In addition, the smokeless coals of the Pocahontas and Tug River districts with their superlative steaming and coking qualities are the only bituminous coals which satisfy the smoke ordinance specifications of many valley cities, such as St, Louis, Chicago, and Minneapolis. Low-cost transportation to move these coals into the valley is vitally important to these cities.

Thus there will be developed an economical two-way movement of coal on the river via the Big Sandy, the Ohio, and the Mississippi, and a compensating movement of other heavy tonnage to make a two-way haul.

It is logical to expect that with low transportation rates of high-grade coking coal that many cities in the upper valley will develop metallurgical industries. The Tri-Cities industrial area is a good example. The Tri-Cities are built on large deposits of high-grade limestone. They now consume large quantities of finished steel products manufactured in Chicago and Pittsburgh. With lowcost fuel available and reasonable joint rail-river rates on ore from the Cayuna field, there is the opportunity for the development of large blast furnaces in this area.

St. Louis is another logical meeting place for iron ore and the high-grade coking coals of the Big Sandy Valley. Such a union can be expected to stimulate metallurgical industries in this area.

The Mississippi Valley Association, representing industrial, commercial, and agricultural interests in 23 States, is convinced that the canalization of the Big Sandy River is economically sound and in the Nation's interests.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Is that the complete presentation of the proponents?

Mr. HOBSON. That completes the presentation which the proponents desire to make, in chief, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Without objection, the committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time the committee will meet and will proceed to hear the opponents.

(Whereupon, at 4:45 p. m., May 6, 1946, the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, May 7, 1946.)

BIG SANDY RIVER AND TUG AND LEVISA FORKS,

KY., W. VA., AND VA.

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1946

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON RIVERS AND HARBORS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Hugh Peterson of Georgia presiding.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. The committee will come to order.
The committee is now ready to hear the opponents.

STATEMENT OF J. BROOKS LAWSON, OF WILLIAMSON, W. VA.

Mr. LAWSON. I am J. Brooks Lawson, of Williamson, W. Va., largest city on this proposed waterway, with a population of 10,000. I appear as president of the association opposed to the Big Sandy canal project.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Where is Williamson? Will you point it out on the map?

Mr. LAWSON. Williamson is on the river here, the county seat of Williamson County. It is a voluntary group of professional and businessmen, railroad and mining employees, railroads, coal associations, individual coal operators.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Mr. Lawson, before you begin your statement, I believe there are possibly several Members of Congress present who might wish to make some statement.

Mr. LAWSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it if you would call on them now, and there will be others coming in, and will you kindly interrupt me at any time. We want to hear them.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Is any Member of Congress present who wishes to be heard at this time? I know there are several who have expressed a desire to be heard and who are in opposition and who will be heard later. If there is no one present, you may continue, Mr. Lawson.

Mr. LAWSON. I suppose that I had better start over again.

I appear as president of the association opposed to the Big Sandy canal project, a voluntary group of business and professional men, railroad and mining employees, railroads, coal associations, individual coal operators, farmers, public officials, and other citizens of the States of West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky.

We firmly believe that to canalize the Big Sandy for 27 miles, its Tug Fork for 60 miles, its Levisa Fork for 100 miles, involves a needless expenditure of public funds. Estimate of construction cost

167

87050-46--12

has been increased by the Board of Engineers from $68,000,000 to $82,300,000 with an interest cost during construction of $4,940,000.

The Board of Engineers has also revised the district engineer's estimate of expected annual tonnage of 15,000,000 tons of coal to 8,300,000 tons of coal. We expect to show that this latter estimate is an overestimation and is far in excess of any amount that will be transported. It should not be overlooked that whatever the actual cost of construction or whatever the actual tonnage, there will be a continuing annual charge of $4,190,000 or more.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Did I understand you to say that the engineers have revised their figures from 15,000,000 tons to 8,000,000 tons?

Mr. LAWSON. Downward to 8,300,000 tons.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Were you there when the Army engineers did that?

Mr. LAWSON. I have read their report.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Have you talked to them about it?

Mr. LAWSON. I have not talked with them, but I have read the report of the Board of Army Engineers.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. You do not know how they arrived at the downward revision?

Mr. LAWSON. No; I do not.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Was that the district engineer that made that one report of 15,000,000 and then later revised the figures to 8,000,000?

Mr. LAWSON. No, Mr. Congressman, the district engineer originally estimated 15,000,000 tons of coal, and that was last June 1945. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Did they revise those figures?

Mr. LAWSON. In the Board's report of December 1945, the figure appears as 8,300,000 tons. However, we have other witnesses here who will discuss that phase of the problem.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Now, in looking over this letter the committee has here-I believe you have a copy of it; it has been placed in the record, or will be-from the Board of Engineers, I gather that the district engineer estimated a saving of 8 or 9 cents per ton for the 15,000,000 tons, but the Board seems to have set the figure that the savings would be on 8,300,000 tons. Is that the picture now?

Mr. LAWSON. As I understand it, the district engineer estimated a savings of 29 cents per ton on 15,000,000 tons of coal, whereas the Board of Engineers estimate 8,300,000 tons of coal with a saving of 80 cents per ton.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. There is quite a difference between the district engineer first basing his report on 15,000,000 and then later revising his figures down to 8,000,000. There is quite a difference in that, and in the district engineer submitting his figures on 15,000,000 and the Board making a somewhat different report on the savings on 8,000,000 tons.

I just wanted to get it clear as to whether you were attempting to make it appear that there have been two reports from the district engineer or what.

Mr. LAWSON. The only freight possible in any appreciable quantity for the canal is coal, and it should forcibly impress this committee that a vast majority of the coal operators who would be the chief beneficiaries are opposed to it and have so gone on record.

It is more to the point for me to give you the history and background of this project, leaving to others better qualified by training and experience to present facts and figures to convince you the project is economically unsound, and that the huge expenditure is wholly unwarranted and unnecessary.

For the past 71 years these streams have been studied periodically by the Federal Government for the purpose of determining the feasibility of making them navigable. During that period 24 reports have been prepared by Government engineers. In every instance until the present one, those engineers have found these streams unworthy of improvement for navigation on a scale here proposed.

Mr. DONDERO. Is this the twenty-fourth report?

Mr. LAWSON. Yes, Mr. Congressman. As late as 1933 the Army district engineer for this area reported to the Board as follows, and we quote:

The physical characteristics of the river and its forks are unfavorable to the development of a modern waterway, and it is not believed that the improvement as proposed would attract sufficient traffic to justify its very high cost.

The report was approved by the Board of Engineers.

Mr. PETERSON. Who was the engineer there?

Mr. LAWSON. I do not have his name here. I understand it was Major Hermann.

Mr. RANKIN. He was not the Chief of Engineers.

Mr. LAWSON. The Army Board of Engineers approved his decision. Mr. ANGELL. What date was that?

Mr. LAWSON. 1933.

Mr. RANKIN. What day and month?
Mr. LAWSON. I do not have that.

Before referring further to the evidence which we expect to produce at this hearing, there is one aspect of the Board's report and the evidence adduced yesterday upon which I should like to comment briefly. The report does not give an accurate picture of the nature and extent of the opposition to this project. The Board dismissed the opposition with this summary statement:

Opposition to the improvement was expressed by the railroads operating in the area and by representatives of some labor organizations—

and they did not mention what organizations they were. Actually, there is widespread opposition to this project. Among the organizations and governmental bodies which rested their opposition with the Board were the following: The United Mine Workers of America, the various railroad brotherhoods-representing employees of all railroads in the United States-the Big Sandy Elkhorn Coal Operators Association, Kentucky-whose members produce in excess of 80 percent of the productive capacity of all existing coal mines in the Elkhorn field of eastern Kentucky-Coal Trade Association of Indiana; Illinois Coal Traffic Bureau; Harlan County Coal Operators Association, Kentucky; Hazard Coal Operators Association, Kentucky; Southern Appalachian Coal Operators Association, Kentucky and Tennessee; Western Kentucky Coal Operators Association, Kentucky; City Council of Columbus, Ohio; City Council of Portsmouth, Ohio; City Council of Ironton, Ohio.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Why would the City Council of Columbus, Ohio, pass a resolution?