Ni;)--\,•,1

. IP 96/i1

INCREASES IN CURRENT LIMITATIONS IN CERTAIN

RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATIONS

Storage

4Uti

Ten

KANSAS St

(94-42)

SPISITY HEARING

BEFORE THE

IMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

PULILWLJ NORKS AND TRANSPORTATION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 12545

AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROSECUTION OF PROJECTS IN CERTAIN COMPREHENSIVE RIVER

BASIN PLANS FOR FLOOD CONTROL, NAVIGATION, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MARCH 18, 1976

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

70-200 WASHINGTON : 1976
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION

ROBERT E.

JIM WRIGHT, Texas

HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

RAY ROBERTS, Texas

JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey

GLENN M. ANDERSON, California

ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey

TENO RONCALIO, Wyoming

MIKE McCORMACK, Washington

JAMES V. STANTON, Ohio

BELLA S. ABZUG, New York

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana

BO GINN, Georgia

DALE MILFORD, Texas

NORMAN Y. MINETA, California

KENNETH L. HOLLAND, South Carolina

ALLAN T. HOWE, Utah

ELLIOTT H. LEVITAS, Georgia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

JEROME A. AMBRO, New York

HENRY J. NOWAK, New York

ROBERT W. EDGAR, Pennsylvania

MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee

JOHN G. FARY, Illinois

TED RISENHOOVER, Oklahoma

JONES, Alabama, Chairman- -e LA it, f

' .P1 *I • 1 i

WILLIAM H. HkfttEtA; Ohrci—

JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire

DON H. CLAUSEN, California 0 A

GENE SNYDER, Kentucky

JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT,

Arkansas . ..r1T

BUD SHUSTER,. Pemigylvania P; eAnviA;‘

WILLIAM F. WALSH, New York

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

JAMES D. ABDNOR, South Dakota

GENE TAYLOR, Missouri

BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California

TOM HAGEDORN, Minnesota

GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES

RAY ROBERTS, Texas, Chairman

HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California DON H. CLAUSEN, California

JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey

ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey

MIKE McCORMACK, Washington

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana

BO GINN, Georgia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

JEROME A. AMBRO, New York

ROBERT W. EDGAR, Pennsylvania

MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee

GLENN M. ANDERSON, California

BELLA S. ABZUG, New York

ALLAN T. HOWE, Utah

HENRY J. NOWAK, New York

JOHN G. FARY, Illinois

GENE SNYDER, Kentucky

JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT,

Arkansas

WILLIAM F. WALSH, New York

JAMES D. ABDNOR, South Dakota

GENE TAYLOR, Missouri

TOM HAGEDORN, Minnesota

(n)
CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Graves, Maj. Gen. Ernest, Director of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army; accompanied by August J. Smet, Chief, Programs Division, Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers; Edward J. O'Neill, Chief, Western Branch, Programs Division, Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers; James 0. Ken- drick, Western Branch, Programs Division, Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers; and Alex Shwaiko, Acting Chief, Planning Division, Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers 

Page

2

MATERIAL RECEIVED FOR THE RECORD

Graves, Maj. Gen. Ernest, Director of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army:

Data on streambank erosion 7

National Shoreline erosion problem 7

Statement of monetary authorizations (29 projects) 9

Status of Passaic River, N.J., report 11 Estimated additional increases in basin monetary authorizations (resume) 13 Basin or project plan:

Alabama-Coosa River Basin 13 Arkansas River Basin 14 Brazos River Basin 15 Columbia River Basin 16 Mississippi River and Tributaries 16 Missouri River Basin 18 North Branch Susquehanna River Basin 19 Ohio River Basin 19 Red River Waterway 20 San Joaquin River Basin 21 Santa Ana River Basin 22 South Platte River Basin 22

(m)

94T a 

2D 

CONGRESS 

SESSION

H

. R. 12545

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16,1976

Mr. JONES Of Alabama (for himself, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN, Mr.

JOHNSON Of California, Mr. IIAMMERSCHMIDT, Mr. MCCORMACK, Mr.

COCHRAN, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. ABDNOR, Mr. NOWAK, Mr. TAYLOR of Missouri,

Mr. FARY, and Mr. R rsr.xmovED) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A.;ILL 

Authorizing additional appropriations for prosecution of projects

in certain comprehensive river basin plans for flood control,

navigation, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 jives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) in addition to previous authorizations, there is here4 by authorized to be appropriated for the prosecution of the

5 comprehensive plan of development of each river basin

6 under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army referred

7 to in the first column below, which was basically authorized

8 by the Act referred to by date of enactment in the second

9 column below, an amount not to exceed that shown opposite

10 such river basin in the third column below:

(V)
VI

2

Basin

Alabama-Coosa River Basin 

Arkansas River Basin 

Brazos River Basin 

Columbia River Basin 

Mississippi River and tributaries 

Missouri River Basin 

North Branch, Susquehanna River Basin

Ohio River Basin 

Red River Waterway project 

San Joaquin River Basin 

Santa Ana River Basin 

South Platte River Basin 

Upper Mississippi River Basin 

Act of

Congress Amount

Mar. 2,1945

June 28,1928

Sept. 3,1954

June 28,1944

May 15,1928

June 28,1938

$6,

6,

19,

39,

220,

85,

000, 000

000, 000

000,000

000, 000

000, NM

000, ow

July 3,1958 72,000, 000

June 22,1936 23, 000,000

Aug. 13, 1968 32,000,000

.J.Dec. 22,1044

June 22,1936

46,

2,

000,000

000, 000

May 17, 1950 22,000,000

June 28,1938 2,000,000

1 (b) The total amount authorized to be appropriated by

2 this Act shall not exceed $574,000,000.
\ CREASES IN CURRENT LIMITATIONS IN CERTAIN

RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATIONS

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1976

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES

OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION,

Washington, D.0 .

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 2167,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ray Roberts (chairman of the

subcommittee), presiding.

Mr. ROBERTS. The subcommittee will be in order.

This morning the Subcommittee on Water Resources meets to hear

testimony on H.R. 12545 which would authorize additional appropriations for comprehensive river basin plans authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers.

Basin monetary authorizations limit the amount of funds which

can be appropriated to carry out projects within the specified river

basins. There are also individual major projects where the amount

of funds authorized to be appropriated is less than that needed to

complete the project. This practice gives the Congress an opportunity

to review and control the rate of accomplishment of these basin plans

and major projects.

Additional authorizations will be required for 13 river basins to

enable work in these basins to continue in fiscal year 1977. The basins

and the amounts of additional authorization appear in the bill.

Appearing before the subcommittee to testify on this legislation is

Maj. Gen. Ernest Graves, Director of Civil Works of the Corps of

Engineers.

General Graves, I welcome you to the subcommittee.

First, before I call upon you, General Graves, I recognize the

distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, the gentleman

from California, Mr. Clausen.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to join you in welcoming our witnesses from the Corps

of Engineers.

I would like to especially welcome you, General Graves. 'This is

is the first time I am aware of that you are testifying before

this subcommittee.

I think we understand correctly, and it is my hope that these

authorizations will be sufficient to carry out the various programs

until the end of fiscal year 1977.

I hope that these hearings will insure this bill will accomplish that

purpose.

'Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(1)
2

Mr. ROBERTS. General Graves, would you please identify those

accompanying you, and proceed as you wish.

TESTIMONY OF MAJ. GEN. ERNEST GRAVES, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL

WORKS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, CORPS OF

ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, ACCOMPANIED BY

AUGUST J. S1VIET, CHIEF, PROGRAMS DIVISION, CIVIL WORKS

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS; EDWARD J. O'NEILL,

CHIEF, WESTERN BRANCH, PROGRAMS DIVISION, CIVIL WORKS,

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS; JAMES 0. KENDRICK,

WESTERN BRANCH, PROGRAMS DIVISION, CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE

OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS; AND ALEX SHWAIKO, ACTING

CHIEF, PLANNING DIVISION, CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF

OF ENGINEERS

General GRAVES. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Clausen, it is indeed my

first time before this subcommittee, and it is a great pleasure to be

here.

I have with me Mr. August Smet, Chief, Programs Division, Civil

Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers; Mr. Edward J. O'Neill, Chief,

Western Branch, Programs Division, Civil Works, Office of theChief of

Engineers; Mr. James 0. Kendrick, Western Branch, Programs Division, Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers; and Mr. Alex

Shwaiko, Acting Chief, Planning Division, Civil Works, Office of the

Chief of Engineers.

I have a fairly brief prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and some

slides to go with it, which I think will review the matter fairly completely and provide a basis for committee action.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, sir. Proceed.

General GRAVES. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear

before you in support of the administration's request for increases in

current limitations on river basin monetary authorizations. These increases are vitally important to allow timely construction of previously

authorized projects to meet urgent water resource needs.

I regard construction of well-justified and environmentally responsive water resource development projects to be one of the most productive investments of public funds available to our Nation. These projects

improve navigation, prevent flood damages, produce hydroelectric

power, provide water supply, improve water quality, and offer waterbased recreational opportunities for the American public. They are

authorized and constructed to alleviate significant water-related problems and, hopefully, to prevent a recurrence of some of the more

severe manifestations of these problems which have occurred in past

years.

Beginning with the 1936 and 1938 Flood Control Acts, Congress approved a number of basin and project plans. These basin and project

plans were based on general survey data, were broad in nature, and

lacked sufficient detail to assure the Congress that ultimate development would be fully acceptable.

Consequently, the Congress limited the amount that could be appropriated for those particular plans. The requirement for additional

authorization as development of the basin plan proceeded gave the
3

Public Works Committees, and the Congress, the opportunity periodically to review our progress as general plans evolved into definite

project proposals.

In recent years more detailed plans have been authorized with

monetary authorization limitations. These limitations permit the

Public Works Committees to review progress on these project or basin

plans as they proceed, before committing the Congress to the full cost

of these plans. The limitations on monetary authority subsequently

have been increased by the Congress, from time to time, to permit

proceeding with construction of projects in the authorized plans.

There are presently 29 basin development plans subject to a monetary authorization limitation. The latest act providing increased

monetary authorization was Public Law 94-101, which was signed into

law on October 2, 1975. That act provided increased monetary authorizations for work expected to be accomplished through the 1976

transition quarter.

In accordance with section 607 of the Congressional Budget and

Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the administration has submitted

estimates of required increases in basin monetary authorizations for

anticipated obligations through fiscal year 1978. These estimates reflect an additional requirement of $398 million for 13 river basins

through fiscal year 1977, and an additional $441 million for the same

13 basins through fiscal year 1978. Further review and refinement of

our anticipated obligations since the administration's submission have

disclosed that the $2 million increase requested for the Upper Mississippi River Basin through fiscal year 1977 and the $4 million additional through fiscal year 1978 will not be required.

Mr. Chairman, the above estimates should be amended accordingly.

I would like to illustrate the concept of additional monetary authorization needs by referring to the situation in the Missouri River Basin.

The total estimated cost of all features of the basin plan is $2.595

billion. The present monetary authorization limit on the amount which

can be appropriated and obligated to advance the construction of

authorized projects in the basin is $1,782 billion, which is within the

available authorizations.

Our projection of additional obligations through fiscal year 1977,

based on the 1977 budget, would bring the total monetary authorization required to $1.854 billion, an increase of $72 million. An additional $80 million would be required through fiscal year 1978, bringing

the total amount requested for this basin to $152 million.

Based on the fiscal year 1977 budget, 12 river basins will require

additional authorization. We have scheduled our planned activities

so as to permit continuation of work now underway in all river basins,

through September 30, 1976.

However, in two river basins, the North Branch Susauehanna

River and South Platte River, we are currently aware of critical

work which should be done this construction season which we will

not be able to undertake until additional monetary authorization has

been provided. The additional requirements for these basins, beyond

that reported last year, are a result of increased claims settlements,

and unanticipated physical conditions encourrtered during construction.

Other river basins also could exhaust existing authorization sooner

than we now contemplate if there are unprogramed requirements

70-200-76-2
4

between now and the end of September. Considering the unusually

fine wheather we have had in many parts of the Nation this winter,

I am certain that some problems will arise simply because many

contractors are proceeding more rapidly than we had initially programed. Normally, we would cover the earnings of such contractors

by transfers from other projects where we have experienced delays.

However, if the projects with increased requirements are subject

to a monetary authorization limit, we still would have to shut down

contracts despite having funds available. In addition to the Susquehanna and South Platte basins, we are carefully watching progress

on projects in the Alabama-Coosa, Arkansas, Brazos, Columbia, and

Mississippi River and tributaries basins, all of which could exhaust

current authorizations before October 1976, with relatively small

unprogramed additional requirements. Two other basins will exhaust

current authorizations in October 1976, based on the budget program,

but their current situation is not on critical as the seven I just

mentioned. Three additional basins will exahust their authorization

during fiscal year 1977.

In previous years, it was the practice of the Congress to provide

monetary authorization for a 2-year period, and, because our 2-year

estimates of funding requirements were fairly optimistic, we were

rarely faced with the possibility of having to terminate work on

authorized projects due to the exhaustion of monetary authorizations.

The committee's indicated intent to limit additional authorizations

to our requirements only for the budget year raises several potential

problems that should be carefully considered. In addition to the

type of unbudgeted requirement I have already discussed, our projects

are continually subject to inflationary cost increases.

The individual project costs used in development of the fiscal

year 1977 budget, and our monetary authorization requirements, are

based on prices and conditions in effect on October 1, 1975. As

inflation continues throughout the budget period, extending through

September 1977, work that is not already under contract is likely to

cost more than our current estimates. This could create a requirement

on individual projects greater than the amount we are now reporting.

Another factor is the possibility that Congress may appropriate

different amounts of money for individual projects than requested

in the budget. As requested by your staff, the detailed justification

data provided to your committee includes information on our full

fiscal year 1977 capability for each project subject to monetary authorization in those basins approaching exhaustion of their current authorizations.

These capability amounts were developed considering each project

by itself. They do not consider fiscal constraints, the administration's

assessment of appropriate national priorities for Federal investments,

or the impact of stated capabilities for other individual projects on

the corps' overall capability.

I urge the committee to give favorable consideration to our request

for additional monetary authorizations so that we can continue making progress toward meeting the water resource needs of our Nation.

Sir, this concludes my statement. My staff and I will be pleased to

respond to any questions you may have.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, General Graves, for a very clear and

concise statement.
5

General, you state that further review indicates that additional

authorization requested on the Mississippi will not be needed.

Then it seems to me another place, just a cursory examination, it

might be needed. Can you give me an explanation?

General GRAVES. I was making reference to the upper Mississippi

River, and I was talking later on about, among others, the Lower

Mississippi River and tributaries project.

The situation on the upper Mississippi in 1977 is that there is very

little likelihood that these contingencies, such as cost growth or additional appropriations are likely to have an adverse impact, but in some

of the other areas, where we have a very large program ongoing, a

relatively small percentage increase would push us over if we do not

receive the additional authorization that I summarized for the 12

basins.

In the upper Mississippi for 1977, the pace of the work that is

available for placement and the status of the projects make it unlikely

that we are going to have any trouble there. Work has not progressed

as far as we thought it would.

Mr. ROBERTS. As I understand it, your request for these additional

authorizations is actually based on the administration's budget for

fiscal year 1977.

Now, how many new construction, or preconstruction planning and

survey starts are contained in this budget?

General GRAVES. Well, of course, there are only the three new

planning starts, and there are no new construction starts.

The budget request does not contemplate any of those.

Mr. ROBERTS. Do you contemplate that the Appropriations Committee will add some new starts, and probably increase the requirements for the basins which need the authorizations?

General GRAVES. Judging from the comments and questions during

our appearances before those committees, one could very easily infer

that they plan to recommend to the Congress some new starts over

and above the President's budget.

They inquired into this at length, and they expressed great concern

that new starts were not included in the President's budget.

Mr. ROBERTS. General, do you feel the amounts requested in the

administration's bill would include the necessary contingencies for

overruns, and possibly add-ons?

General GRAVES. The administration's request is for 2 years, so

except for the new start problem, we feel that the administration's

amounts are reasonably adequate. The thing that could strain the

amounts requested by the administration would be either the addition

of new starts or the addition of some capability funds and, of course,

we have had many inquiries from the committees as to our capability.

Now, considering fiscal year 1977 alone, if the Appropriations Committees recommend it, and the Congress appropriated amounts over

and above the President's budget, then the amounts in the administration's request for additional monetary authorization through fiscal

year 1977 would not be adequate, because they are based on the

administration's fiscal year 1977 budget request.

If the Congress limits itself strictly to the administration's budget

request, then I believe the amounts in the administratifin's proposed

bill would be adequate.
6

Mr. ROBERTS. I can understand your concern about limiting in-

'creased authorizations to 1 fiscal year, but if you have examined the

bill here we are considering, I think you will note it has increased

amounts to cover the contingency of the increased appropriations.

My question is, Do you think these are sufficient?

General GRAVES. I believe that they are, and I understand the

rationale for the amounts that are in the proposed bill. •

I understand the rationale for the increases over the amounts proposed by the administration. They do in all but two cases cover the

capability amount. Mr. Roberts, in those two cases they cover a

reasonable increase over the administration's bill, approximately midway between the administration's requests for fiscal year 1977 and

fiscal year 1978. We believe that will be adequate, based on a 1-year

extension.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Clausen.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, I wanted to expand on the questions propounded to you

by the chairman.

I wonder if you can tell us what would be the effect of the corps'

program, if the fiscal year 1977 budget submission is repeated for the

next few years, that is, no new construction starts or planning starts.

General GRAVES. There are just three planning starts, Mr. Clausen,

but there are no new construction starts. Obviously, this would lead

to a tailing off of our program as we completed the ongoing projects.

You will recall that in his budget message the President projected a

a $2.25 billion level for this program in the 4 years following the

budget year; there is enough of a backlog of continuing construction

to consume that amount, but toward the end of that period we would

get into a position where there would be a rapid decline in the level

of effort because, having not undertaken the design and having not

initiated projects, there would not be enough work underway to use

the funds, even if they were to be appropriated.

There is a very large backlog of unmet needs. We made an assessment that, in terms of benefits that are not now being received, by

the year 1985 there are some $10 billion of unmet needs. The program

that is outlined in the President's budget, and the follow-on years,

would meet about 12 percent of these. That would indicate that, in

terms of the need for further water resource development, there is a

large potential here, and the program outlined by the President will

not get very deeply into that.

Of course, the President's purpose, firmly announced and carried

out consistently in addressing our budget, has been fiscal constraint

aimed at achieving a balanced budget within 3 years, and that is the

reason he set our program level where he did and projected a level

program in the years ahead.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Now, you say that you have a projected $10 billion

in needs for water resource projects.

I wonder if you would give me a more detailed answer as to what is

involved.

Are we talking about flood control, talking about water conservation,

because the area I am very much concerned about is the area of

erosion control in some of the rivers.
This is something we have not even begun to scratch the surface,

yet it is a very serious problem in many of the river basins throughout

the country.

You have just now been given authority to start addressing yourself

to the problem.

General GRAVES. The estimate of needs is based briefly on the

following, Mr. Clausen.

The comprehensive basin plans prepared in accordance with the

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 contain estimates of needs in

each basin for additional tons of waterborne commerce, additional

acres of land protected from floods, additional megawatts of hydroelectric power, et cetera. The dollar values of these needs correspond

to the average annual benefits which would result if projects were

built to meet these needs. If one adds up all these dollar values, one

obtains the total of $10 billion in unmet needs in 1985.

Now, most of these plans are rather sketchy, and quite incomplete,

for the type of erosion control which Congress has recently authorized

pilot programs to address.

I would expect that many of the erosion control benefits of which

you speak would not be included in that $10 billion figure which came

out of the 1973 assessment.

I do not have now, but could provide for the record, some data on

the erosion control problem, and would be pleased to do so.

Mr. CLAUSEN. I think it would be helpful, and I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that the General be permitted to

submit a more detailed explanation of what he sees to be the erosion

problem need.

Mr. ROBERTS. Without objection.

[The following was received for the record:]

DATA ON STREAMBANK EROSION

A survey of streambank erosion for the Nation as a whole made in 1968-69 by

the Corps of Engineers indicated that damage of some degree is occurring on

about 549,000 miles or 8 percent, of the 7 million miles of streambank in the

Nation. Of this total, the damage occurring on about 148,000 miles is sufficiently

serious to warrant future studies in varying degrees of detail with a view to remedial action. Damages resulting from streambank erosion on these 148,000 miles

were estimated to be some $90 million annually, half from sediment damages, a

third from land losses, and the rest from other types of damages. Damages along

the remaining reaches of the Nations streams are probably in the order of $30 to

$40 million annually for a total of $120 to $130 million.

A large amount of streambank protection, over 6,000 miles, has been or is

being installed under various Federal programs, mostly as integral parts of projects constructed for other purposes. There have been a relatively small number

of installations specifically for bank protection purposes under emergency or other

authorities. Many measures to reduce streambank erosion have proven ineffective

and short-lived. They are generally costly to install and maintain. Therefore,

prevention of much of the damage from streambank erosion cannot be economically justified. The annual cost of prevention of the reported $90 million damages

on 148,000 miles of serious bank erosion is estimated to be $420 million.

NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION PROBLEM

The latest information we have on the extent of the erosion problem of our

nation's coastal shoreline was provided to Congress in May 1973 in the Chief of

Engineers report on the National Shoreline Study. The study was authorized in

the River and Harbor Act of 1968. I will just highlight some of the findings of this

study, which has not been updated since its completion.
8

'The study found 20,500 miles of the ocean and Great Lakes shores of the

United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands undergoing significant erosion.

The study further found that action to halt significant erosion appears justified

along 2,700 miles of shore. The cost of constructing suitable protective works for

these shores is estimated to be $1.8 billion (1970 price levels).

About two-thirds of the areas where erosion is a serious problem are privately

owned and not eligible for Federal assistance under present law. The study also

finds that management to minimize adverse effects of erosion appears appropriate

for 17,800 miles of shores undergoing significant erosion where action to halt the

erosion may not be justified.

Table 1 of the Chief of Engineers report, provided below, shows the assessment

of the shoreline problem by region of the country. Table 6 provides a summary

of the ownership of critically eroding areas by region of the country. These tables

and more detailed information are contained in House Document 93-121, 93rd

Congress, 1st Session.

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF SHORE EROSION

[In miles]

Regi on

Total

shoreline

Significant

erosion

Critical

erosion

Noncritical

erosion Noneroding

North Atlantic 8, 620 7, 460 1, 090 6, 370 1, 160

South Atlantic-Gulf 14, 620 2, 820 980 1, 840 11, 800

Lower Mississippi 1,940 1,580 30 1,550 360

Texas Gulf 2, 500 360 100 260 2, 140

Great Lakes 3, 680 1,260 220 1,040 2,420

California 1,810 1, 550 80 1,470 260

North Pacific 2, 840 260 70 190 2, 580

Alaska 47, 300 5, 100 100 5, 000 42, 200

Ilawaii 930 110 30 80 820

Total for the Nation 84, 240 20, 500 2, 700 17, 800 63, 740

TABLE 6.—OWNERSHIP OF CRITICALLY ERODING AREAS

[In miles]

Region

Total

shoreline

Critical

erosion Private Federal

Non-Federal

public

North Atlantic 8,620 1, 090 680 130 260

South Atlantic-Gulf 14, 620 980 720 140 80

Lower Mississippi 1,940 40 30 0 0

Texas Gulf 2,500 100 90 0 10

Great Lakes 3,680 220 150 10 50

California 1,810 80 30 0 50

North Pacific 2, 840 70 40 10 20

Alaska 47,300 100 50 50 0

,Hawaii 930 30 20 0 10

Total 84, 240 2,700 1,810 340 480

Note: Sum of ownerships does not agree with total because ownership data is incomplete in some regions.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Now, I also wonder if you would submit for the

record the status of all the 29 basin authorizations.

Would you submit that for the record, please?

General GRAVES. I certainly will, Mr. Clausen.

Mr. ROBERTS. Without objection, so ordered.

ale following was received for the record]
STATEMENT OF MONETARY AUTHORIZATION

[In millions of dollars]

Basin or project

Estimated

cost

Available

monetary

authorization

Balance authorization to

complete

Funds

allocated

through

fiscal year

1975

Authorization Fiscal years

remaining 1976 and 1976

after transition

fiscal year quarter

1975 allocation

Authorization

remaining

after

Sept. 30, 1976

Require for

fiscal year

1977 2

Additional

authorization

to carry

to end of

fiscal year

1977 2

Require for

fiscal year

1978 2

Additional

authorization

to carry

to end of

fiscal year

1978 ,

Alabama-Coosa River Basin__ 815.9 275.0 540.9 264.7 10.3 10.3 0 3 3 5 8 Arkansas River Basin 1, 476. 5 1, 415. 7 60.8 1,405. 1 10.6 10.4 .2 4 4 9 13 Arkansas-Red River Basin...... 546.9 46.4 600.5 7.2 39.2 3.2 36.0 5 0 7 0 Baltimore Harbor 114. 1 40. 0 74. 1 0 40.0 0 40.0 0 0 0 0 Blue River Basin 232.4 40.0 192.4 1.4 38.6 .7 37.9 1 0 1 0 Brazos River Basin 656.2 160.0 496.2 146.0 13.8 13.5 .3 12 12 13 25 Central and Southern Florida 543.0 244.3 298.7 211. 1 33.2 14.0 19.2 6 0 9 0 Columbia River Basin 2,679. 1 1, 974. 3 704.8 1, 937. 4 36.9 36.9 0 19 19 26 45 Colorado River local prof 3.. (30.3) (15.0) (15.3) (12.0) (3.0) 0 (3.0) 0 0 0 0 Connecticut River Basin 117.5 97.0 20.5 82. 1 14.9 .3 14.6 1 0 1 0 Cottonwood Creek, Calif 262.0 40. 0 222.0 0 40.0 0 40.0 1 0 1 0 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway,

St. Marks-Tampa 172.0 40.0 132.0 0 40.0 0 40.0 0 0 0 0 Illinois Waterway duplicate

locks 697.0 40. 0 657.0 2.3 37. 7 0 37.7 1 0 1 0 Mississippi River and tributaries 5, 714. 0 2, 317. 9 3,396. 1 2, 121.1 196.8 196. 8 0 144 144 152 296 Missouri River Basin 2, 595. 0 1, 782. 1 812.9 1, 692. 9 89.2 69.4 19.8 92 72 80 152 North Branch, Susquehanna

River Basin 253.4 133.0 120.4 74.9 58. 1 58. 1 0 56 56 39 95 Ohio River Basin 1, 717. 7 1, 338. 8 378.9 1, 271. 5 67.3 57.3 10.0 27 17 19 36 Ouachita River Basin 108. 3 73.3 35.0 64.0 9.3 5. 4 3.9 2 0 1 0 Red Run Drain and Lower

Clinton River 208.0 40.0 168.0 . 1 39.9 .6 39.3 1 0 2 0 Red River Waterway 1, 496. 3 59.0 1, 437. 3 18.4 40.6 32.4 8.2 11 3 26 29 Sabine River Basin 329.6 40.0 289.6 1.0 39.0 1.0 38.0 1 0 1 0 Sacramento River Basin 120.7 72.7 48.0 53.2 19.5 4.2 15.3 3 0 5 0 San Joaquin River Basin 310.8 192.5 118.3 126.3 66.2 49.6 16.6 59 43 53 96 Santa Ana River Basin 59.2 45.5 13.7 43.5 2.0 .6 1.4 2 1 2 3 South Platte River Basin _ 184. 1 113.3 70.8 92. 7 20.6 20.6 0 22 22 13 35 Tampa Harbor 142.0 40.0 102.0 1.3 38.7 9.0 29.7 5 0 8 0 Trinity River Basin 1, 196.0 83.0 1, 113.0 19.7 63.3 9.8 53.5 3 0 8 0 Upper Mississippi River 0 Basin 148.6 133.7 14.9 130.2 3.5 1. 1 2.4 0 0 1 Wabash River Basin 239.3 50.0 189.3 2.6 47.4 3.0 44.4 3 0 2 0 White River Basin 419.0 305.0 114.0 291.4 13.6 1. 1 12.5 2 0 3 0

Total 23, 554.6 11, 232.5 12, 322. 1 10, 062. 3 1, 170.2 609.3 486 488

1 Reflects decrease for those projects being considered for deauthorization. 2 Rounded to nearest million.

3 Specific monetary authorizations within overall monetary authorization.

Note: Deficiences in monetary authorizations: $396,000,000-12 basins; $833,000,000-12 basins.
10

Mr. CLAUSEN. Now, assuming this bill is approved as presented

before the committee, and appropriations are consistent with the

authorization levels, will the corps be able to initiate work on the

small projects program?

General GRAVES. In view of the President's budget submission,

it will be necessary for the Congress in enacting the appropriations

bill to indicate that funds are provided for the small projects programs

because the President's budget does not include any funds for the

small project authorities. That provision of his budget would •be

superseded if Congress enacted a law indicating that a certain part

of the appropriations were for this purpose, and the President signs

the law. That would provide the necessary funds. Pursuant to the

Budget and Impoundment Control Act, the Congress could assert

that the money would be made available for such projects. I would

remind the committee, however, that the small projects programs are

not subject to the basin monetary authorizations.

Mr. CLAUSEN. All right. Now, and finally, will these basin authorizations be sufficient to carry your programs through fiscal year 1977?

• General GRAVES. The ones that are included in the committee bill

certainly will, yes, sir.

Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman from New Jersey.

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

General, let me ask you two questions.

One, this is only for an informative point of view, but how closely

do we coordinate with EPA vis-a-vis the point of view the water

pollution control legislation that is pretty much mandated on the

watersheds and basins to clean up water pollution?

Do you have any coordination there?

General GRAVES. Well, the answer to that is there is quite close

coordination with EPA, quite a bit of our planning work meshes with

EPA planning.

For example, section 208 of Public Law 92-500, you will recall,

provides for a certification from EPA before the corps can include

any storage for water quality in its reservoirs.

There are many interfaces in this rather complex effort. The basin

commissions which carry out a great deal of this basin planning

include representatives both from the corps and from EPA.

I would submit that there is close coordination. Sometimes we wish

we were doing better in this area. It is a big Government, but provisions of law certainly provide the groundwork for effective

coordination.

Mr. ROE. The reason which gives rise to that question, Mr. Chairman, is the point that I am becoming concerned, and in all due fairness

and kindness, I am waiting for a report from the Corps of Engineers

on the Passaic River Basin in the State of New Jersey, and we find,

quite seriously, that the interrelationship of the optimum yield of that

river basin is now getting into confrontation with EPA as it relates

to water quality control in that basin.

It is one of the filthiest rivers, and I guess most treacherous in the

northeastern part of the Nation, and what is really hurting us now,

is we are losing the edge, we have not been able to get a response.

I know the Rivers and Harbors Board, in reviewing that project,

the last report I got from your office, was it was pending and ready
11

to go through the OMB, and ultimately through the Secretary of the

Army.

The Passaic Valley Shore Commission is the viable major agency

for the disposal of sewage in that particular basin. It does not cover

all of the communities and cities in the basin, but I would say it

covers at least half of them.

What they are running into now is, in order to perfect their sewage

disposal work that they are working on to the tune of about $450

million, they have to raise $100 million of matching funds locally.

You can realize the order of magnitude fiscally what that means.

Unless we can get some kind of a coordinated program on a broader

fiscal tax basis, we are going to be stopped. It is a very serious problem.

What we are looking for is if you could, not right off the top of

your head, but give me an update on it. It is vital that we move that

project into the planning stage.

General GRAVES. I would like to submit for the record the exact

Status, but the Chief of Engineers has issued his report, and I believe

the matter is with the Secretary of the Army at the present time. He

is considering the Chief's report.

Of course, when he has prepared his report, this must be provided

to the Office of Management and Budget for views as to its relation

to the President's program.

That is where it is at the present time, Mr. Roe.

Mr. ROE. So we are waiting in the Secretary's level, or does he wait

for an imput from Office of Management and Budget at this point?

General GRAVES. He must provide a draft of his report to the OMB,

and the Office of Management and Budget must respond with views

as to the relation of his report to the program of the President.

Once the OMB has indicated that the report is consistent with the

President's program, then the Secretary of the Army will transmit it

to the Congress.

Mr. ROE. Would you be kind enough to give us a update for the

record on that?

General GRAVES. I certainly will.

[The following was received for the record:]

STATUS OF PASSAIC RIVER, N.J., REPORT

The Chief of Engineers submitted his report to the Assistant Secretary of the

Army (Civil Works) on 20 February 1976. As of 31 March 1976 the Assistant

Secretary has not requested the views of the Office of Management and Budget on

the report.

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman from New York?

Mr. WALSH. No questions.

Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman from South Carolina?

Mr. HOLLAND. No questions.

Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman from Pennsylvania?

Mr. EDGAR. NO questions.

Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman from Utah?

Mr. HOWE. No questions.

Mr. ROBERTS. There being no questions, the Chair is ready for a

motion.
12

I\ Ir. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I will move that H.R. 12545 before

the subcommittee be reported favorably to the full committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Is there a second?

Mr. EDGAR. I second.

Mr. ROBERTS. The motion has been made and seconded, that the

subcommittee report H.R. 12545 to the full committee with the

recommendation that it be passed.

All in favor signify by saying aye.

[Chorus of "ayes."]

Mr. ROBERTS. Those opposed signify by saying no.

[No response.]

Mr. ROBERTS. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported to

the full committee.

[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m. the subcommittee proceeded to other

business.]
APPENDIX

RESUME

ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL INCREASES IN BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATIONS

[Millions of dollarsI

Estimated increases through

end of fiscal year

Basin or project plan 1977 1978

1. Alabama-Coosa River Basin 3 8

2. Arkansas River Basin 4 13

3. Brazos River Basin 12 25

4. Columbia River Basin 19 45

5. Mississippi River and tributaries 144 296

6. Missouri River Basin 72 152

7. North Branch Susquehanna River Basin 56 95

8. Ohio River Basin 17 36

9. Red River Waterway 3 29

10. San Joaquin River Basin 43 96

11. Santa Ana River Basin 1 3

12. South Platte River Basin 22 35

Total authorization 396 833

Twelve basins.

ALABAMA—COOSA RIVER BASIN

The Alabama-Coosa River System drains an area of 22,800 square miles, of

which about 130 square miles are in Tennessee, 5,350 square miles are in Georgia

and 17,320 square miles are in Alabama. The basin has a maximum width of 110

miles and extends about 320 miles from southeast Tennessee and northwest

Georgia diagonally across Alabama to the southwest corner of the State.

The River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945, provides for the initial and ultimate development of the Alabama-Coosa Rivers and Tributaries for navigation,

flood control, power development, and other purposes. The Act includes authorization for modification of the original plan as may be advisable from time to time in

the discretion of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers for the

purpose of increasing the development of hydroelectric power. This Act also authorized the appropriation of $60 million. Additional monetary authorization has

been provided by subsequent acts, bringing the total monetary authorization to

$275 million.

Alabama-Coosa Basin

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in the plan $815,932

Present monetary authorization 275,000

Allocations through June 30, 1975 264,704

Remaining monetary authorization 10, 296

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 10,254

Remaining monetary authorization after Sept. 30, 1976 42

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 2,900

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 2,858

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on capability 5, 158

(13)
14

I In thousands of dollars]

Project

Fiscal year 1977—

Application of additional authorization based on fiscal

year 1977

Budget Capability Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

Carters Lake, Ga 1. 200 1, 200 1, 200 1, 200

Jones Bluff lock and dam, Alabama 1, 700 4, 000 1,658 3, 958

Total 2,900 5, 200 2,858 5, 158

Total requested authorization 3, 000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 6,000

ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN

• The Arkansas River Basin contains an area of about 160,500 square miles. The

basin is about 870 miles in length in an east-west direction and approximately 185

miles in average width. It extends from the Rocky Mountains on the west to the

Mississippi River on the east. The drainage basin occupies parts of the States of

Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas.

The general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the

Arkansas River Basin was adopted by the Flood Control Act approved June 28,

1938, which authorized an appropriation of $21 million for partial accomplishment

of the plan. The plan has been further amended and modified and additional

monetary authorization provided by subsequent acts.

The River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946, authorized construction of a

multiple-purpose plan for improvement of the Arkansas River Basin, Arkansas

and Oklahoma, for navigation, flood control, and other purposes and authorized

the appropriation of $55 million for partial accomplishment of the plan. This plan

has likewise been modified by subsequent acts, and additional monetary authorization provided.

The Flood Control Act of July 14, 1960, incorporated the authorized flood

control plan and the multiple-purpose plan into a single plan of development and

provided that all authorizations made available for the Arkansas River Basin

would be applicable to the combined plan of development. The monetary authorization provided for the combined plan totals $1,415.7 million.

Arkansas River Basin

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in the plan $1,476,542

Present monetary authorization 1,415,667

Allocations through June 30, 1975 1,405,051

Remaining monetary authorization 10,616

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30. 1976 10,379

Remaining monetary authorization after Sept. 30, 1976 237

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 4,020

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 3,783

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on capability 5,638
1Z.;

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal yearApplication of additional authorization based on fiscal

year 1977

Project

1977

budget

1977

capability Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River navigation systems

navigation lock and dam, Arkansas and Oklahoma_ 2, 247 4,007 2,118 3,805

Fort Gibson Lake, units 5 and 6, Oklahoma 350 350 340 338

Ozark lock and dam, Arkansas 0 0 794 846

Recreation at completed projects:

Canton Lake, Okla 55 55 48 55

Dardanelle Lake, Ariz 0 10 0 10

Elk City Lake, Kans 0 85 0 85

Eufaula Lake, Okla 75 75 75 75

Fort Gibson Lake, Okla 75 75 75 75

Navigation locks and dams, Arkansas 300 300 265 281

1 oranto Lake, Kans 68 68 68 68

Total 3, 170 5,025 3,783 5,638

Total requested authorization 4,000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 6,000

BRAZOS RIVER BASIN, TEXAS

The Brazos River rises in eastern New Mexico and flows southeasterly 1,210

miles to the Gulf of Mexico near Freeport, Texas. The basin has an overall

length of about 640 miles and a maximum width of approximately 120 miles.

It contains an area of about 44,670 square miles.

The Flood Control Act of 1954, approved September 3, 1954, adopted the

basinwide plan of improvement in the Brazos River Basin and authorized the

appropriation of $40 million for initiation and partial accomplishment of the

plan. Subsequent legislation has authorized additional amounts for continuation

of the plan, and modified it to include additional projects. The monetary authorization provided to date totals $160 million.

Brazos River Basin, Tex.

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in the plan $656,000

Present monetary authorization 160,000

Allocations through June 30, 1975 146,200

Remaining monetary authorization 13,800

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 13,500

Remaining monetary authorization after Sept. 30, 1976 300

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 12,300

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 12,000

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977

based on capability 21,280

[in thousands of dollars]

Fiscal yearApplication of additional authorization based on fiscal

year 1977

Project

1977

budget

1977

capability Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

Aquilla Lake, Tex 1,400 5,800 1, 345 5,745

Mjllican Lake, Tex 435 435 410 410

San Gabriel River, Tex 10, 500 14, 500 10, 245 14, 272 Recreation at completed projects:

Proctor Lake, Tex 0 415 0 415 Summerville Lake, Tex 0 78 0 78 Stillhouse Hollow Lake, Tex 0 280 0 280

Waco Lake, Tex 0 80 0 80

Total 12, 335 21, 588 12, 000 21, 280

Total requested authorization 12, 000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 22, OCO
16

COLUMBIA RIVER BASIN

The Columbia River Basin drains an area of 259,000 square miles, of which

219,000 square miles are in the United States and 39,500 square miles are in

Canada. The basin includes most of the States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho;

western Montana; small areas in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming; and the southeastern drainage of the Province of British Columbia, Canada. The river flows

a distance of 462 miles in Canada and 745 miles in the United States, for a total

distance of 1,207 miles.

The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, approved the general comprehensive

plan for flood control and other purposes in the Willamette River Basin and

authorized $11,300,000 for the initiation and partial accomplishment of the

recommended plan. Individual projects were authorized in the Columbia and

Willamette River Basins by the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, and subsequent acts. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, approved a general comprehensive plan for both the Columbia and Willamette River Basins for flood

control and other purposes and authorized the appropriation of $115 million

for the partial accomplishment of the plan. This monetary authorization has

been increased by later acts. Monetary authorization provided to date totals

$1,974.3 million.

Columbia River Basin

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in the plan $2, 679, 126

Present monetary authorization 1, 974,300

Allocations through June 30, 1975 1,,937,403

Remaining monetary authorization 36,897

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 36,897

Remaining monetary authorization after Sept.. 30, 1976 0

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 17, 100

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 19,000

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on capability 38,500

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal yearApplication of additional

authorization based on

fiscal year 1977

Project

1977

budget

1977

capability Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

Cougar Lake, Oreg 871 871 931 931

Dworshak Darn and Reservoir, Idaho 5, 500 10, 000 6, 500 11, 000

Gate Creek Lake, Oreg 0 300 0 300

John Day lock and dam, Lake Umatla, Oreg and

Washington 3, 100 3. 100 3, 100 3. 100

Libby additional units and reregulate dam, Montana 0 2,000 0 2, 030

Libby Dam, Lake Koocanusa, Mont 6, 000 16, 500 6, 840 17, 340

Libby reregulated dam, power units, Montana 260 260 260 260

Strubbe Lake and Cougar additional units, Oreg 0 150 0 150

Dalles additional units, Washington and Oreg 300 1, 800 300 1, 800

Willamette R. Basin bank protection, Oreg 450 1, 003 450 1, 000

Recreation at completed projects:

Cottage Grove Lake, Dreg 50 50 50 50

Fall Creek Lake, Oreg 142 142 142 142

Fern Ridge Lake, Oreg 239 239 239 239

Dalles lock and dam, Washington and Oreg 188 188 188 188

Total 17, 100 36, 600 19, 000 38, 500

Total requested authorization 19, 000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 39, 090

MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES PROJECT

The Mississippi River and Tributaries Project embraces an area of about

35,500 square miles. It extends from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, a short distance

above the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, southward more than
17

600 miles to the Head of Passes, Louisiana, near the mouth of the Mississippi

River. The area, varying in width from 30 to 125 miles, includes the lower portions

of large tributaries which are subject to inundation by backwater from the

Mississippi River during extreme floods.

The Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 authorized a plan for flood protection

in the alluvial valley of the Mississippi River, and such bank revetment and

contraction works as required to provide a channel depth of 9 feet and a width

of 300 feet below Cairo, Illinois. The 1928 Act also authorized the appropriation

of $325,000,000 to accomplish the plan of protection, which was designated as the

Mississippi River and Tributaries Project (MR&T). Subsequent acts have

modified the original plan to include additional projects and have increased the

total monetary authorization. The present plan for the Mississippi River and

Tributaries Project provides for five reservoirs, hundreds of miles of levees,

channel improvements, river cutoffs, and major drainage works through the

alluvial valley. Also, accomplishment and maintenance of a 12-foot navigation

channel from Cairo, Illinois, to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The monetary authorization provided to date totals $2,317,922,000.

Mississippi River and tributaries project

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in the plan $5, 713,953

Present monetary authorization 2, 317,922

Allocations through June 30, 1975 2, 121,096

Remaining monetary authorization 196,826

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 *196,826

Remaining monetary authorization after Sept. 30, 1976 0

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 143,651

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 143,651

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977

based on capability 316,376

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal yearApplication of additional authorization based on fiscal:

year 1977 1

Project

1977

budget

1977

capability Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

Atchafalaya Basin, La 31, 665 48, 765 31, 798 48, 896

Bayou Cocodrie and tributaries, La 280 330 293 343

Cache Basin, Ariz 1, 000 1,800 1, 317 2, 117

Channel improvement, Ark 36, 225 98, 000 36, 268 98, 043

Eastern Rapides and South-Central Avoyelles, La 100 100 100 100

Lower Arkansas River, Ariz 0 0 0 0

Lower Red River, La 825 3, 500 876 3, 551

Lower White River, Ariz 0 720 0 720

Mississippi River Levees, Ariz 29, 725 66, 125 31, 855 68, 255

Mud Lake pumping plant, Tennessee 0 0 0 0

Old River control, Louisiana 2, 500 2, 500 2, 500 2, 500

Reelfoot Lake, lake No. 9, Kentucky, Tennessee 1, 500 2, 100 1, 525 2, 125

St. Francis Basin, Arkansas, Missouri 9, 750 17, 000 9, 750 17, 000

Teche-Vermilion Basin 1, 700 1, 700 1, 700 1, 700

Tensas Basin, Ark. and La 6, 510 23, 550 6, 832 23, 872

West Kentucky tributaries, Kentucky 480 480 497 497

West Tennessee tributaries, Tennessee 2, 710 3, 210 2, 830 3, 330

Yazoo Basin, Miss 11, 340 34, 440 12, 460 35, 560

Bushley Bayou, La 300 300 300 300

Greenville Harbor, Miss 400 400 400 400

Mississippi River, east bank, Vicksburg-Yazoo area,

Miss 140 140 140 140

Mississippi River, east bank, Natchez area, Miss_ _ _ _ 200 200 200 200

Harris Fork Creek, Ky. and Tenn. (subject to congressional authorization) 0 200 0 200

Arkabutla Lake, Miss 540 1, 840 540 1, 840'

Enid Lake, Miss 300 1,400 300 1, 400,

Granada Lake, Miss 870 1,770 870 1,770

Sardis Lake, Miss 300 1, 515 300 1, 515

Total 139, 360 312, 085 143, 651 316, 376

Total requested authorization 144, 000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 317, ooa

1 Reflects repayment of $25,000,000 which was transfered in fiscal year 1975 for emergency work.
18

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN

The Missouri River Basin drains an area of 519,090 square miles, of which

509,375 square miles are in the United States and 9,715 square miles are in

Canada. The basin includes all of Nebraska, most of South Dakota, large portions

of North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, about half of Kansas and Missouri,

and smaller parts of Colorado, Iowa and Minnesota. From its source in southwestern Montana, it flows for a distance of 2,460 miles to enter the Mississippi

River above St. Louis, Missouri.

A general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the

Missouri River Basin was approved by the Flood Control Act of 1938 which also

authorized $9 million for initiation and partial accomplishment of the plan. The

Flood Control Act of 1944 expanded the general comprehensive plan for the

Missouri River Basin to include the coordinated plan of the Corps of Engineers

and the Bureau of Reclamation and authorized the appropriation of $200 million

for each agency. Additional projects and monetary authorizations have been

included in subsequent acts, bringing the total monetary authorization to date to

$1,782,094,000.

Missouri River basin

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in plan .$2,595,037

Present monetary authorization 1, 782,094

Allocations through June 30, 1975 1,692,894

Remaining monetary authorization 89,200

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 69,400

Remaining monetary authorizatiod after Sept. 30, 1976 19,800

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 91,279

Required increase in monetary authorizatiod through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 71,479

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on capability 84,169

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal year—

Application of additional

authorization based on

fiscal year 1977

Project

1977

budget

1977

capabi:ity Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

Garrison Dam-Lake Sakakawea, N. Dak 1, 000 1,700 200 900

Harry S. Truman Dam and Reservoir, Mo 73, 500 80, 000 65, 545 72, C45

Hillsdale Lake, Kans 8,000 9,000 3,000 4,000

Lawrence, Kans 2,600 2,600 100 100

Missouri River levee system, Iowa, Nebraska,

Kansas, and Missouri 3, 200 3,700 200 700

Missouri River, Garrison to Oahe, N. Oak 800 1,400 500 1, 100

Perry Lake area (road improvements), Kansas 760 1, 500 700 1, 500

Stockton Lake, Mo 800 800 800 800

Melvern and Pomona Lakes road improvement,

Kansas 0 10 0 10

Tuttle Creek Lake road improvement, Kansas 0 50 0 50

Recreation at completed projects:

Big Bend Dam-Lake Sharpe, S. Oak 0 142 0 142

Fort Randall Dam-Lake Francis Case, S. Oak 15 15 G 0

Garrison Dam-Lake Sakakawea, N. Oak 0 300 0 300

Gavins Point Dam-Lewis & Clark Lake, Nebr. and

S. Oak 40 190 40 190

Melvern Lake, Kans 131 273 46 188

Milford Lake, Kans 0 314 0 314

Oahe Dam-Lake Oahe, N. Oak. and S. Oak 0 418 0 418

Perry Lake, Kans 30 277 30 277

Pomme De Terre Lake, Mo 235 599 168 532

Pomona Lake, Kans 0 75 0 75

Stockton Lake, Mo 228 606 150 528

Total 91,279 103,999 71,479 84,169

Total requested authorization 72, 000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 85, 000
19

NORTH BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN

The North Branch Susquehanna River Basin drains an area of 11,306 square

miles of which 6,270 square miles are in south-central New York and 5,036 square

miles are in northeastern Pennsylvania. It is approximately 150 miles long and

has a width of approximately 170 miles. It is bounded by drainage basins of Lake

Ontario and the Mohawk River on the north, the Delaware River on the east, the

West Branch of the Susquehanna River on the south and the Genesse River on

the west.

The plan authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1958 provides for construction

of the Cowanesque Lake and Tioga-Hammond Lakes projects in Pennsylvania;

local flood protection works at Elkland, Pennsylvania, and Nichols, New York;

channel improvements (for flood control) at Cortland, New York; and for $30

million to be appropriated for partial accomplishment of the project plan. This

act was amended to provide additional monetary authorization to the present

amount of $133 million.

North branch Susquehanna River basin

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in the plan $253,410

Present monetary authorization 133,000

Allocations through June 30, 1975 74,907

Remaining monetary authorization 58,093

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 58,093

Remaining monetary authorization after Sept. 30, 1976 0

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 56,000

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 56,000

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on capability 72,000

[In thousands of dollars]

Fiscal yearApplication of additional authorization based on fiscal

year 1977

Project

1977

budget

1977 

capability Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

Cowanesque Lake, Pa 12,600 17,600 12,600 17,600

Tioga-Hammond Lakes, Pa 35,500 48,500 43,400 54,400

Total 48,100 66,100 56,000 72,000

Total requested authorization 56,000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 72,000

OHIO RIVER BASIN

The Ohio River is formed by the junction of the Allegheny and Monongahela

Rivers at Pittsburgh, and flows in a general southwesterly direction to join the

Mississippi River at Cairo, Ill. Its length is 981 miles, and its basin, comprising

204,000 square miles, lies betweed the Allegheny Mountains on the east and the

Mississippi River Basin on the west. The basin is about 800 miles long along the

northeast-southwest axis, and about 500 miles wide along its northwest-southwest

axis. Lying in the basin are major portions of Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee; large areas in Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, and Illinois; and parts of New York, Maryland, Georgia, and Mississippi.

The Flood Control Acts of June 22, 1936, August 28, 1937, and June 28, 1938,

approved a general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in

the Ohio River Basin, consisting of reservoirs, levees, floodwalls, and drainage

structures for protection of cities and towns. Those acts were amended and supplemented by subsequent acts, which also included monetary authorization for

further prosecution of the comprehensive plan. The monetary authorization

provided to date totals $1,338.8 million.
20

Ohio River Basin

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in plan $1,717,741

Present monetary authorization 1, 338,833

Allocations through June 30, 1975 1, 271,560

Remaining monetary authorization 67,273

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 57,287

Remaining monetary authorization after Sept. 30, 1976 9,986

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 26,248

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year

1977, based budget 16, 262

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based capability 22,468

II n thousands of dollars]

Fiscal yearApplication of additional authorization based on fiscal

year 1977

Project

1977

budget

1977

capability Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

Brookville Lake, Ind 

Burnsville Lake, W. Va 

Caesar Creek Lake, Ohio 

Cave Run Lake, Ky 

1,740

6, 000

6, 100

1,900

1,740

0,000

7, 600

2, 900

1,078

3, 717

3, 778

1, 177

1,078

3, 717

5, 278

2, 177

East Fork Lake, Ohio 5, 000 5,000 3,098 3,098

East Lynn Lake, W. Va 1,000 2, 200 620 1, 820

Evansville, Ind 1,400 2,400 867 1,867

Falmouth Lake, Ky 0 200 0 200

Mason J. Niblack pumps, Indiana 103 103 64 64

Recreation at completed projects:

Barren River Lake, Ky 472 472 293 293

Bluestone Lake, W. Va 0 45 0 45

Dewey Lak,e, Ky 73 73 45 45

Fishtrap Lake, Ky 27 202 17 192

J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tenn 280 280 174 174

John W. Flannagan Dam and Reservoir, Va 20 20 12 12

Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pa. and N.Y 330 330 204 204

Nolin Lake, Ky 737 1,300 457 1,020

Rough River Lake, Ky 26 26 16 16

Shenango River Lake, Pa. and Ohio 180 180 112 112

Summersville Lake, W. Va 0 75 0 75

Sutton Lake, W. Va 0 48 0 48

West Fork Mill Creek Lake, Ohio 110 110 68 68

Wolf Creek Dam, Lake Cumberland, Ky 750 750 465 465

Youghiogheny River Lake, Pa. and Md 0 400 0 400

Total 26, 248 32, 454 16, 262 22, 468

Total requested authorization 17, 000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 23, 000

RED RIVER WATERWAY PROJECT

The Red River Waterway Project is located in northwest Louisiana, southwest

Arkansas, northeast Texas, and southern Oklahoma.

The River and Harbor Act of 1968 approved the plan for navigation and bank

stabilization for the Red River and authorized the appropriation of $50,000,000

for initiation and partial accomplishment of the plan. The plan consists of providing a stabilized navigation channel 294 miles long, 9-feet deep, and 200-feet wide

from the Mississippi River to Index, Arkansas. Also bank stabilization would be

provided from Index, Arkansas, to Denison Dam, Texas. The monetary authorization provided to date totals $59,000,000.
21

Red River waterway project

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in the plan $1,496,300

Present monetary authorization 59,000

Allocations through June 30, 1975 18,373

Remaining monetary authorization 40,627

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 32,400

Remaining monetary authorization after Sept. 30, 1976 8,227

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 11 ,200

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 2,973

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977

based on capability 31 ,473

lb n thousands of dollars]

Application of additional auFiscal year— thorization based on fiscal

year 1977

Project

1977

budget

1977

capability Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

Mississippi River to Shreveport, La 11, 200 39, 400 2,973 31, 173

Shreveport to Daingerfield 0 200 0 200

Shreveport to vicinity index 0 100 0 100

Total 11, 200 39, 700 2, 973 31, 473

Total requested authorization 3, 000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 32,000

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN

The San Joaquin River, the only exterior drainage channel for an area of about

32,000 square miles, has its source in the Sierra Nevada Range about 25 miles

southeast of the Yosemite Valley, California.

The Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944, adopted the plan of improvement for flood control and other purposes on the lower San Joaquin River

and tributaries, including the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers, and authorized

the appropriation of $8 million for partial accomplishment of the plan. This monetary authorization has been increased by later acts, bringing the total monetary

authorization to date to $192.5 million.

San Joaquin River Basin

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in the plan $310 , 835

Present monetary authorization 192,500

Allocations through June 30, 1975 126,252

Remaining monetary authorization 66,248

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 49,555

Remaining monetary authorization after Sept. 30, 1976 16,693

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 59,000

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 42,307

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on capability 45,307

ilx thousands of dollars]

Project

Fiscal year—

Application of additional authorization based on fiscal

year 1977

1977 1977

budget capability Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

New Melones Lake, Calif. (totals) 59, 000 62, 000 42, 307 45, 307

Total requested authorization 43, 000

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 46, 000
22

SANTA ANA RIVER BASIN

The .Santa Ana River Basin contains an area of about 2,470 square miles and

is the largest coastal basin in Southern California. The river rises in the San

Bernardino Mountains and flows 100 miles southwest to the Pacific Ocean at a

point near Newport Beach, about 30 miles southeast of Los Angeles. The drainage

basin occupies parts of Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.

The general plan for flood protection of the metropolitan area in Orange County,

California was adopted by the Flood Control Act approved June 22, 1936, which

authorized an appropriation of $13,000,000 for partial accomplishment of the

plan. The plan has been further amended and modified and additional monetary

authorization provided by subsequent acts. The monetary authorization provided

to date totals $45,500,000.

Santa Ana River Basin

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in the plan $59,193

Present monetary authorization 45,500

Allocations through June 30, 1975 43,500

Remaining monetary authorization 2,000

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 570

Remaining monetary authorization after Sept. 30, 1976 1,430

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 2, 377

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 947

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977

based on capability 1,456

II n thousands of dollars]

Application of additional auFiscal year thorization based on fiscal

year 1977

Project

1977

budget

1977

capability Budget Capability

Recreation at completed projects:

Brea Dam, Calif 120 120 120 120

Carbon Canyon Lake and Channel, Calif 150 150 150 150

Fullerton Dam, calif 156 156

Prado Lake, Calif 2, 107 2, 460 677 1, 030

Total 2,377 2,886 947 1,456

Total requested authorization 1, 000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 2, 003

SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN

The South Platte River rises on the Continental Divide in central Colorado

and flows northeasterly to its confluence with the North Platte River at North

Platte, Nebraska. The drainage area of 24,030 square miles includes a section of

the rugged eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, with elevation exceeding

14,000 feet and extensive areas of the Great Plains.

The Flood Control Act of 1950 authorized a plan for flood control and related

purposes in the South Platte River Basin in Colorado. The plan consists of Chatfield Lake and levee and channel improvements at three locations, including the

city of Boulder. The act also authorized the appropriation of $26,300,000 for

partial accomplishment of the plan.

The plan was further modified by the Flood Control Act of 1968 to include

construction of a dam and lake on Bear Creek, a tributary of the South Platte

River. Subsequent acts bring the total monetary authorization to date to

$113,300,000.

.
23

South Platte River Basin

Thousands

Total estimated cost of projects in the plan $184, 149

Present monetary authorization 113,300

Allocations through June 30, 1975_ 92, 700

Remaining monetary authorization 20,600

Additional scheduled obligations through Sept. 30, 1976 20,600

Remaining monetary authorization through Sept. 30, 1976 0

Additional scheduled obligations through fiscal year 1977 21, 211

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on budget 21, 211

Required increase in monetary authorization through fiscal year 1977,

based on capability 21, 211

[Int housands of dollars]

Fiscal yearApplication of additional authorization based on fiscal

year 1977

Project

1977

budget

1977 

capability Budget Capability

Projects for which additional authorization is required:

Bear Creek Lake, Colo 12,500 12,500 15,711 15,711

Chatfield Lake, Colo 5,500 5, 500 5,500 5,500

Total 18,000 18,000 21,211 21,211

Total requested authorization 22,000 

Maximum potential authorization which may be required 22,000