Senator OVERTON. I am going to suggest to the members of the subcommittee that today we have a brief explanation by a representative of the Army engineers in reference to projects that have been reported by the War Department since the passage of the bill in the House. As far as I know there is no controversy in respect of any of these projects.

Before asking for that explanation, however, we would like General Reybold, the Chief of Engineers, to make a general statement in respect of the bill; and later on if we need the statement of General Reybold in respect of any project that may be controversial, or if he desires to discuss anything in reference to any feature of the bill, I am quite sure he will be available. But at present we shall be pleased to hear from General Reybold to make a general statement in respect of the bill.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. EUGENE REYBOLD, THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Major General REYBOLD. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this privilege. It is a pleasure to discuss with you the activities of the Department in improving the rivers and harbors of the country.

The pending legislation, H. R. 3961, which has passed the House of Representatives and is now before this committee for consideration, is of primary importance to the orderly development and continuation of the Nation's waterway program. It has been 6 years since the last general authorization was enacted for the improvement of rivers and harbors. Accordingly the backlog of authorized projects now before the Department is small, whereas the number of projects that have been studied and favorably reported to the Congress is large. The enactment of the legislation now under consideration will restore that backlog with new meritorious projects to be undertaken when conditions permit.

For some 120 years the Congress, from time to time, has enacted legislation and provided funds which have formulated a firm policy of Federal improvement of rivers and harbors in the interest of waterborne commerce. This policy calls for the conservation and improvement of these waterways by the Federal Government, with the aid and active support of the local interests benefited. Such policy has kept these natural and improved arteries of commerce, the property of the people as a whole, free in their use as public highways by each and every citizen.

In the infancy of this Nation, its expansion and development was paced for the most part by its inland river routes, Nature's own roads, which were the only readily accessible means of transportation available to early Americans. With these natural river systems and harbors forming the framework, we have developed, under a continuing and well-planned program as approved by Congress, an interconnected network of improved inland waterways and a series of fine coastal harbors that exceed the fondest expectations of the waterway enthusiasts of our early history. Today in our modern complex civilization, the importance of water-borne commerce to daily life is ever-increasing. And the very necessities of the global war in which we are engaged depend upon facilities for commerce, particularly water-borne

commerce.

United with her allies in the greatest overwater military operations the world has ever known, America is indeed fortunate to have had statesmen with the wisdom and foresight to have provided for improving her transportation outlets to the overseas world, and to have provided the inland waterways that are so busily engaged in moving finished products to these outlets and in carrying raw materials and fuels back into the hinterland to production centers. The great ports of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans; the Gulf ports, including the booming Texas oil ports; the navigation facilities for the ore and coal centers of the Great Lakes; the intracoastal canals; and the inland waterways reaching far into the interior of the country are indispensable in the present war emergency. Manifestly, had it not been for these improvements the others forms of transportation that are now being taxed to their limit would indeed have been overburdened. Truly, the funds invested in river and harbor improvements are now paying rich dividends. In the future these waterway developments will resume their ever-increasing part in the growth of the industrial and commercial life of the Nation.

The war, of course, has required that the initiation of new developments of rivers and harbors be suspended in order to conserve manpower, materials, and equipment. Thus, operations in the past 2 years have been confined chiefly to the maintenance of active harbor and waterway channels and to the prosecution of a limited number of projects, found necessary to serve the armed forces. In a like manner, advance planning for river and harbor developments has been curtailed, during the war, in favor of more urgent activities. This is as it should be. Nothing should interfere in any manner with the successful prosecution of the war. We should be ready, however, to proceed with meritorious river and harbor projects after the war, and the enactment of the legislation now before this committee is a necessary and desirable step in that direction.

It is understood by all, I believe, that the proposed river and harbor improvements included in H. R. 3961 are not emergency projects, but are an integral part of the permanent civil-works program of the War Department. This program is predicated upon a return to the normal progress in harbor and waterway development to keep pace with the continued advancement and economic development of the country. The two hundred and seventy-odd projects in the bill are located throughout the country, with improvements contemplated for each section of the coastal areas, every sizable river basin, and the several Territories and island possessions. They range from simple channel dredging to major multiple-purpose dams for navigation, hydroelectric power, and related purposes. Specific provision in the bill precludes their initiation until after the war, and rightly so, since their prosecution requires heavy construction plant and manufactured equipment. as well as funds and manpower now needed in the war effort. However, enactment of authorizing legislation will permit the preparation of construction plans and specifications and thus make ready for prosecution a worthy work program of any size for which the Congress may appropriate funds.

The recent Baruch-Hancock report on War and Post-War Adjustment Policies stated that

planning, designing, and engineering of worth-while projects-not simply makework schemes-should be pressed immediately and put on the shelf.

In my opinion, there are no more worth-while public works projects than those proposed in the pending legislation. The enactment of H. R. 3961 will be a step toward fulfilling the President's suggestion— that it would be desirable for Congress to give its approval at an early date to river and harbor projects of unquestioned merit so that construction plans may be prepared.

I can assure you that once the work becomes authorized, the Corps of Engineers will promptly prepare the construction plans.

In closing this brief statement I should like to say just a few words about the future of river and harbor development in this country as I envision it. Improvements of this character throughout the civilized world generally are dependent upon the increase in population and prosperity of the area to be served by such improvements. Population produces the demand for economically sound projects, and population produces the prosperity to effect the desired works. The concentrated populations of England and the European countries have produced systems of interconnected waterway developments that are much more extensive than in this country. As time goes on, however, increased populations in this country will surely require more and more waterway transportation facilities. The distances and heights. of the divides between our natural waterways may delay improvements connecting river basins; but, sooner or later we will extend improvements up our rivers and connect the basins just as the English, the Russians, the French, and the Germans have done. In fact, through the years several steps in this direction have been taken in this country. The Great Lakes have been connected with the Mississippi system by means of the important Illinois Waterway. The State of New York made a valuable contribution when it connected Lake Erie and Ontario with the Hudson River by means of the New York State Barge Canal, a project for which the Federal Government has subsequently contributed funds for enlargement and improvement. A third example is the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. All of these projects are intensively active today.

While we cannot predict the future, it takes no unusual imagination to visualize greatly increased waterway improvements up our major river valleys and the interconnection of many of the contiguous river basins of the United States as has been done in Europe. I believe the Congress and the engineers of this great country will, as in the past, always have the vision and foresight to keep abreast-yes, even aheadof the times, in the planning and prosecution of waterway improvements.

Senator OVERTON. General, I want to ask you one or two questions: You will be followed by Colonel Feringa, who will explain the different projects that have been reported since the passage of the bill by the House, but I would like you to make a general statement as to the steps through which a project is processed before it reaches your desk, and the Secretary of War, and is favorably reported to the Congress. The purpose of such a statement is to show the diligence and care with which these projects are investigated before they are acted upon, either favorably or unfavorably, by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War.

Major General REYBOLD. I will be very glad to outline the procedure, Mr. Chairman. First I would like to say that the procedure

is thoroughly democratic. We are forbidden from undertaking any improvement or any investigation or study of a proposed improvement without the express authority of Congress. That authority reaches us through items inserted in a river and harbor bill, or through a resolution drawn up by the Commerce Committee of the Senate, or the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House, authorizing and directing a specific investigation and report thereon to Congress.

The next step is to direct our field forces, specifically a district engineer having immediate charge of a certain watershed or more than one watershed as the districts are organized, to initiate the report and to submit it to the Chief of Engineers through his immediate superior, the division engineer, and then through the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, which is an agency authorized by law, whose members sit here in Washington, to review and pass on such matters. The district engineer in his initial steps calls for a public hearing. He notifies all known interested parties of the time and place of such hearing. At the hearing he determines from the people the nature of the proposed improvement, the proceedings of which are duly recorded and made a part of the report, and each and every citizen is given an opportunity to be heard, and that is equally so of proponents as of opponents. In that way the pulse of the people, the local people, so to speak is determined.

We then proceed with our engineering studies to develop the cost of the proposed work, and concurrently we proceed with a study of the economics, determining the benefits to be derived by the people as a whole as a result of the proposed improvement. We carefully weigh the benefits to be derived by the public as against the outlay in cost, and make every effort to determine a ratio of benefits to costs.

That basic report which has been developed by the district engineer is then submitted to his division engineer, as I referred to a moment ago. The division engineer in turn makes a very careful review of the report, sometimes accepting it, sometimes calling for additional information, until he is thoroughly satisfied that the report is correct and sound as to its ultimate determinations.

The report then is mailed to Washington and is carefully reviewed by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, which constitute a selected group of our engineer officers, seven in number, one of which is the resident member of the Board of Engineers.

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors having made its report, the district, the division, and the Board's report are then submitted to other interested Federal agencies for comment. For instance, if the generation of hydroelectric power is involved, the comments of the Federal Power Commission are invited. If matters of reclamation and irrigation are involved, the Department of the Interior is invited to comment. The Department of Agriculture may also be invited to comment. Finally the report is submitted to the Chief of Engineers, and he, after making a careful review of the reports submitted by the district and division engineers and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and comments submitted by other Federal agencies, prepares his own report.

Senator OVTRTON. Before we leave the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, let me ask you this question: That board also frequently conducts public hearings on a project, does it not?

Major General REYBOLD. That is correct, sir. Senator OVERTON. A hearing to those who oppose the project as well as to those who favor the project.

Major General REYBOLD. That is correct. The Board hearings are usually held at the request of interested parties who desire to present orally before the Board an appeal from the findings of the division engineer.

Senator OVERTON. You may proceed.

Major General REYBOLD. The Chief of Engineers having reviewed the report and satisfied himself as to its contents, and having formulated his conclusions and recommendations, submits the report through the Secretary of War to Congress, together with the advice of the Bureau of the Budget as to its relationship to the program of the President.

Congress then, through its committees in the Senate and the House, generally holds hearings, giving the local interests again, and opponents as well as the proponents, an opportunity to be heard.

It is my judgment, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to say so, that the procedure outlined constitutes perhaps the most comprehensive investigation made by any department of the Federal Government prior to the enactment into law of legislation covering a proposed project.

Senator OVERTON. I quite agree with you, General.

Senator BAILEY. General Reybold, I am glad to hear you state the process. What we have to deal with here is that every time we present a bill of this sort, notwithstanding every project is recommended by the Chief of Engineers, the newspapers of this country immediately describe the legislation as pork barrel. I would like to have an end to that sort of thing. Certainly as long as I am chairman of the Commerce Committee of the Senate there will be nothing political in these bills. We follow the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers always.

Senator OVERTON. That is correct. That is the policy of this committee, that we do not approve a project unless it has been in turn approved by the Chief of Engineers as a result of the process of investigation General Reybold has just explained to us.

Senator BAILEY. Yes; and if a project is not approved by the Chief of Engineers that is fatal. And then, General Reybold, no amount of political pressure has any effect whatever on your investigation, as I understand it.

Major General REYBOLD. That is correct.

Senator BAILEY. I would like to get that point definitely cleared up. And while I am interrupting you, General Reybold, let me say that Senator Clark of Missouri has sent for me to come down to a meeting of the Subcommittee on Aeronautics. I will be there just a little while and then shall return to this hearing. Senator Clark did not want to start the hearing without my presence.

Major General REYBOLD. Senator Bailey, you would be interested to know that about 60 percent of our investigations reported to Congress are unfavorable.

Senator OVERTON. I wanted to bring that out.

Senator BAILEY. I am interested to have that information, but I particularly wanted to clear up the idea about this committee sending pork barrel recommendations to the Senate. We just do not do it.