PAGENO="0001" s' 2r1/ ~ ~, ~ ~/(f f/VI~?C OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS, FLOOD CONTROL, AND RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION BILL-1968 [90-371 HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MAY 14; JUNE 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27; AND JULY 2, 1968 Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works bOil 552~ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 97-700-0 WASHINGTON 1968 PAGENO="0002" JQHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota ROBERT E. JONES, JR., Alabama JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Illinois JIM WRIGHT, Texas KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, South Carolina DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana RAY ROBERTS, Texas ROBERT A. EVERETT, Tennessee RICHARD D. McCARTHY, New York JAMES KEE, West Virginia JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Louisiana JEROME R. WALDIE, California JIM WRIGHT, Texas KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, South Carolina DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina RAY ROBERTS, Texas ROBERT A. EVERETT, Tennessee JAMES KEE, West Virginia HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois JIM WRIGHT, Texas DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina RAY ROBERTS, Texas WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, South Carolina RICHARD D. McCARTHY, New York JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey ROBERT A. EVERETT, Tennessee EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Louisiana JEROME R. WALDIE, California WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JAMES R. GROVER, New York JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire DON H. CLAUSEN, California ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky ROBERT V. DENNEY, Nebraska ROGER H. ZION, Indiana JACK H. McDONALD, Michigan JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Arkansas CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio DON H. CLAUSEN, California WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky ROBERT V. DENNEY, Nebraska ROGER H. ZION, Indiana JACK H. McDONALD, Michigan JOHN PAUL HAMMER'SCHMIDT, Arkansas CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida JAMES H. GROVER, JR., New York DON H. CLAUSEN, California ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky. JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Arkansas COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS GEORGE H. FALLOX, Maryland, Chairman COMMITTEE STAFF RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Chief Counsel LESTER EDELMAN, Counsel CLIFTON W. ENFIELD, Minority Counsel SHELDON S. GILBERT, Associate Minority Counsel STAFF ASSISTANTS DOROTHY BEAM, Executive Staff Assistant MERIAM BUCKLEY ERLA 5. YOUMANS ANNE KENNEDY STELLA SPAULDING STERLYN B. CARROLL SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama, Chairman AUGUSTA PETERSON, Clerk SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota, Chairman MAURICE B. TOBIN, Clerk (II) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS I. TESTIMONY Abernethy, Hon. Thomas G., a Representative in Congress from the Page Stateof Mississippi 608 Adair, Hon. E. Ross, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana 331 Adams, Hon. Tom, secretary of State for the State of Florida; accompanied by Hon. Randolph Hodges, director, board of conservation, State of Florida, Tallahassee, Fla.; Col. Jervet Kelly, assistant director, board of conservation, State of Florida, Tallahassee, Fla.; James Smith, program director, Florida board of conservation, Tallahassee, Fla.; and Scotty Fraser, office of the secretary of state, State of Florida, Tallahassee, Fla 197 Albert, Hon. Carl, a Representative in Congress from the State of Okla- homa 519 Alexander, J. M., member of the board of conservation and economic development, Fredericksburg,Va 253 Anderson, Col. Ferd E., Jr., Assistant Director of Civil Works for Pacific Divisions, U.S. Army Engineers, Washington, D.C 63, 410, 673, 698 Bailey, Ralph C., president, Alaska National Bank and Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce flood control committee, Fairbanks, Alaska~ 37 Baker, Nelson, parks department, city of Buffalo, N.Y 582 Barton, Dr. B. K., executive director, Wabash Valley Interstate Commis- sion, Terre Haute, Ind 310 Bayh, Hon. Birch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana 308 Belle, Joseph V., Special Assistant, Facilities Project Division, Naval Engineering Command, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C~ 618 Berry, Hon. E. Y., a Representative in Congress from the State of South Dakota 538 Bevill, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama 60 Boggs, Hon. Hale, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisi- ana 567 Boucher, Hon. H. A. "Red," mayor of Fairbanks, Alaska 9 Brenneman, Homer, secretary-treasurer, Indiana Soil Conservation Council, Inc 327 Brotzman, Hon. Donald G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado 106 Burleson, Hon. Omar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 114 Carlson, Dwayne, president, AFL-CIO of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska - - - 39 Carpenter, Hon. James, mayor of Salyersville, Ky.; accompanied by Albert K. Moore and Joseph L. McCauley 224 Carter, Randolph H., the clerk's office, Warrenton, Va 267 Cassidy, E. Michael, executive vice president, Mississippi Valley Associa- tion, St. Louis, Mo 535 Celler, Hon. Emanuel, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 459 Cleveland, Hon. James C. a Representative in Congress from the State of NewHampshire 49 Clifford Mrs.LenaM 277 Corrado, Ernest J., American Merchant Marine, Inc., Washington, D.C., accompanied by Henry Weinkauff 587 Culver, Hon. John C. a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa 76 Cunningham, Hon. Glenn a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska 82 (III) PAGENO="0004" Iv Dameron, Zach, vice chairman, Rappahannock River Basin Advisory Page Commission 256 Dennis, Robert T., executive director of the Potomac Basin Center, Washington, D.C 283 Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan 414 Duiski, Hon. Thaddeus J., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 581 Dustin, Thomas E., national vice president, the Isaak Walton League of America 318 Duval, Clive L., II, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates 285 Edwards, Hon. Jack, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana; accompanied by Lt. Gen. Walter K. Wilson, Jr. U.S. Army (retired), former Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army 539 Fair, Burrell B., civil engineer, St Francis Levee District, West Memphis, Ark - 178 Fallon, Hon. George H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland - 396 Fascell, Hon. Dante, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 204,474 Feil, George, Chief, Planning Division, Civil Works Directorate, Office, Chief of Engineers 652, 707 Frank, Conrad, chairman, municipal utilities board, Fairbanks, Alaska - - 46 Fuqua, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida - 476 Gathings, Hon. E. C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas~ 160 Gibbons, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 209, 475 Gillam, Harold, chairman, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fairbanks Alaska 34 Green, Hon. Edith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon. 457 Gurnee, Mark S., Chief of the Operations Division, Directorate of Civil Works, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army 641 Gurney, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 409 Hall, Lt. Col. Daniel D., assistant director of civil works for the Mississippi Valley office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army 157, 653, 676 Hamilton, Hon. Lee H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana 330 Harris, C. B., vice president of the Izaak Walton League of America~~. 271 Hébert, Hon. F. Edward, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana; accompanied by J. V. Ferguson, attorney, New Orleans, La.; Leon Gary, director, department of public works, State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge; and Col. William E. Lewis, New Orleans Dock Board, New Orleans, La 547 Heckler, Hon. Margaret, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts 403 Hodges, Randolph, director, Florida Board of Conservation; accompanied by I. J. Stephens, rear admiral, U.S. Coast Guard (retired) 477 Hogeland, A. W., plant manager, F?vIC Corp., Fredericksburg, Va 251 Hoisveen, 1\iilo W., chief engineer, North Dakota Water Commission - - 378 Ikari, ~Irs. Panalee, the Canoe Cruiser's Association of Greater Wash- ir~gton, D.C 279 Irwin, Hon. Donald J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut 52 Johnson, Hon. Harold T. (Bizz), a Representative in Congress from the State of California 126, 442 Johnson, W. Martin, of Wiley & Wilson, consulting engineers and archi- tects, Prince William County, Va 254 Kleppe, Hon. Thomas S., a Representative in Congress from the State of North Dakota 368 Kluczynski, Hon. John C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 617 Langen, Hon. Odin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota 70,73 PAGENO="0005" V Lloyd, Hon. Sherman P., a Representative in Congress from the State Page of Utah 129 Long, Frank, attorney, representing eight western railroads, Chicago, Ill 598 Long, Hon. Speedy 0., a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana 518 Lundborg, 0. R., vice president and national legislative representative of the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen 302 McAleer, John B., Office, Chief of Engineers 689 McCarthy, Hon. Richard D., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York .585 McClory, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 424 McCollam, William Jr., senior vice president, Arkansas Power & Light Co.; accompanied by Bruce Menees, director of governmental affairs, Arkansas Power & Light Co 342 Machen, Hon. Hervey G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland 510 Madden, Hon. Ray J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana 617 Matthias, L. R. Roy, vice president of the Red River Valley Association, Shreveport, La.: accompanied by C. A. Fairbanks, president, Red River Valley Association, Alexandria, La.; Calvin T. Watts, assistant director, Louisiana Department of Public Works, Baton Rouge, La.; Douglas F. Attaway, editor and publisher, the Shreveport Journal, Shreveport, La.; Howard Boswell, executive director, Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Tex.; George T. Brabham, president, Northeast Texas Municipal Water District, Daingerfield, Tex.; Frank- lin T. Jones, president, Cypress Valley Navigation District, Marshall, Tex.; and Howard Willingham, Texarkana, Tex 520 Meeds, Hon. Lloyd, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington Mendenhall, Howard, executive vice president, Wabash Valley Association, Inc., Mount Carmel, Ill 313 Mdrdes, Edward, Fairbanks city attorney, Fairbanks, Alaska 40 Montgomery, Hon. G. V. "Sonny," a Representative in Congress f~rom the State of Mississippi 609 Moulton, Jones R., Charleston, W. Va 188 Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of California 438 Myers, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana. 321 Noble, Brig. Gen. Charles C., Director of Civil Works, Office of Chief of Engineers; accompanied by Col. John C. H. Lee, Director, Office of Appalachian Studies, U.S. Army Engineers, Cincinnati, Ohio; Col. Ferd E. Anderson, Assistant Director of Civil Works for Central Divi- sions; Col. Richard L. Seidel, Assistant Director of Civil Works for Atlantic Divisions; Lt. Col. George B. Shaffer, Assistant Director of Civil Works for Plains Division; B. Joseph Tofani, Chief, Policy and Analysis Division; Lt. Col. Daniel D. Hall, Assistant Director of Civil Works for Mississippi Valley; Lt. Col. Lewis A. Pick, Jr., Assistant Director of Civil Works for Pacific Divisions; Loney Hart, Chief of Legislative Services, Real Estate Division; and Fred L. Thrall, Chief of the Water Conservation Branch 50, 151, 226, 394, 633 Olsen, Hon. Arnold, a Representative in Congress from the State of Montana 81, 301 Ottinger, Hon. Richard L., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 331 Pepper, Hon. Claude, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 207 Pick, Col. Lewis A., Jr., Assistant Director of Civil Works for Pacific Divisions, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.; accom- 1, 425 panied by Brig. Gen. Charles Noble, Director of Civil Works Patman, Hon. Wright, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 462 Perkins, Hon. Carl, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kentucky 223 PAGENO="0006" VI Page Pike, Hon. Otis, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 528 Pollock, Hon. Howard W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska 6,446 Porter, Harry, member, city council, Fairbanks, Alaska 44 Pryor, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arkansas 165, 519, 568 Radin, Alex, general manager, American Power Association 359 Railsback, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 79 Randall, Hon. William J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri 100 Reifel, Hon. Ben, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Dakota; accompanied by Hon. Chan Gurney, former U.S. Senator, and State Senator A. J. Rhian 530 Remington, Virginia, Remington, Va 275 Rivers, Hon. Mendel, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina 465 Rivers, Hon. Ralph J., former Member of Congress, Fairbanks, Alaska - 7 Robinson, Charles A., Jr., staff counsel and staff engineer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association 354 Rogers, Hon. Paul G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 206 Roth, Hon. William V., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Delaware 56 Rowe, Josiah P., III, mayor of the city of Fredericksburg, Va 257 Schaffer, Lt. Col. George B., Assistant Director of Civil Works for Plains Division, Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C 367, 650 Seidel, Col. Richard L., Assist.ant Director of Civil Works for Atlantic Division 395, 646, 676, 684 Scherle, Hon. William J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa 102 Schwengel, Hon. Fred, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa 76 Scott, Hon. WTilliam L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia 243 Setti, Mrs. Beulah, landowner, Remington, Va 276 Shriver, Hon. Garner E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas - 118 Sikes, Robert L. F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 196, 475 Snyder, Hon. M. Gene, a Representative in Congress from the State of Kentucky 64 St Germain, Hon. Fernand J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Rhode Island 400 Swick, E. L., Deputy Director, Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, D.C 630 Tangerose, James, director of waterways analysis, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C 387, 601 Teague, Hon. Olin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Tcxas~ 94 Thompson, Bill H., managing editor, Paris News, Paris, Tex 385 Thompson, Robert C., Office, Chief of Engineers 706 Thomson, Hon. Vernon W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin 75 Van Deerlin, Hon. Lionel, a Representative in Congress from the State of California 138 Waggonner, Hon. Joe D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana 516 Waldie, Hon. Jerome R., a Representative in Congress from the State of California 121 Waidrom, Robert, Sierra Clubs of Washington 281 \~Tallace, Wilbur B., chairman, Spotsylvania County, Va., board of super- visors 000 Watts, Calvin, assistant director of public works, Baton Rouge, La 565 WTillis, Hon. Edwin E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana 561 PAGENO="0007" VII Wilson, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Call- Page fornia 140 Wright, A. T., conservation consultant of the Wilderness Society of Washington D.C 280, 326 Young, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas - - 485 II. WRITTEN STATEMENTS AlleghanyElectric Cooperative, Inc 294 American Merchant Marine Institute 587 Bain, Robert, park board commissioner, Bismarck, N. Dak 377 Basin Electric Power Co., Bismarck, N. Dak 372 Bennett, Hon. Wallace F., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah 131 Boe, Hon. Nils A., Governor, State of South Dakota 530 Boney, Henry A., chairman, San Diego County Board of Supervisors~~ 139 Bourgois, Ervin, farmer, rancher, Bismarck, N. Dak 375 Brazos River Authority (Aquilla Reservoir project) 96 Carothers, Barrett M., executive vice president, Union Electric Co 364 Cassidy, E. Michael, executive vice president, the Mississippi Valley Association 536 Clausen, Hon. Don H., a Representative in Congress from the State of California 426 Coker, Sam II., Yazoo, Miss 610 Colmer, Hon. William M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi 62 Cook, Harold E., executive vice president, New Orleans East, Inc 558 Cook, Hon. Marlow W., county judge of Jefferson County, Ky 65 Culver, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa 629 Davis, William W., secretary-treasurer, Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority, Kentucky 66 Dennison, H. Lee, county executive, county of Suffolk, N.Y 593 Dorn, Hon. William Jennings Bryan, a Representative in Congress from the State of South Carolina 683 Drake, Frederick B., director of purchasing and real estate for Air Products & Chemicals, Inc 556 Earnest, Hon. James W., county judge of Bradley County, Ark 577 Fairchild, Warren D., executive secretary, Nebraska Soil & Water Conservation Commission, Pappillion Creek and tributaries, Nebraska. 84 Feaster, Houston H., director and chief executive officer, Alabama State Docks Department 539 Ferguson, Joseph V., II, attorney, New Orleans, La., on behalf of Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., New Orleans East, Inc., International Auto Sales & Service, Inc., Oklahoma Cement Co., Dundee Cement Co., Louisiana Materials, Inc., Gertler-Hebert Co., Pratt Farnsworth, Inc., Dixie Mill Supply 549 Fricke, Milton H., chairman, and John W. Neuberger, re Papillion Creek and tributaries, Nebraska 86 Gary, Leon, administrative assistant to the Governor of Louisiana and director of the State of Louisiana Department of Public Work& 554 Goldsom, John 389 Gordon, William A 292 Griffin, Hon. Charles 613 Hague, William C., general manager, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Utah 133 Hogue, Mrs. Richard, landowner, Remington, Va 276 Gurney, Hon. Edward J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 210 Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce, Texas, re Aquilla Reservoir project___ - 95 Hull, William J., chairman of the legislative committee, Ohio Valley Improvement Association 334 Kleppe, Hon. Thomas, a representative in Congress from the State of North Dakota 372 Lee, Sammie F., director of works, Jefferson County, Ky 68 PAGENO="0008" VIII Lewis, William H., acting director, board of commissioners of the Port of Page New Orleans 555 Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce 68 McClure, Hon. James A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho 149 McMilan, H. W., on behalf of Ouachita River Valley Association 575 Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Inc., Frank J. Leo, executive vice president 184 Merdes, Edward A., Fairbanks, Alaska 42 Mississippi Valley Association (Papillion Creek Basin, Nebr.) 93 Mississippi Valley Association, re Big Sioux River, Iowa projects 110 Missouri River Committee of the Yankton, S. Dak., Chamber of Commerce 533 Montgomery, Hon. G. V. "Sonny", a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi 62 Mork, Andrew, chairman, Morton County Water Management Board, president, North Dakota Association of Soil Conservation Districts - - - 376 Morris County Commissioners Court, Tex., in support of the authorization for navigation on Red River and Cypress Bayou, La. and Tex 527 Moss, Hon. Frank E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah 135 National Wildlife Federation, Thomas L. Kimball 192 Omaha Chamber of Commerce 88 Omaha City Council 89 Orr, Duane, director of industrial development and port planning, Nueces County Navigation District No. 1, Port of Corpus Christi, Tex 485 Patman, Hon. Wright, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 464 Pettis, Hon. Jerry L., a Representative in Congress from the State of California 124 Pierce, James A., traffic manager, l\Iississippi Chemical Corp., Coastal Chemical Corp., Yazoo City, Miss 611 Pollock, Hon. Howard W., a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska 446 Robertson, Willard E., president, International Auto Sales & Service, Inc 557 Rogers, Hon. Paul G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 206 Rose, Chas., president, Board of Commissioners of Drainage District No. 17 of Mississippi County, Ark 160 Russell, Walton, chairman, and Keidel, Carl, former member of Lower Heart River Water Management District, Mandan, N. Dak 373 Shaw, A. R., mayor of Mandan, N. Dak 371 Shoff, Ray, supervisor of operations, United Power Association, Bismarck, N. Dak 372 Shortle, Robert L., vice president, Mississippi Valley Association, New Orleans, La 553, 561 Sikes, Hon. Robert L. F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 475 Smith, Dr. Spencer lvi., Jr., secretary of the Citizen's Committee on Natural Resources 193 Smith, W. NI., Jr., president, board of directors of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas 178 Steffenson, Albert, director of the Oliver County, N. Dak. Water Manage- ment Board 374 Stephens, Adm. I. J., USCG (ret.) port director, Port of Miami, Fla 480 Stubblefield, Hon. Frank A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Kentucky 181 Stuckey, W. S., manager, Cooperative Elevator Co., Greenwood, Miss 612 Tangerose, James G., director of waterway analysis, Association of American Railroads 603, 614 Texas Water Development Board 94, 522 Thatcher, H. K., executive vice president, Ouachita River Valley As- sociation, Louisiana 569 Thomason, J. B., general manager, South Carolina Public Service Authority 467 Toman, George J., representing the city of Maudan, N. Dak 377 PAGENO="0009" Ix Tuepker, D. J., chairman and chief executive, Public Service Commission Page of Oklahoma 363 Virginia Electric & Power Co., on the proposed Salem Church project 278 Warrenton Garden Club 292 Watts, Calvin T., assistant director, State of Louisiana, department of public works 172, 565 Welsh, J. Robert, chairman of the board, Southwestern Electric Power Co., Shreveport, La 366 Young, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas.. 505 III. MATERIAL RECEIVED FOR THE RECORD Application of local cooperation requirements on Red River below Denison Dam with respect to navigation 667 Arkansas General Assembly resolution re Ouachita-Black River project.. - 579 Barrand, Charles W., supervisor, town of Brookhaven, N.Y., letter re Port Jefferson Harbor project 595 Board of supervisors of Culpeper County letter re Salem Church Dam~ 293 Bristol, RI., resolution 401 Caroline County Board of Supervisors, Va., resolution re Salem Dam - - - 246 Chautauqua County, N. Y., Hamilton H. Clothier, supervisor, town of Hanover, letter re Cattaraugus Creek Harbor, N.Y 411 City of Bismarck, N. Dak., E. V. Lahr, mayor, resolution re Missouri River projects 370 City of Denver, Cob., Hon. Tom Currigan, mayor, letter re Mount Carbon Dam 109 City of Sheridan, Cob., Hon. Jane E. Rosenback, mayor, letter re Mount Carbon Dam 109 Colorado General Assembly, House Joint Resolution No. 1019 108 Colorado residents, a list of, supporting Mount Carbon Dam and Res~r- voir project 108 Cost-sharing policy for Red River bank stabilization and navigation proj- ect by beach 666 Culpeper, Va., Claude W. Huffman, town manager, letter re Salem Church Dam 294 Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, letter re Balti- more inner harbor 398 Disney, Capt. M. K., Director, Legislative Division, Office of the Secre- tary, U.S. Navy, letter commenting on H.R. 717 621 Duiski, Hon. T. J., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, letter re H.R. 510 704 Essex County, Va., clerk's office of the circuit court, resolution re Salem Church Dam 249 Eureka, Calif., Gilbert S. Trood, mayor, letter and resolution re proposed navigation improvements for Humboldt Harbor and Bay 427 Federal Power Commission, November 1966 letter to Corps of Engineers re Salem Church Reservoir, Rappahannock River, Va 240 First National Bank of Omaha, Nebr., John F. Davis, chairman, letter re Papio Creek Basin 90 Florida Board of Conservation, comments and report on Miami Harbor channel improvement 483 Fuibright, Hon. J. W., U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas, letter re Arkansas projects 363 Greater Belleview Area Chamber of Commerce, Belleview, Nebr., letter re Papio Creek Basin 89 Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, Calif., letter and resolution re Bulter Valley project, Mad River Basin, Calif 143 Humboldt Bay, State board of harbor commissioners, telegram 426 Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, letter re Humboldt Harbor.. - - - 145 Humboldt County Ocean Resources, Coordinating Council, Fred L. Phebus, chairman, letter re Humboldt Harbor project 427 Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., Fort Wayne Chapter, letter re Big Walnut Reservoir project, Indiana 337 Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., resolution re Salem Church Dam.. - 275 Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., Virginia division, letter 326 PAGENO="0010" x Jefferson County, Cob., Board of County Commissioners and Jefferson Page County Planning Commission, resolution re Mount Carbon lleservoir_ - 109 Koppelman, Lee E., executive director, Nassau-Suffolk Regional Plan- ning Board, Hauppauge, LI., letter re Port Jefferson Harbor project_ - 595 Leggett, Hon. Robert L., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, letter re H.R. 801, H.R. 2844, and H.R. 2780 621 Louisa County, Va., Board of Supervisors letter re Salem Church Dam 250 Middlesex County, Va., Board of Supervisors, resolution re Salem Church Dam 247 Mississippi Valley Association, platform on bank stabilization, platform adopted February 1968 383 Missouri River bank stabilization and navigation development, Sioux City to Yankton, questions submitted to Corps of Engineers by Congress- man Harsha, and reply 709 Morgan City Harbor and Terminal District., Morgan City, La., David B. Graf, president, letter 564 Newspaper articles: Free-Lance Star, Fredericksburg, Va., article of September 20, 1967, entitled "Too Big, Too Expensive" 295 Free-Lance Star, Fredericksburg, Va., article of June 18, 1968, entitled "Still a Waste" 295 Office of the Secretary of Transportation, comment on report of Miami Harbor channel improvement 485 Orange, Va., Town Council resolution re Salem Church Dam 250 Peoples Bank of Spotsylvania, \Ta., letter and resolution re Salem Church Dam and Reservoir project 246 Rappahannock Area Development Commission, resolution re Salem Church Dam project 260 Rosner, Navid L., D.D.S., president, Greater Port Jefferson Chamber of Commerce, letter re Port Jefferson Harbor project 596 Spotsylvania County, Va., resolution re Salem Church Dam 250 Stafford County, Va., Board of Supervisors, resolution re Salem Church Dam 250 State of Indiana, Department of National Resources, letter re Big Walnut Valley project 314 Texas Water Development Board, Howard B. Boswell, executive director, letter re support of authorization of hurricane protection project, Texas City and vicinity 104 Tex~as Water Development Board, letter re Aquilla Creek Reservoir - - - 104 Thomsen, Gordon P., village clerk, the incorporated village of Port Jef- ferson, letter re Port Jefferson Harbor project 596 U.S. Department of the Interior, comments on report of Miami Harbor Channel improvement 484 U.S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, letter commenting on report of Miami Harbor Channel improvement 483 Utt, Hon. James B., a Representative in Congress from the State of Cali- fornia, letter re San Luis Rey River, California project 150 Virginia House of Delegates, letter re Salem Church Dam project 248 Virginia State \\Tater Control Board, letter re Salem Church Dam project 247 Westmoreland County, Va., Board of Supervisors, resolution re Salem Church Dam 249 PAGENO="0011" PROJECTS Page Alabama River at Selma, Ala 60 Alhambra Creek, Calif 121 Aquilla Creek watershed, Texas 93 Arcadia Reservoir, Deep Fork River, Okla 98 Arkansas-Red River Basins, water quality study, part II, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas 181 Arkansas River-Ozark lock and dam, No. 9, Arkansas 338 Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, La 561, 653 Basin monetary authorizations *151 Alabama-Coosa River Basin 711 Arkansas River Basin 712 Brazos River Basin 713 Central and Southern Florid& 713 Columbia River Basin 714 Missouri River Basin 714 Ohio River Basin 715 Ouachita River Basin 716 San Joaquin River Basin 716 South Platte River Basin 717 Upper Mississippi River Basin 717 West Branch Susquehanna Basin 718 White River Basin 718 Bear Creek, South Platte River, Cob 105 Beaver Brook Dam, Connecticut River Basin, N.H 50 Belle Fountain Ditch and Drainage District, No. 17, Missouri and Arkan- sas 157 Big Sioux River, Sioux City, Iowa, and North Sioux City, S. Dak 110 Black River Harbor, Alcona County, Mich 420 Brevard County, Fla 410 Bristol Harbor, R.I Buffalo City, N.Y., land conveyance (H.R. 510) 581, 698 Buffalo Harbor, N.Y 416 Calumet-Sag project modification (H.R. 15433) 617, 704 Cape Fear River Basin, N.C 57 Carlyle Reservoir, Ill 384 Cattaraugus Creek Harbor, N.Y 410 Central and southern Florida, small-boat navigation~ 214 Clear Creek, Tex 111 Cleveland Harbor, Ohio 419 Clinton City, Iowa, Bridge Commission 629 Coasts of Hawaiian Islands-harbors of refuge, Hawaii 453 Colorado River, Tex 503, 673 Cooper River-Charleston Harbor, S.C 465 Crooked Creek, Harrison, Ark 97 Cucamonga Creek, Calif 122 Dade County, Fla 211 Delaware coast, Delaware Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Mich 413 East River and Hudson River, N. Y., portions nonnavigable 459 Fairfield, Calif 141 Fall River Harbor, Mass. and R.I. 401 Feather River, vicinity of Chester, Calif 125 Florida projects (see also Hilisborough Bay; Dade County; Martin County; water resources for central and southern Florida) - 195 *B~in monetary authorizations through calendar year 1969 for 13 basins, see p. 711. (XI) PAGENO="0012" XII Page ForestvilleHarbor, Mich 411 Fort Niagara, Lake Ontario shore, New York 421 Hamlin Beach State Park, N.Y 422 HempsteadHarbor, N.Y 407 Hillsborough Bay, Fla 210 H.R. 16392-3-year appraisal of tidal and Great Lakes shoreline 455 H.R. 16872-Colorado River, Tex 503 Hudson River-Declare a portion nonnavigable 633 Humboldt Harbor and Bay, Calif 425 ba Stream, Maui, Hawaii 150 IWW-St. Marks to Tampa Bay, Fla 474, 648 Ipswich River, Mass 405 Jack and Simmerly Sloughs, Calif 141 Kake Harbor, Alaska 445 King Cove Harbor, Alaska 447 Lake Chicot, Ark 162 Libby Dam, Mont. (H.R. 16910) 301 Licking River Basin, Ohio 63 Little Blue River, vicinity of Kansas City, Mo 98 Little Dell Reservoir, Utah 128 Lucky Peak-Twin Springs, Idaho (Upper Snake River) 148 Lower Charles River, Mass 183 Mad River, Calif 142 Marion, Kans 118 Martin County, Fla 214 Miami Harbor, Fla 480, 646 Mississippi River, Cassviile, Wis., to Mile 300, Iii 75 Mississippi River-Columbus to Hickman, Ky 180 Mississippi River, gulf inlet, Michoud Canal, La 547, 658 Mississippi River outlets-Venice, La 559, 658 Missouri River bank stabilization (H.R. 3402) 367 Missouri River navigation, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska - 530, 598, 705 Mobile Harbor, Ala 539 Mountain harbors and waterways at depths required for defense purposes 618 Navarro Mills Reservoir, Tex., road relocation 387 New Jersey coastal inlets and beaches 408 Nishnabotna River at Exira, Iowa 101 Norwalk River Basin, Conn. and N.Y 52 Ouachita and Black Rivers, Ark 568, 654 Ozark Lock and Dam and Lock and Dam No. 9 360 Papillion Creek and tributaries, Nebraska 81 Park River Basin, Conn. and N.Y 53 Pascagoula River, Miss. (Tallahala Creek, Miss.) 61 Patapsco River (Baltimore Harbor, Md.) nonnavigable 395 Pat Mayse fish and wildlife land acquisitions 385 Pecan Bayou, Tex 113 Placer Creek, Wallace, Idaho 148 Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway, Tex 485, 675 Port Hueneme Harbor, Calif 440 Port Jefferson Harbor, N.Y 528, 587, 697 Port Sutton, Tampa Harbor, Fla 408 Posten Bayou, Ark. and La 119 Potomac River Basin, Md., Va., W. Va., Pa., and D.C. 185 Potomac River, Mallows Bay, abandoned ship hulls (II.R. 2402) 510, 641 Rappahanock River (Salem Church Reservoir) 236 Red River below Denison Dam, navigation and bank stabilization 516 Red River navigation project, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, and Okla- homa 462, 614, 664, 676, 705 Revere and Nantasket Beaches, Mass 406 Sabine River Basin, comprehensive study 650 San Diego Harbor, Calif 441 St. Francis Basin, Ark. and Mo 174 San Leandro Marina, Calif 438 San Luis Rey River, Calif 149 Sergius and White Stone Narrows, Alaska 448 PAGENO="0013" XIII Page Snohomish River, Everett Harbor, Wash 443 South Branch of Wild Rice River and Felton Ditch, Minn 70 Southwestern Jefferson County, Ky 64 State Road and Ebner Coulees, Wis 74 Sweetwater River, Calif 137 Tallahala Creek, Miss 61 Tanana River at Fairbanks, Alaska 2 Tawas Bay Harbor, Mich 412 Texas City and vicinity, Texas 103 Upper Licking River Basin, Ky 223 Upper Snake River, Lucky Peak, Twin Springs, Idaho 148 Ventura Marina, Calif 442 Wabash River Basin and tributaries, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio 299, 307 Waukegan Harbor, Ill 423 Wild Rice River, Minn 72 Wilson Harbor, N.Y 413 Yazoo River, Miss 601, 659 PAGENO="0014" PAGENO="0015" OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS, FLOOD CONTROL, AND RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION- 1968 _________ TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMIrrEE ON FLOOD CoN~raoL OF THE COMMITTEE ON Pm3LIC WORKS, Wa~shington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. Robert E. Jones (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. JONES. The subcommittee will come to order. The Subcommittee on Flood Control is meeting this afternoon to hear testimony on a proposed flood control project in the Fairbanks, Alaska, area. This hearing has been called at this time to accommodate our friends from Alaska who are in Washington this week to testify before the `Senate. This subcommittee has personal knowledge of the severe damage caused by the August 1967 floods in Alaska as several of our col- leagues-Mr. Wright, Mr. Clausen, Mr. Snyder, and Mr. McDonald- representing this subcommittee immediateily investigated the result- ing disasterous damage, and had the opportunity of being briefed by the Corps of Engineers, as well as the local citizenry, in Fairbanks on August 31, 1967, as to the general plan proposed for future flood con- trol of the area. I understand that the survey report we will be dis- cussing this afternoon has not yet been submitted to the Congress but at this `time is out to the Federal agencies for comments. Lt. Col. Lewis A. Pick, Jr., the Assistant Director of Civil Works for the Pacific Divisions, Corps of Engineers, is here to testify on be- half of the corps, and if it is agreeable with our friends from Alaska we will hear his testimony first, and `then we will hear from you people from Alaska. Colonel Pick, you may present your testimony at this time. STATEMENT OF COL. LEWIS A. PICK, JR., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR PACIFIC DIVISIONS, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WASIIIN(}TON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY BRIG. GEN. CHARLES NOBLE, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS Colonel PICK. Sir, I `have with me General Noble, our new Director of Civil Works, who has replaced General Woocibury. Mr. .JONES. It is good to have you, General. We are looking forward to workmg with you. We have had a succession of fine officers who (1) PAGENO="0016" 2 have appeared before the committee and I am quite sure you will find this Congress very cooperative. The Corps of Engineers is reliable and dependable, and we expect the same associations that we have had with your predecessors. I am sure that will be the case. General NOBLE. Thank you, sir; and that will be the case. With your permission I will ask Colonel Pick to detail the proposed flood control project at Fairbanks, Alaska., for the committee. TANAXA RIVER AT FAIRBANKS. ALASKA Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, the project before us today is located on the Tanana and Chena Rivers in the vicinity of Fairbanks, Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the city of Fairbanks, Fort Wa.inwright, and the town of North Pole are located in the flood plain between the Tanana and Chena Rivers about 10 miles above their confluence. The drainage area of the Tanana and Chena Rivers above the city is approximately 20,000 square miles. The only existing federally constructed flood project is a 3-mile-long diversion dike across the upstream Chena. Slough in the vicimty of Moose Creek Butte. This dike was constructed by the corps in 1945, for the purpose of preventing Tanana River floodflows from divert- ing into the Chena River. The Flood Control Act of 1958 authorized construction of a dam on. the. Chena River to divert floodflows into the Tanana River with levees and allied works at Fairbanks. No work had been accomplished under this authorization. Mr. Jo~s. What was the date of that authorization? Colonel PICK. Flood Control Act of 1958. Mr. JONES. Thank you. Colonel PICK. Floods in the vicinity of Fairbanks result from the large snowmelt runoffs during the spring and from intense rain- ~storms during the summer months. Major floods in recent years occurred in 1945, 1948, and 1967. The largest flood of record occurred in August 1967, resulting from a maritime storm which deposited over 6 inches of rain during a 6-day period. Ninety-five percent of the city of Fairbanks and extensive sections of Fort Wainwright and North Pole were inundated with up to 8 feet of floodwaters. Five lives were lost and tangible property damage alone amounted to $84.5 million. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends modi- fication of the authorized project to provide for a dam and reservoir on the main Chena River for flood control, recreation and fish and wild- life enhancement; a flood control dam and detention reservoir on the Little Chena River, and about 25 miles of protective levee along the north and east banks of the Tanana and Chena Rivers. The total cost of the proposed plan of~iinprovement is estimated at. $113 million, of which $111 million would be the Federal cost of con- struction. Local non-Federal costs are estimated at about $2 million for lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations, including a con- tribution of $715,000 for recreation development. Local interests have indicated willinguess and ability to furnish requirements of local PAGENO="0017" 3 cooperation. The annual benefits are $11.8 million and the annual charges are estimated at $4.35 million, giving a benefit-cost ratio of 2.7. The report has been submitted to the State of Alaska and the inter- ested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget, through the Secretary of the Army, prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JoNEs. Will you describe the improvements you expect to perform. Colonel PICK. In the upper part of your map here, sir, is the recom- mended Little Chena River Dam and detention reservoir. This will be a dry reservoir approximately 68 feet in height and about 4,700 feet in length. It will have a reservoir area of about 2,500 acres, and will hold about 50,000 acre-feet of water for flood control purposes only. The large Chena River Dam on the main stream is for the purpose of flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. Its length is 12,500 feet. It will average about 124 feet in height, with a reservoir area of 16,000 acres and a storage capacity of 820,000 acre-feet. In addition to these two reservoirs, there will be flood control levees along the Chena~ and Tanana `rivers. The Chena River levees will be about 5 miles in length, with an average height of 8 feet. The Tanana River levee will be about 22 miles in length and 18 feet in height. Mr. JONES. Will you describe the character of the flow of the river? Colonel PICK. The Tanana River, sir, is a large, wandering, mean- dering river flowing in a flood plain which varies from 20 to 40 miles across. The Chena River is a tributary of the Tanana and is restricted by high ground noted on the upper portion of the chart. The Chena River Basin is about 40 square miles, and flows between definite ridges on both sides and has a rather confined flow down into the Tanana River. The area at the confluence of the Tanana River and the Chena River is the flood plain, upon which the city of Fairbanks and Fort Wainwright have been built. Both communities are very vulnerable to flooding. Mr. JONES. What is the capacity or the normal flow of the two? Colonel PICK. The mean average combined flows of the Tanana and Chena Rivers at Fairbanks i~ about 21,000 cubic feet per second. The regulated flow of the Chena would be 12,000 feet at bankfall stage. Mr. JONES. That is a normal flow? Colonel PICK. No; the 12,000 is regulated flow and flood stage is 15,000. Mr. JONES. What was the flood stage? Colonel PICK. Flood stage is approximately 12 feet on the Chena at Fairbanks, and the flood of August 1967 reached a stage of almost 19 feet. 97~-7Oe O-68-------~ PAGENO="0018" 4 Mr. ,JONES. Thank you. Mr. Blatnik, any questions? Mr. BLATNIK. No questions. Mr. JONES. Mr. Clausen? Mr. CLAvSEN. Colonel Pick, you indicated that the original project had been authorized in 1959. Colonel PICK. That should be 1958, sir. Mr. CLAFSEX. Does this recommendation differ originally very much from the original authorization? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. `What I was leading up to was, could you describe briefly what the original recommendation for flood control of these rivers was at that time Colonal PICK. The original recommendation provided for a. diversion dam across the Chena River above Fairbanks to divert floodwaters from the Chena River into the Tanana. River east of the. city. In addi- tion there was a section of dikes along the Tauana to keep that. river's floodwaters out of Fairbanks and Fort Wainwright. The area. in which this original diversion darn was to be placed has since been developed and such an alternative is presently not economi- cally justified. Mr. CLALSEN. In your judgment, the recommendation that we now have before us, will this prevent, a recurrence of what took place dur- ing the big flood when the committee visited, following the advice of the committee? Colonel PICK. That is correct, sir. This project is designed to elim- inate that type of flood. Mr. CLAUSEN. So that. the people living in the Fairbanks area can anticipate the kind of security against any recurrence of that kind of happening in the future? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir; this project is designed against the 170-year frequency flood on the Chena. Mr. JONES. Mr. Snyder? Mr. SNYDER. Colonel Pick, while we were up there, there was some smaller towns or village or something, and I believe you were there at the time; are they upstream or downstream? Colonel PICK. North Pole is one of those that I believe we went through, which is upstream, and the one downstream we went to was Nenana. Mr. SNYDER. WTell, this, what you suggested here, will this alleviate their problems, too? Colonel PICK. No. It will protect t.he city of North Pole. It will not protect the city of Nenana. Mr. SNYDER. Was Nena.na on the river? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir; it is the town further downstream on Tanana River, about 30 miles from Fairbanks. Mr. SNYDER. That will not help them much. Colonel PICK. It will help them if there is a large flood flow like we had last year in the Chena. River Basin. Mr. SNYDER. There is no project that you can give? Colonel PICK. ~O, not at this time. PAGENO="0019" 5 Mr. SNYDER. Do you contemplate there might be a recommendation ~ Colonel PICK. In the future we will undoubtedly complete our study of the Tanana River. Mr. SNYDER. You do not have in mind that a study there might reveal some plan now that would relieve the situation downstream and maybe make the dike necessary? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir; that was one of the alternatives we studied in conjunction with this report. It was found to be excessive in cost, and was not justified. Mr. SNYDER. How many alternatives did you study? Colonel PICK. We studied approximately four alternatives. Mr. SNYDER. This is the bestest for the mostest? Colonel PICK. This is the best alternative. Mr. JONES. Mr. Clausen? Mr. CLA1ITSEN. Have all the local resolutions guaranteeing local sup- port, been provided for by the local political subdivisions? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. Mr. ~LATJSEN. There is no tieup at all, as far as the local sponsorship is concerned? Colonel PICK. None. Mr. CLAUSEN. It is my understanding that it may have been one of the previous problems with the early authorization, that you had diffi- culty getting. Colonel PICK. I believe there was difficulty in getting the local co- operative effort at the start of the advanced planning and design stage. Mr. CLAUSEN. So, you see no particular problem in this particular recommendation? Colonel PICK. None at this time. Mr. JONES. Are there any further questions? Mr. SNYDER. Is the status of this project now that it has been sent to the State agencies for comment? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir,; it has. Upon return, the Chief of Engineers will make his final report and submit it to the Secretary of the Army for submission to the Bureau of the Budget and then to the Congress. Mr. SNYDER. Will it be submitted before the omnibus bill comes up? Colonel PICK. We hope to. Mr. CLAUSEN. This will be of great deal of interest to not only the committee members here but other people, I am certain; and I am hopeful that you and General Noble will do everything possible to expedite this project through the agencies. And if you could somehow transmit a message to the agencies and advise them of the urgency, those of us who were up there with the committee recognized the very serious problem these people have, because of the short con- struction season. I am sure you are familiar with this, and I want to know if you can urge the other agencies to get their reports in so we can consider it. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much. I am pleased to see in the audience today one of the former members, who was a very dedicated, fine member, of the Public Works C~m- mittee, the Honorable Ralph J. Rivers, of Alaska. We are pleased to see you, Ralph. Would you come up here on the PAGENO="0020" 6 rostrum and take a. seat and participate with us. We will be delighted to have you up here with us. We have with us one of our esteemed members, the Honorable Howard V. Pollock. He has the task of making the presentation con- cerning the need and r~uirements of your area. We are certainly pleased to have you, sir. ST4TEMENT OF HON. HOWARD V. POLLOC,K, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OP ALASKA Mr. POLLOOK. Tha.nk you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Flood Con- trol, I wish to express my appreciation for the consideration that you have shown in allowing testimony t.o be presented at this time out of order, for the convenience of our AJa~ka.n witnesses who have traveled so fa.r; and I realize that this is ahead of the planned hearings. Mr. Chairman, we certainly do appreciate your consideration. It is obviously a substantial saving in both money and time for the Alaskans present today to give their testimony both before the Senate and in the House. We are most grateful. I would like to say also, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very, very much for authorizing t.he members of your subcommittee to travel to Fairbanks, Alaska, last. fall to have hea.rings there under the very able chairmanship of Congressman Jim Wright. We deeply appreciate all of you taking time and effort to be concerned with our problem and to come to Alaska to visit with us. Mr. JONES. `Well, we in this committee have recognized the impor- tance of seeing the projects and seeing the physical aspects and becom- ing personally acquainted with the aspirations of the people, with what they intend to do. It is not always easy to sit. up here in committee a.nd get all thern answers; but by physical examination of the property and the damages, t.he inconvenience that has been caused, the loss of la.nd and property, this committee tries to see as much as is possible. M~r. POLLOGK. Mr. Chairman, we certainly commend you for your interest and your de.dicat.ion, and very much appreciate it, as it is applied to this situation. The Tanana River project is a very important thing, obviously, to all of the people of the Fairbanks a.rea., to the people of Alaska, a.nd I should certainly add, to me personally. I need not describe to you the disastrous effects of the 1967 flood. The delegation that you sent. down from t.he committee was on the scene almost immediately after that to survey t.he damage, a.nd our words are just. inadequate to express t.he appreciation. Virtually the ent.ire cit.y of Fairbanks, as you have ha.d the report, the second largest cit.y in Alaska, was inundated. The da.nger tha.t nature will strike again in a similar destructive manner is always present., and this is our major concern. The construction of the proposed flood control project will insure that the present damage c.aused by t.he 1967 flood will not. be suffered again. PAGENO="0021" 7 Mr. Chairman, since this is a special hearing, I will reserve my own formal statement in full support of this project until the regulaHy scheduled time. I do not want to take the time of my colleagues from Alaska who are here. The case for the project will be presented to you by, I think, a very distinguished group of Fairbanks citizens. As you have already indicated, among them is the former distin- guished Congressman, a member of this committee, the Honorable Ralph Rivers; and present with him is the Honorable H. A. "Red" Boucher, mayor of Fairbanks, Alaska; Mr. Harold Gilliam, chairman, North St.ar Borough, Fairbanks, Alaska; Mr. Ralph Bailey, president, Alaska National Bank and Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Flood Control Committee, Fairbanks, Alaska; Mr. Dwayne Canton, presi- dent, AFL-CIO of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska; Mr. Edward Merdes, Faii~banks city attorney, Fairbanks, Alaska; Mr. Harry Porter, mem- ber of th.e city council, Fairbanks, Alaska; and Mr. Conrand Frank, chairman, Municipal Utilities Board, Fairbanks, Alaska. It is my honor to introduce these fine Alaskans to the committee, and I will turn the chair over to the first witness who I believe is our former colleague, the Honorable Ralph J. Rivers. Mr. Jo~s. Thank you, sir. STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH J. RIVERS, FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA Mr. Rivnns. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Congressman Pollock, for introducing me. It is my privilege and pleasure to have this opportunity to partici- pate with several of my leading fellow Alaskans in making a group presentation to this distinguished subcommittee in support of the vitally needed Tanana Valley flood control project in the area of our home city of Fairbanks and adjacent Fort Wainwright. The flood area includes the Chena River, a tributary of the Tanana River. In the interest of brevity and to minimize repetition, the members of our group have divided the subject matter, and each will speak and be prepared to answer questions on the phase in which he is specially qualified. My wife and I shared the awesome experience of going through the monstrous flood during mid-August of 19G~T when our house and 95 percent of the homes and other buildings in Fairbanks were inun- dated; and 10,000 to 15,000 people were evacuated to higher ground and to Anchorage and other communities in Alaska. Such a devastating catastrophe should not be allowed to happen again. We saw the valiant efforts of all the rescue and emergency organi- zations and individuals, such as the military, the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the University of Alaska which housed and fed 7,000 homeless people, the civil defense personnel, the radio stations and ham operators, the helicopter crews, the Corps of Engineers, the hardy boatmen of our area, `and our own Mayor H. A. "Red" Boucher, who went several days without sleep while he coordinated and en- PAGENO="0022" 8 couraged all concerned. Hundreds of acts of courage and dedication could be cite.d, but. time does not permit. We are also mindful of the immediate help which was received from the President's emergency fund and the personal visits of all members of Alaska's congressional delegation and Alaska's Governor and the earliest possible efforts, after floodwaters receded, by the Corps of Engineers to restore public services, and the long hours worked by the people of the Small Business Administration to process and effectuate disaster loans for repairing homes and other buildings before the looming winter freezeup. Mr. Chairman, up to this point I have given only a bird's-eye view of the disaster in question and the urgency of action to prevent a. re- currence, and have displayed none of the special knowledge which I have attributed to my associates from Fairbanks. This is according to plan. Mr. Chairman, all of us know that. you and the other distinguished members of this committee are pressed for time, so we have promised to be brief, while covering our case within the scope of the general out- line I have given. Of course, we know that the detailed and technical engineering testimony will be presented by the very fine people of the Army Corps of Engineers who have done so much for our beloved 49th State. In closing, I wish to say that. all of us are deeply appreciative of this opportunity to speak in support of flood control for Fairbanks and Fort Wainwright, and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts. I want to say publicly that we are very grateful to this subcommittee for having convened to hear us on this particular trip. I know we did promise to be brief in order to induce the committee to come here and hear us out of order. Thank you. Mr. JoNEs. Thank you, Mr. Rivers. Mr. Blatnik? Mr. BLATNIK. I am glad to see the gentlema.n from Alaska, Mr. Rivers, has learned his lesson well, because he served with great dis- tinction and with great respect on this committee. He certainly learned his lesson when lie presents a case in less than 2 minutes flat. It is a very fine statement, Congressman, and I want to let you know how much we appreciate you coming down here with what is so well prepared and well organized, personal presentation by the mayor and other officials and prominent citizens who have experienced this devas- tating flood. We would like to have you and your witnesses know- that we have deta.iled charts and chroiiological graphs and our counsel will go through this with great detail and review it. It is a pleasure to have you back, and we congratulate you on your statement. We look forward with interest, to your personal experience and those of the members of your delegation here today. Mr. Rivn~s. Will the chairman yield to me for a moment? The clos- ing remark that I was going to make and did not was that we were PAGENO="0023" 9 most appreciative of the visit of the subcommittee, the field committee of this Subcommittee on Flood Control, and that Jim Wright was chairman of that field committee of Mr. Snyder, Mr. McDonald, and various others came up there; and we were very heartened to see that energetic action that they took and the keen interest they showed. I am sure they were well guided, not only through Fairbanks, but all of Alaska. Mr. JONES. Mr. Pollock. Mr. POLLOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate again speakmg out of order, and I want to reiterate a statement I made earlier when Mr. Wright was not here. I want to say `that we not only very much appreciated the field committee to Alaska, but I would like you to know, in his presence, that I think he did a tremendous job and I think every Alaskan that is here would share that view. Mr. JONES. He always does; and so do the other members of the committee that accompanied him on that trip. If you will have a seat, we will introduce the other members. Now we have Mr. H A. "Red" Boucher, the mayor. Mr. OLAITSEN. Mr. Chairman, I just cannot let this moment go by without acknowledging the presence of this mayor, Red Boucher. I am going to say categorically that I believe the committee observed one of the most energetic, certainly one of the most dedicated and one of the ablest mayors that the United States possesses; and we now have the privilege of having him before this committee. The job that he did under extremely adverse conditions up there will be remem- bered by this committee for a long, long time, and we are certainly pleased to have you `here, sir. Mr. JONES. With the warm responses you are getting now, you better close your case and go on home. STATEMENT OF HON. H. A. "RED" BOUCHER, MAYOR OF FAIRBANKS, ALASKA Mayor BOUCHER. I am not going to tell you about the statistics, Mr. Chairman. I think we have some great friends of Alaska here. In Alaska we are not very formal, so I want to thank Jim Wright, one of our honorary citizens, and a citizen of the second largest State in the Union. He brought us warmth and friendship. *Don, you brought us t.he title of "Comeback City" from Crescent City, which we, in turn, renamed "Can-do City"; and Gene, you brought us the warmth of Kentucky there, and I would like to say Jack McDonald, from Michigan, please give him the warmest regards of the city of Fairbanks. You are going to get the statistics. I am going to show you a few pictures here, some color slides and hope that those of you who were not there might be able to live through what the community lived through from the 15th of August until approximately the 21st, when the Chena River left its banks. (At this point, a number of slides depicting Fairbanks before and after the flood were shown. See pictures that follow:) PAGENO="0024" 10 PAGENO="0025" 11 PAGENO="0026" 12 PAGENO="0027" 13 PAGENO="0028" 14 PAGENO="0029" 15 PAGENO="0030" PAGENO="0031" 17 PAGENO="0032" 18 PAGENO="0033" 19 PAGENO="0034" 20 r p I L ~ tH;t* :J~~'1 4¼) L. I PAGENO="0035" 21 PAGENO="0036" 22 ~:! ~L. r PAGENO="0037" 23 PAGENO="0038" 24 PAGENO="0039" 25 PAGENO="0040" 26 PAGENO="0041" 27 PAGENO="0042" 28 - PAGENO="0043" 29 PAGENO="0044" 30 L ~ -~ PAGENO="0045" 31 This is not just the story about a flood, because floods are not unique to many parts of the United States. This is more a story about a town, a town we like to pattern ours after, much like Crescent City, a coin- munity that bounced back from a flood and has a great belief in its future. On August 8, precipitation started in the Chena River Basin, which had been activated by a series of low-pressure systems which moved in from the Aleutian Islands. This was accompanied by the dying typhoon, Hope. During the period August 8 to 15, approximately ~1/2 inches of pre- cipitation was deposited in the Chena River Basin. It had been a normal July and the river height at the beginning of the month of August was 6½ feet. In this slide here you see the city of Fairbanks with 18.8 feet. Truly, we could probably have been called Marineland, North. In fact, we were slightly concerned, with the freezeup coming, whether or not we were going to convert the community into the world's largest ice skat- ing rink. During this period when the community was covered by the water of the Chena and the Tanana, a good 95 percent of the families and businesses in the community were affected, close to 19,000 people were evacuated to various facilities that provided shelter. It was indeed a dark day for Fairbanks. However, the spirit of the people, which is typical of a pioneering State, was not to be denied, and as the waters of the river began to recede into their banks on August 21, we had to face up to' the job of building a bigger and better Fairbanks. The year 1967 was the 100th year. of the purchase of Alaska. The community had worked hard to construct, thanks to the aid of our former Congressman, Ralph Rivers, and the help coming from Senator Bartlett,~ we were able to put together an exhibition that showed the history of Alaska. Our friends at Fort Wainwright, as shown in this picture here, were also immobilized and `the entire effort of the military there ground to a halt. Mr. WRIGHT. These fires were caused by an electrical shortage; is that right? Mayor BOTJCHER. Yes, they were. They had electrical shortages dur- ing that time, and numerous fires broke out and we were not able to get any of the fire equipment through them at all. Mr. WRIGHT. The buildings just burned right to the waterline. Mayor BOUCHER. Yes, they did. `This is what most of us faced during the period August 21 until the end of August. The devastation throughout the community was almost total. The loss in personal property ran into the billions of dollars. The year 1967 was the 100th anniversary of the State of Alaska. The people of that community, much as in Congressman Clausen's community, have no desire to give up. Many people said there would be a great loss in population. However, this is not the case. An example of Fairbanks' faith in its future can best be expresse'd by a recent hospital drive that the community conducted for its bene- PAGENO="0046" 32 fit, raising over $1 million before the drive even started. The figure has flow reached $1.8 million to date. This is testimony of the belief of that community, the community we like to call the Can-do City, and they have faith not only in our city but the golden heart of Alaska and the development of the future of Alaska. We believe that any investment put in the form of flood control measures will be returned to them manyfold, just as the original pur- chase price of Alaska has since been repaid many times over to the Government. We thank you for your tune, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. JONES. Thank you. Mr. Wright? Mr. WniGnT. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to this man, Red Boucher, and all the people who have accompanied him here from Alaska, how greatly impressed all of us were. I know that your area experienced great devastation. It brought the great suffering and enormous personal losses that almost everyone in Fairbanks sustained, and yet, I think it is true that all of us were deeply impressed by the indomitable spirit of the people. They joined together in sort of a camaraderie of suffering, a fellowship of disaster. They ha.d a drive to hang on and to rebuild, in spite of the fact that many of them are going to have to be refinancing their houses, borrow money to recoup personal property losses. I did not find a single soul who indicated he was going to pack up and leave. I want to ask you a few questions, because these are things that we became very concerned about when we were there. One thing that seemed unique in t.his situation was the level of the water in the ground at the time that the winter freeze began to set in. We were there in late August, and on September 1 we could feel the cold drizzle in that rain. Has the water subsided enough in the subterranean level that you believe the foundations of your buildings will be safe when the spring thaw comes? Mayor BOUCHER. Yes, Congressman Wright. The good Lord moves his hand in strange ways. We like to figure that everything was for the better in the future; and He blessed us with warm weather that lasted almost until the first part of November. Very fortimately, the water table was down, and we do not. antici- pate great problems from heaving. There are several engineers, and Mr. Conrad Frank can probably testify on this, but from a layman's point of view, I do not believe there will be any maj or damage. Mr. WRIGIrr. That is then a blessing. The second question involves the loans that were made available to the people. I remember the great interest on your part and on the part of the congressional delegation, if I can get the SBA and other agencies to come through with disaster loans to permit long-term rehabilitation, do you feel this ha.s been done? Mayor B0U0IHER. Yes, sir; they have. Of course, you do not experi- received at the Federal level, as expressed by the advice of your PAGENO="0047" 33 committee, the Bureau of Standards, and other people who have come, there has been outstanding help. There are many Alaskans who, because of the help that SBA gave, will be able to rebuild their homes and regenerate their businesses. There are others who just decided that they had sufficient capital of their own and will tough it out. But the help we have gotten in those areas has been excellent and outstanding. Mr. WRIGHT. One other question. The population, particularly the Indian population, seemed to be on the verge of suffering a very, very severe hunger. They are hard-wont for food and supplies. The fish they caught and things of that type were washed away in the flood. They were trying to approach this form several different directions. How did they come through the winter? Ha's there been a severe hardship on the part of those people? Have they all managed to hold on and come through this in fair shape? Mayor BOUCHER. Yes, sir; they have. Of course, you do not experi- ence a flood, particularly, I would say, that the outlying areas, be- cause of the nature of the population and the economy, suffered prob- ably an even greater amount than we did. But there was outstanding help that came from the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the U.S. De- partment of Agriculture food program. So, coupled with the Federal help and the State help, I think it was not a picnic, it was not a picnic for many people, but the community as a whole, and that ts the native population, toughed it out and looked toward the future with hope. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I think this is a very worthy project, a very necessary project. I believe all of us who were there recognize the urgency of moving ahead and try- ing to get something corrective done and underway. I believe in the future of the Fairbanks area. I believe in the future of Alaska. It has great resources, and not the least of them is the hardy and indomitable spirit of Alaskans, and I believe this would be money in the bank for the United States to join hands with them and try to give them this bit of very badly needed help as they struggle to build a future up there in that great Northwest. Mr. JONES. Thank you. Mr. CLAUSEN. I think I have already stated my admiration for this witness. You have taken the time, Mayor, to bring those pictures down here to the committee, which tend to remind all of us that did visit the area of the tremendous devastation. I simply want to reiterate what Mr. Wright has said. * I believe you have a very, very sympathetic committee here, be- cause we saw the facts as they existed shortly after the occurence brought about by that great chairman I am sitting right next to. The attitude of your people makes all of us proud to be associated with the people of Alaska. I am sure you will have all possible support for your efforts in this committee. Mr. JONES. Mr. Snyder? Mr. SNYDER. I do not have any questions, but I would be remiss if I did not join with my colleagues in the statements they have made here today, join them in the commendations they have uttered in be- half of the "Can-do" people of the "Can-do City" with a "Can-do" mayor. PAGENO="0048" 34 Thank you very much. Mayor BOnCHER. Thank you. God bless all of you. Mr. Jo~s. We now have Mr. Harold Gillam, chairman, North Star Borough, Fairbanks, Alaska. Mr. Gn1I~M. Before I read this testimony, I would like to thank you for the fine delegation of Mr. Wright, Mr. Snyder, and Mr. Mc- Donald and Mr. Clausen, that went to Alaska right after the flood. They were, as Red said, they were an inspiration to all of us. I per- sonally enjoyed renewing my acquaintance with the people. STATEM~T OP HAROLD GILLAM, 0HAIRMA~, PAIRBANKS IWRTH STAR BOROUGH, PAIRBANKS, ALASKA Mr. Gu~I~&M. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee and Members of Congress. We are certainly very appreciative of the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee on the subject of flood control which is so vital to the future growth of the Fairbanks area. I am Harold Gillam, chairman of the Fairbanks North Star Borough. The borough is the area-wide government and as such has the re- sponsibility of flood control. Therein, it is our responsibility to pro- vide the lands and rights-of-way for the levee portion of this project. This portion is estimated at a current 1967 cost of $757,000. It will also be our responsibility to maintain and operate the levee system. This is at an estimated cost of $64,000 annually. I believe that the Corps of Engineers report makes a factual presentation of the flood control project, the costs and the benefits to be derived. The cost-benefit ratio is favorable as indicated in the report and all of us in this group are going to do our best to attest tothe validity of the corp's report. I do not want to reiterate material that is covered in the report for I am confident that Colonel Pick will make a very capable pres- entation of the report. We are all confident in the future growth of Fairbanks in particular, and in Alaska in general. What is going to cause this growth? The factors that I see hinge naturally on the geological position of Alaska and its relationship on the Pacific Rim, as to trade and commerce with other countries. The fact that there are known re- newable natural resources such as timber, fish, and hydroelectric power that are not now being utilized anywhere close to a sustained yield basis attests to the additional trade potentials. Alaska will be the major source of oil in the United States within just a few years. We are currently either seventh or eighth and within a year will be either fourth or fifth. Our natural resources are present and will be found in unprece- dented magnitude. Keiinecott Cooper is currently exploring what may be one of the largest copper ore bodies in the North American Continent. Pan American Oil Co. just recently flied on a large iron ore de- posit of unknown size. This is only a part of Alaska, and I believe that the future looks good. PAGENO="0049" 35 In addition to the natural potential of Alaska in general, Fairbanks had some additional ad~vantages other than being a trade center for a vast area. One, it has a favorable location for viewing satellites in popular orbit. NASA has three antenna fields here and ESRO-the European Space Research Organization_has one. In addition, there is Clear, which is a major missile tracking center. It is located just 60 miles southwest of Fairbanks. This favorable location is also one of the reasons that the area was selected for an antiballistic missile site. Two, it has lots of open country. This open country and the climate make the Fairbanks area one of the best military training centers in the world. The country `teaches individual soldiers a self-reliance that cannot be achieved elsewhere. This potential is only barely being utilized by the military. Three, it has excellent flying weather. It is also on the Great Circle route from New York to Tokyo and midway between the two major population centers of the world. When Pan American gets approval to fly this route in the near future, this will make a tremendous impact upon the economic future of Fairbanks. Gentlemen, I review this potential with you for only one purpose, and that is to indicate that Fairbanks does have a growing fu'ture and I believe that Fairbanks has the potential of being the largest city in Alaska, but the future will never be achieved without the comple- tion of the flood control.project that is before you. Others of this committee will testify to the seriousness of the past flood `and the effect on the community that another flood would have. I submit this flood control project is the single most important item in the growth and development of the Fairbanks area. We urge that this project be included in the omnibus bill, that it `be authorized for construction, `and that sufficient moneys be appropriated to begin the project as soon as possible. We feel so strongly the importance of this project that we have urged the `Corps of Engineers to `begin the preliminary planning for the location of. the levee so that the borough may be able to begin the purchase of the necessary property. I was informed that the Corps of Engineers has no funds to do this work until the project is authorized by Congress; subsequently, I offered to loan to the Corps from the borough the necessary funds. It was estimated that it would take approximately $50,000 to do this phase. I was then informed that there was no provision for the Corps to accept our offer. If it would expedite matters any, I will renew my offer if the Congress will allow the Corps to accept it and to do the work. I believe that it is in the best interest of the public that this work be done as soon as possible, for currently I have people will- ing to donate or sell lands at considerably less than appraised values. Land, we know, only appreciates in value and if we delay too long not only will we lose the donated land, but we will be paying a much higher price for the land that we do acquire. Much of the land involved in the reservoir area is in State owner- ship. The acquisition of this land is not part of the borough's re- e7-700 O-68---4 PAGENO="0050" 36 sponsibilities but is part of the project cost and would have to be acquired by the Federal Government. It is currently estimated that this land has a value of $1,100,000. There is a possibility that the State would make this land available to the project at no cost to the Federal Government. I have previously indicated in correspondence to Colonel Hardin, district engineer of the Alaska district, that the borough would co- operate in every way in the acquisition of the property. Now my term is up in October and I cannot speak for nor commit the future chairman or future assemblies of the borough; however, I can say today that if the Congress will authorize the project this year and if the State will not make the land available, that the borough will use its ability to select the general grant lands that are involved and will make this portion, which is the major portion of the total land involved, available to the project. Gentlemen, I am hopeful that the Congress will accept these offers of good faith and see fit to authorize this very much needed project this year. Thank you, sir. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Gillam. Mr. Wright? Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to welcome the chairman here to Washington. You extended great hospitality and help to us when we went to Alaska. I welcome you to Washington. Mr. Gir~&~r. Thank you, Jim. Mr. JoNEs. Mr. Clausen? Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record as publicly expressing my appreciation to Mr. Gillam for coming down here, and further to reiterate how helpful he was to the committee while we were there. He certainly has personal problems of his own, but he brought to the attention of the committee members many factors because of his unique background, not only as a servant to the borough, but he also has an engineering background and I want to express my deep appreci- ation publicly, for the record, for your exceptional contribution to us while we were there; and also the cordial attention given to all of our personal needs. Mr. Gn~LAI~r. It was our pleasure. Mr. JONES. Mr. Snyder? Mr. SNYDER. I would join my colleagues in expressing to you my thanks, along with the other members of the subcommittee who were there; the ftne consideration and cooperation you gave us, and to com- mend you on the statement you have made here today and say to you that I think the people of your borough would be remiss if your are not the chairman again. Mr. GILLAM. Thank you, sir. Mr. JoNEs. Next we have Mr. Ralph Bailey, president of Alaska National Bank and Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Flood Control Committee, Fairbanks, Alaska. We are pleased to have you, Mr. Bailey. PAGENO="0051" 37 STATEMENT OF RALPH C. BAILEY, PRESIDENT, ALASKA NATIONAL BANK AND FAIRBANKS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FLOOD CONTROL COMMITTEE, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA Mr. BAILEY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the sub- committee, my name is Ralph C. Bailey, I am president of the Alaska National Bank of Fairbanks and chairman of the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Committee for the Chena flood control pro- gram. I have resided at 1325 Sixth Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska, for 22 years. The August 1967 Fairbanks flood damaged approximately 95 percent of the homes in the Fairbanks area including my own home which was damaged to the extent of approximately $32,000 in additioH to loss of personal items my wife and I had accumulated and come fib cherish during our residence in Fairbanks. In 1948 we experienced a flood in the Fairbanks area which was not. however, as drastic as the one of last August, but I have been inter- ested in and worked on the Chena flood control program since that time. Our bank was one of the businesses hardest hit by the 1967 flood and was completely submerged, with all equipment destroyed. Our records were also thoroughly drenched. Our direct flood loss was ap- proximately $150,000, and our remodeling will cost an additional $500,000. Mr. JONES. Mr. Bailey, was there any warning system to make you apprehensive that the flood would occur? Mr. BAILEY. I am sorry, I cannot hear you. Mr. JONES. I say, did you have any warning this flood was going to occur? Mr. BAILEY. No, we did not. I would like to say this, gentlemen, we did balance the bank after about 3 months. Mr. JONES. You did what? Mr. BAILEY. We balanced the bank. We found approximately $73,000 in checks buried in about 4 feet of mud in `the bottom of the building. I would like to say at this time Congressman Pollock did come to take a good look, and I do not know whether any of the other Members came in to take a look or not. Mr. WRIGHT. Is your bank the one that had the electronic equipment and files and things down in the basement and it got all full? We did see your bank, and, boy, it was a mess. Mr. BAILEY. And approximately four an a half feet on the first floor also. Mr. WRIGHT. I can imagine that the bank where I keep my over- drafts, that problem might have been a blessing in disguise. I was won- dering if anyone's records or notes were lost to posterity. Mr. BAILEY. I would like to tell the committee this, how we solved the problem of our records, and I think if the health department knew what we were going to do, we would probably have not accomplished it. We put them in cellophane bags, put them in `boxes, coordinated it with Pan American, went to Seattle, picked it up by truck, sent it to a fruit dryer and we were back home within 48 hours. Prior to the August 1967 flood, we enjoyed a healthy financial PAGENO="0052" 38 climate in both the private and commercial sectors. Money was avail- able for personal as well as commercial-type building, our residents enjoyed comfortable homes, and our businessmen thrived in a good business climate. Now, 9 months later, money for homebuilding is limited. There are no long-term funds available for commercial-type building. Mortgage brokers, insurance companies, and other financial institutions advise that they are not interested in Tanana River Basin investments. We are here today to apprise you of the problems created for our area because of the August flood, which could happen again, and probably will, unless redemial steps for flood control are undertaken. What is Fairbanks' future? The two mortgage financing institutions in Fairbanks have limited resources and are unable to meet all of the demands. The three commercial banks are not in a position to take on long-term home or business loans except on a limited basis. Proper economic growth of our community will intensify the need for long- term funds both in the private and commercial sectors. The University of Alaska, situated adjacent to Fairbanks, continues to expand and creates additional demand for housing, both for students and for faculty. We have also had recently announced a $700 million Nike installation which will add to the demand for homes for those employees. Our tourist industry has historically increased more than 10 percent per year and 1068 will be no exception. We must expand tourist accommodations for which investment funds are not available and will not become available until the investor is assured flood control is a reality. The city of Fairbanks, situated at the end of the Alaska and Richard- son Highways and the Alaska Railroad, serves as a distribution and administrative center for the interior of Alaska. Fairbanks, with a population of 20,000, is the sole trading and distribution center for an area of approximately 160,000 square miles in interior Alaska. The city serves a total of 45,000 people in its election district and in excess of 70,000 in the northern Alaska trading area. There are approximately 25 manufacturing plants in the community. The Governor of Alaska has this past year appointed a North Com- mission to study and to act on the extension of the Alaska Railroad to open up the north country for which Fairbanks is the supply center. Pan American Airways has applied for, and approval has been rec- ommended by the Bureau of Operating Rights, and by the examiner in the Transpacific case, for a direct route from New York to Fair- banks to Tokyo. We feel that the examiners' recommendations will be concurred in by the Board and by the President. The addition of this route will place Fairbanks squarely into the world air transportation pattern and will be of prime importance in generating a steady, healthy eco- nomic growth. Auxiliary services for the New York-Fairbanks-Tokyo flight will require, among other items, 36 additional rooms for crew housing which require long-term funds to finance. Within the past 60 days, Fort Wainwright, directly adjacent to Fairbanks, has reactivated an engineering battalion, adding some 800 additional personnel. We were informed in a briefing 2 weeks ago that PAGENO="0053" 39 these men represent a total of 2,700 new residents, including depend- ents, and housing is not available. Alaska today is the Nation's most undeveloped and underdeveloped State. It is established Federal policy that this situation be remedied. The Federal stake in Alaska is tremendous. Aggregate expenditures of Federal programs for Alaska for the fiscal year 1967 are well over the one-half-billion-dollar mark. The importance with which the President views problems of Alaska's development is underlined by the fact that his Executive Order No. 11182 of October 1964 established a review committee for development planning in Alaska as a Cabinet- level committee, consisting of the Secretaries of Commerce, as Chair- man, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Labor, HEW, HUD, and the heads of several major Federal agencies. The order also creates a Fed- eral field committee for development planning in Alaska, headed by a Presidentially appointed Chairman, and consisting of representatives of Federal agencies involved in Alaska's development. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and your `associates for listening to our presentation. We hope that your people will see our great need for the flood control program our group has outlined. We must capital- ize on the natural advantages of the interior and expand those possi- bilities if the interior and northern Alaska areas are to be properly developed. We have every reason to believe that we will continue to grow, and the project that you are considering now is a must if we are to survive politically, financially, and economically. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to appear before you. I, and all the members of my group, appreciate it most sincerely. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Bailey. Any questions? Again we are obliged to you, sir. We have now Mr. Dwayne Carlson, president of the AFL-CIO of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. STATEMENT OP DWAYNE CARLSON, PRESIDENT, AFL-CIO OP ALASKA, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I do not have a prepared statement. I `would like to state briefly that orga- nized labor in the State of Alaska is wholeheartedly for this program and not for the construction it will bring to usin the jobs. It was not too many years ago that the construction worker in Alaska was a transient. It was easier for him to leave his family in the States and fly back and forth. However, in the last 10 or 15 years this has changed. Our children are born there now, and enrolled in the schools and go to the university. We would like to see this continued. We were willing to gamble with this flood, take on the second mort- gage, fix up our homes, but we need the assurance that it will not happen to us again or we will once again have to become transients. I think also for the area, once we have the assurance, there is no doubt the community, as Mayor Boucher pointed out, will grow. The potential for recreation for our population has not been men- tioned, and should be. PAGENO="0054" 40 We have two small Takes within decent driving distance from Fair- banks, but they do not have much public access. I think the potential for recreation here in this State is tremendous. I think one other thing that has not been mentioned and it was not in the Senate hearings this morning, when we had this particular flood, in talking to some friends of mine in the Corps of Engineers after the flood, in flying over the area., back in the high watershed, this had been wiped clear and they did not recognize the undergrowth, the trees that used to hold the snows in the springtime and let it come off slowly are now gone. So I think that all haste is due on this. We do not need the same set of circumstances. I do not think we are talking about the 100-year cycle any more. I think a combination of a. heavy snowfall combined with an unusually warm spring could lead us into the situation that we went through last year. I know that was not mentioned this morning. I had to leave, and missed part of the Corps' presentation; but it should be brought to the committee's attention here. Once again, I want to reiterate the working people of Alaska want to stay there, particularly in Fairbanks. We do need the assurance for the people that this will not happen to us again in the near future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Joicns. Thank you very much, Mr. Carlson. Next we have Mr. Edward Merdes, Fairbanks city attorney, of Fairbanks, Alaska. STATEMENT OF EDWARD MERDES, FAIRBANKS CITY ATIORNEY, PALRBANKS, ALASKA Mr. [Ermis. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am a resident of Alaska, and have been for 18 years, having gone to that State when I got out. of law school. The reason I went. up there is because I wanted to be with my family and raise my family when new territory was admitted to the Union. Sure enough, and Congressman Rivers, one of your committee mem- bers, was one of our first Congressmen. The reason I am here today is to endeavor to articulate, if I can, the feeling of the younger people, particularly the younger families in the Fairbanks area, who are, along with the bank, buying their home, and what their mental attitude is as a result of this flood, and I can speak from my own wife's viewpoint. In other words, there has been testimony concerning the property damage in Fairbanks. Everybody agrees on that. There has been testi- mony concerning the financial difficulties, but I also think there is a very human element that I do not feel shows in the record. I happen to have been a member of the Jaycees and served in many civic organizations and, as a result, I get in touch with the younger people in our State and community; and I can tell you right now that the opinion of the average young couple who has, say, four children, who are already settled, with the high cost of living in the United States, and in my written testimony I do want to go over it, but I can PAGENO="0055" 41 demonstrate to you about $11,355 a year is what it costs to live exclu- sive of clothing, medical, dental, recreation, and automobile expenses, and then you add, gentlemen, a second mortgage, a third mortgage in case of another flood, and I think that you can take yourself into an average Fairbanks home and hear your wife and hear these young people talk about staying in Fairbanks or the community with another flood; then the greatest element is going to make Alaska or any State in the Union, that greatest element is the people. Some of the people that went up there, you Congressmen, may have seen that. This is not just theoretical, these young people; and I will not say the older people, and these pioneering people who are willing to put up with this high cost of living because we know some day Alaska is going to be a terrific economic place to live in addition to its friendly atmos- phere-because everybody helps everybody else out. This human ele- ment, this thing that does not get in congressional hearings, how peo- ple really feel in their hearts about a community is what I am trying to get across to you today. If this committee and, in turn, Congress demonstrates to us as it has in the east that it is truly concerned about Alaska, which to many people is almost Siberia, so far away from the continental United States and seems to be so foreign to Congress, but we deeply appreciate what this Congress has done for Alaska in the past; and we only ask you this-we do not come with our hands out. We come down here ask- ing you for assistance to continue the pioneering spirit, to continue the guts and drive of a lot of people who are willing to go into a pioneering country, face this cost of living and add the human perspective to this pioneering country. We want the help to keep this courage up for the future. I really think, gentlemen, if this committee and Congress author- izes this project, you will do more good for t.he spirit and for the drive and the morale of a courageous city. Let me say this, that new residents will even come into the area. Alaska is getting more and more attractive, with our tremendous uni- versity up there. The average age, gentlemen, if you do not happen to know it, is 22 years old in our area, and maybe just a little larger for the State. Many people are coming in, but we cannot help but feel, if we get another flood, not only will nobody come in, but everybody is going to go out. I know that like many times on the highway you have to have a death before they will change the highway, before they will put the stop sign up. We had our death, in a way, and we only hope that security, that this authorization and ultimate construction will give us and make us not only a vibrant State but even a strong State for our e~untry, because if this dam is built it is going to help the United States, not just Alaska, because you have a terrific storehouse of material up there and you need people up there.. We are not here in a parochial sense. We are coming here to ask the committee, in effect, to help the country. PAGENO="0056" 42 Naturally, it will help us directly, but the more people we get in Alaska ~nd the more people we can keep up there, we are willing to sacrifice and to live under those conditions. It is better for everybody involved. Again, on behalf of the city of Fairbanks and the young families who are in partnership with the banks, buying their home, we do not want a third SBA because all of us will go into bankruptcy and many of us will leave if we have another flood. I urge, from the point of view of my six children and other young couples in Fairbanks who want to stay there, to authorize this because you will be not only doing a physical thing but a very humane thing. Again, I want to thank you very much for your time, because I understand you are busy and you have many other things in the United States to consider besides Alaska. In our own way, I think we will help you out, too, if you help us; and we thank you very much for the time you have given us. Mr. Joxiis. We are just as anxious to help your community as you are, sir; and we will consider the project in that light. We have a rolicall vote now. When is your time of departure? Mr. MERDES. We are completely available, solely in town for this committee hearing. Mr. Joi~s. Mr. Merdes I will place your prepared statement in the record at this point. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. MERDES Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is Edward A. Merdes. I am the senior partner in the law firm of Merdes, Schaible, Staley & DeLisio, which firm is the retained counsel for `the `City of `Fairbanks. In addition, I am Past President of Junior Chamber International, an organization of young men throughout the world, existing in 81 countries and dedicated to service `to our communities and leadership training. I have resided continuously in Alaska since the winter of 1951-1932, going there shortly after graduating from Cornell University Law School. I am married and have six children, all of whom were born in Alaska. My residence at 504 Monroe Street was severely damaged by the flood-as were over 95% of the other homes in Fairbanks-having suffered in excess of $22,000.00 in damages and loss of many personal items which are irreplacable. As the legal advisors to the City of Faii~banks I can assure you that the North Star Borough has flood control authority and can legally cooperate and en'ter into contracts with the United States Government for flood control in the Tanana River Basin area. However, the main reason I am appearing before you is to endeavor to articu- late the concern and feeling of the younger families who reside in the North `Star Borough and who have suffered adverse economic and personal effects from the August 19(}T `flood. The average age of our residents is 22 years and everybody in our area, other than `the `military, is residing `here of their own free volition as a result of a voluntary personal decision to live in a pioneering country. We have `climatic and high cost of living disadvantages but these are more than offset by the friendly attitude that almost everybody has toward the other. However,. I believe in considering whether or not to authorize the Tanana River Basin Flood Control Project, `the Congress would appreciate some down to earth statistics on the `high cost of living to an average young couple with a family in `the Fairbanks area and `how the flood has affected them and their attitude toward living in Central Alaska. PAGENO="0057" 43 The following figures, I believe, are typical of `the `annual living costs facing an average couple in the Fairbanks area with four or more children, who are purchasing their own home. Amount Fuel oil $1, 450.00 Utilities, which include water, telephone, and lights 1, 300. 00 Garbage service 75. 00 Food 3, 300. 00 Ad valorem taxes 1, 200.00 Sales tax 550. 00 First Mortgage house payments 2, 400. 00 Second Mortgage (SBA annual disaster payments) 1, 080.00 Total 111,3~5.00 1 This does not include clothing, medical, dental, recreational, automobile, etc., expenses because of the extreme variance between families as to the amount spent for these items, but which services and items are at the very least 33% percent higher than Seattle, Wash. As `these figures indicate, the economic `burden caused by the flood is extremely painful when added onto the already high cost of living. What concerns all families in the North Star Borough is the devastating effect that another flood would have on the community-particularly on the younger couples who can least afford a third mortgage. We all feel that such a flood will not only irreparably harm us economically but will surely snap our morale and cause a grand exodus out of this area to other parts of Alaska or to the Southern 48. Considering these factors, the most important of which are the human ones, and based upon the natural concern of all citizens of this area for the future of the community, I think it's imperative that the Federal Government authorize and fund a flood control project in the Tanana River basin area, to commence during the 1968 construction season. Another year's delay may be too late. If this project is authorized and funded, not only will the confidence of the people of this community be restored, but we may get many new residents. In addition, if the design results in the creation of related recreational facilities such as providing summer swimming, boating and other outdoor recreation facilities, this rather harsh climatic area will become even more atractive in the summer and provide an additional incentive for not only our own residents to stay but for new ones to come into the North Star Borough. It's unfortunate that a devastating flood has to occur before positive action is taken to actually construct a flood control project, but I guess that is the nature of things in our political process of government. Possibly the Fairbanks flood of last August, as bad as it was, will accomplish much good if it results in favorably approving a flood control project and funding it, which will eliminate not only the threat of physical and economic disaster, but, more importantly, restore the confidence of each of us in the future of this community. I want to thank the Committee for taking time out of its extremely busy schedule to hear and consider our testimony. It is the deepest hope and wish of every person in the Greater Fairbanks area that this Committee, and finally Congress, favorably approve and take the necessary action to authorize and fund a flood control project in the Tanana River basin area to forever prevent the recurrence of the indescribably disas- trous August 14th, 1967, flood. Mr. JONES. We have next Mr. Harry Porter and Mr. Conrad Frank. Mr. MERDES. After those two witnesses, we do not have any reason to be before the committee. Mr. JONES. Well, we are going to have to recess for the roilcall on the floor and then we will return. The committee will stand in recess for not longer than 30 minutes. That is the best I can make it right now. [Short recess.] Mr. CLATJSEN (presiding). In the interest of time, the chairman has asked me to preside; and our next witness will be Mr. Harry Porter, a member of the city council of the city of Fairbanks, Alaska. Mr. Porter, we offer you the committee. PAGENO="0058" 44 STATEMENT OP HARRY PORTER, MEMBER, CITY COUNCIL, PAIRBANKS, ALASKA Mr. PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first thing that I would like to go on record for is thanking the committee for meetiiig on this special occasion just for us, a very prac- tical reason. It would be very nice to go home and tell the city council that the $5,000 they have already put up will be the last $5,000 they will have to put up to ship us down here to Washington. Inasmuch as the committee is quite small now, if it would please the chairman, I would be happy to just read the statement very quickly and then submit to questions. I have only two little departures that will be made after my statement. Mr. Chairman, it has been left to me to discuss the impact of our last year's flood on the private sector. My first impulse was to bring to you the impressive figures of the total homeowners' loss. Unless, because no two figures agree, unless because no one can exactly measure a home- owner's loss, what are the photographs and slides in your own home worth toyôu? What about your marriage certificate, or your universjty books, your children's birth certificates, et cetera? These and many other things were lost, invaluable and yet valueless on the estimator's damage return. This we can tell you as a fact. The Small Business Administration loaned to 2,622 homeowners $16,520,110 and 720 businesses $30,986,322; 95 percent of the homes in the Fairbanks area were affected and to considerable extent. This does not take into consideration the large number of fiercely independent, self-sufficient Alaskans who did their own repair without SBA assistance. Somehow I would like to impart to you a real feeling of what it means to be a flood victim as a homeowner. Picture for a moment your own home in your minds eye. Imagine now a flood of water, not crystal clear water, sewage, mud, fuel oil, and debris rising and flowing so fast that it engulfs your home before you can do one thing. Imagine that if it, the water, cannot find a window or door to smash readily to rush in and ifil the basement, the very block walls caving in. Now as it steadily rises into your living room, kitchen, and bedrooms to window sill level what will it ruin? How much will you be able to save after immersion in this sewage, mud, fuel oil water after a week? The heating system? Can you save it? The deep- freeze? Washer? Dryer? Wall-to-wall carpet? Mattresses? Refrig- erator? Television? Sofas? Chairs? Gentlemen, we can testify that it will be very little. This without mentioning the irreplaceable items that go so far in making that house your home. We can testify as a fact that just to haul away the mountain of debris that was once our precious possessions cost the Army Corps of Engineers $560,000. We can testify that it is a fact that the city had to coindenrn 42 structures as irreparable. And that the State Veterans' Affairs inspected 113 homes suffer- ing $610,000 damage total and wrote off 13 as a total loss. It remains PAGENO="0059" 45 to be seen even yet how many FHA homes will be defaulted. One entire area of the city is in deep FHA trouble because of the con- taminated water supplies.. For a real graphic picture of what we are speaking of please refer to pages 30, 31, and 32 of Senator G-ruening's report to this committee. I know of no way to impart to you the hopelessness of looking into your once beautiful basement recreation room, laundry, and heating system and seeing chest deep water, 33 yards of mud, broken concrete blocks, and floating furniture and the temperature dropping to the freezing point. Try to imagine explaining to your wife that it is still worth the fight as she gazes at every piece of clothing you own and her new carpets laying in a sodden heap on your mud covered new lawn. I was cautioned that you wanted "meat" in these testimonies Gentlemen, the meat is dry figures which you have in abundance. The problem is people subjected to financial `disaster and loss of life. Meat is the benefit-to-cost ratios. The problem is they are established in the case by having allowed the loss to happen once. We can only implore you to act now to mini- mize the exposure to this crippling loss as quickly as possible. Action now still means asking these people, our neighbors and fami- lies, to live with this exposure another 4 years. A man once drew plans to avoid a recurrence of a flood that cost the lives of 300 people and swept away three bridges. It was ignored. Ignored until November 3, 1966, when Florence, Italy, suffered its disastrous flood. Leonardo Da Vinci's planning counted for nothing. Can't we please reduce the risk of Colonel Hardin's planning being for nought and begin by in- cluding this project in this year's bill? I would like to point out that the money that has already been spent, as mentioned in the first paragraph, I should not say spent, but loaned by the Federal Government, is half of what it would have taken to have prevented this tragedy if we would have had this project com- pleted at an early date. I only ~all this to your attention because we feel that this project is not the one that will cost, but one that will actually effect an economy both for Alaska, Fairbanks, and the Nation, by building it now and not allowing it to happen again at some future date. It is a shame that this cost-to-benefit ratio in this instance had to be established by allowing it to happen. I certainly hope that `Congress will see fit to act quickly, that it may not happen again. One other comment only and I will relinquish the chair to Mr. Conrad Frank. I think the Corps of Engineers deserves a particular vote of thanks. I had become quite cynical about the Federal Government or any de- partment of the Federal Government ever moving with any haste, and yet, within 1 week, we saw the Corps of Engineers, Colonel Pick him- self was there, Colonel Hardin put into motion contracts and actions that allowed us to become almost completely whole as far as the necessi- ties were concerned before our early freeze-up. I gained an immense respect for these gentlemen and their ability to do this and for the ability of our Federal Government when the need is an emergency and necessary to move and be of help to their people PAGENO="0060" 46 and to this particular committee for their action in being there, not af- ter the fact but during the fact. Our sincere appreciation to all of you gentlemen. Mr. Ci~usEN. We appreciate your comments, and also the fact that you have made these observations with respect to the responsiveness of the Corps of Engineers and, of course, we are particularly pleased to have these comments coming from the elected official, such as yourself, who do speak on behalf of our own constituency in expressing your concern and hope that this project will be advanced. Also, as you know, this particular committee does take a certain amount of pride in the fact that we have made a gent deal of progress in the field of disaster legislation. We have gone into this in depth, and when we can see the agencies of the Federal Government responding to the request once made, m implementing that which we have performea legislatively, we are equally pleased to have your kind of response that it is being carried out. Thank you very much. The next witness will be Mr. Conrad Frank, chairman, municipal utilities board, Fairbanks, Alaska. Nice to have you before the committee, sir. STATEMENT OF CONRAD PRANK, CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL UTILITIES BOARD, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLAU5EN. You may proceed with your statement. Mr. FRANK. My name is Conrad Frank, professional engineer and general contractor, and I am presently chairman of the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities Board. On August 14, 1967, my home was flooded and severely damaged. I like to think of myself and my family as being quite stable emo- tionally, but when we were airlifted out to Eielson Air Force Base and looked back down on our poor submerged city, there were tears in everyone's eyes. This bipartisan group before you represents well over 200 years of Fairbanks residency and over 120 years of active service to the community. We are vitally concerned for the future of the Fairbanks area.. We shared the tribulations of our neighbors through the ravages of the flood and the tremendous task of cleaning up. Now we stand together to help secure the future of our community by urging authorization of the Fairbanks flood control project. The plant, property, and equipment of the municipal utilities sys- tem is worth approximately $25 million. Through amazing good for- tune and the hard work of our employees and others the powerplant and water system were kept operating and the losses to those utilities were not heavy. The telephone system, however, was severely damaged and there was a heavy cost both to the office of emergency planning and to the system itself. The municipal utilities system should be making rather extensive additions to all of its utilities. The water system should be extend~ PAGENO="0061" 47 to the Hamilton Acres area, the powerplant should be added to in the very near future and the telephone system requires a great deal of upgrading and expansion. Almost all of our major expansions must be financed by bond issues, and we are not very hopeful of being able to sell bonds until there is assurance that something is to be done to prevent a recurrence of the flood disaster. Fairbanks could now be on the brink of a tremendous growth activity due to oil and mineral exploration, university expansion, defense installations, and space study installations. I say "could be," because another flood of the magnitude of 1967 is practically a certainty-it's just a question of time-and the fear of such a recurrence could easily be as damaging as the catastrophe itself. So please act favorably now so that we may plan and work to make our city develop as it should. Unless our citizenry is assured of protection in the near future, I am afraid that the faith and optimism so vital to stability and growth will wane, and we may face some really tragic consequences. We are told that the benefit-to-cost ratio for the project is unusually favorable at an estimated 2.7 and we understand that this will be demonstrated in some of the more technical testimony to be placed before you. Please let me sunimarize as follows: 1. There is a great and urgent need; 2. The benefit-to-cost ratio is excellent; 3. The community is ready to do its part; and 4. We implore you to recommend early approval. In closing, I would like to dwell upon the urgency of the need for prompt approval. The Corps of Engineers will need considerable time for final design and preparation of contract documents. This coming year, 1968 and the winter months of 1968-69 should be fully utilized for design studies and actual design, soils investigation, surveying and all the other very important preliminaries that must be accomplished. As my colleagues have indicated, every one of us in Fairbanks is living and operating his business on borrowed time and borrowed money. This coming year presents an opportunity that should, under no circumstances, be allowed to slip away. We strongly urge that your committee recommend favorably for authorization of this most urgently needed project, and that funds for planning and design be allocated as soon as possible. Thank you. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you for your very fine testimony, sir. I do not believe there are any specific questions, because I think that you very well presented some new information, and that, of course, is the very serious problem that you have in attempting to sell your bonds to expand your badly needed utilities. This is a very interesting portion of the testimony that has not been presented thus far. Thank you very much, sir. Do we have further witnesses from the Alaskan delegation? Mayor BOUCHER. Thank you again for all of us, to our friends here we deeply appreciate it, Congressman. PAGENO="0062" 48 Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, you have made a very fine presentation, Mayor Boucher, and all of you from Alaska. We have become friends out of the disastrous conditions that pre- vail, but we are hopeful that your own particular recommendations will be given every consideration. The subcommittee will recess now. Whereupon, at. 4 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed subject to the call of the Chair.) PAGENO="0063" OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS, FLOOD CONTROL, AND RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION BILL-1968 TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENT~[VES, SuliooMMIrriE ON FLOOD CONTROL OF ~E COMMITFEE ON PUBLIc WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., Hon. Robert E. Jones (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. JoNEs. The subcommittee will please come to order. The ~ubcommittee on Flood Control is meeting this morning to start hearings on the 1968 Omnibus River and Harbor and Flood Con- trol Act. We will hold hearings today on 38 flood control and hurri- cane protection projects and will also hear testimony on proposed basin monetary authorizations. We will also meet on Wednesday and Thursday of this week to hear about additional projects and pro- posed legislation. Next week the River and Harbor Subcommittee will meet on Tuesday and Wednesday, June 25 and 26, to consider navigation and beach erosion projects. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Corps of Engineers on the observance last Sunday, June 16, of their 19'3d anniversary. On June 16, 1775, Gen. George Washington appointed Col. Richard Gridley as the first Chief Engineer of the Army and launched a military construction and planning agency that has per- formed a significant role in the defense of the country and in the planning, development, and management of the Nation's water re- sources. Our ~1rst witness before the subcommittee this morning will be Gen. Charles C. Noble, Director of Civil Works, Office of Chief of Engi- neers. General Noble, it is a pleasure to welcome you here and to con- gratulate you on your recent appointment as Director of Civil Works STATEMENT OP HON. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, A REPR~SENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Mr. `CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, could I just say very briefly a word or two about the Beaver Brook Dam, the Connecticut River Basin, in New Hampshire? Mr. JoNEs~. Yes. (49) PAGENO="0064" 50 BEAVER BROOK DAM, CONNECTICUT RIVER BASING N.H. Mr. CLEVELAND. As the chairman knows, the full Conimittee on Public Works is meeting downstair on the highway authorization bill, and because I am on the Roads Subcommittee I am going to have to leave these hearings, but I did want to inform the committee that this first project, the Beaver Brook Darn, Connecticut River Basm, N.H., is one that Tarn pleased to endorse. As the gentlemen from the Corps of Engineers know, putting dams in, in New Hampshire, is not always easy. We have some disagreements about some of them, but apparently this is one that meets with general approval of the people in the community and apparently the cost-benefit ratio is satisfactory and I have heard no objection `from any of my constituents about this installation. As I said, we have had some dams that the corps has planned in New Hampshire that have resulted in rather violent local objection. In this case I have heard of no objection and I hope the committee will consider it favoraibly. Mr. JoNEs. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OP BRIG. GEN. CHARLES C. NOBLE, DIRECTOR OP CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OF CHIEF OP ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OP ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY COL. RICHARD L. SEIDEL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OP CIVIL WORKS FOR ATLA.NTIC DIVISIONS; LT. COL. FERD E. ANDERSON, JR., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR CENTRAL DIVISIONS; LT. COL. GEORGE SHAFFER, ASSIST- ANT DIRECTOR OP CIVIL WORKS FOR PLAINS DIVISIONS; LT. COL DANIEL D. HALL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY; AND LT. COL. LEWIS A. PICK, JR., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR PACIFIC DIVISIONS General NOBLE. Mr. Chairman, it ~s a pleasure to appear before you this morning. I am Brig. Gen. Charles C. Noble, and I have only recently taken over my present assignment as Director of Civil Works, and I am looking forward to continuing the close cooperation maintained by my prede- cessors with your committee. We are here to discuss with you the Corps of Engineers' civil works survey investigations favorable to water and related land resource developments, the need for increased monetary basin authorizations and other matters before your committee. I would like to summarize briefly the present status of specific project proposals and monetary authorization requirements. There are 41 Department of the Army reports pending before the Congress which propose authorization of Federal water resource proj- ects-15 reports in the navigation and beach erosion control categories and 2'6 in the flood control, multiple-purpose, and hurricane protection categories. The estimated Federal cost of the projects recommended in these reports amounts to about $1 billion. In addition to these reports there are 54 reports in the final stages of coordination with the States, Federal agencies, and the Bureau of PAGENO="0065" 51 the Budget prior to submission to the Congress. These reports rec- ommend projects estimated to have a total Federal cost of about $1.9 billion. We are concerned with basin monetary authorizations which are necessary to permit continuing the construction program in our river basins in an orderly and efficient manner. Congress has approved comprehensive plans for the development of many of the river basins of the Nation and for certain major projects with limitations on the amounts which may be expended. Your committee report accompany- ing the River Basin Monetary Authorization Act of 1967 recognizes that increases in monetary authorizations will be required for 1969, and states that the committee intends to review the needs during this session of Congress. Briefly, in 13 basins, monetary authorizations will be almost $0.5 billion less than projected appropriations through calendar year 1969. Anticipated appropriations through calendar year 1970 shows deficiencies in 14 basins of about $1 billion. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Members of my staff are here with me and are available during these hearings to presentrn detail the project proposals, monetary authorizations, and the special items of legislation that are before your committee. Colonel Seidel, the Assistant Director of Civil Works for Atlantic Divisions, will lead off. Mr. JONES. All right, Colonel, do you want to take up the Beaver Brook Dam and Reservoir in New Hampshire. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns the construction of a small multipurpose reservoir project on Beaver Brook, a tributary to Connecticut River, at Keene, N.H., in the interest of flood control, water supply, and recreation. It is in response to a resolution by the Senate Public Works Committee. Beaver Brook flows through Keene and the flood problem is con- centrated mainly within the city limits. In recent years flooding has been frequent and a recurrence of the largest past flood would now cause damages in Keene of almost $2 million within zone of influence of project. In addition to the flood problem, the city anticipates a need for future water supply and there is already a demand for water- based recreation. The project recommended consists of a multipurpose dam and reservoir for flood control, water supply, and recreation. Total cost is estimated at $1,377,000, of which $1,185,000 would be Federal and $192,000 would be non-Federal. Local interests would repay an es- timated $365,500 toward water supply and recreation costs. Since the flood control benefits are localized, all lands, and relocations' al- located to flood control would be provided by local interests. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.9. Local interests have indicated willingness and ability to meet all requirements of local cooperation and all interested Federal and State' agencies favor the `project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report to Congress. Smce the Federal cost of this project is less than $10 million, the views set forth by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of January 6, 1967, submitting a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Con- trol Act of 1965 would apply. Mr. Chairman, this cOmpletes my statement. 97-700-68-5 PAGENO="0066" 52 Mr. Jo~es. Any questions? Next we have the Norwalk River Basin-Connecticut and New York. NORWALK RIVER BASIN-CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK Colonel S~mrn~. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of the Norwalk River through the towns of Norwalk and Wilton, Conn., in the interest of flood control. It is in partial response to a resolution by the Senate Public Works Corn- mittee. The lower reach of the river flows through highly developed urbam and industrial areas and a recurrence of the largest past flood would~ now cause damages estimated at $8 million. The corps has improved a short length of channel downstream from the work now being1 recommended. The Soil Conservation Service has an authorized up- stream watershed work plan which will afford some downstream benefit. The plan recommended will fit closely with the authorized SCS~ plan and when both are constructed a good degree of flood protectiom will be provided. Our project includes about 2 miles of channel im- provement, together with dikes, floodwalls, interior drainage, and bridge modifications. Total cost is estimated at $4.3 million, of which. $2.7 million would be Federal. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.3. Usual items of local cooperation are required and assurances of such coopera- tion have been received. All interested Federal and State agencies favor the project and the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report. Since the Federal cost of this project is less than $10 mfflion, the views set forth by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of January 6, 1967, submitting a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood. Control Act of 1965 would apply. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JONES. What is the modification of this project changing the authorization in 1955? Colonel SEnIrL. Sir, an authorization in 1951 resulted in a 1,700-foot channel improvement for flood control approximately 1 mile down-~ stream from the present area we are talking about. The authorization of 1955 was a Senate Public Works Committee resolution calling for a study of all the streams in the Northeastern States. Mr. JONES. That is the only alteration? Colonel SEmEI2. Yes, sir. Mr. JoNEs. Any questions? Mr. CLAUSEN. No questions. Mr. JoNEs. Next is the Park River Basin, Coim. and N.Y. STATEMENT OP RON. DONALD L IRWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN~ CONGRESS PROM TBI STATE OP COKNEGTI~UT Mr. IRWIN. Mr. Chairman, I am appearing before your committee today on behalf of the city of Norwalk and the town of Wilton, Conn.,. both in my congressional district. The committee already has a wealth of information about this project in the record, so I shall not take your time and repeat any of. the details of the project. PAGENO="0067" 53 Suffice to say, I strongly urge authorization of funds for the Nor- walk River Basin project for one very good reason: completion of this project would be a d~finite investment in the future of the area in question. As you know, too, the project has been favorably endorsed by the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Transportation, Commerce, and Health, EducatiOn, and Welfare. The Bureau of the Budget likewise has registered no objection to the project which also carries the recommendation of the TJ.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In other words, all parties concerned believe the Norwalk River Basin project should be authorized the funds necessary for its completion. If you permit a few personal observations, I would like to say simply that completion of the Norwalk River Basin project will put an end to property loss in the future, will prevent possible loss of life, and will eliminate threats to the public health via contamination. His honor, the mayor of Norwalk, Frank N. Zullo, joins me in urging authorization of funds for this project, as does Hon. Vincent J. Tito, Sr., first selectman of the town of Wilton. Mayor Zullo and Selectman Tito both regard completion of the Norwalk River Basin project as of vital concern to their respective communities and the area in general. They point out that the area surrounding the Norwalk River is one which is developing rapidly. The Norwalk Harbor, for example, into which the Norwalk River flows, is regarded as one of the best on the eastern coast. Geographically, the Norwalk River is located in the center of Fair- field County-it is one of the fastest growing areas in the entire Nation. It therefore becomes urgent that everything possible must be done to protect and insure continued favorable growth of this region. Com- pletion of the Norwalk River Basin project will constitute one giant stride in that direction. The entire economy of the area will benefit from completion of the project. It should also be kept in mind that completion of the project will prevent repetition of the situation that developed when there was a severe flood in the mid-1950's. Not only was much actual damage caused at that time, but the flood likewise created some psychological problems for owners of the land affected. Authorization of funds to complete the Norwalk River Basin project would remove the apprehensions and anxieties of area residents and business, thereby resulting in a better climate and atmosphere for con- tinued orderly growth and development. Mr. Joio~s. Thank you, Mr. Irwin. Colonel Seidel, proceed, sir. PARK RIVER BASIN, (JONN. AND N.Y. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of the existing project for Park River in Hartford, Conn., in the interest of flood control. It is responsive to a resolution by the Senate Public Works Committee. PAGENO="0068" 54 Mr. Jo~s. Does the proposed project modify an existing project? Colonel SEIDEL. We have here a project which was completed in 1944 and now we are extending the improvement upstream in the basin. Park River Basin is in east-central Connecticut and includes about 79 square miles with a 1960 population of about 300,000. The river flows through Hartford and enters the Connecticut River at the city limit. Existing and proposed flood control works provide for upstream reservoir detention supplemented by downstream channel enlarge- ment, dikes, and floodwalls, with conduits containing the stream through the most builtup areas of the city. There are gaps in the exist- ing conduit system which permit overflow into adjacent urban and commercial areas. The recommended project consists of closing the gaps by construct- ing additional lengths of conduit, including a new bypass conduit to discharge directly into the Connecticut River, and a pumping sta- tion to remove ponded storm drainage. Total cost is estimated at $31.1 million, of which $30.3 million is Federal, and the benefit-cost ratio is 1.3. The usual items of cooperation for local protection projects are required and local interests have indicated their willingness and abil- ity to meet these requirements. All interested Federal and State agen- cies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report to Congress. The Secretary of the Army notes that the report indicates that modification of the exist- ing project is required because of residential, commercial, and in- dustrial buildup which has occurred since the existing project was constructed. The Corps of Engineers will cooperate with other Fed- eral agencies, in compliance with Executive Order No. 11296, to as- sist non-Federal agencies in avoiding uneconomic, hazardous, or un- necessary further development of the flood plain would create a de- mand for further modification of the project. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. Jo~ss. Has there been any discussion with the local govern- ment as to whether or not they would invoke the development of the plan that would not permit the trespass of further construction in the flood plain? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, we have addressed this question of flood plain management to the local interests. Mr. JONES. What was their response? Colonel SEIum~. I do not know, sir. I will have to supply that for the record. Mr. Jo~us. Will you please do that? Colonel SEWEL. Yes. (The information follows:) Local interests have recently adopted zoning regulations to control the de- velopment of the flood plain of the Park River and have coorthmted this matter with the Corps of Engineers. Mr. ~LAUSEN. What was the original authorized project? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, it is shown on the chart here about 5,600 feet of conduit, of pressure conduit, twin tube, roughly 30 feet by 24 feet each. * Mr. CLAUSEN. Is that in place now? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0069" 55 Mr. CrAUsEN. So this is simply an extension into the other area of the community. Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. What is the sponsoring local political subdivision? Colonel SEmEr~. The Greater Hartford Flood Control Commission. Mr. OLAUSEN. And aJl local requirements are met? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. JoNES. Who will maintain and operate the pumping station? Colonel SEIDEL. The local people, sir. Mr. JONES. Mr. Johnson,, any questions? Mr. JOHNSON. No questions. Mr. JoNES. Next we have the Delaware coast, Delaware. DELAWARE COAST, DELAWARE Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of the Atlantic coast of Delaware in the interest of beach erosion control and hurricane protection. It is responsive to a Senate Public Works Committee resolution adopted January 7, 1963. Existing Federal projects consist of partial beach restoration and nourishment, emergency protective measures, and various navigation improvements. Storms and hurricane surges are causing severe beach erosion and damage to shore properties. The plan of improvement calls for beach widening; dune, bulkhead, stone revetment, and sand fence construction; planting of dune grass; and periodic beach nourishment at an estimated cost of $8,044,000 of which $5,584,000 would be Federal. The project consists of reach 1, 13.6 miles, from Cape Henlopen to Indian River Inlet in lieu of the authorized project, and reach 2, 10.9 miles, from Indian River Inlet to Fenwick Island. Each reach may be constructed independently. Bene- fit-cost ratios are 1.4 and 1.6 for reaches 1 and 2, respectively. The usual items of local cooperation are required and assurances have been received that cooperation will be furnished. All interested Federal and State agencies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of this report to the Congress. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. CLAUSEN. Could you give me a bit of breakdown on the beach recreation and benefit increments? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. And how you arrived at that. Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the beach erosion benefits were computed on the frontage as it is in the present type of ownership. The benefits are derived from use of public beaches and all areas open .to public beach use. The benefits are presently estimated at $386,000. Mr. JoNEs. On the Delaware coast project, the Bureau of the Budget has not as yet commented. My report shows they have no cthjection to the submission of the report. Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct, sir, the Bureau of the Budget, has no objection. Mr. JoNEs. Next we have Cape Fear River Basin, N.C., Randle- man and Howards Mill Dam projects. PAGENO="0070" 56 STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM V. ROTH, 31t., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP DELAWARE Mr. BOTH. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on Flood Control, I am happy to have the privilege of appearing before you to strongly urge the inclusion of the Delaware coast beach erosion con- trol and hurricane protection project in the omnibus rivers and harbors and flood control bill this year. Mr. Chairman, I cannot overstate the urgency and importance of this project to the State of Delaware. Over the last half century, the Delaware ocean coast extending from Cape Henlopen at the mouth of the Delaware Bay to Fenwick Island on the Maryland line has suffered the ravages of storm and tide to the extent that Rehoboth- the Nation's summer capital-has forfeited almost a city block along the ocean front to the sea. Some of the older structures along the shoreline have been moved inland several times, because of the sea's encroachment. Delawareans vividly recall the destruction wrought by the March 1962 storm that caused loss of life and property damage in the millions on the Middle Atlantic coast. The tidal marshes on Delaware Bay were inundated, isolating a number of bayside communities for several days. Far worse damage was inflicted upon the ocean coast: houses were ripped from their foundations, resort hotels and motels were partially or totally destroyed, the dunes protecting areas beyond the beaches were flattened, the broad beaches were scoured clean of sand, leaving only the underlying clay, the narrow strip of land separating the ocean from the Rehoboth, Indian River, and Assawoman Bays was breached at many points. Sussex County, Del., which includes all of the project area, is cate- gorized as a depressed area under title IV of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. Although the county is begin- ning to develop its industrial potential, poultry and tourism remain essential to the prosperity of its people. Each summer, hundreds of thousands flock to the Delaware shore resorts from Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other major urban centers of the East. Indeed, so many Washington area residents weekend or vacation at Rehoboth Beach that it has earned the title, "the Nation's summer capital." I point this out to emphasize that the benefits from this project will flow to not only 535,000 Delawareans, but to the several million people living and working in the southern part of the great Northeastern megalopolis, as well. Despite the fact that much of the damage of 6 years ago has been rebuilt, there remains the constant threat that future storms and hurricanes will do irreparable harm to these priceless natural re- sources that are our beaches. Only last August, the approach of a hur- ricane raised new fears for the beaches already weakened by the 1962 storm. Although emergency measures were taken by local and State authorities, we were fortunate that the hurricane veered out to sea before serious damage was suffered by coastal communities. The cost of this project, slightly more than $8 million, is low in comparison with the benefits to be derived from it. The benefit-cost ratios provided the subcommittee, reflect only partly the economic PAGENO="0071" 57 benefits, for we are talking of saving and rebuilding a major recrea- tional asset for future generations. The State of Delaware will bear almost one-third of the project cost, slightly less than $2.5 million, and ~the Federad Government the remainder. The Departments involved, interior, HEW, Commerce, and Transportation, are favoraible in ~their comments on the proposed project, as is the State of Delaware. I therefore respectfully and strongly urge favorable consideration of this project of importance to Delaware and the people of nearby ~States. Thank you, Mr. Ohairman. CAPE FEAR RIVER BASING N.C. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report con- cerns the construction of two reservoirs on Deep River, central North ~Caroiina, a tributary of the Cape Fear River, as part of the plan for development of the Cape Fear River Basin. It is in partial response to an item in Public Law 88-253, approved December 30, 1963. Floods occur in the Cape Fea.r River Basin in all seasons. Average :annual flood damages are estimated at $883,000, 17 percent of which occur along Deep River. Water supply, water quality control, and recreational facilities are also needed to serve the nearly 1.3 million ~people within 50 miles of the sites. Mr. JoNEs. Let's go over that point, Colonel, please. Let's identify ~the reservoirs. Colonel SEmEL. The two reservoirs, sir, in general are the recom- ~mended projects, the Randleman and the Howards Mill project reservoir. Mr. JONES. How much is allocated to water supply? Colonel SEIDEL. In Raiidleman, sir, we have 26 percent of the reser- voir capacity for water supply and in Howards Mill we have no water :supply. Mr. JONES. You may continue. Colonel SEmEr~. The recommended project consists of the Randle- ~man and Howards Mill Dams and Reservoirs which would provide storage for flood control, water supply, water quality control, and rec- reation. Estimated costs are $19,463,000 and $12,460,000, respectively, ~of which $12,613,000 and $11,145,000 would be Federal after reimbursements. Mr. Joi~res. You are calling off all those figures. Where are those? Colonel SEIDEL. On both projects,sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. The figures on the document before us for Howards Mill shows $12,460,000 and on Randleman $19,463,000. Mr. JONES. That is all Federal cost? Colonel SEIDEL. Those are Federal costs, sir. There will be reimburse- ~ment for water supply and recreation and fish and wildlife enhance- ment which will reduce the cost of Randleman to $12,613,000 and Howards Mill to $11,145,000. Mr. JONES. On that $3 million, that is over the total life of the project? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; this reimbursement will be over a period of -~0 years. PAGENO="0072" 58 Mr. Jo~s. So the first project is $19 million reimbursement, water supply $3,448,000, non-Federal reimbursement to the United States of $1,315,000 for recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement. Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, we have two reimbursements on Randleman. We have one for water supply, $3,484,000 and one for recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement of $3,204,000. The sum of $1,315,000 is for Howards Mill. Mr. Jo~s. I do not see that in my prospectus. In other words, you have in excess of $6 million through reimbursement, is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; $6,850,000. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is this for 50 years? Colonel SEIDEI!. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. On a 100-year basis? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the repayment period is 50 years. Mr. ~ Federal cost of approximately 12.6. Mr. Jo~s. Reimbursement is calculated on a 50-year basis, the life of the project is on a 100-year basis. Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. Jo~s. Has that been a policy heretofore? Colonel Srirn~r1. Yes, sir. `Mr. Jo~s. Any further questions? Mr. CLAUSEN. In justifying these benefits over a 100-year period it is my understanding it had to be on the basis of 50 years. Colonel SEIDEL. The reservoir projects are evaluated on a 100-year period. Mr. ~LAUSEN. Is that the project life ~ Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; the project life. `Mr. CLAUSEN. But the benefits, the reimbursable benefits are on a 50-year basis. Colonel Sim~r1. Sir, the benefits that we use are on a 100-year life. However, the repayment schedules are ba.sed on a 50-year period. Mr. Joxi~s. I believe that is by statute, is it not? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. We next have testimony from our colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Alton Lennon in behalf of the project that we have under discussion. STATEIV[ENT OP HON. ALTON LENNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP NORTH CAROLINA Mr. LENNON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ap- preciate the opportunity to appear before you in support of the Corps of Engineers survey study of water resources development for the Cape Fear River Basin in North Carolina and for authorization to construct the Randleman and Howards Mill Dams and Reservoirs. The Cape Fear River Basin extends from central North Carolina southeastward over 200 miles to the Atlantic coast. The basin is fed by the Deep and flaw Rivers which converge in the Piedmont area of North Carolina to form the Cape Fear RIver which empties into the Atlantic Ocean. These rivers drain an area of over 8,500 square miles. Floods occur in this basin during all seasons of the year with their destructive forces causing estimated annual damages of $900,000 to rural property and nonrural developments. PAGENO="0073" 59 The upper third of the Cape Fear River Basin is highly industrial- ized in the manufacture of textiles, furniture, tobacco products, ferti- lizers, chemicals, clay, glass, and industrial rubber. While the economy of the lower reaches of the river is agriculturally based, many new industries have located multirnillion-dollar plants in this area to take advantage of low-cost water transportation. The area is well suited for industrial growth-excellent year-round climate, ample ground and surface fresh water, and unlimited supplies of electricity and natural gas. In addition to the navigable Cape Fear River, the `area is served by three trunkline railroads, good highways and airports. The execution of the water resources development program, as rec- ommended by the Corps of Engineers, is required to develop this area to its full industrial potential. Already the New Hope Dam on the Haw River is under construction and will significantly reduce flood- ing in the river basin. Additional multipurpose dams are recom- mended on the Deep River. These are the Randleman and Howards Mill Dams and Reservoirs which will control flooding and provide water quality control necessary to furnish clean water to the high population concentrations attendant in industrialized areas. These reservoirs would provide a combined water storage of 298,000 `acre-feet for flood' control, water supply, and water quality controL The reservoirs of this project could also be used to provide for ex- panded recreation facilities to serve over a million people now living within 50 miles of the project area. At normal water levels the Randle- man and Howards Mill Reservoirs would cover 3,000 and 1,600 acres, respectively, providing enough water and area to support a variety of water-related recreational facilities and activity. After a comprehensive study of the water resources requirements for this area, the U.S. Corps of Engineers has found an immediate need for the construction of the Randleman and E[owards Mill Dams and Reservoirs. The average benefits accruing from the improvements are estimated at $2.1 million annually with an average benefit-cost ratio of 1.7 to 1. I strongly urge your authorization of a project vital to the indus- trial and economic growth of North Carolina. Mr. ,JONES. Thank you, Mr. Lennon, for your statement in support of this project. You may continue, Colonel. Colonel SEIDEL. The benefit-cost.ratio is 1.6 for the Randleman Dam and Reservoir, and 1.5 for the Howards Mill Dam and Reservoir. Local interests are willing to provide the necessary items of local cooperation. Interested Federal and State agencies favor the project. The report is with the BOB for clearance as to its relationship to the program of the President prior to its submission to Congress by the S/A. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. On this project, we did not have the comments of the Bureau of the Budget. Has the Budget Bureau submitted any? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, they have not yet been received. The report goes to the Bureau of the Budget for clearance as to its relationship to the program of the President prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. PAGENO="0074" 60 Mr. JONES. So there is likely to be a comment from the Secretary of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget. Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. Next project is the Alabama-Coosa River system at and: in the vicinity of Selma., Ala. ALABAMA RIVER AT SELMA~ ALA. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of the Alabama River for flood control at and near Selma, Ala.. It is in response to resolutions by the House Public Works Committee. There are no existing flood control projects in the area. Local inter- ests desire improvements to. eliminate flood damages. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends construction of levees,: interior drainage facilities, and a pumping plant at Selma and at Selmont, Ala., across the river from Selma. Total estimated cost of t.he project is $7,080,000 of which $6,395,000 would be Federal. The benefit-cost ratios are 1.2 for Selma, 1.5 for Selmont. Local interests are willing to provide the normal items of local cooperation. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, is this a modification? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir, there are no flood control projects in the area at this time. The State and Departments of Interior, Agriculture7 Commerce, and Transportation favor the project. The report is with the S/A for transmittal to BOB for clearance a.s to its relationship to? the program of the President prior to its submission to Congress by the S/A. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Any questions? Mr. JoHNsoN. No questions. Mr. JONES. At this point I will call upon my colleague, Tom Bevifl of Alabama. STATEMENT OP HON. TOM BEVILL, A REPRESENTATIVE 1N CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP ALABAMA Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I wish to go on record as strongly sup- porting the continued development of the Alabama-Coosa River Sys- tem and respectfully urge and request the Public Works Committee- to give it favorable consideration. Projects and amounts on which requested authorization is plannect t.o be used are as follows: Project Amounts Through calendar year 1968 Through calendar year- 1969 Alabama River channel improvement, Alabama Carters Dam, Ga Claiborne lock and dam, Alabama Jones Bluff lock and dam, Alabama Millers Ferry lock and dam, Alabama 50,000 12,070,000 3,000,000 12,480,000 1, 500,000 1, 150, 000 36,470,000' 3,730, 000: 22,480,000 1, 530, 000: Total requested authorization 29, 100,000 65,360, 000 PAGENO="0075" 61 The Alabama-Coosa River System drains an area of 22,800 square miles, of which about 130 square miles are in Tennessee, 5,3150 square miles are in Georgia, and 17,320 miles are in Alabama. The Basin has a maximum width of 110 miles and extends about 320 miles from southeast Tennessee with northwest Georgia diagonally across Alabama to the southwest corner of the State. The Rivers and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945, provides for the initial and ultimate development of the Alabama-Coosa Rivers and tributaries for navigation, flood control, power development, and other purposes. The act includes authorization for modification of the original plan as may be advisable from time to time in t.he discretion of the Sec- retary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers for the purpose of increasing the development of hydroelectric power. This act also au- thorized the appropriation of $60 million. Additional monetary au- thorization totaling $72 million has been provided by subsequent acts, bringing the total monetary authorization to $132 million. Mr. Chairman, full development of the Alabama-Coosa River sys- tem will stimulate and promote the economy of not only the Seventh Congressional District, but the entire State of Alabama. The area composing the Alabama-Coosa Basin has awakened to the potentialities opened by the development of the river. With the continued development of this waterway, even greater economic prog- ress is possible. Mr. JONES. Next we have the Talla.hala. Reservoir, Tallahala Creek, Miss. TALLAHALA CREEK~ MISS. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Ohairman and members of the committee, this report concerns a recommendation for construction of a dam and reservoir on Tallahala Creek, a tributary of the Pascagoula River in southeastern Mississippi. Tallahalla Creek drains an area of about 650 square miles and a serious flood problem exist's along this creek. Additional municipal and industrial water supply will be needed for the expanding econ- omy and industry of the Laurel area, and there is an urgent need for water quality control at Laurel and in the 53-mile reach down- stream. Also, there is a need for water-related recreation. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of the TaUa~hala Dam and Reservoir in the interest of flood control, water supply, water quality control, recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement; The estimated Federal cost is $16,360,000 of which $13,005,000 would be Federal after allowing for local reimbursements for water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. We have $3,265,000 which would be reimbursed by local interests for water supply, fish and wildlife enhancement. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 2.9 to 1. Local interests have indicated a willingness and ability to comply with the requirements of local cooperation. Comments of the iStat,e and Federal agencies are favorable and the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the re- port to the Congress. PAGENO="0076" 62 Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. Jo~s. At this point I will, place in the record statements by the Honorable William M. Colmer and the Honorable G. V. "Sonny" Montgomery in behalf of the Tallahala Reservoir. (The statements follow:) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM M. COLMER OF MISSISSIPPI IN SUPPORT OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT FOR PASCAGOULA RIVER, TALLAHALA CREEK, Miss. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to support the Tallahala Reservoir in Mississippi. As you know, this is an accelerated project of the Pascagoula River Basin Study. Critical flood problems exist along the Tallahala Creek; there has been a drastic decline in water levels affecting municipal and industrial water supply needs for the present and the future; gross pollution exists below the City of Laurel in Jones County and a need for recreation in the area is present. When constructed, this multi-purpose project would provide for flood control, water supply, water quality control, general recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement as needed. The total cost of the project is stated as $16,360,000 and the benefit-cost ratio is a most favorable 2.9:1. The citizens of the City of Laurel, the surrounding towns and cities and the sponsoring agency, the Pat Harrison Waterway District, are most interested in the Development of this project, as I am. I ask for your careful consideration and inclusion of this most worthy and needed project in the proposed Omnibus Rivers and Harbors and Flood Control BilL Thank you. STATEMENT OF HoN. G. V. "S0NNY" MONTGOMERY, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity of submiting this statement in behalf of the Tallahala Reservoir in Mississippi. The Tallahala Creek rises in north central Jasper County and drains an area of 649 square miles, which includes parts of Jasper, Jones, Forrest and Perry Counties. There is an immediate need for flood protection in this area due to damage to both urban and rural development. Urban damages result from inundation of homes, businesses and transportation systems. Flood damages in the rural areas result from inundation of crops, farm property other than crops, wooded land and transportation systems. Flood regulation by the Tallahala Reservoir project would protect the urban area at Laurel and provide a varying degree of flood protection to the highly productive agricultural land in the flood plain below the dam. Flood control would permit increased productivity and growth to meet expanding needs and would reduce threats to life and public health. There has also been a drastic decline in water levels affecting the municipal and industrial water supply needs for the area. This project would help alleviate these problems as well as provide recreation and fishing opportunities which are needed for the surrounding area. The total cost of the Tallahala Creek Project is estimated at $16,360,000 and it has a highly desirable benefit-cost ratio of 2.9: 1. I would sincerely appreciate your granting favorable consideration to this project and including it in the proposed Omnibus Rivers and Harbors and Flood Control Bill. Mr. Jo~s. Any questions? Next we wifi have Lt. Col. Ferd E. Anderson, Jr., Assistant Director of Civil Works for Central Divisions. Colonel Anderson, it is always good to have you before us. Colonel ANDERSON. Thank you, sir. PAGENO="0077" 63 STATEMENT OF COL. FERD E. ANDERSON, JL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR PACIFIC DIVISIONS, U.S. ARMY ENGI- 1~EERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. JONES. Our first project is Licking River, Ohio. LICKING RIVER, 01110 Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of the existing Newark local pro- tection project on the Licking River and tributaries in central Ohio and construction of the upstream multiple-purpose Utica Reservoir on the North Fork of Licking River. It is in response to a resolution by the House Public Works Committee. Licking River is a tributary of Muskingum River. The major flood problem in the basin is at the city of Newark, although smaller com- munities and agricultural areas bordering the streams are also subject to flood damage. A recurrence of the largest past flood, that of Janu- ary 1959, would now cause damages in excess of $10 million, mainly in Newark. There is also an immediate need for additional water supply, water-related public recreation, and water quality control. The project recommended consists of the Utica Reservoir for flood control, water supply, water quality control, and recreation, and im- provement of the Newark local flood protection project. The reservoir would cost $31,500,000, all Federal initially, of which $10,180,000 would be repaid by local interests for water supply and recreation. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.6. Improvement of the Newark project would cost $1,695,000, of which $1,453,000 would be Federal. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.4. The overall benefit-cost ratio for both portions of the project is 1.7. Local interests are willing to meet all require- ments, and all interested Federal and State agencies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objections to the submission of this report; however, it recommends that a restudy `be made of the Federal responsibility for providing pumping capacity for sanitary sewage prior to construction. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JONES. How does that operate, Colonel? Colonel ANDERSON. There is a small pump which costs `about $16,000 that would be provided as part of the new combined storm-sanitary pumping station in `the project, sir, and this small pump would func- tion both during nonflood periods and during flood periods. Mr. JONES. In other words, I am trying to estimate the liabilities, Federal liabilities and the municipal liabilities. Colonel ANDERSON. It is a question of cost-sharing; that is, on this pump station. ` Mr. JONES. Any questions? Mr. Miller. `Mr. MILLER. No questions. Mr. JONES. Mr. `Olausen? PAGENO="0078" 64 Mr. CLAUSEN. Recently there was a substantial amount of flooding up in the Ohio area. Were this project to be in place, would it have helped in those areas to prevent damage? Is this one of those projects? Colonel ANDERSON. I believe that it would have helped to some ex- tent. Most of the flooding was a little bit to the south and east of that area, sir, particularly in the Hocking River Basin. Mr. JONES. Next is the southwestern Jefferson County project in Kentucky. I call on my colleague, Hon. M. Gene Snyder. SOUTHWESTERN JEFFERSON COUNTY, LOUISVILLE~ KY. STATEMENT OP HON. H. GENE SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OP KENTUCKY Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I ap- preciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the southwest Jefferson County floodwall project. As you know, our senior Senator from Ken- tucky proposed a resolution to the Committee on Public `Works in the Senate which was adopted May 18, 1964, and at that time, I proposed an identical resolution to the House Public `Works Committee which was adopted on June 23, 1964, authorizing the corps to make a study and recommendation with particular reference to consideration of im- provements for flood control and allied purposes in southwest Jefferson County, Ky. I attended the corps public hearings which were held in, as I recall, either late November or early December 1964. I again attended their public hearings which were held November 22, 1966. These hearings were conducted by the corps in the community affected. Since 1872 the Ohio River has exceeded flood stage 75 times at Louis- ville-this is an average of about eight times in each 10-year period. The 10 highest floods ranged from 13 to 30 feet above flood stage. The larger floods have caused immense property damage and some loss of life in the community. In addition, floods have created health hazards, disrupted the social, economic, and domestic life of the immediate and surrounding areas with resulting related economic losses to the general community. As this subcommittee knows a floodwall and levee system was built a few years back to protect the downtown section of Louisville and some areas outside the city's limits. This was during the time that the junior Senator from Kentucky was serving in the House and it was basically under his leadership that the existing floodwall was constructed. It is for the purpose of requestmg this subcommittee to include in the omnibus public works bill in this session of Congress authorization for the construction of a southwestern section of the flood protection apparatus in Jefferson County that I appear here today. I know the local officials are vitally mterested in this project to the extent that they have already be~un undertaking measures to provide the $6.6 million share of the $20. millioi~ total estimated cost for this proj ect. PAGENO="0079" 65 It certainly is not my purpose here tc~day to undertake to explain to you the nature of the improvements, for you have before you the corn- petent data and testimony of the Corps of Engineers. In the same fashion, the statements of the local officials will be sub- mitted here today for the purpose of pointing out to the subcommittee the general character and nature of the area to be protected I might `note in passing that according to a brochure put out in June ~of last year by the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning and Zon- ing Comniissionin regard to the southwest section of the floodwall that it is indicated that these flood prone areas contain developments with a value of well over one-third billion dollars and a recurrence of the 1945 flood would cause a monetary loss of over $7.5 million and a flood similar to that of 1937 would result in damages of about $60.3 million or three times the estimated cost of this project. According to an April 12, 1967, report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors of the Corps of Engineers, signed by Maj. ~Gen. R. `0. MacDonnell, chairman, it is noted that, taken separately from the proposed recreational feature, the selected plan for flood pro- tection would have an estimated first cost of $14 million, of which $10.8 million would be Federal, $3.2 million non-Federal; the benefit- * cost ratio b~ing 2.5. The separable first cost of the recreation feature alone is estimated at $6.7 million, of which one-half would be borne by the Federal Government. The benefit-cost ratio for the recreational feature of the plan is estimated at 1.6. I believe that I am correct in the assertion that this gives an overall benefit-cost ratio of 1.9 to 1. Mr. Chairman, I am confident that the evidence which will be adduced by the experts from the corps and from the local officials will justify the inclusion of this project in your omnibus bill and I so request on behalf of the constituents of the Fourth Congressional District. I might say in passing that some part of this structure is within the `Third Congressional District and some part of it within the Fourth `Congressional District but the major portion of the protected area will `be in the Fourth District. Nevertheless, both Congressman Cowger, who represents the Third District, and myself are on record as sup- porting the project. Again, thank you for your courtesies in hearing me today. Mr. Chairman, I have the following statements I would like to ~submit for the record. Mr. JoNEs. Without objection, so ordered. (The statements follow:) `STATEMENT `OF `MARLOW W. COOK, COUNTY JUDGE OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY., `IN SUPPORT OF THE `SOUTHWEST JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY., LOcAL. PROTECTION `PROTECT, JUNE 14, 1968 As County Judge of Jefferson County,. Kentucky, I am having this statement `presented to you today so that you may know of the sincere and deep interest of Fiscal Court to have this project move ahead as rapidly as possible and to fur- ther assure' the House that we continue to plan for assuming local responsibilities `in conjunction with the project. On June 12,1964, `I lirst assured Senator Allen J. Ellender, Chairman of the ~SenMe Appropriation `Subcommittee,. that the Fiscal Court was vitally interested PAGENO="0080" 66 in this project moving ahead and that local obligations would be assunied. This assurance was repeated by official resolution of the Court and presented at public hearings held by. the Corps of Engineers on December 1, 1964, and November 22, 1966. As further evidence of our assurance, the proposed budget for fiscal year 1968-'69 now under consideration contains provision for setting aside $500,000 to begin, preparation for assuming local obligation, now estimated to be $6.6 million. We further indicate our interest by proceeding to purchase necessary right of way to accommodate the proposed flood protection in conjunction with the Mill Creek Drainage project which is expected to be underway later this year by the Corps of Engineers. With the rapid development now underway in the County, the need increases and can be expected to be magnified as time passes. The project has been reported to have an extremely favorable cost benefit ratio so I urge your approval of this project so that it may move ahead to completion at an early date, `hopefully, before another flood can strike and repeat the damage in this large area of our community. Thank you for allowing this statement to be entered into the record. I am confident that with the partnership of local and federal government working together, we will solve this problem of fear of flooding at an early date and thus save untold damage from loss in the future. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. DAVIS, SECRETARY-TREASURER, LoUIsvILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY RIVERPORT AUTHORITY, IN SUPPORT OF THE SOUTHWEST JEFFERSON COUNTY, Ks., LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, JUNE 18, 1968 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is William W. Davis, of Louisville, Kentucky. I am Secretary-Treasurer of the Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority, a public corporation established in late 1065 by the City of Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky, for the primary purpose of developing suitable industrial sites and port and terminal facilities in the unprotected area of Southwest Jefferson County in order to attract river- oriented industry. The governing body of the Authority is a non-partisan board composed of six businessmen and community leaders who recognize the indus- trial potential of undeveloped land in our county adjacent to the Ohio River. The specific area which the Authority plans to develop (and, indeed, the only remaining area of our county suitable for river-oriented industry) is cur- rently unprotected from severe flooding of the type which most recentiy occurred in 1964. For this reason, the Riverport Authority has a predominant interest in the Southwest Jefferson County Local Protection Project and in the earliest possible authorization of the project by the Congress. In order to be as brief as possible, we shall not here attempt to reiterate the text of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' report describing the urgent necessity and reasons for this project and its definite economic benefits to our community, except to say over 42,300 inhabitants of the Louisville Metropolitan Area live in a territory which is completely unprotected from damaging Ohio River floods and which therefore cannot be developed-industrially, commercially and resi- dentially-to its full potential. It is our purpose today to respectfully request the authorization of the South- west Jefferson County Local Protection Project this year, and in doing so we wish to point out to the Subcommittee that local government has already begun the necessary fiscal planning to provide its $6,600,000 share of the $20,700,000 total estimated cost of the project. The threat of damaging floods has resulted in a wasteful limitation of indus- trial as well as residential expansion in Southwest Jefferson County, and the success of the community's plans to alleviate this condition is dependent upon favorable action by this Subcommittee by recommending the inclusion of our project in the Omnibus Rivers and Harbors and Flood Control Bill to be acted upon by this session of the Congress. We wish to sincerely thank the Subcommittee for giving consideration to this statement and to the flood protection needs of the Louisville Metropolitan Area. PAGENO="0081" -1 PAGENO="0082" 68 STATEMENT OF SAMMIE F. LER, DIRECTOR OF WORKS, JEFFERSON COUNTY, Ky., IN SuPPORT OF THE SOUTHWEST JEFFERSON COUNTY, KY., LOCAL PROTECTION PROJ- ECT, FUNE 14, 1~38 Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Sammi~ F. Lee of Louisville, Kentucky. I ani Director of Works and County Engineer for Jeffer- son County, Kentucky, and in that position am responsible for various public works activities as directed by the Fiscal Court. I am also a member of the Louisville-Jefferson County Planning Commission by virtue of my position and therefore am directly involved in planning and development of the community. After the devastating flood of March 1964, I met With members of the staff of this COmmittee as well as some Committee members to relate the changes which had taken place since construction of initial flood protection for Louis- ville, Kentucky, and the need for additional flood protection. This was ifiustrated by aerial photos taken during the flood and preliminary statistics to indicate the magnitude of damage. I have been extremely gratified by the progress with which this project has moved ahead since that tiihe to the present stage of consideration of funds to be included in the 1968 Omnibus Rivers and Harbors and Flood Control Bill. The healthy economy of our metropolitan area has provided rapid development of this area since the end of World War II which is vividly described in the Comprehensive Report on this project by the Corps of Engineers. The outlook for the area is bright from reports made for the Planning Commission, Riverport Authority, Riverfront Commission. and as described in the attached statement from the Louisville Chamber of Commerce, which I have `been asked to file with the Subcommittee. To provide for the continued rapid growth, the southwestern portion of Jefferson County will play a key role, both in residential development to provide homes for the increased population, as well as industrial development which is proposed by the Riverport Authority. The present population, which would be effected by a 1937 level flood, is esti- mated to be approximately 60,000 persons and they need protection in order to maintain the stable conditions of that residential area. The report of the Corps of Engineers indicates a very favorable cost benefit ratio with the added incen- tive of providing additional recreational facilities with cOoperation from local government. : County government has indicated regularly its deep interestin this project and its desire to assume local responsibility required. To reiterate this position. I have been asked to present the attached statement from County Judge Marlow W. Cook which describes the attitude of Fiscal Court and encourages this project to move ahead as rapidly as possible. I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement and to respectfully request the authorization of the Southwestern Jefferson County Local Protection Project thIs year so that it may move ahead toward completion at an early date. STATEMENT OF LOuIsvILLE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUPPORTING PRoPosAl. FOR FLOODWALL EXTENSION AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN SOUTHWESTERN Jsvm~soN COUNTY, LouisviLLE, KY., TuEsDAY, MAY 21, 1968 The Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce has repeatedly expressed concern over the need for improvements for flood control and evidence of this concern has been made manifest by the Chamber on many occasions through special studies, reports and recommendations emanating from various Chamber committees and the Board of Directors. Specifically, the Chamber in March of 1963 unanimously endorsed a proposal that the Corps of Engineers conduct a feasibility study rela- tive to the southwesterly extension of the existing floodwalL In November, 1966 the Chamber again supported the project at a public hearing of the report of the feasibility study of the Corps of Engineers. Today the Chamber before the Subcommittee on Flood Control-Rivers and Harbors of the Senate Public Works Committee ágaiñ urges favOrable Consideration of autliorisation of this project. Both the Industrial Promotion and Water, Sewers & Drainage Com- mittees of the Chamber have closely reviewed the improvements under consid- eration and heartily endorse this vitally needed flood protection. In the interest of the growth and development of the Louisvffle area, it is im- perative that the floodwall protection be afforded not only to the 60,000 persons PAGENO="0083" 69 now subject to flooding but also the additional unoccupied land area which needs 4o be made available for development. Next to people, usable land i's rapidly be- coming the most important resource of this metropolitan area. The growing pop- ulation will require additional fiood~proof land area for housing, recreation, edu- cational facilities and industrial and commercial acreage for new job opportun- ities. At the present growth rate in this country, it will be necessary by 1971 to accommodate an additional 24,000 people requiring 8,700 homes which will con- sume over 1,800 acres of land. Land area must also be found to accommodate 400 new classrooms for the additional 13,500 students which will live in this county in the next five years. Still more land area will be required to provide business and industrywith the `space needed for the 28,000 new jobs which will be created by 1971. It is, therefore, apparent that the southwesterly extension of the existing floodwall and creation of a ponding area as proposed is vital to the continued growth and development of this area. The Louisville Area Chamber of Commerce actively `and enthusiastically `supports the extension of the floodwall and construc- tion of a ponding area with the understanding that the maximum acreage pos- sible be protected for future `development. The Chamber further offers its full support toward achieving this end. Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns construction of a local flood protection project along the Ohio River near Louisville with associated facilities for rec- reation and fish `and wildlife enhancement. It is in re~ponse to reso- lutions adopted by the Senate and House Public Works Committee on May 18, 1964, and June23, 1964, respectively. The major flood problem is caused by the Ohio River and signifi- cant damage occurs relatively frequently. The flood plain is being de- veloped for urban use because of its proximity to Louisville. It is pres- ently about 30 percent developed. A recurrence of the largest ~past flood, that of 1937, would now cause damages estimated at $51 million. The project recommended consists of a levee and floodwall with in- terior drainage facilities. Recreation and fishing facilities would be provided as part of `a permanent pool pending area associated with the interior drainage. Total cost is estimated at $23,200,000, of which $19,800,000 is Federal. Local interests would repay $3,400,000 for their share of recreation and flshin~ facility costs. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.9. Local interests have indicated their willingness to meet all re- quirements of local cooperation. The Secretary of the Army recommends that the size and scope of the project be reviewed prior to construction in order to achieve the most practicable bal'ance between structural works and flood plain management and regulation. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this r~port and it concurs in the Secretary of the Army's recommendation for a review of the project size and scope prior to construction. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JoNEs. We have had considerable trouble over the years in that Ohio section of the river of plain management. Is any substantial improvement in the outlook of the people in that stretch of the river in Kentucky to bring about some improve- ment? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir, flood plain management is already being practiced by the local interests in this area. In fact, seine 4,400 acres that would be protected by this project are lying at elevations below the level of the 1945 flood and are restricted in development at this time~ PAGENO="0084" 70 Mr. JONES. How ofte.n do they re1ax those restrictions, that is when a request comes about by some industrial development or use that would be adverse to the project? Colonel ANDERSON. I do not Irnow, sir, but that low-lying area is only being used as farmland now and then only to a limited extent. Mr. CLAUSEN. Do they have flood plain zoning adopted? Colonel ANDERSON. Jefferson County has for some time been exer- cising control of development in the flood plain to the extent of their legislative and judicial authority. They have been instrumental in preventing development in the high hazard flood areas. However, further practical management of the flood plain would not have a significant effect in reducing future flood damages. Mr. JONES. I recall a long time ago we had those assurances but it was not very lasting and they did relax and they did build on flood plains and then came back for protective work. Mr. Johnson, do you have any questions? Mr. JOHNSON. Has the local interest met your requirements in flood plain zoning that was adopted and was satisfactory to your recommen- dation? Colonel ANDERSON. Sir, we make recommendations to local interests that they adopt flood plain zoning, flood proofing, and flood plain man- agement in certain cases where structural works cannot be economically justified, and we assist them technically in such matters, but we do not have the authority to enforce flood plain zoning. Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you do lay down certain recommendations, do you not? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. Jom~soN. You figure the zoning laws are lax and do not meet your recommendation? Colonel ANDERSON. For this problem* area we are recommending structural measures, a levee and floodwall, since we consider that any further flood plain zoning that could be practically enforced would not be effective. At other localities we frequently have assisted local com- munities by furnishing technical information upon which they can develop a flood plain zoning and management plan. We also ftu~nish information on methods of flood proofing buildings already situated in flood plains. Mr. JOHNSON. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Any further questions? Next we have the south branch Wild Rice River-Felton ditch, Minnesota. My colleague, the Honorable Odin Langen from Minne- sota. Please proceed. SOUTH BRANCH OF WILD RICE RIVER AND FELTON DITCH, MINNESOTA STATEMENT OP HON. ODIN LANGEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MINNESOTA Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wel- come the opportunity of submitting remarks in behalf of the South Branch Wild Rice River-Felton Ditch, Miimesota, flood control project. The South Branch of the Wild Rice River and Felton Ditch are tributaries of the Wild Rice River, an eastern tributary of the Red PAGENO="0085" 71 River of the North. The streams drain, areas of 222 and 159 square miles in west-central Minnesota. This is comparatively level country, and flooding along the South Branch and Felton Ditch occurs regularly not only during spring snowmelt periods, but also frequently during intense summer rain- fall. The extent of the area flooded is estimated at about 121,000 acres. The land affected is primarily agricultural, with 95 percent of it cultivated. The area soils hold a high productivity potential. How- ever, spring flooding has frequently delayed planting or eliminated it entirely, at a great loss to the farmers. Even during the growing sea- son, the crops are constantly threatened with flash floods. The report submitted by the Secretary of the Army (H. Doc. 98, 90th Cong., first sess.) estimates annual crop losses in excess of a quarter of a mil- lion dollars. Other agricultural losses were estimated at $38,600 a year and road and bridge damage at $5,400. I have personally visited this area and can attest to `the widespread flooding each year. I have a series of pictures in my files that further tell the tragic story of helplessness as flood waters spread for miles over rich cropland, with the farmers unable to stem the tide with local efforts. They desperately need our support and assistance if this crop- land is to be preserved for future use `and productivity. No flood control projects have been constructed `by the `Corps of Engineers in the SOuth Branch or Felton Ditch watersheds. What is requested now is an authorization to make channel enlargements and other improvements, to facilitate the flow of waters, eliminating to a great extent the floodpotential for `the area. The Corps of Engineers found the overall program to be econom- ically feasible and to be compatible with any comprehensive plan that may be developed later for the Red River of the North basin. The first costs of the proposed improvements are estimated at $1,- 452,000, of which $1,230,000 would `be Federal and $222,000 non- Federal for rights-of-way and relocations. The annual charges would be $63,000, including $5,500 for non-Federal maintenance. Average annual benefits are estimated at $271,500, providing a benefit-cost ratio of 4.3, which is certainly excellent. In addition to the Federal participation, local interests will con- tribute an additional $1,488,000 for auxiliary lateral and on-farm works. Total annual charges, including local part~icipation, would be $135,400, with average total annual benefits of $643,400. When this local participation is added into the benefits and costs, the ratio rises to 4.8. With such a favorable benefit-cost ratio, and faced with the obvious condition of regular annual flooding in the area, it is respectfully re- quested tha't the South Branch Wild Rice River-Felton Ditch flood control project be favorably recommended and authorized by this sub- committee and the whole House Committee on Public Works. `Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and men~bers of the committee, this report concerns improvement of the south branch of Wild Rice River and Felton ditch, in northwest Minnesota near the North Da- kota border, in th'e interest o'f flood control. It is in partial response to several congressional resolutions calling for surveys on the Red River on the north basin. The flood plain includes about 120,000 acres of agricultural lands and two small communities. Flooding occurs regularly during spring PAGENO="0086" 72 snowmelt and frequently during intense summer storms. Average annual damages are estimated at about $340,000 and are caused `by inadequate channel capacities. There are no existing Federal flood. control projects on these streams. The improvements recommended consist primarily of channel en- largement and clearing supplemented by a small number of levee' construction. The improved channel system will also require modifi- cation of several highway bridges and one railroad bridge. Total cost is estimated at $1,452,000, of which $1,230,000 is Federal, and the benefit-cost ratio is 4.3. Local interests have expressed willingness to meet all the requirements of local cooperation. All interested Federal and State agencies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report to Congress. Since the Federal cost is less than $10 million, the views set forth~ by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of January 6, 1967, sub- mitting to you a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1065 would apply. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. Jo~u~s. Any questions? Mr. C)LAUSEN. Do you spell out the non-Federal interest? At least in this report they are not delineated. Colonel ANDERSON. The local interests are to provide without cost to the United States all land easements and rights-of-way necessary for construction of the project, to hold the United States free from damage due to the construction work, maintain and operate all the. project works after completion in accordance with regulations pre- scribed by the Secretary of the Army, provide without cost to the United `States all relocations except railroad bridges and crossings, prevent encroachment on the rights-of-way and improve *`chamiels, construct and maintain the associated laterals and other such works to utilize the benefits of the improved channels and provide an orga- nization capable of furnishing the required local cooperation. Mr. Cr~usEN. How did you arrive at the dollar amount? Colonel ANDERSON. We have estimated the cost of the lands that have to be furnished for the project, the road relocations and new bridges and so forth that have to be accomplished. There is one other project on the Wild Rice River in Minnesota. Mr. JoNEs. You may proceed. WILD RIGE RIVER~ MINN. `Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns construction of a dam a.nd reservoir project on the Wild Rice River, a tributary to the Red River of the North located in northwestern Minnesota, for flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife enchancement. It is responsive to resolutions by the Senate and House Committees on Public Works. Flooding along the Wild Rice River has been very frequent and damaging and it has contributed to downstream flooding along the Red River of the `North. As recently as 1965, a large "flood caused' damages in excess of $800,000 in the Wild Rice Basin alone. The largest flood of record occurred in 1909 and it inundated the entire community of Ada, as well as some 100,000 acres of agricultural lands. The project consists of the multipurpose Twin Valley Dam and Reservoir or 47,000 acre-feet capacity. Total cost is estimated at $8,- PAGENO="0087" 73 359,000, all Federal. Local interests would repay $156,000 for their share of recreation costs. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.3 without redevelop- ment benefits and 1.5 with such benefits. Local interests have indicated willingness to meet all requirements of local cooperation. The report has been submitted to the State of Minnesota and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. And on this you do not have the comments of the Bureau of the Budget? Colonel ANDERSON. No, sir. Mr. JONES. Do you have any indication the Bureau of the Budget is going to make available a report as long as you calculate redevelop- ment? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. The project is economically justified even without considering the area redevelopment benefits. Mr. JONES. You do? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. This project is not unique in any re- spect from similar projects that Budget has cleared. Mr. JONES. I wonder why then the Bureau of the Budget does not make available the transmission. Colonel ANDERSON. They have not received the report yet, sir. It is still out to the State and the agencies. Mr. JONES. I see. We will hear again from my distinguished col- league from the Sate of Minne~ota, Hon. Odin Langen. STATEMENT OP HON. ODIN LANGEN, A RELPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MINNESOTA-Resumed Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am delighted that you are considering the Wild Rice River project for flood control, general recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. I am grateful for the privilege of submitting a statement in behalf of this worthwhile project. As you know, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors of the Department of the Army recently approved and recommended this project, calling for construction of a dam and reservoir on the Wild Rice River above Twin Valley, Minn. The Board concurred in the views and recommendations of the reporting officers, emphasizing that the proposed improvements are economically justified and the requirements of local cooperation are generally appropriate. After many years of efforts to gain such approval, it was gratifying that the Board recommended the construction of the dam and reservoir for flood control, general recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. The estimated cost of the project is $8,359,000 for construction and $19,900 annually for maintenance, operation, and replacements. The Government (Federal) share is estimated at $8,203,000 for construc- tion and $12,600 annually for operation, with local interests paying the difference. The dam itself would be constructed of earth and would be 91 feet high to protect the lower reaches of the Wild Rice River and the Marsh River from flooding. The dam would reduce average annual flood damages along these rivers by about 54 percent. PAGENO="0088" 74 I have personally toured that area on a number of occasions and can attest to the flood problem that exists now and has existed for many years. Average annual flood damage comes to about half a mil- lion dollars in the Wild Rice and Marsh River Basins, and average annual crop damages along the Red River of the North from the mouth of the Wild Rice River to the international boundary are esti- mated at about $11/2 million and urban damages to the city of Grand Forks at $710,000. The dam near Twin Valley would alleviate both problems. The damsite is in an ideal location. The reservoir to be created behind the damsite is of utterly rough and waste lands. Not only will it serve for flood control, but would be an ideal body of water for fishing, recreation, and a natural habitat for waterfowl. The first study of the problems connected with flooding along the Wild Rice and Marsh Rivers was back in 1911, following the disas- trous flood of 1909. Local interests have worked diligently through the years to protect their fariulands and communities. But it is a losing battle unless we act on the national level to conserve these valuable natural resources. They have waited a long time, and are certainly now deserving of our attention. It is hoped that the committee concurs with the findings of the Corps of Engineers and will approve recommended construction of a dam and reservoir on the Wild Rice River for flood control, general recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. Approval at this stage is certainly warranted and would serve as encouragement to the people of western Norman and Clay Counties who are looking for hopeful signs that we will eventually join with them in their struggle against the unpredictable ways of nature. Mr. Joi~s. Next we have the State Road and Ebner Coulees, Wis. STATE ROAD AND EBNER COULEES, WIS. COlonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of State Road and Ebner Coulees through the city of La Crosse and Shelby Township, western Wis- consin, in the interest of flOod control. It is in partial response to a resolution by the House Public Works Committee. The lower reaches of both coulees flow through primarily residential areas into the Mississippi River Basin. Because of the recent suburban development of the area, potentially serious flood problems have existed only during the past several years. It is estimated that a 25-year discharge frequency flood would cause $1,452,000 damages in 1970. There are no existing projects in the basins. Local interests desire improvements to prevent flood damages. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends channel improvements and diversion works, and construction, relocation, and modification of bridges. Total cost is estimated at $7,359,000 of which $6,849,000 would be Federal. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.4. The report has been submitted to the State of Wisconsin and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Any questions? PAGENO="0089" 75 Mr. MILLER. Is it a problem for the conduit where it runs under the railroad? Does that require new bridges for the railroad? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, where the Ebner Coulee conduit runs under the railroad a new bridge would be constructed. Where the new State Road Coulee channel crosses the railroad the existing bridge would be modified. Mr. MILLER. Is that the responsibility of the railroad? Colonel ANDERSON. No, sir. ` Mr. MILLER. To install the bridges, it is not their responsibility? Colonel ANDERSON. Highway bridges are the responsibility of the local interest. The railroad bridges would be taken care of by the Federal Government. Mr. JONES. We next will hear testimony of our colleague, Vernon W. Thomson, on this project. STATEMENT OP HON. VERNON W. THOMSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP WISCONSIN Mr. THOMSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I wish to supplement the testimony of the Corps of Engineers concerning the urgency of authorizing the State Road-Ebner Coulee project in the city of La Crosse, Wis. This is a rapidly developing residential and business area on the west slopes of the bluffs east of the city of La Crosse. Because of the terrain, the control of the runoff is extremely difficult and increasingly costly. One of the recent developments in the area is the impressive office building complex of the Trane Co. of La Crosse. They desperately' need an access across State Road-Ebner Coulee which will require a bridge. The bridge cannot be constructed until the Corps of Engineers has established grades and levels, and the Trane Co. has repeatedly ap- pealed to me and to the Corps of Engineers for expeditous determi- nation of the grades which will allow them to proceed. This access is not only a matter of convenience, but of necessity and will greatly relieve the traffic congestion on surrounding city streets. I want the committee to know of this additional problem which adds a degree of urgency to the otherwise fully justified program. I urge the committee's favorable action on this authorization. Mr. JONES. Next we have the Mississippi River from Cassville, Wis., to mile 300. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, CASSVILLE~ WIS.~ TO MILE 300, ILLINOIS Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members o-f the committee, this report concerns improvements on the Mississippi River for flood control from Cassville, Wis., above mile 600, downstream to mile 300. It is in response to two resolutions by the House Committee on Flood Control and a Senate Public Works Committee resolution. Numerous levee, floodwall, and interior drainage construction and improvement projects are in existence along this section of the Missis- sippi River. Local interests desire improvements to eliminate flood damages. The Chief of Engineers recommends constructing new levees and floodwalls, improving existing levees, and constructing appurte- nant flood control structures at Clinton and Bettendorf, Iowa, and Fulton, East Moline, and Milan, Ill. Total estimated cost of the proj- PAGENO="0090" 76 ects is $24,070,000 of which $21,300,000 would be Federal. The benefit- cost ratios are 2.8 for Clinton, 1.1 for Fulton, 2.1 for Bettendorf, 1.4 for East Moline, and 1.9 for Milan. Local interests are willing to meet their requirements and all Federal agencies and the States favor the projects. The report is with the Secretary of the Army for transmittal to the Bureau of the Budget for clearance as to its relationship to the pro- gram of the President prior to its submission to Congress by tue Secre- tary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JONES. There has been no report from the Bureau of the Budget? Colonel ANDERSON. Not yet, sir. Mr. JONES. Has it been submitted? Colonel ANDERSON. It is about to `be submitted, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. All the other agencies, State agencies have reported favorably? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is this one of the projects, one of the areas where the committee went out to visit? Colonel ANDERSON. I believe in 1965 when the most severe flood came along, your committee did visit there. Mr. CLAUSEN. You know you cannot help but take a particular in- terest in a given project once the committee has gone out to an area, and I am pleased to see this is up for consideration. Mr. Jo~s. Thank you, Colonel Anderson. Mr. Fred Schwengel, of Iowa~ STATEMENT OP RON. PRED SCRWENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP IOWA Mr. SGHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to record my support for the Bettendorf flood control project which has been recommended by the Corps of Engineers in the first interim report of the mile 300-Cassville, Wis., Mississippi River study. I strongly recommend the authorization of this project. Bettendorf is the fastest growing city in Iowa. It is part of the Quad-City urban area. This entire area has been subjected to flooding over the course of the last 3 years. In 1965 alone, damages in Betten- dorf amounted to $228,500. The project at Bettendorf calls for about 3 miles of earth levee, a pump station, and interior drainage facilities. The city of Bettendorf has indicated that it stands ready to provide the local contribution necessary for the completion of the project. The Iowa Natural Re- sources Council ha.s, on behalf of the State of Iowa, given its approval. In other words, the Bettendorf flood control project has cleared most of the preliminary hurdles. It is my hope this committee will see fit to act favorably on the project. Mr. JoNEs. Mr. John C. Culver, Member of Congress from the State of Iowa. STATEMENT OP HON. J~ORN C. CULVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP IOWA Mr. CIThVER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcoiumittee, I realize that your consideration of the omnibus rivers and harbors bill PAGENO="0091" 77 involves a great number of projects, and appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony in support of the above-mentioned report. Earlier this week, you heard testimony by the Corps of Engineers with regard to this report~ which includes flood control projects in the 19th Congressional District of Illinois and the First Oongressional District of Iowa (which is represented by a member of this subcom- mittee) as well as a critically important project for the city of Clm- ton, in my district. Yesterday, the Secretary of the Army submitted this `survey report to the Bureau of the Budget, and I have received assurance's from :that Office that the report will be submitted to `Congress in the inimediate days ahemi. I am certain that my colleagues who represent the other communi- ties with projects contained in this report agree with me about the urgent need to incorporate it in this year's rivers and harbors bill. These cities have suffered for mudh too long a time the ~uinuaJ threats of spring flooding along the Mississippi River, and if congressional authorization is not obtained this year, then it may be well into~ the 1970's before funds can be sought for these urgently needed protection devices. Olinton is one of the most dynamic, rapidly expanding communi- ties in Iowa. The population has increased by more than 25 percent in a recent 20-year period, and it is expected to double in the next two decades. Through the activities of an aggressive development com- mission and an interested citizenry, industrial investment in terms of construction and capital improvements added $100 million to Clinton in 1967, and a new firm has announced plans to locate a $90 million plant in the city. The editor of the Clinton Herald, the city's daily newspaper, has identified as one of the top three priority projects for the community the completion of the floodwall. As he has indicated, "development of our entire riverfront hinges on flood protection. We almost lost a major industry recently because of fears of future flood problems. Long- established business and industrial firms in Clinton are holding up expansion plans for the same reason." The city has committed itself to the local share of the project, recognizing that although the expense will be heavy, it will result in an ultimate savings in terms of the annual costs of fighting Missis- sippi River floods. Again this past week, the mayor of Clinton assured the Corp's of Engineers that Clinton is prepared to move as rapidly as is necessary to carry out its commitments, whenever the floodwall plans are ap- proved and funds appropriated. Since Clinton ha's adequate bonding capacity to cover its share of the costs-$1,410,000-no problems are anticipated. I met with local officials and representatives of the chamber of commerce, the local development commission, and interested citizens on Monday, and was again impressed by the depth of local interest and concern about the project, and the willingness to assist in any way to bring about the construction of the floodwall at the earliest possible date. Like the city, the Federal Government will earn a sound return on its mvestment, by eliminating the future costs of Corps of Engineers and National Guard flood-fighting activity as well as subsequent disaster relief assistance. PAGENO="0092" 78 The total cost of the Clinton flood control project is set at $10~-. 610,000, $9,200,000 of which would be paid by the Corps of Engineers. The total damage of the 1965 flood in Clinton is estimated at $5,286,600, including $1,620,800 in loss of earnings. Flood-fighting costs alone exceeded $1,777,000. In other words, one flood, lasting a period of weeks, cost more than half as much as the total cost of the floodwall, which would provide permanent protection against the re~ currence of such disasters. Even without the record flood which occurred in 1965, the estimated annual average cost of flooding in Clinton approaches $1 million. No community, even one which is growing as rapidly as Clinton, can afford that kind of annual expenditure. And as long as the threat of another 1965 disaster exists as a drawback to investment, the city can- not develop to its full potential. In the spring of 1967, Clinton prepared for a flood which for a time threatened to approach 1965 levels. Fortunately, that flood did not occur, but the city was nevertheless forced to spend thousands of dol- lars and manhours, both paid and volunteer, preparing temporary pro- tection against the waters. This spring, the river was at its lowest level in years, and the threat of floods was never serious. But the odds are not. in our favor, and the fact remains that until the permanent floodwall is constructed, Clin- ton will be forced to take money from the city budget which could be better spent on other community needs and facilities, to protect itself against the Mississippi River. And families, merchants, and industry will go through weeks of anxiety, waiting to find out whether the river will drive them out of their homes and places of business. We have been following the progress of this vitally important. survey report very closely, and have been in contact with the responsible offi- cials at every level of approval and review-from the District En- gineer at Rock Island, through the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the Federal and State agencies which were asked for corn- ment, and the Office of the Secretary of the Army. At every point we found enthusiastic support. for the project and recoomition of the importance of expeditious action to get the report to the congress in time for this year's rivers and harbors bill. We are now at that final stage, and I urge you in the strongest possible terms to include the report in the bill before your subcommittee this week. I am submitting herewith for the committee files pictorial reviews of the 1965 flood at Clinton, which indicate the extent of damage and the wide area affected, and underscore in the most dramatic way the urgency of the city's appeal. I am also submitting a telegram which I received late last night,. signed by more than 60 community leaders in Clinton, reemphasizing the importance of the project and urging its earliest completion. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present this evidence to your subcommittee. (Telegram referred to follows:) CLITcTON, IOWA, June 18, 1968. Hon. 1011N CULVER, Member of Congress, Longworth Building Washington, D.C.: We respectfully request inclusion Clinton floodwall project in omnibus rivers and harbors bilL Earliest completion this program of critical importance to security and safety of our commuiiity as well as its continued growth and development. PAGENO="0093" 79 Citizens. for Clinton, Harold Domsalla, mayor, Gene Niebuhr, city engineer, Robert Donels, city planner; Harold L. Kirk, Clinton Development Co.; Jack Romine, Clinton Chamber of Commerce; Warren J. McEleney, McEleney Motors and Clinton Development Co..; Robert E. Bickelhaupt, Bickeihaupt Motors and Clinton Devciopment Co.; Ed Linhe, E. I. du Pont de Nemours; J. C. Wolfe, Interstate Power Co. and.Clinton Development Co.; H. A. Bendixen, Clinton Corn Processing Co.; Dale Crockett, Swift & Co.; Ray North, Sethuess Products Co.; Stanley L. Kelsay, National Byproducts, Inc.; Dean Galvin, Climax Engine Mfg. Co.; A. C. Fronting, Fronings, Inc.; Robert Lawler, Allied Structural Steel Co.; L. L. Jurgemeyer, Clinton Dock Commission and Clinton Development Co.; Daniel Stapay, park and recreation director; George Morris, chairman of Clinton Board of Park Commissioners; Walter J. Markel, Jr., Clinton Water Works Co.; I. H. Carnes, Clinton National Bank.; Ralph Kross, Curtis Com- panies; Robert Evans, Clinton Herald; B. M. Jacobsen, radio station KROS and Clinton Development Co.; 0. H. Hamilton, Jr., radio station KCLN; Alex Jorgen- sen, chairman, city planning commission; Mark Morris, chairman, Clinton Bridge Commission; James Durgin, Champion Packages; James E. Byrns, Lord Balti- more Press; William Rothmal, Fidelity Life Association, Fulton, Ill. John O'Neill, Chicago and Northwestern Railway car shops; Eugene Veit, Jr., W. Atlee Burpee Co.; Kenneth Armstrong, C. E. and Sons; David Carsten- sen, Carstensen Freight Lines Inc.; Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad; R. H. Woodward, Hawkeye Chemical Co.; Robert Logan, Nitrin Inc., Cordova, Ill.; Fred Sarrach, Canon Products Co.; Art Simons, Chempilex Co.; Clark DePue, II, consultant and Clinton Development Co.; C. B. Bickle, Clinton Federal Savings & Loan and Clinton Development Co., E. A. Streit, Clinton Herald and Clinton Development Co.; M. 0. Wallace, Clinton Corn Processing Co. and Clinton Development Co.; Mark Barnes, director, Clinton County Civil Defense; M. A. Clemens, Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.; Robert Soesbe, president, Clinton Labor Congress; Philo Tucker, county engineer; Arnold Griffith, president, Lions Club; Ray Silvers, Darlenes Shops; Harriett Vandermaas, J. H. Potts & Sons; Stanley Mayer, attorney; Louis Paaske, Paaske's Furniture; Edward Zastrow, Paaskes Furniture; Rae W. Craddock, Craddocks Parts & Service; William Bernstorf, The Port Hole; Glen Sanger, Mississippi View Motel; Al Lollich, Iowa State Savings Bank; Harold Gaarde, president, Clinton Chamber of Com- merce; Fred Grumstrup, superintendent of Parks; Thomas Burken, Northern Waterway Terminals Corp.; Myron Well, First National Bank; William Kroy- mann, chairman, Clinton County Board of Supervisors. STATEMENT OF HON. TOM RAILSBACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN cONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that I ap- preciate the opportunity extended to me by the committee to present this statement on behalf of flood control projects now under consider- ation pursuant to the Corps of Engineers study of the Mississippi River from Cassville, Wis., to mile 300. - From this study, the Corps of Engineers has so far recommended significant projects to be undertaken within or around five communi- ties in Iowa and lilmois. Three of these communities lie in the 19th Congressional District of Illinois which I represent. It is with specific reference to these projects in Fulton, East Moline, and Milan that I would like to comment today. As the committee is well aware, from. time to time extensive and seriously damaging floods are experienced in this area of the Missis- sippi River. Within my own memory are those of 1951 and 1952, and the most serious flood in a century, in 1965. The river communities hit so hard in 1965 were again threatened in 1967. Serious damage was averted last year largely due to great emergency efforts and expendi- tures of these communities and t.hrough the cooperation of such agen- cies as the Corps of Engineers, the Office of Civil Defense, the Ameri- can Red Cross, and others. PAGENO="0094" 80 During the flood of 1965 people from all over the area and especially youth in large numbers volunteered to fill sandbags, work with the homeless, rebuild temporary dikes, and otherwise help with emergency efforts, but despite all this, the expense to private individuals and busi- ness as well as to municipal and State government was staggering. I have worked with many of the officials of these communities as they seek to come out from under the financial loan imposed by these two recent floods, and I know the difficulties they have faced. But though the spirit and willingness to work to alleviate damage is great, temporary and excessively costly measures taken at the time of flood disaster and threat are not the real solution to the problem for these communities. The floods come too often and the damage is too severe for stop-gap measures to be sufficient. According to the study of the Corps of Engineers, the average annual flood damage of the three communities we consider today is: Fulton, $169,000 (1960 population: 3,387). East Moline, $442,400 (1960 population: 16,732). Milan; $145,400 (1960 population: 3,065). For communities of relatively small size, these figures represent a severe loss. This is why I believe that the project recommendations of the Corps of Engineers are needed and are economically justified and why I testify on behalf of their authorization. There are several Federal programs in the area of the study before us, but none have been located in the cities in the Corps study. The Corps recommendations would do the following things: (a) For Fulton, at a Federal cost of $4,470,000 with a non-Federal share of $650,000 `and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.1, there would be about 12 miles of earth levees, railroad raises, road ramps, closure structures, gravity drainage outlets, ponding areas, storm sewer interceptors, and pumping plants. The plan would also protect the rural `area in the Cat Tail Drainage District so as to provide access for Fulton to high ground. (The Cat Tail District suffers an additional $70,100 in aver- age annual flood damages.) (b) For East Moline at a Federal cOst of $4,270,000 and a non- Federal share of $250,000, and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.4, the plan would authorize about 2.4 miles of levee, railroad raises, street raises, a closure structure, gravity drainage outlets, open ditches, ponding areas, and pumping plants. (c) For Milan, at a Federal cost of $1,210,000 and non-Federal share of $275,000 and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.9, the protection plan would be composed of about 5 miles of earth levee and closure struc- tures to protect against direct flooding from the Rock River and Mill Creek and against backwater flooding from the Mississippi. These all converge near Milan, and all cause serious trouble to the community. The plan would also provide for gravity drainage outlets, ditches, ponding areas, and a pumping plant. Mr. Chairman, I believe that these projects will go a long way in protecting the communities involved thereby serving the welfare of the people. This committee has long recognized the value of multi- purpose flood projects such as these which can ` mean so much in the prevention of damages and loss of life. It is my hope that the needs of this flood plan will continue to be recognized and that eventually the threat of flood damage can be removed. The projects under considera- tion today are a significant step toward that goal. PAGENO="0095" 81 Mr. JONES. Next we will have Col. GeorgeB. Shaffer, the Assistant Director of Civil Works for Plains Divisions, give his presentation STATEMENT OP HON. ARNOLD OLSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MONTANA Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, my attendance downstairs in the full committee is kind of necessary and for that reason I would ask unani- mous consent to take No. 10 in this group first, that is the Papillion Creek and tributaries of Nebraska. Mr. JONES. I will be ~lad to do that for you, Mr. Olsen. Colonel Shaffer, this is your first appearance, as I understand it, before the Public Works Committee. We are pleased to have you, sir, and would you take the Papillion Creek and tributaries, Nebraska. PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBDTARIES~ NEBRASKA Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this report is prepared in response to resolutions of the Senate and House Public Works Committees adopted June 22 and September 3, 1964, respectively. The Papihion Creek Basin is located in the eastern por- tion of the State of Nebraska and drains an area of 402 square miles including the Metropolitan Omaha area. Major floods in the basin are caused by high-intensity thunderstorms which produce sudden floods and cause extensive damages to the urban areas in the lower basin. During the 1964 flood, seven persons lost their lives by drowning. The Chief of Engineers recommends the construction of a multiple- purpose system of 21 dams and reservoirs to provide urgently needed flood protection, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and water quality control. The total estimated Federal cost is $26,800,000, of which $1,866,000 would be reimbursed by local interests in accordance with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. Annual benefits are estimated at $2,- 607,000 and annual costs of $1,322,600 giving a benefit-cost ratio of 2. Comments from the State of Nebraska `and other Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget is not convinced that three of the reser- voirs have been adequately supported as elements of the plan of im- provement and therefore recommends against their authorization. Also, the Bureau recommends inclusion of specific language as part of any authorization as follows: Providei: That prior to initiation of construction the Department of the Army will prepare an analysis of benefits and costs of the individual reservoirs to assure that each reservoir is economically justified, including such reformula- tion as may be necessary to comply with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. Subject to consideration of the above, the Bureau has no objection to the submission of the proposed report to the Congress. The report is now being prepared for transmission to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. I recognize Mr. Olsen. Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, I take special interest in this because our colleague, Glenn Cunningham, from Omaha, Ndbr., has spoken to me about it several times. PAGENO="0096" 82 As* recently as June 1964, seven persons were killed and property damages were $5 million by reason of floods in his district. This project or projects is very well justified and that is my reason for coming away from the full committee this morning and coming up here to this subcommittee as I was interested and wanted to bring this project especially to the attention of this subcommittee. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Jo~o~s. Thank you. Mr. Cunningham, please. STATEMENT OP HON. GLENN CUNNINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP NEBRASKA Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am here today, June 18, to testify in favor of the authorization of the Pa.pillion Creek, Nebr., flood control project now under consideration by this subcommittee. I believe this project is vital to the general well-being of the people living in the Papillion Creek Basin and to the State of Nebraska. The plan of improvement recommended by the Chief of Engineers and which I support consists of a multiple-purpose system of 21 rolled earth fill dams and reservoirs for flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, and water quality control. The estimated cost of the 21 dams and reservoirs is $26,800,000. The price includes non-Federal reimbursements of $1,866,000 for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement. The estimated cost-benefit ratio for the work is a highly favorable 2: 0. The Papillion Creek Basin is located entirely in the Second Con- gressional District. As the Representative in Congress of the people of that district and as one who has worked long and hard to bring this project to the point where it can be considered by this committee, I believe it would be proper for me to give a brief rundown on the history of the basin and the steps leading to today's hearing. PREVIOUS STUDIES AN]) CONGRESSIONAL ACTION A Corps of Engineers study of the Papillion Creek Basin was completed in 1961 and identified a number of flood control and upper watershed projects. From that study the only project recommended for authorization was channel improvement work on Little Papillion Creek in the Omaha metropolitan area. This work was authorized in 1962 and is currently nearing completion. Following a severe flood m June of 1964, which I would like to talk about at some length later in my testimony, the people of the basin joined in demanding immediate action to provide for an effective flood control program in the entire Papillion Creek Basin. In response to their demand, I submitted a resolution to restudy the basin to the House Public Works Committee and that resolution was adopted on September 3, 1964. Senators Roman Hruska and Carl Curtis submitted similar resolutions to the Senate Public Works Com- mittee which acted quickly to adopt a resolution authorizing restudy of the flood problems of the basin. The Senate committee's resolution for restudy came during the same month as the flood, June 1964. RESULTS OF RESTUDY Study efforts were initiated shortly after the resolution was adopted and a public hearing on the study was held in Omaha on November 6, PAGENO="0097" 83 1964. In 1966, the Corps of Engineers and Soil Conservation Serv- ice formulated their respective plans into a unified plan which con- sisted of a system of dams and reservoirs on the tributaries upstream from the urbanized areas to provide an adequate degree of flood pro- tection. The proposed plan for improvement was presented to local interests at a public hearing at Omaha on July 7, 1966. The great bulk of the testimony presented by the public during the July hearing was favorable to the Corps' plan. 1 believe that situation still exists today. Most of the people living in the Papillion Basin favor the plan proposed by the Corps of Engineers for the `construe- tioñ of dams and reservoirs to protect the valley from additional serious flooding. The District Engineer's final report was submitted to the Missouri River Division Engineers on February 14, 1967, who concurred in the recommendations and released the public notice concerning the report on April 27, 1967. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors approved the report on September 6, 1967, and subsequent comments from the State of Nebraska and interested Federal agencies were favorable. More recently the report has been revi'ewed by the Office of the Secretary of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget, and the Senate Subcommittee on Flood Control, Rivers and Harbors held hearings on the report on May 22. DANGERS TO CITIZENS Earlier in my testimony I stated that I would like to discuss the 1964 flood at greater length. I believe the suddenness of that flood which struck the P'apillion Creek Basin on June 16 of that year clearly illustrates the dangers still facing the homeowners, businessmen, and farmers living in the area. The estimated property damages from that tragic flood came to almost $5 million `and in addition seven human lives were lost. I believe the high economic `and human loss was a result of the rapid urbaniza- tion of the Papilli'on Creek Basin and the tendency in the Papillion runoff system `towards unpredictable flash flooding. These rapid runoff conditions which existed during the 1964 flood are `still present and represent an even ~rea'ter threat today to the lives and property of the `people of the basm. During my preparation for the Senate hearing, I asked the `Corps of Engineers to estimate how much `damage a flood the Size of the 1964 flood would inflict today. The Office `of the Chief of Engineers in Washinglon estimated that under existing conditions of economic development of the basin area, a recurrence of the 1964 flood would cause damages in excess of the $5 million recorded in 1964. Approximately 550 homes and 135 `businesses would be flooded or swept away. `Obviously the threat to `human life is increasing rapidly. STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD In preparing my testimony, I `also requested that `the corps estimate the damage potential of what their report referred to as a "Standard Project Flood." Their reply indicated that under present-day condi- tions a flood of this nature could cause damages of over $11 million. The flood would cover 16,000 acres of land and cause damage to 750 homes, 97-700-68---7 PAGENO="0098" 84 220~ businesses, public and private utilities, transportation facilities and farms. Mr. Chairman, the report of the Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service states that the system they recom- mend of 21 dams and reservoirs would reduce the flood damages potential by over 80 percent under existing conditions and by almost 90 percent under fature conditions. As a boy who grew up along the banks of the Papihion Creek and a former mayor of the city of Omaha, I have both a personal and pro- fessional interest in this problem and its solution, and I am convinced that the Corps of Engineers' plan will do the job. I hope and pray that this committee will see fit to recommend this project for consideration as part of the 1968 omnibus rivers and harbors, arid flood control bills. Mr. Chairman, three men who have worked hard in support of a feasible flood control plan for the Papillion Creek Basin have asked that I introduce their testimony to this subcommittee for your con- sideration. With your permission I would like to submit for the record the testimony of Warren D. Fairchild, the executive secretary of the Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and Milton H. Fricke, chairman of the Papio Watershed Board and John W. Ken- berger, general manager of the Watershed Board. (Testimony is as follows:) STATEMENT PRESENTED BY WARREN D. FAIRCHILD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NEBRASKA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NEBRASKA (U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS) Chairman Robert E. Jones and Members of the U.S. House Flood Control Sub- Committee, this is a joint statement on behalf of the Honorable Norbert T. Tiemann, Governor of the State of Nebraska, and the Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission. This statement is to indicate the strongest possible endorsement and approval by the state government of Nebraska for the U.S.C.E. Report on Papillion Creek and its tributaries. We in Nebraska think this project is one of the most urgently needed civil works in the entire Missouri Basin. The need for this flood control project for the Papillion Creek Basin, which includes metropolitan Omaha, Nebraska, has existed for many years. In the last decade, it has become particularly important due to rapid urban growth of Omaha and neighboring satellite communities. The strategic position of Omaha as a gateway to the Midwest has been greatly benefited by the development of navigation on the Missouri River. As a terminal for highway, rail and water borne commerce and as a banking and service center for a several-state area, Omaha has become a rapidly growing metropolitan area. This population growth has resulted in accelerated residential and industrial occupation of the Papillion Basin. This project also gives needed flood protection to Offutt Air Force Base- Headquarters of the Strategic Air Command. For this reason; this project has definite national significance with an unusual associated national emergency. The danger to life as well as the property damage from flooding has increased steadily along with this development. The flood of 1964, in which some seven persons lost their lives and over five million dollars of property was damaged, documents the great risk of living by this uncontrolled stream. In the summer and fall of 1964 resolutions were adopted by the Senate Com- mittee on Public Works and the House Committee on Public Works requesting a thorough investigation of the need for flood control in this area. Needless to say, the State of Nebraska as well as the local governing bodies and the general populous in the Omaha area strongly supported these resolutions. This support has, continued to the present day. The federal cooperation in planning this project has been exemplary. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service have develor~ed plans which mesh technically, which are acceptable to the local people, and which we feel well provide a permanent solution to the problem. The counter- PAGENO="0099" 85 part P.L. #566 Watershed Work Plan was approved by the appropriate corn- mittèes of the u.S. Congress during the last session. The State and the local governing bodies have not stood by with their "hands in their pockets" while waiting for help from the Federal Government. The local people have formed a special governmental entity, the Papio Watershed Board. Funds allocated to this board have been expended to accelerate watershed and flood control planning and to promote this project. County governing boards have appropriated considerable sums of money for emergency channel improvement programs in this project area. The land treatment program has been accelerated by the local soil and water conservation districts. The municipalities concerned have worked aggressively to develop flood plain use ordinances and such ordinances are already in effect in some portions of the project area. The City of Omaha is working closely with the Papillion Water- shed Board, the Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to secure data on which to base effective land use regulations over the remainder of the area. The State, as evidence of its effort to accelerate flood control for this area as well as the rest of the state, has enacted stringent land use regulation laws. The use of the state's police power will insure prudent future development of the flood plain areas adjacent to Papillion Creek and its tributaries. In addition, our state agency has been cooperating with the local watershed board and the Corps in providing various services free of charge including: surveying, map making, and so forth. The proposed plan of improvement by the Corps of Engineers would provide not only flood control but also a significant and desperately needed increase in water based recreational opportunities in eastern Nebraska and particularly to the densely populated Omaha area. The state, through the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, has already stated its intent to participate financially in meeting the requirements set out in the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. This project with its 21 reservoirs would provide average annual benefits which would exceed the annual costs by some 1.3 million dollars. This analysis of costs and benefits does not reflect the loss of life, the misery, and the hardships which would be alleviated by this project. The project also includes the enhancement of the Papillion Basin streams through low flow augmentation. I must confess that with the rapid develop- ment of this area, fragmented growth has resulted in an inadequate system of waste water collection and treatment. The Nebraska Water Pollution Control Council and local governmental officials are not content with this situation and steps are being taken to see that it is corrected through a comprehensive program of waste treatment facilities for Papillion Creek Basin. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, this project is extremely well justified as an investment of funds; it has the strong support of local and state interests; and it has been endorsed as a part of the Nebraska State Water Plan. We urgently request your favorable action. We feel that the local people in the state as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have admirably carried out their part in the program. I hope you will give your early approval to this project. If I may be of any further service to you in your consideration of this project, please feel free in contacting me. I am attaching to this statement a copy of our State Commission Policy II (Projects) on the Papillion Creek and Tributaries. Nebraska, which has been drafted as the official position of our Commission and which has been reviewed and concurred in by the following state agencies: Nebraska Department of Water Resources, Nebraska Health Department, Ne- braska Department of Roads, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and the University of Nebraska. POLICY STATEMENT II. PAPILLION CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, NEBRASKA The Nebraska Legislature has assigned responsibility for comprehensive water and land resources planing to the Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Com- mission. The Commission, in discharging this responsibility is developing a compre- hensive State Water Plan based on maximum `beneficial use of Nebraska's water resources. The Commission endorses the plans of improvement proposed by the Corps of Engineers for Papillion Creek and its tributaries as a part of that plan. It is noteworthy that this plan has been fully coordinated with the Small Watershed Program (PL566) developed by the Papio Watershed Board with technical assistance from the Soil Conservation Service PAGENO="0100" 86 The need for immediate action to control floods in this basin was amply dem- onstrated by the flood of 1964 in which seven persons lost their lives and $5,000,- 000 damage occurred. The rapid expansion of metropolitan Omaha into the Papillion Basin has further increased the danger to both life and property since that time. The city of Omaha, whose zoning authority covers much of the project area, is working closely with the Papio Watershed Board, the Commission and the Corps of Engineers to secure data on which to base effective land use regulations. Flood plain zoning ordinances are already in effect in some portions of the project area. The proposed multiple purpose plan of improvement would provide a much needed increase in the water based recreational opportunities available in eastern Nebraska and particularly to the densely populated Omaha area. In addition, implementation of the proposed plan of 2 reservoirs would make possible the development of significant fisheries in the the streams and management of wildlife areas on the associated lands. This project has the strong support of the large majority of residents in the Papillion Basin. The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission has stated its intent to participate in meeting the requirements set out in the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. The Papillion Creek Watershed Advisory Board has considered the local obligations and approved the proposed plan of improvement. The county boards in Sarpy and Douglas counties have gone on record in support of this project and will serve as local sponsors. The City Council of Omaha and the Board of Directors for the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area Planning Agency have also adopted resolutions of support and approvaL This project is well justified with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.0 :1 and the value of average annual benefits in excess of costs will exceed 1.3 million dollars. The accelerated population growth and development in the Papillion Basin has resulted in a fragmented system of waste water collection and treatment. The Nebraska Water Pollution Control Council, working with state and local health officials, have begun consideration of a long range unified approach to the prob- lem of pollution, but improvement of the water quality of streams is urgently needed at the present time. Benefits from low flow augmentation will improve the stream quality in the Papillion Basin. In view of the strong needs which this project serves, its excellent financial justification and the strong support given by both local and state interests, the Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission endorses this plan of im- provement as a part of Nebraska's State Water Plan and urges that the Congress of the United States take early action to authorize this project. With the rapid expansion of residential and commercial development in the Papillion Basin, the Commission also urges the acquisition of the needed lands at the earliest possible time. Approved by Unanimous Action of the Commission Members on Nov. 2, 1967. DEMPSEY MCNEIL, Cliairnvan, Nebraska Soi' and Water Conservation Commission. Attest: WARREN FAIRCHILD, Ececstive Secretary, Nebraska Soil and Water Conservation Commission. STATEMENT BY MILTON H. FRICKE, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN W. NEUBERGER, GEN- ERAL MANAGER, BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, CONCERN- ING AUTHORIZATION or PAPILLION CREEK WATERSHED FLOOD CONTROL, RECREA- TION, AND WATER QuALITY PROJECT, JUNE 18, 1968 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the House Subcommittee on Public Works: INTBODU~TION The Papio Watershed Board was established in 1963 under Nebraska law by the County Governing Boards of Washington, Douglas, and Sarpy Counties for the expressed purpose of giving administrative leadership and guidance to land and water resource development needs within the 402 square-mile watershed. Accountable for such local leadership and administration, the Papio Watershed Board has helped coordinate and finance a comprehensive watershed flood control program as planned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We would like to take this opportunity to appeal to this Committee for early authorization during 1968 of the recommended reservoir flood control plan in the Papillion Creek Basin. PAGENO="0101" 87 FLOOD DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND LIFE Property damage and loss of life by flooding is a major water problem and has seriously plagued our watersheld sixteen times in the past three decades. The need for reservoir flood-water control was dramatized fully during the tragic flood of June 16, 1964 when seven people drowned, and over $5 million in property damage occurred. Again on September 7, 1965, the Big Paplo Creek rampaged causing over $500,000 in property damage. The total effect of damage from these recent flooding events as well as a Standard Project Flood have been carefully evaluated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the losses from a standard project-size flood run into staggering proportions. Rapid urbanization in our cities of Omaha, Milliard, Ralston, Papillion, and Bellevue has placed new demands on our creek channels; and flooding of floodplain property has become as frequent as 5 out of the past 8 years. A cloud burst in.the center of the Papio Watershed, such as we experienced in June of 1964, would leave thousands homeless, endanger numerous lives, and cause complete ruin to many farm, commercial, and indus- trial businesses. Present population in the Papio Basin is about 425,000. Popula- tion projections for the basin show the present population to double by the year 2000. RECOMMENDED PLAN A system of 21 flood control reservoirs distributed throughout the watershed is the most effective means of providing the necessary flood flow reductions and flood control benefits. Together, the 21 dams and reservoirs would regulate flows originating from 188 square miles or 47 percent of the Papillion Creek drainage basin. When installed, the reservoirs would provide an average annual flood- damage reduction of $1.6 million over a 100-year project economic life. The eco- nomic feasibility of the multipurpose plan of improvement yields a high benefit- cost ratio of 2.0. It combines recreation and water quality features with the flood control function, and all have a widespread regional affect throughout the Omaha- Metropolitan area. The reservoirs would afford the opportunity to develop a major water recrea- tion-oriented program around the 4,400 acres of lake surface in the conservation sediment-reserve zones of the reservoirs. Outdoor and water-based recreation op- portunities are now inadequate to serve the growing population of the metro- politan area. Not only is this project economically justified locally, but its pur- poses and benefits will help this nation's economic and social goals as well. LOCAL SUPPORT On August 30, 1966, the Papio Watershed Board adopted a resolution accepting the Corps of Engineers' Flood Control Plan as the most effective and economical plan for flood damage prevention and for multiple use of our water resource. It was our recommendation to the sponsoring County Governing Boards that they accept the Plan and direct the Papio Watershed Board to secure early Congres- sional authorization for project design and construction. We have been directed by the sponsoring County Governing Boards to serve as their local representatives in providing information and counsel as needed to the citizens and landowners affected or inconvenienced by the purchase of land and construction of the flood control works. Due to the proximity of key reservoir sites near the rapidly urbanizing areas of Omaha and its suburbs, we feel that advance acquisition of project lands will be required to preserve the needed reservoir sites against incompatible develop- ments. We urge that, following authorization, funds be appropriated to enable the Corps to make site investigations and project designs to accurately define the lands required and subsequently make advance acquistion of lands for sites near- est the urban fringe. LOCAL COOPERATION Local interest and support for this much-needed project are very high. The Papio Watershed Office has received over 50 letters and 500 signatures on petitions of support for the flood control plan from cities, counties, corporations, civic groups, and others. Local officials and civic leaders have long been working toward a comprehensive basin-wide solution of the flood and erosion problems since the serious basin-wide floods in 1944. In 1954, the Papio Watershed Steering Committee requested planning help from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service; and planning priority was established in April, 1955. In the meantime, local tax funds were pooled to begin channel clearing and maintenance on the Big Papio through Omaha. Since 1964, over PAGENO="0102" 88 $1,000,000 in local funds have been appropriated by Washington, Douglas, and Sarpy Counties to coordinate, accelerate planning, and share in the cost of State or Federal development programs. SUPPORTING WATERSHED PROJECTS A significant comprehensive land and water resource development program is now under way in the Papio Basin. Soil and Water Conservation Districts in each county are accelerating their land treatment programs with farmers and property owners. Sediment control programs for urban property owners and developers have been initiated. Upon the request of the Papio Watershed Board, Floodplain Information Reports on the Papio Creek floodplain land are being developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Cities and counties involved are now adopting or improving upon existing ordinances and regulations on the use of open land in the flood-hazard areas. The Soil Conservation Service's study of land treatment and grade stabiliza- tion needs in the tributaries proceeded concurrent with the main-stream studies of the Corps of Engineers. Exceedingly close coordination has been maintained between the Corps and the Soil Conservation Service as well as the other State and Local agencies in- volved. The now-authorized Soil Conservation Service, Erosion Control Plan calls for 52 grade stabilization structures and land treatment measures through- out the Basin. The total cost for the erosion control project is approximately $3.8 million. Currently this well-justified project is held up in the Bureau of the Budget pending the outcome of the "Committee Veto" stalemate between your colleagues and the Adnilnistration. Recently the Douglas and Carpy County Governing Boards authorized the Papio Watershed Board to carry out a channel maintenance program down- stream from the dam sites, so that the main channels will be kept free of obstructions and available to handle water releases from the reservoirs and flows that originate downstream from the dams. These and other locally admin- istrated projects will complement and further enhance the flood control capa- bility of the reservoir project. IN SUMMARY We feel that the system of 21 flood storage reservoirs is most essential to filling a serious gap in flood control, water quality, and recreational usage for our rapidly urbanizing region. We ask your earnest consideration for authoriza- tion in order that design and land acquisition for the reservoir sites can begin at the earliest possible date. We appreciate this opportunity to support the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Public Works recommendation before your Committee. Mr. Cui~rNGnAM. Also, Mr. Chairman, an overwhelming majority of the people of the Second Congressional District of Nebraska are in favor of the construction of the Papillion Basin flood control project as recommended by the Chief of Army Engineers. Interested community leaders have recently sent me letters in sup- port; of the plan and with the permission of the subcommittee I would like to have the letters included in the record of this hearing. The letters are from the following people: H. F. Jacobberger, president of the Omaha City Council. J. A. Mactier and Dean A. Raber of the Omaha Chamber of Commerce. Harold A. Smock of the Greater Bellevue Area Chamber of Commerce. John F. Davis, chairman of the First National Bank of Omaha. STATEMENT OF THE OMAHA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BEFORE THE SUBCOM- MITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL, HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, JUNE 18, 1968 - Re Papillion Creek project. The Omaha Chamber of Commerce respectfully urges the House to authorize the plan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a series of twenty- one dams- and reservoirs in the Papillion Creek basin. This project has resulted from a comprehensive study by the Corps, of Papillion Creek and its tributaries. Papillion Creek is a constar~t flood threat to the city of Omaha and the sur- PAGENO="0103" 89 rounding area. In past years, disastrous floods have occurred, resulting in loss of life and extensive property damage. One of the more recent floods in lune, 1964, caused nearly $5 million in property damages and the loss of seven lives. Under existing conditions, average annual flood damages are about $1/2 million. The Corps of Engineers' plan would provide a high degree of urgently needed flood protection to the Omaha metropolitan complex, the rural areas in the im- mediate vicinity, as well as the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command at Offutt Air Force Base. It has been estimated that the twenty-one proposed dams will achieve an 85 percent reduction in annual flood damages. Local organizations have been attempting to control floods in the basin for nearly 35 years but the program proposed by the Corps of Engineers offers permanent solutions to flooding problems. We believe the Corps' plan has the unanimous support of local organizations at this time. We urge that the project be authorized flow so that it can be implemented before urban developments spread to strategic areas rendering the plan unfeasible. We therefore strongly recommend that the project be authorized by this Subcommittee, with ultimate approval by the Congress. Respectfully submitted, * J. A. MACTIER, President. DEAN A. RABER, Chairman-Papio Committee. OMAHA CITY CouNcIL, Omaha, Nebr., June 17, 1968. Hon. ROBERT E. JONES, Chairman, House $ubeommittee on Flood Control, Washington, D.C. Dn&R CONGRESSMAN JONES: The Omaha City Council wishes to take this oppor- tunity to urge your Committee to grant early authorization of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' recommended Papillion Creek Basin flood control plan during 1968. A serious flooding threat to life as well as property damage has steadily increased along the Papillion Creeks and their tributaries. The need for this reservoir flood control project for the Papillion Creek Basin, which inriudes over two-thirds of the Omaha metropolitan area, has existed for many years. A coordinated basinwide solution to such flood problems has exceeded the ability for local government to solve. Over-bank flows have occurred through Omaha's city limits five out of the past eight years causing millions of dollars in property damage, loss of countless man-hours, and already the loss of seven lives. This project also gives needed flood protection to Offutt Air Force Base, Headquarters of the nation's (Strategic Air Command. in addition, the proposed plan of improvement by the Corps of Engineers would provide our rapidly growing community with desperately needed areas for water~based recreational opportunities as well as providing enhancement for the streams below the reservoir sites through low-flow augmentation. We feel that the local people, *the Papio Watershed Board, *the sponsoring County Governing Boards, and the state of Nebraska, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have admirably carried out their part in development of a multipurpose program for flood control. We hope you will give your early approval to this project. Respectfully yours, * OMAHA CITY CouNCIL, H. F. JACOBBERGER, President. * GREATER BELLEVUE AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Bellevue, iVebr., June 10, 1968. To Chairman and Members of the House Committee on, Flood Control: * DEAB Sm: The Greater Bellevue Area Chamber of Commerce urges that you give strong consideration to the Corps of Engineers plan for dams and reser- voirs in the Papio Creek Basin. The continuous threat to life and property in the Papio Basin is tremendous. The flooding problem in the past has demonstrated the need for a program that covers the entire basin. Sarpy County, being on the lower end of the drainage area, has suffered for a number of years and without a program such as the PAGENO="0104" 90 corps has presented, our citizens will have to continue to live in fear of their lives and property. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, HAROLD A. SMOCK, Executive Vice Preskleitt, Believue Gi'eater Area Chamber of Commerce. FmST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, Omaha, Nebr., June 14, 1968. Re Papio Creek Basin Flood Control. To Chairman and Members of the House subcommittee oa Flood Control- Rivers and Harbors: GENTLEMEN: During the last forty years, which is the period of Omaha's industrial and residential expansion to the west, the Papio Creek has been a constant source of fear to the residents and industries occupying this watershed. Several serious and most costly floods have taken place and property damage has run into the millions of dollars and the loss of life has been substantial. The Corps of Engineers, during the last five years, has made an excellent attempt to control the creek's course, and with bank control and channel deep- ening, minor flooding can be contained. In order to eliminate the possibility of serious damage in residential and industrial areas, it will be necessary te enter into a complete flood control program through the upstream use of soil conservation and the multiple damming of creeks which feed into the Papia Basin. I am certain that this project is one of the most necessary and needed projects within this tn-state area. Very truly years, JOHN F. DAvIs, Chairman. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question but first let me say to Colonel Shaffer, you have done very well. Since the Bureau of the Budget has recommended against the au- thorization of these three reservoirs have you made a calculation as to what this might do to the overall benefit-cost ratio? Colonel SHArPER. No, sir; we have not calculated that. Mr. cLAUSEN. Could you supply that for the record? Colonel ~ mn. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) The overall benefit-cost ratio for the project with the exclusion of reservoirs 7, 9, and 17 would increase from 2.0 to 2.1. Mr. JoNEs. Also, Colonel Shaffer, if those three reservoirs were eliminated, how would it affect the total project? Colonel SHAFFER. The Corps of Engineers plan consists of a sys- tem of strategically located reservoirs to control the runoff from the three major tributaries in the basin. Modification of the system by eliminating the three units which are not economically justified as last added units will reduce the functional capabilities of the overall plan (particularly since the three units help to control the same tribu- tary), and increase the hazard of possible loss of human life. Mr. JONES. Well, let us identify those projects that are below the cost ratio. Colonel SHArPER. They are 9,7, and 17. Mr. Jo~ii~s. Where did the deaths occur? Do you have any record of that? Colonel SIiAmrJ~n. No, sir. Mr. Jo~s. Seven lives were lost in a flood. Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir; but I do not have the locations. Five of the seven deaths caused by the June 1964 flood were in the Hell Creek and Roekbrook Creek Basins which are located within the rapidly PAGENO="0105" 91 expanding Omaha metropolitan area. The remaining two deaths oc- curred slightly west of Elkhorn, Nebr. Mr. JONES. What I am trying to get at if those were ehmmated would you still recommend the projects that are above the cost ratio? Colonel SHArPER. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. General Noble? General NOBLE. If I may make a comment, sir, this project is really a single project, consisting of a number of reservoirs. It is a little different from the normal project which has one reservoir or where you might have two projects, each with a reservoir in a particular area. It is a little novel in that it is a complete system which works together to accomplish the objectives of the system. Now, to the degree that these last three drop out when you con- sider them separately as a last padded increment you might say they do not stand alone. It was our thought, however, when we included them in this project, before the Bureau of the Budget made their comment, that these projects need not necessarily stand alone. These particular reservoirs, elements of a total system. Mr. CLAUSEN. They will make an overall contribution? General NOBLE. Yes. Mr. Jo~s. General, the Bureau of the Budget takes a different view. General NOBLE. That is right sir, and I am not here to argue against the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. JONES. If the three objectionable reservoirs were eliminated it would still be a unit that could be functionally justified? General NOBLE. Absolutely, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. And economically? General NOBLE. Because without the last three you can only im- prove the benefit-cost ratio which is the answer to your question, Con- gressman Clausen. If you take away the ones that detract from the overall cost ratio the remaining project will have a better benefit-cost ratio. Mr. Joi~n~s. Mr. Johnson? Mr. JOHNSON. General Noble, as I understand it, the Secretary of the Army is going to come forth with a further report on this par- ticular project as I understood Colonel Shaffer to say. Colonel SHArPER. It has not been submitted as yet, sir. Mr. JoHNSoN. That is what I understand. It will be, though, submitted? Colonel SHArPER. Yes, sir. Mr. GLAUSEN. For the record, General Noble, in your judgment with or without the inclusion of these three questionable reservoirs you feel that the project as recommended will be justified economically and from an engineering point of view? General NOBLE. Yes, sir; this is a very good project. The Chief is very proud of this project. As a matter of fact, he has requested that we notify all division engineers that this is the kind of project we ought to look at more carefully in the future. Mr. JONES. Well, why is it so distinctive? General NOBLE. It is desirable, sir, in that where the opportunity does not exist for an economically big reservoir, the opportunity may exist for a system of small reservoirs which together may act as if it were one big one. PAGENO="0106" 92 Mr. JONES. Can you, through that scheme, have complete control of the stream? General NOBLE. Conceivably, sir, in the proper situation; yes, sir. Mr. CLATJSEN. At what point? Where would you have the control? Colonel SHAFFER. In Omaha, sir. Mr. JONES. Where? General SHAFFER. It would be primarily through the city of Omaha, sir. General NOBLE. What you have here, you have small projects on tributaries which act together to give you protection on the main stem. That is the concept here. Mr. JONES. Whowould manage the regulation of the flow, the Corps of Engineers? Colonel Sii~n. The Corps of Engineers. Mr. JoNES. And in such a method what would be the role. of the loôal communities in the various reservoir areas of the State or municipali- ties? What role do they play? General NOBLE. Well, sir, in reservoir contrOl as you know, the reservoirs are operated by the Federal Government. We very often have a control center where we have the advice of various agencies that have an interest in flow, but the final decision is made by the Fed- eral Government. It is a Federal project devoted to Federal purposes and is so regulated. Mr. JoNEs. And would it be maintained and operated as a Federal responsibility? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. Could you point out on the map the point at which you will receive flood control benefits? Colonel SHAFFER. It would be through that main part of Omaha, the Little Papillion Creek along the Big Papillion Creek and the western portion. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is there any flood damage currently in and around the Offutt Air Force Base complex? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. Minimal or extensive? Colonel SHAFFER. I would have to supply that information for the record, sir. (Information requested is as follows:) Flood damages under 1966 conditions would amount to approximately $42,000 annually on that portion of Papillion Creek adjacent to and within the Offutt Air Force Base complex. Mr. JONES. With that many projects, I am surprised. Mr. CLAUSEN. You do have a coordinated flood control planning on the part of the political subdivisions? *. - Colonel SHAFFER. It is considerably more accurate in this field than it has been in the past. Mr. JoNEs. I hope so. The justifications keep coming up here for local protective works. We are advised of local ordinances and then after the project is constructed the local people start giving licenses and permits to use the areas. Sol think we ought to pay greater atten- tion to this matter. There is no use building these projects if they are going to be meaningless in a short period of time. Mr. CLAUSEN. I might add, Mr. Chairman, this would become in- creasingly important if the flood insurance program as now included: in the housing bifi actually becomes enacted into law, because there is PAGENO="0107" 93 going to be a lot of speculation on that basis, and I am sure we will have to have more flood plain zoning. Mr. JONES. We have for inclusion in the record of hearings at this point a statement of the Mississippi Valley Association. STATEMENT OF THE MissIssiPPi VALLEY AssocIATIoN BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PtTBLIO WORKS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is E. Michael Cas- sady and I am Executive Vice President of the Mississippi Valley Association and appear here representing that Association. At the 49th Annual Meeting of our Association held in St. Louis, Missouri, last February, a number of soundly conceived water resource development programs were endorsed by the Association. One of these programs is the Papillion Oreek Basin Comprehensive Project in Nebraska. The project, when completed, would consist of 21 small reservoirs to be constructed in the upper reaches of the Little Papillion, Big Papilion and West. Branch Papillion Creeks. This is a multiple- purpose project designed primarily for flood control, however, water for recrea- tion will be an important by-product. The completed project will provide a high degree of urgently needed flood protection to urban areas of the basin within the Omaha metropolitan complex as well as to rural areas' in the immediate vicinity. It would also increase the degree of protection provided by the Little Papillion Creek project nOw nearing completion. S The Papillion Creek basin flood problem is severe under the present stage of urban development and is expected to intensify fourfold in future years with the predicted population growth and urban expansion. Records show that at least 16 major floods have occurred somewhere in the basin during the last 38 years. The tragic flood of June 1964 caused the death of seven people and a loss of nearly $5 million in property damage. It is estimated that several million dollars annually in flood damage to both rural and urban areas is suffered throughout the Papillion Creek Basin. The proposed program in the Papfflion Creek Basin would result in the saving of lives, protection of property, conserving soil and offer a potential recreational development for the area. The project would also protect an important area in western Omaha from flood damages which have recurred numerous times in the past. The project is clearly economically justified with a benefit-cost ratio ap- proaching two to one. It is important that this project be authorized and construction expedited to save lives and preserve property in the Papillion Creek Basin. Therefore, the Mississippi Valley Association urges your Committee to favorably consider the authorization of this project this year. Further delay could result in more loss of life and projects of this type deserve special consideration. Next we will have the Aquilla Creek watershed, Texas. AQUILLA CREEK WATERSHED, TEXAS Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this report is concerned with the flood control problem along the lower reaches of Aquilla Creek and a portion of the Brazos River down- stream of the mouth of Aquilla Creek, and the water supply needs of Hill, McLennan, and Falls Counties in central Texas. - Aquilla Creek is a principal tributary of the Brazos River. Major floods originating on the Aquilla Creek watershed cause ap- preciable damages along Aquilla Creek and increase flood damages along the main stein of the Brazos River downstream of the mouth of Aquilla Creek. Rapid growth in the area indicates a need for additional water supply by year 1975. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction Of a multiple- pi rpose dam and reservoir on Aquil1~ Creek for flood control, water supply, recreation, and fi'~}i and wildlife enhancement Total cost is PAGENO="0108" 94 estimated at $23,612,000, of which $19,493,000 would be Federal. The total annual operation and maintenance cost is estimated at $120,000, of which $60,000 is Federal and $60,000 is non-Federal. Annual benefits accruing to the project are estimated at $1,506,000, and the annual charges are estimated to be $943,000, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.6. Local interests have indicated a willingness to meet all require- ments of cooperation. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report to Congress, but would expect the Chief of Engineers to review the timing of initiatiOn of the project prior to requesting appropria- tions of funds for construction. In accordance with the comment of the Bureau of the Budget, the Secretary of the Army notes that the Chief of Engineers will review the timing of initiation of the project prior to requesting appropria- tion of funds. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Mr. Jo~o~s. You know, this is a spurious comment of the Bureau of the Budget, that the benefits would accrue in the last half of the 100- year period and, therefore, we should delay the project. It does not seem to establish that. Do you understand what the Bureau of the Budget is talking about? General NoBr~. No, sir; I really do not. Colonel SHAFFER. This is common practice; we do review the timing of initiation of projects. Mr. Jo~s. You sure do, and sometimes about 10 to 15 years. One of the things you do not get money enough to initiate the project in the proper season. Any questions? I call now my colleague from Texas, Hon. Olin Teag~ie. STATEMENT OP HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP TEXAS AQUILLA RESERVOIR~ AQUILLA CREEK, TEN. Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am glad to be here in support of the reservoir project on the Aquilla Creek, Tex. As you gentlemen are aware because of the report of the Corps of Engineers, this is a noncontroversial project, a.nd is a com- pletely coordinated program of flood control and soil conservation within this stream basin. I do not want to use the valuable time of this committee discussing in detail the many benefits which would be derived by the construction of this project; suffice it to say that it is needed a.nd desired by the entire populace of the area. I would like to insert at this time statements on the part of the Brazos River Authority, Texas, and the Hilisboro Chamber of Com- merce in support of the project. TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, Austin, Tex., June 17, 1968. Re support of authorization of Aquilla Reservoir, Brazos River Basin, Tex. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Ccnnmittee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAn CONGRESSMAN FALLON: Our agency has been advised of the hearings beginning tomorrow for consideration of a number of projects recommended PAGENO="0109" 95 by the Corps of Engineers for Texas. Statements in support of authorization of the following five projects have been transmitted previously to the staff of the Public Works Committee: Clear Creek Floodway; Millican and Navasota No. 2 Reservoirs~ Natural Pollutioi~ Control Projects, Red River Basin Part II; Flood Control and Water Supply Facilities, Pecan Bayou; and Navigation and Bank Stabilization in the Red River Basin. As it was not known until today that the Committee would consider the Aquilla Creek Reservoir at its June 18 hearing, time did not permit a more complete statement of needs for this project, and reasons for its authorization. The Texas Water Development Board supports and urges the authorization of the Aquilla Reservoir, Brazos River Basin, Texas. The report of the Corps of Engineers was reviewed by the State and a public hearing held by the Texas Water Rights Commission on August 2, 1966, and by its action on that day, determined the project to be feasible and in the public interest. Favorable comments on the project were forwarded by Governor Con~ nally on September 9, 1966. Project planning during the investigation by the Corps of Engineers was cci- ordinated with the Texas Water Development Board, the Brazos River Author- ity, and other appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. The reservoir ca- pacity is sized for optimum site development and meets State and National objectives. Assurances of financial participation have been provided by local interests. The Water Development Board in 1966 included the proposed reservoir in the preliminary Texas Water Plan. Although subsequent restudies and evaluations made resulted in some revisions to the Plan, to be published this year, the Aquilla Dam and Reservoir project has not been modified and will be included in the revised Plan. Favorable action by the Committee to authorize this feasible and needed project is recommended. Sincerely, HOWARD B. BOSWELL. STATEMENT OF THE HILL5B0R0 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN SUPPORT OF THE AQUILLA REszuvoix PROJECT HILLSBORO CHAMBER or' COMMERCE, Hiflsboro, Tea., April 18, 1968. Hon. OLIN E. TEAGUE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. TEAGUE: The Hilisboro Chamber of Commerce, fully in agreement with local, State, and Federal bodies, supports the recommendation for author- ization of the Aquilla Reservoir as proposed in the report of the Chief of Engineers covering the Aquilla Reservoir on Aquilla Creek, Brazos River Basin, Texas. The Hilisboro Chamber of Commerce considers the proposed Aquilla Reser- voir to be a highly desirable multi-purpose project having influence on flood control and surface water supply. The immediate and urgent need for the proposed Aquilla Reservoir as an element of the Corps of Engineers' Basin-wide system of `Reservoirs designed for control of floods in the Brazos Basin is signifi- cant in that annually more than $3 million damage results from uncontrolled rainfall discharge. The topography of the Aquilla Creek watershed, the character of the soil, and the nature of the' rainfall in the area are conducive to rapid runoff and sharpcrested flood hydrographs. Hilisboro, faced with imminent water shortage due to already inadequate ground water source, is witness to a pressing need for a dependable surface water supply such as the Aquilla Reservoir. The age of automation and the technological advances in agriculture and industry places the smaller town's and cities `in a most competitive situation in their fight for economic progress. The pursuit of Industrial expansion is primary in the future of Hillsboro. Location, climate, educational facilities and access- ability to major metropolitan areas are very favorable and have been responsible for the industrial growth `already experienced. However, one firm, after locating in Hilisboro, found it necessary to provide their own well to supplement the Municipal `water supply constantly beset with a shortage of water. The Aquilla Reservoir is urgently needed as a source of dependable surface water supply to meet existing and growing requirements for Municipal and Indus- PAGENO="0110" 96 trial water. The project is considered vitally important to effective flood control and water conservation in the Brazos Basin. The Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce, therefore, earnestly requests and urges expedient authorization of the Aquilla Reservoir Project as recommended by the Chief of Engineers in the report submitted to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Sincerely, JACK DOBBS, President, Hilisboro Chamber of Cenvmerce. WILL BOND, Chairman, Water Resources Committee, HillsborO Chamber of Commerce. - PAuL HARvEY, Vice-President, Industrial DiDision, Hiflsboro Chamber of Commerce. STATEMENT OF THE BRAzos Rivrn AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF THE AQUILLA RESERVOIR PROJECT ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY, APRIL 22, 1968 The Brazos River Authority of the State of Texas fully supports the recoin- mendation for authorization of the Aquilla Reservoir as proposed in the report of the Chief of Engineers covering the Aquilla Reservoir on Aquilla Creek, Brazos River Basin, Texas. The Brazos River Authority, as the agency established by the Texas Legislature in 1929 for the purpose of developing, controlling and conserving the water resources of the Brazos basin, considers the proposed Aquilla Reservoir to be a highly desirable multipurpose project of vital importance in helping alleviate problems of flood control and water conservation in the Brazes basin. There is an immediate and urgent need for the proposed Aquilla Reservoir as an element of the Corps of Engineers' basin-wide system of reservoirs designed for control of floods in the Brazos basin. In addition to providing flood protection aing the lower 20.7 milies of Aquilla Creek, the project will contribute significantly to reduction of flooding in the main stem of the Brazos along the 442 miles between Whitney Reservoir and the Gulf of Mexico. In particular, by checking floods from the last remaining uncontrolled major source of flooding in the basin upstream of Waco, Texas, the project will provide the final assurance necessary to free the Waco metropolitan area from the threat of floods from the Brazos River. The Aquilla Reservoir is also urgently needed as a source of dependable surface water supply to meet existing and growing requirements for municipal and indus- trial water. The most pressing need for dependable surface water supplies exists in the immediate vicinity of the project, where the cities of Rillsboro and West face imminent water shortages as their already inadequate ground water sources continue to dwindle. Both cities have requested the Brazos River Authority to supply them water from the proposed Aquilla Reservoir and have expressed an immediate and urgent need for the water. As the agency designated to represent the State and local interests with regard to the water supply aspects of this project, the Authority has notified the Corps of Engineers of its willingness to assume the obligations and requirements of local cooperation for the water con- servation storage space in the project. The Authority is prepared not only to furnish the water needed by these cities and by others in the immediate area of the project, but also to operate this reservior as an element of its basin-wide system of water supply reservoirs to assure the most effective practicable utiliza- tion of the water resources developed by the Aquilla Reservoir to assist in meeting present and future water needs in other areas as well. The Aquilla Reservoir project is considered vitally important to effective flood control and water conservation in the Brazos Basin and is urgently needed to meet immediate requirements for dependable surface water supplies. The Brazos River Authority therefore earnestly requests and urges authorization of the Aquilla Reservoir project as recommended by the Chief of Engineers in the report submitted to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Jo~ns. The next project is Crooked Creek, Harrison, Ark. PAGENO="0111" 97 CROOKED OREEK~ HARRISON, ARK. Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this report is concerned with the flood control and water supply problems on Crooked Creek in the vicinity of Harrison, Ark. The basin is located in northwest Arkansas and has a drainage area of 466 square miles. Storm runoff is rapid and has resulted in dam- aging discharges in vicinity of Harrison. Minor floods occur at Harrison and vicinity on the average of three to four times a year under present conditions, and major floods occur about once every 4 years. The most disastrous flood occurred in 1961 with the loss of four lives and damages exceeding $5 million. A joint plan, formulated by the Corps of Engineers and Soil Con- servation Service, would provide for a total of 20 flood control and detention `structures. As part of the joint plan, the Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a multiple-pur~pose dam and reservoir on the East Fork of Crooked Creek and raising the existing levee and floodw~all within the city of Harrison. The total estimated cost of the proposed improvements is $2,860,- 000, of which $2,840,000 is Federal and $20,000 is non-Federal. The annual charges are estimated to be $115,000, and the annual benefits ~ire $151,180. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.3. Local interests have indicated willingness to meet the requirements of local, cooperation. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. The Secretary of the Army states that `since the Federal cost of the project is less than $10 million, the views set forth in hi's letter of January 6, 1967, submitting a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 would apply. That concludes my statement, Mr. Ohairman. Mr. JONES. Any questions? Mr. CLAUSEN. Is the reason for this coordinated, comprehensive, collective unit, i's the reason for this because of the trend, the condi- tions, the flatlands that you are going to this approach because you cannot find one singular project that would give you the benefits? General NOBLE. That is generally the ca'se; yes, sir. You have to treat it on an area basis. I think that is the results we are looking for. If it could `have, been achieved in one single project on a favorable location, it most likely would have come out best to do it that way, but in this particular area it was not possible. Like in Omaha, Omaha is a very flat place. Mr. CLAUSEN. But especially because of the existing terrain. General NOBLE. Yes, sir; to achieve the necessary flood control you have got to go to a system of structures rather than single structures. Mr. JoNEs This project is to be complemented by a series of water- shed projects. What assurances have you from the Department of * Agriculture that they will be constructed? * Colonel SHAwai~. Their portion of the plan has been approved, or authorized. * * * Mr. Jo~s. Has been authorized? Colonel SHArPER Yes, sir Mr CLAUSEN Will this be a part of the overall coordinated flood control plan ~ PAGENO="0112" 98 Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. (JLAUSEN. So you have an inneragency arrangement? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. Joco~s. Arcadia Reservoir, Deep Fork River, Okia. ARCADIA RESERVOIR, DEEP FORK RIVER, OKLA. Colonel Sii~ri~ai~. Mr. Chairman, this report is submitted in partial response to several congressional resolutions and a river and harbor act adopted or approved during the period 1945 to 1960. Deep Fork River Basin is located in central Oklahoma and has a drainage area of 2,500 square miles. There are no existing Federal flood control works in the Deep Fork River Basin. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends con- struction of a dam and reservoir on Deep Fork River in the vicinity of Arcadia, Okla., for flood control, water supply, water quality control,. and recreation at an estimated cost of $24,900,000 for construction and $105,700 annually for operation, maintenance., and major replacements. Local interests have indicated a willingness and ability to meet the local cooperation requirements including assurances required by the Federal Water Project Recreation Act and the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended, with respect to cost sharing. The total estimated Federal cost is $24,900,000 of which $2,380,000 and $455,000 would be reimbursed by local interests for water supply and recreation, respectively. Annual benefits are estimted at $1,713,000 and annual costs of $1,043,000 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.6. The report is being submitted to the State of Oklahoma and inter- ested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report, of the `Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Con~ gress'by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. Jo~s. Thank you. Next, we have the Little Blue River, vicinity of Kansas City, Mo~ LITTLE BLUE RIVER, VICINITY OF KANSAS CITY~ MO. `Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this report is concerned with the flood and water conservation problems on the Little Blue River in the vicinity of Kansas City, Mo. The basin has a drainage area of 224 square miles which includes a large portion of the rapidly urbanizing area of the Kansas City metropolitan complex. The lower 7 miles of the Little Blue River have been improved audi leveed as part of the Missouri River agricultural levee project. The most severe flood occurred in 1961 inundating 13,200 acres and causing damages totaling $870,000. With the increasing population and the progressive eastward urban expansion and development, future' flood damages may be expected to become greater. In contrast to the flood problem, low flows, caused by prolonged drought periods, have seriously reduced the natural waste assunila- tion capacity of the river and `has created health and nuisance problems. The Chief of Engineers recommends the construction of two multiple-purpose reservoirs, intermittent main stem realinement and PAGENO="0113" `99 channel improvement, and tributary channel diversion with levee construction for flood control, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. The total estimated cost of the proposed improvements is $39,116,- 000 of which $38,492,000 is Federal and $624,000 is non-Federal. The annual charges and benefits for the reservoirs are $1,443,000 and $2,633,000, respectively, and the benefit-cost ratio is 1.8. The annual charges and benefits for local protection works are $220,000 and $697,000, respectively, and the benefit-cost ratio is 3.2. Local interests have indicated their willingness and ability to meet local requirements. The Bureau of the Budget noted that the flood plain of the Little Blue River is rural in nature with about 5,000 acres of unoccupied land in the lower part of the basin. Under the circumstances the Bureau of the Budget believes more emphasis should have been placed on nonstructural alternatives such as zoning regulations, flood warning systems, and flood proofing, which might provide adec~uate protection of existing development. Subject to consideration of the above, the Bureau of the Budget advises there would be no objection to submission of the proposed report to the Congress. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Mr. Clausen? Mr. CLAUSEN. Is that Lake Jacomo, is that a natural or manmade lake? colonel SHAFFER. Mamnade. Mr. GLAUSEN. Previously built by the corps? Colonel SHAFFER. No, sir; that was by Jackson County. That is where the name comes from-Jackson County, Mo. Mr. CLAUSEN. When you say that the local interests have indicated a willingness to provide for the local requirements does this include- I mean what kind of coimnunication do you have, by letter or resolu- tion, or what? Colonel SHAFEER. We have to have an assurance from the local gov- ermnent, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. And is this by resolution `adopted in regular meeting by the local governing body? Colonel SHAFFER. I believe so in most cases, yes. General NOBLE. It is normally an exchange, sir, between the dis- trict engineer and the local authorities on this, written communication. Mr. CLAUSEN. And you have that on file? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. What does `the budget mean by floodproofing? What does that involve? General NOBLE. Under our flood plain management planning with the local people, sir, we approach it on a pretty broad basis. One is to keep people out of there. Second, if somebody is in there, what can be done about floodproofing the structures that are already there, perhaps blocking the basements or building a small levee or ditching around it. Where new construction has to go in `there for some reason or the other, build it in a way that it will not be damaged by floods, perhaps raising the foundations to the point where the building will come out of the water. That is the thing that is `being referred to here, sir. Mr. JONES. Any further questions? 97-700-68----8 PAGENO="0114" 100 The statement relative to this project of the Honorable William J. Randall will go in the record of hearings at this point. STATEMENT OP HON. WILLIAM ~. RANDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MISSOURI Mr. RAI'~DALL. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to testify and submit a statement in support of the Little Blue flood con- trol project in Jackson County, Mo. It is both reassuring and encour- aging that this project has been included among those to be considered by the subcommittee. The Little Blue plan has cleared the final stages of approval by afl Federal and State agencies involved. For this reason it is not only essential but urgent that we move forward toward authorization while the committee considers this omnibus authorization bill. Early authorization of this project has a number of advantages. The board of rivers and harbors recommends that advance acquisition be made of title to such lands as may be required to preserve the reservoir sites against incompatible and ever-encroaching development. It is also recommended the Chief of Engineers be authorized to participate in the construction and/or reconstruction of transportation facilities and utilities in advance of project construction. Such action would preserve these areas from encrOachments and thereby avoid increased costs for relocations. The flood problem of the Little Blue River becomes increasmgly magnified as residential, comnierciai, and industrial development con- tinues to expand in the basin. The development now going on and that planned for the immediate future makes the implementation of a plan that will prOve such urgently needed flood protection a vital necessity. The basin experienced 14 floods in the period between 1948 and 1961. The most severe flood ever recorded occurred in September 1961. The damages sustained in that flood amounted to nearly $900,000. But for a timely warning by the Weather Bureau, these damages might have been multiplied several times. It is my understanding if this flood had crested `2 feet higher, damages would have been in the neighbor- hood of $20 million. Another flood occurred just this year which caused $130,000 in damages. The plan which has been approved wifi give this area the protection which is so urgently needed. The proposed plan includes two important reservoirs which will retain waters from high flood j~eaks coming from the upper basin and thus reduce these flood crests in the lower areas. The Longview Dam, located on the Little Blue River in the vicinity of 109th Street will provide large flood storage. This reservoir will have a permanent pool that will provide the county with another lake having an area of about 900 acres or about the size of existing Lake Jacomo. The new lake created by the reservoir will also serve as a much-needed additional recreation facility for water sports. Furthermore, this conservation pool can be used to supplement or increase those low flows downstream during dry periods and improve the water quality of the stream. The other dam will impound water in what is called Blue Springs Reser- voir. It will be located on the East Fork of Little Blue River about one-half mile south of U.S. Highway 40. It is designed to retain flood- flows originating on this important tributary of the main Little Blue River. The Blue Springs Reservoir will have a permanent pool of a PAGENO="0115" 101 ~6Q-acre surface area. Although somewhat smaller than the Longview Reservoir, it will provide another area for water-based recreation. The flood control plan proposed also mcludes enlargement and straightening of the main channel of the Little Blue River. This work would begin at a point near the upper end of the work now being done in connection with the levee system of the Missouri River. This pomt is where Blue Mills Road intersects with Little Blue. Channel work will extend upstream, a distance of about 16 miles. The combination of the channel enlargement along with the construction of the two reservoirs should either solve completely and entirely the flood problem in the basin or so materially reduce the impact as to remove any fear of extensive damage from floods. Although much of the basin is still devoted to agricultural use, the growing cities of Independence, Raytown, Lee's Summit, Grandview, and others are rapidly converting adjacent segments of the basin to residential and commercial use. Important installations contributing to the growth of the area are Richards-Gebaur Air Force Base and the Lake City Ordnance Plant. It is extremely important that Lake City be afforded protection to prevent damages and possible interruption of operations which under the plan will be accomplished by channel improvements on Fire Prairie Creek and a levee on both Fire Prairie Creek and the Little Blue River. The citizens of Jackson County last year voted approval of a bond issue which included $102 million to cover the local share of the Little Blue and other projects. This action emphasizes that our people have proved their willingness to provide the local contribution toward the total cost of this vital project. The reports of all Federal and State agencies reveal the Little Blue flood control plan is one most deserving of careful and expeditious consideration. To achieve the desirable end objective it should be in- cluded in the present omnibus river and harbor and flood control bill by the Public Works Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. `Mr. JONES. Next, we have the Nishnabotna River at Exira,Iowa. NISHNABOTNA 1UVER AT EXIRA~ IOWA Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. chairman, members of the committee, this re- port is concerned with Davids Creek, a tributary of the East Nishna- botna River, above Exira, Iowa, about 15 miles long and draining an area of 61 square miles. The flood problem at Exira is severe. The 1958 flood resulted in nine deaths and $650,000 in damage to businesses, homes, transportation facilities, and city property. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a dam and reservoir on Davids Creek for floo.d control and recreation as an esti- mated cast of $2,040,000 for construction and $15,700 annually for op- eration and maintenance. Local interests are required to provide assurances required by' the Federal Water Project Recreation Act with respect tO recreation cost `sharing and hold the United States free from damages due to con- struction, obtain and resolve any conflicts in water rights, and inform local interests at least annually that the project will not eliminate flood- ing from the East Nishnabotna River. PAGENO="0116" 102 Annual benefits accruing to the project are estimated at $131,700, and the annual charges are estimated to be $95,600, resulting in a bene- fit-cost ratio of 1.4. Comments from the State of Iowa and Federal agencies are favor- able. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. The estimated Federal cost of the recommended work is less than $10 million and therefore, the views set forth in the Secretary of the Army's letter of January 6, 1967, apply to this project. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. Jo~s. We will now hear from our colleague, the Honorable Wil- liam J. Scherle, of Iowa, on this project. STATEMENT OP HON. WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGDESS PROM THE STATE OP IOWA Mr. SOHERLE. Thank you for this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee for the purpose of urging your adoption of an authori- zation for the David's Creek Dam, or the Nishnabotna River, vicinity of Exira, Iowa, as it is called in House Document No. 142, 90th Con- gress, first session. On July 1 and 2, of 1958, Exira, Iowa, and the Nishnabotna River Basin below experienced a devastating flood-taking the lives of 19 persons, and destroying crops and property to the extent of $5,682,700. All but $278,000 of this damage was caused by the East Nishnabotna River. The community of Exira suffered most severely-experiencing the loss of nine lives, the complete destruction of 25 homes, with 30 heavily damaged. Seventeen business establishments incurred heavy damage, and three buildings were totally destroyed. Exira alone experienced property damage in the amount of $648,000. However, the 1958 floods, although the most destructive, were not an isolated act of nature. The Nishnabotna River Valley has been ex- periencing flood damage in the amount of $68,000 annually, with Exira's annual share being nearly $20,000. Southwest Iowans feel that something must be done to bring this sit- uation wider control. With this, the Corps of Engineers, the Iowa Con- servation Commission, the Iowa Highway Commission, the depart- ment of health, the Iowa Natura~E Resources Council, the Iowa House and Senate, and all interested Federal departments and agencies wholeheartedly concur. As the first major step in the solution of this problem, Congress has been asked to approve the construction of a dam and reservoir on David's Creek-one-half mile northeast of Exira. The proposed dam would be an earth-fill structure, 62 feet in height, with a crest length of 1,800 feet, and a 25-foot topside width. The accompanying reservoir would create a lake of approximately 600 acres-providing for adequate fishing, boating, swimming, water skiing-and most iml?ortant-it would provide a reservoir capable of holding or storing twice the amount of water released at the time of the 1958 flood. We regard the David's Creek Dam and Reservoir project as a key element in the entire Nishnabotna River Valley flood control program. PAGENO="0117" 103 The initial estimated cost of this program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is $2,040,000, consisting of a Federal share of $1,879,500 and a non-Federal share of $160,500. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.5 to 1. When the basinwide program is completed, it will provide flood control for an area 125 miles long, and will protect 237,000 acres of land. Gentlemen, each year the residents of the Exira area are faced with a situation which could easily produce a repeat of 1958. The spring of 1964 brought 27 inches of rain, equivalent to the average annual rain- fall. On June 16 of 1966, 8 inches of rain fell north of Exira, with 11 inches to the south. This community lives in constant fear. The Secretary of the Army on July 12, 1967, submitted to Congress a favorable report on the proposal to construct the David's Creek Dam. Testimony has been taken by the Senate Public Works Committee. It is hoped that your committee will choose to give final approval to this most meritorious program. In this regard, the Corps of Engineers has advised that they could properly expend $80,000 for planning on the Nishnabotna River Val- ley in fiscal 1969. Consequently, I respectfully request that your com- mittee include an $80,000 authorization for planning purposes for the Nishnabotna flood control program in fiscal 1969. Thank you. Mr. JONES. Are there any questions? The next project is Texas City and vicinity, Texas, the La Marque- Hitchcock Extension. TEXAS CITY AND VICINITY, TEXAS Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this report concerns modifying the existing hurricane flood protection project for Texas City and vicinity to extend protection to La Marque and Hitchcock, Tex. The unprotected area is about 28 square miles and it includes the western portion of La Marque and all of Hitchcock. In 1961, Hurri- cane Carla produced tides from 10 to 13 feet above mean sea level and caused damages of approximately $2,350,000. The existing hurricane flood protection project for Texas City and southeastern La Marque was authorized by the Food Control Act of 1958. Also, a flood control project for Highland Bayou provides pro- tection to Hitchcock and La Marque from headwater flooding by channel improvement and construction of a diversion dam and chan- nel to Jones Bay. The Chief of Engineers recommends modification of the flood pro- tection project for Texas City by construction of earth levee with related drainage and closure structures. The total first cost of the pro- posed extension is estimated at $18,220,000 of which local interests would be required to contribute 30 percent, or $5,466,000. The total annual benefits accruing to the project are estimated at $866,000 and the annual charges are estimated to be $597,000. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.4. Local interests have indicated willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation. Construction would be subject to the condition that if local interests do not provide firm assurances of local cooperation within 3 years PAGENO="0118" 104 from the date of the authorizing legislation, authority for the recom- mended modification would expire. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. Are there questions ~ Mr. CLAUSEN. Just a comment. That must be a pretty good project to have those people willing to accept that amount of local commitment. Mr. JONES. I guess the experience of that hurricane demanded it. A letter received from the Texas Water Development Board on the project will go in the record at this point. TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, Austin, Teo~., June 17, 1968. Re Support of Authorization of Hurricane Protection Project, Texas City ancl~ Vicinity, LaMarque-Hitchcock Extension. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DnAz CONGRESSMAN FARL0N: Our agency has been advised of the hearings beginning tomorrow for consideration of a number of projects recommended by the Corps of Engnieers for Texas. Statements in support of authorization of the following five projects have been transmitted previously to the staff of the Public Works Committee: Clear Creek Floodway; Millican and Navasota No. 2 Reservoirs; Natural Pollution Control Projects, Red River Basin Part II; Flooft Control and Water Supply Facilities, Pecan Bayou; and Navigation and Bank Stabilization in the Red River Basin. As it was not known until today that the Committee would consider the Hitchcock Extension of the Texas City-LaMarque Hurricane Protection Project at its June 18, hearing, time does not permit a more complete statement of needs for this project and reasons for its authorization. Thirty-three hurricanes have crossed the Texas coast at various locations and at irregular intervals during the period 1900-1967, generally between the months of June and October. Along the coast the hurricane damage caused by high water and heavy rains has in the past been greater than the combined damage caused by hurricane winds and hurricane-tornados. Because of the configuration and shallow depth of Texas bays, hurricane-caused high water has historically been higher at the heads of bays and in estuaries than on open beaches. The proposed project extension is in an area subject to such high water and is needed at this time. Local interests have provided necessary assurances of participation to the Corps of Engineers. The original Texas City project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1958. The modification presently being considered to extend the project into the LaMarque-Hitchcock area was reviewed and determined to be feasible by the- Texas Water Rights Commission on July 26, 1966. Governor Connally forwarded this endorsement of the project by letter of November 30, 1966. In his letter Governor Connally recommended the authorization provide for: (1) the in- clusion in the final design of features to minimize losses to the fish habitat in Jones Bay and to mitigate pollution of the bay water inside of the project structures; and (2) in accomplishing (1) give consideration to the desirabiilty of additional tidal-interchange structures and the desirability of obtaining fill material for construction of the levee from areas immediately adjacent to the levee. Favorable action by the Committee to authorize this feasible and needed project is recommended, including the provision requested by Governor Connally. Sincerely, HOWARD B. BOSWELL, Eceec-utive Director. Mr. PJONES. Next, we have Bear Creek Basin, South Platte River and tributaries, Colorado. PAGENO="0119" 105 BEAR CREEK~ SOUTH PLATTE RIVER~ COLO. Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns the flood problem on Bear Creek, a tributary joining the South Platte River near Denver, Cob., in response to a resolution from the Senate Public Works Committee. Typical floods in the Bear Creek Basin are of the flash type occur- ring from intense rainfall where the steep terrain produces rapid concentration of runoff and high velocity flow. There are no existing flood control improvements in the basin. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a reservoir on Bear Creek at the Mount Carbon site about 8 miles upstream from the mouth, for flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhance- ment. The multiple purpose reservoir would consist of an earthfill dam about 143 feet high with a crest length of about 4,000 feet. The total estimated cost is $32,617,000 of which $32,314,000 is Federal and $303,000 is the initial non-Federal cost. The annual charges are $1,423,000 and the annual benefits are $3,227,000. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.3. Local interests are required to repay one-half of the separable costs allocated to recreation, presently estimated at $1,917,000; bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replacements of recreation lands and facilities; obtain the water needed for the recreation pool; hold and save from water rights claims; prevent encroachment on flow carrying capacity of channels below the reservoir; inform affected interests that the project does not provide complete protection; and provide guidance and leadership in flood plain management. The comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The report is under review by the Bureau of the Budget prior to transmission to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JONES. Mr. Edmondson? Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. It is about your figure on damage prevention which is given at $2,412,000 annual benefits when you have shown an average annual flood damage at $930,000. Would you explain that particular figure, please? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir, the benefits annually are estimated at $2,412,000 for flood control or approximately 75 percent and recrea- tion benefits of $815,000, 25 percent of the benefits. Now, of the flood control benefits, 29 percent relates to existing development and 46 percent relates to future development. Mr. EDMONDSON. What you are really estimating is that you are going to have development of industry and so on in the flood plain. Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. EDMONDSON. And that by preventing damage to industrial de- velopment that is not yet in place you are going to increase your annual flood benefit, flood prevention, is that it? Colonel SHAFYER. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. If the gentleman will yield, this as you know, is one of the projects that the gentleman from Oklahoma and our commit- tee visited and it has been brought to my attention that this very thing that you made reference to in that there will be industrial develop- ment once the project is in place, we .are going through with some rather grandiose plans out there and it would be rather interesting. PAGENO="0120" 106 Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the two mem- bers from Colorado be allowed to insert statements. Mr. JONES. I intend at the conclusion to get unanimous consent for all members to submit statements for the record. Mr. CLAUSEN. They may have some supporting information. Mr. JONES. The only thmg, Colonel Shaffer, if that project is com- plete, can you give us an assurance that the reservoir will be filled? The reason I ask that question is that we authorized the. Cherry Creek Reservoir and it did not have a drop of water in it for some 3 or 4 years and every newspaper that wrote an editorial accused us of passing pork barrel legislation, and always point to that as a classic example. Yet, we had, I think it was a flood of record, and the savings of damages by virtue of that dam or reservoir paid for it in the first flood. So make sure you get some water in this one. Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir, the $303,000 that I mentioned as initial, non-Federal costs is to buy the water for the initial fill. Mr. Joi~s. I call on my distinguished colleague from Colorado, Hon. Donald Brotzman. STATEMENT OP HON. DONALD G. BROTZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP COLORADO Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present a statement in support of including the authorization for the construction of the Mount Carbon Darn and Reservoir on the Bear Creek in Colorado, as a part of the omnibus rjvers and harbors and flood control bill of 1968. I represent the Second Congressional District of Colorado in which the site for the Mount Carbon Darn is located. On July 25, 1967, I sponsored jointly with Representative Byron Rogers of the first dis- trict of Colorado, H.R. 11729, a bill to autorize the Mount Carbon project for flood protection on the Bear Creek in Colorado. On the same day, an identical measure, S. 2169 was introduced in the Senate by Senators Allott and Dominick of Colorado. The proposed Mount Carbon Darn is located about 3 miles down- stream from Morrison, Cob., on the flood-prone Bear Creek. Bear Creek, which runs virtually all of its 95-mile course in my district, normally is a beautiful mountain stream. But the watershed of this stream and its tributaries are subject, once or twice each decade, to unusually intense thunderstorms. The terrain is such that the water is concentrated quickly and begins to rush toward Metropolitan Den- ver. Bear Creek, for example, drops 9,000 feet from its start high on Mount Evans to the proposed damsite just southwest of Denver. In a matter of an hour or two, Bear Creek is converted into a destructive killer. In the 90 years during which records have been kept, there have been 22 damaging floods on the Bear, with 45 lives lost. Bear Creek should be dammed if only to put an end to repeated flooding characterized by the past 90 years. However, statistically Bear Creek is due for a flood four times the volume of the worst of the 22 past floods. `Weather Bureau studies, and evidence in the creek flood plain, indicate that once every 100 years, on the average, we can expect such a giant flood. One can imagine what a flood four times the scope of the flood of 1938-in which six lives were lost-would do, particularly in light of PAGENO="0121" 107 the fact that this area has experienced explosive population, com- mercial, and industrial growth since 1938. Furthermore, the Omaha District of the Army Corps of Engineers estimates that a flood with a volume of water nearly 30 times that of the 1938 crest is within the realm of possibility. It might not happen until the next century, but on the other hand it could occur next month. The Corps of Engineers has proposed a site for the dam and reser- voir 3 miles downstream from Morrison and 8 miles above the junc- tion of Bear Creek with the South Platte River. This is the only point on the 262-square-mile watershed which is feasible for single-reservoir control of the creek. Farther upstream sites would have excluded con- trol of Turkey Creek and Mount Vernon Creek-both major tribu- taries of Bear Creek. Downstream, urban and commercial development is too extensive to make the project practical. The total cost of the Mount Carbon project, as submitted to the Bu- reau of the Budget, is $32,617,000. This is an increase of about $2.8 million from estimates of a year ago and reflects a recent expansion in the recreation facilities at the reservoir implemented at the request of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. I would point out that this additional expenditure is an extremely efficient way to acquire much-needed recreational areas, but this facet should not be allowed in any way to interefere with the authorization process. Construction of this dam and reservoir now as a flood control measure is absolutely vital. This project enjoys a high benefit-cost ratio of over 2-to-i. The Bu- reau of the Budget gave its clearance to the Mount Carbon project on June 18, 1968, the day your hearings opened. It has been endorsed by every interested department and agency of the Federal Govern- ment and the executive branch and the legislature of the State of Col- orado. I am including as a part of this statement house joint resolu- tion 1019, of the Colorado General Assembly which endorses and rec- ommends the construction of the Mount Carbon Dam and Reservoir. This project also has been endorsed by the Colorado Water Con- servation Board, the city and county of Denver, the city of Sheridan, the board of county commissioners of Jefferson `County, `Cob., the South Platte Area Redevelopment Council (SPARC), the Action Now-Dam the Platte organization and the `Tame the Bear-Build Mount Carbon group. I am including as a part of this statement the letters and resolutions I have received from these governmental bodies and organizations in support of the authorization of the Mount Car- bon Dam and Reservoir. The Mount Carbon project also has been endorsed by the National Rivers and Harbors Congress. I have received a number of letters from concerned citizens residing in the area affected by the Mount Carbon project. All of these letters urge enactment of H.R. 11729, the Brotzman-Rogers bill to authorize the Mount Carbon project. I am including as a part of this statement the names of many of the individuals who have written to me con- cerning this project. Mr. `Chairman, the inevitability of another destructive flood on the Bear Creek is clear-it is only a question of when it will occur. This fact, when considered with the high benefit-cost ratio which the Mount Carbon Dam enjoys and the development of badly needed park and recreational land for the Denver metropolitan area, justifies the au- PAGENO="0122" 108 thorization for the Mount Carboii Dam and Reservoir project in the omnibus rivers and harbors and flood control bill of 1968. LIST OP COLORADO RESIDENTS SUPPORTING MOUNT CARBON DAM AND RESERVOIR PROJECT Mayor Tom Currigan, Denver Mayor Jane E. Rosenbach, Sheridan C. S. Dunn, Denver Wilbert A. Dendinger, Denver Norman Fried, Denver Richard D. Dittemore, Littleton Richard Meckley, Denver Joe B. Lewis. Golden June Lindstrom. Sheridan John V. Christensen, Littleton Perry Eberhart, Denver Ira L. Hardin, Golden R. D. Palmer, Aurora Dallas B. Vowell, Denver Richard L. Rodenburg, Denver Gary A. Oakley, Englewood Jane Edgar, Englewood James Valdeck. Englewood George Huber, Denver Mr. and Mrs. Donald P. McGookey, Denver Inaz Huck, Englewood Mr. and Mrs. Jesse F. McNeal, Englewood Mr. and Mrs. Walter Ridgeway, Englewood Mr. and Mrs. Dale R. Bland, Englewood Robert W. Smedley, Denver Jewell C. Cann, Denver Mrs. Roif M. Lippert, Denver Paul H. Ebertz, Denver Mr. and Mrs. L. G. Richerson. Denver Calvin H. McClellan, Denver John Kelly, Denver COLORADO GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 1019 By Representatives Safran, Fentress, Grimshaw, Haskell, Lamm, Monfort, Nor- gren, Baer, Calabrese, Cole-Cooper, Grove, Knox, Lowery, Mullen, Sack, and Singer; also Senators Decker, Schieffelin, Vollack, and Stockton Whereas, The United States Army Corps of Engineers has recommended the construction of a flood control project at the Mount Carbon site on Bear Creek, east of the Town of Morrison, in the County of Jefferson, and the State of Colorado; and Whereas, There have been twenty-two floods on Bear Creek between the Town of Morrison and the South Platte River in the Denver Metropolitan area since 1900, the most recent of which have been in 1957,1958, and 1965; and Whereas, Said floods have caused forty-five deaths and massive destruction to property; and Whereas, Every heavy snowfall and heavy rain causes great anxiety to many thousands of residents and businessmen in the Baer Creek flood plain; and Whereas, A comprehensive plan of flood control on the South Platte River would require the construction of the Mount Carbon project to complement the existing Cherry Creek Reservoir and the current construction of the Chatfield Reservoir, for the protection of the Metropolitan Denver area and downstream; now, therefore: Be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Forty-siath General Assem~ bly of the state of Colorado, the Senate concurring herein: That this General Assembly, on behalf of the people of this state, strongly recommends the construction of the Mount Carbon flood control project in Jeffer- son County, east of Morrison, Colorado, and requests immediate approval of this project in this session of Congress and an initial appropriation in the 1968 Omnibus Bill; be it further PAGENO="0123" 109 Resolved, That copies of this Resolution be sent to each of the Board of Engi- neers for Rivers and Harbors, Washington, D.C., and to the members of Congress from the State of Colorado. JOHN D. VANDERHOOF, Speaker of the House of Representatives. HENRY C. KIMBROUGH, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives. MARK A. HOGAN, President of the Senate. COMFORT W. SHAW, Secretary of the Senate. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIssIONERs AND JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING CoMMIssION STATE OF COLORADO, County of Jefferson, ss: Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission of the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, have this date met in joint session and have reviewed the proposed development of the Mt. Carbon Reservoir on Bear Creek in Jefferson County, and Whereas, it is found that a history of flooding exists on Bear Creek, and Whereas, this flooding has resulted in a loss of life and severe damage to de- veloped areas, and Whereas, a continued and substantial amount of development has occurred in this drainage basin subsequent to the last flood, which would result in a material increase in loss should any future flooding of this area occur, and Whereas, it is felt that added and further benefits would be gained through the development of recreational facilities in connection with this reservoir con- struction; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission of the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, hereby and herewith endorse and approve the proposed Mt. Carbon Reservoir project in Jefferson County, and urge all possible haste in its completion. Witness our hands and seal this 27th day of March 1967. Attest: JOE B. LEwIs, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners. LOURINE MARTIN, Deputy Clerk to the Board. Attest: WILMA BLAKE. RALPH CARTiar~. CITY OF SHERIDAN, Englewood, Cob., March 13, 1968. Congressman DONALD G. BROTZMAN, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAL Sin: On behalf of the citizens of Sheridan I urge you to push the bill for the Mt. Carbon Dam that will control flooding on Bear Creek. During the 1965 flood many of our citizens had their homes and all their worldly possessions lost. Businesses suffered untold damage, bridges were washed out. Our City Hall and all its contents were so badly damaged that it was neces- sary to purchase a new City Hall building and we are still trying to repair and replace the damages. We can not face another disastrous flood with all its heartache, damage and expense. We do support the Brotzman-Rogers bill for the Mount Carbon Dam that will control flooding on Bear Creek. Respectfully yours, JANE E. ROSENBACH, Mayor. DENVER, CoLo., May 23, 1967. Hon. DON BROTZMAN, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: The Mount Carbon project is vital to metropolitan Denver and to the entire State. It meets economic benefits of Corps of Engineers have been pressing for PAGENO="0124" 110 action on this project since 1905 flood, and concur completely in your efforts~ Denver will assist in every way. Flood on Bear Creek could be more disastrous than 1905 tragedy, is essential if it is humanly possible to obtain it. Mayor ToM CURRIGAN. ~Mr. JoNEs. Let us go to the next project, Big Sioux River, Sioux. City, Iowa, and North Sioux City, S. Dak. BIG SIOUX RIVER, SIOUX OITY~ IOWA, AND NORTH SIOUX CITY~ S. DAK.. Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee this. report is concerned with the serious flood problem on the lower Big Sioux River which forms the boundary between Sioux City, Iowa, and North Sioux City, S. Dak., prepared in response to a resolution of the Senate Public Works Committee adopted September 10, 1962. There are no existing Federal flood control works on the lower reaches of the Big Sioux River. Major floods in the area are caused by snowmelt runoff. Recent sprmg floods in 1960, 1962, and 1965 caused about $2 million in dam- ages to highway bridges, utilities, and residential and commercial properties. The Chief of Engineers recommends channel straightening, en- largement with bank stabiliaztion measures in 4 miles of the existing river and construction of a new one and one-half mile cutoff channel to the Missouri River to reduce the extent of flood and erosion damages and the potential threat to human life. Local interests have indicated a willingness and ability to meet the local cooperation requirements for a local flood protection project of this type. The total estimated Federal cost is $2,750,000. Annual benefits ac- cruing to the project are estimated at $182,000 and the annual charges are estimated to be $145,000, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.3. Comments from the States of Iowa and South Dakota and intere.sted~ Federal agencies are favorable. The report is with the Bureau of the Budget for clearance as to its relationship to the program of the President prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. The statements of the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary are still outstanding? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. Jo~s. Any questions? I will place in the record at this point. the statement of the Mississippi Valley Association. STATEMENT OF THE MississiPPi VALLEY AssocIATIoN Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is E. Michael Cassady, I am executive vice president of the Mississippi Valley Association and appear here representing that association. For many years, floods on the Big Sioux River and bank erosion in the Sioux City, Iowa vicinity have caused threats to human lives and costly damage to property. The Big Sioux River joins the Missouri River immediately upstream from Sioux City, Iowa. This reach separates the residential area in North Sioux City, South Dakota and Sioux City, Iowa. Major floods have occurred in 1980, 1962 and 1965 resulting in property damage of millions of dollars to homes and businesses in this area. In addition, bank erosion damage many other improvements which were located along the banks of the river. It can he anticipated that flood damage and erosion losses will recur and this problem PAGENO="0125" ill will be intensified due to future business and urban expansion. Additionally, there is the constant and inherent danger to those who presently occupy this area. The project proposed by the Corps of Engineers provides for flood and erosion control along the lower 51/2 miles of the Big Sioux River in the vicinity of Sioux City, Iowa. In addition, this improvement plan would consist of chan- nel enlargement, bank stabilization and relocation of a portion of the channel. It will include appropriate landscaping measures to provide an improved aesthetic character to the bank areas of the project. The project is fully com- patible with authorized improvements and potential basin-wide developments and is economically justified with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.3. Now that the Missouri River is under control by the system of upstream dams, and the Floyd River is harnessed through Sioux City, eventual com- pletion of the proposed Big Sioux River project would offer further flood pro- tection for this metropolitan area. After a review of the plan for this project, the members of the Mississippi Valley Association decided that the Big Sioux River flood control project at Sioux City sould receive top priority and endorsed its authorizaiton at the Association's Annual Meeting held in St. Louis, Missouri in February of this year. Therefore, the Association respectfully requests the members of this Committee to authorize for construction the Big Sioux River Flood Control Project in the vicinity of Sioux City, Iowa. Next is Clear Creek, Tex. CLEAR CREEK, TEX. Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, members of the conmlittee, this report is prepared in response to section 209 of the Flood Control Act approved October 23, 1962. Clear Creek is about 35 miles long and drains an area of about 250 square miles extending from the southern portion of the city of Houston to the west side of Galveston Bay. There are no existing Federal flood control projects on Clear Creek. Local interests have constructed flood control improvements on Clear Creek primarily for agricultural use, but they do not afford the degree of flood protection that should be provided for the rapid ubanization occurring adjacent to Clear Creek. At the present time approximately $5 million in damages would result from the occurrence of a standard project flood. The Chief of Engineers recommends the enlargement and rectifica- tion of 31 miles of Clear Creek channel upstream from Clear Lake to Houston. Local interests have indicated a willingness and ability to meet all of the local cooperation requirements for the project. The total estimated Federal cost is $12.6 million. Annual benefits are estimated at $2,127,000 with annual costs of $742,000 giving a benefit-cost ratio of 2.9. Comments from the State of Texas and other Federal agencies are favorable. The report is with the Secretary of the Army for transmittal to the Bureau of the Budget for clearance as to its relationship to the pro- gram of the President prior to its submission to Congress by the Sec- retary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. You have on the chart velocity control structure. What is a velocity control structure? Colonel SHArPER. Drop structure or some similar structures to keep the stream velocities to a reasonable level to prevent erosion on the banks. PAGENO="0126" 112 Mr. Jo~s. Well, in other words, it is similar to a revet.ment. Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir; similar to that. Mr. Joi~iis. Is it concrete? Colonel SHAITER. Riprap. This brief is presented for the State of Texas by the Texas Water Development Board. It expresses the views of the agency on the report being considered by this Committee recommending improvements on Clear Creek in Fort Bend, Brazoria, Harris and Galveston Counties, Texas. The Texas Water Development Board is the agency of the State government designated to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Re- clamation in the planning of water resource development projects. Some of the Board's other responsibifities include: the preparation of a State Water Plan. the keeping of such plan current, the administration of the Texas Water De- velopment Fund presently authorized at $400,000,000, and the development of water resources projects. In the performance of its duties the agency maintains close liaison with the Federal agencies, State agencies, and local political sub- divisions. RECOMMENDED PROJECT The recommended project provides for enlargement and rectification of the existing channel of Clear Creek from mile 3.8 in Clear Lake to mile 34.8 at Farm Road 2234, a distance of 31 miles along the river channel. Sections of the proposed project are in Fort Bend, Harris, Brazoria and Galveston Counties. The total project construction cost is estimated to be $18,000,000 of which $12,600,000 would be Federal costs and $6,300,000 would be non-Federal costs. DISCUSSION Members of this Committee are aware of some of the devastation brought to Texas from flooding related to hurricanes and other less-severe tropical storms. Twice within the past 8 years our coastal areas have been swept by hurricanes of tremendous proportions, one of which practically centered over the water- shed under discussion. Due to the lack of relief in terrain portions of our coastal fringes remain inundated, often for months following severe storms. Our only recourse is to provide additional carrying capacity for natural streams, and to provide additional drainage systems. The State of Texas has participated since 1055 in efforts to improve flood conditions in Clear Creek, which at that time was a relatively open area. On March 13, 1962 the Corps of Engineers conducted a public hearing in Kemah, Texas for the purpose of determining whether improvements for hurricane-flood protection would be justified. The then Texas Water Commission appeared and made a statement in support of the need for such improvements. Acting under Section 209 of the Flood Control Act approved October 23, 1962, the Corps of Engineers prepared a survey report. Following submission of the report to the State and its review, favorable comment was made by the Texas Water Development Board and the Texas Water Rights Commission, and the recommended project determined to be feasible. Without going into technical details of the report, we wish to point out that the area drained by Clear Creek includes one of the most highly developed areas, presently and potentially, in the entire southern half of our Nation. The NASA complex properties are adjacent to the flood plain of Clear Creek. Around this installation a truly phenomenal industrial and residential development is under way. A single industrial district comprising 7,000 acres was announced by Humble Oil and Refining Company in 1964. Population projections indicate that an increase form a few hundred residents in 1960 to as many as ~4 million before the turn of the century can be expected in the area contiguous to Clerk Creek. Final completion of the navigation channel connecting the Bayport area with the Houston Ship Channel will no doubt add impetus to the development. Property values are projected to reach almost ~ billion dollars by 2070, with the qualifying statement that double that amount may be attained. It can be readily seen that as the Clear Creek basin area is developed for other than agricultural purposes a greater problem of flood damage will be presented. Flood damage is not just a measure of water-logged streets, of disrup- tion of utility facilities and services, of loss of bridges and other matters of personal and public convenience. Great as these losses are, the public, health threat incurred by stagnant lakes that cannot drain, and of breached sanitary sewage facilities is a problem with which state and federal agencies are now PAGENO="0127" 113 trying to cope. Until the carrying capacity of Clear Creek is improved by channel rectification and enlargement to allow flood waters to recede into Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico this major metropolitan development will face a con- tinuing health hazard. The proposed plan of improvement consists entirely of channel enlargement and rectification in a 31 mile reach of Clear Creek. Benefits will accrue to the cities of Houston, League City, Pearland, Friendswood, Brookside Village and Webster. With the exception of Houston, these are all presently small towns or villages lying within the 250 square mile watershed. It is estimated that the average annual damages from flooding of the stream under existing conditions amount to $578,000. The first cost of the improvements, without interest during construction, will be $18,900,000. Federal share would be $12,600,000 and the non-Federal would be $6,300,000. The total annual charges would be $742,000 of which $454,600 would be the Federal share, and $287,400 would be non-Federal. The average annual benefits would be $2,127,500, giving a benefit-cost ratio of 2.87 to 1. May we point out that the monetary values shown in these cost estimates could not include the reduction of health hazards, which could well be one of the principal benefits derived. RECOMMENDATION The State of Texas can, therefore, without reservation recommend the au- thorization and early implementation of improvements in flood conditions in Clear Creek. Mr. Joi~s. The next project is Pecan Bayou watershed, Texas. PECAN BAYOU, TEx. Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report is concerned with the flood control and related water resources problems in the Pecan Bayou watershed, Texas, in response to a resolution by the House Flood Control Committee. Pecan Bayou is a tributary of the Colorado River and drains an area of 2,200 square miles in the central part of Texas. Federal flood control improvements in the watershed include the existing Hords Creek Dam and Reservoir and the authorized enlargement of Lake Brownwood Dam, a local water supply reservoir, for flood control and additional conservation storage. Mr. JONES. The stream is running northwesterly, is it not? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir; though it flows South. Mr. JONES. Excuse me for interrupting you. Colonel SHAFFER. Major floods originating on the Pecan Bayou watershed cause extensive flood damages to agricultural and urban properties in the flood plains of Pecan Bayou, its principal tributaries, and along the main stem of the Colorado River. In addition, the existing Lake Brownwood Dam on Pecan Bayou upstream from Brownwood is considered inadequate to withstand an extreme flood and could fail under such flood conditions causing cat- astrophic damages to the downstream areas along Pecan Bayou in- cluding the city of Brownwood. The Chief of Engineers recommends a plan of improvement for Pecan Bayou watershed in lieu of the authorized project for enlarge- ment of Lake Brownwood, consisting of construction of protective measures for existing Lake Brownwood for purposes of flood control and water supply; channel improvements in the city of Brownwood; and construction of the Pecan Bayou Dam and Reservoir on Pecan Bayou upstream from Lake Brownwood The total estimated cost of the proposed improvements is $31,543, 000 of which $24,861,000 is Federal and $6,682,000 is non-Federal. The PAGENO="0128" 114 annual charges are estimated to be about $1,265,000 and the annual benefits are about $2,913,000 resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 2.3. For the Lake Brownwood Dam local interests are required to: Re- tain ownership, mamtain the project, operate the flood control fea- tures, and bear all annual maintenance and operation costs, subject to reimbursement by the Federal Government for annual maintenance and operation costs allocated to flood control; hold and save; reim- burse the United States for that portion of the construction costs al- located to water supply, with credit for the estimated value of existing lands, easements, and useable appurtenances at Lake Brownwood. For the Pecan Bayou channel, local interests are required to provide the usual flood control a, b, c's, make alterations and relocations, pro- hibit encroachments on improved channels, provide spoil disposal areas, and publish flood plain management information. For the Pecan Bayou Reservoir, local interests are required to obtain all water rights, repay the project costs allocated to water supply presently estimated at $2,186,000 for construction and $19,500 for op- eration and maintenance; bear first and annual costs associated with recreation and fish and wildilife enhancement, such amounts currently estimated at $1,172,500 and $40,000, respectively. Local interests have indicated a willingness to meet all requirements of cooperation. Comments from the State of Texas and other Federal agencies are favorable. The report is with the Bureau of the Budget for clearance as to its relationship to the program of the President prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. Joic~s. Any questions or comments? Mr. CLAUSEN. In the statement with respect to the local coopera- tion you stated toward this amount local interests would be given credit for the estimated valuation of existing lands and easements and useable appurtenances. Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. How do you arrive at the estimated value? Colonel SHArFEB. Well, it would be an appraisal of the value of the land and the moneys required to construct a similar facility. Mr. JONES. That would be reflected in the $6 million of local contributions? Colonel SHAFFEB. Yes, sir. Mr. Jo~s. I see the Department of Interior says the methodology, the valuation of fish and wildlife by the Corps is on the low side. There could be added benefits for fish and wildlife if you apply the method of calculation of the Department of Interior? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. They admit that the Corps' figures are conservative on this. General NOBLE. Yes, they do. Mr. JONEs. Next is Congressman Burleson from Texas. STATEMENT OF HON. OMAR BIJRLESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you in behalf of the Pecan PAGENO="0129" 115 Bayou flood control and water supply facilities, Colorado River Basin, Tex., located within my congressional district. As you know, I have had a great interest in this project for a num- ber of years as it has progressed through the various stages. Officials of the Texas Water Development Board have appeared before this committee and have outlined in detail the technical as- pects of this flood control and water supply project, and I shall not take the time of the committee to reiterate these details. I do, however, feel it important to point out that the board has continually stressed the definite need for water supply storage in the Pecan Bayou Reservoir. The Corps of Engineers, of course, has approved this project and it is recognized there is need and justification for the Pecan Bayou Reservoir for flood control purposes. An unforeseen increase in water requirements in the area would require an earlier construction of the multipurpose Pecan Bayou Reservoir project to be planned to operate in conjunction with water supply features of lake Brownwood and maximize reservoir yields for water supply purposes. As the committee knows, the benefit-cost ratio on this project is 2.3 to 1, which I understand is excellent. I appeal to the committee to include this greatly needed facility in its omnibus bill which is now being written. If there are details which I may furnish to the committee, I shall be glad to do so and I sincerely hope favorable action may be possible. Water supplies and flood control are imperative in an area such as this which is arid by nature, and from my own personal inspections of the locale, I do have a personal knowledge of the problems which exist. (The information follows:) This brief is presented for the State of Texas by the Texas Water Development Board. It expresses the views of the agency on the report being considered by this Committee recommending improvements on Pecan Bayou Watershed, Colorado River Basin, Texas. The Texas Water Development Board is the agency of the State government designated to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Re- clamation in the planning of water resource development projects. Some of the Board's other responsibilities include: the preparation of a State Water Plan, the keeping of such plan current, the administration of the Texas Water De- velopment Fund presently authorized at $400,000,000, and the development of water resources projects. In the performance of its duties the agency maintains cvlose liaison with the Federal agencies, State agencies, and local political subdivisions. PECAN BAYOu WATERSHED, COLORADO RIVER BASIN, TEXAS Brownwood Dam and Reservoir was completed by local interests as a water supply reservoir in 1932. Actions by the Congress in the Flood Control Acts of 18 August 1941 and 22 December 1944 provide for enlargement of the reservoir in the interest of flood control. As a result of a restudy the Corps of Engineers recommends the authorized project be deauthorized and that a multiple-purpose plan of improvement for the Pecan Bayou Watershed, Texas, be authorized to provide for the construction of the following: (1) protective measures for Lake Brownwood Dam to provide for a reconstructed project for purpose of flood control and water supply; (2) channel improvements in the vicinity of the City of Brownwood for purposes of local flood protection along Pecan Bayou, Adams Branch, Tom Williams Branch and Willis Creek at Brownwood, Texas; and (3) two multiple-purpose reservoirs designated Coleman Reservoir on Jim Ned Creek and Pecan Bayou Reservoir on Pecan Bayou, both upstream from exist- ing Lake Brownwood. EXISTING FACILITIES Lake Brownwood is impounded by a dam on Pecan Bayou at mile 57.1, a short distance below the confluence at Pecan Bayou and Jim Ned Creek. The dam 97-700-6S----9 PAGENO="0130" 116 was completed in 1932 by the Brown County Water Improvement District No. 1 at a cost of about $1,500,000 to impound water for: irrigating lands in the lower Pecan Bayou Valley; providing municipal water supply for the City of Brown- wood; affording partial flood protection to the lower valley and the City of Brown- wood by reducing the magnitude of floods that originate above the dam, and providing recreational opportunities. A distribution system for delivering water to lands within the irrigation district and to the City of Brownwood was com- pleted m 1939 at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. The existing Lake Brownwood has an estimated total storage capacity of 130,000 acre-feet below the top of water conservation level at elevation 1425.0. The earth fill embankment is about 1,500 feet long, has a top elevation of 1450 feet and a maximum height is about 117 feet. Two nine-foot conduits through the dam were included for drawing down the reservoir during emergencies and a 5-foot conduit near the south end of the dam for releasing waters into the irriga- tion system. An uncontrolled spiliway is located in a natural saddle about 2,000 feet north of the dam and was constructed by a cut through the saddle. The spill- way has a width of about 480 feet with a concrete sill crest at elevation 1425 feet. The Brown County Water Improvement District No. 1 has had to make major repairs on the conduit and the conduit-gate structure and does not now utilize the existing Broom gates at the intake end of the nine-foot conduit, but uses 24 inch outlets which by-pass the Broom gates for regulating the lake level. The reduction of discharging capacity of the outlet results of more frequent use of the existing spillway. Lake Brownwood affords water supply for the cities of Brown- wood, Bangs, Santa Anna, and Early for municipal and industrial purposes and water supply for irrigating about 5,000 acres of irrigable land within the bound- aries of the district. Problems exist at Lake Brownwood due to the inadequacy of the existing dam and spiliway. The existing embankment lacks sufficient height and structural stability. The spillway channel is undergoing deterioration due to erosive action of spillway discharge. Failure of the existing embankment under extreme flood conditions would cause catastrophic conditions within the downstream area. Local flood protection works consisting of channel rectification work and low levees on Willis and South Willis Creek were constructed in 1943 by the Depart- ment of the Army with military funds for the purpose of relieving the aggravated flood conditions brought about by the construction at Camp Bowie. The Coleman Dam and Reservoir is located 14 miles north of Coleman on Jim Ned Creek, a tributary of Pecan Bayou upstream from Lake Brownwood. The project was completed by the City of Coleman in May, 1960. The project was developed by the City in lieu of the proposed Coleman Reservoir contained in the Corps of Engineers report. The 3200 feet long earth fill structure has a maximum height of 90 feet with the top of dam at elevation 1740 feet. The reservoir has a capacity of 40,000 acre-feet which provides a municipal and industrial water supply. The reservoir has a surface area of 2000 acres at the service spillway elevation of 1717.5 feet. Other projects in the Pecan Bayou watershed include the lords Creek Res- ervoir, completed by the Corps of Engineers in June 1948, and watershed programs of the Soil Conservation Service. The multiple-purpose lords Creek Reservoir has a total capacity of 25,310 acre-feet of which 15,500 acre-feet is for flood control, 6,950 acre-feet is for water supply purposes and 2,860 acre-feet is sediment reserve. PROPOSED PLAN OF IMPROVEMENTS The plan of improvement proposed by the Corps of Engineers for the Pecan Bayou watershed would be constructed in lieu of the authorized plan for Lake Brownwood enlargement. The proposed multiple-purpose plan would involve the following units studied for the period 1970 through 2070. a. Lake Brownwood Dam protective measures involving a new earth embank- ment, new outlet work, and erosion control measures for the existing spiliway; but no increase in controlled reservoir storage. b. Brownwood channel improvement involving (1) about 38,800 feet of im- proved channel on Pecan Bayou at Brownwood with design channel capacity of 92,000 second feet and 2,000 feet of diversion channel from West Slough to Pecan Bayou; (2) about 11,600 feet of improved channel on Adams Branch at BrownwoOd with design channel capacities of 13,200 and 7,400 second feet down- stream and upstream from the confluence with Tom Williams Branch, 3,600 feet of diversion channel from Adams Branch to Pecan Bayou with capacity of 13,200 second feet and 1,100 feet of diversion channel from Tom Williams Branch to Adams Branch with capacity of 5,800 second feet; and (3) 10,000 feet of PAGENO="0131" 117 improved channel on Willis Creek at Brownwood with design channel capacities of 19,000 and 12,700 second feet downstream and upstream from the confluence with South Willis Creek respectively. c. Coleman Darn and Reservoir involving an earth embankment at mile 52.2 on Jim Ned Creek, outlet works through the embankment and excavated un- controlled saddle spiliway and 240,900 acre-feet of controlled storage. d. Pecan Bayou Dani and Reservoir involving an earth embankment at mile 100.8 on Pecan Bayou upstream from Lake Brownwood, outlet works through the embankment and excavated uncontrolled saddle spiliway and 206,300 acre- feet of controlled storage. STATE ACTION Following transmittal of the report by the Chief of Engineers requesting the formal comments of the State, the Texas Water Commission following State procedures held a public hearing on the proposed Pecan Bayou project on i~fay 11, 1965. After receiving testimony, and the analysis of the report the Commis- sion found: (1) that the portion of the report relating to the construction of the proposed multiple-purpose Coleman Reservoir on Jim Ned Creek is now moot due ~to construction of a dam and reservoir in that area by the City of Coleman. Accordingly the portion of the report relating to Coleman Reservoir should not be submitted to Congress for its action; (2) that multiple purpose Pecan Bayou Reservoir be analyzed to ascertain if it is economically justified as a single-purpose flood control project, and be considered as a unit with the pro- posed Brownwood channel improvements and the reconstruction of Lake Brown- wood Darn; (3) that the portion of the proposed project relating to the Brown- wood Channel improvement and the reconstruction of Lake Brownwood Dam be approved; (4) requests the Congress of the United States take action as expe- ditiously as possible to authorize and fund the urgently needed projects that are outlined herein and to protect existing and future facilities in this im- portant rapidly developing area. In mid-1966 the Texas Water Development Board published and distributed copies of its preliminary Texas Water Plan, and together with publications on preliminary plans for each river basin. Public hearings were held throughout the State on the preliminary plan. The Board's preliminary plan for the Colorado River Basin included the fea- tures of recommended in Corps of Engineers report, except that Coleman Reser- voir was considered a non-Federal water supply project, and water quality was omitted as a project pupose in the proposed Pecan Bayou Reservoir. In the pre- liminary plan the timing of the need for Pecan Bayou Reservoir was indicated to be after 1990 for water supply purposes. The State's plan covers the period 1970 through 2020. Alternative studies, related in part to comments received at the 27 public hearings, have been completed and the planning report is `being prepared. The Boards' report on the Texas Water Plan will include the reconstruction of Brownwood Dam, the channel improvements recommended, and the Pecan Bayou Reservoir for flood control, water supply, recreation and fish and wildlife purposes. Although the timing of Pecan Bayou Reservoir is presently indicated to be after 1990 for water-supply purposes, the Board recognizes the need and justification for the Pecan Bayou Reservoir for flood control purposes. An unforeseen increase in water requirements in the area would require an earlier construction of the multiple-purpose Pecan Bayou Reservoir project to be planned to operate in conjunction with water supply features of Lake Brownwood and maximize reservoir yields for water supply purposes. The Pecan Bayou Reservoir project formulation includes water qtiality as a project purpose. The State recognizes the importance of water quality control and has an active program to maintain and improve same through the Texas Water Quality Board and its member agencies. The Water Development Board in its Texas Water Plan recog- nizes the importance of needing adequate quality together with sufficient quan- tity of water. In a State facing a water deficiency it is unwise to utilize a limited water resource for dilution purposes. This is particularly important in the semi-arid Pecan Bayou watershed. The Board finds the Pecan Bayou Dam and Reservoir Project to be feasible without water quality as a project purpose. RECOMMENDATION The Board recommends to this Committee that the Congress authorize the projects recommended by the Corps of Engineers in the Pecan Bayou watershed, except that: PAGENO="0132" 118 1. The Coleman Reservoir, already constructed by non-Federal interests be excluded; 2. The Pecan Bayou Reservoir be authorized for the purposes of flood control, water supply for municipal and industrial purposes, recreation and fish and wildlife; and 3. The sequence of construction be the elements of the plan in the vicinity of Brownwood first, with construction of Pecan Bayou Dam and Reservoir delayed until needed. Mr. JoNEs. The next project is Marion, Kans. MARI0N~ KANS. Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, members of the. committee, this report is prepared in response to a resolution of the House Public Works Committee adopted June 3, 1959. Marion is located in east-central Kansas about 80 miles southwest of Topeka. There are no existing Federal flood control projects on Mud Creek watershed or the lower Cottonwood River in the vicinity of Marion. The Corps of Engineers' multiple-purpose Marion Reservoir which is nearing completion is located on Cottonwood River about 6 miles upstream from the mouth of Mud Creek. Several damaging floods have occurred in Marion and a recurrence of the flood of record would cause urban damages estimated at $1.6 million. Although the Marion Reservoir would reduce the lower Cottonwood River overflows, floods originating on the Mud Creek Basin and the watershed below the Marion Reservoir pose a serious and continuing problem for the city's urban developments. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends the con- st.ruction of a new channel to divert flood flows on Mud Creek around the west side of the city together with a levee to prevent overflows of both Mud Creek and Cottonwood River from entering the city. Local interests have indicated their willingness and ability to meet all of the local cooperation requirements for the project. Total estimated Federal cost is $2,146,000. Annual benefits are esti- mated at $205,600 and annual costs of $113,700, giving a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8. The report has been submitted to the State of Kansas and interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Colonel Shaffer. I call on my colleague, Representative Garner E. Shriver, of Kansas. STATEMENT OF HON. GARNER E. SHRIVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS Mr. SHRIVEn. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in behalf of a. proposed flood control project at Marion, Kans., on Mud Creek. I commend the sub- committee for its prompt action in conducting these hearings. PAGENO="0133" 119 Last year responsible citizens of this community in my congressional district brought to my attention the serious flooding problem posed by the Cottonwood River and Mud Creek. The city of Marion has experienced frequent flash flooding, resulting in extensive property damages. Most of the business section of the town is located in the flood plain of the Cottonwood where it is joined by Mud Creek. In 1951, a flood caused damage of $1,600,000. Since that time, there have been frequent occasions when flooding has occurred, inflicting personal and property losses upon Marion residents. The Corps of Engineers, following an extensive survey and investi- gation, has recommended construction of a mile-long bypass channel to carry Mud Creek flows around the town, and about 3 miles of levee. Total cost is estimated at about $2,500,000. Local interests would pay an estimated $354,000 of the total cost. The ratio of estimated benefits to costs is 1.7 to 1. A serious and continuing flood problem exists in Marion from over- flows of Mud Creek `and the Cottonwood River. In view of the strong public concern over this problem at the local level, I urge the subcom- mittee to approve the recommended project in order that it may be included in authorizing legislation for consideration by this session of the 90th Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now we will hear from our old friend Col. Daniel D. Hall, assistant director of civil works for the Mississippi Valley. We have been giving quite a good deal of thought to the fact that you invited us to come down and look at your projects. We have not heard from you yet. Now is a good opportunity. Colonel HALL. Yes, sir; we will welcome you at. any time. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My presentation concerns a report which was prepared in partial response to resolutions of the Committees on Public Works of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives adopted September 12, 1959, and Febru- ary 24,1960, respectively. POSTEN BAYQU~ ARK. AND LA. Colonel HALL. The report is limited to presentation of results of studies and investigations to determine the feasibility of developing an acceptable flood protection project in the Posten Bayou watershed. Posten Bayou rises in Lafayette County, Ark., follows a southerly course for 18 miles and enters Red River at mile 319 in Bossier Parish, La. The watershed, which borders the east bank of Red River, covers 114 square miles of Arkansas and Louisiana, of which 72 square miles are alluvial plains and 42 square miles are rolling hills. The existing levees on the east bank of Red River protect the alluvial plain in Arkansas and part of the plain in Louisiana from direct overflow by Red River. Most of the alluvial lands in the Arkansas portion of the watershed are drained by two main ditches and numerous smaller laterals. The remaining alluvial lands, as well as all of the hill lands, are drained by Posten Bayou. In Louisiana, the hill lands to the east and the con- tiguous alluvial lands, are drained by Stillhouse Bayou, a tributary PAGENO="0134" 120 of Posten Bayou; the remaining alluvial lands are drained by Posten Bayou. Local interests requested study of an alternative plan of improve- ment for flood control and drainage in the Posten Bayou, Ark., area, consisting of a channel wholly within Arkansas, generally parallel to the State line and extending from Posten Bayou to Red River. After incorporation of the study into the "Red River Below Denison Dam, Comprehensive Basin Study," local interests requested that an interim report on Posten Bayou be submitted to Congress if a plan of improvement appeared to be economically feasible. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends the modification of the existing project for Red River below Denison Dam to delete the plan of improvement for the Posten Bayou, Ark. and La., authorized by the Flood Control Act of August 3, 1955, and to provide in lieu thereof for headwater flood protection, the construc- tion of a major outlet diversion channel, 2.5 miles long from Posten Bayou to the Red River, just above and generally parallel to the Louis- iana-Arkansas State line; a gated outlet structure; and 1.2 miles of levees to tie into the Red River levee system. Local interests have indicated their willingness to meet the require- ments of local cooperation which are for local interests to: (a) Provide, without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including all borrow areas, and the relocation of buildings, roads, pipelines, and utifities necessary for the construction and functioning of the outlet, at a cost presently estimated at $120,000; (b) Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works, including water rights claims; (c) Maintain and operate all works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army; (d) Provide a cash contribution in the amount of 5.6 percent of the total construction cost, presently estimated at $81,000, or construct such items of work as may be agreed upon by the Chief of Engineers and local interests; (e) Prevent encroachment on improved channels or on ponding areas; and if ponding areas and capacities are impaired, provide sub- stitute storage capacity or equivalent pumping capacity promptly without cost to the United States; and (f) Construct or have constructed by others, the associated interior drainage works generally in accordance with the plan developed by the Soil Conservation Service, except that no construction in connec- tion with impoundment of water is required. The total estimated Federal cost is $1,378,000. Annual benefits are estimated at $168,700 and annual costs of $71,200, resulting in a bene- fit-cost ratio of 2.4. The report is in process to the States of Arkansas and Louisiana and interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comrnents~ t.he report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JoNEs. Thank you, Colonel. The next presentation will be made by Col. Lewis A. Pick, Jr., Assistant Director of Civil Works for Pacific Division. PAGENO="0135" 121 Colonel PICK. Good morning, sir. Mr. JONES. We are glad to have a good Alabamian make these pres- entations. First we have Alhambra Creek, Calif. ALHAMBRA CREEK, CALIF. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Al- hambra Creek drains an area of about 16.5 square miles and discharges into Carquinez Strait, approximately 25 miles northeast of San Fran- cisco, Calif. The project is located at Martinez, the county seat of Contra Costa County. There are no existin~ Federal improvements for flood control at at Martinez. Major overflow of Alhambra Creek cause considerable damage in the city. The most severe flood of record occurred in April 1958 causing dam- age estimated at $450,000. Two deaths have been reported, one in 1916 and another in 1922 from flooding. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends con- struction of 2,750 feet of earthen channel and about 15,400 feet of circular concrete diversion conduit. The estimated Federal cost is $8 million and the estimated non-Federal cost is $900,000. Local interests have indicated willingness to provide the required local cooperation. Annual benefits are estimated to be $372,000 and annual costs $310,000 arid the benefit-cost ratio is 1.2. Comments of the State and concerned Federal agencies are favor- able. The Bureau of the Budget notes that 61 percent of flood control benefits accrue to future development in the flood area and believes that nonstructural measures may be feasible to assist in reducing flood- ing and in promoting wise and economic use of the flood plain. The Bureau recommends that the project, if authorized, be reviewed prior to initiation of construction to determine if the proposed plan should be modified in order to achieve the most practicable balance between structural and nonstructural measures, considering the specific guide- lines established pursuant to Executive Order 11296. Subject to consideration of these comments, the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to the Congress. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Any questions, Mr. Clausen? Mr. CLAUSEN. No; I have no questions. I do want to establish again that you said all of the members are going to have an opportunity to submit a statement ? Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. Waldie? STATEMENT OP HON. JEROME R. WALDIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, House approval of the Omnibus Rivers and Harbors and Flood Control Act of 1968 is most meaningful to residents of my district. Authorization has been given an $8 million project which, upon completion, will halt the threat of flooding in the central portion of Contra Costa County, Calif. The Alhambra Creek flood control proj- PAGENO="0136" 122 ect represents the culmination of years of effort, both by myself and by my most able and distinguished predecessor, the late Congressman John F. Baldwin. Of particular importance in this effort was the Army Corps of Engi- neers Review Report of 1967 which pinpointed the drainage basin of Aihambra Creek as the source of the flooding problem. The basin en- compasses the city of Martinez, county seat of Contra Costa County. Floods of serious proportions occurred in 1940, 1955, and again in 1958, the last of which caused damages estimated to total $450,000, based on 1963 cost levels. Channel improvements and diversions will provide the most com- prehensive and economical solution to flooding in the Alhambra Creek Basin. The Corps of Engineers estimates that average annual damage from such flooding will average $291,000, unless the protective meas- ures provided by the authorized bill are taken. The efficacy of the Alhambra Creek project is evident, not only in terms of economical benefit but in whatever human suffering can be prevented. Mr. Jo~s. Next is Cucamonga Creek, Calif. CU~AMONGA CREEK, CALIF. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, the Cucamonga Creek Basin, Calif., comprises a drainage area of 82 square miles in the northwestern part of the Santa Ana. River Basin in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, approximately 40 miles east of Los Angeles. There are no existing Federal improvements for flood control. Local interests have constructed partial protection works which partially reduce flows. A number of floods have occurred in the past, of which the most destructive occurred in March 1938. A recurrence of this flood under present conditions would cause damages of about $15 million. Average annual damages along Cucamonga Creek and its tributaries without provision of flood control improvements are estimated at $2,550,000. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of debris collec- tion basins and a diversion levee in the headwaters with a system of improved channels. The estimated cost is $34.5 million, of which $26,- 300,000 is the Federal cost for construction and $8,200,000 is the non- Federal cost for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations. The annual charges are $1,315,000 and the average annual benefits are $2,130,000 with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.6. Local interests have in- dicated willingness to provide the required local cooperation. The comments of the State of California and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget notes that 78 percent of flood control benefits accrue to future development in the flood plain and believes that both structural measures and flood plain management will be necessary. Since it is the responsibility of local interests to adopt an adequate flood plain management program, the Bureau urges the Corps of Engi- neers to encourage local interest to take necessary action by furnish- ing technical services and guidance. The Bureau also recommends that the economics be reevaluated dur- PAGENO="0137" 123 ing preconstruction planning. Subject to these comments, the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. The Secretary of the Army states that during preconstruction planning, the Chief of Engineers will review the size and scope of the project and modify the plan as needed to achieve the most reason- able balance between structural works and a broad program of flood plain management. This completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. General Noble, would the Secretary of the Army, if the project was authorized as submitted, consider that he would have ample legal authority to make a modification as he states in his report? General NOBLE. Sir, after a project is authorized, the Corps of Engineers, when requesting appropriations, routinely reviews the project scope and at that time and during the preconstruction plan- ning phase, insures that necessary changes are made in the project to improve it. Mr. JONES. But those changes would not be so substantial that it would be a departure from the authorized project? General NOBLE. No, sir; that is right. In the event of a maj or departure, we would come back to the Congress for reauthorization. Mr. JoNES. The question I am asking you is, would this be a departure? General NOBLE. I do not think so, sir. Mr. JONES. Such that it would require you to ask for further authorization? General NOBLE. The words themselves would not necessarily estab- lish that any project change would be a departure. If, during the review it is determined by the Chief of Engineers that the project scope should be changed to such an extent that it would be outside of the scope of what Congress authorized, we would return to the Con- gress for additional authorization; but I do not believe that these words in themselves would necessarily require that to be the case. I am inclined to think that they would not. Mr. JONES. The Secretary says to modify the plans as needed to achieve th~ most reasonable balance between the structural work, flood plain regulations as needed to achieve the States requirements, and the broad program of flood plain management. Is that modification so substantial as to alter the authorized project? General NOBLE. As I say, sir, if you approve the project with this wording, this, in itself, would be some authorization to modify the project along the lines indicated by the language. Mr. JONES. I see. In other words, as long as the report made the disclosure that the Secretary of Army would have this authority, even though it is not contained in the legislation itself, would be sufficient authority to justify him to make the change? General NOBLE. Yes, sir; it would be the intent of the committee and the Congress that that be done. Mr. CLAUSEN. In effect, what you are saying is that the project would be authorized in accordance with this stated recommendation by the Secretary of the Army. General NOBEL. Yes, sir; unless the committee changed that. PAGENO="0138" 124 Mr. CLAUSEN. But this is your recommendation. General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. Jo~s. Mr. Snyder? Mr. SNYDER. Colonel, I was just wondering. You indicated that if another 1938 flood came along and did $15 million worth of damage, does that jibe with the Bureau of the Budget's statement that 78 per- cent of the flood control benefits are in the future, depend on future development of the flood plain? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir; the 1938 flood was the flood of record and probably equivalent to a 100-year flood so this would not occur but once in a hundred years. Mr. SNYDER. Determine cost-benefit ratio, you divide it by 100? Colonel PICK. No, sir; you add up all the floods that occur in 100 years and the damages that would accrue to each of these floods and then determine the annual damages to compare with annual costs of the project. For your information, sir, the 1938 flood was by far the greatest flood of record; almost 10 times the next flood of record in damages sustained. Mr. CLArSEN. Mr. Chairman, I do have a statement from Mr. Pettis here with me. May I insert it in the record? Mr. JONES. Without objection, it will be received and printed in the record. (The statement of Hon. Jerry L. Pettis follows:) STATEMENT ~F Hox. JERRY L. PETTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity of presenting this statement to your Committee in support of the request for authorization of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control project located in my Con- gressional District. It is vitally important that this flood control project be authorized, not only for the economy of the creek basin area but also for the surrounding areas. The Ontario International Airport airstrips pass over the storm drains which at present are inadequate to accommodate the tremendous flood of water when Cucamonga Creek overflows. In November 1065 and December 1966, the Presi- dent of the United States declared the area affected by the Cucamonga Creek as a disaster area and allocated disaster funds to repair the flood damage. In 1~G7, we were most fortunate that there was not sufficient flooding to do more than insignificant damage to the area. However, since no action has been taken to provide for this urgently needed project, it is entirely possible we might be faced with a similar tragedy this year and in years to come. Cucamonga Creek is a major uncontrolled and hazardous stream traversing highly developed and expanding vicinities of the cities of Upland and Ontario, and vicinities of Cucamonga and Chino. It poses serious threat to life and property in one of the most rapidly developing areas of the San Bernardino Valley as it courses through extensive residential, business and commercial areas. The flood waters come down from elevations over 9000 feet to elevations as low as 1,000 feet for a distance of over seven miles and from elevations over 1,000 feet to elevations as low as 400 feet for a distance of another seven miles- in other words, from over 9,000 feet to 400 feet in a distance of only fourteen miles. The surge and power of these flood waters are obvious. Every major transcontinental railroad, highway and utility entering South- ern California is subject to severance by virtue of its uncontrolled flood flows. Of great importance is the insipient danger of this stream to the important Ontario International Airport, which has recently been purchased by the City of Los Angeles, California, for the sum of $40 million. Los Angeles has plans PAGENO="0139" 125 for an additional huge sum, and the major airlines have plans for extensive improvements to the airport making present and future investments total more than $100 million. The City of Los Angeles invested this sum so that the Ontario International Airport would be the number one alternate to the Los Angeles International Airport and it is of the greatest importance to all Southern California and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. As an arm to the Los Angeles International Airport in maintaining continuing service, it is also of vital importance to all Southern California in view of the California International Guard installations located there. Again, I want to express my appreciation for this opportunity to present my views on this urgent matter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Will the River and Harbor Board raise any question as to the authority of the Chief of the Corps or the Secretary of the Army to make modifications? Mr. CLAUSEN. Is this not a rather routine procedure as you move toward preconstruction planning during the first stages of A.D. & D.? General NOBLE. Yes, to keep them within reasonable bounds our survey reports, are not prepared in sufficient detail to come up with the final design of the project. They are detailed just enough to deter- mine if the project is a good one, and whether it is something that the Corps can recommend to the Congress and Congress, in turn, should authorize. Subsequently, when we get to the preconstruction planning phase, with its great mass of project details, on occasion we find that things have to be done a little bit differently than orginally visualized. That is the time that we firm up the project details. Mr. CLAUSEN. This is true of a fairly high percentage of your projects. General NOBLE. Yes, sir; it is characteristic of the way the planning proceeds. Mr. JONES. Next is Feather River near Chester, Calif. FEATHER RIVER~ VICINITY OF CHESTER, CALIF. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the town of Chester is located in northeastern California, about 125 miles north of Sacramento on the North Fork of Feather River which drains a 115-square-mile area above the town. There are no existing Federal improvements for flood control. Flood flows cause deposition of debris and sediment in the stream channels through the town which results in loss of channel capacity. Flood waters then leave the channel and spread over the flood plain. Average annual flood damages to residential, commercial, and public property are estimated at $94,000. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of an earth fill dam to divert flood flows into an old channel confined by levees to be constructed on both banks. The estimated Federal cost of construction is $940,000. The non-Federal cost is estimated at $820,000. Average annual benefit and cost are $87,000 and $71,000, respectively, with a benefit cost ratio of 1.2. The usual items of local cooperation for local protection projects are required. Local interests have indicated willingness to meet all requirements. PAGENO="0140" 126 Comments of the State of California and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget notes that the project annual benefits would not equal the average, annual costs of the project for 30 years, and would expect the Chief of Engineers, prior to request- ing construction appropriations, to review the timing of initiation of the project. Subject to consideration of this comment, the Bureau of the Budget has no objective to submission of the report to the Congress. The Secretary of the Army states that the Chief of Engineers will review the timing of initiation of the project prior to requesting ap- propriation of funds for construction. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JoNEs. Mr. Johnson. STATEMENT OP EON. HAROLD T. (BIZZ) JOHNSON, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF CALIPORNIA Mr. JoHNsoN. Mr. Chairman, as one who has served for his entire congressional career as a member of this subcommittee, I want to ex- press the appreciation of the people of California and the Second Congressional District for the fine recognition which you and this committee has given to us in the past decade. As a result of the far- sighted actions by this committee and the Congress of the United States, we have proceeded with a sound program of flood control that has been very beneficial to the people of all parts of the State of California. Today, I come before you advocating the authorization of one new project in the Second Congressional District, the continuation of two other projects in the district and, of course, the other projects which we have before you in the State of California. The one new project with which I am directly concerned is on the Feat.her River near the Plumas County community of Chester. This is a project in which we have been interested for quite some time. You will recall that, originally, this committee requested by resolu- tion a. review of flood conditions near Chester. Shortly after I came to Congress, I initiated action to fund this review and I am pleased that this comprehensive study now has been completed and the Corps of Engineers has developed a means by which we can prevent floods which have caused heavy damage in the community on several occasions. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the study was ordered by this committee as an aftermath of disastrous floods in December of 1955 which hit this and other areas of northern California. Since that time, we have had heavy flood condit.ions in October of 1962, February of 1963, and again, in December of 1964, when the extreme flooding conditions seen in 1955 were repeated. Here in Chester, we have already invested quite heavily in emer- gency flood repair and corrective work, and now I believe that it is time to develop a project that will prevent floods rather than to continue patching up the damage. The north fork of the Feather River drains a 115-square-mile area above the community of Chester. This, to a large degree, is high mountain country in the Sierra. Nevada, with elevations ranging from PAGENO="0141" 127 above 8,700 feet to about 4,500 feet. Lake Almanor Reservoir is located at this level and immediately downstream from Chester. The flood diversion works contemplated as part of the project would drain into this reservoir. Gentlemen, this is good timber country with fine growth of com- mercial-grade timber. Much of it is on open land. About 80 percent of the basin is federally owned as part of the Lassen National Forest or the Lassen Volcanic National Park. Contemplated in the report submitted to Congress on May 13, is the construction of a diversion dam and a leveed bypass channel to convey the floodflows around the town of Chester and into Lake Almanor. The diversion dam would be an ungated structure designed to control the peak flow of 28,000 cubic feet per second, by passing about 4,000 cubic feet per second through conduits in the dam and diverting a balance of about 24,000 cubic feet per second into the proposed flood bypass channel. It is expected that the project would cost about $1,760,000, of which $940,000 would be Federal cost. The balance would be non-Federal cost for the rights-of-way lands, relocations, and other costs which normally become the responsibility of local and State government under these types of projects. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.2 to 1, so it is a feasible project and one that certainly needs consideration at this time. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully urge favorable consideration of this development at this time. Turning to the continuing projects, Mr. Chairman, I call to your attention the San Joaquin Basin authorization. Two flood control works now under construction are the New Melones Reservoir on the Stanislaus River and the New Don Pedro Reservoir on the Tuolumne River. The basin authorization now in effect is not adequate to permit continued development of these projects and, therefore, I support the $43,980,000 request made before the committee by the Corps of Engi- neers for additional authorization to carry us through fiscal year 1970 on both of these projects. Throughout the rest of California there are several new projects which I would like to call to your attention. All are good projects which I believe deserve favorable consideration from this committee. They are: Alhambra Creek, an $8,900,000 channel improvement to provide protection to Martinez. Cucamonga Creek, a $34,500,000 debris collection and diversion levee system in the Santa Ana River Basin in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Sweetwater River, a $9,200,000 channel and levee improvement pro- gram between Chula Vista and National City. Fairfield streams group, a $5,220,000 project for a 14-mile system of channel improvements and diversion in the vicinity of Fairfield. Jack and Simmerly Sloughs, $3,300,000 for the projection of this area near Marysville from the backwater of Feather River floods. Mad River, $38,600,000 for construction of a multiple-purpose dam and reservoir on the Mad River at Butler Valley. San Luis Rey, a $9,820,000 channel improvement and levee network PAGENO="0142" 128 extending from the mouth of the river at Oceanside upstream for 7 miles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this consideration. Mr. JONEs. Next is the Little Dell Reservoir, Utah. LITTLE DELL RESERVOIR~ UTAH Colonel PIcK. Mr. Chairman, the study area drains about 100 square miles of the western slopes of the Wasatch Mountains and adjoining lands within the metropolitan areas of Salt Lake City and to the Jor- dan River in north-central Utah. There are no existing Federal improvements for flood control on the streams considered in this report. A dam and reservoir for flood control and water suppiy with a capacity of 8,000 acre-feet was author- ized by the Flood Control Act of 1960 for construction by the Corps of Engineers at the Little Dell site. No work has been done. Local in- terests have constructed Mountain Dell Reservoir and a system of wells for water supply. Floods have occurred from snowmelt runoff during the months of April, May, and June. The largest of which occurred in 1952, causing damages estimated at $2.6 million. Also, there will be a shortage of firm water supply in the area by 1970. The Chief of Engineers recommends modification of the authorized project to provide for construction of a dam and reservoir on Dell Creek with facilities to divert flow from Emigration Creek, Lambs Canyon, and Mill Creek for flood control, water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement at an estimated Federal first cost of $22,664,000. The Little Dell project and the existing Mountain Dell Reservoir are to be operated as a; coordinated unit. The annual benefits are $1,841,000 and the annual charges are $1,038,000 with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8. Local interests have in- dicated willingness and ability to furnish requirements of local cooperation. Comments of the State of Utah and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. That~.ompletes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jo~s. Mr. Clausen? Mr. CLAtSEN. This $9.8 million in water supply, that will be repaid? Colonel PICK. That is correct, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. Now, that is over the life of the project? Colonel PICK. Over 50 years. Mr. SNYDER. Does this differ substantially from the authorized proj- ect in 1960? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir, this is a much larger project with more purposes. Mr. SNYDER. Same place? Colonel PICK. Same location. This is an example of a major project modification for which the Chief of Engineers determined reauthor- ization by Congress would be necessary. Mr. JONEs. Any further question? There will be inserted at this point in tile record the statement of my colleague, Hon. Sherman P. Lloyd. PAGENO="0143" 129 STATEMX~T OP HON. SHERMAN P. LLOYD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP UTAH Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I submit this statement in support of authorization of the Little Dell project, to be constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Parley's Canyon east of Salt Lake City, Utah, which lies in my congressional district. I have sponsored H.R. 8757 in the House of Representatives. Similar authorizing legislation has been sponsored in the Senate by Senator Wallace F. Bennett, and following my statement, I would like to submit a statement on his behalf, and one on behalf of William C. Hague, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City. I believe the evidence shows this project to he justifiable, both economically, and from the standpoint of its primary purpose, which is to protect the Metropolitan Salt Lake City area from the danger of floods. In addition, the project has a vital, albeit secondary func- tion, in providing an additional source of water to support an ex- panding population and growing economy. The Little Dell project, as recommended, consists of a multipurpose dam and 50,000 acre-foot reservoir, to be constructed on Dell Creek, together with facilities to divert water from Emigration Creek, Lambs Canyon, and Mill Creek. Total first cost of the project is estimated at $23,250,000. Local contribution will be approximately $11,021,000, in- cluding $586,000 for lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations; $9,800,000 for water supply benefits, and $635,000 for recreation ~nd fish and wildlife enhancement. This represents an estimated net cost to the Federal Government of $12,229,000, plus annual operation and maintenance costs to be borne both by local interests and the Federal Government. Estimated average annual benefits of the project are $1,841,000, with an estimated annual average cost of $1,038,000. The high local contribution toward this project reflects the area's need and desire for this Federal assistance. Despite many years of local effort to alleviate the serious flood problems which the Salt Lake City area faces, floods continue to present a constant threat to people and property. The Salt Lake County area is unique in both its topography and water problems. Although the average annual precipitation is approx- imately only 14 inches, nearly 70 percent of the annual precipitation occurs as snowfall during the winter months on stream watersheds in the high Wasatch Mountains east of the city. This results in an ex- tremely heavy snowmelt runoff during the period from April to June. When an unusually heavy snowcover is combined with a warm spring and spring storms, the result most often sends water running down city streets. This condition last prevailed in 1962, when the major transcity trib- utaries to the Jordan River, Parleys, Emigration, Red Butte, and City Creeks, responded early to unusually high temperatures. By late April, water was gushing down one of the city's main streets, and gravel dikes as much as 6 feet high had to be placed along the street to contain it. As it was, the 1952 flood innundateci 1,200 acres of highly developed urban area, causing an estimated $2.5 million in damages. Since that time, the population of the county has risen 61 percent, PAGENO="0144" 130 while assessed total valuation has risen 56 percent. however, the area still faces the same flood threat with what, despite local effort, is basically the same drainage and flood control system. Although single floods of recent years have not reached the record magnitude of the 1952 flood, it is still estimated by the Corps of Engineers that average future damages from all floods in the Jordan River Basin, which m- cludes all of the Salt Lake metropolitan area, will reach over $2 mil- lion aiinually. The Little Dell reservoir would collect surplus flows from Dell, Parleys, Red Butte, Emigration, and Mill Creeks, which drain an area of about 110 square miles on the western slopes of the Wasatch Moun- tains and adjoining bench lands within the metropolitan area. Red Butte, Emigration, and Parleys Creek, comprising what is known as the 13th south stream group, provide the major trouble during the flood of 1952. The proposed Little Dell project, therefore, would great- ly alleviate, if not entirely eliminate, the possibility of a recurrence of the 1952 flood. Although Little Dell is primarily for flood control, its water supply benefits should not be minimized. In an independent engineering report on the Little Dell project prepared in 1962 by Berger Associates, Inc., a consulting engineering firm for the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, it was noted that based on the estimated population growth, Little Dell or a similar new source of supply would be needed in the Salt Lake metropolitan area by about 1969. Although earlier planned delivery to Salt Lake County of water from the Bureau of Reclamation's central Utah project has diminished the immediate peril of water shortage somewhat, it is still apparent that to support the projected population growth of Salt La.ke County, which is expected to top 1 million by 2020, water from both Little Dell and the central Utah project, as well as other new sources, will be needed. In this connection, another Berger Associates, Inc., study in 1964 on "Future Requirements for Water in the Salt Lake Metropolitan Area" pointed out that "development of new sources of supply will continue to be needed at 8- to 15-year intervals after 1970-depending on the rate of population growth and the amount of water obtained from each new source of supply." The report went on to recommend immediate construction of the Little Dell project, plus a subscription for central Utah project water. By all estimates, water from the Little Dell project would be suffi- cient to sustain a growth of 100,000 persons in the metropolitan area by conserving the surplus flows from the major drainage areas, which are now wasted into Great Salt Lake. Another important aspect is the recreational benefit which this project will provide to a highly populated urban area. The close prox- imity of the project to Interstate Highway 80 puts it literally in the backyard of nearly a half million persons. In summary, I believe the evidence shows conclusively that Federal participation in the Little Dell project is both justifiable and appro- priate under provisions of flood control law. Local interests in the area are desirous of this assistance, and are willingly committing themselves to pay their full and fair share of the costs. PAGENO="0145" 131 This project was originally authorized by Congress* in 1960 at an estimated cost of over $6 million. However, the population and indus- trial growth of the area in the past few years has been such that the plan had to be enlarged to fully cope with that growth. Just for example, the population of Salt Lake County has risen from 211,623 in 1940, to an estimated 450,000 today. In a study made in 1963, the Bureau of Economics and Business Research of the Urn- versity of Utah forecast that the present high rate of population growth in the county would diminish, and that the average annual rate for the 1960 to 2020 period would be approximately 1.9 percent per year. This would result in a population in the county of about 893,000 by 1988, or 1,160,000 by the year 2020. Nonagricultural employment in the State of Utah in 1966 was 321,283, and wages from those jobs now account for nearly .50 percent of Utah's source of personal income. Of that total employment, 165,533 of those jobs, or nearly half, were located in Salt Lake County. I believe, therefore, that the need for this project is doubly urgent, and I strongly recommend expeditious approval by this committee. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Congressman Lloyd. I will insert into the record at this point statements from Senators Wallace F. Bennett and Frank E. Moss of Utah. (Statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT BY SENATOR WALLACE F. BENNETT, REPUBLICAN-TJTAH, BEFORE THE HOUSE PUI3LIC WORKS COMMITTEE, FLOOD CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE lITTLE DELL, UTAH PROJECT Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to testify today in full support of the Little Dell Project near Salt Lake City, Utah, for flood control, water de- velopment and recreational purposes. I have been working with interested Utahns for more than 12 years for this project, which would create a 50,000 acre-foot reservoir to help prevent flooding and provide water to Salt Lake Valley during critical periods. Besides providing flood protection, Little Dell would take care of the Salt Lake metropolitan area's water needs for 20 to 25 years, sustain an anticipated growth of 100,000 persons in the area, and provide certain recreation `benefits. Construction of the dam proposed in Parleys Canyon nearly two miles above Mountain Dell Dam is an inevitable step in the development of Salt Lake Valley. For this reason, I have introduced in the Senate, S. 1549, a bill to reauthorize the Little Dell Project, hoping to expedite Congressional `action now that the final report of the Army Engineers has been received. I also fully support a similar bill introduced by my colleague, Congressman Lloyd. The need for the dam is increasingly urgent. For one thing, construction and other costs keep going up. A year ago the price tag on Little Dell was $20.5 million; now it's up to $23 million. The bill for flooding also goes up and up. Flood damage in the Salt Lake metropolitan area averages $500,000 a year and reached $2.5 million in a single flood in 1952. For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we might have speedy approval of this project so Salt Lake City can get on with `the job of controlling the water needed for a growing population and economy. PRdJEOT HISTORY I was author of a bill in the 85th Congress authorizing the dam, but action on the bill was delayed pending completion of the report of the District Engineer. At the request of the Salt Lake City Commission, I worked with the Corps of Engineers to get this portion of the rordan River Basin report completed ahead of schedule, so that Little Dell could get the priority it deserves. 97-700----68------iO PAGENO="0146" 132 Congressional authorization for the Little Dell Dam proposal was originally obtained with the addition of my earlier bill, S. 1045, as an amendment to the Flood Control Act of 1980. However, the Salt Lake City Commissioners, for a number of reasons, decided to reject the proposal, and the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City then called in an independent firm of consulting engi- neers, Berger Associates, Salt Lake City, who conducted a study under the direc- tion of E. 0. Larson, former regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation in Salt Lake City, and submitted a report in December, 1982. Whereas the original project was limited to flood control, the new proposal called for a comprehensive water development and flood control plan. In order to reauthorize the Little Dell Project, a review investigation by the Army Corps of Engineers of the enlarged project was necessary, and such a review was authorized by the Senate Public Works Committee at my request in May of 1963. The Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District submitted its findings in a preliminary report dated December 10, 1964, which accepted almost intact the project as outlined by Berger Associates. The Department of the Army transmitted a final favorable report on Sept. 12, 1967, to the Senate Committee on Public Works. The report recommends construction of a multiple-purpose dam and reservoir at the Little Dell site on Dell Creek, with a capacity of about 50,000 acre-feet, for flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife, together with facilities to divert certain water from Emigration Creek, Lambs Conyon, and Mill Creek, to be operated jointly with the existing Mountain Dell Reservoir, subject to certain conditions of local cooperation. The estimated total project first cost is ~23,250,000 with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8. PROJEOT BENEFITS The water benefit of the project is, of course, most important for the expand- ing Salt Lake metropolitan area. It is estimated that by conserving high water runoff and enabling more efficient water regulation, enough additional water will be available to supply another 100,000 population, which will assure an adequate water supply for 20 to 25 years. This Committee is well aware of the increasing per capita use of water in the United States which has gone from 90 gallons a day per person in 1900 to about 150 gallons a day in 1960. You are also aware of the tremendous industrial need for water. The production of one ton of steel requires 70 tons of water, one barrel of oil requires 18 barrels of water, and each ton of coal burned in a steam power plant requires between 600 and 1,000 tons of water. We have an interesting example of the rate at which industry can consume water in Salt Lake Valley where the Kennecott Copper Corpora- tion in its operations uses more water than does all of Salt Lake City. Some 43 per cent of Utah's population reside in Salt Lake County, and industrial and municipal water needs are expected to double by 1975. Since 1847 when the pioneers first settled in Salt Lake Valley, providing an adequate municipal water supply has been a continuing problem. Small reser- voirs on mountain streams in and adjacent to the city have been constructed, together with an extensive water distribution system. A supplemental water supply has also been obtained in recent years from the Provo River Project of the Bureau of Reclamation; but the city is outgrowing these sources and it is imperative that additional water be provided. Fortunately, the problem is not in finding the water, but merely developing a way to store it for future use. It is estimated that about 13,000 acre-feet of water is lost each year in Par- leys Canyon. The Little Dell Reservoir would drastically reduce this waste. The flood control value of the dam is also important. In most years, a flood control dam is not needed; but in unusual years, such as 1952, the awesome spec- tacle of millions of gallons of uncontrolled water coming from the melting snows in the mountains east of Salt Lake points up the fact that adequate flood control facilities are absolutely necessary if the city is to be safe. The 1952 flood inundated 1,500 homes, causing the evacuation of about 3,000 residents, and covered about 75 city blocks. Damage was estimated at more than $2.5 million. There have been 12 major floods on Parleys Creek since 1900, and the steady spread of the City eastward, putting more undeveloped land into residences, decreases the absorption of water into the ground and increases the likelihood of more and greater floods in the future unless action is taken soon. The Army board has noted that flood damage to the Salt Lake area has been averaging almost one-half million dollars a year. PAGENO="0147" 133 Recreational value of the Project will be tremendous, particularly in view of the close proximity of the reservoir to the City and to Interstate 80. The exist- ing recreational facilities in the area are limited, and with the ever-increasing population, there is an urgent need for recreation facilities in conjunction with water development. With the decision to route municipal water from storage in Little Dell Reservoir to treatment facilities only through Mountain Dell Reser- voir, the status of Little Dell would be changed from "Terminal" to "Upstream" and would thus allow all forms of recreation such as swimming and water ski- ing consistent with the potential of the area. I am happy to learn that the Corps of Engineers will cooperate fully with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Division of Water Resources to coordinate the operation of the Little Dell Project with the Central Utah Project and that the Metropolitan Water District is also willing to cooperate in this respect. The rapid increase in population and industrial development along the Wasatch Front and the apparent need for more water to serve Salt Lake City within the next few years points up the Project's value. I cannot overemphasize the importance of speeding Congressional approval of the Little Dell Project which will be such a boon to the people of the Salt Lake metropolitan area. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. HAGUE, GENERAL MANAGER, METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, FLOOD CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LiTa'~ DELL, UTAH PROJECT My name is William C. Hague. I am General Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Utah. The District is a public agency created and operating under authority of the laws of the State of Utah, for the purpose of developing, storing, transporting and treating water supplies for Salt Lake City and the metropolitan area. I take this opportunity, gentlemen, to present a brief statement in support of the Little Dell Project which would be reauthorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers. Plans for this project are the result of extensive engineering investigations both by the District and by the Corps of Engineers. In the year 1952 damaging spring floods occurred in the Salt Lake Valley flooding more than 75 blocks in the residential and business areas to a depth of two to six feet. Feasibility of constructing a flood control reservoir on Little Dell Creek in Parleys Canyon, primarily for flood control, then became of special interest to the community. Accordingly, the Corps of Engineers was requested by the Salt Lake City authorities to make studies of this project, along with studies of channel improvements on the Jordan River and tributary streams to serve as a protection against the recurrence of these damaging floods. As a result of these studies by the Corps of Engineers, construction of Little Dell Reservoir for flood control and municipal water supply was authorized by P.L. 86-645 approved in July, 1960 at an estimated cost of about $6,000,000. The original plan was based on a reservoir capacity of 8000 acre feet and a new dependable annual water supply of about 3800 acre feet. During the period 1950 to 1960 there was a substantial increase in the rate of population and industrial growth in the Salt Lake metropolitan area. The population of Salt Lake County increased from 275,000 to 387,000. This high rate is still being maintained, since the present population is more than 450,000. In view of this increase in population and industrial growth, the Board of City Commissioners requested the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City to assume responsibility for the Little Dell Project and to determine the best method in which to proceed. The District concluded that a separate and independent study should be made, oriented toward a more comprehensive ap- proach to the flood control and water supply needs of the metropolitan area rather than to the development of the Little Dell Reservoir primarily as a flood control project. An independent study by a well known firm of consulting engineers was au- thorized by the District in 1962 and the first report was completed in December of that year. The study included detailed surveys and investigations of the reser- voir and damsite, earth and rock borrow areas, and tunnel sites for the diver- sion of flood waters from Lambs Creek, Mill Creek and Emigration Creek. These latter diversions were not included in the original Corps of Engineers study. PAGENO="0148" 134 Based on the 1962 favorable report for a larger Little Dell Project, a second study was undertaken by the Metropolitan Water District in 1963 to determine future requirements for water, reservoirs, aqueducts and treatment plants in the Salt Lake metropolitan area. The objective of this study was to (1) develop a master plan for the ultimate utilization of all available water from the five comparatively small streams flowing from the Wasatch Mountains into the valley, (2) to coordinate the use of additional water from the Provo River Project as constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and by participating in the Bonnevifie Unit of the Central Utah Project of the U.S. Bureau of Recla- mation. The Studies made by the District show that the Little Dell Project with a reservoir capacity of 50,000 acre feet and diversions from Lambs Creek, Mill Creek and Emigration Creek should be constructed as soon as possible. The present project plan by the Corps of Engineers formulated after about four years of study is substantially the same as the District's plan. The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City urges reauthorization and early construction of this project by the Corps of Engineers for several reasons: 1. Flood control in Parleys Canyon is urgently needed as a protection against disastrous floods such as occurred in 1952 and that have occurred from time to time over many years. 2. The recreation value of the reservoir such as proposed for Little Dell is of tremendous value to the metropolitan area, and the Corps has given very ade- quate consideration to the recreation potential of the project. 3. Flood control of Emigration and Mill Creeks as will be provided in this project is a very important feature in the overall plan for flood control in the whole of Salt Lake County. This will be accomplished in large measure by the diversions from Lambs Creek, Mill Creek and Emigration Creek. 4. In addition to the flood control and recreation benefits Little Dell Reservoir will make available additional municipal water supplies for approximately an- other 100,000 persons. Our detailed water supply studies have indicated that shortages could occur by 1971 or 1972, should years of extremely low runoff occur such as the drouth conditions in 1934 and 1935. 5. For municipal water supply the primary purpose would be to store large volumes of water in years of average or above average runoff, for use in years of extremely low runoff. 6. Little Dell Reservoir has many other advantages as far as Salt Lake City is concerned. It is located within eight miles of the center of the city, as compared to the 42-mile distance of the Salt Lake Aqueduct from the Provo River Project, which now brings in a major portion of the city's water supply in the summer months. As soon as storage waler can be made available in Little Dell Reservoir a portion of the supply could be released to the existing Mountain Dell Reser- voir about a mile downstream and treated in an existing treatment plant and diverted into an existing pipeline for transportation to Salt Lake City. The Bureau of Reclamation has recently revised its construction plans for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project and has stated that they will be able to deliver water to the southern end of Salt Lake County, about 20 miles from Salt Lake City, in the early 1970's. As far as we are concerned, this is a very fine development and we would not expect to use the municipal and industrial supply from Little Dell in competition with any water which the Bureau might bring in. Regardless of the water supply aspects of this project, the necessity for flood control and prevention of a recurrence of large damages demand that the project go forward as fast as possible. The use and marketing of the municipal and in- dustrial supply to be made available will be fully coordinated with the present supply from the Provo River Project, of which the District now owns 61.7%, and future supplies from the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project. To summarize, Gentlemen, the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Administration urge approval and early construction of the Little Dell Project for flood control, water supply, recreation and other bene- fits. The project has many advantages over any other plan for supplying water to the heart of Salt Lake City. A filter plant is already available, a transmission line is available which will serve our needs for some time to come when the sup- ply is made available. We see no conflict in any way between this project and any current developments of the Bureau of Reclamation. We would expect to fully coordinate this project with the Bureau of Reclamation developments so that no duplication of water supply or facilities would take place. In any event, we do not believe that in our semi-arid country we will ever be able to develop too much PAGENO="0149" 135 water, and this project is only one of many that must be built to supply the needs of the area for the long-time future. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK E. Moss, DEMOCRAT, UTAH, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL, HousE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS Chairman Jones, and members of the subcommittee, I ask that the Little Dell Project, Salt Lake City Streams, on which you have a full report from the Army Corps of Engineers (Sen. Doe. 53-90th Congress), be recommended for authori- zation. I fully expect that The Little Dell Project will be included in the Omnibus Rivers and Harbors Bill which the Senate Public Works Committee expects to report later this week, and I sincerely hope that the House Committee will take similar action as soon as all hearings are completed. The project is noncontro- versial, and is very urgently needed. It was at my request that the Senate Subcommittee on Flood Control, Rivers and Harbors adopted, in May, 1963, the resolution which directed the Depart- ment of the Army to undertake the review investigation of the proposed project, and I am also the author of the Senate Bill (S. 2661) to authorize the project. So it is most satisfying to me to have Little Dell under consideration by both Senate and House Committees in the same week. I trust this means that final action will be taken before this Congress adjourns. What I am really asking is the reauthorization of the Little Dell Project. Behind that request lies a series of decisions and events which has delayed for more than ten years the construction of important flood prevention facilities which are unquestionably needed to protect the people of Salt Lake City. The Little Dell Project was first proposed in 1955, and was authorized in 1960. It grew out of a disaster which occurred in 1952 when unusually high temperatures brought on rapid melting of the snows above the transcity tribu- taries of the Jordan River, including Parleys, Emigration, Red Butte and City Creeks. In late April this heavy snow melt produced a serious flood in Salt Lake City. The main flooding came from Parley's Creek and its tributaries. Water gushed down some of the city's main streets, held back only by gravel dikes thrown up as high as six feet in some instances. Even though all possible emer- gency measures were taken, the flood waters inundated 1,200 acres of highly developed urban areas, requiring the evacuation of over 1,500 homes, and caus- ing an estimated damage of $2.5 million. Although no other single flood in recent years has reached the magnitude of the 1952 flood, the Army Corps of Engineers estimates that the average ex- pected future damage from all floods in the Jordan River Basin, which includes all of the Salt Lake metropolitan area, will reach over $2 million annually. The Little Dell Project, as authorized in 1960, provided for a dam on Parley's Creek-actually on its Dell Creek tributary-about two miles above the present Mountain Dell Dam. The project was designed mainly for flood control, although it would have provided some additional supplies of municipal water. It called for a reservoir with a capacity of 8,000 acre feet, and a new, dependable water sup- ply of about 3,800 feet. Its cost was set at about $6 million. The Corps of Engineers proceeded with some preliminary planning on the project, and submitted these plans to the Salt Lake City Commission. For a number of reasons, the Commission decided to reject the plans. For one thing, it was obvious by that time that it would be wise to look at the water problems of the area in their entirety. During the period between 1950 and 1960 the population of Salt Lake County had risen about 61 percent, and the assessed total valuation had increased to about 56 percent. Continued growth in both pop- ulation and industrial development seemed assured. What was needed was a comprehensive study of both flood control and municipal water needs of the entire metropolitan area, with emphasis on long-range planning. The Salt Lake City Commission therefore asked an independent firm of con- sulting engineers, the Berger Associates of Salt Lake City, to make a comprehen- sive study of a 110 mile drainage area along the Western slopes of the Wasatch Range adjoining metropolitan Salt Lake City. The firm did so, and results of this investigation and review were submitted in a full report to the Commission in December, 1962. The report recommended the construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir at PAGENO="0150" 136 the Little Dell site, which would be far more beneficial to the city than the origi- nal project could possibly have been. Under the new proposal the reservoir would have a capacity of about 50,000 acre feet, and would provide flood control, municipal and industrial water sup- ply, recreation and fish and wildlife benefits. It would provide facilities to divert certain water from Emigration Creek, Lambs Canyon and Mill Creek, to be col- lected and stored in the existing Mountain Dell Reservoir, subject to certain conditions of local cooperation. The total cost of the project is estimated at $23,250,000, and it has a benefit to cost ratio of 1.8. The Little Dell project before the subcommittee today is the type needed by a growing, expanding area like metropolitan Salt Lake. We now have 450,000 people in the area-over forty percent of the population in Utah. Our municipal water needs in the area will double by 1975. The water from Little Dell is ample to sustain a growth of 100,000 persons in the metropolitan area-without it we will face a shortage of a firm supply in less than ten years. The construction of the Little Dell reservoir would also give us new water- based recreational facilities which we seriously need in the area. The reservoir would be within a few minutes drive of a1most half a million people-it would provide them with an attractive new recreational site close to home. According to the studies which have been made, the water supply under the revised Little Dell project would cost less per acre foot than water from similar potential projects on Big and Little Cottonwood Creeks or from the proposed Central Utah Project now under construction by the Bureau of Reclamation. I support both Little Dell and the Central Utah Project because I am con- vinced that Utah needs the water both will make available. The sooner we develop and put to beneficial use every drop of water we have, the more secure will be our future. I ask, therefore, that this subcommittee include the Little Dell Project, Salt Lake City Streams, Utah, as proposed in the Corps of Engineers report, in the Omnibus Flood Control bill now under consideration. Before concluding, I have a second request to make of the subcommittee. I ask that another project be reauthorized, a flood control and allied purposes project on the Weber River in Utah, as embodied in my bill 5. 2024. I ask that the full text of the bill be inserted in the record of the hearings at this point, so the subcommittee may give it consideration. The Weber River Project was previously authorized in 1958. Unfortunately, Morgan County, where the project is located, was unable to raise the necessary funds to acquire the rights of way and to relocate utilities near Morgan City, both of which were necessary before the project could proceed. Therefore, the original authorization expired. Now, however, the Utah Water and Power Board has undertaken to promote flood control development in Utah, and feels that the Weber River Floor Control Project is vitally needed. The Board is convinced that with more time the diffi- culties which prevented Morgan County from taking advantage of the Federal assistance in the past can be worked out. I feel that the County should have this additional time. The bill I have introduced reauthorizes the project with an expiration date of April 16, 1972. The authorization will run out on that date unless local interests can furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that the re- quired local financial cooperation will be furnished. Mr. Chairman, there is a considerable potential for flood damage along the Weber River. I hope that the subcommittee will recommend reauthorization of the Weber River Floor Control Project, and give the local people in Morgan an opportunity to provide themselves with the protection they need for their homes and their farms. Thank you for allowing me to express my support of these two Utah projects. [S. 2024, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To provide for the reauthorization of the project on the Weber River, Utah, in the interest of flood control and allied purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding the first proviso in section 201 of the Act entitled "An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, flood control, and for other purposes", approved July 3, 1958 (72 Stat. 305), the author- PAGENO="0151" 137 ization in section 203 of such Act of projects for local protection on the Weber River, Utah, shall expire on April 16, 1972, unless local interests shall before such date furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that the required local cooperation in such project will be furnished. Mr. JONES. Next is Sweetwater River, Calif. SWEETWATER RIVER, CALIF. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the principal area of the Sweetwater River under consideration is approx- imately 6 miles southeast of the central business district of the city of San Diego. There are no existing Federal improvements for flood control. From Bonita Mesa Road to San Diego Bay, a distance of 3.4 miles, flood- water flow along the Sweetwater River will cause damage to an area that is rapidly being developed for commercial, residential, and recre- ational uses. Highways, railroads, and utilities are also subject to damage. The California Division of. Highways plans to construct an east- west freeway in the Sweetwater River Valley. Substantial economies can be realized by adopting a combined flood control and highway plan of improvement. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of 3.4 miles of channel improvement and levees as part of a combined flood control and highway project, with the improved channel being flanked along most of its length by freeway lanes. The estimated cost of the flood control portion of the combined proj - ect is $9.2 million, of which $4.9 million is Federal cost and $4.3 mil- lion is non-Federal cost. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.4. Local interests have indicated willingness to meet all requirements. Comments of the State of California and concerned Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the re- port to Congress. Since the Federa.l cost for this project is less than $10 million, the views set forth by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of January 6, 1967, submitting to you a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965, would apply. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JONES. Mr. Clausen? Mr. CLAUSEN. Both Congressmen Wilson and Van Deerlin from that city spoke to me about a lot of genuine support in tha.t entire city. Mr. JONES. You say .the flood cont.rol project and the highway proj- ect complement one another? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. In what way? Colonel PICK. The highway department savings are estimated to be approximately $650,000 and the Federal project savings are estimated to be $1,850,000. The savings result from the fact that the levees on both sides of the floodway will serve the dual purposes of right-of-way for the freeways and as levees for flood control. PAGENO="0152" 138 Mr. CLAUSEN. This type of coordination is certainly excellent. I know in my own congressional district we did this with the Klamath project and the mutual benefits to local, State and Federal interests are certainly going beyond what we had hoped for. I think this is a similar philosphy, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JoNEs. Thank you very much, Colonel. At this point we will hea.r the comments of Congressmen Van Deerlin and Wilson on the Sweetwater project. STATEMENT OF lION. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. The case for construction of the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel, in my congressional district, has already been solidily estab- lished by the Army Corps of Engineers. Rather than repeat the points that have already been made in sup- port of this project, I will simply endorse them. The need for a flood control channel in the Sweetwarter River Basin has been amply demon- strated; as matters now stand, this particular flood plain, located in the heart of one of the most rapidly growing sections of the San Diego metropolitan area, is entirely without protection. But instead of dwelling on the generally acknowledged desirability of this project, I would like to take this opportunity to make a sugges- tion which I believe is in the public interest and which I know would facilitate the timely completion of the project. My proposal is simple: An amendment in the authorization legisla- tion providing that State and local interests be reimbursed or credited for project expenses incurred in advance of a regular congressional appropriation. There are several good reasons for adding this type of assurance to the authorization bill. Perhaps the most salient point is that more than $4 million will be saved if the flood control channel can be developed in conjunction with two highway projects, the construction of State Route 54 and the widening of Interstate Route 5. The California State Division of Highways is ready to begin work on both highway undertakings. But since the State route would parallel the flood control channel, and the interstate road would cross it, our California. highway agency can do little until it knows the exact design of the flood control channel. The situation on Interstate 5 cries out for relief, which could be provided in large measure by a reimbursement clause in the legislation you are preparing. At present, this highway, San Diego's major north- south artery, narrows abruptly from eight to four lanes in the vicinity of the proposed flood control channel, creating a traffic hazard of major proportions. Obviously, the State would like to carry out the necessary remedial work; but effective planning is not possible until the flood control channel has at least been designed. In fact, the flood control channel is quite literally the key to both highway projects. Obviously, the State highway construction must be very carefully coordinated with the flood control work. And im- provements on Interstate 5 cannot proceed without foreknowledge of the precise routes of both the flood control channel and the State route with which it will connect. PAGENO="0153" 139 In preparation for this hearing, I have studied Senate Document No. 10 of the 90th Congress. This is the study by the Army Corps of Engineers entitled "Federal Reimbursement Policy for Work by States and Other Non-Federal Entities on Authorized Water Re- sources Projects." The Sweetwater River project would appear to meet all the criteria set forth in this report for the authorization of reimbursements or credits for expenses borne by non-Federal agencies in connection with projects that have been authorized by Congress but for which no Fed- eral funds have been appropriated. First, early completion of the flood control and related highway projects would clearly reduce a threat to lives and property stemming both from an unsafe highway and a complete lack of flood control protection. Second, and most pertinent, the Federal Government will save at least $2,865,000 if the three projects can be developed together. The Army report referred to earlier specifies "advance coordination" of non-Federal construction with Federal work as one of the grounds for a reimbursement guarantee, if such coordination results "in reduction of eventual Federal costs." In short, the Sweetwater project would appear to meet all the relevant criteria for this kind of assurance from Congress. The State division of highways, the State department of water resources and the county of San Diego stand ready to proceed on all three of these vital projects. But they need a repayment commitment from Congress-as has been granted in at least 17 other cases. I would also hope that at least $50,000 in seed money could be ap- propriated this year, following enactment of the authorization legis- lation, as the first installment on the $4.9 million which the Federal Government would ultimately contribute for designing and construct- ing the Sweetwater project. I recognize, however, that because of the current fiscal bind, any appropriation this session is a long-shot propo- sition at best-and I have so advised my constituents. To summarize, I strongly recommend inclusion of the Sweetwater River flood control project in the public works authorization bill which shall be reported shortly by this subcommittee and the full Public Works Committee. At the same time, I urge the subcommittee to consider a reimburse- ment feature, to both accelerate the development of worthy projects and generate very substantial savings to the Federal Government. I would like to submit at this point a statement by Henry A. Boney, chairman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, who has outlined the actions taken or planned by State and local agencies to further these projects. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN HENRY A. BONnY OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Sweetwater Flood Control Project represents an unusual combination of Federal, State and local interests. This is due to the fact that this project has a direct relationship to the construction of an interstate highway route and to a state highway route. As presently planned, the flood control channel will form the median for State Route 54 proceeding easterly from Interstate 5 to Interstate 805. Both the flood control channel and State Route 54 will inter- sect Interstate 5, with the result that properly coordinated construction as well PAGENO="0154" 140 as design and acquisition of right-of-way will result in an estimated $4,000,000 in savings of taxpayers' money. Although there is a probability that the 1972 deadline for the construction of the interstate system will be extended, this will have no bearing upon the need for the widening to full standards of Interstate 5 in the vicinity of the Sweetwater Project. At the present time, due to the heavy traffic volume on this route, there is a serious bottleneck and a definite traffic hazard. More spe- cifically, Interstate 5 is completed to its full eight lane configuration to 24th Street in National City where it narows down to four lanes north of the pro- posed Flood Control Channel. In addition to the heavy daily commuter flow on this present configuration, there is an extremely heavy traffic volume to and from the International Border on weekends and during the summer season. What is indicated and what is being sought is the concurrent design, acquisi- tion of right-of-way, and construction of the flood control project, Interstate 5 and State Route 54. According to present scheduling, Interstate 5 right-of-way acquisition will start late during the 1968-69 fiscal year and proceed during the 1969-70 fiscal year. The County of San Diego as a representative of local interests has brought this matter to the attention of the State Division of Highways, the State Department of Water Resources, and the Governor's Office of the State of California; the Army Corps of Engineers is also well aware of the need for coordination. It should also be pointed out that legislation is being sought at the State level to provide for State reimbursement of right-of-way acquisition subject to appro- priation by the Congress of planning, design or construction monies. This is a break in precedent at the state level, however, in view of the need for proper scheduling and the expeditious completion of these three projects, this action is being sought. For these reasons, we appreciate the opportunity to more fully explain the relationships involved in this project and we respectfully request that your Committtee give full consideration to recommending that the author- ization bill provide for reimbursement of any local expenditures which may be incurred in advance of full appropriation of construction monies by Congress. Such action has been taken by the Congress on a number of other occasions and we are fully convinced that the Sweetwater Project meets the criteria previously established. In conclusion, the County of San Diego is making every effort to keep the Congress informed, the State Legislature informed, as well as appropriate state and federal agencies. We believe that the proper degree of coordination can he achieved if it is realized that a moderate acceleration of certain phases of the project can be accomplished. STATEMENT OF HON. BOB WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, since you have already heard from the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the economic justification for the Sweetwater River flood control project, I shall not belabor those points except to add my urgings for approval of this project. My purpose today is to propose that the authorizing legislation be written so as to provide State and local interests with Federal reim- bursements or credits for project expenses incurred by them in advance of a congressional appropriation. This request is made because of the delicate timing involved in having the flood control project. constructed concurrently with a proposed State highway in the same area. As you know, construction of these two projects at the same time would result in a $2.8 million savings to the Federal Government and $1.2 million savings for the State of California. Recognizing that Federal funds for the Sweetwater River project are not likely to be appropriated this year, State and local interests may wish t.o advance funds for engineering and design work on the flood control project. This is because the California Division of High- ways is ready to begin work on the State highway. However, the Stat.e agency cannot do so until it knows the design and exact route PAGENO="0155" 141 of the proposed flood control channel which will serve as the median between the opposing lanes of traffic. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that it has the manpower-time capability to conduct $700,- 000 worth of engineering and design work on the flood control project 1fl fiscal 1969. Should advance funds become available to finance this preconstruction planning, it would give us a "leg up" on meeting the 1970-71 timetable for start of construction on the flood control and highway projects. This savings of nearly $3 million in Federal funds should not be overlooked, especially now when Congress is being asked to put a heavier tax burden on Americans to help overcome the economic crisis in our country. Thank you for your interest and attention. Mr. JONES. The next project is streams in the vicinity of Fairfield, Calif. FAIRFIELD~ CALIF. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Fair- field, Calif., is located about 40 miles northeast of San Francisco. The study area comprises the combined drainage area of five streams in the vicinity of that city. They drain an area of 43 square miles. There is iio existing Federal project in the vicinity of Fairfield. The major flood problem is caused by inadequate stream channel capacities which cause overbank flooding. The problem is aggravated in the tidal reaches by the backwater effect of high tides. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends con- struction of 3 miles of diversion channels, drop structures, detention basins and 11 miles of stream channel improvements and recreation facilities. The usual items of local cooperation for local protection and recrea- tion projects of this type are required. Local interests have indicated willingness to meet all requirements. The estimated Federal cost is $2,610,000 and the non-Federal cost is estimated to be $2,610,000 also. Average annual benefits and costs are $495,000 and $215,000, respectively, with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.3. The report has been submitted to the State of California and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JoNEs. The next project is Jack and Simmerly Sloughs, Calif. JACK AND SIMMERLY SLOUGHS~ CALIF. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, Jack and Simmerly Sloughs are tribu- tary to the Feather River at Marysville, Calif., and drain an area of about 55 square miles. There are no existing Federal improvements for flood control at Jack Simmerly Sloughs. Levees that have been constructed along the Feather and Yuba Rivers, Reclamation District 10, and the city of Marysville affect the area. Floods in the Jack and Simmerly Sloughs area are primarily from backwater of Feather River floods. The most severe flood occurred in December 1955, causing damages estimated to be $623,000, 1968 base PAGENO="0156" 142 price. The most recent flood was in December 1964, damages were $310,000. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends con- struction of about 6.7 miles of levee, a 5.3-mile-long flood bypass chan- nel and interior drainage facilities. Estimated Federal and non-Federal costs are $1,570,000 and $1,730,- 000, respectively. Local interests have indicated willingness to provide the required local cooperation. Annual flood control benefits are esti- mated to be $252,000 and ammal costs $142,000 and the benefit-cost ratio is 1.8. The report has been submitted to the State of California and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Next is Mad River, Calif. MAD RIVER, CALIF. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, the Mad River, which drains an area of 495 square miles in northern California, flows northwesterly to the Pacific Ocean about 290 miles north of San Francisco. The existing Federal project for flood control provides for a levee on the North Fork at Blue Lake. Federal funds amounting to $916,000 were expended on emergency work following the floods of 1955 and 1964. The city of Eureka constructed Sweasey Dam in 1939 which has now silted up. In 1962, the. Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District constructed Ruth Dam for water supply. The Mad River Basin is subject to severe winter storms which cause flooding to agricultural, industrial, and urban areas in the lower reaches of the river. Damages caused by the two largest floods of rec- ord, 1955 and 1964 are estimated at $1.6 million and $5.3 million, respectively. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends con- struction of a multiple-purpose dam and reservoir on the Mad River at the Butler Valley site for flood control, water supply, and recrea- tion at an estimated Federal cost of $38.6 million of which $16 million is reimbursable for water supply and $3 million is reimbursable for recreation. Annual charges are $1,680,000 and annual benefits are $2,810,000 with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.7. Local interests have indicated willingness to meet the requirements of local cooperation. The report has been submitted to the State of California and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Con- gress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Mr. Cla.usen, do you have a statement? Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in support of water resources development and improvement of the Mad River, PAGENO="0157" 143 Humboldt County, Calif., by the construction of a darn and reservoir on the Ma.d River at the Butler Valley site for flood control, water supply, and recreation. A serious flood problem exists in the Mad River Basin and it is estimated that future floods will cause average annual damages of $438,000. Further, there is increasing need for additional water for municipal and industrial purposes in the Mad River Basin and con- tiguous areas, and there is a requirement for additional outdoor rec- reation development to meet expanding recreational demands. Con- struction of a rockflll dam 350 feet high and 1,850 feet long, and creation of a reservoir having a capacity of 460,000 acre-feet, would eliminate nearly all flood damage downstream from the dam and would develop a firm supplemental water supply yield of 160,000 acre-feet annually, which, in com~bination with existin~ water supply sources, would meet the needs of the Mad River Basin for the for- seeable future. An estimated 2 million visitors annually could be accommodated for water oriented recreation at the reservoir. Pro- visions should be included for the mitigation of fish and wildlife resulting from construction and operation of the project. Estimated cost to *the United States for inItial construction is $35,100,000 and $3,500,000 for future construction and additional recreational facilities. Net construction cost to the United States after reimbursement by local interests for water supply and recreation, is estimated at $18,300,000. Mr. Chairman, I cannot overstate the urgent need for this additional source of water supply to meet the increasing industrial and municipal demands in the Humboldt Bay area. Assurance `of an adequate water supply would greatly increase the possibility of attracting much needed new `industry to this depressed area, and would provide local residents with water at a much lower rate `than they are presently compelled to pay. In the same regard, development of recreational facilities on the proposed reservoir would attract tourists and vacationists to the area, ther~by further bolster- ing the local economy. Finally, construction of the proposed dam and reservoir would be a definite enhancement to the local tax base. it is unfortunate indeed that communities so close to such vast potential water supplies should have to suffer from a shortage of this vital commodity. Colonel, the reports from the agencies themselves are in transit and will `be submitted to the committee once you have received them all? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir; we have received favorable reports from Agriculture, HEW, and the State of California. We understand that the report from Transportation is in the mail and we have not heard from the Department of Interior. Mr. JONES. At this point, there will be inserted in the record state- ments relating to Mad River, Calif., project. (The statements follow:) HUMBOLDT BAY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, Eureka, Calif., June 18, 1968. Subject: Butler Valley Project, Mad River Basin, Calif. HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: The Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, which encompasses the major urban area of Northwestern California and includes approximately PAGENO="0158" 144 80-percent of the population of Humboldt County, California, herewith submits to the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives that it is fully in concurrence with the scope of the Butler Valley Project, Mad River, Cali- fornia, as proposed by the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. We further submit that by Resolution No. 182 of the Board of Directors of Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District, a copy of which is attached hereto, the District has indicated its willingness to enter in contracts for the purchase of water for the repayment of the portion of construction costs of the Butler Valley Project allocated to water supply, which amount is presently estimated to be approximately $15,600,000 plus interest during construction. The District sincerely requests favorable consideration of the Public Works Committee of the Butler Valley Project as the Project w-ill provide, in addition to the alleviation of staggering annual flood damages, the necessary water requirements for orderly and progressive growth of the Humboldt Bay area. The Project is needed immediately as the recent Industrial Report of Humboldt County prepared in conjunction with Economic Development Administration points out that the economic growth of the Humboldt area is dependent upon the availability of domestic and industrial water, an item which is now unavailable. The District again sincerely solicits the Public Works Committee approval of the Butler Valley Project. \Tery truly yours, A. J. GOSSELIN, Presideut, Board of Directors. RESOLUTION No. 182 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE HUMBOLDT BAY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT DECLARING LOCAL COOPERATIOI~ ON THE PART OF THE DISTRICT WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR CERTAII~ FEATURES OF A PROTECT FOR FLOOD CONTROL, WATER CONSERVATION, RECREATION AND ALLIED PURPOSES IN BUTLER VALLEY, MAD RIVER BASIN, HUMBOLDT AND TRINITY COUNTIES, CALIF. Whereas the District Engineer, San Francisco District office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is in the process of completing a report entitled "Interim Review Report for Water Resources Development on Mad River, California" which includes a plan of improvement of a project referred to as Butler Valley Proj- ect, and Whereas the said Butler Valley Project is currently proposed to be constructed to provide a reservoir with gross storage capacity of 460,000 acre-feet, including storage for flood control, water supply, recreation and fish mitigation, and Whereas the proposed project would provide storage to yield 160,000 acre-feet of annual water supply for municipal and industrial uses, and Whereas the Federal Water Supply Act of 1958, provides that the Federal Government could finance the cost of constructing the project provided local agencies would give assurances to pay or repay with interest at a rate estab- lished by the Secretary of Treasury for that portion of the construction cost allocated to water supply in accordance with the Water Supply Act of 1958, and Whereas the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District has contracted to sell practically all of the developed municipal and industrial water volumes available to it, and Whereas a substantial and assured supply of municipal and industrial water is necessary for continued growth and development of the area served by Said District; Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Board of Directors of the Humboldt Bay Muflicipal Water District, That it is the intention of the District to cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in developing the resources of the Mad River Basin; that the District approves in principle the proposed program, and intends to take any and all actions within its legal authority to meet said conditions of local cooperation for inclusion of storage within the proposed reservoir for water supply, as follows: 1. To adjust all claims concerning water rights arising from the construc~ tion and operation of the works; 2. To enter into a contract, satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army, pro- viding for reimbursement to the United States, with interest at a rate estab- lished by the Secretary of Treasury for that portion of the construction cost allocated to water supply in accordance with the Water Supply Act of 1958 presently determined to be 47.6 percent of the construction cost of the project exclusive of specific costs to recreation and presently estimated at $15,600,- 000 plus interest during construction on this amount; PAGENO="0159" 145 3. To reimburse the United States for the maintenance and operation cost allocated to water supply beginning when such supply is first used, presently estimated to be equal to 5~ percent of the total costs for maintenance and operation exclusive of that for specific costs for recreation, and presently estimated at $100,000 annually; 4. To hold and save the United States free from damages due to the con- struction and operation of the works related to the water supply delivery. Passed, Approved, and Adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District this 14th Day of December, 1967, by the following vote: Ayes: Directors Slack, Johnson, Gosselin, Hilfiker and Matthews. Noes: Directors: None. Absent: Directors: None. A. J. G05sELIN, President of the Board of Directors of the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District of the County of Humboldt, State of California. Attest: CARL A. JOHNSON, Secretary-Treasurer of the Board of Directors of the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District of the County of Humboldt, State of California. Congressman DON H. CLAUSEN, EUREKA, CALIF., June 21, 1968. House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Humboldt County with 715,000 people dependent on the construction and de- velopment of the Mad River water resources, or Butler Valley Dam, your con- sideration and help to solve flood, conservation, irrigation, recreation, residual and industrial water will be greatly appreciated. We are very short of water. EUREKA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, VICTOR C. N0vERNI0, President. R. F. DENBO. Hon. DON CLAUSEN, EUREKA, CALIF., June 25, 1968. House Of/Ice Building, Washington, D.C.: The Board of Supervisors of Humboldt County strongly urges that you make every effort possible to assure inclusion of Humboldt Harbor improvements and the Butler Valley project in omnibus bill now under consideration by Congress. The economic impact of both these projects are vital to Humboldt future growth and development. It is hoped that you will vigorously fight any attempt to re- move the projects from any omnibus bill adopted. ELWYN LINDLEY, Chairman, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors. Congressman DON CLAUSEN, BLUE LAKE, CALIF., June 2.5, 1968. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: The Butler Valley Dam is of great importance to Blue Lake Valley and all Humboldt County. The Blue Lake Chamber of Commerce asks your full sup- port in seeking the earliest possible development of this project for the benefit of our people and northwestern California. We sincerely appreciate your every effort on behalf of the Butler Valley Dam. BLUE LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, JOHN THOMPSON, Presiclen t. Hon. GEORGE FALLON, Jnne 18, 1968. House Public Works Committee. DEAR Sin: Anticipating your consideration for approval of the Butler Valley Dam, we in the Arcata area feel that any information we may be able to supply might be advantageous to our area. We favor the Butler Valley project for a number of reasons. First, it would supply an adequate water supply for the area for years to come and would enhance the possibility of our enticing new industry into the PAGENO="0160" 146 area. We have abundant water supply in the area unharnessed and the residents pay a premium water rate at present. The Dam would alleviate water problems for generations to come. Secondly, this area is a highly depressed area economically and the con- struction would greatly alleviate unemployment during the construction of the Dam. Third, the potential for recreation on the proposed lake developing would add greatly to the pleasure of residents and tourists also add economic stability to the area through added tourist attractions. The river as is, has flooded many times in the Arcata Bottoms area doing untold damage to the farms and industrial plants. Many bridges have been de- molished or damaged from floods upstream in the Blue Lake area. Construction of a Dam would eliminate flooding problems below the Dam, be a great value economically to the area, provide jobs, create a permanent and economical water supply for our area with water left over for more arid areas. Again we strongly urge your approval of the Butler Dam project. Sincerely yours, ERNEST M. PARK, President, Arcata Area Chamber of Commerce. Congressman DON CLAUSEN, BLUE LAKE, CALIF., June 27,1968. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: Support Butler Valley project necessary for growth north coast shortage of water industrial and recreational city of Fortuna. BLUE LAns CITY CoUNcIL. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, Eureka, Calif., June 24, 1968. Re Butler Valley Dam. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, Rayburn House Office Building, TVash- ington, D.C. DEAR Sm: The Board of Supervisors of the County of Humboldt has asked me, as its chairman, to write to you urging your support of the Butler Valley Dam proposal currently before the House Committee on Public Works. The cities Eureka and Arcata, and indeed the entire Humboldt Bay region, are wholly dependent on the Mad River for water. At present, all developed water sources on the Mad River are wholly committed, and there is, in fact, a periodic shortage of developed water. At the other extreme, in the winter of 1964-196~, the Mad River cost the people millions of dollars in flood damage. A third factor to be considered is recreation. Every economic study and gen- eral plan report made on Humboldt County in recent years has stressed the re- creational potential of the county. Accordingly, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Humboldt has, `by resolution, declared its intention to provide for one-half of the initial cost of incorporating recreation features in the Butler Valley Dam, and to keep and maintain the recreational features of the dam. The Butler Valley Dam will protect the Mad River Valley against future floods, wifi provide recreation for residents, will provide adequate supplies of water for irrigation, domestic and industrial uses in the Humboldt Bay region. Accordingly, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Humboldt, and myself, as its chairman, earnestly urge you to give your full support to the proposal for Butler Valley Dam, and we earnestly urge your Committee to report favor- ably on the proposal. Very truly yours, ELWYN L. LINDLEY, Chairman. DON CLAUSEN FORTUNA, CALIF., June 24, 1968. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: The Butler Valley Dam is of great importance to the city of Blue Lake and all of Humboldt County. The Blue Lake City Council asks your full support in seeking the earliest possible development of this project for the benefits of all `the people of northwestern California. We sincerely appreciate your every effort on behalf of the Butler Valley Dam. BLUE LAKE CITY COUNCIL. PAGENO="0161" 147 SACRAMENTO, CALIF., June 17, 1968. Hon. DON CLAUSEN, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We have sent telegrams to Lt. Gen. William F. Cassidy, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army and copy to Lt. Col. L. A. Pick advising him that we concur in the communication sent to him June 14, by the State of California. Resources agency supporting early authorization for the proposed report en- titled "Interim Review Report for Water Resources Development on the Mad River in Humboldt and Trinity Counties." Further, that early construction of this project is vital to the economy of these counties and to the State of Cali- fornia. We understand this item is before the public works committee tomorrow. We will appreciate learning of the committee's disposition of this project. Kindest personal regards, Senator RANDOLPH COLLIRR, Assemblyman FRANK BELOTTI. THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA, Sacramento, Calif., June 14, 1968. Lt. Gen. WILLIAM F. CASSIDY, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. DEai~ GENERAL CA55IDY: This is in response to your letter dated May 31, 1968 requesting the State of California's official review and comment on your proposed report entitled "Interim Review Report for Water Resources Development on Mad River, Humboldt and Trinity Counties, California" dated March 1968 and as modified by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors' letter dated May 7, 1968. The State of California generally approves of this project and recommends the project for early authorization and further concludes the project is in conform- ance with the California Water Plan and is economically justified. It is our understanding that the County of Humboldt will assume the nonfederal costs relating to recreation and that the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District will assume the costs associated with the water supply purpose. The State of California's approval and recommendation for authorization is hereby given with the understanding that continued coordination will be main- tained with all interested federal, state and local agencies during the advanced planning stages and prior to construction with respect to all project purposes and functions. In addition, and specifically, this approval and recommendation for authoriza- tion is made with the following understanding and on the condition that adequate lands, facilities, flows, development and operational measures will be provided as part of the project for the protection and maintenance of the State's fish and wildlife resources to the mutual satisfaction of the State and tha Federal Agencies involved, including the necessary federal funds for operation and main- tenance. This wilJ also include a determination of responsibility for operation and maintenance of the fish and wildlife mitigation measures and facilities and therefore assumes that this determination has not been made by the last sentence of paragraph 15 of the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors dated May 7, 1968. These provisions, plans and responsibilities are to be deter- mined during the advanced planning stages and prior to appropriation of funds for land acquisition or project development. We appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project. Sincerely yours, NORMAN B. LIVERMORE, Jr., Administrator. BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF HUMBOLDT AI~D DEL NORTE COUNTIES, Eureka, Calif., December 19, 1966. Re Butler Valley Dam. Hon. DONALD H. CLAUSEN, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sm: We are re~uesting your full support of the proposed Butler Valley Dam. it is our opinion that legislation should be stepped up so that construction can start at the earliest possible date. 97-700--68-------ii PAGENO="0162" 148 Our community needs more water so that present pulp mill companies can operate at full capacity and continue with any proposed expansion programs which they may have for future development in this area. Cities and service districts would have a supply source to provide ample water for other types of industry to locate in this area, providing diversification of industry-there- fore, a more stable economy in the community. The affording of flood control and recreational facilities are two other prime factors to be considered in a project of this nature. Our organization feels that dams and flood control are long overdue in the North Coast area. We therefore urge you to use your good office to the utmost to secure funds for construction of the Butler Valley Dam on the Mad River in Humboldt County. We feel that the planning stage for flood control in this area is long past and the people are due for some action. Respectfully yours, BILL YARBR0UGH, Secretary-Treasurer, Humboldt-Del Norte County Building Trades. PLACER CREEK, WALLACE, IDAHO Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Placer Creek drains an area of about 16.6 square miles in northern Idaho and discharges into the south fork of the Coeur d'Alene River at the city of Wallace, Idaho. There are no existing Federal improvements for flood control at Wallace Local interests have constructed intermittent flood protective works providing a low degree of protection, and which usually require major repairs after floods. Overbank flooding within the city of Wallace results from in- adequate channel capacities and restrictive bridges and culverts which catch debris and dam the channel. The most severe flood of record occurred in December 1933, causing damages estimated to be about $1 million, 1967 price levels. The most recent damaging flood was in December 1964 when damages on the order of $890,000 were sustained. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends con- struction of about 5.000 feet of rectangular concrete channel and an upstream debris barrier. The estimated Federal cost is $1,510,000 and the estimated non- Federal cost is $230,000. Local interests have indicated willingness to provide the required local cooperation. Annual benefits are estimated to be $132,000 and annual costs $75,900 and the benefit-cost ratio is 1.7. The report is being submitted to the State of Idaho and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to the Con- gress by the Secretary of the Army. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Upper Snake River, Lucky Peak, Twin Springs, Idaho, is next. UPPER SNAKE RIVER, LUCKY PEAK, TWIN SPRINGS, IDAHO Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, the area under consideration is located in the Boise River Basin, a tributary of the Columbia River, upstream from the city of Boise, Idaho. The existing Federal flood control project provides for a dam on the Boise River about 12 miles above Boise which was completed by the Corps of Engineers in 1955. The Bureau of Reclamation has con- PAGENO="0163" 149 structed three irrigation reservoirs in the area: Lake Lowell, Arrow- rock, and Anderson Ranch. Extreme floods, exceeding the control capabilities of the present reservoir system, would damage urban development and inundate a large part of the irrigated farmland. There are also needs for water supply, water quality and power. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends con- struction of power generating facilities at Lucky Peak 1)am, a new reregulating and diversion dam below the present structure, and a multiple purpose dam and reservoir at the Twin Springs site on the Bois River upstream from Lucky Peak Dam at an estimated Federal cost of $80.3 million for construction. The annual costs are $3,465,000 and the annual benefits are $5,855,000 giving a benefit-cost ratio of 1.7. The report is in process to the State of Idaho and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. At this point in the record the statement of the Honor- able James A. McClure will be inserted. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES A. MCCLURE, FIRST DISTRICT, IDAHO, ON UPPER SNAKE RIVER, LUCKY PEAK, TWIN SPRINGS, IDAHO Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit a state- ment concerning the Placer Creek and Lucky Peak-Twin Springs projects under consideration today. Subcommittee action, however, may be somewhat prema- ture. My office has been informed by the Corps of Engineers that neither agency nor State reports have been requested on either project as yet, nor is the Corps' own study completed. Just why this time lag has occurred, I am unable to say. Certainly these are not new proposals that suddenly dropped out of the blue. Neither can I understand what the Army is doing up here testifying in behalf of projects for which the preliminary work is far from complete. A substantial number of people in Idaho feel these two projects are vitally important. And in the case of Lucky Peak-Twin Springs, an equally substantial number of people have raised doubts as to its desirability. I think the Corps' testimony today does both of these groups a great dis- service. Those who support the project have had their position undermined by corner-cutting tactics, while those opposed have been denied their day in court. To the best of my knowledge the Placer Creek project is indeed noncontrover- sial, and I endorse it. But until we can evaluate the pros and cons regarding Lucky Peak-Twin Springs, I am unable to give it either my endorsement or my disapproval. Regardless, it is incumbent upon the Corps of Engineers to quit stalling around and get the reports in on this project in order that a proper decision can be reached swiftly. SAN L1JIS REY RIVER, CALIF. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, the San Luis Rey River drains an area of 538 square miles in southern California and flows generally west- ward through San Diego County to the Pacific Ocean at Oceanside. There are no existing Federal flood control improvements. Local interests have constructed a flood control levee at the mouth and Hen- shaw Dam 50 miles upstream for water supply. These works will be incorporated in the recommended plan of improvement. Recurring floods cause damages to residential and commercial prop- erties, and to crops, utilities, and bridges. A repetition of the 1916 flood under present conditions would cause an estimated $4,200,000 in damages. PAGENO="0164" 150 The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends chan- iiel improvements and levees at an estimated Federal cost of $7.9 million for construction. The annual costs are $389,000 and the annual benefits are $595,000 with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5. Local interests have indicated willingness to furnish requirements of local cooperation. The report has been submitted to the State of California and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Con- gress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jo~iis. At this point in the record of hearings there will be placed a letter from our distinguished colleague, the Honorable James B. Utt. (The letter follows:) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, lVashington, D.C., June 22, 1968. Hon. GEORGE FALLON, Chairm4ln, Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DJrAR COLLEAGUE: Considered by the Corps of Engineers to be advisable, the improvement of the San Luis Rey River, in San Diego County, California, for flood control purposes is most vital to the area. The proposed improvement consists of the construction of a 7.2 mile long channel culminating in the Pacific Ocean at Oceanside, California, the Federal cost for which is estimated by the Corps of Engineers at $7,900,000. The benefit- cost ratio is 1.5. San Diego County is growing at a rate surpassing most other areas in the country. Tax revenue to the Federal government is also increasing proportion- ately. Effective flood control, by preventing seasonal damage, reduces loss of federal revenues, and at the same time, through appreciation of adjacent prop- erty, provides a larger tax base. I will sincerely appreciate any assistance that can be given towards the authorization of this project. Cordially yours, JAMES B. UTT, Member of Congress. Mr. JONES. Next is Tao Stream, Maui, Hawaii. lAO STREAM~ MA1Ji~ HAWAII Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, lao Stream drains a portion of the slopes of the West Maui Mountains on the island of Maui, and its lower course runs into the sea just to the east of the town of Wailuku, the Maui County seat. The Corps of Engineers completed a clearing and snagging project in the lower reach of Tao Stream at a cost of $48,900. No other improve- inents have been constructed by Federal agencies on the stream. Maui County has expended about $582,000 for channel improvements and levees which do not provide adequate protection. The severest flood of record occurred in January 1916 resulting in the loss of 13 lives. One other life was lost in the flood of December 1950. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a debris basin and levees and channel improvement at an estimated Federal cost of $1,660,000. The estimated non-Federal cost is $240,000. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.3. Local interests have indicated willingness to provide the required local cooperation. The comments of the State of Hawaii and Federal agencies are favorable. PAGENO="0165" 151 The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. Since the Federal cost for this project is less than $10 million, the views set forth by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of January 6, 1961, submitting to you a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 would apply. This completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLATJSEN. That debris basin, it is purely a collection basin for debris or will it provide anything in the way of water quality control downstream of any M. & I. potential-M. & I. water supply or purely debris basin collection? Colonel PICK. No, sir; the streams in Hawaii are very steep and there is a tremendous amount of rock and other debris that is carried downstream during periods of high flow. This basin is designed to catch this d~bris and to keep it from clog- ging up the flood channels so that the waters can proceed unimpeded to the sea. Mr. CLAUSEN. Will this require annual maintenance costs? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir; the debris basin has to be cleaned out in order for it to function properly. Local interests are required to do this. Mr. JONES. That concludes the projects to be presented by Colonel Pick. In order that the Chair can receive statements to be made a part of the record I will ask unanimous consent that he and Mr. Clausen ~an receive statements and submit them for the record in the appro- priate projects. Mr. CLAUSEN. This would include statements that members may wish to insert ~ Mr. JONES. Pertinent to the projects. Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes. Mr. JONES. Then the committee will recess now until 2 o'clock and take up the 14 basins. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. JONES. The subcommittee will be in order. We have a continuation of the flood control projects to `be presented by the corps. `The projects this afternoon scheduled are the basin authorizations, some 14 basins. These are being presented by General Noble. General. STATEIV[ENT OF BRIG. GEN. CHARLES 0. NOBLE, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OP CHIEF OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY HARRY COHEN, CHIEF, PROGRAMS DIVISION, CIVIL WORKS DIRECTOR-Resumed General NOBLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are asking your consideration of an increase during this session of Congress in the monetary authorization. BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATIONS Beginning with the 1936 and 1938 Flood Control Acts, Congress has approved a number of basin and project plans but provided limited PAGENO="0166" 152 authority for appropriations. This limitation on authority has been increased by the Congress periodically to permit proceeding on sched- ule with the construction of the projects in the authorized plan. At tue present time, there are 20 basin development plans, subject to monetary authorization limitations. The authorization provided to date, including that provided last year in passage of Public Law 90-17, is, in most instances, adequate for work to be performed during the 1968 construction season, but it is not sufficient to cover the funding requests in the President's budget for 1969 nor for the 1969 construc- tion season. Deficiencies in monetary authorization will exist in 13 basins, total- ing about $469 million through the end of calendar year 1969. Based on our projection for calendar year 1970, the deficiencies for the 2 years would involve 14 basins and the total deficit would amount to about $997 million. The details of the monetary authorization have been furnished to the committee showing the deficit in each individual basin as projected through calendar years 1969 and 1970.1 I would like to illustrate the concept of the need for additional monetary authorization by referring to the chart depicting the situa- tion in the Ohio Basin. In the Ohio Basin, the total estimated cost of all authorized pro- jects in the basin plan is $1,349 million. The present limit of the amount which can be appropriated to advance the construction of authorized projects in the basin is $1,053 million. The appropriations through fiscal year 1968 total $1,023 million. With the budget request for fiscal year 1969, the total appropriation will reach $1,056 million which exceeds the monetary limit of $1,053 million. The projection of appropriation requirements through calendar year 1970 would bring the total monetary authorization needed to $1,151 million. As shown on the chart, this would exceed the monetary limitation on appropria- tions by some $98 million. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. I am available to answer any questions and Mr. Cohen, head of our programs division, is also here to assist in answering the questions. Mr. JONES. I think we ought to discuss the individual basins, General Noble. General NOBLE. All right, sir. WTe have some 14 basins, sir, that are involved in shortages of author- ization through 1970; 13 of these are involved in the calendar year 1969 time frame. The first basin, the Alabama-Coosa River Basin, we have an ap- proved budget in fiscal year 1969 of $28 million. We. estimate that our deficit through the end of calendar year 1969-that will carry us through the construction season of next year-is $29 million. And projecting our need iii authorization through calendar year 1970, it would be $65 million. That is comparable to the $98 million deficit I just noted for the Ohio River Basin. Mr. JONES. Now, what is the nature of the works? Do you have a prospectus of the work that has been accomplished on the project? What is to be done with the $29 million? How is it to be invested? Do we have that? General NOBLE. Yes, sir; we do. The statement includes all of this, sir. 1Seep. ~ii. PAGENO="0167" 153 Mr. JONES. May we have those statements? General NOBLE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have a complete analysis for each basin showing the total amount authorized and the deficits: Mr. CLAUSEN. Is there any controversy or opposing points of view to the continuation of these basin projects, to your knowledge? General NOBLE. I am not aware of any. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Cohen? Mr. COHEN. No, sir; not for any overall basin. There may be some individual projects in these basins where we may have some problems, but no major controversy is involved. Mr. JONES. Have you identified those in your narratives of the projects? Mr. COHEN. We have listed the various projects in each of the basins on which we propose to apply the additional monetary authorization, sir. Mr. JONES. You say you had some minor problems. Did you identify them in- Mr. COHEN. I have not identified them here. We could for the record, if you wish. Mr. JONES. Would you supply for the record where they exist, just in case someone brings it up? We would have the material to supply us with the information of what is involved. (See p. 711.) Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. Let me ask you this question for the record. To your knowledge, in any of the projects, these 14 projects that are being recommended, do you know of any Member of Congress that might have any opposing points of view to that which would be presented to the committee? General NOBLE. No, sir. These are mainly projects that are under- way. They are either covered by appropriations or proposed to be covered by appropriations, but we do not have monetary authoriza- tion enough to cover them. Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. It is in the category of continuing authorization. General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. Basin authorization concept. I am aware of this. But we want to make certain by asking these questions and we are holding you fellows responsible to advise us if there is any legal opposition, if there is any Member's opposition or anything that should be brought to our attention in order to give both sides an opportunity to testify should this be the case. General NOBLE. Yes, sir. We are aware of this responsibility, sir, and we are not aware of any substantial opposition. However, I will look into this as soon as this hearing is over and if there is any, I will supply it promptly for the record. Mr. JONES. We will have it before the full committee? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. Now, General Noble, let me give you an example here. You have the Alabama-Coosa Basin. The total estimated cost of the project plan, $578 million. Is that a current estimate? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. In other words, these figures have been updated to pre- sent today's costs? Mr. COHEN. July 1967 costs, sir. PAGENO="0168" 154 Mr. JONES. I am glad those figures are in there, because we always find trouble when somebody gets up on the floor, you have a project that is authorized for, say, $50 million in 1957, the cost has gone up, and they say the corps should give you reliable figures. So with those figures, we can point out to the full committee and to Members of the House that they are current. General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. And this would qualify, under established benefit- cost ratio criteria, to the point that portion which is being authorized will continue to sustain its economic feasibility? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. We update the economic justification for these pro~jects in connection with our appropriation requests. All we do is update. We do not undertake a detailed restudy of each project agam. Mr. JONES. I think one of the beauties of the basin authorization plan is the fact that the authorization bears some relationship to the figures that are to be considered by the Appropriations Committee. There is not gomg to be a great variance between the figures that we consider and the figures that the Appropriations Committees would consider. General NOBLE. There should not be any, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. And of course the Bureau of the Budget would have its own scrutinizing process. Mr. JONES. We do not have any question of the Budget Bureau on any of these as I understand? Mr. COHEN. No, sir. Mr. JONES. Do you want to go into any of these basins? The informa- tion is printed. The figures are clear for all the basins and the amounts are set forth for each project, plus the total amount, $469 million. Mr. EDMONDSON. I have no questions personally, Mr. Chairman, of a specific nature with regard to any of the projects. I would like to get on the record a statement of the general, if we can have it, as to the essential requirements for getting this $469 million authorized if we are going to have an orderly construction program in 1969. General NOBLE. Well, sir, it is essential for two reasons. In the absence of it, we cannot use the appropriations, because we do not have authorization to cover it. And if we do not have enough to cover our program as it is laid out, we cannot let our contracts. Mr. JONES. In other words, you will have to discontinue the existing work? General NOBLE. That is right. Yes, sir. Or if we let our contracts without assurance that we are going to get it covered by authorization, then this uncertainty is going to raise cain with our bids. Mr. EDMONDSON. So even though you might have authorization sufficient to carry you up to Jime 30, 1969, for the purpose of orderly procedure and for the purpose of orderly planning and development of your works, you need to have enough authorization to carry you on through this calendar year 1969? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Cover the construction season. Mr. EDno~soN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLAUSEN. Then we understand that you will offer to the com- mittee a clear record of any of the possible problems that you have encountered so that should there be question between the time that the Flood Control Subcommittee wraps up its work and the full commit- PAGENO="0169" 155 tee actually finalizes action on this, we will have that as part of the record ~ Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. (The information requested follows:) OPPosITIoN TO PROJECTS INCLUDED IN BASIN PLANS SUBJECT TO MONETARY AUTHORIZATION A number of projects included in the basin plans subject to monetary authori- zation have experienced some opposition in the past; principally from residents in the reservoir areas, who have objected to having to sell their property and relocate elsewhere. No significant opposition is being currently experienced, ex- cept for the Cache River project, Arkansas; Booneville Reservoir, Kentucky; and Falmouth Reservoir, Kentucky. The FY 1969 budget includes funds for only one of these projects-The Cache River Channel Improvement project in Arkansas. Existing monetary authoriza- tion is adequate for the scheduled obligation of funds budgeted for The Cache River project. There is no requirements for an increase in monetary authoriza- tion to cover any scheduled obligation requirements on these three projects through calendar year li~69. The nature of the opposition to these projects is, however, discussed below. The opposition to The Cache River Channel Improvement project (Lower Mississippi River Basin) has been expressed by some of the residents down- stream of the proposed improvement based on their concern that, upon comple- tion of the project, river stages downstream might be increased. The opposition to the Booneville and the Falmouth reservoir projects (Ohio River Basin) stems from residents in the reservoir areas. The Corps of Engineers does not consider that the Cache River improvement will increase the flood hazard downstream from this project to any appreciable extent, and considers that the the reservoir projects are well justified in view of the very significant benefits which can be anticipated from their construction. Mr. JONES. Off the record. (Discussion ofF the record.) Mr. JONES. Well, thank you very much, General Noble. The committee w~l1 stand adjourned until 10 in the morning. (Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 19, 1968.) PAGENO="0170" PAGENO="0171" OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS, FLOOD CONTROL, AND RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION BILL-1968 TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL OF THE COMMITTEE ON Pumirc WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., Hon. Robert E. Jones (chairman of the subcommittee). Mr. JOHNSON (presiding). The Subcommittee on Flood Control will come to order. The purpose of our meeting this morning is to hear from the Corps of Engineers and outside witnesses pertaining to certain projects. The first witness this morning will be Lt. Col. Daniel D. Hall, As- sistant Director of Civil Works for the Mississippi Valley, along with General Noble, office of the Chief of Engineers. STATEMENT OP LT. COL. DANIEL B. HALL, ASSISTANT DIR~CT0R OP * CIVIL WORKS FOR THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY OPPIOL OP THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OP ARMY Colonel HALL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My first presentation concerns a report with respect to Belle Fountain Ditch and Drainage District No. 17, St. Francis River, Mo. and Ark. This presentation concerns a report which was prepared in response to a resolution of the House Public Works Committee adopted June 7, 1961. BELLE FOUNTAIN DITCH AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 17, MO. AND ARK. The Belle Fountain Ditch and Drainage District No. 17 are located within the St. Francis River Basin in southeastern Missouri a:nd north- eastern Arkansas. Inadequate channel capacities in the Belle Fountain Ditch and the other major tributaries cause serious flooding along the intensively farmed flood plains resulting in considerable damage to crops and farm improvements. In addition, major floods have caused damages to the city of Blytheville and the Blytheville Air Force Base in Arkansas. A number of Federal flood control improvements have been con- structed or authorized for construction partially within or adjacent to the project areas as modifications of the Mississippi River and tributaries project. (157) PAGENO="0172" 158 In addition, over the years, local interests have constructed a variety of flood control improvements within the project area. The Chief of Engineers recommends the enlargement and cleanout of 105 miles of existing channels and the installation of a 700 c.f.s. pumping station. The improvements in Pemiscot County, Mo. and Mississippi County, Ark., are individually justified, not interdepend- ent and thus may be undertaken separately if need be. The Chief of Engineers notes that some local interests downstream from the recommended improvements believe the works would tend to impede drainage from their lands. After further consideration, he is satisfied that the recommended plan will have no significant adverse effect on existing developments and that it offers a desirable solution to the present flood problem. However, this does not preclude further consideration of drainage problems should future development in- dicate that additional improvements are desirable. The Chief of Engineers, after full consideration of the Mississippi River Commission's report, and supplemental information furnished by local interests, concurs with the Commission and recommends that the existing project for flood control and improvement of the lower Mississippi River adopted by the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, as amended, be modified to provide for the construction of additional improvements in the St. Francis Basin, substantially in accordance with the plan outlined at an estimated additional cost to the United States of $2,213,000 for the Belle Fountain Ditch and tributaries, and $2,425,000 for Drainage District No. 17, subject to the conditions set forth in the Commission's report. Local interests have indicated a willingness to meet these requirements of local cooperation. The Secretary, in a draft transmittal letter expresses the view that the cost-sharing policy for local flood control improvements which is followed elsewhere in the United States should also be applied to new authorizations for such improvements in the St. Francis Basin. He recommended that local interests be required to bear the cost of lands, easements, and rights-of-way, relocations and maintenance, as cus- tomarily prescribed for local flood control improvements elsewhere in the country. Authorization on this basis would decrease the initial Federal cost by $1,692,000 and the annual cost of maintenance by $40,500. The Bureau of the Budget endorses the views of the Secretary of the Army that the cost-sharing policy for local flood control improve- ments which is followed elsewhere in the United States also be applied in the St. Francis Basin and so expresses in the letter of June 4. Comments from the States of Missouri and Arkansas and other Federal agencies are favorable. The total estimated Federal cost based on the Chief of Engineers recommendation, is $4,638,000. Annual benefits are estimated at $653,000, and annual costs of $206,400, giving a benefit-cost ratio of 3.2. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. JOHNSON. Are there any questions? * Mr. CLAnSEN. Colonel Hall, when you make reference to this recom- mendation by the Secretary of the Army that the cost-sharing policy of the local flood control improvements which is followed elsewhere in the United States, can you elaborate on this just briefly? Are you saying that this project initially was recommended that PAGENO="0173" 159 they would not be in conformity with the other established projects? Colonel HALL. The recommendations in the Chief's report and the reporting officers for the work recommended that the local interests would be required under the terms of the local cooperation to mamtam levees in accordance with certain provisions of law. The Federal Government would provide land easements and rights-of-way. The Secretary and the Bureau of the Budget took an opposing view ~s outlined. You see, the requirements of local cooperation as recom- mended by the Chief would be that which conforms now to other work undertaken in the St. Francis Basin. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, as initially presented, how does it differ from any other project? This is what I do not understand. Colonel HALL. In the St. Francis Basin on projects now authorized to which this would be a modification, local interests are required to maintain levees as authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1946: The land easements and rights of way are Federal responsibility and are provided by the Federal Government. Other projects in other places of the country other than St. Francis generally have the requirements of local cooperation as recommended by the Secretary and the Bureau of the Budget. They are the normal a, b, c's established by the Flood Control Act of 1936. Mr. CLAUSEN. Do I understand you correctly, have the local inter- ests indicated their willingness to accept this responsibility? Colonel HALL. The local interests have indicated their willingness to accept the requirements of local cooperation as recommended in the Chief's and in the Mississippi River Commission's report. I do not know their views with respect to the Secretary and the Bureau of the Budget's provisions. Mr. Ct~usEN. Who is the local political subdivision? Is this drainage district 17? Colonel HALL. The drainage district in the respective area. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is this an elective body? Colonel HALL. Yes, they are elected. Mr. CLAUSEN. Did you adopt a resolution to the effect that they would meet local requirements? Colonel HALL. I do not know whether it was by resolution or not but it was by formal correspondence between the district engineer and the entities involved. Mr. CLAUSEN. The engineer's office. Is that on file? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. One other comment, if I may add to my statement, sir. The comment from the State of Missouri and Arkansas with respect to the Chief's report did not, of course, address the view of the Secretary of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget so I would like to make that point. Mr. CLAUSEN. But the net result is that you have a different opinion between the Chief and the Bureau of the Budget? Colonel HALL. That is correct. Mr. JOHNSON. Any further questions? We will now hear from Hon. E. C. Gathings, the Congressman from. the area. You people can remain seated there because you will go right back on after Congressman Gathings. We will now hear from the Congressman from the affected area. PAGENO="0174" 160 STATEMENT OP HON. E~ C. GATHINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Mr. GATHINGS. That is mighty kind and thank you so much, gentle- men of the committee. I would like to present a statement of Mr. Charles Rose, president of the Board of Commissioners of Drainage District No. 17 of Mis- sissippi County, Ark. This statement goes into great detail and in my opinion shows the validity of this great project. Mr. JoHNSON. Hearing no objection, the statement will be printed in the record at this point. Mr. GATHINGS. Thank you, kindly. (The prepared statement of Charles Rose follows:) STATEMENT OF CHARLES ROSE, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF CoMMIssIONERS OF DRAINAGE DISTRICT No. 17 OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, ARK. (Re Belle Fountain Ditch and Tributaries, Missouri, and Drainage District No. 17, Mississippi County, Ark.) My name is Chas. Rose and I am President of the Board of Commissioners of Drainage District No. 17, a special improvement district located in Mississippi County, Arkansas. Drainage District No. 17 has within its boundaries 160,000 acres of land, the City of Blytheville, Arkansas, with a population of 30,000 people, the Blytheville Air Force Base and the Towns of Yarbro, Gosnell, Dell, Roseland, Armorel and Etowah. Approximately 75,000 people live within this district. Drainage District No. 17 was created by special act of the legislature in 1918 and since that time this district has spent $9,679,693.34 for flood control and drainage and all of this money was raised by taxes levied against the lands within the district. At the outbreak of World War II the U.S. Government acquired approximately 3,200 acres of the highest land in our district to be used for the construction of facilities for the Blytheville Air Force Base. This property is located approxi- mately three miles Northwest of the City of Biytheville. At the time of acquisi- tion, runways, barracks, maintenance hangars and other buildings were con- structed. At the conclusion of World War II the Base was turned over to the City of Blytheville for use and maintenance, with a recapture clause, and in 1953 the recapture clause was exercised and reactivation of the base started. Tactical Air Command was first located at the base and later the base was transferred to Strategic Air Command and today this base is a massive installation con- sisting of approximately 700 acres of paved runway, many miles of paved streets and at least 1000 buildings, including housing units, hangars, mainte- nance buildings and others. An additional expenditure of $1,600,000.00 has just recently been approved for additional construtcion when the base again reverts to Tactical Air Command in 1970. When the air base was first activated the government requested that all of the acreage upon which the air base was loacted be removed from Drainage District 17's tax books and this request was accordingly granted by the district and in order to make up the deficit for the loss of taxation from these lands, additional taxes were charged against the remaining lands in the district owned by private citizens. We realize that the Biytheville Air Force Base is a vital necessity to this nation's welfare and represents a fine industry for the mer- chants and businessmen of the City of Blytheville and surrounding territory; however, it is not profitable to the farmers and landowners in the area, but represents a burden from a drainage and flooding standpoint. The run-off from the base causes agricultural lands to become inundated and also impairs school and mail routes which represent an added annual cost in repair and mainte- nance. The disposal of excessive and accelerated run-off from the base is esti- mated by engineers to approximate 740 cfs, or an additional discharge into our ditches of 333,000 gallons of water per minute. PAGENO="0175" 161 We first solicited the assistance of the U.S. Corps of Engineers in 1955 and at that time advised them of the serious situation causing the flooding of prac- tically all of our primary ditches, particularly those West and South of the Blytheville Air Force Base and City of Blythevile. Since that time many re- ports have been made to the Corps of Engineers and other agencies by our own engineers as well as other engineering firms such as Homer & Shifrin, Con- sulting Engineers of St. Louis, Missouri, and all of these reports show the neces- sity of an enlargement of this district's structures and all of these reports take into consideration the damage caused to the City of Blytheville and the Blytheville Air Force Base. During the rainy season, water backs up into the streets of Blytheville, and into the city's sewer system and the city's sewerage disposal plant becomes submerged and inoperative. In 1959 the property owners of some 20,000 acres of highly developed agri- cultural lands in our district who were affected by this additional runoff from the base and the attendant growth of Blytheville, organized and created a sub- district within our district in an attempt to secure some measure of relief, and this sub-district floated a bond issue of $489,000.00 to be repaid by annual taxes levied against the land. The money derived from this bond issue was used to bulid a 375 cfs (168,750 gallon per minute) lift station. This lift station was designed to discharge this much water from the land into a leveed floodway. This helped the drainage situation somewhat but was not sufficient and is not designed to alleviate the flooding in the City of Blytheville. Approximately 5% of the bonds floated for this sub-district are now retired and the cost in taxes is $2.16 per acre annually and this annual tax will continue until 1984 and at that time, although the bond issue will `be retired, there will still be a mainte- nance tax of approximately one-half this amount. In 1963 $312,000.00 was spent on excavation work in Little River by our dis- trict and this work started at the terminus of Ditch No. 27 which is now in- cluded in the Engineer's Review Report. Thirty-two miles of this ditch was ex- cavated. Within the past few years our district has contributed $801,000.00 for flood protection and drainage in the area under consideration and this work would be included in the Engineer's Review Report had it not been performed by our district. At today's prices, this work which we have already done could add an- other $1,200,000.00 to the estimated cost of the project under consideration. I believe that the Memphis Corps of Engineers will tell you, if requested, that Drainage District No. 17 will go all out to solve their problems in the mainte- nance of their structures even though the expense to the landowners in annual taxation is very costly. Our annual principal and interest payments are $33,250.00. Our bonds will not be retired until 1984. In addition to this approximately $72,000.00 must be expended each year maintaining our structures. We have 235 miles of ditches in our district varying in width of 40 feet to 150 feet and we also have 41 miles of levees that we maintain. These levees protect the lands in this district from flood waters which originate in Missouri. The Corps of Engineer's Review Report on this project under consideration shows that they have taken into account the accelerated run-off from the Blythe- yule Air Force Base and they have provided drainage outlets to satisfy the pres- ent and future needs of the air force base and to provide an adequate outlet for the City of Blytheville and to provide protection in agricultural areas against flooding. The plan as recommended by the Mississippi River Commission states that this proposed flood control improvement is economically justified and pro- vides the needed flood protection comparable to that provided by other similar Federal projects in the St. Francis Basin. We believe we have come a long way even though it has taken 13 years for this project to get the recognition it has at this time. The welfare of the citizens residing within the boundaries of our drainage district depends largely on the action taken from this time forward. The officials of Drainage District No. 17 heartily endorse this project. If there are any questions or any matters that need clarification, we will appreciate the opportunity to explain or perhaps submit additional information. Mr. JoHNsoN. `Do you have any further comment, Mr. G-athings? Mr. GATHINGS. I would just like to say this~ Mr. Chairman, that back in t.he early 1~4O's the Blytheville Air Force Base was con- structed on the highest ground in that particular area. Now, they put PAGENO="0176" 162 in these runways there. It is now a big SAC base so as a result of the runway construction and' the high ground to start with, ditèhes all over the area have flooded this very fine farmland and also played havoc with drainage in the city of Blvtheville. This project would alleviate that serious situation. Mr. JOHNSON. Any questions of the gentleman from `Arkansas? Thegentleman from Iowa, Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I have no questions but I want to comment on the gentleman's contribution to the Congress. He and I have been friends ever since I have been here. The first morning I was with you in a meetmg and I have admired you ever since. You are a great public servant. I understand you are retiring and I certainly hope from time to time you can find an excuse to come back here and let us have the benefit of your fellowship. Mr. GATHINGS. Thank you, Mr. Schwengel. It has been a real privi- lege to work with you. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the St. Francis project is set down early this morning and I have a statement that I would like to sub- mit or I could come back when you do reach that particular project. Mr. JOHNSON. If you wish to leave the statement with us we will put it in its proper place. Mr. GATHINGS. I do appreciate it. I have a statement of Mr. W. M. Smith, Jr., who is the president of the board of directors of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas. (See p. 178 for statement of Mr. `W M. Smith.) Mr. CLAUSEN. I will ask unanimous consent that the request'of Mr. Gat.hings be accepted. Mr. JOHNSON. You heard the motion of the gentleman from Cali- fornia. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GATHINGS. Thank you kindly, gentlemen. It has been a real pleasure to appear this morning and I am most grateful for the com- mittee's kindness shown to our people. Mr. JOHNSON. The next project we will hear about will be Lake Chicot, Ark. LAKE CHICOT, ARK. Colonel HALL. Mr. Chairman, this presentation briefs a report which concerns a problem in the area served by the Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon Basin project, a feature of the overall plan of flood control for the Mississippi River and tributaries. Lake Chicot is located in the extreme southeast corner of Arkansas across the Mississippi River from Greenville, Miss. Lake Chicot provides recreation and fish and wildlife opportunities to an area which includes 11 counties in Arkansas and Mississippi and three parishes in Louisiana. As a result of the flood control improvement work in the Boeuf and `Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon Basin and the changed land use resulting therefrom, the inflows to Lake Chicot have become increas- ingly turbid from fine silts. Turbid conditions in the lake which start in the early spring and continue through most of the recreation season have rendered the lake ~imost useless for water oriented recreation. PAGENO="0177" 163 Local interests desire improvements to reduce the turbidity of the lake so that its recreational value can be restored. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a pumping plant-capacity of 6,500 cubic feet per second-and gravity drainage structure in the vicinity of Macon Lake to divert floodflows presently entering Lake Chicot and two gated dams to regulate the level of the lake. The total estimated cost is $15,480,000 of which $15,240,000 is Federal and $240,000 is non-Federal. The annual charges are esti- mated to be $712,000 and the annual benefits are $720,000. The benefit- cost ratio is 1.1. Local cooperation requirements as recommended in the report by the reporting officer and as recommended by the Chief of Engineers are to administer, operate, and maintain the recreation facilities and insure that they are open to all on equal terms; provide all lands required for specific recreation facilities and make such additional contributions as necessary to bring the local interest contribution to at least 50 percent of all project costs charged to recreation, with the stipulation that local interest may pay this cost, except for lands, over a period of 50 years at the interest rate prevailing at the initiation of construction; perform minor maintenance, and operate the gates on control structures. Local interests have indicated their willingness to furnish the assurances. The States of Arkansas and Louisiana and concerned Federal agen- cies have commented favorably. The Bureau of the Budget does not believe that full Federal responsibility for the damages has been clearly established, but that damages are the result of cumulative adverse effects from any Fed- eral and non-Federal improvements. Therefore, the Bureau believes that requirements of local coopera- tion should be amended to provide that local interests will operate and maintain-including major replacements-after construction; and hold and save free from damages. The Bureau also believes no additional improvements should be made at Federal expense for mitigation of damages caused by silt- laden flows into Lake Chicot. Subject to the foregoing changes in requirements of local cooperation, the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. Mr. JOHNSON. Colonel, what does this mean here, the statement no additional improvements should be made at Federal expense in con- nection with the mitigation of damages caused by silt in Lake Chicot? Colonel HALL. Sir, the Bureau of the Budget does not feel that any future work beyond that recommended in this report should be under- taken to mitigate further silt-laden flows into Lake Chicot in the event they occur. In other words, they do not object to the submission, that is, the sub- mission of the report under conditions, subject to these changes in re- quirements of the local cooperation. Mr. JOHNSON. Any damages caused by the silt should be an obliga- tion of the local interests. Colonel HALL. Any future damage caused by future silt should be an obligation of the local interests, is the Bureau of the Budget's view. 97-700----68-----12 PAGENO="0178" 164 This is really a mitigation project to rectify damages caused by silt from previous federally constructed projects, in the Chief's view. Mr. JoHNsoN. Now, including the area redevelopment benefits, what is the actual amount of money? Where is that in the report? Colonel HAI~L. I am sorry, sir, but I did not get your question. Mr. JoHNsoN. I noticed how much is listed as being area redevelop- ment benefits. I do not see it listed here as spelled out. Colonel HALL. Sir, while we are seeking the answer to that question, may I express the views of the Secretary of the Army? Mr. JOHNSON. Please do. Colonel hAil1. The Secretary of the Army concurs with the views of the Bureau of the Budget and recommends amending the require- ments of local cooperation to provide that non-Federal interests also operate, maintain, and make major replacement of works; and hold and save free from damages due to construction, operation, mainte- nance, and replacement of works. The Secretary also recommends that no further improvements be made at Federal expense for mitigation of damages caused by silt- laden flows. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Will you yield, Mr. Chairman? Mr. JomTsoN. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. Have you had communication with the so-called local sponsors and, if so, what has been their response to the acceptance of this recommendation? Colonel HAiir~. We have not had formal communication with the local assuring bodies of local cooperation requirements as expressed by the Secretary and the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. CLAUSEN. So, in effect, on this particular recommendation, based upon the suggestion of the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary of the Army, for all practical purposes sponsorship requirements have not been met. Colonel }IAr1r1. We have not received formal assurances on that basis. Mr. CrAu5EN. As of today. Colonel HALL. As of today, that is correct. They have not been asked for, however. With respect to the benefits for ARA benefits, its an- nual benefits are $66,000, Mr. Chairman. Some of the benefits are shown in table 6 in the district engineer's report. Mr. JoHNsoN. We have finally located it. Colonel HALL. I had a little difficulty, too. Mr. CLAUSEN. Have you calculated the overall percentage of flood control benefits as relates to other increments? Colonel HALL. Flood damage reduction benefits are 12 percent of the total. Mr. CLAUSEN. And I see that you have no benefits in the M. & I. category. Colonel HAI1L. No, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. There would be no use for the water. Colonel HALL. Additional storage or impoundment is not involved for M. & I. purposes. It is mainly for recreational purposes. Mr. CLAUSEN. Irrigation? Colonel 11A1L. No, sir. You see, Lake Chicot is a lake really sur- rounded by built-up areas, including Lake Village, Ark. PAGENO="0179" 165 This is an oxbow lake formed by a cutoff of the Mississippi River. Any silt-laden flows entering the lake are muddy enough, if you will. These enter the lower portion. Mr. JOHNSON. Any further questions? Hearing none, we will now move to the next witness, the Honorable David Pryor, our colleague from Arkansas. STATEMENT OP HON. DAVID PRYOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP ARKANSAS Mr. PRYOR. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I cer- tainly thank you for this opportunity of appearing before you on behalf of the Lake Chicot project. This project has had extensive and very deliberate hearings in the Senate and for that reason we have come today with what we call no local witnesses. We did not bring local witnesses from the Lake Chicot area up here today in the interest of time and with the full knowledge that extensive hear- ings had been held in the Senate body. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this is a long-sought- after project by the people of the Lake Village area. If I may be permitted for about one moment here, I would like to say that the whole town, the whole city of Lake Village, Ark., is built around this Lake Chicot and at this moment because of severe rains, et cetera in this area right here, this area is no more at this time because of the silt infiltration, et cetera. This is no more, that is this entire body right here, no more than a sea of mud at this time. Lake Ohicot is the main industry of Lake Village, Ark., and we feel that the restoration of Lake Chicot to its ultimate status quo as it was before the great silt infiltration, that the restoration of this lake would do such a great deal to restoring this city and would do such a great deal in making this city once again the great city that it was because of the recreational values, the number of tourists that would come into this area, and we think in taxation alone it would amortize the expenditure that we are making for this project at this time. I would like to say again or reiterate and reemphasize that when heavy rains occur, because of the silt that this tremendous body of water becomes nothing but a sea of mud. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have a statement that I shall not read, but I would like to submit it for the record for your consideration, and again I thank you most sincerely for the opportunity of appearing before you. I would be glad to answer any questions that I might. Mr. JoHNsoN. The prepared statement of Mr. Pryor will appear in the record at this point. STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID PRYOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS I appear here today to discuss with the Committee the requirements of local cooperation on the Lake Chicot, Arkansas Project favorably recommended in House Document 168, 90th Congress, 1st Session. House Document 168 reflects a divergence of opinion within the Executive Branch concerning the operation and maintenance of a large pumping plant which is an essential element in the recommended plan of improvement. The Chief of Engineers concurs in the recommendations of his field officers that the PAGENO="0180" 166 operation and maintenance of this plant be a Federal responsibility. On the other hand, the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary of the Army took the view that this plant should be operated and maintained by local interests. Their reasons for this recommendation are not entirely clear in their forwarding letters, but would appear to be based on the proposition that local interests had bene- fited from the drainage projects which had caused the siltation damage to Lake Chicot, the condition which the proposed project would correct. No doubt in many situations, such a rationale might be applicable, but it is not appropriate in the instant case, as we believe we can demonstrate to the Committee's satisfaction. It is our request that the Committee authorize the project on the basis of the local cooperation recommended by the Chief of Engineers which, in brief, requires local interests to operate and maintain the required recreational fa- cilities; provide all lands needed for specific recreational facilities; make addi- tional contributions as necessary to bring the local interest contribution to not less than 50% of all recreation costs, and to maintain and operate certain con- trol structures in two streams included in the project area. You will note that the presently estimated cost of the local contribution is $530,000 plus annual cost of the maintenance requirements recommended by the Corps of Engineers. There are three very substantial reasons to justify the operation and main- tenance of this plant by the Federal Government. The first of these is that the operation of this pumping plant will require ex- perts in a number of technical disciplines which are not available to the local interests and which would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. The operation of a large pumping plant such as this, involving, as it does, stages in both the Mississippi River and interior streams over a wide area in two states, is not a simple process. I am advised that rather difficult flood flow computations and predictions requiring highly specialized personnel in hydraulics and hydrology are very necessary elements in such an operation. Such experts already are in the employ of the Corps of Engineers and regularly perform such functions in connection with day to day operation. Even if such experts could be employed readily by local interests, there would be such a limited need for their services as to make their employment uneconomical and impractical in the larger sense. There are other technical disciplines involved-mechanical and electrical engi- neers, for example-which are available through regular employment in the Corps of Engineers. I believe the Corps of Engineers would substantiate the fact that it would be far more economical and efficient for this operation to be undertaken by them because of these technical considerations. Let me now explore another of the reasons for accepting the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers having to do with the matter of specific identification of the local interests involved. As I indicated earlier, the Bureau of the Budget predicates its recommendation on the premise that since local interests received the benefits from the works which damaged Lake Chicot, they are, therefore, obligated to maintain and operate the pumping plant. Actually, the situation is not that simple. The local drainage district directly involved with Lake Chicot is comparatively small and the benefits it has received from the Boeuf-Tensas Project have been insignificant at best. On the other hand, the detriment to that district has been great, as reflected in the report. The drainage benefits have accrued over some 350 square miles above Lake Chicot and within the confines of other agencies in Arkansas. In addition, use of Lake Chicot as a detention basin substantially controls flood flows in Louisiana. In brief, this means that the original project benefits accrue over a wide area of two states and beyond the jurisdiction for taxing and other administrative purposes of the specific district which would be called upon to operate and maintain the pumping plant. It does not appear equitable for those in the immediate area to be obligated to pay for damages inflicted upon them for the benefit of others, some even in another state. It is not necessary for me to enlarge on the third reason for accepting the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers primarily because it is set forth in the report where attention is called to the fact that that . . . "Congress has made the operation and maintenance of other large pumping plants in the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project, such as the ones in Red River Backwater, White River Backwater, and the St. Francis Basin, a Federal responsibility. The Mis- sissippi River Commission feels that this policy should also be applied to the pumping plant designed to restore Lake Chicot." PAGENO="0181" 167 In summary, Federal operation and maintenance of the pumping plant would be the most equitable, efficient and economical and would assure that this project would accomplish the purposes for which it was designed. Mr. JOHNSON. I have one question. Generally speaking, this is a recreation project to rehabilitate this lake and bring back prosperity to the Lake Village area of Arkansas. Mr. PRYOR. Well, to a degree it is recreational, yes. Mr. JOHNSON. I think that is the major function. Mr. PRYOR. Yes, sir. Now, this is the major, I would say the major industry so to speak of this area, this lake. Lake Chicot is where thou- sands `of campers camp each year and still they have a great number but they feel that by restoring this lake it could be one of the finest camping areas and recreational facilities in the entire south because we do have a fine State park there and we feel that bringing this lake back as it used to be would again give it a great amount of selling power in selling this beautiful lake to tourists, campers, and those seeking recreation. Mr. JOHNSON. Some in my district are geared to recreation too, but I did want to point this up. You agree with the Secretary of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget as far as further taking care of the siltation problem there, it would be the responsibility of. the local government? Mr. PRYOR. Well, I think, sir, after the project is completed it would be our hope and our prayer that this siltation would not happen in the future, that further infiltration would not occur. I do feel that the maintenance of the project because of several reasons set out in my testimony that I am to submit here, I do think that it should be a Federal responsibility because we `are putting in over $15 million. That is our request. We are putting it into a very complex and complicated apparatus and I feel sincerely, sir, that the turning of it over to what we call amateurs to operate such a facility might be disasterous. Mr. JOHNSON. Any further questions? The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see the Congressman here and I am very interested in this project. I have a number of friends in your State and I have been down to that lake. It was a beautiful lake. Mr. PRYOR. Yes, sir. Mr. SOHWENGEL. Now, it is incapacitated, immobilized because by not having the kind of foresight we should have had originally, we did not develop a watershed. Mr. PRYOR. Yes, sir, very true. Mr. SCHWENGEL. The problem you have with that soil in the lake now, it is the most valuable soil in Arkansas. I would be happy to spend the money to restore it complete with watershed up in the head- waters, the hills. So I suggest here that we give again consideration, and as I have said many times before we give serious consideration to anything, let us give consideration to development of a watershed that envisions its completion in a short period of time. No better investment could be made for projects like this than for humanity in general, be- cause all of us are going to have to live on that top soil some day. PAGENO="0182" 168 I am interested in helping you to restore it, ~but I am also interested in preventing erosion. Mr. PRYOR. Fine. Mr. SORWENGEL. I hope you will see your interest is to do what you can to encourage the watershed development in those areas and indeed~ to improve and upgrade the laws and it will help encourage people at the local level to do more especially on the farms where they can farm around the hills and do the many things themselves and then there are things we need to do cooperatively in developing the watershed so this thing does not happen again. I am interested in your testimony and I will be reading with avid interest your entire statement in the record. Mr. PRYOR. I certainly tlianlt the gentleman from Iowa and I would like to point out at this point that I feel sure, in fact, I can speak from personal experience that the people of Lake Village and this whole Lake Chicot region share in the gentleman's concern over watershed distribution and over the importance of our watershed program. We have a splendid group who are interested in this now who are pushing in this area and who hope to mobilize their efforts into pur- suing this course of action that the gentleman from Iowa has s& accurately pointed out. Mr. JOHNSoN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAtJSEN. What is the size of the conimunity of Lake Village ~ area. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is that during the whole year? Mr. PRYOR. Yes. I would say it is a relatively stable population here and 4,000 I would think would be roughly the population. If I am wrong, I would like the opportunity to correct that information for~ the record. I think 4,000, Mr. Clausen is the population of Lake Vii- lage. This is the city limits I should say. Mr. CLAUSEN. I would be interested in your personal comments on the comments of the Bureau of the Budget wherein they state that the Bureau of the Budget does not believe that the full Federal respon- sibility for the damages have been clearly established. The Bureau~ questions whether the Federal Government should be held fully re- sponsible for damages resulting from a change in the Nation's econ- omy more than 20 years after the original plan of approval was authorized. I would like to have your reaction to those Bureau comments. Mr. PRYOR. Sir, on that point I do not know. We are dealing with expert testimony here I assume on both sides. I am sure that we are and I will take that into consideration. It is my own opinion that whether the damages were caused or whether they were, let us say, accentuated because of a lack of foresight by the Federal Government or the State or the local people, I, myself, cannot address myself to those remarks. All .1 do know is that the situation is now existing, it is certainly deplorable in the sight of those people there. They have worked for many years to help in the restoration of this area. They have come to MTashington on many occasions now and that is the main interest there and we feel and we are very humbly asking for the Federal Government to help us in this area. PAGENO="0183" 169 As to "whose fault it was" or "who caused it," et cetera, I cannot as an expert address myself to that question adequately. Mr. CLATJSEN. Who is the local sponsoring agency? Mr. PRYOR. I think the name is the Chicot Drainage District. I am not certain on that, but I believe that is correct. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Well, the reason I asked the question I was wondering whether or not there will be a local business subdivision or represent- ing a group of local sponsors that will meet the local sponsorship requirement. Mr. PRYOR. I feel certainly sure they will. Mr. CLAUSEN. Who is this? Mr. PRYOR. Well, I think we have a list of the men. There is a Chicot Drainage District with officers. I would be more than happy to sup- ply that for the record if I might be permitted. It is the Chicot Drain- age District of Lake Ridge. The board members are Dr. Burge, Mr. Ben Angle. Mr. JOHNSON. That is not necessary. Any further questions of the gentleman? Mr. CRAMER. I would like to ask you a question. Colonel, at the end of the statement is there any thought or plan relating to any type of user charges for this recreational facility? It is largely recreational. Are there any additional charges? Colonel HALL. You mean in the sense that we have user charges around reservoirs? Some of these recreational areas, sir, will be devel- oped by local interests. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. Is there going to be any charge levied by the local sponsoring organization for the use of any portion of this facility? Colonel HALL. We do not think so sir, for the use of .the lake. Mr. CRAMER. Well, the Federal Government is putting that large a share into it. Is it or is it not the policy of the corps to insist upon noncharge uses as part of the local cooperation? General NOBLE. Sir, normally charges are made because of the use of a service or facility that is constructed and not in the sense of using the water that exists there so that the corps, as a policy, would have no objection to the local people charging for such services that are ren- dered or for the use of facilities that have been constructed to use the water. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I understand the recreation act permits local authorities to charge admission fees or the user fees, however you call them up to the amount of the local contribution which as I understand is $290,000; is that correct? General NOBLE. $290,000. Mr. CRAMER. Estimated cash contribution on the local contribution as I read it is $290,000. General NOBLE. That is right, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Am I correct in saying then that the local sponsoring organization could charge fees up to recoup that amount and no more? General NOBLE. I am not familiar with any such provision, sir. Colonel HALL. Sir, to respond to the question specifically whether or not local sponsoring bodies or the developers of the recreational areas PAGENO="0184" 170 could or could not charge for use of those facilities, we would have to say they could. Mr. CRAMER. The thing I am concerned with is it a matter of policy? If the Federal Government is going to put up the lion's share which they obviously are in this instance and the largest proportion of the benefits are local and allocated to recreation, why there should not be some condition relating to local sponsoring organization's charges that reflect the small amount of local contribution and the large amount of Federal. In other words, why should the taxpayers use the facility when they have already paid for it to construct it? General NOBLE. Again, sir, I believe the charges that are made are made for ancillary facilities for the enjoyment of the facility that is now being participated in jointly by local and Federal interests. Mr. CRAMER. Would you object to a requirement that user charges be on a reasonable basis and commensurate with the local participation and local improvements? General NoBrlE. Sir, I am going to have to submit something for the record on this. (The following was received for the record:) There wouid be no objection to a requirement that charges be consistent with the provisions of Public Law 89-72, the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. This Act specifies that the non-Federal share of the separable costs of a project allocated to recreation may be paid under two methods. One method is repay- ment over a period of years. Under this, the Act provides "That the source of repayment may be limited to entrance and user fees or charges collected at the project by non-Federal interests if the fee schedule and the portion of fees dedi- cated to repayment are established on a basis calculated to achieve repayment as aforesaid and are made subject to review and renegotiation at intervals of not more than five years." It would also be proper to require that the scale of charges be consistent with those established by Regulation by the Secretary of the Interior under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897). General NOBLE. The charges that might be made for ancillary facilities have no relation to the participation of the local interests in the recommended improvement. There will be other structures, other services rendered in addition to the facilities provided by the Federal Government in order to fully satisfy the recreation potential. It would be extremely difficult to tie these additional facilities to any limitation based upon their participation provided in the basic facility. Mr. CP~1nR. Will you distinguish between user fees on what you just commented on? Is there any restriction relating to admission fees? General NOBLE. This is a little unusual in that it is not a Federal facility. The Federal participation in this project is not similar to the construction of a Federal reservoir for example. It is to restore a condition which has been brought about largely through Federal actions and it is a mitigation project rather than a construction of a Federal facility. It is different in that regard and I again will have to provide something for the record for you to answer your specific question. (The following was received for the record:) PAGENO="0185" 171 INFORMATION ON Usna F~s AND ADMISSION FEES Regulations implementing the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (78 Stat. 897) and Executive Order 11200 define user fees as charges for the use of sites, facilities, equipment or services. These include, but are not limited to campsites, picnic areas, bathhouses, lockers, boats, firewood and sport facilities. Entrance or admission fees are charges for merely entering a public use area so designated. Under the above-cited Executive Order, no entrance or admission fee can be collected at a Corps of Engineers operated and maintained public use area unless so designated by the Secretary of the Army. Other restrictions on entrance and admission fees pertain to the amount charged which are prescribed in the implementing regulations. The Land and Water Con' servation Act of 1965 does not place any restrictions on fees that non-Federal interests may impose. Mr. CRAMER. You indicated this is a unique project. Is it a precedent for mitigation, a project of this nature, largely recreational? General NOBLE. I am sure there is. It is not unique in the sense it has never happened before. It is just not the same as a Federal res- ervoir. Therefore, we cannot apply the same kind of provisions for user fees and things like that, that you would say for a Federal con- trolled reservoir. Mr. CRAMER. I understand, but it seems to me this amount of Federal money is going into the project largely for recreational purposes or benefit that the facility should be open to the general public without admission charges and if, in fact, the local sponsoring organization does provide No. 1, local cooperation to the extent of $290,000 and No. 2, additional recreational facilities, that in fact user charges are charge and I assume they will be, there should be something corn- mensurate with what the local participation or contribution is, other- wise I do not think it is adequate protection for the Federal contribu- tion. You do not differ with that concept, do you? General NOBLE. I do not differ with it, sir. I am not in a position to discuss it this morning. Mr. JOHNSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON. General Noble, this is a project by the Corps of Engineers who will come in and rehabilitate this facility and the local drainage area owns the facility? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. JOHNSON. And the Corps of Engineers have agreed to maintain it at Federal expense? Colonel HALL. The question on local cooperation, sir, has mainly to do with the pumping plant facility itself. This is the item of real contention I think, the pumping plant itself which is a large pumping plant, something over 6,000 feet per second. It will be constructed up in this location. It will be tied into the main line Mississippi River levee and it will be required to function when flows come down. Mr. JOHNSON. Well now, will this facility be operated and main- tained by the Corps of Engineers? Colonel HALL. In the report of the Chief of Engineers, this is his recommendation, that it be operated and maintained by the corps. The Secretary of Army and the Bureau of the Budget do not concur with PAGENO="0186" 172 this recommendation and state in their view this should be an item of local cooperation. Mr. JOHNSON. The reservoir will be operated and maintained by the local participants. The Corps of Engineers has no connection with the actual lake itself. Colonel HALL. That is right. It is already an existing thing. Local interests will operate and control the gate and control structures that maintain the water level in Lake Chicot. The recreational areas are shown dotting around the lake. One of the requirements of local cooperation is that these be administered and maintained by the local interests and assure that these facilities are open to all on equal terms. Mr. JOHNSON. I would say in line with that, the Corps of Engineers, you will not charge admission fees? Colonel ILtLI. Not located in the recreational areas, but maybe around the lake would be boat launching ramps. These could be placed in there by a private concessionaire and fees charged for their use. Mr. JOHNSON. That would be under contract with the local drain- age district? Colonel HA.LL. That would be the business of local interest, sir. General NOBLE. This is not a Federal body of water. Mr. JOHNSON. They operate and maintain reservoirs. Any further questions? I want to thank you, Mr. Pryor, for coming here and giving us the benefit of your testimony. I have a statement here by Mr. Calvin T. Watts, assistant director, State of Louisiana Department of Public Works that I would like to insert in the record at this point. Is there objection? Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. (The prepared statement of Calvin T. Watts, assistant director, State of Louisiana Department of Public Works follows:) STATEMENT BY CAI~vIN T. WATTS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, STATE OF LOuISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS LAKE CHICOT, ARK. IntroductionS My name is Calvin T. Watts. I am the Assistant Director of the Louisiana Department of Public Works. This Department is the planning agency of the State government and is responsible for coordinated development of all water resource projects which affect the State of Louisiana. I therefore submit this statement in support of the Mississippi River Commission plan and the report by the Chief of Engineers for modification of the existing project for flood control and improvement of the Lower Mississippi River adopted by the Flood Control Act of 15 May, 1928, as amended, to provide for the construction of addi- tional improvements in the Boeuf and Tensas Rivers and Bayou Macon Basin to divert flows that would otherwise enter Lake Chicot, Arkansas. Avthority The report on Lake Chicot, Arkansas, was submitted to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Army in response to the request by a resolution of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, adopted 19 June, 1963. Discussio~v The proposed project as recommended by the District Engineer, Vicksburg District, Corps of Engineers, and later approved by the Mississippi River Com- mission and Chief of Engineers, includes a pumping plant with a gravity drain- PAGENO="0187" 173 age structure, and two dams with structures (one each in Connerly and Ditch Bayous). The purpose of these recommended facilities is to divert flood flows presently entering Lake Chicot, restore the lake to its former clear and stable condition, and continue to provide basic water supplies downstream from the lake into Louisiana. The plan will also increase the degree of flood protection downstream from Lake Chicot along Bayou Macon. It is necessary that a minimum flow of 50 cubic feet per second be maintained from Lake Chicot through the dam and control structure in Ditch Bayou. These releases would be delivered into Bayou Macon and through Northeast Louisiana. This water is presently being used for irrigation of agricultural crops, prin~ cipally rice, and other uses. Also, the Town of Delhi, Louisiana, uses Bayou Macon as the source of its present municipal water supply. A minimum flow of ~0 cfs must be maintained to continue to supply present users of water from Bayou Macon. Since about 1927 it has been the observation of state officials from both Arkansas and Louisiana and levee board commissioners in Southeast Arkansas and Louisiana that Lake Chicot from year to year could not recover from the extreme inflow of turbid, slit laden flood waters which were being delivered into the lake by increasing amounts in each successive year. As the development of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project has advanced for flood control, and the Boeuf and Tensas Rivers were improved to relieve intercepted drainage, Chicot Lake has continued its deterioration to the extreme condition that it is no longer attractive or useful for recreation and has lost its fishing productivity. The officials of Arkansas and Louisiana, local citizens of the two-state area, the Vicksburg District Corps of Engineers, the Mississippi River Commission, and the Chief of Engineers, all concur that the best and most feasible means of restoring Chicot Lake to serve present and future needs is the project which has already been described. Further, these states, federal agencies and local inter- ests unanimously agree that operation and maintenance of the pumping plant and control structures should be a federal responsibility. Of necessity, the plan of operation for Lake Chicot is highly complicated. Included is the operation of a major pumping plant to control stages and storage in Lake Chicot within such .a range that will provide adequate water levels and volume to support area needs without flooding and a continuous minimum release of 50 cubic feet per second down Bayou Macon for various stage and head conditions. Also, this project involves the interests of two states, Arkansas and Louisiana. The Corps of Engineers has experienced staffs and trained technicians who are capable of successfully carrying out a complicated arrangement for operation and maintenance of major structures and pumping plant equipment. These type of personnel are not available through the local governing bodies. Several major pumping plants are already included in the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. Congress has seen fit in authorization of these projects to provide that operation and maintenance is a federal responsibility. We be- lieve that operation and maintenance of the Lake Chicot pumping plant and con- trol structures should also be a federal responsibility. Recommendation On behalf of the Governor of Louisiana, Honorable John J. McKeithen, and acting for local interests in Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of Public Works recommends that the project, Lake Uhicot, Arkansas, be authorized and incorporated as a revision to the existing project, Mississippi River and Tribu- taries, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1928, as amended, provided that the project provides for operation to maintain a minimum flow of 50 cubic feet per second in Bayou Macon. This is in accordance with our letter of September 12, 1966, to the Chief of Engineers presenting our comments on the report. It is also recommended that the pumping plant and dams with control struc- tures be operated and maintained by the federal government in conformity with the established policy of the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. Mr. JOHNSON. Now, Mr. Chairman, I will turn the chair back to you. Mr. JONES (presiding). I appreciate your chairing this committee for me. I had to be at another committee meeting. The next project is the St. Francis Basin, Ark. and Mo. PAGENO="0188" 174 ST. FRANCIS BASIN~ ARK. AND MO. Colonel Hall, you may proceed. Colonel HAJ~. Mr. Chairman, this presentation concerns the report which is a review of the local cooperation requirements for flood con- trol improvements in the St. Francis Basin authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1965. This report is submitted in response to the directive contained in section 204 of Public Law 89-298 which states in part, under the title "Lower Mississippi River Basin-Comprehensive Plan," as follows: * * * the requirement of local cooperation for the improvements in the St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri, shall be reviewed by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, with particular reference to Federal and non-Federal cost-sharing, and he shall report results of such review to Congress within one year after the date of enactment of this Act. I previously testified in September 1966 before the Senate Public Works Committee on this report and the testimony today is a brief of that previously given and includes the views of the Bureau of the Budget and Secretary of the Army which have not been previously given but are published in Senate Document 11, 90th Congress, first session. The St. Francis Basin project, a part of the overall plan for flood control of the Mississippi River and tributaries, provides for a plan for flood control and drainage including Wappapello Reservoir, leveed floodways, channel improvements, and water control structures. The improvements authorized in the 1965 Flood Control Act con- sist of channel improvements. The purpose of this report is to review the requirements of local cooperation for the improvements in the St. Francis Basin authorized in the 1965 Flood Control Act with particular reference to Federal and non-Federal cost sharing. The local cooperation requirement for the improvements authorized prior to the 1965 Flood Control Act consists of maintenance of levees. This local cooperation was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1946. The 1965 act authorized channel improvements for the St. Francis Basin with the requirement, subject to this review, that local interests provide lands, easements, and rights-of-way; hold and save the United States free from damages; maintain and operate the works after coin- pletion; and make all necessary relocation to highway bridges. This local cooperation is in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in his report printed in House Document 308, 88th Congress in 1964. The total cost of these improvements was esti- mated at $13,229,500 in 1965. The responsibilities in question in this report have a first cost of $7,760,000 and annual channel maintenance of $84,000, based on the 1965 estimate. The recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in the report now under consideration is that the local cooperation for the 1965 works conform to those of the previously authorized project uiider the Flood Control Act of 1946, which limits the local cooperation in the St. Francis Basin to maintenance of project levees. This recommendation is based on the high degree of local responsi- PAGENO="0189" 175 `bility exercised in the St. Francis Basin in the past and the aspects of equity involved in a judgment on a matter of this nature. The Bureau of the Budget comments as follows : Your (The Secretary of the Army) transmittal letter points out that an ob- jective of the 1964 report was the establishment of cost-sharing policies in the Lower Mississippi Valley consistent with those followed elsewhere in the United States. We are not aware of any reason for favored treatment of local interests in the St. Francis Basin or elsewhere in the Lower Mississippi Valley relative to other regions of the United States. Hence, we believe that relieving local in- terests in the St. Francis Basin of costs which local interests bear in other regions of the country is inequitable and discriminatory. Accordingly, while there is no objection to the submission of the proposed re- port, we strongly favor the 1964 provision of the Chief of Engineers in support of a uniform policy of local cost-sharing, rather than the position reflected in the 1966 report. The Secretary of the Army, in his letter transmitting the Chief of Engineers' report to Congress, comments: In the course of considering the points made in the enclosed report, the Congress should note that the recommendation made therein is a reversal of a position taken by the Chief of Engineers in his 1964 report on the entire Lower Mississippi Valley. The restudy which led to the 1964 report bad as one of its goals the object of establishing cost sharing policies which would be consistent among the several river basins forming the Lower Mississippi Valley and with those followed else- where in the United States. The 1964 recommendation concerning cost sharing was consistent with that goal. The 1960 recommendation is inconsistent with it and, if approved by the Congress, will relieve local interests in this one river basin of a cost sharing obligation uniformly imposed throughout the United States. The only reason cited for favored treatment of local interests in the St. Francis Basin is that this seems equitable in the light of very large local contributions to anti-flood measures in the past. Over the thirty years beginning in 1936 local interests in the St. Francis have contributed about 48 percent of the total spent on flood protection, against a nationwide average of 25 percent. However, in the last ten years the St. Francis local effort has aggregated only 17 percent-or well below the national average. Congress must judge where the equities lie in this situation, but it is my view that the argument for rejecting the standard cost-sharing formula in the St. Francis Basin is not at all persuasive. Mr. Chairman, the total costs of improvements authorized by the 1965 Flood Control Act were estimated at $13,229,500 in 1965. The responsibilities in question and under consideration in this report have a first cost of $7,760,000 and an annual channel maintenance cost of $84,000 based on the 1965 estimate. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement on the St. Francis Basin. Mr. JONES. The 1966 recommendation-will you repeat what the substance of that recommendation was? Colonel HALL. Basically, the 1966 recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in this report is that local cooperation for the work au'thorized by the 1965 act conform to that required `by the Flood Control Act of 1946 for the St. Francis Basin; that is the local interest responsibility is merely the maintenance of levees. The estimated cost of this would be approximately $7 million. The Secretary of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget do not concur and believe `that the local interest contribution requirements should be A B `C's-land easements and rights-of-way, hold and save, maintain, and operate and relocate highway bridges. PAGENO="0190" 176 Mr. JONES. In other words, the same as the project was authorized? Colonel HALL. This is the view of the Secretary of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget; that is c~rrect. Mr. CLAUSEN. Colonel Hall, I think we find ourselves in this partic- ular project somewhat in the same position as the other project; is that correct? Colonel HALL. That is correct. Mr. CLAUSEN. So there is a differing opinion as to what the local sponsors can and should do. Colonel HALL. That is correct, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. Could you give me your best evaluation as to why the so-called local sponsorship requirements have now resulted in a lesser amount than what was considered average on the national scale? Colonel HALL. Well, the requirements of the local cooperation re- quirements are administered or required by the authorizing acts. In this case the Flood Control Act of 1946 established the requirement of local cooperation for the St. Francis Basin project. As pointed out in the Secretary's comments, the local interests have contributed over the 30 years beginning in 1936 about 48 percent of the total spent on flood protection against the nationwide average of 95 percent. How- ever, if you only compute the last 10 years, the local-interest share amounts to approximately 17 percent. Mr. CLAUSEN. You say it is now about 17 percent. In the last 10 years, it has gone down to 17 percent? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir; the percentage of the local cooperation in the St. Francis local interest dollar cost against the Federal dollar costs spent on flood protection amounts to 17 percent. This is in accord with the authorizations for the St. Francis Basin and other basins with respect to the local cooperation requirements. General NOBLE. May I add something to that, sir? The 17 percent is a reflection of the 1946 authorization for the St. Francis Basin which differs from the nationwide policy in that consideration is given to the preponderance, local participation in the past and therefore, if you consider just the result of the current policy in the St. Francis you are bound to get a great reduction because that. was the purpose of the policy, to reduce the level of participation of the local people in St. Francis considerably below the national average, in consideration of the greater percentage over the national average in the past. If you consider just the present you see you are bound to get some- thing that has been below the national average. Mr. CLAUSEN. Let me ask this question another way. Is this particu- lar project in the basic ratio between the local cooperation and the Federal participation, is it different in another area? I am trying to pin this down as to whether or not the local interest fact.ors are on the decline. General NOBLE. For so long as the current policy remains in effect in St. Francis, the percentage of local participation for a particular project will be less than it would be for that same project somewhere else. Mr. CLAUSEN. Why? PAGENO="0191" 177 General NOBLE. Because of the 1946 Flood Control Act in recogni- tion of the fact that in the past for a considerable period of time local participation was considerably greater than it was elsewhere in the country. Mr. CLAnSEN. Who established that policy? Colonel HALL. This is in the local cooperation requirements estab- lished by the Flood Control Act of 1946. General NOBLE. It says: The Federal Flood Control Act adopted July 24, 1946, Congress modified the previously authorized local cooperation requirements for the St. Francis to provide only for the maintenance of levees. Mr. JONES. Mr. Schwengel? Mr. SCHWENGEL. No questions. Mr. JONES. Any further questions? I might say this is a complicated project, General. Could we just go over the whole proposition very simply and let us see again where we stand. Start with the 1946 Flood Control Act establishing the local participation requirements. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would you read that section of that act that delineates the requirements? Colonel HALL. I have it right here: (g) Modification of the authorized project for the Lower Mississippi River to provide that the local cooperation to be hereafter furnished for the work authorized in the Saint Francis River Basin-shall consist of the requirement that responsible local interests agree to maintain levees in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of May 15, 1928 where maintenance is required under existing law. If I might, Mr. chairman, the work authorized by the 1965 act was within the St. Francis Basin and contiguous to the work that was previously authorized and in effect this could have been construed as an extension of the existing authorized work, it was a borderline case. Mr. JONES. Why was it necessary to have an authorization in 1965? Colonel HALL. This was a review report of the MR & T project which was published and contained in House Document 308, 88th Congress, second session. Mr. JONES. That was part of the 308 report? Colonel hALL. That is correct, sir. Mr. JONES. And the act of 1965 provided that we would have the same local participation as required in all other projects. Colonel HALL. That is correct, sir, for this work that is contained in the St. Francis Basin. Mr. JONES. That increased the local requirement. Colonel HALL. That is correct. Mr. JONES. What was the attitude of the people in the area, the sponsors? Were they willing to assume this increased cost, do you recall? Colonel HALL. I do not recall, sir. Mr. JONES. Well, I cannot recall either. I was here and remember part of the project, but I do not remember whether or not there was a statement of the part of the sponsors that they were to maintain that increased requirement. PAGENO="0192" 178 STATEMENT OP BURRELL B~ PAIR, CIVIL ENGINEER, ST. FRANCIS LEVEE DISTRICT, WEST MEMPHIS, ARL Mr. FAIR. I am Burrell B. Fair, Chief Engineer of the St. Francis Levee District, the Arkansas sponsors of this work. It has been the position of my board that local cooperation would be furnished as required by Congress. We did not accept the recom- mendation of the 308 report but we felt after consideration that Con- gress would go along with the 1946 act and recommend the same local cooperation that we had had on the previous work. In other words, my board agreed that it was left in the hands of Congress, whatever Congress required. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well then, what would be the position of the board if Congress did not go along with this? Mr. FAIR. If they did not, I feel the Board would have to make some effort to obtain the money to provide this local cooperation. It would be a serious problem, Mr. Congressman, because we are still paying off our bonded indebtedness, the construction that was done before the Federal Government entered into the program. We are stifi in debt from the pre-1936 phase and the pre-1946 phase and we paid all of the cost of everything that was done. Mr. CLAUSEN. At least according to the report I have before me, we did not have all of the comments from the various agencies. We only have the Bureau of the Budget and the Secretary of the Army. Are they favorable, or what is the position of the State of Arkansas? Colonel H~i~L. I might point out that the percentage of the local- cooperation requirements and is not in the sense a normal survey re- port which requires the comments of the other Federal agencies. Mr. CLAUSEN. I see. I overlooked this. Colonel HALL. I might point out that the percentage of the local interest share, this 48 percent, was that derived from the 30 years beginning in 1936 and did not address itself to that period of time prior to 1936 which Mr. Fair alluded to. Mr. Jo~ns. And the recommendation of the Chief of the Corps of Engineers at the present time is what? Colonel HALL. The recommendation of the Chief of Engineers in this report is that local cooperation in the St. Francis Basin conform to that required in section 10 of the 1946 Flood Control Act which shall, to quote from the act: "Shall consist of the requirement that the responsible local interest agree to main- tain levees in accordance with provisions of section 3 of the Act of May 15, 1928, where maintenance is required under existing law." Mr. JONES. Any further questions? This is certainly a case of march- ing uphill and downhill at the same time. In accordance with Mr. Gathings request we will put Mr. W. M. Smith's statement in the record at this point. (The prepared statement of W. M. Smith, Jr., follows:) STATEMITcT OF W. M. SMITH, ~TR. Mr. Ohairman and members of the committee, my name is W. M. Smith, Tr., I live in Birdeye, Arkansas where I am engaged in farming and other business nctivities. I appear here today as President of the Board of the Directors of the St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas. PAGENO="0193" 179 My testimony is in regard to Senate Document 11, 90th Congress, 1st Ses- sion. This report was made in response to a directive contained in Public Law 89-298 which required that the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, review the requirements of local cooperation for the improvements in the St. Francis Basin, Missouri and Arkansas, with particular reference to Federal and non-Federal cost sharing. Senate Report No. 464, 89th Congress, 1st Session, on pages 10 and 11, out- lines the circumstances creating the confusion which resulted in the committee's request for a further study `of local cooperation in the St. Francis Basin. Cer- tain modifications of the St. Francis Project had been recommended in House Document 308, 88th Congress, subject to the requirement that local interests provide all right of way and, relocations, hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction and operate and maintain the works after completion. In behalf of the local interests, I had contended that the new work should be authorized with the same requirements of local cooperation as on the previously authorized work, namely, maintenance of levees. The position I have taken has been the subject of detailed testimony given this committee in previous hearings. I have explained that House Document 308, 88th Congress, set up criteria for the application of requirements of local cooperation for the various improvements throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley recom- mended in that Document. The criteria provided that: (a) no additional local cooperation should be required for minor exten- sions of authorized channels or levees or minor changes in structures to ex- tend benefits to adjoining areas without involving redesign or reduction of effectiveness of the basic project; and (b) additional local cooperation should be required for extensions of authorized channels or levees to provide benefits to large areas of land not previously benefited. My contention is that the size of the area involved; the relation of the $13 million cost of the modifications to the $130 million cost of the remainder of the project and the fact that the entire area is within the area previously benefited by the project distinctly fit this work into criteria (a). In previous testimony I have also compared the modifications in the St. Francis Basin to modifications recommended for other tributary basins in the same report with no additional local cooperation required. These comparisons further prove that a mistake was made in the application of the criteria. In his comments in Senate Document 11, the Chief of Engineers, upon recon- sideration, has recommended that .the local cooperation for the improvements for the St. Francis Basin authorized in the Flood Control Act of 1965 be modified to conform with those required for the previously authorized work. Aside from the mis-application of the criteria used to determine local coopera- tion, the Chief of Engineers, at the specific direction of the committee, made a study of the relationship between Federal and Non-Federal cost sharing in the St. Francis Basin. A thorough search of the records of the various Levee and Drainage Districts revealed that local interests in the St. Francis Basin, with funds raised by direct local taxation, had expended more than $154 million on the levee and drainage system in the Basin. This information, well documented in the report, was not `available at the time the 1964 report was made. Obviously, it has a great bearing on the equities of the matter since it does reflect expenditures far in excess of the amount which would be required by any current rule of cost sharing or local participation. Furthermore, the review takes into account the fact that the St. Francis Basin lies in parts of the states of Missouri and Arkansas. The design of the entire drainage system in Arkansas is affected by the burden of the water from Missouri. With his comprehensive review of all these factors, the Chief of Engineers has very properly recommended the correction of the error made in the original report. The Secretary of the Army and the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget do not agree with the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers. They both refer to this as a reversal of the position he took in his 1964 report. They choose to ignore the history of local cooperation in the St. Francis Basin, the physical conditions which govern the design of the proposed work and the ap- plication of criteria which should have been applied uniformly in the 1964 report. I respectfully suggest to this committee that anything less than the acceptance 97-700-GS----13 PAGENO="0194" 180 of the Chief of Engineers recommendation in Senate Document 11 would amount to inequitable and discriminatory treatment of the St. Francis Basin. In closing, I would like to impress upon the committee that the people of the St. Francis Basin, and other areas like it throughout the nation, have a long history of participation and self help in their flood control problems. The St. Francis Levee District of Arkansas was organized in 1893. Nearly all the Levee and Drainage Districts in the Basin have been in continuous operation for more than 60 years and their levee and drainage systems were well advanced before the Federal Government began its participation in these projects. It has been and the Secretary of the Army have failed to recognize this. If their attitude the policy of Congress to recognize these local efforts. The Bureau of the Budget should prevail, it would be possible for an area which had done nothing to solve its own problems to receive more favorable treatment than an area which had a long history of local cooperation. We are proud of what has been done in the St. Francis Basin and the willingness of our people to provide the funds they have provided for drainage and flood control. We believe this committee will recognize our efforts and will afford us fair treatment. I respectfully urge that you approve the report of the Chief of Engineers in Senate Document 11 and require that the local cooperation for the modifica- tions in the St. Francis Basin be the same as on the previously authorized work. Mr. Jo~s. We will next take up the project of the Mississippi River between Columbus and Hickman, Ky. Colonel Hall, you may proceed. MISSISSIPPI RIVER-COLUMBUS TO HICKMAN~ KY. Colonel HALL. This presentation concerns a report which was pre- pared in response to a resolution of the House Public Works Com- mittee, adopted June 19, 19G3. The flood problem area is located along the east bank of the Missis- sippi River between Columbus and Hickman, Ky. The existing Mississippi River and tributaries project provides for flood control and related improvements in the vicinity of the study area. These include the Mississippi River revetments adjacent to the study area, the Birds Point-New Madrid Floodway across the river from the study area, the Hickman levee and floodwall at Hickman, and the enlargement of the lower portion of the Obion Creek channel within the project area. Crop production losses caused by Mississippi River floods that occur nearly every year constitute the primary flood problem in the study area. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends the con- struction of 14.2 miles of levee with related interior drainage facilities, including a 150 cubic feet per second pumping plant. Local interests have indicated their willingness and ability to meet the local cooperation requirements for the project. Local interests are to provide the normal a, b, c, requirements for the project and furnish assurances that they will make all necessary alterations to utilities and highway bridges, annually publish that the project does not provide protection from Mississippi River stages greater than 57 feet at the Cairo gage, and take appropriate steps to limit future human habita- tion within the leveed area. The total estimated cost is $5,125,000 of which $4,765,000 is Federal, and $360,000 is non-Federal. Annual benefits are estimated at $248,300 and annual costs at $189,000 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.3. PAGENO="0195" 181 The report is in process to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and in- terested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement on this project. Mr. JONES. Are there questions? At this point in the record of hearings will be inserted the state- ment of the Honorable Frank A. Stubblefield. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I urge your including in the bill YOU are now preparing the improvements recommended by the Chief of Engineers for flood protection of lands in Hickman and Fulton Counties, Ken- tucky, between Columbus and Hickman which are subject to annual inundation from the Mississippi River. The area involved is about 40,000 acres of highly-productive farmlands which are limited in their production because of the annual flooding. The report of the Corps of Engineers stated that the annual crop production losses each year average $193,800. Only those crops which can be planted relatively late, such as soybeans and corn, can be grown. These crops, along with pecans, are the principal products in the area. The plan of improvement, proposed by the Corps of Engineers, provides for a levee which will protect these lands from floods of the Mississippi having a fre- quency of once in 25 years, a small pumping station to provide for interior drainage, and the development of a fish and wildlife area to offset damages to those resources from flood control improvement. The cost-benefit ratio is 1.3 for an estimated Federal cost of $4,7G5,000. The local interests have already taken steps to organize a levee district to furnish the local cooperation and will be ready and financially capable of doing so, when necessary. I urge your favorable consideration of this project, the completion of which will greatly improve the economic status of the area. Mr. JONES. Next is the Arkansas-Red River Basins, water quality study, part TI, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. ARKANSAS-RED RIVER BASINS, WATER QUALITY STUDY, PART II, TEXAS, OKLAHOMA~ AND KANSAS Colonel HALL. Colonel Shaffer will give this presentation, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. You may proceed, Colonel Shaffer. Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this is the second and final report on the study which has been made in co- operation with the Public Health Service-Federal Water Pollution Control Administration-of methods and means for improving and managing the quality of water in the Arkansas and Red River Basins. Preliminary investigations have revealed that 15 major sources of natural chloride pollution are the primary cause of water degradation in the area. Waters for considerable instances on these streams are limited in use because of the far-reaching effects of natural brine emission. The Chief of Engineers proposes the construction and operation of the Red River chloride control project consisting of four subsurface PAGENO="0196" 182 brine collection systems with attendant pumping facilities and four brine storage reservoirs. These improvements in conjunction with the Wichita River project, Texas, authorized in 1966, would complete the plan for the Red River Basin. He also proposes construction and operation of the Arkansas River chloride control project consisting of three fresh water reservoirs with outlet diversion channels and supplemental field investigations, in- cluding test structures, in both basins. The estimated construction cost of new work in the Red River Basin is $55,680,000 and the annual cost of operation, maintenance, replace- ments, and engineering studies is $321,000. The estimated cost of the Arkansas River improvements is $177,500,000 and the ammal cost of operation, maintenance, replace- ments, and engineering studies is $179,000. The supplemental field in- vestigations are estimated to cost $2,250,000. Annual water quality control benefits in the Red River Basin are estimated to be $5,251,000 and the benefit-cost ratio is 2.3. The ammal benefits due to water quality control and other related purposes in the Arkansas River Basin are estimated to be $7,668,000 and the benefit- cost ratio is 1.2. Local interests are required to continue and strengthen efforts to reduce man-made salt pollution and to hold and save the United States free from damages due to water rights claims. In addition, for the Arkansas River improvements, local interests are required to reimburse one-half of the separable costs allocated to recreation, and bear all costs of operation, maintenance, and replace- ment of recreation lands and facilities. Comments 0-f most of the States and Federal agencies are favor- able. The Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior called attention to damages which the proposed plan would cause to the existing Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge. The Chief of Engineers has modified the Arkansas River plan to include mitigation measures similar to those recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service. - The Corps of Engineers is coordinating further with the Governor of Kansas to find an acceptable alternative solution for the freshwater diversion reservoir that would be located on the Kansas-Oklahoma State line. After this coordination has been completed, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army, prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. Mr. JONES. Are ther questions? Next is the Lower Charles River, Mass., presented by Col. Richard L. Seidel. Mr. CLAUSEN. Colonel, before you depart have you had any com- ments from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, that is part of the Department of Interior, any comments? The only reference you make is to the Fish and Wildlife. PAGENO="0197" 183 Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir, all other comments were favorable. General NOBLE. This study, sir, was made in cooperation with it. It started out with the Public Health Service and swung over to FWPCA. Mr. CLAUSEN. Are their comments favorable? General NOBLE. It is my understanding they are. Mr. CLATJSEN. It might be helpful if we could have them supplied at this point in the record, the comments indicating whether it was fav- orable or unfavorable. What I am suggesting is that you put some- thing in the record at this point. General NOBLE. We have a letter sir, and we will insert that letter. (The information to be supplied follows:) Quotation from the letter from the Department of the Interior, dated 21 April 1967 as follows: "The report of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, `Arkansas- Red River Basins, Water Quality Conservation,' dated June 1964, is appended to the Corps report as Appendix IX in Volume 5. The recommendations and prelim- inary findings from the report have been included in the Corps' study. With the anticipated control of chlorides, operation of this project will result in an im- proved quality condition through the achievement of a desirable level of chloride control in the Basins." LOWER CHARLES RIVER, MASS. Mr. JONES. Colonel Seidel, you may proceed with the Lower Charles River project in Massachusetts. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns flood control and navigation in the reach of the Charles River in Boston and adjoining cities known in the area as the Charles River Basin. It is in partial response to a House of Representatives Public Works Committee resolution adopted June 24, 1965. The existing Charles River Dam was completed in 1910 by local interests to create an impoundment or basin to eliminate tidal fluctua- tions and marshes and improve the landscape. A shallow-draft naviga- tion lock is included in the dam. The existing dam and lock was designed to maintain a basin level of about 2.5 feet below mean high tide, except during flood periods when the level is temporarily raised until the excess water can be sluiced during low tide cycles. It is no longer possible to maintain the design basin level during flood periods because urbanization has changed hydrologic runoff characteristics and compressed the drainage concentration period from 3 to 4 days to a matter of hours. A rise of 18 inches in the level results in flooding in the extensive urban areas that now surround the basin. Additionally, the existing lock is inadequate for recreational boat traffic. The plan recommended proposes construction of a multiple purpose structure about 2,000 feet downstream from the existing dam. It would include pumping facilities to maintain positive discharge when necessary, three locks to accommodate current and prospective naviga- tion, and a highway viaduct. The total estimated cost of the plan is $26,500,000 of which $18,620,- 000 is Federal. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.9. PAGENO="0198" 184 Local interests are willing to meet the requirements of local co- operation. The board of engineers for rivers and harbors acted favorably on the report. of the division engineer on June 18, 1968. The proposed report of the Chief of Engineers is being prepared for processing to the State and Federal agencies for review and comment prior to its submission to the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. Mr. JONES. Any questions? The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Is there any silting problem in this area? Colonel SEIDEL. A silting problem? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. Mr. SCUWENGEL. Watersheds are well developed so you do not have any silt coming down? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, this is the downstream dam of a series of dams within the river's 80-mile length and we have no silting problem. Mr. SCHWENGEL. So there is no silting problem there at all? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. You have a general proximity map up there. Where is it located? Is it in the downtown Boston area? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. General NOBLE. In the vicinity of MIT. Mr. CLAUSEN. That is all. Mr. JONES. Thank you, very much. I will place in the record at this point a statement from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, Inc. MASSACHUSETTS TAXPAYERS FOUNDATION, Iuc., Boston, Mass., July 3, 1968. STATEMENT RELATIVE TO ATJTH0RIzATI0N OF A NEw DAM IN THE CHARLES RIVER BASIN (MASSACHUSETTS) FRANK J. LEO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, MAS- SACHUSETTS TAXPAYERS FOUNDATION, INC. We respectfully ask that authorization for the construction of a new darn in the lower Charles River (Mass.) Basin, by the Corps of Engineers, await com- pletion of a pending legislative investigation of the need for this facility. The position of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is that a new dam is unnecessary to achieve the purposes for which it is proposed, namely, flood control, navigational improvement and reduction of pollution. We have been advised by qualified engineers that these same objectives can be reached through improvements in the present dam and elsewhere in the Basin area. at a cost only a fraction of the cost of a new dam. While our advisers are not entirely agreed as to whether the existing gravity sluicing system can be made to serve adequately, or whether pumps should be installed at the present dam as originally proposed, they are fully agreed that a new dam is unnecessary. For reasons of professional ethics, these advisers have not been willing to criticize publicly the work of the Metropolitan District Commission's engineers- Charles A. Maguire & Associates. Two of them, however, did testify before the Massachusetts House Committee on Ways & Means in executive session, over a year ago. As a result this Committee recommended the formation of a special legislative investigating commission to study the need for a new dam. Such a commission was established by Chapter 118 of the 1967 Resolves. Appointments to this special commission are only now being completed. It is our expectation that funds will be made available to the commission which will permit it to employ independent engineering council to review the Maguire plans on an ethical basis. It is our understanding that the Corps of En- gineers has relied quite largely on engineering work of the Maguire firm in ar- riving at its own recommendations. Thus we are insisting on objectivity in the special commission's reviewS PAGENO="0199" 185 In particular, we are concerned that the special commission review the deci- sion that pumping is essential for adequate flood control and, if it is found to be, that it review the basis on which Maguire found that none of five or six possible locations for pumping facilities at the present dam is feasible. We expect it to review also the determination that additional lock capacity to meet future navigational needs requires a new dam. Our information is that forseeable needs can be met by an extension of the present lock to any necssary degree, with an additional gate. Preliminary plans for such an extension already exist, prepared by a different engineer. And finally, we expect the commission to review the determination that a new dam is necessary to reduce pollution in the Basin. We are informed that this is not so and, with respect to intruded salt water, that its removal can be readily accomplished by pumping at either the existing or new dam. We ask only that this commission be allowed to complete its task without the inevitable influence that a premature Congressional authorization for the new dam would have on its deliberations. We have every confidence that your Committee will see the reasonableness of our request and, at this time of alarm- ing budget deficits, defer any action on so shaky a project. Mr. JONES. Next is the Potomac River Basin, Md., Va., W. Va., Pa. and District of Columbia. POTOMAC RIVER BASIN~ MD., VA., W. VA., PA., AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report is concerned with six multiple-purpose darn and reservoir projects in the Potomac River Basin. These are the Sixes Bridge, Town Creek, and Sideling Hill projects in Maryland, the Verona Staunton project in Virginia, and the North Mountain and the Little Cacapon projects in West Virginia. The Sixes Bridge project serves water supply and water quality improvement needs along the Monocacy River in Frederick and Carroll Counties, Md. The Verona Staunton project serves similar needs along the upper reaches of the Shenandoah River in Augusta County, Va. These two projects together with the authorized Bloomington project and the Town Creek, Sideling Hill, Little Cacapon and North Mountain pro- jects would provide needed recreational opportunities in the upper basin and, in acting as a system, they would provide logical steps in solution of the Metropolitan Washington area's water supply needs for about a 20-year period. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of the six reser- voir projects at an estimated Federal cost of $124,980,000 of which $11,016,000 is reimbursable for water supply and $13,389,000 for rec- reation and fish and wildlife. The projects are economically justified. The report has been submitted to the States of West Virginia, Vir- ginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, to the District of Columbia and to the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chiefs of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to submission to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Are there questions ~ Mr. SOHWENGEL. I have a question. What is the estimated life of the structures? Colonel SEIDEL. All reservoirs are 100 years, sir. Mr. SOHWENGEL. There is a silting problem there, or is there a silting problem? PAGENO="0200" 186 Colonel SEIDFi~. AU reservoirs do have a silting problem and this is taken care of in our provision of sediment storage in their design. In addition, there is programed in the comprehensive plan, extensive SCS program, some 527 projects which would be of help to us. Mr. SORWENGEL. Do you have any idea on the estimated date of completing the watershed? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Have the Engineers ever given thought to writing a requirement in the law, that this kind of money, how many people would that serve in those areas? Colonel SEIDEL. The entire Metropolitan Washington complex, sir. Mr~ SOUWENGEL. It would serve the whole area, the immediate pop- ulation where they are served with a water supply. It is very small and it might be worth our while some day to talk about adopting a public policy that would require that we spend this kind of money to program a complete watershed within a given time and thereby protecting our installations there, extend the life of these areas. We had a project this morning where we proposed to spend $15 million to clean up a lake area facility and as you say these will last for 100 years, but in that period there will be a large section of water displaced. General NOBLE. I would like to clarify that a little bit, sir. In our reservoir projects we provide for pools for various purposes. Part of the pools is allocated to water supply. Some capacity would be al- located to flood control, and so forth. There is a part of every reservoir that is dedicated to silt. At the time the project is conceived and designed, it is planned that the silt level, during the full life of the project, will not exceed that portion of the capacity that is dedicated to serve that purpose. It is not true that at the end of 100 years we may have a waterfall. We should still have full useful capacity storage, with the silt as provided for when it was designed. Mr. SOHWENGEL. But any amount of silt you have coining in there reduces your capacity to store water. General NOBLE. That is right. Until the silt completely fills up the reservoir, we provide for use of that capacity, it is voluminous and you can use it for something else. Mr. C~LAUSEN. Colonel, recognizing that you have listed here a series of projects in the so-called Potomac River Basin, if you were to estab- lish a priority on any one of these projects as listed, starting off with Sixes, Verona, et cetera, what would be the order? Colonel SEIDEL. As they are listed. Mr. CLAuSEN. So that the first priority project in this series of projects would be the Sixes and the second would be Verona Staunton? Colonel SEIDEL. That is right, sir. Mr. JONES. Mr. Miller? Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I understand the life of the project will be for 100 years and the reimbursement of cost. Now, how long will it take for the cost to he reimbursed, the same time? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the recreation cost must be paid or reimbursed by the 50th year. The local interests normally do not take that long. Mr. MILLER. The water supply cost the same? Colonel SEIDEL. It is 50 years for the water supply. PAGENO="0201" 187 Mr. MILLER. I see. On the recreation costs, what formula do you use to come up with the figures that you have? Colonel SEIDEL. This is one-half of the separable costs, those costs which are typically earmarked for recreation. In other words, in our structure we have a number of costs which are joint costs, they are applicable to all purposes; but those which we can identify specifically for recreation are separable costs, the local interests pays 50 percent of these according to the Recreation Act. Mr. MILLER. Yes. My question is what formula, though, could be used or do you use in order to come up with a valid dollar figure for recreation. Colonel SEIDEL. The figure that we have represented in my state- ment in the handout, sir, each individual project has a separate reim- bursable feature. On page 2 of the handout, we arrive thereby going through the project formulation as I just stated in computing how the costs were allocated to the various functions that the reservoir must perform. One of these, a percentage of the cost will be allocated to recreation, the separable cost, one-half of this sum of what is paid is represented here as a reimbursable cost. Mr. MILLER. Still, my question is-I have heard of such a thing as $1 a day per person. General NOBLE. You are talking benefits now, sir. Colonel SEIDEL. I was talking costs. May I have your question again? Mr. MILLER. Well, I have heard various formulas how you come up with a formula for recreation and the formula you use for this pur- pose. What is the formula you use for benefits? Colonel SEIDEL. The recreational activity, sir, is computed from first deriving an estimate of what we consider to be the annual visitation at this particular project. This is what we call user-days. Depending on the type of recreational facility available, it has a different value. Fishing has one value in dollars, hunting has another, canoeing another. We apply these to the visitation as we estimate the recreation strength that will occur. This, then, we total and this gives us our recreational benefits. Mr. MILLER. To give us some idea of what we are talking about, fishing and hunting, do you have the amount per person? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, these values are given to us by the national- well, we have here roughly 50 cents to $1.50 per day depending on the type of experience that is being undergone. - Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CLAUSEN. Just one final thing, Mr. Chairman, in order to clarify this, if we have a serious problem this year budgetarily in the eyes of many people if we were to consider any one of these projects for an authorization, can they be separated and if so, which one of the projects should be given the most consideration? General NOBLE. They can be separated. You can start at the top and go as far down as you are willing to go. Mr. CLAUSEN. I see. General NOBLE. In that order. Mr. CLAUSEN. So again, your first priority is Sixes. Thank you. PAGENO="0202" 188 Mr. Jox~s. Mr. Miller, may I have your attention? The question that you asked about the calculations of the benefits to cost, recreation I think that you will find that the Corps of Engi- neers has uniformly erred in their calculation on the low side. There are far greater numbers of visitors to the reservoirs than they antici- pated and the activities have been far greater. Mr. SCHWENGETJ. I am happy to hear that. Would you say they are more conservative? Mr. Jox~s. Yes, they are. Mr. SCITWENGEL. I want to say this, too, on behalf of the Engineers. I am a great admirer of the Army Engineers. I think they serve the public interest better than any other phase of our military. Apparently you have sought ways to save money and work effectively, efficiently and well, and closely with the local interests as well as cooperatmg with the Congress. The gentleman from Ohio has given me an excuse to say this again and I do every time I have an opportunity. Mr. Jo~s. Thank you. We now have Mr. Jones R. Moulton of Charleston, W. Va. Mr. Moulton, have a seat. We are pleased to have you, sir. Do you have a prepared statement? STATEMENT OP IONES It. MOULTON, CHARLESTON, W. VA. Mr. M0tLT0N. I have a very short statement, Mr. Chairman and I will not read all of it. I will give it to you afterward. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee I am Jones R. Moul- tion of Charleston, W. Va. I am president of the Potomac Basin Federation which is a voluntary association of citizen groups from most parts of the basin. I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before you today. I wish to testify very briefly on the proposed dam construction by the Army Corps of Engineers in this river basin and I want to very briefly digress on a dam proposed which is not listed today because of the circumstances. I wish to bring you the protest of our member groups in Grant and Pendleton Counties in West Virginia who are very much disturbed by the proposed Royal Glenn Darn near Petersburg, IV. Va. Last Saturday, June 15, our federation's regular quarterly meeting was held at Petersburg and there was much discussion of the Royal Glenn proposal and I was asked to present the protest of these people in Washington as forcibly as possible. It is widely believed that the small watershed type of program that is the Soil Conservation Service deal with small headwater dams and possibly some levee construction around Petersburg will solve the flood problem there without the disastrous disruption of the commu- nity which the larger Royal Glenn Dam is expected to cause if it is built. It is because of the uproar you might call it at this meeting that I inject this, although I understand it is not presently being considered. Over a period of many months I have heard bitter2 resentful, and angry opposition to large-scale Government land acquisition for these projects in that area particularly. PAGENO="0203" 189 The membership of the Potomac Basin Federation stands squarely opposed to large scale Corps of Engineer type dams in the Potomac Basin. This does not mean that dams such as the Sixes Bridge's dam we would categorically oppose, but we feel there should be large-scale local participation in the control of the water use and therefore, we oppose the construction by the corps under present corps methods of control. This would apply to the other dams. We contend that the danger of floods has been enormously exaggerated. I lived through the 1936 flood in Washington when my office was on Constitution Avenue and the actual facts simply did not approach the present stories we are hearing as far as the actual flood damage in Washington. Similarly, on the other flood damage we believe it has been relatively minor as compared to the enormous cost of the flood control projects which the Corps of Engineers wants to build. We believe that the implementation of the soil conservation services program for the 527 small headwater dams plus the use of good gen- eral agriculture and other related practices will be more than adequate to hold flood damage within acceptable limits. We believe that the SCS program will help to provide for local water needs and will reduce somewhat the fluctuation between peak and low flow periods in the main river, although this is an item on which there is a considerable degree of argument. We believe that the relatively clean water of the streams upper estuaries below Great Falls can be used as a supplemental water sup- ply for Washington. That water is the same water that is taken out of Great Falls, but it has come down over the Falls and rapids and it should, in general, be as clean or cleaner than the Great Falls water and this can be used to alleviate some of the water shortage in the Washington area at much lower cost than the upstream darn. We believe that the control of pollution by flushing the water down- stream from large reservoirs is considered largely obsolete now and with the better method of control involving elimination or reduction of pollution at the source, the use of better treatment plants, that these large dams are unnecessary for this purpose. We believe the need for recreational facilities is questionable. In our upstream areas, particularly around the Back Creek area where there are large-scale public recreation facilities already which are not being fully utilized, we believe that the drawdown of the reservoir levels would cause damage to the recreational values and make the areas unusable for considerable periods and that the damage to the other recreational uses to the land which would exist if the dams are not present would be greater than the increase in recreation after the dams are constructed. In summary, the Potomac Basin Federation recommends that none of the large Corps of Engineers dams in the basin be built and we be- lieve other methods of solving existing problems are available which offer the probability of better results at lower cost and with less de- struction of existing values. Mr. JONES. Mr. Moulton, as I take it you are opposed to all the darns except the Sixes Bridge. Mr. MOULTON. Well, I would say that the Verona Darn which is sup- ported by some of the elements up in the Harrisonburg area for local PAGENO="0204" 190 needs, like the Sixes Bridge Dam would be perhaps acceptable if it is locally* controlled largely and with regard to the North Mountain which is nearest to my own home, the people in that area feel there is a problem for water supply in Martinsburg but they are not certain that is the best way to do it and the landowners in the area are quite upset. Mr. JONES. In other words, you maintain that there is a problem there that should be dealt with in a different scheme of having soil conservation build a series of small reservoirs throughout the area? Mr. MoULToN. I prefer that solution and our members do, in gen- eral, but we recognize it is conceivable that larger dams than that might, under some circumstances, he needed for ~water supply. Mr. Jo~n~s. Is there a general acknowledgment in or about our group that this is needed, the works are needed and there is a problem? Mr. Moui~oN. We do not generally acknowledge the need of dams on this scale in view of the large amount of work the Soil Conserva- tion Service is already doing. Mr. JONES. You think that would be adequate to satisfy the needs in the next quarter century? Mr. MOULTON. I would say so with the use of the estuary. Mr. Jo~ns. We had an experience not too long ago, where we had a proposition before the committee, and I recall that we had a series of hearings throughout the area of Oklahoma-Kansas and the argument was made and we postponed the authorizatoin of the Federal Creek Reservoir and the newspapers of Oklahoma wrote ar series of articles on big dam foolishness and the cost to the Federal Government. We had a terrific flood and now the structures have been made and there is a control in that river. So I hope that you do not have the experience that they had in the tributaries of Kansas. Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Chairman, me and my family have lived through and experienced most of the flood damage. In fact, I would say all of it in the last 30 or 40 years in the Potomac Basin and I have person- ally talked to landowners whose property was damaged in all of the key areas and our feeling is that the present danger of damage from floods is reduced because of the existence of already a considerable number of the smaller upstream dams. Mr. JONES. Well, I think both of them have their place and they should be constructed with the new form of approach by the Soil Con- servation and the Corps of Engineers. They said one of the things that was old fashioned to think that you could reduce pollution by the con- struction of these dams and I would like to point out to you that there have been 27 dams constructed and the water today is cleaner than it was in 1933 when the construction started. So I think you will find it is an integral part of the effort, a very residual part of the effort to reduce pollution even though you build all the treatment plants you want to you still have to have enough water to flush the toilets. I do not see how you are going to avoid that especially with the population that resides in this area. The population is growing by leaps and bounds so it seems to me that we are going to have to have res- ervoirs if we are going to maintain useable mainstreams. Mr. MOULToN. As I understand, there are 1,400,000 acres involved in the soil conservation program and this will do a very substantial job and we feel the attack on pollution should continue. PAGENO="0205" 191 Mr. JONES. One will complement the other. As another thing, Mr. Schwengel you will have to observe the question you were asking Gen- eral Noble if these soil conservation problems are seen through it will be substantially reduced, that is the siltation in the larger reservoirs. Thank you very much, Mr. Moulton. Mr. CLAUSEN. How many people do you represent within your or- ganization? Mr. MOULTON. It is between 4,000 and 5,000, mostly home and farm- owners. Mr. CLAUSEN. So it is your position that you, as an organization, have no objection to the Sixes Bridge and the Verona project at this point? Mr. MOULTON. In location and type, if local people want them and participate in them, we would go along with them. Mr. SOHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to this. I, too, for a long time was influenced by a man named Peterson who wrote a book called "Big Dam Foolishness" and the gentleman from Alabama was referring to was an echo of that book but I recognize now Mr. Peterson was a great conservationist,. I recognize also that we need these reservoir dams, these installa- tions as proposed here before us this morning. I agree with you we need more in the development of the watersheds. I can understand why your kind of dedicated cause, you may have gotten some of your in- fluence from one of the finest leaders in watersheds in the United States, from West Virginia. I cannot think of his name, but he was be- fore this committee and he was complaining of the fact that we do not get on with the business of completing the watersheds, not only the smaller reservoirs but the ponds, the water diversion channels that are needed and the contour farming, farming around a hill rather than up and down the hill, and elimination of some needless crop growing. There is soil conservation in many areas and great concentration in all these areas, but believe me, I think we cannot sit here and testify against these other installations, but let us try to work out a coopera- tive program to develop both programs and then we will be serving the public interest a lot better, I think. Mr. MOULTON. We who live in the area that would be flooded by the projects feel very strongly about the location and type and size of the dam. My own farm was surveyed for a corps dam about 20-some years ago and there were tests drilled to see if the subsoil would stand reservoir dam construction and so forth. We lived through this. There was such opposition and this was abandoned and I had to go out after- ward and haul out the pipes that they left. So I am quite familiar with the give and take of these projects. This makes the third time in 25 years there has been a major project for dams in the immediate area in which I live. Mr. Joici~s. Thank you very much. We are certainly obliged to you. You have given us some valuable information. That concludes the hearings except on the Florida projects. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. Mr. SOHwENGEL. Mr. Chairman, before we dismiss, this committee met yesterday and I think we got unanimous consent to submit state- ments. I want to make sure that we can submit statements. Mr. CI~&usEN. The committee generally recognized that yesterday. PAGENO="0206" 192 Mr. Joxns. Yes, we did. (Attached at this point are statements relating to this project which were later submitted for the record of hearings:) STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION Mr. Chairman, I am Thomas L. Kimball, Executive Director of the National Wildlife Federation, which has its headquarters at 1412 Sixteenth Street, N. W., here in Washington, D. C. The National Wildlife Federation is a private, non-profit organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. The National Wildlife Federation has affiliates in 49 states. These affiliates, in turn, are made up of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2½ million persons. We welcome th& invitation and opportunity to comment upon the proposed construction of certain dams on the tributary streams of the Potomac River by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. It is interesting to note that in the announcement of Public Hearing on these dams, dated March 5, 1968, issued by the Corps of Engineers over the signature of Brig. General H. G. Woodbury, Jr., a part of President Johnson's message of February 8, 1968, on the Potomac is quoted. However, we believe we should at this time complete that quotation. It is: "A program must be devised which will: "a. Clean up the river and keep it clean, so it can be used for boating, swimming, and fishing. "b. Protect its natural beauties by the acquisition of scenic easements, zoning, or other measures. "c. Provide adequate recreational facilities, and "d. Complete the presently authorized George Washington Memorial Park- way on both banks. . . It has been recorded that, as early as 1935, proposals were made to develop the water resources of the Potomac River. In the beginning, flood control and power development were the prime purposes which received attention of the Corps of Engineers; however, it was not until 1962 and 1963 that Corps plans were developed to include flood control, water supply for Washington, D.C., pollution dilution, levels of streamfiow, and scenic and recreational opportunities in the Basin. When the plan was finally released, it was revealed that one large dam on the main stem (Seneca or Point 0' Rocks) and reservoirs on sixteen tributaries were being proposed. All these dams were designed to store water at flood stage and release or draw it down during the year to maintain flow levels in the river and provide for water supply in the Washington Metropolitan area as well as flushing and diluting pollution in the lower reaches of the river. Also mentioned in the 1963 Corps plan were site locations of 420 small soil and water conservation type dams scattered at the head waters of the tributaries of the Potomac River. Nearly five years have passed and we do not see in the proposal presented any reference to the construction of these small dams in the watershed above the dam sites or any consideration by the Corps of the now- recognized importance of these upstream structures in soil and water con- servation. The Interior Department now is advocating the establishment of a Potomac National River and apparently does not oppose the plans of the Corps for con- struction of the reservoirs which are the subject of this hearing. And, apparently, neither the Corps of Engineers nor the Department of the Interior oppose the small watershed development program of the Soil Conservation Service, the approach we consider as the most basic and important, together with pollution controL Thus, we see a real need for coordination. With this background, we shall comment briefly upon the proposals under consideration here today. We do not oppose Bloomington Reservoir but believe that every possible effort must be made to clean up the acid mine pollution in order that recrea- tional use may be made of the water. We do not oppose Town Creek Reservoir in Maryland, believing it can serve a beneficial function in providing a source of water supply and for recreational purposes. PAGENO="0207" 193 We do not oppose Little Cacapon Dam and Reservoir in West Virginia, believing it can provide an emergency source of water supply and provide important lake-type recreation. We do not oppose the North Mountain Project. We oppose Sideling Hill Reservoir in Maryland, unless proven economically feasible, and further recommend that the dam site be moved upstream 6.1 miles from its presently designated location, thereby saving from destruc- tion and ruin one of the few important trout fishing streams in Maryland. We do not oppose the Sixes Bridges and Verona Reservoirs in Maryland and Virginia. We contend that it should be the responsibility of the Corps to construct all the small soil and water conservation pools in the watersheds above the dam sites of each of the projects proposed before the gates of the large dams are closed. This is only common sense and good economics. We also contend that the remaining small soil and water conservation struc- tures should be constructed during the next five years, and that studies should be conducted to determine their effect on the water supply and flow level in the Potomac. In conclusion, we question the need for haste in moving ahead to gain author- ization for these reservoirs at this time. Many important decisions relating to the overall Potomac Basin plan, such as the proposed Compact and the National River, are in various stages of development and to proceed with piecemeal author- izations appears premature at this time. This is particularly true during a time when the Nation's financial resources are strained by military and social needs. We wish to further advise that several meetings have been held with our affil- iated organizations in Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia relating to these proposals and they have approved of the position which has been set forth in this Statement. Thank you for the opportunity of making these remarks. STATEMENT BY Dn. SPENCER M. SMITH, Jn., SEcRETARY or THE OITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., Secretary of the Citizens Committee on ~Natural Resources, a national conserva- tion organization with offices in Washington, D.C. Conservation organizations and other interested public groups have had some difficulty in understanding the procedure by which the program of the Corps of Engineers is reviewed and considered. In the instant case, we assumed that the proposed report by the Corps after Public Hearings would not become final until the opportunity had been afforded the Corps to modify the recommendations, as appropriate, to reflect the com- ments of the States and other Federal Agencies. After this procedure had been achieved, we understood that the report would be transmitted to Congress for consideration. We were unaware that the States and Federal Agencies had reported or that the Corps' report reflected their comments. An additional problem has been the analytical consideration of alternatives. This was indicated in Senate Docu- ment #97 of the 87th Congress, Second Session. In Section V, Part A, Para- graph (7), the following appears: "When there are major differences among technically possible plans con- ceived as desirable on the basis of consideration of intangible benefits and costs, in comparison with optimum plans based on tangible benefits and costs, alternative combinations of projects within a river basin or alternative projects, giving expression to these major differences, shall be planned. Comparison of their economic and financial costs shall be set forth in reports to provide a basis for selection among the alternative by reviewing authorities in the executive branch and by the Congress." To further buttress this recommendation, a report of the Civil Works Study Board issued in January 1965 comments: "One of the most frequent criticisms of Corps planning is that the Corps re- ports tend to show only whether a particular project is or is not economically justified and that alternatives either have not been given sufficient considera- tion or, at least, have not been discussed in reports so others may judge the Corps recommendation in the light of alternatives. This is a valid criticism and the Corps procedures should be adjusted to meet it. There is evidence that extensive consideration has been given to alternatives in some reports but there are only a few recent examples where the alternatives are described and evaluated in PAGENO="0208" 194 the final report. Particularly where there is a possibility that objectives other than the usual economic efficiency criterion may be pertinent in the judgment of any interest concerned, there should be consideration and presentation of alternatives in reports." Many conservation organizations reacted to President Johnson's plea that the Potomac be made a model river by soliciting the advice of bydrologists, engineers, agronomists, silviculturists, economists and others. Our effort was to effect programs that would yield an adequate amount of clean water, provided quality recreation, and preserve scenic beauty. The major thrust of our efforts has been in the use of the estuary for fresh water for Washington, recycling of water when used for cooling, the acceleration of sewage treatment facilities, and an acceleration of soil conservation practices to reduce silt contamination. It was our hope to rely on these devices that would be less costly and have greater compatability with our resource uses. The seven projects proposed by the Corps of Engineers in accordance with their calculations, if authorized, would cost $131,780,000, require 20,050 acres of land for the projects alone, and an additional 28,110 acres for purposes of recreation and fish and wildlife mitigation. In addition, it would displace up- wards of 325 families, remove over 6,475 acres from agriculture, cause to be built or relocated 20.2 miles of public roads and/or highways, the building or recon- struction of six bridges, the removal of two schools, the removal of two churches, and the re-location of six cemeteries. The enormous burden of proof for these projects appears far too formidable in terms of the benefits received, especially without any analysis or consideration, of which the public is informed, as to the effectiveness of alternatives.1 We have been intrigued for a number of years at the manner in which the Corps analyzes the economic aspects of recreation. Perhaps 1 may appear overly con- cerned, since I suffer from my own background as a professional economist. The generalizations relative to recreation and fish and wildlife fall almost by their own weight. The calculation of recreation benefits is inevitably analyzed on the basis of user days only. In short, a projected classification of the total number of visitors which one may expect after the construction of the reservoir. These projection statistics do not indicate the length at which the user days will prevail. Also, we should hasten to point out that the word "projection" is somewhat mis- leading and perhaps economists have oversold this concept, for too many think of it as a prediction. Projections are made on the assumption of the relationship and magnitude of certain variables. This may be accomplished by analyzing the present relationships and projecting them into the future. It also may be accom- plished by assuming a certain magnitude due to changes, which seems most prob- able to result from a particular act. It is true that predictions may be based on such projections but predictions and projections are not the same thing. It is difficult to analyze completely how the Corps arrives at the classification of recreation. Apparently it is assumed in the first instance that the phenomenon of recreation is apparently homogeneous. Or if not homogeneous, sufficiently com- patible that all will benefit or lose as a result of something taking place or not taking place. If a reservoir is constructed, presumably all recreation users benefit. If it is not constructed, presumably all recreation users are deprived. Recreation is not homogeneous and planners with an eye to more than just a particular river basin have to take this into account, if they are to serve, as they contend they are doing, the recreation needs for people from a wide area with varying preferences. Some people like to water-ski. Other people prefer to canoe down an unobstructed stream. In short, there is never any effort to make qualitative determinations. Neither is there an effort on the part of the Corps to judge the availability of particular types of recreation in a general area, in order that their final planning will be fused into an over-all balance that is required by the area in general. My own efforts to come to some reasonable conclusions, as to the manner in which the Corps makes these calculations with such accuracy and profundity, is to request what value is given to different qualities and preferences in the com- putation of the recreation being displaced. Also to question whether recreation being displaced is in shorter or greater supply in the general area than that being offered by the reservoir construction. What impact on scenic and esthetic resources will a reservoir add rather than detract from the scenery as it now exists? How are these values assessed? Apparently none of these factors is taken `Foscilek, Ellery, "Financial Feasibility and Drawdowns of Reservoir Projects," copy attached. PAGENO="0209" 195 into active consideration. if such factors are considered, there is no information available in the reports to determine how the decision was made. The economics are similar in calculating the enhancement of fish and wildlife. It seems quite probable that in terms of total quantity of fish available in a given place man, through his various devices, caa probably increase this amount, whether it is in a reservoir or in a stream. Fish in a reservoir, however, are of one type and one quality and in a free-flowing stream, another. What species or type of fish do fishermen seek-carp, catfish, bass, trout? Some species, which do not adjust to the increased temperature which so often results in water impoundments will be non-existent or reduced in supply. Another interesting feature is that most organizations concerned with the healthy propagation of fish and wildlife, scenic beauty, and other water-based recreation interests, have been opposing most of the Corps' structures, since the Corps has been suggesting them in the Potomac River. There are those seeking economic gain, which the recreationist and fisherman will provide by his expenditures in attending such reservoirs, who urge this type of recreation development. Alas and alack, even these properly motivated individuals are often in for a shattering experience. The incident of Tuttle Creek, wherein the draw-down for purposes of navigation was so extreme that areas representing thousands of dollars of commercial investment for recreation purposes were abandoned. We are certain that this will be reported as an unusual and specific circumstance from which one should not generalize. We hasten to add, however, that the experience is far different than anticipated in many cases. We are aware that as population increases individuals will seek out all kinds of recreation opportunities. It is the relative proportion, however, that is critical. After the first few years good fishing in the reservoir tapers off to be minimal and unexciting. After the recreationist and boating enthusiast plods many yards through mud flats to reach the water, disenchantment sets in. It may be pointed out that the numbers of people, because of the population factor, may not have been significantly reduced. But what is always left unsaid is the economic opportunities and the genuine character of recreation that would have been occasioned and sought after, had the area not been so disrupted by impoundments. We sincerly hope that in meeting the President's challenge of a model Potomac River basin that we not incur the costs, the burdens, the economic dislocation, the impact on states and localities for solutions, which in our judgment, can be met far better in ways other than proposed by these structures. Solutions that enhance the scenic beauty. Solutions that increase the quality and attrac- tiveness of recreation opportunity. Solutions that lead to more pure water for the better propagation of fish and wildlife, as well as the enhancement of the health and environment of the communities in the Basin. Solutions that will indeed provide sufficient water for municipal and industrial uses. Solutions that are imaginative and constructive. Despite our disagreements with the Corps' program as the subject of this hearing today, we would urge them profoundly to direct their attention to alternatives that we do not believe they have considered seriously. It would be our thought that if they would do this, perhaps they could achieve significant breakthroughs in planning complex river basins. Mr. Jo~s. We will recess now until 2 o'clock. (Thereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. of the same day.) AF1'ERNOON SESSION Mr. JONES. The subcommittee will come to order. The purpose of our meeting this afternoon is to consider the foui projects before the subcommittee located in the State of Florida. FLORIDA PROJECTS-IIILLSBOROUGH BAY; DADE COUNTY; MARTIN COUNTY; WATER RESOURCES FOR CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. We have a very distinguished d~legation from Florida who will testify on these projects. I appreciate them being here, and I think the 97-700-6S-----14 PAGENO="0210" 196 information they have for you will be of assistance. I am happy to introduce my colleagues who are present. The Honorable Bob Sikes, Hon. Dante Fascell, Hon. Sam Gibbons; and Hon. Claude Pepper. Bob, would you care to come forward and introduce the other folks from Florida? STATEMENT OP HON. ROBERT L. F. SIXES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP FLORIDA Mr. SHiEs. Thank you very much. Mr. Jo~s. On behalf of the committee, we welcome you and your colleagues. I would like to state Mr. Sikes has been as energetic and enthusiastic as any Member of Congress-president of the Rivers and Harbors Congress, an outstanding organization. Mr. CI~usEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join you in welcoming Mr. Sikes and his colleague before the conMnittee. It is my pleasure to participate in the Rivers and Harbors Congress program. Let me just say this. For the benefit of you gentlemen from Flori- da-this is coming from a Californian now-if you have any stanch- er advocates of your projects than these gentlemen here, I do not know if the Congress could stand it. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clausen, gentlemen-you are very kind indeed. I assure you that Florida is most appreciative for those kind comments. I am sure that you would not have said those nice things unless you intended to give us the things that we are asking for today. Mr. Chairman, as you have well known, through your long and dis- tinguished leadership in this important field-and I must take a moment to pay tribute to the great contributions you have made in this field, which is so important to the preservation and protection and de- velopment of America. We subscribe to your leadership, and we are proud and happy for the great things you have done in your capacity as chairman of this very important subcommittee. As you know, the Florida delegation has always stood together on those projects which we and our counterparts and leaders in the State government `have felt are essential for `the continued sound development, growth, and progress of our great State. We are proud of `the State and proud of its progress. But we realize that we must con- tinuously work for the continued development of that State and its assets. The waterway developments, the river and harbor projects, the flood control projects which are so intimately a part of Florida's growth and progress, are going to be presented to you in detail first by our distinguished secretary of state, who is the speaker for the Florida Board of Conservation, and who speaks for the Governor and for the cabinet-he will introduce a number of the distinguished lead- ers in this field in Florida who are here with him, so that their names will appear in the record of those `attending and participating in this discussion. As you have been told by my distinguished friend, Con- gressman Cramer, the `ranking member of the great House Com- mittee on Public Works, `there are other members of my delegation here. Some of them will have a short statement to make at this time. With your permission, I would like to ask that all of them be per- PAGENO="0211" 197 mitted to file a statement in your records, thus conserving the time of the committee. Mr. JoNEs. Without objection, that will be received. Mr. SIKE5. Let me say I endorse and support the projects which will be submitted in detail by Mr. Adams. Mr. SIKES. Now, sir, it is my happy privilege to introduce Florida's distinguished secretary of state, the Honorable Tom Adams. STATEMENT OP HON. TOM ADAMS, SEORETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OP FLORIDA; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. RANDOLPH HODGES, DIRECTOR, BOARD OF CONSERVATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, TAL- LAHASSEE, FLA.; COL. JERVET KELLY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BOARD OF CONSERVATION, STATE OP FLORIDA, TALLAHASSEE, FLA.; JAMES SMITH, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, FLORIDA BOAED OF CONSERVATION, TALLAHASSEE, FLA.; AND SCOTTY FRASER, OF- FICE OF THE SECRETARY OP STATE, STATE OP FLORIDA, TALLA- HASSEE, PLA. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Congressman. Congressman Jones, distinguished members of the committee, let me express my gratitude for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of our State. I would like to introduce the other members of our group in Florida. We have brought with us Mr. Randolph Hodges, who is the director of the Florida Board of Conservation; Col. H. J. Kelly, who is the assistant director of the board of conservation; Col. James Smith of their staff; Donald Fraser, from my office; and Mr. Ed Dale, who is the director of the central and southern Florida flood control program. If it is permissible, I would like to ask Mr. Hodges and Colonel Kelly to sit here with me at the table should there be any questions by the committee when our brief presentation has been made. Mr. Chairman, it is a distinguished honor to be able to join with the members of our Florida delegation in presenting to you our state- wide program of public works projects desired to be accepted by the Public Works Committee and recommended by you for authorization by Congress. This program that I present to you has been mutually developed and agreed upon by local interests, State government, and our congres- sional delegation. Each project included has been developed by the Corps of Engineers and is recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. It is not a fragmented, sectionalized program but is the unified position of all recognized interests representing Flor- ida, and includes our position on all water-related projects in the State concerning flood control, beach erosion control, and rivers and harbors. I appreciate that your committee has s~heduled for today's hearings the flood control and hurricane protection and that Congressman Blatnik has scheduled the rivers and harbors and beach erosion control projects for his committee next week. We have come from Florida to present five projects to your committee today but we also have four additional Florida projects `to present to Congressman Blatnik's committee. PAGENO="0212" 198 My presentation to you shall be brief. However, in the written pres- entation we have presented, all of these projects are included. We wanted you to know, sir, we recognize the scope of your committee's work, and trust that it will meet with your approval if all of these matters are touched on even though briefly. As a secretary of state, I have the responsibility of serving as vice chairman of the Florida Board of Conservation which includes the Governor and the six cabinet members. Under our State law, the board of conservation has the duty of supervising and coordinating de- velopment of the water resources in Florida and preparing the unified statewide program for presentation to Congress. That is the reason for my appearing before you today. All of us in Florida are appreciative of the loyal and diligent efforts of our congressional delegation in securing Federal participation in our water resources development program. We also appreciate their cooperation and assistance in developing and presenting our unified program to Congress-it is our joint program. We in Florida recognize and appreciate our dependence on the water resources of the State for our economy, our welfare, our existence, and our future. It is our purpose and our policy as stated in Florida laws to conserve these resources by multiple-purpose developments that will yield the widest use and most valuable benefits for our people and the Nation without depleting the basic natural resources. The program we are recomending to you this year is in accord with this stated policy. In several cases it is a continuation or updating of previously started work, to conform with current developments. New projects recommended are those that have long been considered by the State and carefully studied by the Corps of Engineers. We have outlined our program in a written brief as a statement for the record and included our recommendation for each project. `Copies of the brief have been given to your committee and I will not repeat those details. The vital flood control project designed 20 years ago for south Florida needs to be reengineered and updated `to take full advantage of all water conservation aspects and provide maximum multipurpose benefits in a region that has more than quadrupled in population and tripled in. industrial development during these past two decades since the project was authorized. Modification of the project is essential to Florida because all the water that can be saved is needed. It can prop- erly be accomplished under the plan developed by the Corps of Engi- neers and recommended to this committee for authorization at this time. South Florida as we know it today has developed and progressed primarily because of the flood protection and other benefits provided by this flood control project. WTithout the modification recommended for authorization, our warter deficiencies in south Florida will con- tinue to become worse and will reach intolerable conditions for all water users as early as 1976. On construction of the project as modi- fied, the water conservation project should meet normal requirements of the region until the turn of the century, except during infrequent, extreme droughts, at which time all water users will have to share in the adversity. The Martin Coi~mty plan is also a modification of the existing cen- tral and southern Florida project and is an adjunct to the currently PAGENO="0213" 199 recommended modification to the flood control project. Water falling on the coastal areas which now flows off to the ocean, is planned to `be retained and backpumped for storage in Lake Okeechobee and re- used when needed. An important element of the Martin County project is designed for this purpose. For this reason, these two water studies are considered together as mutually supporting. The central and southern Florida flood control project is presently authorized at a total estimated Federal cost of $269 million. The pub- lic works committee has retained control of this project through the monetary or basin authorization procedures. To date, $171,300,000 has been authorized by this committee. There is not a sufficient balance remaining in the currently authorized monetary authorization to meet the requirements of fiscal year 1969. Additional authorization re- quired to carry the project through 1970 is $32 million. This amount is recommended by the Corps of Engineers and is concurred in by the State, as detailed in our statement for the record. The Florida Board of Conservation believes that improvement in transportation economies is an essential to our economic growth and stability. We further believe that the only feasible means of obtaining these economies is by providing water transportation. That is why our ports and inland waterways are `of such great importance to our economic development and long-range security. A 250-mile inland waterway project along the Gulf of Mexico from St. Marks River to Tampa Bay, Fla., designed to interconnect the inland waterways of the Atlantic seaboard with those of the Gulf of Mexico and the m.idcontinental United States, completing and tying together these separate systems, has been studied by the Corps of En- gineers for the past 4 or 5 years and is recommended for authoriza- tion at this time. Metropolitan-Dade County is completing this year a $23 million improvement program for the Miami port that will provide a mod- ern passenger terminal, marginal wharves, transit sheds, warehouses, utilities, and other facilities needed for an efficient and modern port. A second phase development of the port is now in the planning stage for a longer range plan to meet future requirements. The exist- ing channel depth of 30 feet for the Miami Harbor is inadequate to meet current requirements and will practically close out use by ships now under construction which are planned for future operations. The population and growth demands of the Miami area dictate considera- tion of improving the navigation facilities to meet at least the mini- mum demands of water transportation. Deepening of the main ship channel and turning basin to 36 feet is fully justified at this time. Authorization of this channel improvement is requested by Florida. Port Sutton is served by a side channel in Tampa Harbor. The Port Sutton `Channel and related port facilities were constructed with local funds. It was constructed to meet the growing industrial demands of the Florida west coast area. The Federal Government maintains all other channels of Tampa Harbor, but since the Port Sutton Channel was developed at private expense, it is not presently maintained by the Federal Government. The purpose of this request is to seek Federal authorization for maintenance of this channel, the same as for other channels in the Tampa Harbor. There are two beach erosion control projects in Florida recommended for construction to protect important areas of our shoreline, one in PAGENO="0214" 200 the Cape Canaveral area and the other along the heavily built-up Miami Beach. Local interests have agreed to pay the major share of cost of both of these projects. These beaches are important recreational and public use areas, essential to the economy of the region served. Details of these projects are contained in the statement for the record submitted to your committee. We request your favorable consideration for authorization of these two beach erosion control projects. A hurricane protection project for Hiliborough Bay, an arm of the Tampa Bay, is designed to protect the. expensive and highly developed urban and industrial developments along the bay front at Tampa. Hurricanes passing over or near Tampa Bay have generated tides ex- ceeding 14 feet at Tampa. Such tidal waves would cause serious flood- ing today and extremely heavy property damage along the bay front. Much of the bay front development is constructed only 4 to 5 feet above sea level. The project would be extremely valuable as a protection in Hillsborough Bay and is recommended by the State for authorization, subject to review by the Public Works Committee after preconstruc- tion studies are made to determine wave effect on other areas of Tampa Bay and the effects of the project on pollution in the waters of the bay. We realize that reports on some of the projects for which we request authorization may not have been processed by all Federal agencies and their comments may not have been available in time for the Chief of Engineers to submit .the reports to Congress in final form. However, all of these projects have been studied by the Corps of Engineers and favorably reported by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. If any of the reports discussed have not. reached your committee before the hearings are completed, we hope that you may call up any interested agency to present their comments so t.he committee may consider the project before markup of the omnibus bill. We hope that these project reports having cleared the Board will be favorably considered by your committee for inclusion in the omni- bus bill for 1968. I would like to express appreciation for Congressman Cramer's assistance in preparing for our presentation, and for the help of the committee staff assistant, Mr. Les Eddleman, in arranging for our appearance before the committee. It has been a great pleasure for us to have this opportunity, and we are deeply grateful for your time. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. I will yield to the other members that might have questions at this point. Mr. CLAUSEN. I do not have any major questions at this point, other than to certainly compliment you, Mr. Adams, for what I think is one of the finest presentations that we have had a chance to observe. It is quite obvious you are getting proper tutoring from someplace, because so many times there is a difference of opinion among the delegations that come in. And this consolidated presentation on the part of your entire delegation certainly makes our task much easier. We appreciate it very much. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you. Mr. JONES. We are not going to let you get away without hearing from Colonel Kelly. This would not be a proper discussion without an observation from him. PAGENO="0215" 201 Colonel K1~Lry, Thank you, sir. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will submit the prepared statement we have and request it be inserted in the record. Mr. JONES. It will be made a part of the record at this point. STATEMENT OF FLORIDA BOARD OF CONSERVATION FOR PuBLI0 WORKS OMNIBUS BILL OF 19G8 ny HON. TOM ADAMS, VICE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY OF STATE Mr. Chairman and members of the Public Works Committee, it is my pleasure to have this opportunity of discussing with you our Florida program of water resources development. It is also my honor to be able to join with the members of our Florida Delegation in presenting to you our State-wide program of public works projects desired to be accepted by the Public Works Committee and rec- ommended by you for authorization by Congress. This program that I present to you has been mutually developed and agreed upon by local interests, state government, and our Congressional Delegation. Each project included has been developed by the Corps of Engineers and is recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. It is not a fragmented, sectionalized program but is the unified position of all recognized interests representing Florida, and includes our position on all water related projects in the state concerning flood control, beach erosion control, and rivers and harbors~ As Secretary of State, I have the responsibility of serving as Vice Chairman of the Florida Board of Conservation which includes the Governor and the six Cabinet Members. tinder our state law, the Board of Conservation has the duty of supervising and coordinating development of the water resources in Florida and preparing the unified state-wide program for presentation to Congress. That is the reason for my appearing before you today. All of us in Florida are appreciative of the loyal and diligent efforts of our Congressional Delegation in securing federal participation in our water re- sources development program. We also appreciate their cooperation and as- sistance in developing and presenting our unified program to Congress-it is our joint program. We in Florida recognize and appreciate our dependence on the water resources of the state for our economy, our welfare, our existence, and our future. It is our purpose and our policy as stated in Florida laws to conserve these resources by multiple purpose developments that will yield the widest use and most valuable benefits for our people and the nation without depleting the basic natural resources. The program we are recommending to you this year is in accord with this stated policy. In several cases it is a continuation or up-dating of previously started work, to conform with current developments. New projects recommended are those that have long been considered by the state and carefully studied by the Corps of Engineers. We have outlined our program in a written brief as a statement for the record and included our recommendation for each project. Copies of the brief have been given to your committee and I will not repeat those details. Because of the peculiarities of the geography of Florida, we have to provide protection against floods and droughts, both of which are frequent natural occurences in our state. We are now in a cycle of droughts state-wide, and be- cause of this current problem, seem to have forgotten that floods do occur. However, we have experienced in the recent past, worse natural disasters from floods than from droughts. The 18-county region in south and central Florida, containing 40 per cent of the population of the state, is protected by the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project. The 15-county central Florida area around the Tampa Bay region, containing 25 per cent of the population of Florida, is to be protected by the Four River Basins Water Management project when it is completed. Half of our state and two-thirds of our population are included in these two water management projects. The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project was designed in 1948, following several years of severe regional floods, to serve primarily for flood protection although it has multipurpose benefits. It has been under construction for twenty years and is nearing 00 per cent completion. More than two-and-one- quarter-million people reside in this flood control district. Some of the most im- portant agricultural areas and livestock grazing lands of the nation are within PAGENO="0216" 202 the district, and the Everglades National Park is served as a project purpose. The benefit-to-cost ratio is nearly 5 to 1, and the project is already averaging more than $30 million per year in flood damage prevention. Total annual benefit to the region after completion of the project is estimated at 882 million per year. These facts are stated to give a perspective of this project for which we are re- questing modification. The $400 million flood control project designed 20 years ago for south Florida needs to be re-engineered and up-dated tO take full advantage of all water con- servation aspects and provide maximum multipurpose benefits in a region that has more than quadrupled in population and tripled in industrial development during these past two decades since the project was authorized. Modification of the project is essential to Florida because all the water that can be saved is needed. It can be properly accomplished under the plan developed by the Corps of Engineers and recommended to this committee for authorization at this time. South Florida as we know it today has developed and progressed primarily be- cause of the flood protection and other benefits provided by this flood control project. Without the modification recommended for authorization, our water deficiOncies in south Florida will continue to become worse and will reach in- tolerable conditions for all water users as early as 1976. On construction of the project as modified, the water conservation project should meet normal require- ments of the region until the turn of the century, except during infrequent, ex- treme droughts, at which time all water users will have to share in the adversity. Further development of the project beyond the scope of the recommended modi- fications could be accomplished now to meet expected requirements beyond the turn of the century, but only at exorbitant cost. Such further modification beyond the scope now recommended, may be accomplished later in this century when in- creased water needs justify the costs, or earlier when a break-through is achieved in research and development on any of several ideas presently under study to im- prove the efficiency of water conservation facilities or works. The Martin County Plan is also a modification of the existing Central and Southern Florida project and is an adjunct to the currently recommended modi- fication to the flood control project. Water falling on the coastal areas which now flows off to the ocean, is planned to be retained and back-pumped for storage in Lake Okeechobee and reused when needed. An important element of the Martin County project is designed for this purpose. For this reason, these two water studies are considered tozether as mutually supporting. The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control project is presently author- ized at a total estimated federal cost of $269,000,000. The Public Works Com- mittee has retained control of this project through the monetary or basin authorization procedures. To date, $171,300,000 has been authorized by this committee. There is not a sufficient balance remaining in the currently author- ized monetary authorization to meet the requirements of fiscal year 1969. Addi- tional authorization required to carry the project through 1970 is $32,000,000. This amount is recommended by the Corps of Engineers and is concurred in by the state, as detailed in our statement for the record. The Florida Board of Conservation believes that improvement in transporta- tion economies is an essential to our economic growth and stability. We further believe that the only feasible means of obtaining these economies is by providing water transportation. That is why our ports and inland waterways are of such great importance to our economic development and long range security. A 250- mile inland waterway project along the Gulf of Mexico from St. Marks River to Tampa Bay, Florida, designed to interconnect the inland waterways of the Atlantic seaboard with those of the Gulf of Mexico and the midcontinental Tjnited States, completing and tying together these separate systems, has been s~tudied by the Corps of Engineers for the past four or five years and is recom- mended for authorization at this time. As has been the case for practically all new waterways, there have been raised many questions of concern in opposition to this project, the principal objection being interpreted as a delaying tactic proposed by opposition interests. They would like to require detail hydrological and ecological studies of the entire project area be completed prior to project authorization to allow final determination of preconstruction engineering details for route location of the project. The state agrees that appropriate studies of the ecology and hydrology of the area are necessary for determination of the precise channel location, to be constructed, but such studies are properly required and funded during the preconstruction engineering phase and should be accomplished by segments of the waterway as funds are made available by Congress. About five years time PAGENO="0217" 203 and $600,000 will be required under the delayed plan. Funds for these studies are now included in the project estimate, but the studies are planned to be made during the preconstruction and coordination phase of the work rather than taking five more years for study before requesting authorization by Congress. Florida requests the committee to authorize the project for construction under normal procedures of Congress applicable for all other rivers and harbors projects, including other waterways. Metropolitan-Dade County is completing this year a $23,000,000 improvement program for the Miami Port that will provide a modern passenger terminal, marginal wharves, transit sheds, warehouses, utilities, and other facilities needed for an efficient and modern port. A second phase development of the port is now in the planning stage for a longer range plan to meet future requirements. The existing channel depth of 30 feet for the Miami Harbor is inadequate to meet current requirements and will practically close out use by ships now, under construction which are planned for future operations. The population and growth demands of the Miami area dictate consideration of improving the navigation facilities to meet at least the minimum demands of water transportation. Deep- ening of the main ship channel and turning basin to 36 feet is fully justified at this time. Authorization of this channel improvement is requested by Florida. Port Sutton is served by a side channel in Tampa Harbor. The Port Sutton channel and related port facilities were constructed with local funds. It was constructed to meet the growing industrial demands of the Florida west coast area. The Federal Government maintains all other channels of Tampa Harbor, but since the Port Sutton channel was developed at private expense, it is not presently maintained by the Federal Government. The purpose of this request is to seek Federal authorization for maintenance of this channel, the same as for other channels in the Tampa Harbor. There are two beach erosion control projects in Florida recommended for construction to protect important areas of our shoreline, one in the Cape Canav- eral area and the other along the heavily built-up Miami Beach. Local interests have agreed to pay the major share of cost of both of these projects. These beaches are important recreational and public use areas, essential to the economy of the region served. Details of these projects are contained in the statement for the record submitted to your committee. We request your favorable considera- tion for authorization of these two beach erosion control projects. A hurricane protection project for Hillsborough Bay, an arm of the Tampa Bay, is designed to protect the expensive and highly developed urban and in- dustrial developments along the bay front at Tampa. Hurricanes passing over or near Tampa Bay have generated tides exceeding 14 feet at Tampa. Such tidal waves would cause serious flooding today and extremely heavy property damage along the bay front. Much of the bay front development is constructed only four to five feet above sea level. The project would be extremely valuable as a protection in Hilisborough Bay and is recommended by the State for au- thorization, subject to review by the Public Works Committee after precon- struction studies are made to determine wave effect on other areas of Tampa Bay and the effects of the project on pollution in the waters' of the bay. We realize that reports on some of the projects for which we request authori- ization may not have been processed by all Federal agencies and their comments may not have been available in time for the Chief of Engineers to submit the reports to Congress in final form. However, all of these projects have been studied by the Corps of Engineers and favorably reported by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. If any of the reports discussed have not reached your committee before the hearings are completed, we hope that you may call up any interested agency to present their comments so the committee may consider the project before mark-up of the Omnibus Bill. We hope that these project reports having cleared the Board, will be favorably considered by your committee for inclusion in the Omnibus Bill for 1968. Thank you for giving us this opportunity of presenting our program require- ments to your committee. Mr. CRAMER. We have a continuing problem relating to continuing authorization on central and southern. We have discussed this many times. For the purpose of the record, you recommend, as I see, $32 million for the 2-year basin authorization, 1969 and 1970. I under- stand it is your position, as it has been, that you would much prefer a 2-year authorization, to provide greater continuity. Is that correct? PAGENO="0218" 204 Colonel KELLY. Yes, sir. Two years would give us a breathing spell that we cannot anticipate with only 1 year. You cannot plan ahead long enough with only 1 year, has been our experience. And that is what we are hopmg, that we would be able to have enough freedom to plan a year ahead. And that is the reason we asked for 2 years. Mr. CRAMER. I just have one other question. If in fact the committee should decide, and I am hopeful it will not-but should it so decide, what would be your estimate of the figure needed for the 1 year? Colonel KELLY. For 1 year only would be the $15 million. Mr. GRA~rrai. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. We have other members from Florida-Mr. Tom Young representing Senator Holland. Mr. Sii~s. Mr. `Chairman, with your permission I am very pleased to present the Honorable Dante Fascell, our distinguished colleague from Miami and Key West. He will present the other members of our delegation, Mr. Chairman, so that I may return to the floor to assist in the bill which is in progress there. STATEMENT OP HON. DANTE B. PASOELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP FLORIDA Mr. FASGELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I fully sup- port the consolidated presentation made by our secretary of state. I join in the remarks of our distinguished dean of our delegation, and assure you that we are wholeheartedly behind all of the projects. Ob- viously the need is there. We would respectfully request your consider- ation on two points-one is a 2-year authorization on the basin. The other is those projects which have cleared the Board and may not have gotten cleared through all of the agencies prior to the time you get to your markup. We hope they do get cleared. We just do not want to miss the boat on those. We urge your interest with respect to those particular projects. I have a statement for the record which I would like to submit at this time. (The prepared statement of Mr. Fascell for inclusion in the record follows:) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN DANTE B. FASCELL Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I want to express my thanks for this opportunity to appear before you today to testify in behalf of Florida's request for authorization of its public works program. Your committee has always been most cognizant of and responsive to the needs of our state. We have some special problems at this time which I hope you will recognize and treat with your customary wisdom. I want particularly to address myself to those which affect Florida's 12th Congressional District. There are three items before you today which have significant bearing and meaning to the citizens of South Dade and Monroe Counties. I refer specificaily to the long range plan for Water Resources for Central and Southern Florida, monetary authorization for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Controi Project and Dade County Beach Erosion Control. WATER RESOURCES FOR CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA The Corps of Engineers has recently completed a four year study to determine the long range water needs of Central and Southern Florida. The study included, as a major consideration, the requirements of Everglades National Park which so desperately depends on an adequate fresh water supply. The problem is basic but grim, for it concludes that within a comparatively few years there will simply not be enough water to supply Central and Southern PAGENO="0219" 205 Florida requirements. The area has been developing so rapidly and the popula- tion has been increasing at so great a rate that a serious shortage of available water already exists and promises to get steadily worse. The original project provided primarily for flood control. At that time the need for water conservation was not as apparent as now. For example, the average rainfall in the Miami area immediately adjacent to the Everglades and the water conservation storage areas is 59.86 inches. During the last 44 days we have had 31.19 inches of rain. Obviously, if this water is to be used it must be contained-~stored for future use for periods such as occurred in 1961, 1962 and 1963 when we had only slightly over 40 inches of rainfall for the entire year. Accordingly, conservation must now be considered a prime and necessary factor. The area served by this project covers 18 counties including Dade County, the most populous which includes the Greater Miami area. The prim~ary source of drinking water for South Florida comes from sources within the project area. Furthermore, agricultural areas and industrial users draw their water supply from the same source. In addition, the Everglades National Park, one of the most unique and beautiful in the nation, receives fresh water via the levees and canals provided for in this plan. The principal features of the plan include the raising of the level of Lake Okeechobee by four feet and the backpumping of excess waters into the Lake and the already existing conservation areas plus a system of levees and canals to conduct the water to the Park, agricultural, industrial and residential areas. This revisIon of the original project would provide considerably more water storage than is presently `available so as to accommodate foreseeable needs. The Corps of Engineers has given it a `benefit-cost ratio of 2.8 to 1. It would `have an estimated federal cost of $54,424,100. CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT In addition to the long range water conservation plan outlined above, the present Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project must receive addi- tional monetary authorization this year. The completion of the works of this `system must pro'ceed in a prompt and orderly manner. The need for `both `water conservation and flood control facilities is made necessary by the extremely erratic nature of Florida's weather patterns. For example, from May 5 through June 17 `of this year-only 44 days-rainfall at the ESSA weather station on the edge of the Everglades in Miami measured 31.19 inches. The normal annual rainfall for this area is `59.86 inches. This makes the need for flood control quite obvious for the rainfall of the last 44 days i's approximately 51% ~f a full 365 days. However, drought comes as readily as floods, and in 1961 and 1962 the precipi- tation measured only 41.70 and 42.27 inches respectively-far below that needed to sustain water users' requirements. 1963 didn't fare much better-only 46.08 inches of rain compared to the normal 59.86 inches. However, 1959 and 1966 brought floods with 89.33 and 82.06 inches of rain that year. The state of Florida requests an additional $32 million authorization and I support this request so that the project can proceed without interruption through calendar year 1970. We are considering the public works appropriation bill on the floor today. Without this additional authorization, the money we get today cannot be spent. This would certainly be poor business procedure and would cause undue delay in the construction of the much needed works of this project. This year, as I have already noted, Central and Southern Florida has been sub- ject to `unusually heavy rains. Many areas have `suffered from severe flooding. While the portion of the project that is already completed has been functioning well, it cannot perform at its full capacity until the entire project is completed. Accordingly, I urge that the additional authorization be provided. EEAOH EROSION CONTROL IN DADE COUNTY Anyone who has been to Miami Beach in recent years or has seen photographs of the oceanfront will be aware of the devastating beach `erosion that has taken place-and it is getting worse. The world renowned wide sand beaches of years past have, in many areas, been reduced by erosion to pitiful sand patches. The econo'my of Dade County in large measure depends on tourism. Not only is the multi-billion dollar hotel and related business investment in jeopardy, but the mainstay-the life line of Florida is literally being drawn into the ocean. PAGENO="0220" 206 The proposed project to place fill along 21 miles of beach of Dade County shore- line and an additional 14 miles of island "keys" should restore the beaches. Pri- vate hotel owners have attempted to hold off the erosion at their own expense with the construction of groins and seawalls but these have been far less than successful. The estimated federal cest of this project is $1LSOO,000 and the benefit-cost ratio is 1.8 to 1 from Government Cut to Bakers Haulover Inlet and 19.4 to 1 at Haulover Park. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I urge you to give your ap- proval to these three projects. We simply cannot afford to wait. Delay will result in far greater losses and greatly increased costs to local, state and Federal in- terests. Your early approval will result in considerable savings to the Federal government and all concerned. Mr. FASGELL. Now I am happy to turn to Congressman Paul Rogers. STATEMENT OP HON. PAUL G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP FLORIDA Mr. Roorals. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appre- ciate this opportunity to appear along with my colleagues and dis- tinguished representatives from Florida who have given a statement. As a former member of this distinguished committee, I am fully aware of the fine job you have done for our Nation over the years. Of course we are very grateful in Florida for the considerate judgments that have been made by this committee on the merits of our projects, and we hope this will continue. I would like to just point out in my own area particularly, the Martin County prOject, water control project, that is a part of the central and southern Florida flood control project, I feel it is urgent. there is vitally needed work there, and particularly in one, Canal 131, where we need a back pump. I have pointed this out in my statement. I would like permission to file my statement at this point, and hope consideration can be given to these vitally needed projects. (The p~epared statement of Mr. Rogers for inclusion in the record follows:) STATEMEIcT OF Ho~c. PAim G. RoGnas or FLOItIDA Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee now considering the proposed flood control programs for the State of Florida as part of the Public Works Omnibus Bill of 1968. As a former member of this distinguished committee, I am fully aware of the fine work for the Nation the Committee has done over the years. As the representative of the Ninth Congressioi~al District of Florida, I am particularly interested in the programs which `have been proposed for Martin and St. Lucie Counties, also affecting Okeechobee and Palm Beach Counties, and for an expansion of the existing Central and Southern Flood Control project. A survey report on Flood control and related improvements for Martin Coun- ty, Florida was authorized by a resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate adopted .Tuly 22,1950. The survey report has been completed and is favorable as to the improve- ments. There is an urgent need for water control for Martin and St. Lucie Counties. The development agricultural lands in these coimties are used primarily for citrus groves, truck farms, and the production of beef and dairy products. The survey made by the Corps of Engineers recommends a system of canals and related control structures for flood protection and water control for ap- proximately 134 square miles in Martin County, and 25 square miles in Palm Beach County, and for distribution of water in 590 square miles in Martin, St. Lucie and Okeechobee Counties. PAGENO="0221" 207 The Corps recommends that the existing Federal project for Central and Southern Florida be modified and extended to provide for construction of such project works. However, the Corps would defer construction of the irrigation facilities so desperately needed until approval is given to the study on water resources for central and southern Florida which has just been completed. With regard to this irrigation prehiem, I would like to make specific refer- ence to Canal 131, which under the Martin County plan, does not include a pump- ing station for back pumping excess waters from St. Lucie and Martin County areas to Lake Okeechobee. Such a back-pumping facility is included in the water resources study, but the Corps has indicated that construction on the proposals contained therein will not begin until 1970, or later, and will not be completed until 1984. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the immediate water needs of the Martin and St. Lucie County area will not be able to wait that long. I think serious consideration should be given to making the Martin County plan self-sustaining by including certain features of the water resources plan, especially a back-pumping station on Canal 131. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, next I would like to present our dis- tinguished elder statesman, Congressman Claude Pepper. STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. PEPPER. Thank you very much. I am grateful for the designa- tion of "elder." I hope that applies to dignity and spirit and not age. Mr. FASCELL. Definitely not age. Mr. PEPPER. Thank you very much, my distinguished colleague, and Mr. `Chairman and members of the committee. It is always a pleasure for me to appear before the appropriate committees of the Congress to endorse the presentation made by the Florida Board of Conserva- tion, one of the senior members of which is our very eminent security of state, whom I graciously heard here today. I think all of these are soundly scrutinized, soundly presented and prepared projects, which are in the national as well as in the local interest. The part that pri- marily affects my district-Mr. Fascell and I share jurisdiction over the beach area, from the southern tip of Miami Beach up to Bakers Haulover up above the old lighthouse restaurant, or up above the Kenilworth Hotel, or the American Hotel, a distance of 141/2 miles, and along there, there will be protection for the beach, there will be dunes to protect against hurricanes, and then appropriate work to protect against beach erosion, which is a very serious hazard for the maintenance of that beach. In addition to that, there will be about a mile and a half just north of there for the protection of Haulover Park. It is one of the public parks in our area which makes the ocean available to the billion and a quarter people who live in Dade County, and also to `some who live in Brevard Qounty, which is just a short distance to the north of that. As you know, all along that area, approximately 15 miles, is the con- centration, I suppose, of the largest number of resort hotels to be found anywhere in the world, to my knowledge. And of course it is one of the principal tourist attractions of our State, and of our county. And the beach is an es~ential part of it. In addition to that, this beach is actually, if I recall correctly, a's I recall, the Constitution of Florida runs along the shoreline, so that just beyond the low watermark, as I understand it, it is territory of PAGENO="0222" 208 the United States of America. On our west coast our border goes out three leagues, or 101/2 miles. This is a Federal benefit. And it is the shoreline of the United States of America that, we are dealing with there, which is being very dangerously and badly eroded away by the tides. So this is a project which means a great deal to our area. It is the chief support of our great tourist industry in that area, which means many millions of dollars in taxes to the Federal Government, as well as to the State and to local governments, as well as a very good tourist industry for our State. So we are particularly interested in the authorization of this project. The figures are given. There is a very favorable ratio to the cost that would be incurred by the Federal Government. The only other thing-this is just incidental to this subject, but we all have some problems in our matching of the Federal funds, even though the Federal share is smaller than the local share. But I intro- duced a bill a little bit ago-I don't have the number of it at my finger- tips-but it provided for a reconsideration of the percentage of total cost in respect to beach erosion projects to be borne by the Federal Government, and my bill would provide that the Federal Government would bear 90 percent of the cost, particularly when you are dealing with the shoreline of the United States. It is protecting, as it were, Federal property and `Federal interest directly. I realize that is only incidental to this discussion, but I thought it was relevant to it, and I wanted to mention it. I understand you are not going into navigation projects particularly-that is coming up next week. So I will confine. my remarks to that. Mr. Cm~r~. May I ask one question. We had a beach erosion project over my way-Treasure Island. We had to get all the property owners to agree in order to get additional Federal participation, 50 percent instead of 30, to make that beach area open to the public. I understand there has been some discussions took place. Has there been any success `at all relating to that in Miami? Mr. PEPPER. As my able colleague, Mr. Fascell knows-that has been very much~ the subject of discussion in the area. As I recall it, all but iibout 3 miles of this area is relatively private beach. The other is public beach. Now, there has been some discussion, and there will be further discussions, when this project is authorized, as we hope it will be, as to whether there should be any change in the status of what is now referred to as private beach, so there would be a differ- ence in the ratio of local and Federal contribution. And when they come to raising this money, I do not know what arrangements will be worked out by the local people, but I am sure they will try to work out a plan that will be most acceptable to the committee. It may be that they will make changes so as to admit the public to some of the beaches that are now adjacent to privately owned hotels. I do not know what will be worked out. But it is a subject of discussion. But we can only assure this distinguished committee that local interests, however the funds may be derived, will put up its share of the cost. Mr. CIt~1ER. I am not advocating necessarily-I want that under- stood-except where those people involved are willing to do it. They just happen to be willing to do it in this instance. But that is one way to get 50 percent. PAGENO="0223" 209 Mr. PEPPER. There are differences of opinion in our community. But we are all united in realizing the utter necessity of this beach erosion project, and so we will reconcile our local differences of opinion in a way that will be compatible with the execution of this project. Thank you very much. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you. Mr. Fascell. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, to wind up the Florida delegation, our distinguished colleague from Tampa, Sam Gibbons. STATEMENT OP HON. SAM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP FLORIDA Mr. GIBBONS. I appreciate the opportunity to come here and support the Florida project. I represent a district that was formerly represented by Congressman Cramer. Don't spend all your money this one time, because I am going to have a real big project for you next year, the deepening of the Tampa Harbor, which is a great national as well as local asset. Thank you very much. Mr. CLAUSEN. You would like to get these projects out of the way. Mr. GIBBONS. I would like to get all of these out of the way, so there will be nothing else in competition with that next year. Mr. Clausen. Any other witnesses to appear before the committee from the Florida delegation? Mr. Adams, does this take care of your presentation? Mr. ADAMS. It does, indeed, Congressman. We are grateful to you for your time. Mr. Cn~IER. I appreciate the presentation that has been made by my colleagues and the Board of Conservation of Florida representa- tives present for this presentation. I am `always impressed-although this is not a self-serving declara- tion-but I would like to say it is a real privilege and pleasure to work with you all. In the manner set out under Florida law, and the manner in which we all work together in the interests of the State, and present a united front relating to projects. We are not one fighting the other, trying to get priority over the other. But rather through the State board of conservation and the cabinet, we have a united approach to water resources in the State of Florida. In my opinion, this has contributed more to the advancement of the projects on a unified basis than any- thing I can remember in the history of the State. I am very proud to be a part of ~that effort. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, Bill, we are grateful to you. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Adams, I have already stated this, in compliment- ing you for the coordinated presentation. Frankly, I think some of the other States of the Union could follow what I think is the leadership on the part of you people in the State of Florida in presenting it in this manner. This matter of having an imbalanced delegation-any of you who know Bill Cramer very well, you know it take about 10 to offset his one voice in any matter that comes before the Congress. Mr. ADAMS. I can only say, Congressman, we are just delighted to have him on our side in this matter. PAGENO="0224" 210 Mr. CLAUSEN. As a Republican, I am glad he is on my side. Mr. ADAMS. Thank you, sir. Mr. JONES. At this point the statement of the Honorable Edward J. Gurney will be inserted in the record. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. GURNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to join the many others from Florida in requesting the authorization of $32 million to continue work on the central and southern Florida flood control project so vital to the future of Florida. The project, located in the southeasterly eighteen counties of Florida, includes the Kissimmee River Basin, Lake Okeechobee-Evergiades area; the East Coast- Everglades area; and the Upper St. J~obns River Basin. The project is designed to provide water management and flood protection facilities in a 16,000 square mile area of central and southern Florida where some two and one-quarter million people live. The need for the flood control works to prevent further flood damage and loss of life is accentuated by the phenomenal growth in southeastern Florida. In each decade since World War II, the area has doubled in population. Since 1950, it has more than tripled in industrial development. The needs of the region dictate that the project be completed as soon as possible. The project will provide for removal of excess waters in wet seasons and for their control, storage and use in maintaining water levels during dry periods for all purposes, including navigation requirements. Flood damage prevention will average about $30 million annually, with total annual benefits to the region of $82 mifflon after project completion. Benefit-to-cost ration for the project is 4.9 to 1 at this stage of completion. This additional monetary authroity. is much needed to permit the Corps of Engineers to continue the planning and construc- tion of this project so essential to the development of the whole State and I urge the committee to act favorably on this request. Mr. JONES. We will be back at 3:15. (Short recess.) Mr. JONES. The subcommittee will come to order. I hope we won't have any further interruptions, and we can proceed and conclude the hearings on the Florida projects. HILLSI3OROUGH BAY~ FLA. Colonel SEIDEL. Hilisborough Bay, Fla. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this report concerns hur- ricane protection for Hilisborough Bay area located on the west-cen- tral coast of the Florida peninsula. Hurricane tides have resulted in serious flooding and property damage at Tampa and other shore areas of Hillsborough Bay. Local interests desire improvements for hurricane flood damage protection. The recommended plan of improvement provides for a barrier ex- tending across Hilisborough Bay from Gadsden Point to the vicinity of Little Manatee River. The Chief of Engineers also recommended a comprehensive hydraulic model of the study of water utilization and control in the Tampa Bay region prior to initiation of construction. The total estimated cost of this project is $13,084,000 of whlch $9,159,000 is Federal. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1: 1. The estimated cost of the model study is $750,000. Local interests will be required to provide the usual items of local cooperation and have indicated a willingness and ability to comply. PAGENO="0225" 211 Favorable comments have been received from the State Of Florida and the Departments of the Interior and Commerce. The Bureau of the Budget states that because of the project's very marginal justification, it is its view that the further detailed studies should be completed before the proposed barrier improvements are considered for authorization. It believes authorization of construction of the proposed barrier improvements at this time would be prema- ture. The Bureau concurs in the Chief of Engineers' recommendation that a complete investigation and study of water utilization and con- trol in the Tampa Bay region be authorized. It believes, however, that the Chief of Engineers should carefully investigate alternatives to the hydraulic model such as computer model analysis and the more conventional water resources analysis methods and prepare a cost- effectiveness analysis for such alternatives. It further believes that a complete investigation and study of water utilization and control in the Tampa Bay region should be a multiagency effort involving the Department of the Interior, other Federal agencies, and interested State agencies. The Secretary of the Army concurs with the Bureau of the Budget and will submit to the Congress proposed legislation for this study. Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. Mr. JONES. Are there questions? Mr. CLAUSEN. As I understand your basic recommendation, you place major emphasis on the need for further study. Colonel SEIDEL. We recognize, sir, there was a requirement for a study, and recommended accordingly that the study be completed prior to initiation of construction. At this time we would recommend au- thorization for construction, however. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you. The `Chief of Engineers recommends it. General, do you have any comment? General NOBLE. I just wanted the point clarified that the report indicates that the Chief `of Engineers recommends authorization of the project, and in addition this model study, prior to construction of the project. I do not know where the study would be made. That would certainly be one of the considerations. It might be set up locally. I do not be- lieve the investigations have been made yet as to the proper site. Mr. `CLAUSEN. Do you have other model studies of a similar type in existence now? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. The Chesapeake has a model study. San Francisco Harbor has a model study. We have a model of the Missis- sippi, of course. Mr. `CLAUSEN. Are those projects in place that followed the construc- tion of a model? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mississippi River, I, think, is a classic example. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you. Mr. JONES. Dade County, Fla. DADE COUNTY~ FLA. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. `Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of about 14.5 miles of the Atlantic 97-700-68------15 PAGENO="0226" 212 Coast of Dade County, Fla., between Government Cut and Bakers Haulover InletS including Miami Beach and a number of small com- munities, and Haulover Beach Park, in the interest of beach erosion control and hurricane protection. It is responsive to the River and Harbor Act of 1930 and to Public Law 71, 84th Congress. There is no existing Federal project for beach erosion control and hurricane protection in the area. Shore recession is causing loss of valuable beaches and property and is placing seawalls and other structures under direct wave attack. Many of the most intense hurri- canes have passed over or near the area, and hurricane tides and waves have caused maj or flooding. The recommended plan of improvement calls for construction of protective beaches and dunes and periodic i~ourishment for beach erosion control and hurricane protection. Placement of about 15 million cubic yards of material would be required for all the proposed work. Total cost is estimated at $29,480,000 of which $11,805,000 would be Federal. Federa.l costs could increase t.o $17,701,000 and non-Federal costs decrease proportionately with the establishment of public own- ership and use of all area beaches. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.7. The usual items of local cooperation are required and assurances have been received that such cooperation will be furnished. All interested Federal and State agencies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. However, it notes that the preponderance of bene- fits estimated for the proposed project between Government Cut and Bakers Haulover Inlet ivonld accrue, on the basis of existing shore- front ownership, to beaches presently in public ownership and use. As a result., it believes the economic justification for the proposed improvements along shorefront presently in private ownership is questionable. The Bureau states that assurances of public access and use of these beaches would provide opportunity for dispersion of projected recreatioiiai use along the entire length of the project and opportunity for possibly even greater recreational use than estimated in the report. Further, it agrees fully with the view of the Secretary of the Army that it is important to insure that the expenditure of Federal funds for this project will result in commensurate public benefit. The Bureau of the Budget, therefore, concurs in the recom- mendation of the Secretary of the Army. The Secretary recommends that the projects for beach erosion con- trol and hurricane protection be authorized in accordance with the plans and subject to the conditions recommended by the Chief of Engineers in his report; provided that, in addition thereto, prior to construction, local interests furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that they will establish and continue public use of all of the new beach fill seaward of the la.ndward limit of the project. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JONES. That last sentence-will von explain what von mean there? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, at the present time we have a situation where the beaches have eroded, and we are addressing as the landward limit the existing shoreline, which in most cases we find that the waves are attacking the sea walls as they have been built. It is the property owner's line as the landward limit at the present time, sir. PAGENO="0227" 213 Mr. JONES. You mean to say that if you extend the land out from the present limits, that the Secretary should be assured that will con- tinue to remain public property? General NOBLE. I believe what the Secretary was referring to there, sir, is that where a beach that does not now exist any longer is restored as a result of this project, that new beach should be public. Mr. JONES. Thank you. Any questions? Mr. CI~iER. There are one or two I would like to ask. If in fact there had been beach loss on privately owned property, and this project calls for filling it in, do I understand that that incre- ment of fill, you consider that to be open to the public? General NOBLE. I believe that is what the Secretary's statement means, sir. We will have to get further into this to find out exactly what it does mean. This is not part of the report, you see. It is part of the Secretary's comment on the report. And I believe that is what it means. Mr. CRAMER. That is one of the comments. General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Where the present property comes up to the sea, and there is no beach there, where a new beach is restored as a result of Federal funds, in the view of the Secretary that should be public. Mr. CRAMER. An interesting comment. But you could end up with a mighty disjointed public use of what is now private property. If it were an extended distance, a substantial increment of beach area added, that might be one thing. But in this instance it does not seem to make too much sense. Just one other question about this dune for hurricane protection. Is that the thatched line? The outer line? Is that the dune? General NOBLE. The dune, sir-I do not know as the dune shows on that map. If you go up on the beach from the water, and you get a certain distance up-it will depend on the elevation-an artificial dune is created. On it in some cases we plant grasses so that these grasses will tend, then, to be a self-perpetuating sand catcher, that in turn will give you a dune that is more natural. And this is the thing that gives you hurricane protection. Mr. CRAMER. It is on the beach. General NOBLE. It is up on the beach. It is in from the water. Mr. CRAMER. This says protective beach erosion control and a dune for hurricane protection. Your dune would not be in that whole area, would it? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. It would run the entire length. Mr. CRAMER. What would be the height of it? Colonel SEIDEL. It would be-the beach, sir-21/2 feet, sir. We would start seaward of mean low water and slope up to an elevation of 9 feet. We would have a berm, then we would build our hurricane dune two and a half feet higher than that, sir. Mr. GRAMER. Are those local properties agreeable to that? It cuts off the water, doesn't it? General NOBLE. Not too much, sir. It is not that high. It is not a wall between the people and the sea-if it is two and a half feet, it is just a bump in the beach. It does not look like a wall. It is really a big PAGENO="0228" 214 mound, not different from a natural beach. Natural beaches also have such irregularities. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jo~n~s. Martin County, Fla. MARTIN COUNTY, FLA. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report is on Martin County in southern Florida an Atlantic coastal county lying east of Lake Okeechobee `and about 20 miles north of the Palm Beach. The Chief of Engineers, in his proposed plan of improvement, recommends modification of the existing central and southern Florida project to provide a system of canals and control structures for flood control, drainage, and irrigation serving portions of Martin and St. Lucie Counties. The system would be connected with the overall proj- ect; however, construction of the irrigation features would be deferred until modifications recommended in the report on water resources for central and southern Florida are authorized and the Chief of Engi- neers is assured that adequate water is available for Martin County. Total estimated cost of the proposed Martin County project is $15,- 471,000, of which $8,072,000 would be Federal. The benefit-cost :ratio is 15.3. Local interests are willing to provide the normal items of local co- operation. The State of Florida and the interested Federal agencies favor the report. The report of the Chief of Engineers is being sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. Water resources for central and southern Florida. WATER RESOURCES FOR CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report is a proposed modification of the central and southern Florida project which lies in the southern half of Florida. The project, first authorized in 1948; is now about 55 percent com- plete. A prolonged drought lasting from 1961 to 1965 emphasized the need for increased water supplies to meet growing urban and agri- cultural water needs and to provide sufficient flow to preserve the Everglades National Park. The proposed modification will provide additional storage capac- ity in Lake Okeechobee, conveyance canals and back-pumping capa- bility that will meet estimated water needs to about the year 2000, facilitate delivery of water to Everglades National Park, and provide related recreational facilities. The estimated Federal cost is $58,- 182,000 of which $3,058,000 is rehnbursable for recreation. The benefit- cost ratio is 2.8, exclusive of large benefits to Everglades National Park which are not susceptible to evaluation. Local interests are willing to provide the normal items of local cooperation. The State of Florida and the interested Federal agencies have commented favorable. The report of the Chief of Engineers is being sent to the Burea.u of the Budget through the Secretary of the PAGENO="0229" 215 Army prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Mr. JONES. Now, the map notes the completed projects. Give us~ some narrative of what has been done so far-what has been constructed. Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the project originally provided for building of levees along Lake Okeechobee which gave us a pooi in which we could store water. From this, we have projected a series. of canals through- out the eastern portion of the State, to serve the various communities along the east coast. As a part of this, for additional storage- Mr. JoNEs. Are those laterals constructed to take care of the exces- sive amount of water into Lake Okeechobee? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, also through Lake Okeechobee we have a navi- gable waterway project. When we have had too much water in Lake Okeechobee in the past this was wasted to the sea, either down the Caloosahatchee River or down the St. Lucie Canal. When we have great rains south of the lake, it is collected in the canals and is ei:ther pumped into the lake or directed into the con- servation areas which are shallow-depth reservoirs. Mr. JONES. In either direction. Colonel SEIDEL. We can go either way; yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. Do the tides have anything to do with this? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the tides would affect the project at the coast- line. However, we have control structures in each of these canals to help us in this respect. We do have a problem in the sense that we must keep enough water in the canals to be sure we have a hydraulic head so we do not have salt water intrusion. Mr. CLAUSEN. What is the principal source of water? Colonel SEIDEL. Rainfall, sir. We are in an area where we have roughly 58,60 inches of rain a year. Mr. CLAUSEN. Catch basins, and then a distribution system? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Our conveyance canals move the water to where we need it. Mr. JONES. Well, Lake Okeechobee is a relatively shallow lake, isn'tit? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir, comparatively. We are now, under our project, raising the levees which will allow us to establish a regulation level at about 17 feet. Mr. JONES. Can you control the level of the lake now? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. We regulate the lake as required iii order not to endanger it,so that it can accomplish its purpose. Mr. JONES. In other words, you have eliminated any flood damages that may occur in that area. Colonel SEIDEL. The original project of levees around the lake came about because of a hurricane that broke a dike, and we had- Mr. JONES. Do you still have wind damages? Colonel SEIDEL. The levees have been designed, sir, so they are high enough that the wave buildup does not overtop the levee. Mr. JONES. What is the quality of water in the lake? Colonel SEIDEL. It is very good quality, sir. We pump it through our canals and it is used on the east coast for drinking water. Mr. JONES. Do you have any saline problems in that area? PAGENO="0230" 216 Colonel SEmEL. Not in this area. We do occasionally at low water periods along the east coast. As I mentioned, however, we have con- trol structures which assist us in this res~pect. Mr. JoNEs. This is a project authorized some years ago. This is an extension of a going scheme. Is the $77 million required for the total completion, or is it the partial? Colonel SEIDEL. The $78 million, sir, is for the completion of this increment. We are only 55 percent complete on the authorized exist- ing project to date. Mr. Joxrs. The total cost of the project is estimated at $269 mil- lion. Present authorizations, $171 million. The appropriation through June of 1968 is $160 million. You have a deficit now of, 1970, $32 million. Now, that deficit of $32 million-how much-if the authorization were made for $32 mil- lion, what additional amount would be made by local contribution? If we authorized $32 million, how much would be forthcoming in non-Federal contributions to these projects? Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I understand that $32 million is the Federal share for the next 2 years, is it not? It is a question how much in addition to that will be local. Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the cost sharing principal here is a special one of 80 to 20-80 percent Federal, 20 percent non-Federal. Twenty per- cent of cash contribution on the part of the local interests, plus all lands that are required, plus operation and maintenance costs. It figures out roughly 30 percent. Mr. Jo~s. You have a requirement then of $381/2 million author- ization. That is what you need. That is, to carry you through Calendar Year 1970. General NOBLE. Are you adding, sir, the local participation to the amount that we needed for our basin authorization? Is that where that figure came from? Mr. JONES. Calendar Year 1970, you have a monetary deficit of $32 million. General NOBLE. Yes, sir. That is what we would need to cover our appropriations. Mr. JONES. Cover your appropriations. General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Actual and estimated. Mr. CRA~r~R. Does that represent the 80 percent? General NOBLE. It represents just the Federal part-because we do not need basin authorization to cover us for the local. The local people have to come up with their share whenever it is time. Mr. Jo~s. The only need you have at the moment to carry you through 1970 is an authorization of $32 million? General NOBLE. Yes, sir, that is right. Mr. JONES. Why did you present a request for authorization of $58 million? General NOBLE. I do not have my papers, sir. I thought you were reading from- Mr. JoNEs. I understand. In other words, the $58 million is a modi- flea tion acldin~ an additional project. General NOBLE. Yes, sir. it is not necessarily to be in the. next 2 years. Mr. JoNES. Well, the figures that you gave, $32 million, are based upon the authorization without the modification, is that correct? PAGENO="0231" 217 General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Could YOU indicate-I gather from page 2 of your submission in determining benefit-to-cost ratio, there is no inclusion for the benefits to be received by Everglades National Park, is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct, sir. We did not know how to put a value on the park, a dollar value. Mr. CRAMER. Well, if the real value of the park were included, your benefit cost would be substantially larger, would it not? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Would you indicate the area of Everglades National Park-that whole southern tip of the State, west and central, right? Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Now, would you indicate further what modifying channels or canals were included previously in order to accommodate present needs of the park for water? Would you indicate where those are? That is one of the reasons why the authorization was increased last year, was to try to get something underway on that, is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. We are digging a canal, improving the canal, as you see the double width there, the Miami Canal, along the Everglades Parkway. This is being constructed now, and the purpose is to improve our efficiency in delivering water to the park. Similarly, the North New River Canal, below structure S7, you see another double width. This is the same type of thing. We are improving this canal so we increase our flow. Then from that point, we have that S shaped canal and this is the third section. These three sections, two of which ~re now com- plete, were provided for this purpose specifically. Mr. CRAMER. For the purpose of providing water to the Everglades National Park. Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir, to improve our efficiency of flow and de- liveries. INir. CRAMER. And this increased lake storage is needed for that pur- pose, Everglades National Park water source, to a substantial extent, is it not, as it relates to benefits? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the increased storage in Lake Okeechobee, as well as more water being pumped back into the conservation areas, together account for 655,000 acre-feet. This would be distributed as required. As I pointed out, we can go either direction in some of our canals. All of itis not required-all of Lake Okeechobee is not required strictly for the park. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that. But there will be a substantial benefit to the park. Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. It is a project purpose. Mr. CRAMER. it is not reflected in your cost benefits. As you say it cannot be evaluated. Colonel SEIDEL. That is right, sir. We do not know how to put a dollar figure on it. Mr. CRAMER. Iii your opinion, it is needed for the park. Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0232" 218 General NoBLE. It is absolutely essential, sir. Without this project, the park is going to wither away. It needs water. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would that fall into the category of damage pre- vented, such as you have had in other projects? General NOBLE. It is to provide water for the park. There have been statements made, and there are people who believe that over the years the man-made works in southern Florida have acted to hurt the park, and I suppose to a degree that is true-new drainage will tend to lead water away from the park. It is not necessarily true to the extent of some of the allegations. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would you briefly clarify that. If this project does not go forward, what adverse effect would it have on the Everglades National Park? General NOBLE. Well, if it does not go forward, sir, it would not provide water that this project is designed to provide to the park. Water for the park is a major project purpose embodied in this plan. Mr. CRAMER. May I ask a question there. If that is the case, why is the 20 percent local cost attributed also to the benefit accruing to the park? You are requiring local interests to put up 20 percent of the total cost-when you say the greatest portion of the benefit is to the park. Now, how do you justify that? General NOBLE. I did not mean to imply greatest portion, sir. I meant a major part of it. It is a major project purpose. This is a chart from the report that spreads out, by layers, the various elements. The cross-hatched layers. which increase in amount over the years, is water for the needs of Florida. This layer represents the amount of water allocated to the park. Mr. CRAMER. What percentage is that'? General NoBr~. Fifteen percent, something like that. Then on top of that, you have these extra floodwaters, which are over and above allocated requirements of central and southern Flor- ida and any increment laid down for the park. The park is willing and anxious t~ take any amount of water that is available. Mr. CRAMER. Is that the water made available or the value of the project of the Everglades? General NOBLE. That is the water made available. Mr. ~RAR. Why should not 15 percent of this project be that of the Federal Government a hundred percent relating to benefits to the Everglades~ General NOBLE. I do not believe that the local people are paying for the Everglades' water. Mr. CLAUSEN. This water for the Everglades, is this to supple- ment water that either drains out of the area, or evaporates? I do not know that I have clear in my mind as to why you have to have the supplemental water resource. You say it is needed for the park, but why? General NOBLE. `Well, if the environment of the park is to be pre- served, it is the judgment of the National Park Service that they need 315,000 acre-feet per year to maintain the environment of the Ever- glades National Pa.rk. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is this the natural environment? General NOBLE. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. `What would cause the water supply to diminish? PAGENO="0233" 219 General NOBLE. I guess it is lack of new water coming into the park, sir. They lose what they have got, it flows away and evaporates. Mr. CRAMER. I want to make sure I understand. There is no cost breakdown on this. The local cooperation comment on page 2-assur- ances to make a cash contribution of 20 percent of the contract-for all items of work to be provided by the corps estimated at $11.8 million. Now, what items of this total project are not included for local par- ticipation that would relate to the park? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, based on the quantities of water that we esti- mated would be available for the park and for nonpark use, this broke out in the ratio of roughly 50-50-48 to 52. Now, the Federal Government is paying for all costs-paying all costs that would be involved in providing the water for the park. The percent of cost for the nonpark users is on a 50-50 basis. So the Gov- ernment is going to pay for the water supply portion of this project 74 percent versus 26. Mr. CRAMER. That gets to the point that I wanted to ask. That is why I wanted a breakdown. The present project for central and southern is on an 80-20 basis. Wasn't that your testimony? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, that is correct. Mr. CRAMER. So why is this portion of it on a 50-50 basis? Mr. MOALEER. Sir, the present project comprises Federal or public uses of flood control, and all the flood control portion of the original project was set up as 100 percent Federal in cost. The drainage and irrigation in the original project was divided 50-50 between the local interests and the Federal Government, and the local interests were expected to maintain and operate the overall project. The result of this was that for the $300 million overall project on an average annual basis-the local people pay about 40 percent of the cost. And the modification comes out approximately the same with water for the park on a 100-percent cost basis. Mr. CLAU5EN. I am sort of wondering here, in light of the com- ments Mr. Cramer has brought up, if there should not be some very serious thought given to the genuine benefits to the Federal Govern- ment, and something included as a factor in the benefits to the Ever- glades National Park. Mr. JONES. I am afraid I am not following you. It seems to me that what we are trying to do is to try `to take a hundred percent Federal responsibility as being applied to the project to suppiy money for the Everglades, and then take credit for local participation. That is not the theory at all. The theory is if you follow the logical conclusion to what you are propounding there, you would go back to the $32 mil- lion, and then strike out the Everglades, and you would have the same arrangement we have at the present time. The fact that you are not including the Everglades reflected in the cost of your local people- it was not assumed that in the first place. What you are getting to is injuring your own project. It seems to me you better let well enough alone-because the Federal Government is paying for all the costs of water in the Everglades-I do not see how that would be affected in local participation. Mr. CRAMER. What did you say is a hundred percent Federal-what phase of the project? PAGENO="0234" 220 Mr. MOALEER. In the present modification of the project, that part of the project chargeable to the water supply for the park is 100 percent Federal. In the original project, the flood control portion of the project was 100 percent Federal. Mr. CRAMER. You consider this water storage as compared with flood control; is that correct? This project? Mr. MCALEER. For the Federal purpose, the park; right. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. I just could not tell from these figures. Mr. JONES. Is water usually pumped or is it gravity flow? The water coming down from Lake Okeechobee to the Everglades National Park. Colonel SEIDEL. Water moves out of the lake, sir, by pump. Mr. JONES. How many pumping stations would you normally have from that distance? Colonel SEIDEL. Once we get it out of the lake-over the levee and into the canal, sir, then we have very slow gravity flow. We do have some other control structures. Colonel KELLY. It is all gravity, although pumps are being installed now, which will push it down. That is the part of the $4 million interim plan that was authorized last year. Colonel SEIDEL. Once we get it in the canal, sir, it is a very slow process of gravity. This is a very, very slight fall in this area. It is very level. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Ohairman, I am still not clear why we got in such a shape as far the the Everglades Park is concerned. It has been there 300 years and there has been plenty of wa.ter. What did we do to cause this? I think it is manmade cause, but what did we do? What caused the trouble to start with? What did we do to get the drain water out of there? General NOBLE. We have a representative here from the National Park Service, sir. You may want to get his version. Mr. CRAMER. I would rather have yours. General NOBLE. Over the years in the development of southern Florida, a number of manmade works have been put into place, grounds have been drained, lands have been drained in order to de- velop them for agriculture, channels have been put in for drainage purposes, and for conveyance of water, and for irrigation. And it is the feeling of the people in the Park Service that the cumulative effect of all of these manmade drainage works has acted to the detriment of water supply to the park. It is admitted that in occasional years throughout eons of time there have been dry periods for the park. But the environment that is cherished, and the environment that moti- vated the Federal Government to establish the park in the first place is the wet environment. And if this wet environment is to be preserved, on the basis of our studies, we agree additional water has to be pro- vided the park. And the only source of additional water is from this proiect. The exact amount of that water has been established by the Park Service. They feel that water in the order of 315,000 acre-feet is necessary. That amount of water has been embodied in this project. as the quantity to be delivered for the park. The needs of southern Florida for irrigation, for municipal and industrial use, and others, PAGENO="0235" 221 and for the growth of southern Florida, projected growth, are also embodied in this project. I do not know whether I answered the question, sir, but that is about it. Mr. Jo~s. Any further questions? If not, the committee will stand adjourned until 10 in the morning. (Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the committee was recessed, to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 20, 1968.) PAGENO="0236" PAGENO="0237" OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS, FLOOD CONTROL, AND RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION BILL-1968 THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 1968 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FLOOD CONTROL OF THE C0MMIrPEE ON PuBLI0 Woiu~s, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., lion. Robert E. Jones (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. JONES. The subcommittee will come to order. The first project this morning is Upper Licking River Basin in Kentucky. UPPER LICKING RIVER BASING KY. The committee is pleased to receive our fine colleague from Ken- tucky, Mr. Perkins, who has been sponsor of this project and we are delighted to have you, Mr. Perkins. STATEMENT OP HON. CARL P~RKThTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM. THE STATE OP KENTUCKY Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I speak under the 1-minute rule this morning. I know you are pressed for time. This is the Royalton Reservoir project and I appear here for Magoffin County near the head of the Lincoln River. The reservoir is much needed from the standpoint of flood control primarily. I was in the Salyersville area as far back as 1939 in the old Rice Hotel and had to get up at 3 a.m. in the morning at the time of the frozen flood and move my car off the streets right in the main part of the city of Salyersville. The city has been flooded by recurring floods for 50 years and we have been derelict in our responsibility up to the present time to do something about this situation. The Corps of Engineers has made a strong appeal for this reservoir before the Senate. They are here today and I know they will do the same thing today and that happens to be the first project recommended under the Appalachian legislation and in the entire country. I am strongly in favor of this reservoir, I urge that it be put in the omnibus bill and reported out with the omnibus bill, and I will tell the committee that all my people down there will appreciate that favorable action. Now here this morning we have numerous people up here from the vicinity in favor of the reservoir and none against it. (223) PAGENO="0238" 224 We have Mr. E. K. Moore of Saiyersville, Mr. Scott Patrick of Salyersville, the director of the Big Sandy Area Development Council and we have the mayor, J. W. Carpenter, Cliff Boyd, and W. L. Con-. icy, and others up here. Mr. Jo~s. Will you gentlemen please stand? Mr. PEluuNs. Yes, all of you stand up here in favor of this reservoir today. Mr. JONES. We are pleased to have you gentlemen. Mr. PERKINS. That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, and I. will cooperate in any way that I can. Mr. Jo~n~s. Thank you, Mr. Perkins. Mayor James Carpenter we are pleased to have you. Mr. PERKINS. Before I leave perhaps you ought to tell these people, Mr. Chairman, about the limitation of time. I am chairman of a com- mittee myself down the hall here and I know sometimes about the imposition. Mr. Jo~s. We will be pleased to have you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. PERKINS. Are you going to speak for the whole delegation? How many statements do you have? I~t us get an idea of how much time you are going to take, Mr. MayOr. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, before our colleague leaves, our distin- guished and able colleague, let me welcome him to the subcommittee. You know, it is very seldom we have a chairman of a major com- mittee appear before us and we are delighted to have you, Mr. Perkins. STATEMTANT OP HON. JAMES CARPENTER, MAYOR OP SALYERS- VILLE, KY.; ACCOMPANIED BY ALBERT K. MOORE AND JOSEPH L. McCAULEY Mayor CARPENTER. Mr. Ohairman and members of the committee, I would like to turn this over to Mr. A. K. Moore and Mr. Joe Mc- Cauley to testify on behalf of this project. Mr. JONES. You may call them forward.. Mr. MooRP. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Albert K. Moore. I am a retired newspaper publisher and chairman of the Upper Licking River Flood Control Association, Salyersville, Ky. I am speaking as a representative of that association and also as spokesman for the Kiwanis Club, the Sportsman's Club, the Jaycees, Daughters of the American Revolution, the Woman's Club, and all the citizens of Salyersville, as well as those here with me today. In fact, I am speaking for everyone living below the proposed Royalton Reser- voir. All these organizations and individuals are wholeheartedly in favor of the construction of the Royalton Dam and Reservoir and the three smaller dams as set forth in the interim report of the Corps of Engineers. I would like to give this committee three reasons why we are all so solidly back of this proposal. First, the city of Salyersville is in dire need of a supply of fresh water. We have an excellent water system, which is fed by two deep wells. One of these wells has become unusable because of salt water which is entering the feeder stream, and the other is now showing salt to such an extent that we believe it is only a question of a few PAGENO="0239" 225 months until it is also past using. This deep stream of waiter, which is the only one available that will supply water in sufficient quantity to operate a water system the size of Salyersville, has been contaminated by secondary recovery of oil in the oilfields a few miles east of the city. This recovery is by means of water being forced under enor- mous pressure into the oil sands, driving the oil-and salt water- before it. One of these proposed dams will be within a short distance from Salyersville and will make abundant water available. Second, all the suitable industrial sites in the county are located within the flood plain of the Licking River. Construction of the pro- posed dams would make several thousand acres of industrial sites available. That the people of Magoffin County are capable of securing industry is illustrated by the location at Salyersville of Ward Manu- facturing Co., one of the largest manufacturers in the United States of camper bodies for pickup trucks. The site was secured and a build- ing built for this company by local people, without one dime of Fed- eral or State financing. Preparation of the site cost more than twice as much as the original cost of the land, due to the fact that it had to be filled above high water mark. Third, Magoffin County, located in the heart of eastern Kentucky's Appalachia, has no recreation facilities, either public or private. There is no boating, no swimming, no fishing, no golf courses-not even a swimming pool. This fact, among others, is the cause of Magoffin County's population loss of approximately 8,000, or about 40 percent from 1940 until 1960. Construction of the Royailton Reservoir and its auxiliary structures will furnish all these recreational facilities. I am not going to belabor the fact that Magoffin County is the third poorest county in per capita income in the United States. This is a matter of record. I am not going to go into our economic needs. A look at the rolls of those who are receiving aid under the various public assistance programs: the unemployed fathers-or "happy pappies," as we call them-Headstart, title I, food stamps-we have them all- will bring this need vividly to your mind. Implementing this program as proposed by the Corps of Engineers will give Magoffin County and its people an economic boost that is sorely needed. Now, as spokesman for the groups and individuals outlined above, I want to assure this committee that we are enthusiastically in favor of the Royalton Reservoir as outlined in the report of the Engineers, and that we will do everything in our power locally to assist in imple- menting it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore. Mr. McCauley, did you have a statement? Mr. MCCAULEY. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am Joseph L. McCauley, and I will read a cover letter whi~h presents 21 letters from various civic organizations and political leaders throughout the 14-county area in and around Magoffin County and we had directed our letter to our distinguished Congressman, Carl D. Perkins. The letter says: Attached to this correspondence are letters of endorsement from Edected Officials, Chambers of Commerce, Civic Organizations and Prominent Individ- uals who are engaged in the civic affairs of their communities. The endorsements are representative of approximately 14 counties surround- ing Magoffin in which the proposed Royalton Reservoir will be located. PAGENO="0240" 226 It is not necessary to comment on the fact that the perso~ represented in the above endorsements are those people who are working not only for the develop- ment of their individual localities, but are interested in the economic develop- ment of this region. Sincerely yours, JOS~H L. MCCAULEY, Director. We would like to submit those for the record with the one statement that we do believe that an investment of this sort has long-range effect, not only on our own locality, but the whole State. Mr. Jo~s. Thank you very much. You have read the covering letter. The other letters will be noted in the record and may be made a part of the record by reference. Mr. Mooru~. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mayor Carpenter I would also like to file a. copy of the Senate hearings. Mr. JoNEs. What was that? Mr. Mooi~r. The record of the Senate hearings containing all of the endorsements that we have. Mr. JONES. The Senate hearings? Mr. MOORE. There is a copy of the recent Senate hearing. Mr. JoNEs. They are already public records and it. is not necessary to `be incorporated in this record. Mr. Mooi~a. Well, we would like to refer to it. Mr. JoN1~s. Well, by reference, the copies of the Senate hearings will be found in the files of the subcommittee. Mr. JONES. Thank you, gentlemen. General Noble, Colonel Lee and Colonel Anderson, we will begin with you now. The hearings started day before yesterday-we had a Lieutenant Colonel Anderson-and today we have a Colonel Anderson. My con- gratulations, Colonel. STATEMENT OP BRIG. GEN. CHARLES C. NOBLE, DIRECTOR OP CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE OP CHIEF OP ENGfl~EERS; ACCOMPANIED BY COL. JOHN C. H. LEE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OP APPAILACHIAN STUDIES, U.S. ARMY ENGINEERS, CINCfl~NATI, OHIO; COL. PEED E. ANDER- SON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OP CIVIL WORKS FOR CENTRAL DIVI- SIONS; COL. RICHARD L. SEIDEL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR ATLANTIC DIVISIONS; LT. COL. GEORGE B. SHAFFER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR PLAINS DIVISION; B. JOSEPH TOFANI, CHIEF, POLICY AND ANALYSIS DIVISION; LT. COL. DANIEL B. HALL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR MISSISSIPPI VALLEY; LT. COL. LEWIS A. PICK, JR., ASSIST- ANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR PACIFIC DIVISIONS; LONEY HART, CHIEF OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, REAL ESTATE DIVI- SION; AND FRED L. THRALL, CHIEF OF THE WATER CONSER.VA- TION BRANCH General NOBLE. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to also introduce Col. James D. Meanor who will also be with us here today. ` PAGENO="0241" 227 Mr. JONES. Nice to see you, Colonel Meanor. I will also say that Colonel Lee is no stranger to us. He has been with us before and acquainted us with the work he is doing with Appalachia and we are also pleased to know of your works. Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, this report concerns water re- source and economic development in the upper portion of the Licking River Basin in eastern Kentucky. It is in partial response to the Flood Control Act of 1936 and the Appalachian Regional Develop- ment Act of 1965. There are no existing maj or water resource improvements within the Upper Licking River Basin. An authorized local protection levee for part of Salyersville, Ky., is inadequate for current problems and needs. The six-county area centering on Magôffin County, of which Salyersville is the county seat, has high levels of underemployment and employment. The area is mountainous and developable bottom- lands are extremely scarce. The lack of flood-free land suitable for industrial, commercial, and residential use is a major deterrent to economic development. Significantly, there has been six major floods in the 30 years of record. The recommended plan of improvement pro- poses a five-element plan in the general vicinity of Salyersville to pro- vide expanded employment opportunities, enhance the environment for regional economic development, and increase national income. The first four elements are water-related and consist of (1) Royal- ton Reservoir on the Licking River; (2) channel improvements on Licking River and State Road Fork; (3) three flood retardation structures on Rockhouse Fork, Burning Fork, and Mash Fork; and (4) land treatment measures. These water-related elements would provide flood control, water supply, water quality control, and rec- reation, including hunting and fishing, and would improve the hydro- logical and sediment control characteristics of the basin. The fifth element encompasses expanded industrial, commercial, and residential development. The overall plan is deliberately oriented toward lasting improvement in the economic status of the area. The first two elements would be Corps of Engineers responsi- bilities. Elements three and four would be accomplished by the De- partment of Agriculture. The economic development element would be primarily a non-Federal responsibility. The total estimated cost of the plan is about $245 million. Of this amount, $37,205,000 is for the water-related elements. The first three elements are estimated at $35,765,000 Federal, including $2,703,400 for reimbursable features. The land treatment element is estimated at $1,170,000 Federal and $270,000 non-Federal. Annual 0. & M. costs for the first three water-related elements are estimated at $63,000 Federal and $62,300 non-Federal. Three indices of performance have been developed for project ap- praisal with respect to the broad interrelated objectives of the Ap- palachian Regional Development Act which are expansion in em- ployment opportunities, improvement in the environment for regional economic development, and national income expansion. These indices are 5.7, 37.8, and 0.67 respectively. The first two indices are relative measures only since present evaluation techniques do not afford a basis for an identification of the minimum acceptable values for these indices. The third index is similar to the conventionally developed 97-700----68-----iG PAGENO="0242" 228 B/C ratio but excludes difficult to evaluate potential national income gains stemming from the projected economic expansion. Local interests are willing to provide the necessary normal items of local cooperation for flood control, water supply, and recreation. The State and Federal agencies have commented favorably on the report. The report is now with the Secretary of Army for review. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JONES. Let's review, Colonel, the various plans again in cap- sule form. Colonel ANDm~soN. The five elements are first, the Royalton Reser- voir, the second is channel improvements on Licking River and State Road Fork. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would the Chair yield? Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. May I ask so that I understand correctly; will all of these projects be coordinated? Do I understand you to say at some point in your testimony it would be interagency? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir, the first two, the reservoir and channel improvements are Crc~ps of Engineers construction. The other two elements, that is those three small reservoirs plus land treatment will be under the Department of Agriculture Soil Conserva- tion Service. Mr. JoNEs. Now, the economic development aspects of the project, would you go into that, Colonel? Colonel LEE. I am Col. John Lee. That is strictly for the record. As Colonel Anderson has said, sir, the purpose~ Mr. JoNES. Colonel Lee, let me interrupt and state this is the first proposal that we have had on the scheme of this nature involving Appalachia, so it is rather novel for us and since it is going to be employed in other areas, I think it is necessary for the committee to have complete understanding as to what is the thought and the aims, and how they are to be coordinated and, once they are in operation, how they are to be pursued after that time. Colonel Lr~. The declared purpose of the Congress in the Appala- chian Act is to foster regional development and growth. Mr. JONES. That is under section 206 of the Appalachian Act of 1965? Colonel LEE. It is section 2 of the Appalachian Act which is the preamble and the declaration of intent by the Congress. The guidance was that public dollars invested will be in areas with a high return or high expected rate of return; areas with significant potential for growth. `We determine, sir, that Salyersville has a significant potential for growth. It is on the eastern end of the Mountain Parkway which is the first of the Appalachian Highway corridors. It has a trained and trainable labor force. It has rail access. It has gas and oil. Kentucky has made a great number of improvements in its vocational educational training facilities and there are four schools. Salyversville itself has been sitting with a p9puiation of about 1,100 or 1,200 people, no change and no growth basically because, as was earlier said, they have a critical flooding problem. Moreover, the Licking River has had a zero flow seven times in the period of record. In other words, the Licking River running dry can- PAGENO="0243" 229 not support industry, cannot support growth, cannot carry away sewage. Now, in this particular case the water resource development is the key trigger to their growth. A concomitant part of the growth is, of course, dynamic local leader- ship and the report makes a recommendation that, should the project be authorized, `the Secretary of Army not request construction funds until he is fully satisfied that there is an organization on the ground to carry out element 5 of the plan, element 5 being the economic development plan. We hired Spindle Top Research of Lexington, Ky., a sort of a small Rand Corp. to do what is reported in the report as appendix A, a land use development plan for the growth that could he anticipated to occur under normal economic trends, nonaccelerated trends in this area by opening up some 2,000 acres of flood plain. We anticipate that the regular economic part of the demand in this region will he such that we could see about 10,000 new jobs over a 50-year period. Now, a great number of these new jobs will he local, will he presently underemployed and unemployed Appalachians, and we also computed that there is also a considerable national interest in this regional growth. Mr. JONES. Well, is this compatible with the regional development plans that are proposed or in operation in the area? Colonel LEE. Well, sir, let me say it this way-it is fully compatible with the Commission's plans and the `Commonwealth of Kentucky's plans, but I would also say this: without the project, Salyersville would not ever turn to growth. It has no potential for growth because you have flooding, hut with the flooding corrected, `it has great potential, sir. Mr. JONES. You were speaking of this national significance. Colonel LEE. The national significance-the report estimates that the present annual average value of the new wages to the region is about $42 million per year. This is during the growth period and assumption of people that would not be hired without the project; we estimate that about $6 million a year is in the national account-this in addition to the other usual benefits. Now, this is a very hard estimate to make because you have to esti- mate, of the new hires, how `many people would get hired over a 50- year period elsewhere if the project were not buil.t and deduct those from the regional account to determine the national account. Mr. JONES. Well, this is the first instance on the precedence for the national program to be fitted in with the water resources development as to the other developments of economic growth in an area, and how did you go about making those calculations and by whom were they made? Colonel LEE. I think, sir, there were two questions there. Mr. JONES. Yes, there were. Colonel LEE. The first is concerning the report being a precedent, a precedent set, and although this is a new departure for the Corps of Engineers- Mr. JONES. I understand this is a new departure for the Corps of Engineers and it has the TVA, those programs have been more successful. PAGENO="0244" 230 Colonel LEE. Yes. Also, sir, the document that President Kennedy approved back in 1962 which was printed in Senate Document No. 97 also calls for broader resource reporting on regional and local eco- nomic effects. We have not done that since 1962 because there are very difficult problems of economic measure, these computations you asked about. The major part of our pending Appalachia report will be devoted to a discussion of the appropriate economic theories to take account of the national interest in regional development and growth, particularly in distressed regions. We made these calculations ourselves, sir, in the Office of Appa- lachian Studies in Cincinnati. Mr. Jo~s. The gentleman from California, Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Colonel Lee, let me say something about some of the comments you made which are very interesting and for the benefit of the people. from the Kentucky area. We just recently completed the highway authorization and during that particular hearing session I, having áoine from so-called rural sections of America, I made some rather strong pronouncements of philosophy about this and setting up the kind of priorities for this country, hopefully, to reverse the population trends in the urban areas to where we go back out into the rural areas; so this is a project, a reclamation that is taking on more and more interest as far as I am concerned. The fact that this particular project as the chairman has pointed out, the fact that it places a major burden of responsibility on you who are coordinating these activities to do it right, and so with that in mind I know that there are no comments from the Bureau of the Budget and am I correct as to, either one of you, either you or Colonel Anderson, but it has been brought to my attention that the Bureau of the Budget did have some questions about the recommendation and I am wondering if you happen to know what those questions are. Are you familiar with the Bureau's comments, Colonel Anderson or Colonel Lee, or General Noble? General NoBLE. We have nothing formal on this, sir, so I can only discuss what has been rubbing off on me in an informal way. The Bureau staff seems somewhat concerned over the effect that the evaluation philosophy of Appaiachian studies might have on the water resources program. This is something new in the area of evaluation and I think the Bureau of the Budget would be happier if projects under the Appalachian program qualified for accomplish- ment under long established benefit-cost analysis procedures at least until more precise knowledge is gained on the flow of these benefits into national and regional accounts. Where they are going to come down on thi~ officially, I do not know, sir. This is all the information I have indirectly from the staff level in the Bureau. I do not know what the official opinion of the Bureau is going to be. Mr. CLAUSEN. I see. Well, this does not necessarily mean I am going to agree wit.h the Bureau of the Budget because again it is not a question of priorities. I am saying that if there are significant questions that are going to give us some problems then we, as a committee, want to ferret them out and make certain whatever we do in this instance is going to be the proper recommendation because the chairman has pointed out PAGENO="0245" 231 that this can establish a precedent that conceivably can be very constructive throughout the country. Mr. JONES. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes. Mr. JONES. I would like to point out that the Bureau of the Budget made representations to this committee in the consideration of Appala- cliia to include that provision and at no time was there any doubt in the Bureau of the Budget or any other agency of the Government that this would be part of Appalachia. I do not see why they have hesitancy. Mr. CLAUSEN. In your handout I notice that under Project Eco- nomics you have listed under the Water Control Elements, one, two and three and then you go on down and hit Economic Expansion, Element No. 5, that we do not see anything for No. 4 which is re- ferred to as "land treatment measures" under Recommended Plan of Improvement. Now, this is because it is agricultural. That is not considered a part of the Corps of Engineers? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir; it is primarily the individual farmer that when you speak of operation and maintenance for instance we cannot make a calculation because it is the individual farmer taking care of his land in accordance with the recommendations from the Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Mr. JONES. Land practices under TVA, those programs were adopted in that area, 17 or 18 land practices which the individual farmer would carry out. Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. And on page 3 of the handout footnote, right about the center of the page, there at the (1), there is a note ex- plaining that we didn't make an annual cost and annual benefit from this. Now, the total costs are $1,170,000 Federal for the land treatment and $270,000 non-Federal, the initial cost. Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes, that is the figure we wanted and I think this has been helpful even though it is an agricultural recommendation; it is helpful for the committee to understand how these are tied in with the interagency department liaison. Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. I note that at least on the document referred to prev- iously, I do not have the established benefit-cost ratio. Is there a reason for this or is it because you are applying other factors or what is the reason for this not being included? Colonel ANDERSON. At the bottom of page 2 and at the top of page 3 you see the three indices that I mentioned-and the third one at the top of page 3, increased national income, can `be regarded as compar- able to the standard benefit to cost ratio, 0.67. Colonel LEE. If I may add to that, sir, the report itself in several places discusses, of course, that this is only one of the objectives of the study. This is a traditionally computed benefit-cost ratio, but it does not include in it our estimates of the national interest in the new wages in bringing people off the welfare rolls and making them pro- ductive workers. That is not an element that is normally included in the benefit-cost ratio. PAGENO="0246" 232 If you added to that ratio the approximately $6 million in annual wages that we figure or assume to be within the national interest, then that ratio is considerably different. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Now, in your projections you make reference to the fact there has been so many out of jobs. How did you arrive at that figure and where would these people come from? Would they come from this particular area? Colonel LEE. There are presently, sir, in the six-county study area centered on Ma.goffin County area, 14,000 unemployed of the right ages and right sexes necessary for work and they will come out of the hills and valleys and go off the dole if they have a job. The Ward Manufacturing Co. moved to Salyersville where there were many more applicants to work than jobs they could fill. Mr. CLAUSEN. Do you have a figure? You say they are not on the dole now. Colonel LEE. A great. number of them, sir, are underemployed. They do subsistence farming and getting food stamps or something of that sort, yes, sir. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Can you speak authentically or do you have some cost figures of the number of people on the dole that would actually become employed if this project were recommended? Colonel LEE. The report details that, sir. I would like to answer that question after a moment's research just for the record. Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes, I realize this is something that you could not carry in your mind, that you could provide the information for our record. I think this is very significant. Colonel LEE. I remember something of the total in the six-county study area, in the six-county study area, sir, I remember the current total welfare, in broad numbers, is something on the order of $3 million a year. Mr. CLAUSEN. The point you are making is that this is not one of the considered increments in our B-C ratio as it now stands. Colonel LEE. No, it is not in that third index of performance that Coloned Anderson mentioned. Mr. CLAUSEN. The chairmanand I, of course, have had a number of informal discussions about this whole question of the benefit-cost ratio in this category of secondary benefits and this is something that I have a deep personal interest in. We are spending money some place for welfare, when, in many ways, we can save the taxpayers' money. Colonel LEE. We feel, in thinking about secondary benefits, that there is a national interest as well as a regional interest. Mr. CLAUSEN. I agree with you. Colonel LEE. That when, a project causes a regional transfer, just merely the lifting up of some activity and moving it to another region, the net effect is zero. But., when you bring in new productive resources into the economy that are not otherwise in the economy, when you take people off from welfare and make them productive citizens, this is a national interest. Mr. CLAUSEN. I am not going to belabor this as there are a number of other witnesses, but I would like to discuss this with you personally, and in depth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0247" 233 Mr. JONES. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Penney. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question. I was intrigued by your statement that at a low-level conference with mem- bers of the Bureau of the Budget, employees of the Bureau of the Budget, you had the opinion that they questioned whether or not the Army Corps of Engineers should be in on this project due to the Appalachian program. Would you make yourself more explicit and clear on that point? General NOBLE. I guess I gave the wrong impression, sir. We have had no formal exchange with the Bureau of the Budget on this question. It is yet to come. What their official position will be is yet to be stated. It is my impression from the last few days that the Bureau of the Budget stall, as is traditionally the case, are concerned when any new program comes on the scene. They are concerned from the standpoint of "here is another program that will involve expenditures," and their tradition- al role, of course, is to hold down expenditures. That is one aspect of it. There is no question raised to my knowledge, that the corps has no role to play here. It is purely a question, I believe, as to whether or not the Appalachian study should be embodied in an omnibus bill at this time. Mr. PENNEY. That was the point I was trying to bring out. We had had the Appalachian development bill. We authorized millions of dollars for it and it is your impression that the Corps of Engineers is wondering whether this should be under the omnibus bill or under the Appalachian organization and the money appropriated for it? General NOBLE. No, sir; the Corps is not. I think that the legislative history of section 206 of the Appalachian Act makes it clear that, while the water plans would be developed in close relationship with the Commission's plan, authorization and funding would be accom- plished as part of the civil works program. *Mr. PENNEY. No; I said the Bureau. General NOBLE. The Bureau, sir; I do not know. Mr. PENNEY. I am not trying to put you on the spot, General, but we do have a proliferation of programs and the Bureau is supposed to be watching the purse strings and the question here with $245 million, or whatever the amount, is: Should this be in the omnibus bill as an addi- tion to Appalachia or should it be through the Appalachian program? That is what I am trying to find out and this is what you do not know at this time; is that right? Colonel LEE. Let me answer, sir. I pointed out, sir, that this study was done under two authorities, one was the 1936 Flood Control Act and the other was the Appalachian Regional Pevelopment Act. Mr. PENNEY. In other words, you were requesting the Appalachian Regional Commission to make the study. Colonel LEE. No, sir; I was requested by the Congress of the United States under section 206 of the act which directs the Secretary of the Army to make the study of the region, on the water resources develop- ment. This was done under the Appalachian act. It was coordinated with the Commission. This does carry a favorable recommendation from the Federal cochairman. PAGENO="0248" 234 I express this as a personal opinion that now that this was done as part of the Appalachian program, it should be authorized and con- structed as an on-going Corps of Engineers project. Mr. DENNEY. That answers my question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Mr. Snyder, a member of the committee from the State of Kentucky, who has a great interest in this project. Mr. Snyder, we are pleased to recognize you. Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How far is this proposed reservoir from the confluence with the Ohio River? Colonel LEE. Offhand, sir, subject to correction, it is about 85 miles. Colonel ANDERSON. In river mileage it is about 280 miles. Mr. SNYDER. 280 miles? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes. Mr. SNYDER. How far is it from the Falmouth Reservoir? Colonel LEE. It would be about 200 miles upstream from the Fa.l- mouth Dam. Mr. SNYDER. You do put this in the flood control projects? Colonel LER. It is one of several purposes. Mr. SNYDER. What would it do? Colonel LEE. Nothing. Royalton Dam will not have any effect. It has no flood control effects below Cave Run. Mr. SNYDER. What would it have to do with the quality control of the Licking, and the Ohio River, at its confluence with it at Cincinnati, water quality control? Colonel LEE. Very little, sir, that far down. Mr. SNYDER. You are aware of the fact., of course, that the Falmoutli project has been authorized for 30 years. The Bureau of the Budget in recent years has not put it into the budget because of the fact of the opposition of Mr. Perkins. You are aware of that, are you not? Colonel LEE. I have heard it alleged, sir. Mr. SNYDER. Can you give us any reason why the Bureau of the Budget or the Corps of Engineers ought to recommend this project when you have another project on the same river that has not been funded and has been authorized for 30 years? Colonel ANDERSON. We are protecting a different area, sir. Mr. SNYDER. Well, this seems to have some urgency 30 years later. What about the one that needed that protection 30 years ago? Colonel LEE. I think I can answer this question, sir. I think Fal- mouth is a darn good project. Mr. SNYDER. Well, I appreciate that very much. I do, too. Colonel LEE. All right, sir. Mr. SNYDER. And I might feel a little better about this one if a couple of other members would feel as you do about Falmouth. Colonel LEE. Yes, sir, but that decision is above us. Mr. SNYDER. I am aware of that, but I at least have got it into the record. I used you as my vehicle. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JoNEs. Mr. Harsha, the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, understand this is the first project submitted to the committee under this provision in the Appalachia law where you are PAGENO="0249" 235 required to make your survey of the benefits that might be attributable to the various Appalachia regions, is that correct? Colonel LEE. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Have you completed this survey or study? Colonel LEE. No, sir, we are in the process of writing up the report now. Mr. HARS}IA. On what basis do you submit this report, then, incor- porating, or at least allegedly incorporating, benefits from this study? Colonel LEE. It is a pilot report of the Appalachian report. You might call it an interim report. As I mentioned earlier, we had to spend a great deal of our work on developing a somewhat new methodology, somewhat new approach, and, in the process of doing so, we had to consult, of course, with our own people here in Washington. When the methodology was reviewed and approved as a working sort of a test, the then Director of Civil Works said it would be, and General MacDonald, the Deputy Ohief of Engineers, said* until you do this with a real live project you are not quite sure whether you are right or wrong and it would be a good thing to move a real project through this new methodology and see ho'w it comes out; and we knew that the Salyersville problem and the Salyersville growth potential would be in the final report, and it happened that enough engineerin had already been done on the Royalton Reservoir, such that it woul not be a lengthy, or time-consuming, or expensive job to submit a pilot report, and this came forward for that reason. Mr. HARSHA. Is this the only pilot program you have gotten? Colonel LEE. Yes, sir, `but we will ha~ve other projects in the report. Mr. HARSHA. How did you happen to select this particular one? Colonel LEE. Because the engineering was largly done at the Royal- ton Reservoir,. We had the damsites and the estimates of cost and it was an easy one to do; quicker. Mr. HARSHA. Well, I `have one in my district that you have the engineering on, you have had it for years. Colonel LEE. Yes, sir, but we did not have Brown County's economic development plan. I think you `have in mind the White Oak Reservoir. We will have recommendations concerning that in our final report, sir. Mr. HARSI~A. Well, now, when do you expect to give us this final report?' Colonel LEE. We hope to have it out of Cincinnati this calendar year. Mr. HARSHA. The law says you have to have it out by then. Do y'ou anticipate it any sooner than that? Colonel LEE. No, sir, we have had consideraible writing difficulties. Mr. HARAHA. All right; now I notice that you refer to Land Treat- ment, subsection (d) of your report here, and you say that the local interest will bear 20 percent `of the `cost. You apparently took that formula out of the Appalachian Act. `Colonel LEE. Yes, sir, section 214 of the Appalachia Act. Mr. HARSHA. But that secti'on also limits the land uses for this particular purpose I believe to 50 acres. Colonel Luu. No, sir, the 50-acre limitation is in section 203. Mr. HARSHA. Pardon me? Colonel LEE. The 50-acre limitation is in section 203 of the Appa- lachian Act. PAGENO="0250" 236 Mr. HARSHA. Yes. Colonel Lrn. The formula for the accelerated land treatment of 80-20 cost-sharing is from section 214, the supplemental grant-in-aid program. Mr. HARSHA. I see. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, those are all the questions I have. Mr. JoNEs. Mr. Porn. Mr. Donx. No questions. Mr. JONES. If there are no further questions we will continue and our next item will be the Rappahannock River, Salem Church Reser- voir, Va RAPPAHANNOOK RIVER (SALEM CHURCH RESERVOIR) We have with us today our colleague from Virginia, Mr. William Scott. I wonder, since we have such a great nunTher of witnesses if we could take the Corps of Engineers and let them make the presenta- tion and then we will proceed to receive the testimony of the witnesses that we have listed because we have a great number of witnesses that we expect to hear from. Let me say to the people that are here who are in opposition to any of these proposals we have a situation that has developed that was foreseeable. The House goes into session at 11 o'clock today. No doubt, we will have a quorum call immediately after 11. We will have to re- spond to that. It is the purpose of the Chair and the ranking member, Mr. Clausen, that we will return as quickly as possible to proceed with the hearings and we might have several interruptions, but we are going to try our very best to dispose of the projects that are scheduled for hearing today. I do not know whether we can make it or not, but we will en- deavor to continue the hearings tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock if we cannot finish today in order to accommodate the people who have been asked to testify today. This may be a little inconvenient but that is the only way I know to operate because these things cannot be antic- ipated, as hard as we try, as they are unavoidable. Mr. ZION. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. May I request why we skipped the Wabash tributaries in Indiana which was second on the agenda? Mr. JONES. We will come back to the Wabash, Mr. Zion. I did not mean to exclude it, but since the list of witnesses were so heavy I was hoping we could get through with it so we might dispatch the others scheduled later on the list. I did not mean to neglect you. Mr. ZIoN. I know you did not, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you. Mr. JONES. All right, Colonel Seidel, we will hear from you. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee this report concerns modification of the previously authorized but uncon- structed Salem Church Reservoir on Rappahannock River, Va., about 45 miles southeast of Washington. Rappahannock River is an uncontrolled tributary of Chesapeake Bay. The flood plan below the damsite is long and narrow and includes the urbanized Fredericksburg-Falmouth area. A recurrence of the maxinmm flood of record would cause damages in excess of $6 million, mainly in the urban areas. Water quality below Fredericksburg is poor PAGENO="0251" 237 during periods of low streamfiow and salinity conditions in the estuary are often harmful to the oyster industry. Population growth in the region indicates a need for additional water supply, recreation, and power. The previous project was authorized for flood control and power by the Flood Control Act of 1946; however, the authorization con- tained a provision that the maximum power pool elevation be limited to 220 feet, mean sea level. The Chief of of Engineers had recoin- mended a maximum power pool elevation of 240 feet, mean sea level. In 1952, following authorization, more preconstruction planning studies indicated that the project. would be economically marginal and con- struction was not considered justified at that time. In 1955, the House passed a bill to remove the restriction on the power pool elevation from the authorizing act. The Senate requested further information before acting on the proposal, and the Senate Public Works Committee then adopted a resolution calling for a review of the prior report. This re- port is in response to that resolution. The project recommended consists of a multipurpose dam and reservoir at the Salem Church site and a small downstream afterhay for flood control, power, recreation, fish and wildlife enhancement, water quality control, and water supply. The maximum power pool elevation would be 240 feet, mean sea level, the same as previously recommended. Total cost is estimated at $79,500,000, of which $67,067,000 would be Federal after allowing for local reimbursements towards water supply and recreation. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.1. Local interests have indicated willingness and `ability to meet all requirements of cooperation and all interested Federal and State agencies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report to Congress but considers that costs of salinity control should be allocated to the enhancement of com- mercial fisheries rather than to water quality control. The Secretary of the Army recognizes that salinity control will benefit commercial fisheries; however, he also notes that the Bureau's suggested allo- cation would have no significant effect on cost sharing. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JONES. Mr. Clausen? Mr~ CLAUSEN. I will yield to some of my colleagues. Mr. JoNES. This proposition has been pending in the House of Representatives for how many years, Colonel? Colonel SEIDEI,. It was first authorized in 1946. Mr. JoNEs. I think I remember it 3 or 4 years ago. Mr. CLAUSEN. I yield to Mr. Harsha. Mr. JONES. Let me `ask one question first. How does this affect `the `authorization for 1946? Colonel SEIDEL. The authorization in 1946, sir, placed a limitation on the elevation of the power pool. It was raised from 220 feet to 240 feet. Mr. JONES. Mr. Harsha, the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. HARSHA. Colonel, I have here the reservoir will provide the flood protection for only about 44 percent of the size of the standard project flood; is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct, sir. PAGENO="0252" 238 Mr. HARSHA. And it would reduce the flow of the largest flood of record back in October 1942 from 140,000 cubic feet per second to 59,000 cubic feet per second. Colonel SEIDEL. It would take a flood about 90 percent of t.he maximum flood of record. Mr. HARSIIA. Well, in order to avoid the flood damage, would it not have to be included in some 35,000 cubic feet per second? Colonel SEIDEL. The maximum, nondamaging flood below the dam will be 35,000 cubic feet per second. This will be exceeded only once in every 100 years. Mr. IJIARSHA. I am sorry, I do not understand you. You say the flow below the dam? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; as we fill the dam we would control the flow below the dam and we would restrict the flow to the 35,000 feet per sceond. Mr. HARSHA. What is the meaning of this statement in the report that says it will provide flood protection for only about 44 percent of the standard flood projects? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the flow of the standard project flood greatly exceeds the figure we are discussing. The standard project flood has a flow of 278,000 cubic feet per second below the dam. Mr. HARSHA. You have a spiiway design flood of 707,000 cubic feet per second, that your outflow from design flood is 552,000 cubic feet per second. Colonel SEIDEL. The standard project flood, sir, would peak at 278,000 cubic feet per second and the spillway design flood would peak at 552,000 feet per second under present conditions. Mr. ITARSHA. But in order to pre.vent flood damage you would have to reduce that to 35,000 cubic feet per second, would you not? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; the nondamaging flow of 35,000 cubic feet per second, will be exceeded on the average of once every 100 years. Mr. HARSHA. To what extent would the 1942 flood be reduced? Colonel SEIDEL. Ninety percent, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Well, what would 100 percent be reduced to? Colonel SEIDEL. There would be no damage if the flood were 90 per- cent or greater than the 1942 flood. Mr. HARSHA. What damage would result from 100 percent flow of the 1942 flood? In other words, another 1942 flood, what would the damage be? Colonel SEIDEL. The damages, sir. Mr. HARSHA. What would that amount to in dollars? Colonel SEIDEL. About $40,000. Mr. HARSHA. Well, then, what would the flow be reduced to? Colonel `SEIDEL. At Salem Church it would be reduced to 59,000 cubic feet per second versus the 140,000 cubic feet per second that occurred during the 1942 storm. The damage would be $40,000 with the project in place. That is with a recurrence of the 1942 flood. Mr. HARSHA. All right, now, according to Senate Document 37, estimates of annual cost of the project are based on 1965 prices. Are your costs here in this report based on 1965 prices? Colonel SEIDEL.YeS, sir. Mr. HARSHA. And, you also provide for a 100-year amortization. PAGENO="0253" 239 Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct. Mr. HARSHA. An interest rate of 31/8 percent? Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Now, the President in his 1969 budget said interest rates used here for project evaluations would be more realistic. How much would it cost, the annual increase to bring the eStimates, the cur- rent price up? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, may I supply that for the record? Mr. HARSHA. All right. (The information follows:) Using a discount rate of 43/4 percent, which approximates the rate now in use, the overall benefit-cost ratio would still be favorable. Total average annual benefits would be about $6,600,000 and total average annual costs would be about $4,500,000, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5. Mr. HARSHA. How much will the annual cost be increased when you bring the interest rates up to more realistic interest rates? Colonel SEIDEL. The interest rates we are using today is 31% percent in accordance with Senate Document 97. Mr. HARSHA. 31% percent? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. It would be a rather small change. Mr. HARSHA. I thought you just told me you use 31/8 percent. Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; I was indicating the new level that we use today, the increase from 31/s to 314. Mr. HARSHA. Is this figure of 31% or 31/8? Colonel SEIDEL. The figure you have today is 31/8. Mr. HAR5HA. Will you provide it for the record, what the increase will be? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes. (The information follows:) Based on this interest rate and 1968 price levels, annual project costs are estimated at $4,218,000. Mr. HARSHA. Can you tell us what the borrowings are now on long- term notes? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir; I. cannot. Mr. HARSHA. Well, is it in excess of 4.5 percent? Colonel SEIDEL. I do not know. Mr. HARSHA. Will you provide the same corresponding figures for the record for the power features of the project? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) Annual costs allocated to power based on a 3Y4% interest rate and 1968 price levels are estimated at $1,191,000 or an increase of about $162,000. Mr. HARSHA. Now, the Federal Power Commission, as I understand it, stated there has been no showing of financial feasibility. Is that an accurate statement of their position on it? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, not to our knowledge. They found that the proj- ect was financially feasible. Mr. HARSHA. Well, apparently I have different information but I will straighten that out later on. Mr. JoNEs. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HARSHA. Yes. Mr. JONES. The prospectus transmitted to the committee was that the Federal Power Commission was favorable. PAGENO="0254" 240 I wonder if it might be advantageous to insert the letter of the Fed- eral Power Commission to the Corps of Engineers into the record at this point. Mr. HARSHA. I have no objection. Mr. Jo~s. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The letter of FPC to the Corps of Engineers follows:) FEDERAL POWER CoMMIssIoN. Washington, D.C., November 10, 1966. Reference: ENGCW-PD Lt. Gen. WILLIAM F. CASsIDY, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL CASSIDY: This is in response to your letter of September 20, 1900, inviting comments by the Commission relative to your proposed report and to the reports of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and of the District and Division Engineers on the Salem Church Reservoir, Rappahannock River, Virginia. The cited reports recommend that the authorized Salem Church project be modified to provide for construction of the reservoir with the maximum conser- vation pool raised 20 feet to elevation 240, and to include a downstream dam and reservoir for reregulation of flow releases, for the purposes of flood control, water quality control, water supply, hydroelectric power production, and recrea- tion, at an estimated construction cost of $79,500,000. The report plans include a conventional power installation of 89,000 kilowatts, but the reports recommend the installation of pumped storage facilities within the discretionary authority of the Chief of Engineers if found economically feasible at the time of precon- struction planning or later. The Commission staff, which has cooperated with your Department over a period of years in investigations of the Salem Church project, has made studies of the feasibility of power development at the project. The studies show that the value of power with the 89,000-kilowatt conventional installation would exceed the cost of the power development, the estimated benefit-cost ratio being 1.5 to 1.0. This analysis made use of power values of $10.50 per kilowatt-year for capacity and 2.5 mills per kilowatt-hour for energy, based on the cost of power from alternative steam-electric units of the size being planned and constructed in the area. Market studies show that the project output could readily be absorbed in the area power loads. The staff also compared the annual revenues that could be obtained by market- ing the project power at the approved Federal power rates in the area with the annual power costs, including amortization over a 50-year period of the project investment allocated to power. These studies indicate that the conventional power development would be financially feasible. Staff studies indicate that an installation of 200,000 kilowatts or more could be made at the Salem Church project by the use of reversible units. The proposed reregulating reservoir could be enlarged to serve as the afterbay. Under pumped storage operation, the drawdown of the Salem Church reservoir could be reduced with resulting enhancement of the recreation values. The staff estimates the benefit-cost ratio of a pumped storage installation of 200,000 kilowatts to be about 1.6 to 1.0. The proposed reregulating reservoir at the Fredericksburg site would inundate the existing Embrey dam which diverts water to the 3,150-kilowatt plant of the Virginia Electric and Power Company. This plant was constructed initially in 1910. An application for license for this development, Project No. 2461, is now pending before the Commission. Based on its consideration of the reports of your Department and the studies of its own staff, the Commission concludes that power development is an econom- ically feasible and desirable feature of the proposed Salem Church project. The Commission believes that the authorization of the project should be sufficiently broad to permit the optimum power installation, including pumped storage facili- ties if found to be desirable. Sincerely, LEE C. WHITE, Chairman. Mr. HARSHA. Since by law, this power must be sold at a rate to re- cover the cost, where can I find an analysis to indicate what the power can be sold for? PAGENO="0255" 241 Well, you need not take the time if you will provide me with the information later on. Colonel SEIDEI4. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSI:TA. I want to ask you this. On page 48 of the report it shows that there is 161 million kilowatts that you anticipate pro- ducing for 1970, is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct; 161 million kilowatt-hours of energy. Mr. }IIAR8HA. And 148 million for the year 2020? Colonel SEInEI~. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Also, in this same report on page 44 you show a 10- percent load factor expectation which would produce only one-half of these amounts. You do have a 10-percent load factor, is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. The 10-percent factor is for a critical year, the 161 million is an average annual figure. The 10-percent load factor repre- sents a dry year. Mr. HARSHA. How often do you anticipate that? Colonel SEIDEL. I do not know how often, just what the power study shows. We can supply that for the record, if you like. Mr. HARSTIA. Now, you have also recommended in here that pump- ing storage facilities be put in. Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir; we did not recommend it. We indicated that we would restudy it during our advanced engineering and design phases as we would the conventional plant. Mr. HARSHA. Has pump storage installation been considered? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Has there been any estimate of the cost and bene- fits included for such pump storage? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; that was done as part of our preliminary planning. Mr. HARSHA. What is the benefit-cost ratio on there? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, it was slightly submarginal, as we have a more economical alternate for the pump storage. The benefit-to-cost ratio, however, was 2.0. Mr. HARSHA. Where is the submarginal one you are talking of? Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Congressman, we also applied the compara- bility test and it did not come up to unity on that test. Mr. HARSHA. What was the B-C ratio of the project without power? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, with a pooi elevation of 240 and no power or salinity control the B-C ratio is 1.8. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Just 1? You refer to 2.1. Colonel SEIDr~L. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Why is your spillway designed for such a large flood, 770,000 cubic feet per second? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the spillway design flood takes into considera- tion the safety of the structure and must be designed to take care of very unusual occurrences. Mr. HARSHA. Well, if a flood that size occurred would it not wash out everything downstream? Colonel SI~IDEL. No, sir, we would hope that it would not wash things out. We would retard the maximum amount of water up to the spiliway level in order to limit the damages. There would be damages, of course, but not a wash out. PAGENO="0256" 242 Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. Mr. JONES. The committee will stand in recess until 12 o'clock. We have to answer a call. (Whereupon, at 11 :15 a.m., the subcommittee recessed until 12 noon of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. JONES. Mr. Harsha, you may proceed. Mr. HARSHA. Colonel, let me ask you another question. You answered my question this morning concerning what would be t.he cost-bene- fit ratio without power. You said provided there is a pool, you care- fully worded it soit was a pooi. Colonel SEIDEL. We studied other options too, other alternatives. Mr. HARSHA. All right, what would be the maximum pool eleva- tion that you would need for the flood control you have, without power? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the minimum elevation of the pool to obtain the same flood control benefits would be elevation 213. At this eleva- tion, however, there would be no salinity control and recreation would be reduced. Mr. HARSHA. Now, what would be the cost-benefit ratio of the project with that elevation, and without power? Colonel SEIDEL. Without power and salinity control and a reduc- tion in recreation, it would be 1.8. I could not get the same recreation benefits. Mr. HARSHA. You gave me the one 1.8 without power, but with the 240 elevation, what would the benefit-ratio be without power and without 240 elevation, just the 213 elevation that you use for flood control? Colonel SEIDEL. It is still 1.8, sir, but I give up a little over $1.1 million in recreation benefits. Mr. HARSHA. Well, you say you give up how much? Colonel SEIDEL. $1,130,000 in recreation benefits. Mr. HARSHA. Did you say $1 billion? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir, $1 million. Mr. HARSHA. Now, as I understand it then, without the power proj- ect tentatively, the high of the project would be 2.3 but that would include all other benefits except a reduction in recreation. Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir; it would also give up salinity control in the estuary. Mr. HARSHA. Can you give me an elevation with just removing the power, that is all I am interested in, taking out the power? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; we have an option at 220. However, there would be a reduction in the recreation benefits to obtain salinity. Mr. HARSHA. Do you have an elevation without reducing the recre- ation, take out n thing but power? Colonel SEmEI~. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. What is that? Colonel SEIDEL. Elevation 240. Mr. HARSHA. Elevation 240? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. All right, and what would be the benefit-cost ratio under those circumstances? PAGENO="0257" 243 Colonel SEIDEL. 2.2. Mr. HARSHA. Did you say 2.2? Colonel SEir~I,. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Now, as I understood it you use a thermal steamplant as an alternative for the peaking, Ohio hydroturbine plant. Colonel Sumni4. That is correct, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Did you figure the alternative with the use of a com- bustion turbine generation? Mr. THRALL. Sir, in the alternative values furnished by the Federal Power Commission, the combustion alternative was not figured. Mr. HARSHA. Well, the combustion turbine generation is usually less expensive than the thermal. Mr. THRALL. In first costs. Mr. HARSHA. In first costs? Mr. THRALL. Yes, sir; but much higher in cost of operation. Mr. HARSHA. How much less in first cost? Mr. THRALL. I do not have the figures readily available. Mr. HAR5HA. How much higher in operation? Mr. THRALL. We would have to furnish both figures for the record. (The information follows :) The initial first costs of internal combustion power generation would amount to $90 per kilowatt. Operations cost would amount to 6.95 mills per kilowatt-hour with load factors through 6% and 3.5 mills per kilowatt-hour with load factors over 6%. The initial first costs for fossil fuel thermal power generation would amount to $125 per kilowatt. However, the operating costs would remain con- stant at only 2.5 mills per kilowatt-hour. Mr. HARSHA. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Congressman Lloyd Scott represents this district and has been an advocate of the project and discussed this with members of the committee and has been very dedicated in his support. We are very pleased to have you. STATEMENT OP HON. WILLIAM L. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. Scoa~r. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee today with various citizens of the 8th Dis- trict of Virginia in support of the Salem Church Dam and Reservoir project. Certainly I would hope that this project will be included in the onmibus civil works bill now under consideration rather than the individual bill, H.R. 6397 I introduced last year. Mr. Chairman, with the committee's consent I would like to make this statement and then to introduce spokesmen for several counties and the city of Fredericks- burg who will have short statements and to submit copies of resolutions and other statements for the record. The Salem Church project is not new to this subcommittee, having been authorized by the Congress in 1946 with a dam at a level of 220 feet and amended by the House in 19~S5 to remove the 220-foot limita- tion. However, the Senate referred the matter to the Corps of En- gineers for further study and we now have its report and recom- mendation for a 240-foot dam. Citizens of the area have been waiting a long time for this project and I would hope that the subcommittee can now approve the dam as recommended by the Department of the Army. 97-700-68----17 PAGENO="0258" 244 You have heard the testimony of the Corps of Engineers and other tecimical witnesses will appear. Therefore, I would like to confine my remarks primarily to the desire of the people of the 8th District of Virginia for the construction of the darn and to the general need for this project. Not: only has it been recommended by the Corps of En- gineers, Secretary of the Army, and the interested Federal agencies, but it has the approval of the Governor of Virginia, the Council of the City of Fredericksburg, the Boards of Supervisors of the Counties of Stafford, King George, Lancaster, Richmond, Essex, Louisa, Spot- sylvania, and Prince William; the Rappahannock Area Development Commission; the American Viscose Division of FMC Corp., the larg- est employer in my district whose facilities are located a few miles from the proposed darn and is a water-using industry; and an over- whelming majority of the citizens of the area. Other county boards not within my district recommending the project are Orange and Middlesex. The only board within the 20 coun- ties in my district opposed to the project, to my knowledge, is the Board of Supervisors of Fauquier County, even `though its water au- thority has requested water from the dam. The wide support of people in the area for this project is indicated in the report o:f the hearings of the Subcommittee on Flood Control, Rivers and Harbors of the Senate Committee on Public Works held September 19, 20, and 21 of last year. In order to be sure that these spokesmen were representing the feelings of the people as a whole, however, I included an item in a questioimaire sent to all homes in my district last year inquiring as to whether they favored the proposed dam. More than 13 percent of the 150,000 homes responded and 83 percent indicated their support of the project, with 17 percent indicating disapproval. Based upon a breakdown of the individual counties, support for the dam ranged from 63 percent in favor in Fauquier County to 90 percent in favor in Caroline County. Among the nearby counties King George favored the project `by 89 percent, `Prince William and King and Queen by 88 percent, Stafford and Westmoreland Counties by 87 percent and Spotsylvania and the city of Fredericksburg by 86 per- cent. Periodic flooding commencing in 1889, with the maximum flood record in 1942, apparently prompted the original desire for this project. However, increases in population in the area have brought about the need for more water, and this need. may now even overshadow flood control. With Metropolitan Washington, including large popu- lations in both Maryland and Virginia, looking to the Potomac and its tributaries for water, those counties within Virginia below Fair- fax must look to the Rappahannock and to Salem Church Reservoir. One of these counties, Prince William, is the fastest growing county in our state, having increased from approximately 50,000 inhabitants when the last census was taken to approximately 100,000 today. Of course this committee is well aware of the need and desirability for an adequate supply of clean water, for salinity control, and for additional recreational facilities in the fast growing northern Virginia area. In fact, there is an acute shortage of scenic parks and recrea- tional facilities throughout the entire eastern part of the United States. Other witnesses will detail these needs. PAGENO="0259" 245 I again thank you for the privilege of appearing before your sub- committee and urge as strongly as I can the authOrization of this project. I would like with the committee's consent just introduce the spokes- men for these several counties who are within the district and then submit copies of resolutions and other statements for the record in the interest of saving the time of the committee. I know the committee is familiar with this project. It was author- ized in 1946 with a dam at 220 foot level and then was amended by the House only in 1955 to remove the 220 foot limitation and to raise the dam to 240 feet above sea level, but the Senate referred it to the Corps of Engineers for study and the study came back last year. These citizens of the area have been waiting a long time for this project and I do hope that the subcommittee can now approve it as recommended by the Department of the Army. We have heard the testimony of the representatives of the Corps of Engineers. We do have other engineers, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Alexander that might testify if the committee so desires on some of the engineering features and I would like to confine my remarks to the desire of the people of the district for this project and the general need for it in the area. Periodic floodings commencing in 1889 with a maximum flood record in 1942 apparently prompted the `original desire of the people for this project, but the need for more water and this need with the population growth may `overshadow the flood control features, with Metropolitan Washington including large segments of both `Maryland and Virginia looking to the Potomac and looking for water `supply and to the tribu- taries of the Potomac, the counties that are in Virginia and below Fair- fax County must look south toward the IRappahannock and `to the Salem Church Rese'rvoir. One of these counties represented here today, Prince William, is the fastest growing county in percentage., in the State of Virginia. It has grown since the last census from approximately 50,000 people to 100,- 000 people today. This committee, I am sure, is well aware of the desirability for clean water and an adequate supply, for salinity control, for additional rec- reational facilities in a fast growing area such a's northern Virginia. In fact, there is an acute shortage I am told of scenic parks and recreational facilities throughout the eastern part of the country. Other witnesses will detail these needs. Let me thank the committee `again for the privilege of appearin `and with the committee's consent I would like to si~pply for the recor a statement by Wal'ther Fidler who is a member of the house of dele- gates, representing four counties within my district that is in favor of the project. We have Mr. A. W. Hogeland, plant manager of the FMO Corp. who i's here and will testi'fy. We have a statement concerning a resolution of the Peoples Bank of Spotsylvania in support of the dam, copies of resolutions of the governing bodies of the town of Orange, Stafford County, the Board of Supervisors of Spotsylvania County. PAGENO="0260" 246 Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like for the members of the board just to stand to indicate their presence here today. Mr. JONES. We are glad to have you with us. Mr. SCOTT. Then we have other resolutions that are 1967 resolutions because these governing bodies have not met since they learned of the date of this hearing, but insofar as I know each of the counties still favor the project; resolutions of approval from the governing bodies of Essex County, Westmoreland County, Louisa County, Middlesex County, and Caroline County. Mr. JoNEs. Without objection, the various statements and resolu- tions will be made a part of the record and printed at this point. (The various resolutions and statements follows:) BOARD OF SuPERvIsoRS, Caroline County, Va., June 18, 1968. At a meeting of the Caroline County Board of Supervisors held on Monday, June 17, 1968, the following were present: John H. Pitts, Chairman, Welford Orrock, E. Conway Davis and Charlie R. Rodbins, Jr. Mr. Orrock made a motion that a resolution which was passed by the Board October 2, 1967 in favor of the Salem Church Dam be sent to F. Freeman Funk to be presented before the Sub-Committee on Flood Control of the House Public Works Committee on June 20th, 1968. Mr. Davis seconded, passed. The Clerk is directed to send Mr. Funk a copy of this resolution. JOHN H. PITTS, Chairman. A Copy Teste: R. S. CAMPBELL, Clerk, Caroline County Board of Supervisors. At a regular meeting of the Caroline County Board of Supervisors held at the Clerk's Office on Monday, October 2, 1967, the following were present: John H. Pitts, Chairman, Welford Orrock, Clarence Campbell, Jr. and E. Conway Davis. Mr. Campbell made a motion that the following resolution regarding Salem Dam be passed: "Whereas, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the urbanization and rapid population growth of the Rappahannock River Basin area demands that every effort be made at this time for the preservation of our water and other natural resources so that there will be adequate water supply, flood control and recrea- tional areas for the orderly and economic development, and Whereas, the only way to obtain the full benefit which can be derived from the river is through the construction of the proposed multi-purpose reservoir at Salem Church, which will develop the full potential, and Whereas, it appears that the economics of land acquisition for the project are such that any delays in the normal steps leading to completion of the project w-ill be detrimental, now therefore, Be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Caroline County, Virginia, urge the Congress to authorize the construction of Salem Church Reservoir as recommended in Senate Document No. 37, 90th Congress, 1st Session. Mr. Davis seconded the motion which was passed. JOHN H. Pn'Ts, Chairman. A Copy Teste: R. S. CAMPBELL, Clerk. FREDERICKSBURG, VA., June 18, 1968. Hon. WILLIAM L. SCOTT, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR BILL: At the regular meeting of The Peoples Bank of Spotsylvania held ron June 10, 1968, the following resolution was duly moved, seconded, and unan- Jmously passed: "Be it resolved that the Directors of The Peoples Bank of Spotsylvania go on record as favoring the Salem Church Dam and Reservoir project. PAGENO="0261" 247 "And be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the Honorable Wiliam L. Scott, Representative from the 8th District of Virginia, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.; the Honorable Robert Jones, Chair- man, Subcommittee on Flood Control, Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.; Mr. F. Freeman Funk, Fredericksburg City Manager, City Hall, Fredericksburg, Virginia; and Mr. Josiah P. Rowe III, Mayor of Fredericksburg, 616 Amelia Street, Fredericksburg, Virginia." Several members suggested that if it was deemed desirable, they would make every effort to attend in person. All best wishes. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. BOLTON, President, Peoples Bank of Spotsylvania. RESOLUTION At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors for Middlesex County held on the 13th day of September, 1967, at Saluda, Va., the following resolution was unanimously adopted: "Whereas, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the urbanization and rapid population growth of the Rappahannock River Basin area demands that every effort be made at this time for the preservation of our water and other natural resources so that there will be adequate water supply, flood control and recrea- tional areas for the orderly and economic development, and "Whereas, flooding and fresh water run off in the past has had devastating effects upon the marine resources, especially shell fish, in the Rappahannock River, and "Whereas, the only way to obtain control over flooding and fresh water run off and benefits which can be derived from the river is through the construction of the proposed multi-purpose reservoir a~z Salem Church, which will develop the full potential, and "Whereas, there will be a hearing on September 21, 1967, before Rivers and Harbors Sub-Committee, now therefore, "BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Middlesex County, Virginia, doth urge the Congress to authorize the Construction of the proposed Salem Church Reservoir as recommended in Senate Document 37, 90th Congress, 1st Session." Board of Supervisors Order Book Page 282. A true copy: Teste: GARLAND 0. REVERE, Clerk, Middlesea Cousi ty Board of Supervisors. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD, Richmond, Va., September 15, 1967. Hon. WALTHER B. FIDLER, Sharps, Va. DEAR MR. FIDLER: The following represents our opinion of the probable effect that the construction of Salem Church Dam will have on water quality in the Rappahannock River below Fredericksburg. The Federal law governing the construction of dams such as Salem Church makes it clear that no benefits can be assigned for the release of water for water quality control when such releases would be used in lieu of dischargers providing secondary treatment or its equivalent. The Board, since 1946, has worked with owners in the Fredericksburg area with continually increasing pressure until at the present time all owners in the area have been directed to install secondary treatment or its equivalent. Some of this construction is well under way and, in fact, the FMC Corporation has completed construction on an extremely large pilot plant capable of providing treatment for approximately one-third of its `strong waste volume. This plant will be `operated for one year. Following this, experience from this operation will be used in designing facilities' capable of treating the remaining two-thirds of the strong waste volume. We are confident that within less than four years' time, all owners in this area will be providing secondary treatment or its equiv- PAGENO="0262" 248 alent with the possible exception that the FMC Corporation's level of treatment may be slightly less than secondary due to technological problems insolvable at this time. The above information is provided to show that recent Board action taken, although not ito facilitate the construction of the Salem Church Dam, will at least facilitate the assignment of benefits for the release of water for water quality controL A great deal of staff study has been conducted since 1946 in order to enable the staff to make recommendations to the Board concerning the treatment needs of owners located in the lower Rappahannoek River Basin. The data collected by the staff was used by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in com- piling the report incorporating the water quality aspects of the construction of the Salem Church Dam. We feel that the Rappahannock River below Fredericksburg might be charac- terized as a pond during periods of low flow. This is because the river in this area is influenced by tide and flow fresh waiter from upstream is so low that this tidal influence is not overcome. This results in large volumes of waste being discharged daily to a small segment of the river with very little of the waste being carried downstream due to the above-mentioned characteristics. You can well imagine the resulting conditions from this situation during extended periods of low river flow. The staff, in recommending that the Board continue to keep pressure on the owners in the Fredericksburg area, ha:s always informed the Board that the very expensive and extensive types of treatment required would in no way completely solve the problems in the Fredericksburg area. The addition of treatment, how- ever, would mean that a shorter segment of the river would be adversely affected and that the frequency and duration of the adverse effect would be shorter than heretofore experienced. We have always been convinced that in order to obtain acceptable water quality below Fredericksburg, additional dilution water from upstream would be needed during periods of low flow. A dam such as Salem Church will have the effect of flattening the characteristic peaks and valleys in the flow curve for the Rappa- hannock in this area, so that when there is an over-abundance of flow water can be stored for release during drought periods. As a result, we will be assured that flow in the Rappahannock at any time will never be lower than a certain figure. We are confident that if the Salem Church Dam becomes a reality, this guaran- teed minimum flow coupled with higher degrees of treatment in the area will result in much more desirable water quality below Fredericksburg. I hope the above information is satisfactory. However, if we can provide addi- tional information, please let us know. Very truly yours, A. H. RAESSLER, Eaecutive secretary. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Housn OF DELEGATES, Richmond, June 19, 1968. Hon. ROBERT JONES, Chairma'a, Subcommittee on Flood Control, Committee on Public Works, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: I have reviewed the report prepared by the Department of the Army, dated May 2, 1966, relative to the Salem Church Reservoir Project on the Rappahannock River. I have also conferred with representatives of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at Gloucester Point, Virginia, relative to this Project. I am convinced that the controlled release of water from this Reservoir can prevent the excessive run-offs of fresh water such as we experienced in 1955 which resulted in the destrustion of `a~bout 80 per cent of all oysters in the lower Rap- pahannock River from just below Tappahannock to Urbanna, Virginia, a distance of about twenty-five miles. I am also satisfied that this project will vastly improve the water quality of the river Just below Fredericksburg. I have consulted with the staff of the State Water Control Board of Virginia requesting their comments and opinions, a copy PAGENO="0263" 249 of which is attached~ The Rappahannock River below Frederick~burg might be characterized as a pond during periods of very low flow. The tidal influence is not overcome with such a low flow of fresh water. Even the minimal wastes reaching the river are not carried downstream and there is virtually no dilution. In addition, during these periods of low flow, it allows salt water to flow much farther upstream introducing many of the destructive shell fish pests and diseases into the lower river, which pests `and diseases can only survive in quite salty water. This Dam will certainly have the effect of flattening the characteristic peaks and valleys in the flow curve `of this river, so that when there is an over-abundance of flow, water can be stored for release during drought periods. I am restricting my remarks to the features of the project affecting the lower river area which I have the pleasure to represent. `I endorse the project and urge its prompt construction. Very truly yours, WALTHER B. FIDLER. CLuax's Orricn OF THE CIRCUIT COURT ESSEX COUNTY TAPPAHANNOOK, vA. Virginia: At a regular meeting of the Essex County Board of Supervisors held on the 12th day of `September, 1967: "Be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of `Essex County strongly recom- mends the construction of the Salem `Church Dam, in view of the anticipated benefits to shell fish culture in the lower Rappahannock River Basin, and the improvement of the water supply for the Fredericksburg area, provided all the conditions and requirements of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Commission of Fisheries, and the Bureau of Shell Fish and Wildlife as incorpora- ted in the Report of the Army Engineers `are adhered to." A. JACK ANDREWS, Uhairn~an. Order Book No. 6, page 321. A Copy-Teste: ARNOLD MOTLEY, Clerk. At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Westmoreland County held in `the Westmoreland County Office Building on Wednesday, Septem~er 13, 1967. Present were Ceo. D. English, Chairman of the Board, J. H. Morris, Jr. and J. Clifford Hutt, members of the Board, and W. W. Sunderlin, Executive Secretary. RESOLUTION Whereas, Westmoreland County, Virginia is one of several Northern, Neck Counties which presently depend upon a system of wells for their water supply, and Whereas, the water tables of the Northern Neck are being depleted through current consumption and cannot be expected to support planned' population growth, and - Whereas, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the rapid growth of the Northern Neck and Rappahannock River Basin areas demand that every effort be made at this time for the preservation of our water and other natural re- sources so that there will be adequate water supply, flood control and recrea- tional areas for the orderly and economic development, and Whereas, the only way to obtain the full `benefits which can be derived from the river is through the construction of the proposed multi-purpose reservoir at Salem Church, which will develop the full potential, and Whereas, it appears that the economics of land acquisition for the project are such that any `delays in the normal steps leading to completion of the project will be detrimental, now therefore, Be it resolved, that the Board of Supervisors of Westmoreland County, Vir- ginia, urge the Congress to authorize the construction of Salem Church Reservoir as recommended in Senate Document No. 37, 90th Congress, 1st Session. Teste Copy: W. W. SUNDERLIN, Ecoecutive secretary. PAGENO="0264" 250 COUNTY OF LOUISA, Louisa, Va., Septen~ber 18, 1~67. Hon. STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ckairrnan, Subcommittee oa Flood Control-Rivers and Horbors, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Da&a MIL Ou~&mMAN: The Louisa County Board of Supervisors, at its regular monthly meeting on September 5, authorized me to write you a letter urging that your committee give favorable consideration to. and urge Congress to authorize construction of the Salem Church Reservoir, as recommended in Senate Docu- ment No. 37, 9Qth Congress, 1st SessiolL It is the belief of our Board of Supervisors that this project would be of great benefit to the people of this area. Sincerely, Joz OARSON, Jr., Coordinator. TowN OF ORANGE, VIRGINIA, June 17, 1g68. Whereas the Town Council of Orange, Virginia has heretofore at various times expressed its approval of the Salem Church Reservoir Project, and Whereas the said Council is still of the opinion that the completion of the project will be beneficial to the citizens of the Orange area, especially from the standpoint of water-leased recreation. Be is resolved by the Council of the Town of Orange, that all Authorities and Agencies in interest be urged to consider the benefits which wifi accrue to up- stream localities, and to visitors to the area; as well as the flood control, water supply and pollution control factors which apply downstream, and Be is further resolved that A. P. Beirne be empowered to present this resolu- tion on behalf of the Town Council and to further express to the Flood Control Sub-committee of the House Public Works Committee the desire of the Council to see the `Salem Church Reservoir Project undertaken and completed. Copy, Teste: H. F. KNOELL, Recorder, Town of Orange. STAFFORD COUNTY BOARD OF SupsavisoRs, Stafford, Va., June 18, 1968. The following has been extracted from the minutes of the Stafford County Board of Supervisors meeting of June 12, 1968, and is certified a true copy: "Whereas, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the urbanization and rapid population growth of the Rappahannock River Basin area demands that every effort be made at this time for the preservation of our water and other natural resources so that there will be adequate water supply, flood control and recreational areas for the orderly and economic development, and "Whereas, the only way to obtain the full benefits which ean be derived from the river is through the construction of the proposed multi-purpose reservoir at Salem Church1 which will develop `the full potential, and "Whereas, it appears that the economics of land acquisition for the project are such that any delays in the normal steps leading to completion of the pro- ject will be detrimental, now therefore, "Be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Stafford County, Virginia, again reaffirm our position and urge the Congress to authorize the construction of Salem Church Reservoir as recommended in Senate Document No. 37, 90th Congress, 1st Session." Attest: ELIZAR~H R. WATSON, Acting Erecutive Secretary. COUNTY OF SPOT5YLVANL~ SPOT5YLVANIA COURT HOUSE, vA. RESOLUTION Whereas, the Review Report on Salem Church Reservoir, dated May 2, 1966, has been examined by the Governor of Virginia and interested Federal agencies as required by established Federal procedures, and PAGENO="0265" 251 Whereas, among other favorable comments, Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr., said: "It is my hope that construction of the project may be expedited so that the obvious benefits to be derived from its operation will ~e realized as soon as is practicable," and, Whereas, the report has been or is about to be transmitted ~y the Chief of Engi- neers, Lieutenant General William F. Cassidy, to the Bureau of the Budget and to Congress for project authorizedion, now, therefore: Be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Spotsylvania County, Virginia, that the members of Congress be and they hereby are respectfully requested to take cognizance of the nalient features of the projeot which this Board has recognized through iong~term, close association with the citizenry and the pro- ject; namely; 1. This multi-purpose project would benefit residents of Virginia, nearby states, the District of Columbia, and area visitors. 2. The benefits derived from water conservation would indeed be necessary for the full development of the "urban corridor" which is now rapidly growing along the east coast of the United States. 3. `Strong state and local support for the projedt is obvious. 4. The benefit-cost ratio of the Salem Church Reservoir Project is 2.1 to 1 Be it further resolved that the inenibers of Congress be `and they hereby are respectfully requested to give the authorization bill their fall, active, and enthu- siastic support to the end that the project will be constructed without delay and the urgently needed. benefits may begin to accrue to our people. WILBUR B. WALLACE, Chairman, Spotsylvania County Board of $apervisors. Mr. Sco'rr. I would like to present to the committee now Mr. A. W. Hogeland, plant manager of the FMC Corp., Fredericksburg, Va. STATEME~IT OF A. W. ROGELAND, PLANT MANAGER, PMC CORP., FREDERICKSBURG, VA. Mr. HOGELAND. As plant manager of the American Viscose Di- vision plant, FMO Corp., located on the Rappahannock River m Spot- sylvania County, Va., I would like to reaffirm our corporation's support for the Salem Church Reservoir project. Our plant is the largest single cellophane plant in the world with a payroll of approximately $10 million annually. WTe have often experienced the effects of the considerable fluctua- tions in flow of the Rappahannock River. Following the flood of 1942, operations were interrupted for 4 days. Considerable difficulties were encountered in maintaining operations during the droughts of 1953, 1954, and 1966. In 1954, we were within days of shutting down our facilities when the low river flow conditions were alleviated by Hurricane Hazel. In 1966, production was reduced and we were again within a day or two of a shutdown when we were saved by heavy rainfall in early September. Over the years, we have expended more than $1 million to maintain an adequate supply of satisfactory water. Despite every precaution, it is impossible to completely assure continuity of operations during flood conditions. We have been able to continue operations during the severe drought conditions only because we used the same water over and over again as it ebbed and flowed with the tide. However, there is a limit to the reuse of water in our manufacturing operations, and these limits were approached in 1954 and 1966. Another factor of major importance is water quality. We have worked diligently over the years to safeguard the waters of the Rappahannock from pollution. During the period 1946 through 1965, PAGENO="0266" 252 we were successful in reducing the amount of oxygen-consuming waste discharged to the Rappahannock River by one-half even though production capacity had been doubled. In June 1966, an $800,000 waste treatment pilot plant was put into operation. This unit further reduced oxygen-consuming waste by approximately one-third. Addi- tional treatment units, at a cost approaching $500,000, will be put into operation by 1970. This will result in another reduction of oxygen- consuming waste by approximately 50 percent. With this step, the overall reduction in the potential oxygen-consuming waste since 1946 will approximate 90 percent. Despite these efforts there will still be oxygen depletion. Studies indicate that even without any municipal or industrial discharges, oxygen depletion will occur during periods of low river flow. An indication of the condition of the river is the action of the Virginia State Water Control Board on March 24, 1964, when it stated that it would approve no additional waste discharge at this time to the Rappahannock River or its tributaries near Fredericksburg. Such conditions are a deterrent to possible expansion of our present production facilities and to other industrial development in the Fred- ericksburg area. Thus, the economic growth of the area will be stunted unless steps are taken to correct these conditions. It is: our under- standing that: the Salem Church Reservoir project will correct these conditions and permit industrial development and orderly economic growth. There appears to be little doubt that the present river conditions cannot support the requirements of an estimated 7 million people predicted within a 50-mile radius of the reservoir by the year 2020. Thus, the development of the urban corridor between Washington and Richmond will eventually require a : project such as the Salem Church Reservoir. However, even the present economic stability and well-being of the Rappahannock River Valley is being stifled. For these reasons we endorse without reservation the Salem Church Reser- voir project. It is hoped that these comments will be helpful to you in your con- siderations on this project. Mr. Sco'rr. I would like to present to the committee Mr. Julian Alexander, commissioner of water resources of the Department of Conservation and Economic Development of the State of Virginia. Mr. JONES. Please to have you, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Could I make one statement before we get into the other gentleman's testimony? : Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. ITAR5HA. I would like to acknowledge the fact that the gentle- man from Virginia very energetically pursued this project and has contacted me a number of times on it. He has shown a deep interest in it, and as far as I am personally concerned, has expended every effort tO at least see that my vote on the committee would be for the project. The only difference I have with him is my position in relation to public power. I did want the record to show that he has been very effective and very persuasive in his efforts to have this project put forward. PAGENO="0267" 253 Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I had planned to reserve my com- ments until later on, but inasmuch as Mr. lElarsha has made his com- ment, I just want to join my colleague, Mr. Harsha, in expressing to you publicly, Congressman Scott, my own personal appreciation for all of the information that you have given to me. You indicated that areas of opposition, you indicated the areas of support. I think the one thing most significant about this is you have given your people in this area through this questionnaire an opportunity to express themselves and, to me, this is very significant and afl the in- formation that you brought to my attention can only be described by this one statement, and that is that I do not know how any Member of Congress could have done any more to get the prompt information to we, on the committee, than you have done, and I want to compliment you. Mr. JONES. Mr. Alexander, you may proceed. STATEMENT OP J. M. ALEXANDER OP THE BOARD OP CONSERVA- TION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, FREDERICKSBURG, VA. Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman and distinguished gentlemen of the committee. We are appreciative of the opportunity to appear before you today in behalf of the board of conservation and economic development in support of the proposed Salem Church Reservoir which would be lo- cated on the Rappahannock River immediately upstream from and in the vicinity of Fredericksburg, Va. I am representing Mr. M. M. Sutherland, the director of conserva- tion and economic development, who is unable to be present due to a prior commitment. On September 21, 1967, the deputy director of conservation and eco- nomic development, as well `as 1, presented testimony before the Sub- committee on Flood Control-Rivers and HarbOrs of the Committee on Public Works of the U.S. Senate. Our position as appears in the record of that hearing is unchanged. The testimony referred to notes the fact that the board of conservation and economic development has reviewed the Chief of Engineer's Sa- lem Church project proposal and found that the benefits to be derived therefrom are in the best interest of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and said board has recommended that the Salem Church project be authorized by the Congress of the United States as proposed by the Chief of Engineers. That testimony, too, refers to the fact that the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia has examined the findings and conclusions of the board of conservation and economic development and has indi- cated concurrence with the board's recommendation that the proposed Salem Church project be authorized for construction by the Congress of the United States. Please allow us to place emphasis on the fact that water quality standards for Rappahannock River downstream from Fredericksburg, Va., as set by the Virginia State Water Control Board cannot be met within the available technology for waste treatment and with the exist- ing flow regimen of Rappahannock River. There must, therefore, be PAGENO="0268" 254 provision made for flow regulation in order to meet acceptable stand- ards of water quality in Rappahannock River downstream from the city of Fredericksburg, Va. The proposed Salem Church project would provide the flow regulation required to maintain standards for satis- factory water quality. We would like to express our hope that the good judgment of this committee will result in favorable action leading to the construction of a multiple-purpose water resources development project on the Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg, Va., substantially in ac- cordance with the proposal of the Chief of Engineers as found in Senate Document No. 37,90th Congress, first session. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Mr. JoNEs. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Are t.here any questions? Mr. CLAUSEN. Just one question. Let me direct this to you, sir. Do I understand from the standpoint of the State of Virginia there is absolutely no opposition to the advancement of the projects to your knowledge? Mr. ALEXANDER. That is correct. Mr. CLAUSEN. I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, the four gentlemen who stood in the rear having been in local government, I am always in- terested in what they have to say. Are all of you gentlemen totally in support of this project? STATEMENT OP WILBUR B. WALLACE, CHAIRMAN, SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY BOARD OP SUPERVISORS Mr. WALLACE. We are, Mr. Congressman. Mr. CLAUSEN. There is no dissension in your ranks? Mr. WALLACE. No, sir. Mr. Joio~s. Mr. Scott? Mr. Scorr. I would like to present to the committee, Mr. Martin Johnson who is a consulting engineer employed by Prince William County, Va., and is representing that county. Mr JONES. Nice to have you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, the committee is familiar with your work in this proj- ect for a number of years. STATEMENT OP W. MARTIN J~OHNSON OP WILEY & WILSON, CON- SULTING ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VA. Mr. JoirNsoN. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, guests, I am W. Martin Johnson, a partner in the firm of Wiley & Wilson, con- sulting engineers and architects. I have been asked to represent Prince William County, Va. Prince William is the fastest growmg county on a percentage basis in Virginia and the 10th fastest growing area in the entire nation with a present population estimated at 101,000. Mr. Jones, since you have maintained a residence in the Virginia suburban area of Metropolitan Washington for many years, I am sure you are well aware of the terrific growth that has been experienced in PAGENO="0269" 255 this area and of the critical role played by the availability of sanitary utilities. At this time, Prince William County is experiencing the same growth and having the same related problems that Arlington County had approximately 10 years ago. The rapid pace of the county's growth will continue for many years to come as industries and Federal agencies seek breathing room in the Greater Washington, D.C. area. The industrial, governmental and domestic demand being placed on the sanitary facilities supplied by Prince William County is indeed a challenge. The need for a reliable source of water in adequate quality and quanity and the need for acceptable methods of waste disposal is a most pressing one, not only in Prince William County but also for Fairfax, Arlington, and Loudoun Counties, plus the cities of Alexandria and Fairfax. The water quality of the Potomac at Washington and the upstream use of these waters to supply the needs of the Washington metropolitan area has already received considerable attention from this Congress as well as from the executive branch. The demand for sanitary facili- ties to meet the needs of the Northern Virginia and Maryland areas can be best supplied from a combination of facilities along the Potomac and the Rappahannock Rivers. These water supply needs have now become critical to Prince William County. The influx of industry to Prince William County, even today, is inhibited by the limited water supply available from existing resources. Internal county resources are limited. A large percent of these resources are controlled by agencies external to the county. Water si~lp- plies for the Virginia Suburban-Washington metropolitan area are presently being drawn for the most part from the Occoquan Creek and, to some extent, from wells. The Occoquan Creek, as a main source of supply, serves the city of Alexandria, a large portion of Fairfax County, the Fort Belvoir nñlitary reservation and a significant portion of Prince William County. The ability of the Oceoquan to meet this continually growing need is limited. This stream cannot satisfy the thirst for water that will grow ever grea.ter as our population and industries expand. County studies over the past several years indicate that the county must look beyond its boundaries for water that is economically avail- able. Several courses have been evaluated. Withdrawal of water from the upper Potomac River, by Prince William County, would conflict with plans of the District and Fairfax County to utilize this supply in areas to the north. Also, such a project would entail a long and costly pipeline across the breadth of Loudoun County. The quality of the water in the Potomac as it passes Prince William County to the east would result in treatment costs, making its use prohibitively expensive. The most feasible and economical course would be to use a supply resultmg from the Salem Church Reservoir project on the Rappahannoek River. The Salem Church Reservoir will impound vast amounts of high quality water that can be piped into the Occoquan Basin at a reason- able and attractive cost. Salem Church Reservoir will assure ample water for the county and therefore, all of the Virginia suburban-Washington metropolitan area to meet its needs for the foreseeable future. It is further noted PAGENO="0270" 256 that Fairfax County areas adjacent to Prince William will also have future requirements for supplementary water supply, water quality control and dilution of treatment plant effluents which increasingly menace the current prime water source, the Occoquan Creek. Salem Church water channeled through Prince William County water basin can also satisfy these needs. The recreational projects which will probably be developed by the State and local agencies in conjunction with the Salem Church project will certainly represent a considerable advantage. These facilities would make available to the people of Prince William as well as other adjacent coimties, an excellent closeby recreational area, thus satisfy- ing recreational needs of a sizable portion of the population which can- not ever be satisfied locally. Prince William County urges this subcommittee to favorably con- sider construction of the Salem Church Reservoir. Such construction will be a great asset in terms of assured water supply, treated waste dilution, and outdoor recreation for future generations who inhabit the area south of our Nation's Capital. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Joimson. Mr. Scorr.~ Mr. ScoTr. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Zach Dameron, vice chairman of the Rappahannock River Basin Advisory Commission is our next witness. STATEMENT OP ZACH DAMERON, VICE CHAIRMAN, RAPPAILAN- NOOK RIVER BASIN ADVISORY COMMISSION Mr. DAMIRON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I repre- sent the Rappahaimock River Advisory Commission and it is made up of appointed members from the counties and cities and towns in the Rappahannock River watershed. These counties are Caroline, Madison, Orange, Spotsylvania, Cul- peper, Fauquier, King George, Stafford, Middlesex, Richmond, West- moreland, Lancaster, the city of Fredericksburg, and the town of Warrenton. This embraces three congressional districts. At a regular meeting of the Rappahannock River Basin Advisory Committee on June 12, lt)68, in King George County, Va., the follow- ing resolution was approved: Whereas the Rappahannock River Basin Advisory Committee was established by appointment of members by the governing bodies of the counties, cities and towns comprising the drainage basin of the Rappahannoek River, and, Whereas the Virginia Board of Conservation and Economic Development desig- nated the River Basin Advisory Committee is the official committee for the Rap- pahannock River Basin under Section 10-17.3, Code of Virginia, 1q50, as amended, and, Whereas the Rappahannock River Basin Advisory Commission was advised that a hearing would be held by the U.S. House of Representatives, Public Works Committee on various projects to be constructed by the Corps of Engineers, in- cluding the Salem Church Reservoir, and, Whereas the Corps of Engineers has prepared a detailed report of May, 19~6 recommending approval of the Salem Church Reservoir and Dam which report in- dicates a cost benefit ratio of 2.1 to one, and, Whereas the Rappahannock River Basin Advisory Committee feels that con- struction of a dam and reservoir at the Salem Church site would be extremely advantageous to all counties bordering on the river and comprising the river basin, and, Whereas the advisory committee understands this is designed as a multi-pur- pose reservoir which will provide the flood control, salinity control, water quality PAGENO="0271" 257 control, recreation, water supply and power supply, providing economic benefits reaching from one end of the river to the other, Now, therefore be it resolved the Rappahannock River Basin Advisory Coin- mittee does advise the Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic De- velopment and the House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works of the U.S. Congress that it is in favor of the construction of a dam and reservoir at the Salem Church site on the Rappahannock River at the earliest practical date. The above resolution I have just read was approved by a vote of nine in favor, four opposed. One of the members of this committee is here today and I believe will request to speak in opposition. I felt that you should be advised that the group thait is primarily charged with the guarding of the best interest of the Rappahannock and its people specifically endorses this project. I thank you. Mr. JONES. Thank you. Any questions? Mr. HARSHA. Sir, how far up the dam does this go, do you know? Mr. DAMERON. I believe it is about 27 miles. Mr. HARSHA. Anywhere near Culpeper? Mr. DAMERON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. How far beyond Culpeper? Mr. DAMERON. It does not affect the town of Culpeper as much as it does the town of Wa~rrenton. Mr. Scorr. Next I am going to call on Josiah P. Rowe III, mayor of Fredericksburg, Va. As you know, we have independent cities so he is representing the m- dependent city of Fredericksburg and he does not only have a state- ment to make, but a group of resolutions and statements on behalf of the communities and counties. Mr. JONES. Mr. Rowe represents an old and historic city and we are certainly happy to have you here. STATEMENT OP JOSIAH P. ROWE III, MAYOR OP THE CITY OP PREDERICKS~B1.TRG, VA. Mr. RowE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Josiah P. Rowe III, mayor of the city of Fredericksburg, Va., I appre- ciate the opportunity to appear before you in support of this water resource development project. The history of the Salem Church Reservoir project is long, but the significant fact now is that the review report has reached this sub- committee for your consideration. This is a long-awaited day in our lives. The Engineers' report recommended that the project be author- ized. This recommendation was concurred in by the division engineer, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the Chief of En- gineers, the Secretary of the Army, and appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal and State governments, including the Bureau of the Budget and the Governor of Viro'inia. Certainly the technical aspects of t~ie project have been developed fully. The project is amply justified economically, with evaluated bene- fits resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 2.1 to 1. Our plea is that you take cognizance of the great and pressing need of the many people who will benefit from the project and give the project your favorable recommendation for authorization. PAGENO="0272" 258 The needs of the people and the objectives of the three levels of government are synonymous. The project deals with water resource needs in the R.appahannock River basin: 1. Production of hydroelectric power. 2. Provisions for water-oriented outdoor recreation. 3. Water quality control including control of salinity. 4. Flood control. 5. Municipal and industrial water supply. Every decision made for the past. 20 past years by local governments on problems relating to the R.appahannoc.k River and its tributaries has been made with the Salem Church project in mind. This is as it should be for the magnitude of the project and the benefits which will accrue to so many people give the people a. position of prime impor- ta.nce in our lives. Recently when the City Council of Fredericksburg initiated a project to provide an interim water supply it acquired land on both sides of the R.appa.ha.nnoc.k far in excess of its actual immedi- ate needs. These lands will be held for water resource development- hopefully and preferably for the Salem Church project by enacting a flood plain zoning ordinance and constructing a secondary sewage treatment plant. State and local governments are doing everything within their power and capabilities to meet t.he water resource needs in this river basin, but many aspects of full development, of the river must be in the province of the Federal G-ove.rninent. lYe subscribe to the theory of full development of the river basin and to the implementation of that theory as required by t.he Congress and followed by the Corps of Engineers in formulating the project.. Project formulation and project economics indicate that hydro- electric power generation and the provisions for water-oriented out.- door recreation a.re essential elements. Hydroelectric power generation in a. multipurpose. project is developed according to Federal formula: recreation is developed jointly by Federal and local interests. It should be emphasized tha.t all ca.pit.a.l investment costs and all operation, maintenance, and replacement costs allocated to power and half the capital investment costs needed to add recrea.tion to the project plus all operation, maintenance, and replacement costs for that purpose are repayable. The rapidly growing population of Metropolitan Washington, which is already reaching 50 miles south to Fredericksburg, puts demands upon facilities whic.h we all have difficulty meeting. One of these major demands is for outdoor recreation. Even without the evi- dence developed in the Engineer's report we can all envision this need. The reservoir with its miles of shoreline is ideally located to fulfill this need of the people of the metropolitan area. Non-Federal interests have given adequate assurances that they will .participate in recrea- tional development as required by the Federal formula.. The control of floods ha.s long been a recognized Federal function, and it is an important resource need in the Ra.ppahannock basin. The project provides adequately for the needed cont.rol of floods. The pro- tection of lives and property from the ravages of this natural but horrifying phenomenon ca.n best be appreciated by those who have experienced the helpless and terrifying feeling of trying to cope with the uncontrolled force of flood waters. PAGENO="0273" 259 Many of the benefits to be derived from the Salem Church project are inherent in streamfiow regulation-the harnessing, storage, and controlled release of an essential natural resource. The availability of the oJ?timum amount of fresh water when and where it is needed is of inestimable benefit to those people and industries whose lives and livelihoods depend upon water. The growing metropolitan population about which we spoke earlier must have an adequate supply of potable water for domestic, munici- pal, and industrial needs; and no other project or group of projects has been devised which will assure the water supply which can be provided by the Salem Church project. Non-Federal interests must repay all of the costs allocated to water supply. Streamfiow regulation is essential to maintain the quality of water in the Rappahannock River. Recent Federal standards established for this river make controlled releases from an impoundment man- datory. It is interesting to note that if no waste products were dis- charged into the Rappahannock the established standard for dissolved oxygen could not be maintained in the estuary of the river, without low flow augmentation. The State program dealing with the control of municipal and industrial waste discharges continues to be effective in maintaining a high level of treatment of wastes. However, an indica- tion of the condition of the river is the action of the Virginia State Water Control Board in 1964 when it stated that it would approve no additional waste discharge at this time to the Ra.ppahannock. This limitation is a deterrent to possible expansion of tho present produc- tion facility of the area's largest employer-FMC Corp., which oper- ates the world's largest cellophane plant in Spotsylvania County. It is also a deterrent to other industrial development along the river. The effect of streamflow regulation on the oyster industry has beeii studied and evaluated by technical agencies of the Federal and State Govern- ments, and they have determined that the control of quantity and salinity will have a significant benefit on this industry which provides the livelihood of a large number of people in the estuary and which contributes greatly to the economy of the State. Almost without exception the local governing bodies, service authorities, civic organizations, agencies of the State, and all whose lives and responsibilities touch upon the Salem Church project have endorsed the project and seek its timely authorization. We ask you now to give favorable consideration to the needs and requests of this great segment of population and include the Salem Church project for authorization. Mr. Chairman, these photographs have been made available to the members of the committee and are to be part of the record if you so desire, showing flood conditions in the floods of 1937 and 1942. Mr. Chairman, I also have for the record a list of resolutions of governing bodies in addition to those read by Congressman Scott which I would like to present for the record. First is a list of governmental units that have adopted resolutions and they are p~biished in the record of hearings on the Senate Public Works Committee held Sep- tember 21, 1967. They are: City Council-Fredericksburg; Orange County Board; Prince Wil- liams County Board; Richmond County Board; Lancaster County Board; King George County Board; and the Town of Front Royal. 97-700-68----15 PAGENO="0274" 260 I am also submitting a letter of Mr. H. Marston Smith of the law firm of Smith, King & Murphy of Warsaw, Va., dated June 17, 1968, and a letter of J. Clifford Hutt, of Hutt and Robertson of Montross, Va., dated June 17, 1968, which I would like to have made a part of the record. I am also submitting a resolution of the Rappahannock Area Devel- opment Commission of Fredericksburg, Va. dated March 27, 1967. Mr. JONES. Without objection they will be received. (The documents referred to follow:) SMITH, KING & MURPHY, Wars aiv, Va., June 17,1968. Mr. F. FREEMAN FUNK, City Manager, City of Fredericksburg, Va. DEAR MR. FUNK: Thank you for your letter in regard to the Salem Church Reservoir Project. My schedule has me out of town for the entire week beginning June 17. I wrote a letter in regard to this project at the time of the last hearing. I under- stand that this letter was made a part of the record at that time. You certainly have my permission to include it as a part of the record of this bearing if you so wish since my views have not changed. Sincerely, H. MARSTON SMITH Htrrr & ROBRETSON, M(yn,tross, Va., June 17,1968. Mr. F. FREEMAN FtTNX, Fredericksburg, Va. DEAR Mn. FUNK: I appreciate your letter of the 14th and the invitation therein included. I would like very much to be able to attend both the conference and the hearings, but, unfortunately, I am committed both for the night of the 19th and the day of the 20th. You might tell Joe Rowe that our Board of Super- visors has already adopted a resolution strongly urging construction of the Salem Church project and I am sure would again endorse it if we had a meeting Jetween now and the time of the hearing. Our people would find this project quite beneficial, both from the stabilization of the river and from the many advantages which would accrue to the overall area from the impoundment of such a large body of water. If my personal endorsement as a member of the Board of Supervisors would be helpful, this would serve to authorize Joe to set it forth, either verbally or in any written report which he may wish to submit. With best wishes, I am, Yours very truly, J. CLIFFORD HUTT. RAPPAHANNOCK AREA DEVELaE'MENT CoMMISSIoN, Fredericksburg, Va., March~ 27, 1967. SALEM CHURCH DAM PROJECT RESOLUTION Whereas the Corps of Engineers report of May 2, 1966 specified the feasibility and recommended construction of Salem Church Dam project on the Rappahan- nock River, and Whereas the economic development of the Contral Rappahannock River Basin is unalterably tied in with the availability of water supply for the area, and Whereas all of the jurisdictions comprising the Rappahannock Area Develop- ment Commission have gone on record endorsing the Salem Church Dam project, Therefore, the Rappahannock Area Development Commission does hereby strongly endorse and recommend the construction of the Salem Church Dam project at the earliest practicable date. Adopted: April 6, 1967. Certified a true copy: MARGARET K. CAnrEa, Recording Secretary. PAGENO="0275" 261 Mr. Rowu. I also have nine letters of endorsement that I should like to read at this point, with your permission, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JoNEs. You may proceed. Mr. ROWE. First Mr. Chairman, is a statement of Francis S. Kenny, director of planning, Rappahannock Area Development Commission, a letter addressed to you, which reads as follows: The Rappahannock Area Development Commission is a tax-supported Region- al Planning Commission for the Central Area of the Rappa'hannock River Basin. We appreciate this opportunity to present to your Committee, in support of the Salem Church Reservoir project, certain considerations which we feel have not been forcibly brought out. The Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers, in answer to a resolution of a Senate Committee, conducted a most exhaustive survey, which results are indicated in their comprehensive report dated May 1966. The engineer- ing details are contained in that report. We, therefore, wish to point out addi- tional economic benefits, thus esta~blishing the far reaching effects of the project. The reservoir proposed would provide a surface area of fresh water of 21,000 acres. The taking or acquisition area for flood protection and r~crea'tional area potential is 47,450 acres. Therefore, if we compare the watershed alone of 1,739,. ~20 acres, the reservoir taking area amounts to only 2.5 percent of the total drainage area of the river. The area which in the future will be served by water supply alone will ex ceed the total basin area by 300 percent to 500 percent. There are presently on record requests by jurisdictions outside of the watershed for reservation of water supply. The resultant economic benefits to the entire area, therefore, exceed the direct cost benefit ratio of the project as determined by the Corps of Engineers, many-fold. This would be the largest lake in the Northern section of Virginia, north of the James River at Richmond. The population tourist potential (the second largest industry in Virginia) with a drawing power within a hundred mile radius in excess of 7,000,000 people, further indicates a spendable dollar for the counties immediately surrounding the reservoir far in excess of the direct cost benefit used by the Corps of Engineers. Land values in the vicinity of the lake will increase by three to five times within five years of the completion of the reservoir. The economic advantage to each of the counties would be, therecfore, equivalent to the location of a rather large industry in each of the counties. This is a multi-purpose dam, and the relationship of the values for each of the purposes should be borne clearly in mind. Salinity control for the counties downriver is assigned 26.65 percent of the cost. Recreation is assigned 18.42 percent of the cost. Water quality control is assigned 19.36 percent of the cost. Power supply is assigned 18.22 percent of the cost. Water supply benefits equal 9.67 percent of the cost. Flood control is assigned 7.68 percent of the cost. Suggestions have been made that in lieu of one dam, several smaller dams upstream would serve the same purpose. The Corps of Engineers, a~ is indicated in their report, have investigated this point and determined to their satisfaction that such would not be the case. The cost would be greater and the benefits, particularly with relation to flood control, would not result. Comparisons have also been made with other dams in the United States with particular reference to the drawn-down feature which on reservoirs designed solely for flood control has left an undesirable shoreline at certain periods of the operation. It must be remembered that this project is a multi-purpose pro- posal serving many uses and its design, therefore, tends to reduce the average draw-down to a minimum. Item 99 on page 30 of the Corps of Engineers Review Report (page 43 of Sen. Doc. 37) indicates that the draw-down in eight out of ten years on an average, during the twenty weeks of primary recreation season, would be ten feet or less with a possible draw-down once in fifty-seven years that would reach twenty-five feet during the summer season. This would not have a significantly adverse effect on the potential of the project to provide an enjoy- able recreation experience, to quote the Corps of Engineers. In my work as a member of the Virginia Metropolitan Areas Study Com- mission, we have conducted more than twenty-five full days of study in the past year on metropolitan area problems~. The problems are those of growth. The cities attract people. Part of our consideration to alleviate metropolitan prob- lems is to create a more viable and enjoyable atmosphere outside of the metro~ politan area which would not only retain population, but would attract people PAGENO="0276" 262 to the area. A project such as the Salem Church Reservoir could have this magnetic attraction to provide a more enjoyable way of life for everyone using the facilities. The Rappahannock Area Development Commission established under Virginia State Law as a regional planning commission, because of the tremendous benefits which it can foresee from the construction of the reservoir, has by resolution endorsed this project. Next, Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from John A. Nere, president, Fredericksburg Area Chamber of Commerce, Federicksburg, Va., which reads as follows: Over fifteen years ago the Fredericksburg Area Chamber of Commerce endorsed the then proposed Salem Church Dam project. Today, as it was then, our most pressing need in the Rappahannock River Basin is water conservation. Each year this need becomes more critical. To help lessen the critical nature of this need, local governing bodies have been working to the ilmits of their capabilities on local conservation projects. This will help provide for our immediate water needs. However, as you no doubt know, maximal water conservation in the Rappa- hannock River Basin is far beyond local capabilities. Therefore, we once again wish to go on record as wholeheartedly endorsing the Salem Church project. We are deeply grateful for all you have been doing to aid and support this project up to this point and we are confident of your continued efforts. Next, Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from Paul W. Manns, a member of the Senate of Virginia representing the city of Fredericks- burg and seven surrounding counties which reads as follows: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you in support of the report of the Corps of Engineers on the Salem Church Reservoir Project. To some people it would seem needless to take your time to tell more about a project which has been officially described as "feasible, economically justified, and represent(ing) the best development of the site at this time." I am keenly aware that you have many worthy projects throughout the nation which vie for your attention. However, I believe you will be especially interested in the Salem Church Reservoir project since it involves the people in the metropolitan area of the Nation's Capital. The Rappahannock River, in running through Virginia from the Blue Ridge mountains to the Chesapeake Bay, has the potential to serve many people more adequately than it does now. It can become the center of outdoor recreation for thousands of people; for thousands of others it can provide employment through new industry promotion. Many people who depend upon oyster production for their livelihood could be assured of a more constant and abundant supply of oysters; for the people who can or might in the future be served by community water. systems the river has the potential to provide the water which they will need for domestic and business purposes. But we are speaking here only of potential. The Rappahannock is practically undeveloped. For the people to derive the benefits which I have described, the multi-purpose reservoir project now under consideration must be constructed. The dam and reservoir will provide the only practical method of alleviating the hazard of floods to lives and property and of improving the over-all quality of the waters of the river. Many alternates have been considered; many years and many dollars have been devoted to studies; the benefits of the project and the needs of the people have been fully assessed. Conclusions have been drawn and recommendations have been made. The Salem Church Reservoir project is needed, and it is economically justified. On behalf of the people whom I represent, I respectfully request your favorable consideration of the project. Next, Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from George C. Rawlings, Jr., who represents the city of Fredericksburg and the counties of Spotsylvania and Stafford in the Virginia. House of Delegates, ad- dressed to you, dated June 20, 1968, and it reads as follows: During seven polltical campaigns in the past four years, I have bad an opportunity to discuss the construction of the dam with the voters in my area, and there are no "ifs" "ands" or "buts" in their support. They are not disturbed PAGENO="0277" 263 by the hydro-electric power aspect of the dam as recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers, nor the other minor objections raised by a few persons. They have had ample opportunity to consider these contentions and on every possible occasion have rejected them. The thing that does disturb them is the fact that cer- tain individuals and groups oppose the dam because of their own selfish interests without apparent concern for the wishes and welfare of the area as a whole. However, in every proposal of this kind, I am sure you have seen the same type of opposition and heard the same arguments. You can be assured that while their noise is loud, our opponents speak for only a few persons. Even in those two counties where certain officials oppose the project, there is a sharp division among the people themselves. As a member of the Virginia legislature, I recognize the terrific potential of the Salem Dam for Virginia, and am joined in this view by Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr., who has approved and recommended the project. You, the members of this sub-committee, surely recognize the immense advantages for the United States to be derived from this great dam and its proximity to the Nation's capital. While your duty is to the country as a whole, I am certain that you realize the value of each local project to the welfare of all the people. Your record in favor of many similar and successful projects bears eloquent witness to that fact. We have already been delayed too long in receiving approval for this project, and we beseech you to act favorably now. Now Mr. Chairman, I have a letter which is also addressed to you, dated June 19, 1968, from James Ashby, Jr., of the law firm of Ashby & Roberts in Fredericksburg, Va., and it reads as follows: As an attorney of the City of Fredericksburg, a Director and Chairman of the Board of the Farmers and Merchants State Bank, and former Chairman of the Steering Committee for the Salem Church Dam and Reservoir, it is my privilege to submit this statement to your committee in support of the Salem Church Dam and Reservoir project. For this purpose, I shall not discuss the technical aspects of this project, inasmuch as those persons better qualified will present adequate data and evidence concerning same. It is urged that your Committee consider and report favorably on this project to provide much-needed flood control, water quality and salinity control, water supply and recreation benefits which are necessary for the future development and economic growth of a large area of Virginia embracing `ninny counties and the City of Fredericksburg. This area has suffered in the past from devastating flooding of the Rappahan- nock River, and also from extreme low flow periods therein when principal industry in the `area has been in danger of having to cease all production. One such industry is located in Spotsylvania County and employs approximately 2,000 persons. It is my understanding that the benefit-to-cost ratio of this project is such that it is feasible under guidelines established by existing law. Notwithstanding the serious economic responsibilities facing the Congress at thig time, wherein priorities for appropriations and expenditures must be care- fully considered to assure that essential activities at home and abroad can be undertaken and continued, it is my belief that the Salem Church Dam and Reservoir project should be included in the omnibus public works legislation and funded at the earliest practicable date, to enable prompt acquisition of the land and easements required for this project. Under this procedure, increased costs thereof can be avoided and inconvenience to the public in this area of Virginia will be held to the minimum. I appreciate your courtesy and that of the members of the Committee in per- mitting me to file this brief statement in support of the Salem Church Dam and Reservoir project. Mr. Chairman, the next letter I have is from Daniel Noce of Sperry- ville, Va., dated June 20, 1968, and it `also is addressed you. It reads: My name is Daniel N'oce. I `am a retired U.S. Army Officer and for the past 13 years I have been a farmer in Rappahannock County, Virginia. I am Zoning Administrator of Rappahannock County and Chairman of the Rap~ahannock River Basin Advisory Committee-an agency of the Virginia Department of Con- servation and Economic Development. PAGENO="0278" 264 1 am speaking for myself as a resident of Itappehannock County, a resident of Virginia and a citizen of the United States. During my adult years, I have had 12 years field service connected directly with flood control projects includ- ing a 4 year assignment in the Mississippi Valley and a 3 year position as an elected supervisor of the Culpeper Soil Conservation District. I have carefully studied the Review Report on the Salem Church Reservoir submitted by the Norfolk District, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. I give it as my opinion that this is a very thorough, straightforward report, made in compliance with the many laws of the U.S. governing such matters, and with a most complete coordination with other U.S. Government agencies, as required by law and good judgment; and well coordinated with the agencies of the Oom'monwealth of Virginia dealing with the matters studies in arriving at the final report. This report covers all the main studies required for a pro- ject of this type including water supply, salinity control, flood control, water quality control, recreation and hydroelectric power, and it also reports on the studies `made of alternate means by which desired results might have been accomplished, but which for good reasons were not adopted. I recommend its approvaL I have noticed in my life that projects like this always have proponents and opponents. Many arguments are based on what I call emotions, many are on good' ground, but there are also many which are not in `accord with the facts. This project has the usual "in fighting." And of course there is the often heard cry of "Politics". Be those things as they are, I have studied the needs of this area now, and the needs for the future, and submit these specific conclusions: a. As for Rappahannock County, where I reside, it has nothing to lose, and much to gain-a sure supply of electricity for its REA; under certain circuin- stances a possible excellent water supply, and the additional income from travel- ers using U.S. 211 an'd ~22 to reach the reservoir, just to name a few of the benefits. b. The City of Fredericksburg and the surrounding counties face a very large increase in population. They have present problems: Flood threats, future water supply and power requirements, water quality control, salinity control and future recreation area needs. All of these items are in the forefront of our national re- quirements and various agencies are working hard to meet the future needs. c. Local interests will have to pay their share of basic first costs and mainte- nance costs in accordance with well established Federal Laws and policies. d. The nearby areas such as Chesapeake Bay have limited adjoining recrea- tional areas now open to the public, and many places are polluted. e. Some parts of the basin will be hurt by taking their land (at fair com- pensation). I am personally experienced in that trouble. I have been a U.S. agent who had to fall back on the law of eminent domain. I have also' had to transfer land I personally owned; and will again soon, give land for a highway (with due compensation). But, where the large majority of the residents are in need of provision for their protection and for future requirements they must be given precedence over the relatively few who will be hurt. f. This project has been recommended for approval by the Governor of Vir- ginia and other agencies of the State who have worked on it. It has the strong support of an overwhelming percentage of the population affected and their gov- erning bodies. The benefits to the state are vital needs and will remove or lessen many of the disasters heretofore suffered. g. This construction will remove the threat to life and property of important areas heavily populated, it will insure a badly needed future water supply for an expanding population and will provide other needs of a vast majority of the in- habitants. Their needs must be given priority under the circumstances over the disadvantages that might accrue to a small minority. In conclusion, this is a very worthy project and I recommend' its early construction. Next Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from J. W. Ferguson, president of the J. W. Ferguson Seafood Co., Inc., of Remilk, Va., dated June 17, 1968, addressed to you, Mr. Chairman, which reads as follows: Speaking for myself and my corporation, we wholeheartedly support the Salem Church Reservoir project We believe this reservoir will greatly reduce the dan- ger from flash flooding to marine resources, especially oysters. PAGENO="0279" 265 In 1955 `the fresh water run off from Hurricane Diane destroyed several million dollars worth of oysters in the Rappahannock River. The' rains occurred in the Valley of Virginia and if this reservoir had been in operation, I am sure the damage to the oysters in the Rappahannock River `would not have occurred. `We also, believe the salinity of the water in the shell fish growing area in the Rap- pahannock River can be stabilized to a large extent from `this proposed reservoir and this would greatly improve the environment for growing o'ysters and other Marine Resources. Next, Mr. Ohairman, I have a statement of R. A. Farmar, Sr., of Warsaw, Va., of the Richmond County Planning ~ommission which reads as follows: Mr. Chairman and members of the sub-committee, my name is R. A. Farmar, Sr. I am Chairman of the Richmond County Planning Commission, a member of the Planning Commission for the Town of Warsaw, Virginia, and the Northern Neck Planning and Economic Development Commission (Richmond, Westmoreland, Northumberland and Lancaster Counties). I would like to state that I highly endorse the Salem Church Dam and Reser- voir project, and urge the Congress to authorize the construction of the project as recommended in the Senate Document No. 37, 90th. Congress, 1st Session. It is most evident that the rapid urbanization and increasing population growth of the Rappahannock River Basin Area demands that every effort be made for the conservation of our water and other natural resources so there will be an ade- quate water supply, flood control, and recreational areas for the orderly and eco- nomic development of the entire area. History has taught us that we must be deeply concerned about the conserva- tion of our natural res'ources. The responsibility is ours to act, and I urge you to give this project your most serious consideration. Mr. Chairman, the last letter is dated June 18, 1968 and addressed to you. It is from Waither B. Fidiler, who is a member'of the Virginia House of Delegates, and it reads: I have reviewed the report prepared by the Department of the Army, dated May 2, 1966, relative to the Salem Church Reservoir Project on the Rappahan- nock River. I have also conferred with representatives of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at Gloucester Point, Virginia, relative to this Project. I am convinced that the controlled release of water from this Reservoir can prevent the excessive run-offs of fresh water such as we experienced in 155 which resulted in the destruction of about 80 per cent of all oysters in the lower Rappahannock River from just below Tappahannock to Urbanna, Virginia, a dis- tance of about twenty-five miles. I am also satisfied that this project will vastly improve the water quality of the river just below Fredericksburg. I have consulted with the staff of the State Water Control Board of Virginia requesting their comments and opinions, a copy of which is attached. The Rappahannock River below Fredericksburg might be characterized as a pond during periods of very low flow. The tidal influence is not overcome with such a low flow of fresh water. Even the minimal wastes reach- ing the river are not carried `downstream and there is virtually no dilution. In addition, during these periods of low flow, it allows salt water to flow much far- ther upstream introducing many of the destructive shell fish pests and dis- eases into the lower river, which pests and diseases can only survive in quite salty water. This Dam will certainly have the effect of flattening the characteristic peaks and valleys in the flow curve of this river, so that when there is an over-abun- dance of flow, water can be stored for release during drought periods. I am restricting my remarks to the features of the project affecting the lower river area which I have the pleasure to represent. I endorse the project and urge its prompt construction. That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sco'rr. Mr. Chairman, I think if we might add, that State Senator Paul Manns did have a conflict in Richmond, otherwise he would be here. He has been a strong advocate of this project. PAGENO="0280" 266 Mr. Chairman, if there are no questions for Mayor Rowe, this does conclude our presentation of the matter; but I would like to mention to the Chair t;hat I have received a communication from the clerk's office, Fauquier County, Va., indicating that Mr. Randolph H. Carter will present a case for Fauquier County, the only county in my district opposed to the dam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PORN. Mr. Chairman, I welcome my colleague to the committee. Mr. Scott, how many acres does this reservoir cover? Mr. Sco~n~. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve that to a technical witness. Mr. PORN. What is the acreage of the reservoir? Colonel SEmEi~. 48,000 acres. Mr. ROWE. If I may say, Mr. Chairman, about half of that acreage is water. Colonel SEIDEL. I gave you the figure for the total real estate includ- ing the surroundings. Mr. Doex. 48,000 acres? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. PORN. Does it cover any of the wilderness, parks or fields? Mr. RowE. No, sir; it does not. Mr. PORN. Mr. Mayor, do you think this will help the city of Fredericksburg? Mr. ROWE. Yes, sir; in the many ways that have been indicated, the project. is favorable. The city of Fredericksburg has an interest in flood control and water supply but we are also vitally interested in the overall area development. Mr. DORN. Much of it is wilderness area, is that right? Mr. RowE. Yes, sir; it is approximately 1 mile north of Inter- state 95. If you have traveled in that area, it is named from the Civil War battlefield battle that took place at Salem Ohuroh which is about a mile from the site of the dam. Mr. PORN. In other words, you don't want the reservoir to be covering up any real, extremely valuable property, it will be a minimum. Mr. Scom If the gentleman will permit,. I would say the city of Fredericksburg is so proud of its history that its mayor would not be here today testifying in favor of this dam if it was going to cover historic areas. Mr. JONES. We have a rolicall on the tax bill. As I stated earlier, I am sorry about these interruptions but there is nothing I can do about it. The committee will reconvene at 2 p.m. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. JONES. The subcommittee will come to order. Our next witness will be Mr. Randolph H. Carter of the clerk's office, Warrenton, Va., representing Fauquier County, Warrenton Chamber of Commerce, and landowners in Fauquier County. PAGENO="0281" 267 STATEM~ENT OP RANDOLPH H. CARTER, THE CLERK'S O~TICE, WARRE1~ITON, VA. Mr. CARTER. I have a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, that I should like to read. It will not take me too long. Mr. CLATJSEN. You certainly have put in a lot of work on this. Mr. JONES. Mr. Carter, you may proceed `as you please. Mr. CARTER. Gentlemen, I `am Randy Carter of Warrenton, Va. I am representing: 1. The Board c~f Supervisors of Fauquier County. 2. Warrenton-Fauquier Chamber of Commerce. 3. Izaak Walton League, of Fauquier County. 4. Virginia Canoe Association. 5. Two hundred and nineteen individuals owning well over 22,000 acres of land in the upper Rappahannock watershed. We give you the following reasons for our opposition to the high dam on the Rappahamiock River above Fredericksburg, Va., at Salem Church: 1. `Our homes, in many cases, will be flooded out; much of our best farmland will be flooded along the river bottoms, making it unprofit- able to farm the steeper hillsides without it. In all, 7,000 acreas will be taken out of Fauqu'ier County, and 14,000 acres taken out of Culpeper County. This will result in a great tax loss to our `counties and will mean a higher tax on the remaining land. We do not see the necessity of flooding us out to give Fredericksburg a water supply at our expense, espe~ially since this water supply with the `high dam will be greater than that of Washington, D.C. Why `cannot Fredericksburg build and pay `for its own water supply? 2. This high dam at the 240-foot pool level in addition to flooding out 21,000 `acres in Culpeper and Fauquier Counties will cause increased flood damage in the upper reaches of these rivers. The town of Remington, which is 3 miles upstream above the normal pool level, elevation 240 feet, will have the flood pool backing up `in the riverbed almost to the town. We feel that if this flood pool, elevation 250 feet, backs up to the town of Remington there will be no fall from here to carry the floodwaters off as fast as they would normally go if they had the 40-foot drop to the Kelly's Ford Bridge, 4 miles downstream. In other words, if a bucket is full of water and you pour another bucket into it, something is going to get flooded. We would like to cite the fact that in the 1955 hearing on the dam before Congress on H.R. 192, the Southern Railway assistant and chief engineer, Mr. von Sprecken said: We fear that floods of that magnitude (year 1942) with a full pool behind the proposed dam will cause a similar flood to cover longer stretches of track with deeper water. In their letter of November 4, 1964, to the Army Engineers, the Southern Railway stated: Unless there has been some substantial change in what has been proposed, our position is not changed. Now, if the Southern Railway feels that the flooding in the Rem- ington area will be worse due to the high dam, we feel they should know what they are talking about. Most any farmer knows that if a meadow PAGENO="0282" 268 is already flooded and another heavy raiii comes along, the flood is going to be worse than it was before. 3. We object to being flooded out permanently for a dam that is to give Fredericksburg flood control for a flood that has come once in 100 years. It should be noted that a large percentage of the 1942 flood damage as not caused by the Rappahannock River, but by a cloudburst in the Maryes Heights of Fredericksburg and a break in the canal in this area. We want flood control along the entire river, not flood con- trol for Fredericksburg only. We believe that smaller impoundments in the upstream areas of the Rappahannoek and Rapidan Rivers would give flood control along the entire river, and could be of great assistance in augmenting river- flow in dry weather, and thereby give Fredericksburg all the water it will need. We believe that these massive dams in one place are now obsolete, and that smaller impoundments are the answer for the entire river. They also assure water for the upstream communities, and will be far cheaper to construct. 4. This Salem Church Dam at elevation 240 will cover 21,000 acres with water. When it drops down 20 feet in dry weather, it will cover only 12,000 acres with water. This leaves 9,000 acres of mud exposed. It may be even worse since the Army Engineers say the lake level may drop down 40 feet in extremely dry weather. This drawdown makes an impossible mudhole around the lake, and it is particularly objectionable in the upper shallow reaches of the lake in Fauquier and Culpeper Counties where the drawdown makes the greatest area of exposed mud. We believe that this kills the proposed lake for recreation and makes the area a recreational loss to the entire community. 5. We do not go along with the Army Engineers argument that this lake is needed for recreation. Why build a new 21,000-acre lake only 15 miles from the Potomac River where there are ample riverside recreational facilities and hundreds of miles of undeveloped shore- line? Why build a new lake beside a river 5 miles wide and only 15 miles away? We feel that the only kind of recreation the Army gives any value to is motorboating on a lake. We feel that the 21,000 acres of lake land they would flood would serve as better recreation as an area for hunting, fishing, bird shooting, camping, hiking, canoeing, fast water fishing, and wilderness enjoyment; all along the existing natural beauty of the Rappahaunock and Rapidan Rivers. We do not feel that to make an acre of land usable for recreation it must first be flooded. We do not see the slightest need of additional artificial recreational waters in this area, especially since the Virginia Electric Power Co. has already started on a new lake for their new atomic energy plants on the North Anna River. This lake will have 11,000 acres of water, open to the public for recreation, and it will be only 20 miles from the proposed Salem Church Dam. Surely we do not need to crowd in a Government-built lake on the Rappahannock 20 miles from this new lake of Virginia Electric Power Co. and only 15 miles from the Potomac River. Of the costs of the dam, $12,970,000 is allocated for the recreational share of the project with $10,400,000 for future recreational costs, making a total of over $23 million which the taxpayers will have PAGENO="0283" 269 to put up through Federal, State, and county taxes for 21,000 acres of land that have actually lost recreational value by flooding. We feel that this is recreation in reverse; and we get stuck with the costs, and lose the best fishing stream on the east coast. 6. The Kelly's Ford area of the Rappahannoek River has the most wonderful and beautiful section of fast water in all of northern Virginia. This white water section extends 11/2 miles upstream above the Kelly's Ford Bridge, which is 4 miles below Remington. The counties of Fauquier and Culpeper have included this area along the river for a future park to preserve its natural beauty. To flood out this beautiful section of rapids and waterfalls would be to destroy something that is priceless, and something that nature has given us very little of. It should be preserved. Engineers can give us flat water, but only God can give us beautiful fast water like the Kelly's Ford Rapids. Canoeists and fishermen come hundreds of miles to use this river. We should leave something for our children besides flat water and mudholes. 7. These two rivers, the Rappahannock and the Rapidan, have great historic values. They lie alongside the battlefields of Chancellorsville, the Battle of the Wilderness, and the Battle of Kelly's Ford. Across the fords of these two rivers crossed the armies of the Civil War. And alongside these two rivers marched the men in blue and the men in gray, and beside them and across them, they fought their des- perate battles. These rivers are a part of our battlefields, and a part of our history. Alongside Rappahannock from Fredericksburg for 53 miles up- stream to the west ran the Rappahannock River Canal. It was started in 1832 and finished in 1857. It has great historic value. It linked Fredericksburg with the Blue Ridge Mountain area. It was a great engineering work. Today, it remains one of the most interesting fea- tures of the river. Beside the Kelly's Ford Rapids, the canal is held high above the river by a massive stone wall, and makes an ideal hik- ing path. Its old locks are still standing and are most interesting. The river is steeped in our history. It should be saved from flooding and made into a park to help preserve our history. It would be a unique park alongside the river, as unique as the Skyline Drive, 8. We do not agree with the Engineers that we need to have our lands flooded, among other reasons, for the sake of a Government- owned and operated hydroelectric plant on the Rappahannock River. There is ample electric power in this area. So much, that the Virginia Electric Power Co. is going around trying to sell surplus electric power as heat for homes. Their rate is one of the lowest in the country. They are providing for future needs of this area by having started building an atomic energy plant with a kilowatt capacity that is 20 times greater than the 81,000 kilowatts to be generated at the Salem Church Dam. This power from the Salem Church Dam would be ad- ministered and sold by a competing government agency, the REA, eagerly awaiting to increase its bureaucracy by selling this power. It should be borne in mind that this 81,000 kilowatts is capacity, and will be generated only in wet weather, whereas Vepco will be generating every day of the year with atomic energy, and be paying into the Government millions in taxes per year. PAGENO="0284" 270 For the taxpayers to fork out $21 million for electric power's share of this dam project in an area amply supplied with power for the foreseeable future is totally unnecessary and a waste of the taxpayers' money. It should be borne in mind in addition to the above-mentioned Vepco atomic energy plant that the Virginia Electric Power Co. has just started building another new atomic energy plant of 4 million kilowatt capacity only 20 miles away on the North Anna River. This plant alone will have a capacity 50 times that of the Salem Church hydroelectric plant. In other words, the area is more than amply taken care of for elec- tric power now and in the future with private enterprise. There is no point in having the taxpayers of t.he U.S.A. saddled with the cost and operation of an unnecessary hydroelectric plant in an area already so bountifully and cheaply supplied with electric power. 9. We value our farmlands, and our homes, we value our beautiful rivers and the recreation they give us as they are in their natural state. We value these things dearly. Then again, we cannot understand the Engineers and the people further downstream giving justification for flooding us out by stating that the oyster farmers and commercial interests in the bay justify the expenditure of $22 million spent on them for salinity and water quality control as their share of the Salem Church Dam costs. The oyster farmers have no right to have $22 inil- lion spent on them to help flood out the dirt farmers upstream. We cannot understand why the Rappahannock must be flooded out for the benefit of the oyster farmers 100 miles downstream when they are already overproducing on oysters, and the Fisheries Commission moved last fall to the days for oyster harvesting down 50 percent to forestall an oversupply and the consequent price drop in the oyster market. If we omit what we believe to be the unnecessary and doubtful values of this project; namely, recreation, $23 million, water quality and salinity control below the dam, $25 million; and electric power, $21 million, there will be very little left to justify the expense of such a high dam for water supply and flood control for the Fredericksburg area. We would be spending $79 million for benefits of $10 million and even half of that $10 million is not necessary because the town of Fredericksburg is now going ahead with its own water supply system on nearby Motts Run which it estimates will take care of its water needs for the next 20 years. This leaves us taxpayers with a $19 million bill for $5 million worth of flood control for the town of Fredericksburg. If this program goes through it will be America's greatest pork barrel. Mr. Chairman, I have a petition signed by landowners in the Rem- ington area, Virginia, which I would like to submit for the record. That completes my statement.. Mr. JONES. The petition may be submitted for the record at tins point.. (The petition follows:) We, the undersigned property owners arid residents in the Rappahannock Watershed Area, are opposed to the unnecessarily high dam on the Rappahan- nock River at Fredericksburg for the following reasons, among others: 1. It will flood out 7,000 acres in Fauquier County and 14,000 acres in On- peper County, mostly farm land. PAGENO="0285" 271 2. It will flood out the future historical and recreational park areas proposed by Fauquier and Oulpeper Counties in the Kelly's Ford and Snake Castle areas. These areas are unequalled for fast-water fishing, canoeing, wilderness enjoy- ment, and hiking along the old canal. 3. We see no need for a government owned electric power plant in this area. 4. We see no need for making a recreational lake at taxpayer's expense only sixteen miles form the Potomac River since the Ra.ppahannock affords ample future recreational opportunities as it is now. 5. When the lake level drops down twenty feet in dry weather ~l,000 acres of mud will be exposed, mostly in the upstream flat areas. Mr. CARruR. I also have a letter here, Mr. Chairman, a very brief letter that I should like to read, from Mr. C. J. Robin, Chief of the Engineering Division of the U.S. Army Engineer District at Norfolk, Va. It is dated February 19, 1964, and it reads: DEAR MR. CARTER: Reference is made to your letter, dated 11 February 1064, requesting information as to the approximate drawdown of the Salem Church Reservoir if built with maximum power pools at elevation 240 or elevation 220. It is understood that you recently discussed this matter informally with Mr. Peters of this office who advised you that the drawdown in the case of the 240 power pool, would be of the order of 8 feet in average years, down to about 40 feet in extremely dry years. More specific information should await the final formulation of the project details. This office is still studying the many facets of a project of this magnitude. We plan to hold a public hearing this coming spring at which time the entire project will be outlined. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Our next witness is Mr. Claude B. Harris of the Izaak Walton League of Alexandria, Va. Mr. Harris, you may proceed. STATEMENT OP C. B. HARRIS, VIC1~ PRESIDENT OP THE IZAAX WALTON LEAG~UE OP AMERICA Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I am C. B. Harris of Alexandria, Va., vice president of the Izaak Walton League of America. The league is a nationwide organization of citizens dedicated to building a better outdoor America. We have a historic interest in the Nation's water resources. Our Virginia Division has enjoyed a long and continuing acquaintance with the Rappahamlock River. We ap- preciate this opportunity to appear before you in connection with the proposed Salem Church project. The Virginia Division of the TWLA discussed the project at its State convention last October and resolved to oppose authorization of the project as presently conceived. A copy of our resolution follows my remarks. The resolution was reconsidered at our annual meeting June 15-16 in Harrisonburg and the position was reaffirmed. The Virginia Division of the Izaak Walton League during the past 2 years has taken a careful look at Salem Church. We recognize full well that Fredericksburg and adjacent counties-including Prince William in the Potomac Basin-must soon take positive action to as- sure future water supplies. We also realize that the Rappahannock River has in the past been-and will be again-subject to occasional flooding damaging private property. The Salem Church proposal, we believe, generated its primary local support because of water supply and flood control needs-with the PAGENO="0286" 272 former brought into clear public focus because of the critical low flows of recent summers. The basic issue therefore before the league, the people of Virginia, and Americans everywhere, is whether it is necessary or desirable to construct a $79.5 million project to produce average annual benefits of $340,000 for water supply and $157,000 for flood control-totaling less than 7 percent of the annual benefits claimed for the project. Further, one might question the accuracy of the $79.5 million figure ($69.1 million now, $10.4 million later for recreation). We note that the Corps of Engineers expects to purchase the 47,453 acres required for the project at an average of $124 per acre-including 36,149 acres of woodland at $60 per acre. We are not qualified land appraisers, but some of our members own property or are closely acquainted with land- owners in the Rappahannock Basin-and it is our judgment that land costs may run at least 50 percent higher. If this is true, and if other estimates are equivalent in accuracy, the actual cost of Salem Church could run well over $100 million. On the basis of estimated benefits, Salem Church is being con- structed 41 percent for outdoor recreation. We have carefully re- viewed corps and Bureau of Outdoor Recreation projected use figures, and note that subsequent events have oi~tdated them. In the spring of 1968, the Virginia Electric & Power Co. announced plans to build a large nuclear power station on the nearby North Anna River. The North Anna project will include power station on the nearby North Anna River. The North Anna project will include an 11,000-acre lake to be available for public recreation in site much more convenient to recreation users. VEPCO's reservoir will be 23 miles from Fredericks- burg, 37 miles from Richmond, and 9 miles from Charlottesville. The Salem Church reservoir would be closer to Fredericksburg but far- ther from the other cities. The North Anna impoundment will thus meet much of the demand for flat water recreation which underlies the projected recreation statistics for the Salem Church project. Additionally, when municipal and industrial pollution of the Rap- pahannock is abated, the Rappahannock estuary will provide greatly Bnhanced flat water recreation opportunities. Salem Church is, of course, controversial because of its impact on quality recreation values. We have here the old issue of quantity versus quality in outdoor planning-the league is disturbed that neither the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation nor the Commonwealth of Virginia chose to explore fully both sides of this issue. The Rappahannock River may be unique among east coast streams. Above Fredericksburg, the Rappahannock River of 1967 is clean and so unpolluted as to be safe for any use. Its banks are largely forested- nearly wilderness in character, inhabited by deer, wild turkey, and ruffed grouse. Along it are the ruins of an old canal, now overgrown by deep and silent woods. To give this river a value of $900 per year for canoeing is as reasonable as stating that Rock Creek Park has an annual value of only $900 for skiing-and stating no more. Today's Rappahannock could well be put in the "Wild and Scenic Rivers Act" recently passed 84 to 0 by the U.S. Senate-and it would be unique as the only stream so designated and located in a megolopolis. We certainly accept the fact that eastern Virginia must plan now to meet future water supply needs-we hope others will face the fact that PAGENO="0287" 273 the Rappahannock is magnificent. The Commonwealth of Virginia, by an act of the 1968 General Assembly, has begun a study of scenic free- flowing Virginia rivers and this study is already evaluating the Rap- pahannock. Here is another reason for deferring action on the dam- the State may find preservation a higher use of the river. Mr. Chairman, the league wishes someone-either State or Fed- eral-would publicly present the answers to two key questions about the recreational aspects of the project: 1. What are the alternative public actions which might be taken to protect and enhance the scenic, historic, and recreational values of the Rappahannock-Rapidan country? 2. What alternative recreational uses might be made of the $23,370,- 000 capital outlay allocated to recreation in the Salem Church plans? In other words, if the Virginia Outdoor Recreation Commission were given $23,370,000 to spend in the Fredericksburg-Warrenton region, how would it use the money? We recognize that the Federal agencies considered "alternatives" to the Salem Church recreation plan, but these alternatives were calcu- lated according to restricted ground rules. Indeed, one could argue that they are not alternatives at all. The question here is what are the pos- sible different uses of the river, now how to support a given number or visits. We have questions in other areas: On water supply, we believe the public ought to have full details on alternative projects as developed by Federal, State, or local agencies. Supply needs can be met for less than half the $5,363,000 allocated to this purpose in the Salem Church proposal. Fredericksburg study made last year showed its water needs could be met until the year 2000 through construction of a $2 million project. The city together with Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties, are now roking to implement this plan, and thus finance their own water supply. The point, again, is that Salem Church was receiving primary local support because of a water supply problem soon to be obsolete-yet only 6 percent of the project's total cost is assigned to this purpose. On flood control, the Corps' calculations are again out of date. The newly announced municipal storage system will provide some pro- tection against floods. In addition, we wonder how the $4.2 million allocated for this purpose might otherwise be employed to reduce the flood problem. As we read the report, flood control benefits run lower than costs unless increased land values-due to the flood control-are taken into account. It seems to us such calculations mean that inten- sive development of the Rappahannock flood plain will be encouraged by government-yet, we are aware that national costs of flood damage are constantly rising in spite of vast public flood control expenditures. The Corps report suggests that flood-susceptible areas of Freder- icksburg and Falmouth are not today "desirably" developed-being instead in vacant lot, low industrial, and "subtandard housing" use. Perhaps something else of public value could be done to this area rather than provision of imperfect flood protection. Could, for in- stance, the $4.2 million plus some of the receation money, if necessary, be used to purchase these flood plains and turn them into attractive urban parklands-whkth might themselves stimulate private invest- ment in "desirable" types of development on higher ground? PAGENO="0288" 274 On power, the VEPCO North Auna station is being designed for an initial production capacity of 300,000 kilowatts and an ultimate capacity of 4 million kilowatts. VEPCO can increase the capacity of this station to keep pace with the power needs of the region for many years. Power produced at Salem Church would thus be surplus to regional needs for an indefinite length of time. Again, we urge that Salem Church should not be constructed until a clear need for its 89,000 kilowatts becomes evident. The league is concerned about thermal pollution of water from the cooling processes at nuclear powerplants. However, it appears that VEPCO's plans include cooling ponds for dissipating waste heat, and neither the impoundment `nor the river will be adversely affected. On this basis, the league would certainly support Vepco's plans. On water quality, the corps report seems out of date. In terms of cleansing the Rappahannock estuary, it seems to advocate pollution dilution-a concept similarly developed for the Potomac estuary in the corps report of 1963, but since rejected by the present adminis- tration. We cannot understand why different philosoj~hies should apply to two estuaries fewer than 25 miles apart. The Izaak Walton League fully rejects the concept of pollution dilution. Our Fredericksburg chapter spearheaded a community drive early in this decade to clean up-not dilute-Fredericksburg's municipal and industrial effluents. The Virginia Water Control Board, as a result, ordered. action which will require roughly 85 percent BOD removal at Fredericksburg by June of 1968. Both industrial and municipal polluters are moving to comply. The corps report totally ignores this action, and instead appears to anticipate no better than this level of treatment by 2020 or even 2070. The salinity control benefits claimed for oyster beds in the estuary- 27 percent of Salem Church cost-may be far less beneficial to the oysters than reduction of pollution. For these reasons, the Izaak `Walton League suggests the water quali- ty portions of the Salem Church report should be wholly restudied and revised. We repeat, a restudy of the 1963 Potomac report ap- parently led to a basic revision in approach and storage recommenda- tions for that river. Mr. Chairman, we have many questions about Salem Church. Par- ticularly at a time when overseas commitments are great, we believe the people should be fully satisfied as to the need for such major expenditure on the Rappahannock before it is authorized. To the best of our knowledge, local government support and financial participation has not been pledged by all jurisdictions. Two counties oppose the project. In view of the many controversial aspects of the Salem Church proposal, local support might never be forthcoming- and congressional appropriations could thus be forestalled. With so many Corps of Engineers projects already authorized and not funded, why add another one? Page 0-6 of the appendix carries the comment of a Stafford County consultant who has been close to the water supply problem: The U.S. Corps of Engineers has spent great sums of money and years of hard work trying to develop a major reservoir project for the Rappahannock River. PAGENO="0289" 275 Many of our members have the same feeling-the league continues to believe that projects should be authorized instead on the basis of clear need. We suspect that some aspects of the Salem Church proposal require further appraisal before the stated needs are fully proven to exist. Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering our views. With your permission, I shall read the following resolution of the Virginia Division of the Izaak Walton League of America regarding the Salem Church Dam: Whereas the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has recommended construction, at the Salem Church site, of a dam which would inundate major portions of the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers; and Whereas both the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers posses enormous scenic and esthetic values, and offer immense opportunities for public enjoyment if they and their immediate environments might be retained in existing natural condi- tion; and Whereas justification of the present Salem Church proposal is mainly for recreation, salinity control, and hydroelectric purposes-while the people of the region are primarily concerned about water supply and flood control, which purposes provide less than 7 percent of total project benefits as currently con- ceived by the Corps of Engineers; and Whereas no agency at any level of government has undertaken comprehensive evaluation of possible alternative programs for future use of the Rappahannock- Rapidan River system to retain existing natural values while meeting water supply and flood control needs: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Virginia Division, Izaak Walton League of America, in con- vention assembled this 15th day of October 1967, at Winchester, Virginia, That is opposes authorization of Salem Church Dam until the public has had oppor- tunity to evaluate full information as to alternative means of meeting water resource needs-such information to include detailed answers to the following: (a) What steps could be taken, at what costs and how allocated, to meet water supply needs of the Rappahannock Basin without construction of Salem Church Dam as presently proposed? (b) Without construction of Salem Church Dam, what steps could be taken, at what cost, to alleviate Rappahannock flood problems through alternative flood control works, restrictions on use of flood plains, flood plain purchase for open space and park purposes, and similar methods? (c) What alternative use might be made of the money allocated to outdoor recreation in the Salem Church Dam proposal? And it be further. Resolved, That the Commonwealth of Virginia should develop and present for public consideration an alternative program for use of the Rappahannoek- Rapidan River system, designed to investigate the possibility and practicality of meeting long-term regional water supply needs while retaining existing natural values for public enjoyment. Adopted: October 15, 1967, at Winchester, Virginia. Thank you for allowing me to appear today. Mr. JoNEs. Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. Next we have Mrs. Richard Hogue, a landowner from Remington, Va. STATEMENT* OF VIRGINIA REMINGTON, REMINGTON, VA. Mrs. REMINGTON. I am Virginia Remington. I am privileged to speak for Mrs. Richard Hogue. We are trying to preserve the little wilderness left on the east coast. This Rappahannock River on trial is only 45 minutes from the great metropolitan area of Washington. The miracle is that it still survives as unpolluted, and one of the most wondrous rivers with all manner of wildlife. Please don't pass a death sentence on this river. Here is Mrs. Hogue's statement which she asked me to read to you. Mrs. REMINGTON (reading): 97-700-68-----19 PAGENO="0290" 276 STATEMENT or Mns. RICHARD ROGUE, LANDOVER, REMINGTON, VA., AS READ BY VIRGINIA REMINGTON Mr. Chairman, my place is situated on the Rappahannock River about midway of the Kellys Pork Rapids. There is a mile of white water, and the situation is particularly prized by canoeists. The Salem Dam would drown the rapids, and would innundate my house. The present house was built around the 1830's, but from the late 17th century structure of various kinds, mostly log, existed. This is testified to by numerous foundations. I am an old Washingtonian, but have lived at Kellys Ford farm since 1940. Naturally, I should like to live out my life there. I see no reason why I should be flooded out from my farm for benefit of the oyster farmers below Fredericks- burg or to make additional and unnecessary recreational waters when the river now affords ample recreation as it is. I think a dam on the river is an anachronism. We are no longer in the water power age. We are in the nuclear age. With the new atomic energy plant on the North Anna River, only 20 miles from Fredericksburg, and soon to be in operation, there is less reason to build a Government-owned hydroelectric plant with its 11,000 acres of water open for public recreation will be ali this area will ever need. It is my intention, as stated publicly, to will at my death my land, consisting of 132.78 acres, along the Kellys Ford area of the Rappahannock River to Faii- quier County for a park area, provided it is not flooded out by the Salem Church dam. We hope that you will oppose the unnecessary Salem Ohurch dam. Very truly yours, Mrs. Richard Rogue. Mr. Jol~Es. Thank you; thank you very much. The next witness will be Mrs. Beulah Setti, landowner of Remington, Va. STATEMENT OP BEULAH SETTI, LANDOWNER, REMINGTON, VA. Mrs. Snrri. Mr. Chairman, I am here to speak not only for myself, but on behalf of my friends and neighbors, who, for many years have invested long hours of toil and many dollars on their farmland along the banks of the Rappahannnock River. These farms are, and will continue to be passed on from one generation to the next. I have spent 25 years of hard wark farming this land, and, as you know, farming today isn't very profitable, but it is a good life. My twin sons are following in my footsteps, showing at 13 years of age the same love and respect for the land. They spend many hours pre- paring the soil for planting, caring for the crops, and gathering in the harvest. If our choice farmland is taken from us, how can we continue to farm?' We realize that we do not own the river, that it is a God-given nat- ural resource. We do not wish to imply that we object to others sharing its many benefits. We do, however, object to otir best land being taken from us to construct a masterpiece that many people do not want and do not need. For many years we have been told by experts other than the Army Corps of Engineers that several smaller dams along the river will be of more benefit to all concerned than one large dam at the pro- posed site, and with considerably less of the taxpayers' money. In some of the reports on this project I read that woodland can be acquired for $60 an acre and farmland can be bought for $124 an acre. this is not true in our area, where land used for cutting pulpwood brings over $600 per acre, with the owner still in possession of his land. Farmland along the river, in a good location, will bring $1,000 an acre for building sites. PAGENO="0291" 277 At the last meeting which I attended here, it was brought out that the dam would benefit the oyster industry by reducing the salinity of the water. I do not question the truth of this statement, but I do object to the inference that the oyster industry should benefit at the sacrifice of the farming industry. Perhaps if the Army Corps of Engineers are looking for a worth- while project to undertake with the taxpayers' money, they can devise some way to clean up the Potomac to make it more suitable for recrea- tional facilities. This appears to be an impossible task, hut I am sure that with the expert skill and vast store of knowledge of these gentle- men, they can accomplish the task. Mr. CLAtTSEN (presiding). Thank you. The next witness will `be Mrs. Lena M. Clifford, of Silver Spring, Md., and while the lady is coming up to the witness chair, the proced- ure is to admonish everyone present that we cannot have any demon- stration, even though I am sure you are enthusiastically supporting the witness, but this is a committee and the committee does follow that rule. Sometimes I get excited myself. You may proceed, Mrs. Clifford. STATEMENT OF MRS. LENA M. CLIFFORD, SILVER SPRING, MD. Mrs. `CLIFFoim. Mr. Chairman, as joint owners of land which would be affected by the proposed Salem Church Reservoir project on the Rappahaiinock River, Va., we wish to register our objections to the plan as proposed. Our property is known as the Horsepen Run mine tract in the Hartwood district of Stafford County. It is composed of 300 acres, more or less. Our objection to this project is based on the following points. 1. Under the proposed plan, our property would be flooded or other- wise rendered unusable to us. Our understanding of proposals of this type is that the frontage along the reservoir area would be reserved for public recreation. Such use would require the acquisition of the entire tract of land. This land was purchased for our own health, rec- reation, and income purposes. Three generations of our family have enjoyed the near wilderness conditions which now exist. We do not be- lieve that the announced purposes of this project justify the destruc- tion of woodland such as this. 2. The flood history of this river does not appear to be severe enough to require the expenditure of Federal funds on a project of such large proportions to solve the problem. It must be pointed out that ex- perts in the field agree that small and numerous dams at strategic locations are far more effective in conserving water and providing flood control than can be accomplished by one large dam. Also, land in its natural state of growth, such as ours is, is useful in controlling the runoff of rainwater, and thus reduces the possibility of flooding. 3. It is our belief that private power interests are quite capable of developing adequate power sources to supply all present and future electrical requirements for this area, including new industrial develop- ment. This has been continually demonstrated by the Virginia Electric Power Co. In 1966, the company completed a million-kilowatt plant at Mount Storm which serves this `area. Future plans of the company affecting this area include a nuclear powerplant in Louisa County PAGENO="0292" 278 which is expected to be in operation by 1974, supplying 4 million kilowatts. All this has been done and will be done without the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. It is also our understanding that the Federal Government is not in the business of producing power in areas of development and expansion such as that adjacent to this project. 4. Although water supply is important, the anticipated benefits from this phase appear to be small when compared to the enormity of the project. 5. The expected benefits from recreational development indicate this as the primary purpose of the project. The flooding of over 20,000 acres of land would destroy a natural recreation area for many who now camp, boat, canoe, hunt, or fish in this region. While providing fishing in unspoiled surroundings and some of the finest `white water" canoe- ing on the eastern seaboard, the Rappahannock River remains one of the only unpolluted rivers in the East. When considering the untold number of acres of water already available for boating in the Vir- ginia coastal area, the flooding of additional acreage certainly does not appear to be necessary. 6. Our property has produced a good crop of marketable timber in the past and can be expected to continue to do so. A recent timber survey and a forester's report have provided us with a program of timber management for our woodiland which will assure the continued productivity of this property. In addition, this land is the site of an old surface gold mine. No mining operations are currently being con- ducted, but prospects exist for the production of gold or other minerals. Flooding of this tract will destroy the usefulness of these natural resources. 8. This area is rich in the history of this country. It is inappropriate, at a time when historical areas are rapidly disappearing in the pwth of progress, to destroy some of the last remaining traces of roads and military works connected with the Civil War battles of the Wilderness and Ohancellorsville. 9. In light of the foregoing points, the only possible conclusions to be reached are: (a) The size of the project is out of line with the requirements for flood control and water supply. (b) The need for Government-produced electrical power does not exist. (c) The lack of recreation facilities has not been established. (d) The project will do nothing to conserve water, land, timber, wildlife, or any other natural resource. (e) The expenditure of the estimated millions of dollars for a project which will provide only minor returns to the taxpayers who will finance it will add another fiscal burden to the Govern- ment at a time when it can least afford it. We urge you to abandon this project as not in the best interest of the property owners `and the public in general. Mr. JONES (presiding). Thank you, Mrs. Clifford. Mrs. CLIFFORD. That is the end of my written statement, but I would like to take exception to Representative Scott's statement about his questioiiiiaire. PAGENO="0293" 279 If he did send out 130,000 and got back 13,000 of which 8,300 or 80 percent approved the dam, he has a very small percentage of his constituency approving it. He said he had 83 percent, but that comes down to about 8.3 percent that he has. I would also like to make the statement that $60 for woodland is incorrect, that woodland is nearer to $300 to $600 and that farmland is `about $1,000 an aore. Thank you very much. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much for your fine statement. Next we will hear from Mrs. Panalee Ikari, of Rockville, Md., rep- resenting the Canoe Cruiser's Association of Greater Washington, D.C. STATEMENT OP MRS. PANALEtE IKARI, THE CANOE CRUISER'S ASSOCIATION OP GREATER WASHINGTON, D.C. Mrs. IKARI. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking today not only in behalf of the Canoe Cruiser's Association of Greater Washington, D.C., but as a spokesman for the Coastal Canoeists of Virginia, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, and many private citizens who have personally contacted me on this matter. We want to express our appreciation to you for providing me the opportunity to speak again in opposition to the construction of the Salem Church Dam as contemplated. We want to reaffirm our position taken last September when I spoke before the Senate Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Flood Control, Rivers and Harbors, and respectfully request that those views be included in this record. We felt the committee would be interested in a report on the trip on the Rappahannock to which we had invited the Senators, their staffs, and other interested individuals when I last testified. We have scheduled another trip on June 30 and we would be delighted to have you join us. We were gratified and surprised at the response to our earlier invitation. First, more than 25 boats participated in the trip down the river- and there have been a number of subsequent trips. Second, was the response to the newspaper article in the Washington Post reporting on that trip last October. This publicity provided opportunity for a number of private citizens to contact me concerning this matter. I am sorry that during that time I did not document all of the names of people or their numbers; more than 50 telephoned on this matter after that notice appeared in the paper. I was amazed at their number and interest. The point is that not only are organizations, such as those recrea- tional groups which I represent today, actively canoeing on the river and enjoying the natural beauty of this part of the country, but there are many private individuals who are not aflhiated with any organi- zation who visit the area and appreciate its wilderness and historic qualities, now extant, which would be lost with the construction of the dam. As small voices, we hope you will seriously consider our views. Thank you for your kindness. Mr. JONES. Thank you, very much. Next we have Mr. Arthur T. Wright, conservation consultant rep- resenting the Wilderness Society of Washington, D.C. PAGENO="0294" 280 STATEMENT OF ARTHUR T. WRIGHT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I am Arthur T. Wright of 213 Com- monwealth Avenue, Alexandria, and Flint Hill, Va. I am a conserva- tion consultant, and, on this occasion, represent the Wilderness Society whose national headquarters is at 729 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. The Wilderness Society is a national nonprofit conservation organi- zation of approximately 40,000 members, many hundreds of whom are Virginians. The society is engaged in a broad spectrum of conser- vation education work related to the preservation of American wild- land heritage, one aspect of which is to weigh the impact of proposed dams on the land and its people. The society strenuously opposes the construction of the Salem Church Dam on the Rappahannock River in the State of Virginia. There are many reasons why this committee should not authorize the construction of this dam, including these: 1. Thousands of acres of choice, unspoiled pastoral and semi- wild lands will be irrevocably inundated. Time will prove that the loss of this priceless land will not be compensated for by the water benefits of the dam, especially in view of population growth and the people's need for the land. The State can ill-afford the loss of approximately 28,000 acres of good land to this costly and un- necessary dam. There is no urgent need that a high dam be built in this location now or in the near future, especially when reason- able alternatives are available to meet the area's water needs. Such alternatives include the construction of additional "farm ponds" with floodwater storage and recreational features in the upper basin. 2. Our country cannot continue to disregard the harmful im- pact upon the land and its people which is so-called economic prog- ress and development projects often have. Lessons of self-disci- pline and self-restraint in meeting our needs and making our de- mands upon the land have yet to be learned. Hopefully, we will learn this lesson in time to save our country from virtually com- plete despoliation. It seems incredible that a fragile, highly perish- able resource such as the remaining wild, free-flowing stretches of the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers so near centers of popula- tion might not merit the protection they deserve, within a State or National Scenic Rivers Preservation System. 3. The alleged recreational benefits of the dam are very likely overstated, because drawdowns may well occur during periods of potential maximum public use. Recreational benefits also are di- minished by the very real loss of important natural river recrea- tional opportunities, such as canoe travel, which exist now. 4. The inundation of the land will destroy for all time a di- minishing reserve of productive wildlife habitat-a loss which the State can ill-afford. The significantly important resource has eco- nomic, esthetic, and recreational values which should be preserved for the health and well-being of our people. 5. The loss of productive: farmland also will be very damaging, especially when it is considered that the crop surpluses of former PAGENO="0295" 281 years are no longer with us and that we face instead an expanding population, much of which is hungry and ill-clothed. 6. The Corps of Enginers' cost-benefit ratio takes into account only the benefits of the dam and in no way indicates the present and future costs inherent in the loss of the land and in the loss of the continuing uses to which it will be put by the people of Vir- ginia. The only cost the corps appears to understand is the dollar cost involved-it appears to have little or no understanding of the cost of other less tangible values upon which the quality of human life is based. This is why it is ill-equipped to come to the Congress with a balanced judgment of the impact of its proposals-why it is so important that this committee also consider the views of in- terested persons other than corps representatives regarding the merit or lack of merit of this project. The Wilderness Society respectfully requests that this committee not include the Salem Church Darn in the omnibus rivers, harbors, and flood control bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Next we will hear from Mr. Robert Waidrom, representing the Sierra Clubs of Washington. STATEMENT OP ROBERT WALDROM, SIERRA CLUBS OP WAShINGTON Mr. WALDROM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking rather extemporaneously. My name is Bob Waldrom, I am representing the Sierra Club on the Salem Church Reservoir. The Sierra Clubs are a nationwide conservation organization com- posed of some 60,000 members. They are individually and collectively dedicated to the preservation and enjoyment of our Nation's scenic resources. We appreciate this opportunity to make our views known on the Salem Church Reservoir. I presented this statement before the Senate hearings last September. I will recap some of those points briefly. At a February meeting of our board of directors in San Francisco, we passed this resolution concerning the Salem Church Reservoir: Because of significant natural areas found along the Rappahannock River in northern Virginia, the Sierra Clubs believe these rivers should be kept in the present free-flowing and essentially unpolluted condition. Consequently, the Club opposed the construction of the Salem Church Darn which would be destructive of the scenic, recreational, fish and wildlife values of the area. Some of the points I raised in my statement before the Senate Pub- lic Works Committee last fall I would like to allude to here. I question some of the benefits, the claimed benefits of the project, the first one being recreation. It has been pointed out here several times today that 41 percent of the claimed benefits are accrued to recreation, although there are sev- eral nearby ponds offering flat water recreation possibilities. The Potomac and Rapidan estuaries are very close by and of course the Chesapeake and Atlantic Ocean provide similar types of recreation. The Army Corps of Engineers in their Senate Document 37 quoted PAGENO="0296" 282 about the recreation dollar value of present recreational use of t.he Rappahannock and Rapidan. If I understand this correctly, the Bureau of Active Recreation is stating the experience of floating the Rappahannock each day as equal to $3. If the canoeists know of this, I think it would take more than $3 to persuade more than us to give up a day, much less a lifetime of canoeing which would be forfeited by the construction of the dam. In economics, an accepted method of measuring the real cost of a project is to calculate the cost of replacing the values foregone. We wonder what would be :the cost of supplying the values of a free- flowing Rappahannock. I should think the cost would be much greater than the claimed benefits if the dam were in. The second point I mentioned last September was of water quality. It appears to us that this is a rather cosmetic approach, to a much deeper problem than water pollution. You cannot flush it downstream. The problem should be approached at its inception where the problem begins and not try to put it in someone else's jurisdiction. Mr. JONES. Has that not been an integral part of abating pollution? Mr. WALDROM. I understand the clean water which would be stored behind the Salem Church Reservoir would be used as an augmenta- tion to improve the water quality downstream. Mr. Jo~s. You say it would nOt contribute to the degradation of the part of the stream reaching at lower stages. Mr. WALDROM. I think the point is, Mr. Chairman, there is some foreign material `that perhaps should be cleaned off at its source. Mr. Jo~s. Well, of course, one compliments the other. I do not see that it is a novel idea, that it does not contribute to the dilution of the stream below. Mr. WALDROM. I am not suggesting it would not increase the tur- bidity. I would suggest it dilutes it. Mr. JONES. You may proceed. Mr. WALDROM. Thank you. I understand in connection with the pollution problem that exists in Fredericksburg, that area of Virginia is taking steps to curb it, to prevent, to lessen the pollution load of the river by attacking the problem at its source. Another point I made last September had to do w~ith water supply and flood control aspects, the benefits of the project. It seems to me as an area resident that a lot of public support upon which this project has been built has accrued from the advertising of the benefits from water supply and flood control, that these really only total I think somewhere around 7 percent of the total benefits. A fourth point was that of salinity control. I am not about to dispute the argument that this increases the oyster fishery down- stream, decreases the `agriculture industry upstream. I think a point could be made for the ecological ramifications of this project. There are very sensitive forms that breed in estuaries that depend on fresh and saline waters. These are the reasons I gave last fall for this Sierra Clubs questioning of the project benefits. Since that time additional information has come to our attention which causes us to again question the rationale of the project. This is the Vepco reservoir. PAGENO="0297" 283 Mr. JONES. That what? Mr. WALDROM. The Virginia Electric Power Co. Reservoir which will be located less than 30 miles away at the Fredericksburg, 11,000- acre pond which could be used or will be used and is planned to be used for public recreation. This, it seems to us, takes a great deal of the load, the flat water recreation demand load off of the Salem Church Reservoir. A second point is that, as a result c~f the resolutions passed by the Virginia State Legislature, the University of Virginia has a plan- fling team investigating the scenic rivers program for the State of Virginia, and that they are giving very strong consideration to the possible inclusion of the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers. A third point is that many communities which would have bene- fited from the Salem Church Dam are now in the process of construct- ing their main supply facilities and it seems to me this further obviates the Salem Church project. These three reasons sharpen our criticism, and again we urge this committee that the Rapidan and Rappahannock Rivers be kept in their present condition. Mr. JONES. Thank you, very much. I can see where the Sierra Clubs have employed a very talented young man. Thank you again. Next is Robert T. Dennis, executive director of the Potomac Basin Center, Washington, D.C. STATEMENT OP ROBERT T. DE1~HIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OP THE POTOMAC BASIN CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I am Robert T. Dennis, executive director of the Potomac Basin Center, Washington, D.C. The center was established last August to provide information and general staff services to citizens and citizen organizations interested in Potomac River Basin natural resources matters. We thus do not have a direct operational interest in the Rappahan- nock River or the Salem Church proposal. We can, however, provide information which might bear upon the deliberatons of this committee. Specifically, the Commonwealth c~f Virginia is currently making a "scenic rivers" survey of the Rappahannock~Rapidan River system, as part of a statewide study directed by House Joint Resolution 192 of the 1968 Virginia General Assembly. The Potomac Basin Center is providing `funds `for the House Joint Resolution 162 project-the committee will note that the legislation carries no appropriation, but rather authorizes Virginia's Commission of `Outdoor Recreation "to accept and expend gifts, grants, and donations from any and all sources * * * ~ Because of our work with Virginia citizens, particularly those inter- ested in the Shenandoah, we were aware of the potential for financing the study through public subscription-and undertook the job. I might add for the record that, as of last Tuesday, 13 individuals and four organizations have contributed $7,865.08 of the $10,000 required by the outdoor recreation commission. Most of these sources have indicated special interest in the Rappahannock-Rapidan system; the degree of that interest is well demonstrated by the amount donated. PAGENO="0298" 284 At any rate, the Virginia scenic rivers study is in progress. It is berng `conducted on a statewide basis by the Department of Planning, School of Architecture, University of Virginia. Study staff have recently been on the Rappahannock. It would seem logical to defer action on the Salem Church proposal until the Rappahannock scenic rivers study is available. I am sure this feeling would be shared by those who have contributed to the study- and perhaps by the general assembly which approved House Joint Resolution 162 only 3 months ago. Mr. Chairman, 41 percent of Salem Church benefits are attributed to outdoor recreation; it is more an outdoor recreation project than anything else. Yet the Salem Church proposal has come under intense fire because of its impact on. existing recreational and environmental values. Further, since preparation of the corps proposal, the Virginia Electric & Power Co. has announced plans to construct, a few miles away on the North Anna River, an 11,000-acre reservoir which would be available for public use. Perhaps due to these facts and conditions, I detect growing question in Richmond as to validity of the 41-percent recreation benefit figure. The scenic rivers study-due to be completed November 1, 1969- should help in analysis of this figure. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to make these comments. (House Joint Resolution No. 162 follows:) (Agreed to by the. House of Delegates, March 7, 1968.) (Agreed to by the Senate, March 9, 1968.) HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 62-DmECTING THE COMMISSION OF OUTDOOR REC- REATION TO STUDY WAYS AND MEANS OF PRESERVING VIRGINIA'S SCENIC RnTRs AND STREAMS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL LAWS Whereas, a number of Virginia's rivers, streams. runs and waterways, includ- ing their shores and immediate environs, possess great natural and pastoral beauty, and should be preserved in their natural condition in order to assure con- tinued public enjoyment of their scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historic and other values; and Whereas, the increase in population of inhabited areas `and industrial develop- ments in many parts of Virginia may impair or `threaten the great natural and pastoral beauty of certain of the Commonwealth's scenic rivers and streams or tions thereof, possibly leading to federal interest and programs to protect them; now, therefore, be it Resolved, by the House of Delegates, the senate of Virginia concurring. That the Commission of Outdoor Recreation is directed to make a study of Virginia's rivers, streams, runs and waterways `to identify those which possess great na- tural and pastoral beauty, and to study and recommend ways and means of pro- te~ting and preserving these scenic Virginia rivers and streams by State, regional, local and private cooperation or other action. All agencies of the State shall assist the Commission in its study upon request. In making this study, the Commission shall consult and work closely with the Division of Water Resources of the De- partment of Conservation and Economic Development and with the State Water Control Board. The Commission is authorized to accept and expend gifts, grants and dona- tions from any and all sources for the purpose of carrying out its study. The Commission shall complete its study and report to the Governor and General Assembly by November one, nineteen hundred sixty-nine. Mr. DENNIS. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you. Mr. JONEs. Thank you, Mr. Dennis. Mr. DuVal, please. PAGENO="0299" 285 STATEMENT OP OLIVE L. DUVAL II, A MEMBER OP THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OP DELEGATES Mr. DUVAL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Clive L. DuVal II, of McLean, Va. I am a member of the Virginia House of Delegates representing the Fairfax-Falls Church area. I do not live near the Rappahannock, but the river is so rich in history, so magnificent in its scenery, that its fate must concern all Virginians and, in truth, all Americans. I, therefore, appreciate very much the opportunity to make this statement regarding the proposed Salem Church dam and reservoir, which would destroy a long stretch of the Rappahaunock between Fredericksburg and Remington. The Salem Church project is con- troversial, and testimony by proponents and opponents at this hearing should provide basis for a balanced evaluation of it. I understand that the Salem Church dam to be built on the Rappa- hannock about 6 miles above Fredericksburg would be one of the high- est in the East, rising 263 feet above sea level at its highest point, with flood storage capacity to an elevation of 250.5 feet. Maximum height above the riverbed would be 203 feet. Cost of construction and related recreation facilities is estimated by the Corps of Engineers at $79.5 million, but in view of rising land and other prices, actual costs would almost certainly run well over $100 million, most of which would be paid by the Federal Government. Water backed up behind the darn would create a lake 37 miles long flooding 21,300 acres. The Rappahan- nock would be submerged for 26 miles, and the Rapidan for 27 miles above the. dam. Lost. would be historic sites along the Rappahannock, such as Kelly's Ford, marking engagements during the War Between the States; lost also would be most of the Fredericksburg-Waterloo Canal built in the early 1800's and still amazingly well preserved; many miles of wild and unspoiled river flowing through undeveloped and magnificant country; fine small-mouth bass fishing and canoeing along scenic, rock-filled rapids. I also note in the District Engineer's report the statement at page 43 that the proposed reservoir would have a "fluctuating water level." During average summer draw-downs, this would mean, according to opponents of the project, that thousands of acres of what is now flat, rich farmland below Remington would annu- ally reappear as mudflats. This catalog of problems is set forth to demonstrate that the Salem Church project may carry with it not only the benefits set forth in the Engineer's report., but also serious disadvantages, not one of which, so far as I can find, is even mentioned in that report. A decision of whether to proceed with the Salem Church Dam or to seek some other alternative clearly requires a recognition and weighing of the dis- advantage.s of the project as against the prospective benefits. So far as benefits are concerned, no one questions the right of Fred- ericksburg and other jurisdictions along the Rappahannock to a suffi- cient water supply over the years to come. But equally obviously, an adequate supply could be assured by a much smaller darn or dams. In fact, Fredericksburg has recently decided to build a dam on Motts Run at a cost of $806,000, which will store 1.3 billion gallons of water and will take care of the city's water needs until close to the year 2000. Further, I understand that the County of Spotsylvania is proceeding PAGENO="0300" 286 with plans for a small dam on the Ni River. This project will satisfy that county's water needs for many years and apparently will also provide and additional source of water for Fredericksburg. In this connection, the District Engineers' report makes it clear that water supply is a very junior justification for the Salem Church high dam proposal-carrying less than 5 percent of the necessary economic justification for the Salem Church project. Flood control is even less important, accounting for 2 percent of the average annual benefits, while water quality control represents about 8 percent of estimated annual benefits. The Army Engineers could not, therefore, justify the huge expense of this project without relying on the estimated annual benefits from: Hydroelectric power to be created-23 percent of total benefits- although more than adequate power for the entire area to be served is soon to be provided by private enterprise through the huge Vepco plant which will be constructed on the nearby North Anna River. Salinity control which it is hoped, would improve the oyster crop downstream-20 percent-although to provide this estimate the Engi- neers were forced to rely on a "100-year economic analysis" and to disregard a variety of other economic factors which 50 or 100 years from now might well have a controlling impact on the value of oysters. Public recreation on the flat water lake above the Salem Church Dam-41 percent of total benefits-although the above-mentioned Vepco dam on the North Anna River will provide a. huge 11,000-acre flat water recreational resource in the area without cost to the Govern- ment, and other such flat water resources are easily accessible on the lower R.appahannock, lower Potomac and Chesapeake Bay. Assuming, however, that the Salem Church Dam and Reservoir would produce certain benefits, in terms of water supply, flood con- trol and additional flat water recreation, the basic question, as I see it, is: Do these benefits justify their enormously high cost not only in dollars but in terms of the destruction of a truly unique asset, a historic and scenic stretch of a beautiful river? My own answer to this ques- tion is "No." As I have already pointed out, private enterprise and Virginia municipalities have recently taken significant actions to pro- vide large resources of power, water supply and recreation in the area to be served by the Salem Church Dam. Under these circumstances, most of the engineers' economic justifications for the Salem Church project collapses. With the Federal budget in a continuing deficit po- sition, action by the Congress to commit the Goveimment to spend up- ward of $100 million for a dam which at this time certainly cannot be shown to be clearly necessary would appear to be fiscally unwise and most unsound. I respectfully request this Subcommittee and the House Public Works Committee not to approve the Salem Church high dam project, as proposed by the Chief of Engineers. I want to thank you very much again for giving me this second opportunity to appear. Mr. Jo~s. Thank you. It was a pleasure to have you. I will place in the record at this point letters and statements concerning the Rappa- hannock River and Salem Church projects. (The information follows:) PAGENO="0301" 287 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER Co., Richmond, Va~, June 20, 1968. Hon. ROBERT E. JONES, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN JONES: We understand that there may be some misunder- standing on the part of the memhers of the Public Works Committee concerning the fact that Vepco did not appear in person to oppose the power aspects of the Salem Church Project during the hearing today. Since on September 21, 1967, we presented testimony in full before the Senate Committee on Public Works and knowing of your busy schedule, we felt that in order to conserve time our statement would best be submitted to the committee by maiL We are enclosing a copy of the statement which we presented to the Senate Oommittee at their bearings last year, as well as the statement we mailed to your committee earlier today. Should you or any member of your committee need additional information, we would be most happy to appear before you. Yours very truly, E. B. CRUTCHFIELD. STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER Co. ON THE PROPOSED SALEM CHURCH PROJECT BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON FLOOD CONTROL AND RIVERS AND HAR- BORS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WoRKs, JUNE 19, 1968 On September 21, 1967, I submitted a statement on the proposed Salem Church Project before this committee on behalf of the Virginia Electric and Power Company. In the nine months which have clasped since that time, several con- ditions on the Virginia Electric and Power Company's system which have a bearing on the Salem Church Project have changed, and I appreciate this oppor- tunity to bring our earlier statement up-to-date. In the earlier statement, we opposed the inclusion of power generating facili- ties at Salem Church because it was unnecessary and not economically justified. That basic economic fact has not changed, but has rather become more apparent by subsequent developments. In the last nine months, we have announced plans for the installation of an 813,000 kilowatt nuclear generating facility at our North Anna site on the North Anna River between Fredericksburg tnd Richmond for service in 1974. On June 13, we announced plans for the installation of a 1,000,000 kilowatt pumped storage hydroelectric facility on the Caifpasture River near Goshen, Virginia, for service in 1975. This project has been named Marble Valley. The announcement of these two generating projects totaling 1,813,000 kilo- watts of capacity is just a part of our continual planning of capability additions to the Vepco system to provide the facilities necessary for reliable and economical service to our customers. These economical additions to the power supply in Virginia further emphasizes how wasteful it would be to include substantially higher cost power in the Salem Church Project. On October 19, 1967, the Council of the City of Fredericksburg passed a resolu- tion agreeing to purchase our Einbrey dam and reservoir after we retired the hydroelectric facilities at that location. The water storage capabilities at Em'brey will supply the daily demands of the City of Fredericksburg's water system through the pear 1980 with no changes in the facilities. I would like to reemphasize the fact that the Virginia Electric and Power Company is perfectly capable, technically and financially, of supplying the power needs of its service area, and intends to ~ontinue the reliable and economic serv- ice in the future which it has always supplied in the past. There is still no justi- fication for power to be included in any plans which m~y be approved for Salem Church. We are on record in support of the Salem Church Project to the extent the proposed project will economically provide necessary flood control, low flow augmentation, municipal and industrial water supply, and recreation. We do, however, oppose the inclusion of hydroelectric generating facilities in the devel- opment. Thus we believe that the public interest Would best be served by autho- rizing construction of the low level reservoir (Plan No. 6) which provides those essential public benefits that can be provided by no other means at the least cost and with the minimum amount of land removed from other beneficial usage. Thank you again for providing us the opportunity to restate the position which we took in 1967. PAGENO="0302" 288 STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER Co. ON THE PROPOSED SALEM CHURCH PROJECT BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEES ON FLOOD CONTROL AND RIVERS AND HAR- BORS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, SEPTEMBER 21, 1967 Mr. Ohairman and Members of the Committee my name is E. B. Orutchfield. I am Senior Vice President of Virginia Electric and Power Company. I appre- ciate the opportunity to be heard here today on what is a matter of vital impor- tance to my Company and to help the people of the area we serve. Virginia Electric and Power company generates and distributes electric Power to 924,000 customers throughout a 32,000 square mile area that extends over two-thirds of Virginia and parts of North Carolina and West Virginia. We have consistently supported sound development of the resources of our service area whether by private enterprise, or by state or federal government. We are on record in support of the Salem Church Project to the extent the proposed project will economically provide necessary flood control, low flow augmentation, municipal and industrial water supply, and recreation. We do, however, oppose the inclusion of hydroelectric generating facilities in the de- velopment. We have given considerable thought and study to the recommended plan for development of the Salem Church site and believe the inclusion of power generating facilities is unnecessary and is not economically justified. If these power facilities were constructed and the rates charged for the power generated were based on the unrealistic figures as to the power cost given in the Corps report, it would amount to a hidden subsidy to a special group of electric con- suiners paid for by all taxpayers. 1. THERE IS NO NEED FOR POWER GENERATING FACILITIES AT SALEM CHURCH The Salem Church site is located well within the boundaries of the Vepco trans- mission system. This system is an extensive network of 115 kv, 230 kv and 500 kv lines with strong interconnections t.o the systems of all neighboring utilities. It provides a ready means for exchanging power for reliability and economy op- eration. The system, which experienced a 1967 peak load of 3,499,000 kilowatts, is supplied by 4,135,000 kilowatts of steam and hydro generation at eleven strategic locations. The fact that this network has withstood the sudden loss of nearly one million kilowatts of generation without loss of service to a single customer attests to its strength and reliability. In addition, we now have projects under construction, or authorized for con- struction, that will add 2,495,000 kilowatts of generating capacity to our system through 1972 and expect to add to this a unit of 800,000 to 1,000,000 kilowatts in 1974. This construction program includes three very economical units which will be supplied with nuclear fueL We are prepared to meet the present and future needs for power in Northern Virginia, including the Salem Church area, as demonstrated by the recent con- struction of our 500 kv system and purchase in 1962 of a generating station site in Stafford County that can be developed to provide capacity of morethan 2,000,- 000 kilowatts. It is clear that Salem Church power is not needed to satisfy the power needs of the area. 2. THE INCLUSION OF POWER IN THE SALEM CHURCH PROJECT IS NOT ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED The economic criteria which the Corps of Engineers applied to formulate the project are those specified in Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, entitled, 4'Policies, Standards, and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Re- view of Plans for Use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources". Under this criteria a showing must be made that there is no more economical means, evaluated on a comparable basis, of accomplishing the same purpose or purposes which would be precluded from development if the plan were under- taken. In its showing that the power feature of Salem Church meets this stand- ard, the Corps of Engineers accepted the determinations of the Federal Power Commission which considered only one alternative, a base load steam station. The proper alternative to Salem Church peaking power is another form of peak- ing generation. Had the Corps used combustion turbine generation, a modern low cost peaking generation source, as the alternative, the criteria set forth in PAGENO="0303" 289 Senate Document No. 91 would not have been met and power could not have been included as a project purpose. The estimated incremental cost of providing 89,000 kilowatts of power at Salem Church is $17,608,000, according to the Corps report. Of this, only 81,300 kilowatts would be dependable initially, and this would decrease with time. By contrast, an 89,000 kilowatt combustion turbine installation we have under construction will cost only $7,500,000, and the full 89,000 kilowatts will be dependable initially and throughout the life of the facility. While investment cost is a large factor in determining the proper economic alternative, annual operation, maintenance and fuel costs also have an influence. Peaking facilities on a large system such as the Virginia Electric and Power Company are required for load carrying purposes a relatively small number of hours each year, thus minimizing the fuel cost advantage which peaking hydro would have over combustion turbines. With all factors considered, a combustion turbine installation on our system would be a much better economic choice than peaking hydro power similar to that contemplated at Salem Church. The use of a 100 year amortization for Salem Church power is not reasonable. In the past, 50 years has been considered by the Federal Power Commission to be a reasonable life for hydroelectric generating facilities. Technological develop- ments are on the power generating horizon today which are showing the potential for obsoleting many of the power generating means now employed. Had the Corps used the normal 50 year amortization period, the annual costs of the project would increase and the benefit-to-cost ratio would decrease. In the Salem Church Report the Corps has accepted the Federal Power Com- mission evaluation of the power which would be produced with construction of the recommended plan. In this evaluation, capacity has been valued at $18.50 per kilowatt per year and energy at 2.0 mills per kilowatthour. These unit values applied to Salem Church produce an annual power value of $1,706,000. On this basis, the unit value of energy is found to be 11.19 mills per kilowatthour. This is a gross overstatement of the value of Salem Church power. Our larger industrial customers and municipalities served at wholesale enjoy rates of 7.1 to 9.0 mills per kilowattbour with an average of 8.1 mills per kilowatthour for the largest twenty customers, which includes five municipalities. Our present rate to all R.E.A. Cooperatives is 7.5 mills per kilowatthour. These rates include all costs of generation, transmission and terminal facilities, including property, gross re- ceipts and federal income taxes and they are considerably below the 11.19 mill per kilowatthour value of power used in the Corps report. The Corps states that the annual cost of power would be $1,028,800 for an average annual output of 152,500,000 kilowatthours over the 100 year life of the project. This will amount to a unit rate of 6.75 mills per kilowatthour, but if present long term interest rates of 5.0 percent paid by the Federal Government were used instead of the un- realistic 3'/8 percent used in the Corps' report and a 50 year project life had been used rather than the 100 year life the cost of power would be at least 10 mills per kilowatthour, without consideration of the tax losses to the federal, state and local governments. Even the Corps' report recognizes that the greatest return per dollar of invest- ment is obtained without power for the high level reservoir (See plans 7 and 10). The Corps' report also recognizes that the addition of power to the high level reservoir reduces the overall benefit to cost ratio from 2.2 to 1 to 2.1 to 1. For the low level reservoir, without power (Plan No. 6) the report shows a calculated benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.2 to 1, the same as the high level reservoir, without power, (Plan No. 7), (See Table F-i, Alternative Plans of Development-Project and Economic Data). The low level reservoir produces the same annual flood control benefits, the same water supply benefits, the same water quality control benefits, the same salinity control benefits and costs $12,740,000 less than the high level reservoir. Only recreation benefits are reduced by construction of the low level reservoir. But recreation benefits attributed to' the low level reservoir are still substantial, amounting to $1,950,000 per year. Thus it seems to us that the public interest would best be served by authoriz- ing construction of the low level reservoir (Plan No. 0) which provides those es- sential public benefits that can be provided by no other means at the least cost and with the minimum amount of land removed from other beneficial usage. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to state our position regarding the proposed Salem Church Project. PAGENO="0304" TABLE F-i-ALTERNATIVE PLANS OF DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT AND ECONOMIC DATA ILegend: SC-Salinity control; P(C)-Power, conventional; P(PS)-Power, pumped storagej PlanKo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PROJECT DATA Purpose in addition to flood control, water supply, water quality control, and recreation None None None None SC SC SC SC Elevations, mean sea level: Salem Church: Top of closed spiliway gates 232 237. 0 250. 5 268 232 237 250.5 268 Maximum conservation pool 213 220. 0 240. 0 260 213 220 240. 0 260 Minimum conservation pool 152 179.5 222.5 251 148 176 221.0 250 Fredericksburg, crest of ungated spillway (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Storage at Salem Church, acre-feet: Flood control 256, 000 256, 000 256,000 256, 000 256, 000 256, 000 256, 000 256, 000 Low flow regulation aod power 300, 000 300,000 300,000 300, 000 314,000 314, 000 314, 000 314 000 Inactive 82,000 163,000 492,000 1,060,000 74,000 148,000 478,000 1,046,000 Power at Salem Church: Installed capacity, kilowatt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Average annual dependable capacity, kilowatt Average annual generation, million kilowatt-hours ECONOMIC DATA - Investment, $1,000: Salem Church $43, 180 $46, 453 $59, 199 $81, 889 $43, 180 $46, 453 $59, 199 $81, 889 Fredericksburg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 43, 180 46, 453 59, 199 81, 889 43, 180 46, 453 59, 199 81, 889 Average annual charges, $1,000: Interest 1,349 1,452 1,850 2,559 1,349 1,452 1,850 2,559 Amortization 65 70 89 124 65 70 89 124 Operation and maintenance 406 435 457 540 406 435 457 540 Major replacements 78 80 87 96 78 80 87 96 Land productivity loss 34 38 55 100 34 38 55 100 Total 1,932 2,075 2,538 3,419 1,932 2,075 2,538 3,419 Average annual benefit, $1,000: Flood control 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 Water supply 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 Water quality control 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 Recreation 2, 430 2, 800 3, 560 4, 000 1, 480 1, 950 3, 100 3, 630 Salinity control 0 0 0 0 1,490 1,490 1,490 1,490 Power 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3, 5343,904 4, 664 5, 104 4, 074 4, 544 5, 694 6, 224 Average annual net benefits, $1,000 1, 602 1, 829 2, 126 1, 685 2, 142 2, 469 3, 156 2, 805 Benefit/costratlo 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.5 2.1 2.2 2,2 1.8 PAGENO="0305" Plan No 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 PROJECT DATA j.1 Purpose in addition to flood control, water supply, water quality control, and recreation SC, P(C) SC, P(C) SC, P(C) SC, P(PS) SC, P(PS) SC, P(PS) SC, P(PS) SC, P(PS) SC, P(PS) ~ Elevations, mean sea level: Salem Church: Top of closed spillway gates 243 250. 5 268 243 250. 5 268 243. 0 250. 5 268 Maximum conservation pool 230 240. 0 260 230. 240. 0 260 230. 0 240. 0 260 Minimum conservation pool 180 200. 0 220 193 217. 0 248 193. 0 217. 0 248 Fredericksburg, crest of ungated spiliway 75 76. 5 80 98 96. 5 93 109. 5 104. 0 102 ~, Storage at Salem Church, acre-feet: o Flood control 256,000 256,000 256,000 256,000 256,000 256,000 256,000 256,000 256,000 Low flow regulation and power 435, 000 517, 000 898, 000 369, 000 369, 000 369, 000 369, 000 369, 000 369, 000 Inactive 165,000 275,000 462,000 231,000 423,000 991,000 231,000 423,000 991 000 Power at Salem Church: Installed capacity, killowatt 84,000 89, 000 142, 000 150,000 150, 000 150,000 200, 000 200,000 200, 000 Average annual dependable capacity, killowatt 56, 500 71, 000 121 600 141, 000 138, 900 148, 000 180, 000 189, 000 196, 500 Average annual generation, million kilowatt-hours 141. 0 152. 5 266. 8 141. 0 237. 2 264. 5 262. 0 282. 5 301. 0 ECONOMIC DATA Investment, $1,000: Salem Church $63, 326 $70, 683 $98, 672 $78, 646 $79, 560 $101, 582 $78, 065 $84, 481 $107, 497 ~ Fredericksburg 5,936 6,124 6,600 8,735 9,434 8,759 11,694 10,797 10,071 -~ Total 69,262 76, 807 105, 272 87, 381 88, 994 110,341 89, 759 95,278 117, 568 Average annual charges, $1,000: Interest 2, 165 2, 400 3,289 2, 731 2, 781 3, 448 2,805 2,977 3, 674 Amortization 105 116 159 132 134 166 136 144 177 Operation and maintenance 658 672 743 1,327 1,223 1,279 1,501 1,553 1,583 Major replacements 139 143 175 221 197 194 215 208 226 Land productivity loss 45 55 100 45 55 100 45 55 100 Total 3, 112 3, 386 4, 466 4, 456 4, 390 5, 187 4, 702 4, 937 5, 760 Average annual benefits, $1,000: Flood control 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 Water supply 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 Water quality control 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 607 Recreation 2,500 2,990 3,570 2,650 3,100 3,630 2,650 3,100 3,630 Salinity control 1,490 1,490 1,490. 1,490 1,490 1,490 1,490 1,490 1,490 Power 1,411 1, 706 2,788 3, 250 3, 196 3, 428 3, 985 4,260 4,423 Total 6, 505 7, 290 8, 952 8, 494 8, 890 9,652 9, 229 9, 954 10,647 Average annual net benefits, $1,000 3,393 3, 904 4, 486 4, 038 4, 500 4, 465 4, 527 5, 017 4, 887 Benefit/cost ratio 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.8 1 No dam at Fredericksburg site. PAGENO="0306" 292 STATEMENT BY WILLIAM A. GORDON TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUB- COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE PROPOSED SALEM CHURCH DAM As one who has long enjoyed the natural beauty of the Rappahanuock River above Fredericksburg, I have followed the proposed Salem Dam project for the past several years. I feel this project is not only unnecessary, but destructive and an expense to the taxpayers. The first advantage of the project listed ~y the Corps of Engineers is flood control. It would provide flood control for a few miles along the River at Fredericksburg, and none for the thirty miles above Fredericksburg. There has been bUt one major flood at Fredericksburg since colonial times and this was caused largely ~y local flash flooding. Since flood control represents only 2.15% of the benefits it does not seem very important. The second advantage of the project is listed as water supply. The Salem Dam reservoir would contain over 3,000 times the daily use of the project 50 years from now. There are several projects which will be started in the near future, which will provide adequate water supply for our area, and at less cost to our area, than would be our portion of the Salem Dam. The next benefit listed is power. The Hydroelectric Power from this project is not in any way needed, as VEPCO is capable of providing power. Also the goveri~ment would lose millions in taxes that VEPCO pays on power it sells to the Co-ops. This portion of the project would only be a su,bsidy to the now overly subsidized Co-ops. The next benefit is listed as water quality control. The only answer to water quality control is the proper treatment of waste. The Salem Dam is simply not the answer to water quality control. The next so called benefit is recreation. This mud surrounded reservoir would be only 15 miles from the Potomac with its sandy :beaches. Also soon to ~e built is an 11,000 acre VEPCO owned lake only 20 miles away, which will be open to the public for recreation free of charge, and will not have the draw-down of the Salem Dam. There are several other projects to be built such as the Ni River project, the Potomac Run project, the Aquina Creek project and the Motts Run project. Yet the Engineers claim it is necessary to build another flat water project. Not only is this project not needed for recreation, but it would destroy a river, rich in history, rare in beauty and now providing recreation that the Salem Dam could never equaL To add to the absurdity, the Engineers have the nerve to claim 41.02% of the Salem Dam benefits are receation, or that it will be worth nearly 3 million dollars a year to the public, for recreation. Then to top it all, the Engineers claim 20.44% of the benefits would be salinity control, or that it would be worth nearly one and a half million dollars a year to the oysters. It should also be noted that the oyster industry is doing so well now that the take of oyeters is being kept down to keep the prices up. Then there are some things which the Engineers are having a hard time trying to hide, such as the higher interest rate than they estimated, which would have to be charged for the project. Also the much greater cost of land and construction, than they estimated. This would cut the cost benefit ratio to probajly something less than 1 to 1, because the Engineers figures on cost are now outdated, yet the figures on benefits are based on predictions of future use or are set figures such as the sole of power, which cannot be changed. So the benefits will not increase as the cost increases as the Engineers have said. I could go into great detail about the beauty, the recreational value and the history of the Rappahannock River but I am sure others will do so in much detail, as I will only ask that you be very aware of what you are doing before you destroy, unnecessarily, the God given natural Jeauty of the Rappahannock River. STATEMENT OF THE WAREENTON GARDEN CLUB, FAUQUIER COUNTY, VA., IN OPPOSITION TO THE SALEM CHURCH DAM My name is Mrs. Henry J. Kaltenbach and I am appearing as an officer and representative of the Warrenton Garden Club to oppose this wasteful and de- structive project as sought by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Warrenton Garden Club is among the many conservation organizations in the State of Virgina which are concerned by the threat of a 240 foot dam at Salem Church just above Fredericksburg. At a time when the "Virgina Outdoors Plan" is leading the way in preserving our irreplaceable heritage of open land and wild rivers, the Army Engineers PAGENO="0307" 293 cling to the proposition that a huge and vastly expensive high dam is the onjy way to get enough water for Fredericksburg. We contend that Fredericksburg can get all the water it needs from impoundments by smaller dams in the headwaters of the Rappahannock River and other streams west of Fredericks- burg. These would also take care of flood control. We submit that the further criteria which govern the building of a dam of this size are lacking. The kind of water recreation which is being stressed by proponents of the dam is not needed in an area which has already access to the far greater facilities of the Potomac River, the Chesapeake Bay, and the wide Rappahannock River below Fredericksburg. The Supervisors of Fauquier County also oppose the dam. The Supervisors of Culpeper and Fauquier Counties further propose to have a park at Kelly's Ford which would make the Rappahannock River accessible to all who appreciate the beauty and rarity of an unpolluted wild river, the joys of camping, hiking, hunting, white water canoeing and fast water fishing. Electric power to serve increasing needs is in excellent supply with the new Mt. Storm VEPCO plant. Nuclear power is an increasing reality each day. The alternative of flooding and destroying what is now good tax paying farm- land and the historic Rappahannock River Valley and its ancient Canal locks is coupled with a heavy burden on the taxpayers for the initial cost of the dam and subsequent fund-matching to develop the so-called recreational facilities of the man-made lake. In addition there will be a new set of fees which the Army Corps of Engineers expects to levy on private citizens using the lake. It is a waste of the taxpayers' dollars and will serve only as a further aggrandizement of the Army Corps of Engineers whose activities should be devoted to useful Harbor and Ship channel projects, not the destruction of Vir- ginia's natural resources of farm land and white water river beauty. The Warrenton Garden Club, therefore, joins the other citizens and organiza- tions and the elected government of Fauquier County in opposing the Salem Church Dam. Dated: June 20, 1968. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CULPEPER COUNTY, CULPEPER, VA., June 19, 1968. Hon. ROBERT E. JONES, Chairman, Flood Control Subcommittee, House Public Works Committee, Ray- burn Building, Washington, D.C. (Att: Mrs. Augusta Peterson, Clerk, House Public Works Committee). DEAR Sin: It has been called to our attention that the House Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on 20 June, 1968, regarding the proposed Salem Church Dam Project. We have also been advised by Mrs. Augusta Peterson, Clerk of the House Public Works Committee, that all the testimony taken before the Senate Sub- committee on Flood Control-Rivers & Harbors on September 21, 1967, will also become a part of and will act as testimony before your committee on June 20th, 1968, on the same subject. Therefore, the Culpeper County Board of Supervisors ask that this letter be made a part of the June 20th, 1968, proceedings to reiterate our opposition to the construction of the Salem Church Dam at the 240 foot level. We further wish to state that our position is exactly the same as that expressed before the Senate Sub-committee on September 21st, 1968. Very truly yours, ~. G. WHITE, Chairnian. ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Harrisburg, Pa., June 18, 1968. Hon. ROBERT F. JONES, Chairman, Subcommittee on Flood Control, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. JONES: On September 21, 1967, I submitted a written statement on behalf of the Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. in vigorous support of immedi- ate authorization of the Salem Church Project in Virginia. Enclosed you will find a copy of this statement, which we would like to have included in the testimony of the hearings on June 20, 1968. Thank you. Very truly yours, WILLIAM F. MATSON, Ecveoutive Vice President. PAGENO="0308" 294 STATEMENT OF Wn~LI~r F. MATSON, EXECUTrVE VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, lice., iic SUPPORT or S. 2207 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is William F. Matson. I am Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc., which represents 13 electric distribution cooperatives throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Each Of these cooperatives is owned by the consumers they serve, therefore the interest of Allegheny is a con- sumer-interest. Each co-op is managed and operated by a separate Board of Directors elected by its member-consumers. These systems, although financed by loans from the federal government, are incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania. I am submitting this testimony for the purpose of placing our organization on record in vigorous suport of immediate authorization and construction of the Salem Church Project as recommended by the Chief of Engineers. Our membership has long encouraged and supported the authorization and con- struction of multiple-purpose river basin projects throughout the country, where they are economically justified and where hydroelectric installations, included in them will provide rural electric systems with abundant low-cost electricity. The electric power industry is the fastest growing major industry in the United States. The quantity of electricity used by the consumers of rural electric coopera- tives is doubling about every seven years-faster than the national average. Although now there appears to be an abundant supply of electricity available through private power companies, an ever-increasing load growth pattern is forcing both private utilities and rural electrics to search out and develop more economical sources of power. Construction of the Salem Church Project would effect economies for both co-ops and private utilities. We recognize, of course, that the success of the project depends upon revenues from power sales, but we want to make clear the fact that every kilowatt of Salem Church power can be marketed the instant it is put on the line. No one can justifiably claim otherwise, although it is a familiar tactic for detractors of a multi-purpose project which includes hydro-electric power to claim that the power from it will not be marketable. This claim is probably made on the theory that if the power revenues so important to feasi- bility and payout can be placed in doubt, the whole project can be cast in shadow. The marketing of Salem Church power in accordance with the preference provi- sions of Federal power legislation would confer many benefits on our neighboring rural electric systems in Virginia, North Oarolina, Maryland and Delaware. It would supplement their presently exhausted allocations of Federal power and restore the wholesale "yardstick" to the area, benefiting all consumers. The struggle to. bring low cost electricity has been a long, and hard one, but we feel the development of the Salem Church project would, be a desirable step in the realization of this beneficial goal. We respectfully urge and request (that S. 2207 be favorably reported by this Subcommittee at the earliest possible date. TOWN OF CULPEPER, VA., Hon. ROBERT 131. JONES, Jnne 19,1968. Chairman, Flood Control Subcommittee, House Public Works Committee. Rayburi~ Building, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN JONES: It has been called to our attention that the House Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on June 20, 1968, regarding the proposed Salem Church Dam Project. We have also been advised by Mrs. Augusta Peterson, Clerk of the House Public Works Committee, that all the testimony taken before the Senate subcom- mittee on Flood Control-Rivers & Harbors on September 21, 1967, will also be- come a part of and will act as testimony before your committee on June 20, 1968, on the same subject. The writer personally presented the testimony on behalf of the Town Council before the September 21, 1967, committee hearing. Therefore, the Town Council wishes to go on record, and have this letter be made a part of the June 20, 1968, proceedings, to reiterate our opposition to the construction of the Salem Church Dam at the 240 ft. level. We further wish to state that our position is exactly the same as that expressed before the sub- committee on September 21, 1967. Sincerely,. . , . CLAUDE W. rnTFFMAN, Town Manager. PAGENO="0309" 295 [From the Free Lance-Star, Fredericksburg, Va., June 18, 19681 STILL A WASTE Nothing has happened to change the opinion we expressed last September about the proposed Salem Church Dam-it's too big, too expensive, a prime example of a wasteful pork barrel project. No, nothing has happended to change our opinion, which is reprinted below. The one major development of recent months that bears a relation to the proposed dam is the announcement by the Virginia Electric and Power Co. that it will build a nuclear, power plant in Louisa County. This is further proof that Vepco will continue to meet the power needs of this area and that the piddling power output of the Salem Church Darn is not needed. The essential needs of the Fredericksburg area so far as the Rappahannock River is concerned are water supply, flood control and water quality control. But it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the Salem Dam is the best way to achieve these aims. Only 15 percent of the dam's benefits are involved in water supply, flood control and water quality control. Only 15 percent of the benefits are designed to meet our essential needs. The other 85 percent involve recrea- tion, salinity control and unneeded electric power. It's a waste of money to pour far more than $79.5 million into a project that is 15 percent essential. We repeat what we said nine months ago: Let's abandon this infatuation with montrous dams and get to work on a project more reasonable in scope and more suited to our real needs. [An editorial from the Free Lance~Star of Sept. 20, 1967] Too BIG, Too EXPENSIVE Tommorrow's hearing on the proposed Salem Church Dam before a Senate subcommittee will be a major step in the up-and-down progress of that much- debated project. Without the subcommittee's blessing, the dam is probably dead. With sub- committee approval, the project will continue its legislative progress. Even then the dam would be subject to several more votes on the Senate and House sides of Congress and could be killed by a negative vote at any stage. For more than a dozen years we have opposed construction of the Salem Church Dam as proposed by the Army Engineers. We still oppose it. We believe the Engineers' dam is a far bigger and far more costly project than is needed to meet the water problems of the Fredericksburg area. * * * * * * * A close look at the Engineers' own figures will reveal that the clam is not designed primarily to meet the pressing needs of the area. The engineers don't propose a project unless it is "feasible." (One veteran of the pork barrel game recently defined the word this way-"Feasible means `there's enough political support for it, and there's a benefit-to-cost ratio of at least itol.") On the ,face of it, the Salem Dam looks very "feasible." The Engineers say it would return benefits of $2.10 for every $1 invested over 50 years. That's an unusually favorable ratio. The benefits `stressed by dam proponents are flood control, water supply and water quality control. Those are the chief reasons for proposing river develop- meiit. But when you `add up the benefits for water supply, water quality control and flood con'trol the total comes to only 15 per cent of all benefits. That's right -the Fredericksburg area's essential needs account for only 15 per cent of the dam's benefits. Where do the Engineers get the other 85 per cent of the benfits they need to make the project "feasible"? The big item is recreation. Forty-one per cent of the annual benefits `are attributed to recreation, the figure being obtained by as- signing arbitrary values to such things as one man fishing for one day, a `day's worth of water-skiing, etc. Is the need for recreation facilities so urgent that we have to build a clam that provides 41 per cent of its `benefits in the form of recreation? Hardly. The next `biggest annual benefit is 23 per cent for power. $11 million of the cost of building `the Salem Dam is allocated to hydro-eleetric power facilities that would have a dependa'ble capacity of 81,000 kilowatts. There would not be a steady flow of power; the turbines would have to be shut down frequently be- PAGENO="0310" 296 cause there would not be enough water available. By contrast, Vepco's Possum Point plant can provide about 51/2 times as much power every hour of every day. The Salem Dam's power output would be small, it would be irregular. With recent improvements in the efficiency of steam plants, a plant such as Possum Point may be able to produce power more cheaply than a hydroelectric facility such as the Salem Dam. And, in the not too distant future, nuclear power could turn out to be the cheapest source of all. There's no shortage of electrical power in this area now. None is foreseen. Why waste money putting unneeded federal power facilities in the Salem Dam? Another 20 per cent of the dam's benefits is listed for "salinity control." This means the water released from the dam would be used to control the salt content of the Rappahannock downstream. The Engineers guess that this would improve oyster production by some $1,500,000 a year. Maybe, maybe not. 41 per cent for recreation, 23 per cent forpower, 20 per cent for salinity con- trol-about 85 per cent of the dam's benefits are listed for projects of doubtful essentiality. Whether it's federal money, state money, local money or money from our own pocket, we hate to see money wasted. The Salem Dam-with only 15 per cent of its benefits going to meet the essential needs of water supply, water quality control and flood control-would be one of the most wasteful pork barrel projects imaginable. * * * * a * a With modern know-how and equipment it's no problem to build a big darn. The Army engineers are good at it. But we submit that it's wrong to use our technological capabilities to unnecessarily destroy our natural environment. The lake to be created by the proposed Salem Dam would stretch some 2U miles upriver from the dam. It would flood some of the most beautiful portions of the Rappahannock. Free-flowing w-ater would he replaced by an artificial lake. At times the level of the lake would be lowered, resulting in ugly mud flats around its rim, mud flats that would destroy much of the lake's usefulness. The Engineers don't talk about the destruction that would be created by the dam. But destruction there would be. Needless destruction, because a huge darn, 203 feet high, is not the only means of developing the river's resources. * * a * * Nine years ago engineering firms hired by the city said that Fredericksburg's water needs could be met until the year 2000 by a $900,000 dam project on Mott's Run in Spotsyivania County. It wouldn't be a huge concrete monument to the Army Engineers but it would be big enough to store the water we need. The cost would have been less than the million dollars the city had volunteered as a con- tribution to the cost of the Salem Dam. Now, nine years after the report, the city is beginning to consider seriously the Mott's Run project. The same report listed four other spots where small dams might be desirable. Such dams might well be a source of water supply for nearby counties. By devoting to a study of a small darn or dams one tenth of the tIme and energy that have been lavished on the Salem Dam it should also be possible to devise a system that would provide some measure of flood control and water quality control. The Engineers estimate that their Salem Church Dam would cost $79.5 million. Since the Engineers' cost estimates are usually low, the ultimate figure will prol)- ably be even greater. We think that's too much money to spend on a dam that will be too big, flooding under normal circumstances some 21,300 acres ranging as far as 26 miles up the river. Let's abandon this infatuation with monstrous dams and get to work on a project more reasonable in scope and more suited to our real needs. STATEMENT nv Dn. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR.. SECRETARY OF THE CITIzENs COMMITTEE ox NATERAL RESOvECES Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, .Tr., Secretary of tile Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conserva- tion organization with offices in Washington, D.C. Conservation organizations and other interested public groups have had some difficulty in understanding the procedure by which the program of the Corps of Engineers is reviewed and considered. In the instant case, we assumed that the proposed report by the Corps after Public Hearings would not become final until the opportunity had been afforded PAGENO="0311" 297 the Corps to modify the recommendations, as appropriate, to reflect the com- ments of the States and other Federal Agencies. After this procedure had been achieved, we understood that the report would be transmitted `to Congress for consideration. We were unaware that the States and Federal Agencies had reported or that the Corps' report reflected `their comments. An additional problem has been the analytical consideration of alternatives. This was indicated in Senate Document #97 of the 87th Gongress, Second Session. In Section V, Part A, Paragraph (7), the following appears: "When there are major differences among technically possible plans conceived as desirable on the basis of consideration of intangible benefits and costs, in comparison with optimum plans based on `tangible benefits and costs, alternative combinations of projects with'in a river basin or alternative projects, giving expression to these major differences, shall be planned. Comparison of their economic and ftnancial costs shall be set forth in reports to provide `a basis for selection among the alternatives by reviewing authorities in the executive branch and by the Congress." To further buttress this recommendation, a report of the Civil Works Study B'oard issued in January 1965 comments: "One of the most frequent criticisms of Corps planning is that the Corps reports tend to `show only whether a particular project is or is not economically justified and that alternatives either have not been given sufficient consideration or, at least, have not been discussed in reports so others may judge the Corps recommendation in the light of alternatives. This is a valid criticism and the Corps procedures should be adjusted to meet it. There is evidence that extensive consideration has been given to alternatives in sonie reports but there are only a few recent examples where the alternatives are described and evaluated in the final report. Particularly where there is a possibility that objectives `other than the usual economic efficiency criterion may be pertinent in the judgment of any interest concerned, there should be consideration and presentation of alterna- `tives in reports." 1\iany conservation organizations reacted to President Johnson's plea that the Potomac be made a model river by soliciting the advice of hydrologists, engi- neers, agronomists, silviculturists, economists and others. Our effort was to effect programs that would yield an adequate amount of clean water, provide quality recreation, and preserve scenic beauty. The major thrust `of our efforts has been in the use of the estuary for fresh water for Washington, recycling `of water when used for cooling, the acceleration of sewage treatment facilities, and an acceleration of soil conservation practices to reduce silt contamination. ITt was our hope to rely on these devices that would be less costly and have greater compatability with our resource uses. The seven projects proposed by the Corps `of Engineers in accordance with their calculations, if authorize, would cost ~131,78O,000, require 20,050 acres of land for the projects alone,, and an additional 28,110 acres for purposes of recreation and fish and wildlife mitigation.In addition, it would displace up- wards of 325 families, remove over 6,475 acres from agriculture, cause to be built or relocated 20.2 miles of public roads and/or highw-ays, the building or recon- struction of six bridges, the removal of two schools, the removal of two churches, and the re-location of six cemeteries. The enormous burden of proof for these projects appears far too formidable in terms `of the benefits received, especially without any analysis or consideration, of which the public is informed, as to the effectiveness of alternatives.' We have been intrigued for a number of years at the manner in which the Corps analyzes the economic aspects of recreation. Perhaps I may appear overly concerned, since I suffer from my own background as a professional economist. The generalizations relative to recreation and fish and wildlife fall almost by their own weight. The calculation of recreation benefits is inevitably analyzed on the basis of user days only. In short, a projected classification of the total number of visitors which one may expect after the construction of the reservoir. These projection statistics do not indicate the length at which the user days will prevail. Also, we should hasten to point out that the word "projection" is some what misleading and perhaps economists have oversold this concept, for too many think of it as a prediction. Projections are made on the assumption of the rela- tionship and magnitude of certain variables. This may be accomplished by ~ Fosdick, Eliery, "Financial Feasibility and Drawdowns of Reservoir Projects," copy attached. PAGENO="0312" 298 analyzing the present relationships and projecting them into the future. It also may be accomplished by~ assuming a certain magnitude due to changes, which seems most probable to result from a particular act. It is true that predictions may be based on such projections but predictions and projections are not the same thing. It is difficult to analyze completely how the Corps arrives at the classification of recreation. Apparently it is assumed in the first instance that the phenomenon of recreation is apparently homogeneous. Or if not homogeneous, sufficiently compatible that all will benefit or loss as result of something taking place or not taking place. If a reservoir is constructed, presumably all recreation users benefit. If it is not constructed, presumably all recreation users are deprived. Recreation is not homogeneous and planners with an eye to more than just a particular river basin have to take this into account, if they are to serve, as they contend they are doing, the recreation needs for people from a wide area with varying preferences. Some people like to water-ski. Other people prefer to canoe down an unobstructed stream. In shirt, there is never any effort to make qualitative determinations. Neither is there an effort on the part of the Corps to judge the availability of particular types of recreation in a general area, in order that their final planning will be fused into an over-all balance that is required by the area in general. My own efforts to come to some reasonable conclusions, as to the manner in which the Corps makes these calculations with such accuracy and profundity, is to request what value is given to different qualities and preferences in the computation of the recreation being displaced. Also to question whether recrea- tion being displaced is in shorter or greater supply in the general area than that being offered by the reservoir construction. What impact on scenic and esthetic resources will a reservoir add rather than detract from the scenery as it now exists? How are these values assessed? Apparently none of these factors is taken into active consideration. If such factors are considered, there is no information available in the reports to determine how the decision was made. The economics are similar in calculating the enhancement of fish and wildlife. It seems quite probable that in terms of total quantity of fish available in a given place man, through his various devices, can probably increase this amount, whether it is in a reservoir or in a stream. Fish in a reservoir, however, are of one type and one quality and in a free-flowing stream, another. What species or type of fish do fisherman seek-carp, catfish, bass, trout? Some species, which do not adjust to the increased temperature which so often results in water impoun& ments will be non-existent or reduced in supply. Another interesting feature is that most organizations concerned with the healthy propagation of fish and wildlife, scenic beauty, and other water-based recreation interests, have been opposing most of the Corps' structure, since the Corps has been suggesting them in the Potomac River. There are those seeking economic gain, which the recreationist and fisherman will provide by his expendi- tures in attending such reservoirs,, who urge this type of recreation development. Alas and alack, even these properly motivated individuals are often in for a shattering experience. The incident of Tuttle Creek, wherein the draw-down for purposes of navigation was so extreme that areas representing thousands of dollars of commercial investment for recreation purposes were abandoned. We are certain that this will be reported as an unusual and specific circumstance from which one should not generalize. We hasten to add, however, that the ex- perience is far different than anticipated in many cases. We are aware that as population increases individuals will seek out all kinds of recreation oppor- tunities. It is the relative proportion, however, that is critical. After the first few years good fishing in the reservoir tapers off to be minimal and unexciting. After the recreationist and boating enthusiast plods many yards through mud fiats to reach the water, disenchantment sets in. It may be pointed out that the numbers of people, because of the population factor, may not have been signifi- cantly reduced. But what is always left unsaid is the economic opportunities and the genuine character of recreation that would have been occasioned and sought after, had the area not been so disrupted by impoundments. We sincerely hope that in meeting the President's challenge of a model Potomac River Basin that we not incur the costs, the burdens, the economic dislocation, the impact on states and localities for solutions, which in our judgment, can be met far better in ways other than proposed by these structures. Solutions that enhance the scenic beauty. Solutions that increase the quality and attractiveness of recreation opportunity. Solutions that lead to more pure water for the better PAGENO="0313" 299 propagation of fish and wildlife, as well as the enhancement of the health and environment of the communities in the Basin. Solutions that will indeed provide sufficient water for municipal and industrial uses. Solutions that are imaginative and constructive. Despite our disagreements with the Corps' program as the subject of this hear- ing today, we would urge them profoundly to direct their attention to alternatives that we do not believe they have considered seriously. It would be our thought that if they would do this, perhaps they could achieve significant brealtthroughs in planning complex river basins. Mr. JONES. Now we are going to go into the WTabash River and tributaries of Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. Colonel Anderson, you may proceed. WABASH RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, INDIANA, ILLINOIS~ AND OHIO Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report is submitted in partial response to a resolution of the Com- mittee on Public Works of the U.S. Senate adopted May 6, 1958. The Wabash River Basin has a drainage area of about 33,000 square miles of which 24,000 is in central Indiana, 8,600 in eastern Illinois, and 300 in western Ohio. Overall length of the Wabash River is 475 miles to its confluence with the Ohio River. The Wabash Basin has experienced flooding almost every year and sometimes several times a year. Because of this, the basin has many low levees built by private interests to protect agricultural areas. These are generally inadequate and at best provide only partial protection. The problems of flood control, water quality, water supply, and recrea- tion on the Little Wabash and Skillet Fork Rivers, Ill., and Big Wal- nut Creek, Big Blue River, and Flatroek River, md., are among the most urgent of remaining water problems in the Wabash Basin at pres- ent. Local interests desire water resources improvements to meet pres- ent and future needs of these areas. The Chief of Engineers recommends further improvements of Wa- bash River Basin by construction of Louisville, Helm, and Big Blue Dams and Reservoirs, for flood control, water supply, water quality control, general recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement; and Downeyville Dam and Reservoir for all of these purposes except water quality control and by construction of local flod protection at Marion, Ind. The estimated total cost of the construction is $116,060,000 of which the Federal cost $115,740,000 subject to certain items of local coopera- tion. The benefit cost ratio is 1.8. Local interests are willing to provide the usual items of local co- operation, including reimbursement of $24,048,000 under provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958 and reimbursement of $16,147,000 under the Federal Water Project Recreation Act. The net Federal con- struction costs are thus $75,545,000. Comments of the States of Indiana and Illinois and Federal agen- cies are generally favorable. However, the Secretary of Interior re- cently issued a press statement that he concurred in a recommendation made by the Advisory Board on national parks, historic sites, build- ings, and monuments that the Big Walnut area be declared eligible for registration as a natural landmark and expressed objection to au- thorization of the Big Walnut Reservoir or any project that would in- vade this area. PAGENO="0314" 300 Accordingly, the Chief of Engineers is withholding his recoin- mendation on Big Walnut Reservoir pending further study of the im- pact of the project on natural values. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that the report is now with the Secre~. tary of the Army for review and will be transmitted to the Bureau of the Budget today. Mr. Jo~ns. Mr. Zion? Mr. ZION. In your opinion, if this Big Walnut is made a national landmark or designated as a national landmark, will this be incom- patible with the project that has been contemplated? Colonel ANDERSON. We checked carefully with the National Park Service on this and they feel that if the Big Walnut project were to be built and thus create a reservoir in the particular region, that is eli- gible for natural landmark designation, that this would negate the purpose of declaring this area a natural landmark. Now, we did get a statement just this morning from Mr. Ilartzog, the Director of the National Park Service which says in part: I have advised the Corps of Engineers of our evaluation and conclusion that the natural landmark eligibility of the area in question would have to be with- drawn if the Big Walnut Creek reservoir is authorized by Congress and con- structed. I have aLso urged upon General Noble the thought that, if the reservoir is authorized and constructed, the Corps of Engineers should acquire all of the landmark area and utilize that part not inundated as a nature study area. We have added and modified the Big Walnut project to include ad- ditional lands, with a nature center, and education and scientific facil- ities for this purpose. The State of Indiana has agreed to operate and maintain and share the cost of this nature center. Mr. ZION. In your opinion, would this recreation and nature study area that would be created under the revised plan of the Corps of Engineers be comparable to that that would have been available prior to the construction of the dam, Big Walnut? Colonel ANDERSON. The dam or the lake created by the dam does create alterations within this particular region, sir; and although in my opinion the alterations are. not significant in the opinion of the Park Service they are significant enough to remove the natural land- mark designation. Mr. ZION. Again, your opinion, please. Would the area as revised by the new plan of the Corps of Engineers, would it be a better recreation area than it is now? Let us presume to leave it as is and without a lake. Would its value as a recreation area be better or worse as the result of contemplated plans? Colonel ANDERSON. The conservation pool of this reservoir is about 2~ miles long. The natural landmark area in the upper reaches is about a mile and a half long. So, if you take the overall project as presently not being recommended by the Chief of Engineers but as recommended by the district engineer, there is a lfluch greater capacity for recreation visitations than just at the natural landmark area. Now, this project offers the opporunity of preserving the area by buying all of the area that is designated to be eligible as a natural land- mark which is presently under private ownership. PAGENO="0315" 301 Mr. ZION. That is all. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. Let me interrupt here. Mr. Olsen is a member of the committee and is trying to catch a plane and would like to take this opportunity to appear and take up the Libby Dam project in Montana. Mr. Olsen has pending before the committee, H.R. 16910, Flood Con- trol Act of 1950, relating to the Libby Dam in Montana. Mr. Olsen is a member of this committee and always does a wonder- ful job. I welcome my valuable associate. LIBBY DAM, MONT. (H.R. 16910) STATEMENT OP HON. ARNOLD OLSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MONTANA Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill, H.R. 16910, and I wish to thank you for scheduling hearings on it so promptly. As you know, the bill is intended to authorize the payment of com- pensatiOn to employees of the Great Northern Railroad for the loss of earnings caused by relocation of trackage necessitated by construc- tion of the Libby Dam. Since the income of many railroad men will be unfairly reduced because of the shortened trackage unless Congress authorizes remedial payments, early consideration of this proposed legislation is most welcome. The cost relocating the trackage, which shortened the run between Whitefish and Troy, Mont., by approximately 15 miles, will exceed $102 million. Since a Federal project necessitated the relocation, the Federal Government automatically assumed all costs. Quite properly the Grcat Northern Railroad was not expected to pay for the relocation. In a similar vein, the Government pays just compensation when private property is acquired for the project and assistance is provided to school districts which have been affected by an influx of students caused by a Federal project. My bill simply extends the obligation of the Federal Government to treat the affected workingme.n as fairly and equitably as we treat others affected by the project. It is neither reasonable nor just to expect the workingmen to absorb the income loss caused by the short- ened run. Employees whose earnings are reduced, and who qualify under the terms of the proposed legislation, should receive Federal pay- ments equal to the difference between the wages they actually re- ceive for runs over the shortened trackage and t.he wages which they would have received if the run had not been shortened. I believe one of the problems is that the initial reaction to the loss of earnings by the affected railroad men is `slight concern because the amount of money involved does not appear significant. In terms of the total project cost for the Libby Dam of $360 million, the amount is not large. However, to the individuals, the amount involved is signifi- caiit and, just as important, they are injustly deprived of wages. The lost income, based on projections of earnings until the affected workingmen reach retirement, amounts to more than $2 million. And, PAGENO="0316" 302 more than 200 individuals are involved. Mr. L. J. Rutherford, Con- ductors local chairman of the Order of Railway Conductors and Brake- men, `Whitefish Mont., is completing an analysis of the precise compen- sation loss on the basis of current wage rates and I will submit his analysis for the record when I receive it. My bill, then, is intended to insure just and equitable treatment to railroad employees whose earnings will be reduced, through no fault of their own, because of the shortened run between Whitefish and Troy, Mont. Now, this is the cost of relocation of the track. As a matter of fact, you know tomorrow we are going to go down to the White House and the President is going to punch a button and we are going to have the "hole through program," that is the program where they punch the hole through a tunnel 7 miles long which is rather unique. Now, Mr. Chairman, we do have a problem in that some men who are entitled to this run from Whitefish to Troy are going to retire next year and some men a few years hence. I think the estimate of the $20 million is excessive. We are going to put this into a computer a.nd we are going to know what is the cost `for these men that have a vested right to this run from Whitefish to Troy, Mont., which is being shortened by 15 miles every day. Their pay is being shortened by 15 miles every day and I would submit that for the record. Mr. Chairman, my bill then is intended to insure just and equitable treatment to railroad employees whose earnings will be reduced through no fault of `their own because of the shortened run between Whitfish and Troy, Mont. Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to introduce to this committee and will recommend him for his testimony, Mr. 0. R.. Lundborg, vice president and national legislative representative of the Order of Railway Con- ductors and Brakemen. STATEMENT OP 0. It. LUNDBORG, VICE PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE OP THE ORDER OP RAILWAY CONDUCTORS AND BRAKEMEN Mr. LUNDBORG. I am vice president and national legislative repre- sentative of the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen. My office is in the Railway Labor Building, 400 First Street NW., Washington, D.C. I appear here today on behalf of my organization and on behalf of the Railway Labor Executives' Association' which, as you know, is an association of the chief executive officers at 23 standard national and international railway labor unions and the Rail- way Employees' Department, AFL-CIO, `representing virtually all of the railroad employees in the United States. The organizations on whose behalf I appear support the enactment of H.R. 16910. We believe that this bill must be enacted if the railroad employees affected by t.he Libby Dam, Mont., projects are to be justly and equitably treated. The Congress, in providing for the construc- tion of the Libby Dam, has insured the. Great Northern Railroad against any adverse effects resulting from the flooding of its line by authorizing the construction of a new line of railroad at a cost of PAGENO="0317" 303 $102,435,000, and which, from the carrier's point of view, is a better line than the one which must be abandoned because of the erection of Libby Dam. The new line of railroad is a better line because it is a shorter line. Its construction enables the carrier to save money on fuel and mainte- nance. It also enables the carrier to save money on the wages it now pays its employees. The latter saving, of course, is `made at the direct expense of the employees involved. H.R. 16910 recognizes the direct adverse effects which the Flood Control Act of 1950 will visit upon employees of the Great Northern who will lose an average of $3.32 every time they make the run be- tween Whitefish and Troy, Mont., over the new track. To those em- ployees who work this run once a day, every day of the year, it would mean a loss of $1,211.80 in annual income. To those who average 5 days a week over this run it would mean a loss of $830 in annual income. It seems to us that the vast expenditure of funds made to protect the railroad and the public which it serves against adverse effects as a result of the Libby Dam project could be increased by a relatively in- significant amount to protect `the employees of the railroad from seri- ous adverse effects. Indeed, the cost to the Government of protecting the employees against the adverse effects of this project would prob- aldy amount to less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the entire project and certainly no more than 1' percent of that cost. H.R. 16910 would authorize .the Secretary of the Army to pay to each employee who was an operating employee of the Great Northern on the date the new line was placed in service and who prior to that time had been regularly assigned to runs on the line which was aban- doned, an amount of money which would be equal to the difference be- tween the wages the employee would have earned over the old line and those which he earns over the new line. The Secretary is to pay these amounts at appropriate intervals, but not less than quarterly. I think the committee and the Congress should know what we be- lieve to `be the absolute maximum amount which the Secretary of the Army would pay to adversely affected employees should H.R. 16910 become the law. At the present time there are operating over this trackage, 7 days a week, two passenger trains in each direction and five freight trains in each direction. The crews of the passenger trains consist of four engineers, four firemen, four `baggagemen, four conductors, and eight brakemen. The crews of the freight trains con- sist of 12 engineers, one fireman, 10 conductors, and 20 `brakemen. The total numbers of employees `by category are 16 engineers, five firemen, 14 conductors, six baggagemen, and 28 brakemen for a total of 69 em- ployees. If we consider the loss to each man as $3.32 per day, the maxi- mum cost to the Secretary of the Army would be $83,614.20 per year. If this figure is multiplied by 30 years, the total maximum cost to the Secretary over that period of time would be $2,508,426. It is most doubtful that the money paid to the employees would reach this figure because of the rate of attrition of these employees through death, re- tirement, resignation, and so forth. H.R. 16910 is directed toward protecting the man, not the job. There- fore, although 69 jobs may remain on this line for 30 years, the oniy employees entitled to the benefits of this `bill would be those employees PAGENO="0318" 304 who had worked on regularly assigned jobs on the old line. But even if the total cost of H.R. 16910 to the Government was $2.5 million, or even $5 million, it is a very minor amount when one considers the total cost of the project, $360 million, or even the cost of the construction of the new line for the benefit of the Great Northern and its shippers and passengers, $102,435,000. One may argue that the employees are the recipients of the benefits contained in the so-called Burlington conditions which the Interstate Commerce Commission imposed upon the Great Northern when it authorized that railroad to abandon the line in question to permit the construction of the Libby Dam. The Burlington conditions were not designed to protect employees against the adverse effects of the type of situation which will confront the employees of the Great Northern as a result of the construction of Libby Dam. The provisions of the Burlington conditions, while they are intended to make employees financially whole, expire within 4 years of the effective date of the Commission's order imposing them. The order of the Commission be- came effective in late 1965 and the protection afforded by the Burling- ton conditions under that order expire in late 1969. The first train is to move over the new line in November 1970-over 1 year after the Burlington conditions have expired. In this case, therefore, the Bur- lington conditions are utterly worthless. In addition, the Burlington conditions are based upon the so-called Washington agreement, which provides protection for adversely af- fected employees in situations involving the consolidation of railroad facilities. That agreement, like the Burlington conditions, has a time limit on the protectioir afforded employees. This time limit-S years in the case of the Washington agreement-was agreed to by the carriers and the representatives of their employees because em- ployees adversely affected by railroad consolidations are usually able to work their way back to their preconsolidation position within 5 years due to the operation of attrition. This is because in situations in which the Washington agreement applies, shops, offices, and so forth, usually are combined and the total number of positions are re- duced. The employees affected are made whole for the 5-year period ~with the knowledge that within that period sufficient employees senior to them will leave the service thereby enabling them to acquire a position which at least is equivalent to that which they held at the time of consolidation. The situation confronting the Great Northern employees as a result of the Libby Darn project is quite different. In this situation the length of the run of the employees is cut by 15 miles in each direction. Neither the operation of attrition nor the opera- tion of seniority will ever restore that 15 miles. The employees will be forever affected by the loss of that 15 miles. It seems to us that the employees actually affected should be made whole. The Congress has consistently protected the interests of the railroad employees in the enactment of legislation which would adversely af- fect those interests. Section 5(2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act and section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act are good examples of congressional concern that railroad employees be equitably treated when they are to bear the burdens resulting from congressional acts. We believe that in the case of Libby Darn, Congress should not no less justly or equitably toward the railroad employees than it has PAGENO="0319" 305 in other situations where the authority it confers adversely affects the livelihoods of railroad employees. On behalf of the Railroad Labor Executives' Association and my own organization, the Order of Railway Conductors & Brakemen, I urge favorable consideration by this committee for }LR. 16910 and its enactment into law, with one modification. While I have emphasized in this statement the loss of income which would be visited upon the train and engine crews by the construction of Libby Dam, I must point out that these are not the only employees of the Great Northern who would be adversely affected: the employees who maintain the track and those who maintain the signal system of the Great Northern between Whitefish and Troy will be faced with the loss of 15 miles of track and signal maintenance work. They, no less than the employees who man the trains, should be protected from the adverse economic effects of the construction of Libby Dam; therefore, on behalf of the association, I respectfully recommend that the language of H.R. 16910 be modified to include those nonoperating employees who performed work on the old line prior to the date the new line is placed in service. Thank you for the opportunity of expressing the views of railroad labor on this bill which is of great importance to the individual em- ployees who earn their livings on the railroads of this country. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, there is attached to my statement an appendix, and I think for the benefit of the committee, if you will allow me just a moment, Twill explain that. Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. Please do. Mr. LUNDBORG. It refers to the pay rates on the Great Northern pas- senger train, you will see a conductor receiving $24.34 on a basic day, so does the baggageman who gets $21.90 and the brakemen gat $21.21. This is based on a footnote that they work on what is constituted a 150-mile day, which is the equivalent or their working day. Now, all of the rest of the figures that appear on that document are based on the 100-mile day, a 100-mile being equal to 8 hours and 1 hour being equal to 12.5 miles an hour. That is 12.5 miles an hour times 8 equals 100. This is the calculation that has been used for as many years as I can remember, and that is almost 40 years. Now, there is one comment that I would like to direct your attention to and it says behind "engineer," there is the word "3." That means a three-unit pay. Now, the reason for that is that normally they have a three-unit diesel on these particular trains. Now, if it was more, they would receive a few cents more per hundred. Then I would like to invite your attention to one other thing, and that is to the freight conductor. For example, he gets $24.34 for a basic day of 100 miles, which means he gets $3.65 for the 15 miles that he loses in each direction. Now, behind "engineer" it is $27.61, and $4.14 is the loss with the fireman, but in the event he does not have a fireman, then his rate of pay goes up $4, and on a three-unit diesel he would get $31.01, PAGENO="0320" 306 or his pay then would go up to $4.65 which would be the loss to that man for that 15-mile run. That is the explanation. But like Mr. Olsen said, what it actually means is that their work has been shortened 15 miles. When they go over, they have lost that much money. When they come back, they have lost that much money. Presently today, as I outlined at this particular item, there are two passenger trains in each direction, and there are five freight crews in each direction. The only thing that could alter that would be the one crew less or one crew more, but I think that the estimates that we have are reason- ably accurate and fair. Thank you. Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, you know this is not really electrifying, because these people are named and we know who they are and they are going to have a certain number of years of service and it would be, and is a very simple matter to know how much they lose with each 15 miles for nnd back, and as they complete their service, of course, the pay from the Federal Government would be gone. Now, we are going to pay people for every shack, for every piece of property, for every piece of woods that we take in this Libby Dam construction, and I think that it is only just and proper that we pay these working people for the miles they lose. We pay the railroad. We not only pay `the railroad, we build them abetter railroad. Now, I think that $2 million is outside, really `beyond wha.t really would happen. Mr. HARSHA. Would you yield, please? Mr. OLSEN. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. What do you do propose to do on every highway that we have to relocate and shorten the highway? Do you propose to pay every truckdriver an additional payment for the loss of mileage he sustains by going over a shorter route? Mr. OLSEN. No; I do not. Mr. HARSHA. How are you going to get `around that, if you do this? Mr. OLSEN. Now, just be sympathetic for a minute, will you? Mr. HARSHA. I do not mind being sympathetic with the gentleman. Mr. OLSEN. No, no; you are always that way. You are always very sympathetic and just listen to me for a minute. The only way you get paid on a railroad is by mileage. You do not get paid any other way. That is why we are here today. Mr. HARSHA. Well, the trucker has the same problem; does he not? Mr. OLSEN. No; he does not get paid by mileage. Mr. ITARSHA. He gets paid by the hours he works. Suppose we cut a highway down so it cuts `and hour off of his daily route. He loses 1 hour's work; does he not? Mr. OLSEN. No. If we were paying the rairoad workers by the hour, it would be a different thing. We do not do that. They are paid-and please don't shut me off. Mr. HARSHA. All right; go ahead, then. Mr. OLSEN. We get paid on the railroad by miles. You see, when you shorten the miles, and that is what is happening with the Libby Darn, then these people get shortened in pay. PAGENO="0321" 307 Mr. HARSHA. Do these people come and object to the construction of the Libby Dam? Mr. LUNDBORG. No, Congressman. In finance docket No. 23738, the result was when the Interstate Commerce Commission decided to allow this railroad to shorten its line and build this particular track, the result of it was that the Interstate Commerce Commission included the protective agreement which are the Burlington conditions. Very briefly, in 1936 a document was consum'ated between all of the railroads in the United States and all of the railroad labor in which we agreed to certain conditions, and out of this grew this particular condition. Now, I think it is very important for this committee, like Mr. Olsen just said, to recognize that originally the Government, or the Interstate Commerce Commission, an arm of the Government, recog- nized that these employees were due some protection which they had been given in each and every case for years and years and years except in cases of discontinuance of passenger trains where this was recognized. But due to the length of time and the delay, the result of it is that these conditions that were prescribed for them are now going to be run out and, therefore, I think this is one of the things that Congressman Olsen had in mind as I understood him, to afford that protection which was intended in the first place. Mr. JONES. Thank you very much, Mr. Limdborg. The appendix of your statement will be made a part of the record at this point. (The document follows:) APPENDIX A RATES OF PAY, GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY Basic Loss Passenger: Conductor 24.34 2.43 Engineer Baggage Brakeman 3/-24.60 21.90 21. 21 3.69 2.19 2. 12 Fireman 21.46 3.22 Freight: Conductor 24.34 3.65 Engineer Do Brakeman 31-27. 61 3/-31.01 22.08 14.14 24.65 3.31 Fireman 23.31 3.50 1 Fireman. 2 No fireman. Note: Basic day for passengerconductor, baggageman, and brakeman are figured at 150-mile day. Basic day for passener engineer and fireman are figure dat 100-mile day. Basic day for freight conductor, brakeman, engineer, and fireman are figured at 100-mile day. All abovelosses are figured at 15 percent of 100 or 10 percent of 150-mile day or the 15 miles actual loss on each run in each direction. Mr. JONES. We will leave the record open in order to take the other witnesses. Mr. OLSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. WABASH RIVER BASIN (continued) Mr. JONES. We will go back to the Wabash River and tributaries. Colonel Anderson, please come forward. 97-700-68-21 PAGENO="0322" 308 Are there any questions of the witness? Mr. CLAUSEN. No questions. Mr. JONES. I now call on the Honorable Birch Bayh, US. Senator fiom the State of Indnna STATEMENT OP HON~ BIRCH BATh, A U.S. SENATOR PROM THE STATE OP INDIANA Mr. BATh. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to submit this statement to the subcommittee in favor of the proposed improvements for the Wa- bash River and its tributaries. This large area of 33,000 square miles, which is inhabited by more than 3 million people, has been subject to frequent, damaging floods. Although a good start has been made by the construction or authoriza- tion of several major reservoirs in the Wabash Valley, there is great need for this program to continue in order to reduce the inevitable toll inlives and property from flooding. Dramatic evidence Of this need was presented by the inundation of thousands of acres of prime farm land this spring. As the subcommittee is aware, the Corps of Engineers has been en- gaged for several years in coordinating a comprehensive study of the whole Wabash River Basin. Although the final report will not be com- pleted for a year or more, two interim reports have been submitted and the third interim report should be transmitted officially to Congress in the near future. Originally the latter would have recommended three reservoirs in Indiana, two reservoirs in Illinois, and a local flood pro- tection project on the Mississinewa River at Marion, Tnd. Because of a dispute about one of the reservoirs, the Big Walnut on Big Walnut Creek, it is my understanding that the Secretary will probably recom- mend further study of this project before final authorization. In addition to the Big Walnut, the two reservoirs proposed for mcli- ana would be Downeyville on the Flatrock River and B% Pine on the Big Blue River. In Illinois the two proposed reservoirs would be Louisville on the Little Wabash River and Helm on the Skillet Fork, a tributary of the Little Wabash River. The benefit-cost ratios on all of the reservoirs has been estimated to be very favorable, and they all have been approved by State agencies and by various local governments. Some objection has been raised by a few residents to the Downeyville Reservoir, and the Indiana Farm Bureau has opposed it on the grounds it would eliminate a supply of limestone for agricultural purposes and remove some 11,000 acres from local property tax rolls. However, the preponderant weight of public opinion appears to favor these projects. The proposed Big Walnut Reservoir evoked widespread disapproval from persons who argued that it would destroy certain ecological and geological values which are claimed to be unique. There is also a dis- pute on the extent to which there will be future need for the impound-. ment of quality water in central Indiana. No one questions, however, the need for adequate flood control in the Big Walnut area or whether the savings would justify the cost of the project. ~Alternate solutions have been proposed, but it has not yet been possible to achieve a com- promise which would be satisfactory to all of the interested parties and still accomplish its objectives within reasonable cost. PAGENO="0323" 309 Conflicting testimony has been submitted on the extent to which the Big Walnut Reservoir would permanently despoil the aiea and the value of timber and other resources which would be lost While these discrepancies make it difficult to ascertain the exact effect of the pro posed reservoir, all agree that every effort must be made to preserve the natural resources and beauty of the area tO the maximum amount possible Recently, the Secretary of the Interior announced that the Interior Department has approved including the Big Walnut Creek area in the "National~ Registry of Natural Landmarks." HOwever; such designa- tion in itself does not alter property rights of private owners noi does it provide for governmental acquisition of the land. An area so selected will be registered and certificated as a landmark only if the owner of the site voluntarily applies for such designation Conse- quently, the present program would not guarantee that the Big Wal- nut area would be preserved forever in a wilderness state if the reser- voir should not be built; to the contrary, owners of the. property would be free legally to change its status at will. It has always been my belief that some reasonable compromise or ad- justment could be found which would enable the Big Walnut Reser- voir to be constructed. Modifications have already been made in the original proposal to provide for the acquisition of additional land, the establishment of a natural center, and the construction of special facil- ities to increase the scientific and educational benefits of the project. One promising suggestion that has been to build the reservoir much along the lines of the recommended plan, but to maintain the elevation of the impounded water at a level which would not inundate the most valuable section north of U.S. 86, which naturalists contend must be preserved in a wilderness condition. There may be other possibilities which should be seriously considered so that this essential reservoir will not bonny longer delayed. There can be no question about the need for some kind of relief from perennial flooding in large sections of the Wabash Valley. It has been estimated that damage below the proposed new reservoirs would be reduced at an average annual savings of nearly $3 million. In addition they would contribute substantially to present and future water needs, and with adjacent lands would be very valuable fOr rec- reational and sporting purposes. Millions of persons would in future years be able to use the recreational facilities created by these reservoirs. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that the subcommittee approve au- thorization of the other four reservoirs and the Marion flood protection program. With respect to the Big Walnut, the official report for which apparently will be delayed, the committee may wish to consider sub- mitting some of the issues involved to other agencies for evaluation of the conflicting claims and evidence. In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman, the decision on the Big Walnut may well depend upon a balancing off of relative values. On the one hand it is extremely important not to despoil natural beauty, to cover up unique fauna, or to deprive future generations of the enjoyment of their priceless heritage. On the other hand great benefits would re- sult from the construction of the reservoir; annual flooding could be prevented; additional recreational facilitiei could be provided; cer- PAGENO="0324" 310 tam areas of admitted natural values could he acquired for the public and preserved which otherwise might be lost; and a. probable future need for quality water in nearby highly populated areas could. be met. All of these are most desirable goals; I believe it would be worthwhile continuing the search for a proper solution to this problem. In my opinion the Big Walnut Reservoir is so vitally needed that a way must be found to reconcile the differences of opinion which now exist. Landowners and others in the Wabash River Valley have suf- fered too long from incessant flooding. It is essential also that an ade- quate supply of water be assured for the increasing population, indus- try and commerce of this area. I urge the committee to give careful attention to this problem and to approve authorization immediately for the projects in the Wabash Valley area. Mr. JONES. Thank you, Senator Bayh. Next, Mr. B. K. Barton, exec- utive director, Wabash Valley Interstate Commission, Terre Haute, md. STATEMENT OP DR. B. K. BARTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WABASH VALLEY INTERSTATE COMMISSION, TERRE HAUTE, IND. Dr. BARTON. Mr. Ch~drmaii, I have a prepared statement. It is not very long and with your permission I would like to read it. Mr. JONES. You may proceed, sir. Dr. BARTON. I am B. K. Barton, executive director of the Wabash Valley Interstate Commission, a bistate approach to resource develop- ment. Construction of the Bi~ Walnut Reservoir, Big Walnut Creek, md., is urgently needed to satisfy three important demands in the Wabash Valley. 1. Present needs for flood control on the fertile bottomlands of Big Walnut Creek, the Eel River and the lower West Fork of White River. 2. Present demands for recreational land and water. 3. Projected needs for water for water supply and water quality control in the Indianapolis area. Of these three demands for water control and development in the Big Walnut Creek area, the last is by far the most critical to develop- ment of the valley, a supply of good quality water is~ a most basic requirement for socioeconomic development in any region. This presentation is, therefore, restricted to this concept. The industrialized urban complex located in the upper reaches of the West Fork of White River includes the cities of Muncie, Ander- son, and Indianapolis and a host. of smaller satellite communities which contribute to this complex not. only as residential centers housing the labor force but as minor industrial locations dependent upon and con- tributing to the industrial growth of this metropolitan area. The Indianapolis complex provides a. variety of interrelated serv- ices associated with commercial and industrial activity throughout much of Indiana and, to a lesser degree, a portion of eastern Illinois. To curtail the economic growth of this urban complex is to effect a realinement of the faci of economic interests throughout a. major area of the basin. The Big Walnut Reservoir is only one of the water stor- age units, located beyond the limits of the Wrest Fork of White River, PAGENO="0325" 311 which will be needed to i~rovide the water resource* required for the continuing growth of the Indianapolis complex. Considered projections by economists employed by, and/or advisory to, the Federal agencies now conducting studies of the water and re- lated land resources of the Wa:bash Valley, illustrate this anticipated growth. The area, today, contains 82 percent of the urban population of the W'hite River Basin and this urban population is expected to triple during the planning period. Moreover, of a total of 222,000 per- sons employed in manufacturing industries in the White River Valley, more than three-fourths are employed in industries located in the Indianapolis industrial area. Projections indicate m.ore than an 800- percent increase in manufacturing output from the area will be devel- oped in the next few decades. This metropolitan area is presently the heaviest user of water of all subbasins in the Wabash Valley and the demand for water for water supply is projected, by the Federal Water, Pollution Control Administration, to quadruple by the year 2020. In addition to this expected increase in the demand for water to supply urban population and industries, is the need for water to insure adequate control of the quality of water both in this industrialized urban area and in those reaches of the West Fork of White River which lie below Indhuiapolis. The Federal Water POllution Control Administration has identified the need for supplementing present low flows in the West Fork and its tributaries to provide adequate dilution of the effluent from sewage treatment facilities now operative. Using the projections of population increase and projections of indu~stria1 growth, this agency has indicated needed streamfiows for 1980, 2000 and 2020 which seem enormous when compared to the presently avail- able, inadequate volumes. The upper basin of the West Fork of White River encompasses a drainage area. of 1,627 square miles, most of which is nearly level to slightly undulating prairie. Few of the streams have not established definite channels in this prairie upland and still fewer have cut deep valleys in which might be found sites suitable for reservoir development. In a preliminary report on the `Wabash River Basin, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration estimated that some 300,000 acre-feet of water storage will be necessary to provide the streamfiows required to maintain desirable quality in the surface waters in the Indianapolis area. To be used efficiently, this storage should be located above the city; a review of this area indicates only 200,000 acre-feet of storage can be developed in this portion of the subbasin. Thus, at about the turn of the century, we will be 100,000 acre-feet short of the needed storage for water quality control without providing for water supply. The storage needed for water supply has not been identified in terms of acre-feet of effective reservoir volume, however, during the next decades we must provide sufficient storage to produce an annual yield of 737.6 million gallons per day for urban and industrial use. This does not include water for approximately 250,000 increased population in the smaller communities of the area nOr for increased demands for water for agricultural use. PAGENO="0326" 312 There is an illustrated need for storage development to provide an annual water yield to serve the Indianapolis area which is in excess of that which this subbasin can sustain. For this reason we must go beyond the boundaries of .the upper west fork drainage to obtain this needed storage. The Big Walnut Reservoir is an attempt to provide this required interba.sin transfer. A second point which must be considered in making a decision in this matter of conflict between reservoir development and the preser- vation of an ecological community is the relative value of the ecosys- tem with which we are concerned. Prior to the public announcement of a plan to construct a reservoir in the Big Walnut Creek Valley apparently few people knew of the existence of a unique vegetation area in this valley. There is little evidence of visitation to the area and, according to the information available to this office, only Wabash College and certain classes of one high school in Indianapolis used the area as an outdoor labora- tory. The area did not become of great value to the general public un- til some alternate use was proposed. There is already preserved for public use and now in public owner- ship an area similar in biotic nature; similar in ecological reaction to a climatic, topographic, and biologic environment, an area more ac- cessible to the public and to those who wish to use it as an outdoor lab- oratory. This area within 25 miles of the Big Walnut Creek area is now owned by the State of Indiana under an agreement with Na- ture Conservanch, Inc., to preserve it as a natural area. There is no doubt that the ecology of the Big Walnut area will be changed with the construction of the Big Walnut Reservoir. However, much of the attraction of the present area, the hemlock trees, the beech-maple forest, the historic sites, and the heron rookery will not be affected by the presence of the reservoir. What will be changed will be the general ecosystem and those plants which now exist in that portion of the valley to be flooded, including a portion of the Canadian yew colony. The decision faced in this matter is whether the partial preservation of a second natural area of the same general character as one already under public protection should take precedence over creation of a water storage facility which is a vital segment of a water development program essential to the continuing growth of a metropolitan area such as Indianapolis. Thank you very much. Mr. JONES. Mr. Zion? Mr. ZION. In your opinion, would the recreational features of this area be enhanced or would they not be as a result of the Big Walnut project? Dr. BARTON. Well, in terms of present usage, Congressman Zion, there is essentially-well, I will not say no, but very little usage of this area at this time. In fact, I would say that with the exception of the people in the immediate vicinity and the landowners in this particular area, few of us in Indiana knew about this area until it was proposed to be in- cluded in the reservoir project area. Mr. ZIoN. Thank you very much. Mr. JONES. Any further questions? PAGENO="0327" 313 Thank you very much, Dr Barton Now we will hear from Mr. Howard Mendenhall, Wabash Valley Association, Inc., Mt. Carmel, Ill. STATEMENT OP HOWARD MENDE~HALL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI- DENT, WABASH VALLEY ASSOCIATION, INC., MOUNT CARMEL; ILL. Mr. MENDENHALTJ. Mr. Chairman, I am Howard Mendenhall, the `executive vice president of the Wabash Valley Association, a volun- tary citizens membership group in Illinois and in Indiana. I am here to ask you to authorize all six projects in the Wabash River Basin comprehensive study. These have been studied by the concerned agen- cies both Federal and State Governments for nearly 4 years. You will be interested in knowing that some major breakthroughs in intergovernmental cooperation and coordination have been achieved on these projects. Small watersheds have been thoroughly studied and coordinated with the upstream reservoirs in this package. Low-flow augmentation, fish, wildlife, recreation, and preservation of esthetics, natural beauty, and historic sites have been given special consideration. Meanwhile, they accomplish their major purposes of flood control, water supply, and quality control. Even Mother Nature cooperated by supplying devastating proof of the need for these projects by causing millions of dollars of flood damage both last fall and again this spring. Had these five reservoirs been operational last fall, the damages prevented could have paid for one of them. My mission, after asking you to authorize the badly needed Louis- ville and Helm Reservoirs in Illinois, the Downeyville, Big Blue, and Big Walnut Reservoirs, and the Marion flood protection works, is to be available to answer questions on public need for these projects. In the entire Wabash Basin, the subject of flooding our farmers and our farmers have been hit in 2 crop years, both last fall and again this spring. They have lost and had to go out and replant this late in the season and it means a terrific loss in yield to replant this late. Some of them have still not been replanted. The one reservoir in question, the revised estimated figures of loss just below the Big Walnut Reservoir alone this year, this spring, were $1.4 million in losses in this one below this reservoir site. I would like to submit for the record the remaining portion of the statement which contains additional evidence and exhibits for your information concerning the problems in the basin area. There are only two additional items to that submitted to the Senate Public Works Committee. Mr. JONES. What are the two additional items? Mr. MENDENHALL. One is a letter from John Mitchell, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Mr. JONES. Well, take them out and give them to the reporter. Mr. MENDENHALL. And also attached to the last part is a map of the area that is involved, and has been added. Mr. JONES. The documents that have been submitted will be referred to as a reference in the Senate documents. PAGENO="0328" 314 The letter from Mr. Mitchell will be made a part of the record fol- lowIng your testimony. (The letter of Mr. Mitohell follows:) STATE OF INDIANA, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Indianapolis, April 15, /968. Mr. HOWARD MENDENHALL Ewecutive Vice President, TVa bash Valley Association Inc., ilio~~t C'arniei, Iii. DEAR HOWARD: Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1068 Concerning the proposed Big Walnut project. We certainly appreciate your efforts Ofl behalf of this much needed facility. I thought you might wish to be appraised of the State's current position on this matter. The Big Walnut Reservoir project has been under intensive study by the Corps of Engineers and the State of Indiana for several years. Included in these studies have been extensive evaluations of alternative sites to see if reasonable alterna- tives exist. Of the numerous alternatives studied, the only site which afforded a reasonably comparable degree of project benefits (flood control, water supply, recreation. fish and wildlife enhancement and low flow augment~jofl) was a site down- stream from Greencastle known as the "Reelsvjlle" site. The "Reelsville" site would involve an estimatod first cost of $50 million, as compared to $36.6 million for the proposed Big Walnut site. As you can see, this is $13.4 million higher in estimated first cost. The continuing higher annual costs for transporting water to the point of need because of the longer transmission distance involved is not reflected in this figure. The principal Opposition to this Project comes from conservationists and others concerned with the preservation of an unusual natural area north of U.S. 36. Extensive supplemental studies have been conducted by the Corps to evaluate the area and the possibilities of protecting it. As a result of these studies the Corps has modified its original proposal to incorpora~ the area into a nature study area Consisting of protecting fences, nature, trails, museu.~s and the like. PAGENO="0329" 15 The added cost, plus the fact that the proposed reservoir would protect a major portion of the values of the natural area have been given careful consideration by the Indiana Natural Resources Commission, a group of men from all walks of life throughout Indiana dedicated to the wise and best use of Indiana's Natural Resources. PAGENO="0330" 316 Following such consideration, the Natural Resources Commission acting at its meeting on December 20, 1967, adopted a resolution endorsing the proposed Big Walnut Reservoir with certain modifications relating to the preservation of the ecological area and provisions for educational and scientific facilities. The Gov- ernor approved the project on behalf of the State of Indiana on January 5, 1968. If we can provide any more information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Mr. JoNES. Are there any questions? Mr. ZION. I would like to say to the committee Mr. Mcndenhall has been one of the most exhaustive workers I have ever known and he is very well known to all of us, the people in conservation, the people who are interested in protecting and preserving this huge area of this dam in southern Illinois and northern Kentucky. Certainly his testimony, although brief, has also included rnany~ many additional documeilts to substantiate the need for increased flood protection in this area. Southern Indiana has been somewhat of a poverty area for a long time, particularly as it applies to recreation, and each of these projects is worthy from the standpoint of flood control alone. It is well, I think, to know the increased needs for income produc- tion from recreation areas. Mr. Mendenhall, I do not believe you gave us the cost-benefit ratio of Big Walnut. Mr. MENDENHALL. It is 2.1 to 1 as it has been revised. Mr. ZION. This was prior? Mr. MENDENHALL. It was 2.3 to 1 prior to the inclusion of the rec- reation development or the nature study area, the purchase of addi- Joux El. MITCHELL, Director, Departme~t ot Natural Re$ourees. PAGENO="0331" 317 tional land and the protection of the natural areas provided for in the Corps revised plan which has reduced the cost-benefit ratio from 3.3 to 2.1 which is still a very good cost-benefit ratio and also an interest- ing thing is a high proportion of this is the State of Indiana is willing to pay in the cost of this reservoir, more than one-third of the cost will be borne by the local people. Mr. ZIoN. I notice they are willing to pay you $112,124,000 as con- trasted or as compared to the Federal share of $31,624, showing that the local residents have an interest in the project. Mr. Mendenhall, I know you have more recently talked to the farmers in this basin about losses sustained this spring, not only as to the Big Walnut but many other projects in the area. In your opinion, are the losses this spring greater than or equal toor less than those that were used at the time the cost-benefit ratios were established? Mr. MENDENIJALL. Well, the previous flow that would be compara- ble to this one in timing, and timing is so important in these farm losses-_had this rain been a month and a half earlier the loss would have been negligible, but as it came in the middle of May, I would say that this would be comparable to the 1961 floods and I do not know what year the Corps came up with a cost-benefit ratio to this project. I cannot answer your question exactly, but I do know in the Big Walnut project example there are roughly 40,000 acres of land, three- quarters severely flooded enough to warrant replanting. These are figures from the county agents and soil conservation people in the area. This cost of replanting varies from property to property. depending on the amount of fertilizer and amount of weed killers and so forth that they use with the planting and the variety of the corn. The price of seed corn in particular for these late varieties is very scarce and high when they have to replant. In some cases these costs have actually been from $20 to $35 per acre, per farmer, and he has to. spend in addition to what he has already spent to establish this crop. And he takes a lower yield because he has been so late in planting and he runs the risk of frost damage or immature crop at the time of harvest. Mr. ZION. Thank you, sir. I would like to submit for the record some pictures of flood daimtge, Mr. Chairman, accompanying the recent flooding with the Big Walnut. Mr. `OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend this witnessand this organization for their efforts in behalf of this valley and I want you to know that you made a splendid presentation. Mr. MENDENHALL. Thank you, sir. Mr. OLSEN. I appreciate it very much. Mr. MENDENHALL. I thank you. Mr. JONES. Any further questions? Mr. CLAUSEN. No questions, Mr. Chairman; but I do want, to just take a brief moment to compliment you, sir; on the very orderly manner that you coordinated all of you testimony. You are obviously very familiar with the project and what it will yield in the way of benefits and I think also you can certainly see the great respect we have for your Congressman sitting here, coordinating PAGENO="0332" 318 this kind of a project with you people. You have a great. team effort gomg for you that should prove of benefit to you entire area. `We are very, very pleased with your testimony. Mr. MENDENHALL. Thank you, very much, sir. Mr. JONES. Thank you,very much. Next we will hear from Mr. Thomas Dustin, vice president. of the Izaak Walton League of Washington, D.C. Mr. Dustin, you may proceed. STATEMENT OP THOMAS E. DUSTIN, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA Mr. DUSTIN. Thank you, gentlemen. My name is Thomas Dustin, vice president of the Izaak Walton League of America.. My hon~e is in Fort Wayne, md., and not Carmel, Ill., or Washing- ton, D.C. or some other place.. I wish to thank the members of this committee for the opportunity to express the views of the league which is a nationwide conservation group organized on a local chapter basis and wish to emphasize this includes not. only the 5,500 members, it includes the 2,225 members of "Save the Dunes." In letters being sent to conservationists in many areas of Indiana and elsewhere, Senator Birch Bayh includes this observation: I have long contended that some way must be found to construct the reservoir so that it would not destroy any unique ecological or geological features . ... In my opinion a compromise must be found which would not deprive future genera- tions of the natural values of the Big Walnut area. It is only the section north of U.S. Highway 3(1 which must be preserved. The Senator is entirely correct in this observation. But while we have worked patiently and cooperatively for almost 3 years to encour- age use of alternatives to the present destructive plan, we have met with complete and total failure. Let me say that it has not been the conservationist or t.he scientific community in Indiana which has been rigid and unreasonable. There are dozens of options and combinations of plans which would pro- vide flood control, water supply, general recreation, and other water management benefits; without destroying the unique qualities of the upper valley. The present plan should be rejected, and should be thoroughly re- studied. Perhaps in the next session of Congress, a truly comprehen- sive program in Big `Walnut can be developed. We do not oppose the other components of t.he third interim report, and see no reason why they should be held up, unless the Big Walnut cannot be separated a.nd considered on its own merits. The corps and ot.her proponents of the present impoundment pro- posal have contended the natural features of the upper valley are of only local significance. This. is refuted in three separate occurrences. First, the natural areas survey being conducted under provisions of a Ford Foundation grant by Dr. Alton A. Lindsey of Purdue TJniver- sity, places Big Wainu,t Valley in the very top echelon of outstanding natural areas which are worthy of considerat.ion under the Nature Preserves Act enacted by the Indiana General Assembly last year. Second, the Indiana Academy of Science on April 26 formally resolved PAGENO="0333" 319 against the corps plan on grounds it would destroy the natural signifi- cance of this outstanding example of postglacial ecology and geology. And. third, the Advisory Board on Nationa~1 Parks, the members of which constitute many of the Nat.ioifs most competent authorities, have accorded eligibility for natural landmark status to the area'w**hich would be destroyed by the present design of the corps project. Thus, the values of the upper valley are clearly recognized as of national sig- nificance. There are only 130 sites in our entire Nation which have been accorded such recoo~nition since the year 1964. The citation heavily stresses the flood p'ain characteristics, and natural landmark status will not be granted if the present design of the corps project is approved. Throughout the progress of this issue, it has been contended that a major project benefit in Big Walnut Valley is for water to Indian- apolis. This would be a costly 35-mile interbasin `transfer, said to pro- duce a benefit of some $500,000 annually. The projections of needs and supplies are through the year 2020. It is assumed that, in making these projections, the Corps of Engineers has been thorough and has taken into account all the likelihoods of alternative sources. However, the record clearly indicates that the corps has been less than thorough. At no point in our studies of the third interim report are we able to find any reference to the plan announced January 24, 1968, by the Indian- apolis `Water Co. to construct a 21-billion-gallon reservoir in the Mud Creek Basin just northeast and upstream of Indianapolis. There is not even any mention of the storage potential there. This project is claimed to be adequate for municipal supply to .a population of 1 mil- lion. The most updated population figures for Indianapolis released only a few days ago indicate the population is now 519,000. The absence of any mention whatever of the Mud Creek storage cannot be overemphasized. .A conclusion, or a question, which can be raised now is why the Federal Government should be asked to authorize andjor appropriate at least $25 million in tax funds-plus another $15 million in State tax funds-for a project that will be at least partly redundant to a water supply which will be `built through private investment, and which is also expected to provide general recreation benefits. It is entirely possible, even at `this awkward date, that the oorps and other interests supporting the Big Walnut flood project may attempt to demonstrate a relationship between the private Mud Creek project `and the proposed Federal project in Big Walnut Valley. However, it is obvious that a surplus and completely unanticipated supply will become available from Mud Creek well within the pro- jection period to 2020. The Mud Creek private project is scheduled for completion by 1977. Whether or not some form of relationship between the two sources can now be shown by Big `Walnut Reservoir proponents, it would seem clear that if any water for Indianapolis is needed-or ever will be-from Big Walnut, that delivery can be reduced by some increment related to the new increment from Mud Creek. Thus, our contention that smaller, less expensive plans on Big Walnut should be considered, appears viable. This factor makes many of the entirely feasible alternatives to the present plan much more attractive. The third interim report should `be set aside and returned PAGENO="0334" 320 for restudy, including a better and more thorough reconciliation with present and impending water supply projects. We do not oppose the other projects in the third interim report, however, and would suggest that if the Big Walnut project can be extracted from it, this should be done. We do not think much of a case for any water supply for Indianap- olis from Big Walnut can be made. But even if it could, and all the water could be justified, it can be supplied by alternatives to the present design, which would not flood the nationally significant upper valley. A relocation to Reelsville, for example, has a substantially equivalent benefit-to-cost ratio~ By controlling 307 square miles of the basin instead of only 197, it would `also provide superior flood con- trol; and it would not impair the natural area in any way. The corps has declined to include -a benefit factor in alternatives which- would preserve the natural area intact. The November 20, 1967, supplement to the third interim report in- cludes a recommendation for 300 additional acres of land acquisition, "nature" center, "observation" towers, and interpretive facilities, at a-n additional cost of $500,000. However, it recommends precisely the same water levels as originally proposed. The best scientific opinion available dismisses such a plan as nothing more than a "post mortem" study of nature. This is a term used by Dr. Robert 0. Petty, of Wabash College, who conducted the first ecological study of the valley through a National Park Service, grant. The Indiana Academy of Science resolution, and the position of all of Indiana's conservation organizations, fully concur in that judgment. Moreover, we find it inexplicable that the corps includes no benefits from its version of a "nature center." Philosophically, of course, they are correct. Such -a plan, unaccompanied by design changes to prevent any flooding in the upper valley, would be worth nothing. However, as a practical matter, we take exception to the corps refusal to calculate a benefit from n-ature study, education, esthetic `benefits, `and scientific research in the life and earth sciences. Such an approach is environ- mentally irresponsible or, `at best, uninformed. The corps also assumes that no increase in visitation to the reservoir complex would result from its "nature" center proposal. And, considering `that such a facility under the proposed conditions would be -an aberration of nature, perhaps they are right. But again, as a practical matter, it seems preposterous to suggest a "nature" center that would produce no visitations at all. But this is exactly what the corps states in its supplement. I think we understand why the corps refuses to attribute any bene- fit-s to its "nature" center idea. To acknowledge such a benefit would lead inescapably to a discussion of how much more beneficial an unim- paired natural landmark would be. The Indiana Academy of Science has already conducted a statewide survey indicating school students are transported hundreds of miles for field study and appreciation of the types of values which a-re found in Big Walnut Valley. We appre- ciate that such factors would tend to complicate the corps' method of calculating benefits. However, the manadate for doing exactly that is found in many documents including Senate Document 97, and Depart- ment of the Army regulation ER~-1165-2--2. The corps has either rejected these principles inits' Big Walnut Valley progra-m, or does not understand what they mean. PAGENO="0335" 321 Again, we urge that the Big Walnut Creek project presently pro- posed' by the Corps of Engineers be rejected. We think that our case in substantiation of the qualities of this area is beyond challenge now,thatthe enormous weight of opinion. supports the contention that Indiana's conservationists now fOr more than 3 years, all we ask is for consideration of those values and the~selection of one of the many, many feasible `alternatives that Swill provide the benefits of what development is necessary. Mr. ZION. (presiding). Thank you very much. You apparently have done a* lot of homework. Mr. DUSTIN. I have personally toured that area six times. Mr. ZION. Mr. Dustin, I congratulate you on the completeness of your report. The gentleman from California, Mr. `Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Certainly, Mr. Dustin, as Chairman Zion just men- tioned you certainly have put in a good deal of time in the position that you take, and, of course, this offers balanced testimony. Thank you. Mr. DU5TIN. I appreciate your consideration, and again in closing once again I wish to reiterate very strongly that the conservationists of Indiana are not inflexible, we are not rigid on this question. We are ready to get behind good sound alternatives which will provide the benefits every `one recognizes, but we must stand on our ground in this very important principle and hop.e the committee will accept our position. Again, thank you. very much. Mr. ZION. The Chair would like to call the Honorable John Myers from Indiana's Seventh District. STATEME1~T OF HON. JOHN MYERS, A REPRIESENTATIVE IN CON- GRESS PROM THE STATE OP INDIMTA Mr. Mnins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appre'ciate this oppor- tunity to apear before this subcommittee to express my support for all projects included in Interim Report No. 3 of the Wabash River Basin COmprehensive Study. `Having given careful consideration to the projects recommended in the third interim report, I am convinced they all are essential as part of the long-range program for the development of effective plans for flood control, water quality control, water supply, recreation, and fish ~.nd wildlife in the Wabash River Basin. The total annual benefits for the projects are estimated at more than $13 million with on overall benefit-cost ratio of 1.9. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors recommended authorization of all projects in Interim Report No. 3 and the Chie'f of the U.S. Army `Corps of Engineers concurred with these recommendations in a letter to the Secretary of the Army on July 21, 1967. And in `its most recent communication with this subcommitte2, the Corps of Engineers included all five projects which were originally recommended in the study. I urge this subcommittee to add its approval of these vitally `important projects and vote to authorize the Louisville and Helm Reservoirs in Illinois; the Marion (md.) flood protection levee, and the Big Blue, Downeyville, and Big Walnut Reservoirs in Indiana. PAGENO="0336" 322 It is this last project, Big Walnut, which has been the center of some criticism from a small number of conservationists whose interest in the area came to light only after the Corps of Engineers designated the area in Putnam County, north of Greencastle, md., as the most feasible site for construction of the much needed reservoir. I want to emphasize here this morning that there is overwhelming support for this project from the people of Putnam County who rec- ognize, as does the Corps of Engineers and State governmental offi- cials from the Governor's office on down, the tremendous value of locating such a reservoir in this area. Among the many endorsements of the Big Walnut Reservoir have been official resolutions from the State of Indiana, the Wabash Valley Association, represented here today by its executive secretary, Howard. Mendenhall, a.nd the Wabash Interstate Commission, represented by another good friend of ours, Dr. B. K. Barton,. as well as hundreds of residents who attended the 1965 public hearing. As you are. well aware, the Department of Interior initially with- held its reconnnendation of the construction of Big Wralnut because of the desire to preserve thenatural and historic values of the site. And this position is the basis of the Corps of Engineers report before you which includes Big `Walnut but does not take a position in regard to authorization of the project at this time. Those of us sincerely concerned about the need for the project have been in constant communication with the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior, the National Park Service, as well as the Wabash Interstate Commission and the Wabash Valley Association, in an attempt to arrive at some compromise which would permit us to proceed with construction and at the same time preserve the eco- logical features in Big Walnut Valley. I am happy to point out to this committee that in the last week a sig- nificant and encouraging breakthrough in these negotiations has been made. Since the time the Secretary of the Army forwarded his report to the Bureau of the Budget and on to Congress, the Department of Interior has indicated its willingness to recoimsider its decision to with- hold recommendation of the Big Walnut project. In fact, and I am certain this will be corroborated by my good friends from the Corps of Engineers, representatives from the differ- ent agencies walked the area in question only last week to `determine the exact value of the site. It is regrettable this important inspection by all parties involved was not arranged before a final report was forwarded to Congress. But the encouraging fact is that such an investigation has been made and Interior now has indicated to me and to the Corps of Engineers that perhaps there is room here for compromise. The Secretary of Interior has before him a memorandum from the Park Service which says the compromise suggested by the Corps of Engineers in its supplement to the. third interim report would provide a high-quality nature preserve site of value to educators as well as the general public. Another meeting is scheduled between the Secretary and Gen. Charles Noble of the Corps of Engineers as soon as the Secretary returns to the city. Interior is reconsidering and all parties involved have expressed confidence a compromise will be agreed to in the very near future. PAGENO="0337" 323 Therefore, I urge this subcommittee to recommend Big `Walnut for authorization along with the other projects in this package so we can proceed with. plans for construction. Final details of the plans are clearly a matter which could come in the postauthorization operation. The pros and cons of this project have been discussed for some time. The State of Indiana, the people of the area involved and the Corps of Engineers have gone on record favoring this project. The facts and the statements are a matter of record which this committee has before it. May I add just this one final observation. This particular part of the State has long suffered as an economically depressed area. While Putnam County has enjoyed reasonable prosperity, nearby counties such as Vermillion, Clay, Greene, Sullivan, and Vigo Counties have long been included as areas of high unemployment. The obvious benefits of Big Walnut will be a much needed shot in the arm for the people of this part of the State. I urge you to add your approval to this project in support of the people of Indiana who have made it clear they overwhelmingly favor Big Walnut. Just today I have been given figures by the Corps of Engineers of the estimated damage of recent floods of the Eel River. Mr. CLAUSEN. What was the name of that river again? Mr. MYERS. The Eel River of Indiana. But the Corps of Engineers just gave me figures today of the estimated damage as being $1,170,- 000 due to the recent floods. Now, much of this could have bee.n prevented with a reservoir in that area. So, we have to look at this on the basis of what would be the effect on more people. True, maybe three or four farmers affected there do not want to give their land up, but how many more are giving it up each year due to the floods. This is the thing we have to look at: that is for your committee to look at and evaluate. Who are we going to hurt the most, a few farm- ers who will be hurt by the reservoir or those who get flooded out every year? I want to urge the committee to take a strong look and that you do include Big Walnut in the report. The authorization does not prevent further study in this area to resolve this problem and I am quite certain if you do include this, and I ask that you do include Big Walnut, put it back in the Interim Report No. 3 and give us time, and with the Corps of Engineers we can resolve the differences of opinion here. I do urge you include Interim Report No. 3. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question. Do I understand you correctly, you are recommending inclusion of the project itself, but that the corps themselves give consideration to the alternatives to the advanced stages of the engineering and design? Mr. MYERS. Yes; if it is authorized I am sure we have made tremen- dous progress already just last week. I do not know what the witnesses have said prior to me, but just last week I understand the Department of Interior was out revi~wing. this area again and I have talked with them and they have assured me that they are working in this area to re- solve the differences here. If it is included in the authorization I am quite certain the differences can be resolved. Let me say this. This has been approved by the Department of Indi- ana also, this Big `Walnut. It was approved. 97-700--68----22 PAGENO="0338" 324 Mr. CLAUSEN. By the State of Indiana? Mr. MYERS. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes; I believe the documents we have before us in- dicate that. In `other words, the possible consideration of some people are not aware of that and that is a goodly portion of the alternative recom-, mendátions can be computed in depth after the feasibility study is completed. Mr. ~ui~s. That is all I am asking for. Mr.'CLAtTSEN. I see. ` Mr~ ZION. Mr. Hammerschmidt, any questions? Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. No questions. Mr. ZION. Thank you, Mr. Myers. Mr. MYERS. Thank you for this opportunity. I would like to send some additional material to be put in the record at this point. Mr. ZION. It will go into the record at this point. (Matsrial received for the record follows:) ` The controversy on the Big Walnut Reservoir centers on the alleged `adverse effect of the proposed reservoir on an area in the upper reaches of this proposed site, an area claimed ~y those who oppose construction of the reservoir to include certain unique species of vegetation. Admittedly, as now planned, the operation of this reservoir will on occasion, innundate for short periods of time a portion of the valley in which Canadian ~Yew (commonly called ground hemlock) now grows. However, there are two "colonies" of Canadian Yew and only one of these will be affected by innundation during periods when it is necessary to impound flood waters. The colony which would be innundated exists on a steep wall above the stream with the upper part of this colony at an elevation of 800-810 feet msl. The flood pool level is 808 feet `msl. so that only on those rare occasions when it is necessary to utilize the full storage potential of this reservoir would essentially all of this growth of `Canadian Yew be subjected to flooding. , - The second colony of Canadian `Yew lies at a higher elevation, the upper -edge of `this colony is at 852 feet msl., and would not ~e affected by reservoir storage operation. The hemlock trees In the area grow in response to certain subterranean drainage along the top of the rock layers which form the base for the upland ridges. Consequently they grow at the upper edge of the valley wail. Ecologists have identified only one hemlock tree as being located within the flood pool level and that exists essentially at the 808 foot level, a field elevation identification which Is difficult to make without exact survey. All other hemlock trees grow at elevations well above the flood pool level and would be unaffected ~y the fluctuating level occasioned by flood water storage. Both the Canadian Yew `and the hemlock have been identified as unique species and of national signifiance justifying the expenditures of federal funds for -their preservation. The Canadian Yew occurs normally in the Middlewest from southern Michigan northward, thus it is true that this vegetation growth is not commonly found as a ground cover in Indiana, there are however, other occurrences of this plant in the same general area of Indiana where north-facing slopes and sub-surface -drainage provide the micro-climate necessary for this species. One area in - which this plant is found in Indiana has already been preserved under ownership of the State of Indiana with a preservation agreement with `Nature Con- ~ervancy,' Inc. Thus the contention that the Big Walnut Creek area presents a vegetation system which is of. national significance `for preservation is not true and if we assume the area might `be considered of local significance, the State of Indiana has already accomplished specie preservation within 25 miles of the site under construction. The hemlock found in the' Big Walnut area is even less a significant species association. The Eastern hemlock grOws profusely from the Carolinas to Nova Scotia with westward extensions in any number of locations, where total clear- ing has `not occurred, in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana. The 1949 Yearbook of Agriculture, Trees, contains maps showing the range of the various trees of the United States, the hemlock range map `includes three areas in Indiana. PAGENO="0339" 325 -The Beech-Maple Forest, which has been identified as at least near virgin in character, is an upland forest which lies at an elevation of 840-870 feet, msl., well above the upper limits of the flood pool. This vegetation would not be affected by the reservoir. Very briefly then, the entire opposition to this reservoir must be considered to be focused on the possible loss of a very small area of less- than one to two acres on which exists scattered Canadian Yew bushes. Of the vegetation species mentioned -by those opposing the reservoir `because of potential adverse effect on the natural area, these are the only plants w:hich lie within the area -proposed to be flooded and these exist at an elevation which would be affected only in- frequently in the operation of the reservoir. The Wabash Valley Interstate Commission requested the Corps of Engineers to prepare a report which would indicate the extent and frequency of use of this flood storage area as identified by an evaluation of past rainfall records in this vicinity. This report, based on 30 years of record, 1930-1960, listed 17 occurrences of the use of the flood pool for storage (see attached copy of report). On no occasion did this study indicate storage of water above 807 feet msl; the maximum storage would have occurred in the spring of 19~50 with two periods, of storage at 804 feet msl. During one of these periods 31 days would have been included in the storage period, that is, during 31 days water levels higher than the conservation pool level would have been experienced. No estimate was given of the time during which the water level would have been maintained at the 804 foot level, presumably this would have been of very short duration since the operation of water `releases from the flood pool is accomplished as rapidly as possible to insure maximum available storage at all times. The second period of flood water storage use in 1q50 was 19 `days. Only two times in the 30-year period of study would the flood water storage level have `exceeded 800 feet msl. In conclusion, although there may be some basis for consideration of this area as an ecosystem unique to the `State of Indiana, and there is a relatively meager basis for such a decision, the vegetation complex occurring in the Big Walnut Valley is not unique from a national viewpoint since it does occur over a wide area in eastern and northern United States. It cannot therefore qualify in th'is respect as `being an instance in which federal funds should be used to protect a remnant of a segment of our nationul heritage in nature. Secondly, the major portion of the suggested nature area is not endangered by the construction and operation of the reservoir. Operation of the reservoir will physically affect only one of two Canadian Yew colonies, a matter of occasionally innundating bushes which grow on an area not exceeding two acres. Thus limitation of potential water supply to the Indianapolis Industrial complex is threatened by an exceedingly small tract which some people have attempted to build into a major national castastrophic demise. Maximum Date of Storage period maximum pool elevation reservoir pool elevation (feet, Frequencyl times per 100 years Duration Above - Elevation Days 807.3 804.2 799.5 794.5 (50-yr. (25-yr. (10-yr. (5-yr. flood) flood) flood) flood) mean sea level) December 1949-July 1950.... Mar. 8,1950 April-September 1957 July 15,1957 March-July 1933 June 9,1933 May-July 1943 June 8, 1943 December 1936-March 806.8 303.0 797.4 797. 3 2.29 5.6 8.9 12.2 231+19=50 103 133 24 36+7+41=54 37 23 1937 Feb. 21, 1937 January-June 1959 Apr. 1, 1939 January-April 1959 Mar. 3,1959 March-May 1948 Apr. 27,1948 December 1951-February 1958 Jan. 9, 1958 January-February 1930~_. Jan. 29,1930 Juhe-September 1958 Aug. 1, 1958 January-March 1952 Feb. 26, 1952 April-May 1940 May 13, 1940 December 1932-February 1933 Feb. .7,1933 February-March 1936 Mar. 19,1936 February-April,1955 Apr. 4,1955 December 1951-January 1952 Jan. 16,1952 797.3 795.4 793.3 792.7 791. 2 789.7 789. 3 788.0 787.2 786.1 . 735.4 734.3 783.1 15.4 18.7 22 25.3 28. 6 31.9 35. 2 38.5 41.3 ~ 45.1 48.4 51.6. ~ 38 21 - 1 Frequency based on 30 yr. of record. 2 The 1955 flood is above elevation 804.2 for 2 different durations. 3 The 1957 flood is above elevation 794.5 for 3 different durations. Note: Conservation pool at elevation 782.0 ft. m.s.l. PAGENO="0340" 326 Mr. ZION. Is Mr. Claude Harris here? Mr. OLAUSEN. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Harris did have some testimony and to protect his interest on this we should at this particular point in the record leave open for him to include a statement at this point. I ask unanimous consent of the chairman to do this. Mr. ZIoN. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement of Mr. Claude Harris follows:) THE IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMEIUcA, Ixc., VIRGINIA DIVISION, Alexandria, Va., June 22, 1968. Hon. ROBERT E. JONES, Chairinan~ Subcommittee on Flood Control, House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, TVash ington, D.C. Dear MR. JONES: It is deeply regretted that I found it necessary to leave Thursday, June 20th, before the committee had completed its hearing on the Big Walnut Creek Project in Indiana. I understand that you asked if Virginia Izaak Walton League had a posi- tion. I am pleased to state that the Virginia Division is one hundred percent behind the Indiana Division on the Big Walnut Creek project and has made this a matter of public record. We urge that you give serious consideration to the proposal as made by the Indiana Division representative. For conservation's sake, CLAUDE B. HARRIS, Chairman, Legislative Committee. Mr. ZION. Next we will hear from Mr. Arthur T. Wright., conserva- tion consultant, representing the Wilderness Society of `Washington~ D.C. STATEMENT OP A. T. WRIGHT, CONSERVATION CONSULTANT OP THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY OP WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. WRIGHT. The Wilderness Society, a 40,000-mern:ber national conservation organization with headquarters at 729. 15th Street NWT., `Washington, D.C., opposes the construction of the Big Walnut Valley Dam 011 Big `Walnut Creek in Putnam County, md. Big `Walnut Valley is an area of unique beauty, containing excep- tional examples of plantlife and wildlife. Its near-climax ecology is of exceptional educational, scientific, esthetic, and recreational value. Indiana can ill afford the loss of any of its few remaining lands which exist ill their natural state. Tile value of tins land, with its high- quality environment available for present-day and future Americans, is beyond calculation. Because these values are hard to measure, the land and its uses are peculiarly and tragically vulnerable to the cost benefit claims of the Corps of Engineers. The dam is said to be needed for flood control, water supply, and water quality. Without the recreational benefits which the Corps of Engineers has included to improve the cost~benefit ratio, the dam probably could not be justified. If recreational benefits of the dam are crucial to authorization of this dam, the committee must weigh these alleged values of slack-water recreation which the dam will produce against the value of the recreational opportunities now offered `by the land in its natural state and against the value of the educational and PAGENO="0341" 327 scientific opportunities the natural land affords as well. If it does so, the preservation of Big Walnut Vailey will be assured. The Big Walnut VaJley is one of the finest and most beautiful of In- `diana's unspoiled valleys, and it would be an act of incredible short- sightedness to forever obliterate it from the eyes of man. The committee is respectfully requested to exclude the Big Walnut Valley Darn from the omnibus bill. Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. Mr. JONES (presiding). Thank you, Mr. Wright. Next, Mr. Homer Brenneman, secretary-treasurer of the Indiana Conservation Council, Inc. STATEMENT OF HOMER BRENNEMAN, SECRETARY-TR~EASURER, INDIANA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, INC. Mr. BRENNEMAN. My name is Homer Brennernan, and I represent the Indiana Conservation Council, Inc., with principal offices in In- dianapolis, md. The I'C'~I is an association of conservationists and sportsmen iii clubs throughout the State of Indiana, affiliated with the National Wildlife Federation. Our organization, with more than 10,000 members is the largest conservation organization in Indiana, and is vitally concerned with the `best use of natural resources. Therefore, I am here to present the opposition of our council to a proposed Corps of Engineers reservoir plan which would destroy the natural land and water system of the upper Big Walnut Valley, Putnam County, md. This policy has been ~officially established by action of our State con- vention including delegates from throughout our State. In his position, we are joined by every other major conservation group in `Indiana, including the Izaak Walton League; Nature Con- servancy, Save the Dunes Council, Indiana (Audubon Society, `Indiana Covered Bridge Society, and many members of the Sierra Club in the Midwest. The Indiana Academy of Science has also declared its op- position to the corps project, and a copy of its April 26, 1968, resolu- tion is attached for the record of this hearing. The Indiana Conservation Council has been interested in the upper Big Walnut Valley for almost 3 years, and has provided its fullest co- operation to all concerned `in the effort to secure modifications of the present corps plan which would preserve this area intact. We have con- tended since the beginning that this valley is one of Indiana's greatest remaining natural environment's. Proponents of the corps plan to flood major portions have said the upper valley is of minor natural value, but our State's scientific and conservationist groups, which have studied the area carefully, have always contended that the upper Big Walnut Valley is of regional and national significance. The action of the Advisory Board on National Parks and Historic Sites, which on May 12 declared the upper valley aligible for recogni- tion under the National Registry of Natural Landmarks, clearly sup- ports `thi's position, as does the action of the Academy of Science. We, along with other Indiana conservationists, have patiently worked and communicated with Federal and State resource agencies in trying to bring about necessary changes needed to save this area. Every effort has failed, completely, and no changes that have any mean- ing at all have `been proposed by responsible' public agencies. W~ and PAGENO="0342" 328 all other Indiana conservationists are not just trying to prevent the loss of a few trees, or of half of the State's most extensive colony of Canadian yew, nor representative specimens of the more than 325 plants which have been documented in the valley. The values which are of importance in this valley are found only in the complete land and water system which have given rise to the oustanding plant, bird, and wildlife community. It is not possible to save the meaning of this valley if it is flooded even halfway up. It is only important if it is not flooded at all. This means that the level of any impounded water at U.S. Highway 36 cannot be higher than 750 feet. The corps proposes a conservation pool of 782 feet and a flood control pool of 808 feet. This will destroy the values we are fighting for, and would eliminate any possibility of a national natural landmark being established there. The release from the Department of the Interior clearly lists the flood plain forestation and vegetation as one of the main reasons for selecting the area for rec- ognition. If it is stripped or flooded, there will be no natural land- mark. At this time, there are at least two bona fide applicants for this recognition-Mr. Harger and Mr. Hultz-and their applications will soon be processed. The destruction proposed for this valley is needless, and our organi- zation is deeply disappointed in the reluctance of public agencies to select one of the many, many feasible alternatives which would leave the tipper valley unimpaired for present and firture generations. In asking you to reject the present corps' plan, it is not as if we were asking that the natural resources of the whole State be "locked up," nor do Indiana's conservationists have a record of opposing the many, many reservoirs and flood control projects which now dot the Wabash River Basin. We are talking about a very special case, involv- ing a single project to which there are many feasible alternstives which will not ruin these priceless values~ All of the benefits claimed for the project proposed by the corps and the State can be provided without flooding and destroying the upper valley with impounded waters. We would like to point out that a major benefit claimed for the corps project is water supply for Indianapolis. This would be a 35- mile interbasin transfer which will cost both Federal and State tax- payers millions of dollars. All of the water for municipal water sup- ply from this project is earmarked for Indianapolis at a claimed an- nual benefit of $500,000. Yet, nowhere to our knowledge is there any mention in the corps' third interim report of another huge water project announced January 24, 1968, by the Indianapolis Water Co. This project will be located just northeast and upstream of Indian- apolis, and will have a storage of 21 billion gallons, 50 percent more than the combined storage of the existing Geist and Morse Reservoirs which now supply the municipal needs of the city. The corps projects the needs of the city through the year 2020, and the water company's new project will be completed by 1977, and will supply the city when its population doubles to 1 million. Since the corps did not take into ancount any water supply from tl'e water comna.ny's Mud Creek proj- ect, it is clear that more water will be available for the city than was contemplated in its third interim report. Even if some kind of mutual relationship should now be claimed by the corps between supplies from Mud Creek and Big Walnut, the PAGENO="0343" 329 fact is that the additional supply was not contemplated by the corps in its report, and a surplus of some proportions will exist through the year 2020, and probably beyond. Some time ago, the executive director of the Wabash Valley Interstate Commission stated publicly that no water would be needed by the Indianapolis from Big Walnut until after the turn of the century; and that view was expressed even before the water company's Mud Creek plan was known. Clearly, there is no imminent need of the corps' Big Walnut project for water supply in the foreseeable future. But even if such a need could be shown, the amount of such water from Big Walnut could be reduced by some quantity which recognizes the flows which will come from Mud Creek. This fact reopens consideration of Big Walnut. alterna- tives which would be smaller and much less expensive, and which would preserve the natural qualities of the upper valley intact. Among the major objections `we have heard is that some of these alternatives would provide less water than the project desired by the corps. How- ever, a lesser quantity should now be acceptable, at considerable sav- ings in Federal and State tax moneys. But if the original deliveries are still considered necessary, they can be provided by relocating the project downstream to Reelsville. This site would provide even better flood control, as much or more water supply, and all of the other benefits claimed for the original project, at a substantially equivalent benefit to cost ratio. We know that there are feasible `alternatives, and that these sug- gested are only representative of the possibilities. The Indiana Con- servation Council feels there is more to the enjoyment of `water re- sources than power boating and water skiing. Our members and thousands among the general `public also desire free-flowing streams and quiet valleys away from the stink and noise of motorboats and automobiles and gaudy resorts. Big Walnut Valley can provide these values in a way few if any other places in our State can do. We have heard it argued that if this corps project is modified there would be no way to assure preservation of the upper valley in its pres- ent condition. We reject `such argument's completely. The greatest threat, to the upper valley's qualities is from the Corps of Engineers itself, and not from the present private ownerships there. Many of these people have owned that land for generations, and have practiced a restraint which to this day has saved values not found elsewhere. The owners of the best `of these lands are now prepared to apply for Natural Landmark registration, which carries the declared, intent to continue a personal policy of keeping the natural qualities intact. Also many conservationists of the `State, in special cooperation with the' nature conservancy, are prepared to assist in the purchase of the best areas, and under rigid provision of the 1967 Indiana Nature Preserves Act, to seek permanent dedication of the existing natural qualities. Big Walnut Valley has been placed among the very top levels of Indiana's remaining outdoor estate `by the new natural areas survey, being con- ducted by Dr. Alton A. Lindsey, of Purdue University, under provi- sions of a grant from the Ford Foundation. If the corps project is set aside or changed to prevent any flooding in the natural area, meth- ods will be created at a rapid pace to permanently preser~re the upper valley's qualities. PAGENO="0344" 330 We also reject the corps' proposal to go ahead with essentially its original plan, which is now accompanied by proposals to condemn 300 additional acres of land, install a nature center, interpretive facili- ties, observation towers, and trails. This proposal has been called by Dr. Robert 0. Petty nothing better than a post mortem. These types of facilities will have no meaning at all if the valley is flooded half way up, and we are disappointed that the corps could demonstrate so little understanding of the issue involved. There surely must be an intelligent solution to this problem. We are greatly disappointed that neither the State nor the Corps have elected to support one of the many feasible alternatives which would achieve a meaningful goal in the upper valley. We are certain that Indian's conservationists, and particularly the Indiana Conservation Council, Inc., will perservere in this issue until these changes are made. It is our feeling that this issue is fundamental to the very core of conserva- tion and to the highest and best dedication of outdoor resources. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to the corps plan in Big Walnut Valley. Mr. JONES. The Honorable L. H. Hamilton, of the Ninth District of Indiana. STATEMENT OP HON. LEE H. HAMILTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP INDIANA Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity to appear before you a.nd enter my testimony regarding Interim Report No. 3 of the Wabash River Basin comprehensive study. This report is concerned with the development of effective plans for flood control and allied purposes in the White River and Little Wabash River subbasins of the Wabash River Basin, as part of the continuing Wabash River Basin comprehensive study. Although I believe in the development of water resource projects throughout the State, I will confine my testimony to support the one project under consideration which is located in the Ninth District of Indiana. I sincerely hope that authorization can be obtained for the Downeyville Reservoir in Rush and Decatur Counties. The Corps of Engineers has recommended it for construction. This reservoir will provide flood control, recreation, and possible water quality control. Operation of the reservoir for flood control would reduce a flood having an average recurrence interval of 35 years to nondamaging stages at and immediately below the damsite. The reservoir would afford significant reductions in flood damages along downstream reaches of the Flat Rock and White Rivers, and some beneficial effects would also be realized in the Wabash River. The cost would be $33.7 million. The drainage would be 815 square miles. Mr. Chairman, in recent years great strides have been made in the State of Indiana, and particularly the Ninth District, in water resource development; but there is still a great deal to be accomplished. We cannot afford a delay in the authorization of this and other important projects. Therefore, I urge the subcommittee to give favor- able consideration to this authorization. Mr. JONES. At this point in the record, I will place statements and letters received concerning the Big Walnut Valley project. PAGENO="0345" 331 Next is the Honorable E. Ross Adair. STATEMENT OF E. ROSS ADAIR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP INDIANA Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of your committee for the opportunity of submitting a. statement concerning the Big `WaJnut Valley project in my home State of Indiana. First of all, I wish to register strong objectiOns to a flood control project of the U.S. Corps of Engineers which in my opinion would inundate and destroy the natural beauty of parts of the valley. The committee also has heard from several Hoosier conservationists, including the Izaak Walton League representative from our State, expressing similar views. It is our contention that the project as presently designed by the corps would encroach upon the natural beauty and recreational fea- ture.s of the Big Walnut Valley. We believe thai there are several acceptable alternatives which could be agreed upon by the corps and the conversationists without sacrificing the basic features of the area. These have been under discussion by the parties involved. Therefore, I am hopeful that you will see fit to preserve the in- tegrity of this area as it is recognized by the National Registry of Natura.l Landmarks program. I am sure that with further study the. Corps of Engineers can adapt their water control project to this situation without unreasonable adjustments. In that way, we will be able to achieve an excellent, park area and also provide for the flood control measures the corps indicates that it. needs. Mr. JONES. Our next witness is the Honorable Richard Ottinger. STATEME~NT OF. CONGRESSMAN RICHARD L. OTTINGER, A MEMBER OP CONGRESS, FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I ap;preciate the opportunity to ap- pear before you today. I know t~hat you have a crowded schedule, and so will confine my statement to a very short description of my con- cern with respect to the adequacy of the planning that has gone into the Big `Walnut Valley project. Cost-benefit analysis is a process with a number of deficiencies; this is not to say that the process should be discarded, but it suggests that the method should not be accepted uncritically. I have written to the Corps of Engineers on two separate occasions to ask questions about the values assigned to preserving the site of the Big Walnut. Valley Reservoir in its present condition and on alterna- tives considered. The~ first inquiry was answered with an inadequate and unresponsive form letter. The second, dated over a month ago, was totally ignored. With your permission, I will include the texts of my two letters in the record, together with the unresponsive Corps of Engineers answer to my first letter. My concern was then and remains now that insufficient concern is given in the planning of many. projects to the values that these projects would necessarily destroy. I feel that some consideration of these factors should be given in the cost analysis stage, and as far PAGENO="0346" 332 as I am able to tell, no such consideration has been given to these values in this case, nor has consideration of its possible alternatives been made to any adequate degree. Your committee is being asked to buy a pig in a poke without even being given a very clear look at the poke. Since there is no apparent compelling agency for immediate construction of this project, I urge this committee to defer authorization of the Big Walnut Valley proj- ect, pending a more adequate review of its true costs and benefits. Thank you. MAY 13, 1968. Lt. Gen. Wn~LIAM F. GASSIDY. Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army Washington, D.C. Dear GENERAL CASSIDY: On April 11, I wrote to you, asking for information on the proposed Big Walnut Valley Project in Indiana. My letter asked for the following information, to permit me to make an informed judgment on the merits of the project: "I would appreciate being fully informed by your office on the investigations that have been done on the proposal to date, together with a report on the extent and nature of investigations made on alternative sites. I would also like to know what consideration was given and values a~ssigned in your proposal to the value of preserving the Big Walnut Valley site in its existing natural condition." On April 30, I received a reply, signed by a Lt. (3ol. Anderson, your reference symbol ENGCW-PD. This response was wholly unsatisfactory. My original inquiry may have been insufficiently specific, although it seems adequate at this reading. In any case, I should like specific information and cost data on the project as it is presently plaimed, benefits assigned to the project as it is presently planned, together with similar information on every other project considered as an alternative to the Big Walnut Valley reservoir. I would also like to know, with reference to specific dollar figures, the values assigned to retaining the project area in its present state. As I review this letter, it seems hostile in tone; I do not wish to leave you with that impression. I am simply interested in getting hard, usable data on the extent of investigations already made on the project. It would also help if you would indicate the amount of money already expended on investigating this project, and on each of its alternatives. Thankyou for your assistance. Sincerely, RICHARD L. OTTINGER, Member of Congress. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Washingon, D.C., April 30, 1968. Hon. RICHARD L. OTTINGER, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. OTTINGER: This is in reply to your recent letter concerning the pro- posed Big Walnut Reservoir in Putnam County, Indiana. The proposed Big Walnut Reservoir on Big Walnut Creek is one of five reser- voirs and a local protection project which have been recommended by the Dis- trict and Division Engineers and approved by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, in the Wabash River Basin. In formulating a project for the Big Walnut Valley, the members of the Coordinating Committee for the Wabash River Basin comprehensive study, the Corps of Engineers, and cooperating State and Federal agencies were confronted with an exceedingly difficult task. Their objectives were to meet needs for flood control, water supply for Indianapolis, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife, and at the same time to preserve natural values, insofar as possible. The Chief of Engineers carefully reviewed the problem of protecting natural areas in the upper portion of the proposed reservoir area, while at the same time meeting the other needs of the area. Special additional studies of possible alter- PAGENO="0347" 333 natives to the proposed Big Walnut Reservoir were made and a special Advisory Committee was established to assist in a reevaluation of proposals for Big Wal- nut Valley. Possible modifications of the proposed reservoir and a wide range of alternative plans were studied in an effort to preserve the natural forest areas while meeting the water resources needs of the region. One of the considered plans to protect the forest by a bypass channel would be objectionable because of the extreme depth of the channel, the great volume áf excavated materials which would be piled high along the channel and change the environment, possible changes in ground water levels and alteration of stream flow and a cost increase of $12,000,000. All of the numerous alternative plans investigated were elimi- nated by reason of loss of storage capacity, high costs or other disadvantages. With respect to your last question on the values assigned to preserving the Big Walnut Valley site, I believe the effort to apply judgement and carefully weigh these values is evident in the special studies described above. Also additional lands, now privately owned, would be acquired by the Federal Government under the modified plan for Big Walnut Reservoir to preserve natural values, and a nature center and related facilities would be provided. While regrettably the project would cause some loss in natural values, this was carefuly consid- ered in relation to the costs and benefits in determining the advisability of the modified plan. I am enclosing a summary sheet giving information on the special additional studies and proposals to preserve the ecological values in the proposed reservoir area. Sincerely yours, FERD E. ANDERSON, Jr., Lieutenant Colonel, Assistant Director of Civil Works for Central Divisions. INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED BIG WALNUT REsERvoIR, IND. The Big Walnut Reservoir project is one of five reservoir projects recom- mended in Interim Report No. 3, Wabash River Basin Comprehensive Study, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio. The proposed report of the Chief of Engineers on the interim study has been circulated to the State and Federal agencies concerned together with the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, accompanied by the reports of the District and Division Engineers, as a step in processing the report for submission to Congress. Big Walnut Reservoir, on Big Walnut Creek near Greencastle, was recom- mended as a result of the comprehensive studies which have been made in co- operation with the States and Federal agencies through the Coordinating Com- mittee for the Wabash River Basin comprehensive study. The project would provide for the protection of flood prone areas, supply water for municipal and industrial use in the vicinity of Indianapolis, improve water quality, develop Water-related recreational opportunities for the public, and enhance fish and wildlife values. Conservation interests have expressed opposition to authorization of the Big Walnut Reservoir on the ground that it would destroy an important ecological area of Indiana. With a view to finding a solution to thisproblem, the Chief of Engineers directed the District Engineer in Louisville to make a supplemental report detailing alternatives to the Big Walnut Reservoir plan recommended in his proposed report. He also directed the District Engineer to establish a special advisory committee to develop information on the ecological aspects of the area in question for use in the supplemental report. Members of the special advisory committee were: Dr. Alton A. Lindsey, Professor of Biology, Purdue University. Mr. Robert Lindahl, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Mr. S. L. Frost, Executive Secretary, Ohio Water Commission. Mr. Robert Gramelspacher, Eckstein Lumber Inc., Jasper, Indiana. Modification of the proposed Big Walnut project and a wide range of alter- native plans were thoroughly investigated in an effort to preserve the natural forest areas along Big Walnut Creek. The objective was to meet the existing and near future needs of an expanding population and economy for flood control, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife while at the same time giving full consideration to social consequences including the pres- ervation of natural and historic values of significance to the region and the nation. The numerous plans of alternative reservoir sites, multiple reservoir systems, and redesign of Big Walnut reservoir to avoid or protect the forest area PAGENO="0348" 334 by a by-pass channel or dikes were found objectionable or unattractive. The alternatives would result in loss of storage capacity, high costs, or other dis- advantages such as extensive highway and railroad relocations and river crossings. Full consideration has been given to the views of interested parties, both proponents and opponents, the supplemental report of the District Engineer and the report of the advisory committee. Based on the special additional studies of means to preserve ecological values, the Chief of Engineers revised his pro- posed report to recommend authorization of the Big Walnut reservoir project generally as recommended by the reporting officers but with additional land acquisition, a nature center and other educational and scientific facilities at an estimated additional cost of $500,000 for construction and $17,000 annual opera- tion and maintenance. The State of Indiana concurs in this recommendation. These special features would be administered by the State or under the State's supervision in order to preserve in so far as practicable, the ecological values in the area, guarantee their future against destruction and provide for appropri- ately limited public use of the area. Preservation of such natural values, includ- ing acquisition of additional land w-ould be a specific objective of the proposed Big Walnut reservoir project. The modified plan of development will. therefore also fulfill the broader objective of conservation education by offering visiting students, teachers and the general public a natural laboratory area. The Governor of Indiana has approved the modified plan. APRIL 11, 1068. Lt. Gen. WILLIAM F. CAs5IDY, Cli ief of Engineers, Department of the Army, TVasli ington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL CASSIDY: I have received a letter from one of my eoii~tituents, expressing concern over a Corps proposal to locate a dam in Big Walnut Valley. Indiana. I gather that considerable concern has been expressed that the dam. if placed where planned. may not be in the best location, considering the total effects of the project. I w-ould appreciate being fully informed by your office on the investigations that have been done on the proposal to date, together with a report on the ex- tent and nature of investigations made on alternative sites. I would also like to know what consideration was given and values assigned in your proposal to the value of preserving the Big Walnut Valley site in its existing natural condition. Your prompt response to this inquiry will be appreciated. Sincerely, RICHARD L. OTTINGER. .lleniber of Congress. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. Hrir~. CHAIRMAN OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, OHIO VALLEY IMPuOVEMENT AssocL~TIox Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. my name is William J. Hull. I reside in Washington. D.C. I am Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Ohio Valley Improvement Association, Inc.. a non-profit corporation of the State of Ohio with its principal office at 4017 Carew Tower, Cincinnati, Ohio. The Association, founded in 1895, is dedicated to sound water resource development in the Ohio River Basin. Its membership includes agricultural groups and in- dustries such as coal, oil, steel, aluminum, chemicals, and electric power, as well as shippers, financial institutions, river operators, merchants, civic groups and individual citizens who support its work and program. We welcome this opportunity to recommend the following projects for authorization: (i) WABASH VALLEY. ILL. AND IND. Big Blue Reseri'oir. hid. The proposed project is located on Big Blue River, a tril)utary of the East Fork of the White River in Rush and Hancock Counties, Indiana. The project consists of a gated concrete overflow section w-ith earth embankments on both sides. The reservoir will have a total storage capacity of 120,100 acre-feet which PAGENO="0349" 335 will be utilized for flood control, water supply, water quality control, general and fish and wildlife recreation. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.0 to 1. The estimated total cost is $27,062,000 of which $22,100,000 is Federal and $4,962,000 is non- Federal. Big Walnut Reservoir, md. The proposed project is located on Big Walnut Oreek, a tributary of the Del River, in Putnam County, Indiana. The project consists of a rolled earth em bankment, uncontrolled spillway and outlet works. The reservoir will have a total storage capacity of 323,400 acre-feet which will be utilized for flood con- trol, water supply, water quality control, general and fish and wildlife recrea- tion. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.1 to 1. The estimated total cost is $31,624,000 of which $19,500,000 is Federal and $12,124,000 is non-Federal. Downeyville Reservoir, md. The proposed project is located on Flatrock and Little Flatrock Rivers, tribu- taries of the East Fork of the White River in Decatur and Rush Counties, In- diana. The project consists of a gated concrete overflow section with earth embankments on both sides. The reservoir will have a total storage capacity of 161,900 acre-feet which will be utilized for flood control, water supply, water quality control, general and fish and wildlife recreation. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.8 to 1. The estimated total cost is $32,027,000 of which $16,700,000 is Federal and $15,327,000 is non-FederaL Helm Reservoir, Ill. The proposed project is located on Skillet Fork of the Little Wabash River, in Marion, Clay and Wayne Counties, Illinois. The project consists of a rolled earth dam, un-controlled spiliway and outlet works. The reservoir will have a storage capacity of 171,800 acre-feet which will be utilized for flood control. water supply and quality control, general and fish and wildlife recreation. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.7 to 1. The estimated total cost is $18,300,000 of which $11,523,000 is Federal and $6,777,000 is non-Federal. Louisville Reservoir, Ill. The proposed project is located on the Little Wabash River, a tributary of the Wabash River, in Clay and Effingham Counties, Illinois. The project con- sists of a concrete gravity flow section flanked on one side with an earth-fill sec- tion. The reservoir will have a total storage capacity of 230,800 acre-feet which will be utilized for flood control, water supply, water quality control, general and fish and wildlife recreation. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.8 to 1. The estimated total cost is $24,200,000 of which $18,778,000 is Federal and $5,412,000 is non-Federal. (2) UPPER LICKING RIVER, KY. The first element of the project consists of a reservoir at Royalton, i\Iagoffin County, Kentucky, provided by a dam about 100 feet high, located approximately a mile up-stream from Royalton, Kentucky. It would have a total storage capa- city of 64,500 acre-feet and would be operated as a multipurpose reservoir for flood control, water supply, water quality control and recreation. The estimated cost of the dam and reservoir is $25 million. Of this amount, about $1.3 million would be allocated to local interests in line with Federal policies as to water supply and recreation. The second element consists of the improvement of about 14.7 miles of the Licking River channel and 1.2 miles of State Road Fork, at an estimated total cost of $4.5 million, of which the non-Federal share is estimated at $495,000. This project is part of a plan of development pursuant to the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. In evaluating this project a technique has been developed for estimating secondary benefits in the form of improvements to the industrial base (with resulting employment opportunities) in accord with the objectives of that Act. This, then, is a pilot project, of the highest interest not only for determination of the development values of projects in Appalachia, but in indicating a technique for evaluating such benefits, where appropriate, for all water resource projects as contemplated in Senate Document 97 of the 87th Congress~ Second Session. At a time when water resource development is lagging seriously behind emerg- ing needs;, it is imperative that more adequate and realistic principles and tech- imiques of evaluation be established to assure consideration `by the Congress of PAGENO="0350" 336 all potential benefits, both primary and secondary, and of the contributions to public policy objectives reasonably associated with water resource projects. (3) SOUTHWEST JEFFERSON COUNTY LOCAL PROTECTION PROJECT, KENTUCKY The proposed project will provide improvement of the area by construction of earth levees and concrete flood walls approximately 17.3 miles in length with an associated recreation development. The project would provide the area with full protection from Ohio River floods equal in height to the greatest flood of record. The estimated total cost is ~23,368,000. of which $18,500,000 would be Federal and $4,868,000 locaL The benefit-cost ratio is 1.9 to 1. By eliminating the deterrent effect of floods in an area of about 6,000 acres, a considerable portion of which is suitable for industrial sites, this project will contribute greatly to the economic growth potential of the Louisvffle, Kentucky metropolitan region. (4) LICKING RIVER, OHIO Utica Reservoir The proposed dam site is located in Knox County, Ohio, approximately three- fourths of a mile upstream from Utica, Ohio, on the North Fork of the Licking River and about 18.6 miles above its junction with the Licking River. The dam will be earth-fill about 4,880 feet lon~g and 73 feet high with an uncontrolled spiilway. The reservoir will have a total storage of 82,000 acre-feet, comprising 28,000 acre-feet of flood control storage and 52,200 acre-feet of permanent and seasonal storage for water supply and water quality control. The project will be operated as a unit of a coordinated reservoir system for flood protection in Lick- ing and i~Iuskingum River Valleys and will also provide recreational opportuni- ties. The total estimated cost is $30,600,000 of which $21,084,000 is Federal. The benefit cost ratio is 1.3 to 1. Newark (modification of eaisting project) The proposed project would include improvement of the interior drainage facilities of the existing Newark, Ohio project, diversion of Log Pond Run flood flows and modification of the North Fork channel. Improvement of. interior drainage facilities would provide for an additional pump station near South Second Street with a new 1,275 foot intercepting sewer connecting the new sta- tion with existing facilities. The major feature of the Log Pond Run diversion is a 6,300-foot long diversion channel between Log Pond Run and Sharon Run, together with a channel im~provement 5,400 feet in length along Sharon Run and Racoon Creek, located west of Twenty-First Street. The North Fork channel modification features will consist of widening of the existing channel from its junction with the Licking River upstream for a distance of about 5,500 feet. The estimated total cost of the entire project is $1,785,000 of which $1,525,000 is Federal cost. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.3 to 1. Expedited flood control works are most urgentiy needed in the Ohio Valley. In March 1967, the Valley sustained another severe flood-the third in five years. Flooding on the tributaries was at or near record levels. Total Ohio River Basin damages are estimated at $35 million, of which $15 million represents damages occurring on the tributaries. This flood followed by only three years the devas- tating flood of 1964 which caused damages exceeding $100 million in the Ohio Valley and followed by only a year the 1963 flood of approximately equal destructiveness. ~\Thile an accelerated program of flood control is urgently required to supple- ment existing works, the record of damages prevented by reservoirs and local protection works in operation testifies eloquently to the wisdom and foresight of the Congress and the Corps of Engineers. It is estimated that damages in excess of $122 million were prevented by existing works during the March 1967 flood. This estimate added to the $1.25 billion prevented in prior floods, produces a total of $1.372 billion in damages prevented by structures costing approximately $1.0 billion. This is an impressive comparison considering that the average age of the projects is less than 20 years. `The real meaning of the protection afforded by existing works in the latest flood may be appreciated more vividly by reference to the fact that along the Upper Ohio River the reservoirs on the tributaries reduced river stages by six to eight feet to just below flood stage, while in the middle reaches the Ohio flood crests were reduced by three to eight feet, and even in the lower river upstream reservoirs reduced potential flood heights by about one foot. PAGENO="0351" 337 Thus, another dramatic illustration is provided of the tremendous reach of the benefits of the Corps of Engineers' Comprehensive Ohio Valley Flood Control Program. All the projects recommended for authorization will provide additions to the system, which, in our judgment, are necessary to maintain the Program at an optimum level and, when completed, will make their contribution to the allevia- tion of damages and suffering which come with each flood. We invite the Committee's attention also to the fact that the reservoir projeets here recommended, in addition to their flood control values, will contribute sig- nificantly to water supply, water quality control, stream flow augmentation, rec- reation and other public purposes of pressing concern. The Corps of Engineers estimates that storage in existing reservoirs amounts to only 14 percent of the 18 million acre-feet required by the year 2020, for reser- voir storage for all Ohio River Basin water supply purposes, including water quality control. Extreme seasonal variation in stream flow coupled with rapid industrialization and population growth, demand acceleration of the Corps of Engineers' multi-purpose reservoir program. The recent severe drought in the Northeastern states highlights the importance of water supply. The experience of the Ohio River Basin demonstrates that it is similarly susceptible to severe water shortages. Once regarded as a luxury in water resources development, the water-based recreation industry has now become an important source of regional employment and income and an essential feature of wholesome community life. The lakes provided by water storage projects and by the navigation dams on the Ohio River and its tributaries are an essential base for recreational activity. In 1965, the Corps of Engineers' projects in the Ohio Basin reported an attend- ance of 32 million visitor days at these lakes-more than twice the activity reported ten years previously. The increased mobility of the population has enabled recreational boaters to visit and enjoy these waters, and benefits from this activity will continue to expand. Large, congested urban population centers within short distances heighten the community need for water-based recreation. The need for low-flow augmentation from upstream storage reservoirs was dramatically highlighted during the drought of 196~ when, for a period, over 50 per cent of the flow of the Ohio River was provided by releases from these reser- voirs. These reservoirs filled in the spring in time of plenty, provided healthful recreation during the summer months; released in the fall, in time of need, the water made a telling contribution to industry, domestic health and well-being. Without this additional water, the flow in the river would have fallen to its lowest level in 30 years with a marked reduction in water quality for homes and industries. We greatly appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Committee and we earnestly commend to its favorable consideration our recommendation for authorization of these projects which will contribute significantly to the water resource needs of the Ohio River Basin. * IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., FORT WAYNE CHAPTER, Huntertown, md., June 21, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Public Works Comm4ttee, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CONGRESSMAN FALLON: The Fort Wayne Chapter of the Izaak Walton League is on record as Opposing the Big Walnut Reservoir as proposed. by the Army Corps of Engineers. This reservcdr would forever destroy one of Indiana's and the Nation's out- standing Scenic Natural areas. Its Ecological Values are priceless and cannot be over estimated. The Chapter position is that there are approximately a dozen entirely feasible alternatives and each one of them would provide the flood control and water supply without destroying this priceless area. We urge that this project be dropped. I request that this letter be made part of the record of the June 20th hearings on this proposal. Sincerely, SAM ROPOHAN, President. PAGENO="0352" 338 Mr. Jo~s. Next we have the Arkansas River-Ozark lock and dam and lock and dam No.9, Arkansas. ARKANSAS RIVER-OZARK LOCK AND DAM AND DAM NO. 9~ ARKANSAS We have Lt. CoL George B. Sha.ffer, Assistant Director of Civil Works for Plains Division. Colonel Shaffer, you may proceed. Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman, I have a.ssisting me today on this project Mr. Fred Thrall from our office. Mr. Chairman, this project is located in the Arkansas River Basin. The report is in response to Senate resolution of the Committee on Public Works adopted April 10, 1962, concerning the advisability of modifying the recommendations made for the Arkansas River a.nd tributaries to the 79th Congress with the view to proviclmg provisio1~ for pumped storage developments for power production in conjunc- tion with the multipurpose Arkansas River project.. The existing Federal development is a multipurpose project on the Arkansas River which provides for a channel 9 feet deep extending for about 450 miles on the Arkansas and Verdigris Rivers to the vicinity of Tulsa., Okla. Seventeen lock and dam projects are required to provide the channel, of which four of the higher head projects will include conventional hydroelectric po~ver facilities or provisions for future power. Ozark lock and dam at mile 312.9 and lock and dam No. 9 at mile 233.5 are the two links in the multipurpose project which have feasible sites for pump storage development (White Oak and Petit Jean sites). Mr. JONES. I.~t us get those on the map. Is that the dark area, the reservoir? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report finds that a solu- tion for satisfying part of the peaking needs in the surrounding power market area could be met by construction of. two a.djoining type pumped-storage hydroelectric plants at t.he White Oak and Petit Jean sites. These projects would consist of four pump-turbines and gener- ating units designed to lift water (through the use of off-peak power) from the Ozark lock and dam and lock and dam No. 9, respectively t.o the top of adja.cent mountains for storage, with later release for power generation during periods of peak needs. The Federal Power Com- mission has indicated that output of a 500-megawatt Petit Jean proj- ect could be utilized in 1975 and that output of a 500-megawatt White Oak project could be utilized in the regional load by 1980. The estimated cost of the proposed improvements is $125,200,000, all Federal. The annual charges are $10,140,000, including about $5,010,000 annually for pumping energy. The annual benefits from hydro-eleetric peaking power are estimated to be $21,980,000 and the benefit-cost ra.t.io is 2.1. In submitting his proposed report t.he Chief of Engineers stated that the Petit Je.an and White Oak projects are unique however, in that their `authorization and construction by Corps of Engineers would represent the ent.ry of the Federal Government into a new field involv- ing questions of broad policy not yet promulgated. Furthermore, the unresolved policy questions are of such a nature that they do not fall PAGENO="0353" 339 within the purview of decision by the Chief of Engineers. Instead, he believes they are matters to be considered by the `administration and the Congress. The comments of the State of Arkansas and Federal agencies are favorable. The report is presently under review by the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. JoNEs. I think I will have you restate the letter from the-is it the Secretary of the Army? Colonel SHAFFEE. No, sir; from the Chief of Engineers. Mr. JONES. Restate it, please. Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir; in submitting his proposed report the Chief of Engineers stated that the Petit Jean and White Oak projects are unique, however, in that their authorization and construction by Corps of Engineers would represent the entry of the Federal Govern- ment into a new field involving questions of broad policy not yet promulgated. Mr. JoNEs. So the project is economically feasible. There is a need for the electricity, the engineering data and information to complete the scheme, the hydroelectric power will bring an annual benefit of $21,980,000. The only thing outstanding as far as the C'hief of Engineers is concerned is one of policy; is that correct? Colonel Sn~ri~it. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. The gentleman from California, Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. On what basis as far as your computations are con- cerned, when were your computations made, this year? `Colonel `SHAFFER. No, sir. The computations quoted were made on January 1963 price levels. Mr. CLAtTSEN. 1963? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. `CLAUSEN. And what were the interest factors that you used in arriving at the computations? Colonel SHAFFER. The interest factor at that time was 3 percent, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. 3 percent? `Colonel SnAPPER. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. And a's Mr. liarsha from Ohio pointed out earlier this morning in considering some of the power projects you know the over- all cost of borrowing money in the year 1968 has been substantially higher based on the average. Do you have any idea, either one of you, that there are at this time, or could you give us an idea what the `benefit-cost ratio might be, using current interest costs? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir; approximately 2.0. Mr. CLAUSEN. That gives you what rate of interest? Colonel SnAPPER. 3i/4 percent, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. Using 3% percent? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. You think the Federal `Government is going to be able to borrow the money at 3i/4 percent? Mr. THRALL. I dou'bt it. Mr. CLAUSEN. Not at the current rate. To say quite candidly-to ar- rive at a more realistic `figure we would have to take into account the existing interest rates, would we not? 97-700----68-----23 PAGENO="0354" 340 Mr. THi~AI~I2. No, sir; the current rate prescribed by our standards of justification is 31/4 percent. Mr. OLAUSEN. That is according to your calculations. Mr. THRALL. Yes, sir; this is the rate. Mr. JONES. As a matter of fact if you use the current rate of interest that the Federal Government is borrowing at, you could not justify a single project you have testified on this week. Mr. THRALL. Some of them would probably fall out. Mr. JoNES. No, sir; you could not get a ratio of benefit to cost in a single proposition you have presented to this committee on 4',/2-percent interest, not a single one. Mr. CLAUSEN. No further questions. Mr. JONES. Mr. Hammerschmidt. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. I would just like for the Colonel to comment on any real significant relationship that there is between this original purpose of the Arkansas River flood control and navigation and other purposes and this proposed Corps project. Colonel SHAFFER. The proposed project, sir, was in response to a resolution to the Senate Committee on Public Works on April 10, 1962. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Do you think that it is coming up or meeting the original intent? Colonel SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Mr. I1&M3rFEscH3rm'r. You feel it. does? Colonel SH~rFFE. Yes, sir. Mr. HAM3~RSCHM1DT. Let me ask you further: Would there be any dramatic effect to navigation on the river caused by the operation of these projects? Mr. THRALL. Mr. Hammerschmidt, we have had some concern about the water sweeping across the reservoir, so the design of the project contemplates a dike in front of the powerplant to protect navigation interests. With the dike, navigation can proceed safely up through t;he pool. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. This is all in your cost estimate? Mr. THJ~.&LL. Yes, sir. Mr. }TAMMERSOHMIDT. Let me ask you further: What effect would it have on recreational benefits invested here? Mr. THRALL. I do not believe that it would be particularly significant, Mr. Hammerschmidt. This plant would cause a fluctuation of only 1 to 3 feet at various times. There have been no great objections from the standpoint of the recreation interests. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Has the Corps had any consultation with the various agencies involved here, with the State? Mr. THRALL. Yes, sir; a. public hearing was held during the prepar- ation of this report, and the comments of the State and agencies have been obtained, including the Department of Interior's Bureau of Out- door Recreation, an agency of that Department. Mr. HAMMERSOHMIDT. Thank you. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions that have been brought to my attention. I understand the pump storage plant can operate only 6½ or 7 hours a day, whereas the daily peakload demand is for up to 11 hours a day. PAGENO="0355" 341 Would this not render the pump storage projects virtually useless in the time of greatest need? Mr. THRA.LL. Mr. Clausen, the manner in which this plant can be used on the load was investigated at the time the report was prepared by the Federal Power Commission, and they assured us it could be fitted into the load. We have reviewed this with the Federal Power Commission as late as March of this year and they reassured us that their previous con- clusion still stands, that the power is usable on the regional load. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, this pump storage will cost about $125 per kifo~- watt; is that about correct? Mr. THRALIJ. I believe that it is in that neighborhood. Mr. CLAtTSEN. What would be the cost per kilowatt of additional increments generated past the existing steam-generating plants? Mr. THRALL. You are talking now `about incremental capacity of steam-generating plants? Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes. Mr. THEALL. That is a very low figure, I believe, of around $40 a kilowatt for incremental capacity. I hope that you understand this is only on the capital investment side. There is an operating cost that is involved there, also. Mr. ULAUSEN. What would be the cost per kilowatt for combustion generation? Mr. THRALL. Ido not know that figure, sir, but it would be consider- aily lower than $125. Mr. CLAUSEiN. Well, would you give us an estimate? Mr. THRALL. I could only guess, Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would you guess? Mr. THRALL. Perhaps $50 or $60. Mr. cLAUSEN. Now, the power to pump water into the storage reservoirs would require `beefed up kilowatt-hours and steam gener- ated power for each 2 kilowatt-hours of power generated from the stored `water. Would it not be more economical to use steam generation for peak- ing hours? Mr. THRALL. Mr. Clausen, the power that you are using for pump- mg is dump or off-penk energy which could not be firm on the load otherwise. This plant converts that into peak energy. If you did not have this plant, this firm energy would have to be developed by a new, alterna- tive plant. The answer to your question, specifically, is "No." Mr. CLAUSEN. What could you purchase the steam-generating power equipment for? `Mr. THRALL. About 2.4 mills for energy that has to be purchased. Some of it, however, would come from our own generation on the Arkansas River. `Mr. CLAUSEN. Have there been any arrangements made to purchase it? Mr. `THRALL. No, sir; it is not customai7 to make these arrange- ments in advance. We do determine the pumping energy is available, and it is the job of the marketing agency to make the contractual arrangement and to sell the power. PAGENO="0356" 342 Mr. CLATJSEN. Thank you. Mr. Jo~s. Thank you very much. Mr. HAMMERSOHMIDT. I would like to mention two other witnesses if I may, who are here. Mr. Jo~as. You may call them. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. We have Mr. William McCollam, senior vice president of the Arkansas Power & Light Co., accompanied by Mr. Bruce Menees, director of governmentul affairs, Arkansas Power & Light Co. 1 want to inform the committee that we have these two fine gentle- men whom I am acquainted with from the State of Arkansas and who have a great deal of knowledge, not only as to the power business of which they have both spent many years, but of the markets for the present and future power needs in our section of the country. Their company for over 50 years has been a vital part of our State's economic growth, keeping pace and sometimes in fact setting a pace for the advancement of the industry and the standard of living in Arkansas. At this time I know they have projected a capitai investment pro- gram of about $70 million a year for the next 5 years in our area and in this it includes a 850,000-kilowatt nuclear generating plant very near the size of this project discussed. It is really right there and you can see it on the map. This nuclear plant represents an investment of private citizen, tax- payers, and stockholders of $190 million. I point this out on this one particular investment and their continu- ing capital investment to emphasize the fact that before the company makes the decisions and the one decision that involves this location, that they would necessarily have to determine all the factors involved in the areas that we are discussing here today. I am sure their knowledgeable testimony will be helpful to this committee and I welcome you to the committee at this time. Mr. CLAUSEN (presiding). Gentlemen, with that fine introduction you are off to a good start and I will just take a brief moment to not only extend the welcome of the committee and appreciation of your taking the time and the necessary expenses to come up here and testify before the committee, but we hold your own Congressman in very high rega.rd. He has tried to inform the committee as to all factors relating to the project in the district and you may proceed in the man- ncr that is best fitted to your needs. STATEMENT OP WILLIAM McCOLLAM, 3R., SENIOR VICE PRESI- DENT, ARKANSASPOWER & LIGHT CO.; ACCOMPANIED BY BRUCE MEI~EES, DIRECTOR OP GOVERNMENTAL AYFAIRS, ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO. Mr. MOCOLLAM. Tha~nk you, Mr. Congressman. As Congressman Hammerschmidt has already indicated, I am William McCollam, Jr., senior vice president of Arkansas Power & Light Co., an investor-owned electric utility incorporated in the State of Arkansas and subject to the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Public Service Commission and the Federal Power Commission. PAGENO="0357" 343 The company serves over 350,000 customers, including wholesale supply to nine electric cooperatives, seven municipal electric systems, and one small investor-owned utility. My purpose in appearing here today is to express to this committee the views of Arkansas Power & Light Co. in opposition to authoriza- tion of two proposd Federal pumped storage projects in western Arkansas. These are commonly designated as White Oak, near Ozark, Ark., and Petit Joan, near Morrilton, Ark. The views which I express here are also concurred in by other investor-owned companies in the area, particularly Southwestern Electric Power Co., Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., and Union Electric Co., all of whom have submitted statements for inclusion in the record. These two proposed 500,000-kilowatt pumped storage projects, for which authorization is here being sought, were first studied by the Corps of Engineers for possible inclusion as a part of the compre- hensive Arkansas River development ~roject, which was authorized and is being constructed for purposes of flood control and navigation. I believe it is important at this point to emphasize as strongly as I can that these two proposed pumped storage projects are pure power projects and bear no relationship to the development of the Arkansas River for the purposes of flood control, navigation, recreation, and other. They only draw water from the navigation poois for storage during off-peak hours and then use the same water for generation during on-peak hours as it flows back into these pools. They develop no natural resource and provide neither flood control, navigation, nor recreation benefits. Since these would be pure Federal power projects which would, in no way, further the legitimate primary or secondary purposes of reservoir projects and would not bring into being any electric power and energy as a necessary or incidental product of the construction of dams erected to control floods and to improve navigation, no con- stitutional or statutory authority exists for the United States tobuild such power projects. In early 1966, Lt. Gen. William F. Cassidy, then Chief of Engineers, took recognition of the legal questions involved and made them a condition of his approval in his transmittal of the report to the Secre- tary of the Army. In this letter, he said: The Petit Jean and White Oak projects are unique, however, in that their authorizaition and construction by the Corps of Engineers would represent the entry of the Federal Government into a new field involving questions of broad public policy not yet promulgated. Furthermore, the unresolved policy ques- tions are of such a nature that they do not fall within the purview of decision by the Chief of Engineers. Instead, I believe they are matters to be considered by the administration and the Congress. Clearly, gentlemen, you are being asked here to approve projects which have policy implications far beyond the bounds of the projects themselves. Basically, you are being asked here to approve of the Gov- ernment's going into the business of pure power generation in com- petition with the private segment of the industry which bears its full share of tax burden and pays the full cost of money in the open market. Only last month the Federal Power Commission toOk a positive stand against the construction of pumped storage projects by the Fed- PAGENO="0358" 344 eral Government. In its Order No. 541 dated May 14, 1968, the Fed- eral Power Commission issued a license for the Northfield Mountain pumped storage project in New England. I would like to quote here paragraph 2, page 8, of the FPC Opinion and Order, because it has significant relevance to the situation here at hand. Quoting: In accordance with the provisions of section 7(b) of the Federal Power Act, the Commission has also given consideration to the question as to whether the construction of the Northfield project should be undertaken by the United States rather than by the applicants. On the basis of the record before us, and par- ticularly in light of the dependence of the Northfield project upon the thermal generating facilities and transmission network of the applicants, we find that this is not the type of project to be undertaken by the United States. The same factors which influenced the Federal Power Commission to conclude that pumped storage in New England should not be un- dertaken by the United States are equally applicable to the construc- tion of any pumped storage in Arkansas because here, too, even if pumped storage could be justified at all, it would certainly be de- pendent upon the thermal generating facilities and transmission net- work of the investor-owned companies who have primary responsibil- ity to serve the bulk of customers in the area. Aside from these questions of policy, there are compelling economic and technical reasons why these projects in the Southwest cannot be justified at this time under any type ownership and should, therefore, not be authorized or built. First, I would like to make it clear that the Arkansas Power & Light Co. and the other investor-owned electric utility companies in the area would look with favor on building pumped storage facilities in cases where they could be built at a cost less than the least costly alternative and where their output would fit into the peak season load shapes of the area. As a matter of fact, our company owns a pumped storage site which is superior to those proposed to be built by the Government; and we would, without hesitation, build pumped stor- age facilities if they would serve the needs of the area better and more economically than could be done by other alternatives. At this time, pumped storage in this area simply does not meet these basic conditions which are enumerated below: 1. The proposed Federal pumped storage projects were estimated to cost a minimum of $125 million, or $125 per kilowatt, not including necessary costs for transmission lines to carry offpeak pumping en- ergy to the projects and onpeak power and energy from the projects to the load centers. These estimates were based on 1963 cost figures. Certainly the cost would be much higher now. Due to tremendous advances in the state of the art, companies in the area are now build- ing very large high efficiency therma.l generating plants at a cost of approximately $80 per kilowatt. Such thermal plants have great advantages over pumped storage plants in that they are capable of generating 24 hours per day across the peakload periods, if necessary, whereas these pumped storage plants can operate only 61/2 to 7 hours per day. This is a critical limitation in the Southwestern part of the United States because during the crucial periods of the summer when peaking capacity is needed most, our daily peakloads now have a duration of up to 11 hours per day. In simple terms, this means that the investor- PAGENO="0359" 345 owned utilities who have primary responsibility to carry peakloads would be forced to build the same amount of peaking capacity as would have been required whether the pumped storage plants were in existence or not. Furthermore, daily peakloads of 11 hours' duration would re- duce the availability of offpeak pumping capacity below that re- quired to refill the upper reservoirs. This condition would render the pumped storage projects virtually useless in. the i~ime of greatest need. Under these conditions, the expenditures of public funds for construction of pumped storage would be a total waste. 2. Other superior alternatives are available for the supplying of peaking capacity. For example; additional capacity for peaking pur- poses can be built into new high efficiency generating plants at the incremental cost of only $40 to $50 per kilowatt. Another alternative is the installation of gas turbines for pure peaking purposes, which can be installed for approximately $70 per kilowatt. In view of these lower cost alternatives, such an enormous cost for limited availability Federal hydro cannot be justified in our area.. 3. Pumped storage, by its very nature, is basically inefficient be- cause approximately three kilowatt-hours must be generated at steam- plants and transmitted to the projects for pumping energy in order to produce two kilowatt-hours for use at another time.. This results in a waste of natural fuel resources of 50 percent over that which would be necessary to carry the same peakloads with lower-cost fuel-fired alternatives bulit for that purpose. 4. The benefit-cost ratio projected by the Corps of Engineers is in- valid in our judgment because it is based upon false assumptions. In- vestor-owned companies in the area retained a nationally known en- gineering consultant to independently appraise the technical and economic feasibility of these proposed projects; and these findings support a benefit-cost ratio of 0.81 instead of the 2.1 claimed by the corps. The corps, in arriving at its estimate of benefit-cost ratio, has, in our opinion, grossly overestimated the benefits which would come from the projects and has grossly underestimated the annual cost for building and operating them. We support this judgment by the fol- lowing considerations: (a) First, the estimate of benefits is based upon the capital and operating costs for alternative steam generation by investor-owned utilities applying private financing and taxes. By this process, it was variously assumed that the value of power and energy would be be- tween $16.50 and $19 per kilowatt and `between 2.1 and 2.4 mills per kilowatt-hour respectively. Our first comment with regard to this is that the true value of this power and energy is only whatever those who would use it are willing to pay for it. Since the power is not dependable as applied to the load curve in critical peakload periods, then its value would certainly be far less than that of the comparable steam, which would be dependable across those periods. Our second comment is that we question the validity of using pri- vate financing as a means of establishing value when the SPA, which apparently would market the power under section 5 of the Flood Control Act, is required by law to give preference in the sale of such PAGENO="0360" 346 power to preference customers whose fixed charges for financing are far lower than those for private financing. It follows, therefore, that the value of this particular pumped storage power and energy should be based upon Federal financing and no taxes. (b) As to cost of operation, the Corps of Engineers assumed that thermal pumping energy could be purchased from investor-owned companies and others who have thermal energy in the area at a cost of between 2.1 and 2.4 mills per killowatt-hour. This is an unrealistic fig- ure because not only is it generally below the cost of fuel alone but, it also fails to give any consideration to the investment of others who are apparently expected to supply this thermal pumping energy and whe may or may not be given access to any of the benefits which would de- rive therefrom. In calculating the annual fixed-costs associated with pumped storage projects, a cost-of-money figure of 31/s percent has been used, which is entirely unrealistic in view of the fact that the true cost of money to the Federal Government is now far higher than that figure. We also have serious questions as to the estimated total cost of the projects. Inflation in the intervening years is a fact of life which must `be taken into consideration and can only result in much higher total costs than those which were estimated in 1963. It is significant that no market survey has been made to establish the need for and the value of this pumped storage peaking energy; and the companies who, presumably, would be expected to supply the pumping energy have never been contacted as to whether they would be willing to supply it and at what cost. Benefit-cost ratios predicated on such self-serving assumptions certainly cannot be considered valid. 5. This particular region of the United States now has in existence over 1.4 million kilowatts in conventional hydroelectric power gen- eration with some 700,000 kilowatts more under construction. This is low load factor hydro which has its greatest value for peaking pur- poses and constitutes a major reason why pumped storage capacity is less desirable in this area than in other regions of the country which do not have an abundance of such conventional hydroelectric power. 6. The companies in this southwest region have entered into a di- versity exchange agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority and now have in place 500,000-volt transmission facilities which make available to the region 1.5 million kilowatts of peaking capacity avail- able to TVA in the wintertime, when it is needed there. 7. The, Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma now has under construction `a 520 megawatts pumped storage facility, which, would further reduce the peaking power needs of this area by that amount. 8. These proposed Federal pumped storage projects would pay no taxes for the support of government at the Federal, State, or local level. Since the investor-owned companies in the area have discharged the responsibility to meet the peaking power needs of the area in the past and are willing and able to do so in the future, this would then result in a loss of tax revenue at all levels of government which would other- wise accrue from the construction of facilities by the investor-owned companies to meet the peaking power requirements of their respective areas.' ` PAGENO="0361" 347 9. The proposed projects would adversely affect navigation and rec- reational uses of the polls behind lock and dam No 9 and the Ozark lock and dam on the Arkansas River The Corps of Engineers' report itself expresses concern that the turbulence caused by the discharge of tremendous quantities of water into the lower pool of lock and dam No. .9 and the Ozark lock and dam on the Arkansas River. The Corps of Engineers' report itself expresses concern that the turbulence caused by the discharge of tremendous quantities of water into the lower pool of lock and dam No. 9, when the pumped storage units were generating each day, would create a safety hazard to navigation. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission has also expressed concern that the violent fluctuations resulting from these discharges could have only an adverse effect on fish and wildlife and would constitute a serious hazard to sportsmen in small craft. In summary, these Federal power projects are not economically or technically feasible and should not be authorized. They are pure public power projects which would tend to inject the Federal Government further into the power business in con~petition with the taxpaying pri- vate segment of the industry. We maintain that no constitutional or statutory authority exists under which the Federal Government is au- thorized to construct these pure power facilities. T:here is virtually no local public demand in the area for these projects because very few people in the region would be affected or benefited by. them. In September 1966, former Governor Orval E. Faubus, refused to recommend the projects on the grounds that the cost was out of pro- portion to any benefits which the people of Arkansas would receive. In recent weeks, our present Governor, Winthrop Rockefeller, and his technical advisers have had the opportunity to restudy this matter. Governor iRockefeller submitted a statement which was included in the Senate Public Works Committee's hearing record, which says, in part: It is imperative that economic feasibility for the aforementioned project be thoroughly understood and realistic before authorization. In this time when the Nation's economy is in serious difficulty and when the need for restraint in government .~pending has never been greater, it is doubly important that no authorization be made for proj- ects with so little to recommend them as these. I believe it is appro- priate that I should conclude by quoting a statement made recently in a speech by my own Congressman, Wilbur D. Mills, of Arkansas, when he said: It is not enough to simply postpone expenditures in a given year. I think we have to further up the spending stream, or the "pipeline" as it j~ called, to the ob- ligation-authority stage and provide more effective restrictions if we are ever to regain control over the rate of Federal expenditures. I believe we must mount our principal attack on the problem at the authorization :level rather than after Federal outlays have already been authorized and are flowing down the pipeline. In view of the many compelling reasons supporting our contention that these projects are uneconomic, unnecessary, and not in the public interests, we urge that they not be authorized by this committee. I would like to make a point that our position in this matter is also concurred in by other investor owned electric utilities serving this gen- eral geographic area. Namely, the Southwestern Electric Power Co., the Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., and the Union Electric Co., all of which companies have already sub- mitted their statements prior to our appearance here. PAGENO="0362" 348 Getting to the economics of the projects, we very definitely feel that these project~s cannot be justified on the economic basis because they are more costly, these types of projects, that is, other alternatives that could satisfy the power needs of this area and this, gentlemen, is our business to be lookmg at the power needs of the area and satisfying those needs. These projects are estimated to cost $125 million and this was the original estimate made at the time the projects were first initiated and I think it would be a reasonable expectation that certainly with today's inflated costs we are not looking at getting these projects built for that ~gure, hut something certainly higher. This amounts to, as has already been indicated, approximately $125 per kilowatt of capacity versus $80 a kilowatt or less in some cases that we could build a steampiant and finance it ourselves, investor-owned facilities. We have just completed a steamplant over at Helena, Ark., on the Mississippi River, a second unit to our Robert E. Lee Electric Station which we have built for about $80 a kilowatt. We have another plant under construction on Lake Catherine near Hot Springs, Ark., which we e~pect to build for a figure of approx- imately $80 per kilowatt, one now under construction expected to come on the line in the latter part of last year. On a purely incremental basis were we to add incremental additional capacity to a unit we had already planned, we could probably add in- cremental capacity at the rate of something like $40 to $50 a kilowatt. We would he building capacity and are building this capacity which would be available 24 hours a day, not 61/2 or 7 hours a day as the avail- ability of these projects would he. Our daily peakloads as has already been brought out in answer to some earlier questions of the committee during our peak summertime periods actually do extend for periods of 11 out of the 24 hours each day and if the pumps storage project would he available to come into the picture to supplement our own, to take care of a part of our peak- loads, we would not have the pumps storage capacity available for 61/2 hours to 7 hours per day. Our needs are up to 11 hours. Now, this would mean we would have to satisfy the needs for 4 hours by some other means. It does not make sense to build this project at the same time. Furthermore, because our peakloads are so long-approximatley 11 hours of the day-the time available for pumping off peak pumping or the availability of offpeak pumping energy would be such that you would not have available pumping energy enough hours of the day to fill the upper reservoir. It would take something in the order of 16 hours to fill the upper reservoir and you do not have that many hours of the day when you are serving your peakloads for 11 hours. Furthermore, I call for the committee's attention that we already have in this general geographic area approximately 1,400,000 kilo- watts of conventional hydroelectric of peaking power that has been installed by the Government in various dams in the area incidental to flood control navigation and other projects. There is now in this general area in addition to this 1,400,000 kilo- watts, some 700,000 kilowatts now under construction. We do not think an additional 1 million kilowatts of peaking capacity in the form of these pump storage projects can be fitted into PAGENO="0363" 349 the load shapes of our areas and used economically because we have already got enough peaking capacity from a hdyro point of view. Mr. JONES. What was that figure on the `hydro? Mr. MCCOLLAM. We now have in this general geographic area 1,400,000 kilowatts of conventional hydro capacity in existence and some 700,000 under construction which means when this capacity under construction is completed we will have over 2 million kilowatts of conventional hydro peaking in the area. As to the computation of the Corps of Engineers relative to the benefit-cost ratio as is pointed out in my detailed, prepared statement- and I will not go into the details in the interest of time, but it is adequately substantiated in the record in my statement-we employed an outstanding consulting firm-to be specific, the Bectal Corp. of San Francisco-to do an independent study for us in this area of these two projects and suffice it to say that their conclusion did not agree with the Corps of Engineers' conclusions as to the cost-benefit ratio for the benefit-cost ratio. After considering all of the factors involved they came up with a benefit-cost ratio of less than unity-0.81 instead of 2.1 when you consider all of the cost factors. I would call to the committee's attention also that this study by the Bectal Corp. was made in May of 1964. Here itis in June 9f 1968, some 4 years later, and we have had a substantial increase in interest costs and construction costs, of course, in that 4-year period: To summarize our position we feel that first of all the projects are not economically or technically feasible in our area at this time. We have a serious question as to the constitutional statutory author- ity for the project, even though they would be technically and eco- nomically unfeasible. We feel-and I am sure you have heard this statement made many;. many times before this committee these days-we feel that in a period when there is a need for restraint in Government spending that it. would be a mistake to authorize projects which have so little to reconi- mend themselves. In closing I would like to quot.e from my own Congressman, Con~ gressman Wilbur Mills, as to the need for controlling Government expenditures and the means to do this. Mr. Mills says this, and I will quote him: It is not enough to simply postpone expenditures in a given area. I think we have to go further up the spending stream, or the pipeline as it is called, to the obligation authority stage and provide more effective restrictions if we are ever to regain control over the rate of Federal expenditures. I believe we must mount our principal attack on the problem at the authorization level rather than after Federal outlays have already been authorized and are flowing down the pipeline. We subscribe to the position of Mr. Mills and urge the committee not to approve the projects for the reasons that I have given. Thank you, very much. Mr. JoNEs. Mr. MeCollarn, do you know whether or not the Arkansas Power & Light Co. in 1950 opposed construction of the power section of the Dardanelle Darn? Mr. MCCOLLAM. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, we did not oppose that but I em not positive. Mr. JONES. Did you oppose the installation of the turbines? PAGENO="0364" 350 Mr. MOCOLLAM. To the best of my knowledge, we did not. Mr. Jo~s. What installation in the State of Arkansas did you oppose? Mr. MOC0LLAM. Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge we have not opposed hydroelectric projects which are incidental to au- thorized flood control, navigation, multipurpose projects. Mr. Jo~s. This is just an addition to existing projects and if it is economically feasible~ it will be a future implementation of what they are already doing. Mr. McCor4r~ir. No, sir; this is where we do not agree. We do not feel it is an extension of the navigation project. Mr. Jo~s. You raised the question that it was not any authoriza- tion for it and the purpose of this hearing we are having today is to determine whether or not the Congress wants to. make it a policy and to pass these necessary statutory authority for the Corps of Engineers to do the work. Mr. MOCOLLAM. We think there is a great deal of difference. If I might cite another example between a pump storage project which is an integral part of a flood control and navigation project and I cite the IDeGray Dam project. Mr. JoNEs. The Arkansas Power & Light Co. testified in the TVA project not to permit the construction of thermal plants. Do you recall that, and that was the basis the TVA did not have the clear authority by law, to setup thermal plants. Mr. MCCOLLAM. This was before my time with the company. How- ever, that is still our position with respect to the Federal Government constructing thermal plants. Mr. JoNEs. That they lack legal authority? Mr. MCCOLLAM. Yes, sir. Mr. GIL&Y. I do not see how they can lack legal authority since they have been doing it since the early 1940's and you and I know that the power and light companies filed suit enjoining them, to stop them from constructing thermal plants. TVA is building them right now, the largest atomic energy central plant in the entire United States. Mr. MCCOLLAM. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the problems. I am not a lawyer but I am given to understand by our lawyers that it is very difficult to find a forum to challenge the legality of this sort; of thing. Mr. MENiIEs. This has never been tested in court because the people who hold this position have never been given a standing in the courts. Mr. JoNEs. Who would be the purchasing agency for the power of this installation, the Southwest Power Administration? Mr. MCC0LIAM. This would be, as I understand it, a matter for the Department of the Interior to decide, but it would be a logical assump- tion. I believe that the Southwestern Power Administration would be the marketing agent for this power since they do, in fact, market the power. from all of the hydroelectric dams in this area. Mr. JrncEs. No doubt the Federal Power Commission took that into consideration when they made a favorable comment that the South- west Power Administration and the Department of the Interior had need for this power. PAGENO="0365" 351 Mr. MENEES. Mr. `Chairman, we simply do not agree with that posi- tion and we feel that we have a good number of facts that support our position. We do feel that the power is needed in the area considermg our load shapes, the loads we serve in the area and the already abundanee of hydroelectric conventional peaking power in the area and it is just a peaking power due to the very load type of power it is. Mr. JONES. Do the load growth, is your estimates `based on this period or are they based on the period when it comes into productaon? Mr. MENEES. They are based on projected load growth. Mr. JONES. And they are based on a study that you referred to and submitted to you by a San Francisco firm in 1964? Mr. MOCOLLAM. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. Any questions? Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. MeCollam, in reviewing your testimony did I understand you to say that these storage projects are purely for gen- erating offbeat power naturally bear no significant relationship to the development of the Arkansas River for `the purpose of flood control, recreation, and navigation? Mr. MOCOLLAM. Yes, Mr. Clausen; that is what I did say. The only relationship of which these projects have to the n'avigation project is that they have as their source of water for pumping from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir, the Arkansas River which is a part of the navigation project. This is the only relationship they have to the navigation of flood control project along the Arkansas. Mr. OLAUSEN. Well, then, you feel I gather that far-reaching policy implications are involved here as regards the authority of the Federal Government to get into power generation. I wonder if you would elaborate briefly on that point for me. Mr. MOCOLLAM. Yes; we feel that they are far-reaching policy implications in `the committee's being `asked and `the Congress being `asked to approve these newer power projects because we feel that basi- cally these projects develop no natural resource or bring into being any electric power energy or incidental project of `the construction of the dam built to control floods, or improve navigation. Again we submit that we feel `there is no constitution or statutory authority for the United States to enter into this type of project that does not have a legitimate relationship to authorized purposes of flood control, navigation, and others. Mr. JONES. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CLAtTSEN. Yes. Mr. JONES. Taking your thoughts a little further, do you `think that the Federal License should be issued to private utilities? Mr. MOCOLLAM. We think that-are you speaking of the pump stor- age projects? Mr. JONES. No, I am talking about a stream. Do you think the Arkansas Power & Light Co. should file an ~ *plication with the Federal `Power Commission for the licenses to builo a dam on `the navigable stream in Arkansas? Mr. McOoLr~&M. Yes; we feel so. Mr. JONES. If the Federal Power Commission `had that authority under the law, where did the authority come from? PAGENO="0366" 352 Mr. MCC0LLAM: Well, in the case of licensing of hydroelectric proj- ects there is a specific statute, the Federal Power Act. Mr. JONES. Because it is Federal property and you mean the limita- tion of the Federal Government, they cannot exercise the ownership they have to generate power just as well as they can afford navigation and flood control? The only authority you have is a license that the law provided you, that you could get a license for 50 years to construct and maintain and operate a dam or reservoir that did not complicate the other interests. That has been the law since 1920. Mr. M000LLAM. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 1\fr. JONES. The Federal Power Act. Mr MCCOLLAM. That is correct. Mr. Jo~s. So what you are gaining is an authority for a public function, by license issued by the Federal Government to a private corporation to do a public act. Do you mean to say to this committee that the inherent authority of the Federal Government to do what it gave you a license to do cannot be exercised by them? That does not seem sensible to me. You say that the Federal Government does not have the authority to do the things that they gave you a license to do. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is there jump stream generated power that can be acquired cheaply to provide pumping energy for these plants? Mr. McCoLI~3I. There is some off-peak energy available in our area but I give the figures quoted in the Corps of Engineers' report and I believe the witnesses who have appeared earlier, we feel they are very unrealistic figures because these figures are below our basic fuel costs right now. Our basic costs without considering the other costs of steam genera- tion in our area and our particular company area of nmning in the order of the magnitude of between 2.7 and 2.8 mils per hour, just fuel cost. That does not include the cost of transmission. That is just busbar cost of steam energy at the plant. Mr. MIENEES. it does not include the fixed charges on our investment. Mr. CLAUSEN. What would be the price of pumping energy per kilo- watt hour? Mr. McCoiL~r. In excess of the 2.3 mils. We have never been asked to quote a firm price on pumping energy, but it would be certainly somewhat considerable in excess of our raw fuel cost when you consider the fact that you have capital costs and Operating and maintenance costs other than fuel which are involved. Mr. JONES. Mr. Hammerschrnidt? Mr. HAMMERSOHMIDT. Mr. McCallom, let me ask you a question about the acquisition. Is it now owned by the Federal Government? Mr. MCCOLLAM. It is to the best of my knowledge. Petit-Jean Moun- tain, for example, is largely owned by-I think part of it is a State park and the other is privately owned land on the top of Petit-Jean. Mr. HAMMERSOHMThT. In other words, to form this upper pool they would have to pump into it and it would not be incidental to the proj- ect. They would have to acquire the land and construct. Mr. MoOoLr~M. That is my understanding. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Entirely for the pump storage. Mr. M000LLAM. That is my understanding. PAGENO="0367" 353 Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. And it would not be incidental like hydro- electric power. Mr M000LLAM. No, sir. Mr. HAMMERSOHMIDT. Let me ask you a further question. I am in- formed that other pump storgae projects are being built by investor- owned companies, private companies in other areas of the United States, and it seems to me to be a desirable source of peaking power for them. Why is it that your company does not propose such facilities? Per- haps I should ask you what conditions would your company propose to build such facilities. Mr. M000LLAM. Let me say that when and if it becomes economi- cally and technically feasible to construct such a project we would construct such a project and as a matter of fact, we do own a site, a pump storage site at the present time which we have acquired for this purpose and when it becomes economically and technically feasible in our area,, somewhere down the road we would certainly undertake to construct such a project. I might point out that in other areas of the country where such pump storage projects have been built they do have in existence the tremend- ous quantity of existing conventional hydroelectric peaking power that we have in our part of the country, so they are basically starting from scratch with that type of peaking power. Furthermore, the technical characteristics of these projects are such that they are being built for far less than $125 a kilowatt. Some of the projects in the eastern and northern part of the country are being built for around $70 a kilowatt. Those projects are, in fact, competitive from an economic point of view with alternative means of satisfying the peaking requirements of the area. In our area, we are still as we have already indicated building con- vential plants for around $80 a kilowatt and on an incremental basis we could build plants for less than that, that is $40 to $50 a kilowatt if we were adding.for peaking purposes. We have not gone this route on our particular system. We could install gas turbine for peaking which would come to about $70 a kilo- watt. It does not make economic sense to build this type of project when we have more economical alternative ways of satisfying the re- quirement when and if the pump storage project becomes economically feasible and then we will undertake to build it ourselves. Mr. }IAMMER5OHMmT. I understand what you said these pump stor- age projects cost far more than other available alternatives and that they would not be as good technically. Mr. MOCOLLAM. They are not as good. When I say the technical standpoint, I am really referring to the manner in which this type of peaking capacity can be integrated into our load shape in our area. It just technically is not feasible to impose an additional million kilo- watts of peaking capacity. on an already 1,400,000 and another 700,000 under construction. The other f'tctors I brought out from the technical point of view, that the pumpin~ energy would be available, the energy from the pump storage project peak is available ~1/2 to 7 hours of the day when PAGENO="0368" 354 our peaks are of duration of up to 11 hours a day and from that point of view it is not technically feasible. Mr. HAMMER8OHMIDT. Thank you. Mr. Mm~s. As a general rule of thumb, it can be said that pump storage could. never be justified unless it were at a lower cost and the least costly alternative because it has to over come an inherent defici- ency in the first place to require 3 kilowatt hours up on the hill in order to get 2~ kilowatt hours back. It must over come that and the only way it can over come it, the fixed charges and the capital costs must be less than the `least costly alternative, otherwise it could not overcome this basic inefficiency it has. Mr. HAMMERSOHMIDT. No further questions. Mr. JoNEs. Thank you very much. Mr. McCor.i~r. Mr. Chairman, may I again thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before you and express our views before your committee. Mr. JoNEs. Thank you, very much. Next we will hear from Mr. Charles Robinson. Mr. Robinson has been before the committee many, many times and is recognized as an outstanding authority, and it is always good to have you up here `before us, Mr. Robinson. STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. ROBINSON, IR., STAFF COUNSEL AND STAFF ENGfl~EER OF TEE NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPER- ATIVE ASSOCIATION Mr. RoBINsoN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Charles A. Robinson, Jr. I am the staff counsel and staff engineer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association which is the nationwide service organization of REA-financed elec- .tric systems. More than 90 percent of all such systems hold member- ship in NRECA, which is entirely vohmtary. I want to speak very `briefly in support of two projects, the Salem Church project heard a little earlier by the subcommittee and the two projects on the Arkansas River. During the year ending June 30, 1967, REA-financed systems gen- erated and purchased a total of 56.4 billion kilowatt-hours of elec- tricity which, after losses, was distributed to approximately 24 million ultimate consumers-6 million meters. About 23.3 percent of this energy input was generated in REA-ftnanced plants, 32.7 percent was purchased from investor-owned power companies, 37.1 percent was purchased from Federal power marketing agencies, and 6.9 percent was derived from non-Federal publicly owned agencies. The total cost of wholesale power purchased during fiscal year 1967 from sources other than REA borrowers-50.6 billion kilowatt-hours-was $325.8 mil- lion. A major share of this amount, $138.9 million, was paid to investor-owned electric companies of which the REA-financed systems are collectively a very large customer. This is more money than was paid to the power companies by the rural electric systems in any prior year, and 8 percent above the $128.5 million paid to the companies during the preceding year. PAGENO="0369" 355 The loads of rural electric systems continue to grow very rapidly, currently increasing at 13 percent per year; doubling each 6 years. Sales of the industry as a whole `ire currently increasing at approxi mately 10 percent per year. Thus, it is essential that we majntain con- stant vigilance to assure future availability of adequate wholesale power at reasonable cost. The N1REOA membership has for many years advocated reauthor- ization of the Salem Church project substantially as now recommended by the Chief of Engineers. Our position is evidenced by a long series of resolutions adopted by State, regional, and national meetings. Many rural counties in Virginia are losing population. Low-cost electricity is essential to the health and safety of those people who remain in these areas, and vitally necessary to attract the industry and business required to reverse the outward migration. There are 16 rural electric systems in Virginia which serve 600,000 people-130,000 meters-over 28,612 miles of line throughout the length and breadth of the State. In Virginia, the service areas of the electric cooperatives and the investor-owned power companies are assigned by the State corporation commission on a mutually exclusive basis. Virginia is, therefore, free from any substantial territorial wrangling between the two groups. The quantity of electricity used by the consumers of rural electric cooperatives in Virginia is currently increasing some 14 percent an- nually; doubling each 5 to 6 years. Except for very small amounts of power which a few cooperatives generate, and except for small purchases from other sources, and one system which purchases from TVA, all of the electricity used by electric cooperatives in Virginia is purchased at wholesale from the Virginia Electric & Power Co. and the Southeastern Power Administration. SEPA is an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior which sells at wholesale the power generated at the John H. Kerr and Philpott reservoir projects, in Virginia, constructed by the Corps of Engineers. SEPA also, of course, markets Federal power from other similar projects in the Southeast. All SEPA power is delivered over the transmission sys- tems of the investor-owned power companies. SEPA has no transmis- sion of its own. The Federal power thus made available to cooperatives in Virginia costs approximately 6.6 mills per kilowatt-hour delivered. The re- mainder which is purchased outright from VEPCO is, 7.3 mills. During the year ending June 30, 1967, alone, the savings to rural elec- trics in Virginia through the availability of this arrangement was $180,000, the comparison being what we would have paid if all of the energy purchased from SEPA had been bought at the 7.3-mill private company rate. Similarly the company too, has benefited, we believe. It is allocated a very substantial block of Federal power with which to serve its other customers. The entire peaking capacity of the Kerr project is scheduled to meet company system peak loads. The company is also compensated by the Government for use of its transmission system in delivering Federal pow~r to the cooperatives and for the steam-generated energy which it furnishes to firm up or "round out" the Federal hydro. In addition, the six cooperatives in North Carolina, served through the VEPCO system, would enjoy substantial additional savings by 97-700-68-24 PAGENO="0370" 356 way of the lower cost Federal power from Salem Church. During fiscal 1967 these six systems in North Carolina saved some $30,000 through the availability to them of wholesale Federal power from the Kerr and Philpott projects. Marketing of hydroelectric power from Salem Church could well follow the pattern established and agreed to by the Government, the power company and the cooperatives for John H. Kerr and for Phil- pott. Federal power from Salem Church would help immensely. The quota of Kerr and Philpott power available to rural electrics in Vir- ginia and North Carolina is limited and this limit has long since been reached. Thus, as the use of electricity by the cooperatives increase, they must purchase an ever increasingly larger percentage of their wholesale power requirements at the higher company rate of 7.3 mills ler killowatt-hour and an ever smaller percentage at the lower Fed- eral rate of 6.6 mils. We estimate that the Salem Church project would provide whole- sale power cost savings on the order of $75,000 per year to rural electric systems in Virginia and North Carolina.. The report of the Chief of Engineers indicates very clearly that Salem Church is an economically sound undertaking. The overall benefit-cost ratio for the project is 2.1. The benefit-cost ratio for the 89,000-kilowatt conventional hydro installation, recommended by the corps, is 1.5, according to the letter, dated November 10, 1966, from FPC Chairman, Lee C. White, to the Chief of Engineers which appears at page XXIV of Senate Document 37. The same letter also points out that the benefit-cost ratio for a 200,000-kilowatt pumped storage hydro facility would be 1.6. As to the feasibility of marketing the electricity to be produced at Salem Church, the Southeastern Power Administration, in a letter to the district engineer dated January 6, 1966 (seep. 96 of S. Doc. 37),expresses its ability to recover from power sales, revenues sufficient to meet all expenses and repay capital cost allocated to power within a 50-year period. As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the benefit-to-cost ratio calcu- lated for Salem Church by the district engineer is based on 1965 con- struction costs, interest at 31/8 percent and 100-year amortization. How- ever, we have recalculated the project using 4 percent interest, 50- year amortization, and 1968 prices. We arrived at our 1968 prices by adding 20 percent to the capital investment and the 0. & M. and re- placement charges calculated by the district engineer. This 20 percent is the approximate increase shown between 1965 and 1968 by the Engineer News Record's construction cost index. Even with all of these upward adjustments in annual charges against the project, it still shows a benefit-to-cost ratio in excess of unity. It is a good project. We respectfully suggest, therefore, that legislation reauthorizing the Salem Church Reservoir substantially according to Senate Docu- ment 37, 90th Congress, first session, be favorably reported at the earliest possible time; including authority for the 200,000-kilowatt pumped storage hydro plant should the Chief of Engineers find same feasible after further detailed study. We also respectfully urge authorization of the Petit Jean and White Oak pumped storage projects as part of the multiple-purpose develop- ment of the Arkansas River. PAGENO="0371" 357. These two projects would develop installed capacity for peaking purposes of 500,000 kilowatts each, and together exhibit a benefit-to- cost ratio of 2.1:1, based on January 1963 price levels. In connection with our study of Petit Jean and White Oak, we also updated the cost figures for these projects. We added 27 percent to the district engineer's estimate of initial cost, based on the 27 percent increase since 963 indicated by Engineering News-Record's construc- tion cost index. We applied an interest rate of 5 percent investment. We also increased O.M. & R. costs by 27 percent and used a 50-year amortization period. Even with all of these changes, the Petit Jean project shows a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.50 and White Oak shows a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.48. There has been considerable testimony asserting that peaking power can be produced more cheaply from thermal plants. Thermal plant investment costs as low as $80 per kilowatt have been mentioned. To my knowledge, Arkansas Power & Light Co. has not, in recent years, built any station for $80 per kilowatt, although some units may have been added to existing stations at that cost. However, new steam units, because they are the most economic gen- eration available, are generally operated around the clock; whereas wha.t we are speaking of here is peaking capacity. Even assuming an $80 per killowatt installed cost, peaking capacity utilized at 1,000 hours per year, which is about what Petit Jean and White Oak would operate, would cost 14 mills per kilowatt-hour. FPC estimates are that peaking capacity of this type produced at privately financed plants in the southwest, would cost over 18 mills. Peaking energy produced from White Oak and Petit Jean would cost 11.4 and 13.4 mills, respectively. There is also considerable testimony to the effect that the peakload in the southwest area, occurs during 11 hours each day, whereas these two projects would operate only 6 hours per day, 5 days per week. Mr McOollam later revised his oral testimony to say that peakloads are experienced "up to 11 hours each day." Mr. Chairman, you will recall that the testifying officer represeiit- ing the Chief of Engineers stated that he had rechecked this matter with the FPC and that the Commission, as of March 1968, was still of the opinion that these two projects could be economically utilized as peaking capacity for 6 hours per day, 5 days per week; as was deter- mined by the Commission in its 1962 study of this matter. Power and energy from Petit Jean and White Oak would be marketed at wholesale through the system of the Southwestern Power Administration, . which is interconnected with all Federal, public, cooperative, and private power suppliers in and adjacent to its service area. Thus, 1 million kilowatts of additional peaking capability would be available to help carry the peakload of the entire southwest area. SPA provided wholesale power service to rural electric systems in a five-State area including Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, and Louisiana. SPA also sells substantial blocks of peaking capacity to the investor-owned power companies in its region. Hydroelectric capacity can be brought into production almost instantaneously. By contrast, it takes several hours to bring a steam electric station up to temperature and . place it on the line. For this reason, large hydro stations are ideally suited to meeting peakload PAGENO="0372" 358 conditions and emergencies, such as the loss, of a major trans- mission line or generating station. Therefore, hydroelectric capacity availability is one of the best safeguards against cascading power failures. It is true that the Petit Jean and White Oak stations would be constructed wholly for power purposes. They are, nonetheless, an integral feature of the multiple-purpose development of the Arkansas River. We can discern no substantial difference between the installa- tion of hydroelectric features in the dam of a multiple-purpose reservoir and the installation of such feature at a slightly different location on the same reservoir for the identical purpose of maximizing utilization of reservoir waters. We very much hope that the subcommittee will report favorably on authorization of these two pumped storage units. Mr. Chairman, I really do not think there can be any serious con- tention concerning the constitutionality of the Federal Government in this area. It is my recollection that the courts have repeatedly held that the Federal Government has the power to generate electricity. Thank you. Mr. Jo~s. If they did not have the power to do that, they would not have the power to build the dam in the first place. There are no legal inhabitions for them to pump the water uphill, downhill, around the hill, as part of the responsibility to utilize the water resources of this country. Mr. ROBINSON. There is adequate constitutional power for this. There is no statutory authorization. The purpose of these hear- ings is to determine whether these projects will be authorized or not. If they are authorized they are obviously authorized by statute. We do not believe there is any question concerning the constitution- ality of these two projects. I might say, Mr. Chairman, recalculating the costs of the Petit Jean and White Oak projects-that is, the benefit-cost ratio and the per unit cost of energy produced from them based on 5-percent in- terest, 1968 cost figure, and a 50-year payout period-we used a fig- ure of 3 mills per kilowatt hour for pumping energy, that being an es- timate combination of what the Southwestern Power Administration could furnish from its own prOjects aiid what it could purchase. This is the dump energy which SPA must sell at 11/2 mills per kilo- watt hour. This would be combined with some purchased energy. You combine the two blocks of energy and you come out with 3-mill pump- ing energy. We also multiplied this by a factor of 3 over 2, so ulti- mately we can come up with a figure of 41/2 mills for pumping energy, 50-year payout, 5-percent interest, 1968 corrected prices, and the projects still are feasible and, in our opinion, represent the lowest al- terna~tive cost of peaking power. Mr. Chairman, that concludes our testimony. But, we very much ap- preciate the opportunity to appear. I wish to thank the chairman and all members of the subcommittee. Mr. JONES. Thank you, very much, Mr. Robinson. Our next witness will be our old friend Alex Radin, general man- ager of the American Public Power Association. Alex, we do not get to see you very often. it is a pleasure to welcome you here today. PAGENO="0373" 359 STATEMENT OP ALEX RADIN, t~ENERAL MANAGER, AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION Mr. RADIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement. There are references in my prepared statement to two projects in Alaska which we mistakenly thought were under consideration by the committee today, and they are not. With your permission, I can run through this statement very quickly. Mr. JONES. Proceed as you wish, sir. Mr. RADIN. My name is Alex Radin. I am general manager of the American Public Power Association, a national trade organization which represents more than 1,400 municipal nnd other local publicly owned electric utilities in 46 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Is- lands. Our offices are located at 2600 Virginia Avenue NW., Wash- ington, D.C. I appear here today to express APPA support of authorization of five proposed hydroelectric projects: Petit Jean and White Oak, in Arkansas; Lake Grace and Takatz Creek, in Alaska, and Salem Church in Virginia. Electricity demands in the Nation are doubling every 8 to 10 years. Local publicity owned electric utilities are experiencing an even faster growth rate, and have a responsibility to their consumer-own- ers to meet these demands with adequate, reliable, and low-cost power. More `than 400 of the municipal and other local publicly owned utilities purchase all or part of their power supply from Federal power marketing agencies, and consequently our association has a substantial interest in Federal power projects. IMPORTANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER - Along with a growing demand for electricity, there has been an increasing nationwide concern for reliable electric service and environ- mental improvements associated with the supply of electric power. From the standpoint of these criteria, hydroelectric power is unique in its ability to aid system stability and in the fact that it does not contribute to air or water pollution. The Northeast blackout of November 1965, alerted the Nation to the danger of widespread power failure,s. This event and subsequent outage~s in other sections of the country prompted the Federal Power Commission to produce a lengthy report pertaining to prevention of blackouts and to suggest legislation to aid in prevention of `blackouts In its November 1966 interim report on the Northeast blackout, the FPC reported: Systems which had access to hydroelectric power were among the first to restore service on November 9. The Bonneville Power Administration, reporting to the Senate Commerce Conunittee on the sithject of the blackout, noted: Our primary source is hydroelectric generation rather than stem, and is less vulnerable to system disturbance. Hydroelectric power can be started quickly and is susceptible to rapid changes in output. In this way, it can aid system continuity and reduce the length of any outage. PAGENO="0374" 360 in addition, hydroelectric plants do not heat the water of rivers and streams, nor do they contribute to air pollution. The Federal Power Commission, recognizing the benefits of hdro- electric power, stated in its 1984 National Power Survey: The favorable characteristics of hydroelectric power and the frequent multiple- use benefits associated with its development provide strong incentives for utiliz- ing the remaining potential of our waterpower resources that can be developed economically. IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL HYDRO Federal development of hydroelectric power provides certain ad- vantages that normally cannot be realized by private development 1. In addition to hydroelectric power, Federal multipurpose water projects provide benefits such as flood control, water quality control, recreation, and water supply. Inclusion of hydroelectric power in a Federal multipurpose water development project actually can make these additiona benefits financially feasible. 2. Federal generation and congressionally established power sales policies encourage availability of low-cost electricity through creation of a "competitive yardstick" by which the wholesale rates of other segments of the industry may be judged. Experience has demonstrated that the Federal yardstick (a) makes possible lower rates by utilities which purchase Federal power at wholesale, (b) tends to bring about rate reductions by other utilities in the area, because of the `competitive influence of the yardstick. Lower rates in turn `are helpful in attracting new industry, thereby enhancing job opportunities. 3. Costs of hydroelectric power are repaid, with interest, to the Federal Treasury from power proceeds, thereby creating a national asset without entailing a Federal grant. Because of the foregoing factors, the APPA membership has sup- ported Federal development of the maximum power potential of water resource proj cots, wherever such development is economically feasible. OZARK LOCK AND DAM AND LOCK AND DAM NO. 9 Petit Jean and White Oak are proposed pumped storage projects, associated with Ozark lock and dam No. 9 and Ozark lock and darn, respectively. Each project has a generation capacity of 500,000 kilo- watts. Both projects are affiliated federally constructed darns and are part of the proposed multipurpose development of the Arkansas River. Private power company representatives appeared before the Sub- conmiittee on Flood Control-Rivers and Harbors of the Senate Com- mittee on Public Works opposing these projects. We would like to respond to their allegations: 1. Although the projects, individually, are purely power projects, they `are associated with federally owned dams which will provide a portion of the pumping power for the pumped storage projects. They are also part of the Corps of Engineers' plan for multipurpose develop- ment of the Arkansas River. The basic policy question involved is whether pumped storage sites affiliated with Federal dams should be turned over to private interests or ~hether they should be developed PAGENO="0375" 361 for public benefit, and enhance overall plans for comprehensive de- velopment of water resources. These would not be the first authorized Federal hydroelectric proj- ects with power as their main-or only-benefit. From the 87th through `the 89th `Congresses; seven projects with more than 50 percent hydroelectric benefits were authorized, as follows: Asotin Dam and Reservoir, Snake River, Idaho and Washington, 99.7 percent; Brad- ley Lake, Cook Inlet, Alaska, 100 percent; West `Point project, Ohat- tahoochee River, Georgia, 59.2 percent; `Snettisham project, Alaska, 100 percent; Lazer `Creek and Lower Auehurnpkee, Flint River, Georgia, 72.9 percent; New Bullards Bar, Yuba River Basin, Cali- fornia, 76.2 percent. 2. Private power opponents were correct when they noted that thermal generation can operate on a full-time basis, while pumped storage may operate only part of the day; however, this argument is irrelevant to whether Petit Jean and White Oak should be constructed. Although thermal plants supply baseload energy, pumped storage plants characteristically provide power needed during relatively short periods of peak demand during the day, and therefore are customarily operated for only short periods of time during the day. Pumped storage projects actually enhance full utilization of base- load plants. Capaci'ty that otherwise would not be used during off- peak periods of the day can be effectively used during this period to provide pumping energy for the pumped storage project. 3. Alternatives to pumped storage are available for providing peak- ing power; however, these alternatives by no means rule out `the use of pumped storage hydroelectric power for peaking purposes. Advan- tages of pumped storage over alternative peaking sources include the pumped storage over alternative peaking sources include the facts that pumped storage projects have a longer life, do not incur fuel costs and do not emit air pollutants. `The lower initial cost of installed capacity at alternative sources of power such as steam or gas turbine installations is offset by the fact that pumped storage plants have no direct fuel costs. 4. Power companies contend that pumped storage is inefficient because it uses three kilowatts of pumping energy to produce `two kilo- watts of power. Actually, pumped storage uses three kilowatts of power produced at offpeak hours from a baseload plant that otherwise would not be used during these hours, thus giving the baseload plant a higher load factor. P'umped storage projects take three kilowatts of "dump" power and use it to produce two kilowatts of power that is needed for a relatively short time during the period of greatest demand. Con- sequently, power from the pumped storage plant is of greater value than "dump" power. 5. It has also been contended that sufficient peaking capacity is available in the area, and consequently there is no need for the Petit Jean and White Oak projects. However, on March 12, 1968, the Fed- eral Power Commission sent to the Army Corps of Engineers a letter confirming their letter of September 23, 1966, which stated, in part: The sl~ff's review of projected loads in the region, and of planned installations of new generating capacity, indicates that the output of the Petit Jean project with 500,000 kilowatts installed could be utilized during the 1970-75 period. A further installation of 500,000 kilowatts as planned at White Oak could be. utilized in the regional load prior to 1980. PAGENO="0376" 362 6. Although the feasibility study of these projects was based on 1963 costs, it is our understanding that the Corps of Engineers has updated its study on the basis of current costs, and even with the rise in costs which has been experienced since 1963 the benefit-cost ratio of these projects continues to be favorable. 7. It is true that Federal power projects pay no taxes. It would be pointless for the Federal Government to pay taxes to itself. Private power companies, however, pay no taxes but add taxes to the con- sumers' rates, thus acting as tax collectors rather than taxpayers. On the other hand, Federal power projects are tax-generating because they are income producing. Investment in power is returned to the Federal Treasury, with interest, over the project payout period. In addition, all power revenues after the traditional 50-year payout period are paid to the Federal Treasury. The Petit Jean and White Oak projects have a benefit-cost ratio of 2.1 to 1. They will supply peaking power needed in the area, and they are part of the plan for multipurpose development of the Arkan- sas River. The American Public Power Association therefore urges the subcommittee to approve authorization of these projects. APPA SUPPORTS SALEM OIIITROH DAM The proposed Salem Church Darn is located on the iRappa- hannock River, above Fredricksburg, Va. Associated with this dam would be Fredricksburg Dam, a reregulating reservoir, located 2.8 miles downstream from the Salem Church site. Preliminary investigations by the Corps of Engineers considered 17 separate proposals for development of this project, embodying three basic concepts: 1. A single Salem Church Dam without power. 2. Both Salem Church and Fredericksburg Darns with conventional hydroelectric power. 3. Both Salem Church and Fredricksburg Dams with pumped- storage generating facilities. The present proposal is for Salem Church and Fredricksburg Dams with an 89,000-kilowatt conventional hydroelectric installation at Salem Church. Feasibility of inclusion of pumped storage facilities, which would result in a maximum capacity of 200,000 kilowatts would be determined during or after preconstruction planning. Benefits from the project include hydroelectric power, water quality control, water supply, and recreation. The benefit-cost ratio of the project is 2.1 to 1. Power from this project would be marketed to preference customers in the Federal Power Commission power supply area 18, including central and eastern Virginia, a small part of West Virginia and a part of North Carolina. Federal Power Commission projections indicate that the demand for electricity in this area will be more than double in the next 10 years, an increase of over 3 million kilowatts. Power from Salem Church would be marketed by the Southeastern Power Ad- ministration, which has indicated that it could market power produced at Salem Church and obtain sufficient revenue to repay the Federal investment allocated to power. Municipal customers will be able to obtain this power at rates 3 to 4 mills below present wholesale rates for power purchased from private power companies in the area. PAGENO="0377" 363 Inclusion of pumped storage facilities could increase the capacity of Salem Church Dam to 200,000 kilowatts. The Federal Power Com- mission estimates the separable benefit-cost ratio of a conventional hydroelectric project with 89,000-kilowat capacity as 1.5 to 1. The Commission estimates the separable benefit-cost ratio of a pumped- storage installation of 200,000 kilowatts is 1.6 to 1. APPA joins the Southeastern Power Administration, the Depart- ment of Agriculture, and the Federal Power Commission in their support of installation of pumped storage facilities in the project. We urge the committee to authorize the Salem Church project and to approve the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers that pumped storage facilities be installed in the project, "within the discretionary authority of the Chief of Engineers, if found economically feasible at the time of preconstruction planning or later." The previous witness commented on the fact that even though the studies that are presently before the committee were based on 1963 costs, that even updating those figures to 1968 costs would not ad- versely affect feasibility of the project. That is just not so. Again I want to thank you. Mr. JoNEs. Thank you for a very fine statement. I am sorry that we are running late here this afternoon. There will be placed in the record atthis point statements on this subject. (The statements and letters referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF D. J. TUEPKER, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, PUBLIC SERvICE Co., OF OKLAHOMA, JUNE 20, 1968 We respectfully request that your committee refuse authorization of the White Oak and Petlt Jean pumped storage projects, proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Arkansas River, until the electric systems in the area can study the necessity, purpose and probable results of such a project. This is a project with minimum or no other benefits than electric power gen- eration on a very limited scale. The economic justification of pumped storage projects is based upon carrying short time peak loads of the electric systems in the area. The greatest value of hydro-electric generation also is to carry short duration peak loads of the electric systems in this area. The Arkansas- White-Red-River Basin now has more than 2,000,000 kw of hydro-electric gen- eration installed and under construction. Another 1,000,000 kw is anticipated in the foreseeable future. We believe that, for many years to come, this present and proposed hydro- electric generation, plus 1,500,000 kw of power and energy interchange with the Tennessee Valley Authority, is more than adequate to carry the peak loads of the electric systems in the Southwest. Grand River Dam Authority, an agency of the state of Oklahoma, placed in service 130,000 kw of pumped storage capacity on May 1, 1968, plans another 130,000 kw in 1970 or 1971 and ultimately 260,000 kw of additional pumped storage. This seriously impairs the use in Oklahoma of pumped storage from other areas, such as the White Oak and Petit Jean projects. We earnestly request that you deny the authorization of these projects until we have time to study the effect of another 500,000 kw of pumped storage on the Arkansas River. U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., June 19, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. PALLON, Chairman,Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: Because of a heavy schedule of personal appearances in Arkansas, in connection with my campaign for re-election, I will not be able to appear at your Committee hearings to urge approval of the several Arkansas projects now under consideration by your Committee. I want you to know, how- ever, that I support these projects and endorse statements made by my con- PAGENO="0378" 364 stituents and by Arkansas Members of the House of Representatives. I know that you will give careful consideration to their views, and I sincerely believe that these projects represent a good investment for the entire nation. With best wishes, I am Sincerely yours, J. W. FULBRIGIIT. STATEMENT OF BARRETT M. CAROTHERS FOR UNION ELECTRIC 00., THURSDAY, Ju~n 20, 1968 My name is Barrett M. Oarothers. I am Executive Vice President of Union Electric Company, an investor-owned public utility incorporated under the laws of Missouri having its executive offices at 315 North Twelfth Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri. Union Electric is engaged, among other things, in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric power and energy to approximately 800,000 cus- tomers in an 18,000 square mile area having a population of over 2,000,000 people in portions of Missouri, Illinois and Iowa, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Missouri Public Service Commission, the Illinois and Iowa Commerce Com- missions and the Federal Power Commission. The Company owns and operates seven steam electric generating plants having a total capacity fo 2,980,000 kilo- watts, two hydroelectric plants with a capacity of 330,000 kilowatts, and a pumped storage project known as our Taum Sauk Plant. Taum Sank is one of the world's first and largest pumped storage hydroelectric plants and is located near Lestervile, Missouri, some 90 air miles southwest of St. Louis. Completed in late 1963, its two units provide 350,000 kilowatts of peaking capacity and system reserve. The Company is extensively interconnected with other electric utility systems in the midwest and is a member of the Illinois-Missouri Power Pool and two of the nation's largest power planning networks, MAIN and MAPP. Union Electric joins with Arkansas Power and Light Company in opposing the authorization of two proposed Federal pumped storage projects in northwestern Arkansas, namely, the Petit Jean and White Oak projects. Briefly stated, we are opposed to these proposed projects principally because they are unsound and cannot be justified from an economic and engineering standpoint and there is a serious and substantial question as to their legality. Pumped storage projects are simply peaking plants-nothing more. It is funda- mental that such plants are feasible only if an electric supply system has unused generating capacity available during off-peak periods that can be used to pump water from a lower to an upper reservoir of the pumped storage project from which it can be released to generate power as needed during peak load hours. Most hydroelectric plants are also essentially peaking plants. Thus it is apparent that the idle capacity required to justify a pumped storage project would have to be provided by steam electric generating plants. Since in the field of power generation the Corps of Engineers has always been limited by law to the development of hydroelectric facilities and then only when such power generation is a natural and economic adjunct of a project justified for some other legitimate purpose, it is difficult to understand how the Petit Jean and White Oak projects (which are purely power projects and nothing more) can be justified from an engineering or legal standpoint. Moreover, I am unaware of any study or analysis that has been made showing how the Federal power marketing agency, Southwestern Power Administration, will be able economically to dispose of additionat short time peaking capacity, a commodity they already have in overabundance. In short, pumped storage projects have no place in a hydroelectric system such as that of the Southwestern Power Administration. Finally, in May, 1904, an independent engineering firm, Bechtel Corporation, made a feasibility study of the Petit Jean and White Oak pumped storage projects. They concluded that both projects were economically unsound and that it was not necessary to build such projects in order to meet the future power requirements of the area. That report was submitted to Colonel Edmund H. Lang, Resident Member, Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. by Mr. J. Robert Welsh on behalf of the member companies of the Southwest Power Pool and associated com- panies. The facts and data on which the Bechtel report is based and the conclu- sions reached therein are still valid and sound today. We support and eoncur in that report. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, we respectfully urge that this subeom- mittee disapprove he projects here under consideration. PAGENO="0379" 365 STATEMENT OF DONALD S. KENNEDY, CHAIRMAN OF THE BoARD AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OKLAHOMA GAS & ELECTRIC Co., JUNE 19, 1968 This statement is made in opposition to the proposed pumped storage electric generating projects kn~'wn as Petit Jean and White Oak. The proposed Petit Jean Project would be located on Petit Jean Mt~untain on the reservoir behind Lock and Dam No. 9, and the proposed White Oak Project would be located on Manitou Mountain on the reservoir behind Ozark Lock `and Dam, both on the Arkansas River in Arkansas. The projects `a's proposed would each contain 500,000 kilowatts or more of generating capacity and are pure power projects, in that they do not develop any na4ural resource and have no purpose other than the generation of electric power. They are related to the Arkansas River Navigation Plan only because they would use water from reservoirs on the Arkansas for pumping into a reservoir at a higher elevation during `off-peak period.s and then use the same water for generation during on-peak periods as it flows back `down into the main stream reservoirs. They would not bring into being any e1edtric power and energy as a necessary or incidental part of the operation of the dams constructed to control floods, provide navigation and recreation, and would in no way further the fun- damental purposes of the multipurpose projects on the Arkansas River. We recognize that in some instances pumped storage projects can be justified, but we emphasize that the Petit Jean and White Oak projects are unnece~ary and uneconomic. Furthermore, service reliability in the area wtuld be adversely affected. THE PROJECTS ARE UNNECESSARY The projects are unnecessary because the investor-owned, taxpaying utility companies are willing and able to supply all the electric power needs of the area. The obligation to provide adequate electric power generating capacity, as well as all of `the transmission and distribution facilities required, in order to serve the utility loads in the Southwest area, rests upon the electric systems in the area. The Corps of Engineers has no public utility obligation to provide sources of power for any consumers in the Southwest region of the country. The operations of the Southwestern Power Administration, as authorized under the Flood Con- trol Act of 1944 and the delegations from the Secretary of the Interior, are lim- ited to marketing the surplus ou'tput of Corps of Engineers projects in the area. Preference must be given to public bodies `and cooperatives in the disposal of such power under the Flood Control Act, but there is no obligation to do anything other than to give preference. There is no obligation to construct generating capacity of any kind to serve any load. THE PROJECTS ARE UNECONOMIC The Petit Jean and White Oak projects are uneconomic because the power and energy which they would supply can be supplied at a lower cost by other sources in the area. Pumped storage generation is inherently an inefficient proccs~ since it con- sumes about 3 kwh of off-peak energy to yield about 2 kwh of on-peak energy. Thus, the investment carrying charges and operating expenses of a pumped storage installation must be sufficiently lower than those of alternate methods to offset these unfavorable pumping energy costs. Pumped storage plants can gen- erally be justified only if the total capital investment is less than. the invest- ment of alternative methods. We have seen studies indicating that `the capital investments per kilowatt of capacity as proposed for the Petit Jean and White Oaks projects are $104.50 and $134.00 per kilowatt respectively. The capital Investment per kilowatt of equivalent capacity in the alternative source, steam electric generating sta'tions, is approximately $65-$80 per kilowatt. Previous studies used by the Corps of Engineers for the proposed projects have not provided for adequate transmission facilities to move the peaking power to the load centers, some of which are hundreds of miles distant. Additional cost of transmission must be given through consideration in evaluating any pumped storage projects. Previous studies pertaining to these projects are predicated on an interest rate of 3.125%, w-hich is the rate normally used for natural resource projects. Since PAGENO="0380" 366 these are not natural resource projects, but are pure power projects, the actual prevailing interest rate to the Federal Government at the time of construction should be used in economic evaluations, as outlined in Circular No. A-76 of the Bureau of the Budget, dated March 3, 1966, issued at the direction of the Presi- dent. THE PROJECTS WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT SERVICE RELIABILITY These projects as sources of power supply would adversely affect service relia- bility in comparison with conventional steam electric generating units er gas turbinepeaking units strategically located near various load centers. Pumped storage projects are not as continuously available for meeting load requirements as alternate sources would be, since pumped storage projects are generally designed to produce power less than 50% of the time per day. In addi- tion, if pumping energy should, for any reason, be unavailable during off-peak hours, the projects would be unable to produce during the next on-peak period. In a war emergency, when two and three shift operation of industry is re- quired, pumped storage projects would not be available for such long hours of power production as would other types of generation and could, therefore, be detrimental to national defense efforts. In addition, conventional steam and gas rturbine generating units are available for supplying:load 24 hours per day, seven days per week, whereas the pumped storage projects would require electricity for pumping water uphill more than 50% of the time. CONCLUSION At this time when the war emergency and other major expenditures are plac- ing a heavy burden on the financial resources of our country, it is imperative that the capital of our citizens not be spent improvidently on such obviously unneces- sary and uneconomic projects as Petit Jean and White Oak. We recommend that the Petit Jean and White Oak projects not be approved since they are unnecessary, uneconomic, and would adversely affect service reliability in the area. STATEMENT OF J. ROBERT WELsH, CHAIWMAN OF THE BOARD, SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER Co., SHREVEPORT, LA., JUNE 20, 1968 I am J. Robert Welsh, Chairman of the Board of Southwestern Electric Power Company. I am an engineer and have held a number of positions in construction, Operation engineering, and management of our company. Also, I am Executive Director of the Southwest Power Pool, an association of electric power systems in eight states promoting the coordination of system operating for reliable elec- tric service. I appear today in opposition to the proposed authorization of two pumped storage projects on the Arkansas River in Arkansas, identified as the Petit Jean and White Oak projects. During the period 1961-1965, studies were made on these projects by the Corps of Engineers and by. the companies in the area. The studies made by the companies show that these projects are not dependable sources of peaking power because there is not enough water stored in the pro- posed projects to make power available to customers during the hours of our summer peak loads. Shutdown of these projects during the hours of peak loads in years of prolonged heat storms would cause a shortage of power and inter- ruptions to electric service. The companies want to. avoid such curtailment of electric service, and we request the cooperation of the Congress in our efforts. The studies show that dependable power is and can continue to be furnished by conventional-thermal generating plants which the companies have always built and will continue to build in the future. Such plants operate 24 hours of the day, every clay, and no shortage of power will occur if. the area power requirements are supplied by conventional-thermal plants. Also, I request the Congress to consider the economics of the proposed pumped storage projects. The electric companies are interested in providing low-cost electric service to our customers, and could not buy power from the proposed pumped storage projects because of the high cost of. that power.. The studies made by the companies show that conventional-thermal plants can be built cheaper than the proposed pumped storage projects. Thermal plants in the area are built at a cost of about $65.00 to $80.00 per kilowatt, and operate 24 hours a day. The proposed Government projects are estimated to cost about $125.00 PAGENO="0381" 367 per kilowatt, and they cannot generate power unless there is water in the upper basin. The Government proposes to buy power and pump water into the upper basin which holds a small volume of water. The process is inefficient and the energy will cost about 11/2 times as much as the energy produced in the company- owned plants. It is estimated the cost of power from the proposed pumped storage projects would be about 1~/4 times as much per kilowatt of capacity and 11/2 times as much per kilowatt-hour of energy, when compared with power and energy produced at the company-owned plants. "It is equally clear that all segments of the industry-the investor-owned utility companies, the municipal systems, the rural electric cooperatives, and the Fed- eral and state power agencies-must join together in forward-looking coopera- tion to plan and build safe and reliable systems. Each system must consider as part of its public service responsibility the needs and desires, the strengths and weaknesses, of its neighbors throughout a broad region." This is quoted from a statement of Honorable Lee 0. White, Chairman of the Federal Power Commission. The companies strongly state that we do join in forward-looking cooperation to plan and build safe and reliable systems-and economical systems. We respectfully request the Congress to join in these cooperative efforts, and not authorize the construction of the proposed unreliable and costly pumped storage projects at Petit Jean and White Oak on the Arkansas River in Arkansas. MISSOURI RIVER BANK STABILIZATION (H.R. 3402) Mr. JONES. Next we will hear from Col. Shaffer. STATEMENT OP COL. GEORGE B. SHAFFER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OP CIVIL WORKS FOR PLAINS DIVISION Colonel SHARPER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report is in response to the request for comments of the Depart- ment of the Army on the bill H.R. 3402, 90th Congress, a bill to modify the comprehensive plan for the Missouri River Basin with respect to certain bank protection and rectification works. This bill would raise the $3 million appropriation authorized for bank stabilization work or rectification works at or below Garrison, which are part of the Missouri River Basin comprehensive plan au- thorized by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 and subsequent modifications, in the act of December 30, 1963 (77 Stat. 840), to an authorization of $10 million. The bill would also have the effect of modifying the Missouri River Basin comprehensive plan to require operation and maintenance of the above works by the Federal Government. The Department of the Army is in accord with the view that the appropriation authorized in the act of December 30, 1963 will not be sufficient to complete the work contemplated at and below Garrison Reservoir. Of the five area sites presently planned for construction, three are complete or substantially complete. Completion of the planned works at the remaining two sites will require an increase of $2 million over the existing authorization, and the Department of the Army would favor an increase to $5 million to complete the works planned pursuant to the existing authorization. It is the view of this Department, however, that any increase beyond that recommended above should be authorized only after the difficult and complex problems of the affected reach of the Missouri River have been further studied and a report discussing these problems and alternative solutions can be carefully considered by the Congress. As to the proposal for Federal operation and maintenance of the installed works, it has been the general practice of the Department PAGENO="0382" 368 of the Army under the circumstances existing in the section of the river within which these works are being installed to recommend that non-Federal interests be required to maintain bank protection works installed at Federal expense. The Congress has generally concurred in such recommendations, and has thus indicated an intent to limit Fed- eral responsibility to the installation of such measures. That intent is consistent with the congressional policies governing shore protection projects and with the Federal flood control policies under which non-Federal interests are required to operate and main- tain levees and other local protection works. In light of these precedents, the Department of the Army recoin- mends the deletion of the phrase "and maintenance and operation by the Federal Government," a.ppearing at the end of the last sentence of H.R. 3402. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. ~Joxns. Thank you. I will place in the record at this point state- ments and letters relative to the Arkansas River project. I see that our colleague, Mr. Kieppe, has just entered the room. Congressman Kleppe, we are. pleased to welcome you before the committee and having had a previous discussion with you and some of your constituents when they were down in Washington, D.C., expressing concern over the project relating to your ELR. 3402, the erosion prOblem of the Missouri River around Bisrnarc.k, N. Dak., I have had the previlege of having heard from your own constituency direct, so we are pleased to ha.ve you appear before the committee in support of your recommendation. STATEMENT OP RON. THOMAS S. KLEPPE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP NORTH DAKOTA Mr. KLEPPE. I have a very brief statement that I would like to pre- sent to the committee., if I could. I have a good many statements from citizens in the Bismarc.k area that have been submitted for the record. Mr. CLAUSEN. How many statements would you have? Mr. KLEPPE. Eleven besides my own. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is there any objection? Mr. KLEPPE. I have a list of the individuals and their titles and positions. I appear here this afternoon to call your attention to the bank ero- sion problem on the Missouri River in and around the vicinity of Bismarck and Mandan, N. Dak. This problem has reached emergency proportions because of the very serious water releases from the Gar- rison Dam. This fluctuation from zero to as much as 36,000 cubic feet per second has caused banks of the Missouri to collapse, which pres- ently are threatening the water intake structure and the sewer outfall sti~ucture on the Bismarck side of the river. Also threatened is the PAGENO="0383" 369 sewer outfall structure on the Mandan side. Within the past 3 weeks, the water intake structure for the large United Power and Basin Electric generating plants upstream from Bismarck and Mandan has taken on serious proportions. The knowledgeable people concerned with this problem have indi- cated that our problem is particularly acute this year because the large increase in the water suppiy came when the frost was out of the ground and the banks were soft. The corresponding additional pressures have washed many parts of the bank away. The bank erosion along the Missouri River from Garrison Dam to Oahe Darn has already caused a great deal of loss to very valuable river bottom land. This loss comes on top of the emergency aspect I recited previQusly. There has previously been authorized, appropriated, and spent, $3 million for this bank stabilization work. H.R. 3402, a bill I introduced ~January 10, 1967, provides for an additional $7 million. The best estimates I have received are that emergency expenditures necessary to save the structures I described will approach $6 million. Unless very prompt action is taken to provide this additional authority and these additional funds, the losses to the cities of Bismarck and Mandan, plus the losses to United Power and Basin Electric, could be very severe. In each instance, the taxpayers of this country have already participated in some of these investments and those investments are now in jeopardy. The Corps of Engineers have accepted this situation as being an emergency and based on previous experience, they do have an under- standing of how to correct the problem. With regard to the problems confronting the two power-generating plants, there are at this time $50,000 in emergency funds under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946. These funds have been made available to the local interests for this bank stabilization work. How- ever, the estimate is that $500,000 will be needed to complete the work for the two powerplants alone, and it is a great deal more than just a little problem for local interests involved to raise the additional funds. Therefore, any money authorized and appropriated under H.R. 3402 would assure that this emergency work could be completed quickly and competently. It is my sincere and urgent hope that you will consider the emer- gency aspect of this situation and give it your serious consideration. On April 22, 12 people representing many organizations from Bis- marck and Mandan, N. Dak., and vicinity, came to Washington and testified before the Senate Public Works Subcommittee on Flood Con- trol-Rivers and Harbors, and the Senate Appropriations Subcom- mittee on Public Works, regarding this emergency. These same people told their story to Miss Augusta B. Peters, Mr. Richard J. Sullivan, and Mr. Clifton W. Enfield of your committee staff. Each of them has submitted a statement for the record and, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this time that those statements may be inserted in the record togeher with accompanying pictures or documents. Thank you very much. Mr. CLAUSEN. Without objection, the 11 statements from these citi- zens in the vicinity of Bismarck and Mandan, N. Dak., will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statements follow:) PAGENO="0384" 370 OITY OF BI5MAROK, N. DAK., June 20, 1968. It is my opinion and the opinion of the Board of City Commissioners, Bisniarek Engineering Department, and such technical advisors as we have consulted, in- cluding a representative of the Corps of Engineers, Mr. Christian, that an emer- gency condition does exist caused by bank erosion on the Missouri River at and near Bismarek, North Dakota. This bank erosion creates a very real danger to the existence of Bismarck's recently completed sewage disposal system, including the outfall of this disposal facility. In addition to this is a considerable amount of public facilities owned by the Bisniarek Park Board, and Burleigh County as well as several hundred acres of valuable privately owned lands. Although, the Missouri River has meandered during all its existence, a new and artificial condition has caused this to be greatly intensified. The Garrison Dam causes clear water to come down stream at high velocity and picks up a great deal more silt than previously plus great fluctuation in volume of water releases (as much as 15-48,000 cubic feet per second from day to day) thereby, creating much greater bank erosion. At Bismarck the new Interstate #94 high- way bridge was constructed on dry river bottom and the river then diverted from the West to the East bank to flow under the new bridge in a narrow deep chan- nel. This caused a large sand bar to form in 1961, immediately in front of Bis- marck's water intake structure creating great concern. This has only temporarily moved out and down stream. We believe it is most vital and urgent that the banks of the Missouri River be stabilized from the 1-94 bridge downstream past Bismarck's sewage treat- ment facility outfall. E. V. LAna, Mayor. RESOLUTION Whereas, lands and facilities owned by the City of Bismarck and the Park District of the City of Bismarck are now being threatened by erosion from the Missouri River, and Whereas, the Missouri River has a long history of destructive erosion along its banks with the loss of thousands of acres of land each year, and Whereas, the Missouri River banks south of Grant Marsh bridge (bridge of 1-94) have been subject to more severe and concentrated erosive action by the Missouri River since the construction of said bridge, and Whereas, the surveys made by the North Dakota State Water Commission and the Eengineering Department of the City of Bismarck show and indicate sub- stantial erosion, which is presently eroding lands of the City and Park and jeopardizing public facilities, and Whereas, the United States of America through the Corps of Engineers will provide for protective structures and facilities to prevent or retard erosive action by the Missouri River: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Board of City Coinrn~issioners of the City of Bismarck To declare that an emergency situation exists with reference to protection of public properties from erosive action of the Missouri River and that the President of the Board of City Commissioners and the City Auditor be authorized to execute contract by and between the United States of America and the City of Bismarck providing for construction with federal funds of protective facilities and struc- tures along the Missouri River to prevent erosion, and the City of Bismarck along with other governmental entities, does hereby agree to assume its equitable share of maintenance of the same as to be determined; be it further Resolved That the City of Bismarek grant to the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army and/or United States of America easements for erection of erosion control facilities along banks of the Missouri River; and be it further Resolved That the North Dakota State Water Commission and Senator Young be encouraged to secure action of The Congress for the authorization and the appropriation of funds to provide for erosion control measures in the Bismarck- Mandan area on the Missouri River. STATE OF NOETH DAKOTA, County of Burleigh, ss: I, Erwin Weisenburger, the duly appointed, qualified and acting Deputy City Auditor of the City of Bismarck, North Dakota, do hereby certify that the fore- going is a true and correct copy of the original resolution of the Board of City PAGENO="0385" 371 Commissioners of said City adopted at a regular meeting held on April 9, 1968. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of Bismarek, North Dakota, this 11th day of April, 19G8. (sEAI~) ERWIN WEISENBURGER, Depi~ty City Auditor. STATEMENT OF A. R. SHAW, MAYOR OF MANDAN, N. DAK., IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3402, JuNE 20, 1q68 Gentlemen, this statement is presented to your Committee on behalf of the City of Mandan, North Dakota, by Mr. A. R. Shaw, President, Board of Oity Commissioners for said City. The City of Mandan has recently completed a sewage treatment facility costing slightly over $840,000, of which amount $232,000 was an outright grant by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration of the U.S. Department of Interior. The outfall line and the aeration ponds are located on the flood plains of the Missouri River and the Heart River, which has its confluence with the Missouri River `three miles southwest of the treatment site. Th~e outfall line which i's 4,000 feet long, empties into the Missouri River. The line extends from the aeration ponds to the right `bank of the river. This was approved by the Omaha District, Corps of Engineers. During the course of construction in the fall of 1966 (November) the erosion was so rapid `that emergency measures ha'd to be instituted to preserve the outfall end. This was done `by driving piling an'd anchoring the outfall end at considerable increase in costs. The northerly impoundments of the Oahe Reservoir reach within three miles of the outfall site. Manipulations of flows from the Garrison Reservoir ranging from 30,000 second feet to zero flow create abnormal bank erosions and channel changes. These influences have varied from the bank cutting actions and erosions of the fall of 1966 to the present sand~bar block that `has built up this spring. The proposed work as outlined by representatives of the Corps of Engineers, `Omaha District, `will alleviate and correct the present deteriorating conditions. This work will `also stabilize the outfall site to permit better hydraulic discharge characteristics. Time is of the essence in this matter since upstream deterioration observed from the present outfall site on i~ April 1968 indicates that the present river flow can again `begin its eroding action on a line that will cut behind (bank side) the head walls. When this `happens, as it surely will under present conditions, the head-wall and anchor wall will disappear. The alignment and grade of the outfall line will `be disrupted, `interfering with the orderly discharge of treated sewage effluent. `This will result in the flooding of crop land's with sewage effluent, if the effluent line is lost. `The `practicability of the outlined `work has been demonstrated in other reaches of the Missouri River, particularly around Sioux City, Iowa; Omaha, Nebraska; ~nd Kansas City, Missouri. The City of Mandan `has passed a resolution indicating its willingness to assume the responsibilities normally and `traditionally associated with the maintenance and operation of the facilities. The undersigned `is particularly grateful `for `the invitation extended by your `Chairman to appear before this Committee. We in Mandan feel keenly about the need and early implementation of the proposed corrective and protective works. I am attaching a copy of a resolution which the `City of Mandan `passed, urging passage of 5. 537, which is similar to H.R. 3402, the `bill now under consideration. For the City of Mandan, North Dakota. A. R. SHAW, President, Board of City Commissioners. RESOLUTION Whereas, the city of Mandan, Morton County, North Dakota, has recently completed construction of a sewer outfall situated on the right bank of the Missouri River in Morton County, North Dakota; and, Whereas, `because of the erratic flow of the Missouri River the right bank of said river has begun to deteriorate between the Northern Pacific Railroad Com- pany's main line bridge spanning such river and the confluence of the Heart River to such an extent that the city of Mandan may lose its sewer outfall installation; and, 97-700-68-25 PAGENO="0386" 372 Whereas, S. 537 mis been introduced in the Congress of the United States to provide funds to construct bank stabilization works in the area subject to such erosion; and Whereas, the city of Mandan is situated in the Lower Heart River Water Management District, which District has been organized to provide an effective and responsible agency through which local interests within said District may cooperate and contract with the federal and state governments in furnishing assurances and meeting local cooperation requirements involving control, con- servation and use of water in connection with any federal or state projects for the improvement, control and development of rivers lying within said District; and, Whereas, a proper system of bank rectification works is urgently needed to protect the sewer outfall of the city of Mandan: Now therefore, be it Resolved by the Board of City Commissioners of the City of Mandan That this Board on behalf of said city does hereby respectfully urge the passage of S. 537. STATEMENT OF RAY SUOFF, SUPERVISOR OF OPERATIONS, UNITED Powus AssOCIA- TION, BI5MAROK, N. DAK., Iw SUPPORT OF H.R. 3402 This tetsimony is offered in behalf of United Power Association, Bismarck, North Dakota. Our organization is an electric cooperative which has constructed a generating plant in central North Dakota along the Missouri River at a location approximately 45 air miles upstream from Bismarck. This REA financed gen- erating plant *and associated facilities provides electric energy directly or indirectly to consumers in North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin. We support HR. 3402 and urge favorable action by this committee. The need for additional river bank stabilization in our area is readily apparent and prompt action is of extreme importance. Prior to the start of construction of our generating facilities, which were placed in commercial operation in May of 1967, we made contact with rep- resentatives of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska Office. We were advised that our plantsite area was in one of five areas between the Garrison Dam and the upper reaches of the Oahe Reservoir where bank stabiliza- tion was planned by the Corps. Our construction plans were altered to allow for the installation of river bank protection by the Corps as a part of their existing program. This included relocation of our water 4ischarge and re- arrangement of piling to match the Corps revetment design. Our plans, as altered, were approved by the Corps in early 1965. Some stabilization facilities have been installed by the Corps at four of the five locations originally considered as critical areas. Present revetment installa- tions are within one-half mile of our property. We have now been advised, however, that all funds from the original appropriation are allocated and the installation of bank protection along our property as originally planned is not possible. In recent weeks, much of our river bank has been washed away. The water's edge is within 24' of our diked area, less than one-half the distance that existed in 1965. Variation in river flow, controlled by the Corps, at Garrison Dam 12 miles upstream, is the apparent cause of the rapid bank deterioration. There exists approximately 800' of river bank along our property where the need for stabilization is critical. Prompt installation of a rock revetmeut along this shore line as originally planned by the Corps is a necessity. An aerial photo- graph of the area is attached which illustrates the seriousness of the situation. We sincerely request passage of H.R. 3402. Thank you. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN THOMAS KLEPPE, FOR BASIN ELECTRIC POwER Co- OPERATIVE, BI5MARCK, N. DAK., IN SUPPORT or LEGISLATION PROVInING RIVER BANK PR0TEoTION Basin Electric Power Cooperative is a wholesale power supplier for 106 mem- ber rural electric cooperatives located in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa. Basin Electric supports legislation to modify the comprehensive plan for the Missouri River Basin with respect to certain bank protection and rectification work and to increase the appropriation for this work from $3 million to $10 million. PAGENO="0387" 373 Basin Electric has built a large generating plant along the bank of the Mis- souri River and downstream from Stanton, North Dakota. The construction work on this plant was completed late in 1~65 and the plant has been in operation since that time Four structures were built at the edge of the river, consisting of one intake, two discharge and one surface water discharge outlet. The design and placement of these structures was approved by the Corps of Engineers. The alignment of the structures was established in accordance with the S. Army' Corps, Garrison Dam to Oahe Reservoir Bank Protection Plan. This plan pro- poses bank protection from a point several miles upstream toa point well below the Basin Electric property. The portion of the bank protection work from our discharge structure downstream below our property has been completed, but nothing has been accomplished on the upstream side. United Power Association, a wholesale power supplier, serving 114 members in Minnesota and Wisconsin, has built a generating plant one-half mile upstream from the Basin Electric plant. In addition to the intake and discharge canals, United has a dike along the river bank which encloses their ash disposal lagoon. There is approximately 1600-2000 feet of river bank on the plant site which would be subject to costly damage if the bank continues to cave and fall into the river. Several weeks ago, the bank of the river immediately upstream from our intake started to fall into the river and to date has moved inland about forty feet, exposing our outboard discharge pipe, causing it to fail and also exposing our winter discharge line. At the present rate, with substantial fluctuations in the level of the river, the intake pump house may soon be encircled by water. The greatest bank failure appears to occur after the river ha's been high and then the level drops significantly. Including only the critical frontage for both plants, there is approximately 3000 feet of river bank whose failure would result in substantial loss to these vital industries'. Immediate action should be taken to provide bank stabilization for the entire area We feel that the substantial variations in river flow are responsible for the bank failures that are occuring in this area. We have a surveyor's map made in 1882 which shows the river in almost the same area that it now occupies. It is generally recognized in the area that the power plants are on a stable reach of the river bank, so the recent failures must come from man-controlled opera- tions of the river. Recognizing this fact, we ask that the beneficiaries of the varying river flow pay for the adverse effects of such flow. This can be achieved by the passage of a bill providing for at least $10 million to pay for bank stabilization in this reach of the river. Thank you. STATEMENT n~ WALTON Russni~n, CHAIRMAN, AND CARL KEIDEL, FORMER MEMBER OF LOWER HEART RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DIsTRICT, MANDAN, N. DAK., IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3402, JUNE 20, 1968 The Lower Heart River Water Management District is a governmental sub- division of the state of North Dakota which was created and organized by the North Dakota State Water Commission and the County of Morton to provide an effective and responsible agency thru which local interests within said Dis- trict may cooperate and contract with the federal, state `and local governments in making assurances and meeting local cooperation requirements of any federal project. The Lower Heart District, pursuant to Chapter 61-16 of the North Dakota Century Code, also has the power to secure any rights, titles, interests, estates or easements necessary or proper to carry out the duties imposed upon it, par- ticularly to acquire the necessary rights in `land for the construction of water conservation works of `any nature and to `secure the rights of access to the same whether by condemnation or other lawful means. Under the Laws of our sta'te the governing `body of the District is directed to encourage the construction of water control works within the District by federal and state agencies and to lend their aid, counsel and assistance to any such project. The governing body of the District by statute is given the right, power and authority to enter into contracts or other arrangements for flood control works with the United States Government or `any department thereof for cooperation or assistance in planning, constructing, maintaining and operating such works. Once any such water conservation or flood control works has been constructed PAGENO="0388" 374 within the District, unless specifically exempt therefrom, it automatically comes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of the Lower Heart River District. The Lower Heart River Water Management District includes the lands in the lower drainage area of the Heart River, and also the plains lying east of the Heart River and west of the Missouri River between the Northern Pacific's main line bridge which spans the Missouri River and the confluence of the Heart and Missouri Rivers. The Lower Heart River Water Management District has jurisdiction therefore of a portion of the area which is the subject of the proposed bank stabilization works. Shortly after its creation, the Lower Heart District cooperated with the Corps of Engineers in the construction of the flood protective works and levees which protect the city of Mandan and the plains lying south and east of the city from the ravages of the flooding Heart River. These works as constructed terminate near the confluence of the Heart and Missouri Rivers. The total amount spent ~n that project, including both federal, state and local sums on the maintenance now exceeds three million dollars. Since the construction of the Garrison Dam and particularly in recent years due to the erratic fluctuation of the river in the vicinity of the Lower Heart District the natural course of the Missouri River has changed preceptably and erratically and at present is endangering the flood protective works which I referred to above. This threat comes about in several manners. First, near the confluence of the Heart and Missouri Rivers there is the con- stant cutting away of the right bank near the toe of the present flood control levee. If this cutting continues the District will lose the lower portion of its levee system. Second, the river has caused a cutting away of the area at the mouth of the channel cutting deeply into the Ft. McKean State Park and causes sand bars to develop at the mouth of the Heart River which causes the waters of the Heart to divert further against the banks causing further degradation. Third, during the high flow of the Missouri the high waters are backed up into the present Heart River channel causing a flushing action both during back up :and the release which occurs when the Missouri is lowered. This flush- ing or surging action is causing serious erosion of the banks of the Lower Heart River and is threatening to cut through the protective banks of the newly con- structed channel of the Heart and may result in the loss of our levee system in the area and would destroy the effectiveness of the levee. Fourth, when the Missouri is at high flow the water surges into an old chan- nel of the Heart River at a point where years ago it entered into the Missouri several miles upstream from the present mouth of the Heart River. This surging action may reopen this old channel and permit the high waters of the Missouri to flow up against the city of Mandan's sewage lagoon system. Finally, the Missouri River is cutting into the right bank all along the area between the N.P. Bridge and the mouth of the Heart. This erosive action is erratic shifting and unpredictable, both as to location and extent of damage. The loss of land is accelerating at an alarming rate. Because of the problems on this stretch of the Missouri River are so acute and require prompt corrective measures, the Lower Heart River Water Man- agement District respectfully urges this Committee to recommend the passage of H.R. 3402. The Board of Commissioners of the Lower Heart River Water Management District has duly adopted a resolution supporting the proposed remedial works and has and does hereby stand ready, willing and able to give the federal gov- ernment all necessary assurances so that the project may be undertaken without delay. STATEMENT OF ALBERT STEFFENSON, DIRECTOR OF THE OLIVER COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA WATER MANAGEMENT BOARD, AND RANCHER, FARMER, IRRIGATOR, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3402, JUNE 20,19(38 My name is Albert Steffenson. My wife and I live on a farm and ranch in Oliver County, North Dakota approximately 26 mlles north of Mandan, North Dakota on the west side of the Missouri River. I am a member of the Oliver County, North Dakota Water Management Board. PAGENO="0389" 375 Since the impounding of the Missouri River waters behind the Garrison Dam, we have found it necessary to supplement our moisture through gravity irriga- tion. We now irrigate 250 acres of sugar beets, corn and alfalfa. The increased production due to irrigation makes beef and grain production more desirable. The sharp raising and lowering of the river by the engineers is causing serious bank erosion. We have lost close to a quarter section of land since the impound- ing of waters. Also the loss of permanent irrigation pump sites at critical periods during the growing season means a serious loss in production. There are 26 river miles in Oliver County. In this, there are 13 serious bank erosion areas at the present time. Oliver County has bad one serious erosion area stabilized. The state and county are responsible for $36,000, cost of mainte- nance on this project in less than one year. Our county has an assessed valuation of under $4,000,000. The Water Manage- ment Board can ask for a 3 mill levy. We have spent 1.6 mills for ground water surveys and other expenses. We owe $18,000 to the State of North Dakota for our share of this bank maintenance. It will take us several years to raise this amount of money. tTnder the present law, state and counties are responsible for all maintenance. It seems that the taxpayers of these areas are being grossly and unjustly burdened. If the Corp of Engineers can justify the building of the Garrison Dam and the Garrison Diversion District, it seems to us in Oliver County that the Corps should be responsible for the maintaining of a stable river bank situation because at the present time we are being unjustly taxed plus losing valuable, taxable land to river erosion. If the Corps cannot justify maintenance then at least this main- tenance expense should be spread over the entire area being benefited by the building of the Garrison and all other dams. There are approximately 65 miles of natural river flow or banks left of the Missouri River. Besides the farming area this includes two (2) power plants, small towns and Mandan aiid Bismarck. The total value of this area is beyond comprehension. STATEMENT BY ERVIN BouRGoIs, FARMER, RANCHER, IRRIGATOR, ON BANK ERosION ALONG THE Missouni RIVER, JUNE 20, 1968 My name is Ervin Bourgois. I live on a farm and ranch that my father home- steaded in 1883. My farm is located nine miles northwest of Bismarck, North Dakota, along this Missouri River. My son and I operate a cattle raising and feeding operation. When the Garrison Dam was completed, we put the land we own along the Missouri River into Irrigation. This has permitted us to expand our operations to include the raising of potatoes and sugar beets. Eight-hundred acres are now under gravity irrigation. Our yields on this irrigated land prove equal or better than any other area in the Montana-Dakota region. Now, since the completion of the Garrison Dam, we are running into problems of excessive washing away of the banks along the Missouri. We are in the con- tinual process of changing the pumping sites due to the instability of the river banks. Let me tell you what this means to the irrigators in dollars and cents. There is the cost of moving electric lines and the cost of developing new pump sites. Many manhours go into each pumping site. This drain on our manhours comes at our busiest season when we can least afford it. Then there is the cost of the land that is permanently being lost to us and for which there can be no replacement. This loss of land that I just brought to your attention will become even more critical for our coming generations if steps are not taken immediately to stop this Washing ~iway process. So far it is the irrigator that has withstood this cost. It must, therefore, be asked why the farmers between the Oahe and Garrison Dams should suffer these great losses resulting through no fault of their own and over which they have no control, leaving them no recourse other than to tell, you on this committee of this plight. Anoth~r aspect of the high cost of this bank erosion will be felt as the reservoir of the Oahe Dam becomes filled in with silt cutting into its storage capacity. Wouldn't you agree, it would be bet- ter to keep all of this reri estate just wimre it is? The Army Corps of Engineers has recommended that irrigators put down wells instead of pumping out of the river. This is a short-term solution for the banks will still be eroding aWay and this rich farm land will still be lost forever. PAGENO="0390" 376 I feel that the fluctuations in the water level of the river have added to the prob- lems of erosion. The dams along the Missouri have saved millions of dollars in flood control. However, this work of conservation is not completed and will not be completed until this problem is solved. There is urgency in seeking and applying a solution. STATEMENT BY ANDREW X[0RK, CHAIRMAN, MORTON COUNTY WATER MANAGEMENT BOABD, PRESmENT, NORTH DAKOTA AssocIATION OF SoIL CONSERVATION Dm- TRICTS, IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3402, JUNE 20, 1968 Mr. Chairman, my name is Andrew Mork, and I am a farmer-rancher from Mandan, North Dakota. I am also Chairman of the Morton County Water Man- agement Board and President of the North Dakota Association of Soil Conser- vation Districts. My farm is located on the Missouri River Bottoms, North of Mandan. My fath- er moved my family here in 1930 and except for my college years and three y~ears of other employment thereafter. I have resided here ever since. In these years I have played in and on the River, ran from it in flood time and pumped from it to irrigate my fields. The Garrison Dam built 50 miles north of Mandan was closed in 1952. This means I have spent 22 years in intimate contact with the River in its natural or wild state and 1(1 years with it in its present controlled state. Consequently, I feel that I know the River well. The Missouri, like any other alluvial river, did in its natural state erode its banks and over the centuries has changed its course. But this was a relatively slow process. For example, I can substantiate that my land is at least 200 years old. Elmer Worthington, Forester for the North Dakota Soil Conservation Serv- ice, believes that the largest tree in North Dakota is a 250 year old Cottonwood on the Missouri Bottoms near Sanger, North Dakota. The flow of the Missouri in winter was invariably low permitting the banks to freeze deeply. This protected them during the sudden spring floodtime. The only other high river stage oc- curred during mid-summer when the snow melt from the Montana and Wyoming mountains flowed through. At this time the River carried its maximum silt load and if there was erosion there was also land building when the turbid water slowed by the willows dropped its load of silt. The slow erosion and cor- responding accretion kept our total acreage of bottomland constant. After the closure of the Dam, the water is being released at a time and in quantities most favorable to power generation and downstream navigation. The characteristics of the River has abruptly and completely changed. True, we now have protection from severe flooding but we find ourselves in a position of a man just saved from acute appendicitis only to find that he has a terminal cancer! The "Cancer" is the accelerated river bank erosion caused by the clear water now released by the Dam. High wintertime water releases necessitated by high power demands cause erosion to occur in the winter in addition to the other seasons. The clear water has the ability to carry away the finer, lighter par- ticles of the eroded banks. The heavier soil j~articles, the sand and fine gravel are redeposited as sand bars. These sand bars are therefore much harder than before and resist further erosion. This in effect doubles the erosion pressure on the mainland and is another basic cause of our emergency conditions today. On my river front I am losing approximately 50 feet of land per year. This is on a straight flowing stretch of the river-on the curves the rate is much higher. It is extremely difficult to operate an irrigation system under these conditions. Obviously, all my land will soon disappear if this situation is allowed to continue. It is obvious to us who know the River that our problem is caused by the opera- tion of the large federal dam abote us. Therefore, it seems only reasonable that construction and maintenance of suitable bank protective works should also be a federal obligation. To do less can only be construed to be an offense against the landowners of our valley. In the years since our problem has become apparent, a great many state and regional orgauizatioiis, as well as every session of our North Dakota legisla- ture, have adopted resolutions directed to the Corps of Engineers or the United States Congress asking the river bank protective works. In fact, a collection of these resolutions would by themselves testify to the gravity of our situation and the need for immediate action. Due to the Vietnam War, I know Congress must reduce their expenditures and many worthwhile federal projects must wait. However, I hope Congress will realize this is an emergency and that tomorrow will be too late. Immediate ac- tion is necessary to prevent losses which can never be restored. PAGENO="0391" 377 STATEMENT OF GEORGE J. TOMAN REPRESENTING THE CITY OF MANDAN, N. DAK., CONCERNING MISSOURI RIVER BANK ST~unnIzATIoN AT MANDAN, BISMARCK, N. DAK., JUNE 20, 1968 HR. 3402, A BILL TO MODIFY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOE MISSOURI RIVER BASIN WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN BANK PROTECTION AND RECTIFICATION WORKS My name is George J. Toman, Consulting Engineer serving as City Engineer for the City of Mandan, North Dakota. First, I request that my written statement be accepted for file and inclusion in the record. I am well acquainted with the performance and capabilities of the Missouri River, having been born on a homeStead lOss than 1000 yards from its banks at Ft. Clark, N.D., and spending most of my life since then observing and Working with cause and effect of the stream behaviors. It was my privilege in 1926 and 1928 to be part of `the State Engineer field forces that undertook the first field studies for Missouri Rh~er Diversion evaluation. Subsequent thereto my formal education and duties have guided my observations and enriched my experiences. Among my commissions have been included intake structures on the Missouri, flood protective works on the flood plains, and most recently a sewage treat- mont facility discharging into the Missouri River. This latter project cost slight- ly over $840,000, of which amount the Federal Water Pollution Oontrol Adminis- tration of the Department of Interior granted $232,000. The outfall line and the areation ponds are located on the flood plains of the Missouri River and the Heart River, which has its confluenee with the Missouri River two miles south- west of the treatment site. The outfall line is 4,000 feet long and it empties into the Missouri River on the right bank. This arrangement was approved by the Omaha District, Corps of Engineers. During the course of construction in the fail of 1966 (November) the erosion was so rapid that emergency measures had to be instituted to preserve the outfall end. This Was done `by driving piling and anchoring the outfall end by mass concrete hdadwalls at considerable increase in costs. The northerly impoundments of the Oahe Reservoir reach within three miles of the outfall site. Manipulations of flows from the Garrison Reservoir ranging from 30,000 second feet to zero flow create abnormal bank erosions and channel changes. These influences have varied from the bank cutting actions and erosions of the fall of 1966 to the present sand-bar block that has built up this spring. The proposed work as outlined by representatives of the Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, will alleviate and correct the present deteriorating conditions. This work will also stabilize the outfall site to permit better hydraulic discharge characteristics. Time is of the essence in this matter since upstream deterioration observed from the present outfall site on 9 April 1968 and again on 4 May 1968 indicate that the present river flow will again begin its eroding action on a line that will cut behind (bank side) the head walls. When this happens, as it surely will under present conditions, the head wall and anchor wall will disappear. The outfall line will become inoperative, interfering with the orderly discharge of the treated sewage effluent. Such a catastrophe will result in the flooding of crop lands with sewage effluent. The practicability of the work as outlined by the Corps of Engineers has been demonstrated in other reaches of the Missouri River, particularly around Sioux City, Iowa; Omaha, Nebraska; and Kansas City, MiSsouri. The City of Mandan has passed a resolution indicating its willingness to assume the responsibilities normally and ti~adiitionaily aSsociated with the maintenance and operation of the facilities. The undersigned is particulariy grateful for the invitation extended by your Chairman to appear before this Committee. We in Mandan feel keenly about the need and early implementation of the proposed corrective and protective works. STATEMENT BY ROBERT BAIN, PARK BOARD OOMMIS5IONER FROM BISMAROK, N. DAK., JUNE 20, 1968 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, for several years the land owners along the Missouri River in Section seven, Range 80, Township 138 have been concerned about the erosion taking place on their property. Many methods have been tried to stop this erosion to no avail. They have hauled in old car bodies rock, concrete, and any other material that might stop the erosion. PAGENO="0392" 378 The Park District of the City of Bismarek has just acquired clear title to the west half of Section eight, Range 80, Township 138 in Burleigh County which is along the river front. A recreation complex has been planned for this area which includes an 18 hole golf course, picnic area, a horse arena and facilities, an archery range, and possibly river front activities; such as: Boating, bathing, a boat dock, etc. All these are under construction, or consideration at the present time. About $170,000.00 has already been spent on the construction of the golf course which is almost completed. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has participated in the construction and land acquisition of the Golf Course in a matching fund basis. Up until this past winter the river was cutting in on the area of section seven. The Park Commission and City Commission were concerned about this erosion and have cooperated with the private citizens by offering old curb concrete and other materials in the attempt to stop the cutting away of the bank. As I mentioned above, it did not solve the problem and during the past year another 100 to 150 feet has been washed away. In checking the area this Spring, at low water level, we find that a new area has been developed where considerable eroding is taking place. This is some 250 to 300 yards north of the one in Section sevenS We estimate that from 250 to 400 feet of river bank has been washed away at this point which is in Section eight. If the erosion at this point continues as it is and in the same general direction, the river channel will cut through our golf course, on south through the archery range and horse area and hence down through the City Lagoon. It is quite possible too, that if conditions continue to change and shift, as they have done in the past, that it could jeopardize parks lands directly north of this area on which are located the Bisrnarck Zoo and Sertoma Riverside Park, which has been developed into one of the finest picnic and recreation facilities in this area. It is quite obvious why the Park Commission and the City of Bismarck are very much concerned about this situation and urge that immediate action be taken to stabilize the river bank along this whole section of land. Mr. Chairman, we urge your favorable recommendation for the passage of H.R. 3402. Mr. CLAtTSBN. Are there any questions? Mr. JONES (presiding). You have done such a magnificent job, we have no inquiry to make. Mr. CLATJSEN. You have been most diligent in this pursuit of this particular project and certainly I am hopeful that you will convey my own personal thanks for the time that your people spent when they came down here to visit us. It was very pleasant to be with you. Mr. JoNEs. Mr. Milo W. Hoisveen, chief engineer, North Dakota State Water Commission. STATEMENT OF MILO W. HOISVEEN, CHIEF ENGThtEER, NORTH DAKOTA STATE WATER COMMISSION Mr. HoIsvBEN. Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is Milo Hoisveen. I am chief engineer of the North Dakota State Water Commission and State engineer. I have held this position for almost 15 years; consequently, I am well acquainted with the Missouri River and its development. North Dakota has been most cooperative in the development of the Missouri River Basin project as envisioned in the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the O'Mahoney-Milliken amendment. Approximately 566,000 acres of land have been removed from tax rolls in our State to meet the land acquisition requirements for the project. Most of these lands carried an irrigation potential and when developed would have cOntributed greatly to the economy of our sparsely populated State. PAGENO="0393" 379 When it was decided that the maximum pool elevation of Lake Sakakawea, behind the Garrison Dam, should be raised to an elevation that would best enhance the development of the entire Missouri Basin, proponents of the proposal in North Dakota, without aid from outside States or Federal agencies, won a long and bitter fight to achieve this objective. Scars from this bitter battle still remain. Federal agencies did make plans and proposals whereby a dam would be constructed at the so-called Mandan site on the Missouri River as a part of the Missouri Basin project. A reservoir at this site would have caused the removal of 68,000 additional acres of valuable, agricultural land from our economy. It was objected to by State representation and this objection was honored. The land adjacent to this reach of the river, incidentally, is probably the only nonfederally owned land from the Nebraska border to almost the Montana border, which approximates 780 river miles. It is possible that the fact that this proposed dam was once in the plan may have resulted in an oversight in not protecting the banks of that portion of the Missouri River, extending from Garrison Dam to the Oahe Reservoir. If not, the Corps of Engineers may have taken a calculated risk in not installing bank rectification works concur- rently with the construction of the Garrison Dam. Being an engineer, I am well aware of the necessity of taking calculated risks. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. This brings us to our present prob- lems resulting from the changes in the river brought about by the construction and regulation of the Garrison Dam which are becoming devastating in nature. The existing condition is ably described in the Senate report on Public Law 88-253, 88th Congress, H.R. 8667: Prior to the construction of the Garrison Dam, the water of the Missouri River was heavily ladened with silt and sediment to the point that while bank erosion did occur, it was very minimal, and usually for each loss of land there was a corresponding accretion or gain in the area. With the construction of the Garrison Dam, the sediment is deposited in Lake Sakakawea and the releases from the reservoir are virtually silt free and they degrade the channel and erode the banks downstream from the dam at a considerable rate. It is estimated that about 640 acres of good, river bottom land in North Dakota are lost annually along the Missouri River below Garrison Dam through bank erosion. North Dakota was hopeful that as a result of the power being gen- erated at Garrison Dam and the subsequent thermal pow~rplants to be built in the area, that it would be in a position to attract industry to the banks of the river, as low-cost fuel and water would be readily available to industry. As of this date, three thermal electric produc- ing plants and an oil refinery have be~en so located. However, in all cases, the sites of these plants are under attack by the Missouri River. At least three of these plants face major threats to some of their most expensive facilities. Industry ha.s become apprehensive over this condition and one pro- poser of a thermal power-generating plant vacated its river site and moved to the coal fields some distance from the river where water will be in a rather limited supply. Now, little or no interest is being indi- cated by industry in locating on the river in view of the instability of the banks. Consequently, the availability of water does not offset the hazards of bank erosion. PAGENO="0394" 380 The mainstream of the Missouri River has now become an inte- grated reservoir system due to construction by the US. Government through its agent, the Corps of Engineers. Included in this system are a series of dams which are operated as a unit for flood control, irrigation, power generation, and navigation purposes. The releases from these reservoirs are adjusted to meet downstream use and power demands. The carrying capacity of the river has very little direct effect on the method of operation. The serious problems in this reach of the river are being caused by the operations of the Garrison Dam. This is due primarily to tw& causes. First, the water is released from the Garrison Dam in a silt- free condition. This means that the water has a silt-carryng capac- ity of at least 2.2 percent of the weight of the water itself. It is en- cleavoring to obtain this capacity and in doing so, this removes silt from the riverbanks eventually carrying it into the Oahe Reservoir. This is different than the type of erosion Mother Nature caused on the river as the entire river was silt laden and the waters made a corre- sponcling deposit for every amount of degradation which occurred. With the increased silt-carrying capacity of the water, there is no give and take, only take. Second, the sharp fluctuations in the releases, particularly under the ice cover during the winter months, causes an increase in the flow velocities. Likewise, during the ice-free periods, fluctuations cause the banks to be saturated and dried many times during a month. This condition can best be illustrated through the use of a chart. The chart being used covers the releases made from Garrison Darn during the calendar year 1965. The vertical graph represents the re- leases in cubic feet per second. The horizontal depicts the period of time. The upper red line indicates the instantaneous high releases. These releases correspond with the peak power demand. For instance, during the winter months, the load increases when people return from work to theIr residences. Cooking and reading light power demands become high. The gates, at the dam, are actuated to meet the demand and the flow of water through the turbines are increased. This type of operation constitutes the irregularity in the red line. The blue line represents the instantaneous low flows. The low re- leases occur when the power demand falls off which is usually after midnight. The gates are then regulated to reduce the flow. This type of operation saves water, but it is most difficult on soil. From the chart, it is apparent that flows varying from 16,000 to 36,000 cubic feet per second occur with considerable frequency during the winter months and variations from 8,000 to 37,000 cubic feet per second are not un- common in a matter of a day Or two in the summer months. Several years ago, the Corps of Engineers believed it was impossible to make releases in excess of 16,000 cubic feet per second during the ice cover period. However, they are now making releases equal to those made during the ice-free period. The fluctuating levels have a sluicing effect on the banks. The silt and colloidal material which act as a binder to the more porous soil are removed through this action. This causes the soil structure to be- come unstable and it readily crumbles into the stream under high velocity. The Corps of Engineers, when requested by the State water commission to operate Garrison Dam at a level no greater than 16,000 PAGENO="0395" 381 cubic feet per second wrote to the effect that to do so would reduce the wintertime revenues to the Federal Government by $1.7 million. These operations prove without a doubt, that the reservoirs are run for Federal purposes and it would seem more equitable if the Federal Government would prepare the channel to receive this quantity of water prior to making these high discharges at the expense of North Dakota citizens. When Mother Nature ran the Missouri, there was one period of high flow with corresponding high velocities and one period of bank saturation. Now in contrast to the fluctuation cycle imposed by Mother Nature upon the river once every 12 months, it is occurring several times each month or more often. Since the main stem reservoir system is a unit and is operated as a unit, the channel of the Missouri from Garrison to Oahe is no longer a river, but merely a conduit for Federal use to operate its reservoirs in the manner which they desire. It has, therefore, ceased to be a natural river and has become a Federal canal. To accomplish the objectives of the Federal Government, the project is causing severe losses to many individuals, municipalities, industries, and the State. By any measure of equity, it would seem that these losses should be borne by the entire Missouri Basin project rather than by the State of North Dakota. Besides, the loss of land to the river through bank erosion, and the flooding of low-lying fields during the winer months, the farmers are losing the ability to irrigate, because the levels fluctuate so widely that they are unable to maintain permanent pumping installations. It is not, therefore, much more than fair that the beneficiaries of this operation pay the cost of preventing direct damage to the affected properties. A clear river would have many ben~fits. If the river were containe~ near the center of the channel and the water kept clear of silt, bank: erosion would be eliminated. It would be a more beautiful river from~ an esthetic point of view. It would be much more productive. The silt which is now being dumped into the Oahe Reservoir would cease to~ occupy valuable reservoir capacity, consequently, all persons concerned' with the Missouri River would be benefited indirectly. Currently, all the banks adjacent to the river, between Garrison Dam and the Oahe Reservoir, are being attacked in varying degrees~ Statements were made before the Senate committees by several persons as to the degree of these attacks. A most severe problem exists in that reach of the river immediately below the Capt. Grant Marsh Memorial Bridge. The situation is so severe that it constitutes an emergency. Representatives from the Corps of Engineers, who have inspected the problem area, likewise agree. Properties on the right and left banks of the stream are being jeopardized. A recent study made by the State water commission in cooperation with the `Corps of Engineers, esti. mated the value of the property under attack on~ the right bank to be $10,194,000, and the left bank, $11,279,000. Mandan is located on the right bank and Bismarck on the left. Unless the rectification works are made on an emergency basis, this area will be confronted with a major catastrophe. The aerial photog- raphy map covering the most serious problem is below the Grant Marsh Memorial Bridge and illustrates the attack locations. They are depicted through the use of the dark red strips. Breaching of the left PAGENO="0396" 382 bank appears imminent in the vicinity of the Bismarck Zoo, the Bisrnarck Golf Course, ,and recreation center. A break- through in the vicinity of the zoo would release the main body of the stream into a depression which would immediately eliminate the zoo, and the recreation center and place the Bismarck sewage disposal plant in almost immediate jeopardy. This is indicated as the green area on the aerial map. Approximately 1,600 acres of valuable land would be isolated and eventually eroded away. Riverside Park would also be open to erosion. A temporary levee built by the city of Bismarck now stands as the only barrier opposing this breakthrougL The second breakthrough area, which is colored in purple, is in the vicinity of the recreation center. It is now being resisted by a 50-foot strip of timberland and a homemade dike. Should breaching of this bank occur, 886 acres of land would be subjected to destruction. It would also destroy 4,000 feet of outfall pipeline and set up a continuing erosive attack on the recreation center as well as on the sewage treatment plant. The State prison farmland would then be exposed to a. frontal attack by the main body of the stream. On the right hank of the Missouri River, or the Mandan side, several sites are being eroded at a rapid rate. Shifting sandbars make it diffi- cult to pinpoint a major breakthrough. However, fluctuating water levels under ice cover, have caused erosion at the sewage disposal plant. Improvement work that may be installed on the Bismarck side could create a ricochetting effect on the Mandan bank causing exten- sive damage to several areas. The shaping of the river on one side must be done in a manner that will compliment the other or else severe adversities will occur to the unprotected side. At present, there are 1,160 acres of land on the Mandan side that are being eroded at an accelerated rate. The area which will eventually be destroyed is colored brown. This erosion has become hazardous to the three bridges that cross the Missouri between Mandan and Bismarck: two marinas, the Mandan sewage out.f all, the federally constructed revetment works on the Heart River, and the Fort McKeen and Fort Lincoln areas. The Fort McKe.en and Fort Lincoln areas are important segments of the North Dakota State Park System. The destruction of these two sites would have na- tional significance as indicated by Senator Burdick in his statement to the Senat.e committees. They are the locations from which General Custer started his last Indian campaign. The State has constructed a hard surface road from Interstate 94 to the forts to meet the visitor demand. The deposition of silt at the headwaters of the Oahe Reservoir is and will further aggravate the problem if not corrected. It will create a delta condition in the area immediately below the. Marsh Memorial Bridge. The mainstream will meander from bank to bank as directed by an added number of sandbars in nature's process of gradually wid- ening the channel. The main flow, after a delta has been formed. will eventually be divided into many streams and small rivulets occupying a.n area of a mile and one-half in width. An adequate bank rectification works in the present perilous area will confine the channel. Because of this confinement, it will accelerate the flow and the increased velocity will aid in carrying the silt further into the Oahe Reservoir thereby eliminating or greatly postponing any PAGENO="0397" 383 adverse backwater effect such as is now occurring above Lake Sakakawea. Navigation was important in the early settlement and development of the upper Missouri Basin. It still has a promising potential in this area and the bank rectification works as suggested herein, can be designed as an integral part of a future navigation system. Bismarek was one of the last ports on the Missouri River to give up on riverboat navigation. Navigation facilities were constructed by the Corps of Engineers on this reach of the river as recent as in the 1920 period. We are eager to have it resumed. We have complied with all the navi- gation criteria established by the Corps of Engineers. River crossrngs whether they be under or over the Missouri are installed in accordance with the Corps of Engineers navigation criteria. Industrial and muni- cipal water intakes and outlet structures are similarly constructed. Our bridges are built with double spans at specified height to provide anticipated barge traffic to proceed up and downstream without in- terference. In other words, the double span permits barges to meet each other under bridges without difficulty. The three bridges in the Bismarck-Mandan area are alined to accommodate barges towlines approach in tandem. The increased costs for these items are paid for at the State and local level. This should qualify us as a navigable stream. The Corps of Engineers, in anticipation of this problem, designed a bank rectification works for this area in 1965. This design does require updating in view of the erosion that has occurred since that date. The State water commission at a recent meeting with representatives from the corps and affected entities, volunteered to and did obtain the neces- sary field surveys to update the earlier design. The State water commission does not have a source of revenue other than direct appropriation through legislative action. Consequently, we are unable to give the necessary assurances required by the Federal Government unless underwritten by the lesser entities. The commission does, however, stand ready and willing to obtain the assurances from the legal entities to be protected and in turn give the Federal Govern- ment an overall assurance covering this project. I respectfully urge the House Committee on Public Works to ap- prove and recommend the enactment of H.R. 3402 with the least pos- sible delay in order that remedial emergency measures may be under- taken to halt this impending catastrophe. Time is of essence for when Mother Nature is only partially controlled, she unleashes her fury in a most compelling manner. I thank you for the opportunity afforded me to make this presentation. (The documents follow:) Mississippi VALLEY ASSOCIATION PLATFORM ON BANK STABILIZATION, ADOPTED AT 49TH ANNUAL MEETING IN ST. Louis, Mo., FEBRUARY 3, 4, 5, 6, 1968 Bank stabilization is an essential element in water and soil resources m:anage-~ ment and should receive the systematic attention of Congress in order to ade- quately protect flood control structures, aid navigation and protect public and private property, such as levees, highways, railroads, bridges, docks, harbors, lands and industrial installations. We urge that the Federal Government assume responsibility for the construction, `maintenance and operation of necessary bank stabilization and protective works when increased and above normal bank erosion PAGENO="0398" 384 has been or is being caused by federally constructed or operated projects on navigable streams. Accelerated construction in all areas where uncontrolled erosion is causing loss of lands. Assumption by the Federal Government of its responsibifity for the construction, maintenance and operation of adequate bank stabilization and pro- tective works below main stem Missouri River dams where increased bank cr0- sion has caused or is causing damages to riparian lands, without cost to local interests, pursuant to the provisions of the Missouri Basin original authorization. Mr. JONES. Mr. Hart, we will now call you to the witness table and y~u may proceed on the Carlyle Reservoir project in Illinois. Mr. Hart has been before this committee many, many times through- out the years and has always done such an excellent job and it is niways refreshing to have Mr. Hart before this committee. CARLYLE RESERVOIR, ILL. (H.R. 1095) Mr. HART. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the pur- pose of H.R. 1095 is to authorize the Secretary of the Army to modify certain deeds conveying mineral rights to the Government, in con- nection with the Carlyle Reservoir project, to provide a 3-month exten- sion of the reservation of royalties to the former owners within areas of the Boulder oil field. This department is not opposed to the enactment of this bill pro- vided it is amended to more clearly define the objectives as set forth in the report to the committee, dated October 11, 1967. The Boulder oil field was one of several producing fields required to discontinue operations. It was operated by Texaco, Inc., under leases with 101 owners of mineral rights whereby the owners received royalties of one-eighth of the production. Negotiations for acquisition of mineral rights were initiated in 1962 based on a production cutoff date of July 1, 1964. Owners of 38 tracts executed deeds to the Government on this basis. The remaining 63 owners deferred settlement pending agreement between Texaco and the Government. During 1963, a settlement was effected with Texaco and the remaining owners based on a production cutoff date of Octo- ber 1, 1964. Thereafter, Texaco intensified operations up to September 30, 1964, when the wells were plugged. Royalties were paid to all own- ers through this extended period. As a result, the Government received $6,401.16 for the 3 additional months, representing the shares of the 38 owners who had assigned their rights as of July 1, 1964. These own- ers consider they have been penalized. Original estimates indicated only minor differences for the extended period, however, the augmented operations widened the disparity of benefits. This Department recognizes the equities herein, but is with- out authority to modify the executed agreements. H.R. 1095 would provide this authority; however, it is recommended that specific au- thority be included for the return of the royalty payments from the U.S. Treasury. An amendment for this purpose is attached. If I might, Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very short and I sh~mld like to read it: Recommend the following new section be added: "Sue. 2. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to such persons desig- nated by the Secretary of the Army, whose rights are authorized to be ertended by the above section, the amount of money 4etermined by the Secretary of the Army to represent their respective interests in royalty payments received by the PAGENO="0399" 385 United States for the authorized three-month extended period: ProDided, That the total payments so made sh~tll not exceed the suni of $6,4O1.1~." Mr. CLAUSEN (presiding). That concludes your testimony and will proceed with testimony on H.R. 7699, the Pat Mayse Dam and Reser- voir project, Texas. PAT MAYSE FISH AND WILDLIFE LAND ACQUISITIONS (H.R. 7699) Mr. }L~np. Mr. Ohairanan this is well named. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the purpose of H.R. 7699 is to modify the Pat Mayse Dam and Reservoir project to author- ize the Secretai~r of the Army to acquire an additional 750 acres of private land so as to consolidate Federal ownership of certain areas and facilitate the establishment of a wildlife refuge or management area. These lands are to be made available to the :5ecreta~ of Interior *or the State of Texas pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Ooordmation Act. The Department of the Army interposes no objection to the enact- ment of this bill, a detailed report of which was furnished this com- mittee by letter dated June 5, 1968. The major portion of Pat Mayse Reservoir is on lands formerly part of Camp Maxey, some areas of which had been sold to private owners by the War Assets Administration. The 750 acres involved in this bill are four noncontiguous areas with six ownerships, which are inter- mingled with Government lands. These are located outside of the upper reaches of the reservoir; are cutover timber and grazing lands; and are estimated to cost $120,000 to acquire. Recommendations by the Fish and Wildlife Service for establish- ment of a wildlife management area of 8,500 acres of Government lands and 1,200 acres of private lands were included in House Docu- ment No. 71, 88th Congress. The corps concurred in the establishment of the wildlife area, but did not at that time recommend acquisition of additional lands. However, this Department is in accord with the major objectives herein; has currently reserved 8,500 acres for this purpose; and has no objection to the enactment of this bill. As a tech- nIcal amendment, it is recommended the words "or wildlife manage- ment area" be inserted after "wildlife refuge" in the title, on page 1, line 11, and on page 2, line 7. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hart. Our next witness will be Mr. Bill H. Thompson, managing editor of the Paris News, Paris, Tex., and also president of the chamber of commerce, Paris, Tex. We will include at this point in the record without objection the testimony of Mr. Thompson, as though read. STATEMENT OP BILL H. THOMPSON, MANAGING EDITOR OP THE PARIS NEWS, PARIS, TEX. Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. chairman, honorable members of this com- mittee, the construction of the Pat Mayse Dam and Reservoir 12 miles to the north of Pans, Tex., and in the heart of the Red River Valley has created an all too familiar problem in the growth and develop- ment of our great country. PAGENO="0400" 386 The reservoir has destroyed 10,000 acres of prime wildlife `habitat, in fact, some of the finest in the Red River Valley. White tail deer, squirrel, quail, raccoon, fox, and other excellent game animals and birds are being forced from one of the last remain- ing large areas of natural habitat in this area of the Red River Valley. While I realize that this is not an unusual occurrence as America grows and develops, H.R. 7699 offers what I `believe to be a reasonable and inexpensive solution to this particular problem. `H.R. 7699, which I am asking that you give favorable consideration, would modify the Pat Mayse Dam and Reservoir project to provide for the acquisition of approximately 750 acres of privately owned lands to facilitate the establishment of a near-10,000-acre wildlife refuge and game management area adjacent to the Mayse Reservoir. This situation is unique, as was the land acquisition for the Mayse Reservoir-in which more than two-thirds of the land neded for its construction was already owned by the Government and was surplus as a result of the closing of Camp Maxey after World War II. The major portion of the land needed for this wildlife refuge is Govern- ment owned, is not being utilized and is, in fact, of an excess nature. Only 750 acres of privately owned land is needed to block out an excellent wildlife refuge `and game management area. This is in four small `blocks inside the perimeter of the Government-owned land. Obviously, having privately owned land inside the refuge area would be conducive to effective game management practice and safety. If this 750 acres should not be acquired now, and the wildlife refuge not be designated, the result will almost surely be the turning of this entire area over to private development. Priceless wildlife habitat then would `be lost forever to Red River Valley. The 750 acres requested in H.R. 7699 `is largely pasture and timbered land. There are no `homes or other maj or improvements located on this land, and no great inconvenience would `be imposed upon its owners. Both the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departments `have determined the need for acqui- sition of a wildlife management and public hunting area located adja- cent to the reservoir site. The resultant wildlife management area would compensate for wild- life losses resulting from the Mayse Reservoir project and, in `addition, would provide an enhancement of about 1,800 man-days of big game hunting, 5,400 man-days of upland game hunting, and 1,600 man- days of waterfowl hunting. The Red River Valley, like many other rural areas of our Nation, is turning to industry. The city of Paris, which is only 12 miles from the Mayse Reservoir, has in recent years added such major industries as Campbell Soup Co., Westinghouse, and Babcock & Wilcox. Ironically, as population expands, areas of recreation for the people diminish. Such is the case in northeast Texas-and your favorable consideration of H.R. 7699 would remedy this disturbing trend with the creation of a near 10,000-acre wildlife refuge and game manage- ment area in northeast Texas. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the members of this fine committee for considering my bill so promptly after receiving the comments of the Department of the Army. Thank you. PAGENO="0401" 387 Mr. CLAUSEN. The next project for consideration is the Navarro Mills Reservoir, Tex. Mr. JONES. Colonel Shaffer, let's go over this project H.R. 12174, the Navarro Mills Reservoir in Texas, road location. NAVARRO MILLS RESERVOIR, TEX.~ ROAD RELOCATION (H.R. 12174) Colonel SHAFFER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the purpose of H.IR. 12174 is to authorize and direct the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers to make such changes as may be necessary in a road located in the Wolf Creek Park area and extending it across several arms of the Navarro Mills Reservoir, Tex. The bill would require the road to be above elevation 443 feet mean sea level which is the top of the flood control pool of this proj- ect. It would authorize the a'ppropriation of such funds as may be necessary. Available information indicates that this road improvement would ev~end some 9 miles along the north side of the reservoir and cost approximately $2 million. It involves the contruction of bridges and drainage facilities. Only a portion of the road could be accommodated on project lands and the balance of the right-of-~vay would have to be acquired. We believe that the Wolf Creek Park recreation area has reason- ably adequate road access from the county road system in this area. While the proposed additional access from the eastern side of the reservoir may be desirable, it is not considered to be essential for project requirements or public access to the Wolf Creek Park at the present time. When the Navarro Mills flood control reservoir was placed in op- eration in 1963, the Corps of Engineers completed its obligations for road relocations. The local authorities at the time accepted the com- pleted relocations as meeting requirements necessitated by the Na- varro Mills project construction. The approved master plan for the Navarro Mills Reservoir area does not provide for a road as pro- posed in H.R. 12174. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. CLAUSEN (presiding). Thank you. I guess there are no questions. STATEMENT OP HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP TEXAS Mr. Ti~GuE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ap- preciate very much the opportunity of appearing in support of my bill H.R. 12174 authorizing the Secretary of Army working through the Corps of Engineers to make certain changes in the roads located in the Wolf Creek Park area of the Navarro Mills Reservoir, Tex. The State Highway Department of Texas has assured the county judge and the county commissioner's court of Navarro County that if the Corps of Engineers will participate to the extent of building bridges over the Wolf Creek branch, Strain branch, and the Thomas Harris branch, they will designate the road as a farm-to-market road and provide all-weather paving thereby linking three farm-to-market 97-700-----68-------26 PAGENO="0402" 388 roads and provide easier access to the recreation areas already pro- vided by the Corps of Engineers. The road in question of course is that unimproved road running west from FM 1578 and crossing the three aforementioned creek branches and linking up the junction of FM 639 and FM 744. A map is attached. You will note from the map that all of the land where the bridges would be constructed is already owned by the corps as well as ease- ments which run well north of the corps property. The road in ques- tion has no designation at the present time. It is used qulte extensively by county residents, but is inundated a great deal of the time from high water which consequently denies access to much of the park and recreation area. At this time I am not aware of any reports that the committee may have received from the Corps of Engineers, therefore I am unable to give any estimate of cost. There is however precedent for such ac- tion when the House and Senate concurred in a House bill 2178 during the 86th Congress which provided f or similar improvements at White's branch in the Grapevine Reservoir. Mr. HATiT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, H.R. 13370 would direct the Secretary of the Army to reconvey mineral rights in lands acquired for Navarro Mills Reservoir to former owners for an amount equal to the price paid when acquired, provided such rights are not required for the operation of the reservoir, and that application is filed within 1 year from date of enactment of this act. The views of the Department of the Army have been recently furnished the chairman of this committee. As stated therein, this Department is unable to favor this bill as drafted, and recommends that the views be obtained of the Department of Interior and General Services Administration as to the merits of reconveyance to former owners. Lands for this project were a.cquired by the corps during 1959 to 1961, comprising 11,004 acres of fee title in 236 tracts, and flowage easements in 229 tracts of 3,342 acres of land. The acquisition policy was to acquire mineral rights unless substantial costs were involved, or the owner objected. At the time, it was local custom to buy and sell land without severance of mineral rights, such being considered of only nominal value. As a consequence, all but seven of the 236 fee- owned tracts were acquired without reservation of mineral rights. During the past several years, various oil companies started ex- ploration programs in the vicinity of the Navarro Mills project. Speculation resulted in acquisition of numerous mineral leases by private interests. At Navarro Mills Reservoir, the Department of the Interior, since 1965, has issued 2~ mineral leases of 8,641 acres of land at an annual rental of $4,326. As a result, a number of former owners now desire revestrnent of mineral rights. Normally, General Services Administration has primary responsi- bility for disposal of real property interest pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. Also, the Department of the Interior has general responsibility for leasing and disposition of minerals. We believe there is merit in having disposition of minerals centered in one agency. H.R. 13370 would, in effect, circumvent exist- PAGENO="0403" 389 ing statutory requirements and give a preference to former owners at this project not afforded to former owners of similar Government projeets. Should the committee, nonetheless, favor this proposal, it is recom- mended that consideration be given to adoption of provisions similar to Public Law 85-245 (71 Stat. 563), approved August 31, 1957, re- lating to certain reservoirs in Mississippi. (Statements follow:) STATEMENT OF HON. OLIN E. PRAGUE (T~~xAs) IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 13370 Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear in support of my bill, H.R. 13370 authorizing the Secre- tary of Army to make certain adjustments in lands or interests therein acquired in connection with the Navarro Mills Reservoir, Texas. When the Federal government working through the Real Estate Division of the Corps of Engineers began to acquire the land for the Navarro Mills Reservoir, it is my understanding that the policy in effect at that time relating to mineral rights was essentially that if the United States did not need to retain such rights they returned such rights to the owner of the land if he asked for its return. In other words, in acquiring the land, if the owner requested that the mineral rights be kept by him, and it did not interfere in the operation of the reservoir, the United States permitted the owner to retain these rights. Because the great majority of the land owners in the Navarro Mills Reservoir *area were elderly people in the sixties and seventies who had resided there for a great number of years; and who were small farmers, both negro and white with little formal education relinquished these rights along with the sale of their property. At a later date, a few of these people learned that exceptions had been made in behalf of some of the more affluent land owners. I would like to submit to the Committee for its files a map of the area which sets forth the various tracts involved and designated indicating those tracts in which the minerals were originally reserved and those tracts in which the minerals were revested at a later date. I would also like to include for the Com- mittee files photostatic copies of affidavits taken from former owners who are now desirous of procuring the mineral rights as well as a complete listing which has already been furnished to the Secretary of Army of those people who desire return of such rights. I am not aware of any report which the Committee may have received from the Department of Army and therefore I can give no estimate of cost should the bill be favorably considered. I do believe however that a moral obligation on the part of the United States towards a group of citizens is involved here and I would urge the Committee to seriously consider the bill in this light. STATEMENT OF JOHN GOLD5UM, JUNE 20, 1968 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John Goldsum, and I am a lawyer in Austin, Texas, with the firm of Clark, Thomas, Harris, Denius & Winters. We represent approximately 150 small landowners whose mineral rights were taken for construction of the Navarro Mills Reservoir, Texas. This statement is submitted in their behalf in support of H.R. 13370 by Congressman Olin E. Teague of Texas. The people we represent feel very strongly that the Army Corps of Engineers unjustly discriminated against them in acquiring their mineral interests through condemnation and threats of condemnation while, unknown to them, permitting a favored few of their neighbors to retain their minerals. Among the latter were a retired Air Force General, an out-of-town bank, and several other more- influential and better-informed landowners. Our clients include both Negroes and whites who have lived in Navarro and Hill counties, Texas, for most of their lives. Typically they are small farmers in their 60~s and 70's with little or no formal education. The mineral rights taken from them underlie some 80 tracts of land ranging in size from 22.4 to 320 acres. PAGENO="0404" 390 At the time of the land acquisition program, most of these people were not represented by lawyers. They simply could not afford the cost of protracted condemnation proceedings to protect the small current value of their mineral interests. As residents of one of the oldest oil-producing areas in the State of Texas, they were well aware of the potential value of such rights to their chil- dren and grandchildren. After making clear their desire to keep their mineral rights, however, they had no choice but to rely on the representations of govern- ment agents that all landowners were being treated alike, that all of the minerals were being acquired for the project, and that if they refused voluntary con- veyance, the government would take their minerals through condemnation. Later they discovered that certain notable exceptions had been made. At least four such inStances have been found by diligent search of the court and deed records. Through their attorney-in-fact, J. W. Baumgardner, most of the other landowners then requested us to seek reconveyanCe of their minerals by the Army Engineers. This we attempted to do in several conferences with the Army while in Wash- ington on other business so as to hold down the expense to these clients. Despite an abundance of documentary evidence showing the gross inequities which had occurred, the Army Engineers failed to grant relief through administrative means. Congressman Teague then introduced the bill which is now before your Committee, H.R. 13370, specifically authorizing reconveyanCe of such mineral rights under certain conditions. We feel that H.R. 13370 is most reasonable both in protecting the government and rectifying a grave injustice. ReconveyaflCeS under it would, of course, be subject to antipollution laws and drilling restrictions to safeguard the predomi- nant flood control and water conservation purposes of the Navarro Mills Reservoir project. These conditions have been inserted both in deeds where the minerals were reserved and in court decrees revesting the minerals after condemnation, and our clients have no objection to them. In preparing this statement, we do not have the benefit of the Army's com- ments on the Teague bill, which we understand have not yet been received. If the Army has any objections, we can only anticipate their content from what has been previously told us. In replying to our request for administrative relief, the Army Engineers stated that it was their policy not to acquire mineral rights "where the owner objects or where a substantial additional cost would be involved. . ." If the Army had such a policy in Washington, either it did net filter down to its local repre- sentatives in Navarro and Hill counties, Texas, or they disregarded it in actual practice. We prefer to place the former interpretation on the results. The Army further replied that "in those instances where landowners raised specific objections, as opposed to mere inquiries, they were permitted to retain their mineral rights. . ." Sworn affidavits from our clients, however, state unequivocally that this was simply not the case. In several instances, our clients were forced to repurchase small outstanding mineral interests before the gov- ernment would pay them for their land. Without unduly lengthening this statement. we attach a copy of the affidavit by Andy J. Snider, which is typical of others in our files. These can be furnished if the Committee so desires. In his affidavit. Mr. Snider states under oath: "I want to reiterate that I requested that I be allowed to reserve my minerals from the very first conversation with the Government's agent, and only gave in on this request after being assured by him that the Government had to have all minerals under the land and was taking them from everyone who had land in the lake, under the dam or parks. and that on this point, everyone was being treated the same. I relied upon his representations as being truthful. I have since found them to be false." While Mr. Snider was relying on the government representations, the owners of land immediately ad~joining his land were being permitted to keep their min- erals. Court records in Civil Action No. 8616, ILS. District Court for the North- ern District of Texas. Dallas Division, reveal that the government reconveyed to C. A. Ford et al, the minerals underlying Tract No. 115, which adjoins Mr. Sni- der's Tract No. 104. In the Ford case, the revestment of minerals took place some 31/2 years after the judgment on Declaration of Taking, and presumably. long after most of the other owners had conveyed their minerals. In view of this glaring example, if the Army reply above quoted wa~ ç~rrect. it requires a new definition of "specific objections, as opposed to mere inquiries." PAGENO="0405" 391 Tinder the present definition, it would appear that only those affluent land- owners .with sufficient means to fight their cases through the courts will be per- mitted to keep their minerals. On the other hand, our clients have no money to finance costly trips to Wash- ingtoii, as was necessary for the Air Force General to retain his minerals. They are not the type to "march on Washington" or take other "direct action" meas- ures. They simply look to this Committee and the Congress to treat them fairly through the enactment of H.R. 143370. THE STATE OF TEXAS, `County of Navarro: Know all men by these presents, that I, Andy J. Snider, am 69 years of age and have been a resident of Navarro County, Texas, since 1934. In 1941 I bought a farm containing 199.99 acres out of tIme Thomas Wright Survey, Abstract 820, in Navarro County, Texas, being just northwest of the little town of Navarro Mills, Texas. This farm was bought from the `Corsicana National Bank who reserved all of the minerals for a term of fifteen years be- cause a few years before, a well had been drilled for oil on it which well was sub- sequently plugged and abandoned. Years afterward and still today, this old well leaks some gas out of the pipe. This mineral interest which was reserved by the bank reverted to me in 1956 and I then owned all the surface and all of the minerals. About December of 1059, I received a letter from the United States Corps of Army Engineers informing me that a Flood Control and Water Conservation Darn and Reservoir was to be constructed in the area and that my land would be taken by the Government for the project. A man came by a couple of weeks later and said that he was a Government agent and showed me a map of the Navarro Mills Project and how it affected by land. I was told that the Government had the power to take the land under powers granted it by Congress and that they wanted me to clear off my property before the 1st of January because they wanted to start construction on the dam at that time on land which included my 199.99 acres. I told him that in the event we reached an agreement for its purchase, I wanted to reserve my minerals under the land since the Government didn't need them to build this type of project. He told me that I could not reserve the minerals, that the Government was taking all the minerals under all of the land which would be under water and under the dam and parks. He said that the land would be appraised by two appraisers, one a Government appraiser, the other, a civilian appraiser. About two weeks later this man came by to see me and said that he was the Government `appraiser and would I show `him my farm. We drove out to my farm in his car, and I pointed out several things about the place that I thought should deserve some credit for such as my big grove of pecan trees from ten to twenty inches in diameter, :and a gravel pit from vhich I periodically sold goodly amounts of gravel. Then we walked over to the old oil well and I showed him how gas was still leaking from the casing. After he finished looking at the land, he took me back to my place and said that a civilian appraiser would be by soon. The exact dates are not clear, but it wasn't long after that that I got `a letter telling me what they were willing to pay me for my farm. I fel't then as I feel now that their price was not enough, and so I refused to sign the Consent Letter agreeing thereto. Almost immediately they filed a Declaration of Taking con- demning my land and depositing the amount of money first offered me in the court pending Final Judgment on the Declaration of Taking. I discussed this whole matter with Judge May, and he advised me that since the Government `agent had said that the Government had to have the minerals as well as the surface, and since `they were treating everyone the same in this regard, `then the `only thing I stood to gain by protesting through condemnation proceedings was the possible slight increase in `the amount paid for the land. He also `cautioned that the court might possibly `award less than the Govern- ment was willing to pay. With great reluctance, I wrote the Corps of Engineers District office telling `them I would accept their `offer. Judgment on the Declara- `tion was subsequently entered, and I eventually got my money. I want to `reiterate that I requested that I be allowed to reserve my minerals from the very first conversation with the Government's `agent, `and only gave in on `this request after `being assured by him that the Government `bad to have all minera'ls under the land and was taking them from everyone who had land PAGENO="0406" 392 in the lake, under the dani or parks, and that on this point, everyone was being treated the same. I relied upon his representations as being truthful. I have since found them to be false. Sworn to and subscribed in Corsicana, Texas, this 10th day of March, 1967.. ANDY SNn)ER. SINGLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THE STATE OP TEXAS, County of Navarro: Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Andy J. Snider, known to me to be the person whose name is/are sub- scribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he/they executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. Given under my hand and seal of office this the 10th day of March AD. 1967.~ Louis JOE TEINCTO, Notary Public in and for Navarro County, Tewas. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is there anyone else present here today who wishes to testify on this legislation? Hearing no response, the subcommittee stands adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) PAGENO="0407" OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS, FLOOD CONTROL, AND RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION BILL-i 968 TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HAlmons, OF THE CoMMIrr1~1E ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors met at 10:08 a.m. in room 2253, Rayburn Building, the Honorable John A. Blatnik (sub- committee chairman) presiding. Mr. BLATNIK. The subcommittee will come to order. The Subcom- mittee on Rivers and Harbors is meeting this morning to start hear- ings on the River and Harbor Act of 1968. We will also meet Wednes- day of this week to hear testimony on additional projects and pro- posed legislation. The Corps of Engineers has been involved in the improvement of the Nation's rivers and harbors since 1824 when the corps received a small sum to begin the improvement of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. Over the years the civil works program of the Corps of En- gineers has been greatly expanded to include all phases of comprehen- sive planning, development, utilization, and conservation of the water resources of the United States for a multiplicity of purposes, including flood control, hydroelectric power, fish and wildlife conservation, rec- reation, municipal and industrial water supply, water quality, and shore protection. The navigation program consists of three major parts: foreign and coastwise traffic at coastal harbors and channels, foreign and lakewise traffic at Great Lakes harbors and channels, and traffic limited to the inland and intracoastal waterways. Each of these three systems has more than justified construction and operating costs by savings in transportation costs. Natural harbors and channels are being progressively improved to provide the great depths required for modern ocean carriers. Depths of 35 feet now generally prevail at major harbors on the Atlantic and gulf coasts, ranging up to 45 feet in New York Harbor. Depths of 30 to 40 feet are generally available along the Pacific coast. Harbors and channels of lesser depth also have been provided for commercial fish- ing, recreational boating, and harbors of refuge. The vast water areas of the Great Lakes, joined by improved con- necting channels, provide a low-cost transport artery that permits movement of materials and products in huge quantities to advan- tageously located industrial areas. Controlling depths in the connect- (393) PAGENO="0408" 394 ing channels are now 27 feet or more. in both upbound and downbound channels. There are some 60 harbors on the Great Lakes with au- thorized project depths of 18 to 27 feet. The Great Lakes are con- nected with the Gulf of Mexicoby means of 9- to 12-foot barge navi- gation on the Illinois Waterway and Mississippi River. Connections with the Atlantic Ocean are provided by the New York State Barge Canal system and Hudson River, and by the 27-foot St. Lawrence Seaway. The Federal Government has improved in varying degree some 22,000 miles of inland and intracoastal waterways, of which about 19,000 miles are currently in commercial use. The forces of nature and the encroachments of man sometimes combine to deplete or destroy one of the Nation's greatest sources of beauty, recreation, and inspiration-the coastlines and beaches of the seas and the Great Lakes. Federal activities for the control of beach erosion and hurricane flooding are entrusted to the Corps of Engineers. The corps makes technical studies of sea and shore phenomena re- quired to devise effective beach programs and recommends projects in which a share of the cost is borne by the Federal Government to prevent destruction of scenic and recreation values by storm. Our first witness before the subcommittee this morning will be Gen. Charles C. Noble, Director of Civil Works, Office of Chief of Engi- neers. General Noble, it is a pleasure to welcome you here and to congratulate you on your recent appointment as Director of Civil Works. We have General Noble, Director of Civil Works, Office, Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers, and staff, and his assistants, who will testify to different aspects or categories of projects. General Noble, I believe you have an opening statement, or pre- liminary statement, to make at this point. STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. CHARLES C. NOBLE, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Please proceed. General NOBLE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: It is a pleasure for me to appear before you today. I am Brig. Gen. Charles C. Noble, and I have recently taken overy my present assign- ment as Director of Civil Works and am looking forward to continu- ing the close cooperation maintained by my predecessors with your committee. We are here to discuss with you the Corps of Engineers civil works survey investigations favorable to navigation and related land resource developments, and other matters before your committee. I would like to summarize briefly the present status of specific navigation project proposals. There are 17 Department of the Army reports pending before the Congress which propose authorization of improvements in the interest of navigation and beach erosion control. The estimated Federal cost of the projects recommended in these reports amounts to about $600 million. In addition to these reports there are 92 reports in the final stages of coordination with the States, Federal agencies, and the Bu- reau of the Budget prior to submission to Congress. These reports PAGENO="0409" 395 recommend projects estimated to have a total Federal cost of about $200 million. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, members of my staff are here with me and are available during these hearings to present in detail the project proposals, and the special items of legislation that are before your committee. The first member of my staff that I ask to join me here, sir, is Col. Richard L. Seidel, Assistant Director of Civil Works for Atlantic Divisions, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. Mr. BLATNIK. Colonel Seidel, do you have any additional comments, or opening statement, or shall we proceed with the projects? STATEMENT OF COL. RICHARD L. SEIDEL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR ATLANTIC DIVISIONS Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, I am prepared to proceed with the projects. PATAPSCO RIVER (BALTIMORE HARBOR, MD.) NONNAVIGABLE Mr. BLATNIK. The first one is to declare an area of the Baltimore Harbor, Md., a portion of the Patapsco River nonnavigable. Please give us a brief description of the area or proposal for the Baltimore area. Colonel SEIDEL. The area that we are going to discuss lies in the extreme northwest portion of the Baltimore Harbor. The main harbor, the main channel, lies off to the southeast. Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the proposed legislation would declare a portion of Baltimore's historic inner harbor nonnavigable waters of the United States. The city of Baltimore proposes to fill certain areas in this portion for the construc- tion of the inner harbor project I renewal plan as developed by the City of Baltimore Urban Renewal and R~using Agency. The inner harbor program calls for the revitalization and redevelopment of one- fourth of Baltimore's downtown area. The first stage, inner harbor project I, contains 85 acres along three sides of the harbor basin, ad- jacent to the southeast corner of Charles Center. It will provide a wide range of development opportunities. Private construction will include office buildings, apartments, restaurants, shops, theaters, a motel-boatel with marina, garages, and other retail and service establishments- all complemented by tree-lined, landscaped boulevards, waterfront parks, and playing fields. Institutional development will include a 70,000-square-foot science center, an international trade center, apartments for the elderly, a nursing home, neighborhood and recrea- tion center. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable the city of Baltimore to show clear title to areas proposed to be filled in, so that bonds, secured by a mortgage on the area to be filled, may be issued. Under the navigation servitude of the United States, fill placed in navigable waters is subject to removal without compensation to its owner. While the possibility of such removal is remote where sub- stantial development has occurred, still title and mortgage insurance firms are very reluctant to insure clear title to or accept as security PAGENO="0410" 396 such ifiled lands unless the navigation servitude is made inapplicable. The proposed legislation is intended to accomplish this. There is very little commercial navigation in the area proposed to be declared nonnavigable, and the city's project will enhance the value of the area for private recreation navigation by small craft. It would therefore appear that no adverse effects on navigation will result. Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. This area will be nonnavigable and the surrounding area will be navigable as far as recreation craft is concerned; will it not? Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct. Mr. Br~rNni. There is no cost to the Federal Government? Colonel SEmi~I~. That is correct. Mr. BLATNIK. And we have had legislation of this type before where we have declared it nonnavigable for quite similar purposes; is that not so? Colonel Sr~u~i~. Yes, sir. Mr. Br~r~m~. Thank you very much. We are privileged to have the chairman of the full committee with us. STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE H. PALLON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND The CIIAmit~N. I am taking this opportunity to advise my colleagues on the Public Works Committee of a most splendid and exciting project in the City of Baltimore and to ask your assistance in its successful acomplishment. The City of Baltimore, through the Baltimore Urban Renewal and Housing Agency, is sponsoring the Inner Harbor Program, which calls for the revitalization and redevelopment of one-fourth of Baltimore's downtown area. The first stage, Inner Harbor Project I, contains 85 acres along three sides of the Harbor basin, adjacent to the southeast corner of the Charles Center. The boundaries of Project I are Gay Street and Battery Avenue on the east, Lombard Street on the north, Hughes Street and Key Highway on the south, and Charles and Han- over Streets on the west. It is estimated that Project I will ultimately cost $120,000,000 of which $85,000,000 will be private or institutional investment. Public expenditures of almost $35,000,000 will be required to acquire and clear the land and create a setting that will attract development by private enterprise. Inner Harbor Project I will provide a wide range of development opportunities. Private construction will include office buildings, apart- ments, restaurants, shops, theaters, a motel-boatel with marina, ga- rages and other retail and service establishments-all complemented by tree-lined, landscaped boulevards, waterfront parks and playing fields. Institutional development will include a 70,000 square foot Sci- ence Center, an International Trade Center, apartments for the elderly, a nursing home, neighborhood and recreation center. PAGENO="0411" 397 The aggregate size of the facilities to be included in Project I is estimated as follows: 1,000,000 sq. ft. of net rentable area in office buildings; 200,000 sq. ft. of net rentable area in facilities for retailing, retail service, and related commercial activities; 800-1,000 apartment units; 7.25 acres of playing fields; 17.27 acres of parks and promenades; science center; nursing home; neighborhood center; and recreation center and gym. Four existing structures in the project area will remain. They are the News American Building, McCormick and Company, Christ Lu- theran Church, and the Fire Department's high pressure pumping station at the foot of South Street. A problem has arisen, however, concerning the required land fill planned in a portion of the Northwest branch of the Patapsco River, which is considered to be navigable waters. Under existing law, the Federal Government may at any time require the removal or altera- tion without payment of compensation to the owners of artificial ifiled lands and any improvements thereon, which may, in the judgment of of the Secretary of the Army, constitute an obstruction to navigation. This authority seriously affects the marketability of title to filled land areas to be sold by the city to redevelopers. Title companies have taken the position that they will only guarantee marketable titles to the filled land if this encumbrance is removed. It is most important that title to the filled land be approved as good and marketable. In the past, problems like this have been solved by the passage of a bill by the Congress declaring the portion of the river involved "non- navigable" and thus removing the Federal paramount servitude. This would remove a cloud on the title and allow the City of Baltimore to make financial arrangements for development of the area for useful purposes other than navigation. The Corps of Engineers had advised me that in view of the negli- gible character of commercial navigation in the basin, and the substan- tial public interest in converting this deteriorated area into a civil asset, they had no objection to declaring the required portion of Patapsco River nonnavigable. Enactment of this legislation will not require the expenditure of any Federal funds. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, just a brief description. It is a part of the Patapsco River that comes right up in the heart of the city. That is not used anymore. There is very limited navigation on it. The old structures that were there with the old bay boats and so forth have all been removed and part of it has been filled in to widen Calvert Street in Baltimore. This area is not being used for navigation. It is necessary that Congress act on this `since it is necessary that the city of Baltimore get clear title to it, so that the buildings can be erected on there-one is the Port Authority of Maryland, and there will be a large marina in there for small boats and other buildings. The title companies will not give clear title to these structures unless the Congress acts. PAGENO="0412" 398 There will be no cost to the Government, and it will be a great improvement to Baltimore City. I understand that the Chief of En- gineers just sent up a letter approving favorable action of the commit- tee, and I would like to ask unanimous consent that this be made a part of the record. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, it is so ordered, Mr. Chairman. (The letter referred to follows:) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Washington, D.C., June 24, 1068. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your informal request for our com- ments on the possibility of declaring a portion of Baltimore's Inner Harbor nonnavigable, in connection with the urban renewal project planned by the City of Baltimore in that area. It is our understanding that the City proposes to fill certain areas in the Inner Harbor for use in the construction of the Inner Harbor Project I Renewal Plan. This plan is the first stage of a program which calls for the revitalization and redevelopment of one-fourth of Baltimore's downtown area. The first stage in- volves the construction of office space, apartments, shops, theatres, marinas, a Science Center, an International Trade Center, and recreation facilities. The project is to be financed through the issuance of bonds, secured by a mort- gage on the area to be filled. In order to obtain the necessary mortgage and title insurance, the City must be able to show clear title to the lands. Under the navigation servitude of the United States, fill placed in navigable waters is sub- ject to removal without compensation to its owner. While the possibility of such removal is remote where substantial development has occurred, still mort- gage and title insurance firms are very reluctant to insure clear title or or accept as security such filled lands unless the navigation servitude is made in- applicable. The procedure which has been developed to accomplish this is a Congressional declaration of non-navigability. There is very little commercial navigation in the area proposed to be filled, and the City project will enhance the value of the area for private recreational navigation by small craft. It would therefore appear that no adverse effects on navigation will result. Sincerely yours, F. J. CLARKE, Major General, UJS'A, Acting Chief of Engineers. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARsHA. I notice on this map that you provided us, Colonel, there are a series of piers-pier 1 and pier 2 and part of pier 3 seem to be involved. Colonel SEIDEL. We exc1ude pier 3. Mr. HARSHA. Your line goes up to the corner of it. Colonel SEIDEL. That is the limit of the area that would be declared nonnavigable, the western side. Mr. ITARSHA. And you could not use one side of that pier according tothis? Colonel SEIDEL. That is right. Mr. HARSHA. Then you do not exclude it entirely; do you? Colonel SEIDEL. We exclude the structure, sir. We do not exclude the channel. Mr. HARSHA. But you also impair the right to use the left side or the west side of it? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. It is to be nomiavigable. Mr. HARSHA. Have the people that operate those piers raised any objection? PAGENO="0413" 399 Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Have they been notified? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HaI~sIIA. Is there any objection to this project that you know of? Colonel SEIDEL. None that we know of, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Now I notice in this statement of yours that you have got a rather extensive urban renewal project to be put in here. Is there any housing for the poor to be built there, or is this all high rental property? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, I cannot answer that question. I have only in- formation that it is an apartment building. Mr. HARSHA. Do you know what the cost of this inner-harbor proj - ect is? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir? Mr. HARSHA. Do you know what the cost of this project No. 1 re- newal plan is? Colonel SEIDEL. No,sir; I do not have that information. Mr. FALLON. I think it is $120 million. Mr. BLATNIK. We have figures here. It is estimated that project 1 will ultimately cost $120 million, for which $85 million will be private or institutional investment. Public expenditures are almost $35 million and will be required to acquire the land and create a setting that will attract development by private enterprise. Mr. HARSHA. In this legislation you refer to the Allegheny-Pepsi- Cola Bottling Co. Have they all been notified? They are apparently the owners of some of the parcels of land involved. Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. This resulted or was a result of the ac- tion of a city ordinance passed by the city of Baltimore. The action was taken after everyone was made aware of the plans of the city to embark upon the urban renewal project. Mr. }IARSHA. Was there any objection raised at the time the ordinance was adopted? Colonel SEIDEL. None that I know of, sir. Mr. HARSHA. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you. Next we will go to No. 2 on your list, Bristol Harbor, RI. Colonel, please proceed. BRISTOL HARBOR~ R.I. Colonel Si~mEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of Bristol Hai~bor, RI., located about 13 miles from Providence along the eastern side of Narragansett Bay, in the interest of navigation. It is responsive to a resolution by the House Committee on Public Works. The strategic location of Bristol Harbor in relation to Narragan- sett Bay and Providence supports extensive use by commercial fishing vessels, recreational craft, and ferry boats. There is no Federal project for the harbor. The harbor is afforded natural shelter from all but southerly storms and protection from these storms is needed. The plan of improvement consists of a 1,600-foot-long detached breakwater structure located strategically in the harbor mouth. Total first cost of the project is estimated at $1,364,000, of which $873,000 PAGENO="0414" 400 would be Federal and $491,000 would be local. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.5. The usual items of local cooperation are required and local interests have indicated their willingness and ability to meet all the requirements. All interested Federal and State agencies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the report. Since the Federal cost for this project is less than $10 million, the views set forth by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of ~Ja.nuary 6, 1967, submitting a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965, would apply. TsIr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you. Are there any questions? Our next witness will be Congressman Fernand J. St Germain. STATEMENT OP HON. PERNAND 3~. ST GERMAIN, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP RHODE ISLAND Mr. ST GERMA.N. Mr. Chairman, the seashore in Rhode Island, which is one of the finest in the Nation, is both an important source of recreation and income for the residents of my State. Many of us believe that Narragansett Bay, which boasts 250 miles of shoreline, holds the key to Rhode Island's endeavor to realize its full poten- tiality. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, you can well understand the importance that is assigned to any projects relating to Narragansett Bay. One very important project relating to Narragansett Bay that I vvould like to address myself this morning concerns the construction of a breakwater in Bristol, R.I. A breakwater, spauning 1,600 feet across the southern end of Bristol Harbor, has been proposed and favorabley recommended by the De- partment of the Army that would afford to this harbor the protection it needs to realize its full potentiality. Though it is a large, accessible., and busy harbor, it is presently unprotected from rising seas and winds to the south, thus hampered as to its present and future use and devel- opment. Therefore, I deem it necessary and urgent that your conimittee act expeditiously and favorably on this project. Bristol Harbor is one of the finest natural harbors along Rhode Island's highly esteemed Narragansett Bay. Its strategic location in relation to Narragansett Bay and to the city of Providence is a domi- nant factor in the use of this harbor. It is the base for 75 fishing vessels and~ during 1965, 2.7 miffion pounds of shellfish were handled in this harbor. In addition to the fishing fleets, it services a sizable boatyard; a vast number of ever-increasing pleasure craft; four ferryboats, making more than 1,800 vessel trips annually and carrying about 35,000 people; a large but still expanding yacht club; and the US. Coast Guard. According to a study of Bristol Harbor made by the Board of Engi- neers for Rivers and Harbors, an independent review agency estab- lished to scrutinize US. Army Corps of Engineers project proposals: The proposed improvement [Bristol Harbor Breakwater] will provide for the estimated needs of existing and prospective navigation within the capabilities of cooperation and as desired by local interests. The improvement is needed and economically justified and the requirements of local cooperation, as modified herein, are appropriate. PAGENO="0415" 401 The project, I might add, is one of five projects recommended by this Board for congressional action. The advantages to be realized from construction of this breakwater are as great as they are far reaching. The local redevelopment agency, which contemplates work on the waterfront area, believes that reduc- tion of storm and wave action damage will greatly benefit their pro- gram and that it will provide aid in obtaining Federal funds and in encouraging the development of marinas and dockside facilities. It is also a known fact that many of the shelifishing fleets leave Bris- tol in the summer due to a lack of dock space and safe mooring area. If `the breakwater were built, it is strongly felt that all of the present fleet would remain year-round and would probably triple in number. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the need and significance of the Bris- tol breakwater project have been well manifested. I once again request that your subcommittee act in accordance with `the recommendations of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and submit a favorable report to the House. This project is much too important to the `town of Bristol, RJ., to permit unfavorable action by your sub- committee. The General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island has expressed its concern about this project in the form of a resolution enacted in March 1968. I would, at this time, like to recite this resolution: RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND TO MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO SEE THAT ACTION IS TAKEN TO BUILD A BREAKWATER IN BRISTOL HARBOR IN THE TOWN OF BRISTOL, R.I. Whereas, Bristol, Rhode Island has suffered tremendous amounts of damage from past hurricanes, wave and tide action to its industry, business, railroad property, government property, and yachting facilities; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on this proposal on December 11, 1957, by the U.S. Army Oorps of Engineers; and Whereas, `thereupon surveys and plants for this breakwater were made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1958: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the members of the United States senate and house of repre- sentatives from the state of Rhode Island are respectfully requested to take proper action `to have such breakwater constructed as soon as possible in Bristol harbor in said town of Bristol, Rhode Island; and be it further Resolved, That the secretary of state be and hereby is authorized to transmit duly certified copies of this resolution to the Rhode Island delegation in Congress, You may be assured' that the people of Bristol and the entire State of Rhode Island will be most appreciative of your assistance in their behalf. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. St Germain. The next project is Fall River Harbor, Mass. and RI. FALL RIVER HARBOR~ MASS. AND R.I. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of the existing Fall River Harbor in Massachusetts and Rhode Island in the interest of commercial navi- gation. It is in response to a House Public Works Committee resolution itc~opted July 31, 1957. The existing project provides a main channel depth of 35 feet through Mount Hope Bay into Taunton River with a branch leading PAGENO="0416" 402 to the waterfront at TiverLon, R.i. The tributary area includes por- tions of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire, and supports a population of about 1 million. Deep draft commerce is composed chiefly of inbound petroleum and coal destined for several shoreline oil companies and two major power companies. Tonnage increased about 50 percent between 1955 and 1964, from 2 million to 3 million tons. The plan of improvement calls for deepening the channels to 40 feet and altering a presently restrictive bridge across the upper channel to provide a wider navigation opening. The improvements will permit use of larger, more efficient vessels which will reduce transportation costs for shippers. Total cost is estimated at $10,109,000 of which $8,762,000 would be Federal and $1,347,000 would be local. The bene- fit-cost ratio is 3.5. In addition to the usual items of local cooperation, local interests are required to remove one restrictive bridge and share in the costs of modifying another. Willingness and ability to meet these requirements has been indicated. All interested Federal and State agen- cies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the report to Congress. However, it notes that vessels using the northern arm of the Tiverton Channel, about one and a quar- ter miles along, serve only the Gulf Oil Corp. It believes that a question exists as to whether this segment of the project benefits more than a single user. The Bureau states that if the project is authorized, it ex- pects further consideration be given this matter prior to any request for funds to initiate construction. If this segment is authorized for construction, the Bureau recommends that prior to expenditure o~ Federal construction funds, local interests agree to pay 50 percent of construction costs of the northern arm of the Tiverton Channel and that if cost sharing is not provided, construction of that segment of the Tiverton Channel shall not commence until such time as there are additional users or the Secretary of the Army determines that there will be additional users within a reasonable period of time. Since the Federal cost for this project is less than $10 million, the views set forth by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of January 6, 1967, submitting a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965, would apply. This completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Just one quick question or two questions. First, you are going to have modification of one restrictive bridge. Which bridge is that and what is the nature of the modification and approximate cost ~i Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, this is the bascule bridge. At the present time the horizontal clearance is 98 feet, and this would be increased to 300 feet. The cost of the bridge alteration is divided between the Federal and non-Federal interests on the basis of $3,178,000 Federal and $497,000 non-Federal. Mr. BLATNIK. About a third of the total project cost for this chan- nel improvement will be on this bridge modification; will it not ~ Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Then the major aspect of the modification will be the horizontal clearance from approximately 98 to 300 feet. Colonel SI~mEr~. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0417" 403 Mr. BLATNIK. Referring to the northern arm of the Tiverton Chan- nel, you state that there is a question as to whether this segment of the project benefits more than a single user and that the Bureau states that it expects to give further consideration. You are referring now only to the northern arm of the Tiverton project? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Only that part of the total project proposal; is that right? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. That length of about 11% miles. Mr. BLATNIK. I have no further questions? Mr. HARSHA. Although the Budget raises that question, Colonel, has it been the practice of the Congress to authorize projects similar to this? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Now one other question that I wanted to ask you. How do you arrive at this division of cost from $8.7 million Federal and $1.3 million local? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the non-Federal costs are for the bridge, esti- mated at $497,000 and the sum of $850,000 which would be required for the local interests to dredge berthing areas and to provide access channels to the piers and wharfs. This means that their total sum of $1,347,000 is made up of two components, the bridge and the dredging beyond the main channel, so that they can use the facility. The rest of the cost is all Federal. Mr. HARSHA. Is that the usual formula you follow? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. We have as a witness next our distinguished colleague Mrs. Margaret Heckler. STATEMENT OP HON. MARGARET M. HECKLER, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN OONG~RES5 PROM THE STATE OP MASSACHUSETTS Mrs. HECKLER. Mr. Chairman, the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, has submitted to the honorable members of your com- mittee a report on Fall River Harbor, States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as set forth in House Document No. 175, 90th Congress, first session. I strongly endorse the recommendations as set forth, and I urge that your committee approve the authorization as requested. The work to be done would include certain widening and/or deepen- ing of existing channels and turning basins, as well as the alteration of the Brightman Street Bridge. The result would be a modern-day harbor that could attract modern-day vessels. Another result would be a positive breakthrough for a city of nearly 100,000 inhabitants which has never fully recovered from the loss of its principal industry, but a city which has nonetheless embarked upon a concerted effort to become competitive again. I refer to Fall River, Mass., once the textile capital of the Nation, but, since the 1920's, a city whose economic fortunes have too often fallen to dangerous levels. Now, I am proud to report, a new Fall River is emerging. Con- tinuing efforts to attract new commercial, industrial, educational, and recreational development have borne fruit, and several proposed al- PAGENO="0418" 404 terations to the city's skyline have fired the imagination of a citizenry too used to dreariness, the hopelessness, the despair that have afflicted so many of our older cities. A bold new downtown commercial development, hopefully to be financed privately, has been announced, a venture that promises to spearhead an ambitious downtown restoration program already underway. The Port of Fall River Authority, in its efforts to stimulate trade through the State's second-largest port, has made impressive gains. Recently I was instrumental in bringing Federal officials to the water- front area for an inspection of the authority's facilities, resulting 2 weeks later in certification by the Department of Agriculture that permits greatly expanded exports through the port of Fall River of grain and similar coimnodities under our various foreign aid pro- grams. Three local educational institutions-Southeastern Massachusetts Technical Institute, Bristol Community College, and Diman Voca- tional School-are expanding rapidly in order to keep up with the demands of citizens for more and better educational services. The rival in Fall River Harbor of the proud old battleship-the TLS.S. .Mas$achusetts-f or permanent berthing has not only generated esti- mated annual tourist revenue of more than $2 million, l~ut has inspired the entire city to explore other ways and means by which to strengthen the economy. Finally, a truly unique new project-the Marine Museum at Fall River-has captured the interest of the entire area and has generated stifi more local pride. This new facility, located near the battleship, has gathered under one roof a collection of ship models and other artifacts that promises to generate still additional tourist revenues. That is why to Fall River Harbor project is such an important and necessary part of this massive communitywide attempt to halt the direction toward ill fortune and aim instead toward rebirth and revitiization. Specifically, the project would: (a) deepen to 40 feet the existing turning basin at the head of the Mount Hope Bay channel, providing a channel 40 feet deep by 400 feet wide in Tiverton Lower Pool to the vicinity of the Rhode Island Refining Corp. terminal; (b) widen the bend into the Tiverton upper channel to 600 feet; and (c) alter the Brightman Street Bridge to provide for a clear channel width of 300 feet in the drawspan. I do not regard the expenditure of $8.7 mfflion lightly, especially at a time when nondomestic commitments are placing a mighty strain in the Federal pocketbook. But neither do I regard bght.ly the efforts of 100,000 residents of Fall River to return their home city to a posi- tion of economic and competitive importance. If they are willing to roll back the tide at home, their Government should be willing to help. At present, the harbor lends itself to daylight operations alone. Other limitations arising from tidal and wind problems place a severe handi- cap on local efforts to develop a competitive port. Thus, a harbor whose principal products of transport are petroleum and coal finds herself unable to accommodate modern supertankers, merely because she is not quite deep enough and not quite wide enough. PAGENO="0419" 405 The Bureau of the Budget has commented that it has no objections to the project; but qualifies its comments with its opinion that the deepening of the Tiverton Channel would possibly benefit only the Gulf Oil Corp. Thus, it would ultimately require that local interests pay one-half of the costs attendant to this one segment of the project, or that the work in the Tiverton Channel would be held up until other users might appear. The function of the Bureau of the Budget is to protect the tax- payers' dollars by close examination of proposed expenditures, and I commend them in this instance for their precautionary comments. But, on the other hand, industrial relocations have become more and more commonplace these days, and no industry will doggedly remain in any area where it is unable to be competitive. Already there are reports that another oil company in the area- Shell-may relocate unless the project is undertaken. Shell is the city of Fall River's second largest taxpayer and No. 1 importer, and its relocation would be a mortal blow to Fall River. Thus, it becomes clear that there is a pressing economic necessity for immediate action on the entire project as presently planned. Over and above the ability of supertankers to come into the harbor, with attendant lower towing charges and fuel costs, is the great benefit it will bring to the local fishing fleet and to recreational development. Mr. Chairman, Fall River must change; she wants to change; she is changing. For its part, the Federal Government has stated over and over again its deepest concern with the so-called problems of the cities. It has pinpointed most of our domestic problems as directly stemming from the problem of the cities. Here is an unparalleled opportunity for the Federal Government to translate its concern into action. It is my earnest request that your committee do everything in its power to make the Fall River Harbor project a reality. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mrs. Heckler. The next project is Ipswich River, Mass. i~swion RIVER~ MASS. Colonel SEmEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of Ipswich River, in northeastern Massachusetts, about 40 miles north of Boston, in the interests of recreational boating and commercial fishing. It is in response to a resolution by the House Committee on Public Works. Ipswich River empties into Plum Island Sound and Atlantic Ocean. The river has been improved for navigation as far back as 1886. Both the Federal and State Governments have improved the channel but it is now shoaled up to the point where increasing boating demand cannot be met and commercial fishing vessels must await favorable tides. The project recommended would provide a two-and-a-half-mile- long channel 6 feet deep, a jetty at the river mouth, and two 6-foot- deep anchorage areas along the `channel. Total cost is estimated at $893,000, of which $616,000 would be Federal. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.8. Normal items of local cooperation are required and assurances of such cooperation have been received. All interested Federal and State agencies favor the project and the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report. PAGENO="0420" 406 Since the Federal cost of this project is less than $10 million, the views set forth by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of Janu- ary 6, 1967, submitting a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965, would apply. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. It is a small project, but obviously very important to this area with the channel depth of 6 feet running 2½ miles. There is no objection from any of the agencies and the corps recommends its adoption; is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. So we will proceed. The next will be Revere and Nantasket Beaches, Mass. REVERE AND NANTASKET BEACHES, MASS. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of Revere and Nantasket Beaches, near Boston, Mass., in the interest of beach erosion control. It is responsive to section 2 of the River and Harbor Act approved July 3, 1930, as amended. Revere Beach has a Federal beach widening project. Nantasket and Revere Beaches have locally built seawalls and retaining walls. Erosion resulting in loss of beach and frequent serious storm damage necessitate additional protective measures. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends beach widening and periodic nourishment along 13,000 feet at Revere Beach and 6,800 feet at Nantasket Beach at an estimated cost of $4,400,000 of which S2,200,000 would be Federal. Benefit-cost ratios are 4.2 for Revere Beach and 3.2 for Nantasket Beach. Local interests are willing to provide the necessary items of local cooperation. The report has been submitted to the State of Massa- chusetts and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the com- ments the report of the Chief of Engineers will be set to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to the sub- mission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman1 this completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. The total estimated cost of the overall project costs are split 50 percent Federal and 50 percent State? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. This is usual for beach erosion and control projects. I notice you have no comments from the Bureau of the Budget. It means. that it has not yet cleared the Bureau of the Budget or the State; is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct, sir. It is now out to the State and agencies for comment. Mr. BLATNIK. I believe we will make note of that to be certain that the staff does have the reports. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. How long will it be before that gets into the Bureau of the Budget; do you Imow? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the States and agencies have 90 days to com- ment if they take it. They have been asked to expedite. Their corn- PAGENO="0421" 407 merits are due September 6, if they take the full 90 days. We have asked them to expedite, however. Mr. HAR5HA. How long does it take Bob? Is there any possibility that we can get these reports in before this- General NOBLE. It is possible, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Is it probable? General NOBLE. I do not know whether it is probable. It could be done. They are reasonably acquainted with the project. It will not take the Chief long to get it to the Secretary of the Army; and the Secretary of the Army has been very prompt in getting it over to BOB. BOB has been very prompt about these things, and it all de- pends on whether they hang up on this report or not. Mr. BLATNIK. We will have the staff keep the chairman and the members informed on the progress of these reports. Next is Hempstead Harbor, N.Y. Can you summarize the essential points, Colonel, and the entire statement will appear in its entirety at this point. HEMPSTEAD HARBOR, N.Y. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of the existing Hempstead Harbor on the north coast of Long Island, N.Y., in the interest of commercial navigation. It is responsive to a resolution adopted by the House Com- mittee on Public Works on August 15, 1961. The existing project provides for a channel 6 feet deep, 100 feet wide, and 2 miles long, leading from the sound to terminal facilities in the town of Oyster Bay and North Hempstead. The tributary area consists of Nassau County, one of the most densely populated counties in the Nation, with a 1960 population in excess of 1,300,000. Commerce is composed primarily of sand shipments and petroleum receipts and totaled about 3,700,000 tons in 1964. This tonnage represents almost a fivefold increase since 1945. The plan of improvement calls for deepening the channel to 13 feet and widening to 150 feet and providing a 9-foot deep turning basin at the head of the channel. These improvements will permit more eco- nomical vessel loads and result in considerable savings to shippers. Total cost is estimated at $703,000, all of which is Federal and the benefit-cost ratio is 2.4. The usual items of local cooperation for com- mercial navigation projects are required and local interests have in- dicated their willingness and ability to meet all requirements. All in- terested Federal and State agencies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to the Congress. Since the Federal cost for this project is less than $10 million, the view set forth by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of January 6, 1967, submitting a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Control Actof l965would apply. This completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. The Department comments and the State comments are favorable and the Bureau of the Budget has no objection. Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. No further questions? Mr. GRAY. Just one quick question. How long will this improvement be, Colonel? PAGENO="0422" 408 Colonel SLIDEL. Approximately 2 miles. Mr. Gu~y. Two miles? Colonel SEIDEL. 2.1 miles. Mr. Gua~r. Sounds pretty reasonable. $700,000 did you say? Colonel SEIDEL. $703,000 Mr. GI~AY. That is all. Mr. BLATNIK. Next is the New Jersey coastel inlets and beaches. NEW JERSEY COASTAL INLETS AND BEACHES Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of approximately 28 miles of southern New Jersey coast from Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Stone Harbor in the interest of navigation and beach erosion control. It is responsive to two House Public Works Committee resolutions and to an item in section 110 of the 1962 River and Harbor Act. Existing Federal and non-Federal projects consist of placement of fill and dunes, beach nourishment, groins, and bulkheads. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends jetty, bulkhead, and channel construction, beach widening and nourishment, and groin construction at an estimated cost of $23,820,000 of which $11,750,000 would be Federal. The project consists of three reaches: Great Egg Harbor Inlet and Peck Beach, Corson Inlet and Ludlam Beach, and TOwnsend Inlet and Seven Mile Beach with benefit-cost ratios of 4.4,2.1, and 2.1 respectively. Local interests are willing to provide the necessary items of local cooperation. The report has been submitted to the State of New Jersey and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to the submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. Br~nnx. No comments from the Bureau of the Budget? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. Mr. BLATNIX. Is there a time limit on that? Within what time may we expect these reports to be in? Colonel SEmEr~. September 4, sir. Mr. BLATNIX. The 4th of September? Colonel S~mi~r~. Yes, sir. Mr. Bt~a~nx. Will the staff please double check this project to be sure that we do have the necessary reports and the committee is so notified. Next is Port Sutton, Tampa Harbor, Fla. PORT SUr2ON, TAMPA HARBOR, FLA. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns maintenance of Port Sutton channel and turning basin in Tampa Harbor, Tampa Bay, about midway on the peninsular gulf coast of Florida. It is in response to Senate and House Public Works Committee resolutions. The existing Federal project in Tampa Harbor consists of several channels, including Port Sutton channel and turning basin. Local interests have improved the authorized 30-foot deep Port Sutton chan- PAGENO="0423" 409 nel and turning basin to 34 feet to meet present navigation needs. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends Federal main- tenance ~Of the existing channel and basin dimensions. Total annual charges are estimated at $9,200. The benefit-cost ratio is 4.5. Local interests are willing to provide the necessary items of coop- eration. The report has been submitted to the State of Florida and the interested Federal agencies. Coniments have been received from the State and the Department of Transportation. Upon receipt of the other comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to the submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Is there any Federal cost involved? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir, maintenance cost only. The total annual charges are estimated at $9,200. * Mr. BLATNIK. Making its cost-I meant no new construction. Colonel SEIDEL. Nothing new. Mr. Br~rr~nK. The benefit-cost ratio is 4.5. Are all the Department reports in on this? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, I have the Department of Transportation and State of Florida. I do not have the other one. * Mr. BLATNIK. Will the staff again make note here and double check this and be sure all the necessary reports from the Departments and Bureau of the Budget are in. Colonel SEIDEL. The comments are due August 6, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. When? Colonel SEIDEL. August 6. Mr. BLATNIK. Sixth of August? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. If there are no further questions, we will proceed to Brevard County, Fla. I call on my colleague, Congressman Gurney. STATEMENT OP HON. EDWARD J. GURNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TUE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Gun~rnr. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to ap- pear in support for a very important project for Florida's Fifth Con- gressional District. This project would provide beach erosion control along the ocean shore of Brevard County, Fla., South of Canaveral Harbor. This beach is an important recreational and public use area, essential to the economy of the region it serves. This projects consist of the restoration. of 2.8 miles of. beachfront at the city of Cape Canaveral and 2 miles of oceanfront at Indialantic and Melbourne Beach by widening and repairing the level of the sand beach. These beaches have eroded severely and are in urgent need of restoration. This serious threat of beach erosion can be reduced significantly by providing a protective and recreational beach that consists of a barn 50 feet wide at elevation, of 10 feet above mean-low- water level and a natural seaward slope as will be shaped by wave action along 14,600 feet of beach at the city of Cape Canaveral and 10,600 feet of beach at Indialantic and Melbourne Beach. Local interest have agreed to pay more than half of the cost, leaving the cost to the Federal Government at $680,000. The benefit-to-cost PAGENO="0424" 410 ratio for the whole project would be 3.5 to 1 (5.9 to 1 for the city of Cape Canaveral and 2.5 to 1 for Indialantic and Melbourne Beach). The Bureau of the Budget has recently cleared this project and I strongly urge the committee to approve this much needed project BREVARD COUNTY, FLA. Mr. BLATNIK. Colonel Seidel, please proceed. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of Florida's Brevard County beaches, south of Cape Kennedy, in the interest of beach erosion control. It is in response to resolutions by the Senate and House Public Works Coin- mittees. There are no existing erosion control projects in the area. Local in- terests desire improvements to prevent beach erosion damages. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends placement of beach fill along 2.8 miles of the city of Canaveral coast and along 2 miles of Indialantic and Melbourne Beach. Total estimated cost of the project is $1,363,000 of which $680,000 would be Federal. The benefit- cost ratios are 5.9 for the city of Cape Canaveral Beach, 2.5 for India-~ lantic and Melbourne Beach, and 3.5 for the entire project. Local interests are willing to provide all necessary items of local co- operation. The State and Federal agencies favor the project. The Bu- reau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to the Congress. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Again, it is a 50-SO bearing even split, is it not, Colonel? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. The benefits-cost ratio is very favorable, 3.5 average~. We do have favorable reports from the department and the State and we have just received notice that the Bureau of the Budget report has also come in. It is favorable. If there are no further questions, we will proceed. Colonel SEIDEL. That completes my portion of the presentation. General NOBLE. Col. Ferd Anderson will testify on some additional projects. Mr. BLATNIK. Col. Ferd E. Anderson, Jr., you are the assistant di- rector of civil works with the central division, is that not correct ~ STATEMENT OP COL. PERD B. MTDERSON, JR., ASSISTAI~IT DIRECTOR OP CIVIL WORKS POR CENThAL DIVISIONS_~Resumed Colonel ANDERSON. That is correct. Mr. Br~ricix. We will proceed with Cattaraugus Creek Harbor,. N.Y. CA~~IARAUGUS CREEK HARBOR, N.Y. Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of Cattaraugus Creek, a tributary of Lake Erie located about 24 miles southwesterly of Buffalo, N.Y., for navigation and flood control. It is in response to a resolution by the Senate Public Works Committee and to items in the River and Harbor Acts of 1945 and 1946. PAGENO="0425" 411 There is no existing Federal project in the basin. Local interests desire improvement to provide a navigable entrance to the harbor and to eliminate flood damages. The project recommended consists of pro- viding breakwaters at the mouth of Cattaraugus Creek; an entrance channel 100 feet wide and 8 feet deep; a maneuvering area about 300 by 600 feet, 6 feet deep; a channel, 100 feet wide, 6 feet deep, from the manuevering area upstream about 1,900 feet; a riprapped channel extending about 750 feet upstream from the navigation channel through the New York Central Railroad bridge; levees on the left bank totaling about 770 feet in length; and recreational facilities for breakwater fishing. Total estimated cost of the project is $1,840,000 of which $1,315,000 is Federal, including reimbursement of $30,000 for recreational features. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.3 to 1. Local interests are willing to provide the normal items of local co- operation for flood control, small boat navigation, and pier fishing. The State and Federal agencies have commented favorably on the report. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to the Congress. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. All the required reports are in and the Bureau of the Budget has approved it. Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. At this point there will be inserted in the record a letter from Mr. Hamilton Clothier, supervisor of the town of Han- over, Silver Creek, N.Y. (The letter follows:) BOARD OF SupnnvlsoRs, Chautauqua Cow~ty, Jww 24,1968. CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIc WORKS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Di~&R SIR: A study of Cattaraugus Creek as a harbor of refuge was recom- mended by the Corps of Engineers in 1~4G. The Town of Hanover, together with the New York State Conservation Depart- ment, has taken preliminary steps to construct a public marina on Cattaraugus Creek. Eleven acres of land are now being acquired. Public sewage system in affected area will be under construction within a year. Estimated cost $2 million. The Town of Hanover has received letters from several yacht clubs located on Lake Erie in New York State and Canada, approving the Cattaraugus Creek project as a harbor of refuge. The town has had complete cooperation from the Buffalo office of the Corps of Engineers in reporting flood conditions and in staff aid during floods. The Town of Hanover respectfully requests the committee to act favorably on the authorization of this project. Very truly yours, HAMILTON H. CLOTHIER, supervisor, Town of Hanover. Mr. BLATNIK. If there are no further questions, we will proceed to the Forestville Harbor, Mich~ FORESTYILLE HARBOR, MICH. Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns construction of a recreational boat harbor at For- estville, Mich., on the southwest shore of Lake Huron about 100 miles PAGENO="0426" 412 north of Detroit. It is in partial response to an item in the 1945 River and Harbor Act. Forestville is situated in a popular resort area on Lake Huron and there are no harbor facilities within about 14 miles at present. Addi- tional small craft harbors along the lake shore are needed to accom- modate the mcreasing boating demand and a harbor of refuge for small boats is needed in the Forestville vicinity. The project recommended consists of a breakwater-inclosecl harbor of 8-foot depth, with facilities provided for sport fishing from the breakwater. Total first cost is estimated at $1,076,000, of which $538,000 would be Federal. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.2. Normal items of local cooperation are required and assurances of such cooperation have been received. All interested Federal and State agencies favor the project and the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the sub- mission of this report to Congress. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIX. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HAnsnA. Colonel, could I ask a question here. I notice your cost is divided 50-50 on this. Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. H~J~siIA. And on the other one it was considerably different. Colonel ANDERSON. The Cattaraugus Creek has flood, control as one of the purposes, sir, and this changed the cost apportionment. This is strictly a recreational harbor. Mr. BLATNIK. Recreational craft ~ Colonel ANDERSON. That is right, 50-50 cost sharing here. Mr. BI~uNIK. Next is Tawas Bay Harbor, Mich. TAWAS BAY HARBOR, MICH. Colonel ANDERSON. Sir, this report concerns construction of a small boat harbor at Tawas Bay, Mich., on the western side of Lake Huron about 180 miles north of Detroit, in the interest of recreational naviga- tion. It is responsive to the 1945 River and Harbor Act and a resolu- tion by the House Committee on Rivers and. Harbors. Tawas Bay is used extensively by recreational boaters. There are no existing Federal project on the bay. The State of Michigan has constructed limited harbor facilities at East Tawas State Park but these facilities are now overtaxed and are badly in need of enlarge- ment to accommodate the increasing boating demand. In addition, a harbor of refuge is needed on Tawas Bay to provide shelter for cruis- ing boats caught in sudden storms. The project recommended consists of enlarging the State harbor by extending an existing breakwater about 1,750 feet. No dredging will be required. since adequate depths are already available behind the pro- posed breakwater extension. Total first cost is estimated at $931,000, of *hich $465,000 would be Federal. The `benefit-cost ratio is 3.0. The normal requirements of local cooperation would apply and local inter- ests `have indicated their willingness and ability to meet all the require- monte. All interested Federal and State agencies favor the project `and the Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report to `Congress. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. PAGENO="0427" 413 Mr. BLATNIK. Similar type of project, smaller one? Colonel ANDERSON. Small, identical. Mr. BLATNIK. I do not' think there will be any questions. Next is Wilson Harbor, N.Y. WILSON HARBOR~ N.Y. Colonel ANDERSON. Sir, this report concerns modification of the existing project at Wilson Harbor, N.Y., on the southwestern shore of Lake Ontario, in the interest of recreational navigation. It is respon- sive to a resolution by the House Committee on Public Works. The existing project provides an 8-foot dhannel extending from the lake into the mouth of Tuscarora Bay at the village of Wilson, with two parallel jetties about 800 feet long. Because of shallow depths in Tuscarora Bay, the harbor has not been able to accommodate the num- ber and type of recreational boats desiring to base or call at Wilson Harbor. The plan of improvement calls for extending the existing project channel through Tuscarora Bay. The extension will be mainly to a depth of 6 feet and width of 100 feet, although a short reach of 8-foot depth will also be provided. Total cost is estimated at $401,000, of which $198,000 would be Federal, and the benefit-cost ratio is 1.8. The usual items of local cooperation for recreational navigation projects are required and local interests have indicated their willingness and ability to meet such requirements. All interested Federal and State agencies favor the project and the Bureau of the Budget has no objec- tion to the submission of the report to Congress. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. No further questions on this project? Next is th6 Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Mich. DETROIT RIVER~ TRENTON CHANNEL, MICH. `Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvements of Detroit River, Trenton Channel, Mi~h., in the interest of navigation. It is in `response to a resolution by the House Public Works Committee. Local interests desire extension of the deepwater channel from the end of the present 28-foot depth channel to deep water in Lake Erie in order to provide for fully loaded Great Lakes vessels. The recommended project provides for a channel 28, feet deep and 300 feet wide, a distance `of about 20,500 feet, from the existing 28-foot chan- nel to `Gibraltar, a turning basin 28 feet deep, about 1,500 feet long and 830 feet wide `at Gibraltar, and necessary compensating dikes to maintain Great Lakes water levels at preproject elevations. Spoil materials would also be used to construct dikes for erosion control, containment of future maintenance spoil, and to create wave-sheltered boating, fishing, and waterfowl resting areas. Total estimated cost is $31,540,000 `of which $31,300,000 would be Federal. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.9. Local interests are willing to provide all required items. The Bureau of `the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report; however, it recommends that local interests p'ay 50 percent of the annual charges for the project unless and until multiple use occurs. It also recommends local assurances that facilities adequate PAGENO="0428" 414 ~to justify the project will be constructed. The Secretary of the Army concurs in the Budget's recommendations. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Dingell, of Michigan, please. STATEMENT OF HON. 3~OHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the record, my name is John D. Dingell and I am a Member of Con- gress from the 16th District of Michigan. I want to thank you for the opportunity to briefly explain my support of the Detroit River Trenton Channel project currently pending be.fore you. The Committee on Public Works of the House of Representatives adopted a resolution on July 29, 1955, authorizing the navigation study which has resulted in the report on this project which is now before you. Since coming to Congress in late 1955, I have carefully followed developments with regard to this project and am pleased that the Corps of Engineers agrees with me that the project is both feasible and economically justified. The fact that the portion of the Detroit River covered by this project falls entirely within Michigan's 16th Congressional District, which I have the honor to represent, impelled me to maintain continuing and intensive scrutiny of all developments leading to the pending proposal. Completion of this project will mean that a major portion of the long-sought All-American Channel has become a reality. It also will bring vast new economic development to the 16th District, to southeast Michigan, and the Nation generally. That job-producing industry will move into the areas adjacent to the proposed new channel is certain. And the amount of such industry will be much greater than that for which firm commitments have already been made. I would like to point up what I consider a very significant fact in this regard. As you proceed down the Detroit River into that portion of the Trenton Channel now possessing a deep draft, you would noto the vast industrial complex lining the American shore. However, as you continue farther down the Trenton Channel toward Lake Erie where deep water is not available, you would note the lack of job- producing industry. The change from au economically strong and vi;able area to one which is devoid of extensive industrial develop- ment is most striking and bears out the often proved fact that in- dustry and jobs follow where water transportation is available. The Detroit River T~renton Channel project also represents a justi- fiable continuation of the All-American Channel. The improvement of the Trenton Channel to provide an all-American waterway to Lake Erie has been proposed many times between 1890 and the year 1937 when the 75th `Congress authorized a 21-foot-deep channel of about 9.5 miles in length. The 86th Congress authorized a further improve- ment of a major portion of this section to a 28-foot draft which was completed in 1964. Please consider the fact that the approval of these two projects by the 75th and 8Gth Congresses has opened up this waterfront to large corporations-such as Wyandotte Chemicals, Firestone, Pennsalt, PAGENO="0429" 415 McLouth Steel and Detroit Edison which dot the improved water- front. These industries represent the major anchor of support for the growing communities in the lower reaches of the Detroit River area. Mr. Chairman, as you. and the members of the subooanmttee know, I am a conservationist who has devoted much of my time and energy to the preservation of our natural resources and to the control and abatement of air and water pollution. Feeling as I do on these matters, I also carefully scrutinized the pending project to assure myself that it will not have an adverse impact in these areas. Dredge spoil from the channel deepening and widening will be uti- lized to dike the shore areas of the Pointe Mouiliee State game area. This will serve to prevent further erosion of the marsh area. Addi- tionally, the fill will provide a park area at the mouth of the Huron River. Also, industries moving into the area will be required to meet string- ent regulations relating to air and water pollutants which have been laid down under the terms of the water and air pollution legislation adopted by the Congress in recent years. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully urge that the Trenton Channel project be approved and included in this year's omnibus public works authori- zation bill. In urging that this be done, I would like to point out that approval of the project will have only a minimal impact upon Fed- eral outlays during the next 3 fiscal years. I am advised that precon- struction planning will take 3 years and that during this time outlays will amount to a total of some $700,000-about $75,000 in fiscal year 1969 and $300,000 or so in each of the 2 ensuing fiscal years. I am firmly convinced that present Federal budgetary problems will have been substantially eased by the time the project has moved into the construction phase. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. Colonel Anderson, what do you mean by "annual cost sharing to be undertaken"? Colonel ANDERSON. Let me read the Bureau of the Budget's state- ment, sir. If it is found that the project would initially benefit only a single user; namely, the McJI~outh Steel Co., some provision for cost sharing should be required. A reasonable basis of such sharing would be pay- ment by local interest annually until such time as multiple use of the channel actually occurs of 50 percent of the annual charges for interest and amortization of the Federal cost of the project. That is a quote from the Bureau of the Budget's letter, sir. Mr. HARSHA. That is in the report on this? Colonel ANDERSON. It is not in the Chief of Engineers' report. It is in the Bureau's report to the Congress. Mr. HARSHA. Where can I get a copy of that? Do we have a report like this? Would it be in a report such as this (indicating)? Colonel ANDERSON. I do not believe that has been printed. The Bureau's comments were dated June 18, and so the Government Print-. ing Office has not had a chance to print up a House document yet. When printed it will be House Document No. 338, 90th Congress, second session. (Mr. Gray assumed the chair.) Mr. HARSHA. Who is going to use that? PAGENO="0430" 416 Colonel ANDERSON. The primary user will be the McLouth Steel Co. ~until the channel is extended further, which is a reasonable expectation. They intend to build an integrated steel plant there, the shipments for which are expected to be about 10 million tons of ore and limestone a year. Mr. HARSHA. Is anyone else using it now? Colonel ANDERSoN. At the present the McLouth Steel Co. uses the channel as marked in black as far down as their present plant at Tren- ton, and the Detroit Edison Co. uses a shallower channel of 21 feet extending farther down for hauling coal to their plant. It is expected that the city of Gibralter and Wayne County Economic Development Commission will encourage additional industrial development further on down the channel if this project goes in. In fact, the available lands, are already zoned for industrial use. Mr. HARSHA. I notice this is practically all Federal cost. Is this the nsual formula on navigation? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir; for commercial navigation. Mr. GRaY. We will pass on then, Colonel, from the Detroit River to the Buffalo Harbor, N.Y. DRIFT REMOVAL, BUFFALO HARBOR~ N.Y. Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, this report considers the advis- ability of establishing a separate project for the collection, removal, and disposal of drift in the harbors and tributary waters extending from Buffalo Harbor to the downstream limit of the Federal project in Niagara River in response to t~ resolution of the House Public Works Committee of August 1961. Floating drift is a distinct menace to small boats, especially at night and during fog. The Chief of Engineers recommended the adoption of a project for the collection, removal, and disposal of drift in the areas of the Federal projects for Buffalo Harbor and submitted his report to the Secretary of the Army. His report was returned and is being revised to include costs of incineration. The State of New York and the Federal agencies favored the project as originally proposed by the Chief of Engineers. The BOB and the Office of the Secretary of the Army are of the opinion that general legislation should be proposed to. the Congress for the removal of debris in harbors along with a proposal to include local participation. The Secretary of the Army requested the Chief of Engineers to draft such legislation and the legislaiton is now with the Bureau of the Budget for review. It is hoped that the proposed legislation will be cleared by the Bureau of the Budget in time for its inclusion in this year's omnibus bill. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. GRAY. So you are proposing that we not act on this project as an individual project, but have an umbrella to cover all such drift removal, is that it? Colonel ANDERSON. That is the proposal of the Secretary of the Army. Mr. GRAY. But the Chief did make a specific recommendation on this project to the Secretary, and the Secretary is sitting on it, as to speak, and so the Bureau of the Budget, they have not submitted anything- PAGENO="0431" 417 Colonel ANDERSON. The report has not been submitted to you. In fact, the Chief of Engineers has the report for revision in his hands now. Mr. GRAY. Would you be at liberty to tell the committee what the annual cost of this drift removal would be in your original recoin- mendation without- Colonel ANDERSON. With incineration. Mr. GRAY. Without modification of incinerator? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. I believe the information in the handout you have states the annual charges for maintenance and operation would be $29,000. By the use of incineration this would be raised to $40,000. Now the tangible annual benefits are estimated to be $34,000, either with or without incineration. These consist of damage prevention benefits. Mr. GRAY. So without the incenerator, it would be a favorable benefit- cost ratio, would it not? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes. From strictly an economic standpoint. How- ever, we want to emphasize that there are considerable intangible bene- fits conti~buting to a project of this nature, even though with incin- erator costs added it appears to have an unfavorable benefit-cost ratio. For example, cleaning up the harbor, providing safety for small boats, preventing waterside fires that have been caused by the drift, alleviat- ing air pollution, and enhancing fish and wildlife conditions. Mr. GRAY. I am a little bit lost here. I cannot understand how the Bureau of the Budget and Secretary feels that general legislation would make this a favorable project, whereas specific legislation would not. You have still got the same cost, whether you incinerate it or whether you do not. I do not follow the logic. Colonel ANDERSON. The Secretary of the Army felt that there would be repeated proposals of this nature for all of the harbors in the coun- try. At present, there is no firm policy for local participation or cost sharing. Mr. GRAY. I understand that. Colonel ANDERSON. General legislation, including cost sharing, is being proposed. The Secretary is not opposing this project on the basis of economics but on the basis of cost sharing. Mr. GRAY. It would cost exactly the same amount on individual con- tracts to do this, whether it is covered in broad legislation or whether it is covered in specific legislation; would it not? Colonel ANDERSON. We would say the total costs are the same, except that the proposed legislation would include cost sharing rather than having the total costs borne by the United States. Mr. GRAY. I see. Colonel ANDERSON. And this cost sharing would be approximately as follows: The Federal Government would collect the drift and deliver it by water to a certain point, and the local agency would then take the drift and dispose of it, either by incineration or by burying it. Mr. GRAY. You do not have that cost-sharing formula that is being in the overall legislation, in the event it does not come that we can con- sider it on this specific project?, Colonel ANDERSON. I do not have the calculation to show you what that would break into in terms of cost. Mr. GRAY. But the recommendation for overall legislation, so to speak, does have the cost-sharing formula in it? PAGENO="0432" 418 Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. It is a matter of the Federal Govern- ment paying for the collection and local interest paying for disposal. Mr. Gi~x. There again I do not see how- Colonel ANDERSON. You have to figure it out, the two costs would have to be figured out. In this project, on an annual cost basis, the Federal share would be about $29,000 and the local share about $11,000. Mr. Gi~v. It is still going to boil down to the same thing, that each project is going to have to stand on its own merits as far as benefit-cost ratio is concerned? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. GIL&Y. If you are going to assess the local people one part of the project cost and Federal Government with the other, you are still going to have to figure out what those specific costs are as they relate to each specific project. I do not see why they would want to hold these two projects up if they know what the formula is. It looks like they could give it to us now on these projects. Mr. HARSHA. Has the problem not been that the Army Corps of Engineers has heretofore looked upon drift removal as n local problem rather than a Federal problem? Colonel ANDERSON. There are some exceptions to this; but in general it has been considered to be a local prOblem. Mr. HARSHA. You feel that with overall legislation then that you could accept it as a Federal problem? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. And then subject to your cost-sharing basis go ahead? Colonel ANDERSON. There would not be a requirement to come back to the Congress for authorization and funding of each separate drift removal project and it would not be necessary to present a report on the costs and benefits for each project if the general legislation were passed. Mr. HARSHA. Do you not have authority now under $100,000 to re- move-clear and remove-snag and clear and remove drift- Colonel ANDERsON. Snag and clear the specific Federal channel that is designated, if it is for navigation, or to snag and clear if it happens to be flood control; yes, sir. But actually we get outside of the naviga- tion channel in some respects in this collection of drift too. The idea is to try to get the stuff before it gets into the channel. The snagging and clearing authority is for a one-time job, not for an annual inainte- nance program. Mr. HARSHA. Now let me ask you this: I have been contacted by several sources on the problem with dredging and clearing debris from the Cuyahoga River from up around Kent, Ohio, down to Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, and this is a similar project in the sense that there is no flood control or apparently no navigation involved. It would remove debris, clean u~? the trash and pollution and increase low-flow augmen- tation of it. But apparently the corps has raised the same question, that this is a local project rather than Federal project. Colonel ANDERSON. The Buffalo District ha.s considered the Upper Cuyahoga River in the vicinity of Cuyahoga Falls to see whether there can be an economically justified project. Our preliminary look indicates that it is not economically justified, and we are looking at it from the standpoint of flood control, recreation, and esthetics. In PAGENO="0433" 419 19G4, the district engineer found that a channel improvement project for flood control was not justified. Mr. HARSIJA. I was going to say, in addition to these alleged benefits that I mention, there is these intangibles that you referred to. Now heretofore the Congress has not given too much weight to intangible benefits, have they? `Colonel ANDERSON. Well, generally speaking, no. It is a difficult thing. By definition, intangible benefits are difficult to quantify. Mr. HARSHA. Is it going to be the policy of the corps now to recom- mend to the Congress that intangible benefits be considered? `Colonel ANDERSON. Well, I think I answered that question not too well just a moment ago. Senate Document No. 97 does state that in- tangibles must be weighed. Mr. HARSHA. Must be weighed? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. And intangibles could override un- favorable economics of a proposed project although such cases would be the exception rather than the rule. Generally, we do not recommend projects that are not justified on a tangible basis. `General NOBLE. The problem is that it is difficult to quantify the in- tangibles, and when you start dealing with benefit-cost ratio, which is in terms of dollars, it is difficult to crank in the intangibles which are difilcu~lt to give dollar values to. Mr. HARSHA. Even though your position has been generally to insist that it is the local responsibility to remove drift control, we have on several occasions, about four occasions, authorized projects- Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA (continuing). To go ahead and do this. Colonel ANDERSON. Potomac River, New York Harbor, a couple of them. Mr. HARSHA. May I ask you again this Cuyahoga Falls River study, when do you expect to have that completed? Colonel ANDERSON. I do not know, sir. It is not an authorized survey. The Buffalo District has been in touch with the local agency that is attempting to do this cleanup. Local interests are supposed to furnish additional information on flood damages and recreation benefits so that the district engineer can reconsider the matter. Mr. HARSHA. Well, is it impossible to do anything on that until that study is completed? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, from our standpoint. Clearing of the Cuyahoga River is not an emergency measure needed for flood control or navigation. We have no authority to go in and dredge and clear the river for waterfront beautification. Mr. HARSHA. That is all. Mr. GRAY. One further quick question, Colonel. You did originally- the corps did originally recommend the Buffalo and Cleveland Harbor projects, is that right? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. G1~Y. Let's move on now to Cleveland, Ohio, projects. This is similar. CLEvELAND HARBOR, OHIO Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, this report considers the ad- visability of establishing a project for the collection, removal, and 97-700-68---28 PAGENO="0434" 420 disposal by incineration or burial of drift in the harbor and tributary waters of Cleveland Harbor in response to a resolution adopted by the House Public Works Committee, April 19, 1964. Floating drift is a hazard to commercial and recreational craft and shore structures, and a contributing cause of waterfront fires. The Chief of Engineers recoin- mends the adoption of a project for the collection, removal, and dis- posal of drift in this harbor area. The estimated annual cost is $21,000; the annual benefits are estimated at $35,000, resulting in a benefit- cost ratio of 1.7 to 1. The State and Federal agencies favor the project. The BOB and the Office of the Secretary of the Army are of the opinion that general legislation should be proposed to the Congress for the removal of debris in harbors along with a proposal to include local participation. The Secretary of the army requested the Chief of Engineers to draft such legislation and such general legislation is now with the Bureau of the Budget for review. It is hoped that the proposed legislation will be cleared by the Bureau of the Budget in time for its inclusion in this year's omnibus bill. Pending such action, the Secretary of the Army has not cleared the Cleveland Harbor report for transmittal to Congress. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. GRAY. You did originally include this individual project be- fore they decided to go to overall authorization ? Colonel ANDERSON. Pending action on this general legislation, the Secretary of the Army has not cleared the Cleveland Army report for transmittal to the Congress. Mr. GRAY. But for the same reasons as the Buffalo Harbor? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. HARSHA. No comment from the Bureau of the Budget? Colonel ANDERSON. That is the reason there is no comment from the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. GRAY. Let us move on then, please, to Black River Harbor, Alcona County, Mich. BLACK RIVER HARBOR, ALCONA COuNTY, MICH. Colonel ANDERSON. This report concerns the construction of a small- boat harbor at the mouth of the Black River, a small stream entering Lake Huron, about 18 miles south of Alpena, Mich., in the interest of both commercial and recreational navigation. The report is responsive to the 1945 River and Harbor Act. A small-boat harbor is needed to shelter small cruising craft from storms and to provide a base for local boats. There is no navigation project at the location. The recommend project consists of: A north breakwater; an east breakwater; a 10-foot approach channel; an 8- foot protected access channel; and a 6-foot river channel from the mouth of the river to the first upstream bridge where a 6-foot turning area would be located. The total estimated cost of the project is $176,- 800 of which $491,500 is Federal, including $7,800 for aids to naviga- tion. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.2 to 1 with redevelopment benefits and 1.3 to 1 with such benefits. Local interests have indicate.d a willing- ness to meet all requirements of local cooperation. PAGENO="0435" 421 The report has been submitted to the State of Michigan and the in- terested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to the Con- gress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. GRAY. Are there any questions on the Black River Harbor, Alcona County, Mich.? Mr. HARSHA. Yes; I have some. Mr. GRAY. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. HARSHA. You are going to put a 6-foot river channel- Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. From the mouth of the river to the first upstream bridge where a 6-foot turning area is recommended. Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Six-foot-deep turning area, right at the end of the channel. Mr. HARSHA. Now what are the redevelopment benefits that you refer to in your benefit-cost ratio? Colonel ANDERSON. I believe it is title IV of the Economic Develop- ment Act, whcih states that this is a depressed area; and, by con- struction of this harbor, we provide additional employment, which we evaluate on an annual basis to be equivalent to $4,000 benefit. Mr. HARSIIA. I see. Colonel ANDERSON. This raises the benefit-cost ratio from 1.2 to 1.3. Mr. HARSHA. All right. What makes the difference in this formula for Federal and non-Federal cost sharing? Normally is it not that 50-50? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir; for strictly recreational boating; but commercial fishing has been established in this area, and the com- mercial fishing boats would use the harbor. We estimate those bene- fits would be $12,500 a year annually. The costs allocated in propor- tion to the commercial fishing benefits are all Federal, and this changes the 50-50 cost sharing to, in this case, 37 percent local and 63 percent Federal. Mr. HARSHA. That is all. Mr. Qa~y. Any other questions? If not, we will move on to Fort Niagara State Park. PORT NIAGARA~ LAKE ONTARIO SHORED NEW YORK Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of the south shore of Lake Ontario immediately east of the mouth of the Niagara River within the boundaries of Fort Niagara State Park in the interest of beach ero- sion control. The report is in response to a resolution by the House Public Works Committee adopted April 14, 1964. Local interests desire improvements for recreational bathing and erosion protection along the shoreline of Lake Ontario at the Fort Niagara State Park. The recommended project provides for beach fill and the construction of a low offshore 4,000-foot-long breakwater with seven 100-foot gaps to protect the beach fill. The total estimated cost of the project is $1,888,000 of which $1,327,000 is Federal, includ- PAGENO="0436" 422 ing $18,000 for aids to navigation. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.14 to 1. Local interests are willing to provide the items of cooperation. The report has been submitted to the State of New York and the interested Federal agents. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. GRAY. What do you say the cost-to-benefit ratio will be? Colonel ANDERSON. 1.14 to 1. Mr. GRAY. 1.14 to 1? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAY. Any questions on Fort Niagara? Mr. HARSHA. Colonel, you again had 1.3 million Federal and half a million local, and this appears to be recreational benefits. Colonel ANDERSON. Cost apportionment for this type of project comes under the beach erosion control formula. Mr. HARSHA. That is up 70 percent? Colonel ANDERSON. Seventy percent, if it is a public park facility~ which this is-70 percent Federal. Mr. HARSHA. And you say the comments from the Bureau of the Budget and State agencies are not in as yet? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. When can we expect those roughly? Colonel ANDERSON. On the fifth of September the 90 days are up. We hope we can get the comments sooner than that. Mr. HARSHA. No other questions. Mr. GRAY. If there are no questions, we will move on, Colonel, to Hamlin Beach State Park, N.Y. HAMLIN BEACH STATE PARK, N.Y. Colonel ANDERSON. This report concerns construction of a small- boat harbor at Hamlin Beach State Park on the south shore of Lake Ontario, about 20 miles northwest of Rochester, N.Y., in the interest of recreational navigation. It is in response to a resolution by the House Public Works Committee adopted September 25, 1945. A small-boat harbor is needed to accommodate the increase in small-boat traffic. There are no navigation projects at the location. A beach erosion control project, west of the area, has not been started. The recommended project consists of an 8-foot. protected entrance channel; a 6-foot dock channel and maneuvering area, a revetment along Lake Ontario, and breakwater recreational fishing facilities. Total estimated cost of the project is $1,010,000 of which $510,000 is Federal, including $10,000 for aids to navigation. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.4. Local interests are willing to provide the items of coopera- tion. The report is with the Bureau of the Budget. for clearance as to its relationship to the program of the President prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. Gi~Y. What did you say the total cost was? Colonel ANDERSON. $1,010,000. Mr. GRAY. B-C ratio? PAGENO="0437" 423 Colonel ANDERSON. 2.4. Mr. GRAY. Are there any questions on Hamlin Beach State Park? The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. HARSHA. I thought you said something about navigation. Colonel ANDERSON. Recreational navigation, sir. Mr. HARSHA. OK. When can we get the BOB report? That is the only thing that is holding us up. Colonel ANDERSON. I assume any day. Mr. HARSHA. That is the only thing holding us up? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes. Mr. GRAY. We will move on to Jack Benny's hometown now, Wau- kegan Harbor, Ill. WA1IJKEGAN HARBOR~ ILL. Colonel ANDERSON. Sir, this report concerns improvement of Wau- kegan Harbor, Ill., on Lake Michigan, 38 miles north of Chicago, Ill., in the interest of commercial navigation. It is in response to a House Public Works Committee resolution. The existing Federal project consists of a breakwater, two parallel piers, an entrance channel, a channel between piers, an inner basin, and an anchorage area. Deep draft commerce is estimated at 540,000 tons annually, an increase of 458,000 tons since 1959, and consists of bulk cement and gypsum rock receipts. The `Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends deep- ening the entrance channel to 25 feet, at widths from 380 to 500 feet; deepening the channel between piers to 23 `feet at a width of 180 feet; and deepening the inner basin to 23 feet and extending it 275 feet northward. The improvements will permit deeper loading, pro- vide additional needed berthing and mooring space, provide a harbor of refuge and reduce congestion and navigation hazards. Total cost is $1,951,000 of which $1,198,000 would be Federal. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.2. The report has been submitted to the State of Illinois and the in- terested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent the Bureau of the Budget through `the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Con- gress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. (Mr. McOarthy assumed the chair.)' Mr. MCUARTHY. Thank you, `Colonel. When can we expect a report from the Bureau of the Budget? Colonel ANDERSON. Sir, 90 days is allowed for the State and Fed- eral agencies to reply an'd it is up on the 15th of August. Hopefully, we will get the comments sooner than that. We have already received a favorable comment from the State. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. No questions. ` Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Colonel. Mr. MOEWEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. McE'wen. Mr. MCEWEN. I have just one question. I was looking at the Wau- kegan Harbor area on your chart. It is indicated, existing now, L .S. north pier and U.S. south pier on the entrance channel. Is that a Federal pier on each side? PAGENO="0438" 424 Colonel ANDERsoN. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEwEN. Is that Federal ri~arian adjoining property, is that federally owned? Colonel ANDERSON. I do not know. Mr. MCEwEN. Are those berthing piers? What are they used for? Colonel ANDERSON. Those piers are to protect the channel, sir. They are not berthing piers in the sense that- Mr. MOEwEN. That is to protect the channel? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. MOEWEN. Where is the area where the ships are docked to work cargo? Colonel ANDERSON. You will note slip No. 1 and slip No. 3 on the northern part, and recreational navigation is in the black area in the south part, which has not been changed, and then alongside the project. Mr. MCEwEN. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Colonel. We will now hear from our distinguished colleague, Robert McClory, of Illinois. STATEMENT OP HON. ROBERT MeOLORY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP ILLINOIS Mr. MCCLORY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is my hope that the committee will concur in the recommendation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for improvements at the Waukegan Harbor. This commercial harbor is located approximately midway between the city of Chicago and the city of Milwaukee on Lake Michigan. Serving an important agricultural and industrial region in the Mid- west, it is already serving substantial lake and overseas commercial traffic. The Corps of Engineers has recommended the improvements in Wankegan Harbor. These improvements complement the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway for overseas shipping. Meaningful local and State interest has resulted in various of the existing improvements and the establishment of a Waukegan Port District. During the past 10 years the port district has acquired substantial properties and harbor interests, all directed toward increased commercial activity utilizing Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes, as well as the St. Lawrence Seaway. The public-spirited citizen-members of the Waukegan Port District, appointed by former Gov. Otto Kerner, of Illinois have exercised a broad public interest in both the existing facilities at Waukegan Har- bor and in planning for its future expansion. The justification for the Waukegan Harbor improvements is em- phasized in the statement by the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers and the statement by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to the Chief of Engineers, dated April 11, 1968, a copy of which I am at- taching for the benefit of the committee. In addition, I wish to call to the committee's attention the unique location of the Waukegan Harbor. I am advised that the tonnage of materials which passed through the port of Waukegan has been in excess of 500,000 tons a year for the past several years despite the shallow channel and basin which now exist. The harbor deepening and PAGENO="0439" 425 other improvements will benefit the economy of the Waukegan area and of the Midwest as well as the overall economy of the Nation. In addi- tion, it should promote a substantial increase in foreign trade and en- courage greater international understanding. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I earnestly urge that you include in the omnibus rivers and harbors flood control bill author- ization for deepening and widening the Waukegan Harbor in Illinois. Mr. MCCARTHY. We have Lt. Col. Lewis A. Pick, Jr., Assistant Di- rector of Civil Works for Pacific Divisions. Would you proceed. STATEMENT OP LT. COL. LEWIS A. PICK, rR., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS FOR PACIFIC DIVISIONS Colonel PICK. My first project, sir, is Humboldt Harbor and Bay, Calif. HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY~ CALIF. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I-Iumboldt Bay is located on the northern California coast about 225 nautical miles north of San Francisco. The existing Federal project provides for two jetties at the bay en- trance; a 40-foot-deep bar and entrance channel; 30-foot and 26-foot channels in the north bay and a 26-feet-deep channel with a turning basin in the south bay. Present depths are inadequate for the needs of present and foreseeable waterborne commerce and there is no suit- able area for vessels to anchor while awaiting favorable weather and sea conditions for departure from the harbor. The Chief of Engineers recommends modification of the existing project in the Narth Bay to provide for widening the channel at two locations, mile 0.75 and mile 2.6; deepening the North Bay Channel to 35 feet from mile 0.75 to mile 5.0 in the Eureka Channel and to the end of the Samoa Channel at mile 5.84; and to provide an anchorage area a 35 feet deep and 1,200 feet square as a suitable location between the entrance and Gunther Island. The most suitable location for the an- chorage area would be selected during detailed project design. The estimated total cost is $3,043,000 of which $2,430,000 is Federal and $613,000 is non-Federal. Local interests have indicated willingness to furnish the required local cooperation. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.1. The comments of the State of California and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget would expect a reanalysis of the benefits and costs prior to any request for construction funds. Sub- ject to consideration of this comment, the Bureau has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. MCCARTHY. That reanalysis, that is ordinary procedure, is it? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. They are normally reanalyzed. The comments of the Bureau of the Budget. were due to the fact that an increment had a very narrow benefit-cost ratio, and they would like it reana- lyzed prior to requesting construction funds. Mr. CLAUSEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MCCARTHY. The gentleman from California. PAGENO="0440" 426 Mr. CLAUSEN. This particular project is in my congressional district on the north coast of California. Of course, we have been fully cog- nizant of the points that had been made by Colonel Pick. I will be supporting this project and ask unanimous consent of the committee to offer a supplemental statement in support of the project in the interest of time. And also ask unanimous consent that the record at this point be left open for some supplemental statements that will be forthcoming from the people of the area involved. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection, so ordered. (The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF HON. DON H. CLAUSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you in support of navigational improvements for Humboldt Harbor and Bay, Humboldt County, California. Humboldt Bay, located about 225 nautical miles north of San Francisco, is a land-locked harbor 14 miles in length and varying in width from one-half to 4 miles. The existing Federal project consists of two rubble-mound jetties at the entrance; a Bar and Entrance Channel; five interior channels varying in depth from 18 to 30 feet, and in width from 150 to 400 feet; and a turning basin 26 feet deep, 600 feet wide, and 800 feet long. The proposed modifications would consist of dredging the North Bay Channel to 35 feet, and widening the bends; dredging Samoa Channel and the Outer Reach of Eureka Channel to 35 feet; and dredging an anchorage basin in the North Bay to 35 feet deep, 1,200 feet wide and 1,200 feet long. Estimated cost to the United States is $2,170,000 for construction dredging, and $13,000 for additional annual maintenance. Principal cities on Humboldt Bay are Eureka, with a population of 28,000, and Arcata, with 5,000. The distinctive natural resource of the area is timber, and waterborne commerce of Humboldt Harbor is composed chiefly of lumber and lumber products shipments from Humboldt, Del Norte, and Trinity Counties, and receipts of petroleum and fish. Exports of lumber and lumber products from Humboldt Harbor in 1965, 1966, 1967, and the first quarter of 1968, were as follows: 1965-273,438 short tons; 1966-291.676 short tons; 1967-466.741 short tons; first quarter 1968-161,857 short tons. Estimated total for 1968 is more than 700,000 short tons. It is anticipated that there will be a continuing increase in tonnage of lumber and lumber products exports out of Humboldt Harbor for at least the next twenty years. The interior channels of Humboldt Bay are inade- quate and hazardous for modern, deep-draft vessels of the type that carry lumber as general cargo. Lack of an adequate anchorage area forces ships to anchor in main navigation channels when dockside space is not available, or while awaiting favorable sailing conditions, thus adding to the already hazardous navigating conditions in the channels. Ships seeking shelter from ocean storms frequently add to the congestion in the Bay. Finally, it should be noted that Humboldt Bay is the closest deepwater port to San Francisco and_that, in emergencies, the proposed improvements would be of considerable worth over and beyond the benefits to local shipping interests. EUREKA, CALIF., J'une 25, 1968. Hon. DON CLAUSEN, Congressman First District, California, House Office Builsiing, Washington, D.C.: Retel inquiry! Short tons lumber and lumber products exported from Hum- boldt Bay during 1965, 273,438; 1966, 291,676; 1967, 466,741; first quarter 1968. 161,857. We estimate it will be over 700,000 short tons for 1968. We also foresee a gradual increase in the export of lumber and lumber products out of this harbor for the next 20 years. STATE BOARD or HARBOR CoMMIssIoNERs FOR HUMBOLDT BAY, By LESLIE M. WESTFALL, ~eCretary-~SUrVe?IOr. PAGENO="0441" 427 EUREKA, CALIF.. June 25, 1968. Hon. DON CLAUSEN, Congressman, First District, Calif ornia, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The Board of Supervisors of Humboldt County strongly urges that you make every effort possible to assure inclusion of Humboldt Harbor improvements and the Butler Valley project in omnibus bill now under consideration by Congress. The economic impact of both these projects are vital to Humboldt future growth and development. It is hoped that you will vigorously fight any attempt to remove the projects from any omnibus bill adopted. ELWYN LINDLEY, Chairman, Humboldt County Board of ~S'upervisors. HUMBOLDT COUNTY OCEAN RESOURCES, Co-0RDINATING COUNCIL, Eureka, Calif., June 24, 1968. Hon. DON H. CLAUSEN, Representative in Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Due to the continued increase in tonnage now being shipped through Humboldt Bay and the outlook for even greater activity in the lumber, log and pulp exporting industry, it is imperative that the appropriation for increasing the depth of the shipping channel to a minimum of 35 feet and the provision for an adequate anchorage and turning basin be included in the current Rivers and Harbors Omnibus Bill. Any further delay in developing Humboldt Bay to its full potential as a major wes't coast shipping port could very easily retard the progress of the area and create a set-back in the over~al1 economy of Humboldt County. Therefore, we request that you use your influence to include the full appropriation for Humboldt Bay in the Omnibus Bill. Very truly yours, FRED L. PHEBUS, Ultairman. CITY OF EUREKA, CALIF., June 24, 1968. Hon. DON H. OLAUSEN, Member of Congress, First Congressional District of California, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR DON: This is a follow-up to the phone call this morning regarding the Humboldt Harbor project which you indicated is being heard tomorrow before the Public Works project. I am enclosing a copy of the resolution which w-as adopted by the Eureka City Council and was also adopted by every other official group around Humboldt Bay supporting this project. To my knowledge none of those entities joining in the adoption of this resolution supporting the Humboldt Harbor project has changed its stand and support is unanimous. I very much appreciated your calling City Hall and am happy to be of any help on this project or on any other one. Very truly yours, GILBERT S. TRoon, Mayor. Enclosure. RESOLUTION No. 5419 SUPPORTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGARDING PROPOSED NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS FOR HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY Whereas, the office of the District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has reported to the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors that it is completing studies on proposed navigation improvements at Humboldt Harbor and Bay as authorized by Congressional Resolutions dated March 30, 1955, and June 30, 1960, directing review of previous reports on Humboldt Bay, and to determine the advisability of modifying existing navigation channels and to provide an- chorage basins in the harbor; and PAGENO="0442" 428 Whereas, representatives of the Corps of Engineers will meet with the Hum- boldt County Board of Supervisors and other interested agencies or individuals and the general public in Eureka on the evening of May 15, 1963, for the purpose of reviewing and discussing the findings of said Corps of Engineers concerning proposed navigation improvements for Humboldt Harbor and Bay outlined as follows: (1) That present channel depths and dimensions are inadequate. (2) That if the existing project for Humboldt Harbor and Bay were modified substantially as follows, the harbor would be improved for navigation: a. Bar and Entrance Channel-Widen the Bar and Entrance Channel to 900 feet, from seaward mile 0.52 to mile 0.75 and deepen the Bar and Entrance Chan- nel to 45 feet. b. North. Bay Channel-Widen the North Bay Channel at the first bend near mile 0.75 and the bend at mile 2.60 and deepen the Channel to 35 feet. c. Eureka Channel (Outer Reach)-Deepen the Eureka Channel to 35 feet, from mile 4.29 to mile 5.0. d. Samoa Channel-Deepen the Samoa Channel to 35 feet. e. Fields Landing Channel-Widen the Fields Landing Channel to 400 feet, widen the bends, and deepen the channel to 35 feet. f. Turning Basin-Fields Landing-Enlarge the turning basin to dimensions of 1000 feet x 1000 feet and deepen the turning basin to 35 feet. g. Anchorage Area-Dredge an anchorage on the east side of the North Bay Channel opposite the Coast Guard Station. Area will provide 600 foot swing circle and will be 35 feet deep; and Whereas, it is the opinion of this Council that the improvements recommended by said Corps of Engineers are necessary and required in order to promote and facilitate the use of Humboldt Harbor and Bay for commerce and industry, Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Council of the City of Eureka, as follows: 1. That the said findings and recommendations of the Corps of Engineers be approved, subject, however, to the recommendation that the anchorage area pro- posed to be located opposite the Coast Guard Station be changed to a location southwesterly of the south end of Gunther Island. 2. That other interested agencies or individuals and the general public be and are hereby urged to attend the said meeting scheduled on the evening of May 15, 1963, and to support the said recommendations of the Corps of Engineers for proposed navigation improvements for Humboldt Harbor and Bay. Passed and Adopted by the Council of the City of Eureka, County of Humboldt, State of California, on the 13th day of May 1003, by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Wilson, McVicar, Cannam, Bistrin, Vance. Noes: Councilmen, None. Absent: Councilmen, None. RUBY C. SHONAHAN, City Clerk of the City of Eureka. Signed and Approved on the 13th day of May 1963. HENRY TERHEYDEN, Mayor of the City of Eureka. THE GREATER EuBExA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Eureka, Calif., June 27, 1968. Hon. Dow H. CLAUSEN, U.S. Congressman, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR DON: We would very much appreciate your pushing to the fullest extent of your ability the authority for the Humboldt Bay project, Eureka, California. The year 1967 saw 5hipping in Humboldt Bay increase eighty per cent over 1966. Tons shipped across Humboldt Bay in 1967 follow: PAGENO="0443" 429 Product: Short tons Lumber and logs 356,356 Pulp 110,385 Oil 208,769 Chemicals 52,320 Total 727,830 We predict the year 1968 will see a minimum of fifty per cent increase in tonnage over the year 1967. As au example, the first calendar quarter of 1968 saw 162,000 tons of lumber exported from Humboldt Bay. A new dock has recently been constructed at the foot of Fourteenth Street This gives us a total of seven docks for deep water shipping, with a total ca- pacity of ten ships at a time loading in Humboldt Bay. These docks are privately ownedand maintained, but are operated as public docks. The increased shipping in Humboldt Bay has provided a stable employment in that phase of our economy from the standpoint of trucking and stevedoring. The stevedores alone run from fourteen to seventeen gangs. This is a year a round source of employment which is greatly needed.. Each gang is composed of ten to fourteen men. The morale of our stevedores and dock workers is excellent for the simple reason that they are providing year a round employment. It is our understanding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has passed the following recommendations, and that these recommendations have been received and approved by the Rivers and Harbors Commission and the Chief of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, General William C. Cassidy. 1. Deepen the' North Bay Channel to 35 feet and widen the bends in the channel at channel miles 0.75 and 2.6. 2. Deepen the Samoa Channel and the outer, reach of the Eureka Channel to 35. feet. 3. Provide an anchorage basin in the North Bay, at a suitable location between the jettied entrance channel and Gunther Island, 35 feet' `deep `and 1,200 feet wide and 1,200 feet long. Your continued assistance in providing maintenance and enlargement of the Port of Humboldt will be greatly appreciated. We are desperately in need of the authority for this project. We `are certain that you understand that any assistance given to Humboldt Bay Development will assist greatly in the balance of payment deficit of the United States. We are enclosinng several maps of the Port of Humboldt, on which we have marked the ilame and location of the aforementioned new dock. Very cordially yours, Vicvoa C. NovARINo, President. By: R. F. Denbo, Manager. Mr. MCEwEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. The gentleman from New York. Mr. McEwm~r. I would like to ask our colleague from California, if this work would interfere in any way with those wonderful Hum- boldt Bay oysters? Mr. `OLAUSEN. No, sir. The Humboldt' Bay oysters are up in the Arcata Bay area. Mr. MCCARTHY. Colonel, do you want to proceed. Mr. HARSHA. Before you start on another one, I want to ask you some questions, Colonel. Whaif are the present requirements for com- merce in this area? PAGENO="0444" 430 Colonel PICK. The present requirements for commerce, sir, are tim- ber projects mainly, total annual tonnage of approximately 480,000 tons annually. Mr. HARSHA. Is that being moved out of the harbor now? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. And what is the depth and width of the harbor under present conditions. Colonel PICK. The depth and the width of the harbor that exists, sir,. is 40 feet deep at the bar and in entrance channel; 30 feet deep and 26 feet deep in the northern bay and a 26-foot-deep channel with a turn~ ing basin in the south bay. Mr. HARSHA. And you say that the present harbor camiot handle the present traffic? Colonel PICK. That is right. The present depths are inadequate for the needs of the present and foreseeable traffic. Mr. HARSHA. In what respect are they inadequate? Colonel PICK. The size of vessels, sir, which are presently using this harbor and are being used in the lumber trade are of larger size than that which was originally envisioned with this project. Presently there is a need for deepening of the channel in order to accommodate the larger sized vessels which presently call at this port. They are partially loaded in some cases, when they depart. Mr. HARSHA. What of the future foreseeable needs? Colonel PICK. We projected the needs into the future like we do on all projects. Mr. HARSTIA. What do you project here? Colonel PICK. We projected a need for channels to be deepened from 30 to 35 feet and an anchorage area of 35 feet, in place of the 30- and 26-foot channels. Mr. HARSHA. I have got so many different figures on that sheet. What did this project call for? Colonel PICK. This project calls for- Mr. HARSHA. That projection that you just gave me? Colonel PICK. Right. Widening the channels at two locations, mile 0.75 to mile 2.6, widening the. channel at. that portion, deepening the north bay to 35 feet. from mile 0.75 to mile 5. Mr. HARSHA. May I interrupt you? What is this sheet which you provided us with here? I do not find any of that information on it tha.t you are reading. Colonel PICK. You have the deepening of the channel. There is more detail on your sheet than I have read, sir. Mr. HARSHA. I do not find a 35-foot channel on here. What I have is an existing project providing for two- Colonel PICK. It is down below, sir, in the middle, and it shows 35' feet. Mr. HARSHA. All right. Now this is what you project as taking care of the future waterborne commerce on that? Colonel PICK. The present and future waterborne commerce. There is a need for it at this time. PAGENO="0445" 431 Mr. CLAUSEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HARSHA. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. In addition to what the colonel has said, I will be in- corporating into my own statement some of the factors relating to the question he has raised in relation to the future plans. I will just say briefly that in that spit just to the north of the opening of the bay you have now two pulprnills that are in place and operating. And, of course, they are somewhat dependent upon shipments that come in both by truck and somewhat by the use of harbor facilities. Secondly, recently they developed a joint exercise on powers agree- ment between the areas of Arcata and Eureka, hopefully looking for- ward to a broader expanse of a facility in and around this harbor. One of the basic points that we want to make, due to my personal familiarity with the geological conditions of the coast between Port- land, Oreg., and San Francisco, is that this particular harbor facility and the one in Oregano are the only draft harbor facilities; so as a result they will be able to be used more and more as time goes on. And, of course, there are shipments that go to the Far East, Inc., and it is contemplated that it will probably continue. Also I might add that they just recently had formed the Humboldt County Ocean Resource Coordinating Counsel which is a part of the overall plan by the State of California to thus further utilize these port facilities in the hope of expanding the exportation of the ocean resources immediately to the west. And I believe in some way all that can be justified because of the marginal benefit-cost ratio now has been incorporated into this recom- mendation, and once the facilities yield the type of benefits that we think they will, we will be obviously looking some more in the future. Mr. HARSHA. That is what I am trying to ~et at. How can we expect the future and what type of ships will be using this thing? I am glad to see the gentleman admit it is marginal benefit-cost ratio. Mr. `CLAUSEN. Yes, it is. Mr. HARSHA. You have not told me what kind of ships are using the thing, now. How long in the future do you think this 35-foot `chan- nel is going to take care of the problem? `Colonel PICK. Our project, sir, is for a 50-year life. I would have to supply for the record, sir, how far we project the 35-foot channel would be considered adequate. Mr. HAR5HA. Will you do that for us, please? (The information referred to follows:) ExIsrING COMMERCE GENERAL Waterborne commerce through Humboldt Harbor consists principally of lum- ber shipments and receipts of petroleum products. The tonnage of commerce for ocean-going vessels (`exclusive of local traffic, except for fish and shellfish), reported to the Regional Statistical Office, U. S. Army Engin~er Division, South Pacific, for the Calendar Years 1953 through 1964, is contained in the following table. PAGENO="0446" OCEANBORNE COMMERCE-HUMBOLDT BAY [In short tonsi Lumber products Petroleum Fish and shell- Year Other Total products fish (including Other Total Total Exports Coastwiso Total shipments shipments coastwiso products), receipts receipts commerce shipments receipts local 1953 18000 93,000 111000 111,000 219,000 8,000 6,000 233,000 344,000 1954 74,000 122,000 196,000 700 196,000 216,000 8,000 224,000 420 000 ~- 1955 62,000 137,000 199,000 199,000 252,000 9,000 1,000 262,000 461 000 Cv~ 1956 56,000 170,000 226,000 1,600 228,000 221,000 12,000 1,000 234,000 462 000 I~ 1957 75,000 168,000 243,000 10,000 254,000 253,000 16,000 600 270,000 524 000 1958 83,000 164,000 247,000 12,000 259,000 224,000 13,000 238,000 496 000 1959 92,000 100,000 192000 5,000 197,000 218,000 15,000 233,000 430 000 1960 126,000 83,000 209,000 4,000 213,000 192,000 18,000 1,000 210,000 423,000 1961 128,000 45,000 173,000 1,000 174,000 208,000 14,000 300 222,000 396,000 1962 144,000 39,000 183,000 700 183,000 212,000 12,000 224,000 407,000 1963 192,000 65,000 257,000 500 258,000 199,000 13,000 199,000 457,000 1964 165,000 91,000 256,000 1,000 257,000 213,000 8,000 1,000 223,000 480.000 Total 1,215,000 1,277,000 2,492,000 36,500 2,529,000 2,627,000 146,000 11,000 2,772,000 5,300,000 12-year average 101,000 106,000 208,000 3,000 211,000 219,000 12,000 1,000 231,000 442,000 PAGENO="0447" 433 EXPORTS OF LUMBER AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCTS Lumber and other forest products shipments for the years 1953-1964 have averaged 208,000 tons annually, with 4 percent of total shipments being made to foreign ports and the remaining 51 percent destined for coastwise ports. During this period a maximum of 257,000 tons was shipped in 1963 and a low of 111,000 tons was recorded in 1953. The trend of foreign shipments has risen over four times during this period, thus offsetting a concurrent decline in domestic (coast- wise) movements. The overall result has been a one-third increase in the trend of waterborne shipments of lumber and other forest products from Humboldt Bay. The percentage of the annual timber production in the five-county (Humboldt, Del Norte, Siskiyou, Trinity and Mendocino) tributary area that moved by water is shown in the following table for the period 1953 through 1964. Percent of lumber and other forest product production shi'pped by water Percent of production 8hippedby water 2.2 3.7 3. 6 4.2 4.8 4.4 3.4 4.7 3.6 3.5 4.9 4.8 12-year 4.0 The distribution of exports of lumber and other forest products by area of destination is shown in the following table as a nine-year average for the period 1956-1964. Distribution of lumber and other forest product shipments, 1956-64 Percent distribution 54 12 22 12 100 average Total FUTURE COMMERCE EXPORTS OF LUMBER AN~D OTHER FOREST PRODUCTS1 By use of available historical records and U.S. Forest Service projections, the potential annual cut (sustained yield) of timber in the five-county tributary area is estimated to be 3.4 billion board feet, about 7.5 percent greater than the present cutting rate. The present cutting rate reflects ownership policies which are not expected to prevail 20 to 30 years hence. Presently commercial forest stands in the five counties are held by numerous small operators who tend to "mine" their 1Excludlng wood pulp. Port of destination Foreign Atlantic coast Ooastwise (Pacific coast) Hawaii Year 1953 1954 1955 156 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 PAGENO="0448" 434 holdings. These small holdings are gradually being consolidated into the owner- ship of a few large producers who operate on a sustained yield basis. A variable relationship exists between timber production in the five-counties named and the volume of forest products moved through the Humboldt Harbor. The increase in foreign lumber shipments has occurred because of two circumstances: (a) the recent economic expansion of countries bordering the Pacific Basin, and (b) under the prevailing price structure, export sales of forest products yield a higher return than domestic sales. It is anticipated that the rate and extent of economic devel- opment in these countries will be even greater in the future than in the recent past. One of the consequences will be stepped-up exports of forest products from Pacific Coastal ports. In consideration of these prospects it is believed that exports of lumber and other forest products wifi increase steadily to, and level off, at about seven percent of the tributary area production by the year 2000. WOOD PULP Another factor that will contribute to increased shipments from Humboldt Bay is the completion in 1965 and the scheduled completion in late 1966 of two wood pulp mills, one at Samoa and one at Fairhaven. These mills are expected to produce 150,000 tons and 180,000 tons per year, respectively. The owners expect that of the total 330,000 tons, about 150,000 tons will be shipped by deep-draft vessels. Indications are that a third mill of comparable size will begin operations in 1980 bringing the total annual pulp production in Humboldt Harbor to about &)0,000 tons. BARGE SHIPMENTS OF LUMBER AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCTS' Current and future trends in the movement of lumber and other forest prod- ucts by barge are discussed in detail in Appendix A. From a study of past records and current trends it is estimated that in the future, barge shipments of lumber and other forest products will increase from an average of 9.0 percent of total shipments during the period 1959-1962 to 15 percent by 1980 and level off at that point. The remainder of the shipments would be moved by deep-draft vessels. RECEIPTS OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS Information furnished by shippers of petroleum products indicates that future tankers and barges likely to call at Humboldt Bay would probably not increase in size or draft to the extent that present channel dimensions and depths would be inadequate. The benefits likely to accrue to this traffic due to the proposed improvements would be limited to those associated with the proposed anchorage area. FISH LANDINGS Seed oysters from Japan are also brought in for planting in Humboldt Bay. The proposed improvements will not affect the oyster industry since the oyster beds lie outside the area of these improvements. Although receipts of fresh seafoods average about 12,000 tons annually and approximately 450 fishing vessels are registered here, the proposed improve- ments wifi have no effect on the fishing industry other than further enhancement of the bay as a harbor of refuge. VESSEL TRAFFIC PRESENT TRIPS AND DRAYIS Vessel traffic for the years 1955 through 1964 in Humboldt Bay is shown In the following table by inbound and outbound drafts. `Excluding wood pulp. PAGENO="0449" 435 *~r-~co~ ~o ~ C)C)~ N.~ - ~r-.c~)c~4co ~ ~ I ~W 4C~J~-~ ~ --oo~, U, C~4 CO~CO~(O C~ ~ C)c~i U, - - ~22OO~ L ~ ~ ~ -C*.J C~ ~ C')Lt) U) - ~U) CO ~ CO U~~C!)~r~%U)O3c C~4 C, CO :1:1:1::: IC E >- CO 0 CO = C-) C/) Cl) 0 C-) >. 0 97-700-68---------29 PAGENO="0450" 436 FUTURE VESSEL TRIPS Indications are that vessels of the 01 and C2 class are being, and will continue to be, replaced by vessels of the C3 and 04 Mariner Class. Based on discussions with carriers, this will result in the vessel cubage factor increasing 20 percent by 1990 and leveling off at that figure thereafter. The average vessel lift is esti- mated to increase in direct proportion to the forecast of future vessel capacity. The resulting number of vessel trips at Humboldt Harbor by decade, 1970-2020, is given in the following table: Future deep-draft dry-cargo iessel trips i~ Humboldt Harbor 1970~20201 Number of Year: vessel trips 1970 255 1980 280 1990 - 300 2000 325 2010 335 2020 340 1Excluding trips carrying woodpulp. FUTURE VESSEL TRIPS BY ACTUAL DRAFTS The combined effect of two factors, the anticipated increase in the density of goods imported by presently underdeveloped nations, and greater design drafts of future vessel fleets, is estimated to result in an average 4-foot increase in the inbound and outbound drafts at Humboldt Harbor by the year 2020. The vessel trip distribution by actual drafts over the 50-year study period was developed by plotting the current inbound and outbound drafts against vessel trips (expressed as a cumulative percentage), then displacing the curve four feet to represent conditions in the year 2020. Data for intervening decades were interpolated. The resulting projections of trips by vessel draft are given in the following table. DISTRIBUTION OF DRY-CARGO VESSEL TRIPS BY VESSEL DRAFT IN HUMBOLDT HARBOR, 1970-2020 INumber of trips, inbound and outboundj 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Actual vessel draft (feet): 20 or less 112 99 80 58 38 10 21 26 28 30 33 33 34 22 26 28 30 33 33 34 23 26 28 30 33 33 34 24 22 28 30 33 33 34 25 18 22 30 33 33 34 26 12 17 24 33 33 34 27 8 11 15 19 27 31 28 3 6 9 16 20 27 29 1 4 6 9 14 17 30 1 4 6 9 14 17 31 0 3 5 6 11 14 32 and more 1 0 2 5 10 13 20 Total 255 280 300 325 335 340 1 Will take place with improved conditions only. FUTURE BARGE AND TANKER TRIPS Existing channel depths are sufficient to accommodate lumber barges which have drafts of 18 feet or less. Inbound drafts of the 5,000-13,000 DWT (Dead Weight Tonnage) tankers now calling at Humboldt Harbor range from iS feet to a maximum of 27 feet. Since it is unlikely that the inbound drafts of future tankers will exceed 27 feet in the foreseeable future, benefits to tank-ship opera- tors due to channel deepening will be insignificant. FUTURE VESSEL TRIPS CARRYING WOOD PULP Based on information furnished by the pulp mill owners, the estimated distribu- tion by draft of vessel trips carrying wood pulp from Humboldt Harbor for the period 1970 to 2020 is given in the following table. PAGENO="0451" 437 ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION BY DRAFT OF VESSEL TRIPS CARRYING WOOD PULP FROM HUMBOLDT HARBOR, 1970-2020 (INBOUND AND OUTBOUND) Vessel draft (feet) 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 20 or less 15 23 28 5 8 24 8 25 26 28 29 5 8 8 8 8 9 30 3 4 8 9 9 31 2 3 3 4 4 6 4 Total 30 46 48 50 52 56 Mr. CLAUSEN. I might add if the gentleman will yield, the depth of the channel will pretty well determine the size of the ships that will be able to use that facility. Quite frankly, the state of the art suggests that if we had the ability to increase the benefits under this established benefit-cost ratio, the chances are we would actually in- crease the depth hopefully to accommodate a larger ship. But under the circumstances, all things being equal, this appears to be all we can accomplish for the moment as I see it. General NOBLE. Sir, in predictions for the future, it is going to be influenced by what happens after this project is built. All we can consider are what we know exists today and what we are reasonably assured is going to exist when we get this project in. Beyond that, we do not prejudge the possibilities. These possibilities of course are infinite and in a few years after this project is built, assurances can be received on additional industry moving in and causing more traffic, and that could cause a project to become obsolete very rapidly. If growth occurs as predicted, this project will be adequate for the full project life of 50 years or longer. Mr. HARSHA. How do you arrive at future predictions, like future requirements? General NOBLE. We recommend investment of Federal funds only on predictions with a substantive basis, and don't attempt to satisfy all the various infinite possibilities which are more speculative in nature in calculating the benefit-cost ratio. Mr. CLAtYSEN. There is one thing that I would like to mention, because I would believe that the gentleman from Ohio is familiar with what I am going to say; and that was during the 1964 flood all the projects in and out of the area, including the railroad, as he recalls, were actually destroyed so as to completely isolate the area from the standpoint of railroad and trucl~ transportation. This meant that this harbor facility and the airport itself were the only means of moving anything in the way of commerce and/or people out of the area. It takes on increasing importance, not only for the immediate area, but the entire north coast of California. Mr. HARSHA. You mentioned, Colonel, that an increment has a very narrow benefit-cost ratio. What did you mean by that? Colonel PICK. Sir, the northern channel portion of this project has a very narrow benefit-cost ratio incrementally. It has 1.01 to 1 benefit- cost ratio. This was caused by the fact that the Gunther Island dis- posal area is a bird refuge, wildlife refuge area, and we are unable to use this area for dredge spoil disposal. We therefore had to enlarge the northern spit disposal area, the use of which greatly increased the PAGENO="0452" 438 cost of* this segment. This resulted in tIm very marginal benefit-cost ratio. Therefore, the Bureau of the Budget stated that the corps should reanalyze this segment at the time of construction. Mr. HAIIsIIA. How about the remaining portion of the project? Colonel PICK. It has benefit-cost ratio of about 1.2. Mr. HARSHA. 1.2? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSIJA. Are they equally divided in cost? Colonel Piox. No, sir. Mr. HARSHA. What is the difference? Colonel PICK. I would have to supply that for the record, sir. I do not have that broken down. We have the channel and anchorage area put together, and I do not have that broken down. (The information referred to follows:) ESTIMATED COST (PRICE LEVEL OF liLY 1965) North Bay Channel Anchorage area Total Federal Non-Federal $1, 730, 000 576, 000 $700, 000 37, 000 52, 430, 000 613, 000 Total 2, 306, 000 737, 000 3, 043, 000 Mr. HARSHA. That is all I have. Mr. MCCARTHY. I wonder if we could suspend the testimony briefly. We have with us the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Sci- ence and Astronautics, the Honorable George Miller, of California. Mr. Chairman, would you like to come to the table? SAN LEANDRO MARINA, CALIF. STATEMENT OP HON. 1~EORGE MILLER, A REPRESLNTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA Mr. Mn~nn. Dear Mr. Chairman, you have before you the interim report of the Small Craft Harbor Improvement (maintenance) for the city of San Leandro Marina, Alameda County. I wish to focus your attention on a few brief factors I feel are important. The San Leandro boat harbor is part of an 1,800-acre shoreline recreation complex. It consists of approximately 41/2 miles of water- front property under city ownership and contains a 308-berth marina (expandable to 475 berths), a family activity area under construction, a small boat lagoon, an operating 9-hole golf course, and an 18-hole regulation golf course under construction. Plans are now underway with the California Department of Fish and Game for a wildlife refuge. Hiking and bike trails, picnic facilities, and other recreation areas are. currently being plamled with local groups. The boat harbor forms the nucleus of this regional recreation complex and provides a setting for thousands of visitors per week from throughout the bay area. The acquisition of this 41/2-mile publicly owned shoreline has doubled the public access to Sail Francisco Bay. From the standpoint of location in the bay area, this small craft harbor is strategically located about midway on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay and in the center of newly developing boating PAGENO="0453" 439 interests. It is the only harbor on this side of the bay south of Alameda and the Oakland estuary all the way to the San Jose area. The shore- line complex will be immediately adjacent to the approach to the planned south bay crossing from Bay Farm Island. Increased traffic generated by the new bay bridge will make increased demands on the harbor. This, coupled with inevitable expansion of the Oakland Inter- national Airport, immediately adjacent to the northwest, will create a vast transportation-recreation oriented regional complex. In the cen- ter of this complex the San Leandro boat harbor serves as the only port of refuge and rescue south of the Coast Guard station in Alameda. The city of San Leandro has been actively engaged in shoreline development since the mid 1950's. Thoughtful planning on a sound economic basis has led to the present program. The harbor facility itself has been funded through local moneys for land acquisition, in addition to State of California loans amounting to $1,235,000. Federal matching funds through Housing and Urban Development Agency have helped finance land acquisition and development of some adjacent recreation areas. Private capital has and will continue to be used for restaurant and other commercial development. I urge your favorable review of this application on the basis that the San Leandro boat harbor is the major significant harbor develop- ment in this area of San Francisco Bay. It services an expanding need as the only emergency `boating port of refuge on the eastern shore of south San Francisco Bay. Patrol `and rescue services to pleasure boat- ers occur on the average frequency of two per week. San Leandro Marina patrol services have measurably assisted the port of Oakland SF0 Hovercraft experimental transbay runs, providing emergency services on many occasions. An emergency and disaster plan is incor- porated in the harbor operations procedures. The landing approach to Oakland International Airport crosses the San Leandro Harbor Channel. In the event of an air disaster, the most immediate service assistance would come from the well-equipped San Leandro Marina patrol. Mr. Cr4~&usEN. May I ask, will you have supporting statements from any of the supporters in your area for this project? Mr. MILLER. Yes; I am satisfied that we will. Mr. CLAt~SEN. I would ask unanimous consent that Congressman Miller be permitted to add supporting statements from people in the area concerning the project. I will also note that the benefit-cost ratio on this project is very, very good, 3.7 to 1. Mr. MILLER. It will increase I am certain `as we go on. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. HARSHA. May I make one suggestion, Mr. Chairman, `and that is that I see the Bureau of the Budget has not commented' on this project. You might use your considerable influence to expedite th'at. Mr. MILLER. This is one of the things I am trying to do. I can assure you that my influence is not that considerable. Mr. MCcARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colonel Pick. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, San Leandro Marina is located in Alameda County, Calif., on the east shore of San Francisco Bay, im- mediately south of the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport. PAGENO="0454" 440 There is no existing Federal navigation project at this locality. The marina, constructed by local interests in 1962-63, provides a small- boat harbor consisting of entrance channel, protective breakwater and mole, interior access channels with maneuvering areas and an exterior auxiliary access channel connecting from the harbor entrance to a launching ramp area near the northern end of the existing mole. Local interests desire that the marina be adopted as a Federal proj- ect for maintenance of the channels. The division engineer recommends Federal maintenance of the San Leandro Marina channels at an estimated annual cost of $62,000, sub- ject to certain items of local cooperation. The benefit-cost ratio is esti- mated to be 3.7. Local interests have indicated willingness to comply with the requirements of local cooperation. The report is now with the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har- bors for review and recommendation. After action by the Board, the proposed report of the Chief of Engineers will be submitted to the State of California and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will he sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army priorto its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. The gentleman from California.. Mr. CLAUSEX. You say this project is still with the Board of Review? Colonel PICK. Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, sir- Board of Review, that is correct. Mr. CLAUSEN. When would you estimate that the final comments from all of the State and Federal agencies would be available to the committee? Colonel PICK. I would be unable to say at this time, sir. The report has not been passed by the Board, nor has it been reviewed by the Chief of Engineers, and it has not even been sent to States and agencies. Mr. CLAtTSEN. It has not been sent to the States or Federal agencies? Colonel PICK. No, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. Colonel Pick, proceed with Port Hueneme Harbor, Calif. PORT HUENEME HARBOR. CALIF. Colonel PICK. Port Hueneme is located on the coast of Ventura County, Calif., about 65 miles northwest of Los Angeles Harbor. The existing project, a U.S. Navy facility, was originally con- structed by the Oxnard Harbor District and acquired by the Navy in 1942. In 1961, the Oxnard Harbor District acquired from the U.S. Navy, the original constructed wharf and associated backup land. The port is a manmade, landlocked harbor, connected to the ocean by a jetty-protected entrance channel, with interior channels and central basin. At the present time, depths in the interior channel and central basin are not sufficient to accommodate modern cargo vessels at all tides. The Chief of Engineers, in his proposed report, recommends the deepdninE of the central basin; widening, extending, and deepenrng of the in~rior channel serving the commercial wharf, all to a depth of PAGENO="0455" 441 35 feet. In addition, the general navigation features of the existing harbor: Entrance jetties, entrance and interior commercial channels and central basin, would be adopted as a Federal project for mainte- nance. The Federal cost of construction would be $1 million. Non-Federal costs are estimated to be $210,000 for rights-of-way for the extension of the navigation channel. Annual maintenance would be $40,000. Estimated annual benefits and charges are $1,868,000 and $90,000, respectively, and the benefit-cost ratio would be 20.8. The report has been submitted to the State of California and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. When is the 90 days up? Colonel PICK. August 2. Mr. MCCARTHY. Do you want to proceed, Colonel, with San Diego Harbor. SAN DIEGO HARBOR, CALIF. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, San Diego Harbor, located on the coast of southern California, is immedi- ately north of the Mexican border and about 96 miles southeast of Los Angeles Harbor. The existing Federal project consists of an entrance jetty and chan- nel, interior channels, anchorage areas, turning basin and a diversion dike to divert flows of the San Diego IRiver from the harbor into nearby Mission Bay. Existing channel depths and widths are not suf- ficient for modern cargo vessels and U.S. Navy vessels using the harbor under full load at all conditions of tide. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends modi- fication of the existing project by deepening and extending project channels to provide 42-foot depth in the entrance, 40-foot `depth to the `bulk terminals and 35 feet to general cargo terminals; the dele- tion of incompleted authorized work on the South Bay seaplane basin and incompleted triangular approaches adjacent to Harbor Is- land from the project, and extension of authorized maintenance to include channels or `additional depths dredged by the U.S. Navy or local interests. The Federal cost of construction would `be $5,360,000, exclusive of $40,000 for aids to navigation and $1,500,000 for relocation of U.S. Navy utilities. Non-Federal costs are estimated to `be $2,800,000, in- cluding $230,000 cash contri'bution. Additional maintenance would be $20,000. Estimated annual benefits and charges would be $1,360,- 000 and $419,000, respectively, and the benefit-cost ratio `would be 3.2. The report has `been submitted to the State of California and t'he interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt `of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the `Secretary of the Army prior to its submission to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0456" 442 Mr. McC~.mnr. Thank you. Any questions? The gentleman from California. Mr. CLAUSEN. No questions. Mr. MCC~~TIiY. OK Colonel. If you want to go ahead to Ventura Marina, Calif. VENTURA MARINA~ CALIF. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Ven- tura Marina is a mamnade small-boat harbor located on the Cali- fornia coast at the city of San Buenaventura about 65 miles northwest of Los Angeles. There is no existing Federal project. Local interests have constructed a harbor consisting essentially of a jetty-protected entrance channel, middle jetty, turning basin and berthing areas. Shoaling of the entrance channel has hindered the full develop- ment of the port and in addition, causes severe breaking waves in the entrance channel which are extremely hazardous. The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends (1) that the project be adopted as a Federal project for maintenance of the existing jetties and entrance channel, (2) a 1,500-foot long de- tached breakwater be constructed, (3) minor repairs to north jetty, (4) recreational facilities on the three existing jetties, and (5) the dredging of 800,000 cubic yards to form a sand trap in the lee of the breakwater. The Federal cost of construction would be $1,540,000 exclusive of $4,000 for aids to navigation. Non-Federal cost is a cash contribution equivalent to 50 percent of the first cost of construction, exclusive of aids to navigation, presently estimated to be $1,540,000. Federal opera- tion and maintenance costs are estimated at $191,000. Non-Federal maintenance of project related recreation features is estimated to be $2,000. Estimated annual benefits and charges would be $1,341,000 and $319,000, respectively, and the benefit-cost ratio would be 4.2. The report has been submitted to the State of California and the interested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCEwEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. Colonel, as I understand, this is entirely for recrea- tional boating; is that correct? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. The major portion-98 percent of the proj- ect-benefits are for recreation. Mr. MCEWEN. The rest for jetty fishing? Colonel PICK. For fish and wildlife, sir. We have with us another colleague from the State of California, the Honorable Harold T. (Bizz) Johnson. STATEMENT OF EON. HAROLD T. (BIZZ) JOHNSON, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, as the California Representative who is extremely pleased and privileged to serve on this fine committee, PAGENO="0457" 443 I do want to express my deep appreciation for the consideration which the committee has given to my native State of California over the years. As the result of the wisdom and farsightedness of yourself and other members on the committee, we have made tremendous progress in the field of harbor developments. Today I would like to mention to you a few noncontroversial projects which have the support of the Corps of Engineers, the State of Cali- fornia, local government, and all others concerned. I would, there- fore, on the part of the people of the Golden State and myself, urge favorable consideration by this committee of these projects. I would like to emimerate them very briefly as follows: (1) Humboldt Harbor and Bay.-A project to deepen the North Bay Channel to 35 feet with widening at the bends at channel miles 0.75 and 2.6; to deepen the Samoa Channel to 35 feet; to deepen the outer reach of the Eureka Channel to 35 feet; and to dredge a 1,200- foot square anchorage area in the North Bay to a depth of 35 feet. Federal cost : $2,430,000. (2) San Leandro Marina.-A project to provide Federal mainte- nance of access channels at an estimated annual cost of $62,000. (3) San Diego Harbor.-A project to modify the existing project by deepening and extending project channels to provide 42-foot depth in the entrance, 40-foot depth to bulk terminals and 35-foot depth to general cargo terminals. Federal cost: $5,360,000. (4) Ventura Marina.-A project to provide for construction of an offshore breakwater. Federal cost: $1,540,000. (5) Port Hi~eneme Harbor.-A project to deepen the central basin, to widen, extend, and deepen the interior commercial channel, all to a depth of 35 feet. Federal cost: $1 million. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that these are basic authorizations. Thank you, gentlemen, for the opportunity to appear in behalf of these California projects. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Next is Snohomish River, Everett Harbor, Wash. SNOHOMISH RIVER~ EVERETT HARBOR, WASH. Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Everett Harbor is located in western Washington, about 30 miles north of Seattle, where the Snohomish River discharges into Puget Sound. Primary commodities contributing to the commerce of the harbor and river are logs, lumber, wood pulp, and paper products. Other impor- taut commodities are petroleum products and nonmetallic mineral products. There is an existing Federal project which provides for a training dike to channel river flows through the harbor, spur dikes, settling basins for controlling sediment depositions, and connecting channels from deep water in Port Gardner Bay to the head of upstream Steamboat Slough. During periods of high tides and strong onshore winds, storm gen- erated waves pass over the deteriorated training dike causing turbu- PAGENO="0458" 444 lence which disrupts navigation, menaces log raft storage areas in the harbor and damages moored vessels. The Chief of Engineers recommends that the existing project for Snohomish River-Everett Harbor, Wash., be modified to provide for raising the southerly 4,100 feet of the existing training dike, extending the training dike 1,500 feet further south, and constructing a break- water along the south and west sides of the existing small boat basin; all at an estimated total cost of $1,440,000, of which $1,108,000 are Federal construction costs. Non-Federal first costs are estimated at $332,000, of which $1,000 is for lands, easements, and rights-of-way and $331,000 is a cash contribution toward the cost of construction. The annual charges are estimated at $78,800 and the average annual b2nefits are estimated at $380,800, with a benefit-cost ratio of 4.8. Local interests have indicated willingness to provide the required local co- operation. Comments of the State and interested Federal agencies are favor- able. The report is with the Secretary of the Army for transmittal to the Bureau of the Budget for clearance as to its relationship to the pro- gram of the President prior to its submission to Congress by the Sec- retary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCiA~nry. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. What is a training dike? Colonel PICK. A training dike, sir, is a. structure designed to pro- tect the channel from wave and current action which occurs in the Puget Sound. In this case it diverts the wave action and the currents from the harbor area. Mr. HARSHA. And the Bureau of the Budget report would be Colonel PIcx. It is being submitted to BOB at this time. Mr. HARSHA. Do you have any *suggestion as to when we might expect that report? Colonel PICK. It went to the Secretary of the Army on the 18th of June, sir, and I have no idea when the Bureau of the Budget will report it out. Mr. HAR5HA. We will now hear from our Colleague, Congressman Lloyd Meeds, on the project. STATEMENT ~ HON. LLOYD MEEDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Cha.irman, I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Snohomish River (Everett Harbor) project recommended by the US. Army Corps of Engineers. I strongly support this project and would briefly like to tell the com- mittee why. This project would extend the present tra.ining dike 1,500 feet farther south and raise the total height of the entire dike to 17 feet above mean lower low water. It would also construct a. breakwater along the west and south side of an existing small-boat basin. The total cost of the project is $1,439,000 with the Federal share being $1,110,000. The present. training dike is simply inadequate for the present and rapidly increasing demand in the Everett., Wash., harbor. It PAGENO="0459" 445 should be pointed out, for example, that Snohomish County is the fastest growing in the entire United States. The Census Bureau ex- pects the population of this area to double by 1985. The A. D. Little Co., after studying the growth pattern of the area, estimated that 70,000 more people can be expected in the county by 1970, due just to the establishment of the new Boeing 747 manufacturing plant there. That is a population equivalent to more than the county's present largest city. With this vast growth, pressure is on the Port of Everett and Ev- erett Harbor for increased capacity. The present training dike is inade- quate. During storm periods in Puget Sound, waves nearly 2 feet high can travel up the navigation channel which is supposed to be protected by this dike. Further, there is too little moorage space in protected waters. Fishing vessels must anchor four abreast, creating an undue hazard and escalating the chances of damage during storms. Cut logs awaiting processing in the area's mills are sorted behind the breakwater, but, due to a lack of space and because of high waves during storm periods, the sorting activity and the necessary tugboat maneuvering is severely limited. This prevents the lumber mills from operating at full capacity. This proposed dike improvement has received the approval of every level of government and every governmental agency that has reviewed it including the State of Washington and the Bureau of the Budget. I respectfully urge you to approve this vital project. Thank you. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Meeds. Colonel, please go on to the Kake Hai~bor project. KAKE HARBOR, ALASKA Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, the city of Kake is located in south- eastern Alaska approximately 40 miles west of Petersburg. Commer- cial fishing and fish processing provide the sole industry for the com- munity of 500 people. Kake's central location to excellent fishing areas and its close proximity to scheduled water cargo routes insures the future growth of the fishing industry. 1(ake Harbor is exposed to frequent storms from the southeast, west, and northwest. These storms damage and destroy boats by forcing them ashore or onto the rock outcroppings. The exposed and hazardous harbor conditions constitute a serious menace to the economic security of the community. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a 1,580-foot- long breakwater on the west of the harbor and a 900-foot-long break- water on the south to protect a mooring area having adequate existing depths. The Federal cost is $1,760,000 and the non-Federal cost is $6,000 for lands, easements, and rights-of-way. The annual charges are $74,600 and the annual benefits are $135,400 with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.8. Local interests have indicated willingness to provide the required local cooperation. The comments of the State of Alaska and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. Since the Federal cost for this project is less t.han $10 million, the views set forth by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of January 6, PAGENO="0460" 446 1967, submitting to you a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 would apply. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. MCCARTHY. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. HARSHA. Colonel, is that normal for Federal costs to be prac- tically 100 percent of the project, 99 percent when the benefits are com- mercial flshing~ Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. The structures here are all Federal structures. Mr. McC~nTHY. The gentleman from California. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pollock from Alaska is now in session in his own Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and he has spoken to me about the Kake Harbor project and the King Cove Harbor and the Sergius and Whitestone Narrows, Alaska, proj- ects and he has asked me to get permission from the Chair to insert his statement and any supplemental statements at this point in the record. I ask unanimous consent that fhis be granted. Mr. MCCARTHY. Without objection, sir, it is so ordered. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF HOWARD W. P0LL0CK, CONGRESSMAN FOR ALASKA Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the oppor- tunity to testify in strong support of the authorization for The Kake Harbor, King Cove and Sergius and Whitestone Narrows navigation project in Alaska. Alaska is basically a frontier area in the early, yet rapidly expanding stages of economic development. While Alaska has the largest geographic area of any State in the Union, its population is the smallest. Most population centers in Alaska are frequently isolated from each other, and the lower 48 States by factors of adverse terrain and climate and great distances. Although the great State of Alaska has many diverse features, there is one factor which is common to all regions-we are almost totally dependent upon water transportation for movement of both people and commodities. The proposed navigation projects Will greatly enhance our vital water trans- portation and further assist our economic growth. Briefly the projects would benefit Alaska as follows: KAKE HARBOR, ALASKA The town of Kake is in southeastern Alaska, 39 miles west of Petersburg and about 850 miles northwest of Seattle. In 1940 a CCC project to construct a breakwater was started, but never com- pleted. Today the State of Alaska maintains a 600-feet wharf on top of the par- tially completed CCC breakwater. This wharf-breakwater structure is not ade- quate to protect the commercial fishing fleet which uses Kake Harbor. The pro- posed project would provide the needed pr~teetion by construction of a 1,580-foot west breakwater and a 900-foot south breakwater. Total estimated Federal cost is $1,760,000. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.8 to 1 and would provide estimated an- nual benefits of $135,400 for the commercial fishing industry using Kake Harbor. KING covn HARBOR, ALASKA King Cove is located on the sOUtl1 coast of the Alaska Peninsula, about 650 miles southwesterly from anchorage and 400 miles southwesterly from Kodiak. Commercial fishing boats operating out of King Cove are unprotected from the severe storms which are characteristic of this area. Accordingly, the proposed project provides for construction of a 15-foot-deep anchorage basin of about 11 acres in area, an entrance channel 125 feet wide and 15 feet deep, on earth dike and a rock fill groin. Total estimated Federal cost of this project is $522,000. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 4.5 to 1 and would provide an estimated $143,750 in an- nual benefits to the commercial fishing fleet using King Cove Harbor. PAGENO="0461" 447 SERG~tTS AND WHITESTONE NARROWS, ALASKA Sergius and Whitestone Narrows are situated in the network of channels which comprise the passageway for shipping between Seattle and other points in Alaska. Sergius Narrows is located about 27 miles northeast of Sitka; whereas, White- stone Narrows is about 15 miles north of Sitka. Both Sergius Narrows and Whitestone Narrows form narrow, rocky con- strictions in the shipping lanes. Both are so arranged that it is necessary for vessels to execute precise and abrupt changes in course in areas having swift tidal currents. The proposed project would involve widening the existing 24-foot-deep channel through Whitestone Narrows from 200 feet to 300 feet, and construction of a 24- feet-deep and 450-foot-wide channel through Sergius Narrows. Total estimated Federal cost of this project is $3,030,000. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 3.3 to 1 and would provide an estimated benefit of $411,000 annually. Both the Kake Harbor and King Cove projects have been cleared by the Bureau of the Budget. The Sergius and Whitestone Narrows project is awaiting clear- ance from the Bureau of the Budget. All concerned State and Federal agencies have made favorable recommendations for authorizations of these three Alaskan navigation projects. Mr. Chairman, I urge that these Alaskan navigation projects be favorably recommended for inclusion in the 1968 omnibus river and harbor and flood con- trol bill. Mr. MCCARTHY. Do you want to move on to King Cove Harbor, Alaska? KING COVE HARBOR~ ALASKA Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, King Cove is located near the southwesterly tip of the Alaska Peninsula. The nearest ports of importance :are Dutch Harbor, about 175 miles to the southwest, and Kodiak, about 450 miles to the northeast. The 1964 population of King Cove was approximately 500. The village exists primarily because of the fishing resources of the area. Harvesting and processing of salmon and king crab provide the major source of income. The village also serves as a trading and supply cen- ter for transient fishing craft and other smaller communities in the area. The Aleutian chain is one of the most prominent storm producing areas in the world and the King Cove area is frequently subjected to high winds and heavy wave action. The fishing boats operating in the King Cove area lack adequate sheltered anchorage, consequently during bad weather they are battered against the docks and each other resulting in considerable loss. There is no existing Federal project in the area. The Chief of Engineers recommends construction of a protected 15-foot-deep anchorage basin of approximately 11 acres with an en- trance channel 15 feet deep and 125 feet wide at an estimated Federal cost of $522,000. Local interests have indicated willingness to provide the required local cooperation. The benefit-cost ratio is 4.5. The comments of the State of Alaska and Federal agencies are favor- able. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to submission of the report to Congress. Since the Federal cost for this project is less than $10 million, the views set forth by the Secretary of the Army in his letter of January 6, 1967, submitting to you a draft bill to amend section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965, would apply. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. MCCARTHY. Do you want to move ahead, Colonel? PAGENO="0462" 448 Mr. CLAnSEN. I might state for the record, Mr. Chairman, that when the Flood Control Subcommittee went to Fairbanks, Alaska, to view the flood damage, it was also provided with an opportunity to visit some of these projects in that area. I can testify to the need in their behalf. Mr. MCCARTHY. Please proceed, Colonel Pick. SERGIUS AND WHITESTONE NARROWS, ALASKA Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Sergius and Whitestone Narrows are located in southeastern Alaska and are in the network of channels which comprise the inside passage from the Pacific Northwest to and within southeastern Alaska. Whitestone Narrows lies about 15 miles north of Sitka at the south entrance to Neva Strait. The Sergius Narrows passage lies 4 miles into Peril Strait above its junction with Neva Strait and is about 27 miles northeast of Sitka. Navigation through these passages is difficult and hazardous caused by the narrow rocky channels and strong tidal cur- rents. Numerous accidents have occurred and considerable time is lost by ships negotiating these waters. The Chief of Engineers recommends modification of the existing 24-foot-deep channel at Whitestone Narrows by increasing the channel width from 200 to 300 feet, and the construction of a channel 24 feet deep and 450 feet wide at Sergius Narrows. The work would consist essentially of removing rock reefs at both locations. The cost of im- provement is $3,030,000. No costs for lands or relocations are involved. The annual charges are $123,600 and the annual benefits are $411,000 with a benefit-cost ratio of 3.3. Local interests are required to hold and save the United States free for damages due to the construction and maintenance of the improvements. Comments of the State of Alaska and the interesed Federal agen- cies are favorable. The report is with the Secretary of the Army for transmittal to the Bureau of the Budget for clearance as to its rela- tionship to the program of the President prior to its submission to Congress `by the `Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. IiARs~a. What do you mean lower operating costs, of what, Colonel, in this report under benefits? Colonel PICK. Lower operating costs, would be those cost savings which would accure to the State-owned ferries which use these nar- rows. This area of Alaska does not have any roads. The roads are ac- tually the water passages. The `State has a ferry system which runs through this area, which provides public transportation in the area. And the operation costs of this ferry system would be materially re- duced by this project. Mr. }IIARsHA. Is this the normal Federal responsibility? Colonel PICK. This type of project; yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Have we ever done this before? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir; I am sure we have done this before. Mr. HAR5HA. Where? Colonel PI~. This involves also commercial and fishing boats and any type of recreational craft, tourist craft. PAGENO="0463" 449 Mr. HARSHA. Yes; but you do not have that on your benefits. All you have got under the sheet I have, "Annual benefits, lower operating costs"-J did not know what that was for until I asked you; and then damage prevention. Colonel PICK. Right, sir. Well, lower operating costs would also be lower fishing fleet operating costs. It would be lower operating costs for all boat users. My first statement was improper since I did not realize what you were referring to at that time. it does lower the operating costs of the State ferry, but that is only a small portion. Mr. HARSHA. Can you give us some analysis or breakdown ~ Colonel P10K. Yes, sir. We will `be glad to provide that for the record. (The information referred to follows:) PROJECT BENEFITS TANGIBLE BENEFITS a. Delay-Time Reduction. (1) The proximity of rock outcrops to the narrow passages of both Sergius and Whitestone Narrows, when combined with strong tidal currents, create `a hazardous condition for deep-draft vessels. Transits by these vessels must be made at slack tide intervals. There being approximately six hours between slack tides each, the average vessel is delayed three hours for each transit of the Narrows. In some instances arrivals at the Narrows are timed to coincide with slack water; `however, the delay actuafly occurs in the form of intentional delay from the port of departure `or reduced cruising speed while enroute to the Narrows. (2) Vessels departing from Sitka generally take their delay at the dock and costs consist principally of crew wages and indirect costs. Vessels on their way to Sitka are under operating conditions and their delay costs accrue at the rate of the total operating costs of the vessel. Not `all delays experienced ~y Alaska Steamship vessels would be eliminated. It estimated that their delay time will be reduced by 80% and that all delays `by the other users will be eliminated by the proposed improvement, The elimination of almost all delay costs ~y the proposed channel improvements would reflect a benefit to the general public by permitting a reduction in transportation costs. (3) The amount and value of delay time experienced in 1965 were approxi- mated from information provided by three of the major users of the channel. This information and estimates for miscellaneous vessel transits of the Narrows, are shown in the following tabulation. ANNUAL COST OF VESSEL DELAY TIME-ARRIVALS AND DEPARTURES AT SITKA HARBOR, 1965 Division of Alaska Washington Other Marine Steamship Co. Tug & vessels Total Transportation Barge Co. Number of arrivals 123 51 10 200 384 Hours of delay, at 3 hours each 369 153 30 600 1, 152 At-sea hourly cost $184 $104 $40 $20 Delay cost, subtotal $67, 900 $15,900 $1,200 $12, 000 $97, 000 Number of departures 123 47 10 200 380 Hours of delay, at 3 hours each 369 141 30 600 1, 140 In-port hourly cost $93 $76 $20 $10 Standby cost, subtotal $34 300 $10, 700 $600 $6, 000 $51, 600 Total delay cost $102, 200 $26, 600 $1, 800 $18, 000 $148, 600 Benefits 102,200 21,300 1,800 18,000 143,300 b. Damage Loss Reductioa In past years a number of groundings have occurred in both Sergius and Whitestone Narrows. The narrowness of these two channels combined with strong currents create an extremely hazardous condition, especially for large PAGENO="0464" 450 vessels. The proposed widening of both channels will greatly reduce the risk of navigational accidents. The reduction in risk would be reflected in reduced op- erating costs and would benefit the general public through reduced freight costs. Damages as reported by navigation interests that constitute the principal users of the waterway during the past S to 10 year period were as follows: NAVIGATION DAMAGE EXPERIENCED IN SERGIUS AND WHITESTONE NARROWS Division of Alaska Salvor Marine Steamship. Towing Transporta- Co. Co. tion Washington Miscel- Tug & Barge laneous Total Co. navigation companies Number of years in period 5 10 7 Number of accidents in Sergius and Whitestone 1 2 1 Damage repair cost $39, 520 $300, 000 $40, 000 Towing cost to repair point in Seattle__ 12, 847 15, 000 Other incidental costs Total cost of accident 52, 367 300, 000 55, 000 Average yearly cost 10, 500 30, 000 7, 900 7 10 1 4 15 $47, 500 $40, 000 $467, 020 15, 000 40, 000 82, 847 10, 000 10, 000 72, 500 80, 000 559, 867 10, 400 8, 000 66, 800 As shown on this tabulation navigation damages averaged approximately $66,800 annually. The propposed improvements will reduce accidents in Sergius and Whitestone Narrows by an estimated 75% or $50,000 annually. a. Ecotra Uo~t T]n~oadi~ng Rednetions The proposed improvements to Sergius and Whitestone Narrows will permit transit at any stage of the tide rather than being limited to slack tide periods. Ships can, therefore, be scheduled to arrive at port during regular working hours, thereby eliminating the extra charges levied for after-hours longshoring and other required services. The Alaska Steamship Company has estimated that after-hour arrivals at Sitka require on an average 1 hour of overtime service of the longshoremen for each ship arrival, a total additional charge of $74 per hour. The State ferries have estimated their annual costs of late arrivals at $15.82 per arrival. The average vessel arriving after-hours and requiring less longshoring service than the Alaksa Steamship cargo vessels, is estimated to average $10 per arrival for extra after-hour charges. These are summarized in the following tabulation: OPERATING AND UNLOADING COST REDUCTIONS, OVERTIME AND STANDBY CHARGES, 1965 Division of Alaska Item Marine Transpor- tation Steamship Other vessels Total Co. Number of arrivals 123 51 210 384 Average overtime and standby charge per arrival $15. 82 $74.00 $10 Total extra charges $1,946. 00 $3, 744.00 $2, 100 $7, 790 Benefits $1,946. 00 $3, 019.00 $2, 100 $7, 065 Rounded $7,100 As shown in the foregoing tabulation a total reduction in operating cost of approximately $7,800 could be realized annually. it is estimated that extra costs incurred by Alaska Steamship would be reduced by 80%. An annual benefit of $7,100 would be attributable to the proposed improvement. d. Channel Marker Damage c~ Maintenance Reduction The Sampson Tug and Barge Company, as a result of their log tow-ing opera- tions during 1063 and 1064, has paid out over S6.000 for damage and loss to buoys marking the channels in these two Narrows. The buoy most frequently damaged is a lighted buoy marking West Francis Rock. The proposed improve- ment will remove the hazards and permit the removal of this buoy together with two buoys marking rocks in Whitestone Narrows. Reduced damage to buoys will create a general benefit in the amount of approximately $2,500 annually. PAGENO="0465" 451 e. Annua~l Maintenance to Channel Markers The U.S. Coast Guard maintains and services the navigation aides in these waterways. The proposed channel improvements will eliminate the need for 2 lighted and 1 unlighted buoys, thereby reducing Federal obligations and costs for this service by an estimated $1,100 annually. Total benefits resulting from channel marker damage and maintenance reductions are estimated to be $3,600 annually. f. Log Towing Cost Reductions (1) The proposed improvements would permit increased efficiency in log tow- ing operations by increasing the average size of the individual tows and reducing the costs. (2) In 1964 the principal log towing company for the pulp mill at Silver Bay near Sitka towed 110,000,000 board feet of logs through the 40 mile Narrows section in 140 tows limited to 2 rafts each at a total cost of $275,000. Costs averaged $0.0625 per thousand board feet per mile. (3) With the Narrows improved as proposed this company estimates that this quantity could be moved in 70 tows of 4 rafts each at a rate of $0.0398 per thousand board feet per mile; a total cost of $175,000 or a saving of $100,000 annually. Annual benefits are computed as follows: (a) Existing conditions: 1964 towing cost of $0.0625 per m.b.f./mile X 110,000 m.b.f. X 40 miles = $275,000. (b) Improved conditions: Towing cost of $0.0398 per m.b.f./mile X 110,000 m.b.f. X 40 miles = $175,000. (c) Reduction in log towing cost: $275,000 - $175,000 = benefit of $100,000 annually. g. Growth (1) As discussed previously the principal industries of the tributary area are anticipated to continue their present rapid rate of growth into the early future followed by a declining rate of increase in the more distant future. Over the 50 year period of analysis an average annual rate of growth of 1.5% is used to conservatively express the increase in industrial activity anticipated in the tributary area. Such a growth would result in approximately doubling the annual vessel traffic through Sergius and Whitestone Narrows. (2) The average annual equivalent of future benefits growing at an annual rate of 1.5% is computed by using a predetermined composite capital recovery factor of 0.357 as shown below. This factor expresses the average~ annual equiva- lent growth with capital recovery based upon interest at 3% % compounded annually. Col. (1) multiplied by col. (2) equals col. (3) Annual benefit Composite Annual growth growth factor value (1) (2) Vessel delay time $143, 300 0. 357 Damage loss 50, 000 . 357 Extra unloading costs 7, 100 . 357 Log towing costs 100, 000 . 357 (3) $51, 158 17, 850 2, 535 35, 700 Total 300,400 .357 Total annual benefits from future growth 107,243 1107,000 lRounded it. Summary of Tangible Benefits Annual benefits for cost reductions and future growth are as follows: Cost reduction Growth Total Vessel delay time $143, 300 $51, 000 Damage loss 50, 000 17, 800 Extra unloading costs 7, 100 2, 500 Damage to channel markers 3,600 0 Log towing costs 100. 000 35, 700 $194, 300 67, 800 9, 600 3,600 135, 700 Total 304,000 107,000 411,000 97-700---08----30 PAGENO="0466" 452 6. INTANGIBLE BENEFITS Rediwtiom of risk to life and propert~.-The proposed improvements to the channel will help reduce a serious hazard to life and property. In 1965 the State ferries made 246 transits through Sergius and Whitestone Narrows carrying a total of 12,500 passengers and 2,300 vehicles. Future plans are being made to triple the number of transits. Any improvement that will reduce the present hazards will contribute to the welfare of the general public. Mr. HARSHA. And the damage prevention, is that to be the same vessels that use this harbor? Colonel PICK. This is a passage, sir. Mr. }LtnsIIA. Passage, I mean. Colonel PICK. And the damage eliminated is that which is caused by ships hitting rocks and reefs, which are prevalent in this area. Mr. HARSHA. Is there some indication or some information you can provide for the record as to what the damages are now as the condi- tion exists? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. The annual damage benefit prevented is $71,000 a year. Mr. H~nsHA. I know that is what you claim are the benefits. Do you have some information to provide the committee to show how much damage is incurred under present conditions? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. We will be glad to provide it. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCAUrrInr. Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. I have been looking at the chart over here and trying to analyze this. These are two different projects? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. The one on the left, Neva Strait, that is strictly a channel improvement, is that right, a widening of the channel? Colonel PICK. That is correct. Mr. MCEWEN. There would be no, as far as operating costs, there would be no shorter route as a result of this, merely improved chaimel'? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. This area is very hazardous with treacherous currents. At times ships have to wait to go through this area until such time as water and current conditions are suitable for traffic. Mr. CLAUSEX. If the gentleman would yield, in addition to what he~ said, of course, there are a lot of rock reefs in the area that contribute to the other problems. Mr. HARSHA. Is that the only access to that area, I mean to the pointy- Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. This is the major route between Sitka and Juneau, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. This chart that says Neva Strait, that refers to Whitestone Narrows project? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEwi~N. The slash black lines across the channel, that indi- cates the existing channel, is that correct? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. The green shows where we are going to en- large it. Mr. MOEWEN. The green is where you are proposing to widen and deepen? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. We are just widening and deepening it, sir. General NOBLE. You are going to deepen it within the reefs. PAGENO="0467" 453 Mr. MCEWEN. It would have to be deepened. I am curious, Colonel, how do you estimate the benefit-cost ratio on this? It is not a shorter route, it is a safer channel, is that correct? Colonel PICK. That is correct, sir. We have annual tonnage through this area, approximately 150,000 tons, which cargo is about 750 tons, tourist trade is about 400 tons and fishing boats are about 1,800 tons a year. You analyze the ships that go through, the time that is saved, and this saving is the basis for the benefit claimed. Mr. MCEWEN. Your benefit is based on the time saved? Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. Plus reduction in operating costs and in damages which do not occur. General NOBLE. It is the same as shortening it because the time of transit is shortened by virtue of the fact that you have eliminated the hazards. Mr. MCEWEN. In other words, from the standpoint of no delays, due to storm under the present conditions, a ship could not enter the channel? General NOBLE. Yes. Mr. MCEWEN. It is not any shorter channel. It is a safer channel which will avoid delays and avoid damages to ships? General NOBLE. That is right. Mr. CLAUSEN. If the gentleman would yield, also the dodging of some of this reef is a factor from the standpoint of basic navigation. Secondly, the traffic prc~blems would be greatly resolved and the traffic potential enhanced; because as they go through, more ships would have less delay, if you know what I mean. Mr. MCEWEN. I would be interested, Colonel, if you could submit something on how you analyze the benefit-cost ratio. I am just curious as to how this is analyzed. For my own enlightenment, I would appre- ceiate anything you can submit as to how you make the study. I notice the other channel is marked on the chart Peril Strait, so apparently it has been recognized by whoever placed that name upon this particular passage that it is perilous. Mr. CLAUSEN. If the gentleman would yield further, I do not want to belabor the point, but there is one thing I got the impression when I visited the Alaskan area, and I think we in Congress and this com- mittee should take into account that of the entire land mass in Alaska, I do not know exactly what the percentage is, but it is well over 90 percent of the entire land mass, is in public domain ownership. And so the limited population, the limited tax base that they have, frankly places those areas in a very difficult position to try to provide the nec- essary facilities to the State and/or local units of government. And, of course, I believe that there is unlimited resources up there. And I am convinced from what I have seen that any other expenditure in this regard is going to provide some opportunity for a number of peo- ple that may want to get out of some of these hot urban areas. Mr. MCEWEN. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. Colonel, do you want to move ahead to Hawaii. COASTS OP HAWAIIAN ISLANDS-HARBORS OF REFUGE~ HAWAII Colonel PICK. Mr. Chairman, boating and fishing are year-around activities in Hawaii and with the expanding economy and growing PAGENO="0468" 454 population, the needs for additional and improved harbor facilities is becoming urgent. Local interests desire (1) improvements for light-draft vessel navigation to accommodate the growing recrea- tional fleet; (2) provision of improved facilities for the commercial fishing fleet; and (3) a system of harbors of refuge to meet the boating needs for interisland cruising with respect to sudden storms and other emergency problems. The Chief of Engineers recommends improvement of existing State- operated light-draft-vesseiharbors at Kikiaola, on the island of Kauai; Ala Wai, on the island of Oa.hu; and Maalaea, on the island of Maui, at a total Federal cost of $1,256,000 and a total non-Federal cost of $1,041,000. The annual charges are $107,200 and annual benefits are $393,600 with a benefit-cost ratio of 3.7. Local interests have indicated willingness to provide the required loca.l cooperation. Improvement to these three harbors together with the light-draft- vessel harbors previously authorized, and other existing private and State facilities, would satisfy about 90 percent of the State boat space requirements for the year 1980, about 80 percent of the need for the year 2020, and afford an integrated system of harbors for light-draft vessels plying the Hawaiian waters. The comments of the State of Hawaii and Federal agencies are favorable. The report is with the Bureau of the Budget for clearance as to its relationship to the program of the President prior to its sub- mission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCOARTHY. I understand from counsel that it was cleared this morning. Any questions on my left? Mr. HI~RsIIA. What is the difference, Colonel? I did not follow you on this, unfortunately, close enough-I have got two construction costs. On the second page I have got a total of $2,267,000. What is that for? Colonel PIcK. Those are total costs, sir. Mr. HARsHA. That is for general navigation facilities. Is that dif- ferent from what you are talking about? Colonel PICK. Which figure were you referring to, sir? Mr. HARSHA. Well, I have got two sets of figures. I have got the Kaui, Oahu, and Maui for a total of $1,256,000 Federal cost. Colonel PICK. Right, sir. That is total costs, Federal costs. Mr. HARSHA. What type of project is that? Colonel PICK. Those are small-boat harbors or improvements. Mr. HARSHA. On page 2, I have for the same thing, $2,267,000. Counsel says it is a difference in the land costs. Colonel PICK. Yes, sir. This excludes non-Federal costs for land, and so forth, and rights-of-way and relocations. With these costs in- cluding the total costs shown on page 1 of $2,297,000 is the total project cost. Mr. HARsIIA. I see. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you very much, Colonel. General NOBLE. Mr. Chairman, we have one more thing to report on. That is the bill to authorize a study of the Nation's shores. i~'1r. MCGARTHY. Please proceed. PAGENO="0469" 455 H.R. 16392-3 YEAR APPRAISAL OF TIDAL AND GREAT LAKES SHORELINE General NOBLE. H.R. 16392 would authorize the Chief of Engi- neers, under the direction of the Secretary of the Army, to make a study of the shores of the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgm Islands, and the Great Lakes. This study would yield an appraisal of the problem confronting the, Nation in preserving its valuable shore resources, and would indicate the nature and scope of the program needed to deal more effectively with that problem. This bill is similar to S. 1262 upon which `the Department of the Army submitted a favorable report to `the Senate, `and which the Director of Civil Works supported in testifying `before the Senate Public Works Committee. We continue to favor the enactment of such legislation. The importance of preserving the Nation's shores has increased at a much more rapid rate than the growth of its `population. In large part this is due to the unprecedented increase in the time and funds which the average American family can invest in outdoor recreation. But there is also a great and increasing pressure upon these lands as sites for industrial `an'd residential development. Thou- sands of acres of this extremely valuable land are eroded each year and hurricanes and tidal waves periodically cause property damages running into the millions. For all these reasons it would be wise for the Nation to take stock of its shore resources and to evaluate the forces which threaten their destruction. The enactment of H.R. 16392 `would greatly facilitate the attainment of `these' objectives. The `study would `include a review of existing protective works and going programs `and provide for coordination with State and Federal agencies. In addition to making available basic data of great value, the study would result in general recommendations for remedial actions and provide preliminary estim'ates `of costs. Such information w'ould be utilized by State and local, as we'll as to the Federal, `agencies. H.R. 16392 would require submission of a final report not later than 3 years after the date of its enactment, and would limit the cost of the study and report to $1 million. Mr. MCCARTHY. Do you have any idea what this might get us into? I can visualize so'methin~ very big. General NOBLE. I think it will define the prooblem, sir. It will help `define the problem for the Congress. The degree to which the Nation would involve itself would be subject to future determination by the Congress of the United States. This is primarily a `data gather- ing study for the purpose of defining the problem, gathering the additional data necessary for the Federal, State, `and local agencies to `appraise what is happening to our shores, `and coming up with preliminary proposals on what might he done about it. Mr. MCOARTnY. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. SOHADEBERO. Mr. Chairman, are there any other agencies do- ing the same thing or is this- General NOBLE. The Corps of Engineers is, sir, in various locations. What this will permit us to do is to take an overall look `at the gap areas, as well as the areas we are now studying to look at the problem in its overall sense. There are other agencies involved along our coasts. PAGENO="0470" 456 As you know, the coastal area is one where there are many users, many interests, and all of these agencies would be beneficiaries of this study. Mr. SOHADEBERG. I'm interested, of course, in the fact that we do not have so many duplicates that we just keep on-this agency and that agency doing the same thing, whether there is any degree of coordination so that we do not duplicate. General NOBLE. There is, sir. There is extensive agency coordination in the costal zone; a recent example, is the committee on multiple uses of coastal zone. Mr. SCHADEBERO. Would this also take care of inland waters? General ~OBLE. Of the Great Lakes; yes, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. The corps has the prime responsibility for beach protection? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. This is in the area of corps responsibility. Mr. MOCARTHY. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. }IARsnA. General, as I understand it, under existing law the corps has the right to make t.hese investigations or surveys, but that depends on either the committee of either body passing an appropriate resolution. General NOBLE. That is right. Mr. }IARsIIA. You are limited to that particular area defined in the resolution? General NOBLE. That is right. Mr. HARSHA. This would obviate a resolution for the necessity of every study? General NOBLE. It would obviate for the necessity of a series of resolutions. Mr. HARSHA. I am concerned how you can do all of this for a million dollars though. Is that a realistic figure? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. I think it is for what we are doing here. It is an overlook at the total problem, gathering some additional data in order to fill in some of these gap areas. I do not really believe within the scope of this legislation that we would want to get into a very expensive study. I think that would be the next step, and you would want to look at it again before we got involved in that. Mr. CLAUSEN. That is a very gratifying statement to hear. I believe the gentleman from Ohio certainly has recognized the key point. I can only relate again part of the experiences that you have on the Pacific coast, as result of the Alaskan earthquake, creating the Menomee waves. Many of these coastal communities that are asking for under- writing of programs, be it SBA, FHA, and otherwise, they have had a certain amount of restrictions on their finance capabilities because of a lack of information in the Menomee wave category of interests. And I know that I went to the Menornee wave study project and I feel strongly there is a need to incorporate all of this information so we have a general understanding of what problem we have with erosion, tidal waves, and that sort of thing. I believe the Corps of Engineers is the logical place to handle the study. I strongly support the recommendation. I am most impressed with your statement. Mr. MCUARTHT. Well, if there are no othe.r comments or observations, I want. to thank you very much, General, and the other officers. I intro- duce now my colleagueS the Honorable Mrs. Edith Green, Congress~ woman from Oregon. PAGENO="0471" 457 STATEMENT OP HON. EDITH GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP OREGON Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Ohairman, I wish to thank the members of the conirnittee for providing me with th.e opportunity to testify in favor of H.1R. 16392, a bill which I introduced, which would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to initiate a 3-year appraisal report of our national tidal and great Lakes shoreline. Mr. Chairman, the length of our national and Great Lake shore- line is in excess of 93,000 miles * * * one-half the distance to the moon * * almost four times the circumference of this planet. Thirty of our States, including my own State of Oregon, have tidal or Great Lakes shorelines, most of which are threatened by a day~by~day erosion process which is destroying thousands of acres of land and costing the American people tens of millions of dollars annually. Nonetheless, despite the damage and the expense resulting from this insidious proc- ess, so little is actually known about it that we cannot even make a precise estimate of the total cost of annual damage, nor take effective action to control it. Losses result not only in the decrease of dollars and land acreage, but also reduce the potential of this Nation in agriculture, industry, and recreation. These losses, of course, diminish both the State and local tax base, destroy thousands of acres of forest and farmland, and increasingly make our beaches unfit for recreational purposes * * * and this is no mean item when one considers that 25 percent of our population lives within 50 miles of the coast and this population is expected to double within the next 30 years. Coastal erosion is a national problem and demands national con- cern. Every region of our nation is scarred by this process. Tillamook Bay, Oreg., has been the site of very considerable erosion damages. Over 1,000 acres of valuable oyster beds have been destroyed, and segments of the Tillamook Bay have been engulfed by the sea, result- ing in the destruction of houses, roads, and utility lines. Our neighbor- ing State of California has lost over 700 feet of shoreline at Port Hueneme. Moreover, highways have been destroyed in Mississippi; Ohio has suffered damages in excess of $18.5 million over the last 20- year period, and countless homes, tourist cottages, canneries, bridges, cafes, and other structures are being eaten up in State after State by this treacherous phenomenon. We simply cannot afford to ignore these losses. Much of this dam- age could be prevented by proper protective structures, but remedial action demands information about the exact nature of the problem, so that we can take steps toward an ultimate solution. The Federal Gov- ernment has taken some action to help mitigate the problem of coastal erosion and does finance research in this field. The Corps of Engi- neers, a pioneer in this field, maintains the Coastal Engineering Cen- ter in Washington, and is doing research on the mechanics of the ero- sion process. The corps also provides assistance to the States by under- taking studies of erosion in specific regions upon the State's request. Since 1930, a number of States have taken part in this program; and, to date, approximately 23,000 miles ~f shoreline have been, or are being studied. PAGENO="0472" 458 But over 70,000 miles of our coastline is threatened daily by this deterioration, and we have yet to make a comprehensive appraisal of the damage. Insufficient information makes it impossible to take long- term constructive action. We must know more about the diverse coast- line of New England, the sandy beaches of the gulf and Pacific coast, the coral shores of the Hawaiian Islands and the tidewater backshore of the Carolinas. Little is known about the 3,000 miles of eroding shoreline in Maine, or the 2,000 miles of Georgia's coast, or the 7,000 miles of coastal Louisiana. The coastlines of Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Texas, Michigan, and many other States are being subjected to damages which, at the very minimum (and I reiterate, it is impossible to make a precise estimate), are costing the American people at least $50 million each year * * * and this figure is probably tripled when storm dam- mages are considered along with normal erosion costs. Fifty million dollars would have more than paid for the total cost of the National Science Foundation expenditures for 1968, or the total cost to the Fed- eral Government for the construction of community mental health centers for this year. A problem of this magnitude cannot be cOrrected by piecemeal pro- tection. The lot-by-lot approach more often than not results in the creation of new erosion problems. Frequently, one individual's at- tempt to stabilize his shoref ront only leads to a new erosion catastrophe on his neighbor's property. A detailed, technical study which would apply comprehensively to a national problem needs to he undertaken before a sensible, long-range coastal erosion abatement program can be enacted. My bill, H.R. 16392, would provide for such an appraisal, giv- ing us the vital information which must serve as the basis for any meaningful solution. Mr. MCCARTHY. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning, June 26, when we continue hearings on rivers and harbor projects. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. to reconvene on Wednesday, June 26, 1968, at 10 a.m.) PAGENO="0473" OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS, FLOOD CONTROL, AND RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION BILL-1968 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1968 U.S. HOIJSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SIJBOOMMITIEE ON RIvERS AND HARBORS, OF THE C0MMIrriE ON P1mLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors met at 10:07 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John A. Blatnik, subcommittee chair- man, presiding. Mr. BLATNIK (presiding). The Subcommittee on Rivers and Har- bors will please come to order. We continue the public hearings, our second day of hearings on navigation and beach erosion projects for possible inclusion in the rivers and harbors and flood control omnibus bill of 1968. We are delighted and certainly pleased and always honored to have our dean and our very dear friend and colleague, the distinguished Congressman from New York, Mr. Celler. Mr. C'iller is usually way ahead of the staff and chairman and al- ways prep~hred. We will b~delighted to hear from you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT O~' HON. EMANUEL CELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF NE.W YORK EAST RIVER AND HUDSON RIVER~ N.Y.-PORTION5 NONNAVIGABLE Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee which is now laboring so diligently on various ramifications of complex legislation. With your indulgence I would like to direct your attention to a spe- cific matter which is of profound significance to my own city of New York, as well as to the entire State of New York. New York City is currently planning a comprehensive and exten- sive program for the development of lower Manhattan. Under the city's lower Manhattan plan certain areas of the city along the Hudson River below Canal Street and along the East River below the Brook- lyn Bridge would be utilized to create new residential communities for some 100,000 people. The plan would provide desperately needed housing with river orientation, and within walking distance of some 450,000 jobs. (459) PAGENO="0474" 460 At the same time, the entire riverfront would be made accessible to the public and a large strip along the edge of the water would be made into a riverfront park. Over 200 acres will be reclaimed along both sides of lower Man- hattan. In addition to being a substantial step toward solving some of the severe social and economic problems now besetting our Na- tion's largest urban center, the proposed plan would result in an annual tax return to the city of approximately $90 million. Because of the strategic commercial importance of this unique area, its development would benefit not only the city, but also the State-and, indeed, the entire Nation. I am especially pleased to be able to assure you that the entire lower Manhattan plan requires no expenditure whatsoever of Federal funds. Therefore, the Congress will not be called on to appropriate as much as $1 to assist the program contemplated by the city of New York. Thus, the plan accords completely with the policy expressed in the President's message to Congress of February 23, 1968, on hous- ing and urban problems, in which he stressed the need to encourage the use of private capital to rebuild our Nation's urban centers. The only congressional action necessary for the carrying out of this important program is an action to remove a technical impedi- ment-an action which I urge this committee to recommend through the inclusion of an appropriate provision in the rivers and harbors bill. As you know, under existing law the Federal Government can expropriate, without compensation, any improvements on waterways which are defined by statute as "navigable." As a result, although the city of New York owns the land adjoining the waterways included in the lower Manhattan plan, the city is now unable to obtain essential mortgaging on the valuable improvements that are contemplated by the plan. I have been informed by the mayor of the city of New York, our former colleague, John Lindsay, that General Koisch of the Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated the waterways in question and has indicated that the city's plans for filling this area do not conflict with the plans of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is my understanding that General Noble will testify this morn- ing and I presume he will approve the statement by General Koisch. As a result, I urge this committee to include in the present bill a provision which would declare the river areas contemplated by the lower Manhattan plan to be nonnavigable. In this regard, I would like to submit for your consideration the proposed text of such a provision. I submit the text for the record at this point. (The text referred to follows:) SUGGESTED PRovIsIoN To FAcILn~ArE LOWER MANHATTAN PLAN, To BE INCLUDED IN RIVERS AND HARBORS Brr~L That portion of the Hudson River, in New York County, State of New York, lying between the north line of Spring Street, extended westerly, the U.S. pierhead line as it existed on November 1, 1967, to a point where the U.S. pierhead line and the U.S. bulkhead line converge adjacent to Battery Park at a point approximately 930 feet south of Battery `Place, is `hereby declared to be not a navigable water of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws of the United States. PAGENO="0475" 461 That portion of the East River, in New York County, State of New York, lying between the south line of Robert F. Wagner, Sr. Place extended east- wardly, the U.S. pierhead line as it existed November 1, 1967, and to a point where the U.S. pierhead line and the U.S. bulkhead line converge adjacent to Battery Park at a point approximately 1,260 feet south of Battery Place, is hereby declared to be not a navigable water of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution and the laws of `the United States. In my opinion, based on a thorough evaluation of all of the ramifica- tions of this matter, a provision of the type that I have suggested would have no adverse effect `whatsoever on any interest of `the Federal Government. Instead, it would merely remove the present technical impediment to effective action by the city of New York. Mr. Chairman, in these critical times, when the fiscal policies `of the Federal Government are being subjected to severe strain, when demands are being made from every quarter for increased Federal funds-it is rare that we in the Congress are given the opportunity to facilitate major programs on a local level without incurring addi- tional costs to the Federal Government. The provisions which I have suggested would clearly afford Con- gress such an opportunity. It `is a provision which will bring about long-range `future benefits for the Nation's largest urban center- and a provision which also accords with numerous precedents already established `by `this committee and by the entire Congress. In this regard, precedents for the provision suggested by me appear in our statutes from as far back as 1901, when Congress declared to be nonnavigable a portion of the Mississippi River opposite La Crosse, Wis. More recent examples of similar legislation exist with respect to New Bedford Harbor in Massachusetts, the West River in West Haven, Conn., and Bayou Terrebonne in the State of Louisiana. In addition, as you will no doubt recall, I personally appeared before this committee in 1965 to request a similar provision with regard to a portion of the East River between 17th and 30th S'treets in the city of New York. I am pleased to be able to tell you today that as a result of the earlier action taken by this committee_which likewise involved no cos't whatsoever `to the Federal Government-work on that extremely beneficial project is well underway. I feel confident that by recommending a similar provision which is essential if the lower Manhattan plan is to become a reality, this committee will again contribute to the achievement of an entirely beneficial result. Mr. `Chairman, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you. If I might just briefly explain, here is a large map of lower Man- hattan. This is what we call `the tip, or the Battery. This is the Hudson River and from here down 500 feet from `the shore, the land will be filled in and will be, or constitute an extension westward of the city of New York. On this side of the East River, there is the Brooklyn Bridge and for 500 feet extending eastward into the river from the Brooklyn Bridge down to this point, the Battery, New York will `be extended 500 feet. On the other side of the lower Manhattan will extend this tip 500 feet eastward, 500 feet westward and add over I think it is 225 acres of land to the city of New York. PAGENO="0476" 462 New York, of course, must build upward because of its restrictive area.. But here is an opportunity whereby we expand the city hori- zontally and we can build horizontally. That is going to be a great boon to the city and I do hope that we will get your consent so we can go on with this good and beneficial plan. May I leave these maps for the committee? Mr. BLATNIK. Would you, please? Mr. Chairman, first of all as usual you make a very succinct and very persuasive case. You are correct that it doe.s require congressional action, including certain areas not in use for navigation but technically navigable. It does re- quire congressional action to remove the imepdiment for other devel- opment by declaring these areas nonna.vigable. There are, as you state, many, many precedents for doing this. We do, however, have the mechanics of working up the precise, specifics, directions, et cetera, the amount of fill, Mr. Chairman a.nd as you indi- cated we will hear from General Noble and his staff. May I state at this point the very preliminary basis that there are minor problems as one would be on t.he East River particularly as I recall from our preliminary briefing if the field extends too far out there is some question as to the effect of narrowing the channel, what effect it would have on the water loss and turbidity. These are minor problems. I am confident they can be worked out with minor adjust- ment.s. We will work with your staff and you will be thoroughly in- formed before any final decision is made. Mr. CEr~u~ia. I agree with the distinguished chairman that there may have to be some minor adjustments made after the consent is given. I want to make one correction. I said the extension would be about 500 feet on either side. It will be more than 500 feet. It will be on one side an extension of about 750 feet and on the other side, it will be about 1,000 feet. I would like to have that correction made. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CEr~LEL Thank you, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. We have Mr. Patman and Mr. Rivers. Mr. Patman has a committee to go to over which lie is presiding anci with your permission we will hear him first. Mr. RIVERS. I will yield to the gentleman from Texas. RED RIVER (BELOW DENISON DAM) (NAVIGATION PROJEOT)~ TEXAS, LOti- SIANA~ ~RKANSAS.~ AND OKLAHOMA STATEMENT OP HON. WRiG~HT PATNAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONG~RESS PROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have permission to place into the record at this point my entire statement, although I shall not read the entire statement. Mr. BLATNIK. The entire statement will be put into the record. (The full, prepared statement of Mr. Patman follows:) STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT PATMAN Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to be able to appear before this distinguished Committee in support of a navigation project which would ac- complish something I have been working to achieve since 1928 when the people of Texas' First Congressional District originally sent me to the House of Repre- PAGENO="0477" 463 seatatives. Now, forty years later, I am still uring approval of a plan which will bring water transportation to East Texas. It is not my purpose to take up much of your time, since after 40 years I have developed an acute sympathy for Con- gressional Committees who are so often faced by witnesses who could-as we say in Texas-by sheer endurance, talk a dog off a meat wagon. First let me say that this entire Red River navigation project is urgently needed. The four-state area known as the "Gulf Southwest" is rich in natural resources, blessed by a temperate climate, and possessed of an almost limitless growth potential. Inequitable freight rates have for years burdened this promis- ing section of the country. Only Monday I introduced a bill to try to do something about this discriminatory freight rate situation which in some cases result in railroad charges for shipments into our area being over twice those for comparable distances in sections of the country served by water transportation. While this may help, the rate problems faced by my constituents will never be solved until the project we are discussing today is under way. Second, everyone who has studied the project is in favor of it. Red River and Cypress River navigation has been planned and considered for almost a hundred years. It was a good idea one hundred years ago and it is a good idea today. The exhaustive studies of the Corps of Engineers resulted in their endorsement of the project. On the basis of benefit-to-cost ratios, the entire project was given a rating of 1.8 by the District Engineer and 1.3 by the more conservative Board of En- gineers for Rivers and Harbors (BERH). Again, these ratios will be discussed more carefully in presentations by those who are with me here today. The only problem in my mind with the Army Report under consideration is the proposal to suspend action on the Shreveport-Daingerfield leg until an addi- tional feasibility study is completed. I do express my strong opposition to this needless and dilatory proposal. There are compelling reasons for objecting to a further study. The benefit-to- cost ratio for the entire project is favorable. It has long been considered a single project and is so treated in my bill, H.R. 5631, currently pending before this Com- mittee. The only reason that the Daingerfielci-Shreveport reach can be singled out for further study is that it is on the upper end of the project-which is expedience rather than logic. Additionally, I would like to point out briefly the differences in benefit-to-cost ratios for the Dai'ngerfield-Shreveport section. The District Engineer assigned this section a rating of 1.9 which was higher than the 1.8 iiatio assigned to the remainder of the project. This ratio was slashed to 1.02 by BERH, based partially on the fact that 18 of the 36 countries with chronic or persistent unemployment served by this leg of the project, have enjoyed sufficient prosperity since the formulation of the project to remove them from' the high unemployment cate- gory. I submit that part of the cause of this prosperity actually is the increased industrialization of the area based on the eapectatioa of future water transporta- tion. In other words, the prospect of waterways ha's already enhanced the at- tractiveness of the area to industry to a sufficient extent to prejudice benefit-to- cost `statistics. This is a wonderful indication of what lies in store for this entire area when navigation to Daingerfield is approved by this Committee. In conclusion, Mr. Chair~nan, let me repeat that I strongly believe this project should be considered as a single unit. it is my fervent hope that this Committee will see fit to dispense with further delay `and act favorably upon this project which will, I am confident, signal the beginning of a bright new era for this fertile section of our nation. May I say further that I wholeheartedly support the statement being filed with the Subcommittee today by the Texas Water Rights Commission, by the Texas Water Development Board whose Executive Director, Howard Boswell, is here today, and who will also present the views of Governor John B. Connally, the statement of the Honoi~able Franklin Jones, Sr., a distinguished attorney who speaks for the Marshall Chamber of Commerce and as President of the Cypress Valley Navigation District, the statement of the Morris County Corn- inissioners Court, and the Northeast Texas Municipal Water District, whose President, Honorable George P. Brabh'am is also here today. Mr. L. R. Matthias, Executive Vice President of the Red River Valley Association will speak for this organization which has concerned itself with development of the Red River Basin in the four states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas for roughly half a century. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Matthias is well known to you from numerous appearances before this Committee, but I would like to introduce Franklin PAGENO="0478" 464 Jones and George Brabham who bead up their respective delegations totalling more than 40 prominent residents from my Congressional District. I deeply appreciate this opportunity given to me to testify today. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to be able to appear before this distinguished committee in support of a navigation project which would accomplish something I have been working on to achieve since 1928, when the people of the First Congressional District of Texas sent me to the House of Representatives. Now, 40 years later, I am still urging approval of a plan which will bring water transportation to east Texas. It is not my purpose to take up much of your time since after 40 years I have felt an acute sympathy for congressional committees. First, let me say this entire Red River navigation project is urgently needed. The four-State area known as the Gulf Southwest is rich enough in resources, blessed by temperate climate, and possessed of an almost limitless growth potential. ~Te have been handicapped by discriminatory freight rates which navigation will, in a large measure, correct. Second, everyone who has studied the project is in favor of it. Red River and Cypress River navigation has been planned and considered almost 100 years. It was a good idea 100 years ago and it is a good idea today. The exhaustive studies of the Corps of Engineers resulted in their endorsement of the project. The only problem in my mind with the Army report under consideration is the proposal to suspend action on the first field leg until a feasability study is completed. I do express my strong opposition to this needless proposal. However, I understand that we are all here together and we are in unity and, we are not fight- ing among ourselves. Certainly, we are working for one great project which includes, of course, the waterway to Shreveport and also to Daingerfield of Lone Star Steel. There are compelling reasons to objecting to a further study. The only reason that the Daingerfield-Shreveport reach can be singled out for further study is that it is on the upper end of the project, which is expedience rather than logic. I would like to point out differences to benefit-cost ratio for the Daingerfield-Shreveport situation. They assigned this a rating of 1.9, which was higher than the 1.8 ratio assigned to the remainder of the project. It is certainly justified in every way and so recommended by the Corps of Engineers. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me repeat that I strongly believe this project should be considered as a single unit and I am glad that all are in accord with that viewpoint. It is my fervent hope that this committee will see fit to dispense with further delay and act favorably upon this project and I am confident will signal the beginning of a bright new era for the fertile section of our State. May I say further, Mr. Chairman, that I wholeheartedly support the statement being ified with the subcommittee today by the Texas Water Rights Commission, by the Texas Water Development Board whose executive director, Howard Boswell, is here. PAGENO="0479" 465 Howard, would you stand up, please? Howard will present the views of Governor Connally. We also have a distinguished attorney, the Honorable Franklin Jones, Sr., who speaks for the Marshall Ohamber of Commerce and president of the Cypress Navigation District. We also have the statement of the Morris County Commissioners and the Northeast Texas Water District, the Honorable George T. Brabham, who is also here today. We have Mr. F. L. Matthias, executive vice president of the Red River Valley Association, who will speak for his organization, which has concerned itself with the development of the Red River Basin in the four-State area-Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas- for half a century. Mr. Matthias, will you stand, ~please? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Matthias is well known to you from his numer- ous appearances before this committee. I would like to introduce now Franklin Jones and George Brabham. Will you stand up, please? They head up their respective delegations, totaling more than 40 prominent residents from my congressional district. I deeply appreciate this opportunity given to me to testify today, Mr. Chairman, and if you will hear these gentlemen when you can do so it would please me and my section of the country very much. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your very effective and persuasive presentation. We are familiar with the project. I have had the real pleasure, an informative experience, an enjoyable one as well, to be down in that part of the area both in Louisiana and Texas. I am familiar with the problems. I met many friends there and 1 know that I shall hear from several of these leading spokesmen later on. Mr. PATMAN. Would you permit me, sir, to ask those from our area to stand up. They all know you and want to see you again. Thank you, very much. Mr. BLATNIK. Welcome, delegate members. We are pleased to have you here with us today. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. We will now hear from Mr. Rivers, our distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and certainly our beloved col- league. Thank you for yielding your time, Mr. Chairman. We know how busy your schedule is. What we are doing, Mr. Chairman, so many of our colleagues are here with us today, we are hearing the congressional testimony and any other testimony of your local civic or industrial leaders. That testimony will also follow that of the congressional delegations and will be put in at the proper place with the detailed engineering and cost estimates. COOPER RIVER, CHARLESTON HARBOR, S.C. STATEMENT OP HON. MENDEL RIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONORESS PROM THE STATE OP SOUTH CAROLINA Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I will put my supporting statement into the record, if you don't mind. I have with me. J. B. Thomason, general PAGENO="0480" 466 manager, South Carolina Public Service Authority, Moncks Corner, S.C. I would like to put his statement into the record following mine. (The full, prepared statement of Mr. Rivers, together with that of Mr. Thomason follows:) STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE L. MENDEL RIVERS Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am extremely grateful for this opportunity to appear before this Committee to present my views on the St. Stephen Project which the Corps of Engineers proposes to build near St. Stephen, about 40 miles from Charleston. I am not going to try to describe this project to you or to get into any technical details because Col. Seidel can cover these matters much better than I. My purpose is to express my support of the St. Stephen Project as recommended by the Corps of Engineers and to explain its importance, both to the District I represent and to the nation. The St. Stephen Project is a unique project in one respect, that is, the clear measure of benefits. All the projects considered by this Committee have a favor- able cost benefit ratio, but for the most part, the benefits are measured by esti- mates of the good that they will do, and these estimates are subject to a wide mar- gin of uncertainty. In the case of St. Stephen, the project will eliminate a major part of the very large dredging expense which the Corps of Engineers is now sad- dled with. The dredging expense mounts year after year in order to prevent the siltation of Charleston Harbor to the point where it would be unusable, either for commercial or national defense purposes. That expense is now estimated to be in the order of $2'A~ million a year, on the average. There is some fluctuation from year to year, but over a period the increase has been very ra.pid. For illustration, the average cost of maintenance of Charleston Harbor in the five years from `51 to `55, inclusive, was about $550,000. In the next five years the cost averaged almost a million dollars and in the years `61 to `65, inclusive, the average was almost $1.6 million. In the last year of that period the cost was $2,237,949. These figures are from the Corps of Engineers Report, page 9. No prudent business man would accept these mounting costs for dreging when there is a practical way to meet the problem at the source by reducing siltation, at a great savings. These savings will increase from year to year because inflation will drive up the maintenance expense every year, whereas once the St. Stephen Project is built the annual charges will be fixed permanently. There is another important aspect of the comparison. The maintenance costs consist of the removal of thousands of cubic yards of silt every year. The Corps of Engineers is running out of spoil areas to deposit the silt. This is a vexing problem which will grow with time. The Corps of Engineers says that the solu- tion of the siltation problem is to end the condition which is leading to the deposit of silt in Charleston Harbor. This is what the St. Stephen Project would accomplish. The St. Stephen Project would not interfere with the Congressional program to hold federal expenditures down in the next fiscal year. All that will be re- quired in 1969 is a modest amount of planning money, perhaps $100,000. Major expenditures are at least two years distant, and, of course, the Appropriations Committee will determine expenditure priorities in the light of circumstances as they may exist from year to year. Now I should like to talk for a minute about the effect of this project on the South Carolina Public Service Authority. It is also known as the Santee-Cooper Authority. This is a public agency of the State of South Carolina, created by direct Act of the State Legislature. It is South Carolina's public power yard- stick and it has done a wonderful job. Some of its power output is sold at whole- sale to small municipalities and rural cooperatives. Some is sold at retail in small towns and rural communities. Three military bases buy their power from Santee-Cooper, and several new industries, vital to the South Carolina economy, draw their power supply from this source. It is performing a vital service for the people of South Carolina and I know that the Congress would not want to make it impossible for this great w-ork to continue. Santee-Cooper draws a large part of its power supply from a hydroelectric project on the Cooper River which is called the Phiopolis Project. This project was built in the thirties as a great public works project. The Santee-Cooper authority applied for a license from the Federal Power Commission and the license was granted. Santee-Cooper has lived up to all of the provisions of the PAGENO="0481" 467 license. Under the Federal Power Act this project is not subject to recapture be- cause it is owned by a public agency. The effect of the St. Stephen Project would be to divert most of the water from the Cooper River into the Santee River. It `would leave the Pinopolis plant almost high and dry. The average flow through the Pi'nopolis Plant is something like 15,600 cubic feet per second. When St. Stephen is completed, this flow will be reduced to ahout 3,000 cubic feet per second, less than twenty percent of the present normal flow. The license does not expire until April 1, 1976. The St. Stephen project as recommended by the Corps, including the provision for keeping Santee-Cooper whole, has been approved by Governor McNair of South Carolina and by every state and federal agency to which it has `been presented, except for the Bureau of the Budget, which relea'sed its adverse report `only yesterday. This `report comes as a complete surprise in view of the unanimous endorsement which the project ha's received up to that point. It is a very negative and damaging report and I `hope that this `committee will reject it. Now, of course, it would be the height of unfairness and confiscation if the Federal Gov'renment were to take away th'e water required to' operate the Pinopolis plant without making compensation. I `am not talking about the legal questions now, but simple fairness. The `Corps `of Engineers has therefore nego- tiated an arrangement with Santee-Cooper to keep Santee-Cooper whole. That arrangement is a part of the proposal which the Corps of Engineers is making. It was negotiated at arms length and after a lot of hard `bargaining which took many months. Of `course the `agreement is tentative and i's subject to Congres- sional authorization to negotiate the final terms. I strongly urge that the Corps be given this authority. The Corps has also proposed what they call an early implementation feature which means that the `Corps would have authority to divert the `water before completion of the plant upon `reimbursing Santee-Cooper for the additional cost of replacing the lost generation. I believe that this is' a valuable and desirable feature also, provided it is not used `to `delay or `block the construction of the St. Stephen project but only to get the benefits as soon as possible and without awaiting the completion `or even the start of the St. `Stephen project. I am not going to wa'ste my time commenting on the Bureau of the Budget. You know that the Bureau recommended authorization only for early implemen- tation between now and the date of expiration of the Federal Power Commission license on April 1, 1976. `This type of a recommendation is so absurd that I do not intend to even discuss it, since it involved `breach `of faith to say the very `least to the customers of Santee-Cooper and the bond holders of this compara- tively small power project. I will far rather depend on your good judgment than the position of the Bureau of the Budget. This is not the first time that they have demonstrated a rather dismal lack of knowledge on a very important matter to a community about which they know practically nothing. I am perfectly willing to leave the fate of `this project in the hands `of `this Committee. It may only be `necessary to appropriate $100,000 for `the next fiscal year but I would be most grateful if this Committee would approve the entire project as recommended by the Army since authorization will be needed anyway to implement the needed funds for the future. The recommendation of the Bureau `of the Budget could well sound the death knoll to this project. I urge this Committee to authorize the St. `Stephen Project as proposed by the Corps of Engineers. Thank you very much for your attention. STATEMENT or J. B. THOMASON, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY, MONOKS CORNER, `S.C. This statement is submitted by the South `Carolina Public Service Authority in support of the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers `for construction of the `St. Stephen project, including the request of the `Corps for authorization to negotiate an agreement with the Authority which would keep the Authority whole in connection with project construction `and operation. The South Carolina Public Service Authority is a public `agency of the State of South Carolin'a created in 1934 by an Act of the South `Carolina Legislature. It owns and operates an electric generating, transmitting and distributing sys- tem in eastern South Carolina with lines extending across `approximately 2A of 97-700-68--------31 PAGENO="0482" 468 the state. It serves over 20,000 retail customers from its own system and over 100,000 rural customers through lines owned for the most part by electric coopera- tives, but operated by the Authority. The Authority serves two large air bases and other large military and naval installations, as well as a number of large industries which have located in eastern South Carolina since the Authority commenced operation. The heart of the Authority's power system is a hydroelectric generating plant near Pinopolis, South Carolina. This plant discharges the major portion of the flow of the Santee River into the headwaters of the Cooper River which flows into Charleston Harbor. The Authority commenced the discharge of water into the Cooper River in 1942. Since that date Charleston Harbor has continuously been improved for military and commercial purposes. The navigation channels within and adjacent to the Harbor have been both changed in location and greatly deepened within the period of the Authority's operation. The cost of dredging within `Charleston Harbor has substantially increased within the same period, with the largest increases having occurred within the `last ten years. ~The Charleston District Office of the Corps of Engineers has almost continu- ously both studied and implemented harbor improvements. The report of the U.S. Army `Engineers, Charleston District, Corps of Engineers, July 1006, con- curred in `by the Division Engineer, South Atlantic Division, November 4, 1966, and the report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, February 16, 1967, have been approved by letter from the Governor of South Carolina to the Chief of Engineers dated May 26, 1967, and by all federal agencies concerned, including the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Transpor- tation, excepting the Bureau of the Budget. As shown by its report, the Corps' plan for Charleston Harbor is the result of negotiations between the Corps, the South Carolina Public Service Authority and many other state and federal agencies. This plan recommends the rediversion of the major portion of the flow of the Santee River `away from the Cooper River, and the construction of a new hydroelectric plant near St. Stephen, South Caro- lina, which will discharge into the lower Santee River. The plan would reduce the discharge from the Authority's present Pinopolis hydroelectric plant from approximately 15,600 cfs to 3,000 cfs, and the `Corps believes that this rediversion would result in average annual savings in the dredging of Charleston Harbor of approximately $2,600,000 per year. The South Carolina Public `Service Authority has made no independent study of the rediversion plan, but has accepted this plan in view of the basic responsi- bility of the Corps for Charleston Harbor, and has agreed to cooperate fully on the basis that it will be kept whole with respect to any adverse impact on its operations. This cardinal principle underlies the tentative agreement between the Authority and the Corps of Engineers which is made a part of the project report and it is also the basis upon which the project has been endorsed by the Governor of South Carolina. The Corps has not taken the position that the South Carolina Public Service Authority is liable for the siltation in Charleston Harbor. Since the license was granted both the location and the depths of the harbor navigation channels have been changed. The Corps has pointed out that the Authority's operations have been fully authorized, and page 37 of the District Engineers report reads: "Therefore, no liability for shoaling is considered to attach to the South Caro- lina Public Service Authority since their operations have complied with the terms of FPO license 199, as amended." The report of the Bureau of the Budget recommends against authorization of the St. Stephen project as proposed by the Army Engineers and approved by South Carolina and federal governmental agencies. Instead, the Bureau of the Budget recommends that `the Corps negotiate an agreement with the Authority for immediate reduction of the discharge from the Pinopolis hydroelectric plant to 3,000 cfs, and that the `Corps be authorized to purchase substitute power for the Authority for a term not to extend beyond 1976 and in amounts not to exceed the savings in dredging costs. The Bureau of the Budget could hardly have had an adequate understanding of the situation. For example, the limitation of power replacement funds to the amount of the savings in dredging in itself makes its proposal meaningless. The savings in dredging would be minor in the first few years after the rediversion of water from the Cooper River, until the channel stabilized. The savings in this period would amount to only a small fraction of the cost of the alternative power supply. The electric generation which will be lost by eliminating more than 80% of the flow through the Pinopolis power house will greatly exceed 500,000,000 kilo- PAGENO="0483" 469 watt hours per year. The kilowatts and kilowatt hours which will be needed in substitution for the lost generation will cost approximately $3 to 31/2 million per year. For a term of eight years this would represent an expenditure of more than $25 million. This expenditure would represent the cost of wasting the major flow of the Santee River by by-passing the Pinopolis project. In 1976, after this ex- penditure has been made, no alternate power house will have been constructed, there will be no public improvements to show for the money, and the long term problem will be unresolved. Under the Corps' plan approximately $35 million will be spent in the construc- tion of an alternate power house which will represent a permanent public im- provement and a permanent replacement of the power lost by rediversion. The plan recommended by the Bureau of the Budget would seriously affect the South Carolina Public Service Authority, its customers, and its ability to finance future business operations. In effect, the Bureau of the Budget has recom- mended that no payment be made to the Authority (for the more than 80% de- crease in the flow through the Pinopolis power houne) after April 1, 1976, based on an open invitation to the Federal Power Commission to so restrict `any license renewal as to confiscate the major value of the Pinopolis project. Without de- bating the legal question, we believe the position of the Bureau of the Budget is unwise and unfair, especially as applied to a small public agency, whose license by Act of Congress is not subject to recapture. The tentative agreement between the Corps of Engineers and the Authority is' equitable, and we ask the Committee and the Congress to allow this arrangement to be finalized. Mr. Rivii~ns. Mr. `Chairman, and members of the committee, .1 am very grateful for the privilege of testifying before this great committee. I, too, am kind of busy. We `have a $22 billion bill before our Com- mittee on Armed Services which affects the very lifeblood of the military-all the weapons systems, ships, planes, tanks, R. & D., tracked vehicles of all kinds. We have `been in session, Mr. Chairman since 8:15 this morning and they have permitted me to leave for a few minutes and then I am going back. This is a sort of honor and this committee has been so gracious, Mr. Chairman, to permit me to testify. I want to say `how great it is to appear before you. Before I begin, Mr. `Chairman, I will not fail to tell this committee of the everlasting thanks this Nation owes to you for your forward look in every area in which your jurisdicti'on extends. I praise every one of you every time I get `out on an interstate highway. What this committee has done for transportation and conservation of our natural harbors and our `highways and streams is something for which the whole Nation is everlastingly `indebted. I am a member of a military committee and it is vital that our `har- bors be cared for arid this committee's attention to this indispensab1~ segment of our existence is something for which I am thankful. Now, I shall not take too much time, Mr. `Chairman. I want to tell, you something about which I know just about everything. I know from the inception out in the legislature when `we created an organiza- tion to `come to Washington, even when I was in the legislature, the favorite pastime was coming to Washington for money and we did and we got it and we `built this project right in the middle of my district,, 10 miles from where I was born. So, there is very little about this that I am not familiar with. Now, Mr. `Chairman, the St. Stephens project which the `Corps of Engineers proposes t'o build near `St. Stephens, S.C., is located a few miles from where I was born and about 40 miles from Oharleston. I am not gomg to try to descri'be this project to you or to get into any PAGENO="0484" 470 technical details. I will leave that to the Army Engineers. My purpose is to express my support of the St. Stephens project as recommended by the corps and not by the Bureau of the Budget and to try to explain its importance both to the district I represent and to the Nation. Mr. Dorn Imows a little something about this, 1 am quite sure. The St. Stephens project is unique in that it is of clear benefit. All of the projects considered by this committee have a favorable benefit ratio, but for the most part the benefits are measured by estimates of the good they will do and these estimates are si~bject to wide margins of uncertainty. In the case of this project on which I testify it would eliminate a major part of a very large dredging expense which the Corps of En- gineers is now saddled with. When I came to Congress before anybody on this committee ever got here, this Harbor of Charleston which this project is designed to relieve was less than $250,000 maintenance. Now it is long past the $1.3 million. The dredging expense mounts and it continues to mount year after year. Now, the Army Engineers are trying to prevent the continuing silta- tion of the Charleston Harbor to the point where it would be unusable either for commercial or navigable defense projects, the Charleston Harbor is vital to the defense of this country. It has gone past as I say $1 million and even up to the $2 million plus a year maintenance cost of this harbor which we think is a result of the Santee-Cooper project. There is some project from year to year in the cost but over a period the increase for the maintenance has been very rapid. For illustration, the average cost of maintenance of Charleston Harbor in 5 years from 1951 to 1955 inclusive was $550,000. In the next 5 years the cost will average almost $1 million. In the years 1961 to 1965 inclusive, the average cost was almost $1.6 million and the last year of the period, the cost was $2,237,949. These figures are from the Corps of Engineers' report, page 9, which accompanies my testimony. Now, no prudent businessman would ac- cept these mounting costs for dredging when there is a practical way to avoid this cost by reducing the silting and this is a proposal before you. These savings will increase from year to year because inflation will drive up the maintenance cost every year whereas this project we are talking about, the St. Stephens project when it is built, the annual charges will be fixed permanently. There is another important aspect of the comparison. The mainte- nance cost consists of the removal of thousands and thousands of cubic yards of silt each year from the Charleston Harbor. The Corps of Engineers is rumiing out of spoil areas to put this silt on. As a matter of fact, it is quite a controversy in my town of Charleston where to put this silt. Even the legislature who is responsible for finding out, they always bring these problems up and you know whose lap they dump it on. So, I am in the middle of that as well as everything else in this area which I represent. Mr. Chairman, this is a vexing problem that will grow and grow with time. The Corps of Engineers says that the solution to the siltation problem is to end the condition which is leading up to the deposit of PAGENO="0485" 471 the silt upward of my harbor which is as you know, Mr. Chairman, the best harbor in the United States and the only harbor in the East on the Atlantic Ocean. Now, I want somebody to question that, Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. It is one of them. Mr. RIvERs. It is the only harbor on the ocean. Charleston is the only city on the ocean with a harbor, did you know that? It is 5 miles from the ocean. Now, here is what the Santee-Cooper project will do, the St. Stephens project. The St. Stephens project would. not interfere with. the congressional program to hold Federal expenditures down in the next fiscal year. The thing to do is what. we are trying to do. now. All that would be required now for fiscal year 1969 is to. give us the modest sum of $100,000, that is what the Army Engineers recommend. Now, this would be fo.r planning money. The major expenditures are at least 2 years distant, Mr. Wright, 2 years distant. This is tl1e plan. We call it A. & E. I think that means architect and engineering. You call it advanced engineering and design. That is what you call it. Now, of course, the Appropriations Committee will determine the expenditure priorities after you have authorized it and this is what I am imploring you, Mr. Clausen, to do-authorize it. Authorize the whole business, not any segment of it. Now, I should like to talk for a minute about the effect of this project on the South Carolina Public Service Authority. This is our own TVA which runs the whole business, the powerplants and the whole business connected with it. It is also known as the Santee- Cooper Authority. This is a public agency of the State of South Carolina created by the direct act of the State legislature when I was a member of it. It showed the vision I had there. It is South Caro- lina's public power yardstick and it has done a magnificent job. Some of its power output is sold at wholesale to small businesses, municipalities, and rural cooperatives. Some is sold at retail to small communities and small towns. Three military bases buy their power from this authority and several indUstries vital to South Caro- lina's economy draw their power supply from this basin. Mr. HARSHA. How did that happen to get built? Mr. RIVERS. Somebody went down there and saw how wonderful it was and they persuaded me to let them put in a few military installations on that and very reluctantly I agreed, as you know. Now, it is performing a vital service to the people of South Caro- lina and I know that the Congress would not want to make it possible for this great work to be abandoned. The Santee-Cooper draws a large part of its power supply from a hydroelectric project which is part and parcel of the whole busi- imess. It is on the Cooper River which runs by Charleston and it is called the Pinopolis project. This project was built in the 1930's as a. great public works project. The Santee-Cooper Authority applied for a license from the Federal Power Commission and the license was granted. The Santee-Cooper has lived up to all of the provisions of this license. They have not varied or violated or failed in one requirement to the bond holders. PAGENO="0486" 472 Tinder the Federal Power Act this project is not subject to recap- ture. It is owned by a public agency. The effect of the St. Stephens ~project, that is the one before you, would be to divert most of the water from the Cooper River, that is the one that runs by Charleston by the naval shipyard and into the harbor and run it back into the Santee River whence it came. The Santee River comes and runs into this big lake, lets the water run down to Charleston. They want to run it into the lakes and all the spilling back into the Santee River instead of Charleston where the harbor is being ruined as a result of the silt coming as a result of the Pinopolis project. It would leave the Pinopolis plant almost high and dry, out of business. `The average flow at the Pinopolis plant is something like 15,600 cubic feet per second. When the St. Stephens project is completed, this flow will be reduced to 3,000 cubic feet per second, less than 20 per- cent of the present flow. Now, the license to do this does not expire until April 1, 1976. The St. Stephens project' was recommended by the corps including the provision for keeping the Santee-Cooper whole, the whole business whole, and `had been approved by the Governor of the State of South Carolina in accordance with the law and by every State and Federal agency to which it had been presented except the Bureau of the Budget which released its adverse report only yesterday. All they did was close up the power. This report comes as a complete surprise in view of the unanimous endorsement this thing has received up to this point by all parties whomsoever, even the Public Health commented on it. This is a very negative and damaging report and I hope and I am sure t.he members of the committee that you will forthwi'th reject it and this is what I most respectfully urge you to do, gentlemen. Now, of course, it would be the height of unfairness and confis- cation if the Federal Government were to `take away the water required to run the Pinopolis plant and the one they are now running without making compensation. This would be ridiculous. I am not talking about legal questions now, but just ordinary curbstone common fairness. The Corps of Engineers has heretofore negotiated an arrangement to keep the Santee-Cooper whole, powerplant, spiliways, and every- thing. This arrangement is part and parcel of the recommendation of the Corps of Engineers. It was negotiated `at arms length and after a lot of hard bargaining which took many, many months to firm up this whole business and now it is before you. Of course, the agreement is tentative and is subject to congressional authorization we understand, to negotiate the final terms. This is understood. I strongly urge the Corps of Engineers, gentlemen, to give this authority. The corps `has composed also what they call an area imple- mentation feature which means the corps would have authority to divert the water before the completion of the plant so that it would not silt up Charleston Harbor upon reimbursing the Santee-Cooper for the additional cost of replacing its lost capacity to generate power. That is to say that during the time building this new generating plant, they would implement what they lost in power to fulfill the power to PAGENO="0487" 473 our military, our shipyards, our Polaris base, and many of the towns and cities and our REA projects in that area. I believe that this is a valuable and desirable feature, also, provided it is not used to delay or buck the construction of the St. Stephens project, but oniy to ~et the benefits as soon as possible and without awaiting the completion or even the start of the St. Stephens project. We want it all to go along at once. I am not going to waste my time and I am just about through and I know you are glad. I am not going to waste my time, Mr. Ohairman, to tell you about the Bureau of the Budget's recommendation. I only have a few more paragraphs here to refer to on that. You know that the Bureau of the Budget's authorization is only for early implementation between now and the date of the expiration of the license of the Federal Power Commission to this agency. The Bureau of the Budget wants to let them go ahead, but do not do any- thing regarding their powermaking capacity until the license expires in 1976. Who am I to conject or predict and who are you to conject or pre- dict who will be sitting on the Power Commission in 1976? Who are we to know who will make up the personnel of the Federal Power Commission? This thing is so ridiculous it is silly. I want you to let us go ahead and build this power plant and implement what the Army Engineers have done. If you follow the sugge~stion of the Bureau of the Budget all you will do will be to gut the project. Let me go off the record here. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. RIvERs. The Engineers understand and this is elementary with the Engineers. You have to build a canal and at the end of the canal you have tO build a powerplant. You cannot do it any other way. If you do it any other way you kill the project. They have the license. They have a noncapture clause in it. This is an agency of the State of South Carolina. That is their business and they agree to try to save the Harbor of Charleston by diverting the water and sending it down to the ocean in some other stream, but they have to have the power with it and this is what the Army Engineers are recommending and I will ask and implore this committee to give us what the Army Engineers have recommended because it is absolutely foolproof, arrived at after many, many hearings, endless hearings and after many negotiations and it is understood. The manager of the project is here at the table with me. He has already submitted his statement and he does not want to take up your time. He knows how busy you gentlemen are and he is perfectly willing, as I am, to leave it to the good gentlemen of this committee, the least of whom is not Mr. Harsha. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You have ex- plained the proposition very clearly. The project is, from an engineer- ing point of view, feasible and favorably approved by the Corps of Engineers, by several Federal departments, the Department of the Interior, HEW, Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, the Federal Power Commission and certainly your own State of South Carolina. The benefit-cost ratio is very favorable, 2.2. You do have this com- plicated situation to which the Bureau of the Budget objects. PAGENO="0488" 474 I assure the chairman that we will give it every favorable considera- tion to see if we can get this project underway. We cannot make any too firm a statement at this time. WTe have been through this in the past. You do have a very persuasive case a.nd we hope to resolve our differ- ences with the Bureau of the Budget at least within reason so that we can take action on this. Mr. RIVERs. We only want $100,000 this year, but we have to have the authorization. I am a committee chairman, too. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, might I simply say very briefly-be- cause I do not want to delay the next witnesses-but I think the gen- tleman from South Carolina has made a very extremely persuasive case. I believe that the gentleman from South Carolina is eminently better qualified and more knowledgeable of the facts involved than anyone in the Bureau of the Budget could be. The Corps of Engineers, whose experts have fairly analyzed the economics of the project, are more familiar than anybody in the Bureau of the Budget could be. The Bureau of the Budget is like a man trying to sell you an automo- bile without `an engine. The gentleman from South Carolina is always very persuasive. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I have been over almost every foot of this area in the last 2 years on Navy duty down there and I am per- suaded before he made his presentation that it ought to have been done a long time ago. Mr. RIVERS. He knows something about the silting down there be- cause he spent much time as a captain when he should have been an admiral. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Porn? Mr. PORN. Mr. Chairman, of course, I want to welcome my beloved colleague to the committee. He has stated the facts precisely and ex- actly and I hope this project is authorized by this committee and this session of the Congress. Mr. Rivers, we are happy to have had you with us. Mr. RIVERS. Thank you, very much. I deeply appreciate this courteous and kind reception and I thank you, every one of you, very much. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We have to announce to the witnesses here that we are in somewhat of a bind as the House meets at 11 today. We have a very important appropriations bill up on HEW. We will make every effort to hear as many of the witnesses as we can today, hopefully all. With that in mind, some of our colleagues could help. If you could be on hand with your delegations, we would have you stand by. Mr. Fascell, could we hear from you? You have a very large delega- tion. GTJLF COASTAL WATERWAY-ST. MARKS TO TAMPA BAT, FLORIDA STATTIMERT OP HON. DANTE PASCELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. FASCELL. I do, Mr. Chairman. What we would like to do is to bring up the director of our board of conservation, Mr. Hodges and Mr. Herb Kelley. PAGENO="0489" 475 On behalf of Mr. Sikes, I have a statement on one of his projects that I support. It is the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. (The statement of Hon. Robert L. F. Sikes follows:) STATEMENT BY HoN. ROBERT L. F. SIKES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before this dis- tinguished Committee today lfl Support of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway- St. Marks to Tampa Bay. This project would provide for construction of about 250 miles of intracoastal waterway, 12 feet deep by 150 feet wide, from Tampa Bay to St. Marks River, Florida. An intracoastal waterway between St. Marks River and Tampa Bay is planned to be located generally along the Gulf shore from St. Marks River to the Anclote River and thence, along the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to Tampa Bay. The total estimated cost of the project is $104,322,000. Of this amount, $89,872,000 is federal cost and $14,450,000 is non-federal participation. This project will interconnect the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from St. Marks to the Mexican border, with the section from Anclote River to the Caloosa- hatchee River, Florida. It will also provide a protected waterway, connecting the Cross-Florida Barge Canal with the Gulf *and midcontinental system of waterways and the Atlantic seaboard system. In addition to providing major transportation savings through barge distribution of freight from deep water ports at Tampa, St. Petersburg, Pensacola, and Panama City, construction of the St. Marks to Tampa waterway will open a large part of the remaining undeveloped coastline of Florida for recreational development and would pre- serve these natural resources for public use. Completion of the waterway, coupled with completion of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, will provide a con- nected intercoastal waterway system of over 2500 miles, reaching from Trenton, New Jersey to the Mexican border and tying in to the Mississippi River system of channels, including the Tennessee, Ohio, and Missouri River systems and on to the Great Lakes via the Illinois waterway. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that this Committee give favorable considera- tion to this most outstanding project which has such far-reaching benefits. Mr. FASOELL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gibbons has a statement. Mr. BLATNLK. Proceed, Mr. Gibbons. STATEMENT OF HON. SAM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. GIBBONS. I will merely put my statement into the record at this point. (The full prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. SAM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, for the past five years the question of the feasibility of con- structing a 250 mile coastal waterway from St. Marks, Florida, to Tampa, Florida, has been studied by the Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of this construction project is to connect the inland waterways of the Atlantic seaboard with those of the Gulf of Mexico and the mid-continental United States. Com- pletion of the waterway, coupled with completion of the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, will provide a connected intercoastal waterway tying in to the Mississippi River system of channels including the Tennessee, Ohio, and Missouri River sys- tem and the Great Lakes via the Illinois waterway system. As you can see, this project will benefit a large segment of our population. On June 10, 1968, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors recommended construction of a 12 feet deep and 150 feet wide channel to close the final gap in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway system. I think it is important to emphasize that the area under consideration represents the only missing link in a sheltered coastal waterway extending from a point north of Boston, Massachusetts to the Mexican border. PAGENO="0490" 476 There are a number of other benefits associated with this project. In addition to providing major transportation savings through barge distribution of frei~ht from deep water ports at Tampa, St. Petersburg, Pensacola, and Panama City, construction of the St. Marks to Tampa waterway will open a large part of the remaining undeveloped coastline of Florida for recreational development and would preserve these natural resources for public use. A thorough study has been made of the cost-benefit ratio for the project. The ratio of 1.7 to 1 is certainly favorable. There are many other benefits which are difficult to estimate. I feel that planned industrial development will occur in specially zoned areas near the urban centers along the w-aterwav and will add materially to prospective waterway traffic in the future. I also feel that shippers and receivers of barge transportable bulk commod- ities as well as the public sector of the general economy will receive immediate benefit from reduced barging transportation charges. Substantial benefits will be realized from recreational boating traffic, land enhancement from placement of dredging spoil, and general recreational development along the route of the waterway. The Chief of Engineers is co-ordinating the project with various agencies interested in it. A final report is due soon. However, I feel sure their comments will not adversely affect this vital transportation improvement. Mr. Chairman, I know this Subcommittee will give this project very careful consideration. I urge you to authorize construction in the present Omnibus Public Works bill before you today. Thank you. STATEMENT OP HON. DON PUQUA, A ItEPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP FLORIDA Mr. FUQUA. I would like to insert my statement into the record at this point, Mr. Chairman. It concerns the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. Mr. Br~TNIK. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The full, prepared statement of Mr. Fuqua follows:) STATEMENT BY lox. Dox FUQUA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE or FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Accordingly, my concern for our Intracoastal Waterway has been of long standing and sincerely in the best interest of our nation. Since my election to Congress, I have appeared before the various appropriate committees urging the completion of the only "missing link" in the nearly 3,000 mile Intracoastal Waterway traversing along our coastline from Trenton, New Jersey, to the Mexican border. This uncom- pleted portion from St. Marks, Florida, to the Tampa Bay area deserves without further delay the congressional authorization which would begin the forward steps toward effective, efficient, and expeditious industrial and recreational de- velopment, along with sufficient defense transportation measures. Emphasis cannot be overstressed with regard to the necessity of this project authorization. It is somewhat bewildering that we are so near to having perhaps one of the best protected inland waterways any nation has, and yet at the present rate of progress it seems another generation may pass before the benefits we know and advocate will be realized. A good part of the unfinished waterway lies along the Gulf coastline of my congressional district, and I have worked diligently to- ward the completion of the "missing link" of some 224 miles. It is time that due regard be exercised in the routing and construction of this portion of the water- way and bring to and end a lack of active and unquestionable recognition of the significance of the completion of it. This is particular trenchant in view of the construction of the Cross Florida Barge Canal. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway will further implement and most certainly augment the purposes and use of the Canal. I believe the defense meas- ures served through these waterways are understandable and thought provoking even without extensive discussion or even mention. The single thought of a Com- munistic government only 90 miles from our nation's shorelines and border makes all of this very real to us. Furthermore, the economic benefits have been presented numerous times over the years. We are now looking beyond these meritorious points of long standing into the space age. There is an imminent need of the PAGENO="0491" 477 waterway, along with the Canal, for the transporting of missiles from the space flight center at Huntsville, Alabama, to the launching site at Cape Kennedy. They are of a size which can only be accommodated by specially constructed barges. The security of the movement of the missiles is mandatory, but there is a time factor involved, as well. I am encouraged by the favorable survey report of April 11, 1968, made by the Corps of Engineers. Allow me to stress the affirmative reaction on the part of the reporting officers who believe the construction of the "missing link" would bene- fit navigation and recreation in the amount of about $9,987,000 annually and with a ratio of benefits to the cost at 1.7 to 1.0. It is hoped and urged that you take favorable action in behalf of the Intra- coastal Waterway and increase its "strength" by the completion of the St. Marks to Tampa Bay route; eliminating not just the weakest link, but the missing link! STATEMENT OP RLNDOLPH HODGES, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA BOARD OP CONSERVATION; ACCOMPANIED BY I. 3~. STEPHENS, REAR ADMIRAL, U.S. COAST GUARD (RETIRED) Mr. HorxiEs. Mr. Chairman, I am Randolph Hodges, the director of the Florida Board of Conservation. Mr. BI~m~IK. We welcome you, Mr. Hodges. Mr. HoDGES. I am the director of the Florida Board of Conservation which is composed of the Governor and six members of his cabinet. Our Florida Legislature is in session and prevented those gentle- men from appearing personally before you this morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the Public Works Committee, it is my pleasure to have this opportunity of discussing with you our Florida program of water resources development. It is also my honor to be able to join with the members of our Florida delegation in pre- senting to you our statewide program of public works projects desired to be accepted by the Public Works Committee and recommended by you for authorization by Congress. This program I present to you has been mutually developed and agreed upon by local interests, State government, and our congres- sional delegation. Each project included has been developed by the Corps of Engineers and is recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. It is not a fragmented, sectionalized program; but is the unified position of all recognized interests representing Flor- ida, and includes our position on all water-related projects in the State concerning flood control, beach erosion control, and rivers and harbors. We know of no opposition to these projects but would like for you to Imow how important this unified program of public works is to our delegation, to our State, and to the people of Florida. The Florida Board of Conservation is composed of the Governor and the six cabinet members. Under our State law, the board of con- servation has the duty of supervising and coordinating development of the water resources in Florida and preparing the unified statewide program for presentation to Congress. Last week we appeared before Congressman Bob Jones' Flood Con- trol Committee and made our presentation on projects within his purview. Members of our Florida delegation consider it important that our actions show equal respect for the Rivers and Harbors Com- mittee. We have come back from Florida to prove this point, but we will make our appearance brief because we know you have an over- loaded schedule. We appreciate the loyal and diligent efforts of our PAGENO="0492" 478 congressional delegation in furthering the interests of Florida and consider it an honor to be asked to work with them on any matter, particularly one so important as appearing before your committee. We in Florida recognize and appreciate our dependence on the water resources of the State for our economy, our welfare, our exist- ence, and our future. It is our purpose and our policy, as stated in Florida laws, to conserve these resources by multiple-purpose develop- ments that will yield the widest use and most valuable benefits for our people and the Nation without depleting the basic natural resources. The program we are recommending to you this year is in accord with this stated policy. New projects recommended are those that have long been considered by the State, carefully studied by the Corps of Engi- neers, and recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. We have outlined our program in a written brief as a state- ment for the record and included our recommendation for each project. Copies of the brief have been given to your committee and I will not repeat those details. I will discuss briefly only the navigation and beach erosion control projects. The Florida Board of Conservation believes that improvement in transportation economies is an essential to our economic growth and stability. We further believe that the only feasible means of obtaining these economies is by providing water transportation. That is why our ports and inland waterways are of such great importance to our devel- opment and long-range economic security. A 250-mile inland waterway project along the Gulf of Mexico from St. Marks River to Tampa Bay, Fla., designed to interconnect the in- land waterways of the Atlantic seaboard with those of the Gulf of Mex- ico and the rnidcontinental United States~ completing and tying to- gether these separate systems, has been studied by the Corps of Engi- neers for the past 4 or 5 years and is recommended for authorization at this time. We concur in the recommendations of the Corp of Engineers and emphasize that this project is the most urgently needed of all wa- terway projects in the United States because it gives meaning to several disconnected segments of the waterway system. `Metropolitan Dade County is completing this year a $23 million improvement program for the Miami Port that will provide a modern passenger terminal, marginal wharves, transit sheds, warehouses, utili- ties, and other facilities needed for an efficient and modern port. A second-phase development of the port is now in the planning stage for a longer range plan to meet future requirements. The existing channel depth of 30 feet for the Miami harbor is inadequate to meet current requirements and will practically preclude use by many ships now under construction which are planned for future operations. The population and growth demands of the Miami area dictate considera- tion of improving the navigation facilities to meet at least the minimum present demands of water transportation. Deepening of the main ship channel and turning basis to 36 feet is fully justified at this time. Authorization of this channel improvement is recognized as an im- portant requirement of south Florida and is requested by the State to be recommended by your committee for authorization. Port Sutton is served by a side channel in Tampa Harbor. The Port Sutton channel and related port facilities were constructed with local funds. They were constructed to meet the growing industrial demands of the Florida west coast area. The Federal Government maintains all PAGENO="0493" 479 other channels of Tampa Harbor; but since the Port Sutton channel was developed at private expense, it is not presently maintained by the Federal Government. The purpose of this request is to seek Federal authorization for maintenance of this channel, the same as for other* channels in the Tampa Harbor. There is one beach erosion control project in Florida recommended for authorization this year. It will protect an area of our shoreline important not only for recreation and the economy of the region, but also important to the great missile center at Cape Kennedy in Bre- yard County. Local interests have agreed to pay the major share of the cost of the project along the public use area where the beaches are im- portant for recreation and public use, and essential to the economy of the region served. Protection of the federally owned shore north of Canaveral Harbor and at Patrick Air Force Base could be provided protection, subject to justification by the `agencies involved. Details of this project are contained in the statement for the record submitted to your committee. We request your favorable consideration for au- thoriz'ation of this beach erosion control project in Brevard County. We realize that reports on some of the projects for which we request authorization may not have been processed by all Federal agencies and their comments may not have been available in time for the Chief of Engineers to submit the reports to Congress in final form. However, all of th'ese projects `have been studied by the Corps of Engineers and favorably reported by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. If any of the reports discussed `have not reached your committee before the hearings are completed, we hope that you may call up `any in- terested agency `to present their comments so the committee may con- sider the project before markup of the omnibus bill. We hope that these project reports having cleared the Board, will be favorably considered by your committee for inclusion in the omnibus bill for 1968. Thank you for giving us this opportunity of presenting our program requirements to your committee. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. `Hodges. The gentleman from `Ohio, Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. T'hank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to call the attention of the members from Florida, Mr. F'ascell, Mr. Fuqu'a, `and Mr. Gibbons and you might `relay this in- formation to Mr. Sikes, that there are a number of problems as you have envisioned created. We do not `have the comments of the Federal agencies and the Bureau of the Budget so I would urge you to use your considerable influence with the departmental `agencies to expedite their reports so we may have `all the `information `available w'hen we mark thi's up. Mr. GIBBONS. We are going to ask their cooperation in getting it to this committee. Mr. HARSHA. Be a little more aggressive in that effort because time is of `the essence. Mr. Cn~MnR. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HARSHA. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Each of the agencies should be contacted by `the delega- tion or by one of its members to `ask that these reports be expedited. However, I `am confident we `can get some preliminary reaction from the respective `departments and I am `sure `the gentlemen are `also' PAGENO="0494" 480 familiar with the fact that where it appears there is not obvious opposi- tion, that the committee has, in the past where the circumstances are justified, authorized the project subject to these provisions. The Intracoastal Waterway is of great concern to all of us and this is the last phase of the missing link and waiting 2 more years for authorization would be most disadvantageous to everyone concerned including the State of Florida with its local responsibility. This study that must be made relating to fish and wildlife and nat- ural resources and estuaries, that even precedes the construction stage. It is essential that it be underway in the near future so there is plenty of precedence for this committee as it relates to time. Would you show that chart again, please? Mr. HARSHA. I would say to the gentleman from Florida that I am very much aware of his interest in this project and his considerable leadership. I am sure this will be one that will be continued coopera- tively wherever possible and I thought if we could eliminate some of the problems that might arise now, that would expedite it. Mr. CRAMER. Perhaps some of the agencies present in the room will be able to recognize it is the desire of the committee to get those reports before we start marking up the bill. Mr. FASGELL. Thank you very much, gentlemen. You men have traveled far. MIAMI HARBOR, FLA. Mr. Chairman, we will be through here very quickly. We have an- other witness, Rear Adm. I. J. Stephens, U.S. Coast Guard. Admiral S~rurnENs. Mr. Chairman, with your permission I should like to submit my statement and I could summarize this in about 30 seconds. Mr. BIATNIX. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The full, prepared statement of Admiral Stephens follows:) STATEMENT OF I. J~. STEPHENS, REAR ADMIRAL TJSCG (RETIRED), PORT DIRECTOR, PORT OF MIAMI, FLA. Gentlemen, my name is Irvin 1. Stephens, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired) and presently Port Director, Port of Miami. Technically, I am Director of the Seaport Department for Metropolitan Dade County, Florida. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning on behalf of the proposed deepening project for Miami Harbor. This project is of vital impor- tance to all of the Greater Miami Area, included within Dade County, Florida, the governmental entity which I represent. Today I want to emphasize rather briefly just why this deepening project is so vital to the Greater Miami Area. The Port of Miami has been in existence for over 50 years. The old port, located in downtown Miami on Biscayne Boulevard, has well served its purpose over these many years in the bandllng of cruise passengers and general cargo. Formerly largely a coastwise shipping port, it has, since World War II, become a signifi- cant general cargo port for worldwide trade. Of particular interest is the Port of Miami's rapidly increasing trade with the countries of the Caribbean Basin. Swift and frequent service to all of this area is provided from the New Port of Miami particularly by roll-on, roll-off container vessels, a service in which the Port pioneered. In consideration of this shift in emphasis and rapidly increasing shipping busi- ness through the Port, during the past five years we have been phasing out the old port and building a brand new $25 million port, five minutes from downtown Miami. Modern in every respect and with the capabillty to handle the future port needs of the area, it is imperative that the navigational capability be in con- sonance with the capability of the facilities themselves. PAGENO="0495" 481 Virtually each day sees the New Port of Miami lined with ships flying the flags of many nations and carrying the wide variety of goods both inbound and outbound. There is, for example, service three or four times a month to the Far East-to northern Europe-to the Mediterranean-and even more fre- quently to South America. Unfortunately, however, and in too many cases, shipping business through the Port is limited by its present depth of water. Too often ocean going freighters must make Miami a middle or last port of call rather than the first port, because there is inadequate water. Too often ships are diverted from entering the Port because of insufficient depth of water. Too often valuable cargoes are lost to other ports, not conveniently located, because of inadequate channel depths. The many users of the Port of Miami are unanimous in their strong view that the additional 6' of water proposed in the Engineers' Report is vital to the continuing and future wellbeing of the Port of Miami. On the cruise ship side of the coin, the picture is the same. For many year~ the Port of Miami has enjoyed a natural geographical location for this impor- tant passenger business. Being as it is at the very doorway to the Bahamas and the Caribbean Basin, literally hundreds of thousands of citizens of this country have enjoyed tropical cruises from the convenient Port of Miami. At the same time, however, a great loss of potential cruise passenger business has resulted; because of inadequate depth of water. Many large passenger ships, strongly de- sirous of entering the Port of Miami, have been precluded from doing so because of insufficient depth. Up until the present time the Port has also suffered from the lack of adequate passenger terminal facilities. Now, however, this deficiency is being overcome in- asmuch as the Port has under construction its brand new $5 million passenger ter- minal. This will be a very unique facility and one which will be most attractive and inducive to thousands of potential cruise passengers. This terminal is sched- uled for partial operations in December 1968, and for full operations in April 1969. With the completion of this long-awaited passenger facility, the present pas- senger load can be handled in an appropriate and comfortable manner, and some additional light-draft passenger ships will also be attracted. However, again the existing 30' for water in the Port of Miami is a serious limitation upon the development of this business. Studies have clearly indicated that many of the world's cruise ships draw on the order of 28', 29', 30', or 31', and Miami's present depth of 30' is simply inadequate to take these ves- sels. With the 36' project approved, virtually all of the world's passenger ships could make the Port of Miami a highly desirable port of call. This, of course, means not only our own citizens embarking and debarking on cruises from this Port, but of equal importance, the gates would be open to many foreign-flag vessels and visitors in conjunction with Caribbean cruises, around-the-world cruises, and trans-Atlantic travel. I would emphasize in this connection that while the ship can no longer be truly regarded as a means of competitive transportation, nonetheless it is rapidly becoming a major vehicle for leisure travel. I think it goes without saying that the closer we approach the 35-hour week and the more affluent becomes our society, the more demand there will be for leisure time. And in the eyes of many people, there is no better means of spending leisure time than aboard a luxurious cruise liner in sunlit and smooth tropical waters. May I emphasize also that with completion of its new ship passenger terminal within a year, the citizens of the Greater Miami Area will have invested almost $25 million in its fine new Port. Moreover, from all present indications and studies, an equal amount will be invested in the Port over the next 10 to 15 years. Our community has, indeed, a great confidence in the future growth and development of its Port. The community awaits eagerly for its Port to take its rightful place among the major ports of this country, and this can only be accomplished with this vitally needed deepening project. Already and without any hesitancy the Greater Miami Area, acting through its duly constituted Dade County Government, has pledged its full support and has guaranteed the total local participation that will be required of it. I urge that this project be given prompt and favorable consideration by your Committee. Thank you, gentlemen. Admiral STEPHENS. We are building a brandnew port over at Miami. Our community has about $25 million invested in it now. We are in the PAGENO="0496" 482 second phase. ~\Te will wind up with about a $50 million investment, this deepening project from 30 to 36 feet. Mr. BLATNIK. Admiral, is it 36 or 38 feet? Admiral STEPHENS. It is 36 feet on the main channel sir, and 38 feet outside. That is an extra 2 feet because of wave bounce allowance out there. But this extra 6 feet is vital to us in terms of our rapidly increas- ing general cargo and our cruise passeilger business. I think that summarizes it, sir. Mr. BI~TNIK. The committee has in the past visited the port. It is an excellent development and I want to congratulate you on the splendid initiative and creativeness displayed on the local level under the very able leadership and participation of the citizens. Thank you very much. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we do have a beautiful port at Miami but this improvement is extremely essential because it is the lifeblood of our area. It is one of the fastest growing areas in the whole country. As all of you know, we are one of the last major ports to receive this kind of treatment or improvement. We are way behind. We have been subject to great discrimination so long as I can remember. It is one of the most costly things to our community and, therefore, it is urgent and necessary both from an economic point of view and from a military point of view to get this improvement. I have a statement supporting this project, of course, which I want to submit for the record and to advise the committee that the agencies have reported favorably on this project, that is the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Interior, HE~\\T, Department of Transportation, and the Florida Board of Conservation. We expect the corps to report to the Congress today on the matter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (The full, prepared statement of Mr. Fascell follows:) STATEMENT OF lox. DANTE B. FASCELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TUE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear in support of authorization of improvements on Miami Harbor. This project is of vital importance. The major portion of Dade County, Florida's economy is based on trade and tourism. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that brings visitors and trade from every point in the Western hemisphere as well as throughout the world. The present depth of 30 feet will not permit large cruise and other ships to dock at Miami. They are compelled to either berth elsewhere, even though most would prefer to come to Miami, or bypass South Florida completely. In addition to tourism, Greater Miami has become one of the fastest growing areas in the country for light industry. Its garment manufacturing industry is one of the largest in the nation and the production of sports equipment, aluminum products, jewelry and boat building-to mention only a few-have become major factors in the economy. The deepening of Miami Harbor will also prove to be a primary military asset to the United States. South Florida is one of the country's major strongholds of defense. During World War II a large number of vessels were sunk within view of the shore from Miami Beach to Key West. The limited facilities at that time were overtaxed. The availability of an additional deep water harbor to our mili- tary forces is apparent. The federal government has other interests in deepening Miami Harbor. ESSA has chosen Miami for its new East coast oceanographic study laboratory. This, along with the University of Miami's Institute of Marine Science and the U.S. Tropical Atlantic Biological Laboratory, has made Miami the oceanographic center of the world. Large vessels for ocean study will be coming to Miami in PAGENO="0497" 483 great number in the near future and the deepening of the port will facilitate their navigation. With the proposed improvements of deepening the entrance channel to 38 feet and the turning basins to 36 feet, cruise ships, cargo vessels, military vessels, as well as tankers and supertankers, will be able to be accomodated at Miami. Dade County already has underway a $23 million improvement program for the Port of Miami that will provide a modern cruise passenger terminal, 17,000 feet of marginal wharf, more than 500,000 square feet of transit sheds and 150 acres of open storage. The last contract of this $23 millon program will be completed this year and a second phase development program for a long range improvement plan is now being considered. Without the authorization of the improvements we are asking for today, none of these newly constructed facilities will be able to be used to contemplated full capacity. Miami is not only the Gateway to the Americas-it is becoming one of the gateways to the world. In 1967 Miami International Airport was rated the 8th busiest in the nation, while Opa Locka Airport, immediately north of Miami, ranked number 2. Flights land and take off for every portion of the United States, Latin America, Europe, Africa and the Pacific. With a deep water harbor, Miami's seaport could he expected to be just as busy. I respectfully request your approval of this authorization request this year. (The responses of State and Federal agencies follow:) FLORIDA BOARD OF CONsERvATIoN, Tallahassee, June 12, 1968. Re Report on Miami Harbor Channel Improvement, Florida. DEAR GENERAL CAssroy: This office is informed that the survey-review report of the Jacksonville District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, on the above referenced project has been approved by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Because of the short time remaining before hearings by the House Public Works Committee and the urgency of having the project included in the Public Works Omnibus Bill of 1968, comments of the Florida Board of Conservation are forwarded on project approval by the Board of Engineers in anticipation of requests from your office for comments and recommendations on the project. The Board of County Commissioners, Dade Coimty, Florida, the legally con- stituted agency of local responsibility, in resolution of September 5, 1067, accepted the requirements and conditions for local cooperation as specified by the Jacksonville District Engineer. Copy of the resolution of acceptance is contained in the report. Comments of the fish and wildlife agencies concerned are also contained in the report. These agencies concur in the project and their comments are current in consideration of the project. We appreciate the efforts you have made to expedite completion of this study and hope that the report having cleared the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, will be favorably considered by the Public Works Committees of Con- gress for inclusion in the Public Works Omnibus Bill of 1968. Sincerely, RANDOLPH HODGES, Director. U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 21, 1968. Lt. Gen. WILLIAM F. CASSIDY, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL CAssIDY: As requested by your letter of June 15, 1968, the following comments are presented regarding the report on Miami Harbor, Florida. The Public Health Service has found that the improvements proposed in this report will cause no significant health-related problems. The intangible benefits of promoting the safety of navigation, as mentioned in Supplement I, is noted. In view of the above, The Public Health Service has no objection to the authorization of this project. Sincerely yours, JEROME H. SVORE, Director, National Center for Urban and Industrial Public Health Igervice. 97-700-68----32 PAGENO="0498" 484 T.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, TVarliingtOn, D.C., Jvne 26,1968. Lt. Gen. WILLIAM F. CASSIDY, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL CASSIDY: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1968, request- ing our comments on your proposed report on Miami Harbor, Florida. The Fish and Wildlife Service is pleased that your report adequately considers the fish and wildlife resources of the area. Your plan for disposal of spoil in the approved areas is noteworthy. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration states that the Corps of Engineers proposes to modify the existing navigation project at Miami Harbor by deepening the main channel, the approach and the turning basin and widening the entrance channel in the area between the jetties. If proper precautions are taken to avoid damage from silt resulting from spoil disposal, construction activities are not expected to have significant effects on water quality in the area. We note that much of the material to be excavated is rocky, indicating that little organic solids would be involved. Construction of causeways and land fill projects have already severely restrict- ed the natural tidal flows and the accompanying flushing action originally afford- ed these waters. The disposal of spoil adjacent to existing land areas is ex- pected to further reduce local interchange of fresh and salt water, though it is anticipated that the reduction in interchange will be partially offset by the deeper channel. While ocean outfalls are utilized for discharge of treatment plant effluents by the City of Miami and Miami Beach, numerous small treatment plants dis- charging treated effluent to canals and waterways leading into Biscayne Bay are now being used to take care of wastes from rapidly growing developments in the surrounding areas. We hope that these plants will eventually be tied to an ocean outfall or that advance waste treatment methods will be applied. Dis- charge of treated wastes from developing areas must be anticipated, however. In addition, pollution from the many commercial and pleasure crafts which use the harbor is becoming more severe. As a result of the intensive recreational use of the waters of Biscayne Bay, it is important that any changes which could contribute to further reduction in the quality of the Bay be avoided. It has become increasingly apparent in the last several years that a compre- hensive study of water quality problems in the entire Biscayne Bay area is needed. The complex changes in water movements and tidal exchange resulting from dredging and filling activities, from causeways and from the proposed changes in fresh water flow into the Bay which are associated with the increase in storage capacity of Lake Okeechobee and back pumping from certain areas indi- cate the desirability of an hydraulic model to show the effect of existing and proposed construction on tidal currents and water quality. In view of the above, we are concerned that filling adjacent to Virginia Key, Fisher Island, Lummus Island and Dodge Island be replaced by shore disposal or that the spoil be so placed that it will not further restrict tidal exchange in the Bay. The requirements of local cooperation in providing spoil disposal areas and necessary diking as well as regulations prohibiting discharge of pollutants to project areas should assist in the prevention and control of pollution. Particular attention in this area should be given to prevention of the discharge of untreated wastes from vessels using the harbor area. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will be pleased to work with the appropriate field offices in any necessary review of detailed plans for disposal of dredging spoil in the interests of water pollution control. The opportunity of presenting our views is appreciated. Sincerely yours, ROBERT W. NELsoN, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. PAGENO="0499" 485 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1968. Lt. Gen. WILLIAM F. CASSIDY, (~Yhief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL CAS5IDY: This is in response to General Clarke's letter of June 18 to Secretary Boyd requesting the review of your proposed report con- cerning the improvement of Miami Harbor, Florida. Miami Harbor is dredged to a depth of 30 feet in the main ship channel and turning basin. The present project depth limits access to vessels drawing about 25 feet of water. Your proposed improvements call for dredging the main ship channel and turning basin to a depth of 36 feet and dredging the entrance bar channel to 38 feet. The plan also calls for widening the channel between the jetties by 100 feet. The estimated cost of the proposal is $7,055,000 and it has a benefit/cost ratio of 1.5 to 1. In the U.S. Coast Guard review of this report, it was noted that although project implementation would permit larger cruise ships to enter Miami Harbor, this would not affect basic Coast Guard responsibilities in the area. However, the relocation of certain aids to navigation would be required. The Department of Transportation appreciates your courtesy in furnishing copies of this report for review and commentary. Sincerely yours, RICHARD J. BARBER, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development. Mr. BLATNIK. I see we have our old friend, John Young, a former member of this committee and our friend for many, many years. PORT ARANSAS-CORPUS CHRISTE WAITJRWAY, TEX. STATEMENT OP HON. 3OHN YOUNO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TI~ STATE OP TEXAS Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to make reference to the Corpus Christi Waterway deepening project to 45 feet. I do plan to submit a statement. I have a comprehensive statement here by Mr. Duane Orr, director of industrial development and port planning. Mr. Dale Miller is also present. They are not going to testify in deference to the committee's time, but with the co~nmittee's permission I would like to say that I certainly support wholeheartedly this project. It bears a more than 4-to-i benefit-cost ratio approved by the corps and I think this is in excellent condition to go ahead. I would like to submit their statements. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statements of Duane Orr and Dale Miller follow:) STATEMENT OF DUANE OaR, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PORT PLANNING, NUEOES COUNTY NAVIGATION DISTRICT No. 1, PORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI, CoRPUS CHRISTI, Tax. JUNE 26, 1968 Mr. Ohairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, my name is Duane Orr, and I am Director of Industrial Development and Port Planning for Nueces County Navigation District No. 1, better known as the Port of Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, in whose District the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Water- way is located. I `appear `before you today requesting that the modifications and improvements to the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors be adopted by your Committee and that the PAGENO="0500" 486 project be included in your recommendations to the House Public Works Com- mittee for authorization in the pending Rivers and Harbors Omnibus Bill. AUTHORITY FOR REPORT The report referred to and the modifications and improvements to the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway requested herein are based on the study made pursuant to the following resolution adopted April 14, 1900 by the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate. Resolved by the Committee on Public Works of i/ic United States Senate, That the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, created under Section 3 of the Rivers and Harbor Act, approved June 13, 1902, be, and is hereby, requested to review the reports on the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway, Texas, sub- mitted in House Document No. 361, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Document No. 33, 85th Congress, 1st Session, and previous reports, with a view to determin- ing if the existing project should be modified in any way at this time, with par- ticular reference to providing increased channel and basin depths and widths, for flaring approaches to the turning basins, and for further channel extensions, including a shallow draft branch channel from Corpus Christi Bay into Nueces Bay, and for an exchange of water between the Nueces River and the Viola Turning Basin. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings were held by the Corps of Engineers in Corpus Christi, Texas on April 25, 1961 and March 10, 1964 to determine the views of local interests. DE5CRIPTION OF WATERWAY A detalled description of the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway is given in Exhibit A in the appendix of this report. PREVIOUS AUTHORIZATIONS Authorizations prior to the most recent authorization by the 85th Congress, 2nd Session (HP No. 1894) are enumerated in Exhibit A in the appendix of this report. Substantially all of the work authorized by previous Congresses is now complete. IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED BY DISTRICT AND DIVISION ENGINEERS, U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS The reporting officers recommended the following modifications and improve- ments to the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway, Texas: A. Deepening the outer bar channel from 42 feet to 47 feet, and extending the channel to the 47-foot depth in the Gulf of Mexico, a distance of about 4.7 miles; b. Deepening the existing deep-draft waterway from 40 feet to 45 feet. which is a continuation of the outer bar channel through Corpus Christi Bay and terminating at the Viola turning basin, a distance of about 31.1 miles; c. Deepening the branch channel to LaQuinta, including the LaQuinta turning basin, from 36 feet to 45 feet, a distance of about 5.8 miles; d. Widening the main channel from 400 feet to 600 feet between the In- ner Basin at Harbor Island and a point 1,000 feet east of the ferry land- ing at Port Aransas, and widening from 400 feet to 500 feet between that point and the junction of LaQuinta channel at mile 11.7; e. Widening the channel between Avery Point and the Chemical turning basin from 350 feet to 400 feet, a distance of about one mile: widening Tule Lake, Viola, and LaQuinta channels from 200 feet to 300 feet; widening the Chemical Tule Lake, Viola, and LaQuinta turning basins to provide minimum diameter turning areas of 1,200 feet; and enlarging the entrance to the Inner Basin from (300 to 730 feet; f. Realigning the Industrial Canal to a location about 25 feet northerly from its present alignment, and providing the existing Avery Point turn- ing basin at the head of the Industrial Canal with a width of 975 feet; g. Constructing a turning point with a turning area diameter of 1,200 feet at the LaQuinta Channel. Junction; and PAGENO="0501" 487 h. Constructing mooring areas and dolphins at Port Ingleside, one moor- ing area and six dolphins to be constructed initially and a second area and seven additional dolphins to be constructed when required to meet the needs of navigation. EVENTS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED SINCE PREPARATION OF THE DISTRICT ENGINEER'S REPORT Several significant events have occurred since the District Engineer's report was prepared indicating the rapid and progressive nature of the developments that are occurring along the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway in the Corpus Christi Bay area. These events outlined below offer further justifica- tion for approving the modifications and improvements recommended by the District and Division Engineers, tJ.S. Corps of Engineers. National Steel Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the fourth largest steel company in the United States has announced that it has taken an option on a 3,500-acre tract which fronts on Corpus Christi Bay and is bounded by navigable waters on three sides. The tract is bounded by the LaQuinta channel on the west, the LaQuinta channel and Main Waterway on the south, and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway on the east. Representatives of the company have been in contact with Corpus Christi interests for some months discussing the Com- pany's requirements for water, natural gas, power, and port facilities. Prior to taking this option, the Company's consulting geologist studied the site to determine the feasibility of it for a steel mill. Additional soil borings and tests have been made since taking the option which indicates that the foundation conditions are ideal for the heavy loads imposed by a basic steel plant. The Steel Company expects to have the first unit of the plant in operation by January of 1972 if it proceeds with its plans. The first unit will produce 1,500,000 tons of steel annually. Most of the raw materials `required will be received by water. Production of this quantity of steel will require 830,000 tons of scrap, 1,300,000 tons of iron ore (to come from South America, Africa and Australia) and 420,000 tons of flux, alloys, etc.-or an aggregate of 2,550,000 `tons. In addition, it is estimated th'at about 60 per cen't, or 900,000 tons of the finished products will move out by water. The second unit of the plant, according to the Company's schedule is expected to begin operation in January of 1978. This unit will double the initial output of the plant and require twice the quantity of raw materials. Plans are projected for two later expansions of the plant which will increase it's production to 6,000,000 tons annually. The Company expects to use about 2,000 acres of the 3,500-acre tract for its plant. The remaining 1,500 acres will be made available for satellite' industries that will produce additional waterborne commerce and traffic for the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The Company contemplates that, in addition to the docks on the LaQuinta and Main Channel, the 1% miles of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway which fronts on the site will eventually require enlarging to ship channel dimensions with deep sea docks along it. The Navigation District has been contacted relative to its providing docks for this proposed development. This matter is under discussion with representatives of National Steel Company at this time. (See Exhibits B and C-Newspaper Clippings-in Appendix). Southern Minerals Corporation will soon complete the construction and place in operation two new plants located about one half mile inland from the head of navigation at the Viola Turning Basin. Products from these plants will move by water using the public facilities of the Navigation District. (See Exhibit D- Newspaper Clippings-in Appendix). The Navigation District has under construction a new deep sea oil terminal on the Tule Lake Channel which will be completed and placed in operation in November, 1968. The dock is designed to accommodate 67,000 DWT tankers having a draft of about 41 feet. Other oil docks of the Navigation District constructed in recent years on the Viola and Tule Lake Channels have been designed fo'r a 45 foot `depth of water alongside the face of the dock. The Navigation District has recently completed an enlargement of it's Bulk Materials Dock located on the Tule Lake Channel to accommodate larger vessels. Other expansions of this facility are planned as the needs' `arise. `It i's designed to accommodate vessels of 40 foot draft. (See Exhibit E-Newspa'per Clipping-4n Appendix). PAGENO="0502" 488 Producers Grain Coop. is presently upgrading it's Terminal Elevator clock to accommodate larger vessels. This present work will be completed in July 1968. The Zenkoren Maru No. 1 is on a regular run between Producers Grain Cor- poration Terminal Elevator at Corpus Christi and Japan under a long term agreement to carry milo between the two countries. This vessel, the smallest of several planned for this service, has a length of 636 feet, a beam of 90 feet, a draft of 37'-O%" and a 39,299 Dead Weight Ton capacity. (See Exhibit F- Newspaper Clipping-in Appendix). Suntide Refining Company-located at the Viola Turning Basin, the head of deepwater navigation-has had an almost continuous expansion program under- way since the deepwater channel was completed to Viola, Texas in 1959. Plans have already been projected to double the capacity of the refinery and petro- chemical plant during the next five years. The most significant recent announcement has been the contemplated merger of Sun Oil Company and Sunray DX, the owner of Suntide Refining Company. In the merger, Suntide Refining Company will become part of Sun Oil Company's operations. For sometime the Sun Oil Company has been considering a major expansion program in South Texas which is even more ambitious than Suntid&S plans. The merger of these companies, if approved, should result in a major increase in the movement of waterborne commerce from Corpus Christi in the ensuing years. A large cooperative chemical company owned by four of the largest farm co- operatives in southeast United States is presently considering a site on the Port Aransas-CorPus Christi Waterway on which to construct an insecticide and pesti- cide chemical plant. Sites in both the LaQuinta and Viola Channels are being considered. The firm expects to make a decision shortly on it's plans for expansion into the Corpus Christi area. Another Farmers Coop, `which is one of the largest fertilizer producers, expects to have representatives in Corpus Christi in July to' inspect possible sites for a Corpus Ohristi terminal for the company. Reynolds Metals `Company is constructing a new bulk cargo vessel of 47,009 DWT capacity to transport bauxite to it's plant located on the LaQuinta channel. Other vessels are planned as the present vessels are phased out and the demand for bauxite increases in the Sherwin plant located at LaQuinta, Texas. (See Exhibit G-letter & H & I-Newspaper Clippings `in Appendix) Sun Oil Company i's constructing a large tanker to operate from its present terminal at Ingleside, Texas on the Port Aransas-CorPus Christi Waterway, and from the Viola Turning Basin when its merger with `Sunray DX is finally ap- proved. This vessel, which is expected to be in operation in the first quarter of 1969, will have a maximum draft of 43'-3". (See Exhibit J-letter-ifl Appendix) Humble Oil and Refining Company have on order three 75,000 DWT tankers for delivery in mid. 1969. One of these vessels will load dirty products at Harbor Island, Texas in the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway for delivery to the east coast. Another vessel is expected to be in clean service, and it is anticipated that it will lift products from the Inner Harbor at Corpus `Christi as other vessels of Humble have done over the past twenty years. (See Exhibit K-letter-in Appendix) RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR BIVER5 AND HARBORS The Board released the following statement May 21, 1968 when it recom- mended Congressional Authorization of modifications and improvements to the Port Aransas-CorPuS Christi Waterway, as hereinafter described. 45-Foot Harbor Cluvnnels at Corpus Cliristi, TeEas.-The Port Aransas-CorPus Christi Waterway consists of about 40 miles of deep-draft channels to the ports of Harbor Island. Ingleside, LaQuinta, and Corpus Christi. Commerce in the area is rapidly growing. The Corpus Christi area now includes some 12,500 producing oil wells, 6 refineries, 24 natural gasoline and cycling plants, an aluminum plant, grain storage facilities, `and many other factories and developments. Channel depths now are generally about 40 feet. In view of the rapidly increasing number of large tankers and bulk carriers calling at Corpus Christi, the Board recommends deepening many of the channels to 45 feet, and the construction of appurtenant supplementary works. The total estimated cost of the recommended work is S20,682,000, `of `which local interests would pay $1,640,000. The `benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 4.8. PAGENO="0503" 489 The specific recommendations of the Board include the modification of the ex- isting navigation project for the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway, Texas, to provide for: deepening the outer bar channel to 47 feet and extending the chan- nel to `the 47-foot depth in the Gulf of Mexico, `a distance of about 1.2 miles; deepening the remaining deep-draft portion of the waterway to 45 feet, including the LaQuinta channel and turning basin; widening the main channel to 600 feet between the Inner Basin at Harbor Island and a point 1,000 feet east of the ferry landing at Port Aransas, and widening to 500 feet between that point and the junction of LaQuinta channel at mile 11.7; widening the channel from Avery Point to the Chemical turning `basin to 400 feet, and widening the Tule Lake, Viola, and LaQuinta channels to 300 feet; widening the Chemical, Tule Lake, Viola, and LaQuinta turning basins to provide minimum diameter turning areas of 1,200 feet; enlarging the entrance to the Inner Basin to 730 feet; realigning the Industrial Canal to a location 25 feet northerly from its present position, and widening the Avery Point turning basin `at the head of the Industrial Canal to 975 feet; constructing a turning point with turning area `diameter `of 1,200 feet at the LaQuinta channel junction; constructing mooring areas and dolphins at Port Ingleside, one mooring area with 6 dolphins to `be constructed initially and the second, with 7 dolphins to be constructed when required to meet `the needs of navi- gation; easing of certain bends; and reducing the width `of the entrance channel to Corpus Christi main turning basin, `starting at a point `500 feet bayward from the Corpus `Christi Harbor bridge from 400 feet to 300 feet, Corpus Christi main turning basin from 1,000 feet to 800 feet, and Avery Point turning basin from 1,000 feet to 975 feet; all generally in accordance with the plan of the District Engineer and wi'th such modifications thereof `as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers may `be advisable; at an estimated cost of $20,682,000 for construc- tion and $150,800 annually for operation, maintenance, and replacements in addi- tion to that now required, all exclusive of navigation aids: Provided that, prior to construction, local interests agree to- A. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction and `subsequent maintenance of the improvements and for aids to navigation upon request of the Chief of Engi- neers, including suitable areas determined by the `Chief of Engineers to be required in the general public interest for initial and subsequent disposal of spoil, and also necessary retaining dikes, bulkheads, and embankments therefor or the costs of such retaining works; B. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the con- struction and subsequent maintenance of the proposed improvements; C. Accomplish without cost to the United States all alterations of pipelines, power lines,, cables, and other `utility facilities, when and as required for construction of the improvements; D. Provide `and maintain wi'thout cost to the United States depths in berth- ing areas and local access channels serving the terminals commensurate with the depths provided in the related project areas; and E. Establish regulations prohibiting discharge of pollutants into the waters of the improved channels by users thereof, which regulations shall be in accord'ance with `applicable laws or regulations of Federal, State, and local authorities responsible for pollution prevention `and `control. It `is `also recommended th'at the undredged northward extension of the Inner Basin at Harbor Island and the undredged west turnout (wye connection) between the LaQuinta channel and the main channel of the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway be deauthorized; and that the name of the Port Aransas- ,Corpus Christi Waterway, Texas project be changed to `Corpus Christi Ship C'h'annel, Texas. PRE5ENT TRAFFIC AND COMMERCE In 1926, the year that the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway `and Port of Corpus Christi was opened to world `trade, w'aterborne commerce and traffic totaled 6,170 tons and 17 sailings, `respectively. By 1967, forty one (41) years later, the commerce had increased to *30,241,351 tons and *4,038 sailings respec- tively, indicating a continued growth `and diversification of commerce. Over `the last 10 years, the average annual increase in tonnage has been over 3.9 per cent. Annual waterborne `commerce `and traffic during the past ten years is shown in Table No. 1 On the following page of this report. *Nueces County Navigation District No. 1 `Statistics. PAGENO="0504" 490 TABLE 1.-ANNIJAL WATERBORNE COMMERCE AND TRAFFIC ON THE PORT ARANSAS-CORPUS CHRISTI WATERWAY Year Total water- borne corn- Total water- way traffic Corpus Christi commerce (short tons) Corpus Christi traffic (one way merce (short tons) one way only)1 only)°°° 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 21,744,814 24,112,415 24,840,443 26,760,121 26,118,418 28,045,194 29,587,146 29,928,314 29, 059, 996 `30,241, 351 3,033 2,937 2,978 3,149 2,551 2,931 3,041 3,156 1 3, 754 `4, 038 16,460,662 17,661,693 19,183,254 19,339,529 18,118,523 19,251,752 19,246,323 21,091,715 22,464,636 `24, 690, 554 2,513 2,428 2,563 2,887 2,317 2,710 2,778 2,913 `3, 098 `3, 591 `Statistics of Nueces County Navigation District No. 1. All other statistics shown are those of the Corps of Engineers. 2 Only vessels transporting cargo are included. 3 Corpus Christi commerce and traffic includes the inner harbor at Corpus Christi, and the harbors of Ingleside and LaQuinta, Tex. ENDORSEMENTS BY STATE AND LOCAL AGENC~S This project has been endorsed by the Texas Water Rights Commission, (See Exhibit L-letter-in Appendix), the Texas Water Development Board, (See Ex- hibit M-letter-in Appendix), and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (See Exhibit N-letter-in Appendix), the Texas Water Quality Board. (See Exhibit 0- letter-in Appendix), and also by John Connally, Governor of Texas, subject to a subsequent state public hearing. (See Exhibit P-letter-in Appendix). The project has also been endorsed by the City Council of the City of Corpus Christi, (See Exhibit Q-letter-in Appendix), the Commissioners Court of Nueces County, (See Exhibit R-letter-in Appendix), the Commissioners Court of San Patricio County, (See Exhibit S-letter-in Appendix), the Coastal Bend Regional Planning Commission, (See Exhibit T-letter-in Appendix), the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce (See Exhibit U-letter-in Appendix), and the Arkansas- Corpus Christi Pilots, (See Exhibit V-letter-in Appendix). REQUESTS OP LOCAL INTERESTS Nueces County Navigation District No. 1, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, respectfully requests that this Committee adopt the recommendations of the Board of Engineers for Ribers and Harbors and include the Corpus Christi Ship Channel project in it's recommendations to the House Public Works Com- mittee for authorization in the pending Rivers and Harbors Omnibus Bill. APPENDIx A. Description of Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway. B. Newspaper Clipping regarding National Steel Corporation. C. Newspaper Clipping regarding National Steel Corporation. D. Newspaper Clipping regarding Southern Minerals Corporation. E. Newspaper Clipping regarding Japanese Shipbuilding Program. F. Newspaper Clipping regarding Japanese Ship Zenkoren Maru No. 1. G. Letter from Reynolds Metals Company. H. Newspaper Clippings regarding Reynolds Co. Ore Ship & World's largest Japanese Ship. I. Newspaper Oipping regarding Reynolds Co. Conveyor. J. Letter from Sun Oil Company. K. Letter from Humble Oil & I efining Company. L. Letter from Texas Water Rights Commission. M. Letter from Texas Water Development Board. N. Letter from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 0. Letter from Texas Water Quality Board. P. Letter from John Connally, Governor of Texas. Q. Letter from City County of the City of Corpus Christi. R. Letter from Commissioners Court of Nueces County. S. Letter from Commisioners Court of San Patricio County. T. Letter from Coastal Bend Regional Planning Commission. U. Letter from Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce. V. Letter from Aransas-Corpus Christi Pilots. PAGENO="0505" 491 EXHIBIT "A" PORT ARANSAS-CORPUS CHRISTI WATERWAY Description of Waterway Deep Draft Main Channel to Corpus Christi, Te~ras The Port Aransas-Corpus Christ! Waterway is located on the southern coast of Texas, 150 miles north of the Rio Grande River separating Texas and Mexico. The main channel extends from deep water in the Gulf of Mexico through a jettied entrance at Port Aransas, Texas, across Corpus Christ! Bay to the west shore of Corpus Christi Bay, and along the south shore of Nueces Bay and the Nueces River Valley to Viola, Texas, a distance of 33.2 miles. The outer bar channel is 700 feet wide and 42 feet deep. Between the outer bar and Inner Basin at Harbor Island, Texas, the channel reduces in width from 700 feet to 600 feet, but the depth remains the same as the outer bar channel. Across Corpus Christ! Bay from Harbor Island to the Avery Point Turning Basin at Corpus Christ!, Texas, the waterway has a minimum width of 400 feet and a depth of 40 feet; The Corpus Christ! and Avery Point Turning Basins are each 1,000 feet wide. Between the Avery Point and Viola Turning Basins, the channel has a minimum width of 200 feet and a depth of 40 feet since dredging of the authorized 40 foot project was completed on September 30, 1965. Deep Draft Branch Channels to La Quinta, Teaas and Encinal Peninsula, Tezas In addition to the main channel to Corpus Christi, Texas, there are two deep water branch channels. The La Quinta Channel extends northwestward from Harbor City, Texas along the north shOre of Corpus christi Bay to La Quinta, Texas, where the docks of the Sherwin and San Patricio Plants of Reynolds Metals Company are located. Extending in a southwesterly direction from the main channel near Harbor City, Texas across Corpus Ohristi Bay to the U.S. Naval Air Station and United States Army Transportation Aeronautical Depot Maintenance Center on the south shore of Corpus Christ! Bay, is the Encinal Channel. These two branch channels have a combined length of 14.4 miles. The latter channel is presently on an inactive status. EThallow Draft Branch Canals to Port Aransas and Aransas Pass, Te~vas Two shallow draft canals extend from the main channel to Turtle Cove Harbor at Port Aransas, Texas and Conn Brown Harbor at Aransas Pass, Texas. A third shallow draft canal (Jewel Fulton Canal) extends from the La Quinta Channel to the head of navigation in Kinney Bayou near Old Ingleside, Texas. The main channel of the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway between the junctions of the Lydia Ann and Encinal Channels is the alternate route of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, while the main channel between the junctions of the Aransas Pass alternate route and the Encinal Channel is the designated route of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between New Orleans, Louisiana and the Mexican Border. Previous Authorizations Subsequent modifications and improvements to the Port Aransas-C~orpus Christi Waterway which have been authorized since the original report was submitted in 1922 (House Document No. 321, 67th Congress, 2nd Session) recommending tbe dredging of a deep water channel from the Gulf of Mexico across Corpus Christi Bay to Corpus Christi, Texas, are included in H. P. 214, 70th Congress, 1st Session-H. D. No. 9, 71st Congress, 1st Session-H. P. 130, 72nd Congress, 1st Session-H. D. No. 35, 72nd Congress, 1st Session- H. D. No. 40, 73rd Con- gress, 2nd Session-H. D. No. 13, 74th Congress, 1st Session-H. P. No. (33, 74th Congress, 1st Session-H. P. No. 574, 75th Congress, 3rd Session-H. D. No. 544, 78th Congress, 2nd Session-H. D. No. 560, 80th Congress, 2nd Session-H. D. No. 654, 81st Congress, 2nd Session-H. P. No. 89, 83rd Congress, 1st Session- H. D. No. 487, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session-Senate Document No. 33, 85th Con- gress, 1st Session-H. D. No. 361, 85th Congress, 2nd Session-and H. D. No. 1894, 85th Congress, 2nd Session. STATUS OF ATJTH0aIZED PROJECTS 40 Foot Project Dredging of the outer bar and jetty channels to a project depth of 42 feet, and the main channel and basins to a depth of 40 feet from Harbor Island to Viola, PAGENO="0506" 492 Texas was completed on September 30, 1965. With the completion of this work, substantially all of the presently authorized improvements to the Port Aransas- Corpus Christi Waterway are complete. PORT IMPROVEMENTS Existing Docks Five docks are located on Harbor Island, Texas and two docks near Harbor City, Texas. Along the Corpus Christi Turning Basin in the Inner Harbor are located fourteen dry cargo docks and five oil docks. Located on the Industrial Canal are five private docks for handling petroleum products, one grain loading dock serving the 5,600,000 bushel Public Grain Elevator, and one dock serving the Centex Cement Company. Four docks are located on the Avery Point Turning Basin and thirteen docks along the Tule Lake ChanneL One of the thirteen docks serves Producers Grain Corporation's 6,500,000 bushel private terminal grain elevator. Improvements are presently being made to this dock. Presently, three public docks are located on the Viola Turning Basin, while three private docks with four berths are located on the La Quinta Channel and Turning Basin. Ex- penditures made by the Navigation District for Public Port Improvements be- tween 1922 and December 31, 1967, totals $45,344,945. Docks Under Construction Under construction by the Navigation District is one modern deep sea oil dock located on the south side of the Tule Lake Channel. It is designed to accom- modate tankers of 75,000 DWT capacity. This dock, when completed in the fail of 1968, is estimated to cost $500,000. CONTRIBUTION BY LOCAL INTERESTS Funds contributed by Local Interests for waterway improvements have been well in excess of any requirements of Congressional authorizations. Since the present waterway was authorized in 1922, Local Interests have contributed in excess of $3,837,009 for dredging alone. This sum represents 21.5 percent of the total funds expended by the Federal government for new work dredging during the same period of time. ______ ExHIBIT B [From the Houston Post, Mar. 22, 19681 NATIONAL STEEL OBTAINS OPTIoN ON Sirn (By Gerald Egger) The National Steel Corp of Pittsburgh has obtained options on some 3,000 acres in the Corpus Christi area as the possible site for a major steel mill, it was disclosed Thursday. George B. Angevine, vice president-industrial relations and secretary of the big steel manufacturing firm, confirmed that his company has taken options on the acreage. "If we decide to go ahead and buy the land, the options would probably be exercised before the end of the year," Angevine told the Houston Post. "The property would be purchased for a new steel mill." Angevine said that National Steel "is still studying the project. This is a long- range thing, and, in fact, we might decide not to build on the site." George A. Stinson, president of National Steel, has said that his firm is "seeking diversification by better geographical coverage through the expansion of our Midwest Division and by the acquisition of new steel plant sites in (J~li- fornia and on the Gulf Coast." Stinson also said that National Steel has been "studying the desirability of the possible expansion of our business into basic materials other than steel." Angevine said that the property under option has frontage "on the water." The Corpus Christi area is now served by the Intercoastal Canal and other deep- water channels. If National Steel decides to build an integrated steel mill at Corpus (Jhristi, it will be the fourth major mill in Texas. The Armco Steel Corporation has a plant in Houston and the Lone Star Steel Co. has a facility in East Texas. The U.S. Steel Corp. has begun construction on a 160-inch plate mill near Baytown. PAGENO="0507" 493 Stinson also said that National Steel plans to enlarge its Stran-Steel plant in Houston "to more than 550,000 square feet by mid-1969." The new $14 million manufacturing complex, which is being built on a 155-acre site fronting on Spencer Road, is being developed in three phases. The first phase, which began in April of last year, "will bring 373,000 square feet of manufacturing space into production this summer," Stinson said. Phase lIT, which will increase the total to more than 800,000 square feet, "will be added as the market develops," he said. The Stran-Steel plant will initially employ about 1,500 persons and have an annual payroll of $7.5 million, Stinson says. EXHIBIT C [From the Corpus Christi Caller, Mar. 23, 19681 NATIONAL STEEL CORP. OPTIONING LAND HElm National Steel Corp. of Pittsburgh has obtained options on about 3,000 acres of land in this area as the possible site of a steel mill the Houston Post has reported. If the firm decides to purchase the land it probably would do so before the end of the year, George B. Angevine, vice president of industrial relations and secre- tary of the corporation, told the Post. He said the project is still under study and the firm might decide not to purchase the land No site was specified but Angevine said the land has frontage on the water. If National builds a steel mill here, it would be the fourth major steel mill in Texas. U.S. Steel has begun construction of a mill near Baytown, Armco Steel Corp. has a plant in Houston and Lone Star Steel Co. has a facility in East Texas. National has a Stran-Steel manufacturing plant under construction in Houston. ExHIBIT D SoMIco Is CONSTRUCTING Two NEW PLANTS HERE Southern Minerals Corp., a locally-based industry, is expanding its activities with construction of two new plants in the industrial district. W. H. King, president, said this morning that SOMICO is building a gas processing plant that will process about 75 million cubic feet a day. In con- junction with this, a small refinery is being built primarily for the manufacture of jet fuel. It will initially process about 5,000 barrels a day, according to C. H. Paulette, manager of special projects. The plants are being built on a 24-acre tract east of Suntide Refinery near Hearn and UpRiver Roads. Paulette said the projects represent an investment of about $2 million. They are expected to employ about 45 persons, he said. Work on the new facilities has just begun. The refinery is scheduled to go into production in April and the gas plant on stream in July, King said. King said that SOMICO has adidtional plans for further expansion of its activities in the OorpusChisti area but that he is not at liberty to dlstuss them at present. King became president of SOMICO and moved here in June of last year as part of a reorganization move. SOMICO is affiliated with Southern Petroleum Corp. and Southern Pipe Line Corp. PPG Industries is the majority owner of SOMICO and its affiliates. EXHIBIT E [From the Corpus Christi Caller, Feb. 21, 1968] JAPANESE LEAD IN SHIPBUILDING AHEAD IN WORLD FOR SECOND YEAR IN ROW; RECORD SET L0ND0N.-For the second year running Japan continued to lead the rest of the world's shipbuilding nations in launching new merchant ships in 1967, Lloyds Register of Shipping reported Wednesday. Out of a total world gross tonnage of 15,780,111 Jupan accounted for 7,496,876, an increase of 811,415 over 196G. PAGENO="0508" 494 The figures are a record both for world and Japanese shipbuilding. The Japanese share was 47.5 percent of the world's total. Next in order came Sweden with 1.308,473 gross tons representing 8.3 percent of total world production. Britain with 1,297,678 tons (8.2 percent) and West Germany with 1,002,167 gross tons (6.4 percent). France, Norway, Italy and Denmark followed, each with less than four percent of theworid total. Highest figure Denmark reached its highest figure yet as did Spain, Poland and Finland lower down the scale. Japan's output was more than double the tonnage it launched in 1964. It in- cluded 16 of the 23 ships launched in the world over 60,000 tons. Japan also had the greatest output of fishing craft. Sweden's output helped it regain second place in the world shipping league. Britain's tonnage included the 58,000-ton passenger liner Queen Elizabeth II. Fifty-five percent of its total was for export-the highest since 1920. Tonnage smaller The tonnage of oil tankers launched during 1967 showed a decrease of 364,207 to a figure of 4,989,984. As a percentage of all ships launched this was decrease from 37.4 to 31.6 pecent. In 1965 it was 44.1 percent. Twenty-two of the 23 ships over 60.000 tons were oil tankers including the Japanese-built tankers Berge Commander (103.800 tons) and Bergehus (103,704 tons), the largest motorships ever built. Output of bulk carrier tonnage rose from 3.713,392 tons in 1965 to 6,564,404 tons in 1967. General cargo ships launched in 1967 totaled 2.768,121 tons-91,537 tons more than in 1966 and represented 17.5 percent of the total launched. ExHmIT F [From the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Feb. 18, 1968] JAPANESE GRAIN IMPORTERS PLAN Visir TO CITY (By Timothy Donoghue) Top officials from two huge Japanese firms, the Producers Grain Corporation, and state and federal agricultural agencies will be in Corpus Christi Friday to celebrate shipping the first load of ~8 million worth of milo included in a new export contract. A reception will be held on board the Zenkoren Maru No. 1 at the Producers Grain Port Terminal Elevator Dock Friday at 3:30 p.m., preceding a banquet at the Driscoll Hotel. The occasion will be marked by several "firsts" for the grain industry. The export contract, which includes the sale of 200,000 tons of milo during the coming year by PGC to the Japanese farm cooperative Zenkoren, is the first and largest agreement of its kind ever signed by two farm cooperatives. It also represents the largest single sale of U.S. milo for export on record. 5.159 MILLION HOGS A PGC spokesman said the 200,000 tons of milo included in the contract is actually only a small part of the total tonnage of sorghum used annually by Zenkoren. Future contracts between the two cooperatives could call for annual milo sales of more than a million tons. With 4.5 mifflon members, Zenkoren is the world's largest farm cooperative and the largest single cash customer abroad for U.S. grains. On Feb. 1, Zenkoren members were feeding 1.31 million dairy cattle; 1.577 beef cattle; 114.53 million laying hens; 21.92 million broilers and 5.159 million hogs. The huge co-op now owns two bulk grain carriers, the Hagoroma Maru, a 37,000-ton vessel and the Zenkoren Maru No. 1, which will arrive in the Port of Corpus Christi on her maiden voyage Thursday. The latter ship is a 38,000-ton vessel. Two additional 46,000-ton vessels are being built for Zenkoren and are scheduled to carry their first loads of grain next year. Employing 1,500 persons and maintaining permanent offices in New York City. Zenkoren does an annual business of more than ~1.2 billion. PAGENO="0509" 495 In the past fiscal year, Zenkoren's used 35.5 per cent, or 1.1 million tons of the yellow corn imported into Japan, and 40.2 per cent, or nearly one million out of the 2.415 million tons of grain sorghum imported by Japan. And in addition to feeds, the cooperative distributed 70 per cent of all the chemical fertilizers used in Japan last year and handled almost 50 per cent of the agricultural chemicals currently being used by Japanese farmers. It also supplies its members with farm machinery, fuel and oil, green house material, textiles, electric appliances and farm home necessities. 60,000 FARM FAMILIES Producers Grain Corporation counts 60,000 farm families in its membership, living in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas and Colorado. Since it was organized in 1938, with 29 country elevators as initial members, PGC terminal elevator storage has grown to more than 33.476 million bushels. Its 119 member elevators have more than 90 million bushels of storage. The Producers Grain Port Terminal Elevator here has a capacity of more than 6.98 million bushels and is the largest terminal elevator owned by a farm cooperative on the Gulf Coast. The PGC board of directors will be in Corpus Christi Wednesday for a board meeting at the elevator at 10 a.m. and a PGC advisory board meeting, which will include representatives of each of its member country elevators, will be in the Driscoll Hotel Thursday at 10 a.m. In addition to Zenkoren and PGC officials, the reception and banquet Friday will include officials of the Mitsui Company, another huge and widely diversified Japanese firm, which holds the contract to build Zenkoren's new grain ships, and officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Texas Department of Agriculture. ExHIBIT G REYNOLDS METALS Co., Corpus Christi, Tea,., May 1, 1968. Subject: Deepening North Shore Channel to La Quinta, Part of the Port Aransas/Corpus Christi Waterway. NUECES COUNTY NAVIGATION DISTRICT, Corpus Christi, Te~. GENTLEMEN: In accordance with your request, I am enclosing herewith detailed information about vessels used or scheduled to use the North Shore Channel to La Quinta. Of the vessels listed, the 47,000 tonner is under construction in the Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft yard in Hamburg, Germany. Contract calls for delivery on November 15, 1969, with heavy penalties for later delivery. I have enclosed a News Release furnished by Reynolds Metals Company to the press, and which appeared in newspapers throughout the United States at about the same time, announcing the construction contract for the 47,000 ton vessel. Bids were received on the 27,000 ton vessel simultaneously with quotations on the larger vessel. However, changes in specifications are being made and various companies are expected to requote within the next two months. We are requesting delivery of the 27,000 ton vessel in mid-1970. The remaining vessels are all operating either continuously or occasionally to the Sherwin Plant on the North Shore Channel to La Quinta. You will note the drafts given are those applicable under the new International Loadline Regulations, effective in July of this year. At the present time the S.S. J. LOUIS and S.S. RICHARD are operating on a loaded draft of about :35-feet, with a deadweight of about 32,250 tons. You will, also, note that we have shown a maximum draft of 42-feet on the 47,000 ton vessel. However, vessel will not be able to load a full cargo of bauxite on this draft due to cubic limita- tions in the cargo holds. If the density of the bauxite should increase, the quan- tity of bauxite lifted would increase likewise. Bauxite requirements annually, with the present capacity of the Sherwin Plant. is about 3,200,000 long tons. The present projection of the Company calls for this usage annually through the year 1972. Increases in capacity of the Plant have developed on the basis of units that consume between 600,000 and 700,000 4ons of bauxite annually. With a continual expansion in the aluminum industry, PAGENO="0510" 496 it is anticipated that in the mid-1970's an additional unit would be constructed. requiring additional bauxite for the Sherwin Plant in the amount of 600,000 to 100,000 tons of bauxite. Furthermore, we would anticipate that a similar increase would take place in the end of the 1970's or early 1980's. In addition to the bauxite moving into the Sherwin Plant, there is about 400,000 tons of alumina being exported annually, and this will increase to about 600,000 tons in 1971/1972. The alumina will be moved out intermittently by all vessels except the 47,000 ton vessel. Finally, we can advise that we are continually reviewing our ship construction program in order to update our fleet to meet the expanding requirements of Reynolds Metals Company. Some vessels in our fleet are approaching obsoles- cence and in order to fully realize economies in our operation, we must rebuild with larger vessels. We trust that the foregoing gives you all of the information you requested in our conversation today; however, do not hesitate to call us if you desire more detail. Yours very truly, D. B. WOOD, Manager, Marine Divi.s'zon. MAIN DIMENSIONS OF VESSELS USING LA QUINTA CHANNEL Length Beam Depth Maximum Vessel mean draft Maximum deadweight In. Ft. In. Ft. In. Ft. ln. 9 6 6 6 0 0 8j/~ 0 102 84 90 90 75 75 70 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 57 48 51 51 43 43 40 37 6 0 0 0 9 9 9 53/i 42 36 237 237 231 231 231 228 0 0 1~ Ili 6~/8 63/s 10~ 8 50,940 27,340 35,673 35,845 23,509 23,509 18,028 14,457 Ft. 47,000-ton vessels 734 27,000-ton vessel 597 SSJ. Louis 669 SS Richard 669 SS Inger 626 SS Walter Rice 626 SS Louise 534 SSCarlSchmedeman 518 I This vessel will operate on 40 ft. draft and 47,435 tons deadweight. 2 This will be the mean draft after July 1968. NEWS FROM REYNOLDS METALS Co., PuBLIC RELATIONS STAFF, RICHMOND, VA. RICHMoND, VA., January 4.-A 47,000-ton-capacity, self-unloading ore ship has been ordered by Caribbean Steamship Company, a subsidiary of Reynolds Metals Company. Plans for the new vessel, which will be the largest in the company's fleet, were announced by Walter L. Rice, president of Caribbean and vice president of Reynolds. The contract with Deutsche Werft, Hamburg, West Germany, calls for delivery in November, 1969. The largest vessels currently used by Caribbean are the sister ships, S.S. Richard and S.S. J. Louis, both with 32,000-ton capacities. The vessel is designed to self-discharge her cargo of bauxite ore at a rate of 2,000 long tons per hour at the docks of Reynolds Sherwin alumina plant, Corpus Christi, Texas. Mr. Rice said the ship will be used in various trades, including the transporta- tion of bauxite from Jamaica to Corpus Christi. Making a Jamaica-Corpus Christi roundtrip about every eight days, she will be able to move nearly two miffion tons of bauxite annually. Reynolds has previously announced plans for expansion of its Jamaica mining operation and an expansion has recently been completed to increase the Sherwin plant's daily production of alumina to 3,000 tons per day. The new vessel will be 734 feet overall with a 102-foot beam. A geared turbine propulsion plant of 18,000 horsepower will provide a speed of 16.7 knots. Aluminum will be used extensively throughout the steel-hulled ship. The pilot house, Internal sheathing, side ports and other items such as hatch covers and lifeboats will be aluminum. Designed for quick, clean discharge of ore, the new ship will have a bow thruster which will assist in docking and undocking. Plans are being studied for alterations to the current Sherwin plant dock facilities to handle the new ship. PAGENO="0511" 417 EXHIBIT H SELF-UNLOADING REYNOLDS BIJYS NEW ORE SHIP Reynolds Metals Co. has purchased a 47,000-ton-capacity self-unloading ore ship, which will be used to! haul bauxite from Jamaica to Corpus Christi. The new ship, which will be the largest in the company's fleet, is to be delivered in November, 1969, by Deutsche Werft Øf Hamburg, West Germany. She will make the Jamica to Corpus Christi round trip about every eight days and move nearly two million tons of bauxite annually. Plans are being studied for alterations to the Reynolds Sherwin Plant dock facilities here to handle the ship, which is designed to self-discharge her cargo of ore at a rate of 2,000 long tons an hour. The vessel is a major reason for expansion of the Jamaica mining facilities and a future increase in production of alumina to 3,000 tons a day at the Sherwin plant, according to a company spokesman. EXHIBIT I CONVEYOR WILL ASSIST REYNOLDS RICHMOND, VA.-Reynolds Jamaica Mines, Ltd., has completed a new bauxite handling facility in Jamaica which will enable the company to increase ship- ments as needed to keep pace with the demand of an expanding aluminum market, Walter L. Rice, president, said Monday. (Most of the bauxite from Jamaica is used at Reynolds' two plants in Corpus Christi.) A 6'/2-mile covered conveyor system capable of moving more than 15,000 tons a day has replaced two overhead tramlines transversing the hilly terrain between the Reynolds mines and the company port facilities at Ocho Rios. Rice said, "These new facilities make our operations in Jamaica more flexible in meeting the demand for ore." He said Reynolds pioneered the mining of bauxite in Jamaica, now the world's leading source, and developed a process to produce aluminum from the high- iron-content ore. The company started using the tramway system in 1952. EXHIBIT J MAY 2, 1968. NAVIGATION DISTRICT, Nueces County, Corpus Christi, Tea'. GENTLEMEN: In accordance with your telephone request, I furnish you with the following information on large Sun Oil Company vessels now operating or planned to operate in the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway in the near future: Presently, the SS PENNSYLVANIA SUN and the SS TEXAS SUN operate in the above waterway. Their dimensions: Length overall: 745 ft. Beam: 102 ft. Loaded S. W. draft: 39' 08~/4" Loaded P. W. draft: 40' O73/~/' Deadweight tonnage: 51,724 long tons Construction has started on another vessel whose principal dimensions are: Length overall: 818 ft. Beam: 125 ft. Loaded 8 W. draft: 43' 03" Approx. loaded P. W. draft: 44' 03" Deadweight tonnage: 80,000 long tons Acquisition of the Suntide Refinery at Corpus Christi by this Company through a proposed merger is anticipated. Should this become a reality, activity PAGENO="0512" 498 of the above vessels in the Corpus Christi harbor area would increase con- siderably. The Sun Oil Company concurs with the recommendations of the District Engi- neer to (a) deepen the outer bar channel from 42' to 47' and extend the channel to the 47 foot depth in the Gulf of Mexico, a distance of about 4.7 miles. (b) Deepen the existing deep draft waterway from 40' to 45' through Corpus Christi Bay and terminating at the Viola turning basin, a distance of about 31.1 miles. (c) Deepen the branch channel to Laquinta, including the Laquinta turning basin, from 36' to 45'. (d) Widen the main channel from 400' to 600' between the inner basin at Harbor Island and a point 1000' east of the ferry landing at Port Aransas and widening from 400' to 500' between that point and the junction of Laquinta channel at mile 11.7. (e) Widen the channel between Avery Point and the Chemi- cal turning basin from 350' to 400'; widen Tule Lake, Viola, and Laquinta chan- nels from 200' to 300'; widen the Chemical, Tule Lake, Viola, and Laquinta turning basins to 1200' and enlarge the entrance to the Inner Basin from 600' to 730'. (f) Realign the Industrial Canal and provide the Avery Point turning basin with a width of 975'. (g) Construct a turning basin with a diameter of 1200' at the Laquinta junction. (h) Construct mooring areas and dolphins at Port Ingleside as recommended. Should additional information be desired, I will be pleased to forward it to you. Very truly yours, SUN OIL Co., J. Y. S., Assistant Port Captain.. MAY 3, 1968. NAVIGATION DISTRICT, Nueces County, Corpus Christi, Teo. (Attention Mr. Duane Orr). GENTLEMEN: Pursuant to my recent correspondence regarding the deepening of the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi waterway and other improvements to the area, I wish to include that presently a study is being made by ten major oil companies to determine the feasibility of a deep water terminal in the Delaware Bay area. The above terminal would be designed to take vessels of up to 65 feet draft. Both foreign and domestic crudes would be handed. Consequently, a terminal of this capability would offer no restriction to lead- ing vessels to the limits of the proposed improved Corpus Christi Channel. Very truly yours, SUN OIL Co., J. S., Assistant Port Captain.. SUN Om Co., Marcus Hook, Pa., December 11, 1967. Mr. DUANE ORE, District Engineer, Nueces County Navigation D 1st riot, Corpus Christi, Teo. DEAR Sm: Our Mr. E. T. Smith phoned this office and asked that we forward to you the specifications of the proposed vessel we are going to build. As it stands now this ship should be in operation by the first quarter of 1969. LOA: 811'O" LBP: 765'O" Beam: 125'O" Depth: 57'O" Draft Max.: 43'S" Max. SHP: 24,000 The vessel is intended to carry crude from Sun Station, Texas or Ingleside, Texas and north of Hatteras. Very truly yours, SUN Om Co., Port Captain. PAGENO="0513" 499 EXHIBIT K HUMBLE OIL & REFINING Co., Houston, Te~v., December 13, 1967. Re channel improvements, Harbor Island Terminal. Mr. DUANE Onn, District Engineer, Corpus Christi Navigation District, Covpus Uhristi, Ten. DEAR Mn. Oim: Your request to Mr. Leigh H. Cox, Jr., Manager of Corpus Christi District of Humble Pipe Line Company for information which would show justification for deepening the channel serving the Corpus Christi Naviga- tion District to 45', together with specific questions on Humble's Harbor Island operation, was referred to us. Humble's Marine Department has three 75,000 DWT tankers on order for delivery in 1969. One of these tankers will be assigned to dirty service imme- diately and is scheduled to load crude at Harbor Island in Mid-1969. Humble has also from time to time lifted clean products (motor gasoline and distillate) by tanker from refineries located on the Port Aransas/Corpus Christi Waterway. Deepening this channel to 45' will allow our 75,000 DWT Tankers to be fully loaded (42' 6" draft) in the Corpus Christi/Harbor Island area. Humble's Marine Department is currently updating the material originally submitted in 1965 to the American Merchants Marine Institute in support of this project. The specific questions you asked, together with our answers, are as follows: L The attached table shows Humble's tonnage for years 1959-1965. What was tonnage for years 1955-1958? Answer. Both Humble Pipe Line's Accounting and Humble's Marine Deparb ment have 6-year retention dates on files. The data requested for years 1955 through 1958, therefore, are not available. 2. Over the past ten years, the tonnage has dropped. Is there an explanation for the reduction, such as new pipelines or changes in crude requirements? Answer. Humble's Harbor Island tonnage increased from 1.8 M ST/Year in 1959 to 3.6 M ST/Year in 1963 then decreased slightly to 3.2 M ST/Year in 1965. Our tonnage increased to 4.2 M ST/Year in 1966 and is indicated to be about 3.3 M ST/Year in 1967. In previous years, some crude was shipped to our Bay- town Refinery, but we now ship crude out of Harbor Island to our Bayway Refinery only. We placed into operaion a 16" pipeline from Harbor Island to Baytown in December, 1966. This accounts for the reduction for 1967. 3. Would it be possible to estimate the tonnages to be shipped from Harbor island over the next few years? Answer. We estimate the shipment of crude from Harbor Island to our Bay- way Refinery will be 2.1 M ST/Year in 1968 and 2.4 M ST/Year in 1969. Fore- casts for future years are not firm at the present time but are estimated to in- crease 10%/Year. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Very truly yours, H. R. Dix EXHTBIT L TEXAS WATER RIGHTS COMMISSION, Austin, Tea,., June11, 1968. Hon. JOHN CONNALLY, Governor of Tewas, Anstim, Ten. (Attention Mr. Terrell Bloclgett). DEAR GOvERNOR CONNALLY: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter transmitting a copy of the Corps of Engineers report on the recommended im- provements to the Port Aransas Corpus Christi Waterway. The Texas Water Rights Commission has scheduled a public hearing on the proposed improvements on July 2, 1968. I am advised that the Water Development Board, the Water Quality Board, and the Parks and Wildlife Commission concur in the proposed improvements to the Port Aransas Corpus Christi Waterway. The Water Rights Commission concurs, and, unless information is presented at the public hearing which shows that the project is not in the public interest, the Commission will recommend to you that the project be approved. Very truly yours, F. R. BoorH. 97-700--68----33 PAGENO="0514" 500 EXHIBIT M JuNE 13, 1968. Hon. JOHN `CONNALLY, Governor of the State of Texas, Austin, Ten. DEAR GovERNoR CONNALLY: The Board has received a copy of the Corps of Engineers report recommending improvements to the Port Aransas-Corpus Ohristi waterway which was transmitted to you with General Cassidy's letter of May 31, 1968. Our staff has been aware of the results of the study for some time, and is cur- rently preparing detailed comments on the report to provide to the Texas Water Rights Commission. Our staff review indicates the proposed improvements to be feasible and in the public interest. We recommend your favorable consideration of the project. Sincerely, HOWARD B. BO5WELL. ExHIBIT N TEXAS PARKS AND WIu)riFE DEPARTMENT, Austin, Ten., June 12, 1968. Hon. JOHN CONNALLY, Governor of Texas, Austin, Ten. DEAR GOVERNOR CONNALLY: This is in reference to the Review of Reports on Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway, Texas (45-Foot Project) which was transmitted to this Department by Mr. D. T. Graham, Chief, Engineering Divi- sion, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, by letter dated May 9, 1968. This Department concurs with the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as given on page 42 that "project damages to fish and wildlife habitat would be insignificant." Yours sincerely, J. R. SINGLETON, Executive Director. EXHIBIT 0 TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD, Austin, Ten., June 14, 1968. Re Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway Project Hon. JOHN CONNALLY, Governor of the State of Texas, Austin, Ten. (Attention Mr. Terrell Blodgett, Administrative Assistant). Da&n GOVERNOR CONNALLY: The Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway Project (45-foot project) by the Corps of Engineers has `been reviewed by my engineering staff. We concur with the statement made on Page 23, Paragraphs 54 and 57, that there are no pronounced pollution problems and that an `addi- tional flushing system is not warranted at this time. We are currently working with the industries and others, who are dis- charging into the channel, on upgrading effluent quality so that pronounced pollution problems do not develop. As more development occurs and traffic increases, it is possible for flushing `and/or other systems of water quality control to become necessary. With the increased traffic that will result from this project, wastes from watereraft would tend to cause problems. This aspect of water quality should not be overlooked. The discharge of sewage, oil, bilge, and ballast waters will contribute to the pollution of the area waters, thereby `affecting aquatic life and discoloring vessels, piers, docks, etc. Therefore, we would encourage the ap- propriate local authorities to adopt and/or establish regulations that would regulate the discharge of pollutants from watercraft into these waters. This is a matter of interest to both the state and local authorities, and in the absence of local action, this agency would expect to take appropriate action in this PAGENO="0515" 501 regard. This relates to the recommendation of Paragraph 103, Page 46, Sub- paragraph e, of the report. If I can be of additional assistance, please let me know. Respectfully, HUGH C. YANTIS, Jr., Ewec'utive Director. ExunuT P GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, June 14, 1968. Lt. Gen. WM. F. CASSIDY, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. DEAR GENERAL CASSIDY: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 31, 1968 transmitting a copy of the Corps of Engineers report on the recom- mended improvements to the Po'rt Aransas-Corpus Christi waterway. You have requested comments of this office. This report has been transmitted to the appro- priate state agencies for `their comments and scheduling of a public hearing on the proposed improvements as required by State Law. The public hearing will :be held on July 2, 1968. I have been advised that the state agencies concur in the proposed improve- ments `to the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi waterway, and unless information is presented at the public hearing which shows that the project is not in the public interest, I intend to approve the report and recommend that the project be authorized following the public hearing. With kindest regards, Sincerely, JOHN CONNALLY. EXHIBIT Q Cir~ or CORPUS CHRIsTI, TEX., June 19, 1968. CHAIRMAN OF PTJBLIO WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sm: The City of Corpus Christi has been intensely interested in `the improvements to the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway and the Port of Corpus Christi. The City appeared at hearings before the District Army Engineer on April 21, 1901 and March 10, 1964 favoring and urging `proposed improvements `to this waterway. The City Council `at its meeting on June 19, 1968 reaffirmed its support of the proposed improvements and wholeheartedly endorsed the recommendations made by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Sincerely, H. MARvIN TOWNSEND, City Manager. EXHIBIT R COUNTY OF NUECES, Corpus Christi, Tece., June 19, 1968. THE CHAIRMAN, House Publ~io Works gubcommittee, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: The Commissioners' Court of Nueces County, Texas, has authorized me to say that it endorses the recommendation of the Board of Engineers for rivers and harbors in connection with the improvement `and modification of the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi waterway, and urges your committee to recom- mend the project for inclusion in the current omnibus bill. Very truly yours, NOAH KENNEDY, Jr., County ~Judge. PAGENO="0516" 502 EXuIBIT S SAN PATRIcI0 COUNTY, Sinton, Te~., June 18, 1968. CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS SUCBOMMITTEE, House of Representatives, Washingttn, D.C. GENTLEMEN: The Commissioners' Court of San Patricio County has been ad- vised of the hearing which is to be held in connection with the improvements to the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi water ways. These improvements are recom- mended by the Board of Engineers for rivers and harbors. The Commissioners' Court wishes to go on record in support of the project containing these improve- ments. These improvements will be of substantial benefit to present and future developments in San Patricio County. We, therefore, urge your approval of this project and request that you recommend it to the House Public Works Committee for authorization in the omnibus bill. Respectfully submitted. WILLIAM A. SCHMIDT. EXHIBIT T COASTAL BEND REGIONAL PLANNING CoMMIssIoN, Corpns Christi, Te~., June 18, 1968. Mr. DUANE ORE, Director of Industrial Developments and Port Planning, Corpus Christi, Te~. Dean DUANE: I am very pleased to submit a conformed copy of the resolution passed by unanimous vote of the Coastal Bend Regional Planning Commission, its twelve member counties and their city representation, at its monthly meeting in Palfurrias, Texas on June 14, 1968. The Coastal Bend Regional Planning Commission, in its function as the area- wide planning organization for review and commend under Section 204 considers this undertaking as one of the most important ventures that could be fulfilled because of its far-reaching economic and employment impact upon the Region as a whole. If we may be of assistance in any form, may we anticipate your request. Cordially, Low R. STARKE, Ewecutive Director. RESOLUTION GA-68-26, NUECE5 CoUNTY NAvIGATION DIsTIucT: PORT AnAwsAs- CoI~PUs CHRI5TI WATERWAY Whereas, the Nueces County Navigation District has requested congressional approval for the deepening of the Port Aransas-CorPus Christi Waterway and the construtcion of appurtenant supplementary works at an estimated cost of $20,- 682,000 and, the Coastal Bend Regional Planning Commission finding this request to `be consistent with the long-range plans for the growth and development of the Coastal Bend Region, at a meeting on June 14, 1968, a quorum being present, upon motion by Judge Parr, seconded by Judge Knight, and passed unanimously, it was resolved, to-wit: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, The Coastal Bend Regional Planning Commission enthusiastically supports this project and strongly urges that it be approved and that the con- struction and expansion of these very vital facilities be prosecuted as expediti- ously as possible for the continued physical and economic growth of the Coastal Bend Region and the State of Texas. _____ Chairman. Attest: HECTOR DR PENA, Secretary. EXHIBIT U CORPUS CHRISTI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Corpus Christi, Tex., June 20, 1968. THE CHAIRMAN. House Public, Works Eubconiinittee, TVasliington, D.C. DEAR Sm: Since 1961, when the first hearings was conducted on the currently- proposed improvement and modification of the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi PAGENO="0517" 503 waterway, the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce has consistently endorsed the proposal. We now endorse the recommendation of the Board of Engineers for rivers and harbors, which includes improvements that will contribute substantially to the commercial and industrial development of the entire Corpus Christi area. Your approval of the Port Aransas-Corpus Ohristi waterway project for inclusion in the cUrrent omnibus bill is urgently requested. Sincerely, JAMES T. DENTON, Jr., President. EXHIBIT V ARANSAS-CORPUS CnRI5TI PILOTS, Port Aransas, Tea., June 19, 1968. TEXAS WATER RIGHTS CoMMIssIoN, Austin, Tea. GENTLEMEN: The Aransas-Corpus Christi Pilots give their full support to the proposed enlargement of Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway as prepared by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. We feel that the project is justified, not only for the future needs, but for the present traffic, which, on several occasions, has departed with short loads due to limited draft. Two of the United States vessels involved were the S/T Western Hunter and S/T Manhattan. The Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway has the following features which warrant the enlargement: 1. The channel entrance is closer to the deep water than any other port in the Gulf of Mexico. 2. It has pure salt water loading at all berths (thus making it possible to load more cargo due to extra bouyancy). 3. It is a hulk cargo port. 4. It is the most centrally located port on the Texas Coast, therefore, the entire State of Texas and its ports would benefit from the proposed enlarge- ment of the waterway. The East and West coast have their deep water ports but there is not a single port in the Gulf of Mexico to accommodate the present and future deep draft vessels. Therefore, we urge your support for the enlargement of the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway to keep our State competitive. Yours truly, Capt. FRED J. HERBERT, President, Texas State Branch Pilots; Texas Trustee, American Pilots Association; President, Aransas-Corpus Cliristi Pilots. COLORADO RIVER, TEX. Mr. YouNG. Mr. Chairman, I want to say you mentioned my service on this committee. It was certainly a wonderful experience on my part, the years I served on this committee, until I was demoted. The reason 1 say "demoted" is, anytime anybody moves from this commit- tee to any other committee, it is a demotion and I want you to know it is a pleasure to be back here with you. H.R. 16872-COLORADO RIVER~ TEXAS Mr. Chairman, this project, H.R. 16872, the Colorado River channel and jetty project, Matagorda County, Tex., is one that involves hurdles and I am so pleased that this committee through its members, was present after the devastating Hurricane Carla and more recently the Hurricane Beulah, and still more recently, the Hurricane Candy that just in the last few days went in on this project. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have submitted a brief written statement and I will confine myself to some very brief remarks. PAGENO="0518" 504 This project is a project of the utmost urgency, not only from an economic standpoint, but from the standpoint of safety. Now, the project is a relatively small one. It is a simple project. The interim report is here in Washington. It calls for an investment, initial investment, of something like ~11 million. The Board of Rivers and Harbors has recommended certain modifi- cations of the project, each of which will, as a matter of mechanical certainty, greatly enhance the benefits. Now, there is a. great Federal interest in this project and I want to say this to you and I have this supported by the exhibits attached to my brief written statement. Recently, within the last month, the Federal Government has leased the first 750,000 acres immediately adjacent to this project in the Gulf of Mexico as the first increment of something like 8 million acres which will be leased in offshore land. The Bureau of Land Management expects to receive something like $200 million in lease bonuses for these leases. The Federal Government has to date been paid for these leases more than $600 million, right here in front of this small project, that will contribute so much to the efficiency, the economy, and the safety of its operation. I am just appalled and shudder to think of what will happen in the operation of this Federal interest, offshore there when these hurricanes as they do, come up this coast and sometimes blow right up in these areas, as Candy did, and jeopardize this operation. With this project, this production, this great activity, we will be within some 6 miles of a safe harbor. Without it. they must travel many miles of open seas. Now, I have a supporting letter which I have included as an exhibit in my statement from the president of the American Petroleum In- stitute. He advises in the next 5 years the major oil companies expect to drill more than 6,500 oil wells in the gulf, 350 of which they antici- pate will be in this immediate vicinity and will be using this project. In his letter he points out the safety features. Now, as Mr. Cramer iointed out a minute ago, what my problem is, in time, because if I have to wait 2 years for an authorization of this project, then I do not know what will happen out there with these activities and these hazardous conditions in these federally operated oil-producing areas. The Governor of Texas, all of the Texas authorities, all have ap- proved this and I most urgently request the committee to give its most careful consideration to it and with it I am sure that we will have a project that will be most beneficial and we will all be proud of. Thank you, very much. Mr. BLATNiK. Thank you for your very impressive statement. You have one problem on the mouth of the Colorado River, as you know. We still have a problem on getting the processing, which is a little behind. Mr. YOUNG. That is true, Mr. Chairman. The Board did not ha.ve the benefit of this very recent Federal interest offshore there and I have every reason to believe the Board will move on this. Mr. Br~TNiK. That is correct. PAGENO="0519" 505 Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Ohairman, may I say that I am very familiar with this project, because it has been explained to me in great detail by our colleague. There is no question that the modifications recommended by the corps will enhance the economic feasibility. It is an economically feasible project already, but, by its very criteria, I would be very hopeful, as the gentleman has requested, that we authorize it. Mr. YOUNG. I thank the gentleman. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I have been authorized to say to the committee by responsible local authorities that they will assume whatever the Corps of Engineers feels is a just local cost sharing in this matter. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, very much. (The full, prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:) STATEMRNT OF Joux YOUNG, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, BEFORE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, RIVERS AND HARBORS SUBCOMMITTEE Above reference is covered in an Interim Report from Galveston District En- gineer to the Chief of the Corps, dated December 29, 1967. The report finds the project to be economically justified for immediate construction, and places b/c ratio at 1.3. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors has rec- ommended return of the report to the District for certain modifications, each of which will, as a matter of mathematical certainty, either drastically re- duce the cost or substantially increase the benefits (See Exhibit #1). The Chief is holding the report to effectuate the modification by addendum, but this cannot be done prior to marking up the Omnibus Bill. It is certain the final b/c ratio will exceed the report's original 1.3 to 1. As this Committee well knows from on the ground surveys made by its mem- bers after Hurricane Beulah and Carla, the only place on the mid-Texas Coast where the Intra-Coastal Canal is fitted with locks is where it crosses the mouth of the Colorado River and thus is urgently needed for the navigational safety of hundreds of small craft of all descriptions operating in this area. Within the last few days Hurricane Candy struck this area of the coast emphasizing again the great need for the safe harbor which this project will provide. The economic and emergency safety need for this project creates an urgency in which the Federal Government has a substantial interest. Last month the Federal Government leased 750,000 acres of off-shore oil leases immediately off-shore from Matagorda County as the first of an offering of 8 million acres. The Federal Bureau of Land Management expected to receive $200 million for the initial offering (Exhibit #2), but the actual money received by the Gov- ernment was $600 million! American Petroleum Institute President Frank Ikard advises that the major oil companies expect to drill 6,500 wells in the Gulf in the next five years, and says that it is envisioned that possibly 350 wells may be drilled in the Matagorda-Galveston area (Exhibit #3). The full report discloses many additional needs for the immediate realiza- tion of this project, and it has received the endorsement of Governor John Con- nally of Texas, the Texas Water Development Board, the Texas Water Rights Commission, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the National Rivers and Harbors Congress (Exhibits #4 and #5), and many other local and state authorities. The Committee is respectfully and urgently requested to include the Colorado River Channel and Jetty Project in the Omnibus Rivers and Harbors Authoriza- tion Bill with the proviso that there be no construction funding until the proj- ect has been finally approved by the secretary of the Army and all other inter- ested Departments and Agencies of the government. It is anticipated that the Board of Rivers and Harbors Engineers will be moving this project upward, and that there will be comments by the Bureau of the Budget by the time the Omnibus Bill is marked up by the Committee. PAGENO="0520" 506 Exnmrr No. 1 DFF~nTMENP or THE ARMY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, Hon. JOHN Y~ Washington, D.C., Jvne 21, 1968. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. YOUNG: This is in reply to your request for information on the Corps of Engineers' investigation of the mouth of the Colorado River in the vicinity of Matagorda, Texas. The report of the Galveston District and Southwestern Division Engineers which recommended certain improvements at the mouth of the Colorado to pro- vide for a shallow-draft navigation channel to the vicinity of Matagorda, as well as other purposes, was returned by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors because the Board believed the revisions necessary could best be ac- complished in that manner. We have reviewed the matter with the staff of the Board of Engineers to ascertain the amount of revisions needed to adequately respond to the Board~s concerns. This office is in general agreement with the Board that the report did not adequately consider appropriate cost-sharing and local cooperation for the small- boat harbor aspects of the proposed improvement and that the navigation in- crement did not indicate a favorable benefit-cost ratio. There is also general agreement with the Board concerning the need to reformulate the plan of ha- provement, the need to modify the cost-sharing in accordance with current policy, and the desirability of re-scaling the physical improvements recommended. The following major steps are considered necessary to provide a report responsible to the points raised by the Board: (1) Re-analyze the project related benefits to establish the level of commercial navigation, small-boat recreation, and other benefits which the proposed improve- ment could be expected to provide. (2) Re-analyze the project design, particularly as it pertains to the jetties at the mouth, and prepare new cost estimates. (3) Make a new allocation of costs to the various purposes recognizing these new costs and benefits. (4) Make a new apportionment of project costs between the Federal Govern- ment and local interests based on current policy for commercial navigation and small-boat recreation projects. (5) Accomplish coordination and secure a statement from local interests of their willingness to assume revised requirements of local cooperation. The re-analysis of project related benefits is necessary to evaluate and credit the proposed improvement with those benefits from activities which could only be realized by its construction. This would consider potential new developments not previously considered which may be reasonably assured of realization. The re-analysis of project design considering suggestions that have been made con- cerning the jetties could have a significant effect upon the total cost of the pro- posal, especially since the jetties in the present plan have an estimated cost of nearly $7,000,000 which represents about 70 percent of the cost. The plan of improvement recommended by the District and Division Engineers in reports dated 29 December 1967 and 2 February 1968, respectively, had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.3. While the impact of the additional investigations and revisions upon the feasibility of improving the mouth of the Colorado River for shallow-draft navigation cannot be estimated in precise numerical terms until the studies have been made, a combination of the previously mentioned points would appear to improve the prospects for a favorable determination. Since the jetties represent a major part of project costs, as estimated by the Galveston District Engineer, any reduction in jetty length should reduce the initial project costs and proportionately reduce the annual charges. The re-analysis of project related benefits which would recognize potential new traffic, not previously con- sidered, could result in additional navigation benefits being credited to the im- provement. In summary, the further studies may lead to possible improvement of the economic feasibility of a navigation channel. It is estimated that by accelerating the investigation and report preparation, it can be completed in about 7 months, however, funds are not presently avail- able to initiate this work. The necessary investigations and revisions will be initiated and completed as rapidly as pratcicable after funds become available. Sincerely yours, GEORGE B. SHAFFER, LTC, Corps of Engineers, Assistant Director of Civil Works for Plains Divisions. PAGENO="0521" PAGENO="0522" 508 ExHI2IT No. 2 [From the Houston Chronicle, Houston, Tex., May 22, 1968] TEXACO To~ OFFSHORE LEASE BIDDER (By Tommy Thompson) NEW ORLnaNs.-Texaco Inc. and Humble Oil & Refining Co. were high bidders on 62.5 percent of the stunning $602 million offered by oil companies for offshore oil and gas leases in federal waters along the Upper Texas Gulf Coast. Texaco, biggest spender in the sale, bid high on 20 tracts for $183,358,080, almost equalling the Interior Department's prediction of $200 million it would receive for the entire 169 tracts offered here Tuesday. Humble, the big buyer in February's Santa Barbara Channel sale in Cali- fornia, bid high on oniy four tracts outright, but offered a whopping $88,335,360 for them. The California sale, which brought $602.7 million, set the record for such offshore leasing. Texaco and Humble teamed on seven tracts offering $103,599,360 for them. Their combined total bids were $375 million. Industry sources said successful bidders would have to spend another $1.5 bil- lion to develop this rank wildcat area in the Gulf of Mexico. Many oil men thought that the sale would go more or less according to what Shell Oil Co. did. As it turned out, things went just the opposite. Shell, which spent $101 million the federal lease sale for offshore Louisiana last June, made 26 bids Tuesday, and was successful on only one. Shell bought Tract 302 (This is Block 289 next to Shell's productive Buccaneer Field) for $1.5 million. Only one other bid was received on this tract. The ornate, mirror-walled grand ballroom of the Sheraton Charles Hotel was packed with about 500 oil men for the bid opening with little in the early going to indicate the bombshells that were to come. Then the fifteenth bid, on Tract 230, was held for about 10 seconds by John Rankin, New Orleans manager for the Bureau of Land Management. "The next bid is by Texaco for $43,528,320," he said slowly, then added, "And I'm not kidding." This tract is in the Brazos area, about 31 miles southeast of Galveston, which turned out to be the hot spot of the sale. The tract immediately south, Tract 238 (Black 541) later drew the high bid of the sale, $43,787,520, also by Texaco. This tract, 238, was the one that drew the most attention. The Mobil-Union of Cal-Gulf combine bid $36.2 million on it, while the Phillips-Dow-Champlin-Bass- Cox-Clark-American Petrofina combine went to $21.2 million, Humble to $22 million and Standard Oil of Texas and Pan American to $15.7 million. Tract 237, immediately to the west of Tract 238 and southeast of Tract 230, drew a high bid of $23.1 million from Humble. While the Brazos area was where the action was, with S of the top 10 bids in that area, Texaco and Humble didn't ignore the area off Stewart Beach in Galveston. They teamed to bid $41,529,600 on Tract 362 (Block 206 in the High Island area). Five other companies bid more than $10 million on this tract which is northeast of four dry holes drilled by Shell in Blocks 236, 237, 258 and 259. Tract 366, also off Galveston immediately south of 362, also made the top 10 in bidding as Texaco and Humble offered $18 million for it. Despite the fact that Interior threw in some quarter blocks of 1440 acres to give the smaller independent oilmen a chance, they had to bid high to compete. The only independent to show considerable success was Forest Oil Corp. of San Antonio, which was high bidder on eight tracts, offering a total of $30,447,- 820. While Texaco and Humble were picking off choice tracts for millions, Sun Oil Co. picked a formula and stuck w-ith it, winding up as high bidder on 67 tracts covering 270,631 acres. Sun's total bids on this acreage was $25,966,323. The government does not have to accept any of the bids, and a crew of about 10 were burning the midnight oil here last night. A decision on the lower bids, most of which involve Sun's formula of $129 per acre, will be made some time today. Many oilmen felt that a percentage of Sun's bids would be thrown out, along with several other bids which were below what Interior feels is the minimum. A missing signature on one high bid sent the 5760 acres in Tract 228 to the Superior Oil combine, which included Kerr-Mcgee, Transocean, Texas Eastern, PAGENO="0523" 509 Ashland Oil, Highland Oil, General Crude and Canadian Superior. The Superior group was high bidder with $11,628,691, with rejection of the unsigned bid. The four previous federal sales in the Gulf offshore from Texas were in 1954, 1955, 1960 and 1962. They yielded only $68.1 million for 105 tracts, an average of about $140 an acre. EXHIBIT No. 3 AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, New York, N.Y., February 28, 19G8. Hon. JOHN YOUNG, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN YOUNG: This will confirm our recent conversation on the above named subject. Approximately eight million acres in the Gulf of Mexico offshore from Texas are available for possible mineral lease by the Department of the Interior. Of this block, four million acres have been nominated for oil and gas lease. Accord- ing to information from the Department of the Interior, of the four million acres, one million acres will be leased within the very near future. This property runs roughly from Matagorda north to Galveston. As soon as the lease sale has been held, and the oil and gas leases have been granted by Interior, offshore drilling will begin in this area, and it is envisioned that possibly as many as 350 wells may be drilled in the Matagorda-Galveston area. At the present time, the small amount of offshore drilling in the Matagorda area is being serviced from about 30 miles south of Matagorda, at Port O'Con- nor. Port O'Connor has a channel adequate to serve only as a hurricane shelter for a limited number of offshore drilling rigs, and as a take-off point for crew boats and supply boats for the drilling rigs operating in the vicinity. However, with the leasing of the one million acres mentioned above, Port O'Connor would be inadequate for handling all the offshore drilling activities contemplated. Furthermore, Matagorda is much more accessible from Hous- ton (from which supplies and materials for these offshore activities will be ar- riving) than Port O'Connor. It is estimated that of the 350 wells mentioned above, many of them will be drilled in the immediate vicinity of Matagorda~ and a jetty in the area would afford a nearby shelter to these rigs during hur- ricanes. I understand from those engaged in offshore drilling in the Gulf that the 12-foot channel and jetty as proposed is quite adequate for the uses to which they would be put, namely, for the use of crew boats and supply boats going to and from the offshore rigs, and for a hurricane shelter when the need arises. Sincerely, FRANK N. IKARD. EXHIBIT No. 4 JUNE 14, 1968. Hon. JOHN YOUNG, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN YOUNG: It has come to my attention that you will submit a bill recommending the Colorado River Jettys at the mouth of the Colorado River Discharge Channel in this year's omnibus bill. It is my understanding that the interim report by the District and Regional office of the U.S. Army Engineers carries a favorable report for this project. I have been advised that the state agencies (Texas Water Development Board, the Texas Water Rights Commission, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart- ment) concur in the proposed improvements, based on the preliminary field report. This project certainly appears to be one which will produce great benefit to Texas, and I will lend my support to it in whatever way possible. With best regards, Sincerely, JOHN CONNALLY. PAGENO="0524" 510 EXHIBIT No. 5 MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., June 13, 1968. Congressman JOHN YOUNG, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. YoUNG: For your information, the Colorado River Yetty has the endorsement of the National Rivers and Harbors' Committee. If there is any further assistance I can give you to put this through, please let me know. I would also appreciate your contacting Congressman Clark MacGregor, of Minnesota, as I feel that he will be glad to give you any help that you may need. Sincerely, AL HANSEN, 2cational Rivers and Harbors Congress. Mr. BLATNIK. We will next hear from our distinguished colleague from Maryland, Congressman Machen. POTOMAC RIVER, MALLOWS BAY-ABANDONED SHIP HULLS (H.R. 2402) STATEMENT OP HON. HERVEY G. MACHEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONG-RESS PROM THE STATE OP MARYLAI~fl) Mr. MACHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement that I would like to submit for the record in connection with H.R. 2402, the authorization for the cleanup in the Potomac River. The Corps of Engineers, the technical witnesses, will testify `and I would like to just submit this for the record. Mr. BLATNIK. Very well. Your statement will appear in the record at this point in its entirety. (The full, prepared statement of Mr. Machen follows:) STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE HERVEY G. MACHEN, OF MARYLAND, ON HR. 2402 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Hervey G. Machen and I represent Prince Georges and Charles Counties of the State of Maryland in the House of Representatives. I am appearing today on behalf of my bill, H.R. 2402, which I introduced on January 16, 1907, and which was referred to this Committee for consideration. I originally introduced this bill in the 89th Congress on July 22, 1965, as H.R. 10018. The purpose of my legislation is to authorize and direct the Secretary of the Army to remove from the Potomac River and to destroy more than 100 abandoned World War I ship hulks now floating in Mallow's Bay in Charles County, Md. Each of these hulls is almost 300 feet long and they are made of wood. They were the remnants of a salvage operation and they are stripped clean of all metal. These hulks are in a semblance of a "corral" in Mallow's Bay and from time to time either a hull or a large piece of a hull will escape into the Potomac River posing a serious threat to the safety of water traffic. Last year in the March 5, 1967, issue of the Sunday Star Magazine there was an article about these hulks. The writer, Mr. William Fuchs, said, "Today the hulks are not only unsightly, `but they also have become a menace. The mud and gravel is spilling out of them; the pilings that once fenced them are deteriorating, leaving large gaps, and the ships themselves are decaying and breaking apart." Mr. Chairman, these hulls have been held to be legally abandoned property in the Steinbraker v. Crouse decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, January 15, 1936, a copy of which is attached to my testimony. This decision also includes a lengthy history of these hulks and I hope it will be included in the record. The court held that "actual abandonment" had occurred in that case. Thus we are faced with a situation where these hulls, although admittedly not in navigable waters nor in the channel of the river, are not owned by anybody and legally are not anyone's responsibility. If they were in the channel of the River the Corps of Engineers would act to remove them. If they were privately owned they probably would have been removed long ago. It has been my feeling for some time that there is a clear federal interest in the scenic quality of the Potomac PAGENO="0525" 511 River and this has been affirmed by the President in his various statements on behalf of making the Potomac River a national river. In addition, I feel some local responsibility because Mallow's Bay is Maryland State waters. So I have proposed legislation for a primarily federal removal program with financial participation by the State of Maryland. In reply to my request, Governor Agnew wrote me on August 16, 1967, of his support of my bill and stated that, "These hulls are indeed a blight on a great natural waterway and an occasional menace to navigation. In my judgment, the principal responsibility for eliminating this condition rests with the federal government, which has a measure of control over the vessels at the time they were sold. I can see also a degree of state responsibility in light of the benefits which would accrue upon removal. Therefore, I would look with favor upon federal action in this area and some degree of cost sharing by Maryland. It is upon this basis that I endorse H.R. 2402." The report from the Secretary of the Army of February 9, 1968, on my bill recommends that section 2 authorizing him to receive a contribution from the state be deleted and add the phrase "Provided, That local interests shall con- tribute one-half of the cost of such work." I would interpret this to indicate participation by the State of Maryland. I have talked with the owner of the adjacent property in Mallow's Bay and he is agre~ab1e to this recommendation by amendment. Therefore, I would support it. I feel very strongly that this legislation should be enacted because of the serious threat these hulls pose to water traffic and because of the blight on the River they represent. There is no question that these hulls are a real eyesore and since we are to make the Potomac River a model for the nation, a goal which was stated several years ago by President Johnson, these hulls must be removed and destroyed. Mr. Chairman, I request favorable consideration by the committee and I would be very grateful if the subcommittee could Include my language along with the amendment recommended by the Secretary of the Army in the upcoming Rivers and Harbors Act of 1968. Thank you for your time and consideration. STEINBRAKER v. CROUSE No. 46 COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, JAN. 15, 1936. 1. Shipping ~ã~213 Salvage company which ceased salvaging scrap metals from its vessels sub- merged in bay, conveyed land used in connection therewith to itself under dif- ferent name, sold equipment to outsiders, and for over two years permitted per- sons living near bay to procure and sell scrap from such vessels without compen- sation or permission, abandoned vessels, precluding its assignees from enjoining removal of scrap from vessels by those so engaged. 2. Abandonment ~2 Property is abandoned when owner walks off and leaves it with no intention to again claim it or exercise rights of ownership over it, and it then belongs to any one who takes possession of it. 3. 2'Ta'vigable waters ~`3G(1) Interest of federal government in navigable waters extends only to control of waters over land and not to soil. Appeal from Circuit Court, Charles County; Walter J. Mitchell, Judge. Bill by Harry Steinbraker against Lorenzo P. Crouse. Decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Argued before Bond, C. J., and Urner, Offutt, Parke, Sloan, Shehan, and John- son, JJ. Hilary W. Gans and Joseph T. Brennan, both of Baltimore (Brown & Brune, of Baltimore on the brief), for appellant. Joseph A. Wilnier and John F. Mudd, both of La Plata (F. DeSales Mudd, of La Plata, and Ida Taxin Fox, of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellee. Sloan, Judge. ~For other cases see same topic and Key Number In all Key Number Digests and Indexes. PAGENO="0526" 512 Harry Steinbraker, plaintiff and appellant, on December 22, 1934, filed his bill of complaint in the circuit court for Charles county, wherein he alleged that, by deed of assignment dated December 3, 1934, from the Potomac Realty Company, Limited, a body corporate of the state of Delaware (amended by agreement at the hearing to read "State of California"), recorded in Charles county, he bad ac- quired "all the right, title, and interest of the said the Potomac Realty Company, Ltd., in and to all lead, copper, brass and other metal of whatever nature owned by it, or to which it has title in and around the hundred and sixty-nine (169) vessels, which said vessels were formerly owned by the Western Marine & Salvage Company, the said vessels being located in Mallow's Bay, near Sandy Point, in Charles county, Maryland"; that "a certain Lorenzo D. Crouse (appellee), his agents, servants and employees, disregarding the interests of" the plaintiff "in and to the lead, copper, brass and other materials contained in said vessels, * * * have entered upon and seized said vessels and are at present engaged in shipping and selling such metals to parties unknown to" the plaintiff; and that as a result of "such depredations" the "value and interest" of the plaintiff's "holding in said vessels and metal is being permanently injured." The bill prayed an injunction and an order passed as prayed. The defendant answered denying that "the said Harry Steinbraker ever ac- quired any right, title or interest in and to the lead, copper, brass and other mate- rials" mentioned in the bill of complaint and admitted that "be, his agents, serv- ants and employees, have heretofore entered upon the sunken hulls of certain ves- sels mentioned in the bill and engaged in the removal, shipment and sale of certain materials salvaged therefrom, but deny that in so doing they committed any trespass, or disregarded any right, title or interest of the plaintiff for the reason that the materials taken by them were a part of the abandoned wreckage of cer- tain ships that bad therefore been dismantled, sunk and abandoned by the West- ern Marine & Salvage Company." Although the appellee, Loreuzo D. Crouse, was the only person named as defendant, this suit is really directed against numerous residents of Charles county, variously estimated by witnesses at from fifty to seventy-five, who bad been engaged in the same business, on the same wreckage as the defendant. Testimony was taken in open court and the case submitted on bill, answer, and evidence, and at the conclusion and after an opinion, of which this is virtually an adoption, a decree was passed dissolving the injunction and dismissing the bill, from which the plaintiff appeals. (1) According to the evidence, the Western Marine & Salvage Company, a Delaware corporation, on June 30, 1923, bought from one George D. Perry, of the city of San Francisco, Cal., 232 vessels, according to name, w-hich had been the property of the government of the United States, the purpose of the purchase being to salvage, dismantle, and remove all portions of the vessels which might be marketable and then destroy the remains. One hundred and sixty-nine of the vessels so bought were floated to the Potomac river and anchored in Mallow's Bay, an indenture of the Potomac river opposite and almost surrounded by a farm known as Sandy Point in Charles county, in navigable, public waters. By deed dated April 21, 1924, one Henry Koester conveyed to the Western Marine & Salvage Company the Sandy Point farm containing 566¾ acres. The Western Marine & Salvage Company then began its salvage operations after installing on the Sandy Point farm such machinery and equipment as was neces- sary to the operation. The method and scope of the operation was to remove all machinery, boilers, pipes, and engines, and to strip the vessels of all metal easily removable; the vessels were then towed into Mallow's Bay, where they were burned to the water's edge and then pulled as near to the shore as possible and the salvaging of metal continued until the spring of 1931. The Western Marine & Salvage Company stated in a letter to its attorney, Mr. E. Cortlandt Parker, of Washington, who represented it in its negotiations with the Potomac Realty Com- pany and Stein,braker, that it had ceased operations in salvaging in May, 1932, but the evidence is that it bad ceased operations the year before and only had watchmen at Sandy Point until the machinery and equipment on the shore was removed by the purchaser, and there is evidence that the public and the residents in the neighborhood began the removal of metal from the burned and sunken hulls without interference while the watchmen were there. After the hulls were burned, the company continued its salvaging operations until in March, 1931, when, to all appearances, it abandoned the project, leaving a watchman in charge of the personal property on the Sandy Point farm, arid he remained there until the summer of 1932. The Western Marine & Salvage Company apparently was a temporary corporation, formed for the purpose of wrecking and PAGENO="0527" 513 salvaging all that it regarded as valuable and marketable of the 232 vessels pur- chased from the government through George D. Perry, one of the stockholders. On the 24th day of July, 125, the Western Marine & Salvage Company was granted a permit jy the War Department of the government "to ground, burn and beach in Mallows Bay, Potomac River, about two hundred hulls." The details with respect to burning, removal, and the obstruction to navigation are all set out with such particularity that it would unnecessarily prolong this opinion to recite them. The time limit on this permit was December 31, 128. The War Department, on January 3, 1931, granted another permit to the same company, wherein it was recited that application had been made "for authority to extend the area in Mal- lows Bay, Potomac river, now used for grounding, ~urn'ing and beaching wooden hulls, two hundred (200) feet channeiward." In that permit it was stated, "that if the structures or work herein authorized is not completed on or before the day of December 31, 1931, this permit, if not previously revoked or specif- ically extended, shall cease and be null and void," and it appears from the evidence that no such permit or extension has since been granted, nor is there any evidence that an extension was since requested, and the evidence is that none was granted to any one since December 31, 1931. `The Western Marine & Salvage Company, by deed dated Noveni,ber 30, 1932, conveyed the Sandy Point farm to the Potomac Realty Conipariy, Limited, a cor- poration of the state of California, without including or mentioning the remains of the burned `and sunken hulls. In the month of December, 1932, the Western Marine & Salvage `Company was dissolved, as stated in the letter of the Potomac Realty Company, Limited, to Mr. Parker, of December 22, 1934, "chiefly for the reason that at that time, under conditions then prevailing, and due to heavy overhead for maintaining the office and a large force of men, it was deemed too expensive to continue salvaging operati'ons, `and for the further reason that the stockholders `of said salvage company at that time desired its dissolution in order that they might ascertain what loss had actually been sustained by them as stockholders in that company. The stockholders did not at that time contemplate, nor have they at any time since then contemplated, abandoning these vessels, but as there were only three principals `interested in this project who have been for many years and still are closely associated, they felt that if conditions again warranted any further sal- vaging they could do so in the nature of a joint venture without the formality of a corporate existence. In spite of the statement contained in this letter that they had not abandoned the burned wreckage, or contemplated returning, we find in the record sufficient evidence to justify the chancellor's conclusion that the burned and sunken hulls had been abandoned, and that this intention to not abandon was an afterthought, more than two years afterward, inspired by the plaintiff, a junk dealer, who had had dealings with the defendant and others so engaged and who saw the possibilities of a more favorable market. [2] The rule of law with respect `to abandoned property is very simple. Prop- erty is abandoned when the owner walks off and leaves it with no intention to again claim it or exercise rights of ownership over it; and when this is done, it belongs to any one who takes possession of it. With respect to real estate, it is' not quite so simple, as the one entering must serve his time of prescription and posses- sion before he can acquire a legal title. In the case of the abandonment of an easement, and this is the kind of most frequent occurrence, abandonment means reversion to the then owner of the fee. It is said in Brantly on Personal Property, ~ 133, that "be who takes possession, animo dominandi, of a thing which has been abandoned by the owner, immediately becomes the proprietor of it by occupancy. A thing is abandoned when the owner throws it away, or leaves it without custody because he no longer wishes to account it as his property; whence it follows that he ceases at once to be the owner. Both the intent to abandon and the fact of abandonment are necessary. Whether property has been abandoned depends upon the intention of the party, the length of time during which the owner has been out of possession being only important as showing this intention." 1 R.C.L. 4; 1 C.J. p. 9. The rule in this state with respect to the abandonment of an easement is the same in principle as that just stated by Mr. Brantly concerning personal property. It was said by this court in Vogler v. Geiss, 51 Md. 407, 410, in an opinion by Judge Alvey: "It is now very well settled, by authorities of the highest character, that a party entitled to a right of way or other mere easement in the land of another may abandon and ox- tinguish such right by acts in pais, and without deed or other writing. The act or acts relied on, however, to effect such result, must be of a decisive character; and PAGENO="0528" 514 while a mere declaration of an intention to abandon will not alone be sufficient, the question, whether the act of the party entitled to the easement amounts to an abandonment or not, depends upon the intention with which it was done, and that is a subject for the consideration of the jury. A cesser of the use, coupled with any act clearly indicative of an intention to abandon the right, would have the same effect as an express release of the easement, without any reference whatever to time." Stewart v. May, 119 Md. 10, 19, 85 A. 957; Canton Co. v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 99 Md. 202, 218, 57 A. 637; Russell v. Zimmerman, 121 Md. 328, 334, 88 A. 337; Greif v. Teas, 156 Md. 284,300,144 A. 231. {31 So far as this record shows, the Western Marine & Salvage Company was a temporary corporation, formed for the purpose of wrecking and salvaging all that it regarded as valuable, marketable, and profitable of the 232 vessels pur- chased from and discarded by the government of the United States. These wrecked hulls were not located on the property of the Western Marine & Salvage Company; they were in navigable waters, occupied by permission of the War Department, which expressly stated that the permit was subject to any other rights of the state or its citizens, public or personal. The vessels were located on land belong- jug to the state, to which the federal government disclaimed any intention of as- serting title. The interest of that government extends only to control of the water over the land, not to the soil. 45 C.J. 538, 540; Sollers v. Sollers, 77 Md. 148, 151, 26 A. 188,20 L.R.A. 94,39 Am.St. Rep. 404. So long as it was engaged in the wreck- ing and junk business, it secured such permit. When the Western Company was through, in December, 1932, it was dissolved, after it had conveyed its land to the Potomac Realty Company, Limited, and sold its equipment, not to the Potomac Realty Company, the personnel of which was the same as the Western Marine & Salvage Company, but to the Boston Iron & Metal Company, which had no con- nection with the other companies. When the equipment was so sold, the Western Company was out of business so far as the salvage of these vessels was concerned. It was then when, to all appearances, the wrecking business of the Western Com- pany was at an end that the people living in the neighborhood took this view of what they there saw and began to gather the junk remaining in the burned, sub- merged hulks, and sold it to junk dealers in and around Washington. One of those so engaged was 3. W. Cox, who lived in the neighborhood and who said, as stated in the record, be "was engaged in this work on his own initia- tive and was not employed by anyone to do it. He considered this was abandoned property because it had been lying in the water, some of it, for four or five years. He is no lawyer, but he had always heard that when a ship or anything of that kind was down and the tide rising and falling over it for a number of years it was abandoned property." He said there bad not been a watchman there for two years. No one attempted to interfere with his work. Altogether, he said, there were about seventy-five people working there. Another witness who had been removing scrap metal from the vessels was James L. David, who went to the War Department to inquire whether any one had a permit to remove metal from the vessels. "I went to several different members, but they told me there didn't anybody want the thing. * * * Then I went back and went to work," removing and selling scrap from the sunken hulls. He said he had nothing else to do at that time and realized wages from his operations. He was "positive there were as many as fifty" work- ing around there. On cross-examination he said his "reason for going there was because he understood it did not belong to anybody; everybody all over the com- munity, from Washington and other places were going there and helping them- selves and they explained that it did not belong to anybody and that it was free for anybody to partake of." Preston Dent testified that he "went there and began to salvage without any authority from anyone, just because he heard that it was open and nobody had anything to do with it; that the salvage company had given it up and it had no more value to it. He had seen Mr. Steinbraker down there while witness was there but had no dealings with him. * * * Most of the wreckage is beneath the water but some parts are sticking above the surface. The wreckage is surrounded by water." He testified, that he had gone there in June, 1932, worked a short time and came back in August, 1934. In the interim the price of scrap was so low "it was barely worth getting." He owned a barge with which he made two trips to Washington with loads of seventy and eighty-five tons, which he sold for $6 a ton. PAGENO="0529" 515 Lorenzo D~ Crouse, the defendant, had worked for the Western Marine & Sal- vage Company, which ceased operations in March, 1931. He "hooked on the last: mast that was lying alongside the crane." After that the company kept a watch- man until August, 1932, who "told me himself that he was placed there to keep anybody from removing any of the equipment that was on the beach." He under- stood from the workmen of the company that the ships were abandoned and "that they were quitting." He began the removal of lead, brass, copper, and scrap iron in September, 1932, and continued until the plaintiff, Steinbraker,. undertook to buy the submerged hulls and had him enjoined. Most of his sales were to one, Sinclair, in shipments up to thirty tons. For the last sale to Sin- clair, he was paid by the plaintiff, who, according to this record, was the ultimate purchaser of much of the metal sold by the local men to Sinclair, and some dealt with the plaintiff directly. There was much other evidence to the same effect from which it may be inferred that for over two years the wreckage had been abandoned so far as the community affected did or could know, and with this. impression, under very great difficulties, anywhere from fifty to seventy-five- persons had removed hundreds of tons of metal from these hulls and their prin- cipal customer was either Sinclair or Steinbraker, or both, and all without interuption or interference from the Western Marine & Salvage Company or any one interested in it, until Steinbraker, with the price of scrap metal rising, saw the possibilities in these burned, gutted, submerged vessels, and late in fall of 1934 he "called the Potomac Realty Company on the West Coast on the phone." This call resulted in the stockholders of the Western Marine & Salvage Com- pany, by agreement dated December 1, 1934, assigning, releasing, and quitclaim- ing unto the Potomac Realty Company, Limited, all the "right, title or interest which they or any of them may have in and to all lead, copper, brass and/or other metals of whatsoever kind and nature located in or around each of the 169 vessels or hulls * * * situated in Mallow's Bay, near Sandy Point, Mary- land." And by agreement of December 3, 1934, the Potomac Realty Company, Limited (of San Francisco, Cal.), assigned the same metals to the plaintiff,. Harry Steinbraker, "as is, where is, if is, without any warranty of title what- soever or otherwise." The price to be paid was $2 per ton f. o. b. railroad cars,. with a deposit of $500 to be applied on the last payments due the puchaser. A bond of $10,000 was required to guarantee noninterference with navigation. In Russell v. Stratton, 201 Pa. 277, 278, 50 A. 975, it is said that abandon- ment is to be determined from a consideration of the property and the conduct of the plaintiff (in this case owner) in relation to it. Fidelity-Phila. Trust Co. v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 294 Pa. 47, 143 A. 474, 479. What was said in the last- mentioned case (294 Pa. 47, 143 A. 474, 480), of an abandoned anthracite cuim. bank, which afterwards became valuable, in which the evidence almost dupli- cates the evidence here, applies to this case, and that is: "Inherent to possession is the right to exclusion; and, if through a duration of many years no act or attempted act of exclusion is exercised by a presumed possessor, and through all that time the thing, such as the culm bank here in question, is openly, freely, and continuously depleted, taken, and carried away in vast quantities, without compensation or permission asked, the intention, if it ever existed, to exclude others, has disappeared; and, when there never was, before and after these open appropriations, assertion of title or acts of dominion exercised, the con- elusion is inevitable that the legal possession has been relinquished and the thing abandoned." It requires no stretch of the imagination to believe from the evidence in this record that, if the plaintiff had not fastened his eyes on these hulls, the so- called "depredations" of the defendant and others in the vicinity of Mallow's Bay would have continued uninterruptedly to this day. The sequence of events. from the time the stockholders of the Western Marine & Salvage Company con- veyed the land from themselves to themselves under the name of the Potomac Realty Company, Limited, the sale of the equipment to outsiders the invasion. for over two years of the wrecked and sunken vessels, and the continuous, un- interrupted, and open carrying away of the scrap therein, without compensation or permission asked, shows clearly, in our opinion, an intention to abandon and' an actual abandonment, not to be recalled by the subsequent negotiations and' agreement between the former owners and the plaintiff, and the decree of thern chancellor should be affirmed. Decree affirmed, with costs. 97-700-68--------34 PAGENO="0530" 516 CHARLES T. BRANDT, INC., v. YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASS'N. OF BALTIMORE CITY No. 84 COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND, JAN. 16, 1936 1. Trusts ~`154 Generally, where there is no separation of legal and beneficial estates, no trust can exist and beneficial estate is merged in legal estate. 2. Charities ~~35 Where bequest was to charitable institution in trust to be used as its directors should deem proper, institution took legal title and hence could pass title to its purchaser as against contention that since no valid trust existed, institution had no title. 3. Perpetuities ~8(1) Bequest to charitable institution requiring fund to be raised from sale of property of estate and kept intact and only income used held not invalid as violating rule against perpetuities. 4. Landlord and tenant ~285(6) Default judgment entered in ejectmerLt action after return day held valid, where witness proved that half year's rent w:as due and testified to damage sustained, notwithstanding no affidavit showing rent due was filed (Code Pub. Gen. Laws Supp. 1929, art. 75, ~ 78; Code Pub. Loc. Laws 1930, art. 4, § 307; Code Pub. Gen. Laws 1924, art. 75, § 76). (~Por other cases see same topic and Key Number in all Key Number Digests and Indexes. Mr. MACHEN. You will have four witnesses, I understand, from the Corps of Engineers. RED RIVER WATERWAY (BELOW DExIsox DA~r) , LA., ARK., OKLA., AND TEX. (NAVIGATION AND BANK STABuJzA'rIoN) Mr. Br~&i'xIK. Mr. Waggonner, is Mr. Long to be here? We thought perhaps you had the largest delegation, a hard-working delegation, and sort of speculating. I think we have a good opportunity right now to hear your witnesses. STATEME:NT OP HON. JOE D. WAGGONNEIt, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP LOUISIANA Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the opportunity to ap- pear here today in behalf of the Red River below Denison Dam in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, and urge you to approve this request. We will hear witnesses from the Red River Valley Asso- ciation from the Eighth Congressional District of Louisiana as well as the Fourth Congressional District of Louisiana; and I would like to present a statement I have made available to the committee which would be my statement in support of this request, and also urge you to adopt it. As you gentlemen know, I have appeared before this committee on a number of occasions in the past on behalf of this project and each time I haYe been re.ceived with courtesy and your full attention. It is always a pleasure to testify before you and I am sure you will take under consideration my statement today as well as those of others who make up the delegation which I have the pleasure to introduce. PAGENO="0531" 517 Others will make it even clearer than I will be thle to do that the reestablishment of navigation on the Red River and the accompanying bank stabilization are absolute requisites if we are to have progressive and orderly development of the Red River Valley. The river States and the Nation as a whole will draw equal benefit from this develop- ment by contributing substantially in answering the Nation's growing demands for new jobs, new land areas for industry, housing, cities, and recreation; these factors all being additional to the supply of water. The completion of this project will make possible the full and orderly development of all of the multiple resources of the rich valley. Local raw materials and goods manufactured from them and agricultural products indigenous to this area can then be exchanged freely with the other regions of the State and the Nation. As you gentlemen are aware, the reestthlishment of navigation on the Red River requires the construction of locks and dams, realinement of river by cutoffs, and stabilization of the channel. When this im- provement is completed, substantially 2,000 acres of land will be saved from almost certain loss and $1,800,000 in annual damage will be a thing of the past. For the first time the area adjacent to the river can be developed for the best utilization without having to take into ac- count the hazard of caving banks. Land areas which up until now could not be occupied by housing will be safeguarded so that it can be put to residential, business, and industrial use. The flood control benefits which will naturally follow from a stabilized channel will include safety for the levees, a substantial reduction in the cost of maintaining existing works, a reduction in the sedimentation now taking place in Atchafalaya Basin, and greater security against flooding through in- creased channel capacity and efficiency. Water supplies will be not only increased, but its quality improved `by the navigation pools which will he formed by the locks and dams. In summary, gentlemen, I have touched upon a few `of the benefits of the `project but will not attempt to cover the broad scope of them all. The advancement and benefits to the Red River Valley and to the Nation are well known to this committee, and expert professional testi- mony today and the past will bear it out. The Red River Waterway Commission, the Louisiana Department `of Public Works, and local interests of the Red River Valley in Louisiana reconunend the fol- lowing: (1) That the project, Red River below Fulton, as amended, and the Overton-Red River Waterway, `be modified to authorize construction of a 9- by 200-foot navigation channel from the Mississippi River to Shreveport. (2) That the project, Cypress Bayou and Waterway between Jeffer- eon, Tex., and Shreveport, La., be modified to authorize construction of a 9- by 200-foot channel from Shreveport to Daingerfield. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the Bureau of `the Budget have recommended that an economic restudy of the Shreve- port to Damgerfleld reach of the Red River Navigation Waterway be made prior to initiation of construction. Since under existing policy the Corps of Engineers must periodically reevaluate authorized proj- ects before appropriation of funds for construction, it is not neces- sary to make this provision a condition for authorization. The navi- gation project is presently justified from its beginning at Old River to Daingerfield. It is recommended that it be authorized in its entirety `without reservations. PAGENO="0532" 518 (3) That the project, Red River below Denison Dam, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, be modified to provide for bank stabilization according to the report of the Chief of Engineers. (4) That the responsibility for maintenance and operation of Caddo Dam in Louisiana be made a Federal responsibility when Caddo Lake becomes a part of the Red River navigation project. The Bureau of the Budget calls attention to the fact that the present plan of development contemplates use of the existing Caddo Dam in Louisiana as a part of the navigation project between Shreveport and Daingerfield. The Bureau further states that the responsibility for operating and maintaining Caddo Dam project, which is presently a local cost, has not been explicitly defined in the report. Since Caddo Lake pool will be an integral part of the navigation project when it is constructed, the State of Louisiana through the Caddo Levee Board gave assurances that it would operate and maintain the project with the understanding that, when it became a part of the navigation proj - ect, this responsibility would be transferred to the Federal Govermnent.. As you gentlemen know, this project was originally authorized `in 1945, utilizing a lateral canal. For a number of good and justifiable reasons this system was not carried through. Our need now is to amend the original authorization. Again, gentlemen, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here today and again would like to express my sincere appreciation for the courtesy you have shown me by your attention to what we in Louisiana consider to be one of the most important public works projects ever to be considered for the benefit of our State and the area. And now I believe Mr. Speedy 0. Long ha.s a statement he wishes to submit. STATEMENT OP HON. SPEEDY 0. LONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP LOUISIANA Mr. LONG. I will just submit my statement in full for the record at this time, Mr. Chairman, and ask if you would want the witnesses introduced now or do you plan to recess for the quorum call? Mr. BT~m'IK. We will run right through until we get `to the quorum. We would like to go as far as we could, to about 12 o'clock. We will return at 2 if possible. Mr. LONG. I would therefore present my statement for the record. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection your statement will appear in the record at this point. (The full, prepared statement of Mr. Long follows:) STATEMENT BY HON. SPEEDY 0. LONG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LoUIsIANA Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a distinct privilege to be able to appear before the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors to testify in be- half of the authorization for navigation and bank stabilization on Red River below Denison Dam, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, as recommended by the Chief of Engineers. I am especially pleased to be able to support the efforts of those citizens of the Red River Valley who for more than 40 years have worked to improve and stabilize this important stream. If my information and recollection are correct, this project will be the first basic navigation works attempted on the Red River since Captain Henry Miller Shreve opened the river to navigation in the middle of the 19th century. The time has long since arisen when we should undertake the rejuvenation of this critical commercial water ray. PAGENO="0533" 519 The other witnesses before the subcommittee today will, I am sure, give you ~the necessary technical information upon which to base your decision; however, the effort we are attempting to make to open the Red River to navigation and `to stabilize its *banks to provide flood control and recreational advantages transcend mere technical considerations. The project has a deeper human mean- ing, for the many thousands of people living today in the Red River Valley, for the businessmen, for the farmers, for the working men, and for those generations yet unborn. I am firmly convinced that this type of project pays greater dividends and will go far toward alleviating those conditions which create poverty and job- `lessness amongst all our people. I recognize only one special interest to which the Government should respond and this is the interest of all its citizens. The project which has been proposed for the improvement and rehabilitation of the Red River is of vital and direct interest to all those people who live and do business on lands drained by the river. I believe that the interest of these people demands our positive and immediate action on this authorization legislation and I urge the subcommittee to report the Red River Valley authorization project favorably as the same has been approved and recommended by the Chief of Engineers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. We will next hear from our colleague, Congressman Pryor, of Arkansas. STATEMENT OP HON. DAVID PRYOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM. THE STATE OP ARKANSAS Mr. PRYOR. Mr. Chairman, I `am grateful for the opportunity to sub- mit testimony in behalf `of the program recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers in the Red River navigation `and stabilization re- port. The first efforts to confrol the river through the use of bank stabilization works began in 1946. For many years it `has been an emer- gency "firefighting" program plagued by inadequate funds. The Corps of Engineers has wisely con~ luded that the only way to control `the Red River is through a well-devised bank-protection system. The corps has recommended `a program consisting of realinement of the channel `through `dredging and cutoffs, training works, various kinds of revetment, pile dikes `and steel dikes, and other works. It is felt that such a program will arrest the economic losses and damages oc- curring each year. The Red River project has the approval of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the Chief of Engineers, the Bureau of the Budget, `and the Senate Public Works Committee. Those of us in the four-State area of Arkansas, Louisiana, Okla- homa, and Texas recognize how important this project is to the for- ward progress of the Red River Basin in its work for flood control and bank `stabilization and navigation. Mr. Chairman, I know that you and the distinguished `members of your subcommi'ttee will give due consideration `to my views, `an'd I `thank you for your courtesy. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Pryor. Next we shall hear from our `distingu'ished colleague and one of `the outstanding Members of the House, Congressman Carl Albert, of `Oklahoma. STATEMENT OP HON. CARL ALBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN `CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP OKLAHOMA Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your distinguished committee in support of the interim report PAGENO="0534" 520 on navigation and bank stabilization on Red River below Deni~on Darn in the States of Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma. The U.S. Army Engineers have done an outstanding job in the preparation of this interim report as a part of the comprehensive basin study of Red River below Denison Dam. The report contains complete information to substantiate the recommendation of the engi- neers that navigation is presently economically feasible as far north as Shreveport on the main stern of Red River and on tributaries to Daingerfield, Tex., and that bank stabilization is justified from Shreve- port to Denison Darn. I wholeheartedly support these conclusions and particularly those with respect to bank stabilization above Shreveport. The stabilization and rectification of the channel of Red River below Denison Darn will result in enormous benefit to that area of the coun- try through which it runs. In addition, I strongly feel it is necessary that this be done in order to provide for those future days when, I am confident, navigation will be justified on up the river to Denison Dam. The area served by this great inland waterway continues to grow and prosper and I believe the time is not far distant when that area will support commercial navigation all the way to Denison Pain. Again, Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically support and endorse this report and urge that the navigation and bank stabilization improve- ments recommended by the Corps of Engineers for Red River be in- cluded in the 1968 omnibus rivers and harbors bill. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to present these views today. I am confident this matter will receive the careful and sympathetic con- sideration of the conmiittee. Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to espe- cially expedite as much as possible these hearings and introduce to you,. Mr. Chairman, a man that has appeared before you on a number of occasions before, Mr. L. R. Roy Matthias, vice president of the Red River Valley Association, Shreveport, La. Mr. Br~m~. Mr. Matthias is well known and an old friend, one of the most knowledgeable men in this area. STATEMENT OP L. R. ROY MATTHIAS, VICE PRESIDENT OP THE RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION, SHREVEPORT, LA.; ACCOMPANIED BY C. A. FAIRBANKS, PRESIDENT, RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIA- TION, ALEXANDRIA, LA.; CALVIN T. WATTS, ASSISTANT DIREC- TOR, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, BATON ROUGE, LA.; DOUGLAS F. ATAWAY, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER, THE SHREVEPORT 3OURNAL, SHREVEPORT, LA.; HOWARD BRAB- HAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, AUSTIN, TEX.; GEORGE T. BURTON, PRESIDENT, NORTHEAST TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, DAINGER- FIELD, TEX.; FRANKLIN T. NONES, PRESIDENT, CYPRESS VALLEY NAVIGATION DISTRICT, MARSHALL, TEX.; AND HOWARD WIL~ LINGHAM, TEXARKANA, TEX. Mr. MATTHIAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a prepared state- ment which I would like to file for the record and only state that the PAGENO="0535" 521 interim project on the Red River, the interim report on the Red River below Denison Dam, has had the concurrence of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the Chief of Engineers, the Bureau of the Budget, and we recommend and urge this committee to continue with the study of authorization in its entirety. The project was heard this month by the Senate Public Works Coimnittee and is in the process of being marked up at this time. We urge this committee to adopt the entire project and to act with haste so that this project may be included in this year's authorization bill. The Red River is the last major river basin in the United States to be comprehensively developed. We urge this committee to follow through and adopt this well- worth-while project. I have seven witnesses acompanying me, in all, who will file their statements and make a brief presentation for the committee. We know that you are pressed for time and we do not want to impose on this time limit. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Matthias, would you want to present your wit- nesses at this time? Mr. MATTHIAS. Mr. C. A. Fairbanks of Alexandria, who is president of the Red River Valley Association. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Fairbanks? Mr. FAIRBANKS. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to come before your committee this morning. I am president of the Red River Valley Association who has been working on this project for some 20 years, and we have passed all the tests all along the road and, without taking up any more your time, I just ask you please, sir, to give us a favorable vote on this. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, your statement will appear in its entirety in the record at this point. We appreciate your considera- tion and also are fully aware of the intensive and careful effort you have made on this project and your study and presentation. Mr. MATTHIAS. Our next witness is Mr. Calvin Watts, Louisiana Department of Public Works, assistant director, of Baton Rouge, La. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Watts, we are happy to have you. Mr. WATTS. Thank you. We have filed our statements previously with the committee. I am from the State of Louisiana, which supports this project as rec- ommended by the Chief of Engineers. One short statement I would like to make is that the estimated cost to the State of Louisiana-the local cost is about $23.5 million on this project. We have already passed a statewide constitutional amendment setting up the Red River Waterway District along the Red River in Louisiana. composed of the seven parishes or counties bordering oii the river. It has a commission that has already been appointed. It has tax authority to impose taxes on these properties to meet our obligation of $23.5 million on the project. We recommend authorization of the project and state we are ready to put up our proportionate share in the State of Louisiana. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Watts. Mr. MATTHIAS. Our next witness is Mr. Douglas Ataway, publisher and editor of the Shreveport Journal, to speak for Louisiana. PAGENO="0536" 522 Mr. ATAWAY. My name is Douglas Ataway, I am the publisher of the Shreveport Journal. My newspaper has been striving for navigation and bank stabiliza- tion on the Red River for about 50 years. I would like to personally urge now that your committee approve theentire project for the Mis- sissippi River to Daingerfield, Tex. This will provide a vast supply of fresh water for our cities, our farms, and our industry. The citizens of the four States, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas wifi all benefit from this project. Thank you. Mr. Br~TNIK. You strongly urge we treat it as one unit and one com- prehensive project? Mr. MATrIJIAs. Yes, sir. Our next witness is Howard Brabharn, executive director of the Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Tex. Mr. BRABHAM. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the committee my name is Howard Brthhaan. I am the executive director of the Texas Water Development Board of Austin, Tex., and I am appearing on behalf of that board and also on behalf of the Texas Water Rights Commis- sion which requests that their statement be entered into the record in support of this project of navigation on the Red River and bank stabilization. The water development board is wholeheartedly in accord with the recommendations for authorization of this project and wishes to in- clude its statement in the record; we support the project in its entirety in accordance with the statements that we have supplied to your committee. Mr. WRIGHT (presiding). Without objection, that statement will appear in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD SUMMARY The State of Texas recommends to the Congress that it: 1. Modify the existing authorization for navigation to provide for a channel with a width of 200 feet and a depth of 9 feet from the mouth of Red River to the vicinity of Daingerfield as a single project, without the proviso for economic reanalysis to apply only to the Shreveport to Daingerfield section. 2. Include authorization language to direct that the project be considered a total project for all internal review studies made by the Corps of Engineers prior to construction, and that costs of proposed Lock and Dam No. 6 be considered to be assigned equally to the portion of the project from Shreveport to the mouth, and from Shreveport to Daingerfield. 3. Authorize the three bank stabilization projects with the proviso that no construction on the reach from Denison Dam, Texas, to Index, Arkansas, begin until the Congress considers and acts upon an analysis of the cost-sharing policy for such projects under flood control provisions. 4. Deauthorize the Mooringsport Dam and Reservoir, as authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 24, 1946. 5. Provide for future evaluations of navigation between Denison Dam and Shreveport as changes in conditions warrant such investigations. STATEMENT OP THE STATE OF TEXAs INTRODUcTION An interim report covering navigation and bank stabilization projects was prepared by the District Engineer, New Orleans District, Corps of Engineers, PAGENO="0537" 523 dated March 15, 1966. The Division Engineer, Lower Mississippi Valley Dlvi- sion, concurred in the findings and recommendations of the District Engineer on April 1, 196G. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors in its report to the Chief of Engineers dated October 10, 1966 took exception to a number of findings and recommendations of the District Engineer. The Chief of Engi- neers concurred in the views and recommendations of the Board of Engi- neers for Rivers and Harbors. The report and recommendations of the Corps of Engineers were received by Governor Connally on November 3, 1966 and considered in detail by the State. The Governor, by letter of April 10, 1967, transmitted official comments of the State, including an order of the Texas Water Rights Commission dated April 10, 1967. Those comments have been transmitted by the Secretary of the Army to the Congress with the report and are a matter of record with this Committee. NAVIGATION FACILITIES The proposed navigation improvements on the Red River from Shreveport to the Mississippi River would be a modification of the existing project for navigation, Red River below Fulton, Arkansas, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of July 13, 1892, as modified by the River and Harbor Acts of July 24, 1947 (authorizing the Overton-Red River Waterway), and July 17,. 1950 (authorizing the improvement from mile 31 to Black River). The proposed navigation improvements from Shreveport, Louisiana, to Daingerfield, Texas, would be a modification of the existing project, Cypress Creek and waterway between Jefferson, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana, authorized by Act June 10, 1872 and modified by an Act approved June 25, 1910 and by the Flood. Control Act approved October 27, 1965. The proposed navigation project would provide for a channel having a bottom width of 200 feet and a depth of 9 feet from the Mississippi River via Old River and Red River for 31 miles and thence to Shreveport, Louisiana,. along and in Red River, and follow an improved channel in Twelve Mile Bayou and Cypress Creek to a turning basin located in the headwaters of Lake 0' the Pines, Texas. The project would modify and shorten the length of the existing water- courses by 79 miles by the realignment of the river from the present 373 miles to an improved channel length of 294 miles. The project would require the construction of nine locks and seven dams, and would provide a total lift of 224.5 feet. The locks would have a chamber size of 600 x 84 feet. All reporting elements within the Corps of Engineers have determined that the project is feasible. Separate analyses were made by the District Engineer and by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. Both groups found. the entire navigation project to be economically justified, although benefit to cost ratios were different in the two analyses. Benefits due to transportation savings were computed by the Corps of Engineers by three methods of analyses: current rate, water-compelled rate,. and projected rate. Benefits computed on the basis of projected rates take into account the future lowering of competitive truck and rail rates, thus lowering the benefits to be derived from water-borne traffic. With this very conservative approach the Corps of Engineers analyses indicate the total project to be feasible. Both the District Engineer and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har- bors analyses considered the Red River to Shreveport, Louisiana and from Shreveport to the vicinity of Daingerfield, Texas for separate and total project analyses. The benefit to cost ratio from these analyses were: Board of Unit District engineer Engineers for Rivers and Harbors Mississippi River to Shreveport Shreveport to Daingerfield Total project 1. 8 1. 9 1.8 1. 48 1. 05 1.30 The benefit to cost analyses of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors considers the rate savings for the Shreveport to Daingerfield reach to be incre- PAGENO="0538" 524 mental to the Mississippi River to Shreveport unit. The assumption of the mere- mental method is questioned on the basis that a separation of data on tonnage of commodities expected to be carried on the two reaches on the total project, as shown in Tables 4 and 6, Appendix III, indicates the reach from Shreveport to Daingerfield will be responsible for more than 50 percent of the up-bound and down-bound traffic of the total project. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors analysis also assigns the cost for Lock and Dam No. 6, to be located on Red River below Shreveport, to the *reach from Shreveport to the vicinity of Daingerfield. We find this analysis of cost assignment to be incorrect. Lock and Dam No. 6 will be needed by both the navigation to Shreveport, and the navigation to Daingerfield. The cost of Lock and Dam No. 6 is a total project cost and should be assigned equally to 1)0th units as detailed design and construction are initiated. We believe that the logical conclusion to be reached is that the navigation project should be considered as a single total project from the Mississippi River to the vicinity of Daingerfield, Texas. Such conclusion is reached from the facts that a very high percentage of total tonnage relates to the Daingerfiekl-Shreve- port reach; that benefits to be derived accrue to the entire length of the project; and. that construction costs are compatible throughout the length of the project. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors recommendation pertaining to the navigation authorization includes the proviso that "prior to the construc- tion of navigation features on the reach from Shreveport to Daingerfield, the transportation economics be reanalyzed, taking into account all data pertinent to the movement of bulk commerce in the project tributary area." As concluded earlier in this statement, the navigation project should be con- sidered as a single total project from the Mississippi River to the vicinity of Daingerfield. The total project is shown by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to have a favorable benefit to cost ratio of 1.3. Under normal pro- cedures the Corps of Engineers evaluations of this type are made after author- ization and before construction of a project. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors proviso language is over-restrictive if the phrase "project tributary area" refers only to the portion of area from Shreveport to Daingerfield. If it pertains to the entire project area from the Mississippi River to the vicinity of Daingerfield the proviso is not necessary as their analyses demonstrate a benefit to cost ratio of 1.3. It is concluded that the proviso recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is not necessary. "Texas requests that such a proviso not be included in the authorizing legis- lation, and that the navigation project be authorized as a single total project." Analyses which have been made indicate that navigation upstream from Shreveport along Red River through southwestern Arkansas, and along the common boundary between Oklahoma and Texas to the vicinity of Denison Dam is not feasible at this time. Texas recognizes that additional evaluations of this potential should be made in the future as changed conditions warrant such investigations. BANK sTABILIzATION The report recommends bank stabilization projects in the reach from Denison Dam, Texas to Index, Arkansas: from Index to Shreveport, from Shreveport to the Mississippi River, and a short segment of Cypress Creek in conjunction with the navigation unit. The reach of navigation channel from Shreveport to Daingerfield includes pro- visions for a two-mile section of bank protection along the left bank of the new channel above the Red River and a one-half mile section southeast of Jefferson. This work will cost $877,000 and is included in the total cost of the navigation project. The District Engineer report demonstrates the need for the bank stabilization project from Denison Dam, Texas, to Index, Arkansas. The Texas Water Develop- ment Board concurs in this need. The Texas Water Development Board takes exception to the cost allocation method used by the Corps of Engineers in deter- mining the contribution to be made by non-Federal interests. Certain segments of General Cassidy's letter of transmittal to the Secretary of the Army concerning bank stabilization are as follows: Para. 2. a. "That the existing flood control project Red River below Denison Dam, be modified to provide for realigning and stabilizing the banks of Red River from the vicinity of Shreveport, Louisiana. to Denison Dam, Texas, at an estimated total Federal first cost of $110,800,000, and $9,002.000 PAGENO="0539" 525 non-Federal cost for lands, easements, rights-of-way, and certain modifica~- tions and relocations of roads, utilities, and related facilities made necessary by construction of the project. Construction would be contingent upon cer- tain requirements of local cooperation including, for land enhancement bene- fits in the unleveed reach above Index, Arkansas, a cash contribution or equivalent as may be agreed upon by the Federal Government and local in- terests, amounting to 21.1 percent of the federal cost, such contribution now estimated at $16,211,000. The reaches from Shreveport to Index and from Index to Denison Dam, analyzed separately, both have benefit-cost ratios of 1.3." Para. 3. "The Board of Engineers for Rivers and `Harbors concurs gen- erally in the findings of the reporting officers with respect to the proposed bank stabilization improvements. However, the Board concludes that the bank stabilization works for the reach from Shreveport to the Mississippi River should be considered together with those proposed for the reach from Denison Dam to Shreveport, as a modification of the flood control project, Red River below Denison Dam. The Board estimates the total Federal first cost from Denison Dam to the Mississippi River at $197,041,000 and, using a 100- year period of analysis, computes the benefit-cost at 1.2. On the basis of re- vised estimates of benefits for the reach from Denison Dam to Index, Arkan- sas, furnished by the reporting officers subsequent to submission of the re- port to the Board, the local cash contributions for land enhancement benefits was recomputed to be 26.1 percent of the first cost, an amount now estimated at $20,127,000. Subject to certain requirements of local cooperation, including the revised cash contribution, the Board recommends modification of the flood control project for Red River below Denison Dam to provide for bank stabilization generally in accordance with the plan of the District Engineer, and deauthorization of Mooringsport Dam and Reservoir on Cypress Creek." Further, in Para. 6, General Cassidy states, ". . . The bank stabilization meas- *ures will eliminate the wide meanderings of the stream which has plagued the area and permit productive use of lands which have been threatened by caving of banks The report states that about 1,000 acres of land are lost each year through caving in the reach above Index, Arkansas. Also, the total area threatened by caving of the river from Denison Dam to the mouth is an estimated 500,000 acres, including about 170,000 acres above Index, Arkansas. Local efforts to protect banks are ineffective because of the lack of continuity essential to a successful bank protection program. The Report mentions that 73 of 93 bank protection works installed by local and state interests have been destroyed or become ineffective because of the lack of continuity essential to a successful bank protection program. The Report notes that due to natural river overflow, the choicest lands (and most productive) in Red River Basin are built up as levees along the river. These choice lands represent an irreplaceable resource to the several states and to the United States. These lands are the ones that are slowly being lost each year through caving and erosive action of the base flow as well as flood flows of the Red River. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors noted the wide variation in the conditions of local cooperation for the three reaches, but also noted they are those normally required under current policy. The current policy referred to is not clear, and should be considered by the Congress. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors (Pg. 20 of letter of trans- niittal to the Chief `of Engineers) and the Chief of Engineers (Pg. 1 of letter of transmittal to the Secretary of the Army) recommended that the project, Red River below Denison Dam, authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1946 be modified by providing for realigning and stabilizing the banks of the Red River from the Mississippi Rive'r to" Denison Dam, Oklahoma and Texas. Texas concurs and notes that this is in accordance with T 33 TJ.S.C.A. Section 701a which states, ". . . destructive~ floods ... .. upsetting orderly process and causing loss `of life and property, including the erosion of lands and impairing and obstructing navigation, highways, railroads, and `other channels of commerce between the states, constitute `a menace to national welfare; that it is the sense of Congress that flood' control on navigab1e~ waters or other tributaries is a proper activity `of the Federal Government `in cooperation with States and localities . . . that investigations and improvements of rivers and other water- ways, including watersheds thereof, for flood control purposes are in `the interest of the general welfare; that the Federal Government should improve `or partici- PAGENO="0540" 526 pate in the improvement of navigable waters on their tributaries, including~ watersheds thereof, for flood control purposes if the benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are in excess of the estimated costs . . . June 22, 1936, C. 688, para. 1, 49 Stat. 1570, "Also, In T 33 TJ.S.C.A. Section 701a-1. "The words `flood control' as used in Section 701a of this title, shall be con- strued to include channel and major drainage improvements, and Federal in- vestigations and improvements of rivers and other waterways for flood control and ullied purposes shall be under the jurisdiction of. . . the Department of the Army under the direction of the Secretary of the Army and supervision of the Chief of Engineers, and Federal investigations of watersheds and measures for runoff and waterflow retardation and soil erosion prevention on watersheds shall be under the jurisdiction of . . . the Department of Agriculture December 22, 1944, c. 665, Section 2, 58 Stat. 889. It is clear that the preceding statutes would permit the inclusion of bank stabilization in the existing flood control project, Red River below Denison Dam. The benefits calculations have been made in accordance with the flood control benefits analysis procedures in the report to the inter-agency Committee on. Water Resources, Proposed Practices fec Economic Analysis 01 River Basin Projects prepared by the Subcommittee on Evaluation Standards, May 1958 (The Green Book) and Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, 2nd Session. The Green Book states "in general the need for flood control depends on the need for the property, products or services which are destroyed or damaged, or which are prevented from being produced or used as a result of floods.~r Senate Document 97 states the same thing in practically the same words. Two forms of benefits to bank stabilization have been estimated by the Corps of Engineers in the Interim Report. One of these is that benefit resulting from the prevention of bank caving and the consequent retention of their present status. This benefit would correspond to the need for the property, products or services which are destroyed or damaged and is therefore a Federal responsi- bility. The second type of benefit includes a shift in cropping practice resulting from economic conditions, and projected increased yields, by all the lands within the floodway. This benefit results from the fact that bank caving has prevented. the higher use of lands within the floodway and corresponds to the property,. products or services which are prevented from being produced or used as a result of floods. This benefit is also a Federal responsibility of flood control and has been so accepted in normal Corps of Engineers procedures. However, in the body of the Interim Report, these latter benefits are referred to as Land Enhancement benefits to which a Soil Conservation Service Depart- ment of Agriculture drainage formula for local cash contribution has been assessed. None of the criteria for drainage benefits according to Senate Docu- ment No. 97 has been satisfied by the proposed works for bank stabilization,. whereas the flood control benefits criteria are satisfied. It is our understanding that this recommended project from Denison Dam,. Texas, to Index, Arkansas, is the first major stream bank stabilization project ~o be recommended to the Congress by the Corps of Engineers which is not in conjunction with a navigation project. The bank stabilization project is needed~ is feasible, and is in the best interest of the Nation and of the States. As the' project will involve a precedent, and the policy relating to cost sharing by Fed- eral and local interests will be established, it is requested that "the project be' authorized with the proviso that no construction on the Denison Dam, Texas-to- Index, Arkansas-reach begin until the Congress considers and acts upon an analysis of the cost-sharing policy for such projects under flood control provisions." DEAUTHORIZATION OF MOORINGSPORT PROJECT The report recommends the deauthorization of the Mooringsport Dam and Reservoir authorized by the Flood Control Act of July 24, 1946, to replace Caddo Dam and provide flood control. A restudy of the authorized project in 1958 showed the project unjustified. The project was transferred to the inactive status on August 25, 1959. The Mooringsport Dam site was downstream of the existing Caddo Dam and would have added flood control storage, while maintaining the water level in Caddo Lake at elevation 168.5 feet. The flood control storage, to elevation 183. feet, would have inundated additional areas in Texas and Louisiana. Texas concurs in the recommendation for deauthorization of the Mooringsport Project. PAGENO="0541" 527 Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you for your testimony. Let me thank you personally for all you have done for Texas. Mr. MATTHIAS. Our next witness is George T. Burton, president of fhe Northeast Texas Municipal Water District of Daingerfield, Tex. Mr. WRIGHT. It is very nice to have you with us. Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a pleasure to be here with you today and I want to submit my statement for the record ivhich includes statements from the mayors of the cities of Dainger- field, Hughes Springs, Lone Star, and Pittsburg, Tex. We would also like to submit a statement from the Lone Star Steel Co. and Morris County and we will not take up the committee's time. We are presenting these statements just to say that we would like to urge the committee's every consideration in approving this project iis a single unit and we would like to see the navigation come to Daingerfi~ld las quickly as possible. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. We are quite familiar with the great vol- ume of traffic that will be generated on this canal by the Lone Star steel plant in your city. We are glad to have you with us and without objection the docu- ments to which you referred will appear in the record at this point. (The documents referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF THE Monxis COUNTY COMMISSIONERs COURT IN SUPPORT OF MODIFI- CATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOE NAVIGATION ON Rsi RIVER AND Crn~Ess BAYOU, LOUISIANA AND TEXAS RESOLUTION Whereas Morris County has for many years supported the development of our area water resources; and Whereas Morris County has supported the development of navigation in our area; now Therefore be it resolved that Morris County Commissioners Court does hereby support the statements submitted by the Northeast Texas Municipal Water Dis- trict and the State of Texas: Be it Further Resolved that this Court does request the Committee's favorable consideration and authorization of the Project Navigation from Red River to vicinity of Daingerfield. PEYTON C. EVANS, County Judge. ARCHIE L. FOMLY, County Commissioner. REX W. BASS, County Commissioner. Gu~ DAVIS, County Commissioner. CECIL THOMAS, County Commissioner. Mr. MATTHIAS. Our next witness is Mr. Franklin T. Jones, presi- dent of the Cypress Valley Navigation District of Marshall, Tex. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Jones is an old personal friend of mine. Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appear on behalf of the Cypress Valley Navigation District, the county of Harrison, Tex., the city of Marshall, Tex., and the chamber of commerce for the city of Marshall, Tex. We are all in deep accord with the statements made by the previous witnesses, particularly by Mr. Patman and the Texas Water Develop- ment Board spokesmen. PAGENO="0542" 528 We urge approval of this project in its entirety without distinc- tion. We hope that it will be considered on its benefit-cost ratio, 1.3, as an entire project and no mention made of any segmentation for restudy of any part of the project. It is our belief that industry attracted to our area will be far better pleased when presented a prospectus which shows an approved plan where navigation will come and not a prospectus that says navigation will come if restudy justifies it. This is sort of like locating an industry on the street. If he has assurance the street will be a paved one, he will locate on that one rather than the one where there is to be a study of if one is to be paved. We ask the privilege of filing the statements for the editors I have named. It was in 1883 that the Federal Government started out to help us with the navigation on the Cypress River, where there was a. log jam up above Shrevesport that was blasted and the river made navigable. Mr. WRIGHT. I hope it will not be this much longer. Mr. Jo~s. Thank you. Mr. MATTHIAs. Our next witness, Mr. Chairman, speaking for the Texans in the area, Mr. Howard Willingham, representing the cities in the area of Texarkana. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Wfflingham, it is good to have you. Mr. WILLINGHAM. I am Howard Willingham, representing the two cities of Texarkana, and I have a short prepared statement that I would like to present for the record on behalf of the seven counties in the southwestern Arkansas and northeastern Texas adjacent to the project area. We endorse the Corps of Engineers report and urge the author- ization of the project in its entirety. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, very much. Mr. M~rrmAs. Mr. Chairman, that concludes our witnesses. How- ever, there may be some statements from the large audience in attend- ance that wish to ifie statements for the record. I so request that permission. Mr. WmGHT. Mr. Matthias, that will be granted and, without objec- tion, the statement of any of those appearing in connection with this project desiring to make a statement may be included in the record. Mr. ]\f i~riii~s. Thank you, very much, Mr. Wright. PORT JTEPFERSON HARBOR, N.Y. Mr. WI~IGHT. Congressman Otis Pike, will you come forward, please? STATEMENT OP HON. OTIS PIKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP ~EW YORK Mr. Pu~. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WRIGHT. You are appearing now in connection with the Port Jefferson Harbor project m New York? Mr. PIKE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not having a prepared statement, but I will be very succinct in my remarks. Mr. WRIGHT. You always are and we are delighted to hear you in any manner in which you desire to proceed. PAGENO="0543" 529 Mr. PIKE. I am somewhat embarrassed, after listening to all of these witnesses recommending their thoroughly justified and highly desir- able projects, to have to come here and say, in my opinion, this particu- lar project which is located right smack in the middle of my own district, and is not near to anyone else, is not particularly justified at this particular time. I think if the committee in its wisdom saw fit to remove it from the bill the Nation would survive and so would I. I would like to reserve the right to speak further after those who are in favor of it have spoken, if they should raise any issues with which I violently disagree. I would simply say although the cost-benefit ratio is very high the benefit accrues almost exclusively to one large corporation which needs it like a moose needs a hatrack. Mr. WRIGHT. I think your request is inappropriate. One, if you de- sire to appear later following the testimony of those who appear in behalf of the project, is it your feeling that the project was not desired by the majority of the people in the area? Mr. Pi~n. Oh, indeed, yes, Mr. Chairman. I would not be here in this capacity if I did not feel that I was representing the majority thinking of the people in the area, the village in which it is located which has gone on record as opposed to the project. The town supervisor of the town in which it is located-these are big towns, say 150,000 people-has not dared to speak one way or the other on the subject, while the county executive has come out in favor of it. I think he is not representative of the thinking of the majority of the people in the area. Mr. WRIGHT. This is not a unique situation. Mr. Piicii. I simply say if the committee in its wisdom sees fit to take the project out of the authorization bill there will be no violent reac- tion from the Representative here. Mr. HIARSHA. Is this in your congressional district? Mr. Pii~. It is not only in my congressional district, but my district is surrounded on three sides by water; there is one other Congress- man about 25 miles away from this project who would be the closest other Congressman involved with this particular area. Mr. HIARSHA. Single user's benefit? Mr. PIKE. I am sorry you asked that. It happens to be an oil com- pany `and I Imow Mr. Wright's interest in this industry, but it is an oil terminal operation located in the area which has pushed this project from its inception. They are going to get a tremendous competitive break at the tax- payers' express expense and I just do not think as a matter of policy they will really need it. Mr. HARSHA. While Mr. Wright has shown some interest in oil, proper legislation has always adopted the position it would be sub- stantiated by successful subsidy. Mr. PIKE. Let me say this, Mr. Harsha. The benefit-cost ratio has been arrived at after redoing the study three times in order to get the benefit-cost ratio `at which they have arrived. It is very high. I do not say this is not a desirable project at some time, but it is very controver- sial `at this moment. It could be done. At this particular time in our Nation's history when people are looking `all over the place for places PAGENO="0544" 530 where they might just cut something I would suggest that this would have a realtively low priority in my opinion. Mr. HARSHA. I would like to comment on the fact that Mr. Wright ~ornes from a great oil producing State. Mr. PIKE. I was aware of this. Mr. HARSHA. Most of the people are interested in the production. Their economic welfare depends upon the production of oil and in that regard, Mr. Wright has been interested in it. I do not know of any improper association on his part. Mr. Pii~. Absolutely not and believe me I would not want to leave that connotation at all. I just did not even want to mention the word "oil" and that is all. Mr. WRIGHT. I think the gentleman from South Dakota has entered the hearing room, Congressman Ben Reifel, who has come over to appear in behalf of the Missouri River project. MISSOURI RIVER NAVIGATION. SOUTH DAKOTA AND NORTH DAKOTA STATEMENT OP HON. BEN REIYEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CON- GRESS PROM TIlE STATE OP SOUTH DAKOTA; ACCOMPANIED BY EON. CHAN GURNEY, FORMER U.S. SENATOR, A1~D STATE SENA- TOR A. ~. RHIAN Mr. R-RIF~. Mr. Chairman, I have with me former Senator Chan Gurney who will submit his statement and make some brief comments in regard to our project. He is the most informed about the subject; and Hap R.hian will submit the Governor's statement for the record. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Rhian, we will be pleased to have your statement. Mr. RHIAN. Inasmuch as Senator Gurney is fully familiar with this and can summarize more effectively than I will be able to because he has appeared before the Senate committee in this regard, I will defer to him. I do have a statement for the record from Gov. Nils A. Boe. Mr. WRIGHT. Without objection, the Governor's statement will be -put into the record `at this point. - (The prepared statement of Gov. Nils A. Boe follows:) STATEMENT OF NIL5 A. BOE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA EXTENSION OF MISSOURI RIVER STABILIZATION AND NAVIGATION I greatly appreciate the courtesy which has `been extended to me of allowing `my representative, Senator A. T. Rhian, to present my statement and testimony `this morning. My schedule of commitments, which could not `be altered, prevent me from having the opportunity to appear before you in connection with this most important matter. I am sure that you gentlemen are generally familiar with the history of the development and construction of the four main stem dams upon the Missouri River in the state of South Dakota. In the minds of many men `and women of the Missouri River Basin States, some of whom are no longer with us, there was envisioned a dream to harness and utilize to the fullest extent the waters of the mighty Missouri River. The purpose and use for these waters in `the minds of these men and women were diverse and manifold. The primary objective was that of flood control; then, newt in order of im- portance, navigation on the Missouri River up to the Gavins Point regulating PAGENO="0545" 531 dam which now crosses the river between South Dakota and Nebraska, about sixty miles up stream from Sioux Oity, Iowa. After these very important reasons came the opportunity for irrigation of our dry areas and the generation of a great amount of hydroelectric power. It must be borne in mind that storage reservoir areas now comprise and total approximately one-half million acres of land-land which has been taken out of production-land which has been forever taken from the tax rolls. The total storage potentiality within these giant reservoirs is in the amount of 34-million acre feet. Indeed, the state of South Dakota plays `the vital and important role in pro- viding the many benefits which have resulted to those states located to the south of our borders, and through which the Missouri River flows. For, as the result of the construction of these dams and reservoirs, control of flood waters has bean accomplished by the channeization and stabilization of this great and meandering river, thereby giving our sister states to the south from St. Louis to Sioux City, Iowa, a practical and efficient medium of transportation. It is with respect to the very important uncompleted and unforged link in the potential navigational chain concerning which I particularly speak to you today. A 60-mile stretch of river still remains free to meander unchecked and unre- strained through a valley ranging from two to tea miles in width, eroding and threatening some of the richest and most productive farm `land in the midwest. The unrestrained flow of the Missouri River from Gavins Point southward to Sioux City, Iowa, indeed is a seriou's economic detriment and burden to this region of the states of South Dakota `and Nebraska. It would be hoped that the same assistance and cooperation would be given to our riparian agricultural land owners with respect to bank stabilization that has been given to land owners bordering the banks of the Missouri a's it flows southward. Nebraska, `South Dakota, `and the entire north central area served `by the upper reaches of the Missouri River `are blessed with fertile soiL Agricultural produc- tion potential is great. Last year in South Dakota, yields were as high as 60 `bush- els of wheat per acre. Corn yields were from 100 to `125 bushels per acre. The need for low cost water transportation to provide a means of transporting our agricul- tural produce to markets is, therefore, completely evident. Lower freight and transportation rates will become a reality. A savings to the extent of ten cents a bushel upon grains produced in the midwest area will result. Economic benefits will accrue to our area, which up until now find it possible and profitable to use water transportation in the distribution of their products, only so far up the Missouri River to Sioux City, Iowa. Fertilizers, cement, struc- tural steel, pipe, and many other items of production will then be transported upstream and made available at a reduced cost into the economy not only of South Dakota and Nebraska but our entire upper midwest area. Favorable action on the part of Congress with respect to the extension of the proposed Missouri River navigation channel will be one of the greatest stimuli in the industrial development of a portion our our great nation, which even in 1968 might to a degree be considered virgin territory. The Federal government, throughout the course of the past years, has spent billions of dollars to help improve the economic and social conditions in the various areas of the United States of America. Vast appropriations have annually been made to pro- duce a climate where economic growth and development might be insured. Vast appropriations are made to create economic assistance to our minority groups. Even as this proposed project is being considered, plans are in the process of preparation calling for the expenditures of further billions of dollars for urban renewal, slum clearance, and the rebuilding of the ghettos. Annually, more and more Americans literally are being squeezed into our urban areas, and in our abortive efforts to combat the wave of crime, violence, riots, and the moral degeneration of our people which has resulted, we continue to rack our brains in an effort to determine how even more people can be accom- modated in these same urban areas. (I `submit that it is time that we appraise not only this problem, but our entire long-range goals and objectives with respect to the United States of the future. In so doing it is, indeed, time that we take inventory of the natural resources of today and attem.pt to discover the frontiers of opportunity that still remain, and to open the door to those frontiers. Many prophets of doom have predicted the demise of rural America. May I state that such an opinion and philosophy is entirely false and is not based on sound economic foundation. For on the contrary, the very future of our country depends directly upon the revitalization of one of our most basic and important 07-700-GS-----35 PAGENO="0546" 532 industries-agriculture--as well as the industrial development of this same area in which one may still find pure air, clean waters, space in which to move and the opportunity to live with a hope for the future. It would be my prayer that through your vision and through your instigation, a new and dynamic program might be instituted which would cause a regenera- tion in our agricultural industry and would serve as that needed stimulus for the industrialization of the wide expanses which await such development. That in so doing, there would be provided to the people of our country, and especially to those who now seek employment and a bare and meager living in our urban centers, an opportunity to discover a new America in areas heretofore unknown to them. In my sincere opinion, the extension of navigation and stabilization of our Missouri River from Sioux City, Iowa, to the first main stem dam in South Dakota, Gavins Point Dam, would be of untold value and importance in achiev- ing the realization of that to which I have just referred. In presenting my testimony urging the approval of this important project, in the light of world as well as domestic conditions, an immediate appropriation of funds for this project would be ill-advised. Accordingly, as Governor of the state of South Dakota, I respectfully urge and request that this Committee affirmatively take action in recommending the immediate authorization of this project. I aim confident that America will recover and rebound from the economic and financial crisis in which we have found ourselves, and that at such time as we have reachieved a sound ftnancial and fiscal stature, this project, which I hope and should be presently authorized, could then be properly implemented and funded in the future. Mr. WRIGHT. It is a pleasure to extend to Senator Gurney all the courtesies that have been extended to me before the CAB. Mr. GTJnNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee. It has been a long time since I have been acquainted with the river, even got my toes wet when I was a kid wading in the river, but I will not bother you with that. I was a member of the other august body, on the other side of the park when the Pike-Sloan plan was started on which our Govern- ment has spent for the dams alone more than $1.5 billion and that controls the floods that we used to have in the Missouri. Now, there is 1,000 miles of navigable stream, upstream from St. Louis, some 1,000 miles. It is all navigable or will be in a few years, upto Sioux City, Iowa. Above Sioux City, Iowa, an air-mile distance of 54 miles has not been touched. We need bank stabilization and channelization for 54 miles and then it will be complete. Our trouble is that the regulating dam, the last one on the river, there are six large dams and the water flowing out of there is for what-for navigation on the river. Now, I would like to think that Uncle Sam could cash into the full extent of the possibilities for industry and betterment and the whole 1,000 and some miles to St. Louis by completing this 54 miles because the water necessary for this navigation flows across this 54 air miles of the river. That will bring lower freight rates to everything we grow, ship out, lower freight rates, transportation rates for everything we need coming in. Industry will come to our State and will be of great benefit. I would hope that the committee would ask the Army Engineers for their report so you will have it on ifie. One more point I want to cover and that is that our people feel we should not ask for funds for this project until the war is over and the fiscal position of our Treasury is in better shape. We do need authorization. PAGENO="0547" 5,3~ The statement which will be filed by. the Mississippi River Valley Association represented here today by Mr. Michael Cassidy gives, the date when this project was first authorized by Congress for surveys and so forth. It ~ been `a long time. I believe the last action by Congress was about 9 years ago. That is too long to wait. Mr. Chairman, we need authorization now. We need it in order that when conditions improve, we can start construction. I want to introduce Mr. A. J. Rhian who has already filed our Governor's statement and who has been a State senator and who has presented the Governor's statement. I also have a short statement that I have prepared for my own remarks and to submit for the record. Mr. WRIGHT. Without objection your statement will appear in the record at this point. (The statement of Mr. Gurney follows:) STATEMENT OF CHAN GURNEY FOE TIlE Missouai RIVER COMMITTEE OF THE YANKTON, SOUTH DAKOTA, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am glad to be here, and thank YOU for time and consideration you are giving to our most important South Dakota and Nebraska Missouri River Project. Our project, river channelization and bank-stabilization improvement for about 54 miles of the Missouri up river from Sioux City, Iowa to Gavins Point, South Dakota and Nebraska, to give our area low cost river navigation. We now find ourselves with district and division approval by the U.S. Army Engi- neers, and by its Chief also by the Rivers & Harbors Board, Interior Depart- ment and Department of Agriculture but still not out of the Secretary of the Army's Office and over to the Bureau of the Budget. Control and improvement of the entire Missouri River must rank as one of the major undertakings by our Nation for the development of our water resources. At this point in time, the ravages of floods in much of the lower valley have been relegated to history. The major main stem chain of reservoirs stretching from Montana to the southeast corner of South Dakota is essentially complete, providing storage for 34 million acre-feet of flood water. Hydro-electric power in huge amounts is being produced in the six great power houses at each of the six great multi-purpose dams. Irrigation is provided by the great amount of water in the reservoirs. But in the reach of the river between Gavins Point Dam and Sioux City, the banks of the river are not stable. In spite of the regulation which is affordeil by the reservoir system, erosion is still a significant problem. Aerial photo- graphs of that reach are replete with evidence of channel changes, oxbow lakes, and crescent shaped contours which testify to the past meander history of the river. The valley width in the reach between Sioux City and Gavins Point varies between two and ten miles, and at one time or another the river channel has meandered over at least 60 percent of this valley area. For the people, and particularly the farmers residing in this , area, the continuing erosion process means simply that they still cannot attain the full ,income potential of the productivity inherent in the valley soils. The constant threat of erosion and the actual losses that occur every year have had an adverse economic impact on this area and on the State of South Dakota, and Nebraska. In essence, we have in this still uncontrolled unnavigable reach of river a prime example of the problems that existed downstream from Sioux City prior to the installation of stabilization works. It is difficult for us in South Dakota and Nebraska to comprehend the apparently arbitrary cutting off of the Missouri River stabilization and channelization project in the vicinity of Sioux City when all logic indicates that stabilization of the channel should proceed upstream to the Gavins Point Dam regulating dam. Five great dams have been built at a cost of more than one and a half billion dollars. Now in 1968, can we say we have our monies worth, can we now get PAGENO="0548" 534 greater benefits from this huge expenditure of Federal Funds? The answer is a resounding yes, to each of these two questions. Electricity yes-a surplus, for there are 2,048.000 kilowatts of installed generating capacity provided for and now working. 98% and more of the farmers in the whole area now have dependable lights and power at low rates. Federal and State institutions are also benefiting as well as cooperatives, six states and private power users are glad to have this surplus power available. A huge irrigation project has been authorized for North Dakota, hearings are now in progress in this Congress on the Oahe Project that will eventually provide irrigation for 500,000 acres of South Dakota land. Navigation yes, with one exception. From Sioux City downstream a nine foot channel is authorized, the necessary amount of water 32,000 second feet is constantly let out at the regulating Gavins Point Dam, 60 air-miles upstream. The Dam joins the states of Nebraska and South Dakota. To bring lower transportation rates to these two states-only 60 miles of river needs to be channelized and stabilized. Think of that, only 60 miles, yet to be taken care of when the total mileage below the regulating dam is approximately 1000 miles, all stabilized with this exception, all the way down-river to St. Louis. Now let's look at the cost. The Corps of U.S. Army Engineers estimate is $57,782,000. That is less than three per cent of the Federal money spent to build the dams and provide the storage to maintain navigation benefits to all states below South Dakota. I know Congress in 1944, intended to get maximum benefits for all states along the Missouri. I know it was an unintentional error in the original authorization in 1944 that navigation was not provided up to the regulating dam. I know it because, I was one of the Senators at that time working hard to get maximum benefits for the states along the whole course of the river, and what is equally important for all states below the river dams all the way down stream to New Orleans. You can correct this error or shall we say inadvertance by demanding now that for the 2 billion already spent you are going to get Uncle Sam's moneys worth by authorizing navigation up to the Gavins Point regulating dam. Think of it! Only 60 miles out of a total 1000 miles all the way to St. Louis. Nebraskans and Dakotans want to cash in on these benefits, what are they in dollars and cents? Well, first 7 to 10 cents a bushel on grain going down-stream. Much lower freight rates on fertilizer for our farmers and that will run into thousands of tons. Lower costs for freight on all heavy products we use for all kinds of construction, structural steel, building materials and a great number of other products produced by down-stream states. By lowering these transportation costs, we make a tremendous stride `in lower- ing total cost of things we need in the agricultural states of the Dakotas and Nebraska. Yes, with favorable action by this Congress, our area will see a bright future. Not so many of ~our people will be migrating away from Missouri River land. Yes, this Congress can do the necessary job now by authorizing construction, we realize that construction money must wait till wars end and a better fiscal position in the United States. BASIC FACTS 1. The project will stabilize the banks `and afford a navigation channel up- stream from Sioux City to the last down-stream regulating dam, (Gavins Point). 2. 124.000 acres of Missouri River bottom land between Gavins Point and Sioux City are threatened by erosion. 3. The project will protect 81,000 acres of crop land, 37,000 acres of non-crop land, 280 miles of roads and the town of Elk Point, South Dakota. 4. South Dakota has 41 counties and Nebraska 1 county that would benefit directly from transportation savings. 5. The project would preserve the existing fish and wildlife resources and pro- vide opportunity to enhance the wild life resources by establishing refuges. 6. The project would provide unique recreational opportunities. 7. The project would have essentially no adverse effects on the existing main stem reservoir functions. 8. Essentially no additional outflow from the main stem system would be re- ~quired for navigation in the reach. 9. The project first cost is $51,182,000. PAGENO="0549" 535 10. Project annual costs are $2,785,000 considering a 50 year project life and $2,378,000 considering a 100 year project life. 11. Annual navigation benefits from transportation savings are $1,041,000 and $1,142,000 for the 50 year and 100 year life projects. 12. Annual bank stabilization benefits are $1,722,000 and $2,072,000 for the 50 year and 100 year life projects. 13. Annual recreation benefits are $400,700 for either the 50 year or the 100 year life project. 14. 454,000 acres of South Dakota farm land given up to the 4 dams located in South Dakota. 15. Hundreds of acres of farm land lost due to erosion between Sioux C4ty and Yankton since 1955. 16. The United States Army Engineers evaluate the cost benefit ratio 1-1.3. Mr. GURNEY. I will introduce Mr. Cassidy who probably needs no introduction to this committee. He is the topman on the staff of the Mississippi Valley Association and he will make a short statement. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Rhian, you are appearing in behalf of the Gover- nor of the State of South Dakota and we were pleased to receive the Governor's statement. Mr. IRmAN. The Governor expresses his regret that he could not be here in person. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Cassidy? STATEMENT OP E. MICHAEL CASSIDY, EX1~CUTIVE VICE PRESI- DENT, MISSISSIPPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION, ST. LOUIS, MO. Mr. CA55IDY. I have a prepared statement that I would like to file for the record. I would like to make one comment on this. Normally, it has not been the habit of the Mississippi Valley Association to sup- port projects for authorization until they have cleared all of the neces- sary hurdles, but this particular project was cleared by the Corps of Engineers in 1966. This still has not been released by the Secretary of the Army with a delay of more than 2 years. Mr. WRIGHT. Would you repeat that? Mr. CASSIDY. It was on September 7, 1966. Mr. WRIGHT. In 1966, more than 2 years ago the Board of En- gineers for Rivers and Harbors cleared a report on this project. Was it favorably recommended at that time by the Board of En- gnieers, Rivers and Harbors? Mr. CASSIDY. Yes; it was. Mr. WRIGHT. Has it cleared the Chief of Engineers' office? Mr. OASSIDY. Yes; it is now with the Secretary of the Army. Mr. WRIGHT. The Chief of Engineers? * Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. How long ago did that happen, Mr. Cassidy? Mr. OA55IDY. The report from the field office of the Corps was in 1965. The Corps of Engineers report was September 7, 1966. I do not have any other dates other than those. Mr. WRIGHT. I gather it may have been sent to the Secretary of the Army and sent back by the Secretary of the Army to the Chief of Engineers for an additional statement. Mr. CASSIDY. It bounced back and forth several times during the period of the last few years. Mr. WRIGHT. I can appreciate and I think the committee can ap- preciate the frustration over this kind of administrative delay. It PAGENO="0550" 536 i~ maddening, the pace these things nmst go after the professionals have made their evaluation. You are not alone. This occurs with respect to numerous projects whereas one time it seemed to be the policy of the Secretary of the Army to accept the decision of the Chief of Engineers presumably upon the assumption that he was the expert and that he had other experts at his disposal. It has become more and more common for these reports to be de- layed and second-guessed and restudied and reanalyzed almost ad infinitum before they ever reach the Congress. The committee is sympathetic with your plight. I am not certain what we can do within the remaining period of time. Mr. CASSIDY. I would hope the committee would do this. The author- ization was requested of this committee and the Public Works Com- mittee in the Senate and I think after this length of time the com- mittee is entitled to the views of the Corps of Engineers; whether the executive branch continues to drag its feet on these and other projects is another question. Mr. GuuxEY. May I make just one more statement to give you a little bit more information and that is about a year and a half ago after the Corps had conferred with the Secretary of the Army, the project came back to the Engineers with instructions that it be sent to Agriculture who made a thorough examination of the project; and after 6 months their report came in saying that the benefit to the States of Nebraska and South Dakota as estimated by the Corps of Engineers were far too conservative and the benefits to agriculture would be greater. In other words, it was a glowing report. It was then delayed further by sending it to the Interior. The Department of Interior came back with a favorable report, and now it is awaiting the transfer from the Secretary of the Army over to the Budget. I believe that covers the information and we certainly appreciate the opportunity to make these longer-than-we-thought short state- ments. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Mr. REIFEL. I want to express my appreciation and the witnesses from South Dakota on these projects. I know you fully understand the frustrations we are facing as a result of as you pointed out the passing back and forth, the findings and more findings, and I know that your members will give us every consideration in regard to action on this particular legislation. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Cassidy, I interrupted you. Did you have any further comments? Mr. CASSIDY. I wanted to add the endorsement of my association to the projects testified to recently. I have four other statements that I would like to file in addition to my own. Mr. WRIGHT. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The prepared statement of Michael Cassidy follows:) STATEMENT OF E. MICHAEL CASSIDY, EXEcuTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY AssOcIATION Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: My name is E. Michael Cas- sidy. I am Executive Vice President of the Mississippi Valley Association and appear here representing that Association. PAGENO="0551" 537 Authorization of the project to extend navigation from Sioux City, Iowa to Gavins Point Darn is an. essential prelude to the future economic development of the State of SOuth Dakota. In order to keep pace with current trends in agricul- ture and transportation and to utilize the Missouri River most effectively, this undeveloped 78 mile stretch of river must be developed. It is the only un- developed reach of the Missouri from Montana to the Mouth at St. Louis-truly the missing link. Navigation will not only make this area more `attractive to industry but will also make the rate structure for transportation more appealing. Low barge rates are always accompanied by low rail rates, which would result in a well-balanced transportation network for the Upper Missouri Basin. Transportation is one of the most expensive commodities which the citizens in the Missouri Valley must buy. And buy it they must, because virtually everything produced or consumed must be brought from or sent to other areas. By its very location, the Upper Midwest is beset by a host of transportation problems. Rail facilities, excellent as some of them may be, are oriented primarily in an east-west direction, leaving an adverse effect on potential north-south `trade. Navigation in this region will provide a `wholly new mode of transportation and will provide this `area with transportation connections to the south and southeast, opening up totally new markets for the farm products of the northern plains. It will also provide this region with a more economical mode of moving its grain products to the markets of the world through the Port of New Orleans. The extension of navigation to South Dakota is both extremely logical and obviously needed when considered in `the overall Missouri River Basin develop- inent program. This small segment of `the Missouri River between Sioux City, Iowa and Gavins Point Darn is the last remaining open river stretch capable of being made navigable without the expense of locks. Furthermore, this segment of the Mi~souri River is the only `portion of this important watercourse which remains subject to wide meandering to the detriment of full economic development of agriculture, commerce and navigation. Control can be accomplished only by channel realignment, stabilization of caving banks by revetments, dikes and associated works. Discharges of the Missouri River between Sioux City, Iowa and Yankton, South Dakota are controlled or regulated by Gavins Point Dam. The river, how- ever, in its present state, is free to meander over wide limits and erosion is con- tinually active. Because of this, many farms and cities are vulnerable to potential erosion, creating a loss of the abundant bottomland and its potential for high crop yields. The Missouri River is one of the greatest natural resources of this Nation. In a very few years, it has changed from an untamed, wild river to a service that is furnishing our land with navigation, irrigation, low flow augmentation, recreation and hydro-electric power. All of this is due to enlightened leaders who looked upon this river as being common property and its improvement a betterment for all concerned. With this in mind, it is difficult to conceive that a very few miles are allowed to remain undeveloped, meandor and cause destruction. The Arkansas River is presently being made navigable. This river will not be open to navigation to Little Rock until the end of this year but industry has already invested more than $300 million in waterside plants in anticipation of navigation. This same situation has been true along virtually every navigable waterway in the Nation and will also be true on the Missouri River. This is particularly desirable `in an era when special efforts are being made by the Federal Government to keep people in rural areas to avoid further complicating the crisis in urban areas. We would remind this Committee that the first Senate resolution directing a survey of this project was on 18 July 1939. The most recent resolution of this Committee was on 2 February 1960. After more than eight years this Committee still does not have a report. The field offices of the Co'rps of Engineers gave a favorable report to this project in 1965. After further delays the project was approved by `the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors on 7 September 1966. The Executive Branch has arbitrarily delayed the report since that time and there is no indication when or if they will `release it. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee, the Mississippi Valley Asso- elation respectfully suggests that this Commi'ttee and `the Congress reassert its Constitutional prerogatives by directing the Chief of Engineers to submit his report on this project, with or without the comments of the Secretary of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget. We further request that this Committee, PAGENO="0552" 538 acting on established and proven criteria, approve this project for authoriza- tion in the Bill now being considered. The people of the Missouri Basin and the Nation should not be made to suffer further delays simply because the Exec- utive branch of the Government is making another attempt to thwart the will of the Congress. We believe it is long past time for the Congress to reassert itself and this important and needed project provides an excellent opportunity for doing so. Mr. GURNEY. Senator Hruska of Nebraska and Senator Miller are testifying before the Senate committee in favor of this project. Thank you, very much. Mr. WRIGHT. We will now hear from Congressman E. Y. Berry of South Dakota. STATEMENT OP HON. L. Y. BERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM TItE STATE OP SOUTH DAKOTA Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am E. Y. Berry, a Representative in Congress from the Second Congressionai District of South Dakota. I would first like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak in support; of what is known as the South Dakota and Nebraska Mis- souri River navigation and bank stabilization project. When authorized and completed, this project would provide for the needed bank stabilization and navigation channel for another 60 miles up the Missouri River from Sioux City, Iowa, for the benefit of agriculture and industry. This committee is very familiar with the great developments that have taken place on the Missouri River since the early 1940's. From the development of the famous Pick-Sloan plan calling for the con- struction of four high dams on the Missouri River in South Dakota and one in North Dakota, we have progressed rapidly and with great economic benefit to the entire area. But it was not without cost to the people of South Dakota. A half-million acres of the best bottom land was inundated, removing it from the tax rolls and removing it from production. It was understood from the beginning that South Dakota would be compensated by the implementation of many programs of river development for multiple purposes. We are on the brink of au- thorizing the mammoth Oahe irrigation project to return 495,000 acres in the State to fill productive levels. The project before this committee is another example of the type of development envisioned by the Pick-Sloan plan and later the Flood ControlAct of 1944. There are many important reasons for the extension of nairigatioli on up the Missouri. First, navigation on the river would greatly assist in developing commerce and bolstering agricultural development in the region. The Plains States will be a leading area in meeting the Nation's needs for food and fiber over the next 50 years in addition to providing much of the grain which this country exports. By providing low-cost river transportation, we can insure that the Plains States will be an im- portant contributor and can also insure that an increase to the farmers of $0.07 to $0.10 per bushel in the amount saved on transportation costs. At a time when parity is at 73 percent in an area of the country where transportation costs are the highest in the Nation, it is not hard PAGENO="0553" 539 to see the great economic impact which this project will have on the nearby States. Development of the navigation channel will also mean industrial de- velopment along the river between Sioux City and Gavins Point Dam, an area with a large share of South Dakota's population and a great potential for economic growth. Second, however, and just as important to the State as the river traffic which this project would allow, is the bank stabilization program to halt the millions of dollars of damage to farmland by erosion and cutting away of some of the best farmland in the State. This, once again, would serve to bolster the agricultural economy of both Ne- braska and South Dakota. At present, some 124,000 acres of Missouri River bottom land are threatened by erosion. The U.S. Army Engineers evaluate the cost-benefit ratio at 1 to 1.3 for the project, which would cost $58 million initially; then return annual navigation benefits of over $1 million, stabilization benefits of over $2 million, and recreation benefits of nearly $500,000. District and division approval has been given by the Army Engineers and by the Rivers and Harbors Board, Interior Department, and Agriculture Department. I urge approval of this important project and am very hopeful that work can begin promptly on another important chapter in our attempt to harness the mighty Missouri. Mr. BLATNIK (presiding). I recognize our colleague, Jack Edwards, accompanied by Gen. Walter K. Wilson, chairman of the task force, Mobile, Ala. Congressman, will you please proceed at will and make yourselves comfortable? MOBILE HARBOR~ ALA. STATEMENT OP HON. JACK EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP LOUISIANA; ACCOMPANIED BY LT. GEN. WALTER K. WILSON, JR., U.S. ARMY (RETIRED), FORMER CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY Mr. EDwAurs. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here today. I would like first to ask that the committee receive a statement from Mr. Houston H. Feaster, director and chief executive officer, Alabama State Docks Department. This is the 40th anniversary of the State docks department and they are celebrating at this time. Mr. Feaster could not be here, but he asked that I submit his statement. (The statement of Mr. Feaster follows:) STATEMENT OF HousToN H. FEASTER, DnmoTon AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALABAMA STATE DOCKS DEPARTMENT My name is Houston H. Feaster. I occupy the position of Director of the Alabama State Docks Department under appointment from the Governor `of Alabama. I have `held this position for over five years. My address is Post Office Box 1588, Mobile, Alabama 36601. The Alabama State Docks is an agency of the State of Alabama and, under Title 38 of the Code of Alabama, is charged with responsibility for the promotion and development of seaports and harbors in the State of Alabama. Alabama State Docks is the local sponsoring agency for the improvement in Mobile Harbor, Alabama, known as the Theodore Ship Channel project. PAGENO="0554" 540 Mr. Lincoln Cone of the American Merchant Marine Institute, Inc. of New York City has very generously supplied me with some studies of trend in size of vessels and has granted me permission to make use of such information. I will only touch briefly on the influence of those studies on the need to further im- prove Mobile Harbor as sought here today. From information furnished by Mr. Cone I understand that as of 1906 there were 79 vessels in the world fleet of bulk carriers in the 40,000/59,999-ton range with a draft of 39.5 feet. The number of vessels in that range is expected to in- crease to 228 by the year 2000. In 1966 there were 22 such vessels in the 60,000/ 84,999-ton range with a draft of 46 feet, and by the year 2000 there are expected to be 77 such vessels in that range. The value of a port, the value of port expansion, the value of a new port facility all go far beyond the immediate port area itself. The value of a port to the economy of the entire Nation as well as its imme- diate value to the state in which it is located was discussed in a study released in September 1966 by the United States Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration entitled "The Economic Impact of United States Ocean Ports." A port, and indeed any new facility at a port or an enlargement of the potential of a port, stimulates commerce, trade, industry, and employment, and by thus making a key contribution to the economic chain-reaction, creates an even greater potential for the hinterlands served by the port. As a result of its study, the Maritime Administration found that in the 28 coastal states and the District of Columbia, in which are contained some 117 primary ports, that there is a total of 2.5 million people in domestic employment that can be attributed to exports alone. The figure of 2.5 million includes 628,400 employed on farms, 1,275,500 employed in manufacture of goods, and 583,000 employed in other activities. On a national level, the Administration found that over 3.1 million workers were employed in export-related industries. To come closer home, of the 2.5 million workers in the coastal states the Administration found that in 1960 71,300 workers in the State of Alabama were employed in pursuits attributable to exports. And, to move in even closer, the Administration found in the same study that 9.4 percent of all employment in the State of Alabama is linked to the exportation of commerce. In addition to its findings on exports the Administration also estimated that 941,200 workers were supported by activities connected with U.S. imports, and this estimate included employment in transportation, handling and distribution, the providing of fuel and supplies to the trade and transportation sectors, the processing of imported raw materials, and the replacement of plant and equip- ment used up in the handling of imports. Other figures compiled by the Department of Commerce show that the Nation's imports have risen in phenomenal proportions over the past twenty-five years. In 1940, imports through seaports amounted to 41 million short tons. In 1964 the figure was 224 million tons. In the years between, progression was regular and substantial. The Department of Commerce also compiles tonnages for individual ports and these figures appear in the Department's Report Form FT-985. For the calendar years 1962 through 1967 the report shows that with respect to imports, 5.1 million tons moved through the Port of Mobile in 1962; 6.6 million tons moved through Mobile in 1963; 7.2 millions in 1964; 8.6 millions in 1965; 9.4 millions in 1966: and 9.0 million tons in 1907. States differently, these figures reveal, using 1962 as 100, that the Port of Mobile had a progressive increase of imports during the five-year period which culminated in an increase of 80 percent in 1967. I know that about 90 percent of all imports through Mobile consists of raw materials moving in bulk and requiring special facilities for handling from vessel to land transportation or shipside storage. While our own Bulk Handling Plant at the State Docks is not the only dockside bulk facility at the Port of Mobile, our Plant handled 2.5 million tons in 1962: 2.9 million tons in 1963; 3.5 million tons in 1964; 4.1 million tons in 1965; 4.3 million tons in 1906: and 4.1 million tons in 1907; representing an increase in 1967 over 1962 of 64 percent. Our present plant is working to capacity at all times but is overtaxed and something must be done in the immediate future to accommodate the ever-in- creasing flow of import raw bulk materials through the Port of Mobile. The State Docks owns or has under its control 2.500 acres of land in the Theodore Industrial Park located south of Mobile, and has recently completed PAGENO="0555" 541 a barge canal leading into that area at a cost of $450,000.00. In the course of procuring land right-of-way for the barge canal, the State Docks at the same time purchased the much larger and necessary land right-of-way for the proposed ship channel at a total cost of $600,000.00, making a total of over $1 million already spent by the State Docks in right-of-way and dredging expenses at Theodore. The State Docks has funds in the amount of $3 million set aside for the con- struction of a modern bulk handling plant to be located along the proposed Theo- dore ship channel. The Theodore site was selected for this new bulk handling facility because it is some 18 miles nearer the Gulf of Mexico than is our present facility for handling bulk materials at Mobile, and because the proposed ship channel could be deepened further, if necessary, as is not the case with the present Mobile ship channel in connection with our Mobile bulk facility, due to a 40-foot limitation over Bankhead Tunnel near the mouth of Mobile River. However, we cannot finalize the new Theodore Bulk Plant until status of deep water accessibility is determined. Unlike a single dock or transit shed, a bulk plant requires considerable water- frontage and back up area. This is, of course, readily apparent to anyone visiting our existing facility. And, frankly, there is no such adequate space left available in connection with the present Docks properties in downtown Mobile. Our conclusion to construct and locate our new and modern public bulk facility on our Theodore properties, and which will require an enlargement of the so- called Theodore Channel in order to accommodate the big colliers that will bring in these materials, is also premised on the availability of large back up areas at Theodore. Upon completion of our new public facility at Theodore we expect immediately to transfer handling of all iron ore from our present facility at Mobile to the new facility. Our handling of iron ore has increased materially in the last five years from 157,000 tons in 1962 to 650,000 tons in 1967. This means that, in round figures, the new facility at Theodore will immediately have available substantial tonnage from our Mobile facility. It is my feeling at this time that the transfer of handling of iron ore to Theodore will not result in any reduction in the handling of bulk cargoes at Mobile. A number of items besides iron ore have shown a m;arked increase in movement in the past five years. Our bauxite movement has increased over 900,000 tons. Ferro-Manganese and Ferro-Phosphorus have increased substan- tially. We are handling pig iron over our bulk facility and that handling has shown a remarkable growth. In fact, in my opinion, based on the relative increase in tonnage over the past five years that I have just recited, immediate transfer of iron ore tonnage to Theodore will have llttle marked effect on the continuing growth of bulk cargo moving through our Mobile plant. McWane Cast Iron Pipe Company has a new iron making facility under con- struction at Theodore which, at this time, is about 60 percent completed and will be served by the facilities to be operated by the Alabama State Docks at Theo- dore. I understand that the raw materials required by MeWane in its first year of operation will exceed 300,000 tons, and that this tonnage will increase to over 1,000,000 tons within five years. The McWane tonnage and the tonnage to be transferred from our Mobile operation permit me to project-and I believe `this is conservative-that im- provements sought in the Theodore channel should generate in the next five years not less than total of 3 million tons annually of dry bulk cargo for handling through our facility at that location. Our Theodore plant upon completion will provide immediate employment of from 40 to GO additional people in operating and supervisory capacities. This means an immediate increase in annual payroll in the Mobile area of about $100,000.00 and an immediate increase in gross revenues to the State Docks of over $400,000.00. On the basis of projection of 3 million `tons annually through the facility within the next five years operating personnel should increase to about 8r em- ployees. Estimated annual revenues to the State Docks from increased opera tion of its plant at that time can be expected to exceed $1 million, of which about $150,000 will be disbursed in the form of wages. In addition to responsibility for the promotion and development of seaports and harbors `that Alabama State Docks is also authorized under the Code of Alabama to engage in the operation of a line of railroads at ports. For forty years our Terminal Railway has provided the rail link between the port's facili- ties at Mobile and the four line haul railroads serving the city. PAGENO="0556" 542 In furtherance of the rail-phase of our activities, on application, we were granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity to serve by railroad the waterfront and the entire industrial park area at Theodore, connecting with the Louisville and Nashville Railroad at a point near the town of Theodore. Present trackage operated by the Terminal Railway of the State Docks at Theodore is now about 12 miles. We are prepared to increase this trackage as needs of the developing area require. Of the 3 million tons expected to move through our plant, annually, within five years I estimate that about 2 million tons will be discharged to rail cars for movement to inland destinations. That amount of ore will require about 30,000 freight cars. Annual revenue to the Terminal Railway from the switching of 30,000 cars at Theodore wm be about $~ million, of which about $250,000 will be expended in the form of wages to railroad personnel. In summary to this point, and aside from benefits to the area from location of industry at Theodore, enlargement of the channel into Theodore as sought should generate within the next five years about $1~ million in new revenues to the State Docks and about $~y~ million in new wages as a direct result of the operations of the State Docks, providing employment for about 100 additional people on the State Docks payroll. In addition to the value to be placed on new revenues to and new wages from operations of the State Docks at Theodore, valuable considerations in the same respect must also be attached to the employment of stevedores, tug operators, longshoremen, pilots. Custom House brokers, steamship agents and others di- rectly connected with the movement of each and every vessel that carries cargo. Also, line haul railroads and motor carriers and their employees will benefit from the new tonnage generated by the Theodore complex. As the Maritime Administration said in its study previously cited, "Ports are of vital concern to every citizen and the community where be lives. They have a tremendous influence upon the economic well-being of all people". There are a number of studies available which show that when port facilities are upgraded and vessel size is increased that freighting costs go down. It is on that premise that the size of ore carriers and tankers have gradually increased. I understand, in some cases because of inadequacy of near supplies of iron ore that oftentimes length of voyages today may be several times that of pre-1939 days. If this is so, and I have no reason to believe it is not, then the need for the larger carriers becomes even more obvious. We at the State Docks are fully aware that our Theodore plant must be planned in keeping with the principle of vessel dispatch, and we intend considerable advance study in design and construction to insure peak performance at all times. A short time back, our plant at Mobile discharged 60,000 tons of iron ore pellets in 46 hours. This represents a rate per hour of 1300 tons. I am satisfied that if we can get that much efficiency out of our relatively old Mobile plant a rate of 2000 tons per hour is not too much to anticipate of our modern plant to be constructed at Theodore. Stated differently, I can promise that the State Docks will do its part in pro- viding the right kind of port facilities at Theodore to insure freight savings if Mobile Harbor is enlarged to accommodate the large ore carriers required to produce those savings. In conclusion, please let me suggest that the several considerations outlined by me demonstrate, in the aggregate, that the improvements of Mobile Harbor sought are necessary and valuable not only to the economic welfare of the Port of Mobile and our surrounding community but to our Nation and to world com- merce, and that they are in keeping with and are complementary to technologi- cal advances made and still being made in ocean transportation. Favorable consideration is requested. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I know I need not go into any great introduction of General Wilson, having been the Chief of the Corps of Engineers. We in Mobile consider him one of oiir great assets since he has chosen to retire to our city. He is a. very active participant in the affairs of our city. I would like at this time to have the general pick up and give his statement to the committee. PAGENO="0557" 543 General WILsoN. Mr. Chairman, as you have stated, I am former Chief of Engineers arid I appreciate the oppo~tunity to again meet with this subcomomittee. 0 Today, however, I appear. before the committee as Waiter K. Wil- son, Jr., chairman of Task Force 200, the industrial committee of the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, requesting your favorable con- sideration of H.R. 17992 a bill to modify the project for Mobile Har- bor, Ala., of which its study is near completion by the Corps of Engi- neers, entitled "Survey Report on Mobile Harbor, Ala., Theodore Channel." I will present for the record my statement and also that of Mr. Houston Feaster, which has been presented by Mr. Edwards already. In the interest of time, I will briefly summarize these statements now. The Theodore Industrial Park is a public development through a joint effort of the Alabama State Docks, an agency of the State of Alabama engaged in foreign commerce, the Industrial Development Board of the City of Mobile, a nonprofit corporation, and the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce. The park is comprised of some 4,000 acres, part of which was originally purchased from the Federal Government. It is 21/2 miles below the city limits of Mobile, 3~/2 miles from the main ship channel. Surrounding this property are large acreages under few ownerships that will allow expansion. The primary purpose of the development is to provide large industrial sites at reasonable costs and to provide deepwater transit facilities for the movement of bulk commodities by the Alabama State Docks. It is totally a nonprofit venture. The purchase of the 1,826 acres of the former Theodore Army Ter- minal for $975,000 occurred in July 1965, with subsequent additional purchases by the industrial development board in 1966, bringing the total acreage to 4,000 with land cost totaling $2,500,000. Shortly thereafter, we were successful in locating the first plant which is now in operation. This is a refinery that produces 10,000 barrels of jet fuel per day from waterborne raw materials. The largest facility currently located in the park is McWane Iron Co., which pur- chased 1,000 acres of land to manufacture pig iron from imported iron ore fines. The first unit, costing $20 million, is now nearing completion, and they have planned three additional units. These two plants alone will handle more than 2 million tons annually of bulk cargo. The access to the property by water has been designed by the Ala- bama State Docks who purchased right-of-way for a channel and turning basin where the Docks plans to build ore-unloadir~g facilities. The Alabama State Docks expenditures to construct the canal, acquire the right-of-way, construct docks and ore unloading facilities, were approved by the voters of the State of Alabama in 1966. The State has spent $1 million for right-of-way sufficient for the ship channel and dredging of the barge canal and now has the money in escrow to design and construct the docks and unloading facilities. The Theodore development has been a unified effort on the part of numerous public agencies and private enterprises. Aside from the ex- penditures and commitments by the Alabama State Docks, the State of Alabama Highway Department has constructed roads and has com- mitted to construct with the County of Mobile necessary bridges. PAGENO="0558" 544 The County of Mobile has constructed roads and committed $950,000 toward bridge construction. The water works board has plans underway with surveys presently being made to provide industrial water to the park. Plans call for 30 to 50 million gallons per day. To provide utilities, the Mobile Gas Co., has spent $700,000 to deliver gas in quantities nec- essary to serve heavy industry. The Alabama Power Co., has spent over $1 million in the consrtuc- tion of transmission lines and due to the industry requirements in the park, they have had to expand their generating capacity at a cost of more than $70 million. A summary of direct commitments in the Theodore development are as follows: Industrial development board ~ $2, 500,000 State Docks,1 barge, channel, dredging and ROW 1,000.000 State Docks, docks and facilities, initiaL 3,000,000 McWane,1 1st unit of DLM plant, initial 20,000,000 Alabama Refining,1 1st unit of refinery, initial 1,200,000 Mobile Gas,1 gas transmission main 700,000 Water Works Board, industrial water 3,100,000 Mobile County,2 bridge 950,000 State of Alabama,2 bridge and roads 5,150,000 Total commitments 38,600,000 11 expended to date, $29,400,000. I Subject to determination of need and final design. As you see, there is a. very large commitment on the part of local people to carry out this development. While we do not know the projected tonnages accepted by the Corps of Engineers, we have surveyed customers of the Port of Mobile and made our own studies to project future demand. The present State Docks bulk plant is operating at capacity han- dling some 4 million tons annually within the harbor. Expansion of these facilities is a necessity. The Alabama State Docks must construct a new bulk ore terminal to meet the future demands and desires to put it at Theodore in order to complement development of the Theodore Industrial Park for the primary metals industry. Our projections show that a demand for bulk tonnage to be handled between 1971 and 1975 will average 8,400,000 annually. One-half of this tonnage will have to be handled at a new facility. Further, our projections show that the Theodore Industrial Park bulk unloading facility will handle some 47 million tons between 1971 and 1979. Based on findings by the Ford Foundation and published in "Resources in America's Future," our studies indicate that between the years 1980-2000 the Theodore Park bulk handling facility will handle some 426 million tons. This amounts to an average per year bulk handling for the new Theodore Industrial Park bulk plant of approximately 15,800,000 gross tons per year for the period 1971-2000. Just as cited above regarding tonnages, neither do we have knowl- edge of the Corps of Engineers costs of the project. However, we had competent engineering estimates made by a private firm which indi- cate the Federal cost to be between $10 and $12 million at most. Mobile has been affected economically due to Federal closure of Brookley Air Force Base which is now in the latter stages of phase- PAGENO="0559" 545 out. This began in November 1964, when 13,000 civilians were em- ployed by the Air Force at the base. During this period, our main objective, locally and through the efforts of Task Force 200, has been to offset this economic impact promptly. The development of the Theodore Park was one effort by our local people to puii ourselves up by our own bootstraps. We cannot finalize plans for the maximum Theodore development until we know the status of deep-water accessibility. The county of Mobile and the State of Alabama have provided first-class road detours made necessary when a bridge was removed for the first phase of the canal. The design of a bridge replacement is dependent upon the dimension and clearance requirements of the channel. We are convinced that the project is fully economically justified and we earnestly request that you provisionally authorize it, subject to approval of the Secretary of the Army upon completion of his report, so that we can proceed with our plans in this total develop- ment; and rapidly recover from the effects on our economy of the Brookley Air Force Base closure by the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present this to you. Mr. BLATNIK. General, you have made a very effective presentation and the participation of your State, your municipal and industry people in this joint comprehensive industrial complex is a very in- triguing one and obviously very well thought out. Our problem is a technical one. General WILSON. We recognize that. Mr. BLATNIK. And I assure you Congressman Edwards we will work very closely with you to see if we can get the processing that is required. General WILSON. Mr. Chairman, we recognize this is asking a lot and it has been done a few times in the past. We recognize the safeguard of the report must be accepted by the Secretary of the Army and the President favorably. What we are really asking is that you approve it, if the report turns out to be strong and sturdy and this, in turn, will let us go ahead and get the bridge designed and get the other things done which otherwise will wait. Mr. Chairman, the community has really been hit by the closure of this Air Force facility. I am proud of the community for having swallowed it after a fight and for making efforts on the opposite side. We have tried to bring in new industry. We have exceeded our goal of $200 million in 5 years by getting $300 million, to date. We have picked up our employment almost to where we have caught up but we need this boost in order to bring it back where it was and give us a chance to go. Mr. BLATNIK. You said it very yell. Are there any questions? Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I ~ould just like to make the obser- vation that I am very familiar with Mobile, inasmuch as the company that I was associated with for a dozen years prior to coming to Con- gress has a large plant in Mobile and has had for many years; that is the National Gypsum Co. PAGENO="0560" 546 I am, of course, familiar with your distinguished Congressman. General WILSON. I might say I play golf with the man who runs your plant down there and he takes his money from me. Mr. MCCARTHY. I am very familiar with the very favorable climate for industry in Mobile and the progressive nature of the people and certainly, my experience with the city, if it is any yardstick, this project would serve to enhance the climate for industry where it is needed because of the closing of this base. I just make that observation about my very favorable experience in Mobile. Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I just would like the record to show that the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Edwards, dis- cussed this legislation with me a number of times and has very studi- ously pointed out the benefits to be gained down there. I have discussed a number of the problems of the project at this stage and he has been very persuasive in his arguments and has pre- sented. a very effective case on behalf of this project. I did want the record to show his deep and abiding interest in this particular project. General Wu~soN. The community is aware of his efforts and we are proud to have him here representing us. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I might briefly comment, since the gentleman of New York had the privilege of doing so, that I have a kind of business down there too. My mother-in-law is there. She lives across from Mobile Bay and I have had the opportunity of visiting down there and she has taken me out a number of times to become acquainted with the ship channel and the development in the area. I fully understand the problem. It is a very worthwhile project and, of course, you are one of the finest advocates. General WILSON. Thank you, sir. Mr. CRAMEn. As is the Congressman from the area. So far as I am concerned, I think it has considerable merit and I am sure you are familiar with the time problem. General WILSON. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clausen? Mr. OLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Wilson, I wanted to add to what some of my colleagues have said. Certainly you and Congressman Edwards have made quite a team and the gentleman from New York complimented you for the great progressive attitude you have in Mobile. He has really done his homework. He has talked to me about it in the committee. It is an excellent project. General WILSON. I hope you can put over a nice straight fast ball that he can lmock out of the park. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, in closing may I say very simply that we are aware of the technical difficulties involved. Certainly, I have no pride of authorship in this particular bill. We are willing to take any restrictions the committee cares to place on this type of authoriza- tion, but we are at a very crucial point in this development, in the at- tempt to come back from this phaseout of our base. There are 17 per- cent of our work force, I might say, which was involved in this one military base and the projects that the general mentioned that are developing at the Theodore area, are now at the point where this is PAGENO="0561" 547 just the next logical step and as they progress, if we do not get the authorization here, then we have some steel mills and some dock facili- ties and what have you that nobody can get to. it is essential. that at this time we find some way, some language that we can write into this bill that will protect the country and this committee and yet, at the same time, authorize this project. I appreciate the committee's time that you have given us. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, gentlemen. Again we inadverteiitiy got boxed in by an early call of the House at 11 o'clock this morning but we are proceeding very, very favorably. The hearings will be recessed now until 2 o'clock this afternoon. I am hopeful that we will complete all of the testimony, certainly on those projects in which we have out-of-town witnesses. (Thereupon, at 12:15 p.m., t'he subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. of the same day.) AFTERNOON 5E5510N Mr. BLATNIK. The Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee ol the House Public Works `Committee will please come to order. We continue public hearings on navigation and beach erosion proj- ects, and reports and special items. Our first witness will be our very dear friend and very distinguished chairman and senior colleague, F. Edward Hébert, of Louisiana. Mr. Ohairman, I believe you have a delegation with you. Do you have a statement on your behalf? Proceed at will. The time is yours. MI5SI5SIPPI RIVER-MICHOtJD CANAL, LA. STATEMENT OP HON. P. EDWARD HEBERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP LOUISIANA; ACCOMPANIED BY 3~. V. FERGUSON, ATTORNEY, NEW ORLEANS, LA.; LEON GARY, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, STATE OP LOUISI- ANA, BATON ROUGE, LA.; AND COL. WILLIAM E. LEWIS, NEW ORLEANS DOCK BOARD, NEW ORLEANS, LA. Mr. H1~BERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for those kind remarks. I can use them in the next 30 days. The elections are on August 25 and I can use those kind words. Mr. BLATNIK. Off the record. (Discussion off `the record.) Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I ap- preciate the opportunity of appearing here today, `because the two projects before the committee are both located in my congressional district, one in New Orleans Parish and one in Plaquemines Parish. The first, of course, is the missile place, the NASA installations there. And the Michoud Canal passes there and goes into the Mississippi Gulf, off into the Mississippi River. I have a group of gentlemen `here who will testify. I have always believed in relying on experts, instead of dabbling in things I am not completely expertise in. So, with the indulgence of the *~hair, I would introduce these gentlemen and have them make their presentation. Most of them will file their statements. 97-700--68------36 PAGENO="0562" 548 It is of utmost importance at this ~particular nioment and of interest to the committee, I have just received information that all reports involving these two projects are now in the hands of the Bureau of the Budget, where clearance is expected within a very, very short time. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the first witness I would ask, with your indulgence, to appear in connection with the first project is Mr. Joseph V. Ferguson, who is the attorney representing people in the Michoud area. If you wifi allow Mr. Ferguson to proceed as he desires, I would appreciate it. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Ferguson, please take the witness chair. Mr. Ferguson, Congressman Edwin Edwards of Louisiana is a member of the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee and hoped to be here today. But because he was called out of town on an urgent matter he was not able to be present today. He has asked me to welcome you to the committee in his own behalf and to express his regret that he can't be here to personally welcome you. Congressman Edw.ards has also requested that I state for the record on his behalf his support for the Mississippi gulf outlet and Michoud Canal project, and his desire to `be of whatever assistance he can he. I assure you, as a member of the subcommittee and full committee, that he is, and has been, and will be of assistance. He is a very effective and respected member. Mr. Ferguson, please proceed. Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of being permitted to appear before you on behalf of the several parties, landowners, and other interested people in the Michoud area. We come before you to seek your approval for a modification for certain existing waterways in the eastern area of New Orleans. You will see from your record that :we have had a report, a very favorable report, I might say, from the district engineer, and duly approved by the Chief of Engineers and Rivers and Harbors Board, and we have been `before the Senate committee on this project. The district engineer has estimated the cost of construction of this modification to be in the sum of $1,300,000, exclusive of $20,000 for aids to navigation and a very favorable cost-benefit ratio in the sum or in the ratio of 7-1, which I have been informed is a very high ratio for a project. Now, in order that the committee may quickly familiarize themselves with the area, I have caused several exhibits to be prepared, and I would like to point them out to you. This is the area which we are seeking a modification of these existing waterways [indicating]. This channel here is the present Mississippi River gulf outlet, a deep- water channel leading from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico. This is the existing Intracoastal Waterway which would be modified and deepened for an extent of approximately a mile here [indicating]. This is the existing Michoud Canal, which will be deepened and a turning basin constructed at the northern terminus of this canal. Now subsequent to the preparation of the report by the district engineer, there have been some additional industrial developments in the area. And this photograph is a photograph taken in looking in a PAGENO="0563" 549 southwesterly direction, which shows the northern terminus of the Michoud Canal, and this would be the area of the turning basin. This is the existing chemical complex of Air Products & Chemicals. Adjoining it is the cement plant of the Oklahoma Cement Co. Next here, but not quite so clear in this photograph, is the Louisi- ana materials construction site. Over here is the Dundee Cement. That is a plant that was put here since the district engineer prepared his report. And over here is another chemical plant of the Air Reduction Co. So that the committee will observe that we are dealing on this side of the canal with a very highly industrialized area. On this side of the canal [indicating] is the NASA facility at its Michoud plant. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. I hate to interrupt you. I know you spent a lot of time and effort in this preparation. From my knowledge of this proj- ect, it seems to be a very worthwhile project, and has an extremely good benefit-cost ratio. I see no problems with it, so far as the mi- nority is concerned, whatsoever. I would like to know from the distinguished gentleman from Louisi- ana if he knows what HEW's comments are. Mr. HEBERT. I do not know what their final comments are. They were received as of today and sent to the Bureau of the Budget. I did not read the report. I was informed it had been submitted by HEW and sent to the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. HARSHA. Assuming they are favorable, and I would assume from what knowledge I have of it now, I see no problems with this. And if you gentlemen could consolidate your efforts and put it in the record, I think you are in good shape. Mr. FERGUSON. Congressman, my statement has been filed, which traces out the history of the `exhibits, which I will submit with the report for your further consideration. (The statement of Mr. Ferguson follows:) STATEMENT OF JOSEPH V. FERGUSON II, ATTORNEY, NEw ORLEANS, LA., ON BEHALF OF Am PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., NEw ORLEANS EAST, INC., INTEENA- NATIONAL AUTO SALES AND SERVICE, INC., OKLAHOMA CEMENT COMPANY, DUNDEE `CEMENT COMPANY, LOUISIANA MATERIALS, INC., GERTLER-HEBERT COMPANY, PRATT FARNSWORTH, INC., DIXIE MKL SUPPLY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Public Works of the United States House of Representatives. I am Joseph Ferguson, an attorney in New Orleans, Louisiana. I appear be- fore this Committee to speak on behalf of the local interests Sponsoring the proposal to modify the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from its junction with the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet to the Michoud Canal, and the Michoud Canal, to provide, in addition to the water transportation now available by virtue of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, deep water transportation to a rapidly developing industrial area situated in the eastern part of the City of New Orelans. This project has the whole-hearted support and approval of all of the property owners in the area. I wish to express my thanks and the thanks of the other parties who will speak to you on behalf of this project for the opportunity to appear before this Committee and to present our views. A report with respect to this proposed modification has been prepared by the U.S. Army Engineering District, New Orleans, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana dated December 18, 1967, which report has been approved by the Division Engineer, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the Chief of Engineers. A hearing was held by the Committee on Public Works of the PAGENO="0564" 550 United States Senate on May 23, 1968. This proposed modification is presently before this Committee for consideration. The District Engineer has estimated that the improvements and modification to the existing waterways can be constructed at a cost of $1,300,000, exclusive of $20,000 for aids to navigation. He has estimated that the annual average benefits will be in the sum of $495,000 resulting in a benefit cost ratio of `Z to 1. To permit you to quickly familiarize and orient yourself with the area in- volved and its present industrial development, we have caused a current aerial photograph of the area involved to be made and will also submit additional photographs and charts reflecting progress in the area which has taken place subsequent to the report prepared by the District Engineer. Exhibit 1 reflects existing waterways and the area of the proposed modifica- tion. The modification is for a depth of 36 feet and a bottom width of 250 feet. You will observe that we are dealing with a very limited area where mOdifica- tion and improvements are proposed. The area involved is from the juncture of the Mississippi River outlet in the Michoud Canal which is shown on this photograph at this point. It proceeds easterly along the Intracoastal Waterway f or a distance of approximately one and one-half miles to the junction of the Michoud Canal which runs in a northerly direction for a distance of approxi- mately one and one-half miles. The proposed modification includes the construc- tion of a turning basin at the northern end of the Michoud CanaL I direct your attention to the photograph which we identified as Exhibit 1A. Please note on this photograph that the plant of Air Reduction Company which appears in the 1905 photograph appended to the District Engineer's report has now been completed and is in operation. A plant has been constructed by the Dundee Cement Company at this point, subsequent to the study by the District Engineer. The property owned by Louisiana Materials Company, a subsidiary of the American Marine Company, is presently being used as a storage area; however, the long range plans of this corporation include the construction of a yard for the building of barges, ships and other vessels. Pratt Farnsworth has moved its construction yard from another location in the City of New Orleans to its Michoud site here. I now submit for your consideration Exhibit 2 which is a colored aerial photo- graph of the Air Products and Chemicals Plant looking in a westerly direction. This photograph shows a portion of the Michoud Canal and lying directly op- posite the Air Products Plant on the opposite canal is the NASA Michoud facility. I submit Exhibit 3, a colored aerial photograph of the Air Products and Chemicals Plant looking in a northeasterly direction. This photograph discloses the facilities originally constructed by Air Products and Chemicals to service barge and other forms of water transportation from its 1~Iichoud Plant. Thesc~ facilities are being continuously improved. In the extreme upper right hand corner you may observe a portion of the spoil area with respect to which Air Products has granted a spoil disposal right-of-way or easement. In the upper left hand corner it discloses a portion of the property with respect to which Air Products has granted a right-of-way or easement for the construction of the turning basin. Exhibit 4 is a colored photograph of the Air Products and Chemicals Plant during its operation at night and is submitted as eridence of the continuous operation of this plant. The concept of modifying the Intracoastal Waterway and the 1~1ichoud Canal to provide deep water transportation to that area was originated by several of the industries which had located or planned to locate facilities on the Michoud Canal. One of the originators of this project, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., of Allentown, Pennsylvania, produces at its plant gaseous nitrogen which it delivers to NASA at Michoud and liquid hydrogen and oxygen which it delivers to NASA at its Mississippi test site and other points of use. Although several locations were available and were considered by management for the location of this plant, the Michoud site was finally chosen because it offered the prospect of deep water transportation at some time in the future which would permit Air Products to expand its plant so that it could manufacture fertilizers, prin- cipally anhydrous ammonia, urea, phosphates, potash and nitrogeneous fertilizers which it could ship directly to domestic and foreign markets. If deep water transportation is available to Air Products at its Michoud plant, Air Products will be able to offer for sale fertilizers produced at this plant at materially reduced prices to consumers because of substantial transportation savings. At the present time, in many instances, these products must be handled twice, first PAGENO="0565" 551 into a barge or truck and then into a ship and transportation costs are sub- stantial. While its Michoud chemical complex was under construction Air Products and Chemicals discussed its views with Mr. Harold Cook, Executive Vice Presi- dent of New Orleans East, Inc., which corporation is the owner of large tracts of land in the area and is engaged in the development thereof. The proposal was also discussed with Mr. Williard Robertson of Interna- tioni Auto Sales and Service, Inc., the owner of another large tract abutting the Michoud Canal. The suggestion was reviewed and considered by these com- panies for some time taking into consideration the possible requirements which might be established by the District Engineer and thier ability to satisfy them if the modification was considered worthy. Thereafter, meetings were held with other companies or local interests in the Michoud area, that is, the Oklahoma Cement Company, Pratt Farnsworth, Inc., Gertler-Hebert Company, Dundee Cement and Louisiana Materials, Inc., Dixie Mill Supply Company and the Sewerage & Water Board of the City of New Orleans. All of these property owners agreed that the proposed modification was meritorious and to lend it their support. Meetings were then held with the District Engineer, New Orleans Engineer District, and members of his staff concerning the proposed modification. Pre- liminary discussions with them indicated that the proposal was feasible and ~~arranted action. The local interests next contacted Senator Allen J. Ellender, Senator Russell Long and Congressman F. Edw. Hébert of Louisiana's First Congressional Dis- trict where the area in question is located, for their assistance to obtain the funds necessary for a study of the proposed modification to be made by the District Engineer. Through their efforts the funds for the study were provided. A public hearing was held in New Orleans on December 18, 1904, by the District Engineer and was attended by all of the local interests or their repre- sentatives as well as many other persons interested in or who could be af- fected by the proposed modification. No objection to the modification was ex- pressed by anyone at that time or any other time. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and the Depart- ment of Public Works of the State of Louisiana both indicated at the hear- ing on December 18, 1964, their approval of the proposed modification. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans was requested to act as public sponsor; however, at the time the public hearing was held the requirements of local cooperation were not known and the Board decided to wait until such requirements were established before reaching a determina- tion as to whether or not it could act as the public sponsor. When the study was completed by the District Engineer, but prior to the preparation of his report of December 18, 1967, the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and the local interests were informed of the proposed requirements of local cooperation in order that they might determine if the proposed requirements could be met and satisfied. These requirements are set forth in his report and in the interest of brevity will be only summarized here. They consisted of: (a) To furnish the United States without cost land, easements and rights-of-way for the construction and maintenance of the modification including suitable areas for the deposit of spoil, (b) Relocation without cost to the United States of public utilities in the area, (c) A release in favor of the United States for damages due to con- struction, maintenance of the modification and possible erosion, and (d) Pro- vide and maintain public wharf facilities on Michoud Canal. Many conferences were held with Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and the various property owners whose property would ~e involved in satisfying the requirements of local cooperation with respect to the form and nature of the required agreements. All of these agreements have now been pre- pared and executed by Air Products and Chemicals, New Orleans East, Inc., Higgins, Inc., predecessor in title to International Auto Sales and Service, Sewer- age and Water Board of the City of New Orleans, Oklahoma Cement Company, Dundee Cement Company, Dixie Mill Supply Company, Louisiana Materials, Inc., Gertler-Hebert Company and Pratt Farnsworth and Company and delivered to the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans. I now submit Exhibit 5 which is a drawing of the Michoud Canal, the turning basin and the spoil disposal areas. The area colored blue represents the right-of-way in the Michuod Canal and the access to the area reserved for a public wharf granted by its owner, New Orleans East, Inc. PAGENO="0566" 552 The area colored in yellow represents the area which Air Products and Chemi- cals has granted a right-of-way or servitude for the construction of the turning basin and the area colored in brown is the area for which it has granted a right-of- way or servitude for spoil disposal. The orange area represents the right-of-way or spoil disposal area provided Jy New Orleans East, Inc., and the red area represents the area affected by the agreement with the Board of Commissioners for the Port of New Orleans relating to the proposed public wharf facility. The area colored in green represents the area with respect to which releases from damage have been granted by the local interests in favor of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and the U.S. Engineers. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, upon delivery of the above-mentioned agreements, has agreed to be the pu~dic sponsor. Thus it is apparent that the local interests have already satisfied the require- ments of local cooperation set forth in the report of the District Engineer. Colonel William Lewis, representing the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, will also appear before this Committee and inform you that the Board is prepared to satisfy the requirement with respect to a public wharf facility. I further direct the Committee's attention to the fact that the United States will be one of the principal beneficiaries of this proposed modification. The NASA property extends a distance of approximately a mile and one-half along the north jrnnk of the Intracoastal Waterway and approximately a mile along the west bank of the Michoud Canal. Deep water transportation is not presently available in this area. At some future time, the availability of deep water trans- portation from this property may serve a very useful function for the United States or one of its Departments or Agencies as a deep water transportation point or considerably enhance its value should the site ever be declared surplus and placed upon the market for sale. In order to reach the area of the proposed modification, vessels will normally use the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet in entering and returning from the Port of New Orleans, and thus materially increase the use of that waterway. The modification of the existing waterway submitted to this Committee for consideration, if authorized and funded, will satisfy an immediate and pressing need for the industries located or which will locate in the area in question. For example, Air Products and Chemicals is now prepared to use deep water trans- portation for shipments from its Michoud Plant. International Auto Sales and Service is prepared to construct a wharf and other facilities on its property and commence the importation of automobiles which may ultimately serve as the focal point of the importation of these automobiles in the Gulf Coast area. Mr. Willard Robertson of International Auto Sales and Service will appear before you and provide additional details as to the extent of this operation. The area lying behind the Michoud Canal owned by New Orleans East has been set aside for industrial development and as these industries move in they will require deep water transportation in addition to the rail and highway transportation now available. Mr. Cook of New Orleans East, who will also appear before you, will provide additional details concerning their plans for development. In summary and conclusion I direct the Committee's attention to the fact that we are considering a modification and improvement to existing waterways. This is not a new project, but rather an extension of and better use for existing waterways in this area, in particular, the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet. Private industry and individuals recognize the immediate need for this modi- fication, as evidenced by their sustained efforts over a long period of time seeking its approval, culminated by their appearance here and their furnishing without cost to the United States and the public sponsor valuable property rights in the area of the modification, including releases from damages to their proper- ties. The relatively modest cost of this modification, the benefits which will accrue to the public resulting from lower transportation costs of industry located in the area, the employment by industry of additional skilled, semi-skilled and un- skilled labor are all material and relevant to your consideration of this modi- fication. The District Engineer investigated and evaluated the above mentioned public benefits in his favorable report of December 18, 1967, concerning this modifica- tion. As heretofore stated, this report has been approved by the Division Engineer, PAGENO="0567" 553 the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the Chief of Engineers. The progress which has been made thus far is an encouraging example of a United States Department, State Agency and political subdivision, and private enter- prise recognizing a need, then working in close cooperation and harmony to satisfy such need. We now find ourselves at the point where approval by this Committee of this modification is the next step in the road from conception to fulfillment. We trust that you will assist us in obtaining this necessary modification by your support and approval. Mr. HEBERT. I appreciate the suggestion. And that, of course, will be followed immediately by the remaining witnesses. But I would ask the privilege of reading their names and identifying them as such, and have them file their statements for the record. Mr. BLATNIK. May the staff use this material, because we will go into detail with the Corps of Engineers? When you commented that it is your understanding that the benefit- cost ratio is high, it is. You are correct. A 7-to-i ratio is one of the highest, perhaps the highest, of any project that has come before this subcommittee thus far. Particularly of interest to us was, of course, the quality and the amount of participation on a local level, in the local interests, grass- roots level, the leadership. We not only want to commend you, but it seems to me that projects with that type of leadership and initiative on a local level always succeed most easily here on the national level. We want to congratulate you. Mr. H~BERT. The individuals, I would ask them to rise as I introduce them, and file their statements as suggested. Mr. Robert L. Shortle, vice president, Mississippi Valley Association; Mr. Leon Gary, who is director of public works for the State of Louisiana; Col. William E. Lewis, who represents the Board of Port Commissioners, Dock Board, and former district engineer in New Orleans. The others are Mr. Calvin Watts, assistant director of public works, Louisiana; Mr. Fred Drake, who represents Air Products, Inc.; Mr. Harold Cook, execu- tive vice president of New Orleans East, Inc., and Mr. Louis Porterie, who represents the International Auto Sales and Service Co. Mr. Porterie is a well-known attorney whose father was one of our most illustrious attorney generals and member of the Supreme Court. They will file their statements as you suggest. (The statements follow:) STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. SHORTLE, VICE PRESIDEI~T, Mississirri VALLEY ASSOCIA- TION, NEW ORLEANS, LA. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert L. Shortle. I am vice president of the Mississippi Valley Association at New Orleans, Louisiana. This testimony is offered in support of the authorization of the project titled: Gulf Intracoastal Waterway-Gulf Outlet and Michoud Canal, Louisiana, and by direction of the membership of the Mississippi Valley Association. The Mississippi Valley Association, founded in New Orleans, in 1919, is an association whose membership extends into 36 states and includes a broad cross- section of America's industrial and commercial community as well as manifold public and quasi-public bodies from the several states. In response to a resolution adopted June 9, 1964, by the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate, the District Engineer, U.S. Engineer Dis- trict, New Orleans, Louisiana, completed his report on the subject project in December 1067. His report reveals a benefit to cost ratio of 7.1 to tO. We under- stand the report is presently being reviewed by the State of Louisiana and in- terested Federal Agencies. PAGENO="0568" 554 The area involved within the project area is in a developing section of New Orleans. It is served by the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway which has a depth of 12 feet over a width of 150 feet. It is just east of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet. The Gulf Outlet has dimensions of 36-foot depth by 500-foot width and the recommended improvement for the channel eastward of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet would be a channel 3G feet deep by 250 feet in width in the existing Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to its intersection with the Michoud Canal with the same dimensions which would be extended into the Michoud Canal with a turning basin at the northern end of the Michoud Canal with minimum dimensions of 800 feet by 800 feet. Presently, this Canal is served by inland waterway equipment limited to. ves- sels drawing not more than 12 feet, and on the basis that this developing area already has or is anticipating industries that will require deep draft vessel operations, we respectfully request your approval of the project. At the present time, contingent upon authorization of the project, one com- pany that imports foreign vehicles will provide an annual benefit of $188,000, and one company dealing with fertilizers will provide average annual benefits of $307,000 which benefits are sufficient to justify the project and in fact pro- vide the 7.1 to 1.0 benefit-cost ratio. It is patent that with the authorization and construction of the project that additional benefits will accrue through the utilization of the facility by additional industries. On the basis of the total annual charges of $69,900 based on a 50-year project life and in consideration of the total average annual benefits over that period of $495,000 with the resulting benefit to cost ratio of 7.1 to 1.0, it is respectfully urged that this project be included in the presently considered Authorization Bill since no objections have been received from the State of Louisiana and the other Federal Agencies. STATEMENT OF LEON GARY, ADMINISTRATIVE AssIsTANT TO THE GovuaxoR OF LoUIsIANA, AND DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF LouIsIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MISSISSIPPI RIvER-GULF OUTLET, MICHOUD CANAL, LA. My name is Leon Gary. I am Administrative Assistant to the Governor of Louisiana and Director of the Louisiana Department of Public Works. The De- partment of Public Works is the planning agency of the State government and is responsible for coordinated development of the water resources of Louisiana. One of its most important duties is improvement and extension of navigation throughout the State. I therefore submit this statement in support of modifica- tion of the existing project to provide for enlargement of the existing channels of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Michoud Canal, Louisiana. AUTHORITY The report on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway east of the Mississippi River and Michoud Canal, Louisiana, was authorized by resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate adopted June 9, 1964. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project consists of modification of the existing channels of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Michoud Canal to provide a channel 36' deep over a bottom width of 250' from the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet to the north end of the Michoud Canal, a distance of approximately 214 miles including a turning basin 800' x 800'. DISCUSSION Industries located along the Michoud Canal handle products hauled by sea- going vessels, export of fertilizers and import of foreign automobiles. The chan- nel at present has a controlling depth of about 19 feet in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and about 30 feet in the Michoud Canal. The size of ocean-going vessels needed for exporting and importing cargo used by industries on the canal have loaded drafts ranging 27 to 31 feet requiring a 36-foot depth channel as proposed. Enlargement of the canal will eliminate double handling of cargo for inbound and outbound shipment which is now necessary and will make available addi- tional space for the expansion for the crowded facilities of the Port of New PAGENO="0569" * 555 Orleans. The estimated Federal cost of the project is $1,300,000 and the benefit cost ratio is 7.1 to 1.0. RECOMMENDATIONS On behalf of the Governor of Louisiana, Honorable John J. McKeithen, I recommend authorization of the project, Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, Mwhoud Canal, Louisiana, as contained in the report by the Chief of Engineers, Depart- ment of the Army. Assurances for local cooperation on the project have been furnished by the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, an agency of the State of Louisiana. The State Department of Public Works has endorsed the assurances of the Port of New Orleans. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. LEWIS, ACTING DIRECTOR, BOARD OF CoMMIssIoNERs OF THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS The following statement is submitted in behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, an agency of the State of Louisiana, in support of the proposed project for enlargement of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway east of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet and the Michoud Canal to provide ship chan- nels in these waterways. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans created by the Con- stitution and statutory laws of the State of Louisiana is empowered and charged with the responsibility of constructing and maintaining wharves and other port facilities, of regulating the commerce and traffic of the port and harbor of New Orleans and of administering the affairs thereof in such a manner as may, in the Board's judgment, be `best for the maintenance and development of the port. The Board is composed of five members prominently identified with the commerce and business interests of the port. The members of the Board are appointed by the Governor of the State of Louisiana, each `to serve a term of five years. The jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans embraces the Parishes (Counties) of Orleans, Jefferson and St. Bernard in Louisiana. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Lake Borgne to the Inner Harbor-Navigation Canal and the Michoud Canal, as well as the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, are within the limits of the Port of New Orleans. In addition to its other duties, the Board was designated by the then Governor Earl K. Long on December 10, 1956, as the assuring agency for the State of Louisiana, to obtain and convey to the United States of America the rights-of- way and spoil disposal areas and to Satisfy other provisions of local `cooperation required of t'he State in connection with the construction, operation and main- tenance of the Mississippi' River-Gulf Outlet, in uccordance with Public Law 455, 84th Congress, approved March 29, 1956. The Chief of Engineers of the Department o'f the Army has recommended the modification of existing `project for the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet to pro- vide a deep-draft navigation channel in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Michoud Canal by enlargement to a depth of 36 `feet over a bottom width of 250 feet from the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet channel to and including a turning basin 800 feet square at the north end of the Michoud Canal. The report of the Chief of Engineers reflects a benefit-cost ratio of 7.1 tol. The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers concerning this project in- clu'de the requirements that pri'or to construction local interests shall agree to: (a) Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project and for aids to navigation upon the request of the Chief of En- gineers, including suitable areas determined by the Chief o'f Engineers, to `be requi'red in the general public interest for initial and subsequent disposal of spoil, and also retaining dikes for disposal of spoil from maintenance dredging, if required; (b) Accomplish without cost to the United States such utility or other relocations or alterations as necessary for project purposes; (c) Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the con- struction and subsequent maintenance of the project, including any erosion beyond the rights-of-way furnished; and (4) Provide, maintain and operate wi'thout cost to the United States ade- quate public wharf facilities on the Michoud Canal open `to all on equal terms. PAGENO="0570" 556 Note: The italicized portions of subparagraph "a" above did not appear in the requirements of local cooperation as contained in the report of the Dis- trict Engineer on this project, and were added to the requirements on the recommendation of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans at a regular meet- ing held on October 13, 1967, adopted a resolution indicating that the Board was willing and able to provide the assurances of local cooperation, as pro- posed in the reports of the Division and District Engineers, should the project be authorized by the Congress of the United States; and further, authorized the Director of the Port to sign, execute and deliver to the Corps of Engineers a statement in such form and containing such provisions as in the sole discretion of said Director of the Port shall seem proper, evidencing the willingness and ability of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans to provide the required assurances of local cooperation. The a~surances of the Board in this regard have been furnished to the District Engineer, New Orleans District, Corps of Engineers, by letter, dated October 19, 1967, and a copy of such letter and resolution of the Board are contained in the District Engineer's project report dated December 18, 1967. The additional requirements of local coopera- tion as recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors do not appear to be unduly burdensome and such requirements will be satisfied by the Board. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans has concluded negotiations with the owners of the property adjoining the proposed navigation improvements to the point that the availability of rights-of-way for initial construction and for the deposit of spoil therefrom is assured. Furthermore, the Board has concluded negotiations and possesses an option to purchase a site for the construction of public port facilities on the Michoud Canal. Also, within the Board's Capital Facilities Program for the period 1968-1972, is included a project for the construction of public terminal facilities on the Michoud Canal scheduling the amount of $4,400,000 for this project. It may be observed, therefore, that the requirements for local cooperation not only have been assured but are in such a status as to permit the immediate initiation and completion of the proposed project. The plan of development as contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers has been approved by the Board's engineers and such plans are considered to be entirely suitable and completely consistent with the master plan for develop- ment and expansion of the Port of New Orleans. The proposed project not only will serve importantly the trade and commerce of the Port of New Orleans but also will serve and encourage the industrial development of the private lands abutting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Michoud Canal to the economic benefit of the City of New Orleans, the State of Louisiana and the entire nation. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Or1eans strongly endorses the proposed project for the deepening and widening of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway east of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet and the deepening and widening of the Michoud Canal as proposed in the report by the Chief of Engi- neers. The early approval of this project by the Congress of the United States is respectfully requested. _______ STATEMENT OF FanDm~IcK B. DRAKE Mr. chairman and honorable members of this distinguished Committee: I am Frederick B. Drake, Director of Purchasing & Real Estate for Air Prod- ucts and Chemicals, Inc. Air Products, headquartered in Allentown, Peimsylvania, is active inter- nationally in the design, construction and operation of industrial gas, chemical and fertilizer plants. The photographs of the Michoud Facility presented by Mr. Ferguson, show the relative scale and degree of sophistication involved within a typical Air Products plant complex. May I first take this opportunity to compliment the Corps of Engineers for their excellent report of December 18, 1967. If all forecasts within this report fare out as well as the statistics predicted for Air Products, IT believe you gentlemen can respond confidently and positively to the conclusions and recom- mendations presented therein. In comparing actual exports of Anhydrous Ammonia to those projected within Figure 5, Page AIG of the Corps' report, it can be seen that total 1966 through PAGENO="0571" 557 1968 exports should approximate those forecasted. This will occur despite the effects of Hurricane Betsy, which caused :an approximate 50% reduction in 1966 exports. In 1967 we were just about on target, exporting 46,300 tons and this year we should make up the 1966 deficit by exporting 71,500 tons. In considering further expansion into foreign markets, Air Products must react in proportion to her relative competitiveness. Of course, the lower our export costs, the more competitive we can become and the greater our incentive for capital investment. This modification and improvement project will help Air Products reduce the export costs through direct access to deep water transportation. With lower anticipated export costs we become motivated towards consideration of capial expenditures which would otherwise be economically unjustifiable. Increased capital expansion could allow production cost reductions through the efficiencies associated with expanded volume. Prices could then be lowered within our export markets and help enhance our world position. Expanded production facilities would also benufit the American farmer by in- ducing lower domestic prices. With lower cost production capacity, Air Products would expand domestic efforts. This incre:ased supply would stimulate national competition into reducing prices and provide the catalyst for technical improve- ments of their products. Deep water transportation ability would also tend to motivate Air Products towards diversification into' other commodity exports and to allow the domestic manufacture of certain goods instead of through foreign subsidiaries. These fac- tors, of course, would contribute towards improving this country's balance of trade. In addition to these economic benefits and to those outlined in the report by the Corps of Engineers are the employment opportunities created for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. We could conceivably aid in the training of "hard- core" unemployed. Therefore, gentlemen, Air Products strongly solicits your support for this modi- fication and improvement project, and requests your favorable support of the Corps of Engineer's conclusions and recommendation. Thank you again, gentlemen. I have submitted a copy of my comments for `the record. STATEMENT OF WILLARD B. ROBERTSON, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL Airro SALES AND SERvIcE, INC. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee on Public Works of the United States House of Representatives: I am Willard B. Robertson of New Orleans, Louisiana. The business of my com- pany is the importation, distribution, and the sale of automobiles and spare parts for the cars which we sell. My operations involve an area of four states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. I wish to express my thanks to the Chairman and the Committee for granting me the opportunity to appear and `speak on behalf of the proposed modification of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, eastward from its junction with the Mississippi Gulf Outlet to the Michoud Canal and in the Michoud Canal. This modification has been approved and recommended by the District En- gineer, New Orleans District, dated 18 December 1967, the Division Engineer, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and the Chief of Engineers. In support of these favorable recommendations I would like to direct the atten- tion of the Committee to the fact that this report estimated we would import 20,000 vehicles in the year 1965. We actually imported 19,384 vehicles in that year. In 19641, we imported 22,998 vehicles and in 1967, we imported 23,616 ve- hicles. From these established facts it is evident that the projection of the Dis- trict Engineer in his report of December 18, 1967 is accurate, and perhaps con- servative. We anticipate receiving 32,000 vehicles in 1968. The estimate reflected in the District Engineer's Report of a savings of $3.35 per unit imported is also supported by our statistics, and, as the volume of vehicles imported increases, we may reasonably anticipate that this savings will increase. If this modification to an existing waterways is authorized, funded, and com- pleted, my company will promptly proceed to construct adequate waterside facil- ities designed to rovide for our present and future requirements. We firmly be- PAGENO="0572" 558 lieve that in such event New Orleans will serve as a principal port of entry and importation for all vehicles which are destined to be delivered in the Gulf and Middle-west area. This should double the amount of vehicles which we will receive and handle through New Orleans. The economies inherent in an operation of this magnitude and character will necessarily be passed along to the public by way of a reduction in cost of vehicles offered for sale. Additionally, handling vehicles in the manner contemplated will materially reduce the damages presently sustained to vehicles when docked as mixed cargo, which is the circumstance under which we presently operate. The savings which we will achieve by reason of a lesser amount of damages to ve- hicles handed will also be reflected in a reduction in price to the consumer. To emphasize the nature and character of the vandalism and damages which we presently experience, I direct your attention to an instance reported in The Times-Picayune, our New Orleans newspaper, on June 3, 1968, a copy thereof being annexed hereto. You will note that some young people entered the storage area now being used adjacent to the public wharf and amused themselves by driving new cars around and bumping them together, somewhat in the fashion of the "bumping cars" found at our local amusement park. This kind of vandalism could have been prevented and the resulting loss avoided if the cars had been parked in the type of staging area which is planned for our installation at Michoud. You have been informed that the local interests, including my company, have done all that has been requested of the local sponsors of this modification. AU that remains to be accomplished in order that these known and anticipated savings may be passed on to the public is the recommendation of your committee and the ultimate funding of the proposed modification. I respectfully request your recommendation and approval of this modification and improvement to the existing waterways. [From the Times-Picayune, June 3, 1968] JUVENILEs PLAY BUMPING GAME WITH Rn~u~ CARS Police said a group of juveniles decided Sunday night to play bumping cars, but instead of going to Pontchartrain Beach, they picked on the local Volkswagen storage area. About 30 of the small cars received minor damages as a result of the escapade. Harbor police estimated total damages at $1,000. A guard at the storage area said a truck driver who was passing by about 8:30 p.m. told him he saw some lights moving around in the storage compound on the levee near the St. Maurice st. Wharf. The guard, Gary Roberts, went to investigate and saw several juveniles running down the levee. Upon closer inspection of the cars he found them bumped together and parked in helter-skelter fashion. The wharf is the receiving area for the cars, which are shipped to the area from Germany. They are stored with some gas in their tanks and the keys in the ignition. New Orleans police said the matter is under investigation. The cars are owned by Willard E. Robertson, regional Volkswagen distributor. STATEMENT OF HAROLD E. COOK Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee on Public Works of the United States House of Representatives, my name is Harold E. Cook. I am executive Vice President of New Orleans East, Inc., and a resident of New Orleans, La. I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the members of this Com- mittee for the opportunity to appear and request favorable consideration of the subject project. New Orleans East, Inc. is the owner and developer of a 32.000 acre tract of land in New Orleans. We were the seller of all property on the east side of Michoud Canal. The Michoud Canal is also the property of this company. Since the inception of this project, substantial additional industry has moved into the area. Our overall Master Plan, which has been approved by the City Planning Commission of New Orleans, calls for an area of some 6,500 acres to be occupied by light and heavy industrial plants. Past experience shows that PAGENO="0573" 559 this type of industry generates substantial traffic on the public water trans- portation facilities. This company has met the requirements of the public sponsor in that a site has been reserved for public wharf facilities and an easement or servitude has been granted to the public sponsor and to the U.S. Corps of Engineers on both the fairway and turning basin areas in the MichoUd Canal. We feel that the District Engineer's report is most comprehensive in nature and states fairly what can be expected should this project be consummated. We believe that the completed project presents an excellent opportunity for a much higher degree of use of the presently existing Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet. MISSISSIPPI RIVER 0UTLETS-VENICE~ LA. Mr. HEBERT. The next project, Venice project. Mr. Chairman, the additional navigation outlets in the vicinity of Venice, La., is the most worthwhile navigational project to be pro- posed in south Louisiana for many years. The project calls for deepen- ing and widening parts of Tiger Pass to the west and Main Pass of Baptiste Collette to the east of Venice and to dredge and eventually to rock jetty, if necessary, the mouths of these streams as they enter the open waters. Presently these channels cannot be used for navigation to outside waters because the mouths of these streams are very shallow, caused by silting from the Mississippi River. The report submitted by the U.S. Army Engineer district of New Orleans, dated December 29, 1967, reveals that the combined benefit- cost ratio is 2.5 and that this project will meet the needs of the oilfield and fishing industries and is well justified for Federal construction and maintenance. State and local authorities plan the construction of a four-lane highway from New Orleans to Venice which will increase the flow of vehicular traffic to this area. Eight miles of this highway project are now under construction; contracts for the construction of 24 miles will be let this calendar year, and it is anticipated that the remainder of this four-lane highway will be under construction within a 3-year period. The improvement of vehicular traffic will facilitate the move- ment of oil'field pipe and supplies and will open up use of this area for sport and commercial fisheries-probably the finest fishing area in the United States. Virtually every species* of salt water fish are found in the coastal areas near Venice, including blue and white marlin, sailfish, tuna, dolphin, and other types offshore fish; and redfish, speckled trout, red snapper, pompano, mackerel, tarpon, jackfish, and many other varieties of fish which will make this area the greatest fishing paradise in the United States. The multimillion-dollar shrimp, oyster, and menhaden fishing industries will utilize these new facilities; and probably new fish processing and canning factories will be constructed near this new channel. Fishing vessels from Florida to Texas traveling in an east-west di- rection along the coast would utilize these channels to avoid having to navigate the extra distance around the mouth of the Mississippi River and to provide them a protected water passage. During inclement weather and in times of storms and hurricanes, a ready `and safe harbor would be afforded to vessels in these channels. The old addage that one picture is worth a thousand words was never truer than in this case where reference to the attached U.S. De- partment of Interior oil and gas development map shows the evident saving in millions of dollars in transportation costs yearly if this proj- PAGENO="0574" 5(30 ect is undertaken. The proposed channels are shown colored in red and the existing channels, South and Southwest Passes of the Mississippi River, in yellow. Note the vast number of productive oilfields and gas- fields colored in green and the savings in time to navigate to these fields from Venice, the terminus of the highway and the oil and supply com- panies' base of operations. The many areas now under Federal mineral lease in the wildcat or early stages of development are in purple; and under State lease in brown. The development of these fields will sub- stantially increase the use of these new channels. Most of the oilfields within a radius of approximately 80 miles of Venice, includmg those fields from which the. Federal Government will reap hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties in future years will be serviced from this area. The two ex~st~ng outlets into the gulf for vessels, South and South- west Passes of the Mississippi River, are now very heavily traveled, creating navigational difficulties in the lower reaches of the Mississipni River and its passes during unfavorable weather conditions. The con- struction of these two proposed channels would siphon off a large percentage of the vessels servicing the fishing and mineral industries thus making ship travel in the river safer. The recent increase in ship a.nd barge collisions causing dea.th and untold millions of dollars in property damage will undoubtedly be greatly reduced if these channels are constructed. The US. Coast Guard has recently secured a site for its operations at Venice. These new channels would greatly facilitate the Coast Guard by giving them quicker access to the east and west for their rescue and other operations. Boat travel to the east between the Mississippi River at Venice a.nd the existing Tidewater Channel through Breton Sound, shown in blue, will be greatly shortened thus facilitating the movement of bar and river pilots who navigate ships through both channels and will provide easy, quick, and money-saving transportation for the US. Corps of Engineers who maintain the passes at the mouth of the Mississippi River and the Tidewater Channel. I recommend passage of this project. Mr. Calvin Watts will file his statement for the record. I think they are very expansive and informative. And I believe that both projects meet the criteria of approbation, which the Chair has given. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for your kind consideration and understanding. Thank you very much. Mr. HARsu~A. May I just make one suggestion, Congressman, that you use sour considerable influence with the Burea.u of the Budget ~to expedite their report to us. It will be helpful. Mr. }-IEBERT. I will do what I can with the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. HARSHA. I am sure that will be fine. Mr. HfuERT. I would like to accept the adjectives in front. But I am afraid if the Bureau of the Budget comes through on this, it will be a magna cim~i laude proposition m spite of me. Mr. BLATNiK. Thank you very much, Congressman, and gentlemen from the delegation, for your cooperation in the interest of time. (The statement follows:) PAGENO="0575" 561 STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. SHORTLE, VICE PRESIDENT, MIssISsrrPI VALLEY ASSOCIATION, NEw ORLEANS, LA. Re Mississippi River, Additional Navigation Outlets in the Vicinity of Venice, Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert L. Shortle. I am Vice President the Mis- sissippi Valley Association at New Orleans, Louisiana. By direction of the membership of the Mississippi Valley Association, this testimony is offered in support of the enlargement of Baptiste Collette Bayou between the Mississippi River and Breton Sound, and Grand and Tiger Passes between the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico, to a depth of 14 feet below mean low gulf level, over a bottom width of 150 feet, with entrance channels in open water 16 feet deep over a bottom width of 250 feet and jetties to the 6-foot contour, if and when justified. By virtue of a resolution adopted April 14, 1964, by the Committee on Public Works of the U.S. House of Representatives, the District Engineer, U. S. Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana, has completed a study in December of 1967, with reference to providing additional navigation outlets in the vicinity of Venice, Louisiana. The completed study shows a benefit cost ratio of 2.5 to 1.0. The area in question is a prolific producing area for petroleum, oysters, shrimp, and menhaden. Additionally, it is also a very heavily used recreational area for sport fishing and hunting. In connection with the petroleum aspects of the area, exploration and develop- ment continues at a rapid rate with the Federal Government and the State of Louisiana, as lessors of the water area having a large interest in the mineral production from the area. Because of the shoaling in the mouths and lower reaches of Baptiste Collette Bayou and Grand-Tiger Passes, vessels serving the Mississippi River Delta off- shore area and vessels engaged in commercial fishing operation are required to use either South Pass or Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River over far greater distances than those that would be needed to traverse if the channels were enlarged as requested herein. We are requesting approval of dimensions of 14 feet in depth over a bottom width of 150 feet in Baptiste Coilette Bayou and Grand-Tiger Passes with entrance channels in open water 16 feet deep over a bottom width of 250 feet and jetties to the 6-foot depth contour if and when justified to reduce the cost of dredging. It is not anticipated that the construction of the jetties would be needed for several years if then. The above mentioned benefit to cost ratio of 2.5 to 1.0 is obtained in considera- tion of annual benefits of $1,502,000 and annual charges of $609,500. This favor- able benefit to cost ratio is readily apparent when it is considered that the channels in question will accommodate in the first year of their operation approximately 1.9 million tons of commercial commodities. In this connection it is desired to point out that the benefits do not include any consideration of the value of recreation by sport fishermen and hunters. We understand that the official comments of the various Federal Agencies may not have been received at this time, but on the basis of approving reports from the field departments of these agencies, no objection is anticipated. Accordingly, we respectfully urge that the project for the Mississippi River, Additional Navigation Outlets in the Vicinity of Venice, Louisiana, be approved by your Committee and included in the Authorization Bill for 1908. Mr. BLATNIK. Next is our very dear friend, Congressman Edwin Willis, of Louisiana the Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, La. Congressman, thank you for waiting. ATOHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF, AND BLACK, LA. STATEMENT OP HON. EDWIN E. WILLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP LOUISIANA; AND DAVID GRAP Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am glad to appear before you to present this project. My bill H.R. 6525 PAGENO="0576" 562 is really not controversial. This project bears all of the criteria neces- sary to be, and entitling it to be, put in the omnibus bill. For instance, the local sponsor has made all assurances of local cooperation. The project was approved by the district engineer in New Orleans, the division engineer in Vicksburg, and the Chief of Engineers in Washington, the Governor of Louisiana and the Sec- retary of the Army. It bears a favorable cost-to-benefit ratio and finally and most importantly this bill has the blessing of the Budget Bureau. So I say I don't think there is really much point in my taking the time of the committee. I would like to ifie, however, a more detailed statement for the record. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDWIN E. Wu~us IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT "ATCHAFALAYA RIvER AND BAYOUS CHENE, BOEUF, AND BLACK, LOUISIANA" Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I come before you today to offer testimony in support of perhaps the most significant navigation project which has been proposed for my Congressional District since I first came to Congress twenty years ago. This project, known as the Lower Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, Louisiana, is proposed for Congressional authorization by my bill, H.R. 6525, referred to your committee on March 2, 1967, and intended for incorporation into the 1968 Omnibus Rivers and Harbors Authorization bill. The proposed improvements are described in detail in House Document 155 of the 90th Congress, 1st Session, dated August 10, 1967. As the committee knows, that Document carries the highly favorable agency reports of the District Engineer, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, the Chief of Engi- neers, the Secretary of the Army, the Bureau of the Budget, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The House Document 155 also carries the strong endorsement of the State of Louisiana, acting through its Department of Public Works. Full assurances have been given by local interests that they will furnish all lands, easements and rights-of-way; will make alterations to roads, bridges, pipelines, cables and other utilities; and will hold and save the United States free from damages. These assurances of local cooperation (totaling an estimated $881,000 of the total project cost of $9,526,000) are reinforced by a formal pledge of support by the Honorable John J. McKeithen, Governor of the State of Louisiana, in a letter of May 26, 1967, addressed to Colonel Thomas J. Bowen of the New Orleans District, Corps of Engineers. The Governor's letter reads as follows: STATE OF LouIsIANA, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Baton Rouge, May 26, 1967. (1~o1. THOMAS J. BOWEN, District Engineer, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, La. DEAR COLONEL Bownx: The rapid expansion of offshore and related industries makes it imperative that adequate channels of sufficient widths and depths be constructed in the Morgan City area. I am, therefore, in full support of the improvements proposed for the Atcbafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana project. As Governor of the State of Louisiana, I give the assurances to the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, that the requirements made of local interests will be carried out by the appropriate local governmental units. Inasmuch as there are a number of Parishes to be dealt with, I hereby desig- nate the Louisiana Department of Public Works as the agency to coordinate the efforts of local interests and to see that local commitments are carried out promptly. The State of Louisiana appreciates the fine work the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, has been doing over the years within the State. Sincerely, JOHN J. MCKEITHEN, Governor of Louisiana. PAGENO="0577" 563 Mr. Chairman, these proposed navigation improvements are intended to in- crease the dimensions of the several streams encompassed by the project to a depth of 20 feet and a bottom width of 400 feet. The basic purposes of channel expansion to these large dimensions involves the urgent and, indeed, critical needs of the offshore oil industry which is bringing hundreds of millions of dollars into the United States Treasury every year. Local people, local interests and local industry have geared up to provide the petroleum companies with the huge drilling platforms needed to exploit the mineral resources of the Gulf floor in depths of several hundred feet of water. Proper development of these resources hinges on the ability of the industries of the area to transport these structures from the construction sites, through the channels of this project into the Gulf of Mexico-and back from the Gulf when they are in need of repair, modernization and working over. However, the serious situation we face today is that there are structures being built in the Morgan City area which will have great difficulty in being trans- ported through channels which have limiting depths of from only 8 to 12 feet and which have limiting widths of down to 140 feet. For example, one of these drilling platforms which I have seen in the initial stages of construction and which will eventually be placed in about 350 feet of water is of such dimensions that when a 140 foot drilling rig is placed on top of it, the total structure will measure some 20 feet taller than the Washington Monument! It will have a base of almost the size of a football field and will weigh 6,500 tons. The committee can well understand the problems in moving such a structure and can visualize the channel requirements of such an operation. But, Mr. Chairman, before this proposed project is actually realized, structures of even greater dimensions will be awaiting the day when they can be moved from the construction sites into the Gulf. There are existing federal leases off~hore of Louisiana in 400 or even 500 feet of water, and the dimensions of the platforms which will be needed in this depth will be significantly larger than the one just described. It is expected that a structure designed for use in 800 feet of water will be half again as tall as the Washington Monument with base dimensions of 400 feet. The problems of transporting such a structure are self-evident-as is the urgent need for this project. The benefits to the government of offshore oil and gas operations are just as remarkable as are the dimensions of the offshore structures themselves. Last year, for instance, a lease sale in the Eastern section of Louisiana's Outer Con- tinental Shelf brought more than $500,000 into the Treasury. This is above and beyond the approximately $300,000 realized by the Treasury from actual pro- duction from existing wells off the Louisiana coast. The benefits to the local economy are expected to be just as noteworthy. My understanding from local employers of the area-mainly those who are fabri- cating the drilling structures-is that 4 to 5 thousand new jobs should be added to local payrolls once a certainty exists that any structure which needs to be built can be moved from the construction sites out into the Gulf. This tremendous expansion of employment will be an economic blessing not only to the Morgan City area but to the whole South Central Louisiana area which I represent here in Congress. All of the parishes of my District will be called on to supply these labor requirements. Under the circumstances, it `should be quite apparent that we. are dealing with a "blue chip" situation and that the return's to the Federal government, t'o the local economy, and to the affected industries will be many,, many times the amount of the investment in expanding the channel's in question. The authorization and early funding of this project will represent a reinvest- ment of only a minute fraction of the income which the Federal government is enjoying from `development of offshore petroleum and gas deposits adjacent to the Louisiana coast. Finally, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, let me pay the highest sort of compliment to the many outstanding individuals and organization's of the Morgan City-Berwick area for `all of the hard work and conscientious effort they have put forth in proving the absolute need and the incontrovertible justification for this `project. Without their enthusiasm, determination and support since June of 1964 when the Congressional Committee resolutions were adopted calling for a review of the reports on these streams, this effort could never have reached the stage it enjoys today. 97-7OO-6S------3~ PAGENO="0578" 564 It would be inappropriate for me to list the names of those individuals and organizations, knowing that I am bound to miss some whose work has been vital to the success of the project. But representing them all, insofar as their great and unanimous desire to see this project authorized and completed in the shortest possible time, is Mr. David Graf, President of the Morgan City Harbor and Terminal District. I present Mr. Graf to the committee and ask the committee to receive his statement in support of the project. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wu~i~is. Also next to me on my left is Mr. David Graf, of Morgan City, La., where this project is located. He is president of Morgan City Harbor and Terminal District. I would like to file my own detailed statement as suggested and ask Mr. Graf to simply insert his statement in the record, because, as I say, I cannot imagine any controversy over this project, which bears all, including Bureau bless- ing, all of the criteria usually required to be embodied in the omnibus bill. Dave, hand your report to the stenographer. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, the statements will so appear. (The statement follows:) MoRGAN Crrv HARBOR AND TERMINAL DIsTRIcT, Morgan Gity, La., June 24, 1968. COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. GENTLEMEN: Reference is made to the report of the Corps of Engineers on Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, Louisiana. The Corps of Engineers has made a most complete study and submitted an excellent report on this urgently needed project. It is necessary, however, for us to emphasize that events subsequent to the time the Corps obtained its original information have not only confirmed the conclusions reached by the Corps, but point out the urgent need for this improvement to be made as quickly as possible. Among the many significant items is the fact that in the lease sale held on June 13, 1967, by the Federal Government, a total of $510 million dollars was paid to the Federal Government for the right to explore the water depths up to 600 feet. In addition, two lease sales since June, 1967, have brought the Federal Government another $1.2 billion. Just two years ago the deepest producing structures were in about 280 feet of water. Structures will be installed this year in 343 feet of water and a demand now exists for structures in 400 feet of water. The huge rigs, 380 feet wide in many cases, necessary to carry on this work, have now been in operation about three years and will soon need preventive maintenance to continue an economical operation. The proposed improvements will allow this industry, with its enormous return to the Federal Government, to proceed in an orderly and economical manner to develop the offshore oil mineral resources. With the royalty income to the Gov- ernment involved approaching over $200 million dollars a year, it is most urgent to the Federal Government that this improvement keep pace and be constructed at the earliest possible date. Also, it seems to me that a primary consideration is the continued orderly development of an operation that provides tens of thousands with useful employment in this area. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the report and respectfully request that you give your earliest approval. Very truly yours, DAVID B. GRAy, President. Mr. BLATNIK. The project does seem to have all the criteria and all the requirements. The Bureau of the Budget files no objection. It is apparently a badly needed project. Do you have any other witnesses? Mr. WILLIS. I might roughly define in a minute the nature of the project. PAGENO="0579" 565 This project will alter the basic dimensions of these three bayous and the Intracoastal Canal. These three bayous would be improved to be 400 feet wide and 20 feet deep. Why do we need 400 feet width? Because Morgan City is in the heart of the offshore or tidelands operations in Louisiana and iii my congressional district. These drilling rigs are known technically, actually-and I am tell- ing you the correctness of it-as floating islands. Some of these rigs, of which there are hundreds, the latest now are producing oil in water depth of over 400 feet. Some of these drilling rigs, the latest type, are actually 80 feet taller than the Washington Monument. Terrific. Now, in order to repair these rigs, from year to year after hurri- canes and normal use, wear and tear, you need these huge width streams to bring the rigs to port to be repaired, to maneuver them around. That is why engineers recommend a dimension of 400 feet width by a bot- tom depth, a depth of 20 feet. And, as I say, I filed my statement, and Mr. Graf has filed his. Mr. Calvin Watts, is he here? STAThi~(ENT OP CALVIN WATTS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OP PUBLIC WORKS, BATON ROUGE, LA. Mr. WA~rrs. I filed my statement with the committee. Mr. Wrr4LIs. He is with the department of public works. Mr. BIAThIK. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Calvin Watts, ~wsistant director of public works, State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge-his statement will appear at this point in its entirety. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF CALVIN T. WATTS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ATCHAFALAYA RIVER AND BAYOUS CIIENE, BOEUF, AND BLACK, LOUISIANA Introduction My name is Calvin T. Watts. I am Assistant Director of the Louisiana Depart- nient of Public Works. This Department is the planning agency of the State government and has the responsibility for progressive and orderly development of water resource projects inthe State of Louisiana. In accordance with its duties, the Department of Public Works is pleased to submit this statement supporting and requesting authorization of the project, Atchafalaya River and Bayous Uhene, Boeuf and Black, Louisiana, to provide a 20'x400' channel. Description The Louisiana Department of Public Works is vitally interested in facilitat. ing the development of all phases of the economy of the State. At this time, Louisiana is particularly interested in developing a navigation channel suited to the needs of the Morgan City and Lower Atchafalaya area which will permit and quicken the pace of much of the potential industrial growth connected with offshore oil activities off the central Louisiana coast. Tremendous revenues to be realized by the Federal government from increased mineral production be. yond the historic gulfward boundary of the State of Louisiana makes this project of particular national interest as well as local significance. The project area is the geographical center of enormous industrial activities in coastal Louisiana. To support the needs of the oil and gas industry, certain industrial services are required, such as fabricating yards for offshore drilling rigs, ship and barge building yards, marine tow and transportation firms, heavy con- PAGENO="0580" 566 struction and pipeline contractors, marine repair and service establishments, material supply yards, well service organizations, air transportation services, food catering services, and other associated supporting organizations and services. Transportation connections The construction of giant offshore drilling rigs and platforms and providing other services involves problems of material supply logistics which make man- datory the location of these plants on highway and railroad facilities. To satisfy land transportation requirements, the head of the proposed navigation channel is adjacent to a major transcontinental highway and railroad-U.S. Highway 90 and Southern Pacific Railroad. The new navigation channel would also be located at the crossroads of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, the Atchafalaya River main channel leading northerly to the Mississippi River, and the alteriiate route to Port Allen and Mississippi River. The project location is approximately equi- distant from New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Lake Charles. Advantages Morgan City, Louisiana, is located near the head of the proposed navigation channel. The Morgan City area already contains established firms providing basic required services to the offshore oil and gas operations. All of these services will have to be expanded and new plants established. This area provides adequate room for this required expansion as well as sites for future industrial expansions. The project requested for authorization offers the advantage of a short access route to the Gulf of Mexico and an unlimited vertical clearance. The existing inadequate depth and width of these channels to and from the Gulf results in either the more costly partial assembly in the builder's yard with final assembly in the Gulf, or the loss of business to a more favorably located plant from the standpoint of adequate waterway dimensions, but at locations remote from its point of use in actual production. Existing channel widths will accommodate strictly one-way traffic when the structure sections and other offshore equipment are enroute to and from the Gulf. In spite of carefully planned movements and notifications to navigation interests, many costly time consuming delays are encountered as a result of the mandatory one-way traffic. The recommended 400 foot channel width will -provide much relief in this direction in addition to permitting mo~vement of completed rigs. The existing project providing for navigation for Morgan City and the Gulf is titled "Atchafalaya River, Morgan City to the Gulf of Mexico", and has project authorized dimensions of 20'x200'. This channel has never been maintained to full project dimensions due-to excessive shoaling. Maintenance dredging has been performed each year since 1958, providing a channel 16'x200', and between dredging operations, the channel continues to shoal to a controlling depth of 12 to 14 feet. Natural channels now provide greater than existing project dimen- sions between Atcbafalaya Bay and Morgan City. A large number of these large offshore drilling units are portable and can be moved to new locations. After being in service for a sustained period, these structures are in need of inspection and service to remain in safe and dependable condition. This work can best be accomplished by returning the structure to a ship yard where adequate facilities are available. The recommended 20'x400' channel is required to provide this service. Present channel dimensions make it impossible to provide this service at Morgan City. With the 20' x 400' recommended channel in place, losses of or damage to offshore rigs during hurricanes will -be -reduced or -possibly eliminated. Pre- venting the loss of one offshore drilling rig could well result in benefits ex- ceeding the total cost of the -proposed channel construction. Losses of opera- tional time would- a-Iso be reduced and large benefits will -accrue during hurri- cane seasons. A large number of offshore drilling rigs and other craft are designed and k~onstructed for use in oil exploration and production in foreign country locations. Sea-going tugs are required in towing these craft on transoceanic voyages. This operation would be greatly benefited by -the tow vessel-s having sufficient water depths to reach the inland fabricating yards where the drilling rig would be adequately tied and secured for the ocean trip. Another outstanding benefit of a 20' x 400' channel i-s -providing port access near -the work area to ship drilling tenders. These craft usually require depths greater than 20 feet at full load. However, tremendous -advantages are offered by being able to return to ship yards and make port calls for various services. Offshore drilling structures 380 feet wide are presently -being designed and PAGENO="0581" 567 fabricated for use in the offshore areas adjacent to the project location. To provide for movement of these structures, a channel 400 feet wide must be constructed, Local assurances The State of Louisiana and local interests has been advised of required local assurances. These assurances have been granted by Governor John J. McKe'ithen by letter dated May 26, 1067, addressed to Colonel Thomas J. Bowen, District Engineer, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District. The Governor pointed out in his letter of assurance that a number of parishes are to be dealt with and the Louisiana Department of Public Works has been designated as the State agency to coordinate assurance of local interests and to see that: local commitments are carried out promptly. I can assure you that local obligations will be complied with as required. Recommendation On `behalf of the Governor of Louisiana, Honorable John J. McKeithen, and acting for local interests, the Louisiana Department of `Public Works recom- mends that the *project, Atchafalay'a River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, Louisiana, be authorized to `provide a 20' x 400' navigation `channel as described in and according to House Document No. 155, 90th Congress, 1st Session. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. Mr. Wur4is. Thank you. Mr. HARSHA. Did Mr. Graf want to elaborate? Mr. Wii~is. No. He just filed his statement. Mr. BLATNIK. I call on my distinguished colleague, Representative Hale Boggs, of Louisiana. STATEMENT `OP HON. HALE BOGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP LOUISIANA Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I join with Congressman Willis, who so ably represents the Third Congressional District of Louisiana, in sup- porting legislation authorizing the expansion of the Atchafalaya River Canal. I have introduced a companion bill, H.R. 12707. As authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of June 25, 1910, the canal connecting Morgan City, La., to the Gulf of Mexico by way of the Atc'hafalaya River, has become painfully inadequate. The proposed project would provide a channel 20 feet deep by 400 feet wide. This would accommodate the present traffic and the expected increases in the size and volume of vehicles to be using the canal. Although this river is in Mr. Willis' district, it would provide an access route for Avondale marine ways in my district. Avondale is the largest and finest equipped shipyard in the United States, and is a contractor for the Defense Department. This project will be invaluable to Avondale's operation. In addition, there is the problem with marine vehicles with widths up to 380 feet being constructed in the area around Morgan City. These barges cannot be assembled in the area, but must be taken piecemeal into the Gulf of Mexico and assembled, at great risk to life and property. With the current expansion of the oil industry in this area, and `the expected 900 offshore wells to be drilled in the next 3 years, Morgan City is becoming one of the largest ports in the United States for plat- form and barge construction, maintenance and supply, which is in- dispensable to the Louisiana offshore oil industry, and, consequently, to the people of Louisiana. PAGENO="0582" 568 The Army Corps of Engineers has recommended this proposed action, as has the Secretary of the Army, and the Bureau. of the Budget has approved its presentation to this committee. Until now, the offshore oil industry of Louisiana. has contributed through lease bonuses approximately $300 million to the Federal Treas- ury. This does not include any payments from anticipated future leases. At this time, in view of the obvious need for a.n expanded Atcha.- falaya River Canal a.nd of the investigating committee's reports, I would like to recommend iniinediate approval of the bill. Mr. Br!~vrxIK. Thank you, Mr. Boggs. Congressman David Pryor, of Arkansas. OIACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS STATEMENT OP HON. DAVID PRYOR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROT~ THE STATE OP ARKANSAS; ACCOMPANIED BY H. K. THATCHER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, OUACHITA RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION, CAMDEN, ARK.; AND W. EDWIN COX, CHAIRMAN OP THE BOARD, OUACBITA RIVER VALLEY ASSO~. CIATION, CAMDEN, ARK. Mr. PRYOR. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for your kindness today, to let us appear, and also for the many acts of kindness you have extended to the Ouachita River Navigation project. We have today two very distinguished gentlemen who will present testimony. They are both from the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas. One is Mr. H. K. Thatcher, executive vice president of Ouachita River Valley Association. The other is Mr. Edwin Cox, who is director of public relations of Monsanto, of Arkansas, who is chairman of the board of the Ouachita River Valley Association. They are seeking legislation, Mr. Chairma.n and gentlemen of the committee, to amend the present authorization on the Ouachita and Black Rivers Navigation project, subject to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960, which was Public Law 86-645. Mr. Chairman, I know that you and the other members of the sub- committee are pressed for time and we would like to call right now on Mr. Thatcher and Mr. Cox if they could come forward at this time to present their testimony. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Thatcher and Mr. Cox, will you please take the witness stand. Mr. THATCHER. My name is H. K. Thatcher, and I am the executive vice president of the Ouachita River Valley Association. I live at Camden, Ark. I am going to file the statement which I am presenting to you there now, and I have some other statements that I will file at the con- clusion of my statement. I will talk extemporaneously. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection. So ordered. (The statement of H. K. Thatcher follows:) PAGENO="0583" 569 STATEMENT OF H. K. THATCHER My name is H. K. Thatcher of Camden, Arkansas. I am Executive Vice Presi- dent of the Ouachita River Valley Association which serves South-Southeast Ar- kansas and Northeast Louisiana. The Ouachita River Valley Association appears today with two public wit- nesses-W. Edwin Cox, Chairman of the Board, and myself. The ORVA seeks legislation to amend the present authorization of the Ouachita-Black River Navigation Project to allow the cost of the additional lands needed for flooding and buffer zones in the Felsenthal Lock and Dam Navigation Pool to be made a part of the project cost. The original authorization to change the Ouachita-Black River 6½-foot naviga- tion project to a 9-foot project was made in 1950. At that time it was contem- plated that the 9-foot depth of channel would be secured by simply dredging the channel deeper. This would have required very little additional lands to be supplied by local interests. The Ouachita River Valley Association sponsored the project and agreed to assist in securing all of the additional lands needed for lock and dam sites, spoil- age areas, and construction easements. Further study by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Association determined that this was not a good project because the traffic on the river would have to be curtailed for the duration of the construction period which would require about ten years. After completion of the project it could only be a second rate naviga- tion system at its best. In 1958 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began to develop a more practical plan for securing a modern 9-foot navigation project for the Ouachita-Black River. It is proposed to secure the 9-foot channel depth by building four new high- lift locks and dams and raising the water level three feet or more within the channel rather than securing that depth by dredging. In 1960 the Congress made the alterations in the authorization of the project. (Public Law 86-645) This final plan would allow navigation on the entire length of the 6½-foot channel to continue through the 9-foot construction period with very little inter- ruption. It would provide modern lock chambers 9 x 84 x 600 feet. It called for the construction of forty-nine (49) sharp bend cutoffs, making all river bends have a radius of 900 feet or more. It would increase the water holding capacity of the navigation pools and give the entire project multiple-purpose status. In short, it would give the Ouachita-Black River a first-class navigation system at a much lower cost than the original authorization to dredge the channel and would also save millions of dollars in maintenance costs. Not having encountered any major problems in Louisiana, the Jonesville and Columbia Locks and Dams are about two-thirds completed. No special problems are anticipated in the upper Calion Lock and Dam in Arkansas, but we have run into some insurmountable difficulties that local interests cannot handle in the Felsenthal Lock and Dam area in Arkansas, which is located above the Arkansas- Louisiana State Line. Due to a peculiar geological formation in the Felsenthal Navigation Pool area, the banks of the Ouachita River are so low that the present 6½-foot navigation pool, which stands at 61.6 feet m.s.1., permanently inundates about 5,000 acres. When the 9-foot navigation project is raised to 65 feet under the Corps' final plan, an additional 9,500 acres will be permanently inundated. In addition to this the Corps of Engineers must have an elevation of approximately two feet to use as buffer zones against damages from waterlogging and wave-washing. This will require an additional 10,000 acres of land to be supplied by the local interests. The Ouachita River Valley Association sponsored the 1960 modification of the Ouachita River Navigation Project because it was sound, economically justified, and needed for the full economic and social development of the entire Ouachita River Basin. The Association agreed to aid in securing all of the additional lands needed for inundation and buffer zones requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At the time, however, the Association pointed out to the Committees of the Congress that the Felsenthal area presented a problem which might prove difficult for local interests. In the State of Louisiana the Louisiana Public Works Department functions as the "local interests" and spreads the obligation state-wide. In Arkansas, which unfortunately does not have a Public Works Department, the individual coun- ties involved must assume the obligation of the "local interests." PAGENO="0584" 570 In the case of the Felsenthal Navigation Pool, the counties are Union, Ashley, and Bradley. Two other counties, Calhoun and Ouachita, make up a total of five counties in Arkansas involved in the whole navigation project. The office of the District Engineer, Vicksburg District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, furnished copies of all of the documents that needed to be signed by the several county judges in order to establish assurances for all of the additional lands needed for flooding and protective areas in the Felsenthal Lock and Dam Complex. The county judges signed all of the required documents in good faith because they were still of the opinion that the greater portion of the required lands for flooding and buffer zones would be donated by the landowners. That assumption was undoubtedly true until the last few years when land values in this area began to increase. Soybean interests began bidding for the land, timber values began to increase, and other navigation projects began show- ing up with authorizations wherein the federal government purchased all of the land requirements as part of the project cost. By the time the Corps of Engineers called for land titles, the county judges were confronted with the fact that they would have to purchase most of the re- quired lands and that land values in the area had advanced to a point where they could not legally make such expenditures from their available county funds. The Arkansas Attorney General furnished the following statement: "No county shall levy a tax to exceed one-half of one per cent (of the assessed value of all property) for all purposes (Const. 16, p. 9). The county's appropria- tion cannot exceed 90 per cent of the taxes levied in any one year (Ark. Stat. 17-411). No county can make a contract in excess of the amount of the annual appropriation (Ark~ Stat. 17-416)." "No County Court-shall make or authorize any contract-in excess of the revenue from all sources for the fiscal year in which the said contract-is made- (Constitution Amendment No. 10)." Under the statutory and constitutional provisions in Arkansas, it is impossible for the three principal counties involved in the land purchase for the Felsenthal Navigation Pool to make the expenditures that would be necessary in spite of their avowed willingness. They can and will carry out their original agreement to provide the lands needed for the locks and dams, river cutoffs, spoil areas, etc. At this point the Ouachita River Valley Association, as the sponsor of the Ouachita River 9-Foot Navigation Project, has only three solutions to the prob- lem: (1) abandon this needed and worthwhile project in Arkansas; (2) have the Congress to authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge the 9-foot channel through the Felsenthal Basin; or (3) call upon the Congress to amend the 1950- 1960 authorizations for the Ouachita-Black River 9-Foot Project to make the cost of the additional lands that will be flooded in the Felsenthal Pool to become a part of the project cost. The people are asking for this help because it is something they cannot do for themselves. The Ouachita River Valley Association believes that the favorable benefit cost ratio of 1.5 to 1 of the present project can easily absorb the approxi- mately $3 million in additional land costs and remain a sound project. Especially is this true because the cost of dredging and maintaining a 9-foot channel through this low land area of the Ouachita River would far exceed the cost of the flooded and buffer zone lands. The people in the Ouachita River Basin want the presently authorized 9-foot channel in the Ouachita River to be completed to Camden, Arkansas. They will accept any engineering approach the Corps of Engineers may suggest; however, the people see their greatest economic and social advantages developing from the high-lift locks and dams as now proposed by the Corps. The proposed height of the minimum pool for the Felsenthal Lock and Dam will stand at 65.0 feet m.s.l. At this height a lake of about 14,500 acres will be formed. This will be a tremendous economic asset for all of South-Southeast Arkansas and Northeast Louisiana. The Felsenthal area of the Ouachita River flood plain is flooded extensively each year. On the average the annual flooding above the 65.0 feet m.s.l., minimum pool stage, shows a duration of 102 days with the average yearly height of the flooding calculated to be 74.5 feet m.s.l. This average is 9.5 feet `above the mini- mum pool stage. The average days of flooding above 70 feet m.s.l. `are 49, and the average number of days flooding above 75 feet m.s.'l. are 20. For this and other economic reasons the fish and wildlife interests `have pro- posed `a 5-foot increase in the height of the Felsenthal Lock and Dam to operate in the winter `and early spring months to form a water fowl resting and feeding PAGENO="0585" 571 area and fish spawning grounds. This superimposed project would require the inundation of another 12,180 acres, and for the 5-month period it would be opera- tive, the `whole project would form a lake of approximately 38,000 acres. This temporary superimposed tody of water would in no way affect navigation. The ORVA believes that the fish and wildlife interests should provide all of the `additional fiowage rights necess'ary for such a projec;t. They indicate that this can and will be done. The primary interest of the Ouachita River Valley Association in this case is navigation, `and it hopes to avoid any unnecessary delay in the construction of the 9-foot channel project, by the same token, this Association wants `to take full advantage of all possible secondary and regional expansion benefits that will accrue from the super-recreational pool. Mr. Chairman and Members of the `Committee, thank you for hearing us today. PAGENO="0586" 572 Mr. THATCHER. Our problem is we have a 6½-foot navigation chan- nel in the Ouachita River that has become antiquated and the Congress has very generously given us a 9-foot authorization. We are progressing very well with that in the State of Louisiana, but when we got into the State of Arkansas we ran into an insurmount- able obstacle, so far as our local interests were concerned. The local interests, of course, had agreed to furnish the rights-of- way and all the spoil areas and what-have-you that usually goes along with this. But that was in the original 9-foot channel authorizatiou. Tn 1960, the engineers had restudied it and came up with a very much better project for us. And this would obscure the depth of the channel PAGENO="0587" 573 by raising the heights of the lock and dam, rather than dredging the river, this being the cheaper method. This works all right in all parts of the river except one particular part that we are concerned with here today. When it comes to what we know as the Felsenthal lock and dam. In addition, the first 61/2-foot channel has six locks and dams. The new one will only have four, two in Louisiana and two in Arkansas. When we got to the Arkansas portion of the 9-foot channel and what we call the Felsenthal lock and dam, we found there a peculiar geological situation that I don't believe exists anywhere else in this country, where the river banks are so low that when you raise the height of the locks and darns just a little bit, you cover a tremendous lot of land. And we found out by raising the height, according to the engi- neers' program, to get the 9-foot channel, we actually had to inundate another 9,500 acres of land. Then the engineers, of course, have to have a bumper area of about 2 or 3 feet ~levation, `and this adds another 10,000 acres. In Arkansas, we are `a little unfortunate, I guess; `certainly not as fortunate as Louisiana where t'hey have a public works depart- ment that can act as the local interest. In Arkansas it is the individual county that has to do that. And we have found that when we went to `add up those acres and those counties, they did not have the money to do it. They could not do it. And then we also found that we have a State law that prohibits the counties from expending any more than 90 percent of what they can take in each year. Also out of a constitutional amendment in Arkansas it prohi'bits the counties from obligating one county judge whose term is only 2 years, over into the next one. So we are stymied. We are stopped. We have a terrible situation so far as we are concerned. We are perfectly willing to go `ahead, and we did agree to furnish all the land that was required, because at one time we thought we were going to get that land almost for nothing. But it has been 10, 12 years since this thing began. Now land values have gone up to the point where we cannot get it given to us. (Mr. Dorn assumed the chair.) Mr. THATCHER. And they found out that other Government proj- ects of t'his nature, the Government is furnishing and buying the land for whatever purpose it is required for. So the people that own the land say: "If you can `buy it elsewhere, buy it from us." So we are in `a stymied position. We `are asking for something that we cannot do for ourselves. We have about 20,000 acres of land there that really does not add anything to the naviga- tion pool except that it is there and has to be inundated and incidentally the whole cost, I think, of the project, by buying that land and get- ting the navigation channel, the 9-foot navigation channel that way, is cheaper than if they dug the channel 3 feet deeper to get the 9 feet. So that is about what we are up against. I have a little map here. This map shows what we are talking about in t'his particular naviga- tion pool. Just hold it up there, and you can see what we are talking about [indicating]. PAGENO="0588" 574 You can see pretty well the colored part here [indicating.] This is supposed to be blue and that is a different color. That color is the amount of land- Mr. PORN. Excuse me. You may leave that for the record; if you have an extra map, you might leave it for the record. Mr. Cox. You have a map with each one of these exhibits. Mr. THATCHER. This is the enlarged one. I will be glad to leave that for the committee's study. Mr. PORN. Thank you, sir. Mr. THATCHER. The other color on there is an added attraction that has been placed into this thing by the Fish and Wildlife people. They want to put an extra 5 feet of water in there and hold it for about 5 months for duck shooting and fishing and it is a marvelous project. But that is over and beyond the navigation. We are particularly con- cerned now with just the navigation. We favor the other, but we are particularly talking to the navigation part of it. That is what happens in that particular area where the low banks, the geological situation is such that it just floods all that land. And that is over and beyond anything that we expected. Our local interests sim- ply cannot pay even the small amount that that land will now cost, and we are asking that this Congress give us, or modify that authorization so that the cost of that excessive overflow land will become a part of the project cost. We believe that the engineers will testify to the fact that the project could stand it so far as the benefit-cost ratio is con- cerned. I think, Mr. Chairman, unless there are questions, I will call on Mr. Cox, who represents the big industries in that area, to say a few words about the value of getting this project on up the river, because we have to have it. It is our bread and butter, and we have to have this naviga- tion project completed as it was first authorized. He will tell you briefly what the industries feel about it, if I may call on him. Mr. PORN. Mr. Cox. Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are cer- tainly grateful for this opportunity to present our case and we have had the 6½-foot channel since 1924. As Mr. Thatcher explained, it is obsolete now. The industries in that area, of which there are a number, are at an economic disadvantage with other areas with which they are in competition. When they ship anything on a barge, they can only load it approximately half full. And of course, you can see the economics there, that we are suffering from this situation. This area in which we are located down there is in an area that needs some economic stimulation, and the fact that we are suffering from this situation, and we could get the 9-foot channel, it would certainly give us an economic spurt, and enable us to keep operating plants there that are now having difficulty in operating. I thank you very much. Mr. PORN. Thank you very much. Mr. THATCHER. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from Mr. H. W. McMillan, who is our legislative committeeman for the association? prepared for this occasion, and I would like to file it. It is pretty well detailed. PAGENO="0589" 575 Mr. DORN. Without objection. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF H. W. MOMILLAN IN BEHALF OF OUAOHITA RIVER VALLEY AsSoCIATIoN I am H. W. McMillan of Arkadeiphia, Arkansas, appearing today in behalf of the Ouachita River Valley Association asking for an amendment to the authorization of the Nine-Foot Navigation Project on the Ouachita River. (Rivers and Harbors Act of 1960-Public Law 86-645). The Oua*chita River rises in Western Arkansas and flows southeasterly across Southwest Arkansas and Northeast Louisiana changing to the Black and flows into the Red. In its original state, the Ouachita was navigable and the first artery of traffic from New Orleans into Central Arkansas. But with the cutting of the virgin tim- ber and the clearing of land, in order to keep the channel open, it was necessary to seek government aid, the first of which was authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1871. The existing locks and dams, which provide a 61/2 foot channel, were constructed prior to 1924 and have been obsolete for many years. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1950 authorized the modernization of the chan- nel to provide nine foot minimum depths under one of two plans: (A) the lengthening of the six existing locks from 55'X268' to 55'X525' and deepening the channel by dredging it, and (B) adjustments to the channel alignment and minor modifications to the locks and dams to provide a nine foot minimum depth approximately 90% of the time. Before this nine-foot channel could be activated your committee adopted a Resolution (10 August 1957) to review the project. This review resulted in the project authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act approved 14 July 1960 (Public Law 86-645) which provided for the construction of four new locks of a higher lift in lieu of lowering and lengthening the six existing locks. This project is now under construction and the two dams in Louisiana are nearS ing completion. The two dams in Arkansas have not been begun and it is to the first of these dams (which we know as the Felsenthal Dam) that we desire to direct your attention. The Felsenthal area is a geological anomaly. We understand that nowhere else in the nation can 300,000 cubic feet of water per second flow into the basin and yet only 100,000 feet flow out. The basin is flat and dish shaped and when the water level rises one foot, it floods thousands of acres. Originally (under the authorization of 1950) the Corps of Engineers proposed to obtain the nine-foot minimum depth by digging the channel deeper, which, of course, would not involve flooding any additional lands. However, when the project was re-studied (under the resolution of 10 August 1957) it was recommended that the height of the dam be raised 3.5 feet which would inundate an additional 9500 acres of land permanently and perhaps an additional 10,000 acres at various times. Local interests were required to furnish, free of cost to the United States, all lands, easements, right-of-ways including fiowage rights necessary for the con- struction of the project. In 1950, when assurances were originally given local interests, it was contem- plated by both the Engineers and local interests that only the sites for the lock, the spoil areas and certain access rights-of-way were required. Probably less than 325 acres of sub-marginal land having a true value of not more than $25.00 an acre would have been involved. (See Table B-4-Appendices to Engineers' Report 15 May 1959). However, the plan suggested by the Corps in Senate Document 112 (80th Con- gress) and adopted and authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act (approved 14 July 1960-Public Law 86-645), envisions that local interests would be called upon to provide approximately 20,000 acres at a then estimated cost of $1,270,000, which will be more at this time. The Report (Senate Document No. 112-8Gth Congress, Second Session, Page 38, Paragraph 54) recognized that- "Local interests . . . take the position that the informal assurances fur- nished for the presently authorized project did not envision raising the existing pools, but rather the lengthening and deepening of the locks which PAGENO="0590" 576 plan would require only modest contributions on the part of local interests. Local interests further state that even though the plans of improvement now being considered all involve substantial right-of-way requirements, their original desire to cooperate has not changed and that they will cooperate to to the extent of their financial ability. The Ouachita River Valley Associa- tion has indicated that it will undertake to sponsor the efforts of local in- erests in complying wih all requirements of the local cooperation as set forth herein." A letter from the Ouachita River Valley Association was attached (Page 48) saying: "There is a feeling among most of the directors that the cost of any ad- ditional lands required to be inundated should be a part of the project cost as it is in practically all other navigation projects and especially should this be true in this case where the overall cost of providing the nine-foot depth channel will be less by virtue of raising the height of the lock and dam and the flooding of this additional 12,000 acres. The directors of the Ouadhita River Valley Association hope and believe that the Congress will relieve the local navigation interests of this obligation when the subject can be brought before Congress." This is our reason for being before this committee today-to ask that this au- thorization be modified so as to permit the Corps of Engineers to acquire the lands which will be flooded by the raising of the locks rather than to place this burden upon local interests which cannot legally sustain it. The Corps report (Senate Document No. 112-86th Congress, Second Session) considered and discussed seventeen different possible plans for this project. Plan 14, which, in the report, was shown as Plan D, was the plan which the Congress authorized. This project provided for four new 50' X 400' locks. The one at Felsenthal would be located at the site of the existing lock and dam and would be rehabilitated and raised 3.5 feet. This Plan P would cost $45,030,000.00 and had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.35 which was greater than any of the other plans considered. The report also noted (Page 28) that the annual maintenance cost of the project can be reduced by raising Pool No. 6 (Felsenthal), because of the reduction of the annual dredging by some $68,000.00 in this pool. Plan 15 was identical with Plan D, (the authorized plan) "except that existing Pool No. 6 would not be raised." The original cost of Plan P. to the Federal Government w-ould be $43,590,000.00 as compared to 543.771,000.00 for Plan 15. but the cost to local interests on Plan D. would be $1,440.000.00 as compared with $201,000.00 for Plan 15. Actually the total cost of Plan 15 was the cheapest-$43,972,000.OO as compared w-ith $45,- 030.00000 for Plan P. The benefit-cost ratio of Plan 15 (with the deepened channel) was 1.34 as com- pared with 1.35 for the authorized project, and it seems rather clear that the reason for the adopting of the proposed Plan P, raising the pool 3.5 feet and creating a vast lake, was due to the difference in the annual maintenance cost of dredging which was some $68,000.00 at this pooL In spite of the fact that local interests had some doubts as to its ability to provide this vast acreage, it undertook, in good faith, to do everything in its power to comply. In January 1962 the County Courts of the various coun- ties involved, which are the proper local interests, entered an Order authorizing the County Judge to sign and deliver, on behalf of the County, assurances of local cooperation as required by the Corps of Engineers and these acts of assur- ances were executed and delivered to the Corps with proper legal opinions that the County Court was the proper authority authorized to grant such assurances. While these County Courts are the proper local interests to give these assur- ances, nevertheless, their legal ability to perform such a commitment financially is extremely limited. "No County shall levy a tax to exceed one-half of one percent (of the assessed value of all property) for all purposes (Const. 16 p 9). The County's appropria- tions cannot exceed 90% of the taxes levied in any one year (Ark. Stat. 17- 411) no County Court can make a contract in excess of the amount of the an- nual appropriation (Ark. Stat. 17-416)." "No County Court . . . shall make or authorize any contract. . . in excess of the revenue from all sources for the fiscal year in which said contract is made . . . (Constitution Amendment No. 10)." PAGENO="0591" 577 The sum and substance of these statutory and constitutional provisions is that, in spite of the County's avowed willingness to cooperate to the limit of their legal and financial ability, it is impossible for these four small Counties in South Arkansas to expend ~1,27O,0O0.O0 for lands to be flooded by this project. So, we have a project that is economically justified, either by raising the locks and flooding a large area or by dredging. Dollar-Wise, there is no dif- ference between the two methods although there may be a decided engineering advantage in raising the locks. The project is approximately half completed but under the present author- ization the Corps of Engineers cannot proceed with the two upper locks be- cause the Arkansas Counties, although willing and legally cooperative, cannot financially provide the funds to acquire the lands required by this plan. There are three possible solutions. First, to abandon the upper half (the Arkansas part) of the project recogniz- ing that because of the Counties' financial inability the river can never be re- stored to its original navigable condition, and the project under construction will have small value or use. Second, to modify the authorization by permitting the Corps of Engineers to acquire the lands needed as a part of the construction cost of the project just as has been done in many other navigation projects. Third, authorize the Corps of Engineers to modify its design and dredge the channel in the Felsenthal Reservoir. The Ouachita River Valley Association respectfully requests this committee to modify the Ouachita Navigation Project as authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act (approved 14 July 1960-Public Law 86-645) in order `that the project may be completed. We do not express a preference as `to engineering approach for we believe that the people of the valley will accept either solution which the Corps of Engi- neers may recommend. Perhaps, one other point should be discussed. To the Engineers Report (86th Congress) there was attached a report by the Fish and Wildlife Service indicat- ing that to superimpose an additional four feet onto the raised lock and dam No. 6 would result in vast advantages to fish and wildlife conservation and the Corps of Engineers' present plan is to superimpose this wildlife pool upon the navigation pool. This would involve an additional 23,000 acres of land which, although not permanently inundated, would be flooded several months in the year. The local interests will also be called upon to provide easements on this additional land. The owners of this land will not give these easements and the land will have to be purchased or condemned, which, of course, the Counties cannot do finan- cially. We understand from local sponsors of this fish and wildlife pool that they will be able to provide from other Federal Funds the money with which to acquire this land and that in fact, the acquisition of the lands for the fish and wildlife pool will not present any problem. Mr. THATCHER. I have another paper from our county judges. There are three county judges involved in this thing, mostly three. There is actually a fourth, but they have such a small amount it does not amount to very much, and they have presented their reasons for their inabilities to carry forward. Mr. PORN. Without objection. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES W. EARNEST, COUNTY JUDGE OF BRADLEY COUNTY, ARK. My dear Mr. Chairman, I am James W. Earnest, County Judge of Bradley County, Arkansas. As a member of the Ouachita River Valley Association, I appeared with County Judge W. T. Higginbotham of Ashley `County and County Judge Carlton Jerry of Union County before the Senate Public Works Commit- tee on May 23, 1968, requesting a modification in the Congressional authoriza- tion of the Ouachita-Black River Navigation Project to allow the cost of the flooded lands in the Felsenthal Navigation Pool to become a part of the project co~st. This request is made because the three counties most heavily involved are unable to purchase the required acreages due to limited finances and State PAGENO="0592" 578 statutes which prohibit counties from obligating themselves for more than 90 per cent of their annual income. We regret that time and travel allowances will not permit us to return to Washington for this hearing. Actually, there are five counties in Arkansas that are involved in the whole Ouachita River Navigation Project; namely, Bradley, Ashley, Union, Calhoun, and Ouachita. Ninety-nine (99) per cent of the Felsenthal Navigation Pool problem affects the first three counties. I shall confine my remarks to the portion of the reports pertaining to county governments and their relationship to this project. First. in behalf of the five county governments involved, I should like to ex- press our appreciation to the Vicksburg District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers for their spirit of cooperation in furnishing necessary maps and documents to the county governments and the Association. The county governments from the Louisiana border to the Camden port are all completely in support of this project, realizing its far-reaching importance to our area of the United States. And, even though we have signed assurances and have cooperated to the very best of our abilities, we find that with all our sincere desire to work and cooperate with all interested in the project, we fall short of being* able to financially accomplish that which is expected of us. Our county government structure is such that we find it financially impossible to acquire the necessary lands for this much needed and economically sound navigation project. Attached to this report are legal opinions from the Attorney General's Office of the State of Arkansas, to the Honorable John L. McClellan, which explains some of the legal authorities and limitations of our county governments. To stress the point, I shall use my own county as an example: To bring the Channel to 9' or 67 M.S.L. will require approximately 2,590 acres in my county alone. Even at a minimum of $100.00 per acre, the estimated cost would be $259,000.00. The total General Revenue for 1967 was $128,295.92. More than half of the General Revenue is required to satisfy Statutory Claims; leaving approxi- mately $64,000.00 to pay Contractual Claims which are necessary for the proper conduct of the county government. $117,071.08 was expended for these purposes. If ways can be found to overcome these problems, the five County Judges repre- senting their county governments, pledge their wholehearted cooperation and support in bringing the 9' Channel on the Ouachita to a reality. The five County Governments along with the Ouachita River Valley Association respectfully request the Congress of the United States to modify the Ouachita Navigation Project as authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act approved 14 July, 1960 (Public Law 86-645) in order that this project may be completed. This report respectfully submitted in behalf of the county governments of Ashley, Union, Ouacbita, Calhoun, and Bradley County. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Little Rock, Ark., May11, 1967. Mr. H. K. THATCHER, EcvecRtive Vice President, Ouacliita River Valley Association, Camden, Ark. DEAR MR. THATCHER: In regard to our recent conference you stated that the counties making up the Felsenthal Navigation Complex are having some problems in trying to buy title to land in the complex in compliance with applicable Federal Acts. You stated that there are three counties in the project area and that some 20,000 acres are involved at an average cost of $100.00 per acre; you further said that the counties do not have the revenues to pay cash. Please be advised that the County Courts are limited in the amount of taxes which they can levy and are specifically limited in the appropriations which they can make. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-411 (1956 Repl.), provides: "The court shall specify the amount of appropriations for each purpose in dollars and cents, and the total amount of appropriations for all county or district purposes for any one (1) year shall not exceed ninety per cent (90%) of the taxes levied for that year." Also. Ark. Stat. Ann § 17-416 (1956 Repl.) provides: "No county court or agent of any county shall hereafter make any contract on behalf of the county unless an appropriation has been previously made therefor and is wholly or in part unexpended; and in no event shall any county court or agent of any county make any contract in excess of any such appropriation made, and the amount of such contract or contracts shall be limited to the amount of the appropriation made by the quorum court." PAGENO="0593" 579 In view `of the above limitation, I see no way in which the affected counties may legally purchase the required `land on the "local interest" project. Trusting the above information will be beneficial to you, I remain, Very truly yours, JOE PURCELL, Attorney General. By WILLIAM R. HASS, Assistant Attorney General. Mr. THATCHER. I have a third resolution from the Arkansas Water- ways Commission, which simply endorses `what we have done from a navigation standpoint. And I would like to turn that in' for the record. Mr. PORN. Likewise that will be included in the record. (The resolution follows:) RESOLUTION Whereas the Arkansas General Assembly of 1967 established the Arkansas Waterways Commission to act for and in the behalf of the `State in promoting, developing and protecting the inland waterway interests in Arkansas, and Whereas the Ouachita-Black River navigation project `to increase the present 61/9 foot channel to a standard 9 foot channel was authorized by the Congress in 1950, and amended in 1958 and in 1960, must again be amended if this ceo-. nomically justified and badly needed project with a 1.541 benefit cost ratio is to be completed bringing the 9 foot navigation channel up to Camden, Arkansas, and Whereas the late modifications of the project have brought about the necessity for the local interests to purchase an additional 24,500 acres of land beyond the original authorization requirements, and Whereas the local interests, which in the case of Arkansas, must be the immedi- ate counties involved, are not financially able to purchase the lands required and are prohibited by law from obligating themselves for such a sizeable purchase, and Whereas this land problem is confined to the Felsenthal Lock and Dam naviga- tion pool concerning only three Arkansas Counties and the people involved are only asking for something they cannot do for themselves, and Whereas many precedents have been established where the Federal govern- ment has purchased lands needed for such flooded areas where the benefits were widespread as in the case of this Ouachita River navigation project: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Arkansas Waterways Commission join with `the Ouachita River Valley Association and all of `the people in South Arkansas in urging the Congress to amend the existing Ouachita-Black River 9 foot channel navigation project to make the cost of the excess overflow lands needed for the project be- come a part of the project cost. Approved this 15th day of May, 1968. PRATT REMMEL, Chairman. CARL OLssoN, Acting E~vecutive Director. Mr. PORN. Any questions from the committee? Mr. HARSHA. I would like to find out where the `Corps of Engineers report is on this project now? Where does that stand? Can you tell me? Mr. THATCHER. Where does it stand? Mr. HARSHA. Yes. Have `they completed their report? Mr. THATCHER. They have completed it. Mr. HARSHA. Well, the purpose of your `appearance here is for the committee to authorize the purchase of additional land that is going to be inundated by this project? Mr. THATcHER. We find that we are unable to purchase the land that has to be inundated for this particular project. This is separate and apart from land on which the dam will be placed, and cutoffs in 97-700---68------38 PAGENO="0594" 580 the river, and overflow, and spoil areas. That is something entirely separate from that. Mr. HARsHA. How much land is involved? Mr. THATCHER. Well, according to the Engineers' figures there will be inundated an additional 9,500 acres to get to the top of the mini- mum navigational pool, 9-foot navigation pool. Then they require an extra 2 feet of land for a buffer area to take care of ground water damage and wave wash, and so forth, and that requires about another 10,000 acres. Now none of the figures come out the same for each survey that is made, because that land is so flat in there that until you actually get down with an estimate, I don't think you are ever going to know exactly what it is. I am sure it is going to be less than what we have been saying, hut I have been using the Corps of Engineers' figures. Mr. TIARsHA. If I understand you right, you need an additional 9,000 and then an additional 10,000, in round figures, to conclude the `buffer portion of it. Mr. THATCHER. For the navigation portion. Mr. HARSHA. We are talking roughly in the neighborhood of 19,000 to 20,000 acres. Can you give us an estimate as to the cost? Mr. THATCHER. Well, I think the cost is going to run around $100 an acre. Mr. HARSHA. $2 million? Mr. THATCHER. I believe that is what it is going to cost. Now maybe it will cost less than that when we get down to the actual figure. It is a negotiable thing. Mr. HARSHA. What is the land used for now? Mr. THATCHER. The land is in timber now. However, some folks, and I think they are foolish folks, are trying to clear some of it up to grow soybeans on it.; but they cannot possibly, according to the records, get more than three crops every 5 years, maybe not that often. They think they can. `And as long as they think they can, well they `bid for the land. And so that has had a tendency to make the land go up. All prices have gone up, and they have found some new ways to use some of that hardwood timber. it is all hardwood, no pine a.t all, all hardwood, and a relatively low- grade hardwood. But it has value, and they want the value out of it. Mr. HARSHA. Has there been any recent sales of comparable land in that area so we know what the average market value would be? Mr. THATCHER. Well, so far as I know, none has been sold in there. I knew a year or two ago there was an offer made to sell a tract of $25 an acre and nobody wanted to buy. Then all of a sudden the price began to go up. And some land has been traded in there. Some of the big companies have traded land; but so far as I know, no money values have been attached to it. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. Mr. PORN. Mr. Cramer. Mr. ORAMER. No questions. Mr. PoRN. Thank you, Mr. Thatcher, and thank you, Mr. Congress- man. Mr. PExoim. I might just add this, that we feel this is a most worth- while project. There have been several million dollars expended on this PAGENO="0595" 581 project. We feel that roughly this $2 million that we anticipated at this point and did not anticipate the Federal Government outlaying before hand, we feel that without this money that our project will pos- sibly come to a standstill. And we want to thank the committee very much for the many acts of kindness in the past. Mr. DORN. Is this in your district? Mr. PRYOR. This particular location is in our district. Various parts of the project are in other districts and go down into the Louisiana area. We do thank the committee very much. Mr. PORN. We appreciate the Congressman for being with us and bringing your constituents before the committee. Mr. Dulski, we are delighted to have you. Go ahead and proceed. BUFFALO, N.Y., LAND CONVEYANCE (H.R. 510) STATEMENT OP HON. TRADDEUS J. DULSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP NEW YORK Mr. DUL5KI. Mr. Chairman, my esteemed colleagues of this Subcom- mittee on Rivers and Harbors, I appreciate the prompt action you have taken on H.R. 510. I have a very brief statement. And then, of course, we have here with us Mr. Baker, who is from the Parks Depart- ment, City of Buffalo. I just want to tell Mr. Harsha that there is no cost involved in this. Mr. HARSHA. Congratulations. Mr. DULSKI. I appreciate very much your prompt consideration of my bill, H.R. 510, to provide for the conveyance of certain real prop- erty of the United States, underlying Lake Erie, to the city of Buf- falo, N.Y. What is involved in the legislation is the title to certain underwater lands along Lake Erie at a point known as Times Beach where the city of Buffalo proposes to develop a recreation area, including a large swimming pool. Title to the land was believed to rest in the State, but a search raised doubt on ownership. The Army Corps of Engineers has determined that ownership now rests in the U.S. Government. The city feels that it cannot proceed with its recreational develop- ment unless it has title to the property. As you know, Mr. Chairman, both the Department of the Army and the Department of Interior have recommended approval of my bill with certain amendments. The Army wants to retain the right to use the submerged lands for a spoil disposal area for materials dredged from the Buffalo Harbor project. The Department of Interior agrees, but feels a terminal date of 1971 should be placed on the Army rights. Mr. Chairman, my home city of Buffalo is anxious to proceed with this project and has been frustrated by the delay and confusion over the ownership of the lands. I hope that the subcommittee will recommend approval of my bill for conveyance to the real property to the city of Buffalo, N.Y. Mr. Dur~sKI. I will ask Mr. Baker to continue to give the expert testimony. PAGENO="0596" 582 STATEMENT OP NELSON BAKER, PARKS DEPARTMENT, CITY OP BUFFALO, fl.Y. Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, your honorable committee, for being able to appear. here. I would like to re.ad this statement and leave it with your committee. Your honorable committee is presently considering a bill to convey to the city of Buffalo, without consideration, approximately 51 acres of underwater lands adjacent to so-called Times Beach, in the city of Buffalo, N.Y. This area is adjacent to a parcel of approximately 11 acres of up- lands previously conveyed by the U.S. Government to the city of Buf- falo in 1952 for park purposes. It is the intention and desfre of the city of Buffalo to use the entire 62 acres for park purposes for the benefit of the public. After the 11 acres were conveyed by the U.S. Government, the city found that the acreage was too small for the type of park desired, which was for picnicking and boating purposes, and efforts were made to obtain the additional underwater lands for the purposes necessary to carry out the intentions of the city. Maps of the area in question indicated that the underwater land was owned by the State of New York, and previous efforts had been made to obtain title from the State. However, after careful examination of the records, it was finally determined, after many years of research, that the State of New York had previously, in 1~06, conveyed these lands to the U.S. Government. The question of title was finally deter- mined by counsel for the United States Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, in an opinion rendered in October 1986. Thereafter, such in- formation was conveyed to Congressman Dulski, who thereupon intro- duced a bill in Congress for the purpose of conveying such land to the city of Buffalo for park uses. Such bill was subsequently referred to your honorable committee. Thereafter, it was my understanding that your committee referred the matter to the U.S. Corps of Engineers for their report. After the Corps of Engineers received such referral it communicated with the city of Buffalo, and a representative of the city discussed the matter with the Corps of Engineers in Washington. In the course of such discussion, the Corps of Engineers indicated to the city of Buffalo that it desired to fill such area with dredge materials and requested that the city indicate in a resolution `by the common council that such conveyance be subject to the rights of the Corps of Engineers to ff1 the area with dredgings from the Buffalo River. Subsequently, the city of Buffalo, pursuant to resolution No. 116, common council proceedings of October 10, 1967, enacted the required legislation, a copy of which has been forwarded to your honorable committee by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Pursuant to the resolution enacted by the Common Council of the city of Buffalo, the city of Buffalo has agreed that the Corps of Engi- neers may use such land for the purposes of filling the same with dredging material. As soon as the area has been completely ffled with dredging matter, the city of Buffalo will place thereon topsoil to make it available for park purposes and build thereon the facilities to utilize the area as a park. The present plans for such area are to build base- PAGENO="0597" 583 ball diamonds, tennis courts, picnic areas, and an area for passive recreation. It is the desire of the city of Buffalo to commence with this park and recreational area as soon as it has been ifiled by the Corps of Engineers, and it is respectfully requested that your hon- orable committee act favorably on the bill presently before it. Mr. PORN. Thank you, Mr. Baker. Are there any other statements that you want in the record, Con- gressman? Mr. DULsKIr. No, there is not. There is just the dispute of title, and I think that has been cleared through the courts. My statement says the Army wants to retain the right to use the submerged lands for a spoil-disposal area for materials dredged from the Buffalo Harbor project. The Department of the Interior agrees, but feels a terminal date of 1971 should be placed on the Army rights. Mr. BAKER. I am putting in the record our council proceedings. Mr. PORN. Without objection, it will all be included in the record. (The information referred to follows:) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, CITY HALL, Baffalo, October 13, 1967. To Whom It May Concern: I Hereby Certify, That at a Session of the Common Council of the City of Buffalo, held in the City Hall, on the Tenth day of October 1967, a resolution was passed, of which the following is a true copy: No. 116 UNDERWATER LANDS ADJACENT TO TIMES BEACH [Item No. 227, C.O.P., September 12, 1967] Whereas, The City of Buffalo, for a number of years, has expressed its interest to acquire, for use as a park and recreational area, the underwater lands in Lake Erie adjacent to Times Beach, so-called, to effect beautification of the lakefront of the City of Buffalo, and Whereas, there is now pending before the 90th Congress, First Session, H.R. 5i0, introduced by Congressman Thaddeus J. Duiski, providing that the Secre- tary of the Army shall convey, without monetary consideration, to The City of Buffalo, the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the real property underlying Lake Erie containing approximately 51 acres or more, as more particularly described therein, commonly called and designated in the City of Buffalo as "underwater lands adjacent to Times Beach", and Whereas, said Bill was referred to the Committee of Public Works of Congress, which Committee has requested the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army to make a recommendation regarding the conveyance, and. Whereas, the Corps of Engineers had indicated that it desires to fill such under~ water lands in the area, the subject of the aforesaid Bill, with dredge materials from the Buffalo River and Lake Erie and has requested that the City agree to the use of such land by the Corps of Engineers for such purpose as a condi- tion to recommending the approval of the conveyance, and Whereas, it is for the best interests of the City to accept a conveyance, with- out monetary consideration, from the Secretary of the Army of the United States on the terms and conditions hereinafter specified so that the lands under- lying Lake Erie, hereinbefore mentioned, can be used as a park and recreational area: Now, therefore, be it l?esolved, That The City of Buffalo does hereby agree to accept, without mone- tary consideration, from the Secretary of the Army of the United States, a deed or instrument of conveyance to the real property underlying Lake Erie, more specifically described in the aforesaid H.R. 510, subject to the following terms, covenants, and conditions, to wit: (a) That the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, its agents, ser- vants, or employees, General Contractors or Subcontractors, shall be allowed, PAGENO="0598" 584 permitted, and authorized to have access to, and egress from, the aforesaid underwater lands for the purpose of diking and filling the same with dredge mate- rials from the Buffalo River and Lake Erie for a period not exceeding four years; provided, however, that the period of four years shall be deemed extended un- til such time as is needed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to complete a project commenced within the four years period; (b) That, during the period the Corps of Engineers is diking and filling the underwater lands, at its own cost, the City of Buffalo will not exercise any power, authority, or domain over the same to interrupt, interfere with, or delay the project of the Corps of Engineers, and (c) That, in the event the Corps of Engineers completes the dike or fill of the underwater lands prior to the four years bereinbefore provided, or abandons the project at any time before the four years expire, for any cause whatsover, upon written notice thereof forwarded to the Common Council, at Buffalo, New York, The City of Buffalo will thereupon be authorized and empowered to take possession thereof to use the same as a park and recreational area, and (d) That, as a part of the consideration. for the conveyance of said under- water lands, as herein recited, The City of Buffalo agrees that, upon such under- water lands being diked and filled with the material, or upon the abandonment of the Project by the Corps of Engineers for any cause whatsoever, as above stated, it will thereafter develop and use the real property underlying Lake Erie described in H.R. 510 for a park and recreational area. Recommended by Committee on Finance, Andrew J. Morrisey, Chairman. Passed. Ayes: Black, Buyers, Dudzick, Elfvin, Franczyk, Gorski, Johnson, Lewan- dowski, Makowski, Mitchell, Morrisey, Perla, Regan, Whalen (14). Noes:Lyman (1). I further certify the above resolution was approved and signed by the Mayor, October 11, 1967 and returned to the City Clerk October11, 1967. Attest: (signed) City Clerk. Mr. DORN. I also want Congressman Duiski to know that our good colleague Mr. McCarthy of this committee will also have a statement. Mr. Harsha? Mr. HARSHA. I would like to point outthat we have got several prob- lems with this bill, Mr. Chairman. One is that the United States maintains it owns title to the land, 46 acres involved. You previously got 5 acres, at which time you paid 50 percent of the purchase price, fair market value for that, which is the existing law. In addition to that, the GSA has not declared it to be surplus prop- erty, and there must be such a finding before it can dispose of it. Then if it disposes of it to a public body for recreation park services, I am further advised that they must do so at a least 50 percent of the fair market value. So we have got these problems confronting us on this. Do you want to comment on that any further? Mr. DuI~sKI. It is my understanding that these lands were trans- ferred from the States, from New York State, to the Corps of Engi- neers, that there was no cost involved, as I understand it. Mr. HARSHA. I think you are right that originally it went from the State to the Corps of Engineers; but in order to transfer U.S.- owned lands to a public body, they have to comply with the existing law, and the General Services Administration must first declare it to be surplus property. Mr. DULsKI. We will follow the proper procedure. I understand GSA will have it. If it is declared surplus, it is turned over to the city. Mr. HARSHA. I have a statement here from the Administrator of GSA, and he says it was not declared surplus property. PAGENO="0599" 585 Mr. DULSKI. We are not aware of any statement from the GSA, Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. I am reading from a letter dated April 18, 1968, to the chairman of the committee, where it points out that originally 5 acres were sold to you at 50 percent of the fair market value for recreation purposes. Mr. DULSKI. I am advised by Mr. Baker that we did pay. Mr. BAKER. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. Also any further disposal of it would have to comply with the existing law unless we pick some special- Mr. DULSKI. Right at the present time, Mr. Harsha, we did not know about this letter. The city of Buffalo is not aware. That is why they passed the resolution. Mr. HARSHA. When your bill was introduced, it was referred to the various agencies involved with your comments, and I think that is how the committee happen to get their comment on it. Mr. DuiSKI. I appreciate the iirformation. Mr. HARSHA. They further suggest under existing law, if it were to be declared surplus, then the local government could purchase it, but it would have to make a payment of 50 percent of the fair market value. Then I understand the Department of Army still has some interest in it from the standpoint of pollution control in Lake Erie that may be used for- Mr. DULSKI. For sludge, that is right. I have that in the statement. Mr. HARSHA. I just wanted to know if you were aware of those problems. Mr. DULSKL Maybe Mr. McCarthy has some comments to make. Mr. HARSHA. I am sure he will have some in executive session. Mr. DORN. Mr. McCarthy, we already have permission for you to extend your remarks; but we would be pleased to have any comments that you might make. STATEMENT OP HON. RICHARD B. McCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP NEW YORK Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have the docu- ments that I have relating to this, mainly from the Corps~ of Engineers that has posed no objections to this. This land, as you note from those documents, was assumed for many years that it belonged to the State of New York. And it was only discovered recently that the title still is vested with the U.S. Government. This is a very needed project in our distinguished colleague, Congressman Dulski's district, and the recreational facilities in the city of Buffalo are lacking. Here we have this beautiful lake right at our doorstep, but there are no bathing facilities in the lake within the city limits. Now with the pollution effort that is now underway with a target date of 1972, we are looking forward to the day in about 5 years when swimming again will be permitted for the first time in my-when I was a little boy you could swim down here in this beach, and I swam there, and that was about 30 years, and there has not been swimming since then. PAGENO="0600" 586 Now we are looking forward to the day when there will be swimming in about 5 years. Now with the city, with Congressman Dulski's assistance and Mr. Baker's, have moved ahead on this much-needed project for the central core area of our city. And this to me is short of a case of-I do not see why they would have to pay half the fair market value; they did not even know they owned it until recently. It is something in the national interest. It is certainly something that is needed. The city did pay half of the value of one parcel of this land, in view of the corps' acceptance of it, with this one reservation, that they rwould hold in abeyance the possibility that they might have to use this as a dike dis- posal area. They might not. And I understand the Interior Department wants to put a time limit on that, because we are -working toward a target date of 1972 when all pollution should presumably have been halted, so that any- thmg dredged from the Buffalo River would not be contaminated, so they could put it any place. They could put it out in the lake again as they used to. I will of course address myself to it in executive session, but I wanted to take this chance to come down here and testify on behalf of this project in our distinguished colleague's district. It has been hanging fire for years, and this committee has -within its power to give the green light to something that is desperately needed in the city of Buffalo. Mr. HARSHA. May I ask you this question. I understand the corps has suggested an amendment to the legislation to provide that the United States reserve, convey the property to you people or to the city of Buffalo, subject to a reservation that the United States has a right to use the lands as long as they may be required for a spoil disposal area. Mr. BAKER. That is agreed to in your office. Mr. Dur~sKI. I think 1971. Mr. HARSHA. You have no objection to that? Mr. BAKr~. None at all. Mr. HARSHA. I am further advised that the Department of Interior has no objection to a transfer of the land to the Buffalo outer harbor project, for that project. What do you propose to do there? Did you put that in your statement? Mr. BAKER. Yes, that is in the statement. We are trying to fill this land; and as Congressman McCarthy said, it was polluted, you could not swim there. I was instructed to stQp filling it. The Corps of Engi- neers came into the picture. If they fill it, and we get the lands and develop the park, everybody will he happy. I hope you see eye to eye with it. Mr. DuI~sKI. The one important thing that my good friend, my col- league from New York made, Mr. McCarthy, is that the Government did not know; and as an attorney, 1906 is a long time, of course it is past my time, they did riot even Imow they had the land. Here is the city of Buffalo willing to spend millions almost of dollars for recrea- tion purposes, and this is a good area. It could not be used for any- thing else unless we recovered it. Mr. HARSHA. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) PAGENO="0601" 587 (Mr. Blatnik resumed the chair.) Mr. BLATNIK. Any further questions or comments? Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DULSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Congressmen. PORT JEFFERSON HARB~R, N.Y. The next project is Port Jefferson Harbor, N.Y. The witnesses are Mr. H. Lee Dennison, executive director, Suffolk County Riverhead, Long Island, N.Y.; and Mr. Ernest J. Corrado, American Merchant Marine, Inc., Washington, D.C. STATEMENT OP ERNEST J. CORRADO, AMERIcAN MERCHANT MARINE, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY WEINKAUFF Mr. Comt~Do. My name is Ernest J. Corrado. I am legislative as- sistant to Mr. Ralph Casey, president of American Merchant Marine Institute. Mr. Casey was called out of town on business today, so I am appearing on his behalf. And Mr. Weinkauff, special consultant to the institute on the Port Jefferson project, is appearing with me. I must say, Mr. Chairman, I appear as a witness in favor of this project with some disappointment and some anguish since the Con- gressman of the district appeared this morning in opposition. I hope though that an examination of the facts will show that the merits are on our side. I believe that they are. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit our statement for the record and just summarize our points in favor of this project. Mr. BLATNIK. That will be very helpful. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE INSTITUTE, INC. My name is Ernest J. Corrado. I am Legislative Assistant in the American Merchant Marine Institute, a national trade association composed of thirty-two United States companies which own and operate nearly 500 U.S-flag oceangoing passenger and general cargo vessels, tankers, and dry bulk carriers in the foreign and domestic trades of the United States. Certain of our member companies and others operate tankers to terminals in Port Jefferson Harbor,, New York. We are very grateful for the opportunity afforded us of presenting this state- ment in support of the Port Jefferson Harbor improvement project which, as recommended by the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, would provide for (1) deepening the channel from 26 to 40 feet, mean low water, and widening from 300 to 350 feet from deep water in Long Island Sound to the head of the harbor, a distance of about 2.3 miles, and (2) a turning basin near the inshore end of the channel 30 feet deep, 700 feet wide and 1,400 feet long. The need and economic justification of the Port Jefferson Harbor improvement project are fully established in the report of the Chief of Engineers which in- cludes the report of the New York District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of En- gineers, published in House Document NO. 277 (90th Congress, 2nd Session). The purpose of our statement is to bring to your attention some of the more important reasons and factors in support of this improvement project. BENEFITS TO GENERAL PUBLIC As stated by the New York District Engineer in Paragraph 67 of his report, the benefits or savings in transportation costs that would result from the use PAGENO="0602" of larger tankers at fully-loaded draft on a 40-foot channel into Port Jefferson Harbor "would reach the general public as lower prices for the products or as additional services offered to the consumer." The District Engineer also stated that "savings in transportation cost to the Long Island Lighting Company would be reflected in the rates charged users of electric power." The latter statement has been confirmed by the Long Island Lighting Company. One of the principal factors which determine the ultimate cost of products to consumers is the cost of transporting such products. Accordingly, a decrease or increase in the cost of transportation will have a corresponding effect on the consumer price structure. As you know, the policies, standards and criteria which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required to follow in evaluating the economic justification of waterway improvement projects and which are contained in Senate Docu- ment No. 97 (87th Congress) stipulate, among other things, that benefits esti- mated to accrue from a waterway improvement project niust exceed the cost of such project in order that the project may be considered to be economically justified. In the case of the Port Jefferson Harbor improvement project, the benefits estimated to accrue from the improvement project exceed the cost of the improvement by a ratio of 6 to 1, according to the report of the Chief of Engineers and New York District Engineer. This means that for every dollar the Federal Government might invest in this improvement project, benefits equivalent to $6.00 would be returned. This, of course, is a very favorable benefit- cost ratio. EFFECT OF INTERNATIONAL LOAD LINES CONVENTION, 1966 The new Load Lines Convention will come into force on an international basis July 21 of this year, as a result of which the freeboards of all qualified U.S. and foreign-flag vessels, including tankers operated to Port Yefferson har- bor, will be reduced considerably, enabling these vessels to operate at deeper drafts, thereby reducing transportation costs and increasing the cargo-carrying capacity and revenue-earning capability of such vessels. The operation of these vessels at deeper drafts resulting from the assignment of the reduced free- boards in the new Convention makes it all the more necessary that the present 26-foot channel into Port Jefferson Harbor be deepened to 40 feet in order to adequately accommodate such vessels. CHANNEL DEPTHS AT ORIGIN PORTS We wish to point out that a deeper channel into Port Jefferson Harbor is necessary in consideration of the fact that channels in practically all major ports on the U.S. Gulf coast from which petroleum products are shipped to U.S. ports on the Atlantic coast have been deepened to 40 feet. In line with this general trend, the channel to Providence Harbor, Rhode Island, is now being dredged to 40 feet and a channel of the same depth is expected to be approved for New Haven Harbor. ELIMINATION OF OIL BARGE TRAFFIC AND TERMINALS Reduction in the cost of transporting petroleum products into Port Jefferson Harbor through the use of larger tankers fully loaded on a 40-foot channel below the cost of transporting such products in barges from New York Harbor would. we believe, have the effect of gradually eliminating oil barge traffic in this harbor since distributors using barges will not be able to compete with the lower transportation costs of petroleum products carried in fully-loaded large tankers. MULTIPLE USER ASPECT The New York District Engineer. North Atlantic Division Engineer, Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army have all rejected the contention made by certain interests that the improvements recommended for accomplishment in Port Jefferson Harbor would benefit only a single company, namely. Consolidated Petroleum Terminal, Inc. The fact of the matter is that there are even now multiple users of the existing 26-foot channel and there will be additional users of the 40-foot channel when it in made available. The Long Island Lighting Company has stated that they would dredge an access channel to their berth from the 40-foot channel. Furthermore, Consolidated Petroleum Terminal, Inc., simply acts as a distribution agency for oil companies which deliver petroleum products to their dock in Port Jefferson Harbor for PAGENO="0603" 00 G~lfl~R~~L lAP ~ ~ ~/7 ~ ft 7 Go \ $ 0 t' ~ £fLCCA !$t,?~.~ I L A II I I C LI 0 P0~T JEFFERSO1 HARE~0~. NEVI YO~ PAGENO="0604" 590 storage in Consolidated's tanks and subsequent distribution and marketing. Con- solidated does not own any of the oil. The oil companies are therefore also to be considered as users of the present channel and prospective users of the proposed 40-foot channel. NEED FOB DEEP-WATER HARBOR ON NORTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND There is at present no harbor on the north shore of Long Island capable of ade- quately accommodating modern oceangoing vessels. A deep-water harbor on the north shore capable of accommodating such vessels is greatly needed. The District Engineer, in his report, states as follows: "The population of Suffolk County, which comprises the tributary area of Port Jefferson Harbor, has been increasing at an accelerated rate, greater than the national average. A projection of the population growth in this county indicates that the population will increase from 667,000 in 1960 to about 1,000,000 in 1970 and will continue to rise to about 3,000,000 in 2020." [Italics supplied.J The District Engineer, in his report, refers to the fact that receipt of petroleum products in Port Jefferson Harbor increased from 91,657 tons in 1945 to 947.530 tons in 1964 and that indications are that in 1970 the domestic and foreign petro- leum commerce in Port Jefferson Harbor will amount to 1,400,000 tons in the year 2020 the domestic petroleum commerce will amount to 3,900,000 tons and foreign petroleum commerce to 75,000 tons. The industrial, residential and economic development of the middle and east- ern sections of Long Island is progressing at a rapid rate and is very much in need of a deep-water harbor on the north shore of Long Island as a means of access for modern oceangoing vessels. As clearly indicated on the attached chart, a 40-foot channel into Port Jefferson Harbor is absolutely essential to serve the increasing requirements in the foregoing respect throughout Suffolk County and within the Town of Brookhaven, which includes the Village of Port Jefferson. It is imperative that the need of Suffolk County, which comprises more than one-half of Long Island to the east of Nassau County, and the Town of Brookhaven for a deeper channel on the north shore in the natural harbor at Port Jefferson be accorded favorable consideration. The great benefits that would be derived by the commercial, industrial and residential interests in Suffolk County, including the Town of Brookhaven, from a 40-foot channel at Port Jefferson should be the deter- mining factor in connection with the decision by this Subcommitttee and the Senate Committee on Public Works to include the Port Jefferson Harbor improve- ment project in the River and Harbor Authorization Act of 1968. In addition, plans are now being formulated for the construction of a bridge across Long Island Sound which will connect the middle or eastern end of Long Island with Connecticut or Rhode Island. The construction of this bridge will have the effect of further accelerating the industrial, residential and economic growth of this area of Long Island since it would afford a much shorter route for com- mercial and passenger traffic between Long Island and New England. The American Merchant Marine Institute strongly urges the inclusion in the Omnibus River and Harbor Authorization Bill of the Port Jefferson Harbor im- provement project as recommended by the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. The favorable consideration of our views and recommendation will be most helpful and much appreciated. Mr. ColulADo. As you may know, the American Merchant Marine Institute is a maritime trade association, comprising 32 U.S. com- panies, which own and operate nearly 500 U.S.-fiag oceangoing pas- sengers and general cargo vessels, tankers, and dry bulk carriers in the foreign and domestic trades of the United States. This morning the Congressman indicated, I believe the record would show, that he indicated that one of the reasons he was opposing this proiect was that it would only benefit one local petroleum com- pany. Well unless I have been badly confused, I am appearing as a witness here today in favor of a number of our oil company members which carry petroleum products into Port Jefferson. And also at this time I would like to say I think that this oil company that he is speaking of is more or less in the nature of the tank form that stores the oil. PAGENO="0605" 591 And our member companies and other oil companies bring the oil into Port Jefferson Harbor and then this company stores it, and it is distributed throughout the area, and also the Long Island Lighting Co. does this. So I would think more properly that this benefits the companies and the distributors throughout the area. I just wanted to make that point so we could at least have two views of that subject. This improvement, harbor improvement project was recommended by the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, and it would provide for deepening the channel from 26 to 40 feet and widening it from 300 to 350 feet from the deep water of Long Island Sound to the inner head of the harbor, a distance of 2.3 miles. And it would also provide an inner turning basin, 30 feet deep, 700 feet wide, and 1,400 feet long. Our points in favor of these improvements are as follows: No. 1 is the very favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. According to the report of the Chief of Engineers and the New York district engineer, the benefits estimated to accrue from the Port Jefferson project would exceed the cost of the improvement by a ratio of 6 to 1. As you know, this means that for every dollar that the Federal Government might invest in this improvement ~rojeet, benefits equivalent to $6 would be returned. We think that this is an extraordinary benefit-cost ratio and is a significant justification for the project. The second reason why we support this is the benefits for the general public. The New York district engineer stated in his report that the savings in transportation costs that would result from these im- provements "would reach the general public as lower prices for the products or as additional services offered to the consumer." He also stated that "savings in transportation cost to the Long Island Lighting Co. would be reflected in the rates charged users of electric power." This has been confirmed by the Long Island Lighting Co. As you know, decrease or increase in the cost of transportation will have a corresponding effect on the consumer product structure. Third, the channel depths at origin or other ports. This project would give Port Jefferson the same channel depth, 40 feet-as most major ports on the U.S. gulf coast from which petroleum products are shipped to Atlantic ports-appeared in line with this trend; the chan- nel to Providence Harbor is being dredged to 40 feet and approval is expected for dredging the New Haven Harbor also to 40 feet. Fourth, the elimination of oil barge traffic and terminals. The reduc- tion in cost would have the effect of gradually eliminating oil barge traffic in this harbor. Our fifth reason is the need for deep-water harbor on the north shore of Long Island. At present there is no deep-water harbor on the north shore of Long Island, nor indeed to my knowledge is `there one on the south shore. The district engineer stated in his report that the population of Suffolk County, the tributary area of Port Jefferson Harbor, has been increasing a't an accelerated rate, greater tha.n the national average~ And the projection of the population growth of the county indicates that the population will increase from 667,000 people in 1960 to about 1 million in 1910 and 3 million in the year 2020. PAGENO="0606" 592 In addition, the receipt of petroleum products increased 91,667 tons in 1945 to 947,000 tons in 1964. And my information is that at the end of this year the petroleum products flow will be 1,200,000 tons, when facilities under construction are completed. This is far beyond even the projection of the Corps of Engrneers. Mr. BLATNIK. Would you stop just a minute there, Mr. Corrado, to clarify the statement made, I believe earlier, that this would be a single- user project. The project would benefit primarily a single user. You talk of the toimages of domestic and foreign petroleum commerce. Are those several companies involved? Can you give us a better description, on whose oil this is, and who is the consumer, who is the producer? Mr. CounADo. Many of the large oil companies-seven, in fact, and several more will probably be added because contracts are being dis- cussed-but at present seven of the large oil companies carry their products into the harbor, and Consolidated Petroleum and Long Island Lighting Co., which are local companies, are companies which receive this oil. And then it is distributed by the distributors throughout the area of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. So I do not think really it is accurate to say that just one company would benefit or that it is really a single-user operation. Mr. WEINKAUFF. Mr. Chairman, may I make one comment? This single-user problem came up during the course of the report. The Corps of Engineers did not consider it single user, and the Bureau of the Budget gave it a clean bill of health and did not raise the question of a single user here. I bring that to your attention. Mr. BI~TxIK. That is a good explanation. We have a good descrip- tion of the project, good reasons for urging adoption, approval of this project, Mr. Corrado. So if there are no other comments-any questions from the committee? Mr. Harsha? Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Corrado, despite the fact that you have a good benefit-cost ratio, you have got a good right arm there with Mr. Weinkauff. I am sure that you cannot obtain better advice on your problems than Henry can give you. I did want to ask you a couple questions. You are widening this channel 350 feet and deepening it to 40 feet. Does this provide for these extra-large tankers? Will they be able to go in and out of there? Mr. CORRADO. Forty-foot depth, Mr. Harsha, will provide for up to 60,000-ton tankers. I do not believe the draft will allow for a larger draft tanker than that. Mr. HARSHA. One other comment. That is that the Secretary of the Army states that non-Federal entities may be interested in develop- ing alternative facilities for the transportation of petroleum in the area. And accordingly, it was suggested that if the project is author- ized that the corps review this matter during the present construc- tion planning. Now, do you know what they are talking about when they refer to alternative facilities, what they have in mind? Mr. WEINKAUFF. Mr. Harsha, this report has been in progress now for some 4 to 6 years; and at one time there was a company 23 miles to the east who were interested in developing a pipeline, but at the present time they are definitely not interested in this alternative. It will not be constructed. PAGENO="0607" 593 And the Secretary of the Army, of course, after authorization, as you well know, the corps reviews the project; and although we did not like the remark about further studies, it is an ordinary course of events in any study before appropriations, so we are satisfied with the remark. And it would go through that process anyway. Mr. HARSHA. You heard this morning the statement by the Congress- man from that `congressional district, that the project was contro- versial. What is the controversy and can you enlighten us a little? Mr. Comi~&Do. My understanding of it is, the only people who op- posed the project are the people of the village of Port Jefferson, which is a small village, I understand several thousand people. My under- standing is that most of the other people of the area are in favor. Now, this morning the Congressman indicated that the town of Brookhaven was opposed. Yet, we would like to submit letters to the record from the town of Brookhaven saying they favor the project. Mr. HARSHA. What is that opposition of the one town you are familiar with? Mr. ComL&no. It is my understanding that it has been a small village, and they really oppose larger business coming in, and they are afraid there will be a lot of heavy traffic generated by this, and traffic into the harbor being increased traffic. As a matter of fact, when you have larger tankers coming in, you will have less traffic than you would with a lot of barges. Mr. HARSHA. Do they anticipate industrial development in the area as aresult of this? Mr. CORRADO. I think they probably do. I would imagine this would result in industrial development. We have to remember, Mr. Harsha, that the area is gaining, growing, and expanding rapidly, industrially, and populationwise, and economically. And although there might be growth in this direction, the growth also requires business improve- ment. I mean it is a two-way street, I think. It cuts both ways. Mr. WEINKAUFF. Mr. Harsha, also we think the village is protected in that they have zoning powers. They have already exercised these zoning powers to limit the expansion. And in addition, `Consolidated Petroleum, their tank farm, is some 3 miles away from the harbor area. They receive at their harbor area, and they pipeline it into the tank farm. The following are in favor of it: Suffolk County, Mr. Den- nison, who could not appear today, the town of Brookhaven, and with your permission which I will submit for the record the letter of Brookhaven was sent to Senator Young in the Senate. As a matter of fact, there is a letter in the report which the town of Brookhaven offers to supply the local cooperation. Also, New York State, the Greater Port Jefferson Chamber of Commerce, the Long Island As- sociation of Commerce. and Industry, and the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island, Inc. So it has quite wide support. With your permission I would like to have Mr. Dennison's statement for the record. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. May that be incorporated in the record? Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. Without objection, so ordered. (The information referred to follows:) STAXEMENT OF H. LEE DENNISON, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK This to emphatically emphasize my full support of the proposed dredging of Port Jefferson Harbor, Suffolk County, L.I., State of New York. PAGENO="0608" 594 The present channel of the harbor is entirely inadequate to serve present deep water port facilities for a New England ferry, the importation of crushed stone for highway purposes, and of breakwater and groin stone, together with major terminals for delivery of fuel for a great power complex of the Long Island Light- ing Company, and also to serve the great part of the present million resident home owners of the County. Said population will reach two million people before 19S~. Because of the condition and shallow depth of said existent channel, fuel carriers must wait upon tides or the fuel must be carried by smaller barges and tankers. The added cost of such inefficient and ineffective means of fuel trans- portation is reflected in monthly bills to the home owner. If the channel can ~e improved and modernized as recommended, it will be of County-wide benefit to the citizens of the County not only in reflected fuel costs, but also in consideration of a parallel program of harbor improvement under which existing fuel storage tanks lining the harbor would be removed and the local dellvery system by trucks replaced ~y pipeline dellvery. This in itself would result in tremendous improvement to the present highway congestion generating from our population explosion. The County planning people, all areas of business, finance and industry, the Town of Brookhaven, the local Chamber of Commerce are on record in favor of the proposed dredging improvement. The Village of Port Jefferson, which owns no frontage and has no jurisdiction over any of the harbor waters, is presently opposed to the dredging, although heretofore said Village has been on record in favor of it. I understand Congressman Otis Pike has testified before you against the dredging improvement, reportedly on the grounds that the Federal Government is looking for ways and means to cut expenditures, and that the Port Jefferson project can ~e easily put off until some future time, if ever. As the administrative head of the County government, I believe I am in as good a position as anyone, including congressmen, to judge the value of public works projects as concerned with the County's general economy and the publlc interest. Without any question in my mind, the dredging project as proposed will ultimately have to be accomplished regardless of any objection. Since construction costs rise at least five percent every year, it doesn't make sense to put off what I consider a useful and needed public improvement. I strongly urge approval of the project of accomplishment. I am enclosing a copy of my notes to the Senate Committee relative there to, for your information. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, June 5, 1968. Mr. JOSEPH F. VAN VLADRICKEN, iYew gen.ate Office Building, Wa$hington, D.C. DE~&a 1~Ia. VAN VLADRICKEN: This is to supplement my remarks of 21 May before the Subcommittee on Flood Control-Rivers and Harbors of the Senate Com- mittee on Public Works concerning the proposed dredging of Port Jefferson Har- bor, Long Island, New York. As the administrative head of the County Govern- ment of more than one million people, I am in full and aggressive support of the Port Jefferson Harbor project as being completely in the public interest and as being necessary to the overall County general economy. One of the serious problems of the explosive growth that has occurred in Suf- folk County through the past 18 years has been transportation. It is exceedingly necessary that all four forms of transportation be developed to meet the needs of said explosive growth in order to efficiently, effectively, safely, and economi- cally move people and goods. There are presently being undertaken in the County and on Long Island the development of major highway transportation patterns, airports, rapid transit by rail, and deep water ports and marine commerce. One of the port development projects of vital importance to the County is Port Jef- ferson Harbor. The channel proposed will permit greatly expanded operation for the importation of fuel by tanker or the supply of tank farms from which future pipelines will help to relieve truck conveyors on the highways. At the same time, the channel proposed will lay the ground work for the development of marine commerce and cruise ships which could be of great benefit to the County's economy. It should be noted here that we are an island and must import all of the daily necessities from building materials to clothing, except fish and potatoes which are produced at home. I strongly recommend that the Harbor improvement which has been the subject of this lengthy discussion and hearings be finally implemented and accomplished. Cordially, H. LEE DENNIs0N, County E~vecutive. PAGENO="0609" 595 TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN, Long Island, N.Y., May 27, 1968. Re Port Jefferson Harbor. Hon. STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Chairman of the Subcommittee, Subcommittee on Flood Control-Rivers and Harbors of the Senate Public Works Committee. DEAR HONORABLE YOUNG: I was unable to attend the hearing held on May 21, 1968 before your Committee in Washington. I am enclosing a copy of a letter dated August 9, 1966 in which former Super- visor Dominy, representing the Town Board, went on record as being in favor of this project. There has been no change in the attitude of the Town Board and hope you will give this project every consideration. Sincerely yours, CHARLES W. BARRAUD, Supervisor. ToWN OF BROOKHAVEN, Long Island, N.Y., August 9, 1966. CoL EDWARD B. JENNINGS, Acting Division Engineer, Department of the Army, North Atlantic Division, Corps of Engineers, New York, N.Y. DEAR Sin: In reference to your notice of 21 July 1966 regarding Port Jefferson Harbor, the Town of Brookhaven has been and is on record as being in favor of this project. At one point, during the original investigation, we held up our approval pending the approval of the Village of Port Jefferson, which it subsequently approved. The Town has not changed its position and is still in favor although I understand that the Village of Port Jefferson now has some reservations. I am sure if this becomes an actual fact, the Town will be able to supply the ease- ments, rights of way, etc. and also arrange for the areas for spoils. It is the opinion of the town that this would be an asset to the area and a credit to the Corps of Engineers. Very truly yours, CHARLES R. DOMINY, Supervisor. NASSAU-SUFFOLK REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD, Hauppauge, Long Island, N.Y., Jul~j 2, 1968. Re proposed dredging of Port Jefferson Harbor, Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y. Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Congress of the United States, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. BLATNIK: I wish to inform you of my position relative to the proposed dredging of Port Jefferson Harbor. Since 1960, when the matter was first discussed before the Suffolk County Planning Commission, my position has been one of support for the project. The Suffolk County Planning Com- mission, by official resolution, endorsed this work. It is my understanding, from discussions that I have held with County Executive H. Lee Dennison, that the only opponents to the project are the Congressman from the First Congres~ sional District and the village officials of Port Jefferson. The Town of Brook- haven, in which the project would occur, also supports the proposed dredging. I, therefore, urge that your Subcommittee consider the overwhelming sup- port for this endeavor and reach a favorable recommendation thereto. Thank you for your consideration of my appeal. Very truly yours, LEE E. KOPPELMAN, Ecveeutive Director. 07-700-68----39 PAGENO="0610" 596 GREATER PORT JEFFERSON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Port Jefferson, N.Y., June 21, 1968. Re Subcommittee on Flood Control Rivers and Harbors. Hon. JoHN A. BLATNIK, Chairman of the ~Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, House Committee on Public Works, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: In reference to the Port Jefferson Harbor Improvement Project I wish that the following statement be submitted for the record: The Greater Port Jefferson Chamber of Commerce over one year ago formally voted on the merits of the 2.4 million dollar Port Jefferson Harbor Improve-. ment Project. At that time a clear majority favored the project. We have not reviewed or changed our stand since that time. Sincerely, DAvm L. ROSNER, D.D.S., President. THE INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF PORT JEFFERSON, Port Jefferson, N.Y., Maij 20, 1968. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: As Village Clerk, I have been instructed by the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson to read to you the following state- ment concerning the project for Port Jefferson Harbor now being considered by this Committee. To the Committee on Public Works of the House of the LTnited States. The Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson wishes to convey to the Committee on Public Works its firm and unanimous opposi- tion to the improvement of Port Jefferson Harbor which contemplates the dredging of a channel 40 feet deep and 350 feet wide from Long Island Sound to the head of the harbor, and dredging a turning basin in the Harbor 30 feet deep, 700 feet wide and up to 1400 feet long, and which requires federal costs to the Corps of Engineers estimated at S5,000 annually and $2,500,000 initially. The opposition of the Board of Trustees, which we respectfully bring to the attention of this Committee, is based on the following grounds: First: As indicated by Plate 2 annexed to the Corps of Engineers Review of Reports, Port Jefferson Harbor is surrounded by three incorporated villages, Poquott on the west, Port Jefferson on the south and Belle Terre on the east. These villages, particularly Poquott and Belle Terre w-hich are exclusively resi- dential, are residential in character and would derive no benefit whatever from the proposed improvement of the Harbor. Only Port Jefferson, at the head of the harbor, contains a mixture of residential, business, commercial and industrial uses; but the plan of improvement will not benefit Port Jefferson, either. On the contrary, Port Jefferson will be greatly harmed because the improvement will have a severely adverse effect on recreational boating in the Harbor, a prime source of revenue and commerce for the Village of Port Jefferson. It must be realized that Port Jefferson Harbor, situated on Long Island Sound about 13.5 miles south of Bridgeport, Connecticut, and 56 miles by water east of the New York Battery, has long been a natural attraction for pleasure boats every boating season. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 pleasure craft make their way into the Harbor annually. The economy of Port Jefferson has largely grown up around these craft, and all commercial interests in Port Jefferson, from boat yards, marinas and gasoline docks, to supermarkets and movies, are dependent in a larger or smaller degree upon the annual visits of these pleasure craft. To this end, the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Village of Port Jefferson, undertaken and completed over a period of several years with the aid and advice of professional planning consultants, has hinged the development of Port Jefferson to the continued and enlarged pleasure boat- ing use of the Harbor and calls for the increased development of pleasure boating services and facilities at the head of the harbor. But the massive turning basin, called for by the plan of improvement, would completely destroy a principal mooring area at the head of the harbor for these pleasure craft and will result in- evittably in discouraging and turning away from Port Jefferson Harbor a large number of pleasure boats. The merchants of Port Jefferson cannot sustain the economic loss the loss of these craft will represent. PAGENO="0611" 597 The Board of Trustees notes that the Review of Reports by the Corps of Engi- neers was authorized by a resolution of July 31, 1957, of the Committee on Pub- lie Works of the United States House of Representatives expressly for the pur- pose of "determining what improvements for navigation are advisable at this time, with particular reference to the dredging of a channel of adequate dimen- sions to facilitate the movement of present rand prospective commerce". The Board of Trustees assumes that a similar resolution may have been adopted by this Com- mittee of the Senate. The proposed turning basin will create a backward move- ment of commerce away from Port Jefferson, will have exactly the opposite effect intended by this Resolution and will cause `a large annual loss to the commercial interests of Port Jefferson. Second: We, therefore, take issue with the Report of District Engineer who finds there is a need for improvement of Port Jefferson Harbor and estimates (in the Syllabus) that there will be annual benefits of ~l491,000. There will be no economic benefits to the public generally and to Port Jefferson in particular. The only concrete economic benefit from the plan of improvement will accrue to one commercial operation, Consolidated Petroleum Company, `whose dock is shown at Photo 4 of the Report, and which will benefit from future supertankers piping in petroleum from the Harbor to its tank storage farm in `South `Setauket. We dis- pute any argument to the effect that the improvement would permit Long Island Lighting Company to make any real reduction in its costs because fuel would be brought to it at `lower cost. Their oil storage facilities at their power plant are limited and the Board of Trustees does not believe that the increase in tanker size or in the quantity of petroleum products can be taken full advantage of by the Long Island Lighting Company. We find it necessary to object to the Report of the Corps of Engineers on the ground that it does not correctly or fairly reflect the current position of the Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson. In the recent past, Port Jeffer- son has openly and clearly made its opposition known to the District Engineers and others. On a letter of April 20, 1967, addressed to Col M. M. Miletich, District Engineer, Mayor Lee spelled out the opposition of the Village. This letter was acknowledged by a letter dated May 2, 1967, from Frank L Panuzio, Chief of Engineering. In another letter dated August 4, 1966, to the Board of Engineers for Rivers & Harbors, Mayor Lee voiced opposition to the proposed improvement and informed in that letter that a prior letter of March 4, 1964, written by the former Mayor Robert L. Robertson, in which it was indicated that the Board of Trustees no longer objected to the improvement was no longer true and did not, for several reasons, reflect the current attitude of the Board of Trustees. In other words, while the Board of Trustees in 1964 did not object to the improvement it did in 1966. It did again in 1967. It does now. Yet the only statement of position of the Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson included in the Report of the Corps of Engineers is the letter of former Mayor Robertson of March 4, 1964 (at Appendix D-8). The recent letters of Mayor Lee un- equivocally objecting to the plan of improvement are not set forth. In this re- spect the Report is misleading and incorrect. The Board of Trustees, in closing, wishes to bring to the attention of this Committee that the District Engineers' recommendation of the improvement is subject to the condition that local interests will give certain assurances spelled out in the Syllabus. The Incorporated Village of Port Jefferson, for the reasons stated, to the extent that it is requested to give them, is not prepared to supply these assurances. In conclusion, the Board of Trustees sees no reason for spending millions of tax dollars for the benefit of one private corporation. This same dredging could be done by Consolidated Petroleum now as they did originally. In spite of the fact that the Board has been told that the proposed dredging would economical- ly force the present installations to move to the tank farm, the Board has some reservations. A deep water channel would be an invitation to other industriai operations which some new Board in the future could permit. Respectfully submitted. GORDON P. THOMSEN, Village Clerk. Mr. CORRADO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of ap- pearing. Mr. BLATNIK. Next we have additional witnesses on the the Mis- souri River navigation, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska. Project. PAGENO="0612" 598 MISSOURI RIVER NAVIGATION, SOUTH DAKOTA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND NEBIIASKA STATEMENT OP PRANK LONG, ATTORNEY, REPRESENTING EIGHT WESTERN RAILROADS, CHICAGO, ILL. Mr. LONG. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity of appearing here. It is a pleasure to come before the committee to state some views which are contrary to those heard tins morning, although I must say I feel often like Daniel in the lions' den in the room when most people favor a project, upon which I take a contrary view. To clarify the status of the project, a matter which arose th1s morning, my understanding of the present status of the upper Mis- souri project is this: In February of this year the project was forwarded by the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of the Army. The project subsequently was returned to the Chief of Engineers by the Secretary of the Army in order to obtain a more complete analysis, as I understand it, of the bank stabilization aspects of the project. To the best of my knowledge at the present time the project is still in the Office of the. Chief of En- gineers and has not yet been returned to the Secretary of the Army. I believe that is the correct status of the project at this particular point in time. Mr. Chairman, I think it would aid the committee to see this project in a good overall perspective. To aid the committee in doing so, may I mention these facts; 90 percent of the projected transportation sav- ings which the Corps of Engineers proposes will be the case in connec- tion with this project, 90 percent of such savings will come from the transportation of wheat, not all grains, just wheat. Now most of the people who have been in favor of this project are interested in improving the city of Yankton, S. Dak., and the areas around Yankton, S. Dak. I might say here in this connection that my concern is chiefly with the navigation aspects of the harbor, with the waterway project, and only concerning the bank stabilization insofar as it may affect the navigation aspect of the project. Nevertheless, most of the people who are in fa.vor of this project are interested in the improvement of Yankton and the surrounding area. Now a curious fact is that the wheat, which the Corps of Engineers thinks will be the chief commodity moving on the waterway, is not grown around Yankton. Within 75 miles of Yankton very little of the wheat projected. by the Corps of Engineers is produced. And I would suggest to the committee that if the wheat industry were uni- ~ersa1ly in favor of .this waterway project, that this room would be filled with wheat firms in Minneapolis, from Oklahoma, Kansas City, and from other places advocating the project. We have not seen it here. We believe that the Corps of Engineers as well as the Department of Agriculture have, and I think understandably, erred in their analy- sis of transportation savings. As I understand what they have done, they have compared the barge rate on the river from Yankton to New ~Orleans, with a rail rate from Yankton to New Orleans. This is a rate PAGENO="0613" 599 from point A to point B, a comparison of the barge rate over that route with the rail rate. Well, I suppose, this is a good way to compare transportation savmgs, if you are talking about something like, say, automobiles, which are produced at point A and sold at point B, and the only intervemng factor is transportation. The automobile is in the same condition when it finishes its transportation journey as it was when it began. However, we are not concerned with automObiles in this case nor with any com- modity remotely similar. We are concerned with wheat. Wheat produced on the farm starts its transportation journey gen- erally by rail from a country elevator. It may end up in Buffalo, not as wheat, it may end up in Buffalo as flour. Now, gentlemen, during the course of this transportation journey, wheat is changed, it is graded, it is inspected, it is stored, and it ~s milled, it is processed, and it makes several transportation moves in the course of say a year or year and a half or more. And when the wheat finishes its transportation journey, it is not recognizable as the same commodity which started out from the farm. This is a much different situation than automobiles or as the corps would have it, it is not at all the same if you are comparing transportation savings as comparing barge rates with the comparable rates over the same route. As a matter of fact, the basic competitor to barge movement on the Mississippi of wheat is not rail rates or rail movements over the same route, basic competitor to the barges, transporting wheat on the Mis- souri River are the wheat markets and the techniques and processes of marketing wheat, which, as the chairman knows, are concentrated in Minneapolis and in other wheat markets in the Middle West and perhaps as far east as Chicago or Buffalo. Now transportation so far. as it is concerned in this process of mar- keting wheat is merely the means of moving the- wheat where the peo- ple dealing in it can take advantage of the natural functionings of the wheat markets. And as such, the techniques and processes of mar- keting - wheat as they have existed in this country for many, many years, and as I am sure they will exist for many, many more years, is an interrelationship and interaction of oil t-ransportation primarily with the market functioning. It is, therefore, absolutely a-n error, we feel, for the Corps of Engi- neers to compare merely rail rates with barge rates. I say that the error is understandable because the marketing of wheat and the rail transportation of wheat is a tremendously complex subject. The con- cepts themselves are difficult in understanding. And the concepts are based upon pragmatic occurrences which are - themselves quite com- plex. It is not a simple matter, you see, for a ton of wheat to move from the farm to all the processes necessary to produce a ton of flour in Buffalo. As to the -basic validity of the corps' analysis of the project, as compared with our own analysis-and I might say the railroads: the Sioux Line, Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Burlington, Milwaukee Road, the roads I represent, has -spent a considerable amount of money to find out that wheat simply will not move by -barge from Yankton, even if the project is completed. PAGENO="0614" 600 This project, on completion, will have, we feel, no effect whatsoever on the present marketing structures. It will have no effect whatsoever on rail rates for the transportation of wheat. Real rates change from time to time, yes, of course. But that changes in response to factors quite apart from competitive barge transportation. They involve changes as a direct response to the needs of shippers who are dealing in wheat and not in response to competition from barges. As a matter of fact, it is possible that South Dakota wheat can find its way to New Orleans cheaper by moving from the tributary area in South Dakota to Minneapolis by rail and to eventually move by barge down the Mississippi to New Orleans. It is not only perhaps cheaper from a transportation charge standpoint-the fact of the matter is that the movement of wheat in that direction over such a route would produce in New Orleans not the raw South Dakota wheat, it would produce in New Orleans a blended wheat, that is a wheat mixed with other wheats to meet a particular standard necessary for the export market. And that wheat would arrive ready blended in New Orleans. I might say the process of blending is not economically done in New Orleans. And to this date, I do not know of any extensive blending facilities in New Orleans. The point is that if anyone wants to export South Dakota wheat from New Orleans or other gulf ports, this is fine, and it might just as well arrive in New Orleans by barge; but the point is it might cost less in terms of transportation charges to the owners of that wheat if it came not from Yankton, but from Minne- apolis. And it got to Minneapolis of course by rail, as most of the wheat does. Members of the committee, the Corps of Engineers predicates a 1.3-to-i benefit-cost ratio. Nearly 90 percent of the benefits are at- tributable to the transportation of wheat. It does not take much error in the Corps of Engineers' estimate to bring the benefit-cost ratio l)elow parity. And as a matter of fact, we believe that the more realistic benefit-cost ratio in this case is 0.3 to 1. Mr. HARSHA. May I interrupt you, sir. According to my worksheet here, it says "Damages prevented"-I assume that is flood waters- $2,072,000; that transportation savings, which would be the trans- portation costs for wheat, of $856,200. Other recreational benefits- they apparently show transportation savings of $856,000, rather than 90 percent; am [ wrong? Mr. LoNG. I do not believe your are, sir. I believe our figures jibe completely. I think 90 percent of the benefits for the navigation aspect of this project are attributable to the transportation of wheat. Now there may be other benefits for the bank stabilization. Mr. HARSHA. I misimderstood you. Mr. LONG. I think they are the two aspects to be considered. Mr. HARSHA. If you take all the navigation aspects out of transporta- tion savings, you still have the same ratio. Mr. LONG. I do not know-my impression would be, Congressman Harsha, that the benefit-to-cost ratio without the navigation would be below parity. Mr. HARSHA. I am not sure what this "damages prevented" means; but I will get to that when we get to the corps. You go ahead. PAGENO="0615" 601 Mr. BLATNIK. `Would you summarize your statement? We under- stand your position pretty well, the inequity in comparing wheat. We understand your case quite well. Could you summarize it in the inter- est of time? Mr. LONG. Yes. I am sorry to take as much time as I have. We believe that the more real benefit-cost ratio is 0.3 to 1, not the 1.3 to 1 which the corps projects. Under these circumstances, I do not believe that this committee ought to approve a project until the corps and the other experts in the administrative branch, such as the Department of Agricul- ture and the Secretary of the Army, have had a full opportunity to consider the real competition to barge traffic on the Missouri, which is not as they have analyzed it heretofore, rail rates. It is the whole of the various wheat markets and the wheat processing. These things must be looked into before the committee can have a reasonable basis for action. This is a project which involves $55 million. I would sug- gest in these times it would not be well to approve a project of such magnitude unless and until a better benefit-cost ratio, based on facts and real data, should be found for the project. I do not see any difficulty in the delay of the project on the desk of the Chief of En- gineers or the Secretary of the Army, the Bureau of the Budget-all of whom had not yet to my knowledge approved the project-be- cause it is one which in its very complexity requires a great deal of study and a great deal of understanding by the people involved with it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to make these views known on the committee. Mr. BI~&~rNIK. Mr. Long, would you list the railroads you are repre- senting; would you give all of them by name so the record has a list of the railroads you represent. Mr. LONG. I can list them very briefly: Great Northern, Northern Pacific, Burlington, Sioux Line, Rock Island, the Illinois Central, the Milwaukee, and the Chicago & Northwestern. I think that is eight. YAZOO RIVER, MISS. Mr. BLATNIK. The next project is Yazoo River, Miss. Mr. James Tangerose, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C., is the next witness. He is also interested in the Red River Waterway, La., Tex., Ark., and Okia. STATEMENT OP JAMES TANGEROSE., ASSOCIATION OP AMERICAN RAILROADS, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. TANGEROSE. Mr. Chairman and members of the coimnittee, my name is James Tangerose. I am director of waterway analysis of the Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. This statement is presented on behalf of the association. Mr. TIARSHA. Pull the mike closer to you. Mr. TANGEROSE. This statement is presented on behalf of the Asso- ciation and the railroads serving the area adjacent to the Yazoo River. On February 10, 1964, the division engineer, lower Mississippi Val- ley division, announced the Vicksburg's report of December 1963 was PAGENO="0616" 602 favorable for improving the Yazoo River for navigation. A brief review of the Vicksburg district's 1963 report showed the benefit-cost ratio for navigation, the principal purpose of the project, was only 0.85 to 1. The Vicksburg district rewrote and resubmitted its report in 1966, and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors approved the project on February 17, 1967. We were not furnished a copy through an oversight on the part of the Vicksburg district engineer. Following the release of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors report, we made a careful analysis of the Vicksburg district's revised report, including the report by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. On May 27, 1~68, the Department of the Army provided us with a review made by the staff of OCE of our analysis of the Vicksburg dis- trict engineer's report. I will briefly summarize the ftndings of our analysis, taking into account the review of the staff, OCE, and request that my complete statement be included in the record of this hearing. We analyzed the principal commodities which the Vicksburg dis- trict estimated would have moved on the Yazoo River in 1966. Our analysis showed beyond any reasonable doubt that the Vicksburg dis- trict had overstated both traffic and transportation savings. The exam- pies illustrate the t.ype and magnitude of the errors made by the Vicks- burg district. Grains: The Vicksburg district engineer estimated 165,000 tons of soybeans and 13,000 tons of wheat as downbound traffic for the Yazoo River in 1966, or a total of 178,000 tons of grain. Included in this estimate were 85,000 tons of soybeans which the Vicksburg district stated had moved by rail to gulf ports for export in 1966. We made a special tabulation of soybean shipments by rail from the area to be served by the Yazoo River and found 32,800 tons had moved by rail to gulf ports for export in 1966. The staff of OCE found upon further analysis that only 32,000 tons of soybeans had moved by rail to gulf ports in 1966, rather than 85,000 tons as esti- mated by the Vicksburg district engineer's report. This is an error in excess of 100 percent on the part of the Vicks- burg district. In the interest of time, I will give one other example-dry fertilizers. The Vicksburg district estimated 42,000 tons of dry fertilizers as prospective traffic from the Yazoo River in 1966. The staff of OCE, upon further investigation, found approximately 18,000 tons of dry fertilizers available for barge movement in 1966, as compared with 18,800 tons found by our analysis which was based on a tabulation of rail shipments during 1966. Mr. BLATNIK. Could you summarize? We will go through this in detail. Mr. TANGEROSE. Let me proceed to my recommendation. WThen the Vicksburg district engineer's report is corrected to reflect overstatements of traffic, transportation savings, and recreation bene- fits, we compute the benefit-cost ratio to be approximately 0.7 `to 1. One of the difficulties of computing a benefit-cost ratio for the subject project results from the failure of the staff of OCE to show the path PAGENO="0617" 603 or growth of transportation savings over the project's economic life, 1975-2025. Our analysis dated August 18, 1967, computed the benefit- cost ratio of the subject project to be 0.3 to 1. Analysis of the com- ments by the staff of OCE resulted in increasing annual transportation savings by approximately $1 million, of which about one-third results from a change in the growth curve used to discount transportation savings. Since the Yazoo River navigation proj ect clearly lacks economic justification, we recommend and urge this committee not to author- ize it. Mr. BLATNIK. Your full statement will appear in the record. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES G. TANGEROSE, DIRECTOR OF WATERWAY ANALYSIS, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS My name is James 1. Tangerose. I am Director of Waterway Analysis of the Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. The Association represents railroads accounting for 98 percent of operating revenues by all line-haul rail- roads in the United States. This statement is presented on behalf of the Associa- tion and the railroads serving the area adjacent to the Yazoo River. SUMMARY Our review of the Vicksburg District Engineer's report, the Board of Engi- neers for Rivers and Harbors' 1 review report, and comments by the staff of Office, Chief of Engineers,2 finds that the project is not economically justified. and at the best has a benefit-cost ratio of only 0.7 to 1. This is based on the use of an unrealistic interest rate of 3l/~ percent. The use of a more realistic interest rate reflecting the real cost of borrowing by the United States Treasury would make the benefit-cost ratio even less than shown herein. Based on the results of our analysis, we urge this Committee not authorize the subject navigation project. INTRODUCTION On February 10, 1964, the Division Engineer, Lower Mississippi Valley Divi- sion, announced the Vicksburg District's report of December 1963 was favorable for improving the Yazoo River for navigation, mouth to Greenwood, Mississippi. A brief review of the Vicksburg District's 1963 report showed the benefit-cost ratio for navigation the principal purpose of the project was only 0.85 to 1. We filed a statement in opposition to the navigation project with the BERH on January 8, 1965. The Vicksburg District rewrote and resubmitted its report in 1966, and the BERH approved the project on February 17, 1967. We were not furnished a copy of the revised report, through an oversight by the Vicksburg District, until after the BERII has recommended approval of the project. Consequently, we were unable to file a statement in opposition to the project with the BERH. Following the release of the BERH report, we made a careful analysis of the Vicksburg District's revised report, including the report by the BERH. Copies of our analysis were provided the OCE and interested government agencies in August 1967. On May 27, 1968, the Department of the Army provided us with a review made by the staff of OCE of our analysis of the Vicksburg District Engineer's report. I will briefly summarize the findings of our analysis, taking into account the review of the staff, OCE, and request that my complete statement be included in the record of this hearing. I also request permission to file for the use of the Committee our analysis dated August 18, 1967, and the comments on our analysis by the staff of OCE dated May 6, 1968. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION SAVINGS We analyzed the principal commodities which the Vicksburg District estimated would have moved on the Yazoo River in 1966. Our analysis showed beyond any 1 Hereafter referred to as BERH. 2 Hereafter referred to as OCE. PAGENO="0618" 604 reasonable doubt that the Vicksburg District had overstated both traffic and transportation savings. The following examples illustrate the type and magnitude of errors made by the Vicksburg District in its study of prospective barge traffic and transportation savings. Grains. The Vicksburg District Engineer estimated 165,000 tons of soybeans and 13,000 tons of wheat as downbound traffic for the Yazoo River in 1966, or a total of 178,000 tons of grains. a. Soybeans. Included in this estimate were 85,000 tons of soybeans which the Vicksburg District stated had moved by rail to Gulf ports for export in 1966. We made a special tabulation of soybean shipments by rail from the area to he served by the Yazoo River and found 32,800 tons had moved by rail to Gulf ports for export in 1966. The staff, OCE, found, upon further analysis, that only 32,000 tons of soybeans had moved by rail to Gulf ports in 1966 rather than 85,000 tons as estimated by the Vicksburg District Engineer's report. The Vicksburg District estimated 40,000 tons of soybeans had moved down- bound on the existing Yazoo River Navigation Project (9-foot navigation is available on the existing project for 46 percent of the time) in 1966. The staff, OCE, estimated this movement totaled 62,000 tons. Official waterborne commerce statistics published by the Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Part 2, Calendar Year 1966, lists 55,300 tons of soybeans moving on the existing Yazoo River Navigation Project. The Vicksburg District estimated about 29,000 tons had moved by truck to Greenville, Mississippi, and barge beyond to Gulf ports in 1966. The staff, OCE, increased this movement to 46,000 tons. In regard to this movement, the Vicksburg District and the staff of OCE both assumed that the shipper would be willing to pay a premium rate for such service. The comments by the staff of OCE stated this resulted from a shortage of rail cars in 1966 and the desire of elevator owners to avoid commingling of their beans with those of other buyers. The current truck-barge rate through Greenville used by the Vicksburg District is $4.26 per ton, which is the combination truck-barge rate from Yazoo City. The Bunge Corporation owns and operates an elevator at Yazoo City as w-ell as at Greenville, Mississippi. Since the elevator operated by Bunge Corporation at Yazoo City is not served by rail, it is obvious that a rail car shortage, even if it had existed, would not have affected their soybean shipments from Yazoo City. Bunge Corporation has several alternative routes for shipping soybeans from Yazoo City to the Gulf for export. These include barge on the existing project at a rate of $3.53 per ton; all-truck to Baton Rouge at $3.67 per ton; truck-barge through Vicksburg, Mississippi, at a rate of $3.76 per ton; and finally truck-barge through Greenville, Mississippi, at a rate of $4.26 per ton. One of the basic assumptions made by the Vicksburg District in its analysis of the Yazoo River is that shippers will act to minimize transportation costs. We do not argue with this assumption. However, it is equally applicable to existing conditions. Consequently, we find little support in the Vicksburg District Engineer's report and the comments of the staff of OCE for using the highest rate available as a basis for computing transportation savings. It is obviously not caused by a shortage of railroad cars. The commingling of beans can be avoided by shipping direct by truck or barge. b. Wheat. The Vicksburg District estimated 13,000 tons of wheat as downbound traffic on the Yazoo River in 1966. Their report also showed no wheat had moved downbound on the existing navigation project during 1966, whereas official waterborne statistics as published by the Corps of Engineers show 11,100 tons of wheat moving on the Yazoo River in 1966. Hence, transportation savings should have been measured using the existing barge rate of ~3.53 and not the rail rate of $4.10. Dry fertilizers.-The Vicksburg District estimated 42,000 tons of dry fertilizers as prospective traffic for the Yazoo River in 1966. The staff of OCE, upon further investigation, found approximately 18,000 tons of dry fertilizers available for barge movement in 1966, as compared with 18,800 tons found by our analysis which was based on a tabulation of rail shipments during 1966. Thus, the Vicksburg District overstated estimated 1966 barge traffic of dry fertilizers by approximately 55 percent. Anliydrons ammonia.-The Vicksburg District estimated 131,300 tons of an- hydrous ammonia as downbound barge traffic for the Yazoo River in 1966. The tabulation or outbound rail shipments revealed rail movements to 330 destina- tions in 18 states during 1966. Total rail shipments were in excess of 130.000 tons. although shipments to points that could receive anhydrous ammonia by barge to- PAGENO="0619" 605' tailed only 64,000 tons. By far the principal movement was to an affiliate plant at Pasoagoula, Mississippi. The staff of OCE, upon further analysis, found that a little less than 98,000 tons of anhydrous ammonia moved from the fertilizer plant at Yazzoo City in 1966 and assumed such traffic was available for barge. Since receiving the comments from the staff of OCE~, we have made further study of the downbound anhydrous ammonia traffic. As noted above, shipments in 1966 went to 330 destinations. Many of these shipments were in small annual volumes and to off-river and off-waterway destinations. Although we did not ana- lyze 1967 shipments, total rail cars shipped from Yazoo City in 1967 were 3,460 as compared with 3,244 cars in 1966. Oyster shells.-Oyster shells are currently moving by barge from Gulf Coast deposits to a cement plant at Redwood, Mississippi, approximately 17 miles above the mouth of the Yazoo River. The average barge loading is about 2,200 tons at a draft of 8 feet and the movement on the Yazoo River for a 2-barge tow requires 3.4 hours. The proposed plan for improving the Yazoo River calls for a lock at approx- imately mile 4. This lock will permit a single lockage of 2-barge tows of the size currently in use. Consequently, we can find no basis for crediting savings of 25 cents per ton to the movement of oyster shells involving a haul of 17 miles. Grain mill products.-Tbe Vicksburg District estimated 1966 downbound traffic of grain mill products (soybean and cottonseed meal) to be 54,900 tons. The Dis- trict Engineer aLso stated that the traffic had moved by rail to the Gulf ports in 1966. The staff, OOE, state that 47,000 tons of soybean meal moved by both rail and truck to Gulf ports and various destinations in the southeast and an addi- tional 28,000 tons of cottonseed meal moved by rail and truck to points in the States of Mississippi and Louisiana. For the purposes of our analysis, we tabulated shipments of soybean meal from Yazoo River shipping points to all destinations. This revehied outbound ship- ments of approximately 14,000 tons. Of this amount, approximately 9,200 tons of soybean meal moved to Gulf destinations, the remainder going to points in Mississippi and Tennessee. In our previous analysis, we had not considered cottonseed meal as prospec- tive downbound barge traffic because it normally does not move in the export trade. We made further analysis of cottonseed meal from Yazoo River shipping points which showed a movement of approximately 11,000 tons in 1966. This tabulation showed that principal movements were to Birmingham, Alabama; Hat- tiesburg, Mississippi; and Jackson, Mississippi. The tabulation also showed that only 400 tons moved from this area by rail to Gulf ports.. None of the rail move- ments of cottonseed meal would show transportation savings, principally because of the direction of movement and the small annual quantities to barge receiving points. It should be noted that the comments of the 0GB were not respon- sive to our findings since they showed shipments of soybean and cottonseed meal by both rail and truck, whereas the Vicksburg District based its estimate of barge movements of these commodities on 1966 shipments by rail to Gulf ports. LPG (liquifled petroleum gas) .-The Vicksburg District estimated 42,300 tons of LPG as uphound barge traffic in 1966, with transportation savings of $43,600, or $1.03 per ton. The staff, OCE, state they verified the movement of 42,300 tons. Both the Vicksburg District and the staff. OCE, state that the LPG moved by rail in 1966. In our review of the Vicksburg District's report, we made a special tabulation of rail shipments of butane and propane, which account for 80 percent of LPG production, and found approximately 11,000 tons had moved by rail to Green- wood, Mississippi, in 1966. Upon receipt of the comments of the staff, OCE, we made a further analysis of LPG movements by rail. This revealed that we had failed to tabulate rail movements of miscellaneous liquified petroleum gas. When this omission was discovered, we tabulated these movements which showed 23,400 tons had moved to Greenwood by rail in 1966. Consequently, total rail movements of LPG to Greenwood during 1966 were approximately 34,000 tons, rather than the 11,000 tons we showed in our analysis which, as noted above, was based on rail ship- ments of butane and propane. This is approximately 8,000 tons less than that estimated by the Vicksburg District and the staff of the OCE. Rail shipments of LPG to Greenwood, Mississippi, originated at 48 stations and totaled 490 cars of approximately 70 tons per carload. The principal shipping points are located at inland cities in Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma. Based on our revised analysis, we find 18,400 tons of LPG traffic to have been available for barge in 1966. PAGENO="0620" 606 Linerboard paper-The Vicksburg District's estimated 30,000 tons of liner- board paper would move downbound from the new paper mill at Redwood, Mis- sissippi, to the Gulf for export commencing in 1975. Estimated transportation savings were computed by the Vicksburg District to be $25,500, or 85 cents per ton. At the time the Vicksburg District made their study, the railroads had not published specific carload export rates from the plant at Redwood, Mississippi, since it was not in operation. Since then. the railroads have published a set of carload export rates ranging from $4.30 per ton to Baton Rouge to $4.70 per ton to New Orleans. The staff, OCE. found that the transportation savings computed by the Vicks- burg District and the AAR would have been practically the same had we used New Orleans rather than Baton Rouge as the port of export. In the absence of the waterway, this implies that the producer at Redwood, Mississippi, would be willing to pay 40 cents per ton premium to have his product exported via New Orleans rather than Baton Rouge. This we cannot accept since one of the basic assumptions made by the Vicksburg District is that shippers will try to minimize transportation costs. Moreover, if savings of 40 cents per ton will not divert this traffic to Baton Rouge, there is no assurance that savings of 85 cents per ton u-ill divert it from rail to barge. Logs.-The Vicksburg District estimated 25,000 tons of hardwood logs for use as pulpwood would commence using the Yazoo River in 1975. This traffic would be for the new paper mill at Redwood, Mississippi. Our analysis did not question the amount of the traffic but the savings that the Vicksburg District had computed for this movement of 94 cents per ton. This mill is currently receiving pulpwood by rail on intrastate rates (see IC 510-0, 100 8452). Based on published rail rates, we concluded that no savings would accrue to this traffic. The staff, OCE, found that savings on this traffic by barge would be adequate to divert the movement from rail to barge. How- ever, they obviously have used rates on pulpwood which are in error. For example, they state that the rate from points in northwest Mississippi would be $1.43 per ton, whereas the correct published rail rate is 85 cents per ton, as shown in our analysis. Since this rate is less than the savings computed by the Vicksburg District, we again find no savings would accrue to this traffic. Average annual equivalent transportatiom savings.-Based on Table B-8 and Plate B-2 of Appendix B of the Vicksburg District Engineer's report, our analysis found that average annual equivalent transportation savings had been overstated. Comments by the staff of OCE state that Chart B-2, which the Vicksburg District used to demonstrate the growth of transportation savings, is incor- rect. Based on undisclosed information, the staff of OCE finds that the Vicks- burg District Engineer assumes that the growth of traffic will be substantially greater in the early years of the project's life rather than in the last 10 to 20 years of the project's economice life as shown in the report. This contradicts completely the report by the Vicksburg District Engineer. Comments by the staff of OCE do not respond to our analysis and are incon- clusive since they fail to show the path or growth of benefits for discounting purposes. Subsidy to barge operators and shippers.-The proposed Yazoo River Navi- gation Project will be constructed, operated, and maintained by the nation's general taxpayers. Based on traffic estimated to move on the proposed project by the Vicksburg District, barge operators will be subsidized $2.20 per ton in 1915, the first year of project operation. The average subsidy over the economic life of the project is 81 cents per ton. It would be uneconomical to impose the costs of constructing and maintaining the project on the general taxpayers. It would also discriminate again.st competing modes of transportation. We cite as a constructive step President Johnson's request for a modest user charge of 2 cents per gallon on fuel oil used by towboats on our inland water- w-ays. The Administration also proposed that this charge be increased 2 cents per year until it reaches 10 cents per gallon in 1970. RECREATION BENEFITS The Yazoo River Navigation Project proposes two separate recreation facilities. In order to provide water for the navigation project, it is proposed to increase Sardis Reservoir and develop further its recreation potential. The second recreational area would be created as a result of construction of a navigation dam at mile 4on the Yazoo River. PAGENO="0621" 607 The 1963 report of the Vicksburg District found that the recreational use of Sardis Reservoir was restricted because of the lack of adequate dust-free access roads. The 1966 report apparently found that adequate roads had been provided but still found that the use of Sardis Reservoir was restricted because it was "an open body of water without significant einbayments. Consequently, much of the time water is too rough for pleasure boating, skiing or fishing." We noted this inconsistency between the 1963 and 1966 reports, and the staff of OCE stated that the Vicksburg District should have shown how many days during the recreation season the waters in Sardis Reservoir were too rough to permit boating, skiing, and fishing. Our analysis also noted the existence of three other Corps of Engineers' res- ervoirs in the headwaters of the Yazoo River-Enid, Grenada, and Arkabutla- as well as Pickwick Lake on the Tennessee River. Because of the availability of the many alternative recreational areas-Federal, state, and county-we found that the Vicksburg District's report had not properly evaluated the effect of the alternative recreational areas on Sardis Reservoir's recreation potential. We also found that the personal income in this area could not support a unit value of $1.25 per day, which, according to Supplement No. 1 to Senate Document No. 97, should reflect what users would be willing to pay for the opportunity to recreate if such fees were charged. Our analysis also noted ethnic characteristics of the population would influence the demand for recreation. Concerning the navigation pool to be created at mile approximately 4 on the Yazoo River, our analysis noted that the report of the Vicksburg District stated that there are no reservoir-type recreation opportunities in or near the lower end of the Yazoo River. This is not so because of the availability of Ross Barnett Reservoir near Jackson, Mississippi. In fact, it is quite obvious that the recrea- tional opportunities at Barnett Reservoir exceed those that can be expected from the navigation pool on the lower Yazoo River. Taking into account the avail- ability of alternative sites, the lower level of personal income, and ethnic char- acteristics of the population, our analysis computed recreation benefits to be approximately $200,000 annually. OCE in their comments endorse the recreation benefits computed by the Vicksburg District Engineer. They assert the use of $1.25 per recreation day is supported by Supplement No. 1 to Senate Document No. 97. However, they made no attempt to determine whether users would be will- ing to pay $1.25 per recreation day as required by the aforementioned document. We also found that the Vicksburg District had overstated fish and wildlife benefits by $24,400, with which the staff of OCE concurred. INTEREST RATES The Vicksburg District used an interest rate of 31/s percent to compute project costs and benefits. Our analysis found that this interest rate is much too low and results in understating project costs and overstating project benefits. Since submission of the report, the interest rate used to evaluate water resource proj- ects has been increased to 31/1 percent. The current yield on key long-term Treas- ury bonds is approximately 5% percent. Th opportunity cost of capital is even higher. The use of a more realistic interest rate, for example, 5% percent, makes the project even less justified than our analysis found it to be. It is of significance to note that President Johnson, in his Budget Message, stated the interest rate being used by the Federal agencies in formulating and evaluating proposed water resource projects is significantly lower than the cost of borrowing by the U.S. Treasury. President Johnson also stated that the Water Resources Council is developing a more appropriate interest rate for use in evaluating water resource projects. During the first week of May 1968, the U.S. Treasury borrowed money at an interest rate of 6 percent. Obviously if the subject project were analyzed using a realistic interest rate, the benefit-cost ratio would be substantially reduced. Comments by the staff of OOE state the interest rate prescribed by the formula in Senate Document No. 97 was used. No attempt is made by the staff of OCE to support the level of the interest rate used to evaluate the project. AREA REDEVELOPMENT BENEFITS The Association of American Railroads supports the objectiv~s of alleviating poverty wherever it exists. The area in which the proposed project is located is largely rural and is characterized by substantial rural as opposed to urban poverty. PAGENO="0622" 608 We have had the opportunity to study a report by the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty entitled "The People Left Behind," dated September 1967. This very commendable report found that available evi- dence indicates that little, if any, direct employment of the unskilled rural poor results from the cons-truction of natural resource projects (page 134). It also noted that the construction of such projects creates false hopes concerning their contribution to increasing employment and incomes of the rural poor. It is also noteworthy that the Economic Development Administration, ilLS. Department of Commerce, does not include construction jobs created by their projects as a means of justifying such projects (Economic Development, Vol. 4, No. 9, September 1967, page 2). The Association of American Railroads finds no support for a procedure that includes part of the project costs as a means of justifying authorization and construction of the project. It is also of significance to note that the staff of OCE estimate the area under study will experience a growth in manufacturing approximately one-fourth higher than the national growth. This is not characteristic of depressed areas. One of the principal characteristics of depressed areas is a declining population as people move out to seek employment. Surprisingly, the Vicksburg District estimates that the population of the 14-county tributary area, all but one being ARA, increased by 6.6 percent between 1960 and 1965. RECOMMENDATION When the Vicksburg District Engineer's report is corrected to reflect over- statements of traffic, transportation savings, and recreation benefits, we compute the benefit-cost ratio to be approximately 0.7 to 1. One of the difficulties of computing a benefit-cost ratio for the subject project results from the failure of the staff of OCE to show the path or growth of transportation savings over the project's economic life, 1975-2025. Our analysis dated August 18, 1967, computed the benefit-cost ratio of the subject project to be 0.3 to 1. Analysis of the com- ments by the staff of OCE resulted in increasing annual transportation savings by approximately one million dollars, of which about one-third results from a change in the growth curve used to discount transportation savings. Since the Yazoo River Navigation Project clearly lacks economic justification, we recommend and urge this Committee not to authorize it. Mr. BLATNIK. I call on my colleague, Representative Thomas G. Abernethy, of Mississippi. STATEMENT OP HON. THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MISSISSIPPI Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am here to urge that you include in the river and harbor and flood control bill the navigation improvements on the Yazoo River, Miss., as recommended by the Chief of Engineers and concurred in by the Secretary of the Army and the Bureau of the Budget. My review of tile report of the Chief of Engineers leads me to the conclusion that the construction of this project will be a truly fine in- vestment not only for the immediate region to be served, but for the entire Nation. The estimates of the Corps of Engineers appear to be unusually con- servative, yet result in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.6 to 1. Prospective shippers among my constituents are certain that freight tonnages, particularly in grain and fertilizers, will be far greater than estimated in the report. Fourteen or more counties, including some of the most productive agricultural counties in the Nation, will be served by the project. While now an area principally relying on agriculture, it is experiencing rapid industrial growth which certainly will be accelerated by this project. Even in its present hazardous state of navigation, the Yazoo River is PAGENO="0623" 609 carrying more than 150,000 tons of commerce per year, including more than 40,000 tons of soybeans. As this committee well knows, my legis- lative career has been largely devoted to the interests of the farmer and for that reason this project particularly appeals to me, since the freight savings, especially on the grain crops, are passed on to the farmer in the prices he receives. This mea~ns a direct and tangible benefit to the individual farmer who will be served by the waterway. The city of Greenwood, in my district, will be the terminus for the project. Its citizens are particularly interested because of the prospects a navigable Yazoo River furnishes for ith future growth. Greenwood already enjoys outstanding transportation facilities-rail, highway, and air. When this project is completed, no community in the country will enjoy finer advantages for industrial growth. There are other benefits from the project, particularly in recrea- tional facilities, which make it one of the most attractive public works improvements it has been my pleasure to support. I urge your most favorable consideration and your recommendation for its authorization. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Next, Representative G. V. "Sonny" Montgomery, from Mississippi. STATEMENT OP HON. G. V. "SONNY" MONTGOMERY, A REPRESENT- ATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP MISSISSIPPI Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am happy to submit this statement on behalf of the Yazoo River navi- gation project in Mississippi. As you know, it would provide a year-round 9-foot navigation chan- nel on the Yazoo River from Greenwood to Vicksburg, Miss. This would be accomplished by constructing a navigation lock and a tainter- gated clam near the mouth of the river at Vicksburg. It would also require channel realinement at several locations, dredging, training dikes, channel clearing, and one bridge alteration to provide adequate clearance for navigation. Recreational facilities are also proposed incidental to the foregoing improvements. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors has concurred in the plans for this project and it has recommended that the existing navi- gation project on the Yazoo River from its mouth to Greenwood, Miss., be modified to provide for the improvement presently being considered by this committee. It is estimated that the first cost of the Yazoo River navigation proj- ect would be $53 million, providing a benefit-cost ratio of 1.6 to 1. The Federal cost would be $51,240,000 for construction and lands in the reservoir, exclusive of aids to navigation; $1,760,000 would be the non-Federal cost of lands, easements, and rights-of-way along the Yazoo River, one bridge alteration, and for repayment under the pro- visions of the Federal `Water Project Recreation Act. The estimated population in 1965 of the 14 counties considered com- mercially tributary to the proposed improvement was 362,000. Farming and cattle raising are now the principal occupations in this area. Al- though industrial growth is proceeding rapidly, the completion of this project would speed this progress and greatly improve the economic welfare of the area. PAGENO="0624" 610 Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that statements of Mr. Sam Coker, of Yazoo City, Miss.; Mr. James A. Pierce, traffic manager, Mississippi Chemical Corp.; and Mr. W. S. Stuckey, manager, Coop- erative Elevator Co., Greenwood, Miss., be included in the record at. this point. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the committee to authorize the Yazoo River navigation project as part of the Mississippi River and tribu- taries project. (Statements referred to follow:) STATEMExT OF SAM H. COKER My name is Sam H. Coker, I live on a cotton farm eight miles north west of Yazoo City, Mississippi. I own and operate a farm implement store in Yazoo City, Mississippi. I am president of the Yazoo Mississippi Delta Levee Board, Domiciled in Clarksdale, Mississippi, which district includes ten counties iii the Yazoo Mississippi Delta. I am, also, Chairman of the Yazoo County Port Commission, and I come before you to speak in behalf of the Yazoo River Naviga- tion Project. The original improvement on the Yazoo River to provide a channel with an average width of about 200 feet and a minimum depth of 4 feet was completed in 1888 with a cost of approximately $360000.00. The Project is maintained as required by removal of snags, hanging trees and other obstruc- tions. It extends from the mouth of the iazoo River at Vicksburg to the vicinity of Greenwood. There has been transportation on the Yazoo River since before the Civil War reaching a low ebb at the advent of the new and deeper draft barges that are presently used in water transportation. The proposed waterway would serve an area with a population of approximately 360,000 whose economy is largely agriculture, even though there are some agriculture related industries together with paper and petroleum industries. The river at present carries from 100,000 to slightly in excess of 200,000 tons per year depending on the amount of water available. In 1961 about a dozen men from the four principle counties through which the waterway would flow organized the ~azoo River Development Committee. This Committee engaged Professor Don Doty of Mississippi State University to make a complete survey of the area for proposed navigation benefits. This study was financed by local interest and submitted to the Corps of Engineers at their Hearings. The above mentioned study indicates that there would have been 611,000 tons moved on the Yazoo River if barge transportation bad been available in the year 1962. It, also, indicates that by the year 2012 estimated tonnage would be 1,875,000 tons handled at a savings of $1,500,000.00 per year. The latest study by the Corps of Engineers would indicate an increase of 991,000 tons by 1975 and 5~/2 million tons by the year 2025. Cotton has long been the number one crop grown in the area; however, acreage control on cotton during recent years and the adaptability of Delta soil to soybeans and small grains have resulted in significant increases in the production of these commodities. The principle benefit to the project is transportation savings which are approxi- mately 31/~ million dollars annually. In 1963 Yazoo County created a 5 man Port Commission to direct the development of port facilities in the county. With the assistance of the state of Mississippi the county at this time owns a modern well equipped port with facilities to handle both dry and liquid material. Among the many items that would move on the waterway some of the principle ones for outbound traffic would be soybeans, grain, petroleum products and fertilizer. Among the inbound traffic would be oyster shells, fertilizer, coal, and agricul- tural lime. In this connection I would like to call attention to the fact that from 1960 to 1066 there was over 290,000 acres of land cleared in the area and brought into production. This figure has been increased from 1906 to date by approximately 33,000 acres. In Yazoo county alone, which is the largest county in the state of Missis- sippi by area, there were over 42,000 acres cleared in this five year period, and at least 6,000 acres brought in in the last two years, and virtually all of this new land has gone into soybean production. The best market for these soybeans is the export market at the ports of New Orleans and Mobile, which will be shown by another witness. The inbound tonnage would be tremendously increased by the anticipated use of the large volume of coal with which to operate International Paper Company plant at Redwood, Mississippi and the Greenwood Municipal PAGENO="0625" 611 Power Plant which letters attached from the management of both firms will verify. Extraordinary Session of 1966 the Mississippi Legislature passed House Bill #10 which authorized the creation of the Lower Yazoo River Basin District. This District has been organized and consists of Warren, Yazoo, Humphreys and Leflore counties, each county having two directors. The District has taxing and bonding authority which would be ample to furnish all of the necessary local participation required on this project, and funds will start coming in in February 1969. We urge your approval of this project and appreciate very much the time that you have given us to discuss it with you. Thank you. STATEMENT OF JAMES A. PIERCE, TRAFFIC MANAGER, MISSISSIPPI CHEMICAL ConPoiwrloN, COASTAL CHEMICAL CoRPoRATIoN, YAzoo CITY, MISS. Our primary support in the Yazoo River Navigation Project pertains to the interest of the fertilizer industry. American farmers today purchase over 30 mil- lion tons a year of commercial fertilizers composed of chemical ingredients. They spend about ~2 billion each year for these fertilizer chemicals-and about one-fifth of all the crops American farmers raise can be directly attributed to the use of fertilizers. In the past two decades, we have experienced a revolution in the farming industry. During this period, a decreasing number of U. S. farmers have niore than tripled the farming output. Along with improvements in farming methods and chemical fertilizers, transportation has played a vital role to the progress of this most important industry. The fertilizer industry, in its use of transportation, has found that the water- ways system is mandatory `to meet its need. Not only is the water system needed in receiving raw materials for production, the increase in bulk deliveries, both liquid and dry, has demanded more water transportation. To give an example, 38 new anhydrous ammonia plants have been built along the inland waterways during the past 10 years. Now, to be more specific, one of our company's continuing objectives is to take greater advantage of low-cost water transportation in establishing new terminals at `strategic locations on the inland waterway system for the effective and timely distribution of our products at the lowest possible cost. In line with this objec- tive, we wish `to outline the make-up of the companies which we represent and the importance of our support of the development of the Yazoo River. Mississippi `Chemical Corporation and it's subsidiary, `Coastal Chemical Cor- poration were formed as, and continues to operate as, Cooperatives in order `to serve the farmers of the South and South Central United States with chemical fertilizers, both nitrogeneous and mixed, at the lowest possible cost. `The nitrogen plants are located at Yazoo `City, Mississippi with an output of 1,000 tons/day of anhydrous ammonia, 900 tons/day ammonium nitrate, 275 tons/day urea and 750 tons/d'ay nitrogen solutions. Adequate river transportation is necessary in order for our companies to remain competitive and operate in `the best interest of the approximately 22,000 farmer stockholders. Lower water transportation costs results in direct `benefits to these farmer stockholders in the South and South `Central United States as all company profits `are `accrued to these stock- holders-in cash and/or additional stock. To date, Mississippi Chemical and Coastal Chemical have returned over $127,000,000.00 in cash to its farmer stock- holders. Thus, providing these farmers the opportunity to produce a higher food yield at the lowest possible cost. At the present, our companies opera'te a one million dollar river port facility at Yazoo City on the Yazoo River consisting of 28,000 tons of dry bulk storage and 10,000 tons of bag storage along with storage in excess of 4,000 tons of nitrogen solutions and anhyd'rous ammonia. We now move approximately 35,000 tons of dry bulk mixed fertilizers into this port facility at Yazoo City of which a majority of the tonnage is shipped from Pascagoula, Mississippi. With proper water avail- ability on the Yazoo River, 100% of this tonnage could be moved into this port by the waterways system. In 1967, Coastal Chemical established 20,000 tons of additional storage for nitrogen solutions at Eufaula, Alabama and President's Island, Memphis, Ten- nessee, which coupled `with 10,000 tons of storage at `Decatur, Alabama, brought our on-water `storage for nitrogen solutions to a 30,000 `ton level. Annual thru-put of `these facilities will be approximately 45,000 tons. T'his product is manufac- 97-700-68------40 PAGENO="0626" 612 tured at Yazoo City and due to an increase in water availability on the Yazoo River during the months of October, Xovember and December, 1007, 13,580 tons of nitrogen solutions were shipped by barge to these storage facilities at a con- siderable savings; however, because of the limited water level, the majority ton- nage of this product had to be shipped by rail at a higher transportation cost. Mississippi Chemical Corporation is also manufacturing products for export. We are presently shipping 5,000 tons of urea by rail to the Port of Pascagoula. It is most important in the export market that our prices be competitive as pos- sible. Lower freight costs means the lower our overall prices will be, thus en- hancing our chances to better compete in the world market. There is a limit to the amount of such business we can expect under present conditions. We do not know what the future holds, but it is likely that barge movements to ships on the Gulf Coast would certainly improve our potential in this market. In addition, we have just completed a 25,000 ton dry bulk storage facility at Liberty, Texas, on the Trinity River and feel that we have a potential to move a substantial tonnage of urea from Yazoo City to this location. Adequate water availability for this movement on the Yazoo River would further enhance our ability to lower the distribution costs. Plans are now being made to establish bulk storage for dry materials, which will include urea, for the Northeast Arkansas and North Alabama areas. These facilities will be established on water. Two years ago, MCC and CCC came on stream with the first 1,000 ton/day anhydrous ammonia plant and the first 30,000 ton refrigerated storage facility. This alone is an indication that we are among the leaders in the fertilizer industry. Moreover, we recently doubled our nitrogen solutions and urea pro- ductions. All of this indicates more transportation utilization for the Yazoo River. More specific, this past year we shipped approximately 75,000 tons of anby- drous ammonia to points which could be served by water transportation. Had the Yazoo River been available for this distribution, considerable transportation savings would have been experienced. In planning further expansion programs in the Yazoo City area, we are limited in the types of production we can consider due to the limitations im- posed by the lack of proper water transportation for raw materials. Recently, a new fertilizer processing operation was approved for another of our locations primarily because of the lack of a year-round navigable channel which is necessary to move in the raw materials. We are also in the process of building a 1,200 ton/day urea plant and a 1,000 ton/day anhydrous ammonia plant at still another location which can be adequately served by water. The ideal situation is, of course, to build production facilities near the center of the distribution area, but if the lack of adequate water availability dictates build- ing elsewhere, transportation costs are not minimized as they should be. With the rise in costs of raw materials, production and labor, transportation is playing an ever increasing role in an attempt to reduce overall costs in the manufacturing of fertilizers. It is imperative for us to continue to furnish the farmers with their fertilizer needs at the lowest cost possible and our future operations are highly dependent upon water availability. The outcome of ap- proval for much needed proper water facilities on the Yazoo River is of utmost importance to our companies to meet this demand. STATEMENT OF W. S. STUCKEY, MANAGER, COOPERATIVE ELEVATOR Co., GREENwOOD, Miss. I am W. S. Stuckey, Manager of the Cooperative Elevator Company of Green- wood, Mississippi, a department of Farmers Supply Cooperative AAL, Green- wood, Mississippi. I represent, and have for the past twelve years, the interests of 350 plantation and farm owners in Lefiore and adjoining counties of Mis- sissippi, specifically in the field of grain and soybean marketing and storage. It is well known and understood by economists that the agriculture strength and expansion of an area must have roots to three major qualifications. First, fertile land; second, efficient and educated producers; third, and the most important, the efficient market systems to give him the correct value for his production. This market value is at present, and has been for some time the deep concern of this area. PAGENO="0627" 613 Lefiore and adjoining counties have had the most efficient mode of trans- portation to the market place lying idle and undeveloped for years. Since trans- portation costs are a large portion of the ultimate price of a bushel of grain or soybeans, the most efficient avenue must be used to create the correct market value. Continued rail freight increases over the years, plus the shortage and inade- quate disposition of rail equipment, has directly depressed the value of the areas' products. The following facts will point out the exact loss to these particular people and area during the production year 1967: Cooperative Elevator Company of Greenwood Capacity, bushels 2, 000, 000 Purchases and Sales, bushels 3, 685, 000 Soybeans, bushels 2,500,200 Oats, bushels 380, 000 Grain, Sorghum, bushels 155, 000 Wheat, bushels 565, 000 Corn, bushels imported 85, 000 soybean Rates for export (Published): Rail, per ton or 19.50~ per cwt $3. 90 Greenville Barge, per ton or 7.95ç~ per cwt 1. 59 (Equivalent to Greenwood), per ton or 11.55~ per cwt 2. 31 Converts to 6.93çb per bushel. 2,500,000 bushels multiplied by 6.93~, Loss to Producers $173, 250. 00 Wheat Rates for export (Published) Rail, per ton or 21.50~ per cwt $4. 30 Greenville Barge, per ton or 7.95~ per cwt 1. 59 (Equivalent to Greenwood), per ton or 13.55ç1 per cwt 2.71 Converts to 8.13~ per bushel. 505, 000 bushels multiplied by 8.13~, Loss to Producers $45, 934~ 50 Now we are again faced with increased freight July 1st. This cannot continue for the benefit of future agriculture expansion. Total 9-foot channel navigation on the Yazoo River for a definite high percent- age of the year, will give this fertile area room to expand and prosper. Interest in all crops will inevitably gain favor. The Cooperative Elevator Company of Greenwood will construct permanent dock and loading facilities at a cost of ~125,000, at the first sign of actual work and expenditures on this project. The City of Greenwood and Leflore County are in the process of acquiring land for an industrial port at this time. The expansion of industry as well as agricul. ture is a prime target for the Greenwood Lefiore Industrial Board. In closing, I would like to point out that these facts are limited to only a small portion of this project. The overall economic value to be gained from a navigable river from Greenwood to Vicksburg is substantially greater in the Agricultural field. STATEMENT OF HON. CnARLE5 GRIFFIN Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity to present my views on the Yazoo River Navigation Project. Those of us who have a particular concern about the growth of the area which will be affected by this project are extremely enthusiastic about its potential. In fact, there is a consensus that completion of the project can open the door to unprecedented development; `thereby benefiting hundreds of thousands of people, both directly and indirectly. The 14 counties considered commercially tributary to Yazoo River navigation improvement traditionally have `been agriculturally oriented due to the existence of rich fertile soil and a favorable climate. There has been a marked acceleration in recent years, however, in industrial development in such diversified fields as -the processing of agriculture and timber products, manufacture of industrial chemicals and fertilizers and production of petroleum products. PAGENO="0628" 614 Despite these encouraging trends, each of the counties through which the river flows, with the exception of Warren County, has been classified as a redevelop- ment area by the Economic Development Administration. I am convniced that the proposed waterway improvement would be a key to attaining the maximum de- velopment of the area's human and natural resources. A recent decision of the Illinois Central Railroad is an excellent illustration of the stimulating effect which the navigation project will have on the area. In anticipation of the river being made navigable on a year-round basis, the railroad has constructed the longest stretch of rail line to be built in Mississippi in the past century, paralleling the river in Warren and Yazoo Counties. Numerous in- dustrial spokesmen, likewise, have confided to local leaders in business and com- merce that their decision on locating new facilities in the immediate area will be based on assurances that the proposed improvements will be made. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the indicated cost of S53 million requires that care- ful, judicious consideration be given the project prior to authorization. However, this would appear to be a sound investment in view of the 1.6 cost benefit ratio. I believe, too, that this ratio will be executed when the overall potential is realized. RED RIVER NAVIGATION pRO,jECT-LOtiSIANA~ ARKANSAS~ TEXAS, AND OKLAHOMA Mr. TANGEROSE. If it suits the chairman, I will also give my state- ment on the Red River. Mr. BLATNIX. Yes, will you please. Your arguments in the Red River statement would be essentially the same, the transportation benefits and perhaps other benefits, is this true? Mr. TANGEROSE. This is true in part. Except in this particular case, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, when it approved the project, changed Vicksburg District Engineer's report so sub- stantially that there is really no relationship today between the New Orleans District Engineer's report. And actually our analysis of the Red River is principally concerned with the Red River navigation project only as far as Shreveport, since the Board of Engineers of Rivers and Harbors recommended the increment from Shreveport to Lone Star to be restudied prior to construction. Our study also showed the 95 percent or more of traffic between Shreveport and Lone Star was for the benefit of Lone Star Steel Co. Our analysis also showed the increment between Shreveport and Lone Star had B-C ratio of less than one, excluding so-called area redevelopment benefits. There is one point that is common to both reports, which I have not talked about. If you have time, if you do not, I could summarize. Mr. BLA1'~x. Could you conclude your testimony, if I may inter- rupt. We have our senior colleague, outstanding colleague, dear friend and member of the Rules Committee, which is in session, and he was only able to get away, Mr. Madden from Indiana. Mr. TANGEROSE. I can summarize it. Mr. BLATNIK. And the testimony will appear in its entirety at this point, the statement will appear in its entirety at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES G. TANGEBOSE, DEBECTOR OF WATERWAY ANALYSIS, AsSocIATIoN OF AMERICAN RAILROADS My name is James G. Tangerose. I am Director of Waterway Analysis of the Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. The Association of Amer- ican Railroads includes virtually all Class I railroads of the United States in its membership. This statement is presented on behalf of the Association and the AAR Overton Canal-Red River Waterway Project Committee. This com- PAGENO="0629" 615 mittee includes representatives of all Class I railroads serving the area adjacent to the proposed Red River Navigation Project. I will briefly summarize my statement and request that the complete statement and supporting studies be included in the record of this hearing. INTRODTJCTION The New Orleans District completed an interim report of the Red River below Denison Dam in March 1966. The report recommended, among other things, a navigation project from the mouth of the Red River to Shreveport, Louisiana, thence via Twelve Mile and Cypress Bayous to Lone Star, Texas. The navigation project recommended by the New Orleans District was 9 feet deep, 150 feet wide, with nine locks, all 84 feet wide and 600 feet long, and about 294 miles in length. The railroads serving the area employed R. L. Banks and Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C., to review and analyze the navigation features of the New Orleans District's report. This firm computed the benefit-cost ratio to be 0.6 to 1 for the combined navigation-bank stabilization project to Lone Star, Texas. They also found that the benefit-cost ratio would have been even less if all commodity movements had been analyzed. Copies of the analysis made by R. L. Banks and Associates, Inc., were furnished the Chairman of this Committee on April 25, 1968. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors recommended approval of the Interim Report on the Red River in October 1966. It qualified its recom- mendation by finding that the navigation project from Shreveport, Louisiana, to Lone Star, Texas, should not be initiated until it had been restudied. The Board also made a number of significant changes to the New Orleans District's report. For example, it recommended increasing the channel width from 150 to 200 feet. Because of the significant changes made by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to the New Orleans District's report, the AAR Overton Canal-Red River Waterway Project Committee made an extensive review of the Board's report. The analysis by the railroad committee was confined to the navigation project from the mouth of the Red River to Shreveport. It noted, however, that the extension of the project from Shreveport to Lone Star would be principally for the purpose of benefiting Lone Star Steel Company. Copies of the analysis made by the AAR Overton Canal-Red River Waterway Project Committee, dated April 15, 1968, were furnished the Chairman of this Committee on April 25, 1968. I request this analysis be made a part of the record of this hearing. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS OF RAILROAD COMMITTEE'S ANALYSIS The principal findings of the AAR Overton Canal-Red River Waterway Proj- ect Committee of the report by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors are summarized as follows: Benefit-cost ratio.-The benefit-cost ratio for a navigation-recreation project was computed to be 0.7 to 1, and for a navigation-only project, 0.6 to 1, mouth of Red River to Shreveport, Louisiana. Estirn~ated traffic and transportation savings-We made a careful analysis of the five principal commodities estimated to move on the proposed waterway by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. The five commodities analyzed accounted for 567,000 tons of base year traffic, with transportation savings of $1,066,000, or 67 and 66 percent, respectively, of estimated traffic and transportation savings. Our analysis found 438,000 tons to be prospective waterway traffic, with estimated transportation savings of $795,000. Except for a few commodity movements, for example, butane and creosote, most of the traffic expected to move on the proposed waterway is currently moving by rail. Tabulations of rail carload traffic, from, to, and within the area to be served by the proposed waterway show beyond any reasonable doubt that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors substantially overstated the traffic of some commodities. This was found to `be characteristic of each of the five commodities analyzed, but especially of lube oil, iron and steel articles, and iron and steel pipe. Our analysis also found that transportation savings per ton had been over- stated by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. For example, the Board estimated transportation savings on coal to be $1.36 per ton, whereas these cannot exceed $0.53 per ton. PAGENO="0630" 616 Evaluation procedvre.-Approximately 28 percent of the ti~affic estimated by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to move on the proposed water- way, mouth of Red River to Shreveport, is from and to Lone Star Steel Company's plant. Most of this traffic is moving by rail. The Lone Star Steel Company receives a division of revenues on all rail traffic to and from its plant, since it operates a railroad between Lone Star and Daingerfield, Texas. Obviously, Lone Star Steel Company cannot make a decision to ship by rail-barge or truck-barge w-ith- out analyzing the effects of such traffic diversion on the costs and revenues of its subsidiary railroad. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors failed to take this into account in its report. Consequently, its evaluation of Lone Star Steel Company's traffic is in error. Projected future tra~ic and transportation .savings.-The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors estimated over 90 percent of the base year traffic would increase 4% percent per year in the period 1961-2030. We found that many of the commodities expected to move on the proposed waterway were related to the petroleum industry; for example, lube oil and upbound iron and steel pipe. The iroduction of lube oil in this area has been relatively unchanged in recent years. Oilfields in this area are old established fields and, in recent years, the demand for pipe for refinery and pipeline use has experienced little growth. Moreover, the estimated economic growth rate for the area is totally inconsistent with the finding of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors that the area will be eeoomicafly depressed until 1990. ~iibsidies to barge transportation.-Based on the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors' estimate of traffic and average annual charges, barge oper- ators will be subsidized $4.60 per ton in 1980, the first year of operation. The average subsidy over the project's economic life is approximately $1.25 per ton. It would be uneconomic to impose the costs of constructing and maintaining this project on the general taxpayers. It also would discriminate against com- peting modes of transportation. We cite as a constructive step that President Johnson is requesting a modest user charge of 2 cents per gallOn on fuel oil used by towboats on our inland water- ways. The Administration is also requesting that this charge be increased in gradual steps by 2 cents per gallon until it reaches 10 cents per gallon in 1970. Hecreaticrn.-Our analysis found that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors had not fully complied with Senate Document No. 97 and Supplement No. 1 thereto in its evaluation of recreation benefits. The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors failed to adequately assess the effects of alternative recre- ation projects in the area on the destand and supply for recreation, as well as the value per recreation day. They also incorrectly evaluated the benefits credit- able to casual visitors or sightseers. Moreover, they neglected to evaluate the effect of recreation projects to be recommended by the Comprehensive Report on the Red River. This report will be completed in the near future. Interest rate.-The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors used an interest rate of 31/s percent to compute project costs and benefits. Our analysis found that this interest rate is much too low and results in understating project costs and overstating project benefits. Since submission of the report, the inter- est rate has been increased to 3~ percent. The current yield on key long-term Treasury bonds is approximately 5~ percent. The opportunity cost of capital is even higher. The use of a more realistic interest rate. for example, 51/2 percent, makes the project even less justified than our analysis found it to be. However, in our analysis, we used an interest rate of 3'/~ perecnt so it would he com- parable with the Bo~rd of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors' report. It is of significance to note that President Johnson, in his Budget Message, stated the interest rate being used by the Federal agencies in formulating and evaluating proposed water resource projects is significantly lower than the cost of borrowing by the U.S. Treasury. President Johnson also stated that the Water Resources Council is developing a more appropriate interest rate for use in evaluating water resource projects. During the first week of May 1968, the U.S. Treasury borrowed money at an interest rate of 6 percent. Obviously if the subject project were analyzed using a realistic interest rate, the benefit-cost ratio would be substantially reduced. Area redevelopment benefits.-The Association of American Railroads sup- ports the objectives of alleviating poverty wherever it exists. The area in which the proposed project is located is largely rural and is characterized by sub- stantial rural as opposed to urban poverty. We have bad the opportunity to study a report by the President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty entitled "The People Left Behind," PAGENO="0631" 617 dated September 1967. This very commendable report found that available evi- dence indicates that little, if any, direct employment of the unskilled rural poor results from the construction of natural resource projetts (page 134). It also noted that the construction of such projects creates false hopes concerning their contribution to increasing employment and incomes of the rural poor. It is also noteworthy that the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, does not include construction jobs created by their projects as a means of justifying such projects (Economic Development, Vol. 4, No. 9, September 1967, page 2). The Association of American Railroads finds no support for a procedure that includes part of the project costs as a means of justifying authorization and construction of the project. Transportation capacity.-The New Orleans District's report determined the area to be served by the proposed waterway has excellent transportation facili. ties. This analysis finds there is substantial underutilization of present trans- portation capacity. The proposed waterway will add to the excess capacity and result in the misuse of the nation's limited resources. Chronic excess transporta- tion capacity can only result in increasing the Nation's total transportation costs. Recommendation.-The analysis made by the AAR Overton Canal-Red River Waterway Project Committee found the benefit-cost ratio for the navigation project of the Red River, from its mouth to Shreveport, to be only 0.7 to 1, even on the basis of an unrealistic interest rate of 31/8 percent. Since the project clearly lacks economic justification, we recommend that the navigation project not be authorized by the committee. This completes my statement and I appreciate the opportunity the committee afforded me in making this presentation. Mr. TANGEROSE. The analysis made `by the AAR Overton Canal-Red River Waterway Project Committee found the benefit-cost ratio for the navigation project of Red River, from its mouth to Shreveport, to be only 0.7 to 1, even on the basis of unrealistic interest rate of 31/8 percent. Since the project clearly lacks economic justification, we rec- ommend that the navigation project not be authorized by Congress. Mr. BI~1'NIK. Thank you, Mr. Tangerose. Mr. TANGEROSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Madden. CALUMET-SAG PROJECT MODIFICATION STATEMENT OP HON. RAY J~. MADDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP INDIANA Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the Rules Committee is meeting all day. I came over to thank the committee for calling these hearings on the authorization and modification of the Calumet-Sag modification. I again thank the committee and express my support for this modification. Mr. BLATNIK. We appreciate the gentleman making an extraordi- nary effort to be here in person on behalf of this project. The Honorable John Kluczynski joins you in support of the project too. Mr. Kluczynski. STATEMENT OP HON. iOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP ILLINOIS Mr. KLUCZYNSIcI. I am pleased as a member of this committee to appear here today in support of H.R. 15433, a bill authorizing modifi- cation of the existing projects for the Illinois Waterway, Ill, and md., PAGENO="0632" 618 and Indiana Harbor and Canal, md., and in support of my neighbors and very good friends from Indiana. This bill would modify the Calumet-Sag navigation project author- ized by the River and Harbor Act of 1946 in accordance with House Document 45, 85th Congress, insofar as it applies to existing highway bridges in part II of the project. This waterway is a major link be- tween the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. Part II would provide a 9-foot-deep chaunel along the general route of the Grand Calumet River between the Little Calumet River and Clark StreetS Gary, md., a turning basin at Clark Street, a lock and controlling links in the Grand Calumet River, and reconstruction or alteration of all obstructive railroad bridges to provide suitable clearances. The River and Harbor Act of 1946 authorized Federal participation in the alteration of obstructive railroad bridges for part I of the Calumet Bay project in accordance with the provisions of the Truman- Hobbs Act. In 1952 the Truman-Hobbs Act was amended to include highway bridges as well as railroad bridges. Thereafter, the Congress in 1958 modified part I to authorize Federal participation in the re- location of highway bridges, so as to be consistent with the amended Truman-HObbs Act. This legislation would authorize Federal participation in the altera- tion of obstructive highway bridges in part II on `the exact same basis as that authorized for part I by the 1958 River and Harbor Act. In view of the economic need for the development of the navigation facilities of the Calurnet River in this area, I urge favorable considera- tion of this bill. I understand that the State of Indiana and the local interests in the project area are willing to cooperate and to assume their share of the burden. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Kluczynski. MAINTAIN HARBORS AND WATERWAYS AT DEPTHS REQTJIRED FOR DEFENSE PuRPOSES Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Joseph Belle, Special Assistant, Facilities, Project Division, Naval Engineering Command, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., on H.R. 801, H.R. 2780, and H.R. 2844, defense harbors. STATEMENT OF 3~OSEPH V. BELLE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, FACILITIES, PROJECT DIVISION, NAVAL ENGINEERING COMMAND, DEPART- MENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. BELLE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Depart- ment of the Navy would like to testify in favor of H.R. 801 and the companion resolutions. Mr. BLATNIK. Do they have the names who are sponsoring them? Mr. BELLE. Mr. Leggett, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Waldie. The proposed bills would authorize the Chief of Engineers, Depart- ment of the Army, to expend certain appropriated funds to maintain harbors and waterways at depths required for defense purposes. The Navy has been requested to express the views of the Department of Defense on the proposed legislation. PAGENO="0633" 619 The navigation depths of the various harbors and waterways are established by Congress in the v.arious acts which authorize the con- struction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, such as the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480). The Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, traditionally has been assigned responsibility for navigation improvements and maintenance of harbors and waterways. Each year the Corps of Engi- i~eers submits reports to Congress in connection with the proposed river and harbor bill. These reports outline the work to be done on the various projects-including project depths. The navigation depths are thus established by these reports which are specifically mentioned in, and become part of, such acts as may be enacted by the Congress. Presently, the authority of the Corps of Engineers to expend civil works funds for the establishment and maintenance of channel depths prescribed by the various river and harbor acts does not embrace mili- tary requirements that are in excess of commercial needs. The increased depths required for the operation of Navy ships and the nuclear submarine fleet necessitate the maintenance of certain liar- bors and channels deeper than those prescribed by the various river and harbor acts as the navigation project depths. These increased depths for naval requirements could be said to render meaningless the shallower depths prescribed by the various river and harbor acts. Inasmuch as the various river and harbor acts do establish naviga- tion depths for commercial needs, and where the depths required by naval vessels are greater than these commercial needs, then it follows that commercial interests become beneficiaries of military expenditures. Notwithstanding the purposes of the various river and harbor acts, the present funding situation places the Department of Defense in the posi- tion of subsidizing certain waterways for use by commercial and private shipping. The legislation proposed would essentially give to U.S. Government vessels consideration equivalent to that given to commercial vessels. The Departments of the Army and Air Force have no objection to the proposed legislation. Necessary coordination has been done within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that, from the standpoint of the administration's program, it has no objection to the proposed legislation. The Department of the Navy recommends enactment of the pro- posed legislation. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Belle. Any questions? Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. I do not quite understand your logic in this statement, Mr. Belle, because you have to construct deeper channels for military or naval uses, that commercial uses benefit from military expenditures. Can you explain to me a little more what you mean? Mr. BELLE. I can give some examples, which will probably answer your question. If we take the main channel into San Diego Bay, the project depth for commercial needs is 35 feet. The Corps of Engineers PAGENO="0634" 620 has been authorized by the Congress, as I understand, to dredge to only 35 feet. The Navy requirement is 42 feet. In fiscal 1961, the Navy funded dredging in San Diego Harbor to the tune of $2,851,000, which by itself automatically and completely took care of commercial needs in itself. Mr. HARSHA. But you would have done that had there been no com- mercial traffic in there; would you not? Mr. BELLE. We would have had to do it if the Corps of Engineers were not authorized to go beyond the 35 feet as the question at hand. Mr. }-IARSHA. Do you mean that under the Corps of Engineers re- strictions that only ships, commercial ships that could travel in 35-foot depths would be entitled to be in there, but because you dug it to 42 feet, then larger vessels can come in there and use that? Mr. BELLE. That is not necessarily the Navy's permission, Mr. Harsha. The Navy's permission is in the establishment of project depths in Federal waterways, the U.S. Government vessels, in the depths required for them, be given equivalent consideration as to the requirement for depths for commercial and private vessels, since it has been designated a "Federal waterway" under the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers, under the civil works appropriations. Mr. HARSHA. Do commercial vessels have the right to use thes&- Mr. BELLE. Yes, sir; because they are~ Federal waterways which the Navy has to use. Mr. HARSHA. Are they restricted to the type of vessel that can only use a 35-foot-depth channel? Mr. BELLE. Is the Navy vessel? Mr. HARSHA. No; commercial. Mr. BELLE. No, sir; certainly not to my knowledge. Mr. BLATNIK. Repeat again, Mr. Belle, just what would this bill do. Mr. BELLE. This bill inasmuch as the waterways in question require it to be used by naval vessels are Federal waterways, that the depths authorized by the Congress be those depths required by the U.S. Gov- ernment vessels when they require a depth greater than commercial vessels. Mr. BLATNIK. What does that mean in terms of cost, project costs? Mr. BELLE. In discussions with the Corps of Engineers we feel it might not be more than two to three projects a year, and not more than several million dollars, $2 to $3 million a year. Mr. HARSHA. Does that mean the cost of constructing the additional depth would come out of the Corps of Engineers' funds, rather than out of the Department of Navy's funds? Mr. BELLE. That is right, sir. Mr. HARSHA. In other words, it is going to cost the Government just as much in the long run, but it comes out of Paul's pocket instead of Peter's pocket? Mr. BELLE. Yes. The only savings we can perceive is savings in administration, because there is split responsibility right now. Mr. HARSHA. What is the Corps of Engineers' position on that? Mr. GURNEE. Mv name is Mark S. Gurnee, Chief of Operations for Civil Works in the Corps of Engineers. We have subscribed to this staternei~t, and also the statement submitted on behalf of the Depart- ment of Defense by the Navy on April 1, 1968, which takes the same position which Mr. Belle has taken here. PAGENO="0635" 621 Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Mr. Belie. Mr. BELLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. At this point there will be inserted in the record cor- respondence received by the Committee from Hon. Robert L. Leggett of California. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., June 25, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Public Works Committee, house Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: There is pending before your committee H.R. 801, H.R. 2844 and H.R. 2780 to authorize the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army to expend certain appropriated funds to maintain harbors and waterways at a depth required for defense purposes. This legislation is simple and avoids duplication of management of harbor dredging depths between the Corps of Engineers, Civil Works Department and the Department of Defense. There are three or four harbors in the country which qualify for considera- tion under this legislation which I would ask you to include as an amendment to the omnibus Public Works Bill. As an example, at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in my Congressional District the Civil Public Works current authorization maintained by the Corps of Engi- neers provides for a relatively shallow, rather wide maintained depth. The De- partment of Defense for purposes of launching submarines requires, on the other hand, a deeper depth in excess of 30 feet. However, defense width of the channel is not nearly as extensive as the Civil Works width. The result is total confusion which will be obviated by this simple `amendment to the pending bill. The amend- ment has the full support of the Department of Defense as is evidenced by the Department of the Navy report on file. I attach hereto in support of the enactment of this amendment copy of letter dated October 4, 1965 from the Department of the Navy, analysis prepared by the Department of the Navy indicating `the nine harbors in the United States which will be affected by this legislation and copy of analysis and rationale pre- pared *by `the Mare Island Naval Shipyard indicating `special conditions ap- plicable at that `base. Your many courtesibs are appreciated. Very sincerely, ROBERT L. LEGGETT, Member of Congress. Enclosures. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C., October 4, 1965. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON. Chairman, Committee on. Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your request for comment on H.R. 717, a bill "Au- thorizing the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, to expend certain appropriated funds to maintain harbors and waterways at depths required for defense purposes", has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense. This bill would authorize the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, to expend Civil Works funds to maintain harbors and waterways at depths re- quired for defense purposes. The navigation depths of the various harbors and waterways are established by Congress in the various Acts which authorize the eonstruction, repair and preservation of certain public works on rivers and har- bors for navigation, such as the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480). The Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, traditionally has been assigned PAGENO="0636" 622 responsibilit.y for navigation improvements and maintenance of harbors and waterways. Each year the Corps of Engineers submits reports to Congress in connection with the proposed River and Harbor bill which outline the work to be performed on the various projects. The navigation depths are thus established by these reports which are specifically mentioned in and become part of such Act as may be enacted by the Congress. The increased depths required for the operation of Navy ships and the nuclear submarine fleet necessitate the maintenance of certain harbors and channels at depths deeper that those prescribed by the various River and Harbor Acts as the navigation project depths. Since the authority of the Corps of Engineers to ex- pend Civil Works funds for maintenance is limited to the navigation project depth, military funds must now be expended not only to obtain the greater depth, but also to maintain it, although Civil Works funds have been used in the past to maintain the same waterways at the lesser depth. In this connection, experience has shown that there would be some additional maintenance costs in- volved for the deeper channel because of the more rapid rate of shoaling. The present funding situation places the Department of Defense in the position of subsidizing certain inland waterways for use by commercial and private shipping. In the case of those waterways where there is a defense requirement for a depth greater than the project depth, the Department of Defense must budget for and finance through its appropriations not only the cost of the initial dredging but that of the periodic dredging to maintain that greater depth result- ing in the project depth being maintained at the expense of the Department of Defense. Accordingly, it is submitted that enactment of this bill would offer sev- eral advantages to the Department of Defense and the Government. The Depart- ment of Defense would not be subsidizing the cost of maintaining certain chan- nels for commercial and private use, and budgeting for maintenance of all inland waterways would be centralized in one government agency, the Corps of Engi- iieers. It would also help in obtaining a more accurate comparison of shipbuild- ing costs in naval shipyards as compared to private yards, in that the cost of dredging to extra depths is now charged to the naval shipyard overhead while private yards are not subject to such a charge. The Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, favors the enactment of HR. 717. Enactment of H.R. 717 would not require any additional cost to the Federal Government. Since the Department of Defense would be relieved of the necessity of providing military funds for the deeper channel, that budget would be reduced. On the other hand, the Department of the Army Civil Works funds budgeted to provide the authorized lesser depth would have to be augmented by the same amount. Some savings might result from the simplified administration resulting from single source funding. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in ac- cordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administra- tion's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report on H.R. 717 for the consideration ofthe Committee. For the Secretary of the Navy. Sincerely yours, It. K. DISNEY, Captain, U.S. Navy, Director, Legislative Division. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C. Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Wash i~ngton., D.C. M~ DEAR MR. SPEARER: There is enclosed a draft of proposed legislation "Au- thorizing the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, to expand certain appropriated funds to maintain harbors and waterways at depths required for defense purposes." This proI)OSa1 is a part of the Department of Defense Legislative Program for 1062 and the Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Ad- PAGENO="0637" 623 ministration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this proposal for the consideration of the Congress. The Department of the Navy has been designated as the representative of the Department of Defense for this legisla- tion. It is recommended that this proposal be enacted by the Congress. PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, to expend Civil Works funds to maintain harbors and waterways at depths required for defense purposes. The navigation depths of the various harbors and waterways are established by Congress in the various Acts which authorize the construction, repair and pres- ervation of certain public works on rivers and harbors for navigation, such as the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 480). The Corps of Engineers, Depart- ment of the Army, traditionally has been assigned responsibility for navigation improvements and maintenance of harbors and waterways. Each year the Corps of Engineers submits reports to Congress in connection with the proposed River and Harbor bill which outline the work to be performed on the various projects. The navigation depths are thus established by these reports which are specifically mentioned in and become part of such Act as may be enacted by the Congress. The need for the proposed legislation has arisen because the increased depths required for the operation of Navy ships and the nuclear submarine ileet neces- sitate the maintenance of certain harbors and channels at depths deeper than those prescribed by the various River and Harbor Acts as the navigation project depths. Since the authority of the Corps of Engineers to expend Civil Works funds for maintenance is limited to the navigation project depth, military funds must now be expended not only to obtain the greater depth, but also to maintain it, although Civil Works funds have been used in the past to maintain the same waterways at the lesser depth. In this connection it should be noted that ex- perience has shown that there would be little, if any, additional maintenance costs involved for the deeper channel. Attention is invited to the requirement in the proposed legislation which limits the expenditure of funds to those channels which the Chief of Engineers deter- mines will also serve essential needs of general commerce. The proposed legislation would currently affect the following channels and waterways: New London, Conn.: State Pier approaches and berths. New York (Bayonne Annex) : Approach to drydock and berths. Charleston, S.C.: Channel from ocean to Goose Creek. Port Canaveral, Fla.: Entrance channel and turning basin. Mayport, Fla.: Channel in St. Johns River from ocean to entrance to Navy basin. Pascagoula, Miss.: Channel from ocean to Ingalls Shipyard. Pensacola, Fla.: Entrance channel and turning basin. San Diego, Calif.: Channel and turning basin at North Island. Mare Island, Calif.: Naval Shipyard to Carquinez Straits. COST AND BUDGET DATA The proposed legislation would not require any additional cost to the Federal Government. Since the Department of Defense would be relieved of the necessity for funding all of the maintenance for the deeper channel, a savings would accrue to this Department. On the other hand, Department of the Army civil works funds, if budgeted for and appropriated, are already available for the authorized lesser depth and could be applied to the greater depth. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD, VALLEJO, CALIF.-DEEPENING MARE ISLAND STRAIT CHANNEL I. HISTORY Silt has been a problem in Mare Island Strait since 1900. The rate of silt accumulation in Mare Island Strait is dependent on a number of factors including PAGENO="0638" 624 flood runoff from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers, wind velocity and direc- tion, salinity of water, distance which salt water has moved upstream, depth of water at point of deposition, etc. The silt comes downstream in the fresh water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin river system. When the silt interacts with the salt water it becomes colloidal and is easily carried from place to place. The colloidal matter usually is first deposited in San Pablo Bay. During spring and early summer the westerly winds cause the silt to become waterborn and much of it is carried into Mare Island Strait and deposited. There is a two hour differ- ential in tides between Carquinez Strait and Mare Island Strait. End.. (1) illus- trates the movement of silt from San Pablo Bay upstream into Carquinez Strait. Water can flow from Carquinez Strait when the flood tide has started in Mare Island Strait and it is still ebbing in Carquinez Strait. The U.S. Army Engineers, by H. Doe. 644, 75th Congress, 3rd Session, dated June 20, 1938, were authorized to maintain a channel in Mare Island Strait at a depth of 30 feet below mean lower low water. The channel is 700 feet wide from Carquinez Strait flaring into a turning basin 1000 feet wide at the southerly end of the finger piers and extending to a line 75 feet southerly from the causeway between Vallejo and Mare Island. The depth decreases from 30 feet to 26 feet in the northerly 600 feet of the turning basin. This channel is shown on end. (2). The Shipyard maintains berths outside of the turning basin and areas in berths inside the turning basin where the Army dredge cannot operate because of ships or other obstructions. II. NIJCLEAR SUBMARINE REQL~EMENTS The Shipyard, on 10 March 1959, requested the U;S. Army Engineers to increase the depth of the channel and turning basin to 35 feet and decrease the widths by about 400 feet. This depth was to allow the passage of nuclear powered sub- marines through Mare Island Strait. The Army Engineers were unable to sponsor this legislation. Subsequently, 35 foot depth requirement was reduced to 32 feet because of the need of austerity. Under this reduced depth, it was recognized that it would be necessary to restrict the movement of the nuclear submarines to one hour before and one hour after high tide to keep them off the bottom of the 32 foot channel. The Navy obtained funds from a Military Construction Project and authorized the U.S. Army Engineers to deepen the channel with their dredge. The work w-as completed in January 1962. Some overdredging was accomplished at this time to allow for silting. This channel is shown on end. (2). Experience now shows that the restrictions as to times of operations through the 32 foot channel are not feasible where a multiple number of ships are out- fitting, docking, undergoing trials, or operating in and out of the shipyard. Further, unforeseen weather conditions, such as fog inside the bay or in the submarine operating area, together with operational and testing uncertainties, preclude any rigid adherence to tidal schedules. The present construction program schedules for Mare Island Naval Shipyard require that SSB (N) submarines operate extensively in and out of Mare Island Channel on sea trials during the period March 1963 through October 1965. These ships require 35 feet at MI~LW during this period. Additionally, present logistic planning for the shipyard includes a regular overhaul capability for SS (N) submarines. These submarines require a minimum of 34 feet at MLLW and this depth requirement is a continuing one. The requirement for 35 feet at MIJIJW, is concurred in by the 12th Naval District and Fleet Operating Commands. The Shipyard has submitted Project P-21 in its 1064 Military Construction Program. End. (3) is the description for this project. III. REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING Following completion of the MilCon project for deepening the channel to 32 feet the U.S. Engineers were requested to enter into negotiations to maintain the channel to this new depth. The Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, advised DuBocks on 30 July 1962 as follows: "The authorized depth for the Federal navigation project for Mare Island Strait is 30 feet and no general authority currently exists which would permit PAGENO="0639" 625 providing greater depths on a continuing basis. Accordingly, funds appropriated for Civil Works functions cannot legally be used to share in defraying the cost of maintaining depths below 30 feet at all times. This restriction on the expen- diture of civil funds is not a policy decision but rather a matter of law since the authorized project depths has been established by Act of Congress." This has been interpreted to mean that if the Navy does not want the channel to ever get more shallow than 32 feet below MLLW, the Navy will have to pay the entire cost of dredging in the area over which such depth is required. During the five fiscal years 1956-57 and 1960-61 inclusive, the Navy's dredging averaged .840,000 cu. yds. at a cost `of $167,300 annually and the Army's dredging 2,070,000 cu. yds. at a cost of $389,000 annually. If the Shipyard has to pay for all maintenance dredging in the deepened channel, it will cost the shipyard some $300,000 annually more than the cost of additional silting due to the deepened channel only. End. (4) illustrates the, difference in the Navy's `and Army's position with regard to liability for the dredging. End. (5) explains end. (4). IV. SPECIAL STUDIES Numerous proposals to reduce silting in the entire Bay area have been advanced. To further this program, the U.S. Army Engineers have constructed a model of the Bay area at Sausalito. They are conducting tests to determine control works required in San Francisco Bay and tributaries. The Navy has contributed funds for studies of value to the Navy. One of these studies is to determine the most economical method of reducing silting in Mare Island `Strait. v. COMMUNITY INTERESTS OTHER THAN THE NAVY The Cities of Vallejo and Napa `and industries along Mare Island Strait and the Napa River are also interested in deepening the channel, reducing silting and controlling floods. Enclosure (7) taken from the San Francisco Chronicle of 10 October 1962 is further evidence of the need for deeper channels in the San Francisco Bay Area. It emphasizes the value of *deep water `berthing facilities, and the con- tribution of `such facilities to `development of the surrounding area. Enclosure (8) is an article from the Vallejo Times-Herald of 11 December 1962 in regard to a meeting to be held on the problem with reference to Mare Island Strait and Napa River. It appears that civilian interests in a deep water channel for this evaluation are as important as military requirements. VI. SUMMARY The problem of deepening Mare Island Strait can be summarized by stating immediate and long range objectives separately: A. The immediate requirements for a solution to the Shipyard's dredging problem's are as follows: (1) Enabling legislation should `be passed to `permit the Army Engineers to budget and perform maintenance dredging for defense purposes. This legislation has been prepared and sent to the Bureau of the Budget for inclusion in the President's budget, end. (6). (2) Authorization and funding is needed under the Military Construction Program if not otherwise available, for a project to deepen the Mare Island Strait Channel to 35 feet. `Such a project ha's been prepared and submitted to the Bureau of Ships. (`See end. (3)). B. The long range requirements envisage: (1) Complete model studies and engineering studies to determine the most effective and economical way to control silting in the Strait. (2) After the Army Engineers have completed their studies, funding will be needed for detail engineering and to subsequently construct control works to reduce the `silting, control floods and maintain a deep channel in the Napa River and Mare Island Strait. Enclos are: (1) Aerial Photograph showing the southerly end of Mare Island with silt moving from Sa'n Pablo Bay into Carqui'nez Strait. PAGENO="0640" 626 (2) Map of Mare Island and Mare Island Strait showing channels. (3) Justification of Project P-21 for FY 1964 Military Construction Program. (4) Chart showing variation of dredging costs between Army and Navy. (5) Army dredging costs and explanation of end (4). (6) Letter from General Counsel of Dept. of Defense to Budget Director with two enclosures. (1) Clipping from San Francisco Chronicle dated 10 October 1962. (8) Clipping from Vallejo Times Herald dated 11 December 1962. Looking east from San Pablo Bay over westerly end of Dike 12 up Carquinez Strait, southerly end of Mare Island in left center. Shows silt laden water ebbing from San Pablo Bay and mixing with water flooding into Oarquinez Strait. Water is ebbing from Mare Island Strait into Oarquinez Strait in upper left center. Photo made from colored transparency taken at 1200 on 25 September 1947, altitude 5,000 ft., tide 5.1 ft. above MLLW. PAGENO="0641" Co -1 -1 0 CD DEPART'IE4T 0' ~AVY ~~ MILITARY COP~STRUCTION PROGRAM - 10.4 JUSTIFICATITN DATA 1: p3 Au~jzt l~ ~Z~J$1ISY !~1PY~d:. !~l.ei?~.. q4if.. D~edg~ t.?.3~'a !Rare. Island Stra~t......:. ... *... P-21 ......~. ~45-i0 .. 350,000 . ~~350OO0 - SECTIOR I. TEA DESCRIPIIOR 15300500 [~J a ` `` ~ DEC11 CO I EDT TED The deepening of the Mare Island ~L_~i_ - c*~I:o . .**~* .. - ~`;~ Channel and Turning Basin from a project depth o~ 345~Q_ Prigi~.Predgin~_ ~ CL .833,3.33... A2......4........ 32 feet below MILW to a project depth of 35 feet ---~. .----.-..-..-- below )ILLW as follows: -.-. ---.-------...--_.---.._-.-.----_. ---- .-~.-- -*..-.--- -..-..-- 1. Dredging from 32 feet to 35 feet depth a .-__-- ..- ~._. .._. - channel 400 feet wide extending from the -...---.. -. Carquinez Strait to the ricin.t~ of the Marl .__-.r...... ...__..........: IslandBaYalShipyardPingerPiers,ad.is- --.-..-.~ -*-.--~-.-.. -..--...- .._ .~..... . ... .. tanceor7800feet.; ....~ ........._...~........._._ . 2. Dredging from 32 feet to 35 feet depth a ...-.----- ---.-- ---------.-------. - turning basin 600 feet wide extending from .__.._......._...............L.........__ .~. ~~___ -. the Mare Island Naval Shipyard Finger Piers .- - to Berth 7, a distance of 7500 feet. ~-______ - SECTION III. SAGES El_REQUiREMENT A channel 35 feet ii&pp...._. The Shipyard ha nuclear power submarine construction and over haul capabilities and is the principle Shipyard on the wst coast for nuclear subroarine construe - tion. The project depth of the channel and turning basin is 32' below MLLW. Average tidei are 5' Submarines drawing 32-U 5/8~ are nov under construction. This draft plus 2' drag by the stern while under way equals 31e'-U 5/8". Therefore channel depth requirenants f or operating submarines of this class is 35' below MLLW. Operations at high tide only is not practical. Fog coroi!tiors at high tides may prohibit operations with resulting hours of waiting for another high. Maai:~..m perfo~nce tests conducted at sea map cause failure and require an i~diate return te the Ship- yard )the onstruction or ove'hau]. hedules may be mOw-re ly afT cted thereby delaying t~e performance of the ships and their PolarIs weapons systems in the National Defense Mission. npt.approved, soneof the.mil,max'jnes co~ scted~g~~comi~g in f.o~~erhaii1,,yiU~~pund whi1~,, .gj~ way a±_~I~~j~es. This wiU~ii~ult in ossible s c ural damage and clog the c~1i~wa~r intakes.__Beginning with Apr , submarines will be ope 2 * -. A channel 32 feet deep *~-~* * . -- c. ITT IN~TNT0TY A channel 32 feet - `" deep ~. ;~,se C, CI' 3 feet additional ~g~ng J I I I MILITARY CO~5TRUCTION REQUEST - ITEM JUSTIPICATIOM CATs PAGENO="0642" 628 D1VI5IQN OF COSTS MA~IE~)ANC~ O~~J~)G. NAVY Po51TIor~~) hoc- ~qR .SISI'~4Z'~' CllAN4&I~ 700' - TQRAIIIt./G B4~51N /000' C,vi~ ~ p~~r ¶t,.prW lv e~ /4fflM~~MJED gr F.IiqVy ezPEA'SE esrrnlArED 14~my o~o«=TS E5 T~MA reo W4 V y C057i ~, O00~, 000 cy. ~ 1c.zc ~5o4 coo (83Z) 404 000 C~ &~O25 /04 o~O(/7Z) ~o~AL ~00J 000 ARM~( PO51TIQ~ 6ir/MATE0 AI4VY COSTS ~ ,~ 2004~ cy pco,~ 4CC,, 000 cy. ~ ~~o00, Q001t7/.) TbTPC..~ /~CO, 000.00 ARMY DREDGING-ACTUAL COSTS Fiscal year Cost Cubic yards Cost per cubic yard (cents) 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 Total Average year ~428, 000 289,000 333,000 558, 000 338, 000 1,865,000 1,150,000 1,919,000 3, 629, 000 1, 795, 000 22.9 25.1 17.4 15. 4 18. 8 1,946, 000 389, 200 10, 358, 000 2, 071,600 18. 8 EXPLANATION OF OIIART The Army's Interim Report on 35' deep channel indicated the additional silting caused by deeper channel would be 600,000 en. yds. annually. This has been reduced to 400,000 cu. yds. per year for a 32' channel. ~, c84/Jk/FL 400' rva~'&,/wG 6a451'J (300' 70 UE MM/Al r$IA/CD ~y /7RMy (civiL ~JO~5) (37/M'4TE0 ARMY COST5 4cX .1C 2004Q00 Cy &4azc 4~xzoo4~37.) PAGENO="0643" 629 Estimates for 1962-19fJ3 are based on normal dredging for 30' channel at 2,000,000 cy. annually plus 400,000 cu. yds. for additional silting due to main- taining narrow 32' deep channel and turning basin. The Army's dredging cost per cu. yd. is variable, and estimate is based on $0.25 per cy. as the dredging in fall of 162 cost over 24~ per cy. CLINTON CITY~ IOWA~ BRIDGE COMMISSION Mr. BLATNIK. The last project is H.R. 13221, Clinton Bridge Comrn mission. Congressman John Culver was prepared to testify earlier today. His statement will appear in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CULVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Subject: To include H.R. 13221, relating to the City of Clinton Bridge Commission, in the Omnibus Rivers and Harbors Bill. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony to you regarding H.R. 13221, a measure I have introduced to assist construction of a new bridge at Clinton, Iowa, and to urge that it be included in the Omnibus Rivers and Harbors Bill before your Committee this week. The 89th Congress passed PL 89-498 (H.R. 3788) which in effect revived and reenacted earlier legislation approved December 21, 1944 authorizing the City of Clinton Bridge Commission to construct and operate a bridge or bridges across the Mississippi River at or near Clinton, Iowa. PL 89-498 extended the original authority, under which the Gateway Bridge has been constructed and operated, to permit the construction of a new bridge near the site of the present Lyons-Fulton Bridge, which was erected in 18915 and on which traffic is now limited to two-axle, four~tire vehicles. The Lyons-Fulton Bridge, owned by the Commission, was devastated by fire in 1963 and ~5 in such condition that its use is restricted and will not be accepted by the states of Illinois and/or Iowa. The structure must be replaced. Both Houses of the Congress and the President have, in PL 89-498, recog- nized the immediate need for an additional bridge crossing at Clinton and extension of the existing authority of the Commission for that purpose. Subsequent to the passage of FL 89-498, the Commission, on June 7, 1967, distributed a prospectus on the issue of $8,000,000 of Bridge Revenue Bonds, the proceeds to be used for the construction ~iuthorized by the enactment. A ruling was requested from I.R.S. that interest on these bonds would be exempt from taxation under Section 103 (Ia) (1), I.R.C. Under existing policies of the T~'easury a favorable ruling did not issue. With a statutory limitation of 6% on the bonds, and due to prevailing conditions in the current money market, no bids were received when the bonds were offered on June 28, 1967. Because of the itiabifity to market the authorized bonds, the economic needs of the area to be served by the proposed new bridge and the intent of Congress evi- dencd by passage of PL 89-498 were frustrated. The legislative amendment pro- posed by H.R. 13221 which I introduced September 28, 1967 would permit con- struction of the needed bridge which Congress has actually earlier approved. New construction would be financed by a "construction fund" derived from tolls on the Gateway Bridge and continued restricted operation of the Lyons-Fulton Bridge pending completion of a new structure. The arguments supporting early and favorable action on the proposed legisla- tion are several. First, this Act merely provides an alternative method of financing construction of a needed new bridge which has kiready been considered and approved by both Houses and the Executive in the enactment of PL 89-498. Second, in view of the inability of the Commission to sell its Bridge Revenue Bonds in the current money market an alternative method of financing the new bridge should be authorized. The method proposed involves no federal financing and contemplates earlier retirement of indebtedness on the new bridge and transfer of the structure to the states of IllinOis and Iowa than would be possible if Revenue Bonds had been issued and sold. PAGENO="0644" 630 Further, the burden of interest on Revenue Bonds is avoided and the "con- struction fund" will earn interest to contribute to construction costs. Third, the economy of the entire two-state trade area served by the Lyons- Fulton Bridge (to be replaced) is dependent upon two-bridge service across the Mississippi River. Fourth, on the assumption Revenue Bonds authorized under PL 89-498 could be marketed, the Commission has obtained bids on the sub-structure of the pro- posed new bridge designed to replace the Lyons-Fulton Bridge. The low bid was very advantageous and substantially below engineering estimates. To avail itself of this favorable bid, the Clinton Bridge Commission in December 196T marketed to four banks S2,350,000 in Bridge Revenue Bonds and awarded the contract for the new bridge sub-structure. Installation of the sub-structure is now 30% com- plete. H.R. 13221 is however urgently required to complete construction of the new bridge. Fifth, because the constitutionality of the recently enacted Iowa Bridge Bill (S.F. 131, ~32d Legislature) must be tested before bonds can be sold by the state under that authority, and because comprehensive studies must be made before any bridges are built under that authority, that state law offers no solution to the urgent problems and requirements of the areas of Iowa and Illinois involved. Clinton is one of the most rapidly growing, progressive communities in East- ern Iowa and the entire midwest. The need for the new bridge has been recog- nized and endorsed by the community, the state, and indeed by the Congress itself. I urge you to include as an amendment to the Omnibus Rivers and Harbors Bill, H.R. 13221, and thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. Mr. BI~&TNn~. We have Mr. E. L. Swick, Deputy Director, Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, D.C. STATEMENT OP E. L. SWICK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. SWICK. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Works Agency does not have a prepared statement concerning H.R.. 13221. The position on the bill has not cleared the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. BLATNIK. You are testifying on H.R. 13921, introduced by Mr. Culver? Mr. SwIcK. Yes, sir. Late in 1967 the Iowa Legislature enacted S. 131, which provided authority for the State Highway Commission of Iowa to acquire, purchase and construct interstate bridges and to levy tolls for that construction and operation. It is the intent of the enactment that the Iowa State Highway Com- mission would after feasibility studies determine where toll bridges were needed and proceed to issue revenue bonds for their construction. All such bridges would remain under jurisdiction of the highway commissipn. At about the same time, this is late in 1967, the Clinton Bridge Commission, which has existed since about 1944, was attempting to finance a new toll bridge across the Mississippi River, between Clinton, Iowa, and Fulton, Mo., to replace an obsolete existing structure called Lyon's Fulton Bridge. The commission had available at that time a sufficient sinking fund to pay off all of its outstanding indebtedness. This indebtedness was incurred for the construction of the gateway bridge, which is the other crossing under the jurisdiction of the Cliii- ton Bridge Commission. The older Clinton Fuiton Bridge was in dire need of replacement. However, the bridge commission in proposing its reconstruction con- templated continuation of tolls on the two bridges, the new one it PAGENO="0645" 631 would build and the older gateway bridge which had paid itself off at that time. These actions had two consequences. First, the continuation of tolls on a bridge where the indebtedness had been retired; and, second, the perpetuation of the Clinton Bridge Commission which authorization would have gone out of business. The Federal Highway Administra- tion feels that with as many bridge or river crossings as there are for Iowa, across the Mississippi and Missouri River, Iowa must probably continue to have toll crossings of the major streams on its highway sys- tems. We would prefer, however, that the construction and operation of such bridges by a statewide authority, such as now exists in Iowa, is better than by individual toll commissions, as we have from a num- ber of midwestern States at this time. Accordingly, it would have been our preference to have had the Clinton Bridge Commission go out of existence after its bonded in- debtedness was paid off in 1967 and to have had the Iowa `State High- way Commission through its new toll authority undertake the needed construction of a new bridge to replace the Fulton Lyon's Bridge. The Clinton Bridge Commission was successful, however, in sell- ing bonds for a substructure for a new crossing, and that substructure is now under construction. I understand it is 35-percent complete. The Iowa State Highway Commission indicates no present interest in taking over the affairs of the Clinton Bridge Commission. It ap- pears, therefore, that realistically, the commission will remain in existence and will own the two crossings of the Mississippi River when the second bridge is finished. Concerning H.R. 13221 specifically, we are not entirely cleai as to the necessity for its enactment at this time. The bridge commission apparently has all of the necessary authorities to sell bonds and to continue in existence without the enactment of the new legislation. There may `be technical reasons concerning the establishment of a construction fund utilizing tolls on existing structures to augment the receipts from sale of bonds to finance this second bridge. There is a further time extension provision in H.R. 13221, which may have been needed at one time. It does not appear to `be needed at this time. If it is the finding of the committee that new legislation is necessary to support the authorities which the Clinton Bridge Com- mission already is exercising, the Federal Highway Administra- tion would have no objection to the enactment of H.R. 13221. As stated earlier, we would have preferred to utilization of the toll authority set up under State jurisdiction. That is all I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. In about three or four sentences, do you recommend the bill? Mr. SwIcK. We have no objections to the bill, would be a better way to say it. We do not understand the necessity for this bill. If there was a necessity for it, we do not have an objection. Mr. BLATNIK. We will hear further testimony from the Congress- man. The method proposed involves no Federal financing, but they feel they ought to `have or do need this authority to have `alternative methods of financing the new bridge, is that not correct? Mr. SwIcK. That I think is right, yes, sir. However, the toll au- thority has gone ahead and sold the bonds and begun the construction PAGENO="0646" 632 under the. existing a.uthority. The bridge now is under construction, at least a substructure of it is. Mr. BLATNIK. The whole bridge, or just the substructure? Mr. SWIcK. Substructure. Mr. BLATN~. Do you have to sell more bonds to complete the bridge? Mr. Swicu. They have to sell more bonds to complete the bridge, yes, sir. June 24, and he states: In view of the inability of the commission to sell its bridge for revenue bonds in the current money market, an alternative method of financing the new bridge should be authorized. We will check this further. I have no further questions, Mr. Swick. Ai~y questions, Mr. Harsha? Mr. HARSHA. I would like to ask Mr. Swick, this involves two States, Iowa and Illinois. Mr. Swicu. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Are there any positions on the various States involved that you are aware of? Mr. SwIcK. This bridge commission is in Iowa, is an Iowa corpora- tion, and we have asked the Iowa department if they had any interest one way or the other in this bill, and. they say they have no interest one way or the other. We have not contacted the State of Illinois, but I know of no rea- son why they would have any objection to it. Mr. HARSHA. The highway department has nothing to do with it then? Mr. SwicK. The highway department says that they are not in- terested at this time in taking over this bridge commission operation under their general toll bridge authority. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. This concludes our outside witnesses. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. BLATNIK. Tomorrow, we will begin hearings, still in public session, of the Corps of Engineers, and normally their testimony would have preceded or been the opening testimony of each individual project in sequence. The hearings for today are adjourned. The committee will resume its hearings to hear Corps of Engineers testimony tomorrow at 11 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to recon- vent at 11 a.m., Thursday, June 27, 1968.) PAGENO="0647" OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS, FLOOD CONTROL, AND RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION BILL-i 968 THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1968 HOUSE 013' REPRESENTATIVES, S~Ti~cOMMIrrEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 11:05 a.m., in room 216~T, Rayburn Build- ing, Hon. John A. Blatnik (subcommittee chairman) presiding. Mr. BLATNIK. The Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors of the House Public Works Committee will please come to order, to resume public hearings on rivers and harbors, beach erosion projects, other legislation before the subcommittee. Normally we hear the Corps of Engineers make their presentation, giving us the physical, technical, engineering aspects and details and specifics on these projects, and we usually follow up with those parties that are interested, certainly our congressional members, and any mem- bers we may have from back home. Because of the conflict with the floor session having moved up to 11 o'clock yesterday morning, and to accommodate those many witnesses who had some distance to travel, so they could be released, we altered the procedure. This morning we will hear the Corps of Engineers on most of the projects which we heard yesterday. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. BLATNIK. We will have the corps testimony now in sequence. We have, of course, General Noble, the Director of Civil Works, from the Corps of Engineers. Do you have any opening statement, General, or would you proceed right with the first project? HUDSON RIVER-DECLARE A PORTION NONNAVIGABLE STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. CHARLES C. NOBLE, DIREGTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, OYFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGII~EERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY General NOBLE. Mr. Chairman, this proposed legislation would de- clare a portion of the Hudson River along the westerly shore of Lower Manhattan south of the Hudson Tunnel to Battery Park and a portion of the East River along the easterly shore of Lower Manhattan south (633) PAGENO="0648" 634 of the Brooklyn Bridge to Battery Park nonnavigable waters of the United States. The Office of Lower Manhattan Development, a part of the Office of the Mayor of New York City, is working on a project for the develop- ment of the waterfront of the Hudson and East Rivers within these areas. An initial phase of the work on the Battery Park city project extending from Chambers Street to the Battery is being undertaken jointly by the city of New York and the State of New York. A memo- randum of understanding between the city and State provides for the creation by the State of a nonprofit corporation which will lease the area from the city and will undertake to obtain financing and to develop the area without cost to the city. The area will be developed as a balanced community containing residential, commercial and civic facilities. There is nothing in the agreement to indicate waterfront development for shipping, marinas, et cetera, although such features are not excluded. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable the participants in the development to show clear title to areas proposed to be filled so that financing may be obtained. Under the navigation servitude of the United States, fill placed in navigable waters is subject to Federal use without compensation to its owner. While the possibility of such use is remote `where substantial development has occurred, still title and mortgage insurance firms are very reluctant to insure clear title to or accept as security such filled lands unless the navigation servitude is made inapplicable. The proposed legislation is intended to accomplish this. The existing project for the improvement of the Hudson River which was adopted by Congress between 1913 and 1937 provides in part for a channel 40 feet deep for the full width of the river from deep water in Upper Bay, New York Harbor, to the north line of West 59th Street, Manhattan, and for a channel 2,000 feet wide and 45 feet deep from Upper Bay to West 40th Street and thence 48 feet deep to West 59th Street. In the section of the Hudson River between the Battery and Canal Street there were formerly 27 piers in use for foreign and domestic shipping including railroa.d lightering service between New Jersey and New York. At the present time there are only two piers in use in foreign service, six have been demolished and the remaining are either vacant or used for nonwater-oriented storage. In the section of the East River between the Battery and the Brooklyn Bridge there were formerly 15 piers in use for foreign and c.oastwise shipping and the Fulton Fish Market. At the present time, there are only two piers in use in foreign service. The remaining piers are either vacant or have been demolished. If the lower Manhattan project is consum- mated, the remaining piers will have to be demolished. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions which should be resolved concerning the possible effects of the filling on navigation and the regimen of. the waterway. These questions involve the effect of the land fill on current veloci- ties and flow patterns in the river as well a.s in any slips for pleasure craft or commercial ships which may be proposed and its effect on the shoaling of the channel and vessel berths. PAGENO="0649" 635 While preliminary indications are that changes in velocities will not be significant, the Corps of Engineers has not had occasion to develop necessary data to resolve this question completely. There are other questions as to where the new bulkheads may have to be placed for engineering reasons, the necessity not to inadvertently create a no man's land offshore between the new bulkheads and the leg- islative limits of the area, and other loose ends which I am sure can be worked out. While we do not take exception to the general princi- ples of the plan, we feel these outstanding questions and loose ends should be tidied up. If the Congress considers that the proposed legislation should be en- acted, it is recommended that the portion declared nonnavigable be limited to a line 100 feet or more shoreward of the established U.S. pierhead line, the exact limits to be determined by subsequent techrn- cal studies; that there be excluded from the area determined to be nonnavigable any water areas that may be reserved in the develop- ment for marinas or otherwise not bulkheaded and filled; and that plans for structures controlling the fill be made subject to approval by the district engineer, Corps of Engineers, New York. I have discussed these areas of concern with Congressman Celler and representatives of the city planning commission and have been assured fullest cooperation in resolving these outstanding questions. These comments and recommendations do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of the Army or the Bureau of the Budget. This concludes my statement. I am available for questions. Mr. BLATNIK. General, at the outset, may I say there will be no Fed- eral cost involved here; is that correct? General NoBLE. That is the statement made by the authority, yes, sir, yesterday in testimony. We do not have too much information on this, sir, except what I have testified to this morning. These are the kind of things we hope to resolve in discussions with the group. We had one discussion setup for today. Mr. BLATNIK. There have been prior meetings with your district engineer? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Also, the corps ran a very quick model study for the authority, I think it was a 4-day run, on what the effect would be on the East River with this kind of fihlin~ in. Mr. BLATNIK. From the original 27 piers in use for foreign and domestic shipping on the Hudson River side, between the Battery and Canal Street, at present there are only two. Does that mean that only two piers will service all our foreign shipping? General NOBLE. I am going to ask Mr. Gurnee to correct me on this. Most of the shipping has moved uptown. The lower end of the Man- hattan waterfront is pretty much falling into disuse. What is being proposed here is really, in principle, a good thing. These people want to go in there and take out all these rotten piers, decaying structures, decrepit structures, and replace them with a rehabilitated shoreline, fill it in and develop it. These structures are doing a lot to continue our floating debris in the harbor. Personally I would like to see them removed. PAGENO="0650" 636 Mr. Bi~TNIK. I see. So generally the concept is sound, in your esti- mation? General NoBLE. In principle, it is a good thing. Mr. BLATNIK. Would be far better use of the lower Manhattan and extending the area out into nonnavigable portions, where, over a period of years, there is no need for navigation. General NOBLE. They have fallen into disuse and disrepair. They are collecting snags and silting up. It is not a good situation. It needs facelifting. Mr. BLATNIK. It needs this type of congressional action before you can get any financing from private sources, whether it be insurance companies or banks? General NOBLE. This is the situation. Because the navigation servi- tude, the financing companies are not willing to risk their money. Mr. BI~&~xIK. We have no bill on legal language yet drafted. General NOBLE. I have seen none, sir. I would hope in the drafting of such language, we will be able to put these necessary safeguards in that will not end up in our creating something that we do not want. I am particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we not set up a legislative determination of nonnavigability along a line which sub- sequently is not built out to, for one reason or another, either engi- neering reasons or project concept reasons. We are liable to end up with a strip of water, either along the shore or into marina areas that comes under nobody's control. The Coast Guard will not be able to go in there. The Corps of Engineers will have no authority in there. This nobody wants, including the development authority representatives. I have ascertained. It has to be worked out. Mr. BLATNIK. You have made the point, safeguards should be there., and we will urge and see that they are in there. Would you be able, in general, to have your staff people, legal people, write out the language basically, spell out the objectives of this proposal by Mr. Celler to meet the general needs and objectives of their Office of Lower Manhattan Development, and yet have fiexi- bility so you can adjust your boundaries. You do not have to have a fixed line determined now, just approximately in this area, or bound- aries to be later determined, but approximately in this area. That could be put in langauge. General NOBLE. I am sure it can. I feel we ought to do this, and we have arranged for meetings to this end in the next day or so. Mr. BLATNIK. Would you pursue this further with Mr. Celler's people? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. General, what is the position of the State of New York and the city of New York on this proposed language? General NOBLE. They are for it, sir. They are jomtly m partnership on it. Mr. HARSnA. Did we do this a couple of years ago for a portion of this? General NOBLE. I believe along the East River. Mr. HARSIIA. The East River! PAGENO="0651" 637 Mr. GtJRNEE. Yes. You passed a similar law. I think it was 2 years ago, covering a stretch of the East River only, which was for a devel- opment involving the United Nations. Mr. BLATNIK. I am familiar with that. I think that was proposed by Mr. Celler. That project is underway; is it not, it is under construction? Mr. GURNEE. That is correct. Mr. HARSHA. Have you encountered any problems with that to guide you in this? General NOBLE. Not that I am familiar with, sir. On the other hand, I believe it has acted as something to look at, to visualize what this thing could be and has sharpened up our concerns that we not drift, into something we cannot live with later. Mr. HARSHA. What is the full and complete effect of declaring this portion of the river nonnavigable? General NOBLE. The practical effect is not much of anything at all, because these decrepit structures are out there now in the way, so no ship can go through there anyway. These structures would be removed and a new bulkhead line would be put out in the water some feet offshore, and this would be filled in. So, frankly speaking, there would be no effect. If one could visualize that these decrepit structures would be re- moved someday and without filling in, the navigable waterways could conceivably be pushed further inland than they practically are today. But I do not know whether I have answered your question. Mr. HARSHA. I do not think you have. Maybe I did not word it right. What is the legal effect? General NOBLE. The legal effect is that we would be giving up our navigation servitude. Mr. BLATNIK. You are giving up your jurisdiction and Congress is giving up its jurisdiction to those waters? General NOBLE. That is right. Mr. BLATNIK. Turning them over to proper authorities, either local or governmental, city, municipal, or State? General NOBLE. These title companies will not risk their money if there is any possibility, and it is most unlikely. Mr. HARSHA. `With the strictness of title companies and how they look upon things- General NOBLE. The point is, practically speaking, you are not giv- ing up anything at all; because if we permitted people to put this amount of fill in the water, there would be no practical way of apply- ing the navigation servitude. You could not expect anybody to remove such development at a later date. But legally the Government still retains that right, and this is enough to cause these title companies to hesitate. Mr. HARSHA. Now you mentioned in two different instances, one between the Battery and Canal Street, there are only two piers in use, and the other between- General NOBLE. On the East River. Mr. HARSHA. East River, between the Battery and Brooklyn Bridge, obviously you are going to have to destroy those two existing piers or remove them? PAGENO="0652" 638 General NOBLE. All of these would have to come out, if they carried the project the whole way. If they do not carry the project the whole way- Mr. }L&i~sIrA. You would give up your jurisdiction? General NOBLE. Excuse me? Mr. HARSHA. At any rate, we have given up jurisdiction over these two piers, if the bill passes? General NOBLE. They are not our piers anyway. They are private piers. Mr. HARSHA. The point I was trying to get: Do we have to rebuild them somewhere else? General NOBLE. The Government does not have to do a thing. Mr. HARSHA. We do not have to compensate the owners of these piers? General NOBLE. I am sure if those piers belonged to some foreign shipper or domestic shipper, part of the whole concept is to move those elsewhere. Mr. Gurnee, do you know? Mr. GURNEE. I do not know their specific plans. General NOBLE. These would be moved elsewhere and this land, then, would be filled in. Mr. HARSHA. That is not at Federal expense? General NOBLE. No, sir. Mr. }IARsHA. The new bulkheads that you refer to, who has to re- place those or construct those? General NOBLE. By that I mean we have a bulkhead line which is shoreline, and we have a pierhead line which is at the extension of these finger piers that go out, which lines are probably 1,200 feet apart. Roughly two parallel lines, one ashore, and the pierhead line. The effect is they are going to create a new shore, way out here at the pierhead line [indicating], so they will have to put bulkheads in to hold that new shore. Mr. HARSHA. Who has to do that? General NOBLE. They do. Mr. HARSHA. Not at Federal expense? General NOBLE. No. But it is of some Federal concern, because we want to make sure that this new bulkhead line, which is contiguous to one of the busiest navigation channels, does not fall in on our channel, or otherwise impede navigation. Mr. Br~r~IK. You want to see it is done properly; you want to see if any depletion or alteration or any problems or impediments to navigation- General NOBLE. Right. I have talked to the Development people yesterday, and they promised full cooperation on that. No problem on this. Mr. HARSE1A. You mentiOned that these two piers in each area in- volved are using foreign services. Are there any using domestic services? General NOBLE. Not to my understanding; no, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Now, one other statement you made that rather in- trigues me. You say these comments and recommendations do not nec- essarily represent the views of the Department of the Army. Who do they represent? PAGENO="0653" 639 General NOBLE. The Corps of Engineers. Mr. HARSHA. Are you not a division of the Department of the Army? General NOBLE. Yes; but, I do not represent the Secretary. Mr. BLATNIK. You have to submit these up for concurrence or approval. General NOBLE. That has not been done, sir. All I have been able to give you in the time we have is the comments of the Corps of Engineers. Mr. HARSHA. Who `all has to approve this other than the corps? Mr. G1JRNEE. If the Congress passes this provision, of course, the Secretary of the Army does have the option of making recommenda- tions to the President on whether he should sign the bill; but other- wise no one has to act on it- Mr. HARSHA. What I am trying to get at: Usually we have Govern- ment agencies involved, things like that. We are not confronted with that situation here? Mr. GURNEE. I do not think so; no, sir. Mr. HIARSHA. `Would it be advisable to get the Secretary of the Army's comments before we enact this? Mr. BLATNIK. Will the gentleman yield? I will help clarify this point, if I can. General, let me ask counsel here: I believe, as I understand' it, the procedure would be, that this is legislation and this is not a rivers and harbors project. This is authorizing or enabling legislation, which would have to originate in the Congress by a Member. So the proposed language that Mr. Celler put up yesterday, and we worked that to accommodate the safeguards, include the safeguards which you sug- gested and others which you may have, and this will then be written in precise legal form and produced either as a bill or put into the omnibus bill as legislation. At that point perhaps it will `be possible or desirable to get comments from the Secretary of the Army. We have to do the initiating. And this is not procedural process, when any legislation goes through a committee, not when a project is approved- Mr. HARSHA. Normally when legislation is introduced, it is referred to agencies that may or may not be involved in the legislation. Mr. BLATNIK. That is correct. But we will get that legislation written up and submitted and `ask to get their opinions or their comments. No further questions? General, we thank you. Mr. CLAUSEN. May I ask one question? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Does this have the approval of the State of New York? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAUSEN. And the city? General NOBLE. They are together on this. And they are sponsoring a nonprofit organization that will do the job. Mr. GROVER. May I ask a question, please? Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Grover. Mr. GROVER. General, it is good to see you. I do know here, General, that you have pointed ou't tha't you `have had some preliminary indica- tions that you will have no problems with change of velocity and down- PAGENO="0654" 640 river flow; but that you have not had occasion to test it completely. Is there any question you can meet the timetable of the city if this legis- lation passes? Is it a very extensive study? General NOBLE. I do not think it needs to be, necessarily, sir; but this is what I hope to get into with the authority people. I hope, if this legislation passes, to have embodied in it the kind of flexibility that would be needed, so that further technical determinations during the course of the detailed planning would keep these adverse things from coming about. Mr. GROVER. Then you would make recommendations, if you felt there would be adverse current flows or~ General NOBLE. What I would have in mind is, as they develop a new bulkhead line, we would work out together that it would be so located, and it would be so designed that it would be neither a safety threat to the channel nor would it create any adverse velocity and currents. Mr. GROVER. You `have got a rather adverse velocity in the East River right now. I do not think you could make it any worse. General NOBLE. Yes, sir. The East River was the main concern on velocity. That is why the model test was run. It was a quick one. It is not the kind of model test that would answer things in perpetuity. The information was available. While t'hey did run up the velocity a little bit, it did not seem to our people in the field, on the basis of that model study, that the velocities would be brought up to an in- tolerable degree. So, as far as they were concerned, that model study gave a rather favorable indication. Mr. GROVER. There is also a thrust to clean up the other side of the river, on the other side, and to clean up the Hudson River generally. And I think they will be coming to the Federal Govermnent's assist- ance. We have met with the shipyard associations on that. Mr. Harsha is asking whether there will be any expense here in- volved in the replacement of piers and. bulkheads. You `have indicated in the negative. However, I think we should have some statement from you, General. What is this going to cost your particular Corps of Engineers with respect to the study involved here.? General NOBLE. I do not know, sir. It certainly will involve us to a degree for some time, if we are going to look over their shoulder on how they are planning these bulkheads, and if we have to concern ourselves with various aspects of the project, we will be involved in some degree. I do not know whether some of this work would be worked out so they would finance it or whether it would be our normal routine business, that it would not make any material difference. And we would go ahead and do it as we would in our normal course. These are details I think we have to work out with them. Mr. GROVER. If you have to ftnd it necessary to have more extensive study model- General NOBLE. I would think we would look to them to finance it, as we did in this small model study. They paid for it. Mr. HAIRSHA. How about covering this in your amendments to the legislation? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0655" 641 Mr. BLATNIK. No further questions. Next is H.R. 2402, Potomac River, abandoned vessels. POTOMAC RIVER~ MALLOW'S BAY-ABANDONED VESSELS General NOBLE. Mr. Gurnee will report on that. Mr. BLATNIK. We have a letter addressed to the chairman of the committee, the Honorable George H. Fallon, from the Bureau of the Budget-no, from the Secretary of the Army. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration's pro- gram, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Mr. Gurnee, a brief description of this project. STATEMENT OP MARK S. GURNEE, CHIEF OP THE OPERATIONS DIVISION, DIRECTORATE OP CIVIL WORKS, OPPICE OP THE CHIEF OP ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OP TEE ARMY Mr. GURNEE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, H.R. 2402 would authorize and direct the Secretary of the Army to remove from the Potomac River and to destroy the abandoned ships, ships' hulls, and piling located in Mallow's Bay between Sandy Point and Liverpool Point, Md., and at Wide Water, south of Quantico, Va., and any other abandoned ships formerly in these locations which have drifted from those areas. It would also authorize him to accept from the State of Maryland any contribution the State may wish to make toward such removal and destruction. In the 1920's the Western Marine and Salvage Co. purchased 232 vessels with the intention of salvaging, dismantling, and removing all portions of the vessels which might be marketable and then destroy- ing the remains. The salvage operations were conducted at Sandy Point Farm, a tract of land nearly surrounding Mallow's Bay. The method and scope of the operation was to remove all machinery, boilers, pipes, and engines, and to strip the vessels of all metal easily remov- able. The vessels were then towed to Mallow's Bay where they were burned to the water's edge and then pulled as near to the shore as possible. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals of Maryland ruled that the vessels were abandoned. The Sandy Point Farm, a tract extending al- most completely around Mallow's Bay, is presently owned by Idamont, Inc., which, it is understood, is a real estate development firm. The Secretary of the Army's views on this bill were submitted to this committee by letter of February 9, 1968, as already noted. In his letter, the Secretary stated that since the wrecks in their present loca- tion are not considered obstructions to navigation, the Department of the Army is without authority and funds to effect their removal. How- ever, we are maintaining careful surveillance over the derelicts to in- sure that they do not break away and become obstructions to naviga- tion. While these wrecks may possibly represent a potential source of hazard to navigation, it is considered that this hazard could be resolved at a lesser cost than by removal. The buoyancy of the hulks which PAGENO="0656" 642 have been burned to the water's edge can be overcome by placing stone inside the hulls located on the perimeter of the Mallow's Bay area. This would ground them in position and form a bulkhead to prevent the sunken hulks inshore of this point from escaping the area. The estimated cost of this work is $50,000. However, it is understood that this plan does not meet with the approval of local interests or the adjacent property owner, since securing the vessels would place serious limitations on the development of the Sandy Point property and would perpetuate this unsightly nuisance. The Secretary of the Interior, at the direction of the President, is currently preparing a report and recommendations designed to make the Potomac River a model of scenic and recreational value for the entire Nation. This report will consider the scope and definition of the Federal interest in securing the removal of the abandoned ships mentioned in the bill. However, at the present time, the Federal interest in securing such removal is undefined. If there is determined to be a sufficient Federal interest to warrant Federal support for removal of the wrecks, the Department of the Army recommends that the bill be amended to provide that local interests contribute to the extent of one-half the cost of removal since it is considered that a significant benefit would accrue to adjacent property owners. This could be accomplished by the following modifications: (1) In line 10 of page 1, delete the period at the end of the section and add" : Provided, That local interests shall con- tribute one-half of the cost of such work." (2) Delete section 2 in its entirety. This concludes my statement. If the committee would like to see a picture of what these wrecks look like~- Mr. BLATNIK. I have seen them from the plane. I always wondered how they got there. Is it true, Mr. Gurnee, that anyone who wants to can make a ship junkyard on any body of water, on the shore, similar to junkyards on land? This is a ship junkyard, is it not? They are all dumped there and abandoned. Mr. GURNEE. Yes. At the present time there is no control that I know of over abandonment of vessels in navigable waters. Mr. BLATNIK. Do they need any permit to junk up a body of water like that? Would the State not have a right to protect its shoreline, or the county, private owners? Mr. GuincEE. I am not prepared to comment on the State law. Mr. BLATNIK. I am just interested about jurisdiction now. They owned the land, so they had a right to junk up all they wanted on their own land. Mr. GURNEE. It is my understanding at the time, in the early 1920's, they did have use of this adjacent farm. It was under a temporary use permit of some kind. Mr. BLATNIK. Temporary use permit for the land? Mr. GURNEE. For the land. Mr. HARSHA. I thought that the Western Marine and Salvage Co. sold the Sandy Point Farm where this was in 1932. PAGENO="0657" 043 Mr. GURNEE. That could be, sir. Mr. HARSHA. This was done after they sold the farm? Mr. GURNEE. No. The salvage operations were conducted prior to, during the 1920's. Mr. HARSHA. Sometime they must have had title to the land. I notice in the Secretary of the Army's letter that is pointed out. Mr. GUnNER. That is correct, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. There are two methods then of dealing with this problem. One is to remove them completely, at a greater expense; is that not true? Mr. GURNEE. Yes. The estimate of anchoring the vessels, as I noted, was $50,000. We have not made a firm estimate of the cost of the re- moval of all of these wrecks. We think that it will cost approximately $2,000 per vessel, and there are various estimates on the number of them that would have to be removed. There are approximately 150 of them. They are wooden vessels, between 100 and 150 feet long on the average, with about a 30-foot beam; and they are in a badly deteri- orated condition, as you can see from this photo. Mr. BLATNIK. They are all wooden vessels? Mr. GURNEE. They are wooden vessels. Mr. BLATNIK. Any possibility of having them decay, disintegrate by themselves for over a period of time? Mr. G1JRNEE. As long as they remain underwater or partially sub- merged, that does not happen. Mr. BLATNIK. It sure happens in my house. General NOBLE. It is the periodic inundation that deteriorates wood, sir. If you keep wood completely under water, it does not oxidize. Mr. BLATNIK. You state that: "However, at the present time, the Federal interest in securing such removal is undefined." Would that be up to the committee here to define this interest? Mr. GURNEE. The bill would do that. Mr. BLATNIK. The bill proposes we make a declaration of Federal interest in this concern. I understand you propose an amendment that half the cost would be borne by local interests, whoever they may be, be they county or municipal subdivision, township, city, village, or private owners; is that correct? Mr. GURNEE. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. And that the Federal Government would not be obli- gated for its 50-percent share of the cost of removal until the proper local interest made a firm commitment to contribute the other 50 per- cent, is that correct? Mr. GURNEE. If the proposed amendment were adopted; yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. What is the recommendation of the Corps of Engi- neers on this proposal? Mr. GURNEE. We generally favor the cleaning up of shoreline, both for esthetic reasons and for the elimination of floating debris. These vessels do constitute a potential source of some floating debris, for which we have a project responsibility for removal from the navigable waters. Mr. BLATNIK. When you remove debris, it is essentially for the purposes of removing any danger of obstruction to navigation; you also remove debris along the shoreline or outer edge, just for esthetic value or appearances? 97-700-6S--------42 PAGENO="0658" 644 Mr. GURNEE. We do not normally do that now, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. I either misunderstood you or there is a conflicting previous statement you made. You said the Army is without authority or funds to effect their removal. Mr. GURNEE. That is correct; as long as we make the determination that these vessels in their present location are not obstructive to naviga- tion. Mr. HARSHA. Have you not made that determination? Mr. GuRNii. We have made the determination that these vessels in their present location are not obstructive to navigation. Mr. HARSHA. You have made that determination now? Mr. GURNEE. That is correct. Mr. HARSHA. Tinder that determination, you are without authority and without funds to remove them? Mr. Gunrci~. That is correct, sir. Mr. HARSHA. How do you arrive at this formula of 50/50, when the navigation prospects of the river are not going to be impeded? Mr. Guiu~E. The purpose of this legislation, of course, is not necessarily to improve the navigation of the present stream; it is to remove the unsightly remains of the wrecks as they now exist. As we stated, we think there should be a contribution by some local interest on the grounds that there is a substantial benefit to the land. Mr. HARSHA. That does not benefit the Federal Government or benefit the general public; that would benefit the developer. Mr. Gu~NEE. But the removal of these wrecks would extend the usefulness of the bay for small watercraft. General NOBLE. There are two things. I can understand your ques- tion, sir. We are really in a gray area. The navigable waters of the United States are more extensive than the channel. And so one might consider that, while these things are not obstructing current naviga- tion, they are still in the navigable waterways of the United States. So it is in this area of general imprecision that one can raise all kinds of questions. This law would serve to clear up this kind of question. Mr. HARSHA. Should a law be passed before the Department of Interior concludes its study and recommendations? General NOBLE. Should it be? Mr. HARSHA. Yes. General NOBLE. We think it should, sir. However, that that study is underway we feel is pertinent to the committee's determination on this. Mr. HARSHA. From the looks of that picture, it looks like the land immediately adjacent to these bulkheads or these boats is marshland. General NOBLE. I am not familiar with it, sir. Mr. GuRN~. I have not see the land, on the ground, but from the chart that I have `I believe that this is not marshland, except for a very marginal strip. Mr. HARSHA. I just wondered how it could be useful. It looks like, to me, without ifiling it in or- Mr. GURNEE. I think the area to which you referred may be the wrecks themselves. This partial water area here, where you see brush growing, that brush is growing right in the wrecks. Those are the PAGENO="0659" 645 wrecks that you see, which I believe you interpreted as being marsh areas. Mr. HARSHA. What would you remove, then, the trees and the brush, too? Mr. GURNEE. Yes. We would remove the wooden portion of the vessels down to the natural bottom of the stream. Mr. HARSHA. You said that you believe there should be some con- tribution. You have not explained to me fully how you arrived at 50/50 contribution. Mr. GnRNEE. That is an arbitrary determination, Mr. Harsha. Mr. GROVER. Mr. Gurnee, is there any precedent for the Corps of Engineers going into beautification activities, if I may use that term? Mr. G1IRNEE. Not in specific legislation that I recall. But we do, of course, consider beautification in connection with our normal project design and construction. Mr. GROVER. As I understand it, we do not have a specific hazard here, except that a potential debris of flotsam and jetsam drift pos- sibility, which seems to be fairly remote. And not having the ultimate objective of improving the navigability and removing hazards, the primary objective here seems to be one of scenic and recreational. I was just wondering whether the appropriate forum would be the Interior Cormnittee and the petitioner, the Interior Committee, with complementary thought or supplementary thought or activity up at Interior, should they have approval of reclaiming this area for scenic recreation purposes? In other words, with all due respect, I am wondering whether we are putting the cart before the horse, as Mr. Harsha says. Mr. GURNEE. Of course the reference of these bills to con'unittees is done in-house over here. I would think that one thing that might have influenced the assignment is the fact that this is the type of work that the corps normally engages in, rather than some other agency of government. Mr. GROVER. Living on the great South Bay, Long Island, Empire State, I know a lot of areas in our navigable waters and our bay of some 80 miles long, which have the intrusion of old pilings and old barges, where the adjacent landowners might very happily go into a 50-to-SO removal proposition. I am just wondering whether you are establishing a precedent without the prior prerequisite of the Interior Department's report and their intentions of reclaiming for that purpose. General NOBLE. I would think the nearest precedent is the precedent of the abandoned ship. We have a multiple abandonment of ships involved here. In the case of an abandoned ship, the corps does and has authority and responsibility to move in there and remove the wreckage from the navigable waterways. And on that point of view, one could argue that the corps should have already moved in a long time ago and removed every one of these vessels at total Government expense. But that is only one point of view. Mr. HARSHA. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. GROVER. Yes. PAGENO="0660" 646 Mr. }IARsHA. On that point you are trying to make, you have au- thority to remove an abandoned ship in navigable waters if they are interfering or impeding navigation; is that not true? Mr. GuRx~. That is correct, sir, yes. If they are obstructive to navigation, yes. Mr. HARSHA. Now, one other point, that is that you are taThing about an abandoned ship, when this thing was abandoned it was nothing more than a hulk, at best, was it? You could hardly classify it as a ship. General NOBLE. These are the subtle differences involved here, that caused us to make the recommendation that we are making here. Mr. HARSHA. One other thing I wanted to call your attention to: the bill makes no provision for an authorization of funds. It is com- pletely blank in that respect. It just authorizes and directs you to remove them. That seems to be an objectionable point to me. And one other point, on line 9 it says, 8 and 9, you can remove any other abandoned ships formerly among those in Mallow's Bay or tide- water which has drifted from these locations. Have there in fact been any displacement from these locations or driftings? Mr. GUIINEE. Yes, there have. As you will note, the original location of these hulks was in Mallow's Bay. The bill does provide for the removal of those abandoned ships which have drifted into the tide- water area. There is an extensive area on the Quantico side of the river, extending 2 or 3 miles along the shore, where the navigation charts show scattered wrecks located on the opposite side of the river from Mallow's Bay. and this bill does cover those areas. Mr. HARSHA. Have you removed any of those ships ? Mr. GURNEE. We have not. Mr. HARSHA. Do you have authority to remove any of those? Mr. GURNEE. That particular area is also outside of the navigation channel and we probably, if asked, would make the same finding that we have in Mallow's Bay with respect to navigability. Mr. HARSHA. According to your best estimates-and further pro- vided that there is no more than 150 ships, runs somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000. Mr. GURNEE. That is our present estimate. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Let us proceed to the Atlantic divisions, Miami Har- bor, Fla. MIAMI HARBOR, FLA. STATEMENT OP COL. RICHARD L. SEIDEL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OP CIVIL WORKS FOR ATLANTIC DIVISIONS, CORPS OP ENGI- NEERS, DEPARTMENT OP THE ARMY Colonel SEmEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this report concerns improvement of Miami Harbor in the interest of com- mercial navigation. The existing Federal project provides for 30-foot-deep channels and turning basins for deep-draft general cargo vessels, cruise ships, and tankers. PAGENO="0661" 647 The Chief of Engineers in his proposed report recommends deepen- ing the entrance channels to 38 feet, and the other channels and turning `basins to 36 feet, and widening the entrance channel to 500 feet. This would permit use of the `harbor by fully loaded deep-draft cargo vessels and by the larger cruise vessels. Total cost is estimated at $7,265,000, of which $6,476,000 would be Federal. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.5. Local interests are willing to provide the necessary items of local cooperation. The State and Federal agencies favor the project. The report is with the Secretary of the Army for transmittal `to the Bureau of the Budget for clearance `as to its relationship to the program of the President prior to its submission to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. Yesterday we heard witnesses on this project. Do you recall their testimony, Colonel, about what the improvements- with the harbor or Dade County, I forget what governmental unit- what improvements are they prepared to make and will make if they get a deepening of this harbor? Was it primarily the fact that the commerce w'as growing `so rapidly, the `ships were getting larger, they needed this increase in depth from 38 feet-what is the channel foot depth now? Colonel SEIDEL. Thirty `feet. Mr. BLATNIK. So 38 feet was on the approach and 36 feet would be the remaining. Do you recall the testimony they had about facilities they would be able to build? `Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. What is happening there is at the head of the channel is the present terminal; and this is outdated2 obsolete, and they are replacing this or transferring this to a new terminal on Dodge Island, as well as a new cargo facility on Fisher Island. Mr. BLATNIK. New terminal on Dodge Island and Fi'sher Island? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. What is the cost estimate? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, I do not recall. Mr. ROBERTS. I believe they passed a $25 million bond issue. Mr. BLATNIK. They have passed a bond issue, had or were thinking of it. There are several agencies to `hear from on this. No comments from the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Harsha? Mr. HARSHA. Colonel, the non-Federal cost in this, of $789,000, what d'oes that consist of? Colonel SEIDEL. I could not hear you. Mr. HARSHA. The non-Federal cost of $789,000, what does that con- sist of? Purchase of land and easements, rights-of-way; is that it? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the non-F'ederal portion is made up of a cash contribution of $579,000, for land enhancement from placement of dredging material and they will provide spoil areas, diking, and relo- cation at an estimated cost of $210,000. Mr. HARSHA. Do you have `any objection, is there any objection to this, that you know of? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. The only reason the report is not further along is that we have just received the comments from the agencies yesterday. PAGENO="0662" 648 Mr. HARSHA. Do you have those? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Can you advise the committee what the comments are? Colonel SEIDEL. They were all favorable, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Has that been received from all of the agencies? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir, from the Departments of the Interior, Health, Education and Welfare, and Transportation, and we previ- ously had the State of Florida. They are all favorable, sir. Mr. IIARsnA. How about BOB? Colonel SEIDEL. It is on its way to the Bureau of the Budget from the Secretary of the Army. Mr. BLATNIK. I have information here on testimony from the Flo- rida Board of Conservation, and their testimony is in the booklet which they submifted. It says that Metropolitan Dade County has underway a $23 million improvement program for the Miami Corps. They are providing modern passenger channels, and so on. Apparently this is well underway, as they conclude with this state- ment: "The last contract of this $23 million program will be completed this year," so apparently the $23 million program will be completed. So, with that initiative on local participation, this is a very encour- aging project if the processing can be made. Next will be the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, St. Marks to Tampa Bay, Fla. GULP INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, ST. MARKS TO TAMPA BAY, FLA. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee- Mr. HARSHA. May I interrupt you a minute? I notice we have the same problem with the agencies here. Are there reports in on this, too? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. The only thing I have here is from the State of Florida. Mr. HARSHA. Were they requested about the same time as the Miami Harbor? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. They would be due in, if they took the full 90 days, on September 15, sir. Mr. HARSHA. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if it is possible if we could enter executive session on these bills, to call the agencies in for their comments? Mr. BLATNIK. We do not normally call them in. In many cases it is just a phone call. For example, Education and Welfare, they might be concerned with some pollution aspects of it, rather a routine matter. It depends how important their interest is for a project. If it is nec- essary, we will certainly call in, for instance, the Department of Trans- portation. Mr. HARSHA. I notice all the members of Florida yesterday were trying to expedite these. They apparently succeeded with the Miami Harbor. Mr. BLATNIK. The benefit-cost ratio appears good, 1.7 to 1. The esti- mated non-Federal cost seems considerable, it is $14,450,000. That is local participation. Can you give us some idea what form or what will be the local con- tribution? It is along the waterway, along the canal. PAGENO="0663" 649 Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, they will make a cash contribution as part of the dredging which would amount to $5,570,000, bridge modification of $130,000 and for lands and relocations the sum of $7,580,000, for a total of $14,450,000. Mr. BLATNIK. Made by whom? Colonel SEIDEL. Local interests, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Are those navigational people, are they counties, is it the State? Colonel SEIDEL. The sponsor, sir, is the Florida State Board of Conservation. Mr. HARSHA. Colonel, this project is to construct a missing link, so to speak? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. It was referred to yesterday by the State officials as the missing-link project. Mr. BLATNIK. We have a breakdown here, and we will pursue it further. If there are no further requests on this project, we will go on to the next one. Mr. HARSHA. Why do we not instruct the staff to call these agencies for the reports on this? Mr. BLATNIK. The staff has been on it, I know, and will continue. Colonel SEIDEL. Mr. Harsha, Congressman Sikes had made arrange- ments to call the agencies this morning. Mr. BLATNIK. Mobile Harbor, Ala. As I recall, this was Congressman Jack Edwards. The project seems to be a good project, except, I believe its status right now is-what is its status, Colonel? Would you proceed? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, this is a study that is still being conducted by the District Engineer on Mobile Harbor. In order to accommodate deep-draft vessel traffic to a proposed industrial park at Theodore Terminal, the District Engineer is considering a branch channel, a turning basin, and anchorage area, all of 40-foot depth. He estimates the cost of the project at this time to be $26.5 million, of which $11.3 million would be Federal. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated to be substantially in excess of unity. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. You indicated benefit-cost ratio is substantially in excess of unity. The project has all indications of being a very sound and justifiable project. The local participation, local interest, they are moving ahead. Can you give us any estimate, Colonel, in terms of months, from the work that is underway-there does not seem to be undue problems. There is no undue controversy as to local-there is unity of support locally. There are no technical or engineering problems to it. Colonel SEIDEL. The work of completing the report. Mr. BLATNIK. Would this be ready by next year? What I am trying to say is: If you get some time element, some indi- cation that the Corps of Engineers is very favorable, most certainly the committee, on the basis of the amendments before it thus far and as continuing engineering surveys continue, after fiscal detail are available we will have a better idea; but we would like to continue to encourage the local industry corporation, or whatever they call it, to PAGENO="0664" 650 continue their drive for industry. They are apparently doing a good job in an area of great importance. If we could tell them your project seems to be very positive in many aspects of this early stage for processing, however it must go through all the channels, as every other project, and we estimate it would take about 6 months, 8 months- Generai NOBLE. About 6 months. Mr. BLATNIK. About 6 months. We are sort of encouraging a favor- able report to make to the persons involved without prejudicing the project whatsoever. SABINE RIVER BASIN COMPREHENSIVE STUDY We will take up next the Sabine River comprehensive basin survey report for the Sabine River and tributaries, Texas. Mr. Roberts has his material ready. Colonel Shaffer, I believe you are in charge of that. Mr. Roberts, would you open up? Mr. ROBERTS. This will be a dual-purpose project. It would provide ultimate navigation to Longview. I just passed out some newspapers showing the third flood in the last 2 years. The Corps of Engineers has just completed a comprehensive survey, Mr. Ohairman. It has been referred to the agencies, but no action has been taken, and none can be taken shortly. We have lost15 lives and over $50 million worth of property dam- age. The dual-purpose project, the navigation channel, will also take the water away and solve most problems temporarily. So I appreciate having the chance to havethe corps testify and know what their plans are and what we can do to expedite the decisions. Mr. Br~mTni. Congressman, I notice from the very impressive half- page of the newspaper, a photogranh that you put before the commit- tee, this is dated as recently as last May 24. Mr. ROEERTS. Just a month ago was the third one. We have had three major floods in 2 years. We have lost a total of $50 million and 15 lives. General will you tell them basically what the study has done and what we can do that would he helpful to try to expedite this project to at least get some relief? General NOBLE. Colonel Shaffer has a statement to make on it, sir. STATEMENT OP LT. COL. GEORGE B. SKAYFER, ASSISTANT DIREC- TOR OP CIVIL WORKS POR PLAINS DIVISION, OPPICE CHIRP OP ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. Colonel SHAFERE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Sabine River Basin comprehensive study was initiated in 1962 as one of the 16~ individual river basin studies, type 2, included in the pro- gram undertaken by the ad hoc Water Resources Council to meet the goal of having comprehensive studies for the major basins of the coun- try by 1970. This study was a cooperative effort of Federal agencies and the States of Louisiana and Texas, accomplished under the general guidance of the ad hoc Sabine Basin Coordinating Committee. PAGENO="0665" 651 rrhe coordinating committee was composed of representatives of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, and Interior; the Federal Power Commission; and the States of Louisiana and Texas. On December 15, 1967, the Sabine Coordinating Committee at its 11th meeting held in Orange, Tex., accepted and attached its signa- tures to the report, and on December 22, 1967, the report was forwarded to the Water Resources Council. The Water Resources Council reviewed the study and prepared a summary report and returned comments on the report to the Sabine Basin Coordinating Conimittee for consideration on May 13, 1968. Comments are due back to the Water Resources Council July 1, 1968. Subsequent to approval, the Corps of Engineers will prepare a report on their elements in the comprehensive study and will submit the project report through normal channels for authorization. Mr. Chairman, this concludes mystatement. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you, Colonel Seidel. I apologize for calling you, springing this without any advance warning and on such short notice. But to a member of `the committee, it is .a serious problem, and we do appreciate your accommodating us on `almost no notice at all. The Water Resources Council has reviewed the study? Colonel SHArPER. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. What is the next step after the' Water Resources Council reviews the study and prepares the summary report? What happens? Colonel SHArPER. Well, comments were sent hack to them for- Mr. BLATNIK. To the coordinating committee? `Colonel SHArPER. To the coordinating committee? Mr. BLATNIK. Has any action been taken by the coordinating committee? Colonel SHAPPER. The response is due back on July 1, 1968. Mr. BLATNIK. Yes; you stated that; I am sorry.' After that, then the Corps of `Engineers goes to work with more detailed study or analysis, whatever you call it? Colonel SHArPER. Yes, sir. Subsequent to the approval of the com- prehensive plan, ` the corps will then pick out its portion of it and develop the project or projects~ Mr. Br~~rNIK. Project or project approach to fit within the whole comprehensive program; is that right? Colonel SHArPER. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBERTS. If I understand it, then, what'will the corps do when the comprehensive report is approved? You will submit for authoriza- tion specific projects? Colonel SHArPER. Yes, sir. Mr. ROBERTS. What do we need to do to keep this thing alive in the meantime, while we are waiting on this? Do you need additional funds for survey projects, or additional work; engineering or other things? Otherwise your omnibus bill is not going to have a Sabine River in it `at all. What does the corps need to expedite your section, your part of this project? General NOBLE. Mr. Feil, `Chief of our `Planning Division, is pre- pared to discuss that. PAGENO="0666" 652 STATEMENT OF GEORGE FElL, CHIEF, PLANIQING DIVISION, CIVIL WORKS DIRECTORATE, OYFICE, CHIEF OF ENGThIEERS Mr. FEIL. Mr. Roberts, sir, I think that we have the funds to finish the summary report. We will need no more funds for that, and I expect that when the coordinating committee completes their summarizing reports, which should be rather shortly, sometime this fall, several more months would be required for the corps to present its recom- mendations for construction of the projects in the Sabine. Additional funds may be required for the authorizing report. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say again that we have had three major floods now in 2 years, in addition to the other work, 15 lives have been lost, more than $50 million property damage. Mr. Howard Boswell, from the Governor's office, is here and I will ask him to stand up. (Mr. Boswell stood up.) This is a vital project to our country, both from a navigation stand- point and flood control. Mr. Br~&TNIK. It is an urgent and important project. Mr. Boswell, do you have any comments? You were here yesterday. You have heard the Corps of Engineers, and this will be moving in regular order. Mr. BoswELI1. The Congressman is eminently correct in his statement of the need. Mr. Br~&~r~IK. Thank you, Mr. Boswell. Mr. OLAUSEN. Mr. Roberts, is this similar to the type of problem that we had in and around the area represented by Congressman de la Garza, or is this strictly precipitation, and has nothing to do with hurricanes? Mr. ROBERTS. Strictly precipitation and lack of control of tributaries of Sabine. It carries a tremendous amount of very excellent quality water, and I believe it is the largest river in the country now that has no control over it. It runs wild, and it eventually reaches the gulf. We halTe three projects: project to save the water; another for navi- gation all the way to the gulf, to Longview; and then flood control from Longview up to the mouth of the river, which is at Greenville. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is the type of terrain in that area very similar to that which we saw in the southwest Texas area? What I am saying is, it was very difficult to acquire anything in the way of a rapid runoff. Mr. ROBERTS. No, it is not as flat as that. It is gently rolling, and it is basically timberland, with an industrial city moved into-the picture here is near Longview, Tex., which is an industrial city of 55,000, and that big plant out there is Texas Eastman Corp., under water. Mr. CLAUSEN. And you feel the article in the Longview Morning Journal, of May 24, 1968, along with the picture, pretty accurately describes the situation and might be well to at least place this in the file for future reference, if the gentleman thinks it might be appro- priate. Mr. ROBERTS. I would appreciate it. I might say that this is 8 hours after the major flood tide passed, by the way. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would then ask unanimous con- sent that the picture and the article in the Longview Morning Journal, PAGENO="0667" 653 of May 24, 1968, which I think very accurately describes the problem, be placed in the file and referred in the report as part of the com- mittee's consideration. Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. (Article in Longview Morning Journal, May 24, 1968, placed in file of the committee.) Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Colonel. Can we get back to the first page on your statement, Colonel Hall? We will start with the Atch.afalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, La. ATGHAFALAYA RIVER~ BAYOUS OHENE, BOEUF~ AND BLAOK~ LA. Mr. BLATNIK. Please proceed, Colonel. Give us a quick rundown on this project, sir. There is no particular controversy, as I recall; am I correct on that? STATEMENT OP LT. COL. DANIEL D. HALL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OP CIVIL WORKS FOR THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY, OFFICE, CHIEF OP ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. Colonel HALL. It is not controversial, Mr. Chairman. it is a good project. It has a favorable B-C ratio, local cooperation and assurances have been forthcoming. it has favorable comments from the Federal agencies and the Bureau of the Budget. Its B-C ratio is 1.2. Total estimated cost is $9,526,000, sir. I would like to say that the Secretary of the Army on this project states that since the Federal cost is less than $10 million, the views set forth in his letter of January 6, 1967, submitting a draft bill, to amend section 201 of the Flood `Control Act of 1965 would apply. I would be happy to go into any details the chairman desires. It was adequately described yesterday by Mr. Willis. Mr. BLATNIK. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection. Any questions? Mr. HARSHA. This thing has been a little different than the ordi- nary project, Colonel. Correct me if I am wrong. Is it the practice for the corps to do this sort of thing for the purposes of drilling rigs? I notice in your benefits you have `to $888,000 savings to drilling rigs, is this for navigation purposes or to expedite the drilling of oil? Colonel HALL. This is for navigation purposes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. What is covered by the savings in the drilling rigs? And `also, are they the fixed installations or are they floating ships or floating equipment? `Colonel HALL. Transportation savings, sir. These are floating rigs that move from `the shipyards to the gulf. They come back to the shipyards on Bayous Black and Chene for maintenance and are actually constructed in the inland system. And it is transportation savings to reach the gulf, among other things. Mr. HARSHA. The division between Federal and non-Federal fol- lows the usual order? Colonel HALL. That is correct, sir. PAGENO="0668" 654 Mr. HARSHA. That is all I have. Mr. BLATNIK. ~o questions. Can we move on to the next one: Ouac.hita and Black Rivers. You are in opposition to that ~ O~ACHITA AND BLACK RIVERS, ARK. Colonel HALL. I have a detailed statement, Mr. Chairman. (Statement follows:) STATEMENT RE OUACHITA-BLACK Rivsa NAvIGATIoN Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. The River and Harbor Act of 1950 authorized modification of an existing 6'/2-foot depth navigation project to provide an all year channel 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide from the mouth of the Black River to Camden, Arkansas. Disregarding specific features, the depth of channel was to be obtained primarily by lowering the floors and sills of six existing locks and by deeper channel dredging without affecting existing water surface elevations. Prior to starting construction, further investigation indicated alternative means might result in an overall more economical project. In addition, construction of the earlier plan would require prolonged closure of the stream to navigation and this was objectionable to local interests. A subsequent report to the Congress compared several alternative plans to provide the same channel dimensions and the Chief of Engineers recommended that the overall most economical plan be followed. The River and Harbor Act of 1960 authorized these recommended further modifications. Disregarding specific features, the new plan provides for a substitute system of four locks and dams in lieu of the existing six locks and dams. The Increased navigation depths would be obtained primarily by raising existing water surfaces rather than extensive deeper dredging. The report (S. Doe. 112, 86th Cong.) recognized that comparatively low stream banks in the Felsenthal reach would result in a considerable land require- ment if the water surface were raised in this reach. Specific economic comparison with a deeper dredging alternative showed a raised water surface in the Felsen- thal pool to be more favorable. The plan as authorized by the Congress requires that all necessary lands, including the lands for the Felsenthal pool, are to be furnished by local interests. Where the existing Lock and Dam No. 6 provided a water surface at elevation 61.6 feet, the substitute Felsenthal pool would be at elevation 65.0 feet. Local interests supported the changes of the 1960 authorization and furnished the necessary assurances of local cooperation. Construction began along the downstream Louisiana reaches, including Jonesville and Columbia Locks and Dams. During 1964 preconstruction planning of the Felsenthal Lock and Dam, local interests requested modification of this feature to provide a 5-foot seasonally higher pooi for fish and wildlife purposes and offered to furnish any additional lands at no cost to the United States. Under the general authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Chief of Engineers approved modification of project structures and their operation at Felsenthal Lock and Dam to provide this seasonal fish and wildlife pool at an estimated additional Federal construc- tion cost of $1,590,000 (including $250,000 for additional recreational facilities associated with this pool) provided the necessary additional land requirements were furnished without cost to the United States. Detailed preconstruction plan- ning proceeded until lands were needed to begin construction at Felsenthal, at which time local interests indicated difficulties in fulfilling their previous as- surances. Construction is continuing along the downstream project reach where Louisi- ana local interests are furnishing the required local cooperation, including lands necessary for navigation. Construction has not begun along the upstream proj- ect reach within Arkansas, and these local interests have sought relief from the requirement to furnish lands. They have been informed that the such relief would violate authorized project requirements, would exceed general discre- tionary authorities of the Chief of Engineers, and could only be granted by the Congress. PAGENO="0669" 655 * Alternative plans for the Felsenthal pool have again been reviewed. Plans with pool elevations at and between the elevations 61.6 and 65.0 feet were compared on the basis of estimated total annual charges, and annual navigation and fish and wildlife benefits. This review confirmed that the 65.0 foot elevation Felsen- thai pool provides the economically most favorable development of the reach for the concurrent purposes of navigation and fish and wildlife. Furthermore, the addition of a seasonally higher pool solely for fish and wildlife purposes provides an even more favorable overall plan of development. Longstanding current policy regarding Federal navigation improvements in- cludes the requirement that local interests furnish all necessary project lands. Unusual circumstances may justify limited or broad deviation from this require- ment on a particular project; however, such deviation was neither proposed nor authorized at this project. We feel that the existing requirements of local cooper- ation for all aspects of the project are proper and that the relief sought is not warranted. When considering the Ouachita-Black River project in the 1960 report, the relatively large increased land requirement in the Felsenthal reach was specifically considered and apparently adjudged either insufficiently unusual or sufficiently offset by resultant benefits, or both, such that reporting officers did not recommend and the Congress did not authorize a deviation from this general requirement. With regard to additional lands required for the 5-foot seasonally higher fish and wildlife pool, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires specific ap- proval of the Congress prior to the project acquisition of any additional lands solely for fish and wildlife purposes. This has been interpreted in the Felsenthal situation not to prohibit the acceptance of lands at no cost to the United States. 111 view of the considerable additional Federal cost for the modification of proj- ect structures and provision of additional basic recreation facilities, the furnish- ing of these additional lands by local interests does not appear inequitable. In the State of Arkansas, local sponsoring bodies are the respective counties. Local interests supported the changes proposed in the 1960 authorization and stated they were willing to provide the assurances. These assurances from the County Judges of Ashley, Bradley, Calhoun and Union Counties, Arkansas, were furnished in 1962. Also, I might add that a subsequent letter from the Attorney General's Office in June of that same year, giving his opinion that the counties may legally execute these assurances, is a matter of record. The five-foot seasonally higher fish and wildlife pool was added pursuant to desires of local interest in accordance with established policies and authorities available~ to the Chief of Engineers. In August of 1966, Acts of Assurances to include this features were requested from the respective counties. That same month, the respective counties advised the Vicksburg District Engineer that they were unable to comply with the request for the additional assurances-therefore, planning on the Ouachita River Navigation Project within Arkansas was dis- continued-however, that portion within Louisiana is continuing under con- struction. In summary, Mr. Chairman, we see no reason to change the requirements of local cooperation for the Ouachita River Navigation Project in preferential treat- ment of any reach. Further, the requirements of local cooperation for this proj- ect are in accord with longstanding policy regarding Federal navigation projects and in our view should remain so. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. Can you brief it as this point? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. The problem at hand with respect to the Felsenthal lock and dam relates to the items of local cooperation on the Felsenthal lock and dam. Local cooperation is required by the act authorizing the channel on the Ouachita-Black River system, which requires that local interests provide land, easements, rights- of -way, among other conditions of local cooperation. The local cooperation requirements in the Louisiana portion of the project have been furnished. Local cooperation in the Felsenthal reach has not, due to the alleged inability of local interests to come forth with it. We think that the local cooperation requirements are proper, in accord with the established policy for navigation projects and think that the conditions of local cooperation should remain. PAGENO="0670" 656 Mr. BLATNIK. You are generally in opposition to the modification of this project, is that right? Colonel H~u~i. That is correct. Mr. BI~&TNIK. What would be the reason again? Colonel HALL. The reason we are in opposition to this is because the items of local cooperation for this project are in accord with estab- lished policy for navigation projects, and we see no reason, really, for preferential treatment of any reach of the system. Mr. BLATNIK. On the grounds, therefore, that the local interests are unable or unwilling to contribute the local share; is that it? Colonel HAI~L. The local interests have not furnished the necessary assurances for the Felsenthal pool, which is one of four locks and dams on this navigation system. Mr. BIATNIX. Any questions? Mr. IllAusnA. You are in opposition to this project, then, as I under- stand it? Colonel hAIl. No, sir. We are not in opposition to the project. We think it is a~ very good project, but we do not feel that the local coopera- tion requirements should be amended for any reach in preferential treatment to- Mr. Br~rNIK. Are local interests unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements for local cooperation? Colonel HALL. They say they are unable, sir. General NOBLE. This is really a matter for the committee to decide. This is a good project. The local interests have stated that for several reasons they have been unable to come up with this locally and ask for relief. From our standpoint, we see no reason why we should have a different requirement for local cooperation of this group rather than another. But it is really up to the committee to decide whether their inability to come up with this cooperation- Mr. BLATNIK. We will review that on the staff level further. General NOBLE. There is no question about the project. lit is a good one. Mr. Cr~usnN. This question of being unable to meet the local spon- sorship requirements, now this, of course, would certainly need some review, because we find that this is quite a natural position that some people would take. And I am afraid if we ever established a precedent here of authorizing a project without a clear demonstration, just strictly inability to provide local responsibility requirements, to me would not be enough. I tiunk you are setting up a prettT dangerous precedent here. Have you had a change to review the situation to determine whether they really have the ability to meet these requirements or not? Colonel HALL. Sir, when the project was authorized, and while be- ing considered by the Congress in 1960, local interests did indicate their willingness to come forth with all the stated requirements of local co- operation. In fact, subsequent to that they furnished acts of assurances for this purpose. Now, subsequent to the authorization in 1960, the local interests re- quested consideration of increasing the elevation of this particular PAGENO="0671" 657 pool for seasonal fish and wildlife purposes. This problem really was identified pointedly when the revised assurances were requested for the additional acreage required for the seasonal fish and wildlife pool, at which time they said that they could not come forth with the as- surances, that they were financially unable to do so. The assuring bodies within this portion, within Arkansas, are the respective counties, as opposed to, in other States, for example, in Louisiana, assured by the State department of public works. Mr. CLATJSEN. In your judgment, based upon the review of the situa- tion, do you feel that they can or cannot meet what would be consid- ered to be parallel local sponsorship requirements as we consider other projects? Colonel HALL. In discussion with respect to the acts of assurances, they say that they are unable financially to meet this obligation. Mr. CLAUSEN. What proof is there of this? That is the normal thing. General NOBLE. We do not have any proof of it, sir. We are unable to defend before you today a basis for an exception. This is why we have stated, from our standpoint we do not see a valid basis for our exception. Louisiana has provided its assurances in. this project and Arkansas has not been able to come up with it. Mr. CLAUSEN. I think you have answered my question. Mr. HARSHA. Do we have a worksheet, summary sheet, like we have on some of these others? Mr. CRAMER. Some modifications. As I understand, this is modification of existing projects, that they are existing for; right? Colonel HALL. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. They want to change local cooperation requirements relating to what, to the Felsenthal pool acquisition of right-of-right by the local interests? Colon~l HArI~. Yes. The construction is proceeding at the present time on the two-lock-and-dam features to achieve the 9-foot channel within the lower reaches of the stream. No construction has been accom- plished in Arkansas due to the lack of assurance being furnished as required by the authorizing act. Mr. CRAMER. Do you have an estimate of what the local cost for acquisition of this land for the pool might be? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. It is about $1,880,000. Mr. CRAMER. And Federal cost for the pool is $1.5 million, includ- ing $250,000 for recreational; right? Colonel HAI4r~. No, sir. $1.5 million was modification to the Felsenthal structure to accommodate the seasonal fish and wildlife pool. Total cost of Felsenthal lock and dam was about $30 million. Mr. CRAMER. This pool is strictly for fish and wildlife recreation, is that right? Colonel HALL. No, sir, it is a combination-if I could speak to illustrations: There is a 65-foot elevation, navigational pool, naviga- tional feature of the project, and raising this 5 feet for seasonal fish and wildlife pool brings it up to 70 feet. Mr. CRAMER. It is that additional 5 feet that we are involved in? PAGENO="0672" 658 Colonel HALL. No, sir. We are involved with land, easement, rights- of-way for the whole pooi. This is part of the assurance required by the authorizing legislation, which is a 1960 act. Mr. CRAMER. `Well, their argument apparently is, `because fish and wildlife is involved, that t.hey should not have to pay for the land, is that what it amounts to? Colonel HALL. No, sir. It goes beyond that. They object to buying the land. Mr. CRAMER. Period. Colonel HAr~L. For the navigation pooi also. Mr. CRAMER. Well, that is a new precedent, then, if they were per- mitted to do this. Colonel HALL. Let me correct that statement. I said object-they say they are unable. General NOBLE. They are not objecting, as far as I can determine. Colonel HALL. All the people think it is a good project and would like to see it proceed, but they have run up against this obstacle. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question as to how long the chairman expects to go, and what the general plan is with regard to completing this matter, possibly marking up the bill? Mr. BLATNIK. It will only take a few minutes to complete these. We will skip the controversial and noncomplicated ones. If there are no further questions on this, we will take the Mississippi River, Gulf Outlet, and Miehoud Canal, La. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, GULF OUTLET, MICHOUD CANAL, LA. It has a high benefit-cost ratio of 7 to 1. It is not too large a project, Federal cost S114~ million. This was explained. It is a modification of existing Mississippi River Gulf Outlet project by deepening and widening the effective portions of the waterway. There is the chart. Is there anything special or particular that you can emphasize, `call to our attention on this, Colonel? Colonel HALL. No, sir. It is a good project. It has a high benefit- cost ratio. We have just recently received all the comments from the States and Federal agencies. It is now enroute to the Bureau of the Budget via the Secretary of the Army's Office, actually transmitted to the Secretary this morning. `Mr. BLATNIK. The Bureau of the Budget report, `is that in yet? Colonel HALL. No, sir. It just left the Chief of Engineers Office, enroute to Bureau of the Budget this morning. It was hand-carried to the Secretary~s office. Mr. HARSHA. I notice you do not have HEW's report. Colonel HALL. HEW's comments, they signed off on their portion yesterday, and we understand there is nothing of substance which would be objectionable within their comments. Mr. HARSHA. Nothing what? Colonel HALL. Nothing within their comments that would be ob- jectionable to this project, as I understand it. MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT VENICE, LA. Mr. BLATNIK. Next is the Mississippi River at Venice, La. PAGENO="0673" 659 It is a similar situation and has a fairly good benefit-cost ratio, 2.5 to 1. Federal cost about $4.5 million. It is a modest type project. Would you give us a quick summary, what the project proposes, Colonel? Colonel H~u~L. A quick summary is just to enlarge and deepen the channels going east and west of the Mississippi River, in the vicinity of Venice, La., which will have a benefit to fishing interests and oil interests to get their rigs to and from respective areas which have to c~me down the passes now to get out. It is a good project. The situation with respect to the comments of Federal agencies is the same as the Michoud Canal. We just got HEW's comments yesterday. This project is in the Secretary of the Army's office as of this morning. Mr. BLATNIK. In other words, the project consists of deepening and widening these two bayous-deepening and enlarging the connecting link between the Gulf and the Breton Sound that now exists. What is the present channel depth? Colonel HALL. They are inadequate to accommodate the vessels based at Venice now. I do not know what the exact-these channels are 9-foot generally; but the entrances are shoaled up, so that these vessels now cannot transit these channels. The entrances to the channels are shoaled up. Mr. BLATNIK. Entrances are shoaled up, you say? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Sixteen feet at the entrances, 14 feet to the channel Any questions? Mr. HARSHA. Colonel, I notice the contribution from the Federal Government is $4.5 million and non-Federal is $1 million. What is the basis for that type of contribution? Colonel HALL. This is the non-Federal cost, to meet the require- ments of local cooperation, as specified in the document, the cost for lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and so forth, which is local inter- est responsibility, amounts to that $1 million figure. Mr. HARSIIA. And has HEW commented on this as yet? Mr. BLATNIK. Not yet. What is the status of that, Colonel? Colonel HALL. HEW commented yesterday, the same as Michoud Canal, and we understand now comments are generally favorable. YAZOO RIVER~ MISS. Mr. BLATNIK. To go back to the Yazoo River project, give us a quick summary on that. There was some opposition from the railroads, as I recall. Colonel HALL. This project concerns the feasibility of providing a dependable year-round navigation channel on the Yazoo River from its confluence with the Mississippi River at Vicksburg, Miss., upstream to Greenwood, Miss., a distance of 169 miles. At the present time, minimum depths of 9 feet are available less than one-half of the time. The Chief of Engineers, in his report, rec- ommends construction of one lock and darn near the mouth of the Yazoo River, channel realinernent and dredging, modification of the existing Sardis Reservoir storage, alteration of State highway bridge at Beizoni, and raising the control weir at the upper end of the `Whit- 97-700---GS-----43 PAGENO="0674" 660 tington auxiliary channel to provide a 9-foot depth navigation chan- nel between the mouth of the Yazoo River and Greenwood, Miss. The total estimated cost of the proposed improvement is $52,907,000. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.6. Local interests have indicated their willingness to meet the required items of local cooperation. Comments from the State of Mississippi and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. However, in the Budget statement they expected the Chief of Engi- neers to review the timing of initiation of each leg of the project prior to requesting appropriations of funds for construction. Mr. Chairman, this is a brief of our prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Br~TNIK. The Bureau of the Budget raises one or two questions, does it not, about timing on the project, first of all the Bureau of the Budget noted that the upper leg of the project-what does that mean- upper leg of the project be constructed independently following com- pletion of construction of the low-er leg of the project. What does that mean? General NOBLE. The upper segment of the project, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Which is the lower leg? Colonel HALL. The upper segment is above Yazoo City. The lower segment is from the mouth of Yazoo City. Mr. BLATNIK. Any reason for that comment? Taking one piece at a time, rather than to put it in one lump project- General NOBLE. I do not see anything there that should raise much question, sir. We probably would build it that way and would so recommend. Mr. BLATNIK. You would build it that way anyway? General NOBLE. We would do it a piece at a time. Mr. BLATNIK. I note that the Budget's comment would defer con- struction of the project until the potential ammual benefits expected to accrue immediately following construction are equal to the annual costs of the project. Is this a new policy? I would think that the implemen- tation of a policy of this nature would prevent almost any project from ever being constructed. Colonel }Lu~r~. I think they are referring there, sir, to potential project benefits as related to those which would be expected to accrue immediately after construction. Mr. BIATNIK. Is this a new policy or some new criteria that the Bureau has not been applying to other projects? I am shocked by this new policy. I want the record to clearly show my opposition to the implementation of a policy which would require the annual benefits to exceed the annual costs in the first y~ar. General NOBLE. These are a new type of comments from BOB, sir. I do not really Imow how to comment on them myself. They are an indication of a more conservative approach to sched- uling of these projects for construction after authorization. I do not know whether the net result of implementing these comments would end up with our budgeting process differing in any way at all, I am not prepared to state it this morning. PAGENO="0675" 661 Mr. BLATNIK. One more reservation, and I do not expect you to try to explain what they mean, we do not understand, either, what they meant by that, but the third reservation is: The Bureau of the Budget notes that the preponderance of project benefits would not accrue until the last half of the 50-year period of analysis. I. do not quite understand what that means. Does that mean they just do not build it for the first 20 years or 25 years, and then build a project; or because you build a project it is possible to encourage and establish traffic and increase it over a period of time, where, over 50 years, the average cost-benefits will have a favorable average. What did they mean by that? Colonel HALL. Sir, we examined the project benefits on a 50-year period Of analysis, and it has a B-C ratio of approximately 1.6. On a 100-year period of analysis it has a B-C ratio of about 2.5. Mr. BLATNIK. Repeat that again. Colonel HALL. An analysis of the benefits of the project on a 50-year basis, gives us a B-C ratio of about 1.6. On the 100-year basis of analysis, it has a B-C ratio of about 2.5. Mr. BLATNIK. 2.5 `for what period of time? Last 20 years? General NOBLE. Well, the improvement takes place, sir, in the second 50 years, from 1.6 to 2.5. It is an indication that the project, when it is. built, is going to become increasingly more favorable. Mr. BLATNIK. It would attract commerce, would it not? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. .C:olonel HALL. That is part of the potential to which they refer. Mr. BLATNIK. Rather strange language. Any questions? Mr. HARSHA. `Colonel, do you normally figure these on a 50-year analysis figure? `Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. And does the normal project generally generate an- nual benefits, equal to annual costs immediately after cons'truction? General NOBLE. Normally it is a slow2 gradual thing, sir. It has to build up. The process of attracting the industry and the build up of potenti'al takes place after a number of years. Mr. HAR5HA. What is the average of a normal project? When does this begin to show a favorable benefit-cost ratio? I notice they make the point that it is 15 to 20 years `before this `will. Now, what is your average project? General NOBLE. I do not know that you might say there is an average one. It would depend on the degree of pressure in the `immediate area. I would imagine some of these projects are long overdue. And once they go in, there is a `tremendous push. And others, once they are con- structed, `would get going more slowly. We have never made a stu.dy of it, sir. We have not noticed anything unusual `about this project. I have not, anyway. Mr. HARSHA. I noticed yesterday a point was raised by `the American Association of Railroads that you use three and an eighth `percent interest in `computing this. Is that correct? `C'olonel HALL. That is correct. `General NOBLE. `That is current policy. Mr. HARSHA. And a more realistic interest rate reflected in the real cost by the Federal Government would change it considera'bly; would it not? PAGENO="0676" 662 General NOBLE. I do not think it would so change. That is 1.6 B-C ratio, that would still be favorable. A small change in interest would not affect this project. The 1.6 B-C ratio is out of trouble with the kind of change of interest rate that they had in mind. Mr. HARSHA. I noticed they pointed out that estimating the traffic and transportation savings that you use considerable figures-you use figures that vary considerably from what they claim was the actual amount of commodities transported over this system. General NOBLE. I think that would be the railroad's claim on all projects, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Who is right? General NOBLE. After reviewing the railroad association's comments, we feel we are right-that the project is a good one. Mr. HAR5HA. Where did you get your figures? Mr. FElL. We go through a traffic survey of traffic that actually moved or was available for moving in a specific calendar year, which we call a base year. Then considering the economic projections for growth of the country, growth of the local State, and growth of the area that is influenced by the project, we apply growth factors to this traffic and then, having arrived at the total amount of traffic that is available for movement, we put another check on it as to the amount of saving that might be attributed to a specific commodity in a specific movement. It varies with different commodities. We consider that as the saving that is necessary to attract movement to the waterway and traffic that does not produce that minimal saving is discarded as a potential traffic to the waterway in the base year and in our projections. Mr. HARSHA. But they said, you included in your estimate 85,000 tons of soybeans, which moved from the Vicksburg district by rail to gulf ports for export in 1966, and then the staff of the Office of Chief of Engineers found, upon further ~malysis, that only 32,000 tons of soybeans actually moved by rail to gulf ports in 1966, rather than the 85,000. Mr. FElL. Sir, I do not have the record here to give you correct in- formation on that. But in our checks of the work that the district did, we must have found some inaccuracies that we took out of it. Mr. HAR5HA. Did you base it upon a 32,000 or 85,000 tons? Mr. FElL. We feel it was reported through by the Chief of Engi- neers report-would be based on corrected figures. Mr. HAR5HA. Would that reflect this B-C ratio, then, the same one? Mr. FElL. Yes, sir. Colone[ HALL. If I may comment on the AAR, American Associa- tion of Railroads' report, they raise several questions with respect to the report. Each of these points were addressed in detail by the Chief of Engineers' staff. There. were some pluses, maybe, and some minuses, but after addressing all the points, taking into consideration some of these inaccuracies that Mr. Feil alluded to, it has still a very favorable B-C ratio, and it did not affect the B-C ratio to any appreciable degree. Mr. HARSHA. How much did it affect it? Colonel HALL. Our addressing of their comments had to do with the validity of total economic analysis of the project, the staff of the Of- fice of Chief of Engineers found, upon further analysis, that only PAGENO="0677" 663 32,000 tons of soybeans actually moved by rail to gulf ports in 1966, rather than the 85,000. Mr. FElL. Sir, I `do not have the record here to give you correct in- formation on that. But in our checks of the work that the district did, we must have found some inaccuracies that we took out of it. Mr. HARSHA. Did you base it upon a 32,000 or 85,000 tons? Mr. FElL. We feel it was reported through by the Chief of Engi- neers report-would be based on corrected figures. Mr. HARSHA. Would that reflect this B-C ratio, then, the same one? Mr. FEll~. Yes, sir. Colonel HALL. If I may comment on the AAR, American Associa- tion of Railroads' report, they raise several questions with respect to the report. Each of these points were addressed in detail by the Chief of Engineers' staff. There were some pluses, maybe, and some minuses, but after addressing all the points, taking into consideration some of these inaccuracies that Mr. Feil alluded to, it has still a very favorable B-C ratio, and it did not affect the B-C ratio to any appreciable degree. Mr. HAR5HA. How much did it affect it? `Colonel HALL. Our addressing of their comments had to do with the validity of total economic analysis of the project, and we did not really make up a finite B-C ratio to compare with 1.6 or 1.62 or 1.58. We just did not do that. Mr. HARSHA. Then you really do not know how much it affected it? Colonel HALL. In our judgment, it did not affect it appreciably, sir. Mr. HARSHA. I am sorry; I did not understand. Colonel HALL. I said in our judgment it did not affect it appreciably. With minor exception, our further investigation, including re-con- tacts with principal shippers and receivers in the tributary area, sup- port the traffic data and analysis procedures used in our report. Also, the further study showed that the recommended plan is an economi- cally sound investment. We will furnish the committee a copy of the corps' review of the material prepared by the Association of Ameri- can Railroads. We can address each one of the points that they made. We have done it. Mr. `CRAMER. As I understand it, the present existing project is the clearing of wrecks and logs as such. What is the present depth that results from that? Colonel HALL. We have 9-foot channel on the Yazoo for a period of time, which is less `than one-'half-9 feet is available less than one- half `of the time on the Yazoo. Mr. `CRAMER. What was that-I did not understand you. `Colonel HALL. We `do not have 9-foot depths, sir, greater than one-half of the time. In other words, you do not have a dependable 9-foot channel. Mr. `CRAMER. What is the year-round minimum depth? What is the least `depth at any time during the year, is what I am trying to get at. `Colonel HALL. Three to 4 feet during low water periods. Mr. `CRAMER. What type of present usage in the river exists? Colonel HALL. There is navigation on the river at the present time, transportation of goods on the river. But it is not dependable trans- portation. PAGENO="0678" 664 Mr. CRAMER. What is it? What do they move on the river when itis9feet? Colonel HALL. They move soybeans at the present time, wheat, sand and gravel, and shells. Mr. CRAMER. What is going to generate this increased usage, indus- trial development in Greenwood, further agricultural development; what is it that gives it its benefit ratio? Colonel HALL. If we had a dependable channel of adequate depth, we believe it would stimulate industrial development. In Greenwood more shippers would use this as a mode of transpor- tation, because they could depend on it, as opposed to alternate modes, because it would be cheaper. Therein the project would gen- erate the benefit. Mr. CRAMER. That is all. Mr. BLATNIK. We will go to the last remaining project, a very important one, considerable interest: Red River Waterway, La., Tex., Ark., and Okla. Colonel HALL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my full state- ment at this point. Mr. BLATNIK. Fine; please proceed. RED RIVER WATERWAY BELOW DEXISON DAM~ LA., TEX.~ ARK.~ AND OKLA. Coloiiel HALL. Mr. Chairman, menThers of the committee, this report is concerned with the Red River and its tributaries downstream from Denison Dam. It was prepared in partial response to resolu- tions of the Senate and House Public Works Committees. The Red River below Denison Darn covers 29,500 square miles of gently rolling terrain in Louisiana., Arkansas, Okla~homa, and Texas, exclusive of the Ouachita-Black subbasin. The authorized plan for dood control includes 17 reservoirs, of which 13 are existing or under construction, together with levee protection downstream from Index, Ark. The authorized but unconstructed Overton-Red Waterway pro- irides for a navigable channel mostly in a land cut along the bank of the Red River flood plain to Shreveport, La. The R.ed River is characterized by wide fluctuations in stage as well as caving banks and many acres of productive land are lost to the river each year. Existing improvements must be relocated or aban- doned. Commercial traffic on the Red River is negligible and local interests desire facilities for low-cost bulk transportation in the area. The Chief of Engineers recommends the construction of bank sta- biliza.tion works on the Red River from the mouth t.o Denison Dam a distance of 530 miles. Also, construction of a 9- by 2.00-foot slack- water navigation channel about 294 miles long in the main channel of the Red River, in lieu of the authorized Overton-Red route, from the mouth to Shreveport, thence via Twelve-mile a.nd Cypress Bayous to the vicinity of Daingerfield, Tex. Nine locks and dams, including locks at two existing dams, will furnish the necessary lift. The total estimated cost is $522,910,000~ of which $471,223,000 is Federal and $51,687,000 is non-Federal. The annual charges for the bank stabilization improvements are estimated to be $11,206,000 a.nd annual benefits are estimated to be $13,496,000. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.2. The annual charges for the. navigation improvenients are estimated PAGENO="0679" 665 to be $15,399,000 and annual benefits are estimated to be $19,827,000. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.3. For the bank stabilization improvements local interests are required to furnish flood control a, b, c's; and for the reach from Index, Ark., to Denison Dam, provide a cash contribution for land enhancement amounting to 26.1 percent of the estimated Federal cost of construc- tion, such construction is now estimated at $20,127,000. For the navi- gation improvements local interests are required to furnish all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including lands for recreational devel- opment; hold and save free from damages, including those resulting from dredging, changes in ground water level, and wave action; pro- vide a proportionate share of the cost of bridge alterations over exist- ing channels; assume all obligations of owning, maintaining, and operating all railway and highway bridges altered or constructed as part of the navigation project; make alterations in and maintain util- ity facilities; and obtain water rights that may be necessary for opera- tion in the interest of navigation. For the recreation developments, make contributions of at least 50 percent of the total first cost of that development; operate and maintain the recreational areas and facilities. With respect to the recommended requirements of local operation, I refer to an enclosure attached to this statement which is intended to clarify certain aspects of their intended application. This document notes that it is the intent of the report that the navi- gation servitude apply to alterations or relocations of facilities in or over navigable streams. This means that the owners of these facilities would bear the relocation and subsequent operation and maintenance costs. In the case of highway and railway bridges, the cost-sharing principles of the Truman-Hobbs Act would apply, except that, in the case of highway bridges, alterations or relocations will be performed in accordance with applicable design standards existing at the time of alteration or relocation, in accordance with the principles of sec- tion 207 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, as amended, and any im- provement in the structures arising from these design standards will be at Federal expense, and not considered a betterment as defined in the Truman-Hobbs Act. All other relocations, including necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way, are the responsibility of the local sponsors of the proj- ect, with two exceptions. Where a new highway bridge is required because of a land cut, the construction cost of the bridge will be a Federal expense. Relocations of all railroad facilities not subject to the navigation servitude will be at Federal expense. The necessary rights-of-way in both instances are to be furnished by the local sponsors. Operation and maintenance of all facilities to be altered or relo- cated by the Federal Government or local sponsors will normally be performed by the owners. The capitalized operation and maintenance costs of a newly introduced movable span feature in railroad bridges spanning new land cut navigation channel segments may be borne by the Government as part of the relocation construction expense. I would also note that the entire cost of Harvard Reservoir construe- tion and operation is to be at Federal expense, as indicated in the text PAGENO="0680" 666 of the report of the district engineer, and no local cooperation is required. The comments of the States and concerned Federal agencies are gen- erally favorable. However, the States of Louisiana and Oklahoma and the Governor of Texas have suggested changes in the requirements of local cooperation applicable to the bank stabilization works between Shreveport and Denison Darn. However, the requirements of local cooperation recommended by the Chief of Engineers are in accordance with current policy applicable to the appropriate reaches and similar to those authorized by the Congress for similar types of improvements. The Bureau of the Budget notes that the recommended waterway segment between Shreveport and Daingerfield is economically justified by only a narrow margin and concurs with the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers for an economic restudy of this reach prior to con- struction. The Bureau also believes the study should reflect the extent of Federal interest in operation and maintenance of the existing Oaddo Dam. Also the Bureau expresses concern over the precedent which would be established by the recommended project for bank stabiliza- tion between Index, Ark., and Denison Dam, and expresses the belief that bank stabilization should not be a Federal responsibility unless directly related to navigation or flood control. Subject to consideration of the above, the Burean of the Budget advises there would be no ob- jection to the submission of the proposed report to the Congress. The Secretary of the Army concurs with the views of the Bureau of the Budget.. However, with respect to bank stabilization, the Secretary has requested the Chief of Engineers to develop a proposal for a gen- eral policy for consideration by all concerned. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I have also two docu- ments that I would like placed in the hearing record. Mr. BLATNIK. We will place them in the record at this point. (Materials follow:) COST-SHARING PoLicY pon RED Rrvza BANK STABILIZATION AND NAVIGATION PROJECT BY Ba~cH 1. Navigaticm.-From the Mississippi River upstream to Shreveport thence following Twelvemile and Cypress Bayous to Daingerfield, Texas. Local cooperation for the navigation oriented features have been recom- mended following the usual "a, b" requirements for navigation projects. The River and Harbor Act of 1920 recognized that navigation improvements might produce local benefits as well as general benefits to the Nation and directed that in subsequent investigations recognition be given to these benefits with recom- mendations for local cost sharing. Cost sharing policies on navigation improve- merits have thus evolved over a period of many years through the precedents enacted into law for similar type projects. See Appendix I. 2. Bank Stabilization.-From Shreveport upstream to Index, Arkansas. Local cooperation for bank stabilization improvements in this reach follow the "abc" requirements, which include project maintenance, similar to a local flood protection project because the stabilization works are primarily for pro- tection of an existing levee system. This is in consonance with the many projects that provide localized flood protection authorized since the Flood Control Act of 1936. Furthermore, it was this Act which established the Federal interest in flood control and the policy of sharing in the cost of flood protection in recognition of local beneficial effects. 3. Bank Stabiiizatioii.-FrOm Index, Arkansas, upstream to Deriison Dam. Local cooperation for bank stabilization in this reach includes the same "abc" requirements as for the reach from Shreveport to Index plus a cash contribu- tion reflecting the land conversion benefits expected to accrue. Whereas the PAGENO="0681" 667 stabilization works in the downstream~ reach protect existing levees, the stabili- zation works between Index and Denison will prevent the future erosion and loss of agricultural land and also provide an iiicentive for conversion of pr~sentIy idle and woodland to agricultural uses. On this basis the proposed stabilization works are similar to major drainage improvements for which a cash contribu- tion in recognition of land conversion benefits has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and enacted into law on a project basis. In this case, as in the case of major drainage works, the method of determining the cash contri- bution depends upon the relative magnitude of land conversion benefits com- pared to total project benefits with credit being given to local interests for the estimated value of lands, easements and rights-of-way furnished by them. APPLICATION OF LOCAL COOPERATION REQUIREMENTS ON RED RIvER Bimow DENISON DAM WITH RESPECT TO NAVIGATION The first aspect concerns the application of navigation servitude within the stated requirements of local cooperation. As used in `the report recom- mendations, "local interests" refer collectively to non-Federal interests and is not intended to shift existing responsibilities under navigation servitude from `affected owners to the local project sponsor. Whenever applicable, the Government will exercise its rights in servitude of navigation to compel the owners of project affected lands and facilities `to assume all project responsi- bilities toward their respective ownerships which are assigned to local in- terests in the recommended requirements of local cooperation. The second aspect concerns roads, railroads and any other improvements which `do not cross the `present or proposed navigation channel but which require relocation (alteration or removal) due to higher water surfaces re- sulting from the proposed navigation improvements. The report is `based upon a project plan w'hich considered the obviously necessary relocations of facili- ties crossing the proposed navigation, channel. Detailed `preconstruction plan- ning could reveal the need to relocate (`alter or remove) other improvements which `do `not cross the proposed channel. The wording of the recommended requirements of local cooperation is sufficiently broad to clearly assign full responsibility to local interests for all non-crossing type relocations except those involving rOadway and railroad facilities. If and as non-crossing type road and railroad relocations are found necessary, the `relocation of such roads will be a local interest responsibility and the relocation of su'ch railroad facilities will `be a Government responsibility. Except for right-of-way furnished by local in'terests, provision at Government expense for the necessary relocation of all railroad facilities not previously subject to navigation servitude would be `consistent with similar action authorized by the Overton-Red River Water- way plan, which would be superseded by authorization of the plan recommended in the report. The `third aspect concerns design standards to be used in the alteration of highway facilities crossing the proposed navigational channel. The construction of new highway bridges crossing proposed land `cut reaches of the naviga- tion channel is to be entirely at Government expense. In accordance with the principles established in Sect'ion 207 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, as amended, these new highway bridge facilities will normally incorporate `at Government expense, any higher `design standards of the local governmental owner which are applicable `at the time of `taking. However, it is also recom- mended that local interests be required to `participate in the alteration cost of highway bridges crossing the existing navigation `channel in accordance with the principles of the Truman-Hobbs Act, `and the text of the plan shows that only high level fixed span bridges are to be provided for highways. The prin- ciples of the Truman-Hobbs Act as now `administered provide that higher design standards are a betterment to be incorporated only at the request and expense of the `bridge owner. The intention of Congress regarding design standards to be employed in the relocation of public roadways and the earlier intention `of Congress regarding the incorporation of betterments at owner expense in Truman-Hobbs type bridge alterations, `present a hidden conflict in principles of w'hich the Congress should be aware. In the absence of further guidance by the Congress or its Committees, the Corps will follow the prin- ciples of the more recent `legislation and consider that incorporation of `cur- rent design standard's does not constitute a betterment within the principles PAGENO="0682" 668 of the Truman-Hobbs Act as applied to the alteration or replacement of highway bridges at this project, where the need for bridge replacement arises from the construction of additional navigation improvements rather than increased waterway traffic over existing navigation facilities. The fourth aspect concerns the operation and maintenance expense of project altered or constructed railroad bridges. The recommended local cooperation re- quires local interests to assume such costs. As indicated in the above first aspect, "local interests" collectively designates non-Federal interests without assigning responsibilities to a specific non-Federal entity. Owners of project altered fa- cilities customarily accept resultant increased operation and maintenance ex- penses of their respective facilities, because the additional cost is minor and be- cause they will share in the general benefits of the project. However, the construc- tion or alteration of railroad bridges incorporating a new movable span feature expressly for navigation, introduces a substantial new operating cost for the railroad bridge owner. Additionally, railroad owners usually do not consider themselves benefited by improvement of a competitive mode of transportation. Accordingly, railroad owners normally insist upon full compensation for this added expense whenever they may legally do so. For altered or replacement bridges previously subject to navigation servitude, these costs will remain with the bridge owner pursuant to the principles of Section 6 of the Truman- Hobbs Act. However, for bridges to be newly constructed over proposed land cut reaches of the navigation channel, the railroad owner may properly insist upon full compensation for this appreciable additional operation and mainte- nance expense, prior to his execution of a contract with the Government for construction of the bridge itself. Prior experience has shown that states and political subdivisions are usually prohibited or not empowered in law to share in this expense of privately owned utilities. In the absence of specific legislative requirements assigning operation and maintenance costs, it has been the prac- tice for the Government to pay such capitalized additional O&M costs to the railroad as part of any Government relocation contract providing for bridge construction over land cuts. Accordingly, the requirement that local interests assume the operating and maintenance expense of project altered bridges is not intended for application to the additional operation and maintenance expense of the movable span feature in railroad bridges to be constructed `by the Gov- ernment across proposed land cut reaches of the navigation channel; the capi- talized cost of this additional operation and maintenance expense will `be as- sumed as part of the Government cost in the relocation of railroad facilities only n-hen a new bridge is to be constructed over a proposed land cut reach of the navigation channel. The fifth aspect concerns proposed local cooperation at Harvard Reservoir, which is to be constructed on Cypress Bayou, well upstream of the head of navigation, in order to assure an adequate supply of water for navigation project operation in the channel reach upstream of Shreveport. The entire cost of Har- vard Reservoir construction and operation, including all necessary interests in lands, is to be a Government expense as indicated in the text of the report under the item "Reservoir" in Table 4 and the detailed cost estimate of Table 19. The recommended requirements of local cooperation are not applicable to the Harvard Reservoir feature as now planned. Colonel HALL. To briefly summarize my statement, the Red River below Denison Dam covers 29,500 square. miles of gently roiling ter- rain in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, exclusive of the Ouachita-Black subbasin. The Chief of Engineers recommends the construction of bank sta- bilization works on the Red River from the mouth to Denison Dam, a distance of 530 miles. Also, construction of a 9-foot by 200-foot slack water navigation channel, about 294 miles long, in the main channel of the Red River, in lieu of the authorized Overton-Red route, from the mouth to Shreveport, thence via 12-Mile and Cypress Bayous to the vicinity of Daingerfield, Tex., nine locks and darns, including locks at two ex- isting dams, will furnish the necessary lift. There are four segments of this project. PAGENO="0683" 669 One is the navigation of the mouth to Shreveport, thence via 12- Mile and Cypress Bayous to Daingerfield, Tex.; channel stabilization works from Shreveport upstream to the Red River to Index, Ark.; then stabilization on the banks from Index on up to Demson. Each segment of the project has a favorable B-C ratio. The total estimated cost of the project is $522,910,000, of which $471,223,000 is Federal and $51,687,000 is non-Federal. The benefit-cost ratio for the bank stabilization features is 1.2. The benefit-cost ratio for the navi- gation features is 1.3. Mr. CRAMER. Could I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. BLATNIK. Let me check first: I am not clear on your benefits, Colonel. Bank stabilization, you have got them divided there. Are bank stabilization aspects, is it the overall comprehensive proposal, are they separate and unrelated? Colonel HALL. The bank stabilization features were treated sepa- iately to determine if those works were economically justified by them- selves. Each of the three reaches has a favorable B-C ratio as a separate unit. However, in the lower reach where a navigable waterway is rec- ommended, the bank stabilization works are necessary to preserve channel alinement. Mr. BLATNIK. I am not clear on the benefits. Approximately a half a billion dollars will be allocated for bank stabilization, not precisely- total project cost is $500 million. How much of that goes for bank stabilization? I would like to have separate tabulations. Colonel HALL. It is $193 million. Mr. BLATNIK. You have got a. cost-benefit ratio and you must have the cost. Colonel HALL. ~ieS, sir-$193 million. Mr. BLATNIK. About $200 million, about two-fifths, about 40 percent of the project will be for bank stabilization. Your problem is particu- larly extreme upstream, is it not, on the upper reaches of the Red River? Colonel HALL. The Red River itself is a meandering river through- out its length, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. The Red River is characterized by wide fluctuations in stage as well as by caving banks and unpredictable shoaling condi- tions adverse to the interests of navigation. Many acres of productive land are lost to the river each year due to caving banks, and improve- ments must be either relocated or abandoned. The benefit-cost ratio on that is 1.2. Navigation is of primary concern in the lower reaches of Red River, and your benefit-cost ratio is 1.3. And I estimate that about 60 percent of its cost would be for navigation. On the comments of the Bureau of the Budget, I am not clear on just what they are driving at. It says, and I do not understand this, the Bureau of the Budget notes that the recommended waterway segment between Shreveport, La., and Daingerfield, Tex., is economically justi- fied by only a narrow margin. We are concerned about the cost ratio of the entire stretch, are we not? It is nothing unusual. That is what we do all the time, with all these sections, is it not? In some sections the benefit-cost ratio would be less than other sections. You take the aver- age, overall B-C ratio? PAGENO="0684" 670 Colonel HALL. The overall B-C ratio for the navigation feature, sir, which is the recommendation for the Chief of Engineers, navigation, to Daingerfield, Tex., is 1.3. If you break this down by segment from Shreveport, the. Dangerfield reach, I think this is a statement to which the Bureau was addressing, and they recommend and concur in the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers that this be restudied prior to construction. However, we do this within the corps on all projects. Mr. BLATNIK. You do this as a normal course of procedure? Colonel HALL. Where a. project can be broken down to a useful seg- ment, the project is done so. Where it cannot, the entire project is brought through this economi- cal analysis. Mr. BLATNIK. The Bureau expresses concern over the precedent that would be established by the recommended project for bank stabiliza- tion between Index, Ark., and Denison Dam; and expresses the belief that bank stabilization should not be a Federal responsibility unless directly related to navigation or flood control. This seems rather strange to me. Can you furnish either at this time or for the record later on instances where bank stabilization has been performed by the Corps of Engineers, where it was not directly related to navigation or flood control? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir; I can. Mr. Br~&~IK. Can you give us any of those illustrations now? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. On the Sacramento River the project for Chico Landing to Red Bluff recommended in House Document No. 272, 84th Congress, and author- ized in 1958; the Missouri River, Kenslers Bend, published in House Document No. 821,76th Congress, and authorized in 1941; the Missouri River, Garrison-Oahe, authorized in 1963 the project objectives were bank erosion in each case. Mr. HARSHA. Would the gentleman yield at that point? Mr. BLATNIK. ~Just one question and I will yield. If you have a~iy other projects as a precedent, list them; and, if possible, get the project cost or cost estimates and give us some idea of their magnitude, whether it is a minor project or major project. I yield. Colonel HALL. I will, sir. I do not have that information available here. Mr. HARSIIA. You say these are authorized by House documents. That just authorizes them for study; that does not authorize the construction of them. Colonel HALL. They are reports to the Congress, published in those documents, and they were authorized by the Congress in flood con- trol acts. Mr. HAnsUA. They are authorized by law, to be constructed? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Cramer. Mr. Cm~&~rER. On that same point, will you yield, Mr. Chairman; on that same point? Mr. BLATNIK. Yes. Mr. CnA1~reim. Did those bank stabilization segments of those charges, were they similar to this, where it did not relate to navigation or flood PAGENO="0685" 671 control, or was there a channel deepening or flood control included and stabilization was a part of it? Colonel HALL. Two of those three did not have any benefits for navigation or flood control. Mr. Cn~&i~u~n. Was there navigation or flood control project in that segment where you also had bank stabilization? Colonel HALL. Sir, I do not know. I will have to verify that point and answer that question for the record, because I just do not know. General NOBLE. We do not have that answer, sir. We can get that; but the project objectives were in order, as he listed them, bank erosion for the first one; second, bank erosion; and the third one, bank erosion. Mr. HARSHA. Did these projects have navigation or flood control benefits? Sice this question seems to be somewhat complicated could you supply data on this for the record? Colonel J-LLu~. Yes, sir; we will. Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HARSHA. Yes; I will. Mr. CRAMER. The chairman asked that questioii of the gentleman. The chairman asked the question: "Do you have a precedent for bank stabilization consistent with the Bureau's observation that is not re- lated to navigation or flood control ?" That was the question. These were cited as examples. That is why it did not seem to me that it was possible that that `was a~ proper example; because they were related, most of them, either to navigation or flood control, as I understood it. The next question I wanted to ask was: "What is the navigation presently in existence in this area"-Index-there is not any; is there? Colonel HALL. Sir, there is no significant navigation in this reach. Mr. CRAMER. Well, that seems to me that it is possible that is a legitimate point being raised, and it is a policy decision, which this committee will have to make. Now, let me ask one more question: "Whether stabilization itself, not related to navigation or flood control, is a justified Federal expend- iture, when you do not have a navigation project in existence?" Now, the other point is, this restudy, you have 1.2 cost-benefit. I suggest it be recommended for an economic restudy prior to initiation. Now, if you have a restudy of the 1.2 cost-benefit, you have to con- sider the increased interest cost, it is not quite likely that that will be determined not feasible? What is the breaking point between the present interest and new interest costs? General NOBLE. The new one has not been established. Mr. CRAMER. Well, it is being discussed. I think you are familiar with it. General NOBLE. I think from the ones that I have discussed, that perhaps a project that is 1.2 or less will come under- Mr. CRAMER. That is my impression. I think it should be interesting to the committee that projects that are now feasible under present interest rate, subject to restudy, may not end up as feasible as a result of the one economic `aspect of the increased rate requirement. General NOBLE. They may not; no, sir. That is why we do review them before we go in for construction. PAGENO="0686" 672 Mr. n~n. We had a similar problem relating to the hurricane protection in Hilisborough River. It has got 1.2, as I remember. It is a hydrological study being proposed, what-have-you, and there could be a similar effect relating to it, possibly. So I just am interested in the fact that we are judging these projects on the one criteria, which a year from now might be unfeasible based upon the new criteria. This is something we are always running into, relating to the basic criteria being required. I had some other questions on this, but time does not permit. Mr. BLATNIK. This will conclude our hearings just for today, until further notice of the Chair. Further testimony by the Corps of Engi- neers will be continued. This will conclude your testimony for this morning, gentlemen. I thank you and your staff and your associates. The hearings for this morning are adjourned. (Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned until further notice of the Chair.) PAGENO="0687" OMNIBUS RIVERS AND HARBORS, FLOOD, CONTROL, AND RIVER BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION BILL-i 968 TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, TVashington, D.u. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 3 :05 p.m., the Honorable John A. Blatnik (subcommittee chairman) presiding. Mr. BLATNIK. The Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors of the House Public Works Committee will please come to order, continuing public hearings on rivers and harbors `and beach erosion projects, hearing testimony from the Corps of Engineers. `Would you proceed with the Colorado River, Tex., project? COLORADO RIVER~ TEXAS STATEMENT OP COL. FERD E. ANDERSON, FR, ASSISTANT DIREOTO'R OP CIVIL WORKS FOR CENTRAL DIVISIONS, OFFICE, CHIEF OP ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. Colonel ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this bill would authorize the Secretary of the Army, `acting through the Chief of Engineers, to construct the project for improvements at the mouth of the Colorado River in the interest of navigation, flood control, and related purposes, substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the division engineer, `southwestern division, in his interim report dated February 2, 1968. The division engineer recommends the construction of a shallow- draft navigation channel from the Gulf of Mexico `through `a jetty- protected entrance to `a turning basin at Matagorda, a distance of about 7 miles, and a diversion dam and channel to convey Colorado River flows into Matagorda Bay. The division engineer estimated the Federal cost to be $11,554,000. The annual charges are estimated to be $660,000 and the annual bene- fits to be $837,000. The benefit-cost ratio is 1.3 to 1. The division engineer's report has been reviewed by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. The Board has requested the re- porting `officers to make certain revisions in formulation of the plan of improvement and in the report. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. (673) PAGENO="0688" 674 Mr. BLATNIK. Generally the project is a favorable project, but it has quite a few processes or steps to complete before it is ready for final action? Colonel ANDERSON. In the final stages now for resubmission to the Board of Engineers. Mr. }]IARSIIA. What are these divisions, Colonel? Colonel ANDERSON. The jetty entrance there is about three-fourths of the cost of the project, and the Board of Engineers feels that a redesign of this jetty entrance can reduce the cost considerably. There is `also some question about cost sharing provided by the local interests. And these are under review, too. Mr. HARSHA. Well then, until you get this redesign of the jetty entrance, we do not know what the benefits will be, actually, do we? Colonel ANDERSON. We know that the redesign will be cheaper and therefore the benefit-cost, total benefit-cost ratio will increase. Mr. HARSHA. This is interesting to me. The `cost is cheaper and the benefit-cost ratio increases. Now we have a project that costs us more, you also say the benefits are more, so the cost-benefit ratio does not change? Colonel ANDERSON. Well, it depends on the situation, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Why? Would the same rule not apply? Colonel ANDERSON. What we are looking at is not the benefits in this case, but looking at the cost of the jetty with the same benefits. Mr. HARSHA. Would the annual charges be the same? Colonel ANDERSON. No, sir. The annual charges would go down; if the jetty costs go down. Mr. HARSHA. What portion of it would go down? Colonel ANDERSON. Well, the jetties, the two jetties at the entrance are about three-fourths of the cost of the total project. So if we could reduce it significantly, it would have a significant total reduction in the cost of the project. Mr. HARSHA. Why, then, on flood control projects, when the cost goes up, the benefit-cost ratio increases along with the cost? Colonel ANDERSON. That is when we are discussing the escalation of cost `due to the price increases that occur year to year. We generally believe that when the costs of land acquisition, and the cost of con- struction go up, th'at likewise the damages to land or the damages to structures would go up, and therefore the flood control benefits would go up. Mr. HARSHA. Well now~ Colonel ANDERSON. That is not the case in this particular project. Mr. HARSHA. Have the States commented on this? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. What is it? Colonel ANDERSON. Favorable, and the Matagorda Navigation Dis- trict States they will provide the necessary assurances. for the project. Mr. HARSHA. Well, then, what is the problem with local contribution or participation? Colonel ANDERSON. I should mention these are the preliminary statements from the agencies that we have coordinated with. We have not sent the report out to the States and agencies for a final comment. Mr. HARSHA. I see. PAGENO="0689" 675 What is the problem with cost sharing, that you mentioned? Colonel ANDERSON. There is some recreational navigation involved in this project, and the cost sharing of the recreational navigation is in question. Mr. HARSHA. I see. Colonel ANDERSON. If it were just a small boat harbor, it would be cost shared 50-50. This is more than a small boat harbor, and includes primarily commercial navigation with a minor amount of Mr. BLATNIK. I see Congressman John Young, of Texas, is here' in the room. Can you add anything, Congressman? Mr. YOUNG. In that connection, `if I might, the local authority has' authorized me to assure the corps and the committee that they under- stand that under this new formula there will `be some additional cost sharing locally, and that they are willing and ready to assume whatever' share the crops considers to be fair and equitable to the local interest.. Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, `sir; we understood that. Mr. HARSHA. That is fine; but I understand the State has not given its final approval of the project. Colonel ANDERSON. That is right, sir. We have no final comments' on the project. Mr. HARSHA. How about the Federal agencies? Colonel ANDERSON. The same applies to Federal agencies. We have preliminary comments from them. Mr. HARSHA. What is their preliminary comment? Colonel ANDERSON. Their comment is favorable. They say the flood disctharge channel will considerably improve the conditions for the shrimp bed nurseries, and that this will increase the overall production of shrimp in the area. This is a high shrimp catch area. Mr. HARSHA. How `about BOB? Colonel ANDERSON. It has not been submitted to BOB. Mr. HARSHA. That is all I have. Mr. YOUNG. I have here a letter which I filed earlier with the corn- mittee, from the Governor of Texas, and which, if I might quote one line: I have been advised that the State agencies, that is the Texas Water De- velopment Board, the Texas Water Rights Commission, and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, concur in the proposed improvements based on the preliminary field report. So I thought the committee might want to know that. That is signed by John Comnally, Governor of Texas. Mr. HARSHA. That is based on the preliminary report? Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. It is really improved by the Board's recom- mendations. Mr. BI~TNra. The next project, Congressman, in which you are interested, is the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway, Tex. PORT ARANSAS-GORPUS CHRISTIE~ TEx. General NOBLE. Mr. Chairman, Colonel Seidel will report on this project. Mr. Bi~r~rn~. Colonel Seidel. 97-700--68------44 PAGENO="0690" 676 STATE~MENT OP COL. RICHARD L. SEIDEIr-~Resumed Colonel SEEDEIJ. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee: This report concerns improvement of the existing channels from Corpus Christi Bay to the Gulf of Mexico. The existing Federal navigation project provides for a channel depth of 40 feet to the deepwater ports of Harbor Island, Ingleside, and Corpus Christi, and a branch channel 36 feet deep to a turning basin at La Quinta on the north shore of Corpus Ghristi Bay. In his proposed report, the Chief of Engineers recommends that the existing project be modified to provide a depth of 47 feet in the outer bar channel and a depth of 45 feet in the inner channels to Corpus Ohristi and the Viola turning basin and to La Quinta, together with other modifications. The Federal cost is estimated to be $19,042,000 for construction and $148,000 annually for operation, maintenance, and replacement, in addition to that now required. The annual charges are $983,200 and the annual benefits are $4,687,700. The benefit-cost ratio is 4.8 to 1. Local interests are required to provide the usual items of cooperation for navigation projects. The report has been submitted to the State of Texas and the in- terested Federal agencies. Upon receipt of the comments, the report of the Chief of Engineers will be sent to the Bureau of the Budget through the Secretary of the Army, prior to its submission to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army. This completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. It has an extremely favorable cost-benefit ratio, 4.8 to 1. Can you give us the latest report on the comments from other Fed- era.l agencies, such as Interior, Transportation? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, we have received none. Their 90 days would expire on August 29. Mr. YoUNG. We are on that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Do you have any word on that? Mr. SULLIVAN. I have talked to some of them, also. They are all expedited. Mr. BLATNIK. Any other questions? Mr. HARSHA. No questions. Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you very much, Colonel. We are back to the first project on our list, the Red River Waterway, La., Tex., Ark., and Okla. RED RIVER WATERWAY~ LA., TEX.~ ARK., AND 0KLA.-contlnued Mr. BLATNIK. Lt. Col. Daniel P. Hall, Assistant Director of Civil Works for Mississippi Valley, Office, Chief of Engineers, here in Washington. Colonel, please proceed. STATEMENT OF LT. COL. DANIEL B. HALL-Resumed Colonel HALL. Thank you, sir. This is a continuation of the testimony on this project previously given. May I briefly summarize it at this time? PAGENO="0691" 677 The project as recommended by the Chief of Engineers consists of ~ navigation feature from the Mississippi River via Old and Red River to Daingerfield, Tex.; bank stabilization within this navigation reach to Shreveport, La.; bank stabilization from Shreveport to Index, Ark.; and bank stabilization from Index to Denison Dam. Mr. BLATNIK. Stop 1 minute. Use the small portion of the map. From the juncture of the Red River and the Mississippi up to Shreve- port-that is Daingerfield, and that is primarily the navigation as- pect of the project? Colonel HALL. That is correct. Right about there is Index [indicating]. Mr. BLATNIK. That is primarily bank stabilization? Colonel HALL. From Index to Denison is primarily bank stabiliza- tion. Shreveport to Index is bank stabilization. Mr. BLATNIK. Index to Denison is bank stabilization? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Your revised handout breaks down the cost of these features by reach and purpose. The comments of the States and concerned Federal agencies all are generally favorable. However, the States of Louisiana and Oklahoma and the Governor of Texas have suggested changes in the requirements of local cooperation applicable to the bank stabilization works be- tween Shreveport and Denison Dam. However, the requirements of local cooperation as recommended by the Chief of Engineers are in accordance with current policy applica- ble to the appropriate reaches and similar to those authorized by the Congress for similar types of improvements. The Bureau of the Budget notes that the recommended waterway segment between Shreveport and Daingerfield is economically justified by only a narrow margin and concurs with the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers for an economic restudy of this reach prior to construction. The Bureau also believes the study should reflect the extent of Federal interest in operation and maintenance of the existing Caddo Dam. Also the Bureau expresses concern over the precedent which would be established by the recommended project for bank stabilization between Index, Ark., and Denison Dam, and expresses the belief the bank stabilization should not be a Federal responsibility unless directly related to navigation or flood control; and in a subse- quent clarifying letter recommends against authorization of that portion between Index and Denison Dam. Subject to consideration of the a~ove, theBureau of the Budget advises that there would be no objection to the submission of the proposed report to the Congress. The Secretary of the Army concurs with the views of the Bureau of the Budget. However, with respect to bank stabilization, the Secre- tary has requested the Chief of Engineers to develop a proposal for a general policy for consideration by all concerned. When I presented testimony on this proposal earlier I was asked if there was any precedent for the installation of bank stabilization measures by the Federal Government. Insufficient data were at hand at that time to provide a clear-cut answer to the question, and this resulted in some confusion. I have a statement prepared for insertion in the record and, with your concurrence, I am submitting the statement at this time. It is rather PAGENO="0692" 678 lengthy but I can summarize it by saying that an examinaiton of previous legislation shows that there is precedent for congressional authorization of bank stabilization projects. Details on a number of examples are given in the written statement. Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. BLATNLK. How many examples do you have? Colonel H~ui~. I think it is about eight, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Aside from the number, is there anything peculiar' about these particular eight? What I am trying to get ~t, Colonel, is:: While the bank stabilization may not be related directly to the naviga~ tion or flood control aspects, is there some emergency or some secondary reason for holding bank stabilization, such as undue raising of the' levels of the water because of a dam, and Congress felt it was justifiable,. that since there is some liability, either direct or indirect, we would carry on this remedial or emergency corrective bank stabilization'? Colonel HALL. Well, the primary -purpose of some of these examples was purely bank stabilization a-nd prevention- Mr. BLATNIK. Per se; bank stabilization, per se? Colonel HALL. It was prevention of damages, for example, the proj- ect on the Red River itself at Garland City, Ark. This is carried out under authority provided by the Congress in the omnibus bill of 1960. This project cost in the neighborhood of a million and a quarter dollars. This was for the protection of a railroad bridge and a State high- way bridge. But it was purely for the-it was bank stabilization. Mr. BLATNIK. We will review the projects later in more detail. Colonel HALL. All right, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Because there will be some policy questions, policy aspects to decide, and the Chair feels there ought to be much more time to study the consideration given to bank stabilization projects which run on the order of a quarter of a billion dollars, which would be the total cost, on page 2 of your summary. Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. ANSWER P0 QuusTIoN CoNcERNING RE!) Rivm BANK PRoTEcTIoN PROPOSAL During the discussion of the report on the Red River below Denison Dam it was mentioned that in commenting thereon the Bureau of the Budget had stated that it was unaware of any authorized bank stabilization project that is not related to a navigation improvement, or to the protection of flood control measures. Repre- sentatives of the Corps of Engineers were asked if there were not instances in which bank stabilization, as such, had been authorized by Congress. It was not possible to provide `a elctr.cut answer to this question without a careful exami- nation of the record. This statement summarizes the result of such an exaniina- tion. It was found that a number of precedents exist for Congressional authorization of streambank protection projects which are not "related" to navigation or flood control projects; in the sense in which that term is used in the Bureau of the Budget's letter of 13 April 1968. More specifically, it was found that in some in~ stances Congress authorized the -installation of bank protection measures on streams where no navigation or flood control works -had been, or were to be, pro- vided. In other instances, Congress authorized bank protection measures on streams where navigation or flood control works aim exist, but where the sole, or main, reason for the bank protection measures was to stop the destruction of land by bank erosion. The example most pertinent to the Committee's consideration of the Red River Report is a project authorized in 1944 for -the purpose of preventing bank caving' in the vicinity of Shreveport, La. This project was proposed in a report, printed PAGENO="0693" 679 as House Document No. G27, which made it clear that the only benefits creditable to the project would result from the prevention of bank-caving. The authorized project was carried out at a cost of about $4 million. Another precedent on the Red River itself was the project for bank protection at Garland City, Arkansas, carried out under an authority provided by Congress in the Omnibus Act for 1960. This project is nearing completion and it is estimated that it will cost in the neighborhood of a million and a quarter dollars. Bank protection projects have also been carried out on rivers other than the Red. For .some ten years while the Arkansas navigation project was in a "deferred" category the Federal Government installed bank protection measures along the Arkansas River for the purpose of reducing damages to the land. The cost of the work accomplished before appropriations for bank protection were merged with those for the navigation project is~ estimated to be in the neighborhood of $70,000,000. Other precedents include: (a). A project for controlling bank erosion on the Misso~iri River on a reach extending from Sioux City to Kenslers bend. This project was authorized by language in the Fldod Control Act of 1941. It was subsequently extended by the 1948 Act. The bank protection works installed under this legislation have cost slightly over $11 million. (b). A plan for th~talling bank protection measures at various points along *the reach of the Sacramento River extending from Chico Landing to Red Bluff, California, was submitted to Congress as one component of a comprehensive plan. Another component of that plan provided for protection of certain portions of the valley from floods, but the bank protection component was justified sep- arately and was specifically authorized. Authorization was by the 1958 Omnibus Act and something over a million dollars has been expended for its partial ac- complishment. (c). The Act of December 30, 1963, authorized the installation of bank protec- ~tion works along the reach of the Missouri River below Garrison Reservior in North Dakota. Works costing about $3 million have been installed to date. (d). The first general Flood Control Act-the 1~)30 Act-specifically author- ized the installation of bank protection works in the Willamette River Basin, and this authority was broadened by several subse~uent Acts; particularly by the 1950 Act. The estimated cost of completing the authorized Work is roughly 13 million. Abotti 95 percent of this work has been carried out. (e). A similar bank protection program was authorized in 1950 for the Lower 125 miles of the Columbia River. The estimated ~osts of this work is $10 million. The authorized work has been about 40 percent completed. The eight precedents cited are the result of an incomplete review of the records. They serve to e~tahlish, however, that the Congress has not hestiated to authorize Federal bank protection projects over a period of more than 30 years. In each of the cases mentioned the plan submitted to Congress for consid- oration made it clear that the measures proposed were for the prevention of dam- age due to bank erosion, and were not essential to the carrying out of a navigation project, or for the protection of levees to be installed for flood protection. There has, unfortunately, been considerable misunderstanding of the role of the Federal Government in bank protection. This appears to stem from the fact that the Congress has not enacted, for bank protection, general legislation comparable to that authorizing the navigation and flood control activities of the Federal Government. Rather, the Congress has chosen to handle bank pro- tection on a case by case basis. The confusion is probably compounded by the fact that most bank protection projects are proposed in reports prepared pur- suant to authorities provided by the Flood Control Acts. This does not mean that all measures recommended in such reports are for the purpose of reduc- ing flood damages. The Congress has indicated in many ways over a long period of years that when the Corps of Engineers prepares a plan for a given stream, or river basin, it is expected to consider all important water problems and to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan proposing solutions for all such problems if, in the opinions of the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army, Federal action is essential and is justi~ed. When such plans are placed before the Congress that body decides whether or not it wishes to authorize components of the plan which are for purposes other than navigation or flood control. The law authorizing the carrying out of a specific plan is the basic leg- islation, and it is not necessary that Congress enact general bank protection PAGENO="0694" 680 legislation to make it possible for the Federal Government to participate in bank protection work. Many Federal policies are established over the years by repeated authorization of certain types of activities, and by this means th~ Congress has made it clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is a Federal policy to participate in bank protection works at such places, and under such conditions, as the Congress may specify in legislation authorizing individual projects. This is not to say that general legislation would not be desirable. The enact- ment of legislation expressing the intent of Congress would be useful in elim-- mating the confusion and misunderstanding which gives rise to statements such as that appearing in the Bureau of the Budget's letter on the Red River Report. Moreover, it could be useful to the Executive Branch by establishing a cost-sharing policy for bank protection. The latter would insure uniform and equitable treatment of the various areas for which the Congress authorizes bank. protection projects. For the purpose of answering the specific question, however, it may be said : (1) that there are adequate authorities and precedents for recommending that Congress ~iuthorize bank protection projects; and, (2) that there are adequate precedents for Congressional authorization of such projects. Mr. BLATNIK. At least the total Federal cost would run close to $200 million, $193 million. That is a big operation. In addition to the more detailed justification on bank stabilization itself, the need for it, does that open a door for bank stabilization up the entire Mississippi River Basin, or Missouri River Basin and other river basins-I think we ought to give that more consideration. If we were to break this project down into navigation, that would include a river route all the way from the mouth of the river valley where it joins the Mississippi, and all the way back to Daingerfield. Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. That. is the navigation portion of the project. It has associated bank stabilization also, between the mouth and Shreveport, La. Mr. BLATNIK. That is about $278 million of Federal cost. Is there any navigation from Shreveport north toward Index? Colonel IL~r~L. No, sir. The.re is no navigation feature included in this recommendation above Shreveport on the Red River. The navi- gation feature a.t Shreveport takes off by Cypress and Twelvernile Bayous up to Daingerfield. Tex. The feasibility of a navigation chan- nel via the Red River from Shreveport upstream to Denison Dam was considered. However, a preliminary investigation indicated the poten- tial benefits were considerably less than the costs and not economically justified. Mr. Bn~TNIx. We did not consider approving authorization; we approved navigation, whole navigation reach a.nd have representa- tion for further study on the bank stabilization part of this project. Is there any reason why these two should be together? Colonel HALl1. You mean the bank stabilization features? Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, the bank stabilization and upper reaches of the Red River Valley and navigation including Cypress Bayou. Colonel HALL. If the Congress did want to break it up, of course it could; but we feel like the project, each segment, is individually justified and it was considered as an interim report on the compre- hensive plan of the Red River, which is scheduled to be completed sometime this summer. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARsIiA. I am not sure if I understalld the navigation features of this. According to this sheet I have, you have navigation from the Mississippi River to Shreveport.. PAGENO="0695" 681 Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Use the small map. Mr. HARSHA. And that is $148 million. Colonel HALL. That is correct. Mr. HARSHA. In round figures, that is. Then you have from Shreveport to Daingerfield, more navigation, $130 million, roughly? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. What do you propose to do first at Shreveport to im- prove the navigation from the mouth to Shreveport? Colonel HALL. It would be a series of locks and dams, sir-five locks and dams to get navigation to Shreveport with associated channel improvement. And then from Shreveport to Daingerfield would be four more locks and dams to get the required lift to Daingerfield, Tex. Mr. HARSHA. All right. Then the bank stabilization part of it is from Cypress-from Shreveport, is it? Mr. BLAT~IK. Yes. Mr. HARsIJA. Up to Denison Dam? Colonel HALL. Shreveport to Index, and Index to Denison. Stabili- zation would not be associated with navigation in these reaches but the reach from Shreveport to Index is associated with flood control features. There is stabilization in the reach directly associated with navigation features from the mouth of the Mississippi to Shreveport. Stabilization is not recommended in the authorization from Shreve- port to Daingerfield. Mr. HARSHA. Now, is there any local participation in the bank stabilization for the mouth of the Mississippi to Shreveport? Colonel HALL. Stabilization from Mississippi River to Shreveport, on bank stabilization, non-Federal cost is shown on page 2, sir, $7,712,000. Mr. H.AnsiIA. That is solely for bank stabilization participation? Colonel HALL. Yes~ sir. Mr. HARSHA. You have got $7.8 million of the $148 million? Maybe that is not right. Is $148 million all navigation? Colonel HALL. Federal cost for navigation from Shreveport to the Mississippi River to Shreveport, non-Federal cost in addition to that previously quoted would be another $7.8 million in round figures. Mr. HARSHA. That is for navigation participation? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. What is the local participation for bank stabilization on that same rea~ch? Colonel HALL. In the top portion under bank stabilization, $7.7 million; so the total for that reach would be roughly $15.5 million, the sum of the two. Mr. HARSHA. And the Federal portion for bank stabilization is $86 million? Colonel HAr~r. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Now, what is the general formula for local participa- tion in solely bank stabilization matters? Colonel HALL. The bank stabilization from the Mississippi River ~0- Mr. J~IARSHA. Shreveport. PAGENO="0696" 682 Colonel HALL. It is the land, easements, and rights-of-way, normal provisions of local cooperation. Operation and maintenance of this feature would be a Federal responsibility. Mr. JIAR5HA. You have no particular formula or proportion of the project that local interests must participate in? Colonel HALL. There is no fixed or arbitrary percentage. It is deter- mined by the estimated cost of these items. It is not an arbitrary 30 percent, for example. Mr. HARSHA. Now, the total ball of wax costs around $523 million? Colonel HAiI~. Yes, sir. Mr. }IARsn~. That is on the price level of 1964? Colonel H.~I!L. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Doe,s that include interest? Colonel HALL. That is initial estimated cost, sir. The annual cost- Mr. HARSHA. No, no. I want the project cost. Colonel hALL. Approximately $523 million. Mr. }IAI~SHA. Does that include interest? Colonel HALL. No, sir. Mr. HARSHA. And we have that for how long a period? Colonel HAr~r1. Well, the navigation features were estimated on a :50-year life, and the remaining features on a 100-year life. Mr. HARSHA. Hundred-year life? Colonel HAJ~t. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. And do you have there available the total interest that it would cost the Government on that total package? Colonel HALL. I do not have it in total figures, sir. We can supply ~that for the record. Mr. HARsrr~. Could you do that? Colonel HALI~. It is borne out in the interest and amortization on an iiunual basis. Mr. HARSHA. That is 31/s percent? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. I would like to have total interest cost, so I can get some costs to the Federal Government on the entire project. (Information requested follows:) The interest during the construction period for this project amounts to $22,- 253,000 of which $21,103,000 would be on the Federal first costs and $1,090,000 on the non-Federal first costs. This interest is included in the economic analysis used to arrive at the benefit4o-cost ratios presented for this project. Mr. HARSHA. You have `a price level of 1964. How much has that increased in the last 4 years? Colonel HALL. About 5 percent per year, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Per year? Colonel HAii~. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Now, as I have it, the navigation feature from Shreve- port to Daingerfield has `a cost-benefit ratio of 1.05 to 1, is that right? Colonel HALL. That is correct, sir. Mr. HARSHA. That is all I have, Mr. Ohairman. Mr. BLATNIK. No further questions. We have our colleague, Mr. Dorn, here, who is interested in the Cooper River. PAGENO="0697" 683 COOPER RIVER~ CHARLESTON HARBOR, S.C. You heard testimony by Chairman Mendel Rivers. Could we jump to Cooper River? I do not think it is going much out of order. Mr. PORN. Mr. Chairman, I would be deeply grateful, because I have an appointment with Mr. Mills, and you know how that is. I would like to keep that one. Mr. BLATNIK. We appreciate your standing by and waiting for some time, Congressman. Do you want to make an opening statement? Mr. PORN. May I have your permission to extend at this point hi the record the statement of my own, supplementing what Mr. Rivers said? Mr. BLATNIK. Without objection, so ordered. (Statement follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Mr. Chairman and my fellow Members of the Rivers and Harbors Subcommittee, I want to add my strong endorsement of the Corps of Engineers' recommendations for the St. Stephen project to that of my distinguished and beloved colleague Mr. Rivers, in whose congressional district this entire project is located. This project is one of great importance, not only to the people of Charleston, but to all the people of South Carolina, including the people of my district. This project is urgently needed to correct an existing condition, a chemical phenomenon which results in depositing a great silt load into Charleston Harbor from the waters of the Santee and the Cooper Rivers. Charleston Harbor is one of the great harbors on the Atlantic Coast, and is vital both to commerce and to the support of national defense activities. As a member of the South Carolina legislature, I helped create the South Carolina Ports Authority, which is charged with the responsibility for :the use and development of the harbor. I have watched it grow in importance from year to year, and I have also watched with great con- cern the mounting problem of silt deposits in the harbor which presents an ever- growing burden and a threat to harbor use. The Federal Government has an enormous stake in Charleston Harbor. The needs of commerce and of defense require harbor deepening and improvement. The siltation problem must be solved, not postponed. The Corps of Engineers, after years of study, including model tests, and after looking at all alternatives, has presented a solution. It would stabilize the harbor, reduce siltation to normal and manageable dimensions, and enable the Charleston Harbor to continue to serve the needs of South Carolina and the Nation. One of the most valuable and constructive features of the Corps' recom- mendations is the so-called "early implementation" feature. The St. Stephen project would reduce the flow at the Pinopolis hydroelectric plant of the South Carolina Public Service Authority from 15,600 cubic feet per second on the average, to 3,000 cubic feet per second, with a reduction of power output at Pinopolis of more than a half-billion kilowatt hours a year. The proposal is to divert the water immediately and to replace the power losses of the Authority by purchasing power from other sources, at a cost not to exceed the average savings in dredging expense. This would permit the process of harbor stabiliza- tion, which may take a decade, to begin at once instead of beginning only when St. Stephen dam and power plant is completed. The Bureau of the Budget has limited its approval for the present to the "early implementation" feature, to end on April 1, 1976, when the Authority's FPC license for the Pinopolis plant comes up for renewal. This makes no sense at all. By 1976 we shall have spent about $20 million for spilling wate.r, and have nothing to show for it. We will not have made even a start on a long-term solution. The South Carolina Publie Service Authority has cooperated fully in the development of the Corps' recommendations and will cooperate fully in its: implementation, asking only that it be kept whole. The Authority is a public PAGENO="0698" 684 agency, a creature of the State of South Carolina, providing a vital service to the farmers and small communities in a large area of South Carolina. I do not think we want to try to cripple this agency. And I do not see how we can fairly ask the Authority to cooperate in early implementation, if at the end of the road there is only a threat of confiscation of the benefits of its Pinopolis plant. If the Bureau of the Budget's recommendation were to prevail, nothing would he accomplished, nothing would be solved, no solution to the Charleston Harbor silting problem would be possible, and the Congress would continue to pour millions of dollars into silt removal every year, when there is at hand a fair and well-thought-out solution. This is a constructive solution, which avoids the waste of a valuable hydroelectric resource. It has a high benefit-cost ratio, over two to one. I urge the Subcommittee to approve this solution, as recommended by the Corps. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with this project. It causes great concern to the entire State of South Carolina. But Charleston is the port for the State. When I was in the State senate, I helped create this port authority at Charleston, because of its benefit to the entire industrial and agricultural complex in the State. We are moving a lot of soybeans through there now, as well as other products from my district and other congressional districts all over the State. We are concerned about this dredging problem at Charleston. A chemical reac- tion that takes place when this water comes down from the Santee- Cooper Reservoir up there and hits the salt water in Charleston Harbor. It provides a silver/chemical reaction that is causing great concern to the city and to the State administrations, aild to the entire State of South Carolina. I just hope something can be done. Mr. BLATNIK. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.1 to 1. The comments are all in by the Federal agencies, they are all favorable. Colonel, proceed; I think you can summarize this project and out- line the. nature of the project and the reasons. STATEMENT O~' COL. RICHARD L. SEIDEL, CORPS OP ENGINEERS, WASHINGTOI~ D.C.-Resumed Colonel SEmEL. The proposed plan rediverts Santee River waters from above Pinopolis Dam into the lower Santee River Basin through a new canal. A federally constructed hydroelectric plant of 84,000 kilo- watts capacity would use the diverted flow to generate power to com- pensate for limiting flow through the existing Pinopolis plant of the South Carolina Public Service Authority. The plan also provides for limiting flows at Pinopolis prior to con- struction of the new Federal plant. The authority would be reimbursed for the power lost in an amount not to exceed the estimated average annual reductions in Federal cost for maintaining Charleston Harbor. The estimated Federal cost is $35,381,000 including provisional fish and wildlife features. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.1. Comments of the State and Federal agencies are favorable. The Bureau of the Budget recommends against authorization of the project at this time but does not object to the Corps of Engineers being authorized to enter into an early implementation agreement with the. State public authority providing the cost does not exceed the benefits of reduced dredging and the agreement would not extend beyond April 1, 1916. PAGENO="0699" 685 Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. Would you show us on the map one more time the rediversion? Essentially what does the project do? It redirects the waters from where to where, the shoaling up at Charleston Harbor? Colonel SEIDEL. The water would be diverted from Lake Moultrie through a new canal north of St. Stephen and empty into the lower Santee River Basin. Mr. BLATNIK. And flow right on out? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. We are not concerned at this point with the sb-called route B? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. That was an alternative that was studied. Mr. BLATNIK. The Corps of Engineers approves, you are in favor of this proposal? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. I am not clear. We asked what the Bureau of the Budget meant by the language, and would you be able to enlighten us a little bit on that, or maybe someone on the staff can. Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, our plan contains a recommendation for using the estimated savings in maintenance dredging that will result from the project to purchase power and reimburse the authority for restrict- ing their generating plant at Pinopolis. It is estimated that it will take 10 years for the harbor to stabilize once we have reduced the flows. We can, through this early implementation concept, using the anticipated savings, start the periodof the stabilization earlier, so that we reach the ultimate stabilization and the benefits of reduced dredging cost at an early date. Mr. BLATNIK. Am I correct that the big difference actually is not on the need for corrective action, but it is merely a matter of timing, is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. The Budget Bureau has picked the April 1, 1976, date, which is the time the Federal Power Commission license for the Pinopolis Dam would be up for renewal. Mr. BLATNIK. Does the Corps of Engineers feel that it would be more beneficial to start the project underway as soon as possible? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. Colonel, I am interested in why the Corps of Engi- ~neers-first, let me get this-what is Santee-Cooper? What is it? Is it a public body? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; it is a State agency. Mr. HARSHA. Can you give me a little more description on definition `of it? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, Mr. Arnold Taylor of our Engineering Division has been working with the project and will address this question. It is an agency established by the State of South Carolina by legisla- tive action in 1934. It was created to develop the Coper Santee and Congaree Rivers in the State. The report has a statement about the general powers and limitations of the authority. Mr. DORN. Mr. Harsha, it is created, the Santee-Oooper Authority * was created by the Legislature of the State of South Carolina. They handle the sale of power `from the Pinopolis Lake there, which was built in the late 1930's with a loan from the Federal G-ov~rnment. PAGENO="0700" 686 There are two lakes there. And the principal benefit, actually, has been~ recreation. But this is the public service authority of the State of South Caro- lina, which handles the sale of this power. But, unfortunately, the strange chemical reaction has resulted from this water coming into Charleston Harbor. It formerly went up north of there, Colonel. This situation was not foreseen by any engineers at the time, or anybody else; and it is just a peculiar chemical reaction from th~ water coming out of these. lakes into Charleston Harbor. Go ahead, Mr. Harsha. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you, Mr. Dorn. Where is the powerplant that was built there? Colonel SEmEL. Sir, it is at the southern end of Lake Moultrie,~ Pinopolis Dam. Mr. HARSHA. Who constructed there? Colonel SEIDEL. The authority, sir. Mr. HARSHA. From Federal funds? Mr. TAYLOR. WPA relief funds and PWA grant and bonds were used. Mr. BLATNIX. Speak more loudly; the reporter cannot get all of this down. Mr. TAYLOR. It was a public works project that was a combination of loans, grants, and I think some local contributions also. Mr. HARSHA. Well, then, how much of it was a Federal grant? Mr. TAYLOR. The total Federal grant amounted to $34.8 million. Of this amount, $23.5 million was a Federal grant and $11.3 million was WPA relief funds. A Federal loan was also made and amounted to $29.5 million, making a total of $64.3 million. I understand that about one-third of the loa.n has been paid off. Mr. HARSHA. If this was built with Federal money to start with, why do ire have to repay the Santee-Cooper Aut.horit~~ for this plant when we built it initially? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the purpose of our project is to reduce the cost of the dredging to us in maintaining Charleston Harbor. This cost is now estimated at $2.5 million a year. It is expected to reach $3.2 mil- lion by 1975 and will continue upward. Mr. HARSHA. Well, has the powerplant, the operation ~f the power- plant, in any way contributed to the problems with the harbor? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, we have determined in our study that the flows that have been diverted from the old Santee Basin through the lake and go through the Pinopolis plant, do introduce a new silt load. Mr. HARSHA. What portion of this damage, then, do you assess to Santee-Cooper? I mean, they are the sole beneficiaries of the diversion~ are they not? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. They are the beneficiaries in the sense of our building a replacement plant for the portion of the powerplant that they will not be permitted to use under the redivision project. However. the Government is going to be the beneficiary in the sense that we will reduce our cost of maintaining Charleston Harbor from an average of $3.7 million annually to $1.2 million in the life of the project between 1975 `and 2024. The Government will not have to spend $2.5 million for dredging~ PAGENO="0701" 687 Mr. HARSHA. But the point I am trying to get at, the powerplant benefits from the diversion of the water through the lakes and into this channel, into this Charleston- Colonel SEIDEL. As it exists now; yes, sir. They use it to generate power. Mr. }IARSHA. And the diversion was done so that generation of power could be possible. Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HAR5HA. They were the sole beneficiaries? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. And they are the cause of the silting of the Charleston Harbor there? Colonel SEIDEL. We know that now, sir. At the time that the license application was made and the Federal Power Commission and the corps, all other interested agencies reviewed the application, we had no idea that this diversion would cause the situation that we have flow. We have only learned this recently through many years of model studies. Mr. HARSHA. All right. I am not finding fault with you for build- ing it; that is a result of some unforeseen circumstance, that you have this condition. The fact is that the prime beneficiary of this project is the power company or the power authority, the people that make and sell the power? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Had they not been there, you would not have had the silting, because you would not have had the need for the diversion? Colonel SEIDEL. Probably not. Mr. HARSHA. Why do they not share in the replacement cost of this project? Why is it all our problem? In other words, if I were up there silting Charleston Harbor, I am sure that you would either get an injunction against me to make me stop doing it or make me participate in some way to recoup the loss the Federal Government has, to keep it dredged out. Colonel SEIDEL. Since they were issued a proper license, and since they have always operated in accordance with that license, we feel that there is no liability on the part of the power company, sir. Mr. HARSHA. But we built it for them, to start with, with Federal money; and they caused the problem. Now you want to build them a new plant with Federal money. What would be the cost of the alter- nate plan recommended by the Bureau of the Budget? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, the Bureau of the Budget at this times does not recommend any construction. Mr. HARSHA. They did not recommend any? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. They recommend that we cut back the flows, and to do this, that we provide a reimbursement for power that would be lost by the closing down of the Pinopolis plant. Mr. BLATNIK. What would be the annual estimated power reim- bursement cost for the interim period? Colonel SEIDEL. We estimate our savings, and this would be the limit that we could spend at $2.5 million a year, on the average. PAGENO="0702" 688 Mr. BLATNIK. That $2.5 million would be the savings on your har- bor dredging if you had your program? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. And we estimate that this is the average savings that we will have and the report sets up the average savings as a limit on the funds. . Mr. BLATNIK. I am a little bit twisted up on this. Right now is costing the Corps of Engineers about $3.7 million a year for mainte- nance of the Charleston Harbor; is that not right? Colonel SEIDEL. At the present moment, that is not correct, sir; at the present moment the Corps is spending about $2.5 million. It is estimated that between the period of 1975 and 2024, which is the effective life of this project, that our annual cost would be $3.7 million for dredging. Mr. BLATNIK. For the interim plan to reimburse the power com- pany until 1976-how much do you anticipate the reimbursement would amount to each year? Colonel SEIDEL. On the average of $2.5 million, sir. As the channel stabilized, we would accumulate a reduction in our dredging cost that would ultimately reach the $2.5 million. Mr. DORN. Would the gentleman yield? Colonel, the truth is, you are just faced with a realistic or, rather, a given situation, which is that it is increasing every year, increasing cost to the taxpayers to dredge Charleston Harbor? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. DOR~-. And there is nothing you can do about this, regardless of how it happened, there is nothing we can do about the fact that this silt is being deposited in Charleston Harbor at an increased rate. And your responsibility, our responsibility, is to keep the harbor dredged. And the fact that it is costing $2.7 million now and will cost over $3 million in a few years, is given situation that warrants our considera- tion to do something about it at this time. I, too, have a little bit of doubt about how all this happened, why it happened, and how it started, but, nevertheless, we are faced with a given fact, a given situation, and the harbor is filling up. Mr. BLATNIK. Congressman, if we follow the Bureau of the Budget's program for this interim period, although you shift, you might save on your dredging and maintenance costs, you have to refund or re- imburse the power company-the total cost would be around $2.5 million a year, over an 8-year period it is $20 million; $20 million. You are right where we are today. I do not see how we save time or money. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the way I look at it. Colonel, you might very briefly, for about 30 seconds, explain this silt deposit. It is not the kind of silt that most of the members of the committee are thinking about. It is this fresh water. Would you explain that? I have had it explained to me by the colonel at Charleston. Colonel SE11DEL. Yes, sir. Mr. DORN. It is not really silt. It is a chemical formation that takes place there. Colonel SEIDEL. It is a flocculation, really. The material is carried down in the fresh water. Mr. BLATNIK. What is the chemical name of the material? Is it a clay? PAGENO="0703" 689 STATEMINT `OP J~OHN B. McALEER, OPPICE, CHIET OP ENGINEERS Mr. MOALEER. It is a clay silt. Just to follow the problem very briefly, originally the Cooper River had a very small drainage area~ There was little silt load coming down into the harbor with a small amount of fresh water, and there was mixing, vertical mixing of fresh and salt water. When the Santee River, with its large drainage area, was diverted originally back in 1942 down through this area, the lighter fresh water came out on the top; and the salt water then intruded on the bottom, and this meant that the silt load, clay silts down from the river, as they hit the salt water in the harbor, along the plane of stratifi- cation, with fresh water on top and salt water underneath, it flocculated the sediments out, like in a sewage treatment plant, and the sediments settled to the bottom of the harbor. Now, the result of this is that there is now an upstream drift on the bottom, in other words, like a cold draft heavy salt water moves up- stream on the bottom. It traps the sediments that come down the river. So that we feel that rediverting the flows to the Santee River restores the natural condition in this river, and this is a sound engineermg solution. Once you redivert it back into the Santee River, you can no longer generate a large amount of power at this Pinopolis plant, so you might as well make the most of this water, and generate the power. So I think the first thing is that we feel that in this plan we have a sound engineering solution for the dredging problem, and that is a Federal dredging cost. We would replace the power losses to the power authority, and the State power authority would pay the betterments that result from this new plant, so the power authority would be paying about one-third of the cost of the new plant. Mr. HARSTIA. Colonel, what would it cost the Federal Government t9 reduce the flow of water through Pinopolis, thereby reducing the silting at Charleston and buy power to replace the loss of power due to reduction of flow? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, in our plan we have set upon ourselves a limita- tion that the funds used to reimburse for the power loss should not ex- ceed what we estimate would be our reduction in maintenance costs. This is the figure of $2.5 million. Mr. HARSHA. Just answer my question. What does it cost you to buy power to replace the power you lost by reducing the flow? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, we are not sure. We are not sure at this point that the power is available to be purchased. This is an item that would have to be negotiated. Mr. HARSHA. Why are you not sure? Colonel SEIDEL. At the time we made our studies it was indicated that the power would not be available. However, this was a number of years ago, and the situation may have changed. This is a large block of power, sir. We are speaking in terms of- `Mr. HARSHA. Where did the Bureau of the Budget determine that it would be cheaper to buy power until 1976 than replace the power? Where did it get its figures? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, in our report, we explained, as I am doing now, that if the power were available and could be purchased, `that the early PAGENO="0704" 690 implementation would be an excellent idea, so that we would have early stabilization of the harbor. Mr. HARSHA. The Bureau of the Budget said you could do it cheaper by reducing the flow and buying power and selling it to the Authority, did they not? Colonel Sr~mEI~. They are offering an interim solution, sir. Mr. H~nsaA. That is right. Colonel SEmFJI1. They are not offering a permanent solution. They are offering a solution until such time as the relicensing occurs. Mr. HAi~sIIA. I know that; but where did they get the figure on the price of power to do that? General NOBLE. May I speak to that? Mr. HARSHA. Sure. `General NOBLE. The Corps `of Engineers solution is quite independent from the early implementation concept. The early implementation con- cept was added to it. In other words, if the power is available, the Chief's report says, "Let's start it earlier, so we gain the benefits from the projects earlier." The BOB picked this up and said, "Rather than *do the project at all, just do the early implementation concept." They did not investigate the availability of the power. So they do not know any more than we do right now whether that power will be available. Mr. HARSHA. Well, the other body put that in their bill. General NOBLE. Excuse me? Mr. HARSHA. The Senate has it in their bill. General NOBLE. The BOB concept? Mr. HARSHA. Yes, sir. General NOBLE. To answer your question, the BOB got it from our report, which set this up as a good idea if the power is available. They picked it up and said, "Let's do that." Mr. HARSHA. You have no idea what it would cost? General NOBLE. No, sir; we do not have. We do not even know if `the power is available. As Colonel Seidel said, we have set up as a limit that we will not execute this early implementation concept to any greater degree than the savings in dredging. So whatever power we could get for that savings would be employed in the early implementation concept, until the project is complete. Colonel SEIDEL. May I further address that? Mr. HARSHA. Sure. Colonel SEIDEL. Based on the reports that the authority made to the Federal Power Commission, in 1965 they were able to purchase a block of power in the quantity we are talking about, for about 5.3 mills per kilowatt-hour. This was 1965. The quantity of power that we are talk- ing about at that rate would cost, if it were available today, $2.8 million. Mr. ILu~snA. $2.8? Colonel SEIDEL. $2.8. Mr. HARSHA. I think you find since 1965 that the power costs have gone down, rather than increased. But then that would stop the silting of the harbor? `Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Once we limit the flow- Mr. HARSHA. You would be spending $2.8 million if the cost did not go down; I think they will be. Let us, for argument's sake, say they PAGENO="0705" 691 did not, as opposed to, in the next 4 or 5 years, $3.7 million to keep dredging it out; right? Colonel SEIDEL. We would have a gradual decrease m the dredging costs as the channel stabilized. We would have to have additional maintenance money to purchase the power. Mr. HARSHA. But the point is this, you are claming now that you have $2.5 million annual dredging cost. That is going to go up to $3.8-$3.7, whatever it is; and continue to get worse? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Now, if you stopped the silting, by stopping the power, the flow through the power dam, then you eliminate that cost altogether of dredging? Colonel SEIDEL. It would go down to $1.2 million. We will always have that residual cost. Mr. HARSHA. You will always have that? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; even after the project we are recommending. Mr. HARSHA. Well then, you are only talking about the difference, are you not? Colonel SEIDEL. The $2.5 million figure. This is the difference be- tween the cost of dredging without the project and beyond the year 1976, and the cost of dredging with the project. Mr. HARSHA. Well, at any rate, if you eliminate the silting down the Cooper River and have to buy power, then you are going to have about the same amount of money invested in power each year as you would have in dredging? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. It is a trade from one pocket to the other. Mr. HARSHA. In other words, you would not have to spend the $35 million to build the new project if you did it this other way? Colonel SEIDEL. This is a solution, yes, sir; up to 1976, because we are limited, as has been suggested. Mr. HARSHA. If you limit it to that particular period, but if the permit is renewed after that, it will continue the same way, will it not? Colonel `SEIDEL. We cannot predict what the Federal Power Com- mission will do under new licensing. Mr. HARSHA. What is this route B diversion that you have got up there? Colonel SEIDEL. This was an alternative that was studied that would divert the flows from a point below the dam and would have no impact on the Pinopolis operation. It would reduce the siltation. Mr. HARSHA. What would that cost? Mr. MOE WEN. Would the gentleman yield? That would be a new dam on that route B, where it indicates lock and dam? That would be a new dam constructed in relation to this new route B diversion? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. And a new powerplant? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. That would not have an impact on the powerplant. Mr. DORN. What would that cost, Colonel? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, this cost was estimated to be $40 million. Mr. DORN. That is more than the plan for the- Mr. HARSHA. That is more than the other one. Colonel SEIDEL. The B-C ratio was unfavorable, 0.9. 97-700-68------45 PAGENO="0706" 692 Mr. HARSHA. Under your recommended plan, you divei~t it down the Santee River, and it comes out where? Colonel SEIDEL. As shown on the map, sir, the original Sar~tee Basin, as it existed prior to the time that the Santee was diverted to create the Lake Moultrie and Lake Marion. Mr. HARSHA. Is there a harbor there now? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir. Mr. ITAnsHA. What is there, anything at all? Mr. MoAt~rai. Very large marsh areas, wildlife, fishing~and hunt- ing areas; and things of that sort. Very valuable from the natural resource angle. Mr. HAnsIIA. What are you going to do to that? Mr. McAr~ER. It will improve, tend to restore the conditions that prevailed when the river originally went this way; and the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering the formation of a new wilci~ife refuge in this area. Mr. HARSHA. Do you have in your figures there how much power you would have to purchase to reduce the average flow to 8,000 cubic feet per second! Colonel SEIDEIJ. 530 million kilowatt hours. Mr. HARSHA. 530 million kilowatt hours? Colonel SErDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. How do you arrive at that? Colonel SEmEr~. Sir, at the present time we have an aver~ge annual energy production at the Pinopolis Dam of 657 million kilowatt hours. Mr. MCEwEN. What is the kilowatt capacity? Colonel SEIDEL. 128,000 kilowatts. We will be producing, after the closedown, 129 million kilowatt hOurs. So the difference between the 657 and the 129 is the 530. Mr. HARSHA. OK. That is all. Mr. MCEwEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. McEwen. Mr. M0EWEN. Colonel, I would like to understand this~ if I could. I am not familiar with this waterway. Originally, Colonel, Lake Marion was part of the S~ntee River drainage basin; is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. MCEwEN. And the Santee River or tributaries of that extend further inland from Lake Marion; is that right? Colonel SEmEi~. Yes, sir. Mr. McEwEN. Was Lake Marion formed at the time the Santee spill- way was constructed, or was that an existing wide body on the Santee River? Colonel SEIDEL. It was created by the spiliway. Mr. McEwr~x. That spillway created Lake Marion on~ the Santee River? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. At the time that spillway was constructed, there was a channel cut from Lake Marion to Lake Moultrie; is thai correct? Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct. Mr. MOEwEN. And the Pinopolis hydroplant was put in ?~ Colonel SEIDEL. The dam was constructed, and that created Lake Moultrie, sir. PAGENO="0707" 693 Mr. MCEWEN. Created Lake Moultrie, and the generating facilities are at Pinopolis? Colonel SEIDEL. That is right. Mr. MCEWEN. So there was a controlled dam or spillway on the Santee and the power dam at the foot of Lake Moultrie. Now, what was the flow of water in the Cooper River prior to the diversion of waters from the Santee through this formed Lake Moultrie-Cooper system? Mr. MoAu~ER. Very small, sir; in the order of maybe 500 to 1,000 cubic feet per second. Mr. M0EwEN. 500 to 1,000 cubic feet per second? Mr. MOALEER. Very small. Mr. DORN. I would say it was even less than that. This river was largely subject to tide and all of that, and of course there was some water coming down the river. Mr. MOEWEN. Where were the headwaters of the Cooper River, in the area of the present Lake Moultrie? Mr. DORN. Lake Moultrie. That is the way it started. Mr. McEwnN. Was there a Lake Moultrie there before the dam? Mr. DORN. No lake before at all. Mr. MCEWEN. It was in that area? Mr. PORN. In that area. Mr. MCEwEN. This was quite a shorty- Mr. DORN. Very short-Santee is a huge river. It drains my district and all the entire western part of the State. This Cooper River was a very short river. Mr. MOEWEN. What is the total cubic feet per second of the Santee River? Colonel SEIDEL Sir, the Santee, we maintain 500 cubic feet per sec ond at all times. Mr. MOEWEN. You maintain 500 cubic feet per second; and if you did not divert into Lake Moultrie it would be- Colonel SEIDi~I4. When we divert, sir, if our project is approved, we will have an average flow of about 12,500, which is about what it was prior to the original diversion. Mr. MOEWEN. This is with this diversion plan of a canal around St. Stephen? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. MOE WEN. That will reduce the Cooper to- Colonel SEIDEL. 3,000 cubic feet per second. Mr. MOEWEN. 3,000 cubic feet per second. So if the Cooper was originally around 500 cubic feet per second, it will be 2,500 above what it originally was, and the Santee, which is now around 500, will go up to 13,000; is that correct? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. MOEWEN. Now, coming to Charleston Harbor. What was your problem there at the time that the Cooper River was carrying a flow of about 500 cubic feet per second? Did you have any substantial dredging to do then? How many years am I going back on this question? Mr. DORN. 1942 is when the diversion took place, so it is about 25 or 26 years. PAGENO="0708" 694 Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, our first records of maintenance dredging started in 1925. And we had figures of $36,000, $43,000, and so on. These are thousands of dollars for dredging by the corps. Mr. MGEwEN. What was the largest amount up until this change and diversion of water into the Cooper? Colonel SEIDEL. In 1938, sir, we spent $105,838. Mr. M0EwEN. That was the largest amount? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. MUEWEN. And your average amount, if you can make a quick estimate, Colonel, would have been what, $60,000 or $70,000, possibly in that neighborhood? Colonel SEIDEL. About $70,000 or $80,000, sir. Mr. M0EwEN. About $70,000 or $80~000. Do you have any cost index that would enable you to project what an annual cost of $70,000 or $80,000 in that period would be today? Colonel SEmEL. Three to four times would be the best guesstimate I could give, sir. Mr. MCEwEN. Three to four times. So if we take your higher figure of $80,000, you would be talking $240,000 to $320,000, something in that neighborhoo& a year; in other words, it is fair to assume, then~ that the corps will still have dredging work to do in Charleston Harbor even with this diversion; is that not correct? Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct. This is the figure that I addressed myself to when I said that if our project was constructed, that we would still have a requirement for an estimated $1.2 million maintenance cost in Charleston Harbor on an annual basis. Mr. MOEWEN. And that, I assume, is because the Cooper is not going back to its original 500 cubic feet per second, but is going to carry, ns you say, around 3,000? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes. sir. That plus the fact that we have now a 35-foot project depth that we maintain, and we will have a requirement for a 40-foot national defense channel. We have deepened the river considerably from what it used to be. Mr. PORN. Colonel, yOu do have increased defense activity, too? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. DORN. The Polaris submarine base. Mr. MOEWEN. There is defense activity in Charleston Harbor? Mr. DORN. Very much. Mr. MOEWEN. Colonel, if you put the route B rediversion in, would you have a silting problem at the mouth of that channel? Mr. MOALEER. Inlets to the ocean through the sand areas are always a problem. They meander or move, they clog up so that cutting a new channel through. here would create a new inlet problem with many tmlmown elements in it. Mr. Doux. But actually the area where the proposed alternate route is there for the channel, from there on up above, from right there on above the old original bed of the Santee River is just about as wild as the Congo, if you want to know the truth about it. All through there is just absolutely nothing but marshes. Mr. M0EwEN. Where in this area is the inland waterway along the coast? PAGENO="0709" 695 Colonel SEIrn~I~. As pointed out-parallel to the coast. Mr. MOEWEN. In other words, that route B diversion would cross the waterways- Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. That certainly would have to be maintained, and there would be a possibility of silting in that area, would there not? Colonel SEIDEL. There was a possibility the gates would have to be provided. Mr. MOEWEN. Now, Mr. Harsha raised a question. Also, the Santee flows across that waterway also. Do you have a silting problem there now? Mr. MOALEER. This is a large delta system that has established its natural regimen over a great many years. So that the channel and things learn to live with this system all right. The flood flows already come down this river. Mr. McEwEN. But not as they did prior to the building of the Santee spillway and the Pinopolis hydroplant? Mr. McALEER. Even with powerplants, when there is a major flood, a good portion of the flow has got to be diverted down the Santee. Mr. MCEWEN. Now, in a quarter of a century or more the present situation has existed, has the Santee River's estuary changed in character, or do you feel it can again accommodate this larger flow of water, as it used to? Mr. MOALEER. It can absorb this larger flow again, in part because it is already absorbing great flood flows and so on. There are some small levees owned by wildlife groups that may require some adjust- ment, but it is a relatively small element. The Fish and Wildlife people feel that they can improve the situation. Mr. BLATNIK. No further questions? Mr. MCEWEN. What is the present capacity of this Pinopolis Dam, kilowatt? Colonel SEIDEI~. Kilowatt, sir, 128,000. Mr. MOE WEN. The next one is 84; is that correct, sir. Colonel SEIDEL. That is correct, sir. Mr. MOEWEN. What will be the capacity of Pinopolis if that plan were adopted and you have a new 128,000-kilowatt plant? Colonel SEIDEL. The capacity would remain unchanged, sir. It just would not be used as much. Mr. MOEWEN. It would not be used at all? Mr. TAYLOR. It would be used for peaking purposes.; about 3 or 4 hours a day. It would operate at full capacity around 3 to 4 hours a day. Mr. IHARSHA. What does it do to your silting problem when it is in operation, then? Mr. MOALEER. There are large marshy flat areas here, and the peak flow would be absorbed in this area and spread out, so that there would not be any harmful slugs of water coming into Charleston Harbor. Mr. TAYLOR. It would average out to 3,000 cubic feet per second.. Mr. MOEWEN. Now, the 128,000 kilowatts, that is the present- Colonel SEIDEL. Rated capacity. Mr. MOE WEN. The new. one would be 84,000?~ . Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Would the gentleman yield? PAGENO="0710" 696 Mr. MCEWEN. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. I thought I understood and maybe I misunderstood, 1 thought I understood one of the witnesses say that the authority or the power people would participate in part of the cost of the construction of the new plant, is that correct? Mr. MCALEER. Yes, sir. Colonel SEIDEL. They are to pay for the betterment that is created here. Mr. HARSHA. Your figures here show no non-Federal contribution or participation. Colonel SEIDEL. Not in the construction cost, sir; it would be a reim- bursable item on an annual basis. Mr. HARSHA. You do not show anything there. Colonel SEIDEL. It is shown on the handout, sir, at the top of the second page, in the far right-hand column, we show it as a negative cost since it is a reimbursement against the annual charges, the $417,000. Mr. HARSHA. You show it as a negative cost? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSIIA. What kind of bookwork is that? Colonel SEIDEL. We have an annual cost for the operation and the amortization of the project, and we apply what is reimbursed as a credit toward that annual charge. General NOBLE. You will note that note 2 refers to reimbursable for the Federal Government. Mr. HARSHA. When did you start. using this type of formula, book- keeping system? General NOBLE. This is no bookkeeping system, sir. This is purely an itemization to show you what the net annual charges would be, after subtracting from the gross the credit due to reimbursement. As indicated, the net is 1.27. The itemization is purely for the purpose of presenting to you the amount of the net annual charges, after adjust- ment for the betterment. Mr. HARSHA. Do you a.ctually receive $417,000 a year? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; that is correct. We would get it as a reimbursement. Mr. HARSHA. Do you get it in the form of a theck or money, or do you credit it off to some other operation that you have got? Colonel SEIDEL. It would be a cash payment, sir. Mr. JIARsHA. Reimbursable cash to the Federal Government? Colonel SErDr~I3. Yes, sir. Mr. MCIEWEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. BLATNIK. Could we conclude? I do not want to cut you short, but we have got two or three more projects, and we will have more questions. Mr. McEw~. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand this $417,000, where this net power betterment comes from. Mr. BLATNIK. Answer that again, General. General NOBLE. It is a net power betterment, sir. When you build the new plant, the party being compensated by this new plant has a limited advantage over the old one; they have to pay for that advan- tage, in the amount of the betterment. The Federal Government is obligated to restore dollar for dollar only what it is taking away, and PAGENO="0711" 697 not for any betterments which result. I don~t recall the exact nature of the betterment, but some of my people here might. Colonel SEIDEL. Increased capacity. General NOBLE. They have to pay for that; and this has been costed at $417,000 a year, which they then have to reimburse the Federal Government. Mr. MOEwEN. I thought we were reducing from 128 kilowatt capac- ity to 84,000 kilowatt capacity, so it is not on the basis of giving them a larger capacity, is it? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes; it is. Mr. MOEWEN. With the peaking power they get at Pinopohs, is that it? Mr. TAYLOR. They would retain their peaking capability. Mr. MCEwEN. Peaking capability plus 84,000- Mr. TAYLOR. St. Stephen's hydroplant. Mr. HARSHA. Can we go into this question on this peaking business more in the executive session with them? Mr. BLATNIK. We certainly can. Mr. MOEwEN. Have they got the cost, Mr. Chairman, that is all, what the annual kilowatt-hour cost would be on the new plant, and what it is on the existing? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, we will have to furnish that for the record. Mr. MCEWEN. And the number of kilowatt-hours on the proposed new peaking and the new plant north of St. Stephen, and then what it is now. Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Furnish that for the executive session. Co1onel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. PORT JEFFERSON HARBOR, N.Y. Mr. BLATNIK. Colonel Seidel, we have one more in your group, Port Jefferson Harbor, N.Y. It has a high benefit-cost ratio of 6 to 1. Can you make a quick summary on this? Any aspects that may have been overlooked? Colonel SEIDEL. The authorized Federal project is 16-foot depth. The local interests have deepened it to 2; our proposed project would deepen it to 40 feet. We have assurances of local cooperation. The Federal and State agencies favor the project. The Bureau of the Budget has no objection to the submission of the project. The Secretary of the Army requests that the corps review the development of alternative transportation facilities by non-Federal entities to avoid possible duplication of trans- portation investments during the preconstruction planning stage. Mr. Bi~ri~rn~. Any further questions? Mr. MCEWEN. Where is this, Nassau County ~ Colonel SEIDEL. Suffolk County. Mr. MOEwEN. On the north shore? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir; the north shore of Long Island. Mr. MCEwEN. Is it for small boats? Colonel SEIDEL. No, sir; 40 feet for tankers. PAGENO="0712" 698 Mr. MCEwEN. I am sorry, I did not see the controlling depth of 40 feet. Colonel SErDEL. It is presently 26 feet deep. Mr. MCEwIIN. Bulk plants in here at Port Jefferson? Colonel SEIDEL. Yes, sir. Mr. MOEWEN. What is the controlling depth, then? Colonel SEIDEL. Twenty-six feet. Mr. MCEwEN. It. has an excellent benefit-cost ratio. Mr. HARSHA. This is, or has, a one-user phase at this time, does it not; but we have authorized this one-user business before, have we not? Colonel SEIDEL. Sir, there are presently two users, Long Island Lighting Co. and Consolidated Petroleum Terminal, Inc. Mr. HARSHA. I have no further questions. Mr. BLATNIK. No further questions of Colonel Seidel. That will be all. Colonel Anderson, could we finish your two projects? I believe they are not too controversial. One is H.R.. 510 (H.R. 7634), Buffalo, N.Y. We had Mr. Duiski and Mr. McCarthy. We have had a brief descrip- tion. Is there anything more to add? BUFFALO CITY. N.Y.~ LAND CONVEYANCE (H.R. 510) Colonel ANDERSON. Sir, I have a statement for the record that goes into the technical details on the description of the land and gives the background. Mr. BLATNIK. We have it here. It will appear in its entirety. (Statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY C0L. FRED B. ANDERSON, JR., OFFICE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Lt. Col. Fred E. Anderson, Jr., Assistant Director of Civil Works for Central Divisions, Office, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. I have been designated to present the views of the Department of the Army on H.R. 510. I have a brief prepared statement which I would like to present to the Committee. The purpose of this bill is to direct the Secretary of the Army to convey, without monetary consideration, to the City of Buffalo, New York, all right, title and interest of the United States in approximately 51 acres of land underlying Lake Erie, to be used for recreational development purposes; further, that should such use cease, title shall revert to the LTnited States. The views of this Department were recently furnished the Chairman of this Committee by letter from the Secretary of the Army. As stated therein, this Department is not opposed to the enactment of this bill if it is amended to (1) provide for certain navigational requirements, and (2) the legal description of the lands be revised to more accurately reflect existing conditions. The real property referred to in this bill consists of approximately 51 acres of underwater land of Lake Erie in the outer harbor of the City of Buffalo, New York. These lands were originally acquired by the United States, without cost, by a deed of papent dated S May 1904 from the State of New York for use in conjunction with other lands purchased by the Government for the improvement of the Buffalo Outer Harbor project. This deed was accepted by the Government. recorded on 11 January 1900, and the United States is vested with fee title to these lands. On 9 May 1950 the Army declared excess 11.0 acres of upland immediately ad- jacent to these 51 acres of underwater land, and reported the same to General Services Administration for disposal. Thereafter, by deed dated 23 May 1952. the General Services Administration conveyed the 11.0 acres of land to the City of Buffalo in consideration of $11,250. being 50 percent of the market value at that time. The deed contained a number of conditions, among which were PAGENO="0713" 699 that (1) the property be used for 20 years solely for public park and recreational purposes; (2) the city file biennial reports with the Secretary of the Interior as to the use of the property; (3) the city not lease or dispose of the property for 20 years without the written consent of the Secretary of the Interior; and (4) upon breach of any conditions, little to the property would revert to the United States. At the time of the conveyance in 1952, all parties were of the mistaken be- lief that title to the underwater lands was in the State of New York. The City of Buffalo made application to the State for a grant of subject underwater lands, following which the *existing ownership of the United States became known. Investigation also disclosed that the previous conveyance of 11.0 acres of land actually encompassed five acres of the 51 acres described in this bill, leaving a remainder in the United States of only 46 acres of underwater land. The De- partment of the Army has been requested to release these lands to the City of Buffalo, and H.R. 510 would provide the requisite authority for such conveyance. The Department of the Army is not opposed to the ultimate development of this area for park and recreational purposes. However, studies relating to the pollution problem of Lake Erie, disclose a potential need for disposai areas for dredged material. Subject 46 acres of underwater lands would serve a portion of such requirement, for which reason this Department would prefer to retain the privilege of using these lands for spoil disposal purposes. Consequently, should the Committee desire to favorably consider this bill, the Department of the Army would not object to a conveyance of these lands to the city provided, it is amended to reserve to the United States the right to use such lands as long as may be required for a spoil disposal area. This may be accomplished by add- ing a section 3 to the bill as follows: "SEC. 3. Any deed of conveyance made pursuant to this Act shall reserve to the United States, so long as may be required, the right to use such lands for a spoil disposal area for materials dredged from the Buffalo Harbor Project, in- cluding the right to place structures thereon and to perform all other actions incident to such use, together with the rights of ingress and egress thereto, Further, said deed shall contain such additional terms and conditioas as may be determined by the Secretary of the Army to be necessary to protect the interest of the United States." It is also recommended that the following technical changes be made: (a) On page 1, line 7, delete "51" and substitute "46.01". (b) On page 1, line 8, after the word "for" insert "public park and". This will assure consistency with the conveyance of the upland. (c) Commencing on page 2, line 3, delete the entire section 2 and substitute a a new section 2 revising the legal description. A copy is attached to this statement. This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I shall be happy to answer any questions you may have on this matter. PROPOSED REVISED SEC. 2, H.R. 510, 90TH CONGRESS SEC 2 The real property referred to in the first section of this Act is more particularly described as follows: (1) PARCEL E.-Beginning at the point of intersection of the south line of outer lot 39 prolonged and the . shoreline of Lake Erie as established in 1846, which point bears 3. 68°. 28'. W., a distance of 140 feet, more or less, from U.S. Monu- ment (No. 7) which monument is the southeasterly corner of the said outer lot 39; thence southwesterly at right angles with the established harbor line, 1,140 feet, more or less, to the said harbor line; thence northwesterly along said harbor line 1,310 feet, more or less, to the point of intersection of said harbor line and a line at right angles thereto pass- ing through the point of intersection of the shoreline of Lake Erie in 1846 and a line 330 feet northerly at right angles from and parallel with the south line of outerlot36; thence northeasterly at right angles with said harbor line 1,115 feet, more or less, to the shoreline of LakeErie in 1846. thence southeasterly along said shoreline of Lake Erie 1,320 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning containing 34.04 acres, more or less. (2) PARCEL C-B--Beginning at the point of intersection of the shoreline of Lake Erie with the northerly line of land deeded to the United States Govern- ment, October 21, 1846, said line also extending in a due east and west direc- PAGENO="0714" 700 tion and passing through the northwest corner of outer lot 36 (U.S. Monu- ment No. 2), said point of beginning being also 480 feet, more or less, west of the said northwest corner of outer lot 36; thence southeasterly along said shoreline of Lake Erie in 1846 a distance of 470 feet, more or less, to the intersection with a line 330 feet northerly at right angles from and parallel with the south line of lot 36, said line being also the north line of lands deeded to the United States Government, September 2.5, 1847; thence southwesterly at right angles to established harbor line 1,115 feet, more or less, to the established harbor line. thence northwesterly along said harbor line 463 feet, more or less, to the point of intersection of said harbor and a line at right angles thereto passing through the point of intersection of the shoreline of Lake Erie in 1846 and the line extending in a due east and west direction and passing through the north- west corner of outer lot 36; thence easterly at right angles to established harbor line 1,115 feet, more or less, to the shoreline of Lake Erie in 1846, which is the above referenced point of beginning, containing 11.97 acres, more or less. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, lVasliington, D.C., April 26. 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON. Chairman, Committee ~n Public Works, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of the Department of the Army with respect to HR. 510, 90th Congress, a bill "To provide for the conveyance of certain real property of the United States underlying Lake Erie to the city of Buffalo. New York." The purpose of this bill is generally as stated in its title. More specifically, it would direct the Secretary of the Army to convey, without monetary consid- eration, to the City of Buffalo, New York, all right, title and interest of the United States in approximately 51 acres of land underlying Lake Erie, to be used for recreational development purposes; further, that should such use cease, title shall revert to the United States. The Department of the Army is not opposed to the enactment of this bill pro- vided it is amended, as hereinafter stated, to provide for the requirements of this Department. With respect to the merits of the bill, this Department defers to the views of the Department of Interior and the General Services Administra- tion. The real property referred to in this bill consists of approximately 51 acres of underw-ater land of Lake Erie in the outer harbor of the City of Buffalo, New York. These lands were originally acquired by the United States, without cost, by a deed of patent dated May 5, 1904 from the State of New York for use in conjunction with other lands purchased by the Government for the improve- ment of the Buffalo Outer Harbor project. This deed was accepted by the Gov- ernment, and recorded on January 11, 1906 in the Erie County Clerk's Office in Liber 1018 of Deeds on pages 316. 317 and 318. However, for reasons unknown, the conveyance was not reflected on the project real property maps and the owner- ship of the United States only recently came to light in the title examination of adjacent lands. Notwithstanding the lack of knowledge, the United States is vested, with fee title to these lands b~ operation of law, the deed having been a matter of uncontested official record for 60 years. It is also relevant to note that in 1949 the City of Buffalo expressed a desire to obtain for park purposes title from the United States to the uplands, imme- diately adjacent and littoral to subject 51 acres of underwater land, which had previously been declared excess. As a consequence, on May 9, 1950 this De- partment renorted 11.0 acres of such adjacent property to the General Services Administration for disposal pursuant to the Federal Property and Administra- tive Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377) as amended. Thereafter, by deed dated May 23, 1952. the General Services Administration conveyed the 11.0 acres of land to the City of Buffalo in consideration of $11,250, being 50 per cent of the market value at that time. The deed contained a number of conditions, among which were that (1) the pronerty be used for 20 years solely for public park and recreational purposes: (2) the city file biennial reports with the Secretary of the Interior as to the use of the property; (3) the city not lease or dispose PAGENO="0715" 701 of the property for 20 years without the written consent of the Secretary of the Interior; and (4) upon breach of any conditions, title to the property would re- vert to the United States. At the time of the above-mentioned conveyance in 1952, all parties were of the mistaken belief that title to the underwater lands was in the State of New York. The laws of the State restrict the grant of underwater lands to the adjacent riparian owner (Sec. 75, Art 6, Public Lands Law of New York). Pur- suant to this statute, the City of Buffalo, as riparian owner, made application to the State for a grant of subject underwater lands, following which the existing ownership of the United States became known. Investigation also disclosed that the previous conveyance of 11.0 acres of land actually encompassed five acres of the 51 acres described in this bill, leaving a remainder in the United States of only 46 acres of underwater land. Thereafter, the Department of the Army was requested to release these lands to the City of Buffalo. H.R. 510 would provide the requisite authority for such conveyance. The Department of the Army is not opposed to the ultimate development of this area for park and recreational purposes. However, studies relating to the pollution problem of Lake Erie, disclose a potential need for disposal areas for dredged material. Subject 46 acres of underwater lands would serve a portion of such requirement, for which reason this Department would prefer to retain the privilege of using these lands for spoil disposal purposes. Con- sequently, should the Committee desire to favorably consider this bill, the De~ partment of the Army would not object to a conveyance of these lands to the City provided, it is amended to reserve to the United States the right to use such lands as long as may be required for a spoil disposal area. This may be accomplished by adding a section 3 to the bill as follows: "SEc. 3. Any deed of conveyance made pursuant to this Act shall reserve to the United States, so long as may be required, the right to use such lands for a spoil disposal area for materials dredged from the Buffalo Harbor Project, including the right to place structures thereon and to perform all other actions incident to such use, together with the right of ingress and egress thereto. Further, said deed shall contain such additional terms and conditions as may be determined by the Secretary of the Army to be necessary *to protect the interest of the United States." In view of the factual background relating to the aforementioned prior con- veyance of the uplands to the City of Buffalo, it is recommended that, prior to any action on this bill, the Committee obtain the views of the Department of Interior and General Services Administration as to the merits of the proposal. Should the Committee favorably consider this bill, it is further recommended that the following technical changes be made: (a) On page 1, line 7, delete "51" and substitute "46.01". (b) On page 1, line 8, after the word "for" insert "public park and". This will assure consistency with the conveyance of the upland. (c) Commencing on page 2, line 3, delete the entire section 2 and substitute a new section 2, as attached hereto. The fiscal effect of enactment of this bill cannot be readily ascertained. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Adminis- tration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report to the Committee. Sincerely yours, STANLEY H. RESOR, Secretary of the Army. PROPOSED REVISED SEC. 2, H.R. 510, 90TH CONGRESS SEC. 2. The real property referred to in the first section of this Act is more par- ticularly described as follows: (1) PARCEL E.-Beginning at the point of intersection of the south line of outer lot 39 prolonged and the shoreline of Lake Erie as established in 1846, which point bears S. 68° 28' W., a distance of 140 feet, more or less, from U.S. Monu- ment (No. 7), which monument is the southeasterly corner of the said outer lot 39; thence southwesterly at right angles with the established harbor line 1,140 feet, more or less, to the said harbor line; thence northwesterly along said harbor line 1,310 feet, more or less, to the point of intersection of said harbor line and a line at right angles thereto passing through the point of intersection of the shoreline of Lake Erie in 1846 and a line PAGENO="0716" 702 ~30 feet northerly at right angles from and parallel with the south line of outer lot36; thence northeasterly at right angles with said harbor line 1,115 feet, more or less, to the shoreline of Lake Erie in 1846. thence southeasterly along said shoreline of Lake Erie 1,320 feet, more or less to the point of beginning containing 34.04 acres, more or less. (2) PARCEL C-B.-Beginning at the point of intersection of the shoreline of Lake Erie with the northerly line of land deeded to the United States Govern- ment, October 21, 1846, said line also extending th a due east and west direction and passing through the northwest corner of outer lot 36 (U.S. Monument No. 2), said point of beginning being also 480 feet, more or less, west of the said north- west corner of outer lot 36; thence southeasterly along said shoreline of Lake Erie in 1846 a distance of 470 feet, more or less, to the intersection with a line 330 feet northerly at right angles from and parallel with the south line of lot 36, said line being also the north line of lands deeded to the United States Government, September 25, 1847; thence southwesterly at right angles to established harbor line 1,115 feet, more or less, to the established harbor line; thence northwesterly along said harbor line 465 feet, more or less, to the point of intersection of said harbor and a line at right angles thereto passing through the point of intersection of the shoreline of Lake Erie in 1846 and the line extending in a due east and west direction and passing through the north- west corner of outer lot 36; thence easterly at right angles to established harbor line 1,115, feet more or less, to the shoreline of Lake Eire in 1846; which is the above referenced point of beginning, containing 11.97 acres, more or less. Colonel ANDERSON. The Department of the Army is not. opposed to the enactment of the bill, provided that the property will continue to be available as a. site for the disposal of materials dredged from the authorized project at. this locality. That completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. How much acreage is involved? Colonel ANDERSON. The bill mentions 51 acres. But since there has been some confusion in the title of the land, the actual acreage is 46. My statement. includes a. correction. Mr. Br~A1~IK. Is there any cost to the Federal Government? Colonel ANDERSON. No cost to the Federal Government. Mr. HARSHA. This is the one we had with Mr. Dulski? Colonel ANDERSON. Right. Mr. HARSHA. I believe they agreed toaccept. your suggested amend- ment? Colonel ANDERSON. That is right, sir. The city of Buffalo in fact passed a resolution stating that they would accept the stipulation that. the Department of the Army has placed on this conveyance. Mr. HARSHA. Would we not need a new description? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir; that is included with the statement. Mr. BLATNIK. This can be accomplished by adding a section 3 to the bill, "as follows" in the language. Mr. MCEwEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. BLATNT.K. Mr. McEwen. Mr. McEwI~N. Colonel, what is this land to be used for by the city of Buffalo? Colonel ANDERSON. For recreation purposes. Although the plans are not precise, it will be a general recreation area with a marina.. Mr. MCEwEN. You do not have a map here of it, by chance? Colonel ANDERSON. I have a. picture that will give you an idea of what it is like. PAGENO="0717" 703 (Discussion off the record.) Mr. MOEwEN. That will be filled in? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes. The ci:ty would then take over and convert this into recreation. Mr. MCEWEN. What is it used for now? Colonel ANDERSON. Nothing. Mr. MCEWEN. I take it from this aerial view that it is from the very heart of the downtown area? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. Colonel, I think in your suggested amendment you ask for a perpetual right to dispose in this area; is that correct? Colonel ANDERSON. We did not put a time limit on it, sir. The idea was as soon as we had filled it, to its capacity, with dredge spoil, then the city takes over. We would anticipate, depending On just how the dredging program continues at Buffalo Harbor or BuffalO River particularly, that this would take 3 to 4 years. Mr. HARSHA. Otherwise, we might hold up the development of this until such time as-indefinitely, as a matter of fact? Would you ob- ject, or the corps object to a time limit on this, of 5 years, say? Colonel ANDERSON. Sir, 1 would like to study that a little more, but offhand, 5 years sound a little low; depending on how much spoil we dredge from the Buffalo River, which is the primary spoil that we are considering disposing here; it could take longer than 5 years to fill up the area. Mr. HARSIJA. Could you give us an estimate? Colonel ANDERSON. I think it would be as high as 7 years. Mr. HARSHA. You do not have to do it now. Could you provide a figure for us so when we get to executive session, by that time, it might be acceptable? Colonel ANDERSON. We own the land, sir. That you understand. Mr. HARSHA. Yes. I am in agreement with you, except I would not want delay of 20 or 30 years, because that will defeat the pur- pose of the legislation. So if you could get together with your colleagues and determine a time that you think you can live with, that might be acceptable, we will consider that in executive session. (The following was received for the record:) After further eonsideratiQn, the Corps recommends that the use of land under consideration for coveyanee to the Gity of Buffalo, be reserved for a dredged spoil disposal site for seven years or such lesser time period as may be determined satisfactory by the Secretary of the Army. Should the Committee favor this proposal, then the Army's proposed amendment for a new section 3 should be modified by deleting the phrase "so long as may be required" and substituting appropriate language. For this purpose a revised new section 3 follows: "Sec. 3. Any deed of conveyance made pursuant to th;is Act shall reserve to the United States, for a period of seven years from the enactment of this Act or such lessor period as may bet determined satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army, the right to use such lands for a spoil disposal area for material dredged from the Buffalo Harbor Project, including the right to place structures thereon and to perform all other actions incident to such use, together with the rights of ingress and egress thereto.. Further, said deed shall contain such additional terms and conditions as may be determined by the Secretary of the Army to be necessary to protect the interest of the United States." PAGENO="0718" 704 JUNE 27, 1968. Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK, Chairman, ~ubcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Ma. CHAIRMAN: During Wednesday's hearing on my bill, H.R. 510, a question was raised about the report from the General Services Administration which contends that the City of Buffalo should follow normal procedure for land to be acquired from the Federal Government for park and recreational use. I am aware of the provisions in law to which the General Services Admin- istration is referring, but I feel that there already are extenuating circum- stances with respect to the property involved in my bill. Both the Departments of the Army and the Interior referred to this matter in their reports to your Committee. It is pointed out that title to the property involved was conveyed by the State of New York to the United States in 1906, without monetary consideration, for use in conjunction with other lands for the improvement of the Buffalo Outer Harbor Project. For some reason, the conveyance was not reflected on real property maps, and the ownership by the United States came to light only recently in the title examination of adjacent property. This discovery came after the United States was vested with fee title to the lands by operation of law, the deed having been a matter of uncontested official record for 60 years. In view of the background of acquisition and ownership of this property and the excellent purpose to which it will be put, I believe that the convenyance to the City of Buffalo, as provided in my bill, is entirely proper and in order. I appreciate very much your consideration of this proposal and the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee. With kind regards. Sincerely yours, T. 1. DULSKI. Mr. BLATNIK. Colonel, let's take next H.R. 15433, Calumet Sag Modification. Congressman Madden appeared on behalf of this project. CALUMET-SAG PROJECT MODIFICATION (H.R. 15433) Colonel ANDERSON. This bill would modify the Calumet-Sag navi- gation project authorized by the River and Harbor Act in 1946, in accordance with House Document 45, 85th Congress, insofar as it applies to existing highway bridges in part II of the project. The Department of the Army considers that Federal participation in the alteration of obstructive highway bridges for part II, as recom- mended in House Document 45, 85th Congress, should be consistent with that in part I. Accordingly, the Department of the Army has no objection to enact- ment of H.R. 15433. Sir, that completes my statement. Mr. BLAT~IK. The Bureau of the Budget had no objection, and all other required reports are in, too; are they? Colonel ANDERSON. Yes, sir. The only report, as far as we are concerned, is the Department of the Army's report, which is not objected to by the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. BLATNIK. Any questions? No questions. Thank you, Colonel Anderson. PAGENO="0719" 705 RED RIVER WATERWAY~ LA., ARK., TEX.~ AND OKLA. General NOBLE. Can we clarify one point on the Red River? I am not sure it needs clarification. I want to make sure it goes in the record properly. The chairman asked the question whether the project could be broken up, and I answered yes, if the Congress chose to break it up; it could be. I was referring, of course, to the two reaches of the river, and not to the two purposes, navigation and bank stabilization. Both of these purposes are essential to the lower reach; so I want to clarify that you were talking about the two reaches, and not these two project purposes. Mr. BLATNIK. I was talking about the reaches. General NOBLE. Yes, sir; then it is clear. Now we go back to the Missouri River Navigation, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska. Mr. BLATNIK. Lt. CoL Daniel D. Hall, assistant director of civil works-we did not start on this one, did we, Colonel Hall? Colonel HALL. No, sir. Mr. BLATNIK. Please proceed with the explanation of the project. MISSOURI RIVER NAVIGATION~ SOUTH DAKOTA~ NORTH DAKOTA~ AND NEBRASKA Colonel DANIEL HALL. I have a very brief statement, sir. This report is concerned with. the flood control and bank erosion problems and the potential for extending shallow-draft navigation into the three-State area in response to several resolutions and River and Harbor Act items. The Chief of Engineers proposes the construction of improvements between Sioux City and Gavins Point Dam for stabilization of the riverbanks and provision of a navigable channel 9 feet deep and 300 feet wide. The total estimated Federal cost is $56,958,000. The benefit-cost ratio j.~ 1.3. The comments of the States of Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota are favorable; however, the Governors of N~braska and South Dakota expressed the view that the cost for lands, easements, and rights-of-way should be a Federal cost. Congressional `authorizations on similar types of projects with few excep'tions over a period of years have required non-Federal interests to furnish necessary lands, ease- ments, and rights-of-way; and to hold and save from damages. The recommendations of the `Chief of Engineers are in `accordance with these precedents. The comments of the Federal agencies are generally favorable. The benefits `attributed to bank stabilization are under review by the Office, `Chief of Engineers, in coordination with the Department of Agriculture. . Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. Mr. BLATNIK. `There is no comment, no report as yet has been re- ceived from the Bureau of the Budget? `Colonel HALL. No, sir. The report has not yet riached the Bureau of `the Budget, sir. . Mr. BLATNIK. Any questions? Mr. HARSHA. Yes, I have some. PAGENO="0720" 706 Colonel, I notice that the project is around $57 million Federal, in round numbers, and that local participation is only $824,000. Now, this is essentially a bank stabilization project; is it not? Colonel HALL. Bank stabilization and channel improvement for navigation. Mr. HARSHA. Why is there such a small local participation in the bank stthilization feature of it? Colonel HALL. WThy is there such a small contribution? Mr. HARSHA. Such a small local participation. Colonel HALL. The local cooperation requirements are to provide the land, easements, and rights-of-way, and this is our estimate of the cost of these requirements. There is no land enhancement involved in this project, in our view. Mr. HARSHA. No land enhancement involved? Colonel HALL. That is right. Mr. HARSHA. Are you replacing jetties in some cases there? Colonel HALL. There are not any replacements of jetties or training dikes. STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. THOMPSON, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS Mr. THOMPSON. The proposed plan does not include replacing any existing features of that nature, no existing training dikes or any works of that nature are being replaced. Mr. HARSHA. There are none being replaced. Do you include in your maintenance fund any work of that kind? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Is this normally done as new work, rather than main- tenance work? Colonel HALL. Not necessarily, sir. If the training dike can reduce the dredging cost of maintaining a channel, it would be more economi- cal to do so, to maintain the channel, it is done under maintenance; this is done on the Mississippi. Mr. HARSHA. You do not charge it up to construction costs then? Colonel HALL. No, sir; it is maintenance with cost of maintaining dependable navigation channel to the depth that is authorized for the prospective project. This is not to say that training dikes or things of this nature would not be envisioned in the initial project in some reaches to help achieve this channel. This is the case in some projects for initial construction costs. Mr. HARSHA. That is what had me confused. In some projects we have had the initial construction costs to take care of this particular item; but in this one we do not. General NOBLE. It depends on the situation, sir. If the training dike is an instrument to achieve a new project depth authorized by Con- gress, then it would be in the initial construction cost. If it is con- structed in the course of trying to maintain an authorized project depth-such as where a new training dike may be useful to maintain an already authorized project depth, then it would come under main- tenance, in lieu of continued dredging. In that case, it would be maintenance since it would be needed. to maintain something already authorized. PAGENO="0721" 707 Mr. HARSHA. Have you done this in other projects? General NOBLE. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. This is the normal method of handling this? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Colonel HALL. On occasion, sir, there could be a channel straight- ening to take out a bend in a river, to maintain a navigable channel. In this project, in the channel stabilization, there are items such as dikes and revetment, cutoffs, to achieve this navigable channel, so this is included in this initial construction concept to achieve this naviga- tion channel. Mr. HARSHA. All right. Now, am I correct in my information that this particular stretch of the river cost a little over $7,000 per mile for maintenance in this report? Colonel HALL. Annual 0. & M. is about $400,000, sir-$7,000 a mile. This is correct; it is paragraph 25 of the district's report; yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. The costs now on the same river are an average for maintenance of 10,875, are they not? Colonel HAi~. Were you speaking in the same reach of the river in which the project is proposed or that below Sioux City? Mr. HARSHA. In the same region. Colonel HALL. I do not know, sir. Mr. HARSHA. How about below Sioux City? Colonel HALL. Below Sioux City is shown with $11,500 per mile. Mr. HARSHA. Why would your cost here be about only 75 percent of that? Colonel HAr~L. The flows are less in its upper reaches. It has appar- ently a tributary coming into it that increases the flows down below Sioux City. Mr. HARSHA. What tributary is there? Colonel HALL. That is the Big Sioux. Mr. HARSHA. That increases the flow? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. By about how much, do you know? Colonel HALL. Let Mr. Feil answer that, sir. STATEMENT OP GEORGE FElL, OFFICE, CHIEF OP ENGINEERS- Resumed Mr. FElL. The navigation in this part of the river is around 20,000 to 35,000 cubit feet per second. The flow at Kansas City, for instance, which is in the other part of the reach, is around 38,000 to 40,000 c.f.s., maintaining the foot navigation channel; and that flow will increase further than that. I cannot quote you a figure, but I do have those fig- ures in mind. It is not twice as fast, but, s'iy, almost twice as much flow required at Kansas City to maintain the 9-foot channel as there is in this reach up here [indicating], and the increased flows would give us the mainte- nance cost in tearing up the dikes, the training dikes that are pat in; knock the end off one, and have to go back in.~ and replace it, and that kind of thing. Mr. HARSHA. You are figuring the interest rate on this project at 31/8 percent again. 97-700-----68---46 PAGENO="0722" 708 Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. If the interest rates were more realistic, that is more along the line the Government has to actually pay to borrow money, would this projec.t be below unity? Colonel HALL. We figured it on three and a quarter, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Three and a quarter? Colonel HALL. And it has no appreeiaible change at three and a quarter. At some other interest rate, we have not figured that. Mr. HARSHA. It has no appreciable change? Colonel HALL. At three and a quarter. From three and an eighth to three and a quarter. Mr. HARSHA. There is no appreciable change? Colonel HALL. That is correct. Mr. HARSHA. What is there at four and a half? General NOBLE. It probably would still be good, sir. Revised interest rates of a level of 41/2 percent or so would make a project with a benefit- cost ratio of 1.2~borderline. This project is 1.3, so it should still be above unity. Mr. HARSHA. Now, am I correct again-my information is that 92 percent of the base year traffic and 90 percent of the transportation savings are attributed to barge movements of grain, mainly wheat: is that correct? Colonel HALL. Sir, about $398,000 of a total of $436,000 of the base year traffic is agricultural products. That is, whether or not the wheat makes up a large portion of that or not, I would have to check further. Mr. HARSHA. Do your figures or reports indicate how many tons of wheat were shipped out or that you used as a base? General NoBLE. Can we provide that for the record, sir? We have got some figures here, but we are not sure whether they respond to your question. Mr. HAR5HA. The point I was trying to get at is, I think you used considerable more tonnage than has been shipped out of Sioux City, say, for example, over the last 10 years-10-year average shipment out of Sioux City was 86,000 tons for a year by all means of transportation, rail, truck and barge. And I think you considerably increased that ship- ment for just the river, for barge shipment-have, you not-or maybe I am mistaken. That is what I am trying to find out. Will you submit that for the record? Colonel HAI4r~. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Will you also submit this for the record: Did you con- sider the markets for wheat to the south on the Missouri River as being competitive or not very competitive; or just how did you con- sider them on the market? Would you get that for the record? Colonel HALL. Yes, sir; I will. Mr. HARSHA. Let us do it this way, Colonel. I have a series of ques- tions I was prepared to ask you and they are written. I will just submit them to you, and if you would provide answers for them for the record, that will expedite this. Colonel HALL. Yes, sir. We will be very happy to do that, Mr. Harsha. (Information requested follows:) PAGENO="0723" 709 MISSOURI RIVER BANK STABILIZATION AND NAVIGATION DEVELOPMENT, SIOUX CITY TO YANKTON ~taternen.t.-Phe project is set up as a bank stabilization project. Question..-Why is there no substantial local participation included for bank stabilization? Answer.-The proposed project is an extension of the existing project for navigation and bank stabilization on the Missouri River downstream. from Sioux City, Iowa. The cost sharing is in accordance with the policy for navigation oriented projects; that is, furnish lands, easements, and rights-of-wa~y, and hold and save. Qsestion.-Other than the Missouri River Basin, where else is local partici- pation eliminated for bank stabilization projects? Answer.-Projects primarily for bank stabilization that have been recom- mended by the Ohief of Engineers have generally required non-Federal local participation similar to that for projects for flood control. There have been projects for navigation with bank stabilization features in which there has been minimal local participation. In addition to the Missouri River downstream from Sioux City, Iowa, these have included; the Arkansas River multiple-purpose project and the Mississippi River below Cairo, Illinois. Statement.-Replacement of jetties on the Missouri are done as new work rather than out of maintenance funds. Question.-Why is there no funds provided for the replacement of these struc- tures on this project? Answer.-The cost estimate for the proposed plan includes replacement or repair of jetties, as well as other necessary maintenance work, under the head- ing operation and maintenance for .the channeL Qaestion.-Why should this stretch of the river cost $7055/miles for main- tenance when the same river now cost an average for maintenance of $10875 per mile? The average maintenance cost Of completed projects of 7 toP feet are from 2.2~ to 5.62 percent of th;e actual cost of new work. Why is this project figured at only .75 percent of estimated first cost? Answer.-The operation and maintenance estimate for the reach from Sioux City to Yankton is based upon the experience gained from the existing bank stabilization project for Kensler and Miners Bends located immediately up- stream from Sioux City. This has averaged about $7,000 per mile. The design of specific project improvements for the Sioux City-Yankton reach is based upon the experience gained from similar types of improvements that have been con- structed in the reaches downstream from Sioux City. This experience has pro- vided improved designs that will have lower maintenance cost per mile than has occurred on some of the older existing works on the lower reach. In addition, the flow in the Missouri River at and beloiv Sioux City fluctuates over a wider range, which contributes to the higher maintenance costs experienced on the existing project. The more controlled flows upstream from Sioux City are cx- pected to contribute to lower maintenance costs in that reach. ~tatenu3nt.-4ntereSt rate on this project is 3.1,/8 percent. Qnestion..-If interest rates of these projects are raised materially, will this project be below unity? Answer-The project economic analysis is based upon an interest rate of 31/8 percent and the B/O ratio is 1.3. Use of the presentl prescribed rate of 3.~/4 l)ercent would have little effect upon the benefit-cost ratio. Use of an interest rate as much as one to 1~/~ percbnt higher could possibly lower the benefit-cost ratio to about unity. Quest~on.-Why were interest and maintenance cost ont charged during con- struction period? Answer.-Interest during construction has not been included in the economic analysis since benefits from controlling bank erosion will accrue throughout the overall construction period with the completion of each usable segment of the overall work. Maintenance costs are normally not incurred until a project or usablC segment of work has been completed. The estimate of average annual maintenance cost includes funds to provide for maintenance of completed units of work to preserve the integrity of each completed unit. Statement.-Ninety-two percent of `the base year traffic and 90 percent of the transportation savings are attributed `to barge movements of grain, mainly wheat. PAGENO="0724" 710 Question.-What is the breakdown of grain tonnages? Answer.- Wheat 437, 000 Corn 132, 000 Other grains 125, 000 Total 694,000 Question.-Did the Corps of Engineers consider the markets for wheat, to the South on the Missouri River, is now very competitive? 4nswer.-The Corps study did not find any significant transportation savings on local movement of grain destined to points on the Missouri River namely Omaha and Kansas City. All transportation savings are associated with move- ments of export grain and domestic grain movement to the southwest. Qsestion.-Is it not likely that export market will draw on Texas, Okla- homa and Nebraska wheat crops before South Dakota? Answer.-South Dakota grain now competes in world markets with the south- ern produced grains with movements through west coast and Gi~eat Lakes ports. The Corps studies, confirmed by independent studies made by the Department of Agriculture, indicated that under competitive conditions grain movements from points of supply to points of demand would be such as to minimize total transportation charges. This would amount to a change in the flow of traffic from east-west to north-south movements. Quest ion.-Why would you presume that all available wheat tonnages would be shipped by barge South where there is a limited market and lots of competitive grain? Answer.-The Corps study did not assume that all grain expected to be pro- duced in the South Dakota tributary area in the future would be moved by barge. Our analysis indicate that a substantial portion of that grain now moving to upper Mississippi River ports for trans-shipment by barge for export to southern destinations could move via the Missouri River through Yankton at a substan- tial savings. Question.-South Dakota is now a deficit feed grain area due to ever increas- ing feed stock industry is it not? Answer.-Only 15 counties in the western part of the state out of the 41 county tributary area were identified as deficit feed grain producing areas. Question.-Would an error of 30 percent in the estimate of 694,000 tons of grain in the base year destroy your justification, especially if approximately 200,000 tons of feed grain is produced and used in the area for feed stock? An.swer.-A reduction of this magnitude would have no substantial effect on the presently estimated benefit-cost ratio of 1.3 for the overall bank stabiliza- tion-navigation project. The incremental justification for the navigation purpose only would be reduced from 1.5 to about 1.2. Question-How many tons of grain were moved on the Missouri River in 1966, the base year of the report? Answer.-Total grain traffic on the Missouri River in 1966 was 1,670,932 tons. Question.-Do you propose then that the base year of operation of the Port of Yankton, if the project is approved, Yankton will ship 42% of the total grain moved on the Missouri River in competition with the established grain centers of Kansas City, Omaha, Sioux City? Answer-With completion of the 9-foot channel throughout the entire reach from Sioux City to the mouth, reduced rates from all ports are expected which would thus increase the total grain shipment on the Missouri River. The share moved through Yankton would be a smaller percentage of the future total grain movement on the Missouri River. Qvestfon.-Wbat average grain haul rate did you use from the tributary areas into Yankton? Answer.-We did not use an average grain haul rate from the tributary area. Rates used in the Corps' analysis were applied from shipping points through- out the tributary area based on rate-mileage scales applicable to unregulated truck load movements of grain. The barge rate used in the analysis from Yank- ton to New Orleans was $5.58 per ton. This was a constructed barge rate based on existing rates modified to reflect expected improvements in ope~ating condi- tions with completion of authorized 9-foot channel project to Sioux City. As indicated in the report average savings per ton approximate $0.43 or the equiva- PAGENO="0725" 711 lent of 2.15 cents per hundred weight. This savings represents only the differ- ences in transportation charges between Sioux City and Yankton. Mr. HARSHA. I have no further questions. Mr. BLATNIK. This concludes the public hearings part of the rivers and harbors beach erosion section. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. MOEWEN. Mr. Chairman, our colleague from New York, Mr. Conable, informed me today that since the subcommittee heard the re- port on the Cameron Beach, New York, New York State, that he has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that they had cleared this project and that the Secretary of the Army has been so advised of that. General Noble, you will check on that, sir? General NOBLE. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. At the time it was here in the subcommittee it was my understanding that the Bureau of the Budget had not reported it out. I just want to be sure that we have that. Mr. BLATNIK. The public hearings are concluded, and the session is adjourned. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 5 :04 p.m., the subcommittee concluded its public hearings.) BASIN MONETARY AUTHORIZATION The total amount is $466 million for the requirements for 12 basins through calendar year 1969 and $3 million for completion of the West Branch. Susque- hanna River Basin making a grand total of $469 million. The committee wishes to point out again that this is additional monetary authorization for projects already authorized. Act of Basin Congress Monetary author- ization required through CY 1969 Alabama-Coosa River Mar. 2,1945 . $29,000,000 Arkansas River June 28, 1938 108,000,000 Brazos River Sept. 3,1954 2,000,000 Central and Southern Florida June 30, 1948 15,000,000 Columbia River June 28, 1938 193,000,000 Missouri River do 38,000,000 Ohio River June 22, 1936 35,000,000 Ouachita River May 17,1950 10,000,000 San Joaquin River Dec. 22, 1944 17,000,000 South Platte River May 17, 1950 12,000,000 Upper Mississippi River June 28, 1938 5,000,000 White River do 2,000,000 Total 466,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF BASINS A description of the basins and the status of the monetary authorizations involved in S. 3710 are given in the following paragraphs. Amounts are rounded to millions of dollars. The specific projects on which these increased authoriza- tions are intended to be used are shown for each basin. ALABAMA-000SA RIVER BASIN The Alabama-Coosa River system drains an area of 22,800 square miles, of which about 130 square miles are in Tennessee, 5,350 square miles are in Georgia, and 17,320 square miles are in Alabama. The basin has a maximum width of 110 miles and extends about 320 miles from southeast Tennessee and northwest Georgia diagonally across Alabama to the southwest corner of the State. PAGENO="0726" 712 The River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945. provides for the initial and ulti- mate development of the Alabama-Coosa Rivers and triliutaries for navigation. flood control, power development, and other purposes. The act includes authoriza- tion for modification of the origiital plan as may be advisable from time to time in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers for the purpose of increasing the development of hydroelectric power. This act also authorized the appropriation of $60 million. Additional monetary authorization totaling 72 million ha~ been provided by subsequent acts, bringing the total monetary authorization to $132 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan $578, 000, 000 Present monetary authorization 132,000,000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 103,000.000 Remaining monetary authorization 29,000,000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 1969__ 58,000,000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969_ 29, 000,000 Projects and amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be vsed Project: Amount Alabama River Channel improvement, Alabama $50, 000 Carters Dam, Ga. 12, 070,000 Claiborne lock and dam, Alabama 3,000,000 Jones Bluff lock and dam, Alabama 12,480, 000 Millers Ferry lock and dam, Alabama 1, 500,000 Total requested authorization 29,100. 000 ARKANSAS Rivxx BAsIN The Arkansas River Basin contains an area of about 160,500 square miles. The basin is about 870 miles in length in a east-west direction and approximately 185 miles in average width. It extends from the Rocky Mountains on the west to the Mississippi River on the east. The drainage basin occupies parts of the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas. The general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Arkansas River Basin was adopted by the Flood Control Act approved June 28, 1938, which authorized an appropriation of $21 million for partial accomplish- ment of the plan. The plan has been further amended and modified and additional monetary authorization provided by subsequent acts. The River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946. authorized construction of a multiple-purpose plan for improvement of the Arkansas River Basin, Ark. and Okla., for navigation, flood control, and other purposes, and authorized the appropriation of $55 million for partial accomplishment of the plan. This plan has likewise been modified by subsequent acts, and additional monetary authoriza- tion provided. The Flood Control Act of July 14, 1960, incorporated the authorized flood con- trol plan and the multiple-purpose plan into a single plan of development arid provided that all authorizations made available for the Arkansas River Basin would be applicable to the combined plan of development. The monetary authoriza- tion provided for the combined plan totals $1,143 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan $1, 367, 000. 000 Present monetary authorization 1, 143, 000. 000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 1, 055, 000, 000 Remaining monetary authorization 88, 000. 000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 196~L 196, 000. 000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969 108, 000, 000 PAGENO="0727" 713 Projects and amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be used Project: Arkansas River bank stabilization, Oklahoma and Arkansas.__ $3, 550, 000 Dardanelle lock and dam, Arkansas 6,218, 000 Navigation locks and dams, Arkansas and Oklahoma 57, 600, 000 Oologah Reservoir, Okla 3, 729,000 Ozark lock and dam, Arkansas 10,035, 000 Robert S. Kerr lock and dam, Oklahoma 10, 600, 000 Webbers Falls lock and dam, Oklahoma 15, 900, 000 6 projects for recreational development 766, 000 Total requested authorization 108, 398, 000 Ba~zos RIvER BASIN The Brazos River rises in eastern New Mexico and flows southeasterly 1,210 miles to the Gulf of Mexico near Freeport, Tex. The watershed has au overall length of 640 miles and a maximum width of about 120 miles. Its total area is about 44,670 square miles. The Flood Control Act approved September 3, 1954, adopted the basinwide plan of improvement in the Brazos River Basin and authorized the appropria- tion of $40 million for partial accomplishment of that plan. Time plan includes reservoirs for flood control and allied purposes and projects for local flood pro- tection. Additional authorization in the amount of $74 million has been provided by subsequent acts bringing the total to $114 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan $208, 000, 000 Present monetary authorization 114, 000, 000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 109, 000, 000 Remaining monetary authorization 5, 000, 000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 1969~ 7, 000, 000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969_ 2, 000, 000 Projects and amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be used Project: Amount San Gabriel River, Tex $1, 810, 000 3 projects for recreational development 190, 000 Total requested authorization 2, 000, 000 CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLoRIDA The project lies generally within 18 counties of Florida covering an area of about 16,341 square miles. It is comprised of the upper St. Johns River Basin in the northeastern section of the project; the Kissimmee River Basin in the central section above Lake Okeechobee; the Lake Okeechobee-Evergiades area in the central and southwestern section; and the east coast-Everglades area in the southeastern section. This project provides for modification and expansion of works in an area embracing Lake Okeechobee, a large portion of the Everglades, the upper St. Johns and Kissimmee River Basins, and the lower east coast of Florida. The project was authorized in the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948, which also authorized the appropriation of $16,300,000 for partial accomplishment of the first phase of the plan. Subsequent legislation has increased the monetary authorization and expanded the project to include additional improvements. The monetary authorization provided to date totals $171 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan $209, 000, 000 Present monetary authorization 171, 000, 000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 160,000, 000 Remaining monetary authorization 11,000,000 Additional scheduled ohilgations through calendar year 1969 26, 000, 000 Deficit monetary authorization through ealendar year 1909_~ 15, 000, 000 PAGENO="0728" 714 Project and amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be used An~oun t Project: Central and southern Florida 15,000,000 Total requested authorization 15, 000, 000 COLUMBIA RIVER BAsIN The Columbia River Basin drains an area of 2.59.000 square miles, of which 219.500 square miles are in the United States and 39,500 square miles are in Canada. The basin includes most of the States of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho; western Montana; small areas in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming; and the southeastern drainage of the Province of British Columbia, Oanada. The river flows a distance of 462 miles in Canada and 745 miles in the United States, for a total distance of 1,207 miles. The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, approved the general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Willamette River Basin and authorized $11,300,000 for the initiation *and partial accomplishment of the recommended plan. Individual projects were authorized in the Columbia and Willamette River Basins by the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, and subse- quent acts. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, approved a general compre- hensive plan for both the Columbia and Willamette River Basins for flood control and other purposes and authorized the appropriatioll of $115 million for the partial accomplishment of the plan. This monetary authorization has been increased by later acts. Monetary authorization provided to date totals $1,294 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan $2, 070,000,000 Present monetary authorization 1, 294, 000, 000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 1, 234, 000, 000 Remaining monetary authorization 60,000, 000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 1969 253, 000, 000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969 193, 000, 000 Projects and amounts on ichieh requested authorization is planned to be used Project: Amount Cascadia Reservoir, Oreg $200, 000 Dw-orshak Reservoir, Idaho 57, 872, 000 Green Peter and Foster Reservoir, Oreg 1, 075, 000 John Day Lock and Dam. Oregon and Washingtoii 23,430, 000 Libby Reservoir, Mont 82,045, 000 Strube Dam, Oreg 30, 000 The Dalles Dam, units 15 through 22 27, 654. 000 Willamette bank protection, Oregon 508. 000 John Day River, Oreg~ 31, 000 3 projects for recreational development 385, 000 Total requested authorization 193, 230, 000 Missouai Rivzu BAsIN The Missouri River Basin drains an area of 519,000 square miles, of w-hich 509,375 square miles are in the United States and 9,715 square miles are in Canada. The basin includes all of Nebraska, most of South Dakota, large portions of North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming, about half of Kansas and Missouri; and smaller parts of Colorado, Iowa. and Minnesota. From its source in south- w-estern Montana, it flows for a distance of 2,460 miles to enter the Mississippi River above St. Louis, Mo. A general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Mis- souri River Basin was approved by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, PAGENO="0729" 715 which also authorized $9 million for initiation and partial accomplishment of the plan. The Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944, expanded the general comprehensive plan for the Missouri River Basin to include the coordinated plan of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, and authorized the appropriation of $200 million for each agency. Additional projects and monetary authorizations have been included in subsequent acts, bringing the total monetary authorization to date to $1,462 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan $2,160, 000, 000 Present monetary authorization 1, 462, 000, 000 Appropriation through June 30, 1968 - 1, 418, 000,000 Remaining monetary authorization 44,000,000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 1969_ 82, 000,000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969 38, 000,000 Projects and amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be nsed Project: Antount Big Bend Reservoir, S. Dak $940, 000 Hilisdale Reservoir, Kans 165, 000 Kaysinger Bluff Reservoir, Mo 12, 700, 000 Lawrence, Kans 1, 498, 000 Melvern Reservoir, Kans 6, 885, 000 Missouri River Levee System 3, 604, 000 Oahe Reservoir, S. Dak 1, 300, 000 Osawatomie, Ka1~s 412, 000 Perry Reservoir, Kans 3, 731 ,000 Stockton Reservoir, Mo 5, 500, 000 Topeka, Kans 669, 000 8 projects for recreational development 862, 000 Total roquested authorization 38, 266, 000 OHIO RIVER BASIN The Ohio River is formed by the junction of the Allegheny and Moiiongahela Rivers at Pittsburgh, and flows in a general southwesterly direction to join the Mississippi River at Cairo, Ill. Its length is 981 miles, and its basin comprising 204,000 square miles, lies between the Allegheny Mountains on the east and the Mississippi River Basin on the west. The basin is about 800 miles long along the northeast-southwest axis, and about 500 miles wide along its northwest-south- west axis. Lying in the basin are major portions of Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee; large areas of Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Caro- lina, Alabama, and Illinois; and parts of New York, Maryland, Georgia, and Mississippi. The Flood Control Acts of June 22, 1936, August 28, 1937, and June 28, 1938, approved a general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Ohio River Basin, consisting of reservoirs, levees, floodwalls, and drainage structures for protection of cities and towns. Those acts were amended and supplemented by subsequent acts, which also included monetary authorizations for further prosecution of the comprehensive plan. The monetary authorization provided `to date totals $1,053 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan $1, 349, 000, 000 Present monetary authorization ` 1,053, 000, 000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 1, 023, 000, 000 Remaining monetary authorization 30, 000, 000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 1069 65,000, 000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969__ 35, 000, 000 PAGENO="0730" 716 Projects and amounts on which requested authorization, is planned to be vsed Project: Amount Big Darby Reservoir, Ohio $750, 000 Brookville Reservoir, md 4, 300,000 Burnsville Lake, W. Va 2, 480,000 Caesar Creek Reservoir, Ohio 1, 900, 000 Cave Run Reservoir, Ky 5,500, 000 East Pork Reservoir, Ohio 2, 700,000 East Lynn Lake, W. Va 7, 235, 000 England Pond Levee, Ill 38,000 Frankfort, Ky 700,000 Island Levee, Ill 520,000 J. Percy Priest Reservoir, Tenn 679,000 Paint Creek Reservoir, Ohio 4,330,000 Rochester and McClearys Bluff Levee, md 334, 000 Sumxnersville Lake, W. Va 310, 000 West Fork Lake, W. Va 50,000 West Terre Haute, md 900,000 17 projects for recreational development 2,281,000 Total requested authorization 35, 007,000 OUACIIITA RIVER BASIN The Ouachita River Basin, comprising about 25,000 square miles within the Red River Basin, is located in the southern half of Arkansas and the northwestern part of Louisiana. The River and Harbor Act of May 17, 1950, approved the general plan for flood control and other purposes in the Ouachita River Basin and authorized the appropriation of $21,300,000 for initiation an4 partial accomplishment of the plan. The authorized plan consists of channel improvements for flood control for Bayou Bartholomew, Ark. and La., Pine Bluff, Ark., DeGray Reservoir, Ark., Murfreesboro Reservoir, Ark., and a floodwall at Monroe, La. The mone- tary authorization has been increased by subsequent acts bringing the total monetary authorization to $40 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan $80, 000, 000 Present monetary authorization 40,000,000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 35, 000,000 Remaining monetary authorization 5,000,000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 1969__. 15,000,000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969__ 10,000,000 Projects and. amounts on which requested ant h&rizat ion is planned to be vsed. Project: Amount Bayou Bartholomew, Ark. and La $635, 000 DeGray Reservoir, Ark 9. 105, 000 Monroe, La 270,000 Total requested authorization 10, 010, 000 SAN J0AQUIN RIVER BASIN The San Joaquin River, the only exterior drainage channel for an area of about 32,000 square miles, has its source in the Sierra Nevada Range about 25 miles southeast of the Yosemite Valley, Calif. `The Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944, adopted the plan of im- provement for flood control and other purposes on the lower San Joaquin River and tributaries, including the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers, and authorized the appropriation of $8 million for partial accomplishment of the plan. This monetary authorization has been increased by later acts, bringing the total mone- tary authorization to date to $31 million. PAGENO="0731" 717 Total estimated cost of projects in plan $164,000, 000 Present monetary authorization 31, 000, 000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 30, 000, 000 Remaining monetary authorization 1, 000, 000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 1969_ 18, 000, 000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969~ 17, 000, 00 Projects and amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be used Project: Amount New Don Pedro Reservoir, Calif $2, 170, 000 New Melones Reservoir, Calif 14, 860, 000 Total requested authorization - 17, 030, 000 SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, CoLo. The South Platte River rises on the Continental Divide in central Colorado, and, flows northeasterly to its confluence with the North Platte River at North Platte, Nebr. The drainage area of 24,030 square miles includes a section of the rugged eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, with elevation exceeding 14,000 feet and extensive areas of the Great Plains. The Flood Control Act of May 17, 1950, authorized a plan for flood control and related purposes in the South Platte River Basin in Colorado. The plan consists of Chatfield Reservoir and levee and channel improvements at three locations, including the city of Boulder. The act also authorized the appropriation of $26,300,000 for partial accomplishment of the plan. Public Law 90-17, approved May 12, 1967, increased the monetary authorization by $2 million bringing the total to $28,300,000. Total estimated cost of projects in plan $115, 000, 000 Present monetary authorization 28,000, 000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 12, 000, 000 Remaining monetary authorization 16, 000,000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 1969~ 28, 000, 000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969~ 12, 000, 000 Projects and amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be used 4mount Project: Chatfield Reservoir, Cob $12, 000, 000 Total requested authorization 12, 000, 000 UPPER MIssIssIPPI RIVER BASIN The Upper Mississippi River Basin is that portion of the north-central United States containing the Mississippi River and all tributary streams above the Ohio River, but excluding the Missouri River. The Mississippi River originates at Lake Itasca in central Minnesota, and flows approximately 1,366 miles to a point above the mouth of the Ohio River. This basin area covers 188.000 square miles and in- cludes the larger parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa, and small portions of Indiana, South Dakota, and Missouri. The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, approved the general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, consisting of reservoirs and local flood protection works on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, and authorized the appropriation of $9.3 million for their construction. Subsequent acts have increased the authorization and modified the plan to include additional projects. The monetary authorization provided to date totals $119 million. PAGENO="0732" 718 Total estimated cost of projects in plan -$175, OOO~ 000 Present monetary authorization 119, 000, 000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 117, 000, 000 Remaining monetary authorization 2,000, 000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 1969~ 7, 000, 000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969~ 5, 000,000 Projects and amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be used Project: Amount Red Rock Reservoir and Lake, Red Rock, Iowa $4, 670,000 Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Ill. (pumping plant)__ 30, 000 1 project for recreational development 25, 000 Total requested authorization 4. 725, 000 WHITE RIvER BAsIN The White River rises in northwestern Arkansas, flows northeasterly into southern Missouri, and thence southeasterly back into Arkansas to join the Mis- sissippi River at about mile 580 above the Head of Passes, La. It is about 700 miles long and drains about 27,765 square miles, of which 10,622 are in Missouri and 17,143 are in Arkansas. About 7,000 square miles are within the limits of the Mis- sissippi River backwaters. The latter area is included in the plan for the Lower Mississippi River Basin project. The general comprehensive plan for flood control and other purposes in the White River Basin was approved by the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938, which authorized the appropriation of $25 million for initiation and partial accomplish- ment of the plan. Subsequent legislation has authorized additional amounts for continuation of the plan, and modified it to include additional projects. The inone- tary authorization provided to date totals $286 million. Total estimated cost of projects in plan $347, 000, 000 Present monetary authorization 286, 000, 000 Appropriations through June 30, 1968 285,000. 000 Remaining monetary authorization 1, 000, 000 Additional scheduled obligations through calendar year 1969_ 3, 000, 000 Deficit monetary authorization through calendar year 1969__ 2, 000, 000 Amounts on which requested authorization is planned to be used Project: 6 projects for recreational development (total requested Amount authorization) $1, 820, 000 WEST BRANCH SIJSQUEHANNA Rrvzu BASIN The project for flood control on the West Branch Susquehanna River Basin, Pa., w-as authorized by the Flood Control Act of September 3, 1954. The au- thorization was in accordance with the recommendations contained in House Document 29, 84th Congress~ This document recommended a project consisting of a system of three flood control reservoirs-B'lanchard (now Foster Joseph Sayers Darn), Curwensville, and Kettle Creek (now- Alvin R. Bush Reservoir) located in the headwaters of the west branch at a total estimated cost of $62,520,000. Congress authorized the appropriation of $25 million for partial accomplishment of the project. Subsequent legislation has authorized a total additional appropriation of $28 million to continue construction of the project. The Alvin R. Bush (Kettle Creek) Reservoir has been completed. Curwensville Reservoir is essentially complete. w-ith only minor items of w-ork remaining to be closed out. The Foster Joseph Sayers Dam (Blanchard Reservoir) is well underway and construction is about 75 percent complete. PAGENO="0733" 719 The total cost of the West Branch Susquehanna River Basin project subject to monetary limitation is presently estimated to cost $55,700,000. Total mone- tary authorization to date is $53 million. An additional $3 million in monetary authorization is estimated to be required for continuation of scheduled con- struction on this project through calendar year 1969. Since this amount is also considered adequate to complete construction of the three reservoir projects included in the basin plan, the committee has included language in the bill which will authorize completion of the West Branch Susquehanna River Basin project. 0