AMOUNT IN BILL FOR SACRAMENTO RIVER PROJECT Senator THOMAS. How much does this bill carry for that type of improvement? Captain FERINGA. The bill carries $600,000. Senator THOMAS. If the bill passes the Senate and becomes a law as it is now written, can you do the work as you think it should be done with that amount of money during the next year? Captain FERINGA. No, sir. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT REQUIRED AND RECOMMENDED Senator THOMAS. How much will it take, in addition to $600,000, to enable you to proceed in a satisfactory manner to complete this job? Captain FERINGA. $642,000, which is the limit of our authority. Senator THOMAS. And do you recommend that this bill be amended to carry that additional sum? General SCHLEY. Yes; I do. Senator THOMAS. In other words, Senator Johnson's request is one that you will see to and think that it should be complied with? General SCHLEY. That is correct. Senator HAYDEN. That is as clear as a bell. General SCHLEY. I might add that this flood in the Sacramento Valley which you speak of took place after the House considered this item. Senator HAYDEN. Oh, yes. It is a very recent flood, as is indicated. General SCHLEY. In fact, it is still overflowing. Senator THOMAS. You read a moment ago from a list of priorities and, as I understood you, placed in the record some projects that you thought should be constructed out of this additional sum of $6,000,000. Did you read all of the projects that you thought should be constructed? General SCHLEY. I did, sir; all that should be commenced with this sum of six million-odd dollars of new work. QUESTION AS TO PRIORITIES FOR FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS Senator THOMAS. Are you prepared at this time to place in the record the priorities for the different projects that have been authorized in the different States, or have you considered it fully enough to add that--for example, in my State a good many projects which have been authorized, such as Wister, Denison, Fort Supply, Lugert-Altus, and one that you mentioned-Canton. Has the Board passed upon those projects and given priorities to them yet? General SCHLEY. Yes, sir. You will find on pages 4, 5, and 6 of the House committee report the list of all work which we propose to be carried forward with the $70,000,000. Now that has to be corrected, as I mentioned a moment ago, by these new projects. Senator THOMAS. As I read this report, it only mentions the projects that have been started and for which money is to be carried in this bill to continue. General SCHLEY. Yes, sir. What you would like to have placed in the record, in addition to the $70,000,000 list, are those projects which we have authority to spend on but which are not even included in this list? Senator THOMAS. What I want is for my own information, because I am asked daily about these different projects. "When are you starting this project and that project?" And, of course, they all want their projects started immediately. So I would like to know, if it is contemplated to build all those projects, or if some of them have been authorized and yet they are not for one reason or another feasible or economically sound. I would like to know, for my own information, as to how to answer these various communications. I have understood that the Wister project was one of high priority, but it is not in the list that you mention today. WISTER PROJECT, OKLAHOMA General SCHLEY. In that case, sir, we have used up, or will have used up, all the authority which Congress has given us before we commence that reservoir. You see, Congress, in its 1938 authorization measure, saw fit to approve projects totaling a very large estimated sum of money for construction, but they authorized for appropriation a very much smaller sum, and that reservoir which mentioned is outside of that limit, and therefore further authorization would be required. LIMIT OF AUTHORIZATION FOR ARKANSAS VALLEY you Senator THOMAS. There is a so-called ceiling in the Arkansas Valley of $21,000,000? General SCHLEY. That is right, sir. Senator THOMAS. And you cannot ask for funds which would run the total of the projects now being constructed and the projects to be constructed above the $21,000,000, so on this river we must raise that ceiling or suspend our work on any new projects, is that correct? General SCHLEY. That is correct. Senator THOMAS. These other projects are not under the limitation mentioned? General SCHLEY. These projects which are in this list here are within that limitation; in other words, we will not exceed the $21,000,000 for the Arkansas when we finish these projects. Senator THOMAS. So from your viewpoint there is no chance of starting active construction on Wister until that ceiling is raised? General SCHLEY. That is correct. TENKILLER PROJECT Senator THOMAS. And the same would be for Tenkiller? Senator THOMAS. It runs into the Arkansas River. So until some new authorization bill comes through or until some of these bills either raise the limit or abolish the limit, there is no chance to start active construction on any of those projects? General SCHLEY. That is correct, sir. Of course, in the floodcontrol system of any of our great river basins, the amount of benefit. is almost directly proportionate to the degree of completion of the project. In the initiation of a piece of work you do not get much benefit. The benefit proceeds as the completion proceeds. Senator THOMAS. Of course, you never finish anything until after you start it, and if you start it once, it is easy enough to get it finished; in other words, the camel has to get his nose under the tent before he gets his hump under. If we got some of these projects started, I could get a pretty good idea of how we can get the project finished. General SCHLEY. If we once start a project, we try to allot as much as we can, in order that the project can proceed in an orderly manner to completion. Senator HAYDEN. That is sound business policy, because dragging a project along adds to the overhead expense. General SCHLEY. It does, sir. EFFECT ON PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS FOR 1941 UNDER BUDGET ESTIMATE Senator HAYDEN. Captain Reber, what will be the effect on your proposed construction operations for the fiscal year 1941 if you are limited to $70,000,000 for flood control (general) for that year? Captain REBER. With an appropriation of $70,000,000, Senator, for flood control (general), it will be necessary for the Department to slow down appreciably its rate of construction on projects now under way or scheduled for initiation during the remainder of this fiscal year. In addition, only a small number of new projects can be started during the fiscal year 1941 under the provision for initiation of such new projects in the War Department civil appropriation bill as it was actually passed by the House. The reduction in the rate of construction does not, however, tell the complete story. With an appropriation of $70,000,000 it will unquestionably be necessary for the Department to cut down on the present rate of construction progress in carrying out its entire flood-control program. Present indications are that design as well as construction personnel will have to be laid off. This will seriously curtail the activities of our districts. In the past 3 years, design and construction forces. have been carefully trained and built up to carry on flood-control work at the rate which we are now going in the present fiscal year Much of this work is highly specialized and requires intensive training and technical knowledge. The loss at this time of design personnel will be a serious handicap in carrying out the essential planning for new projects, with the result that such projects probably cannot be placed under construction, when funds for such work become available in the future, until new design forces are again built up. Careful studies in the Office of the Chief of Engineers now indicate that under the limitation of $70,000,000 the carrying on of construction at a satisfactory rate on projects now under way will require the Department to take available funds now set up for the initiation of a number of projects this spring and to transfer those funds to projects now under construction. Such action is necesssry because sufficient funds for that purpose cannot be allotted in the fiscal year 1941 under the limitation of $70,000,000. FLOOD-CONTROL APPROPRIATIONS IN PRIOR YEARS Senator HAYDEN. How does the appropriation of $70,000,000 compare with the average sums of money that have been appropriated in past years? You state that you have built up an organization on a higher basis. Now, how long have you had that higher basis? Captain REBER. Only in the last 2 years, sir. We have only really received appropriations for flood control (general) starting with the fiscal year 1938. We have only had 3 years of flood control (general) appropriations. General SCHLEY. You see, flood control (general) was first authorized in 1936. The first appropriation was in the calendar year 1937, so we have built up the entire organization since 1937. ESTIMATES SUBMITTED TO BUDGET BUREAU Senator MCNARY. May I ask what was the preliminary estimate made to the Bureau of the Budget by the Board of Army Engineers? General SCHLEY. We were limited in our estimate submitted to the Budget. We were told not to submit anything greater than $70,000,000. I beg your pardon. That was "Navigation." "Navigation" was $30,000,000. That amount was given to us before we submitted our figures. In the case of flood control, $206,624,000 was presented. Of course, as you understand, the Federal Government has launched on a very big undertaking in general flood control throughout the country, so that the requirements would naturally increase over the period of years when we were building up the organization to meet the problem. LIMITATION IN BILL ON AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR PROJECTS ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH ALLOTMENTS HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN MADE Senator HAYDEN. One further question. The War Department civil appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1941, as it passed the House, contained the provision that "not to exceed $58,125,780 of the $70,000,000 appropriated therefor for general flood control projects shall be available for expenditure upon projects on account of which allotments heretofore have been made." How will this provision affect your construction program as set up under the original Budget limitation of $70,000,000? Also tell me how many new projects can be initiated with the money set aside by this provision for such projects? Captain REBER. This provision will further reduce the rate of construction on projects now under way or scheduled for initiation during the present spring. In order to start 6 new projects, the names of which General Schley gave you a short time ago, it will be necessary for the Department to curtail or suspend activities on 20 projects which we had set up in our House list. Senator MCNARY. Will the appropriation of $70,000,000 suggested by the Budget and sent to the House deter you in any of the work now in progress on flood control? Captain REBER. Yes, sir; it will. General SCHLEY. It would have prevented us from commencing new projects if the House had followed our suggestion. Senator MCNARY. Prevented? For instance, that word is sometimes carelessly used; not by you gentlemen, however. I am not speaking about a unit of a project. Are you speaking in that connection? General SCHLEY. I am speaking of a unit, yes. Senator MCNARY. There is a project in itself, recognized by its adoption. Then there are various units to be considered. Applying my question to that illustration, what curtailment would there be in the work undertaken on the projects which you now have in mind if the $70,000,000 is the limit of the appropriation? General SCHLEY. Yes; there would be some projects which we cannot commence, but the limitation applies more generally to units, as you mention. Many new units or projects already under way cannot be completed and also some projects which have never been touched can't be put under way. It also, of course, slows down these projects under way. APPROPRIATIONS FOR FLOOD CONTROL, 1925-40 Senator THOMAS. In order that our record may be complete, without objection, I would like the Senate hearings to show table X, on page 141 of the House hearings. That total gives the amount of money appropriated each year for flood control and improvements from 1925 to 1940, inclusive. (The table above referred to is as follows:) TABLE X.-Appropriations for flood-control work from 1925 to 1940, inclusive ! Includes regular appropriations, Public Works Administration and Emergency Reconstruction Administration funds, and appropriations for emergency work on tributaries of the Mississippi River. ? Includes regular appropriations and National Industrial Recovery Administration, Public Works Administration, and Emergency Reconstruction Administration funds. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR FLOOD CONTROL UNDER BILL AS PASSED BY HOUSE Senator THOMAS. Then following that table, I would like to have the record show the table on pages 4, 5, and 6 of the House report. As I understand, that table shows the break-down of the $70,000,000 proposed to be appropriated by this table, is that correct? General SCHLEY. Well, yes, Senator, except that that must be amended by these new ones which I read to you. Wouldn't you like me to submit a list similar to that but amended to include them? Senator THOMAS. Unless we provide more money, you cannot do any more work than is provided in this table. General SCHLEY. We can't do any more work, but, according to the House, we would reduce the amounts on 20 projects and add the 6 that I read to you a few moments ago. Senator THOMAS. What I would like to have is a list of the projects that will be prosecuted under the terms of the House bill as it finally |