quickly, and for this reason there have been and are a considerable number of destructive floods, both local and general.

At the Wilson Dam with the river in its natural condition the flow varied from a minimum of approximately 5,000 cubic feet per second to fairly frequent floods of over 250,000 cubic feet per second, and it has been necessary to provide for maximum floods in the neighborhood of 700,000 cubic feet per second.

To illustrate further the magnitude of the regulation problem on this river, it is interesting to note that a discharge of 250,000 second feet, lasting for 24 hours, is enough to cover an area of 500,000 acres 1 foot deep, which is a volume sufficient to cover the 60 square miles of land in the city of Washington to a depth of 13 feet. That is, one 24-hour flow of that amount is enough to produce that effect.

Now the Tennessee River, considered from the point of view of navigation, is more than one isolated stream. It is connected to the Mississippi River system, which now has a total length of 6,000 miles of navigable channel. So that if made navigable it will be part of that larger system.

Studies of the United States district engineers in House Document 328, and the subsequent studies of Mr. Alldredge, the head of the Authority's commerce department, indicate that the improvement of the Tennessee River for modern commercial navigation would result in a very considerable transportation saving to shippers. The estimates of our people in that respect have reached a total of approximately $10,000,000 annually.

This subject will be discussed more fully by Mr. Alldredge, of the T. V. A., later on.

Senator SCHWARTZ. That will be related to some volume of traffic? Colonel PARKER. Yes, sir. I simply mention that figure as indicating the possible magnitude and the seriousness with which it is regarded. He is much better qualified to explain that.

Congress has endeavored to improve navigation on the Tennessee River for more than a century and has expended about $17,000,000 for this purpose, in addition to the cost of Wilson Dam prior to the creation of the Authority. These expenditures did not result in very adequate improvement.

In 1933 the river had minimum depths varying from 4 feet below Riverton, Ala., to 1 foot above Chattanooga, Tenn. A 6-foot depth was seldom available, except in certain isolated sections of the river, and in the portions canalized by the Riverton lock, Wilson, Widow's Bar, and Hales Bar Dams. There were less than 80 miles of 9-foot channel.

POTENTIALITIES OF TENNESSEE RIVER RE POWER DEVELOPMENT

From the point of view of power development, the Tennessee River has presented great potentialities. It has a fall of almost 500 feet from Knoxville to its mouth, and on the tributaries a considerable additional fall.

Owing to the extremely variable flow, however, this power can only be utilized by the creation of a considerable amount of upstream storage.

Mr. ELWELL. Colonel Parker, in considering the use of the river for the generation of power, aren't you further limited by the necessity of providing for navigation?

Colonel PARKER. We are. I was submitting this information, I was speaking then merely of the actual possibilities of the stream. The Tennessee Valley Authority is, of course, limited by the provisions of the act, which instructs us to give priority to the development of navigation and flood control. I am speaking now merely of the stream and its possibilities for all these purposes.

Mr. ELWELL. All right.

Colonel PARKER. Prior to the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, Wilson Dam was the only power development on the Tennessee River other than the Tennessee Electric Power Co. Hales Bar Dam.

It should be observed that Wilson Dam was constructed with an initially installed capacity of 184,000 kilowatts, with provision for an ultimate installation of 444,000 kilowatts. But due to the lack of adequate stream flow regulation to increase low-water flow, the firm power capacity of this dam prior to the creation of the Authority was only about 40,000 kilowatts. That is, it was capable of producing a great deal of secondary power, but its actual firm power was limited to that amount, so that it required as a supplement the creation of upstream storage to attain its maximum usefulness.

PROTECTION AGAINST FLOODS AT CHATTANOOGA

From the point of view of flood control, the most critical locality on the Tennessee River is at Chattanooga, where stages in excess of 30 feet cause damage. The largest recorded flood in 1867 flooded 7,750 acres of what is now Chattanooga and caused a flood stage of 58 feet. Mr. ELWELL. Colonel Parker, before you get to that point, had there been any development of flood protection on the Tennessee prior to the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority?

Colonel PARKER. What had been done was rather minor in the way of local dykes, as I understand it. I am not entirely familiar with it. I know of nothing except local protection.

Senator SCHWARTZ. I have just got a thought in my mind. I think I understand the term, but for the benefit of the record, you just refer to "firm power." Would you give a layman's definition of "firm power," whether it means the normal run of stream, or what it means? Colonel PARKER. What I intended there is continuous power which would be measured or limited by the amount available at the time of minimum stream flow.

Senator SCHWARTZ. That is what I thought; I just wanted to get it in the record.

Colonel PARKER. That is, without storage the Tennessee River would drop off in extremely dry weather to a minimum of around 5,000 second-feet, which would only produce that amount. Senator SCHWARTZ. All right. Thank you.

Colonel PARKER. This chart [indicating] shows a map of Chattanooga, the major portion of which is located south of the river. And the shaded portion of this chart indicates the area flooded, the area which would have been flooded by a flood which would be the counterpart of the one which occurred in 1867.

Mr. ELWELL. Colonel Parker, is that chart included in exhibit 494? Colonel PARKER. That is marked here as "No. 3."

115943-39-pt. 11-12

It is tabbed here as 3.

Mr. ELWELL. Is that No. 3-A? Colonel PARKER. It is No. 3-A. You can see that that covers the major part of the business section of Chattanooga. It includes the area in which are the principal business district, the railroad stations, the principal hotels, banks, and a considerable part of the most valuable property. That would have been over 5 feet deep right there at the Reed House in Chattanooga. Senator SCHWARTZ. That is during the flood of 1867. Colonel PARKER. During the flood of 1867; yes, sir.

Mr. ELWELL. Colonel, do you think it would be wise to explain this chart contained in exhibit 494, which is marked "3-B"? Does that illustrate the extent of the damage of the floods in the past?

Senator SCHWARTZ. Are these maps being offered in evidence?

Mr. ELWELL. Senator, exhibit 494, which was entered yesterday contains both the charts, the previous one, and the one being exhibited now.

Colonel PARKER. This chart which is marked "3-B" in this folder is headed "Floods, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Types of Property Affected, Five-Foot Intervals of River Stages." Of this we have no large size chart, but it is available in this folder which you gentlemen have.

This indicates the type of property which would be affected at various flood stages at Chattanooga-that is starting, from the bottom; a stage of 30 feet is what is ordinarily considered the beginning of a flood stage, and you will notice that about 35 feet shows that some industrial plants and some residences are affected.

Above 45 feet all the principal manufacturing sections are covered. Above 50 feet it gets into the railroad stations, Seventh and Market Streets, Ninth and Chestnut, the Reed House, Eighth and Market, elevation 51.

Above a stage of 55 feet, Market Street is covered from the river to Ninth Street.

And above 60 feet, the new Post Office, Ninth and Georgia Avenue, Eleventh and Market, and the Patten Hotel are all affected. That is, above 60 feet it practically wipes out the town, temporarily.

Senator SCHWARTZ. I think there was a witness here, I have forgotten who it was, but representing one of the utilities, and I think he left the impression that while we are building these high dams and have a large amount of water behind them, we would have that space full of water, which would not be adding anything to flood control. In other words, if the dams were all full and we got a great flood, then the flood would come right on down, just as though the dams were not there. What is the program as to that situation?

Colonel PARKER. I believe that remark applied to the main river dams.

Senator SCHWARTZ. I am talking now about protection for Chattanooga, in case of a recurrence of the 1867 flood.

Colonel PARKER. I believe that comment applied to the dams on the main river above Chattanooga. That is, we have a situation at Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Coulter Shoals, which lie between

Chattanooga and Knoxville, and those would be the only dams to which that comment could apply.

Senator SCHWARTZ. Does it follow then, if we got a recurrence of a flood like the 1867 flood, that these main river dams above Chattanooga would be of no service for flood control?

Colonel PARKER. No, sir; that is not so.

Senator SCHWARTZ. That is what I wanted to bring out.

Colonel PARKER. There would be some partial limitation by a large flood. But I wish to point out first that the storage above Chattanooga, the greater proportion of it, is in the tributary dams, such as Norris, and Hiwassee which have been so far constructed and additional dam sites on the tributaries.

The amount of acre-feet-I will get those figures-the amount of storage in those main river dams is a small proportion anyway, and it would be affected by the considerations mentioned to only a very minor extent. I can get those figures and present them to you in a minute.

Senator SCHWARTZ. I was just interested in the general result.

Colonel PARKER. It is not true that those dams would be ineffective? Senator SCHWARTZ. As I recall, I think Senator Norris made some reference to the system of weather reports that the T. V. A. has, as to weather conditions, in case of storms upriver, and I was wondering if coupling that information with the length of the river-say, from Chattanooga upstream-how much time you would have to release some of the water and get it on down ahead of the river, ahead of the storm that is coming, if any, and how much water could you release? Colonel PARKER. We plan to have a very extensive description of our methods of river control presented by Mr. Woodward, who is in direct charge of that work.

Senator SCHWARTZ. Then I won't go into it here, just so I know it is coming.

Colonel PARKER. But I would like to state at this time that we have developed methods of prediction and observation of precipitation and stream flow, and prediction of river flow, so that we are at all times able to predict the flow at any part of the river 2 or 3 days in advance, and are able to dispatch, you might say, the floods and handle them from one point to another.

I will have those figures on that actual storage in a minute.
Senator SCHWARTZ. Yes, all right.

Colonel PARKER. I think that if I read the amounts of storage in these dams upstream from Chattanooga it may be helpful in considering the effect of those dams.

The flood-control storage at Chickamauga is about 325,000 acrefeet, at Watts Bar it will be about 337,000 acre-feet, and at Coulter Shoals about 140,000 acre-feet. That is a total of approximately 800,009 acre-feet.

The flood-control storage at Norris is about 2,020,000 acre-feet, at Hiwassee it is 362,000 acre-feet.

Senator SCHWARTZ. How much?

Colonel PARKER. 362,000 acre-feet, so that in those tributaries storages already provided there is in the neighborhood of 2,400,000

acre-feet, which is three times the volume contemplated in all of those main river reservoirs between Chattanooga and Knoxville.

We further contemplate before we have provided adequate protection for Chattanooga that it will be necessary to add perhaps 2,000,000 acre-feet on the tributaries, in which event the amount of storage on the tributaries will be five times that on the main river.

Now, under certain circumstances of maximum flood, some of the storage in those main river dams, a minor part of it, might be unaffected, but I think you can see that that represents a minor part of a minor part of the total. Is that clear?

Senator SCHWARTZ. Oh, yes; that is clear. The thought that was left with the committee I think was that all the dams would be full anyhow, and if you had a flood they would just run over.

Colonel PARKER. Those tributary dams are not affected by that consideration at all. Mr. Woodward will explain this entire situation, I think, to your entire satisfaction.

Senator SCHWARTZ. All right. I didn't know you had another witness.

EFFECT OF TENNESSEE RIVERS ON FLOOD CONDITIONS OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER

Mr. ELWELL. Colonel Parker, what is the effect of the Tennessee on the flood conditions of the Mississippi?

Colonel PARKER. The Tennessee River is the largest tributary of the Ohio, and the Ohio River makes the principal contribution to Mississippi floods; so that the Tennessee is a considerable factor in the water which produces floods on the lower Mississippi. It makes a substantial contribution to every major Mississippi flood.

In the great floods of 1897 to date, the Tennessee River has contributed from 140,000 cubic feet per second to more than 450,000 cubic feet per second at the crest of the flood.

Projects for Mississippi flood control have consisted almost exclusively in levees, supplemented by floodways and cut-offs. The great flood of 1937 indicated, however, that these works were somewhat inadequate and that additional protection should be provided, particularly by the construction of reservoirs on the tributaries.

The report of the Chief of Engineers set forth in Committee Document No. 1, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, page 6, following the great flood of 1937, states that the existing system was designed to pass a flood of only 2,250,000 cubic feet per second at Cairo, and concludes:

A review of all data indicates, however, that due prudence should provide for a flood which without reservoir control would reach 2,600,000 cubic feet per second in the Mississippi between Cairo and the Arkansas.

Senator SCHWARTZ. Does that estimate indicate to what extent it would raise the level of the Mississippi; that is, how many inches it would add to its flow at the time of the flood?

Colonel PARKER. You mean the Tennessee?

Senator SCHWARTZ. Yes. We will assume the Mississippi is in a dangerous flood condition, and then the 1937 flood was coming down the Tennessee and going into the Mississippi. What effect would it have in the matter of raising the level of the Mississippi in inches, if at all.