|
<br />.-
<br />
<br />v~8G\
<br />
<br />MISSOURI RIVER BASIN
<br />
<br />preliminary and g€)l1erl1lized estinmte for the lVli"soun Basin ,,:S a
<br />whole that indicates Fede....l expendItures of $1,000,000 for pll1nnmg,
<br />amI approximately $350,000,000 for undertl1king the programs that
<br />would be required in oddition to the amounts recommended to be
<br />authorized under the Illan Il,'oposed by the Cl,ie! of Engiueers.
<br />3. Tbe full development of the water resources of the ;\1;ssOllr; BDsin
<br />should include detn.iled considemtion of the possibilities of hydro-
<br />electric pon'cr development. In response to my inquiry of tJnnuary
<br />22,1944,11 copy of which I sent to you, the ChairnlllU of the Fedeml
<br />Power Commission, under dat.e of Febr1lory 14, 1944, advises me that
<br />power development will prove an importnnt factor in u.oy program
<br />for the Missouri Basin. it being estimltted that the full development, of
<br />the water resource~ of the 1\lissouri River n.nel its t.ribntrnries might
<br />ultimately include the instulll1tiou of l1S much as 3,000,000 kilowfitts
<br />at projects either now contClllplated or which subscqlwnt investigation
<br />may show to be desimble without socrifiee of thc other benefit.s which
<br />tIle river fl.nd it...:.; t.ributaries shouhl cont.ribut.e to t.he growth n.od wcl~
<br />fl1re of the region. More than half of this l1ddit.ionl11 power would
<br />probably he found ill projects eOl1st1'llct.cd in the main stem of the
<br />MisRouri River. The Chfiirmnu o.lso advises, however, that pending a
<br />more detailed survev ond studv of the Missouri River, (,he Commis-
<br />sion cannot estimate the Feder,il expenditures for such power develop-
<br />ment that would be in addi tion to the amounts recommended to be
<br />authorized under the pIon proposed by the Chief of Engineers. SlIch
<br />detl1iled survey ond study would require from $200,000 to $250,000,
<br />in addition to the funds now availoble to the Federal Power Com-
<br />mission.
<br />4. The plan proposed by the Chief of Enginee,rs recommends im-
<br />provements be authorized at a first cost to the Federal Government
<br />of $481.600,000, inadditioll to the recommended completion of other
<br />presently authorized reservoirs and levees at 11 lirst cost to the Federal
<br />Government of $171,000,000, Or a total, in all, of $658,600,000. In
<br />combinlttion with tbe rough estimated outlays by the Department of
<br />Agriculture of $350,000,000, this would bring the total known cost of
<br />carrying out tbe plans to slightly more than $1,000,000,000. How-
<br />ever, no detailed Itnalyses of th" tangible benefits that would accrue
<br />under the plan proposed by the Chief of Engineers o,re now l1vltilable
<br />to justify even the proposed additional Federal expenditure of
<br />$481,600,000 that the Chief of Engineers recommends be l1uthorized,
<br />although it is stoted in his report thnt the proposed system of levees
<br />il.nd reservoirs would provide complete flood protection to fixed l1nd
<br />movable property with an estimated vltlue of about $1,000,000,000.
<br />5. The proposed report of the Chief of Engineers does not make
<br />clear what his views are as to the ult.imate relationship that should
<br />prevail among the plan proposed in this report, the Ilroposed 9-foot
<br />channel project for the Missouri River between Sioux Cit,y and the
<br />mouth, as recommended in House Document No: 214, Seventy-sixth
<br />Congress, and now under considerntion by tbe Congn'.ss in the pending
<br />bill CR. R. 3961) "Authorizing tho construction, repair, and preserva-
<br />tion of certain public works on rivers ond horbors, l1nd fOr other
<br />purposes," and upstream uses of the water resource. of the basin.
<br />6. The immedIate authorization and construction of this project,
<br />because of war necessity, is not apparent. Your proposed letter to
<br />the chairman, Committee on Flood Control, House of Representatives,
<br />
|