Page images

Those are divided up as follows: Work in progress, $2,742,000. Work completed, about $5,410,000. Roughly, the expenditures are about 60 percent in Connecticut, about 35 percent in Massachusetts, and about 5 percent or less than that in Rhode Island.

We have already received reimbursement requests from the various communities for work which they did at their own expense before we could get in to start doing anything, and everybody was working on this same thing. Those have been certified as eligible under Public Law 875 by the Federal civil defense people in this area, and that totals about $3,131,000. We have actually disbursed in partial payments already about $2,127,000 of that.

I think-and this is somewhat of a “guesstimate,” sir—that we will eventually, when we finish this thing up, have spent about the following. Some of this work is going to take quite a long time to do. For example, on repairing a sewer plant, I don't know how you temporarily repair a sewer plant or a water system other than complete reconstruction of that. As a “guesstimate," I think it will probably take us about 6 months more before we get everything put back in fairly good shape, and I think probably the direct work will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $14,500,000, the reimbursements about $1,200,000, and about $5 million will eventually be the bill of contributions to the States by the Federal Government where we make the contribution in lieu of doing temporary work and they can apply that contribution to the cost of permanent work when they put it in.

Senator LEHMAN. May I interrupt you, General, to ask a question? General FLEMING. Yes, sir.

Senator LEHMAN. Having been a Member of Congress for a number of years, I ought to know the formula which is followed but I do not. You speak about a cost of repairs or rehabilitation that is being carried on, the cost being $14 million plus, of which you get reimbursement I think you said of about $3.5 million and a later contribution of $5 million. Is there a regular formula that is followed by the Corps of Engineers or by the Government and by the States or localities in connection with flood-control work?

General FLEMING. No, sir. In this particular case, sir, there is not. This comes under Public Law 875. Roughly, sir, there are 5 provisions in the act, and under delegated authority we carry out about 31/2 of the 5 provisions. But that act prescribes the Federal Government can come in and do work directly. It also prescribes that where State and local authorities have done work which comes within the purview of Public Law 875, using their own forces, the Federal Gov. ernment can reimburse them for that cost. There is also another provision in there that if temporary work, temporary restoration, is obviously unsuitable or if the community wants to better a facility which has been destroyed it can do that and the Federal Government will contribute to the final cost what the temporary repairs would have cost the Government had it done it.

So I divided my figure into those three categories. The $14 million is what we expect to do directly under contract by my office.

Senator LEHMAN. In connection with the recent disasters?

General FLEMING. Yes, sir. That involves such things as putting in temporary bridges, repairing water systems. In Woonsocket we even had to work on a cemetery up there which was private property

[ocr errors]

but we did it anyway. It involves putting in temporary bridges on roads, temporary repairs to roads, and things of that sort.

The reimbursement type of thing covers exactly the same kind of work. Everybody was working on this. We expect actually to pay back to the towns and the States here in New England out of the Federal Treasury about $4,200,000 to cover their expenses.

The $5 million, frankly, sir, is a guess as to what the Federal contribution to permanent repairs eventually is going to be. A large part of that will be in Massachusetts where they lost so many bridges on major highways.

Senator LEHMAN. It is still not quite clear in my mind what the $3 million or the $3 million plus is that the localities are going to contribute to the Federal Government. Is that for work that the Federal Government has done for their account that they should have done themselves?

General FLEMING. No, sir; the reimbursement is that we are going to reimburse the towns, sir, not the towns reimburse us. Actually, once the disaster was declared by the President as a national disaster, then under the terms of Public Law 875 the Federal Government should have moved in and done something. We moved in as rapidly as we could. In the city of Woonsocket, for example, Woonsocket did some work which the minute the disaster was declared became work which the city did for the Federal Government's account.

Senator LEHMAN. Previously?

General FLEMING. Yes, sir, and in some cases concurrently, because everybody was working on this thing at the same time. It is to reimburse the towns for their expenditures made to cover those things which the Federal Disaster Act says are a Federal responsibility once the disaster has been declared.

Senator LEIMAN. Thank you.

General FLEMING. Those things add up, sir, to a total bill for this on the part of the Federal Government for this disaster of somewhere between $21 million and $24 million. I do not know what the bill is going to be for the three States on their share of permanent restorations to public facilities.

I do know that the State of Massachusetts has a bond issue. Their legislature was the only one in session when the thing happened. They have a bond issue of some $50 milllion that they voted for this work. Yesterday the Governor of Connecticut sent a message to the legislature in a special session which totals up to some $32 million in that State. The Governor of Connecticut has recommended that the cost of that bond issue be borne by 10 percent blanket increase in all taxes in the State right across the board.

I would say purely as a guess, sir, that if you accept the figure of $50 million for Massachusetts and thirty-two-million-odd dollars for Connecticut that probably the bill that the States are going to have to pick up for the permanent repair and restoration of their road systenis and publicly owned property will be somewhere in the neighborhood of, say, $75 million.

Senator LEHMAN. How much?

General FLEMING. About $75 million. So between our expenditures and the State expenditures the bill just for public property in the three States affected will probably be somewhere around $90 million.

That was all I had, sir.

Senator LEHMAN. May I ask you this. You reported that the program in New England, the individual program, continuing program, was about $330 million.

General FLEMING. Yes, sir.

Senator LEHMAN. Of which about $70 million has already been completed.

General FLEMING. Yes, sir.

Senator LEHMAN. Leaving $260 million. You are talking about the work that should have been done. I am not talking now about what Massachusetts has to pay in restoration of its public works or Connecticut or Rhode Island but just this $14 million or $21 million. I am not quite sure of the figure. Is any substantial part of that included in the $330-million program?

General FLEMING. No, sir. The figure I gave you of a total-well, $20 million by my office and $70 million, say, by the States-is entirely the cost of repairing the damage done by this one storm.

Senator LEHMAN. Let me ask you this: When you talk about a Federal program of I think you said $1 billion that had already been performed and that there was still a backlog of $1.5 billion-I am not sure about my figures

General FLEMING. I am not either, sir, about the figures. They are approximately that.

Senator LEHMAN. Approximately is what I meant. That together would constitute $8.5 billion approximately.

General FLEMING. Yes, sir.

Senator LEHMAN. In 1951 when this terrible flood occurred on the Missouri—and you did some very important flood work

General FLEMING. Yes, sir.

Senator LEIMAX. How much did you spend at that time amroximately?

General FLEMING. I do not know, sir.

Senator LEHMAN. Well, was that amount, which was a very substantial amount I believe, included in this $8.5 billion?

General FLEMING. No, sir. The work which had been accomplished in permanent flood-control programs on the Missouri River, sir, woull have been included in that $8.5 billion. When that flood occurred on the Missouri I think two of the big reservoirs on the Missouri had already been completed. I know Fort Peck was completed because that was completed back around 1938.

Senator LEHMAN. I know it is a very difficult question for you to answer or for anybody to answer, but the total of the work that has been completed and the total of the work that must still be completed under the existing program totals about $8.5 billion. But isn't it very likely that there will be other danger spots which will be demonstrated which will in time greatly add to that total? You have not surveyed or made plans or made recommendations on all the danger spots which would be susceptible to flood control that exist, have you?

General FLEMING. I am not talking now from personal knowledge, sir, but I know that we started on the survey of rivers in the United States for flood-control purposes in 1927. Most of the major river basins have been covered. There are authorizations on practically all of them which have been on the books since the early 1910's.


In the Columbia, for example, that river basin has been very well studied. The Missouri has been very well studied. I believe they know the number of dams necessary on the Ohio River.

If I can answer your question this way, sir, I think that as time goes on additional danger spots will be uncovered by actual happenings. But I believe that as those additional danger spots are uncovered they are not going to add a tremendous amount percentagewise to the presently authorized program. I think largely the increases are going to come in local protective works and not in the major regulatory works.

In New England, for example, and this is purely a very quick expression of opinion, I think this last storm uncovered some danger areas. I do not believe that a restudy of that storm and a restudy of this hurricane problem is going to double the size of our authorized program. It will be more in the neighborhood of adding say 25 percent to what is now authorized.

Senator LEHMAN. General Sturgis testified, and I read part of his testimony this morning, that at the rate that appropriations are being made and have been made in some years past it would take 22 years to complete the programs that had been authorized.

General FLEMING. Yes, sir.

Senator LEHMAN. I have no doubt that as experience develops that there will be additional authorizations. Whether that is 50 percent or 25 percent, of course, I do not have the slightest idea. But if you had sufficient appropriations from Congress, could the work be expedited ?

General FLEMING. Yes, sir, very greatly. In New England we have a balance of about $260 million in the presently authorized program. Just for the sake of letting me throw a figure in on what we would add on this hurricane survey and the additional study, I would just arbitrarily make a guess, say, that that would be $70 million more of work. That is nothing but a wild guess, sir. A total of $400 million. If you spread that over a 20-year period, that would be $20 million per year. Actually, sir, my office right now, building airfields, is spending on airfields in New England somewhat in the neighborhood of $120 million a year. So certainly to expedite a program for New England a $20-million-a-year expenditure above would be very simple.

I think physically the planning part of the job and the actual doing part of the job to complete the whole thing would be somewhere in the neighborood of 7 or 8 years, but I think we could make a terrific bite in it in 5.

Senator LEHMAN. I need not explain to you—I am sure you know it without any disavowal on my part-I have absolutely no engineering skill or knowledge, but I have been asked by a member of my staff to ask you whether any of the damage in this area resulted from the collapse of or overflow of high dams, or were they largely low dams?

General FLEMING. I would like to answer the question, sir. There was absolutely no damage to any federally constructed work up here at all. As a matter of fact, the two that were tested were the Nitville Reservoir on the Westfield River, first, which now has paid for itself four times. It got 58 percent full after the August flood. We emptied it. It got up to 96 percent full in the October flood. The other one involved in this particular thing was the Mansfield Hollow Reservoir in Connecticut.

The dams which failed in New England, sir, were all privately owned dams. They were all small dams. New England is dotted —


if you fly over it, the whole landscape is dotted-by small ponds which were made by small dams put in back in the day when water power was important. In many of the cases right now some of the dams are ones built in the 1860's and 1870's. In many cases the ownership of them is very cloudy. Property has been sold and people have bought property along the bank without being aware in any way that they also acquired the responsibility for maintaining the dam.

When we say the dams broke up there—and about 150 of them did, sir—they were all small, privately owned or municipally owned affairs that had absolutely no value from a flood-control standpoint.

Senator LEHMAN. When you draft your plans for flood control based on dams, you base the height of the dams, I suppose, to a very considerable degree on past experience?

General FLEMING. Yes, sir.

Senator LEHMAN. I assume that the cost of the control work is directly—not directly necessarily, but largely-in relation to the height of the dam?

General FLEMING. Yes, sir.

Senator LEHMAN. The higher you go up, I am told, the greater the cost of the dam. These floods that we have been having here rerently were most unusual in their intensity.

General FLEMING. Yes, sir.

Senator LEHMAN. Would the plans you had drawn previously in the expectation that they would protect the community have been sufficient protection in view of the unusual situation brought about by the floods?

General FLEMING. I think they would have, sir. I can give you an illustration of that on the Naugatuck Valley in Connecticut. Well, I can come closer to home. Take the Blackstone River in Rhode Island.

The Blackstone River had three authorized projects on it-a diversion project around the city of Worcester, a dam at West Hill in Massachusetts but upstream from the city of Woonsocket, and a floodcontrol program in the city of Woonsocket, with a very small one down at Pawtucket which I will leave out for purposes of discussion.

The local protective works for the city of Woonsocket were designed to carry a flood of about 20,000 second-feet past that city. Actually in this last flood they got about 24,000 second-feet down the Blackstone River. However, if you go back and reconstruct the hydrology of the thing, had the West Hill Reservoir also been built you would have been able to knock enough off that flood coming past Woonsocket to reduce the flow past that city down to the designed criterion for the local protective works in town.

Woonsocket would have gotten flooded. You can't eliminate the flood completely. But I think had those works been completed we would have been able to stop the disaster which occurred. I don't think they would have lost every bridge in town, for example, and things of that sort.

In Worcester I think we have even a better illustration. That is also in the Blackstone River. The Blackstone rises at Worcester, and the flood flow below the city during the height of the Diane storm was about 7,300 second-feet. The Worcester diversion tunnel--that is a tunnel under the hill where Holy Cross College is--was planned to have a capacity of 5,600 second-feet. Actually in that drainage area where it would have drained the gage showed they had 4,300, so had

« PreviousContinue »