Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Mr. BIDDLE. Have you ever estimated the cost of the levees that would be necessary to be built in order to control floods in connection with the other means that you have testified to?

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes, sir; we have made estimates through a range of heights, because if you make your levees higher, then you need less reservoirs, and if you have more reservoirs, you would need less levees.

Mr. BIDDLE. Would you give us your low and high figures on that, substantially?

Mr. WOODWARD. We have made a recommendation as to what we think is best.

Mr. BIDDLE. How much would be the cost of what you think is best for levees?

Mr. WOODWARD. Well, about $16,000,000 for the local protection, which involves much more than just the construction of levees.

Sewer outlets will have to be changed, and perhaps collecting sewers, waterworks I think may have to be protected somewhat, and those creeks will have to be handled, straightened, and changed in some places, and streets will have to be changed somewhat.

The whole system gets to be a pretty complicated rebuilding in the city. We have included all of those things in this figure that we estimated that it would cost of about $16,000,000.

Mr. BIDDLE. I understand that you have now made and are engaged in making studies with respect to the use of reservoirs on the tributaries, specifically, with flood control at Chattanooga in mind, have you not?

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. BIDDLE. Have those studies yet been so far completed that you are now ready to recommend specific sites and dams or are you still working on them?

Mr. WOODWARD. We are still working on them, and we do not recommend definite locations, because those dams are like the ones on the Tennessee.

Foundations have got to be very thoroughly studied to find the best site, and one that will be most economical, and there are various places that the dams can be built, and it would be a matter of comparison of a lot of sites before we finally settle on it.

Mr. BIDDLE. Without going into the sites, could you suggest very briefly the tributaries that would probably have to be used? Mr. WOODWARD. The Holston River, or the French Broad River. Mr. BIDDLE. They are tributaries of the Tennessee?

Mr. WOODWARD. They are the two streams that make the Ten

nessee.

Mr. BIDDLE. Yes.

Mr. WOODWARD. The Little Tennessee probably ought to have at least one more reservoir with a lot of storage; perhaps more storage on the Hiwassee River.

Mr. BIDDLE. The Little Tennessee is below the Clinch?

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes; it is on the other side.

Mr. BIDDLE. It is on the other side.

Mr. WOODWARD. It is the one that the Aluminum Co. has all of its dams on. You have heard of a big possible storage reservoir called the Fontana Reservoir, which would be very valuable for flood control.

Mr. BIDDLE. Those are referred to in some detail in the unified report, are they not?

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes; I think those are all mentioned.
Mr. BIDDLE. That is already before us.

Mr. WOODWARD. There are small streams that might possibly have favorable sites also. It takes a lot of study and long consideration to determine the most favorable site.

Mr. BIDDLE. Could you tell us who, in your opinion, was responsible for the origin of the development of the unified plan?

Mr. WOODWARD. Why, I would say that Dr. Arthur E. Morgan was primarily responsible. I think he wrote a big part of it. We all helped and prepared drafts and data, but the general lay-out and planning and scheme, I should say all of the responsible heading up of it was in him.

Mr. BIDDLE. Was the basic material for that taken from House Document 328 of the Army Engineers, the basic material?

Mr. WOODWARD. It started with that material in 328. We have used that material a great deal in our work, especially the maps, along the river, close to the river, which is called the Tennessee River survey, a great many sheets. Those maps have been exceedingly useful to us.

A good many of the estimates and descriptions we have used liberally in helping us to select sites, but ordinarily all of the material except those maps we have reviewed and studied more or less, supplemented, and in most every case we have varied some in our final figures from what they showed on their preliminary sketches. So we have worked it over, all of it, but we have had great help from that. It has saved us lots of work, and expedited our work very much.

ADVANTAGES OF AUTHORITY SYSTEM OVER LOW-DAM SYSTEM

Mr. BIDDLE. How do your plans and systems for navigation compare with those systems reported in House Document 328 of the Army Engineers?

Mr. WOODWARD. That document has nearly a thousand printed pages, you know, and contains all sorts of plans. When they came to summing up at the end of the district engineer's report, the various plans, he puts in his summary what he calls four plans, A, B, C, and D, and I think I am perfectly fair in saying that the district engineer shows throughout that he believes in one of the A, B, C plans, and not in the D plan.

The A, B, C plans are all high-dam plans, something like what we are building. His D plan is the low-dam plan of 32 low dams. Now, when you say "the scheme," there are at least four schemes that are there.

Mr. BIDDLE. There were two particular schemes that have been spoken of constantly here, and I think were referred to many times in the testimony in the 18-Power Companies case. The one scheme. was for a series of high dams, seven in number as I remember, most of them were to be built on very largely the same sites as the Tennessee Valley Authority dams were later built, and a series of 32 low dams. Those were the ones of them about which there has been a good deal of comment, and I should like to have you comment on those two.

Mr. WOODWARD. A series of 18 dams, isn't it, also?

Mr. BIDDLE. Comment on all three, on the 18-dam theory, too. Mr. WOODWARD. The high dams, of course, provided for flood storage, flood control, and the possibility of power. The low dams provided no flood control and no possibilities of power except possibly a little tiny plant that could operate the locks at some of the dams, they could have been put in at the dam if they couldn't get power any other way.

Now, the navigation we think is very superior in the high dam plan, much more than what it is in the low dam plan.

Mr. BIDDLE. Now, will you state why?

Mr. WOODWARD. With the low dams they would have had the present river channel, which is very crooked in places, and rather narrow in many parts. As you get toward the upper part of the river, it is full of rock ledges, and islands, and reefs of every kind. It would have been relatively shallow, a good part of it would have had just about the 9-foot draft. If a vessel got out of the channel by accident, was blown out, or on account of darkness, very much, it might have struck these submerged reefs.

In our high dam system most of the way it is much deeper, it is much wider, plenty of room for maneuvering. It is true at the upper ends of the reservoirs, for a few miles, we will have about the same narrow channel that they have all the way in the low dam system.

Then there are others. Every time the vessels go through a lock it is a delay, it consumes time, and they would have to lock through 32 dams, while we have 8 or 10 times that it is necessary to lock through.

Mr. BIDDLE. Do you know the time taken for lockage, have you estimated that?

Mr. WOODWARD. Our navigation people have.

Mr. BIDDLE. We will ask Mr. Alldredge that.

Mr. WOODWARD. I don't remember those figures. I am no authority in that particular field. Then they would have had strong currents, whenever there was much of a flood, whenever the river was high, these low dams would not affect the current very much, it would be swift at all these treacherous places and dangerous places, just as it is now.

In those high dam schemes, the high velocities will be cut down very much except for the greatest floods, when the rivers are very high. Then we may tend to have high velocity, but that will be exceedingly rare.

So we have a saving of time in travel. They can make straight sailing time in our system. It reduces the distance, it reduces the time of lockage, reduces strong currents against which they have to force themselves.

There will be less fluctuations in water levels at their terminals, so that they could land more easily. All of these considerations we think give a much more useful kind of navigation.

Mr. BIDDLE. Which of the three systems you speak of was finally recommended in the Army Engineers' report? Was one system recommended, and do you know why?

Mr. WOODWARD. Well, in the Army reports, as perhaps you know, it is customary that there are various recommendations by various authorities.

Mr. BIDDLE. Take first the district engineer.

Mr. WOODWARD. I would have to look at my notes to remember which is which,

Mr. BIDDLE. Do it your own way.

Mr. WOODWARD. There are four different authorities that make recommendations in making the Army Engineers' report. The district engineer prepares the original report. Those recommendations are printed.

It goes from the district to the division engineer. He and his staff review it and make their recommendations, which may be quite contrary to the recommendations of the district engineer.

Then it goes to Washington and is reviewed by or referred to the Board of Rivers and Harbors. They go over the material. This is a Board of their older officers, presumed to be the ablest and most experienced men, and they are quite independent and often make their engineering recommendations on quite a different basis, and finally it goes to the office of the Chief Engineer, and the Chief Engineer makes a final recommendation, which is the final one.

In this case these four recommendations all differed more or less. The final one made by the Chief of Engineers was to recommend to Congress the adoption of the low-dam plan, with apparently a kind of provision for substituting high dams, when the time for construction arrives.

Mr. BIDDLE. I don't understand that. You mean he recommended to build low dams until you begin to build them, and then you built high dams?

Mr. WOODWARD. Well, it is kind of complicated. So far as I can find out they recommended formal approval of the low dams, as a kind of measure, a fixing or adopting of a navigation improvement, and fixing or setting a price or cost.

May I tell what the Chief of Engineers at that time has since told me?

Mr. BIDDLE. You mean the chief who signed the report?

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes.

Mr. BIDDLE. Who was the chief?

Mr. WOODWARD. Gen. Lytle Brown.

Mr. BIDDLE. Yes.

Mr. WOODWARD. And he has told me since-of course he is retired now that at that time the official attitude of the Army Engineers was that they had no authority to spend any money for flood-control dams or for power, that the only thing that they could recommend under the law was navigation.

Mr. BIDDLE. Was that the reason why no flood-control considerations were taken into the picture in these recommendations?

Mr. WOODWARD. Well, the high dams were planned for flood control, but his attitude was that the Army could not spend any money for it, and so he could not recommend it to Congress under the law. Now, they had a way of getting around it in a sense, which has been fairly fully explained I think in the record, and that is that they proposed that if anybody else would build the dams, the United States would contribute the amount of the cost of the low dams so as to help the other people to build them, and they hoped somebody else would build them on such terms. And I think that was put into a later resolution of Congress, or a bill, and the Army was instructed to try to carry it out.

115943-39-pt. 11- -34

They did carry out a correspondence campaign; they wrote to everybody they thought could be interested, and tried to get people to make proposals. That is reported to Congress and printed in one of their reports. They didn't find any power company who would do that, even on those terms of the United States contributing part of the costs.

Now, since that time Congress has passed the Flood Control Act of 1936, setting forth at great length a flood-control policy, in which the United States assumes all of the authority to build flood-control projects.

Mr. BIDDLE. Was that the first Federal Flood Control Act so far as you know?

Mr. WOODWARD. That is the first specific one. A little flood control had been worked in under the guise of navigation for a good many years.

Mr. BIDDLE. This is the first out and out one?

Mr. WOODWARD. This is the first plain one, and they have liberalized that until they are paying for most of it now; in the first act they were going to pay only half. Now, the United States, as I understand it, is going to assume payment for most all of the flood control. Mr. BIDDLE. Has that changed the attitude of the Army Engineers with respect to the type of dams to be built?

Mr. WOODWARD. They have recommended since that hundreds of flood-control dams, and I think almost hundreds have been approved. Mr. BIDDLE. Are those multiple purpose, or both multiple purpose and single purpose?

Mr. WOODWARD. Most of those are just for flood control.

Mr. BIDDLE. And not navigation, or are most of them dams which are to be built on nonnavigable streams?

Mr. WOODWARD. They are to be on tributaries.

Mr. BIDDLE. They are to be on tributaries?

Mr. WOODWARD. Beyond the present limits of navigation in most cases, I think.

Mr. BIDDLE. Has the Army recommended multiple control, navigation and flood-control dams, so far as you know?

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes; on the Muskingum, I think they have recommended that project. They built it anyway. The Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District of Ohio has 13 or 14 dams, of which a considerable part of the reason for building them was to help out navigation below Zanesville on the Ohio. But the main part is flood control.

Mr. BIDDLE. Are they triple or double purpose dams?

Mr. WOODWARD. I think there is no power plant in any of those, but they do combine what they call conservation purposes; that is, low pools in perhaps half of them, I don't remember the number. They maintain a low level, which in some cases is to be used for citywater supplies, and in other cases it is for recreation and perhaps fishing, but it is not navigation in the ordinary sense.

Mr. BIDDLE. What did the district engineer recommend, of the various systems outlined in his report?

Mr. WOODWARD. Well, he recommends the approval of an improvement plan, which is based on the low-dam plans. That is what the language says. Of course, in his testimony I think in the Chattanooga case he testified at great length that he did not wish to rec

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »