At prior hearings on this proposed project before the Board of Army Engineers, the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House, and the House Committee on Public Works, we appeared and presented detailed statements in opposition to this project on behalf of the parties above named. The sole purpose of this proposed project as evidenced by the testimony of the proponents is to afford the shippers of bituminous coal from the Big Sandy and the Elkhorn districts of eastern Kentucky, a substantial advantage in their freight rates at public expense, on such coal moving via barge to various destinations on the Ohio, Mississippi, and Illinois Rivers and via barge-rail or barge-truck routes to interior points in the States of Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Missouri, the natural marketing area for coal produced in Illinois as compared with the rates on similar coal shipments from other eastern mining districts and from the mines in Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky. The proponents of this proposal have stated to the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House, and the United States Board of Army Engineers in its report state that if this project is completed it will enable the shippers of coal from the Big Sandy Basin to move additional coal to the extent of between 8,300,000 tons to 15,000,000 tons annually to the middle western markets. None of this coal will be to new markets, and all of it will displace coal now being supplied to the present markets by the mines located in Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky. The producers of bituminous coal in the Big Sandy Basin now have adequate transportation facilities and are adequately served by the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. and the Norfolk & Western Railway Co., two of the largest and most efficient railroads in the country, and these prosperous eastern coal fields already have almost unlimited markets for all of their coal. This project is one of the most impracticable, uneconomical, unsound, and unfair projects in the long history of inland navigation. The principal opposition to the canalization of the Big Sandy River and its tributaries comes from the citizens of the Big Sandy Valley, the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, and the Big Sandy-Elkhorn Coal Operators' Association, who are thoroughly familiar with the conditions prevailing in that territory and the unnecessary and wanton waste of Government funds which would result from the construction of this project, the use of which will not reduce but increase the cost of transportation in the United States as a whole. If the canal accomplishes what its advocates say it will, then it will have a permanent and far-reaching injurious effect upon the coal producers in Illinois, with substantial loss of business to them, consequent unemployment of railroad and mine employees, a large loss of traffic and revenue to the railroads serving the adversely affected areas, which in turn, will undoubtedly necessitate increases in freight rates on the traffic which such railroads continue to transport. Because of the press of other matters, it will be impossible for us to appear at the hearing before the subcommittee on July 15. However, in view of the foregoing facts and the adverse effect which the canalization of the Big Sandy and its tributaries, the Tug and Levisa Forks would inevitably have upon the interests whom we represent, we urgently request that the evidence already presented be given your careful consideration and that you use your good offices in an endeavor to have this project omitted from the Rivers and Harbors bill which your committee now has under consideration. Yours truly, EDGAR O. ANderson. Representing: Illinois Coal Traffic Bureau, Central Illinois District JACKSON, KY., July 23, 1949. SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: I am taking this means of entering protest against the project to canalize the Big Sandy River in Kentucky. In my opinion this would be a detriment rather than a benefit to that section. It would destroy a good deal of fertile land, require the relocation and rebuilding of highways, interfere with the free flow of traffic, and cause many other inconveniences and damage. I am not an engineer, but do not believe there is sufficient water in this river, especially at dry seasons of the year, to furnish water transportation. Some years ago there was much agitation to lock and dam many of the small rivers in the county, with the idea of furnishing cheaper transportation for coal and other heavy freight; and in most instances this was money wasted, and instead of these locks being a help, they have prevented the free use of these rivers for ordinary purposes and are a continuous expense. I believe this is what would happen to the Big Sandy. But conceding this to be a feasible proposition, it appears that it would be subsidizing, at great expense to the Government, one particular coal field; and it is conceivable that other coal fields in this State, as well as elsewhere, might be greatly injured, if not destroyed, by reason of the cheaper rates furnished this particular locality at Government expense. Yours very truly, PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, GRANNIS BACH. Cox AUTO PARTS CO., INC., United States Senate, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: For some time we have been serving the trading area in and around Pikeville, Ky., as an automotive parts jobber. Many of our former customers were independent coal operators who have lost their market for coal due to high freight rates. During the time that these independent coal operators were able to sell their coal they employed thousands of local workers who have been out of work for months. The canalizing of the Big Sandy, Levisa and Tug Forks would put this coal field in a competitive position with other local fields served by canalized rivers. Yours truly, Cox AUTO PARTS Co., (Whereupon, at 5:45 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.) FLOOD CONTROL-RIVERS AND HARBORS TUESDAY, JULY 19, 1949 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment. at 10 a. m., in room 412, Senate Office Building, Senator Dennis Chavez (chairman of the full committee) presiding. Present: Senators Chavez (chairman), Sparkman, and Kerr. Also present: Representative Antonio M. Fernandez; and Lt. Col. H. Gee, Office Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army. RIO GRANDE PROJECT (S. 1392) The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. This is a continuation of the hearings on the general flood control and rivers and harbors bill with particular discussion today on the Rio Grande Basin of New Mexico and Senate hill 1392. (S. 1392 is as follows:) [S. 1392, 81st Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL Authorizing appropriations for the comprehensive plan for the Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, in addition to previous authorizations, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $38,000,000 to be expended by the Department of the Army and the sum of $15,000,000 to be expended by the Department of the Interior for prosecution of the comprehensive plan for the Rio Grande Basin as approved by the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948 (Public Law 858, Eightieth Congress), subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in that Act. The CHAIRMAN. Before proceeding with the calling of the witness, I would like to make a short statement on behalf of the bill now under consideration. The Rio Grande Valley has one of the largest and most distressing histories of flood damage in our entire country. Since we are located in the arid portion of the country, we suffer from an over-all insufficiency of water. This alone is a tremendous economic hurdle. But on top of this we are also faced with the additional hurdle of having our limited rainfall concentrated too much at one time. This causes havoc throughout the valley not only from direct water damage but also from the deluge of silt that is carried downstream and dropped in both the stream beds and the adjoining highly developed valley lands. Our people have spent millions of dollars in trying to lick these problems. They were successful for a time, but the accumulations of silt progressively raised the river bed several feet above the valley floor, and the problems of holding back both the silt and floodwaters have become too large for them to handle. The Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation have studied these problems for several years and in 1948 they completed a coordinated plan of flood control and conservation measures designed to remedy this repeated waste and damage which has been so long neglected. That plan was presented to this committee last year and the distress and urgency of the problem so impressed the committee that the plan was adopted in the Emergency Flood Control Act of 1948. A small authorization was provided to get work started on the project as soon as possible. We are now seeking to increase this authorization so that the approved plan can be carried forward without delay or interruption. I have introduced a bill, S. 1392, which will raise the authorization by the amount of $38,000,000 for the Corps of Engineers' part of the plan, and $15,000,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation work. It is my hope that the committee, after analyzing the merits of our request, will find the necessity for rapid progress on the Rio Grande project calls for the inclusion of these authorization increases in the omnibus Flood Control and River and Harbor bill which we expect to receive from the House soon. I could talk to you for hours about the suffering in the valleymostly from personal observation and experience, but I shall not do so at this time because I know you have heard me discuss this subject many times in the past and you know how deeply I feel about it. We have with us today several other people from the valley who represent all walks of life and economic activity in the area. They will tell you why we must push forward with this plan, and how they have prepared themselves to carry out their share of the project. We also have with us the engineers who developed the plan and will carry on the construction work, and other technicians and representatives of Federal agencies affected by or otherwise interested in the protection of the valley who will explain how this project is related to national defense and other Federal activities in the area, as well as the general welfare and economic development of the Nation. I think that their statements will be of great value to you and will give you a clear picture of the worthiness and necessity for this work. Needless to say, I support their requests completely and with the utmost earnestness and sincerity. I should like to ask you to hear these people now. Before calling first on Senator Anderson I want to read two or three short abstracts from the address by the President from the White House over a national radio hook-up the night of Wednesday, July 13, and I quote: The truth is that an investment in the future of America is not a waste of money. The dollars we put into our rivers and our power plants will be repaid to us in fruitful valleys and prosperous communities. The budget includes the cost of almost everything the Government does. It includes atomic energy, and dams, and soil conservation and flood control, and many other things essential to the growth of our country. These things are necessary, but in the present budget we have not provided extravagantly for them. At a time when more investment is needed, it would be foolish to cut down productive Government investment in national resources and public works. It |