Costs of monumentation vary a great degree, depending on the amount of surveying necessary to tie the boundary to legal surveys or appropriate reference points in the area. Our current cost estimates range from $250 to $3,000 per boundary mile. At operating projects, this work is being accomplished with operation and maintenance funds. At projects under construction, it is being accomplished with construction funds. INCREASED COSTS OF RELOCATIONS Mr. KIRWAN. Last year the committee expressed, in its report, concern over the increased construction costs being incurred on the projects for highway, railroad, and other relocations. Have you taken any special steps in this regard to assure the relocations are being effected at the lowest costs possible? General CASSIDY. Instructions have been issued to all district engineers for the preparation of a detailed report on all individual relocations which will exceed $10 million in cost, for submission to the appropriations committees. On all other relocations we follow the practice of carefully considering the overall requirements of the areas for a reasonable replacement facility; in the case of a highway or a railroad we provide for a replacement net adequate only to serve the needs of the remaining persons, land or communities to be served. We do not provide a mile of replacement road for every mile that is flooded by the project. In determining the standards of relocation we follow the directive of Congress as contained in section 309 of Public Law 89-298 (originally sec. 111 of Rivers and Harbors Act of 1958), with respect to the provision of current design standards. This results in some quality improvement in relation to existing facilities; and any relocation provides necessarily a new facility for one that is to some extent obsolescent. One contributing factor in this respect is the fact that we do not provide for increased maintenance costs which are usually involved in a longer relocation facility. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL POSITIONS Mr. KIRWAN. I wonder if you would expand a little more on the need for the additional positions being requested in the budget. General CASSIDY. Last year when I appeared before you I stressed the need for strengthening the coprs organization in the field of planning. During the past year the corps made some progress in this area through an internal reorganization which has enabled us to improve our planning processes and better recognize our planning needs. I am convinced more than ever that to keep pace with the increasing public interest and needs in water resources development, and the laws that are being passed with increasing frequency to bring this interest to reality, we must build within the corps a planning capability which will keep our thinking far ahead of today in order that tomorrow's projects will be built at minimum cost and reflect the best lutions to the needs of the people. We must consider not only the obvious needs such as providing flood protection, hydropower, and water supply, but the maximization of recreation potential, fish and 77-919-67-pt. 1 wildlife potential, while at the same time minimizing the disruption of the ecology of the area. Our planning activity must take increasing account of sometimes competing values-economic development versus preservation is a prime example and it simply takes time and talent to study and negotiate these issues. We have moved to expand technical services to both other Federal agencies and State and local interests, through a broadened flood plain management services program. We also are being called upon more and more to coordinate our planning with States and other local and Federal bodies to produce truly coordinated and comprehensive water resources programs. We are concerned not only with planning for the future but the increasing number of engineering problems which we are facing today as the best locations for dams and protective works diminish from the pressures of our expanding nation. We must have engineers in depth as time required for the study of complex foundation, structural hydraulic and beach erosion control problems increases. In addition, we must double our efforts to bring in young engineers to understudy and learn from our older, experienced engineers hired in depression years, who are now ready for retirement. A third area of major concern is in policy direction and management of our program. I have mentioned the complexity of the water resource development program and the need for quality planning to translate the problems and multipurpose competing needs of the future into projects which place the minimum demands on our national resources. In addition, the very size of our program as expressed in the number of new starts each year, the number of projects under construction, and the number of projects reaching the O. & M. stage, makes the task of the managers at each echelon more and more complex when analyzing the entire program in the light of national goals and the needs of the people. Only by systematically searching for the best alternative means of reaching these goals can all echelons of the excutive branch present to the Congress each year what is considered to be the best plan for optimum development of our water resources within the budget amount available. In short, the dozen or so people that we are asking for to assist us in the implementation of our new planning, programing and budgeting system will insure that the program you consider will give the Nation the most for its tax dollar and at the right time. I will insert into the record a listing showing how these people are to be used by the various activities. (The listing follows:) Policy and analysis, CW: PPBS and policy director__ Miscellaneous: A total of 9 personnel in OCE will support the Water Resources Council (5), and the expanded flood plan information program (4). CORPS' ACTION IN RESPONSE TO GAO REPORT Mr. KIRWAN. The Comptroller General, in a recent report, pointed to the need for the Corps of Engineers to improve its procedures to insure compliance with the law prohibiting the depositing of industrial waste solids into navigable waters unless a permit is obtained from the Secretary of the Army. Would you please comment on the action that the corps is taking in this regard. GENERAL CASSIDY. In meeting the recommendations of the General Accounting Office on the deposition of industrial waste solids in navirable waters we are conducting a survey to locate all illegal depositions. We are also conducting research to develop precise methods of measring the amounts of illegal deposits from any one source, a necessary atecedent to evaluating the navigation damages from any one source. We propose to continue negotiations with individual companies which re the source of the deposition to secure either cessation of the deposion, removal thereof, or payment to the corps for the increased cost of removal imposed upon the corps in its normal maintenance functions. This procedure has already been followed in the cases of several of the major sources of deposition. Where agreement cannot be reached with the industry concerned, we intend to refer the cases to the Deartment of Justice for legal action. SMALL PROJECTS AUTHORITY PROGRAM Mr. KIRWAN. Please place in the record a statement for each small oject authority program summarizing the program and giving a reakdown of the suggested list of projects to be funded under these p sum requests as well as a current statement of the projects Leduled for the current fiscal year. General CASSIDY. Yes sir. (The information requested follows:) STATEMENT On Program FOR SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS (SECTION 107 OF 1960 RIVERS AND HARBORS Act, AS AMENDED) General.-Section 107 provides authority to construct small navigation projects not specifically authorized by Congress. Each project selected must be economically justified and complete-within-itself. Federal cost limitation is $500,000 per project. Section 107 funds are used for two purposes-first, to finance investigation of problem areas to develop the small navigation improvement projects and second-the approved projects are financed for construction. Fiscal year 1967 allocations for project construction follow: Andrews River, Harwich, Mass.. Back Channel, Portsmouth, N.H. Cohasset Harbor, Mass.. Owls Head Harbor, Maine__ Bonum Creek, Va Milton Harbor, N.Y. Mich. City Harbor, Ind. La Pointe Harbor, Wis. Topsail Inlet, N.Ć. Manns Harbor, N.C. Kalaupapa Harbor, Hawaii... Royal River, Yarmouth, Maine_ Chesconessex Creek, Va. Mackinac Island Harbor, Mich. Queens Creek, Mathews, Va.. Bolles Harbor, Mich.. Scheduled to be allotted during fiscal year 1967: Nawiliwili Harbor, Hawaii.... Johns Pass, Fla--- $125,000 150, 000 105, 000 135, 000 200, 000 177, 000 20, 000 113, 000 100, 000 20, 000 225, 000 30, 000 20, 000 332, 000 37, 000 53, 000 Budget Request and Tentative Allocation.-Funds in the amount of $1.5 million are requested in FY 1968 to continue the program for development and construction of small, complete, economically justified navigation projects at locations throughout the Nation. It is tentatively proposed to allocate requested FY 1968 funds as follows: STATEMENT ON PROGRAM FOR SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS (SECTION 205 OF THE FLOOD CONTROL Act, AS AMENDED) General.-Section 205 provides authority to construct small flood control projects that have not already been specifically authorized by Congress. Each project selected must be economically justified and complete-within-itself. Federal cost participation limit per individual project is $1 million. Local interests must furnish the local cooperation normally required for regularly authorized projects plus bear all project costs in excess of the $1 million Federal limitation. Section 205 funds are used to finance investigation of problem areas to develop these small flood control projects and to finance construction of approved projects. Construction funds are made available to approved projects as soon as available funds permit after required local cooperation is provided. Fiscal year 1967 allocations for project construction follows: Gapway Swamp, S.C. Bedford, Iowa. $110, 000 340, 000 Evarts, Ky. - -. Budget Request and Tentative Allocation.-Funds in the amount of $6 million are requested in FY 1968 to continue this program for development and construction of small, complete, economically justified flood control projects at locations throughout the Nation. It is tentatively proposed to allocate requested FY 1968 funds as follows: STATEMENT ON PROGRAM FOR SNAGGING AND CLEARING PROJECTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL General-Section 2 of 1937 Flood Control Act, as amended by Section 208 of 254 Flood Control Act, provides authority for clearing and straightening streams tad removal of snags and debris in the interest of flood control. Each project |