waters back, to get a big head of water, and then you let that out and you get the power, and now the Army engineers' system was an entirely different system, 32 low dams, and they would have furnished, if you built 32 low dams, each of those dams would furnish sufficient water, holding it back, to have supplied all of the navigation facilities that were needed and necessary.

Now, your answer to that, or your statement that you had to have this water-of course you had to have that in your system, but you would not have had that water dammed back at the head of the creeks and rivers in order to have brought to fruition the Army engineers' program.

Colonel PARKER. As I understand the proposal made in House Document No. 328, that was an actual proposal for a high-dam scheme very similar to the one we have constructed, and this low-dam scheme, so-called, the 32 low dams, was merely proposed as an alternative, as a means of measuring or of approximating, I should say, the singlepurpose navigation cost. What the Army engineers really proposed in Document 328 as I understand it was a multipurpose development.

Mr. BIDDLE. As I understand it, an alternative system was proposed and of the two systems, of the 32 low dams or of the 7 high dams, the Army recommended 7 high dams, and I also understand that the low-dam system was not designed in any sense for flood control, or power, but was entirely designed for navigation, is that correct? Colonel PARKER. That is my understanding, yes.

Representative JENKINS. Just in that connection, Colonel, of course you know, although you don't have charge of the legal phase of it, you know that the main controversy waged here is the constitutionality of this whole proposition, on the basis that the Government cannot go into the power business.

The Government can't spend any money for power, unless it is a secondary matter, after the original constitutional matter has been established. Do I make myself clear? Under the Constitution the Government can of course take the power that is an incident to the development of navigation, and now the original navigation plan provided for 32 low dams, and it would have been adequate for navigation, as adequate as the navigation provided under your systemthere is no question about that--it would have been adequate, sufficient navigation, just as they have on the Ohio River today. You have that same navigation on the Tennessee River for $75,000,000, and your project comes along with $473,000,000.

Colonel PARKER. I didn't understand, sir. Did you say this lowdam system could be built for $75,000,000?

Representative JENKINS. That is the Army Engineers' figures, $75,000,000.

Colonel PARKER. Do you want me to comment on that figure? Representative JENKINS. No; unless it is not true, if I am not giving it to you right, I want you to correct me, and I just read it out of the book.

Colonel PARKER. I think that there has been some misunderstanding about the cost of that so-called low-dam scheme. It seemed to come to a

focus rather recently, and with a view to getting some accurate idea about what it really meant, I had an estimate made of the actual cost of such a scheme, and the results of that estimate indicate total cost of about $145,000,000.

Representative JENKINS. That is your estimate?

Colonel PARKER. That is my estimate.

Representative JENKINS. But you can't gainsay the statement that you make that the Army Engineers state that their estimate was $75,000,000?

Colonel PARKER. I think that that estimate was made; it is apparent that that estimate was made in a rather hasty way and was not intended as an estimate for actual construction.

Representative JENKINS. It is quoted every place, in all sorts of volumes that treat with this subject, and that is the figure that they quote all of the time.

Now, let us assume, then, Colonel, of course you have made your calculation, but the Army Engineers have said that it is this figure, and I am basing my question on what they state, and now assuming that they could build their program for $75,000,000, and it would have been constitutional, without any question, and that your proposition. will cost $473,000,000, now then where is that difference between the $75,000,000 and the $473,000,000, if it isn't for power?

Colonel PARKER. I don't wish-I think that this House Document 328 is a very admirable report, and I don't wish to

Representative JENKINS (interrupting). You don't answer my question, I want you to answer my question.

Colonel PARKER. I would like to finish what I am saying, if I may. Representative JENKINS. All right.

Colonel PARKER. I think it is a very admirable report, and I don't wish to take issue with it an any way. I have been myself a member of the Army Engineers, and really consider myself still a member of their corps, but I think that this particular estimate was made, owing to the circumstances, in rather a hasty way. If you will stop and consider the matter, you will realize that $75,000,000 for 32 dams is only about two and a quarter million dollars per dam. Mr. BIDDLE. That includes locks?

Colonel PARKER. That includes locks and dams, and getting ready to build it and building a coffer dam, and some of those dams will be over a mile long, and it costs us to build a coffer dam across the Tennessee River, in some places almost a million dollars.

Representative JENKINS. They built 55 dams on the Ohio River, and the average cost of the dams on the Ohio was not over $2,000,000. Colonel PARKER. Yes, sir; but I am speaking of the TennesseeRiver.

Representative JENKINS. The Ohio River is a much larger river than the Tennessee.

Colonel PARKER. We have been building dams on the Tennessee for something like 5 years, and we have a very accurate knowledge of what it costs to build dams there.

Representative JENKINS. But you build these great towering dams that have got to hold back acres and lakes of water, and that is a well-known principle, isn't it, that any layman can understand, the higher you run the dam, the more expensive it gets per foot?

Colonel PARKER. The estimate that I speak of, was based on building this type of dam which was proposed by the 328 report, which was a wicket type of dam just like those on the Ohio River, the same type, and it was actually based on that same design.

Representative JENKINS. If you have made an investigation, you are speaking from your investigation, and I am only speaking generally about the dams on the Ohio River. I am not asking for technical information, because I just want general information, but let me ask you this question:

J asked you a little while ago, if the 32 dams that the Army Engineers proposed to build would have furnished the same sort of navigation as is furnished on the Ohio River, a 9-foot stage, and that could have been done for $72,000,000, and your estimate and their estimate, too, for the same work that you are doing now runs about $475,000,000, wouldn't it be fair to assume that the difference between $75,000,000 that would supply adequate navigation, and $475,000,000 which you are spending, means that that was used for power?

Colonel PARKER. There are so many "ifs" in that, that I can't answer the question.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. I think that the witness

Representative JENKINS (interrupting). Let the witness answer the

question.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. Let me make an observation.
Representative JENKINS. I don't want you to.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. I am going to do it anyhow.
Representative JENKINS. You have got no right to.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. I think that the Congressman is trying

Representative JENKINS (interrupting). Mr. Chairman, let us have a little show-down here, who has the right, Senator Donahey, or Chairman Donahey

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ (interrupting). I would like to make an observation.

Representative JENKINS. I would like to ask whether I have the right of the floor or whether he has the right. Who is the chairman of this committee?

Chairman DONAHEY. I was called from the hearing on a very important matter, and I have just come back from my office, and the Chair is still the chairman until

Representative JENKINS (interrupting). Does the chairman run the committee, or does the member of the committee have any right

Chairman DONAHEY (interrupting). I think that a member has a right to ask a question.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. After you get through with your question, I will make my observation.

Representative JENKINS. That is the time for it.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. I just want to make the observation

Representative JENKINS. I don't want you to.

Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. You don't want to know the facts. Representative JENKINS. You shan't do it if I can help it, and let us have a show-down between a Senator and a Congressman here. Now, Colonel, I would like to have an answer to my question. You don't have to look at him, I am asking the question.

Colonel PARKER. I am not supposed to arbitrate this, am I? Acting Chairman SCHWARTZ. You can go ahead with the answer to the question, and I will bring this out later.

Colonel PARKER. Would you mind repeating the question? Representative JENKINS. I will ask it again. Assuming that the Army engineers' figures, the $75,000,000 would provide adequate navigation facilities, by the construction of the 32 dams, and that your program calls for an expenditure of $475,000,000, isn't it fair to assume that the difference between $75,000,000, and $475,000,000, is due to the expenditure for power?

Colonel PARKER. No, sir; it is not.

Representative JENKINS. Well, if not, what would you apply it to? Colonel PARKER. The larger amount which you mention is proposed to be expended for a multiple-purpose development. Representative JENKINS. Well, what other purpose?

Colonel PARKER. Navigation, flood-control, and power.

Representative JENKINS. Very well. Of course I am assuming $75,000,000 goes for navigation. I am asking you about the difference, $400,000,000 difference there.

Colonel PARKER. I think it is only fair to take up those conditions one at the time. I said first if the $75,000,000 would provide adequate navigation.

Representative JENKINS. Listen, now, Colonel, I don't want to argue the technical points. I am asking you a nice, easy little simple question and you can answer it "yes" or "no". If you don't want to answer let's don't have a big argument about it.

I will ask you now, assuming that 32 dams, according to the Army Engineers report, could be constructed for $75,000,000 and that when constructed they would be adequate for navigation, wouldn't it be fair to say then that if your plan costs $475,000,000; that the difference between the $75,000,000 which would be adequate for navigation, and the $475,000,000 would have to be spent for power; and if not for power for what?

Colonel PARKER. No, sir; I don't agree with the statement, principally because the flood control is also provided in the larger program. Representative JENKINS. Very well, now, then that is what I expected your answer to be.

RELATIVE FLOOD-CONTROL VALUE OF AUTHORITY SYSTEM AND LOWDAM SYSTEM

Now, let me ask you this. Whenever you build your big program you are going to have to flood all of the river bottoms, practically all, under your program. Now then, they under your program will be lakes, they will be static lakes full of water. A static lake full of water has no flood-control advantages. That is what you build the extra 4 feet or 1 foot, and so forth, on top of the dam, big dams for, to take care of the flood control.

Now, under the system of 75 dams, this what you call valley storage would be present, wouldn't it, valley storage, overflow ground? Colonel PARKER. I don't believe I mentioned valley storage. Representative JENKINS. Yes; you were talking about storage, and acre-feet storage when I came in here.

Colonel PARKER. Oh, yes; there will be storage.
Representative JENKINS. Let's be fair about this now.

Under the

small-dam system, the water would be held in the channel of the river, wouldn't it?

Colonel PARKER. Yes, sir.

Representative JENKINS. And when the flood came, then the floods could spread out over the lowlands, couldn't they?

Colonel PARKER. Yes, sir.

Representative JENKINS. Now, then, that is what you call valley storage, isn't it?

Colonel PARKER. I shouldn't call it storage; no.

Representative JENKINS. What do you call it?

Colonel PARKER. I should call it just flooding, that is all.

Representative JENKINS. What is valley storage then?

Colonel PARKER. Well, there is a term known as valley storage. Representative JENKINS. All right, what is it?

Colonel PARKER. Which would apply to the water filling the valleys if there were no dams there at all. But if we interject dams of any kind, then it becomes sort of a partial compromise between artificial and natural conditions. I would not call that valley storage.

Representative JENKINS. Yes; but Colonel, as long as the small dams only hold the water in the channel, small dams do not contemplate scattering water outside of the channel, and now to be fair, you would have to say then that all of the natural overflow next to the channel of the river, that that is what we call valley storage. And with the small system, with the small dam system, there would be many millions of acre-feet of valley storage that would be usable. and would be considered as flood control and advantageous, wouldn't they?

Colonel PARKER. I consider that such a system of low dams would have absolutely no flood-control value.

Representative JENKINS. Well, they would have the value of valley storage, wouldn't they?

Colonel PARKER. It would not be possible to control such a type of storage at all. The only flood-control storage that is usable is storage which can be artificially controlled.

Representative JENKINS. Yes; but Colonel, whenever you control your floods by the top 5 feet on the dam, you are flooding somebody's land.

Colonel PARKER. We are flooding land that we have purchased for the Government.

Representative JENKINS. That is what I say. Why wouldn't it be just as cheap-it would be, and there is no question about it-it would be cheaper to purchase the valley storage land like they did in the Mississippi Valley program. That is the program in the Mississippi Valley, isn't it, to buy the alluvial land for your storage program? Why wouldn't it be cheaper to buy that cheap land down