General WHEELER. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. And they were heard, were they?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Is that the project affecting the States of Virginia and West Virginia?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. That is the really controversial project in this bill; is not that correct?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON. The one between West Virginia and Kentucky?

General WHEELER. Yes. The procedure we have followed in reporting on this project is the same as that prescribed for all of our projects.

In some instances, due to the insistence of local interests and request by the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House, time has not been sufficient to receive the comments of the Bureau of the Budget. In those cases, that committee has been informed by the representative of the Department that the views of the Bureau of the Budget have not been received.

Senator OVERTON. I took occasion, as acting chairman of this committee, to write, about 2 weeks ago, to the Bureau of the Budget calling their attention to the fact that some of these projects had not been reported on by the Bureau, and I requested that they expedite that work as promptly as possible. Possibly some additional reports by the Bureau have come in.

Reference to the Bureau of the Budget is not required by any act of Congress. A report by the Chief of Engineers is required by fact of Congress. The submission of the reports to the governors of the States and submission of the report of the Chief of Engineers to other agencies of the Government that are interested, as provided in the statute, are required by law, but reference to the Bureau of the Budget rests upon an Executive order. Am I correct in that?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. So that I will say that in the past where there was no report from the Bureau of the Budget we have considered projects, but we have considered none unless it was reported on by the Chief of Engineers, because the law does require reports by the Chief of Engineers.

General WHEELER. If there are cases in the present instance where the comments of the Bureau of the Budget have not been received, they will be invited to the attention of your committee. Finally, the hearings before the River and Harbor Committee of the House have been exhaustive as can be noted by the large volume of testimony submitted.

The projects in the last River and Harbor bill were presented to this committee about 2 years ago. In my opinion, it is a healthy condition when river and harbor projects and flood-control projects can be explained to the committees of Congress while the conditions with reference to engineering, economics, and cost data are current and truly responsive to the desires of local interests.

Senator OVERTON. May I interrupt you there? When you are considering a project and making an estimate as to costs, do you consider what may be the probable cost at some time in the future

after appropriations have been made, or do you base your estimate upon costs prevailing at the time of your investigation?

General WHEELER. We present the estimates based on costs prevailing at that time.

Senator OVERTON. Otherwise you would be in a state of uncertainty; you would be uncertain as to what the costs would be?

General WHEELER. That is correct, sir. As in the case of some of our reports, the cost as presented to the committee in the congressional document 4 or 5 years ago certainly would not represent the costs today.

Senator CORDON. General, when you prepare your reports, if I understand the procedure correctly you set up the total cost to the Government as of the period when the investigation was made; then you set up the benefits that will accrue to the area involved as the result of that expenditure, and where those benefits are in excess of the interest on the cost involved, ordinarily there is a favorable report? General WHEELER. Yes, sir; whenever the annual benefits exceed the annual charges.

Senator CORDON. If you were to make an investigation, say, in 1946, and set up your costs versus benefits, and the benefits were slightly in excess of costs, but construction is not undertaken at that time upon that cost basis but, we will say, is undertaken 3 years later, and the costs are perhaps 40 percent more, would not the fact that the costs in the interim have increased that amount have a bearing upon whether or not at that time the ratio of costs and benefits would be the same?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir; that is correct, Senator. That point came up in connection with the recent hearings before the Appropriations Committee when the costs of projects being considered for appropriation were estimated some four or more years ago. In general I think it could be said that due to rising costs the value of the benefits also increases. We have considered it our duty to reanalyze the projects at the time they come before the Appropriations Committee, so that the committee can be informed whether or not the ratio of benefits to costs is still favorable in view of the increased costs. There is no law requiring us to do that, and the committee did consider making some such provision. However, each project must be independently considered for appropriation and there is ample opportunity then to bring out that point.

Senator MCCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I must leave at this time. The Senate is meeting at 11 o'clock today, and I have the floor on an amendment which is pending to the bill now under consideration. I want, before leaving, to express my interest in this legislation. I am very much interested in the projects for Arkansas, and I intend to support this bill. I would like to remain here to hear the Chief of Engineers conclude his testimony. If, later, there is some controversy or development about the Arkansas projects, or if further information is needed, I am sure that the Chief of Engineers will be available and that we can call him back. I want to express my interest in the matter and my regret at having to leave at this time, but there are two things to be done, and this has to be done now. Senator OVERTON. We know of your profound interest, and we understand the situation, Senator.

(Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing room.)

General WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, the Corps of Engineers has served the country for more than a century in times of peace as well as in times of war, and I am exceedingly proud of the service the corps has rendered. It is now, and will continue to be my earnest purpose and endeavor to see that this record is maintained in the future by energetic and impartial prosecution of the work authorized, and within the funds appropriated by Congress. In order to broaden the basis of selection and to make possible the adoption of comprehensive basin-wide plans, so as to avoid uncoordinated, piecemeal execution, it is my profound conviction that the additional authority proposed in this bill is necessary at this time.

Senator OVERTON. In addition to the comprehensive basin-wide idea, when you come to consider a project that is in a basin you have to consider the effect of the project not only on that basin, but on all connecting waterways?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. Where a stream flows into another stream and where its waters originate possibly outside of the immediate basin, those factors are considered, are they not?

General WHEELER. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. There has got to be coordination not only with respect to the basin but with respect to all the streams that will be influenced by the proposed improvement?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. For instance, I will take as an illustration the Missouri River Basin. That has been considered and the project authorized, and so forth; and the engineers in considering that project had to consider its effect on the Mississippi River into which it flows? General WHEELER. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. And also large tributaries like the Ohio River? General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERTON. That is generally true, is it not, that there has to be a coordination with interrelated streams and rivers when you come to consider a river and harbor project?

General WHEELER. Yes. They must each be considered as an element in a coordinated, comprehensive plan. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have at Vicksburg a model of the entire Mississippi Basin, which includes all the tributaries, the Missouri, the Ohio, the Tennessee, the Cumberland, the Arkansas, the White and the Red. This model will also include all the reservoirs that make up the comprehensive plan of development of those streams, and we expect by test of that model to coordinate each element of the plan. Since a reservoir on a tributary primarily provides protection immediately downstream, it is difficult to calculate mathematically the effect of the reservoir on the main stream. By means of the model we expect to be able to integrate and coordinate the entire comprehensive plan of development of the Mississippi River Basin.

Senator OVERTON. I have had the pleasure of witnessing that model and seeing it in operation. They turn the water in at different flood stages to see what effect any contemplated project may have, as well as the present projects, and it results in a very thorough comprehension of river and harbor improvement, and flood control also, with respect to coordinating all of the different projects in one great system.

Senator BILBO. In response to the statement made by General Wheeler, in which he says that he is proud of the service that the corps has rendered, I just want to take occasion to make it a matter of record that I have just recently traversed the territory where certain dams have been built in my State. Those are projects where people had to be relocated, and it necessarily created disappointments, but the Corps of Engineers has made such a perfect job of handling it and treating the people fairly in every instance that the general's organization is the most popular outfit in my State today. General WHEELER. Thank you, sir.

Senator BILBO. I am certainly glad that you are not running for the Senate down there.

Senator OVERTON. Are there any questions? [No response.]

Thank you, General You will be available; will you not? It is not necessary for you to remain at this time. Of course, we would be very glad to have you remain; but you will be available? General WHEELER. Whenever you want me, Senator.

Senator OVERTON. Thank you very much.

Now we will take up the new projects.

Colonel Feringa, will you come forward, please, and give your full name to the reporter?

STATEMENT OF COL. P. A. FERINGA, DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS, OFFICE, CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY

Colonel FERINGA. My name is Col. P. A. Feringa. When this bill started in the House I was resident member of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and as time went on, about 6 weeks ago, General Wheeler brought me into his own office and made me Director of Civil Works, and that is my present function.

Mr. Chairman, the Board of Engineers meets at irregular times, about once every 6 weeks, and considers whatever reports come before it. In each case the authorization for making a study and report must come from a congressional committee, the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House, the Flood Control Committee of the House, or the Senate Committee on Commerce, or be authorized by a River and Harbor Act or Flood Control Act.

Several reports were considered by the Board subsequent to the final action by the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House on the pending river and harbor bill, and you have asked me about two projects. One is the proposed improvement of Grand Bayou Pass, Bayou Scofield, and waterway from Empire, La., to the Gulf of Mexico.

A large map of this project has been prepared and is placed at the end of the committee room. Mr. Muller, my assistant, will point out the project as I explain it, if that procedure will be satisfactory to you, sir.

Senator OVERTON. That will be very satisfactory.

GRAND BAYOU PASS, BAYOU SCOFIELD, AND WATERWAY FROM EMPIRE, LA., TO THE GULF OF MEXICO

Colonel FERINGA. The report on Grand Bayou Pass, Bayou Scofield, and waterway from Empire, La., to the Gulf of Mexico, is in response to a survey item in the River and Harbor Act approved March 2, 1945.

The waterways under consideration traverse the coastal marshlands of southern Louisiana between the lower Mississpipi River and the Gulf of Mexico.

The State-owned Doullut Canal, with a shallow-draft lock, provides a connection between the Mississippi River at Empire and the back levee drainage canal and other interconnected bodies of water including bayous Long and Fontanelle to the south.

Improvements in the area constructed by local interests include Doullut Canal and the lock at Empire, all of which are now operated toll-free by the State. Enlargement of the lock to provide a chamber 40 feet wide by 200 feet long, with a depth of 10 feet, is now under way by the State. Numerous other canals and bayous in the area have been dredged by the parish, and by sea food and oil interests.

Annual traffic in sea foods handled through Buras and Empire includes 7,500 tons of shrimp and 20,000 tons of oysters. In addition, 200,000 tons of seed oysters from east of the Mississippi River pass through the Empire lock.

The water-borne commerce is handled mostly by luggers and other small craft with drafts less than 4 feet. It is reported that 354 boats are located in the area.

Buras and Empire with populations of 2,500 and 700, respectively, are the largest towns in the tributary area. Principal activities are fishing, trapping, and processing of sea food, and cultivation of citrus fruits. In recent years 11 active oil fields have been brought into production, but development is hampered due to inadequate transportation facilities.

Local interests desire a channel with a minimum depth of 9 feet and minimum width of 80 feet from Empire to the Gulf of Mexico by way of Bayous Long and Fontanelle and land cuts to and through Pelican Island.

Senator OVERTON. Do boats presently use the Grand Bayou?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. They use Grand Bayou, which is to the west of the proposed route, but they cannot traverse the shorter route which we now propose.

Senator OVERTON. That shorter route is not through the Grand Bayou, then?

Colonel FERINGA. No, sir; it is not. Grand Bayou Pass is westward of the proposed route. Here [indicating on map] is Grand Bayou Pass. That was constructed by a small amount of dredging to 6 feet deep and 60 feet wide and requires considerable maintenance dredging. The present fleet finds its way by winding channels into the Mississippi River.

Senator OVERTON. What lakes are those [indicating on map]?

Colonel FERINGA. This [indicating] is Bastion Bay and this [indicating] is Adams Bay. We propose, instead of this more or less unprotected and tortuous route, a more direct route utilizing the new State lock, which is now being built, and following some land cuts. As you know, in that part of Louisiana the land cuts would be more or less through marsh now partially under water. It would make a direct outlet via a land cut through Pelican Island, into the Gulf of Mexico.

New Orleans is 70 miles upstream from this location, and Empire is about 30 miles northwest of the entrance to Southwest Pass of the