Mr. RABAUT. Total estimated Federal cost has been reduced $11 million from the estimate submitted last year. All items have been reduced except supervision and administration which has been increased about 4 percent. Why is this necessary? Construction has been reduced about $10 million; land costs from $1.8 million to $980,000; relocations from $621,400 to $491,900; engineering and design from $5,561,000 to $5,330,000; but supervision and administration has gone up from $6,047,600 to $6,282,000. Now, tell us something about the reason for that. Major GARRETT. Sir, may I answer that question? Major GARRETT. The present estimate for supervision and administration reflects our experience at other projects of this type. At the present time this project is moving into the phase where we are doing work in the powerhouse itself. The installation of the generators and the installation of the turbines in the powerhouse is a very intricate and detailed job. Mr. RABAUT. I know, but it is something with which you are certainly familiar, and you certainly had it under consideration when you drew up your original ideas. Why the change? That is what I want to know. You had better look it up and supply it for the record. Major GARRETT. All right, sir. (The following information was supplied:) Although supervision and administration costs for Chief Joseph Dam show an increase of $235,000 during the past year, it should be noted that these costs were reduced $3,603,200 in 1955 (1953 base) from $9,650,800 to $6,047,600 on the basis of costs experienced up to that time and the estimated costs to completion of the project. This reduction proved to be too severe as the overhead rate for construction at this project during the past year has increased from 2 to 2.9 percent on contract work and from 4 to 5.8 percent on hired labor The resultant increase of $235,000 in the estimated cost of supervision and administration increased the total current estimate for this item to $6,282,000, an amount which is $3,368,000 less than the estimate of a year ago. A significant portion of the increase is attributed to 71⁄2 percent Federal employees pay increase approved by Congress in the preceding year. Mr. MAGNUSON. The Westinghouse strike has delayed Chief Joseph, also? General FOOTE. Yes, sir. Mr. MAGNUSON. What were your original requests to the Bureau of the Budget for Chief Joseph? Major GARRETT. $12.5 million, sir. Mr. MAGNUSON. Did you later reduce that to $9.5 million because of the Westinghouse strike? Major GARRETT. Yes, sir; that was part of it, sir. The majority of it, sir. Mr. MAGNUSON. Or did the Bureau of the Budget make that re duction? Major GARRETT. We made the reduction ourselves, sir. Mr. MAGNUSON. I remember some of our public witnesses from out there suggested that you economically could use another $6.5 millior in the coming fiscal year for Chief Joseph. What have you to say about that? Major GARRETT. Sir, we feel that the $9.5 million that is present's carried in the President's budget represents the amount that we con economically use during fiscal year 1957. Mr. MAGNUSON. How will your schedule be affected? Major GARRETT. Well, the Westinghouse strike will delay the onthe-line dates of the middle six units. Mr. MAGNUSON. How much delay will be involved? Major GARRETT. The first unit of the middle 6 will probably be delayed about 7 months, the last unit of the middle 6 will be delayed about 3 months. But by the time these 6 units are in we will havebeen able to catch up and should meet the power-on-the-line dates for the last 6 units that are due to be installed at Chief Joseph. Mr. MAGNUSON. One point I am not clear on. Did you get to the point where the Bureau of the Budget had acted on the $12.5 million. request? Major GARRETT. Yes, sir. Mr. MAGNUSON. It had approved it? Major GARRETT. Yes, sir. Mr. MAGNUSON. And the Engineers, on account of the strike, requested a $3 million cutback or reduction? Major GARRETT. That is right, sir. Mr. MAGNUSON. Where did that $3 million go? Major GARRETT. Sir, that was in the February 21 amendment and that money has been distributed among several new projects. Mr. MAGNUSON. All over the country? Major GARRETT. All over the country; yes, sir. ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WASHINGTON Ice Harbor lock and dam. Put pages 64 to 67, inclusive, in the record. (Information referred to follows:) CONSTRUCTION, GENERAL-MULTIPLE-PURPOSE PROJECTS, ICE HARBOR LOCK AND DAM, WASHINGTON Location.-On the Snake River, 9.7 miles above confluence with Columbia River, approximately 12 miles east of Pasco, Wash. Authorization.-1945 River and Harbor Act. Benefit-cost ratio.-1.15 for initial installation and proportionate share of Snake River navigation benefits. NOTE.-Estimated Federal cost for ultimate installation has not been determined. 76331-5654 125 PHYSICAL DATA Dam: Type: Concrete gravity with earth-fill abutments. Length: Overall 2,790 feet. Spillway: Type: Gate controlled, concrete ogee weir with stilling basin. Design capacity (maximum pool): 850,000 cubic feet per second. Navigation lock: Type: Single lift. Clear dimensions: 86 feet by 540 feet. Design lift: 100 feet. Reservoir capacity: Power pondage (3 feet drawdown).. Dead storage, powerhead and navigation_. Flood control storage_-_ Total Power installations: Initial: 3 units at 90.000 kilowatts, 270.000 kilowatts. Relocations: Railroads: Spokane, Portland & Seattle: 10.35 miles. Union Pacific: 23.19 miles. Northern Pacific: Embankment and revetment. Roads: County roads, improve 6.83 miles. Status (January 1, 1956): Construction: Started in December 1955. Entire project: June 1962. Lands and damages: June 1960. Relocations: June 1961. Dam and spillway: October 1961. Navigation lock: October 1961. Raise pool: November 1961. Power facilities: 3 units, 270,000 kilowatts, December 1961. JUSTIFICATION Acre-feet 28,600 388, 400 0 417,000 Ice Harbor lock and dam provides for an initial installation of 270,000 kilowatts of generating capacity and is the farthest downstream of 4 authorized multiple-purpose dams to provide slackwater navigation, hydroele tric power. and other beneficial water-use development on the lower Snake River. The proj ect is an essential unit in the authorized slackwater navigation and hydroelectric power development of the lower 360 miles of the Columbia River and the lower 140 miles of the Snake River. Present and prospective power demands in the Pacific Northwest region are in excess of capabilities now existing or under construction, and power shortages retard industrial and other resource develoment essential to regional economic growth and prosecution of the national-defense effort. The major load center for Ice Harbor power will be the critical Paseo-Kennewick-Richland defense area, now power deficient, and the Hanford Works of the Atomic Energy Commission. Strategically located to serve these areas. Ice Harbor has a significant relationship to the Hanford Works in that it could function on a segregated basis from the rest of the power system to serve Hanford independently in the event of an emergency. This aspect of Ice Harbor power has been repeatedly emphasized by both the Atomic Energy Commission and the Beneville Power Administration. The development of navigation on Snake River would permit the extension of the Columbia-Snake River authorized waterway to Lewiston, Idaho. It has Ireviously been estimated that about 2.500.000 tons of commerce would move annually on and through the Ice Harbor pool, principally in bulk commodities such as wheat, wood products, limestone, ores, petroleum, and fertilizers. A study of the anticipated waterborne commerce of the Columbia and Snake ers above the Bonneville pool is under review. This study indicates that the previous estimates have been very conservative. Realization of the complete navigation program, with availability of adequate power supply, would expand the regional economy by affording an economic outlet for products not now processed and therefore not presently available for consumer use. The project also will reduce pumping lifts for irrigation developments along the reservoir shoreline and will provide incidental recreational benefits. Fiscal year 1957.-The requested amount of $5 million will be applied as follows: The funds requested for fiscal year 1957 will permit completion of the first-step cofferdam, access roads, and temporary field facilities, and make possible the preparation of designs, plans, and specifications for awarding a major construction contract within the first-step cofferdam in fiscal year 1958 and for initiating design on major railroad relocations. The project as scheduled will permit raising the pool in November 1961 for navigation and for the production of power by December 1961. Non-Federal costs.-None. Mr. RABAUT. Based on the initial power installation of 270,000 kilowatts, the benefit-cost ratio is only 1.15 to 1. What is the benefitcost ratio based on the ultimate plan of power installation of 540,000 kilowatts? I understand you are going to have an initial installation of 3 units and an ultimate of 3 additional or total of 6. General FOOTE. Yes, sir. Mr. RABAUT. What will that do to the benefit-cost ratio? This is a big project, $135 million. Major GARRETT. Sir, that benefit will depend upon the upstream storage that will be available to us. If we consider it on the phase C level system the benefit-to-cost ratio for the ultimate installation is 1.24 to 1. Mr. RABAUT. 1.24 to 1? Major GARRETT. Yes, sir. Mr. RABAUT. This project is just getting started and will be about 2 percent complete with present funds and about 5 percent with the 1957 request. Major GARRETT. First construction funds were appropriated during fiscal year 1956 for this project, sir. General FOOTE. The increase in benefit-cost ratio, Mr. Chairman, on that project with the ultimate installation will result not from the added generating capacity at the site but from the storage projects upstream which improve the regulation of the flow in the stream, which makes it possible to provide the additional generation. Mr. RABAUT. Outside witnesses have testified several million dollars of economies could be effected by initiating the highway and rail relocation works at the Lower Monumental Dam in conjunction with such works for Ice Harbor. What is the engineers' reaction to this suggestion? 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. Can you tell me in what year the last request of the Bureau of the Budget was made for any money for construction o this project? You can supply it. (The information requested follows:) The budget for fiscal year 1954 as submitted to Congress in January 197 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 Ape. 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 teratively allocated to navigation; that is 22.3 percent, sir. Mr. BOLAND. This is apparently one of the projects in the overs! scheme for navigation of the Snake River; is that right? Major GARRETT. That is correct. |