Mr. BIDDLE. I mean, predictable in the knowledge that it would come at a certain time each year; that could not be predicted.

Mr. WOODWARD. It varies a good deal. Now, our Tennessee floods, ordinarily, are all pretty much past in advance of those floods, but not always. Sometimes they time fairly closely together. The Tennessee is a part of the Ohio system, of course, and the same big storms that produce floods in Ohio, tend to produce floods in the Tennessee, but the Tennessee is a lot shorter river and the rain gets to the lower part of our valley earlier than up in the upper Ohio Valley, so that our floods tend to run out ahead of the Ohio River floods.

Mr. BIDDLE. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman DONAHEY. Mr. Wolverton, can you give us the amount of time that you will need?

Representative WOLVERTON. It is a little difficult, but I don't think that I will take more time than has been taken by Mr. Biddle, and maybe not as much.

Mr. WOODWARD. May I make one additional remark, Mr. Chairman? I have been advised by my associate, the lock at Wheeler Dam was started by the Army Engineers about a year before the Tennessee Valley Authority was created, and that lock was planned for a high dam and was being built for a high dam when we were created, and when the Tennessee Valley Authority was created, drawings and designs for a high dam at the Wheeler Dam were being prepared in the division engineer's office at St. Louis. I think no appropriation had been made, but apparently the Army was expecting to have the money, and, of course, they were also at work on the Norris Dam designs and had made a definite start on them although they had no definite appropriation, but they were expecting it to be made so that would be built as a high dam, much the same as we built it, so that the Army engineers were actually planning to build at least two of these high dams when we were created.

QUESTION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION ALLOCABLE TO FLOOD CONTROL

Representative WOLVERTON. How much has been expended for flood control by the T. V. A.?

Mr. WOODWARD. I am not a very good one to answer, because I don't pay very much attention to the budget details. We have officers especially for that. Of course, I can look up the allocation if you want for the three dams.

Representative WOLVERTON. I assume that you being head of the department of water control, and set forth on the map that was presented to us the other day by Colonel Parker, that you would be the appropriate person to inform the committee as to the amount that has been expended for flood control and how much is contemplated to be spent to fulfill the program that you have laid out. Mr. WOODWARD. Well, may I explain; Guntersville Dam and Chickamauga Dam and Hiwassee Dam are roughly half finished, in some intermediate state, but I don't have any knowledge as to how much has been spent on those dams to date, because I don't scrutinize these annual budgets during the construction period; that is entirely outside of my field.

Representative WOLVERTON. Well, you have been head of the department that has planned this system of flood control with respect to which you have been testifying. Under those circumstances, isn't it possible for you to indicate what your estimate of cost is for the complete system?

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes, sir; I suppose I ought to be able to look it up and I will be glad to try to. We make an estimate of the cost of each dam in our preliminary plans and make it as accurately as we can. We do not have full knowledge of a lot of contingencies that arise. and I suspect that the final cost varies, sometimes higher and sometimes lower than our estimates, but after we have made those estimates and made the report, I don't pay any attention to it after that.

Representative WOLVERTON. I have understood from your testimony that you knew the probable cost of carrying out the plan that had been laid down by the Army Engineers, or the several plans, in their report of 1930, and that you also had some idea of the cost of the plan that was suggested by Mr. Kurtz in his testimony. Now, that being the case, if you have some knowledge of what others have estimated, the cost of their particular plans or method, would it be possible for you to inform this committee as to how much your plans will cost?

Mr. WOODWARD. Well, I will try to look it up if you want; and, of course, I can easily look up the estimates given in what we call the unified report, that of March 1936-do you ask originally for the amount of cost of flood control? I can tell you that I think the allocation to flood control in what we call the "10-plant system."

Representative WOLVERTON. Well, suppose that you give me that information, and then I can see if that covers the situation that I am inquiring about.

Mr. WOODWARD. For the 10-dam system, 10 dams and reservoirs, out of a total estimated cost of $407,000,000, $99,000,000 has been tentatively allocated to flood control.

Representative WOLVERTON. Will you explain to the committee how that figure of $99,000,000 out of $407,000,000 was arrived at?

Mr. WOODWARD. I think it has already been explained that this allocation was prepared at the request of your committee's engineers. Now, although I had knowledge it was being made, I gave almost no attention to it while it was being made. I could much better explain the allocation of the three-plant system, where I followed that work for a long time very closely. The method, I think, was the same.

Representative WOLVERTON. I am interested in knowing how much has been spent in providing flood control, by T. V. A., and how much it contemplates spending to complete the system. I am not anxious to confine it to just three enterprises. I am interested in this whole unified system that has been testified to so frequently.

Mr. WOODWARD. Well, now, of course, this amount stated here is not what we expect to be the total spent for flood control, if we include these additional reservoirs for the protection of Chattanooga.

Representative WOLVERTON. The answer which you have just given seems to relate to the report which, you say, was prepared by the committee's own engineers. I am not familiar with that report, and I didn't know that such had been prepared, and I didn't know such was available.

Mr. WOODWARD. It was not prepared by your committee's engineers, as I understand, but prepared by our staff for them at their direct request, and they may have assisted in it and advised in it. I think that my staff worked with them very harmoniously and did everything that we could to help them.

Representative WOLVERTON. The explanation that you have just given cleared the situation somewhat. I understand that the figure of $99,000,000 out of the $407,000,000 is the amount that was reported by the T. V. A. engineers to the engineers, Mr. Panter and his assistants, who are in the employ in this committee.

Mr. WOODWARD. That is my understanding.

Representative WOLVERTON. Now, that was $99,000,000, as I understand it.

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes.

Representative WOLVERTON. Do I understand you, as head of the flood control division, having nothing to do with making those figures up?

Mr. WOODWARD. That is true, that personally I didn't assist in those in any way. I knew that they were being made by the same men on my staff and helped make our computations.

Representative WOLVERTON. Were you not called in to the consultation?

Mr. WOODWARD. I can't recall. I probably knew that they were using exactly the same methods that we followed in the report that was made to Congress of the allocation of the three-plant system.

Representative WOLVERTON. I am not interested from the standpoint of what you may have supposed, as their basis, but I am asking you for definite information. I look upon you as the head of the department of flood control, the last word, so to speak, with the exception of probably the Board of Directors of T. V. A. Now, you, as the head man of flood control. I am asking you how much has been expended for flood control by T. V. A. and how much do you contemplate spending?

Mr. WOODWARD. I am sorry, but I have to say that we do not separate the funds at all for any dam that is partly built. We only consider the total; and under the law, after every dam is finished, and we know the total, then we are to report or distribute that the best we can; but I haven't regarded it as my duty to make distributions before we know the total, and in this case we were just trying to help your staff by making some figures for them, and I didn't think it was necessary for me to give any detailed attention to it.

Representative WOLVERTON. But surely, as the head of a department, a very important department, if we are to judge by the arguments that are made before the Supreme Court to sustain the legality of the activities of T. V. A., it would seem to me that as the head of a department you would know how much had been expended for the particular work that is under your control and how much you contemplate will have to be spent.

Now, if you don't know it, how does it happen that somebody else under you makes up a report that they submit to our engineers?

Mr. WOODWARD. They make the best estimate that they can. This estimate includes 5 or 6 years in advance of the present, and of course it is predicated upon assuming that congressional appropriations will continue.

Representative WOLVERTON. Certainly.

Mr. WOODWARD. And

Representative WOLVERTON. You have testified today to a plan that is already in existence, partially completed, and that which is to be

completed in the next 5 or 6 years; both in your testimony and in your answer to the questions of our counsel, Mr. Biddle, you have indicated that there is a fixed scheme that is now unfolding, and will be completed within the next 5 or 6 years. Aren't you, as the head of the department that has charge of the flood-control portion of that program, able to tell us of your own knowledge how much has been expended or how much is to be expended?

Mr. WOODWARD. I am no more in charge of the flood control than of the navigation part of it, I suppose, and I have perfect confidence that this estimate, these figures that I have given you, are as good as anyone can estimate now. I am perfectly willing to accept them from my staff as being the best estimate available.

Representative WOLVERTON. I would assume, as head of the department, you would be willing to all I am asking is information that will enable the committee to see whether they have the same confidence in those figures that you have. I am not trying to destroy your confidence in the figures of your own department, but I think that the committee should have that information so that they may determine whether they have confidence in those figures or not.

Mr. WOODWARD. We submitted them to Mr. Panter, with all of the information that we could give him, so that he could make that study for you, under you, any way it is possible to help you.

Representative WOLVERTON. The committee hasn't had any report from Mr. Panter as yet, and I don't know when we will. I assume that eventually we will receive such a report. If I had that report, maybe I could ask the questions a bit more intelligently, but aside from that, it would seem to me that in view of the fact that your department, the department of which you are the head, has prepared these figures for the benefit of this committee, and that you have confidence in them as they have been prepared, that we ought to be able to obtain from you the information that your Department had that enabled them to make up these figures.

Mr. WOODWARD. If you want, I am willing to submit them and all of the explanations that I can make.

EXPLANATION OF FLOOD-CONTROL FIGURES

Representative WOLVERTON. Well, if you will just answer my question, you could probably give it to us in shorter form than we would be able to do in reading your report. I understood you to say that $99,000,000 of an eventual expense of $407,000,000 was allocated to flood control. How was that figure of $99,000,000 made up?

Mr. WOODWARD. It is the sum of two figures, one of about $34,000,000 and the other about $65,000,000. The $34,000,000 is the sum of direct expenditures at the various dams for the benefit of flood control.

The $65,000,000 comes from an allocation of what we call the common expenditures—that is, dams and reservoirs that are used for all three of the major purposes-and we go through a somewhat complicated system of distributing that to the three purposes; that is called the allocation of the common costs.

Representative WOLVERTON. Now, I understand from what you have just said that you added together two figures, one of $34,000,000 and one of $65,000,000. I can figure out what that amounts to, when you add them together, but it doesn't give me the information as to how it is made up; there isn't anything that you have said that

would indicate to the committee how the $34,000,000 was arrived at or how the $65,000,000 was arrived at.

Mr. WOODWARD. Yes; I stated that just as the first step, because now those two figures can be explained separately.

Representative WOLVERTON. That is the first step. Now, let us take up the $34,000,000. How is that made up?

Mr. WOODWARD. The first figure I named, or the first subtotal of $34,000,000, is made up as the sum of six separate figures, referring to six separate dams.

Representative WOLVERTON. Could you give those figures, applying to particular dams?

Mr. WOODWARD. Before, I left off the thousands, and now they are becoming smaller, and I will give you the complete figures:

At Norris Dam-this column is entitled "The direct flood-control costs."

At Norris Dam, $2,600,000; Hiwassee Dam, $256,000; Coulter Shoals, $2,060,000; Chickamauga, $1,152,000; Pickwick Dam, $1,194,000; Gilbertsville Dam, $26,499,000.

And the total, as given here, is $33,663,000.

Representative WOLVERTON. Does that figure of $33,663,000 cover what has been spent and what is to be spent?

Mr. WOODWARD. On the 10-dam system, as we call it. You notice before I called it $34,000,000; I took the nearest million, so as to make the total come out $99,000,000.

Representative WOLVERTON. You speak of that as a 10-dam project. I notice that you enumerated six dams to make up that $33,763,000. If that is the case, why do you not include the other four dams to make it a 10-dam proposition?

Mr. WOODWARD. Because at the other four there was no separate part of the cost of the dam and reservoir that we could pick out and say definitely was built solely for flood control. At other dams it was all in common, or applied to navigation or power.

Representative WOLVERTON. Now, what were the four dams that you were not able to allocate specific amounts to?

Mr. WOODWARD. Watts Bar, Guntersville, Wheeler, and Wilson. Representative WOLVERTON. Then do I understand that with respect to the last four mentioned dams that it isn't possible to figure in dollars and cents their value or even cost for flood-control purposes?

Mr. WOODWARD. That is not the conclusion to draw from these figures. There was no part of the dam that we could say was used solely for flood control and is no use for navigation or power. If it had a use for flood control, and also for either navigation or power, then it is thrown into the quantity that we call the common costs to be distributed.

Representative WOLVERTON. Well, the fact remains that you are not able to identify any particular amount for flood control with respect to Watts Bar, Guntersville, Wheeler, or Wilson Dams.

Mr. WOODWARD. Well, we have; some of the costs of those dams are used for flood control. When you said no part of the cost was to be allocated to flood control, that is not the way I would say it. I would say that there is no separate part of the dam that we can pick out separately from the rest of the dam, and say it is used for flood control, but part of the total cost is used for flood control.