Mr. MORGAN. At a value of $2.50 per thousand on the stump? Mr. MORGAN. That is thrity-seven and a half million dollars. Mr. HAWLEY. That would depend. We run it by quarter sections. This lumber will run Mr. BOYCE. Out in our country we do not know anything about sections. Mr. HAWLEY. There are 800 square miles. A square mile is a section. I would say that would be 50,000,000 feet to the square mile. The flood waters occur only periodically, and they are not taken into consideration in these figures as to the stage of water that we could use. Of course, during the flood season of the year there would be more water than we state here, but we take the average mean low water stages. Mr. McDUFFIE. The lands on the border of this stream, as I understand it, are entirely timberlands; there is no other industry along there, is there? Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. Along the river there are some fine dairy farms, and there is a good deal of fishing. Mr. MORGAN. Salmon fishing? Mr. HAWLEY. Yes; salmon fishing. Mr. MORGAN. This an is inexpensive improvement, but there is a $10,000 maintenance expense. What is the bottom of the river? Is it gravel or sand or what? Mr. HAWLEY. Sand and silt. Sand above and silt near the mouth. There are two recommendations suggested-one for the removal of the north shoal at $33,000, the other to remove that and the two lower shoals, $74,000; and both General Beach and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors recommend that the $74,000 project be adopted, and that all three shoals be removed. If we get 12 feet of water on the north shoal, 17 feet at high tide, and have on the lower shoal only 8 feet of water, we have a limitation on the vessel that could get out, and it would not accomplish what it is desired to accomplish. Now, let me make one statement about another operation: When the largest mill on the Coos Bay built its railroad, about 46 miles---extended 46 miles south of Coos Bay into the country around Powers-they ran through some Government timber in the Forest Service, and cutting their timber they made a proposition to the Forest Service to remove the timber on the forest lands, because if they cut the timber around a section or a quarter of a section with very tall trees and let the south winds sweep against that area of unprotected timber, it will blow down a lot of it. The Forest Service charged them $1.50 to $1.75 more per thousand after the railroad went in there than they could have bought it for beforehand. So the transportation facilities actually increase the value of the timber. That is why they make a very conservative estimate when they say this timber belonging to the Government and ready for sale would be increased $1 a thousand. Mr. MCDUFFIE. The railroad did not tap the river where the mill is situated. Mr. HAWLEY. It is between a quarter and a half a mile to the mill. They have been talking of building a spur track to the mill, but they have not done it. Mr. L.NEBERGER. Would that $1 a thousand go to the Government or would it go to the people who already have it tied up? Mr. HAWLEY. If the Government is offering timber now for, say $1.25 per thousand on the stump and the improvement is made, the Government would offer its timber at the upset price of $2.25 and sell for that or for the highest price bid above the upset price. Mr. LINEBERGER. The Government still has timberlands remaining to get the benefit of the improvements? Mr. HAWLEY. It has from 15,000,000,000 to 20,000,000,000 feet in actual ownership. Mr. LINEBERGER. That is the point. Does not that pass over into other hands? Mr. HAWLEY. Oh, no; it is in its hands now. Mr. WILSON. I understand that with the expenditure of $74,000 there would be an annual maintenance thereafter of $20,000. Why is that? Mr. HAWLEY. That is something that the engineers can tell better than I. If I were to offer a layman's opinion, the reports say that these shoals have not changed since the original report was submitted, about eight years ago, that they remained practically the same. The north shoal has changed in this, that it has extended and driven the channel over near the piling. They say the shoals have practically remained unchanged. If that is so, when the shoals are deepened to 12 feet there will be a little tendency to fill in, but it will not be probably as expensive as here estimated." The CHAIRMAN. We will ask General Beach about that. The CHAIRMAN. But one question to you before you stop. Do you attempt to control, on account of the effect of the wind you have described, the order of the cutting of the timber; that is, from the outside in, and not cut in isolated places? Mr. HAWLEY. The Oregon-California lands were the odd numbered sections, and the even numbered sections belonged either to the Forest Service or private owners, or were given to the State as school lands. Now, in order to prevent this waste by the action of the winds, Congress passed a law not long ago to authorize the exchange of timber between private owners and the Government, so that private owners can block up a solid block of land on which to operate. Of course that greatly diminishes the cost of the operation when the Government gets its land blocked up, then when it offers a tract for sale it can offer it to better advantage, because, being all in a block, a railroad will get twice as much timber for its length than if the lumbering operations could be conducted only on every other section. Mr. LINEBERGER. It is a regular checkerboard? Mr. HAWLEY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. The question in the minds of several members seems to be that the maintenance cost here is very high in proportion to the cost of making the improvements. Is there any hope that that maintenance cost may be less in the future? " General BEACH. I understand that the maintenance cost is, of course, a conjecture at this time, until we have had some experience. The material which forms the bars is different in the three. In the lower one it is almost exclusively sand, in the middle one it is sand and mud, while the upper one is mud only, showing that the material which forms the upper bars is brought down by the river and probably on the lower bars is what is blown in by the winds, and I do not know of any way that you can prevent their forming unless you could keep the flow of water sufficiently rapid to carry them all out to sea. So probably the only way of handling the matter, certainly the most economical way for the present, is to keep on dredging, and we have not had any experience in that particular locality showing the rapidity with which those bars form, and the $20,000 asked is simply the best guess which the district engineer can make, and we had no data to enable us to change the figures. The CHAIRMAN. Either to verify or refute? General BEACH. Correct. Mr. MANSFIELD. There is a possibility, then, that the cost may actually be much less than the estimate? General BEACH. There is such a possibility, because the orders that they shall always estimate on the safe side. Mr. MANSFIELD. It is not reasonable to suppose that it will be more than that? General BEACH. No. Mr. LINEBERGER. That means that probably every four years you practically have to spend the original price of the project, or, say, every five years, making $100,000 in five years. How does that compare, as an average, with your maintenance charges on similar projects of this kind? Is it exorbitant or unusual, or is it about what it is on other projects with similar commerce and with similar conditions? General BEACH. They vary within all limits. Mr. LINEBERGER. I mean, is this the highest thing you have got? General BEACH. No; I think Philadelphia is higher. Mr. LINEBERGER. And how much would that run? This runs about 20 per cent; the maintenance. General BEACH. With Philadelphia it has been running 50 per cent. Mr. LINEBERGER. This is not exorbitant, then, compared to other projects? General BEACH. No. I would like to call attention to one fact, and that is that the original cost is very low. The very fact that the original cost is so low is what makes the maintenance price seem high. Mr. LINEBERGER. I understand that; but I wanted to understand it so we could defend it if the question comes up before the appropriations committee, for instance. The CHAIRMAN. You think the cost is not only low in dollars and cents, but in saying it is low you mean the cost of the improvement is very low in proportion to the benefits to be derived from making the improvement? General BEACH. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And that the cost of maintenance would not be high compared to the benefits to be derived from the improvement? General BEACH. You can easily see that the price which will be added to the timber would pay for the improvement several times over. The CHAIRMAN. You mean the Government-owned timber? Mr. LINEBERGER. The primary cost is so low that it makes the maintenance cost seem rather high? General BEACH. Yes. Mr. LINEBERGER. But when you take into consideration the benefits to be obtained, the cost is insignificant? General BEACH. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Hawley, about what would be the output of the existing mills or those that are being built on the bank of the streams? Mr. HAWLEY. The present mill has 40,000 feet capacity, with a day of eight hours. It is proposed to double its capacity. Another mill, with a capacity of 100,000 feet, is to be built, and the mill at Florence was cutting about 150,000 feet a day. If that mill resumes operations, that would add up about 350,000 feet a day. The CHAIRMAN. And that would be how much a year? Mr. HAWLEY. That would be over 100,000,000 feet per year. General BEACH. One hundred and nine million five hundred and fifty thousand. Mr. MORGAN. And at a dollar a thousand that would mean $109,000. General BEACH. Which you would get the benefit of. Mr. HAWLEY. If I might speak a word on the question of the maintenance, the report repeats and there are various officers reporting on it that repeat the same thing that the conditions have not changed in a number of years; that is, that there is, say, an 8-foot channel above the bar, and a 10-foot channel above Florence, and a 54-foot shoal, about that, just below Acme. That shows that even under present conditions the silt is being kept down to that particular point, and if when the north shoal is dredged, which is the worst, and a wing dam is constructed that would turn that water down the north side of the river and deposit the silt outside of the channel that will greatly relieve the situation on the north shoal. The CHAIRMAN. Does this contemplated improvement provide for the construction of such a wing dam? Mr. HAWLEY. Well, when we were discussing it before the Board of Engineers the question was raised and was asked if it would be proper to use that money, which is appropriated for the creation of the channel, and they found it would be. That would be to protect the channel. The CHAIRMAN. What is the estimated cost of that wing dam? Mr. HAWLEY, A very small amount. The CHAIRMAN. If it would cost $1,000 and would do the work, it would be 100 per cent a year. Mr. HAWLEY. They would drive a few hundred feet of piling along the slough and board it up. General BEACH. The recommendation does not provide any proper method of securing the channel depth, it does not say by dredging alone, and I believe it would be possible to use the most effective and the most economical methods. The CHAIRMAN. One other question. This $20,000 maintenance covers all three of the shoals? Mr. HAWLEY. The $20,000 covers the entire river, from Acme to the entrance. The CHAIRMAN. Did you so understand it, General? General BEACH. Yes. (Thereupon, at 12 o'clock, the committee adjourned.) COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS, The committee this day met, Hon. S. Wallace Dempsey (chairman) presiding. MISSISSIPPI RIVER AT FORT MADISON, IOWA, AND NAUVOO, ILL. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kopp desires to be heard in reference to a project in his district. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM F. KOPP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. KOPP. Mr. Chairman, the matter I desire to call to your attention is the project at Fort Madison, Iowa. General BEACH. I would like to make a suggestion to the committee, if I might, which is that you take up the case of Nauvoo, Ill., at the same time, because the two are identical, and any remarks made with regard to one will apply to the other. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to do that. Mr. KOPP. That will be perfectly satisfactory to me. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, this project in behalf of which I appear this morning was really initiated by my predecessor, Hon. C. A. Kennedy, who was a member of this committee for a great many years and during the Sixty-seventh Congress the chairman of the committee. As has been stated by General Beach, the project for Nauvoo, Ill., in which Mr. Graham of Illinois, is interested, is based upon the same facts on which the Fort Madison project is based. I might say a preliminary examination has been made and it has been approved by the Board of Engineers and by the Chief of Engin eers. This matter arises in this way: I presume the members of the committee are familiar with the dam known as the Keokuk Dam, constructed across the Mississippi River at a place called Keokuk. The effect of that dam was to make a lake north of the dam for about 50 miles, and Fort Madison is about 21 miles north of the dam. Formerly, the harbor at Fort Madison was kept in good shape without any expense whatever after it was constructed. The river was low usually and, comparatively speaking, there was no trouble of any kind, but this high water which this lake has made in the harbor has made it a dangerous place for navigation. The waves reach a considerable height, and small craft on the river are in very great danger. |