Hearings

I think that the Lord or someone was aware of these drought hearings, General, and provided Tuesday's rain. But as you know, the area received more than 4 inches of rain on Tuesday one of the hardest hit areas was Alexandria, for 500 or 1,000 people were forced to leave their homes at the height of the storm.

The Mayor of Alexandria has estimated damage in the city between $2 and $3 millions and has asked the Federal Government to declare Alexandria a disaster area.

I understand the source of the problem in Alexandria is the overflow of Four Mile Run, which crested at 19 feet. Seven times in the last 27 years this has happened, resulting in serious property damage. Prior to Tuesday's flood, which I believe is the worst on record, the most serious damage occurred in 1963, when there were losses estimated at about $1.8 million. As a result of this flood history, and the failure to take steps to prevent it, many businessmen in Alexandria are unable to secure insurance.

Now, I understand there has been under study for some time now a project to provide new culvert levies and a wider channel for Four Mile Run, so this flooding problem can be avoided. I would like to ask why the Corps of Engineers has not been able to move more expeditiously on this. I would also like to ask when the report will be ready for the Congress on this matter.

I find it somewhat ironic that at a drought hearing we should be talking about floods, but I cannot help but take advantage of this opportunity when you are here to ask you these questions.

General CLARKE. Senator, I am sure you are aware we have studied that project on many occasions. The problem in each of the previous studies has been to try to show that the cost or the value of the damages that have occurred during these floods was greater than it would cost the Federal Government and the city combined to put in the preventive measures.

It is only this recent study, which is now in the hands of the District and our North Atlantic Division, that this is the first study that has come up and said it is economically feasible to provide a solution there. Senator SPONG. This has a favorable cost-benefit analysis? General CLARKE. Barely, sir.

Senator SPONG. One to 1.6; is that it?

Colonel LOVE. No, 1.16.

General CLARKE. And, of course, we are also having problems, Senator, as you know, with the interest rates on which we have to compete. These are going up a quarter of a percent a year, but we think this will still stay marginally above one. This is the state of the project at this

time.

If that project moves through with all these proper acceptances, it should be ready for the omnibus bill next year. The normal processing now would be from the Division to the Corps of Engineers for rivers and harbors for people to make known their views on it, to the Chief of Engineers, and then to the interested Federal agencies and the State for their views, and this would take it about the end of the year, or early next year to the Congress.

And if everything goes right, it should be ready for the omnibus bill next year. That would mean probably funding the following year. This has been the normal practice of Congress in these respects.

General CLARKE. Yes, sir. This presents, I suppose, administrative difficulties in separating out this package and then going back to the Governors involved to see what their views are. If we take the report which they have now pretty well all agreed upon and break it up into another package, they may have different views.

I would not know how to predict what they might say in that case, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. When are you going to get the proposal to the Congress?

General CLARKE. We would hope, again, as in the case of our Dalecarlia project, this would be for the Congress next year.

The CHAIRMAN. The Maryland delegation held a hearing on the Sixes Bridge project some 2 years ago. Sixes Bridge in a sense is being held up for the rest; is that not it?

General CLARKE. I have never thought of it in that way, sir. I always think of them moving along together as a package.

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but there is no reason why the Sixes Bridge itself could not have come up last year if it was not a part of the package.

General CLARKE. As far as I know, there was little or no objection to it on the part of anyone.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any others of that six reservoir project that are not sources of controversy which can stand on their own feet as the Sixes Bridge?

General CLARKE. Verona, apparently, has no problems, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Those two could go ahead, in a sense, free of controversy or free of major attack.

I think then, from your own testimony, it is very obvious that we could face a very critical problem if not this year, certainly in the next several years. I would certainly encourage you and I am going to write a letter to the Chief, too, asking the Corps to go ahead and move those two projects. I realize you want to keep them in a package, but I am afraid we cannot wait. This is too crucial a problem.

We have 1.250 million people in Maryland supplied by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and they draw their water out of the Potomac, and if anything happens to that they are in bad straits. Now let me ask you another question. Senator Spong referred to your emergency plant, which you demonstrated here, which I think makes sense. I think it is the Fosdick report that really brought this into public focus. The Fosdick report emphasizes that the emergency technique of withdrawal from the estuary might be a steady source of water for the Washington metropolitan region. Does it not?

General CLARKE. Yes, sir, with some qualifications.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be helpful for this committee, in its oversight of the continuing problem of the water supply for the Washington metropolitan region, if the Corps of Engineers would submit as a part of the record of these hearings an in-depth analysis of and comment on the Fosdick report.

In other words, I would like to have for the record and for future hearings the Corps professional comment on the Fosdick proposal. I think it would be very helpful for the committee and the members of this committee, many of whom serve on the Public Works Committee, as well.

34-732 0-69 -2

Could you do that for us?

General CLARKE. We will supply it for the record, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I would appreciate it because I think unquestionably we are going to hold more hearings on this particular subject, because water supply is of vital concern to the whole region.

COMMENTS ON THE "FOSDICK REPORT"

In commenting upon the "Fosdick Report,"1 its purpose should first be noted. It has apparently been assumed by many persons that the report is a firm proposal for the use of the Potomac Estuary as a source of water supply. Mr. Fosdick, however, recognized the limitations of his study as the following paragraph from his report indicates:

"A preliminary study has been made of the technical and economic feasibility of using fresh water (not salt) found in natural storage in the Potomac River Estuary to supply the emergency requirements of the Washington Metropolitan Region (hereinafter called the Region) for municipal water that arise during low flow periods of the river. This study is primarily for the purpose of indicating whether use of water from the Estuary for this purpose has sufficient merit to subsequently justify a complete feasibility study by a Government agency or a firm of consulting engineers." The Corps of Engineers has for many years been interested in the estuary as a possible source of municipal water supply and Mr. Fosdick's preliminary study addresses this potential. Mr. Fosdick's report finds generally that:

"There seems to be no doubt that the Potomac River Estuary contains an adequate amount of fresh water to supply all the emergency requirements of the Region for municipal water that will arise during the low flow periods of the river in the period studied herein."

While Mr. Fosdick's 1968 report presents no valid comparisons of the costs of using the estuary or alternative sources to meet the Region's municipal water supply requirements, it does present comparative costs on single purpose facilities for use of the estuary and the overall costs of multiple-purpose reservoirs and on this basis implies an economic advantage for the use of the estuary. The report also found in a general manner that pollutants in the estuary waters can be reduced to a satisfactory level using means now available. In summary, Mr. Fosdick's preliminary study finds that the Potomac esuary has sufficient potential as a water supply source for the region to warrant detailed study. This conclusion is consistent with the following views of the Chief of Engineers as expressed in his report of 26 February 1969 on the Potomac River Basin."

"In view of the highly complex physical and biological nature of the upper estuary and the need for a better understanding of the numerous variables involved in its safe use as a supplemental source of water, further detailed study should be undertaken by the Corps of Engineers in coordination with other Federal agencies, the States of Maryland and Virginia, the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments to quantify and qualify the precise potential of the upper estuary as a future source of water supply for the Metropolitan Washington Area. * * *” The following detailed comments on the Fosdick Report will be concerned with such matters as costs, storage capacity, and water quality and will serve to emphasize the need for further detailed study of the estuary.

As far as costs are concerned, there is no real basis for comparing those presented in the Fosdick Report with the cost of upstream storage. The impoundments proposed by the Corps of Engineers would provide not only water for the Washington Metropolitan Area, but water supply for upstream communities, low flow augmentation for water quality and water surface for recreation opportunities. Abandonment of the reservoirs in favor of the estuary would require the development of additional projects for these purposes. The cost of providing these facilities should be included when economic comparisons of alternative sources are made.

Conclusions in the Fosdick Report were based on a maximum water demand for the Washington Metropolitan Area of 1600 million gallons daily (mgd) in

1 "The Potomac River Estuary as a Supplemental Source of Municipal Water for the Washington Metropolitan Region." by Ellery R. Fosdick. January 1968.

"Potomac River Basin, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and District of Columbia" by Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, 26 February 1969.