nesses here today, and it bears out their statement. Again from Nation's Business: Supporters of the Trotters Shoals project contend that it would create jobs and strengthen the economy of the region by enhancing its recreational facilities and by attracting industry to the reservoir's water supply. Local business and civic leaders, however, point to the Clark Hill and Hartwell installations as evidence that this just doesn't happen. "We judge the future by the past. The building of the Clark Hill and Hartwell projects has formed industrial deserts with thousands upon thousands of acres of water down the middle," declares E. H. Agnew, of Starr, S.C., former president of the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation and a trustee of Anderson County School District No. 3. "What we need is not more recreational facilities, but more jobs and more tax income for an expanding educational economic opportunity. It's the damage that Trotters Shoals would bring to the industrial and agricultural future of our area that really hurts. It hurts because it clouds the chances for economic progress and educational advancement. Our youth must be well trained. Training includes better schools. Better schools cost more money, and Trotters Shoals offers no money." And Columbus Bend offers no money. We can ill afford to destroy some of our best farmlands and displace our population by creating Columbus Bend Dam and Reservoir; to provide industrial and municipal water for which there is no market or apparent need; to generate electricity which can be produced cheaper and to better advantage by alternative means-steam rather than hydroplants; to provide recreational facilities in an area already abundantly supplied; or to create fish and wildlife preserves at the sacrifice of major production of food and fiber. The people of Fayette-Colorado River Counties Association, the ones most affected by the Columbus Bend project, consider it ill conceived and unjustified and earnestly request that this committee does not recommend the authorization of Columbus Bend Dam or the approval of the Thompson bill, H.R. 17. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Gullatt. Are there any questions now of Mr. Gullatt or Mr. Dixon? Do any committee members want to pose any questions at this time? Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any questions to direct to the two gentlemen you mentioned, but I would like to ask Mr. Marburger a question. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Haley. Mr. HALEY. Mr. Marburger, you are familiar with this location of the proposed project down there, are you not? Mr. MARBURGER. Yes, sir. Mr. HALEY. How many miles, Mr. Marburger, is this from the Gulf of Mexico 80 miles? Mr. MARBURGER. I would judge so, sir. I would not pin it down to an exact mileage, but I would presume it is something like that. I am informed it is about 80 or 100 miles, depending on which direction you go. Some ways it is a little further and some ways it is a little shorter. Mr. HALEY. Texas is pretty famous for its fine roads, is it not? Mr. HALEY. I merely want to clear this up in my thinking, because so much emphasis has been put on recreation, growing fish, and so forth, down there. Of course, as I stated before, whenever we had about $5 million in here for fish, I thought that was a lot of fish, and I see we have raised that. I do not know how we are going to grow more fish. And recreation and wildlife, and so forth, is over half of the cost of this project, as I understand it. I also note that the figures supplied by the Bureau were based on 1959 prices for construction of this at a cost of $25,421,000. Have prices of this kind risen substantially in the last 4 or 5 years? Mr. MARBURGER. I believe my real estate man that works for the Federal Land Bank of Houston, who is very reliable, told me it is 10 percent per year. I do not know whether that is quite correct, but I heard last night you can figure project costs went up 5 percent per year. Whether it is 5 or 10, anyway, that is the general increase in land values and cost values, as I understand it. Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire: Have we had from the Department or from anyone what would be the cost of this project? Because you know the attitude of the gentleman from Florida has always been that in passing out bills from this committee, if and when we do pass them out, I want to know the cost of them and want to be able to write in the actual cost of the project. Do we have such figures available? Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do have the up-to-date cost figures submitted by the Department. Mr. HALEY. And the amount? Mr. MCFARLAND. The amount is $25.5 million, I believe, or right at that. Mr. HALEY. The Department's figures here show that Federal construction cost of planned development is estimated at $25,421,000, on the basis of June 1959 prices, which are essentially the same as the current prices. Mr. MCFARLAND. Yes, sir. Mr. HALEY. In other words, they take the position that in the intervening time, the 5 years, there has been no substantial change? Mr. MCFARLAND. They take the position that this figure can still be used as the current cost estimate; yes, sir. Mr. HALEY. I think they had better bring themselves up to date down in the Department, because I think that they will find there has been an increase. Mr. Marburger, approximately how many families will be displaced? When I say "displaced," I mean this: that so much of the land and I understand this is very fine land, very productive land. You have got pecan trees down there, and you grow cotton and grow corn and a lot of things. Is that right? Mr. MARBURGER. Right. Mr. HALEY. How many families would be displaced by having to move away from their farms or by the flooding of their land making the present farm not a good economic unit? Have you any idea? Mr. MARBURGER. Let me ask a man who knows. Will you answer that, Mr. Zapalac? Mr. ZAPALAC. It is 121 families that depend upon this land. In other words, they do not live on the bottom land, but they do farm it, and it will take the land away from them and they will have to move elsewhere. Mr. HALEY. There is no shortage, Mr. Marburger, of water presently in this area except probably municipal water. Is that right? Mr. MARBURGER. No, sir. I am sorry you missed all of our discussion this morning. Mr. HALEY. Yes. Mr. MARBURGER. We have ample water for all purposes up to the year 2000 and beyond. Mr. HALEY. That is from wells? Mr. MARBURGER. Yes, sir; wells and other sources that could be used. In fact, we have a surplus now. The report by Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, which I gave the chairman, is a very good report, and it shows they have ample water supply, and I read it to the committee this morning. Mr. HALEY. Is your surface water in that part of the country brackish, alkaline, or is it good? Mr. MARBURGER. It appears that the surface water as well as the underground water is of the finest quality. Mr. HALEY. The finest quality? Mr. MARBURGER. Yes, sir. Mr. HALEY. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. GULLATT. Mr. Chairman, I have just received the report from the Bureau of Reclamation, the supplemental report, and we have not had an opportunity to analyze and see what the change in the allocation of cost and the increasing costs will make on the benefits, and so on. May I submit a supplemental report to you which would be included in the record after we had time to look over the supplemental report? Mr. ROGERS. How long would that be? Mr. GULLATT. You said you would have the record open for 10 days. Mr. ROGERS. How long would your report be? Mr. GULLATT. Just a short report tying it into the previous report. It may be 6 or 8 or 10 pages. Mr. ROGERS. Without objection, it will be included in the record. (The material referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF DOSWELL GULLATT, CONSULTANT ENGINEER, WASHINGTON, D.C. The reevaluation statement on the Columbus Bend project, Texas, dated February 1964, prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation, furnishes no new basic data to justify the changes made in allocations of cost and especially the benefits attributed to the project. It is to be noted that the contention of the opposition that land acquisition costs were erroneously stated in House Document 227 was accepted by the Bureau of Reclamation and the land acquisition items were increased by 62 percent, from $5,891,000 to $9,518,900. However, the estimated cost of the dam structure was not changed to reflect the price changes from 1959 to 1964 and the revised land acquisition costs are still materially below current land values. For an economic justification of municipal and industrial water, the report states, "Municipal and industrial water benefits are based on the annual cost of an alternative single-purpose project assuming private financing at 3.75-percent interest over a 40-year repayment period. Annual benefits computed on this basis are estimated at $1,190,000." No showing is made that the water could be sold or could be delivered at a price to create the return of $1,190,000 annually. The new benefits are 114 percent more than the benefits claimed in the previous report on this project, which were $556,000 annually. An explanation to justify the additional assumed benefits might be expected since adequate and suitable ground water is available in the area and will be competitive, without Federal expenditures, with water to be delivered from the proposed project. The wildlife refuge has been eliminated in part and the benefits are reduced from $958,000 to $340,000 annually. However, recreational benefits are increased Of from $281,000 to $746,200, or 165 percent annually for no apparent reason. the total cost of the project, $14,587,000, 55 percent is allocated to fish and wildlife and recreation. There is no showing in the report of any economic justification for these increases in benefits for these purposes. A reexamination of the analysis of the Columbus Bend project, prepared by Doswell Gullatt & Associates (1961), and compared with the House Document 227 (1961) and the reevaluation statement prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation, dated February 1964, indicates that the rearranging and changes in allocations of cost and benefits made in the reevaluation statement by the Bureau of Reclamation are without fundamental justification. Due to increased construction costs, the benefit-cost ratio of the project is actually less than 0.65 to 1 as stated in the above cited Gullatt & Associates analysis. The attached summary of the opposition position takes full cognizance of the Bureau of Reclamation's reevaluation report dated February 1964. SUMMARY OF OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS TO THE COLUMBUS BEND PROJECT BY FAYETTE-COLORADO COUNTIES RIVER ASSOCIATION The Columbus Bend project proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation, to cost some $25,421,000, will create a relatively shallow lake in the valley of the Colorado River between the cities of Columbus and La Grange, Tex., require the acquisition, by the Federal Government, of 27,656 acres of agricultural land and have a benefit-to-cost ratio less than 0.65. The lake will inundate approximately 25,000 acres of the most fertile soil of this valley, which at present has a population of over 600 persons and is producing food and fiber with a value in excess of $1,630,000 annually. This production, in turn, supports a thriving economy in the adjoining area. The project has no potential value for power, flood control, or irrigation. It is promoted only for municipal and industrial water supply and recreation, with 55 percent of the cost of the project allocated to recreation and to fish and wildlife purposes, with only 45 percent to municipal and industrial water supply, the alleged principal purposes. There is no customer, present or prospective, in the foreseeable future, for the municipal and industrial water. Further, good ground water is available that can be produced at 4 cents per 1,000 gallons, a competitive cost, with no Federal expenditures. The average depth of the lake when full is less than 13 feet and the provision to draw down the reservoir during June through September each year will convert much of the lake area into a shallow, muddy swamp. The resulting muddy swamp areas, infested by reptiles and insects, will not only destroy any possible recreational value for the lake but will create a serious health hazard to the surrounding area during the very height of the recreational season. The shallow lake created by Columbus Bend Dam will be rapidly filled with sediment, especially in the riverbed above and in the lake area near La Grange, due to the dropping of heavy suspended matter in the water as the flood current is reduced in the backwater of the lake. This will create an ever-increasing flood hazard for the community of La Grange and the adjoining farmlands. The lakes on the Colorado River to the north of La Grange have been in operation for many years, yet they have created no demand by water-consuming industry in these areas. The city of Austin, Tex., located on one of these lakes, has had no influx of industry which uses water in large quantities. No industrial expansion can be anticipated from the Columbus Bend Reservoir which would replace the jobs and economy which the project would necessarily destroy Why should the Government destroy an existing economy by flooding fertile land, displacing the population, and destroying jobs, to provide water not needed and to create an unsatisfactory recreational lake in an area already exceptionally well provided with recreational opportunities? We earnestly urge that you oppose the Thompson bill, H.R. 17, and the proposed authorization of the Columbus Bend project. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Marburger, do you have another witness? Mr. MARBURGER. No, sir; but I overlooked introducing another statement this morning by Mr. Price on pecans. He has made a detailed study of it. I also have some more letters of opposition that I would like to file for the record. 33-214-64- -11 Mr. ROGERS. Without objection, they will be received subject to the rules of the committee, Mr. Marburger. I will take a look and the ranking minority member will take a look, and they will be included in the file if not in the record. The statement of Mr. Price will be included in the record without objection. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF W. S. PRICE, Box 86, KERENS, TEX., PECAN SPECIALIST The record, the education, technical membership, experience, etc. of the writer is as follows: Name: William Sidney Price. Education: Texas A. & M. College, B.S. degree, agricultural administration, June 1, 1926. Graduate work, agricultural economics, Harvard University, 1926–27, no degree. Experience: Thirty-five years devoted to earning a living growing pecans, cattle and cotton. Active member of Texas Pecan Growers Association (founded 1921) since 1930, honored by the association with every official capacity from director to president. Currently serving as a member of land evaluation committee appointed by the association. Employed by Texas Department of Agriculture as pecan specialist, 1937 through 1942, to promote native pecan orchard development by field demonstration to any and all agricultural agencies willing to cooperate. From 1936 through 1946 served as adviser to USDA, Washington, D.C., committees dealing with problems relative tree nut industry. Served as director of American Pecan Growers Association, 1939–44. Personal: Born May 29, 1904, Navarro County, Kerens, Tex.; current address, Box 86. Kerens, Tex.; married, three sons, own my own farm-active in its operation; religious faith, Baptist; Mason. STATEMENT The Land Evaluation Committee of the Texas Pecan Growers Association was appointed to serve the need for more accurate appraisal of certain agricultural lands devoted to the growth of trees and production of nuts of the pecan. Some abuses had been practiced in arriving at values of pecan land in condemnation proceedings. These abuses reflected upon the pecan industry. The Texas Pecan Growers Association realizing that the excess values established in individual cases was due to ignorance and prejudice, initiated the schedules of values for pecan lands (revised and approved) as recorded in the proceedings of the association, dated July 12–13, 1960, Brownwood, Tex. The land evaluation committee's services are available to all seeking and needing assistance relative pecan land values. Fayette-Colorado Counties River Association requested the services of the Land Evaluation Committee of Texas Pecan Growers Association in establishing acre value on pecan lands within the 21,000-acre area called Columbus Bend project sponsored by Lower Colorado River Authority. The landowners supplied estimated acreage of pecan land involved with description of the several classifications to the committee and this data was presented in hearings and recorded in a prepared paper before the annual convention of Texas Pecan Growers Association, College Station, Tex., July 11-12, 1961, by committee member, Will S. Price. The proponents of Columbus Dam project presented data relative pecan land acreage so great a difference from that recorded in the Texas Pecan Growers proceedings paper by W. S. Price that Fayette-Colorado Counties River Associa tion requested a farm-to-farm personal survey by a member of the land evaluation committee. I, Will S. Price, made such survey on October 17-18, 1961, visiting 72 individual landowners within the 21,000-acre Columbus Bend project. In brief follows |