also is essential to the growth of the economy of the valley. Congress has already got us working on it.

A moderization program, providing for a total of 21 modern structures, each with a 1,200-foot lock, is now underway. Construction is in progress on the new Cumberland and Greenup locks and dams; funds have been appropriated to initiate construction of the Markland locks and dam, and planning is in progress for reconstruction of locks and dam 41 at Louisville. On the tributaries construction funds have been appropriated for the Hildebrand locks and dam on the Monongahela River; work is well underway, and will be finished next spring, on locks 1 and 2 on the Green River, and the Cheatham and Old Hickory locks on the Cumberland are in operation, while work is proceeding on their powerhouses. Planning is progressing on the lower Cumberland project, which will permit modern tows to navigate the Cumberland River up to Carthage. Our only problem, insofar as navigation facilities are concerned, is money.

(3) Related water uses: I have avoided the use of the term "multiple-purpose project" in this connection because by usage that term has come to be considered as applying only to projects incorporating the production of hydroelectric power. It is true that we have important projects completed, under construction, and in the planning stage, which have important hydroelectric power installations. For example, in the Cumberland River Basin, Wolf Creek, Center Hill, and Dale Hollow are in production; Cheatham and Old Hickory are under construction; and lower cumberland is in the active planning stage. The installed capacities of these projects total three-quarters of a million kilowatts. Certain other projects in the comprehensive plan have power potentialities. However, I feel that, of the related water uses, the provision in our flood control and navigation structures of storage for water supply and low-flow regulation is of vital importance now and is increasing in importance to an unprecedented degree.

Mr. JONES. Will you explain what you mean by low flow?

Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir. We have authority now to some extent in our flood control and navigation structures to put storage of floodwaters during the winter to be retained and released during the lowflow periods of the summer. That is in my opinion going to become more and more important, and I think it will ultimately be more important than the flood control for which the thing was originally built.

Today the Nation's population is growing at the rate of over 2 million persons a year, and each person is using more and more water. Industrial use of water is 8 times as great today as in 1900, and it is estimated that it will increase another 250 percent by 1975. Agricultural use of water in the humid East is now growing faster than in the arid West. For example, in 8 Midwestern States-according to Prof. D. R. Sisson of Purdue University-the number of acres irrigated increased from 14,400 in 1945 to 213,000 in 1954, a 15 times increase in 9 years. Meanwhile, our rising standard of living calls for constant increases in water use for pollution abatement, recreation, and numerous other purposes.

Impotrant services in the field of water supply, low-flow regulation and related water uses are now being rendered by some of our completed structures in the Ohio River Basin-33 out of 77 dams. For

example, in a recent 3-month period reservoirs contributed about 70 percent of the flow of the lower Monongahela and 80 percent of the flow of the Mahoning at Youngstown.

Without that flow the steel industry in the Youngstown Valley would have had to shut down.

At Nashville, in October of 1953, the 2,500 cubic foot per second flow of the Cumberland would have been only about 300 second-feet, had it not been for reservoir releases. Even on the Ohio at Cincinnati, with the upstream reservoir system only partially complete, reservoir releases provided about a fourth of the flow during the last low-flow period of the Ohio at Cincinnati.

Mr. JONES. Does that contribute to relief of flood conditions that exist on the Mississippi River during flood periods?

Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir. Very materially.

Incidentally, on the Mississippi River a year ago last summer, had it not been for the reservoir releases on the Missouri and Ohio systems, the salt-water intrusion from the gulf would have shut down the New Orleans water supply.

Mr. JONES. Was that caused by the diversion of the Atchafalaya? Colonel PERSON. No, sir. It was a very low-water period and the salt-water wedge was trying to move up, and without added flow from our dams the salt water would have moved into the New Orleans municipal water supply.

However, the above low-flow services are incidental aspects of the primary flood control or navigation objective of the projects. It is considered that the vital importance of an assured water supply to the continued growth of the national economy necessitates a broader approach to the problem and, in fact, dictates that no storage reservoir should be built by any agency without the specific inclusion of water supply or low-flow regulation storage as a fundamental project function where the site is reasonably susceptible to such development. That is not a simple problem. This will of necessity require the solution of the problems of funding, of water rights, of cost allocation, and of the nature and extent of Federal and non-Federal participation. These and other problems appear to require the enactment of appropriate legislation, which it seems might well include an appropriate "declaration of policy" for water supply similar to that which was expressed for flood control in the Flood Control Act of 1936.

Mr. JONES. What you are saying to the committee, Colonel, is that in the potential of a site we should include future plans and the development of that project for the storage of water which can be used in many different ways to supply industrial and domestic uses, and to insure constant, or reasonably constant, streamflow in periods of dry seasons, which will bring in factors that are not now acceptable in a justification of the benefit-cost ratio?

Colonel PERSON. That is correct. If we do not do something about it now we are going to wish we had 25 years from now.

Mr. JONES. Just like we planned on the Ohio River way back in the beginning. If we would have been bolder we would not have to go back and do it all over again.

Colonel PERSON. That is correct.

Mr. JONES. We are experiencing the same thing on the Alabama and the Warrior-Tombigbee system.

Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. Colonel, do you have the authorization of the Flood Control Act as amended through 1953, and the documents that accompanied that survey which was submitted by the Secretary of the Army?

Colonel PERSON. No, sir. I am not quite sure I understand what you want.

Mr. JONES. My recollection is that the lower Cumberland project was authorized in 1953.

Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir; I think that is true.

Mr. JONES. The 1953 act amended an authorization that was passed in an Omnibus River and Harbor and Flood Control Act of what year? Colonel DORLAND. 1947, I believe.

Mr. JONES. It was a modification in the project which required a reauthorization; is that not correct?

Colonel DORLAND. That is correct.

Mr. JONES. I want the document and the ratio of the economic factors that were presented to the House and Senate Public Works Committees in justification of that project.

Colonel DORLAND. That will be on the way here in a few minutes, sir.

Mr. JONES. Fine.

Colonel DORLAND. I have the figures here, Mr. Chairman, on the present tentative cost allocation, if that is what you are asking for, to power, navigation and flood control, of the total of $167 million which was authorized

Mr. JONES. That is right. Give us those figures, Colonel.

Colonel DORLAND. Of the total estimated cost of $167 million, $67,828,000, or approximately 40 percent, is allocated to power. This is first cost allocation.

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Colonel DORLAND. $55,064,000, or approximately 33 percent, is allocated to flood control; and $44,108,000, or approximately 27 percent, is allocated to navigation.

Mr. JONES. Were all of the works that you have enumerated included in the act authorizing the project?

Colonel DORLAND. Yes, sir. The lower Cumberland project was authorized for those three purposes.

Mr. JONES. Does the authorization give the Corps of Engineers the right, the authority, and the responsibility to do the work on that project?

Colonel DORLAND. To proceed with the planning along with the multipurpose development of the lower Cumberland River. Yes, sir. The three purposes.

Mr. JONES. Was there any provision in the 1953 act that would give the authority to the Bureau of the Budget to allocate the use of any of those functions to a private utility or any other group?

Colonel DORLAND. I am unable to recall that, sir. But I would like to read the act again to make sure.

Mr. JONES. I want to get the act in the record because it has a material bearing on the testimony of previous witnesses in regard to the authority, and where the legal responsibility rests to see that the work is carried out.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, I understood that we were going to ask the Corps of Engineers what their recollection of this directive was that was brought out just prior to lunch.

Mr. JONES. Do you have a copy of the Bureau of the Budget's directive?

Colonel PERSON. No, sir. As you know, we are not allowed to comment on the budgetary matters until after the President releases the budget. However, I do happen to have a news item originating in Washington last Wednesday, written by Lois Laycook, which states that an administration spokesman disclosed there would be a limitation of $275 million for completing all new starts in the 1957 budget. I have no reason to doubt the statement of Mr. Laycook.

Mr. JONES. Of, course, you would not know what the Chief of the Corps of Engineers transmits to the Bureau of the Budget in the way of requests for appropriation, would you, Colonel?

Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir. I would.

Mr. JONES. Do you know whether or not there was any transmittal of that to the Bureau of the Budget?

Colonel PERSON. I am afraid, sir, I am barred from commenting on that point. I know, but I cannot tell you until the budget message is released.

Mr. JONES. You said earlier, I believe, that you were not familiar with the circular referred to by other witnesses, issued by the Bureau of the Budget?

Colonel PERSON. That is correct, sir. I have not seen it. No, sir. Mr. JONES. You have not seen it?

Colonel PERSON. No, sir. In fact, I do not even know that there is one. The criteria may have been oral. I do not know whether they were oral or written.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Lipscomb.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. What is the usual policy for an organization such as the Cumberland Valley Association when they want to submit something such as they did to the Bureau of the Budget? Do they usually come to you first and submit those facts for your submission to the Chief of Engineers and then on up the line?

Colonel PERSON. Yes.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Was this done in this case?

Colonel PERSON. I do not know. It would have been done with Colonel Dorland.

Colonel DORLAND. They came to us and asked what our cost-benefit ratios were that were worked up-the same thing as the allocations and annual benefits. We gave them those as a piece of public information which is available to anyone who asks such questions. Yes.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Do they usually submit their brief to you?

Colonel DORLAND. There is no necessity for their doing that. Naturally, they operate on their own figures which they produce and work up.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Do you make recommendations to the Chief of the Corps of Engineers?

Colonel DORLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You could have, or it is possible that you could have recommended to the Corps of Engineers that this lower Cumberland project appropriation be made?

Colonel DORLAND. That is possible. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. You could not recommend to the Chief of the Corps of Engineers that just the navigation features be constructed without referring the whole project to him, as authorized under existing statute; could you?

Colonel PERSON. No, sir. The Chief could not do that.

Colonel DORLAND. We operate under the directives of the Congress, as you gentlemen know very well, and we report on the projects which Congress directs us to report on. In the case of the lower Cumberland such report would include the three purposes for which Congress authorized us to investigate and plan the project.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, I do not quite remember the testimony of the previous witness, but it was my understanding that they testified that they came to the Corps of Engineers and you told them something to the effect that you could not look into it because of the $25 million limitation, or something to that effect?

Colonel PERSON.. No, sir.

Mr. JONES. I had assumed he had reference to the Chief of the Corps of Engineers and not to the engineers here. Your transmittal is to the Chief of the Corps, and the Chief of the Corps, subject to your recommendation, may or may not transmit to the Bureau of the Budget the project that you recommend.

Colonel PERSON. I may say for the record, we consider the lower Cumberland project a very highly important and a very worthy project.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Did you give the Cumberland Valley Association any advice in any fashion at all?

Colonel DORLAND. We gave them the information as to the benefits as we computed them.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. But you did not give them any advice on how to handle their presentation?

Colonel DORLAND. In their presentation before Congress each group organization operates on its own methods, based upon their own experiences.

Mr. LIPSCOMв. That is all.

Mr. JONES. Colonel, before this project was authorized you held a public hearing in which the States and municipalities and chambers of commerce, and every public institution or private institution that came to your attention were notified that you had a survey which was being considered, and you asked them to testify and appear for or against the project. Is that not correct, sir?

Colonel DORLAND. That is correct.

Mr. JONES. Where did you hold that public hearing?

Colonel DORLAND. A number of public hearings were held, Mr. Chairman. They were held before my time in general, although some have been-I have held one in Princeton.

Mr. JONES. Did Colonel Pence hold those hearings?

Colonel DORLAND. I believe Colonel Pence did at various locations in the valley.

Mr. JONES. After that hearing and after the report was submitted by the division engineers and transmitted as a public document by the Secretary of the Army to the respective legislative committees, or before it went to the respective legislative committees, it went before the Rivers and Harbors Board, did it not?