Civil Functions, Department of the Army Appropriations, 1955, Hearings Before ... 83-2, on H.R. 8367

Minimizing maintenance by placing reliance on the range of tides to permit cargoes to be delivered where practicable;

No maintenance of harbors not extensively used by commercial navigation; and No maintenance of small harbors or channels used primarily by recreational craft.

In addition, the repair and rehabilitation of structures such as jetties, breakwaters, locks, and dams are deferred from year to year as long as it is considered possible to do so without unduly interfering with navigation or unduly increasing dredging maintenance costs. The risks accepted with respect to restrictive dredging criteria involve possible vessel damage and delay due to grounding or collision in restricted channels; delays and added costs to water carriers because of the necessity of waiting for tides; possible loss of life and property due to the inadequacy of harbors of refuge; and the deprivation of some communities of the economies inherent in cheaper water transportation. The risks involved in deferring structure and maintenance or repair is a combination of the foregoing as well as the possibility of complete replacement being required due to prolonging the deferral period beyond the point of economical repair. Because of the existence of these risks, we must continuously review and adjust maintenance allocations to projects throughout the year.

EXAMPLES OF CALCULATED RISKS DUE TO THE DEFERMENT OF MAINTENANCE WORK NECESSITATED BY LIMITED FUNDS AVAILABLE

1. Locks and dams on the Ohio River waterway system: Large backlog of rehabilitation work seriously jeopardizing the structural safety of existing navigation facilities.

Many deferred rehabilitation jobs and replacement of obsolete and deteriorated equipment necessary for safety and efficient movement of increasing traffic and safety of operating personnel.

Examples of jobs being deferred in fiscal year 1955: Monongehala River, repair valves and sills of locks 3 and 5, $100,000; Ohio River, repair wickets dam 11, $60,000; Ohio River, remodel filling and emptying system lock 41, $185,000. 2. St. Marys River, Mich. : Dredging and obstruction removal, $120,000. Rock bottom of the channel close to project depth. In deferring this work vessels may have to load to lesser drafts and strikings and groundings may

occur.

3. Dredging: Example, Cross Rip Shoals, Mass., where further shoaling has not become so critical as to hinder vessels, though shoal spots of 26 feet in the 30-foot channel exists. Work budgeted for in fiscal year 1954, but deferred and Rone scheduled in fiscal year 1955 budget on calculated-risk basis.

4. Repair breakwaters: Example, Two Harbors, Minn. November 1953 storm severely damaged deck plank of timber crib breakwater. Replacement should be undertaken to keep the structure closed to destructive wave action and major damage from future storms. Cost of work, $10,000. This is a major oreshipping port.

5. Pokegama Dam, Miss., headwater reservoir: Repair of apron of the dam, $100,000. Deferring this work could result in serious detriment to structure

and stability of the dam.

6. Curtailment of reservoir shoreline maintenance: By not performing an adequate amount of such work an accumulation of debris results, menacing navigation on the reservoirs, endangering lives, and interfering with operation of the projects for their primary purposes. Example, John H. Kerr Reservoir. 7. Mahoning Reservoir: Repair of trash boom, $4,000. Rehabilitation of this boom required to protect the outlet work.

8. Replacement of obsolete radio facilities: For example, present facilities at Muskingum Reservoir system are difficult to maintain in bad weather. Dependable radio communication is essential during flood conditions when telephone service could be interrupted, in order that the reservoir operators at the dams may receive operating orders from the central control station in the district.

9. Curtailment of conditions and operations studies at individual reservoir projects. This work involves stream gaging, rainfall and river reports, snow surveys, and collection of other data. Adequate studies and data of this nature are essential to the efficient and proper operation of reservoirs for the storage of destrucive floodwaters. Example, Blue Stone Reservoir, W. Va. Question. In your statement you discuss a review that you made of your program which permitted a reduction in fiscal year 1954 expenditures and ob

to final design studies are to be deferred until after authorization. Adequate treatment of project formulation assumptions is essential, however, and reports are to summarize basic data, particularly on economic justification with full supporting data to be organized and available for further reference.

Question. You state in your opening remarks that you have revised your realestate policy so as to acquire only the minimum land essential to the construction operation and maintenance of your project. Will you explain the broad general policy involved? Then when we consider the individual projects we can discuss the application of the new policy to these projects.

Answer. The joint real-estate acquisition policy, which is now applicable to lands being acquired for dam and reservoir projects of the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, is the culmination of several months of intensive study by the Departments of the Army and Interior. The policy provides for the acquisition of such lands and interests therein as are essential for the primary purposes for which the projects are authorized. In addition thereto, the policy also provides for acquisition of such lands as may be needed to provide for limited public use and reasonable access in accordance with applicable law. The policy has been approved by the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior.

The acquisition of lands for reservoir projects is governed basically by the primary purposes of flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydroelectric power and related uses for which the projects are authorized. In general, fee-simple title to lands will be acquired in in areas required for permanent structures; in areas permanently inundated; in areas so frequently inundated as to destroy their usefulness to the owner; and in areas required for operation and maintenance of the project. In addition, the policy allows acquisition of land in fee 300 feet horizontally from the edge of the conservation pools required for storing water for navigation, power, irrigation, and other conservation purposes; or where discretionary action is desirable, fee title may be acquired to those lands which are inundated by the 5-year flood frequency above those pools. Acquisition of interests in lands situated between the fee-taking line and the project design flood plus a reasonable freeboard, or spillway design flood, is limited generally to easements.

The policy as outlined above provides for a minimum of outright purchase of land and calls for maximum reliance upon securing the right to flood lands by purchases of easements. This will result in acquisition of considerable less land in fee than previously, and should reduce real-estate costs to the Federal Government.

The above policy will govern the determination as to acquisition of any tract on which title to the United States has not been vested or final judgment in condemnation has not been entered except for projects on which land acquisition has progressed to the point where application of the policy would be unreasonable or to the distinct disadvantage of the United States or to the general public. Time elapsing since adoption of this real-estate acquisition policy has not permitted reexamination of project requirements and revision of estimated costs. Accordingly, the project estimates in the fiscal year 1955 budget requests do not reflect the savings that may be made in projects to which the new policy will apply.

Question. You also discussed the three supergrade positions that have been allowed the Corps of Engineers. Would you identify these positions for the committee?

Answer. (1) Chief, Engineering Division, Civil Works; (2) Special Assistant to the Chief of Engineers; (3) Recently authorized-awaiting decision of the Chief of Engineers as to position to put in the vacancy.

Question. You state that you have been risking serious interruptions to vital navigation routes because of the obsolescence of structures and the lack of minimum adequate means to maintain channels properly. As soon as the fiscal conditions will permit these deficiencies also should be eliminated. In the meantime the calculated risk looms increasingly larger each year. Specifically, what calculated risks do you have in mind?

Answer. Limited funds available for the accomplishment of maintenance have required the imposition of restrictive criteria to determine the portions of required work which will be undertaken. These restrictions include:

No maintenance in channels where project depths or depths required by current navigation are generally available for 80 percent of the completed channel widths;

M:mizing maintenance by placing reliance on the range of tides to permit ares to be delivered where practicable;

maintenance of harbors not extensively used by commercial navigation; and X. maintenance of small harbors or channels used primarily by recreational

addition, the repair and rehabilitation of structures such as jetties, breakritars, locks, and dams are deferred from year to year as long as it is considered jome,” ze to do so without unduly interfering with navigation or unduly increasing peezing maintenance costs. The risks accepted with respect to restrictive trang criteria involve possible vessel damage and delay due to grounding or sion in restricted channels; delays and added costs to water carriers because 1 1a Levssity of waiting for tides; possible loss of life and property due to the aquacy of harbors of refuge; and the deprivation of some communities of ze economies inherent in cheaper water transportation. The risks involved in deferring structure and maintenance or repair is a combination of the foregoing we, as the possibility of complete replacement being required due to proting the deferral period beyond the point of economical repair. Because of existence of these risks, we must continuously review and adjust maintenance wations to projects throughout the year.

CAMPIS OF CALCULATED RISKS DUE TO THE DEFERMENT OF MAINTENANCE WORK NECESSITATED BY LIMITED FUNDS AVAILABLE

1 wks and dams on the Ohio River waterway system: Large backlog of mehab. „tation work seriously jeopardizing the structural safety of existing navifacilities.

V1ny deferred rehabilitation jobs and replacement of obsolete and deteriomited ejmij ment necessary for safety and efficient movement of increasing traffic and safety of operating personnel.

tramples of jobs being deferred in fiscal year 1955: Monongehala River, valves and sills of locks 3 and 5, $100,000; Ohio River, repair wickets dam ca............ Objo River, remodel filling and emptying system lock 41, $185,000. Marys River, Mich. : Dredging and obstruction removal, $120,000. bortom of the channel close to project depth. In deferring this work may have to load to lesser drafts and strikings and groundings may Imedging: Example, Cross Rip Shoals, Mass., where further shoaling has become so critical as to hinder vessels, though shoal spots of 26 feet in the wit channel exists. Work budgeted for in fiscal year 1954, but deferred and se hectuted in fiscal year 1955 budget on calculated-risk basis. Fair breakwaters: Example, Two Harbors, Minn. November 1953 storm a da...azed deck plank of timber crib breakwater. Replacement should ertuaru to keep the structure closed to destructive wave action and major aze from future storms. Cost of work, $10,000. This is a major oreFisegama Dam, Miss., headwater reservoir: Repair of apron of the dam, Deferring this work could result in serious detriment to structure at..ty of the dam. Caraiment of reservoir shoreline maintenance: By not performing an ite amount of such work an accumulation of debris results, menacing on the reservoirs, endangering lives, and interfering with operation pects for their primary purposes. Example, John H. Kerr Reservoir. Man ting Reservoir: Repair of trash boom, $4,000. Rehabilitation of this rep, red to protect the outlet work.

Res acement of obsolete radio facilities: For example, present facilities at *um Reservoir system are difficult to maintain in bad weather. Dee radio communication is essential during flood conditions when telene service could be interrupted, in order that the reservoir operators at the may receive operating orders from the central control station in the Cartallment of conditions and operations studies at individual reservoir

This work involves stream gaging, rainfall and river reports, snow Tw, and collection of other data. Adequate studies and data of this are essential to the efficient and proper operation of reservoirs for the enge of destrucive floodwaters. Example, Blue Stone Reservoir, W. Va. Question. In your statement you discuss a review that yon made of your ir cram which permitted a reduction in fiscal year 1954 expenditures and ob

ligations by about $41 million below those originally contemplated and that this amount has been placed in budgetary reserve. Will you furnish for the committee information concerning the effect of this action on your program. What does your 1955 program contemplate with respect to this budgetary reserve?

Answer. The determination of which projects were to provide funds for the budgetary reserve was made after a comprehensive review of all work in the program. With the understanding that any of these funds could be released if the needs of an economical and orderly program required, $12 million of emergency flood-fighting funds and $29 million of construction funds were earmarked for budgetary reserve. Items of work in the construction program, within projects, were selected for slowdown or deferment where it was estimated that the overall effect, during the current year only, would not impair our ability to meet scheduled commitments for project operation. Our proposed program for fiscal year 1955 contemplates that the active budgetary reserve will become available and each project has been programed accordingly. The net result of the establishment of the budgetary reserve was to require the utmost effort to accomplish the remaining portion of our program for fiscal year 1954 in order that there be no lasting ill effects upon the work in progress.

Question. You cite some of the more important delays contemplated in the 1955 budget, including a delay of 1 year on some of the later units at the Chief Joseph Dam. Do you believe that this is desirable in a project such as Chief Joseph, a dam which is a revenue-producing project?

Answer. In considering whether it is desirable to delay a revenue-producing project for any length of time, several factors must be considered. From a construction point of view the project should be constructed in the most economical schedule. However, this must of necessity be tempered by the overall fiscal requirements of the Nation during the construction period of the project.

Question. In your statement you refer to a reduction of over $6 million in the estimate for Mississippi River projects. Were any of the funds appropriated last year for this project placed in the budgetary reserve?

Answer. In connection with the appropriated funds for the Mississippi River and tributaries, the sum of $500,000 was placed in budgetary reserve during fiscal year 1954.

Question. Will you furnish for the record a schedule of the funds required in the next 6 years for the projects underway for which funds are requested in fiscal year 1955 and for the new starts and resumptions for which budget esti mates were submitted for fiscal year 1955.

Answer. Yes, sir.

(The information requested follows:)