taken at low flow from the river and allocated through the respective jurisdictions in order to meet their need. That is the basis for that Low Flow Agreement.

Mr. FRANK. Then the process could work either way; that is to say, water could be taken out of the Potomac and added to the reservoirs or could be worked the other way around?

Reverend MOORE. The allotted amount of water could be taken out of the Potomac River and stored by respective jurisdictions, but it basically refers to the number of gallons per day that you could legally take from the river whether you stored it or whether it went directly into your treatment systems to be used by the

consumers.

Mr. FRANK. I just wanted to clarify that the whole arrangement could work in either direction.

Reverend MoORE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. FRANK. You feel that it is an adequate and fair agreement, and a practical agreement?

Reverend MOORE. In terms of what was conceived as an emergency situation or what could become an emergency situation, it was a practical agreement. It is my opinion, sir, that it falls far short of what we need really to be doing in the region in order to insure an adequate water supply for the various uses to which we put water in the region.

Mr. HARRIS. Rationing poverty is one thing. It also might be good to make sure we don't have quite as much of it.

Reverend MoORE. Yes, quite so.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Reverend Moore. We appreciate your testimony.

Reverend MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been a pleasure to appear before the committee.

Mr. HARRIS. It's an honor to have you here.

I will now call forward our fire chief panel, District of Columbia Fire Department Chief Jefferson W. Lewis, Joseph R. Jeffrey, and John P. Breen; for the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Services, George H. Alexander, director; and Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services, Chief Warren E. Isman.

I would welcome you all here, and again, you can proceed individually any way you want to. You can either read your whole statement or we can present it for the record and have you summarize it. Then we have some questions for you. For my ease, if it's all right, I'll start just from left to right and call on each of you to testify, and I believe I have Mr. Alexander, the director of the fire and rescue services for the county of Fairfax on my left. I would apologize. I think I called you chief when I came in here. I see you're a director and not a chief.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. ALEXANDER, DIRECTOR OF FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, I am George H. Alexander, director of the fire and rescue services for the county of Fairfax, testifying in behalf of Fairfax County Fire Services at the invitation of the subcommittee chairman.

24-273-78-14

I will respond to the questions asked in the chairman's letter. These questions are the basis of my written testimony and precede each reply, of which the copy of that written testimony has become part of your file. I would also like to point out that the Fire Chiefs Technical Committee of the Metropolitan Council of Governments considered this matter at its meeting of January 19, and concluded that a letter would be forthcoming which, briefly stated, supports the fact that a sufficient and dependable water supply for firefighting purposes should be of paramount importance in the design and improvement of any water supply system and accomplished through a regional concept.

EFFECTS OF HURRICANE AGNES (1972)

As one of your questions: To what extent was your firefighting capability affected during the Fairfax County Water Authority's outage created by Hurricane Agnes?

During the flood of 1972, or Hurricane Agnes, the water supply available for fire protection was seriously threatened, and in some areas of the county there was no supply at all except that which was carried on mobile vehicles. The shortage resulted primarily from flooding and consequent failure of the intake and the lower pumping stations at the Occoquan treatment plant. Fortunately, during the period of June 21, 1972, through June 24, 1972, we experienced no fire situation which demanded a high volume flow-1,500 to 2,000 gallons per minute. Had we experienced such a fire, we would have been seriously handicapped, the extent of such handicap depending, of course, on the location and the type of the fire.

In order to cope with situations confronting us and to provide a continual degree of reasonable fire protection, we obtained both from public and private sources, 12 tanker-type vehicles, which were strategically located in the high-incidence areas of the county which were all without a water supply. These vehicles included watering tankers, septic tank trucks, hydroseeding tank vehicles, street washers from the District of Columbia, privately owned contractor tankers, military tankers from Fort Belvoir and Andrews Air Force Base.

EFFECT OF WATER SHORTAGE (1977)

As to the effect of the water shortages that occurred during the summer and fall of 1977, from an emergency operation point of view, firefighting capabilities were not affected since we always had a supply of water within the mains. In accordance with the regional voluntary, and later mandatory water use restrictions, the fire department exercised conservation measures to protect the supply, such as no vehicle washing, limited use of showers, no washing of apparatus, floors or ramps. The department also suspended its routine flowing and testing of fire hydrants to assure their workability.

PLANS FOR FUTURE OUTAGES

As to what plan, if any, does the Fairfax County Fire Department have to deal with an extended outage, the Fairfax County Fire Department has no specifically identified plan to deal with an extended

water outage since the responsibility for water supply lies with the Fairfax County Water Authority. However, we do have internal operating policies and procedures which we implement whenever a shortage of water occurs. For example, we relocate certain types of apparatus to critical areas or add additional vehicles to the initial response, and would borrow tankers from other governmental or private sources if the situation warranted.

Quite obviously, Mr. Chairman, if any jurisdiction were to experience an extended outage of water supply, fire protection capabilities would be seriously jeopardized. There is no alternative to large fire flow needs except through a water main system. We simply cannot provide sufficient fire flow from the use of mobile fire apparatus if fire flow requirements exceed approximately 500 to 750 gallons per minute.

I would point at that flow, Mr. Chairman. That would be an ordinary single-family dwelling. I must add, however, that the Potomac intake will greatly reduce the likelihood of such a systemwide outage occurring.

FAIRFAX COMPARED WITH OTHER AREAS

How does Fairfax County compare with other Virginia jurisdictions of comparable size or population? While I cannot speak for other jurisdictions, it is my personal opinion that other jurisdictions would be in a posture similar to Fairfax County if faced with a water outage. Such certainly was the case in Montgomery County, Md., and possibly other jurisdictions when the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission plant became inoperative last year following an electrical fire.

MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT (COG)

Is there a program for mutual aid among adjoining jurisdictions that deals with this type of problem? There does exist a mutual aid agreement among participating members of the Metropolitan Council of Governments. This agreement was implemented so that we might assist one another during large-scale problems or when special situations occur in which specialized equipment can be sent from one jurisdiction to another. For the most part, a fire protection water supply generally is assumed to be available within each jurisdiction; therefore, we have no formal program that deals specifically with the subject of water outage.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Under recommendations, first I would strongly recommend that fire protection be given a priority consistent with public health and safety needs in water supply planning.

Additionally, it would appear that a large supply main interconnection between jurisdictions would have advantages which, if possible from an engineering standpoint, could provide a continual water supply for firefighting purposes between the various jurisdictions.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and I would now address any questions.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Let's go right on down the table.

STATEMENT OF JEFFERSON W. LEWIS, ACTING FIRE CHIEF, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FIRE DEPARTMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH R. JEFFREY, FIRE MARSHAL, AND JOHN P. BREEN, DEPUTY CHIEF

Mr. LEWIS. I'm Jefferson W. Lewis, Acting Fire Chief, District of Columbia Fire Department.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee to express the concerns of the Fire Department to discharge its responsibilities to protect life and property from fire if there should be a serious water shortage in the District of Columbia or in surrounding jurisdictions. I also want to express my appreciation for the efforts of this committee to bring together all the resources and equipment in mutual agreement with each jurisdiction to insure that the responsibilities of all departments concerned may be carried out.

My response to the committee questionnaire outlined the problems we envisioned in the event of a serious water shortage, as well as some recommendations to address these problems as they pertain to our situation. I will briefly review the problem and propose solutions.

EFFECT OF FUTURE OUTAGES

The effect of an emergency outage of greater than a day's duration would be a grave threat to the ability of the fire department to combat fires. This condition is not found in any other major city. The fire department has established an emergency water supply committee to deal with this problem. There have been surveys of static water supplies. Drafting sites have been updated. Location or relocation of tank trucks to furnish backup water supply have been established.

It must be emphasized, however, that in the event of a major shut down or loss of water, serious fire problems could not be completely handled in this way. There is a 48-inch-diameter water conduit under Constitution Avenue which furnishes water from the Tidal Basin to air-conditioning equipment in Federal buildings. Manholes are available at five locations to permit drafting of water from this conduit and could be used to provide fire protection to the Federal Triangle. One problem that should receive priority in any plan to upgrade the city's water supply should be to increase the city's storage capacity. The District of Columbia has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the surrounding jurisdictions relative to fire suppression. As far as we know, there is no definite mutual aid agreement pertaining to water shortage.

Our submission to the committee contains a more detailed outline of the proposals and steps the fire department has taken to lessen this problem. I will not go into these again, but would like to emphasize the proposal to construct suitable conduits between reservoirs of the various water systems in the metropolitan area. This would permit the transfer of water to any section in which the water shortage may

occur.

In summary, our position is stated simply that the fire service is totally dependent on water supply to effectively carry out the primary mission of fire suppression. This water supply must be reliable, well

distributed as to water mains and hydrants, and backed up by ample storage reservoirs. The principle deficiency in the District of Columbia lies in the lack of reservoir storage capacity, which could cripple not only the fire service during a water shortage emergency, but also adversely affect the health and comfort of everyone.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I will be glad to answer any questions your committee may have.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. We have Mr. Isman next from Montgomery County.

STATEMENT OF WARREN E. ISMAN, DIRECTOR, MONTGOMERY COUNTY (MD.) DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES

Mr. ISMAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on Economic Development and Regional Affairs, I'm Chief Warren Isman, director of Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee regarding the firefighting aspect of water supply problems i the Washington metropolitan region.

During 1977 Montgomery County, Md., experienced 4,649 fire calls. Of these, 1,362 were building fires, while the rest were brush, vehicle, or refuse fires. These 1,362 building fires means we run an average of 3.75 calls a day of this nature. A review of the number of calls which required more water to extinguish the fire than was available on the pumpers exceeds 300. So, on the average, once a day we have a structural fire which requires connection to a water supply to effect extinguishment.

In addition to the structural fires, we must also be concerned with the 3,287 fires involving vehicles, brush, and trash. Some of the brush fires, for example, occur during the extreme dry spells of spring and summer. Rapid spread is possible and involvement of a structural building must be considered. Vehicle fires could involve hazardous materials which require large quantities of water for extinguishment. So, even those that appear to be easily put out could require large quantities of water and connection to a water supply. I estimate that there are 100 calls per year of this type.

The end result, therefore, is that over 400 fire calls a year require that we connect to a water supply system in order to extinguish the fire. Obviously, then, any interruption of service creates a severe hazard in the area of Montgomery County served by the water system.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY'S WATER SOURCES

Water supply within Montgomery County comes from several sources. A large portion of the county is served by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. In addition, the city of Rockville has its own water supply system for service within their city limits. The Poolesville system comes from town wells. The upper area of the county has no municipal service and therefore tanker vehicles, ponds, streams, and swimming pools must be used to supplement the water carried on the pumpers.

Within Montgomery County we have three tanker trucks with a capacity of between 1,500 and 2,000 gallons. These units are dis