Because of its proximity to the mouth of the Columbia River, Chinook Harbor is strategically located as a base for commercial fishing boats. The benefits to be received are the elimination of delays to fishing vessels using the existing harbor; increased catches due to increased time on the fishing grounds, and elimination of damage to boats in the harbor. The benefit to cost ratio is 1.36 to 1.

The city of Pendleton, population 12,000, is situated in the flood plain of Umatilla River and is dependent upon existing levees of limited capability for flood protection. The city and adjoining areas contain residences, major transcontinental railroad, and highway routes and important food processing and industrial establishments which are subject to flood damage. Existing channe capacity is 15,000 cubic feet per second compared to estimated standard profe flood of 28,000 cubic feet per second. Flood damage resulting from a majlevee failure could amount to $5 million and loss of life is a possibility. The flood of 1949 with a peak discharge of 15,000 cubic feet per second severely taxed the existing structure. The benefit to cost ratio is 1.6 to 1.

The Green Peter project is a multiple-purpose reservoir in the interest of hydro electric power, as well flood control and other purposes in the comprehens, ve plan for the Willamette River Basin. Flood damages to and frequent internettions of operations at several sawmills, plywood plants, and a large cannent in Oregon, will be reduced. The proposed power installation including Whe Bridge reregulating reservoir will provide 96,000 kilowatts of urgently nesies power-generating capacity in the Santiam Valley, where the lumber industry s of national importance. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.39 to 1, including Whe Bridge reregulating dam.

Continued development of Columbia River in the interest of navigation, power generation, and flood control is essential to the growth and development of the Pacific Northwest, and is especially important in view of the need for additional power installations to meet the growing demands of industry and defense projects. Because of proximity to major load centers, the transmission problem will be relatively simple and transmission losses will be at a minimum. Initial generation can be accomplished more rapidly at John Day Dam than at any other undeveloped site in the region offering a comparable amount of power. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.69 to 1.

Reexamination of projects in "deferred for restudy" category.-None.

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN CHINOOK AND HEAD OF SAND ISLAND

Mr. RABAUT. How much of the benefits from the project on the Columbia River between Chinook and Sand Island will accrue to commercial fishing, compared with recreation and navigation?

General FOOTE. Recreational benefits are estimated annually at $1,340 out of a total benefit of $37,115.

Chinook is a little old fishing town on the north bank of the Columbia River near its mouth and is entirely dependent on the commercial fishing industry and packing plant there. These are the town's livelihood.

Mr. HAND. What are you planning to do with this little project? General FOOTE. This is an access channel from the main river channel into the community of Chinook. It involves also the extension of a small breakwater which the local people built themselves some years ago in an effort to protect their mooring basin. What we will do is to increase the depth of their access channel by dredging so it will provide for modern fishing craft, extend the breakwater to provide adequate shelter for the mooring basin. They then will develop facilities in the mooring basin itself.

Mr. HAND. What is indicated to be the Federal cost for the total construction?

General FOOTE. $240,000.

Mr. HAND. And the local contribution is expected to be what?
General FOOTE. The estimated local cost is $12,000.

PENDLETON, OREG.

Mr. RABAUT. The 1956 estimate for the Pendleton project was recently amended from $45,000 to $25,000. Why was this reduction made?

General FOOTE. At the east end, upstream from the city of Pendleton, there is a substantial development known as the Riverside area on the right bank of the Umatilla River. In our planning, up until very recently, we had contemplated that a local flood-protection system for the city of Pendleton would protect this suburban area of Riverside. Just in the last few weeks it has developed that the com munity of Riverside will not be able to meet the requirements for local cooperation; therefore we are compelled to delete that section from the project that was planned and will require but $25,000 out of the original request of $45,000 for planning.

Mr. RABAUT. Was $25,000 all the money you asked the Budget for on this, this year?

General FOOTE. No, sir; we asked for more, because we anticipated

Mr. RABAUT. At the time you asked for more, you anticipated getting local cooperation?

General FOOTE. We anticipated getting local cooperation and doing the whole job.

Mr. EVINS. This sheet indicates that the $45,000 is for construction, not for planning. Was this reduction initiated by the Budget Bureau or by the Corps of Engineers, or who requested the reduction?

General FOOTE. We requested the reduction. I am not familiar with your reference, but the moneys requested are for planning and not for construction.

Mr. EVINS. This chart which I have indicates that the $45,000 is for construction.

Colonel DALRYMPLE. That is under "Advance engineering and design." It should show a reduction of $20,000.

Mr. EVINS. But the reduction was requested by your office and not by the Budget Bureau?

General FOOTE. That is correct.

Mr. EVINS. And was based upon your finding that the local people would not cooperate?

General FOOTE. That is correct.

Mr. MURRAY. Was it "would not," or "could not?"

General FOOTE. Well, their statement was they were not in a position to cooperate. I do not know that I can elaborate on that further. There is frequently a very fine line between the two.

Mr. MURRAY. The reason I ask is I notice in your justification there is loss of life possibility. Could you comment on that portion of your justification?

General FOOTE. I feel that the statement about the loss of life applies more to the lower section of the project in the town of Pendleton itself. The Riverside area is upstream of Pendleton and the threat there is not as serious as it is downstream in the main part of the town. One of the problems that has confronted the area up there is that they have a relatively small amount of low-lying area which contemplated meeting their requirements for local cooperation.

Mr. MURRAY. Then it is your opinion that this deduction won't have any effect on that problem. Is that correct?

Colonel DALRYMPLE. Riverside being above the town of Pendleton and upstream thereof, it will not have any appreciable effect on the rest of the project.

Mr. HAND. Is Pendleton entirely a flood-control project?

Colonel DALRYMPLE. Yes, sir. That is a local flood-protection project.

Mr. HAND. To protect nothing but the city of Pendleton?

Colonel DALRYMPLE. Yes, sir. It protects the city of Pentleton and the Oregon State Hospital there.

Mr. HAND. What is the estimated Federal cost of construction of that project?

Colonel DALRYMPLE. The estimated cost for this portion of the project without Riverside is $431,900 total, of which $18,100 would be non-Federal. That is different from the figure shown in your book, because the figure on the justification sheet is the figure for the total combined project of Riverside and Pendleton.

Mr. HAND. There has been no construction on either of those projects as yet, has there?

General FOOTE. Pendleton is presently partially protected. The city built a levee system there many years ago which was rehabilitated, I believe, as a Federal emergency relief project in 1938 which will protect the city up to a flow of approximately 15,000 cubic feet per second in the Umatilla River.

Mr. HAND. Is that a new start as far as we are concerned?
General FOOTE. Yes, sir, a new start.

GREEN PETER RESERVOIR

Mr. RABAUT. The planning report for the Green Peter Reservoir states that local utilities have considered construction and operation of power facilities on a partnership basis. What is the current status of such proposals?

General FOOTE. There was legislation introduced over a year ago, authorizing partnership construction of two projects in the Willamette Valley-the Green Peter project and the Cougar project. I believe I am correct in stating that legislation is still in committee. Locally I have heard nothing within the last year about any furtherance of the partnership proposals.

Mr. RABAUT. Will this lack of negotiation affect your planning? General FOOTE. No, sir. We are proceeding in our planning on the basis of the authorized Federal project.

Mr. RABAUT. Are there any questions on the Green Peter Reservoir? Mr. HAND. This is a project which has not been under construction at all; is that true?

General FOOTE. That is correct.

Mr. HAND. It is all in the planning stage?

General FOOTE. It is all in the planning stage.

Mr. HAND. And if we commence construction, the present estimated cost to complete is $58,400,000?

General FOOTE. That is correct.

Mr. HAND. Is that entirely a Federal cost?

General FOOTE. Yes, sir. There is no local cooperation involved. Mr. HAND. If we enter into a contract, can you give us any idea as to what the nature of the local cooperation will be?

General FOOTE. There will be none; there is no local cooperation involved.

Mr. HAND. There is no local cooperation involved in this type of project?

General FOOTE. No, sir.

Mr. HAND. The estimate of the benefit-cost ratio is what in this case? General FoOTE. 1.39 to 1.

Mr. HAND. And of that b/c ratio, can you tell me how much might be allocated to power? This is a multiple-purpose project, is it not? General FOOTE. Yes, sir, it is a multiple-purpose project.

Major GARRETT. The total annual benefits are $3,873,400. $1.833,700 is the benefit credited to power at the site.

Mr. HAND. Without power, of course, this project is not economically feasible; is it?

General FOOTE. I do not have the information on that.

Major GARRETT. I do not believe it is. I will have to check that. Mr. HAND. Will you supply the answer for the record?

Major GARRETT. Yes, sir.

(The information follows:)

A project at this site without power but providing the same flood-control benefits as the multiple-purpose project would be economically justified.

Mr. EVINS. Will you please point out on the map where the Green Peter Reservoir is located, and where the dam is proposed for construction.

Colonel ALLEN. Right here [indicating].

Mr. HAND. How long has this study been underway; for how many years?

General FOOTE. The project was authorized with a modification to include power in the Flood Control Act of 1954.

Mr. HAND. How many years have we had planning funds on this project?

General FoOTE. This year we have planning funds as such for the first time.

Mr. RABAUT. Prior to 1957 you had $215,000.

Mr. EVINS. Do you consider the amount of funds requested in this budget for 1957 is adequate to do the job in the next year on this important project?

General FOOTE. It will carry us along on a rather conservative planning schedule. We will have to have some $635,000 to complete the preconstruction planning after this year.

Mr. EVINS. Could you use additional funds on this project if authorized for next year?

Major GARRETT. We could use a total of $500,000 in fiscal year

1957.

Mr. EVINS. In other words, the budget recommendation is for $100,000 and that sum is $400,000 less than could be economically used on this project next year?

Major GARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. EVINS. Did you request this amount of the Budget?
Major GARRETT. No, sir.

Mr. EVINS. How much did you ask of the Budget?