region, does not have enough water for irrigation, for many kinds of manufacturing and processing operations, or even enough water for ordinary domestic use on the farm and in the city.

I would like to review briefly some of the chief advantages and benefits Nashville and other towns on the Cumberland receive from the structures and conservation measures operated by the Corps of Engineers.

Since the completion of the three upstream dams above Nashville, control of flooding of the Cumberland has reduced damage in Nashville by an estimated $5 million, and by some $8 million on the river as a whole.

Mr. REUSS. May I interrupt at this point to ask, For what period is this? Is it $5 million from now until eternity?

Mr. BINGHAM. No, sir. Since the completion of the dams, 1 by 1, the reduction that has actually occurred in the flood level first from 1 dam and then 2 and then 3, finally has had a cumulative saving up to this time, or some recent period, of $5 million for Nashville, and $8 million for the entire country. That has been the actual saving to date. [Reading:]

Transportation on the great network of waterways in the interior of America represented by the Mississippi and its tributaries is producing enormous benefits for Nashville shippers and consumers. Our community has the largest use of

its river ports of any city on either the Tennessee or the Cumberland--some 1,800,000 tons of cargo per annum. For example, 95 percent of petroleum products reach this city by river. It is estimated that shippers (and thus consumers, ultimately) are saving from $21⁄2 to $3 million yearly due to the low cost of river transportation compared with other means of transit. There has been a tremendous growth in the value of commerce on the Cumberland which has increased during the last 10 years on the average of 19 percent per annum. Cumberland dams have and will contribute significantly to the power resources of this area. The generating units now in operation have a capacity of 459,000 kilowatts. The entire output is purchased and utilized in the TVA system. An additional 136,000 kilowatts will be installed in the dams under construction, with an additional 388,000-kilowatt capacity planned for the other structures as yet unprogramed.

We in this area know the enormous benefits that accrue to us and to the Nation

from low-cost power. We can only say that we do not want the policies reversed which permitted this remarkable development and these benefits, but, rather, they should be extended to other high-cost power areas of the country such as New England. We must point out that power can be produced economically and cheaply by hydro generation without depleting the natural fuel resources available to us. If atomic or other sources of cheaper power are ever developed, the dams and reservoirs of the multipurpose projects can be used for other purposes advantageously.

All of this output goes to TVA as a preference customer. Of course, if the Commission report goes through, there is no telling what will happen to the power on the other dams. If the preference clause goes out of the window, I judge private power, with their higher resale rates, can afford to pay tremendous wholesale prices to get Government power.

Perhaps one of the most fatal errors in the entire Commission report was its short-sighted decision that water for domestic and industrial use “does not come within the purview of this report."

I was quoting some of the matters which you pointed out, Mr. Chairman. Of course, the Commission went on to say that traditionally the Federal Government ignored this problem. Yet in spite of the fact that they said there has been little interest and no responsibility on the Federal Government, they admitted that the domestic water supply took precedence over every other water need.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question? Would you suggest one of the reasons why the Federal Government ignored

1

the question of domestic water supply was that in the beginning of this country there was no problem, actually. In most areas the streams were unpolluted and there were springs, and water was there for the taking.

Mr. BINGHAM. Yes.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. And there were no vast industrialized cities.

Mr. BINGHAM. Yes. The only place that gave prime attention to the water supply was the arid sections of this country, where water was deliberately stored for supply purposes and any other domestic supply purposes. Once in a while it had to do with flood control, or navigation, or power production.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. There just was not any problem on this thing. Mr. BINGHAM. That is right. But of course, that arrangement has about gone. I think it is very significant that the Commission predicted in 20 years, which is a very short time in the life of a nation, that the estimated increase in domestic and industrial use will be 145 percent. You have to supply 145 new New York cities and create somehow in American 11 Colorado Rivers. And, they are not making these rivers any more like they used to. We do not have them coming up every month or two.

The Mayor goes on to say:

The Commission stated that "the provision of water supplies for domestic and industrial use has remained from the beginning of the Republic a responsibility of individuals, the local communities, and the States." Yet, despite these declarations of "no interest" and "no responsibility" with reference to domestic and industrial water supplies, the report nonetheless stated that "the domestic use of water must take precedence over any other use." The Commission reported that during the next 20 years, the estimated increase for industrial and domestic use is 145 percent-"equal to the additional supply of 145 New York cities, and requiring the flow of about 11 Colorado Rivers." But the Commission ignored its own findings in an effort to force the Federal Government into a shameful and hasty retreat from the water-resource field.

I believe there must be a definite policy of Federal responsibility for development of water-supply storage and flow regulation for domestic, industrial, and other incidental purposes. The lack of such a policy is one of the most serious omissions in existing Federal-resource policy, and should not be continued. The Corps of Engineers can consider water use and problems only as they relate to navigation and flood control. While the corps has authority to plan to meet water-supply needs in connection with a solution of flood and navigation problems, inclusion of water-supply storage and facilities in a project of the corps is contingent upon local agencies coming forward to pay the cost allocated to water supply. How can even a large city such as Nashville, not to mention the many small rural counties and communities along the Cumberland River, raise the funds necessary to provide for domestic and industrial water supplies for a half century ahead

how can they put up the money today

in order to be ready for industries, increased population, and other expanded water uses which may or may not appear down the corridors of generations. Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Do you mean that the capital expenditure is too great for one generation to supply water that would continue for many generations?

Mr. BINGHAM. That is certainly true, I think. As far as a community is concerned, certainly; because, for example, we now have a plant on the Cumberland River that will soon be constructed, located at Nashville, which uses as much water in a day-a third as much water in a day-as the entire present community of Nashville. That plant might or might not have located at Nashville. It might have located

70818-56-pt. 4- -3

up the river in the next county. But how does any small community, or county, or any city on the Cumberland River, know how much of its share of the investment in water uses 50 years from now is today? Furthermore, how can they find the money with their limited fiscal resources to put up the capital costs involved in water-storage facilities?

Along the Cumberland River there are perhaps 50 or 75 local governments, which are either incorporated towns or counties. There are at least two States involved. How are you going to find and assist 50 or 75 jurisdictions and local agencies?

You see, when a matter is statewide we have the State government assume it; when it is regionwide or national in scope we have the Federal Government assume responsibility. I defy anyone-and the Commission did not suggest-to show how you would concoct governmental agencies on a large basis to assume these huge capital costs. They had no suggestion and I defy them to concoct a governmental agency as yet unseen in America to do the job they indicated had to be done by so-called local agencies.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. One generation cannot pay for it.

Mr. BINGHAM. I do not think so.

Mrs. GRIFFITHS. And one generation should not be expected to pay for a thing which will last at least for a hundred years.

Mr. BINGHAM. Yes. Apparently in the next 10 or 15 years this job will have to be done, and it may well last for a long time.

There have been some suggestions from the Corps of Engineers and other Federal agencies for changes in the existing water-supply policy of the Congress. They suggest several ways that that might be changed.

The mayor continues:

I understand that the Corps of Engineers and perhaps other Federal water agencies believe that this congressional policy must now be changed in view of the greatly anticipated increase in these water uses. A workable and prudent policy for the future would be assumption of Federal responsibility for watersupply features in multipurpose projects on the following basis:

(1) Provide water storage for interim uses such as irrigation and power until higher priority uses develop; (2) plan structures in order that future expansion may be added when need develops; (3) let the cost be borne as a part of the overall project cost as in the case of flood control, since those who would benefit from release of the water downstream would perhaps be more difficult to locate, identify, and assess charges than those who benefit from flood control. Many dams of the corps have been built without water storage facilities recommended by studies, developed in connection with the projects, because no local interests were available to assume the cost of water supply. Although provisions of the Bureau of the Budget's Circular No. A-47, December 21, 1952, provides an improvement in previous policy in water supply, it will not be adequate. It still contains the unworkable feature that the local interests must agree prior to construction to liquidate all the costs for water supply features wihin 50 years, with payments commencing in 10 years.

Mr. JONES. Do you understand that that circular adopted by the Bureau of the Budget is in conflict with the laws that have been passed by the Congress in the authorization of projects with the distinct provision of law that it would be a Federal undertaking and, therefore, would be a Federal responsibility, and that any new formula other than that passed by the Congress is in conflict with the law? Mr. BINGHAM. I understand, Congressman, that in many cases the Congress in its authorization has set up our funds and authorized the

use of Federal money for water supply; and the circular does conflict. I understand in those cases it does conflict with the announced policy of Congress. I understand that.

Mr. JONES. The authorizations themselves are justifications. The Corps of Engineers submits to the Congress the economic justification for the project, which becomes a part of the law itself. Upon that premise the Congress has all of those features in its omnibus river and harbor bill for flood control and navigation. Economic justification is as much a part of the law as the designation of the project itself.

Mr. BINGHAM. Yes, sir; but we have just been talking about increasing actual minimum flow and water supply. That is done on the Cumberland River, where the minimum flow has been increased as a result of the installations for power, navigation, and flood-control purposes, and has produced enormous benefits for the city of Nashville. One is the disposal of sewerage and wastes of the city. It has been estimated by some mathematician that the minimum flow on the Cumberland River increased the annual cost of disposal of sewerage and wastes as much as a quarter of a million dollars a year. The increased flow has had a great effect already in connection with the water supply of the city for domestic and industrial purposes. It has reduced the cost of water intake construction facilities, and reduced the chemicals required in water treatment, by 20 percent, and reduced the water temperature by approximately 10 percent.

The requirement that repayment contracts be executed before construction begins has proven wholly unworkable.

There has been an increase of minimum flow on the Cumberland resulting from power, navigation, and flood-control installations, even without regard to special problems of water supply. The increased flow has produced enormous benefits for Nashville.

There is now general recognition that one of the most important uses of water courses is for the disposal of waterborne waste. For reasons of economy, the available assimilative capacity of receiving waters should be utilized to the greatest extent possible to minimize outlays for disposal facilities. It has been estimated that the increased minimum flow on the Cumberland has reduced the annual cost of sewage disposal for the Nashville community by as much as $250,000.

While the increased waterflow on the Cumberland will be of a much greater significance to Nashville's water supply for domestic and industrial purposes in the distant future than today, nonetheless, material benefit has already appeared. The great reservoirs above Nashville and the increased flow have resulted in these benefits: Material savings in the construction of water-intake facilities; 20 percent reduction in the chemicals required in the city's filtration plant for removal of suspended soil in the water; reduction of maximum summertime temperature of water in the stream by as much as 10 percent.

The greater flow and cooler temperature have been of especial significance in making possible the location of the great Old Hickory steam plant just above Nashville and a new Ford glass plant in Nashville. This $15 million manufacturing operation will use some 13,000 gallons of water per minute for process cooling and other purposes.

The 10° cooler temperature resulting from these large dams will make their operations much more economical at this location than they otherwise would have been.

The Hoover Commission report ignores the contribution of water-resource development to profitable recreation, fishing, and other similar miscellaneous purposes. Not only do the reservoirs contribute to the pleasure, health, and morale of our people, but these facilities contribute enormously to the economy of the area in which they are located.

I think it would amaze the committee to know that

The 3 large Cumberland dams above Nashville are estimated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to attract some 4 million people annually, of which more than 50 percent are out-of-State visitors. The expenditures of sportsmen and others involved in recreation on the dams is estimated to exceed

$23 million per year. The substantial recreational potential of the Old Hickory

and Cheatham Reservoirs near Nashville will add to the amenities of life in this community.

Such important problems of water regulation and development as stream pollution, water supply, recreation, irrigation for agricultural purposes in nonarid areas, etc., are properly included in the realm of Federal resource responsibility. The benefits from these aspects of river development should be given full allowance in calculating the economic feasibility of new projects.

I want to oppose with the utmost vigor the proposal of the Commission that tolls be levied for use of the inland waterways. In the first place, this violates a national policy of more than a 175 years of "free waterways" in America. In the second place, the imposition of some $600,000 annual tolls against present traffic on the Cumberland River would produce serious economic consequences. Some industries located in Nashville and other communities, and dependent upon cheap water transportation will be forced into an uncompetitive position by the sudden imposition of tolls. Many would close their doors, thus bringing unemployment and economic dislocation.

But more than this, the primary purpose of inland waterway development in this country over the generations has been to equalize opportunities in all areas of the country. Tolls would be a tragic penalty upon the inland sections of the United States, and discrimination in favor of the coastal areas which have long enjoyed the benefits of "free" ocean transportation. Further, communities such as Nashville located up to the furthest reaches of the Mississippi system would pay more tolls and be the most severally penalized of all. Gentlemen, I ask you to repudiate the unfair railroad lobby-Hoover Commission proposal for navigation tolls on the inland waterways.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that municipalities, counties, States and business firms can only develop and maintain such features of comprehensive water development programs as recreation areas, public launching and dock facilities, and related public services, such as water, sewer, and electric distribution systems.

The Congress should consider for the entire country the type of water resource program developed and tested by the Tennessee Valley Authority. We have engaged in a comprehensive program of river improvement and human and natural resource development in the Tennessee Valley region, as a cooperative undertaking of State and local governments, and of private business, under the leadership of a regional Federal agency, the TVA

and the pattern of that great experiment which is now a proven and workable method of resource development should be studied. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Bingham.

Are there any questions?

Mr. REUSS. Mr. Bingham, I note you say that the imposition of the Hoover Commission recommendations with respect to user tolls on navigable inland waterways would result in the imposition of $600,000 annual tolls against present traffic on the Cumberland. How did you compute that figure?

Mr. BINGHAM. My understanding of the matter is that the tolls to be levied are based upon the operating cost experienced by the agency in charge of navigation, namely, in this case the Corps of Engineers. The annual operating cost being experienced in the categories that are defined by the Commission on the Cumberland today annually amount to $600,000. That is operation of the locks and other facilities connected with that for navigation on the river. That is the actual cost. Therefore it would be the tolls that would be charged. However, it might be allocated between various commodities and classes of users.