Page images
PDF
EPUB

General STURGIS. To whom did we send it?
Senator HOLLAND. Yes.
General STURGIS. To the Bureau of the Budget.
Senator HOLLAND. Has it yet reached the Public Works Committee?
General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Copies were sent to the Public
Works Committee at the same time that we made our submittal to
the Bureau of the Budget.

Senator McCLELLAN. Were not copies sent to the two appropriations
committees?
General CHORPENING. I believe so.
Senator MCCLELLAN. There is a copy on file with this committee, as
I understand it.

General CHORPENING. Senator, if the committee does not have a copy we will furnish it one.

Senator HOLLAND. I think that should be in the record of the hearing, because I fully agree that there is a lot of deadwood and that we ought to know what the thinking of the engineers is on it. It should be filed as a part of the hearings, and then the committee can make up its mind whether it wants it printed when it sees how voluminous it is. Senator McCLELLAN. General, you will supply that information for the committee and the committee may determine later whether it should be made a part of the printed record of these hearings.

Senator ROBERTSON. It is my belief that if more people will read these hearings than will read the records of the Public Works Committee, and I am not too sure either one of these, the House or the Senate, plans to publish this.

Senator McCLELLAN. I would prefer to defer the decision as to whether it should be published as a part of the hearings until we have seen it and the chairman and other members could have opportunity to see it.

Senator ROBERTSON. If it is not too expensive, this would be the best place to publish it. Senator MCCLELLAN. I hope the other committee will agree with it. Senator HOLLAND. I will not be contentious about that. It should be published somewhere, but I am inclined to think the more appropriate place for it to be published is by the Public Works Committee. The action is a function of the Public Works Committee and not of this committee. Senator McCLELLAN. We will determine that later, but we will ask the general to submit it to the committee for its further determination.

BACKLOG CATEGORIES

[ocr errors]

and

General STURGIS. Specifically, we analyzed our backlog of projects

proposed the classification of each project as active; or deferred for further study; or inactive. Senator McCLELLAN. Would you elaborate on those three categories? What do you mean by active! I think that is important for us to fully understand.

General STURGIS. Active projects are those projects which we have examined in the light of current requirements and conditions-engineering costs and economic benefits

-and have determined that those projects are sound projects, needed in the communities or in the regions and should be built.

Senator McCLELLAN. In other words, those are the projects heretofore authorized about which the Corps of Engineers now have no doubt about their economic justification and about their need and about the contribution they will make toward the development of our resources ?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir.

Senator McCLELLAX. In other words, there is no doubt in the minds ] of the corps that those projects should be constructed as early as our physical situation will permit, is that correct?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir.
Senator McCLELLAN. Go to the next category, please.

General STURGIS. The next category are those projects which need more detailed study. In other words, a study to determine whether they clearly fall into category one or not. Since authorization of the projects there may have been developments or changes which require reevaluation, or the requirement for them is apparently no longer in existence, or the interests are conflicting. In other words, they have a potential but we need to study them further to bring out that potential to see whether they should be placed in the active category or not.

Senator McCLELLAX. In other words, simply a question mark has arisen since they were authorized ?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir.

Senator McCLELLAN. Would that require, and do you contemplate on those, a further field study; that is, surveys, not with respect to plans of construction but I mean a general survey of the economic factors that are involved and the contribution in the way of benefits that would be made if the projects were constructed? Also, taking into account if they are to be constructed, whether they should be modified in some particular respect.

General Sturgis. Yes, sir. We must go back to the field in a number of cases and obtain more data and examine recent information in the light of modern trends, demands, and conditions.

REVIEW OF PROJECTS

[ocr errors]

Senator McCLELLAN. Would you at that point indicate how long it might take for you to review or restudy those projects that might be classified as in category two before you could make a further report, something definite on them to the Congress as to whether their construction was justified or whether they needed modification? In other words, to give the Congress the benefit of the restudy. How long would it take to conclude that restudy?

General Sturgis. It would be over a period of years. But since General Chorpening has this problem directly and has been living with it from day to day, may I ask him to answer that question?

Senator McCLELLAN. I think the projects in which we are interested would come in that category. Any information you can give us to enlighten us as to what the probabilities are and what we may expect with respect to how long before we can know what the corps recommendation is, I think would be helpful.

General CHORPENING. The time that it would take on a review of the projects in this category would be dependent to quite an extent on the size and complexity of the project under consideration. Some of them that are listed as deferred for restudy are relatively very small proj

eets. Obviously, it would not take so long. Others are quite large in scope, and would take a considerably greater period.

We, in our recommendations to the Bureau of the Budget, have stated that we should have separate funds appropriated for that specific purpose; for reviewing these projects. They are not surveys; they are not planning funds, because we are not proposing to go into construction. It is another type of funds we would require for the purpose.

Senator MCCLELLAN. In other words, there should be a special fund appropriated to make this review of the projects in what we call category 2, or projects de ferred for further study? General STURGIS. That is correct. Senator MOCLELLAN. You need time and you need funds to enable you to do that ? General STURGIS. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is, before you can recommend to the Congress that they should be placed on the inactive list or in the third category for possible deactivation or whether they should be retained and further pursued and prosecuted as active projects that need constructing.

General STURGIS. Yes, sir.
Senator ROBERTSON. Is there anything in the current budget for

that?

General STURGIS. No, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON. Did you request the Bureau of the Budget to
put anything in there!
General STURGIS. Yes, sir.
Senator ROBERTSON. Did they turn you down?
General STURGIS. Yes, sir, for the present.

FUNDS NEEDED FOR RESTUDY

Senator MCCLELLAN. What would be your estimate of the amount of funds needed to get the work under way for the next fiscal year?

General CHORPENING. I believe our overceiling request to the Bureau of the Budget to initiate this program was $11,2 million.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Let us go to the next one then, inactive. What do you place in that category?

General STURGIS. Inactive projects consist of those projects which presently, by study, are uneconomical or there is no requirement for them. Economic conditions have changed since they have been authorized. As you know, some of these authorizations go back 10 and 15 years.

Senator McCLELLAN. In other words, they are dormant. There is no real activity or interest in them; or if there is interest in them, the economic value of them does not justify the cost ? General STURGIS. Yes, sir. Senator McCLELLAN. In other words, there are a number that are included in that category that you would say, so far as the Congress is concerned and the Corps of Engineers, that they should be eliminated from the civil-works program and may as well be deauthorized. General STURGIS. They could be deauthorized, but that would take the action of Congress.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Senator MCCLELLAN. May I ask one other question? Some of these projects are no longer needed because other projects may have been constructed that really perform the function or include the function and services that the project was intended to serve at the time it was authorized and therefore no longer needed ?

General STURGIS. Yes, sir; in some cases.

MAINTENANCE FUNDS

Senator ROBERTSON. I would like to ask about another type of project; it is one that has been completed but does not stay completed. That is, channel work. I believe we usually give you a lump sum to keep open channels that are necessary in navigation.

General CHORPENING. That is right.

Senator ROBERTSON. How does the appropriation in the current budget compare with what you had last year for that work?

General STURGIS. Will you give the breakdown of the operations, General?

Senator McCLELLAN. Is that regarded as maintenance !

General CHORPENING. That is maintenance funds that the Senator is referring to, for all navigation projects and flood-control projects or dams which the Federal Government is required to maintain after construction. In the budget this year for the maintenance of navigation, of harbors, of channels, of waterways, and of dams, we have a budget request before the committee of $76,200,000.

You asked how that compares to last year? Later in General Sturgis' remarks we will bring that out, but as I recall it, in the current fiscal year 1954, we received $79 million for that purpose. .

Senator McCLELLAN. It is a little less. General CHORPENING. $2,800,000 less. Senator ROBERTSON. We have some acute channel problems in Virginia. You have got to keep open a 35-foot channel for the naval base. That is a “must.” Unless we can develop a disposal area, we have to haul it 45 miles out to sea and that more than doubles the cost of your channel work. What does this budget do for Craney Island ?

FUNDS FOR CRANEY ISLAND

General CHORPENING. There are funds requested for the continuation of the work on Craney Island. $700,000 was received in this current fiscal year.

Senator ROBERTSON. Is it a satisfactory amount?

General CHORPENING. It will enable us to make real progress there. This year's budget request is for $3 million.

Senator ROBERTSON. We have a number of smaller channels that are filling up and one of them completely obstructed. Who has the final say so as to whether they will be kept open or just let go to pot?

General STURGIS. May I answer?
Senator ROBERTSON. Yes.

General Sturgis. That whole question of maintenance is a very rugged one for us, and I am specifically covering it later in my statement with adequate charts which illustrate the position we are in. In other words, our maintenance funds have been growing less and less each year and our navigation has been getting greater and greater.

Senator ROBERTSON. I am glad you are going to cover it, but I am very much interested in that bipartisan action that the chairman mentioned. I may not be able to stay here, but let us have this understanding: You have the decision as to whether it will be done?

General STURGIS. I have the unhappy problem of distributing the very limited funds. In other words, I have to allocate shortages of money.

Senator ROBERTSON. But can anybody tell you, "Put it here and leare it out there”?

General STURGIS. No, sir. It requires a great deal of economic and engineering judgment in connection with the allocation of funds to projects.

Senator ROBERTSON. Suppose I know of 2 or 3 projects that I think are vital to the commerce of Virginia. I take it up with you, the President, or the budget, or who handles it?

General CHORPENING. Senator, in presenting our maintenance request to the committees of Congress, we also submit a proposed list of the places where we will utilize the funds being requested. It represents our best judgment at the time.

Senator ROBERTSON. When we get to the analysis of your budget, I can find out whether you left me out or not?

General CHORPENING. Yes, sir. Senator McCLELLAN. In other words, you present a breakdown of maintenance like the breakdown of the lower Mississippi, what you propose to do with the money if you get it!

General CHORPENING. Yes, sir.

Senator McCLELLAN. And if the Congress appropriates on that basis, then it is, in effect, earmarked for each project according to your breakdown?

General CHORPENING. Not quite, sir. That is our proposal as we see it at the time, but the matter of maintenance of our harbors and channels is one that it is impossible to foresee accurately now.

Senator McCLELLAN. In other words, there is enough latitude there where you can exercise your discretion to meet contingencies that may arise that were not contemplated at the time you submitted the breakdown?

General CHORPENING. That is correct.
Senator McCLELLAN. You may proceed.

Were there any other questions regarding these three categories, Senators? I thought it was important to get that in the testimony here.

If I am not mistaken, you did submit to this committee--and I think I have—a copy of this report. I had an opportunity to see a copy of it. I thought it was filed with this committee.

General CHORPENING. With the Public Works Committee, sir.
Senator McCLELLAN. You may proceed, General.

General STURGIS. Our proposal also contemplates that such a project in the deferred-for-restudy category can be moved to the active list only upon further study by us, and a showing to the Public Works Committees that the higher category is appropriate, followed by affirmative action of the committees to establish the project in the active category.

We also stated that projects in the lowest category, inactive, are subject to deauthorization, if the Congress desires; such action would

« PreviousContinue »