diverse problems. The most formidable restriction to efficient traffic flow is the Quantico danger area which is located 11 miles southwest of the Burke site ***The Dahlgreen danger area * ** complicates the arrival routes to the three major airports in the terminal area. The proximity of the Burke site to Washington National Airport will tend to restrict the flow of traffic into latter field" (reference 1, p. 205).

Fact No. 31. Congressman Joel T. Broyhill testified on January 17, 1957, before Holland Special Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that "the ground, the land, the terrain around the Burke site is not suitable for the construction of an airport. * * * It would cost millions of dollars to reshape and rebuild the terrain in order to make it suitable for an airport" (reference 1, p. 91). Fact No. 32. Elvin F. Henry, Soil Scientist from the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Fairfax County, Va., in discussing soil conditions at the Burke sites testified "That area is underlain by a soft micaceous rock material, crumbly and soft. Highway engineers have told me, and my own experience will verify it, that this material is unstable as a road base or as a subgrade material or as fill material" (reference 1, pp. 283-285). Mr. Henry agreed to Senator Holland's summation of his testimony as follows: "either that building with those same soils would be very difficult and possibly almost surely unstable, or that if their removal was contemplated, to get down to heavier footing underneath it would be very expensive" (reference 1, p. 285).

How would construction of Burke Airport affect Fairfax County?

Fact No. 33. The Virginia Legislative Advisory Council on October 4, 1957, to the Governor and General Assembly of Virginia after holding hearings on July 19, 1951, reported "the impact on Fairfax County will be serious, involving loss of considerable tax revenue."

Fact No. 34. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors' resolution of January 16, 1952, stated "the establishment, maintenance, and operation of such an airport in Fairfax County, Va., would be extremely detrimental to the general welfare, health, and safety of the residents of said county and * * * would be practically ruinous to the future development of the entire county as a residential area ***" (hearings, Senate Appropriations Committee on H. R. 6947, 82d Cong., 2d sess., p. 241).

Fact No. 35. The Planning Commission of Fairfax County, Va., resolution of June 18, 1951, stated "the location anywhere in the county of an airport such as is proopsed will depreciate potential development in the vicinity of any site selected" (Senate Appropirations Committee hearings on H. R. 6947, 82d Cong., 2d sess., p. 243).

Fact No. 36. Congressman Joe T. Broyhill (Republican, 10th District, Virginia) testified on January 17, 1957, before the Holland Special Appropriations Subcommittee "I do sincerely feel that the construction of another airport at Burke, Va., would not be in the best interest of the people of northern Virginia" (reference 1, p. 91).

Fact No. 37. The Federal Housing Administration in its Analysis of Residential Properties Near Airports, says: "In general, airports exert an adverse influence on surrounding residential values"; and further states, "From a Harvard city planning study which surveyed some 85 airports in the United States it was found that land values around airports generally decreased" (reference 1, p. 250).

The Federal Housing Administration Director for the District of Columbia stated in a letter of September 13, 1956, to the Honorable Paul E. Brown, 16th judicial circuit court judge of Virginia in discussing proposed residential development of land in the vicinity of the Burke Airport, Fairfax County, Va., that "FHA would consider applications for mortgage insurance on an individual basis. Fundamentally we intend to discourage residential development of such land to the point of witholding FHA approval."

Fact No. 38. The American Society of Planning Officials: Planning Advisory Service Information Report No. 164 of July 1954 (p. 16, 17, and 23) in discussing jet airports states: “Noise and hazard factors will be of such proportions as to blight whole square miles of land that under other circumstances might have been devoted to airport-linked uses of land and suburban residential developments," and further states, "the conclusion is inescapable that there will be around these airports an area of land that will be too noisy for sleeping, too noisy for conversation, too noisy for work in non-sound-proofed buildings, and too noisy for some kinds of out-of-doors work."

See references Nos. 1-2 on p. 693.

Fact No. 39. Mr. Channing C. Beeth of the International Society of Residential Appraisers stated in the Society's Review of July 1956: "We are to a great extent in a sellers' market which probably does not reflect airport proximity as a depreciating feature." Another member of the society, Mr. Herman O. Walther, states in the same issue: "An appraiser would not advocate building homes so close to airports as the effect of nuisances cannot be gaged in a brisk market" (reference 1, p. 203).

Fact No. 40. Both FHA and VA announced that they would no longer approve home construction within a 20,000-foot radius of the base-that's 3.7 miles.

(NOTE. This is the Miramar Navy Base at San Diego, Calif.) (reference 1. p. 200).

Fact No. 41. The following land would be removed from the county tax rolls:

Acres in the site itself____

Acres in the access road right-of-way

Total___.

Acres 4, 200 320

4, 520

In addition, the Government would acquire by title or easements another 1,950 acres (reference 1, pp. 41 and 42).

The following land would be severely depreciated: 5,500 acres in the fanshaped approach and takeoff areas to be zoned against dense development according to the Doolittle Commission Report.

If the FHA Miramar decision should prevail at Burke, the area affected would be 78.5 square miles or 50,240 acres, including the airport site itself. How would CAA's proposed airport affect Fairfax County schools?

Fact No. 42. There are 20 Fairfax County public schools with 9,459 school children and 2 parochial schools within a 5-mile radius of the proposed airport at Burke, Va. (reference 1, pp. 219–220).

NOTE. No documentation is made on the controversial question of revenue or tax benefits to the county as such questions are dependent on future developments which cannot be predetermined at this time. However, advocates of the airport as a source of revenue to the county have yet to convince the county officials that the hoped for benefits would ever, if realized, make up for the extra costs and losses to the county from the establishment of such an airport. PAUL C. KINCHELOE,

Chairman, Northern Virginia Committee Opposed to a Supplemental
Airport at Burke, Va.

P. S.: On Monday, June 9, 1957, the Fairfax County Planning Commission, after further study of the CAA's proposed supplemental airport at Burke, Va., reaffirmed its opposition.

Reference No. 1. Additional airport facilities for Washington area, hearings before a special subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, U. S. Senate, 85th Cong., 1st sess.

Reference No. 2. Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce appropriations for 1954, hearings before the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 83d Cong., 1st sess.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. FREEHILL

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Freehill is here, and I would now like to present him to the committee.

Mr. FREEHILL. My name is Joseph H. Freehill, member of the Board of the County Supervisors of Fairfax County. I represent more than 35,000 people living in the Falls Church magisterial district, the district in which the proposed Burke site is located.

As chairman of the board in 1956, I was instructed to appear before the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 16 to testify in opposition to the then proposed appropriation for an airport at the Burke site. On January 18 of this year I was again asked to represent the board and I appeared on behalf of the board before the

special subcommittee studying airport facilities in the greater Washington area known as the Holland committee, and again testified in opposition to the proposed airport.

Since this airport subject arose back in 1951 there have been 14 members on our county board of supervisors and of the 14 members only 1 took a position contrary to the board's continuous opposition in 6 different resolutions.

For the completeness of the record, I would like to introduce the resolution of the County Board of Supervisors of Fairfax. One was passed on June 15, 1951; the second, on January 16, 1952; the third, March 4, 1953; the fourth, December 1, 1954; the fifth, July 27, 1955, and the sixth on June 20, 1956.

Mr. ROONEY. Would we not be able to save the taxpayers a little money on the printing bill if we just inserted the last one? Do you submit these for the record or for the committee members to read? Mr. FREEHILL. For the committee, or anything the chairman desires to do with them.

I would like to add to that, Mr. Chairman, that when this matter first arose the planning commission of our county studied the matter, and on June 18, 1951, took action and for the committee's benefit here is a certified copy of that action in opposition to the airport.

On January 17, 1952, the School Board of Fairfax County took action, and for the benefit of the committee, I hand you a certified copy of that action.

Mr. Chairman, the reason I have outlined in such detail the action that has consistently been taken by our county board is that with respect to this particular project it has peculiar significance. Oftentimes governing bodies are asked to consider matters and to pass resolutions, but in this matter the reaction of the board goes to the very heart of this airport matter.

In 1950, when the Congress saw fit to give the Secretary of Commerce the mandate to determine upon a site and to build a supplemental airport in Washington, D. C., or in the vicinity of Washington, they included in that resolution-and I ask that you give the provision in that authorizing legislation consideration-a provision that a site shall be selected only after consultation with the governing body as to the impact upon the community and as to the suitability of the proposed site.

This was a mandate of the Congress given to the Secretary and his delegate, the Civil Aeronautics Administrator, after the Administrator urged Congress during the course of the hearings not to be given that kind of a limitation. He said that provision should be made on the question of safety and convenience and he ought not to be hindered by any other considerations, and yet Congress, when it finally took action, added a third factor, because it sensed anew that a commercial airport would be an impact upon a community and that the governing body in the particular locality selected ought to be consulted.

Mr. Chairman, I have charged before the Senate committee on two occasions, and I reiterate here, in my humble judgment there has never been consultation by the Federal Government authorities with the local body on this matter about which the local body could make a contribution.

They had information meetings in 1951, but my interpretation of consultation is that it means more than just informing.

This is all that happened in 1951. They had the site selected before they spoke to our local board. But even if I were wrong with respect to that, two things have happened since 1951 which made it incumbent upon the Administrator to consult with the local board.

One is that the character of the use of the proposed airport has changed. At that time it was to be a propellor field on a much smaller scale than now conceived. I am sure you heard testimony from experts today which leaves no doubt that this airfield would be used for jet-propelled aircraft. And while I am sure you received testimony, as did the Senate committee- and I followed that testimony very carefully-you have received no information that would show that in actual practice today jet propulsion is no more of an impact on a community than propeller-type planes. The most that testimony before the Senate committee was able to come forth with was that they had reduced from 118 to 100 decibels with 87 the tolerance of human beings. They did testify they were going to do better to reduce that. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this means that if this airport is selected at this site Fairfax County would be the guinea pig to determine whether or not science could overcome all of the obstacles that nature puts in its way to make this feasible. I am sure you received testimony today that indicated there is a point at which it becomes uneconomical.

The second factor which is of great concern to the county board in discharging its responsibilities for planning and the development of the community is that the nature of our county has completely changed since 1951.

In 1951 we had a population in Fairfax County of 87,000 plus. I think to be exact 87,595 was the count. As I said here today, we have a population in Fairfax County in that short space of less than 6 years of better than 200,000 people. We are said to be one of the fastest growing communities in America, if not the fastest growing community.

We have on record subdivision plats that bring the development since 1951 to date up to the east of the proposed airport to within a mile and subdivision plats are on file from the north down into the approach zones, an if I could just take a second of your time I would like to give you a pictorial view of what I am talking about.

Here [indicating] is a map of Fairfax County. This [indicating], and I am pointing to the yellow in the center, is the proposed airport at Burke. These colored portions, as the legend shows, are the subdivisions on record. They have moved up to this proximity [indicating] as you can see, in the approach zones. In the north here is this situation: The town of Fairfax is less than 3 miles north of the runway and the town of Fairfax is the county seat from which the county government operates.

Mr. FLOOD. The witness was prepared to show us certain figures from a chart.

Mr. FREEHILL. Do you wish me to continue with the map?

Mr. ROONEY. I would like to learn the point you were making with

your map.

Mr. FREEHILL. We stopped shortly after you went out, Mr. Chairman. I was showing on this map, Mr. Chairman, the change in the residential character of our county, since the original site was selected in 1951.

I do this to point up the fact that, not only has the air business changed, but the character of our county changed, and it was incumbent, in our opinion, upon the Administrator, to consult with us before making a final determination when this thing was reopened in 1955, and just very quickly, to give you a quick picture of the problems that a governing body has in a county that has grown from 87,000 to 200,000 in the short period of 6 years, I have divided here these Roman numerals, showing 4 different areas. This is what we call our stream and pollution map.

All of the building that I have been talking about is in this white color in No. IV. In the middle here of the green is the proposed Burke Airport. The residential growth of the county, and it is predicted we will be half a million by 2000, is going west.

We are up to within a mile or mile and a half of that airport site.

This is the best area for residential development. One very important factor that we must watch, as planners for the future of Fairfax County, is to take care of the water supply for the metropolitan area of Washington. The Potomac River runs along the eastern border, and Occoquan Creek runs up from the south. Occo quan Creek is the water supply for the city of Alexandria and the southern part of Fairfax County. The Potomac River is the water supply for Arlington, Fairfax, the little city of Falls Church, and, of course, the District of Columbia and Maryland.

The part in yellow, all of the streams flow into the Potomac above the intake of the water supply. That is No. I. In No. II area all of the streams run into the Occoquan above the intake of the water supply, so it limits us to Roman IV and III, in the future development of this county.

This is an important factor, so far as we are concerned in the county, in terms of preparing for the growth of the county.

I would like, before I finish, just to show you one more map that we think is rather significant, Mr. Chairman.

In 1951 we had in the county some 16,000 school children. They were in this general area, 3,000. In 1957 you have nearly 10,000 school children going to school within a radius of 5 miles of this airport. We have 44,000 children in the county. It is predicated by 1965 that we are going to have 84,000 children, or thereabouts, to educate.

This is a factor that concerns us very much. It concerns our school board in terms of the fact that there are 20 schools within a radius of 5 miles of this airport, and there are 7 churches in this area. As I mentioned before, the county seat is right north of this airport. We have 600 employees, and with respect to the stress and strain of the impact of this airport it will be great.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that if you have not had, you will have, testimony before you which will indicate that with all of the stuff that has been in the papers, that the people are getting used to this idea and there is no longer any opposition.

I would like to leave with you an editorial in the local paper which shows that the people are really beginning to move in terms of opposi