loss of a great deal of power and also the loss of probably very beneficial navigation.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama and myself have given a good deal of thought and study to this matter, as well as the committee as a whole, and we believe that this piecemeal development is unwise and wasteful. This makes it more certain that there shall be a comprehensive plan.

Mr. STRONG. I want to submit, in the absence of Mr. Freeman, the report of the Subcommittee on Surveys.

(The report in question was adopted.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McGann, please state to the committee what you have that you wish to have adopted.

Mr. McGANN. The river and harbor laws enacted between March 4, 1913, and March 4, 1921, were ordered printed in the act of 1920. About 1923 we found that these laws had not been printed, and as the document would have been two years out of date if issued at that time we introduced a resolution in the Sixty-seventh Congress, fourth session, to bring the compilation down to March 4, 1923. That resolution did not become a law. The laws are still in the Printing Office and we ought to have a provision to bring them down to include this session.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it has already been done except as you have specified?

Mr. McGANN. Yes, sir.

MAJ. GEN. LANSING H. BEACH

Mr. MCDUFFIE. The one who has rendered most efficient and effective service to the committee, and the one who needs no eulogy before this committee, is General Beach. As one member, I feel I express the sense of the whole committee when I say we are grateful to him for his assistance. We have been drawn closer to him in a personal way, and our respect and admiration for his ability as an officer of the United States Army and as the Chief of Engineers, and as a splendid gentleman, has grown as the days have gone by. I would like to see this committee pass a resolution carrying out that sentiment and give it to General Beach.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that a subcommittee be appointed to consist of Mr. McDuffie as chairman, with Judge Boyce, Mr. O'Connor, and Mr. Newton as members, to present that resolution to the committee day after to-morrow.

Mr. McDUFFIE. The reason I suggest that is that the General is going to retire soon.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you that it should be done. Mr. McDUFFIE. In the years to come, when his children and grandchildren are living, this little act of ours might be of some pleasure to them.

I do not think a more join in the sentiment so

The CHAIRMAN. I quite agree with you. tactful and proper thing could be done. I adequately expressed by the gentleman from Alabama. [Applause.] (Whereupon, at 10.35 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.)

COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., April 22, 1924.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey (chairman) presiding.

COLUMBIA RIVER BETWEEN THE MOUTH OF WILLAMETTE RIVER AND VANCOUVER, WASH.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us take up the Columbia River between the mouth of the Willamette River and Vancouver. General, suppose you tell us about that.

Mr. MCDUFFIE. This seems to be just a question of maintenance. General BEACH. No; it is a little more.

Vancouver, in the State of Washington, is on the north bank of the Columbia River, about 104 miles from the ocean. It is 18 miles distant by water from the terminals at Portland, Oreg., which is on the Willamette River, a large and important tributary coming in on the south side of the Columbia. Vancouver is about 4 miles up the Columbia above the mouth of the Willamette. Bridges cross the Columbia River at Vancouver and furnish a means for rail and highway connection with Portland, distant about 8 miles across the angle formed by the two rivers.

The people at Vancouver desire a channel 25 feet deep and 300 feet wide between Vancouver and the deep channel which the Government is maintaining in the Columbia, so as to lead up the Willamette to Portland. The commerce has not been very large in the past, but there is a feeling that it will very largely develop, and that a great number of industries will establish themselves at Vancouver, as being the logical point of distribution to the territory on the north side of the Columbia. Everything going from Portland would have to be taken by one line of railroad or by highway from that point, whereas from Vancouver they think that it can be more readily distributed. They feel that lumber can be shipped from there, from the large sawmills, at a considerable saving. They estimate that the saving will be practically a dollar a ton on the lumber, and $2 a ton on other items. A large veneer plant has just been established at Vancouver, and they maintain that their product can be shipped out by water at a saving of about $3.80 per ton over the probable cost of shipment by rail.

The district engineer reports that the dredging of the channel to a depth of 25 feet would cost only $30,000, and estimates that the annual maintenance at present of $10,000 would be increased to $18,000 a year; that is, $8,000 more than the present figure.

After going over the matter very carefully, I reported that the further improvement of the Columbia and lower Willamette Rivers below Vancouver, Wash., and Portland, is deemed advisable to the extent of providing a channel 25 feet deep and 300 feet wide between the mouth of the Willamette and the city of Vancouver, provided that local interests shall pay for the original cost of dredging the new channel at an estimated cost of $30,000, and for such dike construction, to an amount not to exceed $93,000, as may be found necessary for economical maintenance, the contributed funds being

made available in installments of about $30,000 a year until the work is completed. The initial work under this system of cooperation would involve no expense to the United States. The estimated maintenance cost of $18,000 is $8,000 in addition to the present estimated cost of maintaining the smaller channel to Vancouver.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, this project is one to benefit a city of about 15,000 people, which is a considerable city, on the coast?

General BEACH. And which is growing.

The CHAIRMAN. And which is growing quite rapidly. It is to care for a tonnage which is estimated to be in the near future approximately 150,000 tons, and will make a saving of from $1 to $3.80 per ton upon the shipments; and the work which is to be done, both of dredging and of the construction of dikes to protect the dredging, so that it will not fill or deteriorate rapidly, will all be performed by the locality, and only the added cost of maintenance will be borne by the Government?

General BEACH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McDuffie, did you wish to ask a question?

Mr. MCDUFFIE. I was about to make an observation similar to that which you have just made, Mr. Chairman; that it seems that the cost of the additional work on the project is not to be borne by the Federal Government, but the Government is simply to take it over and maintain it after it is completed by local interests.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The local interests are not alone to pay the cost of excavating the channel, but they are to pay not to exceed $93,000 for diking so as to protect the channel. so that the cost of maintenance will be reduced to a minimum. That is the situation. Mr. McDUFFIE. It does add to the cost of the maintenance $8.000?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. HULL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Watkins is here. Don't you think we had better hear from him? He is here for the purpose of telling us about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we shall be glad to hear from him.

STATEMENT OF HON. ELTON WATKINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Johnson, in whose district this is, is not here, and he has asked that I tell the committee in two or three minutes just the situation. I do not think it will take longer than that, in view of what you and the members and General Beach have already stated. You have it in mind very accurately.

This is the situation. Here is Vancouver [indicating on map]. which is 99 miles from the mouth of the Columbia River. Here is the Willamette [indicating], which goes up to Portland, which is a distance of about 108 miles from the mouth of the Columbia. We have from Portland to the sea a channel of 30 feet at the minimum. From the mouth of the Willamette, where it empties into the Columbia to Vancouver, the project now authorized and maintained by the Government is 20 feet deep and 150 feet wide, and the proposed project which we want you to authorize means that after the city

of Vancouver deepens the channel to 25 feet and widens it to 300 feet, at a cost of $93,000 for diking and $30,000 for deepening the channel for 4 miles, we want the Government in the future to maintain it at 25 feet, 300 feet wide, instead of 20 feet deep and 150 feet wide. If that is done, instead of this freight which comes from all ports of the world, and goes from this port of Vancouver to all ports, coming to Vancouver and Portland in this 30-foot channel and being hauled across at a cost of $1 to $3, the purpose is to take it direct to Vancouver.

The project has been approved, as General Beach has just said, and the reports are before you. You have just stated the meat of the matter, and there is no need for me to repeat it; but that is the picture of it.

I shall be glad to answer any questions you wish to ask.

General BEACH. It is a very similar case to the one which the committee acted on a while ago, of extending the navigation of the Delaware River to Trenton above Philadelphia. It is on a slightly different stream, but it is extending navigation really, you might say, above Portland.

Mr. WATKINS. The cost now to the Government is supposed to be $10,000. It will be increased to $18,000, making $8,000 more; and for that we would get a 25-foot channel instead of 20, and we would get a 300-foot width of channel instead of 150, and we feel that the tonnage justifies it.

Mr. McDUFFIE. And the expense to yourselves will be approximately $100,000?

Mr. WATKINS. $123,000.

Mr. HULL. How far is the haul across there?

Mr. WATKINS. About 7 or 8 miles. And in view of the fact that Portland is growing rapidly we had 258,000 population in 1920, and to-day we have 342,000-Portland is interested in it, because our export houses and our lumber and other plants are going over on the Columbia River, between these two rivers, and the Portland tonnage will also go from the Columbia River direct as the town expands; and that is the reason that I am indirectly interested in it, although I came here this morning at the request of Mr. Johnson, in whose district Vancouver is, because he is absent; otherwise he would have been here

Mr. SWEET. In other words, it will enable Portland in a few years to take in and send out from both the front and back doors?

Mr. WATKINS. Exactly.

Mr. WILSON. How far is it across there by land?

Mr. WATKINS. Is it 8 miles, General?

General BEACH. Eight miles.

Mr. WATKINS. I know it is 7 miles by road.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALLARD H. GASQUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

ALLIGATOR CREEK AND FOUR-MILE CREEK, s. c.

The CHAIRMAN. General, we have a project here involving two creeks in South Carolina. Will you explain in a brief way just what the situation is?

General BEACH. This is the case of Alligator Creek and FourMile Creek in South Carolina. Alligator Creek is a small tidal stream entering the South Santee River near its mouth. It forms part of the inland waterway between Charleston and Winyah Bay, S. C., and as such is under improvement under a project providing for a channel four feet deep at mean low tide and 60 feet wide. The mean range of tide is about 5 feet. Four-Mile Creek is a small tidal stream flowing through the swampy delta between the South and North Santee Rivers and into the latter.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you show us from the map, General, what is proposed to be done?

General BEACH. It is a little difficult for those at a distance to see the waterways on this map, because it is so flat colored. It does not show them very well. But at present the inland waterway follows this route shown in red, which you can see makes a long detour around through Six-Mile Creek and other waterways, and it is proposed to make this cut-off [indicating], and then to make this further cut-off from Alligator Creek to this other small creek [indicating].

The people desired to have this bend [indicating] in Alligator Creek cut off and the line run straight, but it was found that that would be pretty expensive, and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors did not consider that the cost was justified, and in that I agreed with them. It might possibly be worth while several years later, when there is a large commerce; but the ground is relatively high through there, and the detour is not very great. The proposed canals, as you will see from examining the map, will obviate very long detours or forcing the small boats out into deeper water, both of which are quite objectionable.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a part of the canal system, General?

General BEACH. It is a part of the inland waterway from Charleston to Winyah Bay.

Mr. GASQUE. And also of the general inland waterway down the

coast.

General BEACH. Of the general inland waterway through the entire Atlantic coast.

Mr. HULL. What is the size of the channel?

General BEACH. We recommend the construction of a channel 4 feet deep and 60 feet wide in Four- Mile Creek, with a cut through the marsh to connect with the South Santee River, at an estimated cost of $51,000, with $1,000 annually for maintenance for the first two years, and probably $500 a year thereafter, provided that local interests shall furnish, without cost to the United States, the necessary rights of way and provide suitable areas for the disposal of excavated material.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, what is the other project?

General BEACH. That is the only one that is recommended.

Mr. GASQUE. The distance here [indicating on map] is 114 miles, and it is very crooked. It is almost impossible to have any commerce through there.

The CHAIRMAN. What about the commerce here, General?

General BEACH. Increased tonnage is expected to result from these improvements. The district engineer estimates that the saving in freight rates would amount to about $19,000 by a 4-foot