ther consideration of Congress, and they even considered eliminating all appropriation for the project pending decision on this matter. In order to carry on as much work in 1948 for the benefit of the project as we could, we felt that we needed this additional money, which is the minimum restoration absolutely essential to avoid excessive costs. CHANGE IN POSITION OF POWER INTERESTS Senator RUSSELL. Yes, General, but the thing that disturbs me about it is that you are apparently giving consideration to reducing this item so much more than others below the budget, now, private power interests, after having urged the Government to build the dam, and after having appeared and testified, and after having offered to cooperate with the Government in building the dam, have now changed their minds and want to build it. The Federal Power Commission have denied their application for a license; the House has made an appropriation that is all out of proportion to the reduction made in other items due to the facts of this fight. For the life of me, I cannot see why that should influence the Corps of Engineers in requesting a reduction here when there has been no declaration by anybody of Congress, other than by isolated individual members, that would take this project away from the Government and the people and turn it over to private power interests. General WHEELER. I can assure you that we were not influenced by any private interests on the matter, Senator Russell. It was entirely due to what we interpreted as the attitude of the House Appropriations Committee, and to our judgment as to the minimum restoration which would permit continuation on a reasonably economical basis. Senator RUSSELL. The attitude of the House Appropriations Committee has then influenced you in requesting restoration of this sum to the Senate committee? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. MERITS OF PROJECT Senator RUSSELL. How about the merits of this project? General WHEELER. We feel it is a meritorious project, we say it should be built. It returns great benefits to the entire community. It is true that the power benefits are a large percentage of the total benefits, some 92 percent; the balance of the benefits are for navigation and flood control. It is a project that has a good economic ratio, it was thoroughly considered in hearings by both the House and the Senate and authorized by an act of Congress after these hearings. We believe it is a project that should be carried to completion. PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS REQUESTED TO BE RESTORED Senator RUSSELL. What could you do with the modest amount of this restoration that you are requesting in view of the very drastic reduction made by the House? General WHEELER. May I ask Colonel Feringa to give you the details on that? 64164-47- -4 PLAN TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION ON THE DAM Colonel FERINGA. Senator Russell, the funds in the bill as passed by the House will be not quite enough to finish the contracts that General Wheeler stated are now under way, and unless some restoration is made we will not be able to go into the dam construction. The modest amount by which we are asking the Senate to increase the amount set up by the House for Clark Hill will enable us to initiate construction of the dam itself. We are limited, of course, by the over-all amount that the Bureau of the Budget set up. The House had added certain additional projects which had to be absorbed somewhere; that was absorbed by the omission of one flood-control project in its entirety, by the omission of another project in accordance with our recommendation, by the omission of 50 percent of the planning money, and by the omission of $2,725,000 from the Clark Hill project. The project, as General Wheeler has stated, is economically justified. It is necessary and vital for flood control and for navigation, and has incidental power benefits. Senator RUSSELL. Of course, now with this $1,800,000 what could you do on the main dam? Colonel FERINGA. We can start actual construction on the main dam, sir. There is a coffer dam now under construction which will be completed with the funds that we have in the bill, and we will be able to start some of the work on the dam, sir, although not nearly as much as we would like to. Senator RUSSELL. If the Senate, then, were to restore this budget estimate in proportion to other items that are as meritorious as this project, could the money be well spent in the completion of the project? Colonel FERINGA. Absolutely, sir. Senator RUSSELL. Do you think it would be justified? Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. Senator RUSSELL. All right. BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES Senator GURNEY. General Wheeler, I would like to have one overall statement from you. You give the estimated cost here of each of these projects, both flood control, and rivers and harbors. On what basis of cost are these estimates made? Are they 1946 or 1947 estimates? General WHEELER. September of 1946. Senator GURNEY. September of 1946? General WHEELER. Yes, sir; that is when we prepared the estimates that are now before you, and they are on that basis. To reflect present costs the estimates would have to be increased by the percentage by which construction costs have increased since that time. Senator GURNEY. That is the estimated cost of the increased costs since these figures were made up, percentagewise? General WHEELER. I have the curve here, Senator. This shows the construction costs index curve, including labor and materials. The ordinates are the units of construction costs based, in January 1945, on 300. Senator GURNEY. Three hundred what? General WHEELER. Just units, based upon a level of 100 in 1913. Senator GURNEY. All right. ESTIMATED COST INCREASE SINCE BUDGET WAS PREPARED General WHEELER. The increase from the time we prepared the estimates in these papers to July 1947 is an increase of 46 points, which would be an increase of about 12 percent. Senator GURNEY. Twelve percent higher than the costs figures here? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. In other words, it would take 12 percent more money to do the same work. General WHEELER. Yes, sir. When we prepared the estimates in September 1946, we hoped that the curve might be leveling off, because it was paralleling pretty well the experience on, construction costs after World War I, both in length of time and in amount. However, it did not stay leveled off very long; it started going up. Senator GURNEY. In September the unit chart there shows the cost of 360–361.37; and in July, 406.52; breaking that down, it figures about 12 percent, you feel? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. All right. Senator Knowland. Senator KNOWLAND. That was the question I wanted to clear up. But I wondered if the general had any break-down as between labor costs and material costs. General WHEELER. The Engineering News Record, which prepares the index for the entire engineering and construction profession, does have that in great detail. All construction people and engineers accept the curve that they prepare, which is based on a detailed breakdown. I do not have the detailed break-down here. CHARTS ON CONSTRUCTION COSTS Senator GURNEY. General Wheeler, if you can, I believe that chart should appear in the record at this point, if you can furnish it. General WHEELER. All right, sir. Senator GURNEY. All right. General WHEELER. This second chart is for the purpose of comparing recent construction costs with the situation following World War I, when there was a great rise about 1920 and the chart was started at a base figure of 100 representing costs in 1913. Senator GURNEY. Probably both charts would be helpful if you would furnish them for the record. (The chart referred to follows:) |