Page images

period of drought, and, consequently, farmers encroached more and more on the river bottom. Then when the water came up due to the dams they felt they were being injured. We agree that they have been injured if the land is adversely affected by the normal or controlled navigation pool level. Some local interests also claim that the dams were not operated correctly.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. And you made a report accordingly. Your adverse report is along the lines you have just stated?

Colonel FERINGA. That is right. We only report favorably those claims for which we have indisputable proof that the individuals have been injured in the amount stated.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. And you have made specific reports on each of the claims that you have disallowed ?

Colonel FERINGA. We have considered them and we have made a report; yes, sir.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Those reports are included in this full report that you have just made to this committee?

Colonel FERINGA. It is included in the report and the appendixes thereto, sir.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Colonel, what do you mean by pools? Colonel FERINGA. The body of water that is backed up by a dam. Mr. ANGELL. The water that lies back of the dam?

Colonel FERINGA. The water back of a dam. Whereas a natural waterway would be the water within a normal stream channel, a canalized waterway is comprised of dams across the stream which back up a large body of water, and that large body of water is called a pool. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Then you have locks in those dams?

Colonel FERINGA. That is right, locks would be at the dams, and a boat in navigating downstream would pass through the lock to the lower pool.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Will you name the points on the Mississippi River between which these various projects are located?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. They are located along the river from lock and dam No. 11, which is near Dubuque, Iowa, as far north as lock and dam No. 2 at Hastings.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Hastings?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; Hastings, Minn., and between there there have been constructed 10 dams.

Mr. ANGELL. Were these damages contemplated when this project was originally constructed, were they contemplated as a part of the expense?

Colonel FERINGA. No, sir; these particular damages were not contemplated at the time the project was recommended to Congress. We did contemplate certain damages such as, for instance, the purchase of lands inundated by the pools. In addition to the normal damages for which we did recompense the property owners after the project came into operation, there were additional damages which were believed to be much less than the claims made. We felt at the time that we could not such claims until we had made an accurate study of them, and I think Congress felt that way too. Therefore, Congress instructed us to make a complete study. That study has been long in the making because it required fixed surveys and the interview of


individual claimants up and down that long stretch of waterway. We have made those interviews, and we have had public hearings in that area and also before the Board. As a result of this study we recommend that we be authorized to pay this sum, which is less than $100,000, to completely clear the United States of damage claims in connection with that project.

Mr. ANGELL. Is this one project, or is this several projects?

Colonel FERINGA. It is the upper Mississippi project from up above St. Louis to as far as St. Paul, Minn.

Mr. ANGELL. Is it all embraced in one project ?
Colonel FERINGA. It is authorized as one project.
Mr. ANGELL. Was it begun as a power project?

Colonel FERINGA. No, sir; it was undertaken as a straight navigation project.

Mr. ANGELL. This additional expense would not throw it out of balance ?

Colonel FERINGA. No, sir; it would be infinitesimal.

Mr. ANGELL. In case the amount you recommend is refused by the owners, what will be the result?

Colonel FERINGA. They would have to take legal action against the United States, but before any dissatisfied claimant could do that he would have to be authorized to take that legal action.

Mr. ANGELL. And the claimants have agreed to these amounts that you are presenting?

Colonel FERINGA. No, sir; all claimants have not agreed to all estimates of damage that have been set forth in the report. After actually going over all of the affected areas and talking to the property owners, I am inclined to believe that they will accept the amounts set forth in the report.

Mr. ANGELL. Are these damages practically all the result of seepage?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir; unforeseen seepage and some backwater damage.

Mr. ANGELL. Of course, additional claimants that you have turned down may also present their claims later on?

Colonel FERINGA. That is right, sir. The previous claims we have paid according to existing law. These are claims which have been made and which did not really manifest themselves until the project was in operation. Where we cannot pay a claim under existing law, then additional congressional authority is needed.

Mr. ANGELL. The amount approved is considerably less than ten percent of the total amount claimed? .

Colonel FERINGA. I think that is right, sir. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Mr. Angell asked if these claims are disallowed if the claimants might come in and file further claims. It was in anticipation of that that I asked the question as to whether they had filed a report on each one of these claims.

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, we have.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. And as to what the attitude of the Engineer's Office was even though you had disallowed them?

Colonel FERINGA. We have a record of every claim; yes, sir.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Is there anyone who wishes to be heard on this project? If not, Colonel, we will proceed to the next project.


Colonel FERINGA. The next four projects, Mr. Chairman, all deal with proposed small boat harbors on the upper Mississippi River.

Yesterday, or a couple of days ago, we talked briefly about the boat harbor on the Missouri River, which would make possible the accommodation of barge traflic at the head of the Missouri River navigation project.

Yesterday we talked about a small boat harbor at Baton Rouge, in Devil Swamp.

I believe that as the amount of traffic on the inland waterway system increases as it has in the past, it will become more and more necessary to provide small boat harbors.

Again I wish to point out to the committee that whereas all waterway traffic on the inland waterways in 1927 amounted to 8,961,000,000 ton-miles, in 1941 it amounted to 31,343,000,000 ton-miles.

The first projects of this type on the upper Mississippi River before us today is a proposed small boat harbor at Lansing, Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, the report on Mississippi River at Lansing, is in response to a resolution adopted on August 30, 1938, by the Senate Commerce Committee.

Lansing is on the west bank of the Mississippi Riyer, 190 miles downstream from Minneapolis and on the pool of lock and dam No. 9. Its water front is unimproved except for facilities for recreational and fishing craft, consisting of a building for storage of boating equipment, a supply barge and small floating wharves. The construction of lock and dam No. 9 has raised the low-water level of the river at the town of 8.9 feet, from elevation 611.1 to 620. Maximum flood elevation is 632.3.

No project for improvement of the immediate locality has been authorized by Congress.

There are no waterway freight-handling facilities at the town and there is no reported commerce. About 90 motorboats are docked on the water front, including those of the State fisheries, about 47 of which are used for commercial purposes. Transient craft stop at Lansing for supplies.

Lansing is located in an agricultural section and has a population of 1,300. A hard-surfaced highway connects with the main State highways of Iowa, and a toll bridge over the river affords access to the improved highways of Wisconsin.

Local interests desire a protected basin 600 feet long, 300 feet wide, and 8 feet deep for small craft. They claim that raising of the water level has inundated beaches where boats were formerly hauled out, that waves from commercial navigation on the river damage the boats at anchor or made fast along the bank, and that the shelter formerly furnished by the stand of timber in the river bottoms no longer exists because of clearing undertaken as part of the 9-foot channel project, thus exposing small craft to more severe wind, wave, and ice effects.

The district engineer finds that benefits to small-boat owners fully justify the project. He states, moreover, that the natural protected harbor, formerly existing at Lansing, has been destroyed by the clearing of timber and the raising of the water level by the establishment of navigation pool No. 9, and that the United States should in equity restore the harbor.

The Board recommends the provision of a small-boat harbor by construction of a rock filled L-shaped breakwater to protect an area 170 feet by 500 feet along the shore at Lansing and excavation within the enclosed area to assure depths of at least 5 feet below minimum pool level of lock and dam No. 9.

The Chief of Engineers concurs in the views and recommendations of the Board.

The improvement is recommended provided local interests furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will provide without cost to the United States all necessary lands, easements, and rights-of-way and disposal areas for new work and subsequent maintenance when and as required; provide the necessary floating booms, slips, and servicing facilities open to all on equal terms.

Cost to United States for new work, $39,700; annual cost of maintenance, $100; interest and amortization, $1,544; total Federal annual carrying charges, $1,644.

The present and prospective increase in traffic on the upper Mississippi River justifies the provision of a small-boat harbor at Lansing to afford a safe and adequate harbor for the boats locally owned and for the increasing number of transient craft. The work undertaken by the Federal Government in connection with the canalization of the upper Mississippi River has undoubtedly created an adverse condition affecting about 90 small boats docked at Lansaing. The construction of the small-boat harbor will restore protection that was formerly available and is justified and equitable at Federal expense.

It proposes that suitable accommodations be provided along the main channel of the Mississippi River by building a small, rock-filled breakwater and dredging a small harbor of 5-foot depth near Lansing. The cost of the project will be $39,700; the interest and amortization would be $1,314, and the annual Federal cost would be $1,644. · We have not been able, Mr. Chairman, to set up a ratio of cost to benefits, but it is necessary to accommodate existing navigation.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Is there anyone who wishes to appear in behalf of this project?


Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Colonel Feringa, Congressman O'Hara is here. He has another appointment, and he is especially interested in the project at Hastings, Minn.



Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Congressman O'Hara, would you like to make a statement on this subject?

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, I wish very briefly to express my appreciation to the committee and to the Engineers' Office for the cooperation which has been extended to the city of Hastings in consideration of this project. It is for the construction as the Colonel will more in detail explain, of a very necessary little-boat harbor at the city of Hastings, which is about 30 miles below St. Paul, and which can be constructed at a cost of slightly in excess of $34,000, I believe, Colonel.

Colonel FERINGA. That is right, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. The small cost is partly due to the natural condition there, and it is of particular importance to a considerable territory because that boat harbor will serve the uses of small boats on the river between St. Paul and the lower Mississippi, coming up the Mississippi toward St. Paul.

Mr. ANGELL. What type of craft will be accommodated in the harbor ?

Mr. O'HARA. Only the smaller-type boats, Congressman.
Mr. ANGELL. Will it serve commercial boats or fishing boats?

Mr. O'HARA. They would have to be small commercial boats. It would be more of the pleasure-craft type, I might say.

I attended the hearing when it was held out there, and there was a great deal of interest expressed in the record of the hearings.

Might I at this time, Mr. Chairman, express my greatest appreciation to the then acting district engineer who was one of the finest gentlemen I have ever met, and I certainly want to put in the record my appreciation and the appreciation of my people of him.

It happens that Hastings is the only point upon the Mississippi River that I touch, that is, at Hastings, Minn., and, therefore, I have a great deal of interest in this, and I do hope that the committee may pass upon it favorably.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to you and the colonel for permitting me to appear now. I have to leave, but if there are any questions I would be very happy to answer them before I go.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Congressman, I think you have shown that you are alert to the job of looking after the interests of your constituents, especially along the water-ways of the mighty Mississippi.

Mr. O'Hara. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. If you wish to extend your remarks you may do so, Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. May I have that privilege?
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. You may; yes, sir.
Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much.

Colonel FERINGA. Mr. Chairman, the report on Mississippi River at Hastings, Minn., is in response to a resolution adopted January 3, 1945, by the Rivers and Harbors Committee.

Hastings is on the Mississippi River, 39 miles below Minneapolis, and on the Federal navigation project providing for 9-foot depth between Minneapolis and the mouth of the Missouri River.

The pool level at Hastings is normally maintained at or above elevation 675 during the navigation season by lock and dam No. 3 near Red Wing, Minn.

There is no Federal project for harbor improvement at Hastings. The city, assisted by the Works Progress Administration, has improved a boat landing on the water front by constructing a landing platform, stairway and driveway, retaining walls, guard rails, and entrance roads. "A small boat landing is maintained one-half mile below the water-front improvement. Both of these boat docks are subject to damaging wave action from passing vessels on the through-navigation channel.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »