Data on relocations and lands for 182 projects comprising fiscal year 1951 program [Only those projects in fiscal year 1951 program, which involve relocations and land acquisitions are listed] Data on relocations and lands for 182 projects comprising fiscal year 1951 program-Continued 1 Cherry Valley project being constructed by local interests with Federal contribution based on proportionate benefit allocation of cost of Jacksonville Reservoir project which will not be needed under local interests' development. 2 Prior to enactment of the 1938 Flood Control Act, the Federal Government did not bear the cost of relocations. The 1938 act, and the subsequent 1941, 1944, and 1946 acts, placed this burden on the Federal Government. This may be a partial explanation of why the Corps of Engineers failed in some cases to make any allowance whatever for relocations in the authorization estimates. The fact remains, however, that during the same period of time, also covered by these acts, the Corps on a majority of the projects made an allowance for relocations in the authorization estimates. 3 Not available. Mr. DONNELLY. This schedule shows all projects of the 182 now under construction involving relocations and lands. The underestimate in the survey report for relocations is 177 percent, and the underestimate in the survey report for lands is 123 percent in cost, and 42 percent in acreage. With respect to the lands, let me invite the committee's attention to the McNary Dam which was authorized in 1945. The lands have increased in cost 815 percent and in acreage 285 percent, when the land-acquisition program was only 27 percent complete. Mr. KERR. What percentage of that land was secured by action of the court? Mr. DONNELLY. I do not know how much they had to condemn, Judge; but you will notice that they had to increase their acreage. The dollars and cents involved in condemnation is one thing. That would affect the increase in cost, but the acreage has increased 285 percent. Mr. KERR. What was the cost for the acreage? Mr. DONNELLY. I do not know what it would be in cost. We did not have that information. Mr. KERR. A large percentage of that cost was due to a judgment of the court. Mr. DONNELLY. That may be true, of course, but it would not be true of the increase in acreage. INADEQUACY OF SURVEY REPORT AS A BASIS FOR APPROPRIATION OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS Now, General, all these figures that are now before the Committee were taken from the survey reports which were printed up as congressional documents. The corps has told the committee in the past few months that the survey report estimating for lands is inadequate. Do Do you have any comment you want to make on that, sir? General PICK. That our process of estimating the amount of land required is inadequate? Mr. DONNELLY. That the estimate in a survey report for a project for the land item is an inadequate estimate. General PICK. You mean in any survey report? Mr. DONNELLY. Well, in almost every survey report in the 182 projects now under construction. General PICK. If I follow these figures here, it looks like it; yes. Mr. DONNELLY. Yes, sir. Now, General, cannot the planning be advanced for the benefit of this committee and crystallized into a more advanced report, which we might call a planning report, before the corps asks this committee for initial construction funds? General PICK. There are so many figures here I have not been able to see exactly what is in front of me, but on the question which you are going into now, Mr. Donnelly, if there has been an increase in the amount of land to be acquired I feel sure that that was included on the data sheet that was presented to Congress the year that that increase was determined, with an explanation to the committee why. In other words, if there has been a 20 percent increase in the acreage on the data sheet, that has been given to the committee each year |