Page images
PDF
EPUB

STATEMENT OF FRED C. EMERSON, SELECTMAN OF THE TOWN OF AGAWAM, MASS., AND PRESIDENT OF THE CONNECTICUT VALLEY WATER CONTROL ASSOCIATION

Mr. EMERSON. No; I do not have one, but I will be glad to have one prepared, if you wish.

Mr. JONES. Well, we do a lot of things off the cuff, and you can do it as well as we can, so you go ahead.

Mr. EMERSON. Fine.

First of all, from the standpoint of the Connecticut Valley Water Control Association, the association I have the dubious honor of being president of, if it is a dubious honor-it comprises city and town officials in this Connecticut River Valley. We have been in business for about 6 or 7 years and we have been working with various other groups who have been compiling figures relating to flood control and antipollution, and on the Enfield Dam, which is a part of the valley problem, as we see it. Flood control has been of extreme importance

to us.

We are behind the petitions or the requests of the Army engineers, and we are also behind our good Representative Boland, who has filed a bill in our behalf. He filed it in the Congress of the United States last year for $2 million for plans for the area development. I am correct in that; am I not?

Also with reference to the recent storm you have heard a lot of testimony, some of which I venture to say is irrelevant. The Westfield River, which is a river in the lower valley, was 18 feet above normal. That is in the August 19 storm. It was 12 feet above normal in the most recent storm.

Those rivers and their tributaries have a lot of bearing on the economic well-being of this community.

I assume you will hear from the mayor of Westfield. She was here this morning. I assume you will hear more of the Westfield picture from her.

The Connecticut River rose at the rate of 6 inches an hour during the last storm and had we had a heavy waterfall in Vermont and New Hampshire we know we would have had serious difficulties here.

So much for the flood situation, except to say that it is the hope of our group that your committee will very seriously consider in your wisdom supporting not only the little dam, but the other catch basins up north, because we have already seen the effect on Knightville and some of the other basins in operation, and how they have saved this area a lot more damage than we have been put to.

Another area we are working in is antipollution. It has been the feeling of our group that there should be participation financially on the local as well as the national level.

I will let that drop unless there are further questions from the committee.

We have been extremely concerned about the Enfield Dam project, and together with some 25 industrial corporations in this valley we have petitioned to intervene with the Federal Power Commission, and are awaiting their word as to where we will come out, and as to whether we will have a hearing here or there. But we understand there is to be a hearing and that we will have an opportunity to present our case at that time.

Mr. BOLAND. In opposition to it.

Mr. EMERSON. In opposition to the erection of the dam. That is correct.

Mr. JONES. Who filed an application for construction?

Mr. EMERSON. The Connecticut Light & Power Co. We feel very strongly about that, and especially in the light of the last storm, where we received 14 inches of waterfall in our area in a period of less than 30 hours. We feel a storm of that size and magnitude with the change today apparently in our entire path of storms, as you have undoubtedly experienced when you were in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, that we are getting a lot heavier rainfall and we are fortunate that it has not been worse. If the river had been at a higher level, let us say 42 feet higher at Enfield Rapids, we feel very strongly we would have had a lot more trouble than we did. Fortunately the river crested 6 feet before it went over the dikes. That is another area that we are deeply concerned with.

Mr. BOLAND. It was 6 feet below the dikes?

Mr. EMERSON. Below the top; 21 feet was the crest in the last storm. It was indicated at that time, Mr. Congressman, that it might not crest until the following day. Fortunately it crested that evening. If it had done it the following day, it would have been over the dikes.

Mr. JONES. Have you had an opportunity to review the recommendations of the Hoover Commission?

Mr. EMERSON. No, I have not. I am sorry. I know of their policy as far as antipollution is concerned, but I have not had a chance to go any further.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much.

Mr. Reuss?

Mr. REUSS. No questions at this time.

Mr. JONES. During the noon recess an inquiry was directed to me as to whether or not the committee was here for the purpose of prejudicing the minds of the people in this area against the Hoover Commission's recommendations. I want to assure everyone that is not our purpose and not our objective. But, as I stated in my opening statement, the purpose of our being here is to get your views and your evaluation of the various recommendations made by the Hoover Commission. If there is any feeling on the part of anybody that they would be excluded from testifying before this subcommittee, they are in total error. We will be here for 2 days and we are here on business. We want to hear anybody who has something to offer or to contribute to the committee that will provide us with more information. Whether you are a member of the Citizens Committee for the Adoption of the Hoover Commission Report, or whether you are opposed to it, we are perfectly willing to hear you.

I want to assure the audience and the people in the area and the newspapers, and everybody who may show concern, that it is our business to hear all sides of the question, and you will not be precluded from testifying, in view of any statement that you would want to make.

So I hope if there is any doubt in anybody's mind that it is dissipated, and if anybody believes we are here to prejudice anybody's mind in regard to this, or to do anything but examine the facts and interpret those facts according to the recommendations made by

the Hoover Commission report, that they will be discouraged from that belief.

Our next witness will be Mr. Thomas Walsh, secretary of the Massachusetts Municipal Electric Utility Association.

(No response.)

Mr. JONES. Brig. Gen. Robert Fleming, Division Engineer, Corps of Engineers, Boston.

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. ROBERT FLEMING, DIVISION ENGINEER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BOSTON, MASS.; ACCOMPANIED BY HERMAN M. KROPPER, CHIEF, ENGINEERING DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BOSTON MASS.

General FLEMING. How do you do, sir.

Mr. JONES. Are you going to use your assistant?

General FLEMING. My assistant is Mr. Herman M. Kropper, Chief of the Engineering Division in our office.

Mr. JONES. Do you have a prepared statement, General?

General FLEMING. No, sir. I do not. I could briefly describe what happened in the two recent storms.

On the first one, August 18-19, we had a different pattern of rainfall than occurred in the August 1938 flood, which was the last big one. In general in that one the rainfall was distributed up and down the valleys and your plotting of rainfall data almost follows the contour lines. In the August 18-19 flood that rainfall was distributed in the shape of an ellipse, with the axis of that ellipse on the Massachusetts-Connecticut border. It was not a regular ellipse, but 120 miles on the major axis, and 60 miles on the minor axis north and south. Mr. JONES. What was the direction of the course?

General FLEMING. It was almost-when it started the storm was almost static. It moved very slowly from west to east, with the result that a day later, after the terrifically big rainfall in the western part of Connecticut, for example, there was quite a glob of rainfall which landed on the Boston plain area, and we got into trouble in the Boston plain maybe a day after we did in the main part of the storm itself.

The rainfall got up in one place about as high as 19 inches. That was a local phenomenon. In some places, according to the best records that the Weather Bureau has, or that we have, the great majority of our rain, about 65 to 75 percent of it, fell in a period of 8 to 10 hours. In other words, while the rainfall distributed itself over a 48-hour period, the intensity was very much greater during a short period of time.

The result of this was that the area in the southern part of Massachusetts on those streams whose headwaters rise in Massachusetts received very, very severe damage. Those were largely the tributaries of the Connecticut River, the Chicopee, which flows in from the east; the Westfield, which flows in from the west; and the Farmington River, which flows all over central Connecticut, rising up near Winsted, Conn., and eventually going to sea at Windsor-going into the Conecticut River at Windsor, rather.

The other basins primarily affected, besides those three tributaries of the Connecticut River, were the basin of the Housatonic River, whose major tributary is the Naugatuck. The Naugatuck is a stream

wholly in the State of Connecticut, which rises about 5 or 10 miles above the city of Torrington and goes through Thomaston, Waterbury, and Ansonia. That valley was almost devastated.

Then the Thames River Basin, which consists of four major streams-the Willimantic River, from west to east; the Shetucket, the Quinebaug and the French.

There was extremely severe damage on the headwaters of each of those rivers, which rise in Massachusetts right on the border. Then as the water came down and as the tributaries joined each other it really got rough. Two rivers joined just above Putnam, Conn., for example, which was almost devastated. The Willimantic had quite severe damage. The Quinebaug River went through the town of Southbridge in Massachusetts and did a terrific amount of damage there.

The next thing that was affected was the Blackstone River, which rises near Worcester Mass., and flows down through Woonsocket and up into the upper part of Narragansett Bay.

The city of Worcester was damaged severely, not by the terrific velocity of the waters, but merely by inundation.

Woonsocket was practically ripped apart. The center of the city of Woonsocket was ripped out by the terrific velocity of the water. So much for the storm of August 18 and 19.

In the one of the last weekend we had three main points of rainfall up near the Cobble Mountain Reservoir in Massachusetts, which is on the headwaters of the Farmington River in Massachusetts. The pattern of that rainfall went down generally again hitting the Naugatuck River Valley and moved over the parts of Fairfield County in Connecticut, which resulted in very severe flooding again in Ansonia, which is at the mouth of the Naugatuck, and the city of Danbury. Mr. JONES. Poor Ansonia had a hard time.

General FLEMING. Yes, sir. A double dose. It got the other barrel this time. It hit Danbury with an inundation flood and the same rain caused the Norwalk River of Connecticut to go up. That runs through the Merrit Parkway and did a substantial amount of damage.

There were two other regions that were affected. One was around Stafford Springs, Conn., where I think about 11 inches of rainfall fell. It did not do any particular damage coming down, because the channels had been pretty well cleaned by the first one.

Another peak was about 8 or 10 inches which landed generally north of Fitchburg, Mass., and affected some of the streams in the northern part of Massachusetts, and then drained down into the Merrimac Basin, which had sufficient capacity, so the intensity and amount of rainfall just did not cause an awful lot of damage in the flow.

In the headwaters in Massachusetts there was some damage, but that damage was minor compared to the damage done in other places. It was only minor because it was not so extensive.

The places that got it the second time in addition to Ansonia were, as I mentioned, Ansonia, and the entire Westfield River again went on a rampage. This time a control works at Knightsville was more affected due to the rainfall pattern than the first storm. In the first storm it got 58 percent full, and in this one 96 percent full in that reservoir. That undoubtedly contributed to a greatly reduced river flow, cresting downstream from it.

Mr. JONES. Now, General, the Water Resource Development report of the Corps of Engineers, which was published on January 1, 1955. has this statement in it:

There has been a long record of damaging floods in the river basin of New England. Three major floods within the past 28 years are vividly recalled by many of us. These floods caused the loss of 43 lives and damages of about $265 million, of which $123 million occurred in Massachusetts.

Now, I observe this is the same language and the same problem you have recited in every annual report for the last several years. Is that true?

General FLEMING. That is correct. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. Is that the basis of the statement you made in your address here in Hartford on July 14, and I quote from your statement, where you say:

Just as sure as I am standing here you will get another disastrous flood on the Connecticut River.

Were you the author of that statement?

General FLEMING. Yes, sir. I made it.

Mr. JONES. Then you are a man with vision. I will say that. General FLEMING. Sir, I had horseshoes in my pocket when I made that statement.

Mr. JONES. There was a damage of $265 million that occurred prior to the last two flood situations. What would the total dollar figure amount to at the present time, based on your preliminary estimates of loss and damages?

General FLEMING. Congressman, as you know, your first shot at damages is always apt to be high. We thought when the things first started that the flood damage in New England and New York and Pennsylvania might get up to about $1,200 million.

Mr. JONES. $1,200 million?

General FLEMING. Yes.

Mr. JONES. According to the rules on authorizing and constructing projects, the rule of thumb that has always been adopted by the Congress is that the benefits should exceed the costs. Therefore we could justify an expenditure of over $1 billion on projects in the New England States.

Mr. BOLAND. I think he is going to correct the figure.

General FLEMING. I think subsequently that figure has phased down somewhat.

Mr. BOLAND. To what?

General FLEMING. I would say in New England right now when you add in the industrial losses which have occurred in this thing, like lost production, you will probably get for the New England States alone somewhere up in the neighborhood of $600 million.

Mr. BOLAND. The thing that bothers me about estimates is this: The Corps of Engineers on the first estimates, as you say, are pretty high, and it is very difficult to estimate total damage when the newspapers and the press and radio are playing up the big figures, as well as our local people too. It is natural to say, "Our town was hit the hardest." But after sound reflection and when you get a look at the estimated damage, it is always almost half the original estimate. But now you come to the problem of what is the damage, because I have figures before me which indicate that the Civilian Defense Administrator says

« PreviousContinue »