« PreviousContinue »
tion of critical materials for water transport were necessarily unproductive for more than a year. The effect of having reached the limit of available barge equipment in the meantime is clearly apparent on the chart. Many of us are convinced that, in view of the almost unlimited capacity of standard waterways to absorb traffic, a liberal allocation of materials to barge transportation would have resulted in a speedy and elastic type of transportation that would also have had great postwar usefulness and salvage value. It is significant that no waterway is idle now. The curtailment of waterway expansion during the war was not, however, altogether a misfortune, because it logically now places a large-scale river and harbor improvement program among the foremost undertakings needed for national postwar development. Such a program can now be prosecuted in an orderly manner with appropriate materials and designed to take advantage of all the technological advances of the war period.
The pattern of future wars, if wars must come, is uncertain, but foremost among the lessons impressed upon us by the sum of our experiences from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima is that our war-waging potential cannot safely be concentrated in one place or even in a few places. The judicious distribution of our production centers and the maintenance of alternate transportation routes will obviously be more essential to security than ever in the so-called atomic era. A successful outcome of military operations is clearly becoming less and less a matter of individual heroism and tactical skill and more and more a grim problem in logistics, geared to our foresight and ability to produce the necessary materials and place them at critical points at the proper times. A fundamental principle of strategy that does not change with the art of either waging or averting war is that preparations have to be made largely during the intervals of peace. We should prepare for the probable trend of the postwar era to decentralize major national activities, by making available innumerable sites for the dispersal of industrial expansion along the banks of our improved waterways and ship channels, and by providing extensions of these facilities through desirable landlocked areas for maximum accessibility. Authorization of the projects here recommended will permit continuing and intelligent long-range planning in recognition of this trend
with a view to insuring the maximum net public benefit attainable. It is the sort of planning that, in my opinion, has been properly delegated to the Corps of Engineers as the one agency most conversant with the problems of maintaining the security as well as the orderly economic development of the Nation as a whole.
Clearly the energies of the country must be expended wisely in the period we are about to enter, if we are soon to regain our normal national equilibrium. As more abundant man-hours of labor become available in the peacetime years they must be used to conserve and build up our natural resources, and reserves of essential commodities. Wisely Congress has provided that projects must be authorized prior to being available for appropriation. The most advantageous choice of projects for appropriation in the amount measured by Congress can best be made if many economically sound projects are available for selection. In these times of changing conditions, it is to my mind urgent that desirable projects should be authorized by Congress as soon as possible after their consideration by the Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors and the Chief of Engineers. The river and harbor bill enacted in the spring of 1945 was considered by your committee in the fall of 1943 and the spring of 1944. Hence a period of 2 years or more has now elapsed. It seems to me a healthy condition for new projects to receive the careful scrutiny of your committee and to be authorized while the engineering, the cost, and the benefit data are fresh and truly responsive to general conditions obtaining at the time. 1. Mr. Chairman, as you may recall, I had the pleasure of appearing before your committee as resident member of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors back in 1936 and the years immediately ensuing, and I am pleased again to be available whenever your committee desires me. I was informed yesterday to appear throughout the flood control hearings but I am sure that arrangements can be made to comply with any schedule you may wish. With your approval, Mr. Chairman, I have asked Colonel Feringa, the now resident member of the Board, to serve your committee in its detailed consideration of each report. Colonel Feringa returned from overseas late last year and immediately resumed his former position as resident member of the Board, in which capacity he is well known to many of the members of your committee and is thoroughly familiar with the individual projects to be submitted. In turning the duty of their detailed pres-. entation over to Colonel Feringa, I want to repeat my serious conviction that the authorization of additional river and harbor projects at this time is prescient wisdom.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, General, for this enlightening statement. I believe we will have to call on you on several occasions during our hearings in the next few weeks.
General WHEELER. I am ready at any time, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Feringa will be with us practically all the time?
General WHEELER. Yes, sir.
Mr. DONDERO. This committee, General, will be the one to suffer the loss of your presence.
General WHEELER. Thank you. | Mr. L ARCADE. May I state, Mr. Chairman, that yesterday, when General Wheeler appeared before the Committee on Flood Control, I stated to the Chairman that the Rivers and Harbors Committee had alsó set hearings for practically the entire month of April and that the Rivers and Harbors Committee was surely entitled to some of the general's presence, advice, experience, and judgment in consideration of their projects. I hope that an arrangement can be worked out to have him appear in order that we also may have the benefit of his presence during our deliberations.
Mr. DONDERO. That remark of course is no reflection upon Colonel
Mr. DONDERO. May I ask General Wheeler one question before he leaves?
The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.
Mr. DONDERO. I would like to ask if the estimates on these various projects which will be presented to this committee are based upon actual costs or estimated costs, and what these projects may amount to in view of the advancing labor costs in this country.
General WHEELER. They are based on estimated costs, the costs that we 'estimate would be the costs at the present time. In regard to increase in the costs of labor and materials, we believe that there has been an increase of about 25 to 30 percent over the prewar prices, the last steady prices that existed before the war. Of course we do not know what the cost may be a few years from now or even 6 months from now, but we do believe that there is going to be an increase in cost.
Mr. RANKIN. General, your estimates, then, not only take into con sideration the advance in costs at this time, but the probable advance in costs during the construction period?
General WHEELER. No, Congressman Rankin. We do not feel safe in trying to predict beyond the present time. We do give you our prediction that they will probably increase, although I have had engineers, in whose judgment I have the highest confidence, say that they thought it would shake down to a steady price not greatly in excess of present prices. But we believe, from a careful study, that there is going to be probably an increase in cost depending on the time when the projects are actually constructed.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I believe you stated that there are approximately 50 of these projects that are now ready and have your approval and are ready for consideration by the committee ?
General WHEELER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Can you tell us the approximate total amount involved in these projects?
General WHEELER. I think Colonel Feringa has that total here. Colonel FERINGA. It depends upon, for a few of the large projects, whether or not the entire project is authorized by this committee. For instance, I am thinking of one of the largest projects which, if the entire project is authorized, would go into many millions of dollars. But we believe that a satisfactory amount could be worked out for all the proposed projects in the neighborhood of $600,000,000.
General WHEELER. The total authorization. Mr. RANKIN. Would you mind inserting in the record at this point a list of those projects?
General WHEELER. Very well, sir.
Estimated costs of projects in the bill
Name of project
First cost 2
Portland Harbor, Maine-
H. 510, 79th...$1, 271, 750
Footnotes at end of table.
1,500,000 S. 141, 79th
95,000 H. 517, 79th..103, 460, 000 H.- 79th.
6 955, 000 H. 79th
500 12,000 9,000 1,000 4, 500 1,000 11,000 7 330, 000
Estimated costs of projects in the billContinued
Name of project
First cost 3
1,000 115, 000 811,000
500 140,000 85,000
3,000 60,000 10 71,000
Savannah Harbor, Ga..
$809, 100 St. Johns River, Jacksonville to Lake Harney, Fla.
79th 493, 000 Hollywood Harbor (Pcrt Everglades), Fla.
H. 768, 78th. 786, 000
H. 293, 79th
S.-, 79th. "43, 300
79th. 7,500,000 Lake Charles Deepwater Channel, Louisiana (Calcasieu River 79th.. 2,000,000
and Pass). Red River and tributaries, Louisiana..
H. 79th... 42,000,000 Arkansas River and tributaries, Arkansas and Oklahoma.. H. 79th...
55,000,000 Sabine River and tributaries, Texas (Adams Bayou).
79th... 73,000 Sabine-Neches waterway, Texas
3, 160,000 Trinity River, from Houston ship channel to Liberty, Tex.
79th. 429,000 Mill Creek, tributary of Brazos River, Tex
250,000 Gulf Intracoastal waterway, Tex...
1,095, 000 Brazos Island Harbor, Tex., vicinity of Port Isabel
H. 79th. 170,000 Mississippi River between Missouri River and Minneapolis H. 515, 79th... 93, 880
(seepage damages). Mississippi River at Lansing, Iowa.
39, 700 Mississippi River at Wabasha, Minn.
H. 514, 79th
22, 750 Mississippi River in Lake Pepin..
H. 511, 79th.. 79, 300 Mississippi River at Hastings, Minn
H. 599, 79th
34, 270 Big Sioux, s. Dak....
H. 561, 79th. 325, 420 Cumberland River and tributaries, Kentucky and Tennessee.. H. - 79th.
1120,730,000 Big Sandy River and Tug and Levisa Forks, Ky., W. Va., and H. 79th. -82, 300,000
H.-, 79th... 32, 100
767, 78th. 28,000 Great Lakes Connecting Channels, Mich.
79th. 28, 063, 000 Cleveland Harbor, Ohio..
79th.. 11, 677,000 Fairport Harbor, Ohio..
14, 500 San Diego River and Mission Bay, Calif.
H. 79th... 5, 858, 000 Napa River, Calif.
H. 397, 79th... 865, 000 Sacramento River, Calif., Deepwater Channel
S. 142, 79th. 1210,742,000 Coos Bay, Oreg.
79th.. Columbia and Lower Willamette Rivers, at Astoria, Oreg
5, 689, 000
100 100 500
200 23, 500 11 150,000
1,000 118,000 15, 000 70,000 35,000
7,500 13 66,000 235,000 10,000 13, 500
H., 79th. 1,044, 000 Columbia River, Vancouver, Wash., to The Dalles, Oreg H. 79th... 1,381, 500 Columbia River at The Dalles, Oreg
S. 89, 79th
76, 500 Columbia River, Foster Creek, Wash.
H. 79th - 1371,000,000
601, 725, 070 Less included authority.
2, 280,000 Total first cost...
599, 445, 070
2,000 13 650,000
1 Document number and Congress; "H" indicates House, “S” indicates Senate. ? Estimated first cost to the United States. 3 Additional annual maintenance and operation costs. * None in addition to that now authorized. 6 Inclusive of $1,673,000 previously authorized. 6 Inclusive of $607,000 previously authorized. 7 Does not include $1,036,000 for deferred maintenance and restoration of project channel dimensions. 8 For annual maintenance (not to exceed 5 years) of improvement constructed in the war effort with Navy funds.
For maintenance not previously authorized. 10 Reduction of $22,000 presently authorized. 11 For navigation works. 12 Exclusive of $2,000,000 maximum cost of salinity-control works 13 For initial installation of first 3 units.
Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Colonel, you stated that you thought a satisfactory amount could be worked out. Are you recommending in these respective projects the full amount, or certain particular projects that you have reference to, or a modified amount?
Colonel FERINGA. Mr. Peterson, in all cases we are responding to a resolution of this committee, or of the Commerce Committee of the Senate, or the existing river and harbor law in making our reports. The reports are complete and the entire project is discussed and the entire cost of the entire project will be set up in the project document. As to a project where the entire work can be completed in the neighborhood of some two or three millions of dollars, certainly that entire project should be authorized. But as to some of the larger projects, where we talk of an entire river basin, for instance, where we set up in our report that the entire project can be constructed for $400,000,000, I think it sometimes has been the custom of this committee to authorize only an integral part of that project, and thereby reduce the over-all amount of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. That would be a matter that is up to the Congress and the committee to determine, of course, in connection with the Budget.
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. We had a similar situation to that in the last river and harbor bill relating to the Coosa River. The Arkansas River will come up for consideration this time.
Colonel FERINGA. That is the one I was thinking of, Judge.
The CHAIRMAN. That would be a whole river basin to be considered. Of course it takes a long period of years and it involves every type and character of river improvement known to our course of procedure.
Mr. DONDERO. Did you have in mind such projects as the Big Sandy? Could that be built in different parts?
Colonel FERINGA. I believe the Big Sandy would have to be authorized as a whole, because in any other case you could not get the benefit of any part until the entire project was authorized; whereas on the Arkansas River, which Judge Mansfield mentioned, you could set that up so that one of the upstream reservoirs might be authorized, as well as some downstream navigation.
Mr. DONDERO. If the estimate made for the Arkansas River is $400,000,000, then does your $600,000,000 estimate include all of that $400,000,000?
Colonel FERINGA. No. It would be a lesser amount, whatever the committee might want to take.
Mr. RANKIN. Would it not be cheaper to do the construction now, while we have all this machinery that has been left over from the war, than it would be to wait until that machinery deteriorates or is disposed of, and then attempt to acquire new machinery?
General WHEELER. Yes, sir; in some cases.
Mr. Rankin. Speaking about the Arkansas River, I do not know exactly what the program is, but if you start in to develop an entire