Data on projects in civil works supplemental request, fiscal year 1956

1 Basin plan.

2 Benefit-cost ratio not applicable. The modification of the dam was authorized for the purpose of insuring the safety of the structure, and safeguarding life and property downstream.

3 Request is for use of available construction funds.

1955 FLOOD COMPARED WITH OTHER FLOODS

Mr. MARSHALL. How did the hurricane floods of last year compare with the maximum flood previously estimated by the corps to be possible in this area?

General STURGIS. Do you mean in intensity? I might supplement the remarks that I have indicated, sir, that the differences were principally three, if I may review those.

One is the fact that the area covered by the historic storms of record, such as the 1938 and 1936, and I believe the 1927 and previous floods, their axis has been along the Connecticut River. For example, the Connecticut River, itself, did not, under Diane, get a flood of record, because of the fact that its upper watershed was practically dry, north of the Massachusetts border. This storm, as you may remember the graph, was parallel to the coast-I am speaking of Diane. Therefore the intensity lay right directly across the coastal streams, such as the Naugatuck and the Housatonic, into which the Naugatuck flows; the Thames, the Blackstone, and other rivers, we will say, rising in the Berkshires or in Massachusetts and flowing south through Connecticut and Rhode Island. So they received the intense rainfall.

Whereas you will remember when the axis was up the Connecticut River, those others were roughly on the outer edges. They received rainfall something more in the neighborhood of 6 or 8 inches, whereas the Connecticut River, itself, received the very heavy rainfall and all

the way up.
a discharge of record, compared to previous storms.

So the Connecticut River therefore by no means reached

Another thing is that the intensity of rainfall itself was somewhat greater than the previous floods and the total amount of rainfall, while only slightly greater than in the 1938 flood, that rainfall fell during half the time in which almost the same average rainfall fell in the 1938 flood, which of course made a tremendous difference in the runoff.

Then there was a third factor which I mentioned, and that was the fact that Hurricane Connie had been there about a week before and had saturated the ground, the streams were bank full, all the small dams were full, and many of them burst.

Mr. MARSHALL. All of these things joined together, were the things which caused the bad flood condition of this past year?

General STURGIS. That is correct, sir.

Mr. MARSHALL. You have had floods of greater intensity than this past year, with regard to the amount of water over a period of time; is that correct?

General STURGIS. I would say in any particular storm, that we have had average rainfall over the general concentrated areas of about the same as in 1938, but I don't think we have experienced in my memory of the case, any greater intensity of rainfall.

But here is the point, sir: Who can say when the next storm of historic record will occur. Certainly if time and experience mean anything, you are bound to have a repeat of the normal storm of record, like, say, 1938-we had pictures back in 1938 showing the streets of Hartford completely under water.

Mr. MARSHALL. It would appear, from looking at the charts, that the amount of water which fell in 1938 and possibly 1936 was as great as this last one.

General STURGIS. I would say the average rainfall was not very different; no, sir.

Mr. TABER. But it was scattered over more territory?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir. Particularly farther north, Mr. Taber. General ITSCHNER, And also the storms were over a longer period of time than in 1955.

General STURGIS. The storm of 1938 was 4 days and this was 2 days.

EFFECT ON PROJECT DESIGN OF 1955 FLOODS

General ITSCHNER. If I may add something, if we were to design the reservoirs in New England and the North Atlantic States that we designed some years ago, today, as a result of the Diane floods, we probably would make no changes in them. We think they were designed about correctly for the Diane flood, as well as for prior floods.

Mr. MARSHALL. That is an interesting comment, General.

General STURGIS. That is, if I may say, sir, for those reservoirs that were within this pattern of the coastal streams that I have spoken about. In other words, they were in their watersheds, but I think it points out that there would have been our project storms, we always allow for a combination of somewhat greater coincidence of conditions than any that have occurred of record. I think it would be improvident if we didn't do so. Accordingly, we would be able

to take care of the Diane floods, as far as the affected areas are concerned, but there would not have been enough of them to take care of Diane. There still would have been damage, but there would have been a tremendous reduction of damage and each one of these reservoirs would have been adequate for its particular area, even under Diane.

REASON FOR NOT INCLUDING REQUESTED FUNDS IN REGULAR BUDGET, 1956

Mr. MARSHALL. This request covers planning on 17 projects and construction on 6.

Were all of these projects authorized at the time the regular 1956 fiscal year budget was prepared?

For how many of these projects were funds requested in the regular 1956 budget?

General STURGIS. I will ask General Itschner to give you the figures on that, sir.

That was the regular 1956 budget?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

General ITSCHNER. Funds were requested in the regular 1956 budget for four projects.

Mr. MARSHALL. Would you identify those at this point by name? General ITSCHNER. Otter Brook Reservoir in New Hampshire, Buffumville Reservoir in Massachusetts, Woonsocket local protection project in Rhode Island, Wrightsville Dam, a modification in Vermont, General STURGIS. May I make a statement which may bear directly on your last question, sir?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

General STURGIS. In the 1956 supplemental we are now requesting, we are also including certain works which heretofore we had not been able to apply for, either because they might be only marginally justified by the floods that occurred previously, or, especially because of the fact that we did not have local cooperation-that is, support of those projects.

Of course, this flood and the general occurrence of the October flood has largely changed the public view.

Mr. MARSHALL. When you say "request," you refer to the "request" of the Bureau of the Budget and of the President?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir. For example, I believe that North Springfield and the Hopkinton-Everett Reservoir did not have the local support, when we were putting in for the 1956 budget last year before Diane. We have included them, I think, this year.

General ITSCHNER. That is correct.

Mr. MARSHALL. But I do not recall many of those projects ever having come before this committee beretofore.

General ITSCHNER. They have not, sir.

Mr. MARSHALL. I presume that the statement you just made is the reason that these were not included in the requests in the regular budget?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir. When we feel there is no local support, there are so many places throughout the country where highly justified

projects are desired, that we do not make any budget request for them, but in this case now, I think there are very few projects which are not now strong in local support. I think later, General Fleming can give you further information on that.

PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROJECTS

Mr. MARSHALL. Would you have prepared a statement showing for each of these 23 projects, the year it was authorized?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARSHALL. With the request of funds that have been submitted to the Congress?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. MARSHALL. And the amount that the Congress has appropriated.

General STURGIS. That is the breakdown of the previous appropriations for these projects by years?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes, sir.

(The information referred to follows:)