y4

I' 96in

b7/12- FLOOD CONTROL 1961

GOVERNMENT

Storage

••••:.1

•

[No. 87-12]

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

1-R

OMIIIITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL

-0 =0HITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

-a JSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OF THE

EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2299, HS. 7658, and S. 48

TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY TO MODIFY

CERTAIN LEASES ENTERED INTO FOR THE PROVISION OF

RECREATION FACILITIES IN RESERVOIR AREAS

JULY 11 AND AUGUST 2, 1961

Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

75191 WASHINGTON : 1961
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

CHARLES A.

GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland

CLIFFORD DAVIS, Tennessee

JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota

ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama

FRANK E. SMITH, Mississippi

JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Illinois

T. A. THOMPSON, Louisiana

IRIS FAIRCLOTH BLITCH, Georgia

JIM WRIGHT, Texas

W. R. HULL, IR., Missouri

KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois

FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania

ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma

JOHN J. McFALL, California

GRACIE PFOST, Idaho

JOHN YOUNG, Texas

FRANK W. BURKE, Kentucky

HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California

ROBERT E. COOK, Ohio

BUCKLEY, New York, Chairman

JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS, New Jersey

GORDON H. SCFIERER, Ohio

WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida

JOHN F. BALDWIN, JR., California

FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa

EDWIN B. DOOLEY, New York

HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York

PERKINS BASS, New Hampshire

WALTER L. McVEY, Kansas

CARLETON J. KING, New York

WILLIAM H. HARSHA, JR:, Ohio

JAMES IIARVEY, Michigan

JOHN C. KUNKEL, Pennsylvania

LOUISE G. REECE, Tennessee

MARGARET R. BEITER, Chief Clerk

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Chief Counsel

JOSEPH R. BRENNAN, Engineer-Consultant

CurroN W. ENFIELD, Minority Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL

CLIFFORD DAVIS, Tennessee, Chairman

FRANK E. SMITH, Mississippi

ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama

T. A. THOMPSON, Louisiana

JIM WRIGHT, Texas

W. R. HULL, JR., Missouri

KENNETH I. GRAY, Illinois

FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania

GRACIE PFOST, Idaho

HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California

II

JOHN F. BALDWIN, JR., California

FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa

HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York

CARLETON J. KING, New York

WILLIAM H. HARSFIA, JR., Ohio

JOHN C. KUNKEL, Pennsylvania

LOUISE G. REECE, Tennessee
b•

CONTENTS

Page

H.R. 2299, H.R. 7658, and S 48 1

Testimony of—

Blaeuer, Samuel D., Real Estate Division, Office, Chief of Engineers,

Department of the Army 3

Cassidy, Maj. Gen. William F., Director of Civil Works, Chief of

Engineers, U.S. Army 14

Edmondson, Hon. Ed., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Oklahoma 6

Flood, Hon. Daniel J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Pennsylvania 9

Siler, Hon. Eugene, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Kentucky 2

Watts, Hon. John C., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Kentucky 6

Additional information—

Cassidy, Maj. Gen. William F., Director of Civil Works, Office, Chief

of Engineers, Department of the Army, letter, April 11, 1961 12

Cooper, Hon. John Sherman, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky, letter, July 11, 1961 7

In

v
/
FLOOD CONTROL-1961

TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMI1 11X ON FLOOD CONTROL OF THE

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.0 .

The committee met at 10 a.m., in room 1304, New House Office

Building, Hon. Frank M. Clark (acting subcommittee chairman)

presiding.

Mr. CLARK. The Subcommittee on Flood Control will come to order.

We have with us this morning Hon. Eugene Siler, who will testify

on behalf of his bill.

(The bills referred to follow:)

[H.R. 2299, 87th Cong., 1st Bess.]

A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Army to modify certain leases entered into for

the provision of recreation facilities in reservoir areas

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That the Chief of Engineers, under

the supervision of the Secretary of the Army, is authorized to amend any lease

entered into before November 1, 1956, providing for the construction, maintenance, and operation of commercial recreation facilities at a water resource

development project under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army so

as to provide for the adjustment, either by increase or decrease, from time to

time during the term of such lease of the amount of rental or other consideration payable to the United States under such lease, when and to the extent

he determines such adjustment or extension to be necessary or advisable in the

public interest. No adjustment shall be made under the authority of this Act

so as to increase or decrease the amount of rental or other consideration payable under such lease for any period prior to the date of such adjustment.

[H.R. 7658, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To authorize the Secretary of the Army to modify certain leases entered into for

the provision of recreation facilities in reservoir areas

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That the Chief of Engineers, under

the supervision of the Secretary of the Army, is authorized to amend any lease

entered into before November 1, 1956, providing for the construction maintenance, and operation of commercial recreational facilities at a water resource development project under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army so as to

provide for the adjustment, either by increase or decrease, from time to time during the term of such lease of the amount of rental or other consideration payable

to the United States under such lease, when and to the extent he determines such

adjustment or extension to be necessary or advisable in the public interest. No

adjustment shall be made under the authority of this Act so as to increase or

decrease the amount of rental or other consideration payable under such lease

for any period prior to the date of such adjustment.

1
2 FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1

[ S. 48, 87th Cong., 1st Bess.]

AN ACT To authorize the Secretary of the Army to modify certain leases entered into for

the provision of recreation facilities in reservoir areas

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States of America in Congress assembled, That the Chief of Engineers, under

the supervision of the Secretary of the Army, is authorized to amend any lease

entered into before November 1, 1956, providing for the construction, maintenance, and operation of commercial recreational facilities at a water resource

development project under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army so

as to provide for the adjustment, either by increase or decrease, from time to

time during the term of such lease the amount of rental or other consideration

payable to the United States under such lease, when and to the extent he determines such adjustment or extension to be necessary or advisable in the public

interest. No adjustment shall be made under the authority of this Act so as to

increase or decrease the amount of rental or other consideration payable under

such lease for any period prior to the date of such adjustment.

Passed the Senate June 12, 1961.

Attest:

FELTON M. JOHNSTON, Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. EUGENE SILER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Mr. SILER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I

express my appreciation for the privilege of coming before you to

testify for, and give my support to, my own bill, H.R. 2299.

I do not think that my testimony will take more than a couple of

minutes. I appreciate your indulgence for that period of time.

My bill is identical with the bill introduced by Congressman Watts,

of Kentucky, H.R. 7658, and is also identical, word for word, with a

bill introduced in the Senate and already passed in the Senate, S. 48,

which I believe was introduced by Senator Chavez and also Senator

Cooper.

This bill of mine not only applies to persons in my own congressional district, but applies to persons in all congressional districts over

the entire United States who might have similar situations.

This bill is strictly an enabling act. Some people think that the

Secretary of the Army already has the implied power that this bill

spells out, and yet there are certain people in the Department of the

Army that wanted this spelled out word for word in order that there

might be no controversy on the subject.

This bill would enable the Secretary of the Army, acting through

the Chief of Engineers, to modify, or renegotiate the leases entered into

by fishing dock operators prior to the date of November 1, 1956, and

by renegotiating these leases the power would be given to the Secretary of the Army to modify the leases either by granting decreases in

the amount of lease money that would be paid, or increases in the

amount of money that would be paid.

The purpose of the bill is to prevent hardship on some of the dock

operators who have repeatedly said they not only are making no profit,

but they are slowly going out of business. In fact, some of them have

already gone out of business.

This bill would enable the Secretary of the Army to modify some of

these leases upon the hearing of testimony that a great hardship was

being created.

I hope you will give this consideration and that you will pass it.
FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1

So far as I know, there is no opposition to it. It does just simply

enable the Secretary of the Army to do justice where testimony is introduced showing an injustice exists.

It is purely and simply an enabling act.

I thank you so much for hearing me. I hope you will give it due

consideration. I know you will.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

Mr. BALDWIN. I would like to ask a question if I may.

Do you have several water projects, lakes and so forth, in your area

of Kentucky in which this problem now is particularly serious?

Mr. SILER. We have one. That is Cumberland Lake, the reservoir

behind Wolfe Creek Dam. There are a number of dock operators up

and down that reservoir, or lake, and they have had numerous meetings. Senator Cooper and I both have attended some of these meetings. They have expressed the hardship that flows from some of the

leases that have been entered into. All they want to do is to testify

about these hardships that are imposed on them before the Secretary

of the Army so he can then make a decision as to whether or not their

leases should be modified.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. We have a similar reservoir in our district. We

had a problem. They have evidently resolved the problem under the

present laws. Is there some special reason they cannot do the same

thing there, or is it their opinion the law is not clear?

Mr. SILER. That is the idea.

I will say to the gentleman from Iowa, they want it spelled out word

for word. I felt there was implied power there to modify the leases

already, but they said, "We have some doubt about it, we would like

to see it spelled out, we would like to have it on the books so if the question should ever arise we could point to it and say, 'This is our

authority.' "

Mr. HARSHA. Congressman Siler, perhaps this is what Mr. Schwengel was getting at. In your bill, you say, "amend any lease entered

into before November 1, 1956." I assume the law after 1956 is clear

enough.

Mr. SILER. I think it is either clear enough, or the terms are more

favorable to the dock operators. The percentage may be smaller after

that date.

Does anyone know about that?

STATEMENT OF SAMEUL D. BLAEUER, REAL ESTATE DIVISION,

OFFICE OF CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Mr. BLAEUER. After that date, we started including a renegotiation

law which permitted renegotiation. Prior to that date we did not.

Up until last year it was optional with the leases. Last year we made

it mandatory to include the renegotiation clause.

Mr. BALDWIN. Does this renegotiation clause allow renegotiation

upward as well as downward?

Mr. BLAEUER. Yes.

Mr. BALDWIN. Was this change on November 1, 1956, a change by

administrative determination within the Department, or by some law?

Mr. BLAEUER. It was an administrative determination whereby we

started including the renegotiation clause. Prior to that time, we did
4 FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1

-not have the clause in. You have a Comptroller General decision

which states you cannot renegotiate the rental consideration unless

there is some other benefit flowing to the Government.

Mr. BALDWIN. The change, you also mentioned that just last year

you made it mandatory, was this also an administrative determination?

Mr. BLAELTER. Yes, sir.

There is the authority in the Secretary of the Army to include such

terms and conditions he deems appropriate. If he deemed it appropriate to put in the renegotiation clause, we would not have the problem. We did not do so until November 1956.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Siler.

Our next witness is Mr. Blaeuer, who has already given us some of

the details.

Mr. Blaeuer is from the Real Estate Division of the Office of the

Chief of Engineers.

Mr. BLAEITER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am

Samuel D. Blaeuer from the Management Disposal Division, Real

Estate, Office of the Chief of Engineers.

The Department of the Army favors the enactment of this legislation. I have a prepared statement to submit for the record. Briefly,

it is very similar to what the Congressman has stated before.

The purpose of the legislation, of course, is to authorize renegotiation of concession leases entered into prior to November 1 at water

resource development projects under the jurisdiction of the Secretary

of the Army so as to permit the adjustment of rental from time to

time by either increase or decrease whenever the Chief of Engineers

determines these actions are necessary or advisable in the public interest.

Basically, the reason we are in favor of it is, it would permit easier

administration of the leases that were entered into prior to 1956. We

do have several of them prior to that time that were on the basis of

usually stating a fixed rental and having them bid on a percentage

of the gross receipts. Now many of them, for some reason or the

other, were a little too optimistic. One at Lake Cumberland that the

Congressman is referring to bid as much as 15 percent. That of course

is too high a consideration. He cannot successfully operate and continue to develop the facilities to give the public the services and facilities which we desire.

Mr. BALDWIN. Are there other dams in Kentucky similar to that

and in the same situation, or is this the prime example in the State of

Kentucky?

Mr. BLAEITER. In Kentucky that is the only one where we are runfling into difficulty.

Mr. BALDWIN. I am just thinking aloud, but suppose you have a

competitive bid situation and somebody comes in and bids obviously

• more than he can possibly make out on, but because he bids that way

he wins the bid, and somebody comes in with a sound bid with what

he can make out on and loses the bid, how are you going to take into

consideration that problem? Somebody might bid exorbitantly because he knows there is a renegotiation clause and he can get in on

the ground floor.

Mr. BLAE17ER. In the past, we tried many procedures. Today we

are not faced with that problem because we seek proposals, but in the
FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1 5

proposals we specify both the fixed rental and the percentage of gross

receipts. So the awards are made on the basis of the person best qualified through his experience and financial ability to perform.

Prior to 1956, we were doing it on a bid basis, and frequently, although we would feel like the rental was too high, the individual

would have such a background we could not throw him out as an

irresponsible bidder. One of the highest percentages we received

came from a banker. We definitely could not say he was not in a

position of knowing what it should be worth.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much.

Without objection your statement will be put in the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Samuel D. Blaeuer, Real

Estate, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, and have been

designated to present the views of the Department of the Army in your consideration of Senate bill 48. I have a prepared statement which I will be happy

to read or, if the committee desires, I can submit it for the record. I also have

with me two other representatives of the Office of the Chief of Engineers. They

are: Mr. Thomas J. Canning, Management and Disposal Division, Real Estate,

and Mr. Matthias C. Huppuch, Operations Division, Civil Works.

The purpose of S. 48 is authorize the renegotiation of concessionaire leases

entered into prior to November 1, 1956, at water resource development projects

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army, so as to permit the adjustment of rental from time to time by either increase or decrease whenever the

Chief of Engineers determines these actions to be necessary or advisable in

the public interest.

The Department of the Army has reported in favor of this legislation as set

forth in Senate Report No. 296 of the Senate Committee on Public Works on the

bill now under consideration.

The leases affected by this legislation arise chiefly in connection with development of public recreational facilities at water resource projects. The Chief of

Engineers, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Army, is authorized

by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 889) to construct, maintain, and

operate public park and recreational facilities in reservoir areas and to permit

the construction, maintenance, and operation of such facilities. The act also

authorizes the Secretary of the Army to grant lease of lands, including structures or facilities thereon, in reservoir areas for such periods and upon such

terms and for such purposes as he may deem reasonable in the public interest.

In addition, the Secretary of the Army has authority under 10 U.S.C. 2667 to

lease lands that are not for the time being required for public use.

In advertising sites for lease for recreational development, it had been the

general policy of the Department of the Army to state a fixed annual rental

and then invite competitive bidding among prospective lessees on the basis of

the percentage of the annual gross receipts to be paid in addition to the annual

rental. However, this procedure in some instances resulted in bids—and acceptance thereof by the Government—of offers to pay a percentage of the annual

gross receipts which subsequent events prove to be based on economically

unsound forecasts on the part of the lessee.

As a consequence, where the lease arrangement failed to provide a fair return

on investment, the incentive for further development of the facilities was curtailed. Nonetheless, and even though it is recognized that development of

proper recreational facilities requires encouragement of lessees to pursue a profitable lease arrangement, the Department of the Army was without authority

to renegotiate the lease. This was true even though enforcement of a commitment to pay a higher total rental than is economically justified does not benefit

the Government, reduces the lessee's incentive, and increases the management

difficulities at the project involved.

As a result of these various experiences the Department of the Army revised

its leasing procedures in November 1956 to emphasize that the development and

availability of facilities to the public is the prime consideration. At that time

provision was made in the lease agreement, at the option of the lessee, for renegotiation of the rental periodically. The leasing procedure was further revised

75191-61-2
6 FLOOD CONTROL-1961

in July 1960 and the inclusion of a renegotiation clause in the lease became

mandatory.

The renegotiation of leases entered into before November 1, 1956, has been

the subject of recurring legislation. Renegotiation of concession leases at the

Clark Hill Reservoir, the Lake Greeson Reservoir, and the John H. Kerr

Reservoir has been authorized by the acts of July 11, 1956, July 2, 1958, and

September 6, 1960 (70 Stat. 521; 72 Stat. 294; 74 Stat. 818). In addition, inasmuch as most concessions are established under long-term leases, the need for

renegotiation may occur from time to time in the future at other projects.

The Department of the Army therefore favors the enactment of general legislation such as S. 48 which is designed to accomplish this purpose.

The fiscal effect of S. 48 cannot be readily ascertained; however, the Bureau

of the Budget has concurred in the views of this Department and recommended

enactment of this bill.

Mr. CLARK. We also have statements from Congressmen Ed Edmondson and John C. Watts, also one from Senator John Sherman

Cooper. Their statements will be submitted for the record.

(The statements to be supplied follow:)

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE ED EDMONDSON s

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this important measure.

The purpose of S. 48 is to permit the renegotiation of concessionaire leases

entered into before November 1, 1956, at water resource development projects

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army so as to permit the adjustment of rental from time to time by either increase or decrease whenever the

Chief of Engineers determines these actions to be necessary or advisable in the

public interest.

I strongly favor enactment of this legislation. As pointed out in the Senate

committee's report, this legislation will correct many inequitable situations which

have occurred with regard to recreational leases and leases of land at water resource development projects, granted under any authority of the Secretary of

the Army. I have talked personally with a number of lessees who have been

operating under very unfair and even hardship conditions in recent years, and

have been unable to get their lease terms modified.

Since November 1, 1956, bidders have been given the option of including a

provision for renegotiation—this option should also be given to those leases

which were made prior to November 1, 1956. The enactment of S. 48 will provide the necessary authority to accomplish this.

It is recognized that development of proper recreational facilities requires encouragement of lessees to pursue a profitable lease arrangement. Inasmuch as

most concessions are established under long-term leases, the need for renegotiation may occur from time to time. Several laws have been recently enacted to

provide renegotiation of leases at specific projects entered into prior to November 1, 1956. There is already existing authority for renegotiation of leases entered into since November 1, 1956. It is imperative that we enact S. 48 at this

time in order that the authority to renegotiate might be extended to those lessees

holding leases entered into prior to November 1, 1956, under any authority of the

Secretary of the Army.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN C. WATTS OF KENTUCKY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate very much indeed

the courtesy that you have extended me by affording me opportunity to discuss

with you the object and purpose of H.R. 7658 which I introduced in the House

of Representatives on June 13. To return to the scene of my first congressional committee activity is always a source of genuine pleasure.

H.R. 7658 is equitable in nature inasmuch as, where renegotiation for the

purpose of adjusting annual rentals is concerned, it would place on an equal

footing all lessees and concessionaires at recreational facilities in reservoir

areas at water development projects and other areas coming within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army, by giving to the Chief of Engineers, under

the direction of the Secretary, authority to make such adjustments in cases

of leases entered into prior to November 1, 1956.
FLOOD CONTROL-1 96.1 7

Prior to November 1, 1956, the Department of the Army, in advertising sites

for leases for recreational development, stated a fixed annual rental it expected

to receive, based on a percentage of expected gross annual receipts to be paid

as well as annual rental. In many instances an economically unsound estimate

on the part of the lessee resulted in his being bound to pay—and the Government to accept—higher total rental costs than were actually necessary for

a mutually profitable leasing arrangement. This situation was directly contrary to the original intent of the program, as maximum development and

availability to the public of these facilities was and is the prime consideration

in the development of these leases, not Federal profit. At present, the only

way in which renegotiation of leases arranged prior to the 1956 date can be

accomplished is by specific legislation. This is not the situation with respect

to leases under agreements entered into subsequent to that date, as in the

contract provision is made for renegotiation and/or adjustment of rental clause.

I think the bill under consideration would greatly improve these conditions

by making it possible for lessees to provide this development and successful

operation by assuring them of a flexible scale of adjustment in leasing operations.

My interest in H.R. 7658 is of course synonymous with the interests of the

State of Kentucky, which it is my privilege to represent, and the welfare of

the concessionaires at the many water resource facilities in my State. But let

me add that I feel, too, that the legislation would be in the best interests of the

Federal Government and of concessionaires in every State in the Nation.

This measure is identical with S. 48, which passed the Senate on June 12. I

strongly urge the committee to consider H.R. 7658 favorably, and thank you

again for the opportunity to testify on behalf of this vital legislation.

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

July 11, 1961.

Hon. CLIFFORD DAVIS,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Flood Control, Public Works Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: I am writing with reference to the bill, S. 48, and companion bills, introduced by House Members, to authorize the Secretary of the

Army to modify certain leases entered into for the provision of recreation facilities in reservoir areas.

Last year the Senate Public Works Committee, of which I am a member,

approved my bill for the same purpose, with amendments to conform with the

recommendations of the Secretary of the Army as set forth in his letter to the

chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee. This bill, S. 3260, was passed

by the Senate and referred to the House Committee on Public Works June 29,

1960. Unfortunately, the bill was not reported by the House committee due to

the lateness of its arrival.

The Corps of Engineers has approved this bill, as it will permit the corps

to renegotiate contracts where conditions have changed to such an extent as to

make it difficult, if not impossible, for operators to serve the public interest.

I will appreciate very much if your committee will consider this bill in a

favorable light and report it to the House of Representatives for passage.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

JOHN SHERMAN COOPER.

Mr. CLARK. We will now go into executive session.

(Whereupon, the committee went into executive session.)

FLOOD CONTROL-1961

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCO1VIMFITEE ON FLOOD CONTROL,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC 

Washington,D.0 WORKS,

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room

1302, New House Office Building, Hon. Clifford Davis (chairman of

the subcommittee) presiding.

DOCUMENT No. 1142

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, N.Y.,

PA., AND Mn.

Mr. DAVIS. We meet this morning to consider a comprehensive review study of the Susquehanna River Basin in the State of Maryland,

docket 1142.

I may say to the committee that we are holding this hearing this

morning out of courtesy to our distinguished friend and colleague,

Mr. Flood. This is a $2 million project. On this committee in these

days we have not been considering $2 million projects, but Mr. Flood is

so industrious and so persistent and so attentive to the affairs of his

district and the country that we could not help but set down this

hearing.

So we will be glad to hear from our friend and colleague, Mr. Flood.

So you see how important you are.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am only a pale reflection of you and

your distinguished subcommittee. You can be sure of that.

I am delighted that you would be good enough to do this. I do not

pretend to be the mouthpiece for the great States of New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, and the outer areas of Delaware, and conceivably the District of Columbia. However, we are fortunate enough

to have on your subcommittee and your committee, members who live

along the Susquehanna. My friend, Mr. Robison, from the Binghamton area, where we have basin projects underway, and Mr. Kunkel

from the Harrisburg area. So they know or have forgotten more

about the Susquehanna than I, but I live in the middle area.

The reason why I came to you today is, I first discussed this project

a number of years ago with former President Truman when he was

Vice President. I went to him because of the prominence at that time

of the Missouri Valley Authority, and with the aid of the experts

9
10 FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1

in those days I proceeded to file a series of bills calling for the creation

of a Susquehanna watershed commission, fashioned after the programs

in the West and the great Southwest.

However, because of the Korean war and the distressed areas programs I became involved in, I could not give this matter the attention

which it deserved. At the time I was satisfied with the way that your

committee was operating in setting up the small basin surveys and programs which were effective for their limited areas, that is, mine,, the

Binghamton area, and north of Binghamton, and both branches.

I would like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that this proposal covers the entire watershed, not just the one branch. The reason I appear

today in this forum is because I have discussed this over the period of

the last 10 years with your staff, your experts here, and this past year

they suggested that the most effective and the most desirable procedure

would be to follow the one we have by the introduction of a review

resolution.

They pointed out to me something that I was becoming increasingly

aware of, namely, that the policy of your distinguished committee—

and it is certainly commendable embraces this concept of the last

10 years or so of integrated surveys for these great river valleys and

basins and watersheds, rather than this nibbling at it as we have been

doing for 100 years. That is why with that expert advice of your

staff I proposed this resolution.

I do not intend to speak of the technical aspects of this matter with

the experts behind me here. I do not presume to be a technician. But

as you can imagine, and as you know, I have been hounding you for

years and out of sheer ennui, I think, to get me out of your hair, we

are here today. I just wore you down more than anything else.

Of course, the matter is of great seriousness. This, I am advised by

the experts, is the last great river valley watershed of this magnitude

in the United States, undeveloped, unplanned. It is a great river.

The history of the river is known to your committee and to your staff.

It flows through great industrial areas, great urban areas, and great

rural areas. This is a cross-section of what made this Nation great in

the early days. But then the "Go west, young man, go west," theory

developed, and time, and Congress, and the Engineers, passed us by,

so that all over this Nation these development programs have been the

keystone of our national economy. Yet in the very heartland of the

eastern seaboard, on the doorstep of the Nation's Capital, is this tremendous Susquehanna—long, deep, wide, and powerful.

I have been advised by the experts, and I want you to know, that

my appearance here as only one Member of Congress was suggested by

the experts as the proper way of doing it. I have been in touch with

the Governors of the States concerned—New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware—and the Engineers here—because I believe

that Delaware and the District of Columbia are affected by this proposed integrated survey. I have arranged to call a meeting in my city

of Wilkes-Barre, which is in the geographic center of this whole thing,

of the representatives of all of the States, and representatives of all of

the municipalities, counties, boroughs, cities, townships, and so on,

covered by the jurisdiction of this proposal. I have extended invitations to about 1,500 such functionaries through the entire basin for a

meeting in Wilkes-Barre within the next 2 weeks. That is to get the
FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1 11

bandwagon rolling for the years ahead, when you will want a fulldress presentation after the Engineers' report.

I am grateful to your staff for what they have done to help me with

this. They have been most cooperative with me on this thing because

I am a babe in arms in this sort of business.

Then your committee requested that the Army Engineers have an

opportunity to look at it. The Engineers proceeded to make a preliminary study and did report by letter to your committee, recommending that this be done. It will take about 4 years.

The cost of this will be $2 million. The declaration of policy is

nothing new to you. As I understand it, there are no new proposals

involved in this. The Army Engineers propose to do no new thing

that is not done with these integrated surveys of these great river

watersheds. There will be some interesting studies peculiar to this

survey that you have not had any place else, though, because this

river passes through the anthracite coal fields—my area—and no place

else in the world is there such a challenge to this subcommittee and

to the Engineers as you will meet, so they tell me. That will be involved as part of the study with regard to the relationship of this

river, or this watershed, to the anthracite coal fields.

It is an interesting and special challenge, and a very difficult one,

the Engineers tell me. The magnitude of the project will, of course,

mean much to these special areas. Everything will be involved from

modern navigation in the lower reaches of the Susquehanna, where she

enters the Chesapeake Bay, and where it will have to tie in to this

extraordinary work that you people have done in the Delaware River

complex—a miracle—and which you are now doing, thank God, in the

Potomac.

I will be fortunate with respect to my survey because of what you

have done in the Delaware and in the Potomac. You have laid the

groundwork with the Delaware study, and you are now working on

the Potomac. Fortunately the Potomac command has now been transferred to the Baltimore district of the Army Engineers, and that is

the district which has jurisdiction over the Susquehanna Valley

watershed. So just by a stroke of fortune all of the experience and

expertise of these two studies on the Delaware and Potomac, and the

staff, and so on, will be ready and available within the year to devote

itself to this tremendous challenge of the Susquehanna. The river

rises far up in New York State, in John Robison's territory of Binghamton, and drains several tributary rivers into the North Branch.

Then where they join above Harrisburg, in the Sunbury area of Dr.

Fenton's district, the branch goes west and there you are engaged in

basin studies and projects. Much work has been done down through

the years on both of these branches, and much is being done, but I

would like to make it clear that under no circumstances should the

people along either branch where there are projects in operation, be

concerned that such a study would retard or interfere for 1 minute

or with 1 man-hour's work with projects underway. Quite the contrary.

A study like this would be of great benefit. The theory of the integrated survey would be impertinent and presumptuous for me to

lecture to you on, because it is your idea. I just learned about it in

the last year, and of course it was a God-send to me to know about

this idea in view of what I have been trying to do.
12 FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1

So I have set aside my bill calling for an authority or a commission, since that thinking is obsolete now, for this purpose.

That is about all I have to sa'y now. I am advised by your staff

that the real purpose of this kind of meeting is this: You used to

hold these meetings, as I understand it, for many years on all such

requests for new studies, but now you do it only when the size of

the request, especially in a money sense, such as the $2 million inyolved here, indicates that you cannot treat it that pro forma, or

that casually. I submit, of course, as a member of the Appropriations Committee that $2 million expenditure leaves me cold. We

let the clerks handle that. Unless you are talking about $200 million.

And, of course, I am partly misled because I am a member of the

Defense Department Appropriations Subcommittee, and when you

sit on the Defense Department Appropriations Subcommittee, unless

it involves $100 million we won't even bother listening to you. So

I'm not impressed by $2 million, but I understand what the problem

is here.

I am not being facetious. What I mean is, if this river valley,

this tremendous watershed running through the heart of the densely

populated eastern seaboard, which is unstudied, undeveloped, and

unknown as far as your great program here is concerned—if this

should be done, $2 million is not the problem; $2 million is not the

problem if this should be done. The equities so far outweigh and

overbalance the costs involved from the standpoint of value that that

is merely an informative figure, and little else in my judgment.

There is not anything else I can say. I understand your heraing is

technical. I do not have the technical answers, but I would be glad

to answer any questions you might have in mind as far as I am

concerned.

Mr. DAVIS. I am sure you appreciate that we are beginning to build

a record on your matter. You have made a splendid statement.

Before permitting or suggesting that the members ask you some

general questions, I should like to read for the record at this point

the letter received by Chairman Buckley dated April 11 last, from

Maj. Gen. William F. Cassidy, Director of Civil Works.

To save time I will just read it, and in further appreciation of the

fact that we are building a record on this matter, because this may

well develop into a proposed compact between the States.

Mr. FLOOD. May I interrupt to suggest that I made that statement when I met with the Army Engineers upon the suggestion of

my friend Walter of Pennsylvania. I met with him and they were

so interested in the Delaware River Valley compact, I was amazed.

So you are quite right. I am advised that in due course, in 5 or 6

or 10 years, or whatever period it is, that this will develop into this

compact theory between Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and

Delaware, and officials of the District of Columbia.

Mr. DAVIS. The several States. That is right. So let me read the

letter:

HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS,

Washington, D.C., April 11, 1961.

Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

House of Representatives.

DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your recent letter, designated as

"Docket No. 1142: Flood Control," concerning the adoption of a resolution directing a review study of the Susquehanna River, N.Y., Pa., and Md.
FLOOD CONTROL-----1 9 61 13

The Susquehanna River Basin has a drainage area of about 27,500 square

miles. It includes many industrialized and urbanized areas subject to severe

flood damages. All areas in the basin are faced with water resource and land

treatment problems. The existing Federal project includes 17 dams and 24

local flood protection projects. Six of the dams have been completed and one is

under construction. Of the local protection projetcs, 19 have been completed

and 1 is under construction.

Local interests have expressed a desire for a comprehensive study to determine

the best plan of improvement considering all water resource and flood protection

needs. It appears that a review study of the desired scope is warranted.

A comprehensive survey of the water resources of the Susquehanna River

Basin and formulation of the best plan for meeting the interrelated needs of the

basin would serve to achieve optimum development of the area. The study would

determine the economic feasibility of measures for flood control, land treatment,

recreation, and low-flow regulation. The latter would include adequate supplies

a water for urban, rural, and industrial needs, pollution abatement, and recreation. The study would be fully coordinated with all local, State, and Federal

interests.

Authority is presently available for surveys of specific subbasin areas but the

total area involved does not include the whole basin. Interim reports on the subbasins that are currently underway and fully funded will be completed and

processed to Congress. The comprehensive report would present a coordinated

plan for all water uses for the entire basin.

The authority to make a comprehensive study could be provided by the adoption

of a resolution calling for a review of the report of the Chief of Engineers,

printed in House Document No. 702, 77th Congress, and other reports with a view

to determining whether improvements for flood control and water resource needs

in the Susquehanna River Basin are advisable at this time.

The estimated cost of the comprehensive survey is $2 million. The time required to complete the studies and submit the report thereon to Congress is

about 4 years, dependent upon availability of funds.

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM F. CASSIDY,

Major General, USA,

Director of Civil Works.

So that is an all-inclusive statement which suggests that there are

subbasin reviews and studies underway, some about to be completed

and some about to be processed. However, I get it from this letter

from the Director of Civil Works that it would be advisable to consider an overall report on all of the needs as represented by all of these

subbasin studies, and what would be required for flood control, land

treatment, recreation, stream pollution, and so forth.

Mr. FLOOD. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have in my possession—and I know that the committee staff has it—a preliminary report by the Army Engineers entitled, "Outline for a Comprehensive

Survey of the Susquehanna River Basin With Water Resources Needs

Projected to the Year 2060." I might say that when I saw that date

I was a little startled. I did not know what I was getting into. But

this is the way that these fellows go about this thing. It opens up an

entirely new vista of economic planning for the Nation of which I

was totally unaware. This is a fascinating thing in which your committee is engaged.

An interesting historical note is that I am advised on April 11,

1791, a resolution was introduced in Congress asking for the appropriation of 6,290 pounds sterling for a survey for the improvement of

navigation on the Susquehanna River. That even antedates the Corps

of Engineers I understand.

Mr. DAVIS. Without objection this letter from General Cassidy will

be made a part of the record. Before proceeding to questioning, is

Congressman Scranton in the room?
14 FLOOD CONTROL-1 961

Mr. FLOOD. No, but Mr. Carrigg is here, representing his office.

Mr. DAVIS. Now, Mr. Clark, do you have any questions?

Mr. CLARK. No questions.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. BALDWIN. No questions.

Mr. DAVIS. Are there any questions from anybody at this point?'

I am sure all of us appreciate we are building a record. If it takes

4 years for these studies, without being facetious, if work on this

project started back in 1791, then apparently we are making progress.

I was interested in your statement that you didn't consider anything under $100 million. I quite agree that that is the style these

days, and clerks handle these small matters, but then in this committee

we operate on such a limited budget that we have to look after the

small items before they ever reach you. So thank you very, very

much, Mr. Flood, and the committee will be in touch with you, of

course.

I appreciate your references to our staff because we think we have

a very competent staff. Mr. Brennan is an honorary colonel, and a

fine engineer. Mr. Sullivan is an able lawyer, and Mrs. Beiter is an

excellent clerk.

Mr. FLOOD. Without these three people I would not have had the

opening sentence. I was lost.

Mr. DAVIS. That is right. And I should include Mr. Enfield, who

is our newest professional man.

Mr. FLOOD. Yes. I just met him now.

Mr. DAVIS. In this committee the staff represents all of us.

Mr. FLOOD. I might add that most of the river is on his side—the

Susquehanna.

Mr. DAVIS. So thank you very much. Is there anybody here representing General Cassidy this morning? General, we are very glad

to have you before our committee.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM F. CASSIDY, DIRECTOR OF

CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS

General CASSIDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. The review of the Susquehanna Basin would determine,

the need and advisability of improvements for conservation, development, and use of the basin's water resources. The total basin area is

27,500 square miles, of which a little over 6,000 miles lie in New York,

21,000 in Pennsylvania and 280 in northeastern Maryland.

Urban-industrial centers in the basin include the Binghamton and.

Corning-Elmira areas in New York the Altoona, Lewiston, WilkesBarre-Scranton, Harrisburg, Williamsport-Lock Haven, and York

areas in Pennsylvania and other important communities. Manufacturing is diversified and agriculture and mining are important economic activities. In addition to water, the basin's resources include

gas, limestone, building stone, sand and gravel, anthracite and bituminous coal, clay, glass sand, and timber.

There are substantial flood problems in the basin, and emerging

problem in regard to water supply, stream pollution and water

quality control, salinity encroachment, major drainage, irrigation,

fish and wildlife conservation, and outdoor recreation. The variety

and complexity of these problems and the likelihood that they can
FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1 15

be met most effectively by multiple-purpose development of the Susquehanna's water resources provide convincing evidence of need for

comprehensive investigation.

Flood control will continue to play an important role in providingfor effective use of the basin's land resources for residential, industrial, and agricultural purposes. Integration of direct flood control

measures and such measures as flood plain regulation is necessary to

permit accomplishment of this objective at minimum cost.

Domestic and industrial water supply needs are presently being met

largely by upland impoundment and from ground water sources.

However, water tables are beginning to recede and water shortages

are beginning to be felt, as in the Tioga River area in Pennsylvania.

Large increases in water usage are to be expected in the urban-industrial areas of the basin, and an effective program for keeping needs

and supplies in balance on a long-range basis will be required.

The problem of water quality control is expected to become increasingly significant as the basin's economy expands. This will require

vigorous prosecution of programs for treatment or other control of

wastes at their source, supplemented by measures to insure adequate

streamflows. Salinity encroachment in the tidal Susquehanna is another aspect of the water quality control problem which will require

attention and solution, by low-flow regulation or other means. Adverse salinity conditions already are being experienced in the Havre

de Grace, Md., area.

Swampy areas in headwater subbasins have served to retard flood

flows. In the future it may be desirable to develop such areas for

agriculture by major drainage works. Study of land-use potentials

and trends in agricultural needs and activity will be required to determine the advisability of such measures and their relation to other

basin problems.

Although irrigation is not presently practiced extensively in the

Susquehanna Basin, the sound economic basis for supplemental irrigation in many areas in the East appears to apply in this basin as well.

Such development may be expected to increase the overall requirement

for supplies of water.

Fish and wildlife conservation and enhancement and provisions of

opportunities for water-related outdoor recreation must be recognized

as important components of any basin program for effective conservation and the use of water resources.

Overall, the water resource problems of the Susquehanna Basin are

not yet at the critical stage. This is fortunate because it provides

real opportunity, by means of comprehensive study, to devise plans

and programs which will effectively serve the clearly emerging needs.

This concept is in keeping with the President's natural resources message to the Congress. He clearly described the dependence of our

society upon our water, land, forest, and mineral resources, and stated

that if we fail to chart a proper course of conservation and development—if we fail to use these blessings prudently—we will be in trouble in a short time.

I think I also should note at this point that comprehensive investigation of the.Susquehanna's water needs will provide a sound basis

for adapting its water resource programs to serve national objectives

for area redevelopment and maintenance of a satisfactory rate of economic growth.
16 FLOOD CONTROL-1 961

An important aspect of the Susquehanna study would be a review of

the role of existing water resource development projects and programs

as a basis for their integration with overall basin objectives. The existing Federal projects for flood protection in the basin provide for

construction of 17 reservoirs and 24 local protection projects. Six

reservoirs have been completed, and one is under construction. Consideration should be given to the advisability of modification of the

existing program to meet the objective of effective long-range satisfaction of water resource development requirements.

Authority presently is available for surveys of the North Branch,

West Branch, and Juniata subbasins of the Susquehanna and of miscellaneous streams in Maryland and Pennsylvania. The Juniata

River study is concerned primarily with Raystown Reservoir and

mine flooding and local flood problems are major concerns in connection with the miscellaneous streams study. Both the Juniata River

and miscellaneous streams studies are well advanced. These studies

will be completed and reports on them will be submitted to the Congress. The authorized investigations of the North and West Branch

Basins are somewhat broader in scope. These will be coordinated with

the comprehensive study to insure development of fully integrated

plans for the Susquehanna Basin as a whole.

The estimated cost of a comprehensive study of the Susquehanna

River Basin is $2 million. This includes about $425,000 which otherwise would be required to carry on the authorized North Branch and

West Branch investigations in fiscal years 1962 through 1964. The

comprehensive study would include detailed engineering and economic

investigations to determine current and projected water-related needs

for all purposes, the role of water resource development in the basin's

economy, and the most effective water resource development program

for the basin. The relationship of water resource development to

other basin programs would also be determined. Approximately 4

years would be required for completion of the comprehensive study.

Full coordination would be maintained with Federal, State, and local

agencies, and other interests during the investigation and, it is expected that these participants would make major and essential contributions to the success of the undertaking.

The comprehensive study of the Delaware River Basin recently

completed, has demonstrated the effectiveness of closely coordinated,

comprehensive studies.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I desire to point out that a comprehensive examination of the water resources of the Susquehanna River

Basin and formulation of a program for meeting the interrelated

current and long-range needs of the basin would provide a fundamental instrument for achieving optimum development of the basin

economy.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, General. I think that the committee must

be in agreement that we have laid this morning a good predicate for

the further consideration of this entire comprehensive matter. If I

may make a further observation, the committee will be open always

for a further report from Congressman Flood on the result of these

meetings in his home cities in the next fortnight, and the committee

will stand ready to proceed with further hearings in connection with

this matter as they develop, and us the need is indicated.
FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1 17

Are there any questions from any member of the committee?

Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. BALDWIN. General Cassidy, I am rather interested in the basis

upon which the Corps of Engineers determines whether to make a

favorable report or an unfavorable report of a survey. I know that

on a project, when you get past the survey stage and when you get to

the project stage you determine the benefit-cost ratio. You estimate

the benefits and estimate the costs and if the benefits exceed the costs

you recommend favorably. How do you determine whether to recommend for or against surveys?

General CASSIDY. In a comprehensive survey, sir, we would determine the basin's needs and come up with a requirement for development. Then we would determine the engineering features that are

needed to provide or to meet the requirements. Then we go into the

benefits and costs of each one of those engineering structures and we

come up with the benefit-cost ratio on the particular features within

the basin. We have a basin plan which really consists of a group of

elements which can be analyzed separately for their benefits and their

respective costs.

We would only recommend within the basin plan those particular

elements that are justified at the particular time. As an example on

the Columbia River, the first comprehensive was submitted about 1931

and it recommended certain projects for construction. The latest review is one that will be transmitted probably to the next Congress.

In the meantime there have been various reviews, each of which recommended for authorization additional pieces of the overall plan.

This one will do the same thing, and there are still many left for some

future authorization.

A comprehensive just comes up in a plan—in 'a long-range plan.

We have usually considered 50 years as the range. We are hoping

now that we can forecast for something in the order of 100 years.

That is why we are talking about 2060 as a possibility. Then as we go

along the recommendations in any comprehensive and in the reviews

following, will be just for those things that are justified in the near

future within the plan.

Mr. BALDWIN. Under what circumstances would you refuse to recommend a survey?

General CASSIDY. As far as a survey is concerned, a comprehensive

survey, I think we have recommended to this committee from time to

time that surveys not be made when just from our overall knowledge

we believe that either there is not a need for such a survey, or that the

program or project contemplated by the survey would not be justified

by detailed study. As far as a comprehensive is concerned, I think

we would normally recommend that we enter this type of a study on

our major river basins.

Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I want to ask a question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Schwengel.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. First I want to say I appreciate this statement. It

is a very good statement. I note you say that there is a comprehensive

plan, and I wonder if you envision a study of the soil conservation

possibilities in the area involved in this plan?
18 FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1

General CASSIDY. We would, sir. About one third of the estimate

for this study would be used by other agencies to make their studies.

We will go to the Soil Conservation Service and ask them to study this

basin with us. We hope to include a report from them. We would

hope that they would develop a small watershed plan which would

match what we would study and propose to do in the overall basin

plan.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. They follow through what is their just obligation

and you have some real answers to the problem. Is that right?

General CASSIDY. Yes, sir. We will try to make this a true comprehensive by going to each of the Federal agencies and asking them for

a parallel study. In many cases we will fund that. We will fro to the

Forest Service and the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife. We go to

Commerce for the Weather Bureau and the Office of Business Economics. We go to Agriculture for Soil Conservation Service, and so

on. We contact each of them.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. And whether or not you recommend this would

depend on whether you get complete cooperation of all those agencies?

General CASSIDY. In our experience we have had complete cooperation from these agencies in this type of study. We have just completed

the one on the Delaware and we are in the middle of one on the

Potomac.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Thank you.

Mr. KUNKEL. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Kunkel.

Mr. KUNKEL. I would like to have you prepare for me an answer

to the question of what if any effect the Raystown Dam will have on

Juniata County, Pa.

General CASSIDY. All right, sir. You would like to have me submit

a letter to you on that?

Mr. KUNKEL. Yes. I know you are not expected to answer that

offhand, but I would like to have the answer to that question.

General CASSIDY. Yes, sir. I will do that.

Mr. DAVIS. Mrs. Reece.

Mrs. REECE. No questions.

Mr. DAVIS. My colleague from Tennessee. We have our senior and

ranking member of the committee, the Honorable George Fallon with

us. Do you have any questions?

Mr. FALLON. No, Mr. Chairman. Not being a member of the subcommittee I just came here as an observer to learn how an old hand

presides over the committee.

Mr. DAVIS. We have a few new members of this subcommittee. Of

course, this is a great committee, but I have always felt that the Subcommittee on Flood Control probably was the ranking and best subcommittee of all the subcommittees. Oh, of course, Mr. Fallon is chairman of the Roads Subcommittee and, of course Frank Smith and these

other people will object if they heard that statement but they are not

here fortunately. But honestly and truly, our committee has sought

to operate quickly and punctually and thoroughly. I want to express,

as I always do, my appreciation for the fine attendance of the members

on this. A couple on this side called and said that they would appre-
4

FLOOD CONTROL-1 9 6 1 19

•ciate it if they could be excused because of pressure in their offices, and

I am sure that applies to all of us. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you for appearing, Mr. Carrigg. Mr. Carrigg

was our former colleague and is representing Congressman Scranton.

Without 

objection, 

the committee will stand adjourned subject to call.

(Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned subject to call of the Chair.)

0

Amor

;