ulation. The region's population, including Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, Maryland, is now 2.6 million people. By 1985 it will be 4.5 million. By the year 2000, the population of the National Capital region will be over 7 million people-almost three times as many people as are here today.

Yet the size of our great Potomac River remains the same. The amount of water we can withdraw from the river does not increase. Estimates are that by 1985 the maximum demand on a hot day for water withdrawal from the Potomac will be approximately 1 billion gallons per day. Yet the river often flows well beneath this demand. In fact, the demand has once already threatened to exceed the supply. In 1966 the Potomac flow dipped to 374 million gallons per day during a period when daily withdrawal of demand frequently reached 381 million gallons per day. Fortunately, peak demand and low flow did not occur on the same day, at the same time, but this high demand, low-flow crisis is indicative of what could happen now and could certainly happen in the future given the fantastic population growth of our region, unless we plan and act now to provide additional water supply.

Millions of people, indeed hundreds of thousands of Marylanders depend upon the Potomac River for their water supply. Household users in Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties, Fairfax County, Va., as well as the District of Columbia, depend on the increasingly inadequate Potomac for water supply.

The consequences of inaction, further delay, are simply unacceptable. In addition to the obvious hazards to public safety which inadequate water pressure to fight fire poses, the National Capital region's residents can lose millions of dollars in landscaping and wildlife resources if the river cannot provide sufficient water during the summer months. It is my hope that these hearings will contribute to an understanding of the present and future needs of water supply in the National Capital region and accelerate the efforts required to insure that these needs

are met.

As I say again, I am very grateful to General Clarke, Colonel Love, Secretary Smith, Commissioner Francois and our other witnesses for being here on such short notice.

I do appreciate it, gentlemen.

At this time, let me put some insertions in the record.

I have material relating to the hearing which will be inserted into the appendix of the record at this time.

(The material referred to may be found in the appendix.)

The CHAIRMAN. At this time we would like to call Major General Clarke, Deputy Chief of Engineers, and such associates as he wishes to accompany him.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. F. J. CLARKE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY COL. WILLIAM J. LOVE, DISTRICT ENGINEER OF BALTIMORE, AND NORMAN JACKSON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT, AND CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL SANITARY ADVISORY BOARD, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

General CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement and with your permission I would like to get into it.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine, please proceed.

General CLARKE. I am Maj. Gen. F. J. Clarke, Deputy Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. I am accompanied by members of my staff, Col. W. J. Love, District Engineer at Baltimore, and members of his staff.

And with me at the table are Colonel Love and Mr. Dan Watt, who is the superintendent of the Washington aqueduct system.

For water supply to the District of Columbia, the Corps of Engineers has the responsibility of collecting and purifying water for delivery to the District of Columbia distribution system, and has jurisdiction over facilities, known as the Washington aqueduct, including dams, conduits, reservoirs, filtration plants, and part of the pumping system.

The distribution system division, consisting of trunk mains and secondary distribution mains and certain high service reservoirs and pumping stations, is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Sanitary Engineering of the District of Columbia.

The entire system is funded out of the District of Columbia water fund in the U.S. Treasury. Under the provisions of chapter 15, title 43, District of Columbia Code, the income derived from the water users is deposited in the water fund. This fund is used exclusively for operation, maintenance, and improvement of the water system. The District of Columbia is authorized to accept loans from the U.S. Treasury, not to exceed a total of $35 million, to finance the improvement and expansion of the system when sufficient funds are not available from the water fund. This authority has been essentially fully used.

The Washington aqueduct system relies on the Potomac River flow as a source of raw water for supplying treated water to the District of Columbia and certain Virginia communities. Withdrawals from the Potomac are also made by the city of Rockville, Md., and by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission which supplies the Maryland suburban portion of Metropolitan Washington. Maximum combined withdrawals by these users this summer should fall somewhere

between 390 and 425 million gallons per day. Peak withdrawal in 1966 was 381 million gallons per day. The highest withdrawal to date, 396 million gallons per day, occurred on June 29, 1969.

The supply of water through Washington aqueduct facilities is dependent entirely upon the day-to-day volume of flow in the Potomac River above the Little Falls Dam. Diversions by the city of Rockville and the WSSC take place above this point. During periods of prolonged drought which occur on occasion from July to November, when demands are greatest, the natural flow in the lower Potomac River threatens to fall below the diversion capacity level. This occurred in 1966 and, although somewhat alleviated by the very recent rains, it is a real possibility later this year. If the recession curve follows a pattern which has evolved in the past from light to moderate rainfall in the most recent Weather Bureau forecast, the supply should be adequate until well into September, but cannot now be assured beyond that time.

Under these circumstances, it is considered not only prudent but necessary that possible emergency means of augmenting the supply be fully explored.

Just prior to the drought experienced in 1966

The CHAIRMAN. The drought in 1966, was that in September and October, do you recall?

General CLARKE. It occurred that year in August and September. Just prior to the drought experienced in 1966, an analysis was made of several alternative means of providing additional water for the metropolitan area on an emergency basis during drought conditions. These alternatives have again been reviewed and we confirm our prior conclusion that the only practicable temporary expedient is to utilize the fresh waters that accumulate in the upper estuary of the Potomac River at times when the natural flows exceed water supply withdrawals. The upper estuary of the Potomac River below Little Falls is a source of accumulated fresh water of limited amounts that can be used to supplement the natural flow at Little Falls intake. Pumping from the estuary to the Little Falls reservoir could be achieved temporarily by hydraulic dredge or barge-mounted booster pumps located near Chain Bridge, pumping water through a 27-inch diameter pipeline, approximately 111⁄2 miles long generally following the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. This plant could deliver water at a rate of 50 million gallons per day, about one-eighth of peak requirement, and an amount permitting reasonable admixture with natural river flows within existing plant treatment capability. It is also a rate which would deplete the fresh and moderately clean water of the upper estuary slowly enough to provide water of acceptable quality for at least 60 days. The cost over such a 60-day period would be about $1 million. The firm of Engineering Science, Inc., of Arcadia, Calif., with branch offices in Washington, has been engaged for the purpose of determining to what extent water meeting U.S. Public Health Center standards might be pumped from the estuary.

The following other preliminary actions have already been taken by the Baltimore District:

(a) Plans and specifications have been prepared for procuring adequate pumping equipment.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. F. J. CLARKE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY COL. WILLIAM J. LOVE, DISTRICT ENGINEER OF BALTIMORE, AND NORMAN JACKSON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT, AND CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL SANITARY ADVISORY BOARD, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

General CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement and with your permission I would like to get into it.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine, please proceed.

General CLARKE. I am Maj. Gen. F. J. Clarke, Deputy Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. I am accompanied by members of my staff, Col. W. J. Love, District Engineer at Baltimore, and members of his staff.

And with me at the table are Colonel Love and Mr. Dan Watt, who is the superintendent of the Washington aqueduct system.

For water supply to the District of Columbia, the Corps of Engineers has the responsibility of collecting and purifying water for delivery to the District of Columbia distribution system, and has jurisdiction over facilities, known as the Washington aqueduct, including dams, conduits, reservoirs, filtration plants, and part of the pumping system.

The distribution system division, consisting of trunk mains and secondary distribution mains and certain high service reservoirs and pumping stations, is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Sanitary Engineering of the District of Columbia.

The entire system is funded out of the District of Columbia water fund in the U.S. Treasury. Under the provisions of chapter 15, title 43, District of Columbia Code, the income derived from the water users is deposited in the water fund. This fund is used exclusively for operation, maintenance, and improvement of the water system. The District of Columbia is authorized to accept loans from the U.S. Treasury, not to exceed a total of $35 million, to finance the improvement and expansion of the system when sufficient funds are not available from the water fund. This authority has been essentially fully used.

The Washington aqueduct system relies on the Potomac River flow as a source of raw water for supplying treated water to the District of Columbia and certain Virginia communities. Withdrawals from the Potomac are also made by the city of Rockville, Md., and by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission which supplies the Maryland suburban portion of Metropolitan Washington. Maximum combined withdrawals by these users this summer should fall somewhere

nished the interested States and agencies in 1964 for review and comment, and received wide public attention.

During the review period, the President, in his message on "Natural Beauty" on February 8, 1965, asked the Secretary of the Interior to review the corps plan of development and prepare a program for the Potomac to serve as a model of scenic and recreation values for the entire country. The Federal agencies, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, the Basin States and the District of Columbia worked together in a formal task force to accomplish this new programing effort. Further action on the corps 1963 plan was delayed pending findings of the Secretary on the model plan for the Potomac.

As part of these activities, alternative means of meeting basin needs, including project elements contained in the 1963 corps studies, were reviewed and the most feasible measures for the preservation of scenic and cultural values and opportunities to serve immediately foreseen water supply and related needs were identified. Six reservoir projects were thus identified. Additional programs for presentation of scenic, recreational, cultural, and natural values are identified in the Secretary of the Interior's report, "The Nation's River."

The overall plan, as presently conceived, consists of 18 major dam and reservoir projects. To preserve maximum flexibility, our recommendations for construction of water resources developments, at this time, address immediately foreseeable basin problems. These include Washington's water supply for about a 20-year period. Solutions to these problems are approached in a manner consistent with the scenic and recreational model program envisioned for the basin. The reservoir projects identified as a direct system solution and their indicated order of priority are: Sixes Bridge, Verona at Staunton, Town Creek, North Mountain, Sideling Hill and Little Cacapon. Some of these projects, including the Sixes Bridge project, could be supported on an individual basis, and each would help to alleviate the water supply problem. All of these constructed under a very favorable schedule, will greatly improve the water supply situation, but will probably not provide projected maximum water supply requirements plus the 390 million gallons per day needed for other water resource needs. Our report on the Potomac River is currently in process in accordance with established procedures.

Our best hopes for the 6 to 10 years then, are for normal rainfall and runoff. These cannot be depended upon. The drought which faces us now will certainly recur again and perhaps more than once during the period before water storage to supplement low flows can be provided.

Incidentally, the low-flow augmentation also to be provided by any suitable reservoir plan serves the multiple purpose of water supply use at upstream and intermediate areas. When water is withdrawn in the Washington area, however, it is lost for this purpose in the immediate capital area, being returned to the estuary in the form, hopefully, of fully treated sewage downstream of the city.

A long-range study for the Potomac River Basin is included in the Northeastern United States water supply investigation program, which we call NEWS, which will be submitted to the Congress when completed.