Page images
PDF
EPUB

east of Baum canal, in Swindell canal north of the road near the lake, and in Florida canal north of the road near the lake; third, the construction of dams with 30-inch automatic flood gates in Burris and Baum canals north of the road near the lake; fourth, leaving in place and strengthening where necessary canal blocks in Mill ditch north of Boundary canal, in Boundary canal west of Swindell canal, and in Swindell canal north of Boundary canal; fifth, the replacement of existing dams or canal blocks with culverts in Boundary canal at Fairfield canal, in Sadie Mcut near Burris canal, in Bowen ditch, and others as needed; sixth, the removal of existing dams or canal blocks in Boundary canal west of Carter canal and in Burris and Baum canals south of Boundary canal; and seventh, the enlargement of Boundary canal between Florida canal and Carter canal and the cleaning of other canals and ditches in the area as needed.

The pumping plant would consist of three units, with rated capacity of 22,000 gallons a minute each, housed in a suitable structure. It would be capable of removing 0.28 inch of water from the 12,400 acres every 24 hours at full capacity under a total head of 5 feet..

The district engineer concludes that the improvement is economically justified and he recommends it subject to certain conditions of local cooperation.

The division engineer concurs in the recommendations of the district engineer subject to two additional conditions of local cooperation.

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is of the opinion that participation by the United States in a project of the character proposed should be limited to providing the dam, pumping plant, and appurtenant works in Fairfield canal, the rehabilitation of Boundary canal between the east and west extremities of the proposed project including a dam east of Baum canal, a dam in Carter canal north of Boundary canal, and the dams with automatic flood gates across four canals near the lake; and local interests, in addition to furnishing the lands and rights-of-way, should perform all work inside the project, including cleaning and clearing canals and ditches necessary for efficient functioning.

Accordingly, the Board recommends modification of the existing project for the inland waterway from Norfolk, Va., to Beaufort Inlet, N. Č., in the vicinity of Fairfield, N. C., generally in accordance with the plans of the district engineer and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable.

In accordance with law, copies of the Chief of Engineers' proposed report were furnished to the Governor of North Carolina and to the Department of the Interior for comment.

The Governor in his letter stated :

I am very anxious to see the proposed work undertaken and completed. confident that the proposed improvement will be in the public interest and serve a highly useful public convenience.

The Department of Interior in conclusion to their comments stated : In general, the plan of improvement as stated in your proposed report meets with the concurrence of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

In accordance with section 4 of Executive Order No. 9384, the report was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for information as to the relationship of the proposed report to the program of the President

I am

The Bureau of the Budget advised that there would be no objection to the submission of the report to Congress.

The Chief of Engineers in his report states: After due consideration of these reports, I concur in the views and recommendation of the Board. Under existing law the Corps of Engineers is without the necessary authority to undertake the construction of works for the purpose of eliminating intrusion and providing adequate drainage in the vicinity of Fairfield. The measures recommended herein to be undertaken by the United States are in general similar to those heretofore recommended and authorized for the control of salt-water intrusion along other sections of the Intracoastal Waterway system and in accord with the policy of Congress with respect to Federal participation in the improvement of drainage for agricultural and other lands.

The improvement is recommended provided that local interests give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will, first, provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction, maintenance, and operation of the project; second, hold and save the United States free from damage due to the construction works, and from all past damage in the area herein under consideration, which may have been caused by salt-water intrusion as a result of construction of the land cut of the inland waterway; third, obtain and hold rights-of-way to present canals involved in the improvement including the extinguishment of all pres. ent claims of right, title, and interest to any of the canals; fourth, construct all necessary bridges and culverts for roads, and construct, enlarge, and clean all canals and ditches necessary for the efficient operation of the project; and, fifth, maintain and operate the works after completion.

The cost to United States for construction is estimated in the report at $112,400. The cost to local interests is estimated at $14.890. The total cost is $127.290.

The Federal and non-Federal annual carrying charges are estimated at $4,400 and $7,900, respectively, a total of $12.300.

From information developed by the Board in cooperation with the district engineer, the indications are that flooding in the area affects 5,300 acres of marginal land, of which 2,500 acres were cultivated in 1946 and 2,800 acres have been abandoned. The intrusion of salt water from the inland waterway also adversely affects the 2,800 acres of abandoned land. The average annual damage, based on current price levels, is estimated at $18,575, of which $30,575 is due to inadequate drainage of 2,500 acres that were in cultivation in 1946; and $12.000 is due to inadequate drainage, and $6,000 is due to saltwater intrusion of 2.800 acres of abandoned land. The total damage due to salt-water intrusion from 1932 to 1947, inclusive, based on average prices, during that period, is estimated at $64,000.

The improvement would provide effective drainage, eliminating salt-water intrusion, and producing total average annual benefits estimated at $44,575, of which $30,575 is from the drainage of 2,500 acres that were in cultivation in 1946, and $8,000 is from improved drainage, and $6,000 is from elimination of salt-water intrusion on 2,800 acres of abandoned land. The indicated benefit-cost ratio is 3.62, and the Board therefore concludes that the improvement is economically justified.

The intrusion of salt water in the area is the result of the construction of the land cut of the inland waterway by the United States. An annual expenditure by the United States of $4,400 to eliminate an average annual salt-water damage of $6,000 caused by the United States is warranted. The Board therefore concludes that participation in construction of the improvement by the United States to the extent outlined in paragraph 10 is justified.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is the conection of the lake with the inland waterway? Will you describe it from your map there?

Colonel Moore. The land here is higher than the normal stages of the lake and the normal stages of the inland waterway, but at certain stages salt water intrudes through these channels from the inland waterway, the salt entering from the salt-water sound, and at other times, at high stages of Mattamuskeet Lake, the water enters the southern portion of this area, and then when the lake falls these canals drain into the lake.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Is that a lake there [indicating]?
Colonel MOORE. The blue area is Mattamuskeet Lake.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Now, where is the inland waterway located with respect to that lake?

Colonel MOORE. This yellow line represents the inland waterway. It does not connect with the lake.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I am at a loss to understand where is your farm land. You put your hand up above there.

Colonel MOORE. This sindicating] is farm land, and this yellow line is the inland waterway.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Now, your proposal is what?

Colonel MOORE. The inland waterway runs from Alligator River, which is an arm of Pamlico Sound, to the Pungo River, which is likewise an arm of Pamlico Sound, and it is salt.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is your proposal now? Where is the dam you are going to construct?

Colonel MOORE. In this area (indicating]. This agricultural area, which is very rich, is intersected by several canals,

Mr. WHITTINGTON. You told us that. Where are you constructing the dam to protect that?

Colonel MOORE. The plan of improvement necessary to correct the condition consists of a dam and pumping plant at this point [inideating] with Hap gætes in the dam and other dams with flap gates at various points which I will not describe in detail.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. How many dams all together? About how many?

Colonel MOORE. Sixteen. They are very small. These ditches are not large.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. How many pumping plants?
Colonel MOORE. One.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. Will these gates be movable?

Colonel MOORE. The dams will have flap gates in them so that at certain stages they will prevent the water from the inland waterway to enter the canals. At lower stages they will permit water to flow from the area into the Intracoastal Waterway.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Were those canals constructed for the purpose of draining the farm lands into the lake or into the waterways?

Colonel MOORE. They were constructed before the inland waterway was cut. Their purpose was to drain this land into Mattamuskeet Lake or into Alligator River.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Which was utilized by the inland waterway.

Colonel MOORE. Then the United States made this land cut for the Intracoastal Waterway which introduced salt water at these points.. A large amount of that land has gave out of production for 2 reasons.. First, salt-water intrusion, and second, subsidence of land through cultivation. The soil is mucky in character, and such soil, as you probably know, subsides under cultivation. The combination of these two effects has reduced the production of a large proportion of the area and another large part has gone out of production entirely.

The cost to United States for construction is estimated at $112,400. The cost to local interests is estimated at $14,890.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. What is the ratio of benefits to costs?
Colonel MOORE. The ratio of cost-benefits is 3.62.
Mr. WHITTINGTON. It is a high ratio; is it not!
Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Is there a favorable recommendation by the Director of the Budget?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

I should state that the recommendation is that the United States participate in the entire plan only to the extent of providing the dam and pertinent works in Fairfield canal and the other dams I menüioned, while the clearing of the canal and ditches and their improve-ment is left to local interests as a local problem.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Colonel Gillette, can you add anything to the statement made by the Corps of Engineers, and do you recommend concurrence in the construction of this project?

Colonel GILLETTE. Yes, sir; I am quite familiar with that, Mr. Chairman-that area in there--and I might say it has affected the economy of the eastern part of North Carolina, this intrusion of salt water into that very fertile soil, which grows largely soybeans.

That comes about in this way, to amplify just a bit on what Colonel Moore has just said there: During heavy rains, when the lake is filled. up, the intruson of water in there and out on the farm lands is very natural, of course, and the lake at times is even below sea level.

The water drains from the farm lands over into the inland waterway-these canals in there. So that it drains off in there, but when we have a reverse on that, when we have high water due to storm tides. in there, when the storm tides increase the height of the water, the inland waterway, then you get that in reverse.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I think we understand that from the chart.. What do you want to add to that?

Colonel GILLETTE. That salt water, as a result of cutting the inland waterway there, and bringing in this salt water through Pamlico Sound and the ocean has practically eliminated that whole area in there, and the farming, and has affected the economy of it. This is something that was done as a result of the inland waterway, and it is of great importance to that entire county and the eastern part of the State.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. The next project we have under consideration is the Far Creek project reported in the House Document No. 770, Eightieth Congress. Do you support that project ?

Colonel GILLETTE. The only thing on that is that at present it is another one of those 7-foot projects with boats that have larger draft and want to use the place and are unable to use it. We are hoping

some day—this is one of their few remaining—all those waterways will conform to the depth of the inland waterways, 12-foot depth, so that the same draft of boats can use all of those waterways and serve the areas in the same way as do the inland waterways.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Third, and last, Representative Carlyle is interested in the Cape Fear River project. What do you have to say about that and what is your recommendation!

Colonel GILLETTE. The Cape Fear River-that is to be the location of one of the State's principal deep-sea ports. As Congressman Barden has just mentioned, the State has made available $7,500,000 for developing the deep-sea ports; $5,000,000 of that is to go into facilities for Wilmington, the other $2,500,000 for the Morehead City project.

Now, at present, the deep-draft boats have to lighten their loads before coming into Wilmington, and the draft of the boats is on the increase. Therefore, they have to wait on the tide and to lighten their load before they come to Wilmington. It upsets the economy of the situation there and of course that is the justification for it.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. There would be no increase in the cost of maintenance at present!

Colonel GILLETTE. Practically the same, sir.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Is there any further statement you desire to submit with respect to that project ?

Colonel GILLETTE. That is the principal one. STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT C. BONNER, MEMBER OF CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Bonner, would you like to make a statement, sir?

Mr. BONNER. I most assuredly do with respect to this project over here. I realize the situation that exists.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Will you insert your statement at this point in the record ?

Mr. BONNER. Could I come back when you sit again?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes, sir; we will arrange for you to do that, maybe not at the next meeting, but sometime that you would like.

Mr. BONNER. This project here, all this farm land, is old. That was before the Civil War. There were great plantations through here. All this land running through Alligator River, this part of it has no drainage here whatsoever. The Albemarle Sound is a fresh-water sound. This land drained this way. Pamlico Sound is a salt-water sound and when this canal was dug here, the prevailing winds are from the southeast and it backed the salt water up into this part of the inland waterway and these drain canals. This was a transportation canal built by private interests out into Alligator River carrying the freight from these plantations to Norfolk and Portsmouth. This salt water came in here, backed up into the Carter Canal and got into the lateral ditches of the canal and just simply ruined this farm land. There are people in that area who for years have contemplated leveling suit against the Government for this damage. I have been down there twice myself and spoken in the community imploring them not to go into that phase of the proposition, but to wait and let the Federal Government correct the menace that they have brought to the com

« PreviousContinue »