________________________________________________________________________Richard S. Kem
From the first year, where I really had to take what was there for testimony, I always tried to
develop really a story line and to say something, not just review projects, not just a catalog
of, "Here's what we've done," but to point out what it meant in terms of the budget. I worked
hard on my budget statement every year. Of course, it was printed in the record and it's all
sitting there. It was really a "Here's what we're doing and what we need and why" kind of a
statement for the division. There was a longer written statement, and we would cut that down
for the oral briefing statement for whatever minutes they gave us. We would then try to
anticipate questions and answers. I would call on the various congressmen and their staffs
prior to testimony to ensure I was ready. I would call on Hunter Spillan to identify issues,
make the connections, and ferret out potential areas that he wanted to make sure were
answered.
We could usually be prepared to address what would come up, but it was never routine. The
first year, besides the TennTom, we had another most significant project because it was a
controversial one--the Section 202 flood control program in West Virginia, Kentucky, and
Virginia.
The event that led to that was a very large flood in April 1977 that wiped out portions of
those three states and inundated the Tug Fork and the Levisa Fork valleys of West Virginia
and the upper Cumberland River in Kentucky.
Five cities were named in the legislation, which was widely pushed by Senator Robert Byrd. I
only mention his name--there were others--because he was the one who was most visible in
our connections thereafter. That legislation mentioned Williamson and Matewan, West
Virginia; Pineville and Barbourville, Kentucky; and Grundy, Virginia, as the five cities. It
basically said that regardless of all weather policies and normal ways of doing things, we
would provide measures to alleviate the flood conditions of the standard project flood for the
area. The specific language is important because when Secretary Bill Gianelli later got
involved--he was not yet there at the time--he thought the language was too carte blanche,
and so he opposed the project. Senator Byrd had been a writer of the legislative language,
along with Senator [John] Cooper from Kentucky and others. He knew what he intended it to
mean, and so we in the Ohio River Division and Huntington District found ourselves in
between two giants, Gianelli and Byrd, and their different interpretations of what was meant
by the project. That remained a ticklish situation throughout my tenure as the division
engineer.
This very first year of testimony for me also coincided with the Senate's wanting to have
testimony on the TennTom. Senator Byrd also wanted to hear about his Section 202 project.
I remember it well because the hearing was held in a very small room in the Senate. We
really had to crowd in. General Ellis was at the table because the South Atlantic Division
always testified first on the TennTom. I was standing in the back and could hardly get
through to my seat when it came time to swap. Ellis got up and I came in. Everybody was
looking around, and the committee chairman looked around for the majority leader, who
wasn't there. Someone said, "He's not coming." So, everyone got up to leave and then all of
a sudden somebody says, "Senator Byrd's on his way," so everybody scampered to get back
in their seats. He really was very pointed and direct in his questions to me. I mean, it was
275
Previous Page
