Mr. DONNELLY. And is that planning that is done put in any kind of a formal document?

General PICK. No more so than any other request for funds which goes into the civil-works budget.

Mr. DONNELLY. Now, the plans which result from the funds, are they put in formal document?

General PICK. It is put in-is included in the budget.

Mr. DONNELLY. After you get the planning funds, are your engineers out in the field directed to make a report on the basis of their estimate of the cost, and is that report not put in some formal document?

General PICK. Well, the district engineer gets money, and he works up a project study and gets the plans and specifications prepared, preparatory to advertising the works; to that extent, there is a working arrangement.

Mr. DONNELLY. Let me ask you this question: whether the Corps of Engineers has not administratively prescribed the procedure requiring a definite project report to close the gap in planning between the survey report and the appropriation of initial construction funds? General PICK. We have

Mr. DONNELLY. The Corps initiated that procedure in 1936, I understand.

General PICK. We have, and we have at the present time that system in effect on the particular features of work that are being considered with funds available. That has been furnished the committee in accordance with instructions, the wording of which I cannot quote verbatim. I know we have a copy somewhere.

Mr. DONNELLY. I have here a copy of the regulations

General PICK. Whatever it says. I cannot quote the exact words.

BASIS FOR APPROPRIATION OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDS

Mr. DONNELLY. Now, General, will the definite project report provide a sound cost estimate for the total cost of the projects, upon which initial appropriation can be made?

General PICK. No; no. If we were to make a definite project report for a project in Arkansas today, that would be based upon the conditions and the cost, the conditions as found today, and the costs as found today. It would, to that extent, be a report of the cost of the work. It would not foresee changes which would have to be made on the work after it starts, and also developments which might take place on a large job, nor does it take into account any increase in the price. Other than that, it would be a fair estimate of what the work was going to cost.

Mr. DONNELLY. Now, General, will not the cost estimate contained in the definite project report provide this committee with a better cost estimate for a project than the survey report?

General PICK. Yes; the survey report estimate, as a general rule, from the time the resolution is passed for a survey until we come to Congress for funds to build the project, will run 4 or 5 years. I guess it will average 5 or 6 years.

Mr. DONNELLY. So that there is a lapse of 5 or 6 years between the survey report and the appropriation of the initial construction funds? General PICK. I think so.

Mr. DONNELLY. General, is it not true that the survey report often does not adequately develop the engineering problems in a project?

General Pick. In the past, I have considered that it did not, and when I became Chief of Engineers one of the first things that I did was to issue instructions to the field and to my office that the engineering division of my office and in the districts and divisions take part in the planning and on the work of working up the estimates. I think they are much better now.

INFORMATION ON COST OF PROJECTS FURNISHED TO

APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr. DONNELLY. Well, even if the survey reports are much better today, will the survey reports provide this committee with sound cost estimates upon which to appropriate initial construction funds?

General PICK. Not necessarily so. Each year, when the Chief of Engineers and the staff come before the committee in support of the budget, we bring to the committee the up-to-date information on the projects for which we are asking funds. This material—we call them data sheets-has been worked out with the committee over a period of years. The sheets have been changed. They contain much more information now than a few years ago and before the war. We use them when we appear at the hearings of the committee, and then, from that, plus other testimony, the committee gets the latest information upon the project which we are asking funds for in the budget.

In addition to that, we furnish testimony on each of the projects to the extent which the committee desires to go into the questions. I believe that is about the present procedure.

Mr. DONNELLY. Well, General, may I ask you this question: Do you feel that the present procedure of furnishing data and information to this appropriation committee is sufficient to enable the committee to decide whether or not to appropriate funds for the construction of a project?

General PICK. I do not know; I cannot speak for the committee. We have always furnished the committee with all the information they have ever asked. If we are not furnishing the committee with sufficient information, I do not feel that we are negligent, because we have not been asked for it.

I think that, as time goes on, the committees have asked for more and more information. There is very rarely a hearing where the committee does not ask for additional information of one kind or another, during the hearings on some particular projects.

I do not know how to answer that question very well. I thought we were furnishing the committee with the information that it desired.

GAVINS POINT PROJECT

Mr. DONNELLY. General, I have tried to keep the questions on a basis of developing a general background of what is going on without giving specific instances. A project considered this spring, this April, by this committee was that of Gavins Point. Colonel Potter, one of the Corps of Engineers' representatives, advised this committee on April 19, 1951, that the latest cost estimate for this project was $44,900,000. Yet, we have found that your office had at that time

information from the field estimating the cost to be $11 million more, or $55,052,000.

General PICK. I did not know that was $55 million. I know that that particular project is being studied. That particular project is being studied and analyzed from every side to try to make it a more efficient project, the most efficient that is possible to make, because it has considerable capabilities. We had at one time decided that we could develop but 80,000 kilowatts of power. But, as a result of working with the Federal Power Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation and completing our operating studies of these big dams above, we finally concluded that it may be possible to develop 100,000 kilowatts of electric energy.

Then there was a question that we thought that we would be able to put a spillway, concrete spillway, in the center of the dam. There have been extensive drillings done down the river. We thought that we had found a chalk formation in the bed of the river on which we

could rest the spillway. We did find a small one. The engineers are studying that now with a view to determining whether or not it would not be more satisfactory and a much better engineering study if we should put in an off-river spillway. There is a possible basis for a change in estimate if that is increased. That has not been approved by the Chief of Engineers. That is an estimate of the district engineer and of the division engineer.

The estimate that was presented to the committee this spring had been approved by the Chief of Engineers. But, these studies are going on now. And I do not know whether the $11 million was correct, or what the additional amount was. I would be glad to have Mr. Slichter, Chief of the Engineering Division of Civil Works, go into that. We follow the recommendations of a board of eminent civilian engineers in our consideration of these problems, in considering what we ought to do.

Mr. DONNELLY. General, the figure that I had mentioned here, $55,052,000, was taken from the supplemental definite project report dated December 1950; and, as I said, I just wanted to ask questions here that would point up the planning principle through special illustration.

General PICK. Yes.

Mr.DONNELLY. That is why I am asking that question.

General PICK. It has not been approved. They made a definite project report of it, but it has not been approved by the Office of the Chief of Engineers.

Mr. DONNELLY. What I am seeking to establish is whether or not the engineers give the committee the current cost information as of the time the committee is considering the request for funds for civil works projects.

General PICK. To that extent, you might say that is true. But we have a number of studies like that, Mr. Donnelly; and, if we agreed that every one of those ideas and schemes that the field engineers work up would be acted upon, we would be changing all the time. Approved changes come slowly. We have got to weigh everything very carefully. And changes like that would have to be made by the Chief of Engineers after considering all of the factors involved. Now, we may decide that is the best thing to do, because the Federal Power Commission and the Bureau of Reclamation,

which disposes of the electric power from these projects, wants to get the maximum out of the falling water that is possible to get.

THE MISSOURI RIVER

Mr. DONNELLY. General, the Gavins Point project, on the Missouri River, is a vital project in the development of the entire Missouri River; is it not?

General PICK. Yes; it is that project which will smooth the river out and let it flow as a normal stream down below.

Mr. DONNELLY. Well, General, the benefit-cost ratio on the four large main stream reservoirs now under construction on the Missouri River is close to unity, according to the figures that I have here. Let me read them.

The Fort Peck project has a cost ratio of 1.3. The cost of the Fort Peck reservoir is estimated for fiscal year 1952 at $156,900,000.

On the Garrison project the benefit-cost ratio is only 1.2 to 1. The cost for fiscal year 1952 is $268 million.

The benefit-cost ratio for Oahe is 1.4 to 1. 1952 is $245,900,000.

The benefit-cost ratio for Fort Randall is fiscal year 1952 is $189,200,000.

The cost for fiscal year

1.5 to 1. The cost for

The total cost of these projects estimated for fiscal year 1952 is $860 million, almost $1 billion.

Now, we were talking about the Gavins Point project and the need for this committee to have each year current information. General, do I understand correctly that the benefit-cost ratio for Fort Randall will drop from 1.5 to 1 down to unity if Gavins Point is not constructed?

General PICK. I cannot substantiate the figures there, but the Gavins Point project is absolutely essential to the best use of Fort Randall. It certainly will seriously affect Fort Randall. Mr. Slichter, you are familiar with that. Is Mr. Donnelly's statement correct?

Mr. SLICHTER. His statement is relatively correct. It will depreciate the value of Fort Randall, and you might say also Garrison and Oahe, if the system cannot be operated flexibly through the construction of Gavins Point.

IMPROVEMENT IN PROCEDURE FOR FURNISHING INFORMATION TO APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr. DONNELLY. Now, this Appropriations Committee, as I understand constitutional law, has an important function to perform in determining whether or not these projects should be constructed. That is recognized by everyone, I am sure.

If Gavins Point is so vital to the construction of projects on the Missouri River costing approximately $1 billion, and there is such doubt in planning on the part of the Corps of Engineer's as demonstrated by the figures that I read, do you not think, General, that some improvement can be made in the procedure whereby the Corps of Engineers furnishes cost estimates to this committee each year?

General PICK. Well, Mr. Donnelly, the project is necessary. The project is essential for the successful operation of that chain of reser

voirs on the upper Missouri. The engineering problems have to be considered and the best solution worked out.

Now, you know, engineers are just like architects. They do not all want to build the same kind of structure or the same kind of building. There are many ways in which you can design and build a project. Our theory has always been, and our policy is, to build projects as simply as possible and to keep the cost down to a minimum by not including anything more than is absolutely essential for the successful operation of the project.

You know, there is another agency of Government which is always present in these river basins, and they have engineers and they go into these projects very thoroughly. They are charged with the responsibility by the Congress of not allowing any governmental agency or anybody else to destroy any of the power potentialities in these river basins. That is the Federal Power Commission.

So if you start out here and you want to build a dam, and in that you can develop so much power, they will come in and study that and study and study and finally say, "We think if you will do this and this you can get so many more kilowatts out of that site," and they will demand that you change your design so as to include in there sufficient storage to allow that to happen. That has happened at Gavins Point. Within that range I think we are talking about the same thing, sir.

Mr. DONNELLY. That is right.

General PICK. I think we are talking about the same thing.

THE FOUR MAIN-STEM PROJECTS ON THE MISSOURI RIVER

Mr. DONNELLY. General, to illustrate the principle which we are driving at here, let us take up the four big Missouri River projects. I have the figures which were furnished the committee by the Corps of Engineers. I think each one will illustrate to the committee here that which we are seeking to achieve.

GARRISON PROJECT

The Garrison project was authorized in the 1944 Flood Control Act on an authorization estimate of $105 million. That authorization estimate was predicated upon a survey report which, under the statute, was formally written by the Corps of Engineers, referred to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, filed by the Secretary of the Army with the Congress and printed. The authorization estimate in the survey report is $105 million. The estimate for fiscal year 1952 is $268 million, which is over twice as much as the authorization estimate.

General PICK. Now, in all fairness to the report, Mr. Donnelly, just on the face of that you would say, "That is too much of a discrepancy,' but if you will analyze that you will find the project and the amount of power to be developed have been extended immensely. In other words, the project over that original survey report has been changed to a great extent. That has raised the cost some.

In addition to that, cost indexes have doubled since that report was written, I think. Speaking from memory, I think that cost indexes have just about doubled since then.

86506-51-pt. 1- -2