doing so under what is called a "harbor line" and all items within that harbor line can be handled just as it is handled today when the Secretary of War draws a harbor line around our navigable waterways.

Mr. HINSHAW. In other words, the language that is proposed here which I presume you had something to do with

Colonel GORRELL. No, sir. The former Administrator suggested two zoning bills. He sent out such bills. It looks like the proposal before you follows that same purpose.

Mr. HINSHAW. Then, it is a copy of the Administrator's bill.

Colonel GORRELL. So far as I know, it looks like it contemplates that purpose. Of course our industry has long advocated airport zoning and we have frequently talked about it to your chairman and many others.

Mr. HINSHAW. Then it is your belief, or it is the belief of the attorneys for the A. T. A., that this language as it stands here will take care of situations such as the one I have mentioned?

Colonel GORRELL. Mr. Congressman, I cannot answer that yet, because I do not yet know what the attorneys of the A. T. A. and the air lines, will say. They are meeting tomorrow to discuss suggestions on the subject of the draftsmanship and language of the bill.

Mr. HINSHAW. I presume that you think it is important.

Colonel GORRELL. Very much so. That is why on Thursday I offered, and expressed the desire, to submit to you our thoughts on language.

Mr. HINSHAW. You believe that airport space already allocated to airports for taxying purposes, for landing purposes, and for, we will say, running out and off runways, landings, should be maintained free and clear after the airport has been accepted by the Federal Government and air lines have been given certificates of competency to enter such airports.

Colonel GORRELL. Absolutely; otherwise your investment would be rendered valueless.

Mr. WINTER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Winter.

Mr. WINTER. Colonel, on page 13 of the bill, beginning in line 19, and extending to and including line 3 of page 14-does not that cover the situation Mr. Hinshaw is inquiring about?

Mr. HINSHAW. Pages 13 and 14?

Mr. WINTER. Yes.

Colonel GORRELL. Mr. Congressman it may. Perhaps it might be made a little bit more clear. It says "In the vicinity of landing areas and in other places."

Mr. WINTER. Yes.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. I would like to ask one more question. Colonel, I note-I thought that there was a provision in the bill-yes, you will find it in section 3107 which refers to the compensation in the event of condemnation procedure against adjoining property or for the purpose of airport facilities. Do you know of any other common carrier that is permitted to condemn property or whether the Government condemns property for them and pays for it out of Government funds? Colonel GORRELL. The nearest approach to it is the waterways, sir.

There you can move structures. The Government can make you change your property or forbid you from erecting your property and all without compensation. For example, if the harbor line is some place along the Mississippi River, and the flow of the river changes the bank, say the bank washes away, something which was formerly perfectly okay now becomes a hazard to navigation, the Government can make the private owner take it down, change or alter it, without compensation.

Mr. O'HARA. Frankly, I think that is a somewhat different situation from what we have in connection with the average property surrounding an airport. Is that not true?

Colonel GORRELL. I think it is different insofar as the time element is concerned. For example, when that law was put through, our country was not built up as much as it is now. My recollection is that a law on that subject went through in 1898 or 1899, about the time of the Spanish-American War, but the principle is identically the same, and the suggestion we are making is that you act now before the situation becomes worse. I had intended

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hinshaw.

Mr. HINSHAW. There is a specific case in the courts now, I believe, involving the Pennsylvania Railroad where the railroad is required to contribute to the raising of a bridge over some_river, like the Passaic River or over some other river up in New Jersey, because the Federal Government wishes a higher clearance than when the bridge was originally installed.

Mr. O'HARA. Just a minute. May I ask there

Mr. HINSHAW (continuing). Just a minute. It is a case in which the railroad is required to spend the money to raise the bridge and it will be at a very considerable cost, because it involves also the raising of the railroad station which is an elevated station shortly beyond that point, and the whole cost is quite considerable, and I believe that while the case may or may not yet have been decided, at least when originally instituted the railroad was required to bear all costs.

Mr. O'HARA. Let me say, Colonel, with regard to Mr. Hinshaw's point. I am not familiar with that specific case, but my understanding, generally speaking, is that where States and municipalities are involved with common carriers, such as a railroad, it is usually a matter for the courts to determine what percentage of or what basis the carrier and the municipality may pay for such a change as outlined by Mr. Hinshaw.

But, I am just taking this provision in this bill where we have a provision that the Government should pay for any property condemned pursuant to section 3107.

Colonel GORRELL. The proposition before you, sir, contemplates action by the Administrator, and if that action is not proper, the courts can review it and change his action or send it back for further study.

Your airport situation is intensely involved in your military effort. Before this war started we had a G. H. Q. Air Force of less than 1,000 planes. In order to maneuver that 1,000 airplanes at

83838-43-13

any one moment we required a minimum of 60 fields and if we were to vary the place of take-offs and landings, so that the planes would not be bombed, about 300 fields might have been required. Now, our Air Force has grown larger, and the need for more airports in order to maneuver our Air Force is infinitely greater. If you are foresighted and take hold of this subject before many years have gone by, you can often save money by locating the new fields where you will not have hazards and you can then require that no hazards be built.

I wish to pass around some charts which are marked confidential. I have cut the names off the charts to conceal the names of the places. These charts show airports and, marked in red, are shown the hazards that exist. Many of these hazards can be removed today with little or no cost. In some cases it only means the chopping down of a tree. In some cases it means that the poles erected for spite shall be taken down. In some cases it means a chimney which is not in use may be altered. The cost is not great, but it will be great if you have an after-war expansion of aviation and there is no control such as contemplated in the zoning principle.

Take for example the Chicago Airport. Most of the land around the Chicago Airport is to date not occupied, or is occupied with some small, cheap one-story hot-dog stands, but beyond question that land will be built up. Persons have already started to build it up with manufacturing enterprises. If you do not exercise forehandedness, you may obsolete the value of that airport.

Mr. HINSHAW. Another question is also involved and that is, when you get into a municipal airport proposition it is perfectly possible that a municipality may decide at some time that the airport property itself is of greater value for some other purpose and sell it for subdivision or for business, or for manufacturing, or something of that sort and it would be proposed to move the airport entirely out to some other place.

Now, is there any assurance that in situations and in instances of that kind that the Federal Government would be able to recapture any of the money that it might have spent for taking down or condemning chimneys, or poles, or what not? In other words, there is no certainty as to the location of one of these airports until a stability has been arrived at, both in the city and in aviation itself, that would preclude the possibility of moving. Now, for example, we will take the Cincinnati Airport. The Cincinnati Airport is located, according to ancient standards at quite a proper place, down in a valley with 300-foot hills on three sides and a dike on two sides of it. The dike runs as high as 25 feet, I believe. And, there are obstructions all around on the hilltops, such as water tanks, that extend 200 feet into the air.

In other words, under old standards, while it was a properly located airport at the time it was located there, it is almost inaccessible now. It is proposed, of course, that a new airport be constructed, but the city officials of Cincinnati have not seen fit to acquire the additional land in a proper location, and consequently they have come to the Federal Government and asked for a $5,000,000 appropriation for the improvement of that airport.

Well now, some money has been expended on the airport already. If you went in to zone that area around the Cincinnati Airport, it would require the removal of water tanks and the leveling of dikes

and lots of other things of that nature. Then some day they might find some new site for an airport, and properly locate an airport and remove this one.

There is no possible reimbursement to the Federal Government for funds that would have been expended under condemnation in removing those water tanks and other hazards.

Now, is there not some way of anchoring an airport before the zoning shall be placed around it and condemantion had?

Colonel GORRELL. I doubt if you could do that. It would seem to me, sir, that the Administrator has sufficient safety power. He could find that the field is unsafe and close that field. Also, under existing law, he can carefully weigh whether it is wise to spend Government money there under existing conditions, or withhold Government money until they get another site.

Mr. HINSHAW. Of course, he can raise the limits of ceiling visibility in the vicinity so that the airport is of no use under those conditions and close it down.

Colonel GORRELL. That is right.

Mr. HINSHAW. Consequently the city would not receive the service by air lines that it would otherwise receive, and I presume that ultimately if the leaders of the community recognized that they were not receiving that service, and the reasons why they were not receiving that service, that they would force the city government to establish an airfield in a new place; but even in the new location there must be some certainty that the airport is to remain there and for a reasonable period of time, before the Federal Government can afford to go into condemnation proceedings, in the event such proceedings are necessary. Colonel GORRELL. Probably if you zoned that new site, it would remain the official airport.

Mr. HINSHAW. It probably would if zoned as an original site; but certainly in the existing sites-take the one in Chicago, for example. It may be that the city of Chicago will grow out to and beyond that airport and make it unusable.

Colonel GORRELL. I think that that field, will probably be multiplied by four fields.

Mr. HINSHAW. At least it ought to be-or there ought to be-a number of fields there, and someone has very aptly stated that there should be an auxiliary airport on the lake front for use most of the time. But, nevertheless there must be some anchor to these airports some way to anchor them at the same time that you consider the condemnation proceedings.

Colonel GORRELL. As the art of flying is improved, the matter will become more difficult to handle. As aviation becomes more popular, more people will indulge in aviation and use the fields. Today it is not a serious financial problem from a Nation-wide viewpoint. Certain fields, however, may become very serious problems.

Mr. HINSHAW. And it is very likely to grow in size.

Colonel GORRELL. The Congress has spoken on this subject for quite a number of years, and I think now is the time to get into it and button it up.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boren.

Mr. BOREN. Do you know of any instance where Federal money has been expended on municipal airports other than the regular W. P. A.

When the question came up of spending cash upon an airport, Major Clay had the knowledge of an engineer as to what the Army needed built, and also what airports needed to have. He had been with the W. P. A., knew the people, and understood the projects. He had a broad acquaintanceship and knowledge of the subject. Before money could be spent by the W. P. A. it had to be approved by Major Clay and clear through the Administrator's office. In that way Federal money which has been spent on the airfields of the country has, generally speaking, brought very intelligent results.

Now, Mr. Congressman, you spoke a moment ago about condemning airports, or something like that, for common carriers.

These airfields are not solely for common carriers. The common carrier uses them least of all. For many, many years the flying on the airways and use of the airports by common carriers has been a minor percentage. The military forces have been the major users. The private flyers have been next. I mentioned just before you came in, sir, 2 years ago the common carriers, use of the airways amounted only to about 17 percent of the total usage and today the percentage is even smaller.

When the war first broke out, in the first few days, the military moved in on over 100 of these fields, and today is using more than 100 airports which formerly had been used by private flyers, airlines, and other people. There are practically no fields-there are only one or two-which are restricted to common carriers. At this moment I can think of only one such field and there the Army and the Navy can also use the field.

Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boren.

Mr. BOREN. I just intended to say, when you mentioned General Clay, that we in Oklahoma knew him when he was Captain Clay, with the United States Army Engineers, and that he did fine work for them, and he is one of the outstanding men that we have had in the Government service, and was unquestionably one of the best possible choices for such an assignment as you described.

Colonel GORRELL. He is one of the most efficient officers I have ever seen, sir, and in addition, he came from an enormous engineering project to the assignment just mentioned. He has had considerable engineering experience.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hinshaw.

Mr. HINSHAW. Major Clay did an extraordinarily fine job in providing adequate airport facilities at a great many different places. As I understood, Major Clay's function was to see to it that the airports were adequate when Government funds were expended on them, both as to length of runways and width of runways, and lighting, and the topography of the surrounding areas, and in connection with their proper location in relation to radio ranges and all that sort of thing, and it was very efficiently done; yet at the same time, while the engineering aspect of it was taken care of perfectly, to the best of the ability of any engineer, nevertheless in many instances, you might say, the ownership relations were not gone into in any great detail.