General FOOTE. We have had preliminary meetings with the railroad officials on this possibility, sir. On the basis of these meetings, which are preliminary-no one has worked up a final firm estimate, but on the basis of the preliminary discussion it appears that a saving of roughly $3 million in the cost of relocation of the two projects— that is, the Ice Harbor project and the Lower Monumental projectcould be made if the relocation were made as one job for both projects. That would be a saving in capital cost, of course. Offset against that would have to be the interest charges for the added cost of relocating for both projects during the period between the initiation of the first project and the initiation of the second project, which is a somewhat indeterminate factor at this time.

Mr. RABAUT. Here on page 66 you have a breakdown of this original requested amount of $5 million, and among the projects to which the money is applied you have relocation of land for railroads, $20,000. General FOOTE. That is for the next fiscal year, sir.

Mr. RABAUT. I know, but you have to get some of this relocation question decided before you start to spend the money.

General FOOTE. Our plan on that, sir, is to go ahead on our study and, if we are able to firm up estimates that confirm our preliminary figures that there would be a substantial saving to the Government, that proposal will be submitted to this committee for consideration.

Mr. RABAUT. If you have a project of, say, $5 million and you can save three, the engineers would come in here and get the glad hand of every member of the committee, saying, "This is wonderful." But, when you are up to $135 million and you can save three, you kind of lose the idea of what the value of $3 million is. It is a natural situation, but, if this $3 million can be saved by this, I think it should be done. I am not an engineer, but I want the engineers to put everything they have in it to see if it is possible to save this $3 million.

The railroads ought to be impressed with the idea, too, because, after all, they are paying taxes.

General FOOTE. The railroads at the present time seem receptive to the idea.

Mr. RABAUT. That is good; I am glad to hear you say it.
Mr. BOLAND. This item was not budgeted in 1956, was it?
General FOOTE. No, sir; this was an unbudgeted new start.

Mr. BOLAND. Can you tell me in what year the last request of the Bureau of the Budget was made for any money for construction on this project? You can supply it.

(The information requested follows:)

The budget for fiscal year 1954 as submitted to Congress in January 1953 included a request for $4,900,000 to initiate construction of the Ice Harbor lock and dam. The revised budget for fiscal year 1954 submitted to Congress in April 1953 deleted the request for construction funds for the initiation of this and other civil-works projects.

Mr. BOLAND. What part of the cost of the $135 million is allocated to slack water navigation?

General FOOTE. I can give you that in just a moment, sir.

Major GARRETT. Sir, of the $135 million cost, $30,186,000 is tentatively allocated to navigation; that is 22.3 percent, sir.

Mr. BOLAND. This is apparently one of the projects in the overall scheme for navigation of the Snake River; is that right? Major GARRETT. That is correct.

Mr. BOLAND. This dam is necessary apparently for slack water navigation from the Columbia to Lewiston, Idaho.

Major GARRETT. That is correct, it is 1 of a series of 4 dams, Ice Harbor being the lower dam, lower Monumental the next one, Little Goose, and then lower Granite.

Mr. BOLAND. All of these dams are necessary for slack-water navigation; is that right?

Major GARRETT. Slack-water navigation to Lewiston, Idaho.

Mr. BOLAND. All used on the system for slack-water navigation? Major GARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOLAND. What is the amount of commerce that is on the Snake River now, total tonnage? While you are getting that figure, give me the total cost of the four dams necessary on this particular system of the Snake River.

General FOOTE. I can answer those in general terms. The existing commerce on the Snake River is negligible, very small. The approximate cost of the 4 dams is roughly in the neighborhood of $600 million. Mr. BOLAND. $600 million?

General FOOTE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOLAND. What part of that cost would you attribute to navigation for the four dams?

General FOOTE. It would be in about the same ratio as the allocation of 23 percent?

Mr. BOLAND. About $120 million.

General FOOTE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOLAND. What railroads traverse the area up in this section? Are there any railroads from the Lewiston section over to the Ice Harbor section?

General FOOTE. The Union Pacific Railroad has a line coming down parallel to the river.

Mr. BOLAND. How about highways in that area?

General FOOTE. The highways do not parallel the river, sir.

Mr. BOLAND. Are the industries in the area now having any difficulty in moving their products?

General FOOTE. There is a very substantial lumber industry development in the Lewiston area and in the lower Clearwater River area just east of Lewiston.

Mr. BOLAND. Is there a great demand for river navigation here? General FOOTE. I feel that there is; yes, sir.

Mr. BOLAND. The primary purpose of these dams is not navigation; it is power; is it not? I have no quarrel with this. I do quarrel with navigation-the navigation phase.

I have some quarrel with the navigation features because everybody in the United States pays for that. We in New England pay for the navigation feature on this particular river. The power feature I know will pay out in time, supposedly. I have no quarrel with that cost, but I have a very definite quarrel with the amount of money we are spending on these 4 projects, $120 million, for navigation only in an area where they apparently have sufficient transportation, either highwaywise or railroadwise, to take care of the needs of transportation. So that the cost of navigation will run about $120 million for the 4 projects.

General FOOTE. Approximately.

Mr. BOLAND. What is the status of the lower Monumental and Little Goose and lower Granite now?

General FOOTE. They are in the status of authorized projects, sir, on which very little preconstruction planning has been done. Mr. BOLAND. That is all; thank you.

Mr. MURRAY. I have a question or two. I noticed in your justification, General, that you state that there is a power deficiency at the present time in this area and particularly at the Hanford works of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Now, has the Hanford works, up to the present, suffered as a result of this lack of available power?

General FOOTE. Not as far as I know, sir. We have been able to meet that firm load. The only loads that have had to be dropped have been the so-called interruptible loads of the aluminum industry.

Mr. MURRAY. In other words, the only industry that has suffered by the lack of available power is the aluminum industry; is that correct?

General FOOTE. At the present time, sir, I am sure you will appreciate that capability of a hydroelectric system to meet load is basically determined by streamflow conditions. We have been fortunate in recent years in having fairly average conditions rather than the critical conditions that we might have and certainly will have in the course of time, that is critical in the sense of very low flow which will reduce the generating capability of the system.

Mr. MURRAY. The only reason I asked is I noticed in another justification that the city of Seattle has actually suffered as a result of lack of available energy. This would be tied into the whole area system. If that is true of Seattle, has not the Atomic Energy Commission suffered a loss up to date as a result of lack of available power.

General FOOTE. As far as I know, the Atomic Energy Commission has not had any of their powerload curtailed. The problem in an industrial city such as Seattle is just simply that there is no capacity available for added loads at this time. So that development and growth of industry within the region is presently being curtailed and limited by the available energy in the region.

The Pacific Northwest is a high-fuel-cost area. We have no natural gas or oil, and a relatively small amount of coal available within the region, so that industrial energy requirements, to be on anything like a competitive basis with the other regions of the country, turn to hydroelectric energy. It is the one big resource in the region.

Mr. MURRAY. What about the available circuits that are presently serving the Atomic Energy Commission? Would you say they have been overloaded as a result of the situation or not?

General FOOTE. I do not have specific information, sir, on the transmission network. The Bonneville Power Administration can answer those questions specifically. I would have to give an offhand opinion. I do not believe they are.

Mr. MURRAY. I did not know that was not in your jurisdiction; I

am sorry.

That is all.

Mr. MAGNUSON. General, as a matter of fact, the Hanford Works would be regarded very much a priority customer for power out there and would be one of the last to be reduced; would it not?

General FOOTE. I expect that is the case, sir. I do not know just the relative priorities, but I am sure they have a very high priority, and I am sure my lights and yours would be turned off before energy to the Hanford Works were curtailed.

Mr. MAGNUSON. In fact, the nature of their operation requires that there never be an interruption in their electric energy.

Is it not true Ice Harbor will have a special value in relation to the Hanford Works in that it independently could supply Hanford even though, say, bombs should knock out part of the transmission system of the Bonneville pool; that Ice Harbor is situated very close to the Hanford Works and could supply it independently even if we had trouble elsewhere in the system?

General FOOTE. That is correct.

Major GARRETT. Sir, here is the Ice Harbor project right here and the Atomic Energy Commission, as you can see, is very close to the Ice Harbor project.

Mr. MAGNUSON. A matter of a very few miles.

Major GARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAGNUSON. How far is it, 30 or 35 miles?

Major GARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BOLAND. What is the distance between Bonneville and Ice Harbor? How many miles would that be?

General FOOTE. About 175 miles.

Mr. MAGNUSON. General, on this question of joint relocation of railroads and highways, particularly railroads, for Ice Harbor and lower Monumental, you are considering making that request, you said? General FOOTE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Next year, for instance, would be time enough, would it not, to plan that sort of an operation? I mean in your next year's budget?

General FOOTE. That is correct, sir. We have a very small preliminary amount for relocations required right at the site this year. That is all that is involved in our fiscal 1957 program.

Mr. MAGNUSON. And if your negotiations with the railroads proceed favorably and it appears you can save this $3 million by a joint relocation, would you undertake that joint relocation before requesting an appropriation for lower Monumental?

General FOOTE. We might only to the extent of getting involved in some engineering studies. As I understand procedure now contemplated here in the Office of the Chief of Engineers it is that, if we are able to confirm our preliminary estimate of savings, the proposal will be brought informally before the Bureau of the Budget and the committees at the first opportunity and permission and concurrence obtained in going ahead further with more detailed planning. And then, of course, that would follow next year with the specific request for funds.

Mr. MAGNUSON. You would not include or undertake relocation, I suppose, for lower Monumental until you had assurance that this committee was going to appropriate money for lower Monumental? General FOOTE. No, sir, we would not.

Mr. MAGNUSON. In other words, you would not try to save $3 million on speculation?

General FOOTE. There is a substantial additional cost involved, Mr. Magnuson, in making the relocation for both projects as compared

with making the relocation for just the Ice Harbor project. So if it should develop that Ice Harbor is built and constructed and the relocations were made on the basis of building both projects, it would not take too many years for the carrying charges on this additional capital investment to eat up or possibly more than eat up the $3 million saving. Mr. MAGNUSON. What was your request of the Budget Bureau for Ice Harbor for 1957?

General FOOTE. For this year, $5 million.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Five million dollars?

General FOOTE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAGNUSON. It has been suggested to me that you will complete the first-step cofferdam about next January; is that right?

General FOOTE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAGNUSON. And that you then will be out of money and pretty much have to mark time until you get another appropriation? General FOOTE. That is substantially correct, sir.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Is that economical procedure?

General FOOTE. We would prefer to go right ahead with our work in the first cofferdam as soon as the cofferdam is completed.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Inside the first cofferdam?

General FOOTE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAGNUSON. You could use more money in fiscal 1957 than this $5 million?

sir.

General FOOTE. I feel we could.

Mr. MAGNUSON. How much more?

General FOOTE. A total of $8 million; $3 million additional.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Why did you not request $8 million?

General FOOTE. We just could not get it in within the budget ceiling,

Mr. MAGNUSON. You took that $3 million off of Chief Joseph. You could have transferred it to Ice Harbor.

Major GARRETT. Sir, as I understand it, the $3 million that came from Chief Joseph went primarily to the west-coast projects in California and Oregon flood areas.

Mr. MAGNUSON. The result of the flood of last December?
Major GARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Obviously $5 million is not really sufficient for Ice Harbor for 1957. Taking a smaller appropriation this coming year, will that require greater appropriations for the succeeding 2 or 3 years to get back on schedule?

General FOOTE. Yes, sir. Obviously if we do not have the money in 1957, we will require it later in the course of the life of the project. Mr. MAGNUSON. I think your schedule calls for power on the line in December 1961.

General FOOTE. That is correct.

Mr. MAGNUSON. You are still heading for that, even though you are asking for less money than you need in 1957 ?

General FOOTE. Yes, sir. There would be no change in the poweron-the-line schedule as between, say, 5 million or 8 million dollars. We cannot state that it would improve our power-on-the-line schedule. Mr. MAGNUSON. Actually, would not the American taxpayer suffer a substantial loss by having this construction work virtually stop next January instead of continuing through the rest of the fiscal year with all that equipment on hand there? I suppose much of it would