;OVERNMENT

Storage

UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED

MARYLAND

• P 900 

hi 2.9

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED PROJECT, MONTGOMERY

COUNTY, MD., PROPOSED BY THE SOIL CONSERVATION

SERVICE UNDER PUBLIC LAW 566, 83D CONGRESS, AS

AMENDED

MAY 28, 1963

'Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

98427 WASHINGTON : 1963
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

PAT McNAMARA,

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine

ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

LEE METCALF, Montana

B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina

DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

Michigan, Chairman

JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky

HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii

J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware

JACK MILLER, Iowa

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL—RIVERS AND HARBORS

PAT McNAMARA,

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia

STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine

ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

LEE METCALF, Montana

B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina

DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

BIRCH BAYH, Indiana

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

II

Michigan, Chairman

JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky

HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii

J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware

JACK MILLER, Iowa

JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
CONTENTS

STATEMENTS, LETTERS, EXHIBITS, ETC.

Bailey, James Michael, clerk to County Council for Montgomery County, Page

Md 9

Beall, Lindy N., chairman, Montgomery County Soil Conservation Dis- trict 5

Cairns, G. M., chairman, State Soil Conservation Committee for Maryland_ 10 Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac, policy statement 8

Cook, Howard Lee, Jr., clerk, County Council for Montgomery County, Md 10

Denney, Alfred J 9

Frank, Bernard, professor of watershed management, Colorado State University 7

Freeman, Raymond L., Assistant Regional Director, National Capital Region, National Park Service 16 Gordon, Hon. Kermit, Director, Bureau of the Budget 1

Harris, Kenward K., representing Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac

and the Washington Canoe Club 26 Hewitt, John P., Director of Parks, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 24 Holum, Hon. Kenneth, Assistant Secretary of the Interior 5

Howlett, Duncan, All Souls Unitarian Church 9

Johnson, Carl J., Executive Director, Interstate Commission on the

Potomac River Basin 27

Krause, Keith S., Chief, Technical Services Branch, Division of Water

Supply and Pollution, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 4

Moore, Douglas H., Jr., deputy county attorney, Montgomery County,

Md 23 Schaub, Hon. W. F., Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management 2

Smith, Lathrop, Rock Creek Watershed Association 18 Swigart, Charles, Assistant Director, Watershed Planning Division, Soil Conservation Service 11

Tawes, Hon. J. Millard, Governor, State of Maryland 2

Upper Rock Creek watershed work plan 6,13

Ware, S. J., chairman, Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac 7

Watershed work plan 15

Young, Hon. Gladwin, Acting Administrator, Soil Conservation Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture 3

In

UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL—RIVERS AND HARBORS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

TV a8hington,D.0 D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 4200,

New Senate Office Building, Senator Daniel B. Brewster presiding.

Present: Senators Brewster, Gruening, Jordan Bayh, and Pearson.

Senator BREWSTER. The Subcommittee on Flood Control—Rivers

and Harbors, of the Senate Committee on Public Works, will come to

order.

The purpose of the hearing this morning is to take testimony on the

Upper Rock Creek watershed project.

At the outset, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee

for two things: First of all, for scheduling this hearing at an early

date for a project that is of great interest to all Marylanders. And I

would, secondly, like to thank the chairman for allowing the junior

Senator from Maryland to act as chairman of this subcommittee.

If there is no objection from my colleagues, we will proceed with the

hearing.

The first order of business will be the inclusion in the record of

certain correspondence that we have received with reference to the

Upper Rock Creek project.

Listing, but not reading, we have communications from Kermit

Gordon, Director of the Bureau of the Budget; a letter from the Governor of Maryland, Millard Tawes ; from the Assistant Secretary of

the Army; from the Department of Agriculture; Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare; Department of the Interior; the

Montgomery County, Md., Soil Conservation District; Bernard Frant,

of Colorado State University; from the chairman of the Citizens

Council for a Clean Potomac • from Rev. Duncan Howlett, All Souls

Unitarian Church of Washington, D.C.; and from Alfred J. Denney,

Arlington, Va.

This correspondence supports the project. And if there is no objection, it will be included in the record at this point.

(The communications referred to follows:)

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., April 3, 1963.

Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON,

President of the Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the authority vested in the President by

section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1005), and delegated to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget by
2 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

Executive Order No. 10654 of January 20, 1956, there are transmitted herewith

the following plans for works of improvement which have been prepared under

the provisions of that act:

State Watershed

Maryland Upper Rock Creek.

Kentucky Buck Creek.

With regard to the economic analysis of the Upper Rock Creek watershed project in Maryland, attention is invited to the inclusion of benefits from the increased

recreational use of Rock Creek Park which is expected to result from the flood

protection component of this project. The Bureau of the Budget believes that

such recreational flood protection benefits should be included in water resources

projects only in those cases where the public recreational resource is of a unique

nature for which there is no readily available substitute, where there is heavy

public demand, and where important recreational benefits will be lost if the

recreational use is deferred because of floods. Congress, in authorizing the

acquisition of Rock Creek Park as part of a program to preserve forests and

natural scenery in the vicinity of the National Capital, indicated that Rock Creek

was an area of unique natural beauty not readily available elsewhere in the area

that should be preserved and protected for use by the public (act of June 6, 1924,

Public Law 202, 68th Cong.).

The Bureau of the Budget, therefore, believes that the Upper Rock Creek

watershed project meets the criteria of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, but that the special circumstances relating to this project should not

be regarded as a precedent for broadening the concept of flood protection benefits

in other water resources projects which do not involve such exceptional circumstances.

Each of the above-listed plans involves at least one structure which provides

more than 4,000 acre-feet of total capacity.

Sincerely yours,

KERMIT GORDON, Director.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,

Annapolis, Md., November 14,1962.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS,

Administrator, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Soil Conservation Service.

Washington, D.C.

DEAR Mn. WILLIAMS: Under date of September 28 you wrote to me advising

that in accordance with section 2 of Executive Order No. 10913 you were transmitting for my review and comment the watershed work plan for the Upper

Rock Creek watershed.

This plan, prepared by the Montgomery County Soil Conservation District,

the Montgomery County Council, and the Maryland-National Capital Park and

Planning Commission, has been reviewed and approved by the proper State

agencies.

You may consider this letter as my formal approval of the upper creek watershed work plan which I feel confident, when carried to completion, will have a

very salutory effect upon the economic structure of the area in which it will be

located.

With kindest regards, I am,

Sincerely yours,

J. MILLARD TAWES, Governor.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., November 20, 1962.

Hon. JOHN A. BAKER,

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.

DEAR ME. BAKER: At the request of the Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service we have reviewed the work plan for Upper Rock Creek watershed,

Montgomery County, Md., dated August 1962.

The local organizations proposing the project request Federal assistance in

constructing two reservoirs and improving 2 miles of stream channel. The estimated first cost of these engineering works is $1,884,676, of which $1,871,376 is
I

UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 3

chargeable to the two reservoirs. Of the latter amount $1,671,936 is allocated to

flood prevention, which amounts to about $1,700 per acre Of flood plain. Under

the plan, Public Law 566 funds would bear $1,176,946 or about 62 percent of the

total first cost of the engineering works. The sponsors offer to furnish easements and rights-of-way, administer contracts, operate and maintain the project,

and provide $154,230 of the construction and installation costs.

The average annual benefits claimed for the engineering works total $145,603,

made up of—

Value of recreation at proposed reservoirs $84, 249

Value of recreation foregone in Rock Creek because of floods 22, 974

Value of reducing sediment inflow to Potomac River 20,776

Reduction in flood damages ( to park facilities) 5,333

Reduction in indirect flood damages 12,271

Total 145, 603

In arriving at the first and second items it was assumed that a person-day of

recreation has a value of $2. In calculating the third item it was assumed that

each cubic yard of sediment entering the Potomac River results in a damage

of $1.25.

The proposed works would not adversely affect any present or contemplated

projects of this Department, and we would have no objection to extension of

Federal assistance to the local organizations, pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 566, in such amount as the Secretary of Agriculture may deem justified.

But, for the record we are compelled to state that we do not consider recreation

foregone because of floods to be a real damage, in the sense that destruction of

property is a damage, since recreation in Rock Creek Park is not only deferrable,

but replacable at the time by alternative forms of recreation of approximately

the same value. It is necessary to point this out in defense of the widely accepted view that it is ordinarily more economic to zone flood plains for park

use than to provide the costly flood protection required if their development is

permitted. The Secretary of Agriculture may wish to consider this point in

determining whether the flood protection component of the multiple-purpose plan

is justified as an addition to the primary recreation component.

1Sincerely yours,

W. F. 'SCHAUB,

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management).

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE,

Washington, D.C., February 4, 1963.

Lt. Gen. WALTER K. WrisoN, Jr.,

Chief, Corps of Engineers,

Department of the Army.

DEAR GENERAL WILSON: Mr. Schaub's letter of November 20, 1962, expressing

the views of the Department of the Army on the work plan for upper Rock

Creek watershed, Montgomery County, Md., dated August 1962, has been referred to the Soil Conservation Service for consideration.

We note that the Department of the Army has no objection to the extension

of Federal assistance under Public Law 566 for the development of the project

proposed for the upper Rock Creek watershed but does have reservations with

respect to the flood protection component of the multiple-purpose plan.

We agree that for many situations it would be more economical to zone undeveloped flood plains for park use in lieu of building costly works of improvement

for flood protection to permit intensive development providing the contemplated

development is not totally precluded or the increased cost of such development

in another location exceeds the cost of the protective measures. This does

not imply, however, that floods do not cause real damage in areas devoted to park

use. It merely lessens the impact of floods on the economy of an area where

alternative opportunities for intensive development exist.

The measure of flood damage to a park area, in our opinion, is the limitation

placed on its use by the occurrence of floods. The public investment in land and

facilities for park purposes is justified on the basis of maximum feasible use.

As such use is precluded, the value to the public is reduced. It would appear

(
4 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

logical to express this loss in terms of the number of persons denied use of the

park facilities. The fact that alternative forms of recreation during flood periods might be available does not in any way compensate for the loss of the use of

the park area for which public funds were expended. In conclusion, we believe

that the justification of expenditures for flood protection on the basis of reducing damage to public use areas is appropriate.

With specific reference to Rock Creek Park, which will be protected by this

proposed project, we wish to point out that the act of June 6, 1924, Public Law

202, 68th Congress, 1st session, established a National Capital Park Commission

and authorized and directed the Commission to acquire land in the District of

Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia for the purpose of preserving forests and natural scenery in and about Washington, and for the purpose of providing for the

comprehensive systematic and continuous development of the park, parkway,

and playground system of the National Capital. The act of May 29, 1930,

Public Law 284, 71st Congress, 2d session, authorized appropriations for the

extension of Rock Creek Park into Maryland. These two acts express the intent of the Congress that Rock Creek Park be preserved and protected as an area

of unique natural beauty for use by the public. It apparently was recognized

that there were a limited number of stream valleys in the National Capital area

and congressional action was essential if those valleys were to be preserved to furnish outdoor recreational opportunities for the metropolitan population.

These acts indicates that the Congress did not believe there were alternative

forms of recreation that could be substituted for the public use and enjoyment

of these natural areas within the densely populated National Capital area.

We believe that the plan for the upper Rock Creek watershed complements the desire of the Congress to make Rock Creek Park accessible at all times. The reduction of floods in this area will enhance the opportunities for full en- joyment of Rock Creek Park as envisioned by the Congress and will permit its

use by the public without delays and interruption.

We appreciate your Department's views on this matter.

Sincerely yours,

GLADWIN YOUNG,

Acting Administrator.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE,

Washington, D.C., November 6,1962.

Mr. D. A. WILLIAMS,

Administrator, Soil Conservation Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MIL WILLIAMS: This is in response to your September 28, 1962, request

for review and comments on the work plan for the Upper Rock Creek Watershed,

Montgomery County, Md.

Rock Creek presently receives some organic wastes from the overflow of combined sewers and other sources. However, the completion of works of improvement now in advanced stages of planning will result in significant reduction of

the contributory waste loads. The proposed work plan will also improve water

quality in Rock Creek by reducing the silt content and stabilizing the flow somewhat. There is no known use of the waters of Rock Creek for water supply

purposes, but it will serve recreational uses for which high quality of water

must be maintained. The plan will have no effect on water supplies under the

present conditions or within the foreseeable future.

The overall effects of the project should be beneficial from the mosquito control standpoint since a reduction in flooding should result in a decrease in the

production of highly annoying floodwater mosquitoes. As public health safeguards against vector mosquito production, the following recommendations are

made: (1) Clear the permanent pools of growth and debris before impounding;

(2) locate borrow areas where they will be permanently inundated, or make

them self-draining; (3) eliminate seepage areas by providing drains to natural

channels; and (4) provide for periodic removal of vegetation from inundated

areas.

The opportunity to review the work plan is appreciated. We stand ready to

supply further consultation on your request.

Sincerely yours,

KEITH S. KRAUSE,

Chief, Technical Services Branch, Division of Water Supply and Pollution

Control.
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

Hon. ORVILLE L. FREEMAN,

Secretary of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,

Washington, D.C., November 20, 1962.

5

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The work plan for Upper Rock Creek Watershed, Md..

sent to this Department for the views and recommendations of the Secretary of

the Interior, in accordance with section 2 of Executive Order 10913 and provisions

of section 5 of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended,

has been reviewed and the following comments are offered.

The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife advises that Rock Creek and its

tributaries afford little fishing except for the 2-mile segment on the mainstem below its confluence with Mill Creek. This segment supports a put-and-take trout

fishery which is unique in that natural trout habitat seldom occurs at such low

elevations in this latitude.

Construction and operation of the reservoirs at sites 1 and 5 would inundate

1 mile of existing trout habitat and increase the water temperature downstream

from the structures, with the result that Rock Creek would no longer support

a trout fishery. In a report to the State conservationist, dated August 3, 1961,

the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife described stream impoundment devices and a modification of drop-inlet structures that would prevent projectoccasioned damages to the trout fishery, and recommended that these measures

be installed.

All of the features recommended by the Bureau for mitigation have been included in the work plan. However, the Bureau is concerned that the work plan

treats the recommended modifications as enhancement features and does not

acknowledge the contribution of the Bureau.

Properly managed, the impoundments will support a sport fishery, even though

the water exchange is great. Fishing opportunity afforded by the reservoirs

will be contingent on the compatibility of other recreational use permitted. Wildlife resources will be little affected by the project.

It is requested that the enclosed report of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and

Wildlife be attached as part of the work plan.

The Bureau of Mines reports that the work plan proposes the building of two

dams and accompanying reservoirs above State Route No. 28 for flood control,

sediment reduction, fish and wildlife development, and recreation. The two

reservoirs would total 128 acres in surface area and the flood detention volume

would be 7,090 acre-feet. The benefit-to-cost ratio would be 1.4 to 1.0. The

project would greatly reduce the sediment runoff and the water damages to lower

Rock Creek Park.

Although stone was produced in 1961 in at least two locations in Montgomery

County, the operating deposits were not in the immediate area of the reservoirs.

There are no known commercial mineral deposits that would be affected in any

way, beneficially or adversely.

Other interested agencies of the Department advise that no adverse effects are

anticipated by the proposed improvement in areas under their jurisdiction.

Providing the modifications recommended by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and

Wildlife are incorporated, the Department offers no objection to the proposed

work plan.

Sincerely yours,

KENNETH HOLUM,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

MONTGOMERY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTBIOT,

Rockville, Md., May 23, 1963.

Hon. PAT MCNAMARA,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MCNAMARA : We have been informed that the work plan for

the Upper Rock Creek Watershed, a project under Public Law 566, has been

scheduled for a hearing before the Public Works Committee of the Senate on

May 28, 1963.

The board of supervisors of the Montgomery Soil Conservation District

together with the County Council of Montgomery County, Md., and the Mary98-927 63 2
6 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

land-National Capital Park and Planning Commission are sponsoring this project.

We request approval for the plan so the flood control and watershed protection

measures which are planned can be established.

This project will reduce flooding in the Rock Creek Valley with many benefits

to highways, park improvements, and other improvements. The plan includes

two lakes with additional water for recreation and fishing behind two flood

retention structures, on the edge of the Washington metropolitan area.

The project also makes a contribution to reduction of siltation in the Potomac

River at Washington. The two retention structures in the Rock Creek plan are

recognized as part of the upstream measures included in the Potomac River

Basin plan which is being developed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

The ratio of benefits to costs is estimated at 1.3 to 1 over a 50-year period.

Other features of the Upper Rock Creek watershed plan are described in a twopage summary which is enclosed.

Your consideration and support will be appreciated greatly.

Sincerely yours,

LINDY N. BEALL,

Chairman, Montgomery Soil Conservation District.

Enclosure.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ROCK CREEK WATERSHED PLAN

The Upper Rock Creek Watershed work plan provides for flood control in the

Rock Creek Valley and protection of the upper watershed of the Rock Creek

Basin. The plan has been developed by the Soil Conservation Service of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture as a project under Public Law 566 which makes

Federal assistance available for upstream flood prevention and watershed protection as a part of the total soil and water conservation job.

The Rock Creek project is a plan for two large earth-fill dams to regulate

storm water drainage, reduce flooding, and create two lakes for recreation purposes. The lakes will furnish cold water for 2 miles of trout stream improvement. In addition to the dams, the plan provides a land treatment program

to reduce siltation and sediment deposits in the lakes by controlling soil erosion

on the lands of the watershed above the dams.

Both the dams will be located between Rockville and Olney, above State Route

28. One dam will be built on the north branch and the other on the main stream

of Rock Creek just above Crabb's Branch. The lakes above the dams will be 54

acres and 74 acres in surface area. The storm water flood storage capacity of

the dams will cover 168 acres and 217 acres, surface area respectively.

All of the land directly involved in dam construction, flood storage, and recreational development will be included in Upper Rock Creek Park under the jurisdiction of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

The project is designed to provide maximum feasible flood protection to

existing and proposed park facilities in the Rock Creek Park system in Montgomery County and the District of Columbia. It will permit more intensive use

of flood plain land for recreation; provide new water recreational facilities;

apply soil and water conservation measures on lands in the upper watershed;

and reduce soil erosion and sediment depositions.

Development of the project will alleviate or reduce flooding of park roads,

interruption of highway traffic, damage to bridges and culverts, deposition of

debris and sediment, interruption of park use, and damage to park facilities. In

addition, it is estimated that the dams and land treatment when installed will

reduce by more than 50 percent the silt load transported by Rock Creek and

dumped into the Potomac River.

The flood retarding feature of the dams will be completely built in and automatic in operation. Maintenance will be limited to such items as debris removal, cleanup after high water, and repair to grassed areas which may have

been damaged.

Estimated total cost of the project is $2,128,386, scheduled to be spent over a

5-year period. Of this, the Federal share under the Watershed Protection and

Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566, and amendments) would be $1,286,734

and the local share $841,652 (as revised December 1962).

The Soil Conservation Service, which administers the Watershed Protection

Act for the Department of Agriculture, will provide the Federal share of the cost

of construction, installation services, and technical assistance for the land treatment program.
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 7

The Montgomery Soil Conservation District will encourage and assist landowners to plan, apply, and maintain soil and water conservation practices on

privately owned lands in the upper watershed.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission will provide

the necessary land, easements, and rights-of-way and most of the non-Federal

share of the costs. The commission will be the contracting agency for the project

and will operate and maintain the principal improvements.

The Montgomery County Council through its department of public works will

defray the cost of elevating the Needwood Road bridge and its approaches over

Rock Creek as well as necessary changes in utilities. The county department of

recreation will also be involved.

Several other Federal and State agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Maryland Game and

Inland Fish Commission, have assisted in the development of the work plan.

The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission has redesigned a sewerline

project to bypass one of the proposed impoundment sites.

This is the first watershed work plan under the Public Law 566 Watershed Act

to be developed in a metropolitan area involving urban and rural groups and a

park and planning commission in a cooperative undertaking with the Department

of Agriculture. The plan is the result of 7 years of effort by many private and

public organizations and agencies, begun by a citizens group called the Rock

Creek Watershed Association, to which belongs much of the credit for the

accomplishment.

The upper Rock Creek watershed plan has been approved by Secretary of Agriculture, Orville L. Freeman. It is currently being reviewed by the Federal

Bureau of the Budget and will next be forwarded to the Senate and House

Public Works Committees for action, as required by law.

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY,

Fort Collins, Colo., May 23, 1963.

Hon. PAT MCNAMARA,

Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MCNAMARA : I understand that your committee will hold hearings on May 28 on the work plan for the Upper Rock Creek Watershed in

Montgomery County, Md., with a view to considering its authorization for an

action program under the provisions of Public Law 566 as amended.

As a former longtime resident of Montgomery County, Md., and of the watershed as well, I am thoroughly familiar with the difficulties on Rock Creek that

gave rise to the initiation of flood control and related investigations and the

preparation of the present work plan. I know from personal observation and

study how unstabilizing forces and uncontrolled waterflows can damage community values and on the other hand how soundly prepared projects can alleviate such conditions.

I firmly believe the Rock Creek project to be essential for flood protection and

enhancement of valuable park and private property and for promoting more

effective agricultural use and sound suburban and recreational developments in

the National Capital region. I therefore hope that you and your committee will

approve the work plan for authorization as an action program.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Respectfully,

BERNARD FRANK,

Professor of Watershed Management.

CITIZENS COUNCIL FOR A CLEAN POTOMAC,

Silver Spring, Md., April 29, 1693.

Re watershed work plan, upper Rock Creek watershed.

Hon. PAT MCNAMARA,

Chairman, Comnvittee on Public Works,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MCNAMARA : The Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac is in

complete agreement with the objectives of the work plan for the upper Rock
S UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

Creek watershed (to be constructed under Public Law 566) now under review

by the Committee on Public Works.

We feel that the Rock Creek watershed project should go forward as rapidly

as possible.

Sincerely,

Enclosures.

S. J. WARE, Chairman.

CITIZENS COUNCIL FOR A CLEAN POTOMAC POLICY STATEMENT

The Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac is dedicated to the abatement of

pollution in the Potomac and all of its tributary streams. It will work to promote a balanced program for the entire Potomac Basin which would provide for

the development and conservation of the water and related land resources in the

public interest. The council believes that there is sufficient room in the Potomac

River Basin for both water impoundments and for the conservation and preservation of its unique natural beauty.

The Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac shall function as a study and coordination agency and work to assist and supplement the efforts of agencies

and commissions which deal with water resources in the Potomac Basin. It shall

place special emphasis on the collection and dissemination of information to the

general public.

CITIZENS COUNCIL FOR A CLEAN POTOMAC

OFFICERS, 1 9 61-62

Chairman: Dr. Stanton J. Ware, 8405 Westmont Terrace, Bethesda, Md.

Vice chairman: John W. Stepp, 5800 Crestwood Place, Riverdale, Md.

Executive secretary: Mrs. Laurence M. Andrews, 14450 Homecrest Road,

Silver Spring, Md.

Recording secretary: Constance Foley, 4312 N. 4th Street, Arlington, Va.

Treasurer: Robert Harrigan, 5113 Wehawken Road, Glen Echo Heights, Md.

STEERING COMMITTEE

Paul Watt, 5302 Augusta Street, Glen Mar Park, D.C.

Elting Arnold, 4914 Dorset Avenue, Somerset, Md.

Harry Schwartz. 315 Ladson Road, Silver Spring, Md.

Richard Bray, 6310 Owen Place, Bannockburn, Md.

Carl Johnson, 203 Transportation Building, Washington, D.C.

Robert Farr, 2006 Columbia Road NW.

Dr. Ralph Fuhrman, 2917 39th Street NW.

Harold Gray, 5050 Fulton Street NW.

Norman Jackson, 3011 Porter Street NW.

Dr. James Johnston, 217 N. Wayne Street, Arlington, Va.

Stuart Finley, 6926 Mansfield Road, Falls Church, Va.

John Thomas, 1931 39th Street NW.

Charles A. Robinson, Jr., 124 Courthouse Road SW., Vienna, Va.

Edward Wilcox, 2725 39th Street NW.

George Allen, M.N.C.P. and Pl. C., 8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Md.

CHAIRMEN OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Education: John DeWitt, 104 5th Street NE.

Finance: John Brink, 6804 Kerby Place, Oxon Hill, Md.

Legislation: Lowell Mason, 5117 Chevy Chase Parkway NW.

Membership: Mrs. Edward McNulty, 2429 Hemlock Drive, Falls Church, Va.

Publicity: Mrs. Joseph Miller, 3301 Highland Place NW.

Program: Mrs. Charles Bailey, 3001 Albemarle Street NW.

Chairman Emeritus: Mrs. Arline Hays, 4863 Potomac Avenue NW.

Upper basin representative: A. T. Brust, Jr., West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co,

Luke, Md.

Wir
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 9

ALL SOULS CHURCH UNITARIAN,

Washington, D.C., March 8, 1963.

Hon. PATRICK V. MCNAMARA,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR Sill: I strongly recommend that you consider the merits of the Rock

Creek watershed plan, which is soon to be on the Committee on Public Works

agenda.

The merits of this plan are three, and they are as follows:

(1) Not only will the construction of the two multiple-purpose dams, northeast of Rockville, Md., considerably lower the amount of silt in the Potomac

River, but it will also reduce both flooding and silt deposits on the Rock Creek

Park recreational areas.

(2) The need for expanded recreational facilities will be fulfilled by the lake,

.which will be used for both fishing and boating, and the surrounding regional

park. And the stream below the sites will be a "put and take" trout stream.

(3) Conservation measures will be provided for the agricultural lands above

the dams.

On the merits of this plan, I heartily endorse it.

Sincerely,

DUNCAN HOWLETT.

ARLINGTON, VA., March 19, 1936.

Hon. PAT MCNAMARA,

Senate Ogee Building,

Washington, D.C.

SLR: At present there is at the Budget Bureau a plan for the Rock Creek watershed. In the near future this bill will be aired in your Committee on Public

Works. As a resident of nearby Virginia, I am seriously concerned about the

future of the Potomac River. For too many years this river has been badly neglected. I believe the Rock Creek watershed plan is a step in the right direction

for proper development and conservation of the Potomac and respectfully request that you give the beneficial aspects of this plan your serious consideration when it is brought to your committee.

Thank you for your attention.

Yours truly,

ALFRED J. DENNEY.

Senator BREWSTER. We have three further communications—one

from the Montgomery County Council, one from the Maryland State

Soil Conservation Committee, and one from the Interstate Commission

on the Potomac River Basin.

Without objection, these will also be included in the record.

(The communications referred to follow:)

RESOUTION No. 5-233

Whereas the citizens of Montgomery County have a vital and continuing interest in the future development of Rock Creek which traverses a large portion

of Montgomery County; and

Whereas the development of the upper Rock Creek watershed in accordance

with the watershed work plan approved by the Maryland-National Capital Park

and Planning Commission, the Montgomery Soil Conservation District, the

Montgomery County Government, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will

provide significant benefits to the citizens of Montgomery County; and

Whereas the Montgomery County Council has approved the assumption of the

role of a sponsor by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and further authorized the Montgomery County government to participate with the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and

the Montgomery Soil Conservation District in the sponsorship of said project;

and

Whereas the county council has appropriated funds for the county government's participation in this project: Now, therefore, be it
10 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

Resolved by the County Council for Montgomery County, iJd., That the county

council hereby reaffirms its support for the Rock Creek watershed work plan

and requests that the Members of the Congress of the United States from the Free

State of Maryland support this project and urge its approval by the Congress

in order that this project may proceed; and the clerk to the council is hereby

directed to forward copies of this resolution to the Maryland Members of the

Congress.

Attest:

JAMES MICHAEL BAILEY,

Clerk to County Council for Montgomery County, Md.

RESOLUTION No. 4-3312

Whereas serious flooding conditions are occurring in Rock Creek Valley, with,

attendant loss of life, public and private property damage, which conditions are

likely to worsen with continued development and intensification of land uses;

and

Whereas the Department of Agriculture is assisting the sponsors in preparing

a watershed work plan containing works of improvement to include two impoundment dams in upper Rock Creek Park in Montgomery County, to control

floods; and

Whereas a local sponsor, duly authorized by law, is needed to acquire necessary lands and easements for these installations by gift, purchase, or condemnation; and

Whereas the sponsor must also agree to maintain said dams and the shores

of the lakes thereby created, including cold water release and other measures

to improve fish habitat; and

Whereas a large permanent pool, providing year-round recreational opportunities, can be created by adding to the flood control features of the dams,

if the sponsor will assume the associated added costs; and

Whereas the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission has

already embarked on a program to acquire park lands which will include the impoundment areas: and

Whereas the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission has,

by resolution dated February 21, 1962, proposed to assume the role and responsibilities of the local contracting organization; and

Whereas the Montgomery Soil Conservation District is an essential party to

any plan for Federal assistance; and

Whereas the Montgomery County government is aware of the importance and

necessity of such impounding dams and will participate as a cosponsor: Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved by the County Council for Montgomery County, Md., That1. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is hereby approved to assume the role of a sponsor and responsibilities of the local contracting organization for the purpose of submitting for Federal assistance under

Public Law 566, 83d Congress, 68 Stat. 666, for the construction of impounding

dams in Rock Creek Valley and to participate with the Montgomery Soil Conservation District in such sponsorship.

2. Montgomery County, Md., is authorized to participate along with the aforesaid two organizations as a local sponsoring organization and the county manager be and is hereby authorized to execute ncessary documents under the above

stated public law for Federal assistance and is further authorized to execute

such other agreements on behalf of Montgomery County as are necessary for

participation of the county as a local sponsoring organization.

A true copy.

Attest:

HOWARD LEE COOK, Jr.,

Clerk, County Council for Montgomery County, Md.

STATEMENT OF THE MARYLAND STATE SOIL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE WITH RESPECT TO THE UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Mr. Chairman, the Maryland State Soil Conservation Committee has had a

keen interest in the development of the plans for the upper Rock Creek watershed
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 11

ever since the original planning meeting was held several years ago. The support

and cooperation of all agencies and groups in the area has been splendid throughout the period of development of the plan.

The Rock Creek Watershed Association developed community interest in this

problem. The project is sponsored by the Montgomery Soil Conservation District, the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, and the

County Council of Montgomery County, Md.

The Maryland State Soil Conservation Committee, created under the Maryland soil conservation districts law, was designated by the Governor, through

the State board of agriculture, as the State agency authorized to approve applications for planning assistance under the Federal Watershed Protection and

Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566, as amended).

Under this authority the State committee approved the upper Rock Creek

watershed application for assistance for watershed planning under Public Law

566 on December 17, 1956. On recommendation of this committee the Governor

approved the upper Rock Creek watershed plan on November 14, 1962.

From its inception this committee has taken an active interest in this watershed. Members of the committee personally appeared before the sponsors urging their participation in the project.

This project will provide much needed recreational facilities in this area, as

well as flood protection to roads, bridges, and park proporeties downstream. It

is designed to contribute to the overall silt reduction program for the Potomac

River Basin. This Rock Creek watershed project will benefit the entire regional

metropolitan area. The Maryland State Soil Conservation Committee has supported vigorously this project from the time of its inception.

We respectfully urge your approval of this project.

G. M. CAIRNS,

Chairman, State Soil Conservation Committee.

Senator BREWSTER. Now we propose to call several witnesses.

The committee would first like to call Mr. Charles Swigart, Assistant Director, Watershed Planning Division, Soil Conservation

Service.

I believe, sir, you have a statement?

Mr. SWIGART. My main purpose here, Mr. Chairman, was to present

some salient features of the project, which the Soil Conservation

Service assisted in developing. It is merely to get the setting for the

upper Rock Creek watershed.

Senator BREWSTER. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES SWIGART, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, WATERSHED PLANNING DIVISION, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

Mr. SWIGART. I think most of us are pretty well familiar with

the Rock Creek watershed and its importance to the general recreational activities in the National Capital area.

The watershed—Rock Creek itself begins up around Laytonsville,

about 2 miles north of the District of Columbia line. It flows generally south to the District line, and down into the Potomac River

in the Georgetown area.

The watershed for which this plain has been developed consists

of about 39,000 acres. There are an additional 11,000 acres within

the District of Columbia, and about one-fourth of the District of

Columbia is located in that part of the total watershed area.

You will note the general setting—Gaithersburg, the Rockville

Pike coming down along the western side of the watershed Silver

Spring over in this area Viers Mill Road cutting through just about

the central part of it, and the East-West Highway, cutting over

from Silver Spring to Bethesda.
12 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

The upper third of the watershed is dominantly agricultural, and

within it are located some of the finest dairy and livestock farms

in the State of Maryland.

It has not developed extensively at the present time, but all indications are that it will gradually move into a more concentrated

suburban residential type of development.

The middle section of the watershed now is suburban and residential. And the transition is very rapid, in which most of it will

probably be residential in character.

The lower part of the watershed, of course, is densely urbanized..

The project is somewhat unique in that one of its principal urposes is to 'protect an area of park land which back in 1924 theCongress considered exceedingly important to the well-being of the inhabitants of the Nation's Capital. They established and directed the

National Capital Park Commission to acquire and continuously

develop this area as a unique natural area for the people of the country, as well as for the people of the District of Columbia.

In 1930, this action by the Congress was further supplemented

by appropriation of funds to acquire land for park purposes within

the Maryland segment.

The local organizations have really persevered in attempting to

get this project underway. There has been wholehearted cooperation

among both county people, soil conservation districts, Federal agencies, State agencies—the entire gamut of folks who are interested in

resource development.

Back in 1880, the Corps of Engineers investigated the watershed

in an effort to provide flood control in the lower reaches. They came

up with a proposal for a dam just about in the vicinity of Massachusetts Avenue where is crosses Rock Creek. That proposal was

considered for a few years, but it never was adopted. And, at that

time, by the way, the District of Columbia only extended to Florida

Avenue, which then was named Boundary Avenue.

In 1956 the folks in this watershed started earnestly to get something done. They submitted an application for assistance under the

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act.

In 1957 planning assistance was authorized, and it was provided to

them to develop this project.

From 1956 until now there has been a concerted effort to come up

with a plan for this watershed that would both be feasible, beneficial,

and of real importance to the community here.

Twenty-three structure sites were originally studied. But due to

the rapid development that was going on, it was found that there were

so many gaslines and other developments and whatnot, that the project was narrowed down to eight, and filially it was narrowed down

to two principal structures, which will incorporate both flood protection and recreation.

These two structures have about 7,000 acre-feet of floodwater detention capacity. They have another 600 to 700 acre-feet for sediment.

And they have another 800 to 900 acre-feet for recreation.

They will provide a total area of 120 acres-128 acres for waterbased recreation.

The principal purpose of the flood prevention is to protect the

existing and potential park facilities that are being developed all

along here.
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 13

The project will be rather effective in the upper part, and diminish

somewhat downstream. But still it will provide an area of park that

can be almost continuously utilized by the citizenry here.

In these reaches 7, 6, and 5, floods that occur on the average of once

in 10 years will be eliminated. In reaches 4 and 5, a 5-year level of

protection will be provided. And., down here, a 2-year.

Down in this lower area, flooding is serious:and it will often occur

many times in one year. It causes many disruptions in traffic for

the many people that work in this area.

The prime benefits are the reduced damages to existing facilities

and to permit a greater use for the area, and not to have that use disrupted by flood.

The total cost of the project is $2,128,386.

Now,of that amount, funds under the authority of Public Law 566

will be provided, $1,286,734, or 60 percent of the total cost. The local

organizations will provide $841,652.

The project is sponsored by the Montgomery County government,

the Montgomery County Soil Conservation District, and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

In addition to those official sponsors of the project, however, the

Washington Surburban and Sanitary Commission has participated;

the Rock Creek Watershed Association which was organized in 1955

and has been very instrumental in bringing this plan almost to its

point of approval; and the State government has participated, as has

the Maryland Game and Inland Park Commission and the Maryland

Extension Service.

It has been an outstanding example of cooperative endeavor by all

the folks that are interested in this particular segment.

I might say that the difficulty in accomplishing the plan, because

of the development, has caused many alterations. That is why it has

been, since 1956 until now, that a final plan has been prepared.

Site 5, even in the planning stage, had to be relocated somewhat to

accommodate a sewerline going up to Gaithersburg. The Washington

Suburban and Sanitary Commission cooperated in this by relocating

the sewerline at an expense of some $125,000, of which the Montgomery County contributed some $50,000.

So all in all, I think it is a very excellent project, and I know of no

opposition to it whatsoever.

Thank you, sir.

(The charts referred to are as follows:)

UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

Size and location.-38,765 acres in Montgomery County.

Sponsors.—Montgomery County; Montgomery County Soil Conservation District; Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

Purposes: Watershed protection, flood prevention, fish and wildlife development, and recreation.

Principal measures: Soil conservation practices on farms and urban areas, and

structural measures consisting of two multiple-purpose storage structures and 2

miles of trout stream improvement. Storage capacity of the structures are

4,228 acre-feet and 4,329 acre-feet.
14 UPPER ROCK CREEK NsrATEREanm, MARYLAND

Annual benefits

Dollars Percent

To nonagricultural improvements 27, 126 19

Sediment 21,867 15

Recreation 84,249 58

Indirect 12,271 8

Total 145,063 100

Project costs

Land treatment measures 

Structural measures:

Flood prevention 

Recreation 

Fish and wildlife 

Subtotal 

Total 

Public Law 566 Other funds

funds Total

dollars

Dollars Percent Dollars Percent

31.250 13 1 212, 460 87 243.710

1, 164. 235 70 507, 701 30 1, 671, 936

78,538 42 108,391 58 186.929

12, 711 49 13. 100 51 25. 811

1, 255. 484 67 2 629, 192 33 1, 884, 676

1, 286. 734 60 841. 652 40 2, 128, 386

1 This is primarily the cost a applying land treatment measures by landowners. Cost sharing from Federal funds appropriated for the agricultural conservation program may be available if included in the county

program developed each year in consideration of approved State and National programs and the annual

authorization by the Congress.

2 Consisting of:

Administration of contracts $1.000

Construction and installation services cost for fish and wildlife development 12.900

Construction and installation services cost for recreation 62.792

Land, easements, and rights-of-way 312,400

Relocation of facilities _ 240,100

Benefit-cost ratio.-1.3 to 1.
Watershed work plan

Sta

Maryland 

Le Watershed

Federal

cost

Non-Fed- eral cost

Upper Rock Creek 

Dollars

1, 286, 734

Dollars

841, 652

Total cost

Benefitcost ratio Drainage area Storage reservoir Total storage Structural costs, nonFederal Total cost, non-Fed- eral

Dollars

2, 128, 386 1.3:1

Acres

38, 765

Number

2

Acre-feet

8, 557

Percent

33

Percent

40
16 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

Senator BREWSTER. Thank you very much, sir.

Any questions?

Senator JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question, please?

How far is this from the District of Columbia line—where the dam

would be located?

Mr. SWIGART. It is roughly 10 to 12 miles. It is 20 miles all the

way to the top of the watershed.

Senator JORDAN. Where is the District of Columbia line on that

map?

Mr. SWIGART. Right here, sir.

Senator JORDAN. Now, that is the Rock Creek Parkway. I mean

that is Rock Creek that comes down behind the zoo.

Mr. SWIGART. That is right—part of the zoo is in it. And Beach

Drive comes in right down along East-West Highway here, down.

along Rock Creek Park. And that is those low water floodings, crossings that are flooded too often, and you read about folks being

stranded there, and so forth.

Senator BREWSTER. Thank you very much, sir.

Now, do we have Mr. Raymond L. Freeman here?

Mr. Freeman is the Assistant Regional Director, National Capital

Region, National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

We would like to hear from you, sir.

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. FREEMAN, ASSISTANT REGIONAL

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. FREEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement, two pages

long. I would like to submit it for the record. I could say a few

words generally of what is in the statement that I think would suffice, if this is all right with you.

Senator BREWSTER. Please proceed.

Mr. FREEMAN. The National Park Service, Department of Interior,

really appreciates the opportunity to express our views on this project.

Our National Capital region of the Park Service has the jurisdictional responsibility for the park system of the District of Columbia,

and the parkways, and the environs.

We have cooperated to some extent in a minor way with the study

work on this project by furnishing some statistical data on the extent

of floods in Rock Creek in the District, how long a time the picnic

areas, primarily, are out of use when we do have a flood. It averages

some 3 days. It takes a lot of manpower to clean up the area and

replace tables, fix up the fire grates, and generally put the ground

back in shape for people to use it again.

It has been a serious problem with our office over the years.

On studying this plan, and being in on it to some extent from the

beginning, we feel that it is most beneficial, and is a project that would

be of great assistance to the National Park Service, with the operation

of our parks, and preserving and protecting them in the District of

Columbia.

It would cut down on the floods that plague Rock Creek, that knock

out the picnic areas. It would not eliminate the floods completely,

but it would certainly move it to the extent where people would have
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 17

the opportunity to enjoy these parks more often, and they would also

save the Government a lot of money on the cleanup and repair and

replacement of tables, and that sort of thing.

We feel this is a project that is very worthwhile, and we hope it goes

forward to help us preserve Rock Creek Park.

I would be glad to answer any questions that any of the gentlemen

of the committee may have.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED WORK PLAN

The National Park Service is very pleased to have this opportunity to comment

on the proposed flood control and land treatment program recommended in the

watershed work plan for the upper Rock Creek watershed. The Park Service

has been vitally concerned with the studies and planning which have gone into

the preparation of this work plan. At the request of the sponsors of this study

project, we have provided information, statistics, and data to the staff preparing

the plan, and, at several stages in its preparation, have reviewed its progress.

The public benefits that will accrue if this watershed plan is implemented affects

the responsibility of this office in a very vital way.

Under the act approved May 29, 1930, known as the Capper-Cramton Act,

Congress provided for acquisition of lands in the District of Columbia and the

States of Maryland and Virginia for the purpose of stream valley preservation,

erosion control, and prevention of pollution. The lands acquired under this act

in the District of Columbia are the responsibility of the National Park Service for

administration, operation, and maintenance. We have, therefore, during the

past 30 years that this program has been in operation, acqufred considerable experience in observing the damage that uncontrolled floods and siltation have on

the public benefits provided for in the Capper-Cramton Act. This is especially

true of the Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia, authorized by the Congress for preservation of its natural characteristics.

The Rock Creek watershed work plan, in our considered opinion, represents a

necessary, major step in carrying out the program that Congress has authorized

for preservation of the Rock Creek stream valley. The plan goes far in protecting

the valley from a great future increase in the very serious runoff and flooding

problem that is presently causing so much destruction in the Rock Creek Valley.

This destruction is not necessarily limited to land and facilities—human life is

also involved. It is reasonable to expect that this destruction will continue to

increase if a coordinated program of flood control and land treatment practices

are not instituted before high intensity development expands over the watershed

of the upper reaches of Rock Creek.

The National Park Service believes that the watershed work plan represents

the most economical approach to providing the necessary public benefits that

will result from this program. The provision of multipurpose facilities in conjunction with the water impoundment, including important recreation uses, is

far sighted, and we are pleased that recreation is included as a part of the

watershed work plan for the upper Rock Creek. Without the facilities and programs proposed in this plan, the National Park Service, in administering the

Rock Creek Park in the District of Columbia, will have to contend with the increasing cost for restoration and replacement of recreation facilities from flood

damages, as well as great loss of recreational opportunities while the park is

flooded and out of use for cleanup operations. Any proposal which promises the

long-range reduced cost to the taxpayers and, at the same time, reduces loss of

recreational opportunities and provides for intelligent and better use of our

limited land resources, would clearly seem to be in the best interest of all

concerned.

Senator BREWSTER. Any questions?

Senator JORDAN. I have no questions.

Senator BREWSTER. Mr. Freeman, in your opinion, then, this is a

necessary improvement?

Mr. FREEMAN. Yes. I might point out on the map—this whole

section right here is Rock Creek Park, very heavily used. And most
18 UPPER ROCK CREEK mrATERsailm, MARYLAND

of the picnic areas are along the creek. This is where the people like

to picnic. And when the flood gets—the waters get out of control

in the watershed, and it comes right down Rock Creek Park, it just

simply wipes out our picnic areas for a period of 3 or 4 days. They

have to pry out, the men have to clean it up, they have to replace the

tables, because many of them float right on down the stream.

In addition, we are losing valuable lands constantly with the erosion on the creek. The trees that are along the creek, the erosion is to

such an extent that they fall in, and they are not replaced. The

ground itself on certain of the bends keeps eroding and eroding, and

this eats into the area the people use. And in a valley of this type

it is mandatory to have erosion control and control of the water in

order to use it properly.

Senator BREWSTER. Do you have any estimate of the number of

people that utilize this facility each year at the present time?

Mr. FREEMAN. The picnic areas are handled through permits. But

in addition to the permits, many, many people come out and just

picnic. Permits will run probably a million or over a million permits

a year. I would gather that in addition to that, that you would have

something like probably 2 million or more picnickers in Rock Creek

Park.

Of course, we have Beach Drive, which I am sure you are all familiar with, which is used not only as a pleasure drive, and to give

access to the park—the people going back and forth to work every

day using it tremendously.

There are places where if the floods get too bad this knocks Beach

Drive out of commission, which causes a traffic problem.

So it is heavily used, both in group picnics and single family picnicking, bicycles, horseback trails from the two stables we operate.

And it is pretty much multi-use.

Senator BREWSTER. Thank you very much.

Now we have Mr. Lathrop Smith here, reprsenting the Montgomery

County Soil Conservation District, Rock Creek Watershed Association.

I have known Mr. Smith for a long time and know of his personal

interest in this entire project.

Mr. Smith, we are very happy to have you here and would like to

hear from you.

STATEMENT OF LATHROP SMITH, REPRESENTING MONTGOMERY

COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ROCK CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Lathrop

Smith. I live at Route 1, Boyds, Md. I am president of the Rock

Creek Watershed Association. I am vice chairman of the Montgomery

Council Soil Conservation District.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you on

behalf of this most essential project.

The real estate development in Northwest Washington in the 1920's,

and on into Maryland in the 1930's and early 1940's, and particularly

the postwar period, post-World War II period, had a very devastating

effect on Rock Creek.
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 19

Those of you who know Rock Creek from some years ago remember

there is a beautiful wooded stream coming down through a park which

is one of our national treasures, in fact.

During the early 1950's many persons became very much concerned

that the fact that Rock Creek had deteriorated to where it was in reality a common sewer, both from the standpoint of looking at it and

from smelling it.

This is a matter of considerable concern. And many professional

people who work in Government departments, and whose business it

is to understand such matters, began to talk about these problems in

their organizations.

And the Soil Conservation Society chapter in Washington began

to bring this up as a matter of agenda.

It then went from there to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, with the result that a series of three public meetings were held in the Bethesda area in 1954 and 1955 to discuss with

the local people what could be done, what we might be able to do.

Now Congress, in its wisdom, in 1954, passed the Flood Prevention

and Small Watersheds Act. And this was just about the time that

this effort on behalf of Rock Creek began to manifest itself.

It became of interest that we thought possibly this might be an

opportunity where Public Law 566 might help us in the Rock Creek

situation.

In order to give you some appreciation of the wide background

of support in this case, I would like to read a list of people who

wrote—organizations who submitted resolutions and letters of support

to the county government and to the soil conservation district in order

to get the initial effort going. And it consists of groups such as this:

The town of Kensington, Garrett Park Citizens Association, the

League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, and also the District

of Columbia, the Committee of One Hundred of the Federal District,

the Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac, Columbia chapter of the

Izaak Walton League, the Rockville Chamber of Commerce, the town

of Garrett, the Potomac Valley Conservation Recreation Council, the

Sanitary Commission, Montgomery County Citizens Planning Commission, the Maryland State Roads Commission, and the Erasmus

chapter of the DAR.

So you can see this represents an extremely broad interest in this

particular problem.

As a result of this interest, the soil conservation district, together

with the county council, filed an application with the Soil Conservation Service for a survey of Rock Creek. This survey was approved

in January 1957.

The party came into the field actually in March of 1957 and made

their preliminary investigations, as a result of which they asked that,

a steering committee composed of representatives of local organizations be set up.

Now this was done in June 1957. And I mention it particularly

because to me this is one of the most successful and most efficient

ways of carrying on an effort of this sort.

The idea was to bring into the picture at an early stage of the investigation representatives of all groups and agencies who would have

an interest in the whole project. As it worked out, as the field survey
20 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

people brought these data to this steering committee, they then had

the benefit of the opinions and the reflection of the general local point

of view to the steering committee, which they used as guidance, and

also it was a very educational experience for the local representatives

to learn as step by step—as this thing progressed.

So when the plan actually came up and was concluded, the educational job as far as local people was concerned was already done.

And we avoided some of the controversies and misunderstandings and

conflicts that normally arise in situations of this kind.

Now, it so happens that in January of 1958 the entire upper area,

which is reflected in the shaded section, was the subject of widespread

filing of subdivision plats for real estate development. The watershed roughly is divided into about three thirds, the lower being within

the District of Columbia and Rock Creek Park, about which Mr.

Swigart and Mr. Freeman spoke, and the central section being that

area between the District line, or East-West Highway and Viers Mill

Road, which had come under heavy development, and the upper area

still in the largely wooded area, and actually operating farms.

One of the early things that we did, the Rock Creek Watershed

Association this was to investigate and find out just what this meant—

what was this flooding going to do. If this real estate development

progressed without any control measure, what could happen?

And one of our members, who was a professional, went to the Geological Survey and gathered the figures from the Sherrill Drive flow

gage in Rock Creek Park. Many of you are familiar with that little

concrete and brick building that is right there where the road crosses

the park. They have records over a period of many years. And we

selected those storms which had reached the flood stage on this flow

gage.

Then we went to the Weather Bureau, and we got data from the

Weather Bureau indicating, so we could match up the particular rainfall or storm which was responsible for that flow. And it was very

interesting.

For instance, to select two or three, in 1933, 6,600 cubic feet per second passed over the flow gage. And we discovered that this was caused

by rainfall of 81/2 inches. Now, that is an awful lot of rain.

We need rain today, but we don't need it in that quantity.

Now,after that, there was no flow for a number of years which exceeded 3,100 cubic feet per second, which in itself is still a flood.

But in 1952 we noted a flow, a flood of 5,400 cubic feet per second,

but we noted that this was caused by rainfall of only 5% inches.

Now, this is 1953. And I would like to point out that real estate

development was rampant in the area immediately north of the District line by this time.

But in 1956 we had a real flood, and the gage indicated a flow of

7,300 cubic feet per second, but the amazing thing about this is that

this was caused by 4 inches of rain.

Now, in 1933, it took 8/12inches to put 6,600 cubic feet on the gage,

but in 195.5, after real estate development, it only took 4 inches to exceed that figure.

Well, now, this portends serious problems for Rock Creek Park and

for the entire area unless some measures of control are instituted.
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 21

As you are probably familiar with the fact that the national zoo

was forced to abandon a whole series of buildings along the stream

valley there.

And Mr. Freeman has already indicated to you the costs and the

inconvenience and other problems involved in this.

At the time that tipe Soil Conservation team—they made a map,

and they indicated on this map the real estate development, and the

periods of development. And it was significant that the change as

reflected by these flood figures occurred when the real estate development had reached the East-West Highway area. Now, that is roughly

halfway up that watershed.

Well, what, then, would occur if these real estate developers carried

out their plans in the whole upper basin and put everything under

roof and gutter and pipe, and dumped water in large quantities very

rapidly, having removed the impermeability of the soil? What would

this mean for Rock Creek?

And many of you, I am sure, are familiar with the very restricted

streambed course down at M Street there, just before it goes into the

Potomac. And collecting large quantities of water in the upper basin,

if your imagination could be allowed to exercise for a moment, you

can see, I am sure, what this would mean.

Now, this subdivision development has increased rather than decreased. As you know, there are tens of thousands of homes in the

Wheaton area, and within the Rock Creek watershed there. And

this of course, has not helped the Rock Creek situation.

Swigart has pointed out the technical details of the plan. This

is a plan which was the best that we could arrive at, considering costs

involved and opportunities yet to build flood control structures. And

that also it has many advantages from a recretaional standpoint.

Some interesting features that I don't think have been mentioned

yet—one is that for a number of years, many years, the Maryland

Game Commission have put trout in that section of Rock Creek above

Route 28—that is the Rockville-Norbeck Road. And this proposes

for very little expense to improve this stream for 2 miles, to improve

this particularly for trout.

And also built into these structures is proposed a particular type

of runoff or device that will take the flow out of the cooler water in

the lower part of the pool and it will permit it to run out there,

thereby favoring the trout with cooler temperatures.

So there are some features that have been proposed in the structure

of that sort.

There are some other significant things about this. And before

I close I would like to point out that I think that this study has

been a very important one, in that it has pioneered by bringing land

planners, land use experts, Government officials, together with conservation people, people trained in soil and in conservation. And

this doesn't happen a bit too soon. But the cooperation which has

been manifested on this project has been a remarkable one indeed.

And in my efforts as a sort of tissue to hold things together, both

with the conservation district and the Rock Creek Watershed 'Association, where you have tried to get 11 or 12 local agencies to work

together, and not to get in each other's way, or to be suspicious of

anything, this has been a remarkable experience, in that they have

all cooperated.
22 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

And I would also like to pay tribute to the technical people, the

Soil Conservation Service, and the masterful way they have presented

this entire thing to the local people. They have done a wonderful

job, and I cannot say too much.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to try to answer any questions.

I regard this, in speaking for the soil conservation district, as an

absolutely essential project for not only Montgomery County, but

for Rock Creek Park.

You probably, in your study of this plan will note that the costbenefit ratio is a very favorable one. And there are many aspects

of this which cannot help but enrich the community life of the entire

Washington area.

It has been a pleasure to have appeared before you, and I thank

you kindly.

Senator BREWSTER. Any questions, gentlemen?

Senator JORDAN. I would like to ask one question.

Is the area that would be inundated there by these two ponds—is it

heavily populated now? Is there a lot of expensive real estate that

has to be bought there, buildings and so forth?

Mr. SMITH. The area immediate to these structures is a very rough

wooded area, a very beautiful area. This is all wooded. Approximately one-fifth of this area is wooded at the present time.

But this is one of our better soils areas. There are some operating

farms.

But, for the most part, real estate developers have bought that land,

and they are still farming it to get what benefits they can, and to

exploit the land further before it goes into real estate development.

But these dams are actually located in narrow wooded valleys, very

beautiful valleys.

You spoke of expense. There isn't any cheap land in Montgomery

County.

Senator JORDAN. Well, there is no cheap land anywhere any more.

But I wondered if this has been developed.

Mr. SMITH. There are a number of residences, yes, around these

roads. But it is what has been there for some time. There is controversy over the land use plan which has nothing to do with this

plan. But this is the plan which has been presented by the county

government regarding land use, densities, and so forth.

There is some controversy over that. And developers have begun

to develop little patches here and there, until they get this thing

settled, and they hope to their satisfaction, I hope to ours.

But you will hear from one of the speakers to follow me some detailed information regarding this land, and the very happy fact that

we have it in hand for the most part.

Senator JORDAN. Well, that is important, Mr. Chairman, because

as this lands builds up it becomes harder and more expensive to

get.

Mr. SMITH. Well, it is practically prohibitive unless—of course,

some of these people have been very far seeing—and this involves,

also, the development of some 3,000 acres of park lands. And the

Park Director is here this morning. This is a wonderful thing. And

the people who can look beyond their nose realize that this makes

very valuable all of this land for their purposes.

•
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 23

But extending these parks all the way up the stream—and right

in the middle—and this is Wheaton area with all of those tens of

thousands of homes, and the same thing is happening on the west side,

and the Gaithersburg area with the Bureau of Standards beginning

to grow the same way, and it won't be any time at all before the whole

area will be surrounded.

So it behooves us not to miss a wonderful opportunity like this.

Senator JORDAN. What kind of fish is that I see so many catching

up and down this Rock Creek Parkway this spring? I see strings

of them—that long [indicating].

Mr. SMITH. Well, I don't know, but I am guessing they are suckers,

and maybe a few large mouth bass. I know fish are put into the

streams every year. I have a pond at my home, and we have bluegills and large mouth bass.

But I don't do too much stream fishing.

I know, also, that in the Seneca area in Montgomery County, the

States stocks European or brown trout in that, and they come down

here and hit the mud in lower Seneca, and the people just pull them

right out, so they don't have a chance.

But the local people have go to discipline themselves and improve

the habitat, so we can grow some fish in places like that. And there

is really no excuse that we don't develop some of these resources we

have with some commonsense, and not just constantly exploit them.

We have just too many people now not to change our attitudes about

some of these things.

Senator BREWSTER. Mr. Smith, thank you for an excellent and clear

explanation and description of this project. It is very helpful to the

committee to have you here, sir.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, sir.

Senator BREWSTER. Now, do we have Mr. Douglas Moore here,

representing Montgomery County?

Mr. Moore, could you give us the position of the county on this

project?

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS H. MOOR.E, JR., DEPUTY COUNTY

ATTORNEY, MONTGOMERY COUNTY. MD.

Mr. MOORE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I have been asked to appear in lieu of the president and members

of the county council. They are in their regular session this morning,

their regular Tuesday session. They regret they are unable to appear

before this committee today.

They have asked me to present for the record two resolutions that

the council has adopted in the past. And, with your leave, I will

present these in the record.

I would like to merely state in summary what these resolution are

to cover.

Approximately 1 year ago, in July of 1962, the council adopted a

resolution in which it stated its awareness of the importance and

necessity of this—the construction of impounding dams—and indicated its willingness or desire to participate as a cosponsor with the

other organizations in this project.
24 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

By that resolution of 1 year ago, they approved—the council approved the assumption of the role of sponsor by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

And, also, in the same resolution, they authorized the county to

participate along with the other organizations as a local sponsoring

organization. And the council, by this resolution, also authorized its

county manager, Mr. Mason Butcher, to execute the necessary documents under the public law for Federal assistance and such other

agreements on behalf of the county as are necessary for the county's

participation.

The other resolution, that I believe has been introduced into the

record, was adopted very recently, in April of this year.

This resolution recites the fact that the council, as I mentioned,

in the earlier resolution, has approved the assumption of the role as

a sponsor, and has authorized the county government to participate

with the planning commission and the soil conservation district in

the sponsorship of the project And by this resolution reaffirms its

support for the work plan, and asks that the members of the Congress

of the United States support the project, and urge its approval, in

order that the project may proceed

As I say, with your leave, I would like to submit these in the record.

And, again, express the regrets of the council that they were unable

to appear before the committee today.

Senator BREWSTER. Thank you, Mr. Moore.

And both of these resolutions have been included in the record.

Mr. Moore, do you know of any opposition to this in Montgomery

County, Md. ?

Mr. MOORE. I have heard of none; no, sir. I know of none.

Senator BREWSTER. Thank you, sir.

Now, we have Mr. John Hewitt, director of parks, the Maryland

National Capital Park and Planning Commission?

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. HEWITT, DIRECTOR OF PARKS, MARYLAND

NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION, REPRESENTING MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING

COMMISSION

Mr. HEwirr. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear here on behalf of the

commission to ask your favorable consideration of legislation for

funds for the construction of these two impoundment dams.

I would like to point out one important factor. The commission is a cosponsor of the project, and, as such, under the master plan

of the upper Rock Creek watershed, is responsible for the acquisition

of this site, or sites. And at the present time we have acquired 924

acres fee simple title, and we have under contract an additional 458

acres. And this is roughly approximately 96 percent of the total

area that is needed for the damsites and the impoundment area.

We expect to complete the acquisition prior to the end of this

calendar year.

In reply to Senator Jordan's question to Mr. Smith a few moments

ago, there isn't one dwelling that is affected by the damsites or the

impoundment of the water.

A
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 25

Senator JORDAN. You are mighty lucky on that, aren't you?

Mr. HEWIT1. Yes, sir. But we have spent so far approximately

$2 million in land acquisition in this area.

Senator JORDAN. Where did you get the money for that?

Mr. HEWITT. Seventy percent of these funds come from local

sources, from a park tax that is levied upon the real estate in Montgomery County. Thirty percent was obtained through the Housing

and Home Finance Agency, Federal open-space grant.

Senator JORDAN. That is not included in here as a part of the cost

that you are asking for now, is it?

Mr. HEwrrr. This is only for land acquisition—yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. Well, you are only asking 

Mr. HEwirr. It is not part of the funds that are being requested for

the construction of the dams no, sir.

Senator JORDAN. But you are asking the Federal Government to

repay part of that money, is that right, that you have already expended in acquisition of the sites?

Mr. HEWITT. No, sir. They have already authorized that. That is

in hand. That has been approved.

Senator JORDAN. That has already been approved?

Mr. HEWITT. Yes, sir.

Senator JORDAN. That answers my question on that.

Senator BREWSTER. If this project were delayed, in your opinion

would the cost be increased?

Mr. HEWITT. I believe that the cost would go up considerably. Our

land costs in Montgomery County for sewer and water extensions are

being made—it is increasing roughly 25 percent per year.

Senator BAYH. Perhaps I missed this. What would be the total

amount of land that will have to be acquired in the projects when

you are finished?

Mr. HEwirr. I believe—and I may stand corrected on this—but

there are roughly 200 acres for the two damsites, and for the impoundment area. But, in addition to this, the park and planning

commission, under their master plan of parks, to acquire and protect

the land in the Rock Creek Valley, plans to acquire some 3,000 acres

of land, which would be in addition to what is needed for the damsites. And this is to conserve the natural areas of the Rock Creek

Valley, and also to provide much needed recreational facilities for

the Metropolitan Washington area.

Senator BAYH. It is my understanding that under a separate appropriation that the funds to acquire some of this park have already

been authorized.

Mr. HEWITT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAYH. And you are now seeking funds specifically for the

construction?

Mr. HEwrrr. For a portion of the construction of the dams yes, sir.

Senator BAYH. Thank you.

Senator BREWSTER. Any further questions?

Thank you very much for appearing before the committee, Mr.

Hewitt.

Mr. HEwirr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Hewitt follows:)

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am John P. Hewitt, director of

parks, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
26 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to appear before your

committee to urge favorable action on legislation which would appropriate

funds for the construction of two impoundment dams in the upper Rock Creek

Valley in Montgomery County, Md.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is a cosponsor of this project along with the Montgomery County Council and the Montgomery Soil Conservation District. The project also was planned concurrently

with the comprehensive plan for the Potomac River Basin, and, as you know,

has been approved by the Department of Agriculture.

I am sure all of you are familiar with the periodic flooding of the Rock Creek

Valley, extending from Maryland all the way down to the Potomac River in the

District of Columbia. These floods cause thousands of dollars' worth of damage

annually, not only to park facilities in which the Federal Government has a

vital interest, but to adjoining private property. Farmland in the upper portion of the valley also is harmfully affected.

It is to prevent these floods, to protect our natural resources, and to provide

more open space and recreational opportunities for the expanding population

in the Washington metropolitan area that we ask your approval of funds for

the two dams.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, acting in

accordance with its adopted master plan for the upper Rock Creek watershed

already has purchased virtually all of the land for the two dam sites (acreage

owned 924.3950, acreage under contract 458.3856, total 1,382.7806). And other

agencies have cooperated by installing their utility lines in such a manner that

they will not be inundated by the impoundments.

We believe this legislation is tangible evidence of cooperative efforts by rural

and urban citizens to solve land use and conservation problems in areas where

city meets country and land uses intermingle.

Also, this project has national significance as a demonstration of this kind of

cooperation, since Rock Creek Park has a special historic and sentimental meaning for the people of the entire Nation.

Rock Creek's waters, joined with those of the Potomac, flow within the

shadow of historic monuments and Government buildings that are familiar to

every visitor to the Nation's Capital.

This plan would reduce flood peaks an average of 70 percent from the levels

experienced in recent years. It would cut down sharply on pollution. It would

save hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage. It would conserve

our natural resources; and it would demonstrate to the Nation as a whole what

local and national institutions, working together, can accomplish.

Thank you again for permitting me to appear before you.

Senator BREWSTER. Now, do we have Mr. Kenward K. Harris, representinz. I understand. the Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac and

the Washington Canoe Club?

STATEMENT OF KENWARD K. HARRIS, REPRESENTING CITIZENS

COUNCIL FOR A CLEAN POTOMAC AND THE WASHINGTON CANOE

CLUB

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Kenward Harris, 1025 Connecticut Avenue. I greatly appreciate your

affording me this opportunity to appear on behalf of the Citizens

Council for a Clean Potomac in support of this legislation.

I also am speaking as a director of the Washington Canoe Club.

Though the Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac has been supporting this project for the last 7 years, I will take only a few moments

of your time this morning.

It is very clear that the beneficial effects of the program have been

well and ably presented by my predecessors this morning. But I

would like to limit myself to the project insofar as it affects the

Potomac River.
UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND 27

It has been estimated, I think, that Rock Creek would deposit 1.7

million tons of sediment into the Potomac over the next 50-year

period. The Rock Creek project is designed to reduce this amount

by roughly one-third, a very substantial decrease, to say the least, and

one highly important to what we feel to be perhaps the outstanding

natural resource of the Nation's Capital.

Perhaps you recall yesterday's Evening Star and the front page

picture it captioned, "A. Canoe Ride on the Potomac."

The picture was taken at the confluence of Rock Craex with the

Potomac, the new Thompson Boat Center, which has recently become

opened and has become very popular. It is estimated that 21,000

persons rent canoes alone from the 3 primary boat liveries in the

area during the season. This figure does not include canoeists from

the Washington Canoe Club, the Old Dominion Boat Club, and the

Potomac Boat Club, who enjoy their own craft on the Potomac.

In addition to being the focal point of the metropolitan area's recreational canoeing—the Potomac has played a very major role in U.S.

Olympic success. The 1960 Olympic paddling team was composed of

10 persons, 5 of whom came from this area, 3 from the Washington

Canoe Club, 2 from the Potomac Boat Club. Half the team, the

U.S. Olympic team, did their training and their conditioning on the

Potomac River. This is something which I think is perhaps not—has

heretofore not been brought out.

But the depositing of silt and sediment in the Potomac just below

the confluence with Rock Creek and further down is a very important

factor in the usefulness of the Potomac in regard to this particular

sport.

I won't take your time by listing the various medal winners and

national champions and persons of this nature who do use the river

for this particular sport. Suffice it to say that you are all aware of

the numerous rowing crews which have enjoyed a considerable reputation and success as a result of their practice and training on the river.

In conclusion, the Citizens Council for a Clean Potomac and the

the Washington Canoe Club respectfully urge your consideration and

favorable action upon this legislation.

I should be more than happy to answer any questions, should there

be any, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BREWSTER. Thank you, Mr. Harris.

We will include in the record a statement from Mr. Carl J. Johnson

of the Potomac River Commission.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ROOK CREEK WATERSHED APPROPRIATION

The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin is an interstate compact organized by the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia,

and the District of Columbia for the purpose of abating and controlling water

pollution in the Potomac River Basin.

Studies arranged for by this commission indicate that approximately 0.9 million tons of sediment (silt) are contributed to the Potomac estuary annually

from the Washington metropolitan region. Consequently, water pollution from

this source is a matter of great concern. When added to the 2 million tons

annually being received from upstream areas, sediment becomes one of three major types of pollution.

In the late 1940's and early 1950's this commission held citizens' meetings to bring this problem to public attention. Out of these meetings grew the Rock
28 UPPER ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, MARYLAND

Creek Watershed Association which was, to a great extent, responsible for the

development of the Rock Creek protection plan which is being considered by

your committee.

The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin has recently completed

a study and report (copy attached) recommending ways by which sediment

pollution can be controlled in this urban region. The Rock Creek watershed

plan, if approved and installed, will provide a most important contribution to

such programs.

We recommend that the appropriation requested for the installation of the

Rock Creek plan be approved.

Respectfully submitted.

CARL J. JOHNSON,

Executive Director, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.

Senator BREWS1TR. This completes my list of witnesses that have

requested permission to testify before the committee.

Mr. Smith, I saw your arm up there.

Mr. SMITH. I would just like to add one word that I neglected to

at the time.

I have been identified with this effort from its earliest inception,

approximately 9 years. And I know of no opposition in this area,

either Montgomery County or the District, to this proposal. And I

would like to introduce to you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee, one

of our board supervisors, a farmer and businessman in Montgomery

County, Bernard Gladwill, and the secretary of our board of supervisors and county agent, Delbert Foster.

Thank you, sir.

Senator BREWSTER. If there is no objection from my colleagues,

gentlemen, that will conclude the hearing.

We thank you all for testifying. Your words have been most helpful.

(Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the

call of the Chair.)

0

111 II II II 11 1011111111111

Al 1 6 0 0 7 5 1 6 1 4