Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Mr. RANKIN. Your town has about 6,000 people ?
Mr. MOULTHROP. 7,000 people.
Mr. RANKIN. How far is it from this dam that produces power?

Mr. MOULTHROP. Eufaula would be located 60 miles above the Columbia Dam, and 40 miles below the Fort Benning Dam.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, also present is the mayor of another one of our progressive cities. He speaks for the people. Colonel Grady Bell, of the city of Bainbridge.

STATEMENT OF GRADY BELL, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF

BAINBRIDGE, GA.

Mr. BELL. I am just going to take a minute.
Mr. Cox. For about 20 years he was the chairman of my committee.

Mr. BELL. I would not begin to tell you the benefits that would flow from the adoption of this project. The colonel has said that. I would say I am simply here as an interested party.

Mr. RANKIN. I have heard of you for a number of years. I have not had the pleasure of knowing you until this morning, but your statement that that development would pay out in power, amortized, if that is the word, pay out in a short time just from power alone.

There is one thing that no one has suggested, that around water, timber grows very fast. It grows very rapidly, and old Dr. Hurley, who has gone on to a better world, developed what is going to make the south its real own in timber. When you water the land, you grow timber very rapidly.

Aside from the power, Mr. Rankin, as you mentioned, the development that it means in timber alone, outside of freight and those things, and I happen to represent a railroad down there, as best I can, and they do not object.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. You say the railroads do not object !
Mr. BOYKIN. What railroad is it?
Mr. BELL. The Seaboard. I try to represent them.

I am glad to be up here and you have been very nice to give us this attentive hearing, and I take from your statement that you think we will have the project.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. What is the population of Bainbridge ? Mr. BELL. About 6,142.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Your people then are sure to realize the value of this project, if you can get a 9, and later a 12-foot water up to Bainbridge.

Mr. BELL. That is right; and it will cover about 67,000 acres of this land, which means grows timber. The timber in our section we have overlooked for a long time, gentlemen, but the thing that will make the South what it should be

Mr. PITTENGER. I thought you had more timber down there than you needed.

Mr. BELL. No, sir. It grows very rapidly. We are very short on corn, but we have plenty of timber.

Mr. Boykin. I want to say to the gentleman from Georgia, you notice your chairman is from Georgia. I have been all over the Nation with him on such projects, and we usually do what he says, and then, too, with this great gentleman Cox, whom I consider one of the great

est men on earth, and Steve Pace, who knows more about farming and did more farming that I know, is good, and my young friend Andrews from Alabama, who took the great Steagall's place, and Steagall was one of the greatest men we ever had.

Mr. BELL. Senator George was with me at Christmas and he said this is a wonderful thing.

Mr. PACE. In conclusion, I would like to have a word from the secretary of the Chattahoochee Valley Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Carl Pierson.

STATEMENT OF CARL PIERSON, SECRETARY OF THE CHATTA

HOOCHEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. PIERSON. There is very little that can be added to what has already been said, excepting possibly one or two questions that were asked by the committee, that is, with reference to the objections by rail roads.

I may state that there is at the present time before the Interstate Commerce Commission, the application of one common carrier of commodities generally by water from Columbus, Ga., to New Orleans, La., on weekly schedules, that has not been protested by any railroads.

This same water carrier has secured freight classifications of the railroads and without objections, and numerous solicitations of connecting business from other competing lines. That is insofar as navigation is concerned.

We respectfully request that the report, as submitted by the engineers, be accepted as the one profitable report that could be made on the project from a practical end, the navigation. It can be improved for a start. Everything has been taken care of, and I have been in water-transportation business for some 30 years, or connected with it in some manner, or another. The War Department Engineers do everything possible for this project.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I gather from your statement that there is a demand now, and as soon as this project is built there will be concerns that will place their barges and their vessels on this stream?

Mr. PIERSON. They are attempting it at the present time in anticipation. They are really fighting a hard battle and trying to go ahead with it in anticipation of what might come in the future, and they are struggling at the present time.

So far as power interests are concerned, I have been associated with various officials of the power companies in the area affected, and all are looking forward to procuring power from this project.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Pace. We are very gratefully indebted to you and the committee in hearing us, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I notice there are several other parties here.

I might state that they have permission if they so desire to include any additional statements, or any additional data in the record, or anyone here interested may do so.

Mr. PACE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, gentlemen.

(The following resolution was subsequently submitted :)

RESOLUTION

Be it resolved by the mayor and aldermen of the city of Bainbridge, in council assembled, and it is hereby resolved by authority thereof, That the United States Government and such of its officers and agencies as have control of the matter be respectfully requested to name the dam shortly to be erected at the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers “Woodruff Dam” in honor and recognition of the untiring public service rendered in this connection by J. W. Woodruff, Esq., of Columbus, Ga. Offered and adopted in open council this 7th day of May 1946.

E. W. Cox. Attest:

H. B. FUNDERBURK. GEORGIA,

Decatur County: I, the undersigned, clerk-treasurer of the city of Bainbridge, Ga., hereby certify that the above and foregoing typewritten matter is an exact carbon copy of a resolution passed in city council at meeting of May 7, 1946. This the 11th day of May 1946.

H. B. FUNDERBURK, Clerk.

SAN DIEGO, MISSION BAY, CALIF. Colonel FERINGA. Mr. Chairman, if you approve, I will explain the project very briefly, and give my notes

to the reporter. As you know, Mr. Chairman, San Diego is a very prosperous city in the extreme southwestern part of California. During the war its population increased mangfold. There have been previously authorized river and harbor projects for the improvement of San Diego Harbor. However, the project now to be recommended to your committee is again a multiple-purpose project because it provides for flood control and also rivers and harbors, and then opens up an area, which is not now used, by the combined efforts of the Federal Government and local interests to add to the wealth of not only California, but of the Nation.

I would like to insert at this time a copy of a letter which General Wheeler received from Senator Murray, Senator Taylor, and Senator Capehart, a letter which is obviously unsolicited and in which they state, and I would like to read it if I may.

Lt. Gen. R. A. WHEELER,

The Chief of Engineers, War Department. DEAR GENERAL WHEELER: The Senate Small Business Committee recently conducted hearings on the west coast for the purpose of ascertaining the possibilities of developing additional opportunities for small business and for employment in that area.

Part of the testimony offered at the hearings conducted on February 20 and 21 in San Diego related to the proposed Mission Bay development into a magnificent harbor for small craft and tourist and vacation resort, as well as an installation of value for defense purposes.

We found that San Diego had doubled its population during the war, was retaining its population and already is suffering a most disproportionate unemployment situation.

We were informed that district and regional officials of United States Army engineers have recommended that the Government participate with San Diego in the development of this project. This committee believes that this project should receive the serious and careful consideration of the Rivers and Harbors Board and of the Congress, for the reasons that its completion will offer many oppor

tunities for new small business; and, after its construction, will provide con-
tinuing employment for large numbers, which is now an acute problem in the
San Diego area and will probably become more so in the years to come.
Sincerly yours,

JAMES E. MURRAY,
GLEN H. TAYLOR.

HOMER E. CAPEHART. Consequently, the Chief Engineer directed that the Board give heed to this project at its last meeting. The Board has so done and reports the project favorably.

What is proposed, briefly, is a flood channel, as depicted in pink, which would discharge the floodwaters into the ocean.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Floodwaters of what?

Colonel FERINGA. Of this general area which due to heavy floods, heavy rains, come down and if they were not denied by an existing project, would flood into San Diego Harbor.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. They are the waters from the interior?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, which start up in the headwaters of the San Diego River which is a very steep stream, and consequently the flood

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Those floodwaters are seasonable?
Colonel FERINGA. I believe they are.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Do you have high mountains there?

Mr. Izac. Dams hold back the waters normally, but in times of cloudbursts and the like there is a tremendous flood of water coming down and it is held back by a Government dike built about 1870.

Colonel FERINGA. The cost to the Federal Government of the floodcontrol project would be $2,778,000. The cost of that project to local interests under the requirements of the Flood Control Act would be $853,000.

The navigation feature runs parallel. That is what makes it a multiple-purpose project. Two jetties will be provided, and an entrance channel 20 feet deep will be constructed—it is more than an entrance channel—a channel well into this area would be constructed and also two boat basins. From there on, local interests take on. They are going to develop all this area and make it into a major resort, boat, yacht harbor, and so on.

The navigation feature, the cost of navigation feature to the Federal Government, would be $3,060,000; to local interests, $7,969,000.

The total for flood control and navigation to the Federal Government would be $5,858,000; and to local interests, $8,822,000.

We find the project is economically justified. The ratio of cost to benefits is 1 as to 1.17.

That is it in a nutshell.
Mr. DONDERO. Why is the local share so large?

Colonel FERINGA. It is a development, Mr. Dondero, and it goes further than straight navigation and flood control. The flood-control cost to local interests are set, wisely I think, by the Flood Control Act, approved June 22, 1936, which requires that lands and rights-of-way, those types of items, must be borne by local interests except where reservoirs are involved.

The rivers and harbors portion of it is that the Federal Government will participate in the entire development, but only to the extent of doing this much work, and then local interests, who will gain a tremendous amount of benefit from this expenditure, will develop all this large area here,

ị think it is similar to some of the small boat basins which we have recommended to your committee under the Fletcher Act, which was about 1932, where we are authorized to recognize the benefits of pleasure boating

But in those cases we, I think, invariably recommend that it only be done if there is a large financial measure of local cooperation.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. We will insert your statement at this point.

(The statement is as follows:) The report on San Diego River and Mission Bay, Calif., is in response to an item in the 1945 River and Harbor Act which authorized a survey of the coast of southern California, with a view to the establishment of harbors for light-draft vessels. It is also in response to items the act approved May 6, 1936, and the Flood Control Acts approved June 22, 1936, and August 18, 1941.

San Diego River is 52 miles long and drains 435 miles, It enters Mission Bay through branching channels. The entire watershed lies in San Diego County. Mission Bay comprises at mean high tide about 2,400 acres divided into two sections by the Crown Point promontory and a causeway road connecting with the city of San Diego.

Under a navigation project authorized in 1875, the United States constructed a dike 7,735 feet long on the south side of the delta to divert the river from San Diego Bay to Mission Bay to prevent the deposition of silt and improve navigation in San Diego Harbor. The Flood Control Act approved December 22, 1944, authorized, the construction of a suitable levee as a replacement for the existing Federal dike across the old channel of the river at the city of San Diego, making use of the dike to the extent found practicable at the time of construction.

Floods of San Diego River are generally caused by high-intensity rainfall of short duration. They inundate lands along the lower 30 miles of the river and low areas adjacent to Mission and San Diego Bays and cause damage to agricultural land, buildings, crops and improvements. Direct flood damage from the maximum flood of record which occurred in 1916, with a discharge of 75,000 second-feet at San Diego, was estimated as $565,000. For a maximum probable flood of 87,000 second-feet, occurring after the authorized levee is constructed, the district engineer finds that the total damage below river mile 3.3 would reach $1,944,000, of which $561,700 would be direct and $1,382,300 indirect.

Due to the hazardous conditions in the channel and bay caused by shoals there is very little traffic in the bay at the present time.

The city of San Diego, located at the mouth of the river, has approximately 400,000 inhabitants. Its harbor on San Diego Bay handled 713,000 tons of water-borne commerce in 1940 and is used by the Navy as a base for many types of craft. Outside the San Diego metropolitan area, the inhabitant of the basin are engaged primarily in agriculture, the principal products being citrus fruits, vegetables, avocados, grapes, and field crops. A total of 14,000 acres of land are in cultivation of which 8,600 acres are irrigated.

Local interests request improvements for the control of floods by means of levees, reservoirs, or a combination of both, with provisions for water conservation if dams should be constructed; construction of a highway on the Government dike and consideration of provisions for prevention of silting of Mission Bay in a comprehensive plan of improvement; a leveed channel from Presidio Hill to the ocean, and three jetties at the entrance to Mission Bay; a bay entrance channel, a turning basin, and two boat basins, all dredged to 16 to 20 feet deep, and the remainder of the bay, with the exception of areas set aside for wildlife, dredged to 8 feet deep, and a new bridge near the mouth of the river to replace Mission Boulevard Bridge.

Justification for flood-control improvement of San Diego River is dependent upon land-enhancement benefits that would result from improvement and development of Mission Bay for navigation and other purposes; and that navi

« PreviousContinue »