Page images


Senator ELLENDER. I understand that, but how was the selection made? Who made the selection?

General CHORPENING. I was going to explain that, sir. In our overceiling presentation to the Bureau of the Budget, we had included 35 new starts and resumptions for consideration. The Bureau of the Budget then directed us to screen this list and make recommendations for new starts, based on certain additional criteria they gave to guide us. Those criteria can be placed before the committeo if you desire, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. I wish you would, so we can have the whole picture.

General CHORPENING. I can read the criteria. These were the criteria given to us on the selection of new starts:


1. The basic field topographic, hydrologic, foundation, soil, and other survey work have been finished; the definite project planning report has been completed with the design, scope, and extent of major structures determined ; detailed estimates of costs based on specific quantity computations and unit price assumptions have been developed.

2. A current economic evaluation has been made which shows a favorable benefit-cost ratio.

3. There is reasonable assurance that local interests will furnish promptly any local cooperation or enter into any contracts or agreements, which may be required, and

4. Viewed collectively, and considering projects completed and under construction, the geographic base will be broadened in the national interest.

5. Navigation: It is an improvement of an existing harbor or waterway serving a considerable volume of existing commercial or Federal business which is required to provide reliable and expeditious movement of traffic and which would result in substantial monetary savings, or

6. Flood control: It is a levee, channel, or reservoir project which would protect highly developed urban areas, particularly those where defense or industrial activities are concentrated, from recurring severe floods.


1. New start: Preference has been given to projects which :
(a) Have a substantial degree of local participation.
(b) Have a high benefit-cost ratio.

(c) Can be completed within 3 years with relatively low annual financial requirements.

(d) If a navigation project of general need, provides a high degree of insurance to important existing commerce.

le) If a local flood-protection project, is necessary to prevent flood damage stemming from an existing Federal project.

2. Resumption : It is a resumption of work on a project in which the Federal Government has made a substantial investment and further postponement would result in considerable economic loss.

3. Reconstruction: It is a replacement of an existing structure or structures in such dilapidated physical condition that further repairs are impracticable and serious threat of failure together with closure of waterway makes the calculated risk of extended further delay inadvisable.

Senator ELLENDER. Then the application of that criteria was made solely by the Corps of Engineers!

General CHORPENING. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Was the selection made by the Corps of Engineers?

General CHORPENING. Not entirely, sir. With those criteria, the Corps of Engineers was directed to make recommendations to the Bureau of the Budget keeping in mind the further criteria that: 1, The amount in the budget for new starts or resumptions should approximate $17 million in fiscal year 1955; 2, the total cost of these projects should be in the neighborhood of $100 million.

(A comparison of the estimates for this project over the past 3 years follows:) Comparison of estimated costs, Arkansas River and tributaries, Arkansas and

Oklahoma (bank stabilization and channel rectification)

[blocks in formation]

Emergency project costs (1951 hudget items,

exrlusire of unearmarked funds). Unearmarked (unds for future emergencies.

Total, emergency project costs
Fort Smith to Mill Creek Mountain

Trustee Bend rutoff
Mill Creek Mountain to Morrisons Bluft

McLean Bottom revet ment.
Little Rock to Jefferson County Free Bridge.

362.0 to 397.0
310.0 to 337.0.
397.0 to 285.0
298.7 to 296.1.

21, 470,000

Estes Plare (LR)
Warings Bend (RB).


165.5 to 115.6.
150.3 to 118.0
148.2 to 146.5.

1, ༡།༣ () 21. 220,000


2, 433, 000

Jefferson County Free Bridge to Rob Roy

Below Fergus Crossing revetment.


101.7 to 89.0.

3 375,000

Comparison of estimated costs, Arkansas River and tributaries, Arkansas and

Oklahoma (bank stabiliation and channel rectification)—Continued

[blocks in formation]

*Indicates locations on which work was complete as of June 30, 1953. Increase fiscal year 1955 over fiscal ycar 1954.

$8,623, 400 I Budgeted locations not previously included.

1, 810,000 2 Original estimated cost of items on which work was initiated in fiscal year 1954 with unearmarked funds..

2,000,000 Net increase in items on which work was initiated in fiscal year 1954 with unearmarked funds.

2, 492, 200 * Items scheduled for initiation after fiscal year 1955.

2, 321, 200 Senator KNOWLAND. Proceed.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Colonel Dixon. The next project is Humboldt Harbor and Bay, State of California. This project was authorized by an act of Congress in July 1952. It modifies the existing project to deepen the bar and entrance channels to 40 feet, and the North Bay, Eureka,

and Samoa Channels to 30 feet. This modification is estimated to cost $515,000, of which $250,000 was appropriated in 1954.

The $250,000 was expended by November of 1954 in deepening part of the bar and entrance channel and deepening the North Bay Channel for part of its length. The requested amount before the committee this morning is $265,000, which should complete this modification of the Humboldt Harbor and Bay project.

Senator KNOWLAND. What is the benefit-cost ratio?
Colonel Dixon. 2.8 to 1, sir.
General CHORPENING. There was no change in the cost estimate.


Senator KNOWLAND. Redwood City.

Colonel Dixon. We are discussing this morning only one authorized modification of the Redwood City project. The total estimated Federal cost of the entire project is $1,713,000, of which there has been appropriated to date $129,900. We are requesting that $1 million be applied to the 1945 modification of this project. It involves the deepening of San Bruno Channel, the harbor entrance channel, and the existing turning basin, which are scheduled for completion by July 1955.

Senator KNOWLAND. Is there local cooperation required on this?

Colonel Dixon. There is no local cooperation on this modification of the Redwood City project. Local interests have voluntarily furnished spoil-disposal areas at a cost of about $10,000 to them, but by law there is no local cooperation required.

Senator KNOWLAND. What is the benefit-cost ratio?
Colonel Dixon. 1.6 to 1, sir.

Senator KNOWLAND. This is a 30-foot channel across San Bruno Shoal; and the other one on which there was local cooperation mentioned last year, where there was some bond issue involved, dealt with the 30-foot channel upstream at the upper end of the turning basin.

Colonel Dixon. That is the 1950 modification of the project; yes, sir.

Senator KNOWLAND. Proceed with the next item.

HOUSATONIC RIVER, CONN. Colonel Dixon. The next project is the Housatonic River in the State of Connecticut. This was authorized in the 1930 River and Harbor Act. It is for the construction of an 18-foot channel 200 feet wide for 5 miles. This would allow the use of deep-draft barges up the Housatonic River for a distance of approximately 5 miles when completed.

The estimated Federal cost of the entire project is $1,349,000. To date there has been appropriated $234,000 for earlier modifications. This project is a new start. We are requesting this morning $500,000 to initiate the project modification for this 18-foot dredging. The local cooperation amounts to $150,000 in cash plus the furnishing of a spoil-disposal area or, in the absence of that, to furnish $50,000 more in cash. The local interests have indicated a willingness to supply the total amount of $200,000.

Senator KNOWLAND. What is the benefit-cost ratio?
Colonel DIXON. 3.9 to 1, sir.
Senator KNOWLAND. It is fairly high.
Colonel Dixon. Yes, sir.


Senator KNOWLAND. What industry will be served by this project?

Colonel Dixon. The benefit-cost ratio of 3.9 to 1 has been established principally on the expected coal movement. There is now coal movement in shallow barges of 1,000-ton capacity. The primary user is the Connecticut Power & Light Co. They are desirous of using larger barges of 3,000 ton capacity, which would materially cheapen the cost of the fuel.

According to the laws of the State of Connecticut, the savings in the fuel is passed directly on to the consumer. The company serves a substantial part of the State of Connecticut.

Senator ELLENDER. You say this is a brand-new start?
Colonel Dixon. This is a new start; yes, sir.

Senator KNOWLAND. He testified before you came in, Senator, that there are 22 projects for navigation that we are considering in total. Ten are new starts, though, of the 10, 3 are really resumptions where they had been stopped or had started before. But they are listed as new starts. Of the 22, about 10 of them might be considered new starts.


Senator ELLENDER. You will recall that last year I made an effort to get the Corps of Engineers to make a start on the Port Allen-Indian village cutoff just across from Baton Rouge, La. As I recall, a very high rating was given to that project. The people from Baton Rouge and West Baton Rouge Parishes spent quite a lot of effort in obtaining the rights-of-way. They have issued some bonds in the hope that this great project would be started soon.

Now, the reason why, as I remember, that no funds were provided was that the plans had not sufficiently advanced. Since last year, it is my recollection that you provided money and continued work on these plans. I am wondering if we could make a start on that this year.

General CHORPENING. A start could be made. Actually, although we did have planning funds allocated to that project this year, we have not brought our planning sufficiently to the point where we normally would be in the position to say we are ready for construction. We are requesting additional planning funds this year.

Senator ELLENDER. Are we to understand you did not utilize the $50,000 or whatever sum was allocated last year!

General CHORPENING. We are using those funds, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. How much money could you safely spend this year in the light of the planning that has been made to date?


General CHORPENING. We could proceed this year with the dredging involved in that project. As I recall, the estimated cost of that dredging is in the neighborhood of $2,000,000. I think we could profitably utilize at least $1,000,000 in this year on that particular work. We are not in position to proceed with the construction of the lock immediately because that is where we are really expending our planning funds, on the detailed design of that lock.

Senator ELLENDER. As I recall, with particular reference to that project, the locks were to be erected of a certain size and then later the size was changed to 84 feet by 1,200 feet. You are proceeding along that line?

« PreviousContinue »