training and research activities. Other research projects now underway will be continued in fiscal year 1969 including optimization procedures for solution of hydrologic problems, coincident hydrologic frequencies and generalized hydro- graph analj'sis. A budget of $363,000 will be required in fiscal year 1969 to enable the center to more adequately meet the needs for professional hydrologic guidance in the development of water resources for which the Corps is responsible. Of this total requirement, it ils panned to allocate $183,000 to the hydrologic research activities and $180,000 to the hydrologic engineering training program ui fiscal year 1969. Justification for increase The $363,000 requested for fiscal year 1969 is $33,000 more than the fiscal year 1968 amount for the center. Research and training activities required to improve engineering capabilities in the solution of grotuid water problems associated with planning and design of water resources developments, initiated in fiscal j-ear 1968, will be increased in fiscal year 1969 to the extent possible with an allocation of ES-lOO funds of approximately $50,000 for this activity. This needed expansion of effort is expected to be practicable in view of recent success in filling a key position on the center's staff for a ground water geologist and the anticipated filling of two additional vacancies. Some of the funds required for this effort will become available through appropriate adjustment in other activities of the center. {2) Development of hydrologic equipment {ES-173) Statement of objective The primary objectives of this project are (1) to assemble information regarding characteristics and costs of equipment for hydrologic uses, (2) to develop means for improving or adapting such equipment to best meet hydrologic requirements, and 1398 (3) to provide advice and technical services to corps offices concerning radio telemetering requirements and the development or adaptation of instruments and equipment for hydrologic purposes when such need cannot be met through normal procurement channels. Funds provided under this item are allotted to a single field office for the conduct of this project. Discussion This project has contributed materially to the satisfactory solution of hydrologic equipment problems of many corps offices. The availability of a highly qualified technical consultant to discuss the proper type of equipment for a particular job or to improve or adapt available instruments to meet hydrologic requirements, has made it possible for field offices to economically and effectively accomplish this part of their responsibilities with greater case and in less time than if they had luidertaken the task without such technical guidance. Accomplishments to date Valuable consulting services, primarily concerned with the design and (establish- ment of telemetering networks for collecting hydrologic data needed in operation of water resources structures, have been provided under this project. A new gage is currently under development which will telemeter streamflow, precipitation, and climatological data from remote areas under extremely low temperature condi- tions. A number of project bulletins and technical reports have been prepared and distributed to corps filed offices under this project. Technical articles describing accomplishments of the project have been published in scientific journals. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969 Design and development will be initiated on a high speed integrated system for telemetering hydrologic data; assistance will be given the Tulsa District in the development of plans for establishment of such a system in their area. Increased emphasis will be given to corps-wide training requirements with respect to techniques and equipment for hydrologic data telemetry. Consulting services will be continued in assisting field offices in establishment of telemetering networks to meet hydrologic requirements. Funds in the amount of $15,000 will be required in fiscal year 1969 to continue this program. This represents no increase over fiscal year 1968. (S) Hydrologic relations in Hawaii (ES-182) Statement of objective This project was established for the purpose of analyzing rainfall-runoff rela- tionships for the Hawaiian area for use in the development of hydrologic criteria in connection with the planning, design, construction, and operation of water control projects and for use in flood plain information studies in the area. Discussion The development of hydrologic criteria for the Hawaiian area is most essential if the Corps of Engineers is to continue to carry out its civil works responsibilities in the area. Prior to the initiation of this project there were very few hydrologic stations in the islands and available generalized hydrologic criteria were prac- tically nonexistent. Accomplishments to dale To date, about 20 streamflow and 75 rainfall gages have been established in the Hawaiian area as a result of this project and other hydrologic activities. Sufficient data have been observed at these stations to permit the development of pre- liminary rainfall-runoff relationships for two of the islands. One rci^ort concerning these studies has been completed to date and copies made available to all concerned. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969 A report will be prepared concerning rainfall-runoff characteristics for other islands in the Hawaiian area. The research project is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1969. A comprehensive final report covering details, procedures, and results of the study will be prepared and distributed to all concerned. Funds in the amount of $9,000 will be required in fiscal year 1909 to complete this project. 1399 (4) Reproduction of hydrologic references (ES-172) Statement of objective This item is included in the budget to provide means of financing the procure- ment and/or reproduction of suitable technical reports that are considered to be outstanding examples of improved hydrologic engineering procedures and similar reference material that are not readily available to corps offices. Discussion The reports and information furnished field offices have provided a means where- by engineers of the corps might keep up to date on hydrologic engineering pro- cedures and techniques. Publications distributed to corps officers have included technical reports and bibliographies prepared by the Hydrology and Sedimenta- tion Committees of the Water Resources Council, reprints of technical papers, proceedings of technical and scientific meetings, reports prepared by corps offices, and other related material. Accomplishments to date Numerous reports and articles have been obtained with funds provided under this item. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969 The practice of procuring, reproducing, and distributing hydrologic reference material will be continued. An amount of $3,000 is requested in fiscal year 1969 for this purpose. Electrical and mechanical: Fiscal year 1968 $45, 000 Fiscal year 1969 40, 000 Corrosion mitigation A. Objective. — The purpose of the corrosion mitigation investigation is to de- velop criteria and techniques for protection of svibmerged or buried steel compo- nents of civil works projects, to permit the making of logical selections of corrosion- resistant metals for the critical parts of the components, and to investigate all facets of corrosion characteristics of features pertaining to civil works projects where information is lacking or not available from other reliable sources, all with the view toward obtaining better design and structures requiring a minimum maintenance. B. Discussion. — Corrosion is one of the major considerations in the design of hydraulic structures because the steel components of such structures are subject to destructive attack by electro-chemical reaction (corrosion) when placed in a corrosive environment. Due to the very special nature of these structures, the criteria used in the design of the steel components is developed from information obtained from prototype installations and laboratory investigations. Investiga- tions are being or have been conducted on the incorporation of corrosion- resistant metals in critical parts of steel components (such as lock valves and lock gates), on the use of cathodic protection to reduce or eliminate corrosion of submerged or buried steel members (such as tainter gates and slide gates), and on the degree of protection required for steel piling in fresh water and salt water structures in order to prolong its service life, C. Accomplishments to date.- — Information has been developed which permits the use of the most effective corrosion-resistant metals in the proper ration with respect to steel under various environments, the design of economical and effective cathodic protection systems for each type of structural steel component, and the selection of special coatings, or their ehmination, for steel piling when driven in disturbed or undisturbed earth or under other conditions conducive to corrosion in fresh water structures. The final repoi-t covering the investigation of steel piling in fresh water structures has been comi)leted and indicates that no protection need be provided for piling driven in undisturbed soil and not exposed diredtly to water, regardless of the soil characteristics or properties. With regard to the investigation of steel ])iling and prestressed concrete piling in salt water, the first group of test piles has been installed offshore at Dam Neck, ^'a., and the collection of data has commenced. Plans for the installation of a second group of test piles at another site in fiscal year 1969 have been completed. The survey covering existing corrosion mitigation installations now in operation has been completed and the final report has been prepared. 1400 D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — The second group of prestressed concrete and steel test piles will be installed in a sea water environment and data relative to the corrosion of these piles will be obtained at regular intervals. In- formation on the performation of aluminum culvert will be collected from other organizations and studies of protective coatings for same will be made. Soil mechanics: Fiscal year 1968 $320, 000 Fiscal year 1969 450, 000 From an engineering standpoint, most of the good sites for the construction of earth and rock fill dams have been used already. Consequently, dams ranging in height from 100 feet to 4.50 feet often must be built at less desirable locations, on foundations that are either quite weak or very pervious. Further, the earth and rock fill materials that are being encountered at these poorer sites have en- gineering properties that are, in most cases, imusual or vmknown. For these reasons, research is required on (a) shear strength, stress-strain and volume change char- acteristics of earth-rock and rock fill materials under very high confining pressures, (6) determination of the shear strength of soft clays and clay-shales with particular application to their use as dam foundations (c) effect of earthquakes on earth and rock fill dams and methods of stability analyses of embankments and cut slopes (rf) methods of instrumentation of embankments to warn of impending failure and {e) equipment and techniques to improve laboratory and field testing, foundation exploration, and field compaction methods. 1. BASIC SOILS CHARACTERISTICS A. Statement of objectives. — The purpose of the engineering studies under this general heading is to investigate the shear strength and similar engineering prop- erties of materials (such as quarry-run rock, or processed sand, silt, clay, and mixtures of these) used in embankments and to study the physical properties of unusual foundation materials such as clay-shales so that improvements can be made in embankment design and construction. B. Discussion. — RockfiU dams are being built to heights up to 650 feet using unusual materials taken from onsite borrow area or from required excavation; generally, the reaction of most of these materials to the extremely high loads imposed by the weight of the embankment is an unknown. Earth embankments have been built or are being designed to be constructed on foiuidations that deform significantly even under low embankment loads due to properties in the soil mass that are difficult to evaluate using present day knowledge. Therefore, if more advanced methods can be found to determine the reaction to loads of soft lami- nated clays, loose silts, clay-shales, and earth-rock materials, the design and con- struction of more economical or safer dams, levees, channels, locks, and flood walls will be possible. C. Accomplishments to date. — Research testing using several types of rockfill material, such as quarried basalt, compacted at various densities and grain sizes has been completed at the South Pacific Division Laboratory and at the Mexican Government laboratory. The corps laboratory triaxial tests were on 12-inch di- ameter specimens sheared under pressures as high as 500 pounds per square inch to simulate the crushing pressures exerted by 30()-foot to 600-foot high rockfill dams. The tests performc'd for the cori^s in ^lexico were on specimens nearly 4 foot in diameter to determine size effects. Such correlations of specimen size are necessary to determine if high rockfill dams can be built with the steepest safe slope using strength values derived from tests on the smaller diameter samples. Results to date indicate that the very costly tests using the 4-foot diameter speci- mens may not be necessary for future routine testing. Further, research thus far has shown that strength values used for dams under 300 feet high cannot be safely applied to the design of higher dams. A draft of the report "Shear Tests on Crushed Rock" was completed in fiscal year 1967 and will be published in fiscal year 1968. Since clay shales and soft weak clays exist in the foundation of many earth dams, levees, locks and flood walls proposed for or under construction, research using this tyi)e of soil is in i)rogress at the University of California, the Waterways Experiment Station, and the South Pacific Division Laboratory. Published reports of many i)hases of these studies to verify the hypothesis proposed in soil mechanics literature have aided designers of dams and levees. This has resulted in a clearer understancUng of how soft clays respond to embankment loads and to the the pressures exerted by the water against these embankments. A draft of the report "Shear Strength Characteristics of Clay-Shale Foundation" was completed in fiscal 3'ear 1967. The final rei)ort will be publish(>d in fiscal year 1401 1968. This study has shown that former!}^ used test methods produce, in certain ■clay-shales, strength values that are on the unsafe side. Use of such vahu's can lead to the distress of dams resting on clay-shale foundations. D. Proposed operatiom in fiscal year 1969.— Trhixhil tests will be continued at the South Pacific Division Laboratory and in Mexico to determine the physical properties (shear strength, crushing effects) of compacted rockfiU and earth-rock mixtures simulating those to be expected in actual embankments. Using a 12-inch diameter consolidating device, the compression characteristics of rockfill wlien flooded will be determined. To formulate new strength theories to be used in performing more advanced slope stability analysis, research on clay-shales will be continued at the Waterwaj^s Experiment Station. Revised testing equipment, to be completed in fiscal .year 1968, will be used to establish better soil design values. This will permit the design of safer and, in some cases, more economical structures. At the University of California, research will continue using computer programs to studj- the failure of embankment foundations and cut slopes. Results of all studies will" be reported to design engineers for immediate use where applicable. E. Justification for increase. — The increase is required to accelerate shear testing of large diameter compacted specimens of free-draining rockfill material and to initiate an urgently needed study on the compacting and strength character- istics of mixtures of earth and rock. Within the next decade, the corps plans to build several dozen dams using earth-rock mixtures, yet little research has been done concerning these difficult construction materials. The amount proposed for the studies under this categorj^ is $130,000, a net increase of $22,500 over fiscal year 1968. 2. DESIGN OF EARTH AND ROCKFILL DAMS A. Statement of objectives. — The ])urpose of the engineering studies in this cate- gory is to advance the state of the art of stability analyses, slope protection, material utilization, seepage control measures, and' other design considerations for dams. B. Discussion. — In order to develop more advanced and efficient methods of design of earth and rockfill embankments studies are necessary to determine (a) new techniques for determining the safety factor of dams built in earthquake zones, (6) improved equipment and techniques to instrument dams, levees, locks and cut slopes in order to measure, more accurately, water i:)ressures and move- ments of foundations and the structures resting on them, and {c) new approaches to stability analyses, seepage control, and similar features of embankment design. Earthquake engineering for earth and rockfill dams is becoming more important each year; instrumentation techniques for either seismic or static loads are still in a state of fiux. Protection of the upstream slopes of embankments against reservoir wave action is one of the most expensive items of dam construction, yet the only significant research that has been done on this problem since 1949 has been for a specific dam in the Missouri River Division. C. Accomplishments to date. — During fiscal year 1966 and 1967, a complete revision was made of the Engineering Manual' "Stability of Earth and Rockfill Dams" in order to incorporate in this manual the new criteria developed and design experience gained since the 1960 edition. Ninety-eight data sheets and 39 proto- type reports of existing dams have been published to aid designers of proposed dams. Construction methods and as-built data on 35 dams now being built have been collected and analyzed in order to establish new criteria to insure the most efficient construction approaches. Drafting of a new manual "Instrumentation of Earth and Rockfill Dams" was continued. The study "Embankment Pore Pressures During Construction" was completed and published; the research on "Pore Pressures in Foundations of Embankments" was completed and the draft report is being reviewed. The advisory board on soil mechanics met twice to discuss the scope, direction, and accomplishments of certain phases of research. D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — Studies will continue on theoretical slope stability problems and the application of electronic computers and recentlv developed mathematical tools to solve these problems. Certain high earth or rockfill dams located in seismic regions will be instrumented to study earthquake forces ; the state of the art of earthquake engineering will be reviewed and instru- mentation data from noncorps dams will be collected and analyzed. The revised stability manual will be reviewed and published and the first draft of the instrumentation manual will be completed. Revisions will begin on the 1402 Engineering Manual "Earth Embankments," published in 1954 and last revised in 1959. Research using wave tank models will be made to determine the most economical stone protection to protect upstream slopes from reservoir wave erosion. Collec- tion and publication of data on completed dams will continue. E. Justification for increases. — The increases requested under this category are necessary "to begin or continue the studies on three comparatively new items (a) earthquake studies, (6) revision of engineering manuals, and (c) research on slope protection for earth dams. The corps has done almost no research in earth- quake engineering for earth and rockfill dams; many dams are built in seismic regions. The engineering manual outlining procedures for designing earth embank- ments has not been revised in 8 years, yet many new theories and advanced techniques have been developed since 1959. Since slope protection (riprap) is often 20 to 40 percent of the cost of the entire embankment, there is an urgent need to determine the cheapest adequate rock sizes and thickness of cover; model tests are the most logical approach. The amount proposed for these three studies is $200,000, an increase of $135,000 over fiscal year 1968. Reductions of $40,000 in other items of this group will limit the net increase to $95,000 for fiscal year 1969. 3. SOIL SAMPLING AND TESTING A. Statement of objectives. — The purpose of these studies is to continue the evaluation of new laboratory testing equipment and techniques, and the analysis of field sampling methods in order to develop improved devices and procedures for corpswide use. B. Discussion. — Thousands of soil samples are extracted from the ground each year by the corps. The equipment and techniques used to obtain these specimens are varied and complex, yet the corps has no universal manual outlining the most desirable and effective sampling methods. Further, new laboratory testing pro- cedures and devices are continually being developed by private industry, by for- eign governments, by universities, and by other Federal agencies. Thei'i' is a need to examine these techniques to determine those most applicable to the corps. C. Acco7nplish7nents to date. — The first draft of the engineering manual ''Soil Sampling" is complete and will be published in fiscal year 1969. When distributed corpswide, this manual will reduce exploration costs, improve the quality of un- disturbed samples, and lead to more rational designs. Special torsion apparatus and new types of consolidation and shear devices for laboratory testing were fabricated or purchased. Studies of laboratory pore pressure apparatus were completed and a draft of a report made. A special research section for soil testing was established, and a review of methods for performing triaxial tests was completed. D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — Pilot testing of the annular torsion shear device, the Norwegian shear apparatus and a special consolidation device will continue. Reports will be completed and published on "Pore Water Pressure Measuring Devices for Triaxial Compression Testing of Soils," on "Comparison of Direct Shear Tests," and on "Comparative Laboratory Test Program." Research will continue on methods of comjmcting triaxial specimens, on the relation of time of testing to shear strength, and on saturation methods. The field sampling manual will be published early in the fiscal year. E. Justification for increases. — The increase requested under this category is necessary to (a) accelerate the pilot testing of the newly fabricated advanced torison shear device (b) continue the urgently needed program to evaluate triaxial test procedures (c) begin testing of the Norwegian shear apparatus and the special consolidation device and (d) pubhsh the four reports outlined above. The amount proposed for these items is $40,000. This amount is $17,500 more than for fiscal year 1968, and a reduction of $5,000 in other items will result in a net increase of $12,500 for this category in fiscal year 1969. Geology: Amnnnt Fiscal year 1968 $90, 000 Fiscal year 1969 160, 000 Foundation problems for dams and similar structures center around the per- meability and the strength of the foundation rock. 1. GROUTING A. Objectives. — The purpose of these studies is to develoj) information con- cerning grouting materials and grouting methods with particular attention being 1403 given to new materials and the methods of handling and injecting them in order that the treatment of foundations by grouting can be accomplished more effec- tively and more economically. Recent studies have aimed at developing informa- tion on the use of existing and of new chemical solutions for reducing seepage and for increasing the strength of finely fractured or weak porous rock and of soils. The information obtained by these studies currently is being assembled into a nianual for distribution to the field ofiSces. B. Discission. — Conventional grouting practice as a means of strengthening foundation rock, and of forming a barrier to the movement of water under the structures built on it, is to pump a thin mixture of portland cement and water or of Portland cement, sand, and water into the foundation rock to fill fractures, joints, solution cavities or channels, and other voids. Previous research in grouting has contributed to the use of low-cost filler materials to replace part of the cement in cement-grout mixtures and to the use of admixtures that improve the pumpa- bility of grout and its ability to penetrate fractures and seams in the rock. Cement grout, however, will not penetrate finely fractured or finely porous rock and such fine-grained materials as sand and silt. Only chemical solutions from which cementing gels may be precipitated will penetrate such materials and offer a means of stabilizing them and of controlling seepage through them. A few such solutions have been developed by the chemical industry and are on the market. These have been used with mixed success. Laboratory and field work will continue to be needed to determine factors that control the usefulness of these products. C. Accomplishments to date. — Work on cement and sand-cement grouts has been completed and manuals and specifications incorporating the results are in use for all new construction and maintenance activities. Technical literature on chemical grouts has been researched. Characteristics of four principal chemical grouts now on the market have been established in the laboratory. Limited field usage of some has been observed on construction projects. A manual for field guidance in the use of chemical grouts will be prepared in fiscal year 1968. D. Proposed objectives in 1969. — A guide specification for chemical grouting will be prepared making use of the combined Government and industry knowledge in this field. A decrease of $10,000 is proposed for fiscal year 1969 from the amount approved for fiscal year 1968. 2. ROCK MECHANICS A. Objectives. — These studies are designed to determine the practical signifi- cance of rock joints and fractures of all types in the design of open excavation slopes and of surface and underground engineering structures and to devise means for determining rational design strengths for jointed rock foundations. Concurrent studies m rock mechanics are also being initiated to investigate basic rock excava- tion techniques such as blasting, tunneling, and drilling by comprehensive labora- tory field and theoretical methods as a means toward providing greater economy and safety m construction projects. B. Discussion. — At present, a considerable gap exists between strength values for jomted and fractured rocks obtained by current laboratory testing methods and observations of behavior of such rocks in the field under large-scale loading conditions. The studies will involve among other things an investigation of the behavior mechanism of geometrically arranged joint planes and a determination of the factors that control those mechanisms. Other fracture types, such as faults, compressional and tensional joints, bedding planes, and subordinate fractures! will be studied and classified from the standpoint of the influence of their origin, orientation, spacing, and surface texture on the enguieermg behavior of the rocks in which they occur. Design and development of instrumentation for testing and developmg techniques for determining behavior of fractured rock masses will assist in developing more rational design strength values. All laboratory and theoretical work is being subjected, wherever possible, to field verifications. For example, hundreds of natural and manmade rock slopes are bemg studied in the field and appropriate parameters determined for laboratory correlation. In addition, the best examples of blasting practice on corps and other projects are being analyzed to provide empirical checks on experimental and theoretical results. C. Accomplishments to date. — An engmeering guide manual on rock bolting for use by all districts is now in the process of preparation based on extensive field and laboratory experience. New methods are beuig devised to analyze the slope stabihty of both natural and manmade rock cuts. Progress is continuing on rock block models which simulate jointed rock and will be able to quantitatively analyze for the first time, the eflfect of adverse joint orientations on the foundation of a structure such as a dam. 1404 D. Proposed objectives in 1969. — Preliminary results of rock block model studies for providing some empirical guidelines to assist in determination of design strength for jointed rock foimdations. Initiate in situ field loading tests by large flat jacks to determine field values of rock strengths and their deformation constants. Initiate a field study of rock failures in order to "back figure" rock strengths and properties at time of failure. Complete approximately two-thirds of the engineering guide manual on rock bolting. Complete approximately one-half the investigation of diamond drilling techniques as a means for reducing costs in diamond drilling. E. Justification for increase. — The newly developing and multidisciplined technology of rock mechanics is rapidly expanding in many directions at once. It is impossible at the present time to determine precisely what lines of research will ultimately result in the greatest payoff in practical applications. For tiiis reason, it is very important to pursue several of the present most promising lines of research simultaneously. This is being accomplished by seeking solutions to basic problems in rock meclianics from a combination of laboratory, theoretical, and field research methods. Inasmuch as a great deal of rock mechanics research goes beyond experience, it has been necessary to spend a certain amount of time and effort in improvising and innovating new testing techniques and procedures as, for example, the rock block model studies. A substantial portion of the past effort has, therefore, consisted of "gearuig up" to various research efforts. Although these required preparations will continue to some extent, it is expected that more full-scale research and applicable testing procedures will be accomplished in fiscal year 1969. These expanded activities will result in an expenditure of funds totaling $140,000 for fiscal year 1969, an increase over fiscal year 1968 of $65,000 3. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF INDUSTRIAL DIAMONDS AND TUNGSTEN CARBrOE GRANULES IN DRILLING BITS A. Objectives. — These studies are aimed at developing information on the drilling performance of various grades of natural and of conditioned (processed) diamonds, both new and salvaged stones, and of tungsten carbide granules when set in core drill bits, in order that more effective and economical use can be made of the different grades and classes of diamonds and other cutting agents in bits used for exploration purposes. B. Discussion. — Core drilling is the principal and most commonly used method of obtaining information on subsiu'face conditions at proposed construction sites. Core drilling in rock for exploratory purposes is done largely with diamond-set bits. Drilling in soft rocks is accomplished frequently with bits set with tungsten carbide granules or chips. Our field requests for diamond bits nearly always specify bits set with WA-1 diamonds, which are naturally shaped stones of the best quality in both the Corps of Engineers and industry classification systems. Lower quality diamonds, however, are less costly, and our investigations indicate that bits set with them may offer advantages in drilling costs for drilling certain kinds of rock over those set with more costly stones. Likewise, bits set with tungsten carbide granules might serve well for drilling in certain rocks at less cost. Conditioned or processed diamonds, those which have been altered in shape either by mechanical or by chemical means, also offer possibilities toward reduc- tion of exploratory drilling costs. Aery little data on ])erformance characteristics of the different types and grades of diamonds, or of substitute drilling materials in bits are presently available. Our investigations are directed toward developing reliable comparisons of drilling performance and drilling costs for these materials. C. AccompUshnienls to date. — Not applicable, as project has not as yet been started. D. Proposed objectives in 1969. — Drilling in test blocks will be performed with bits made up with salvage diamonds from wornout bits, and data assembled on the penetration rate and on th(» dcgrachition and the loss of carat weight of the diamonds. Comi^arative drilling will be performed and data assembled for bits made up with new diamonds in WA-1 and WA-2 classifications. E. Justification for increase. — The information (levclo|jed from this i)rogram will promote drilling economy through lower cost per foot of core drilling brought about by greater use of lower cost materials (lower grade diamonds aiifl tunzsten carbide granul(«) and bj' more critical adaptation of lu^wly developed drilling materials to the characteristics of the rock being drilled. Concrete Fiscal vear 19GS $440,000 Fiscal year 196<) 4.50, 000 1405 Emphasis in concrete research is on development of techniques for building concrete structures which, in comjjarison with structures built in the jjast, are more economical in first cost, free of unusual maintenance problems, and si!rviceable and safe for a longer period of time. 1. DURABILITY A. Objective. — To develop means for reducing the deterioration of concrete and thus extend its life and eliminate costly maintenance. B. Discussion. — There are a number of situations which adversely affect the life of concrete. For example, concrete is a porous material into which water can enter. When water in the pores freezes, it expands and tends to fracture the con- crete. The reaction between certan types of aggregates and cement tends to destroy the integrity of concrete. Ground-water, sea-water, or alkali soils contain- ing high-sulfate concentrations will attack and weaken the cement, which binds the aggregates together, and reduces the life of the concrete. Research in durability is aimed at developing solutions for these problems so that the life of concrete structures may be increased and so that maintenance costs will be reduced. C. Accamplishments to date. — The development of air-entrained concrete, in which the Corps of Engineers played a leading role, has greatly extended the life of most structures exposed to a freezing environment, thus providing substantial economic benefits. The adverse reactions between certain types of aggregates and cement can be controlled by reduction of the alkali content of the cement. The adverse effects of sulfate attack have been reduced somewhat by control of the aomposition of the cement. D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — Deterioration of concrete at Eisenhower lock has demonstrated that existing theories for preventing frost damage while effective for most structures, are not entirely applicable to the severe exposure of high-head navigation locks in extremely cold climates. Work will be directed toward devising proper criteria for building such structures and for maintenance of existing locks. Some reactions between cement and certain limestone rocks cannot be controlled by limiting the alkali content of cement. Work will be continued on finding solutions for damage caused by these reactions. The least understood aspect of the internal structure of concrete is the nature of the bond between large aggregate particles and the cement which surrounds them and binds them together. The influence of this bond on durability will be studied, and the work on sulfate resistance will be expanded. (No change in funding.) 2. CRACKING A. Objective. — To develop techniques for producing and placing mass concrete free of tensile stresses which produce cracks that could dangerously weaken a structure such as a dam and could lead to failure with consequent disastrous loss of life and property. B. Discussion. — In concrete structures or elements in which tension develops when loaded, reinforcing steel is used. A large part of the concrete placed in civil works projects, however, is unreinforced mass concrete. The structures are de- signed so that there is little or no tension caused by applied loads. Cracking still results, however, for two principal reasons: (1) improper design attributable to the incomplete knowledge of the behavior of concrete exposed to combined stresses, and (2) tension induced by internal volume changes within the mass which result from changes in temperature or moisture. Research in cracking is directed toward producing volume stability and improving a knowledge of the behavior of con- crete under combined stresses. The chief cause of cracking in mass concrete is tension stress associated with temperature changes in the mass during its early life. As concrete gains strength, heat generated by the setting of the cement causes the temperature of the concrete to rise for several days. Later the temperature of the concrete declines to the sur- rounding air or water temperature as cooling occurs. Since the shrinking which accompanies cooling is resisted by the foundation, cracking may result. Differ- ences in temperature at different points in a structure during cooling may also produce cracking. Ideally, cracking can be minimized by placing the concrete at a low temperature, by minimizing the temperature rise, and by controlling differ- ences in temperature diu'ing cooling. Concrete also changes in dimensions as the amoiuit of moisture in the concrete changes. Drying out and absorption take place cyclically in a structure, and the changes do not occur uniformly throughout a structure such as a dam. These nonuniform changes in dimension produce tension and in combination with temper- ature changes may produce enough tension to crack the concrete. 1406 C. Accomplishments to date. — Instruments for measuring length changes (strains) in compression and tension (strain meters) and internal forces (stresses) in compression (stress meters) have been evaluated and placed in widespread use both in the laboratory and in structures. A substantial beginning has been made in the study of creep (delayed length change) of concrete, a property of materials which tends to reduce stress concentrations. This tendency is more pronounced in concrete than in most other materials. Temperature rise in mass concrete has been significantly reduced by research which has led to a reduction of 40 percent in the amount of cement in mass con- crete with a resultant 40 percent reduction ua the amount of heat generated. Furthermore it has made possible the substitution of low-heat pozzolans for a portion of the cement. A calorimeter has been developed for determining the temperature rise potential of full scale mass concrete mixtures. A large number of insulating materials have been tested in the laboratory to determine those most suitable for field use. The mechanism of "pop-outs," one of the most objectionable manifestations of aggregate instability has been studied and satisfactorily explained. Recent work has made it possible to control the amount of gypsum (the ingredient which controls the rate at which cement reacts chemically with water) in cement in rela- tion to other chemical constituents to provide highest strength and lowest shrink- age in concrete as the cement sets. D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — Both the short-time and creep behavior of concrete under combined tension and compression will be studied. Methods for improving the ductility of concrete, which ordinarily tends to be brittle, will be investigated. Work will begin on a stress meter based on the electri- cal induction principle. The study of control of temperature differences within a dam bj' means of insulation will be extended to a prototype structure in the field. A method of test will be developed for measurement of shrinkage and elasticity of aggregate particles. A laboratorj^ study of expansive cements, which have been proposed to produce shrink-free concrete, will include measurements of expansive force, volume stability with moisture changes, and resistance to frost. E. Justification for increase. — In the interest of public safety, it is imperative to develop techniques for producing and placing mass concrete free of tensile stresses which produce cracking. Refinement of design both for safety and economy requires an improved knowledge of factors contributing to the cracking of con- crete, particularly when concrete must carry simultaneously loads of different magnitudes in different directions ($10,000 increase). 3. ECONOMY A. Objective. — To produce concrete of the required properties at the lowest possible cost. B. Discussion. — Cement is the most expensive ingredient in concrete and pre- sents the greatest potential for cost reduction. Other expensive items are the cleanup of horizontal construction joint surfaces and curing of concrete. In addi- tion, improved and more efficient laboratory procedures reduce the cost of con- trolling concrete in the field. C. Accomplishments to date. — Cement in mass concrete has been reduced 40 percent. Part of the cement has been replaced by low-cost pozzolans. Lift heights have been increased from 5 to 7)^ feet to reduce the amount of cleanup required. D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — Mass concrete is always consoli- dated by vibration. However, the process of vibration as applied to concrete is little understood and is probably not being used at maximum efficiency. A funda- mental study of vibration will be undertaken to determine whether drier (lower slump), more economical, mixtures may be adequately consolidated. Several newly developed items of laboratory apparatus will be investigated to determine possible applications to civU works construction control. These include particle size analysis equipment, primarily for cements and pozzolans, and infrared spectroscopy and gas-liquid chromatography devices for use in identifying both organic and inor- ganic substances. The latter two techniques analyze the response of unknown substances to various forms of applied light. The results can be compared with the results of known substances to "lingcrjjriiit" the unknown. They should be useful for identifying components of organic admixtures and epoxy resin systems. (No change in funding.) 4. NEW PROCESSES A. Objective. — To take full advantage of now materials, new equipment, and construction techniques in ci\"il works construction for improvement in quality and reductions in cost. 1407 B. Discussion. — New materials, new equipment, and new techniques are de- veloped by industry each year. It is necessary to evaluate these in the laboratory to determine which have potential for cost reduction or improved performance. C. Accomplishments to date. — The requirements for batch plants have been revised to make them more realistic. Mixing time requirements have been put on a performance basis to take advantage of new types of mixers which provide efficient mixing in a short period of time. Meters for measuring moisture content of fine aggregate have been evaluated and are in use on construction projects. Surface-applied retarders for assisting in construction joint cleanup have been investigated and are permitted in corps projects. In cooperation with an ASTM committee, physical test methods for epoxy resins and other organic adhesives have been developed. D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — Newly developed equipment for transporting concrete from the mixer to the forms, such as pumps and belts, will be investigated as well as a new type of mixer for mass concrete. The use of epoxy resins as coatings to resist cavitation in high-velocity water passages will be studied. The possible use of epoxy resins as admixtures for concrete will be inves- tigated. The field of application for shot-crete (pneumatically applied "gunned" concrete) for both new construction and repairs will be determined. Of particular importance is the development of sampling and testing techniques for shot-crete. (No change in funding.) Hvdraulics: Fiscal year 1968 $695, 000 Fiscal year 1969 700, 000 Civil works investigations in hydraulics are concerned with the following categories of projects: Dams and flood channels, harbors and shore protection, navigation locks, and instrumentation. Statements of objectives, accomplishments to date, proposed operations in fiscal year 1969, and justifications for budget increases are presented for each category of hydraulic investigations in the follow- ing paragraphs. 1. DAMS AND FLOOD CHANNELS A. Objectives. — To establish improved and new design criteria for and verify prototype operation of spillways, outlet sluices, gates, stilling basins, natural river channels, and high-velocity flood-control channels. B. Discussion. — This research includes review of literature, theoretical analyses, model tests, and prototype measurements. Field measurements of the hydraulic performance of prototype structures are made to verify theoretical principles, empirical design criteria and small-scale test results. Large-scale field tests are necessary to evaluate various protective coatings for concrete surfaces subject to erosion by high-velocity flow. Development of protective coatings for concrete surfaces will eliminate future project operation interruptions and high mainte- nance repairs which have occurred at several dams. Tests will be made to determine the effects of water temperature on hydraulic characteristics of alluvial channels. Preliminary tests have indicated that the rate of sediment transportation, bed roughness, and discharge capacity of natural river channels varies markedly with water temperature. These effects, which have not been included in the design of channel improvement projects, may require levees on a major river system to be several feet higher in order to provide the necessary flood protection. In some cases, it may be possible to reduce levee and other channel protection heights by several feet, affecting substantial savings in cost. Also, these tests will determine the effects of water temperature on the operation of movable-bed models. Research will be conducted on the size of stones and thickness of riprap layers required to protect erosion control structures and banks of flood channels. Proto- type data will be collected on the performance of flood channel revetments. The present inadequate criteria results in excessive protection and expenditure of funds for some projects and inadequate protection causing high maintenance costs and channel failures for other projects. The results of this research, which is published in design criteria charts and engineering manuals, affects reduced design, construction, and maintenance costs, as well as insures greater safety and longer life of structures, by the elimination of harmful cavitation and vibration, concrete erosion, stream bed and bank scour, and design uncertainties which have required the adoption of conservative plans. C. Accomplishments to date. — Specific accomplishments to date are: 91-459— 68— pt. 1 89 1408 (1) Model tests have established improved spillway crest, pier, and gate de- signs which are more efficient, enabling spillway sizes to be reduced by 5 to 10 percent at an estimated annual saving of $1,800,000. (2) Model tests have resulted in improved conduit entrance shapes at an esti- mated annual saving of $100,000. (3) Model and prototype tests have resulted in the development of an improved gate which can be operated under high heads without excessive vibration, cavita- tion, and downpuU forces, thus reducing the number and size of gates and con- duits in a high dam; the estimated annual saving is $1,500,000. (4) Model tests have established design criteria for the lengths of transitions from gate passages to conduits or tunnels for dams. (5) Atmospheric and cavitation tank tests have established criteria for the design of beveled gate slots, offset joints, and streamlined piers for high-velocity flow; the estimated annual saving is $150,000. (6) Large-scale, high-velocity tests at Detroit and Pine Flat Dams have estab- lished that normal concrete surfaces in conduits are eroded by high-velocity flow and that epoxy protective coatings will reduce or eliminate the erosion. (7) Preliminary model tests of fine sand indicated that water temperature affects sediment transport, streambed form, bed roughness, and discharge stage materially. (8) Over 200 hydraulic design charts and explanatory sheets have been pre- pared and published on specific technical design problems related to spillways, outlet works, gates and valves, navigation dams, artificial channels, and a variety of other problems. (9) Prototype test facilities have been installed at about 25 dams, prototype data collected for 50 projects, and 11 reports on prototype test programs have been published. (10) The Committee on Channel Stabilization has reviewed research programs, design criteria, and construction practices for channel stabilization and published a four-volume report summarizing channel stabilization practices on major U.S. alluvial rivers. D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — The following research activities are planned for fiscal year 1969: (1) Model tests on underdesigned spillway crest shapes for low-navigation dams and on periodic surges at large spillway gates to develop criteria for surge- free operation. (2) Disseminate the 15th issue of Hydraulic Design Criteria; complete 16th issue which is devoted to design criteria for small hydraulic structures. (3) Obtain hydraulic data at projects where prototype testing facilities are installed as test water becomes available, analyze the data collected, and prepare design criteria and reports thereon. (4) Complete laboratory tests on the resistance of epoxy resin coatings to cavitation erosion; tests to determine the effect of boundary layer development on cavitation characteristics of spillway and outlet works elements will be con- tinued. (5) Large-scale tests of epoxy protective coatings on concrete test panels at Detroit Dam will be continued. (6) If proper reservoir levels occur, tests on high-head, full-scale spillway chute at Detroit Dam will be made to determine the effect of air entrainment on velocity and depth of flow. (7) Data obtained from model tests and field experience will continue to be collected and analyzed to develop improved design criteria for riprap protection at hydraulic structures and in flood-control channels. (8) Flume tests will be made for medium sand for comparison with the results of previous crushed coal and fine sand tests, to determine the effects of water temperature on sediment transport, streambed form, and bed roughness. (9) If the proper reservoir levels occur, prototype tests will be made at Pine Flat Dam on the existing epoxy coated test sections. (10) The Committee on Channel Stabilization will hold three meetings during the year to review research, field experience, and specific problems on channel stabilization; information of design and construction interest will be assembled and distributed in appropriate form; preparation of a report "State of Knowledge of Channel Stabilization" is in progress. (11) Laboratory tests, under contract with the University of Iowa, on {)ressure fluctuations and vibrations of low-spillway crests on elastic foundations due to higli-h(uul flow instability will be continued. (12) Make observations and field ex])primonts in several river reaches as 1409 conditions present opportunities to develop methods of preventing the formation of ice jams and destroying ice jams which form in rivers. (13) Laboratory tests and analytical studies will be made to improve design criteria for ripraii bank protection of flood channels. E. Jusiification for Increase in Funds. — The increase of $37,000 in fiscal year 1969 funds for research on dams and flood control channels includes $2,000 for testing surges at high spillway gates, which is justified to insure safe and efficient spillway operation; $10,000 for analyses and tests of riprap protection at hy- draulic structures and for flood channels, which is justified by the need to develop improved design criteria to reduce current excessive maintenance repairs; $25,000 to conduct field tests on the prevention and destruction of ice jams, which i& justified by the excessive damages caused by ice-jam floods on northern rivers. 2. HARBORS AND SHORE PROTECTION A. Objectives. — To develop improved and new design criteria, maintenance practices, and model testing techniques which will assure the efficient and economi- cal development of coastal waterways and harbors and sea shores. B. Discussion. — The demands by foreign and domestic commerce for adequate deep water harbors to serve the world's increasingly larger ships has created very serious maintenance problems in most major harbors in the United States. Shoaling in navigation channels, anchorage areas, and mooring slips has increased progres- sively in recent years so that the Corps of Engineers spends over $60 million annually for maintenance dredging, and the Navy and local interests combined spend an equal or larger amount for dredging areas of their responsibility. Even so, authorized navigation depths have not been maintained fully, and in some harbors, the larger vessels can proceed safely only at high tide. Research on shoaling processes, waterway design and maintenance dredging techniques not only materially reduces the high annual maintenance costs, but assures safe and dependable harbors. The Corps has constructed and maintains many small-harbor inlets along the Atlantic coast, but it is difficult to maintain some to authorized depths because of excessive shoaUng in the entrance channel without excessive maintenance costs. Some are dredged to authorized depths and within 1 to 3 months have shoaled to such shallow depths that only small craft can use the inlets. Model tests lead to the development of improved design criteria which assures stable inlet chan- nels at authorized depths and with reasonable maintenance dredging. Also, new criteria and improved maintenance dredging techniques will make the improve- ment of many other inlets feasible which are not now justified because of excessive maintenance costs. The rapidly growing interest of the public in recreational boating has created a great demand for small-craft harbors along the shores of both oceans and the Great Lakes. Recent experience on the west coast has shown that severe wave action within the harbors during storms has damaged vessels and greatly reduced the effectiveness of the harbors. After completion of the harbor at Marina del Rey, Calif., an offshore breakwater, costing $4 million, was required to correct the unexpected wave action to make the harbor safe. Research on small-boat harbors will develop design criteria for entrances, channels, and basin arrange- ments which will assure acceptable and economical harbor protection. Each year ocean storms cause great monetary damage to shore developments and jetties at harbor entrances and often result in loss of life. Major storms, such as occurred along the Atlantic coast during March 1962, are of natural concern. Research conducted on inshore wave phenomena, movement of httoral drift, means of bypassing sand past inlets, design of jetties and shore structures, and stabiliza- tion of beaches will provide the public with effective protection at reasonable costs. ReUable hydraulic criteria are not available for the most effective and economical design of harbor structures, navigation channels, coastal inlets, small-boat harbors, and shore stabihzation works. Consequently, recourse is made to model tests of proposed project improvements to obtain optimum solutions. In order to improve the usefulness and reiiabihty of model test data, research has been conducted on the effects of distortion, roughness standards, and scale for tidal hydrauUc models and on model laws for density currents. A Corps Committee on Tidal Hydraulics was established to review existing data on tidal hydraulics, recommend research investigations, exercise technical guidance over programs needed to provide knowledge and criteria for tidal hydrauUc projects, and to render technical advice to districts on si^ecific coastal engineering projects. C. Accomplishmenls to date. — Literature reviews, model tests, and prototype investigations have been made on problems related to breakwater and jetty 1410 design, shoaling of harbors and navigation channels, coastal inlets, small boat harbors, stabilization of shores, and techniques for harbor models. The following specific results are being utihzed in the design and operation of harbor and shore protection projects : (1) Model tests on rubble-mound breakwaters have resulted in a formula for size of stone, breakwater slope, and design wave height that assures a stable cross- section at reduced cost. A provisional theory has been developed for wave impact force on vertical wall breakwaters. Criteria for the stability of armor units on breakwater trunks have been developed. (2) Analj^ses of available data on tidal inlets have established criteria for the design of sand bypassing plants, which effectively reduce inlet shoaling and stabilize the downdrift beach, and equations for computing velocities in tidal entrances for various inlet conditions. (3) A review of the methods for computing tides and currents in tidal water- ways has established the limitations of the several methods and has shown that solutions can be obtained readily by either computers or electric analog. (4) Comparative model tests of permeable and impermeable groins have shown that impermeable groins are required to retain beach sands at shore pro- tection projects. Criteria have been established for the protection of shores by sand dimes and interlocking concrete blocks. (5) Literature reviews, laboratory and field tests, and analytical studies have improved the knowledge of flocculation and shoaling and indicated the factors which contribute to excessive shoaling of tidal waterways, resulting in modifica- tions of navigation channels and improvements in dredging methods to reduce the annual maintenance dredging of Corps projects. (6) Model tests have provisionally established that estuary models in which wave and tidal action are reproduced should not have a distortion greater than 1 to 10 for reliable results. (7) Roughness limitations and standards have been established for proper model verification. (8) The basic laws for mixing of salt-water densitj^ currents in estuaries have been determined and the model-prototype scale for salt-water densitj' currents in estuaries was confirmed to be 1 to 1. (9) Tests in several harbor models to different scales and degrees of distortion confirmed Keulegan's theoretical equation for wave action. (10) Design criteria have been established for wave filters for harbor models and wave testing flumes. (11) Criteria have been developed for the transmission of wave energy through rubble mound structures. (12) Provisional criteria have been developed for the response characteristics of small boats and harbors to the action of short-period waves. (13) The Committee on Tidal Hydraulics has held three meetings per year to review approved research programs on tidal hydraulics and district coastal engineering projects; approximately 55 reports have been published on the state of knowledge of tidal hydraulics, bibliographies, review of some 35 coastal engi- neering projects, and recommendations concerning dredgmg techniques. The committee has rendered advice to most coastal districts and divisions on tidal hydraulic problems. D. Proposed operations in Hscal year 1969. — The following theoretical investiga- tions, model tests, and prototype measurements are planned for fiscal year 1969: (1) Flume experiments using oscillatory waves will be continued to determine the effects of underwater topograph}', angle of wave attack, and breakwater geometry on wave pressures exerted on breakwaters; and tests will be continued to determine the optimum arrangements of breakwaters at harbor entrances to obtain maximum wave reduction. (2) Tests will be made to determine the relationship between the rate of wave attenuation in shallow reef channels and channel dimensions. (3) The collection and compilation of data relative to the magnitude of sand transported at coastal inlets and the operation of sand bypassing plants will be contirmed and progress reports thereon will be issued. (4) Revif;w literature and initiate tests as required on wave attenuation in small-scale models due to bottom friction. (5) Analyses of tests on the movement and deposition of sediments in channels subject to salt-water intrusion will be completed and a report prepared. (6) Tests will be made to determine the absorbing characteristics of wave maze tire assemblies and other types of floating breakwaters. (7) Testing will be continued on four model facilities to establish design criteria for tidal inlets. 1411 (8) Continue operation of field wave gages, surveillance of breakwater struc- tures, and compilation and analysis of field data to check the performance and design criteria for breakwaters. (9) Obtain prototype data on the response characteristics of small-craft harbors with complex planform and perimeters and various degrees of wave- absorbing surfaces and initiate tests on protective works to improve small-craft harbor entrances. (10) Committee on Tidal Hydraulics will hold three meetmgs to review research program in tidal hydraulics and specific problems at the request of field offices, recommending solutions and/or necessary programs of studj^; studies of floccula- tion and shoaling processes will be continued. (11) Tests in available model facilities to determine factors affecting hydraulic and shoaling conditions in harbor slips and tributary channels. E. Justification for fund increases. — The increase in fiscal year 1969 funds for harbors and shore protection includes increases of $10,000 and $5,000 for research on harbor design and breakwaters, respectively; $5,000 for activities of the Com- mittee on Tidal Hydraulics; and $3,000 on research for harbor models. A decrease, totaling $65,000 is proposed for research on shore protection and waves. The in- crease for harbor design is necessary to expedite testing and development of design criteria for small-craft harbors and entrances to major harbors to insure safe and efficient operation. The increase for breakwaters is to conduct tests on floating breakwaters, which may be an economical method of providing protection in some areas. The increase for the Comrcittee on Tidal Hydraulics is to provide for the preparation and publication of a summary report on pertinent data for harbors and estuaries. 3. NAVIGATION LOCKS A. Objective. — To conduct research investigations on model and prototype filling and emptying systems and culvert outlets for navigation locks to rediice lock operating times, improve operations, to eliminate existing hazards to vessels, and provide essential design criteria. B. Discusrion. — Since most navigation locks in the United States are designed and constructed by the Corps of Engineers, essentially all research on locks in. the United States is conducted by the Corps. Limited research in Europe has uidicated the possibility of reducing lock filling and emptying times by as much as 50 percent. Busy waterways provided with faster filling locks would be capable of transporting greater volumes of cargo, thus deferring the need for constructing parallel locks some 15 or 20 years. Construction of parallel locks on a single major inland waterway would cost several hundred million dollars. In recent years, several accidents and near accidents have occurred as a result of faulty lock operation. Inadequacies in the present lock design require extreme care in lock operation to prevent hazardous conditions and serious accidents. The proposed research would improve lock design and operation to eliminate hazards. The release of lock flows through outlets on the ri\erward side of the lock results in hazardous conditions to pleasure craft in the river, may cause excessive erosion at the outlet structure, and results in unbalanced water surfaces in the lock and the lower approach. Tests are needed to develop design criteria and operation procedures for this type of lock outlet to effectively empty high-head locks, prevent excessive scour, and eliminate hazards to pleasure craft. The lack of essential design criteria has required model testing nearly all of the Corps major locks prior to construction. The proposed research will provide sufficient information to establish generalized design criteria, obviating the need for model testing most future locks. The saving in design time and model testing for the approximately 60 locks which are authorized or will be authorized in the next few years is estimated to be in the order of $5 million. C. AccoinpUshments to date. — Improvements were made in pressure conditions and head loss coefficients for culvert manifolds and valves and in the hydraulic efficiency of component parts of filling and emptying system resulting in reduced filling and emptying times. Means have been developed to reduce surging and turbulence in the lock chamber and lower approach. A new type of longitudinal bottom filling system has been developed for 600-foot locks which eliminates possible hazards due to one-valve operation of other systems. The new criteria are published in an engineering manual. A manual has been prepared on lock valves. Monetary benefits in the amount of $644,000 annually result from reduced design, construction, and maintenance costs, and savings due to shorter lockage times. An intangible benefit is safer operation resulting from reduced surging and turbulence during filling and emptying of locks. 1412 D. Proposed o-perations in fiscal year 1969. — The following research on navigation locks will be conducted in fiscal j'-ear 1969: (1) Model tests will be conducted on the longitudinal floor culvert system for low-head and high-head 1,200-foot locks. (2) Criteria for design of locks with this type filling system will be developed, and designs for individual components of the culvert system will be investigated. E. Justification for fund increases. — The increase of $10,000 in fiscal year 1969 funds for navigation locks is justified by the need to establish design criteria for the more efficient and safer longitudinal bottom filling system at an early date for use in the design of presently authorized locks. 4. INSTRUMENTATION A. Objective. — To develop special laboratory and field measuring instruments, equipment, and techniques to increase the accuracy and efficiency of all types of hj'^draulic measurements. B. Discussion. — Instruments and equipment for use in laboratory and field testing are developed to measure instantaneous cavitation pressures, fluctuating pressure surges and velocities, and other hydraulic measurements. Inadequate instrumentation has resulted in deficiencies in design which have caused major structural damage, such as the severe erosion of concrete lined sluices at Detroit Dam and stilling basins at several other dams, the adoption of excessively con- servative designs because of the lack of definitive measurements, and the use of questionable model scales and distortions. The improved instruments will decrease design, construction, and maintenance costs, as well as I'esult in superior structures. As commercial instruments are generally not available for making small-scale laboratory tests and some large-scale field tests, special instruments and equip- ment must be designed and constructed for these needs. In some cases available commercial instruments can be modified to meet the test requirements ; in others, new instruments and testing techniques must be developed. Pertinent features in the design of these instruments are accuracy of measurements, ease of opera- tion, and low cost. As the development costs would be excessive if commercial firms accomplished this work, development under the research program has proven both effective and economical. C. Accomplishments to date. — Many improved and new instruments and testing techniques have been developed during the last 10 years. In fact, most of the instruments used for research testing in the laboratory and field have been devel- oped under this program. Developments include instruments for measuring small- scale turbulence pressures, large-scale pressure fluctuations, low model velocities, model hawser stress, precise water levels, and model salinities. Improvements have been made in wave gages and tide-producing mechanisms. D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — The development of miscellaneous model and field measuring instruments and techniques will be continued as the need arises. E. Justification for fund increase. — There is no fund increase for fiscal year 1969. Plan formulation and evaluation studies Fiscal year 1968 $700, 000 Fiscal year 1969 835, 000 As requirements for comprehensive development, conservation, control, and use of water and related land resources grow in scope and complexity, there is increasing emphasis on proper plan formulation and appropriate evaluation of the benefits provided. Methods for formulating complex, multipurjiose river basin and regional plans to meet these requirements most effectively and economically, and for gaging project benefits and overall effects with reasonable confidence, can be considerably improved through research. A series of reports by the Senate Select Committee on National Water Re- sovirces, the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, and the Federal Council for Science and Technology have all recommended the strength- ening of research to improve the planning of public investment in water resources development, and that there should be a considerable expansion of effort in this field. Such research in support of planning is also considered to be responsive to the views of the Water Resources Council. The recent report of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, on "A Ten-Year Program of Federal Water Resources Research," reflects the formula- tion of a balanced long-range program of federally supported water resources research. This report notes that water resources developments are usually quite 1413 costly and relatively permanent, with their actual physical life generally exceeding their nominal economic life of up to 100 years. With current expenditures on water resources development in the United States amounting to several billions of dol- lars annually and rising rapidly, the report indicates that research leading to im- provements in water resources planning would have a very beneficial effect on the results being achieved through these huge outlays, not only j'ielding substan- tial economies in capital investments, but also resulting in more efficient develop- ment and management of invaluable national resources. The report finds that research in the methodology and criteria for water resources planning is the most neglected area in the present research program, and concludes that it is possibly the most promising research area in terms of immediate and long-term payoff. The report strongly recommends that improvement in water resource planning be considered a priority research area, and that the level of effort for this research be increased significantly and promptly. The Corps of Engineers program in this area is also particularly responsive to the findings and recommendations of the Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy, as recently transmitted by the President to Congress and published in House Docu- ment 465, 89th Congress. Against this background of larger considerations and broader applicability, it is emphasized that the plan form ilation and evaluation studies research program in support of civil works activities is specifically mission oriented and justified in terms of direct and early application to improving the economical and efficient accomplishment of these activities. The proposed strengthening of this program will provide the following benefits: (a) Update and upgrade the corps capability in modern-day planning, and enhance significantly the effectiveness and validity of its planning effort in for- mulating and evaluating a well-conceived, properly balanced, and economical water resources development proQ;ram, responsive to local and regional require- ments, and geared to national goals. (6) Improve criteria and methodology in formulating and evaluating proposed projects and regional or basin systems, through close integration of scientific and technological considerations with the underlying economic and related factors. (c) Provide the fullest practicable solutions to problem areas so as to achieve maximum benefits. (d) Furnish a more rational basis for determining equitable cost allocation. BREAKDOWN OF PLAN FORIVIULATION AND EVALUATION STUDIES PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1959 [In thousand of dollars] Research project: 1. Improvement of flood plain management and development 2. Economic results of completed projects 3. Metfiodology for application of socioeconomic data to planning of water resource develop- ment 4. Recreation design criteria and demand analysis... 5. Physical and economic effects of impoundments and releases on upstream and downstream waferquality 550 50 75 75 6. Influence on agricultural land values of im- proved utilization through flood protection 275 25 50 50 7. Evaluating economic effects of water supply shortage 250 75 8. Economic analysis of requirements for deep- draft harbors 300 10 100 9. Estuarine water quality 2450 25 10. Esthetic criteria and evaluation of water re- sources projects 225 —25 25 Estimated Allocai ions Fiscal year Fiscal year total cost throu ph 1968 1969 June 30, , 1967 330 65 105 160 (•) 50 255 175 480 50 12 65 640 65 85 85 Subtotal 3,500 305 617 835 Funded for completion: 1. Economic evaluation of navigation improvements.. 318 240 78 2. NAS Committee on Water Resources 20 15 5 Total 3,838 560 700 835 1 This project will be accomplished in 2 phases: (1) The development and validation of analytical methods and procedures ■for evaluating economic results of corps projects, and (2) utilizing the foregoing methods and procedures in a systematic study of a representative sample of corps projects. The first phase will cost an estimated $386,000; we cannot estimate the cost of the 2d phase at this time. 2 This figure is a preliminary estimate of only the 1st 5 years of the program. 1414 1. IMPROVEMENT OF FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT A. Objective. — This research will seek to formulate and develop concepts, techniques, and methods for evaluating alternative means to promote sound and economic development of flood plains. B. Discussion. — The President, in his letter of Augiist 10, 1966, transmitting to Congress the report of the Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy on, '•A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses," indicated his strong support of its basic approach to the problem of curbing flood damage waste, by a variety of means. He stated that "To hold the Nation's toll of flood losses in check and to promote wise use of its valley lands requires new and imaginative action"; and affirmed that "the Federal effort to cope with the problem will be unsparing." He noted that there were several actions recommended in the report which should be carried out immediately, and others that require further study. The introductory statement in the "Summary of Findings and Recommenda- tions" of this report, contained in House Document 465, S9th Congress, second session, follows: "The Nation needs a broader and more unified national program for managing flood losses. Flood protection has been immensely helpful in many parts of the country, and must be continued. Beyond this, additional tools and integrated pol- icies are required to promote sound and economic development of the flood plains." "Despite substantial efforts, flood losses are mounting and uneconomic uses of the Nation's flood plains are inadvertently encouraged. The countrj' is faced with a continuing sequence of losses, protection, and more losses. While flood protection of existing property should receive public support, supplemental measures should assure that future developments in the flood plains yield benefits in excess of their costs to the Nation. This would require a new set of initiatives by established Federal agencies with the aid of State agencies to stimalate and support sound planning at the local government and citizen level." "Statutory Federal policy dealing with cost sharing, land acquisition, and loan authority would need to be modified, but most of the measures would be taken by the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Geological Survey, and the Environmental Science Services Administration under existing authority. Modest additional expenditures over the next 10 years and reorientation of Government effort would greatlj^ reduce flood losses and demands for Federal relief." This research study is designed to follow through on these findings and recom- mendations of the Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy, and to improve the effectiveness and utility of the authorized flood plain information studies program. It will concentrate on formulating and developing concepts, technicpies, and methods for evaluating costs and benefits associated with alternative a])- proaches to minimizing flood losses and maximizing economic utilization of flood plains. The alternatives to be examined include such measures as dams, levees, floodproofing, relocation, redevelopment, flood insurance, iiser taxes or fees, land acquisition for various public j^urposes, special service districts, and flood warning-evacuation systems. The institvitional and legal implications of these alternatives will also be studied to determine how the corps can work most effectively with other Federal and non-Federal agencies in fullfiUing its role for flood protection. In view of the keen interest of the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment, this study is being closel.y coordinated with that Department. C. Accom-plishments to date. — Contracts have been let and work has commenced on this study. P'iscal year 196S will be devoted to the following: 1. Establishing criteria for determining goals and objectives, and tying these into a framework of Federal and non-Federal agencies concerned with corps flood control progiam. 2. Identifying the range of measures or alternatives for solving various as!)ects of flood problems. 3. Development of methods for relating alternatives to goals and objectives. 4. Development of ])roce,diu-es for evaluating alternatives. D. Proposed Operations for fiscal year 1969. — In fiscal year 1969 efforts will 1)6 concentrated largely on the refinement and testing of techniques and method- ologies for the colh'ction and evaluation of economic and related data needed to facilitate comprehensive; |)lanning to mitigate flood losses. Research findings will be translated into practical ojjerating procedures for the corjjs. 1415 2. ECONOMIC RESULTS OF COMPLETED PROJECTS A. Objective. — The purposo of this study is to determine the economic results of completed civil works projects in relation to projections made in the preauthoriza- tion survey stage. This investigation will be directed toward evaluation of the favorable and adverse effects of completed projects, including project-induced economic activity relative to conditions which would be expected had the projects not been built. The results will be analyzed to see how present methods and pro- cedures for economic feasibility analysis can be improved. B. Discussion. — The review will be based on a representative sampling of corps projects, carefully selected with respect to geographical distribution, service area, size, interdependence, function, complexity, and maturity, to reflect the diversity of the civil works program. The study will proceed froin a statement of effects projected at the time of original project evaluation. Adjustment will be made to take account of changes in project scope between planning and execution and, in the case of interrelated projects within a composite system, will include consideration of anticipated and actual sequence of installation. Standards for interest rates, period of analysis, price levels, and other pertinent factors used in the original and review evaluation could be identified, and the effects of any significant differences in these standards would be appraised, with the original evaluation reconstituted where necessary. Attention will be given to the evaluation of alter- natives identified in the preauthorization survey, as well as those that may be identified in this postconstruction examination. This study is expected to generate valuable insights as to the effectiveness of evaluation procedures used in pre- authorization surveys, and to suggest means for improving their adequacy and validity. It should also provide an empirical basis for evaluating the amount and type of economic activities induced by water resources development, in contrast to those which would occur in the absence of such development. This study is l)articularly timely in view of the expanding role of the civil works program in development of the Nation's water and related land resources, and the extreme importance of accurate economic analysis in carrying out that program. C. Accomplishments to date. — A contractor has been selected and work is sub- stantially underway. A limited sample of corps projects and analogous areas will be carefully studied to develop a workable methodology for evaluating and pro- jecting the anticipated economic impacts of corps projects. Initial concentration will be on smaller projects where a single purpose predominates. The examination will then proceed to large, complex, multipurpose projects and to integrated systems of interrelated projects. D. Proposed operations for fiscal zjear 1969. — In fiscal year 1969 the methodology for analyzing and evaluating economic impacts will be refined and applied to the examination of selected representative corps projects. As necessary, corps planning procedures will be improved by capitalizing on the results of this study. 8. METHODOLOGY FOR APPLICATION OF SOCIOECONOMIC DATA TO PLANNING OF WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT A. Objective. — This study seeks to formulate improved concepts and techniques for the collection, analysis and application of economic data to the planning of water resource developments. It wiU concentrate on the corps planning efforts concf^rned with entire river basins or sub-basins. In this sense, it is complementary to the foregoing study on "economic results of completed projects," which is concerned with the plannhig of individual corps projects. B. Discussion. — This study is designed to improve the corps efforts in formulat- ing ''framework studies" for developing comprehensive plans for river basins or sub-basins. This research study will seek to identify and highlight water resource problems ui these areas, develop potential alternatives to solve these problems, and evaluate these alternatives not only in terms of national economic efficiency, but also in terms of other overall goals of the administration and the Congress, such as regional economic development, full employment, preservation and beautification, income redistribution, or national defense. Fundamental to this is the determination of what economic data are most relevant to these goals and what is the most efficient -way to collect, analyze, and project the basic data for planning purposes. Particular attention will be given to exploring various data sources including State and local governments, universities and private institu- tions concerned with economics and water resources. Sampling and other survey techniques will be considered for minimizing the costs of data collection. The proposed research also seeks to make the river basin or sub-basin studies more 1416 effective as a framework or takeoff point for planning individual projects. One- of the problems to be considered will be the application of data collected on a basin basis to projects of limited geographic influences. Successful disaggregation of useful data will result in lowering the cost of data collection. Another problem, to be examined will be the interrelationships of existing and proposed projects within the basin or region. C. Accom-plishments to date. — A general study plan has been formulated and proposals from a number of research consultants have been received and evaluated. A contractor has been tentatively selected but we wish to first carefully review and evaluate that organization's work on our flood plains study before letting the contract. D. Proposed operations for fiscal year 1969. — The first task of this project is to clearly identify all planning objectives of our corps comprehensive river basin studies, i.e., what planning objectives and decisionmaking should these studies be designed for? The next task will be to determine what types of data would best serve the required planning and decisionmaking. Starting from this idealized framework the study will carefully review and evaluate current corps procedures and methodologies with particular emphasis on data collection, data anal3'sis, and data projection. 4. RECREATION DESIGN CRITERIA AND DEMAND ANALYSIS A. Objective. — The purpose of this research investigation is to develop methodol- ogy and standards for project formulation and design with respect to the recreation function. Better methods are needed for determining a valid demand schedule and for the proper sizing, scaling and phasing of the recreational features within the framework of the overall multipurpose project or system design, and for equitable allocation of costs to the various purposes. B. Discussion. — Recreational demand and design criteria in the past were based upon performance records of short duration and quite often limited in scope and integration of recreational factors. Consequently, there is an urgent need for improved methods in dealing M'ith recreational components in project planning to obtain comparable competency with that of other project ])urposes. The study plan has been developed in cooperation with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and other Federal water resource development agencies so the work accomplished will assist each in their planning efforts. This will also provide each an opportunity to cooperate and participate in the study thereby utilizing the best capabilities available at the Federal level. The study will consist of determining the methods and criteria presently used by the various Federal and State agencies and by private industry in evaluating the recreational components, the features desired,, the factors considered, and the probable reliability of each. Methods surveyed or developed giving reliable evaluation within accepted tolerances will be adojited for utilization, further testing, and modification. The research wiU be i)erformed primarily in-house bj^ the Sacramento District, South Pacific Division, with sup- port in data collection and mapping services bj' the 10 Districts participating in the study and the State of California. C. Accompli shinents to date. — A pilot recreation use survey, inxolving .50 corps projects in 10 cor]:)s districts and six State-operated reservoirs in California has been completed. The adopted forms and procedurcvs have jjroven to be reliable and satisfactory. Two major computer programs liave been com] )leted for analysis of the recreation survey data. Analysis of day use and camping per capita rates have been completed for seven reservoirs in Sacrannnito, Fort VVortli, and Savan- nah districts. Currently being studicul are the recreation survey statistics as related to survey bias, variance in annual reservoir attendance and per capita rates, maximum practical use determination, and monthly visitation data. Re- search studies are develojjing a recreation use prc^diction and economic evaluation model derived from multi|)le regression techniques. Expert consultant services have been obtained to develop methods for determining recreation benefit values. Nonreservoir recreation data will be collected during fiscal year 1968. D. Proposed operations for fiscal year 1969. — The statistical analysis of re- liability and i)i:is study is expected to be disseminated in special and technical reports. The nniltiple regression model will be used to ])rocess data from districts and will be modified as necessar}-. Data collection methods for nonreservoir recreation are anticipated to b(! field tested at district level. An extrapolation of visitation study will be initiated to provide methodology for projection of recreation use trends as ai)pli(>d to base year per capita rates for extrapolation over the project life. Studies will be initiated to establish guides to determine optimiun investment level and to provide a framework and methodology for ascertaining environmental amenities related to project formulation procedures. 1417 6. PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF IMPOUNDMENT OF RELEASES ON UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM WATER QUALITY A. Objective.— The purpose of this research is to provide a proper basis for formulation and evaluation of proposed projects and modification of existing projects m connection with their functioning in the interest of water quality control, by identifying and measuring the beneficial and adverse effects of reser- voir storage and releases on water quality, with consideration of practical reservoir- regulation techniques for improving water quality upstream and downstream from a dam. B. Discussion. — Many Corps of Engineers reservoirs have water quality control as a project purpose incurring a substantial portion of the project costs. Water quality storage capacity and multiple level outlet facilities have been included in many projects and proposals for additional projects containing water quality storage and outlet facilities are in the process of authorization. It is imperative that criteria for the design and operation of reservoir water quality control features be improved. In addition, methodology for benefit analysis must be perfected for efficient planning of water resource projects. This research has been subdivided into two categories, designated as : (1) biology/ecology/economics and (2) engineering. ^-^ (1) Biology /ecology /economics The Sport Fishing Institute, as contractor will determine the effects of water releases from various reservoir depths on water quality, fish population, and listiing use in reservoirs and tailwater at selected facilities. After extensive review of literature pertinent to the problem, the contractor will make reconnaissance surveys of prospective study sites and gather available chemical, physical, and biological data. The results of the reconnaissance survey and data gathering will be ana,lyzed and evaluated for final selection of experimental study areas where extensive investigations will be made of release effects on water quality. In addition, the contractor will endeavor to secure the use of a small reservoir where the water level can be selectively raised and lowered to determine accompanving effects on water quality. ' (2) Engineering The engineering study is to determine functional means for allocating storage and design of release facilities and controls which will assure not only the quan- tity but the desired quality of water for each use. This is a 5-year engineering study which has two principal parts: («) Interpretation and analysis of reservoir water quality data. (6) Research in water quality management methodology utilizing water re- source projects. The ultimate aim is to develop methods for determining functional requirements and criteria for use in planning, design, and operation of a reservoir for specific water quality control needs of the project basin. Water quality surveys are now being made in selected corps operated reservoirs to sample variability of geography, climate reservoir geometry and related structure and will be utilized in this research, the surveys include physical, chemical and biological changes, with time and space, at inflow, within the" reser- voir, outflow and at points below the dam. It is also planned to identify the nature and concentration level of pollutants entering or anticipated to enter the project The analysis phase of the program aims to answer the following specific questions before establishing criteria for economical design of water quality control storage and release facilities: -a ^ e 1. Given the release rate, and quality levels, what will be the quality of water at points downstream from the release point? 2 What level or levels of a reservoir must be tapped to meet specific water quality needs? , ^-,.^1^^ ^s ^^^ water quality control need in terms of storage and release facilities? +v,^"i^i^^* water quality control monitoring equipment may be integrated with the hydrometeorological network for operating the reservoir for water control needs together with other authorized purposes? C. Accomplishments to dale. — {1 ) Biology /ecology /economics A project contract with the Sport Fishing Institute was executed in May 1967. Ihe Institute has made susbtantial progress in reviewing available data, pre- liminary reconnaisance of problem areas, iuid coordination with interested Federal 1418 and State agencies. Coordination has been effected with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration of the Depart- ment of the Interior. The institute has also developed plans for several detailed investigations and has entered into a subcontract with the University of Arkansas for statistical services and data processing. (3) Engineering A water quality research unit was established in the North Pacific Division and a qualified engineer appointed to plan, coordinate and supervise the work. Work completed includes the following: (a) A guidance memorandum was compiled summarizing the nature and scope of water quality research problems requiring solution for planning, design, and operation of reservoirs for water quality control needs, personnel requirements and the administrative procedures to be followed in the operation of the water quality research unit. (b) Establishment of a filing system followed by the collection and cataloging of literature, correspondence, and reports on water quality. (c) A "water quality studies" training course given by Pacific Northwest Laboratory of FWPCA. (r/) A visit to Lucky Peak Reservoir to examine the difficulties encountered in making undertow current measurements and to suggest remedies. (e) Preparation of draft of a water quality data report on Detroit Reservoir with interpretation and outline of a reservoir water-temperature analysis. A computer program will be written and this analysis completed in fiscal year 1968. In fiscal year 1968 water quality reports received from other corps offices will be examined and a standard data processing and reporting form will be prepared. D. Proposed operations for fiscal year 1969. — {1) Biology I ecology I economics The contractor will be gathering and evaluating chemical, physical, and bio- logical data from three reservoirs having multiple level discharges. They will also examine the downstream tailwater areas. {2) Engineering Work will be undertaken to develop a water quality monitoring network to be integrated with hydrologic and meterologic networks for reservoir operation to meet the needs of water quality and other purposes. Such a monitoring network would facilitate the release from proper levels of the reservoir to assure the desired quality and quantity of water at points downstream. 6. INFLUENCE ON AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUES OF IMPROVED UTILIZATION THROUGH FLOOD PROTECTION A. Objective. — The proposed studj' is designed to develoj) better techniques by which flood control benefits on agricultural land ma\' be ascertained with greater degree of accuracy, less effort, and at lower costs. B. Discussion.— Th\& study is in response to a request by the Bureau of the Budget to the Secretary of the Army for reviewing certain aspects of the Missouri River levee project. One of the aspects to be reviewed relates to the methods of evaluating the benefits from flood control on agricultural land. Present methods of determining flood damages are complex and time consuming. The results are not always satisfactory. Under present procedures, massive hydrologic data on flood stages, their frequency and duration, and the extent of areas flooded must be collf'ctcd and analyzed. Detailed data on agricultural operations such as seasonal patterns, costs, crop production, and prices must also be collected and correlated with the hydrologic data to arrive at reasonable estimates of flood damages. The proposed study will explore the feasibility of using land values as a yardstick to evaluate flood control benefits on the assumption that changes in land value reflect, to a large degree, flood damage experiences. New procedures developed from this study should result in greater accuracy, simplicity, and money savings in flood damage evaluation. C. Accomplishments to date. — The Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is conducting the study. A draft manuscript has been prepared on the theoretical considerations relevant to a study of the relationship between flood control measures and land values. Review of the theoretical basis of the flood frequency-flood damage approach as described in corps publications and other sourcas has been completed. Delineation of samples and plans for data collection and analysis has been initiated. This will be part of a pilot study in the 1419 Wabash River Bas^in where considerable analytical woriv on a comprehensive type II river basin study is also underway. D. Proposed operation through fiscal year 1969. — Efforts in fiscal year 1969 will consist of a critical review of the conventional flood freciuency-flood damage approach, analysis of land market transactions and development of alternative methodologies. 7. EVALUATING ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE A. Objective. — To develop a systematic approach to evaluating economic effects of water shortages and costs of incremental supply. B. Discussion. — The demand for water is rapidly increasing as a result of population increases and economic growth. At present there is no systematic analysis of the economic costs of water supply shortage experiences. This makes it difficult to determine the value of new water supply projects and the costs of incremental water supply. The proposed study will attempt to develop an ana- lytical framework for collection and analysis of economic losses dvie to water supply shortages. Regions which experienced severe water shortages will be selected for study. Past and current trends in water use and management, changes in economic activities due to water supply shortages, selected water supply augmentation projects of a region or at a community level will be studied. C. Proposed operations for fiscal year 1969. — The study will commence in fiscal year 1969 by contract, and is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1972. 8. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEEP-DRAFT HARBORS A. Objective. — This study is needed to help develop criteria for use in planning harbor channels and terminal facilities for "supertankers" and other deep-draft vessels. B. Discussion. — Growth in the cargo carrying capacity of deep-draft vessels has been steadily on the rise since World War II and has shown an especially significant increase during the past decade. In 1945 the standard size petroleum vehicle was the 16,460 deadweight tons T-2 tanker. In 1950 the first U.S. tanker in excess of 30,000 deadweight tons was built by 1956, 11 U.S. tankers between 30,000 and 35,000 deadweight tons were in service. Between 1949 and 1965, the average size tanker in the world fleet increased from 12,800 deadweight tons to 27,100 deadweight tons. In 1966, over one-third of the world tanker fleet was composed of vessels over 30,000 deadweight tons or larger; further, these ships comprised about 64 percent of the world fleet deadweight tons capacity. Even while ships of 30,000 deadweight tons have become common, they are dwarfed by the largest vessel now operating (205,000 deadweight tons) and will look smaller still compared with the 300,000 deadweight tons supertankers now under construction. Dry bulk carriers have not grown in size at the same rate as their tanker counterparts. Nevertheless, the number of vessels 30,000 deadweight tons and larger now in service, comprise about 16 percent of the world's dry bulk carrier fleet compared to less than 2 percent in 1953. Such vessels represent, at present, about 40 percent of the world's fleet dry bulk tonnage capacity. This trend to larger and larger ships is a reflection of the substantial trans- portation savings these larger ships offer. The trends in ship size impose new requirements: One set relates to required depths for harbors and channels, another set to requisite on-shore supporting or service facilities. The T-2 tanker (16,460 deadweight tons) was used as a yardstick in determining that a depth of 35 feet was required at major U.S. ports during the 1940's. But tankers of 35,000 dead- weight tons require 40-foot depths and tankers in the 200,000 deadweight tons class require 55- to 60-foot depths. Drafts of 70 feet or more will be required to accommodate ships in the 300,000 deadweight tons class. Great Britain is cur- rently developing facilities at Bantry Bay, Ireland, for accommodating 312,000 deadweight tons vessels. The Bantry Bay facilities will provide transshipment capability for moving the crude to other ports. Another fundamental change of the supercarriers is that the volume of car- goes they are capable of delivering is several times greater than the capacity of existing shoreside facilities at most ports. Significant amounts of capital will have to be invested to increase the servicing storage and through-put capacity of shoreside plants. These investments will prove economically feasible only if the expanded facilities experience a high use factor. Growing commodity use in established market areas will provide a portion of the demand necessary to achieve 1420 a high use factor. But there are probably very few instances where established area growth will be adequate, at least in the near future, to absorb in entirety the larger volume deliveries. If the United States is to take advantage of the potential savings in marine transportation, the huge shipments will have to be collected from or dispersed over much wider geographical areas than present marketing regions. If harbor-terminal facilities at all existing ports are expanded to accommodate supercarriers, necessary expansion of trade areas could not occur. Failing expansion, the result would be a sharply reduced number of shipments through and use of expanded harbor, channel and shoreside facilities — directly threatening the economic viability or self-liquidating and ]irofit jiotential of expanded or modernized facilities. By planning development of port and harbor facilities on a regional basis, the United States can not only realize the economic benefit of lower cost marine transportation, but will also reap the benefits of lower port and harbor costs, both private and public. C. Proposed operations for fiscal year 1969. — Research proposed for fiscal year 1969 will be concerned with defining marketing regions and prospective commodity movements as related to the large volume shipments impelled by the supercarriers. Regional requirements for bulk commodities must be clearly identified before it can be determined what set of transportation facilities, including harbors and channels, are needed to insure an efficient and economically viable transporta- tion system. Since enlarged vessel size is most notable in petroleum movement, that movement represents the most immediate area of concern, and the defi- nition of petroleum marketing regions and analyses of regional navigation re- quirements will be assigned a high priority in the studies of commodity move- ments and related research. D. Coordination. — This research will be coordinated with the IMaritime Ad- ministration, Department of Transportation, National Science Foundation (sea- grant program), American Association of Port Authorities, U.S. Navy and others. 9. ESTUAEINE WATER QUALITY A. Objective.- — To determine and establish guidelines and criteria for evaluating the effects of construction and operation of Corps facilities and improvements upon nationally important economic, recreational, and aesthetic resources of estuaries. B. Discussion. — The biological productivity of coastal waters of the United States for fish and wildlife resources is dependent in large part upon the estuaries and adjacent aquatic sites as nursery and feeding grounds. This transition zone between the land and the sea is sustained in a productive pattern by runoff from the land and intermittent encroachment by the sea. The construction of engineer- ing works that affect the fresh water discharges from the land or interfere with established marine environments may have substantial effects upon the resources of the area, some beneficial and others detrimental. Inland reservoirs and canal- ization for flood control, floodway construction and operation, navigation harbor and channel dredging and spoil disposal, hurricane barriers, salinity barriers, beach and inlet improvements all have a bearing upon the envii'onment in coastal waters. These effects ai-e obscure and may have opposite short-range and long- range effects. It is the purpose of this research to progressively clarify the effects of the civil works program in this area and to determine requirements for pro- tection and improvement of the environment and its resources. The limited nature of the estuarine environment and the rapidity of encroachment by economic development in these waters bj' both public and private interests make it impera- tive that measures be taken promptly to prevent despoilment of these national resources. Although the focus is different, this project will be fully coordinated with the inventory survey of estuarine areas which has been underway for several years in the Fish and Wildlife Service. C. Proposed operations for fiscal year 1969. — A three-man team of expert con- sultant estuarine ecologists assisted by Corps of Engiiicers staff will make a detailed analysis of the role of the civil works program in estuarine ecology, identify functions that should be exercised by the corps and determme means and measures to be employed for their accomplishment. 10, AESTHETIC CRITERIA AND EVALtTATION OF WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS A. Objective. — The functional objective of this research reflects the need for methodology, techniques, procedural guidelines, and criteria for project formula- tion and evaluation; design, construction, and operation of engineering works for development of water resources to protect, restore, and enhance the quality of the American environment. 1421 B. Discussion. — The civil works enviroiiniontal beautification program is Tesj^oiisive to recommeudatiou of the White House Conference on Natural Beauty and directives by the President in Executive Order 11278 emphasizing that: "Because the Federal Government administers massive programs that affect the natural beauty of our land, it must jjursue a course that will enhance and protect that beauty. It must stimulate action in behalf of natural beauty and outdoor recreation on the part of others — of State and local governments, of private organizations, and individual citizens. If it is to do this well, its own house must be in order. Its programs must be wise, and they must be coordinated. Its organization must reflect its responsibilities." The President also directed all officials and agencies of the Federal Government: To protect and enhance the natural beauty of the Nation, to review plans and programs of Federal agencies which affect natural beauty, and to encourage and assist effective coordination among these Federal programs. The mechanisms for achieving these ends have not been clearly defined or developed. Initial efforts have been made to incorporate environmental beautification in design of dams and facilities, landscaping of levees and shorelines, alinement of channels, dc\'elopment of overlooks, and provisions for preserving scenic views, historic and archaeological sites, seeding and sodding of cuts and fills, adaptation of spoil disposal, water-pollution control, and other measures for improving potential for recreation and enjoyment of project areas. C. Proposed operations for fiscal year 1969. — A team approach will be used to begin a detailed analysis of the problem and statement of the proper role of the Corps of Engineers in this field, identifying the functions that should be exercised by the Corps, and approximate measures that should be employed to carry them out. In-house investigation will be planned and directed by a specialist in environ- mental arts and sciences assigned to the work for special studies to be carried out by field offices of the Corps. Other special studies leading to definition of criteria for evaluation of measures for preservation and development of environmental values and development of methodology, techniques and guidelines for planning procedures will be accomplished by contract with universities or other competent organizations. Scientific and technical information centers: Fiscal year 1968 $0 Fiscal year 1969 140, 000 During the past 20 years, and particularly during the past 10, there has been a substantial increase in the creation of technical information as a result of increased scientific research activities and the expansion of new technical fields. The in- dividual scientist or engineer is no longer able, unassisted, to adequately maintain his knowledge of new developments in his own and other closely related fields. This increase in the rate of generation of scientific and technical information has been noted in various expressions of congressional concern in regard to duplication of research activities. The Department of the Army, through AR No. 70-45, has established policies regarding scientific and technical information including the objectives of eliminating unnecessary duplication of research and development effort and supporting the information needs of scientists and engineers. Under AR No. 70-22 the Department of the Army has authorized, subject to stated policies and procedures, the establishment of centers for analysis of scientific and technical information. The Chief of Engineers proposes to establish at locations indicated, information analysis centers to acquire, examine, and evaluate (including the dissemination of such evaluations) scientific and technical information generated within the United States and from foreign sources. Location Technical field Subjects Service area U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi- Soil mechanics Embankment and foundation en- DOD. ment Station. gineering, engineering geology. Do Hydraulic engineering River, harbor, and tidal hydraulics, DOD. hydraulic structures. Do Concrete technology Mass concerete materials and con- DOD. struction methods. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Re- Coastal engineering Wave action, shore processes, inlet National. search Center. and estuary dynamics, coastal con- struction techniques. U.S. Lake Survey, Corps of Engineers.. Great Lakes; physical in- Hydrographic surveys, charting, wa- Do. formation. ter levels, water motion, hydrology. 1422 Within the limits of its specific technical area of interest and mission, each center would, (a) acqu re ])ubl shed and unpublished literature, (b) evaluate and retain documents which provide useful information, (c) abstract pertinent tech- nical information, (d) prepare technical reviews and evaluations, (e) distribute abstracts, evaluations and reviews, and (f) answer inquiries for information. Other related activities are stated in AR No. 70-22. The mission and output of these five centers is designed primarily to meet the data and information requirements of the Department of Defense and the Corps of Engineers; except that the missions of the Coastal Research Center, by legis- lative charter, and the Great Lakes Center, by interagency agreement, include service to other Federal agencies and the general public. In addition, all center outputs will be coordinated as to content and format compatibility with the national Water Resources Scientific Information Center, operated by the Department of Interior, so that overlap or duplication in services will be precluded. Output of these centers will be available also for inclusion in and/or referencing through the National Water Resources Scientific Information Center systems. The amount of $140,000 is required in fiscal year 1969 to recruit additional qualified personnel, establish the necessary procedures, and place the centers in initial operation. Costs for a full year of operation are as shown: Center/location Fiscal year 1969 Full year Soil mechanics/USAEWES. $31,000 $104,000 Hydraullcs/USAEWES 24,000 80,000 Concrete/USAEWES - 30,000 122,000 Coastal englneering/CERC 18,000 35,000 Great Lakes/USLS — 37, 000 110,000 Total - 140,000 451,000 Miscellaneous: Fiscal year 1968 $155, 000 Fiscal year 1969 157,000 1. RESEARCH CENTER OPERATIONS A. Objectives. — The research center of the waterways experiment station functions as the central literature and document collection and service center for all corps offices in the technical fields of hydraulics, soil mechanics, flexible pavements, concrete, nuclear weapon effects, soil dynamics, mobility of military vehicles, environmental studies with military application, and geology. B. Discussion. — The services of the research center support all phases of engineering design, construction, and operation of the Corps of Engineers, as well as research and similar studies undertaken for elements of the Department of Defense and other agencies. The principal organization within the research center is the library, which procures and processes foreign and domestic technical publications, conducts literature searches, reviews and abstracts technical information, provides a translation service, and participates in scientific and technical information dissemination programs. Other activities conducted by the research center include the distribution of technical reports generated by the laboratory to corps offices, to elements of the Department of Defense, to other governmental agencies, and through publication exchange agreements to educational institutions and foreign research organizations. The annual summary of corps civil research and special studies is compiled and distributed, and other miscellaneous brochures and bibliographies published. C. Annual accomplishinents.— Separate funding support from civil works re- search sources for the research center activities was started in 1948. In recent years additional support, amounting to approximately one-half of the research center costs, is derived from the overhead charges applied to military and other Federal investigational work conducted at IJSAEWP^S. Currently the waterways experiment station is conducting work or furnishes support- to 10 Federal agencies in addition to the civil and military work directly luuier the Corps of Engineers. Engineering information. — Approximately 80 se]3arate requests processed, re- quiring extensive search and evaluation of source materials. Supervises operation of the 108 domestic and foreign publications exchange agreements and reviews the approximately 800 issues received annually. Translation service. — Produces about 700 manuscript pages of translated tech- nical material, as well as miscellaneous titles, resumes, correspondence, and visitor interpreter activities. 1423 Library. — Present collection is approximately 175,000 items, increasing by 1,500 items per month. Library items are on loan to 115 Corps of Engineers offices, Government agencies, and users in 40 States and seven foreign countries. The daily number of items on loan was more than 17,000 in 1966, compared to 7,000 in 1962. Reference and bibliographic requests currently average 850 per mouth. Publication distribution. — Approximately 25 new reports are distributed each month, totaling 71,000 volumes annually, to govermental agencies, colleges, universities, and foreign research organizations. In addition to publication avail- ability lists furnished for technical engineering interest, about 4,500 separate written requests for publication information are processed annually. Annual summary. — The more than 350 research projects and special investiga- tions in progress throughout the corps in support of civil design functions are summarized, assembled, published, and distributed to the 71 corps offices and to other governmental agencies and technical organizations. Other services. — Special brochures, bibliographies, and summaries are prepared in response to special nonreimbursable assignments. D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — Activities conducted in fiscal year 1968 will be continued in fiscal year 1969. Total operating costs for the research center are estimated to be: Activity Engineering information Translations Library. Publication distribution Annual summary Other services... Total 279,000 Fiscal year 1968 Fiscal year 1969 $25,000 $27,000 23, 000 24,000 180, 000 185,000 42,000 43,000 5, 000 5,000 4,000 4,000 288, 000 Military research activities will support 48 percent of the estimated fiscal year 1969 costs; the balance of $150,000 is requested under this item. E. Justification for increase. — Annual increases in the volume of the services have ranged from 5 to 25 percent over the past 3 years. A 3.4-percent increase in this item is requested to permit continuance of these services ($5,000 increase). 2. COORDINATION OF LABORATORY RESEARCH A. Objectives. — To assure the corps field laboratories utilize the most advanced techniques in conducting their research and investigational activities, and to coordinate the research programs and the conduct of laboratory work between Federal agencies engaged in water resources development. B. Discussion. — The Waterways Experiment Station is responsible for: prepar- ing its proposed civil research programs in the fields of concrete, soil mechanics, hydraulics, and geologj^; reviewing research proposals in these technical areas prepared by corps field offices; supervising the laboratory practices and techniques followed by other corps laboratories; and participating in research coordination activities with the Bureau of Reclamation and TVA. C. Annual accomplishments. — (a) Reviews plans for proposed research and design investigations at other corps laboratories, inspects laboratory activities, and re- views final reports. (6) Conducts or participates in periodic conferences on hydraulic laboratory instrumentation and soil mechanics. Maintains contacts with university labora- tories as well as those of other agencies. (c) Conducts or participates in periodic conferences on coordination of research activities in hj^draulics, soils, concrete, and power being carried on by the Bureau of Reclamation, TVA, and the corps. D. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969. — (a) Continue reviews of research and other investigational activities, through correspondence, and at least two inspec- tions of each field laboratory. (6) Participate in interagency meeting on hydraulic laboratory techniques and instrumentation. (c) Participate in meetings of the corps advisory board on soil mechanics. {d) Participate in working level conferences at TVA and Bureau of Reclamation laboratories to achieve the research activity coordination identified as necessary during the biennial interagency research meeting. There will be a $3,000 decrease in this item. 91-459 — 68— pt. 1- -90 1424 3. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Fiscal year 1968 Fiscal year 1969 (d) Mississippi Basin model: . „ (1) Maintenance. - - $160,000 $160,000 (2) Mississippi River comprehensive study --- - 200,000 175,000 Statement of objective The primary objectives of the model are to assist in improving the operation of the reservoir system in the INIississippi River Basin, in determining the benefits that can be expected from optimum operation of the reservoir system, and in verifying the project flood for the lower Mississippi River. Other uses are in the design of specific flood control works and the demonstration of their effectiveness and flood fighting operations. Discussion Coordination of the operation of the great interrelated system of flood control works within the vast area of the Mississippi Basin is becoming more complex each year as the completion of the individual projects expands the overall system. Within this area there are existing, authorized or proposed, approximately 200 reservoirs, several thousand miles of levees, and many other flood control struc- tures. Those completed and under construction to date represent an investment of more than $5.4 billion. In addition, projects exceeding $3.2 billion have been authorized. The design and operation of this vast and intricate system must be closely coordinated and controlled on an overall basis if maximum local and basin- wide benefits are to be realized. Flood routing on simple streams can be accomplished satisfactorily by ana- lytical methods, but the problem becomes quite complicated when applied to a river system of the size and complexity of the Mississippi River Basin. The Mississippi Basin model offers a means of integrating rapidly and automatically the results of any probable sequences and combinations of floods from the Missis- sippi and its tributaries, and will assist in obtaining reliable answers to many problems not readily susceptible of solutions by analytical procedures. Because of the ease with which variables can be introduced in the model, once a basic setup has been made, a large number of conditions can be tested in a relatively short time. Effects at all points throughout the whole lengths of the river valleys and vast flood plains can be easily seen as well as directly measured, whereas effects can be obtained only at key points by computational procedures. Thus, the use of the model permits all phases of a problem to be explored in detail and produces a more extensive and authentic solution or answer. Acco7nplishments to date In fiscal year 1959, a start on the overall objectives of the model was initiated on the completed portion of the model above Memphis, Tenn. In fiscal year 1967, the portion of the model below Memphis was completed and these tests were extended to include the entire model. The model studies for improvement of basinwide reservoir regulation involve evaluation of 10 test conditions of reservoir systems and methods of regulation for four floods of record and three hypothetical floods. Basic tests are scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1969 with some further analyses required. The schedule was based on greater effort than has been possible and some slippage has occurred. However, elimination of some of the tests on a basis of preliminary results may be possible. Model runs for the basin above Memphis, Tenn., for all floods for eight of the test conditions were completed by the end of fiscal year 1966. Model nms for the basin below Memphis, Tenn., for all floods for three of the test conditions were completed in fiscal year 1967. Tests scheduled for 1968 are all below Memphis, Tenn., and include three conditions for the four floods of record and two condi- tions for the tliree hypothetical floods. Use of the model for design studies by district offices has continued. Tests of effects of highway fills on water levels for several highway crossings of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers were conducted and demonstrations provided for the benefit of State highway departments, engineer consultants, and public officials. Proposed operations in fiscal year 1969 (1) Maintenance: An amount of $160,000 will be needed for maintenance which includes, in addition to regular maintenance, minor rehabilitation of the model, and operation of the public access facilities. The amount requested is the same as that provided in fiscal year 1968. 1425 (2) Mississippi River comprehensive study: An amount of $175,000 is requested for fiscal year 1969 for continuation of the studies. Tests scheduled are both above and below IMemphis, Tenn., and will consist of one condition for the three hypothetical floods and two conditions for the seven test floods where results indicate the possibility of better overall reservoir regulation. The $175,000 is $45,000 less than the 1968 amount for the comprehensive studies. (e) Nuclear explosives studies for civil construction: Fiscal year 1968 $2 495 000 Requested fiscal year 1969 2'265'oOO The amount of $2,265,000 is requested for fiscal year 1969 to continue, pur- suant to Presidential directive, in a joint program with the Atomic Energy Commission to determine the techniques, costs, and other factors involved in the use of nuclear explosives for construction. Under the agreement for a joint research program, the AEC is primarily responsible and is budgeting for nuclear device development, execution of nuclear cratering experiments and development of basic scaling relationships. The corps is primarily responsible for and is budget- ing for execution of a corollary chemical high explosive cratering program and development of the requisite data on engineering and construction problems associated with nuclear excavation. The AEC is carrying out its portion of the research under its plowshare program to develop industrial and scientific uses of nuclear explosives. The AEC is planning and budgeting for a series of nuclear cratering experiments. The chemical high explosive cratering experiments that the corps is planning and budgeting for are required: to develop the cratering characteristics in the type of media which will be encountered on actual projects; to investigate the engineering properties of explosively prodaced craters in these media; and to develop engineering and construction techniques associated with large-scale projects using explosives. The ultimate objective is to develop a capability to employ nuclear explosives as a construction tool on public works projects. Funds for fiscal year 1969 are needed in the amount shown for the following activities: (1) Engineering studies of project feasibility: Amount Full-scale project feasibility studies $25, 000 Study of new techniques and concepts of nuclear excavation 25^ 000 Special studies with other countries 10, 000 Subtotal 60, 000 (2) Cratering experiments: Laboratory-scale crater modeling investigations 60, 000 Hard rock high explosive quarrying experiments in varying ter- rain 950, 000 Wet, clay shale medium explosive connecting row-charge post- shot investigations 215 000 Subtotal 1, 225, 000 (3) Investigations of engineering properties of nuclear craters: Theoretical studies 130 000 Field investigations of nuclear craters 450* 000 Investigation of dynamic loading on cratered slopes 100| 000 Subtotal 680, 000 (4) Management of theoretical and laboratory research and field ex- ploration 300, 000 Total 2, 265, 000 Engineering studies of project feasibility, item (1), are needed in fiscal year 1969 to study new applications of nuclear excavation to include techniques for development of underground storage facilities and to study the feasibility of executing specific full-scale civil works projects using nuclear methods of con- struction. During fiscal year 1969, the cooperative study effort with other coun- tries pertaining to nuclear excavation applications will continue in coordination with the AEC. 1426 Cratering experiments, item (2), will inchide four activities in fiscal year 19G9: (1) Laboratory-scale cratering modeling studias will be continued to: (a) in- vestigate cratering mechanism phenomenology; (6) develop geometric relation- ships; and (c) model larger experiments. (2) A series of single-charge high explosive detonations will be conducted in a hard rock medium under varying terrain configurations to develop emplacement criteria and block-size distribution data pertaining to use of large, point-charge detonations in quarrying applications to provide rock aggregate for civil works projects. These shots will also serve as a calibration for a fiscal year 1970 joint AEC/CE nuclear rock quarrying experiment at the same site. (3) Postshot investigations of the connecting row-charge high explosive ex- periment executed in fiscal year 1968 in a wet clay shale medium will be under- taken. Investigation of engineering properties of nuclear craters, item (3), consists of theoretical and field studies to determine the physical characteristics of the crater zones produced by a nuclear explosion and to analyze the stability of crater slopes and related aspects which determine the usefulness of the crater excavation for engineering purposes. The field investigations during fiscal year 1969 will consist of preshot and postshot exploration of nuclear craters produced as a part of the Atomic Energy Commission's program. The scope of this effort includes geologic, geophysical and topographic data collection together with laboratory testing and analysis of samples to define material properties prior to and following the detonation. The theoretical studies in fiscal year 1969 will in- volve analyses of crater stability based upon developed analytical methods and characteristics of crater zones as determined from field and laboratory investiga- tions. The investigation of the effects of dynamic loading on explosively produced crater slopes will be directed in fiscal year 1969 toward development of analytical techniques to predict the response of crater slopes to dynamic loadings based on input from the field investigations initiated in fiscal year 1968. Management of the theoretical and laboratory research and field experimen- tation, item (4), is done by a Corps of Engineers technical group in close co- ordination with the Atomic Energy Commission's Plowshare Group. The program is being conducted by existing Government research agencies and by contract with qualified firms and educational institutions. (/) International hydrological decade (IHD) : Fiscal year 1968 $85, 000 Fiscal year 1969 490, 000 (2) Statement of IHD objectives: U.S. participation in the IHD program provides for a program of domestic activities related to water problems common to the United States, its neighboring countries, and to the world at large. The 10-year (1965-74) international program seeks to coordinate the activities of nearly 100 countries that are making accelerated effort during this decade to: Advance scientific knowledge about water; improve dissemination of knowledge so that each country can more effectively benefit from other countries studies and enhance its ability to cope with water problems; improve and expand educa- tion and training in hydrology to meet growing demands for water in the United States and the world. The IHD program is a coordinated, cooperative and international activity with international benefits accruing from the increase in activities in hydrology in individual countries. For example, benefits from the program of the Interna- tional Field Year on the Great Lakes (IFYGL) will extend well beyond the boundaries of the particular lake to be studied and will be useful not only for all the (Jireat Lakes but also for many large lakes of the world. Major benefits will also accrue from use of the lake as a model ocean in the study of air-water interface problems of global importance to oceanographers and meteorologists. Fundamental studies of humidity, and exchange of heat and energy will be of vital assistance to such worldwide i)rograms as the global atmospheric research program and the world weather watch. (3) Discussion of IHD Program: The U.S. National Committee for IHD established in the National Academy of Sciences, has formulated a U.S. program for fiscal year 1969 consisting of five major items. This total program is to be funded through "lead agencies" of the Federal Government for selected parts of the program. The lead agencies would cooperate with the U.S. National Com- mittee in meeting the objectives of the program, provide technical leadership and coordination with cooperating agencies, and budget and manage the funds. The Committee on Water Resources Research of the Federal Council for Science and 1427 Technology bus reviewed the proposals of the U.S. National Committee and concurs in the suggested arrangements. The Director of the President's Office of ^science and Teclniology also concurs with the proposals. The Corps of Engineers has been designated lead agency for the item "River, Lake and Ground Water Basin Studies," having a total fund requirement in fiscal year 1969 of $400,000. The initial effort under this item will be limited to the i)roject, "International Field Year on the Great Lakes (IFYGL)." It is under- stood the U.S. National Committee for IHD may add other projects in future years. The 1969 funds for this project will be used for transfer or reimbursement to other Federal agencies and for work to be accomplished by the Corps of Engi- neers in connection with the IFYGL. The Federal agencies involved will contract with universities and private institutions for special services to the maximum extent feasible, in carrying out their IHD responsibilities. Thus the Corps of Engineers will be acting for other Federal agencies and the professional hydrologic community in the United States in assuming the lead in coordinating activities related to the program of, "River, Lake and Groimd Water Basin Studies." The proposed program consists of new work, expansion of some ongoing activi- ties, and acceleration of some long-term projects to insure completion of specific work items in time to be useful in the IHD program. The program for which funds are requested has been screened by the U.S. National Committee of IHD to avoid duplication and the projects are limited to those that: are required to fulfill the U.S. portion of specific cooperative studies approved by the UNESCO Coordinat- ing Council for IHD; are necessary to participate in cooperative studies with neighboring countries; and are recommended by the Coordinating Council for International investigation as projects which normally would not be funded through conventional programs of the agencies concerned. In addition to the five major items to be undertaken by the lead agencies, several agencies conduct hydrologic investigations that have been approved by the U.S. 'National Committee for the IHD as a part of the IHD program. For several years the Corps of Engineers has operated two relatively small projects as part of this agencie's contribution to the IHD. In fiscal year 1969 the Corps effort will be expanded to include the new project IFYGL in accordance with arrangements discussed above. Each of these Corps projects are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. (4) International Field Year on the Great Lakes (IFYGL). Statement of IFYGL Objectives: A joint Canadian-U.S. program for coordi- nating investigations of the hydrologic regime of Lake Ontario. The study will estabhsh a practicable scientific framework of hydrologic information on move- ment and transfer of moisture and heat across the lake, a surface and ground water budget, and lake circulation and diffusion patterns. These data will benefit problem-oriented investigations of management of lake-level fluctuation and pollution dissipation, maintenance of lakes as sources of water supply, improved management of navigation, fisheries and recreation, and improved prediction of snowfall. The fiscal year 1969 program is for feasibility studies and for development of investigations, instrumentation and methods; fiscal year 1970 program will be for instrument procurement, adaptation and testing; the operational field year program will cover the period April 1, 1970, through September 30, 1971; fiscal year 1971 will involve the operational program; fiscal year 1972 activities will complete the field year and testing of results; fiscal years 1973-74 will consist of analysis and preparation of final reports. Although detailed plans for the LT.S. program for the IFYGL have not been finally established, it is expected that portions of funds budgeted under this item will be made available to the following Federal agencies which are expected to actively participate in the program: ESS A — Weather Bureau; U.S. Geological Survey; Federal Water Pollution Control Administration; U.S. Bureau of Com- mercial Fisheries; and the U.S. Lake Survey of the Corps of Engineers. U.S. universities and private institutions probably will also participate in the IFYGL program through contractual arrangements with Federal agencies. IFYGL accomplishments to date: The IFYGL program was initially proposed by the Canadian National Committee of IHD in fiscal year 1967. An International Steering Committee for the program was established in fiscal year 1967, consisting of four United States and four Canadian representatives, to formulate a program of studies to be undertaken jointly by the two countries. Inasmuch as funds have not been available for U.S. participation in this program, the U.S. accomplishments to date have been limited to preparation of preliminary general plans for conduct of the studies. 1428 The Canadian Government currently is proceeding with its portion of the joint program and is actively collecting data on its side of Lake Ontario. This effort is part of their greatly expanded program of Canadian research on the Great Lakes which includes a $17 million National Research Center and a $2 million research vessel currently under construction. Technical studies involving such meteorological and hydrological parameters as energy exchange and heat budget must be studied concurrently as a complete unit within the entire Lake Ontario environment. This requires that the Canadian and U.S. field year programs be carried forward simultaneously. Proposed IFYGL operations in fiscal year 1969: Based on proposals developed by the U.S. contingent of the International Steering Committee for IFYGL, the U.S. program for fiscal year 1969 will require funds in the amount of $400,000 and will be comprised of the following studies and amounts. „. , Fiscal year Study title ^969 Budget 1. The meteorological effects of a large deep lake $100, 000 2. Circulation and diffusion model for a large lake 100, 000 3. Solar radiation in the study of energy exchange on large bodies of water 40,000 4. Heat storage in a lake and determination of feasibility for im- provement of measurement methods 25, 000 5. Energy transfer across the air-water interface 20, 000 6. Effect of lake ice and snow on the heat budget of a large body of water 30,000 7. Surface water-ground water flux 20, 000 8. Improvement of measurement of flow between the Great Lakes. _ 30, 000 9. Development of base maps, charts, and geologic maps 10, 000 10. Compilation and interpretation of subsurface data 25, 000 Total 400,000 (5) HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING METHODS FOR DEVELOPING PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA — IHD Statement of objective. — Efficient planning and engineering design of projects for utilization of water resources calls for application of the most advanced tech- niques afforded by professional experience and scientific analyses. Basic data needed to support hydrologic engineering analyses are of a diverse nature, and are seldom, if ever, fuUy adequate to meet desirable standards. Problems associ- ated with adequacies of hydrometeorological and hydrological data are particularly severe in the less-developed countries. Although the inadequacies of basic data can never be overcome by analytical procedures alone, methods have been developed whereby knowledge gained from studies of areas supported by relatively detailed basic data can be transferred by analogy and scientific reasoning to geographical regions where meteorological and hydrological measurements are minimal. The principal objectives of the project is the preparation and publication of a report systematically outlining hydrologic techniques and methods for developing criteria which can be used in the hydrologic design of water resources projects. This report will contain guidelines necessary to assist hydrologic engineers in conducting systematic studies leading to the development of specific hydrologic- hydraulic criteria for project design. The report will review pertinent concepts and present suggested methods and procedures suitable for practical application in hydrologic engineering analysis. Discussion. — This project is being conducted by the Corps of Engineers as a contribution to the U.S. program of the IHD. The project was initiated in fiscal year 1966 following approval by the U.S. National Committee for IHD as a part of the U.S. program. The results of the project will be made available to the U.S. Committee for appropriate action by that group as partial fulfillment of commit- ments to the UNESCO Coordinating Council for IHD. Copies of reports issued under this project will also be distrihutod to corps offices for information and for appropriate use in determining hydrologic design cniteriii for authorized projects. Accomplishment'^ to date. — A pilot study has been developed to determine the feasibility of relating monthly streamflow data for areas of sparse records in the United States to similar areas in Guatemala. Work has been initiated on math- ematical models by which essential measures of streamflow, rainfall, and other pertinent data are related to geographical location and other elements. 1429 Consideration has been given to the nature and scope of the overall report to be prepared on this project. An outline has been developed concerning the technical aspects of the various elements to be included in the project report. Preliminary arrangements have been completed for obtaining outside professional assistance "in connection with preparation of part of the technical material for inclusion in the report. This assistance would be secured by means of a contract. Proposed operations for fiscal tjear 1969. — The major portion of the detailed technical studies and analyses and a draft of an interim report on the investiga- tion are scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1969. The interim report will describe the needs for hydrologic engineering principles in developing design criteria, will present selected references to appropriate literature, will present methods and procedures, will discuss principles and techniques, and will show illustrative examples for applying the principles to specific problems. A final report will be prepared at a later date which will expand the scope of the interim report and discuss more advanced techniques for determining hydro- logic criteria. Other reports on various components of the investigation will be prepared as appropriate. Funds in the amount of $60,000 will be required to continue the project at the same level as in 1968. (6) DEVELOPMENT OF SOIL-MOISTURE RELATIONSHIPS IHD Statement of objective. — It is generally accepted that the soil moisture condition of the upper soil layer is the primary factor controlling the amount of runoff from a given rainfall. The phenomenon is readily demonstrated and understood at a point but the success of practical application depends on the ability to inte- grate the effects of a wide range of soils and soil moisture conditions over a drainage basin. Analysis of these relationships for other than small plots is generally accomplished by study of rainfall and runoff records and establishment of empirical relationships utilizing computed values of soil moisture without evaluation of actual field conditions. For use of such procedures on basins with little or no observed runoff data, it would be highly desirable to be able to reverse the procedure, that is, evaluate the soil complex of a drainage basin and arrive at the relationship that would permit computation of runoff from rainfall data. Discussion. — This project is being conducted as a Corps of Engineers contri- bution to the U.S. program of the IHD. The project was assigned to a corps oflBce for conduct of the investigation following approval by the U.S. National Committee for the IHD as part of the the U.S. program. The results will be made available to the U.S. Committee for appropriate use as partial fulfillment of commitments to the UNESCO Coordinating Council for the IHD. Copies of reports issued under this project will also be distributed to corps offices for use in hydrologic engineering studies. Accomplishments to date. — Preliminary work has been initiated on preparation of a guidance memorandum setting forth background information concerning rainfall-runoff relationships, the research objectives, and the method of approach to the problem. Preliminary work has also been accomplished on the formulation of basic concepts for utilizing electronic computers in the project studies. Litera- ture research is underway and pUot studies are being accomplished. It is anticipated that a contract will be let in January 1968 for outside pro- fessional assistance in connection with accomplishment of this project. This contract will call for a highly qualified expert to conduct field tests and develop numerical relationships for the rainfall-runoff process with the objective of deriving procedures for synthesizing the basic parameters from field measurements of soil moisture characteristics of a drainage basin. Proposed operations for fiscal year 1969. — It is anticipated that a draft report and a final report on this project will be completed as the project is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 1969. The report to be prepared by the consultant wUl be made a part of the accomplishments of this project. Copies of the project reports will be made available to the U.S. National Committee for IHD and will also be distributed to corps offices for appropriate use. Funds in the amount of $30,000 are required to continue the studies at the rate necessary to complete the project by the end of fiscal year 1969. (7) JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASE Essentially all of the increase requested for fiscal year 1969 under this item, is due to the new project, "International Field Year on the Great Lakes (IFYGL)," ($400,000) the responsibility for which has been assumed by the Corps of Engi- neers upon the recommendation of the President's Office of Science and Technology. 1430 As previously stated the corps has been designated as "lead agency" for this proj- ect and in doing so will act for other Federal agencies, universities and the pro- fessional hydrologic community in coordinating activities relative to this part of the IHD program. The remaining portion of the corps IHD effort for fiscal year 1969, totalling $90,000, will result in a $5,000 increase over funds appropriated for this continuing program in fiscal year 1969. This increase is needed to fund concentrated effort on the soil-moisture project (par. 6, above) and to publish the final results in order that the project can be completed in fiscal year 1969. FLOOD PLAIX MAXAGEMEXT Mr. BoLAND. On page 13, $6 million is budgeted to continue the flood plain management services, an increase of $1 million. Please outline the current activity under this program. !Mr. Feil. The current activity under this program consists of fur- nishing flood plain information reports to local communities so as to help them evaluate their flood hazards, and furnishing informa- tion to other Federal agencies, local communities, and State agencies on how they can floodproof buildings and how they can better plan for the wise use of the flood plains. need for increase 'Sir. BoLAND. Why is the increase of $1 million essential in fiscal year 1969? Mr. Feil. We have completed a survey of the communities of over 2.500 population, and have determined that there are almost 5,000 of those communities which have flood problems. We are now work- ing on the basis of about 120 flood plain information reports a year. The increase will let us complete about 20 more of these reports and service the greater number of requests for assistance in using the data in flood plain planning. COASTAL engineering RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Mr. BoLAND. On page 18, $3,080,000 is budgeted for coastal engi- neering research and development studies, an increase of $645,000. Why is this increase essential in 1969 ? Mr. Johnson. This increase is needed primarily to allow for near completion of the construction of a badly needed research pier on the coast to allow detailed observation of wave action and sand move- ment in the surf zone. Also to make a detailed study and evaluation of beach groins for different designs of shore protection and to gen- erally expand our wave data gathering program. I might mention that this amount, the $3 million that you referred to, is a part of the national oceanographic program of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. The corps portion of this program is approximately 1 percent of the total national ocoanogi-aphic program. Mr. BoLAND. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) REQUEST FOR PROGRAIM ON NEW METHODS AND EQUIPMENT FOR IMPROAT^MENT OF DRFJ)GING WATERWAYS Mr. BoLAND. The dredging industry has requested that the commit- tee make funds available to initiate a new research and development 1431 program on new nietliods and equipment for improvement of the dredging of the waterways. Would you care to comment on the desira- bility of such a program and what it would involve ? Mr. GuRNEE. The dredging industry has discussed with us on occasion the need and desirability for research in the dredging field and have indicated a desire to participate at least in the formulation of such a program with us. Of course, both they, as the performer of half of the dredging work in the country, would benefit from this research work, as well as the corps. Over the past several years, they have suggested that this program might continue under the guidance of a committee on which the industry would like to be represented. As I said, we have had discussion on this, but so far nothing has been included in the budget for it. STUDY TO DE\^ELOP CRITERIA FOR PLAXNIKG DEEP DRAFT HARBORS Mr. BoLAND. On page 98, $100,000 is budgeted to undertake a study to develop criteria for use in planning deep draft harbors for super- tankers and other deep draft vessels. Please outline what is planned under this study. Mr. Feil. This is brought about by the increasing drafts of our tankers and also of our bulk commodities. The study plans to explore the evaluation and methods of evaluating alternative means of meeting for the future the transport needs. As an example, we would do this by examining a major commodity type of shipment; one of the earliest which we would examine would be the petroleum industry, and its rela- tionship to the harbor and the interrelationships of the distribution system, markets, and use of the products. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTERS Mr. BoLAND. As outlined on page 101, $140,000 is requested to initiate the establishment of five scientific and technical information centers. The full year costs of these centers after 1969 is estimated at $451,000. What facilities do you now have in this regard and what is planned with the new request for 1969 ? Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, at present we have at the water- ways experiment station and at our other research facilities libraries which accumulate, file, and store information of a technical nature. However, the new facility will provide for a few experts in each of the fields that we are dealing with who will serve to review, abstract, and evaluate the great amount of technical information that is avail- able so that each of our offices in the Corps of Engineers and in other Federal agencies, as well, can go to these centers and get the informa- tion on a given subject which is considered to be pertinent and valuable. Mr. BoLAND. Is that basically why these centers would differ from the waterways experiment station ? Mr. Johnson. Sir, three of these centers would be located at the waterways experiment station in the field of concrete, soil mechanics, and hydraulics. The coastal center here in Washington would have a center on coastal engineering. The Lake Survey District of the corps would have a center located on the Great Lakes that will be concerned with data pertaining to the lakes. 1432 NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES STUDY Mr. BoLAND. On page 110, $2,265,000 is budgeted to continue the nuclear explosives studies for civil construction. ^Y\\sxt is the status of this program and what is planned for fiscal year 1969 ? Colonel Nelson. In cooperation with the U.S. Atomic Energy Com- mission, the Corps of Engineers is developing the necessary data, techniques, and design knowledge to employ nuclear explosives as a construction tool. The Corps of Engineers efforts may be divided into three major areas. The first is engineering studies of project feasibility in which we examine specific projects to identify problems associated with nuclear construction. The second area is the conducting of crater- ing experiments to develop engineering data for the design of actual projects. The third area is investigation of the engineering properties of nuclear craters. All efforts are geared closely to the AEC Plow- share program and give priority to developing data that will be use- ful to the current studies of the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission. Major current effort is the preparatory work for fiscal year 1969 high explosive experiments up to the 20-tone level. One of these series of experiments will involve creation of craters with shallow slopes, designed to overcome slope stability problems in weak material. Another will involve connecting two explosively created crater rows. These experiments will take place at Fort Peck, Mont., in weak wet shale, material similar to the worst we would expect to find in con- structing a canal across Central America. Another large cratering experiment will take place in hard rock in southern Idaho on the site of a proposed nuclear quarry designed to support a prospective civil works dam project. These projects just mentioned involve the major current expen- ditures of the program, but ongoing feasibility studies, laboratory scale experiments, and engineering analysis are equally impoi*tant. At this time these areas emphasize nuclear slope stability investiga- tions and analysis of recent nuclear experiments. Cabriolet and Buggy. estimate for hard rock, high explosive quarrying experiments Mr. BoLAND. You indicated that $950,000 is for hard rock, high ex- plosive, quarrying experiments. What is the basis for the estimate of $950,000? Colonel Nelson. The basis there, sir, is to conduct experiments themselves. These involve four 20-ton high explosive point charges which will be detonated on varying terrain. These experiments will be accomplislied on the site of a proposed nuclear quarry. We feel the quarrying is one of the applications where we can use nuclear excava- tion to great advantage. It is one of the simpler applications so it is the first one we are tackling. General Noble. This is part of the joint Corps of Engineers- Atomic Energy Commission Plowshare development work. It is tied in to the Atomic Energy Commission who has a representative here today. 1433 Mr. BoLAND. In fiscal year 1968 you were provided $2,495,000 for this program. Please i)rovide for the record a breakdown of this planned expenditure. Colonel Nelson. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) The Corps of Engineers efforts in developing the use of nuclear explosives as a construction tool may be divided into three major areas. The first is engineer- ing studies of project feasibility in which v^e examine specific projects to iden- tify problems associated with nuclear construction. The second area is the conducting of cratering experiments to develop engineering data for the design of actual projects. The third area is investigation of the engineering properties of nuclear craters. All efforts are geared closely to the AEC Plowshare program and give priority to developing data that will be useful to the current studies of the Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanie Canal Study Commission. The expendi- tures in these areas in fiscal year 1968 are expected to be the same as budgeted for. That is, engineering studies of project feasibility, $105,000; small-scale <:ratering experiments, $1,680,000; investigation of engineering properties of nuclear craters, $420,000. The cost of managing this program in fiscal year 1968 is $290,000. INTERNATIOlSrAL HYDROLOGICAL DECADE PROGRAM Mr. BoLAND. On page 114, $490,000, an increase of $405,000, is budgeted for participation in the International Hydrological Decade program. Wliat is the status of this program, and specifically what is planned in fiscal year 1969 ? Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, the Office of Science and Technology, acting upon recommendations of the U.S. National Committee for the International Hydrologic Decade has asked four Federal agencies to assmne the leading agency responsibility for five major components of the U.S. International Hydrologic Decade program, beginning in fiscal year 1969. The part which the corps has been asked to act as lead agency is that in river, lake, and ground water systems and more specifically an International Field Year on the Great Lakes for which we are ask- ing $400,000. That amount would be used by the corps and other agen- cies such as the Weather Bureau, the Geological Survey and the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Agency to initiate studies in collabora- tion with Canada on Lake Ontario. TOTAL COST FOR ALL U.S. AGENCIES Mr. BoLAND. Wliat will be the total cost in 1969 for the various U.S. •agencies involved in the international program ? Mr. Johnson. The total cost for the five major components I men- tioned will be $1,850,000, of which the corps amount is $400,000. 1 might add, Mr. Chairman, it is my miderstanding that only the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey will actually specifically budget separately for these items and that the other agencies, which include AID and the National Science Foundation, will handle it out of their regular fundmg processes. In addition the corps has included $90,000 to continue the studies already underway on the IHD proirram. The U.S. Geological Survey also has a similar amount of $168,000. 1434 BREAKKDOWN OF FISCAL TEAR 1969 ESTIMATE Mr. BoLAND. Will you break down for the record how the $1,850,000 you just indicated would be spent? Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) The breakdown is as follows : Item Agency Fiscal year 1969 amount Supporting services -._ National Science Foundation $250,000 River, lake, and ground water system studies Corps of Engineers 400.000 Global water balance U.S. Geological Survey 200,000 Education and training AID 600,000 Hydrological processes and techniques National Science Foundation - 400,000 Total --. 1,850,000 URGENCY OF INTERNATIONAL FIELD TEAR ON THE GREAT LAKES PROGRAM Mr. BoLAND. How urgent is it that the International Field Year on the Great Lakes at a cost of $400,000 be initiated in fiscal year 1969 ? Mr. Johnson. We feel, sir, that it is quite important. The Great Lakes are becoming more and more of a problem each year. Canada has already begun its phase of the program and has established a national center for inland waterways on Lake Ontario to carry out this prorgam and plan to spend several million dollars in the prosecu- tion of the program. OTHER NATIONS PARTICIPATING IN PROGRAM Mr. BoLAND. What other nations besides Canada are participating in the international program ? ]\Ir. Johnson. There are a total of 99 countries participating. TOTAL CORPS COST FOR 10-YEAR PERIOD Mr. BoLAND. What is the present estimated cost of the corps par- ticipation in the international program over the 10-year period 1965-74? Mr. Johnson. The total cost of the corps part of river, lake, and ground water systems studies program is approximately $10,600,000, of which $7,800,000 is for the Great Lakes portion. In addition to the $10,600,000 amount there Avould be $78,000 for the remaining hydro- logic studies. LIST OF NATIONS CONTRIBUTING TO PROGRAM Mr. BoLAND. Can you supply for the record the names of the other 99 nations that are contributing to this program ? Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. 1435 (The information follows :) The Intbsnational Htdrological Decade Xinety-nine countries participating formally are : Albania Greece Paraguay Algeria Guatemala Peru Argentina Guyana Philippines Australia Hungary Poland Belgium Iceland Portugal Bolivia India Rumania Brazil Indonesia Saudi Arabia Bulgaria Iran Senegal Burma Iraq Sierra Leone Byelorussian Soviet Ireland Spain Socialist Republic Israel Sudan Cambodia Italy Sweden Cameroon Jamaica Switzerland Canada Japan Syrian Arab Republic Ceylon Jordan Tanzania Cbad Kenya Thailand ChUe Korea Togo China (Republic of) Kuwait Trinidad and Tobago Colombia Lebanon Txmisia Congo (Brazzaville) Madagascar Turkey Congo (Leopoldville) Malaya Uganda Costa Rica MaU Ukrainian SSR Cuba Malta Union of Soviet Social Cyprus Mauritania Republics Czechoslovakia Mexico United Arab Republic Dahomey Mongolia United Kingdom Denmark Morocco United States Ecuador Nepal Uruguay El Salvador Netherlands Venezuela Finland New Zealand Yugoslavia France Nicaragua Upper Volta Gabon Niger British Eastern Federal Republic of Nigeria Caribbean Group Germany Norway Ghana Pakistan Construction, General LUMP-SUM APPR0PRLA.TI0NS Mr. BoLAND. We will insert the justifications covering the special lump-sum items under the "Construction, general" appropriation. CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL 2. Navigation projects: (a) Channels and harbors: Corps of (II) Projects not specifically authorized bv Congress Engineers casting up to $500,000 (section 197) $2, 000, 000 3. Beach erosion control projects: (6) Projects not specifically authorized by Congress up to $500,000 (section 103) 4. Flood control projects: (a) Local protection: (II) Projects not specifically authorized by Congress (section 205) 7, 000, 000 (III) Emergency bank protection 300, 000 (IV) Snagging and clearing for flood control 250, 000 6. Recreational facilities on completed projects 9, 000, 000 1436 Corps of Engineers 7. Fish and WUdlife Coordination Act studies (U.S.F. & W.S.) $580, 000 9. Aquatic plant control 900, 000 10. Employees compensation 656, 000 2. NAVIGATION PROJECTS (a) Channels and harbors II. Navigation ])rojects not requiring specific legislation (sec. 107 projects) : Section 107 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960 as amended authorizes an allotment not to exceed $10 million annually for construction of navigation projects where such construction has not already been specifically authorized by Congress. Projects under this authority are formulated to provide the same complete naviga- tion project that would be provided under regular authorization procedures. Each project selected must be economically justified and be complete within itself. Federal participation in the initial cost of the project cannot exceed $500,000 per project. Projects adopted and constructed under section 107 are considered authorized projects and are maintained by the Corps of Engineers at Federal cost under the same procedures and policies as apply to regularly authorized projects. Funds appropriated for the section 107 program are used to finance the investigations necessary to develop these projects and demonstrate their justifica- tion as well as finance actual construction of approved projects. Maintenance of completed projects is financed under the Corps of Engineers regular O. & M. program. Funds in the amount of $2 million are requested in fiscal year 1969 to continue the section 107 program of development and construction of navigation projcets at location throughout the Nation. 4. FLOOD CONTEOL PROJECTS (a) Local protection II. Flood control projects not requiring specific legislation (sec. 205 projects) : Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 as amended authorizes an allotment of not more than $25 million annually for construction of projects for flood control and related purposes at locations where such construction has not already- been specifically authorized by Congress. Each project selected must be economi- cally justified and complete within itself. Federal cost participation cannot exceed $1 million per project. Projects under this authority are formulated to provide the same complete project and same degree of protection provided under regular authorization procedures. Local interests must provide all local cooperation normally required for regularly authorized projects plus bear all costs in excess of the $1 million Federal limitation, if needed. Funds under the section 205 pro- gram are used to finance the investigations necessary to develop these projects and demonstrate their justification as well as finance actual Federal construction of approved projects. Funds in the amovmt of $7 million are requested in fiscal year 1969 to continue the section 205 program of development and construction of flood control projects at locations throughout the Nation. III. Emergency bank protection of highways, bridge approaches, and public works: Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 authorizes an allotment not to exceed $1 million annually for the construction of emergency bank protection works to prevent flood damages to highways, highway bridge approaches, and essential public works, when in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such work is advisable. Federal participation under this authority is limited to a cost of not more than $50,000 at any single locality. Work under this authority prevents flood damage to highway bridges and other essential highway facilities represent- ing significant investments of Federal, State, and local funds, and permits the maintenance of adequate transportation facilities serving tlie needs of commerce and agricultural production. In other cases, the work performed protects essential public works, such as municipal water supply systems and sewage disposal plants. Funds in the amount of $300,000 are requested in fiscal year 1969 to continue the program of emergency bank protection construction to i)revent flood damages to highways, bridge approaches, and essential public works at locations throughout the Nation. IV. Snagging and clearing for flood control: Section 2 of the Flood Control Act of 1937, as amended by section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, authorizes an allotment not to exceed $2 million annually for removing accumulated snags and 1437 other debris, and clearing and straightening of the channels in navigable streams and tributaries thereof, when in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers such work is advisable in the interest of flood control. Federal cost participation under this authority is limited to a cost of not more than $100,000 for any single tributary. Each project selected must be economically justified and local interest are required to furnish local cooperation similar to that required for regularly authorized local flood protection projects. Funds in the amount of $250,000 are requested in fiscal year 1969 to continue the program of channel clearing in the interest of flood control at locations through- out the United States. 6. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT COMPLETED PROJECTS The Chief of Engineers is authorized by section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, and amendments thereto, to construct, maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities at water resource development projects under the control of the Department of the Army, and to permit the construction, operation, and maintenance of such facilities by others. It is further provided therein that the water areas of all such projects shall be open to public use generally for recreational purposes, and that ready access to and exit from such water areas along the shores shall be maintained for general public use. Public-use facilities constructed by the Corps of Engineers have been limited to the reqviirements for public access to the water areas as required by law, facili- ties to protect Government-owned property and resources against despoilment, and facilities essential for the health and safety of the visiting public within the project area. Specific improvements and services for public recreational use have been provided by other agencies and individuals under licenses and leases granted by the Department of the Army. Annual attendance has pyramided from 16 million recreation days in 1950 to over 210 million estimated in 1968. This necessitates completion of the urgently needed facilities to avoid serious hazards to both the resources and the using public. The corps has worked closely with the States and their political subdivisions to encourage them to administer and maintain public use areas thus relieving the Federal Government of such costs. To further such action funds in the amount of $5 million are included in this budget for construction during the fiscal year 1969 of facilities in areas which the States and their political subdivisions have agreed to operate, maintain, and further develop. This amount will provide facilities which prospective lessee governmental agencies determine essential but not including self-liquidating facilities. Funds in the amount of $4 million are included for urgently needed public use facilities at other sites in completed reservoirs. This will provide for additiotial improved access roads, launching ramps, informa- tional signs and markers, sanitary facilities, and similar items essential to the health and safety of the using public. The funds required for fiscal year 1969 totaling $9 million will also provide a minor amount for the purchase of supple- mental lands required in the development program. 7. FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT STUDIES (USF&WS) Funds in the amount of $580,000 are needed in fiscal year 1969 with which to conduct studies of approximately 180 projects in the construction, general pro- gram of the Corps of Engineers, exclusive of the Missour River Basin. Projects in this category have been authorized for construction. Studies conducted under this appropriation are authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C., 661 et seq.). This provides that Federal agencies constructing water-development projects shall consult the Fish and Wildlife Service with a view to prevention of losses and improvement of wildlife resources in connection with water-use project planning and construction. The cooperative planning directed is to assure that these purposes "shall receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water-resource programs." Pursuant to this act, the Service deter- mines probable project effects and recommends appropriate measures either to prevent threatened damages to or improve existing conditions for fish and wildlife or for human utilization thereof. For svich studies, the act authorizes the transfer of funds to the Service from appropriations to the Federal construction agencies for investigations, engineering, and/or construction. 1438 The proper discharge of statutory responsibilities requires the development of recommendations tailored to meet conditions expected at each project. Since reservoirs typically inundate prime wildlife habitat, replacement with alternative and often intensiveh' managed lands may be recommended. Subimpoundments may be recommended to create or replace waterfowl habitat. Fish screening of diversion ditches and turbine intakes, passage facilities for migrant fishes, mini- mum downstream releases, minimum pools in reservoirs, provision of hatcheries, and certain changes in reservoir operations are among the recommendations which the Fish and Wildlife Service makes in the interests of fish and wildlife resources and human utilization thereof. Although the Service endeavors to include its major recommendations in the planning reports which go to the Congress prior to project authorization, a con- siderable amount of detailed work is required after authorization to solve those problems which arise in the course of advance planning by the Corps of Engineers. It is necessary to coordinate closely with the offices of district engineers in such matters as land acquisition and development activities, the placement and design of outlets, the placement and design of all separable features recommended for fish and wildlife conservation, and liaison with State and local fish and game interests. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act and other atithorities and policies instituted subsequent to the time when many projects were formulated also require revisions of earlier planning in some cases. Detailed planning of the type conducted under this appropriation item seeks to anticipate and accommodate the burgeoning demand of people for fishing, hunting, and other recreational opportunities which are dependent on the con- servation of fish and wildlife. Federal water resource development provides one of the most efiFective means of meeting these demands in terms of cost because it is accomplished in conjunction with the provision of other project services. Benefits accrue both to the recreationist, the direct user of the service, and to the purveyors of goods and services required by the recreationists. 9. AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL PROGRAM Section 104 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 as amended by section 302 of the River and Harbor Act of 1965 provides for an allotment not to exceed $5 million annually for control and progressive eradication of water-hyacinth, alligatorweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, and other obnoxious aquatic plant growths from navigable waters, tributaries, connecting channels, and other allied waters of the United States, in the interest of navigation, flood control, drainage, agri- culture, fish and wildlife conservation, public health, and related purposes. The authority includes research to develop the most effective and economic control measures. The program is administered by the Chief of Engineers in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies. Local interests must agree to hold and save the United States free from claims and to participate to the extent of 30 percent of the control operations. Funds in the amount of $900,000 are requested for fiscal year 1969 to continvie the most urgently needed work under the authorized program. Applied research. — $155,000 are requested for research investigations being condticted in cooperation with other Federal, State, and private industrial agencies in mechanical, chemical, and biological control methods for water-hyacinth, alligatorweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, Elodea, and other obnoxious aquatic plants. All applied research is carried out with cognizance of restrictive regulations, objectives, and interests of other Federal and State agencies. The increased geographical distribution of the aquatic plant control programs throughout the United States necessitates the initiation of new research studies on new aquatic weed problems to determine practicable and effective methods and procedures for control operations. Planning. — $150,000 are rquested on a nationwide basis for stirveys of problem areas, preparation of reports, agreements, and annual work plans, coordination with other agencies and local interests, program analyses, and estimates. Control operations. — $640,000 are requested for conthuiiiig control of water- hyacinth, alligatorweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, and other major aquatic weed infestations in the Atlaiitic and Gulf Coast States. 10. employees' compensation Section 209, paragraph (b) of Public Law 86-767, approved September 13, 1960 (5 U.S.C. 785), provides that each agency shall include in its annual budget estimates a request for an appropriation equal to costs previously paid from the 1439 employees' compensation fund on account of injury or death of employees or persons under jurisdiction of said agency. The amount of $656,000 represents the total cost of benefits and other pay- ments made from employees' compensation fund during the period July 1 1966 through June 30, 1967, on account of the injury or death of persons under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers civil functions activities. Mr. BoLAND. Please provide for the record the usual project break- down for these lump sum items for both the current fiscal year and for fiscal year 1969. (The information follows :) SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS Statement on Peogeam Fob Small Navigation Peojects Not Specifically Authorized by Congbess (SECTION 107 OF 1960 RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT, AS AMENDED) General.— Section 107 provides authority to construct small navigation proi- ects not specifically authorized by Congress. Each project selected must be ^-^n^n^"" ^ justified and complete within itself. Federal cost limitation is 9)000,000 per project. Section 107 funds are used to finance investigations of prob- lem areas and to finance the approved projects for construction. Fiscal year 1968 allocations for section 107 projects follow : Amount Johns Pass, Fla c-r-f. nnn Cuckold Creek, Md :__:_": '_"'_ 11 000 Bunker Harbor, Gouldsboro, Maine ~____ S-".' ono Moccasin Springs, Mo irci nnn Neavitt Harbor, Md I II___I Iiri""""!!"! — o\' noo Old Eiver, Cleveland Harbor, Ohio ~ iqn nnn Yaquina River, Oreg _ ivq'nAo Tylers Beach, Va ~_ S' nXX Lafayette River, Norfolk, Ya "I ~_~~_~ _~_ ~~_ ___'_ ?^' d^ Old Harbor, Kodiak, Alaska ~~~~ Q97 nnn Les Cheneaux Island, Mich _ or^ nnn Tilghman Island Harbor, Md_ ~_ 40non Menominee Harbor, Wis. and Mich '__ 21 oon Green Harbor, Marshfield, Mass 909' nnn Scheduled to be allotted during fiscal year 1968 • ^uz, uuu Cathamet Harbor, Wash on ru^n Sioux City Harbor, Iowa ~__ I_ZI_"ZZZZZZIi::::~::: 41 000 Budget request and tentative allocation.— Funds in the amountof $2 million ?onJruot?on nf\^'«fl ^"^" ?^f '" '"''''°''" '^" P"°^^'^°^ ^°^ development anS construction of small, complete, economically justified navigation projects at S?Sr'Sir,';,?„trr"°''- " '^ '^■"''"^^'^ "'"""^ t„'a„„oa.e%eVe^te.l Construction : . . HT 1 T. XT .. Amount Manele Bay, Hawaii $.,-,0 nnn Niantic Bay, Conn ZZ ~_ * In onn Silver Lake Harbor, N.C 2" iot nnn Tangipahoe R., La ~ Z Z ~Z ^9 nnn Philadelphia Marina, Pa "ZZ Z_~~ ZZ~ZZ'ZZZZ ^97 nm Grand Lagoon, Panama, Fla_ _ ~ ~ qi' nnn Barkers Island Harbor, N.C "Z~Z on' ana Goose Creek, Somerset, Md __" IZ t^'nnn Double Bayou, Tex ' ~~ o^n aaX Saco, River, Maine Z fS'^ Stony Creek, Branford, Conn_ ZZ_ on ncSl Mats Mats Bay, Wash ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 103 000 Studies, investigations, preconstruction planning, overruns ^'621,' 000 Total 91-459 — 68 — pt. 1 91 1440 SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (SECTION 205 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED) General. — Section 205 provides authority to construct small flood control projects that have not already been specifically authorized by Congress. Eiach project selected must be economically justified and complete vrithin itself. Fed- eral cost participation limit per individual project is $1 million. Lrocal interests must furnish the local cooperation normally required for regularly authorized projects plus bear all project costs in excess of the $1 million Federal limitation. Section 205 funds are used to finance investigation of problem areas to develop these small flood control projects and to finance construction of approved proj- ects. Construction funds are made available to approved projects as soon as available funds permit after required local cooperation is provided. Fiscal year 1968 allocations for section 205 projects follovp : Appalachian Hospital, South Williamson, Ky $300, 000 Lyman Creek, Rexburg, Idaho 127,000 Kuliouou Stream, Hawaii S.59, 000 Pungo Creek, N.C 132, 000 New River, N.C 358, 000 Panther Creek, Ky 440, 000 Ida Grove, Iowa 404, 000 Edisto River, S.C 103, 000 Poteet, Tex 66, 000 Unadilla, N.Y 127, 000 Spring Creek, Springdale, Ark 45,000 Lick Run, Roanoke, Va 31,000 Harvey Canal-Bayou Barataria, La 42, 000 Loup River, Columbus, Nebr 95, 000 Cherry and Red Fork, Tulsa, Okla 76, 000 South Creek, N.C 170, 000 Lake Douglas, Ga 50, 000 Sun River, Vaughn, Mont 3.5.5,000 Budget request and tentative allocation. — Funds in the amount of $7 million are requested in fiscal year 1969 to continue this program for development and construction of small, complete, economically justified flood control projects at locations throughout the Nation. It is tentatively proposed to allocate requested fiscal year 1969 funds as follows : Construction : Amount Harvey Canal-Bayou Barataria Levee, La S137. OOO Reese River, Battle Mountain, Nev 50, OOO Inez. Ky 145. 000 Sandburg Creek, Spring Glen, N.Y 532. 000 Sugar and Briar Creek, Charlotte, N.C 180. 000 Mackay Creek, N.C 152. 000 Cayuga Island, N.Y 77, 000 Reedsport, Oreg 500, 000 Moorehead, Ky 220, 000 Newton Creek. Woodlynne, N.J 158,000- Spring Creek, Springdale, Ark 8-53,000 Joyce Creek, N.C 157, 000 Ten Mile Creek, Marina, Pa 100,000 Mill Creek, Jefferson County, Ky 4.33,000 Lake Douglas, Ga 1.38,000 Lick Run, Roanoke, Va 400,000 Black Fork, Hendricks, W. Va 46,000 Oro Grande Wash, Victorville, Calif 790, 000 Rockfish Creek, N.C 460. 000 Alturas, Calif 150. 000 Elk River, Minn 176,000 St. Johnsburg, Vt 250, 000 Rose Creek, San Diego, Calif 225, 000 Tucannon River, Camp Wooten, Calif 36. 000 Subtotal 6. .36.5. OOO Studies, overruns, preconstruction planning, investigations 635, 000 Total 7, 000, 000 : 1441 SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECTS Statement on Program for Snagging and Clearing Projects for Flood Control General. — Section 2 of 1937 Flood Control Act, as amended by section 208 of 3954 Flood Control Act, provides authority for clearing and straightening streams and removal of snags and debris in the interest of flood control. Each project must be economically justified and the maximum Federal expenditure per project is limited to $100,000. The legislation provides that overall allotment for the section 208 program shall not exceed $2 million annually. Fiscal year 19G8 allocations for section 208 projects follow : Skunk River, Keokuk County, Iowa $49,000 Grants, N. Mex 91^ 000 Paint Creek, Chillicothe, Ohio 97,000 Right Fork Beaver Creek, Ky 19, 500 Filberts Creek, Chow^an County, N.C 25*, 000 Kingstree Branch, Kingstree, S.C 67,300 Dunn Branch, Woodbine, Ga 7, 300 Old Field Swamp, Robeson County, N.C 87,' 600 Cypress Creek. Ky 7,000 San Joaquin River, Calif lOo' 000 West Fork Carson River, Woodfords, Calif 10,' 000 Budget Request and Tentative Allocation. — Funds in the amount of $250,000 are requested for fiscal year 1969. There is no current backlog of approved snagging and clearing projects awaiting funds. It is tentatively planned to allocate requested fiscal year 1969 funds as follows : Project construction $220,000 Investigations, advance engineering and design 30, 000 Total 250,000 PROTECTION OF FLOOD-ENDANGERED HIGHWAY BRIDGE APPROACHES AND ESSENTIAL PUBLIC WORKS Statement on Program for Protection of Flood-Endangered Highway Bridge Approaches and Essential Public Works (sec. 14 of the 1946 flood control act) General. — Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act provides authority to con- struct bank protection works to protect endangered highways, highway bridge approaches, and other essential public works such as municipal water supply systems and sewerage disposal plants which are endangered by flood-caused bajik erosion. Each section 14 project must be economically justified and the maximum Federal expenditure per project is limited to $50,000. The legislation provides that overall allotment for the section 14 program shall not exceed $1 million annually. Fiscal year 1968 allocations for section 14 projects follow: Water Well Field. Platte River, Sarpy County, Nebr $50, 000 Washita River, Caddo County, Okla 15,000 Chena River, 1st Ave., Fairbanks, Alaska .'')0' 000 Chena River, Wendell St. Bridge, Fairbanks, Alaska 20, 000 Grants, N. Mex 32^000 Bonner Springs, Kans 3' 500 Marian River, Shelby, Mont 50,000 Missouri River, Greenwood, S. Dak 35, 500 Bridget request and tentative allocation. — Funds in the amount of $300,000 are requested for fiscal year 1969. There is no current backlog of approved section 14 projects awaiting funds. It is tentatively planned to allocate requested fiscal year 1969 funds as follows : Project construction $270. 000 Investigations, advance engineering and design 30, 000 Total 300,000 1442 INCREASE IX LUMP SUM FOR SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS Mr. BoLAND. For small navigation projects not specifically auth- orized by Congress and costing up to $500,000, $2 million is budgeted for 1969 compared with only $1,500,000 for the current year. AVliy is it necessary to increase this lump sum figure by some $500,000 ? ]Mr. Feil. Mr. Chairman, we will supply that information for the record. (The information follows :) For several years, the outstanding backlog of approved section 107 projects awaiting construction funding has exceeded the budgeted sums for this program. The requested $2 million for fiscal year 1969 also will not be suflScient to fund the entire backlog. However, the increased amount of $500,000 over fiscal year 1968 will help bring the expenditures nearer the amounts required for these small navigation projects. BACKLOG FOR FUNDING SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS Mr. BoLAND. You have $7 million budgeted for funding small flood control projects (up to $1 million) not specifically authorized by Con- gress. What is the present backlog under this program ? Mr. Feil. Sir ; I would have to furnish that for the record. (The information follows :) The present backlog of approved section 205 projects is about $16,600,000. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ON COMPLETED PROJECTS Mr. BoLAND. $9 million is budgeted for recreational facilities on completed projects, the same as the current year amount. Please outline how there funds are being utilized and the plans for fiscal year 1969, including construction in areas where local authorities have agreed to operate, maintain, and further develop the project. You will probably have to supply that for the record. Please include a breakdown of the $9 million for recreational facilities in the record, (The information follows :) The information requested is in two tables. One, totaliilg $4 million, is for further development at areas already in use ; the other, totaling $5 million, is for development of urgently needed new areas at which local interests will pay half of the cost. The tables follow : 1443 TABLE 1— 1969 PORTION OF 5-YEAR 710 WHEN LOCAL ASSURANCE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN WRITING State and division Project Area Participating agency Corps cost, 1969 South Atlantic division: Georgia Allatoona Iron Hill .._ Georgia State parks _.. $180,000 Jim Woodruff... Spring Creek do. 191.000 North Carolina John H. Kerr Henderson Point Kerr Development Commis- 238,000 sion. Ohio River division: Kentucky Buckhorn Confluence ^ Leslie County 210,000 do Trace Branch.. do 144,000 Fish Trap.. Lick Creek Kentucky State parks.. 152,000 Pennsylvania Tionesta. Nebraska Pennsylvania State parks 15,000 Tennessee Old Hickory Bledsoe Creek Tennesese State parks 490,000 Center Hill Table Rock-Wolf Creek -do 253,000 Lower Mississippi Valley division: Mississippi. _ . Arkabutia North abutement Mississippi State parks 107,000 Grenada Outlet and south abut- do_-__ _ 240,000 ment. Enid. Dam and outlet ...do 227,000 Sardis Lower Lake do 463,000 do Hurricane Landing do 163,000 Southwestern division: Arkansas . Beaver Prairie Creek City of Rogers 371,000 Bull Shoals Ozark Isle Arkansas State parks 681,008 North Pacific division: Oregon. Fern Ridge Krugar Park Lane County 350,000 Washington The Dalles Maryhill Washington State parks 400,000 South Pacific division: California Success Tule areas 3 and 4 Tulare County. 25,000 Total 5,000,000 Table 2 regulak code 710 funds for fiscal year 1969 Proposed Division and project allocation New England division : Birch Hill Reservoir, Mass $65, 000 East Brimfield Reservoir, Mass 75, 000 Hopkinton-Everett Reservoir, N.H 25, 000 North Hartland Reservoir, Vt 50, 000 North Springfield Reservoir, Vt 50, 000 Cape Cod Canal, Mass 50, 000 New England division total 315, 000 South Atlantic division : Allatoona Dam, Ga 20, 000 Buford Dam, Ga 114, 000 Columbia lock and dam, Georgia and Alabama 86, 000 Demopolis lock and dam, Ala 50, 000 Jim Woodruff lock and dam, Florida and Georgia 18, 000 Warrior lock and dam, Ala 24, 000 John H. Kerr Reservoir, N.C. and Va 25, 000 Philpott Reservoir, Va 30, 000 Clark Hill Reservoir, Ga. and S.C 50, 000 Hartwell Reservoir, Ga. and S.C 50, 000 W. Kerr Scott Reservoir, N.C 115, 000 Okeechobee Waterway, Fla 25, 000 South Atlantic division total 607, 000 North Atlantic division : Whitney Point Reservoir, N.Y 20, 000 North Atlantic division total 20, 000 1444 Lower Mississippi Valley division : Proposed allocation Blakely Mountain Reservoir, Ark $60, 000 Narrows Reservoir, Ark 40, 000 Upper Mississippi River Pool 24, 111. and Mo 67, 000 Upper Mississippi River Pool 25, 111. and Mo 84, 000 Bayou Bodcau Reservoir, La 3, 000 Ferrells Bridge Reservoir, Tex 100, 000 Texarkana Reservoir, Tex 25, 000 Lower Mississippi Valley division total 379, 000 Ohio River Division : Greenup lock and dam, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia 9, 0(X) Bluestone Reservoir. W. Va 20, 000 Barren River Reservoir, Ky 53,000 Youghiogheny River Reservoir, Pa. and Md 100, 000 Capt. A. Meldahl locks and dam, Kentucky and Ohio 25. OOO Dewey Reservoir, Ky 70,000 Sutton Reservoir, W. Ya 105, 000 Markland lock and dam, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky 100, 000 Center Hill Reservoir. Tenn 23, 000 Cheatham lock and dam, Tennessee 65, 000 Dale Hollow Reservoir, Tenn. and Ky 25,000 Old Hickory lock and dam, Tennessee 53, 000 Wolf Creek Reservoir. Ky 23, 000 Monroe Reservoir. Ind 25,000 John W. Flanagan Dam and Reservoir, Va 60, 000 North Fork of Pound Reservoir, Ya 25, 000 Muskingum River Resei'voir (7), Ohio 70,000 ORD Total 8.51, 000 North Central Division : Mississippi River Pool 1. Minn 7. 000 Mississippi River Pool 2, Minn 7. 000 Mississippi River Pool 9, Minn, and Wis., Iowa 63, 000 Mississippi River Pool 10, Iowa and Wis 37, 000 Mississippi River Pool 11, Iowa and Wis 6, 000 Mississippi River Pool 13. 111. and Iowa 0, 000 Gull Lake Reservoir, Minn 6, 000 Pine River Reservoir, Minn 25.000 Pokegama Reservoir, Minn 3, 000 Sandy Lake Reservoir, Minn 20, 000 Winnibigoshish Reservoir, Minn 24. OOQ Orwell Dam and Reservoir, Minn 13, - ^ S°*t^--i.---V 18,641,000 2. Hiver and Harbor Board 93s; qOO 3. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center "__'""' 222* 000 4. Commercial statistics ~ i i38'ooO 5. Special investigations !_"_! '" ' 26l' 000 Total 21,200,000 1. EXECUTIVE DIRECTION .\ND MANAGEMENT (a) Office, Chief of Engineers (1) Executive Direction and Management. The Chief of Engineers is responsible for carrying out a comprehensive civil works progi-am m accordance with the directives of the Congress The oro-uiiza- tion to implement these directives is decentralized in 37 districts and 11 division offices and several separate activities. In order that proper direction manage- ment, coordmation, and policy guides may be furnished these offices, it is es- sential that sufficient numbers of highly technical and managerial specialists be provided m the Office, Chief of Engineers in Washington. During the past several years, the civil works program has become more complex, particularly in the area of complete systems analyses of regional water resource development with greater emphasis on national economic and social benefits. Presidential emphasis on creative federalism and new organizations such as the Water Resources Council and the federal Water Pollution Control Administration have expanded the in- terest of a large number of Federal, State, and local agencies in corps activities such a,.s pollution abatement, beautification, recreation improvements, and fish and wildlife conservation. These factors have imposed a large additional work- load on the Office, Chief of Engineers and it is essential that adequate per.sonnel be provided to perform these expanded and essential requirements The amount of $7,674,000 requested for fiscal year 1969 is an increase of $753,800 r[?> IVr-^S ^^^^^, of P^y increase authorized by Public Law 90-206 and Public Law 90-20^ over the amount requested for fiscal year 1968 of $6,920,200 The total increase will provide — $6,777,000 for personnel compensation and benefits (civilian and militarv) • and ■ ^ ' $897 000 for other needs such as travel, printing and reproduction, supplies and other materials, equipment and services. The total increase will provide: (a) Personnel compensation and benefits (civilian and military) : $83,200 for 11 new positions, 5 man-years for the civil works directorate and the Office of the Ueneral Counsel. These positions are as follows: (6) Three positions for the Planning Division to improve evaluation and formulation of plans to meet the Nation's critical and complex water re- source needs and problems more effectively and economically. Three posi- tions to estabhsh and provide direction and supervision for the Economic Research Center v/hich will conduct broad national and regional economic studies and research necessary to project short- and long-term economic development, establish needs for resources goods and services, and to eval- uate the benefits and costs of alternative means of accomplishing desired objectives. In addition, the Center will utilize inputs for our research pro- grams of other Federal agencies, State agencies, and private and educational organizations. After formulation, this Center will be physically separated 1450 from OCE to the proximity of a university research center or similar facility. (4) One position for the Policy and Analysis Division to help accommo- date increasing workload associated with Water Resource Council activities and policy study requirements identified through the annual policy canvass and review, and three positions for Policy and Analysis Division to assist in further development of the planning programing and budgeting system, related special analyses, and to assist in the formulation of new civil works activities. (1) One position in the Office of the General Counsel to perform the func- tions of legal adviser to the Department of the Army representatives on the Water and Resources Council and participation in appropriate legal task force and study groups associated with the Water Resources Council and other interagency coordinating groups for water resources development. This position involves providing legal interpretation and advice to key operating officials, assisting in formulation of Department of the Army position on legislative matters before the Water Resources Council, and coordinating with other Office, Chief of Engineers program legal advisers who must take into consideration the potential impact of such advice and opinions of opera- tions in these areas of responsibility. $104,700 for cost of full year funding of 23 new positions approved (9 man- years) in the fiscal year 1968 budget. $80,000 to provide 9 additional man-years through the increased utiliza- tion of authorized spaces from prior years' budgets. Recent experience indi- cates positions are being filled a greater portion of the year, thereby reducing the hiring lag. $22,000 for 1 extra day's pay in fiscal year 1969 over fiscal year 1968. $39,900 for cost due to emphasis on hiring part-time and temporary personnel for peak workloads and/or one time special projects in lieu of full- time permanent employees. The increase in consultant services is keyed to the flood plain management activity and for professional study and consulta- tion on the new aspects of the water resources program. These consultants will provide capabilities in specialized fields for which the corps does not have a normal requirement for the employment of full-time personnel. $48,000. Of this amount, $13,000 is required for increased costs of benefits due to retirement, group life insurance — Public Law 90-206 — and health benefits. The remaining $35,000 is required to cover increased moving expenses authorized by Public Law 89-516 approved July 21, 1966. This estimate is based on recruiting and filling positions in the office, Chief of Engineers, in the hard-to-fill professional skills of offset, an approximate 5-percent personnel turnover rate due to transfers, retirements, and deaths. $76,000 for cost-of-pay increases (Public Laws 90-206 and 90-207 approved Dec. 16, 1967) for personnel currently authorized, to cover the 3 additional months of fiscal year 1969 over fiscal year 1968. (b) Other $300,000 increase is required to fund the following items: $74,000. Additional temporary duty and permanent change of station travel costs including costs for storage and transportation of household goods. This increase is primarily for personnel transferring to OCE and increased costs as authorized by Public Law 89-516 approved July 21, 1966. $35,000. Printing and reproduction costs of initial issue of water resources magazine entitled "The Army Engineer." This publication is needed to increase public understanding of water resources development. $100,000. Contractual services to assist in conversion of applications for the present computer now in use to the new computer to be installed in FOB 5. This item is necessary in order for programs to be operational when the chief of engineers moves into FOB 5. $25,000. Contract cataloging of books and reference material for the OCE library. This is an initial contract to develop and implement an indexing system for the storage and retrieval of technical information now contained in various reports, books, journals, etc. This material in present format does not provide ready access of essential technical information and data for use bj' professional engineers. $66,000. Miscellaneous expenses. This item covers a general increase in the costs of supplies and materials, equipment, maintenance contracts for office equipment, repair parts; revision of manuals, contractual stenographic 1451 services, school tuition costs. The increase for contractual stenographic serv- ices is due to a price increase for transcripts and an ever increasing number of contract appeals. The increase for school tuition costs represents a need for additional training of engineers and other professional personnel. (2) SPECIAL STUDIES St'ctiou 315 of House Report No. 973, 89th Congress, a report of the Committee on ]^iblic Works on S. 2300, directs the Secretary of the Army as follows: "The Secretary of the Army shall transmit to the Committees on Public Works of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than June 30, 196S, a suggested draft of legislation revising and codifying the general and permanent laws relating to civil works projects by the Corps of Engineers for na\igation, beach erosion control, flood control, and related water resources development. The Secretary shall also submit a report explaining the proposed legislation, and making specific reference to each change in or omission of any provision of existing law." To comply with the above directive, funds in the amount of $75,000 are required in fiscal year 1969 to be used as follows: (a) Personnel compensation and benefits: For 5 positions (3 attorneys and 2 secretaries) (5 man-years), with support costs $74, 000 For pay increase authorized by Public Law 90-206 1, 000 Total 75,000 Justification for this amount follows: Although manpower resources were authorized in October 1965, work on the codification and revision of the permanent and general laws relating to civil works projects did not commence until August 1966 due to funding problems. Difficulties were also encountered in recruiting qualified personnel. Actual start- ing time on the project precludes meeting completion date of June 30, 1968, and \\ill therefore require 1 additional year for completion. (&) Division offices Division offices provide the managerial and technical direction required by the chief of engineers for the proper supervision of subordinate district offices in carrying out the civil works program. The executive direction and manage- ment activities are decentralized to 11 division offices throughout the United States. One of these, the New England Division, is an operating division and is not presently supported from general expense funds. Based on a continuing analysis of the workload and utilization of personnel in division offices, the minimum requirement for the operation of the 10 division offices supi:)orted from general expense funds in fiscal year 1969 is $10,892,000. This amount is $762,500 greater than the $10,129,500 appropriated for fiscal year 1968 (including pay increases authorized under Public Law 90-206 and 90-207). The increase will provide: For salary and support costs for 41 new positions (22 man-years) re- quested in fiscal year 1969 $317, 000 For pay increases (additional 3 months in fiscal year 1969 over fiscal year 1968) (authorized under Public Law 90-206 and 90-207 ap- proved Dec. 16, 1967) 125, 000 Additional part of year (4 months) in fiscal year 1969 over 1968 for 35 new positions provided in fiscal year 1968 155, 000 For increase in benefit costs (object class 12) (health insurance and moving costs) 35, 000 For increases in other expenses (object class 21 through 32) (travel and transportation of persons, transportation of things, rents, communi- cations and utilities, printing and reproduction, supplies and ma- terials, equipment, and other services.) 60, 000 For 1 additional day's pay in fiscal year 1969 33, 000 To provide 3 additional man-years through increased utilization of authorized spaces from prior year budget 37, 500 Total 762, 500 1452 The funds requested will provide for 41 new positions, 31 of which will be in planning di\dsions and 10 will be in the technical engineering branches of our engineering divisions. The 31 planning positions are needed to fill critical vacancies in planning divisions to provide the variety of technical skills and staff capability necessary for management and control of the corps preauthorization study program. This program, ranging from broad regional comprehensive studies involving a multitude of Federal and State agencies to indi\'idual project studies for more localized areas, has expanded at a rapid rate in recent years. Even of more significance than the dollar volume has been the many extensions in national policy by Congress which have added materially to the complexity of the conduct of water resources planning efforts due to the increased number of purposes that must be served, the necessity for consideration of a wide range of alternative solutions because of the many competing requirements for our limited water resources, and the increased detailed coordination, consultation, and negotiation with the many varied interests involved in the consideration of these activities. The planning division organizations, which were established in division offices in 1965, have not been adequately staffed to carry out this important mission and critical shortages in personnel exist, particularlj^ in the nonengineering specialties which are essential to the decisionmaking process on total national and regional environ- mental matters and in planning for ecomonic development. The positions requested are required to improve the corps planning posture in these areas. In addition to providing overall surveillance and guidance for technical aspects of engineering work in progress in the subordinate districts, the engineering staffs at division level perform essential review functions including the final technical review of many plans and specifications for civil works projects prior to construc- tion. Assurance as to adequacy and safety of project designs is dependent upon the quality of these reviews. The 10 engineering positions for engineering divisions will provide personnel urgently needed to fiU existing technical voids in the engineering review capalDilities of certain division office staffs. The requested positions will enable strengthening those division engineering staffs in which need for additional review and guidance capabilities is most critical. These staff Inadequacies have developed because of the following factors: (a) Overall growth of the civil works program in specific division areas extending back for several years. (b) An increase in the number of purposes served by civil works projects, including the addition of such functions as water supply, and water quality. (c) Technological developments in water resource engineering that provide for better and more economical projects, but require more engineering effort. (d) Need to provide for facilities meeting increased national emphasis on recreational potentials, pollution control and abatement, beautification, and other factors affecting the human environment. The positions requested are urgently needed if the corps is to maintain per- formance capability in planning at an adequate level, fill existing voids in our engineering review capabilities, and provide proper supervision and competence in the many new fields involved in the comprehensive development of water resources. 2. RIVER AND HARBOR BOARD The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors was authorized by section 3 of the River and Harbor Act approved June 13, 1902. The act provided for the organization in the Office of the Chief of Engineers, by detail of a board of five (increased to seven by the 1913 act) engineer officers from the Corps of Engineers. The act directs that all reports on authorized surveys of river and harbor projects shall be referred to the Board for consideration and recommendation prior to submission of the reports by the Chief of Engineers with his recommendations to Congress. This directive was subsequently amended to api)ly to flood control reports. Section 6 of River and Harbor Act approved ]March 3, 1909, provides that the Board shall consider and approve and recommend to the Chief of Engineers plans for modification and reconstruction of any lock, canal, canalized river or other work for use and benefit to navigation. Public Law 88-172, SSth Congress, November 7, 1963, abolished the Beach Erosion Board and added the additional function of review of beach erosion control reports to the Board's functions. In addition the Chief of Engineers has assigned to the River and Harbor Board the responsibility for the publication periodically of Port Series Reports containing narrative and tabular information on all facilities available to shipping at the principal U.S. ports. 1453 The estimate of River and Harbor Board expenses for fiscal year 1969 is $938,000. This amount is $62,000 greater than the appropriation of $876,000 for fiscaljvear 1968 (inchiding pay increases authorized under Public Law 90-206 and Public Law 90-207). The increase of $62,000 would be used as follows: (a) For pay increase (an additional 3 months in fiscal year 1969 over fiscal vear 1968) (Public Law 90-206 and Public Law 90-207 ap- proved Dec. 16, 1967) $12,000 (6) To meet additional payroll costs for six employees authorized to be hired in fiscal year 1968 but for whom funds were provided for only 4 man-years 26, 000 (c) For increased travel costs to permit more onsite consultations and working sessions with field planners, for increased training costs of professional personnel, and for increased printing and other costs. The increased travel wiU result in more efficient survey report preparation as well as improve report quality 24, 000 Total 62,000 The amount requested is the minimum requirement for fiscal year 1969. 3. COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER The Coastal Engineering Research Center was established by an act of Con- gress (Public Law 172) approved November 7, 1963. The act directs that the Beach Erosion Board, established by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act approved July 3, 1930, as amended (33 LT.S.C. 426), be abolished. It further provides that there shall be established under the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, a Coastal Engineering Research Center which (except for the review of reports of investigations made concerning erosion of the shores of coastal and lake waters, and the protection of such shores), shall be vested with all the functions of the Beach Erosion Board, including the authority to make general investigations and publish reports thereon as provided in section 1 of the act, approved July 31, 1945 (59 Stat. 508), and such additional functions as the Chief of Engineers may assign. In addition, the act provides that the functions of the Coastal Engineering Research Center shall be conducted with the guidance and advice of a Board on Coastal Engineering Research, constituted by the Chief of Engineers, in the same manner as that of the former Beach Erosion Board. The research function of the Beach Erosion Board, now transferred to the Coastal Engineering Research Center, requires that general investigations be carried out on methods of con- trolling erosion of beaches, sand movement, inlet stabilization, and other hydraulic problems for the purpose of developing improved shore protection techniques, and that useful information on the results thereof be published. Direct costs of this research program are funded under a separate appropriation. The Chief of Engineers has assigned to the Coastal Engineering Research Center the function of reviewing for technical adequacy studies, plans, and specifications for beach erosion control and other coastal engineering works, and also requires that it provide specialized consulting services, as directed, to other elements of the Corps of Engineers. These administrative expenses, including travel, per diem, and emoluments of civilian Board members and the maintenance and operation of the Center's establishment, is funded from general expense. The amount requested for the Coastal Engineering Research Center in fiscal year 1969 is $222,000. This amount is $1,000 greater than the appropriation of $221,000 for fiscal year 1968 (including pay increases authorized under Public Laws 90-206 and 90-207) and is required to provide for pay increases for an additional 3 months in fiscal year 1969 over 1968. The amount requested is the minimum required to pay the present managerial staff and maintain existing facilities which will be utilized on the technical support and general investigations program planned for fiscal year 1969. 4. COMMERCIAL STATISTICS This activity consists of the collection of domestic waterborne commerce statistics pertaining to rivers, harbors, and w^aterways and the compilation and publication of such data in conformance with the River and Harbor Act of September 22, 1922. This activity includes the (1) collection and reporting of necessary statistical data by district offices (2) the collection, processing, compil- ing, and annual publication of such statistical data and information on water- 1454 borne commerce and vessels moving on inland waterways, the Great Lakes, and through all ocean ports bj' the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center of the Corps of Engineers and (3) the compilation and publication annuallj- of a report listing and describing all U.S. -flag self-propelled and non-self-propelled vessels engaged in commerce, including the principal trade in which they are engaged and their zone of operation by the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. In addition to the funds to be expended for collection, compilation, and publication of data on domestic waterborne commerce, the amoimt requested for this activ- ity includes funds to reimburse the Bureau of the Census for costs incurred in furnishing the Chief of Engineers complete port and waterway data on the for- eign waterborne commerce of the United States. This arrangement was instituted under the sponsorship of the Bureau of the Budget in 1947 to eliminate duplication of collection and compilation of foreign commerce data. The amount requested for commercial statistics in fiscal year 1969 is $1,1.3S,000. This amount is $41,700 more than the $1,096,300 appropriated in fiscal year 1968 for this activity (including pay increases authorized under Public Law 90-206). This increase is required to provide $12,000 for paj' increases — an additional 3 months in fiscal year 1969 over 1968, and $29,700 for increased costs for personnel benefits, travel, printing and reproduction, supplies and materials, and other services. The amount requested is the minimum requirement for fiscal year 1969. 5. SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS This item provides for the expense of (1) special investigations and reports of nominal scope prepared pursuant to congressional and other special requests from sources outside the Corps of Engineers for information relative to projects or other activities which have no funds; (2) sijpiilar -orork of detailed scope as specifically authorized by the Chief of Engineers; (3) the review of Federal Power Commission licenses; and (4) review of reports of other agencies. Among the investigations paid for from these funds are reconnaissance investigations relating to flooding potential and flood damages, bank erosion, drainage, harbor improve- ments, anchorages, and development of navigation channels. The costs of making investigations of this nature and preparing reports thereon vary widely, and the Chief of Engineers cannot anticipate the number or extent of requests that may be received to which prompt and full compliance should be given. The amount requested for special investigations in fiscal .year 1969 is $261,000. This amount is $63,000 more than the $198,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1968 for this activit}^ (including pa.v increase authorized under Public Law 90-206) and is required to provide $6,000 for pay increases — an additional 3 months in fiscal year 1969 over 1968, and $57,000 for increased costs for personnel benefits, travel, printing and reproduction, supplies and materials, and other services. INCREASE IN OFFICE OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS Mr. BoLAND. $753,800 of the increase is for the Office of the Chief of Engineers in Washington. Please outline the need for this increase in fiscal year 1969. General Noble. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement that I ^Yonlcl like to make at this time in regard to general expense and then we will cover your question. Mr. BoLAND. Fine. General Noble. I am going to just brief it because of the lateness of the hour, and I will submit the full statement for the record. We have a problem of strengthening the corps organization. For 2 years now the corps has come to the committee with this problem. This year, in view of the tight fiscal situation, the number of additional spaces we need to put our operation on a sound basis has been cut, as you can imagine, to the bone. But it has come out to 52 spaces. Wo have in this budget provision for these 52 new spaces. The majority of these si:)aces are to strengthen our planning organization. We have just a:ot to do this. We are very con<'erned about our preauthoi'ization 1455 studies and our capacity to carry these things out and move these studies along. As you know, the job has increased vastly. The number of agencies that have to be cordinated with, and the number of (.1 lifer- ent aspects that have to be considei-ed in our studies has increased con- siderably. "We have 31 spaces of the 52 to strengthen our planning oro-a- nization in the field; we have 10 spaces to strengthen our engineering organization. We are getting into a lot of sophisticated problems in engineering. Our people are getting older. We have to bring young engineers in to work with the older people Ijefore they retire, if we are going to have an organization around for any time at all. We have to address ourselves to some very crucial engineering problems that are facing us today. These 10 spaces, when we measure them against our needs, are very modest, but nevertheless they are about the mini- mum we can cut to. (The statement follows:) Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize the need for the increase of $1,685,000 in general expense funds. The major reason for this increase is to provide funds to support a more adequate staff to meet the needs of the water resources program. We are requesting an increase of 52 people. We are limiting our request to 52 new spaces, Mr. Chairman, because this is a very tight budget year. This request is in fact only a portion of our urgent corpswide requirements. Our additional needs must be postponed. For the past 2 years we have stressed the need for strengthening the corps organization. In budget year 1967 the President's budget included a requested increase of 81 spaces and the Congress allowed §2. In 1968 the request was for 118 and we were allowed 64. Because of the tight fiscal constraints on this budget, the 52 spaces requested this year are our minimum essential needs and we urge you as strongly as we know how, to permit us this manpower increase so that we can do the job that Congress demands. We are particularly concerned with the management and control of our expanded preauthorization study program, ranging from broad regional com- prehensive planning efforts, involving a multitude of Federal and State agencies, to the individual project studies for more localized areas. In dollar volume alone, this program has grown tremendously during the current decade. The current budget is over three times the 1960 appropriation amount. The increase ill workload is only a partial measure of the increased pressures that have been placed on our planning organization. Perhaps even more significant has been the adoption of new planning horizons occasioned by — (1) rapid changes in national policy which have extended the Federal interest in water resource development; (2) the adoption of new standards and criteria which were published in Senate Document 97 ; (3) the increasing requirements for coordination and cooperation at all levels of government, Federal, State, and local ; (4) the coordinated comprehensive planning efforts currently underway for major river basins and large regions of the country and the establishment and operation of the Water Resources Council and the Marine Sciences Council ; and (5) the increased responsibilities placed on the corps to provide technical services to other Federal agencies. States, and local interests through such activities as flood plain management services program. To improve our responsiveness to this substantially increased planning work- load and to provide for more adequate participation by supervisory personnel in the establishment and resolution of difficult policy and planning problems, the Chief of Engineers, in May of 1966, directed that the corps planning organiza- tion at Division offices and at the Washington level be reoriented and strength- ened. Of the 52 spaces requested in this budget, 41 spaces will be used to improve our nationwide planning organization. Thirty-one of these spaces are needed to supplement existing staffs of the new planning divisions which have been established in field division offices. The cur- rent level of staffing for these newly established planning offices was obtained by transferring, to the maximum pos.sible extent, personnel previously assigned 91-45!)— 68— pt. ] 92 1456 to engineering divisions and tlirough assignment of the IS spaces authorized by the fiscal year 1967 Appropriation Act and 31 spaces authorized in 1968._ A major purpose of this reorganization plan was to stafE division oflBces with planning specialists in scientific and technical fields essential, to today's water planning needs. These specialists would participate in, and direct the planning efforts, carried out by corps districts, and facilities the accomplishment of the coi-ps planning tasks. Particular attention is being given to augmenting our capabilities with, water quality si>ecialists, biologists, eeologists, geographers, economists, landscape architects, and environmental planners so that we may be better equipped to carry out the type of planning that is demanded by modern society. The variety and scope of our planning tasks also require supplementing the staffs of OCE. Of the 52 new spaces, 11 are needed for the OflSce, Chief of Engi- neers. The staff in OCE mi^st be increased by two to support work being generated by the Water Resources Council (policy and legislative branch, one: and general counsel, one). We must have three additional personnel in the planning division to develop solutions to the many complex problems facing us today which are typified by those of the Everglades, Great Lakes, and Red River of Kentucky. We hope to take a major step forward this year with the establishment of an economic research center and the Water Resources Institute. Three positions in the OCE Planning Division will establish and provide direction and super- vision for the economic research center which will conduct broad nationaj and regional studies and research necessary to project short- and long-term economic development, establish needs for resources, goods and services, and to evaluate the benefits and costs of alternative means of accomplishing desired objectives. In addition, the center will utilize inputs of other Federal agencies. State agencies and private and educational organizations. After formulation, we have in mind that this center will be physically separated from OCE and be located in the proximity of a university research center. As far as the Water Resources Institute is concerned, we are not asking for spaces this year ; however, we will begin our initial planning and will include our personnel requirements next year. The basic mission of the Water Resources Institute will be to develop and manage comprehensive, integrated corpswide civil works training, career development, and research programs to insure that needs are properly defined ; and that programs are developed to meet overall civil works mission needs, objectives and priorities, and to participate in the solution of problems of a special nature. It will have the capability of undertaking leader.ship in considering national water schemes like NAWAPA and studies leading to a national system of determining what should be developed and what l>reserved : a system to guide us in identifying the public interest in passing on Itermits which involve alteration of the estuary. Three spaces are required in OCE to accelerate the planning, programing, and budgeting system which was required of each major Federal agency by the President. The planning, programing, and budgeting effort is a formalized system of predicting the future water resource needs of our country. We are attempt- ing to improve our forecasting techniques, to predict requirements on a basin- by-basin basis, and to schedule and recommend projects for construction, not only to meet demands as they occur, but also to prevent serious water problems from developing in the future. We are striving to make the maximum use of our existing organization, particularly within the field oflices. It is essential, how- ever, that we secure sufficient personnel in our central office to provide the re- quired guidance. During General Cassidy's opening statement, the intensive activities involv- ing the Everglades and the Great Lakes pollution abatement program were briefly mentioned. These are only examples of the good progress we have made; but these accomplishments require work, a lot of hard work, and this work relates to manpower and spaces. These are only two examples of the many long and tedious coordination problems that have escalated our workload. 1457 Over the last few years, a multitude of major new water resources laws have been passed. These include Public Law 88-578, Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 19(55; Public Law 89-80, Water Resources Planning Act; Public Law 89-72, Federal Water Project Recreation Act; Public Law 89-136, Public AVorks and Economic Development Act ; Public Law 89-i54, Marine Resource and Engineering Development Act ; and Public Law 89-234, Water Quality Act. Although these laws will provide enormous benefit to our country, they present personnel staffing problems to the corps. Let me give you just one example : the Water Resources Planning Act alone has created a workload in our Washington office as follows : fiscal year 1967, 14 man-years ; fiscal yeiar 1968, 15 man-years ; and fiscal year 1969, an estimated 17 man-years of effort. We are concerned, not only with planning for the future, but with an ever- increasing number of major engineering problems. Ten engineering positions are requested for field engineering divisions to provide personnel urgently needed to fill existing technical voids in the engineering review capabilities of certain division office staffs. Assurance as to adequacy and safety of project designs is dependent upon the quality of these reviews. The i-equested positions will enable strengthening those division engineering staffs in which need for additional review and guidance capabilities is most critical. These staff inadequacies have developed because of the following factors: (a) overall growth of the civil works program in si)ecific division areas extending back for several years, (b) an increase in the number of purposes served by civil works projects, including the addition of such functions as water supply, and water quality, (c) tech- nological developments in w'ater resource engineering that provide for better and more economical projects, but require more engineering elfort, and (d) need to provide for facilities meeting increased national emphasis on recreational potentials, pollution control and abatement, beautification, and other factors affecting the human environment. We need outstanding engineering staffs if we are to continue to furnish the required leadership in the technical engineering sciences on which water resource development projects depend. We must con- tinually strive to incorporate the technological advances being made by com- puters which will result in safer and less costly designs. We must keep up and increase our efforts to bring in young engineers to understudy and learn from our older, experienced engineers who are facing retirement. We must staff those division offices where we have identified tecbnical voids that must be filled if Congress is going to continue to have a corps in which they can place the technical confidence in our engineering abilities which we have earned in the past. Our total requested increase of 10 engineers is a modest request in view of the needs before us. As I mentioned earlier, the spaces requested are only a partial request because of the tight budget year. As an example, we have not requested spaces to im- prove our contact with the public and the very vocal enthusiasts on aesthetics, fish and wildlife, and conservation, although we need them very much. Such contacts require time; it requires manpower to write articles, make presenta- tions before various organizations and to hold information meetings. We need to work with the critics of the water resource program so that the facts can be explained and understood, and the true public interest can be distinguished from the parochial. We must also work with these critics so that we understand their problems and do something toward presenting solutions. To this end people are required who speak "the same language" as those who oppose our projects. However, we are reconciled to waiting until better years before such requests can be made, and get by as best we can in the meantime. The Chief of Engineers, in his opening statement, emphasized the essentiality of these 52 additional personnel. I hope my statement explains the importance we attach to the need for these people and gives you a better understanding of our needs. Colonel Plunkett and I shall be pleased to answer any questions or to elaborate on any of the points I have mentioned. 1458 FILLING OF VACANCIES Mr. BoLAND. Do you have any idea what the vacancies are now in the division and the chief's office «? Colonel Plunkett. Yes. We have a total of 50 vacancies in our gen- eral expense spaces out of 1,416 spaces authorized. Of these 50. 20 are in OCE, 21 are in the field division offices, seven in the River and Harbor Board, and two in commercial statistics. Mr. BoLAND. Do you have any difficulty fillino- these positions ^ Colonel Plunkett. We have by intensiAC recruiting processes made very good progress in reducing the hire lag. Just before the receipt of our fiscal year 1968 personnel increase, our hire lag was 28 spaces in the field and in OCE which was about 2 percent. This is especially good progress, we feel. With the late receipt of our fiscal year 1968 space increase and with the executive branch hire lag of several months, our hire lag now is about 3.6 percent. Most of our hire lag exists in cities that are extremely competitive, like Washington, Cliicago, Omaha, and Dallas. However, with the continuing vigorous recruitment ac- tions and with the aid of Public Law 89-516 we are confident that Ave are going to be able to reduce our lag to 2 percent or below in the near future. POSITION BREAKDOWN Mr. BoLAND. Will you provide for the record a position breakdown of the headquarters staff by division, and the field organization by division office, showing the present budgeted positions, existing vacan- cies, and increases proposed for fiscal year 1969. (The information follows :) 1459 CURRENT VACANCIES IN AREAS IN WHICH THE 41 NEW FIELD GE POSITIONS WOULD BE ASSIGNED Activity Space Increase in fiscal year 1968 Current authorization Current vacancies Proposed increase, fiscal year 1969 LMVD: Planning Engineering. Other Total MRD: Planning Engineering. Other Total NAD: Planning Engineering. Other Total NCD: Planning Engineering, Other Total NPD: Planning Engineering. Other Total ORD: Planning Engineering. Other Total POD: Planning Engineering.. Other Total SAD: Planning Engineering. Other_ Total SPD: Planning Engineering.. Other. Total SWD: Planning Engineering.. Other Total Grand total 6 6 1 1 7 92 7 5 5 2 5 5 72 7 5 3 1 1 3 1 3 60 2 4 2 2 1 4 2 1 1 3 77 7 3 3 4 1 1 4 87 5 2 2 1 2 109 3 4 3 1 3 2 1 4 58 1 5 2 2 1 3 52 2 3 2 1 1 4 3 1 4 103 4 7 35 714 21 41 • Fiscal year 1968 authorization tor 35 spaces issued on Dec. 1, 1967. 3 Vacancies. 1460 CURRENT VACANCIES IN AREAS IN WHICH THE 11 NEW OCE GE POSITIONS WOULD BE ASSlG^ltD Activity Current authorization Current vacancy PropoGed, increase. fiscal year 1969 Policy and Analysis Division, OCE Planning Di\/ision, OCE Geieral Counsel, OCE Other,. _ Total 23 4 78 17 6 30 1 1 349 12 480 2 20 1 Fiscal year 1968 authorization of 23 spaces include 7 spaces to this - Fiscal year 1968 authorization of 23 spaces issued on Feb. 2, 1968. is activity issued on Feb. 2, 1968. Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Mr. Boland. "We will insert the justitications coverin(r the request of $5 million for flood control and coastal emergencies. Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies, Fiscal Year 1969 The request of $5 million is for emergency activities pursuant to Public Law 99, 84th Congress, as amended by section 206, Flood Control Act of 1962. The fol- lowing work is undertaken pursuant to that authority whenever and wherever required: flood emergency preparation; flood fighting and rescue opemtious; emergency repair and restoration of flood control works such as levees which are threatened or destroyed by flood; emergency protection of existing Federal hurricane and shore protection works; and the repair or restoration of Federal hurricane or shore protective structures damaged or destroyed by wind, wa\-e, or water action of other than an ordinary nature. Authorized emergency work is financed from an emergency fund also authorized by the aV:iove-eited law, in the amount of $15 million to be replenished on an annual basis. The amount requested conforms to average annual requirements. For fiscal year 1968, 812,032,000 is available in the emergency fund. Presently knovrn requirements estimated at $8,892,000 include requirements arising from the California floods of December 1966, the Midwest floods of April-]\Iay 1967, the Northwest floods of June 1967 and those of December 1967 and January 1968, and the Texas flooding caused by Hurricane Beulah of September 1967. With $640,000 reserved for further requirements in fi.-iual year 1968, it is estimated there will be $2,500,000 available for requirements during fiscal year 1969. A schedule pertaining to the emergency fund authorized by Public Law 99, as amended, follows: Division Fiscal year 1966 Fiscal year 1967 Fiscal year 1968 (estimated) Lower IVIississippi Valley $4,786,555 $849,159 $1,800,000 Missouri River 1,089,370 793,294 1,500.000 New/ England 89,819 64.478 60.000 North Atlantic. 144.889 118.576 700.000 North Central... ._._ 1.889,070 894.400 420,000 North Pacifrc. 4.870,179 1,558,787 1,490,000 Ohio River 114,100 144.718 550.000 Pacific Ocean 20,369 20.401 17,000 South Atlantic 85,725 159,963 65.000 South Pacific. 3,493,798 446,418 1,800.000 Southwestern... 732,972 280,556 490,000 Balance for additional requirements 640,000 Total 18,438,477 5,330,750 9.532.000 ^h\ BoLAXi). Plea.se outline the babis for the $5 million estimate for fiscal year 1969. Mr. Gfrxee. The request for $5 million is based on an initial availa- bility of fmids for fiscal year 1968 of $12 million, of v.-hich we have estimated that $2,500,000 will ])e carried over into fiscal year 1069, 1461 For recent years, $7,500,000 is our average expenditure under this fund which is spent for emergency operations. Mr. BoLAND. How firm is the estimate of $9,532,000 for emergency activities for the current fiscal year ? Mr. GuRNEE. We are actually running behind at the moment the anticipated carryover into fiscal year 1969. We have an uncommitted, not imobligated, but an uncommitted balance at the moment of $2.8 million. We anticipated carrying over $2.5 million into fiscal year 1969. We expect that we will spend more than the $300,000 difference for the remamder of the year, particularly in the light of the recent floods in New England. TJNOBLIGATED BALANCE Mr. BoLAND. How much do you have unobligated at the moment ? Mr. GuRNEE. Our unobligated balance as of the end of February was just over $8 million. REVOLVING FUND Mr. BoLAND. We will insert justifications covering the revohino- fund. Revolving Fund, Fiscal Year 1969 1. The revolving fund is operated in the Waterways Experiment Station and /«-? e^ "rf\ "^^^^ *^® authority contained in Public Law 153, 83d Congress (57 btat. 199). The fund initially incurs the expenses of acquisition, operation, and maintenance of multiple-use facilities such as warehouses, shops, garages, and Jaboratones; the expenses of operating general-use plant such as 'dredges 'tugs automotive and construction equipment; and the general administrative ex'penses of district offices. The expenses incurred are recouped by charging consumer appropriations on the basis of usage. 2. FISCAL YEAR 1968 AND FISCAL YEAR 1969 PROGRAMS (a) Land and structures (1) Major items (a) South Atlantic division laboratory: The existing facility is a wooden prefabricated structure constructed in 1941 for use as an office and infirmary by ffi • ^f ^i"^"- The laboratory space requirements exceed the available space; etticient use of the existing space is not possible since the building was not designed as a laboratory; the electrical system is inadequate for industrial use- and the building isnot suitable for storing the large supply of chemicals and flammables necessary in laboratory operations. Fiscal year 1968: $820,000 for completion of design and initiation of construction. Fiscal year 1969: $70,000 for completion oi construction. (6) Waterways experiment station concrete laboratory: The existing labora- wtJc^^^^^mI"-^^ -^ ^-P,?^,^^,^ "^ Jackson, Miss., approximately 40 miles from all other WJi,b facilities in Vicksburg, Miss. It is planned that the existing structure will be used to consolidate all personnel connected with construction, operation and maintenance of the Mississippi Model Basin and dispose of all temporary buildings and excess real estate at the Jackson, Miss., location, since construction of the model basin is nearing completion. The construction of a concrete laboratory on the Vicksburg property of WES is needed due to a workload which has doubled m the past .5 years. The decision to proceed with construction at this time is warranted, since extensive repairs, modifications, and additions to the existing tacility are required if operations are continued at the Jackson, Miss., location A new laboratory will permit consolidation of the materials, structural and concrete organizations and will provide improved administrative and technical operations. ^isca year 1968: $1 mdhon for completion of design and initial construction. Fiscal year 1969: $994,000 for completion of construction. (c) Vicksburg District Shop and Yard: This facihtv is used to repair equipment required for maintaining authorized project depths for navigation channels- bank 1462 stabilization and debris removal from the Mississippi River. The existing facihties are obsolete wooden structures which require complete rehabilitation. The present 45-acre site is on a steep hillside, which necessitates expensive pile base foundations and extensive use of barge mounted shops. The water storage area for floating plant is inadequate, and requires that 30 items of floating plant be moored across the Mississippi River, which makes it difficult and expensive to perform repairs to this plant. A new, level and smaller site (20 acres) will be used for the construc- tion of a new shop facility with adequate mooring area for all plant in this one location. Consolidation of facilities will permit improvements in the fire and security arrangements as well as in the maintenance and repair of eqinpment. Fiscal year 1968: $816,000 for continuation of construction. Fiscal year 1969: $1,739,000 for construction; with $264,000 required in future years for completion of construction. (6*) Coastal Engineering Research Center: 1. Shore Processes Station: This model test facility is presently not covered. The loss of productive man-hours and adverse effects on the collection of research data resulting from the lack of a shelter are as follows: Winter temperatures cause deferment of operations due to drainage of eductors, pumps, and water lines to prevent freezing; water tempera- ture has a direct relationship to the accuracy of data obtained. Personnel cannot continue testing during rainy periods and heavy rains erode the beach models; winds distort wave conditions and wind blown debris must frequently be cleared from the model. Enclosure of this facility will eliminate the above problems and provide for more efficient and rapid accumulation of research data. Fiscal vear 1967: $7,400 for design. Fiscal year 1968: $50,000 for completion of final design. Fiscal year 1969: $723,000 for construction. 2. Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors — Coastal Engineering Research Center Structure: The existing office building used by BERH (temporary build- ing "C") is scheduled for destruction. The existing office building used by CERC is located on land within the Dalecarlis Reservoir watershed area and is con- sidered a pontential source of contamination to the city water supply by the Com- mittee on Certification of the District of Columbia \\'ater Supply and the Na- tional Capital Planning Commission. Construction of a new structure (Kingman Building) is needed to provide space for these organizations and to permit close coordination between these groups. Fiscal year 1968: $100,000 for completion of final design. Fiscal year 1969: $1,100,900 for initiation of construction with $600,000 required in future years for completion of construction. (e) North Atlantic Division Laboratory: The North Atlantic division is the only CON US division that does not have a laboratory facility, with the exception of the lower Mississippi Valley division which uses the waterways experiment station facility. NAD laboratory work is being accomplished by other division laboratories. The advent of increased civil works workload programs throughout the corps has resulted in the other division laboratories scheduling the NAD laboratory work on a low-priority basis in order to accomplish their own labora- tory work on schedule. The NAD construction workload was $175 million in fiscal year 1967 and it is estimated that it will increase to $205 million in fiscal year 1970 and to $337 milhon in fiscal year 1975. Division laboratories are an integral part of the investigation, design, and construction aspects of construction projects. In view of the estimated increase in the NAD annual construction workload, it is planned to proceed with the construction of a NAD laboratory facility to accomplish this workload in a timely manner. Fiscal year 1968: $400,000 for preparation of design and initiation of construction. Fiscal year 1969: $800,000 for construction; with $418,000 required in future years for completion of con- struction. (6) Dredges (1) Major items (a) East coast hopper dredge (hopper dredge Hayward) : During the past several years, a hopper dredge production deficiency of 18 to 30 months has existed. Based on a review of the hopper dredge worl ■ CM CO t3 OO O^O^ 2 -o2 mm ra- o >,q: 03-5. Q- O) 03 QJ --- ^— O O H ?o oo^5a:oS >-_joSSi— o^OLi-o 5^ 3 =J =: .2- O .S-.9-.2- O =30000 :oooooq-xq-q-o-3:q31X3:xu5 ■= = 00.0- 1469 r^ ■»n ' Til .— '.(• ■2 °*'>':=; I OC3 Oc3 CD CD OOOCJCDO O^OOOCD O ,^ CS C3 CD CD a)"^cDCT>ir) CM CD^OOoO oSoOoo a> '=*^ CTi to to CNJ ^•-« _r csT cvT csT OO *^ •—< "^ «* — < tj •— ' t_J w C3 tj cdOocdoo CD O CD CD CD lO ■-H •— ' cnTcC csTcsj C30C)000 - CD CD O 1 CSIOOOOl CD O ^ O C)CD cmOcd -go too C>COCJ o O ^'iO- oooo CM '— ' CSJ CM CM CM or^ooocM to a>cooo ooocM o o o-o J ™^J2~:'2o •= -TOM O y- tor^oo CT> ^.— . 1470 Staff Investigation Keport on the Dredging Activities of the Corps of Engineers Mr. BoLAND. The committee would like to turn now to the staff in- vestigation report on the dredging activities of the Corps of Engineers. We will insert the summary of the report m the record. (The information follows :) Dredging Activities by the Corps of Engineers REPORT summary /. Introduction A. Directive. — By directive dated August 1, 1967, the committee requested that the staff conduct an investigation into the U.S. Army Corps of Bngirieers' dredging activities including : 1. A view of the present utilization of corps dredges, including the ex- tent to which hopper dredges are utilized for work in areas that could be handled by nonhopper dredges ; 2. An analysis of the relative cost to the Government of having dredging work performed by private industry compared with costs being incurred by the corps ; 3. An appraisal of the nature and extent of the competition that could be expected among private contractors if the dredging work was to be ad- vertised for bids ; 4. In light of the corps contention that the urgency of some dredging requirements precludes the use of contractor dredges, a feview of the feasibil- ity of revisiing present contract procedures to i>ermit greater flexibility in the use of private equipment with provisions for maintenance of adequate fiscal and management controls. 5. An analysis of the need for acquisition by the corps of the four items of dredging equipment specified in the estimate for fi.scal year 1968. B. Scope of inquiry. — The staff contacted the Ofiice of the Chief of Engineers (OCE) located at Washington. D.C., where officials of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (corps) were interviewed concerning the programs for planning, contacting, and construction of dredging equipment. The operational records of the corps were also analyzed to determine the extent of utilization of Govern- ment-owned dredging equipment and the comparative costs of operating this equipment with that of private contractors. Visits were made to the district offices of the corps located at Buffalo and New York, N.Y. ; Philadelphia, Pa. ; Chicago, 111. ; Detroit, Mich. ; Norfolk, Va. ; .Jacksonville, Fla. ; New Orleans, La. ; Galveston, Tex. ; and St. Louis, Mo., where responsible corps officials were interviewed concerning contracting procedures, the extent of competition in bidding on contracts, contractor costs of operation, and the utilization of Govei-nment-owned equipment. The staff also interviewed officials of 14 different dredging firms located at Chicago, 111. ; Detroit, Mich. ; New Orleans, La. ; New York, N.Y. ; Philadelphia. Pa. ; Port Lavaca, Tex. ; St. Louis, Mo. ; and Jacksonville, St. Petersburg, and Tampa, Fla. Representatives of five different dredging contractor associations who were located at Washington, D.C. ; Detroit, Mich. ; New Orleans, La. ; and Chesapeake, Va., were interviewed concerning their contact with corps projects and their opinions concerning contracting procedures. Representatives of shipping and navigational interests, the users of the water- ways who are dependent upon corps annual programs for keeping the water- ways free from obstructions and hindrances to navigation, were interviewed at Jacksonville, Fla. ; New Orleans, La. ; and St. Louis, Mo. Visits were also made by the staff to onsite dredging operations being con- ducted by both private industry and the corps and interviews were had with nianagement and employees in charge of the work. C. Background. — All navigable waterways of the United States are under Fed- eral control and the Coi-ps of Engineers is responsible for improving and main- taining the Nation's navigable rivers, canals, and harbors. Dredging is one means of accomplishing this task. In the early 1900's, the Corps performed practically all dredging throughout the TTnited States with Government-owned plants. Private industry's dredging capability increased over the years and in order to keep plants bu.sy, contractors 1471 have competed for Corps dredging contracts. Contract dredging by private industry on civil works projects has decreased from over 79 percent in tiscal year 1963 to approximately 63 percent in fiscal year 1967. Private industry is dependent upon the Corps dredging program to a large extent to remain healthy and the Corps has become dependent on industry to accomplish its annual dredging requirements. A significant portion of the- Corps' dredging work to be accomplished by oceangoing vessels, led to the Corps development of large self-propelled, sea- worthy hopper dredges capable of working where water traffic or wave action precluded the use of stationary dredges. Industi-y has not constructed hopper dredges as there is not sufficient contract work or assurances of work by the Corps to warrant the substantial investment in such dredges. Private industry complains that the Corps uses hopper dredges on many jobs which industry presently has the capability of performing, and an increase in Corps hoppeV dredge capability will result in a substantial threat to private industry. II. Capital expenditure progratri for dredging equipment A. Present Inveyitory of Corps' Dredging Equipment.— The Corps has 16 hopper dredges and 26 nonhopper dredges. Hopper Dredges Hopper dredges are self-propelled, oceangoing vessels with machinery capable of excavating material from a channel bottom or ocean bed and pumping the waste into hoppers or bins for subsequent disposal at sea or some other disposal area. Corps officials said only two hopper dredges (Corps surplus) are owned by private industry. A Chicago industry representative said his firm has four hopper dredges (purchased from the Corps), three of which are registered under the American flag ; only one is presently being used under contract with the New York Port Authority to haul sand. Corps hopper dredges are classified by capacity of the hopper, (1) small (500 to 1.700 cubic yards), (2) mecUum (1,700 to 6,000 cubic yards), and (3) large (6.000 to 8,000 cubic yards). The 16 Corps' hopper dredges are listed according to their classification with statistics as to year built, hopper capacity, size of crew, and original cost. Xonhopper Dredges Nonhopper dredges are classified as pipeline, sidecasting, bucket, or dipper. The method of operation of each type is discussed. The 26 nonhopper dredges are listed according to their classification with statistics as to year built, capacity, size of crew, and original cost. There are no dustpan or sidecasting hydraulic dredges owned and operated by private industry. Private industry has hydraulic cutterhead pipeline, bucket, and dipper dredges comparable with Corps equipment. Corps officials said that dredges owned and operated by private industry are not self-propelled, whereas most Government-owned dredging plants are self-propelled. Private industry must obtain auxiliary power efiuipment, such as tug boats, to move the dredges. B. Dredge capital expenditure program fiseal years 1968-72. — Funding of dredges and other major items of equipment is by means of a self-.^istaining revolving fund. The total authorized limitation of the fund is $162 million. How- ever, as of September 30, 1907, the capital of the fund was $149.3 million, of which $54.5 million represented the book value (original cost less depreciation) of dredges and related dredging equipment. The 5-year program (fiscal years 1968-72) for capital improvements for five hopper, four cutterhead, and three dustpan dredges totals approximately $42.8 million. The fiseal year programs do not represent full investment in any one dredge, but represent funding increments. The 5-year progi-am includes three new hopper dredges (a shallow draft, the Ha.\'v\'ard, and a 6.000 cubic yard dredge), and two new cutterhead dredges (the Ste. Genevieve and the Bacon). Shallow draft hopper dredge The shallow draft hopi)er dredge is estimated to co.st over $9.5 million l>y its completion date in fiscal year 1972. This dredge is intended for service oii the east coast to work in small coastal inlets and shallow ocean bar channels and will be equipped with sidecasting capability. Initial consideration for this dredge began in 1947 but in 1958. work on this dredge was discontinued due to pressure of private dredging industry which felt acquisition of such a dredge would be in competition with industry. 91-459—68 — pt. 1 93 1472 Corps officials said an inquiry of three corps east cost division offices in 1967 determined a IGVz months' corps requirement annually for this dredge on the east and gulf coasts. However, one corps division office reported its figures were on an annual avei-age requirement over a long term basis. The other two corps division offices said the need for this dredge would be curtailed or eliuiiuated if the corps followed present dredging maintenance criteria of allowing shoaling to occur until it interefered with navigation before remedial action is taken. It appears the requirement for this dredge is based in part in ]ierforming preventa- tive type maintenance dredging rather than meeting minimum corps requirements. Hopper dredge Hai/U'tird The Hayward is scheduled for oi>eration in fiscal year 1971 on the east and gulf coasts. Estimated cost for this dredge is over .$17.7 million. The i>id oji^uiiig date was scheduled for July 20, 1967, but was canceled by the corps on July 17, 1967. until a determination could be made as to the requii-ement for this dredge. As the result of a corps-wide survey in January 1966. the Office of the Chief of Engineers determined overall requirements for the 6-year period (fiscal years 1966-71) showed a deficiency of corps hopper dredges and the Office of the Chief of Engineers determined the construction of the Haijicard was warranted. Cutterhead 8te. Geneviere Th0 St. Goicty'ieve is to replace the existing cutterhead of the same name I built in 1932). This dredge is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1970 at an e>ti- mated cost of about .$8.6 million. The Sfe. Genevieve will perform maintetiance work on the Ohio, Illinois, and Mississippi Rivers. The Office of the Chief of Engineers has not considered the possibility of tran.sferring another dredge to the corps St. Louis district office to replace the present ste. Genevieve. Cutterhead Wahkiakum The Walikiakuni has undergone substantial alterations and improvements since its acquisition in 1911. Expenditures totaling $.j09,()(X) in fiscal year 190S and fiscal year 1969 are the estimated co.sts of completing the rehabilitation. A corps official said when the reconditioning program is completed the Wahkinkiiin should be comparable to that of a new dredge. This dredge assigned to the corps Portland District Office is used to remove the rapidly forming sihoals of tlii- Columbia River. Cutterhead Bacon The Bacon, will replace the dredge of the same name (built in 1931). Corps officials said extensive repairs and costly replacements for the present Bacon cannot be justified. The present Bacon is the only pipeline dredge owned by the Corps on the Atlantic coast and is used in the Savannah and Bruswick harboi-s in Georgia. A corps official said because of unpredictable shoaling in the areas of the twf> harbors, a dredge is required full time, and total co}>ts to perform the work by contractor plant would be far above the cost of doing the work by Government plant. The work of the Bacon has been the subject of much criticism of industry. The corps has continually advised industiy that it is performing experimental dredging in these harbors and when the experimental work is completed it will be offered to industry. The eximriment has been continuing for 10 years: and it would appear the corps has dec-ided it can do the win-k more economically than Ijrivate industry. C. Private indutermit the corps to perform the work when it is most economical and advantageous to the Government. 1473 The corijs is requirp'd to adhere to the general polity in Bureau of the Budget Circular A-7(i (revised August 30, 19(37) in relying upon private enterprise to supply its needs, except where it is in the national interest for the Government to provide directly the products and services it uses. A. Policy of detenninuKj method of dredging. — Corps officials advised the justification for use of Government operated dredges may be either equipment to perform a specific dredging requirement does not exist in private industi*y, a satisfactory commercial source is not readily available or cannot be developed, or use of a commercial source will result in higher cost to the Government. The corps policy is to keep its own dredges busy and to advertise for com* petitive bids work that caimot be i)erformed by Government-owned plants. The award of a conti-act to private industry is subject to 33 U.S. Code 624 which states that funds cannot be used if the contract price is more than 2~^ ixr- cent in excess of the estimated co.st of doing the work by Government planr. The Corps estimates Government dredging cost by using the most efficient suitalile and available Government plant which may result in a disadvantage to private industry, as comparative costs of operating Government hopper and dustpan equipment (which indiistry does not own) is substantially lower than the costs of operating other types of dredging equipment. A corps official said a military requirement exists for the Corps to maintain an inventory of hopper dredges. This official said the corps needs more hopper dredges while contractors want more dredging business, regardless of economy, Coi-ps officials advised that hopper dredges are necessary for si>ecific work requirements and industry does not have this capability. Corps officials aLso claim Government-owned pipeline dredges are required for emergency work. Such work is essentially at widely scattered and rapidly forming shoals, which constitute a threat to navigation, and preclude advertising for bids because of the length of time to contract for such work. B. Corps contracting procedures. — Corps standard procedure of contracting for dredging is by solicitation of competitive bids on the unit price per cubic yard of material to be dredged. In some cases the contractor plant is leased, and the succes.sful bidder is paid a daily rate. The lease rental method is used when it is imi)Ossible to accurately e.stimate the amount of material to be dredged. Corps officials advi.sed it normally takes 3 months to obtain a contract for unit price work. C. Competition fo-r corps contract dredging. — Competition for corps contract dredging work varies .substantially among the different corps district offices. An analy.sis of the average number of contractors bidding on corps dredging contracts, involving awards of over $100,000 during the period from .January 19.")G through December 1966 for the six corps division offices disclosed that for 1,021 contracts awarded during tJiis period there was an average of four bids per contract. D. Fcasibilitg of revising contract procedures. — Officials of dredging firms in Chicago. 111.. Philadelphia. Pa., and those operating in the Great Lakes area complained to the staff that several projects the corps holds for Government- owned dredges due to unpredictable shoaling should be contracted to industry. IndustiT officials suggested contracting for the utilization of contractor's dredg- ing equipment by leasing it for a specified number of days, with options, in order to insure the availability of the contractors' dredges. Corps officials stated that Ic;ising arrangements would not be economically feasible because of high < osts and in most areas where corps has urgent dredging requirements, there is a lack of adeipiate available contractor dredges. IV. rtilization of present Coi'ps equipment A. Vse of corps dredges.- — The 42 dredges owned and operated by the corps are tabulated according to class indicating the corps district office to which i:!ssign«-d as of October 30, 1967. Corps offir'iiiis said hop'per dredges worked on a total of 138 different river and liarhor projects in fisical year 1966 and fiscal year 1967. and during the same period non-hopper dredges worked on 122 different river and harbor projects. The corps prepares an annual schedule for utilization of its hopper dredges each spring (March-April). A schedule of estimated deficiency in hopper dredges computed by the coriK* for fiscal year 1966 through fiscal year 1971 shows a net deficiency (in month.-;) during this period in the small- and merlium-size hopper dredges. The large size ho]>j>er dredges shov.- a net deficiency in fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1968, however, a net overage for fiscal year 1967. and fiscal year 1969 through 1971 ranging from 4.07 to .5.90 hoi)iDer dredge months. 1474 An auuual consolidated statement of utilization of hopper dredges provides guidance for operational improvement of hopper dredge activities. The consoli- dated statements for fiscal years 1964-67 disclosed the effective working time (based on working 24 hours a daj) of hopper dredges during this period was approximately 60 percent. Prior to 1951 the corps prepared a consolidated statement and analysis of operations of nonhopper dredges. In 1968, the office of the Chief of P:ngineers established the requirement again for preparing this data beginning with fisc-al year 1967. Daily reports of operations are prepared for each non-hopper dredge and summarized in monthly and annual reports. The staff noted there was ambiguity and a lack of clarity and understanding regarding how some items making op lost time should be reix>rted. Office of the Chief of Engineers officials plan to take corrective action, but as yet have not studied the problem. An analysis is made of utilization of nonhopper dredges by type for fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967 showing percent of effective, noneffective, and lost time. The analysis dis- closed that generally corps nonhopper dredges were idle primarily for winter lay- up and major repairs and alterations. One exception to this was the dustpan dredge Meriwether Leicis in the corps' Omaha district, which performed no work in fiscal year 1967 because of unusually high river stages on the Missouri River. Office of the Chief of Engineers officials said if they had known the dredge was idle, they would have considered transferring this di'edge teuip<)rarily to another location. Overall control of the utilization and requirements of nonhopper ■dredges is not monitored by the central office headquarters. B, Use of private contractors. — During the period fiscal year 1963 to fiscal year 1967 the total corps dredging program has decreased from $16.5.6 to $110.0 milUon. The amount contracted has decreased from 79.4 percent in fiscal year 3963 to 62.7 percent in fiscal year 1967, while during the same period utilization of the corps dredges increased from 20.6 percent in fiscal year 1963 to 37.3 per- cent in fiscal year 1967. Corps officials maintain it has been corps policy that where the corps has an in-house dredging capability, private contractors are generally not given opportunity to bid on either maintenance or new dredging projects under cer- tain described situations. The corps in the fall of fiscal year 1967 reviewed its planned fiscal year 1968 hopper dredging operations at the urging of industry and later expanded it to include nonhopper dredges. As a result, 40 projects originally scheduled for com- pletion by corps plants in fiscal year 1968 are being advertised for bid to con- tractors. The corps estimated Government cost for these 40 projects if completed by Government plants is $7.9 million as compared to a corps estimated total cost of $17.1 million, or over 100 percent more if completed by contractor plants. Corps officials said they believe the dredging industry will not consider bidding on some of these 40 projects because it will be impractical or dangerous to at- tempt the work with equipment other than by hopper dredge, and industry will not be able to submit a responsive bid within 2." i)ercent of the Government estimate on some projects. Twenty-three of the 40 projects advertised for bid were based on i)erforming the work by hopper dredges. Office of the Chief of Engineers officials said if the 40 projects were awarded to private contractors. hopi>er dredges could not be fully utilized, and there would not be sufficient funds for all projects. In addition, if the 23 hopi>er dredge projects were awardeeen doing work with hopper dredges that could be done by private contractor nonhopper dredging equipment. An official of the Office of the Chief of Engineers said in his opinion, private industry will not bid on the 23 projects in the 40 projects, for which costs were computed on the basis of performing the work by hopper dredges, because of prohibitive costs of doing the work with nonhopper dredges. Several dredging projects previously performed by corps hopper dredges are not being offered to private contractors following inquiries by officials of asso- ciations of dredging contractors. 1475 V. Qovernmeyit dredffing costs vs. private contractors costs A Corps dredging costs.— The average cost per cubic yard credited for each of the hopper dredges for new work and maintenance work during hscal year 1900 and fiscal year 1967 is set forth. . , ,^ , -.nr-i r oi A separate analysis was made for the 4-year period (fiscal year ipG4-hM-al veir l')67) of the average cost i)er cubic yard for new work and maintenance work for the fleet or corps hopper dredges. A separate analysis was made of the average cost per cubic yard credited by each type of nonhopper dredge for fiscal year 1966 and fiscal year 1967. *.- • The accuracy of the corps recorded cost data for dredge operations is ques- tionable in that certain costs that have been charged to the individual projects are estimated costs rather than actual costs, and in addition, not all corps costs have been included. ^ ■, , ^ 4-t, /i„.,^„a Proiects funded bv appropriations are charged a rental charge for the dredge equipment used on "a project to replenish the revolving fund. The corps has established plant rental charges for the projects based on an amortized rate of the original cost for the equipment rather than the replacement of such existing equipment at increased market costs. The corps is also making inci^ mental credits to the revolving fund from appropriations to make up the dett- ciency between original costs and replacement costs at current market prices. The incremental credits are not being charged to the individual projects ; there- fore, the plant rental charges are lower than actual amortized costs. This prac- tice lowers the corps' recorded unit costs below actual costs. The staff determined that the corps estimates the number of days the dredge will be working and determines the rate of plant rental charge for each day. This rate is used to charge plant rental to dredging jobs. If the estimates of plant rental costs or of operating days are not accurate, the plant rental charges made to the jobs throughout the year will not be equal to the actual costs incurred during the year. The corps does not adjust the plant rental charged to oi>erations to show the true costs for the year, instead the difference is carried over to the next vear as an adjustment to the estimated plan rental costs. As a result, the plant rental costs charged to jobs and recorded on the corps records are distorted from year to year. Attendant plant The staff determined that in certain instances attendant plant equipment for pummng materials to shore are not included in the costs for operating a particu- lar dredge. The accounting firm of Ernst & Ernst recently assessed the eco- nomic feasibility of private industry's acquiring and operating a self-propelled hopper dredge. The study contained an analysis of corps cost of operating the hopper dredge Cornier. An undated draft report prepared by Ernst & Ernst showed that the Cornier worked a substantial portion of fiscal year 196.5 with mooring barges and pipeline in its direct pump-out operation. However, the costs of the barges and pipeline were not included in the corps attendant plant cost figures. B. Dredging costs by private contractors.— It is unrealistic to compare the costs of performing dredging work by Government-owmed plant with the costs of performing dredging work by private contractors unless the working conditions and type of dredging are reasonably the same. it was impossible for the staff to compare contract costs witht costs of corps projects because of the lack of comparable working conditions and materials removed. Contractor's costs obtained from several district oflSces set out are generally higher than the operational costs for the corps dredges but it must be empha- sized that without known working conditions which could seriously affect the costs, the contract cost data is of only general interest. C. Comparison of corps costs loith private contractor costs. — Cost data, as prepared from corps records, clearly indicates that generally it is more economi- cal to perform dredging by Government-owned plant than by contractor plant. A principal reason for this lower cost is that the corps, in establishing its own dredging program, plans for full utilization of its hopper and pipeline dredges, whereas the records of private contractors indicate that their dredges are being used only about 50 percent of the available work time. The corps enjoys certain other cost advantages over private industry, such as property insurance, volume purchasing of supplies, building rental and mainte- nance, and a capital investment which does not require a return on investment. 1476 The firm of Ernst & Ernst in its report to the dredging indiistry concluded that private industry's profitable operation of hopixr dredges in (competition with the corps dredges appear to be impossible for the following reasons : '"Present corps policies in awarding contracts to private operators of non- self-propelled dredges have resulted in low and therefore uneconomical use rates for these dredges. As hopper dredge contracts would be let subject to these same policips, a similar result can be anticipated. "Private industry must accumulate most of the funds for plant replacement from profits after taxes. A plant replacement allowance must accordingly be considered in bids. The corps, on the other hand, receives plant replacement fuiids from Congress through annual appropriations and therefore need not consider a replacement allowance in bid estimates. "Hopper dredge costs reported by the corps do not reflect actual operating costs to the Government and do not include cost elements which must be recognized by private industry. Therefore, bids by private industry based on actual cost could not compete with corps bids based on incomplete costs." Mr, BoLAND, The staff report shows that contract dredg:ing by private industry on corps projects lias decreased from over 71) per- cent in fiscal year 1903 to about G3 percent in iiscal year 1067. Please comment on the basis for this decline in contract dredgino-. Mr, GuRXEE. This does not represent increased dredging work by the corps. Our level of operations is continuing substantially the same as in the past, including the years referred to. It does represent a decrease in the amount of new work dredging, most of which is made available to the contractors for accomplishment. Our past policies have been to utilize our in-house corps plant completely, and we have had no significant increase in our plant capability. Consequently, our actual work accomplishments have been the same, INCREASE IN UTILIZATION OF CORPS DREDGES Mr. BoLAND. The staff investigation report indicates that utilization of corps dredges increased from 20.6 percent in fiscal 1963 to 37,3 per- cent in fiscal 1967. That is a pretty substantial increase, 17 percent. Mr. GuRNEE. It would appear so, sir, on the face of the figures, but these fi.gures are a percentage of the overall total, I just indicated that aside from cost escalation during the years in question the corps' actual work accomplishments have not changed. It is true that the dredging industry's workload in our program has gone down. That is due to a reduction in the new work authorizations and appropriations for corps work. POSSIBLE USE OF LEASED EQUIPMENT FOR URGENT DREDGING Mr. BoLAND, The corps has 16 hopper dredges and 26 nonhojiper dredges. The private dredging industry is also critical of the fact that the corps uses its own dredges in lieu of contract, as it is not possible to predict shoaling problems sufficiently in advance to permit advertis- ing for bids. Why would it not be possible for the corps to make lejis- ing arrangements with the private contractors to have dredging equip- ment available for selected periods of time for urgent dredging use? Mr, GuRNEE. This is a possibility, Mr. Chairman. We do this at the present time. We usually have at least three contractor dredges under lease e^'ery year, largely for work in the Mississippi River. To expand this practice everywhere does have some decided cost dis- advantages to the Government for the reason that in most places we 1477 would have to have this plant on a standby basis awaiting the actual need for the dredging, which cannot be forecast with respect to loca- tion or time. Of course, we would have to pay the contractor for that standby time which would not be productive. DlSCrSSIOX OF LAW RELATING TO LIMITATION OF PRICE PAID FOR PRIVATE DREDGING Air. BoLAND. Dredging contracts with j)rivate industry are subject to 33 United States Code 523 which provides that the contract price cannot be more than 25 percent in excess of the established cost of doing the work by Government dredging. Please outline how the corps makes this determination. Mr. GuRNEE. We apply that law to our dredging work only under those circumstances when we have corps plant available to work on the project. Our counsel has advised us, and our position with respect to the GAO criticism has been, to the effect that if we do not have Government plant available to put on the particular job, we should base our estimates on what we call a fair and reasonable to the con- tractor estimate which is usually higher than a Government plant estimate. We have under consideration clarification of that legislation to cover our operations. CONTROL OF NOXHOPPER DREDGES Mr. BoLAND. The staff report indicates that there is no overall con- trol of the utilization of the nonhopper dredges by the central office headquarters and notes that the dredge MernoetJier Leuns m the corps' Omaha district performed no work in fiscal year 1967 because of un- usually high river stages on the Missouri River. Why was this dredge not transferred temporarily to another location? Mr. GuRNEE. With respect to the first statement, sir, the nonhopper dredges operated by the corps are special-purpose dredges which are not moved from one site to another. The dredge Meriwether Leiois is a dustpan dredge located in the Mis- souri Eiver^clivision. It was not used in fiscal year 1967 as you stated, sir. There are three dustpan dredges in the Missouri River division. Two of them were used during most of the low water season on the Mis- souri River in 1967. This is the first year in many years that we have not used all three dredges. The other one was in a standby status to take care of low water and shoaling that did not occur in 1967. Now, as to your question as to why we did not use it elsewhere, this dredge has too short a ladder and has too low a power for us to use on any other project within economical commuting distance. Mr. BoLAND. I must say that that last statement is a better expla- nation than the one in the report. Someone in the Office of the Chief of Engineers indicated to the staff, and I quote from the report: "If they had known the dredge was idle they would have considered trans- ferring this dredge temporarily to another location." But from what you have testified to, it was a type of dredge which would not be too useful elsewhere because of its "limited capabilities; is this true? Mr. GuRNEE. That is correct, sir. 1478 STATUS OF PLAN" FOR AD%'ERTISING DREDGING PROJECTS FOR BIDS Mr. BoLAND. Yours is a much better answer, I would think. The re- port indicates that last fall the corps reviewed its dredging operation plans at the urging of industry and, as a result, 40 projects originally scheduled for completion by corps dredging in fiscal year 1968 are being advertised for bid to contractors. Please outline this plan and tell us the status. Mr. G^TRNEE. Our purpose in instituting this plan was to give the dredging industry an opportunity to bid on those jobs on which they had insisted that tliey could perform the work at a lesser cost than we were doing it with Government plant and on which we had taken the view that this was probably not possible due to the unique type and location of the work. There are now 37 rather than 40 projects. Three have been scratched from that list. Tliis represents about a third of all of the hired labor dredge work which we had remaining at the beginning of this calendar year for this fiscal year. So far, we have opened bids on only nine of these projects. The present indication is that three of these nine will be done by the contractors rather than by the Government. The low bids have varied anywhere from about the same as our estimate to about 150 percent in excess of our estimate, or 250 percent of the Government estimate. On some of them our assump- tions have been borne out, on two or three of them they have not. We expect to analyze our overall workload in the light of the results of this total experimental program after it is completed to determine just which work should continue to be done by the corps plant. Mr. BoLAND. I think the corps is showing good judgment here. USE OF CORPS HOPPER DREDGES ON NONHOPPER DREDGE WORK The report states that the corps officials admit that the corps has been doing work with hopper dredges that could be done by private contractor nonhopper dredging equipment. What steps is the corps taking, if any, to assign hopper dredges chiefly to hopper dredge work ? Mr. GuRNEE. It is our normal practice to assign hopper dredges only to hopper dredge work, but there are some circumstances where this does not work out. For example, on some of our small harbors on the Atlantic coast we have to use hopper dredges on the bar channel which is where the bulk of the work is. We will then have on a project of this type a small amount of channel work inside the bar, and when we have such a cir- cumstance, with the plant already mobilized, we use the dredge to do the inside work also, to the great economic advantage of the Govern- ment. Under such a circumstance it would usually cost more to mo- bilize a contractor's plant than for us to do the work with our own plant without regard to payment for work progress. PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN REPLENISHING REVOLVING FUND Mr, BoLAND. Will you please outline for the committee the proce- dure followed to charge projects a rental charge for the use of corps dredge equipment in order to replenisli the revolving funds? Mr. GuRKEE. All of our ])lant, floating and otherwise, is capitalized in the revolving fund on the basis of its replacement value. This, in turn, is based on cost projections furnished by the Department of 1479 Commerce or other reliable media. The capital cost of the plant, re- gardless of what it may be, is then charged against the projects on which the plant is being utilized in such a way that the total replace- ment value of the plant will be on hand when it becomes necessary to rej)lace the plant. PLANT RENTAL COSTS Mr. BoLAND. The report also indicates that the plant rental costs charged on jobs and recorded on the corps records are distorted from year to year as any adjustments to the plant charges to show the true costs for a year are carried over to the next year as an adjustment to the estimated plant rental costs. Do you agree that this practice does dis- tort the actual corps dredging costs on a particular project? yir. GuRNEE. No, sir. We adjust our costs onlj^ once a year. Rental dates do not vary greatly from one year to the next. We have had the situation where we switched from a prior accounting system about 3 3'ears ago. We switched then to reimbursement on a replacement value basis rather than on an original cost value. In that immediate period of switching from one cost system to another there would have been a distortion. EXCLUSION OF EXPENSES FOR PUMPING MATERIALS TO SHORE Mr. BoLAND. The report also indicates that certain expenses re- lated to plant equipment for pumping materials to shore were not included in the costs for operating a particular dredge. This again tends to understate the actual costs being incurred by the corps in reference to a particular dredge. What albout this allegation in the report? Mr. GuRNEE. I agree where such a circumstance occurs it should be included in the plant cost. I don't know the particular circumstance to wliich the report has reference. I would be glad to report further on that if identified. Mr. BoLAND. Fine. COMPARISON or DREDGING COSTS Mr. BoLAND. The report states that it was impossible for the staff to compare contract costs with costs of corps projects because of the lack of comparable working conditions and materials removed. The staff report indicates, however, that cost data available does "clearly indicate that generally it is more economical to perform dredging by Government-owned plant than by contractor plant." A principal reason for this lower cost is that the corps plans for full utilization of its dredges, whereas private contractors are utilizing their dredges only about 50 percent of the available worktime. The corps also enjoys certain other cost advantages over private industry, including a capital investment which does not require a re- turn on investment. PROPOSED EAST COAST HOPPER DREDGE "hAYWAED" The 1969 budget proposes, under the revolving fund, the initiation of construction of the east coast hopper dredge Hayward at a total cost of over $17.7 million. 1480 The corps presently has a total of IG hopper dredges including seven in the medium class to which the Hayiuard would be an addition. Why is this addition considered essential at this time I Mr. GuRNEE. Two months ago, ]\Ir. Chairman, we revie\^ed what we think would be an optimum work program for the entire country that would liave to be done, under our conce)Dts, at least, by liopi')er dredges. This showed that in the size category of the proposed dredge Hmjicard we would have a deficiency of two dredges for several years. It is for this reason that we have proposed to build the Hayward. This particular study that we made in eTanuary of this year is an ujjclating of a prior study that shows substantially the same results, based on which we had originally proposed to open bids on the Hayicard a year ago, in July. EFFECT OF DEFERRAL IN CONSTRUCTION OF "hAYWAKD" Mr. BoLAND. "What would be the loss if construction was deferred another j^ear pending an opportunity to review the results of the o7 projects now scheduled to be advertised for bid to private contractors I Mr. GuRNEE. We have estimated that, very roughly, the use of the Hayward or a comparable dredge saves the Government an amount approximately equal to its rental value for the year. In this particular case it nms to the magnitude of $2 million a jqav saving to the Government. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF SHALLOW-DRAFT HOPPER DREDGE Mr. BoLAND. The budget also proposed the completion of design and initiation of construction in fiscal year 1969 of a shallow-draft hopper dredge at a cost in excess of $9 million. What is the justification for this new dredge ? Mr. GuRNEE. The same study to which I just i-eferred also hidicates a continuing shortage of about 12 months per year or one dredge per year in this category-. We do not have a dredge of this particular capability at the moment. This will permit us to construct authorized projects by a method that is not now available to us, that we could not build now economically. Mr. BoLAND. Can the requirements of this dredge be met by private dredge contractors ? Mr. GuRNEE. Yes, sir. Anything that we do with a hopper dredge can be done by private contractors if 3'ou are willing to stand the extra cost, and the danger to pereonnel and the plant itself. Sometimes this cost nms up to four or five times the cost of doing work by hopper dredge. POLICY OF ALLOWING SHOALING TO OCCUR BEFORE RE^fEDIAL ACTION IS TAKEN Mr. BoLAND. The staff rei)ort indicates that two of the cor])s division officials stated iho, need for this dredge would be curtailed or elimi- nated if the corps followed present dredging maintenance criteria of allowing shoaling to occur until it interfered Mith navigation before remedial action is taken. 1481 Mr. GuRNEE. We still follow the procedure that you outlined there in many instances. However, it is not our objective or policy to do so. Our desired objective is to nave authorized project depths available at all times. In order to provide adequate leadtime we have to in some cases do the dredging prior to the time that the shoaling actually occurs. Mr. BoL..\ND. Well, the indication in this report is that your present policy is to allow shoaling to occur when it did interfere with naviga- tion. Is that your present policy ? Mr. GuRXEE. Xo, sir. Our policy is as I have stated. Mr. BoLAXD. Your policy is. "\tniat about the practice, though? Mr, GmxEE. We are not always able to do that for a variety of rea- sons, not the least of which is the availability of the plant to maintain projects at full projects depths all the time. PROPOSED COXSTRUCTIOX OF CUTTERHEAD DREDGE "STE. GEXEVIEVe'' Mr. BoLAXD. The budget also proposes the completion of design and initiation of construction of the cutterhead dredge Ste. Genevieve as a replacement. This dredge has an estimated cost of $3.6 million. ^X\v^{ is the urgency of constructing this replacement? Why couldn't this work l)e done by contract ? Mr. Gurxee. The Sfe. Genevieve is a dredge based in St. Louis and M^hich we use on the upper Mississippi River and Ohio River. As in the case of some of our other plants on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, it is used to tcike care of shoals as they occur, where they cannot fore- cast the precise amount or location 'of the shoaling. As far as the dredge itself is concerned, it is already in a dangerous condition. If it were operating anywhere except in shallow watei-s we would have had to abandon it. It has i^laces in the hull where we keep water in the hold, in order to counteract the outside pressures. We can use it where we do use it because if Ave have an accident we can beach it in adequate time. It is critically in need of replacement. The possibility of using contrac- tor plant in lieu of this I answered in part when I discussed your i)ro- posal earlier for leasing of plant. TRAXSFER of DREDGE FROM OTHER LOCATIOX Mr. BoLAXD. Has consideration been given to the possibility of filling the future requirement of this dredge by transferring a dredge from anotlier location to the St. Louis district ? Mr. GuRXEE. We do not have another dredge of this tvpe suitable for use m this area. PRIORITY LISTIXG OF DREDGES Mr. BoLAXD. Xow, would you list the three proposed new dredges on the basis of their priority ? Mr. Gurxee. At the present time I would list the shallow draft hop- per dredge and the Ste. Genevieve as the two of higliust prioritv. I would prefer not to put one ahead of the other for the reason tliat they are not replacements one for tlie other. One cannot be used where the other is used. 1482 Mr, Boi^vxD. 'We will insert pages 153 and 154 relating to the revolv- ing fund covering the dredge construction program of the corps. ( The pages follow :) ( b ) Dredges : (1) Major items — (o) East coast hopper dredge (hopper dredge Hayivard) : Duriug the past several years, a hopper dredge production deficiency of IS to 30 months has existed. Based on a review of the hopper dredge workload for fiscal year 1969 through fiscal year 1971, this deficiency will increase considerably and warrants the construction of a 4,200-cubic-yard hopper dredge. In order to expedite avail- ability of this dredge, the basic design data developed for the hopper dredge McFarland will be utilized. Fiscal year 1968: $100,000 for completion of design. Fiscal year 1969 : $5,740,000 for initiation of construction ; with $11,655,000 re- quired in future years for completion of construction. ( h ) Shallow draft hopper dredge : There are numerous authorized naviga- tion projects along the Atlantic and gulf coasts with offshore entrance channels over shallow water bars. These projects are in exposed waters and a hopper dredge type of vessel will provide the only reliable and economical means of dredging. Since the light draft of the smallest existing hopper dredge is 9 feet 6 inches, most of these projects (6 feet to 16 feet in project depth) do not have adequate flotation depths for existing equipment. Plans are being developed for a dredge with a conventional hoppering capability, a sidecasting capability, and possibly a direct pumpout capability which can operate in a shallow draft type of project. Since extensive model studies and engineering evaluations are neces- sary to develop a unique item of plant of this type and a shortage of funding capability will result from scheduling construction of the hopper dredge Hayivard (previously referred to as the east coast hopper dredge), the design period is planned over several years. Fiscal year 1968 : $160,000 for continuation of design. Fiscal year 1969: $500,000 for completion of design and initiation of construction ; with $8,868,000 required in future years for completion of construction. (c) Cutterhead dredge Wahkialeum: This dredge is utilized to remove the rapidly forming shoals of the Columbia River, which result from spring freshets. The 24-inch discharge pipeline dredge is 54 years old and is in need of extensive modifications to meet modern design standards. The 1,000 horsepower for the dredge pump is provided by a triple ex:pansion steam prime mover for which parts must be custom made as compared with 3,000 horsepower provided by diesels on modern dredges. Increased pump power is needed, since the availability to open water disposal areas is rapidly decreasing which requires pumping of material to shore disposal areas. These areas become more distant each year due to in- dustrial and residential developments along the shoreline. Major modifications are needed on the wooden superstructure to provide fire protection and adequate space accommodations for personnel. The deeper project depths which exist now require a longer ladder, spuds, and frames. Fiscal year 1968 : $229,000 for con- tinuation of construction. Fiscal year 1969 : $280,000 for completion of construction. (d) Cutterhead dredge Ste. Genevieve: This dredge is utilized to remove the rapidly forming shoals of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers which result from seasonal (melting snow and rain) conditions. The 20-inch discharge pipeline dredge is 34 years old and is in need of extensive modifications to meet modern design standards. The vessel is propelled by paddle wheels which are powered by obsolete steam engines for which parts must be cu.stom made. The 1,200 horse- power for the dredge pump is considerably less than the 2,500 horsepower pro- vided on modern 20-inch discharge equipment. Increased pump power is needed since the availability of open water disposal areas is rapidly decreasing which requires pumping of material to shore disi>osal areas. These areas become more distant each year due to industrial and residential developments along the shore- line. Major modifications are needed on the wooden superstructure to provide fire protection and adequate space accommodations for personnel. The deeper project depths which now exist require a longer ladder, spuds, and frames. Fiscal year 1968: $75,000 for continuation of design for a replacement dredge. Fiscal year 1969 : Prior to completion of design, the preliminary estimate for construc- tion is $1,640,000; with $1,815,000 required in future years for completion of construction. 14S3 GAO REPORT ON TDTILIZATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE FLEET Mr. BoLAND. Authority is reque&texl under the administrative pro- visions to replace 190 passenger motor vehicles. How many vehicles does the corps now have ? Colonel Plunke'it. The corps presentlty has 5,005 vehicles. Mr. BoLAND. The General Accounting- Office has advised the com- mittee that its review of the daily usage of 947 vehicles at seven district offices during normal and peak w^orkload periods of 1965 and 1966 dis- closed that 97 vehicles M'ere idle at least 80 percent of the workdays. GAO state that daily use is not considered by the corps along with mileage in determining the number of vehicles needed b}^ each di>trict, although this is provided for by Department of Army directives and the Federal property management regulations. Please comment on this. Colonel Plunkett. The GAO report that you refer to is still in draft form. Our reply to that GAO report concurred in the purpose and intent of the study. However, we strongly pointed out that all the facts that were available to the GAO were not effectively assessed. We are confident that after consideration of the corps comments, the approved GAO report will present a more factual and realistic ap- praisal of the corps utilization. We are confident that the corps vehicles are as trim as possible. By GSA directive, the average usage goal of sedans and station wagons is 12,000 miles per year. The corps actual usage far exceeds this goal and indicates the corps excellent utilization. Mr. BoLAND. Do you agree with the GAO report indicating that 97 vehicles were idle at least 80 percent of the time ? Colonel Plunkett. No, sir. This is contained in our reply to GAO, which I would be glad to provide for the record. Mr. BoLAND. Please pro\nde that for the record. (The information follows:) Department of the Arjiy, Washington, D.C., August 15, 1967. Mr. James T. Hall, Jr., Associate Director, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Hall : This responds to the GAO letter of April 27, 1967, to the Sec- retary of Defense, which transmitted copies of a proposed GAO report to the Congress entitled "Report on Review of Utilization of General Purpose Motor Vehicles, Corps of Engineers (Civil Functions) Department of the Army." (OSD Case No. 2600. ) Interim reply was made June 29. 1967. This report has been reviewed and attached is a statement of the comments of the Department of the Army. This opportunity to comment on the draft report is appreciated. Sincerely yours, Alfred B. Fitt, Special Assistant {Civil Functions). Department of the Army Comments Related to the GAO Review of Utiliza- tion OF General Purpose Motor Vehicles, Corps of Engineers (Civil Functions) Recommendations : "The Corps of Engineers establish a criteria for determining vehicle requirements which provide the effect of daily usage as well as annual mileage." (1) The utilization criteria of the Corps of Engineers are compatible with those of other Government agencies. (See GSA Bulletin FPMR No. G-29, May S, 1967. inclosure 1.) Although a report of daily usage is not required by higher authority, 1484 daily usage iiiformatiou is maintained at the motor pool lerel for cost accounting and vehicle assignment purposes. (2) In the review made by GAO all vehicles have lost their individual identity and have been reduced to a numerical unit. Design, road clearance, cargo area (cubic capacity, closed or opened storage and security of contents) and passen- ger carrying capability apparently were not considered. Under the unit concept 97 vehicles of the Corps of Engineers were reportedly idle SO percent of the time surveyed. To show the inequities involved in the numerical imit concept, we offer the followi:ig example of a typical weekly dispatch record of a Corps of Engineers project office having four vehicles assigned. [X (in use); - (idle)I Sedan Sedan Pickup Panet Monday X - X X Tuesday.. X X - X Wednesday _ XXX- Thursday. - X X X Friday X X X X Total days idle 1 By the GAO method of analysis, one indescribable numerical unit avouUI l)e considei-ed idle 4 out of 5 days or 80 percent of the time. Actually, individually each vehicle was utilized 4 out of 5 days or 80 percent of the time. (3) Repeatedly, GAO makes reference to the availability of vehicles from other sources ; namely, corps vehicles transferred between projects, from other Gov- ernment agencies, and commercial sources. Although on pai^er this appears to be a workable solution, in reality it is impractical. In the solution, it apix-ars GAO has not considered the element of time, distance, or cost. In this regard we have attached enclosures two through eight which reveal distances between projects and from projects to major cities of 12 to 525 miles. Vehicles are provided for on- site use wherever possible. In the Corps of Engineers, professional personnel in grades 7 through 13 are required to use Government-owned vehicles under the "drive yourself" concept. Because of these conditions, if employees were to provide shuttle senace, as would be necessary under the GAO suggestion, the cost, coupled with the loss of skilled manpower would impair the efficiency of our construetioji mission. As related to the distances noted above and enclosures two through eight, the driving time involved in the GAO suggestion would i-eeratioiis throuuh (ield insi>ectiniis of subordi- nate installations and to recommend to the Chief of EngintH^rs such action as may be rey the following comparis .\nimal IMotor Vehicle Report iirei«ir<'d for the T'-S, Congress dated February 10(i(». 1485 AVERAGE MILES PER VEHICLE FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLES Aoencv Sedans Station wagon Truck ' ' (1 ton or less) Department of Agriculture. - 3.247 11.346 9.495 Department of Justice... __ — 2.097 7,685 4.03 Department of the Interior...- - 13.(98 1. ^'f »- ^^^ General Services Administration. 13.1^J ^.^oi ^.^^' Department of Defense - - 3,367 5.496 lU Pii Corps of Engineers (civil) - - • 15,881 14.094 lU.Ulb Reeommeiulatioiis : "The excess vehicles identified by the corps-wide review be transferred to ioeations demonstrating a need for additional or replacement vehicles, with the objective of reducing future vehicle procurement." (1^ The corps program for vehicle utilization requires constant vigilance on the part of the District Engineers and their subordinates to achieve the following : a. The minimum number of vehicles are maintained to accomplish our assigned constructive missions ; b. A suffifficient number of vehicles are on hand to assure a state of preparedness in emergency situations. (2) Because of the leadtime inherent in programing, delays experienced by congressional funding actions, the "Act of God" emergencies which must be faced, we cannot be assured of maximum utilization of all of our equipment at all times. However, every effort is made to improve our utilization posture through the relocation of excess vehicles consistent with our construction program. General Services Administration, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1967. GSA Bulletin FPMR No. G-29 — Transportation and :Motor Vehicles To: Heads of Federal agencies. Subject : Use and utilization practices for Government-owned motor vehicles. 1. Purpose. — This bulletin establishes average use goals for use by agencies as objectives in obtaining the maximum utilization feasible for Government-owned motor vehicles and in assuring only the minimum number of such vehicles are retained for necessary service. 2. Cancellation.— GSA Bulletin FPMR No. G-18 is canceled. 3. Backfjround.—GiiA. Bulletin FPMR No. G-18 established average-use goals as objectives for agencies to meet in the management of their motor vehicle fleets. These use goals provided flexibility in application to the extent determined to be necessary by the agencies based on their program requirements and operating conditions. This bulletin continues in effect the average-use goals established by GSA Bulletin FPMR No. G-18. 4. Averaout 120 flood plain information reports. Some of those will cover more than one comunity or one legal entity. Our goal was 120 reports. I tliink our present schedule is slipping by about five or six. 1490 Mr. RoBisox. Would it be too inconvenient for you to supply those for the record, the names of these communities, so that we could have some idea about the geographical interest and the spread of this etiort across the country ? Mr. Feil. We would he glad to do so. (The information follows :) LOCATION OF FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION REPORTS State Number completed through fiscal year 1967 Alaska Arizona 1 5 California 6 Completed or scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1968 Colorado Connecticut- Delaware. Florida... Georgia.. Mobile, Halls Mill Creek Fairbanks, Chena River Anchorage, Chester Creek Maricopa County, Agua Fria River.. Pocahontas, Black Riveretal. Camden, Ouachita River. Fort Smith, Mill Creek... Monterey County, Carmel River. Three Rivers, Kaweah River.. San Diego County: Los Penasquitos Creek Spring Valley Creek Chollas Creek Orange County, Richfield Channel. Ventura County, Lower Santa Clara River Vicinity of Kernville, Kern River Springville, Tula River.. Vicinity of Weott-Myers Flat, South Fork Eel River. Denver, vol. IV, South Platte tributaries. Boulder County, Left Hand Creek Hamden, Mill River Windsor, Connecticut, and Farmington Rivers Hawaii Idaho 4 Illinois 12 Indiana .. 1 Iowa 4 Kansas.. 3 Charlotte and north Lee Counties Vicinity of Acworth, Tanyard Creek Athens, Brooklyn Creek. Atlanta; Headwaters, South River.. , Conley Creek and South River De Kalb County: Snapfinger Creek Sugar Creek, et al Athens and Clark Counties, Hunnicutt Brook. Savannah and Chatham Counties, Casey Canal South. Pupukea-Paumalu, Oahu Boise, Boise River and north side tributaries.. Orofino, Clearwater River Kentucky. Louisiana. Maine Maryland. Vanderburgh County, Pigeon Creek Linn County, Cedar River.. Ida Grove Smoky Hill River, Salma to mouth Topeka, Shunganunga Creek.. Walnut River. Lawrence. Kansas, and Wakarusa Rivers. Jefferson County, Ohio River Paducah: Clark, Tennessee, and Ohio Rivers... Island and Perkins Creeks Massachusetts. Michigan. Minnesota. Mississippi. Missouri... Montgomery County, Seneca Creek Prince Georges County: Beaverdam Creek Piscataway Creek Northeast an d Northwest Branches, Anacostia River. Medway, Charles R Westfield, Westfield River Bedford, Concord, and Showsheen Rivers Southbridge Rouge River, Upper Branch Lansing. Grand River Red Cedar River Delano, South Fork Crow River ....^ :.. Rockford .. '.. Jackson, Purple Creek Pacific Number of others underway, fiscal year 1%8 See footnotes at end of table. 1491 Number Number completed of others State through Completed or scheduled for completion in fiscal year 1968 underway, fiscal year fiscal year 1967 1968 Montana. Missoula, Clark Fork River - 2 Nebraska 4 Lincoln: Vol. Ill, Salt Creek Basin - Vol. IV, Salt Creek Basin - Omaha: Vol. 1, Papillion Creek -- Vol. II, Papillion Creek -.- Nevada... Clark County, Lower Las Vegas Wash - New Hampshire - -- \ New Jersey - 1 Cape May County, tidal lands - '* Cumberland County: Maurice River. - -.- -- Cohansey River - Branchburg Township, South Branch, Raritan River Raritan Township, South Branch, Raritan River Franklin and Clinton Townships, South Branch, Raritan River. Highb idge and Califon Townships, South Branch, Raritan River New Mexico Santa Fe, Arroyo Hondo etal - - 1 New York... 11 Seneca Lake 8 Canandaigua Lake - -- Cayuga Lake - — Erie and Niagara Counties, Tonawanda Greek... - - Erie County, Ellicott Creek - -- Canandaigua outlet - - Cattaraugus Creek reach 1. -.- - North Carolina 6 Elkin and Jonesville - --- 3 Durham, Sandy Creek etal Louis burg, Tar River Rocky Mount, Tar River and Stony Creek Jacksonville, New River... - -- North Dakota - J Ohio 8 Allen County, Ottawa River -- * Columbus and vicinity. Alum Creek - Columbus, Big Walnut Creek. - - Wapakoneta, Auglaize River Chagrin River, Lake Erie to Chagrin Falls - -. Rocky River, Park Bridge to mouth. - Victory Valley View, Cuyahoga River --- Oklahoma. Stillwater, Stillwater and Brush Creeks - -. Oregon 8 Washington County, vol. I, Tualatin River 3 Pennsylvania 5 Hempfieid Tov/nship, Sewickley Creek 3 Bucks County, Delaware River Corry, Hare, and Bear Creeks - Lycoming County, Lycoming Creek... - Bentleyville, Pigeon Creek - --- Rhode Island 2 South Carolina... Florence, Jefferies Creek and tributaries - 1 Spartanburg - South Dakota - \ Tennessee 4 Jackson, South Fork, Forked Deer River et al 2 Henderson, South Fork Forked, Deer River et al Gainesboro, Cumberland River et al - Dyersburg, Forked Deer River et al - Franklin, Harpeth River... - Texas 1 Dickinson, Dickinson Bayou - * Dallas County: Duck Creek - Ten Mile Creek - - South Mesquite Creek. - - Utah Salt Lake County, Jordan River complex - - 2 Vermont - 3 Virginia 5 Henrico County, Upham Brook - 6 Hampton, coastal area -- - Roanoke, Roanoke River - - Washington 6 Cowlitz County, vol. I, Cowlitz River 2 Bucoda, Skookumchuck River - - Benton County, Yakima River - -- Centralia-Chehalis, Chehalis River - West Virginia Milton, Mud River --- 3 Wisconsin 2 Rock County, Turtle Creek - 9 Wyoming 2 Puerto Rico 4 Guayanilla, Guayanilla River --- 1 1 One of these reports covers land in Indiana and is also counted there. The other includes land in Wisconsin and is also counfred there. Note: At the end of fiscal year 1967, 123 reports had been completed in 29 States and Puerto Rico. Completion of the 120 reports named above will add 12 States to the list The remaining 9 States are represented in the other 123 studies under- way, ^,..a. _•....,..... .;.,. 1492 Mr. Feil. Sir, I would comment generally that the mflnence of the prog-ram is spreading. We are seeing quite a progress in the way the individual States are reacting to the program. Mr. RoBisox. Very good, I am glad to hear it. You would hope, with the fiscal 1969 monej's, to try to provide re- ports to 150 communities? Mr. Feil. That is right. Mr. RoBisoN. For this program you had asked for and received $5 million in fiscal 1968. Will you use all of that in fiscal 1968? Mr. Feil. I think we will. We have used a little over $2,400,000 to date. I XI\^RSITY COOPERATIOX IX HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING STUDIES Mr. RoBisoN. On page 47 in reference to hydrologic engineering studies, mention is made of cooperation with a number of uni^'ersities. A^^iere is this university capability to help the corps in this kind of an overall study ? Is the corps making as much use of it as it mig-ht ? Mr. Johnson. Specifically, sir, they did make use of Texas A. & ]M. in conducting a training couree for some of our pex)ple in hydrologic engineering. In connection with the operation of the Hydrologic En- gineering Center in California, we have used lectui'ers from several universities to assist us in the progTam. Mr. RoBisoN. Are the universities doing any R- & D. work for you along these lines? Mr. Johnson. Yes, they are. Mr. RoBisoN. This might be one way to hold down the corps whole staffing needs to within reason. Mr. Johnson. We quite agree it is a good idea to use the univer- sities. They are also represented on most of our boards of consultants. ESTHETIC CRITERIA AXD EVALUATIOX OF WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS Mr. RoBisox. On page 100 you are talking about esthetic criteria, which I guess means "beautification." I don't see any dollar tag at- tached to that particular item. Is there one? Mr. Feil. Yes. We anticipate that this will be spent on a research study we are beginning, estimated to cost about $200,000 to $225,000. This is a rather broad-based study which woidd consider the various types of environment available in a region and the corps projects fitting into that environment and enhancing or contributing to an iui]n'oved quality of the overall environment. The amount is $25,000 to start that effort. INTERNATIONAL FIELD YEAR ON THE GREAT LAKES Mr. RoBisoN. On page 118 there is a listing of study titles in con- nection with the proposed IFYGL operations in fiscal 1969. Those initials stand for what ? Mr. Johnson. That stands for the International Field Year on the Great Lakes. Mr. EoBisoN. All right. You have a couple of study titles that are rather unusual. One. for instance, the first one, involves the meterological effects of a large 1493 deep lake. The sixth one is entitled '"Effect of Lake Ice and Snow on the Heat Budget of a Laroe Body of AVater." Of M'hat benefits are these kinds of studies? Mr. JoHNSox. Sir, that is a study to examine the total physical data picture on Lake Ontario and to get a complete understanding of the relationship between climatological and hydrologic areas. For ex- ample, on item No. 1 we hope to get some idea of what effect the lake actually has on the weather, and vice versa. On item No. 6, part of this study involves a complete examination of the heat relationships on the reservoir. Mr. RoBisoN. The water levels in the reservoirs ? Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. When we get all through with this we hope to have the information that will enable us, and Canada as well, to tackle problems on the Great Lakes such as lake levels. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS Mr. RoBisoN. On page 125 this item e^ddently authorizes the corps in accordance with section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 to spend up to $25 million annually on its own for flood control and related project purposes that are not specifically authorized by Congress; is that right? Mr. Feil. That is riiiht. Mr. RoBisoN. "V\niat are these small projects? Mr. Feil. These are the small proje<;ts that do not require prior congressional authorization. The total Federal cost cannot exceed $1 million. Mr. RoBisoN. At what cost are these projects averaging out, gener- ally ? Are they close to the $1 million level ? Mr. Feil. No, sir; they are far below that. I would be glad to give 3'ou that for the record. Mr. RoBisoN. Thank you. (The information follows:) From January 1, 1966 to March 1, 1968, there have been 53 small flood control projects adopted under section 20.5 of the 1948 Flood Control Act at a total cost of $23,726,400. These projects have ranged from a Federal cost of .$46,000 to $1,000,000 with an average Federal cost of $447,670. TRAINING OF CORPS PERSONNEL Mr. RoBisoN. On page 141 there is reference to the corps providing some school tuition costs. What is this for, to send some of your own staff to school ? Colonel Plunkeit. Yes. Tliis is to provide training for our own personnel in OCE, to upgrade their technical or managerial capa- bilities. Mr. RoBisoN. For temporary purposes? Colonel Plunkett. These are generally short courses of a few days in duration. Other courses may be taken during off-duty hours, over a period of a semester. This training is presented by various miiversi- ties, the Civil Service Commission, other agencies, or private firms. 1494 REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING AIRCPLVFT Mr. EoBisoN. Finally, on page 156 in reference to aircraft, do I read this correctly that you are using a 25-year-old airplane now? Mr. GuRNEE. That is correct, sir. It is hazardous, it does not meet FAA standards without unusual maintenance. Mr. RoBisoN. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. RoBisoN. How many aircraft does the corps own at this time'^ Mr. GuRNEE. Four. Mr. RoBisoN. This would be to replace one of the existing four? Mr. GuRNEE. Yes. Mr. RoBisoN. Thank you. Mr. BoLAND. Thank you very much. Thank you. General Noble, and your staff for your presence and your testimony. Mr. Davis. Do we have in the record a list of projects that are cur- rently in progress under this section 205 ? Mr. BoLAND. Yes. We asked for a project breakdown for all these lump sum categories, both for this year and next. Mr. Davis. In the language section there is apparently no change -of language, there are only differences in the figures, and then the dropout of the language relating to the Snake Creek embankment. Mr. BoLAND, That is correct, it is nonrecurring. Mr. Davis. Except on this flood control and coastal emergencies, which is underlined here, which would indicate it is new language. Mr. BoLAND. That is because there were no funds included in this year's bill ; we will have to restore that language in next year's bill. Mr. Davis. Thank you. That is all. Mr. BoLAND. Thank you. General Noble and your staff, for your presence and your testimony. The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Thursday, March 21, 1968. PANAMA CANAL COMPANY WITNESSES MAJ. GEN. WALTER P. LEBER, GOVERNOR OF THE CANAL ZONE, PRESIDENT, PANAMA CANAL COMPANY PHILIP L. STEERS, JR., COMPTROLLER ROBERT LESSIACK, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER FOR BUDGETS W. M. WHITMAN, SECRETARY, PANAMA CANAL COMPANY, ASSIST- ANT TO GOVERNOR OF THE CANAL ZONE ]\rr. Morris. Tlie committee will be in order. The committee is pleased to hear now from General Leber, the Governor of the Canal Zone and President of the Panama Canal Company on his proposed budget. General, you may proceed. General STAn:MENT General Leber. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the commit- tee, I am Maj. Gen. Walter P. Leber, Governor of the Canal Zone and 1495 President of the Paiiaina Canal Company. Attending -vTitli me are Mr. Whitman, the secretary of the Company, Mr. Steers, the comptroller, and Mr. I^ssiack, the assistant comptroller for budgets. I welcome this opportunity to discuss with you our 1969 budget re- quirements and also report on the more significant program develop- ments and accomplishments of the Panama Canal enterprise. I would request that my formal statement be inserted in the record and that I be permitted to highlight the more significant matters. Mr. Morris. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record and you may highlight it as you desire. (The statement follows :) Introduction 1. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Maj. Gen. Walter P. Leber, Governor of the Ganal Zone and president of the Panama Canal Company. Attending with me are Mr. Whitman, the secretary of the company ; Mr. Steers, the comptroller ; and Mr. Lessiack, the assistant comptroller for budgets. 2. I welcome this opportunity to discuss with you our 1969 budget require- ments and also report on the more significant program developments and accom- plishments of the Panama Canal enterprise. I request that my formal statement be inserted in the record and that I be permitted to highlight the more sig- nificant matters. Orientation geography of canal zone 3. The Canal Zone is a strip of land some 10 miles wide, measured 5 miles from the center of the canal, and includes also all of the water area of Gatun and Madden Lakes. It covers an area of some 550 square miles of land and water, exclusive of tidal waters. It comprises less than 1 percent of Panama's total land area. The waterway itself is approximately 50 miles long from deep water in the Atlantic to deep water in the Pacific, and follows a northwesterly to south- easterly direction. The distance between the two entrances is about 36 miles as the crow flies. A TRANSIT IN BRIEF 4. A ship entering the Canal Zone from the Atlantic goes from Cristobal Harbor to Gatun locks, a distance of 7 miles, at sea level. It is lifted approxi- mately 85 feet to Gatun Lake in three lockages or "steps." From Gatun. it sails, 85 feet above sea level, to Pedro Miguel, a distance of 31 miles. A single lockage at Pedro Miguel lowers the ship 31 feet to Miraflores Lake. A mile farther south, the vessel enters Miraflores locks, and in two lockages, is lowered .54 feet to the Pacific Ocean level. The ship then sails 4 miles to Balboa Port Area before entering the outer harbor. PANAMA CANAL ENTERPRISE DEFINED 5. The Panama Canal Company is a corporate agency and instrumentality of the Government of the United States of America, operating under the manage- ment of a board of dii*ectors appointed by the Secretary of the Army, in his capacity as stockholder of the corporation. The Company is charged with the responsibility of maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal and the con- duct of business operations incident to such maintenance and operation and incident to the civil govermnent of the Canal Zone. The corporation and thfr Canal Zone Government, the independent agency of the United States which con- ducts the civil government of the Canal Zone, are closely interrelated in purposes, organization, and operations. The combined function of these agencies is the administration of the Panama Canal enterprise as a whole. REQUIRED TO BE SELF-SUSTAINING 6. The Panama Canal Company is required by law to recover all costs of opera- tion and maintenance, including depreciation and the net cost of Canal Zone Government. It is also required to pay interest to the U.S. Treasury on the net 1496 direct investment of tlie U.S. Government in the enterprise. The Treasury is also reimbursed ,$4::'>0.0()0 by tlie Company for annuity payments to the Republic of Panama under the treaties of 1003 and 1030. The Company uses its revenues and other rescmrces to fiuance its operating and capital requirements within a program approved annually by the Congress. 7. Canal Zone Government operating costs and capital outlay requirements are initially financed by appropriations. Revenues of the Canal Zone Government are derived principally from hospital fees, school tuitions, and po.stal services. The revenues are deiwsited into the U.S. Treasury a.s misoellaneous receii>ts. After giving recognition to such receipts, the remaining net co.st of operating the Canal Zone Government, including depreciation on its capital assets, is deemed to be a liability for wbich the Panama Canal Company is required to reimbur.-'e the Treasury annually. 8. The system just described makes the Panama Canal enterprise completely self-sustaining. ANNUITY PAYMENT TO KEPrBI.IC OF PANAMA 9. As mentioned before, the Panama Canal Comi>any reimburses the Treasury $430,000 annually for annuity payments to the Republic of Panama under the 1903 and 19.36 treaties. An additional $1.5 million is paid to the Republic by the U.S. State Deparrment under article 1 of the 10").3 treaty. I-^'rom tiiiie to time, we have sought legislation which would enable the Panama Canal to assume this liability in total. The legislative program of the Panama Canal for the second session of the 00th Congress includes a proposal that provides for the Panama Canal Company to reimburse the Treasury for the .$1.5 million by which the annuity to Panama was increased by the 1955 treaty. A draft bill on this subject was siibmitted to the Bureau of the Budget in 1067. Clearance was withheld, however, because of pending treaty negotiations between the United States and Panama. Nevertheless, we have retained the item in our legislative program and are preparing to resubmit the proposal for clearance during this session of Congress. AMORTIZATION OF NONDEPRECIABLES 10. A second proposal in our legislative program would provide for the Com- pany to amortize its nondepreciable fixed assets at the rate of 1 percent per annum. The assets consist of intangible Canal Zone depopulation costs and the original treaty payment and tangibles such as channels, harbors, basins, excava- tions, fills and embankments for dams, spillways and locks, breakwater, and Cristobal drydock. The cost of these assets a^; of .Tune 30. 1067, was approximately $309.8 million. If legislation permitting amortization of those assets is enacted, the annual fiscal obligation of the Company would be increased by approxi- mately $3.1 million with a corresponding decrease in annual net revenue. In April 1967, the Bureau of the Budget withheld clearance of this proposed legisla- tion because of pending treaty negotiations. However, we have retained the item in our legislative program and are planning to seek clearance of a draft bill for introduction in this session. Panama Canal Serves World Commerce 11. The primary mission of the Panama Canal enterprise is the maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal waterway for the movement of ships from one ocean to the other. As such, it serves as a great international utility for the waterborne commerce of the world and contributes directly and indirectly to the welfare of many countries and peoples. Inherent in the mission of the Panama Canal is the high obligation to make necessary improvements in order to keep pace with user demands and shipping trends of the immediate and foreseeable future. 12. The canal is open to the vessels of all nations on a nondiscriminatory basis. The pattern of utilization, insofar as registry of ships by flag is concerned, has changed considerably since fiscal year 10.52, the first year of our operation under the corporate structure. Following is a breakdown of transits by ship registry, ie channel and for determining conditions of the channel bottom to insure against ship scrapings or damage because of protrusions. We will initiate, as they bec-ome apparent from our reviews, all feasible actions which will help further to minimize ship accidents in canal waters. SS "Rebecca" 31. On May 14, 1967, during a southbound transit, the SS Rciecca (735 by 102 feet), a tanker of U.S. registry, took a sheer to the sidewall knuckle while entering the east chamber of Miraflores locks. The vessel rubbed the knuckle fender, bending the shell plating slightly, thus squeezing the rivet heads and breaking loose rust and paint scale in the area of the No. 2 cargo tank, i)ernutting jet fuel to leak out around the rivet heads and flow down the side of the vessel where the friction of the ship against the fender device ignited it. The vessel backed out of the chamber and was held at the center wall while the ship's crew, canal tugs, and the Canal Zone Fire Division, acting promptly, extinguished the fire. The vessel continued her lockage after anchor windlass repair. Damages to the ship were about .$3,500. The near-disastrous fire on the Rehrcca focused attention to the inadequacies of our firefighting system when faced with a possi- ble major conflagration. Immediate corrective measures were initiated, titilizing available funds, including the purchase of 10 portable dry chemical extinguishers for use on the lock walls : purchase and installation of 500- and l,000-i)ound dry chemical extinguishers on all Panama Canal tugboats; and installation of water sprayers on north wing-wall knuckles of all locks. EFFECT OF INCREASED :MILITARY POPULATION ON WORKLOAD 32. Increases in the population of the military and of personnel in other U.S. Government agencies and their dependents on the Canal Zone have direct effects on the workloads of some of our supporting operations, particularly in the health, education, and electric power areas. The construction of 610 new military houses, which began in January 1968, will generate a subsequent nefd for the Canal Zone Government to furnish necessary facilities, i>ersonnel. sup- plies, and equipment to educate and maintain the health of the increased military population, and for the Company to provide additional utilities and house additional Canal Zone Government professional employees. PHASEOUT OF SEA LEVEL CANAL STUDY GROUP SUPPORT 33. The Interoceanic Canal Study Commission began the phaseout of field office operations in early 196S, and present estimates indicate that sui»i)ort of this activity by the Panama Canal Company will terminate in August or Septem- ber 1968. By that time, all permanent Panama Canal Company employees serving on a loan basis with the Commission will be returned to their regular positions with the Company. Temporary employees will be terminated or placed in other temporary jobs if these are available. 1501 Requirements for the Immediate Future compatsy capital outlay obligations o4. Obligations sclieduled for 19(j'J iiuder the Company's capital outlay program amount to $18.2 million, of which only $3.6 million are applicable to new starts. The balance of the program involves recurring projects of a relatively routine nature, such as replacements and additions of equipment, as well as continuation of work on projects approved previous to the budget year, some of which are re- ported on as follows : REPORT ON PROJECTS IN PROGRESS 35. PoHdina Canal Conii>any improvement {p. 123 of the iiistifieutlona) . — This $23.2 million project includes the widening and deepening of the remain- ing 3-mile section of Gaillard Cut which was started in January 19(J7 and re- scheduled in this budget for completion by early 1970 instead of May 1971. This change, at no increase in total project cost, will make it possible to afford safer, faster transit, 12 to 14 months earlier than originally planned. As a result of the recent accident tliat occurred in the cut, 1 am now studying means of further accelerating this project. 30. We are presently engaged in a comprehensive study of current and future requirements. Preliminary tindings indicate the probable need for anchorage expansion; improved canal alinement ; additional lock locomotives; and other required changes to improve operational efhciency, provide safer navigation and, possibly, to provide additional lockage water. Specitic projects that are devel- oped as a result of this study will be submitted in a subsequent budget. It is ex- pected that the report will be completed within the year. 37. Hew tugboats {p. 138 of the jmtifications). — Last year, we reported to this committee that the trend toward increased traffic and the increased numbers of larger vessels using the canal requiring tugboat service would probably neces- sitate some modification of the tug procurement schedule. At that time, the program, which started in 1906. provided for one additional and six replace- ment tugixiats to be purchased at the rate of one per year during the period 1900 through 1972. The increased traffic, both as to number and average size of vessels, has been placing a particularly severe strain on the company's tugboat fleet. As a result, it was necessary to procure two tugboats in 1908 rather than the one originally scheduled. The current program provides for advancing the schedule by acquisition of two twin-screw harbor tugs in 1969, one in 1970, and another in 1971. Each will have an automated engine room control monitor- ing system which develops a l>ollard pull of at least 70,000 pounds, as compared to a range of 25,000 to 32.500 pounds developed by the canal's four remaining undeii^owered tugs. It is now planned to obligate $1.5 million for two tugs (one replacement and one addition) in 1969. 38. Accelerated locks overhaul (p. 134 of the justifications). — Several concepts have been developed and tested over the past several years for reducing the time of lock lane outages during periodic overhauls of lock miter gates. The 4-day lock lane outage plan adopted recently has proven the most satisfactory thus far. Substantially less costs for gate overhaul result from this method. Also, working conditions are much better with greatly reduced hazards. ]\Iost of the critical techniques of this plan are being used in the overhaul work now being performed at Gatun locks. Exceptions are that the gates are being drydocked in the locks chamber instead of the drydock. The fiscal year 1969 portion of the accelerated locks overhaul program will provide for modifying and equijunng drydock No. 1 at Balboa into an efficient miter gate repair yard. In addition, cathodic protection will be extended to Pedro Miguel locks in the budget year. Oldigations for this project in fiscal year 1969 are scheduled at $122,000 to com- plete the project. 39. Incidentally, last year at this time, I reported that under the accelerated locks overhaul plan, lanes could be restored to service on short order if it became necessary to relieve traffic buildups. As a result of the temporary blocking of the (^anai through the partial sinking of the i^hozan Maru, there was a stacking up of traffic — over 80 ships. The ability to expeditiously rewater the lock chamber undergoing overhaul at Gatun was instrumental in helping to speed transits and quickly reduce the backlog. The value of our new overhaul concept was clearly demonstrated on this occasion. 40. Install rtihhcr fendrrinfj in forehai/s and tailhays, all locks (p. 127 of the justifications). — This project continues work initiated in fiscal year 1968 for the 1502 installation of rubber fendering on the concrete walls of the forebays and tailbays of each set of locks. The limited lateral clearance of large and super vessels has increased the number of incidents where vessels have contacted the concrete walls with resulting damage to ship hulls and extensive claims against the Company. In order to minimize damage to ships, thereby reducing Company expenditures in payment of damage claims, suitable rubber fendering is being installed in the forebays and tailbays at all locks. The schedule for fiscal year 1969, with obliga- tions of $275,000, will provide for such installation to be made at Pedro Miguel locks. The project will be completed with final installations of similar fendering at Miraflores locks in fiscal year 1970. 41. Iflew fender system. Balboa piers {p. IJfl of the justifieations — a new start). — Just as new fendering for the locks is being provided at locks forebays and tailbays to minimize damage resulting from contact by the increasing number of large vessels in the "super" category, so, too. must improved fendering be pro- vided at the Balboa piers and docks. Within the $2.-3 million project total, it is planned to obligate in fiscal year 1969, ?850,000 for new improved fenders at selected docks where the larger ships berth most frequently and where handling and approaches are most diflicult. The installation of fendering for the remaining docks and piers will be included in subsequent budget programs. 42. RelmhiUtate dock 7, Balboa {p. 149 of the justifications — a new start). — For some time, the Company has been concerned with hazardous conditions that exist for shipping berthed at dock 4. Balboa, while discharging or loading petro- leum products, especially gasoline. In a fairly recent case, where a tanker was off-loading aviation gasoline, a potential spill and serious fire hazard were averted through the quick action of the crew. A number of other instances have occurred when the surge from passing ships has caused the lines of vessels at dock 4 to part, endangering the vessel and creating the possibility of serious spills of the petroleum products being transferred. The problem is that a vessel berthed at dock 4 protrudes into the canal channel, which is only 400 feet wide at this point. It is an especially hazardous condition for vessels larger than a Liberty ship (441 feet by 57 feet) when laden ships pass by, even at slow speeds. It is proposed to discontinue fuel-transferring activities at dock 4 by improving nearby dock 7 to handle this requirement, as it is more than twice as long, well clear of the channel, protected from surges, and favorably located for the docking and undockiug of ships. This project, estimated to cost $574,000, is scheduled for obligations of $524,000 in fiscal year 1969. Canal Traffic ix the FuxruE 43. The truism ''plan ahead to stay ahead" applies to the Panama Canal today more than ever before. Developments are occurring in the transportation indus- try which will have a significant impact on the plans and operations of the Panama Canal in the future. 44. Recognizing this, the Panama Canal Company is now updating previous studies and plans for canal improvement. These include navigation improve- ments, water and power supply, lock improvements, and vessel design charac- teristics affecting the canal. Considerations of traflSc forecasts and technological changes will weigh importantly in the findings. 45. In our present updating, we are working out a program of incremental improvement steps, with related costs and benefits determined (including added capacity), which can be implemented individually as projections of canal traffic indicate. This will provide an orderly, balanced program to meet our workload requirements over an extended period of time. Of the many facets that affect canal operations. I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the prin- cipal findings gathered by one of our panels. 46. Key officials of the Panama Canal Company made a fact-gathering trip around the world, visiting some 75 shipping companies, and soliciting their views on the future of vessel design and cargo movement. Significant findings are as follows : ^ . , , ■, ^ , (a) Bulk carriers. — Two events are currently taking place which should reduce the number of new bulk carriers built to use the canal. The first is the recent change in the load-line convention which, generally, will allow bulk carriers to carry about 10 i)ercent more cargo by increasing their drafts. Under certain conditions, the large.st shii)S now using the canal will find it more profitable to use alternate routes. The second change is the development of two new families of bulk carriers which are being built to avoid canals. The first are the bulk/oil carriers of 90.000 to 100,000 deadweight tons which can haul coal from Hampton 1503 Roads to Japan aroimd Africa and backhaul crude oil from the Middle East to Europe or the United States. Another type under construction is an ore/bulk carrier of 125,000 to 140,000 deadweight tons that will leave Hampton Roads with the maximum load of coal and stop by Brazil, Liberia, or Nigeria and top off with iron ore, then proceed to Japan around Africa. These ships can backhaul Middle East oil or iron ore from Australia to Europe. (&) Container ships. — Another change is the growing use of container ships for general cargo. One container ship can replace from three to six conventional cargo ships, depending on length of the route, and spend only 10 percent of its time in port, compared to 50 percent for a conventional cargo ship ; thus, there will probably be a reduction in the number of ships moving general cargo. In addition, the container provides a rapid means of off-loading cargo from a ship to other types of surface transportation. (c) Land bridge. — Another possibility that would reduce cargo movement through the canal is the expectation that the United States or Canada, as well as the U.S.S.R., will become land bridges between Japan and Europe and that cargo will move in increasing quantities via rails to the coasts. It is reasonable to assume that any increase in canal toll rates could accelerate tJiis alternative movement, particularly since it is being accomplished even at present toll rates. (d) Air movement of cargo. — Developments in other alternatives to the use of canals include an increasing use of air cargo and other alternative routings and modes ; for example, oil lines. It is possible that cargo movement by aircraft will soon start taking high-value freight, until now shipped via water. We plan to explore the possibility in greater depth, particularly on movements which might be planned between the United States and Central America. Although evaluation of all data has not been completed, one can readily see that dramatic changes are taking place in the field of transportation. GENERAL AND ADMIiSTISTKATIVE EXPENSES 47. Authorization amounting to $13,691,000 is requested for the Company's general and administrative expenses. This represents a net increase of $691,000 over the expenditures estimated for 1968. The reasons are summarized as follows : -.. Increased item, requirement (1) Additional cost of statutory employee benefits $237,000 (2) Additional cost for inservice training 227,000 (3) Wage and other cost escalations 220,000 <4) Other increases, net 7,000 Increased limitation request 691, 000 The major items of increase are explained as follows : Additional costs of statutory employee 'benefits, $237,000 48. This will provide for additional costs of recruitments, repatriations, em- ployees' States travel, death and disability compensation, incentive award pay- ments, and the employer's contribution to FICA and FEGLI. The estimates for these items represent the requirements of the entire Panama Canal Company for such statutory costs, each of which is related to the employment level necessary to carry out the Company's programs. Additional cost for inservice training, $227,000 49. Our inservice training program for developing locally available personnel, principally Panamanians, to fill higher skilled craft, administrative, and manage- ment positions expected to be vacated through retirements, transfers, and resig- nations of U.S. citizens will continue through 1969 on an expanded scale. The development of local personnel under the training program is necessary to mini- mize the difficulties exi)erienced in recruiting skilled personnel from local and U.S. sources. The additional funds requested for 1969 are required principally for the employment of 50 additional craft apprentices, seven additional full- time and three additional part-time management trainees, and for two addi- tional training instructors. This program, in addition to offering positive support to the Panama Canal, also serves to foster a better relationship with the Pan- amanian community. 91-459— 68— pt. 1 95 1504 Wage and other cost escalations, $220,000 50. Additional wage increases provided for throughout all general and adminis- trative activities include the difference between the full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost of the first increment of the classified and related employees' pay ad- justments with reference to Public Law 90-206 ; cost of wage-board-type pay adjustments ; cost of fair labor standards amendments pay adjustments under Public Law 89-601 ; and the additional cost of services performed by other Panama Canal Company units due to wage and other cost escalations. There is no provision in our request for 1969 to provide for the second pay increase au- thorized to become effective July 1, 1968, by Public Law 90-206 inasmuch as details for computing the increase have not yet been made available to agencies. Canal Zone Government Operating Expenses 51. I turn now to Canal Zone Government operating expenses. The 1969 appropriation request of the Canal Zone Government for operating expenses, amovmting to $37,869,000, is $1,869,000 greater than the amount appropriated for 1968. Wage and cost escalations account for $761,000, or almost 41 percent of the total increase. The cost of meeting additional workloads, especially in the health and ediicational services area, amount to an additional $542,000, or 29 percent of the total. These, and other lesser variations, are disclosed on pages 1 through 12 of the justifications. o2. It should be noted that while certain wage increases are reflected in our 1969 request, no provision has been made for the second pay increase which be- comes effe<'tive July 1. 1968. as autliorized by Public Law fM>-20fi. Details for computing the increase have not yet been made available to agencies. Further, it can be expected that additional funds, over and above those that we will be able to absorb, will be necessary for pay increases to teachers, policemen, and firemen whose salary levels are tied to those of similar employees in Washington, D.C. Legislation increasing such salaries is presently before the Congress. 5.3. Our pi-ineipal Canal Zone Government workload falls into two areas, that is. schools and hospitals, where a significant part is generatetl by the military population of the Canal Zone. A further discussion of these activities follows : EnXTCATION 54. Twenty-five schools and facilities contiguous to school plants, such as play- grounds, gymnasiums, play shelters, stadiums, and swimming ixiols. are operated by the Canal Zone Government under two distinctly different school systems in the Canal Zone. Eighteen schools are operated for U.S. citizens from kindergarten through high schix)l. under curriculunis following closely those of typical city school systems in the United States. This permits students to transfer there witli- out loss of ci-edit. Six sch(X)ls are operated for Latin-American children residing in the zone, also from kindergarten through higli school. The latter follow the curriculums of the schools in the Republic of Panama and are conducted in the Spanish language. There are also specialized facilities for the handicapped and a community -type college. .55. The budget for 1969 provides for enrollments in the U.S. citizen schools reaching 12,325 in that year. This is 450 over the enrollments estimated in the budget for 1!M>8 and will be generated principally by the additional military dependent population expected in the Canal Zone and the Republic of Pananja. It is expected that a significantly higher enrollment will materialize in 1970 after the 610 housing units now under construction by the military are occupied. This will require added teachers and related administrative personnel. Funds for con- struction of schools to meet this enrollment increase have been made available as detailed later in mv statement. ENROLLMENT DATA Actual, Actual, Estimate, Actual, Estimate, 1966 1967 1968 Jan. 31, 1968 1969 U.S. citizen schools 11,304 11,600 11,875 12,212 12,325 Latin American schools. 3,189 2,950 2,790 2.734 2,649 Total number of students 14.493 14,550 14,665 14.946 14,974 1505 ofi. In 1969 we hope to return pupil-teacher ratios in the U.S. citizen schools essentially to the 19G7 level. The following table shows pupil-teacher ratios for the United States as a whole, as compared to the Canal Zone: PUPIL-TEACHER RATIOS IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANAL ZONE U.S. CITIZEN SCHOOLS United States! Fail, 1965 Fall, 1966 Fall, 1967 Canal Zone Fiscal year 1967 Estimates 1968 1969 Elementary schools 27.6 Secondary schools 20. 8 Total, elementary and secondary 24. 7 27.0 20.3 24.1 26.3 20.3 23.7 28.2 24.7 26.6 28.7 26.1 27.6 27.5 25.7 26.6 1 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, pamphlet HEW T-32, Feb. 22, 1968. 57. The total increased cost of the education program for 1969 over 1968 is estimated at $473,000. Over 80 percent of this amount represents nondiscre- tionary-t.vpe increases, including $266,000 required to provide additional teachers and personnel to meet the increasing school enrollments and $128,000 for pay inci'eases and other cost escalations, as follows : ( a ) The increased enrollments expected in 1969 will require the employment of 23 additional classroom teachers and fuller occupancy in 1969 of some positions which were vacant during part of 1968 ($252,000). Other costs, associated with increased workloads in the schools, provide for the additional cost in 1969 for added facilities completed and placed in operation in 1968 ($14,000). (&) The pay increases and related cost escalations, estimated at $128,(»00 for 1969, include the additional cost of services i^erformed by the Panama Canal Company for the education ac-tivity due to wage and price adjustments ($7(i,000) ; cost of Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966 under Public Law 89-601 ($35,(X)0) ; difference between full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost of first pay ad.iustment under Public Law 90-206 ($12,000) ; and cost of wage-board-type adjustments ($5,000). HOSPITALS A^'D CLINICS 58. The Canal Zone Government operates four hospitals. Gorgas Hospital, on the Pacific side, and Coco Solo, on the Atlantic side, are general hospitals accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, Corozal Hos- pital, a neuropsychiatric-domiciliary facility in the Pacific area, is the only hospital in the Canal Zone providing major inpatient psychiatric services. Palo Seco, also located on the Pacific side, provides a colony-type facility with an infirmary for patients with Hansen's disease. Following is a breakdown of in- patient workload data for these hospitals : CANAL ZONE GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS-AVERAGE DAILY INPATIENT LOAD ActUcI, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 General hospitals: Personnel and dependents of— Panama Canal Wli llta ry agencies Other... Total, general hospitals. Corozal Hospital (neuropsychiatric-domiciliary facility). Palo Seco Hospital (leprosarium) Total, hospitals 120.0 125.0 125.7 108.2 110.9 119.8 96.5 106.1 107.5 324.7 189.8 89.0 603.5 342.0 186.0 87.0 615.0 353.9 185.0 85.0 623.0 59. Costs for operating the hospit.als and clinics in 1969 are an estimated $619,000 higher than in 1968. Xondiscretionary-type increases, which take up over 83 percent of this total, include pay and other cost escalations and those for meeting additional workloads. Additional costs resulting from improvement of hospital services account for the balance of the increased requirement. The details of these increases are as follows : 1506 Pay increases avd related cost escalations. §347.000 (0) This provides for the difference between full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost of the first pay acl.iustmeTit effective October 7. 1967, under Public Law 90-206 ( S145.000) ; the cost of fair labor standards amendment adjustments under Public Law S9-601 (S13S.0OO) : additional cost of services performed for hospitals and clinics by the Panama Canal Company due to wage and price adjustments ( S61.000 ) : and. for the cost of wage-board-type pay adjustments (S3.000). Cost of meeting additional workload. $171,000 (6) The average daily inpatient load in the general hospitals during 1969 is expected to be about 3^^ percent over 1968, principally due to an increasing military popiilatiou. To meet the increased workload at a level of service com- mensurate with that in 196S, we are providing for fuller occupancy in 1969 of positions established during 1968, including an overall reduction of lapses through- out these organizations (§loo,000). Other workload associated increases include the additional cost in 1989 for airconditioning sections A and B. Gorgas Hospital (826.000) ; additional cost of supplies and materials (85.000) : and replacement of two able-bodied inpatient employees, rehabilitated and discharged from Palo Seco Hospital, with two nursing assistants f.^.OOO). Improvement of Services, $105,000 c. There has been outstanding progress in medical science which is reflected in changing patterns of medical care and medical education. There have been dramatic changes in the technitpies of diagnosis and treatment of disease and in the character and quality of intern/resident programs. We are scheduling certain improvements of services in our hospitals during 1969 to assure patients the benefits of up-to-date professional medical care, to reduce time lost by pa- tients in waiting to see a doctor, and to bring the number of intern/resident X)hysicians in line with recommendations of the American Medical A.ssociation to enable continued accreditation of Gorgas Ho.spital as a teaching institution. To accomplish this, we propose to add eight medical otficers. three nurses, three medical technicians, and four supporting personnel to the staff at Gorgas Hos- pital and five nurses and two supporting personnel at Coco Solo Ho.spital, as follows : (1) Gorgaa Hof!pita1. — One additional radiologist will enable the radiology department to assure full teaching responsibilities, not possible before because of minimum staffing, as well as to perform highly specialized procedures, such as cardiac and vascular disorder studies, which are necessary to improve the quality of medical care provided in tne Canal Zone community. One additional general practitioner will help to meet increasing demands for improved services in the outpatient clinic. The addition of six re.sident physicians will bring the number of such positions from 25 to 31, which is the number recommended by the American Medical Association to assure continued accreditation of this in- stitution as a teaching hospital. The additional resident physicians will be engaged in the following specialities : two, surgery ; one, general medicine : one, orthopedics : one, pediatrics : one. urology. Three nur.ses for the coronary care unit will provide partial staffing in order that we can develop a well-trained nucleus of personnel to provide specialized care of some 210 coronary patients per year (whose average stay is 7 days). The three medical technicians include an inhalation therapist, a psychiatric service occupational therapist, and a laboratory medical technologist. Sup- porting personnel inchide a procurement clerk, assistant housekeeping officer, clerk-typist, and clerk-dictaphone transcriber. (2) Coco Solo Hospital. — Five additional nurses will provide higher-level nursing care for patients who require continuous, comprehensive observation and intensive care at this hospital. Patients will be admitted to the unit for intensive care to reduce the need for special duty nurses, to supervise ftinction- ing of spei-ial eqtiipment such as surtion tubes and hypothermia, to reduce the length of the critical period, and to prepare the patient for convalescence. The two additional supporting personnel required include a medical stenographer and a clerk. Caxal Zone Government Capital Outlay Request 60. The appropriation request for 1969 covering capital outlay requirements of the Canal Zone Government amounts to $1,061,000, a decrease of $3,439,000 xuider that enacted for 1968. 1507 61. Canal Zone Government capital oxitlay appropriations nrv repaid to the U.S. Treasury over the life of the capital as.-et through depreciation charges to Canal Zone Government operations. The projects are described on pages 25 through 44 of the justifications. Several of the larger, recurring-type projects in progress and two new starts are highlighted in the following paragraphs. Recurring projects, principally covering replacements and additions of equip- ment, account for $1,020,000 of the 1969 appropriation request. Only $41,000 are requested for new starts. NEW STARTS 62. Replace tvasife mid water lines, dental eliiuca. SSO.OOO (p. J/S of the justificati07ts) .—BniMing 287 Ancon, is a concrete building constructed in 1918, which now houses, among other activities, the Canal Zone Dental Clinic. Use of the building is expected to continue indefinitely : however, the water and waste lines are badly deteriorated and must be replaced as well as all plumbing fixtures. 63. Modernize Mortuary Chapel, Corozal Cemetery, $11,000 (p. 4^ of the justifications) .—The Mortuary Chapel at Corozal. Canal Zone, was constructed in 1939 at a cost of .$10,700 and is the only such facility in the Pacific area. Masonry construction, with a clay tile roof, screened window openings, bare concrete floors, and heavy wooden doors throughout its three rooms (chapel,^ robing room, and small cemetery operation office) give it an unusually depressing appearance. It is planned to replace all doors with aluminum ones; install aluminum-framed windows or jalousies in ail v\indow openings : provide proper lighting in the three rooms ; and install an acoustical floor covering in each room. REPORTS ON PROJECTS IK PROGRESS 64. Report on school construction. — Two years ago. the need for additional school construction was based primarily on increased school enrollments that were expected to result from construction of new military housing. When the military housing program was indefinitely deferred in 1966, plans for futher school construction were suspended, and the funds were placed in reserve. In December 1967, the military received approval to start construction of 610 new houses and our school construction program was reinstated. 65. Worli; began on construction of military housing in January 1968 and, by mid-March, school construction was underway. This includes an elementary school in the Fort Kobbe-Howard Air Force Base area and a one-wing addi- tion to the Curundu Junior High School. This construction is scheduled for com- pletion before the start of school year 1969-70. The remaining school project, a one-wing addition to the Curundu Elementary School, is scheduled to begin in early fiscal year 1969. No additional funding is required as all school con- struction worli can be accomplished within the $4.9 million previously annro- priated. 66. Report on alterations and additions to Gorgas Hospital. — Good progress was made in fiscal year 1968 toward our objective of improving certain existing buildings to provide acceptable medical facilities at the Gorgas Hospital com- plex. Contracts were awarded for rehabilitation of sections A and B. These will be completed by March or April 1969. As soon as these sections are placed in operation and before the close of fiscal year 1969, work will begin on the re- modeling of section as the final phase of an approved $7.4 million medical facili- ties improvement program. General COST economies and improved efficienct 67. Efficiency, economy, and improvements in all operations of the Panama Canal enterprise are continually encouraged under various programs, such as cost reduction and management improvement, manpower control, and the in- centive awards programs. These have become ingrained in our planning as well as m the daily job, as a matter of good bu.siness practice. MANAGEMENT IMPR0\'EMENT ECONOMIES 68. Computer progress report.— On January 8. 1968. the computer pavroll system was implemented and 16,044 computer-produced payroll checks were delivered to the employees. The mammoth task of converting from a manual system to a sophisticated computer system was accomplished on target and 150S without incident. Three applications have thus far been placed on the computer, resulting in a net dollar savings in excess of $500,000 per annum. The planning and systems development for the fourth application encompassing general ac- counting, construction accounting, billing, and plant records, has been started with a tentative conversion date of July 1, 1969. 69. Ahsorption of legislated pay increase. — Full absorption in fiscal year 1968 of the costs of the first increment of pay increases, effective October 7, 1967, under Public Law 90-206 (1967 Federal Pay Act), was realized in the amoimt of $357,000 for Canal Zone Government operations and $207,000 for Panama Canal Company general and administrative expenses. The absorption of the pay increase was accomplished without reduction in any services performed. COST REUUCTIOX PROGRAil 70. Some significant 1968 savings under our cost reduction program include curtailment of capital improvements at Coco Solo Hospital ($223,000 savings) ; a reduction in tugboat manning requirements ($181,500 savings) ; more eflScient cartoning of milk at the milk plant ($40,700 savings) ; and reduction of pilot requirements on certain bridge-aft vessels ($35,000 savings). Management re- mains conscious of the necessity of limiting personnel compensation and overtime to the absolute minimum. Projected savings for fiscal year 1969 include a sig- nificant goal for engineroom automation for tugs imder construction which will reduce crews and probably result in more etficient performance ($76,200 savings). INCENTR'E AWARDS PROGRAM 71. We have an active two-part incentive awards program for employees. One segment encourages employees to submit their suggestions for improving efficiency and reducing costs. The other part provides for management to recognize high caliber employee performance of a continuing nature, and single acts involving significant savings. Both parts include recognition in the form of appropriate certificates and ceremonies as well as cash awards commensurate with the esti- mated savings involved. Areas op Special Concern REPORT ON water SERVICE TO PANAMA 72. Our Pacific-side water system currently supplies over 70 percent of its potable water production to the city of Panama. Since that city is developing rapidly, the demand for water continues to rise each year. Over the past 8 years, the Company has programed in excess of $2 million for expansion of its water system to keep pace with Panama's rising demand. This construction program is about complete. The maximum capabilities of our filtration system will be reached some time during the calendar years 1969 and 1970 and further expan- sion of the company's facility is not considered an acceptable solution to Panama's water problem. 73. In January of 1966, the Republic of Panama was formally notified that the Company would not be able to meet Panama's rising demand for water after 1969-70. We are cooperating with the Republic of Panama, as much as we can. by assisting them in the development of their own water supply. Panama's water agency has conducted a feasibility study but has not secured the necessary financing for the design and construction of its own potable water plant. How- ever, Panama has requested assistance from the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) but, to date, Panama and U.S. AID have not reached an agreement. Unless Panama acts quickly to build its own filtration system, a serious water shortage, commencing in 1970 or 3971, will be experienced in the Panama City area. LANGUAGE CHANGES 74. For the Canal Zone Government, passenger-carrying vehicles proposed for purchase in 1969 number 14 as compared to 11 in 1968. The 14, consisting of 12 police-type vehicles (which may exceed by $300 each the general purchase price limitation for 1969) and two ambulances, are for replacement only. Under the Panama Canal Company limitation on general and administrative expenses, the number of passenger-carrying vehicles proposed for purchase in 1969 is 26, as compared to 18 in 1968. The 26 vehicles consist of IS light sedans, five school buses, and three stations wagons, and are for replacement only. 1509 Fine Record of Service of Canal Employees 75. This presentation would not be complete without properly recognizing the human effort behind the material facts and figures. The employees of the Panama Canal have time and again, through periods of crisis and periods of unprecedented heavy workload, sometimes with insuflScient manpower, shown a remarkable sense of devotion to duty. They have compiled a fine record of sustained service over the years, allowing world shipping to flow smoothly through this important waterway. They are to be congratulated as a hard- working, frequently ingenious, loyal, dependable, and highly competent group of people of whom the U.S. Government can be proud. Conclusion 76. We appreciate very much the interest the committee members have always shown in the Panama Canal enterprise. The increased transit capacity of today is a product of foresight in the past. If improvements, approved by the Congress, had not been made when they were, traflic delays today would be such as to seriously impede the war effort as well as commercial activities. We welcome your visits to the Canal Zone, believing that onsite inspections help immeasurably to gain a better and more complete understanding of our operations. We sin- cerely hope you will continue to visit the Canal Zone as often as time permits. 77. This concludes my prepared statement. I will be glad to answer any ques- tions the chairman or committee members may have concerning our oi^eration. General Leber. My presentation will be in two j)arts: Broad look at canal operations as background. Fiscal year 1969 budget request. For over a half century the Panama Canal served as a great inter- national utility which ships of all maritime nations use with equality. Over the years the canal has carried about 5 percent of all world oceangoing commerce. Savings to ships and shippers using the canal are now measured in hmidreds of millions of dollars per year. Here is a Russian ship tliat we show in this slide, one of 51 transits that have gone through to date in the fiscal year 1968. I might say that this year we are seeing more Russian ships prob- ali] y because the Suez Canal is closed. The canal now carries about 10 to 12 percent of all U.S. foreign trade tonnage, with exports exceeding imports in a ratio of about 3 to 2 due in large part to increased export trade to the Far East. About 60 percent of all tonnage now moving through the canal is foreign trade, to or from the United States, and about 7 percent is intercoaistal traffic between our east and west coasts. Tlirough the years the canal has been of great value to the defense of tlie free world particularly in time of emergency. This is again being demonstrated with the emergency in Vietnam and with the difficulty in the Middle East and associated indefinite closure of the Suez Canal. The combination of these situations has increased canal traffic about 10 percent (4 to 5 ships per day). During fiscal year 1967, military sliipments approximated 6 million tons valued at $9 billion, and fiscal yenv 1968 will undoubtedly surpass this volume by a wide margin. "VVliile the United States continues to derive major benefits from the canal — we are not alone. Many countries share these benefits and for some, such as Ecuador, Peru, and Chile, the canal probably has pro- portionallv greater effect on their national economy than it does on ours. In 1966— Eighty-five percent of Ecuador's exports and imports were car- ried tlirough tlie canal ; Fifty-one percent of Peru's ; and 1510 Forty-three percent of Chile's. The canal has continued to be of significant benefit to the Republic of Panama. Panama has come a long way from the day this picture was taken. This is in 1907. In 1966 direct benefits to that country amounted to about $114 million from the Panama Canal. In addition are the major benefits to its economy from the vast trade and excellent trans- portation opportunities brought by the thousands of ships transiting each year. Construction and operation of the canal has been one of the United States greatest accomplishments. Looking back to construction days gives one some appreciation for the outstanding work of those "who designed and built the canal, and those who got control of the yellow fever and malaria so that the builders could survive. About 380,000 ships of every class, size, and shape have passed through since the canal opened on August 15, 1914. TMien opened, canal capacity was more than ample to handle all shipping between the Atlantic and Pacific. The locks were the largest in the world and could accommodate any ship afloat or on the drawing boards. In fact, many of the ships of that era were dwarfed by the locks, and the designers allowed for considerable growth when they decided to make the chambers 110 feet wide, 1,000 feet long and deep enough for ships drawing 40 feet. Over the years, there has been general growth in traffic, with some ups and downs due to wars and economic recessions. Commercial traffic, shown in yellow, has predominated, except during World War II when military ships, shown in red, made up most of the traffic. Until about 1960, the canal had very few customers which presented any problem because of size, because up to that time there were very few ships in the world that were too large to fit into the locks. The few large ones that could transit, caused some excitement, such as the Bremen back in 1939. But their transits were a rare thing. Through the years, the canal has been able to handle the number of ships desiring transit. In fiscal year 1967 we transited over 14,000 ships, a new high year. Last July, we put through 1,302, an average of 42 a day, a new high month, and on February 29 of this year we put through 65 ocean- going ships, a new high day. With two lock lanes in operation, traffic has not yet reached full capacity in terms of number of ships. With continued canal improve- ments, it will be some years before more ships come than we can handle. However, we have reached the point where delays often occur during periods when we have one lock lane out of service for repair, and all traffic must be carried in the remaining lane. We have anticipated this situation and for several years have been at work improving the lock overhaul procedure so that a lane will not be out of service for more than about 4 days. We will do this by using our large crane, the Hercules, to lift the gates and float them to a dry dock where maintenance can be done without interrupting traffic. We have tried this technique and we are sure it will work. However, some preparatory work is necessary on the locks. For example, some of our gates are not backed up bv duplicate sets, and therefore we must interrupt traffic and repair them using the old system. We must do 1511 this now before traffic grows to a level that camiot stand such restricted capacity. During the past few months, we have been doing this preparatory work at Gatun locks. The work is well along and will be completed by the end of April 1968. We will do similar-type work at Pedro Miguel early in 1969. In recent years, the size of ships has become more and more important in canal operations. The number of our really big customers is growing very rapidly. These are generally ships over 80 feet in beam, which require special handling for safe transit. This means more pilots per ship, more tugs with greater power, slower movement, better visibility and more tow^ing locomotives. In fiscal year 1951, there were only eight transits of ships over 80 feet in beam. By 1960, the number had increased to 455 transits, and by 1967, to 1,300. In 1957, we began to get requests to transit ships over 100 feet in beam, and we now are putting these through regularly at the rate of about 20 per month. We take commercial ships up to 106 feet in beam, and have put through helicopter carriers up to 108 feet in beam. Kemember that the locks are 110 feet wide. Naturally, these superships want to go through with the maximum possible draft, so over the past 4 years, we have progressively increased allowable draft to 40 feet — the maximum depth permitted by the lock sills. However, we cannot handle ships at this draft all year because Gatun Lake is drawn down in the dry season making draft restrictions necessary. More and more ships have been built and others are now on order which are too big to go through the Panama Canal. For example, at the beginning of 1967, about 620 of the 5,600 tankers and bulk carriers in the world were too large for our locks. Of 950 such ships under construction, about one-third will be too large for the canal. The prolonged closure of the Suez Canal has accelerated construction of the very large tankers. Several 200,000-deadweight-ton giants are on order and a few go up to 300,000 deadweight tons. Though the great majority of these ships are being built for specific trade routes and to avoid canals, this growth in size is the trend for bulk shipping. In past years, the Panama Canal has only had to worry about the number of ships it would be required to handle, but now, the canal will be increasingly concerned with both number and size. With increased ship size, the probability of ship accidents increases. Despite this, our ship accident frequency rate in terms of transits per accident has not increased during the period 1961 to date. This indi- cates that the pilots, towing locomotive operators, and others handling ship transits are doing a very fine job. However, accidents do continue at a rate of about 1 per 450 transits, and the accidents which now occur tend to be more serious than they were when ships were smaller and traffic was lighter. Two examples of these more serious accidents occurred in the last year. The most recent involved the Shozan Maru, a lar^e bulk carrier, 104 feet in beam, drawing 38 feet 6 inches and carrying 51,800 tons of iron ore, which struck the east bank of Gaillard Cut, while proceed- ing northbound, about noon on February 25. She was punctured on the starboard bow in several places, causing flooding and eventual ground- ing of the bow before the ship could be moved out of the cut under its own power. 1512 We were able to refloat the ship using compressed air to displace some of the water and move it into Gatini Lake out of the naviga].)le chamiel within 18 hours. Temporary repairs were completed on jSIarch 6, and the ship sailed for Baltimore to discharge cargo and then go into drydock for permanent repairs. It is now in Baltimore. This accident occurred in the 3-mile section of the cut which is still only 300 feet wide and is now being widened to 500 feet. The widening of this section, which started last year, was originally scheduled for completion in 1071. Earlier this year, we shortened this schedule to move forward completion to early 1970. As a result of the Sliozan Maru accident, we are now seeing whether it can be compressed even further. We will review the Shozan Maru experience ver}^ carefully and take all actions possible to avoid recurrence, and to minimize effect on canal traffic should such an accident happen in the future. The other accident involved the SS Rebecca^ a large tanker, 102 feet in beam, which rubbed the knuckle at the entrance of ]Mirafiores locks on May 14 causing a leak and ignition of jet fuel. We were able to extinguish the fire in a short time with no significant damage. Realizing that such an accident in the future could result in major damage to the locks and extended interruption of traffic, we have taken immediate corrective measures. This includes the installation of addi- tional dry chemical extinguishers on the locks and on all tugboats, and the programing of other improvements which will minimize the risk in such accidents. Our experiences in dealing with more ships and bigger ships, have led us to a systematic review of the entire canal's capacity and im- provement program. This review is now miclerAvay and will be com- pleted later this year. One of the first steps is to find out what our customers are planning in future ship design and operation and to find out what other canals are doing to handle the latest trends in shipping. To do this, we sent key officials of the Company on a fact-gathering trip, visiting 75 shipping companies and others involved in ship and waterway plan- ning and operation. This trip has been most helpful in our current review. Officials in the shipping business were very cooperative in dis- cussing their plans and problems and very much interested in the Panama Canal. We learned of — Much activity in the bulk carrier field, with more and more talk of construction m the range above 100,000 dead weight tons — too big to transit our locks. Accelerated development of container ships, a relatively new development for moving general cargo. Increasing development of the land bridge concept for cargo movement across the United States or Canada, as well as Russia in going between Japan and Europe. Under this concept, through combination of ship and rail movement, canals would be avoided. Increased attention by shippers to the future impact on the movement of cargo by alternate modes of transportation, par- ticularly the large airplanes and pipelines. _ In this systematic review, we will refine our estimates on the prac- tical capacity of the present canal, and examine the effects of various possible improvements on both the number and rate at which we can put ships through. We will examine cost versus benefits of the various possible improvements and — 1513 Will come up with a phased plan for carrying out justifiable improvements. In increments as necessary to meet future traffic demands. In the most efficient and economical way. Before passing on to our fiscal year 1969 budget request, I believe it is important to note that the Panama Canal enterprise, that is, the Panama Canal Company and Canal Zone Government, has in fact very little control over its volume of workload. The Panama Canal exists to service its customers and its volume depends in large part on two factors : The number of ships that present themselves for transit. The continued increasing requirements of the military for the schooling of their children and the hospitalization of their uniformed and civilian persomiel and their families stationed in the Canal Zone. Increases in population of military dependents in the Canal Zone during recent years have required the Canal Zone Government to greatly expand its schools and medical facilities and other support. For example, in 1965-66, the military agencies completed 888 units of family housing for which it was necessary to add 41 additional elementary school classrooms and 48 classrooms in junior high schools. We have come a long wa}- from the schools they had back in construc- tion days. In January 1968, construction of an additional 610 military houses was begun, with completioTi scheduled for the latter part of 1969. This housing will generate additional need for Canal Zone Government school facilities, funds for which are already in hand. We will also need additional personnel to provide the schooling and hospitalization of the increased military dependent population. PART II With this background, I would now like to highlight our fiscal year 1969 appropriation and authorization request which is before your committee. First, I will discuss the Panama Canal Company. COMPAXY OPERATIOIsrS The Company will continue to operate as it has in the past, using its own income to cover expenses, and requiring no appropriations. In fiscal year 1969, we are projecting a net revenue from operation of the canal of $12.7 million. Actual net revenue was $13.1 million in 1967. Experience to date in fiscal year 1968, indicates that net revenue will be appreciably higher than the $12.1 million estimated in this budget for fiscal year 1968. If current high traffic levels continue into fiscal year 1969, I feel sure our estimate of $12.7 million for that year will be exceeded. May I go ojff the record ? Mr, Morris. You may. (Discussion otf the record.) Mr. Morris. On the record. 1514 COMPANY CAPITAL General Leber. Xovt to the Panama Canal Company capital for 1969. Obligations scheduled for fiscal 3-ear 1969 amount to $18.2 million of "which only $3.6 million are applicable to new starts. The balance of the program involves contmuation of work on projects approved, in previous years and on recurrmg projects of a relatively routine nature, such as replacements and additions of equipment. I would like to describe briefly the major capital projects which will be in progress durmg fiscal year 1969. (a) Panaina Canal capacity imqjrovemenU. — This is. undoubtedly, our most important project, involving the widening and deepening of the remaining o-mile section of the cut, and other work to provide in- creased capacity and safer navigation, such as lighting in the cut and improved channel alinement. During fiscal year 1969, we estimate that about $81/2 million will be obligated and $7,800,000 will be expended on this project, most of it going toward completion of the cut widening. We expect, upon completion of our current review of canal capacity, to update this major program with specific projects, which will be de- scribed and presented in future budgets. >rEW TUGBOATS Our increased traffic both as to number and size of vessels has empha- sized the need for increasing our tugboat capability. In 1968 we are procuring two new tugboats and propose to acquire two more in 1969. These new tugs are over twice as powerful as the old ones now in our fleet and will have automated engineroom control which will reduce manning requirements. We will obligate $1.5 million for the two tugs in fi^iCal year 1969. INSTALL RUBBER FENDERS IN FOREBATS AND TAILBATS, ALL LOCKS This is a continuation of work initiated in fiscal year 1968 to provide rubber fendering on the concrete walls of the entrances and exists to all locks. This will reduce the incidence of damage to ships' hulls from scraping the walls and will reduce the hazard of fires in the locks which might be caused by accidents such as occurred with the SS Rebecca. NEW FENDER SYSTEM, BALBOA PIER One of the new starts in the fiscal year 1969 program involves obli- gation of $850,000 of the $2.3 million project which will provide a new improved fendering system for Balboa piers and docks, designed to handle the increasing number of larfje vessels which are berthed there. The present fendering system consists of timber piles which suffer major damage, incur high maintenance and replacement costs, and result in excessive damage to ships. REHABILITATE DOCK 7, BALBOA This is another new start. We plan to obligate $524,000 in fiscal year 19()9. This will provide a safe dock for discharging or loading petroleum products at the Pacitie end of the canal. With increased 1515 traffic, there is more and more demand for bunkering of ships and more and more use of the dock for loading and oil-loading tankers. The dock presently used is very close to the navigable channel and any ship larger than Liberty-ship size berthed at this dock actually protrudes into the channel. This, of course, is especially hazardous and could be extremely serious in case of ship collision involving gasoline or other higlily flammable cargoes. COMPANY LIMITATION ON GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES In fiscal year 1969, $13,691,000 is requested. This represents a net increase of S691,000 over such expenditures estimated for fiscal year 1968. Of this increase, $464,000 is to cover wage and other cost escala- tions together with additional provisions for recruitment, repatriation, home leave, death and disability compensation, et cetera. The $227,000 is to cover additional cost for inservice training of personnel to fill higher skilled craft, administrative, and management positions. I think most of these increases are self-explanatory, except possibly in the case of inservice training. The $227,000 additional fmids requested for this training in fiscal year 1969 are to be used principally for the employment of 50 addi- tional craft apprentices, seven additional full-time and three addi- tional part-time management trainees, and two additional training instructors. Under this program we are developing qualified replace- ments for our older employees who have reached retirement age. We are doing this by conducting an apprentice training program for both U.S. citizens and Panamanians. This program has been progressively expanded over the past 3 years. We are now turning out about 35 craftsmen per year. With the increased canal workload and impending retirements, this program must now be expanded. CANAL ZONE GOVERNMENT The total appropriation request for operations and capital funds for Canal Zone Govermnent is $1,570,000 less than that requested for 1968. This reduction reflects a decrease of $3,439,000 in our capital require- ments and an increase of $1,869,000 in our operational programs. A total of $37,869,000 is required for operating expenses for 1969. The total appropriations together with depreciation on capital assets will be repaid by the end of the fiscal year to the U.S. Treasury by the Panama Canal Company, and others paying for services received from the Canal Zone Government. The increase of $1,869,000 consists prin- cipally of — $761,000 to cover wage and cost escalations; $542,000 to cover cost of additional workloads, especially in the health and educational ser^nces areas. As I have explained in the background statement, the Canal Zone Government workload in schools and hospitals has been increased due to the growing population of militai"y dependents in the Canal Zone. (a) In fiscal year 1969, we expect enrollments in U.S. schools to reach 12,325, or about 450 more than enrollments estimated for 1968. (6) We expect a further increase in 1970 when all of the 610 new military houses now under construction are occupied. 1516 (c) In fiscal year 1969, we hope to return pupil-teacher ratios m U.S. schools to the 1967 level. "We would still have higher ratios than those in the United States, but plan to make some improvement in our present overcrowded condition. Corresponding to the increased workload in scliools is an increase in requirement for hospitalization for military dependents as well as the need for improvement of hospital sendees. The increased appro- priation for such sendees in fiscal year 1969 would provide for em- ployinent of 25 full-time permanent personnel, including eight doctors, eight nurses, three medical teclmicians, and six other supporting personnel. CAKAL ZONE CxO^"ERX]\IENT CAPITAL The appropriation request for fiscal year 1969 amounts to $1,061,000, a decrease of $3,439,000 from fiscal year 1968. All but $41,000 of the appropriation requested will be used to continue routine recurring projects, principally replacements and additions to equipment. The $41,000 requested for new starts covers the replacement of waste and water line in dental clinics and modernization of a mortuary chapel. Canal Zone Government capital appropriations are repaid to the U.S. Treasury over the life of the capital asset. CONCLUSION" I would like to conclude these highlights by givmg special recogni- tion to the continued outstanding performance of the employees of the Panama Canal enterprise. These people have time and again through periods of crisis, unprecedented workload, and major acci- dent, shown a remarkable sense of devotion to duty and capability to get the job done. In all of our programs and plans, we have the con- stant reminder that the success of the Panama Canal operation has been due primarily to the continued presence of this highly competent work force. And as we are drawing up programs for improving locks and other canal facilities, we must always consider necessary improve- ments in those support facilities which are required for the life and health of our employees and their dependents. We appreciate very much the interest of the many ^Members of the Congress in the Panama Canal enterprise, and particularly of the members of this committee. The fact that the canal today is capable of meeting the requirements of world trade is evidence of the continu- ing interest, leadership, and support of the Congress in this most im- portant project. We welcome your visits to the Canal Zone at any time and believe that such visits from time to time are very worthwhile in seeing the latest trends in shipping and the current canal operations to put them through. That concludes the highlights of my statement. Mr. ]\IoRRis. In other words, are you saying that visits by Members of Congress in the conduct of their duty does not impose an undue bui'den upon you and the Company ? General Leber. No burden at all. We would be very glad to see you. Mr. Morris. Do you think these trips are worth while? General Leber. Yes, I do, because 1 think to see the things on the ground is very helpful. Mr. Morris. We will insert the summary statement and pages 1 through 24 of the justifications. (The justifications follow :) 1517 CANAL ZONE GOVERNMENT PANAMA CANAL COMPANY Summary Statement introduction The civil government, health and sanitation functions in the Canal Zone are administered by the Canal Zone Government, an agency of the United States. The Panama Canal Company, wholly owned by the U.S. Government, is char- tered for the primary purpose of operating and maintaining the interoceanic canal across the Isthmus of Panama. As a part of that mission, and in considera- tion of the provisions of the international agreements under which the canal enterprise is operated, the Company provides necessary supporting service facilities. The Canal Zone Government and the Company are completely inte- grated in their administration, the Governor of the Canal Zone being also Presi- dent of the Company and a member of its Board of Directors. The Company is required by law to reimburse the U.S. Treasury annually for the net cost of operations of the Canal Zone Government, interest on the U.S. net direct in- vestment in the Company, and $430,000 of the payment to the Republic of Panama under the terms of the 1955 treaty. These reimbursable items amounted to $34.2 million in 1967 and are estimated at $34.4 million in 1968 and $34.8 million in 1969. CANAL ZONE GOVERNMENT The Canal Zone Government performs those functions in the Canal Zone which, in the United States, would be performed by State and local governments and civilian departments of the Federal Government. It also operates two gen- eral hospitals, a mental hospital, a leprosarium, and associated clinics. Appro- priations for operating expenses and capital outlay of the Canal Zone Govern- ment are in actuality advances of funds, as the amounts are repayable to the U.S. Treasury through charges against individuals and agencies for the services furnished. The remaining unrecovered costs are paid each year to the Treasury by the Company. Operating Expenses The appropriation request for 1969 operating expenses of the Canal Zone Government amounts to $37,869,000, an increase of $1,869,000 over the amount available for 1968. Increased fund requirements provide principally for additional costs resulting from improvement of services and increased workloads, particu- larly in schools and health services. The full year effect of application of the Fair Labor Standards Amendment (Public Law 89-601) and the additional cost in 1969 for the first pay adjustment under the Federal Employees' Salary Act of 1967 (Public Law 90-206) effective October 8, 1967, are also included. These and other variations are summarized by item and activity under tab 2a of this volume. Capital outlay The Canal Zone Government capital outlay appropriation request for 1969 amounts to $1,061,000, a decrease of $3,439,000 from that enacted for 1968. For 1969 there are two minor projects considered new starts: the replacement of waste and water lines in dental clinics and modernization of the mortuary chapel at Corozal Cemetery. The recurring projects for which there are major decreases in 1969 from that in 1968 appropriation request are as follows: 1. Improvements and replacements to fire facilities, from $231,000 to $15,000. 2. Improvements and replacements to educational facilities, from $522,000 to $60,000. 3. Additions and replacements to municipal systems, from $358,000 to $112,000. 4. Road and street replacements, from $626,000 to $109,000. 5. Replacements and additions of equipment — health and sanitation, from $568,000 to $364,000. PANAMA CANAL COMPANY The Panama Canal Company, a wholly ovrned Government corporation, operates and maintains the interoceanic canal across the Isthmus of Panama, together 151S with necessary supporting operations. All Panama Canal Company programs through 1969 as set forth in these estimates will be fully funded from resources available to the company during this period. Operations The operating margin of the Panama Canal Company is estimated at $12.1 million in 1968 and $12.7 million in 1969 as compared to $13.1 miUion in 1967. Net cash generation after funding capital outlay is estimated at $5.6 million in 1968 and $2. 1 million in 1969. This better position, despite rising costs, is attributable to a continuing increase in the number of transits as well as the revenue pro- ducing tonnage of ships using the canal. Provision has been made in these estimates for increases in salaries and wages attributable to the first increment of the Federal Employees Salary Act of 1967 (Pubhc Law 90-206) effective October 8, 1967, and the application of the Fair Labor Standards Amendment (Public Law 89-601) to the Canal Zone. The authorization requested for 1969 general and administrative expenses under congressional limitation amounts to $13,691,000, an increase of $691,000 over the availability for 1968. The increase results principally from additional costs arising from increased workloads, and inservice training programs designed to prepare locally available people to fill administrative, management, and craft positions which are expected to become vacant in the near future. These and other variations in general and administrative expense are summarized under tab 3a. Capital outlay The Panama Canal Company capital outlay obligations proposed for 1969 are estimated at $18,197,000. New starts have been hmited to 20 high priority projects having a total cost of $5,465,000 of which $3,543,000 is for obligation in 1969. Included in this group is the installation of a new fendering system for Balboa piers estimated to cost $2,310,000 with an initial obligation of $850,000 in 1969. Obligations on projects underway are estimated at $14,145,000. The principal project is the Panama Canal capacity improvements program with proposed obligations of $8,500,000. The obligations proposed for recurring projects are estimated at $4,721,000 principally for the replacement or addition of equipment. CANAL ZONE GOVERNMENT OPERATING EXPENSES EXHIBIT I SUMMARY OF AGENCY VARIATIONS, 1968-69 Obligations (funded) 1968 Appropriation in annual act $36,000,000 Change in selected resources 142,000 Total 1968 operating costs, funded 36,142,000 Cross- reference Variations Obligations to exhibit (funded) III (1) Cost of meeting additional workload... $542,000 (2) Additional costs resulting from improvement of services 151,000 (3) Additional cost of services performed by the Panama Canal Company due to wage and price ad- justments 323,000 (4) Difference between full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost of 1st pay adjustment under Public Law 90-206 210,000 (5) Cost of fair labor standards amendments pay adjustments 205,000 (6) Cost of employee benefits other than retirement contributions 176,000 (7) Cost of wage board-type pay adjustments... 23,000 (8) Other increases and decreases, net 47,000 Increase in funded costs 1,677,000 Total 1969 operating costs, funded 37,819,000 Change in selected resources. 50,000 1969 appropriation request (total estimated obligations) 37,869,000 1519 EXHIBIT II SUMMARY OF ACCRUED COSTS AND VARIATIONS BY ACTIVITY 1967 1968 1969 actual estimated estimated accrued accrued accrued costs costs costs Increase Cross- over reference to 1968 exhibit III estimate $15, 000 45. 000 81,000 21,000 4,000 473, 000 87, 000 6,000 4,000 17,000 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Civil functions: Customs and immigration $673,000 $725,000 $740,000 Postal service 1,316,000 1,406,000 1,451,000 Police protection 3,761,000 3,867.000 3,948,000 Fire protection. 1,475,000 1,492,000 1,513,000 Judicial system 116,000 125.000 129,000 Education 10,584,000 11,092,000 11,565,000 Public areas and facilities 2,054,000 2,241,000 2,328.000 Library 267,000 261,000 267,000 Internal security... 185,000 192,000 196 000 Other civil affairs 225,000 255,000 272,000 Total, civil functions Health and sanitation: Hospitals and clinics Other public health service Total, health and sanitation. General government expenses: Office of the Governor Other general government expenses Total, general government expenses... Total, accrued operating costs 36, 057, 000 37, 967, 000 39, 664, 000 . 20,656,000 21,656,000 22,490,000 753,000 _. . 11,199,000 . 1,456,000 11,815,000 1,647,000 12, 434, 000 1,755,000 619,000 108. 000 (11) (12) . 12,655,000 13,462,000 14, 189, 000 727,000 .. 136, 000 176, 000 2, 673, 000 183,000 2, 883, 000 7,000 210,000 (13) . 2,610,000 (14) . 2,746,000 2, 849, 000 3, 066, 000 217,000 .. 1, 697, 000 EXHIBIT III DETAIL OF VARIATIONS BY ACTIVITY 1968-69 Reference, exhibit II Amount Reference, exhibit I Accrued costs (1) (2) The increased cost of $15,000 in customs and immigration includes: Cost of meeting additional worlernment5 an increase of $1,869,000. FULLER POSITIOX OCCUPANCY The justification for meeting additional workload refers to the ad- ditional cost for fuller occupancy of positions in 1969. Just what does this mean ? General Leber. Well, it means that we are going to fill up our au- thorized positions to a higher percentage of full authorization in fiscal 1969 than we have in previous years. This does not mean that we assume we will ever have 100-percent occupancy, because this is just not practicable. But we do feel that we can tighten up and fill some more of our authorized positions, which, of course, would re- quire more pay, because of our growing workload. Mr. Morris. How many of these positions do you anticipate that you will fill, assuming that the committee grants the increase? General Leber. Well, sir, they are spread out throughout the vari- ous divisions and functions here. Mr. Morris. Could you provide a figure, and a breakdown for the record ? General Leber. Yes, sir. (The information follows :) Fuller occupancy of positions in Canal Zone Government resitlting in addi- tional cost as shown in 1969 budget estimate occurs in the following four general situations : 1. Positions established in 1968 which were put in during that year. For example, the new position occupied January 1, 1968, having an annual cost of $10,000 which burdens fiscal year 1968 with $5,000 but fiscal year 1969 with the burden of $10,000. Thus fuller occupancv in 1969 would result in a cosit increase of $5,000 over 1968. 2. Continuing positions which were vacant due to leave without pay or vacant part year 1968 but are expected to be filled the full year in 1969. This category covers some positions in nearly all programs. 3. Cost of minor additional temporary employment during the year, such as Latin American students during .January-March, and additional relief for em- ployees on leave, such as relief for magistrate at Cristobal. 4. Additional cost of positions which must be filled prior to expiration of the terminal leave of the previous incumbent. CANAL ZONE GOVERNMENT— CHART OF VARIATION FOR FULLER OCCUPANCY OF POSITIONS, 1968-69 Activity Total (1) Situation (2) Situation (3) Situation (4) Situation Customs and immigration 5,000 3.000 2,000 Police protection 11,000 10,000 1,000 Judicial system 1,000 1,000 Education 19,000 4,000 15,000 Library 2,000 1,000 1,000 Internal security 1,000 1,000 Other civil affairs 11,000 3,000 8,000 Hospital and clinics 135,000 94,000 41,000 Other public health 5,000 4,000 1,000 Other general Government expense 1,000 1,000 Total 191,000 108,000 65,000 9,000 9,000 Mr. Steers. Might I clarify that point? Mr. Morris. Certainly. Mr. Steers. The occupancy of positions also refers to the added cost for a full year of occupancy in 1969 when the position has only been filled for part of the year in 1968. 1529 Mr. Morris. Will you break that down for the committee along with the breakdown of the figures ? Mr. Steers. Yes, sir. PERSONNEL AND HOUSING REQUIREMENTS Mr. Morris. Considering the increase being experienced in the mili- tary population, does this estimate adequately provide for your per- sonnel and housing requirements? General Leber. We think it adequately provides for personnel re- quirements; yes, sir. We do have a problem with housing for our employees and particularly those who will be needed, additional em- ployees, to provide the schooling and hospitalization for the increased military population which will come as soon as these 610 houses now under construction are completed. We have this problem under dis- cussion with the Bureau of the Budget and are seeking a solution to it. Our problem in housing is primarily one of needing additional houses for employees; that is, teachers and medical personnel to adequately serve the increase in workload that will follow the occupancy of these houses. ]\Ir. Morris. They are primarily educational and medical person- nel? General Leber. Teachers, medical people, plus some who will be required because of the growing workload in the canal itself. reimbursement by the military Mr, Morris. What are the mechanics of how the military reimburses 3'ou for the services that the canal government provides? General Leber. For each of these services provided the military we compute the cost of the service, taking into accomit the total use of it. For example, in the schools we have so many students and so much of a total cost. We divide it, we get a unit cost, then we tell the military what this is and they reimburse us for their share of the cost. The same thing applies to things like hospitals, fire protection, electric power, water, some garbage and trash collection, and other services. Canal Zone Government, Capital Outlay object classification (in thousands of dollars) 1967 1968 1969 actual estimate estimate 31.0 Equipment 579 j 379 775 32.0 Lands and structures 4,059 3,915 5 118 «, n ^u Total costs, funded 4,638 5,293 5,893 94.0 Change in selected resources —1,477 1,627 —1313 99.0 Total obligations.... 3,161 6,920 4,580 1530 ~ *- a> to — .CD L. < 2> =^ a>4; 3-^ c^ Q ^ o o « o P = 2 CO .— * 1 Ln o ,_o:>Lr>^^ oo ro ^^LO ^in-* — ^ — ' ro CD r-*oo J --Hr-^ CD r^ — . .— tor^ P-. O^ .— t «cj- '^t CO to CVJ ^^ ^H ; , _o 1 1 a? u ,J0 •*2 1 I ^ 01 1 E ! ^ inches of asphaltic plant mix. In addition, the entrance at Gaillard Highway must be moved from its present hillside location where sight distances are extremely poor. Miscellaneous traffic improvements, $50,000 Registered vehicles in the Canal Zone have increased from approximately 13,000 in 1960 to an estimated 20,000 in 1967, and the increase in the RepubKc of Panama has been even greater. Points of severe traffic congestion and hazard have developed as a result. The following low cost improvements will provide immediate rehef for traffic problems at critical points not related to major changes in traffic patterns which may develop in the future. 1. Provide a traffic stacking lane at entrance to Fort Davis. 2. Provide a trafiic stacking lane for traflSc approaching the gate bridge, Gatun Locks. 3. Provide a passing lane for traffic entering Albrook AFB from Gaillard Highway from the south. 4. Provide a passing lane for traffic entering Roosevelt Avenue from Corozo Street. 5. Provide a stacking lane for traffic entering Spillway Road from Gaillard Highway from the south. Also build a bus shelter on the east side of Gaillard Highway at this point. The obUgation and expenditure schedules for this project are: Obligations Expenditures Project total (i) (i) Through fiscal year 1966 $289,924 $288 969 Fiscal year 1967 215,607 193)463 Fiscal year 1968 800,024 823 123 Fiscal year 1969... 109,000 109,000 1 Recurring. Recurring project, civil functions 6. Community recreational facilities: Project total Recurring Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule $68, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 155^ 000 Fiscal year 1 969 appropriation required 50, 000 1538 This continues the program initiated in fiscal year 1960 to supply and improve recreational facilities for employees and their families residing in Canal Zone townsites. The program has included such items as provision of playgrounds, construction of boat ramps, improvements of inland waterways and the develop- ment of picnic and/or scenic areas. The following community recreational facilities are included in the fiscal year 1969 capital program: Tennis courts with lights, Gatun, $45,000 Gatun is one of the oldest towns on the Isthmus, and completely lacks any facilities for tennis. Tennis is a popular sport in other towns where facilities are available. With lighted courts, tennis will fulfill a need, not only as a partici- pant's sport, but as a spectator's sport as well. New players will be developed, and tournament competition can be conducted. Construction of play areas and 'purchase and installation of equipment, $5,000 This is a continuing program, which provides for the improvement and es- tablishment of community playground facilities, through the purchase and in- stallation of new equipment. It also provides athletic fields for baseball, softball, soccer and cricket, for the many youth and adult leagues in the United States and Latin American Communities in the Canal Zone. An additional $18,000 of fiscal year 1968 carryover funds are included in the fiscal year 1969 obligation total for completion of such fiscal year 1968 projects as tennis courts for Los Rios and Balboa, and a swimming area at Cocoli. The obligation and expenditure schedules for this recurring project are as follows: Obligations Expenditures Project total (') (0 Through fiscal year 1966 $101,595 $101,595 Fiscal year 1967 109,848 77.228 Fiscal year 1968 185,557 131, 177 Fiscal year 1969 68.000 155,000 1 Recurring. Recurring project, health and sanitation 7. Eeplace and add equipment: Project total Recurring Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule $364, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditvire schedule 364, 000 Fiscal year 1969 appropriation required 364, 000 This is a recurring program of replacement of diagnostic, therapeutic, and other medical equipment in units of the health and sanitation program. The 1969 requirement for this program is listed below, and is based on the capital equipment inventories developed at the request of the Bvireau of the Budget. Gorgas Hospital $200, 000 Coco Solo Hospital 120, 000 Corozal Hospital 32, 000 Palo Seco Hospital 6, 000 Division of Sanitation 2, 000 Division of Preventive Medicine 1, 000 Division of Veterinary Medicine 3, 000 Total 364,000 The amount of $200,000 shown for Gorgas Hospital will provide for normal replacements such as an ambulance, surgical cabinets, refrigerators, EENT operating units, electro-surgical ai^paratus, shelves, stands, stretchers, portable TV sets, oxygen tents, CRM instrument tabic, refracting chairs, microscopes, air conditioners, steam distilling apparatus and other minor equipment. New equip- ment to be purclmsed is physiological monitoring equipment, X-O-Mat with auto loading accessories, audio call system with mobile radio equipment, panoramic dental X-ray, cystoscopy table and X-ray heads, central control panel for two X-ray heads, dental units, modular formica-clad units, various peritonial dialysis equipment, ultrasonic laminagraph and B-scan and compound-scan, diagnostic 1539 electronic measuring modules, a coronary care monitor, and other miscellaneous equipment. Coco Solo Hospital requires $120,000 to provide for normal replacements of such equipment as air conditioners, a diagnostic table, X-ray apparatus photo controls and transformer, anesthesia apparatus, operating table, electric tray conveyors, utility tables, oxygen tanks, beds, cribs, and an ambulance. New equipment includes a two-way communication radio alert and emergency alarm system, and an auto analyzer. Corozal Hospital requirements are $32,000 of normal replacements and such new equipment as air couditionei's, and an occupational therapy floor-loom. Normal replacement of equipment includes items such as nonadjustable neuro- psychotherapy beds, chairs, tables and freezers. Palo Seco Hospital requires $6,000 for replacement of wheel chairs, portable TV sets, air conditioners, and miscellaneous equipment. The Division of Preventive Medicine and Quarantine requires $2,000 for replacement of miscellaneous deteriorated or inadequate equipment. The Division of Sanitation requirement of $1,000 provides for normal replace- ment of insecticidal dispensing equipment. The Division of Veterinary Medicine requires $3,000 for normal replacement of equipment. The obhgation and expenditure schedules for this recurring project are as follows : Obligations Expenditures Project total (0 (') Through fiscal year 1966 $1,078,018 $954,659 Fiscal year 1967.... 342,685 332.271 Fiscal year 1968 889,777 1,023,550 Fiscal year 1969 364,000 364,000 ' Recurring. Recurring project, general government 8. Replacements and improvements to Government buildings: Project total Recurring Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule $15, 000 Fiscal j^ear 1969 expenditure schedule 15, 000 Fiscal year 1969 appropriation required 15, 000 General replacements and improvennents to Government buildings, $15,000 This recurring capital program item provides for miscellaneous expenditures in the various Government buildings operated b}'' the company, including certain corrective alterations, renovations and necessary improvements for efficient utilization of building spaces which cannot always be anticipated far enough in advance to include as separate program items to the capital submissions, and for replacement of certain equipment items. Specific equipment replacements and improvements under this project are for various custodial and janitorial equipment items, for electric water coolers as service life runs out and their operational maintenance is becoming uneconomical, and in recent years for window or central-type air conditioning units as they break down and are becoming uneconomical to repair. Provisions are included for purchase of additional and/or experimental tj'pes of custodial equipment items as well as a pool of standbj^ air conditioners. The modernization and air conditioning of buildings currently in plant and the addition of other Government buildings tends to increase the needs under this program. The obligation and expenditure schedules for this recurring project are as follows: Obligations Expenditures Project total (i) (i) Through fiscal year 1966 $19,387 $16, 180 Fiscal year 1967 65,624 65,848 Fiscal year 1968 108,038 111,021 Fiscal year 1969 15,000 15,000 ' Recurring. 1540 Recurring project, general government 9. Advance planning of future projects: Project total Recurring Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule $30, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 30, 000 Fiscal year 1969 appropriation required 30, 000 The purpose of this item is to make an authorization available to be used for early engineering and planning work on projects included, or to be included, in the Canal Zone Government capital programs and budgetary submissions. The advance planning work is necessary to obtain sufficient data and design on which to base estimates, descriptions, and specifications. The obligation and expenditure schedules for this recurring project are as follows: Obligations Expenditures Project total 0) Q) fiscal year 1968 $25,000 $25,000 Fiscal year 1969 30,000 30,000 1 Recurring. Recurring project, general government 10. Minor capital additions and replacements: Project total Recurring Fiscal year 1969 obHgation schedule $50, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 50, 000 Fiscal year 1969 appropriation required 50, 000 This is to provide for small items of equipment and minor structural improve- ments, the need for which develops during the budget year. Items for which funds were used in past years included improvements to the Balboa magistrate's court, construction of bulkheads in swimming pools, replacement of a damaged, large, air-conditioning compressor and emergency construction of a sewerline. The obligation and expenditure schedules for this recurring project are as follows : Obligations Expenditures Project total .__ 0) (0 Through fiscal year 1966 - $1,050 $1,050 Fiscal year 1967 11,619 11,619 Fiscal year 1968 64,400 64,400 Fiscal year 1969 50,000 50,000 • Recurring. Recurring project, general government 11. Retirement and removal costs: Project total Recurring Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule $10, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 10, 000 Fiscal year 1969 appropiation required 10, 000 This item pro\ades a capital fund to cover the gross cost of unanticipated re- moval and/or retirement of Canal Zone Government capital items from plant. Such costs must be included in the capital program as an expenditure since funds are required to cover the charges. The obligation and expenditure schedules for this recurring project are as follows: Obligations Expenditures Project total- Through fiscal year 1967 Fiscal year 19S8 Fiscal year 1969 ' Recurring. C) (•) $176 $176 11,025 11,025 10,000 10, 000 1541 Nonrecurring project, health and sanitation 12, Replace waste and water lines, dental clinics: Project total $30, 000 Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule 30, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 30, 000 Fiscal year 1969 appropriation required 30, 000 Replace waste and water lines, building 287, Ancon, $30,000 This is a two-story, concrete building constructed in 1918. It houses the treasurer's offices of the Panama Canal Company on the first floor and the Canal Zone Dental Clinic on the second. Indications are that the building will continue to be used in this capacity indefinitely. In order to continue the building in service through its 70-year life, the water and waste lines, which are badly deteriorated, must be replaced, including all plumbing fixtures. Nonrecurring project, health and sanitation 13. Modernize mortuary chapel, Corozal Cemetery: Project total $11,000 Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule 11, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 11, 000 Fiscal year 1969 appropriation required ^ 11, 000 The mortuary chapel at Corozal Cemetery is the only such facility in the Pacific area. The building is of masonry construction with clay tile roof, bare concrete floors, and screened window openings and heavy wooden doors, giving it an austere appearance. It was constructed in 1939 at a cost of $10,700 and consists of three rooms; namely, a chapel, robing room for clergy, and an office for the cemetery operation. The following improvements are planned to extend the life of this necessary public facility: (a) Install acoustical floor covering on all floors. (6) Install aluminumed framed windows or jalousies in all window openings. (c) Install proper lighting in all rooms. (d) Replace all doors with aluminum doors. Mr. Morris. Last year it was estimated that the capital outlay pro- gram for fiscal year 1967 would be $7,851,000. The actual program, however, was only $3,160,910. Can you give us an idea as to what happened here ? General Leber. Yes, sir. The main explanation for that difference is the delay in starting the construction of additional schools, which was tied in with the additional military housing. You see, the 610 units of military housing which I have mentioned were programed for construction back in 1967 and concurrently with that we would have had to start the construction of the schools, but they actually did not get underway until this past January in fiscal 1968. So we purposely held back the school construction until we were sure that the houses would be built. There were some other things that were delayed. On the Company side was the remedial work of the Miraflores spillway, where we had programed a project of some $400,000 and with further investigation we have found that such an expensive project is not needed. Mr. Morris. This is the main explanation, the school delay ? General Leber. Yes, sir. STATUS OF CAPITAL OUTLAY PROCxRAM, FISCAL YEAR 196 8 Mr. Morris. The capital outlay program for the current year is estimated at $6,920,415. What is the current status of the program and is this still considered a firm estimate ? 1542 General Leber. Yes, sir. The program this year is going along very well. As a matter of fact, to date in the fiscal year in the Canal Zone Government capital we have obligated over $3 million which is about the same as we did for all of last year. We have other projects which are coming up for bids and award during the remainder of the year so that I think we will come reasonably close to the $6 million es- timated. There possibly will be some slippage if some bids are too costly. Mr. Morris. The estimate is really closer to $7 million than it is to $6 million. General Leber. Yes; $6,961,000. We are programing some carryover at the end of the year. In other words projects that we are not even planning to award, these include major projects for further rehabilita- tion of Gorgas Hospital, a section of it which we simply cannot start until we have finished the work underway on two of the sections there now. There are also projects, fairly good sized, for air conditioning schools which we are not programing in this fiscal year. UNOBLIGATED BALANCE Mr. Morris. The estimate for 1969 as shown on page 28 provides for an unobligated balance at the end of fiscal year 1969 of $936,000. Why is it necessary, therefore, to approve the 1969 request of $1,061,000? General Leber. Well, sir, this was a matter of applying money to projects. You see, in the capital program, we get appropriations by item and these are just different items. Mr. Morris. Actually if this was made available in the 1970 fiscal year it would not hurt the program any ? General Leber. Well, the amount of money, as you point out there, we are proposing to carry over, is slightly less money than we are ask- ing for in appropriations so the net amount of money, we would be all right there. But in this program we have always presented projects and gotten appropriations to a line item and in some cases as I have explained have set those items back. Mr. Morris. As long as the committee approved the program, it could defer the money witliout harming your program ? General Leber, There is the point that when you make the award of a project even though it may not be finished in the year you award it we are required to have the total money to cover the total project. INfr. INIoRRis. But these are uncommitted and unobligated funds that we are speaking of ? General Leber. These funds are committed to specific projects, but are unobligated at vear end. 1543 Panama Canal Company limitation on general and administrative expenses object classification (in thousands of dollars) 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Personnel compensation: 11. 1 Permanent positions 11. 3 Positions other than permanent 11. 5 Other personnel compensation , 11.7 Military personnel... 11.8 Special personal service payments. Total personnel compensation... 12. Personnel benefits.. 21. Travel and transportation of persons. 22. Transportation of things 23. Rent, communications, and utilities... 24.0 Printing and reproduction 25. 1 Other services 25. 2 Services of other agencies. 26.0 Suppliesand materials 42.0 Insurance claims and indemnities 93. Administrative expenses 5,987 6,578 6,903 124 184 186 109 164 124 61 65 65 -13 6, 268 6,991 7,278 805 907 950 551 717 802 296 380 392 191 208 1 401 209 267 439 2, 491 2,943 3,163 144 191 181 235 261 276 -11,249 -13,000 -13,691 99.0 Total obligations. PROGRAM AND FINANCING Program by activities: 1. Executive direction 2. Operations direction.. 3. Financial management 4. Personnel administration 5. General services 6. Employment costs Total accrued general and administrative expenses Ccosts- obligations) Financing: Balance lapsing Limitation 1,621 1,883 2,008 808 956 982 3,620 3,987 3,917 1,332 1,481 1,532 1,231 1,349 1,421 2,637 3,344 3,831 11,249 1,029 12,278 13, 000 13, 000 13,691 13,691 Mr. Morris. A general administrative expense limitation of $13,691,000 is requested for the Panama Canal Company, an increase of $691,000. We will insert pages 45 through 56 of the justifications. (The pages follow:) EXHIBIT IV.— SUMMARY OF VARIATIONS 1968-69 Cross reference to exhibit VI Accrued expenses 1968 authorization in annual act 13,000,000 VARIATIONS (1) Additional cost of employee benefits other than retirement contributions... 237, 000 (2) Additional cost for inservice training. 227,000 (3) Cost of additional workload 107,000 (4) Additional cost of services performed by other Panama Canal Company units due to wage and price adjustments 94,000 (5) Difference between full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost of 1st pay adjustment under Public Law 90-206 79,000 (6) Cost of wage board type pay adjustments 27,000 (7) Cost of fair labor standards amendments pay adjustments 20,000 (8) Reduced cost of supplies and personnel after initial expense of conversion of payroll functions to computer.. -120,000 (9) Other increases and decreases, net 20,000 Increase in accrued expenses 691,000 1969 authorization request 13,691,000 1544 EXHIBIT v.— SUMMARY OF ACCRUED EXPENSES AND VARIATIONS BY ACTIVITY 1967 actual accrued expenses 1968 estimate accrued expenses 1969 estimate accrued expenses 1969 increase or decrease accrued expenses Cross- reference to exhibit VI Executive di rection $1,621, 000 Operations direction 808,000 Financial management.. 3,620,000 Personnel administration 1,332,000 General services 1,231,000 Employment costs_ 2,637,000 Total general and administrative ex- penses (under limitation)... 11,249,000 $1,883,000 956,000 3, 987, 000 1,481,000 1,349,000 3, 344, 000 $2, 008, 000 982, 000 3,917,000 1,532,000 1,421,000 3,831,000 $125,000 26, 000 -70, 000 51,000 72, 000 487, 000 13,000,000 13,691,000 691,000 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Reference to exhibit V EXHIBIT VI— DETAIL OF VARIATIONS BY ACTIVITY, 1968-69 Reference to exhibit IV Accrued expenses 1) The increased cost of $125,000 in executive direction includes: Cost of additional workload.., 3 (a) Net cost for fuller occupancy of positions, not offset by employee turnover $21,000 (b) Additional costs for consultants and advisers 49,000 Additional cost of services performed by other Panama Canal Company units due to w/age and price adjustments 4 43,000 Difference between full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost of first pay adjustment under Public Law 90-206 5 12,000 Additional accrued expenses 125,000 (2) The increased cost of $26,000 in operations direction includes: Cost of additional workload (net cost for fuller occupancy of positions, not offset by employee turnover) _. 3 3,000 Additional cost of services performed by other Panama Canal Company units due to wage and price adjustments 4 11,000 Difference between full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost for first pay adjustment under Public Law 90-206. 5 12,000 Additional accrued expenses... 26,000 (3) The decreased cost of $70,000 in financial management includes: Additional cost of services performed by other Panama Canal Company units due to wage and price adjustments 4 8, 000 Difference between full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost for first pay adjustment under Public Law 90-206 5 33,000 Cost of Fair Labor Standards amendments pay adjustments 7 9,000 Reduced cost of supplies and personnel after initial expense of con- version of payroll functions to computer 8 —120,000 Decreased accrued expenses —70,000 (4) The increased cost of $51,000 in personnel administration includes: Additional cost for inservice training (cost of 2 full-time training instructors, net of lapses, for expanded apprentice and other training programs) 2 8,000 Cost of additional workload (net cost for fuller occupancy of positions not offset by employee turnover) 3 23,000 Additional cost of services performed by other Panama Canal Company units due to wage and price adjustments. _ 4 2.000 Difference between full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost for first pay adjustment under Public Law 90 206 _ 5 15,000 Cost of Fair Labor Standards amendments pay adjustments 7 3,000 Additional accrued expenses 51,000 (5) The increased cost of $72,000 in general services includes: Cost of additional workload (additional cost for supplies and materials) 3 11,000 Increased cost of services performed by other Panama Canal Company units due to wage and price adjustments 4 30,000 Difference between full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost of first pay adjust- ment under Public Law 90-206 5 6,000 Cost of wage board-type pay adjustments 6 1,000 Cost of Fair Labor Standards amendments pay adjustments 7 4,000 Other increases and decreases, net 9 (a) Provision for additional inspection, maintenance, and alterations to Company buildings 30,000 (b) Nonrecurring cost for exterior painting of Terminals Building, Balboa -10,000 Additional accrued expenses 72,000 1545 Reference to exhibit V EXHIBIT VI— DETAIL OF VARIATIONS BY ACTIVITY, 1968-69 Reference to exhibit IV Accrued expenses (6) The increased cost of $487,000 in employment costs includes: (a) Additional provision for employees' States travel.. $158,000 (b) Additional cost of recruitment and repatriation 30,000 (c) Provision for increased awards in Incentive awards program 15,000 (d) Provision for increased death and disability payments.. 15,000 (e) Additional cost for PICA and FEGLI due to increased rates and payroll costs 19,000 Additional cost of employee benefits other than retirement contributions... 1 237,000 (a) Cost of apprentice promotions, 1st to 2d year. 48,000 (b) Net cost of 50 additional apprentices 135,000 (c) Cost of 7 additional full-time and 3 additional part-time manage- ment trainees. 36,000 Additional cost of in-service-training. __ 2 219, 000 Difference between full-year 1969 and part-year 1968 cost of first pay adjust- ment under Public Law 90-206..- 5 1,000 Cost of wage board-type pay adjustments 6 26, 000 Cost of Fair Labor Standards amendments pay adjustments 7 4, 000 Additional accrued expenses 487,000 EXECUTIVE DIRECTION [In thousands of dollars] Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 Directors' expense _ 16 President's office and staff 766 Secretary's office, Washington, D.C 84 Panama Canal Information Office 310 Tour guide and reception service 211 Consultants and advisers .- _ 209 Contingencies of the President, Panama Canal Company 25 Total, executive direction 1,621 20 20 797 821 103 114 332 356 254 271 352 401 25 25 1,883 2,008 This function encompasses the executive direction of the Panama Canal Company. The Board of Directors, which is vested with the management of the Company, consists of from nine to 13 members as determined by the Secretary of the Army who is the stockholder of the corporation. Directors, while receiving no salary for their services on the Board, are paid per diem allowances and travel expenses in connection with attendance at meetings and time spent on special service of the Company. Included in the office of the president are an executive planning staff, a legal office, and a safety branch. The secretary of the Company, through the Company's office in Washington, is responsible for liaison with the Congress, the stockholder, and Federal Govern- ment departments and agencies. The Panama Canal Information Office is responsible for all public relations activities, including press and news releases, the publication of the Panama Canal Review and a weekly newspaper in English and Spanish, and related activities which insure the proper public and employee understanding of programs of the Company and government. The guide and reception service provides conducted tours for visitors in the Canal Zone. The multilingual guide service is host to approximately 8,000 visitors in the Canal Zone from throughout the world each week. The service extensively encourages visits by Panamanians and others and utilizes a tourist launch together with photographic and visual aids to carry the programs and objectives of the Panama Canal before a maximum audience on the isthmus and elsewhere. The provision herewith for consultants represents special studies performed for the Company by outside advisory specialists. The estimates reflect the varying needs for special studies. 1546 OPERATIONS DIRECTION [In thousands of dollars) Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 125 140 139 194 215 227 163 168 177 127 138 143 199 295 296 Marine director's office Engineering and construction director's office Supply and community service director's office Transportation and terminals director's office General and special engineering services Total, operations direction 808 956 982 This function comprises the offices of bureau heads responsible for directing the nonadministrative operations of the Company. Also included are general and special engineering services including preliminary designs and estimates required in connection with development of capital programs and special studies relating to use and alterations of existing facilities when functional changes are proposed. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT [In thousands of dollars] Actual, Estimate, Estimate, 1967 1968 1969 Comptroller's Office and staff.. 3,569 3,936 3,866 General Accounting Office audit _ 51 51 51 Total financial management _ 3,620 3,987 3,917 The financial management activity covers the Comptroller's Office and staff, and the cost of the annual audit of the Company and Gov^ernment by the General Accounting Office as follows: comptroller's office jvnd staff Estimates for the Comptroller's office and staff cover the cost of the develop- ment of accounting, financial, and ratemaking policies; the issuance of accounting procedures; the maintenance of the general books of account; the preparation of payrolls and maintenance of records relating thereto; the preparation of the overall financial statements and reports; establishment of systems of internal control and conduct of comprehensive internal audits; audit and settlement of all claims and demands by or against the Company and Government; collection- custody, and disbursements of funds; budget programing, administration, super, vision and coordination; administration of the incentive awards program, and responsibility for manpower control and cost control. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AUDIT This provides for the annual audit of the Company and Government by the General Accounting Office. Cost estimates are furnished by the General Account- ing Office. PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION [In thousands of dollars) Actual, Estimate, Estimate, 1967 1968 1969 Personnel Bureau 1,201 1,327 1,368 Industrial training school 131 154 164 Total personnel administration 1,332 1,481 1,532 1547 Included herein are costs of administering the personnel functions of the Panama Canal Company and Canal Zone Government, training and executive development programs conducted by the Personnel Bureau, and the operation of an industrial training school. The estimates for 196S and 1969 reflect the increasing workloads in this activity. Program direction and training to meet the long-range staffing needs of the Panama Canal represents a major workload increase, particularly in 1968. This program is designed to prepare locally available people to fill administrative, management, and craft positions expected to become vacant through retirements, transfers, or resignations of U.S. citizen employees in the near future. The addi- tional costs of this program will be offset by benefits in future years including reduced recruitment expenses, and the improvement of relations with the Pan- amanian communitv. GENERAL SERVICES |ln thousands of dollars] Actual, Estimate, Estimate, 1967 1968 1969 Administrative services division 719 783 806 Public services 77 81 89 Company buildings 435 485 526 Total general services. 1,231 1,349 1,421 Included in this function are general services performed for the company and Canal Zone Government such as records management and forms control; messen- ger and custodial service; the preparation of various permits, authorizations and other documents, including issuance of travel and transportation orders for official travel; operation and maintenance of office buildings; photographic serv- ices; certain duplicating work utilizing office-type duplicators, photocopying machines and related equipment; and participation of the Panama Canal Infor- mation Office in public affairs observances and ceremonies in the Canal Zone and throughout the Republic of Panama. EMPLOYMENT COSTS |ln thousands of dollars] Actual, Estimate, Estimate, 1967 1968 1969 Employees' States travel. _ Recruitment and repatriation. Transportation of employees' motor vehicles. Other employment costs: Cooperative education trainee program.. Apprentice training program. Health benefits contribution Death and disability compensation. Employer's contribution to FEGLI Incentive award payments PICA Total employment costs 783 768 981 991 1,139 1 022 40 63 62 92 174 215 308 408 617 181 202 202 239 265 280 85 104 112 73 78 93 68 78 8a 2,637 3,344 3,831 Included in this activity are certain employment costs of the Company which are general in nature and not identifiable with other specific activities. The estimates include provision for the recruitment and repatriation of the employees required to carry out the Company's budgeted programs, provision for' an incentive awards program to stimulate employee suggestions of more efficient and economical operating procedures, and other programs for which the Company is required by law to provide. Estimates for 1968 and 1969 provide for an expanded long-range training program designed to facilitate local recruitment for administrative, management, and craft positions expected to be vacated through anticipated retirements, transfers, or resignations of U.S. citizen employees. The program is administered and supervised by the present personnel administration staff. 1548 Panama Canal Company Fund object classification (in thousands of dollars) 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Personnel compensation: 11. 1 Permanent positions 11. 3 Positions otiier tlian permanent 11. 5 Otiier personnel compensation 11.7 Military personnel -- --- — il. 8 Special personal service payments Total personnel compensation 12.0 Personnel benefits. 13. Benefits for former personnel— - 21.0 Travel and transportation of persons 22.0 Transportation of tfiings 23.0 Rent, communications, and utilities - 24.0 Printing and reproduction 25. 1 Other services - 25.2 Services of other agencies 26.0 Supplies and materials... 31.0 Equipment 32.0 Lands and structures 41.0 Grants, subsidies, and contributions 42.0 Insurance claims and indemnities 43.0 Interest and dividends Total costs, funded 123,873 93.0 Administrative expenses (see separate schedule). 11,249 94.0 Change in selected resources 3,497 99.0 Total obligations 138,619 49,111 52,975 55,976 1,533 2,583 1,865 6,101 6,084 5,826 45 63 63 -102 56,688 61,705 63,730 3, 522 3,834 3,961 2,960 1,320 1,238 1,122 943 819 865 524 596 404 699 1,421 4 4 4 3,110 3,496 3,448 -2, 491 -2,943 -3, 163 25,963 29,111 28,778 3,619 3,898 4,571 2, 486 6,292 7,627 13,217 14,864 14, 570 197 300 300 12,207 11,985 11,842 136,032 13,000 143 139, 742 13,691 875 149, 175 154,308 PERSONNEL SUMMARY Military: Average number 7 Civilian: Total number of permanent positions 11,985 Full-lime equivalent of other positions 652 Average number of all employees 12,160 Average GS grade 7. 125 Average GS salary $8,332 Average nonmanual grade... 5.001 Average nonmanual salary ..- $6, 102 Average ungraded salary $4,358 12,379 936 12, 409 705 12,891 7.438 12,827 7.438 $9, 166 5.075 $9, 292 5.076 $6, 446 $4, 606 $6, 551 $4, 851 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY FUND PROGRAM AND FINANCING (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) 1967 actual Costs 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Obligations (capital outlay) 1967 1968 1969 actual estimate estimate Program by activities: Operating costs, funded: 1. Transit operations 30,935 2. Supporting services: (a) Maritime.. 10,111 (b) Employee. 26,316 (c) Transportation and util- ities..... 6,522 (d) Other supporting 4,551 3. General corporate expense: (a) Net cost of Canal Zone Government. -.. 21,692 (b) Interest payable to U.S. Treasury (c) Other Total operating costs, funded Change in selected resources ' Tola I operating obligations 35, 729 11,119 27,309 7.259 4,626 21,960 35, 459 11,393 28, 591 7,963 3,066 22, 549 12, 207 11,985 13,971 11,842 14, 349 14,548 126, 683 133,958 594 135,411 914 700 127, 597 134, 552 136,111 'Balances of selected resources are identified on the statement of flnancial condition. 1549 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY FUND— Continued PROGRAM AND FINANCING (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) Costs Obligations (capital outlay) 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate 1967 1968 1969 actual estimate estimate Capital outlay: Transit projects: Pantama Canal capacity improvements. Accelerated locks overhaul New tugboats _ Other transit projects Supporting services projects: (a) Maritime (b) Employee services.. (c) Transportation and utilities (d) Other supporting General corporate projects Acquisition of other assets 1,321 5,279 7,800 3,143 3,457 8,500 23 1,002 122 48 977 122 751 1,455 1,500 645 1,455 1,500 1,136 2,799 2,576 1,469 2,284 2,942 512 1,646 1,811 640 1,336 2,620 833 1,856 1,769 1,078 1,658 1.777 2,890 5,624 3,968 3,066 5,202 3,178 574 1,030 1,029 538 1,013 1,038 148 575 484 143 560 582 253 150 150 253 150 150 Total capital outlay Unfunded adjustments to capital outlay: Un- distributed reduction based on anticipated delays and savings, net 8,439 21,415 21,209 11,022 18,092 22,409 -6,341 -3,187 -3,469 -4,212 Total capital outlay, funded Change in selected resources' Total capital outlay obligations. Total obligations... 8,439 2,583 15,074 -451 18,022 175 11,022 14,623 11,022 14,623 18,197 11,022 14,623 138,619 149,175 154,308 14 21.47 21.98 24.47 24.98 27 Financing: Receipts and reimbursements from: Federal funds: Credit from tolls on U.S. Government vessels Non-Federal sources: Tolls at current rates.. Miscellaneous transit revenue Sales of commodities Sales of services.. General corporate revenue Proceeds from sale of fixed assets Unobligated balance available, start of year: Authorization to spend public debt receipts Fund balance Unobligated balance available, end of year: Authorization to spend public debt receipts Fund balance Capital transfer to general fund -5,493 -5,500 -5,000 -83,000 -9,529 -26,874 -31,425 -177 -100 -76,804 -80, 700 -8,339 -9,405 -24, 608 -25, 898 -29, 446 -31,689 -209 -177 -55 -5,711 -100 -10,000 -6,340 -2,046 10, 000 2,046 6,340 "io,'ooo' 8,137 New obligational authority. Relation of obligations to expenditures: 10 Total obligations.. 70 Receipts and other offsets (items 11 to 17) 71 138,619 149,175 154,308 -114,955 -153,469 -156,105 Obligations affecting expenditures. Obligated balance, start of year: 72. 47 Authorization to spend public debt receipts 72.98 Fund balance Obligated balance, end of year: 74. 47 Authorization to spend public debt receipts 74.98 Fund balance Expenditures Expenditures are distributed as follows: Out of prior authorizations Cash transactions: Gross expenditures Applicable receipts -6,336 -4,294 -1,797 4,289 10, 537 -21,259 21,259 -3,660 -18,931 3,660 18,931 -1,863 -21,026 02 -12,769 -12,769 -5,625 -2,095 -5,625 + -2,095 131,335 147,516 153,560 -144,104 -153,142 -155,655 > Balances of .selected resources are identified on the statement of financial condition. 18, 197 18, 197 1550 REVENUE, EXPENSE, AND RETAINED EARNINGS (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) 1967 1968 1969 actual estimate estimate Transit operations: Revenue - 90,636 95,605 97,529 Expense."."^---"^--!"--^"----i------ 33,629 38,394 38,717 Net operating income transit operations 57,007 57,211 58,812 Supporting services: IVIaritime services: ..,.„„ ., „„„ ..,„-, Revenue ---- 12,509 13,828 14,127 Expense:::::::::::":'.'-'-"--:"-'.-- - lo.en 11,628 11,927 Net operating income, maritime services 1,898 2,200 2,200 'TeSuT'"'"'^ 27,415 28,524 29,926 Expense:::::::::::::::::::::: 27,331 28,341 29,626 Net operating income, employee services.- - 84 183 300 Transportation and utilities services: ,„ „„, ,„,.-,« Revenue - 9.047 10,023 10,620 Expense:::::::::::::::::::: - 8,693 9,548 10,301 Net operating income transportation and utilities services 354 475 319 Oilers^m^lngsermes: 5^12 3,626 Expense:::::::::::::::::::::.: - 4.986 5,106 3,549 Net operating income, other supporting services. 97 106 77^ General corporate expense: Miscellaneous revenue — ., 209 177 „„ i'„ Net cost of Canal Zone Government -21,692 -2.960 -22.549 Interest - -2,207 - ,985 - ,842 Other -12,692 -14,274 -14,794 General corporate expense, net -46,382 -48,042 -49,008 Net operating income for the year 13,058 12,133 12,700 Establishment of liability for employees repatriation - —5,004 Analysis of retained earnings: ,,„ „rn ,,-, mo Retained earnings, start of year- 141,005 149,059 161,192 Retained earnings, end of year -- - 149,059 161,192 173,892 1551 FINANCIAL CONDITION (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) 1966 actual 1967 actual 1968 est. 1969 est. Assets: Treasury balance Accounts receivable, net Selected assets: ' Material and supply inventories- Commodities for resale Other current assets. Properties, plant, and equipment, net. Other assets (deferred charges). 10,537 8,689 7,531 4,932 124 481,894 372 Total assets 514,079 Liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Deferred credits Unfunded leave liability... Long-term liabilities (unfunded) Total liabilities. 23, 857 Reserves: For periodic overhaul of canal locks Government equity: Interest-bearing capital: Start of year Repayment of capital investment Transfers of assets from other Federal agencies Transfers of assets to other Federal agencies (72 Stat. 622). Reactivation of plant 496 329, 830 115 -5 729 End of year Non-interest-bearing capital. Retained earnings 23.305 9,523 7,771 4,385 136 484, 049 9,121 18,931 9,850 7,800 4,750 136 491,780 7,736 18, 449 21, 941 169 152 5, 239 5, 239 11,520 23, 851 152 5,239 10,200 38, 852 39,442 567 495 330,670 14" '"i,"676" 331,759 -10,000 330,670 331,759 18, 052 18, 052 141,005 149,059 321,801 18,052 161,192 2, , 026 10, 300 8,050 5,000 136 502, 322 6,491 538, 289 540, 982 553, 324 24,224 152 5,239 8,962 38, 577 1,002 321,801 321,801 18,052 173,892 Total Government equity 489,726 498,870 501,045 513,745 ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT EQUITY AND UNDRAWN AUTHORIZATIONS Unpaid undelivered orders: Operations 1 2,563 3,772 3,972 4,172 Capital outlay ' 2,334 4,916 4,465 4,640 Unobligated balance 5,711 12,046 6,340 8 137 Long-term liabilities. —11,520 -10,200 —8,962 Unfunded leave liability —5,239 —5,239 —5 239 —5239 Invested capital and earnings ._ 494,358 504,894 511*706 520^996 Subtotal 499,726 508,870 511,045 523,745 Less undrawn authorizations —10,000 —10,000 —10,000 —10,000 Total Government equity 489,726 498,870 501,045 513,745 1 The changes in these items are reflected on the program and financing schedule. Note.— Contingent and other liabilities: The Company is contingently liable with respect to certain pending suits and claims. In addition, the Company has outstanding at all times, certain liabilities of indeterminable amounts which are recognized in the accounts on an as-paid basis. These liabilities include, principally, benefits payable under provisions of the Federal Employees Compensation Act; and commitments for construction work, supplies and services. Commenc- ing with 1967 the Company formally recorded In its accounts liabilities for repatriation of Company employees and for cash relief payments to former employees who do not qualify for annuities under the U.S. Civil Service retirement system . These liabilities were heretofore disclosed by footnote. Mr. Morris. We will also insert pages 57 through 69 covering the summary data on the Panama Canal Company fund. (The justifications follow:) 91-459- 3— pt. 1- -98 1552 THE PANAMA CANAL PANAMA CANAL COMPANY FUND PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE The Panama Canal Company is a wholly owned Government corporation whose primary purpose is maintaining and operating the interoceanic canal at the Isthmus of Panama, and other necessary supporting operations. The administration of the Company is integrated with that of the Canal Zone Government, an independent agency initially financed by appropriations. The Governor of the Canal Zone is ex officio President of the Company. The Company is expected to be self-sustaining and is required to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for the net cost of the Canal Zone Government, the cost of interest on the net direct investment of the United States in the Company, and for annuity pay- ments made by the United States to the Republic of Panama pursuant to the treaty of 1903, as amended in 1936. Budget program 1: Transit operations. — The services performed by this activity are: Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 Maintenance of channels and harbors $6,630,000 $6,155,000 $6,231,000 Navigation service and control 13,186,000 14,880,000 14,908,000 Locks operation 8,972,000 11,971,000 11,863,000 General canal expense 2,147,000 2,723,000 2,457,000 Net funded costs 30,935,000 35,729,000 35,459,000 PROGRAM AND PERFORMANCE Commercial vessel traffic volume and other indices of workload are as follows: Actual, 1966 Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 Commercial ships (over 300 net Panama Canal tons) 11,926 12,412 12,980 13,100 Ships berthed.. 7,201 7,697 8,140 8,171 Tolls and tolls credits at current rates $72,588,000 $82,297,000 $86,200,000 $88,000,000 Other transit revenue $7,401,000 $8,339,000 $9,405,000 $9,529,000 Capital outlay costs for 1969 include $7.8 million for canal capacity improve- ments and $1.5 million for the purchase of two new tugboats. 2. Supporting services. — The services performed by these auxiliary activities are: (a) MARITIME SERVICES Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 Vessel repair $4,728,000 $4,808,000 $5,227,000 Harbor terminals 9,522,000 10,217,000 10,763,000 Total funded costs 14,250,000 15,025,000 15,990,000 Less interagency recoveries 4,139,000 3,906,000 4,597,000 Net funded costs 10,111,000 11,119,000 11,393,000 Capital outlay costs for 1969 include $450,000 for replacement of the fendering system of Balboa piers, $642,000 for equipment, and $265,000 for the rehabilitation of dock 7, Balboa. 1553 (b) EMPLOYEE SERVICES Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 U.S. community housing $1. 740, 000 Latin American community housing 906,000 Marketing operations 24,915,000 Total funded costs... _ 27,561,000 Less intra-agency recoveries 1,245,000 Netfunded costs... 26,316,000 $1,933,000 $2,161,000 879, 000 875, 000 25. 849, 000 26, 940, 000 28,661,000 1,352,000 29, 976, 000 1,385,000 27,309,000 28,591,000 Capital outlay costs for 1969 include $1,555,000 for modernization and re- habilitation of quarters and lesser amounts for replacement and addition of equipment. (c) TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES SERVICES Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 Railroad $1,868,000 $1,919,000 $1,945,000 Motor transportation 2,978,000 3,084,000 3,241,000 Water transportation 3,850,000 4,062,000 4,178,000 Power system 4,913,000 5,821,000 6,591,000 Communications system 816,000 863,000 906,000 Water system 1,531,000 1,660,000 1,741,000 Central air-conditioning service 244,000 246,000 277,000 Total, funded costs 16,200,000 17,655,000 18,879,000 Lesslintra-agency recoveries 9,678,000 10,396,000 10,916,000 Net, funded costs 6,522,000 7,259,000 7,963,000 Capital outlay costs for 1969 include $1.3 million for additions and improve- ments to the power transmission and distribution system, $461,000 for water system improvements, $900,000 for the replacement of motor vehicles, and $407,000 for replacement and addition of equipment. (d) OTHER SUPPORTING SERVICES Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 Tivoli guesthouse $837,000 $888,000 $953,000 Printing plant. 636,000 659,000 695,000 Grounds maintenance 1,824,000 2,024,000 2,220,000 Engineering and maintenance services 15,624,000 16,622,000 15,135,000 Supply operations 6,760,000 7,596,000 7,672,000 Total, funded costs 25,681,000 27,789,000 26,675,000 Less intra-agency recoveries 21,130,000 23,163,000 23,609,000 Net, funded costs 4,551,000 4,626,000 3,066,000 Capital outlay costs for 1969 are estimated at $1 million, principally for the replacement and addition of equipment. 3. General corporate expense. — This includes payments to the Treasury for the net cost of Canal Zone Government and interest expense payable to U.S. Treasury, general and administrative expenses under statutory limitation, and other general corporate expenses not under limitation. Financing. — The Company is authorized to obtain appropriations for its capital needs and to cover losses sustained in the conduct of its activities. In addition, under Public Law 86-200 (73 Stat. 428), the Company may borrow from the Treasury, at interest, amounts not exceeding $10 million outstanding at any time. While the latter authorization is utilized to backstop the Company's objectives, no cash withdrawals against it are plannned during 1968 or 1969. With the total borrowing authority utilized as a resource the Company's un- obligated balance at June 30, 1969, is estimated at $8,137,000. Operating results and financial condition. — There will be an increase in retained earnings in 1968 estimated at $12,133,000 and a fiu-ther increase in 1969 estimated at $12,700,000, wholly representing net operating income for those years. 1554 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE 1967 1968 actual estimate Transit operations: Revenue Expense -.. Net operating income, transit operations Supporting services: Maritime services: Revenue Expense - -- Net operating income, maritime services Employee services: Revenue Expense. Net operating income, employee services. Transportation and utilities services: Revenue. Expense Net operating income, transportation and utili- ties services Other supporting services: Revenue Expense Net operating income, other supporting services. Total net operating income, supporting services. General corporate expense: Revenue 209,000 177,000 Net cost of Canal Zone Government -21,692,000 -21,960,000 Interest -12,207,000 -11,985,000 General and administrative expenses under limitation.. —11,249,000 —13,000,000 Other -1,443,000 -1,274,000 General corporate expense, net -46,382,000 -48,042,000 Net operating income 13, 058, 000 12, 133, 000 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY FUND DETAILED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION 1966 1967 1968 actual actual estimate ASSETS Cash with Treasury and in banks... $10,536,522 $23,305,198 $18,930,681 Accounts receivable: Canal Zone Government and other U.S. Govern- mentagencies 3,793,115 4,237,822 4,400,000 Republic of Panama. 2,431,704 2,597,227 2,650,000 Others ._. 2,463,985 2.687,788 2,800,000 Total, accounts receivable. Inventories: Materials and supplies. Merchandise held for resale... Total, inventories. Other current assets Total, cu rrent assets. Fixed assets less alloviiance for depreciation and eco- nomic valuation: Total fixed assets 687,015,738 698,303,629 710,717,292 Less allowance for depreciation and economic valua- tion 205,121,792 214,254,611 218,937,177 Total, fixed assets less allowances 481,893,946 484,049,018 491,780,115 1969 estimate $90, 636, 000 33,629,000 $95, 605, 000 38, 394, 000 $97, 529, 000 38,717,000 57, 007, 000 57,211,000 58,812,000 12, 509, 000 10,611,000 13,828,000 11,628,000 14, 127, 000 11,927,000 1,898,000 2,200,000 2, 200, 000 27,415,000 28, 524. 000 28,341,000 29,926,000 27,331,000 29,626,000 84, 000 183,000 300, 000 9.047,000 8,693,000 10,023,000 9, 548, 000 10,620,000 10,301,000 354,000 475, 000 319,000 5, 083, 000 5,212,000 5,106,000 3, 626, 000 4, 986, 000 3, 549, 000 97,000 106, 000 77, 000 2,433,000 2,964,000 2, 896, 000 177, 000 -22, 549, 000 -11,842,000 -13,691,000 -1,103,000 -49, 008, 000 12, 700, 000 1969 estimate $21,025,681 4, 600, 000 2.750.000 2,950,000 8,688,804 9,522,837 9,850,000 10,300,000 7,530,928 4,932,290 7,771,086 4,384,942 7.800.000 4.750,000 8, 050, 000 5, 000, 000 12,463,218 12,156,028 12,550,000 13,050,000 123,745 135,611 135,611 135,611 . 31,812,289 45,119,674 41,466,292 44,511,292 725, 989, 292 223,667,177 502,322,115 1555 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY FUND— Continued DETAILED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION— Continued 1966 1967 1968 1969 actual actual estimate estimate ASSETS— Continued Deferred charges: Cash relief for former employees -... $8,554,000 $7,094,000 $5,774,000 Other $372,362 566,669 641,669 716,669 Total, deferred charges 372,362 9,120,669 7,735,669 6,490,669 Total, assets... 514,078,597 538,289,361 540,982,076 553,324,076 LIABILITIES Current liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities: Accounts payable: U.S. Government agencies Other Total, accounts payable. Reimbursements due U.S. Treasury: Net cost of Canal Zone Government Interest on net direct investment Annuity payable to Republic of Panama Total, reimbursements due U.S. Treasury. 1,299,098 3,894,259 2,329,423 3,691,953 2, 300, 000 3,710,000 2,330,000 3,780,000 5,193,357 6,021,376 6,010,000 6,110,000 1,382,631 362,802 35,800 -4, 147 1,124,932 35, 800 1,800,000 1,110,000 35,800 1,870,000 1,120,000 35, 800 . 1,781,233 1,156,585 2,945,800 3,025,800 Accrued liabilities: Employees' leave liabilities (funded) 6,447,279 6,331,889 6,331,889 6,331,889 Employees' repatriation. 627,000 627,000 627,000 Salaries and wages 1,737,235 1,704,835 1,900,000 2,050,000 Cash relief for former employees 1,460,000 1,320,000 1,238,000 Claims for damages to vessels 838,350 971,444 1,000,000 1,050,000 Others 1,180,816 3,038,864 3,066,000 3,091,000 Total, accrued liabilities 10,203,680 14,133,732 14,244,889 14,387,889 Other current liabilities including customers' deposits. 1,270,503 629,386 650,000 700,000 Total, accounts payable and accrued liabilities 18,448,773 21,941,079 23,850,689 24,223,689 OsfBrrsd cr6dits; Uncompleted steamship voyage income 141,145 141,399 141,399 141,399 Other 28,057 10,770 10,770 10,770 Total deferred credits 169,202 152,169 152,169 152,169 Total current liabilities 18,617,975 22,093,248 24,002,858 24,375,858 Unfunded leave liability... 5,238,975 5,238,975 5,238,975 5,238,975 Long-term liabilities (unfunded): Employees' repatriation 4,426,000 4,426,000 4,426,000 Cash relief for former employees 7,094,000 5,774,000 4,536,000 Total, long-term liabilities 11,520,000 10,200,000 8,962,000 Reserve for overhaul of locks 495,727 566,992 495,000 1,002,000 Total, liabilities and reserves 24,352,677 39,419,215 39,936,833 39,578,833 EQUITY OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT Net direct interest-bearing investment (as defined by the Panama Canal Company Act, as amended) 330,669,552 331,759,383 321,801,480 321,801,480 Non-interest-bearing investment, Thatcher Ferry Bridge. 18,051,630 18,051,630 18,051,630 18,051,630 Retained earnings (surplus as defined by the Panama Canal Company Act, as amended) 141,004,738 149,059,133 161,192,133 173,892,133 Total equity of U.S. Government 489,725,920 498,870,146 501,045,243 513,745,243 Total liabilities, operating reserves, and equity of U.S. Government 514,078,597 538,289,361 540,982,076 553,324,076 Note: See the following table: Changes in net direct interest-bearing investment: Beginning $329,830,278 $330,669,552 $331,759,383 $321,801,480 Repayment of capital investment —10,000,000 Transfer of assets from other Federal agencies 114,956 13,798 Transfer of assets to other Federal agencies —4,543 108 Reactivation of plant 728,861 1,075,925 42,097 Ending 330,669,552 331,759,383 321,801,480 321,801,480 1556 Statement of Equity of the U.S. Government, June SO, 1967 NET DIRECT INVESTMENT Interest-bearing : Capital stock in Panama Railroad Company $7, 000, 000 Net assets transferred from the Panama Canal (agency) to July 1, 1951 402,095,947 Net assets reactivated subsequent to July 1, 1951 3, 715, 466 Gross direct investment 412, 811, 413 Less dividends and other charges deductible from direct invest- ment: Capital repayments to U.S. Treasury: Prior to July 1, 1951 23, 994, 905 Subsequent to June 30, 1951 25, 000, 000 Appraised value of properties conveyed to the Republic of Panama: Dec. 16, 1943 11,759,956 Under 1955 treaty 19, 468, 000 Net capital losses resulting from 1955 treaty with Republic of Panama 344, 811 Settlement of compensation claims against predecessor agency 89, 957 Property transfers, other U.S. Government agencies, net —73, 042 Funded maintenance costs, Thatcher Ferry Bridge 467, 443 Total deductions 81, 052, 030 Total interest-bearing investment 331, 759, 383 Non-interest-bearing investment: Thatcher Ferry Bridge 18, 051, 630 Total net direct investment 349, 811, 013 RETAINED REVENtTE Retained revenue at June 30, 1951 71, 136, 026 Net revenue subsequent to June 30, 1951 69, 880, 475 Extraordinary charges (— ) and credits to retained revenue: Excess of market over book value of properties transferred to the Republic of Panama under 1955 treaty: Panama Canal Company properties 16, 612, 788 Canal Zone Government properties 1, 548, 741 Net gain of sale of SS Panama 4, 272, 104 Adjustment for overaccrual of prior years depreciation 707, 286 Reduction of amount due U.S. Treasury for the amount of the net book value of Cardenas townsite transferred from the Canal Zone Government to Federal Aviation Agency 504, 525 Adjustment to provision for inventory losses 287, 468 Provision for noncapital power conversion costs — 4, 500, 000 Agency contribution to U.S. civil service retirement fund for non-U. S. citizen employees —4, 737, 930 Abandoned construction projects and other fixed assets written off -1, 648, 350 Establishment of liability for employees' repatriation — 5, 004, 000 Total retained revenue 149, 059, 133 Equity of U.S. Government 498,870,146 1557 INCOME AND EXPENSE, TRANSIT OPERATIONS |ln thousand of dollars] Actual, 1967 80, 700 5,500 86, 200 55 9,349 1 Revenue: Tolls: Canal tolls, commercial vessels 76,804 Toll credits, U.S. Government vessels 5,493 Total tolls and toll credits 82,297 Maintenance of channels and harbors 92 Navigation service and control 8, 197 Locks operations 34 General canal expense 16 Total revenue, transit operations. 90,636 Net operating expense: Maintenance of channels and harbors 7,263 Navigation service and control 13,415 Locks operations 10,480 General canal expense 2,471 Total net operating expense 33,629 Operating margin, transit operations 57,007 95,605 6,832 15,139 13,377 3,046 38, 394 57,211 TOLLS STATISTICS [Fiscal years actual 1958 to 1967; estimated 1968 and 1969] Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 Total U.S. revenue Government transits vessels 83, 000 5,000 88, 000 55 9,473 1 97, 529 6,929 15, 163 13,846 2,779 38,717 58, 812 Tolls, Total Tolls, U.S. Total tolls transits commercial Government vessels vessels Fiscal year: 1958 9,937 1959 10,676 1960 11,626 1961 11,491 1962 11,622 1963 11,447 1964.. 12,435 1965 12,411 1966 12,470 1967.... 12,982 1968 (estimated) 13,580 1969 (estimated) 13,700 Monthly, fiscal year 1967: July 1966 1,094 August.. 1,061 September 1,027 October 1,050 November. 1,022 December 1,025 January 1967 1,082 February 1,009 March 1,127 April 1,146 May 1,196 June 1,143 Total, fiscal year 1967.. 12,982 Monthly, fiscal year 1968: July 1967.. 1,246 August 1,161 September 1,080 October.. 1,093 November 1,074 December. 1,138 January 1968 1,238 Total year to date, fiscal year 1968 8,030 616 434 414 419 381 439 404 394 725 980 1,015 920 52 64 88 78 78 80 71 81 86 105 103 94 980 132 110 144 133 128 119 145 911 10,553 11,110 12, 040 11,910 12,003 11,886 12,839 12,805 13,195 13,962 14,595 14,620 $41,843,525 45,571,563 50,981,928 54,165,958 57,312,000 56,391,459 61,146,998 65, 503, 000 69,141,935 76,804,031 80,700,000 83, 000, 000 $990, 481 975, 057 821,104 1,006,756 1,035,000 1,464,473 1,399,393 1,652,000 3,445,969 5,492,625 5, 500, 000 5, 000, 000 1,146 1,125 1,115 1,128 1,100 1,105 1,153 1,090 1,213 1,251 1,299 1,237 6,210,379 6,396,941 6,072,866 6,161,599 6,017,727 6, 085, 060 6,316,706 6,050,029 6,836,757 6,824,191 7,010,475 6,821,301 367,666 308,706 485,012 396, 656 448,112 463, 286 444,608 410,428 491,960 506,615 585,217 584,359 13,962 1,378 1,271 1,224 1,226 1,202 1,257 1,383 7,406,779 6,752,169 6,386,170 6,740,734 6,678,656 7,135,337 6,916,944 878,911 596,284 794,282 720,732 666, 004 682,912 812,470 8,941 $42, 834, 006 46, 546, 620 51,803,032 55,172,714 58, 347, 000 57,855,932 62, 546, 391 67,155,000 72,587,904 82,296,656 86,200,000 88, 000, 000 6,578,045 6,705,647 6,557,878 6,558,255 6,465,839 6, 548, 346 6,761,314 6,460,457 7,328,717 7,330,806 7,595,692 7,405,660 76,804,031 5,492,625 82,296,656 8,285,690 7, 348, 453 7,180,452 7,451,466 7,344,660 7,818,249 7,729,414 48,016,789 5,151,595 53,168,384 Note: Transits of and tolls from small vessels under 300 Panama Canal net tons measurement are included in above statistics. 1558 INTEREST PAYMENTS TO TREASURY Mr. Morris. On page 62, it is estimated that interest payments to the U.S. Treasury will be $11,842,000. Please briefly explain how this interest is computed. General Leber. Yes, sir. The interest rate is determined by the Sec- retary of the Treasury for use in each year and it is computed on the annual interest rate for marketable Treasury coupon bonds as of the 30th of April of the past year. Now we pay interest on certain net assets which the U.S. Govern- ment invested in the enterprise which was originally determined at the time the present structure was set up back in 1950 and has been revised as the years have gone by based on w^hat occurred. We now have a net interest bearmg investment of $321,801,480. Mr. Steers. The decrease between the figures shown at June 30, 1967, and the estimate as of the end of 1968 and 1969 reflects the payment of the $10 million dividend. Mr. Morris. That is reflected on page 66. General Leber. Yes. Mr. Morris. The gentleman from Arizona. Mr. Rhodes. Is the dividend really a reduction of the principal debt? General Leber. Yes, sir. A reduction of interest bearing investment. Mr. Steers. The difference between the amount shown on page 66 of $349 million and the amount we pay interest on represents a non- interest bearing investment in the high level bridge. Mr. Rhodes. Wouldn't it be more proper to call this a reduction of investment than a dividend ? Mr. Steers. Capital repayment would be more correct. Mr. Rhodes. Wouldn't that be more proper than to call it a divi- dend? ]\[r. Steers. Tliat is correct. General Leber. This is the common term. Mr. Whitman. It is called a dividend in the statute that requires the payment. Mr. Morris. The terminology is in the statute ? Mr. Whitman. It is in the statute. Mr. Morris. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) 196 7 estimate FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY Mr. Morris. Last year it was estimated that the capital outlay ]")ro- gram of the Panama Canal Company for fiscal year 1967 would be $13,941,000. The actual program, however, was only $11,022,103. What caused this slippage of $2,918,897 ? General Leber. I mentioned the project on the Miraflores spillway, which was one of them. There was also work to be done in tlie Panama Canal capital program, which corresponded to the Government work on schools. For example, the tie-in of our power and other utility lines that the Panama Canal Company does for the Government which it would delay along with the schools. 1559 196S ESTIMATE FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY Mr. Morris. The ca):)ital outlay program for the current year is esti- mated at $14,C)2r).000. What is the current status of the program and is this still considered a firm estimate? General Leber. The program this year is moving along very well because Ave now have the cut-widening project underway. Recently we have actually, as I mentioned in my background statement, taken ac- tion to speed it up. We were delayed somewhat this past fall and winter in awarding any new contracts until it was decided last fall, you re- member, just what the budget would be and what program we would be able to go ahead with. But since then we have made very good progress in awarding our Company capital program and I think we will come very close to the estimated obligations this year. 19 69 ESTIMATE FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY Mr. Morris. The amount estimated for capital outlav by the Com- pany in fiscal year 1969 is $18,197,000, an increase of $3,574:,000 over last year. We will insert pages 118 through 193. (The justifications follow :) PANAMA CANAL COMPANY CAPITAL OUTLAY— SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS Project totals Obligations Through 1966 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Subsequent years TRANSIT PROJECTS Panama Canal capacity im- provements $23,200,000 Install rubber tendering in forebays and tailbays, all locks 560,000 Improvements to Naos Island breakvi^ater and dock 231,000 Relocate Cristobal tug landing.. 200,000 Improvements to control houses, all locks 232,000 Modify lock wall lighting 115,000 New tugboats _ 5,797,504 Additions and improvements to telemetering stations. 300, 000 Accelerated locks overhaul 1,850,048 Pier 18, Balboa, floating tug landing.. 106,000 Replace crib fenders, ail locks.. 693,771 Remedial work, Miraflores spil Iway 525, 000 Replace launches and launch engines 1, 187, 889 Replace and add equipment, transit projects 2,061,767 Replace derrick barge No. 157.. 325,000 Purchase 1 oil recovery barge. __ 150, 000 Replace anchor barge No. 1 125,000 Replacement of mine dock pilot station 24, 000 Locks firefighting installations.. 165,000 Replace dredging operations building No. 23, Gamboa 45,000 Reroof battery shop building No. 34-X, Gamboa. 10,000 Improve security of vital instal- lations 92, 000 Install floating dock, dredging division _. 25,000 Extend breakwater, Naos Island... 45,000 $3,142,843 $3,457,157 102,000 $597, 000 ""703,648" 27,901 3,799 175, 562 306, 091 20,355 52,913 645,405 1,455,099 135,160 47, 847 218,959 72,917 326,801 334, 780 28, 486 40, 071 8,363 3,584 4,288 14.840 977, 153 7,000 339,911 248, 284 405, 526 680, 896 37, 328 100,000 24, 000 116,159 4,929 1,637 35, 503 20,712 7,672 , 500, 000 $8, 100, 000 275,000 181,000 170, 000 135, 000 122, 000 99, 000 107, 000 200, 000 280, 000 740, 000 325, 000 150,000 25, 000 183.000 50, 000 30,000 150, 000 82, 000 105,000 10,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 15, 000 1560 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY CAPITAL OUTLAY— SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS-Continued Project totals Through 1966 Obligations 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Subsequent years TRANSIT PROJECTS— Continued Extend deckhand building, Balboa $30,000 Modify repair shelters, locks Marine traffic control systems.. Increase firefighting capabilities of tug Arraljan Reengine, install twin rudders and propellers, U.S. "Atlas". Conversion of navigational aids to electricity Replace locks towing locomo- tives and cranes Sidewall culvert entrance bulk- heads and pumping equip- ment Install electric manhoists in 8 crossiinders, locks Telemetering and rainfall re- porting systems Locomotive boom lights Reengine tug, U.S. "Arraijan".. 457,888 Total, transit projects SUPPORTING PROJECTS Maritime projects: New tendering system, Bal- boa piers Rehabilitate dock 7, Balboa... Improve oil handling facili- ties Re.'iabilitate building 5114, Mount Hope Replace steam pumps and boilers, oil handling plant.. Replace drydock crane track, industrial area. Mount Hope... Roof over shop storage area between buildings 5102 and 5103. Replace and add equipment, maritime services projects Reroof shops building, Gamboa Reroof linehandlers and stevedores building 1014, Cristobal Lighting improvements, Bal- boa and Cristobal piers Relocate railroad tracks and construct toilet building, Mount Hope _ Improve lighting, building 5103, Mount Hope.. Extend marine bunkering facilities to pier 14. Balboa. Reroof and replace siding, building 5117, Mount Hope. Install dolphin. Mount Hope industrial division, Cathodic protection, west bank and Mount Hope tank farms. . . Cathodic protection, fuel oil pipelines Automatic gaging, tank farms. Replace pipeline, valves, marine bunkering Improve cargo handling, pier 18, Balboa Add lock to building 29, Gamboa 373. 546 808, 406 $360, 463 806, 799 $13,083 1,607 . 35, 000 18,012 10,137 220,000 .. 205, 499 420, 000 308, 256 84, 530 7,306,101 300, 255 -21,720 195,635 195,112 523 . 28, 000 17,530 1,157 177,100 54.000 .. 171,137 .. $30, 000 6,851 14, 501 27,214 27, 566 456, 838 1,050 9,313 5,963 54, 000 2,450 184, 079 373,471 142.000 850, 000 524, 000 1,460,000 50,000 100, 000 12,000 40,000 10, 000 407, 000 333, 000 30,000 48,171,655 11,558,399 5,305,370 8,173,886 $13,064,000 $10,070,000 2,310,000 574, 000 112,000 50, 000 1,300,000 172,000 95, 000 1,588,992 24, 000 29. 000 312,000 114,000 40, 000 87. 000 6.000 28, 000 492, 526 194,478 68.000 27,000 259,988 642,000 24,000 7,754 66, 407 1,576 79 84, 969 83, 924 24, 895 11,736 3,033 7,730 -79 29. 000 219,277 30,076 15.105 8,857 2,967 18.694 123.300 189.000 112,337 ._. 181.741 2.385' 10.963 4,874 120.000 27. 572 7.800 84.628 53,000 .. 34.613 18.387 26,000 .. 26. 000 Total, maritime projects.. 7,353,292 892, 442 639,563 1,336,287 2,620,000 1,865,000 1561 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY CAPITAL OUTLAY-SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS-Continued Project totals Obligations Through 1966 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Subsequent years SUPPORTING PROJECTS- Continued Employee services projects: Low-cost housing Modernize existing quarters. Replace waterlines in em- ployee quarters Rehabilitate "Prado" type quarters. Replace rental furniture and quarters equipment Replace and add equipment, retail stores and service centers. Improvements to Balboa retail store Improvements to Balboa bowling alley Convert 1-bedroom apart- ments, Rainbow City.. Replace waterlines and wiring, quarters building 1303, Cristobal... Basement storerooms, 2- bedroom quarters. Coco Solo Construct U.S. citizen quarters $3,721,179 3, 435, 000 $288, 594 121,818 $299, 342 -1,995 $79,243 $330,000 515,117 800,000 601,000 287,601 1, 350, 000 232, 934 131,977 46,556 1,015,544 373,911 363,000 133,460 33,000 183,000 125,120 38,279 264,314 369,752 8,391 37,030 301,251 30, 000 Total, employee service projects 68, 000 60, 033 6, 190, 803 6, 190, 803 58,473 24,033 -1,210 216,382 229, 540 33,000 124, 527 5,967 9,177 , 483, 000 40, 000 124,000 Transportation and utilities services projects: Central air-conditioning plant, Pacific terminal Additional power service to military installations Water system improvements for Canal Zone Utility service to Canal Zone Government facilities Expand microwave facilities.. Replace overhead TI-2 cable, Colon corridor Communications facilities Increase telephone cable facilities Addition to 44-kilovolt sub- station switchyard, Mira- flores Improve lighting, Gatun hy- droelectric station Connect Electrical Division office, building 66-A to chilled water system Miscellaneous replacements, electrical distribution system Replace motor vehicles Replace and add equipment.. Additions and improvements to electric power trans- mission system and substations Additions to electrical dis- tribution system Water system improvements to serve Panama Interconnect with Panama power system Conversion of power to 60-cycle Expand underground tele- phone cable facilities Steam turbine-generator, power system Additional generating capacity, power system 2, 722, 000 1, 935, 388 1,394,000 246,703 854, 000 10, 500 213,722 1,022,000 375,000 120,000 600, 000 70, 000 406, 000 30, 000 40,000 99, 731 466, 881 177,825 556,472 39,186 427,314 127,207 481,071 125, 000 5,000 350, 000 120, 000 2, 897, 023 1,989,027 1,511,415 625, 000 2, 058, 000 557,768 13, 000, 000 325, 000 5, 299, 998 3,600,000 113,000 346, 000 136,000 150, 000 300,000 100,000 475,000 . 65,000 , 46,000 . 30,000 . 40, 000 . 1,103,500 838, 128 789, 067 247, 079 1,130,489 456,477 12,894,317 22,671 4,878,691 3,558,019 438, 559 316,156 391,606 275,786 278,326 27,237 62,968 52,141 142,214 504, 964 427, 743 330, 742 102,135 649, 185 74, 054 42,715 250, 188 279, 093 41,981 120,000 850,000 407,000 . $2, 724, 000 2,000,000 150,000 17,122,503 7,735,710 1,077,779 1,658,014 1,777,000 4,874,000 107, 000 67, 000 241, 000 50, 000 75, 000 20, 000 1562 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY CAPITAL OUTLAY— SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS— Continued Project total Through 1966 Obligations 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 Subse- estimate quent years SUPPORTING PROJECTS— Continued Transportation and utilities services projects — Con. Additional substation capacity, Coco Solo Hospital Replace rolling stock, Panama Railroad Replace railroad semaphore system, Gamboa and Gatun Relocate cable interconnect building, Ancon Replace telephone cable, Balboa and Cristobal tank farms $50,000 $10,056 $33,806 $6,138 721,834 60,754 589,754 71,326 24.965 9,095 15,870 _... 23,197 23,176 21 ..._ 25.745 28.007 -2.262 ._ Total transportation and utilities services projects 40.461,972 28,455,839 3,066,131 51,202,002 $3,178,000 $560. 000 Other supporting services projects: Rewire and relight main- tenance shops, CristobaL, Replace plumbing fixtures, building 28, Balboa Replace operations building, Mount Hope disposal area- Install security fence and lighting, Cristobal store- house Mechanization of garbage collection system Replace and add equipment. Reproof building 1728, maintenance division shops and storage, Cristobal Reproof building 1726. maintenance division offices and shops, Cristobal Rehabilitate toilets, printing plant Replacements and improve- ments, Cristobal store- house Reroof building No. 8 Balboa maintenance office and shop Construct dry storage room for towing locomotive parts 80. 000 66. 000 20. 000 10,000 355. 000 2. 546. 084 10, 000 31,000 20, 000 572, 189 508, 862 9,000 255, 000 664, 033 10,000 31,000 20. 000 60,000 20.000 56,000 10.000 20.000 1.000 100.000 801,000 Total other supporting services projects 36.000 95, 000 78, 573 11,757 11,787 28, 448 7, 552 422 16, 005 -30 3, 280, 841 662, 549 537,702 1,012,590 1,038,000 30, 000 Total, supporting projects 68,218,608 37,746,540 5,321,175 9,208,893 8,613,000 7,329,000 GENERAL CORPORATE PROJECTS Consolidate personnel facilities, Cristobal Windows, waste lines, floor covering, administration building, Balboa Heights Replacements and improve- ments to Company buildings. Rehabilitate building No. 39, port captain, Balboa Advance planning of future projects. Purchase of miscellaneous office equipment... 85, 000 230,000 151,295 41,568 134,009 12,009 150,000 45,000 35,392 49, 335 72, 000 75, 000 10,000 70. 000 152,000 25, 000 50, 000 75, 000 35, 000 15.000 78,000 1563 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY CAPITAL OUTLAY— SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL PROJECTS-Continued Project total Obligations Through 1966 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 Subse- estimate quent years $100,000 75, 000 GENERAL CORPORATE PROJECTS-Continued Minor capital additions and replacements $343,081 $32,611 $80,294 Retirements and removal costs.. 187,067 19,581 7,687 Replace cold water lines, administration building, Balboa Heights.. 70,000 Improvements to records center, building No. 42-D, Diablo. 45,000 Long-range training facility 50,000 32,945 7,474 Rehabilitate portion of building 38 for office use 60,000 50,178 1,663 Alterations to training center building 40, Balboa.... 80,000 76,810 2,108 Rehabilitate building 635, Balboa Heights housing office 55,200 46,865 6,529 Computer room, administra- tion building, Balboa Heights 99,900 95,380 1,812 $130, 176 84, 799 70, 000 45, 000 9,581 8,159 1,082 1,806 2,708 Total general corporate projects 1,785,552 407,947 142,959 559, 646 582, 000 $93, 000 ACQUISITION OF OTHER ASSETS Dredge pipe.. 552, 599 252,599 150,000 150,000 Total program. 118,728,414 49,712,886 11,022,103 18,092,425 22,409,000 17 492 000 Undistributed reduction based ' on anticipated delays and savings (net) -3,469,425 -4,212,000 7,681,425 Grand total, Panama Canal Company projects 118,728,414 49,712,886 11,022,103 14,623,000 18,197,000 25,173,425 1. Panaina Canal capacity improvements Project total $23, 200, 000 Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule 8, 500, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 7, 80oi 000 This is a continuing project to improve the capacity of the Panama Canal to better serve present traffic and to meet the requirements of predicted future traffic. The project provides generally for the widening of the cut to 500 feet, illumination of the cut, and the initiation of other waterway improvements that will increase capacity and efficiency of the Canal operation. The gro^vth in both numbers and size of vessel using the Panama Canal is progressing at a rapid rate. Oceangoing canal transits have doubled since 1950 and Canal capacity has been increased to meet requirements during this period, but growth continues. Increases in frequency of large ship transits have added new problems to transit operations. Transits of vessels of 90-foot beam and over have increased over 100 percent in the past 2 years. Current estimates of traffic for future years indicate 1,157 transits of vessels of 90-foot beam and over in 19S0 and 2,218 in 2000. It is also predicted that there will be over 2,250 transits of ves- sels in the 80-foot beam and over category in 1980 and 5,693 in 2000. Oceangoing transits are projected to be 15,000 in 1980 and 19,000 in the year 2000. To meet these predicted rapid increases in canal traffic, it is imperative that the Company have a forwardlooking, up-to-date improvement program to provide the necessary canal capacity at the least cost. The elements of this project are: (a) Cut widening, $17,500,000 The benefits of cut widening do not actually accrue until the job is completed. We are today accepting transit hazards in handling increasing numbers of ex- tremely large ships through the 300-foot channel; these hazards will be materially reduced when the channel is widened to 500 feet. In addition, we are forced to 1564 accept delays to transiting vessels because of the necessity to schedule "clear cut" handling of ships through the 8-mile cut that will be permitted to meet other ships in this area when cut widening is completed. Transit volume has increased about 50 percent during the past 15 years with the most significant increase being in the number of vessels requiring special handling due primarily to their size, which dictates scheduling them through Gaillard Cut as "clear cut" vessels. The number of vessels accorded special transit schedules, now amounting to 23 percent of the traffic, will be reduced to less than 3 percent at current levels, and to less than 10 percent at predicted 1980 levels by the widening of Gaillard Cut. The completion of this project will not only provide faster and safer transits and fewer restrictions to canal traffic, but will permit maintenance di'edging operations throughout the entire length of Gaillard Cut without restricting ship movements and without restrictions as to the type of dredges which can be used. The cut has aheady been widened from 300 feet to 500 feet for a distance of 5 miles by removal of some 30 million cubic yards of material at a cost of $28 million. A 3-mile section at the northern end of the cut (Bas Obispo and Las Cascadas reaches) is now being widened from 300 to 500 feet under this project by the re- moval of approximately 10,650,000 cubic yards of material at a cost of $17,500,000. Approximately 4,650,000 cubic yards of this quantity is dry excavation and 6 million cubic yards is subaqueous. As land excavation progressed it became apparent that a large land mass, known as Las Cascadas Hill, might pose slide danger if design slopes were adhered to. A computer analysis of stability confirmed the possibility of a massive slide in this area. Slope design was modified and contract requirements were increased to in- clude additional excavation of 650,000 cubic yards of above-water material. A substitute of a liquid slurry explosive, a slight increase in amounts of explosive used, and lowering the dividing elevation between zones I and II of the project will enable the completion of the widening project 12 to 14 months ahead of the original schedule. The revised obligation and expenditure schedules for this job, as a result of changes in scope, method, and completion date are: Fiscal year Obligations Expenditures Through 1967— ---- $3,100,000 $1,300,000 1968 - 3,210,000 5,010,000 1969"' 7,740,000 7,170,000 1970""]!I]"']]!-!!---- - 3,450,000 4,000,000 Total - - 17,500,000 17,500,000 (fe) Illumination of Gaillard Cut and installation of aids to navigation ($500,000) This item makes possible safer nighttime navigation of Gaillard Cut for all classes of ships b.y providing artificial illumination. A shielded fluorescent bank- lighting system will be installed on the west bank of the canal for approximately 3 miles of the Bas Obispo and Las Cascadas reaches which are presently being widened, and additional lighting will be provided in other shadowed areas of the canal and locks. In addition, the project provides for installation of aids to navigation in the cut during construction and upon completion of the widening project. This project will complete the bank lighting project initiated in fiscal year 1959; however, further lighting improvements may be required to permit virtually daylight visibility in the Canal as traffic increases. The obligation and expenditure schedules for this item are: Fiscal year Obligations Expenditures Through 1967. - $42,843 $20,806 1968 --- - 47,157 69,194 1969 """ 310,000 180,000 1970 " - 100,000 230,000 Total 500.000 500,000 (c) Completion of -program to provide project depth in the 200-foot widened section of Gaillard Cut, $900,000 This project modification will provide a continuous uniform project depth in the 200-foot widened section of Gaillard Cut from Pedro Miguel locks to Gamboa. 1565 Previous cut widening projects included deepening of the widened 200-foot portion to elevation 34, approximately 6 feet below the original Canal project depth. The deepening was omitted from the basic contract to widen Bas Obispo and Las Cascadas reaches due to lack of funds. Improvement in fund availability now permits the addition of this deepening to the contract. Accomplishment of drilling and shooting to the ultimate depth under the contract with land-mounted drill rigs will involve less than one-third the cost of drilling and shooting after cut widening from floating drill barges going through partially fractured material, The obligation and expenditure schedules for this item are: Fiscal year Obligations Expenditures 1968.... $200,000 $200,000 1969 450,000 450 000 1970 250,000 250,000 Total 900,000 900,000 (d) Other waterway improvements, $4,300,000 Numerous projects have been suggested to provide adequate service to meet the increasing transit load, including locks modifications, anchorage expansion, sea level approach channel widening and deepening, improved channel alinement, tieup stations, deepening of the entire Canal channel to provide safer navigation, additional lockage water, et cetera. Specific projects cannot be defined in the fiscal year 1969 budget until v/e have made a comprehensive evaluation of our future Canal capacity problems and have completed a systems analysis of the benefits of several projects in terms of Canal capacity, operational efficiency, benefits to shippers, and safety. This evaluation was initiated in September 1967 and a comprehensive waterway facilities plan is scheduled for completion in 1968. This study will undoubtedly indicate a re- quirement for capacity improvements at a cost of many millions of dollars which will be recommended for addition to future budgets under this project. The initial obligation and expenditure schedules for these projects are: Fiscal year Obligations Expenditures Subsequent years $4,300,000 $4,300,000 The obligation and expenditure schedules for the overall project are: Through 1967 3,142,843 1,320,806 1968. 3,457,157 5,279,194 1969. 8,500,000 7,800,000 Subsequent years 8,100,000 8,800,000 Total. 23,200,000 23,200,000 2. Install rubber fendering in forebays and tailbays, all locks Project total $560, 000 Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule 275, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 103,' 000 This project is a continuation of work initiated in fiscal year 1968 and provides for the installation of rubber fendering on the concrete walls of the forebaj^s and tailbays at each set of locks. The forebays and tailbays are those sections of the locks between the wing wall knuckles and the upper or lower miter gates. At each of the three locks there are concrete abutments in the upper and lower approaches which break the continuous face of the concrete walls. Vessels moving in the forebays and tailbays of the locks are frequently not under full control of towing locomotives and therefore are not lined up square with the lock chambers. The limited lateral clearance of large and super vessels has increased the nvimber of incidents where vessels have contacted the concrete walls with resulting damage to ships' hulls and extensive claims against the Company. Since March 1963 there have been 26 investigated accidents of ships striking the concrete in the forebays and tailbays at all locks. Estimated damage to these ships was approximately $430,000. Within the past year, two vessels have each incurred damages in excess of $60,000. The number of vessels transiting the Canal with beam in excess of 80 feet has increased by 50 percent in the last 2 years and is expected to continue to increase 1566 at a rapid rate. In order to minimize damage to these vessels at the locks and thereby reduce Company expenditures in payment of damage claims, suitable Tendering should be installed in the forebays and tailbays at all locks. The project will extend over 3 years. It is based on installing a fendering system first at those locations where incident of accidents was greatest. It will provide for installation of rubber fendering as follows: Fiscal year 1968 Gatun locks, west tailbay and east forebay. Gatun locks, east tailbay and west forebay. Fiscal year 1969 Pedro Miguel locks, east and west tailbays. Pedro Miguel locks, east and west forebays. Fiscal year 1970 Miraflores locks, east and west tailbays. Miraflores locks, east and west forebays. The obligation and expenditure schedules for the entire project are as follows: Fiscal year Obligations Expenditures 1968 --- - - $102,000 $92,000 1969 -- - 275,000 103,000 W(lV.\\\\^[[^^1 - -- -- 183,000 365,000 Total - - 560,000 560,000 3. Improvements to Naos Island breakwater and dock Project total $231, 000 Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule 181, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 131, 000 The Company continuously operates from three to five passenger launches which transport boarding officers and pilots to and from vessels arriving for Canal transit or upon completing a transit. These launches, when not vmderway, are tied abreast each other with one fastened to a float at the Fort Amador mine dock. In addition to these launches, occasionally craft of the Commanding General, Southern Command, and of the Commandant, 15th Naval District, use the boarding facilities as well as other Company launches. Until a few years ago two floats were used. One was repaired in fiscal year 1963 while the other was retired when found beyond economical repair. Drydocking and overhaul of the existing float is required; hence, it will be necessary to have a replacement float available prior to its removal. Unless a float is available it will be impossible to operate launches from this location as the rise and fall of the tide reaches 20 feet and there is no other berthing facility nearby. The closest is approximately 4 miles away and its use would require addition to the launch fleet, increase traveltime for all concerned and in general cause a deterioration in service. The project provides for construction of a 50-foot-long float, similar to the one presently in use at the mine dock. When the two floats are in service, upon com- pletion of construction of one and overhaul of the other, the launch docking and passenger boarding and debarkation will be safer. The breakwater which protects the Company launch landing at the mine dock was extended to its present length in 1964. Since then, the outer 100 feet has settled until it no longer affords adequate protection. This section will be repaired as soon as material becomes available. Two additional new sections are required: (1) a 100-foot section, to afford protection from swells caused by high seas generated by southerly winds, and (2) a 300-foot section placed perpendicular to the channel on the north side of the present mine dock to provide protection against swells caused by passing vessels, and wash from deep-draft vessels. The protection of the regularly assigned mine dock pilots' and boarding launches and the floating landing is important in order to prevent damage caused by rough seas, and to reduce wear and tear from the 24-hour-i)cr-day motion of this landing during normal weather. The obligation and expenditure schedules for the project are as follows: Fiscal year Obligations Expenditures 1969 $181,000 $131,000 1970^-IIII""."I1I--1------ 50,000 100,000 Total - 231,000 231.000 1567 4. Relocate Cristobal Tug Landing Project total $200, 000 Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule 170, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 130, 000 At present, Cristobal tugs are berthed at the end of dock 6. There is not sufficient room at this dock to properly berth the three tugs that are in operation there, louring the dry season, this pier is exposed to extremely rough weather, high winds and rough seas when it becomes necessary to secure one or more of the tugs at another pier if space is available. When berthed at dock 6, constant complaints are received from tug crews concerning burning of rubbish on the end of Cristobal Mole which causes excessive smoke and flying sparks, creating a safety hazard. It is proposed that tug berth facilities be relocated near a Company facility area in the vicinity of pier 10. This location is suitable for rendering prompt tug service to and from ships in Cristobal Harbor. It would provide proper security, and there is ample parking space in the area. The obligation and expenditure schedules for the project are as follows: Fiscal year Obligations Expenditures 1969 $170,000 $130,000 1970 , 30,000 70,000 Total , 200,000 200, 000 5. Improvements to control houses, all locks Project total $232, 000 Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule 150, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 75, 000 The operating floors of the control houses are the centers of communications and control of locks operating machinery. These locations are continuously manned by operating personnel who must remain on duty, at or near the control board, throughout their scheduled working hours. These control house operators are responsible for the proper operation of the various remote control devices and for communications concerning the handling of lockages. A mistake in opera- tion by a control house operator could result in very serious damage to miter gates or other equipment and could result in putting a lane of the locks out of service for an extended period. Serious and costly damage to ships may also result from misoperation of the control board. It is of the utmost importance that the operators not be disturbed or distracted while on duty so that they can devote their full attention to the operations required and to avoid misoperations. There are many indicating devices and much electrical equipment located on and under the main control board. In order to function in a reliable and satis- factory manner, these devices must be kept clean and free from fungus. At the jjresent time, in order to provide ventilation for personnel, the windows and doors must be kept open. Gas, soot, smoke, and cinders from the stacks of passing ships enter these openings and cause clogging, abrasion, and corrosion of small electrical and mechanical parts. The gases and smoke are also injurious to the health and welfare of operating personnol. Headaches and illness have resulted in the need to relieve operators from their duties for the remainder of their shifts. Outside noises connected with passing ships and locomotives and construction work such as towing track repairs and overhaul work, make telephone and direct conversation difficult for operators. All of these factors have an adverse effect on the safety of operations. The Gatun locks' control house not only contains remote control equipment but is also used as the office of the superintendent and his staff. The proper handling of administrative and engineering problems in this operating area is difficult. The performance of these functions is mutually distracting to each other. Consideration has been given to erecting partitions, however, this would cutoff the natural ventilation around the control board and worsen the operators' working conditions. This project provides for air conditioning of the control houses, installation of glare-reducing windows, polarized lighting, and accoustical ceilings. The obligation and expenditure schedules for the project are as follows: 91-459 — 68 — pt. 1 99 1568 Obligations Expenditures Project total - $232,000 $232,000 Fiscal year 1969.. --. ---- 150,000 75,000 Fiscal year 1970 82,000 157,000 6. Modify lock wall lighting Project total $115, 000 Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule 105, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 55, 000 Due to the increase in volume of vessel traffic, it has become necessary to transit from one-third to one-half of all vessels during the hours of darkness. These night transits have presented the problem of glare imposed by the fluorescent lighting fixtures on the lock walls as it affects the pilot's ability to maneuver the vessel safely wliile approaching the locks. Complaints have been received from the pilots since the lights were first installed. An ophthalmology report indicates that the glare imposed by these lights presents a very annoying problem and thereby irritates an already tense and tired pilot whose judgment and patience could hkely be affected. A program was undertaken to determine the best possible method of shielding these fixtures to eliminate the glare. The experiments have proved that the most practical solution to the problem is the installation of opaque aluminum hoods with reflecting surfaces. These shielding fixtures will increase the safety of night transits and will provide adequate illumination of the top of each lock wall and at the same time present no fatiguing or distracting glare to pilots. The obligation and expenditure schedules for this project are as follows: Fiscal year Obligations Expenditures 1969 $105,000 $55,000 1970 - 10,000 fin. 000 Total - -- 115.000 115,000 7. Accelerated locks overhaul Project total $1, 850, 048 Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule 122,000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 122, 000 Since fiscal year 1961 the Panama Canal has been developing and testing various methods of reducing lock lane outage periods for conducting periodic miter gate overhauls. In fiscal year 1966 tests were conducted of two concepts; one involved use of cofferdam placed against the lock wall which when unwatered, permitted work to be performed on replacement of wall-bearing plates and pintle. Unfortunately the results obtained were imsatisfactory. The second concept required the unwatering of the lock lane in order that the bearing plates and pintle replacements could be made. Although the lane was taken out of service for 4 days to accomplish the work, the results were very satisfactory, working conditions good and with less hazard, and importantly, gate overhaul could be performed at substantially less cost. The latter concept was adopted, thereby eliininating the necessity to prepare Pedro Miguel and (5atun locks for the cotfeedam concept at an additional cost in excess of $1,800,000. The fiscal year 1969 portion of the program provides funds for modifying and equipping drydock No. 1 at Balboa into an efficient miter gate repair yard. Necessary pedestals, hoists, scaffolds, tools, and equipment will be obtained and installed so tliat the miter gates can be overhauled in the vertical i)osition. Cathodic protection lias been installed at Miraflores locks and this will be extended to (Jatun locks in fiscal year 1968 and in fiscal year 1969 to Pedro Miguel locks. The obligation and expenditure schedules for this project are as follows: 1569 '''''"' y«^f Obligations Expenditures Sr'^'^^ y03,048 $703,048 1968""" " - '^7,847 23,271 1969""" " " - - 977,153 1,001,729 - - 122,000 122; 000 ^°*^' - 1,850,048 1,850,048 Project total ^^ ^'"' '^' Balboa-Floating lug landing Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule. * qo' SnS Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule -I-'-.-^^I'I^'I";;]" 100 000 f, J?'^ j?-''°^^'^*'iu'*'''^^'* ^" ^^^^^ y^^'' 1968, provides for construction of a floating tug landing on the west end of pier 18 Balboa uuuuu 01 a noatnig fn/fopf''."/ vr""^ -^•'"'^''f *;'^' ^^''•^ ^^^" berthed at the end of pier 18 Balboa for lack of other suitable facihties. Tug personnel have complained about the dangerous conditions inherent in boarding and debarking at this berth Ihen changing watches especially at low tide. When the tugs return or leave the dock a seaman must chmb a ladder (which is fastened to the g ti S ashore tt; hnes for mooring the tug, and let go the lines when leav ng the dock This^s usually done while the tug is still in motion. This syste'^slery hazardous and inefficient The tugs must carry long ladders rigged on the side aiSThese must new'sh^s h^ve. "'''" ""'^^"^ "^""^^^^^ ^ ^^^^''-^^ ^ ^-^^ fla?e wWch SoS fo7mnr^°f'ffi!!^ ^^^ ^^""^'I^^ Stage will eliminate the safetv hazards and will provide ongTbe Sssl7ThrSo°/t '^%lT- i^^^^T ""^ ''^^''' «'^ ^^« tugs 'wm no luiiger oe necessary, itie floats will back up directly to the Dier Cflis9nn Recurring. 60. Rehabilitate building 39, Balboa Terminal Building Project total $134, 009 Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule 50, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 57, 000 This project completes the modernization of the third floor and the toilet facilities and plumbing system on first, second, and third floors. Pvehabilitation of the third floor involves the conference room and the space used by admeasurers. New floors will be laid, the offices air conditioned, new windows and doors installed, incandescent lighting replaced with fluorescent lighting, and suspended ceilings installed. Renewal of the plumbing system and toilet facilities includes replacement of piping, all fixtures, relocation and replacement of toilet partitions, aiid installa- tion of wall and floor tile on all three floors. The obligation and expenditure schedules for this project are as follows: 1594 Fiscal year Obligations Expenditures Through 1967.. ._ --. $12,009 $12,009 1968 - 72,000 65,000 1969^. 50,000 57,000 61. Advance planning of future projects Project total Recurring Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule $75, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 75, 000 The purpose of this item is to make au authorization available to be used for early engineering and planning work on projects included, or to be included, in the Panama Canal Company capital programs and budgetary submissions. The advanced planning work is necessary to obtain sufficient data and design in which to base estimates, descriptions, and specifications. The obligation and expenditure schedules of this recurring project are as follows: Obligations Expenditures Project total 0) (') Fiscal year 1968 $75,000 $75,000 Fiscal year 1969 75,000 75,000 • Recurring. 62. Purchase of miscellaneous office equipment Project total Recurring Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule $35, 000 Fiscal year expenditure schedule — — -- 35, 000 In the continuing survey and development of the accounting system and related operations, it is to be expected that need will arise for various types of special office machines and equipment to be used in accompHshing specific im- provements and revisions in accounting and related operations. While it is not possible to determine in advance the particular equipment for which need will develop, it is considered very important that a reasonable amount be available to permit the purchase of equipment at the time a positive need therefor is demonstrated. Accordingly, authorization is requested for the purchase of up to $35,000 of miscellaneous office equipment in fiscal year 1969. The obHgatiou and expenditure schedules for this recurring item are as follows: Obligations Expenditures Project total (') C) Fiscal year 1968 $10,000 $10,000 Fiscal year 1969 35,000 35,000 • Recurring. 63. Minor capital additions and replacements Project total Recurring Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule $100, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure 100, 000' This item provides an authorization to cover expenditures for unforeseeable minor items of capital and for items which may be foreseen but which are too small to justify separate listings and justification. The authorization makes avail- able to the President of the Company the authority which is deemed to be essential if the business-type operations of the enterprise are to fiuiction without interrup- tion, due to technicalities encountered in budget authorization of individual items that cannot be anticipated. The Board is informed of the items approved by the President at the meeting subsequent to the action. 1595 The obligation and expenditure schedules for this recurring item are as follows: Obligations Expenditures Projecttotal - O 0) „„ Through fiscal year 1966 $32,611 $28,877 Fiscal year 1967... 80.294 75,189 Fiscal year 1968 130,176 139,015 Fiscal year 1969 100,000 100,000 Recurring. 64. Retirements and removal costs Project total Recurring Fiscal year 1969 obligation schedule $75, 000 Fiscal year 1969 expenditure schedule 75, 000 This item is to provide capital funds to cover the gross cost of unanticipated removal and/or retirement of Panama Canal Company capital items from plant. Experience in previous years indicates that an authorization of $75,000 should suffice for this purpose in fiscal year 1969. The obligation and expenditure schedules for this recurring project are as follows: Obligations Expenditures Projecttotal.. _ 0) (•) Through fiscal year 1966... $19,581 $19,440 Fiscal year 1967 __. _ 7,687 6,345 Fiscal year 1968.. 84,799 86,282 Fiscal year 1969 75,000 75,000 1 Recurring. Mr. Morris. Your general statement pretty well covers that increase, General. General Leber. Yes. MODERNIZATION OP EMPLOYEES QUARTERS Mr. Morris. $800,000 is budgeted for fiscal year 1969 for moderniz- ing existing employees quarters at a total cost of $3,135,000. Please ex- plain the urgency of doing the work this fiscal year. General Leber. Well, sir, this is a program which has been underway for some years, initiated back in 1958 on a very modest scale of put- ting in a few items like jalousies and features which the occupant was willing to pay for in the way of increased rent. What we are doing now is increasing the scope of this program to provide for modernization of some old quarters which are still structurally sound, but the kitch- ens, bathrooms, utilities and other features, lighting and so on, are badly in need of modernization. Now this is to solve only a small part of our housing problem. I previously mentioned that our main problem is one of needing more housing. The other part of our problem is that many of the houses that are now occupied there are very old and the occupants are living really in houses that were built back in the thirties and in the war period and have never been modernized to today's standards. What we propose to do in 760 of these, we have picked out that many as being worth repairing, is to modernize them so that we can continue to use them for the foreseeable future. In other words, 20 or 25 years. The other temporary ones that we have we are not proposing to spend this kind of money on because frankly they are not worth it. 1596 In those, all we are doing is a little painting and minor work that make them livable for the short range. Now, this is a program which could proceed only as fast as the houses become available by people moving out of them, through retire- ment and transfer. So at any gi^en time there are perhaps 30 or 40 of these houses available and we are domg this rehabilitation on them. As we show here, we are scheduling the project over a period of several years before we expect to finish them. EXPAiSrsiox or ]microwave facilities Mr. ]\IoRRis. On pa^e 169, please explain the estimate of $300,000 for expansion of the microwave facilities system. General Leber. This project is to provide for additional capacity in our transistlniiian communications net. Originally, the service was provided by cables. The first was originally built and put in opera- tion in 1914 and one was added later. The older cable has now deterio- rated and is practically unserviceable, much noise, much interruption, plus the fact that the number of telephone calls and requirements for communications has increased. So what we have in this project is a proposal to expand the microwave circuits from Balboa to Cristobal, between Gamboa and Cristobal, and Gatun and Cristobal, to meet the growing requirements for communications. Mr. Morris. This is your communications within the Company? General Leber. Yes; within the zone. Mr. Morris. And the Canal Government ? General Leber. Yes. Iklr. Morris. It, in effect, is a private communications system? General Leber. It is, but we are tied with the Panama system. You can dial across but this is our own system. STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION OF 3 5 -MEGAWATT STEAMPLANT Mr. Morris. What is the status of the negotiations with the power entity of the Republic of Panama and private power companies to build a powerplant and sell power in lieu of the proposed construction of a 35-megawatt steam powerplant budgeted in 1968 at a cost of $3 million ? General Leber. The negotiations have continued over tlie past year and we have considerable progress. As a matter of fact, this week meetings are being held in the Canal Zone to try to conclude this con- tract within the next few weeks. In the meantime construction of tlie powerplant has started and is underway. We visit it frequently and have provided technical advice and assistance to the Panamanian company. I hope that we will be able to complete this negotiation and sign the contract shortly. At this point I know of no major obstacle to that. This is certainly our desire and at this point I think it is tlie best way of getting power at the earliest date. Mr. Morris. I want to assure you of the committee's support for this ]')osition. We strongly urge and encourage you to continue these negotiations if you can. General Leber. Yes, sir. Mr. Morris. We are unable to locate the $3 million in your estimate. 1597 We assume that this has been dropped from the estimate. '■1. ^"-^ . General Leber. That is right. Mr. Morris. We will insert the balance of the justifications cover- ing the remaining items. (The justifications follow:) Proposed Changes in Appropriation Language CANAL zone government Operating expenses. — No change. Capital outlay. — Passenger-carryiug vehicle purchases proposed for 1969 num- ber 14 as compared to 11 in 1968. The 14 vehicles requested, all of which are for replacement only, consist of 12 police-type vehicles (versus nine in 1968) which may exceed by $300 each the general purchase price limitation for 1969, and two ambulances. PANAMA CANAL COMPANY Corporation. — No change. Limitation on general and administrative expenses. — Passenger-carrying vehicle purchases proposed for 1969 number 26 as compared to 18 in 1968. The 26 vehicles are for replacement only and include 18 light sedans, three station wagons, and five schoolbuses. general PROVISIONS No change. CANAL ZONE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL POLICY COORDINATING BOARD [In thousands of dollars] Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 Operating expenses: Payroll costs... 33 40 44 All other expenses 5 6 7 Total expenses 38 The purpose of the Canal Zone Civilian Policy Coordinating Board is to co- ordinate certain personnel policy matters among the U.S. Government agencies in the Canal Zone, to achieve uniformity of wage practices among those agencies, to administer the Canal Zone Merit System, and to formulate such regulations, procedures, and instructions as may be necessary. The Board also supervises the activities of the Central Employment Office which is the recruiting and and examining agency for all local activities of the U.S. Federal Government. The cost of the Board is charged 50 percent to the United States Southern Command and 50 percent to the Panama Canal Company. CANAL ZONE CENTRAL EMPLOYMENT OFFICE [In thousands of dollars] Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 Operating expenses: Payrol 1 costs. 166 162 32 9 17 6 160 Administrative supportand contractual 30 32 Travel Supplies and printing Rent, communications, and utilities 7 12 5 8 17 6 Total 220 226 223 The Canal Zone Central Employment Office is established under the super- vision of the Canal Zone Civilian Personnel Policy Coordinating Board with delegated duties as follows: (a) Develop qualification standards and examination rating guides to be applied uniformly in effecting all personnel actions; and (6) Conduct, or arrange for, such recruitment and examining programs as may be required to insure an adequate supply of qualified eligibles. 1598 Pro rata costs of this Office are charged to the participating agencies on the basis of relative civilian force. Force, for this purpose, consists of the total number of all the agencies' employees performing duties in the Canal Zone and the Republic of Panama (including full time, part time, and WAE's) on the last calendar day of each month. The average month-end force of the participating agencies and the cost borne by each agency during 1967 were as follows: Agency Average month-end force Share of costs (thousands) Panama Canal Company - 15,265 $162 Army 3,733 40 Navy.. - 714 7 Air Force 1,074 11 Total cost distribution 220 CANAL ZONE GOVERNIVIENT— PERSONNEL SUIVIIVIARY Actual, 1967 Estimate, 1968 Estimate, 1969 Civil functions: Customs and immigration Postal service Pol ice protectio n _ Fi re protectio n . . - Judicial system Educa tio n Public areas and facilities Library I nterna I secu ri ty - . - Other civil affairs Health and sanitation; Hospitals and clinics Other public health services General government expenses: Office of the Governor Other general government expenses Total permanent full-time civilian personnel Net lapses applicable to permanent full-time civilian positions Net civilian permanent _ Positions other than permanent (full-time equivalency). Total personnel: Civilian Military • Total personnel - 63 64 54 103 104 102 325 328 367 152 152 153 7 7 2 851 866 887 23 26 26 14 14 14 19 19 20 1,277 1,287 1,314 190 192 192 8 4 9 5 9 5 3, 037 -89 3,074 -80 3,119 -63 2, 948 137 2,994 149 3,056 148 3,085 30 3,143 32 3,204 32 3.115 3.175 3.236 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY— SUMMARY OF PERSONNEL Transit operations: Maintenance of channels and harbors Navigation service and control. Locks operation.. General canal expense Supporting services: Vessel repair operations Harbor terminals operations Marketing operations Railroad operations Motor transportation Water transportation Power system Communications system .--. Water system Tivoli guest house. Printing plant ..- Grounds maintenance Engineering, maintenance and other services. Supply operations.. General corporate activities under limitation: Executive directinn Operations direction Financial management. - '.^--..i.L' Personnel administration General services Employment costs ................ 896 916 919 1,578 1,645 1,647 1,259 1.371 1,373 108 91 91 445 459 472 1,893 1.913 1,950 1,312 1,307 1,307 252 250 250 477 486 486 137 136 136 200 204 205 56 56 57 112 112 113 98 98 98 67 67 68 470 494 500 1,558 1.670 1,574 237 237 237 82 85 85 43 41 41 373 355 355 128 128 130 78 83 83 90 140 197 1599 PANAMA CANAL COMPANY— SUMMARY OF PERSONNEL— Continued Actual, Estimate, Estimate, 1967 1968 1969 Other general activities: Annuitant welfare program _ 7 7 7 Civilian personnel policy coordinating board 3 3 3 Canal Zone central employment office. 26 25 25 Total permanent full-time civilian personnel 11,985 12,379 12 409 Net lapses applicable to permanent full-time positions —477 —424 —287 Net civilian permanent,. _ 11,508 11,955 12 122 Positions ottier than permanent (full-time equivalency) 652 936 '705 Total personnel: Civilian.. 12,160 12,891 12,827 Military... 7 9 9 Total personnel 12. 167 12,900 12, 836 Mr. Morris. The gentleman from Arizona. INVESTMENT IN PANAMA CANAL Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Chairman. General, I have never been able to really understand what the net investment of the U.S. Government in the Panama Canal is. With all due respect, going through the justifica- tions, I still don't understand it. Looking at jDage 65 in the justifica- tions it appears that the estimate for 1969 would indicate that the net direct interest-bearing investment at the end of 1969 would be $321,- 801,840. Is that the amount upon which interest is paid to the U.S. Treasury ? General Leber. Yes, sir. Mr. Rhodes. That is the amount. General Leber. Yes. Mr. Rhodes. What is this figure, $349,811,013, on page 66. General Leber. On page 66 you are dealing with the investment of the U.S. Government as of June 30, 1967, a past date. At that point we had a total interest-bearing investment of $331,759,383, added to that is the non-interest-bearing investment for the Thatcher Ferry Bridge of $18,051,630, bringing it up to the total figure you mentioned of $349,811,013. Now in the legislation which authorized the Thatcher Ferry Bridge it was explicit that this would not be interest bearing. Mr. Morris. Wasn't there a $10 million payment ? General Leber. Right. That is shown on page 65 there with the minus $10 million you see under 1968. That is the year it was paid. Mr. Rhodes. I note that the repayment was credited completely to the interest-bearing portion of the debt and none to the non-interest- bearing portion. General Leber. That is the way it is set up. cu^^i'j"^^^^^^* "^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^y design. Is it the proper way to do it? fehould you not prorate any payment between the outstanding obliga- tion which IS interest bearing and that wliich is noninterest bearing? General Leber. Well, we have no option in that. The procedure is set up by the statute. Mr Stoers. There was no provision in the statute to pay dividends out of earnings as a distribution of profit as normally you would re- 91-459— 68— pt. 1 101 1600 ceive from a corporation. All our dividends are based on excess cash and by statute are to be used to repay the U.S. Government's in- vestment. THATCHER FERRY BRIDGE Mr. Khodes. When are you going to repay tliis Thatcher Ferry Bridge ? General Leber. We will never, under the present statute. Mr. Rhodes. In other words, this is really an item which should be written off, and which should not even aj)pear in the balance sheet? General Leber. That might be. Mr. Steers. On the Thatcher Ferry Bridge, it is being depreciated and the depreciation is being recovered in the cost of operating the Panama Canal. As such, the cash generated through this depreciation over the years as payment is made to the U.S. Treasury as capital repayments, funds generated from that source would be returned. Mr. Rhodes. I see. General Leber. May we go off the record? Mr. Morris. Yes. (Discussion off the record.) dividends paid by PANAMA CANAL COMPANY Mr. Rhodes. Governor, can you give us a compilation of the divi- dends which have been paid by the Company tlirough the years ? General Leber. Yes, sir. In fiscal 1955 there was a $10 million pay- ment; in 1956, $5 million; in 1960, $10 million; which really repre- sented a release of an emergency fund in substitution of borrowing authority in a like amount; then in 1968, $10 million. So, since 1955 a total of $35 million has been paid back. Mr. Rhodes. Were there any payments prior to that time ? General Leber. There were none between 1950 and 1955. Mr. Steers. Unless you go back to the old Panama Railroad Com- pany that Company did return money to its stockholder, the U.S. Government. General Leber. You see, our present structure was set up by the act of 1950 which set up the interest-bearing investment and the procedure that we have been describing here. WATER SUPPLY Mr. Rhodes. As to the general operation of the canal, isn't one of the main limiting factors your water supply ? General Leber. That is one, yes ; particularly in the dry season. The ultimate determination is the elevation of the sill in the locks, you see. In going from Pedro Miguel to Miraflores locks, you go across a small lake. You can just bring the lake up to a certain level, otherwise you flood out the locks. You measure from that down to where the con- crete is and that is the ultimate determination. During the rainy season, that is what determines that we cannot take ships more than 40 feet in draft. But during the dry season, as we go into the dry season — and we are now into it — we draw Gatun Lake down progressively. We start at about 87 feet elevation and by the end of the dry season, in May or June, the lake, depending on how 1601 dry the year is, could be down to 84 feet or even 80 feet. When we get down to those elevations, we must restrict draft because there simply is not enough depth in the cut for ships to go through safely. When a ship is moving through the cut it needs at least 5 feet of water under the ship for safe navigation. When it is going over the lock sill it is going veiy slowly and it only needs about I14 or 2 feet. So it just de- pends on where you are in the year as to what the limiting factor is. But 40 feet is the maximum draft that the present canal can handle. Mr. Rhodes. If this were a sea-level canal would you have the same situation, or would you be able to bring sea water in to supplement the water supply for navigation ? General Leber. Of course, the sea-level canal would have no locks, no sills, and would not depend on a rainy season or a dry season. The only thing, there would be a matter of tide level and of course the tide variation on the Pacific end is up to 20 feet, on the Caribbean end only about 3 feet. It depends on liow deep you dig it. This is a very important consideration for those people who are maldng tlie study on the sea-level canal, how deep should it be dug and how wide ? That is very important. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO VESSELS Mr. Rhodes. One other item. I notice on page 64 you have a liability which is entitled "Claims for Damages to Vessels.'' In 1968, there was $1 million, in 1969 it is estimated to be $1,050,000. What constitutes an item such as this ? You spoke of an accident involving a Japanese ship. Was the Panama Canal Company liable for damages as a result of that particular collision ? General Leber. Well, sir, in that particular collision the Board of Investigation, which is held after each accident, has not completed their investigation, so I would prefer not to make any statement or even venture a guess as to liability in the case of the Shozan Marv. But let me just describe the procedure for handling accidents and determining liability. "\^nien accidents occur — and they do occur, as I mentioned, at the rate of about 1 per 450 transits— some are minor and some are more serious. But after each accident, regardless of its size, an investigation is held. The pilot or other people who were involved are brought in, sworn in, and they give testimony as to what occurred. That is all put down in a written record. Then the Board, studying the evi- dence, comes out with a report, a finding of what occurred, why it did occur. This becomes the basis for later action in determining who is liable and who pays. Now, if an accident is due to negligence on the part of the pilot or any of our employees, the statute provides generally that we are liable and that we pay. If, on the other hand, the accident is due to the failure of the ship's gear to operate or the rudder to function, then we have no liability. Now, usually there is some in-between area, where it is not clearly one or the other. Then it is a matter of, usually, negotiation. In a few- cases they go to court, but most of them are settled out of court. The thing is settled with the shipowner suffering some of the damages and we suffering some. 91^59— 68— pt. 1 102 1602 INCREASE IN CAPACITY OF LOCKS Mr. Erodes. One last question: Do yon anticipate that yon will be in here in some fntnre year askinij for ns to increase the capacity of the locks in this canal to accommodate ships of greater carryino- capacity? General Leber. Well, sir, anythino; to increase the capacity of the locks wonlcl really fall into two categories. One Avonlcl be increased capacity in the number of ships that we could put throujo-h the canal, and the other would be an increase in the size. Xow, as rei^ards the number, we are now making a review, as I mentioned of canal capacity and improvements, with the idea of com- ing up with a program that we could present, as needed, to the Con- gress for improvements to develop the maximum practical capacity of the present canal. Now, last year we put through 14,()00 ships. I don't know yet, until we finish our study, what our maximum prac- tical annual capacity will be, but it will be something in the neighbor- hood of 23,000 to 24,000 ships per year. It could be more, but I doubt if it will be less. We don't have that capacity now. We sim]oly haA'e not made the improvements tliat would be necessary. Part of our study is to deter- mine what improvement-^ are iiecessajy. One might be to Dut in more towing locomotives on the locks so that at (ratun and Miraflores we can have in effect two sets of locomotives where we now have one. Tliey would move the ship half way through with one set and the re- mainder of the wav through with a second set. while Hie first set goes back and starts another one. So at any given time at Gatun you would have two ships being locked through in the same lane rather than one. This would increase your capacity. As I say, we are working on this and I exjiect that wp will, in future years, come in to this committee and recomme)id certain projects for increasing the capacity as far as the numl^er of sliips. Now, the other part of the problem, the size of the ships, we are lim- ited in effect by the width of the chaml>er and by the depth. Length is not. apparently, a limiting factor. I don't remember a ship e\'er coming that could fit in the locks from the standpoint of width that was too long. So we have 110 feet of Avidth and we take them up to 106 in the connnercial and 108 in the militaiT. We can take them uj) to 40 feet in draft. Of course, draft is variable. It is simplv not feasible to push out the lock walls an.d make those cham])ers wider, fi-oni :in engineering standpoint and also because you would have no place to handle the traffic AA^hile you were carrviuir on such a major project. So, if at some future date, it was decided that you wanted locks that would handle bigger ships, the thing to do would be to build another line of locks and, of course, as you may know, this project was started, the third locks project, back in 1939, worked on until 1942 when it was suspended because of World War II. It has not been i-e- sumed. It could be done from an engineering standpoint. It would be a matter of considering the advantages and disadvantages and consid- ering the study that is being made by the Commission on the sea level canal and other factors. COST TO CONSTRUCT THIRD SET OF LOCKS Mr. Rhodes. Do you have any idea what the cost would be to con- struct the third set of locks ? 1603 General Leber. It hasn't been priced out recently, based on current prices, but it would be soniethin.a" in the order of $500 million. Now, there is another plan, which you may have heard of, called the terminal lakes plan which is a plan to combine the locks at the Pacific end of the canal, as the}" are now combined on the Atlantic end. You see, on the Atlantic end they are Gatun locks where you take three ste])s all in one structure. On the Pacific end you have to go throug-h Pedro Miguel, then another set at Miraflores. The terminal lakes plan would combine those on the Pacific end and put in a third lane on each side for the larger ships. This is another possi- bility which I am sure would be considered in making any long-range decision. Mr. Ehodes. Thank you. That is all. jNIr. Morris. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just w- anted to say. Gen- eral, that I feel your makeup of the justifications this year was the easiest to follow of any that I have seen. General Leber. Thank you. PERSONNEL Mr. Davis. "What are your latest figures on total personnel for the Panama Canal Company and, then, tlie Panama Canal Government ? Can you give me those ? General Leber. Yes, sir. Actual 1967 figures for the Panama Canal Company totaled 12,167 people. We estimate that for fiscal 1968 that will go up to 12,900 and for fiscal 1969 it will remain about the same, actually going down slightly to 12,836. On the Government side, comparable figures for 1967, we had 3,115 total ; we expect that to go up to 3,175 for 1968 and 3,236 for 1969. That is on pages 197 and 198. Mr. Davis. Do you have a breakdown as between U.S. nationals and others ? General Leber. Yes, sir. Koughly these figures as you see, total 15,000 for both the Company and the Government. Of those, about 11,000 are Panamanians and about 4,000 are U.S. citizens. I can get you the exact figiire. Mr. Davis. No; that is close enough. RESIDENCE OF U.S. CITIZENS Now, the L^.S. nationals all reside within the Canal Zone in Govern- ment-provided quarters ? General Leber. Not all of them, but practically all. The number of U.S. citizens who live in Panama is very few. We have leased in Panama City an apartment where about 25 of our families live. We did that because of our housing shortage. Frankly, the families that live there are not happy. As soon as they can move back into the zone they do so. There are a few others, less than 100, who live on the economy in Panama. This is definitely the minority. Most of them live in the Canal Zone, in houses that were built by the Government and are rented to them. 1604 Mr. Davis. Now, the 100 that you speak of that live in Panama, they live there by choice ? General Leber. Yes. They may be married to Panamanians or for various other reasons. EESIDENCE OF PANAINIANIANS Mr. Da\^s. Are there any Panamanian nationals who reside within the Canal Zone ? General Leber. Yes, sir. Roughly 25 percent of our Panamanian work force reside in the Canal Zone in houses that we built and rent to them. The other 75 percent live in Panama. For the past few years we have followed a policy of encouraging our Panamanian employees to live in Panama. "We have done that by not expanding the number of our houses in the zone. As a matter of fact, our pro- gram has been one of taking small family units in the non-U.S. citizen communities and combining them into more livable units, and thereby reducing the number of houses in the Canal Zone. This is, I might say, one of the things that Panama over the years has pointed out as one of their points, that their citizens should live in Panama and live on the Panamanian economy, send their children to the Panamanian schools, and so on. We have followed that policy. HOUSING Mr. Davis. So that you are not now constructing and ha\"e no plans to construct any further living quarters for Panamanian nation- als within the Canal Zone ? General TjEber. Not additional. The only program we have there is to modernize and get rid of some of the old frame tenement -type dwell ings. Mr. Davis. Is it generally correct that the Panamanian nationals who reside in the zone do so because of the nature of their work and the convenience to us of having them live near their workplace? General Leber. Yes, sir; and that is a very important consideration. That is one thing. Seniority is the other. People like firemen, police- men, those who we need to be sure they will be there when they are needed, live in the Canal Zone. The others are usually determined by seniority, and those who do get into housing: in the Canal Zone gen- erally stay there in that housing until they retire. net revenue Mr. Davis. In your general presentation you used the term "net revenue." That term is synonymous with what is referred to as operat- ing margin in the justifications, is it ? General Leber. Yes, sir. Mr. Davis. I first spotted it on roman numeral II, where the term "operating margin" is used. Is that the same as net revenue ^ Air. Steers. In that particular case it is. 1605 U.S. INVESTMENT IN CANAL ZONE Mr. Davis. Noav, somewhere in liei'e is there a showing of the total U.S. investment in the Canal Zone ? General Leber. In other words, the interest-bearing and the non- interest-beai'ing ? Mr. Steers. The U.S. Government equity is what you are referring to? Mr. Davis. That is what I was trying to get at. Mr. Steers. On page 64 there is a statement of financial condition. The bottom third of the page sets forth the composition of the equity of the U.S. Govermnent. Mr. Davis. This would be a current equity which would be, I sup- pose, a depreciated investment, would it ? Mr. Steers. No. The interest-bearing investment is reducing only to the extent that capital repayments have been made to the U.S. Treasury. Mr. Davis. I see. General Leber. This is investment, now. Mr. Davis. All right. So that total investment, then, as we look at it on page 64, is something in the neighborhood of $553 million? Is that the amount? Mr. Steers. $513 million? Mr. Davis. The total equity of the U.S. Government. Now, is that synonymous with the total investment ? General Leber. It is investment as determined by the 1950 act. If you are talking in terms of how much total money has the U.S. Gov- ernment spent there since 1903, of course then we have to go back beyond 1950. I believe the figure there is something like $700 million. If you take into account all the money the United States has spent down there and subtract from it all the money paid back to the United States. Mr. Davis. I see. So that if we take that figure, just to get in the ball park, take the $700 million and subtract from it the repayments on our investment over the years, then would we get pretty closely back to the figure that you show is the equity of the U.S. Govermnent? Mr. Steers. There is a little bit more involved than that. I would be very happy to submit a table for the record that would set that forth. It is quite detailed. Mr. Morris. Will that satisfy the gentleman ? Mr. Davis. Yes. Mr. Morris. Without objection, the commitee would like for 3'ou to submit it and it will be made a part of the record at this point. (The information follows:) 1606 PANAMA CANAL ENTERPRISEi [Unaudited summary of funds and property received by tfie Panama Canal enterprise from tfie U.S. Government interest costs thereon payable to tfie U.S. Government and funds paid back to the US. Treasury by the Panama Canal enterprise from inception to June 30, 1967] [Millions of dollars] July 1, 1951 June 30, 1967 Gross investment of U.S. Government; Funds and property transfers (1) $1,013.9 $1,458.8 Interest on net investment of U.S. Government: From Inception to June 30, 1951 (2) 373. 4 373. 4 From July 1, 1951 to June 30, 1967: Panama Canal Company (paid U.S. Treasury) (3) 151.8 Canal Zone Government and Thatcher Ferry Bridge (4) 21.6 Total gross investment of U.S. Government 1,387.3 2,005.6 Recoveries by the U.S. Government: Deposits and deposit credits from all sources (5).. 784.6 1,299.8 Unrecovered balance excluding retained earnings 602. 7 705. 8 ' The Panama Canal enterprise consists of the Panama Canal Company, the Canal Zone Government and their predecessor agencies. The enterprise does not include military agencies located in the Canal Zone. Note: Not included above is $149,100,000 of net revenue (carried over from Panama Railroad Company $71.1 million plus $78 million accrued to Panama Canal Company since July 1, 1951). If this amount is to be considered as an added investment it should be added to the cash total above, as follows: 1951 1966 Total as above $602.7 $705.8 Retained net revenue 71. 1 149. 1 Adjusted totals 673.8 854.9 PANAMA CANAL ENTERPRISE 1. Funds and property transfers; (a) Funds appropriated directly for the enterprises: Original construction __ $386,910,301.00 Maintenance, operation and additional capital expenditures 965, 898, 147. 84 Total ^-- - 1,352,808,448.84 (b) Funds appropriated for other U.S. Government agencies for the direct benefit of the enterprise: Construction annuity to employees (and their widows) engaged in the construction of the canal ..- - 46,673,395.02 Increased annuity to Panama 18,000.000.00 Annuities to employees retired prior to July 1, 1951 15,091,000.00 Salaries of military personnel assigned to the Canal prior to July 1, 1951. 9,307,002.00 Injury and death payments. Bureau of Employees Compensation 4,832,046. 81 93,903,443.83 Total appropriations 1,446,711,892.67 (c) Property transferred from other U.S. Government agencies.. 19,395,873.22 (d) Property transferred to other U.S. Government agencies —7,354,264.80 Total property transfers, net 12,041,608.42 Total funds and property transfers 1,458,753,501.09 2. Interest on net direct investment: From Inception to June 30, 1951 : Interest at 3 percent to Aug. 14, 1914, and at individual annual rates thereafter (as determined by the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury), ha s been calculated on net withdrawals (total appropriations less deposits of Canal tolls and other deposits) from 1904tol951 . ----- -- - -- 373,442,987.50 3. From July 1, 1951 to June 30, 1966: Panama Canal Company: Interest at rates from 1.95 percent for fiscal year 1951 to 3.655 percent for fiscal year 1967 (as determined by the Secretary of the US. Treasury) has been calculated on the Company's net direct investment, established In accordance with section 62 of title 2 of the Canal Zone Code, charged to Company operations and subsequently deposited into the U.S. Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, as required bylaw 151,793,436.66 4. Canal Zone Government and Thatcher Ferry Bridge: Existing law specifically exempts the net direct investment of the Canal Zone Government and the Thatcher Ferry Bridge from interest charges. However, it Is considered that this element should be included in arriving at the unrecovered investment of the U.S. Government in the Canal enterprise. The Interest cost reflected herein has been calculated at the same rates used for the Company as shown under paragraph 3 above, on the net direct investment of the Canal Zone Government and Thatcher Ferry Bridge as of June 30 each year through June 30,1967 ---- 21,625,022.00 1607 PANAMA CANAL ENTERPRISE— Continued 5. Recoveries by the U.S. Treasury: (a) Actual deposits into the U.S. Treasury: Canal tolls prior to June 30, 1951.. $643,883,520.78 Net profits from business operations activities corresponding roughly to our present supporting operations) 28,591,812.05 Licenses, fines, fees and postal receipts 6, 887, 294. 59 Proceeds from sale of construction equipment 6.990, 681. 75 Capital repayments and interest on public worlermit the analysis of currents, sedi- mentation, and bottom characteristics necessary for the design of drainage struc- tures, regiilating structures, and approach excavation. The program is scheduled to be accomplished in the first half of fiscal year 1969. d. Hydrology. — The collection of rainfall and streamflow data by means of rain- gaging and stream-gaging stations will support the assessment of regional drain- age systems with respect to their effect on the operation of a sea-level canal by siltation. flood flow, and density change. These data will also provide information necessary for the prediction of the redistribution of radioactivity by rainfall, leaching, and streamflow. Data collection began on Route 25 in July 1967. Two- year records of data are required from all stations. e. Meteorology. — The objectives of the meteorological program are the follow- ing: first, to obtain the data necessary to determine optimum size and orientation of the exclusion areas required to insure the safety of indigenous i>ersonnel from radioactive fallout : and second, to determine the frequency of occurrence of meteorological conditions which would c to 20(),(MM) feer. These data will provide a base for predicting meteorological conditions that would not Ite conducive to propagating potentially damaging acoustic waves from the nuclear explosives to di.stant cities. The objective of this program is to determine tbe nunil)er of firing days each month whicb would be safe for using nuclear explosives for excavation. Data collection is scheduled to be completed in Ma.n-h 1!I6S. g. Seismic. — The seismic study involves the survey of structures of surrounding population centers! to determine the vulnerability of such centers to the ground shock created by underground nuclear explosions. lUHpiired supporting data included the collection and evaluation of data on past and recent earthquakes and .structural data applicable to earthquake damage. This program of data collection will be completed in fiscal year 196S. h. Bioenrironrnental . — This program combines sttulies of terrestrial, fresh water and marine ecological systems. The objectives are to analyze tbe regional human population and the resources supporting the indigcmous jieoplcs in oi-der to assess the potential hazards to the people from the radioactivity induct'd by nuclear explosions. Rioen^ir()nmeTltal data collection was begun in tisc.-il year 1965 and completed in January 196S. /. Midicd-ccology. — The purpose of this program is to determine the nature and co.st of sanitation and disease prevention in the course of tbe construction and operating phases of a sea level canal. To this end data is collected pertinent to local diseases, vet-tors and reservoirs of disease, venemous or otlierwise harm- ful animal and plant life, and other environmental hazards. Tbe program also provides the disi)ensary and first aid medical care for personnel involved in data collection. Data collection terminated on both Routes 17 and 25 in December 11M)7. iledical care will be pnfvided for survey iiei-soiuiel nntil July 106!) ami will be fuTided as an item of m.-magemeiit and general support. j. Moii(i(/<)ii()it (Did goieral ■'i>(trt of (■(illcction effort. — The general sujiport of field activities includes construction and operation of canq)S and supply sta- tions, transportation required by field activities, construction and maintenance of roads and airfields, procurement and rental of etpiipment such as aircraft. 1623 Construction requirements for both routes was completed by July 1967. Other support activities are scheduled for fiscal year 1969 but reduced as various collection programs are terminated. S. Significant activities in the data evaluation program a. Nuclear Excavation. Studies. — These studies are concerned with clumnel aliuement, preliminary design of explosive emplacement in terms of yields, sta- tions and depths of burial, stability of channel slopes, cost estimates, and con- struction schedules. The final design will incorporate the results of the Engi- neering and Operational Studies and will reflect the results of nuclear experi- ments and the field data collected on Routes 17 and 2.">. b. Operational Studies. — This system of studies is designed to determine opera- tional requirements imposed by the utilization of nuclear detonations for ex- cavation. They will contain estimated radioactivity levels and the extent and direction of fallout patterns and thereby provide the basis for the determination of exclusion areas, limitations on the size of explosions, and the time and fre- quency of detonations. c. Engineering Studies. — The objective of this program is to develop preliminary designs for the conventional aspects of canal construction on the routes under consideration. The tasks being undertaken may be categorized into five areas as follows : conversion of the present canal, navigational studies of alternate routes, conventional construction in support of nuclear excavation, hydraulic design and flood control, and miscellaneous studies including evacuation. Cost estimates will include initial construction costs and continuing annual costs^ projected through the useful life of the facility. Mr. Morris. Thank you, General Noble. Mr. Storey. Mr, Chairman, I would like at this time to present Mr. John ShefFey, who is our Executive Director, for any statement that he may care to aclcl. Mr. Morris. I want to give you all the time you need to justify your program request. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Sheffey. I have no formal statement, Mr. Chairman. I am here to respond to your questions. Mr. Morris. Thank you. Tliank you, Mr. Storey and General Noble, for your statements. We will insert the justifications covering your request of $4,900,000 for the fiscal year 1969 into the record at this point, (The justifications folloAv:) Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission public law 88-609, september 22, 1964, as amended Summary of study (1) General (a) Public Law 88-609, approved September 22, 1964, as amended, authorizes a commission to study the feasibility of constructing a sea level canal between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The present authorization act limits the cost of the study to a maximum of $17,500,000 and requires completion no later than December 1, 1969. Additional authorization legislation has been submitted to the Congress which raises the funding limit to $24 million and the completion date to December 1, 1970. (b) The President appointed the Commission, consisting of five men from private life, on April 18, 1965. The Commission has initiated a full and complete investigation and study, including onsite surveys to determine the feasibihty of and most suitable site for an interoceanic sea level canal, the best means of construction, whether by conventional or nuclear means, and the estimated cost. This effort includes the study of foreign policy considerations, national defense aspects, canal finance, interoceanic and intercoastal shipping, public information. 1624 and engineering feasibility. The Commission will prepare a report setting forth its findings, conclusions, and recommendations at the completion of the study. (2) Status of study (a) General. — All portions of the Commission's study are now in progress. Full-scale data collection has been or is being pursued on all routes under study. A partial reduction in the extent of the planned data collection has been required due to the fund limitations. All major contracts for work in support of the study have been awarded and the evaluation of all data collected is proceeding as planned. The Commission's panel of technical consultants and advisors has been established and preliminary review of the routes have been accomplished. (b) Study of foreign policy considerations. — The Secretary of State is providing the leadership for an interdepartmental group studying and advising the Commis- sion on the foreign policy interest in a new, sea-level canal. The study group has completed an initial draft study of the potential impacts of the proposed sea- level canals on the foreign relations of the United States. The study analyzes U.S. current relations with the canal-site countries, evaluates the effects of exist- ing and proposed treaties on the prospects of nuclear canal excavation, and com- pares the potential effects of each of the proposed sea-level canals upon the re- lations of the United States with the host countries and with the countries that use the existing Panama Canal. (c) Study of national defense aspects. — The Secretary of Defense is providing the leadership for an interdepartmental grouj) studying the defense interest. The study group has completed a second draft of its report and has submitted the draft to the Commission for review and comment. Further study is being made concerning the role played by the canal in support of the military operations in Southeast Asia. A detailed analysis of defense requirements for the alternative canal sites is being prepared. (d) Study of canal finance. — The Secretary of the Treasury is providing the leadershij) for an interdepartmental group studying methods of financing the construction and operation of a new, sea-level canal. Using preliminary cost estimates, a range of jiotential revenues estimated for the existing lock canal, and a number of jiossible interest rates, the study group has developed initial analyses of the financial feasibilities of the proposed sea-level canals. The method of analysis has been adapted for rapid accomplishment by computer when firm data are available. Discussions of possible methods of canal finance have also been drafted. (e) Study of interoceanic and intercoastal shipping. — The Secretary of Trans- portation is providing the; leadership for an interdepartmental group studying the interests of interoceanic and intercoastal shipping in a new, sea-level canal. The initial draft of the study has been completed. (/) Study of public information. — The Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission is providing the leadership for an interdepartmental group studying the public information aspects of the construction and operation of a new, sea-level canal. An initial draft Public Information Study has been completed. ig) Study of engineering feasibility. — At the Commission's request, the Secretary of the Army designated the Chief of Engineers to act for the Commission as its Engineering Agent. A detailed plan for Study of Engineering Feasibility has been developed by the Corps of Engineers, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Panama Canal Company. This plan was approved by the Commission in September 196.5 and is periodically modified to adjust to changing conditions. It is designed to make studies of the feasibility of excavation of a sea-level inter- oceanic canal along several routes in Central and South America. For comparative purposes, the studies will include evaluation and updated cost estimates of existing plans to modernize the present canal and to construct new locks. As shown on figure 1, there are four general areas imder consideration for a sea-level canal. These are: 1. A route generally along the Nicaragua-Costa Rica border. Route 8. 2. Several alinements in and near the Panama Canal Zone. 3. A route in the Darien region of Panama, Route 17. 4. A route in extreme northwest Cohimbia, Route 25. The study effort includes a program of data collection, data evaluation, and engineering studies. The funds which the Congress appropriated to support the studies in fiscal year 1966 were received in November 1965. Since; that time, survey agreements have been completed with Panama and Colombia and full-scale data collection has proceeded on both Routes 17 and 25. The Engineering Agent is proceeding witla the following activities: 1625 1. The Corps of Enginoers is continuing its study of the conversion and modernization of the existing lock canal to sea level utilizing data being made available by the Panama Canal Company. The study is expected to be completed in fiscal year 1968. 2. The joint high-level meteorology data collection program was continued by the AEC, the U.S. Army, and the U'S. Air Force. 3. The construction of all data collection facilities along Route 17 in Panama has been completed. The topographic survey is complete as is the geology pro- gram. Continuous records were received from meteorological and hydrological stations. Data collection is well advanced in the seismic, bioenvironmental, and medicoecology programs. 4. Construction has been completed on supply stations and weather stations on Route 25 in Colombia. Data collection in the meteorology, hydrology, and subsurface geology programs was continued during 1968. (5) Significant, problems Difficulties in obtaining survey agreements and postponements of nuclear events in the PLOWSHARE Program have delayed the progress of the study. This delay, together with cost experience to date and other changed conditions, will resalt in an increase in the total study cost. An amendment to the authorization act is being sought to raise the statutory appropriation ceiling from $17,500,000 to $24 million and extend the study from December 1, 1969, until December 1, 1970. Summarized financial data: Total estimated cost i$24, 000, 000 Prior appropriation 17, 500, 000 Appropriation requested for fiscal year 1969 4, 900, 000 Balance to complete after fiscal year 1969 1, 600, 000 Justification of fiscal year 1969 estimate 1. General. — The amount of $4,900,000 is requested to continue interoceanic canal studies through fiscal year 1969. The Commission's study is divided into three principal programs, as follows: Appropriation Balance to Program Estimated Prior requested for complete cost appropriation fiscal year after fiscal 1969 year 1969 A. Commission administration, advisors and consult- ants, special studies and agent for engineering feasibility studies $1,700,000 $815,000 $330,000 $555,000 B. Data collection 16,909,000 13,748,000 3,038,000 123,000 C. Data evaluation and engineering studies 5,391,000 2,937,000 1,532,000 922,000 Total... 24,000,000 17,500,000 4,900,000 1,600,000 2. Objectives for the budget year and proposed plans for achieving the objectives. — Full-scale data collection will be continued along Route 25 in Colombia. This effort will be completed in fiscal year 1969. Data evaluation, operational, and engineering studies will continue through fiscal year 1969, using as appropriate the data collected by field programs. Those studies not dependent on field data, such as the conversion studies, will be completed in fiscal year 1968. The specific objective of each major program is as follows. COMMISSION ACTIVITIES Program A — Commission administration, advisors and consultants, special studies and agent for engineering feasibility stiidies. — To provide itself a comprehensive foundation of factual data, estimates, and expert opinions upon which to base its ultimate findings, conclusions, and recommendations, the Commission is conduct- ing six studies under its own direct supervision. These studies will continue through fiscal year 1969 and will require the full attention of the Commission, their ' Includes $6,500,000 to carry out authorizing legislation proposed. 1626 advisers and consultants and the Agent for Engineering Feasibility Studies. Pro- gram A is divided into the following activities: Activity Total estimated cost Appropriation Balance to Prior requested tor complete appropriation fiscal year after fiscal 1969 year 1969 (a) Commission administration $887,000 $376,000 $166,000 $345,000 (b) Advisors and consultants 140,000 110,000 30,000 ■e answered as a result of its planned experiments, provided the needed data are gathered on the pro- posed canal routes. The political questions, both locally in the canal site countries and the broader questions inherent in test ban treaty amendments, are not im- mediately answerable. It is the Department's view that, if the promised technical advantages and safety of nuclear excavation were established beyond reasonable doubt, the political obstacles to its use could eventually be removed. There is broad interest in this technology throughout the world. On the other hand, if the planned experiments and canal site surveys were to determine that nuclear canal excavation is not feasible, the political problems would not need to be solved. In any event, the U.S. Government needs the evaluation of the possible canal sites, including the one in Colombia, to reach the proper decisions on our future canal policy. With regard to your concern about the impact of the test ban treaty on the prospects of nuclear excavation of a canal, I believe the following observations are pertinent. At the conclusion of its hearings on that treaty in 1963, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported : "The United States will also be able to explode nuclear devices underground for peaceful purposes in other countries, at their request, provided, of course, that such an explosion does not cause debris to be issued beyond that country's territorial limits. If and when a project is proposed that might possibly violate the terms of the treaty — development of a new Panama Canal with nuclear explosives, for example — an amendment to the treaty would presumably be sought." This conclusion was based on testimony by Chairman Seaborg, who had said "A new trans-Isthmian canal * * * probably could not be done under the present treaty limitations because of the short distance to territorial borders." (Hearings, p. 210.) However, if other considerations should lead the Commission to recommend nuclear excavation, this problem could be dealt with by amending the treat.v. In fact it is clear that the parties foresaw the possible need for ad.iusting the provisions of tiie treaty on this point and provided for a relatively easy amend- ment procedure (requiring the concurrence of only a majority of the parties, including that of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the IT.S.S.R. Moreover, in addition to considerable evidenced international interest in the potential benefits from peaceful uses of nuclear explosions, there have been several recent developments that encourage the belief that such an amendment may be attainable. Thus, specific provision was made in the Treaty of Tlateloco — signed in the past year by 21 Latin American Republics — -to permit the use of nuclear explosions for p)eaceful purposes. And article V of the draft nonproliferatiou treaty recommended b.v the United States Soviet Cochairmen of the 18-Xation Disarmament Committee provides that : "Each Party to this treaty undertakes to cooperate to insure that potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will ,be made avail- able through appropriate international procedures to non-nuclear-weapon states party to this treaty on a nondiscriminatory basis and that the charge to such parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development. It is understood that non-nuclear- weapon states party to this treaty so desiring may, pursuant to a special agree- ment or agreements, obtain an.v such benefits on a .bilateral basis or through an appropriate international body with adequate representation on non-nuclear- weapon states." I hope the foregoing has been useful to you, and. if I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Wn.LIAM B. MCCOMBER, Assistant Secretary of State for ConffressionaT ReJatio)is. Mr. Morris. That has been nsefiih Tt will be made a pai-f of the record. Now, do we agree that the answer to my qnestion is: No. Mr. Sheffy. At this moment the answer is, no. Mr. Storey. Might I add this, though? Mr. Morris. Yes. 1633 Mr. Storey. It is very essential that we continue to take the data from Routes 17 and 25 principally because if and when it can be done by nuclear excavation, those routes are suitable for that kind of excavation. There is virtually no population of any consequence on either one of those routes. They are jungle routes. All of us have visited them. The Darien Route, as you recall, is about 44 miles in length, Route 25 is over 100 miles. Ihere is, subject to political considerations, a very definite statement that we can make, that those routes, in whole or in part, are possible places for nuclear excavation if it is allowed, and it can be done for much less expense than a conventionally excavated canal. Mr. Morris. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Davis. DISCTJSSION or ROUTE 10 Mr. Davis. As a practical thing, the 10-mile-away route, I will call it, from the present canal ; would all of that route still be within the boundaries of the existing Canal Zone? That is, the route that is 10 miles away from the present canal ? Mr. Storey. No, sir, not all of it. General Noble. Practically none of it, in fact. Practically all of it is outside of the zone. A very small part of it cuts across the lake in the zone. Mr. Davis. Have you been required to reach the conclusion that be- cause of the proximity to population areas and installations, that nu- clear excavation would be impractical with respect to the Route 10 ? General Noble. Yes, sir. Mr. Storey. Or the present canal, either. General Noble. It is just too close. We would have so much damage that the cost would be astronomical. You would have to have evacua- tion in the built-up areas where there would be the shock — they would be shaken pretty hard. So these we consider conventional routes and look to conventional techniques to build them and are so estimating them in our engineering study. practical problems TTSnSTG NUCLEAR EXCAVATION Mr. Davis. You have indicated that generally it looks as if we could do it ; first of all, you foresee no great practical problems in nuclear excavation at this stage of the game ? General Noble. No, sir. Mr. Davis. And nuclear excavation would probably cut the cost about in half, at least, in that general ball park ? General Noble. Yes. Mr. Davis. And would probably save a great deal of time ? General Noble. It would save some time, yes. General Fields. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt again. I would have to disagree with the answer that we see no practical problems to nuclear excavation. Our whole investigation is directed at looking at the practical problems. There are lots of them. This does not mean we won't find in 2 or 3 years that we won't Imow how to surmount them, but we certainly don't know how to surmount one or 1634 two of them now. So I wouldn't want you to be misled that if we stop now it is practical to build a nuclear-excavated canal. It would not be if we stop right now. Mr. Oakley. If I may add to this : We will be before the subcommit- tee again to justify the appropriation of funds to the Atomic Energy Commission for our Plowshare program, and these funds will be used, of course, to carry out experunents such as those described to obtain the answer to the question about the practical problems. INIr. Morris. Yes — we will review the Plowshare request when we take up the Atomic Energy Commission budget. Mr. Davis. Tliat is all I have. Mr. Morris. Are there any other questions of any of the subcom- mittee members? The gentleman from Arizona? NEED FOR REAUTHORIZATION' Mr. Rhodes. I have no questions. I hope the legislative committee will see fit to reauthorize your study so that we can relieve your finan- cial crmich. Mr. Storey. We are optimistic about it. Mr. Rhodes. I have a lot of faith in what you are doing. I think it is very important. We hope we can get the job done as soon as possible, as thoroughly as possible. Mr. Morris. The committee appreciates your statements and wants to commend you. Commissioner Storey, General Noble, Mr. Sheffey, and the members of your staff, for your fine statement and for the demonstrated knowledge, not only of the technical, but of the political and other problems that you are encountering in this difficult study. Without objection, the committee will adjourn until Monday morn- ing at 10 o'clock. Monday, April 1, 1968. CEMETERIAL EXPENSES, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WITNESSES COL. DONALD L. WARDLE, CHIEF, MEMORIAL DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF SUPPORT SERVICES LT. COL. WILFRED F. FLOYD, CHIEF, CEMETERY BRANCH, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF SUPPORT SERVICES LEO J. WALKER, SUPERVISORY GENERAL ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF SUPPORT SERVICES BOBBIE R. BELLER, SUPERVISORY GENERAL ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF SUPPORT SERVICES EARL W. ZIEG, SUPERVISORY CEMETERY OPERATIONS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF SUPPORT SERVICES BENJAMIN R. WALTHALL, BUDGET OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF SUPPORT SERVICES JOHN W. RUDDY, GENERAL ENGINEER, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGI- NEERS ESTIMATING SECTION JAMES CAMP, BUDGET ANALYST, OFFICE, COMPTROLLER OF THE ARMY 1635 ■■,.;., J OBJECT CLASSIFICATION (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) i;.^.rj[,.;i) •jl^'f . ,'-:<■' i\'r '■ ... . , :' 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Personnel compensation: 11.1 Permanent positions- .- 6,101 6,414 . 6,182 11.3 Positionsother than permanent.. 1 ' 245 169 177 11.5 Other personnel compensation Jil.»i^..JJ.-..^.J..^ 82 88 95 11.8 Special personal service payments • 4-.-1.* 55 54 56 Total personnel compensation 6,483 6,725 6,510 12.0 Personnel benefits 517 507 520 21.0 Travel and transportation of persons ^.. 63 77 83 22.0 Transportation of things 556 603 615 23.0 Rent, communications, and utilities .Ji J"!j; 204 240 241 25.1 Other services... _ _ • ,• 753 613 569 25.2 Services of other agencies -93 87 112 26.0 Supplies and materials... 510 545 598 31.0 Equipment 4,469 4,785 4,938 32.0 Lands and structures , 2,968 6,301 1,513 SubtotaL 16,616 20,483 15,699 95.0 Quarters and subsistence charges —42 —45 —47' 99.0 Total obligations 16,574 20,438 15,652 PERSONNEL SUMMARY Total number of permanent positions.. Full-time equivalent of other positions. Average number of all employees Average GS grade. Average GS salary. Average salary of ungraded positions.. 1,025 973 1,010 61 30 30 1,022.3 1,000 1,028 5.9 5.9 5.7 $6, 963 $7,291 $7,115 $5,905 $6, 006 $5. 052 PROGRAM AND FINANCING (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) 1967 actual 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Program by activities: 1. Operation and maintenance 2. Construction 3. Headstone procurement.. 4. Administration 5. Special construction, Arlington National Cemetery. 10 Total obligations Financing: 21 Unobligated balance available, start of year 24 Unobligated balance available, end of year 25 Unobligated balance lapsing. 40 New obligational authority (appropriation) Relation of obligations to expenditures: 71 Total obligations (affecting expenditures).. 72 Obligated balance, start of year 74 Obligated balance, end of year... 77 Adjustments in expired accounts... 90 Expenditures Expenditures are distributed as follows: 01 Out of current authorizations.. 02 Out of prior authorizations. 7, 445 3, 304 7,642 575 5,006 1,175 6,040 7,743 964 4, 778 1,047 5,138 1,165 642 16, 574 -122 643 20, 438 -643 643 762 .... 15,652 -643 643 53 17,148 21,200 15,652 16, 574 20, 438 4,431 -5,600 15,652 2,658 5,600 -4,431 -3 ... -4, 000 14, 798 12,940 19, 269 14, 839 4,430 17,252 11,652 1,858 5,600 Mr. KiRWAN. We will now hear the request for cemeterial expenses. Do you have a statement, Colonel ? Colonel Wardle. Yes, sir ; I have. Mr. KiRWAN. Please proceed. General Statement Colonel Wardle. I am Col. Donald L. Wardle, Chief, Memorial Division. 91-459—68 — pt. 1- -104 1636 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, an appropriation of $15,652,000 is requested for cemeterial expenses, Army, for fiscal year 1969. This amomit represents a decrease of $4,786,000 from programed obligations in fiscal year 1968, which total $20,438,000. Actually, in fiscal year 1968 we plan to obligate $762,000 less than the fiscal year 1968 appropriation. Reductions in fiscal year 1968 have been made primarily in operation and maintenance of national ceme- teries and to some extent in procurement of headstones and markers. Savings in operation and maintenance are possible because of a re- duction in interments. Savings in headstones and markers result from a lower-than-estimated average price. The fiscal year 1969 appropriation request of $15,652,000 now before your committee is $5,548,000 less than was appropriated in fiscal year 1968. The reduction, except for $10,000 in administration, is reflected entirely in the Arlington National Cemetery construction program. The balance of my statement will be directed toward the appropria- tion request for fiscal year 1969 versus programed obligations for fis- cal year 1968 (rather than the amount appropriated). OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE We are requesting $7,743,000 for fiscal year 1969 to defray costs in- cident to operation and maintenance of the national cemeteries. This is $101,000 more than we now plan to use in fiscal year 1968. PERSONNEL For personnel, and I am speaking of the labor force in the national cemeteries, we have asked for funds to achieve 865 man-years, which is an increase of 44 above fiscal year 1968, The increase will be applied mostly to maintenance of an additional 36,600 developed gravesites. We shall have about a million and a half gravesites to maintain in fiscal year 1969. The other major categories of expense in this account are contrac- tual services and supplies and acquisition of capital assets, both of which will require relatively small increases above the amounts we now plan to obligate in fiscal year 1968. PROCUREMENT OF HEADSTONES AND MARKERS We project the procurement of 195,000 headstones and ffrave mark- ers in fiscal year 1969 at a total cost of $5,138,000. Our fiscal year 1968 program assumes 190,000 units costing $5,006,000. In essence, $132,000 additional is requested about the fiscal year 1968 programed spending. MASTER PLAN AT ARLINGTON The time frame for completing the master plan for Arlington Na- tional Cemetery has been extended. We are i-etpiesting only $642,000 in fiscal year 1969, a significant decrease from the $6,040,000 appropri- ated for fiscal year 1968. The $642,000 will provide comiiletion of the interim parking lot in the south post addition started in fiscal year 1968, as well as permit us 1637 to close Ar]inaint and oil .storage room will be provided. The i)resent coal-fired stove (pot-bellied type) uti- lized for heating the service building will be replaced vsith a more modern, efficient and safe sy.stem. New Bern National Cemetery, N.C. (Rebuild cemetery drives) 19,000 The limited road system has deteriorated beyond repair due to failure of the road sub-base. The road will be removed and replaced with a permanent road. 1643 Four miscellaneous projects — Continued City Point Cemetery. Va. (Entrance road and parking area) $5. 000 The funeral cortege except for hearse and family car must park outside cemetery on a narrow city sitreet. This project will provide for a limited entrance road and parking area. Rock Island National Cemetery, 111. (Temporary dikes and hy- drauUc fill) 65, GOO Total 135,200 To minimize further land development costs in this area where fill material is at a premium, .some 61,000 cubic yards of hydraulic fill will be placed in ad- vance of development. The fill will have time to drain and settle prior to development. Advance planning, engineering and design : Fi.scal year 1970 advanced engineering and design at cemeteries except Arlington National Cemetery $59, 200 Fiscal year 1971 advance planning 9, 500 Total 68, 700 Government supervision, administration and inspection in connec- tion with fiscal year 1968 construction program 1.5, 050 Grand total 964. 000 LAND DE\^LOPMENT PROJECTS Mr. KiRWAN. Please explain the need for three land development projects on page 8 at a total cost of $482,900. Lieutenant Colonel Floyd. Our land development projects include one at the Fort Logan National Cemetery of 14 acres, a 4-acre devel- opment at the Keokuk National Cemetery, and 4-plus acres at Balti- more. These land development projects are required to make additional gravesites available to prevent interruption of interments. ADMINISTRATION Mr. KiRWAN. $1,165,000 is requested for administration, a decrease of $10,000. We will insert page 12 of the justifications. (The justification follows :) (5) A decrease of $10,000 is budgeted for administration. Plan of work. — To continue providing staff and technical supervision of the national cemetery activities and headstone activities. Funds will provide for pay, benefits and travel expenses of personnel as well as administrative ex- penses. The man-year utilization will be as follows : MAN-YEAR RECAPITULATION National cemetery activities Headstone activities Administrative and staff services Total 136 Actual, Estimate fiscal year 1967 Fiscal year Fiscal year 1968 1969 54 55 56 63 68 69 19 21 22 144 147 We will insert the balance of the justifications including the explana- tion of language changes and the location and status of national ceme- tery gravesites. (The information follows:) 1644 Language Changes Including the decrease in tlie appropriation amount, there are three changes in the Fiscal Year 1969 appropriation language. These are explained below. (1) Decrease in the amount to be appropriated from $21,200,000 to $15,652,000. (2) Purchase of nine passenger sedans, including three additional and replace- ment of six meeting the criteria of 10 years of age or having been used 60,000 miles. Meets replacement National cemetery Sedan criteria Mileage Age Additional: Long Island. N.Y - Fort Bliss, Tex.. - _ - Fort Logan, Colo Replacement: Andersonville, Ga 1959 model with 18,136 miles.. Nashville, Tenn 1959 model with 94,569 miles.. Fort Sam Houston, Tex 1959 model with 23.393 miles.. Willamette, Oreg 1961 model with 115.341 miles. Jefferson Barracks, Mo.. 1962 model with 62,414 miles.. Fort Snelling, Minn. 1959 model with 48,200 miles.. (3) Decrease in the amount associated with construction at Arlington Na- tional Cemetery to be made available until expended (no-year funds) from $6,040,000 to $642,000. STANDARD CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE FOR DIRECT OBLIGATIONS [In thousands of dollars] 1968 estimate 1969 estimate Increase (+) or decrease (—) 11. Personnel compensation 12.0 Personnel benefits 21. Travel and transportation of persons. 22. Transportation of things 23. Rent, communications, and utilities... 25. 1 Other services 25. 2 Services of other agencies 26.0 Supplies and materials 31. Equipment.. 32. Land and structures Total direct obligations Plus Total appropriation or estimate 6,680 6,463 -217 507 520 +13 77 83 -1-6 603 615 4-12 240 241 -t-1 613 569 -44 87 112 -f25 545 598 +53 4,785 4,938 +153 6,301 1,513 -4,788 20, 438 762 21,200 15,652 15,652 -4,786 -762 -5,548 LOCATION AND STATUS OF NATIONAL CEMETERY GRAVESITES, DEC. 31, 1967 Gravesites Gravesites Gravesites used reserved available i Close out dale (fiscal year) 2 Alexandria National Cemetery, Pineville, La 5,007 Alexandria National Cemetery, Alexandria, Va 4,012 Alton National Cemetery, Alton, III 478 Andersonville National Cemetery, Andersonville, Ga 14,658 Annapolis National Cemetery, Annapolis, Md 2,844 Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Va 134,885 Balls Bluff National Cemetery, Leesburg, Va 25 Baltimore National Cemetery, Baltimore, Md 25,041 Barrancas National Cemetery, Warrington, Fla 6, 163 Baton Rouge National Cemetery, Baton Rouge, La 4.971 Beaufort National Cemetery, Beaufort, S.C 10,087 Beverly National Cemetery, Beverly, N.J 33,239 Black Hills National Cemetery, Sturgis, S. Dak 2,662 Camp Butler National Cemetery, Springfield, III 5, 101 Camp Nelson National Cemetery, Nicholasville, Ky 5,231 See footnotes at end of table, p. 1645. 209 1,176 1981. 31 4 Closed. 52 3 Do. 34 61,004 Beyond 2000. 64 1 Closed. 22,123 26, 063 1976.3 Closed. 5,458 5,133 1971. 740 9,326 1994. 95 2 Closed. 224 6,717 Beyond 2000. 6,706 5 Closed. 614 58,953 Beyond 2000. 500 16,616 Do. 113 1 Closed. 1645 LOCATION AND STATUS OF NATIONAL CEMETERY GRAVESITES, DEC. 31, 1967— Continued Gravesites Gravesites Gravesites used reserved available i Close out date (fiscal year) » Cave Hill National Cemetery, Louisville, Ky_ 5,621 Chattanooga National Cemetery, Chattanooga, Tenn 19,547 City Point National Cemetery, Hopewell, Va 4,852 Cold Harbor National Cemetery, Richmond, Va 886 Corinth National Cemetery, Corinth, Miss. 6,021 Crown Hill National Cemetery, Indianapolis, Ind. 794 Culpeper National Cemetery, Culpeper, Va 1,674 Cypress Hills National Cemetery, Brooklyn, N.Y 18,486 Danville National Cemetery, Danville, Ky 393 Danville National Cemetery, Danville, Va 1,962 Fayetteville National Cemetery, Fayetteviile, Ark 2,469 Finn's Point National Cemetery, Salem, N.J 2,703 Florence National Cemetery, Florence, S.C.. 3,662 Fort Bliss National Cemetery, Fort Bliss, Tex.. 7,468 Fort Gibson National Cemetery, Fort Gibson, Okla. 5,043 Fort Harrison National Cemetery, Richmond, Va.. 1,003 Fort Leavenworth National Cemetery, Fort Leavenworth, Kans... _ 11,087 Fort Logan National Cemetery, Denver, Colo 8,307 Fort McPherson National Cemetery, Maxwell, Nebr 2,498 Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery, San Diego, Calif 39,640 Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery, San Antonio, Tex.. 20, 141 Fort Scott National Cemetery, Fort Scott, Kans 2,171 Fort Smith National Cemetery, Fort Smith, Ark 3,950 FortSnelling National Cemetery, SL Paul, Minn _. 36,080 Glendale National Cemetery, Richmond, Va. 825 Golden Gate National Cemetery, San Bruno, Calif. 87,216 Grafton National Cemetery, Grafton, W. Va_. 2,056 Hampton National Cemetery, Hampton, Va 20,026 Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery, St. Louis, Mo 39,674 Jefferson City National Cemetery, Jefferson City, Mo 1,491 Keokuk National Cemetery, Keokuk, Iowa.. 2,007 Knoxville National Cemetery Knoxville, Tenn___ 6,373 Lebanon National Cemetery, Lebanon, Ky.. 1,292 Lexington National Cemetery, Lexington, Ky... 1,383 Little Rock National Cemetery, Little Rock, Ark. 11,732 Long Island National Cemetery, Farmingdale, Long Is- 131,781 land, N.Y. Loudon Park National Cemetery, Baltimore, Md. 6,088 Marietta National Cemetery, Marietta, Ga 14,900 Memphis National Cemetery, Memphis, Tenn 22,039 Mill Springs National Cemetery, West Somerset, Ky 1, 156 Mobile National Cemetery, Mobile, Ala. 3,443 Mound City National Cemetery, Mound City, ML. 6,313 Nashville National Cemetery, Madison, Tenn 20,712 Natchez National Cemetery, Natchez, Miss 4,322 National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu, 18,896 Hawaii. New Albany National Cemetery, New Albany, Ind 4,825 New Bern National Cemetery, New Bern, N.C 4,199 Perryville National Cemetery, Perryville, Ky. Philadelphia National Cemetery, Philadelphia, Pa 10,081 Port Hudson National Cemetery. Zachary, La 4.731 Puerto Rico National Cemetery, San Juan, P.R 5,619 Quincy National Cemetery, Quincy, 111 439 Raleigh National Cemetery. Raleigh, N.C 2,233 Richmond National Cemetery, Richmond. Va 7,033 Rock Island National Cemetery, Rock Island, III. 6,408 St. Augustine National Cemetery, St. Augustine, Fla 1,076 Salisbury National Cemetery, Salisbury, N.C 13,253 San Antonio National Cemetery, San Antonio, Tex 2,999 San Francisco National Cemetery, San Francisco, Calif... 21,700 Sante Fe National Cemetery, Santa Fe, N. Mex 5,234 Seven Pines National Cemetery, Sandston, Va._ _. 1,084 Sitka National Cemetery, Sitka, Alaska 426 Soldiers' Home National Cemetery, Washington, D.C 12,437 Springfield National Cemetery, Springfield, Mo 5, 115 Staunton National Cemetery, Staunton, Va 785 Willamette National Cemetery, Portland, Greg 19.310 Wilmington National Cemetery, Wilmington, N.C ._ 3,423 Winchester National Cemetery, Winchester, Va 4,860 Woodlawn National Cemetery, Elmira, N.Y... 5,862 Zachary Taylor National Cemetery, Louisville, Ky 7,457 2 2 Closed. 914 38, 836 Beyond 2000. 102 581 1978. 68 1970. 38 7,442 Beyond 2000. Closed. 29 1,173 Beyond 2000. 88 15 Closed. 2 1 Do. 48 98 1970. 189 834 1978. 2 Closed. 97 866 1981. 1,597 26, 424 Beyond 2000. 238 14, 510 Do. 3 12 Closed. 891 7,075 1981. 1,141 65,621 Beyond 2000. 144 6,964 Do. 3,551 1 Closed. 4,525 12,702 1977. 168 3,633 Beyond 2000. 330 4,545 1996. 16,841 219,041 Beyond 2000. 386 1970. 12,645 12 Closed. 66 1 Do. 670 673 1969. 3,990 142, 822 Beyond 2000. 105 24 1969. 112 9,748 Beyond 2000. 371 333 1970. 47 376 1975. Closed. 542 5,548 1985. 17,082 90, 368 1975. 9 263 1971. 615 930 1971. 937 3,549 1976. 57 966 Beyond 2000. 375 Closed. 118 233 1991. 632 9,767 1995. 91 524 1982. 766 6,833 1980. 243 Closed. 140 1,160 1993. Closed. 66 Do. 48 1,812 1984. 1,743 34,493 Beyond 2000. 2 140 1995. 115 2,708 1998. 410 11 Closed. 469 9,476 1986. 48 Closed. 92 979 1983. 42 1 Closed. 1,082 Do. 643 15,897 1996. 4 Closed. 3 187 1993. 45 1,727 1979. 397 2,619 1979. 10 34 1971. 3,579 98,185 Beyond 2000. 117 845 1982. 71 71 1969. 341 143 1969. 1,814 2 Closed. ' Includes estimated gravesites In undeveloped area. 2 Cemeteries indicated as "closed" will continue to make interments of eligible family members In occupied gravesites and previously reserved gravesites. s The remaining portion of Fort Myer South Post containing some 91 acres of land is scheduled for reassignment to the cemetery in fiscal year 1974. This area will have an approximate gravesite yield of 39,000 and meet anticipated gravesite requirements until 1986. 1646 '• ■ Expansion of five national cemeteries Mr. IviRWAN. Last year the Congress appropriated $643,000 to -expand five national cemeteries. On February 23, 1968, tlie committee was informed by the Secretary of tlie Army that administrative and engineering measures had been taken to generate sufficient space, not ■only in these five cemeteries, but in virtually all national cemeteries to satisfy Vietnam requirements. We will insert a copy of the letter at this point in the record. (The letter follows:) Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., Fehruary 23, 1968. Hon. George H. Mahon, Chairman. Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Chairman : Subsequent to the hearings before the Public Works Appropriation Subcommittee in February 1067. at which representatives of the Department of Defense supported a request for supplemental funds for fiscal year 1967, Congress appropriated $643,000 to expand five national cemeteries by a total of 32 acres. The expansion plan was formulated within the Department of Defense to assure availability of gravesites for Vietnam fatalities at cemeteries where burial space recently had been or soon would be exhausted. In the meantime adminis- trative and engineering measures have been taken which, at the current rate of fatalities and gravesite utilization, have generated sufficient space, not only in these five cemeteries, but in virtually all national cemeteries, to satisfy Viet- nam requirements. In his January 30. 1968, message to Congress on America's servicemen and veterans, the President outlined a more comprehensive approach to the national cemetery question. He voiced the expectation that the recommendations of the T'.S. A'eterans' Advisory Commission, which is completing a year's study of all veterans' programs, will include proposals to make national cemetery facilities available to all veterans at locations that are reasonably close to their homes. The limited plan for expansion of five cemeteries by small increments would not contribute to. and could well detract from, the President's announced objec- tives on behalf of the Nation's veterans. Accordingly, the five-cemetery expansion plan has been deferred, pending a more complete formulation of the expansion policies and plans following analysis of the Advisory Commission's report. T wanted you to know of this change in plans affecting a matter which your committee had considered. Sincerely. Stanley R. Resor. Seerctarii of the Armi/. "Sir. KiRWAN. Please outline the i^teps taken to alleviate this space problem. Colonel Wardle. Mr. Chairman, wlien the fi\ e cemeteries in question were being closed, and we realized the urgent requiivment for grave spaces for those killed in Vietnam, we took certain engineei'ing meas- ures initially to take care of the situation until the cemeteries were expanded. The.se were projects such as closing roads and paths that we did not any longer consider absolutely essential. These areas were converted into gravesites. In addition, any gravesite that became available through cancel- lation — and I am talking al)out spouses, widows who remarried — they then lose their right to be buried in the national cemetery — these spaces were then held exclusively for the burial of fatalities from Vietnam. 1647 Mr. KiRWAN. What did you do with the $643,000 ? Colonel Wadle. $643,000 was never released to us. u Mr. KiRWAN. It is being held in reserve by the Budget Bureau ? Colonel Wardle. Yes. ■);! )!;'•' Mr. Kirwan. Mr. Morris. Mr. Morris. I only have one question. . j BIDS FOR \^SIT0RS CENl'ER AND PARKING LOT Colonel Floyd, you said proposals were being evaluated for the temporary visitor center and parking lot. What do you mean, by pro- posjils? What procedures do you follow in soliciting proposals? Lieutenant Colonel Floyd. The Army Corps of Engineers, of course, are the ones who are working with this. They have a bidders' list and anyone who is on this bidders' list gets an invitation for bids. Mr. Morris. What if a man isn't on the bidders' list? Lieutenant Colonel Floyd. If he requests a copy of the Invitation for Bids, he can obtain it. Mr. Morris. Is it a competitive bid ? Lieutenant Colonel Floyd. Yes, it is a competitive bid. Mr. Morris. Does the contract go to the lowest bidder or do you fol- low a procedure of receiving proposals and then have a review board decide which is the best ? Lieutenant Colonel Floyd. Sir, I will defer to the Army Engineer witness on this question. Mr. Ruddy. They have invitations for bids, and these go out to the contractors who send in for specifications listed in this invitation and they bid on these particular quantities that are on this invitation for bid schedule. The sealed bid comes into the Norfolk district office and it IS opened up by the district engineer. He determines who is the lowest bidder. Mr. Morris. What is the status of the bidding on this contract ? Mr. Beller. I am the project engineer for Arlington. The bids for this particular job were open invitations and were closed March 21, at which time bids were opened. As it stands today, the low acceptable bidder is Construction Limited Co. of New Jersey. The bids are being evaluated and money is being made available to the corps to award the contract. Mr. Morris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURIAL SPACE FOR WIDOWS OF VETERANS Mr. KiRWAN. Colonel, you mentioned the burial rights of certain widows of the veterans. Do they have special plots for them, or are they buried next to their husbands ? Colonel Wardle. Mr. Chairman, this would depend on the date of interment. For many years we made side-by-side burials. In 1961 we changed to single gravesites per family. In all cemeteries except Fort Snellmg. We are unable to do it at Snelling because of the sandv soil condition. We are unable to safely go to a depth of 7 feet because of the possibility of cave-ins. NoAv, if a widow had a side-by-side reservation that she had received sometime in the past when we were doing this and she remarries, that 1648 gravesite is made available. Those that have remarried since the one gravesite per family went in effect — of course it doesn't release a gravesite. I can give you one example at Beverly National Cemetery in Beverly, N.J. We find that our canceled reservations are staying just a little bit ahead of our requirements for gravesites. I might say that some of these engineering changes, in my opinion, weren't the best for the cemetery, but it was a measure that we had to take to insure that gravesites were available. For instance, in Golden Gate National Cemetery at San Bruno, Calif., we took out a road which we had been able to use for our trucks to haul dirt and sod into that area for backfilling the graves. Now this has to be done by wheelbarrow or some other means. So it has added to our work. But at the same time it has made gravesites available for our boys that are killed in Vietnam. Does that answer your question ^ Mr. KiRWAisr. Yes. Mr. Rhodes. SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF FIVE CEMETERIES Mr. Rhodes. Colonel, as I recall, the $643,000 for five cemeteries was appropriated as a result of a supplemental request which is supposed to have reflected the necessity for taking care of Vietnam veterans. I am a little bit at a loss to know why this money Avas reserved. Can you tell us how the crisis was passed without expenditure of that money ^ Colonel Wardle. The expansion of these cemeteries was initially recommended by veterans' organizations. The supplemental act, of course, gave us $643,000 for the expansion of these five cemeteries. We, meaning the Office of the Chief of Support Sendees, and the Corps of Engineers, completed the study for expansion of these five ceme- teries. Our report was submitted through channels and there are many factors that had to be taken into consideration. We were trying, wherever possible, to acquire land that was contiguous to the cemetery itself. This proved extremeh^ difficult and very expensive at some of the cemeteries and didn't meet with the entire approval of the local citizens in the area. I can speak specifically of Golden Gate National Cemetery. The 10 acres that we considered, which were contiguous to the cemetery itself, were for sale, but at $60,000 an acre. This would have amounted to $600,000 for Golden Gate itsel f . Fort Rosecrans, on the other hand, there is no way to expand that. It sits upon the top of a hill and the ground around it is controlled by the Navy, who has plans for that. We considered several other sites of federally owned land, but they weren't next to the cemetery, and this, in effect, would have l)een opening a new national cemetery. You can't administer an annex or another cemetery 14 miles away or 28 miles away and still con- sider it an expansion to the existing cemetery. It is a new cemetery and you must realize that when and if we would open a cemetery like that, it would be a new cemetery to the national cemetery system. 1649 Mr. KiRWAx. It concerns me to hear that the price at Golden Gate was $60,000 an acre to provide additional burial ground for our veterans. (Off the record). Mr. Rhodes. Colonel, you still haven't answered my original ques- tion about how you got over this supposed crisis without spending that $643,000. You told us why it was difficult to work out the problems with regard to the five cemeteries, but what did you do ? Colonel Wardle. At about the time these five cemeteries were clos- ing — and they had one thing in common, they all closed within ap- proximately the same time frame — the two cemeteries in California were the last national cemeteries we had in California. Fort Rosecrans and Golden Gate. The one in Beverly was closing down, and the other two were also critical. We realized that we required gravesites for our men who were being killed in Vietnam. As I mentioned before, we took certain measures to insure that we did have gravesites for these men. We took out roads and paths and we then retained all the canceled reservations, exclusively for the burial of Vietnam casualties. We control that in the Office of the Chief of Support Services. The superintendent must obtain our approval for burial in these gravesites, and we can tell, at a minute's notice, how many graves we have left in any of the national cemeteries. When a cemetery is about to close or is at the critical .stage, we then, for all intents and purposes, close interments there to the normal deaths and reserve those spaces for Vietnam fatalities. Mr. Rhodes. So you were able to find gravesites for the Vietnam fatalities without expenditure of the $643,000 ? Col. Wardle. Yes. Not only in the five cemeteries, but in nearly every cemetery in the national cemetery system, open or closed. Mr. Rhodes. Thank you. That is all. Col. Wardle. There is another consideration at Golden Gate, Mr. Chairman. There will be a new expressway coming right past the cemetery and this is not the most desirable situation for a national cemetery with the trucks and buses and the cars whizzing by. The traffic problem will be very acute as soon as that is completed. As there will be a loopway off this expressway right at the site of the present Golden Gate National Cemetery. Mr. KiRWAN. We are glad to have had you with us this morning. Thank you for appearing. Col. Wardle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen. ct-fr-O S'^h'/^'t^^ .J-)ii . LIST OF WITNESSES Page Ackerman, J. O 486 Anderson, Lt. Col. F. E 1 Bare, H. R 61 Barnes, C. B .. 331 Barrett, E. A 221 Bartos, Albert 486 Bawcombe, W. E 290 Becker, Morris 486 Beller, B. R 1634 Bierman, G. G - 241 Bradley, Brig. Gen. W. T 2, 61 Brooke, P. E 870 Browder, Lt. Col. J. M 1615 Bucv, C. W 290 Bush, M. E 727 Cain, Col. J. W 2 Camp, J. C 2 Camp, James 1 634 Campbell, D. A 241 Campbell, H. V 290 Cannon, Brig. Gen. C. C 1, 486 Carver, J. W 61 Cassidy, Lt. Gen. W. F 1 Cavanaugh, J. C 1 Chin, Bing 589 Clark, E. W 1615 Coffman, C. T 290 Cohen, Harry 1 Condon, L. P 269 Cooper, J. C, Jr 321 Covne, J. T 241 Da\^is, A. J 727 Dillard, Brig. Gen. J. A. B 2, 221 Edens, C. T 1017 Feil, L. G 1, 1376 Fernald, G. H 362 Fields, Brig. Gen. K. E 1615 Floyd, Lt. Col. W. F 1634 Gardner, 0. L 61 Graef, Col. J. A 2,870 Grant, C. L 241, 255, 269, 290, 312, 321, 331 Greess, L. H 269 Gurnee, M. S 1, 1376 Hall, Lt. Col. D. D 1 Hasprav, Joseph 33 1 Hayes, Maj. Gen. T. J 2, 1017 Hertzler, R. A 2 Humphrey, H. N 221 Johnson, W. E 1, 1376 Kaminski, J. J 241,2.55,269,290,312, 321 Koisch, Brig. Gen. F. P 1, 1131 Leber, Maj. Gen. W. P 1494 Lessiack, Robert 1 194 Lewis, H. R 312 Listermann, L. R i 870 Lohmann, Alexander 1131 (ij 91-459— 6S—pt. 1 105 II Page MacDonnell, Maj. Gen. R. G 1,727 Marks, Frank 362 McCarvUl, T. J 1615 McConachie, D. W 1615 McCormick, J. H 312 McGuinness, Col. W. V., Jr 1 Mehren, Dr. G. L 241, 255 Mondrillo, George 1131 Mostow, Elmer 331 Moiiton, L. L 1615 Needham, Lt. Col. W. R 1 Nelson, Lt. Col. T. W 1376 Noble, Brig. Gen. C. C 1, 1376, 1615 Northrop, V. D 1116 Oakley, William 1615 Oliveri, B. L 255 Peterson, G. G 589, 1017 Pick, Lt. Col. L. A., Jr 1, 355 Plunkett, Lt. Col. J. J 1, 1376 Renier, Col. Rerai O 2 Rintala, E. S 2.55 Robertson, J. M 312, 321, 331 Rogers, Will 331 Roth, W. H. G 727 Ruddy, J. W 1634 Seidell, Col. R. L 1 Shannon, A. V 61 Shea, F. A 312 Sheffey, J. P 1615 Sherrod, John 255 Shulman, E. M 290 Smallwood, J. A 321 Smet, A. J 1 Smith, E. F 61 Steers, P. L., Jr 1494 Storey, R. G 1516 Suto, W. A 269 Tarbox, Brig. Gen. R. M 1, 589 Tofani, B. J 1 Tormey, Lt. Col. J. H 1, 1615 Walker, L. J 1634 Walthall, B. R 1634 Wardle, Col. D. L 1634 Webb, Gordon 312 Whitman, Merrill 1615 Whitman, W. M 1494 Wolfe, Lt. Col. W. G 1 Woodburv, Brig. Gen. H. G., Jr 1 Wrocklage, J. F 1131 Yates, Brig. Gen. E. P 1, 362 Zieg, E. W 1634 INDEX Page Alabama River channel improvement, Alabama 1072, 1113 Alameda Creek (Del Valle Reservoir), Calif 276 Albuquerque diversion channels project, New Mexico 173 Alsea River and tributaries, Oregon 380 Alum Creek Reservoir, Ohio 920, 1013 Ames Reservoir, Iowa 629 Amity River, Bayou Alanchac, and Comite River tributaries, Lousiana__ 736 Anaheim Bay Harbor, Calif 320 Ansonia-Derby, Conn 1357, 1367 Apalachicola River channel improvement, Florida 1076 Apalachicola River "308" report 1033, 1036 Appalachian region studies 883 Arkansas-Red River chloride control 100 Arkansas River 150 And tributaries; bank stabilization and channel rectification 150 And tributaries, Great Bend, Kans., to Tulsa, Okla 77 And tributaries, navigation locks and dams 153 And tributaries, Oklahoma 206, 209 Economic development 113 Maintenance and repair fleet 217 Arrow Lakes Reservoir, Canada 424 Ascalmore-Tippo, Miss 868 Atchafalaya Basin, La 862, 869 Atchison, Kans 554, 577 Atlantic-Pacific Interoceanic Canal Study Commission 1615 Authorization, increase in 1628 Data collection program 1630 Financing methods 1629 Justification of the estimate 1628 Nuclear excavation 1631 Reauthorization, need for 1634 Athens, Ohio 968 Aylesworth Creek Reservoir, Pa 1268, 1291 Back Cove, Portland Harbor, Maine 1304 Baker Brook, Mass 1306 Baltimore Harbor and channels, Maryland 1243 Barkley Dam, Ky. and Tenn 997 Bass River, Mass 1304 Bayou Bartholomew, Ark. and La 740, 753 Bayou Bodcau and tributaries, Arkansas and Louisiana 750 Bayou Lafourche and Lafourche-Jump Waterway, La 794, 819 Beech Fork Lake, W. Va 989, 1015 Belton Reservoir, Tex 102 Beltzville Reservoir, Pa 1270, 1288, 1292 Bethel Harbor, Alaska 389 Big Bend-Lake Sharpe, S. Dak 572 Big Blue River, Nebr. and Kans 510, 512 Big Darby Reservoir, Ohio 927, 1014 Big Mulben-y Creek, Ark 77, 84 Big Pine Reservoir, Wabash River Basin, Ind 891 Big Sandy River and tributaries, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Virginia. _ 882 Big Stone Lake-Whetstone River, Minn, and S. Dak 656, 711 Biloxi Harbor, Miss 1089 Black Rock Reservoir, Conn 1359, 1369 Blue Marsh Reservoir, Pa 1235, 1288 (III) IV PBgO- Blue River Reservoir, Oreg 473, 475' Bloomington Reservoir, ]\Id. and W. Va 1226' Bolinas Bay, Calif 24&. Bonneville lock and dam, Oregon and Washington, second p&werhoiase 398 Bradley Lake, Alaska 396, 405, 408 Broken Bow Reservoir, Okla 204 Brookville Reservoir, Ind 950' Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas 139 Bureau Creek, 111 .-l-.-.- 613' Burns Waterway Harbor, Ind 621 Burnsville Lake, W. Va . 933, 1015 Caddo Dam, La 770' Caesar Creek Reservoir, Ohio 969, 1014 Canaveral Harbor, Fla 1114 Candy Reservoir, Okla 95 Cape Cod Canal, Mass 1366' Cape Fear River, N.C 1054, 1115 Carolina Beach and vicinity, North Carolina 1096 CarrFork Reservoir, Ky 957, 1016. Carters Dam, Ga 1068 Cascadia Reservoir, Oreg 402' Catherine Creek Reservoir, Oreg 391 Cave Run Reservoir, Ky 913 Cemeterial expenses. Department of the Army 1634 Administration 1 643 Arlington National Cemetery, special construction 1640 Construction, other national cemeteries 1641 Expansion of cemeteries 1646, 1648 Headstones and markers, purchase of 1639 Justification of the estimate 1637 Land development 1 643 Language changes 1644 Operation and maintenance 1639 Central and Southern Florida flood control project 1060 Central Oklahoma project 76,. 87 Charleston Harbor, S.C - 1034i Charlevoix Harbor. Mich 611, 617 Charlotte Harbor (Port Charlotte), Fla 1036. Chariton River, Mo 564 Chartiers Creek, Pa 982 Chatfield Reservoir, Colo 528- Chesapeake Bay area 1203. Chetco River, Oreg 409. Chief Joseph Dam, Wash., additional power units 399 Claiborne lock and dam, Alabama 1074 Clarence Cannon Dam and Reservoir, Mo 811 Clarence J. Brown Dam and Reservoir, Ohio 972' Clayton Reservoir, Okla 96. Clear Creek and Clear Lake, Tex 82 Cleveland Harbor, Mich 710 Cleveland Harbor, Ohio 672 Clifty Creek Reservoir, Ind 892 Clinton Reservoir, Kans 534,580' Cochiti Reservoir, Rio Grande, N. Mex 176 Colebrook River Reservoir, Conn 1361, 1369 Colorado regions, lower and upper 249 Colorado River and tributaries, Texas 79,86 Columbia River and Lower Willamette River - 413 Columbia River and tributaries 379, 388 Connecticut River Basin 1304 Connoqucnessing Creek, Pa 882 Cooper Reservoir and channels, Texas --, 786' Coralville Reservoir, Iowa 636- ^CordoU Hull lock and dam, Tennessee 1001, 1011 -•T)r;'> • Page Corps of Engineers — General Statements (see projects for details) 1 Backlog of authorized projects 32 Benefits, indirect, inclusion in project evaluations of 39 Budget, Bureau of the, amount of funds requested from 42 Chief of Engineers, statement of 23 Construction: Cost increases 53 Deferrals and stretchout, 1968 28, 29, 30 Projects authorized, backlog of ' ' 32 Projects, number of __ _ 31 Starts, 1968 lllllllllll 29 Starts, new, cost of 59 Time lapse between completion of planning and initiation of 55 'Cost increases, rate of __^ 44 Deficits in basin monetary authorization, estimated 55 Dickey-Lincoln School project 40 Economics research center 49 Expenditure program analysis 37 Expenditure reductions 43 Everglades National Park, additional water for .1.^.^1 46, 56 Funds additional, allocation of ' 55 General expenses 22 General investigations 2 Interest rate change 38 53 Mississippi River and tributaries, flood control " ' 16 Obligation program analysis 37 Operation and maintenance, general 16 Planning starts . _..... 31 Positions: Additional 40 45 47 ^'acant ' ' 41 Pemaining items 1376 Aquatic plant control 1445 Budget estimate, analysis of 1434 Chief of Engineers, Office of 1454 Coastal Engineering Research Center replacement facilities, alter- nate site for 1465 Coastal engineering research and development studies 1430 Construction 1435 Deep draft harbors I431 Dredge construction 1479, 1481, 1486 Dredging activitie.s : Private, prices paid for 1477 Staff investigation report on 1470 Dredging costs 1 495 Dredging waterways '___'_ 1430 Dredges, nonhopper, control of 1477 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act studies 1489 Flood control and coastal emergencies 1460 Flood control projects, small 1440, 1442 Flood plain management ' 1430 Flood plain management services study 1489 General expenses 1449 Hard rock, high explosive quarrying experiments 1432 Highway bridges, approaches to 1441 International hydrological decade program 1433 Justification of the estimates 1377 Kingman Building, alternate site for II_ 1465, 1466 Motor vehicle fleet, GAO report ' 1483 Navigation projects, small ^ 1439, 1442 North Atlantic division laboratory, estimated cost ' 1466 Nuclear explosives study " 1432 Operation and maintenance 1448 Plant rental costs l._. 1479 VI Corps of Engineers — Continued Remaining items — Continued Pare Plant replacement and improvement program 1 467 Position vacancies, filling of 1458 Positions : Breakdown of 1458 Permanent, increase in 1446 Recreational facilities on completed projects 1442 Research and development funds 1488 Revolving fund 1461, 1487 Replenishment of 1478 Scientific and technical information centers 143 1 Shore processes station 1465 Small flood control projects 1493 South Atlantic division laboratory 1464 Unobligated balance 1461 Vicksburg district new shop facility 1465 Water resources planning 1488 Waterways experiment station concrete laboratory 1464 Studies 36, 37 Pacific Northwest and Southwest, status of 52 Survey : Backlog 34 Resumptions 35 Starts 35 User charges 43 Water Resources Council, services rendered by 48 Corte, Madera Creek, Calif 329 Cottonwood Creek Reservoir, Idaho 391, 401, 407 Cottonwood Springs Dam and Reservoir, S. Dak 56S, 581 Cow Creek, Hutchinson, Tex 124 Cowanesque Reservoir, Pa 1215 Crab Creek, Wash 381 Cross Florida Barge Canal 1046 Cross Wabash Valley Waterway, 111., Ind., Ohio, and Mich SS2, 899 Cumberland River Basin 1011 Dana Point Harbor, Calif 322 Danbury , Conn 1335 Dardanelle lock and dam, Arkansas 199 Davton, Ky 901 Dayton, Ohio 884 DeGray Reservoir, Ark 809 Delaware River, Philadelphia to the sea 1220 Delaware River anchorages 1291 Delaware River Basin Commission ^^^^ Amortization period 1127 Commissioner, statement of the 1117 Justification of the estimate 1122 Salaries and expenses 1116, 1120 State participation 1125 Water supply, long-range 1128 Water supply authority 1126 Water supply customers 1 126 Water supply repaj^ment contracts 1126 DeQueen Reservoir, Ark 164 Derby, Conn 1349 Des Moines, Iowa 684 Des Moines River, Iowa and Minn 614, 618 Dickey-Lincoln School Reservoirs, Maine 1311, 1339 Dierks Reservoir, Ark 166 Dry Creek (Warm Springs) Reservoir, Calif ~^0 Dry Creek, Wash 381 Dry Straits-Wrangell Narrows, Alaska 378 Dubuque, Iowa 650 Duck Creek channel improvement. Trinity River and tributaries, Texas. _ 105 Dworshak Reservoir, Idaho 425 Pace East Briinfield Reservoir 1297 East Fork Reservoir, Ohio 974 East Lvnn Lake, W. Va 990 East Pass Channel, Fla 1080 East Rockaway Inlet, N. Y 1213 East St. Louis and vicinitv, Illinois 742 Eau Galle River, Wis..-.' 707, 711 Edisto River Basin, S.C 1035 Eel River, Calif . 243, 251, 269, 270 El Dorado Reservoir, Kans 91 El Paso local protection project, Tex 108 Elizabeth, N.J 1231 Elk Creek Reservoir, Oreg 393,407 Elliott Bav, Wash 379 Everglades National Park, Fla 46, 56, 1064 Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point, N.Y 1260 Fisherman's Wharf, San Francisco, Calif 247 Flat Creek, Mo 511 Fort Macon State Park, N.C 1058 Fort Peck Reservoir, Mont 588 Fort Worth Floodway, Tex 186 Foster Joseph Sayers Dam, Pa 1273 Foster Joseph Sayers Reservoir, Pa 1292 Four River Basins, Fla 1065 Frankfort, Ky 960 Freeport and vicinity, Texas, hurricane-flood protection 188 Freeport, 111 677, 711 Fremont, Ohio, Sandusky River 705 Galisteo Reservoir, Galisteo Creek, N. Mex 179 Galveston Bay area, Texas 76 Harbor and channel 212 Navigation study 83 Garland City, Ark 797 Garrison Dam-Lake, N. Dak 583 Gasconade River, Mo 509 Gastineau Channel, Alaska 378 Gate Creek Reservoir, Oreg 403 Gathwright Reservoir, Va 1239 Gaysville Reservoir, Vt 1310, 1368 Gillham Reservoir, Ark 168 Grand Coulee Dam, Wash., third powerhouse 387 Grand Isle, La., and vicinity 751 Grand Marais Harbor, Mich 716 Grand (Neosho) River 77 Grand River Reservoir, Ohio 902 Great Basin region 246, 249 Great Bend local protection project, Kansas _ _ 93 Great Falls, Mont ,542 De-icing study 620 Hudson River Waterway 1206, 1245 Pilot program for pollution reduction 725 Region 617 Water levels _ . _ _ 616 Great South Bay, N.Y 1202 Green Bay Harbor, Wis 675, 711, 712 Green River Reservoir, Ky 961 Greenville Harbor, Miss 827 Gregory Drainage District, Missouri 700 Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, Tex 76, 79, 86 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Chocooate Bayou, Tex 114 Gulf County Canal, Fla 1082 Guttenberg, Iowa 686 Guyanodotte River above R. D. Bailey Lake, W. Va 884 Pa^e Hampton Roads, Va 1253, 1287 Hancock County, Miss 1035 Hannibal locks and dam, Ohio Riv'er 943 Harlan County Reservoir, Nebr 505 Hidden Reservoir, Calif 283 Highland Bayou, Tex 141 Hillsdale Reservoir, Kans 516, 520 Honokahua Harbor, Hawaii 358, 360 Horse Island and Cresent Bridge (Mississippi River), Illinois and Iowa 665 Hudson River 1202, 1206 Hugo Reservoir, N. Mex 128 Hunt Drainage District and Lima Lake Drainage District, Illinois 679 Huntington Reservoir, Ind 953 Huron River, Mich 614 Illinois River, Calumet-Sag modification, Illinois and Indiana 667, 710 Illinois Waterway-Brandon Road to Sag Junction, 111 611 Illinois Waterway duplicate locks, Illinois and Indiana 626 Indian Grave Drainage District, Illinois 682 Inland Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay 1217 Island levee, Wabash River, Ind. and 111 907, 1103 Ithaca, N.Y. — Cayuga Inlet 702, 715 J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Tenn 1004, 1011 Jacksonville Harbor, Fla 1115, 1149 John Day lock and dam, Oregon and Washington 439 John Day River, Oreg 380 John Hollis Bankhead lock and dam, Alabama 1109, 1141 Johnstown Channel extension, Pennsylvania 383, 900 Jones Blufif lock and dam, Alabama 1101 Kahoma Stream Basin, Hawaii 358 Kalamazoo, Mich 631 Kamishak-Iniskin Bay Harbor, Alaska 378 Kaskaskia River, 111 736, 748, 758 Kaw Reservoir, Okla 131 Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir, Mo 548 Kehoe Reservoir, Ky 893 Kenosha Harbor, Wis 720 Kentucky Peninsula revetment, Kentucky 1006 Klamath River Basin, Calif 286 Kobuk River and Kodiak Harbor, Alaska 378 Koksing Reservoir, North Branch, Ohio 977 La Crosse, Wis., flood protection 619 La Farge Reservoir and Channel, Kickapoo River, Wis 662 La Plata River, P.R 1034 Lake Erie-Lake Ontario Waterway 621 Lake Kemp Reservoir, Tex 190 Lake Montauk Harbor, N.Y 1247 Lake Pontchartrain, La 737, 740,772, 819 Lakeport Reservoir, Calif 252,269 Lake view Reservoir, Tex 109, 111 Lansing, Mich 633 Las Cruces, N. Mex 125 Laurel River Reservoir, Ky 995 Lavon Reservoir, modification and East Fork channel improvement, Texas 191 Lawrence, Kans 556, 578 Lazcr Creek, Dam, Ga 1041 Libby Reservoir, Mont 429 Liberty local protection project. Trinity Rivef and tributaries, Texas 110 Lincoln Reservoir, 111 .^ 1012 Little Goose and lower Granite locks and dams, Washington 451 Little Neck Bav, N.Y 1249 Little River Inlet, S.C -.__„.._._-.__-.__^ 1034 Little Rock levee, Arkansas i._.ai___i..._^i_../- 1 88 Lower Coliunbia River, Oreg 381, 389 Bank protection 476 Lower Granite lock aiul dam, Washington 454 Ek: Pagfr Lower Mississippi Valley division 727 Advance engincci-ing and design 740, 827 Construction 754, 834 Cost of repairs to deteriorated structures 588 General investigations^ 730 Maintenance 866 Operation and maintenance 814 Reductions, deferrals, and stretchouts 866 Lower Monumental lock and dam, Washington 456 Long Branch Reservoir, Mo 517 Long Island, Port Isabel, Tex 76, 84, 88 Los Angeles County, Calif 247, 249 Los Angeles County drainage area, California 289 Los Esteros Reservoir and modification of Alamogordo Dam, N. Mex 106 Lost Creek Reservoir, Oreg 444, 484 Lost-Dry Creek Basin 505 Louisiana coastal area 737 Loup River, Nebr 505 Lower Red River, La., south bank levees 860 Lower White River, Ark 829, 832 Lufata Reservoir, Okla 97 Lytle and Warm Creeks, Calif 264 Manatee and Braden Rivers, Fla 1034, 1037 Manistique Harbor, Mich 611 Mankato and North Mankato, Minn 660, 714 Maricopa County, Ariz 353 Marshalltown, Iowa 688 Martin, Ky 885 Martins Creek, Pa 1203 Martis Creek Reservoir, Nev. and Calif 312 Marysville Reservoir, Calif 260, 268 Matagorda ship channel, Tex 84 Maumee River, Ind. and Ohio 614, 618 McNary lock and dam, Oregon and Washington 448 Melvern Reservoir, Kans 537, 580 Meramec Park Reservoir, Mo 782, 820 Michigan City Harbor, Ind 715 Mill Creek Reservoir, Ohio 929 Millers Ferry lock and dam, Alabama 1104 Mmnesota River Valley, Minn 615 Mississippi Delta region salinity control structures 830, 832 Mississippi River: And tributaries 822 Between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Chain of Rocks) 791, 818 Channel improvement, Cairo, 111., to Head of Passes, La 838 Gulf outlet, Louisiana 736, 763^ Levees 835 Navigation, year-round 611 Pollution control 833 Regulating works 818 Reservoirs at headwaters, Minnesota 612, 617 Missouri River division 486 Advance engineering and design 514 Authorized projects 508 Backlog of projects 507 Construction 524 Division engineer, statement of the 486 General investigations 497 Missouri River Basin comprehensive study 506 Operation and maintenance 285 Rehabilitation 582 Survey program 507 Missouri River levee system 531 Missouri River, Sioux City to mouth 525, 579 Mobile Harbor, Ala 1033 Mojave River Reservoir and River Basin 331 Page Monroe floodwall, Louisiana 753 Morgan City and vicinity, Louisiana 743 Moriches Inlet, N.Y 1212 Mormon Slough, Calaveras River, Calif 334 Mound City locks and dam, Ohio River, 111. and Ky 890 Muscatine Island levee district and Muscatine-Louisa drainage district No. 13, Iowa 690 Myers Chuck Harbor, Alaska 401 Napa River Basin, Calif 265 Neches River and tributaries, Texas 80 Neshannock Creek, Pa 883 New Baltimore- Harrison township, Mich 611 New BuUards Bar Reservoir, Calif 292 New Don Pedro Reservoir, Calif 295 New England Division 1293 Advance engineering and design 1306 Construction 1340 Flood control projects, summary of 1369 General investigations 1298 Operation and maintenance 1363 New Hope Reservoir, NC 1099 New London, Conn 1340, 1352, 1367 New Melones Reservoir, Calif 316 New Orleans to \enice, La 778 New York Harbor anchorage areas 1251, 1286, 1287 Newark Bay, Hackensack and Passaic Rivers, N.J 1223, 1286 Newburgh locks and dam, Ohio River 938 Niagara River, N.Y 612,619 Nichols, N.Y 1233 Nodaway River, Mo 504, 511 Nookagee Reservoir, Mass 1308 Nooksack River, Wash 381 Norfolk, Va 1280, 1290 Norfolk, Nebr 566 North Atlantic Division 1131 Advance engineering and design 1208 Construction 1216 General investigations 1192 North Atlantic region basin studj^ 1205 Northeastern United States water supply 1204, 1207 Operation and maintenance 1282 North Central Division: Advance engineering and design 621 Constru ct ion 635 Division engineer, statement of the 590 General investigations 594 Operation and maintenance 721 Private commercial harbors 593 Rehabilitation 715 North Ellenville, N.Y 1262 North Pacific Division 362 Advance engineering and design 390 Authorized projects 383 Backlogs 366, 382, 384, 385 Columbia Basin projects, additional power units 408 Columbia River treaty — Canada and the United States 408, 424 Construction, general 409 Deferrals 384,412 Funding program 383 G eneral investigations 366 Backlog of studies 382 Kelly Flats Airfield, Libby, Mont 437 New starts 384 Operation and maintenance 479 Reduction in program 385 Stretchout program 409, 416 Survey reports, time required for submission 386 XI Oahe Reservoir, S. Dak. and N. Dak _ ^j^ Oakley Reservoir and channel improvement, fllinois I ' ~" 641 Oceanside, Calif --_-_____ 947 o^q Oconto Harbor, Wis llllllllll 613 Ohio River, temporary lock and dam No. 52, Ohio and' Kentuckv'." 903 Ohio River Division o^q Advance engineering and design 11.11.. I" 884 Construction _'_ qno General investigations ~" ~~~ ' g>jo Operation and maintenance.- __ _ _ ' inn? Olcott Harbor, N.Y ^Vo Old River, La -lllllll""""lll 841 Onaga Reservoir, Kans .1111.1 11 1 _ 514 521 Oologah Reservoir, Okla "II.II ~ ~ ' 133 Optima Reservoir, Okla _ .1 1 . . 1 11 ici Orange Countv, Calif 9^i Orange River,"Calif itn Oroviile Reservoir, Calif _ 900 Oroville Reservoir, Calif 111111 354 Osawatomie, Kaus " _ _' _ _ '_^_ ~~ rrj Ouachita and Black Rivers, Ark. and La "._.] '_' '_" -"I-754S17 821 Overton- Red River Waterway, lower 31 miles, Louisiana' ^I'l"].". ' _ '767 Ozark lock and dam, Arkansas ~~ " qao Pacific Ocean Division ~ _" ' _l[ oc-r Construction 1^.1.1111 _ 1 11 1 ""58 General investigations '.-I--I"_I__I''"~"" 355 Operation and maintenance ._._ - -. 1. .1 "" 361 Taint Creek Reservoir, Ohio 1111" ' 1111 ""' 070 Painted Rock Dam, Ariz _"_ !_"" " 267 Paintsville Reservoir, Ky " 1/.11__1_ _ _ 894 Pajaro River, Calif 1_1 "" '.III'. '" '>44 '>45 Palm Beach County, Fla " _ _" ' 1 " " io92 Pajjama Canal " '__ " __' " ~ 1494 Justification of the estimate ' I'l'll 11 "" 1517 Language changes, proposed 11 -11 - .1 .1 . .11 . .1 _' 1597 Panama Canal Company: Capital outlay "_ 1524 l^^g Employees quarters, modernization of 111 .1" _ ' 1595 Microwave facilities, expansion of I'l ~'_" 1596 Claims for damage to vessels _""__ 1601 Dividends paid to U.S. Government 1__ ___ I '!__' I6OO Li vestment in Canal Zone, United States 1~ 1' 1599 i605 LimJtat ion on general and administrative expenses 1 _ _ ' 1543 Locks, increased capacity of _ '_"_ ^602 Operations " ~ ' ~ 1x10 Fund 1548,1552 Interest payments to the Treasury 1558 Revenue, net ]_ ~ 1604 Thatcher Ferry Bridge " 1111 111 1600 Tivoli Gust House " IQl'^ Panama Canal Zone government: Capital outlay.. I5O6, 1515, 1516, 1529 Oovernor of the Canal Zone, statement of ..... _ . 1494 Hospital operation.. ^T 1608, 1609 Housmg for personnel __ _ 1603 Operating expenses ^ 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ] I ' 1.504," 1515, 1526 Unobligated balance __ 1542 Water supply ---"ii-i--:ii::::::::'i65o, 1611 Positions, total ' jgQo Training costs " ~ "" igQo Patoka Reservoir, Ind .....I __ qog Pattonsburg Reservoir, Mo 11.11. 1" 1 1 ~ 54q Pecos River and tributaries at Carlsbad, N. Mex ' ~ 7s' Sfi Penobscot River, Maine. ioqq Peoria, ni... ^^99 XII ^'^""^ Page Perdido Pass Channel, Ala 1044 Perry Creek, Iowa 511 Perry Reservoir, Kans 559, 581 Petaluma River, Calif 244 Petit Anse, Tigre, and Carlin Bayous, La 73S Pinal Creek, Ariz 355 Pine Creek Reservoir, Okla 183, 219 Pine Flat Reservoir and Kings River, Calif 337 Pine Mountain Reservoir, Lee Creek, Ark 89 Pinellas County, Fla 1056, 1115 Pipestem Dam and Reservoir, N. Dak 545 Platte River, Mo 518 Plum Bavou, Ark 77 Plymouth Plarbor, J\L\ss 1354 Point Lookout Harbor, Mich 639 Point Place area (Lake Erie) Toledo, Ohio 616, 619 Pokomoke River, Md 1209 Ponce de Leon Inlet, Fla 10S4 Ponce Harbor, P.R 1033, 1036 Popponesset Bay, Mass 1299, 1305 Port Arthur and vicinity, Tex., hurricane-flood protection 194 Port Orford, Oreg ~ 462 Portland Harbor, Maine (Back Cove) 1304 Portneuf River and Marsh Creek, Idaho 470 Poteau River, Okla. and Ark 79 Providence River and Harbor, R.I 1305, 1346 Provincetown Harbor, [Mass 1340, 1341, 1366 R. D. Bailey Lake, W. Va 993, 1016 Racine locks and dam, Ohio River 945 Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook, N.J 1257, 1287 Rathbun Reservoir, Iowa 552,580 Raystown Reservoir, Pa 1275, 1289, 1292 Red Creek, N.Y 627 Red River levees and bank stabilization below Denison Dam, Tex., Ark., and La 798 Red River Reservoir, Ky 872, 915 Red Rock Dam and Lake, Red Rock, Iowa 692,713 Reddies River Reservoir, N.C 1040 Redwood Creek, Humboldt County, Calif 339 Rend Lake Reservoir, 111 801 Reno Beach-Howard Farms area, Lucas County, Ohio 616 Rio Grande and tributaries (Rio Puerco and Rio Salado) 78 Ririe Reservoir, Idaho 471 River Rouge, Mich 694 Roanoke River and tributaries. South Boston, Va 103.5 Robert S. Kerr lock and dam, Oklahoma 206 Rock Island, 111 648 Rockford, 111 628 Roseau River, Minn 634 Rosendale, N.Y 1264 Rowlesburg Lake, W. Va 886, 901 Rushford, Minn 099 Rtissian River Basin, Calif 341 Sabine- Neches Waterway, Tex 161 Sacramento River and tributaries, California 324, 344, 34.5 Saginaw River, Mich 670,696,710,714 Salamanca, N.Y 966 Salinas River, Calif 244, 248 Saline River and tributaries 904 San Antonio River, Tex 76, 79. 86, 143 San Diego (Mission \alley), Calif 257 San Diego County, Calif.' 246 Han Diego River and Mission Bay, Calif 327 Page San Francisco Bav area ..... 248, 2o0 Han Gabriel River, Tex 147, 219 Santa Ana, Calif 245, 2o0 Santa Fe River, N. Mex 78 Santa Rosa Wash, Ariz 262, 267 Savannah Harbor, Ga 1052, 1086 Sa ylorville Reservoir, Iowa 653 Scappoose Drainage District, Oreg 395 Shelbyville Reservoir, Rl 804, 821 Shidler Reservoir, Okla 98 Shrewsbury River, N.J 1210, 1216 Shunganunga Creek, Kans 508 Sierra Madre Wash Channel 292 Siuslaw River, Oreg 463 Smithfield Reservoir, ]\Io 519 Smithville Reservoir 522 Snettisham, Alaska 421 Sonoma Creek, Calif 258 Soiiris River, N. Dak 615 South Atlantic Division 1017 Advance engineering and design 1037 Construe tion 1 043 General investigations 1023 Rehabilitation, operation, and maintenance 1108 South Ellenville, N.Y 1266 South Haven Harbor, Mich 719 South Pacific Division 221 Advanced engineering and design 251 Construction 270 General investigations 226 Operation and maintenance 351 South Platte River Basin, Colo 504, 510 Southwestern Division 61 Advance engineering and design 88 Construction 113 General investigations 65 Operations and maintenance 211 Rehabilitation 211 Spring River, Mo 85 Spring River, Mo., Kans., and Okla 78 St. Francis Basin, Ark. and Mo 826, 844 St. Joseph Harbor, Mich 718 St. Louis Harbor, Mo. and 111 736, 738 St. Louis, Mo 806 Stockton Reservoir, Mo 570,579,581 Stockton ship channel, California 266 Stonewall Jackson Lake, W. Va 898 Stratford, Conn 1336 Stuart Gilch Reservoir, Idaho 390 Sturgeon Bay-Lake Michigan ship canal, Wisconsin 613 Sturgis, Ohio River Basin, Ky 964 Susquehanna River Basin study 1205, 1207 Taylors ville Reservoir, Ky 895 Teche-Vermillion Basin, La 831, 834 Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Ala. and Miss 1037 Tensas Basin, Ark. and La 850 Texas City, Tex., hurricane-flood protection 196 Texas coast hurricane study 80 Texas water and pollution study 80 The Dalles Dam, Oreg. and Wash 459 The Dalles, Oreg. and Wash 460 Tioga-Hammond Reservoir, Pa 1277 Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oreg 466 XIV uM Page- Tocks Island Reservoir 1131 Agency disputes, procedures followed in 11 55 Cost increases 1146 Effect on B-C ratio of 1154 Engineering and design funds 1185 Fish ladder, additional cost 11 50 Flood control benefits, information furnished to committee staff concerning 1172 Flood control pool elevation 1147, 1171 Flood control storage, increased 1174 Flood damage on tributary streams 1169 Justification of the estimate 1144 Land acquisition 1166, 1167, 1183, 1184, 1185 Appraisal 1 179 Cost increases 1148, 1185 Landowners, court suit filed by 1182 Responsibility of New Jersey 1149 Minimum flows at Trenton, establishment of 1156 Modification of project after authorization 1 173 National recreation area 1153 New work items 1149 Oyster industry losses, New Jersey 1154, 1180, 1187 Oyster predator, use of pesticides against 11 56 Oyster problem, statement of Fish and Wildlife Service concerning... 1157, 1181 Oyster seedbed protection 1182 Pumped storage power proposal 1163, 1180 Authorization, need for change in 1163 Conventional power, feasibility of 1164 Payments to Delaware River Basin Commission 1164 Revenues to the Government under 1 164, 1 165 Sales of power 1165 Status of 1163 Temperature stratification, effect on 1166 Recreation : Benefits, annual 1162 Benefits, evaluation of 1177 Cost and benefit figures, verification of 1 178 Effect of reservoir fluctviation on 1169 Facilities, limitation on 1151, 1184 Limitation on funds allowed by the National Park Service 1170 Local cost sharing for 1151, 1179, 1187 Reimbursement, local, under the Federal Water Project Recre- ation Act of 1965 1154 Staff investigation 1131 Sunfish Pond 1166, 1180 User fees 1178 Wildlife migration, additional land for 1 149 Tombigbee River and tributaries, Mississippi and Alabama 1094 Tonawanda Creek and tribiitaries. New York 618 Topeka, Kansas River, Kans 561 Town Creek, Jackson, Miss 1034 Trinity River and tributaries, Texas, navigation restudy 216 Trinity River bridges, delay in completing 218 Trinidad Reservoir, Purgatore River, Colo 171 Trinity River, Tex. (high-level bridges) _ 116 Trumbull Pond Reservoir, Conn 1337, 136S Trotters Shoals Reservoii-, Ga. and S.C 1042 Twin Creek Basin 505 Tyrone, Pa 1 208 Union City Reservoir, Pa 984 Union Reservoir, Mo 740- XV Page Union River, Maine 1304 Uniontown locks and dam, Ohio River 940 Ventura-Pierpont area, Calif 27 1 Verdigris River 77 A'ermillion lock, Louisiana 745 \'illage Creek, White River, and Mayberry levee districts, Jackson and Woodruff Counties, Ark 121 Vince and Little Vince Bayous, Tex 198 Virginia Beach, Va 1256, 1291 Wabash River, Ind 955 Waikiki Beach, Hawaii 361 Wallisville Reservoir, Tex 119 Walnut Creek, Calif 348 Waterloo, Iowa 630 Waurika Reservoir, Okla 136 Webbers Falls lock and dam, Oklahoma 209 West Fork Lake, W. Va 888, 902 West Kentucky tributaries 828 West Point Reseivoir, Ala. and Ga 1106 West Tennessee tributaries, Tennessee 848 West Texas and eastern New Mexico water import study 826 Westport River, Mass 1304 Weymouth-Fore and Town Rivers, Mass 1343, 1366 White Rock Creek, Tex 87 Whitman Reservoir, Mass 1338 Willamette River Basin, Oreg., bank protection 477 Willow Island locks and dam, Ohio River 947, 1013 Wilmington Harbor, N.C 1033, 1090 Winslow, Ariz. (Little Colorado River) 273,274 Wood River drainage and levee district. 111 749 Woodcock Creek Reservoir, Pa 986, 1014 Wynoochee Reservoir, Wash 418 Yaquina Bay and Harbor, Oreg 468 Yatesville Reservoir, Ky 987 Yazoo Basin, Miss 854, 868 Youghiogheny River Basin, Pa. and Md 883, 900 Youngstown, Ohio 931 Zumbro River, Minn 615 o UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08495 8908