We give to this whole country a much larger development for no more Federal taxes if we can use these structures for several purposes. The multiple use is well established and we think it is highly desirable to have it. This encourages the multiple use.

We have in Texas a situation that I recognize does not exist in some other States, but we have I believe it is $200 million, is it not, Senator that we have available in State funds for loans to the local agencies to carry on exactly this kind of work.

There are those. You know there are lawyers everywhere who raise questions, and some of the members of the committee are lawyers, and I have been, and you know that there is no criticism of the lawyer but he finds fault and says you cannot use this money for this purpose, and we have had the question raised in Texas that the State could not advance this money. We have issued the bonds.

We have got the money, but the question has been raised that “you cannot advance it to these local agencies unless they have these rights in perpetuity; that under the provisions for which the money was originally provided you cannot set it up and use it simply for a leasehold interest."

Well, the Government, the Federal Government, has never sought to do an injustice to these local interests but unless we can clear their title, as it were, to the use as long as the structure is usable, we find that we are not going to be able to get nearly as much local contribution.

And it is for the purpose of encouraging these local contributions, as well as for the purpose of dealing fairly with the agencies that put up the money, that we come before you and ask for the passage of this bill.

I repeat, it is a general bill. It is just as applicable in Kentucky as it is in Texas, and it is just as applicable in North Carolina.

It applies all over the United States, and we believe that whether it is in Montana or whether it is in Florida, that if the people put up a share of the local money they should have that share of the use as long as the use is available and that is all that the bill does.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Congressman Poage, for your usual able explanation of the bill.

Senator Jordan?

Senator JORDAN. I have enjoyed hearing your explanation, and 1 am always glad to see you.

We deal more in plowing than we do in water together, but it is always good to be with you.

I thoroughly agree with your analysis of this situation because we have so many of these same problems in North Carolina.

A recent dam was completed down there, and it is the Kerr Scott Dam now, where the city of Winston-Salem put up $1 million and in 50 years their equity is gone.

Is that not correct?

Mr. POAGE. That is right, at present.

Senator JORDAN. This would correct that and they would have $1 million worth of stock in the dam as long as there was a dam? Mr. POAGE. That is right.

Senator JORDAN. So I am wholeheartedly in favor of this corrective

measure.

In addition to that, it encourages us to participate and helps municipalities, and it would save the Federal Government money, and it would get the people back home to put up the money for the uses, and they are entitled to it because a great many times the city is getting water from the creek, and the Federal Government will dam it up, and they have no right to do it sometimes, but it makes it hard on them. So I am heartily in support of this bill.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Senator.

Senator METCALF. Šenator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. Congressman Poage, may I say, too, that I am very happy that you have testified before this committee and have given us this very accurate explanation of the bill.

I may say that I have had the opportunity to testify before committees which you have chaired and I always appreciate your courtesies.

I would like to ask about two or three questions.

Am I correct in saying that H.R. 1696 would not change the existing requirement as to the amounts proportioned for payment or reimbursement, but that the equity would be extended beyond the present schedule of 50 years?

all.

Mr. POAGE. It would not change the requirement as to payments at

It would simply change the interest owned by the local agency. Senator COOPER. I understand. I just wanted to get that clear, that this bill does not extend the time of repayment

Mr. POAGE. No, sir.

Senator COOPER (continuing). Of the local user's share of the cost? Mr. POAGE. No, sir; it does not.

Senator COOPER. Now, may I ask another question?

You referred to "lawyers," and this, I think, is rather evident, too, but I would like to have it in the record.

The bill would assure to users their rights in perpetuity as long as they desired to have those rights?

Mr. POAGE. Yes, sir; that is exactly what it does.

Senator COOPER. It would also impose upon the user the intended obligation to maintain the reservoir for the period of the usage? Mr. POAGE. No, sir; I do not know that it does.

There may be a provision that requires that

Senator COOPER. Well

Mr. POAGE. It leaves the same obligation that presently exists as to maintenance. It does not impose a new obligation of maintenance, I do not think.

Senator COOPER. No; I am sure of that. But if the period is set and the user desires to continue to take advantage of the use of the water, I think it is provided that the user would assume

Mr. POAGE. Oh, yes, sir.

On page 3 there is the provision that all of the obligations previously existing for maintenance continue during the continued use of the reservoir. What I should say is that it does not impose new obligations for maintenance different from those that are presently required for the 50-year period.

But, of course, while part of the payment is an obligation of maintenance, that continues during the use, whether it be 50, 100, or 150

years. It continues the same obligations that exist during the 50 years. They continue on as long as the reservoir is usable. It does not impose any new ones.

Senator COOPER. In the event the user decided after the period of his contract, 50 years, that he did not desire to use the reservoir any longer, he might use alternatives or if he would choose to take alternatives this bill would not place any obligation upon the user? Mr. POAGE. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. That is for the maintenance of the reservoir? Mr. POAGE. No, sir. The user then would simply turn it over to the Federal Government.

Senator COOPER. This bill has been approved by the Corps of Engineers?

Mr. POAGE. Yes, sir,

Senator COOPER. And the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. POAGE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. I thank you very much.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you, sir.

Senator METCALF. Čongressman Poage, this actually is spelling out into the law what many of us felt was the intent of the Federal Government in participating in these multiowner operations where municipalities or soil conservation districts or reclamation districts help in the financing of dams, is it not?

Mr. POAGE. Yes; I think definitely it does.

Of course, as I said a while ago, the Engineers started in the beginning saying, "Well, we are figuring this dam will be paid out in 50 years. We are only figuring a 50-year life so we can only give a 50-year right to the community."

We know now, no one of these dams has lived 50 years, of course. There has not been 50 years since the first of these conservation dams were built, but we know full well now that many of them are going to have a life of far in excess of 50 years.

Senator METCALF. And many of the dams, of course, that we are figuring on now are computed on a feasibility basis of 100 years?

Mr. POAGE. Correct; but in the beginning we figured on 50 years. Senator METCALF. Yes. And now the counterpart of Senator Cooper's or one of Senator Cooper's questions is this:

This does not bind the Federal Government to continue to operate such a dam after it is determined that it is no longer feasible? Mr. POAGE. No, sir; it does not.

If the Government feels that the dam has outlived its usefulness, they do not have to operate it.

Senator METCALF. But it provides a means whereby the local agency or municipality can operate it?

Mr. POAGE. That is right.

Senator METCALF. Well, thank you very much for a very helpful

statement.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the members of the committee and Senator Yarborough for bearing with me. I appreciate it. Senator YARBOROUGH. I thank the committee for seeing my colleague at this time.

Senator METCALF. Thank you, Senator Yarborough, and you have a statement that you are going to submit for the record?

Senater YARBOROUGH. I think Congressman Poage has covered this o thoroughly that I may not. I had one being prepared in my office, but I may not submit it now. I endorse everything he said.

Senator METCALF. Thank you.

Our next witness is Col. Robert J. Kasper, Deputy Director of Civil Works of the Corps of Engineers.

Colonel Kasper, we are very glad to have you here.

STATEMENT OF COL. ROBERT J. KASPER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY LESTER EDELMAN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR LEGISLATION, OCE; AND DONALD CURTIS, CHIEF, MULTIPLE USE COORDINATION BRANCH, CIVIL WORKS DIVISION, OCE

Colonel KASPER. Thank you, sir.

I have with me Mr. Edelman, our Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, and Mr. Curtis, Chief of the Multiple Use Coordination Branch, Civil Works Division.

Senator METCALF. Well, we welcome you both.

Colonel KASPER. Mr. Chairman, anything that we have to say now is almost anticlimatic. I think Mr. Poage has explained the situation very thoroughly.

The purpose of H.R. 1696 is to make permanent the interest of States or local agencies who have contributed to the cost of providing water storage to the Department of Army reservoirs.

The existing legislatíve authorities, under which authorization has been provided, do not define specifically the rights of local interests after payment of the allocated cost of water storage has been completed.

In negotiation of past contracts local interests in some cases have felt very strongly that their rights should be defined not only for 50 years, which is the maximum payment period under the contracts, but for the physical life of the project as well.

H.R. 1696 contains all of the clarifying suggestions made by the Department of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget during the last session of Congress when an earlier version of this bill was considered.

The Department of the Army considers that the bill should be enacted.

Senator METCALF. Thank you very much.

You heard me ask Congressman Poage this, but I will ask you: This merely carries out what certainly was the intent of Congress and the intent of various agencies when the provision for participation by municipalities was provided?

Colonel KASPER. Yes, sir. This gives the local interests who have contributed their money to water storage capacity the right to such capacity after the payout period.

Senator METCALF. And in all equity, they should have that right after the payout period?

Colonel KASPER. Yes, sir.

Senator METCALF. Senator Jordan?

Senator JORDAN. I think it is a worthwhile piece of legislation, and it should be enacted.

Senator METCALF. Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. Thank you. No questions.

Senator METCALF. Thank you for your testimony, and this will conclude the testimony in the hearings for today.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was in recess, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.)