Page images

That is what makes it so absolutely essential that we get that Thomaston Dam up above Waterbury. Most experts that have been up there feel if that had been done, that we would not have had substantial damage below the Thomaston Dam, in Thomaston, in Waterbury and down in the Naugatuck Valley. There would have been floods, but it would not have been anything like this. It would not have been a really tremendously serious thing, as it has been.

So that almost everyone that has been up there and studied it comes to the conclusion that we have to have the protective dam there. And other areas in New England have similar situations to what I am speaking about. That is the answer to this problem for the future-the protective dam, rather than relocation.

Senator Douglas. That is the protective dam above the industrial area.

Senator Bush. Yes, sir. May I say one thing more. The benefit ratio that has been recently estimated informally by engineers on the Thomaston Dam has gone up from about a 1-to-1 ratio to a 3- or 4-to-1 ratio, which is a very high ratio for a public improvement. That is because of the history of the floods this summer and in October.

General STURGIS. Our preliminary estimate on the Thomaston Dam, sir, is that it would have saved its cost in this one flood alone, of $16 million.

Senator LEHMAN. I want to express my great admiration for the work that was done by the Corps of Engineers in New York State and Pennsylvania immediately after the disastrous flood of 1936, the work that was done around the southern tiers, around Binghamton and Elmira and Whitney Point, those places, which has really helped the situation tremendously.

May I suggest that if you have any material that relates to New York State, similar to that which you have referred to concerning Connecticut, I would be very glad to have it in the record.

General STURGIS. May I offer that later, sir? (The information referred to follows:)



There are 24 Federal flood-control projects either completed or under construction within areas of the 1955 storms. The estimated cost to complete these projects is $73,679,000 : 2 of these projects, costing $2,407,000, are in the Hudson River Basin ; 16 projects, costing $40,398,000, are in the Susquehanna River Basin; and 6 projects, costing $30,874,000, are in the Finger Lakes region.


There are 11 projects, with an estimated cost of $60,425,000, in this status: 6 of these projects, with an estimated cost of $57,750,000, are in the Susquehanna River Basin; and 5 projects, with an estimated cost of $2,675,000, in the Finger Lakes region.

Senator LEHMAN. Of course. Thank you very much, indeed.

Are Maj. Gen. Henry R. Westphalinger and Lt. Col. Victor G. Conley here? If not, they have submitted memoranda showing the part that the Department of the Army took in alleviating the stress and bringing relief to the stricken areas. I would be very glad, if there is no objection, to have these two documents placed in the record.


CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS, UNITED STATES ARMY Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Maj. Gen. Henry R. Westphalinger, from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Department of the Army. I have a brief prepared statement which I would like to present to the committee. The purpose of this statement is to inform you of the general policy of the Department of the Army with respect to alleviating disaster conditions caused by the recent floods and to present to you the results of our efforts to place Army contracts in the disaster areas.

(a) It is the policy of the Department of the Army to provide maximum possible assistance in implementing the spirit of Defense Mobilization Order VII-7, supplement 1, dated August 25, 1955.

(b) In implementation of DOD directives on the subject of procurement actions under disaster conditions, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Logistics) directed the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics on August 27, 1955, to immediately review fiscal year 1956 programed procurement to determine that procurement which is normally produced in affected areas and which will assist in alleviating disaster conditions and initiate procurement action for those items.

(c) For procurement selected under this criterial, negotiation solely with firms located in affected areas under authority of section 2 (c) (1) Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 was authorized.

(d) When the disaster damage had affected facilities which are essential to the mobilization base, action contemplated by section 2 (c) (16) of the Procurement Act of 1947 was directed.

(e) When determined to be necessary for contracts currently existing or hereafter awarded to firms located in these areas assistance was to be provided where authorized and practicable as follows:

(1) Financing by liberal use of advance and progress payments.
(2) Modifications of existing delivery schedules.

(3) Revision of new delivery requirements to meet capacity as now exists or can be made available.

(4) Furnishing of Government production equipment in accordance with existing regulations.

(f) Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics implemented the instructions of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Logistics) by publishing instructions in accordance therewith on August 27, 1955.

(9) On the attached sheet is shown the results of Army procurement actions of $10,000 or more performed in flood disaster areas during period August 19, 1955 through October 20, 1955.

Army procurement actions of $10,000 or more performed in flood-disaster areas STATEMENT OF Lt. Col. VICTOR G. CONLEY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT CHIEF OF



$22, 386, 779

1. Total, Aug. 19, 1955, through Oct. 20, 1955.
2. Breakdown by big or small business:

Big business
Small business..

11, 573, 599
10, 813, 180

52 48

22, 386, 779

223, 785 5, 833, 995 16, 328, 999

1 26 73

3. Breakdown hy type of action:

Civil public works.
Other construction and facilities.
Supplies and services...

4. Breakdown by State:

New Jersey.
New York
Rhode Island

22, 386, 779

6, 680, 767
9, 502, 806
1, 414, 657

164, 085
4, 287, 162

337, 302 22, 386, 779

30 42 6 1 19 2



Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Lt. Col. Victor G. Conley, from the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, Department of the Army. I have a brief prepared statement which I would like to present to the committee. The purpose of this statement is to inform you of the general policies of the Department of the Army concerning disaster relief during the emergency phase of a disaster, that is, from the time that it happens, or shortly before, if we are forewarned, until the lifesaving phase has ended.

Responsibility for alleviation of disaster conditions is, first of all, the responsibility of the individual, private industry, State and local governments, and the American National Red Cross. The Department of the Army bas primary responsibility among the services for the provision of assistance to civil authority in disaster relief, with the Navy and Air Force having collateral responsibility. The commanding general, Continental Army Command, carries out the Department of the Army policy in this field. Army commanders will employ military resources in disaster relief when :

(a) The overruling demands of humanity compel immediate action to prevent starvation and extreme suffering.

(6) Local resources are clearly inadequate to cope with the situation,

In most cases the Red Cross will be on the scene of the disaster, either before Army assistance is requested or at some early stage of the operation Army commanders take every opportunity to utilize the experience, organization, and facilities of the Red Cross for providing disaster relief. Red Cross area offices maintain close liaison with Army commanders in order to expedite disaster relief to stricken areas. In general, in the early stages of the disaster, requirements for personnel and resources are channeled through Red Cross area offices to Army commanders. The Army commander meets these requests with military resources which he may have immediately available or may be able to obtain from the Navy or Air Force in the vicinity. In the event the Army commander does not have or cannot obtain the required material and supplies, he forwards the request expeditiously to higher headquarters, where every effort is made to provide the assistance.

In extremely serious disasters, application may be made by the State concerned, to the President, to have the area declared a major disaster area. In such cases the Federal Civil Defense Administration coordinates the disaster relief activities of all Federal agencies. The Army then channels its disaster relief activities through the Federal Civil Defense Administration region office, coordinating relief activities.

In general, Army disaster relief is provided on a reimbursable basis, with charges which accrue to the Army, which are over and above normal operating expenses, being repaid by the Red Cross, the State, or the Federal Civil Defense Administration. However, lack of funds or inability to pay does not prevent the Army from providing assistance which may be required for humanitarian reasons.

Each year the Department of the Army provides disaster assistance to stricken communities in many areas throughout the United States. This assistance takes the form of providing cots, blankets, mattresses, water supply, and purification units, rations, vehicles for transportation, helicopters for evacuation, aircraft for reconnaissance, pumps for removing water from inundated areas, communications facilities, bridging, medical supplies, and personnel to operate these types of equipment, and to assist local authorities in control of disaster relief operations,

I have appreciated this opportunity of appearing before the committee and shall be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator Bush. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest for inclusion in the record a letter which I received, dated September 30, from the Secretary of the Army, which has a direct bearing on these things we are talking about, including the Thomaston Reservoir, and a copy of my reply to him, dated October 6. I would like that to appear following the testimony of General Sturgis, if there is no objection.

Senator LEHMAN. They will be inserted in the record.


(The letters referred to follow :)


Washington, D. C., September 30, 1955 Hon. PRESCOTT BUSH,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BUSH: I appreciate very much your letter of August 29, 1955, in which you express your satisfaction with the work of the Corps of Engineers in meeting the emergency problems facing the State of Connecticut as a result of the recent flood, and point out the need for planning broad and effective programs to forestall the future recurrence of such calamities.

I have discussed this problem with the Chief of Engineers. He is approaching this problem as a matter which logically falls into three phases. The first phase is that of emergency repair, disaster relief, and restoration of public works, which, as you indicate, was given first priority and is now well under way.

The second phase is the vigorous prosecution of the flood-control improvements now authorized by Congress which are needed to improve permanent flood protection as rapidly as possible. Under this phase every consideration will be given to New England projects in formulation of budget requests for fiscal year 1957. In this connection, if planning funds were provided by a supplemental appropriation shortly after Congress reconvenes, it would be possible for the Corps of Engineers to do advance engineering so that consideration could be given to initiating construction of additional projects in fiscal year 1957 over those now being planned and in 1958, subject of course to availability of appropriations.

The Thomaston Reservoir for protection of the Naugatuck which you mention would be one of the projects considered under such a program. It illustrates a matter which has an important bearing on our ability to proceed. In the past there has been local opposition to construction of this project, and a similar situation exists with respect to many other authorized projects in New England. The Chief of Engineers has instructed his division engineer to review the status of such projects immediately, but action by responsible local officials, and possibly by the governors of the affected States, will be necessary to insure that local opposition has been removed so that the projects may be considered for construction.

Included as a part of this second phase is continuation of the study for reduction of hurricane damage in coastal areas which was authorized by Public Law 71, 84th Congress, which is now under way by the Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the Weather Bureau. The Weather Bureau in that study will investigate and recommend regarding the improved hurricane warning services which you suggest.

The third phase of the approach taken by the Chief of Engineers contemplates the review of flood-control plans for the rivers of New England, which you also suggest. The purpose of such reviews would be to determine, in the light of the apparent increase in frequency of these hurricane-borne storms of high intensity, what projects and measures are needed and are feasible to supplement present plans to provide adequate protection.

The Chief of Engineers considers that the authority under Public Law 71 for hurricane-damage-prevention studies could, perhaps, be interpreted to embrace the problem of hurricane floods on the inland rivers, and he is initiating reviews of the river basin plans with funds authorized under that authority. He feels, bowever, and I agree with him, that, although basic data on hurricane characteristics and frequencies obtained for the coastal study would be needed for the river basin studies, the two problems are separate and that additional authority for the river basin reviews would be desirable. This could be provided very simply by a resolution of the Public Works Committee of the Senate directing a reriew of previous reports of the river basins affected.

These reviews of river basin plans will be prosecuted by the Corps of Engineers as rapidly as possible, but they must be based upon collection of basic hydrological information made available by the recent flood and upon damage studies which are now underway. The unprecedented nature of the August 19.57 storm and flood demands a most thorough review to insure that all possibi ities of protection and damage reduction are considered. This will require some time. The corps expects to complete much of its basic engineering work by early in the next calendar year; but it would be entirely impracticable and most inadrisable to attempt to complete these review studies and make definite recommendations for new authorizations by the time Congress reconvenes. And, as I

[blocks in formation]

have indicated previously, there exists a substantial backlog of presently authorized work which includes those projects most urgently needed at this time, and which should be started as rapidly as possible. The review studies are needed to determine what supplementary work is necessary.

Finally, you point out the urgent need for restoring and improving the protective works on the Mad River at Winsted, Conn., with emergency funds authorized by Public Law 99, 84th Congress. This, as you know, was a small channel improvement which was designed with limited capacity because of encroachments of structures in the city of Winsted upon and over the banks of the river. It was naturally unable to cope with the recent flood. The Chief of Engineers advises me that the division engineer, New England division, is now investigating the problem at Winsted to determine what can be done under the emergency authority you suggest. You may be sure that every consideration will be given your request, and the Chief of Engineers will advise you further on this problem upon receipt of the division engineer's report.

I appreciate your interest in this matter and have replied at some length as I realize the seriousness of the situation in New England and wished to inform you fully as to our plans for meeting the problem. Sincerely yours,



October 6, 1955. Hon. WILBER M. BRUCKER,

Department of the Army, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Thank you for your excellent summary of the work of the Corps of Engineers in meeting immediate flood problems and in planning future action. I was particularly pleased by your assurance that a part of the program will be "vigorous prosecution" of previously authorized flood-control works in New England.

In this connection, the necessity for getting these projects underway at the very earliest practicable date cannot be too strongly stressed. Valuable time could be saved if the engineers were authorized to transfer from existing funds an amount sufficient to begin design work at once on those projects which can be started in the remainder of fiscal year 1956. You may be sure of my support for your suggestion of a supplemental appropriation when the Congress reconvenes, but in the meantime it appears urgent that the needed funds to make possible work in fiscal 1956 be made available at once.

I am confident that the New England governors will cooperate fully in the case of projects heretofore blocked by local opposition. The Governor of Connecticut has, for example, given his approval to the Thomaston Dam Reservoir which you mention as one of those delayed because of such opposition.

The review of river basin studies, to which you also refer, was, on September 14, authorized by resolution of the Senate Committee on Public Works at my request. Your assurance that no delay will result in the most urgently needed projects is appreciated.

Again may I express my appreciation for the splendid way in which the Corps of Engineers has fulfilled its responsibilities in this emergency. The entire Army can take justified pride in its work. Sincerely yours,

PRESCOTT BUSH, United States Senator. Senator LEHMAN. Thank you very much for coming, General Sturgis. It was most interesting.

Mr. Jones, I would like to ask you-have you any idea when this committee can hope to have specific recommendations from the Bureau of the Budget?



Mr. Jones. Certainly before Congress reconvenes, but today I am not prepared to say.

« PreviousContinue »