Mr. JONES. Has there ever been a survey made by the Corps of Engineers to ascertain the need for flood control, navigation, and hydroelectric works on that project?

Mr. SWAIN. Under the 308.

Mr. JONES. Under the 308.

Mr. SWAIN. That was a preliminary scope report.

Mr. JONES. And you concluded by an examination of the stream in the 308 report there were no works needed to be done on the Delaware River, is that correct?

Colonel RENSHAW. There is no Federal.

Mr. JONES. Federal, that's what I'm talking about. How do you account for that, Colonel?

Colonel RENSHAW. Because we could not find at that time a sufficient-you see, it's the flood control and navigation under which we're looking for

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Pitkin testified that this adverse review report has just been returned to the division and district offices for further study in the light of the recent flood, is that right?

Colonel RENSHAW. Yes.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. So there is going to be further study.

Mr. JONES. I understand that, but I'm interested and intrigued with respect to the scope survey of the 308 report failing to disclose any need for flood control and navigation on the Delaware River.

Colonel RENSHAW. There's no navigation above Trenton. That's where the tidal stream ends, sir.

Mr. JONES. Well, the flood control problem exists on the upper reaches of the stream, beyond Trenton.

Colonel RENSHAW. In individual places, yes, sir; and we have taken care of that, like in the Lehigh, which is a tributary, at Easton, and the Lackawaxen.

Mr. JONES. How much damage was incurred on the stream at Trenton-flood damage as a result of the recent flood?

Colonel RENSHAW. You want Trenton separately or do you want the entire

Mr. JONES. I would like to have the entire Delaware, covering the 308 report.

Colonel RENSHAW. $97,000,000.

Mr. JONES. $97,000,000, so it is fair to assume that the 308 report was not a very exhaustive study of the situation?

Mr. SWAIN. Can I say something, sir? When we made that report in 1933, there had only been one flood that amounted to very much on the Delaware River. That was in 1903, when the valley wasn't developed anywhere near the extent that it is today. Therefore, we were unable to find damages from floods.

Mr. JONES. Well, that was certainly not characteristic of the 308 reports for the streams throughout the country, because the 308 reports embrace a casual examination of almost every stream in the country and the Corps of Engineers, in making 308 reports, was certainly most generous in appraising the future needs on the stream in order that they would not be mistaken in their estimate of future needs on that stream.

It seems to me unusual that a large river such as the Delaware would not get the same kind of treatment that the 308 report gives to the other streams throughout the country. Of course, I understand that the 308 reports were casual reports made upon meager information, but they were most detailed in their ambition.

Mr. SWAIN. In the 308 report, of course, we considered flood control-I don't say we didn't consider it-it was of our prime considerations. However, the benefits to be obtained-we have a system of reservoirs and so on-but the benefits to be obtained from those reservoirs are primarily for water supply. Water supply is the prime requisite in the Delaware River Valley, or it was at the time the 308 report was made, and flood control was rather a secondary consideration, because, as I say, based on the past experience of flooding in the Delaware River Valley up to the time that that report was made, flood control was of minor importance.

This particular storm that we've had changes the picture somewhat. Mr. JONES. More than somewhat, isn't it?

Colonel RENSHAW. Well, just as the storm of 1942 resulted in the Lehigh report, that gave us the damage data and the economics to justify the report which went to Congress, and the storm of 1942 gave us the authority, then, to look into Honesdale and Hawley and gave us the Dyberry and the Prompton, now this storm today will undoubtedly open up at least a dozen damaged points that we've listed for restudy, and I can undertake them under the authority of the Chief of Engineers, who has returned this report to me. This is his authority.

Mr. JONES. Provided, of course, you get some money next year to make the survey?

Colonel RENSHAW. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. That's another big “if,” isn't it?

Colonel RENSHAW. I believe that that's your business, not mine, sir. Mr. JONES. Well, it's a big one, I'll tell you that.

Colonel RENSHAW. I would say from past experience in the Corps of Engineers that Congress has been very generous in giving us money to study these situations and the resolutions of your committees are the authority we need. I think the money follows in omnibus bills, and I don't know of any serious situation that's developed where we haven't gotten the money to make those studies.

Mr. JONES. Well, Colonel, I wish we had more survey money. How much did we get this year? We used to appropriate $5 million. This year what did we get? A million and a half, except those designated projects such as the Great Lakes and other projects that were singled out for special treatment or special appropriations for survey.

It would seem to me that if we're going to have sound planning, that these projects, the projects that are authorized by the Congress that take an average period of time of 9 years from the time of their authorizations until actual work commences, that it's going to be necessary for the Corps of Engineers or any other construction agency of the Federal Government to make continuous surveys to determine their economic value and to prove their justification for Federal investments.

Now, if we're going-and I make no charges against this administration, because we've been doing it-been going down and down and

down in the surveys-it seems to me that if we're going to save money, that these projects, probably economically feasible in 1946, are no longer economically feasible. The only people who can determine that are the Corps of Engineers, with their knowledge and their intimacy with the problem.

Colonel, I'm sure, as you are, we're hopeful that next year the Congress will be generous enough that you can carry out further studies of and extend the 308 reports, bringing them up to date to where we can get the whole problem definitive as to what is going to be needed. I wonder, in the face of the suggestion and the recommendation of the Hoover Commission report that we ascertain first whether or not the local interests are going to carry out this work or it's going to fall upon the responsibility of the Federal Government, how much time we will allow before we can determine whose job it's going to be. Would you like to comment on that aspect of it?

Colonel RENSHAW. That is pretty tough ground for me, sir. I would like to say this: That I operate under the laws of the land, the last that Congress has enacted

Mr. JONES. Well, I do, too; I operate under the laws of Pennsylvania while I'm up here.

Colonel RENSHAW (continuing). And that I will continue under the authorities that are given me by my boss, the Chief of Engineers, and the laws of Congress, to study these projects, to design and determine their economic feasibility.

I don't see that the Hoover Committee report, which I have read, will affect my immediate operating along the rules I'm presently operating under.

Mr. JONES. I see. Can you give us firm assurances of that?

Colonel RENSHAW. It's my understanding that the recommendations of the Hoover report are not law at this time.

Mr. JONES. What if they were to become law? That's the "if" we're dealing with.

Colonel RENSHAW. No, sir; I cannot comment on them. They would then become subject to administrative regulations that I would have to follow.

Mr. JONES. In other words, we've got the right horse but the wrong bridle on, haven't we?

I'm not going to be a source of embarrassment to you, I assure you that, Colonel.

Mr. LIPSCOMB. I believe that the colonel's position is just and right. Mr. JONES. We all run into the military loyalty to the chief, and certainly that's commendable, but I know of your long experience in the Corps of Engineers in dealing with the water problems that you've got some splendid suggestions to make to this committee as to how we could best proceed to get the utmost done at the lowest possible dollar. Would you like to quit being a colonel and just-I'm being rather solicitous, Colonel. If you do have, we will welcome

Colonel RENSHAW. I have a great interest in Pennsylvania. I was born here, sir, and I have a great interest in the Delaware-I was district engineer and wrote and signed those two reports, the Lehigh and the Lackawaxen reports, some 10 years ago.

Mr. JONES. Well, I hope that we'll work so fast that you'll be the district engineer to see that the work is prosecuted.

Colonel RENSHAW. That is Colonel Clark's job and I'm sure he will build it fast for you, sir.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much. We're certainly grateful for your coming down today and giving us a review of these projects.

STATEMENT OF COL. CLARENCE RENSHAW, DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION, NEW YORK CITY

1. The presently available estimate of the damage in the Delaware River watershed from the flood of August 18 to 20, 1955, resulting from Hurricane Diane is $97,691,000, including $4,414,000 in the Schuylkill watershed, which is tributary to the Delaware. In the Susquehanna River watershed, principally along Roaring Brook, a tributary of the Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pa., a total of $11,580,000 in damages was reported. The total damage in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from these floods amounted to $86,304,000. It is desired to emphasize that the figures are the result of preliminary reports from the district engineers and are incomplete. The district engineers are now engaged in preparing a detailed report and undoubtedly as a result of these studies, the figures may be higher. Such things as loss of wages and loss of business, on which the final amount will not be known for some time, may raise the total damage considerably.

2. In the flooded area of Pennsylvania there are on the books of the Corps of Engineers five projects which, if in operation, would have prevented some of the damage. Along the Lehigh River there are authorized projects for the construction of Bear Creek Reservoir and for construction of local protection projects downstream at Allentown and Bethlehem. The total damage from the flood in Lehigh Valley below Bear Creek Reservoir site is presently estimated at $18 million. If the 3 projects just mentioned had been in operation, an estimated total of $16 million in damages would have been prevented. In comparison, the estimated costs of the projects are: Bear Creek Reservoir, $17,900,000; Allentown, $2,130,000; Bethlehem, $8,100,000; total of $28,100,000. These projects were authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 24, 1946. Since 1948 a total of $602,000 has been allotted for engineering and design. In the event construction funds were made available, it would be possible to place Bear Creek Dam under construction within a few months. Some additional design work will be required before the Allentown and Bethlehem projects can be placed under construction.

3. Along the Lackawaxen River, where the flood was less intense, there are authorized projects for the construction of Prompton and Dyberry Reservoirs. These projects will provide protection for the towns of Honesdale and Hawley and other locations along the river below the dam sites. The total damage from the flood below the dam sites is presently estimated at $2,258,000. With the reservoirs in operation about $1,110,000 in damages would have been prevented, or roughly 50 percent of the total. The estimated cost of construction of Prompton Reservoir is $5,580,000 and Dyberry Reservoir $7,340,000, a total of $12,920,000. These projects were authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948, and a total of $295,000 has been allotted for engineering and design. Some additional design is required before these projects can be placed under construction.

4. On the Lackawanna River in the Susquehanna watershed there is an authorized project for the construction of Stillwater Reservoir. This project is located above the principal damage center at Scranton and would have had little effect in reducing damages from this storm. The pattern of this storm resulted in a large rainfall on the watershed downstream of the site of the proposed project. Several plans proposed in the past for protection of Scranton and other localities along the Lackawanna River and its tributaries were found to be uneconomical. In view of this flood a reexamination is required.

5. With respect to new plans as a result of the flood, a restudy of the Delaware River "308" report will be made. The study will include formulation of a comprehensive basin water resource development plan for flood control, water supply, and allied purposes. In addition, it is possible that, as a result of detailed field studies and damage surveys now underway, several “212” projects and snagging and clearing projects will be found feasible.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Goddard, we're glad to have you today. I'm sorry we're running late. I'll have to apologize to the many witnesses.

We had hoped that we would move a little bit faster, but it's such an interesting and intriguing subject, we can't help doing a little exploring.

Mr. GODDARD. I understand that, sir.

Mr. JONES. Do you have a prepared statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. MAURICE GODDARD, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS AND WATERS, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. GODDARD. No, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Pitkin commented in his introductory remarks, the prepared material he presented was a joint statement from the two representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I want to reiterate that I concur with his statement, and this is a joint statement and it carries the office of the secretary of forests and waters.

I would like to perhaps read into the record, if I may, what are the functions of my department, waterways, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I feel this might be of interest and a point of record, because I feel that Pennsylvania, along with the State of California-the two States have done as much as any other States within the United States in water, in flood-control work, at the State level. I feel that way sincerely.

May I read this into the record?

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir.

Mr. GODDARD. There are four divisions within my department concerned with water and, of course, the one that we're discussing mostly today is the division of flood control.

The division of flood control undertakes stream-clearance projects at the request of local governmental agencies or other interested groups, after an investigation and study has determined the justification for such work. This activity generally consists of removal of gravel bars and flood debris from stream channels which have become clogged to such a degree that subsequent high waters would cause considerable property damage.

Projects of greater magnitude are also undertaken as flood-control projects. These projects are also initiated at the request of local governmental agencies, but affect a much larger group or community of people. The projects are more comprehensive and costly, thereby requiring an extensive amount of engineering study to determine the feasibility of the proposed flood-control plan. For each project contract, plans and specifications are prepared, a construction contract awarded, and an inspection force provided to supervise the work.

The division also cooperates with the Federal Government and local flood-prevention projects undertaken by the Corps of Engineers, United States Army. The projects are joint undertakings. All of the principal construction work is done by the Federal Government; all local costs, such as land acquisition, rights-of-way, easements, highway alterations, and utility relocations, are the responsibility of the local governments.

The commonwealth assists by assuming 50 percent of the local costs and providing the necessary engineering and legal services.