quate connecting channel through the territory to be traversed, and on the volume of tonnage physically and economically adapted to advantageous movement by the improvements. The Board is of the opinion that the construction of the proposed waterway is feasible from a structural viewpoint, and that the benefits which would accrue would be national in scope and of sufficient magnitude to warrant the undertaking of the project by the United States.

The Board, therefore, recommends that the United States undertake the construction of a waterway to connect the Tombigbee and Tennessee Rivers by way of the East Fork of the Tombigbee River, Mackeys Creek, and Yellow Creek, so as to provide a channel of not less than 9 feet in depth, and a minimum bottom width of 170 feet in river and canal sections, and 150 feet in the divide cut, with locks 110 by 600 feet clear inside dimentions.

The Chief of Engineers concurs in the recommendations of the Board.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. It is necessary to take a recess at this time as Mr. Rankin and other Members want to be on the floor when the House convenes. We will resume at 1 o'clock. (Thereupon a recess was taken.)

AFTER RECESS

(The committee was called to order at 1 p. m.)

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia (acting chairman). Colonel Feringa, will you proceed with your statement?

Colonel FERINGA. Mr. Chairman, my assistant called my attention to the fact that earlier in my testimony I stated that the Interstate Commerce Commission furnished us the rates for the TennesseeTombigbee. That was not so. The Interstate Commerce Commission did furnish the rates for the Red River case, but for this Tennessee-Tombigbee project we obtained rates from the Mobile Traffic Association. Also I want to point out that there is an arithmetical error on page 36, paragraph 95, line 10. The amount of 59 cents should be 25 cents; it is the difference between the Plantation rate to Knoxville of $2.49 and the computed barge rate of $2.24. This error, however, does not affect the estimates of gasoline shipments as the final answer was derived by-and I quote from page 37, paragraph 98, beginning on line 4:

Analyses of the waybill data, the questionnaire returns and statements presented at the public hearing, in the light of 1943 consumption, lead to an estimate of approximately 334,000 tons as prospective traffic in petroleum products with estimated savings in transportation charges amounting to about $480,000. Of these estimates, gasoline shipments account for 277,000 tons and $360,000 in savings.

I just wanted to correct that error because somebody opposed to the project might point to it, and we always try to give as correct testimony as we can.

To continue my testimony: The improvement is recommended, subject to the condition that local interests give assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of War that they will

(a) Make and maintain at their expense alterations as required in highways and highway bridges, and in sewer, water-supply, and drainage facilities.

(b) Provide and maintain at their expense and as required, suitable and adequate river and canal terminals, in accordance with plans approved by the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers.

The cost to the United States for new work is put at $116,941,000, and the cost to local interests $3,341,000, or a total of $120,282,000. Maintenance and operation amount to $806,000.

Amortization and interest, and that includes interest during construction, amount to $4,939,000.

Total annual carrying charges, Federal and non-Federal, $5,953,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, in order to properly and accurately evaluate the transportation benefits that would accrue to the Nation, the Department made an extensive study of the commerce in the area. By a careful screening process the Board estimated that 3,999,000 tons of new traffic would use the waterway. In addition, after careful consideration it was concluded that 1,765,000 tons of traffic now using the Mississippi River up-bound would use the TombigbeeTennessee waterway to take advantage of the slack-water route. It should be noted that no benefits have been claimed which would normally accrue to the Mississippi River. Only the increased savings made possible by gliding through slack water instead of bucking the heavy Mississippi current has been used. This report has been sent to the Governors of the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, and they are in favor of it. The Tennessee Valley Authority also approved it, as did the Budget Bureau.

Transportation savings on the above tonnage are as follows: 3,999,000 tons of new traffic would effect a saving of $5,051,000; and the 1,765,000 tons of traffic now using the Mississippi which would use the Tombigbee-Tennessee waterway to take advantage of the slack-water route would result in an additional saving of $1,200,000; making a total of 5,764,000 tons and a saving of $6,251,000. The ratio of costs to benefits is 1 to 1.05.

In brief, Mr. Chairman, if I may summarize the report, what is proposed is to connect a prosperous waterway system with another prosperous waterway system by means of a connecting link which is completely feasible from an engineering standpoint and is economically justified, based upon the conservative figures that we have supplied.

The costs are accurate; the benefits are accurate, and to the extent of being very conservative. The benefits will accrue from the new traffic which will come on account of this waterway, and to a lesser degree from the additional benefits which accrue from the traffic not bucking the current on the Mississippi River. This will be an additional benefit from traveling on the slack-water way which will become available through this project.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you give us the differences between all those points? If you do not have them, I will ask you to put them in the record at this point.

Colonel FERINGA. We have a chart which is in the report, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have a table worked out similar to that which you had last year? I would like to have you put one in here showing the mileage, the distance between ports, going either way.

Colonel FERINGA. All right, sir; I think there is such a table in the report. We will make a table and insert it in the record at this point.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. The sixth pool has a normal elevation of 413 feet?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Is that the highest point on the waterway?

Colonel FERINGA. The lock at Demopolis, which is presently authorized, has an elevation of 73 feet; so it will be the difference of those two elevations, less than 380 feet.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Will it be pretty near uniform all the distance?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, the locks are very close together. The elevation of the Gainsville lock is 95 feet; the Cochrane lock has an elevation of 125 feet; the Lee Bend lock and dam [indicating] have an elevation of 140 feet. Therefore, we find places in the river where the topography allows us to place a dam and a lock; and we build it up there, and, of course, we go up by successive stages.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. You show transportation savings of $5,051,000 on new traffic. Which direction will that traffic flow for the most part? Show us where the new traffic will come from.

Colonel FERINGA. The new traffic, Mr. Chairman, might very well originate or be destined for Port Birmingham, in which case it would move by means of the Warrior River, then by the Tombigbee River until it joined the Tennessee River. Then in turn it might go up the Tennessee River slackwater until it joined the Ohio River system, the upper Mississippi, the Missouri River, or it might go to the east and go to Chattanooga and Knoxville. The present water traffic moves down the Warrior River until its confluence with the Tombigbee River, Mobile River, and it is there transshipped or received on ocean steamers.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I have in mind, you say when this waterway is completed it will originate in the Birmingham area and go up this waterway to the Tennessee River in that section. How is that traffic moving now?

Colonel FERINGA. If it was moving by water it would move by Intracoastal Waterway to New Orleans and find its way up into this system in this round-about manner instead of this most direct manner.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Do not those figures contemplate taking it away from other means of transportation when this waterway is built?

Colonel FERINGA. The commerce on the Mississippi that we say would be diverted to this waterway is the up-bound traffic.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. What I am referring to is railroads, trucks, and transportation of that nature that is now moving freight out of the Birmingham area, which are going up into the northern areas that you pointed out.

Colonel FERINGA. I think it is logical to say some of that traffic, certainly during the initial stages, might be so diverted.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Do your figures include traffic that you contemplate would be diverted?

Colonel FERINGA. Our figures include only so much of that as we know would move at an advantage by water rather than by rail because the cost of water transportation is less than rail transportation. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that we are living in an expanding economy and we believe that the provision of those waterways, like it has done in so many other parts of the country, will add to the productive wealth of the area so that the net increase of the traffic will be greater than the amount we might divert in the first 2 or 3 years. I think the basic commodities, heavy traffic, will normally seek water transportation.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Then the main traffic will come from the Birmingham area?

Colonel FERINGA. No, sir; it will come from the Mississippi-Alabama area, from the new oil fields, and from the mineral resources of Tennessee.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. How are those mineral resources of Tennessee moving now?

Colonel FERINGA. They move by rail. Some of them might not move at all because it is too costly to ship them; they would now have to move by water in a round-about way rather than in a direct route.

Mr. RANKIN. In this area southwest of Demopolis they recently brought in the first well in the East, that is east of the Mississippi River, that yielded 1,000 barrels a day. It has now become one of the greatest oil fields in the world, and that was brought in since the last report was made. It is called the Heidelberg. I might add that when you put in those locks at Birmingham, the railroads protested, saying that you were taking away traffic from them, and the fact is that they have more traffic now than ever before. The trouble is that you have an area down there that has been paralyzed to a large extent for a lack of transportation.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. That was one of the points I was trying to bring out. This waterway will create new commodities, additional commodities to be moved which are not now moving.

Colonel FERINGA. I quite agree with you. I misunderstood you previously. For instance, there is this asphaltic limestone that I showed you this morning. That is a heavy basic commodity.

Mr. BOYKIN. Where did you find that sample?

Colonel FERINGA. Here [indicating on map]; it is Alabama asphaltic limestone. I got it from the Alabama Asphaltic Limestone Co., with headquarters in Birmingham, Ala. I do not think that rock asphalt would move to any great degree by a more expensive method of transportation than by water.

Mr. RANKIN. I am familiar with it. The streets of our cities are paved with it. There is an unlimited amount of it there. You can put it down and smooth it over and when it gets cold it is as hard as that rock. Practically every street in my home town is finished with it.

I want to call Mr. Peterson's attention to another thing. He mentioned Demopolis. To get on the Tennessee River by going around through the Mississippi River you have to go a distance of 1,507 miles, whereas if you went the other way up through this inland waterway, it would be 261 miles; and that is a difference or a saving of 1,246 miles or 82.7 percent of the distance. So if you have to go around and buck the current of the Mississippi River, that will be a very expensive proposition. You can very readily bring the barges down loaded but they have to go back empty when they buck that current. That area is really paralyzed for transportation, as is illustrated by the fact that we have the largest milk condensory in the country in my district. They have to can it because we are absolutely shut out of the big markets because of the cost of transportation.

Colonel FERINGA. Three examples come to my mind, like that commodity, asphaltic limestone. It would be profitable to export that as well as other basic commodities if cheap transportation was made available to Mobile. We know that grain now moves down the Missouri River, the upper Mississippi River, and up the Tennessee River. That grain would equally move very cheaply down this waterway, up and down this area, and although Alabama is very rich, I still think that it imports wheat from up in that part of the country. Similarly, bauxite-and for a minute I will ride Mr. Rankin's favorite horse-you have cheap power in Tennessee, you have cheap bauxite coming along in here, and it would be very cheap to move that bauxite by this new proposed route.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Are there any further questions? Thank you.

We will now hear from Mr. Prince.

STATEMENT OF GREGORY S. PRINCE, ASSISTANT GENERAL SOLICITOR, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

Mr. PRINCE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Gregory S. Prince and I am assistant general solicitor of the Association of American Railroads. I am appearing before your committee on behalf of the Association of American Railroads, which, as you know, represents approximately 98 percent of all the class Í railroads in the country, and particularly on behalf of those roads operating in the southeastern territory of the United States which serve the area tributary to the proposed waterway. I wish to make a general statement regarding this project, and I will be followed by a traffic witness who will point out what we feel to be the greatly exaggerated nature of the transportation savings relied upon in the review report of the United States Army engineers for the economic justification of this project; there will also be another witness representing the Illinois Central Railway Co. who will present a very short statement indicating the effect which the project will have on the physical location of this line and how it will effect their maintenance problems.