River Basin for which planning funds are requested at this time. The other two are Townshend Dam and North Springfield Dam, also in Vermont. North Hartland Dam is a flood-control project on the Ottauquechee River. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1941. Preliminary estimated Federal cost of the project is $10,800,000. The estimated cost of preconstruction planning is $469,000, of which $29,000 has been appropriated, to date. The amount requested at this time is $140,000, to continue planning, only a very minor portion of which has been accomplished. If this request is granted it will leave $300,000 required to bring planning to the construction stage, and a total of $10,631,000 to complete the project. The benefit to cost ratio is 1.4 to 1. The North Hartland project is an earth-fill dam with a reservoi capacity of 71,100 acre-feet for flood control. It is a necessary ele-r ment in the comprehensive plan for flood control in the Connecticut River Basin and will operate as a unit in that plan. It will also control floods on the lower Ottauquechee River. The project has State approval and has been included in the Connecticut River flood-control compact. Availability of this $140,000 requested at this time and the additional planning funds in the fiscal 1957 budget request will permit this project to be brought to construction readiness by fiscal year 1958. That is all I have to present on North Hartland, sir. TOWNSHEND RESERVOIR, VT. Mr. MARSHALL. We will insert the pertinent section of the justifications and the summary page from the planning report for the Townshend project and then you may proceed to tell us about it. Total Federal cost. Allotments to date.. Townshend Reservoir, Vt. Tentative allocation, fiscal year 1956, supplemental The project will be operated as a unit of a comprehensive system for flood control in the Connecticut River Basin. It is a unit of a three-reservoir system on the West River which is a principal flood-producing tributary. Control of the West River is of prime importance in the development of any system of reservoirs for the Connecticut River Basin. Dikes and flood walls have been constructed downstream at Northampton, Holyoke, Springfield, and West Springfield, Mass., and at East Hartford, Conn., but the effective grades of these local protective works are predicated on completion of a comprehensive plan of reservoirs. Five reservoirs constructed to date do not provide adequate storage. Numerous manufacturing plants which are vital to local and national economy are located in these communities. The project has State approval and is included in the Connecticut River flood-control compact approved by Congress on June 6, 1953. The benefit-to-cost ratio of this project is 1.1 to 1 without complete analysis of the influence of 1955 flooding on average annual benefits. SUMMARY 1. Description.-The Townshend Dam with a gross drainage area of 278 square miles is to be located on the West River, 19.1 miles above its confluence with the Connecticut River and about 1 mile north of Townshend, Vt. The project provides for an earth-fill dam, 1,530 feet long and 130 feet high with a concrete spillway on the left bank. The reservoir at spillway crest elevation would have a capacity of 33,900 acre-feet, equivalent to 6 inches of runoff from the net drainage area of 106 square miles. (The total estimate, July 1955, includes $1,490,300 for contingencies). 4. Benefit-cost ratio.-1.1 to 1 applicable to the project acting in a system. 5. Status of local cooperation.—None required. 6. Applicability of provisions of continuing authorization acts to the project. The project is a unit of the authorized comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Connecticut River Basin. Colonel PENNEY. The second project is the Townshend Dam in Vermont. It is located on the West River about 19 miles above its confluence with the Connecticut River and about a mile north of Townshend, Vt. The project was authorized by the Flood Control Acts of 1944 and 1954. The estimated Federal cost of this project is $10,800,000. The estimated cost of preconstruction planning is. $430,000, of which $71,000 has been appropriated to date. The amount requested at this time is $140,000, to continue planning. If this request is granted it will leave $10,589,000 required to complete the project, of which $219,000 will be required to bring it to the construction stage. The benefit to cost ratio for this project is 1.1 to 1. This project is an earth-fill dam with a reservoir capacity of 33,900 acre-feet, all for flood control. It will be operated also as a unit of the comprehensive system for flood control in the Connecticut RiverBasin. Taken with Ball Mountain Dam, for which construction funds are requested in this budget, and the Island Dam, which is not yet planned, it is a unit of the authorized three-reservoir system on the West River, and the West River is a principal flood-producing tributary of the Connecticut. Control of this West River is of primary importance in the developing of an effective system of reservoirs for the Connecticut River Basin. This project has State approval and is included in the Connecticut River flood control compact. Availability of this $140,000 requested at this time to continueplanning and of the additional funds scheduled for fiscal year 1957, which is $420,000, would permit preconstruction planning to be com-pleted during 1957 in time to initiate construction of a road relocation late in fiscal year 1957. That is all I have to present on that project. BENEFIT-COST RATIOS Mr. TABER. Are the benefits going to be enough in this one to. justify it? Colonel PENNEY. Yes, sir. The benefit to cost ratio is 1.1 to 1, and that does not include the analysis of the 1955 flooding. However, it is not believed the last flood will have an appreciable effect on this particular project because it was located north of the center of the storm, as was indicated yesterday. Mr. MARSHALL. How did you calculate this benefit-cost ratio? Maybe we might take each one of these by themselves. For example, in the North Hartland Reservoir, how did you calculate that benefit-to-cost ratio? Colonel PENNEY. The benefit-to-cost ratio for these projects is calculated on the basis of that project operating in a system of 16 reservoirs, sir. Mr. MARSHALL. Does it take into consideration the increase in construction costs? Colonel PENNEY. Yes, sir; it does. It is based on the current estimated construction cost. Mr. MARSHALL. Was the damage done by the recent flood used in calculating this? Colonel PENNEY. It has not been included in the benefits, sir. The hydrology of the recent flood has not yet been incorporated into the studies of the frequency, so that the recent flood has not been considered in the benefits. Mr. MARSHALL. It appears that this benefit-to-cost ratio is based upon its value in this comprehensive plan. What would it be by itself? Colonel PENNEY. Sir, we don't have that-it is the benefit-to-cost ratio for that project under the comprehensive plan. In other words, for that project acting in the system of these reservoirs. Based on the benefits that that project would achieve, acting alone, to the total benefits that would be achieved by the system. Mr. TABER. This project is not where there was a very great volume of rainfall? Colonel PENNEY. Not in the hurricane storms. Colonel PENNEY. That is correct, sir. However, it is in an area in the Connecticut River Basin where during the previous storms of record—for example, in 1936 and 1938, which were longitudinal, north and south, along that basin, it would have been in an area of high rainfall, sir. Mr. MARSHALL. I am still not entirely clear on this phase of the benefit-to-cost ratio calculation for the North Hartland project— apparently the ratio of 1.4 to 1 is based on the value of this dam as part of a comprehensive plan. Isn't any calculation made of what the ratio would be for this project by itself. Colonel PENNEY. This is the benefit-cost ratio for this project, acting as part of the comprehensive plan. General ITSCHNER. I might elaborate on that answer by saying that if this project were constructed by itself, the benefit-to-cost ratio would be somewhat greater. Mr. BOLAND. On that particular river it would be. General ITSCHNER. Yes, sir. Mr. BOLAND. What river is this on? General ITSCHNER. Ottauquechee. Mr. BOLAND. Do you mean the benefit cost would be greater? General ITSCHNER. It would be greater if this project were constructed by itself without the other 15 projects in the system. DESCRIPTION OF NORTH HARTLAND AREA Mr. BOLAND. How many people live in the area there? Mr. KROPPER. There is an industrial community right at this point and immediately downstream. It is a community of about 2,000. Mr. BOLAND. How large an industrial community is it? I can understand the relation to the 16 reservoirs, but I can't understand justifying its ratio standing by itself. General ITSCHNER. This reservoir would have benefits extending downstream. Mr. BOLAND. How much does it reduce the flow in the Connecticut River? General FLEMING. It reduces the flood height 4 to 6 inches. Colonel PENNEY. For example, at Northampton it would reduce the crest six-tenths of a foot. General ITSCHNER. And it would be less as you go on down the river in the very highly developed areas of Springfield and West Springfield. Mr. BOLAND. That protection down in the lower reaches of the Connecticut is available there because of the entire system itself. I don't understand how this benefit-to-cost ratio is as high as you indicate it is, by itself. General ITSCHNER. The reason for that is that the first storage is always the most beneficial and as you get more and more storage per increment it becomes less effective and less valuable. Of course, benefits also are related to the location of the reservoir, with respect to other reservoirs in the system. The farther away it is Mr. BOLAND. The location of the reservoir in relation to what is on the river is probably the most important factor-the benefit to cost is the yardstick of what damage would accrue if the reservoir were not built. General ITSCHNER. Yes, sir. REASON FOR NOT PREVIOUSLY REQUESTING FUNDS FOR NORTH HARTLAND Mr. MARSHALL. This project was authorized in 1938. Are there any particular reasons why only $29,000 has been applied to it so far? General FLEMING. The main reason, sir, is that some of the planning funds were authorized many years ago, in the forties, on these Connecticut River projects. A disagreement then arose between the four States involved, on the share of State costs. That argument or that disagreement was largely on the upstream States-Vermont and New Hampshire, raising the question as to the downstream States who benefited, as to the reimbursement of their tax losses. The question was agreed on between the States and it came up to the Congress for the approval of the compact. It got overtaken by the war and various other things in there and action was not taken on that compact. The last appropriation for construction in the Connecticut River was for the Union Village Dam up in Vermont. When the Union Village Dam was constructed the State of Vermont concurred in it but at that time the State of Vermont and New Hampshire served notice-it was a friendly notice that they would then concur in no more projects in those States until Connecticut and Massachusetts had agreed to a formula on this reimbursement of tax losses. That has actually been done. Actually the formula now is that Connecticut pays 50 percent of the tax losses, Massachusetts pays 40 and the upstream State absorbs the other 10. If the dam is located in Massachusetts-Connecticut still pays 50. Massachusetts absorbs 40 and the upstream State, of course, doesn't get any. The thing was finally resolved after the Second World War was over and the compact was approved I believe by the Congress in 1953. It has now gone into effect and that is the reason why the delay between 1948 and 1956 came about on these projects. Mr. MARSHALL. Is there any local opposition to this? General FLEMING. No, sir. On those that are included in this compact—and this is one of the ones that the four States are agreed on the hearings have been held and the local opposition has been absorbed. Mr. MARSHALL. How many acre-feet of water do you contemplate? General FLEMING. In this one, 71,000. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Boland Mr. BOLAND. The Island project is another project which is included in these three apparently? General FLEMING. This is not one of the three, sir. North Hartland is a project itself. When we were discussing the three, Mr. Boland, in the original plan there was a project in here at Townshend to which a considerable amount of local opposition developed. Mr. BOLAND. What project was that? General FLEMING. Williamsville. A considerable amount of local opposition developed to that one. That effort to resolve that and because of the necessity of getting control on this West River, Congress authorized a resurvey of that particular portion, and for that one reservoir, which aroused a lot of opposition, the plan of these three was developed. The Island, Ball Mountain, and Townshend. The three are designed to act in conjunction with one another. REASONS FOR DELAY IN COMPLETING NEW ENGLAND FLOOD-CONTROL PROJECTS Mr. BOLAND. After the devastating floods in August and in October, Congress was severely criticized by particular people up in the area, blaming the Congress for the fact that the overall flood-control program for New England, and particularly the Connecticut River Valley Basin, had been delayed-it had been delayed because of congressional obstruction. One of the groups most critical of all was the New England group of the Rivers and Harbors Congress. It had a lot to say in the press and before flood-control groups up there, criticizing the Congress for its inactivity in bringing these projects, affecting New England, to a rapid completion. 71943-56- -5 |