Mr. RITER. That is correct. But Mr. Ostrander has testified if you built Hells Canyon with the present system it is still feasible. Mr. ASPINALL. The Chair would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Udall, may be privileged to have his minute and three-quarters if he so desires. Mr. SAYLOR. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would like to insert in the record then, following the lady from Oregon's questioning in regard to the cost of Hungry Horse Dam and the reduction in the cost of Hells Canyon Dam, the data from the Analysis of Cost Increases, Authorizations, and Benefits of Reclamation Projects, published by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, table 1, showing the changes in cost estimates which indicate that, contrary to the statement of the witness that Hungry Horse was built for less than it was originally estimated, the Bureau of Reclamation is on record as saying that it actually cost $9,400,000,000 more than it was originally estimated to cost. I ask unanimous consent that it be put in the record. Mr. METCALF. Reserving the right to object, and I am not going to object, I would like to have unanimous consent to put an answer in the record at this point. Mr. ASPINALL. The Chair is a little embarrassed with so many reservations. But if there is no objection Mr. METCALF. I will withdraw my reservation. Mr. ASPINALL. The request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be granted and your request, Mr. Metcalf, will be granted. It is so ordered. (The documents referred to follow :) HUNGRY HORSE The following data is from Analysis of Cost Increases, Authorizations and Benefits of Reclamation Projects, Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, March 1953, Table I, Changes in Project Cost Estimate (sheet 3 of 6): PROJECT AUTHORIZED, 1944 Original Bureau of Reclamation estimate, 1945, 1,000,000 acre-feet storage, 142,000-kilowatt powerplant--- CONSTRUCTION STARTED 1947 Increased estimate, 1947, 3,500,000 acre-feet storage, 285,000-kilowatt powerplant Increased fiscal year 1954 estimate-- Increase in 1954 over 1947 estimate__. $48, 319, 000 93, 500,000 102, 900, 000 9, 400, 000 (The $9,400,000 increase in cost over the 1947 estimate was in spite of savings of $6,410,000 due to changes in project plans and engineering modifications.) Of the $9,400,000 increase in the estimate 1947-54, the report shows: Due to Inadequacies of estimates_. Total__ $1,200,000 2, 190, 000 3, 390, 000 STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN METCALF ON HUNGRY HORSE PROJECT For In order to answer criticism leveled at the Bureau of Reclamation relative to the accuracy of their estimates, it must be recognized that prior to answering such criticism that is based fundamentally upon the difference between the original and last official estimate, the element of price rise must be ruled out. no agency, either public or private, can be held responsible for this element of cost over which they have no control. Much of the criticism of the accuracy of Bureau estimates falls in this category. For example, I refer to the attempt, during the first session of these hearings Monday morning, to discredit Mr. Hoisington's testimony_relative to constructing the Hungry Horse project within the original estimate. First, however, it should be pointed out that prior to authorization of the Hungry Horse Dam and powerplant in 1944, the Corps of Engineers, United States Army, conducted investigations relative to this project and submitted an interim report to Congress. in March 1943. These findings have been published as House Document No. 643, 78th Congress, 2d session. The project was authorized by Congress as Public Law 329-78th Congress, chapter 234, 2d session, H. R. 3570, approved June 5, 1944. This law authorized the construction of Hungry Horse Dam (including facilities to generate electric power) to such height as may be necessary to impound not less than 1 million acre-feet of water. It further authorized the Secretary of the Interior to complete, as soon as the additional material is available, the construction of the Hungry Horse Dam so as to provide a storage reservoir of the maximum usable and feasible capacity. There was no feasibility report or report of investigation prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation for Hungry Horse project prior to its authorization. Investigations prior to authorization, preliminary in nature, established the probability of a good dam site on the south fork of the Flathead River and the economic desirability of storage on this river. The main body of factual information that was available at the time of authorization was contained in House Document No. 643, mentioned earlier. Actually, as demonstrated by the language of the authorizing act, the sizes and capacities of the various project structures had not even been approximately determined at the time of authorization. Studies conducted since authorization indicated the desirability of constructing a reservoir with 3,500,000 acre-feet of capacity, which is considered the "maxmum usable and feasible capacity." Strictly speaking, the broad nature of the language of the authorizing act makes it impossible to state the cost estimate of the project as authorized; therefore, it can be said that the Hungry Horse project was authorized under no specific cost estimate. The original and first estimate made for the 3,500,000 acre-foot capacity reservoir and 285,000kilowatt powerplant was made by the Bureau of Reclamation in 1947, based on April 1947 prices and totaled $93,500,000. Current estimates for the Hungry Horse project, totaling $101,660,000, reflect increased prices that have accrued since April 1947. Contracts were let during 1948 for construction of the dam and powerplant and for the purchase of items of major equipment requiring long delivery time. The rise in prices since the original estimate was prepared amounts to approximately $10,420,000. Had the original estimate been revised to reflect price levels at the time construction started, the estimated project cost would have been $103,920,000. The project was built for less than the original cost estimate plus the element of price rise. Mr. Hoisington's statement that the Hungry Horse project was built within the original estimate is therefore correct. Authority for the above costs are contained in the latest issue of Analysis of Cost Increases, Authorizations and Benefits of Reclamation Projects, dated October 1954. Mr. ASPINALL. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for a minute and three-quarters in spite of the quorum call that has just rung. Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon. Mrs. GREEN. I would like to give this time to Mr. Hoisington to answer that question. The statement that was made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania in regard to the cost. Mr. HOISINGTON. I believe that Congressman Saylor is not taking into consideration price rise, which no man has any control over. Mrs. GREEN. May I use the remainder of the minute and a half, Mr. Chairman, to explore the possibilities that this committee might need additional time in the 4 days which have been set up, assuming that all of the members of the committee are sincere in their statements they would like further time to study this very, very important project. Mr. ASPINALL. May the Chair suggest to his colleague that she use the time between now and Wednesday morning trying to find out just how the people on the committee feel about that. There is not a quorum present this morning. The Chair hoped there would be a quorum present when we adjourned because he does not know whether to ask these witnesses to remain over to Wednesday morning or whether they should be excused. What is the request? Mrs. PFOST. Mr. Chairman, I realize, too, there is not a quorum present, but I do feel if these gentlemen could remain around there is a possibility the committee might have an extra hour or two at our disposal, and these technical witnesses might be granted permission to give valuable additional testimony or answer questions of the committee. Mr. ASPINALL. The Chair would suggest, then, that the sponsors of the bills get in touch with the witnesses and see whether or not they may remain. Mr. BUDGE. Mr. Chairman, these witnesses are here at the request of the chairman, are they not? Mr. ASPINALL. They are here at the request of the chairman, but he wishes their journey back here to be as fruitful as possible. Mr. BUDGE. I request the chairman see they are here. After all, he called the gentlemen. Mr. ASPINALL. The committee is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:08 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene Wednesday, July 13, 1955.) HELLS CANYON DAM WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10: 13 a. m., in the committee room, New House Office Building, Hon. Wayne N. Aspinall (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. ASPINALL. The Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation will now be in session for the further consideration of H. R. 4719 and similar bills. As I understand it, the sponsors of the legislation wish this morning to recall to the witness stand the technical witnesses who appeared here last Monday and use as much of this morning as is necessary for examination of those witnesses. Accordingly, the Chair calls to the stand Mr. Puls, Mr. Hoisington, Mr. Riter, Mr. Crandall, Mr. White, and Mr. Ostrander. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. ASPINALL. The Chair would like to have permission that those people from the area concerned who are here in Washington have permission to file their statements in the record with the understanding that they place such statements with the clerk this morning or not later than 3 o'clock this afternoon and the statements will not be admitted until tomorrow morning; is there any objection? Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, will there be just one copy presented? Mr. ASPINALL. As I understand it, they have copies for everybody, and the clerk will try to get the copies to the different members as quickly as possible if the members request it. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. May I say this to those of you who come from the area: We will attempt to give a few minutes to 1 or 2 of your spokesmen to make oral presentations as well. With that understanding, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Engle, if he has any questions. Mr. ENGLE. Mr. Chairman, I desire to pass at this time and reserve any questions for later. Mr. ASPINALL. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Dr. Miller. Dr. MILLER. I will pass and reserve any questions until later. Mr. ASPINALL. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'BRIEN. I will reserve my time. Mr. ASPINALL. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Saylor. 67129-56- -7 93 QUESTION PERIOD OF L. G. PULS, C. I. HOISINGTON, J. R. RITER, LYNN CRANDALL, ELWYN L. WHITE, AND EARL D. OSTRANDER— Resumed Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Puls, will you refer to your statement, please? Attached to your statement is a drawing or exhibit identified by the number 550-26-27. That exhibit is substantially different from the exhibits which were presented to the House in the 82d Congress, substantially different from the plans which were presented in the Bureau's reclamation plans for the Columbia River which are referred to as the comprehensive Department report of the development of water resources of the Columbia River Basin, for review prior to submission to Congress, published by the Department of the Interior under Mr. Krug as Secretary and Mr. Straus as Commissioner. Will you explain to the members of the committee the reasons for making the changes? Mr. PULS. You referred, Congressman, to the number of an exhibit, and I do not at the moment know just what drawing you are referring to. Mr. EDMONDSON. It appears at page 11 in your statement, immediately after page 11. Is that right? Mr. SAYLOR. Yes. Mr. PULS. I did not recognize the exhibit number, but this number here is identified in my testimony at 550-D-27. Is that the one? Mr. SAYLOR. That is the one. Mr. PULS. And the other one you referred to is the drawing of Hells Canyon Dam and project that was formerly submitted in the House? Mr. SAYLOR. Correct. Mr. Puls, I am not trying to put you on the spot. I will tell you the substantial differences as I looked at the plan. This one has only 2 tunnels or spillway tunnels, the other had 4 spillway tunnels. The plan which you have submitted indicates through its cross sections that the outlet pipes for your turbines will be located in the center of the dam. The others indicated that the powerhouses would be built on both sides of the dam. I would like to have you tell us why those changes were made. Mr. PULS. Yes, sir; I will be very happy to. I think that I have before me an earlier report that is the same one that you are referring to as the earlier design. It will be noted in the earlier design that we have a section similar to Hoover Dam. What I mean by "section," I mean a cross-section of the dam which is considerably wider, thicker through the dam than what we propose now. That, I presume, is one of the points that you refer to as the difference. Mr. SAYLOR. That is correct. Mr. PULS. That difference has come about through additional studies that we have made to obtain economy and a change of criteria that we have established in the Bureau that has been supported by tests and research in strengths of concrete and mixes and the raising of stresses allowable over what was allowed at Hoover Dam, and we are confident now and satisfied that we can accept those higher stresses, therefore reduce the quantity of concrete in the dam. That is the reason that the cross section was changed in that respect. In regard to the powerplant, our first layout |