Modification of Local Participation in Flood Control Projects

The committee met, pursuant to call, in room 1302, New House Office Building, at 10:15 a.m., Hon. George H. Fallon presiding. Mr. FALLON. Ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Public Works is meeting this morning to hear witnesses on H.R. 2185. It is a bill to authorize modification of local participation in flood control projects. (H.R. 2185 follows:)

[H.R. 2185, 86th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To authorize modification of local participation in flood control projects Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the Secretary of the Army determines that a flood control project should be constructed without delay because of unusual danger to life and property and such project is located within a labor surplus area as determined by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Army shall, upon application by those required to make such contribution, reduce the local contribution otherwise required for such project in such manner as he determines to be necessary to provide for the immediate construction of such project.

SEC. 2. This Act shall apply to (1) those flood control projects authorized before the date of enactment of this Act but the construction of which has not been commenced on the date of enactment of this Act, and (2) those flood control projects which are authorized after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. In reducing the amount of the local contribution under the first section of this Act the Secretary may effect such reduction (1) by decreasing the amount required to be contributed, (2) by extending the time within which such contribution must be made, (3) by permitting such contribution to be made in installments, or (4) by any combination of the foregoing methods.

SEC. 4. (a) For the purposes of this Act the Secretary of Labor shall designate as an area having a surplus of labor

(1) any industrial area in the United States in which he determines that there has existed substantial and persistent unemployment for an extended period of time, except that any industrial area in which there has existed unemployment of not less than (A) 12 per centum of the labor force for a period of one year immediately preceding the date on which an application for assistance is made under this Act, or (B) 8 per centum of the labor force during at least fifteen months of the eighteen-month period immediately preceding such date, or (C) 6 per centum of the labor force during at least eight months in each of the two years immediately preceding such date, shall be designated as an area with a surplus of labor for the purposes of this Act.

(2) any rural area in the United States where he determines there exists a large percentage of low-income families and a condition of substantial and persistent unemployment or underemployment. In making determinations under this paragraph the Secretary of Labor shall consider, among other relevant factors, the number of low-income farm families in the various rural

areas of the United States, the proportion that such low-income families are to the total farm families of each of such areas, the relationship of the income levels of the families in each such area to the general levels of income in the United States, the current and prospective employment opportunities in each such area, the availability of manpower in each such area for supplemental employment.

(b) In making the determinations provided for by this section the Secretary of Labor shall be guided, but not conclusively governed, by pertinent studies made, and information and data collected or compiled, by (1) departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Federal Government, (2) State and local governments, (3) universities and land-grant colleges, and (4) private organizations.

(c) The Secretary of Labor is authorized to conduct such studies, obtain such information, and compile such data as he may deem necessary to enable him to make the determinations provided for by this section.

SEC. 5. (a) As used in this Act

(1) The term "local contribution" means any cash contribution, and any land, easements, or rights-of-way which are furnished by local interests, including land on which the project is located, flowage rights, and highway, railway, and utility relocation.

(2) The term "flood control project" includes the flood control features of a multipurpose project.

(b) For the purposes of this Act the term "unusual danger to life and property" includes but is not limited to dangers arising from hurricane-induced floods, high-intensity rainfall and rapid runoff, and other flooding which is or threatens to be of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant disaster assistance by the Federal Government under the Act entitled "An Act to authorize Federal assistance to States and local governments in major disasters, and for other purposes", approved September 30, 1950, as amended (64 Stat. 1109; 42 U. S. C. 1855 and the following).

Our first witness this morning is our distinguished flood leader, the Honorable John McCormack, of Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. I may say on behalf of the committee, we are delighted to have you here.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCORMACK, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. McCORMACK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hearing given on this bill. Also the early consideration given to it after I spoke to the chairman and to the members of the committee, Mr. Davis of Tennessee and others.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is a simple bill designed to bring about what I consider to be simple justice to many communities throughout the country. As an illustration of my approach to this bill, the benefit of it, if it becomes law, will not be helpful to my district. I have no projects in my district. I have no rivers. We have a river, but most of the people in the other areas of the country-the West and the South-would call it a creek. Of course, I am not calling it a creek because people in my district still think it is a river. The point of it is that the introduction of this bill is purely because I look at this country as a nation of 50 States— a Union of States-and the mere fact that my district will not benefit from it has never deterred me in the introduction of legislation which I thought was proper and just and beneficial to other sections of the country and which would represent legislation the consideration of which this Nation of ours should give to the different sections and communities of our country.

As a further illustration of that, in the latter 1930's I introduced and was the author of-and I am very proud of it-the bill under which, by which and through which 100-percent appropriations are made now for flood control projects throughout the country. That is the McCormack bill, and my district is not a beneficiary of it. So I think my opening remarks can clearly establish the fact that this is a nonpartisan bill, certainly so far as I am concerned, and I know it will be so far as the members of the committee are concerned.

It is your districts that will benefit from this. I do not say each individual Member's district, but your sections of the country are the ones that will benefit in the main. It happens that there are one or two places in Massachusetts that will benefit but they are not in my district. They are deserving of consideration. The mayor of New Bedford is here, the Honorable Francis E. Lawler, and he will testify a little later.

The action of the Bureau of the Budget last year establishing a new interpretation of the plan for local participation in projects for protection from floods caused by hurricanes, and its expressed desire to expand further local participation this year on all flood control projects is in my opinion unrealistic, impracticable, and shows lack of a thorough study of the problems involved.

Last year, as you will remember, the Bureau of the Budget took the position, subsequently supported by the President, that three hurricane control projects in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Texas fell within the category requiring local participation on the basis of 70-percent Federal and 30-percent local. This was a departure from previous policy or interpretation of the law.

Now I understand that in the omnibus river and harbor and flood control bill now before the Senate they have stated four other projects will be subject to this 70-30 percent local participation. If this Bureau of the Budget decision is not accepted the projects will not get Federal aid even though, as in the instances of last year, they have been approved by all competent and responsible agencies and are badly needed.

The unusual consideration involved in the establishment of these Federal flood and hurricane control projects is to remove the danger of loss of life and property from certain catastrophes and rampaging waters. In this sweeping action by the Bureau of the Budget there is a failure to recognize unusual dangers and conditions and the fact that State and local governments may not have the ability to pay their apportionment of costs immediately or in the lump sum. Does this mean cities and towns along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers who are suffering from economic distress and severe unemployment must remain exposed to threatened flood dangers because the Federal Government insists on them paying their share before giving them the protection they have a right to expect from the Federal Government? What about the flash floods in the dry western areas which can sweep away many lives in an hour; or hurricanes in Texas and Louisiana? Will Federal aid be withheld from these Americans until they pay up?

We have a similar situation in the project to provide hurricane protection in New Bedford in my State established as a participation project last year. New Bedford is a nationally recognized distressed

« Previous Continue »

Books

Modification of Local Participation in Flood Control Projects: Hearing ...