The Alahama-Coosa River System 195 



Consistent with this interpretation of the intent of Public Law 

 436 on the matter of sharing costs for flood control, Chairman 

 Dondero obtained the following view from Colonel Whipple of 

 the Corps of Engineers: 



Chairman Dondero: As you understand the language at the 

 bottom of page 4 — and at least it is my interpretation that the 

 Alabama Power Company really takes the risk of expending that 

 money for providing for flood control or navigation, and they 

 could include it in the rate-making application in the State of 

 Alabama unless some time in the future Congress should enact 

 legislation to change that. 



Colonel Whipple: Yes. 



Chairman Dondero: Is that not about the picture? 



Colonel Whipple: Yes, Sir. That would be part of their capi- 

 tal expenses. There is no question about it. 



Chairman Dondero: It would be part of the hazard in taking 

 over the power features on this river? 



Colonel Whipple: Yes, sir. 



Chairman Dondero: At least that is the way I understand that 

 language. 



Colonel Whipple: Yes, sir. 



Chairman Dondero: Mr. Rains. 



Mr. Rains: [one of the co-sponsors of the legislation]: I think 

 that is correct and I think it is a proper interpretation. ^^ 



The record then is not clear as to who ultimately will bear the 

 cost of flood protection in excess of that required to compensate 

 for the effects of valley storage displaced. Chairman Martin speaks 

 emphatically against the notion that the Alabama Power Company 

 intends to approach the Congress for an appropriation. On the 

 other hand, a letter from the Alabama Power Company to the 

 Federal Power Commission dated March 5, 1956, reflects the view 

 that the former regards the suspension of payments assessed by the 

 Federal Power Commission for the headwater benefits provided by 

 the Federal Allatoona storage project as a legitimate quid pro quo 

 for the flood control benefits Alabama Power Company would 

 provide under terms of Public Law 436. The two expressions of 

 opinion are not necessarily inconsistent. In order to obtain com 

 pensation for costs it incurs for flood control, the company would 

 not have to employ "the device of this section [Section 11] for an 

 appropriation," in Mr. Martin's words. Instead, it could use Sec- 



»Zfc/d., p. 83. 



