Mr. BARDEN. These are just small projects which serve literally thousands of those small boats. They are more or less spur tracks from the main Federal projects up and down the sound.

Now, you say, well, a 6-foot project does not amount to much. I expect 95 percent of the fish caught off that coast and in sound waters are caught in boats that draw less than 6 feet. I am referring now to the edible fish.

Mr. DONDERO. Let me say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that these small projects do not serve those boats any better than the gentleman from North Carolina serves his district.

Mr. BARDEN. That is very generous of the gentleman from Michigan. In this particular Marshallberg project it means that it is a spur track, so to speak, and furnishes anchorage for these boats, and when you see these men with every bit of investment they have in these boats and they run into trouble every time a storm comes up and every time a southwester begins to whip in there, you can readily understand why they should be so much interested in this.

Now, there is another little project right in here, and there is not a real way to get the history of information on it. The engineers had to reach their conclusion mostly from estimates. It is a little cut at Cape Lookout that only costs about $17,000 to make, and yet in one November, which is certainly not a representative month from the standpoint of traffic through there, in one November I happen to know the engineers checked the boats and there were over 3,200 boats that went through there in that month.

t

Well, now every time one of those boats went through there, they were saving cargo; they were saving miles and miles of travel, and they were saving wear and tear on their equipment and on themselves. So these small projects, I have found on my district, per dollar, produced the greatest returns of any improvements that I know the Federal Government makes.

So I am not going to dwell so much on the Marshallberg project. I think you gentlemen are perfectly in accord with the views that I have expressed. I want to say something about the Taylors Creek project.

The Taylors Creek project comes up from Beaufort and it is approximately 2 miles long. Originally, the little town of Beaufort put up $10,000 and raised it by bonds to help build that canal there originally.

Now, those fish factories are there. Their boats draw more water than they have depth. That is all there is to it. The canal is just simply too shallow.

Now, this Taylors Creek ties right in with the Beaufort inlet which has 30 feet of water, and the Beaufort inlet ties right into Moorehead City harbor, which is just a few hundred yards distant, has 30 feet of water and does considerable business. So you can see just how this little spur is tremendously important.

The gentleman from Michigan cooperated with me beautifully last year and was most helpful, and I was trying every way in the world to get it through. The men even had to borrow the money to put it up, because they had their boats there that were just dragging the bottom, and they were losing cargoes and everything else.

The return on Taylors Creek, in my opinion, will be one of the finest investments we have ever made in a little strip of water. There

are other plants that want to go there. They are now holding up on the purchase of boats and equipment because there is no need of buying any more 10-foot-draft boats to travel in 7 feet of water. It just will not work, and the tide sometimes does not come in in time for them to save their cargoes.

Gentlemen, I could submit to you a pile of telegrams as high as this table from people down there who are perfectly familiar with it. Colonel Gillette here is familiar with every inch of the water. He was raised down there on that coast and he knows it from one end to the other. He has given you a very brief and definite statement as to the benefits down there.

Now, mind you, the State of North Carolina is not asleep on the value of these projects. The last legislature has just appropriated $7,000,000-isn't that right, colonel?

Colonel GILLETTE. Seven and a half million dollars.

Mr. BARDEN. For use in connection with the ports, and Colonel Gillette is to administer that. We have found that they serve the coastal people and that they serve the State generally, and so I think that is a very fine gesture on the part of the State of North Carolina to join in and say: We, too, want to help improve these things. So I would greatly appreciate it if you gentlemen see your way clear to take favorable action on these two projects. I have no hesitancy in vouching for them in every way. I know they are sound economically, and I know they are sound every other way.

Thank you very much.

Mr. LARCADE. Thank you very much.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LARCADE. We also have another Member of Congress from North Carolina who has much seniority in the Congress, and at this time we will take up project of Congressman Bonner, Norfolk to Beaufort Inlet, inland waterway at Fairfield, N. C.

INLAND WATERWAY FROM NORFOLK, VA., TO BEAUFORT INLET, N. C.

(H. Doc. No. 723, 80th Cong.)

Colonel MOORE. Mr. Chairman, the report on inland waterway from Norfolk, Va., to Beaufort Inlet, N. C., in the vicinity of Fairfield, N. C., as published in House Document No. 723, Eightieth Congress, is submitted in response to a resolution adopted November 28, 1944, by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives. The inland waterway from Norfolk, Va., to Beaufort, N. C., in the vicinity of Fairfield, N. C., consists of a land cut 12 feet deep, 90 feet wide, and 20.4 miles long, connecting Alligator River, tributary of Albemarle Sound, on the east, with Pungo River, a tributary of Pamlico River, on the west. Water elevations in the land cut average 0.48 foot above mean sea level near the ends and 0.26 foot at Fairfield Bridge, near the center. The town of Fairfield is 4 miles south of the land cut.

The land cut of the inland waterway and Alligator and Pungo Rivers isolate from the mainland a flat area about 60 miles long and 12 to 18 miles wide north of and bordering on Pamlico Sound. Land elevations in this area decrease from a few feet above mean sea level

to 1 foot below. Mattamuskeet Lake, covering an area of 65 square miles when the lake elevation is at mean sea level, is a shallow natural body of water in the center of the isolated area.

Hyde County had a population of 7,860 in 1940, and Fairfield Township had 936 inhabitants in the same year.

Farming is the chief occupation.

The improvement authorized by Congress provides for an inland waterway 12 feet deep between Norfolk, Va., and Beaufort Inlet, N. C., 197.91 miles; for the construction of a tidal lock in the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal at or near Great Bridge, Va.; for the protection of the canal property in the vicinity of the lock against flooding by storm tides through construction of necessary dikes and appurtenant works; and for the construction, operation, and maintenance of a suitable bridge across the waterway near Fairfield, N. C. The land cut between Alligator and Pungo Rivers was completed in

1928.

Shortly after 1920, local interests constructed a project to drain the lands via canals and ditches into the lake from which the water was then pumped and carried by a canal to Pamlico Sound. In addition to draining the adjoining farm land, this process permitted the cultivation of 12,000 acres of lake bottom. The project was abandoned after the crop season of 1931, or three crop seasons after completion of the Alligator River-Pungo River section of the inland waterway.

Some of the canals have recently been blocked to keep water from the inland waterway out of the area.

Sea water can also enter the lake from Pamlico Sound. The principal canals north of the lake are the Fairfield and Carter canals, which originally emptied into Alligator River but are now tributary to the inland waterway, and the Swindell, Florida, Burris, Baum, and Boundary canals, some of which are very shallow and incapable of carrying much water. In the area north of the lake herein under consideration there are 12,400 acres of land, of which 5,000 acres were cultivated in 1944 and 4,500 acres in 1946. Except for 2,000 acres of excellent farm land, the cultivated area is marginal land which is increasingly being abandoned except for pasture. The remaining 7,400 acres either have never been farmed or have been abandoned for some time. Available information indicates that relatively large areas have subsided as a result of operation of the drainage project. Local interests claim that the inland waterway has impaired drainage to the extent that crops have become progressively smaller, farm land is constantly being abandoned, and lumber can no longer be removed from swamps which have become boggy. They also claim that their land is being damaged by salt-water intrusion. They desire corrective measures.

The district engineer states that available information indicates that the major hindrance to crop production is inadequate drainage. Data indicate that salt water comes from Pamlico Sound through Pungo River and the inland waterway, and is responsible for some of the crop damage in recent years.

He proposes as the best plan of improvement the following: One, the construction of a dam, pumping plant, and control gates on Fairfield canal near the inland waterway; second, the construction of dams in Carter canal north of Boundary canal, in Boundary canal

east of Baum canal, in Swindell canal north of the road near the lake, and in Florida canal north of the road near the lake; third, the construction of dams with 30-inch automatic flood gates in Burris and Baum canals north of the road near the lake; fourth, leaving in place and strengthening where necessary canal blocks in Mill ditch north of Boundary canal, in Boundary canal west of Swindell canal, and in Swindell canal north of Boundary canal; fifth, the replacement of existing dams or canal blocks with culverts in Boundary canal at Fairfield canal, in Sadie M cut near Burris canal, in Bowen ditch, and others as needed; sixth, the removal of existing dams or canal blocks in Boundary canal west of Carter canal and in Burris and Baum canals south of Boundary canal; and seventh, the enlargement of Boundary canal between Florida canal and Carter canal and the cleaning of other canals and ditches in the area as needed.

The pumping plant would consist of three units, with rated capacity of 22,000 gallons a minute each, housed in a suitable structure. It would be capable of removing 0.28 inch of water from the 12,400 acres every 24 hours at full capacity under a total head of 5 feet.

The district engineer concludes that the improvement is economically justified and he recommends it subject to certain conditions of local cooperation.

The division engineer concurs in the recommendations of the district engineer subject to two additional conditions of local cooperation.

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors is of the opinion that participation by the United States in a project of the character proposed should be limited to providing the dam, pumping plant, and appurtenant works in Fairfield canal, the rehabilitation of Boundary canal between the east and west extremities of the proposed project including a dam east of Baum canal, a dam in Carter canal north of Boundary canal, and the dams with automatic flood gates across four canals near the lake; and local interests, in addition to furnishing the lands and rights-of-way, should perform all work inside the project, including cleaning and clearing canals and ditches necessary for efficient functioning.

Accordingly, the Board recommends modification of the existing project for the inland waterway from Norfolk, Va., to Beaufort Inlet, N. C., in the vicinity of Fairfield, N. C., generally in accordance with the plans of the district engineer and with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers may be advisable.

In accordance with law, copies of the Chief of Engineers' proposed report were furnished to the Governor of North Carolina and to the Department of the Interior for comment.

The Governor in his letter stated:

I am very anxious to see the proposed work undertaken and completed. I am confident that the proposed improvement will be in the public interest and serve a highly useful public convenience.

The Department of Interior in conclusion to their comments stated: In general, the plan of improvement as stated in your proposed report meets with the concurrence of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

In accordance with section 4 of Executive Order No. 9384, the report was submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for information as to the relationship of the proposed report to the program of the President.

The Bureau of the Budget advised that there would be no objection to the submission of the report to Congress.

The Chief of Engineers in his report states:

After due consideration of these reports, I concur in the views and recommendation of the Board. Under existing law the Corps of Engineers is without the necessary authority to undertake the construction of works for the purpose of eliminating intrusion and providing adequate drainage in the vicinity of Fairfield. The measures recommended herein to be undertaken by the United States are in general similar to those heretofore recommended and authorized for the control of salt-water intrusion along other sections of the Intracoastal Waterway system and in accord with the policy of Congress with respect to Federal participation in the improvement of drainage for agricultural and other lands.

The improvement is recommended provided that local interests give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will, first, provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way necessary for construction, maintenance, and operation of the project; second, hold and save the United States free from damage due to the construction works, and from all past damage in the area herein under consideration, which may have been caused by salt-water intrusion as a result of construction of the land cut of the inland waterway; third, obtain and hold rights-of-way to present canals involved in the improvement including the extinguishment of all present claims of right, title, and interest to any of the canals; fourth, construct all necessary bridges and culverts for roads, and construct, enlarge, and clean all canals and ditches necessary for the efficient operation of the project; and, fifth, maintain and operate the works after completion.

The cost to United States for construction is estimated in the report at $112,400. The cost to local interests is estimated at $14.890. The total cost is $127.290.

The Federal and non-Federal annual carrying charges are estimated at $4,400 and $7,900, respectively, a total of $12.300.

From information developed by the Board in cooperation with the district engineer, the indications are that flooding in the area affects 5.300 acres of marginal land, of which 2,500 acres were cultivated in 1946 and 2,800 acres have been abandoned. The intrusion of salt water from the inland waterway also adversely affects the 2,800 acres of abandoned land. The average annual damage, based on current price levels, is estimated at $48,575, of which $30,575 is due to inadequate drainage of 2,500 acres that were in cultivation in 1946; and $12,000 is due to inadequate drainage, and $6,000 is due to saltwater intrusion of 2,800 acres of abandoned land. The total damage due to salt-water intrusion from 1932 to 1947, inclusive, based on average prices during that period, is estimated at $64,000.

The improvement would provide effective drainage, eliminating salt-water intrusion, and producing total average annual benefits estimated at $44,575, of which $30,575 is from the drainage of 2,500 acres that were in cultivation in 1946, and $8,000 is from improved drainage, and $6,000 is from elimination of salt-water intrusion on 2,800 acres of abandoned land. The indicated benefit-cost ratio is 3.62, and the Board therefore concludes that the improvement is economically justified.

The intrusion of salt water in the area is the result of the construction of the land cut of the inland waterway by the United States. An annual expenditure by the United States of $4,400 to eliminate an