BIG SANDY RIVER AND TUG AND LEVISA FORKS, KY., W. VA., AND VA. MONDAY, MAY 6, 1946 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee this day met at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Hugh Peterson of Georgia presiding. BIG SANDY RIVER AND TUG AND LEVISA FORKS, KY., W. Va., and Va. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. The committee will be in order. I notice that Congressmen May and Jenkins are present, and we also have requests from other Members for time. Mr. May and Mr. Jenkins, do you wish to speak now or later? Mr. JENKINS. I suggest that you proceed with the hearings and. I will arrange to speak later. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. On which side of the argument are you? Mr. JENKINS. I am on both sides in a way. I can speak on either side of it. Heretofore, I have been against these proposed improvements if they tended to interfere with the railroads in the community or communities affected. Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. All right; we will hear you later. Mr. MAY. I am on one side of this argument. I want to be heard after the engineers present and explain their report. Then I suggest that you hear the proponents and then the opponents. I will speak then. Mr. JENKINS. I will be here most all the time and can arrange to come here most any time. I shall be present during this hearing; and later I may ask permission to appear personally or submit a statement. I have been interested in both sides of this proposition, inasmuch as it interests my section of the country very much. I am going to listen to the argument pro and con with a great deal of interest, and later I shall have something to say. STATEMENT OF COL. PETER A. FERINGA, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Colonel Feringa, please proceed. Colonel FERINGA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the report on the Big Sandy River and Tug and Levisa Forks, Ky., W. Va., and Va., is in response to a resolution adopted by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House on January 19, 1940, and to items in the Flood Control Acts approved June 22, 1936, and June 25, 1936, respectively. 1 Big Sandy River is formed by the confluence of Levisa and Tug Forks at Louisa, Ky., flows north along the boundary between Kentucky and West Virginia, 26.8 miles and enters the Ohio River between Catlettsburg, Ky., and Kenova, W. Va., about 10 miles downstream from Huntington, W. Va. Levisa Fork rises in southwest Virginia and flows through Kentucky to its junction with Tug Fork to form the head of Big Sandy River. Tug Fork rises in southwest West Virginia and forms the boundary between West Virginia and Kentucky to its confluence with Levisa Fork. Both forks and the main stem are paralleled by railroads throughout their lengths. Three small locks and dams on Big Sandy River and one on each fork were completed under the existing project between 1897 and 1910, to afford 6-foot depth from the Ohio River to mile 17.5 on Levisa Fork and to mile 12.5 on Tug Fork. The existing project is not of sufficient dimensions to accommodate modern barge traffic and was not extended far enough upstream to tap the rich coal fields which constitute the chief resource of the tributary area. The former brisk commerce in lumber products, and so forth, gradually disappeared with the depletion of accessible timber resources and the facilities have fallen into disrepair. The Big Sandy Basin has a population of more than 400,000. Coal mining is the principle occupation, the basin producing on the average about 45,000,000 tons annually of coal of the highest quality, particularly adapted to certain important industrial and metallurgical processes. This coal is unique in its richness and adaptability to the several industrial and metallurgical processes. It is not just coal; it is a specific type of coal which the metallurgists can best tell you about. Mr. RANKIN. What is the B. t. u. per pound, if you know? Colonel FERINGA. I do not know; but I do know that it is a specific type and favorably known for its extraordinary purity. I went to that area when I first came back from France and I went into a coal mine myself to learn about this particular coal. Even to the eye it is especially rich. Mr. RANKIN. It is all bituminous coal, is it not? Colonel FERINGA. Yes. Surveys by the district engineer indicate deposits of minable coal lying within 10 miles of the two forks below Russell Fork and Sprigg, respectively, aggregating 2,300,000,000 tons, with further extensive reserves lying beyond this 10-mile limit. Local interests desire replacement of the existing outmoded project by navigation facilities of modern standard and their extension up Levisa Fork to Russell Fork and up Tug Fork to Sprigg, primarily for the transportation of local coal production by barge to distant markets via the proposed improvement and its waterway connections. Mr. DONDERO. Does this coal move by water? Colonel FERINGA. No; not out of the Big Sandy. Mr. DONDERO. Is it moved by water when it reaches the Ohio? Colonel FERINGA. No; there is no way of shipping it to the Ohio. There are no tipples at the mouth of the Big Sandy. If any coal from the Big Sandy moved on the Ohio, it would have to be by interchange of shipments between rail and barges. We know of no Big Sandy coal that moves on the Ohio. Some measure of flood control for Levisa Fork was also requested. Prospective producers and consumers were canvassed in the field and public hearings were held by the Board at Williamson, W. Va., and Washington, D. C., to afford local interests an opportunity to present their views. Mr. RANKIN. How many locks do you propose for the streams in question? Colonel FERINGA. Ten. Mr. RANKIN. On each stream? Colonel FERINGA. No; a total of 10 on the forks and the main Big Sandy. Mr. RANKIN. The marks on the map indicate proposed locks, do they not? Colonel FERINGA. Yes; there would be a lock here [indicating]. Mr. RANKIN. Of what size? Colonel FERINGA. The locks will be 80 by 500 by 13. We propose. a project of 9-foot depth. We know that the major cost lies in the construction of locks, therefore we recommend that they be constructed now to the full depth of 13 feet. Mr. RANKIN. The locks on the rest of the system are 110 by 600. Could the barges using these other streams navigate that? Colonel FERINGA. Yes. The standard coal barge is 26 by 175. We therefore feel that these locks are adequate to take care of the heavy tonnage contemplated, which, we know, will use this waterway. To be certain that they stand ready to handle the entire tonnage on the main stream, the Board recommends that there be provision for auxiliary locks. We do not believe there will be any initially, but we include in the estimated cost provision for double locks on the Big Sandy, proper. Mr. DONDERO. Is any other factor involved, other than navigation? Colonel FEPINGA. No. Mr. DONDERO. Is there any power involved? Colonel FERINGA. No. You have in mind whether or not the barges you spoke of last week coming up the Tennessee and the Tombigbee could use this canal. The independent barges could use these locks, but we would not expect a large tow to do so. For instance, 12 could not go through. This would be a branch line and would not be a through one. The Tennessee-Tombigbee would be a through one. There we advocate 600 by 110, which could take barges up to 12 on 1 tow. Here we figure the same size but instead of having the large number in 1 tow, we would have 3 or 4 in 1 tow going down the river; when they hit the Ohio the 4 barges might be assembled and towed up to 10 or 14 barges in 1 tow. Mr. RANKIN. These locks on the Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi, and Tombigbee are made largely for the purpose of expediting travel; are they not? Colonel FERINGA. Yes. Mr. RANKIN. And any of those barges could go up the Warrior River with the 50-foot locks and the Tennessee? Colonel FERINGA. Yes. Mr. RANKIN. The locks on the Tombigbee, Mississippi, Ohio, and Illinois Rivers are made large to expedite traffic, but that does not mean that any of these barges could not go through those locks. Colonel FERINGA. That is right. Mr. DONDERO. How about making uniform locks, so that they could be used generally and integrated with the inland waterways? We have locks not so large as we heard about last week. Colonel FERINGA. That is right. I think that is a searching question. I explained before the committee the proposition in connection with another project, where the question was one of using smaller instead of larger locks. It is a question of whether all locks should be built large enough for through tows or whether they should be smaller for branch lines. I believe we have taken the outside figure we should present in connection with these types of locks. That river will not be prepared to the extent of through traffic that the Ohio has been prepared for, as the lower Tennessee has been, and like the Tennessee-Tombigbee should be prepared for. This is a branch line and the locks proposed will be large enough to take care of the business, but they will not be so large as the locks of the Tennessee-Tombigbee, and, I think, properly so. Mr. DONDERO. Now anything that comes down the Big Sandy by rail is transshipped on the Ohio at Huntington or other places. Colonel FERINGA. No; none of it is transshipped. Mr. DONDERO. Why have tipples not been constructed to make that possible? Colonel FERINGA. I should like to leave that answer to the proponents of this project. I would rather not answer. I think I know, but I should like to leave that to the proponents; and also the opponents should be given opportunity to have their say. Mr. COLE of Missouri. How many mines would be served, only two? Colonel FERINGA. There are 40 mines within a range of 10 miles. First of all, our district engineer in that area sent his own survey parties, United States Government employees, to make a survey of the amount of coal that would make use, or could make use, of that waterway. In order to be sure of his figures he employed a consultant mining engineer to submit figures, and then he called on Mr. Burwell, a geologist in the office of the Chief of Engineers, who works under me, for an estimate. The members of the Board were worried, because the railroads in their able testimony before the Board last fall stated that there would not be enough coal to make use of this waterway, and we went into those figures and found that the factors of safety employed by the district engineer were so adequate that there was no doubt in the minds of members of the Board that there was ample coal to make use of this waterway. We reduced the amount of coal from the amount given by the district engineer. We did not reduce the amount available, but we recommended the amount we were reasonably certain of. Mr. COLE of Missouri. How long is the proposed project? Colonel FERINGA. From here [indicating] to here [indicating] is 100.36. The Big Sandy flows north along the foundary between Kentucky and West Virginia 26.8 miles and enters the Ohio River between Catlettsburg, Ky., and Kenova, W. Va., about 10 miles downstream from Huntington, W. Va. From Sprigg to Levisa is 65.25 miles. Mr. COLE of Missouri. What is the estimated cost? Colonel FERINGA. The estimated cost is $82,300,000; and the ratio of cost to benefits is as 1 is to 1.6. Mr. COLE of Missouri. Is there any opposition to the proposal? Colonel FERINGA. Yes; by the railroads. Mr. ANGELL. Is there any opposition by the people? Colonel FERINGA. Based on the letters before the Board, I would say that most of those people are for the project. However, the opposition will be, I think, very ably represented here. Mr. COLE of Missouri. Is there any opposition from the mine. owners and the miners, or either? Colonel FERINGA. I think Mr. Lewis is against it, but I think the local coal miners, the local unions, are for it. That is my judgment from the testimony before the Board, where it was said that the steering committee of the miners was against it. I may, though, be wrong as to that. Mr. MAY. The miner's leaders, the high officials of the union, are against it, but the miners themselves are for it. Mr. RANKIN. You say John L. Lewis is against it? Colonel FERINGA. So I understand. Mr. RANKIN. Maybe he thinks we will not need any transportation for coal. Colonel FERINGA. The smaller unions are for it, as I recall from the testimony before the Board, but the higher echelon, the steering committee that may be the wrong word, and I am anxious to say it correctly-are opposed to it. Mr. ANGELL. What is the basis of the opposition? Colonel FERINGA. I do not know. Mr. COLE of Missouri. How do the mine owners stand on the proposal? Colonel FERINGA. They are for it, as I understand. That will, no doubt, be brought out by the opponents and proponents. Mr. RANKIN. These projects can be used for the transportation of loaded returning vessels; can they not? Colonel FERINGA. That is a hard question to answer. They could be used if commodities were available. For example, grain could be shipped back from the upper Mississippi River by means of barges; ore could be transported from the north; but our justification is based on one trip only. Mr. RANKIN. You are going to send this coal on barges down the Mississippi, because there is no coal on the Mississippi south of Memphis. Louisiana and Mississippi have no coal, and they consume it. There is some coal in Arkansas, of course. What I am trying to find out is whether, when these barges bring coal down South, they can be used for returning things to the North, such as lumber, fruit, cottonseed meal, and so forth. To be on Colonel FERINGA. That is a hard question to answer. the conservative side, we figure on one-way haul only. If there were ore to be moved north, it could be transported in coal barges. Coal barges would be dirty, and we might have difficulty in using them to transport some commodities on the return trip; and, as I have said, we have figured on one-way traffic. Mr. RANKIN. Many things move from the South northward that would not be affected adversely by dirt, such as lumber, bauxite, and so forth. Colonel FERINGA. Yes; that is true. |