adequate rail transportation tried to get the engineers to approve a project for the canal. For 20 years the engineers refused to do it.

In 1946 they approved the project, but I think their approval was somewhat the order of what we call a "Botetourt verdict' -a murder case on circumstantial evidence where the jury, after being out for a long time, comes back and reports to the judge, "We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty by a dam close shave.'

The matter was included in 1946 in the omnibus bill. We attacked it on the floor and beat it by a large majority. It then came before the Senate committee and the Senate committee overwhelmingly turned it down.

Effort was made again before the House committee at this session and the committee was so much opposed to it that it did not even take a vote on that project and it was not included in this bill.

On Friday you will have witnesses from Kentucky to appear before this committee asking this committee to put the project in this bill. Now, General, you will probably recall this project. Here is a project on the Big Sandy where the engineers are going to be called upon to do something which God never in his wisdom saw fit to do, and that is to pump water uphill out of the Ohio River to put it in the Big Sandy so it will run down again. Is that not true?

General PICK. That is part of the project.

Senator ROBERTSON. Two million dollars to pump water out of the Ohio River uphill to put it in the Big Sandy and let it come down again, when I do not know how many dog-leg crooks and bends are in the project so that you could not even get one barge around much less a tow.

I understand you do not think so highly of that project, General, is that correct?

General PICK. That project has been studied and studied quite a bit. We do not think that the present estimate of cost on the project is up to date. We think that probably the actual cost of the work would exceed the estimated cost as shown in the report now. Senator ROBERTSON. That is my impression.

It vitally affects our coal interests in both Virginia and West Virginia, and I just wanted, in case I did not get here Friday, to develop that point.

I know there are many worth-while projects in the field of flood control and rivers and harbors that we are fully justified in supporting, but we ought to protect ourselves from the charge so frequently made when we bring out one of these bills, "Here is another pork barrel."

Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Senator Robertson, I am actually acting chairman of this subcommittee today, and I was not able to get thoroughly familiar with the bill and the projects contained in it.

Is this Big Sandy project in this bill as it came from the House? Senator ROBERTSON. It is not. The House had extensive hearings and did not even think enough of the project to take a vote in the committee on it. It was just left out and nobody proposed to put it in. Senator MCCLELLAN. I see it is scheduled here for Friday. There will be hearings on it Friday. Do I understand that local interests or proponents of the project will appear before the committee Friday seeking it be placed in the bill?

Senator ROBERTSON. Absolutely. The coal interests in Virginia and West Virginia and the majority of the coal interests in Kentucky will oppose it. The United Mine Workers oppose it, and all of the railroads that serve that area oppose it. And all those that think public funds should not be spent except on justifiable projects are opposed to it.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Senator Robertson, will you be able to attend the hearings Friday to give us the benefit of your knowledge of this?

Senator ROBERTSON. I will be glad to try to come back. I have been with this project for some years. I made a speech against it, with all due deference, when it was on the floor in 1946, and I think it is one of the most unjustifiable projects I have ever seen seriously proposed.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I think you might be a lot of assistance to the committee if you can attend the hearing Friday in an effort to develop the facts.

Senator ROBERTSON. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to come back. If I do, I will try to write out something that will not take over 5 minutes.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Any other questions?

Senator STENNIS. May I have just 2 minutes here on a very small project?

Senator MCCLELLAN. Yes.

BILOXI HARBOR, MISS.

Senator STENNIS. It is not in the bill because they did not have a report on it. I understand the report on Biloxi, Miss., harbor project is still in the Speaker's office and not yet ordered printed or given a document number.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very small project. It does not require any expenditure of money on new construction. It is merely an extension of the maintenance of the Biloxi, Miss., Harbor, at a cost of only $2,500 increase over that now required.

The benefits here are 3.14 to 1.

Senator McCLELLAN. Is that a maintenance cost?

Senator STENNIS. Just an extension on the maintenance project down there in this harbor.

It has been approved. It is an increase of only $2,500 in maintenance and no new construction costs.

May I put the justification in the record and ask the colonel to, if he will, shed such further light on the matter as he wishes.

Senator MCCLELLAN. What you are presenting is the justification for it?

Senator STENNIS. That is correct.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That may be incorporated in the record at this point.

(The report is as follows:)

BILOXI HARBOR, MISS.

Location:-On Mississippi Sound, an arm of the Gulf of Mexico, 75 miles east of New Orleans, La. The water front extends along the southeast and north sides of the peninsula on which Biloxi is located. The south water front extends easterly to a protective portion of Biloxi Bay lying between the mainland and

Deer Island, a narrow island southeast of Biloxi. Back Bay extends westerly from Biloxi Bay 10 miles inland on the north side of the peninsula. Ott Bayou is a short stream in the city of Biloxi draining easterly into Biloxi Bay between the L. & N. Railroad and United States Highway No. 90.

Report authorized by:-Resolutions of the House Committee on Rivers and Harbors adopted October 21, 1938, February 11, 1941, and February 11, 1941. Existing project:-Provides for a channel west of Deer Island, 10 feet deep and 150 feet wide from the 10 foot depth in Mississippi Sound to the south_water front of Biloxi, and thence north to Deer Island to deep water in Back Bay of Biloxi; for a relocated channel 10 feet deep 150 feet wide and 4,600 feet long in front of East Beach; for discontinuing maintenance of the abandoned portion of the channel; for maintenance of the Coast Guard channel to a depth of 6 feet and a width of 300 feet; for an entrance channel 6 feet deep and 50 feet wide into Old Fort Bayou; and for an entrance channel 8 feet deep and 100 feet wide through Cranes Neck into Bayou Bernard. The project is complete except for the improvement of Old Fort Bayou and Bayou Bernard at a cost of about $60,000. Local interests have dredged a channel 6 feet deep and 40 feet wide along the north side of the highway bridge from the harbor channel to a sea food cannery near the mouth of Ott Bayou. This channel has been redredged three times in the interest of navigation at a Federal cost of $7,000. In 1934 the United States Coast Guard dredged a channel 6 feet deep and 300 feet wide from the harbor channel to the Coast Guard base. In 1944 that agency dredged a channel 12,000 feet long, 8 feet deep and 150 feet wide southeastwardly from its base.

Recommended improvements:-Assumption by the United States of the maintenance to a depth of 6 feet and a width of 40 feet of the existing channel along the north side of United States highway bridge from the main channel in Biloxi Bay to the entrance to Ott Bavou.

Estimated Federal cost:-No Federal cost for new work will be needed.
Estimated cost to local interests:-None.

Annual Federal maintenance cost:-An increase of $2,500 over that now required for Biloxi Harbor.

Benefits: Biloxi with a 1940 population of 17,500 is primarily a center for the sea food industry upon which the economy of the locality depends. This city ranks first among the ports on the Gulf Coast in the production of sea food, with oyster, shrimp, and crab the most important. The sea food is received and packed in 23 factories supplied by more than 500 boats operating in this area. About 5,000 people are employed in this industry. Commerce in the harbor averaged 182,000 tons annually over the last decade reaching as high as 312,500 in 1941. Commerce of Ott Bayou pertains to the operation of one large sea food canning factory which employs several hundred people and operates 27 boats. Traffic on Ott Bayou in 1946 consisted of 2,863 tons of seafood. present channel leading to Ott Bayou is subject to shoaling which restricts access to the sea food canning factories to small skiffs or other shallow draft boats. This requires transfer of sea food from fishing boats to smaller boats or to unload cargoes at other docks for transfer to the plant by truck. This procedure causes increased costs, spoilage of cargoes, hazards and delay. The estimated annual benefits resulting from the savings and transportation costs amounts to $8,040 and the benefit to cost ratio is 3.14 to 1.0.

The

Senator MCCLELLAN. Do you wish to interrogate the colonel on it? Senator STENNIS. Colonel Moore, you are familiar with this project I have just mentioned?

Colonel MOORE. Yes, sir.

General PICK. Senator and Mr. Chairman, I think this can be cleared up in just a few moments.

This is a channel down there that has been built by local interests. It is a little short channel. It is a very worth while project. It is right in the harbor of Biloxi and all it involves is that it be authorized for maintenance; and we have endorsed it, and we think it should be authorized.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, General.

Any further questions, Mr. Chairman?

Senator MCCLELLAN. Now I assume the justification that you have filed here will go into the full detail.

Senator STENNIS. It gives all the details.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That will give us the information we need. Senator STENNIS. Yes. It is not in the report but the report had not come down when the matter was over in the House.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It has cleared the budget?

Senator STENNIS. Yes, sir; it has cleared everything.

General PICK. At this point in the record we also have a justification for this project that we would like to include.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It may be incorporated in the record at this point.

(The report referred to is as follows:)

BILOXI HARBor, Miss.

Mr. Chairman, the report on Biloxi Harbor, Miss., as published in House Document No. 256, Eighty-first Congress, is in response to resolutions adopted October 21, 1938, and February 11, 1941, by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives.

Biloxi Harbor, Miss., is on Mississippi Sound, an arm of the Gulf of Mexico, 75 miles east of New Orleans, La. Its water front extends along the south, east, and north sides of the peninsula on which Biloxi is located. The south water front extends easterly to a protected part of Biloxi Bay lying between the mainland and Deer Island. Back Bay of Biloxi extends westerly from Biloxi Bay 10 miles inland on the north side of the peninsula. Ott Bayou is a short stream in the city of Biloxi draining easterly into Biloxi Bay between the Louisville & Nashville Railroad and United States Highway No. 90.

Biloxi, with a 1940 population of 17,500, is primarily a center for the sea-food industry upon which the economy of the locality is based. It ranks first among Gulf-coast ports in the production of sea food, with oysters, shrimp, and crabs ranking in that order of importance. Sea food is received and packed in 23 factories supplied by more than 500 boats. About 5,000 people are employed in the industry with a total annual pay roll estimated at more than $1,500,000.

The improvement of Biloxi Harbor authorized by Congress provides for a channel west of Deer Island 10 feet deep and 150 feet wide from the 10-foot contour in Mississippi Sound to the south water front of Biloxi, and thence north of Deer Island to deep water in Back Bay of Biloxi; for a relocated channel 10 feet deep, 150 feet wide, and 4,600 feet long in front of East Beach; for discontinuing maintenance of the abandoned portion of the channel; for maintenance of the Coast Guard channel to a depth of 6 feet and a width of 300 feet; for an entrance channel 6 feet deep and 50 feet wide into Old Fort Bayou; and for an entrance channel 8 feet deep and 100 feet wide through Cranes Neck into Bayou Bernard. Costs of the existing project to June 30, 1947, have been $54,780 for new work including $5,000 of contributed funds, and $203,412 for maintenance including $10,200 of contributed funds. The latest approved estimate of annual cost of maintenance is $21,700.

Local interests dredged a channel 6 feet deep and 40 feet wide extending along the north side of the highway bridge from the harbor channel to a sea-food cannery near the mouth of Ott Bayou. Under the authority of several River and Harbor Acts this channel has been redredged three times, in the interest of navigation, by the United States at a total cost of $7,147. In 1934, to provide facilities for its seaplane base on the eastern end of Biloxi Peninsula, the United States Coast Guard dredged a channel 6 feet deep and 300 feet wide extending 1⁄2 mile northwesterly from beacon No. 34 of the harbor channel to the Coast Guard base. In 1944, that agency dredged a channel 12,000 feet long, 8 feet deep, and 150 feet wide extending southeastward from its base. The cost is not reported.

Commerce of the harbor for the 10-year period 1937 through 1946 fluctuated between a low of 102,700 tons in 1944 and a high of 312,500 tons in 1941 and averaged annually 182,100 tons consisting principally of oysters and shrimp, petroleum products, ice, and pulpwood. Commerce of Ott Bayou pertains almost wholly to the operation of one large sea-food canning factory which employs several hundred people and operates 27 boats with drafts up to 7.5 feet and cargo capacities varying from 10 to 34 net tons. The boats average two trips a month each throughout the year. Traffic on Ott Bayou in 1946 consisted of receipts of 2,863 tons of oysters, shrimp, fish, and crabs and shipments of 40 tons of shell. It is

reported that more than 500 motor vessels with drafts up to 7.5 feet base at Biloxi.

Local interests request a minor readjustment of the existing harbor channel rendered advisable by the final location of a harbor for small craft planned by local interests, a channel 12 to 15 feet deep from Mississippi Sound passing east of Deer Island into Back Bay and Federal maintenance of the 6- by 40-foot channel parallel to United States Highway 90 bridge from the swing span to the mouth of Ott Bayou.

They claim that the channel east of Deer Island would attract coastwise barge service and that maintenance of the channel to Ott Bayou is desirable in order to serve suitably a large packing and canning factory which maintains a large fishing fleet.

The district engineer finds that the most suitable plan of improvement provides for the assumption by the United States of maintenance, to a depth of 6 feet and width of 40 feet, of the existing channel along the northerly side of United States Highway 90 bridge.

The district and division engineers concur in recommending that the United States assume the maintenance, to a depth of 6 feet and a width of 40 feet, of the existing channel along the northerly side of United States Highway 90 bridge, from the main channel in Biloxi Harbor to the entrance to Ott Bayou, including such maintenance as may have accumulated at the time that the project is adopted. The district engineer states that the harbor for light-draft vessels has been constructed by Harrison County in a location that renders unnecessary the relocation of the existing project channel for access thereto. He finds that an entrance channel 12 to 15 feet deep from Mississippi Sound through Biloxi Bay east of Deer Island is not required by existing or reasonably prospective traffic.

The

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors concurs with the reporting officers in the view that relocation of the project channel to accommodate the small-boat harbor is not necessary. It also concurs in the view that an entrance channel 12 to 15 feet deep east of Deer Island is not warranted at this time. Board notes that the one company served by the channel north of United States Highway 90 bridge handles from 8 to 10 percent of the sea food traffic in Biloxi Harbor and provides employment to a large number of people as well as to a number of fishing boats. It considers the benefits, which are greatly in excess of the costs, to be sufficiently general in nature to justify assumption of the maintenance of the channel by the United States.

Accordingly, the Board recommends modification of the existing project for Biloxi Harbor, Miss., to provide for assumption by the United States of the maintenance, to a depth of 6 feet and a width of 40 feet, of the existing channel along the northerly side of United States Highway 90 bridge, from the main channel in Biloxi Harbor to the entrance to Ott Bayou, including such maintenance that may have accumulated at the time of adoption of the recommendation herein.

In accordance with existing law a copy of the Chief of Engineers' proposed report was furnished the Governor of Mississippi for comment. The receipt of the report was acknowledged by the Governor's office but due to his illness no comment has been received.

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.

After due consideration of these reports the Chief of Engineers concurs in the views and recommendations of the Board.

The modification of the existing project is recommended provided that local interests furnish assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will: (a) furnish free of cost to the United States all lands, easements, and spoil disposal areas for maintenance, when and as required, and (b) hold and save the United States free from damage, including damage to oyster beds, resulting from the work.

There is no initial cost to United States for construction.

The Federal annual cost of maintenance is estimated at $2,500.

The annual benefits are estimated at $8,040 which is the savings in transportation costs on 2,490 tons of oysters. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 3.14. The inhabitants of the area to be served by the proposed modification of the existing project are dependent to a great extent on the sea food industry for a livelihood. The benefits are considered general in nature.