Page images

Colonel MOORE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. LARCADE. And the ratio of immediate benefit at completion will be on a benefit-cost ratio of 1.35 and thereafter 2.36 within a period of 10 years upon completion of the Clark Hill Reservoir?

Colonel MOORE. That is correct, sir.
Mr. LARCADE. Are there any questions?

Mr. DONDERO. Colonel Moore, suppose you divorce the navigation part from the Clark Hill Reservoir, could you still justify the project ?

Colonel MOORE. The benefits credited to the improvement recommended here, Mr. Dondero, are classified in two ways: first as to the commodities which could use the 7-foot channel. I should say

first that after Clark Hill is built, there will then be available 7-foot controlling depth in the channel, and certain traffic will move on that 7-foot channel.

Mr. LANHẢM. Do you mean without this improvemment, there will be a 7-foot channel at Clark Hill?

Colonel MOORE. That is correct.
Mr. LANHAM. It will be 9 foot after the improvement, wouldn't it?
Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.
Mr. DONDERO. This proposal is to increase it to 9 feet.

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir. Certain traffic will move over that 7-foot channel when it is available. The savings credited to this project for that traffic are only the savings which would accrue through the use of a 9-foot channel rather than a 7-foot channel.

Mr. DONDERO. Let's base it on the 9 feet. Divorce it entirely from Clark Hill power. Could you justify this project as a navigation project?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DONDERO. And your benefit-cost ratio is 1.35, without paying any attention to Clark Hill?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DONDERO. Now, it is the contention of the Army engineers that after Clark Hill is completed, that will increase it to 2.63?

Colonel MOORE. It will be 1.35, sir, after Clark Hill is completed. Both depend upon Clark Hill, low-flow regulation from Clark Hill.

Mr. DONDERO. And you are taking into consideration at least what ‘your estimate is in the next 10 years of increased industry and use of the river in connection with Clark Hill?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DONDERO. Have the engineers ever made a mistake in potential estimates about what might be in the future?

Colonel MOORE. I am afraid I shall have to say yes, sir. However, I think that we have been too conservative far more often than we have been wrong the other way.

Mr. DONDERO. I certainly don't want to interpose any objection to the navigation end of it whatever. There has been some violent difference of opinion on the other phase of it.

Mr. PICKETT. May I see if I understand you correctly, Colonel. Excluding from consideration the change in situation, upon the completion of Clark Hill, is this proposed new project here, which is an enlargement over the existing project, justified economically without regard to Clark Hill?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.
Mr. PICKETT. And the cost-benefit ratio is what?

Colonel MOORE. It is 1.35 for early realization, 2.63 10 years or some such period from now.

Mr. PICKETT. And that is without regard to the development at Clark Hill?

Mr. DONDERO. 1.35 is without Clark Hill, 2.63 is with it.

Mr. PICKETT. I understand the 1.35. We are just making an estimate now on future development without Clark Hill, too, if you can do that, Colonel. What will be the continuing cost-benefit ratio? Will it continue at the same rate? Will it increase or decrease without Clark Hill, according to your evaluation?

Colonel MOORE. Perhaps I had better restate that entire proposition. Clark Hill is still under construction. There is now a 6-foot depth available only 54 percent of the time. When Clark Hill is finished, there will be a 7-foot depth available all the time. This recommendation is to improve the channel, so that after Clark Hill is finished, there will then be 9 feet available all the time. In analyzing the project economically, the benefits credited to the project are only those derived from the increase in depth from 7 to 9 feet.

Mr. PICKETT. Now, then, the Hartwell project is mentioned in conjunction with this proposal also, Colonel. What and where is the Hartwell project?

Colonel MOORE. It is about 60 miles upstream of Clark Hill.

Mr. PICKETT. Now the Clark Hill and Hartwell projects are multipurpose dams; is that correct?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. That would include flood control, power, soil conservation, erosion, and whatnot; is that right?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. Then is each of these two projects complimentary of the other or is one of them essential to the construction of the other?

Colonel MOORE. They are units in the comprehensive plan, Mr. Pickett.

Mr. PICKETT. Do you know offhand when Clark Hill expects to be completed, in the ordinary course of developments ?

Colonel MOORE. In 1952; however, dependent on future appropriations by Congress!

Mr. PICKETT. What is the present status of the Hartwell project? Colonel MOORE. There has been no work done.

Mr. PICKETT. Can you tell whether there has been any construction commenced on the Hartwell project?

Mr. Brown. It hasn't been authorized yet.

Mr. PICKETT. Then, since the Hartwell project has not been authorized, you have given no consideration in your benefit-to-cost ratio in making that evaluation of the economic soundness of this project to a completed Hartwell project; is that correct?

Colonel MOORE. That is correct.
Mr. PICKETT. How much has the existing project cost, Colonel ?
Colonel MOORE. $2,751,799.

Mr. PICKETT. And maintenance on it to date has been one-millionsix-hundred-thousand-odd dollars; is that correct?

Colonel MOORE. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Pickett. How long has the existing channel been available to use?

Colonel MOORE. Since 1890.

Mr. PICKETT. Have there been enlargements on it since the original construction or has it been a 6-foot channel and 75 feet in width throughout those years?

Colonel MOORE. "The existing project originally provided for a 5-foot channel.

Mr. PICKETT. Has there been an enlargement prior to 1930 ?

Colonel MOORE. There must have been. The existing 6-foot project was authorized in 1930. The original improvements go back to 1836. So that there were improvements of some kind prior to 1930, when the 6-foot project was authorized.

Mr.PICKETT. Then does your cost of maintenance go back to 1836 or does it go back to 1890 ?

Colonel MOORE. That goes back only to 1890.
Mr. PICKETT. And that is a matter of approximately 60 years.
Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. Then the maintenance cost per annum over the period of years has not been great in keeping with the size of the project, has it?

Colonel MOORE. No, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. Has it been average or less than average for projects of that character?

Colonel MOORE. I should say less than average.

Mr. PICKETT. Under your increased cost of maintenance, if the proposed project is authorized and constructed, I believe there will be $236,900 annually in addition to the amount now authorized; is that right? Colonel MOORE. That is true.

Mr. PICKETT. Then what is the annual maintenance charge now authorized and expended ?

Colonel MOORE. $50,000, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. Making it a total of $286,900 for maintenance after this project is completed; is that right?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. You will then have a project at a total cost of over $5,000,000, nearly $6,000,000; is that right?

Colonel 'MOORE. You mean including all past expenditures?

Mr. KETT. I am talking about construction; yes, sir. Your present cost of construction for new work, together with the proposed authorization here, will total nearly $6,000,000 when completed.

Colonel MOORE. That is true.

Mr. PICKETT. And your maintenance charges of $286,900, on a project of that size, will that be average, less than average, or higher than average for maintenance ?

Colonel MOORE. Not above average, I should say, Mr. Pickett. That covers 200 river-miles.

Mr. PICKETT. And the largest part of your maintenance there, I take it, is the dredging operation to maintain the authorized depth and width; is that correct?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. Do you have any other difficulties that you can anticipate in a maintenance in ordinary circumstances except dredging?

Colonel MOORE. No, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. About how frequently would the channel have to be dredged in order to maintain the authorized depth under this proposed project? Colonel MOORE. Probably every year.

Mr. PICKETT. Based on your present project, which is a 6-foot depth and 75 feet wide, approximately how often would you have to dredge the channel to maintain that?

Colonel MOORE. Annually, during the past 5-year period.

Mr. PICKETT. Now, I understand from your report and recommendations here that assuming Clark Hill to be constructed and put in operation in accordance with the authorized plan and this project is completed and put into operation in keeping with the authorized plan, you will have a cost-benefit ratio at construction of about 2.35.

Colonel MOORE. Of 1.35 in the year and 2.63 some 10 years from construction.

Mr. PICKETT. In making those evaluations, Colonel, you are taking into account some speculative benefits as a result of the development in that basin, are you not?

Colonel MOORE. That is correct.

Mr. PICKETT. You, as a general rule, in the Corps of Engineers do not take into account speculative benefits for the basic justification of a project, do you?

Colonel MOORE. The word “speculative” has an unfavorable connotation.

Mr. PICKETT. I understand it does. That is the reason I asked it that way, Colonel, so that we can get a satisfactory explanation, if there is one, that will obviate criticism because of the use of that word “speculative” from some who might not be familiar with the project. May I say and I don't intend to put words in your month, if you know a better word to use than “speculative,” sir, you use it and I will stand corrected.

Colonel MOORE. Where we can recommend a project on the basis of savings which will immediately become available because of the improvement, we are happy to do so, but we do not hesitate where sound investigation and reasoning indicate that growth is reasonably assured, and that further benefits will accrue because of such growth, to so report.

Mr. LANHAM. I would like to clarify his statement that the costbenefit ratio was based on some speculative benefits. Do you mean the 1.35 is based on any speculative benefits? I understand that was based on positive benefits, present benefits.

Colonel MOORE. That is correct.

Mr. LANHAM. There is nothing speculative or problematical in that at all.

Colonel MOORE. We believe not.

Mr. LANHAM. When you said it was based on speculative benefits, you were referring to the 2.63,

were you

not? Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. If the gentleman had held his question, I would have clarified it myself, because that is what I was trying to get at. I understand that you recommend this project because of the positive benefits upon the evaluation of your proposed project and not upon any speculation at all; is that right?

Colonel MOORE. That is it. The benefits included in the 1.35 ratio, which we think will be immediately available, are due to the movement of commodities which we feel sure will move immediately.

Mr. PICKETT. Upon the assumption, Colonel, and may I say that the assumption is made in the face of and despite the record, but upon the assumption that the positive benefits that you have deemed to accrue would not have reached the 1.35 point but would have been, we'll say, one to one and still your speculative benefits of 2.63 would have been indicated as a result of the group of projects being completed. Would the Board have recommended this project ?

Colonel MOORE. I feel sure it would.
Mr. PICKETT. It would ?
Colonel MOORE. Yes.

Mr. PICKETT. Now if the positive benefits under your evaluation, which now reaches 1.35, had been, we'll say, 1 to 1.9, and speculative benefits to 2.63, would you recommend it?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. How far down the line would the benefits have to go before the immediate benefits are in view ?

Colonel MOORE. It depends upon the confidence that you have in your predictions for the future growth of the territory.

Mr. PICKETT. When you made your report of 2.63 for future growth and development, you had been pretty confident that they were accurate, hadn't you?

Colonel MOORE. That is correct, sir.
Mr. PICKETT. I believe that is all, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LARCADE. At this point, with the permission of the committee, I would suggest, if Colonel Moore so desires, that he be permitted to file further statements in answer to questions propounded by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pickett.

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. DONDERO. There is just one thing I omitted, Colonel Moore. When do you expect Clark Hill will be completed, because the 10-year period is dependent upon that in the report?

Colonel MOORE. I think probably in 2 or 3 years, possibly earlier, depending on appropriations.

Mr. DONDERO. So that this matter might be projected 13 years into the future.

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir; but the exact date of the beginning of that period need not be set, because it is contingent on the development of Clark Hill and the availability of the power that will be produced there.

Mr. ANGELL. Colonel Moore, what portion of Clark Hill has been completed to date?

Colonel MOORE. Clark Hill is about 20 percent complete.
Mr. ANGELL. Has the Hartwell Reservoir been commenced ?
Colonel MOORE. No, sir; that is not authorized yet.

Mr. LANHAM. Might I suggest that Congressman Brown can probably tell us what percentage of the work has actually been completed.

Nr. BROWN. About 25 percent.

Mr. LARCADE. I might call to the attention of the committee in connection with the interrogation by the distinguished gentleman from Texas that the total cost of this project is estimated at $3,137,000 and

« PreviousContinue »