the Senator suggests that instead of taking the flood waters from the upper reaches of the Sacramento and carrying them into the sea here [indicating], "as though they were something vile," to use his language, that they should be conducted down here [indicating] through a canal and spread out on the arid regions of the San Joaquin. Well, this sounds good; in fact, reasonable and feasible. The trouble, however, is that God did not build that country on the same plan that the man made this map on. If the country there were as flat as this map, the problem would be an easy one, but when the engineers examined into the question they ascertained that the highest elevation here [indicating] in the Sacramento watershed at which a reservoir could be located was 400 feet above the sea; whereas, in order to get that water to the arid reaches of the San Joaquin it would have to be conducted over a ridge fourteen hundred feet high and the excavation necessary would be more than was necessary at Panama.

Senator JONES. How far up the San Joaquin would that bring it? Senator NEWLANDS. That is you assertion.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. No; I was never there in my life. That is what the engineers of the United States Army assert.

Senator KENYON. That could be done for about $400,000,000? Mr. HUMPHREYS. I think it could, most likely.

Senator JONES. How far up the San Joaquin, if you did that, would that take the water?

Mr. HUMPHREYS. I think that would take it to the arid lands. Senator BANKHEAD. Mr. Chairman, we have to adjourn now in a minute, and I want to ask the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Humphreys, if it is true that it is necessary to revet both banks of the Mississippi River for every mile of the river?

Mr. HUMPHREYS. It is not. I explained that before you came in, Senator. It is not at all necessary.

Senator BANKHEAD. Senator Newlands suggested here yesterday it was, and I was sure he was mistaken.

Senator NEWLANDS. What I said was that I did not doubt that in time the entire bank could be reveted, except in places where there is sufficient bank now, but we would be a hundred years yet in improving the Mississippi.

Senator SHIELDS. I think I understood you to say that this Newlands amendment was offered in the House-this present bill introduced by you.

Senator NEWLANDS. The Newlands bill?

Senator SHIELDS. We all know what the Newlands bill is.

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Twenty-one to 186 is my recollection of the vote on that question by which the substitute was rejected. Senator SHIELDS. After an exhaustive debate on it?

Mr. HUMPHREYS. Yes, sir. Now, as to the question of whether reservoirs on the upper reaches of the Mississippi would control its floods. The Pittsburgh Flood Commission has estimated that reservoirs can be constructed in the watersheds of the Allegheny and the Monongahela Rivers at a cost of $20,000,000, which they think would relieve the flood situation at Pittsburgh. United States Army engineers have stated that in their opinion these reservoirs will cost nearer forty than twenty million dollars. At any rate, they are to

have a capacity of 59,000,000,000 gallons of water. Now, that is a good deal of water-sufficient, I think, to appeal to the imagination. even of my friend here, the Senator from Texas. Fifty-nine billion gallons of water-I mean flood water-over and above a bankfull stage, passes down the Mississippi River in flood time in seven hours. At the same rate of cost, then, assuming the Pittsburgh Commission's estimate of $20,000,000 to be correct, it would require $72,000,000 to build a reservoir large enough to hold the flood waters of the Mississippi River for 24 hours. Now, those floods last from 30 to 60 days, so by multiplying $72,000,000 by as many days as you choose to guess the flood will last, you will be able to approximate the cost of controlling the floods of the Mississippi by reservoirs.

In view, however, of the fact that sometimes the storms which give us our floods occur in one place and sometimes another, it would be necessary to construct such reservoirs in several different places or to locate one near the mouth of the Ohio River. This is where engineers say it would have to be located in order to catch the flood waters from whatever source originated. This would require a site about the size of the state of New Jersey excavated to a depth of some 15 to 20 feet, and the dirt excavated, assuming the ground was level with no hills to remove, would be sufficient to build a levee 150 feet high, 7,000 miles long. It is insisted also that these reservoirs could be used for the development of water power and in that way pay for themselves. Hydroelectric power can not be economically produced without continuous flow of water through the turbines. Nobody at all familiar with the subject will controvert that proposi tion. This, of course, means that the reservoirs must be kept full of water. In order to be at all effective in controlling floods the reservoirs must be emptied as soon as the storm passes in order to be ready to take care of the flood waters of the succeeding storm. The answer, I think, is patent.

Mr. VARDAMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of War is here, and I suggest that we take a recess for 15 minutes, or something of that kind, to go down to roll call and return here.

(Whereupon, at 12.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, December 22, 1916, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

RIVER REGULATION, FLOOD CONTROL, AND WATER CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION.

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1916.

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. in the committee room, Capitol, Senator Duncan U. Fletcher presiding.

Present: Senators Fletcher (chairman), Shields, Vardaman, Kenyon, Jones, Watson, and Sherman.

The committee resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. 14777), "An act to provide for the control of the floods of the Mississippi River and of the Sacramento River, Cal., and for other purposes." The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Senator VARDAMAN. Mr. Chairman, I notice that the Secretary of War, Mr. Baker, is here, and I move that the committee hear him at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand it is the order this morning that we shall proceed to hear the Secretary's statement. We will be glad to hear you now, Mr. Secretary.

STATEMENT OF HON. NEWTON D. BAKER, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Secretary BAKER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I came into the consideration of the problem presented by Senator Newland's substitute after it had been pretty thoroughly considered by a group of members of the Cabinet, my predecessor, Mr. Garrison, being one of those. I understood when I came that a difference of opinion had developed between Mr. Garrison and other members of the Cabinet, chiefly, so far as I could analyze it, from the fact that the Secretary of War felt that the Engineer Department, which had for a great many years been giving expert, and more or less exclusive, attention to the subject of navigable rivers, was so well equipped to continue that subject that it would be a pity to divide its responsibility and authority by coordinating it with any other branch of the Government. All of the other members of the Cabinet, so far as I am advised, were in favor of some such plan as Senator Newlands has proposed.

I went over very carefully all the bills and written evidences in that controversy or discussion and became entirely satisfied that the uses of water were so closely related one with the other that it was highly desirable that there should be some coordinating influence in their consideration and study from the administrative and executive side, and, and so I found myself in perfect agreement with the plans that Senator Newlands now has.

75439-17- -16

241

The original form, as you gentlemen all know, of Senator Newlands' proposition was not only the creation of a Cabinet commission for the consideration of all the uses and purposes of water, but also that the Government should commit itself to the continuing program of large expenditures, and that the disbursement of this sum should be more or less an administrative function rather than a legislative function.

The result of a good many conferences which I personally had with Senator Newlands and Senator Ransdell, and some with Mr. Humphreys, was that the plan finally got itself to a place where it was agreed that the flood-control bill, or the idea of the flood-control bill, and of the improvement of the lower Mississippi and Sacramento streams should be consolidated with the Newlands idea, or rather that we would recommend that be done, and that a Cabinet commission should be created by the act, strengthened perhaps by outside experts, who would consider each water question from all points of view that might properly be affected.

You gentlemen have before you the hearing that was had during the summer, the testimony of the experts of the Agriculture and Interior Departments, and, I think, of the Department of Commerce. I read that testimony last night, and it seems to me it shows very conclusively how impracticable it is to consider any one scheme of river improvement or water control, or water use, without having in mind or paying proper attention to the other uses and things that ought to be done.

So the whole purpose of my coming this morning is to add my testimony in strengthening and supporting, as far as it may do it, the sug gestion which Senator Newlands has that the wise policy for the Government is to have not one exclusive officer considering one aspect of water and another considering another aspect, but to coordinate the members of the Cabinet who deal with those related questions in such a way that their subordinates will give well-rounded consideration to each water project and present it to Congress considered from all points, digested and analyzed from all views.

I have been told, although I do not know what the fact is, that if it is not true it will be before very long that in a great many places in the United States the engineers of the Government have to use different colored stakes to indicate which set of engineers' particular lines are being run by, and sometimes you get out in places where surveys are being made and find three or four different colored sets of stakes, showing that the Coast Survey people are running their lines, and the War Department people are running their lines, and the Agriculture Department people are running their lines, and the Commerce people are running their lines, and they all have to distinguish themselves by different colored stakes, showing that many field parties are operating over one field instead of having a comprehensive survey made by one set of engineers which would include all parties. It is an uneconomic thing to do, and after they have made their surveys and taken them off of the different places and study each one-study their own specialty-nobody brings them into a coordinated and related whole. I do not know any other plan for an efficient consideration of the water problems of the country than to bring them under a group of Cabinet officers, each of whom has some

problem relating to water under his immediate jurisdiction and control.

Senator WATSON. May I ask you a question, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary BAKER. Certainly, Senator, but I would like to finish my sentence.

Senator WATSON. Excuse me; I though you had concluded. Secretary BAKER. Senator Fletcher had temporarily left the room, and there was one sentence which I wanted him to hear.

The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me; I had a telephone call that I was compelled to answer.

Secretary BAKER. Since I have referred to the fact that I have conferred with Senator Ransdell and Mr. Humphreys, I ought to be very explicit about what was understood, and the way I understood it, in those conferences. Senator Ransdell and Senator Newlands, as I understand, came ultimately to a perfect state of agreement about the wisdom and propriety of the Newlands proposition as it is now submitted for the consideration of this committee. Mr. Humphreys was very reluctant to yield the point of the lower Mississippi and Sacramento Rivers being included in it, and he will, I am sure, understand me when I say that at least I gathered that his chief objection to the inclusion at that time was the fear that the development of the lower Mississippi would be delayed by asking Congress to consider anything so large as the Newlands plan appeared to be.

I desired to state that because I do not want to leave it with the understanding that Mr. Humphreys at that time yielded any part of his judgment as to the wisdom of this scheme. He simply acquiesced in it as a practical thing to get forward the project which at that moment was of chief concern to him-the lower Mississippi and Sacramento added. Senator Ransdell, I understood-indeed, I am quite sure that Senator Ransdell, after deep reflection upon the subject, came to the conclusion that the plan proposed here by Senator Newlands was a wise and forward-looking step.

Senator VARDAMAN. Did he state that to you?

Secretary BAKER. Senator Ransdell, and as a matter of fact, I think Senator Ransdell's relation to this whole project is so very intimate and his study of it has been so earnest, that if it is at all possible, I suggest that the committee hear Senator Ransdell before it finally makes its report.

Senator VARDAMAN. We have already heard him, quite repeatedly. Senator SHIELDS. Mr. Secretary, I had really understood his position to be that he did not want that matter connected up with this Mississippi project at all, because that required great investigation yet to be made, even along the aesthetic part of one provision in this bill, with respect to how the structure is to be put on the rivers, that he would like to consult the Committee on the Library and the Commission of Fine Arts.

Secretary BAKER. In the last

Senator SHIELDS. Excuse me, I would like to finish my sentence. Senator Ransdell has been intensely interested in this subject for his people, who are being drowned and their property is being destroyed, and was almost willing to concede anything that would give him relief and not be denied the relief that this bill affords at once, and which was necessary in order to save property and life from Cairo