owned waterway which ran from Calcasieu Lake and connected this waterway. At that time they had locks installed on this canal to prevent the infiltration of salt water. This canal was originally built by private interests in 1910.

When the Intracoastal Canal was put through, the lock, of course, were removed and the entrance to the Calcasieu River moved inland approximately 12 miles. When this canal was put in without the locks the water level in this area which had furnished a natural reservoir for the rice irrigation interests was lowered approximately 12 inches, and the water was allowed free drainage into the Calcasieu River and also into the Mermentau River.

That lowering of the water level in this area [indicating on map] by means of this drainage and the infiltration of salt from the Calcasieu River as well as from the Mermentua was much more rapid than it had been in its normal state. The lower end of the Mermentau became shoal, and at certain points the silt was deposited. As the fresh water which carried the silt struck the salt water it dropped the silt in the Mermentua River, which caused a drainage problem.

I wanted to get before you gentlemen the fact that this project is in a way correcting a condition which has been brought about by the installation of the Intracoastal Canal, which all of us know is very valuable to the United States.

I shall be very glad to answer any questions, but I did feel that that point should be brought out in connection with your study of this problem.

Mr. PITTENGER. There is no objection to this project, is there?
Mr. CHALKLEY. No objection at all, sir.

Mr. LARCADE. I think it should be brought out at this point, Mr. Chairman, that part of this project which is under consideration this morning was originally included in what was known as the TecheVermilion-Mermentau project which was authorized about 2 years ago. At that time there was made available some $1.390,000 for improvements of the Mermentua River, with the building of a dam to control salt-water intrusion in the Mermentua River. At that time we had approval from the Flood Control Committee. I do not remember how it came to be before the Flood Control Committee; but the Flood Control Committee was the one that authorized it, and we were able to get the Appropriations Committee to approve an appropriation, and it was passed by the House and $1,390,000 was appropriated for the building of a dam to take care of the matter that the captain has referred to in his testimony.

After that authorization we had to get authority from the War Production Board to undertake the project. Unless we could show the War Production Board at that time-that was in 1943- the necessity and emergency of a project, it was next to impossible to obtain priorities for the materials necessary for such project. At that time we were able to convince the War Production Board that the amount of food would be increased to such an extent that it would be of such value to the country from that standpoint that they issued priorities for the project.

However, after all of this had been done and we had secured the appropriation and priorities from the War Production Board, the people found that that would not give the relief that was anticipated and that was desired, and this project that we have under consideration

this morning is the result of that. The sum of $1,390,000 which had been appropriated by the Congress was unused, unexpended, and was returned to the Treasury. As a matter of fact, this project is an extension of the project which had already been authorized by the Flood Control Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the House, after the project went through the regular channels and we were able to convince the War Production Board that this project was essential in that area.

Do you have any other witnesses on this project?

Mr. PYBURN. No, sir.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Is that all on this project?

Mr. PYBURN. That is all on the Mermentau, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I see Congressman McKenzie, of Louisiana, is present. I wonder if you have any statement that you desire to make to the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. MCKENZIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. MCKENZIE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as you well know, I am heartily in accord with this proposal. I have been following it through my colleague who is a member of the committee, and through the Department of Public Works. I think it is very important to that area. I think it fits right into this picture. I came here this morning primarily to get some detailed information_from the engineers. I got here after Mr. Pyburn's testimony, but I will talk to him about that later.

I am in hearty accord with the project and will suport it.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I am sure these gentlemen appreciate your interest.

We will take up the next project.

CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS (LAKE CHARLES DEEP WATERWAY), LA. STATEMENT OF COL. P. A. FERINGA, UNITED STATES ARMY, RESIDENT ENGINEER, BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Colonel FERINGA. The next project on the list is Lake Charles Deep Water Channel, La.

The report on Lake Charles deep water channel, ship channel, and Calcasieu River and Pass, La., is in response to a resolution adopted on April 17, 1944, by the Senate Commerce Committee.

Calcasieu River flows south in western Louisiana and empties into the Gulf of Mexico through Calcasieu Lake and Pass about 30 miles east of Sabine Pass. Between 36 and 38 miles above the Gulf the river flows through Lake Charles on the east bank of which is the city of Lake Charles. A short cut-off across a loop of the river channel about a mile below the lake forms Clooney Island. Adjacent to this cut-off is located the principal public terminal of the city, owned by the Lake Charles Harbor and terminal district.

The existing Federal project for Calcasieu River and Pass provides for minor improvement above Lake Charles and for a ship channel 30 feet deep and 250 feet wide through Clooney Island loop and via Calcasieu River from the described terminal to the Gulf, for reconstruction and extension of the jetties at the Gulf and for a Gulf approach channel 32 feet deep and 400 feet wide. The project is complete except through the Clooney Island loop and for extension of the jetties.

West of Calcasieu River for 22 miles to Sabine River is located the Lake Charles deep water channel 30 feet deep and 125 feet wide which was constructed by local interests and is now maintained as a Federal project.

During the years 1936 to 1940, inclusive, commerce on Calcasieu River and Pass averaged 4,400,000 tons annually and on the Lake Charles deep water channel about 7,000,000 tons.

A major part of the commerce consists of petroleum and its products. The present channel depth limits the cargoes of petroleum products tankers to about 11,000 tons, whereas new tankers of the type constructed during the war have maximum loaded drafts of about 32 feet and dead-load capacities up to 19,000 tons.

The city of Lake Charles, population 21,300 in 1940, is the principal commercial and industrial center of the local area.

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors recommends that the existing project for Calcasieu River and Pass, La., be modified to provide for a channel depth of 35 feet from the wharves of the Lake Charles Harbor and terminal district, including Clooney Island loop, to the jetty channel, for a uniformly increasing depth of 35 to 37 feet in the jetty channel and for a depth of 37 feet in the approach channel in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. How long is that section?

Colonel FERINGA. I think it is about 40 miles, Mr. Chairman, depending on how far one figures the project channel to extend in the Gulf.

Mr. LARCADE. It is 33 miles.

Colonel FERINGA. Thank you, Mr. Larcade.

Deepening of the Calcasieu River and Pass project channel as proposed is needed to permit the deeper-draft tankers now available to be used to full advantage in shipment of the large existing and prospective tonnages of petroleum and its products originating at the port of Lake Charles. In the opinion of the Board the annual savings in transportation costs attributable to the deepening will be several times as great as the annual cost of the proposed work. Model studies indicate that the channel deepening now proposed will not adversely affect existing salinity conditions.

When the Board had this report we at the same time considered the report for the Mermentau, which makes provision for a positive block against salinity intrusion so that that country would not be adversely affected by salt water from the Gulf.

The improvement is recommended, provided that responsible local agencies give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will furnish free of cost to the United States all lands, easements, rights-of-way and spoil-disposal areas necessary for the new work and

for the subsequent maintenance when and as required, hold and save the United States free from damages due to construction and maintenance of the work, and modify terminal facilities as necessary for full utilization of the improvement.

The cost to the United States for new work is $2,000,000. The annual maintenance cost is $85,000; interest and amortization $80,000, making total annual carrying charges of $165,000.

The deepening of the channel will permit the use of deeper-draft tankers for oil shipments with resulting savings in transportation costs. With present channel limitations, tanker cargoes are restricted to about 11,000 tons, whereas tankers of the 15,000 to 19,000-ton class may utilize a 35-foot channel with obvious saving in shipping costs. Oil companies indicated that resulting savings would range between 6 and 712 cents per barrel for shipments between Gulf and North Atlantic ports with greater savings for overseas traffic.

For postwar oil shipments from the port averaging 6,000,000 tons annually, it is estimated that savings resulting from use of tankers with 17,000 rather than 11,000 tons capacity will amount to about $2,700,000 annually, of which at least a third may be credited to deepening the project channel of Calcasieu River and Pass.

This indicates a favorable ratio of estimated annual costs to benefits of about 1 to 5.5.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. That is a fine showing.

Colonel FERINGA. That is a large showing of benefits over costs.

In brief, Mr. Chairman, it is a case similar to the Sabine-Neches which was before this committee last Thursday, except that it is less costly, due to the lesser dredging involved. There is a large oil production and refining center at this location; and in order to make possible the great savings which are in sight due to the deeper-draft ships, this deepening should be authorized.

Mr. Knappen brought out in his testimony that the cost of operation of deep draft tankers will be as low as 0.8 mill per ton per mile.

The Governor of Louisiana is favorable to this project. No reply has yet been received from the Bureau of the Budget. The matter was submitted to that Bureau on March 22.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, this project is in my district. We find that the channel is not sufficiently deep to accommodate the new modern barges and ships of deep draft; and in view of the fact that there is about $200,000,000 worth of transportation at the Port of Lake Charles and, as a matter of fact, that it is an inland port 33 miles from the Gulf, this project is most essential and most necessary.

I appear before your honorable committee as the Representative of the Seventh Congressional District of Louisiana, where the Lake Charles Calcasieu River project is located in my district, to urge and request your favorable consideration and approval of this muchneeded and emergent project.

During the early period of the war the necessity for this project became imperative, and under appropriate resolution of the Congress the United States engineers took the preliminary steps to present the

project to this committee, and hearings were held in the city of Lake Charles where interested parties presented substantiating statements and evidence for the authorization of the project.

As I realized the importance and necessity for this project I personally attended this hearing, and I think the economic justification for this project was proven to the satisfaction of the United States engineers beyond any question of a doubt. I was impressed to see: personal representatives of all of the port authorities from Louisiana and Texas appear in favor of the project, and they all urged immediate approval of the same.

Early in 1945 while on an inspection trip with General Robins of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, I prevailed upon General Robins to visit Lake Charles in order to obtain first-hand information, and it may be that General Robins collaborated with his successors in their recommendation of this important project. The need for the improvement of the Lake Charles deep-water channel,. ship channel, and Calcasieu River and Pass was so great that, in July 1945, I was able to prevail upon the chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Committee, Judge Mansfield, to authorize a subcommittee of the Rivers and Harbors Committee, under the leadership of Hon. Hugh Peterson, vice chairman, and Gen. John J. Kingman, Assistant Chief of Engineers, to make a personal investigation of this project, and Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to include in this testimony a short statement of the visit of this subcommittee of the Rivers and Harbors Committee when the committee visited Lake Charles, La., on July 8, 1945. The statement follows [reading]

The subcommittee of the Rivers and Harbors Committee arrived at Lake Charles, La., by plane about 3 p. m. on July 8, 1945, and was met at the airport by the mayor, president of the police jury, president and committee from the chamber of commerce, the president and director of the port of Lake Charles, former Gov. Sam Jones, representing the Governor of Louisiana, officials and engineers of the Department of Public Works of the State of Louisiana, the president and members of the board of directors of the Mermentau Basin Association, representatives of the Lake Charles American Press, and other citizens. Senator John H. Overton, of Louisiana, also arrived from his home town to greet the committee upon their arrival in Lake Charles.

In the absence of Hon. Hugh Peterson, the chairman of the subcommittee, Hon. Frank W. Boykin, of Alabama, being the ranking member present, Mr. Boykin took charge of the committee, and presided at the hearings, which were held aboard a fine dock board harbor boat where refreshments and lunch was served on board.

The harbor boat was boarded at one of the docks in the city of Lake Charles, and an inspection trip was taken down the channel of the Calcasieu River where the port installations and facilities were inspected by the committee.

Attention was called to the fact that on the banks of the Calcasieu River was located two high-octane gasoline refineries, a caustic soda, soda ash, synthetic salt cake plant, an ammonia, nitric acid, butadiene plant, a laytex of synthetic rubber plant, fertilizer plant, and other industries which contributed to the winning of the war, also that five major oil companies had plants on the river and all of the industries named used the channel of the Calcasieu River.

Maj. Gen. John H. Kingman, representing the Chief of Engineer's office who was on the trip made an explanation of the proposed project for the deepening of the channel of the Calcasieu River, and also commented upon the fact that due consideration was being given to the matter of preventing salt water intrusion in the river which resulted in great damage to the growers of rice who used the river water to irrigate their rice crops.

Hon. Sam H. Richard, president of the Lake Charles Harbor and terminal district appeared before the committee and made a statement giving statistical data and information in regard to the port of Lake Charles.