of years. The first major portion, authorized in 1938, was the seven reservoirs in the Willamette Basin; that authorization has been added to in subsequent Flood Control Acts, the last of which was the Flood Control Act of 1950. A number of other projects throughout the Columbia Basin were added to the plan in that authorization.

Some of these projects are under construction, and others are not. The monetary authorization has been limited, these projects generally not having a monetary authorization equal to their total estimated cost. This matter was handled last year by an addition of $75 million to the monetary authorization. That authorization is not quite sufficient to cover the current budget presentation to the Congress. Therefore the Appropriations Committee of the House in their report included the following language pertaining to the Dalles Dam:

Funds in the amount of $29 million have been allocated for the Dalles lock and dam, Oregon and Washington, a reduction of $5,100,000 in the budget request. This reduction is based in part on unobligated and unexpended balances estimated to be in excess of $6 million at the end of the present fiscal year. The project, however, is a part of the comprehensive Columbia River Basin program for which $267,300,000 has been authorized to be appropriated. Actual appropriations through fiscal year 1954 total $232,991,600. Funds requested in the President's budget were greatly in excess of the remaining authorization of $34,308,400. Rather than arbitrarily reduce the various projects to be within the authorized amount the committee has limited the funds available for the Dalles project to an amount sufficient to place basinwide appropriations with the present statutory limit.

The total projects covered by this authorization, including those on which construction has not been initiated, have a total estimated cost of $1,905,766,775.

The figures given in the House report are correct. There is approximately a $5 million deficiency in the monetary authorization required for the appropriation of the funds that were in the President's budget.

The effect of this bill will be to provide sufficient monetary authorization so that appropriations could be made equal to the amount in the President's budget; and in addition the bill will provide an additional monetary authorization of $11 million to take care of the possible additional appropriation to maintain the Dalles Dam on its current power schedule to produce power in fiscal year 1957.

Mr. ANGELL. As I understand it, Colonel Whipple, the $16 million is necessary if that project is continued full speed ahead under present construction plans by the Army engineers?

Colonel WHIPPLE. That is correct.

Mr. MACK. If you do not spend the $11 million on the construction of the dam, you will be 12 months behind in the production of power from that dam. Is that true, Colonel?

Colonel WHIPPLE. That is correct.

Mr. MACK. Do not the Army engineers' figures show that if the dam is delayed 1 year the loss in power will be about $9 million? Colonel WHIPPLE. The total value of that power would be $11,800,000.

Mr. MACK. In other words, the Government will lose $11,800,000 in power revenues if we do not keep this Dalles Dam project thing on schedule?

Colonel WHIPPLE. That is correct, sir. That is the cash money return which is lost by a 12-month delay in the production of power at the Dalles Dam.

Mr. MACK. What is the size and the generating capacity of this dam?

Colonel WHIPPLE. It is 1,092,000 kilowatts.

Mr. MACK. How many generators?

Colonel WHIPPLE. A total of 14 initially.

Mr. ANGELL. It is true, is it not, Colonel, that the demand for power in that area will take up this new generation from this dam as rapidly as those generators are put into action?

Colonel WHIPPLE. That is correct. There is no doubt that the overall needs for power in the Columbia Basin are much more than the volume of power that can be produced even if the Dalles Dam is kept on schedule. The statement of the governors of the four Pacific Northwest States has been made a matter of record in previous hearings, and I don't think there is any question but that that power is needed by the area. It is very low cost power and has been scheduled for some time.

If the Congress sees fit to appropriate the money, the power produced will be used by the commercial and industrial and residential demands that are now growing in the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Whipple, it is also true, is it not, that this dam is located in the central portion of the distribution area, and is more centrally located than any other dam except Bonneville, and is contiguous to Portland, so that there will be less expense in transmission and less loss in transmission from this dam than from Grand Coulee, for instance?

Colonel WHIPPLE. Yes, sir. And also from the remaining major dams to be constructed in the Pacific Northwest. The Dalles Dam is the one which is the closest to the major power consuming areas of Puget Sound and Portland.

Mr. ANGELL. So that the additional monetary authorization in this bill would be saved if the plant is constructed 1 year earlier than it would be, if the money is now made available to keep it on schedule? Colonel WHIPPLE. The economy of making this appropriation appears to be established. The increased authorization that will be provided by this bill will allow the Congress then to make its decision on appropriations; whereas, if no increased monetary authorization is made, the Congress will be precluded from taking affirmative action on this particular matter.

Mr. ANGELL. Without this bill there would be no monetary authorization to continue the appropriations in order to keep the project on schedule?

Colonel WHIPPLE. That is correct.

Mr. SCUDDER. Colonel, how much do the Army engineers recommend for this project now carried in the budget?

Colonel WHIPPLE. The amount carried in the budget is $34,100,000. Mr. SCUDDER. You are asking now for $11 million more. Is that right?

Colonel WHIPPLE. Sir, we are testifying as to what will happen in the event that $11 million more is not provided.

Mr. SCUDDER. You mentioned the cheap power. What makes the power so cheap in the Columbia River? Is it charging off a good part of the cost to flood control and navigation?

Colonel WHIPPLE. No, sir. That is not the case. The projects in the Pacific Northwest under the currently projected allocations will be very economical projects. In the case of the McNary project, approximately 92 percent of the entire cost of the project is being charged to power, and there is no excess cost being charged off to other project functions.

Mr. SCUDDER. McNary has practically all the cost charged to power. Colonel WHIPPLE. Yes sir. McNary and the Dalles Dam are both very similar projects. They will have no flood control. They are both very good navigation projects. But in both cases if the allocation is made correctly, much the greater part of the cost will be charged to power.

Mr. SCUDDER. I always have an argumentative feeling when we talk about cheap power, because when they do not have to pay taxes, get Government money and charge off a good part of the project to flood control and navigation and a few other items, you do get down to a figure where you can sell the power much cheaper than if you were developing the project with invested capital.

Colonel WHIPPLE. I might say, sir, that this particular cost allocation in the case of McNary and the projected extension of a similar type of cost allocation to the Dalles has caused a very great controversy in the Pacific Northwest at the present time. This allocation has been made by the Federal Power Commission. It is made in accordance with methods which the Corps of Engineers thinks are correct.

In the figures we are relying on in saying that this power is cheap, we are considering that this relatively high allocation will be sustained and will be the basis for the rates to be charged. The cost to the Government of the power on this basis will be approximately 2.6 mills in the case of McNary, and approximately 2.8 mills per kilowatt hour in the case of the Dalles, which may be further reduced in the event that our present favorable contract bids are maintained for the balance of the project. These low costs are due entirely to the very favorable natural advantages of the river. There are good foundation conditions and excellent dam sites and a tremendous natural flow of the Columbia River, which is augmented by storage upstream, and can be further augmented in the future.

As regards the engineering and economic aspects of production at these sites, the power production in the Pacific Northwest is outstanding by reason of the natural advantages.

Mr. SCUDDER. Then your testimony is that if this $11 million additional is added it will enhance the possibilities of it being completed a year ahead of present schedule?

Colonel WHIPPLE. That is substantially right, sir, except that the present schedule is the expedited schedule. The present schedule is to put power on the line in 1957. The amount approved by the Bureau of the Budget and the still lesser amount passed by the House Appropriations Committee will not allow that schedule to be maintained. So that you are correct except that it is not a question of expediting an established schedule, but a question of maintaining a schedule that had previously been established.

Mr. MACK. In other words, Colonel, if the money is not provided it will delay the completion of the dam by 1 year?

Colonel WHIPPLE. That is correct. The previously scheduled completion by 1957 will be delayed by 1 year.

Mr. ANGELL. And that delay will reduce the revenue which would be derived from power by an amount which would be practically the same as this amount we are asking for to keep it on schedule? Colonel WHIPPLE. It will reduce it $11,800,000 in anticipated reve

nues.

Mr. ANGELL. It is true, is it not, that on the Bonneville project the amortization payments are working out even ahead of their original amortization program, or ahead of their repayments?

Colonel WHIPPLE. That is correct. The amortization of the Bonneville project is substantially in excess of the power investment, not only in the project alone, but also of the associated transmission and distribution systems of the Bonneville Power Administration, which must be, of course, amortized by the power revenues as well.

Mr. MACHROWICZ. What is the allocation to the power? Is that all power?

Colonel WHIPPLE. All of the Bonneville Power Administration costs are power costs.

Mr. BECKER. Does that include the whole project? You said all of the Bonneville Power Administration costs. I think Mr. Machrowicz would understand that over there, and I understand that, but does that take into consideration the entire cost of the project? Colonel WHIPPLE. No, sir.

Mr. BECKER. You are talking about the allocation of the costs? Colonel WHIPPLE. Let me clarify that. The Bonneville Power Administration is the agency of the Department of the Interior which is responsible for transmission and marketing of the power. It does not include the dam. The dam is a project of the Corps of Engineers, and the allocation between navigation and power in the case of the Bonneville Dam is made by the Federal Power Commission and was made approximately in 1940. As a matter of fact, it was a little bit before that. But all of the costs of the Bonneville Power Administration, which are power costs incidental to power distribution and transmission, are charged to power.

Mr. SCUDDER. Colonel, you mentioned the cost and there is a great agitation for more navigation on the river. The construction of these power dams necessitates work being done to build locks in order to get the ships over these various installations that have been developed for power. It does not seem right that you would charge anything to navigation if the power project you are putting in causes a condition to exist.

In other words, that should be a part of the charge, it seems to me, against the power project, and they should be forced to construct fish ladders and navigation locks for the concession of being able to build these power facilities on the river. That is the case with a private power company. If they create a condition they have to take care of the damages that are caused due to their construction. Colonel WHIPPLE. Sir, that is correct in principle. And as regard fish ladders, that is the attitude that has been taken in this allocation.

39263-54-vol. 1-51

Since the fish ladders are required merely in order to reestablish the conditions favorable to salmon that previously existed, the very considerable costs of these fish ladders are charged as part of the joint costs of the dam and are mostly paid for by power.

Mr. SCUDDER. Why should this not all be charged to the construction of the dam? If this dam interferes with the migration of fish, surely no other funds should be used except that of whoever is building the dam.

Colonel WHIPPLE. Sir, the situation is a little bit different than you have assumed in that navigation on the Columbia River is a relatively difficult and expensive process under natural conditions. At the present time even with the aid of certain navigation works that were constructed many years ago, and with the Bonneville Dam locks, which have facilitated navigation, only a 7-foot channel is available.

The currents are extremely high. It takes towboats of up to 3,500 horsepower which are extremely powerful towboats, and in fact some of the most powerful used on any inland waterway of the country, to propel one or two barges up the rapids of the Columbia River, those barges being loaded only to a 7-foot draft.

When the projects now authorized are completed there will be slack-water navigation with very fine locks and dams continuously up the river as far as western Idaho. At that time a loading of up to 9 feet will be allowed on these barges, which is much more economical. But more important than that, a towboat of perhaps only 1,500 horsepower will be able to propel a cargo of 10,000 tons as compared to a situation now in which probably a 3,500-horsepower towboat can only handle a cargo of perhaps 2,000 tons.

So the improvement of the river in the interests of navigation is one of the primary purposes of these projects. In fact, historically it is the purpose for which the improvement of the Columbia was first recommended and first authorized. The power development is from the point of view of money very much more important, and it has come to be economically the biggest thing behind these projects. But the improvements to navigation are still very important. It is appropriate that the navigation, in addition to paying the cost of the locks that were included in the dam, also pay a small proportion of the joint costs.

That proportion is very small. It is of the order of something less than 1 percent of the joint costs of the McNary project, which are allocated to navigation. But in theory every appropriate authorized project purpose not only pays the costs that are required for fulfilling that purpose, but shares equitably in the allocation of the joint costs of the project.

On that basis it may be that the fish ladders at McNary are paid for something less than 1 percent by navigation and something over 99 percent by power. So that for all practical purposes it is correet that fish ladders are paid for by power.

Mr. SCUDDER. But the navigation only figures in at about 1 percent of the cost?

Colonel WHIPPLE. Of the joint costs. As regards the overall costs, naturally the lock itself is very expensive. It is of the order of $20 million on each one of these projects. It is fully paid for by navigation and it will be a very respectable and economical waterway when