$6.6 million, and prevented damage in this one flood alone of $3 million. However, of course, those dams are still good for at least 50 years, which is the economic life we give them, and their actual life is many times more than that. So some of them have paid for themselves or more right in one flood alone.

Senator BUSH. Mr. Chairman, may I make this observation in general? The people south of the Mansfield Hollow Dam, in that area, are amazed at that $3 million estimate. Can you tell us how you made that estimate? I think that the damage which that dam saved in just those few days is very much larger than $3 million.

General STURGIS. Well, that may be so, sir. That is a conservative figure. I said a few minutes ago, Senator Bush, we would not have our actual figures for several months yet, and I feel $3 million is a conservative figure.

Senator BUSHI. I would say it is a very conservative figure, because below that dam you have the whole town of Norwich, with all those big areas there saved from enormous damage. I just cannot believe that figure. I hope you will give us your estimate of that damage again at some time-before. the Public Works Committee, perhaps. But I just cannot accept that figure from what I have seen up there. General STURGIS. Well, Senator, I can have a special investigation made in the next week and get you a better figure than the $3 million. Senator BUSH. I really think we ought to have that, General. (The information referred to follows:)

A reestimate of the damage prevented by Mansfield Hollow Dam, made by the New England division but still based on preliminary figures and subject to further revision, does not, however, make it appear that a figure greater than a maximum of $3,500,000 can be supported at this time.

Senator LEHMAN. Well, general, the question that Senator Bush has raised about that particular dam is a very interesting one. But I wonder how long it would take for the Corps of Engineers really to have authoritative and definitive estimates of the actual damage that was suffered by the people in the Northeastern States. I want to point out again that you did have an estimate, partially made by the Corps of Engineers, based on things that have come to them from other sources, of damage amounting to $1.6 billion. As against that, we see a statement in the New York Times this morning which I think was issued by the Department of Commerce, showing a little under $500 million. That is only one-third of the original estimate of the Corps of Engineers. I think we have got to close that gap if we are going to make any intelligent survey of this thing, and close it just as rapidly as possible, so that we know whether it is $458 million or $1.6 billion. That is a pretty important thing, it seems to me, for this committee to know.

General STURGIS. Well, Senator, I can assure you we are working as fast on this particular flood damage estimate as we ever have. But I could not give you a reliable estimate for the next 2 or 3 months, I do not believe. We have gotten and trained new people. We have swelled our forces all we can. And I think you cannot decrease that time limit very much.

Senator LEHMAN. Is there any agency of the Government that has the prime responsibility for gathering these figures?

General STURGIS. Well, sir, we have the mission of flood control, and under the provision of the 1936 act, we must compute the damages

and the benefits to whom they accrue; so we do have the responsibility, and have always carried it out, so far.

Senator LEHMAN. But the Department of Commerce gave out these figures today. I do not know whether they are accurate or not, but I would like to know on what they were based. Did the Corps of Engineers give the Department of Commerce any figures as to flood losses, or how were these estimates connected?

General STURGIS. We were interested ourselves this morning. We just had time, after reading the paper and before coming over here, to contact them. Colonel Penney tells me they have collected that information from local sources, somewhat in the same way, I presume, as we have collected it-that is, from various local agencies. But it is not an actual survey, where you put people into the field and appraise the damage. However, I do not feel that I am qualified to answer for the Department of Commerce. I was interested only in trying to get some information this morning on where those figures came from. But I would like to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that the figure of $1.6 billion is not the official figure of the Corps of Engineers and never has been.

Senator LEHMAN. Well, it is certainly distressing when this committee cannot learn with some degree of accuracy what the actual losses were. That is a terrific discrepancy, between the figures given out by the Department of Commerce and the figures that were given out by you. I suppose your figures are based on figures you got from local sources, too.

But

General STURGIS. The figures we got were from contacting local governments and others, to find out what their estimates were. our system, Mr. Chairman, is based on detailed engineering and economic surveys, and indirect losses particularly are not easy to figure. You have to get a tremendous amount of information, look at cost records, production records, and everything else connected with it. And that is what makes it, as I said, sir, a very complex problem. From our point of view, this would also be a factor in increasing the complexity of any insurance program.

Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman, to make the confusion greater, may I say that in the study materials which the staff has assembled, on galley sheet 24 there is a table apparently prepared by the Weather Bureau, which is, I believe, located in the Department of Commerce. and they give a figure on property damage from floods for 1955-that is, the year as a whole, and I suppose the country as a whole of $1.31 billion.

General STURGIS. Well, I do not think, sir, considering the importance of the figure, as the chairman has indicated, that I should in any way advise the committee that it is a simple problem, and that if we just work a little harder for the next week or two we can get the answer. In terms of our long experience, sir, I think we put as much or more effort into trying to get this information in the New England flood than in any flood that I know of, because of the tremendous amount of actual damage. But at the same time, I do not think I could give you an accurate figure, including both direct and indirect damage, which is necessary, for a couple of months yet. We have hundreds of people in the field, Mr. Chairman.

As to Public Law 71, I have indicated already that that study, which really covers the effect of the damage along the coast and tidal

areas due to wind velocity and high tide and so on, is well under way. And we have a resolution for looking into the Diane flood, where the damage was not wind or tide, but primarily rainfall. We are working and intend to continue to work very closely with the Weather Bureau in that connection.

I might say in conclusion, in connection with flood insurance versus flood-control structures, that I do not think there should be a "versus" in there; that actually there should be a dovetailing. Investigation of the application of flood insurance to the field of floods is certainly warranted, in my opinion. The Corps of Engineers has not and is not by its nature prepared to make any such investigation, but from our intimate and comprehensive experience, and the data we have collected over the last 20 years in the flood-control field. I believe the following conclusions are warranted: That in the field of floods, insurance generally is negative in nature, while a flood-control system, such as that constructed, for example, in the lower Mississippi, is positive; that is, a flood-control system in any valley prevents or greatly ameliorates floods of all proportions. For example, it prevents or greatly reduces the loss of life and allied misery and wretchedness. Flood control prevents or greatly reduces indirect losses, as well as physical damage to real estate and to structures. It keeps various regions of the Nation which are subject to disaster floods on the same economic opportunity level as other regions not so threatened.

Now, I think that is a very important point, for the reason that today one of the things I find in going about New England is the question before various business enterprises as to their future. I think that that is an important problem. I think that the dovetailing of the flood-control program with insurance is a very worthy objective. I think it is going to take a lot of study, because, as I said before, I think the insurance not only includes all the complex problems that we have in the field of flood control, but many more.

Then there is another advantage in flood control, in going as far as you can with it, and that is in the multipurpose parallel advantage. In other words, by including, say, water supply or navigation or other functions with flood control, you naturally can build a cheaper structure as far as allocation of cost to the several purposes of the structure, including flood control, is concerned.

So all in all, sir, without having an opportunity to examine the bill or to study it, I believe there is a definite future for flood insurance, but I believe that it should dovetail with the continuing flood-control program. For example, if we ever get to the point where we see completed the big program of preventing the $910 million worth of damage, or even $750 million worth of annual damage, then the opportunity for insurance lies in covering those damages we cannot economically protect against. And to that extent, I think it dovetails extremely well.

That completes my statement, sir. I am sorry I did not have a formal statement prepared, but I just received word of this and was working on it over the weekend.

Senator LEHMAN. Thank you very much for your very interesting statement. I do not think it is in the mind of anyone in the committee to discontinue flood control. But I think that it can be done coincidentally with flood insurance activities of some kind.

Senator BUSH. Mr. Chairman, I would not want the general to leave without making this comment. The performance of the engineers in this flood, and in the second one, too, in our area was simply magnificent. They came in immediately. How they did all they did I cannot possibly understand. But they really earned the gratitude of every person in our State. I think their performance was simply magnificent. And I want to pay special tribute, general, not only to yourself, but also to Brig. Gen. Robert Fleming, the New England chief under your direction. He has become, we think, one of Connecticut's very best friends.

General STURGIS. Thank you very much, Senator Bush. I greatly appreciate that. And may I say, sir, for the officers and civilian members of the Corps of Engineers who participated in the rehabilitation under Public Law 875 that our work was rendered very much easier, not only by the leadership that Members of the Congress and the governors exercised, but also by the cooperation of the mayors and the people themselves. I think, in talking to a number of young officers whom I had in charge of the subareas, who were withdrawn the other day to go back to the school at Fort Belvoir, that they will have a lasting wonderful impression of the people of New England and Pennsylvania and New York.

Senator LEHMAN. Thank you very much, indeed. Senator Douglas. Senator DOUGLAS. I do not want to detain the general unduly on the stand, but I would like to ask a few questions, if I may. Your estimate of the $910 million annual cost-over how many years did you distribute that estimate? That is, how long was your cycle? Have you taken a 50-year cycle of rainfall or a 100-year cycle or a 25-year cycle? What is your experience? What experience factor did you use?

General STURGIS. I would like to get that information, sir. I am not able to supply it myself. But I believe it would be largely over the period of time since the Flood Control Act of 1936 was passed, and including a longer period for the Mississippi Valley. You could not say it was a 75- or 100-year record, but we have considered all known floods of historical record, which in some cases go back that far or further. However, I would like to supply that information. (The information requested follows:)

NUMBER OF YEARS ON WHICH ESTIMATES OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF FLOODCONTROL PROGRAM IS BASED

The average annual cost of the flood-control program is computed by taking the entire capital investment for flood control and computing the annual sums required for interest, amortization, maintenance, and operation. In computing amortization, a period of 50 years is used for the project life. The average annual charge, therefore, is a fixed amount which applies every year for the project life. At the end of the project life, the original investment has been amortized and annual charges from that time on would be made up of maintenance and operation, and whatever allowance is needed for repair or replacement, which would normally be less than the amount used for amortization during the project life. This procedure is used as a conservative measure in the economic analysis. With respect to the average annual benefits, the estimate is made by considering damages that would result from floods of different magnitudes, and the probable frequency of these floods occurring. The combination of these two relationships produces a probable average annual damage which is not related to any particular time period but which will apply for an indefinite time assuming that price levels, extent of development in the flooded area, and other factors remain unchanged. In estimating future flood damages, use is made of the experience with floods and damages which have occurred dur

ing the period of record. The period of time for which most reliable information is available extends back to 1927 for the lower Mississippi River and back to 1936 for the general flood-control program in other areas. All data on all past floods are used, however, including newspaper accounts and other reports, where available.

Senator DOUGLAS. In your estimates of losses in previous years, are those based on the current price levels of those years, or the price levels of the present year?

General STURGIS. They are generally brought up annually to the price levels of the present years.

Senator DOUGLAS. So those are 1955 prices.

General STURGIS. Actually, we have not finished the study for 1955, and Colonel Penney tells me it is 1954. We normally bring them up every year, Senator, because we examine the economic justification in accordance with the wishes of Congress every year of every structure proposed and not yet under construction.

Senator DOUGLAS. Senator Bush and Senator Lehman can correct me on this point, but have you not got a problem in New England, particularly in the southern part of New England, which is a little different from the rest of the country, in that the early towns were laid out along the river banks, using waterpower? As a result, you have a real problem, if you put up dams, of flooding the locations of some of these towns, and there would be a necessity for relocation of factories and dwellings and so forth. That is my boyhood memory, Senator Bush. I may be off base on that. But I would like to raise the question.

General STURGIS. I would say the answer to that, of course, sir, is "Yes." I won't say it is different from every other part of the country, because I think there are other parts where that is true.

Senator DOUGLAS. But it is the oldest settled part of the country, and these towns, as I recall it, developed when the prime sources of power were the water wheel and so forth, and therefore were built close to the river's edge.

General STURGIS. Yes, sir; however, it has been my experience that the people of New England in many cases are well aware of that problem, and I know of at least one city-there probably are more-the town of Winsted, Conn., which I believe is now going in for zoning right along the banks of the river. As I understand, also, the Governor of Connecticut had on his staff shortly after the Diane flood occurred an expert in city planning, which was of some assistance to the people in planning their future. However, I do not think I am qualified to answer for the entire New England area.

Senator BUSH. Mr. Chairman, the Senator is absolutely right in his recollection as to the situation up there. But I would observe this. Take a place like the Naugatuck Valley. It is really a valley, and it slopes up on both sides from the towns of Waterbury, Naugatuck, Ansonia, these towns that have been badly stricken. You have quite a large plain in the valley. The business of relocation and all that is not quite as simple as one might think, because in the first place you have to have transportation, you have to have a railroad. Sixty percent of the raw materials to be used up the valley by the rubber and the copper mills, the brass mills, comes up on the railroad. The railroad cannot go up and down those hills. I mean it has got to be down close to the plain. So the fact is that a relocation of any substantial part of the Naugatuck Valley industry would be almost impossible.