Relocations:

Roads 37.5 miles ($13,014,000)

Railroads 3.0 miles ($3,221,000)

Cemeteries, Utility Lines, and

Water Supply Pump Stations ($1,823,000)

Lands and Damages:

Initial Installation: 2 units @ 35,000 kw and
1 unit @ 3,375 kw;

73,375 kw

· Ultimate Installation: 3 units @ 35,000 kw and

1 unit @ 3,375 kw; 108,375 kw

Normal average head - 62 feet

JUSTIFICATION: The areas in the vicinity of West Point, Georgia and below are subject to frequent flooding. The proposed
West Point Dam provides partial protection for about 1,170 acres containing 329 retail stores, warehouses, service estab-
lishments, dwellings, public high schools, and textile mills in the urban centers of West Point, Georgia, and Lanett,
Langdale, and Riverview, Alabama. It also provides partial protection for about 68,000 acres of rural lands and prevents
some damages to improvements at Columbus, Georgia and Phoenix City, Alabama. The February 1961 flood caused damages of
$2,950,000, of which $1,232,000 would have been prevented if the project had been in operation. The proposed initial power
installation of 73,375 kw will provide 193,000,000 kwh of energy annually which will be needed to supply the power load of
the area as soon as the project is completed. The reservoir will afford recreational opportunities for the heavily popu-
lated areas between Atlanta and Columbus, Georgia, as well as adjacent regions of Alabama.

FISCAL YEAR 1972: The requested amount of $13,300,000 will be applied to:

NON-FEDERAL COSTS: The costs allocable to power, presently estimated at $28,830,000 are reimbursable.

STATUS OF LOCAL COOPERATION: None required. The Southeastern Power Administration is responsible for marketing of the power so as to repay the cost allocated to that function.

Senator STENNIS. West Point, Ga., that is close to Macon, Ga., isn't it?

General FREE. It is right on the border between Georgia and Alabama near a little town called West Point or Lanett.

COST INCREASE

This is $86,800,000 estimated total and for future non-Federal reimbursement, $28,830,000. The benefit-cost ratio, 1.6-to-1.

The total estimated cost of this project increased by $21 million since last year, for a revised estimate of $86,800,000. What is the explanation for such a large increase at this particular stage of construction?

General FREE. There are increases of $2,043,900 for higher price levels, $5,610,000 for land based on recent appraisals, $1,005,000 for additional recreational facilities, and $721,000 for engineering and design and supervision and administration based on the work remaining. The detailed power plant estimate based on completed planning resulted in an increase of $8,471,200. Revised highway design criteria, more detailed planning and contract actions accounted for a net increase of $3,148,900.

And sir, you mentioned the benefit-to-cost ratio. The figure you have is in error. It should be 1.3.

Senator STENNIS. Instead of 1.6.

General FREE. Yes.

Senator STENNIS. Well, you have rather much the same story about these increases. They to up $21 million. It was $66 million, and they go up $21 million, that is a terrific increase.

I note that the acreage required for this project increased from 50,200 acres reported last year to 56,586 acres reported this year. For what additional purposes are these lands being acquired?

General FREE. The wildlife area amounting to 6,386 acres was advertently omitted last year, although the cost for these lands was included in the cost estimate.

Senator STENNIS. Recreation benefits increased from $873,000 reported last year to $1,982,000 this year, and the fish and wildlife benefits increased from $304,000 reported last year to $1,078,000 this year. What is the basis for such large increases in these items? This brings the benefits for fish and wildlife and recreation to almost 50 percent of the total benefits of the project.

General FREE. Actually, sir, the benefits shown for recreation should be $1,320,000 and those for Fish and Wildlife $694,000. In our reevaluation this year, we erroneously included benefits creditable to local developments on the lake. The increase results from basing these benefits on average annual attendance over the project life rather than the first 3 years.

Senator STENNIS. I note that the non-Federal costs represented by reimbursement from power increased by $2,510,000, whereas the cost of the powerplant and appurtenances increased by $9,371,000. Why wouldn't the cost allocation for power increase by a greater amount in view of this very large increase for the powerplant and appurtenances?

General FREE. During the past year we have reevaluated the recreation potential of the project and prepared a new cost allocation. The power cost to be reimbursed results from that allocation.

Senator STENNIS. Lands and damages increased more than 50 percent since last year-that is, from $10,345,000 to $15,955,000. What is the explanation for this increase?

sir.

General FREE. This is based entirely on recent land reappraisals,

Senator STENNIS. Reappraisals how long after your original appraisal, approximately a year or something like that?

General FREE. No, sir; I would think that it was several years ago. I don't have the date. I can put it in the record if you wish, sir. Senator STENNIS. Well, it would shed light on it.

(The information follows:)

The earlier appraisal of land for the West Point project was made in October 1968.

General FREE. I think one of the things that we recognize is that people are moving into these areas buying land, and this has had its effect on local land markets, and as a result, the cost of land is going up, especially in the neighborhood of prospective reservoirs.

Senator STENNIS. Well, it goes up when you announce the reservoirs, doesn't it?

General FREE. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. We would not want it to go down.

I have been bird hunting down in that country, that is why I was asking how far it was from Macon, Ga. It is mighty pretty country. What is the basis for the increase in the cost of relocations, from $14,733,000 reported last year to $18,058,000 this year?

General FREE. The increase is based on revised higher price levels, highway design criteria, more detailed planning, and contract actions. Senator STENNIS. Recreation facilities increased from $1,860,000 last year to $3,005,000 this year. What additional recreational facilities are contemplated which were not considered necessary last year? General FREE. Based on reevaluation of the recreation potential of this project, more initial development than previously planned will be needed.

Senator STENNIS. Buildings, grounds, and utilities increased by over 50 percent from last year's estimate-that is, from $393,000 to $607,000. What is the explanation for this increase?

General FREE. Higher price levels and provision of items not previously included, based on more detailed planning.

Senator STENNIS. Similarly, the cost of permanent equipment increased from $197,000 to $357,000. Have you revised your estimate of the permanent operating equipment required for this project? General FREE. This is also due to higher price levels and additional equipment based on more detailed planning.

CLAIBORNE LOCK AND DAM, Ala.

Senator STENNIS. We have some questions here now. Refer to Claiborne lock and dam, Ala. Will you complete this project with your available funds?

General FREE. Yes, sir.

APALACHICOLA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, FLA.

Senator STENNIS. Another one here, Apalachicola River channel improvement; same question.

General FREE. Yes, sir.

CROSS-FLORIDA BARGE CANAL

Senator STENNIS. Cross-Florida Barge Canal. Now, you have already had a rather full discussion of that, full to a degree. Do you want to say something more about that, General, beyond what you have said?

General FREE. No, sir, unless you have questions.

ALTERNATE ROUTE

Senator STENNIS. Well, one question here is, have you given any consideration to alternate routes for this Cross-Florida Barge Canal which would have less impact on the environment and ecology? General FREE. Yes, sir; we have.

Senator STENNIS. Discuss those, please.

General FREE. If you wish to take the time, sir, I have two slides which would assist greatly in my discussing this question. Senator STENNIS. Would you like to show them to us?

General FREE. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. Let's see the proposal.

(Whereupon a slide was shown.)

General FREE. We have considered several new plans with emphasis on the environmental and ecological aspects. The route shown on this slide is the one in the approved project. The alternate_plan that we like most deals with the portion of the route between R. N. Bert Desh lock and the Eureka lock. No work has been done on this reach.

I will now move to the next slide, which shows this reach on a larger scale.

(Whereupon a new slide was shown.)

General FREE. Shown are the essential features of the alternate alinement. It extends along the northwest side of the Oklawaha River from just below Silver Springs Run to the Eureka lock and dam. And it would be at a distance of several hundred feet to a mile or two from the Oklawaha River.

Spoil from the canal excavation would be used to construct a continuous levee on the Oklawaha River side of the canal.

The entire structure with its associated smaller pool shown in red would be within lands required for the previously considered Eureka pool. The part of the former Eureka pool colored in yellow would be untouched.

The levee would extend from the Eureka Dam to Delks Bluff East just downstream of State Road 40.

A spillway and a small lock for recreation boats would be located. in the tieback levee below State Road 40 bridge.

These two features would be provided to sustain the natural flow in the river, to control stages in the barge canal, and to maintain the Oklawaha River navigation.