LCRA cannot be criticized for achieving the best possible financing of its expansion program, even by the use of Federal funds that are made available under the vast and exceedingly liberal Federal civil works program, the Bureau of Reclamation should have been more accurate in its evaluation of the project, particularly in view of the facts before it. To further burden the taxpayers of the Nation without giving due consideration to the financial injuries that will inevitably befall them, especially the citizens of the State of Texas in the area of the proposed project cannot be justified and should not be tolerated.

The second matters of which cognizance should be taken are: The average annual benefits attributed to the project by the Bureau of Reclamation, and their relationship to the gross financial losses that will befall the citizens of Texas who reside in the general area of the Columbus Bend project. The benefits attributed to the project by the Bureau of Reclamation are $1,951,000 over a 50-year period, or $1,792,000 over a 100-year period, whereas the gross financial losses to the citizens living in the general area of the project stated in the aggregate are at least $1,630,511 for perpetuity to say nothing of the inconvenience that will follow the involuntary abandonment of their homesteads and their long-established modes of living and earning a livelihood. The construction of the Columbus Bend project will deprive hundreds of people of their homesteads and take out of production some 33,000 acres of land, 22,000 of which are some of the most fertile and productive lands in the State of Texas. A house-to-house canvass made by the Fayette-Colorado Counties River Association indicated the annual economic income from these 22,000 acres as follows:

And all of these items represent productive wealth, not such intangibles as boat rides, bird watching, hunting, and fishing, or other recreations which, according to the Bureau of Reclamation report are to account for 64 percent of the aggregate benefits attributed to the project. As an example of how some of these recreational benefits were computed reference is made to the report made by the National Park Service which is attached to that made by the Bureau of Reclamation in support of its recommendation of this project. The National Park Service estimated that about 437,500 visitor days per year would be accounted for at the Columbus Bend project, and assigned a value of $1.60 per visitor day. While the number of visitor days estimated by the National Park Service might reflect a reasonably fair guess, if the Columbus Bend project were the only recreational area to be visited, it does not take into account such recreational areas as the Humble Reservoir near Houston, the Capers Ridge, Cleveland, Horea, Lake Creek, Millican, and Somerville, all of which

are just as near to Houston. Similar argument applies to the Austin area which will be served by San Gabriel, Laneport, Pedernales, and La Grange, all closer to Austin than the proposed Columbus Bend project would be. But even assuming, though not conceding that the number of visitor days would approximate the 437,500 as estimated by the National Park Service, the unit benefit of $1.60 per visitor day attributed thereto is so fantastically high that it is ridiculous. In no event should the unit benefit exceed 50 cents per visitor day, the figure previously used by the Corps of Engineers in many of its evaluation reports. The justification claimed for wildlife and recreation is completely unfounded. The National Park Service arrives at the astronomical figure of $958,000 as annual estimated benefits from the fish and wildlife aspect of the project.

It derives this from the sum of two figures, the value of commercial fishing and sportsmen gross expenditures associated with hunting and fishing. This procedure is unrealistic because it gives the economic value of this project a ghostly hue. The use of the gross value of commercial fishing as a benefit to the project is obviously not proper. The acquisition of fish is not cost free, and to arrive at the benefit from this item for the project, the cost of acquisition should be subtracted which would reduce substantially or eliminate entirely the figure arrived at by the National Park Service. It should be further noted that the total gross value of commercial fresh water fishing in all of Texas in recent years has amounted to only $100,000 annually, yet there is a total of $60,000 annually allocated to benefits for commercial fish for this project alone.

The sportsman expenditures associated with the project are entirely irrelevant as a measure of benefits. By assigning any and all expenditures associated with a hunting or fishing outing to include the equipment and accommodations used, as a benefit for a project, is truly a fantastic approach to the economic worth of the project. These associated expenditures are in no way cost free to the project, but if such benefits as those mentioned are to be recognized, it seems clear that the National Park Service missed a good bet because, in addition to the items actually used, it might just as well have included as benefits the cost of the automobile used for transportation to the recreation area, and the cost of the babysitter hired to watch the children at home while the husband and wife were out fishing, bird watching, boating, hunting, or swimming.

All of these fabulous deductions made by our overzealous Government agencies to promote civil works programs raise some serious questions in the minds of many of our citizens. Just how long will the taxpayers and their duly constituted representatives consider seriously such economic fantasies as the Columbus Bend Dam? Can even our United States indulge in a questionable investment of some $23 million of tax moneys for the construction, and along with the LCRA, a Government agency, spend more than a million dollars each and every year thereafter for operation and maintenance of the Columbus Bend Dam purely for recreational purposes?

But now, let us look at some of the additional aspects which may shed some light on the issues which makes necessary, at least in the minds of the proponents, an early approval of the Columbus Bend project by the Congress. Another large dam is planned for construc

tion immediately above La Grange. This dam is now designated as the La Grange Dam and if built will flood out many square miles of fertile river bottom land near this city. The LaGrange Dam along with the Columbus Bend Dam will seriously affect the economic picture in the many small towns and cities which are located in the area of these reservoirs because the flooding of land by the reservoirs will reduce the production of real wealth that is food and fiber. This production of Mother Earth's wealth is the true basis of the prosperity of these trading areas. It is not possible to believe that the contemplated hunters, fishermen, bird watchers, and itinerant pleasure seekers will drop enough money by their purchases into the economy of this area to replenish the known losses that will be incurred. It is a good bet that visitors from the cities will come to this area well supplied with their various needs. Can the people of this area afford to depend on the possibility of recreation income to support their economy? The plan for the La Grange Reservoir appears to be definite enough to be included in the planners maps. Certainly with no real urgency for action on Columbus Bend having been shown, the people should have the data on both of these projects at the same time to determine their economic value and not have them feed out piecemeal. Either Columbus Bend is premature or the fate of the La Grange Reservoir has been settled and therefore all data should be furnished to the public. It seems however, that it is a policy of some Government agencies to keep the public uninformed on their activities as long as possible and to disclose to the public the minimum information they consider necessary to get their plans approved. Can it be that the proponents do not want to face the combined opposition of an aroused public by having both the La Grange Dam and the Columbus Bend Dams considered at the same time?

Mr. Chairman, present indications point to the fact that Lake Travis and Buchanan's storage capacity are rapidly being reduced by siltage and in the foreseeable future these operations will be materially curtailed as prime power sources. The statements extracted from the Bureau of Reclamation report quote LCRA as desiring additional power dams as far down the Colorado River as possible. The Columbus Bend Dam and the La Grange would be valuable assets to the LCRA especially if they were owned and operated outright by this agency without the controls imposed by water resource agencies of the Federal Government. Should this be a consideration for these project approvals then adequate weight should be given to the major strides that have been made in the design and construction of thermal and atomic energy plants as a source of electrical power also to the advances made in long-distance transmission of electrical energy by high voltage. In fact, the whole future should be considered and a determination of how far it is desirable to speculate in the determination of our engineering and scientific progress. Our present methods of generating and transmitting electrical energy may be as out of date as the Pony Express in 25 years to say nothing of a 100-year period considered on this project.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gullatt, let me interrupt you there one time. How much longer is your statement?

Mr. GULLATT. Just about 1 minute.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, because we are going to have to get through with this now. This committee is interested in hearing what these people down here have to say. They are not interested in a speech. Mr. GULLATT. I am speaking for these people.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, but this committee wants facts. We appreciate your statement. Your statement without objection will be included in the record the same as if it had been read in full. This committee came down here to hear these people themselves, Mr. Gullatt, and we can hear you in Washington on this, and I don't think that you ought to impose on their time to

Mr. GULLATT. If people don't want to hear me, I am perfectly willing

The CHAIRMAN. It is not what the people want to hear. It is what this committee wants to hear, Mr. Gullatt. Now, we came down here to hear these people. Now, if you will conclude, I will appreciate it.

Mr. GULLATT. That is all I have got to offer.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, your statement, with your permission, will be included in the record the same as if it was read word for word in full, and "The Economic Prospects of the Columbus Bend Project" as prepared by your firm, if you desire that included in the record, it will be included in the record.

Do you desire that, Mr. Gullatt?

Mr. GULLATT. I do. I would like to have both of them. May I read the final word here?

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, these will be included in the record at this point. You go ahead, Mr. Gullatt.

Mr. GULLATT. I have summarized it, Mr. Chairman. It will only take me 1 minute to finish it.

Mr. Chairman, there are ample recreational facilities available in this area to care for our present and prospective needs, surely, within the life of the proposed Columbus Bend project and the contemplated La Grange Dam project. The economies of the counties, cities, and town in this area will be damaged by the material loss of productive area for food and fiber which are essential to their welfare. The Bureau of Reclamation report does not justify the Columbus Bend project nor does it establish any urgency which requires immediate action by the Congress or this committee. Their report of the projected water requirements for the lower Colorado River area are substantiated by vague, unidentified estimates of users, classified as "others," to which the major portion of their demand is allocated. The report further uses an exaggerated and questionable benefit value to support the wildlife, fishing, and recreational portion of the cost. Ample cover is available for wildlife in this area as now constituted and our gulf coast has an overabundance of suitable habitat for water fowl and fish, which area can be used at present for no other purposes. The real purpose of this project is obscure and not available to the general public. If there is a purpose of any kind which justifies this project it is not evident from a study of the available data which has been furnished the public by the Bureau of Reclamation's report. Surely the citizens of this area of Texas, particularly those residing in flooded areas of the Columbus Bend project, who stand to be injured by the proposed construction, should be accorded greater con

sideration and more protection for their heritage than is reflected by the report and recommendations of the Bureau of Reclamation which has been now forwarded to the Congress.

It is highly recommended that the House bill for authorizing the Columbus Bend project be considered as ill conceived, unjustified, and not recommended by this committee to the House of Representatives. The Columbus Bend project should not at this time be authorized by the Congress.

THE ECONOMIC PROSPECTS OF THE COLUMBUS BEND PROJECT, COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TEX.

A Critique of the Study Report Prepared by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, on August 31, 1960

PREFACE

The following analysis and critique of the Columbus Bend project was prepared for the Fayette-Colorado Counties River Association by Doswell Gullatt & Associates, of 427 Transportation Building, Washington, D.C.

The Fayette-Colorado Counties River Association is unincorporated and has a membership of over 250 persons which will be adversely affected, both directly and indirectly by the construction of the Columbus Bend project as recommended by the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, in a report issued on August 31, 1961.

EXAMINATION OF THE PROPOSED REPORT ON THE COLUMBUS BEND PROJECT, TEXAS

In a proposed report issued on August 31, 1960, the Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, deals with the Columbus Bend project, Texas, which purportedly is a part of the proposed multiple-purpose development on the lower Colorado River of Texas, to be accomplished at Federal expense in accordance with the Federal reclamation laws. This proposed report is based on and includes a feasibility report issued by the regional director on March 18, 1960, to which is appended certain other reports issued by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

According to the proposed report the primary purpose of the Columbus Bend project is that of increasing the dependable water supply obtainable from the lower Colorado River necessary to permit urban and industrial growth in the area. Secondary purposes are identified as recreation and the conservation and development of wildlife. It is further stated in this proposed report that a key element in the Texas basins project, which includes the Columbus Bend project, would be a water supply canal in the coastal area extending from the Sabine River to the Rio Grande.

The Federal construction cost of the Columbus Bend project is estimated by the regional director as $21,690,000, exclusive of interest during construction. This estimated cost has been allocated: $13,513,000 for the Columbus Dam and Reservoir, $7,539,000 for the development of wildlife refuge, and $638,000 for the provision of minimum basic recreational facilities. The proposed report further indicates that additional recreational facilities are to be provided with non-Federal funds to the extent of $950,000.

The annual economic costs and the annual benefits were estimated for 50-year and 100-year periods. The estimated economic costs are stated as $918,000 for the 50-year period and $738,000 for the 100-year period. The estimated benefits are stated as $1,951,000 for the 50-year period and $1,792,000 for the 100-year period. The ratios of evaluated benefits to the annual economic costs are stated in the proposed report as 2.12 to 1 for the 50-year period and as 2.43 to 1 for the 100-year period.

Of the total estimated Federal costs aggregating $21.690,000 the proposed report indicates that $13,513,000 are reimbursable with interest at 21⁄2 percent during construction which, according to the proposed report has been computed to be $743,000. From the sum of these items which aggregate $14,256,000 a credit for $20,000 has been allowed by the regional director for and advance of this amount toward the cost of investigating the Columbus Bend project. In summary the total amount considered as reimbursable has been stated as