SIZE OF LOCK General CHORPENING. At the time the original survey was made in the field, it was recommended; and, at the time of authorization, we were considering the construction of a lock, 500 feet by 56 feet. Since that time we have given a lot of consideration to the needs of shipping. At the present time our planning considers a much larger lock than that. Senator ELLENDER. That would be 84 by 1,200? General CHORPENING. That is the size we are now very seriously considering. NDER. Senator ELLENDER. The plans that you have been working on can be broadened so as to make the lock 84 by 1,200 without any loss of funds that you have already expended toward planning? General CHORPENING. That is correct. We are not to the point yet, Senator, where we could come in and say that we want construction funds to go ahead with the lock. Senator ELLENDER. You have decided that the new specification will be the one recommended? General CHORPENING. At this time, our conclusions have been that we needed the larger lock; but until the time we come in and specifically ask for construction funds, it would not be the final and firm decision of the corps that that was the size we really needed. Senator ELLENDER. Quite a lot of evidence has been submitted here recently to the corps in New Orleans and the Mississippi River Commission indicating the advisability of starting this because of the many industries that are contemplating locating there because of this lock being built larger and because of the prospects of its completion at an early date. General CHORPENING. As I say, we have very carefully considered the lock size. If we do feel this much larger lock is required than originally authorized, we want to be very certain, as you can appreciate, that we are completely sound in such recommendations because of the quite decided increase over what we originally proposed. Senator MCCLELLAN. I got in a little late this morning. I did not hear your testimony regarding the number of new starts in this budget. How many are new starts? General CHORPENING. There are 7 on navigation and 3 resumptions. Senator MCCLELLAN. How about on flood control? I would like to have them named, but let us get the total. General CHORPENING. There are 10 new starts on flood control. That includes three resumptions. Senator MCCLELLAN. Are you speaking about the same thing? General CHORPENING. About flood-control projects, sir. Senator MCCLELLAN. You spoke of navigation. The same number in navigation and the same number in flood control? General CHORPENING. That is correct, sir. TOTAL NEW STARTS Senator MCCLELLAN. So that would be 20 new starts in navigation and flood control? General CHORPENING. That is correct. Senator MCCLELLAN. With 6 of them resumptions and 14 absolutely new starts? General CHORPENING. That is correct. Senator MCCLELLAN. Name the completely new starts first and then the resumptions. General CHORPENING. I will name the navigation new starts. Warrior lock and dam in Alabama; Redwood City Harbor in California; Housatonic River in Connecticut; Portland Harbor in Maine; DuluthSuperior Harbor, Minn. and Wis.; Fairfield drainage, North Carolina; Green River locks and dams 1 and 2 in Kentucky. Those are the seven new starts in navigation. RESUMPTIONS The resumptions in navigation are Calumet Harbor and River in Illinois and Indiana: Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway in Texas; and Missouri River, Omaha to Sioux City. On flood control the new starts are Little Missouri River below Murfreesboro, Ark. Senator MCCLELLAN. What is the nature of that work? General CHORPENING. That is a general enlargement of the channel. Although carried as a new start, it is really a complimentary project to the Narrows Dam. It is needed in order to make the Narrows Dam fully effective for the purpose for which built. Senator MCCLELLAN. Will that provide drainage in the Ozan Creek vicinity? General CHORPENING. I do not think so. Senator MCCLELLAN. There is a project authorized for Ozan Creek. The next is Anacostia River, District of Columbia and Maryland, the Peace Cross project; Kawainui Swamp in Hawaii; Beardstown, Ill.; Coralville Reservoir in Iowa; and that is a resumption-Barbourville, Ky.; Adams, Mass., which is a resumption; Batavia, N. Y.; Johnsonburg, Pa.; Dillon Reservoir in Ohio, which is also a resumption and considerable funds have been previously expended there. TABLE ROCK RESERVOIR, ARK. Senator MCCLELLAN. When we get talking about resumptions, I get quite interested in Table Rock Reservoir on the Arkansas-Missouri line on the White River. There have been heretofore appropriated $5,151,000 for this project; is that correct? General CHORPENING. That is correct, of which $32 million has actually been appropriated for construction. Senator MCCLELLAN. How much of that has actually been expended for construction? General CHORPENING. Approximately $1.2 million. Senator MCCLELLAN. That is, actually expended so that you have there a fund of about $2.3 million unexpended? General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Senator MCCLELLAN. That is available for construction? General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. It will be recalled that in the fiscal year 1954 appropriation $1 million was appropriated but we were suspended from going ahead with construction until a report had been made. Senator MCCLELLAN. That request was for a report and a resurvey of power needs and the request for the report has been complied with? General CHORPENING. That is correct. It was submitted to the committees in December. Senator MCCLELLAN. What is necessary before you can start work on this project? General CHORPENING. Further action of the Congress, sir. Senator MCCLELLAN. You mean of the Congress or of the two Appropriation Committees? General CHORPENING. I believe it would be action of the two Appropriation Committees. Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, it will be necessary for you to get a go-ahead signal, so to speak, from the Appropriation Committees of both the Senate and the House before you could resume construction on Table Rock Dam? General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Senator MCCLELLAN. You are ready to resume upon getting that authority from the committees? General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Senator MCCLELLAN. You would have available about $2.3 million to spend if you got that signal without any additional appropriation? General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Senator MCCLELLAN. Did you request any additional funds for construction of Table Rock in your request to the budget? General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. We asked for $3 million over ceiling. Senator MCCLELLAN. You did not request anything withing ceiling? General CHORPENING. No, sir. We did not ask for any funds within ceiling on new projects or projects such as this one. Senator MCCLELLAN. You did request $3 million over ceiling. Can you economically proceed with the $2.3 million if that should be released, or would you need additional funds to carry on economically? General CHORPENING. To go ahead with that project, we need to let a large contract for the dam. It is a concrete dam. The proper procedure there is not to split that up in small contracts but to have 1 large contract. Now, with $2.3 million, sometime later in the fiscal year we could advertise and go ahead. However, with a contract that will probably run between $30 and $40 million, an amount as little as $2.3 million is not real good business. We should have more funds available in fiscal year 1955. Then we can proceed at an earlier time in the fiscal year to get the construction underway. Senator MCCLELLAN. What do you actually need to get that work going under an economic and satisfactory operation for the construction of the project? General CHORPENING. I would consider, if we were going to be given the green light to get that project built, we really should have the $3 million plus the $3 million we asked for over ceiling. Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, for the present and the next fiscal year for which we are making appropriations now, you should have the $2.3 million that is available, subject to release by the two committees of Congress, plus another $3 million that you requested of the budget in an overceiling request? General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Senator MCCLELLAN. That would enable you to expedite this project and get it well under way? General CHORPENING. Yes. Senator MCCLELLAN. Referring to the report that was required of you under the conferees' agreement in the Appropriation Act of last year-that request has been complied with and the Chief filed his report on the 16th of December 1953; is that correct? General CHORPENING. That is correct. Senator MCCLELLAN. That report was favorable? General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Senator MCCLELLAN. The report showed that the demands for power justify the construction of this project? General CHORPENING. That is correct. Senator MCCLELLAN. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator DwORSHAK (presiding). Go ahead with the next project, Calumet Harbor and River. CALUMET HARBOR AND RIVER, ILL. AND IND. Colonel DIXON. The estimated Federal cost of this project is $11,146,000, of which there has been appropriated to date $5,616,500. The Calumet Harbor and River project envisions certain breakwater work; dredging of an outer channel; widening of the channel. The request for $110,000 is for a specific item of that overall project, which amount, should complete the specific problem area. It involves the widening of the Calumet River in the vicinity of 100th Street in Chicago. It would eliminate delays to vessels loading at a major rail-to-water transfer dock. These vessels are now required to interrupt loading operations to permit passage of other ships. It is one-way traffic. Elimination of such delays would result in a reduction of loading costs. In connection with that project, there is a new terminal facility being built at considerable expense to the local people, in the order of $5 million. We would like to correct this specific problem area, so the terminal can be properly constructed on a new and improved alinement of the channel. Senator DwORSHAK. Was there any appropriation for this fiscal year? Colonel DIXON. No, sir. General CHORPENING. This is one of the resumptions we discussed. Colonel DIXON. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.52 to Î. Senator DwORSHAK. It is highly recommended by the engineers? Colonel DIXON. Yes, very highly, sir. It is very important, from our point of view, that it be done. The local contributions for lands and rights-of-way, amounting to $66,000, have been provided. Senator DWORSHAK. The next item. MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN MISSOURI RIVER AND MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. NOTE.-Unobligated and unexpended balances shown above are principally related to features of work other than for which funds were appropriated in fiscal year 1954. RECTIFICATION OF DAMAGES Colonel DIXON. The next item is the Mississippi River between the Missouri River and Minneapolis. We are talking about a specific phase of this project, and that is an appropriation request for $70,000, which I know is a familiar figure to the committee. $70,000 is an annual payment to levee boards and drainage districts-to pay for their increased pumping costs due to the canalization of the Mississippi River between Missouri and Minneapolis. The $70,000 will be used to pay off these additional pumping costs and to continue our studies to find out what the capitalized cost should be and what lump-sum payment should be made to the drainage districts and levee boards so that we do not have to continue this $70,000 annual request. Senator DwORSHAK. What is the status of the studies you are making for these lump-sum payments? Colonel DIXON. The study is essentially complete. A public notice has been issued pertaining to the capitalized cost and it is before the River and Harbor Board at the present time. It has not as yet been acted upon. We hope that by possibly 1956 we will be able to pay that amount off. Senator DwORSHAK. Is the Nutwood Drainage and Levee District in Illinois, that was provided for last year a similar situation? Colonel DIXON. That particular drainage district is not in the Mississippi River Basin but it has been taken care of. Senator DwORSHAK. It is part of the group, though? Colonel DIXON. No, sir, it was not involved in this overall plan, but the issue is closed. Local interests have been satisfied. |