Obrázky stránek

Colonel DORLAND. That is correct.

Mr. JONES. There they held another public hearing as to the economic justification and made a review of the entire project before the Rivers and Harbors Board. Is that not correct?

Colonel DORLAND. That is correct.

Mr. Jones. The published recommendations of the Rivers and Harbors Board then became a public document on the project, and they are referred to in its transmittal and in its comments. Is that not correct?

Colonel DORLAND. There is a letter from the Secretary of the Army to the Congress, giving their recommendations.

Mr. Jones. And the various aspects of the project are discussed in the report of the Secretary!

Colonel DORLAND. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JONES. And all affected agencies, such as the Federal Power Commission, which either concurs in or dissents from the ar unt that the total cost bears in comparison to electric-energy production. Is that correct?

Colonel DORLAND. That is correct.

Mr. Jones. So all the agencies of the Federal Government affected have been consulted, and then it becomes public information that you transmit to the Congress, with a request for authorization. Is that correct?

Colonel DORLAND. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JoNEs. Then after the project is authorized, the Bureau of the Budget holds further public hearings, if it so desires, with those people who are concerned or interested for or against the project. Is that so?

Colonel DORLAND. I do not know that they hold hearings, but I understand they will accept meetings with people who are interested in the project. Yes.

Mr. JONES. And it has been a practice of the Bureau of the Budget always to invite people who come in and testify on the project?

Colonel DORLAND. I understand it has been.

Mr. JONES. Does the Bureau of the Budget under existing law have the authority or the right to change any portion of a project because they think that they have the right to change the law?

Colonel DORLAND. I think that is a little out of my province, Mr. Chairman, if I must say so. I think this is a question of law which is better interpreted by yourselves than by me. However, I know of no such law which does that. There are many I do not know of, however.

Mr. Jones. Are you of the opinion that if the Bureau of the Budget insists on turning over the power features of the lower Cumberland project, it would be necessary to obtain an amendment to existing legislation? Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. Jones. The Chief of the Corps of Engineers definitely has that opinion? Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. Therefore any desire on the part of anybody in the Federal Government to transfer any of that property to anybody other than a Federal agency would be a conflict with existing law?

Colonel PERSON. It would definitely require legislation, sir, before it could be done. There is no question about it.

Mr. JONES. Any further questions?

Mr. LIPSCOMB. May I go back to your statement on page 4 where you referred to the importance of an assured water supply to the continued growth of the national economy.

Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. You say that the problem 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 * * *" What is the significance of that statement ?

Colonel PERSON. I feel that we would be grossly stupid if we built a flood-control reservoir in such a manner as to preclude later storage for low flow regulation in the valley where the dam was built. În other words, if we preempted a site which is suitable for the storage of water and if we so constructed our reservoir and our dam as to preclude the use of that site for water storage, then I think we would be committing a most serious blunder. That is exactly what we will probably have to do in some cases under existing law and policy.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You will have to build some without that.
Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. You say "by any agency.” Are there other agencies that build dams of the type we are talking about?

Colonel PERSON. Oh, yes. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Agriculture are getting into the small watershed dam proposition.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. In recommendation No. 6 of the Hoover Commission report they recommend that construction of headwater dams in the flood-control program of the Soil Conservation Service be transferred to the Corps of Engineers. Would these headwater dams come under the statements you have made on page 4! ?

Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. In other words, any change in policy through legislation or otherwise should also include the Bureau of Reclamation and the Soil Conservation Service?

Colonel PERSON. I feel that it should. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. How big are some of these headwater dams?

Colonel PERSON. I understand that the largest one would be not larger than 5,000 acre-feet of storage. I think that is correct.

Mr. JONES. That was written in the 1953 act.
Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir. In the Hope-Aiken bill.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. That is the largest ?
Colonel PERSON. Yes.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Then if they are larger do they automatically come to the Corps of Engineers ?

Colonel PERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Does the Corps of Engineers do the flood-control work on the TVA?

Colonel PERSON. When the Cairo gage reaches a height of 51 feet then we have the right to control the releases from TVÅ. I may say that that arrangement has worked out perfectly well from our viewpoint. There has been the most complete cooperation by TVA in

that respect. In other words, when the Cairo gage hits 51 then we have the right to tell them how much water they can release from their dams. They have never questioned that authority and have cooperated completely. There is very, very close and friendly relationship between our people and their people.

Nr. LIPSCOMB. Is the same true in navigation?
Colonel PERSON. We operate and maintain the navigation structures.
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Thank you.

Colonel DORLAND. Some of that is covered in this testimony here, Mr. Congressman, which is more detailed as to how we operate.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I thought we had finished.
Colonel DORLAND. This seems to be a little anticlimactic.

Mr. Reuss. Colonel Dorland, are you going to discuss further the question of the Cairo gage going to 51 feet, and its effect on TVA? If not, I want to ask a question now.

Colonel DORLAND. No, sir. I was not except I want to tie it in with the overall flood-control plan for the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers.

Mr. Reuss. Before we leave that subject then, what is the effect of the Corps of Engineers requesting that TVA regulate its water release when the Cairo gage hits 51 feet? Does that affect the generation of electricity at that particular time?

Colonel DORLAND. Yes, to some extent. But by the time that condition will have existed, Kentucky Reservoir, which is the lowest in the system on the Tennessee, and which has the final control on the Tennessee River just before discharging into the Ohio—by that time the tail water from the Ohio will become so high on the powerhouse at Kentucky Dam and the lower Tennessee as to make net generation a very problematical matter anyhow. You would have lost generation because of the water coming up on the low side of the turbine. When you get high water on either of these two rivers, you lose generating capacity because of the fact that when your tail water comes up you drown out your turbine, and you get a loss in the net effective head.

Mr. Reuss. I think you said TVA has been able to comply with your request in regard to flood control without serious detriment to its other functions.

Colonel DORLAND. That is correct. But under the terms of the operation for flood control on the Tennessee, Ohio and Mississippi River systems, at such time as the gage at Cairo hits 51 feet on a rising stream, then flood control becomes paramount. Therefore it is governing over all other regulation of the stream. So even though there were an economic loss to TVA in generation, the flood control at that time is the thing which is governing in the regulation of all of the streams and tributaries on the Ohio River, and therefore it overrides all other considerations.

Mr. Reuss. I realize that, but I think your testimony is to the effect that so far at least obeying that overriding flood control consideration has not resulted in substantial economic loss due to curtailment of the other functions of TVA. Is that correct?

Colonel DORLAND. That is a correct statement.
Mr. REUSS. So far.

Mr. Jones. All right, Colonel. You may proceed with your statement.

Colonel DORLAND. I am Col. Gilbert M. Dorland, district engineer of the Nashville district, Corps of Engineers, United States Army. The district embraces the watersheds of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers, and includes portions of seven States—Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. The larger portion of our efforts, insofar as comprehensive water resources developments are concerned, is devoted to the Cumberland River Basin, which lies in Kentucky and Tennessee, although we do maintain and operate the navigation facilities on the Tennessee River in accordance with existing law, and have certain flood-control functions of limited scope within that basin. In order to show you a specific example as to how the Corps of Engineers has proceeded to develop the major water resources of a basin, I shall describe for you the improvement program for the Cumberland River Basin.

Before I proceed, however, I should like to note that Colonel Person, division engineer, Ohio River division, has already indicated to you the needs of a national water resources policy and in broad outline given to you the procedures followed by the Corps of Engineers on watershed development. He has also indicated to you the plans for the Ohio River Basin and how the Cumberland River Basin fits into that general plan. My remarks, as I have stated, are confined to the Cumberland River Basin, which is my primary responsibility.

The Cumberland River has been under improvement by the Corps of Engineers since 1832. The emphasis, however, until recent years has been centered upon the improvement of the navigation facilities. Under the old program, the river was canalized by a series of lowlift locks and dams which met the needs of the then-existing commerce. The structures, however, have become obsolescent. Following passage of the 308 report authorizations, a comprehensive plan for the Cumberland River Basin was prepared and the results published as House Document No. 38, 73d Congress. Under restrictive Federal policy existing at that time, however, Federal participation was recommended only for certain minor improvements for navigation. The Flood Control Act of 1938 authorized a comprehensive plan for control of floods within the Ohio River Basin. Included therein and authorized for construction were six reservoirs within the Cumberland River Basin. Through the River and Harbor Act of 1946 and in accordance with the recommendations contained in House Document No. 761, 79th Congress, a comprehensive plan was authorized for the Cumberland River Basin, including the 6 reservoirs contained in the 1938 act. This plan is the one with which we are concerned today with certain modifications as authorized in other congressional acts.

The basic plan for the major resources development is composed of 11 water-control projects. A colored chart showing these structures is appended at the close of this statement. At the present time, three of the major headwater reservoirs—Wolf Creek, Dale Hollow, and Center Hill—have been completed and are in operation for the primary purposes of flood control and the generation of hydroelectric power, but they also provide other important benefits with which I shall deal later.

Under construction are the Old Hickory project just above Nashville, Tenn., and the Cheatham project below Nashville, both for the primary purposes of navigation and hydroelectric power production. These two projects are well underway with completion expected within the next 2 years. The lower Cumberland project, for navigation, flood control, and power, near the mouth of the Cumberland River, is currently in a planning stage with the view toward early initiation of construction, dependent, of course, upon the appropriation of necessary funds. An interesting feature of this project is an interconnecting canal to the Tennessee River (Kentucky Reservoir) which provides an interchange of water and a shortened navigation channel.

Two other projects, Carthage and Celina above Nashville, will complete the chain of projects proposed along the main stream and will give complete development from the mouth to Cumberland Falls, a distance of some 560 miles.

Authorized, but not yet under construction, are the Stewarts Ferry project on the Stones River, Three Islands Reservoir on the Harpeth, and Rossview on the Red River. Incidentally, the Stewarts Ferry project is the key toward more reliable flood control for our local community of Nashville and downstream areas.

Rounding out the plan are four headwater reservoirs above Wolf Creek Dam, which as yet have not been authorized, but are recognized as important elements of the basin plan to be constructed at later date providing project economics so warrant. In addition to these major control structures, a local protection project has been constructed and an extension authorized at Middlesboro, Ky., and local protection projects are currently underway at Pineville and Barbourville, Ky., on the upper Cumberland River. Several of the other tributary areas have been authorized for study as to the possibility of local flood improvements. Statistics of the plan and other data are contained in the attached exhibit.

The scope and complexity of the plan can be partially visualized by reference to the estimated costs. For those projects completed, under construction or authorized, the total Federal cost, at today's prices, will be $534,100,000. Through fiscal year 1956, $223,700,000 have been appropriated, leaving $310,400,000 to complete the work as currently proposed.

In accordance with the policy of the Corps of Engineers, the projects have been analyzed as to their individual economic merits, with the costs weighed against the anticipated benefits. In each case, the tangible monetary benefits are in excess of the costs. In evaluating the benefits, credit is taken only for those upon which a definite value can be assigned.

For example, the flood-control benefits credited are composed of estimated damages prevented and improved earning power of the areas to be protected. The navigation benefits are derived from improved operating conditions to be obtained by the shippers, differential in transportation charges to be paid by the receivers of waterway-adapted commodities, and reduced maintenance and operating charges on existing structures. The benefits used from the generation of hydroelectric power are those as assigned by the Federal Power Commission, the agency designated to make the determination of the power values.

In addition to the primary benefits from flood control, navigation, and power, I should like to point out that substantial corollary benefits accrue to the projects. Low flow regulation of the stream improves the water supply available to the downstream communities and has

« PředchozíPokračovat »