RIVERS AND HARBORS AUTHORIZATIONS, 1949 TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1949 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., 1304, New House Office Building, Hon. Will S. Whittington (chairman) presiding. Chairman WHITTINGTON. The committee will please be in order. STATEMENT OF HON. A. H. ANDRESEN, MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Mr. Andresen, you say your Committee on Agriculture is in session and you want to go to it at once. What is the matter you wanted to bring to our attention? H. R. 4575 Mr. ANDRESEN. H. R. 4575 relates to the construction of a smallboat basin at Winona, Minn. This project was approved in the Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, and money was provided for it in the Eightieth Congress. The report in the Seventy-seventh Congress, House Document No. 263, provided the necessary authority for the construction of this boat basin between Hamilton Street and Chatfield Street at Winona. The Chief of Engineers' office, or the district engineer and the local people decided that the location of the small-boat basin between those two streets was feasible. They have several other sites under consideration but under ordinary circumstances the Chief of Engineers could relocate the basin without any authority of law in the Winona area; but in view of the fact that House Document No. 263 provided that the small-boat basin be located between Hamilton and Chatfield Streets, the Chief of Engineers' office and also the district engineer felt that they did not have authority to go ahead and relocate it. Chairman WHITTINGTON. How far from the original location is it desired to move it? Mr. ANDRESEN. There are several local sites under consideration. Chairman WHITTINGTON. You are willing for the engineers to locate it and this bill gives them the authority to do so. Very well, Mr. Andresen; is there anything more you would like to say about it? Mr. ANDRESEN. Not at this time. Chairman WHITTINGTON. You may extend your remarks in the record. Colonel Moore, we will have your statement. By the way, will you look into the matter? It is a modification of an existing project. You may advise us later in the day whether or not it would be proper and what recommendations you would like to make. Thank you, Mr. Andresen. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Andresen, one question for the record. Does this cost any money, to make this change? Mr. ANDRESEN. No; I do not think it will cost any money. Unless the money has been dissipated that the Eightieth Congress appropriated for this project, I think they can go ahead. You can never tell how much a project will cost, but it is down, I think, to less than $10,000 for the whole thing. Mr. DONDERO. I thought it might help your project a little if the record so stated. Chairman WHITTINGTON. Are there any further questions? (Discussion off the record.) Chairman WHITTINGTON. We now have Representatives Wilson and Lucas here and we have before us the resumption of the project on the Trinity River. Colonel Moore and you, Colonel Gee-which one of you will make the statement for the record with respect to that project which, as I understand, was approved in this River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945? Colonel GEE. I am prepared to make the statement, Mr. Chairman. TRINITY RIVER (H. Doc. 242, 81st Cong.) Mr. Chairman, the survey report which will soon reach your committee for its consideration is an interim report on a review investigation of the Trinity River and tributaries in the State of Texas. The review was authorized by the River and Harbor Act, or Committee, in a resolution dated March 31, 1944, and a following resolution dated February 28, 1945. The resolution called for a review investigation of the entire Trinity River watershed for the purpose of investigating whether or not the existing river and harbor project for the Trinity River should be modified at this time. Chairman WHITTINGTON. In what regard? STATEMENT OF LT. COL. HARBERT C. GEE, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Colonel GEE. In any respect. As to the depth for navigation, sir. Chairman WHITTINGTON. Does it state anything further than what you have quoted-either one of those resolutions? Don't both about reading it, sir; we will take your conclusion. I just asked about the review with respect to whether this modification should be made in the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers with respect to navigation and local flood protection along the main stem and major tributaries of the Trinity River. Proceed with your statement, please. Colonel GEE. Ön this map before you, Mr. Chairman Chairman WHITTINGTON. Now, if I understand, the project is approved in the River and Harbor Act of March 2, 1945. Colonel GEE. Yes, sir. Chairman WHITTINGTON. In the following language: The improvements of the Trinity River and tributaries for navigation, flood control, and allied purposes is hereby approved and authorized in accordance with the reports contained in House Document No. 403, Seventy-seventh Congress. Now please tell us generally what is authorized under that act, particularly what is authorized at Dallas and at Fort Worth. Colonel GEE. In this vicinity sketch is shown shaded in red the outline of the watershed of the Trinity River. In the upper Trinity watershed are the two large cities of Forth Worth and Dallas, indicated here. The authorized project for the Trinity River to which you just referred provides for the improvement of the channel of the Trinity River through Dallas and Fort Worth to include the West Fork Channel which is a tributary joining the Trinity at the western limits of the city of Dallas and the improvement of the Elm Fork Channel to capacities of 60,000 cubic feet per second in the Clear Fork, which is a tributary in the city of Fort Worth, and 95,000 in the West Fork, these channels' capacities to be obtained by the clearing and straightening of the existing channels of the Trinity River and tributaries to augment the levee systems which were built by local interests and at their own expense. The flood of 1922 overtopped the levees in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and local interests set about, following that flood, not only to restore those levee systems by the raising of the heights of the levees but to extend the levee systems to afford protection to a greater area in those two cities. The report which will soon be before you has recommendations to make concerning the modification of the authorized project only in the city of Dallas. Consequently, the map before you shows only the Dallas portion of the presently authorized project. The improvements recommended in this plan in the city of Dallas would provide for interior drainage to dispose of those waters which are impounded behind the existing levee system shown in brown on this map in order that damage from waters impounded behind existing levee system might be reduced. The system of pumping plants, additional culverts, and a pressure sewer shown at this location will provide additional flood protection for the city of Dallas without significant modification of the existing levee system. The modification in one instance involves a diversion of a tributary of Elm Fork, Noble's Branch, into another tributary, Brockman's Creek, and a short piece of levee together with a new channel are the principal elements of work involved in this proposed diversion. The total cost of that diversion is $64,250. In addition, there are proposed on the right bank levee system, proceeding from the east, the top of this map, westward, a proposed sluice under the Corinth Street, under the levee at Corinth Street, estimated to cost about $27,800. There exists at this point a pumping station provided by local interests. The flow through that pumping station is not adequate to take care of all the waters impounded behind the levee. It is proposed in this plan to provide the Lake Clive pressure sewer which would take water from this natural lake and pass it through the levee system and into the channel. The estimated cost of that element of the plan is $261,500. There is another gravity sluice proposed at this location through the existing levee. Shown in green is an existing pressure sewer provided by local interests. At this location, there is proposed the Pavaho Street pumping plant estimated to cost $149,000 to provide a means of disposing of an additional quantity of this water. Here is another existing pumping station, pumping plant lettered D, just west of Hampton Road near the right bank levee. That is all of the improvement proposed on the right bank of the Trinity. Going to the left bank, there is proposed an alteration of industrial boulevard involving drainage structures, and regrading at an estimated cost of $28,500 which will be paid for by local interests. A modification of an existing pumping station, pumping plant lettered A, estimated to cost $261,500 for the purpose of increasing its pumping capacity. Shown in green is an existing pressure sewer. Mr. McGREGOR. Do you have any participation financially of local interests on that project, Colonel? Colonel GEE. Total is $762,000 in this over-all program which cost $4,172,000. The Turtle Creek pressure sewer is the most expensive installation included in this report and has a total estimated cost of $1,792,500. There is in existence at the present time this short levee, the Turtle Creek levee, which prevents overflow of certain of this low land which is behind the main line levee. There exists a pumping plant at this location, pumping plant B. There is proposed on Knight's Branch a short levee estimated to cost $12,160 to prevent overflow from Knight's Branch. There is proposed an additional gravity drain or sluice at Hampton Road through the left bank levee into the main stem of the Trinty. There is proposed, as I mentioned earlier, the Noble's Branch diversion channel. That summarizes the improvements which go to make up the recommended plan for the city of Dallas as a modification of the existing project which provides channel improvement only as an additional item of work above and beyond that flood protection afforded by the levee system constructed by local interests. The total estimated cost is $4,172,000, of which $762,000 is local contribution, $3,410,000 Federal. The benefits-cost ratio for all of the proposed improvements is 1.28 to 1. The proposed plan would produce benefits of $239,500 annually, of which $176,200 would be accounted for as an increase in land values. By that we mean an increase in the value of potential industrial sites in the bottom land along the railroads adjacent to the main stem of the Trinity. This land is now flooded almost annually by impounding of waters which drain toward the levee and the disposal of these waters by the proposed system of additional pumping stations would have an effect of increasing the value of these properties and permitting further industrial increase or expansion in the city of Dallas immediately behind the levee system. Mr. DONDERO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question at that point. Has it been the policy of the Federal Government to use the increase in real estate values as a measure of justifying projects? Colonel GEE. It has been so for many years to my knowledge, Mr. Dondero. Mr. DONDERO. I thought it was the policy of the Federal Government not to use the increase in real-estate values because that benefit was local. It would only inure to the owners of that real estate rather than to the people of the Nation generally, and therefore could not be taken as an element or item to justify cost. Colonel GEE. It is an element of benefit from the project and it is offset by a cash contribution on the part of the local interests of $300,000, which is their corresponding share in this project attributa ble to the incidental effect of the improvement on the value of their own land. Mr. DONDERO. I am not arguing against this project-don't misunderstand me-but I wanted some information on the record because matters have come up before and I remember debating it on the floor of the House as to whether or not that was a justifiable item. Colonel GEE. A comparable project in that respect is the project for southern Florida where, if you will recall, the local interests are required in that total project to contribute 15 percent of the initial cost of construction in cash, in addition to furnishing all the rights-of-way and to pay the maintenance charges on that project, which amount to more than $3,250,000 annually. Mr. DONDERO. You are referring to the Lake Okeechobee section where the land is mostly sugar land? Colonel GEE. Yes, sir; and there is considerable benefit directly to that land which will have the effect of raising its production over the years. Chairman WHITTINGTON. In order that the committee may have a picture of the matter under consideration, the River and Harbor Act was approved March 2, 1945. It is rather anomalous that before the approval of the project by the Congress the resolutions to review the matter under consideration were adopted, as I understood you from the date of both resolutions there-they were adopted before the improvement was ever authorized. What have you to say as to that, please, sir? Colonel GEE. The first resolution is dated March 31, 1944, and the second, February 28, 1945, sir. Chairman WHITTINGTON. Pardon me, I had that in mind when I asked the question. They are both before the act. Colonel GEE. That is correct, sir. Chairman WHITTINGTON. It is rather unusual that the Congress of the United States and the Chief of Engineers should have recommended an act before those resolutions were reported on. What have you to say about that? How was it those resolutions were passed before this project was approved? With all deference to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, it ought never to have been approved by the committee but was anyway, this Upper Trinity matter. Now, then, what have you to say as to why that was not brought to the attention of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, if it was necessary to review the project? Colonel GEE. I cannot answer your question, sir. I really do not know. Chairman WHITTINGTON. Secondly, this report that you speak of— where is it? Colonel GEE. The report is now with the Bureau of the Budget. Chairman WHITTINGTON. It has not been transmitted to Congress? Colonel GEE. No, sir. Chairman WHITTINGTON. As you know, unless the report is transmitted to the Congress, under the rules of the committee, we cannot give favorable consideration; but out of respect to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Lucas and others down in Texas we are hearing this general matter. Thirdly, as to this report that is with the Bureau of the Budget, was it made before the recent flood out there at Dallas? |