develop a policy that we can uniformly apply to these situations? Here is where the problem arises with Brantley, and this is what we are struggling with. Mr. JOHNSON. As I understand, the region in their studies had a criteria to follow and they justified this in the feasibility report? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir. This was on the basis of a complete nonreimbursable cost for replacement of the inadequate structure and that was an approach that there is some concern about. Whether or not that concept will be adopted as a policy is the problem and this is where we are hung up. We are spending our time trying to get it into focus with some type of a reasonable policy that we can apply to all similar situations. We don't feel it should be determined by just one specific project. Mr. JOHNSON. That was a recent holdup on the project? I mean, up to that time, this project was moving along. It had been submitted to you. You people had given it preliminary clearance to go out to the States and Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes. But we have been wrestling with this for a good year's time. Mr. ASPINALL. Let me ask you this question. You are here representing the administration. If we should pass out this bill like it is at the present time, taking the material that is in the preliminary reports that you have sent to us, can we expect a veto? Mr. ARMSTRONG. If I were making the decision, I guess I could give you an answer on that, but I don't expect to will be making it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ASPINALL. Well, I don't think you will either, but what I am trying to do is to let the sponsors of this project here and who are in New Mexico understand the difficulty in which the committee and Congress have to act under. We have a statement of estimated costs. Are those costs pretty firm? Mr. ARMSTRONG. That $45 million is, yes, sir. We analyzed these in detail about a year ago. We brought them up to date and took a good look at the overall proposed structures and the present costs. Mr. ASPINALL. Has your office here in Washington looked over these costs so that you can say that you passed on the costs? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir, along with my staff in the Engineering Research Center in Denver as well. Mr. ASPINALL. If it weren't for the new criteria, do I understand that you would be able to stand on your own feasibility report that you forwarded up? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Not unless we can get acceptance of the concept that the cost of replacement of the structure is completely nonreimbursable. Mr. ASPINALL. Are those projects up the river and down the river from the site of the proposed Brantley Dam and Reservoir? And of those, how many have been constructed and supervised by the Bureau of Reclamation? Mr. ARMSTRONG. The Alamogordo Dam was constructed and supervised by the Bureau. The one a little upstream on the map there, the Los Esteros Dam is a Corps of Engineer flood control project. The corns is now in the process of preparing design data for it. Mr. ASPINALL. How about Fort Sumner? Mr. FIFE. Fort Sumner is a Bureau of Reclamation project also and the Bureau constructed a diversion dam. It is a direct diversion project which diverts the flows from the river. Mr. ASPINALL. All right. How about the artesian conservancy? Mr. ASPINALL. Does the Federal Bureau of Reclamation have anything to say about their operation? Mr. FIFE. No, sir. Mr. ASPINALL. How about the Carlsbad? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes. Mr. ASPINALL. Now we come to the McMillan Dam and Avalon Dam. Who constructed those? Mr. ARMSTRONG. They were constructed by private industry. They had some problems with them washing out, particularly at Avalon. In 1907 we started reconstruction and enlargement of these facilities. Mr. ASPINALL. The Bureau of Reclamation operations? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir. This was as a part of the Carlsbad project. Mr. ASPINALL. Doesn't it seem to you, Mr. Commissioner, that with the Bureau's activities along that river such as they have assumed-of course, we have to admit they assumed them at the request of the people of New Mexico-but doesn't it seem to you that with the assumption of these operations that there is some responsibility on the part of the Federal Government to go ahead and perfect not only the works that the Bureau helped to build and construct, but also to help take care of any dangers or difficulties that arise because those works haven't been as effective as they should have been or as efficient? Mr. ARMSTRONG. I think so. Of course the problem comes up as to where the cost obligation is and the degree of safety that you should provide, and this is what we are getting into here. No doubt we have a number of situations across the country which may be facing a potential that is perhaps similar to this and so the question comes up how far do you go in providing safety against any catastrophe that might occur such as a flood that has a degree of frequency of once in 100 or 150 years that might overtop the dam. Mr. ASPINALL. Well, it would seem to me that by some criteria, that the Federal Government should begin to assume responsibility and I don't care if it is here or in the closed basin of Colorado, which is not involved at this time, but which is the same type of operation, where the Bureau has blandly said we have no responsibility for decisions now because our determinations and our figures were furnished at the time different procedures were in effect. The same thing is true here. All I want to see is if this is a good project and if it is, I want it completed. Mr. ARMSTRONG. These are earthfilled dams. Just as soon as the water goes over one part, why it would wash out, and Mr. ASPINALL. Well, of course it would. Mr. JOHNSON. Does the gentleman from California have any questions? Mr. HOSMER. I have no further questions. Mr. JOHNSON. I understood when we were down there that the normal criteria as far as flood damage and flood hazard and what have you was used in coming up with the nonreimbursables as far as flood damage is concerned. Mr. ARMSTRONG. I think that was on the basis, Mr. Chairman, of the dam washing out. Mr. ASPINALL. Well, we'll just have to wait until the dam washes out and then we will figure out what it is. Mr. ARMSTRONG. The criteria that we used was based on what it would cost to enlarge the spillway so that it would pass the flood and then what the flood control associated with the enlarged flood storage capacity would be worth to the areas on down the stream. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, in figuring the nonreimbursables, as far as flood storage is concerned for any major dam, you must take into account Government participation. The Government participated in the State project in the "Oroville project" and we bought $70 some million worth of flood storage in that project based on studies that were made and forwarded in the feasibility of that project. The Corps of Engineers worked closely with the State on that. Now did the Corps of Engineers work with you people on this? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. How? Mr. ARMSTRONG. These were their flood control benefits. I have the benefits that we used in their economic analysis and I might give them to you for the record. Irrigation annual benefits would be $70,000, flood control would be $968,000, and this is the flood control benefits that would accrue from the new reconstructed structure, and then the safety of dams is $1,576,000, recreation is $297,000, fish and wildlife is $157,000. Now, the problem comes up, Mr. Chairman, when we get to the safety of dams criteria, and that is where we are having trouble. As far as the flood control, of course that policy has been well established. Mr. JOHNSON. Does the staff have any questions? Mr. MCFARLAND. If I could ask one question? Mr. Commissioner, of course you didn't answer Mr. Johnson's question. Now when you were here Monday I asked what criteria you used and then you indicated the criteria that was in effect and you said it was still in effect. And now you say that this project will undoubtedly require some reformulation under some new criteria that is not in effect. Now, Mr. Commissioner, have you received a direction that you shall not send to the Bureau of the Budget any additional project reports until this new criteria has been approved? Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, sir; and we are not operating on that basis as I indicated at the hearings on the Salmon Falls unit. The problem here is in the criteria for the safety of dams and this is criteria that has not yet been established. Mr. MCFARLAND. That is the answer you gave Mr. Johnson. How about these other projects? I am asking you about other projects. Are you under direction not to send to the Office of Management and Budget any project until new criteria have been approved? Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, sir. Mr. MCFARLAND. You are processing your project reports under the criteria now in effect and as soon as they are completed, you are sending them to Budget? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Well, I am not quite sure what you mean by normal. We have to take a look at some of these on the basis of how the new criteria will affect them. Mr. MCFARLAND. You know you are finding problems to delay submission of reports to the Congress. For instance, you say, legislation is necessary that general legislation is necessary. Mr. ARMSTRONG. On the safety of dams aspect, yes. Mr. MCFARLAND. Now, the Department has been talking about this for 10 years, and you know Congress is not going to authorize general, broad legislation to authorize the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to go out and modify all of their existing projects without bringing them back to Congress with specific information on costs and plans and so forth. Mr. ARMSTRONG. This may be true. What I think we should have are general guidelines that we can use to formulate projects of this kind before we bring them to Congress. The approach to this type of a problem is what we are in the process of trying to formulate. Mr. MCFARLAND. Do I understand, Mr. Commissioner, that until you get some indication of approval of the new criteria, you are not going to recommend to Congress any additional authorizations? Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, sir. In this project what I said in my statement was that if we had this new criteria, then we could reevaluate it on the basis of the regional benefits and the benefits to the people. Mr. MCFARLAND. Have you been told that the new criteria will not be approved this year? Mr. ARMSTRONG. I haven't, no, sir. Mr. MCFARLAND. That is all. Mr. JOHNSON. Do you have any questions? Mr. SIGLER. No, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. We want to thank you, Mr. Armstrong, for your statement. We do hope a decision is reached before too long so that we might get a favorable report. Our next witness will be Mr. S. E. Reynolds, State Engineer representing the State of New Mexico. I want to thank you, Mr. Reynolds, for the committee's opportunity to evaluate this whole area from the air as well as from the ground. You did a very fine job. STATEMENT OF MR. S. E. REYNOLDS, STATE ENGINEER, REPRESENTING THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Mr. REYNOLDS. On the other hand, I thank you. We are most appreciative of your committee coming to New Mexico and looking at the problem from the ground and the air. For the record, my name is S. E. Reynolds. I am New Mexico State engineer and secretary of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. I am most grateful for the opportunity to present to this distinguished committee the views of the State of New Mexico on H.R. 5042, a bill to authorize the Brantley Dam and Reservoir project on the Pecos River in New Mexico. At a field hearing on the bill in Carlsbad, N. Mex., on April 15, I submitted a lengthy written statement and a brief oral statement in the course of which I presented several documents for the files of the committee. It is my understanding that the proceedings at the field hearing are a part of the record. Accordingly with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will very briefly summarize the testimony which I presented earlier. The basic purpose of the Brantley project is the protection of life and property from floods. Two percent of the project cost is allocated to irrigation and only about 12 percent is allocated to fish and wildlife and recreation purposes. The Corps of Engineers has estimated that the average annual reduction flood damages resulting from the construction of the Brantley project would be $968,000 based on 1971 prices. The corps has also estimated, on the assumption that there is no question about the integrity of the existing Avalon and McMillan Reservoirs, that the standard project flood would cause damages in the Carlsbad area amounting to $27.5 million based on 1964 prices. This threat is ominous enough but the problem is far more serious than indicated by estimates based on the assumption stated. The Bureau of Reclamation through its "safety of dams program" has found McMillan and Avalon dams unsafe because of inadequate spillway capacity. The overtopping of an earthfill dam can result in a catastrophic failure resulting in far greater loss of life and property damage than the same flood would cause under natural conditions. The collapse of the South Fork Dam which resulted in the Johnstown flood of 1889 is perhaps the best known example of such failure. This catastrophic failure of a dam 70 feet high impounding only about 11,000 acre-feet of water, took 2,100 lives in the vicinity of Johnstown, Pa., about 15 river miles downstream from the dam. The consequences of the sudden failure of a dam were again tragically illustrated in February of this year when a dam on Buffalo Creek in West Virginia collapsed and released about 500 acre-feet of water that took the lives of more than 100 people in a reach of stream 17 miles long. The June 12, 1969, feasibility report on the Brantley project from the Commissioner of Reclamation to the Secretary of the Interior states: The Safety of Dams feature serves no other basic purpose than the protection of life and property from a potentially disastrous flood situation. In view of the national policy as to the nonreimbursability of the costs of major flood storage facilities and of the moral obligation of the United States as the constructor and owner of dams of uncertain structural integrity, it is proposed that the Federal Government recognize and accept the responsibility for the safety of McMillan and Avalon dams and that the costs of the Safety of Dams feature be nonreimbursable. This report was adopted and approved by Assistant Secretary of the Interior James Smith on July 2, 1969. The Bureau of Reclamation proposal that the cost of making McMillan and Avalon Dams safe be nonreimbursable is consistent with the policy adopted by the Congress in the enactment of Public Law 83-465 in 1954 which authorized the expenditure of a little more than $1 million on a nonreimbursable basis to enlarge the spillway of Alamogordo Dam, which was constructed by the Bureau in 1937 to make the structure safe. The State of New Mexico concurs in the recommendations of the Bureau of Reclamation's feasibility report. Unfortunately, the Department has not yet submitted to the Congress the report adopted and approved by Secretary Smith in July of 1969. The Department proposes to withhold the report pending consultation with other Federal agencies concerning Federal policy |